BetterFor decades, the order was not written down anywhere, and everybody applied it: first you stabilise, then you get housed. Treatment, then a roof. Sobriety, then a lease.
Housing First does the opposite. It hands over the keys at the start, with no prerequisites related to employment, substance use or enrolment in any programme. That is not a slogan, it is how the OECD defines it.
The OECD reports broad consensus underpinned by strong evidence that Housing First is an effective and resource-efficient route out of homelessness. Randomised controlled trials show greater housing retention than treatment as usual. In the United States, every dollar invested returns USD 1.44 in savings. And yet: implementation remains limited in many OECD and EU countries.
The old orderThe staircase, and what it assumes
The OECD gives the traditional approach a name: the staircase model. Its definition is precise, models that make access to housing contingent on the completion of counselling or treatment programmes.
Step by step: emergency shelter, then temporary accommodation, then supported housing, then, if everything has gone well, a home of your own. Each step has to be earned.
The assumption underneath is the interesting part. The staircase treats housing as the result of stability. It therefore asks the person to become stable while being unhoused, which is asking them to do the hardest version of the task.
The moveThe reversal
Housing First reverses the sequence. Housing becomes the starting point, not the finish line. The OECD calls this a significant paradigm shift in homelessness policy, a move away from reliance on emergency accommodation towards unconditional, long-term housing solutions.
Support does not disappear. It comes with the housing rather than before it: the OECD describes wraparound services alongside the unconditional housing.
The word doing the work in every OECD sentence on this is unconditional. Not generous, unconditional. The difference is that a condition can be failed.
The evidenceWhat the evaluations found
This is where the subject stops being a matter of philosophy. The OECD's own summary sentence:
“There is broad consensus underpinned by strong evidence that Housing First and housing-led solutions are an effective and resource-efficient pathway out of homelessness and towards housing stability.”
And on the method: “A series of randomised controlled trials have shown that Housing First can produce greater housing retention among the chronically homeless compared to treatment-as-usual groups.”
Randomised controlled trials, on this subject, are rare and hard to run. That they exist, and point the same way, is the substance of the claim.
The French programme, Un chez-soi d'abord, costs EUR 14 000 per person per year. The OECD describes that cost as completely offset by the savings generated relative to traditional service models. A randomised trial of the same programme found reduced in-patient days and improved housing stability for people with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder experiencing homelessness.
The OECD also reports Housing First to be a more efficient allocation of resources than traditional services in the United Kingdom and North America, and for young people in the Netherlands.
The long caseFinland, four governments in a row
Most policies get tried for one term. Finland has kept this one as a core strategy since 2008, across four consecutive government programmes, all committed to a strategy to end homelessness by 2027.
The machinery is worth noting, because it is the unglamorous part that makes it work: the Ministry of the Environment coordinates, alongside the housing finance agency, the Ministry of Social Affairs and a health funding centre. They direct funding to third-sector organisations which buy apartments on the open market and rent them to people experiencing homelessness.
What we are not saying. Finland has committed to a strategy to end homelessness by 2027, that is a target, not an accomplishment, and the OECD presents it as such. Anyone telling you homelessness has been abolished somewhere is going further than the source does.
The awkward questionWhy it is still a minority approach
If the evidence is that solid and the money works out, the obvious question is why this is not the default everywhere. The OECD asks it in its own summary, and does not soften it.
“Despite evidence of improved outcomes and cost savings, the implementation of these approaches remains limited in many OECD and EU countries.”
In the Netherlands, the OECD notes, the staircase model remains prominentand the national Housing First network exists in part to advocate for the shift away from it.
So the barrier is not the evidence. It is that the reversal asks something uncomfortable: to give housing to people who have not earned it in the sense the staircase understood that word. The staircase was never only a method. It was also a moral order.
The measured version is shorter. Two approaches were compared. One of them retains more people in housing and costs less over time. It is applied least.
There is no worldwide helpline, and numbers change from one country to the next. Two markers hold everywhere.
If there is immediate danger, call your country’s emergency number.
Otherwise, Find A Helpline lists more than 1,700 free and confidential helplines in over 175 countries. You pick your country, it shows what exists near you, with opening hours. The site itself is in English, but the lines it points to are local.
This is not a clinical recommendation. It is the one international directory that states it verifies its data with the helpline organisations themselves and maintains it daily.
QuestionsFrequently asked questions
What is Housing First?
An approach that gives immediate access to long-term housing, with no prerequisites related to employment, substance use or enrolment in a specific programme. The OECD explicitly distinguishes it from “staircase models”, which make access to housing contingent on completing counselling or treatment.
Why call it a reversal?
Because the usual order was: stabilise first, get housed afterwards. Housing was the reward for a successful journey. Housing First puts housing at the start of the journey rather than at its end. The OECD calls it a significant paradigm shift in homelessness policy.
Does it work?
The OECD writes that there is “broad consensus underpinned by strong evidence” that Housing First and housing-led solutions are an effective and resource-efficient pathway out of homelessness and towards housing stability. It adds that a series of randomised controlled trials has shown greater housing retention among the chronically homeless, compared with treatment as usual.
Does it cost more?
The evaluations cited by the OECD say the opposite over the medium term. In the United States, every dollar invested in Housing First programmes results in USD 1.44 in cost savings. In France, the Un chez-soi d'abord programme costs EUR 14 000 per person per year, an amount the OECD describes as completely offset by the savings generated relative to traditional service models, 70% of which come from avoided hospitalisations.
Which country has gone furthest?
Finland. Housing First has been a core strategy there since 2008, and four consecutive government programmes have committed to a strategy to end homelessness by 2027. The Ministry of the Environment coordinates, with several agencies, funding for third-sector organisations that buy apartments on the market and rent them to people experiencing homelessness.
If it works so well, why is it not everywhere?
The OECD puts the question without dodging it: “despite evidence of improved outcomes and cost savings, the implementation of these approaches remains limited in many OECD and EU countries”. In the Netherlands for instance, it notes that the staircase model remains prominent. The obstacle is not the evidence.
Read nextRelated
Sources
- Long-term housing solutions: Housing-led and Housing First, OECD Toolkit to Combat Homelessness, 13 December 2024
- United Nations General Assembly resolution A/RES/78/172 (2023)
About this article. General and educational information. The evaluations quoted cover specific programmes in specific countries: they do not guarantee the same result elsewhere, and the OECD itself presents implementation as uneven. Whether such a programme exists near you, and the conditions for accessing it, are matters for the authorities where you live.
Spotted an error or an out-of-date figure? Write to us: we will correct it and re-date the article. Our texts are written with the help of artificial intelligence and checked against official sources before publication, but a figure or a definition can change without us catching it. If anything here does not match what an official body tells you, they are right.