šļø Washoe's Homelessness "Plan": Are We Spending Our Way Into a Hole?
Washoe County's homelessness "strategy" misses the mark by focusing on spendingāand not on boundaries as the program is flooded with out-of-town homeless seeking services.
Washoe County's homelessness "strategy" is increasingly looking like a well-funded exercise in managed failure. What was once a public health crisis is turning into a publicly subsidized system ā one that prioritizes infrastructure over outcomes, regional coordination over accountability, and endless expansion over exit strategies.
At the June 17 County Commission meeting, Dana Searcy, the Manager of Housing and Homeless Services, delivered a polished and data-heavy presentation to a room full of elected officials. The slides were rich in information. Dana made a clear and confident presentation. But the conclusions raised serious questions: Is Washoe County fighting homelessness, or fueling it?
š The Numbers: Stable on Paper, Fragile in Practice
The County touted that its active homeless population rose only 4% year-over-year, to 2,373 people in May 2025. But behind the veneer of "stability" lies a deeper problem:
Relapse rates are rising: 23% of people placed in housing return within 6 months.
Shelter use is surging, straining the resources of case workers, outreach teams, and housing capacity.
Infrastructure is expanding rapidly, but exits to permanent housing are not keeping pace.
It's the illusion of control: a dashboard that appears flat, even as the system underneath groans under the weight of repeat clients, aging guests, and unsustainable demand.
š§³ Where Are They Coming From?
For the first time, the County admitted publicly what many residents have suspected for years: people are coming here from outside Washoe, and many from California.
According to new intake data:
Between July 2024 and March 2025, 14% of all new cases were already homeless when they arrived in Washoe.
45% of those were from California, with additional inflow from Las Vegas, Carson City, and beyond.
The County's only formal response?
"Staff are informing partners that we cannot accept referrals from outside Washoe County."
That's it? No policy. No enforcement. Just polite notices.
Meanwhile, Washoe sits on a high-risk migration corridor, offering extensive services, low-barrier shelter, and no firm limits on regional intake. Our so-called strategy? Keep building and hope the pressure eases.
šØ What's Being Neglected: Source Control
Only Mike Clark asked the hard questions. The rest either deflected, re-framed the issue, or pivoted back to the same broken remedy: spend more on housing. Their responses, when viewed together, reveal not just different political philosophies, but entirely different realities.
šļø Responses: Four Different Worlds
Alexis Hill wants more "Dignity housing" & zoning reform. She is empathetic and idealistic, believing that long-term, supportive housing is the solution with little concern for outside inflow. She wants to spend more of your tax money.
Mariluz Garcia supports a data-driven, systems-oriented approach emphasizing the expansion of the HMIS tracking system and improved coordination across regional service providers. She advocates for increased housing optionsāespecially for the "missing middle." She has not addressed concerns about out-of-county migration.
Clara Andriola acknowledges that Washoe County is under strain and has raised concerns about the County absorbing too many individuals. However, rather than pushing for immediate policy changes, she favors long-term regional coordination through statewide partnerships and intergovernmental alignment.
Mike Clark is the most vocal critic of the County's current strategy, raising concerns about the influx of out-of-county homeless and the financial burden this places on local taxpayers. He advocates for stricter intake controls and greater accountability and has suggested exploring privatized or outsourced models as alternatives to the growing publicly funded system.
š§± The Real Problem: Accountability, Not Just Affordability
While housing costs matter and Washoe needs more low-income units that doesn't explain why:
45% of shelter guests report mental illness.
Medical respite beds are now required parts of shelter infrastructure.
23% of placed individuals return within six months, pointing to unstable placements or untreated trauma.
This isn't just about housing. It's about who we're serving, where they're coming from, and what expectations we're setting for them.
šÆ Strategic Consequences: Compassion Without Boundaries
Without clear policy levers to deter inbound migration, Washoe County becomes:
A regional backstop for weak programs in surrounding counties and out-of-state systems.
Structurally under-resourced, no matter how efficiently its services operate.
Vulnerable to public backlash, especially in an election year, as taxpayers question why they're footing the bill for someone else's failures.
This isn't just a budgeting problem ā it's a governance failure.
āļø Policy Suggestions to Rebalance the Approach
Codify a No-Importation Policy - Put in writing what staff are informally telling partners: no out-of-county referrals without prior approval.
Create a Billing Mechanism - If another county's client uses Washoe services, they pay. Just like hospital reciprocity agreements.
Publicize a Regional Fair Share Index - Who's exporting clients? Which counties are pulling their weight? Let voters and reporters see the scorecard.
Appoint an Interstate Homeless Liaison - Assign someone to manage negotiations and cooperation with Clark County and California agencies.
Launch a "Reno is Full" Awareness Campaign - During shelter surges, San Francisco used this to limit new inflow. Washoe could do the same.
š§ Conclusion
Washoe County has built a technocratic framework for homelessness management, not a plan to end it.
Out-of-county migration is real, but largely unchallenged.
Commissioners are divided, and most are unwilling to confront the structural flaws in the system.
Heavy Focus on Shelter & Housing Construction: Nearly all new initiatives focus on housing supply, with minimal emphasis on deterring inflow, behavioral accountability, or prevention upstream.
More shelters won't solve homelessness if we don't address:
Who's entering the system,
Why they're stuck in it,
And whether our compassion is being quietly exploited.
If we keep "staying the course," we shouldn't be surprised when we end up right back here ā asking why the problem never went away.
š Final Thought
It's time to ask: Is our compassion being exploited? And what do we owe the residents who are footing the bill?