OECD Toolkit to Combat Homelessness

1. Strategies, stakeholders and inclusion

Abstract

Block 1 discusses the development of effective national homelessness strategies, which should identify clear priorities, set measurable targets, and engage a broad range of stakeholders. Drawing on OECD and EU country practices, it highlights key elements of effective strategies, such as setting priorities for prevention, shifting towards housing-led and Housing First approaches, and embedding monitoring and evaluation into policy making. This block explores how such strategies can promote inclusion, ensure co‑ordination across policy areas, and meaningfully involve people with lived experience of homelessness throughout the policy-making processes.

Relevance and key data

Developing strategic guidance – which may take the form of a national homelessness strategy, a national policy framework or action plan – is often an important first step to help governments define priorities, determine clear and measurable goals and the corresponding actions and resources to achieve them, and convene relevant actors to define and pursue a common objective. Such strategic planning processes have been adopted in the public sector to set the policy agenda, and as a means to “reinvent” government operations to better meet high service demands and fiscal constraints” (Berry, 1994[1]). This makes strategic planning tools especially relevant in the field of homelessness, given its cross-sectoral complexity and the (often) limited availability of public resources to effectively address the challenge.

In recent years, many OECD and EU countries have introduced, or renewed, homelessness strategies. According to the 2023 OECD Questionnaire on Affordable and Social Housing (QuASH), 26 of 43 respondent countries (60%) report having a national homelessness strategy, action plan or agreement in place (Box 1.1). Seventeen countries (40%) report that they do not have a current national strategy. However, a number of these countries report the existence of recent or current strategic tools for policy making, including homelessness strategies at regional or local level (Austria and Iceland). Australia and Slovenia are currently developing a national homelessness strategy. In other countries, homelessness is addressed in other strategic plans relating to housing, national development, social inclusion, or social welfare. Table 1.1 presents the strategy, action plan or agreement in place at national level to combat homelessness in OECD and EU countries (OECD, 2024[2]).

Box 1.1. The OECD Questionnaire on Affordable and Social Housing (QuASH): A valuable tool for cross-national comparison of housing and homelessness

The OECD Questionnaire on Affordable and Social Housing (QuASH) is a dedicated online survey to governments that collects data and information on housing supply and demand, as well as information on specific housing policy measures in over 40 countries. The QuASH is circulated to governments every two to three years, with rounds in 2016, 2019, 2021, and 2023. Country responses support updates to the OECD Affordable Housing Database (OECD, 2024[2]) and ongoing OECD work on affordable and social housing and homelessness.

The QuASH is organised into thematic sections that cover a core set of housing-related topics. This includes key housing data (relating to, among other things, housing construction, social housing, housing vacancies, evictions); housing governance arrangements; and public policies for affordable housing (including demand-side measures to support homeowners and tenants, including cash benefits and first-time homeowner programmes, as well as supply-side support to affordable and social housing developers).

Nevertheless, each round of the QuASH is tailored to some extent to reflect the OECD’s work programme and thematic priorities: some topics are added or expanded, while others are dropped or streamlined. The 2023 QuASH included an extended focus on homelessness to gather evidence on data, statistical definitions, data collection approaches, and policies and prevention measures. Country responses to this section have served as a rich and heretofore unmatched source of cross-national information on homelessness, and a basis for the Country Notes on Homelessness Data (OECD, 2024[3]), OECD Monitoring Framework (OECD, Forthcoming[4]), and this Toolkit.

Nevertheless, fewer than half of countries with a national strategy report that the strategy includes an explicit commitment to end homelessness, though all European Union member states have pledged to work towards ending homelessness in the Lisbon Declaration on the European Platform on Combatting Homelessness (European Commission, 2021[5]). In several countries, national strategies commit to reducing homelessness (for instance, to reduce homelessness by 25% by 2025 in the United States), or to end specific types of homelessness, such as street homelessness (Spain).

Table 1.1. Many countries have a national strategy, action plan or agreement to combat homelessness in place

Countries with a dedicated national strategy, or a broader strategy addressing homelessness.

