Less aid isn’t the crisis; the crisis is ignoring housing as humanitarian infrastructure. Recent UK government policies highlight a troubling trend: support for some of the world’s most vulnerable communities is being reduced, with further cuts expected. Bilateral aid to Africa has declined, funding for girls’ education is being scaled back, and life-saving health programmes face significant pressures. 

Moreover, while the UK rightly recognises housing as a pillar of national wellbeing, committing £39 billion to affordable homes at home over the next decade, it has yet to apply the same urgency to crisis-affected countries. This inconsistency risks undermining the UK’s broader global commitments and is not just a missed opportunity, but a gap in policy that limits the impact of humanitarian aid. Imagine a response that provides vaccines without clinics, or education without classrooms: that’s what happens when we deliver aid without housing. 

By shifting increasingly toward multilateral aid and pledging nearly £2 billion to the World Bank’s International Development Association, for example, the government is backing systems that often do not respond to the reality of today’s protracted crises. While multilateralism has its place, when bilateral, community-led programmes are gutted, the people furthest from power suffer the most. 

Rethinking how we fund aid doesn’t mean spending more. It means spending smarter and breaking down outdated silos by recognising that a roof, a door, and a legal right to stay are as urgent as any food parcel or vaccine. With the right policy tools and partnerships, we can deliver lasting impact with every pound spent. 

While headlines focus on how much aid has been cut or pledged- beneath the surface, lies a quieter more persistent crisis: the aid system’s struggle to prioritise what displaced people themselves say matters most; a safe, secure place to call home.  

At the heart of the issue is an outdated split between “humanitarian” and “development” aid. This divide has created a pattern where temporary relief, like tents and tarpaulins, is seen as sufficient, while long-term investments in adequate housing are delayed or deprioritised. For example, in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, Rohingya families often spend years living in flimsy, overcrowded shelters. 

Meanwhile, millions of people live for years or even decades in temporary or substandard conditions, with no pathway to recovery. Across crisis contexts, from Ukraine to Gaza to Somalia, people repeatedly say the same thing: they don’t just need food and blankets, they need somewhere safe to live and lay their head down at night. Secure, adequate housing underpins recovery, health, safety, education and economic opportunity. It’s infrastructure. It’s stability. It’s dignity. 

Our research through Habitat for Humanity’s Home Equals campaign shows the measurable impact of housing: life expectancy could grow up to 4%, adding 2.4 years of life on average around the world, 41.6 million additional children could be enrolled in school, 42.9 million incidents of gender-based violence prevented, and improved mental health. Housing is not just a shelter from the storm, it’s the foundation for long-term recovery. 

In Ukraine, for example, where millions remain displaced, the new national housing reform effort could transform recovery outcomes. However, support from donors, including the UK, remains limited. The current system struggles to fund what sits in the gap between immediate crisis response and long-term development. 

So no, the crisis isn’t just that there’s less UK aid. The deeper crisis is that the aid that remains is failing to fund what people actually need. We urge the UK to dedicate at least 10% of its humanitarian budget to housing initiatives, and to champion this shift at the next G7 summit.