Comments
THE BOTTOM LINE - When Karen Bass became mayor of Los Angeles in December 2022, she declared a state of emergency on homelessness and later described the crisis she inherited as a “hot mess.”
Nearly four years later, the description still fits.
Los Angeles has committed approximately $4.4 billion to homelessness related programs across four city budgets, yet the 2026 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count estimated that 45,194 people remain homeless within the city. That represents a 3.4% increase from the previous year, although the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority says the change was not statistically significant.
The numbers tell only part of the story.
Angelenos continue to see tents beneath freeways, people in visible psychiatric distress, open drug use, overcrowded emergency rooms and neighborhoods struggling with the consequences of long-term street homelessness.
After billions of dollars, hundreds of contracts and years of promises, the public deserves an answer to one basic question:
What measurable and lasting results did taxpayers purchase?
Los Angeles has not failed because it refused to spend money. It has failed because spending became a substitute for strategy, bureaucracy displaced accountability and ideological commitments too often took priority over conditions on the street.
The High Price of Moving Too Slowly
Nothing exposes the dysfunction more clearly than the cost and pace of building permanent supportive housing.
Los Angeles voters approved Proposition HHH in 2016 to finance thousands of housing units for people experiencing homelessness. The original expectation was that units could be produced for roughly $350,000 each. By 2022, a city audit found that the average development cost had approached $600,000, with the most expensive project estimated at approximately $837,000 per unit.
The problem is not that permanent supportive housing has no value. For many people—particularly those with disabilities or long histories of homelessness it can provide stability that temporary programs cannot.
The problem is that Los Angeles allowed permanent housing to become extraordinarily expensive and painfully slow.
Every year lost to permitting delays, financing complications, regulatory requirements, and escalating construction costs is another year that thousands of people remain exposed to violence, illness, exploitation, and overdose on the streets.
Los Angeles needs permanent supportive housing, but it also needs faster and less expensive options, including master-leased apartments, converted motels, modular facilities, shared housing, safe parking, and well-managed interim shelters connected to treatment and long-term placement.
Housing Alone Is Not a Treatment Plan
California incorporated Housing First principles into state-funded homelessness programs in 2016. The model generally seeks to place people into housing without first requiring sobriety or participation in treatment.
Housing First rests on an important truth: people are more likely to stabilize when they have a safe place to live.
But housing alone cannot resolve severe mental illness or substance-use disorders. Research published in JAMA Psychiatry found high rates of mental health disorders among people experiencing homelessness, underscoring the need for comprehensive behavioral-health services alongside housing.
Housing can be the foundation of recovery. It cannot automatically replace recovery services.
A System Unable to Account for Itself
Court-ordered audits and federal scrutiny have raised serious concerns about financial oversight, contractor monitoring and accountability within Los Angeles’ homelessness response.
Regardless of the outcome of ongoing litigation and investigations, taxpayers deserve confidence that public funds are being tracked, measured and evaluated against meaningful outcomes.
Compassion does not eliminate the need for oversight. It makes oversight even more essential.
The Wrong Measures of Success
Too often success is measured by dollars spent, contracts awarded, or outreach contacts made.
Instead, Los Angeles should ask harder questions:
• Are fewer people living on the streets?
• How many remain housed after one or two years?
• How many receive effective mental health or addiction treatment?
• Which programs consistently produce measurable results?
Activities are not outcomes. Spending is not success.
A Different Course for Los Angeles
Los Angeles needs transparent performance standards, independent audits, faster housing production, expanded behavioral-health treatment and stronger accountability for every public dollar invested.
The city has demonstrated an extraordinary willingness to spend. It must now demonstrate an equally strong commitment to measuring results.
The measure of compassion is not how much government spends.
The measure is whether fewer people are forced to live and die on the streets of Los Angeles.
(Mihran Kalaydjian is a seasoned public affairs and government relations professional with more than twenty years of experience in legislative affairs, public policy, community relations, and strategic communications. A respected civic leader and education advocate, he has spearheaded numerous academic and community initiatives, shaping dialogue and driving reform in local and regional political forums. His career reflects a steadfast commitment to transparency, accountability, and public service across Los Angeles and beyond.)
