Most homeless in San Jose were born and raised in Santa Clara County and/or California. As a matter of fact over the last 5 years the fastest growing homeless population is elderly that have been priced out of housing and kids that have aged out of foster care. Also undocumented immigrants can not collect any benefits. So nobody is “supporting” any of them.

All correct !!

“The county connected 17,485 homeless individuals to permanent housing as of 2024, and is on track and may even exceed the goal of housing 20,000 individuals by the end of 2025.”

How is permanent housing defined? As stated in the article, a rapid rehousing participant is documented as “permanently housed” when entering the program – so the 17,485 number includes the 26% of those participants (about 1,400) who definitely didn’t remain permanently housed. How can they define a temporary assistance program as “permanent?” Similar to “homeless prevention” – where they give someone rental assistance for a short term, then stop. The only way someone is permanently housed is IF they receive a permanent supportive housing unit with a permanent voucher. Rapid rehousing, motel programs, homeless prevention – many of those participants end up back on the streets or end up displaced by the thousands – but the County/City doesn’t capture that data, and just considers anyone they ever helped as “permanently housed.” It’s not the truth. So what are all of the temporary programs they operate that categorize someone as “permanently housed” when they enter? And, what type of program exit data are they collecting, and why aren’t they deducting that from the 5-year total?

“The county set to reduce the inflow of new households becoming homeless to 3,330 by the end of 2025. However, last year 4,098 new households fell into homelessness, about 200 families less than the year prior — and about 800 households higher than its goal for this year. In 2024, for every one person housed, 1.8 fell into homelessness.”

The “for every one person housed, 1.8 fell into homelessness” is the same data point the County and City have been using for YEARS. There is no methodology or breakdown on how they get this number – it’s just a number they cite to make it seem as if the failures to address the crisis isn’t on them. It’s all just factors outside of their control – has nothing to do with the “plan.” If you just look at the amount of people they say have been “permanently housed” over the last 5-years and multiply by 1.8 – it just shows how nonsensical that data point is. Also, the “inflow” metric makes no sense, honestly – which is why they missed the mark by a longshot on that estimate.

We continue to see a lot of built in excuses. We hear that “programs are working” when we know via several audits that we are pretty bad on data collection/quality. We are on which version of the County Plan to End Homelessness? 3 or 4? Year after year we see the issue get worse and have to listen to the same old talking points over and over again. We see change when leadership changes – until then, it’s status quo.

The best study I’ve seen on homelessness was out of UCLA. It found that 75% of the homeless suffer from drug addiction, 78% suffer from mental illness, and the majority suffer from both. See:

https://www.capolicylab.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Health-Conditions-Among-Unsheltered-Adults-in-the-U.S..pdf

These are people who cannot afford an apartment no matter how little it costs. The only apartment they can afford is a free one, courtesy of taxpayers. And if they do get a free apartment it’s only a matter of time before they trash it and are back on the street again.

California has spent over $25 billion in just the last five years on Housing First policies that try to provide a free apartment to every homeless person, and during that time homeless has gotten worse, not better.

It’s madness to keep trying the same thing and expect different results. The only viable solution are low cost shelters and new laws to force the homeless off the streets and into the care they need.