Block 4 examines homelessness prevention. Timely social and housing interventions to support people transitioning out of institutional or care settings, or people who are at risk of being evicted, can prevent homelessness before it occurs. Despite the proven effectiveness and cost-efficiency of preventive measures, many countries lack systematic implementation and sufficient resources for prevention. This block highlights opportunities to improve early intervention to mitigate the harmful effects of homelessness, including through using existing social and housing supports and exploring the potential for big data and new technologies to identify people at higher risk of homelessness.
OECD Toolkit to Combat Homelessness
Abstract
One fundamental – and as yet, largely under-resourced and underutilised – way to address homelessness is to prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place. Homelessness prevention can be grouped into several types of measures (Fitzpatrick, Mackie and Wood, 2021[1]):
Universal prevention refers to broad-based measures to prevent homelessness across the entire population, including, among other things, efforts to increase the supply of affordable housing, which have been proven effective in curbing homelessness (Schwan et al., 2018[2]), and social welfare regimes (including minimum income schemes) designed to reduce and prevent poverty (Stephens et al., 2010[3]).
Upstream prevention targets high-risk groups, such as vulnerable youth and individuals leaving institutional settings (e.g. prisons, hospitals, youth care systems or facilities, centres for asylum seekers). Such prevention strategies aim to identify and provide personalised support to people who will be exiting institutions in the near future (Lutze, Rosky and Hamilton, 2013[4]; Cornes et al., 2019[5]; Johnson and Mendes, 2014[6]; Gaetz et al., 2018[7]). Such measures may also target other vulnerable groups who may face structural or systemic barriers to stable housing, such as women who are victims/survivors of intimate partner violence and young people who identify as LGBTI, as well as migrants (including those who are undocumented), who may lack access to, or knowledge of, mainstream public services.
Crisis prevention focuses on measures to support people for whom homelessness is likely to occur within the foreseeable future, including people facing eviction or foreclosure. Support may include landlord-tenant mediation, legal advice and counselling, and/or financial assistance, which have proven to be effective in preventing homelessness (Shinn and Cohen, 2019[8]).
Emergency prevention aims to assist individuals at immediate risk of rooflessness, especially those sleeping rough. Emergency accommodation, such as shelters, can help reduce the number of people sleeping rough (MHCLG, 2019[9]), but does not resolve homelessness (McMordie, 2020[10]).
Mobilising big data and new technologies can be effective in some contexts to identify individuals and households at risk of becoming homeless, and thus enable local authorities and/or NGOs or other stakeholders to reach out to propose support. In order for this to be possible, i) accurate and updated data disaggregated by population subgroup must be collected (Block 2), ii) data-sharing agreements of case management and wraparound services must be communicated across government ministries (e.g. through Memoranda of Understanding, Computer Matching Agreements, etc.); and iii) privacy and safety concerns (particularly with respect to vulnerable populations such as migrants) must be addressed. Thus, before mobilising big data and new technologies, the priority should be given to collecting quality data in a user-friendly environment (for instance, improving administrative data collection or a frequently updated case management system).
Many preventive measures have proven more effective – and more cost-efficient – than interventions that provide support after individuals have become homeless (Fitzpatrick, Mackie and Wood, 2021[1]; Culhane, Metraux and Byrne, 2011[11]). Along these lines, in recognition of the importance of homelessness prevention, the United States formally adopted the first-ever federal Homelessness Prevention Framework in September 2024, which is organised around three main categories of homelessness prevention: prevention (primary) programmes that promote stable housing; diversion (secondary) programmes that help people avoid homelessness; and rehousing and stabilisation (tertiary) programmes that help people quickly move into housing and promote stability once housed (U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2024[12]). Additionally, the framework recognises the importance of universal supports in setting the foundation for housing stability and providing equitable opportunities for people to achieve optimal health and well-being.
Nevertheless, while there is increased attention to homelessness prevention policies, systematic implementation and adequate resources are lacking. Most homelessness policies “are not sufficiently preventive in focus”, and countries have implemented limited, if any, prevention policies on a broad scale (Baptista and Marlier, 2019[13]). Universal prevention schemes vary considerably across countries, and in most countries are not systematically considered as a primary tool to prevent homelessness. To date, most prevention efforts fall into emergency prevention, with a growing number of initiatives – yet still representing a rather patchwork approach in most countries – focussing on crisis prevention. More efforts ae needed to shift prevention efforts upstream. Considerable gaps remain, and systematic prevention frameworks are rare. This signals an important missed opportunity to intervene early and avoid many of the “harms of homelessness” (Mackie, 2022[14]).
Prevention programmes span many policy fields and include a range of interventions. The following set of operational questions is intended to guide policy makers and practitioners in strengthening and scaling up prevention efforts at critical points in time, and, more broadly, making prevention a (more) central component of homelessness strategies:
How can existing social policies and housing supports be leveraged to prevent people from becoming homeless?
How to develop upstream prevention schemes to support people who are transitioning out of institutional settings or are otherwise at high risk of homelessness?
How to support households at risk of imminent housing loss?
How to increase access to and improve the quality of emergency accommodation to avoid rough sleeping?
As largescale climate events and/or natural disasters increase in frequency, how to plan for emergency housing solutions?
How can big data, early warning systems, and/or new technologies support efforts to identify households at risk of homelessness?
How can existing social policies and housing supports be leveraged to prevent people from becoming homeless?
Universal schemes that can help to prevent homelessness vary significantly across countries due to differences in governmental structures, social policies and available resources. In some countries, robust national-level social safety nets to prevent poverty and large social rental stocks help to promote housing affordability and reduce the risk of homelessness.
One aspect of the social welfare regime can be measured in terms of public social spending. Rates vary widely across countries, ranging from over 30% of GDP in France to less than 8% of GDP in Mexico (Figure 4.1). OECD work found that the public social spending-to-GDP ratios increased by almost 3 percentage points, on average across OECD countries, during the COVID‑19 pandemic, before declining almost as rapidly – falling from 23% on average in 2020 to around 21% in 2022 (OECD, 2023[15]).
