OECD Toolkit to Combat Homelessness

9. The political economy of reform

Abstract

Block 9 explores the political economy of homelessness reform, emphasising the need for systemic change in how governments address homelessness. Bringing together lessons from the eight other building blocks, this block highlights these importance of elevating homelessness on the political agenda, building broad-based coalitions to depoliticise the issue, strengthening public support for homelessness reform, and fostering policy continuity beyond electoral cycles.

Relevance and key data

Together, the nine building blocks presented in this Toolkit call for a systems change in how governments have traditionally addressed homelessness. Ending homelessness requires a comprehensive understanding of the country’s political economy to garner support from diverse stakeholders and effectively implement policy reform. There is growing public interest in housing and homelessness policy reforms, and the issue is often politically fraught.

Drawing on a range of country experiences in implementing significant structural reforms – notably in the areas of pensions, product markets and labour markets – several important lessons, or “ingredients,” to successful reforms can be summarised as follows (Tompson, 2009[1]):

• An electoral mandate for reform and the condition of the policy regime to be reformed: persistent and acute housing challenges – namely the lack of affordable housing and the homelessness crisis – have become key electoral issues in many OECD and EU countries, as voters demand solutions from government. Rising homelessness rates, and particularly increases in unsheltered homelessness, have propelled the issue into one that is recognised in many countries as “ripe” for reform. For instance, the swift government actions introduced at the onset of the COVID‑19 pandemic signified that it was possible, for instance, to efficiently and relatively effectively propose safer alternatives to rough sleeping. Governments can take advantage of this political momentum to respond with a broad-based commitment and evidence‑based solutions to putting into place long-term solutions to end homelessness.

• Effective communication: homelessness is a complex policy issue, and it is also a profoundly human one. This requires the development of strategic communication to garner public support for action. For instance, communication efforts may aim to assuage public resistance to the development of affordable and social housing, which is an essential part of the solution to ending homelessness.

• Solid research and analysis: the evidence base continues to solidify, with well-documented data on the effectiveness of housing-led and Housing First models, for instance. There is a need to monitor and evaluate homelessness policy effectiveness more generally (Block 3): a robust evidence base can help make the policy response to homelessness less contentious.

• Government cohesion and leadership: collaboration and co‑operation across a range of stakeholders and institutions are critical and discussed in detail in Block 1– but so is consistent government leadership. This has been the case in past decades in Finland, where eight coalition governments have supported the goal of eradicating homelessness, thereby largely taking the policy goal out of the political arena and enabling a results-oriented technical focus on policy measures to be enacted (Kaakinen, 2023[2]).

• Time and persistence: while some measures and reforms can be put into place in the short term (such as improved data collection efforts; the introduction of a public dashboard to communicate homelessness statistics; pilot measures to prevent evictions), others will take more time to design, implement and track results (including, for instance, investments in affordable and social housing). Persistence and continuity are key and can be facilitated by actors and institutions outside government as well, who are not constrained by electoral cycles.

Common operational questions

There are a number of strategies to strengthen the overall public policy response to homelessness, and to engage civil society in supporting an integrated, evidence‑based, people‑centred policy approach. The following set of operational questions is intended to guide policy makers and practitioners in considering key dimensions of the political economy of reform in their country, city or community context:

• How to elevate the issue of homelessness on the political agenda and build public support for reform?

• How to better communicate homelessness data to key stakeholders and the broader public?

• How to foster policy continuity and consistent efforts to combat homelessness beyond electoral cycles?

How to elevate the issue of homelessness on the political agenda and build public support for reform?

Elevating the issue of homelessness on the political agenda to bring about reform through an evidence‑based, housing-led approach

At national level, two factors can help meaningfully shape the homelessness policy agenda and bring about policy reform. First, improving data collection methods on homelessness at the national, regional, and local levels can help governments gain a better understanding of its scope and causes, facilitating its insertion into the public agenda and developing solutions that more effectively address the drivers of homelessness in their specific context (Block 2). Relatedly, governments can be incentivised to increase investment in long-term affordable and social housing solutions, in light of the evidence of a positive link between investing in housing solutions to prevent and combat homelessness and increased savings in public spending, a correlation found by a number of cost-benefit studies (Block 5) (Gaetz, 2012[3]; Dellar, 2022[4]; Pomeroy, 2005[5]; Palermo, Dera and Clyne, 2006[6]; Patterson et al., 2008[7]).

