Notice2026-18555
Notice of Research Justifying Additional Incentives for Certain Activities To Reduce Homelessness
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 11, 2026
Issuing agencies
Housing and Urban Development Department
Abstract
This notice seeks public comment on activities HUD proposes to incent through the Continuum of Care (CoC) program. These activities are proven to be effective at reducing homelessness or preventing homelessness, and HUD invites public comment on these proposed activities before incenting communities to adopt them as part of their CoC funding applications.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 175 (Friday, September 11, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 175 (Friday, September 11, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57901-57915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-18555]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR-6628-N-01]
Notice of Research Justifying Additional Incentives for Certain
Activities To Reduce Homelessness
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and
Development, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice seeks public comment on activities HUD proposes to
incent through the Continuum of Care (CoC) program. These activities
are proven to be effective at reducing homelessness or preventing
homelessness, and HUD invites public comment on these proposed
activities before incenting communities to adopt them as part of their
CoC funding applications.
DATES: Comments are due October 13, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
[[Page 57902]]
this notice. All submissions must refer to the docket number and title.
There are two methods for submitting public comments:
1. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit
comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
2. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by
mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department
of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20410.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudette Fernandez, General Deputy
Assistant Secretary, Office of Community Planning and Development,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW,
Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-708-4300. (This is not a toll-free
number.) HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals
who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech and
communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an
accessible telephone call, please visit <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs">https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs</a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose
The Continuum of Care (CoC) Program is authorized by subtitle C of
title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11381
et seq.) (``the Act''). The purpose of this notice is to set forth
HUD's determination regarding bonuses and other incentives for
activities for the CoC Program in section 428 of the Act (42 U.S.C.
11386b).
Section 428(d)(1) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 11386b(d)(1)) authorizes
the Secretary to provide bonuses or other incentives to geographic
using CoC Program funds for activities ``proven to be effective at
reducing homelessness generally, reducing homelessness for a specific
subpopulation, or achieving homeless prevention and independent living
goals.'' Section 428(d)(2) provides that, ``[f]or purposes of this
subsection, activities that have been proven to be effective . . .
include[ ]'' permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing services,
short-term flexible subsidies to overcome barriers to rehousing,
support services concentrating on improving incomes to pay rent,
coupled with performance measures emphasizing rapid and permanent
rehousing and with leveraging funding from mainstream family service
systems, and ``any other activity determined by the Secretary, based on
research and after notice and comment to the public, to have been
proven effective at reducing homelessness.''
On August 7, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Rhode Island held that HUD could not issue its FY 2026 Continuum of
Care Competition and Youth Homeless Demonstration Program Grants Notice
of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) without going through notice and comment
under section 421(d)(2)(C) to establish a set-aside for transitional
housing and ``supportive services only'' projects. See Memorandum and
Order, Washington v. HUD, 1:26-cv-436 (D.R.I. Aug. 7, 2026); Memorandum
and Order, National Alliance to End Homelessness v. HUD, 1:26-cv-439
(D.R.I. Aug. 7, 2026). HUD does not concede the lawfulness of those
orders here, either implicitly or otherwise, and fully stands by its
ability to implement all of the parts of its 2026 NOFO without going
through notice and comment. HUD is publishing this notice to reinforce
its ability to establish the set-aside and to add another means of
promoting sound policies on specific services and program components
such as supportive services and transitional housing.
The bonuses and incentives contemplated in section 428(d) are a
subset of the allowable tools HUD has to issue set-asides, bonus
awards, scoring criteria, certifications, and other competitive
advantages that allow HUD to implement sound policies to further
Congress's directive that HUD award grants ``on a competitive basis''
in furtherance of a ``national competition.'' Section 422 of the Act
(42 U.S.C. 11382(a)); section 427(a) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 11386a(a));
see also section 427(b)(1)(G) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 11386a(b)(1)(G))
(allowing the Secretary of HUD to require ``such other factors . . . to
carry this part in an effective and efficient manner'').
Generally, HUD uses these tools to ensure ``compliance with the
program requirements . . . [and] selection criteria'' in sections 426
and 427 of the Act, and to ``establish priorities for funding projects
in the geographic area involved.'' Section 403 of the Act (42 U.S.C.
11360a(f)(B)). HUD maintains that its set-asides, threshold criteria,
merit criteria, certifications, and other challenged parts of the 2026
NOFO are lawful and not best characterized as bonuses or incentives
under section 428(d) and (e) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 11386b(d), (e)).
Nevertheless, HUD wishes to move forward with this notice identifying
particular activities that are proven to be effective.
This notice announces specific activities the Secretary proposes to
incentivize and makes available for notice and comment the research HUD
is relying on in support of its determination that these activities are
proven effective at reducing homelessness. HUD will review the public
comments received and then, following the comment period, HUD will
either publish revisions to the determination based on consideration of
comments, or, if HUD determines that no revisions are needed, then HUD
will adopt these determinations as part of future CoC funding
opportunities.
Consistent with the statutory framework established by Congress,
HUD seeks to ensure that communities utilize a balance of approaches
and have access to the full range of eligible interventions authorized
under the CoC Program. Ultimately, HUD aims to provide communities with
greater flexibility to address local conditions, and advance the
statutory goals of reducing homelessness, optimizing self-sufficiency,
and minimizing trauma to homeless individuals and the community.
Determination
HUD has determined that the following activities constitute proven
effective activities for purposes of section 428(d):
<bullet> Transitional housing with supportive services
concentrating on improving employment income and meeting behavioral
healthcare needs for homeless individuals and families, particularly
for homeless youth, families, and survivors of domestic violence,
including dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
<bullet> Supportive services for homeless individuals and families
concentrating on improving employment income, meeting healthcare needs,
treating substance use disorder and mental illness, and addressing
barriers to self-sufficiency and housing through the provision of
supportive services in housing, shelter, a standalone facility, or
through street outreach.
<bullet> Supportive service participation agreements to engage
program participants in unique, individualized services tailored to
their needs and goals.
<bullet> Housing that supports treatment and recovery for homeless
individuals with a substance use disorder or in recovery from a
substance use disorder by providing drug-free housing, sober housing,
and on-site behavioral healthcare and recovery support services.
[[Page 57903]]
<bullet> Coordination with law enforcement and first responders as
crucial partners in addressing homelessness.
Transitional Housing, Supportive Services Only projects, and
supportive services are existing eligible CoC costs and program
components under 24 CFR 578.53 and 578.37(a)(2) and (3). Supportive
service participation agreements and sober housing are existing
eligible CoC models of service under 24 CFR 578.75(h) and 578.93(b)(5).
As such, this determination does not establish new CoC Program
components, create new eligible activities, or expand HUD's statutory
authority. Rather, it reflects the Secretary's exercise of authority
expressly provided by Congress to identify, based on research and after
notice and comment, additional proven effective strategies under
section 428(d)(2)(C).
Background
The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act established the CoC
program to:
1. Promote community-wide commitment to the goal of ending
homelessness;
2. Provide funding for efforts by nonprofit providers and State and
local governments to quickly rehouse homeless individuals and families
while minimizing the trauma and dislocation caused to individuals,
families, and communities by homelessness;
3. Promote access to, and effective utilization of, mainstream
programs described in section 203(a)(7) of the Act (42 U.S.C.
11313(a)(7)) and programs funded with State or local resources; and
4. Optimize self-sufficiency among individuals and families
experiencing homelessness.
Congress recognized that homelessness has many causes and affects
varying subpopulations with unique needs. In establishing the program,
Congress found that ``the causes of homelessness are many and complex''
and that ``there is no single, simple solution to the problem of
homelessness because of the different subpopulations of the homeless,
the different causes of and reasons for homelessness, and the different
needs of homeless individuals.'' Section 102 of the Act (42 U.S.C.
11301).
Consistent with this understanding, Congress authorized a range of
program components and intervention strategies under the CoC program.
HUD's regulations identify five eligible project components: Permanent
Housing, including Permanent Supportive Housing and Rapid Re-Housing;
Transitional Housing; Supportive Services Only; Homeless Management
Information Systems; and Homelessness Prevention (24 CFR 578.37(a)).
Together, these components were intended to create a balanced continuum
of assistance.
Transitional Housing and Supportive Services, two of the five
components, are neither new nor marginal activities. They are
longstanding components of the Federal response to homelessness and
have been funded through HUD homelessness assistance programs for
decades. Transitional Housing is housing intended to facilitate the
movement of individuals and families experiencing homelessness to
permanent housing within 24 months or such longer period as the
Secretary determines necessary. Section 401(31) of the Act (42 U.S.C.
11360(31)). By providing temporary housing and stability, Transitional
Housing is intended to assist individuals and families in achieving and
maintaining permanent housing, including market rate housing.
Supportive services are services that address the special needs of
people served by a project and include childcare, job training,
outpatient health services, case management, and other services
necessary to obtain and maintain housing. Section 401(29) of the Act
(42 U.S.C. 11360(29)). Under HUD's regulation, Supportive Services Only
projects provide such services to unsheltered and sheltered homeless
persons without providing housing or housing assistance through the
project and may include street outreach activities. Supportive Services
Only projects may also utilize eligible funds for facilities from which
supportive services are provided, allowing communities to connect
homeless individuals and families with services designed to promote
housing stability and self-sufficiency.
Transitional Housing was incorporated into the Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 through HUD's Supportive Housing
Demonstration Program, and HUD began funding transitional housing,
permanent supportive housing, and related supportive services through
that program in the late 1980s. In 1992, Congress made the program
permanent as the Supportive Housing Program.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urb. Dev., Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Programs (Dec. 12, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The period beginning in 1994 also reflected changes in Federal
assistance policy. In 1994, HUD began developing the CoC concept, and
in 1996, began requiring communities to submit Supportive Housing
Program applications through the CoC process. Separately, the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 replaced
Aid to Families with Dependent Children with Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families, emphasizing work and time-limited assistance.\2\ During
the period that followed, transitional housing continued to be funded
through the CoC Program and expanded substantially. HUD reports that
approximately 4,400 transitional housing programs were operating in
1996, providing approximately 160,000 beds. By 2007, nearly 7,300
transitional housing programs were operating, providing approximately
211,000 beds.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., Off. of the Assistant
Sec'y for Planning & Evaluation, The Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Aug. 1996).
\3\ Martha R. Burt, Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless
Families (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office
of Policy Development and Research 2010), at xvi, <a href="https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pdf/LifeAfterTransition.pdf">https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pdf/LifeAfterTransition.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HEARTH Act of 2009 revised and consolidated federal
homelessness assistance programs and established the current CoC
Program framework. That year, 36 percent of the national CoC award went
to Transitional Housing or Supportive Services Only projects.\4\
Beginning with the 2013 CoC NOFO, HUD dramatically de-prioritized
Transitional Housing and Supportive Services Only projects. In recent
NOFOs, HUD's funding competition has effectively not allowed any new
Transitional Housing or Supportive Services Only projects.\5\ In 2024,
only 6 percent of the national award went to Transitional Housing or
Supportive Services Only projects, compared with 36 percent in 2009.\6\
Since 2013, the nationwide supply of Permanent Housing (Permanent
Supportive Housing and Rapid Re-Housing) has increased 100 percent.
During the same time, the nationwide supply of
[[Page 57904]]
Transitional Housing decreased 59.7 percent.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urb. Dev., HUD's 2009 CoC Assistance
Programs Funding Awards--National 2009 (2009), <a href="https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_AwardComp_NatlTerrDC_2009.pdf">https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_AwardComp_NatlTerrDC_2009.pdf</a>.