Public social expenditure as a percent of GDP, 2022 or latest available year
Note: For EU countries data for 2020‑22 were estimated on basis of OECD Economic Outlook No 112 (November 2022) and DG ECFIN (2022), the European Union’s Annual Macroeconomic database (AMECO) as in November 2022. For the United Kingdom, data for 2021 were estimated on basis of OECD Economic Outlook No 112 (November 2022) and National Accounts Blue Book 2022. For Korea and the United States, data for 2021‑22 were estimated based on national budget data. Spending totals for 2020 and 2021 are subject to revision, but these are likely to be small; the estimates for 2022 are most likely to be affected by data revisions to spending and GDP. (p) refers to projections while € refers to estimates. OECD public social expenditure‑to-GDP ratio for 2022 is estimated based on the trend in OECD 26. For Norway, the large increase in nominal GDP since 2021 is due to high energy prices (especially gas).
Source: (OECD, 2023[16]), OECD Social Expenditure database (www.oecd.org/social/expenditure.htm).
Considering the role of adequate minimum income schemes that minimise coverage gaps and record high take‑up rates in preventing homelessness
In France, childless young adults who are not yet 25 years of age face stringent eligibility requirements to enrol in a minimum income programme (RSA): in addition to the income means test, they must have worked at least two years over the last three. This creates a “jump” in the number of recipients at age 25. Researchers exploit the age eligibility cutoff to assess the impact of the RSA on homelessness and find that the RSA benefit reduces homelessness by 20% among young adults aged 22‑27. These results were further supported through interviews with RSA recipients (Locks and Thuilliez, 2023[17]).
Even when programmes are designed to provide adequate support to those in need, non-take‑up remains a barrier to effective social protection coverage. Non-take‑up refers to people who do not receive a social benefit or service for which they are otherwise eligible according to statutory rules and conditions. For example, Belgium estimates that between 37% and 51% of the eligible working-age people do not utilise social assistance. In Germany, the working-age minimum income benefit was estimated to have a non-take‑up rate of 35‑37% in 2020. The four primary barriers to programme take‑up are i) insufficient or complex information, ii) “hassle costs” or cumbersome application procedures, iii) stigma, and iv) low-expected benefits. Linked data between administrative and social registries can help identify people enrolled in one programme and pre‑fill or auto‑enrol them in another. Digitalising access to social protection and live client support also help people who face challenges (Frey and Hyee, 2024[18]).
Increasing access to social and affordable housing as an important means to prevent homelessness
While social rental housing is available in most countries, there are significant cross-country differences in the definition, size, scope, target population and type of provider (Figure 4.2). For instance, in the Netherlands, Austria and Denmark, social housing comprises more than 20% of the total housing supply, playing a significant role as a “third sector” in the housing market, whereas in most OECD and EU countries, it constitutes less than 10% of the housing stock (OECD, 2024[19]).
Number of social rental dwellings as a share of the total number of dwellings, 2022 or latest year available
Note: Refer to the detailed notes in indicator PH4.2 in the OECD Affordable Housing Database.
Source: OECD Questionnaire on Social and Affordable Housing (QuASH), 2023, 2021, 2019 and 2016, and desk research.
In addition to the provision of social and affordable housing, means- and/or income‑tested income transfers to households directed at supporting households in meeting their housing costs are widespread, available in more than 40 OECD and EU countries. They can cover costs relating to rent, payment of mortgage and/or interest, utilities, insurance and services; they can also be more narrowly designed to support the rental costs of tenants (e.g. “rent allowance”). In most countries, housing allowances are geared towards low-income households, and payment rates often depend on household size, housing costs and income. The coverage and generosity of these benefits vary widely across countries (Figure 4.3) (OECD, 2024[19]).
A. Share of households receiving housing allowance, bottom and third quintiles of the disposable income distribution, in percent, 2022 or last year available
Note: Panel A. 1) No information available for Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Türkiye, or the United States due to data limitations. Only estimates for 100 or more data points are shown. 2) Quintiles are based on the equivalised disposable income distribution. Low-income households are households in the bottom quintile of the net income distribution. 3) Data for Switzerland and the United Kingdom refer to 2021, for Norway to 2020, for Iceland to 2018. 4) In the United Kingdom, net income is not adjusted for local council taxes and housing benefits due to data limitations. 5) In the Slovak Republic, a housing allowance (Príspevok na bývanie) does exist. However, it is received by a very limited number of people and linked to strict eligibility conditions.
Panel B. 1) Rent allowance calculated based on assumed rent of 20% of average wage. 2) Only shows central government housing allowance. Where no national scheme exists, a representative region was chosen, refer to country specific information for more details: www.oecd.org/els/soc/benefits-and-wages-country-specific-information.htm. 3) Full-time earnings are either at the 10th or the 50th percentile of the full-time wage distribution. No transitional benefits for entering the labour market are considered; social assistance but no unemployment benefits are considered. 4) The four family types considered are 1) single person, 2) single parent with two children aged 4 and 6, 3) one‑earner couple and 4) one‑earner couple with two children aged 4 and 6. Earnings are either at the 10th- or the 50th-percentile of the full-time wage distribution.
Source: (OECD, 2024[19]), OECD Affordable Housing Database, indicator PH3.3. OECD calculations based on the European Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC 2022), except for Switzerland (2021), Norway (2020) and Iceland (2018); Understanding Society – The UK Household Longitudinal Study (2021) and the OECD Tax-benefit models, www.oecd.org/social/benefits-and-wages.htm.
Further developing the supply of affordable and social housing is an important means to prevent housing insecurity and homelessness. In Ireland, the Housing for all: A new Housing Plan for Ireland – Pathway 2 includes a range of universal homelessness prevention policies. For instance, the Pathway commits the government to building and improving social housing by calling for the delivery of 90 000 social homes by 2030 and increased funding to local authorities to acquire additional land for new-build public housing. In Norway, the National strategy for social housing policies (2021‑24): We all need a safe place to call home, includes measures to increase housing affordability. Such measures include start-up loans to help people move from tenancy to ownership and increased housing allowances for renters. The national strategy also includes a plan to assess how to better support municipalities in improving the rental and owner-occupied housing markets, and an increase in funding to expand the stock of social housing for older people. Nevertheless, a large social housing sector is not by itself sufficient to prevent homelessness.
Developing social rental schemes to mobilise the existing stock for social purposes
Social rental schemes, which include Social Rental Agencies (SRA), can be effective in mobilising the existing housing stock for low-income and vulnerable households through an intermediary between low-income and/or vulnerable tenants and private landlords (see also the discussion of SRAs in the context of Housing First approaches in Block 5).
