Case Study
Homelessness – Finland vs. Seattle
Why Billions in U.S. Spending Failed While Finland Reduced Homelessness
The Challenge
Seattle spent over $1B on homelessness between 2010–2020 but saw homelessness rise 84%. Finland, in the same timeframe, reduced homelessness 35% with far fewer resources. Traditional analysis couldn’t explain the disparity.
DUH Analysis
- Seattle: More than 60% of resources were funneled into Crisis (emergency shelters & policing). Prevention and healing were sidelined.
- Finland: Balanced investments across Prevention (housing first policies), Unification (community housing), and Healing (long-term integration support).
The Results
- Finland achieved 85% housing retention.
- Seattle retained less than 40% of those placed.
- DUH projected a 30% reduction in homelessness if Seattle shifted just 15% of crisis funds to prevention & healing.
Key Insights
- Crisis spending without healing sustains the cycle.
- Balance across DUH zones is cost-effective and socially effective.
- DUH offers a clear diagnostic for governments seeking impact.
Looking Forward
Cities across the U.S. face rising homelessness. DUH provides a replicable, evidence-based framework for long-term solutions.