For over two decades, I have worked within the Housing First framework and co-authored a book tracing its evolution into federal policy. I have also watched homelessness metastasize into the crisis visible today and helped produce the very estimates HUD uses to argue that Housing First has fallen short.
The numbers are grim and reflect what Americans see on their streets. But the diagnosis offered by HUD Secretary Scott Turner in his recent op-ed is incomplete.
The administration is correct that people experiencing homelessness need more than just keys to an apartment. Stable housing is essential, but so is access to mental health care, substance use treatment, and the support systems that help people rebuild their lives. Most everyone agrees on this. Yet any serious assessment must also note the glaring absence of affordable housing in Turner's piece.
According to HUD's own data, federal rental assistance reaches fewer than one in four eligible households, leaving over 6 million Americans on waiting lists. This is not a failure of Housing First; it is the accumulated result of decades of political choices. In 1979, Congress funded 55,000 new public housing units; by 1984, that number had dropped to zero. Federal housing assistance has since fallen from 2.2 percent of the total federal budget in 1980 to 0.8 percent today, reflecting decisions made by both parties.
Blaming rising homelessness primarily on a service model overstates what any model can achieve in the face of a housing supply crisis. People cannot be housed when there is no affordable place to put them. The solution is not to restructure housing policy but to coordinate across agencies. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration are equipped to provide clinical care; HUD should be working with them, not around them.
We have seen this work. The partnership between HUD and the Department of Veterans Affairs, pairing housing vouchers with VA clinical services, has driven a 56 percent decline in veteran homelessness since 2010, even as overall homelessness surged. Research shows each voucher under that program reduced the number of homeless veterans by one. That happened because housing was paired with clinical infrastructure from another federal agency. That is the model worth scaling.
Faith-based organizations have always been part of this work. Long before modern homeless systems existed, congregations built community and walked alongside people in recovery. The strongest programs today bring faith communities, clinical providers, and housing together. That partnership should be expanded and resourced, not offered as a substitute for stable housing.
The upcoming 2026 Continuum of Care Program Notice of Funding Opportunity moves toward transitional housing and treatment-compliance requirements. Yet randomized controlled trials in the U.S. and Canada consistently show worse housing outcomes under these approaches than under Housing First. A change in federal policy on that basis demands a serious public engagement with the research. Why has that not happened?
We all want the same outcome: people recovering, living independently, rebuilding their lives. The evidence points clearly to how to get there. The path is a well-resourced Housing First approach, paired with clinical and social services, alongside sustained federal investment in affordable housing. As HUD shifts its homeless policy, it risks ignoring the root cause of the crisis. And as Congress tinkers with flawed housing bills, it misses the central issue: without enough affordable units, no model can succeed.
