Systems Thinking and Homelessness Policy in Ireland

Introduction

This paper advocates for the application of systems thinking in public policy development as a means of addressing homelessness in Ireland. Systems thinking is an approach to understanding how parts of a system interrelate and how systems evolve over time. Homelessness is a complex systems problem, and this paper proposes that a systemic inquiry of the homelessness system, drawing on a range of systems thinking methodologies, would provide a robust framework for understanding and responding to this issue.

The government’s Housing for All strategy (Government of Ireland, 2021) sets an ambitious target of working towards ending homelessness by 2030, in line with the EU’s 2021 Lisbon Declaration on Combatting Homelessness. Yet despite new initiatives and expanded programmes, more than 16,000 people, including over 5,000 children, were in emergency accommodation as of July 2025 (Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, 2025).

According to the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness:

“The causes of homelessness reflect an intricate interplay between structural factors, systems failures and individual circumstances. Homelessness is usually the result of the cumulative impact of a number of factors, rather than a single cause” (Gaetz et al., 2013, p. 13).

Understanding homelessness therefore requires recognition of its multiple drivers, including, amongst others, constrained housing supply, rental market volatility, income disadvantage, health challenges, experiences of trauma, and substance use.

The responses to these issues are situated within a complex service environment involving government departments, state agencies, local authorities, NGOs, and private actors. While this diversity brings strength, it can also result in overlapping responsibilities and fragmented delivery. Responses have understandably focused on immediate needs, with emergency provision largely commissioned by local authorities and delivered through NGOs and private providers. Sustainable exits from homelessness depend on access to social housing and supports in the private rented sector. Recent policy measures, such as the tenant-in-situ scheme, show adaptability in addressing new pressures. Regional variations also exist, with Dublin experiencing the greatest demand but also the strongest concentration of services, whereas other parts of the country have varied levels of provision.

Systems thinking offers tools to make sense of this complexity. By emphasising interconnections, multiple perspectives, and the boundaries that shape policy design, it enables not only clearer diagnosis but also the identification of opportunities for alignment and coherence. The government’s Housing First programme, delivered nationwide by local authorities, health services, NGOs, and voluntary housing providers, illustrates this potential. Based on an international, evidence-based model, it integrates housing with health and social supports for individuals with experiences of rough sleeping and long-term homelessness. With tenancy sustainment rates of 85 per cent, it demonstrates how co-ordinated interventions can deliver sustainable outcomes.

Systems Thinking and Homelessness

Systems thinking is an analytical approach that views complex systems as integrated wholes, rather than as a collection of separate parts. It emphasises the interrelationships and interactions between system components. As Senge (2010, p. 59) notes, “Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing ‘patterns of change’ rather than ‘static snapshots’.” Unlike linear thinking, which focuses on simple cause-and-effect relationships and often ignores how different parts of a system interact, systems thinking provides a better understanding of complex systems. Linear thinking may be adequate for straightforward problems but is insufficient for complex social issues such as homelessness (Stroh, 2015).

Systems can be categorised as “hard” or “soft.” A hard system is well-defined, structured, and has clear objectives with predictable processes. Its components have direct cause-and-effect relationships, and solutions can often be determined through analysis and control. Hard systems approaches (HAS) typically generate technical solutions, such as improving the supply chain or designing a machine (McGlacken-Byrne et al., 2022).

In contrast, soft systems are more difficult to define precisely, as different stakeholders may interpret the problem in different ways, for example, in economic or health systems (Checkland, 1981). Soft systems thinking recognises that the observer is part of the system and that systems are complex and adaptive. It emphasises how perceptions and actions influence the system itself. Problems in soft systems are socially constructed, contested, and resistant to simple solutions. Homelessness is a clear example of a soft system because its causes are multiple and interconnected, stakeholders hold diverse perspectives, and progress depends on learning and adaptation rather than definitive answers (Checkland, 1981; Midgley, 2000).

Homelessness in Ireland also demonstrates the characteristics of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS). CAS are “systems that have a large number of components, often called agents, that interact and adapt or learn” (Holland, 2006, p. 1). These agents interact and adapt, producing complex, evolving behaviour that cannot be fully predicted from the behaviour of single agents (Holland, 1992). Preiser et al. (2018) define six organising principles of CAS (Table 1):

Table 1: Organising Principles of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

Source: Adapted from Preiser et al. (2018)

These characteristics are evident in the interactions between multiple institutions, the effects of external events such as the ending of eviction bans or economic changes, the differences in patterns between urban and rural areas, and how even small changes in housing supply can have disproportionate, non-linear effects. Looking at homelessness through a CAS lens highlights the limitations of linear policy responses and underlines the need for adaptive, systemic and cross-sectoral approaches.

