International responses to homelessness: Lessons for the City of Tshwane

ABSTRACT

Reports of increases in the numbers of homeless people are pouring in from all over the world yet many governments still do not consider homelessness worthy of a policy response in its own right and relegate it to the periphery of either housing or social (welfare) policy arenas and interventions. In the introductory sections of this article, reference is made to the current extent of homelessness in the world and the rise to prominence of a rights-based approach to homelessness. This is followed by a brief overview of responses to homelessness in Australia, the USA and some European countries. A few of the key components of these responses and their relevance for homelessness policies in South Africa and the City of Tshwane are identified.

KEYWORDS:

• Responses to homelessness
• homeless policies
• homeless strategies
• City of Tshwane

1. Homelessness: a disturbing international reality

The human population of the world is expected to increase to 9.6 billion in 2050 – 70% of which will be living in urban areas (UN, 2015). This mass migration to what Saunders (2010) calls ‘arrival cities’ is already reshaping the world, and although the next great economic and cultural boom may be born in these ‘transitional’ spaces, they may also become scenes of escalating violence and human misery. One reality that will have to be faced is that the urbanisation process is likely to go hand in hand with a rapid increase in the numbers of impoverished, homeless and displaced people – an army of desperate people – who will roam the streets of cities and megacities looking for income-earning opportunities and a place to spend the night. In view of the expectation that ‘more than half of the global population growth between 2015 and 2050 will occur in Africa’ (UN, 2015:3), homelessness may indeed become a social and economic nightmare for decision-makers in this continent.

In spite of the fact that a variety of measures aimed at addressing homelessness have been adopted by governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) all over the world, the progress has not been as good as many have anticipated. Reports of increases in the numbers of homeless people are indeed pouring in from such ‘developed’ countries as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA (see Amore et al., 2013:3; Gaetz et al., 2014:5; GSA, 2011:4 et seq.). Indeed, despite its status as by far the wealthiest country in the world, more than 610 042 people experienced homelessness in the USA on a single night in January 2013 (Henry et al., 2013:1; see also Markee, 2015).

Early in 2014 it was reported that the numbers of homeless people all over Europe were on the rise (Euronews, 2014). In England alone, figures collected in the autumn of 2014 indicated that 2744 people were ‘sleeping rough’ on any one night – a 55% increase since 2010 (Homeless Link, 2015). In June 2015 the General Assembly of the European Federation of National Organisations working with the Homeless indeed noted ‘with concern’ the growing numbers of homeless people all over Europe (FEANTSA, 2015). This was especially true of those countries that were hit hardest by the post-2008 economic crisis and subsequent austerity measures. Currently most of these countries are tending to the basic needs of the seemingly endless stream of refugees (recently dubbed Europe’s biggest ‘unnatural disaster’) and existing strategies with regard to especially street homelessness (rough sleeping) are under severe stress (see Anderson, 2016).

During the past three decades, homelessness has also emerged as a major social and economic issue in the entire ‘developing’ world. In Latin America, hyperinflation, housing shortages, natural disasters, drug trafficking, violence and political instability forced large numbers of people to take to the streets and it has become common for entire households to stake out claims to blocks of ‘private’ space on sidewalks and in parks (UN, 2000:21). A considerable number of India’s homeless people still live in villages but the growing numbers of homeless people in the country’s rapidly expanding cities are a growing concern – even though the real extent of homelessness is impossible to determine (Kumuda, 2014; Parulkar, 2014:2). It is equally difficult to determine the number of homeless people in Africa, but the latter is probably still ‘the continent most affected by the scourge and tragedy of forced displacement’ (Cable News Network, 2009).

