Chapter 35.
In the intricate web of societal challenges and solutions, one fundamental truth often stands tragically overlooked: a home is the prime catalyst for human flourishing. While policies frequently address symptoms – unemployment, social isolation, reoffending, or public health crises – a deeper, more profound understanding reveals that robust and stable housing is not merely an outcome of progress, but its essential prerequisite. When we “slow up” to examine the foundational needs of individuals, a ‘Homes First Policy’ emerges not just as a compassionate ideal, but as the most potent, ethically sound, and fiscally responsible driver of a healthy, productive, and integrated society. This is a philosophy that functions, demonstrating its efficacy not only in transformed lives but also in balanced budgets.
The traditional approach to homelessness, often termed the “staircase model,” exemplifies a system that, despite good intentions, has proven both inhumane and economically inefficient. This model mandated that individuals address complex personal issues—such as substance misuse or mental health conditions—before qualifying for stable housing. The cruel irony was that these very issues were exacerbated by the precariousness of life on the streets or in temporary accommodation. Countless individuals were trapped in a relentless cycle of instability, their physical and mental health deteriorating, their social connections severed, and any path to recovery perpetually out of reach. This approach created a costly revolving door, consuming vast public resources in crisis interventions, emergency services, and short-term shelters, without ever addressing the root cause. It’s an ethical failing to deny basic safety, and a fiscal failing to pay more for less effective solutions.
The Homes First philosophy is underpinned by an unwavering ethical conviction: access to safe, stable, and dignified housing is a fundamental human right, not a privilege. Pioneered by Dr. Sam Tsemberis and his Pathways to Housing initiative in the 1990s, this approach radically inverted the existing paradigm. Tsemberis argued that immediate, unconditional access to an independent home, coupled with voluntary, person-centred support, was the most effective route to lasting stability. This wasn’t just a moral stand; it was a pragmatic recognition that human beings function best when their most basic needs are met. The core tenets of this ethical framework are clear: housing is unconditional; choice and self-determination are paramount; support services are separate from tenure and voluntary; and harm reduction is embraced over punitive abstinence. Works like Housing First: Ending Homelessness, Transforming Systems, and Changing Lives by Padgett, Henwood, and Tsemberis rigorously demonstrate that this model, when implemented, restores dignity, fosters autonomy, and empowers individuals to rebuild their lives. From an ethical standpoint, it recognises the inherent worth of every individual and provides the fundamental platform from which they can exercise other rights and pursue their potential. It’s about respecting human agency and giving people the stability needed to participate fully in society.
Building on core ethical arguments, the ‘Homes First’ approach presents a compelling case for fiscal responsibility. It champions strategic investment in preventative, root-cause solutions over the perpetual drain of reactive crisis management. The data consistently reveals that providing stable housing, rather than managing homelessness, leads to substantial, quantifiable cost savings across multiple public service sectors – costs that are currently bleeding our society dry.
The link between stable housing and effective health and social care is undeniable. It is incredibly difficult to administer medication, facilitate home care visits, or provide necessary equipment if an individual lacks a secure, appropriate dwelling. Moreover, unsuitable or unstable housing exacerbates existing health conditions, leading to preventable crises, increased hospital admissions, and a greater demand for more intensive (and expensive) institutional care.
Individuals experiencing homelessness for three months or longer cost on average £4,298 per person to NHS services, and £2,099 per person for mental health services alone (Crisis, 2016). Tragically, the ultimate cost is seen in the loss of life: in 2024, eighty children and babies died in temporary accommodation in England, with these deaths directly linked to poor housing conditions. The constant stress of unaffordable and insecure homes is a major health burden for countless others, leading to higher rates of anxiety, sleep disturbance, and forcing families to cut back on essentials like food and heating, with severe long-term consequences, particularly for children. Publications from The King’s Fund, particularly their “Social Care 360” series, frequently highlight how appropriate housing can prevent crises and enable more effective care delivery. Similarly, works like Housing, Health and Well-Being by Battersby, Ezratty, and Ormandy directly address this critical connection. When individuals are housed, they are more likely to engage with primary care, manage chronic conditions, and avoid costly emergency interventions. This shift from reactive, high-cost care to proactive, preventative support not only improves individual health outcomes but also represents a strategic investment in the efficacy and sustainability of our health and social care systems. The quantifiable reduction in A&E visits and hospital admissions, as documented in various Housing First evaluations (e.g., Homeless Link’s “More Than a Roof” report), provides significant evidence of these savings.
