Housing First in European Contexts Dr. Volker Busch-Geertsema GISS Association for innovative Social Research and S

1. �Housing First in European Contexts�Dr. Volker Busch-GeertsemaGISS � Association for innovative Social Research and Social PlanningBremen, Germany Seminar on Social Innovation to Tackle Homelessness: Re-enforcing the role of the European Structural FundsBrussels, 28 June 2011

2. Housing First Projects and Housing Led Strategies Housing First can have different meanings: Housing First projects for homeless people with complex problems (mental health and addiction) show that even this group of homeless people is capable of living in regular housing if adequate support is provided. It is indeed the better option than staircase systems or Continuum of Care. Housing First can also refer to a policy approach on a wider scale: Priority for housing (and support): �Given the history and specificity of the term �Housing First��, the jury recommends to use ��housing-led� as a broader, differentiated concept encompassing approaches that aim to provide housing, with support as required, as the initial step in addressing all forms of homelessness� (Jury recommendations of European Consensus Conference on Homelessness, December 2011) : homelessness. In both cases �Housing First� is not �Housing only�

3. Recommendation of Jury of European Consensus Conference on Homelessness The Consensus Conference Jury calls for a� ��shift from using shelters and transitional accommodation as the predominant solution to homelessness towards �housing led� approaches. This means increasing the capacity for both prevention and the provision of adequate floating support to people in their homes according to their needs.� �The jury calls for the continued use of EU structural funds in the development of housing interventions for people experiencing homelessness, particularly in the context of the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion, which seeks to promote greater and more effective use of the EU Funds to support social inclusion.�

4. Critique of Staircase Systems in Europe Stress and dislocation because of need to move between different "stages" Little privacy and autonomy at lower stages, lack of service user choice and freedom � revolving doors Standardised support in different stages Skills learned in strcutured congregate settings often not transferable to independent living situation Final move to independent housing may take years and too many clients get "lost" Homelessness may increase rather than decrease with such systems (extending lower stages, bottleneck at upper end)

5. What Does Housing First/Led Mean Priority for quick access to mainstream housing and prevention of homelessness Preventing and ending homelessness instead of managing it Providing housing first is an alternative to "treatment first" and keeping homeless people "with problems" outside the housing market in order to make them "housing ready" "Housing first", not "housing only" Flexible support in housing needed for successfull re-housing of fraction of homeless people with support needs Not all homeless people need special social support, but all need access to housing and means to maintain it

6. The Evidence Homeless people want to live in mainstream, self-contained housing, have their own key, privacy, stability, self- determination and choice Even those with complex problems (mental illness and addiction) are able to cope in independent housing if adequate support is provided Social service interventions are more successful if provided to people in their own home (but no miracles to be expected) Good results also in Europe for projects combining quick access to normal housing with floating support for those in need (70-90 % retention rates) Better outcomes at lower costs

7. Further Evidence Required Number of recent projects test Housing First approach for homeless people with complex needs in Europe Housing First/Housing Led approach part of various national homelessness strategies (as in Denmark, Finland, France�) Various cities have adopted Housing First strategy (Vienna, Gothenburg, Copenhagen, Helsinki etc.) Number of open questions Some projects for specific groups or more radical change of paradigm and overall strategy for tackling homelessness? To what extent can emergency measures and temporary accommodation be reduced? Where are the limits of the approach? To what extent congregated housing with on-site support useful? Which types of social support, needs assessment and financing? What works for tackling worklessness, health problems, social exclusion, neighborhood conflicts etc. of re-housed homeless people?

8. New Housing First Europe Project ��Housing First Europe�� funded by DG Employment under 2010 Social Experimentation Call will collect further evidence of potentials and limits of Housing First approach as a social innovation and facilitate mutual learning: 5 test sites (Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Budapest, Glasgow and Lisbon) 5 peer sites (Dublin, Ghent, Gothenburg, Helsinki, Vienna) Sam Tsemberis (pioneer of Housing First in the US), Feantsa and high profile academics in steering group Start 1st August 2011, duration 24 months Main contractor: Danish National Board of Social Services Coordinator: The speaker (VBG)

9. New Housing First Europe Project Aims of the Housing First Europe project: Collect evidence of the applicability and the effectiveness of Housing First approaches for tackling homelessness of persons with complex support needs in different European countries (impact on housing stability and quality of life) Increase consensus about the essential elements of the approach and offer solutions for typical problems and concerns Encourage mutual learning and support between different European stakeholders on Housing First approaches to homelessness Promote policy transfer of effective Housing First approaches to tackling homelessness on a wider scale

10. Conditions for Success Quick access to affordable and adequate housing is the key element of any lasting exit from homelessness and also for preventing people from becoming homeless after household splits or institutional release Bulk of provision for rehousing homeless people should be mainstream housing with long-term contract; it should be self-contained, adequate in location and quality, no hostel type of provision Social housing plays an important role if existing access barriers (for "risky tenants") can be removed But access to private rental sector is increasingly relevant � examples of good practice in many EU countries

11. Conditions for Success Formerly homeless people must be able to cover housing and living costs either by work or welfare provision Support must be highly flexible in type, duration and intensity and adapted to individual needs For a fraction of homeless people support must be multidimensional and joint working is essential Separation of housing and of support recommended User�s choice (regarding housing, furniture and services) plays an important role

12. Conclusions and Recommendations Housing First and Housing Led Strategies are promising and innovative alternatives to staircase approaches which are still dominating the support system for homeless people in most EU countries Expectations have to be realistic: Ending homelessness does not end poverty, unemployment, social isolation and addiction in many cases � but it makes a big difference! Commission should develop recommendations and monitor progres on homeless strategies with strong housing led elements Use of temporary and emergency accommodation should be reduced to a minimum and kept strictly temporary wherever possible � but alternative approaches have to be in place

13. Conclusions and Recommendations EU funding should be made available to support scaling up of Housing First approach from some projects for specific groups to an overall housing led strategy for the whole variety of homeless people EU structural funds should be used and made available to improve access to housing for homeless people and to finance adequate social support The new regulation (of May 2010) that opens up the ERDF for housing interventions for vulnerable communities in order to combat exclusion should be maintained in the new financial period and fully integrated from the outset

14. Conclusions and Recommendations Homelessness is a definable and distinct policy issue and there is growing evidence what actually works in this field. So the structural funds can really add value and have a tangible impact on effective policies in this area. Tackling worklessness is an important aspect of floating social support but expectations for inclusion into employment need to be realistic. Support should be multidimensional and adjusted to homeless people�s needs and individual goals However, important obstacles can be removed and specific efforts to find ��something meaningful to do�� are needed Potential synergies between ERDF and ESF may be used to support innovative approaches providing housing plus support for homeless people in need: ��Housing Plus��

15. Thank you for your attention!

16. Contact Dr. Volker Busch-Geertsema Gesellschaft f�r innovative Sozialforschung und Sozialplanung e.V. (GISS, Association for Innovative Social Research and Social Planning)  Kohlh�kerstra�e 2228203 Bremen, GermanyFon: +49-421 � 33 47 08-2Fax: +49-421 � 339 88 35 Mail: vbg@giss-ev.de Internet: www.giss-ev.de