Ending Federal Housing First Funding Could Push US Homelessness Up by 5% in Just One Year
A new public health study is raising serious concerns about what could happen if the United States pulls federal funding from Housing First programs, one of the country’s most widely used approaches to addressing homelessness. According to researchers, ending this support could result in tens of thousands of additional people becoming homeless in a single year, placing even greater strain on already stretched local systems.
The study, published in JAMA Health Forum, was conducted by researchers from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and examines the short-term effects of eliminating federal funding for key housing programs. Their conclusion is direct and unsettling: removing this support could lead to a roughly 5% increase in homelessness nationwide within just one year.
What Are Housing First Programs and Why Do They Matter?
Housing First programs are built on a straightforward idea: provide stable housing first, without requiring sobriety, treatment participation, or other preconditions. Once people have a place to live, they are better positioned to address health issues, substance use, employment, and other challenges.
These programs have been a cornerstone of U.S. homelessness policy since federal pilot initiatives began in 2003. Over time, they have gained widespread adoption because research consistently shows they improve housing stability and reduce reliance on emergency medical care, hospitals, and shelters.
The study focuses on two major federally funded Housing First models:
- Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH): Long-term housing combined with ongoing support services, typically serving people with chronic homelessness, disabilities, or complex medical needs.
- Rapid Rehousing (RRH): Short-term rental assistance and services designed to help people exit homelessness quickly and stabilize their housing situation.
Both programs rely heavily on federal discretionary funding, making them especially vulnerable to policy changes.
Why This Study Was Conducted Now
The research was prompted by a July 2025 Executive Order that aimed to eliminate discretionary federal spending on Housing First programs. With such a significant policy shift on the table, the researchers set out to quantify what the immediate consequences might look like.
Rather than speculating, the team used the best available national data to model how homelessness numbers would change over a one-year period under different funding scenarios. Their approach focused on short-term impacts, not long-term projections, meaning the estimates may actually understate the full consequences.
The Numbers Behind the Warning
The findings are detailed and specific, breaking down the effects of different funding cuts:
- Complete elimination of Housing First funding would result in an estimated 44,590 additional people experiencing homelessness in one year. This represents about a 5% increase compared to 2024 levels.
- Ending funding for Permanent Supportive Housing while keeping Rapid Rehousing would lead to approximately 13,210 additional people becoming homeless.
- Ending funding for Rapid Rehousing while keeping Permanent Supportive Housing would result in about 38,890 additional people experiencing homelessness.
These figures highlight an important distinction: while both programs matter, Rapid Rehousing plays a particularly large role in preventing people from falling back into homelessness after an initial crisis.
How the Researchers Reached These Estimates
The study used a decision-analytic model that incorporated multiple real-world factors, including:
- People exiting housing programs
- Rates of relapse back into homelessness
- Loss of housing units without replacement funding
- Increased entries into homelessness due to reduced support
- Annual mortality rates among people experiencing homelessness
By accounting for these elements, the model aimed to reflect how housing systems actually function, rather than assuming ideal conditions.
The researchers emphasized that these projections reflect only one year of impact and do not include longer-term effects such as worsening health outcomes, increased public costs, or generational consequences.
Pressure on Local Communities and Health Systems
One of the key concerns raised by the study is how quickly the effects would be felt. Housing First programs often serve as the final safety net for people with complex medical, behavioral, and social needs. When that support disappears, people don’t simply vanish from the system—they often end up cycling through emergency rooms, shelters, jails, and temporary housing.
Hospitals and local governments are likely to face increased pressure almost immediately. Emergency services, already operating at capacity in many regions, would need to absorb the fallout from higher homelessness levels without the preventative buffer these programs provide.
Why the Study Likely Underestimates the Harm
The authors are clear that their findings represent a conservative estimate. The model does not attempt to measure:
- Long-term increases in chronic homelessness
- Higher public spending on emergency healthcare and law enforcement
- Worsening mental health and mortality outcomes
- Impacts on rural versus urban communities over time
Because of this, the true cost of eliminating Housing First funding could be substantially higher than what the one-year projections show.
What Previous Research Says About Housing First
Beyond this study, decades of research support the effectiveness of Housing First programs. Multiple national and international evaluations have found that:
- Permanent Supportive Housing significantly improves housing retention, especially for people with chronic homelessness
- Participants in Housing First programs tend to use fewer emergency medical services, lowering overall public costs
- Stable housing creates better conditions for addressing mental health, substance use, and employment challenges
While Housing First is not a cure-all for homelessness, it remains one of the most evidence-backed strategies currently in use.
The Bigger Policy Question
At its core, this research forces policymakers to confront a basic trade-off. Reducing federal spending on housing assistance may yield short-term budget savings, but the study suggests it would also result in immediate and measurable increases in homelessness.
Those increases don’t stay isolated. They ripple outward into healthcare systems, local governments, nonprofits, and communities—often at a higher cost than the housing programs themselves.
Why This Matters Right Now
Homelessness in the United States has already been trending upward in recent years, driven by housing shortages, rising rents, and economic instability. Against that backdrop, the study serves as a warning that policy decisions can rapidly accelerate the problem rather than contain it.
The findings don’t argue that Housing First is perfect or that programs can’t be improved. Instead, they underline a simpler point: removing housing support without a proven alternative carries real and immediate consequences.
Research Reference:
JAMA Health Forum (2025). Potential Changes in US Homelessness by Ending Federal Support for Housing First Programs. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.5747