Employability fundamentally needs a home first. The ability to seek, secure, and sustain employment is profoundly hampered by housing insecurity. How can one reliably attend interviews, maintain consistent hygiene, or focus on skill development when faced with the daily uncertainty of shelter? A stable home provides the necessary physical and psychological foundation: a place to rest, store belongings, receive mail, and prepare for the demands of the working world. This is not a theoretical problem; the crisis of “working homelessness” sees thousands of employed individuals, even full-time workers like nurses and teachers, unable to afford secure housing, often resorting to sleeping in cars or temporary accommodation. Almost a quarter of those facing homelessness in England are in work, highlighting a system fundamentally failing its citizens. Furthermore, even for those who are employed, the stress and instability of insecure housing lead to pervasive tiredness, mental distress, and a demonstrable reduction in productivity. Work absences for people in private rented housing are about double those for social housing tenants, a hidden economic drag on the nation. Research from organisations like Crisis consistently demonstrates how a safe and stable home is crucial for individuals to get and keep a job, preventing cycles of precariousness that hinder economic participation. Academic works such as Housing and Labour Markets: Building the Connections by Allen and Hamnett further analyse how housing conditions directly impact work opportunities and stability. By providing this bedrock, a Homes First Policy unlocks workforce potential, enabling individuals to contribute to the economy, pay taxes, and reduce reliance on welfare benefits. This transition from dependence to self-sufficiency is not just socially beneficial, but profoundly fiscally advantageous.
In the realm of public safety, countering criminal recidivism unequivocally needs homes first. For individuals released from correctional facilities, or those striving to break cycles of repeat offending, the absence of stable housing is a catastrophic barrier. Homelessness pushes individuals back into chaotic environments, increasing their vulnerability to survival crimes and making it nearly impossible to engage with probation services, secure employment, or access rehabilitative support.
The data is stark: Ministry of Justice figures reveal that 62% of people who are homeless after prison go on to reoffend, with this figure rising to 67% for those rough sleeping, compared to just 32% of people in settled accommodation. This leads to an astronomical financial cost to the Government of £18 billion per year for reoffending (Nacro). While the average annual cost of keeping someone in prison is around £51,000, providing supported housing is significantly less, around £21,000 per year. Providing safe, consistent housing upon release significantly increases the chances of successful reintegration, ultimately enhancing public safety and dramatically reducing the societal cost of reoffending (policing, courts, prison beds). This vital link is robustly argued in Holistic Responses to Reducing Reoffending edited by Mahoney and Chowdhury, particularly in the chapter “Housing First, Rehabilitation Last.” Cathy Cowling’s Reducing Recidivism: A Focus on Rehabilitation Instead of Punishment also reinforces the necessity of housing programs as a core element of effective rehabilitation. These interventions reduce the revolving door of incarceration, leading to substantial savings for the criminal justice system and safer communities for all.
The successful integration of new populations into a community unequivocally needs homes first. Whether it’s refugees, economic migrants, or internal movers, the initial challenge is to establish a secure base. A stable home is the key to accessing essential services like healthcare and education, registering with local authorities, and building social networks. Without it, new arrivals remain in a perpetual state of transition, hindering their ability to learn the language, understand cultural norms, find suitable employment, or truly become part of the community fabric. As documented in works like A Practical Guide to Refugee Resettlement in the United Kingdom by Sandra Akinbolu, securing appropriate accommodation is a foundational step in the complex resettlement process. Similarly, A Handbook of Integration with Refugees by Aldegheri, Fisher, and Phipps echoes these insights. Effective integration policies, consistent with a Homes First Policy, must begin with a strategic and compassionate approach to housing provision. When new populations are securely housed, they can quickly become self-sufficient, tax-paying members of society, contributing to the economy and civic life rather than straining emergency services and becoming a burden on public funds.
Even within our established populations, the successful transition of students (both international and UK-born) into independent adult life needs homes first. After years of study, the sudden challenge of securing private accommodation can be daunting. For UK-born graduates preferring to stay in their university cities, affordable housing is essential for retaining local talent and fostering vibrant, youthful economies. This is crucial for their career prospects and psychological well-being, as housing insecurity at this pivotal stage can push valuable talent away from the very places that educated them – a form of “brain drain” on local economies. For all young adults, securing a tenancy often marks their first significant financial commitment, crucial for building a credit history – a foundational step for future financial independence, including accessing credit cards, loans, or mortgages. The pervasive high housing costs mean that 17% of people aged 16 to 24 and 13% of those aged 25 to 34 spent over a third of their income on housing costs in 2020/21–22/23, drastically delaying independence and family formation. The UK’s falling fertility rate, as highlighted by reports in the New Statesman, is directly impacted by housing affordability, with research indicating that a 10% increase in house prices leads to a 4.9% decrease in births among renters. This has profound long-term demographic and economic consequences, contributing to an aging population and potential future workforce shortages. This challenge is detailed in works such as Addressing Homelessness and Housing Insecurity in Higher Education by Hallett, Crutchfield, and Maguire, and reports from the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) like “Student Accommodation: The Facts.” Addressing these needs through a Homes First Policy is a critical investment in human capital and the nation’s future prosperity.