\5\ Recent NOFOs had no threshold criteria for Transitional
Housing or Supportive Services Only projects other than Coordinated
Entry, meaning no new Transitional Housing or Supportive Services
Only projects were eligible for funding. See U.S. Dep't of Hous. &
Urb. Dev., Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for Fiscal Year (FY)
2024 and FY 2025 Continuum of Care Competition and Renewal or
Replacement of Youth Homeless Demonstration Program Grants, No. FR-
6800-N-25, at 60-63 (July 31, 2024),
\6\ U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urb. Dev., CoC Award Competition
National, Territories, and DC 2024 (2024), <a href="https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_AwardComp_NatlTerrDC_2024.pdf">https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_AwardComp_NatlTerrDC_2024.pdf</a>.
\7\ U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urb. Dev., The 2025 Annual
Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress: Part 1: Point-in-
Time Estimates of Homelessness (May 2026), <a href="https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2025-AHAR-Part-1.pdf">https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2025-AHAR-Part-1.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The systematic defunding of Transitional Housing and Supportive
Services Only projects can be attributed to HUD's 2013 implementation
of a policy approach, generally referred to as ``Housing First.'' While
definitions of the policy and its implementation differ, HUD has
consistently described Housing First as ``rapid placement and stability
in permanent housing in which admission does not have preconditions . .
. and in which housing assistance is not conditioned upon participation
in services.'' \8\ In practice, HUD's implementation of the policy drew
emphasis away from robust supportive services that were tied even to
early iterations of the Housing First model, and replaced them with a
single-minded focus on retention of housing subsidy.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., Notice of Funding
Opportunity (NOFO) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 and FY 2025 Continuum
of Care Competition, No. FR-6800-N-25, 17 (July 31, 2024), <a href="https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/CPD/documents/CoC/Foa_Content_of_FR-6800-N-25_1-9-download.pdf">https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/CPD/documents/CoC/Foa_Content_of_FR-6800-N-25_1-9-download.pdf</a>.
\9\ Covenant House Int'l, National Network for Youth & School
House Connection, ``To Become the Best Version of Myself'': Youth-
Supportive Transitional Housing Programs as An Essential Resource
for Addressing Youth Homelessness 23 (2021), <a href="https://www.covenanthouse.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/Transitional-Housing.pdf">https://www.covenanthouse.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/Transitional-Housing.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD's implementation of Housing First since 2013 has funded
Permanent Housing to the exclusion of Transitional Housing and
Supportive Services Only projects, and mandated ``fidelity'' to the
Housing First model within CoC-funded projects.\10\ While proponents
claimed that Housing First would end all types of homelessness by 2020,
the approach has profoundly failed to deliver on its promises.\11\
After focusing on permanently subsidized housing with no conditions for
more than a decade, homelessness reached the highest number ever
recorded at the highest rate of increase ever recorded in 2024.\12\
There are more people today than ever before who are dependent on
indefinitely subsidized housing for homelessness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Off. of Cmty. Planning & Dev., U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urb.
Dev., Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024
and FY 2025 Continuum of Care Competition and Renewal or Replacement
of Youth Homeless Demonstration Program Grants 86 (2024), <a href="https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/CPD/documents/CoC/Foa_Content_of_FR-6800-N-25_1-9-download.pdf">https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/CPD/documents/CoC/Foa_Content_of_FR-6800-N-25_1-9-download.pdf</a>.
\11\ Tina Trenkner, Are Cities' Pledges to End Homelessness
Working?, Governing (Mar. 26, 2012), <a href="https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-homelessness-rising-decade-after-pledges-to-end-it.html">https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-homelessness-rising-decade-after-pledges-to-end-it.html</a>.
\12\ 2025 AHAR, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress was clear that the ``causes of homelessness are many and
complex'' and has no singular solution. Section 102(a) of the Act (42
U.S.C. 11301(a)). Consistent with this understanding, HUD finds that an
exclusive focus on permanent housing, paired with HUD's 2013 Housing
First mandate, has failed to adequately address this reality.
More than a decade since the enactment of the HEARTH and the
Housing First policy shift, homelessness trends and stakeholder
experience have prompted renewed examination of the role of the full
range of interventions authorized under the Act.
The 2009 HEARTH Act requires the Secretary to ``provide bonuses or
other incentives to geographic areas for using funding under this part
for activities that have been proven to be effective at reducing
homelessness generally, reducing homelessness for a specific
subpopulation, or achieving homeless prevention and independent living
goals.'' Section 428(d)(1) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 11386b(d)(1)). Section
428(d)(2) further provides that, ``[f]or purposes of this subsection,
activities that have been proven to be effective . . . includes'':
<bullet> Permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless
individuals.
<bullet> For homeless families, rapid rehousing services, short-
term flexible subsidies to overcome barriers to rehousing, support
services concentrating on improving incomes to pay rent, coupled with
performance measures emphasizing rapid and permanent rehousing and with
leveraging funding from mainstream family service systems such as
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Child Welfare services.
<bullet> Any other activity determined by the Secretary, based on
research and after notice and comment, to have been proven effective at
reducing homelessness generally, reducing homelessness among a specific
subpopulation, or achieving homeless prevention and independent living
goals.
More than fifteen years after enactment of the HEARTH Act, HUD now
has access to substantially more data, research, and program experience
than was available when the current policy framework was first
implemented. HUD has therefore undertaken a review of available
evidence concerning the effectiveness of Transitional Housing,
supportive services, participation requirements, recovery-oriented
housing models, and related interventions.
HUD's investment in Permanent Supportive Housing, to the exclusion
of other forms of assistance--including robust wraparound services--and
other subpopulations, has not led to a reduction in chronic
homelessness. Instead, chronic homelessness has increased 80.5 percent
since 2013 to the highest number on record despite a 44 percent
increase nationwide in Permanent Supportive Housing beds during the
same period. Chronic homelessness is not the only subpopulation for
which the ``proven effective strategies'' have yet to prove effective.
Family homelessness has increased 4 percent, unsheltered homelessness
has increased 36 percent, and homelessness generally has increased 27
percent even as the supply of Permanent Supportive Housing has
increased 44 percent.\13\ These outcomes underscore the need for
additional strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 2025 AHAR, supra note 5, at 1, 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanent Supportive Housing and re-housing services for families
are not tied to a Housing First approach in statute. Rather, HUD finds
that both have failed to prove effective when implemented to the
exclusion of other types of assistance and services, especially those
proven to be effective for populations that are able to regain self-
sufficiency. Further, HUD finds that the implementation of the 2009
activities has not adequately furthered the independent living goals
established in section 428(d)(1) of the Act. That provision states that
``the Secretary shall provide bonuses . . . for activities that have
been proven to be effective at . . . achieving homeless prevention and
independent living goals as set forth in section 427(b)(1)(F).'' The
independent living goals set forth in section 427(b)(1)(F) are for
homeless youth and families with children and include addressing:
<bullet> Chronic disabilities;
<bullet> Chronic physical health or mental health conditions;
<bullet> Substance use disorder;
<bullet> Histories of domestic violence or childhood abuse; and
<bullet> Barriers to employment.
HUD finds that these goals require interventions beyond permanent
housing assistance alone. Employment-focused services, behavioral
health services, substance use disorder treatment, recovery support
services, participation agreements tailored to individual needs, and
transitional housing assistance can address barriers to self-
sufficiency and independent living in ways that an exclusive focus on
permanent housing assistance
[[Page 57905]]
cannot. Recognizing these interventions as proven effective strategies
will help advance the independent living goals identified by Congress
and encourage communities to utilize a broader range of authorized
interventions tailored to local needs and individual circumstances.
HUD acknowledges that a select subpopulation of homeless
individuals are unlikely to regain self-sufficiency or independence and
may require long-term assistance. However, there are countless
individuals who, with supportive services and transitional housing, can
become self-sufficient, and who deserve the opportunity to do so. HUD's
past focus on permanently subsidized housing without conditions has
failed to afford them that opportunity, and in doing so, has caused
tremendous harm to vulnerable Americans.
For these reasons, HUD intends to implement the existing statutory
strategies consistent with their original intents. Consistent with that
goal, HUD is identifying activities that have been proven effective at
reducing homelessness generally, reducing homelessness for a specific
subpopulation, or achieving homeless prevention and independent living
goals listed above.
The research supporting the Secretary's determination draws on HUD
administrative data, external research and evaluations, published
studies, program experience, and stakeholder feedback. HUD's review of
this evidence demonstrates that these activities warrant recognition as
proven effective strategies under section 428(d)(2)(C). The stakeholder
perspectives and research discussed below describe the evidence
considered by HUD and are being made available for public review and
comment consistent with section 428(d)(2)(C).
Stakeholder Perspectives And Feedback
As provided by statute, HUD is making available for notice and
comment the research supporting its determination that the activities
discussed below have been proven effective at reducing homelessness and
achieving homeless prevention and independent living goals. In
developing this determination, HUD undertook a preliminary process of
eliciting comments and feedback from stakeholders and considered them
as part of its review. This publication provides further opportunity
for interested parties to submit comments, which HUD will review and
consider upon final publication of this report.
In conducting its review, HUD considered available data and engaged
with stakeholders, including CoC collaborative applicants, CoC
recipients, faith-based organizations, service providers, healthcare
providers, law enforcement, local elected officials, and individuals
with lived experience. Over the last year, HUD hosted 58 homelessness
forums in 32 states, sharing its intended policy direction, listening
to feedback, and answering questions.
HUD also partnered with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA) within the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) and the White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy (ONDCP) to release a Best Practices Toolkit: Addressing
Homelessness and Addiction through ``Treatment First'' \14\ (``Best
Practices Toolkit''). The toolkit draws directly on a three-day White
House summit with leading housing and service providers, law
enforcement officers, medical personnel, addiction and mental health
experts, and individuals with lived experience from across the country.
The toolkit provides an extensively researched set of best practices
for addressing homelessness among those with substance use disorders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urb. Dev., Best Practices Toolkit
(2026), <a href="https://www.hud.gov/sites/default/files/Main/documents/Best-Practices-Toolkit.pdf">https://www.hud.gov/sites/default/files/Main/documents/Best-Practices-Toolkit.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several common themes emerged from HUD's engagement with
stakeholders and informed HUD's review of additional strategies. These
include:
<bullet> The value of and need for supportive services, including
behavioral health services;
<bullet> The difficulty faced by new providers in receiving CoC
funding in a system dominated by renewal projects;
<bullet> The benefits of partnerships with law enforcement and
first responders to engage individuals in crisis with the goal of
connecting them to services;
<bullet> The impact of the fentanyl crisis and substance use
disorders in contributing to the loss of housing, perpetuating
homelessness, and creating barriers to recovery and self-sufficiency;
and
<bullet> The complex nature of underlying causes of homelessness
beyond the loss of housing alone.
HUD does not create policy in a vacuum. In addition to direct
stakeholder engagement, HUD considered developments in state and local
homelessness policy across the country that reflect large-scale shifts
in approaches to homelessness. It is evident that the status quo on
Federal homelessness policy has not resulted in an America with fewer
homeless individuals and families. The opposite is true. HUD and the
Federal Government are far from the first to recognize this reality and
the need for a new approach. Cities and states across the country have
been reevaluating their approaches to homelessness in favor of public
safety, accountability, self-sufficiency, and recovery for those who
need it.
