12 Years Later, The Numbers Make Clear Obama’s Approach To Homelessness ‘Massively Failed
Executive summary
Twelve years after President Obama’s administrations pushed “Housing First” and the Opening Doors federal plan, federal-era data and independent accounts show mixed results: homelessness fell substantially in some subgroups (veteran homelessness down 47% by 2016) and overall counts declined between 2010 and 2016, but unsheltered homelessness rose in parts of the country and homelessness trends reversed after 2016 [1] [2]. Commentators across the political spectrum now dispute whether the Obama-era approach “massively failed,” with conservatives blaming Housing First for rising street homelessness and advocates defending it as a humane evidence-based model that reduced chronic and veteran homelessness [3] [4] [1].
1. Obama’s promise and what the federal plan aimed to achieve
The Obama administration set an explicit, measurable agenda — Opening Doors — aiming to prevent and end homelessness with targets for veterans, chronic homelessness, families and youth, and to “set a path to end all types of homelessness” [5]. HUD and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) adopted Housing First principles and performance measures intended to get people into permanent housing quickly and measure exits from homelessness as success [6] [4].
2. Where the metrics showed clear progress
Federal reporting tied to those priorities recorded concrete wins: by 2016 homelessness overall had declined since 2010, with a 14% drop in persons experiencing homelessness on a single-night Point-in-Time count and a 47% reduction in veteran homelessness since 2010 [1]. USICH and related briefings also credit the Obama-era plans for establishing the first federal strategic plan and systems for measuring progress that later administrations built on [2] [1].
3. The reversal and geographic variation critics highlight
Critics point to rising unsheltered homelessness in many West Coast cities and a broader uptick in homelessness after 2016 as evidence the strategy failed when scaled — citing data such as a 20.5% increase in unsheltered homelessness from 2014 to early 2020 (reported in critical accounts) and visible encampments in major metros [7] [8]. Conservative outlets and opinion writers assert Housing First’s low-barrier model ignored mental health and substance-use contributors and argue the policy produced humanitarian harms in some cities [9] [3].
4. Defenders: Housing First as a humane, evidence-based correction
Advocates and housing-focused outlets portray Housing First not as a cause of homelessness but as a corrective to punitive, conditional approaches that cycled people through shelters and jails; they argue permanent housing with supportive services reduces long-term system costs and stabilizes people’s lives [4]. Shelterforce and allied organizations say critics conflate local implementation failures—lack of affordable housing supply, underfunded services, and zoning barriers—with the core model’s effectiveness [4].
5. The missing context: supply, funding and local governance
Multiple sources emphasize structural drivers outside HUD policy: an ongoing affordable housing crisis, insufficient supply and under-resourced local service systems help explain why homelessness persisted or grew in certain localities even as federal strategy shifted [10]. State and local policy choices, not just federal rules, strongly shaped visible outcomes; the National Alliance to End Homelessness points to housing scarcity and funding cuts as central factors [10].
6. Political framing and agenda-driven narratives
Coverage and opinion pieces show divergent agendas: conservative outlets frame the Housing First era as a “humanitarian disaster” to justify punitive or forced-treatment reforms, while state and nonprofit voices defend federal commitments and warn that recent federal rollbacks will reverse progress [3] [11] [4]. California’s governor, for example, framed federal 2025 funding changes as threatening generational progress in housing strategies [11].
7. What the data supports and what remains contested
Available reporting documents clear successes in targeted areas (notably veteran homelessness) and a federal architecture that reduced some types of homelessness through 2016 [1]. What is contested—and where sources diverge—is the causal link between national Housing First policy and the post-2016 increases in unsheltered homelessness in particular cities; critics claim causation, advocates point to broader housing-market failures and funding shortfalls [7] [4] [10].
8. Bottom line for readers
The shorthand claim that Obama’s approach “massively failed” overstates what the public record shows: the policy produced measurable progress in some populations and established tools that shaped later federal work, but persistent housing shortages, uneven local implementation, and later policy changes undermined broader, sustained reduction in visible homelessness [1] [10] [4]. Competing narratives now reflect differing priorities—housing-first versus conditional/treatment-first—and political aims; readers should weigh subgroup wins (veterans, chronic homelessness reductions) against geographic spikes and the role of supply and funding when assessing overall success [1] [7] [10].