---

Discussion

Kate Burvish:

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, announced a roughly $4.04 billion Continuum of Care competition for fiscal year 2026, including a $1.3 billion set-aside for new projects emphasizing transitional housing, treatment and supportive services. Existing permanent-supportive-housing projects may face more competition for renewal funding, although the evidence does not show that every project automatically loses renewal preference.

Sofia Jadler:

The policy direction is not the same as the legal outcome. The executive order directed agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to move away from Housing First. A Rhode Island district court ruled that HUD violated the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA, by changing important criteria without following required procedures. The First Circuit later stayed that ruling, so HUD may proceed for now. A stay preserves the competition; it does not decide the merits.

Red Velhouse:

So the funding shift is operating within this Continuum of Care competition, but its legal foundation remains unsettled. Before debating what should replace Housing First, we need to ask why people become homeless.

Kate Burvish:

Homelessness rarely has one cause. Housing-market pressure, high rents, crowding, evictions, unstable income and limited supply can leave households with very little margin. The broader economic pattern is familiar: when income falls or a major expense arrives, savings and assistance may be insufficient, and replacement housing may be unavailable. These pressures do not predict one person's fate, but they help explain why an individual shock can become homelessness.

Priya Merlan:

Individual pathways vary. Job loss, eviction, a major rent increase, domestic violence or conflict with relatives providing temporary housing can be immediate triggers. Disability, mental illness, substance-use disorder, criminal-record barriers, incarceration and discharge from hospitals or jails can make recovery harder after housing is lost. These factors overlap, but a diagnosis by itself does not explain every case.

Red Velhouse:

A program can help people leave homelessness without preventing new people from entering it. Where does Housing First fit?

Priya Merlan:

Housing First offers permanent housing without requiring sobriety, treatment participation or proof of housing readiness before placement. Its clearest benefits are housing access and stability. A systematic review of randomized trials found substantially more time housed and a much greater likelihood of stable housing at 18 to 24 months; the pooled relative risk was 2.46 compared with usual care. The review also had important limitations, including heterogeneity and risk-of-bias concerns, so the estimate is strongest for housing rather than every outcome.

Kate Burvish:

That is also the economic boundary. Housing First can repair an immediate housing loss; it does not create apartments, raise wages, replace disability income or eliminate a local shortage. A subsidy can make a unit affordable, and services can help retain a lease. But if more people enter homelessness than the system can house, the community count can rise even while many placed through Housing First remain housed.

Sofia Jadler:

The legal questions are separate. Housing without preconditions is one question. Whether a grant may prioritize treatment, transitional housing or self-sufficiency is another. Whether sobriety or treatment participation can be required to obtain or retain permanent housing is a third. The litigation concerns whether HUD changed major program criteria through a funding notice without adequate procedure or explanation. It does not declare treatment unimportant.

Red Velhouse:

That brings us to the central dispute: does better housing stability translate into recovery, health or self-sufficiency? Priya?

Priya Merlan:

Housing stability should not be confused with recovery. The broad 86-study review examined several intervention types, not just permanent supportive housing. In its permanent-supportive-housing subgroup, the consistent benefit was better long-term housing stability. It found no measurable effect on psychiatric-symptom severity across ten studies, substance use across nine, earned income across two, or employment in the one study reporting it. Quality-of-life evidence was limited and mixed. In plain language, housing gets more people housed and keeps more housed; housing alone does not reliably treat addiction or psychosis, produce jobs or increase earnings.

Kate Burvish:

“No measurable effect” does not mean Housing First failed. It means the review found a housing effect but no statistically detectable average effect on certain other outcomes. That distinction also matters for budgets. Permanent supportive housing has direct rent and service costs, while reductions in emergency-room, hospital or jail use vary by population and program. Guaranteed savings are not established.

Red Velhouse:

If housing is the reliable outcome while recovery requires additional services, how often do people return to homelessness?

Priya Merlan:

A Department of Veterans Affairs, or VA, analysis reported returns among veterans exiting specified homeless-program settings to permanent housing. Using a later encounter with a VA homeless program as the definition of return, 5.8 percent returned within six months, 10.2 percent within one year and 16.7 percent within two years.

Sofia Jadler:

Those are not universal Housing First rates. The analysis covered specified VA programs, not only permanent supportive housing, and a recorded VA encounter is not identical to an eviction, shelter re-entry or every return to homelessness. Someone may move elsewhere, leave the reporting area or disappear from the data. The accurate claim is that the defined VA cohort had a recorded return at those intervals.

Red Velhouse:

What prevents people from entering or keeping housing? The phrase Housing First can make availability sound automatic, when the actual offer may be limited or unsuitable.

