Researchers propose revolutionary “HOME” program
In a startling departure from conventional approaches to heat vulnerability, a team of researchers has proposed what they’re calling the Housing-Oriented Mitigation of Exposure (HOME) program. The controversial intervention involves providing permanent indoor shelter to people currently experiencing homelessness.
“We know that unhoused populations face extreme heat exposure during heatwaves,” explained the research team. “But what if, instead of deploying pop-up cooling hubs for a few hours during code red days, we simply gave people actual houses?”
The proposal has raised eyebrows in the public health community, where the dominant paradigm has focused on innovative temporary solutions such as misting stations, bottled water distribution, and air-conditioned shopping centre access during business hours.
Unexpected Co-benefits
While the primary outcome of the HOME intervention is reduced heat-related morbidity and mortality, researchers noted several surprising co-benefits that emerged during the pilot phase:
- Sleep improvement: Participants reported better sleep quality when not sleeping rough in 35°C overnight temperatures or being moved on by police at 3am
- Reduced disease burden: Access to refrigeration for medications, running water for hygiene, and protection from weather appeared to improve multiple health outcomes beyond heat illness
- Mental health gains: Having a permanent address, lockable doors, and the capacity to plan beyond the next 24 hours showed unexpected psychological benefits
- Economic productivity: Participants were better able to maintain employment when they could reliably shower, store clean clothes, and list a residential address on job applications
- Social connection: Homes apparently provided a space where people could maintain relationships, host family visits, and participate in community life
“We didn’t anticipate these additional effects,” researchers admitted. “We were focused purely on the heat exposure pathway.”
Scalability Concerns
Critics have questioned whether the HOME program can be scaled effectively. “Pop-up cooling hubs are evidence-based, cost-effective interventions that can be deployed rapidly during heat events,” noted one public health official. “They’re also time-limited, politically uncontroversial, and don’t challenge existing property markets.”
Critics questioned the program’s scope. ‘The HOME intervention only addresses heat exposure,’ noted one emergency management official. ‘What about flooding? Bushfire smoke? We can’t just give people houses every time there’s an environmental hazard. We’d need separate programs for each risk.’
Implementation Barriers
The research team acknowledged several barriers to implementation:
- Unlike cooling hubs, houses cannot be folded up and stored when not needed
- The intervention may reduce burden on emergency departments, but lacks the targeted efficiency of cooling hubs that keep homeless people out of hospitals, shopping centres, and other air-conditioned spaces where they might otherwise seek refuge
- Permanent housing lacks the visibility and photo opportunities of pop-up community responses
- The program may set a precedent for addressing root causes rather than managing symptoms
A Cost-Effectiveness Paradox
The economic case for cooling hubs has been strengthened by research from St Vincent’s Hospital demonstrating that homeless people presenting to emergency departments during heatwaves impose substantial costs on the health system. A recent study found these presentations peaked during extreme heat events, with many homeless individuals seeking the refuge of air-conditioned hospital waiting rooms.
“Cooling hubs provide a cost-effective alternative,” explained health economists. “Rather than having homeless people access emergency department air conditioning—which involves triage nurses, security, and occasional medical intervention—we can direct them to designated cooling spaces with volunteer supervision.”
When asked whether providing actual housing might be even more cost-effective by preventing the health conditions requiring emergency care in the first place, researchers noted this fell outside their study parameters.
“We’re focused on heat-specific interventions,” they clarified. “The fact that homeless people also use emergency departments for warmth in winter, shelter during storms, somewhere to sit that isn’t being actively criminalised, and occasional medical crises is really beyond the scope of heat mitigation research.”
Protecting Existing Cooling Infrastructure
Shopping centres, libraries, and cafes have traditionally served as informal cooling refuges, though managers have expressed concerns about homeless individuals occupying these spaces.
“Pop-up cooling hubs solve this problem elegantly,” noted one retail association spokesperson. “By providing alternative cooling locations, we can maintain the amenity of our air-conditioned spaces for customers while still demonstrating community concern for heat vulnerability.”
The HOME program’s proposed approach of simply giving people their own air-conditioned spaces raised concerns about who would then occupy the designated cooling hubs during future heatwaves. “We’ve invested significantly in this infrastructure,” explained council officials. “What’s the point of having cooling hubs if people don’t need them?”
Funding Challenges
While a single pop-up cooling hub costs approximately $50,000 to deploy (requiring annual renewal for each heat season), the HOME program’s estimated cost of $500,000-800,000 per housing unit has been described as “prohibitively expensive” by government officials who recently approved $2.3 billion for new stadium infrastructure.
“We need to be realistic about what’s achievable within existing budget constraints,” explained a treasury spokesperson, before announcing an $18 million grant for a new advertising campaign about heat awareness.
The Path Forward
Despite these challenges, researchers remain cautiously optimistic. “We’re not saying cooling hubs don’t have their place,” they clarified. “Obviously if someone has no home, it’s better they can access shade and fans for three hours on a 42°C day than not. We’re simply asking: what if we also considered addressing the ‘no home’ part of that equation?”
The HOME pilot program is currently seeking funding, though researchers noted that grant applications are complicated by the intervention’s failure to fit neatly into existing research frameworks. “The funding category is unclear,” they explained. “Is it heat mitigation? Social housing? Urban planning? Public health? The interdisciplinary nature has been challenging.”
“Also,” they added, “we keep getting reviewers saying our approach lacks novelty because housing already exists. We’ve tried explaining that the novelty is in providing it to people who currently lack it, but that hasn’t gained much traction.”
When reached for comment, several people currently sleeping rough in Sydney’s western suburbs expressed enthusiasm for the proposed intervention, noting it compared favourably to existing options such as “seeking shade under bridges,” “trying to access overcrowded shelters with 6pm curfews,” “being criminalised for existing in public space,” or “presenting to emergency departments with heat exhaustion while trying not to look like you’re just there for the air conditioning.”
The research team plans to present their findings at next year’s conference on Climate Change and Health, scheduled to take place in a five-star hotel with air conditioning set to 18°C.
This is satire. But cooling hub programs are real and housing-first approaches actually work.
Swimming upstream 