Country	National strategy or action plan	Name of dedicated strategy, action plan or agreement for homelessness	Other strategy or guidance in place that addresses homelessness
Australia	(Under development)	National Housing and Homelessness Plan	Under the National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness, the federal government will provide financial support to states and territories to support people experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness and ensure the effectiveness of Australia’s social housing and homelessness services. Funding will amount to AUD 1.8 billion [USD 1.17 billion] per year (including a homelessness funding component of AUD 400 million [USD 260 million]). Plus, states and territories are required to match their proportion of homelessness funding.
Austria	No		Integrated strategies at regional/provincial, and local level
Belgium	Yes	Inter-federal Co‑operation Agreement, involving all the federated and federal entities	Integrated Action Plan to Prevent and Combat Homelessness (2020‑24) (Flanders)
Bulgaria	No		Addressed in the National Poverty Reduction and Social Inclusion Strategy 2030
Canada	Yes	Reaching Home: Canada’s Homelessness Strategy	Strategies at the province, territory, and municipality level
Chile	Yes	Barrios Calle Cero policy
Colombia	Yes	Public Social Policy for Street Dwellers	The Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2022‑26 (National Development Plan 2022‑26) includes an objective of promoting the social integration of people experiencing homelessness through access to services (including housing).
Costa Rica	Yes	National Policy for the Comprehensive Care of People in Situation of Abandonment and Street Situation (2016-2026)
Croatia	No		Addressed National Development Strategy (2030)
Czechia	Yes	Included in Social Inclusion Strategy (2021-2030)
Denmark	Yes	The Foundation for Mixed Cities. - more affordable housing and a way out of homelessness
Estonia	No		The Social Welfare Act (2016) addresses the provision of housing for those without shelter
Finland	Yes	Programme to end long-term homelessness by 2027
France	Yes	Second Housing First Plan (Deuxième plan quinquennal pour le Logement d’abord (2023-2027)	Regional governments have developed homelessness strategies
Germany	Yes	National Action Plan Against Homelessness (“Together for a Home”)	Regional governments have developed homelessness strategies
Greece	Yes	National Action Plan to Combat Homelessness
Hungary	No		National Nursing and Care Strategy, which covers homelessness.
Iceland	No		Regional governments have developed homelessness strategies
Ireland	Yes	Housing for All - a New Housing Plan and Youth Homelessness Strategy
Israel	No
Italy	Yes	National Plan of Social Interventions and Services (2021-2023)
Japan	Yes	Law on Special Measure for Self-Sufficiency Support for the Homeless. Basic Policy for Self-Sufficiency Support for the Homeless	Regional governments have developed homelessness strategies
Korea	Yes	The 2nd Comprehensive Plan for Welfare and Self-Reliance Support of the Homeless (2021-2025)	Regional governments have developed homelessness strategies
Latvia	No		Social Services and Social Assistance Law provides homelessness services
Lithuania	No
Luxembourg	No
Mexico	No
Netherlands	Yes	Dutch National Action Plan on Homelessness: Housing First	Regional / municipal governments have developed homelessness strategies in line with national strategy Programma Een thuis voor iedereen | Home | Volkshuisvesting Nederland (A Home for All – Housing for Vulnerable Groups)
New Zealand	Yes	Te Tauākī Kaupapa Here a te Kāwanatanga mō te Whakawhanake Whare, Tāone anō hoki (Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development)	MAIHI Ka Ora (The National Māori Housing Strategy) Fale mo Aiga (Pacific Housing Strategy and Action Plan 2030) Better Later Life – He Oranga Kaumātua 2019 to 2034 Strategy
Norway	Yes	National Strategy for Social Housing Policies (2021‑24), We All Need a Safe Place to Call Home
Poland	Yes		Strategy of Development of Social Services, Public Policy until 2030 (with a Perspective until 2035)
Portugal	Yes	The National Strategy for the Inclusion of People Experiencing Homelessness 2025-2030	Municipal governments, regional governments and NGOs are present in the Planning and Intervention for Homeless People Centres (NPISA)
Romania	Yes	National Strategy regarding the Social Inclusion of Homeless People for 2022 -2027	National Strategy for Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction 2022‑27 National Housing Strategy 2022‑50 Housing Law no.114/1996 Law 292/2011 on Social Assistance and Law 196/2016 regarding the Minimum Inclusion Income also provide specific measures for homeless people and social housing
Slovak Republic	Yes	National Concept for the Prevention and Ending of Homelessness	Regional governments have developed homelessness strategies
Slovenia	(Under development)		Resolution on the national social assistance programme (2022‑30)
Spain	Yes	National Strategy for Combatting Homelessness in Spain 2023-2030	Regional and local governments have developed homelessness strategies
Sweden	Yes	The Government’s Strategy to Combat Homelessness 2022-2026
Switzerland	No		Regional and local governments have developed homelessness strategies
Türkiye	No
United Kingdom	Yes	Ending Rough Sleeping Strategy for Good (England) Ending Homelessness Together Homelessness Strategy 2022-2027 (Northern Ireland) Ending Homelessness Together: Updated Action Plan 2020 (Scotland) Ending Homelessness Together Monitor: Strategic Outcomes & Indicators 2024 (Scotland) Strategy for Preventing and Ending Homelessness 2019 (Wales)	The Homelessness Act 2002 requires each local authority to review homelessness in its area and to develop a new homelessness strategy every five years (England) Scotland has an action plan, as well as a monitor to measure the impact of the plan – to demonstrate whether and where progress is being made. The Monitor provides a reporting framework to measure progress on 10 structural and strategic outcomes.
United States	Yes	All In: The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness	Ending Homelessness Before It Starts: A Federal Homelessness Prevention Framework State, county, and city governments have developed homelessness strategies

Source: (OECD, 2024[2]), OECD Affordable Housing Database and (OECD, 2024[3]), OECD Country Notes on Homelessness Data, available at www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/affordable-housing/homelessness.html.