Sofia Jadler:

Records should distinguish three problems. First, a suitable unit may not be available: it may be unsafe, inaccessible, unaffordable without a subsidy, far from medical support, incompatible with a pet or partner, or unsuitable because it is congregate housing. Second, a person may decline a particular offer or be unable to move in. That does not necessarily mean rejecting housing in general. Third, someone may move in and later lose the unit through nonpayment, repeated lease violations, violence or threats, property damage, loss of contact, incarceration or other tenancy problems. No national dataset gives reliable percentages for each category.

Kate Burvish:

The first category is often an economic constraint disguised as individual choice. An offer is not the same as a functioning housing system if there are too few affordable units, subsidies or staff. But not every failure is a supply problem. Some people do not want the location, rules or provider contact. Budgets should distinguish unsuitable supply, declined offers and post-placement loss instead of treating every exit as either government failure or individual fault.

Priya Merlan:

Addiction and serious mental illness belong in that discussion without exaggeration. Active substance use or psychosis does not automatically prevent placement or retention in a low-barrier program. But those conditions can increase the need for medication, substance-use treatment, crisis response, assertive community treatment or intensive tenancy support. Housing is a platform for care, not addiction treatment by itself.

Kate Burvish:

The VA offers a bounded example rather than a universal benchmark. The Department of Veterans Affairs reported that it and community partners permanently housed 47,925 homeless veterans in fiscal year 2024, with 96 percent remaining housed at the reported follow-up. Those results support rapid placement with continuing services, but they do not prove that every program pays for itself.

Sofia Jadler:

There may be a lawful middle ground. The administration can emphasize recovery, employment and self-sufficiency, and transitional housing may fit some populations. But abruptly displacing permanent housing can create statutory and procedural problems, especially where Congress has required continuity for some projects. The appellate stay permits implementation for now; it does not resolve whether HUD's criteria survive review.

Red Velhouse:

So the practical question is not simply Housing First versus treatment. It is which combination of housing, treatment and accountability produces measurable results, and for whom. What should officials report?

Kate Burvish:

Reports should separate placement speed, housing retention, returns, emergency-service use, housing costs and service costs. They should identify whether people received permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing, transitional housing or another model. A cost per enrollee is not a cost per person housed for two years, and savings to one agency may shift costs to hospitals, jails or local governments. Permanent supportive housing is often estimated near $23,000 per person annually, but costs vary substantially.

Priya Merlan:

Medical reporting should include treatment engagement, psychiatric symptoms, substance-use outcomes, quality of life, income where appropriate and safety. Follow-up should extend beyond six months. It should also distinguish someone who never received a suitable offer, someone who declined a particular offer, someone who never leased up, and someone who lost housing after move-in. Different problems require different responses.

Sofia Jadler:

The public should ask what each number represents. A precise VA estimate can be useful without being national. A randomized trial can offer stronger causal evidence while studying a narrow group. Eligibility rules, evidence quality, follow-up period and the definition of return belong in the headline, not a footnote.

Red Velhouse:

The evidence supports a narrower conclusion than either slogan. People generally enter homelessness through unaffordable housing, eviction, income disruption and weak safety nets, with domestic violence, disability, health problems, legal concerns and institutional discharge shaping risk. Housing First reliably improves the immediate housing outcome: access and stability. It does not reliably cure addiction, eliminate psychiatric symptoms, create employment or increase earned income. Some people cannot obtain or retain housing because a suitable unit is unavailable, the offer does not fit their needs, illness or addiction disrupts tenancy, legal problems lead to incarceration, or the available arrangement cannot be accepted. A defined VA analysis reported returns to a VA homeless program of 5.8 percent within six months, 10.2 percent within one year and 16.7 percent within two years among the veterans it studied. Those figures are not a universal Housing First rate. The practical policy is additive: preserve permanent housing for people who need it, pair it with accessible and sometimes intensive treatment, and invest in prevention, rental assistance, eviction defense and affordable supply. Sources and references for this discussion are available with the episode at Factolio.com.

---

Sources and References

These sources supported the factual material used in this discussion. Factolio’s panel discussion is AI-generated from researched evidence and is written in original language.

1. National Library of Medicine / Lancet Public Health — A comprehensive review of prioritised interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of persons with lived experience of homelessness (PRIMARY)
2. The Lancet Public Health — Effectiveness of permanent supportive housing and income assistance interventions for homeless individuals in high-income countries: a systematic review (PRIMARY)
3. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health / BMJ — Effects of Housing First approaches on health and well-being of adults who are homeless or at risk of homelessness: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (PRIMARY)
4. Campbell Collaboration / Campbell Systematic Reviews — Effectiveness of interventions to reduce homelessness: a systematic review and meta-analysis (PRIMARY)
5. HUD User — HUD-VASH Exit Study — Final Report (PRIMARY)
6. HUD User — Predicting Staying in or Leaving Permanent Supportive Housing That Serves Homeless People with Serious Mental Illness (PRIMARY)
7. National Library of Medicine — Housing Retention in Single-Site Housing First for Chronically Homeless Individuals With Severe Alcohol Problems (PRIMARY)