The electorate can also play a role in bringing the issue of homelessness to the political agenda, but there is often a lack of understanding within the community regarding the issue of homelessness and the most effective ways to address it. For example, a 2019 survey across eight European countries found that while 58% of respondents supported government action to address homelessness, 57% reported having limited knowledge about the topic (HOME-EU consortium study group, 2019[8]). Similarly, a nationwide survey conducted in Chile in 2024 revealed that 70% of respondents believe the central and municipal governments should be responsible for delivering solutions for people experiencing homelessness, and 84% believe the general population should show greater concern about the issue (CADEM, 2024[9]). Without sufficient understanding of the issue and of evidence‑based policy solutions to address it, the electorate can act as a barrier to implementing effective homelessness policy. To bridge the knowledge gap on homelessness, governments should seek support from civil society, private actors, and academia to inform the public, raise awareness, and ultimately garner support at the ballot box.

In addition, key institutional actors could more systematically incorporate the theme of homelessness into public perception surveys, such as the Eurobarometer. This would help assess public opinion on the issue, adapt communication tools to garner support, and make homelessness a more prominent policy topic for citizens.

Public figures can play a role in raising the profile of the value of homelessness policy. For instance, in the United Kingdom, the Royal Foundation launched the Homewards programme in 2023, led by the Prince and Princess of Wales. This programme supports local actors in six locations across the United Kingdom to form coalitions to develop and implement homelessness prevention strategies in their communities (The Royal Foundation, 2024[10]). One year into the programme, working groups and broad coalitions have been formed in all six locations, bringing together over 500 cross-sector organisations and individuals. In the United States, musician Jon Bon Jovi advocates for action to address homelessness and has founded the Jon Bon Jovi Soul Foundation to provide funding to community partners working on homelessness. It is important for such efforts engage in evidence‑based solutions and rigorously assess the impacts of their interventions.

Developing strategic, evidence‑based communication tools to engage, inform, and mobilise the public to support homelessness reform and overcome local resistance (NIMBYism)

In the United Kingdom, FrameWorks UK, an NGO, has developed a toolkit with advice to grow public support for building social housing. The framework suggests framing the issue of housing, homelessness, and poverty with straightforward responses to three key questions: (i) Identifying what the issue is about and why it matters (“What are social homes and why do they matter?”); (ii) communicating how it works, and the obstacles to making it work (“How do social homes work? What’s not working, and why?”); (iii) laying out what can be done to address it (“What can we do about the shortage of social homes?”) (FrameWorks UK, 2024[11]). Strategic framing of such issues can be essential to overcome local resistance, or “NIMBYism (“not-in-my-backyard” responses), to the development of more social and affordable housing – which is one of the key components to addressing homelessness.

Box 9.1 addresses a number of common questions and misconceptions around homelessness, providing short evidence summaries and indicating research and related OECD work for further reading. These short evidence summaries may be useful for different purposes, including galvanising political and/or public support for homelessness, or funding applications.

Box 9.1. Debunking common myths around homelessness with evidence

This Box summarises the evidence relating to a handful of common questions and misconceptions around homelessness, recalling key research findings and the state of the art, and directing the reader to more detailed discussion in the relevant building block of the Toolkit and/or other work.

Is homelessness always visible?

No. In many countries, only a small share of people experiencing homelessness are sleeping rough in public spaces, and/or may be chronically homeless. In contrast, a larger share of individuals cycle in and out of homelessness, and may be less “visible” to the public – and in official government statistics (OECD, 2015[12]; OECD, 2020[13]; OECD, 2024[14]). These diverse experiences can include people who are staying in non-conventional dwellings (such as mobile homes or temporary structures), or who are temporarily staying with family and friends. For instance, in Australia, individuals sleeping rough made up only 6% of all people experiencing homelessness in 2021, compared to 14% of people who were staying with family and friends (OECD, 2024[15]). While experiences of “hidden homelessness” are hard to capture in official statistics, there are ways to increase data coverage to reflect a more diverse range of living situations (discussed in greater detail in the OECD Monitoring Framework: Measuring Homelessness in OECD and EU countries). More comprehensive data can in turn help to improve the public policy response to homelessness. For a detailed breakdown of national statistics on people experiencing homelessness as reported by governments across the OECD and EU, refer to the OECD Country Notes on Homelessness Data (OECD, 2024[16]) and the OECD Affordable Housing Database (OECD, 2024[14]).