Inclusion should be a central tenet in homelessness strategies and public policies, as well as in the design and delivery of homelessness services and housing solutions. People experiencing homelessness face discrimination across various aspects of daily life, including limited access to essential resources (like clean drinking water) and services, denial of housing opportunities by landlords, and significant barriers when seeking employment (Gille et al., 2024[6]). These forms of discrimination not only perpetuate their marginalisation but also make it difficult for individuals to break the cycle of homelessness. In practice, this means making inclusion and anti-discrimination a central premise in both principle (e.g. designing people‑centred policies and services with low barriers to entry, Block 6) and in practice (e.g. meaningfully engaging people experiencing homelessness or with lived experience of homelessness in the development of homelessness strategies, policies and programmes).

The Toolkit’s nine building blocks can provide a useful framework for strategy development, grounded in people‑centred approaches that safeguard the rights of people experiencing homelessness.

Common operational questions

While several OECD and EU countries have developed strategic guidance at national level, including through national homelessness strategies, more can be done to strengthen existing strategies and encourage their development where they do not yet exist.

As outlined in the discussion that follows, both the content of the strategy, as well as the process to design it, matter. The following set of operational questions is intended to guide policy makers and practitioners in developing, or strengthening, homelessness strategies at national, regional or municipal scale:

• What are the key components of effective homelessness strategies?

• How to engage diverse stakeholders in the design of a homelessness strategy?

• How – and when – to engage people with lived experience of homelessness in the policy making process?

• How can policy be designed to promote inclusion and safeguard the rights of people experiencing homelessness?

What are the key components of effective homelessness strategies?

Strategic guidance can take different forms and should be tailored to the specific national, regional, and local contexts. Nevertheless, in general, effective guidance should include the following elements, which reflect all nine building blocks proposed in this Toolkit, and resonate with many of the key elements discussed in O’Sullivan (2022[7]):

• A clear definition and comprehensive assessment of the scale and scope of homelessness, citing recent and relevant data, disaggregated by relevant socio-demographic groups and, where feasible, ETHOS Light categories, as well as comparative trends in data; Block 2 in this Toolkit provides a number of recommendations to strengthen homelessness assessment, in terms of definitions, data and drivers.

• A set of core priorities and measurable targets: Core priorities could focus on prevention efforts (Block 4), a fundamental shift from a reliance on emergency accommodation and traditional “staircase” models to Housing First and housing-led solutions (Block 5), and the provision of low-barrier, tailored wraparound support services to individuals who need it (Block 6).

• A set of proposed actions to address the challenge, identifying who will be responsible for carrying them out, by when, and with what resources; Blocks 7 and 8 provide recommendations to mobilise funding and financing, and good governance to, e.g. avoid sharing mandates across government levels without the necessary funds and institutional support to follow through.

• Coherence with related public policies and strategies, notably relating to housing affordability and social protection.

• Systemic monitoring and policy evaluation of the proposed actions; Block 3 discusses strategies to embed monitoring and evaluation in the homelessness policy making process.

• A clear policy lead to encourage accountability and engagement of a range of stakeholders across policy areas and ministries, including with people with lived experience of homelessness; Block 8 provides recommendations to engage and co‑ordinate across a range of actors and institutions.

• An electoral mandate, and/or recognised need, for policy reform; housing affordability and homelessness are indeed policy issues that are considered “ripe” for reform in many countries. Block 9 provides guidance on the “ingredients” to successful policy reforms that can be applied in the realm of homelessness.

There are many approaches to developing strategic guidance, as demonstrated by the varied experiences of, for example, Finland, Norway, the Slovak Republic and Scotland (the United Kingdom).

A consistent national approach to end homelessness, with clearly articulated responsibilities among varied stakeholders

In Finland, homelessness has been a recurrent feature of the government’s policy agenda since the late 1980s. The government introduced its “Housing First” (Block 5) approach in 2007, as part of its first national homelessness strategy, Paavo I (2008‑11) (Juhila, Raitakari and Ranta, 2022[8]). Housing First has consistently been at the core of subsequent national strategies, including Paavo II (2012‑15) and the current Action Plan for Preventing Homelessness. Finland is one of the few OECD countries to have recorded a consistent and significant decline in homelessness over recent decades. The total population of individuals experiencing homelessness has dropped by 80%, from over 18 000 in 1987 to less than 3 500 in 2023. Meanwhile, long-term homelessness declined by over 70% between 2008 and 2023, to around 1 000 individuals (The Housing Finance and Development Centre of Finland (ARA), 2024[9]). Finland’s consistent strategy engaged co‑ordinated efforts from the central government, local authorities and NGOs to commit budgeted resources and set achievable targets for housing development and acquisition (Pleace et al., 2015[10]). For instance, the national strategies have emphasised the key role of NGOs in developing and acquiring housing in the private sector and providing tenant support, as well as ensuring the availability of services to vulnerable youth and adults and facilitating the transitions for individuals leaving institutions, such as prisons or health centres (Pleace et al., 2015[10]).

