How to Change the Narrative About Supportive Housing

04/21/2026

By Gillian Gaynair

We’ve said this before, but it’s worth repeating: In today’s divisive environment, our messages and words matter more than ever. They really do have the ability to connect with people’s hearts in ways that create empathy for others and build support for solutions that can ensure everyone has a home.

The power that words and framing hold was reinforced by the results of public opinion narrative research and message testing the Lab recently conducted in partnership with the Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH). This first-of-its-kind effort revealed what the public thinks about supportive housing — that is, housing combined with tailored services, like healthcare and job training — what types of messages resonate most with different groups of people, and what messages persuade people most.

We learned a lot, and we’re excited to share our research insights and messaging recommendations to help our allies (you) communicate more effectively and build public support for supportive housing.

Our Research Approach The Lab’s narrative research involved three phases:  A national qualitative survey that helped us identify three primary values important to respondents: safety/stability, compassion and freedom. We used those values to shape messages about supportive housing and tested how they landed with people in a national online dial survey. Then, we tested the persuasiveness of six messages among different audiences to see which ones changed their minds in favor of supportive housing.

The research is especially timely, as federal housing programs continue to be gutted or less effective while most of us are feeling the sting of rising costs, from rent to gas and groceries. Meanwhile, a persistent narrative being shared by people in power questions the efficacy of supportive housing programs.

The good news is our movement has the tools to challenge that dominant narrative and the public already supports the idea of supportive housing. 

We Can Change People’s Minds and Increase Support for Proven Solutions

That was among our top findings from the research: The percentage of people who said it was “more important” to prioritize funding for housing and support services grew from 52 percent before hearing our messages to 60 percent after it. This cause-and-effect relationship provides tangible proof that sustained communications is not just about preaching to the choir, but can actually increase public support and concern.

Other significant highlights:

• Respondents overwhelmingly support stable housing combined with services to solve homelessness with 9 out of 10 supporting it and 6 out of 10 strongly supporting it. And almost the same number (88 percent) support more government funding for programs that solve homelessness and housing instability.
• Respondents told us the best reason to support affordable housing with services is because it gets people off the streets and out of encampments, and it provides stability for individuals and families.
• People may agree that the idea of housing and services is a good one, but some mistrust it will work because of concerns about waste, fraud and abuse — specifically, that people who don’t really need help will take advantage of programs. Our messages can address this without reiterating the opposition’s framing and language. 
• The term “services that help people stay housed long term” received a more positive response than “permanent supportive housing,” which suggests that the word “permanent” may evoke a sense of an indefinite, non-reversible commitment that makes some respondents, especially those in the persuadable middle, wary.

So what do these insights mean for how we frame our messages — and to whom?

It’s clear that audiences support this solution, but they are also cynical about the effectiveness of supportive housing. For that reason, it’s critical that we repeatedly show people how and why supportive housing is the most effective, humane and cost-effective approach to addressing homelessness. 

The best way to illustrate that is through storytelling, whether that’s in a blog post, video, Instagram reel or an anecdote during a podcast or media interview. Our field needs to spend less time talking about policy: what it is, who’s behind it, why it’s bad, where its next stop is in the policy ecosystem. People don’t feel a connection to policy. People connect to people’s stories and the impact of a policy. 

For example, share stories about the life of someone in supportive housing. Show people what tailored services look like at a property. Introduce the staff who help get folks into supportive housing. All these stories offer real voices about the impact of supportive housing and provide an opportunity to explain why it’s effective.  

People-Centered Stories for the Win

Of the six messages we tested, one of the most persuasive among audiences was a story about a woman who got a second chance to get her life back on track thanks to supportive housing. The message was effective even among segments of what the Lab considers the “least moveable” audience, which include people who are white, 55 and older, homeowners, and Republican voters with conservative ideology. 

The other most persuasive message that led to the most bipartisan support for housing and services focused on shifting resources to invest more in compassionate, effective approaches for people experiencing homelessness, like supportive housing. 

Even though it’s clear audiences favor such an intervention over others — like fining, jailing or institutionalizing homeless people — our messaging strategy still needs to be nuanced. To be effective, we have to have tailored narratives for the three primary audiences that we push out consistently across a variety of platforms. And the persuadable audience is most important — and the biggest audience. They represent the country as a whole and share ideology with the base audience (likeminded/committed to our movement) and least moveable (least aligned with housing solutions we champion).

According to our research, persuadables respond most strongly to arguments rooted in community safety and fiscal responsibility. For instance, they connect with messages that frame supportive housing as “smart spending” and language that emphasizes how communities benefit from supportive housing: ”Stable housing plus services gets people off the streets and makes neighborhoods safer.”

And individual words matter as much as our overall framing. 

Based on our findings, we suggest avoiding the term “Housing First” to describe supportive housing. Spell it out for folks. Say instead: “Stable housing with services that support recovery.”  Avoid saying “housing with wraparound services.” Explain it so your audiences don’t have to do the mental gymnastics to figure it out. Say instead: “Housing plus support services like job training, counseling, mental health and drug use treatment, and help finding and securing a home.”

The Lab’s narrative research supports what we know from behavioral and cognitive science, which is that when we speak to audiences based on their shared values, they listen. Our findings provide the housing field a blueprint for effectively tapping into the public’s underlying frustration about homelessness and housing instability with messaging that not only positions supportive housing as a smart, proven solution, but also demonstrates the action and leadership voters want from government officials.

Interested in learning more? Reach out to us at info@housingnarrativelab.org to receive a copy of our full research report, which offers more detailed information about what audiences care about, how to speak to them and tips for crafting strong messages about supportive housing.