Is homelessness solvable?

Homelessness may be a problem that cannot be solved. But it is a problem that can be handled systematically to ensure that every resource devoted to the homeless is put to best use.

In 2008, the Rudd Government promised to halve homelessness by 2020. Kevin Rudd will not be around to cop the criticism if "the government" fails to achieve Rudd’s aspiration, but the homeless will.

The Rudd promise was an explicit acknowledgement that homelessness could not be solved; otherwise why choose to reduce the numbers by half. What happens to the other half, are they to be ignored? Which half are to be saved? Indeed, Tony Abbot’s refusal to sign on the Rudd’s goal was grounded in an honest appraisal that homelessness is not solvable.

Homelessness is not solvable because the many problems that cause people to become homeless are not, in all cases, preventable. In many ways homelessness is an end-of-pipeline problem. Society produces a number of people who, for whatever reason, cannot cope with life at home, or for whom life at home is made intolerable. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the causes of homelessness can be solved at source?

The Commonwealth Government’s 2008 White Paper, The Road Home, attributed the major causes of homelessness to problems of mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence, unemployment, remote Aboriginal housing and, least of all, affordable accommodation.

Because the homeless service sector is situated at the end of the pipeline it is dependent on two difficult-to-control precursors:

• Factors that cause homelessness; and
•  Intermediate policies designed to tackle the causes.

Causes are largely beyond the sector’s control - housing market, employment market, mental illness, domestic violence, abuse of drugs, and indigenous culture in remote areas.

The sector relies on the efficacy of intermediate policies on - housing, drugs, mental health, domestic violence, indigenous; and public support.

Some tough questions have to be asked, and indeed are asked about the object of policy. Is policy designed to stem the "flow" of homelessness or administer to the needs of the "stock" of homeless? Rough sleepers can be "housed" - but can their problems be solved? Can the flow of new rough sleepers be stemmed?

History repeats

To answer these and other questions, a little history is warranted.

In 1989, the "human headline", Human Rights Commissioner Brian Burdekin, handed his report, Our Homeless Children, to the empathetic then Deputy Prime Minister Brian Howe. Burdekin was so named because of his extraordinary ability to generate publicity for "the cause". The result of his work was a massive injection of funds devoted to homelessness. In 1993, the Human Rights Commission followed up the Burdekin report with, The Human Rights of People with Mental Illness. Again, more funds were devoted to the cause.

Has this considerable research and investment of taxpayer’s money "solved" the problem? Well, the present rate of homelessness is 53 per 10,000 the same as 2001. At the very least, we seem to have hit the point of diminishing returns to our investment.

A modest research proposal

To fulfill the Rudd promise, the present government and NGOs in the field need to do two things -

1. Resolve the policy contest - community settings versus institutional settings
2. Set priorities - based on numbers, remedies, responsiveness, cost and time.

The policy contest is ongoing, but policy-makers should acknowledge that it is feasible to place everyone who needs accommodation under a roof. Whether they would stay is problematic.

A wonderful example of some tough thinking in the field is the Mission Australia Centre - Campbell House, Sydney. In the last few years, Mission Australia made a deliberate shift to use their funds at Campbell House to provide high quality crisis accommodation to 40 clients. Previously, the centre had accommodated 100 clients, on short term stays: a boarding house.

Under the new model 40 clients only receive 32 different professional services and training and educational services delivered on site at this homeless service based on their individual needs and strengths.

The opportunity cost of servicing 40 is to not service the remaining 60. The initial evaluation, however, suggests that the pay-off is much greater - reduced recurrence of homelessness.

A second example is the Miller Centre Liverpool, Sydney. This "Foyer model" of youth accommodation has been established to prevent cyclical homelessness for young people. Young people are trained in life skills - including skills to obtain and maintain a tenancy, healthy cooking and budgeting - as well as more formal skills. The Foyer model is being established around the country. These are institutions, not the nasty ones of Dickensian ill-fame, but institutions nevertheless; ones that increase the likelihood of getting a result and stemming the flow of homeless.

The remedy debate has to be intensified and applied to all of those who end up homeless, for whatever reason. The great dream of housing people in "the community" is failing some people and new versions of old institutional models are being developed to provide solutions.

With this background of shifting remedies, I have a modest research proposal.

Using existing knowledge, I want to assess the cost effectiveness, probability of success and timeliness of known remedies for each sector of the homeless market in order to establish priorities as a means of judging what priorities need to be set in order to achieve the Rudd goal.

Who are homeless?

Although the headline figure for homelessness is 16, 000 sleeping rough at any one time, the numbers are inflated to 105,000, with those who are in boarding houses, in supported accommodation, or are temporarily living with friends and family.

This definition of homelessness is strange; homeless are mostly defined by their housing solution! Does the "inflation" suggest that boarding houses, supported accommodation, and friends and family are no longer part of the solution? Indeed, the numbers in supported accommodation increased from 2001 to 2006, precisely because more funds were made available for such accommodation.

The idea that some are at risk of, but not actually, homeless is entirely valid. But the numbers invite the response that the sector is not sure of its solutions. For example, the 2008 National Youth Commission Inquiry into Youth Homelessness, published shortly after the government’s White Paper (bad timing to say the least), concluded that the government should give the sector a billion dollars, and come up with a strategy to solve youth homelessness! Muddy thinking indeed.

Accepting that the search for best remedies is on-going, it would be a powerful tool to have the market for homelessness broken down into its constituent parts, by cause and by remedy. The research would assess numbers of homeless according to cause and remedy, assess the effectiveness of each remedy, and then for each remedy assess cost, probability and timeliness of reducing homelessness. The existing data should be available to fill out the matrix in Table 1. Setting priorities in the homeless market.

The woman escaping her violent husband will have needs far different from those with mental health or substance abuse problems, different again from Aborigines living in remote areas with no economy to generate employment. But an honest assessment of the parts of the problem and the likelihood of a remedy for each (accepting that many will have multiple causes) may be a way to set priorities and "solve", that is reduce, homelessness.