Norway’s long-term housing-led strategies have helped cut homelessness in half over the past decade (Halseth, Larsson and Urstad, 2022[11]). Distinct from Housing First, housing-led models emphasise the provision of immediate, long-term housing, but are rather targeted towards people with limited (or no) service needs (Block 5). In Norway, national policy outlines the responsibilities of different actors in addressing homelessness, whereby the central government “sets goals and provides a framework through laws, regulations and financial tools, such as loans and grants”; public health and welfare services are charged with directly providing services to people experiencing homelessness; and municipalities, in co‑operation with NGOs, have a key role in supporting disadvantaged groups in the housing market, and for planning and renovating housing and providing infrastructure. Since 1999, five successive government-led strategic projects addressing homelessness have followed a housing-led approach. This continuity has helped to provide the time and resources to build capacity within municipalities and among other stakeholders to make systemic changes to their approach to social welfare and social housing, which have helped to reduce homelessness (Dyb, 2019[12]).

An integrated homelessness prevention strategy that cuts across government departments

The Slovak Republic’s national homelessness strategy, the National Concept for the Prevention and Ending of Homelessness (2023), sets a target of ending homelessness by 2030. For the first time, the strategy provided a definition of homelessness in the Slovak Republic, which guided an assessment of the prevalence, drivers and average duration of homelessness, drawing on existing statistical resources, including population census data, local-level homelessness counts, administrative data, and EU-SILC micro-data. The strategy identifies several priority areas: prevention, housing affordability, health, employment and social security, social services and legal protection. Each priority area includes a specific objective, and several draft measures. For instance, the strategy proposes to develop a consistent and regular data collection method on homelessness, including hidden and rural homelessness, to inform evaluations on policy measures. In addition, the prevention priority area aims to create an integrated homelessness prevention model with systemic co‑ordination among government departments. To achieve this objective, the strategy discusses, among other measures, the creation of an independent supra-departmental unit to co‑ordinate and implement homelessness prevention policies and financial support to help those at risk of homelessness stay in their homes. The strategy is complemented by an action plan with measurable indicators, targets with a specified deadline, and responsible actors and sources of funding.

Guidance to local authorities on supporting people experiencing homelessness

In 2018, in Scotland (the United Kingdom), the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities jointly published the Ending Homelessness Together Action Plan (since updated in October 2020). Based on detailed homelessness statistics, including data on support needs, pathways and duration of homelessness and existing housing services, the action plan highlights five actions to end homelessness. With a fund of GBP 50 million (USD 63 million), the plan discusses several policy measures to be implemented for each action, often with a specified deadline. To sustain momentum and track progress, a Monitoring Framework has been established to measure achievements across ten structural and strategic outcomes. As part of the Action Plan, the Code of Guidance on Homelessness was updated to provide further guidance to local authorities on legislation, policies and practices to prevent and resolve homelessness. Grounded in a human rights approach, the Code of Guidance describes the powers, duties and responsibilities of local authorities for the prevention of homelessness, handling of applications for homelessness services, inquiries into homelessness, and the provision of accommodation. In addition, local authorities collect data regarding every homelessness assessment, which is shared with the Scottish Government monthly and published every six months.

How to engage diverse stakeholders in the design of a homelessness strategy?

In terms of process, the engagement of a range of actors and institutions in the development of strategic documents is essential to help build, or reinforce, collaboration and increase buy-in and accountability (Baptista and Marlier, 2019[13]), ultimately contributing to more effective homelessness reduction (Lee, McGuire and Kim, 2018[14]). This includes reaching across policy domains, and to actors within and outside government. The cross-cutting nature of homelessness calls for collaboration with diverse stakeholders and institutions, including relating to, among other things, housing, public health, social services, and employment. Cross-sector collaboration can help to facilitate the exchange of experiences and ensure a common approach. In particular, involving NGOs, which in many countries play a significant role in providing services for individuals experiencing homelessness (Valero and Jang, 2016[15]; Nambiar and Mathew, 2022[16]; Allen, 2016[17]), can contribute to more effective public policies and improved outcomes (Doberstein, 2015[18]; Lee, McGuire and Kim, 2018[14]).

“Pressure cooker” sessions to convene a range of stakeholders to draft a National Action Plan

In the Netherlands, the National Action Plan on Homelessness was jointly developed by representatives from, among others, diverse ministries, people with lived experience, interest groups, youth panels, youth providers, NGOs, judicial partners, academia and research institutes, municipalities and the private sector. The drafting of the Action Plan included four thematic sessions with over 200 participants to discuss barriers and solutions to homelessness prevention and access to housing. The process also included two intensive “pressure‑cooker” writing weeks with interim review sessions for those involved in the field. The implementation process of the National Action Plan on Homelessness includes partnerships with people with lived experience, corporations, healthcare providers, welfare organisations, local advocacy organisations and other stakeholders.

Convening a cross-section of actors to align systems and funding

In Canada, Reaching Home: Canada’s Homelessness Strategy is a community-based programme focused on the prevention and reduction of homelessness. Advisory Boards, composed of a wide range of stakeholders, including from municipal, provincial or territorial governments, NGOs, and for-profit enterprises, must be established to engage community members, identify priorities, recommend projects, and support the response to homelessness at the community level.

Box 1.2. Potential stakeholders who could be engaged in the design and implementation of homelessness strategies and policies

The following list is not exhaustive, and some actors may be more relevant than others in a particular country or local context:

• National government: ministries, including those relating to housing and infrastructure, social welfare, health, employment, education and skills, migration, taxation and benefits, criminal justice.

