Trump is on track to ditch a time-tested approach to combating homelessness | The Project 2025 plan called to end “housing-first” policies.

The author, Rachel Cohen, also wrote on Bluesky:

>And to give people dignifying stable housing options, **we need to build a lot more housing and fast**.

[https://bsky.app/profile/rachelmcohen.bsky.social/post/3ljsfrlfwuk2e](https://bsky.app/profile/rachelmcohen.bsky.social/post/3ljsfrlfwuk2e)

Extract:

>By January 27, the Office of Management and Budget had imposed an across-the-board grant freeze affecting [$3.6 billion](https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/housing/2025/01/17/housing-and-urban-development-continuum-of-care-program–3-6-billion) in previously approved homelessness funding. Though a federal judge ordered this freeze lifted, many homeless service providers still haven’t received the money. Earlier this week more than 50 Democrats [sent a letter](https://scottpeters.house.gov/2025/3/rep-peters-leads-colleagues-in-demanding-hud-release-funding-for-vital-homeless-services) urging HUD to release these congressionally appropriated funds…

>At the heart of the debate is a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes success in addressing homelessness. For housing-first advocates, stable housing is both the primary goal and the foundation for addressing other issues. Critics, however, argue that simply being housed without improvements in health or substance use doesn’t represent real progress.

>This philosophical divide shapes how both sides interpret research on housing-first’s effectiveness. Critics like Judge Glock, an alumnus of the Cicero Institute who now directs research at the Manhattan Institute, point to studies from the [National Academies of Science](https://www.csh.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/25133.pdf) and [The Lancet](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(20)30055-4/fulltext) that found limited evidence of improved health outcomes among housing-first participants.

>Proponents like Margot Kushel from the University of California San Francisco’s Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative see the debate differently. “Housing-first is not and has never been ‘housing only,’” she told Vox. “Rather, it describes a strategy that best pairs housing with services in the most efficient way possible.” She argues that the voluntary nature of housing-first makes it successful by helping preserve client dignity and autonomy while increasing the odds that people actually embrace and stick with treatment.

The modern Republican Party really seems to look at every single problem, only to choose “the definitely worst option” as its policy approach. Riveting stuff.