Why Advocates Should Re-frame Homelessness as a Human Rights Violation

Homelessness is a violation of a person's inherent right to housing. If this concept sounds startling, that's probably because you haven't heard it before. The 'Housing as a Human Right' paradigm is the most powerful - and under-utilized - advocacy approach to combating homelessness. If we want to achieve dramatic, systematic changes necessary to ending homelessness, perhaps we should consider radically re-framing the issue itself.

What defines a "human rights" issue? The idea that the simple fact of being, well, alive guarantees certain protections. You might associate human rights with broader issues, like the right to life and liberty. But in other parts of the globe, it's common for "human rights" to encompass social and economic rights - including housing, the right to a job, and access to food.

Although our current homelessness crisis may indicate otherwise, the U.S. has ratified several notable documents that embrace housing as a human right and a national priority. In the 1949 Housing Act, Congress articulated a National Housing Goal of "a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family." The 1948 United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, while not legally binding, calls for a right to adequate housing. The United States signed the declaration and has signed and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The National Economic and Social Rights Initiative also lists six additional documents that protect the right to housing.

The human rights framework is a powerful advocacy tool. It correctly frames housing as a necessity for one's safety and well-being. It places a moral obligation on lawmakers and members of the community to see that all individuals are rightfully given access to something that is a basic necessity. Furthermore, it removes housing from pool of issues fighting for priority. It elevates it to its rightful level of importance on the policy agenda.

The "housing as a human right" approach has been used by homeless advocates in some parts of the country, like New York City and Chicago. But lately, advocacy efforts have favored economic arguments over the human rights approach. It's cheaper to put people in housing, they say. Homeless prevention is less straining on our system.

Sure, the cost-benefit arguments are compelling for short-term changes, such as facilitating the paradigm shift from a shelter-based system to one that favors prevention/rapid-rehousing. But it is very possible these same cost-benefit arguments will undermine success in achieving the sweeping systematic changes that are necessary to tackle the root causes of homelessness. It may not be cheaper to make healthcare more accessible, or increase our nation's stock of affordable housing. But these are a few of the issues that we need to tackle if we are ever to realistically eradicate homelessness.

I don't think anyone who has experienced homelessness or worked with the homeless will argue that housing is not necessary for a healthy, fulfilling life. We believe it is a human rights issue, but we have adopted rhetoric that has seemed to work historically. And to our disadvantage, I believe. We don't hear free speech advocates arguing that allowing people to practice self-expression is cheaper than the enforcement necessary to shut them up. These types of arguments undermine the sanctity and importance of the deeper human rights issue.

Perhaps it is impractical to suggest homeless advocates take a radically different approach to tackling homelessness. But if it is radical change we are looking for, I think such a paradigm should be carefully considered. It may not happen overnight, but I think the idea - that housing is a basic human right - is too good to let pass.

Image from Farm4's public Flickr photo stream.