Social rental agencies (Agences Immobilières Sociales, AIS) are the main not-for-profit provider of affordable rental housing in Belgium, whereby AISs act as an intermediary between tenants and private landlords. Landlords receive a lower rent than what they would receive on the private market, and the tenants pay an even lower rent, with the AIS covering the difference through public subsidies. The rents that landlords receive are negotiated on a case‑by-case basis. In exchange, landlords are guaranteed to receive the rental payment every month and never have an empty dwelling. The lease is signed between the tenant and the AIS. In Brussels-Capital, landlords who rent through AISs are exempted from paying the regional property tax (précompte immobilier).
In France, rental intermediation (intermédiation locative) is a mechanism to improve the affordability of rental housing, particularly for vulnerable populations who face difficulties in securing accommodation on the private market. Rental intermediation in France relies on two operational modes: (i) Social Rental Agencies (AIS), which are accredited by the local prefect to sign management mandates (mandats de gestion) with private owners. The AIS establishes the lease between the landlord and the tenant, ensures the maintenance of the dwellings and can offer a guarantee on the rent to the landlord, as well as social assistance to the tenant. The duration of lease must be at least three years, and in exchange landlords are eligible for a reduction in property income taxes up to 65% (depending on the rent reduction) as well as technical and financial assistance to renovate their dwellings; (ii) the Solibail rental intermediation mechanism allows property owners to rent their dwellings to an association or NGO at a reduced price for a minimum of three years. It is overseen locally by the Regional and Inter-Departmental Habitat and Housing Directions (Direction Régionale et Interdépartementale de l’Hébergement et du Logement, DRIHL), which establishes the list of public-interest NGOs and associations allowed to use Solibail (e.g. NGOs providing housing solutions to people experiencing homelessness). The association or NGO, as the formal tenant, pays rent to the landlord every month, on behalf of the individual tenant – meaning the landlord has a guaranteed rental income for the duration of the lease, even if the dwelling is vacant. The association can then rent out the dwelling to people in need of an affordable housing solution.
In Spain, the NGO Provivienda operates the Rental Mediation Programme, a social rental scheme, which mediates between property owners and individuals with low incomes and limited social support, to open up opportunities in the rental market that would not otherwise be available. The programme focuses on individuals with low incomes and limited social support, including refugees, migrants, and people experiencing homelessness. To attract property owners to the programme, Provivienda offers and arranges multi-risk insurance guarantees for rental payment – even though unpaid rents are rare in the programme. Agreed rents are approximately 20% lower than market rents, but remain attractive for many property owners, particularly those with vacant properties. Provivienda also provides a range of services, including information and training to tenants and property owners on their rights and obligations under tenancy law; assessment of rental properties, including valuations and furniture inventories; selection and invitation of applicants for identified properties; and drafting of contracts and follow-up and assistance over problems, termination of contracts, and defaults. These services are provided free of charge. Provivienda also makes arrangements for those single people with limited social connections to move into shared flats.
Social Rental Agencies have been gaining in importance in Poland. In 2021, Poland introduced the Act of 28 May 2021 amending the Act on Certain Forms of Support for Housing Construction and Certain Other Acts, enabling municipalities to establish co‑operation with SRAs, which act as an intermediary between flat owners and prospective tenants who cannot afford to rent a flat on market terms. SRAs assume the risks relating to non-payment or damages in the rented flats and can also offer additional social services for tenants. In Poland SRAs can be, for example, an NGO, a limited liability company or a joint stock company in which the municipality (or municipalities) holds more than 50% of the shares. Property owners have several incentives to set rent below market levels, including the exemption from tax on rental income, a guarantee of regular rent payments or relief from some administrative duties (which are taken over by the SRA). Starting from 1 January 2024, SRAs can also purchase the housing stock to carry out renovations and adapt dwellings that are vacant and/or of poor quality.
Balancing landlord-tenant protections and strengthening enforcement mechanisms
Regulations in the rental market can have implications for housing affordability and housing precarity. This includes, among other things, features of tenancy agreements (relating to contract duration and termination) and controls of initial rent levels and rent level increases. For instance, 13 OECD countries report controls on initial rent levels of at least a portion of the private rental housing stock. In two countries (Norway and Türkiye), regulated and/or negotiated rents apply across the entire rental sector (OECD, 2024[19]). Regulations may also include broader protections that prohibit discrimination in the housing market or determine a period in which evictions are suspended (such as winter eviction freezes). Several OECD countries have in place a winter eviction moratorium, including Belgium, France, Ireland and Poland (OECD, 2024[19]). There is a need to strike a balance in the design of tenancy regulations between ensuring a secure investment climate for (future) investors and landlords and securing good-quality affordable housing for tenants (OECD, 2021[20]).
Other schemes can support the protection of the rights and responsibilities of tenants and property owners and help prevent unlawful evictions and reduce homelessness. This can include, for instance, right to counsel in courts. A legal framework that sets out the conditions for the legal representation of tenants and property owners in disputes can protect both parties and ensure fairness. Access to legal representation can be an obstacle for some tenants in case of landlord-tenant disputes. In such cases, some form of legal support for tenants facing eviction is reported at the national or local level in countries such as Australia, Finland, France, the United Kingdom and the United States. For instance, in New York (United States), since the establishment of the Right-to-Counsel law the number of tenants represented by attorneys in court increased from 1% in 2013 to 63% in 2022, and in 78% of eviction proceedings with representation from lawyers, families were able to stay in their homes (Office of Civil Justice, 2022[21]).
Originally formed in 1910s, Sweden’s national tenant union, Hyresgästföreningen was institutionalised in the welfare state apparatus after the Second World War. The union sets up tenant associations across the country, negotiates rents on behalf of most tenants in Sweden, provides legal advice and services, supports home improvement and beautification initiatives, holds local democratic decision-making processes, and works on tenant-centred housing policy both domestically and internationally. The organisation comprises over half a million members. Since 1978, the Tenancy Bargaining Act makes collective bargaining between tenant associations and landlords mandatory. The union bargains rent on behalf of 3 million tenants and rent increases have been limited to controlled amounts (0.8‑2% annually) over the past decade (Hyresgastforeningen, 2017[22]; Statistical Sweden, 2019[23]; Ösgård, 2023[24]).
In Brussels (Belgium), the Regional Housing Inspection (Direction de l’inspection régionale du logement, DIRL) was created in 2003 to enforce the housing code (Code du Logement). This service investigates and enforces code violations, protects tenants against landlord retaliations, and removes non-compliant apartments from the housing market (FEANTSA and FAP, 2022[25]).
How to develop upstream prevention schemes to support people who are transitioning out of institutional settings or are otherwise at high risk of homelessness?
