Bringing It Home

Last week I attended an annual outdoor lunch that raises awareness over the state of homelessness in our city.  It’s a powerful mix of housing advocates, policy makers, media and most important of all, homeless individuals seeking a better world.On the same day The Guardian published what turned out to be a timely piece titled, “Finland has found the answer to homelessness.  It couldn’t be simpler.”  It was the kind of headline meant to quickly draw the reader into its rationale that defeating homelessness isn’t perhaps as complex as we thought.But first the bad news.  The article reminded its British readers that, whether they liked it or not, they were tolerating a homelessness situation that was becoming a national embarrassment:

The number of homeless people dying on the streets or in temporary accommodation in the UK has more than doubled over the past five years to more than one per week. The average age of a rough sleeper when they die is 43, about half the UK life expectancy.  The tragedy is that it’s entirely within our power to do something about it: homelessness is not a choice made by the individual, it is a reality forced by government policy.

“A reality forced by government policy” – sounds harsh and cruel, which accurately describes the situation.  To emphasize the seriousness of this declining situation, the article affirmed that homelessness had climbed 134% since 2010.  And then it makes a welcome jump to Finland, where homelessness has declined 35% in the same period.What is the secret to Finland’s success?  Surely the solution must be as complex as the problem itself?  Well, maybe not.  As The Guardian put it: “Give homes to homeless people.”Sounds great, but it actually involves a switch in thinking, law and public policy. It functions on a valid premise: housing is a basic right, nothing more, nothing less.  It’s also highly practical: how can we expect individuals beset by an array of personal and systemic difficulties to concentrate on such conditions when they don’t have a roof over their heads?  Their number one concern is survival and everything else is secondary to that reality.Naturally, skeptics will decry such a proposal. “Won’t such people bleed the system dry?  It would surely provide a private setting for their addictions, correct?”   Then there’s the criticism: providing housing on such a premise would hurt the economy.Such complaints can be shrouded in prejudice, but when no other rationale, research or possibility is provided to them even a sincere public gets flustered.So, let’s talk about alternatives and see if all of us can keep an open mind.Yes, Finland’s homeless number went down the moment homes were provided, but the real story is what transpires with those suddenly finding secure housing.  Research reveals that they availed themselves of services to improve their overall condition (addiction, mental health challenges, hunger, poverty, counselling). Provided with a roof over their heads, they had the time, the feeling of support, and the will to get on with their lives.  Intriguingly, recovery rates from addictions showed solid improvement.For those fretting over the costs of a “housing first” strategy, Finland has been at it long enough to offer a compelling narrative.  The economic savings from homeless individuals no longer having to access health services and the criminal justice system easily covered the costs of providing the homes.  In other words, the provision of housing saved the mushrooming economic costs inherent in the old model.The writer of The Guardian column noted that he didn’t spot one homeless person in Finland during his time there on research.  Only a few hours after he returned to England, “I walked past more than 100 rough sleepers queuing for food in the rain, just a few minutes from parliament.So here we have it: a tale of two countries – one maintaining a costly position of the status quo, and the other moving ahead confidently on the basis of human rights, dignity and economic sense.  The research is there from other countries as well.  It all reminds us that homelessness is more about apathy than conscious citizenship or sound government.  It certainly isn’t about economic sense.  Good policy is good economics; bad policy results in human suffering and the loss of dignity.  Given the high costs of homelessness to our health and social support system, little can be lost in taking a bold step, as Finland has done, not just for the sake of economics but for humanity itself.We can blame the homeless all we want, but in essence what we have is a failure of will and a collective understanding that no community can be all that great when it tolerates people with nowhere to lay their heads and no way to move forward with their lives.