Long-Term Homelessness in Singapore

by | Jan 9, 2026 | Uncategorized | 0 comments

Case Study

Research Overview

The Institute of Policy Studies conducted a landmark three-year qualitative study (August 2021 – May 2024) commissioned by the Ministry of Social and Family Development, tracking 50 participants including individuals and families experiencing homelessness in Singapore.

Key Profile Findings

Demographics and Duration:

  • Rough sleepers: Median homelessness duration of 16 years (most over a decade)
  • Shelter users: Median duration of 3½ years
  • High-risk groups: Separated, divorced, or widowed individuals; single-parent families

Stressor Accumulation Pattern: The study revealed that homelessness resulted from accumulated life stressors rather than isolated incidents. All participants experienced multiple challenges, with 50% facing five or more stressors including:

  • Low educational attainment
  • Physical and mental health conditions
  • Incarceration (self or spouse)
  • Failed marriages and family breakdowns
  • Chronic unemployment
  • Childhood vulnerabilities (low-income households, lack of parental supervision)

Participant Pathways

Researchers identified two distinct groups:

  1. Rough sleepers – Those sleeping in public spaces with minimal formal support
  2. Shelter/informal accommodation users – Those accessing transitional shelters, welfare homes, or temporary arrangements

The stark contrast in outcomes between these groups (16 years versus 3½ years median homelessness) demonstrated the critical protective role of structured interventions.

Current Challenges Identified

Shelter User Concerns:

  • Privacy loss in communal living environments
  • Interpersonal conflicts over living habits
  • Safety concerns within shelter facilities
  • Limited access to mental health support

System Gaps:

  • Insufficient focus on upstream prevention
  • Resource concentration on emergency response rather than early intervention
  • Lack of risk assessment tools to identify vulnerable populations before crisis
  • Limited research on prevention strategies

Outlook

Emerging Trends

Policy Shift Direction: Singapore is moving from reactive emergency response toward proactive prevention strategies. The 2026 reports from MSF and IPS signal a comprehensive approach to understanding and addressing homelessness at its roots rather than merely managing its symptoms.

Demographic Considerations: Recent data shows an increase in rough sleepers under 35, suggesting younger populations face distinct vulnerability factors that require age-appropriate interventions. This demographic shift necessitates tailored prevention programs targeting youth before homelessness crystallizes.

Future Challenges

Complex Case Management: As the study reveals, long-term homelessness involves layered issues spanning mental health, addiction, employment barriers, and family breakdown. Future systems must integrate multiple service domains rather than operating in silos.

Scaling Prevention: While Singapore’s public housing policy provides a strong foundation for universal prevention, identifying at-risk individuals early requires sophisticated assessment tools and cross-agency coordination that currently doesn’t exist at scale.

Resource Allocation: The tension between funding emergency services for current rough sleepers versus investing in prevention programs for at-risk populations will require difficult policy choices and sustained political commitment.

Opportunities

Learning from International Models: Singapore can adapt proven frameworks from Geelong, Australia (youth risk surveys) and Calgary, Canada (population-level assessment tools) while customizing them for local contexts.

Housing-First Advantage: Unlike Western nations, Singapore’s established public housing system provides a structural advantage. The SRSF model offers a viable pathway from shelter to permanent housing that many countries lack.

Data-Driven Interventions: The new $450,000 MSF fund for trialing solutions enables evidence-based experimentation with prevention approaches, allowing Singapore to develop localized best practices.

Solutions

Immediate-Term Solutions (1-2 years)

1. Shelter Redesign Initiative Implement the Single Room Shared Facilities (SRSF) model in existing transitional shelters, providing private rooms while maintaining shared common areas. This addresses privacy concerns while retaining cost efficiency and community support structures.

2. Mental Health Integration Recruit and deploy trained mental health professionals within shelter environments to provide on-site counseling, crisis intervention, and ongoing therapeutic support for residents managing trauma, addiction, or psychiatric conditions.

3. Staffing Enhancement Increase social worker-to-resident ratios in shelters to enable more personalized case management, stronger relationships between staff and residents, and more effective navigation toward long-term housing solutions.

Medium-Term Solutions (2-5 years)

4. Risk Assessment Framework Develop and pilot Singapore-specific screening tools adapted from international models to identify at-risk populations through:

  • School-based surveys for youth (adapted from Geelong model)
  • Community service touchpoints (social services, healthcare, employment agencies)
  • Cross-agency data integration to flag cumulative risk factors

5. Early Intervention Programs Create targeted support for high-risk groups identified through assessment:

  • Family mediation services for households experiencing conflict
  • Financial counseling and emergency assistance for those facing housing instability
  • Employment support programs for individuals with incarceration histories
  • Parenting support for single-parent families

6. SRSF-First Housing Strategy Establish SRSF rental flats as the default housing pathway for individuals transitioning from homelessness, while reserving specialized shelters for those requiring intensive support for addiction, severe mental illness, or complex medical needs.

