As the Trump administration moves to overhaul federal homelessness policies, advocates warn that the proposed changes could have devastating consequences, potentially leaving thousands without access to vital housing and support services.
The Continuum of Care (CoC) program, the federal government’s flagship initiative to address homelessness, has long been hailed as a success story. By prioritizing a “housing-first” approach that focuses on rapidly placing individuals in permanent supportive housing, the program has helped over 100,000 Americans per year get off the streets and on a path to stability.
However, the Trump administration has sought to make sweeping changes to the CoC program, including redirecting the majority of federal housing vouchers away from permanent housing and towards temporary shelters. This shift, which the administration has since partially reversed, could have left an estimated 117,000 people nationwide without access to supportive housing, according to internal HUD documents.
“It has been a massively chaotic and disruptive moment for our organization and all of the local government and non-profit homeless service providers that we partner with,” said Amanda Wehrman, the director of strategy and evaluation at Hombase, a non-profit that provides technical assistance to many CoC programs.
The proposed changes have sown widespread confusion and uncertainty, with many jurisdictions facing the prospect of running out of funding in the coming months. Jonathan Russell, director of Alameda County’s housing and homelessness services, warns that the policy shifts could significantly increase homelessness, costs to local communities, and the suffering of the county’s most vulnerable residents.
Advocates argue that the administration’s claims that “housing-first” policies are not working are simply not supported by the evidence. Studies have shown that permanent supportive housing is significantly more cost-effective than relying on shelters or emergency services, with higher retention rates and better outcomes for those who have been housed.
“Blaming housing-first for not solving homelessness is like blaming alternative energies for failing to mitigate climate change when it’s actually just the scale at which we’ve done it that’s the problem,” said Russell.
For individuals like Shawn Pleasant, who spent a decade living on the streets of Los Angeles before receiving a Section 8 voucher, the prospect of losing access to these vital programs is deeply concerning. Pleasant, who now advocates for others through the Lived Experience Advisory Board of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, fears that he could be among those slated for eviction should the funding changes become permanent.
“I can’t think of anything more damaging than to take people that are on the path to having their lives under control again and place them back on the street,” he said. “I don’t know if I’ll be able to do the work that I do from the street, from my laptop out of a tent.”
As the legal battles over the administration’s proposed changes continue to play out, the future of federal homelessness policy remains uncertain. But for those on the front lines of the crisis, the stakes could not be higher.