Shelter beds are not a long-term solution to homelessness - IOL

Malixole Sikhungo is a freelance researcher based in Cape Town. Drawing from lived experience on the streets and professional roles in the non-profit and corporate-commercial law sectors, his research blends rigorous constitutional analysis with street-survival dynamics to advocate for systemic housing reform.

Could institutional frameworks be designed to sustain, rather than solve, South Africa's homelessness crisis?

As political parties push high-stakes promises ahead of the upcoming local government election campaigns, public debate fails to tackle a critical question. Why do funding models inherently perpetuate a homelessness turnstile? Could it be that service providers are just as captured by the system as the unhoused residents themselves?

This is just a glimpse of the conversations we used to have while trying to catch some sleep on the cobbled doorstep of St George’s Cathedral. This piece invites readers to look past our sidewalks and confront this cul-de-sac head-on. Otherwise, we remain trapped between state authorities and silenced residents.

Not long ago, I was moving in and out of Cape Town’s shelters, using substance abuse as a coping mechanism. Without formal rehabilitation, I broke those habits, returned to academia, and completed an LLB degree with double-digit distinctions. Armed with lived experience and professional stints in both the non-profit and corporate-commercial law sectors, I am uniquely positioned to analyse this crisis.

Street-level service providers perform vital work, I can vouch for their dedication. However, the financial system within which they operate is fundamentally broken.

When state departments tie funding directly to bed-night tallies, they unintentionally transform human trauma into a commodity. An over-reliance on such funding forces non-profits to prioritise metric-driven outputs over actual empowerment.

If a service provider successfully erases homelessness within its zone, its operational metrics drop to zero. In turn, its institutional funding dries up. Consequently, the unhoused resident becomes raw material required to justify next year’s budget allocations.

This creates a perverse economic incentive where institutional survival depends on preserving the problem. Under this setup, service providers become just as captured by the system as the unhoused themselves.

Genuine, structural accountability is needed to ensure public funds—your taxes—are spent on permanent solutions rather than sustaining dependency.

It’s common cause that service providers occupy an intermediary position between donors and residents. On paper, they are equally accountable to both sides. In reality, this dynamic strips unhoused residents of bargaining power. Power flows alongside aid; donors hold absolute leverage over non-profits, and non-profits hold unfettered dominance over the unhoused.

I liken this arrangement to a scientific pH scale. Service providers occupy the neutral position (7), while donors and residents sit at diametrical extremes. The donor and the resident never sit at the same table.

The unhoused community has no bargaining power. Accountability flows exclusively upward to boardroom ledgers, while those on the streets remain passive recipients.

This commodification approach violates South Africa's socio-economic framework. Section 26(1) of the Constitution guarantees the right to have access to adequate housing, and Section 26(2) mandates that the state take reasonable measures to achieve its progressive realization.

The Constitutional Court makes it clear that this obligation cannot be satisfied by short-term, outsourced management. In Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom, the court ruled that a housing program must provide for those in desperate need.

Furthermore, as established in City of Johannesburg v Blue Moonlight Properties, the state cannot plead budgetary constraints or outsource core constitutional obligations to escape its duty.

Offloading emergency housing to a metric-driven marketplace abdicates these duties. Such approach treats temporary shelter beds as a substitute for permanent tenure and turning a constitutional right into a competitive line item.

Cape Town Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis recently made yet another high-stakes campaign promise, pledging to upscale the release of city-owned land for social housing if re-elected. That’s commendable.

On the other side of the pavement, however, a critical question remains unanswered: when will our authorities realise that the current grant models backing multimillion-rand 'safe spaces', alongside inherently flawed shelter funding systems, inadvertently perpetuate a spinning homelessness turnstile?

To break this loop, accountability must flow downward to the pavement. As World Homeless Day approaches on 10 October, South Africa must move past symbolic awareness and overhaul the system. On behalf of unhoused communities, I call upon President Cyril Ramaphosa and municipal leadership to implement three structural changes immediately:

True security begins with a front door key, not an outsourced mattress. True accountability ought not to be measured by how many beds are filled tonight, but by how many individuals are empowered to leave the pavement forever. This structural shift is the only way to dissolve the homelessness cul-de-sac. It is time to act boldly and decommodify homelessness for good.

*Sikhungo is a freelance researcher based in Cape Town. Drawing from lived experience on the streets and professional roles in the non-profit and corporate-commercial law sectors, his research blends rigorous constitutional analysis with street-survival dynamics to advocate for systemic housing reform.