Long-Term Solutions (5+ years)

7. Upstream Prevention Ecosystem Build a comprehensive prevention infrastructure including:

  • Universal risk screening integrated into existing social services
  • Early warning systems that trigger support before housing loss occurs
  • Community-based support networks providing safety nets before crisis
  • Public awareness campaigns reducing stigma and encouraging early help-seeking

8. Childhood Vulnerability Prevention Address root causes identified in the study by strengthening:

  • Low-income family support programs
  • School-based social services
  • Youth mental health services
  • Parenting education and support for at-risk families

9. Housing Policy Integration Expand housing options along a continuum from emergency to permanent:

  • Emergency shelter (immediate crisis)
  • Transitional SRSF facilities (stabilization period)
  • SRSF rental flats (semi-permanent housing)
  • Standard HDB rental flats (long-term stability)

Cross-Cutting Solutions

10. Funding and Experimentation Utilize the new $450,000 MSF fund strategically to:

  • Pilot promising prevention models
  • Test adapted international assessment tools
  • Evaluate cost-effectiveness of different interventions
  • Build evidence base for scaling successful programs

11. Multi-Agency Coordination Establish formal coordination mechanisms between MSF, MOH, MOE, MOM, and HDB to ensure:

  • Seamless information sharing about at-risk individuals
  • Coordinated service delivery across domains
  • Elimination of gaps where vulnerable people fall through cracks
  • Unified case management for complex situations

Impact

Expected Positive Outcomes

Individual-Level Impact:

Reduced Homelessness Duration If shelter access and quality improvements achieve even modest gains, the median 16-year rough sleeping duration could decrease substantially. The study already shows shelter users experience 75% shorter homelessness periods, suggesting properly designed interventions can dramatically alter trajectories.

Improved Health and Wellbeing Stable housing with mental health support will reduce untreated conditions, emergency healthcare utilization, and the physical toll of rough sleeping. Privacy improvements in shelters will enhance dignity and psychological wellbeing.

Enhanced Employment Prospects Stable addresses enable job applications, consistent sleep improves interview performance, and case management can connect individuals with employment support services, breaking the unemployment-homelessness cycle.

Family Reunification For separated families, housing stability creates conditions for potential reunification or improved parent-child relationships, particularly important for single-parent households identified as high-risk.

System-Level Impact:

Cost Efficiency Prevention is significantly less expensive than managing chronic homelessness. Every individual diverted from 16 years of rough sleeping represents enormous savings in emergency services, healthcare, outreach, and shelter costs.

Service System Effectiveness Specializing shelters for complex cases while using SRSF flats for stable individuals allows targeted resource allocation. Mental health professionals can focus expertise where most needed rather than spreading thin across all cases.

Data and Learning Risk assessment tools will generate valuable data on homelessness pathways, enabling continuous improvement of interventions and better prediction of emerging vulnerabilities.

Societal Impact:

Reduced Inequality Addressing accumulated childhood vulnerabilities breaks intergenerational poverty cycles. Children growing up in supported families are less likely to experience homelessness themselves, creating long-term equity gains.

Social Cohesion Visible rough sleeping can strain community relations. Effective interventions reduce these tensions while demonstrating societal commitment to supporting vulnerable members, strengthening social fabric.

Public Resource Optimization Shifting from reactive emergency response to proactive prevention represents more strategic use of public funds, aligning with Singapore’s evidence-based policymaking approach.

Potential Challenges and Limitations:

Implementation Barriers

  • SRSF housing requires significant capital investment and HDB coordination
  • Mental health professional recruitment faces sector-wide talent shortages
  • Risk assessment tools need cultural adaptation and validation for Singapore context
  • Multi-agency coordination requires overcoming institutional silos and information-sharing barriers

Measurement Difficulties Prevention success is challenging to quantify since it involves counting events that didn’t occur. Demonstrating impact may require sophisticated longitudinal studies tracking at-risk populations over years.

Incomplete Coverage Some individuals may resist intervention, prefer street living, or have such severe conditions that even enhanced services struggle to achieve housing stability. Complete elimination of homelessness remains unlikely.

Long-Term Transformational Impact:

If implemented comprehensively, these solutions could fundamentally shift Singapore’s approach from managing homelessness to preventing it, establishing a model for other developed nations. The combination of strong public housing policy, early intervention systems, and dignified transitional support could reduce long-term homelessness to rare exceptions rather than persistent patterns.

Success would position Singapore as a global leader in homelessness prevention, demonstrating that complex social challenges can be addressed through evidence-based policy, adequate resourcing, and sustained commitment to protecting society’s most vulnerable members.

The study’s central insight—that homelessness results from accumulated stressors across life stages—provides a roadmap: intervene early, intervene comprehensively, and provide pathways that restore dignity and stability rather than merely offering emergency relief. This represents not just a policy shift but a fundamental reimagining of social support systems.