A Need for Impact Evaluation of Homelessness Interventions in Developing Cities

By: Victoria Natsai Chasi

Edited By: Parmis Mokhtari-Dizaji 

---

Homelessness is estimated to affect 1.1 billion people on the planet,¹ a figure that is likely to rise amid global challenges such as climate change, urbanization, and civic unrest. Other estimates suggest the number could reach 1.6 billion people when including those in inadequate housing, with roughly 150 million people experiencing homelessness.² Without standardized measurement methods, these estimates remain imprecise. 

Homelessness is a phenomenon of social, economic, political and moral importance that has varied definitions across jurisdictions. Policies undertaken by governments at national and local levels impose costs on society, whether through criminalization or housing provision. As such, the public has a legitimate interest in how these policies are made and whether they achieve their intended goals. 

Impact evaluation is a study that measures “the causal impact of the program (or a project or policy) on the outcome of interest to governments and other interested parties.”³ In order for causality to be determined for impact evaluation, a counterfactual must be  identified. A counterfactual is a broader concept than a control group and depends on  the evaluation method used, which may include randomized controlled trials (RCTs), difference-in-differences estimation, matching methods, regression discontinuity design, instrumental variables, control function methods, or quantile regressions.³

Conducting impact evaluations of homelessness interventions can improve measurement practices and promote more accountable policymaking. It also provides greater certainty about the effectiveness of interventions in achieving the goals of reducing or  managing street homelessness through public resources. In this case study, the term intervention is used broadly to mean “intentional action to change a situation, with the aim of improving it or preventing it from getting worse.”⁴ It applies to any structural response to homelessness, including legal interventions such as by-laws. Although legal interventions are not  policies in the strict sense, the paper treats them as policy interventions because laws originate from policy positions. Consequently, one limitation of this paper is that applying impact evaluation to laws would need to be considered before a law is passed, in order to assess the intervention’s impact both before and after its implementation, such as through a discontinuity design. 

Despite these limitations, cities can still be encouraged to conduct analyses of the “total cost of homelessness,” as has been done in Cape Town. Other relevant analyses include “cost per person,” “comparative costs of the homeless versus non-homeless for different services,” and “cost effectiveness” assessments.⁵ The Cape Town total cost analysis, conducted by a local nonprofit, cites similar studies in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Orange County). Reported total costs include USD 6.7 billion in Canada (2013), USD 1.2 billion in the UK (2016), and USD 299 million in Orange County (2016).⁵

A key concern of the international community is the reduction of poverty. SDG 1 aims to end poverty, SDG 2 to end hunger, SDG 3 to promote good health and well-being, and SDG 11 to create sustainable cities and communities. Each of these goals is strongly connected to the global challenge posed by homelessness. In a frequently updated SDG tracker on SDG 11.1.1, UN Habitat notes the limitation that “Indicator 11.1.1 does not capture homelessness.”⁶ The organization explains that the reason for this limitation is that many countries “still have limited capacities for data collection, management and analysis” and that “these are key to ensure national and global data consistency.”

It is not possible to achieve these goals without addressing homelessness as the global phenomenon it is. This challenge presents policymakers, governments, and individuals with a question of integrity that impact evaluation of existing policies on homelessness can help meet.  

Before turning to policy case studies in two developing cities, it is helpful to consider how homelessness is understood, problematized, and represented through policy. In a case study examining Toronto by-laws as a policy response of criminalization,⁷ Owadally and Grundy summarize Bacchi’s structured approach to analyzing any policy based on the representation of the problem it addresses, using six interrelated questions shown in the table below.^{7, 8}

Table 1. Summary of “What is the Problem Represented to Be?” (WPR) Questions and Aims

WPR Questions	WPR Aims
1. What is the “problem” represented to be?	To highlight the dominant problem representation in a given policy.
2. What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the problem?	To uncover entrenched societal values and assumptions that have led to our understanding of a problem.
3. How has this representation of the“problem” come about?	To examine the genealogy of the implied problem representation.
4. What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Can the problem be thought of differently?	To interrogate how a particular problem representation favors certain problematization while precluding others.
5. What effects are produced by this representation of the problem?	To unpack the effects of the problem representation, especially how it may harm certain groups in society.
6. How/ where is this representation of the problem produced, disseminated, and defended? How could it be disrupted?	To examine the means through which a particular problem/representation comes to dominate societal discourse.