Examples of these policy shifts can be found in jurisdictions
across the nation, including those where Housing First has been the
dominant policy framework. San Francisco, California has increased law
enforcement response to public illicit drug use, invested in housing
conditioned on treatment and sobriety, and recently passed a drug-free
housing ordinance.\15\ California declared increased efforts to remove
homeless encampments across the state.\16\ Portland, Oregon has
implemented a camping ban and invested heavily in short-term shelter
and housing.\17\ Anchorage, Alaska reported eliminating major homeless
encampments for the first time in a decade following investments in
behavioral health treatment and public safety partnerships.\18\ The
mayor of Houston, Texas declared he would be ``reclaiming our public
spaces.'' \19\ Seattle, Washington is making new investments, not in
permanent supportive housing,
[[Page 57906]]
but in shelter.\20\ Multnomah County, Oregon is investing in sobering
centers and recovery beds.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Luz Pena, SF Mayor Signs Legislation for Officers to Arrest
Drug Users, Send Them to RESET Center, ABC7 News (Feb. 17, 2026),
<a href="https://abc7news.com/post/san-francisco-mayor-signs-legislation-police-sheriff-deputies-arrest-drug-users-send-reset-center/18613975/">https://abc7news.com/post/san-francisco-mayor-signs-legislation-police-sheriff-deputies-arrest-drug-users-send-reset-center/18613975/</a>; Mayor Daniel Lurie, Mayor Lurie Signs Legislation To
Expand Drug-Free Permanent Supportive Housing, Building on Progress
of Breaking the Cycle Plan, City & Cnty. of S.F. (Feb. 17, 2026),
<a href="https://www.sf.gov/news-mayor-lurie-signs-legislation-to-expand-drug-free-permanent-supportive-housing-building-on-progress-of-breaking-the-cycle-plan">https://www.sf.gov/news-mayor-lurie-signs-legislation-to-expand-drug-free-permanent-supportive-housing-building-on-progress-of-breaking-the-cycle-plan</a>.
\16\ Marisa Kendall, Newsom Launches Task Force to Clear CA
Homeless Encampments, CalMatters (Aug. 29, 2025), <a href="https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2025/08/newsom-homeless-encampments-task-force/">https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2025/08/newsom-homeless-encampments-task-force/</a>.
\17\ Michaela Bourgeois & Anthony Kustura, Portland Resumes
Homeless Camping Ban Enforcement, Focuses on Connecting Portlanders
with Shelter, KOIN 6 News (Oct. 30, 2025), <a href="https://www.koin.com/news/portland/portland-resumes-homeless-camping-ban-enforcement-focuses-on-connecting-portlanders-with-shelter/">https://www.koin.com/news/portland/portland-resumes-homeless-camping-ban-enforcement-focuses-on-connecting-portlanders-with-shelter/</a>.
\18\ Press Release, Anchorage Assembly, Chair Constant Statement
on Homelessness Milestone (Mar. 3, 2026), <a href="https://www.muni.org/Departments/Assembly/PressReleases/Pages/Chair-Constant-Statement-on-Homelessness-Milestone.aspx">https://www.muni.org/Departments/Assembly/PressReleases/Pages/Chair-Constant-Statement-on-Homelessness-Milestone.aspx</a>.
\19\ Dominic Anthony Walsh, Mayor Whitmire Wants to `End
Homelessness' in Houston This Year. The Effort Faces Challenges,
Houston Public Media (Feb. 28, 2026), <a href="https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/city-of-houston/2026/02/28/544667/homeless-houston-mayor-whitmire-policy/">https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/city-of-houston/2026/02/28/544667/homeless-houston-mayor-whitmire-policy/</a>.
\20\ Stephannie Stokes, Next Homeless Shelter Village in
Wilson's Surge to Be in South Seattle, Seattle Times (May 7, 2026),
<a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/next-homeless-shelter-village-on-wilsons-surge-to-be-in-south-seattle/">https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/next-homeless-shelter-village-on-wilsons-surge-to-be-in-south-seattle/</a>.
\21\ County Investments Add More Than 250 Recovery and
Stabilization Beds, Multnomah Cnty. (Oct. 28, 2024), <a href="https://multco.us/news/county-investments-add-more-250-recovery-and-stabilization-beds">https://multco.us/news/county-investments-add-more-250-recovery-and-stabilization-beds</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Across the country, the intertwined realities of homelessness,
addiction, and mental illness have become increasingly inescapable,
driving communities to reconsider approaches that do not adequately
address these challenges. This has contributed to growing
dissatisfaction among communities and taxpayers with the broader policy
approaches that have shaped the Nation's response to homelessness,\22\
particularly as ever-increasing taxpayer investment has failed to alter
the visible crisis on the streets. The persistence of these conditions
has raised concerns that approaches focused primarily on housing
placement, without addressing underlying behavioral health, substance
use, and other barriers to stability, can leave individuals trapped in
cycles of addiction and homelessness. With the right support, homeless
individuals with addiction and mental illness can recover, achieve
stability, and lead healthy lives in stable housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Will James, Homelessness Continues to Get Worse. Should
Seattle, and the U.S., Still Embrace 'Housing First'?, KUOW (Jan. 8,
2025), <a href="https://www.kuow.org/stories/housing-first-seattle-history-homelessness-homeless">https://www.kuow.org/stories/housing-first-seattle-history-homelessness-homeless</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the largest federal homelessness assistance program, the CoC
Program plays a leading role in shaping homelessness policy across the
nation. The perspectives and experiences shared with HUD reinforce the
need for approaches that address homelessness through a broader range
of interventions, including services, treatment, recovery, and pathways
to self-sufficiency. The research and evidence discussed below further
examine these approaches and provide the evidentiary basis for HUD's
determination.
Research
Transitional Housing With Supportive Services
The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act defines Transitional
Housing as ``housing the purpose of which is to facilitate the movement
of individuals and families experiencing homelessness to permanent
housing within 24 months or such longer period as the Secretary
determines necessary.'' Section 402(31) of the Act (42 U.S.C.
11360(31)). One of the four objectives of the CoC Program is to
``optimize self-sufficiency'' among homeless individuals and families.
Section 421(4) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 11381(4)). This objective is aided
by Transitional Housing, which is one of five eligible project types
under the CoC regulations and is a key component of the continuum of
assistance (24 CFR 578.37) Congress established the Act to address the
``many and complex'' causes of homelessness and serve the ``diverse
needs'' of each continuum's geographic area. Section 102(a)(3) of the
Act (42 U.S.C. 11301(a)(3)).
Transitional Housing is particularly effective in addressing the
needs of subpopulations including homeless youth, families with
children, and survivors of domestic violence (DV), dating violence,
sexual assault, and stalking. Together, these subpopulations make up a
significant subset of the total homeless population.\23\ For these and
other populations, Transitional Housing can provide the time,
stability, and intensive supportive services necessary to address
barriers to employment, health, behavioral health, substance use,
safety, and self-sufficiency while working toward stable housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Unaccompanied youth and people in families with children
accounted for approximately 35 percent of the 2025 Point-in-Time
Count. 2025 AHAR, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD's recognition that Transitional Housing is an effective
strategy is not new. In 2010, a HUD Policy Development and Research
(PD&R) study stated that ``Transitional Housing has been an important
element of the Department's efforts to respond to the housing needs of
homeless families and individuals.'' \24\ Despite being a key feature
of Congress's design and HUD's implementation of the CoC Program, just
three years later, HUD would pivot decisively against Transitional
Housing, shifting resources toward Permanent Housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Burt, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The effect of this policy shift on the availability of Transitional
Housing has been substantial. The national supply of Transitional
Housing has decreased approximately 60 percent since HUD first began
collecting data in 2007.\25\ In HUD's 2013 CoC NOFO, the Department
dramatically de-prioritized Transitional Housing and Supportive
Services Only projects. In recent NOFOs, HUD has effectively not
allowed any new Transitional Housing or Supportive Services Only
projects to compete for funding. Recent NOFOs had no threshold criteria
for Transitional Housing or Supportive Services Only projects other
than Coordinated Entry, meaning no new Transitional Housing or
Supportive Services Only projects were eligible for funding.\26\ Thus,
Housing First very quickly became Housing Only. This historical
divestment from Transitional Housing in favor of Permanent Housing has
left vulnerable individuals without the necessary support and tools to
become self-sufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urb. Dev., CoC Housing Inventory
Count (HIC): National, Territories, and DC 2007 (2007), <a href="https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_HIC_NatlTerrDC_2007.pdf">https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_HIC_NatlTerrDC_2007.pdf</a>.
\26\ See U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urb. Dev., FY 2024 and FY 2025
Continuum of Care Competition and Renewal or Replacement of Youth
Homeless Demonstration Program Grants, 89 FR 61,988 (July 31, 2024),
<a href="https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/CPD/documents/FY2024_FY2025_CoC_and_YHDP_NOFO_FR-6800-N-25.pdf">https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/CPD/documents/FY2024_FY2025_CoC_and_YHDP_NOFO_FR-6800-N-25.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD now has substantially more performance data with which to
assess that policy shift than it did when the shift occurred. The
period from 2007 (when HUD first started collecting PIT count data) to
2013 provided approximately six years of national homelessness data
before HUD began diverting resources away from Transitional Housing.
During those first six years (2007 to 2013), homelessness decreased 8.8
percent. By contrast, during the last 13 years (2013 to 2026) of a
near-exclusive focus on Permanent Housing, homelessness increased 27
percent, rising to highest recorded levels in 2024 and 2025.\27\
Further, since 2013, HUD has chosen to distribute an average of only
5.45 percent of funding to new projects each year, severely limiting
the funds available for new projects in favor of renewal projects.\28\
It is well past time for HUD to recognize that funding Transitional
Housing is a necessary part of the CoC Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 2025 AHAR, supra note 7.
\28\ U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urb. Dev., CoC Award Summary Reports
by Component and Project Type (2007-2024), HUD Exchange (last
visited Sept. 1, 2026), <a href="https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/coc/awards-by-component/">https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/coc/awards-by-component/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The practical consequences of this shift in resources and attention
away from case management and supportive services towards housing
placements and retention were reflected by homelessness providers, one
of which described the change as:
``The [2013] shift in HUD funding to rapid rehousing programs was
seismic for nonprofit organizations providing homeless services at the
local level . . . Following the HUD money, emphasis in the field
shifted to finding landlords willing to take a risk by renting to
referrals from homeless services agencies instead of providing
services.
[[Page 57907]]
Service providers, encouraged by HUD, eliminated case manager positions
and hired housing locators instead.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Covenant House Int'l, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD has found that the exclusion of Transitional Housing and
resulting imbalance in the CoC Program has prevented communities from
executing the core purposes of the program--to reduce homelessness and
optimize self-sufficiency. Transitional Housing should be recognized as
one strategy, among others, to address homelessness and promote
independent living.
A. Transitional Housing for Youth Subpopulation
For subpopulations such as homeless youth, data indicate that
Transitional Housing leads to positive outcomes for housing stability
and employment. Research shows high rates of unemployment among
homeless youth and negative outcomes in safety, stability, and self-
sufficiency associated with unemployment.\30\ A study published in
Social Science and Medicine found that a temporary housing and
supportive services intervention was effective in promoting
stabilization among the young individuals included in the study.\31\
The authors also stated that research shows permanent supportive
housing for homeless youth is ``associated with worse employment
outcomes, probably due to disincentives to work.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Natasha Slesnick, Jing Zhang & Tansel Yilmazer, Employment
and Other Income Sources Among Homeless Youth, 39 J. Primary
Prevention 247, 247-62 (2018), <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-018-0511-1">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-018-0511-1</a>.
\31\ Jing Zhang et al., Housing Stability, Employment, and
Survival Behaviors Among Young Mothers Experiencing Homelessness: A
Randomized Controlled Trial of a Housing Intervention, 366 Soc. Sci.
Med. 117658 (2025), <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117658">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117658</a>.