Which socio-demographic groups are most likely to experience homelessness?

Homelessness affects a diverse range of people (see, for instance (OECD, 2020[13]) and (OECD, 2024[14])), and the socio-demographic groups most affected by homelessness vary across countries. Although in many countries, single men constitute a significant portion of the population experiencing homelessness in official government statistics, women, families with children, and young people are also affected. For example, in some OECD countries, women make up 20% to 40% of the homeless population. Moreover, evidence suggests that some socio-demographic groups are more likely to be underreported, or missed, in official government statistics on homelessness, leading to an incomplete understanding of the full extent of homelessness. Structural or institutional barriers can make it harder for some groups to access housing and/or support services, contributing to a higher likelihood of homelessness or housing instability. These issues are further discussed in Block 2 and the OECD Monitoring Framework: Measuring Homelessness in OECD and EU countries (OECD, Forthcoming[17]).

Is homelessness a consequence of one’s own failings?

No, frequently it is not. It is important to understand homelessness as an issue connected to broader societal inequalities, and not necessarily a consequence of individual shortcomings, such as incompetence, social alienation, or substance use disorders. Such stigmatising discourses surrounding homelessness can be both harmful and erroneous. Research has pointed to the multifaceted nature of homelessness, increasingly emphasising the significance of structural factors, such as poverty, shrinking social safety nets, or constrained housing market conditions. The literature also recognises the role of institutional and systemic failures. Refer to Box 2.1 for further discussion of evidence on the diverse pathways into homelessness.

Do people experiencing homelessness systematically suffer from substance use disorders?

No. Substance use (such as of opioids or other harmful drugs) can both contribute to homelessness and be a consequence of it (Yoo et al., 2022[18]). Individuals experiencing homelessness with substance use disorders face a heightened risk of fatal and non-fatal overdoses and frequently encounter challenges in accessing treatment (Milaney et al., 2021[19]; McLaughlin et al., 2021[20]; Fine et al., 2022[21]). Overdose Prevention Centres (OPCs) have emerged as effective interventions to address this issue, also because they reach vulnerable populations, including those not served by traditional services (Shorter et al., 2023[22]; Magwood et al., 2020[23]; Bardwell et al., 2017[24]). Refer to Block 6 for further discussion on effective support services to people experiencing homelessness who suffer from substance use disorders.

However, it is important not to overstate this relationship. Substance use disorders can be one of many different drivers of homelessness (see Box 2.1), and not everyone who is experiencing homelessness uses drugs or alcohol. As such, it is essential to address the diverse reasons that people become homeless. For example, in Germany, studies show that two‑thirds of people sleeping rough do not struggle with addiction (BMAS, 2022[25]).

Are street counts the best way to measure homelessness?

No, not on their own. Although street counts are the second-most commonly used data collection method across OECD and EU countries (see (OECD, Forthcoming[17])), street counts alone are insufficient to provide a comprehensive picture of homelessness. This is because (i) they tend to capture only limited types of homelessness or living arrangements, and (ii) they reflect experiences of homelessness at a specific point-in-time, failing to account for people who experience homelessness outside the time of the count. When combined with counts of individuals staying in shelters and temporary accommodations, street counts can provide a snapshot of homelessness among ETHOS Light groups 1, 2, and 3 (see Table 2.1). However, they fall short in capturing individuals who are temporarily staying with family or friends (ETHOS Light 6) or individuals transitioning in and out of homelessness. Additionally, street counts offer limited insights into the profiles, needs, and experiences of individuals experiencing homelessness. There is no one‑size‑fit-all solution to collect data on homelessness; there are several approaches, each with its strengths and limitations, offering varying depth and quality of data. This issue is further discussed in Block 2 and the OECD Monitoring Framework: Measuring Homelessness in OECD and EU countries (OECD, Forthcoming[17]).

Is Housing First effective in providing stable housing to people experiencing homelessness?

Yes. Housing First is effective in providing stable housing, for a diverse set of individuals in a broad array of country contexts. Studies have shown that participants in Housing First programmes achieve higher rates of housing stability compared to traditional approaches (Baxter et al., 2019[26]; Pleace, Baptista and Knutagård, 2019[27]; Jacob et al., 2022[28]). Block 5 provides a more detailed review of research and good practice. Nevertheless, the evidence base needs to be expanded to include findings from a more diverse set of countries to strengthen external validity.