Some individuals at high risk of homelessness – including people leaving institutional settings (including prisons, foster or youth care, health facilities, and centres for asylum seekers), as well as specific socio-demographic groups who may face structural or systemic barriers to stable housing, such as victims/survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV), young people who identify as LGBTI, and migrants, among others – could particularly benefit from upstream prevention schemes.
Supporting out-of-care transitions to prevent youth homelessness
In OECD countries, poor transition processes can drive young care leavers into homelessness. For example, a study in Australia found that 54% of young people within four years of leaving out-of-home care (OHC) accessed homelessness services and one in three had multiple experiences of homelessness (AHURI, 2021[26]). In the United Kingdom, research found that a quarter of all young people experiencing homelessness were once in the care system (National Audit Office (United Kingdom), 2015[27]). LGBTI youth are likely overrepresented among young people experiencing homelessness and housing instability, which has detrimental impacts on their mental health. In the United States, over 28% of all and nearly half (44%) of Indigenous LGBTI youth have experienced homelessness or housing instability at some point. This is reported at higher rates among transgender and non-binary youth (The Trevor Project, 2022[28]).
In Spain, the Zaguan project managed by Provivienda provides people leaving or having left youth care with shared housing solutions along a number of transversal support services (Provivienda, 2023[29]). Such services include tailored job search support, support in finding housing, and psychological support.
In Canada, the Family and Natural Supports (FNS) approach is integrated into a range of prevention programmes, including (but not limited to) youth programmes. This approach is based on the finding that family conflict and/or family breakdown are the main driver of youth homelessness in most countries. FNS aims to foster connection and build the support network around the youth to prevent homelessness with a young person’s chosen family; the approach has also generated benefits for mental health, education, and employment outcomes (Borato, Gaetz and McMillan, 2020[30]).
In places where this is not already the case, guaranteeing financial support for housing (including access to housing benefits) upon exiting care systems would be a positive step forward.
Identifying youth at risk of homelessness to offer tailored, family-centred support
In Australia, the Geelong project is an early intervention programme to help identify young people at risk of disengaging from or leaving school, experiencing homelessness, and entering the justice system. The project operates through a survey administered to students which allows to assess the risk of homelessness based on family-related conflict and identify young people who potentially may need support. Intensive holistic care support is then provided through a youth-focused and family-centred approach, including individual or group counselling, and support for parents in developing skills to de‑escalate conflict and set effective limits and boundaries. An evaluation of the Geelong Project found that between 2013‑16, the number of adolescents entering the Specialist Homelessness Service in Geelong declined by 40% from a 10‑year baseline (MacKenzie, 2018[31]).
In Wales (the United Kingdom), the Upstream Cymru screening tool models the Geelong project as it seeks to assess the risk of youth homelessness through a survey distributed to secondary school students and it looks to mitigate such risks through cross-actor collaboration, including schools and service providers (Mackie and Rees, 2024[32]). As of October 2023, 4 700 surveys were conducted across secondary schools in Wales. The results allowed to produce a composite risk measure that showed around 15% of students to be in high or immediate risk of experiencing homelessness. This model was first developed in Australia and similar work is being replicated in Belgium, Canada, England and Scotland (the United Kingdom) and the United States.
Preventing homelessness and promoting safe, stable housing stability for victims/survivors of intimate partner violence
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a leading cause of homelessness in the OECD (see Box 2.1). Housing-related protection and support for survivors of IPV (who are often women and LGBTI individuals) is often overlooked. A lack of alternative housing can also lead people to remain in or return to violent relationships. Survivors of domestic violence are also more likely to face discrimination in the housing market, which can discourage survivors from reporting their abuse or seeking support (OECD, 2023[33]). Women experiencing homelessness are particularly vulnerable to poor physical and mental health outcomes. While emergency shelters can provide critical, immediate support, the integrated Housing First approach has reduced homelessness more effectively among victims and survivors.
In Australia, the Keeping Women Safe in their Homes (KWSITH) programme aims to support women and their children who have experienced family and domestic violence to stay in their own home, or in a home of their choice, where it is safe. Through the programme, the Australian Government funds state and territory governments, and select NGOs, to deliver services to improve the safety of women and their children. The programme provides a range of safety responses, such as risk assessments, safety planning, home security upgrades, and case management. The programme can help to prevent homelessness by offering greater housing stability for women experiencing violence, and providing an alternative to homeless shelters and emergency accommodation. This can also help reduce the strain on emergency accommodation providers (Australian Government, 2024[34]).
Providing housing support to migrant communities
In countries for which disaggregated data on homelessness among migrants are available, estimates suggest that migrants are overrepresented among individuals experiencing homelessness (OECD, 2024[35]). What is more, immigrants tend to be overrepresented among those living in poor housing conditions (OECD/European Commission, 2023[36]). For asylum seekers, the temporary nature of housing within host country reception systems, along with compounding conditions of poverty, may leave them vulnerable to homelessness.
In France, the AGIR programme (Accompagnement global et individualisé des réfugiés) provides individualised housing and employment support for refugees for up to 24 months. The programme offers, across numerous metropolitan areas, a one‑stop shop to facilitate the integration process for refugees, including by supporting them in accessing housing and medical and social supports, as well as processes such as opening a bank account and obtaining a driver’s license (Ministry of the Interior and Overseas Territories, 2024[37]).
In Newcastle upon Tyne, England (the United Kingdom), a Cross Council Migration Group was formed, which selected partner organisations responsible for identifying and supporting refugees at the point of transition off public entitlements to prevent homelessness. These partners offer refugees a variety of services and help them navigate the resources that can move them to housing stability.
Providing people in prisons with a safe housing solution for their re‑entry
Comparative research shows there is an association between homelessness and people in the criminal justice system in EU countries, and high rates of contact with criminal justice system are present among the highest risk populations who are experiencing recurrent homelessness in Europe. For example, in Czechia a screening tool records that 60% of inmates were roofless, houseless, or in insecure housing (following ETHOS typology) at some point in the last three years before their imprisonment. Around a third of people released from Czech prisons in 2021 received a one‑time Immediate Emergency Assistance (Mimořádná okamžitá pomoc) grant, which is a good proxy indicator for risk of homelessness (EOH, 2023[38]). In France, nearly 22% of people leaving prison reported having precarious accommodation or no housing available, and the Paris/Ile‑de‑France region reported nearly 12% of new prison arrivals as experiencing homelessness (Direction de l’administration pénitentiaire, 2020[39]). In England and Wales (the United Kingdom), 13% of individuals leaving prison between April 2023 and March 2024 were reported as experiencing homelessness upon release (UK government, 2024[40]).
