Pierce County Council vote for the homeless.
- Ian Armstrong
- 2 days ago
- 4 min read
On June 9, 2026, the Pierce County Council approved the updated 2025-2030 Comprehensive Plan to End Homelessness by a 4-3 vote. The majority cited a July 1 state deadline requiring counties to adopt a compliant homelessness plan. Republican councilmembers voted against the proposal, arguing for additional time to review the plan and strengthen accountability measures. (www.piercecountywa.gov)
The plan is backed by approximately $110 million in spending for 2026-2027 and includes funding for permanent supportive housing, emergency shelters, rapid rehousing, eviction prevention, youth homelessness programs, and homelessness prevention efforts. This plan to spend nearly $110 million on housing- and homelessness-related program and administrative services in 2026-2027, is a 16% increase from 2024-2025, according to an upcoming Human Services presentation. The county’s 2026-2027 budget totals about $3.5 billion, as previously reported by The News Tribune. County officials report that homelessness in Pierce County has increased approximately 125% since 2015. (https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article316080167.html)
The Council added several accountability provisions before adoption, including annual public reporting requirements, publication of homelessness data, and development of a formal accountability framework to measure results and outcomes. (http://www.piercecountywa.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/7186)
For families concerned about addiction and mental illness, the plan does acknowledge the role of healthcare, behavioral health, and justice systems in addressing homelessness. One of the plan’s stated goals is to ensure that healthcare and justice systems better address the needs of people experiencing or at risk of homelessness. The plan also emphasizes case management, coordinated services, and connections to behavioral health resources. (http://www.piercecountywa.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/7186)
However, the publicly adopted plan does not include major new county-operated addiction treatment facilities, expanded involuntary treatment programs, mandatory treatment requirements, or significant new mental health treatment initiatives. Instead, the primary focus remains on housing, shelter capacity, homelessness prevention, supportive services, and coordination between existing systems. (http://www.piercecountywa.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/7186)
New additions approved by the Council include a jobs and housing stability program that would combine transitional housing, support services, and employment opportunities, as well as requirements for shelter providers to develop food access plans. (http://www.piercecountywa.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/7186)
For many Pierce County families with loved ones struggling with addiction, severe mental illness, or repeated cycles of homelessness, an important question moving forward will be whether housing-focused strategies alone are sufficient, or whether additional treatment, recovery, and accountability measures will be needed to address the underlying causes that often keep people trapped on the streets. The adopted plan establishes reporting requirements and performance measures that should allow residents to evaluate the effectiveness of these approaches over time. (http://www.piercecountywa.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/7186)
Opinion: Pierce County's Additional $110 Million on Homelessness Is Not Addressing the Root Causes?
The Pierce County Council plan focuses heavily on housing, shelter expansion, homelessness prevention, and supportive services. While accountability measures were added before final passage, many residents are asking a simple question:
Will this plan help people struggling with addiction, severe mental illness, and chronic homelessness?
For families who have watched loved ones cycle through homelessness, addiction, jail, emergency rooms, and mental health crises, housing is only one piece of a much larger problem.
The County’s plan acknowledges behavioral health challenges and calls for better coordination between housing providers, healthcare systems, and social services. However, the plan does not create major new addiction treatment facilities, expand involuntary treatment options, or establish significant new mental health treatment programs. Instead, its primary focus remains housing and housing-related services.
That approach mirrors the national “Housing First” model that has dominated the homelessness policy we have seen in cities like Seattle for more than a decade.
Critics argue that Housing First starts with the assumption that housing should be provided before treatment, sobriety, employment, or participation in services. Under many Housing First programs, participation in addiction treatment, counseling, or employment training is voluntary rather than required. According to the Cicero Institute’s report Rejecting Housing First, federal policies discourage providers from making sobriety, treatment participation, or employment programs conditions for receiving housing.
The question Pierce County residents should be asking is whether that approach is producing the results taxpayers are willing to spend resources on.
Despite significant increases in federally subsidized housing over the past decade, the Cicero report notes that unsheltered homelessness has continued to grow nationally, particularly among individuals struggling with severe mental illness and substance abuse. The report argues that housing alone is often insufficient for people facing complex behavioral health challenges and that treatment-oriented programs may be more effective for certain populations.
Many families already know this from personal experience.
A person in the grip of fentanyl addiction does not suddenly become healthy because they receive housing. A person suffering from severe schizophrenia does not necessarily become stable because they have a roof overhead. Housing can be an important part of recovery, but recovery itself requires treatment, accountability, and sustained support.
The debate is not whether people deserve compassion. They do.
The debate is whether compassion without expectations is enough.
As Pierce County moves forward with this $110 million investment, residents should expect clear answers to several questions:
How many people will enter addiction treatment?
How many people will achieve long-term recovery?
How many people will obtain and maintain employment?
How many people will move from dependency to self-sufficiency?
How many individuals will remain housed years later?
How many will return to homelessness?
If taxpayers are investing an additional $110 million, success should be measured by outcomes. The high dollar amount spent, housing units created, or services offered is not the measurement that matters.
Everyone wants fewer people living on the streets. The real question is whether Pierce County’s strategy addresses the causes of homelessness or merely the symptoms.
The answer to that question will determine whether this plan becomes a success story. Or is this just another expensive program that leaves families watching their loved ones continue to struggle?
Original author: Kristen Bridgan-Brown
