---

AI Responses to questions posed by Lewis McLain

Introduction

Homelessness is one of the most visible tests of a society’s compassion and its ability to solve complex problems. Tents, makeshift shelters, and men and women sleeping on sidewalks remind us that, despite immense national wealth, millions of Americans live without the security of a home. The crisis is humanitarian, economic, and civic: homelessness drives up emergency room visits, policing costs, and erodes public trust in institutions.

Over the last several decades, billions of dollars have been devoted to ending homelessness. Some communities, such as Houston and Salt Lake City, have demonstrated that it is possible to reduce homelessness dramatically when resources are aligned around proven strategies. Others, most famously Los Angeles and San Francisco, have spent vast sums with disappointing results. Examining both sides — the promising and the faltering — alongside local initiatives in McKinney, Texas, shows what it takes to turn lofty goals into tangible outcomes.

---

---

Goals of a Comprehensive Homeless Program

A truly comprehensive homelessness program is not an ad hoc collection of shelters or one-time grants; it is a system designed to prevent homelessness, respond quickly when it occurs, and ensure that once people are housed they remain housed.

The overarching goals are threefold:

1. End homelessness, not just manage it — shifting the system’s focus from temporary fixes to permanent housing solutions.
2. Put housing first — recognizing that stability is impossible without a secure place to live.
3. Build stability and self-sufficiency — ensuring that once individuals are housed, they can remain so through employment, education, or long-term supportive services.

Achieving these goals requires several interlocking objectives:

• Prevention and Diversion. Stop homelessness before it starts with rental assistance, eviction mediation, and utility aid. A few hundred dollars in short-term help can prevent years of instability.
• Emergency Response. Provide dignified shelter, warming/cooling centers, and safety nets when prevention fails.
• Rapid Re-Housing. Quickly place individuals into apartments with short-term support; the longer people remain homeless, the harder recovery becomes.
• Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH). Pair affordable apartments with long-term case management, healthcare, and counseling for those who are chronically homeless.
• Supportive Services. Case managers, mental health clinicians, job training, childcare, and transportation are the scaffolding of stable housing.
• Coordinated Entry and Data. Use a single intake system and shared data to match people to the right level of support and measure outcomes.
• Community Integration. Engage nonprofits, faith groups, healthcare systems, landlords, and local governments in aligned roles.
• Sustainable Funding and Policy Alignment. Ensure zoning, land use, and housing policy are aligned with homelessness strategies, backed by stable funding.

---

Models of Success

The most celebrated examples of progress share a common feature: they invest in housing first, then support individuals with tailored services.

Houston’s The Way Home

Houston has become a national model. Through The Way Home, a collaboration of more than 100 agencies, the city has placed over 32,000 people into permanent housing since 2012, with nearly 90% remaining housed after two years. Houston cut its homeless population by nearly two-thirds over the last decade. It accomplished this by streamlining entry systems, pooling federal and local funds, and incentivizing landlords. The city showed that a sprawling, high-growth metro can achieve large-scale reductions in unsheltered homelessness.

Community First! Village in Austin

Austin’s Community First! Village created an entire neighborhood designed for the chronically homeless: micro-homes, shared kitchens, gardens, and community spaces. It acknowledges that belonging and community are as essential as shelter. The model demonstrates how design and intentional planning can foster dignity and stability.

The 100,000 Homes Campaign

At the national scale, the 100,000 Homes Campaign (2010–2014) surpassed its goal of housing the most medically vulnerable people. By focusing on data, coordinated entry, and Housing First principles, it proved the strategy could succeed across dozens of cities.

Other Targeted Efforts

• Deborah’s Place (Chicago): Specializes in housing and trauma-informed services for homeless women.
• The Doe Fund (New York): Blends transitional work and housing for individuals with histories of incarceration or addiction.

Across all these successes, the key is the same: low barriers to entry, permanent housing as the anchor, and services that treat individuals with dignity.

---

McKinney and Collin County: Local Efforts

Smaller communities like McKinney, Texas, are also facing homelessness pressures due to rapid growth and rising housing costs.

Current Strategies

• Coordinated Entry: McKinney participates in a system that assesses needs and directs individuals to appropriate programs.
• Emergency Responses: The McKinney Emergency Overnight Weather Station (MEOWS) opens during freezes, while nonprofits like Streetside Showers provide hygiene and outreach.
• The Samaritan Inn: Provides transitional housing with structured case management and life-skills training.
• Shiloh Place: Focused on single mothers; reports show over 90% of graduates secure stable housing and increased education or income.
• City Commitments: McKinney has pledged $3 million for affordable housing grants and loans, $1 million for a Community Land Trust, and plans to build 10 new homes/townhomes by 2026 (from city strategic goals, pending full verification).

