Homelessness is one of the greatest social injustices of our time. Because of its complexity, the vast array of interlaying and contributing factors, as well as the broad scale of effected party circumstance, it has previously been assumed that it would be challenging to develop a blanket prevention and response strategy, which would be inclusive to all. Nonetheless, modern times reveal that ‘Housing First’ cannot be dismissed as a pioneering and radical method of ending homelessness today.
‘Housing First’ is an evidenced-based practice which is now widely-cited across developed nations as the most effective approach to ending all types of homelessness. Homelessness – the state of having no home – cannot and will not end, without affording the provision of a housing option for all those who are lacking.
On the 30th September 2016, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1380, establishing a Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council and making California a ‘Housing First’ statecxxxv. SB 1380 requires that all state programmes targeted towards ending homelessness incorporate the core components of ‘Housing First’, recognising that homelessness is expensive to the state and that deployment of a supportive-housing based strategy can reduce incurred costs by up to 80%. This bill is a meaningful win for homeless advocates and represents years of work to create an interagency council who engage cross-sector action.
The Californian government anticipate the Senate Bill 1380 ruling to be a powerful tool focused on formal corroborative evidence that will help to end and extensively prevent homelessness across the state of California. The greatest challenge here is not willingness to implement such radical transformation to traditional approach, it is the realistic ability of gaining access to adequate housing resources in order to meet such tremendous - and continually-increasing - demand.
As permanent living space for homeless households is largely unobtainable, both in the United Kingdom and in the United States of America, ‘Housing First’ as it presently stands is an option which is primarily focused on reaching entrenched rough sleepers: The most disengaged (and therefore most costly) members of society. Nonetheless, investigations undertaken by myself in the UK and by my colleagues in the USA clearly evidence that many such socially challenged individuals may need very little assistance with rebuilding their lives, once the core element of housing stability has been met.
This raises the question of whether continuing evolution of a ‘Housing First’ focused approach, without adequate resources to respond fully to demand, will eventually, inadvertently, create yet another inequitable sub-section of the modern housing market, for which only the most complex or challenging cases can access. Considered further, could mass-adoption of a criteria-based ‘Housing First’ model actively encourage vulnerable people to engage in dangerous or destructive activities, to ensure they meet the strict entry requirements of the scheme? Under scrutiny, could ‘Housing First’ in its current format even incentivise bad lifestyle choices, in excluding those who could be deemed more housing ready, whilst offering property-based options exclusively to those with the most arduous needs? Ultimately, is this not discriminatory towards those who have minimal support requirements?
Investigative work highlights that for many, long-term services are not always necessary. The vast majority of homeless individuals and families find themselves in challenging circumstance after a housing, financial or personal crisis. For these cases, the ‘Housing First’ approach, albeit with a lesser, variable or sliding scale of accompanying support, could provide short-term assistance to find a suitable permanent home: Promptly and without condition. For those individuals who require only brief intervention and/or signposting to appropriate specialist organisations, achieving stability and individual well-being can be an elementary process and prevent a rapid descent into turmoil and commotion.
If we are to aim for a total eradication approach to homelessness in the United Kingdom, it would be necessary to expand much further upon the raw ‘Housing First’ model as it currently exists. Housing is a basic human need, and so housing as a solution to homelessness surely should be an option which is wholly inclusive and available to all. Breaking Ground state that bringing a person indoors – or preventing them from sleeping there in the first place – is not only effective, as well as cost-effective; it’s also the right thing to do. The challenge we face in Britain is not housing the homeless; its convincing people in positions of power that all people who are homeless deserve a home of their own.
Unless we are deploying highly innovative techniques which contribute positively to a person’s long-term recovery, we must now acknowledge that any response which is geared towards addressing homelessness, if not primarily focused on permanently housing the unhoused, and/or supporting the sustainability of tenure, is futile. Whilst engagement and rapport-building are crucial and necessary tools in responding to chronic homelessness, emergency responders should lay their key focus on creating meaningful partnerships with housing providers in both the social and private rented sectors.
It is entirely ineffective to deploy and actively support copious on-the-ground practitioners, particularly when many only temporarily respond to elevate the symptoms of crisis, rather than address the root cause. Should we continue to feed the homelessness fire, delivering hot meals and sleeping bags to our destitute; neither of which have ever been proven to have any positive impact on homelessness prevention or reduction? Whilst mainly innocuous, such effort is not demonstrating an ability to resolve homelessness at large and could even be exasperating homelessness and its wider associated issues, by enabling vulnerable people to isolate themselves from society and live semi-comfortably, outdoors.
There are thought to be around 600 people sleeping in the rain on the streets of Greater Manchester each night. Notwithstanding, there are estimated to be around 11,000 long-term empty homes in the region. Flat-sharing site Spareroom advertises 1,460 immediately available rooms in Greater Manchester, and private home rental platform Rightmove simultaneously hosts over 8,000 vacant rental accommodations. Where is the joined-up thinking?
Abandoning individuals with acute social needs, alone, to survive together on the city streets, in local parks, inside commercial bin containers and within temporary structured encampments, is barbaric treatment of those who need our help the most. We only need to look to Los Angeles’ Skid Row for a preview of what is becoming: On the outskirts of Manchester, London or Glasgow.
L.A is a known magnet for people who are homeless. Why? because it caters so well for those citizens who reject a mainstream way of life. With Manchester offering an abundance of round-the-clock homelessness street support services to its evergrowing number of rough sleepers, will the city become the UK’s number one homelessness hot spot and desired destination for drifters with nowhere else to be?
cxxxv. https://www.homebuilding.co.uk/how-much-will-your-project-cost/(Web version unavailable)
Copyright © by Amy.F.Varle, January 2018.
The moral right of the author has been asserted.
The views and opinions expressed in this report and its content are those of the author and not of the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust, which has no responsibility or liability for any part of the report.
Previous: CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY - EVAULATION
Next: CRIMINALISING HOMELESSNESS - REWARDING HOPELESSNESS?