Exactly how many people in South Africa’s urban areas should currently be considered homeless is impossible to determine; indeed, researchers at the South African Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) emphasise that ‘national census data on the homeless is almost non-existent’ and that the official census conducted by Statistics South Africa is ‘unreliable and unsuitable for establishing absolute numbers or trends in homelessness’ (Rule-Groenewald et al., 2015:1). This is due to the mobility and the continuously changing profile of ‘the homeless’, difficulties in obtaining reliable data about people with no fixed address, and especially the absence of a standardised national typology covering the continuum between ‘sleeping rough’ (street homelessness) at the one end and absolute security of tenure (full home-ownership) at the other. In the absence of such a typology, the Tshwane homelessness research project focused on the more than 6244 homeless people who were already roaming the city’s streets in 2014, who fall outside a viable social network of assistance and who are therefore not able to provide themselves with shelter at a given time or place (see De Beer et al., 2015).

2. Defining homelessness and the homeless

Towards the end of the twentieth century it was accepted that homelessness is an extremely complicated phenomenon and the notion of homelessness as a chosen lifestyle has since then increasingly been challenged (see Allison, 2007). Instead of linking homelessness to poverty or deviance it is increasingly viewed as a component or expression of social exclusion (Minnery & Greenhalgh, 2007); indeed, homelessness is an extreme form of social exclusion placing the homeless at a disadvantage in terms of life chances. During the past two decades, definitions of homelessness as well as homeless policies and interventions therefore increasingly had to respond to and accommodate the key components of the human rights discourse as it is expressed in international instruments – covenants, declarations, charters, mission statements, policy directives and strategies. In most instances, both the ‘right to housing’ and ‘housing rights’ (see Bernard, 2008) remain primary concerns (Terminski, 2011; Hohmann, 2013). In the course of time a multitude of other rights have also been introduced to the homelessness discourse (see Australia, 2008:4–13). Although a human rights approach may indeed be instrumental in supporting a politics of recognition that affords dignity to homeless people, it has been criticised for its potential to endorse the ‘over-legalisation of social policy’, the ‘juridification of welfare’ and the directing of power and resources into the hands of the legal profession (see Dean, 2002:157).

Since 2005 the notion of a ‘right to the city’ has been linked not only with fundamental human rights but also with the eight UN Millennium Development Goals and with homelessness (see Brown & Kristiansen, 2009). In contrast to human rights, the right to the city is a communal rather than an individual right that depends on the exercise of collective power to alter the processes of urbanisation and urban gentrification and ‘renewal’ (Harvey, 2008) and it is therefore used as a slogan by social movements all over the world (see Brenner et al., 2012). The right to the city approach facilitated a rejection of individualistic explanations for the homelessness phenomenon. At the beginning of the twenty-first century some consensus was indeed reached (at least on the ideological level) that homelessness should be viewed in terms of the dynamic interplay between economic, structural, institutional, relationship and personal causative factors (Fitzpatrick, 2005; Lee et al., 2010:509); indeed, a single definition of homelessness ‘may be inappropriate and … a range of definitions may be needed to underpin interventions and policy development’ (Tipple & Speak, 2005:337).

3. Responses to homelessness

In those countries that are often still regarded as belonging to the ‘developing’ world, the homelessness ‘industry’ is a largely humanitarian endeavour driven by local and international NGOs and faith-based and welfare organisations. This is true for a region as large and diverse as Latin America and a continent such as Africa as well as for the densely populated Indian subcontinent. Neoliberal policies, adopted in Latin America, are not able to provide suitable, sustainable and affordable housing delivery and housing is often viewed as a commodity and not a social right (see Stewart & Balchin, 2002; Posner, 2008). Issues such as poverty and job scarcity, efforts to ‘decriminalise’ and ‘normalise’ homelessness, and the growing housing backlogs loom large in debates about homelessness in these countries but there is a scarcity of concerted efforts to address the issue of homelessness at the national government level. Neighbourhood rehabilitation and urban renewal is often viewed as a first priority and relatively little has been accomplished with regard to the promulgation of national policies on homelessness. However, countries such as Brazil, Uruguay and Chile seem to have established programmes or services aimed at addressing the problem. These and other ‘developing’ countries’ responses can, for a variety of reasons, not be discussed within the confines of this article and will in any case necessitate an elaborate study of the literature that has been published in Portuguese, Spanish and other languages. The following overview will therefore be limited to a number of ‘developed’ countries that have addressed homelessness at a national level – usually in close collaboration with the NGO sector.

