When More Spending Buys Less Progress:
NYC Homelessness as a Case Study in Jevons’ Paradox
Why New York City’s record—high homelessness spending has produced the opposite of its intended effect — and what this reveals about systemic incentives.
New York City now spends more per homeless person than the typical household earns in a year, yet homelessness continues to rise. This isn’t just a budgeting problem. It’s a textbook example of Jevons’ Paradox — the phenomenon where increasing resources to solve a problem can unintentionally make that problem worse. NYC’s homelessness crisis demonstrates that expanding services without expanding housing supply triggers a rebound effect: more people enter and remain in the system, total homelessness increases, and spending escalates in response. The system becomes self-reinforcing. Jevons’ Paradox traditionally describes energy efficiency: when technology makes fuel use more efficient, total consumption often rises because people use more of the now‑cheaper resource.
But the underlying mechanism is broader:
When you lower the cost of accessing a resource, demand for that resource increases.
NYC’s homelessness system — legally obligated to shelter anyone who asks — has become more accessible, more resource‑rich, and more comfortable. As a result, demand for the system has grown faster than the city can supply housing.
Here are the facts:
1. Spending Has Exploded According to the New York State Comptroller: • Spending on unsheltered homelessness rose from $102 million (2019) to $368 million (2025) — a 262% increase. • Per‑person spending is now $81,700/year, projected to reach $97,000/year in 2026. • That exceeds NYC’s median household income. 2. Homelessness Increased Anyway Over the same period: • Unsheltered homelessness rose 26%. • Total homelessness (sheltered + unsheltered) rose 78%, reaching ~140,000 people. • NYC now shelters 97% of its homeless population — the highest rate in the nation. 3. The System Rewards Expansion High per‑person spending creates: • Institutional incentives for nonprofits to expand programs • Political incentives to maintain or grow budgets • Individual incentives to remain in the system None of these incentives reduces homelessness. 4. The Bottleneck Is Housing NYC’s spending surge has not been matched by: • New housing supply • Mental health treatment capacity • Addiction treatment • Long‑term supportive housing
When services expand, but housing does not, the system becomes a funnel with no exit.
NYC’s homelessness system is not failing because it is underfunded. It is failing because it is designed to expand demand without expanding supply. This is the essence of Jevons’ Paradox:
Improving efficiency in one part of a constrained system increases pressure on the constrained part.
NYC made homelessness services more accessible, but did not increase housing. The result was predictable: more people entered the system, fewer exited, and total homelessness grew. To break the paradox, policymakers must: • Expand housing supply. • Tie funding to outcomes, not inputs. • Address mental health and addiction at scale. • Reform provider incentives. • Remove regulatory barriers that restrict housing construction.
Compassion is not the problem. System design is.
When a city spends nearly $100,000 per homeless person, and homelessness still rises, the issue is not insufficient generosity — it’s misaligned incentives.
Governments often fall into the trap of Jevons’ Paradox.
Governments too often focus on intentions rather than results. No doubt you’ve heard the saying, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”, but governments seldom listen.
The Goal Should Not Be to Shelter the Homeless, but to Solve the Problems that Lead to Homelessness
A sheltered homeless person is still homeless. The goal should be to find ways to solve the underlying problems. We want a world in which everyone has a home, not merely shelter. That requires doing the hard work of finding out why people are homeless and addressing the root causes. Providing shelter may make us feel better, but it doesn’t move anyone closer to having a home. In fact, it may be keeping us from taking the necessary steps that would truly reduce homelessness.
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Responses