Introduction

At the outset of this book, we described a context in the early years of this century in which a ‘fundamental shift in expectations’ was generating a degree of optimism that homelessness could be ended in many countries. In the three countries under consideration, there was a high level of evidence-based optimism. Recent innovations in practice, combined with international research evidence, suggested that housing-led models, approaches that provided housing and support as the first step for people experiencing homelessness, would prove more successful than traditional approaches that largely focused on ‘treatment’ first. There was also the realisation that the number of those experiencing homelessness with high and complex needs was much smaller than had been previously understood. This, coupled with the emergence of effective Housing First, created an atmosphere, initially in the US and later in other jurisdictions, that homelessness was, in fact, solvable. If these practices could be delivered at the necessary scale, it would be possible to effectively reduce homelessness to ‘functional zero’ – in which homelessness would be rare, shortlived and non-recurrent. There was also a new political willingness in many advanced industrial economies not only to articulate ending homelessness as a realistic political commitment, but also to set out ambitious broad strategic frameworks. This political commitment and strategic framework established a context in which the scaling up of effective practice could occur, delivering real change.

This optimism and political commitment existed in a wide range of countries, and we have been able to look in detail at the experiences of three in this book. The three countries were selected for largely pragmatic reasons: they have published detailed data on the numbers experiencing homelessness that, to a large degree, are comparable. The similarity in population size and shared membership of the European Union (EU) provide a backdrop for useful comparison. On the other hand, historical differences in social, housing and welfare systems, as well as differences in political complexion over the period, provide useful areas for debate about the reasons behind the very different outcomes.

After documenting the policies, practices and outcomes over the intervening years in the three countries, we are forcibly reminded that homelessness is a complex issue not just at the personal level, but also within our economic and social systems.