As of 2024, more than 2 million people in OECD and EU countries were experiencing homelessness each year. With the COVID‑19 crisis renewing attention to the issue, there is growing momentum to improve how governments measure and respond to homelessness.

The OECD Toolkit to Combat Homelessness provides guidance for policy makers to prevent people from becoming homeless, support people who are experiencing homelessness, and provide sustainable pathways out of homelessness. It is organised around nine building blocks, which together support policy makers to design integrated, people‑centred, housing-led strategies. Policy makers do not need to address all blocks at once. Depending on the country context, they can focus first on the most pressing priorities.

Block 1 – Strategies, stakeholders and inclusion. More than half of OECD and EU countries have national homelessness strategies in place. Effective strategies define and assess the scale and scope of homelessness; set measurable targets to reduce homelessness; co‑ordinate initiatives across relevant policy domains (including housing, health, and social protection); and embed systematic monitoring and evaluation into the policy making process. In developing national strategies, policy makers should meaningfully engage diverse stakeholders, including people and institutions within and outside government and people with lived experience of homelessness. The Toolkit’s nine building blocks provide a useful framework for strategy development, grounded in integrated, people‑centred approaches that safeguard the rights of people experiencing homelessness.

Block 2 – Measurement: Definitions, data and drivers. Reliable homelessness data enable policy makers to monitor trends, allocate resources efficiently, and develop evidence‑based policies. Yet methodological challenges stymie homelessness measurement and cross-country comparison. Data collection should be designed to meet a pre‑defined policy purpose and follow a clear, consistent statistical definition, where feasible drawing on the ETHOS Light Typology (a widely used framework to assess and compare homelessness based on different living situations). Disaggregating data by relevant socio-demographic characteristics and assessing the structural, institutional and/or individual drivers of homelessness can bolster prevention measures and facilitate tailored policy supports. Governments should also establish a standardised, consistent data collection and monitoring system, which may draw on multiple approaches. More guidance to strengthen measurement, including a self-assessment tool, is in the OECD Monitoring Framework: Measuring Homelessness in OECD and EU countries.

Block 3 – Monitoring and Evaluation. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) processes strengthen governments’ capacity to develop policies grounded in evidence of what works. Systematic M&E in the homelessness sector remains rare, representing a clear gap in understanding the most effective policies and programmes. Robust M&E frameworks should begin by identifying policy objectives, indicators, and the baseline context, with pre‑determined timeframes to carry out evaluations. This includes setting aside dedicated resources to establish and sustain the process throughout the policy life cycle. Training and partnerships with academia and/or the private sector can improve in-house M&E skills. Results from M&E processes should be designed before policy interventions and incorporated in policy-making processes, including by adapting existing measures to improve policy impact.

Block 4 – Prioritising prevention. Prevention is one of the most effective tools to address homelessness, but is too often under-resourced and underutilised. Leveraging existing social policies and housing supports (including social protection schemes and affordable and social housing) and addressing imbalances between property owners and tenants in the private rental market can be first steps to strengthen prevention efforts. More needs to be done to generalise upstream prevention through targeted, timely support to high-risk groups, such as vulnerable youth and individuals leaving institutional settings. There is also scope to scale up efforts to support people in crisis, including through eviction prevention measures. To prevent rough sleeping, emergency accommodation options should be accessible and safe for people of all backgrounds. The potential for novel approaches to prevention, such as those relying on artificial intelligence (including machine learning) and big data sources, should be further explored.

Block 5 – Long-term housing solutions: Housing-led and Housing First. Housing-led and Housing First approaches – which provide unconditional, long-term housing for people experiencing homelessness, and (in the case of Housing First) relevant wraparound services – are central to the paradigm shift away from emergency accommodation. There is broad consensus and strong evidence that such solutions are an effective, resource‑efficient pathway to housing stability in a broad variety of contexts, even if there are short-term costs to securing long-term housing. While housing-led approaches are gaining ground and, in some countries, form the backbone of government policy, there is scope to scale up implementation. Governments can set regional targets, make better use of the existing housing supply, and monitor outcomes and cost savings. Housing-led schemes should be tailored to consider the needs of specific groups (e.g. women, youth, people who identify as LGBTI).

Block 6 – Low barrier, tailored services. Governments should do more to help people experiencing homelessness access the social and health services they need. In light of the vast differences in the type and intensity of service needs of people experiencing homelessness, a timely needs-assessment can identify relevant supports at an individual level. Eliminating administrative, logistical, and social barriers to mainstream health and social services should be prioritised, including by training service providers and co‑ordinating and/or co-locating health and social services. Facilitating access to low-barrier medical services (such as Overdose Prevention Centres and street medicine) has also proven effective. Job training and sustained employment support may help expand job opportunities for people who are able to work.

Block 7 – Funding and financing. Homelessness entails high human and financial costs. Governments may fund homelessness interventions by other actors (e.g. lower levels of government, NGOs), and/or may seek funding (e.g. from supra-national, philanthropic or private entities) for housing and homelessness programmes. As funders, governments should align funding and incentive structures with clear policy objectives; remove bottlenecks to long-term, integrated projects that combine housing and service elements; and mandate M&E as part of funding obligations. As fundraisers, governments at all levels should map potential funding sources and technical assistance needs; develop a pipeline of projects; and address technical assistance gaps within local governments and homelessness services.

Block 8 – Leadership, co‑ordination, and capacity. Homelessness policies span diverse policy areas and engage many actors within and outside government. Nevertheless, services tend to be fragmented and under-resourced. Governments should establish a clear policy lead on homelessness, with the necessary mandate, capacity, and resources, and clarify roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders. Better service co‑ordination, both horizontally (across policy areas) and vertically (across levels of government), can be encouraged through case managers, single entry points, and information sharing systems. Improving working conditions, training, and other support to local governments and frontline staff should also be prioritised, given their vital role in homelessness service delivery.

Block 9 – The political economy of reform. Homelessness is a policy area that is ripe for reform. Governments can elevate the issue on the political agenda by strengthening the evidence base, assessing the scale and scope of the challenge, and monitoring public interventions to identify “what works”. Strategic, evidence‑based communication can engage, inform, and mobilise the public, while facilitating further research and policy development. Individuals and civil society organisations have a role to play by raising the profile of homelessness support policies, encouraging the expansion of social and affordable housing, and holding government accountable. Broad-based coalitions, along with homelessness “champions”, can help depoliticise the issue and reinforce policy continuity beyond electoral cycles.

While the Toolkit presents the latest available homelessness research to provide a strong foundation for evidence‑based policy making, important evidence gaps in the homelessness sector nonetheless remain. This is notably the case in terms of data collection, M&E, and cost-effectiveness research. Addressing these gaps will go a long way to support efforts to end homelessness in OECD and EU countries.