3.1. Responses to homelessness in Australia

Australia’s response to homelessness pivots on the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP), established through the SAAP Act of 1994. The SAAP aims ‘to ensure that people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness are given opportunities to redress their circumstances and that their universal human rights are not prejudiced by the manner in which services are provided to them’ (WWDA, 2003). The SAAP does not ensure a universal right to adequate housing and seems to be underpinned by the notions that people are homeless because of ‘their own doing’, that homelessness should be addressed by service systems and that housing should be private sector driven. The latter notion persisted until the mid-1990s (see Dodson, 2006:224).

The National Homelessness Strategy, which dates back to 2000, and various state homelessness strategies which consist of a variety of initiatives and programmes seem to be the most significant recent development in Australia. The National Homelessness Strategy had as its primary aim to ‘provide a strategic framework that will improve collaboration and linkages between existing programmes and services, to improve outcomes for clients and reduce the incidence of homelessness’. The National Homelessness Strategy consists of a number of separate initiatives and projects instead of a single long-term plan but none of these provide new housing options (Greenhalgh et al., 2004:112 et seq.). It is complemented by other Australian government initiatives aimed at reducing disadvantage – for example, Crisis Payment and Special Benefit, Towards Independent Living Allowance, Partnerships Against Domestic Violence, and Child Abuse Prevention. The latter includes a large number of Early Intervention Parenting programmes and is also linked to other programmes that focus on the needs of ‘long grass’ communities and families with children living in caravan parks (see Wood, 2003).

In July 2008, the Australian government launched a new programme, A Place to Call Home, in cooperation with the State and Territory governments. The aim of this programme was to fund 600 new properties over a five-year period, to provide permanent housing for people who might otherwise have to be accommodated in some form of emergency shelter. In July 2015 a new National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness was introduced by the Australian government. This agreement aimed at the funding of frontline homelessness services focusing on women and children experiencing domestic and family violence and the homeless youth. All of the Project Plans of the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness can be accessed on the Australian Council on Federal Financial Relations website (http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa Accessed 15 June 2016).

A review of the available literature on homelessness in Australia reveals that very elaborate strategies and action plans that address homelessness have been adopted by some of the territories and states that form part of the Commonwealth of Australia. Some of the most outstanding examples are the New South Wales Homelessness Action Plan 2009–2014 (see NSWG, 2009) and South Australia’s Homelessness Strategy 2009–2013 (see GSA, 2011). These strategies and plans as well as the equally impressive policies and plans of NGOs such as Mission Australia are easily accessible via the Internet and are not detailed here.

3.2. Responses to homelessness in the USA

In the USA, the primary homelessness legislation dates back to 1987. It is currently known as the McKinley-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Improvements Act of 2001 but was amended in 2002 to be more comprehensive and to include ‘homeless children and youths’ in its definitions of ‘homelessness’, ‘homeless people’ and a ‘homeless person’. The primary aim of the act is to ensure that homeless youth and children have equal opportunities for the free public education that is provided to others. The act is aligned with the general US ‘continuum of care’ model which addresses homelessness through access to education, which then leads to access to employment and ultimately facilitates peoples’ independence (and hence their ability to afford accommodation).

The ‘continuum of care’ model backed by the Federal government’s Supportive Housing Programme and associated national and local initiatives facilitates the provision of emergency shelters, transitional housing and ‘permanent supportive housing’ (see Hoch, 2000). However, the focus in the USA still appears to be overwhelmingly focused on those who are already homeless, rather than on prevention; the Pathways agency in New York developed a scheme which was in essence one of the first ‘housing first’ approaches to homelessness in the West (Greenhalgh et al., 2004:89–91; Minnery & Greenhalgh, 2007:650).

