Chapter 32.
“If a house is to be built, it must first be placed upon a firm foundation.” — Lao Tzu
A home is the prime catalyst for human flourishing. While policymakers often address symptoms—unemployment, social isolation, re‑offending, 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 philosophy functions, demonstrating its efficacy not only in transformed lives but also in balanced budgets.
The traditional approach to homelessness, often termed the “staircase model,” proved 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 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 is 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, this approach advocates immediate, unconditional access to an independent home. This is not charity; it is a pragmatic recognition that human beings function best when their 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 rigorously demonstrate that this model, when implemented, restores dignity, fosters autonomy, and provides the stability necessary 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 reveal that providing stable housing generates substantial, quantifiable cost savings, proving that this investment is both strategically sound and prudent. 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 dwelling. Moreover, unsuitable or unstable housing exacerbates existing health conditions, leading to preventable crises and increased hospital admissions. Individuals experiencing homelessness for three months or longer cost on average £4,298 per person to NHS services. 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. 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 sustainability of our health and social care systems. The quantifiable reduction in A&E visits and hospital admissions, documented in various Housing First evaluations, provides significant evidence of these savings.
The ethical and fiscal case for unconditional stability is undeniable. The challenge now is moving from philosophical mandate to structural policy. To eliminate the root causes of insecurity and high public costs, we must assertively intervene in the housing market using two radical, mutually supportive tools: reforming tenure to protect the worker and seizing speculative land through compulsion. The existing shared ownership model often betrays the worker by imposing 100 per cent of the maintenance risk and mortgage costs while denying full ownership. Our approach transforms this product into a genuine social safety net that protects wealth and stability, creating Secure Shared Ownership.
.
This new tenure model must include a Secure Tenancy Right, ensuring the property offers the resident a secure tenancy regardless of their equity share. This immediately eliminates the psychological insecurity and threat of arbitrary eviction that plagues the private rental sector. Crucially, the model incorporates the Right to Reverse the Ratio of Ownership, which is the game-changer. If the resident faces job loss, illness, or divorce—the precise moments stability is lost—they must have the right to sell back their equity share to the council, allowing them to liquefy assets to cover costs, reduce their mortgage burden, and remain securely in their home, fulfilling the core mandate of preventing displacement. This feature is particularly critical for pensioners, allowing them to access new, stair-free housing while using the Right to Reverse as an ethical financial shield against social care costs and the depletion of inheritance.
This transition from precarious market tenure to secure public stability yields massive fiscal returns for the Council. By eliminating the source of poverty and crisis—instability—the Council stabilizes its Housing Revenue Account (HRA). Reduced tenant anxiety and improved health outcomes mean reliable rent payments and drastically lowered demand for costly emergency services, thereby ending the massive £2.29 billion annual drain on public budgets currently wasted on temporary accommodation and reactive care. Furthermore, this tenure must actively support the public asset through Rewarding Productive Investment: any energy efficiency improvement, such as the installation of solar panels or surface wall insulation, must be guaranteed compensation upon the sale or reversal of equity. This creates a powerful incentive for tenants to contribute their capital to the essential phased retrofitting programme. This not only transforms housing from a liability into a shared, productive asset but also ensures the public stock is future-proofed and removes the health hazards that cause immense social harm.
This leads to the second necessary tool: Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs). The ethical conviction of Homes First—that private profit cannot trump the fundamental human need for shelter—mandates a decisive stance against land banking. When developers hoard land with planning permission purely for speculative gain, they are directly and knowingly causing the instability and financial chaos that the state must then spend billions to manage. This ethical failing requires the state to assert its sovereignty. The local council must therefore aggressively and immediately use CPOs against any developer who is stalling development. This strategy addresses the non-retrospectivity challenge of planning law by pivoting from punishing poor planning to seize a necessary asset for public use. The CPO is the ultimate tool for converting a speculative asset into a social asset. Land acquired via CPO must be immediately transferred to the local authority’s development vehicle for the construction of Secure Shared Ownership homes.
Crucially, the realism of this approach is that it uses existing local statutory powers to deliver the entire sweep of intended aims. The money to acquire land via CPOs, fund retrofitting, and build new homes comes entirely from leveraging the council’s own statutory powers and ending waste. The initial capital is generated by maximizing HRA borrowing (a fiscal asset secured against stable, self-financing homes), and the local budget is immediately bolstered by eliminating millions spent on emergency accommodation. By moving people out of temporary accommodation, the council diverts millions from expensive B&Bs and hostels, and the preventative investment in energy efficiency and stability drastically reduces local NHS and social care crisis spending. This use of existing powers to achieve all ten intended aims of the national housing agenda—including rent control, leasehold elimination, and ending regressive taxation—transforms the system not by waiting for new laws, but by asserting the full legal sovereignty of the local authority.