Systems Thinking Tools and Approaches

Systems thinking provides practical models and tools for understanding complexity, which can be presented under hard and soft systems approaches:

Hard Systems Approaches

Donella Meadows’ Bathtub Model (Figure 1) helps to illustrate homelessness as the balance between “inflows” of people entering and “outflows” of people exiting into stable housing. When inflows exceed outflows, the “stock” of homelessness rises, highlighting the importance of both prevention and rapid rehousing, not only emergency responses.

Figure 1: Stock and Flow Diagram by Meadows (2008): https://donellameadows.org/systems-thinking-resources/

Feedback loops represent the cause-and-effect relationships within a system (Meadows, 2008). Reinforcing loops amplify change, creating vicious cycles, for example, homelessness can worsen an individual’s poor health, making it harder to exit to independent housing, which can further prolong homelessness. Balancing loops, on the other hand, counter change and are self-correcting, such as tenancy sustainment services that increase support levels to an individual at risk during crises, helping to stabilise the person in their home.

System archetypes capture recurring patterns of reinforcing and balancing loops, helping practitioners anticipate unintended outcomes (Stroh, 2015). Two relevant examples are:

• Fixes that Fail describes scenarios where short-term solutions tackle the symptoms but make the original problem worse. For example, a shelter-led response to homelessness may reduce harm but by failing to address long-term housing needs it can increase dependency.
• Shifting the Burden occurs when immediate remedies are chosen over more fundamental solutions, reducing the capacity to implement deeper change. Shelters offer a quick fix to homelessness, which can reduce the motivation to implement a more fundamental solution. This creates vicious cycles that undermine the capacity to deliver fundamental solutions (Stroh, 2015, p. 101).

A complex system typically contains leverage points, where often small actions can result in high-impact changes (Meadows, 1999). Leverage points go hand in hand with system archetypes. The archetypes reveal the patterns, and the leverage points reveal where and how to intervene. In homelessness, these can, for example, include shifting system goals from managing homelessness to ending it, improving information flow through increased data sharing, and shifting the paradigm around homelessness from one of individual failure to recognising it as a systemic issue.

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)

Soft systems approaches are appropriate for homelessness because they emphasise learning, dialogue, and co-creation rather than technical fixes (Checkland, 1981; Midgley, 2000). One of the best-known approaches is Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) (Checkland, 1981). SSM is an approach for addressing complex problems that do not have straightforward solutions. Rather than seeking a single “correct” answer, it emphasises understanding multiple perspectives, engaging stakeholders, and learning iteratively. SSM considers both technical and social aspects, including processes, people, interests and power dynamics.

SSM follows seven flexible (and iterative) stages: exploring the problem situation; creating “rich pictures” to visually represent complexity; formulating root definitions to define what a system does and why; building conceptual models to map key activities; comparing models with reality to identify gaps; identifying feasible and desirable changes; and taking action to implement improvements and learn from the results. In homelessness, SSM can be used to bring together government, local authorities, NGOs, housing providers, and people with lived experience to co-create responses, supporting continuous learning and adaptation across a diverse system.

Systems Thinking in Public Policy

Systems thinking is increasingly recognised as valuable in addressing complex policy problems. The OECD (2020, 2023) highlights its potential to build resilience and anticipate unintended consequences, yet its adoption remains relatively limited. Reviews of its application (Nguyen et al., 2023) show that while systems thinking is referenced in policy documents, it is rarely embedded in day-to-day practice. Reasons include top-down pressures on policymakers, limited time, hierarchical decision-making, and unfamiliarity with systems thinking methodologies (Head & Alford, 2015; Nguyen et al., 2023).

Current examples of the application of systems thinking to homelessness illustrate its potential. In England, the Centre for Homelessness Impact is leading a systems-wide evaluation of homelessness and rough sleeping services in England.[i] In Victoria, Australia, the Early Intervention Investment Framework reinvests avoided costs into prevention, demonstrating both fiscal and social returns. These initiatives show the value of systemic approaches in shifting policy from crisis management to prevention and sustainability.[ii]

In Ireland, systemic approaches remain underdeveloped. The OECD (2023, p. 9) states that the civil service “could develop stronger skills and capabilities” in areas including systems thinking. Such a gap presents challenges when tackling problems like homelessness, which require joined-up thinking, long-term vision, and an understanding of complex system interactions.

A Systemic Action Research Initiative

In April 2025, a workshop at the UCD Geary Institute for Public Policy brought together leaders from government departments, NGOs, statutory homeless services and state bodies to examine homelessness using a systems lens. Using Meadows’ Bathtub Model and SSM’s Rich Pictures and Conceptual Activity Models, participants explored interrelationships between homelessness and the private rented sector. Rich Pictures revealed multiple valid perspectives, and conceptual models on youth homelessness highlighted gaps between ideal and feasible responses. A discussion of avoided costs underscored the economic as well as human benefits of prevention. This workshop demonstrated how even a short, structured systemic exercise can help to enhance understanding.

