New Study Finds “Housing First” Less Effective Than Advocates Claim

“Housing First” has been oversold as a solution to homelessness and cost-saving measure for taxpayers

NEW YORK, NY — As the Covid-19 crisis leaves homeless populations in cities across the country exposed to serious risks, a new report evaluates the past two decades of government homelessness policy, finding that it has done little to reduce the number of homeless on city streets. Manhattan Institute senior fellow Stephen Eide analyzes how the policy known as “Housing First” came to dominate the American response to homelessness and how effective it has been. 

Housing First has been the guiding principle of government responses to homelessness for the past two decades and is defined by two chief tenets: (1) the most effective solution to homelessness is permanent housing; and (2) all housing for the homeless should be provided immediately, without any preconditions, such as sobriety requirements. Proponents claim that Housing First has been “proven” to be able to end homelessness. But the implementation of Housing First in places like California has failed even to arrest the increase of homelessness. According to Eide, proponents of this approach have overstated the evidence behind Housing First’s ability to end homelessness, the policy’s cost-effectiveness, and its ability to improve the lives of the homeless.

The report’s key findings include:

• Housing First has not been shown to be effective in ending homelessness at the community level, but rather, only for individuals.
• A Housing First intervention for a small segment of “high utilizer” homeless people may save taxpayers money. But making Housing First the organizing principle of homeless services systems, as urged by many advocates, will not save taxpayers money.
• Housing is not the same as treatment. Housing First’s record at addressing behavioral health disorders, such as untreated serious mental illness and drug addiction, is far weaker than its record at promoting residential stability.
• Housing First’s record at promoting employment and addressing social isolation for the homeless is also weaker than its record at promoting residential stability.

Click here to read the full report.