Does Housing First improve health outcomes?

The evidence is mixed. For some participants, Housing First programmes have shown positive impacts on health outcomes, such as improvements in mental health and reductions in visits to the emergency room. Studies indicate that providing stable housing can create a foundation for individuals to address health issues more effectively. However, not all participants experience significant health improvements. Some research suggests that while housing stability increases, changes in health outcomes may be less pronounced or take longer to manifest. Therefore, while Housing First has the potential to enhance health outcomes, the effects can vary among individuals, and ongoing support services are crucial to address specific health needs (Keenan et al., 2021[29]; Roggenbuck, 2022[30]; Tsai, 2020[31]; Baxter et al., 2019[26]).

Is Housing First cost-effective?

Yes. The current evidence suggests that Housing First is an effective and resource‑efficient intervention over the medium- to long- term. While there can be short-term costs to expanding the supply of affordable and social housing, implementing Housing First models can lead to significant cost savings across policy areas by reducing the use of emergency services, hospitalisations, and interactions with the criminal justice system. This has been demonstrated in the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the Netherlands (for youth), where the Housing First interventions have generated significant cost savings that offset or exceeded programme costs (Délégation interministérielle à l’hébergement et à l’accès au logement (DIHAL), 2024[32]; Albanese, 2019[33]; CEBEON, 2023[34]). Moreover, as discussed in Block 5, governments can put in place long-term systems to fund affordable and social housing, such as revolving fund schemes, as has been the case in Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, and, more recently, Latvia.

Building broad-based coalitions to depoliticise the issue of homelessness

To ensure commitment to preventing and combating homelessness among all stakeholders, policy discussions should be based on evidence and data. To this end, robust research and sound evidence must be presented in a clear and accessible format for key stakeholders in the policy-making process. Forming a cross-party coalition based on data and evidence ensures that policies to prevent and combat homelessness are implemented by the public administration in a consistent and systematic manner. As featured in Block 1, Finland and Norway have successfully developed sustained national-led approaches to homelessness, relying on a broad base of diverse stakeholders, including political parties.

How to better communicate homelessness data to key stakeholders and the broader public?

Producing annual reporting of homelessness trends and key indicators

In Finland, data on homelessness are published annually by the Housing Finance and Development Centre, ARA. Disaggregated data on subgroups of people experiencing homelessness are available, drawing on a consistent methodology since 1987, providing over 30 years of trend data on homelessness. Having a large base of historical time‑series data on homelessness helps policy makers evaluate the current context of homelessness and compare to past trends (The Housing Finance and Development Centre of Finland (ARA), 2024[35]).

Communicating homelessness trends with detailed graphical representations

In France, the report of the City of Paris’ annual street count (Nuit de la solidarité) provides graphical representations of the distribution of people experiencing homelessness in Paris. For example, the report includes a map of Paris that pinpoints the geographic location where each individual person experiencing homelessness was enumerated (Atelier Parisien d'Urbanisme (APUR), 2024[36]). Detailed graphical representations make homelessness data easy to understand for those without a specialised background in housing and homelessness issues.

How to foster policy continuity and consistent efforts to address homelessness beyond electoral cycles?

Identifying, engaging, and supporting potential policy entrepreneurs and champions on homelessness, including outside government

In addition to fostering policy discussions on homelessness based on data and evidence rather than political ideology, it is important to ensure policy continuity beyond electoral cycles. Identifying, engaging, and supporting potential “policy entrepreneurs” and “champions” of homelessness, including those outside the government, can support this process by leveraging their expertise and reinforcing policy continuity.

National examples with international resonance include the Y-Foundation in Finland, an NGO that leads the Housing First Europe Hub alongside the European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless (FEANTSA). The Housing First Europe Hub serves as a platform bringing together a range of actors to promote Housing First as a policy response to address homelessness at the European level (Housing First Europe Hub, 2024[37]).

More broadly, NGOs can act as a bridge between different stakeholders – including members of diverse political parties and non-government actors – helping to inform the policy debate with good practice examples and evidence‑based guidance. NGOs can and should play a role in supporting and disseminating rigorously evaluated good practice, and identifying remaining gaps in the evidence base. Further, cross-country collaboration and mutual learning practices can help create shared goals, share knowledge and good practice, and facilitate policy coherence and continuity.