Adapted from “Introducing a ‘What’s the Problem Represented to Be?’ Approach to Policy Analysis,” by C. L. Bacchi, in Analysing Policy: What’s the Problem Represented to Be? (pp. 1–24), 2009, Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.: Pearson Education.

In this study,  the problematization of how a policy issue is represented, and how that representation translates into interventions, is combined with impact evaluation to encourage the creation of policies and interventions that align with SDGs 1 and 11, as well as other SDGs, in developing-country contexts.

Are Developing Countries Different?

The rationale behind calling for impact evaluation of homelessness interventions in developing countries stems from the assumption that homelessness may be experienced, and therefore problematized, differently in developing contexts than in developed ones. Since a range of interventions already exist in developing countries, one way to ensure that limited resources are effectively utilized is to measure the extent of their impact. Impact evaluation also introduces evidence-based decision-making into the design of social policies and interventions.

Housing First is an approach that provides homeless individuals with housing without preconditions such as attending treatment or completing tasks before obtaining a right to housing.⁹ Although housing provision is often the primary solution to reducing homelessness, as shown in many developed contexts following the Housing First model, this may not be a sustainable solution in developing contexts. 

Interventions such as shelters and soup kitchens may not achieve the goal of reducing and ending homelessness, but rather of managing it. This paper therefore argues for the need to evaluate existing homelessness interventions. Doing so is an achievable starting point for developing countries before attempting to import housing interventions that may not be feasible to implement or sustain. Subsequent steps could include developing guidelines for impact evaluation, improving measurement methodologies, and conducting evaluations that can inform future policy decisions and intervention designs. 

Before importing housing solutions into developing countries, policymakers and program designers should assess whether the provision of housing truly reduces homelessness in those contexts. While this has been demonstrated in many developed countries, the same may not hold true elsewhere, especially if it is shown that the root causes of homelessness differ. 

Homelessness is defined differently across countries, with terms such as rough-sleeping, housing insecurity, transitional-housing, used interchangeably and in some cases it is not defined at all. Depending on the context, it can include internally or externally displaced people, as in refugee law, and definitions are often determined at the national level. For simplicity, the term homelessness will be used in this proposal to encompass the various dimensions of the  phenomenon. 

The Ruff Institute of Global Homelessness (IGH), in collaboration with researchers, has developed a graded framework for defining homelessness. This framework offers a useful starting point for the present discussion. The focal category of homelessness in this paper is “Category 1: People without accommodation,” which consists of four subcategories:

1. People sleeping on the streets or in other open spaces (such as parks, railway embankments, under bridges on pavement, on riverbanks, in forests, etc.)
2. People sleeping in public roofed spaces or buildings not intended for human habitation (such as bus or railway stations, taxi ranks, derelict buildings, public buildings, etc.)
3. People sleeping in their cars, rickshaws, open fishing boats and other forms of transport.
4. ‘Pavement dwellers’, defined as individuals or households who live in regular spots on the street, usually with some form of makeshift cover. 

Without evaluating the impact of existing interventions, it is difficult to determine whether these interventions will end homelessness or merely manage its symptoms. The aim of this exercise is to assess how close or far existing efforts are from achieving either goal. This exercise does not make normative judgments about the value of interventions that address symptoms of homelessness versus those that address root causes. Rather, it seeks to clarify these distinctions so that future policy decisions can be made with clear objectives. Where possible, it aims to align existing structures toward a unified goal of ending street homelessness.

Types of Homelessness Policy Interventions

Impermanent

Soup kitchens and emergency or transitional shelters are common in both the developed and developing world. In developing countries, which host the majority of the world’s homeless population,¹⁰ interventions such as these often exist in a vacuum that does not clarify their intended outcomes. Do soup kitchens and shelters result in less homelessness? Do they help people transition to stability, or do they perpetuate dependency on street-living? These are the questions that impact evaluation seeks to answer.

Policies designed by cities often straddle the border between permanent and impermanent solutions. Since policies can change as frequently as political priorities do, they are best categorized as impermanent solutions. Given their importance to public administration and implementation, the effects of a particular policy are most keenly felt by those to whom it applies. Applying impact evaluation approaches to policy interventions therefore provides a useful check on their relative impermanence and measures their effectiveness beyond political cycles. 

