Cameron Parsell is Associate Professor with the School of Social Science at the University of Queensland (UQ). His primary area of research is poverty, homelessness, social services, and charity aimed at addressing social disadvantage. He is a UQ Development Fellow and former Australian Research Council Fellow. Cameron is the Associate Editor of the Australian Journal of Social Issues. He is the co-chief investigator on several national studies that examine the nature and outcomes of newly emerging models of intervention directed toward permanently ending homelessness. Cameron has written about identity, the meaning of home, the international transfer of homelessness/housing policy, and housing as a means to foster autonomy and self-determination. He is currently examining different models and practices of social service delivery. Cameron’s research seeks to build an evidence base about the interacting societal, social policy, social program and agency dimensions to human change. Cameron is particularly interested in conducting ethnographic research, with a focus on policy and practice translation. Most recently Cameron authored The Homeless Person in Contemporary Society: Identities, Agency, and Choice.
In speaking to attendees of the Queensland Youth Housing Coalition’s Platform 1225 Forum in early April, Cameron spoke about homelessness as our poverty of ambition and joked about having a license to be provocative in taking Housing Minister Mick De Brenni’s lead. Earlier that day Minister De Brenni called on all in the sector to be bold, brave and raise their voices. “I will never stop listening to young people in Queensland about social inclusion. If we’re getting it wrong please let me know. We’ve built a partnership here, so when you talk, I have to listen.” Minister De Brenni noted how important having safe, secure and sustainable housing to call home is in building a future, engaging in education and employment and community. He called on those attending Platform 1225 to “have the tough conversations, think big and you’ll have my full support.”
Cameron noted that the responsibility for homelessness and those disenfranchised and excluded is on all of us. Particularly those of us who are privileged enough to work in academic circles, organisations and governments. When we see people who are homeless as the same as us then what we do would be the same as what we want for ourselves. “Everyone is the same as us and we have to ensure our response to them is the same social response we’d ask for ourselves.” That was Cameron’s core message. From that message, he took attendees on a journey of understanding the way in which we respond to homelessness and social exclusion and posed many more questions:
Why are we not ending homelessness?
Do we have the technical and policy knowledge? Is there the political will? Can it be ethically justified?
How much will it cost? Even if we answer yes to all of the above will it cost us too much?
In reality, Cameron asserted that 1 year living on the streets (living rough) costs us $48,217 per person yet 1 year living in permanent supportive housing (a tenancy, not as a client) costs us $35,117.
Cameron is clear that technical knowledge is not our problem, we have the knowledge to prevent and end homelessness. Yet it persists.
Homelessness persists because we accept it. Cameron rejects the notion that clients are complex and instead sees systems as complex and exclusive. In his assertions he rejects the proposition that people are not housing ready and questions the Vulnerability Index Tool and screening in the hardest to house. He notes that chronic homelessness and housing exclusion exist because our systems and practices are too complex, or at least too inflexible.
Cameron noted that assertive street outreach is purposeful if we’re out there on the streets with the sole intention to house the homeless and move them off the streets. The injustice begins if we only aim to clear the public realm. He is clear that if people had options as a tenant then they would choose a tenancy. However, we need to work with the individual about their needs and respond accordingly.
“From studies in Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney, we know we can end homelessness. When people get into housing, they speak of having a home – because now they have a space that is theirs, they are part of society and that increases their sense of self. Wellbeing and mental health improve.”
Controversially, Cameron argues that we don’t need to fix the causes of homelessness to end it. The model below outlines how he believes we can holistically respond to and prevent homelessness:
“Ending homelessness doesn’t mean curing what we feel may have caused their homelessness. We know the front-line staff make the difference. This model is used to prevent tenancy failure by incorporating psychosocial, health, housing and external services with a clear communication flow and integrated collaboration. “This model is very successful in preventing people from falling out of housing.”
All responses need to be preventative and acknowledge that chronic homelessness and long-term marginalisation in later life is linked to childhood poverty and trauma. Homelessness exists and we don’t end it because of policy and policy inaction. Macro-economic forces are not the strongest contributor, rather policy, including policy inaction, contributes to rising homelessness. Policy change holds the key to ending homelessness. “It isn’t macro-economic changes, recession or global financial crisis. It is policy. The economy has a small influence. Policies across sectors including youth justice, child protection, housing and welfare are what is needed,” Cameron asserts. The Australian Homelessness Monitor similarly concludes that policy is both the cause of and solution to homelessness.
Cameron further states that rhetoric about homelessness as a wicked problem justifies our inaction. “We can’t do anything because it’s just too complex. Wicked policy problems emphasise the complexity of the individual, at the expense of normative decisions about access to, or the withholding of, resources.”
Cameron critiqued the dignity first model as a response to homelessness. “With the best of intentions what is occurring is the acceptance of homelessness and small responses to homeless people such as clothes washing or showering facilities. At a systems level we set our expectations too low and that normalises homelessness. We need to build and provide housing. Whilst these dignity first options are trying to do something useful, in a way that’s counterproductive. That good will could be redirected. Good intentions aren’t necessarily sufficient. We need to focus on housing first.”
Cameron observed that through his research, people who were housed changed because their lives changed. The changes came at a fiscally less onerous cost to the tax payer. Access to housing and resources was the key: “If we withhold resources from people it costs us significantly more.”
Homelessness arises from our poverty of ambition. Cameron was clear that it’s a societal problem, not just a government issue. “Most of my work has been with adults and they’ve been homeless and marginalised most of their life from birth – poverty, trauma, out of home care and so on. We need to think about the social conditions and seeds early on in life that contribute to homelessness. Housing first is a philosophy. We need to work from the premise people can choose. People don’t want service providers in their life. What is our exit strategy? We need to think of normality and what comes out of the service system.”