Outcomes

Regionally, Dallas and Collin Counties have reduced homelessness by 19% since 2021, with more than 10,000 individuals housed. McKinney, however, recorded 239 homeless individuals in its 2024 Point-in-Time count — a 5% increase from the previous year, with children making up over a quarter of the total (local reporting, Community Impact, pending full verification).

The city is drafting its 2025–2029 Consolidated Plan to expand affordable housing and strengthen prevention efforts, but significant gaps remain: no full-time shelter within city limits and limited published data on long-term housing retention.

---

The Magnet Effect: Myth, Reality, and Regional Solutions

A recurring concern for communities is the so-called “magnet effect” — the fear that by building better services, they may attract individuals experiencing homelessness from neighboring jurisdictions.

Evidence

Research shows that most people remain close to where they lost housing, often due to family or community ties. Still, some migration occurs, particularly when:

• One city offers low-barrier shelters while others criminalize camping.
• Safer and more dignified conditions exist in a neighboring jurisdiction.
• Housing slots or vouchers are more readily available.

For a city like McKinney, adjacent to Dallas and Plano, even modest inflows can strain resources.

Responses

• Regional Coordination: Houston’s success rested on aligning 100+ agencies across Harris County — reducing duplication and sharing responsibility.
• Shared Funding: Counties can pool funds to ensure no single city bears disproportionate costs.
• Eligibility Prioritization: Programs may prioritize residents with local ties, though this must be balanced against fair housing obligations.
• Permanent Housing Focus: Building permanent housing rather than endless shelters reduces churn across city lines.

The lesson is clear: the answer is not to scale back but to ensure regional systems. With shared responsibility, improved services do not overwhelm one city but uplift an entire region.

---

National Failures and Costly Lessons

For every Houston, there is a Los Angeles or San Francisco — cities where billions have been spent with limited results.

Los Angeles: Measure HHH

In 2016, voters approved a $1.2 billion bond (Prop HHH) to build 10,000 supportive housing units. By 2023, only about 1,100 were complete, and per-unit costs ballooned to $596,000–$837,000, with some projects nearing $1 million. Homelessness rose despite the investment.

San Francisco

San Francisco spends over $1 billion annually, yet its homeless population has remained between 7,000–8,000 for years. Navigation Centers and hotel conversions often saw exit-to-housing rates under 30% (per local audits), creating a revolving door of temporary care.

Seattle / King County

Seattle created a Regional Homelessness Authority in 2020 with a nine-figure budget. Audits soon revealed weak data, unclear goals, and little visible impact on unsheltered homelessness.

Hawaii

Despite declaring a state of emergency in 2015 and spending heavily, Hawaii remains the state with the highest homelessness rate in the nation (44 per 10,000 residents). Sky-high housing costs and tourism pressures outpaced program gains.

New York City

New York spends more than $4 billion annually, with over 80,000 individuals in shelters each night. Critics argue that the shelter system has grown while permanent housing production lags.

HUD–VA Vouchers

The HUD-VASH program reduced veteran homelessness nationally. Yet in some regions, thousands of vouchers went unused due to bureaucratic delays and landlords unwilling to participate — showing that funding without execution fails.

---

Common Themes in Failures

1. Exorbitant per-unit costs undermine public trust.
2. Glacial delivery timelines prevent timely relief.
3. Shelter-heavy spending traps people in temporary systems.
4. New bureaucracies add layers without results.
5. Housing supply issues (zoning, costs, land) remain unaddressed.
6. Weak outcome tracking — dollars are counted, but stable lives are not.

---

Lessons Learned

The contrast between successes and failures yields hard lessons:

• Permanent housing works. Housing First and PSH consistently reduce homelessness when scaled.
• Supportive services sustain results. Housing without counseling, healthcare, or employment support is fragile.
• Cost control is essential. Programs must avoid $800,000 per-unit models.
• Data must drive funding. Retention rates, returns, and time-to-housing are the key benchmarks.
• Regionalism prevents “magnet” burdens. Shared responsibility avoids one city becoming a hub.
• Adaptation to context matters. Houston’s model can inform McKinney, but strategies must match local housing markets and resources.

---

Conclusion

Homelessness is not an unsolvable problem. Evidence shows that with the right mix of housing, services, and accountability, communities can dramatically reduce it. Houston’s transformation proves that systemic, coordinated approaches succeed. Austin’s Community First! Village shows how design and belonging restore dignity. At the same time, Los Angeles and San Francisco stand as warnings of what happens when money is poured in without discipline, urgency, or accountability.

For McKinney and Collin County, the path forward is clear: build on existing programs, expand affordable housing, strengthen data systems, and work regionally to share responsibility. Without coordination, improved services risk attracting individuals from neighboring areas. With collaboration, however, every jurisdiction can contribute to — and benefit from — the solution.

The examples are before us: homelessness can be reduced, but only when programs are not just well-funded, but well-designed, regionally balanced, and rooted in the conviction that every person deserves a home.

---