\32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2016 study published in Pediatrics evaluated outcomes of homeless
youth with mental illness receiving a ``Housing First'' intervention
compared with treatment as usual. Notably, the ``Housing First''
intervention was ``combined with assertive community treatment or
intensive case management,'' which is a level of service uncommon in
CoC housing assistance. Even with that additional service component,
the ``Housing First'' intervention was associated with lower rates of
employment and higher rates of ``leisure''--two measures that do not
indicate progress toward self-sufficiency for working age youth.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Nicole Kozloff et al., ``Housing First'' for Homeless Youth
with Mental Illness, 138 Pediatrics, no. 4, e20161514 (2016),
<a href="https://housingfirst.wp.tri.haus/assets/files/2016/12/HF-for-homeless-youth-with-mental-illness.pdf">https://housingfirst.wp.tri.haus/assets/files/2016/12/HF-for-homeless-youth-with-mental-illness.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence from Transitional Housing programs presents a different
picture. A study by Covenant House International found that among youth
exiting Transitional Housing programs across 15 U.S. cities, 73 percent
exited to stable housing and 69 percent were employed or in school upon
exit. Among youth who remained in Transitional Housing for at least one
year, these percentages increased to 83 percent and 75 percent
respectively.\34\ These outcomes are particularly relevant to the CoC
Program's statutory objective of optimizing self-sufficiency and
underscore the value of pairing housing assistance with supportive
services focused on employment, mental health, substance use treatment,
and recovery in addressing youth homelessness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Covenant House Int'l, supra note 9, at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The continued demand for Transitional Housing among youth is
evident in HUD's program data. Of the limited supply of Transitional
Housing and Supportive Services Only projects that remain in the CoC
Program, a significant portion are dedicated to youth. Nearly 16
percent of Transitional Housing awards and 33 percent of Supportive
Services Only awards in FY24 were youth projects.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ CoC Award Competition 2024, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Transitional Housing for Domestic Violence Survivor Population
For the population of individuals and families impacted by domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, Transitional
Housing is a key tool for providing community and support to recover
and regain self-sufficiency in a safe environment. According to the
2025 National Network to End Domestic Violence National Summary, 71
percent of programs providing services to survivors provided emergency
shelter, while 39 percent provided ``Transitional or Other Housing.''
Nevertheless, demand for temporary housing continued to exceed
available resources, as the majority of unmet requests were for
``emergency shelter, hotels, motels, transitional housing, and other
housing.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Nat'l Network to End Domestic Violence, 20th Annual
Domestic Violence Counts Report: National Summary (2026), <a href="https://nnedv.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/20th-Annual-DV-Counts-Report-National-Summary-FINAL-EN.pdf">https://nnedv.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/20th-Annual-DV-Counts-Report-National-Summary-FINAL-EN.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women
likewise identified ``widespread shortages in emergency shelters,
transitional housing, and long-term affordable housing'' in a January
2025 report.\37\ The report further identified the need for
partnerships with law enforcement and substance use disorder treatment
and recovery programs to ``deliver comprehensive, wraparound services''
for survivors.\38\ These sources indicate that short- to medium-term
shelter and housing assistance, coupled with supportive services,
remains a critical gap in existing resources available to survivors and
their families. For survivors, these documented needs highlight the
importance of preserving access to Transitional Housing as part of a
broader continuum of housing and supportive services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ U.S. Dep't of Just., Off. on Violence Against Women, 30
Years of the Violence Against Women Act: A Legacy and Future of
Safety and Justice 14 (2025), <a href="https://www.justice.gov/ovw/media/1385701/dl?inline">https://www.justice.gov/ovw/media/1385701/dl?inline</a>.
\38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Transitional Housing for Families With Children Subpopulation
For families with children, research, including HUD's Family
Options Study, supports the provision of short- to medium-term housing
assistance paired with robust services.\39\ In a 2025 study published
in Social Science & Medicine, researchers conducted a randomized
controlled trial and evaluated the longitudinal impacts of a
``temporary housing and supportive services'' model compared with
``housing only'' among homeless young mothers.\40\ The study found that
a 3-month temporary housing and supportive services intervention was
``powerful to promote mothers' stabilization'' and produced
consistently positive outcomes in housing, employment, and survival
behaviors compared with ``housing only.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urb. Dev., The Family Options Study,
HUD User, <a href="https://www.huduser.gov/portal/family_options_study.html">https://www.huduser.gov/portal/family_options_study.html</a>.
\40\ Zhang et al., supra note 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar findings in favor of housing paired with supportive
services were found in a 2023 study in the Journal of Substance Abuse
Treatment, which examined outcomes of young homeless mothers with
substance use disorders.\41\ The randomized controlled trial found that
mothers receiving housing paired with supportive services were more
likely to maintain or reduce substance use and increase self-efficacy
compared with mothers receiving housing alone or services as usual.
Together, these findings suggest that supportive services are
particularly important when
[[Page 57908]]
providing housing to young mothers with substance use disorders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Natasha Slesnick et al., Housing and Supportive Services
for Substance Use and Self-Efficacy Among Young Mothers Experiencing
Homelessness: A Randomized Controlled Trial, 144 J. Substance Abuse
Treatment 108917 (2023), <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2022.108917">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2022.108917</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Transitional Housing and Supportive Services Provision
HUD also finds that some of the early concerns that drove the de-
prioritization of Transitional Housing were too narrowly focused on
immediate costs driven by service intensity, rather than on long-term
outcomes those services can deliver. The higher levels of supportive
services provided in Transitional Housing, and the associated costs,
were one of the primary drivers of HUD's shift away from Transitional
Housing. In a 2010 PD&R research report, HUD posed the question,
``Should transitional housing continue to be emphasized as an option
for all homeless?'' \42\ The report noted that ``transitional housing
is the most expensive model [compared to shelter and Permanent
Supportive Housing],'' but also recognized that it frequently offered
``more privacy and a comprehensive range of on-site services.'' The
report also noted ongoing decreases in chronic homelessness from 2007
to 2009. Despite these positive outcomes, HUD's consideration of
immediate costs subsequently led to a significant expansion of
Permanent Supportive Housing, while failing to provide the appropriate
level of Transitional Housing with supportive services. As a result,
since 2013, the Federal Government has provided approximately $36
billion in CoC funding to address homelessness. Yet approximately
155,000 more people are homeless today than in 2013--a 26.3 percent
increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urb. Dev., Bridging the Gap:
Homelessness Policy, 1 Insight, no. 1, 2011, at 1, <a href="https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/insight/insight_1.pdf">https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/insight/insight_1.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is clear and consistent research demonstrating the value of
Transitional Housing paired with supportive services, particularly for
subpopulations such as youth, families with children, and DV survivors.
Transitional Housing is distinguished from other forms of housing
assistance by its ability to pair housing with a more robust provision
of supportive services.\43\ The evidence demonstrates that the
effectiveness of Transitional Housing is largely dependent on the
provision of those services, including treatment, job training,
recovery support, and case management. The need for these services is
also consistently self-reported by homeless individuals and is
discussed in detail below.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ What is a Continuum of Care?, Nat'l Alliance to End
Homelessness (Jan. 14, 2010), <a href="https://endhomelessness.org/resources/policy-information/what-is-a-continuum-of-care/">https://endhomelessness.org/resources/policy-information/what-is-a-continuum-of-care/</a>.
\44\ Univ. of Cal., San Francisco, Benioff Homelessness & Hous.
Initiative, California Statewide Study of People Experiencing
Homelessness, <a href="https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/our-impact/studies/california-statewide-study-people-experiencing-homelessness">https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/our-impact/studies/california-statewide-study-people-experiencing-homelessness</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken together, the research, data, and program experience
demonstrate that Transitional Housing, particularly when paired with
robust supportive services, advances housing stability, self-
sufficiency and the independent-living objectives established by
Congress. Research and program experience indicate that Transitional
Housing is especially effective for populations including youth,
families with children, and survivors. HUD further finds that the
substantial reduction in Transitional Housing capacity since 2013 has
limited communities' access to a congressionally authorized
intervention designed to facilitate the transition to permanent housing
while addressing barriers to self-sufficiency. Recognizing Transitional
Housing as eligible for bonuses and incentives restores a critical
component of the continuum that Congress authorized, and gives
communities greater flexibility to respond to local needs.
Supportive Services and Participation Agreements
HUD finds that supportive services, and participation agreements
designed to engage program participants in those services, are critical
components of an effective response to homelessness. One of the primary
purposes of the CoC program is to optimize self-sufficiency. Section
421 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 11381). Through incentives and bonuses for
supportive services and participation agreements, CoCs will have
increased opportunities to prioritize and invest in projects that
advance treatment, recovery, and economic independence based on
individual need.
HUD recognizes that not every CoC Program participant will be able
to return to self-sufficiency. However, everyone deserves the
opportunity to do so. Among the estimated 745,000 homeless individuals
and families in the U.S., and the more than 500,000 living in housing
for the homeless, many have the potential to achieve recovery,
employment, independence, and self-sufficiency when provided the
appropriate tools, services, and support, including those who have been
chronically homeless.
HUD's performance data suggests that the CoC Program has struggled
to advance the statutory objective of optimizing self-sufficiency. HUD
data reveals low rates of increased employment income and exits to
unsubsidized housing. As of 2023, a median of only 6 percent of
individuals in CoC-funded housing across the nation increased their
earned employment income during that reporting period. By comparison,
33 percent increased their benefits and welfare income.\45\ Nationwide,
76.1 percent of Permanent Supportive Housing residents are under age 65
and 17.4 percent under age 18.\46\ Yet 38.8 percent of households stay
in Permanent Supportive Housing for five or more years, and the number
of households staying for five or more years increased 30 percent
between 2019 and 2022. Only 13.2 percent of all Permanent Supportive
Housing households exited their housing in a twelve-month reporting
period as of 2022. Of those exits, only 12.9 percent, or 1.7 percent of
total participating households, were to unsubsidized housing. Under
Housing First policy, the tragic reality is that nearly twice as many
exits were due to death, with the death rate nearly doubling in recent
years.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs, U.S. Dep't of
Housing and Urban Dev., Continuum of Care (CoC) System Performance
Measures Data Since FY 2015 (Excel data file) (2025), <a href="https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-Data.xlsx">https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-Data.xlsx</a>.
\46\ U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urb. Dev., The 2022 Annual
Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, Part 2: Annual
Estimates of Sheltered Homelessness in the United States 105 (2024),
<a href="https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/AHAR-Part-2-2022.pdf">https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/AHAR-Part-2-2022.pdf</a>.
\47\ Id. at 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After more than a decade of Federal homelessness policy emphasizing
permanent housing, coupled with HUD's typical past practice of renewing
85 to 95 percent of projects every year at the expense of supporting
new households, these outcomes show that housing alone is insufficient
to address the behavioral health, substance use, employment, and other
barriers that contribute to homelessness and impede long-term stability
and self-sufficiency. Supportive services provide a critical means of
addressing those barriers and helping individuals achieve self-
sufficiency. Individualized supportive services can help individuals
pursue recovery, greater independence, stability, dignity, and personal
goals, while supporting each individual according to their
circumstances and capacity for self-sufficiency.
The need for supportive services is clear and widely supported. As
described below, data shows that homeless individuals frequently
[[Page 57909]]
identify social, health, and income-related challenges as causes of
their loss of housing, highlighting the needs for services that address
these underlying challenges.
A. Prevalence of Substance Use Disorder, Mental Health Conditions, and
Unemployment Among the Homeless Population
A 2023 University of California San Francisco study found that
homeless individuals point to social and health factors as contributing
to their loss of housing more frequently than economic factors. When
asked to report the reasons for leaving their last housing, the authors
found that 95 percent report a social or health reason compared to 47
percent reporting an economic reason. Among economic factors, loss of
income was the most cited--almost twice as common as ``housing costs
were too high.'' \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Margot Kushel & Tiana Moore, Toward a New Understanding:
The California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness
38 (2023), <a href="https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/2026-04/CASPEH_Report_62023_v4.pdf">https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/2026-04/CASPEH_Report_62023_v4.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to multiple comprehensive studies detailed below and
HUD's own Point-In-Time Count data, homeless individuals self-report
high rates of substance use disorders. Within HUD-funded Permanent
Supportive Housing, 41 percent of adult-only households self-report a
substance use disorder. One CoC-funded provider in a large urban
setting reported that 68 percent of residents in their CoC-funded
housing have a substance use disorder. Among unsheltered homeless
individuals, 75 percent report substance abuse and 51 percent report
that substance abuse contributed to their loss of housing.\49\ Rates of
alcohol use disorder are two to four times higher among the homeless
population than the general population.\50\ A 2023 study found that 29
percent of homeless individuals reported regularly using amphetamines,
cocaine, or non-prescribed opioids in the six months leading up to
their loss of housing.\51\ Of individuals reporting regular drug use,
20 percent reported wanting treatment but being unable to receive
it.\52\ SAMHSA's national Treatment Episode Data Set shows that more
than 1 in 5 treatment admissions in the U.S. reported being homeless at
treatment admission in 2024, a significant overrepresentation compared
to the general population.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Janey Rountree et al., Health Conditions Among Unsheltered
Adults in the U.S. 5 (2025), <a href="https://capolicylab.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Health-Conditions-Among-Unsheltered-Adults-in-the-US.pdf">https://capolicylab.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Health-Conditions-Among-Unsheltered-Adults-in-the-US.pdf</a>; UCSF Benioff Homelessness & Housing Initiative, supra note
33, at 43.
