Oral Presentation to Hamilton City Council Community Committee
21 April 2026.
In support of the homelessness report: Agenda of Ordinary Community Committee Meeting - Tuesday, 21 April 2026
Introduction
Kia ora and thank you Chair, Mayor and Councillors. Ko Harvey Brookes toku ingoa, I’m the Executive Director of the Waikato Wellbeing project.
I’m here today to thank the council for its work on homelessness and encourage it to keep going! I’m also here because our research and work points to a well-known truth- housing IS a vital underlying factor which many other wellbeing outcomes rely on.
I want to acknowledge that there is real concern in the community about visible antisocial behaviour in the CBD—and I agree there is a need to respond, proportionately, to that. There’s also the legitimate concern that we don’t characterise all homelessness as antisocial or only react to visible symptoms, we need to also understand and address root cause.
What “Good” Looks Like
The agenda paper reflects the tenson between short term symptoms and long-term causes. It’s important to say that it’s not an either:or- while it’s not at all easy, a good society can address the here and now while also working steadily to change the system in the long run.
This complex challenge is not unique to Hamilton, or New Zealand. There is a whole OECD Toolkit on Combating Homelessness[1] which provides a great framework to build on.
We’ve seen what works in New Zealand including in Hamilton- the models are here right now. The People's Project, Te Runanga o Kirikiriroa, Te Whare Korowai, Manaaki Rangatahi, Salvation Army, Twenty20 Trust, YWCA and many others have shown that rapidly housing people and then wrapping support around them can significantly reduce chronic homelessness AND address the underlying factors.
Social Investment and City/Regional Deals
From a systems and policy perspective, the Social Investment Approach could be a highly useful foundation of the way forward. The Government’s intention is to use data and evidence to invest earlier and more effectively in ways that improve long-term outcomes.
That’s nothing new and so far, it’s mostly showing up through funding and contracting—but not yet as a fully integrated, place-based system. And homelessness is fundamentally a place-based issue. That creates a real opportunity for Hamilton to lead.
Any work to address homelessness must have a well-developed theory of change at its heart- and “if:then” model if what’s happening, why and how to make real lasting progress.
A City/Regional Deal between central government and Council/Waikato councils could be a strong vehicle for integrated social investment in Hamilton—if it embedded a proper social investment logic: shared outcomes, shared data, and aligned investment. This is especially important given the major functions the government has in relation to people- social development, health, education, housing, justice and corrections.
Because the best City Deals are not just about roads, pipes and funding. They are also about social infrastructure—and how we redesign services and funding to deliver better outcomes for more people.
Importantly, good social investment doesn’t mean that we fund everything. It means that we use good data, evidence and lived experience to see what really works, and support those who are willing to do that mahi more.
System challenge: isolated impact
We have many extraordinary organisations doing good work—but often in parallel rather than as a coordinated system. An unforgettable moment at the homelessness hui was when many people said they hadn’t met most of the people in the room before.
This is what John Kania and Mark Kramer describe as “isolated impact.”[2]
The result is a lot of activity, energy and burnout—but not always enough alignment to shift outcomes. The opportunity is to move toward a more coordinated model—with shared goals, shared measurement, and clearer roles across the system.
Measurement and incentives
We need to have a coherent measurement system which shows how our theory of change is working, while to avoiding two extremes.
Vague goals don’t guide action- like “reduce homelessness” or measures that focus only on visible symptoms.
For example, if we focus too narrowly on reducing street begging or antisocial behaviour, we risk displacing the visible symptoms of the problem rather than solving it.
That doesn’t mean ignoring those issues—it means not mistaking invisibility for impact.
In short, we need to measure how people really experience homelessness and how the system works/fails—not just visible symptoms.
Closing
This work has created a strong foundation. We can jointly build on this by setting clear outcomes, aligning system performance and funding, and getting in behind what already works.
Again- congratulations to the Council for facilitating this work, keep going and we’re here to support you.
Thank you.
[1] https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/affordable-housing/homelessness.html