Beyond these individual and societal benefits, the Homes First Policy approach offers significant, quantifiable financial advantages to local councils, directly addressing the massive strain on public budgets. Converting empty commercial properties into residential units, for instance, generates Council Tax revenue, providing a vital income stream for local authorities that often rely heavily on such local taxation. This is a direct shift from dereliction and cost to active revenue generation. More profoundly, preventing homelessness and providing stable housing results in substantial cost savings for councils by reducing the need for temporary accommodation. Local authorities across England spent a staggering £2.29 billion on temporary accommodation from April 2023 to March 2024 (DLUHC), a figure that has almost doubled (a 97% increase) in just the last five years and continues to rise. A significant portion of this (£780 million in 2023-24) was spent on emergency B&Bs and hostels, which are often the least suitable and most expensive forms of temporary accommodation, particularly for families. Research by Shelter and the National Housing Federation indicates that building social homes could lead to billions in savings for local authorities by reducing homelessness assistance costs, offsetting current crisis management. Furthermore, stable housing lessens demand on other council-funded services such as local health services, social care, and even the criminal justice system, all of which incur significant costs when individuals lack a secure home. These indirect savings, while sometimes harder to quantify, represent a tangible financial relief for strained local government budgets, demonstrating true fiscal prudence. Indeed, the total economic and social benefits generated by social housing are immense, with research suggesting that a lack of social homes costs the English economy £25 billion a year in lost savings and economic opportunities. To put this into perspective, this colossal sum could instead build approximately 100,000 new social homes annually, at an estimated average cost of £250,000 per unit, clearly making the Homes First approach the most economically rational choice for proactive investment rather than reactive crisis management.
The recurring pattern is undeniable: the Homes First Policy applies to everyone, and it represents both the most ethical and the most fiscally responsible path forward. Across diverse demographics and critical societal functions, a stable, appropriate home is the bedrock. Prioritising housing is not merely a charitable act or a social welfare measure; it is a fundamental, economically sound investment in individual potential, community strength, and national prosperity. Recognizing and acting upon this profound truth is the prime catalyst for addressing many of the interconnected challenges facing our societies today. By adopting a Homes First approach, we move from merely patching symptoms to building robust foundations, fostering a truly functioning society where every individual has the stability needed to contribute, thrive, and fulfill their potential. This isn’t just about charity; it’s about shrewd investment in our collective future.
Next Chapter: AI as an Enabler: Redefining Human Potential
Bibliography
Akinbolu, S. (2022). A Practical Guide to Refugee Resettlement in the United Kingdom. Law Brief Publishing.
Aldegheri, E., Fisher, D., & Phipps, A. (Eds.). (2025, forthcoming). A Handbook of Integration with Refugees: Global Learnings from Scotland. Multilingual Matters.
Allen, J., & Hamnett, C. (Eds.). (2020). Housing and Labour Markets: Building the Connections. Routledge. (Originally published 1991).
Battersby, S., Ezratty, V., & Ormandy, D. (2023). Housing, Health and Well-Being. Routledge.
Cowling, C. (2023). Reducing Recidivism: A Focus on Rehabilitation Instead of Punishment. Lexington Books.
Crisis (UK Charity). (2016). The social and economic cost of homelessness. Also, various other reports and publications on homelessness and employment.
Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (DLUHC). (Various years, including 2023-24 figures). Local authority revenue expenditure and financing England. GOV.UK.
Hallett, R. E., Crutchfield, R. M., & Maguire, J. J. (2019). Addressing Homelessness and Housing Insecurity in Higher Education: Strategies for Educational Leaders. Teachers College Press.
Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI). Various reports, including “Student Accommodation: The Facts” by Sarah Jones and Martin Blakey.
Homeless Link. (2020). “More Than a Roof: An evaluation of Housing First pilots in England.”
Mahoney, I., & Chowdhury, R. (Eds.). (2024). Holistic Responses to Reducing Reoffending. Routledge.
Ministry of Justice (MoJ). (Various reports and data, specific for reoffending rates linked to housing).
Nacro. (Various publications, including on the cost of reoffending and homelessness).
National Housing Federation (NHF) & Shelter. (2024). The economic impact of building social housing. National Housing Federation.
New Statesman. (Various articles, specifically referencing fertility rates and housing affordability).
Padgett, D. K., Henwood, B. F., & Tsemberis, S. J. (2016). Housing First: Ending Homelessness, Transforming Systems, and Changing Lives. Oxford University Press.
The King’s Fund. Various reports and analyses, including the “Social Care 360” series.
UK Parliament, House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts. (2025). Tackling homelessness. Publications.parliament.uk.