\50\ Ctr. for Substance Abuse Treatment, Comprehensive Case
Management for Substance Abuse Treatment, Treatment Improvement
Protocol (TIP) Series, No. 27, HHS Pub. No. (SMA) 15-4215 (2015),
<a href="https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/sma15-4215.pdf">https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/sma15-4215.pdf</a>.
\51\ Kushel & Moore, supra note 48.
\52\ Id.at 8.
\53\ Substance Abuse & Mental Health Servs. Admin., U.S. Dep't
of Health & Human Servs., Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP)
Series 27, Comprehensive Case Management for Substance Abuse
Treatment, HHS Pub. No. (SMA) 15-4215 (2015), <a href="https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt57179/2024-teds-annual-report.pdf">https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt57179/2024-teds-annual-report.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unemployment rates among the homeless population are also
significantly higher than among the general population. In addition to
reporting ``loss of income'' as the most common economic factor behind
their loss of housing, only 18 percent of homeless individuals in the
University of California San Francisco study reported income from jobs.
Of that share, only 8 percent reported income from formal
employment.\54\ A significant 70 percent of homeless individuals
reported at least two years since the last time they worked for 20
hours or more per week.\55\ Among homeless youth, the unemployment rate
is reportedly as high as 75 percent compared to 16 percent among the
general population of youth.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Kushel & Moore, supra note 48.
\55\ Id.
\56\ Slesnick, Zhang & Yilmazer, supra note 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken together, these studies demonstrate the breadth of challenges
homeless individuals face and the need for a wide array of supportive
services that address more than housing alone. By advancing a narrow
focus on Permanent Housing at the expense of a broader array of
strategies and services, HUD finds that the CoC Program has not
adequately acknowledged and addressed these needs.
B. Value and Effectiveness of Supportive Services
In recognizing the need for services related to behavioral health
needs among the homeless population, HUD looks to SAMHSA as an operator
of federal programs designed to address these challenges. SAMHSA's
homelessness programs include outreach, case management, mental and
substance use disorder treatment, peer support, and employment
readiness services.\57\ According to SAMHSA, the effectiveness and need
for case management for homeless individuals and families is well
established:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Substance Abuse & Mental Health Servs. Admin., Grant
Programs and Services for Homelessness, <a href="https://www.samhsa.gov/communities/homelessness-programs-resources/grants">https://www.samhsa.gov/communities/homelessness-programs-resources/grants</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The need for case management with this population is obvious.
Clients need suitable short- and long-term housing; many have mental
disorders. Homeless individuals frequently suffer from significant
health problems secondary to their lifestyle, including tuberculosis,
HIV, and AIDS. Unemployment is high. This constellation of tangible
needs can best be addressed by one individual at the interface between
the streets and social service agencies.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Comprehensive Case Management for Substance Abuse
Treatment, supra note 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For health outcomes in particular, a SAMHSA Advisory details the
effectiveness of case management:
Multiple analyses (Joo & Huber, 2015; Kirk et al., 2013;
Penzenstadler et al., 2017; Rapp et al., 2014; Regis et al., 2020) have
found positive outcomes [of case management] for one or more measures,
such as treatment adherence, overall functioning, costs, decreases in
substance use, reductions in acute care episodes, and increased
engagement in nonacute services. A 2019 meta-analysis comparing case
management with treatment as usual showed a small yet statistically
significant positive effect, which was greater for treatment-related
tasks than for personal functioning outcomes such as improved health
status and family relations and reductions in substance use and legal
involvement (Vanderplasschen et al., 2019).
SAMHSA's Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness
(PATH) program provides services to homeless individuals with substance
use disorders or mental illness. These services include behavioral
healthcare, outreach, case management, and job training.\59\ Combining
these approaches has proved effective in the PATH program. In the most
recent evaluation data, homeless participants emphasized the value of
case management, transportation assistance, documentation support,
housing navigation, and behavioral health linkages.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Substance Abuse & Mental Health Servs. Admin., U.S. Dep't
of Health & Human Servs., Residence of Individuals Experiencing
Homelessness Prior to Enrollment in the Projects for Assistance in
Transition from Homelessness Program: Findings from the 2023 PATH
Evaluation, CBHSQ Spotlight, Pub. No. PEP25-07-001 (Mar. 2025),
<a href="https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt56240/PATH-clients-resid-prior-to-enroll.pdf">https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt56240/PATH-clients-resid-prior-to-enroll.pdf</a>.
\60\ Substance Abuse & Mental Health Servs. Admin., U.S. Dep't
of Health & Human Servs., Projects for Assistance in Transition from
Homelessness (PATH) Program: FY 2022-2024 Triennial Process
Evaluation Highlights (June 2026), <a href="https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt57148/2025%20PATH%20Triennial%20Eval%20Report.pdf">https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt57148/2025%20PATH%20Triennial%20Eval%20Report.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57910]]
SAMHSA's Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics (CCBHCs)
provide mental health and substance use care to local communities
including homeless individuals. An impact report found that all CCBHCs
throughout the country serve homeless individuals, with 13 percent of
CCBHCs reporting that more than 25 percent of their clients are
homeless. The certification criteria for CCBHCs include:
Targeted case management to ``assist people receiving services in
sustaining recovery and gaining access to needed medical, social,
legal, educational, housing, vocational and other services and
supports,'' and that this service should be provided during ``critical
periods, such as episodes of homelessness or transitions to the
community from jails or prisons'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Substance Abuse & Mental Health Servs. Admin., U.S. Dep't
of Health & Hum. Servs., * Improving Housing Stability for People
with Behavioral Health Needs Through the CCBHC Model *, Pub. No.
PEP26-01-016 (June 2026), <a href="https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/improving-housing-stability-ccbhc-pep26-01-016.pdf">https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/improving-housing-stability-ccbhc-pep26-01-016.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2021 SAMHSA report examined research and best practices on
integrating employment with substance use disorder treatment and
recovery. Underscoring the important role of employment opportunities
and job training as supportive services, the authors state that ``work
is one of the best predictors of positive outcomes for individuals with
substance use disorder.'' \62\ Those positive outcomes include lower
rates of recurrence, higher rates of abstinence from substance use, and
more successful transition from long-term residential treatment back
into the community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Substance Abuse & Mental Health Servs. Admin., U.S. Dep't
of Health & Human Servs., Substance Use Disorders Recovery with a
Focus on Employment and Education, Pub. No. PEP21-PL-Guide-6 (Mar.
2021), <a href="https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/pep21-pl-guide-6.pdf">https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/pep21-pl-guide-6.pdf</a>; Substance Abuse & Mental Health Servs. Admin., U.S.
Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Advisory: Integrating Vocational
Services into Substance Use Disorder Treatment (Based on TIP 38),
Pub. No. PEP20-02-01-019 (Jan. 2021), <a href="https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/pep20-02-01-019.pdf">https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/pep20-02-01-019.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A wide array of supportive services is therefore foundational to
addressing behavioral health challenges and reducing associated
homelessness. The SAMHSA/HUD/ONDCP Best Practices Toolkit details the
practices commonly employed by leading experts in the country.\63\ The
experts who informed the toolkit agreed on a set of core program
elements including ``self-sufficiency as the central goal,''
``structure and routine,'' ``learning and skill building,''
``individualized care planning,'' and ``understanding employment
readiness as a mechanism for building self-esteem and self-efficacy.''
The toolkit identifies a series of services phased by levels of
readiness from ``crisis'' to ``thriving,'' including healthcare, crisis
stabilization, inpatient and outpatient treatment, community recovery
support services, housing options, employment support, education,
transportation, case management, and legal services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Best Practices Toolkit, supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research indicates that housing paired with supportive services
delivers better outcomes than ``housing only.'' \64\ A 2010 paper on
support for homeless families separated services for homeless families
into Tiers of increasing intensity including housing, employment, child
care, healthcare, transportation, basic services for children,
education, mental health services, and family support.\65\ The authors
note that ``without services, many families will fall back into
homelessness or remain isolated in permanent housing.'' According to
the National Center on Family Homelessness, Health Care for the
Homeless Clinician's Network, ``all programs serving homeless families
and children should provide a core group of support services central to
stabilizing families and improving their wellbeing.'' \66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Zhang et al., supra note 31.
\65\ Ellen L. Bassuk, Katherine T. Volk & Jeffrey Olivet, A
Framework for Developing Supports and Services for Families
Experiencing Homelessness, 3 Open Health Servs. & Pol'y J. 34, 34-40
(2010), <a href="https://homelesshub.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/eyn4xm01.pdf">https://homelesshub.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/eyn4xm01.pdf</a>.
\66\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD's eligible supportive services costs and Supportive Services
Only project component play critical roles in addressing the unique
needs of homeless individuals and families. Supportive Services Only
projects may include child care, health clinics, mobile dental clinics,
legal services, licensed apprenticeship programs, and many other
standalone services or services provided in shelters for sheltered and
unsheltered homeless individuals. By increasing bonuses and incentives
for the provision of supportive services, HUD intends to better advance
community-wide commitments to reducing homelessness and optimizing
self-sufficiency.
C. Supportive Service Participation Agreements
One way to advance both recovery and economic self-sufficiency is
through participation requirements. HUD seeks to provide bonuses and
incentives for CoCs and providers who demonstrate successful
implementation of supportive service participation requirements.
Service participation requirements have been successfully employed in
many federal social service programs and have strong bipartisan
support.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Cicero Inst., National Crime Poll (2025), <a href="https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/national-crime-poll/">https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/national-crime-poll/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2022, HUD's PD&R published an issue of its Evidence Matters
newsletter on the topic of Housing First.\68\ When describing Housing
First, the authors focus heavily on the ``no preconditions'' aspect of
the model rather than the ``no participation requirements.'' The study
cited by HUD in Evidence Matters compared Pathways to Housing to
``treatment first'' programs that preconditioned housing on treatment.
In fact, the Evidence Matters report acknowledged that the first
program to implement Housing First--Pathways to Housing--initially
required program participants to agree to two staff visits per month.
This example illustrates that Housing First did not preclude
participation requirements. Today, HUD finds that the weakness in the
nation's homelessness system is not that too few entities condition
assistance on sobriety, but rather that too few entities create the
accountability and structure needed to help an individual recover or a
young person to finish school and find meaningful employment.
Participation requirements such as these, when determined appropriate
by the provider, are the type of requirements for which HUD seeks to
provide incentives and bonuses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Office of Policy Dev. & Research, U.S. Dep't of Housing &
Urban Dev., Evidence Matters: Transforming Knowledge into Housing
and Community Development Policy (Spring/Summer 2023), <a href="https://docs.huduser.gov/archives/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/EM-Newsletter-spring-summer-2023.pdf">https://docs.huduser.gov/archives/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/EM-Newsletter-spring-summer-2023.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The subject matter experts informing the Best Practices Toolkit
collectively agree that structure and routine are fundamental to
addressing homelessness and addiction, and HUD finds that healthy
structure is furthered by required engagement in services such as case
management to build individualized service plans. In SAMHSA's PATH
program, program participants, the majority of which were living in
unsheltered situations at program entry, specifically emphasized the
value of case management services provided under the program.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Triennial Process Evaluation, supra note 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD has previously acknowledged the value of required engagement in
case management. In the development of the interim CoC rule, HUD stated
that ``its experience with the Supportive Housing and Shelter Plus Care
[[Page 57911]]
programs'' led HUD to determine that ``programs should require at least
case management for some initial period after exiting homelessness.''
