In 2024, the U.S. saw the largest spike in homelessness since the federal government began regularly collecting data in 2007. This wasn’t a fluke. U.S. homelessness has been on a steep and steady climb—and immigration is largely responsible.
U.S. homelessness hit record highs in both 2023 and 2024, in large part because of major increases in homelessness in New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts. On their own, these states account for roughly two-thirds of the growth in homelessness in the U.S. last year.
What’s the common denominator? These states all house large cities (New York City, Chicago, and Boston) that have declared themselves “sanctuary cities” and whose shelters have been inundated with soaring numbers of immigrants here illegally—causing the homeless population to skyrocket.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s annual homelessness report, released in December 2024, explains that New York City asylum seekers “accounted for almost 88 percent of the increase in sheltered homelessness in New York City.”
Nearly all (89%) of New York’s homeless are in New York City, and nearly all (96%) of the homeless in New York are considered sheltered. Thus, the influx of asylum seekers is largely responsible for the large growth in homelessness in New York City—and therefore for most of the state’s homelessness increase.
Illinois tells a similar story. There, 2024 brought a massive 116% increase in homelessness—the largest increase in the country. More than half of the increase in the state’s homeless population was due to an increase in immigrants in Chicago homeless shelters.
Massachusetts saw a 53% rise in homelessness in 2024, also greatly attributed to immigration.
The story of the rise in homelessness in 2024, particularly the rise in sheltered homelessness, very much revolves around illegal immigration.
In the coming months, policies addressing illegal immigration will likely reduce homelessness to some extent. But addressing the nation’s homelessness problems will require further changes.
Even before the increase in illegal immigration, unsheltered homelessness was on the rise. And sheltered homelessness has hardly budged since the federal government began consistently gathering homelessness data in 2007. Clearly, some solution is needed.
One important step is for federal policymakers to stop emphasizing “housing first” and instead address the underlying causes of homelessness.
For almost two decades, the federal government has favored funding programs that prioritize permanent supportive housing without barriers to entry (no requirements to participate in drug rehabilitation, job training, mental health treatment or work).
But these housing-first policies are very costly and often ineffective. In Los Angeles, for example, a housing-first project has cost the city $690,000 per unit. According to estimates from Kevin Corinth at the American Enterprise Institute, it takes 10 permanent supportive housing units to reduce homelessness by just one person. Do the math, and this approach gets expensive very quickly.
Even more problematic, housing-first policies don’t help people overcome challenges like drug addiction, mental illness, and unemployment. Like many government strategies designed to help the needy, these policies fail to address the underlying personal challenges people face.
Nor do they reduce overall rates of homelessness. The reason is unclear, but it could be because it incentivizes people to stay in permanent housing longer than they would have remained homeless, occupying units that would otherwise be available. People may also intentionally move to areas that provide permanent housing.
For all these reasons, HUD should change the language in their “notice of funding availability” so that they no longer prioritize housing first.
Reducing homelessness for U.S. citizens requires a mix of strategies suited to the needs of individuals. Shelter is important, but the goal of assistance should be to help people improve their lives and overcome barriers to employment and healthy functioning.
Instead of implementing housing-first programs, the government should promote treatment first programs (like those in the Birmingham Model), which pair temporary housing with programs like drug rehabilitation, mental health treatment and job training.
We should also work to improve services for those with severe mental illness.
Many living on the streets suffer from mental illness, but psychiatric beds are often in short supply. States and localities should increase the availability of psychiatric care for those with severe mental illness. State policymakers should also examine involuntary commitment laws to see that their policies don’t make it overly prohibitive for those with severe mental illness to get care.
While reducing homelessness requires more than good policies, it’s important to get the policy right. Fighting homelessness and reducing poverty require promoting upward mobility, not just issuing one-way transfers.
This piece originally appeared in MSN
Rachel Sheffield is a Research Fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Health and Welfare Policy.
Reprinted with permission from The Heritage Foundation – By Rachel Sheffield
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AMAC or AMAC Action.
