Urban Homelessness Policy in OECD Nations

Homelessness is a public health challenge for modern governments. Homelessness emerged as a formal policy problem for rich nations in the mid- to late 20th century as nations developed stable economies and democracies, including housing and job markets, and social welfare mechanisms to protect citizens from disenfranchisement. In early 21st-century Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations, homelessness arises most often among at-risk or vulnerable populations, such as historically marginalized groups and/or persons with constrained access to welfare state mechanisms, such as immigrants or refugees. Thus, homelessness in OECD nations is very different from informal housing or mass poverty in poor nations and/or non-democratic regimes. Homelessness affects individual and population health, requiring complex policy solutions across multiple domains of health, as well as intergovernmental coordination. Policy responses to homelessness vary across OECD nations in their approach and efficacy. There are four key factors influencing how OECD nations respond to homelessness: (a) the strength and inclusivity of the welfare state; (b) degrees of decentralization in homeless policy governance; (c) the strength, capacity, and inclusivity of the health and behavioral healthcare systems; and (d) the role of federated structures in health and welfare state policy. Overall, nations with weaker welfare states and health/behavioral healthcare systems face greater risks of homelessness. The inclusivity of these systems also shapes who may be eligible for protection or experience homelessness. Local governments, especially those in large metropolitan areas, are the frontline providers of homelessness services. Yet local governments are constrained at both ends: Policies designed, delivered, and funded at larger units of government—such as welfare state provisions—influence many of the determinants of homelessness, such as housing, and the resources available to subnational actors to combat homelessness. Local actors are also constrained by the degree of decentralization. Devolution of homelessness policy to smaller units of government or even solely to nongovernmental actors, through federated mechanisms or decentralization, may create barriers to locally tailored solutions by perpetuating disparities across jurisdictions and/or constraining authority and resources necessary to design or deliver homeless policy.

Homeless Politics in the United States

Public health studies issues and policies implemented and often governed by local-level public health departments. Yet public health policy research emphasizes state and federal relations. Obscuring the role of local politics and in designing and implementing public health policies inaccurately portrays the functioning of public health systems and may lead to incomplete assumptions about the effects of health politics on public health. Homelessness is no exception, with a long history of expanded governing authority for communities and local governments. To understand homeless policy governance, we must draw from theories of urban politics and intergovernmental relations that have been developed to explain social policy. Chapter 2 develops the main theoretical argument of the book: limited coordination between policy interests governing homeless policy and trends of decentralization in homeless policy governance contribute to fewer publicly funded policy alternatives for solutions to chronic homelessness and increases the policy alternatives for private actors.

Homeless Policy as a Policy for Controlling Poverty in Tokyo: Considering the Relationship between Welfare Measures and Punitive Measures

In Japan, the increasing number of homeless people on the streets has been perceived as a social problem since the 1990s, and government policy regarding homeless people has been developed in an attempt to deal with it. This study examines the conditions of homeless people and describes how homeless policy started and developed in Tokyo, using the concept that homeless policy is a mixture of welfare measures and punitive measures. Examining the development process in three periods, it is pointed out that in the case of Tokyo, development of homeless measures has been influenced by the number of homeless people, reactions of homeless movement organizations, and public opinion. From the angle where punitive measures dominate, through to the point where welfare measures are superior, the aspect where punitive measures are dominant again supported by welfare measures.