The need to integrate opt-in services into financial assistance models
- L M
- 1 day ago
- 3 min read
Imagine living one paycheck from the edge. Rent eats nearly everything you earn. Groceries, utilities, childcare, transit — all squeezed into what’s left. Then something small goes wrong. A missed shift. A medical bill. A delayed paycheck. Suddenly, the threat of eviction becomes real.
A one-time payment might keep the lights on for a few months. But what happens when that money disappears?
This question sits at the heart of today’s homelessness prevention debate — and new research gives us a clearer answer than ever before.
Two Approaches. Two Very Different Outcomes.
Rental assistance is often treated as the primary tool for preventing homelessness. The logic is simple: if rent is the problem, pay the rent. But recent evaluations show that how assistance is delivered matters just as much as how much is delivered.
When Rental Assistance Only Postpones the Crisis
There was a UCSF evaluation focused on a shallow subsidy program in Oakland that provided households with up to $800 per month for 18 months. The program was designed to reduce rent burden and provide short-term relief for tenants struggling to make ends meet.
On the surface, the results looked promising. Eighty-three percent of participants remained housed. But a closer look told a more complicated story.
Even with the subsidy:
Rent burdens stayed extremely high
Food insecurity worsened
Families remained financially fragile
Long-term housing stability did not meaningfully improve
Without access to employment assistance, financial planning, legal support, or help identifying more sustainable housing options, many households remained one crisis away from displacement.
A Different Model: Addressing the Full Picture
A separate evaluation examined Oakland’s targeted homelessness prevention program. Unlike a stand-alone subsidy, this model paired flexible financial assistance with coordinated support services, including:
Case management focused on long-term planning
Legal assistance to prevent unlawful evictions and renegotiate leases
Employment services to increase income
Housing navigation and housemate matching to reduce rent burden
The results were striking.
Eighty-five percent of surveyed participants said they would have lost their housing without the program. More importantly, households were better positioned to remain stable after assistance ended. This approach recognized something that families already know: housing instability is rarely caused by rent alone.
Why This Matters for Cities and Taxpayers
Oakland’s investment in prevention coincided with Alameda County’s first decline in homelessness in more than a decade — a notable shift in a region where homelessness has historically risen year over year.
The financial implications are just as compelling:
The U.S. Government Accountability Office estimates that for every $100 increase in average rent, homelessness rises by 9%
Each person who falls into chronic homelessness costs taxpayers $60,000–$100,000 per year in emergency and crisis services
Preventing homelessness is not just more humane — it is dramatically more cost-effective.
Where Policy and Philanthropy Must Go Next
If we want lasting reductions in homelessness, the path forward is clear:
1. Integrate Services, Not Just Payments Rental assistance must be paired with workforce development, legal aid, and tenant protections.
2. Design Programs Around Real Needs Prevention should allow for flexibility — whether that means downsizing, securing roommates, renegotiating rent, or increasing income.
3. Invest in What Works Public agencies and philanthropic partners should prioritize evidence-backed models that demonstrate long-term stability, not just temporary housing retention.
An Invitation: Let’s Stop Buying Time
Homelessness prevention should not be about extending the countdown clock by a few months. It should be about changing trajectories.
Now, the data is clear.
The question before us is no longer whether prevention works — it’s whether we’re willing to invest in prevention that actually creates stability.
We have the evidence. We know the cost of inaction.
The only remaining question is whether we will continue to buy time — or start building futures.
Logan McDonnell
Comments