In contrast with countries such as Germany and Finland, family homelessness seems to be a tenacious problem in the USA in spite of extensive support services. It is also clear that single homelessness and especially rough sleeping in the USA is an even more worrying phenomenon that can barely be held in check with even the most targeted assistance programmes (see Byrne & Culhane, 2011). There is a wide range of public and private initiatives aimed at reducing or alleviating homelessness and assisting the different categories of homeless people in the USA. A fairly detailed exposition of the multitude of initiatives, programmes and institutions appears in Greenhalgh et al. (2004; see also Minnery & Greenhalgh, 2007) and need not be repeated here.

3.3. Responses to homelessness in Europe

Minnery & Greenhalgh (2007:650) state that there are very few strategic approaches to homelessness in Europe and that homelessness is often not considered worthy of a policy response in its own right. They even observed ‘a shift toward punitive responses to homelessness’ in Europe that are ‘in direct contradiction to the notion of social inclusion that is claimed to underpin approaches to addressing homelessness in the E.U.’ (see also Greenhalgh et al., 2004:19 et seq.).

Because homelessness is often not considered worthy of a policy response in its own right, data about existing policies and strategies have to be extracted from a combination of legal documents, announcements and governmental and NGO reports that often do not provide a clear picture of current realities. However, numerous researchers have observed a correlation between responses to homelessness and the different types of European welfare regimes. Because data about the homeless interventions of the post-socialist countries (Czech Republic, Slovenia, Hungary) and the Baltic countries (Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania) are rather scanty, the following discussion will focus on the other ‘welfare regimes’ which Busch-Geertsema et al. (2010:32–3) regard as ideal types: the social democratic regimes (Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway), the liberal regimes such as the UK, the corporatist regimes (France and Germany) and the Mediterranean regimes (Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy).

3.3.1. Social democratic regimes

The social democratic regimes in Europe are characterised by generous social welfare and unemployment benefits that guarantee adequate economic resources independent of market or familial reliance. There is therefore a strong emphasis on reintegration of homeless people, captured in the concept of a ‘staircase’ of provision, with emergency shelters at the bottom and ‘regular’ rental flats and home ownership at the top. The Finnish social protection system includes a comprehensive definition of homelessness and an acknowledgement of the changing profile of ‘the homeless’. There is a variety of professional, social and welfare bodies and local authority services that address the problem of homelessness. Although the ‘right to housing’ is constitutionally and legally founded, such rights are not enforceable and should rather be viewed as ‘political markers of concern’ (Bengtsson, 2001). The homeless are eligible for the basic social benefits and the basic health services provided by the municipal health care system. The Y-Foundation founded in 1985 coordinates private organisations, public institutions and NGOs with a view to providing housing and associated services to the homeless as well as to refugees (Mikkonen & Kärkkäinen, 2002). Indeed, Finland claims that they introduced a ‘housing first’ approach long before the concept was widely recognised in Europe (Tsemberis et al., 2004). In Sweden, municipalities are, according to the Social Services Legislation, in charge of implementing homelessness initiatives and of allocating funding for such purposes because there is no special funding earmarked at national level (FEANTSA, 2014).

In Denmark, the right to housing is an indirect right but according to Hansen (2010: et seq.) the social Assistance Act of 1976 and the more recent Social Services Act of 2002 provide a legal and institutional framework that furnishes homeless people with assistance, care and accommodation. Municipalities are empowered to make housing arrangements and provide social services to the homeless and must offer temporary residence for persons with physical and or mental disabilities or special social problems (Stax et al., 1998). With the support of municipalities and private voluntary organisations, night centres (offering cheap food and coffee) and special day centres (for homeless people with mental ailments or substance dependence) have been established. There are also some specific types of housing such as skaeve huse (lit. crooked houses) which offer an alternative form of permanent, independent housing for people with a history as ‘problem tenants’ or ‘nuisance tenants’. This consists of about 10 single units each with its own ablution facilities and kitchen (FEANTSA, 2014).

