A/HRC/37/53 In practice 98. Though many States and local governments have committed to ending homelessness, successes are few and far between. The city of Medicine Hat, in Alberta, Canada, proclaimed in 2015 that it had ended homelessness, by which it meant that no one there lived in a homeless shelter for more than 10 days before being allocated permanent housing. In Spokane, United States, a plan was adopted to end chronic homelessness by 2017 and family homelessness by 2018. The plan is based on the belief that access to housing is a basic human right. However, the goal has not been achieved. 99. In Finland, the first phase of the 2008–2015 strategy to eliminate homelessness included a goal to build 1,250 new dwellings and supported housing units in 10 cities. That goal was exceeded by almost 300 units, but the strategy fell short of its preliminary objective of reducing homelessness by 50 per cent (reducing it instead by 28 per cent). During that period, Finland was the only country in Europe to reduce homelessness. The second phase of the strategy was adjusted to address structural causes of homelessness and broaden its reach while providing housing for those in immediate need. It includes services for homelessness prevention, addresses hidden homelessness and includes housing targeted at young people and asylum seekers. 43 100. In 2008, Cabo Verde introduced a national housing programme entitled “homes for all” designed to deliver 8,400 housing units to reduce the housing deficit by 20 per cent by 2013. The target was reduced to 6,010 units in 2011 after the International Monetary Fund pressured the Government to reduce expenditure on the programme. Financial institutions were also unwilling to provide mortgages to low-income beneficiaries largely working in the informal sector, who were intended to be the primary beneficiaries of the programme. 44 G. Principle 7: accountability and monitoring 101. Effective monitoring of the implementation and outcomes of housing strategies is a firm obligation of States.45 102. A designated monitoring body should be mandated to assess the ongoing effectiveness of the housing strategy, identify failures or shortcomings, recommend necessary changes and hold Governments and other actors accountable. Whether it is a commission, a housing ombudsperson, a housing advocate or a national or regional human rights institution, the designated body must be independent of Government, provided with adequate financial resources and free to express opinions and make recommendations on policy and legislation.46 103. Monitoring bodies may also be mandated to provide independent information on compliance with the right to housing to international or regional human rights bodies or to participate in hearings before domestic courts or human rights tribunals in relevant cases. They may also be responsible for monitoring the implementation of recommendations or remedial orders emanating from those bodies. 104. Monitoring bodies should also have the authority and resources to visit affected communities, conduct hearings into systemic issues or into reported problems and benefit from the knowledge of those who are experts by experience. 105. Monitoring should include the use of human rights indicators, review progress in relation to agreed goals and timelines and consider all relevant data. Data should be 43 44 45 46 See N. Pleace, “The Action Plan for Preventing Homelessness in Finland 2016–2019: The Culmination of an Integrated Strategy to End Homelessness?”, in European Journal of Homelessness, vol. 11, No. 2 (December 2017). See A/HRC/31/54/Add.1. See also www.expressodasilhas.sapo.cv/economia/item/49517-fmiaconselhou-fim-do-casa-para-todos-ha-quatro-anos (available in Portuguese only). See general comment No. 20, para. 11. See Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights general comment No. 10 (1998) on the role of national human rights institutions in the protection of economic, social and cultural rights, para. 3. 15