In the name of accountability, the order shifts federal funding away from housing-first programs that prioritize getting individuals experiencing homelessness into stable housing before addressing other challenges and toward criminalization and civil commitment. This pivot, the order argues, will hold grantees to a higher standard of effectiveness.
We all want public dollars to drive meaningful progress on solving this complex issue. But the order prescribes certain approaches and prohibits others instead of encouraging an adaptable homeless service system that responds to results. This may lead to missed opportunities to put accountability at the forefront by designing evidence-based programs that link public funding to measurable outcomes.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to homelessness. Social services are complex because each individual and community faces its own set of circumstances. Broad policy mandates that rely on quick fixes ignore this reality. We can confront this complexity by putting outcomes at the center of the equation, allowing communities to figure out what will work best for their needs by following evidence, data and the individual experiences of participants.
For the past five years, a program in Anchorage, Alaska, has explored this approach. Grounded in research and real-time data, Home for Good was designed to use well-evidenced strategies: provide stable housing combined with intensive case management support to individuals experiencing persistent homelessness and complex behavioral health challenges.
Program participants were identified through collaborative data sharing across the public health, criminal justice and shelter systems. This data-driven approach focused services on Anchorage’s most vulnerable: those with disabling mental illness or substance use who cycle through jails, emergency rooms and shelters.
Home for Good was structured as a “pay for success” initiative, tying public payments to service providers directly to the achievement of clearly defined outcomes: reduced arrests, fewer shelter stays, lower use of emergency medical services and increased housing stability. Five years of data and an independent evaluation demonstrate striking results: a 63 percent reduction in arrests, a 76 percent reduction in intakes to the city’s sobering facility, a 32 percent reduction in EMS transports and an 83 percent reduction in shelter stays once participants are housed.
What emerges from these outcomes are several clear principles:
Link payment directly to outcomes that matter. By tying funding to specific, measurable results, programs must prove their effectiveness to receive, and continue receiving, public funds. This creates natural accountability.
Require robust data tracking and collaboration. At launch, providers were trained to improve data entry into the national Homeless Management Information System and generate weekly reports to monitor progress. Operational partners met weekly, and every six months an independent evaluator assessed housing stability outcomes and emergency service use.
Prioritize the unique expertise of participants. The private sector doesn’t design products or services without user input, and social services should be no different. Only those served by programs can see what the system looks like from the inside and provide crucial insights about what really works for people who have lost nearly everything. Broad-sweeping and punitive approaches ignore this critical input. That’s why Home for Good includes program participants in its executive steering committee.
Design based on historical evidence; adapt based on what the data says is effective. The program was launched with a scattered-site housing approach, but the tight local rental landscape presented challenges. Then COVID-19 funding for hotel conversions offered an opportunity to shift to a site-based approach, securing blocks of units and pairing them with on-site support. The impact was clear: Participants moved into permanent housing and stayed housed, with recent cohorts achieving nearly 90 percent housing stability at six months.
Ultimately, accountability in homelessness policy means more than temporarily clearing streets and filling jails. Homelessness permeates across public systems, including health care, criminal justice and emergency services, and effective solutions require cross-sector collaboration and data-driven targeting of those with the most complex needs.
Five years of evidence from Anchorage makes it clear: By designing homelessness programs with highly accountable payment structures, we can achieve impressive outcomes. As we aim to end homelessness, we must look beyond short-term enforcement strategies and invest in policies and services that follow the evidence.
Annie Jensen is a director at Social Finance, where she supports state and local partners to improve homeless response systems by orienting around data and outcomes.
Governing’s opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing’s editors or management.
Related Articles