3.3.2. Liberal regimes

Generally speaking, the liberal regimes in Europe acknowledge the primacy of the market and assign a residual welfare role to the state. They therefore subject social benefits to a means test and target those failing in the market. However, most liberal regimes are moving away from ‘transitional’ or ‘staircase’ models of provision for homeless people, towards a ‘housing first’ approach that focuses on rapid access to mainstream rented housing or other ‘permanent’ solutions (Johnson & Teixeira, 2010).

Until 1977 the UK was the only country in Europe with a statutory responsibility towards the homeless; that is, a right to housing and not merely political markers of concern derived from constitutional or other legal sources as in some Nordic countries. Social housing initiatives have been shown to be the most ‘pro-poor’ and redistributive component of the UK welfare regime (Fitzpatrick et al., 2015:13). The UK was also the first to establish a ‘task force’ for homelessness (FEANTSA, 2002). In 2010, efforts to tackle homelessness – and especially ‘rough sleeping’ more comprehensively – led to the establishment of a cross-government Ministerial Working Group on Homelessness that brought eight government departments together to share information and resolve the cross-cutting issues faced by homeless people. One of the first outcomes of this collaboration was the No Second Night Out programme, initiated in London in 2011/12 (DCLG, 2011). Other initiatives include the following:

• Family mediation (to enable young people to stay in the parental home), sanctuary schemes (for those at risk of domestic violence) and tenancy support for vulnerable groups (Pawson, 2007).

• Establishment of the Fulfilling Lives Programme and the Platform for Life Fund to provide shared accommodation for young people at risk of homelessness (see Fitzpatrick et al., 2015:21).

• Providing housing support for older and vulnerable people (e.g. Park Homes, caravans on privately owned land where the land owner provides infrastructure and caravan owners pay a pitch fee).

Although the post devolution English government seems to have tried to protect funding for the prevention of homelessness from austerity measures, the homeless services of local authorities have been under severe pressure since 2008. The Welfare Reform Act (2012) introduced a whole series of changes to the welfare system, including an ‘under-occupancy penalty’ (‘bedroom tax’, which reduces the amount of benefit paid to claimants if they are deemed to have too much living space in the property they are renting), the introduction of a Universal Credit system that will replace some of the means-tested benefits and tax credits, and an overall cap on welfare benefits (Fitzpatrick et al., 2015:24–5).

Ireland established national strategies to deliver an integrated solution to homelessness that factors in the different stages of progression of the problem (prevention, emergency help and reintegration). All services are coordinated by the Homeless Agency. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government oversees the country’s homelessness strategy known as The Way Home Strategy. This well-funded strategy aims to put an end to rough sleeping by implementing a housing-led approach and putting an end to long-term homelessness by the end of 2016. The non-profit sector has been called upon to play a central role in realising the government’s vision for housing provision (FEANTSA, 2014).

Scotland aims to keep housing lists open to everyone older than 16 years of age and their national legislation facilitates tight control over allocation of social housing. Since 1999 the country has strengthened its statutory homelessness safety net far beyond anything envisioned elsewhere by blending the assessment of homelessness and the assessment of wider housing needs into one process. Scotland aims to eliminate the ‘priority need’ criterion within statutory homelessness assessments. Through the Homelessness (Abolition of Priority Need Test) (Scotland) Order 2012, all unintentionally homeless people became entitled to ‘settled’ accommodation as a legal right (Scottish Government, 2012).

Housing policy in Wales has to date not been distinctively different to English policy, and homelessness does not seem to be a very serious problem. There does not seem to be any ‘rough sleepers’ initiative in the country nor a national hostel improvement or similar programme. Four years ago the Welsh government commissioned a review of homelessness legislation which proposed a ‘Housing Solutions’ model aimed at transforming the duties of local authorities to preventative interventions and which forces these authorities ‘to achieve a suitable housing solution for all households which are homeless or on the brink of homelessness’. The first ever Housing Bill for Wales (2013) introduced radical reforms to the statutory homelessness framework. This represents a more focused approach and led to elaboration of the duties of local authorities to provide interim accommodation if households have ‘nowhere safe to stay’ (FEANTSA, 2014).

