A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

---

---

Most Americans care about homelessness, but mainly in fragments. A headline here, a political talking point there, and a vague sense that the problem is either hopeless or endlessly complicated. Many ordinary citizens see the crisis daily but haven’t had the time or tools to understand the deeper issues: Who is homeless? Why? What are governments trying? What works, what fails, and why? And how should we judge new policy ideas like the recently leaked HUD plan?

The goal of this essay is to put all of that on one table — not with slogans, not with despair, but with clarity, compassion, and accountability.

---

I. The Landscape: The Nation’s Highest Homeless Count Ever

In 2024, HUD’s annual count found 771,000 Americans experiencing homelessness — the highest number ever recorded. That’s roughly the population of Seattle spread across all 50 states.

This group includes:

• Families with children
• People fleeing domestic violence
• Veterans
• Working poor who simply can’t afford rent
• People with serious mental illness
• People battling addiction
• And a chronically homeless population that is highly visible in encampments and city centers

A complicated population — not a single profile

Research shows:

• 30–40% have a serious mental illness
• 20–25% struggle with addiction
• Many work, especially among families
• The chronically unsheltered often have multiple challenges layered together

The image of “the homeless” as one monolithic group is simply wrong.

---

II. How Money Flows: A Breakdown the Public Rarely Hears

The federal government spends over $10 billion annually on homelessness-specific programs, and many billions more on related housing, health, and justice-system expenditures.

When you blend federal, state, county, and city dollars, the average public cost for a chronically homeless person often exceeds $35,000–$50,000 per year, mostly through:

• ER visits
• Hospitalizations
• Police calls
• Jail time
• Emergency shelters

Contrast that with supportive housing programs that frequently cost less than the combined emergency costs, though results vary by city.

Spending per homeless person (national average)

Approx. $13,000 per person per year in targeted homelessness funds — before health, justice, and other indirect systems are counted.

Critics from the right ask:

“With all this money, why are numbers rising?”

A fair question.
It leads directly into the next section.

---

III. What Governments Try — and How Well Each Approach Works

Here’s the four-part menu of what governments actually do.

---

1. Permanent Supportive Housing (“Housing First”)

What it is:
Permanent housing + voluntary services for those with disabilities or chronic homelessness.

Evidence:
Multiple randomized controlled trials show:

• High housing stability (80–90% remain housed after 1–2 years)
• Lower ER and jail usage
• A humane path out of street living

Limitations conservatives rightly highlight:

• Does not require treatment or sobriety as a condition of housing
• Does not reliably improve employment or income
• Units are expensive to build
• Construction is slow
• Not all communities have local buy-in

Fair, balanced takeaway:
Housing First is proven to stabilize lives and reduce chaos.
But it cannot be the only tool, nor can it be immune from performance reviews or expectations for progress.

---

2. Rapid Re-Housing

What it is:
Short-term rental assistance (3–24 months) to help families or individuals bridge a crisis.

Evidence:

• Works well for families and moderate-need individuals
• Lower returns to homelessness when paired with employment support
• Not appropriate for severely mentally ill or chronically unsheltered people

Conservative observation:
This is “tough love with a safety net.”
It expects people to get back on their feet.

---

3. Shelters & Crisis Response

Shelters will always be needed.

But not all shelters are equal.

• Good shelters: safe, clean, allow pets/partners, connect people quickly to housing
• Bad shelters: unsafe, rigid rules, high barriers, or chaotic conditions

Many people who “refuse shelter” are refusing that type of shelter — not all help.

---

4. Enforcement & Order-Based Strategies

These include:

• Clearing encampments
• Camping bans
• Move-along orders
• Drug-free zones
• City-center enforcement efforts

What data shows:

• Sweeps alone do not reduce homelessness.
• Enforcement without housing simply moves people block to block.
• Enforcement paired with real options — motel rooms, tiny homes, treatment beds — can be effective.

The conservative case for enforcement:

• Public spaces have rights, too
• Businesses, parks, schools, and neighborhoods need safety and order
• Drug markets thrive when encampments become permanent
• Allowing dangerous behavior out of compassion ultimately harms everyone

Enforcement cannot replace compassion —
but compassion without enforcement breeds dysfunction.

