Homelessness has been steadily rising across the U.S., with federal attacks on Housing First, inadequate funding, and increased criminalization making things worse. The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently suspended a previous ruling that blocked the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from implementing radical changes to existing homelessness policy.
The dispute centers on HUD’s proposal to allocate $1.3 billion of this year’s $4 billion homeless services budget towards transitional housing and supportive services, decreasing funding for permanent supportive housing. Experts and advocates contend that permanent supportive housing is more effective and usually receives 90 percent of the budget.
Shift Away from Housing First
The Trump administration wants to move away from Housing First, the predominant model of homelessness policy since the Bush administration. Housing First offers permanent housing to homeless people without preconditions connected to addiction treatment or work requirements, with optional supportive services. In contrast, the Treatment First model requires people seeking housing assistance to go through compulsory rehab before accessing shelter.
Opponents say the Treatment First strategy, common in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan, was less effective than Housing First. They argue that ideologues are pushing today’s policy regression behind the scenes. The latest ruling stays a court order that suggested HUD had advanced this new policy without observing the legally mandated process under the Administrative Procedures Act.
Impact on Homeless Services
Cathy Alderman, chief communications and public policy officer at the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, says that if HUD ties funds to requirements, it will create more homelessness. Katie Eighan, the continuum of care planning director at the Alliance to End Homelessness in Suburban Cook County, notes that the latest notice of funding opportunity could force them to turn about 280 of their 850 total housing units into transitional housing.
David Phillips, a research professor of economics at the University of Notre Dame, says the evidence on Housing First is clear. Several randomized controlled trials point to the same conclusion: that long-term housing, provided alongside optimal mental health and substance use treatment, helps people leave homelessness. Bob Palmer, policy director at Housing Action Illinois, agrees that Housing First leads to the best outcomes, but notes that it has never been implemented at the scale needed.
Illinois is short about 300,000 units of rental housing for the lowest-income households. The problem is not Housing First, but the lack of investment in housing. Even with increasing budgets for homelessness programs, homelessness has also risen. Eighan says that escalating budgets are more about treading water than anything else, as grants must cover fair market rent, which is steadily rising.
Related Post: Cities test new tax incentives to boost affordable housing
The solution to homelessness looks a whole lot like Housing First, which has been successful in veterans’ care. Multiple experts mention HUD-VASH as a proven, scalable model of homelessness reduction that has been declined to fully mobilize.
Failed Policy Revival
Alderman says the federal government should be proud of what it has done on veterans’ homelessness and use that as a model for everyone. However, the federal government has not taken the lead, and it’s easier for them to blame the current programming rather than their failure to meet the moment. The move away from Housing First is actually a return to an older, failed policy, with many experts stressing that they have no particular loyalty to any model, but rather what works.
For Lynn Lewis, the founder and former executive director of the Picture the Homeless Oral History Project, this turn by HUD under Trump is deja vu, reminiscent of the 1980s under President Reagan. The Treatment First model is considered even worse than that previous iteration, given today’s precarious economy and support system. Lewis worked at a homelessness organization in Florida that followed the Housing First model, where people had a $500 budget to get themselves set up in their apartment, and the focus was on respecting their preferences and choices.
Vincent Quan, director of strategic partnerships and innovation at the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab, notes that some of the early Housing First studies directly compared the idea of providing housing without a precondition with Treatment First, and Housing First performed better. The reason for relitigating a solved problem is unclear, especially when the solution is clear: providing housing without strings attached, and allowing people to access supportive services as needed.
Consequences of Policy Shift
Sue Watlov Phillips, executive director of the Metropolitan Interfaith Council on Affordable Housing in Minnesota, states that HUD’s authority and ability to impose its policy U-turn on service providers is questionable, and notes that the new model is based on denying or ignoring homeless people’s preferences and choices. As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the fate of thousands of people experiencing homelessness hangs in the balance, and the decision to move away from Housing First will have significant consequences, with $1.3 billion in funding at stake.
Impact on Homeless Services
Many organizations are concerned about the impact of HUD’s new policy on their services. Cathy Alderman notes that most people in their programs are extremely low-income and may not be able to cover rent increases.
Alternative Solutions
Some experts point to the HUD-VA Supportive Housing program as a proven model of homelessness reduction. This program offers homeless veterans a housing voucher and optional services, and has been shown to be effective in reducing homelessness.