In the United States, the California based Homecoming project provides daily subsidies to homeowners in exchange for providing a living space to a person exiting prison over a six‑month period (Impact Justice, 2024[41]). Upon matching hosts and beneficiaries, both parties receive ongoing support services related to effective communication, problem-solving, decision-making, and collaboration. The goal of the initiative is to support the social re‑integration process of people leaving prison while providing a temporary housing solution to prevent homelessness. A programme evaluation conducted in Alameda County (California) suggests that all beneficiaries (over 100) left the programme having secured a stable housing solution for their own and that 95% left either with a job or enrolled in a job training or an educational programme. Additionally, the Zero Returns to Homelessness initiative managed by the Department of Justice in the United States is a cross-system, multi‑agency approach to expanding housing options and access for people returning from prison and jail. Strategies under this initiative include bridging silos across systems, conducting universal housing assessments, equitably connecting people to evidence‑based housing solutions, lowering barriers to housing at the housing provider level, expanding the number of housing options available, and leveraging and combining a range of funding sources.
How to support households at risk of imminent housing loss?
Crisis prevention measures – notably relating to eviction prevention – are increasingly common. Around two‑thirds of OECD and EU countries reported to the 2023 OECD QuASH that they provide specific support to households facing eviction – including, among other things, counselling, financial support, landlord-tenant mediation, and/or safety planning for survivors experiencing landlord sexual harassment or assault. Much of the support is provided by municipalities and NGOs, and the availability and type of support varies widely across local authorities.
In countries with relatively high eviction rates (see indicator HC3.3 in the OECD Affordable Housing Database (OECD, 2024[19]), measures to avoid evictions may be especially relevant as a prevention tool. In addition, countries with a large share of households in the bottom income quintile that are housing-cost overburdened – that is, those who are spending over 40% of their disposable income on housing costs – would also do well to consider crisis preventive measures.
It is important to emphasise that evictions do not systematically lead to homelessness, and that there are many pathways into homelessness, beyond evictions. Nevertheless, even when evictions do not directly lead to homelessness, they often cause multiple and compounding negative outcomes for low-income tenants. A study based in the United States showed that an eviction order increased the probability of using an emergency shelter by 3.4 percentage points in the year following the eviction, representing a more than 300% increase relative to those who are not evicted. These estimates were substantially larger for African-American and female tenants (Collinson et al., 2023[42]).
Share of population in the bottom quintile of the income distribution spending more than 40% of disposable income on mortgage and rent, by tenure, in percent, 2022
Note: 1) In Chile, Mexico, Korea and the United States gross income instead of disposable income is used due to data limitations. No data on mortgage principal repayments available for Denmark, Iceland, and Türkiye due to data limitations. 2) Results only shown if category composed of at least 100 observations. 3) Data for Australia, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom refer to 2021, Norway to 2020, Canada and Türkiye to 2019, Iceland to 2018, New Zealand and Israel to 2017 and Korea to 2012.
Source: (OECD, 2024[19]), OECD calculations based on the European Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC 2022), except for Switzerland (2021), Norway (2020), and Iceland (2018); the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics Survey (HILDA) for Australia (2021); the Canada Income Survey (CIS 2019); the Encuesta de Caracterización Socioeconómica Nacional (CASEN) for Chile (2022); the Gran Encuesta Integrade de Hogares (GEIH) for Colombia (2022); the Encuesta Nacional de Hogares (ENAHO) for Costa Rica (2022); calculations from the Bank of Israel for Israel (2017), the Japan Household Panel Study (JHPS 2022); the Korean Housing Survey (2021); the Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares (ENIGH) for Mexico (2022); Household Expenditure Survey (HES, Stats NZ) for New Zealand (2017); Türkiye‑National SILC (2020); Understanding Society – The UK Household Longitudinal Study (2021); the American Community Survey (ACS) for the United States (2021).
Supporting the role of housing counsellors who offer advice and connect people at risk of imminent housing loss with relevant services to avoid eviction
In Finland, the Housing Finance and Development Centre of Finland (ARA) provides grants to municipalities to hire and fund housing advisors (ARA, 2024[43]). Housing advisors design action plans to help clients address a variety of challenges, including eviction threats and rental arrears. Housing advisors conduct screening processes and work together with housing providers, NGOs, and social workers, which allows service referrals for clients.
In Estonia, the Estonian Debt Counsellors Association offers targeted support to households facing debt through debt advisors. Debt advisors offer comprehensive support to beneficiaries, including legal and financial counselling, as well as psychosocial support for life crises such as unemployment or illness. Additionally, they can assist households in negotiations with creditors (Estonian Debt Counsellors Association, 2024[44]). Debt advisors provide holistic support for beneficiaries, covering legal and financial counselling, but also psychosocial support, including life crises. Moreover, debt advisors support households by mediating and negotiation with creditors.
In Austria, counselling centres provide counselling and support with the application process for Wohnschirm, a federal programme providing financial support to prevent evictions. If granted, two types of financial support exist: one assumes rent arrears, and another provides lump-sum support payments to enable beneficiaries to move into an affordable dwelling (Austrian government, 2024[45]). Since the start of the programme, over 11 700 households have received financial support; from these, 10 500 apartments have covered rent arrears, and 1 200 have received support to change their residence. The law is currently in force through the end of 2026.
In Canada, a number of tools are in use in different local context to help stabilise an individual’s housing and prevent eviction, including:
Rent banks (which provide short-term loans to cover rent arrears).
Energy assistance payments.
Community legal clinics to help tenants navigate landlord-tenant relations and advise tenants about their rights.
Credit counselling agencies.
Landlord-tenant mediation services (Homeless Hub, 2024[46]).
Supporting households at risk of foreclosure
Strategic political initiatives can protect countries from a massive increase in evictions during a period of crisis. The great financial crisis of 2007‑08 had significant impacts on the housing and property system in Greece, putting homeowners at risk. In response, a moratorium on auctions of first housing and any property up to EUR 200 000 for debt towards the banks was introduced in 2009. The Katseli law in Greece allowed property owners threatened with foreclosure to apply for a debt moratorium, a rescheduling of repayments, or for interest to be cancelled. Around 60 000 households were placed under protection of this law between 2011 and 2013. While precise numbers on how many foreclosures were prevented by the law are difficult to ascertain, it is estimated that tens of thousands of households were safeguarded. In recent years, there has been a lot of pressure for the gradual liberalisation of this protective framework (Siatitsa, 2017[47]; FEANTSA and FAP, 2022[25]).
