Henry Mauriss on Joshua’s Collective and Solving California’s Homeless Crisis

Henry Mauriss is an accomplished executive and entrepreneur with over 25 years of experience in consumer marketing, media, and branding.

While he has made significant strides in the business world, Mauriss is equally known for his deep commitment to philanthropy, specifically addressing the homelessness crisis in California. Mauriss is in the process of founding Joshua’s Collective, a humanitarian initiative focused on restoring the homeless to society, for the purpose of tackling one of the most pressing issues in the state.

Joshua’s Collective will take a holistic approach, addressing the root causes of homelessness—such as mental health, addiction, and unemployment—rather than offering temporary fixes. By providing comprehensive support including job readiness and placement, mental health care, and long-term housing, the organization aims to bring lasting change to California’s homeless population.

Driven by a strong belief in financial discipline and data-driven solutions, Mauriss applies the same strategic mindset to his philanthropic work as he does to his business ventures. His vision is to not only reduce homelessness but to create a sustainable model that empowers individuals to regain control of their lives. Combining his business expertise with a passion for social impact, Mauriss is making a real difference in the lives of those most in need.

What inspires you to create Joshua’s Collective, and why focus specifically on the homeless crisis in California?

Joshua’s Collective was born from a deep sense of responsibility. I’ve been fortunate enough to achieve success in business, but I’ve also seen the human cost of neglect and systemic failures up close. Homelessness isn’t just a statistic; it’s a human tragedy unfolding in front of us every day. California, as you know, has the largest homeless population in the U.S., and despite billions of dollars being spent, we’ve seen little to no improvement. That tells me we’re addressing the problem the wrong way. Joshua’s Collective will focus on the person, not just their housing situation, and that makes all the difference.

How will Joshua’s Collective differ from other initiatives aimed at addressing homelessness?

One of the biggest flaws in current government-led efforts is the singular focus on housing. Don’t get me wrong, housing is crucial—but it’s not the only piece of the puzzle. Many homeless individuals suffer from untreated mental illness, addiction, or have been isolated from society for so long that reintegration is challenging. Our approach at Joshua’s Collective will be fundamental. We don’t just place people in temporary shelters; we focus on mental health care, addiction treatment, job training, job placement, and ultimately, permanent housing. By treating the whole person, not just their immediate need for shelter, we create long-term solutions.

You’ve mentioned financial discipline as a key part of Joshua’s Collective’s strategy. Can you elaborate on that?

Absolutely. The way funds are spent in government programs is often inefficient, and the results speak for themselves. California has spent $24 billion between 2019 and 2023, yet homelessness continues to rise. Our approach is data-driven and disciplined. We project that we can restore individuals to society at an annual cost of about $17,528 per client over two years. That’s less than half of what the government spends per person annually. We’re able to keep costs down by adhering to strict financial controls, focusing on practical solutions, and holding ourselves accountable. After two years, our clients should no longer require financial support from us because they’ll have jobs, housing, and a renewed sense of purpose.

Given the scale of the homeless crisis, do you think your approach can truly make a dent in the problem?

I believe it can, and I wouldn’t be pursuing this if I didn’t. The homeless population in California is overwhelming, but change happens one life at a time. Our objective isn’t just about numbers—it’s about people. We plan to significantly reduce the population of unsheltered homeless individuals, but the real victory is restoring their dignity and providing them with the tools to live independently. If we address the root causes, we can break the cycle of homelessness. Joshua’s Collective is committed to the long haul, and I believe we’ll see meaningful results where other efforts have failed.

How will you measure success in Joshua’s Collective? Is it simply about reducing homelessness?

Reducing the numbers is part of it, but success, to me, goes beyond that. Success means restoring lives. It’s not enough to get someone off the streets temporarily—we want to equip them with the tools they need for lasting change. That means mental health care, addiction recovery, job readiness, and stable housing. We’ll be tracking outcomes rigorously—how many people transition to permanent housing, how many find sustainable, permanent employment, and how many can maintain their mental health or stay free of substance abuse. We’ll consider ourselves successful when the people we help no longer need us.

Many efforts to address homelessness become politically charged. How does Joshua’s Collective plan to navigate that?

Joshua’s Collective is a humanitarian effort, not a political one. That’s a key distinction. Homelessness affects everyone—business owners, families, and, of course, those experiencing it firsthand. It’s not about party lines. We’re focused on solutions that work, not on playing politics. I’ve seen too much energy wasted on ideological debates while real people suffer. The work we do is driven by compassion, practicality, and efficiency, and we’re willing to work with anyone who shares that vision.

What role does data play in your approach to solving homelessness?

Data is critical. We’ve studied two decades of research on homelessness, along with real-time information on what’s working and what’s not. This isn’t a guessing game. By tracking specific metrics—cost per client, long-term outcomes, and program success rates—we can adjust and improve our approach as we go. I believe in accountability, not just for the sake of financial discipline, but because we owe it to the people we’re trying to help. They deserve a system that’s adaptive and responsive to their needs, not one that throws money at the problem without understanding whether it’s making an impact.

How do you envision the future of Joshua’s Collective and its impact on California?

I see Joshua’s Collective as a model for what homelessness initiatives could and should be. It’s not enough to keep applying band-aid solutions to a crisis of this magnitude. The future of our organization is rooted in expanding our services, refining our approach, and showing that, with the right strategy, homelessness can be significantly reduced. In five years, I hope we’ll have restored thousands of people to society, reduced the homeless population by tens of thousands, and created a system that others can replicate in their cities and states.

What message do you have for people who are skeptical about solving homelessness?

To the skeptics, I’d say this: Yes, it’s a complex problem, but complexity doesn’t mean we should accept failure. Too often, people throw their hands up and say, “It’s too hard.” But every individual helped, every person taken off the streets and given a new start, proves that change is possible. Joshua’s Collective isn’t just about managing homelessness—it’s about solving it. That requires determination, compassion, and a willingness to embrace new approaches.

Key Takeaways:

  1. Joshua’s Collective will emphasize a multi-faceted approach to solving homelessness, focusing on more than just housing, but also addressing mental health, addiction, and employment.
  2. The initiative aims to substantially reduce homelessness by tackling the root causes through a data-driven and compassionate methodology.
  3. Financial discipline is a core principle, as Joshua’s Collective commits to restoring homeless individuals at nearly half the cost per person compared to government programs.