Permanent

Another category of intervention, best exemplified by the Housing First model, involves an “ intervention” providing housing to individuals experiencing homelessness without requiring them to engage in supportive services before becoming eligible for housing.¹¹ This approach takes the form of permanent supportive housing (PSH),¹² based on the principle that access to housing should not depend on compliance with treatment or performance of certain tasks, as was required in older homelessness intervention models.¹³ Housing First interventions have achieved  significant success in the developed world, where social service systems and census and survey data infrastructures are strong and consistent.

Although more developed countries are beginning to recognize gaps in measuring homelessness and evaluating the effectiveness of homelessness interventions, this awareness has not yet translated into widespread action in developing contexts.

Because of infrastructural and capacity constraints in developing countries, it is distinctly important to evaluate whether resources devoted to homelessness are achieving their intended outcomes. If an intervention is designed as a transitional measure, it should be evaluated based on its ability to help individuals move from life on the streets to stable housing. If it is meant to alleviate  the negative consequences of street living, it should be assessed on how effectively it does so. When  programs do not achieve their stated goals, or make no claims about intended outcomes, impact evaluation can guide policymakers toward better designed and more effective interventions.

Within this category of permanent policy interventions, the use of legal mechanisms to criminalize homelessness can also be viewed as a policy decision. This approach reflects a broader global tendency among cities to use bylaws to regulate the visibility and presence of homeless populations. The interaction between these two types of permanent interventions–rights-based housing and criminalization–is explored in the following section.

Case Studies: Indian and South African Cities

The Ruff Institute of Global Homelessness has successfully implemented Housing First initiatives in developed contexts. More recently, the program has been introduced into developing settings through the Vanguard Program, which was implemented in thirteen cities globally. The expanded program includes permanent supportive housing in Bengaluru, India and Tshwane, South Africa. 

Although not all developing countries criminalize homelessness, and the costs of homelessness are not easily comparable across different developing countries, Bengaluru and Tshwane are significant examples because both cities illustrate a combination of legal criminalization and rights-based Housing First interventions. These cities provide instructive examples for other developing cities seeking to  balance criminalization policies with human rights-based approaches to homelessness. 

Using impact evaluation methodologies is one way to assess the effectiveness of homelessness interventions relative to existing approaches in these cities. This can help develop a clearer understanding of how developing cities’ policy and spending choices reflect their societal values.

Since results from the Vanguard Programme were interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the final report could only note that the pandemic had a positive secondary effect by improving coordination among local actors addressing street homelessness.¹⁰ 

Currently, there are no completed impact evaluations of homelessness interventions in developing countries. Many governments tend to frame homelessness as a failure to adopt a human rights approach¹⁵ to housing or to address housing shortages.^{16, 17} In public discourse, homeless people are often portrayed as lazy, pose health risks, or lacking self-determination.Some argue that cities would thrive economically and socially if homelessness were addressed primarily through the strict enforcement of bylaws.¹⁸

Using Bacchi’s “What is the Problem Represented to Be” (WPR) framework, as summarized by Owadally and Grundy,⁷ homelessness in developing contexts can be represented in several ways:

1. A legality issue. Instead of being treated as a human rights matter, homelessness becomes a question for criminal law.
2. A legacy of nuisance and vagrancy laws. Structural segregation in South African cities, and caste-based consequence in India has contributed to the perception that homeless people are actually at fault for being homeless. 
3. Entrenched by time. Representations by media, business, or cultural influences have reinforced negative views of homelessness over time.
4. Normalized criminal conduct. The fault–based assumption that allows homeless people to be treated as though they are at fault, is left unquestioned. This denies the presumption of innocence and the human and constitutional rights to housing that are entrenched in many constitutions globally. Similarly, the persistence of criminalization interventions assumes it is cheaper and easier to criminalize homelessness than to provide housing. 
5. Consequences of legality. Using legality to reinforce a fault-based assumption about the causes of homelessness may lead to outcomes such as underfinancing of Housing First initiatives, higher eviction rates of homeless individuals, and the continuation of the cycle of criminalization. 
6. A health, business,and tourism concern. The problem is often represented by business and public health actors as an issue affecting urban life, tourism, and economic activity.²⁰ 

Impact evaluation can challenge these representations by introducing a theory of change and counterfactual design that measures whether public resources genuinely reduce homelessness. Through such evidence-based approaches, cities can address the  structural and visible dimensions of homelessness while upholding human rights.