As a result, the interim CoC rule requires participants in Rapid Re-
Housing to meet with a case manager at least once a month (24 CFR
578.37(a)(1)(ii)(F)).
Opponents of participation requirements argue that participation is
more meaningful if the choice to participate is entirely optional. It
is certainly the case that individual choice is critical to success. In
fact, HUD finds that well-designed participation requirements empower
individual choice while pairing it with accountability, which is
critical to achieving personal goals. The HUD Veteran Affairs
Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program for homeless Veterans is an
example of case management requirements delivering effective outcomes
in reducing homelessness and resolving barriers to housing stability.
HUD finds that HUD-VASH demonstrates the efficacy of housing
assistance tied to participation in case management and services. HUD-
VASH implementation guidance updated in 2024 directs the provision of
``regular ongoing case management, outpatient health services,
hospitalization, and other supportive services as needed'' and states
that, ``as a condition of rental assistance, a HUD-VASH eligible
veteran must receive the case management services noted above, as
needed.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers: Revised Implementation
of the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program, 89 FR 65769
(Aug. 13, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One study of homeless veterans with a dual diagnosis (substance use
disorder and mental health) utilizing HUD-VASH found that individuals
who expressed disinterest in participating in supportive services at
entry, yet who were determined by case managers to need services, were
``almost 6 times more likely to experience residential instability than
others.'' \71\ This finding supports the reality of gaps between
perceived and actual needs, and suggests that deferring to perceived
need may result in negative housing outcomes. Participation
requirements based on individual need are a tool to promote individual
engagement in services necessary for housing stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Russell K. Schutt et al., Explaining Service Use and
Residential Stability in Supported Housing: Problems, Preferences,
Peers, 59 Med. Care S117, S117-S123 (2021), <a href="https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000001498">https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000001498</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike every other subpopulation of homelessness, Veteran
homelessness has decreased significantly year-over-year for the last
two decades. The HUD-VASH program provides evidence that assistance
conditioned on participation in services works on a national scale, not
just an individual one.
Drug Free and Sober Housing
Housing assistance in the CoC Program should be conducive to
recovery rather than to substance use. As discussed in the preceding
section, homeless individuals self-report substance use and substance
use disorders at high rates and frequently identify addiction as a
contributing factor to their loss of housing. For individuals with
substance use disorders, housing environments matter. Research on sober
living environments has found that housing settings can either support
or hinder recovery and that the social and physical environment through
which services are delivered plays an important role in recovery
outcomes. Access to living environments that support recovery is
therefore an important component of an effective response to
homelessness. The evidence discussed below demonstrates both the need
for recovery-oriented housing environments and the effectiveness of
drug-free and sober housing as tools to advance recovery, housing
stability, and self-sufficiency.
A. Demonstrated Need for Drug-Free Housing
Individuals in recovery, or working towards sobriety, deserve safe
living environments that support rather than undermine that effort. HUD
has considered input from individuals with lived experience in recovery
and from service providers, who consistently report that living
environments must be conducive to recovery rather than detrimental to
it.
HUD finds that drug-free housing advances the safety, recovery, and
self-sufficiency of individuals and families served by the CoC Program.
Further, the prevalence of illicit drug use and distribution in CoC
housing is detrimental to the success and well-being of individuals and
the surrounding community.
The subject matter experts, including individuals with lived
experience, who informed the Best Practices Toolkit collectively
determined that ``substance free living spaces'' are a fundamental
component of programs addressing homelessness and addiction because
they help ``ensure daily safety and set conditions for ongoing
success.''
The need for recovery-oriented housing environments is evident in
the high prevalence of substance use disorder among homeless
individuals and those living in housing assistance for the homeless.
According to HUD data, 41 percent of adult-only households in CoC-
funded Permanent Supportive Housing self-report a substance use
disorder. One CoC-funded provider in Philadelphia reported that 68
percent of residents in CoC-funded housing have a substance use
disorder and 97 percent have either a mental health condition or a
substance use disorder.
The prevalence of substance use disorder is reflected in alarming
rates of overdose deaths. Studies examining overdose deaths among
homeless individuals consistently find rates far exceeding those of the
general population. According to a 2022 JAMA study, deaths among
homeless individuals in San Francisco ``more than doubled to 331 deaths
during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, driven by a large
increase in overdose deaths.'' \72\ In Boston, the opioid overdose
fatality rate among the homeless population increased by more than 1400
percent between 2013 and 2018.\73\ The homeless population's overdose
fatality rate was 12 times higher than the general population in
Massachusetts from 2003 to 2018. In Los Angeles County in 2024, the
overdose fatality rate among homeless individuals was 46 times higher
than among the general population.\74\ The results of ignoring the
prevalence of substance use disorder and overdose among homeless
individuals are deadly. Yet, addiction is a treatable chronic disease
and recovery is possible when people are provided the right supports
and environment for their recovery to flourish.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Caroline Cawley et al., Mortality Among People Experiencing
Homelessness in San Francisco During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 5 JAMA
Network Open e221870 (2022).
\73\ Id.
\74\ L.A. Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Health, Final PEH Report 2026--
Lives Lost: Mortality Trends and Prevention Opportunities for People
Experiencing Homelessness in LA County, 2015-2024 2 (2026), <a href="http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/chie/reports/Homeless_Mortality_Report_2026.pdf">http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/chie/reports/Homeless_Mortality_Report_2026.pdf</a>.
\75\ What is the Definition of Addiction [verbar] American
Society of Addiction Medicine
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to HUD data, 19.5 percent of exits from Permanent
Supportive Housing among adults living alone are due to death. Between
2019 and 2022, the share of adults living alone who died while residing
in Permanent Supportive Housing increased from 13 percent of exits to
20 percent, while the total number of deaths increased by 31
percent.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urb. Dev., * The 2022 Annual
Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress: Part 2: Estimates
of Homelessness in the United States * 106 (2022), <a href="https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/AHAR-Part-2-2022.pdf">https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/AHAR-Part-2-2022.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57912]]
Local data further underscore the severity of the challenge.
According to reporting on data from the San Francisco Medical
Examiner's Office between 2020 and 2025, 23 percent of overdose deaths
in San Francisco occurred inside Permanent Supportive Housing.\77\
During the first four months of 2025, 30 percent of overdose deaths
occurred inside Permanent Supportive Housing, compared with 20 percent
outdoors and 3.5 percent in shelters.\78\ In response to the tragedy of
overdose deaths inside of housing for the homeless, the City and County
of San Francisco recently passed an ordinance prohibiting illicit drug
use and distribution in city-funded Permanent Supportive Housing.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Susan Dyer Reynolds, Housing First, Morgue Second, The
Voice of San Francisco (Aug. 28, 2025), <a href="https://thevoicesf.org/housing-first-morgue-second/">https://thevoicesf.org/housing-first-morgue-second/</a>.
\78\ Matt Dorsey (@MattDorsey), X (June 10, 2025, 12:36 a.m.
UTC), <a href="https://x.com/mattdorsey/status/1932235329777574029">https://x.com/mattdorsey/status/1932235329777574029</a>.
\79\ San Francisco Mayor's Off., Mayor Lurie Signs Legislation
to Expand Drug-Free Permanent Supportive Housing, Building on
Progress of Breaking the Cycle Plan (July 29, 2026), <a href="https://www.sf.gov/news-mayor-lurie-signs-legislation-to-expand-drug-free-permanent-supportive-housing-building-on-progress-of-breaking-the-cycle-plan">https://www.sf.gov/news-mayor-lurie-signs-legislation-to-expand-drug-free-permanent-supportive-housing-building-on-progress-of-breaking-the-cycle-plan</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Seattle reported a 282 percent increase in overdose
deaths in King County's Permanent Supportive Housing (and other
subsidized housing) between 2020 and 2023.\80\ The report from the City
Auditor states that, in 2023, overdose fatalities in King County among
those living in Permanent Supportive Housing for the homeless made up
21 percent of all overdose fatalities in the County, just 3 percent
less than both unsheltered and emergency shelter combined.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Seattle Off. of City Auditor, Addressing Places in Seattle
Where Overdoses and Crime are Concentrated: An Evidence-Based
Approach (2024), <a href="https://www.seattle.gov/documents/departments/cityauditor/auditreports/overdoseandcrimeconcentrationsaudit.pdf">https://www.seattle.gov/documents/departments/cityauditor/auditreports/overdoseandcrimeconcentrationsaudit.pdf</a>.
\81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In New York, a 2023 focus group of residents in Permanent
Supportive Housing identified that overdose was a significant concern
within Permanent Supportive Housing and ``created significant trauma
for tenants and staff'' and that this was true despite ``heterogeneity
in Permanent Supportive Housing buildings' current overdose prevention
efforts and adoption of harm reduction principles.'' \82\ The study
drew out a subtheme that ``tenants using drugs alone behind closed
doors was a common factor in overdose deaths.'' \83\ Further, in 2023,
overdose fatalities in single room occupancies (SROs) or ``supportive
housing'' comprised 10 percent of all overdose fatalities in New York
City, while just 4 percent occurred in shelters.\84\ Taken together,
these findings demonstrate that overdose fatalities are
disproportionately high among homeless individuals and that the
Permanent Supportive Housing environment may be more dangerous than
shelter settings.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Marina Gaeta Gazzola et al., Understanding Overdose Risk
and Response in Permanent Supportive Housing: Results of Focus
Groups with Tenants, Staff, and Leaders, 20 Addiction Science &
Clinical Practice 91 (2025), <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12664209/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12664209/</a>.
\83\ Id.
\84\ N.Y.C. Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene, Epi Data Brief No.
142, Unintentional Drug Poisoning (Overdose) Deaths in New York City
in 2023 9 (2024), <a href="https://www.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/epi/databrief142.pdf">https://www.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/epi/databrief142.pdf</a>.
\85\ By contrast, data in Los Angeles is limited. When
evaluating overdose fatalities among homeless individuals in Los
Angeles County, the public health department removed fatalities in
Permanent Supportive Housing from their findings. See Los Angeles
County Department of Public Health, Final PEH Report 2026--Lives
Lost: Mortality Trends and Prevention Opportunities For People
Experiencing Homelessness in LA County, 2015-2024 (2026), <a href="http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/chie/reports/Homeless_Mortality_Report_2026.pdf">http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/chie/reports/Homeless_Mortality_Report_2026.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These findings underscore the need to consider the environment in
which housing assistance is provided, particularly for individuals in
recovery. HUD's stakeholder engagement highlighted the importance of
living environments that are conducive to recovery. Individuals in
recovery and their families deserve access to safe housing environments
free from substance use and distribution.
Drug-free housing is required by federal law and not a new
strategy. Communities that had previously turned a blind eye to drug
use within housing settings in the name of ``harm reduction'' are
increasingly revisiting those policies and expanding recovery-focused
options, evidenced by a resurgence in drug-free housing as a proven
effective model. One example is San Francisco. When residents of the
city were asked if all new Permanent Supportive Housing for the
homeless should ``prohibit the use of illicit drugs on-site, and
mandate the inclusion of recovery-focused options for those seeking to
maintain their sobriety,'' 69 percent of participants responded
affirmatively.\86\ According to members of the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors, ``26 percent of overdose deaths occurred in Permanent
Supportive Housing, a higher percentage than in shelters, hospitals,
private homes, or on the street.'' The Supervisors find that ``the
externalities that arise from residents' illicit drug use overburden
the City's public health and public safety resources . . . diminishing
San Franciscans' confidence in their city government's response to
homelessness overall.'' \87\ On the basis of this data, the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors passed legislation requiring city-funded
Permanent Supportive Housing to be drug-free.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Matt Dorsey (@MattDorsey), X (July 9, 2026, 3:13 p.m. UTC),
<a href="https://x.com/mattdorsey/status/2075236928061120931">https://x.com/mattdorsey/status/2075236928061120931</a>.
