Evictions in Texas: The Last Off-Ramp Before Homelessness — and Why Communities Must Treat as Risk Management

December 26, 2025.Reading time 7 minutes.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

Evictions are often discussed as housing disputes. In reality, they are something far more consequential: the final off-ramp before homelessness. Once a household reaches the point of eviction, nearly every stabilizing force—savings, credit, social ties, school continuity, employment flexibility—has already been weakened. If eviction prevention fails, the system shifts from prevention to crisis response, where costs rise sharply and outcomes worsen.

Across Texas, eviction filings have climbed above pre-pandemic levels, even in economically strong regions such as Houston, Dallas, and Austin. This is not a localized failure. It is a warning sign that many households are living one missed paycheck away from displacement—and that communities are reacting too late.

The central lesson is simple but uncomfortable: by the time homelessness appears, the policy failure has already occurred.

Eviction as the Final Preventable Step

Homelessness is expensive, visible, and politically urgent. Evictions are quieter—and therefore easier to ignore. Yet eviction is where intervention is most effective.

Once an eviction is filed:

Housing options narrow dramatically
Credit and rental histories are damaged
Families often double up or move into unstable situations
Children experience school disruption
Stress and health risks spike

After displacement, public systems step in—shelters, emergency healthcare, school mobility services, law enforcement responses—but by then, costs have multiplied and choices have shrunk.

Eviction prevention is not housing charity; it is risk management.

Why Staying Ahead Matters: The Cost Curve Is Not Linear

One of the most important reasons to stay ahead of eviction pressure is that costs rise exponentially once eviction occurs.

A few hundred or thousand dollars in short-term rental assistance can stabilize a household
A court filing creates long-term barriers to housing
Shelter placement costs far exceed prevention costs
Rehousing displaced families takes months, not days

Communities that intervene early are not “spending more on housing.” They are avoiding far larger downstream obligations in homelessness response systems.

The Texas Eviction Environment: Speed Without Cushion

Texas’s eviction process moves quickly. Notices are issued within days of nonpayment, and cases proceed rapidly through Justice of the Peace Courts. Most tenants are unrepresented. Many landlords file automatically.

Speed itself is not the problem. Speed without cushioning is.

When households lack savings, when rents rise faster than wages, and when communication breaks down, the legal system becomes a blunt instrument—efficient, but destabilizing.

Who Can Intervene — and Why Early Action Is Everything

Because eviction is a process, there are multiple chances to change the outcome. But those chances disappear quickly.

Renters: The Earliest Warning Point

Renters are the first to know when trouble begins—but often the last to seek help. Fear, shame, or confusion delays action until the problem has hardened into a legal case.

Staying ahead means:

Making help visible before notices are posted
Using trusted institutions (schools, churches, utilities, employers) to flag assistance early
Replacing fragmented systems with simple, centralized intake

Early renter engagement is the highest-return intervention in the entire system.

Landlords: The Fork in the Road

Landlords control whether eviction becomes a first response or a last resort.

Small landlords often want resolution but lack liquidity
Large operators rely on standardized and often automated filing practices

Staying ahead requires giving landlords credible alternatives:

Mediation that protects their rights
Payment plans with court recognition
Rapid, reliable rental assistance

When eviction is the only structured option, it will be used—even when everyone loses.

Nonprofits: Most Effective Before Court, Not After

Nonprofits are prevention specialists, not emergency responders. Their greatest impact occurs before eviction filings, when problems are still solvable.

Local governments that stay ahead:

Fund nonprofits predictably, not episodically
Narrow focus to pre-filing intervention
Prevent intake overload

Once cases reach judgment, nonprofits are forced into damage control rather than stabilization.

Courts: Process Can Prevent Displacement

Courts are not housing agencies—but they shape outcomes through process design.

Staying ahead does not require changing the law. It requires:

Clear, plain-language notices
Automatic referrals to mediation or assistance
Short continuances tied to payment plans
On-site navigators to prevent default judgments

A fair, navigable process reduces unnecessary displacement without favoring either side.

Legal Aid: Small Interventions, Big Effects

Even brief legal advice can:

Prevent improper filings
Formalize payment agreements
Avoid default judgments

Because capacity is limited, the most effective approach is early triage, not universal representation.

Schools, Employers, and Utilities: The Early Sensors

Housing instability often appears here first:

Attendance issues
Payroll advances
Utility arrears

Communities that stay ahead build referral pathways, not enforcement mechanisms, turning early warning signs into early help.

Why Local Governments Must Lead — Even Without New Authority

Local governments often hesitate, citing limits under state law. But eviction prevention does not require sweeping new powers. It requires coordination, timing, and discipline.

Cities and counties already pay for eviction outcomes:

Homelessness services
School mobility costs
Emergency medical care
Public safety responses

Staying ahead is not mission creep. It is cost avoidance and system stewardship.

Practical Ideals for Staying Ahead of the Challenge

Treat eviction filings as an early warning metric, not a background statistic
Shift resources upstream, before court filings occur
Design systems for speed, matching the speed of eviction timelines
Preserve market function through mediation, not moratoria
Expand housing supply intentionally, avoiding policies that tighten markets further

Conclusion: The Window Is Narrow—but It Exists

Eviction is the last moment when homelessness is still optional.

Once a household is displaced, policy choices narrow and costs explode. Staying ahead is not about preventing every eviction; it is about ensuring that temporary hardship does not become permanent instability.

The choice for Texas communities is not whether to pay for housing instability.
They already do.

The real choice is whether to pay early, quietly, and effectively—or later, loudly, and at far greater cost.

Homelessness in America: Successes, Failures, and the Search for Lasting Solutions

September 18, 2025.Reading time 13 minutes.

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:

End homelessness, not just manage it — shifting the system’s focus from temporary fixes to permanent housing solutions.
Put housing first — recognizing that stability is impossible without a secure place to live.
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

Exorbitant per-unit costs undermine public trust.
Glacial delivery timelines prevent timely relief.
Shelter-heavy spending traps people in temporary systems.
New bureaucracies add layers without results.
Housing supply issues (zoning, costs, land) remain unaddressed.
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.