Studies have shown that providing permanent supportive housing is often a more cost-effective alternative to the criminalization of homelessness.¹¹ Criminalization remains a pervasive global response, as seen in Toronto’s bylaws targeting homeless populations.⁹ Similar laws exist in Cape Town, Tshwane, Mumbai, and Delhi,¹⁴ as well as across India’s twenty-two  states and union territories through anti-beggary laws rooted in old English vagrancy and encroachment laws.¹¹ The Indian city by-laws, in particular, are modeled after the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act 1959. 

Indian Cities

The Bombay Prevention of Begging Act of 1959 (hereafter, “the Bombay Act”) established criminalization as the dominant response to homelessness or perceived homelessness in India. In the 1990s case of Manjula Sen v Maharashtra State, a sixteen-year-old shoe polisher was arrested for begging after falling asleep at work. His age was falsified as nineteen, and no verification was made before or after arrest.¹⁴ Although concerns were raised about the injustice of the Act, no amendments have been made to date. Under the Act and its enforcement by police, visible poverty is often sufficient for detention and conviction without due process.¹⁴ 

The 2018 Harsh Mander v, Union of India judgment by the Delhi High Court was a landmark decision that struck down the most punitive provisions of the Act, finding it unconstitutional for violating the rights of homeless individuals. Nevertheless, some of the most insidious parts of the Act remain largely in force through equivalent laws in  other states.¹⁴ As a result, Indian states that continue to follow the Bombay Act’s precedent bear the enforcement costs and social consequences of criminalizing poverty. 

The City of Bengaluru, is located in one such state — Karnataka —  where the Karnataka Prohibition of Beggary Act of 1975 is in force as modelled after the Bombay Act and likewise effectively criminalizes poverty and perceived homelessness.¹⁴ It should be of interest for researchers to consider the fact that the same state that implements a sister structure to the Bombay Act also has a city where a Housing First initiative is implemented. Much could be learned by taking note of and evaluating the Housing First interventions in Bengaluru.

In Bengaluru, the Vanguard Program set a target of 25 percent reduction in street homelessness. Enumerators measured a baseline in December 2018 and a midpoint in November 2019, but there was no endpoint measured due to the COVID-19 pandemic. From the baseline to the midpoint, a 24 percent reduction in homelessness was observed, but the pandemic introduced uncertainty and prevented the collection of an endpoint measurement.¹⁴ 

Regardless of intent, without a proper discontinuity design or other counterfactual methodology, the baseline and endpoint measurements alone cannot be considered an impact evaluation for the purposes of this study, leaving uncertainty in the case of Bengaluru.

South African Cities

South African cities face several kinds of homelessness interventions, both permanent and impermanent. In Tshwane, formally known as Pretoria, the 1984 “Pretoria City Council adopted by-laws relating to public order and places [that prohibit…] camping, washing, begging,  playing an instrument or singing for profit, and conducting trade without the permission of the Council.”¹⁷ 

Given that these laws were passed under Apartheid, the 2005 City Of Tshwane By-Laws Relating To Public Amenities claimed to repeal preexisting by-laws.¹⁸ However Killander rightly notes that the new by-laws still consider it an offense to “lay down on any seat in a public amenity […] defined as “any public place, excluding any public road or street which is the property of, or is possessed, controlled or leased by a council and to which the general public has access, whether on payment of admission fees or not.” The lack of specificity about which laws were repealed is compounded by the fact that fines are still available under the 2006 fine schedule for by-law policing.¹⁷ The 2005 by-law itself calls for a fine or, in default of payment, imprisonment for up to twelve months.¹⁸ 

In addition to by-laws, there are homelessness policies in place in Tshwane. Impact evaluation may provide a possible answer to the stalemate seen in both the Tshwane Homelessness Policy adopted in 2013 and the Policy and Strategy on Street Homelessness in the City of Tshwane approved in 2019, both of which lacked implementation budgets.²⁰ 

The 2013 policy defines homeless individuals as “all people living on the streets who fall outside a viable social network of assistance and who are not able to provide themselves with shelter at a given time and place.”²⁰ Despite this policy framework, Mgwedli notes that “the first City of Tshwane policy could not be implemented due to a lack of budget, the shelter deteriorated, and an attempt to evict the homeless persons.”¹⁹ Since the policy left room for legal eviction as a response to homelessness, it was arguably  not robust enough to support its target population. 