3.3.3. Corporatist regimes

The corporatist regimes in Europe (e.g. Germany, Austria, France) view welfare primarily as a mediator of group-based mutual aid and risk pooling; rights to benefits depend on ‘active’ participation in the labour market.

In France, homelessness prevention was formerly mainly understood as preventing literal homelessness (i.e. provision of emergency shelters and phone-in emergency support). The Act Establishing the Enforceable Right to Housing (DALO: Droit au Logement Opposable) of 1977 replaced the State’s ‘best efforts’ obligation with a performance obligation. The National Strategy for Homeless and Poorly Housed People became a governmental priority in 2009 and initiated far-reaching reforms to the system of shelter and accommodation for homeless people through the creation of a public service based on the ‘housing first’ approach. This included the implementation of Integrated Reception and Advice Services that monitor local needs and services using an integrated information technology system (FEANTSA, 2014; see also Lévy-Vroelant, 2015).

In Germany there is no legal right to permanent housing, but the Federal Social Welfare Assistance Law stipulates that local authorities must grant support to people ‘who live in exceptional living circumstances which are connected with social difficulties’ (Busch-Geertsema, 2001) and who are not able to overcome such difficulties on their own. Homeless people with no income have a right to financial assistance for subsistence costs and costs of ‘reasonable’ temporary accommodation. Most welfare regulations in the country (including those that may have a bearing on homelessness) as well as the right to a decent home have been codified in the 12 volumes of the Sozialgesetzbuch and a right to a decent home has been incorporated in some of the volumes of the Sozialgesetzbuch (Greenhalgh et al., 2004:41–2). Germany has no unitary help system for the homeless that are eligible for welfare support but a broad spectrum of services and legal responsibilities that target different groups. Social services are delivered by municipalities and increasingly by NGOs under public contract. The NGO sector is organised around seven major umbrella organisations that form part of the Federal Association of Nongovernmental Organisations (Greenhalgh et al., 2004:42; Droste et al., 2010:25 and 79–80).

3.3.4. Mediterranean regimes

The Mediterranean regimes in Europe (Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy) are characterised by dependence upon family support systems. However, since 2000, funds for social policies have been made available and more focus placed on crisis centres, social and health interventions, support and services for the social rehabilitation of the homeless. The realisation of these goals has become very difficult in recent years because of the financial problems that many of these countries are faced with and the influx of refugees from other countries on the Mediterranean coast.

In Italy, home ownership is still financed largely within the family and mortgage credit still comprises around 6% of the gross domestic product. The country has considerable experience of the housing-led approach and over the past few years more than 30 cities have started to invest in ‘housing-led’ and even ‘housing first’ strategies as well as in social inclusion projects. The Department of Housing Policy is working on new guidelines for improving the quality of buildings, for preventing eviction and for provision of social support and community-based programmes. Italy does not have a homogeneous, national homelessness strategy and no government-driven programmes for the homeless. However, since 2012 homelessness became a priority issue for many local authorities, because of better research data but also as a result of the growing refugee crisis. This has led to a renewed look at housing policies but unfortunately the focus is still on rough sleepers and not on the phenomena of homelessness and housing exclusion as such (FEANTSA, 2014).

In Portugal, homelessness has traditionally been viewed as a social issue that should be resolved within the family context. Recently, however, the country’s national strategy emphasises that permanent housing solutions should be found for the homeless. In theory a ‘housing led’ strategy has been adopted but this does not yet seem to be an operational reality (FEANTSA, 2014). In Greece, as in Italy, the family is still viewed as the primary social back-up system and as the primary provider of housing, which has led – at least until 2014 – to the erroneous view that homelessness is not a serious social problem and that economic refugees and nomads (Gypsies) cannot be regarded as homeless because ‘their plight is of their own making’ (Sapounakis, 1999:490). Despite the post-2008 economic crisis and the recent refugee crisis, there is still no central, leading entity responsible particularly for homelessness. A new bill was voted in Parliament in March 2014 in which, for the first time, there is a clear recognition of the need for social care measures to support homeless people in Greece (FEANTSA, 2014).

