Is my life’s work just ‘tinkering & tweaking’?
The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organisation for which I work or with which I am linked.
I read with interest coupled with a sinking feeling the recent article by Parsell et al ‘What does it take to end homelessness? Tweaking or transforming systems’.
The authors set themselves no small task, stating that the article would answer the questions:
- How can the ending homelessness movements be characterized?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of these movements?
- What is required for societies to end homelessness?
I read the article not as a disinterested observer but as someone who has made homelessness my life’s work for the last 17 years - the last 2 of which have been spent working directly in one of the ‘ending homelessness movements’.
As I understand the main thrusts of the article are:
- The movements that seek to use “Better data, evidence-informed interventions, and collaborative and integrated systems…” can be seen as "technocratic efforts to reduce key aspects of homelessness” and are “necessary but insufficient to end homelessness”.
- To end homelessness, a societal shift is needed towards de-commodified housing and a comprehensive and universal welfare arrangement. In order for this to succeed, it must happen in a way that gains the support of those who “currently benefit from commodified housing and low taxes that subvert comprehensive and universal welfare.”
- While some benefits of the current ‘ending homelessness movements’ are outlined, especially the fact that they are “empowering, enabling, and highly practical: they focus on what actors can control within their environment…” they are on the whole criticised as being insufficient to end homelessness as “they are focused on fixing the system for those people who have already entered homelessness, or for at-risk groups on the cusp of homelessness, rather than on addressing the problems in society that lead to their becoming homeless in the first place.”
- Finland is given as an example of how wide-ranging social changes can lead to significant reductions in homelessness, but this is predicated on a change in social attitudes and significant investment in affordable housing and support.. “The core philosophy of the Finnish approach is simple: ending homelessness is only possible when a homeless person is provided with an independent apartment with their own rental contract and with support if needed and wanted. Housing is seen as a basic human right and as the foundation to build one’s life and solve the social and health problems one might experience.”
There is much to agree with in the article and overall I fully embrace its conclusions. Why then the sinking feeling? I suppose because the work that I do, both working on the front-line delivery of homelessness services for 15 years and now for the last 2 in one of the ‘movements’, seems to be getting criticised. Is then my life’s work just tinkering and tweaking a broken system without addressing the causes? In short, I suppose the answer is ‘yes’ and I am okay with that.
I am a strong believer that different people have different roles to play in solving any problem. This extends to organisations, institutions etc. Solving homelessness is, as the article rightly says, something that needs to come from our politicians and a wider change in social attitudes, coupled with huge scaling up of affordable de-commidified housing and a welfare system that ensures people can afford to live dignified and healthy lives. There are, thankfully, people much better than I could ever be at influencing, thinking and researching who are actively working on making that shift a reality. I have had the privilege to work with some of them and continue to do so. They are amazing. I would include the authors of this article in this category.
However, until such times as homelessness is ended, there are people experiencing it and, as the article states:
“The evidence is both unambiguous and confronting. Homelessness, and most especially rough sleeping: is bad for health and accelerates mortality (OECD, 2020); exposes people to violence and crime (Ellsworth, 2019); is stigmatized (Belcher & DeForge, 2012); subverts one’s capacity to live as a citizen (Parsell, 2023); and represents a threat to social cohesion (Parsell, 2023).”
It is, in my view, simply not acceptable to wait until the problem is solved to make the current system work as effectively as it can to ameliorate the impact of homelessness as much as possible. I am not suggesting at all that this is what the authors of the article are saying. But the point bears making, while we work towards solving the issue at a whole society level - we need to do our best for those who are impacted by the current system as it is now.
Making the system work better - making it more effective at preventing homelessness; making homelessness rare, brief and non-recurring; giving people dignity and choice; making responses more equitable - all of these things matter and are things I am proud to be a part of. The work to which I have dedicated my life is a part of ending homelessness and while it is at a micro (or placed-based) level, that is where people live.
So, I welcome the article’s conclusions and I stand firm in my belief that there is a place for those of us who work in the mess of the current system to try and take care of people as best we can, with whatever skills we have.
This post (Is my life’s work just ‘tinkering & tweaking’?) was last edited 4 months, 4 weeks ago.