The final day of the Housing First Europe Hub conference dug deeper into whether Housing First saves money and how it compares with other interventions. Much of the debate focused on proving that Housing First is the right choice through cost savings. If we can show it saves money, the thinking goes, we can make the case for investment at a time of tight budgets and growing priorities.
Yet over the two days we heard many reasons why housing programmes may not save money. For example, housing brings people back into public services, as Dr Carolina Reid’s California findings showed. This could include public benefits, medical care, job training and education. Being unhoused draws instead on policing, criminal justice and emergency care. Yet only one of these routes gets us to the outcome we want: people housed, and people at risk kept in their homes.
So why do we need to prove that Housing First saves money, when we know it works? The evidence base shows that it gets people housed and keeps them housed, with benefits for individuals and for society.
If I held the purse strings, I would ask different questions:
- Which programmes best achieve our desired outcomes, and at what cost?
- What mix of housing, homelessness and health services gets the best results against agreed targets?
- Should I invest more in prevention, emergency response or Housing First? What is the right mix?
- How much should go to people who are unhoused or at risk now, and how much to building housing and strengthening the safety net for the future?
These questions are harder for advocates to tackle than simply saying “invest more in homelessness!” But public health offers a precedent. The UN OneHealth Tool, a freely available model, draws on the best global evidence to link a national plan’s targets to the investment needed. It compares options by cost and by their impact on mortality and morbidity: for example, investing in condoms to prevent HIV versus treating it. That makes trade-offs visible and shifts the question from “is this saving money?” to “are we achieving what we said we would, and at what cost?”
To my knowledge, our field is still some way from such a model. But we can start with goals and accountability. Europe has committed to ending homelessness by 2030, yet the European Affordable Housing Plan adds no homelessness targets. Some countries, like Finland, have set interim targets along the way. Every country could set annual milestones, cost what it takes to meet them, and report progress publicly every year, echoing calls from FEANTSA and the European Economic and Social Committee.
Bold goals attract funding, and the accountability that comes with it. If we only plan around the money that already exists, we will never reach them. The global HIV/AIDS response taught us that, and the same lesson applies to homelessness in Europe. Funding to end homelessness doesn’t need to pay for itself. It needs to deliver, and only by measuring our outcomes will we know that it has.
Sources
- European Commission: European Affordable Housing Plan
- FEANTSA: What can the European Affordable Housing Plan deliver on homelessness (Dec 2025)
- EESC: For an EU framework for national homeless strategies based on the principle of Housing First
- European Parliament: Lisbon Declaration on combatting homelessness (June 2021)
- WHO: OneHealth Tool
—————————————————
About the Author:
Nena do Nascimento
Manzanita Data Strategies