• Regional and municipal authorities, including those relating to housing and infrastructure, social welfare, health, employment, migration.

• NGOs and civil society organisations, including providers of housing, health and social support, tenant organisations, migrant organisations.

• Police and public safety representatives.

• Representatives from communities that may be disproportionately affected by homelessness.

• People with lived experience of homelessness (see also Box 1.3).

• Researchers/experts.

• Human rights organisations/ombudspersons.

• Tribal governments, where relevant.

How – and when – to engage people with lived experience of homelessness in the policy making process?

In addition, engaging individuals who have experienced homelessness first-hand can help to design and improve service delivery and housing solutions and to identify potential bottlenecks that are grounded in the real-world experiences and knowledge of those who have experienced homelessness (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2021[19]; Padwa et al., 2023[20]; Barker and Maguire, 2017[21]; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HUD), 2021[22]; ASPE, 2022[23]; ASPE, 2022[24]). Outreach can be done via advocacy organisations working with impacted communities (such as tenant and homelessness associations), direct service providers, and/or by reaching out to community leaders (through churches, schools, etc.) to identify individuals with first-hand experience. Financially compensating people for their time is strongly encouraged. Box 1.3 provides some examples of ways in which people with lived experience can be meaningfully involved in homelessness policy making.

Box 1.3. Potential ways to engage people with lived experience of homelessness in homelessness policy design and implementation

The following list is not exhaustive, and some means of engagement may be more relevant than others in a particular country or local context:

• Co-create homelessness strategies, toolkits, policies and programmes. Where relevant, consider opportunities to offer training in communication and public speaking for people with lived experience, to strengthen their role in contributing to the design and implementation of public policies.

• Partner, from the beginning, in the design and implementation of housing-led and Housing First interventions.

• Engage in the design and delivery of services to people experiencing homelessness, particularly in terms of identifying and overcoming bottlenecks to accessing services.

• Provide peer support to people experiencing homelessness and share information.

• Help develop homelessness measurement/enumeration frameworks.

• Engage in regular monitoring and evaluation exercises, to assess the effectiveness of policy interventions from the user’s / beneficiary’s perspective.

• Be hired as staff members.

Engaging people with lived experience to design and implement a national homelessness strategy

In Spain, inclusive and participatory measures have played an important role in the development of the National Strategy for Combating Homelessness (2023‑30), with a specific objective aimed at fostering the engagement of people experiencing homelessness. The strategy also emphasises direct involvement of those with lived experience in awareness programmes, along with providing training activities to empower them to actively participate in shaping their future and overcoming homelessness (Ministerio de Derechos Sociales y Agenda 2030, 2023[25]). Concrete examples include: individuals with lived experience led discussion groups to generate proposals that were channelled through civil society entities, and provided feedback on the draft strategy at a dedicated event. Inputs from both activities informed the national strategy (Ministerio de Derechos Sociales y Agenda 2030, 2023[25]). The inputs from people with lived experience generated concrete ideas, such as revising assistance requirements, establishing protocols for supporting individuals in obtaining social benefits, regularising the status of those in irregular situations to facilitate employment opportunities, enhancing collaboration between care systems, and conducting campaigns to combat discrimination and stigmatisation, which have all been incorporated into the national strategy (Ministerio de Derechos Sociales y Agenda 2030, 2023[25]).

The Government of Canada also redesigned its homelessness strategy to include people with lived experience. Further, the National Housing Council of Canada, which was established to monitor the impact of the new housing strategy, also included members with lived experience.

Engaging people with lived experience to design and operate Housing First programmes

The Housing First programme in the Liverpool City Region (LCR) (the United Kingdom) stands out for its emphasis on actively engaging people with lived experience of homelessness in all stages of the programme, including service design, monitoring, evaluation, and the recruitment process of programme staff. The organisational chart of the LCR’s Housing First model includes a dedicated department focused solely on lived experience (Campbell Tickell, 2022[26]). Individuals with lived experience of homelessness played a crucial role in initiating the programme (Blood et al., 2017[27]), and they continue to contribute actively to inform policy development and service delivery to the programme’s beneficiaries and influence the governance of the programme as a whole (MHCLG, 2021[28]). For instance, during the recruitment of practitioners in the Housing First team, the initial interview is conducted by a panel from the Lived Experience Team, with their interview score comprising a 50% of the overall recruitment score (Campbell Tickell, 2022[26]; LCRCA, 2022[29]).

Ireland’s Housing Agency published a Peer Support Specialist Toolkit to encourage the integration of individuals with lived experience into Housing First staff teams. The toolkit provides guidance on how to train, certify, and incorporate peer specialists into the programme. The recommendation highlights how peer-specialists can provide relatable and empathetic support to clients by sharing personal recovery stories, while maintaining healthy boundaries and practicing self-care (Tsemberis, 2020[30]). An evaluation by the National Housing First Implementation Evaluation Team (NHFIE) on the first two years of the implementation of Housing First nationwide found that, while peer representation is rare, it generally has a strong positive impact on service recipients (Greenwood, Byrne and O’Shaugnessy, 2022[31]).

How can policy be designed to promote inclusion and safeguard the rights of people experiencing homelessness?