Additionally, policies designed to prevent and combat homelessness should set defined targets for specific timelines, enabling governments to allocate resources and monitor implementation effectively. For instance, the European Platform on Combatting Homelessness (EPOCH), through the Lisbon Declaration, has set the goal of ending homelessness by 2030 with a specific focus on rough sleepers, which provides platform members with a specific goal in a clearly defined timeline (see Box 1).

Fundamentals for success

To enact reform in the homelessness sector, broad majorities and sustained support across government cycles are essential. This block explores the political economy of homelessness reform, emphasising the need for systemic change and a thorough understanding of the political landscape to implement effective policies. Key elements for success include leveraging political momentum, using strategic communication to gain backing of the public and service providers, building a solid evidence base, ensuring government cohesion, and maintaining persistence over time. It also highlights strategies for elevating homelessness on the political agenda, depoliticising the issue through broad coalitions, and fostering public support with evidence‑based communication. Regular data reporting and the engagement of policy champions are critical for ensuring policy continuity beyond electoral cycles.

Building on these operational issues, the following recommendations can help policy makers and practitioners to create the systems change needed to undertake successful reforms to end homelessness:

• Elevate the issue of homelessness on the political agenda through an evidence‑based, housing-led approach.

• Build broad-based coalitions to depoliticise the issue of homelessness.

• Engage, inform, and mobilise the public to support homelessness reform, including through strategic, evidence‑based communication tools to increase public awareness of “what works”, based on rigorously evaluated interventions.

• Regularly report data on people experiencing homelessness and make key indicators publicly accessible to facilitate research and policy development and promote transparency and accountability.

• Regularly review government’s progress towards policy objectives, as well as the evidence base to inform policy decisions and make adjustments where needed.

• Identify, engage and support potential policy entrepreneurs and “champions” on homelessness, including outside of government, to leverage their expertise and reinforce policy continuity beyond electoral cycles.

References

[33] Albanese, F. (2019), Housing First Research Digest, Housing First Europe Hub, https://uutiskirje.asuntoensin.fi/a/s/166304546-10a56b6828bf0a7dd300505e841cdc44/3316628.

[36] Atelier Parisien d’Urbanisme (APUR) (2024), Les personnes sans-abris à Paris la nuit du 25 au 26 janvier 2024, https://www.apur.org/fr/nos-travaux/abri-paris-resultats-7e-edition-nuit-solidarite.

[24] Bardwell, G. et al. (2017), “Housing and overdose: an opportunity for the scale-up of overdose prevention interventions?”, Harm Reduction Journal, Vol. 14/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-017-0203-9.

[26] Baxter, A. et al. (2019), “Effects of Housing First approaches on health and well-being of adults who are homeless or at risk of homelessness: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials”, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 73/5, pp. 379-387, https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2018-210981.

[25] BMAS (2022), Ausmaß und Struktur von Wohnungslosigkeit, https://www.bmwsb.bund.de/SharedDocs/downloads/Webs/BMWSB/DE/veroeffentlichungen/pm-kurzmeldung/wohnungslosenbericht-2022.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4.

[9] CADEM (2024), Informe percepción social de la situación de calle en Chile.

[34] CEBEON (2023), City of Rotterdam. Social Business Case. Project 010.

[32] Délégation interministérielle à l’hébergement et à l’accès au logement (DIHAL) (2024), Un chez-soi d’abord, https://www.info.gouv.fr/upload/media/organization/0001/01/sites_default_files_contenu_piece-jointe_2017_04_ucsa.pdf.

[4] Dellar, A. (2022), The Risks and Costs of Homelessness.

[8] Duplaga, M. (ed.) (2019), “European public perceptions of homelessness: A knowledge, attitudes and practices survey”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 14/9, p. e0221896, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221896.

[21] Fine, D. et al. (2022), “Drug Overdose Mortality Among People Experiencing Homelessness, 2003 to 2018”, JAMA Network Open, Vol. 5/1, p. e2142676, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.42676.

[11] FrameWorks UK (2024), How to Grow Support for Social Homes, https://frameworksuk.org/resources/how-to-grow-support-for-social-homes/.

[3] Gaetz, S. (2012), The Real Cost of Homelessness: Can We Save Money by Doing the Right Thing?, Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press, https://www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/attachments/costofhomelessness_paper21092012.pdf.

[37] Housing First Europe Hub (2024), Housing First Europe Hub, https://housingfirsteurope.eu/.