\87\ Office of S.F. Supervisor Matt Dorsey, Drug-Free Supportive
Housing: Legislative Handout (July 2026), <a href="https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:us:5d606903-bc3b-44eb-a55e-379476539368">https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:us:5d606903-bc3b-44eb-a55e-379476539368</a>.
\88\ Mayor Lurie Signs Legislation, supra note 79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Value and Effectiveness of Sober Housing
HUD distinguishes between drug-free housing and sober housing.
Drug-free housing prohibits the use and distribution of illicit drugs
on the premises and is consistent with longstanding federal law
regarding drug-involved premises. Drug-free housing does not prescribe
sobriety or regulate the behavior of program participants off premises.
Sober housing is an extension of drug-free housing, designed
specifically for individuals living in recovery, and is described by
SAMHSA as ``a safe and supportive alcohol- and drug-free residence
where people can live, build stability, and work toward independence.''
\89\ SAMHSA distinguishes sober housing as requiring ``a commitment to
not use alcohol or illicit drugs'' and requiring ``engagement in
recovery supports.'' \90\ Sober housing builds upon the concept of
drug-free housing by providing an environment intentionally structured
to support recovery, personal responsibility, and long-term stability.
This is in direct contrast to SAMHSA's characterization that Permanent
Supportive Housing ``does not require a person to engage in services,
reduce substance use, or otherwise demonstrate their readiness to live
independently.'' \91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., SAMHSA
Awards More Than $45 Million in Supplemental Funding to Support
Young Adult Sober Housing Services (Sept. 23, 2025), <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/samhsa-awards-45-million-funding-support-sober-housing-services.html">https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/samhsa-awards-45-million-funding-support-sober-housing-services.html</a>.
\90\ Substance Abuse & Mental Health Servs. Admin., U.S. Dep't
of Health & Human Servs., Housing Supports Recovery and Well-Being:
Definitions and Shared Values, Pub. No. PEP24-08-007 (Dec. 2024),
<a href="https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/housing-supports-pep24-08-007.pdf">https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/housing-supports-pep24-08-007.pdf</a>.
\91\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, sober housing is not a novel concept within federal
homelessness policy. The CoC
[[Page 57913]]
regulations at 24 CFR 578.93(b)(5) expressly contemplate sober housing,
and HUD's determination intends to further incentivize and provide
bonuses for the provision of an already authorized intervention.
Research demonstrates that sober housing produce positive outcomes
across a wide range of measures.\92\ According to a 2025 systematic
literature review, individuals in sober housing had better outcomes in
substance use, employment, income, and criminal justice involvement
when compared to those who continued care as usual or received no
intervention.\93\ The Oxford House model, a sober living environment in
which individuals share and self-govern their housing, is one example
of these benefits. In a study that compared outcomes over 24 months,
study participants who were assigned to Oxford House sober living homes
(SLHs) had significantly lower substance use, significantly higher
monthly income, and significantly lower incarceration rates than
participants assigned to usual-care (i.e., outpatient treatment or
self-help groups).\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Substance Abuse & Mental Health Servs. Admin., U.S. Dep't
of Health & Human Servs., Best Practices for Recovery Housing, HHS
Pub. No. PEP23-10-00-002 (2023), <a href="https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/best-practices-for-recovery-housing-pep23-10-00-002.pdf">https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/best-practices-for-recovery-housing-pep23-10-00-002.pdf</a>.
\93\ Corrie L. Vilsaint et al., Recovery Housing for Substance
Use Disorder: A Systematic Review, 13 Frontiers Pub. Health 1506412
(2025), <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1506412">https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1506412</a>.
\94\ Leonard A. Jason et al., Communal Housing Settings Enhance
Substance Abuse Recovery, 96 a.m. J. Pub. Health 1727, 1727-29
(2006), <a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.070839">https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.070839</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One study found that sober living residents not only experienced
substantial reductions in substance use by six months that were
maintained at twelve months, but also showed significant improvement or
``maintained low baseline levels of severity in substance use,
employment, and legal problems.\95\ A 2023 paper in the journal of
Addiction Research and Theory found similar results: \96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Douglas L. Polcin et al., Recovery from Addiction in Two
Types of Sober Living Houses: 12-Month Outcomes, 18 Addiction Rsch.
& Theory 442, 442-55 (2010), <a href="https://doi.org/10.3109/16066350903398460">https://doi.org/10.3109/16066350903398460</a>.
\96\ Amy A. Mericle et al., Social Model Recovery and Recovery
Housing, 31 Addiction Rsch. & Theory 370, 370-77 (2023), <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2023.2179996">https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2023.2179996</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three large-scale studies of sober living homes in Northern
California and Southern California have demonstrated improved outcomes
of individuals in these settings. The first study tracked functioning
of 300 individuals residing in 20 different SLHs over an 18-month
period. Results showed significant improvement on a wide variety of
variables including alcohol and drug use, 6-month abstinence rates,
alcohol and drug related problems, psychiatric symptoms, employment,
and arrests (Polcin, Korcha, Bond, & Galloway, 2010a; Polcin, Korcha,
Bond, & Galloway, 2010b). The second study assessed substance use, HIV
risk and other outcomes among persons entering houses who are on
probation or parole (N=330); some of whom were recruited from houses
that were randomized to have participant receive a motivational
interviewing and case management intervention. This study found that at
6- and 12-month follow-up, residents in both groups reported
significant improvement on measures of substance abuse, criminal
justice involvement, HIV risk, and employment (Polcin, Korcha,
Witbrodt, Mericle, & Mahoney, 2018). The third study is currently
focusing on the role of the social environment within sober living
houses and neighborhood environments surrounding them with respect to
resident outcomes. As part of this study, the researchers developed the
Recovery House Environment Scale (RHES), which was developed by the
research team to assess issues that are central to social model
recovery. Higher scores on the RHES have been found to be positively
associated with length of stay and negatively associated with days of
substance use (Polcin, Mahoney, & Mericle, 2021). Results from this
work highlight the importance of the social environment in sober living
houses, particularly those most closely aligned with social model
recovery principles.
Taken together, the evidence demonstrates that sober housing is a
proven and effective strategy for addressing substance use disorder and
advancing self-sufficiency. Research consistently shows that residents
of sober housing experience improved substance use outcomes, higher
rates of employment and income, greater housing stability, and reduced
criminal justice involvement. These findings are particularly
significant given the high prevalence of substance use disorder among
homeless individuals and the devastating toll of overdose deaths
documented throughout this notice. Treatment and supportive services
are important components of recovery and long-term stability, but the
living environment also matters. For individuals seeking sobriety,
structured, drug-free settings that provide accountability, peer
support, and stability can create the conditions necessary for long-
term success. HUD therefore finds that sober housing should be
encouraged as part of a comprehensive continuum of care and intends to
further incentivize both sober housing and drug-free housing as a means
to advancing recovery and self-sufficiency.
Law Enforcement and First Responders as Crucial Partners
Safety and security for all members of the public, especially the
unsheltered homeless population, are essential to promoting a
community-wide commitment to ending homelessness and minimizing the
trauma caused to individuals, families, and communities by
homelessness. The McKinney-Vento Act recognizes not only the trauma
caused to individuals and families, but also the trauma to
``communities'' (42 U.S.C. 11381(2)). Homelessness does not occur in a
vacuum, and its effects--particularly unsheltered homelessness in
public spaces--impact the entire community.\97\ HUD intends to create
incentives and bonuses to encourage CoCs to assist in reducing the
trauma associated with living on the streets or in encampments, and
with related public illicit drug use and other criminal activity,
including through partnerships with law enforcement, first responders,
and other public safety agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Marc Cota-Robles, Los Angeles Post Office Parking Lot
Overrun by Homeless Encampment, ABC7 Los Angeles (Apr. 2, 2026),
<a href="https://abc7.com/post/los-angeles-post-office-parking-lot-overrun-homeless-encampment/18826260/">https://abc7.com/post/los-angeles-post-office-parking-lot-overrun-homeless-encampment/18826260/</a>., Bonny Chu, Horror Video Captures
Repeat Offender Allegedly Attacking 75-Year-Old Woman, Gouging Her
Eye With Spiked Stick, Fox News (May 24, 2026), <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/horror-video-captures-repeat-offender-allegedly-attacking-75-year-old-woman-gouging-her-eye-spiked-stick">https://www.foxnews.com/us/horror-video-captures-repeat-offender-allegedly-attacking-75-year-old-woman-gouging-her-eye-spiked-stick</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Need for Public Safety Partnerships
Firefighters, emergency medical personnel, police officers, co-
response social workers and clinicians, mobile crisis teams, and crisis
intervention teams play an important role in engaging individuals in
the midst of a mental health or substance use disorder crisis.\98\ By
providing emergency services, first responders often witness and
respond to the impacts of encampments and public drug use in a way that
service providers simply do not. They also witness and respond to the
impact of homelessness on non-homeless members of the community.\99\
[[Page 57914]]
As a result, first responders possess unique insight into both the
needs of homeless individuals and the broader community impacts
associated with homelessness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Substance Abuse & Mental Health Servs. Admin., 2025
National Guidelines for a Behavioral Health Coordinated System of
Crisis Care (2025), <a href="https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/national-guidelines-crisis-care-pep24-01-037.pdf">https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/national-guidelines-crisis-care-pep24-01-037.pdf</a>.
\99\ Sam DiGiovanna, A Growing Trend of Fires-the Homeless, Cal.
State Firefighters' Ass'n (June 22, 2023), <a href="https://www.csfa.net/a-growing-trend-of-fires-the-homeless/">https://www.csfa.net/a-growing-trend-of-fires-the-homeless/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public camping and public illicit drug use often exist in a self-
perpetuating cycle. Open-air drug markets frequently emerge in and
around public encampments, and existing drug markets can themselves
attract and sustain encampments.\100\ HUD's research found that, in at
least one well-known example, the existence of a readily accessible
open-air heroin market directly contributed to the formation and
continued existence of a large homeless encampment despite the
availability of shelter beds elsewhere. More broadly, the prevalence of
substance use disorders among the unsheltered population, combined with
the lack of law enforcement, treatment, and services can create
environments where illicit drug use and distribution become pervasive.
As a result, encampments often function not only as places of
habitation, but also as places where substance use, overdose, and
criminal activity occur in concentrated form. ``Open air drug markets''
threaten public safety and hurt residents, tourists, and local
businesses, while perpetuating harmful cycles of addiction and
instability.\101\ Unchecked public camping and public drug use inhibit
nonprofit providers, outreach workers, and local governments' abilities
to connect individuals with effective interventions and undermine
broader efforts in reducing homelessness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Rebecca Cohen, Will Yetvin & Jill Khadduri, Understanding
Encampments of People Experiencing Homelessness and Community
Responses: Emerging Evidence as of Late 2018 (U.S. Dep't of Hous. &
Urb. Dev., Office of Policy Development & Research Jan. 7, 2019).
