Approaches to Homelessness

 by Sophie Haworth

The topic of domestic homelessness has been prominent in the recent news cycle, primarily promoted by the controversial comments of the (now ex-)Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, in which she defined rough sleeping as a “lifestyle choice”. She simultaneously announced her plans to reduce the number of tents on the street, not by reducing homelessness, but by making the use of such tents a civil offence. In this setting, it is important to recognise the sheer scale of the homelessness crisis (as it has often been described) in the UK; rough sleeping has increased 74% since 2010, with more than 3,000 people sleeping on the streets in England alone last Autumn. Those homeless face a life expectancy between 8-13 years shorter than the general population. The ongoing cost of living crisis has contributed to 290,000 households seeking help for homelessness in the fiscal year 2021-22, as well as the sharp uptake in use of foodbanks, with more than ¾ of a million using a food bank for the first time this year. With the issue becoming increasingly acute, it is worthwhile studying alternative policies to combat homelessness that are being implemented globally, as well as regionally in the UK.

Internationally, there are varying approaches to tackling homelessness, ranging from explicitly defined strategy to purely experimental. Britain not only faces an issue with increasing homelessness, but also a housing crisis for those who are in stable situations. The average house in the UK costs more than 10x the average salary, further exacerbated by the low vacancy rates making the housing markets highly competitive and difficult to navigate, especially for first time buyers. Undoubtedly, such difficulties are contributing to the domestic homelessness crisis, with similar patterns occurring across the globe. Across the Atlantic, the US announced the Opening Doors plan in 2015, centralising the crisis response to a federal level. Through this plan they aimed to end chronic homelessness, with a specific focus on veteran homelessness, in the following five years. Though it was clearly an ambitious aim that is yet to be reached (with over 580,000 homeless individuals remaining nationally as of 2022), this structured plan of action is something that Britain lacks in legislation. In fact, the closest to it in many ways has been the comments from Suella Braverman, provoking outrage from many anti-homelessness charities and individuals. But it begs the question: what is an effective homelessness strategy right now, and how are other nations tackling the crisis?

The average cost of supporting the homeless each year has increasingly breached £1 billion in the UK, with the cost of supporting a single rough sleeper over £20,000. There is little doubt that effective and timely intervention, and moreover prevention is far more fiscally (as well as morally) responsible than inaction, but there still remains debate domestically and internationally as to which policy to adopt. In Finland, their pioneering “Home First” initiative was deemed risky by many as it posed a significant challenge to the salient narrative surrounding homelessness. Often, a homeless individual is deemed to have problems, such as substance abuse or mental health issues, which a state (whichever that may be) would usually try to tackle before arranging permanent housing. However, through this 2007 policy, Finland aimed not only to eradicate long term homelessness by 2015, but to do so by providing stable accommodation as the first intervention, instead of “managing homelessness with temporary solutions such as beds in hostels or emergency shelters”. This constituted a clear evolution in homelessness strategy, which argued that providing stable shelter was the catalyst for eradicating the other ills of the homeless. And in short, the Home First policy was effective; the number of homeless in Finland is on the decline, and the number of affordable social housing projects has increased. The Finnish government is reporting savings of over 9,000 euros/annum on diverted spending to each individual, despite still investing heavily in social services and mentoring for the individuals helped by the scheme. The policy, of course, has its criticisms, one being that it has thus far failed to effectively reach the female homeless population, and though this is far smaller than the male one, the Finnish government is paying “closer attention” to the way the scheme could be adapted to better serve the entire population. 

Across the Atlantic, Canada’s pilot scheme of the ‘New Leaf’ project offers another contemporary example of a noteworthy state approach to tackling homelessness. Praised on the podcast “The Rest is Politics”, the scheme gifts a one-time cash donation of $7,500 (Canadian - about £4,500) to recently homeless people, in order to prevent them “becoming entrenched as homeless”, and placing further, long-term strain on the state. The study found that the participants spent on average fewer days on the street, establishing their own savings whilst simultaneously saving the state $777 each purely from saved shelter costs. It was a new context in which to test the ‘Give Directly’ method, championed by Rory Stewart, having thus far primarily operated in lower income countries. The principle in both schemes trusts those in challenging financial situations to be the best judge of their needs, and, despite great scepticism, the initiatives have been successful in both instances. Stewart praised the scheme, calling it “completely transformative”, noting especially the fact that the approach would save the government money in a relatively fast turnaround. However, the schemes are yet to be rolled out in greater numbers, and thus their success in wider society is difficult to accurately gauge. 

It is not just abroad that innovative schemes are being implemented. In the North, Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham introduced the ‘Good Landlord Charter’ to define renter standards, in order to prevent one of the major causes of homelessness: insecure housing. Though this has only been rolled out to the 10 regions included in the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, it is indicative of an effective domestic plan, or at least the basis of one, to combat homelessness in England. Burnham stated in 2017 that “help [for the homeless] is better if it’s given via a structured approach, which is about getting to the root cause of people’s problems rather than just managing their situation where they are.” He has since established donation hubs around the city, through which individuals can donate online to the Mayor’s Charity to support the fight against homelessness in Greater Manchester. Under Burnham's leadership, homelessness has dropped to less than 100 individuals.

These policies have only been tested in limited settings thus far, meaning that the findings are not directly transferable to the situation in Britain. Such an approach would inevitably cause controversy here; considering the already narrative of some who argue that those on benefits are ‘scroungers’, it would not be surprising if public opinion would also turn against such direct intervention. It is almost inconceivable that any radical changes will come under the current government, who seem to be keen to crack down on ‘antisocial’ behaviour (as the ex-Home Secretary deemed rough sleeping to be), but increased hope has to come from the surprise reshuffle. However, to appeal to such conservative voters, the facts are simple; effective preventative interventions cost the government just £2,263/person, whilst dealing with the homeless costs £9,266.Not just from a moral standpoint, but from a fiscal one, an established government homeless strategy would benefit society.