How to increase access to and improve the quality of emergency accommodation to avoid rough sleeping?
As further developed in Block 5, the provision of long-term housing as a core solution to end homelessness should be prioritised. Nevertheless, emergency shelters and temporary housing solutions will remain a necessary part of the response to prevent rough sleeping and support individuals and households in times of crisis.
Adapting emergency shelters and temporary accommodation to meet the needs of a range of socio-demographic groups
There is scope to adapt emergency shelters and temporary accommodation to better meet the needs of different socio-demographic groups. Traditionally, many shelters were typically frequented by – and thus, designed for – a predominately single, male clientele. Yet, there is in many places increased heterogeneity in the population in need of temporary accommodation – and thus, a need to ensure that such facilities meet the needs of a broader range of demographic groups, including women, families with children, LGBTI, among others.
In Ireland, the Ombudsman for Children undertook a survey of families with children staying in shelters to assess the specific challenges and needs of children, and developed proposed guidance to shelters to ensure a more welcoming environment. In Germany, the Diakonie Frankfurt and Offenbach facility adapted their emergency housing to better accommodate transgender women. As part of this process, they provided training to staff and engaged in consultations on how to improve the accessibility of shelters to transgender women, which included, among other things, transitioning from dormitory-style sleeping arrangements to private rooms, as well as private bathrooms.
Facilitating access to up-to-date information on shelters and services
Facilitating access to housing and related resources can help individuals navigate the range of available services. In France, the online platform Soliguide provides information on shelters and services across French territories to support individuals in vulnerable situations (including people experiencing homelessness). The services encompass a range of categories, including shelters and housing solutions, reception centres, activities, food, advice, training and employment, hygiene and welfare, material assistance, health services, specialised support, technology resources, and transport options. When a user interacts with Soliguide, the platform employs geolocation to identify relevant services, providing details about the service’s nature, operating hours, transportation options, and potential access conditions such as accommodation for animals or disability-friendly features. The platform is accessible in eight languages: French, Arabic, English, Spanish, Russian, Portuguese, Persian, and Ukrainian. Evaluations of the platform suggest that users of the platform predominantly seek food aid, temporary shelters, emergency housing, and longer-term accommodation; in terms of performance impact, it is estimated that per EUR 1 invested in the platform, a EUR 1.93 social return on investment is obtained (Solinum, 2022[48]).
As largescale climate events and/or natural disasters increase in frequency, how to plan for emergency housing solutions?
Prevention measures are also relevant to support individuals in the aftermath of disaster. Climate change has resulted in more frequent and severe natural disasters (such as floods, fires, or earthquakes) that can displace people from their homes and put lives at risk. In the United States alone, an estimated one in ten residential properties were damaged by natural disasters in 2021 (CoreLogic, 2022[49]). This trend is particularly stark in wildfire‑prone regions: in the western United States, for instance, residential structure loss due to wildfires increased by 246% between 1999 and 2020 (Higuera et al., 2023[50]). A recent survey in California (the United States) found that 2% of the state’s homeless population had lost their shelter following a wildfire or natural disaster. Vulnerable and lower-income populations are also more likely to be entrapped in higher climate‑risk areas, have higher barriers to evacuation, and need more resources to resettle post-disaster (Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative, 2023[51]).
In February and March 2022, major floods struck the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales, Australia, leaving more than 4 000 properties uninhabitable and damaging another 10 849. The region had already been subject to flooding and bushfires between 2017 and 2021. Thus, the housing system was significantly constrained before the flood (e.g. high levels of homelessness, people living in compromised dwelling conditions, and applicants waiting for social housing), but the flooding exposed the level of “housing vulnerability” in the region due to the shortage of low-cost options in the private rental market and inadequate levels of social and transitional housing. After the floods, pre‑existing housing support services were subsumed into the flood-response evacuation and emergency housing systems (including human resourcing and housing stock) (van den Nouwelant, 2022[52]). A 2024 audit found that the government quickly provided emergency accommodation to 1 440 displaced persons across 11 temporary sites, though the high demand led to challenges in terms of costs and co‑ordination (Audit Office of New South Wales, 2024[53]; MacKenzie, 2024[54]).
In the United States, the US Department of Veteran Affairs, the US Department of Health and Human Services, and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development established an interagency group to offer guidance on preparedness for addressing the needs of people experiencing homelessness during emergencies. Building on the group’s discussions, a toolkit was developed: Disaster Preparedness to Promote Community Resilience (Gin et al., 2020[55]). The toolkit is organised into three thematic areas: building an inclusive emergency management system, ensuring the preparedness of homeless service providers, and providing guidance for healthcare providers (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2017[56]).
In the aftermath of the 2023 earthquakes, the government in Türkiye has implemented several measures to address homelessness and support individuals in need of shelter. The Accommodation Projects for the Homeless, co‑ordinated through the Social Assistance and Solidarity Foundations, provide temporary housing to homeless and isolated individuals, particularly during harsh winter conditions. These projects also cover essential needs, including cleaning, health services, basic food, and clothing, funded by the Social Assistance and Solidarity Encouragement Fund. Additionally, the Shelter Assistance Programme supports the repair and maintenance of homes deemed uninhabitable due to neglect or disaster, the construction of reinforced concrete and prefabricated houses, and the provision of household goods to citizens affected by the disaster.
How can big data, early warning systems, and/or new technologies support efforts to identify households at risk of homelessness?
In England (the United Kingdom), the Maidstone Borough Council implemented a data analysis model developed by a private company to support homelessness prevention. First implemented in 2019, this tool scanned databases from various service providers to identify potential risk factors, such as missed utility payments or participation in housing assistance programmes. Using this data, district authorities identified at-risk population groups and proactively contacted them to offer early intervention services to prevent homelessness, including housing payments. In the pilot year of the project, 650 alerts were generated for individuals at high-risk of experiencing homelessness and through early intervention, the homelessness rate reduced by 40% (Xantura, 2020[57]). The data analysis model also provided financial benefits. In its pilot year, the Maidstone Borough Council achieved a net saving of GBP 225 000 (USD 285 000) while societal savings amounted to GBP 2.5 million (USD 3.7 million), and administrative burdens were reduced by 61 days. An updated benefits-analysis revealed that in the January 2021 to November 2022 period, the predictive model yielded GBP 344 000 (USD 436 000) in savings. The Test + Learn programme (featured in Block 3) will expand this pilot to reach four other municipalities, along with a robust evaluation using a randomised controlled trial to understand its effectiveness. Also in the United Kingdom, Streetlink offers mobile phone self-reporting of rough sleeping.