\101\ Makenna Marks, Open-Air Drug Market in Downtown Portland
Hurting Local Businesses, KPTV FOX 12 Oregon (Nov. 22, 2024),
<a href="https://www.kptv.com/2024/11/22/open-air-drug-market-downtown-portland-hurting-local-businesses/">https://www.kptv.com/2024/11/22/open-air-drug-market-downtown-portland-hurting-local-businesses/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The harms of unchecked encampments and public drug use particularly
impact the most vulnerable subpopulations, such as children and
survivors of domestic violence and trafficking.\102\ In 2024, there
were 18,557 people in families with children experiencing unsheltered
homelessness on a single night in January.\103\ These are families with
children whose primary nighttime location is somewhere such as a car,
the street, a public park, a train station, or an encampment. Data
shows that adverse childhood experiences, including lack of housing and
exposure to substance use and domestic violence, are associated with
increased occurrences of homelessness, addiction, and mental illness in
adulthood.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Charlie Harger, This kid's going to die': Neighbors say 9-
year-old abandoned in tent off Aurora. CPS claims he's not in
danger, KIRO (Dec. 19, 2025), <a href="https://mynorthwest.com/seattles-morning-news/9-year-old-tent-aurora/4174872">https://mynorthwest.com/seattles-morning-news/9-year-old-tent-aurora/4174872</a>; Melissa Henry,
`Prostitution, drugs, human trafficking': Colorado Springs business
owner calls on leaders to address homelessness problems, KKTV (Nov.
7, 2025), <a href="https://www.kktv.com/2025/11/08/prostitution-drugs-human-trafficking-colorado-springs-business-owner-calls-leaders-address-homelessness-problems/">https://www.kktv.com/2025/11/08/prostitution-drugs-human-trafficking-colorado-springs-business-owner-calls-leaders-address-homelessness-problems/</a>.
\103\ 2024 AHAR Part 1, supra note 40.
\104\ Megan Burgasser, Adverse Childhood Experiences Tied to
Higher Homelessness, UC News (May 12, 2025), <a href="https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2025/05/adverse-childhood-experiences-tied-to-higher-homelessness.html">https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2025/05/adverse-childhood-experiences-tied-to-higher-homelessness.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encampments also expose homeless individuals and surrounding
communities to heightened risks of violence, victimization, overdose,
and other threats to public safety. As unsheltered homelessness
increased in King County, Washington, gun crimes tied to homeless
encampments increased by 122 percent in the first six months of 2022.
Between 2017 and 2020, 50 percent of all arrests in Portland, Oregon
were of homeless individuals despite the homeless population making up
only 2 percent of the total population. In New York City, drug
overdoses were the most common cause of death among homeless
individuals between 2018 and 2021, with deaths doubling during that
period.\105\ One study indicates that in some states, as many as half
of unsheltered homeless individuals are registered sex offenders.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ Robert G. Marbut et al., How Congress Can Reform
Government's Misguided Homelessness Policies: Real Solutions for
Mental Illness, Drug Addiction, and Crime Cannot Be Found in Housing
Subsidies Alone 4 (2022), <a href="https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2022/10/How-Congress-Can-Reform-Governments-Misguided-Homelessness-Policies-20221011.pdf">https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2022/10/How-Congress-Can-Reform-Governments-Misguided-Homelessness-Policies-20221011.pdf</a>.
\106\ Cicero Inst., Sex Offenders: An Overlooked but Significant
Subpopulation of the Homeless (2024), <a href="https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/sex-offenders-an-overlooked-but-significant-subpopulation-of-the-homeless/">https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/sex-offenders-an-overlooked-but-significant-subpopulation-of-the-homeless/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While these realities do not suggest that the entire homeless
population is engaged in criminal or illicit activity, they demonstrate
that unchecked encampments are associated with crime. At the same time,
research indicates that homeless individuals are victims of crime at
higher rates than the general public.\107\ Gun violence, fatal drug
overdoses, exploitation, and sexual assault inflict profound harm and
trauma on homeless individuals and families and further perpetuate the
cycles of homelessness. Tragically, the violence and harm have become
so commonplace that outreach providers have described the discovery of
human remains in encampments as an ``expectation.'' \108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ San Diego Cnty. Dist. Att'y, DA Shares First-of-Its Kind
Crime Data, Proposes Three-Point Plan to Address Intersection of
Crime and Homelessness (Mar. 21, 2022), <a href="https://www.sdcda.org/content/MediaRelease/Homeless%20Data%20and%20Plan%20News%20Release%20FINAL%203-21-22.pdf">https://www.sdcda.org/content/MediaRelease/Homeless%20Data%20and%20Plan%20News%20Release%20FINAL%203-21-22.pdf</a>.
\108\ Frank Sumrall, Volunteer Group Finds Human Remains in
Seattle Park: `It's Now an Expectation', MyNorthwest (Jan. 9, 2024),
<a href="https://mynorthwest.com/local/volunteer-group-human-remains-seattle-park-its-now-an-expectation/3947793">https://mynorthwest.com/local/volunteer-group-human-remains-seattle-park-its-now-an-expectation/3947793</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These realities underscore that minimizing the trauma caused by
homelessness requires addressing unsheltered homelessness and
encampments, where individuals live in dangerous environments while the
surrounding communities face the consequences of those conditions.\109\
Public safety agencies and first responders are therefore crucial
partners in identifying individuals in crisis, responding to dangerous
situations, and connecting people to appropriate services and supports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Nina Joudeh and Jamie Paige, Deadly Bacteria at a Bay Area
Homeless Encampment Sparks Urgent Calls for Action, N.Y. Post (Jan.
17, 2026), <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/01/17/us-news/deadly-bacteria-at-a-bay-area-homeless-encampment-sparks-urgent-calls-for-action/">https://nypost.com/2026/01/17/us-news/deadly-bacteria-at-a-bay-area-homeless-encampment-sparks-urgent-calls-for-action/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Value and Effectiveness of Public Safety Partnerships
The Best Practices Toolkit, shaped by subject matter experts from
across the country in coordination with HUD, HHS/SAMHSA, and ONDCP,
offers a model for homeless encampment response that recognizes the
important role of law enforcement and first responders. According to
the toolkit:
People living in encampments face serious, at times life-
threatening, challenges, including untreated mental illness, substance
use disorders, physical health conditions due to unsanitary and unsafe
conditions, limited healthcare access, and long histories of trauma.
The traditional response of allowing the growth of homeless encampments
has not produced lasting solutions and often worsened outcomes for both
individuals and neighborhoods.
The toolkit recognizes that effective encampment response requires
coordination among outreach workers, housing providers, behavioral
health professionals, first responders, and public safety agencies.
Rather than treating homelessness solely as a housing issue, the
toolkit advances an
[[Page 57915]]
integrated approach designed to improve outcomes for individuals while
restoring safety and order in surrounding communities.
One example of a successful coordinated approach is the Homeless
Outreach Services Team (HOST), which integrates specialized law
enforcement teams with housing and services providers. HOST has
achieved full resolution of over 1,500 encampments with no arrests, no
use of force, and no litigation.
Well-designed approaches to disincentivize public camping results
in treatment and shelter beds being filled, not jail cells. Under the
Safer Kentucky Act of 2024, 92 percent of unlawful camping charges
filed in the first year were non-jailable first offenses.\110\ These
engagements were opportunities to identify behavioral health or other
challenges and for the provision of services, rather than efforts to
incarcerate. According to one report, 150 cities in 32 states have
passed ordinances banning or restricting public camping with California
having the largest share.\111\ Restrictions on public camping can be a
critical tool to match individual needs with appropriate levels of
care.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Paul Webster and Caleb Jacobs, Safer KY Act isn't cruel.
It's a solution that's working. [verbar] Opinion, Courier Journal
(Mar. 24, 2026), <a href="https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/contributors/2026/03/24/safer-kentucky-act-homelessness-camping-ban-jail-law-enforcement/89199931007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=false&gca-epti=z1188xxp002450n11----l115650c11----e1188xxv003344&gca-ft=142&gca-ds=sophi">https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/contributors/2026/03/24/safer-kentucky-act-homelessness-camping-ban-jail-law-enforcement/89199931007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=false&gca-epti=z1188xxp002450n11----l115650c11----e1188xxv003344&gca-ft=142&gca-ds=sophi</a>.
\111\ Robbie Sequeira, Many More Cities Ban Sleeping Outside,
Despite a Lack of Shelter Space, Stateline (Jan. 27, 2025), <a href="https://stateline.org/2025/01/27/many-more-cities-ban-sleeping-outside-despite-a-lack-of-shelter-space/">https://stateline.org/2025/01/27/many-more-cities-ban-sleeping-outside-despite-a-lack-of-shelter-space/</a>.
\112\ Devon Kurtz, With Louisiana Homeless Bill, Democrats Once
Again Smear Sensible Policy as Jim Crow, The Federalist (Apr. 27,
2026), <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2026/04/27/with-louisiana-homeless-bill-democrats-once-again-smear-sensible-policy-as-jim-crow/">https://thefederalist.com/2026/04/27/with-louisiana-homeless-bill-democrats-once-again-smear-sensible-policy-as-jim-crow/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These public-safety approaches to homelessness are also broadly
supported by the public. According to national polling conducted in
2025, there is strong bipartisan support for public camping bans and
stricter enforcement of drug laws. Not only do nearly two-thirds of
voters oppose allowing homeless individuals to camp on public property,
but 75 percent of voters found that it was more compassionate to move
individuals into shelters rather than allowing camping. When shelters
are unavailable, 70 percent supported designated temporary camping
areas with sanitation, water, and police services away from residential
and business areas, rather than unmanaged encampments. Further, voters
were in favor of stricter drug enforcement near service providers, with
63 percent supporting increased criminal penalties for drug trafficking
around homelessness facilities.'' \113\ Together, these findings
suggest that public safety-oriented approaches can help communities
address homelessness in ways that align with both public safety
concerns and public expectations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Cicero Inst., National Crime Poll (Oct. 2025), <a href="https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/national-crime-poll/">https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/national-crime-poll/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Results of Public Safety-Oriented Approaches
Advancing public safety policies that identify people with
behavioral health needs and connect them to services has been shown to
decrease homelessness. Two years after the City of Austin reinstated a
ban on public camping, unsheltered homelessness decreased by one-
third.\114\ Several years after Colorado Springs restricted public
camping near creeks and waterways, unsheltered homelessness decreased
by 19 percent.\115\ In March 2026, Anchorage leaders announced that the
city had no major homeless encampments for the first time in over a
decade, attributing the milestone to deliberate ``a policy choice'' to
``pair public safety, outreach, shelter access, housing placement, and
behavioral health investment.'' \116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ Katy McAfee, Ben Thompson, Austin's Homeless Population
Dispersing After 2 Years of Camping Ban Enforcement, Community
Impact (May 25, 2023), <a href="https://communityimpact.com/austin/central-austin/city-county/2023/05/25/austins-homeless-population-dispersing-after-2-years-of-camping-ban-enforcement/">https://communityimpact.com/austin/central-austin/city-county/2023/05/25/austins-homeless-population-dispersing-after-2-years-of-camping-ban-enforcement/</a>.
\115\ Brief of Amicus Curiae Cicero Institute in Support of
Petitioner at 14, City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U.S. 643
(2024) (No. 23-175).
\116\ Anchorage Assembly, Chair Constant Statement on
Homelessness Milestone (Mar. 3, 2026), <a href="https://www.muni.org/Departments/Assembly/PressReleases/Pages/Chair-Constant-Statement-on-Homelessness-Milestone.aspx">https://www.muni.org/Departments/Assembly/PressReleases/Pages/Chair-Constant-Statement-on-Homelessness-Milestone.aspx</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken together, the evidence demonstrates that law enforcement,
firefighters, emergency medical personnel, crisis response teams, and
other first responders are indispensable partners in addressing
unsheltered homelessness, behavioral health crises, and the public
safety challenges associated with homelessness. These professionals are
often the first to encounter homeless individuals experiencing crisis,
addiction, mental illness, victimization, or medical emergencies and
are uniquely positioned to connect individuals with appropriate
services and levels of care. HUD therefore finds that partnerships
between CoCs, first responders, law enforcement agencies, and state and
local governments are a proven and effective strategy for reducing
homelessness, minimizing trauma, improving public safety, and advancing
community-wide commitments to recovery, stability, and self-
sufficiency.
Ronald J. Kurtz,
Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
[FR Doc. 2026-18555 Filed 9-10-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 11, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.