Legislation and practices that penalise people experiencing homelessness – including, among other things, laws that make it illegal to sleep, sit, or store personal belongs in public spaces; ordinances that punish people for begging or removing items form rubbish bins; or sweeps of areas in which people who are experiencing homelessness are living (Evangelista, 2013[32]) – have been shown to be counterproductive and costly. Research from the United States has demonstrated significant cost savings from redirecting enforcement spending towards housing and support services (Hauber, 2024[33]). Even punitive interactions that do not result in arrest (such as move‑along orders, citations, and destruction of property) limit the access of people experiencing homelessness to services, housing, and jobs, while damaging their health, safety, and well-being (Herring, Yarbrough and Marie Alatorre, 2019[34]), (Westbrook and Robinson, 2020[35]). While it is important to engage the public safety sector in the policy making process, law enforcement should not be the primary tool to address homelessness.

Adopting a human-centred approach to national strategies and public policies, which guarantees a minimum level of support

Portugal’s national homelessness strategy and public policy approach guarantee a minimum level of housing and social support to all individuals who are identified as needing assistance. The guiding principle of the national strategy is defined as a “person-centred approach” that is based on human rights and human dignity, equality and non-discrimination, in recognition that homelessness is a complex social problem. It will be important to evaluate the impacts of this approach over the medium to long term.

Enacting rights-based and anti-discrimination legislation, including laws that prohibit targeting individuals engaging in life‑sustaining activities, such as sleeping in public spaces

Over the years, Scotland (the United Kingdom) has shifted its approach to homelessness, moving away from crisis response to increasingly prioritising prevention and decriminalisation. In 1982, the Civic Government (Scotland) Act repealed Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1 824, which had criminalised rough sleeping – a law that remains in effect in England and Wales. Further, the Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 marked a pivotal change by gradually eliminating the distinction between priority and non-priority applicants for housing assistance. The Act aimed to ensure that, by 31 December 2012, all individuals assessed as unintentionally homeless would be entitled to settled accommodation. In November 2012, the Scottish Parliament approved the Homelessness (Abolition of Priority Need Test) (Scotland) Order 2012, solidifying this commitment. As of 31 December 2012, the priority need test for homeless households was abolished, guaranteeing that all unintentionally homeless households have the right to settled accommodation. More recently, the issuance of The Homeless Persons (Suspension of Referrals between Local Authorities) (Scotland) Order 2022 allows people experiencing homelessness to make a homelessness application for accommodation wherever they wish, prior to which there needed to be proof of a local connection to an area.

In Brazil, Law No. 14,489/2022, known as the “Father Júlio Lancellotti Law”, which entered into force on 11 January 2023, amends the City Statute to prohibit hostile architecture in public spaces. The law seeks to ensure that public spaces, their furnishings, and their connections to private areas remain accessible to everyone by banning the use of hostile materials, structures, equipment, and construction techniques intended to deter or exclude individuals experiencing homelessness, and other vulnerable groups.

In Washington, D.C. the United States), the Human Rights Enhancement Act of 2022 adds “homeless status” as a protected trait under the D.C. Human Rights Act, prohibiting discrimination against individuals experiencing homelessness in employment, housing, public accommodations, government services, and educational institutions. The Act sets out that employers cannot take adverse actions based on homeless status, housing providers cannot make decisions influenced by it, public service providers cannot deny access, and schools cannot discriminate in admissions. The Act also mandates that law enforcement officers receive training on issues related to homelessness, including an understanding of the protections afforded under the Act and guidance on how to refer allegations of discrimination to the D.C. Office of Human Rights. Additionally, it establishes that the Eviction Record Sealing Authority and Fairness in Renting Amendment Act of 2022 enables the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to seal eviction records in certain circumstances and permits individuals to file complaints if discriminated against based on their sealed eviction records. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of such local legislation depends to some extent on policies of higher levels of government. Supporting local initiatives that help people experiencing homelessness overcome administrative hurdles and meet basic human needs.

The provision of a mailing address and/or post office box free of charge have helped people experiencing homelessness overcome administrative hurdles, for instance, to open a bank account or apply for and receive social benefits. In Sydney, Australia, Australia Post offers a 12‑month free post office box service for individuals experiencing homelessness, providing them with a secure mailing address at a participating post office. This service allows individuals to receive important documents, such as identification, government correspondence, and job application responses, which are crucial for reconnecting with society and accessing support services.

Similarly, in London (the United Kingdom), the pilot project, ProxyAddress tested during 2020 and 2021, provided a temporary address for people experiencing homelessness, helping them manage essential administrative tasks through an app. The app matched applicants with donated addresses from willing property owners, including councils and housing associations, which provide addresses of empty properties or those under construction. This temporary address could be used for receiving important documents, accessing services, and applying for jobs. Royal Mail partnered with the scheme to ensure that all physical mail was forwarded to the service user, regardless of their current location, with the app updating address details in real time. During the pilot period, 47 out of 49 participants moved into stable accommodation within six months, demonstrating the initiative’s effectiveness in helping individuals transition out of homelessness – exceeding the expected results. The pilot was set to be tested in additional cities. A similar project in the Netherlands is featured in Block 6.