In Los Angeles (the United States), the California Policy Lab uses predictive models to identify and prevent homelessness. In 2019, an algorithmic predictive model that leverages both real-time and historical data from county agencies was launched. The model draws information from various sources, including emergency room visits, jail admissions, psychiatric hospitalisations, and individuals receiving cash or food aid who list the county office as their address. Based on these data, case workers reach out to at-risk individuals to provide tailored assistance, such as financial aid, food provision, and connection to social services (California Policy Lab, 2019[58]). In 2021, a more nuanced tool was launched: the Homelessness Prevention Unit. This tool also relies on county data linking but it only retrieves information from clients of the Department of Health Services and the Department of Mental Health who are stably housed. Based on linked data, the predictive model identifies individuals at high risk of experiencing homelessness; once identified, it reaches out and provides them with rental assistance and connections to other social services, including mental health and employment support. Further, it assigns an additional base monetary sum that varies across beneficiaries. The goal of providing different amounts of money transfers is to measure the impact of increased financial assistance on programme outcomes. As of 2023, the evaluation of the pre‑trial pilot phase of the programme suggests that 90% of the programme beneficiaries retained permanent housing during the programme.
Much more can be done to make prevention a core component of homelessness strategies and to introduce and strengthen specific preventive policies. This includes maximising the impacts of universal prevention efforts, like the social protection system and housing support, and ensuring balanced tenancy regulations and legislation. There is also considerable scope to support people who are transitioning out of institutional settings or are otherwise at high risk of homelessness, as well as households who are facing eviction. While the provision of long-term housing solutions should be prioritised (cf. Block 5), emergency shelters and temporary housing solutions will remain an important part of the solution in times of crisis; sufficiently preparing for such times of crisis is essential. Further, ensuring that temporary accommodation is of high quality and adapted to meet the needs of a range of socio-demographic groups, including families with children, women, people who identify as LGBTI, and others. Finally, big data, early warning systems, and new technologies can support efforts to identify households at risk of homelessness, enabling social service providers to reach out to at-risk individuals and households to offer support. As mentioned, prevention can be both effective and more cost-efficient, relative to interventions that support individuals after they have become homeless (Fitzpatrick, Mackie and Wood, 2021[1]; Culhane, Metraux and Byrne, 2011[11]).
Building on these operational issues, the following recommendations can help policy makers and practitioners prioritising prevention of homelessness:
Leverage existing social policies and housing supports to reduce the risk of homelessness, including social protection schemes and access to affordable and social housing.
Ensure balanced rights and protections of property owners and tenants in tenancy agreements and related legislation.
Provide targeted, timely support to people due to be discharged from any institution (e.g. prison, hospital, care system or facility) to secure appropriate housing and providing, where needed, tailored wraparound services to address their specific needs and facilitate social integration (cf. Block 6).
Provide targeted assistance to people facing imminent housing loss (e.g. people at risk of eviction, victims/survivors of intimate partner violence) to help them find an appropriate housing solution.
Ensure access to safe, quality emergency accommodation with low barriers of entry to prevent individuals from sleeping rough and guaranteeing that facilities are welcoming and safe for all individuals.
Assess ex ante the specific needs and resources required to connect people experiencing homelessness to housing solutions in the aftermath of large‑scale climate events or natural disasters.
Explore novel approaches to prevention, where relevant, including early warning systems, using big data technologies. To facilitate this, governments could consider how to standardise data collection across systems as much as possible.
References
[26] AHURI (2021), Poor transition processes are driving young care leavers into homelessness, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
[43] ARA (2024), Housing advice secures housing, https://www.ara.fi/en/housing-development/housing-advice.
[53] Audit Office of New South Wales (2024), Flood housing response, Audit Office of New South Wales.
[34] Australian Government (2024), Keeping Women Safe in their Homes, https://www.dss.gov.au/women-programs-services-ending-violence/keeping-women-safe-in-their-homes.
[45] Austrian government (2024), Wohnschirm, https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/themen/bauen_und_wohnen/wohnen/wohnschirm.html.
[13] Baptista, I. and E. Marlier (2019), Fighting homelessness and housing exclusion in Europe: A study of national policies, https://doi.org/10.2767/624509.
[51] Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative (2023), The California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness, UCSF.
[30] Borato, M., S. Gaetz and L. McMillan (2020), Family and Natural Supports: A Program Framework, Canadian Observatory on Homelessness Press, https://homelesshub.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/FNSreport11.5.pdf.
[58] California Policy Lab (2019), Predicting and Preventing Homelessness in Los Angeles, https://capolicylab.org/predicting-preventing-homelessness-la/.
[42] Collinson, R. et al. (2023), “Eviction and Poverty in American Cities”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 139/1, pp. 57-120, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjad042.
[49] CoreLogic (2022), Climate Change Catastrophe Report, CoreLogic.
[5] Cornes, M. et al. (2019), Transforming out-of-hospital care for people who are homeless. Support Tool & Briefing Notes: complementing the High Impact Change Model for transfers between hospital and home, The Policy Institute, King’s College London, https://doi.org/10.18742/pub01-007.
[11] Culhane, D., S. Metraux and T. Byrne (2011), “A prevention-centered approach to homelessness assistance: a paradigm shift?”, Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 21/2, pp. 295-315, https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2010.536246.
[39] Direction de l’administration pénitentiaire (2020), Monitoring Report: 2020, Ministre de la Justice (France).
[38] EOH, F. (2023), Leaving Prison and Homelessness, European Observatory on Homelessness, FEANTSA.
[44] Estonian Debt Counsellors Association (2024), What is debt advisory service?, https://evnl.ee/.
[25] FEANTSA and FAP (2022), Seventh Overview of Housing Exclusion in Europe, FEANTSA, Fondation Abbe Pierre.
[1] Fitzpatrick, S., P. Mackie and J. Wood (2021), “Advancing a Five-Level Typology of Homelessness Prevention”, International Journal on Homelessness, Vol. 1/1, pp. 79-97, https://doi.org/10.5206/ijoh.2021.1.13341.