---

IV. Why People Decline Help — A Reality Check

The common belief that “the homeless refuse help” is too simplistic.

People often refuse help because:

• Shelters don’t allow pets, partners, or belongings
• They fear theft or assault in dorm-style shelters
• Curfews conflict with work
• Mental illness or addiction heightens distrust
• They’ve had traumatic institutional experiences

But acceptance rates rise dramatically when options are:

• Private or semi-private rooms
• Tiny homes
• Facilities that allow pets
• Quiet shelters with fewer rules

Translation:
Willingness increases when dignity increases.

---

V. The Clinton Workfare Lesson — Relevant Today

You specifically asked about this, because it matters.

Clinton’s 1996 Welfare Reform (“Workfare”) produced three major outcomes:

1. Employment increased among single parents
2. Welfare rolls dropped dramatically
3. Deep poverty rose for a minority who could not meet work requirements

Workfare proved that:

• Work expectations can increase stability and income
• Many people respond positively to structure
• A small subset of the population cannot meet requirements due to mental illness, disability, or instability
• A compassionate society must recognize both groups

The relevance to homelessness:

Work requirements may help some homeless individuals — particularly those recently displaced by rent hikes, job loss, or family crises.

But work requirements for the severely mentally ill or actively addicted are unlikely to succeed unless:

• Treatment is accessible
• Case management is consistent
• Housing stability is guaranteed
• Enforcement is paired with realistic pathways

In short:
Work can be a stabilizer — but only for those capable of work.

---

VI. Where the NYTimes HUD Plan Fits Into This Bigger Picture

The New York Times published a detailed article describing a leaked HUD plan to cut permanent supportive housing spending by two-thirds and redirect funds toward:

• Work requirement programs
• Treatment mandates
• Encampment enforcement
• Short-term transitional housing
• Compliance with camping bans
• Programs adhering to cultural and ideological criteria

Important conservative cautions:

• The article is well-reported, but its predictions about mass displacement are speculative
• Outcomes are not yet verifiable
• Housing First has strengths — but also known weaknesses
• The crisis is severe enough that reviewing old assumptions is reasonable
• A national system with zero accountability is unacceptable
• Work expectations, treatment expectations, and behavior expectations are not immoral — they may be necessary for some individuals

So how should a thoughtful conservative interpret the plan?

1. It raises important questions about accountability.
Permanent supportive housing can be life-saving but must be evaluated, audited, and improved regularly.

2. It forces the nation to confront uncomfortable truths.
Some people will never stabilize without treatment or sober living expectations.

3. It risks severe unintended consequences if mishandled.
If the NYT estimates prove wrong, fine.
If they prove correct, the displacement could overwhelm cities.

4. A balanced approach is the only responsible path.
Neither “housing only” nor “enforcement only” works in isolation.

---

VII. The Balanced Path Forward: Compassion + Expectation

A serious homelessness policy must combine:

1. Housing for the most vulnerable

People with schizophrenia, severe bipolar disorder, traumatic brain injuries, or advanced addiction need stable housing first, or no intervention can work.

2. Treatment capacity that actually exists

We cannot mandate treatment if states don’t have providers, beds, or staff.

3. Work expectations where realistic

Clinton-era Workfare proves structure helps many people — but not all.

4. Enforcement when public safety demands it

Parks, schools, and businesses deserve protection from crime, drug markets, and dangerous encampments.

5. Evaluation, follow-up, and measurement

This is the conservative heart of the issue:

• Programs must be graded
• Underperforming providers must lose funding
• Cities must show results
• HUD must not send $3.5B into a black hole
• Citizens deserve transparency on outcomes

6. The public deserves truth without ideology

The humane middle consists of:

• Realistic expectations
• Respect for human dignity
• Work where possible
• Treatment where necessary
• Housing stability where essential
• And accountability everywhere

---

VIII. Final Thought: Compassion and Responsibility Are Not Opposites

A nation can — and must — do both:

• Extend a hand to those who are mentally ill, addicted, or trapped in cycles they cannot escape
• Expect responsibility from those who are capable of work, sober living, or program compliance
• Protect communities from disorder and danger
• Demand results from the billions spent on homelessness

The biggest mistake is believing we must choose between compassion and accountability.

The truth is:
We cannot succeed without both.