Although the second policy, initiated by the city’s Executive Mayor and drafted in collaboration with the City of Tshwane, the University of Pretoria, the University of South Africa, and the Tshwane Homelessness Forum,²⁰ was approved in 2019, it too was not allocated a budget.¹⁹ 

The 2019 policy notes institutional challenges, the first three of fourteen being: “3.2.1 The lack of an adequate budget and strategy to ensure implementation of the Policy; 3.2.2 The lack of a coherent homelessness policy and strategy at the regional and national government levels; and 3.2.3 A lack of appropriate by-laws, the way in which implementation of by-laws dehumanize homeless people, and the lack of alignment between different departments of the City of Tshwane and different law enforcement agencies.”²⁰ Despite efforts to address the conditions that led to evictions from the deteriorated 2005 city-run shelter,¹⁹ these challenges raise questions about how a Housing First implementation would differ. 

It is not possible to ignore the costs of implementation in developing countries, especially when budget constraints are a clear and continual challenge. The cornerstone of the Housing First process is that the housing offered must be permanent. Without long-term financial commitment, such efforts become ineffective. 

Therefore, the Tshwane case serves as an example for cities with by-laws and policies on homelessness. Perhaps, like the City of Cape Town, cities may have affordable housing or shelter structures but have not committed to Housing First interventions. At this stage, cities should consider both cost analyses and impact evaluations of any subsequent law or policy intervention related to homelessness.

Where the City of Cape Town has excelled is in calculating the cost of criminalizing homelessness relative to the costs of shelters, social services, and municipal and provincial spending. This analysis, conducted by a local NGO, provides a model for other cities.⁶  When a full impact evaluation is not feasible, cost analysis can serve as the best available option. For cities considering new homelessness laws, using a  counterfactual design such as regression discontinuity should occur before a law is passed. 

In Tshwahe, the Vanguard Program did not conduct an impact evaluation. The program aimed to achieve a 50 percent reduction in homelessness,³ but its outcome variable relied on outdated 2011 national census data, and no sampling frame was provided.³ No reliable data were collected as a baseline, midpoint, or endpoint.³ The lack of reliable outcome information should encourage researchers to pursue a proper impact evaluation structure. 

Recently, a qualitative study examined a Housing First initiative in Tshwane, focusing on the quality of life of adults aged fifty and older in Housing First facilities.¹⁹ This research could be further strengthened by measuring the effectiveness of the intervention from the beneficiaries’ perspective. However, it was not an impact evaluation because it lacked a theory of change, a counterfactual group, and pre- and post-treatment measurements. Participants in Housing First facilities could only be compared with one another using surveys on a Likert scale to determine their own perception of the initiative. No baseline was measured, and as such, there was no pre- and post-treatment evaluation of the impact of living in Housing First facilities. 

For comparable efficacy and impact to be determined in developing cities, more studies using an impact evaluation framework are needed. Researchers will need to define an ethical and sufficiently large sampling frame that establishes a counterfactual structure in order to determine causality. In the Tshwane study of older adults, the sampling methodology relied on program coordinators selecting eligible participants, who then opted in. In addition to the small sample size (n=38), which limits the generalizability of the results, it is unclear whether the coordinators’ selection was a random sample of the population receiving the benefit and over age fifty. Moreover, since there was no assigned group of people who did not receive the benefit, the study cannot be considered an impact evaluation.¹⁹

The City of Cape Town has two bylaws of particular relevance to homeless people: the 2009 Integrated Waste Management By-Law (hereafter, “Integrated Waste By-Law”)¹⁸ and the 2007 Streets, Public Places and the Prevention of Noise Nuisances By-Law (hereafter, “Streets By-Law”). The preamble to the former emphasizes creating social development and a healthy environment for individuals and ensuring access to services for “all residents, organisations, institutions, businesses, visitors or tourists and government departments.”¹⁸ Prohibited conduct under the Integrated Waste By-Law may result in a fine and/or imprisonment for no longer than five years and/or the confiscation of property described as “litter or dumping.”¹⁸ 

The preamble to the Streets By-Law uses legacy language from nuisance and vagrancy laws, stating that the city makes and administers by-laws “for the effective administration of such matters as the control of public nuisances, municipal roads, public places, traffic and parking; [… and because] aggressive, threatening, abusive or obstructive behaviour of persons in public is unacceptable to the city.”¹⁹ By framing homelessness as a public nuisance and makeshift shelters as “obstructive behaviour,” the city effectively criminalizes being homeless rather than taking a human rights-based approach to reducing the incidence of homelessness by applying itself to find sustainable solutions.