Given the potential of systems thinking, this paper proposes a three-year Systemic Action Research (SAR) Initiative to build systemic learning into homelessness policy. Systemic Action Research is a process for engaging with complex issues by involving diverse stakeholders in ongoing cycles of reflection, learning, and action (Burns, 2007; Ison, 2010). The initiative would co-ordinate multiple projects (e.g. up to six projects per year, over two years) focused on aspects of housing and homelessness, including, for example, social housing provision, health integration, youth homelessness, and migration transitions. A meta-inquiry would connect these strands, enabling sector-wide learning.

The initiative would proceed in phases: a setup phase, a project phase, and a final phase devoted to co-designing a sustainable system architecture. Governance would involve a quadripartite partnership across government, NGOs, academia, and the private sector. A coaching and capacity-building framework would support participants, offering modules, tutorials, and micro-credentials to build systemic literacy.

Conclusion

Homelessness is a complex, adaptive, and systemic challenge. Systems thinking provides a framework to map interconnections, reveal underlying patterns, and bring together the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. Embedding systems thinking in Irish policymaking will require courage, institutional support, and cultural change. The potential reward is a society with relational public services that truly meet people’s needs, where resources are mobilised to drive systemic improvements, and where homelessness becomes rare, brief, and non-recurring.

To read the full paper, click the blue download pdf button at the top of this page.

References

Burns, D., 2007. Systemic Action Research: A Strategy for Whole System Change. Bristol: Policy Press.

Checkland, P., 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Checkland, P. and Scholes, J., 1990. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, 2021. Housing for All: a new housing plan for Ireland. Dublin: Government of Ireland.

Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, 2025. Homeless Report – July 2025. Dublin: DHLGH.

Gaetz, S., Donaldson, J., Richter, T. & Gulliver, T. (2013) The State of Homelessness in Canada 2013. Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press. Available at: https://www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/SOHC2013_execsummary_web.pdf [Accessed: 21 September 2025].

Head, B.W. and Alford, J. 2015. Wicked Problems: Implications for Public Policy and Management. Administration & Society, 47(6), pp. 711–739. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713481601 [Accessed: 21 September 2025].

Holland, J.H., 1992, Complex Adaptive Systems, Daedalus, vol. 121, no. 1, pp. 17–30.

Holland, J.H., 2006. Studying Complex Adaptive Systems. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 19(1), pp.1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-006-0001-z

Ison, R., 2010. Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate-Change World. London: Springer.

McGlacken-Byrne, D. et al., 2022. An introduction to systems thinking. In: F. Vallières et al. (eds.) Systems Thinking for Global Health: How can systems-thinking contribute to solving key challenges in Global Health? Oxford: Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198799498.003.0001 [Accessed: 21 September 2025].

Meadows, D.H., 1999. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. Hartland, VT: The Sustainability Institute. Available at: https://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Leverage_Points.pdf [Accessed: 21 September 2025].

Meadows, D.H. & Wright, D. 2008, Thinking in Systems: A Primer, 1st ed., Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VT.

Midgley, G. 2000. Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Nguyen, P., Smith, J. and O’Connor, T., 2023. Embedding Systems Thinking in Public Policy: Lessons from Practice. Paris: OECD Working Paper.

O’Donnell, J. 2023. Developing a Systems Thinking Lens for Collective Leadership. Collective Leadership for Scotland. Available at: https://oecd-opsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/873878_SCT0123759776-001_Collective-Leadership-Brochure_FINAL.pdf [Accessed: 21 September 2025].

OECD, 2020. Systems Approaches for Policy Design and Implementation. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD, 2023. Public Governance Review: Ireland 2023. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Nguyen, L.-K.-N., Kumar, C., Jiang, B. & Zimmermann, N., 2023. Implementation of Systems Thinking in Public Policy: A Systematic Review. Systems, 11(2), p.64. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11020064 [Accessed: 21 September 2025].

Preiser, R., Biggs, R., de Vos, A. and Folke, C., 2018. Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: Organizing principles for advancing research methods and approaches. Ecology and Society, 23(4), p.46. Available at: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss4/art46/ [Accessed: 21 September 2025].

Senge, P.M. 2010. The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization. Revised edition. New York: Doubleday.

Stroh, D.P., 2015. Systems Thinking for Social Change: A practical guide to solving complex problems, avoiding unintended consequences, and achieving lasting results. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Endnotes

[i] See: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/systems-wide-evaluation-of-homelessness-and-rough-sleeping-preliminary-findings/systems-wide-evaluation-of-homelessness-and-rough-sleeping-preliminary-findings

[ii] See: https://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/early-intervention-investment-framework