Homelessness is a mental illness issue. We did not have an overriding problem until the late 1970’s when President Carter (and some republicans) decided to close down all the mental health institutions and set the mentally ill free. Problem was, they had absolutely no idea how to take care of themselves. My mother and her church ladies would seek them out and help them care for themselves. A few success stories but most of the early ones ended their lives rather then try to cope within a world they did not understand.
We are in the third or fourth generation of mentally ill person not receiving care for their illnesses. They are born of this world and can cope, but on a very basic level. A friend of mine deals constatnly with her daughter who prefers street life (not a drugger). She has been diagnosed with several mental illnesses, trusts no one and cannot hold onto any material or property. She might fare better in an institution that at the least gives her a bed.
It is worth considering a return to the institutions. We can call them hostels, hotels or apartment buildings if it pleases those who hate the sound of state run institutions.
KICK ‘EM ALL OUT BACK TO THEIR SH\THOLE COUNTRIES.
Housing should be pretty simple. Dormitory style, just like the military. Bunks and shower rooms that can be one at a time. Bathroom separate from showers. Males in one area, females in another. Maybe a separate facility for families. It isn’t glamorous, but it works at a reasonable cost. Those who are mentally ill and cannot be accommodated that way require additional services which may include institutionalization.
One big part of the answer to the homeless problem is to deport the illegal aliens. Every one of them is a criminal, since they are all here illegally. We cannot afford to house, clothe, feed, medicate and educate the 12 million (estimated) illegal aliens in the USA. It is bankrupting several “sanctuary cities” in liberal states. Do we have a border or not?
Illinois would be a nice place, if we could separate Chicago from the rest of the state.
The deinstitutionalization agenda of earlier decades contribute
greatly to this problem.
Each of these states has a huge Democratic contingency. They can do whatever they want without any repercussions. They know the residents will never vote for a Republican. Funny how they can mysteriously come up with all these funds and complain how their schools are underfunded.
if you feed them, they will come.
This is the highest priority problem facing the USA today. Housing costs and Rental costs have gone up several times more than inflation & is a major impact on all of the middle class, lower class, and retired citizens. Can anyone explain or justify why houses have gone up +20% per year for the last 20 years or so? And how can that reason be turned around?
Only serious drug war will clean up the mess,
Rents where I live have now become what my mortgage payment was on my last house. But if you exclude everything that people need to live, like shelter, food, and fuel, you can just make struggling residents happy by claiming that “core” inflation is down. You can buy a vacuum cleaner or a pack of batteries at the same low price as it was a few years ago…
Homeless??? Aren’t the 14 million illegal aliens that Biden allowed to waltz into US homeless as well???
Just DEPORT all illegals and finish building that wall and electrify it.
I believe when Joe Biden invited these folks, illegals actually, albeit invited, into our country he made a bad situation much worse. And the sanctuary cities, run by very unqualified mayors and city councils, could not cope with their need to “look” compassionate. The mayor of NYC is just one example, he admitted he could not sustain this influx of people, and as usual he handled it very wrong, and the Biden folks aided with our FEMA money, good money after bad! Now we can trust that the criminals who also commit crimes against humanity, will either get the death penalty or forced back home.
Perhaps, as soon as government money is no long available, many of these homeless will get up off their cots and go back to work. There is no greater incentive to work than being hungry and cold. Why do we coddle people who are to lazy to work? I believe there is a name for that.
Hope this news is wrong today: But I saw where Trump is offering expedited citizenship to South Africans fleeing country but is also talking about deporting the Ukrainians that fled when Russia invaded Ukraine. The people had nothing but the shirt on their back, and media says about 30 thousand of them are in Washington State. A billionaire does not realize the plight of the poor class.
Have not heard Trump’s plan for dealing with homelessness…
The problem is shortage of housing, everything else is a smokescreen.
This is so one-sided. There are millions of people who work 40 even 50-60 hours a week and can’t afford a home. And it’s not just a shortage of housing. There’s too much money concentrated at the top. So they bid up the cost of residential real estate until it’s unaffordable. But I wouldn’t expect the Heritage Foundation to care about this.
If that preening, idiotic a*****e would jar lose with some of his billions or even the 290 million he spent to buy trump the presidency, homeless, starvation and the elderly who have to choose between rent, food or medication could be solved immediately.