The Streets By-Law prohibits blocking, occupying, or reserving public parking spaces, as well as begging, standing, sitting or lying in a public place (inclusive of the 2021 amendment). It also prohibits urinating or bathing except inside a toilet, bath, or shower—activities that are difficult to avoid doing publicly when one lacks shelter or access to adequate public facilities.¹⁹ The by-law imposes a fine or imprisonment for no longer than six months for violations. The discretion granted to the police, as the implementing arm of the city, to arrest or exempt individuals from the by-law’s provisions is arguably overly broad. These by-laws remain in effect and exhibit the same characteristics that justified striking down sections of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act in Delhi, India. 

Although the City of Cape Town provides affordable housing and shelter structures, there has not yet been a Housing First intervention in the city. Before implementing one, the city should consider conducting an impact evaluation study with clearly defined outcomes, a sampling frame, and a counterfactual design. Failing which, the city could estimate the cost per person in a provincial jail compared with the cost of providing a shelter bed, hospital care, rental supplement, or social housing—similar to the Canadian study that found social housing to be the most affordable  option at $199.92 per month, followed by rental supplements at $701, a shelter bed at $1,932, a provincial jail stay at $4,333, and a hospital bed at $10,900.⁶

To date, process evaluations have been the dominant mode of assessing homelessness interventions globally.²⁰ Process evaluations examine how a  policy is implemented rather than the extent of its impact on beneficiaries compared to non-beneficiaries. As Housing First interventions expand to developing countries, their impacts will need to be evaluated more rigorously. One paper proposed an approach to evaluate transitional housing programs in South Africa,²⁰ but this lacked a counterfactual design. Pauly draws on findings from early 2000s research in South Africa and concludes that “people will re-enter the cycle of homelessness unless there is a supply of affordable housing.” While this may hold true, it fails to account for the complexity of local housing supply constraints in South Africa. 

South Africa’s historic legacy of Apartheid continues to shape the geographic stratification of its cities, as noted in the 2019 Tshwane policy.²⁰ To date, many South Africans are still waiting for  the state to fulfill its promise to restore homes to those displaced during Apartheid over 31 years ago. Since this promise remains unrealized, resource constraints and political will are needed to address homelessness through targeted, impact-driven policies grounded in present realities. Neither the need to restore homes, nor the need to house the currently homeless can be ignored, yet priorities, processes, and budgets remain opaque. Impact evaluation could clarify these trade-offs and inform evidence-based policymaking in developing cities with competing resource demands, such as those in South Africa.

Conclusion

The case studies of Indian and South African cities discussed in this paper demonstrate that current homelessness interventions, whether based on criminalization or aspirational Housing First models, are operating without sufficient evidence of causal impact in developing cities. This lack of rigorous evaluation means that limited public resources are being spent without a clear understanding of whether they are maintaining the status quo by managing the symptoms of homelessness or creating measurable reductions in its incidence.

To move toward accountable governance, developing cities must adopt a culture of impact evaluation. Impact evaluation provides the most robust tool for assessing the efficacy of interventions by defining clear outcomes, establishing a theory of change, and using a counterfactual structure. As exemplified by the incomplete and inconsistent data collection in Tshwane and Bengaluru, impact evaluation must be integrated into program design from the outset.

When a full impact evaluation is not immediately feasible, policymakers should at minimum commission a comprehensive cost analysis. Quantifying the financial trade-offs between the costs of criminalization—such as policing and incarceration—and the costs of social support, including permanent housing, shelters, and health services, as done by the Cape Town NGO, is essential for informed budgeting. The high costs of maintaining the status quo can demonstrate that human rights-based solutions are also the most fiscally responsible ones.