Access to public toilets is increasingly recognised as essential for creating urban spaces that are inclusive of individuals experiencing homelessness, with significant implications for health, dignity, and fundamental human right to water and sanitation (Meehan, Odetola and Griswold, 2022[36]). The challenges faced by people experiencing homelessness in accessing public bathrooms are often underlain by the contradiction between limited access to facilities and the criminalisation of public urination and defecation (Hochbaum, 2019[37]). Research highlights the urgent need to reevaluate the approach to public sanitation, focusing on dignity, equity, and public health. Accessible, clean, and safe public toilets are vital public resources and integral components of urban infrastructure that can significantly enhance inclusivity for those experiencing homelessness (Damon, 2023[38]).

The challenges surrounding hygiene are particularly severe for people experiencing homelessness who menstruate, as they often face difficulties in accessing clean toilets and bathing facilities. This scarcity of safe spaces makes it difficult to manage menstruation hygiene effectively. Additionally, the unavailability of essential products compounds their struggle, forcing them to navigate the dual stigma of both menstruation and homelessness (Gruer et al., 2021[39]; Sommer et al., 2020[40]). To address this issue, the Period Project, with 13 chapters mainly along the East Coast of the United States, distributes menstrual products to those in need, notably to individuals experiencing homelessness. Packs are distributed to people in shelters, those living on the streets, and young menstruators in schools who lack access to menstrual care. Since its inception in 2015, the Homeless Period Project has distributed over 240 000 Period Packs, making a significant impact on vulnerable communities.

Fundamentals for success

Evidence from countries that have reduced homelessness highlight the importance of a co‑ordinated, long-term approach to combat homelessness over the course of multiple administrations and election cycles. This building block emphasises that developing comprehensive homelessness strategies can help in creating long-term, co‑ordinated policy responses that address the complex and multifaceted aspects nature of homelessness.

Effective strategies often involve setting clear goals, allocating resources and engaging diverse stakeholders, including people with lived experience, to help ensure policies fulfil their intended consequence. However, there is currently a lack of rigorous evaluations to determine which types of strategy (and which elements) are most effective in achieving this goal. Many countries have developed increasingly detailed national strategies in the recent years in different formats (Szeintuch, 2024[41]). It will be important to monitor and evaluate the results obtained by these different approaches to draw lessons. Nonetheless, common themes emerge and crucial aspects have been identified which countries can consider when drafting or revising their strategies.

Building on these operational issues, the following recommendations can help policy makers and practitioners in developing strategic guidance, engaging stakeholders, and developing inclusive policies:

• Develop a strategy to end homelessness, which defines and assesses the scale and scope of homelessness; sets out core priorities and measurable targets; identifies proposed actions; involves responsible actors from the beginning; and links to other relevant policies (such as housing and social protection); and embeds systematic monitoring and evaluation.

• Identify and engage diverse stakeholders in solving homelessness, including people and institutions within and outside government with a range of policy expertise, practical experiences and perspectives.

• Engage people with lived experience of homelessness meaningfully and systematically in all stages (strategy, programme design and operation) of the policy cycle, including through creating appropriate incentive structures.

• Develop strategies and public policies that promote inclusion and safeguard the rights of people experiencing homelessness.

References

[17] Allen, M. (2016), “Homeless Non-Governmental Organisations and the Role of Research”, European Journal of Homelessness, Vol. 10/3, pp. 145-162, https://www.feantsaresearch.org/en/publications/european-journal-of-homelessness?journalYear=2016.

[24] ASPE (2022), Recruiting Individuals with Lived Experience, https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/3fc25bfebc59850bd30dc961e318cc0d/Recruiting-Lived-Experience.pdf.

[23] ASPE (2022), Strategies for National and State Groups to Equitably Identify People with Lived Experience, https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/0931122d0a70532b03baad02afda558f/Equitable-Engagements.pdf.

[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.

[21] Barker, S. and N. Maguire (2017), “Experts by Experience: Peer Support and its Use with the Homeless”, Community Mental Health Journal, Vol. 53/5, pp. 598-612, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-017-0102-2.

[1] Berry, F. (1994), “Innovation in Public Management: The Adoption of Strategic Planning”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 54/4, p. 322, https://doi.org/10.2307/977379.

[27] Blood, I. et al. (2017), Housing First Feasibility Study for the Liverpool City Region.

[26] Campbell Tickell (2022), LCRCA Housing First Pilot. Local Evaluation.

[38] Damon, J. (2023), Toilettes publiques : Essai sur les commodités urbaines, Presses de Sciences Po, https://www.pressesdesciencespo.fr/fr/book/?GCOI=27246100723760#h2tabDetails.

[18] Doberstein, C. (2015), “Designing Collaborative Governance Decision-Making in Search of a ‘Collaborative Advantage’”, Public Management Review, Vol. 18/6, pp. 819-841, https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1045019.

[12] Dyb, E. (2019), Færre bostedsløse-hva er forklaringen?, https://biblioteket.husbanken.no/arkiv/dok/Komp/Faerre%20bostedslose%20hva%20er%20forklaringen.pdf.