In Spain, the Parliament approved the first Spanish National Homelessness Strategy in April 2014 and the government is beginning to work with different NGOs to define and develop this strategy. Social policy is the competence of each of the autonomous communities and responsibility for homelessness is divided between the region and the local level. Responsibilities for homeless people, actions, budgets and networks differ considerably from one municipality to another. The staircase model remains the prevalent approach in addressing homelessness in Spain, but some organisations have begun to implement initiatives in line with the ‘housing first’ approach by placing people in permanent housing rather than in shelters (FEANTSA, 2014).

4. Responses to homelessness in South Africa and the 2015 street homelessness policy for the City of Tshwane

The causes, extent and nature of homelessness in South Africa and some of the responses to homelessness have been addressed in the March 2010 issue of Development Southern Africa and cannot be discussed within the confines of this article. Three general comments following from the presented overview of the responses to homelessness in a few ‘developed’ countries will have to suffice.

Firstly, countries and cities that are not prime destinations for either refugees/asylum seekers or homeless people find it much easier to address the phenomenon of homelessness and housing deprivation with at least some degree of success. Globally, homelessness and housing deprivation, physical displacement and cross-border migration (for whatever reasons) as well as poverty alleviation have become inseparable issues and only those countries that address these issues with all-encompassing national policies and strategies seem to make some headway – especially if such policies and strategies are designed with regional and local differences in mind and manage to accommodate all role-players. This has not yet happened in South Africa. It remains a pity indeed that homelessness has not yet been viewed as worthy of a policy response in its own right at either the national or the provincial government level.

Closely related to this are the issues of funding and the generation of reliable data. The evidence from abroad clearly indicates that local governments can only tackle homelessness if they are supported financially by central and regional governments, if all local role-players become involved and if some kind of watchdog can ensure that policies are indeed carried into effect. In view of the budget deficiencies of local governments it is clear that cost-effectiveness rather than cost saving should be the guiding principle in all efforts to combat homelessness. In South Africa, the absence of a clear national homelessness policy and strategy has a negative impact on the funding of the efforts of local governments to address the phenomenon at the grassroots level.

Reliable data on the causes, nature and extent of homelessness amassed by means of extensive and sophisticated research techniques are imperative for the formulation of definitions and typologies of homelessness and housing deprivation as well as for the development of homelessness policies, strategies, interventions and possible solutions. In some developed countries (the USA and Finland) there is a clear correlation between successful homelessness intervention (both the provision of accommodation and the availability and effectiveness of services), on the one hand, and extensive and sophisticated collection and interpretation of research and census data on the other. Convincing longitudinal data are also indispensable for proper cost analysis and the measurement of cost-effectiveness, and thus for furthering public awareness and political will. It is also imperative for deliberating and evaluating intervention strategies and tactics, as well as for determining whether the services provided by both the government and NGOs do indeed work, how such services may be improved and even whether or not they should be replaced. Unfortunately, most of these data types are, as yet, not available in South Africa and will in all likelihood remain unavailable unless research – including evaluative research – becomes a regulatory or legal requirement.

The presented overview of policy responses secondly suggests that even in the ‘developed’ world responses to homelessness often still pivot on the highly visible but simplistic concept of rough sleeping. The notion that homelessness is primarily due to a housing shortage is still firmly entrenched in many homelessness policies and strategies. Decent ‘normal’ housing – either ‘ultimately’ or ‘as soon as possible’ – is indeed the mainstay of both the ‘older’ staircase/continuum of care and the more ‘recent’ housing-led or housing-first approaches towards homelessness. Both categories are responsive rather than preventive. The ability of governments to provide the type of accommodation associated with either of these approaches and with the associated support services is clearly determined by the interplay between the nature and scale of homelessness among their citizenry, on the one hand, and the availability of funds on the other. In South Africa, the provision of both staircase-type accommodation and long-term affordable housing is problematic because of the country’s housing backlog and financial woes and the sheer numbers of existing and potentially homeless people (including illegal immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers). For these reasons and keeping the current and expected demand for cheaper education as well as the anticipated food security crisis and the growing social grants expenditure in mind, it seems unlikely that the South African government will be able to extend and augment the existing social security net and support services for poor and homeless people – to say nothing of preventive measures (including job creation and poverty alleviation). It therefore seems logical to expect that there will be mounting pressure on the NGO and business sector to fulfil a supporting function.