[28] Jacob, V. et al. (2022), “Permanent Supportive Housing With Housing First: Findings From a Community Guide Systematic Economic Review”, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 62/3, pp. e188-e201, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2021.08.009.

[2] Kaakinen, J. (2023), Home Report on the measures needed to end homelessness by 2027, https://ysaatio.fi/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Kotiin_Home-Kaakinen-2023-en-final.pdf.

[29] Keenan, C. et al. (2021), “Accommodation‐based interventions for individuals experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness”, Campbell Systematic Reviews, Vol. 17/2, https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1165.

[23] Le Foll, B. (ed.) (2020), “The effectiveness of substance use interventions for homeless and vulnerably housed persons:  A systematic review of systematic reviews on supervised consumption facilities, managed alcohol programs, and pharmacological agents for opioid use disorder”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 15/1, p. e0227298, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227298.

[20] McLaughlin, M. et al. (2021), “Opioid use disorder treatment for people experiencing homelessness: A scoping review”, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Vol. 224, p. 108717, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108717.

[19] Milaney, K. et al. (2021), “Drug use, homelessness and health: responding to the opioid overdose crisis with housing and harm reduction services”, Harm Reduction Journal, Vol. 18/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-021-00539-8.

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

[15] OECD (2024), Country note: Data on homelessness in Australia, OECD, Paris, https://webfs.oecd.org/Els-com/Affordable_Housing_Database/Country%20notes/Homelessness-AUS.pdf.

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

[13] OECD (2020), Better data and policies to fight homelessness in the OECD. Policy Brief on Affordable Housing, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://oe.cd/homelessness-2020. (accessed on 16 March 2020).

[12] OECD (2015), Integrating Social Services for Vulnerable Groups: Bridging Sectors for Better Service Delivery, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264233775-en.

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

[6] Palermo, F., B. Dera and D. Clyne (2006), The cost of homelessness and the value of investment in housing support services in Halifax Regional Municipality, NS: Cities and Environment Unit, Dalhousie University, https://homelesshub.ca/resource/cost-homelessness-and-value-investment-housing-support-services-halifax-regional-municipality/.

[7] Patterson, M. et al. (2008), Housing and Support for Adults with Severe Addictions and/or Mental Illness in British Columbia, Centre For Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction and Simon Fraser University, https://www.sfu.ca/carmha/publications/housing-and-support-for-adults-with-severe.html.

[27] Pleace, N., I. Baptista and M. Knutagård (2019), Housing First in Europe: An Overview of Implementation, Strategy and Fidelity, https://www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/attachments/2019-10-10-HFinEurope_Full-Report2019_final.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2019).

[5] Pomeroy, S. (2005), The cost of homelessness: Analysis of alternate responses in four Canadian cities, https://homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/Cost_of_Homelessness_Pomeroy_English.pdf.

[30] Roggenbuck, C. (2022), Housing First: An evidence review of implementation, effectiveness and outcomes, https://www.ahuri.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022-08/AHURI-Prof-Services-Housing-First-An-evidence-review-of-implementation-effectiveness-and-outcomes.pdf.

[22] Shorter, G. et al. (2023), Overdose prevention centres, safe consumption sites, and drug consumption rooms: A rapid evidence review, Drug Science, https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/publications/overdose-prevention-centres-safe-consumption-sites-and-drug-consu.

[35] The Housing Finance and Development Centre of Finland (ARA) (2024), Report 2/2024: Homeless People 2023, https://www.ara.fi/en/media/101.

[10] The Royal Foundation (2024), The Prince of Wales and The Royal Foundation launch UK-wide programme to end homelessness, https://www.royal.uk/news-and-activity/2023-06-26/the-prince-of-wales-and-the-royal-foundation-launch-uk-wide-programme.

[1] Tompson, W. (2009), The Political Economy of Reform: Lessons from Pensions, Product Markets and Labour Markets in Ten OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264073111-en.

[31] Tsai, J. (2020), “Is the Housing First Model Effective? Different Evidence for Different Outcomes”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 110/9, pp. 1376-1377, https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2020.305835.

[18] Yoo, R. et al. (2022), “Association of substance use characteristics and future homelessness among emergency department patients with drug use or unhealthy alcohol use: Results from a linked data longitudinal cohort analysis”, Substance Abuse, Vol. 43/1, pp. 1100-1109, https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2022.2060445.