OPINION - Britain likes to think it's not as bad as America on homelessness: is that so justified?

family silhouette in back lighting

Brits can feel superior to their American cousins when it comes to homelessness. London streets do not compare to San Francisco’s. As for attitude, the US can make us look positively enlightened — even liberal folk make “homeless guys” the butt of their jokes, and sermonise on the “bad choices” that put people in this terrible position. Brits, by contrast, are quicker to accept the idea that the market is not faultless, that a run of bad luck, or mental illness, or the need to flee domestic violence can start a spiral that ends with life on the streets. To Brits, Americans fret over a problem for which there is a ready solution: the welfare state.

But our surface-level progress masks a bigger problem. It is true that Britain does not have as large a proportion of rough sleepers as many other countries in the developed world. That said, this figure is rising, particularly in London. A record 4,000 rough sleepers were counted in the capital between July and September last year.

But far larger in Britain are the numbers languishing in emergency housing — a problem for which we rank the worst in the developed world. One in 200 households live in temporary accommodation. Much of this is concentrated in the capital. The London Councils umbrella group say homelessness is “skyrocketing”, up some 14 per cent in a year. This takes in some 175,000 people — around one in 50 — and includes 85,000 children. A recent report by the London Assembly paints a grim picture of this precarious lifestyle: some four in 10 children in temporary accommodation do not have their own bed. Some families are living in commercial property — badly converted — in industrial areas, far from high streets or bus stops.

These tend to be poorly insulated, and therefore noisy and difficult to keep warm. Case studies found overcrowding, mould, and cockroach infestations. Many people did not have anywhere to eat outside the bedroom.

We rank the worst in the developed world for people living in emergency housing

“We have a family that was living in a rat-infested property,” reported one charity worker. “They had to move into a kitchen with their seven-month-old baby [who] had to stay in their travel cot because they could not move around the accommodation. I have pictures of rats and mice in their food, and it stunted the baby’s growth.”

Another problem is the constant risk you will be moved on. Shelter estimates two thirds are moved with less than 48 hours’ notice, disrupting jobs, children’s schooling, and removing people from support networks and caring responsibilities. It is hard to build a life when it could be deconstructed at any moment. Those on local waiting lists — for example for mental healthcare — have to start again at the bottom in their new area. This might be why people in temporary accommodation are more likely to turn up in accident and emergency waiting rooms.

In this way people are trapped in a life they are trying to get out of. Some develop addictions to cope with the constant emotional upheaval. Sometimes people are moved a great distance. This week we heard that Brent council is sending dozens of homeless families to live in the Buckinghamshire countryside, due to London’s “eyewatering” rents. Over 12 months, some 74 families were placed in temporary accommodation in the towns of High Wycombe and Wendover, kicking off a struggle between councils as they shunt people back and forth.

This gets to the other side of the problem — it is expensive. London councils spend a combined £90 million every month on temporary accommodation, a figure which is reportedly pushing some close to bankruptcy. Some have taken to begging the Government to lift the cap on the money they can get for emergency housing, which is still tied to benefit rates from 2011.

But prevention is better than cure, and we already know how this can be done. Britain’s problem with homelessness is linked directly with its lack of homes. Rents have increased beyond the point of affordability for many, particularly in London. Building more houses, and increasing the supply of social housing, would help plug the gap. As would more financial support for those who cannot afford rent. This would save us money. So why don’t we do it?

Britain shares a blind spot with America when it comes to homelessness: we are suffering a problem for which there is a solution. Shunting people, expensively, from temporary place to temporary place is no answer.

Martha Gill is an Evening Standard columnist

Register now for one of the Evening Standard’s newsletters. From a daily news briefing to Homes & Property insights, plus lifestyle, going out, offers and more. For the best stories in your inbox, click here.