[18] Frey, V. and R. Hyee (2024), “Non-take‑up and the digital transformation of social programmes in OECD countries”, in Modernising Access to Social Protection: Strategies, Technologies and Data Advances in OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/87de1f8f-en.
[7] Gaetz, S. et al. (2018), The Roadmap for the Prevention of Youth Homelessness, https://homelesshub.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/YPRfullreport-1.pdf.
[55] Gin, J. et al. (2020), “Including Homeless Populations in Disaster Preparedness, Planning, and Response: A Toolkit for Practitioners”, Journal of Public Health Management & Practice, Vol. 28/1, pp. E62-E72, https://doi.org/10.1097/phh.0000000000001230.
[46] Homeless Hub (2024), Shelter Diversion & Eviction Prevention, https://homelesshub.ca/collection/programs-that-work/shelter-diversion-eviction-prevention/.
[22] Hyresgastforeningen (2017), Information about the Tenants’ Association.
[41] Impact Justice (2024), Homecoming project, https://impactjustice.org/innovation/homecoming-project/#faq.
[6] Johnson, G. and P. Mendes (2014), “Taking control and ’moving on’: How young people turn around problematic transitions from out-of-home care”, Social work and society, Vol. 12, pp. 1-15, https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:73139387.
[50] Liu, J. (ed.) (2023), “Shifting social-ecological fire regimes explain increasing structure loss from Western wildfires”, PNAS Nexus, Vol. 2/3, https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad005.
[17] Locks, G. and J. Thuilliez (2023), “The impact of minimum income on homelessness: Evidence from France”, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 135, p. 103547, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2023.103547.
[4] Lutze, F., J. Rosky and Z. Hamilton (2013), “Homelessness and Reentry”, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 41/4, pp. 471-491, https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813510164.
[54] MacKenzie, B. (2024), “Auditor-general’s flood report finds NSW had ’no plan’ to house 2022 Lismore survivors”, ABC North Coast.
[31] MacKenzie, D. (2018), Interim Report. The Geelong Project 2016-2017, https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2018-02/apo-nid133006.PDF.
[14] Mackie, P. (2022), Preventive Measures against Homelessness and Housing Exclusion: A Discussion Paper.
[32] Mackie, P. and N. Rees (2024), Upstream Cymru, https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/research/explore/find-a-project/view/2500988-upstream-cymru.
[10] McMordie, L. (2020), “Avoidance strategies: stress, appraisal and coping in hostel accommodation”, Housing Studies, Vol. 36/3, pp. 380-396, https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2020.1769036.
[9] MHCLG (2019), Rough sleeping initiative 2018: Impact evaluation..
[37] Ministry of the Interior and Overseas Territories (2024), AGIR, pour l’emploi et le logement des personnes réfugiées, https://www.immigration.interieur.gouv.fr/Integration-et-Acces-a-la-nationalite/AGIR-pour-l-emploi-et-le-logement-des-personnes-refugiees.
[27] National Audit Office (United Kingdom) (2015), Care leavers’ transition to adulthood, https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Care-leavers-transition-to-adulthood.pdf.
[19] OECD (2024), Affordable Housing Database, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/oecd-affordable-housing-database.html.
[35] OECD (2024), Challenges to measuring homelessness among migrants in OECD and EU countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b9855842-en.
[16] OECD (2023), Social Expenditure Database (SOCX) - OECD, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/expenditure.htm (accessed on 11 December 2017).
[33] OECD (2023), Supporting Lives Free from Intimate Partner Violence: Towards Better Integration of Services for Victims/Survivors, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d61633e7-en.
[15] OECD (2023), The rise and fall of public social spending with the COVID-19 pandemic: Key findings, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/social/expenditure.htm (accessed on 27 October 2023).
[20] OECD (2021), Brick by Brick: Building Better Housing Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b453b043-en.
[36] OECD/European Commission (2023), Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2023: Settling In, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d5020a6-en.
[21] Office of Civil Justice, N. (2022), Universal Access to Legal Services: A Report on Year Five of Implementation in New York City, New York City Department of Justice, https://www.nyc.gov/assets/hra/downloads/pdf/services/civiljustice/OCJ_UA_Annual_Report_2022.pdf.
[24] Ösgård, A. (2023), “Class Compromises in an Uncompromising Political Economy: Rent-setting and The Swedish Tenants’ Union”, Urban Matters.
[29] Provivienda (2023), Zaguán: Creando hogares para jóvenes procedentes de sistemas de protección, https://www.provivienda.org/zaguan-creando-hogares-para-jovenes-procedentes-de-sistemas-de-proteccion/.
[2] Schwan, K. et al. (2018), Preventing youth homelessness: An international review of evidence.
[8] Shinn, M. and R. Cohen (2019), “Homelessness prevention: A review of the literature”, Centre For Evidence-Based Solutions to Homelessness, p. 9, http://www.evidenceonhomelessness.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Homelessness_Prevention_Literature_Synthesis.pdf.
[47] Siatitsa, D. (2017), “Attempts to prevent displacement: housing policies in time of austerity in Athens and Rome”, Urbanistica tre, Vol. 13/5.
[48] Solinum (2022), Quel impact de Soliguide?, https://www.solinum.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Mesure-dimpact-Soliguide-2022_VDVF.pdf.
[23] Statistical Sweden (2019), “Highest rent increase in six years”, Renters Rising.
[3] Stephens, M. et al. (2010), Study on Housing Exclusion: Welfare Policies, Housing Provision and Labour Markets, https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:153065995.
[28] The Trevor Project (2022), Homelessness and Housing Instability Among LGBTQ Youth, The Trevor Project.
[56] U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2017), Disaster preparedness to promote community resilience, https://www.va.gov/HOMELESS/nchav/docs/VEMEC_Intro_20170713_Final_508.pdf.
[12] U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (2024), Ending Homelessness Before It Starts: A Federal Homelessness Prevention Framework, U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, https://usich.gov/sites/default/files/document/Federal%20Homelessness%20Prevention%20Framework_2.pdf.
[40] UK government (2024), Housed on Release from Custody Data, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66a12039ab418ab055592cb3/Accommodation_at_Release_from_Custody.xlsx.
[52] van den Nouwelant, R. (2022), The impact of housing vulnerability on climate disaster recovery: The 2022 Northern Rivers Floods, UNSW Sydney.
[57] Xantura (2020), Preventing Homelessness, https://xantura.com/maidstone-borough-council/.