Ultimately, achieving international goals such as SDGs 1 and 11 requires policymakers to treat homelessness not only as a human rights concern but as a policy priority. Prioritizing impact evaluation is essential for developing cities to ensure that resources are targeted effectively and to enable them to navigate political, historical, and cultural complexities in building policies that reflect the realities faced by their most vulnerable citizens.

---

Works Cited

1. Speak, Suzanne. 2019. “The State of Homelessness in Developing Countries.” Paper presented at the Annals in Expert Group Meeting on Affordable Housing and Social Protection Systems for All to Address Homelessness, Newcastle University, England.
2. Obioha, Emeka E. 2019. “Addressing Homelessness through Public Works Programmes in South Africa.”
3. Glewwe, Paul, and Petra Todd. 2022. Impact Evaluation in International Development: Theory, Methods, and Practice. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
4. Cambridge Dictionary. 2025. “Intervention.” September 24. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/intervention. 
5. Hopkins, Jonathan, et al. 2021. The Cost of Homelessness: Cape Town. Cape Town: U-Turn. https://homeless.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/THE-COST-OF-HOMELESSNESS-CAPE-TOWN-_Full-Report_Web.pdf. 
6. UN-Habitat. 2021. SDG Indicator Metadata. United Nations Human Settlements Programme. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-11-01-01.pdf. 
7. Owadally, Tasneem, and Quinn Grundy. 2023. “From a Criminal to a Human-Rights Issue: Re-Imagining Policy Solutions to Homelessness.” Policy, Politics & Nursing Practice 24 (3): 178–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/15271544231176255. 
8. Bacchi, Carol. 2009. Analysing Policy: What’s the Problem Represented to Be? Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson.
9. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Permanent Supportive Housing: Evaluating the Evidence for Improving Health Outcomes among People Experiencing Chronic Homelessness. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
10. Fitzpatrick, Suzanne, et al. 2022. Ending Street Homelessness in Vanguard Cities across the Globe: An International Comparative Study. Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University.
11. Krishnan, Sanjana. 2025. “Disabling Criminalization of the Homeless via Begging Prevention Laws in Cities: A Case for Contemporary Maharashtra, India.” Oxford Development Studies 53 (2): 176–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600818.2025.2487709. 
12. Tipple, G., and S. Speak. 2003. The Nature and Extent of Homelessness in Developing Countries. London: DFID.
13. Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment. 2025. “No Authentic Data on Beggars.” September 5. https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=67734. 
14. Killander, Magnus. 2019. “Criminalising Homelessness and Survival Strategies through Municipal By-Laws: Colonial Legacy and Constitutionality.” South African Journal on Human Rights 35 (1): 70–93. 
15. City of Tshwane. 2005. “By-Laws Relating to Public Amenities.” https://www.ierm.org.za/ByLawsPublicAmenities%20Tshwane.pdf. 
16. Mgwedli, Merriam, Stephan Geyer, and Gretel Crafford. 2025. “The Quality of Life of South African Homeless Adults Aged 50 and Older in Housing First Facilities: Implications for Service Delivery.” International Journal on Homelessness 5 (2): 238–57. https://doi.org/10.5206/ijoh.2023.3.20171. 
17. City of Tshwane. 2015. “Street Homelessness Policy for the City of Tshwane.” https://tshwanehomelessresearch.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/policystrategydraft2015-aug.pdf. 
18. City of Cape Town. 2009. “Integrated Waste Management By-Law.” https://resource.capetown.gov.za/documentcentre/Documents/Bylaws%20and%20policies/Integrated%20Waste%20Management%20By-law%202009.pdf. 
19. City of Cape Town. 2007. “Streets, Public Places and the Prevention of Noise Nuisances By-Law.” https://openbylaws.org.za/akn/za-cpt/act/by-law/2007/streets-public-places-noise-nuisances/eng@2022-02-14.
20. Pauly, Bernie, Bruce Wallace, and Kathleen Perkin. 2014. “Approaches to Evaluation of Homelessness Interventions.” Housing, Care and       Support 17 (4): 177–87.

---

Author Bio

Victoria Natsai Chasi is a recent Master of Public Administration graduate from Cornell University. As a tech founder and former United Nations advisor, her research bridges technology, international development, and social policy. She focuses on AI and AR infrastructure and ethics in low-resource contexts, data partnerships for underrepresented languages, and scalable social policy on homelessness—tailored to public capacity in emerging economies.