Were this framework implemented locally, the financial mechanism would immediately suppress the local housing inflation caused by speculators. The aggressive use of CPOs against land bankers directly injects a significant volume of non-speculative land and housing into the market. This disciplined public supply acts as an absolute price ceiling, preventing private developers from charging exorbitant prices. This combination—CPOs ensuring non-speculative supply, coupled with regulated tenure—is the most potent local tool available for delivering a controlled correction and stabilizing local prices, forcing them to reflect the worker’s income rather than the speculator’s ambition, and completing the structural reform necessary to deliver unconditional stability and long-term fiscal prudence.
Employability fundamentally needs a home first. The ability to seek, secure, and sustain employment is profoundly hampered by housing insecurity. 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. The crisis of “working homelessness” sees thousands of employed individuals, even full-time workers, unable to afford secure housing, highlighting a system fundamentally failing its citizens. Work absences for people in private-rented housing are double those for social-housing tenants, a hidden economic drag on the nation. Research 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. 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, the absence of stable housing is a catastrophic barrier. Homelessness pushes individuals back into chaotic environments, increasing their vulnerability to survival crimes. Ministry of Justice figures reveal that 62 per cent of people who are homeless after prison go on to re-offend, compared to just 32 per cent in settled accommodation. This instability leads to an astronomical financial cost to the Government of £18 billion per year for re-offending. Providing safe, consistent housing upon release significantly increases the chances of successful reintegration, ultimately enhancing public safety and dramatically reducing the societal cost of re-offending.
The successful integration of new populations and the crucial transition of students and young adults into independent life both unequivocally need homes first. The pervasive high housing costs currently cause 17 per cent of people aged sixteen to twenty-four and 13 per cent of those aged twenty-five to thirty-four to spend over a third of their income on housing. This creates a severe ‘housing cliff’ when affordable student accommodation ends. The total economic cost of the lack of social homes is estimated at £25 billion a year, a colossal sum that could instead build approximately 100,000 new social homes annually.
The recurring pattern is undeniable: the Homes First policy applies to everyone and represents the most ethical and fiscally responsible path forward. Prioritising housing is a fundamental, economically sound investment in individual potential, community strength, and national prosperity. 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 fulfil their potential.
Next Chapter: Emotional & Mental Resilience: Reclaimed
Bibliography
Akinbolu, S. A Practical Guide to Refugee Resettlement in the United Kingdom. Law Brief Publishing. 2022
Aldegheri, E., Fisher, D., & Phipps, A. (Eds.). A Handbook of Integration with Refugees: Global Learnings from Scotland. Multilingual Matters. 2025
Allen, J., & Hamnett, C. (Eds.). Housing and Labour Markets: Building the Connections. Routledge. 2020 (Originally published 1991)
Battersby, S., Ezratty, V., & Ormandy, D. Housing, Health and Well-Being. Routledge. 2023
Cowling, C. Reducing Recidivism: A Focus on Rehabilitation Instead of Punishment. Lexington Books. 2023
Crisis (UK Charity). The social and economic cost of homelessness. Crisis (UK Charity). 2016
Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (DLUHC). Local authority revenue expenditure and financing England. GOV.UK. Various years
Hallett, R. E., Crutchfield, R. M., & Maguire, J. J. Addressing Homelessness and Housing Insecurity in Higher Education: Strategies for Educational Leaders. Teachers College Press. 2019
Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI). Various reports, including “Student Accommodation: The Facts” by Sarah Jones and Martin Blakey. Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI). Various
Homeless Link. “More Than a Roof: An evaluation of Housing First pilots in England.” Homeless Link. 2020
Mahoney, I., & Chowdhury, R. (Eds.). Holistic Responses to Reducing Reoffending. Routledge. 2024
Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Various reports and data, specific for reoffending rates linked to housing. Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Various
Nacro. Various publications, including on the cost of reoffending and homelessness. Nacro. Various
National Housing Federation (NHF) & Shelter. The economic impact of building social housing. National Housing Federation. 2024
New Statesman. Various articles, specifically referencing fertility rates and housing affordability. New Statesman. Various
Padgett, D. K., Henwood, B. F., & Tsemberis, S. J. Housing First: Ending Homelessness, Transforming Systems, and Changing Lives. Oxford University Press. 2016
The King’s Fund. Various reports and analyses, including the “Social Care 360” series. The King’s Fund. Various
UK Parliament, House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts. Tackling homelessness. Publications.parliament.uk. 2025