[5] European Commission (2021), European Platform to Combat Homelessness is Launched, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_3044.

[32] Evangelista, G. (2013), Mean Streets: A Report on the Criminalisation of Homelessness in Europe, Housing Rights Watch.

[6] Gille, C. et al. (2024), Zugang Verweiger:t Barrieren und Diskriminierung wohnungsloser Menschen am Wohnungmarkt, https://doi.org/10.20385/OPUS4-4330.

[31] Greenwood, R., S. Byrne and B. O’Shaugnessy (2022), “National Housing First Implementation Evaluation Findings Prepared for the National Housing First Implementation Committee”, University of Limerick.

[39] Gruer, C. et al. (2021), “Seeking menstrual products: a qualitative exploration of the unmet menstrual needs of individuals experiencing homelessness in New York City”, Reproductive Health, Vol. 18/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-021-01133-8.

[11] Halseth, L., T. Larsson and H. Urstad (2022), “Homelessness in Norway: The Success of Long-term Housing-led Strategies”, Homeless in Europe: National Strategies for Fighting Homelessness (FEANTSA), Vol. Spring, https://www.feantsa.org/public/user/Magazine/Spring_magazine_2022/FEA_001-22_magazine_spring_2022_v5.pdf.

[33] Hauber, L. (2024), “Criminalization of the Unhoused: A Case Study of Alternatives to a Punitive System”, Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, Vol. Volume 31/II.

[34] Herring, C., D. Yarbrough and L. Marie Alatorre (2019), “Pervasive Penality: How the Criminalization of Poverty Perpetuates Homelessness”, Social Problems, https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spz004.

[37] Hochbaum, R. (2019), “Bathrooms as a Homeless Rights Issue”, SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3352868.

[8] Juhila, K., S. Raitakari and J. Ranta (2022), “Housing First”, in Successful Public Policy in the Nordic Countries, Oxford University PressOxford, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192856296.003.0024.

[29] LCRCA (2022), Candidate Information Pack.

[14] Lee, D., M. McGuire and J. Kim (2018), “Collaboration, strategic plans, and government performance: the case of efforts to reduce homelessness”, Public Management Review, Vol. 20/3, pp. 360-376, https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1285113.

[36] Meehan, K., M. Odetola and A. Griswold (2022), Homelessness, Water Insecurity, and the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation, King’s College London, https://doi.org/10.18742/pub01-085.

[28] MHCLG (2021), Evaluation of the Housing First Pilots.

[25] Ministerio de Derechos Sociales y Agenda 2030 (2023), Estrategia Nacional para la lucha contra el sinhogarismo en España 2023-2030.

[16] Nambiar, D. and B. Mathew (2022), “Roles played by civil society organisations in supporting homeless people with health care-seeking and accessing the social determinants of health in Delhi, India: Perspectives of support providers and receivers”, SSM - Qualitative Research in Health, Vol. 2, p. 100157, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmqr.2022.100157.

[2] OECD (2024), Affordable Housing Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/oecd-affordable-housing-database.html.

[3] OECD (2024), OECD Country Notes on Homelessness Data, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/affordable-housing/homelessness.html.

[4] OECD (Forthcoming), OECD Monitoring Framework: Measuring Homelessness in OECD and EU Countries.

[7] O’Sullivan, E. (2022), Key Elements in Homelessness Strategies to End Homelessness by 2030: A Discussion Paper, https://housingfirsteurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/mlc-homelessness-discussion-paper_final_2022.pdf.

[20] Padwa, H. et al. (2023), “Bringing Lived Experience to Research on Health and Homelessness: Perspectives of Researchers and Lived Experience Partners”, Community Mental Health Journal, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-023-01138-6.

[10] Pleace, N. et al. (2015), The Finish Homelessness Strategy. An International Review.

[40] Sommer, M. et al. (2020), “Menstruation and homelessness: Challenges faced living in shelters and on the street in New York City”, Health & Place, Vol. 66, p. 102431, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2020.102431.

[41] Szeintuch, S. (2024), Homelessness Strategies in European Union Member States - The State of Play in 2024.

[9] The Housing Finance and Development Centre of Finland (ARA) (2024), Homeless People 2023, https://www.ara.fi/en/media/101#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%20data%20reported,There%20were%20123%20homeless%20families.

[30] Tsemberis, S. (2020), A Housing First Manual for Ireland, Pathways Housing First Institute.

[22] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HUD) (2021), Methods and Emerging Strategies to Engage People with Lived Experience, https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/62e7a64c60e10c47484b763aa9868f99/lived-experience-brief.pdf.

[19] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (2021), COVID-19 Homeless System Response: Engaging Individuals with Lived Expertise, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/COVID-19-Homeless-System-Response-Engaging-Individuals-with-Lived-Expertise.pdf.

[15] Valero, J. and H. Jang (2016), “A Research Note”, Cityscape, Vol. 18/2, pp. 151-162, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26328260.

[35] Westbrook, M. and T. Robinson (2020), “Unhealthy by design: health & safety consequences of the criminalization of homelessness”, Journal of Social Distress and Homelessness, Vol. 30/2, pp. 107-115, https://doi.org/10.1080/10530789.2020.1763573.