When we launched the Centre for Homelessness Impact in 2019, our goal was never to promote one method or one way of knowing. From the outset, our work has relied on systems thinking,  lived experience, qualitative insights, implementation learning and, when the question warrants it, causal methods. None of these approaches on their own is enough. But together, they help build a more complete, more grounded understanding of what improves outcomes for people.

A recent critique of our work brought this home in a useful way. Not because it accurately captured our approach – it didn’t – but because it reminded me how easily conversations about evidence can slip into conversations about methods. And when that happens, we risk losing sight of what actually matters: making the homelessness system more capable of preventing and reducing homelessness.

One concern raised was that approaches like randomised trials can only measure what is measurable. This is true, of course - all methods have limits. But it reinforces why a balanced evidence ecosystem matters: each method has a role, and we need to use them in ways that match the kinds of questions we are trying to answer.

And this is the point: we are trying to build a balanced evidence ecosystem, where different forms of insight play their distinctive roles, and where the overall quality and usefulness of evidence keeps improving over time. Balance is about using the right approach for the right question and making our assumptions transparent so others can learn from, adapt or challenge the work.

For us, rigour is not about methodological allegiance. It is about respect, for the people whose lives and futures depend on these decisions; for practitioners working under immense pressure; and for policymakers balancing competing demands. We invested a lot of energy into introducing causal methods into the field not because of methodological ‘dogma’, but because so many questions that can be answered using these methods haven’t been answered yet. And we’ve always done so alongside the lived experience and qualitative insights that give any finding depth and meaning.

If anything, the last few years have made us more, not less, aware of the limits of all methods. We do not claim to have all the answers. Our focus is on improving the evidence and data landscape so the system as a whole can make better decisions, more transparently and with greater confidence.

This moment, disagreements and all, is an opportunity. We can raise standards together. We can be more precise about what we know and don’t. We can treat evidence as a shared foundation rather than a dividing line. If the homelessness sector is to make the shift toward prevention, it will require a combination of humility, curiosity and rigour.

That is the path we remain committed to walking.

‍

• Ligia Teixeira is the CEO of Centre for Homelessness Impact.