Critics of direct housing policies often cite the initial cost of providing accommodation, treating it as an additional public expense. However, research data refutes this claim, documenting that Housing First generates direct cost savings for the state.

A prime example is Finland, the only European country with a steady decline in chronic homelessness. According to studies (such as those by the Y-Säätiö foundation), housing a homeless person with complex needs saves the state up to €15,000 annually through a drastic reduction in the use of emergency social and healthcare services.

Similarly, a systematic economic review in the US by the Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) demonstrated that for every $1 invested in permanent supportive housing using the Housing First methodology, society saves an average of $1.80 by curbing other public expenditures.

These savings arise primarily from relieving the burden on the healthcare and public order systems by reducing costly hospital stays and emergency room visits. As the Canadian At Home/Chez Soi study showed, the reduced use of these services offset 96% of the program's operating costs for individuals with complex needs, while for the most heavily burdened 10%, the savings exceeded the total cost of the intervention.

At the same time, safe housing breaks the costly cycle of involvement with the criminal justice system. As reported by the Urban Institute in Denver, the intervention leads to a reduction in arrests (up to 40%), police contacts (34%), and overnight stays in detention and detox facilities (up to 65%).

While traditional temporary shelter models recycle the problem at a continuous public cost, investing in Housing First offers an evidence-based, permanent, and cost-effective solution.