From the presented overview of responses to homelessness it is lastly clear that there is a growing consensus all over the world that homelessness prevention should become more important than homelessness intervention. To what extent this will be possible in South Africa is debatable. The majority of homeless people in South Africa cannot exit homelessness relatively quickly. Those who are lucky enough to become ‘home-owners’ can often only prevent a return to homelessness through an intricate system of social networking and/or by subletting rooms and even shacks. The country’s long-term response to both homelessness and poverty therefore seems fairly obvious: it needs measures that will reduce the likelihood of becoming homeless in the first place. This necessitates the creation of more (and more secure) job opportunities, appropriate, relevant and future-oriented training and education, and extensive sustainable support services. The provision of housing and shelters will therefore have to be supplemented with the supply and or facilitation of paid work and a well-monitored welfare system that prioritises upward social and economic mobility instead of perpetual welfare damage control. It is, however, also important to keep in mind that in some countries – especially those with an extensive non-governmental sector – there is some concern that homelessness assistance and care programmes tend to create and then perpetuate a ‘shadow’ welfare system (run by faith-based and other NGOs) that tend to isolate homeless people from mainstream (government-driven) services.

In view of the aforementioned, the efforts of the Tshwane local government to raise homelessness to a separate policy and strategy level are commendable. In 2014, the former Mayor of the City of Tshwane, Kgosientso Ramokgopa, requested the Tshwane Homelessness Forum and University of Pretoria to review the city’s existing 2013 Homelessness Policy. This resulted in a corroborative project in which the latter two institutions as well as University of South Africa and the Tshwane local government itself participated. A recommended draft policy and strategy was submitted to the Mayoral Committee in 2015. This draft policy and strategy, as well as the events and processes which preceded it, can be accessed via the Internet (see De Beer et al., 2015). For this reason and because the draft policy and strategy still awaits approval, a discussion of the contents of the draft document has not been attempted in this article. Suffice to say that it attempts to address not only the lacunae in the previous (2013) Homelessness Policy of the City of Tshwane, but also the key findings with regard to the responses of homelessness policies and strategies of other countries referred to in this article.

Because a ‘right to the city’ approach was believed to hold considerable potential for enfranchisement and social inclusion of the homeless it was accepted as an important guiding principle in the 2015 Draft Policy. The latter also acknowledges the constitutional ‘right to have access to adequate housing’ (clause 26.1 and 26.2 of the Bill of Rights contained in the South African Constitution), affirms the dignity of all who live in the city and facilitates access to those urban resources and assets that street homeless people were previously denied. It also aims to cultivate collective citizenship through broad-based partnerships and to advance social justice and holistic freedom. For several reasons the Draft Policy did not focus on people living in informal settlements or sub-standard housing, but on the street homeless; that is, those who live on the streets, who fall outside a viable social network of assistance and who are therefore not able to provide themselves with shelter at a given time or place.

The 2015 Draft Policy contains a detailed action plan that focuses on diverse housing options, life and vocational skills training, accessible psycho-social and health care infrastructure, ongoing advocacy and education and awareness programmes, as well as on vehicles for partnerships, ongoing research, monitoring, evaluation and communication.

The Policy Document suggests a broad-based resource strategy to implement proposed interventions, including an appropriate budget from the City of Tshwane, as well as brokering funds from relevant other government departments (provincial and national), the private sector and a variety of donor agencies.

In what way the changes brought about by the 2016 local government elections will impact on the lives of the homeless in the City of Tshwane cannot be predicted. The strategies suggested by the 2015 Policy Document may be a useful point of departure for the decisions that need to be made by the leadership corps of South Africa’s capital city.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.