HUD guidelines switch from ‘Housing First’ to ‘Treatment First’

Sarasota’s safety net providers adjust to federal homelessness strategy shift.

By Ed James III

Original Air Date: July 3, 2026

Host: As our community grapples with out-of-reach housing costs and an ongoing opiate crisis, a massive shift in federal housing funding is about to hit Sarasota’s social safety net. Federal regulators have pivoted their homelessness strategy, and local service providers are now adjusting. WSLR’s Ed James III reports on how this policy update from Washington could change the lives of those enrolled in these programs here.

Ed James III: If you’ve been following the news from Washington, you may have seen reports about the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, releasing new guidelines for the Continuum of Care program. It is a multi-billion-dollar federal funding source that Sarasota organizations rely on to support housing stability. After decades, HUD is shifting away from the “Housing First” model—which prioritizes housing before requiring treatment—toward a “Treatment First” model, which mandates participation in services as a condition for aid.

The application deadline for these funds is on August 26, which leaves local agencies with limited time to adjust their programming.

Sarasota police at a makeshift camp. | Screenshot

The Treatment First programs now prioritized by HUD require participants to first address mental health and addiction before finding permanent, unsubsidized housing. In these programs, individuals are supposed to get into transitional or temporary communal housing in which treatment is required. After a one- or two-year stay in these transitional homes, participants are then sent to regular, unsubsidized housing. According to Sydney Costatini, a University of California Berkeley economist, research has shown that the Housing First approach creates more housing stability than for those not enrolled in these programs. But that research still leaves a lot of open questions.

To understand how the policy shift resonates with those navigating these systems, I spoke with Ryan Trout. Ryan serves as the president of Nautical Nook, part of the Oxford House Sober Living Network, and he sits on the Parent Advisory Leadership Committee—the official advisory committee to the 12th Judicial Circuit Court, where he counsels fathers seeking reunification with their children.

Suncoast Recovery Homes halfway house in Sarasota. | Photo: BJ Scott

Ryan Trout: Every case is situational and different. I believe it should be a more universal approach, with options for people according to what they are going through. For example, it doesn’t take treatment for everybody to get off substances. Some people wake up one day and they realize that they have completely wrecked their life, and they’re like, “I don’t want to do this anymore.” They have the courage and the willpower to do it on their own. I, unfortunately, did not have that courage and that willpower and that determination to do that on my own coming from the streets. I do believe houses should be available to anybody that is trying to recover from substance abuse, regardless of whether it’s drugs, alcohol, meth, whatever. But I do believe the houses should be on standby. Every case is different; if it’s a judicial case, usually it requires going through treatment first to get housing. But if it’s some guy or some woman who is like, “Hey. I’ve quit substances. I’ve got a good head start. I’m trying to rebuild my life. I’m trying to get my kids back; they’re housed with my sister”—or whoever—family member—whatever that looks like, the houses should be available to them to provide that nesting in a safe environment for families to be brought back together.

EJ: Trout emphasizes that, for those navigating the judicial system, housing is not just a support—it is a legal requirement. Trout explains the direct link between stable housing and the court-mandated process of family reunification.

RT: Stable housing is one of the mandatory requirements on a case plan in order to be reunified. It is ordered by the court. With that said, I have to prove to the state—to the department—that I pay my rent on time, I have to turn in my paystubs—stuff like that. The other option would have looked like this: if I wasn’t able to reunify here, I would have to be rushed out of the house, rush into a situation where I’m probably going to struggle and not being financially set to make ends meet and all aspects of bills and things that come with holding a household together. That’s what the Oxford House provided me with: the opportunity to pay what we call an equal expense share of $225 a week. That’s including to have my child here. I can save money and have that cushion to be able to go out on my own and have the comfortability and a lot less stress about, “Can I do this on a single income?”

EJ: I also spoke with Yvonne Hawke, Operations Manager at Hand Up to Victory, a non-profit that provides funding for housing and support services. I asked her about how this policy shift affects their mission.

Yvonne Hawke | Courtesy Hand Up to Victory

Yvonne Hawke: We don’t receive any government funding at all at this point in time. It isn’t directly going to affect us at this time. However, if we were to seek out government funding, it could affect growth. If it affected anything, it would be our ability to grow the organization.

EJ: While Hand Up to Victory may not be immediately affected by the loss of federal dollars, Hawke expressed broader concerns about the impact such shifts could have on organizations that rely on these grants.

YH: How can we expect individuals to survive if they don’t have a safe place to lay their head? If we don’t provide housing, then where are they going to recover? On the street? How are they going to be able to rebuild a life without the confidence and the safety of having somewhere safe to lay their head that’s sober—where they have accountability—where they have emotional, physical, spiritual and recovery support?

EJ: I also spoke with Adam Joiner, a local resident of a sober living house who has benefited from resources like rental assistance from “Hands up to Victory.” Given his own experience, he firmly advocates for prioritizing treatment first.

Adam Joiner: I believe it’s best to do a facility first. That way you have the foundation of being sober before you go into sober living. A lot of the funding nowadays isn’t available for people who really need that treatment first in order to have the foundation to stand up on their own two feet again and be the people they used to be. It’s hard out here. Being one myself and being sober and continuing to try to everyday life—it’s a struggle. Trying to reach out—even me, when I was 1st here in the Oxford House—there’s very limited funding for anything. Not having that funding for facilities and rehab that people need to start their journey is a struggle, and it’s like throwing a piece of meat to the wolves. You’re putting them right back out there in the face of what they’re trying to battle. They don’t have a chance sometimes. I just don’t believe that to be right.

EJ: Critics of the new HUD policy argue that housing stability is an essential foundation for recovery from substance abuse. When the foundation of a home is removed, they suggest, treatment plans for mental health and substance abuse are less likely to succeed. But for people like Adam Joiner who support “treatment first,” they believe federal guidance now emphasizing self-sufficiency as being the key metric for success is the best path to follow.

Only time will tell how much of a real world impact this shift in policy will have on the citizens living on the margins of society looking to transform their lives for the better.

For WSLR News, I’m Ed James III.

WSLR News aims to keep the local community informed with our 1/2 hour local news show, quarterly newspaper and social media feeds. The local news broadcast airs on Wednesdays and Fridays at 6pm.