• Like
Housing for the Homeless? Not Yet First!
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Housing for the Homeless? Not Yet First!

  • 298 views
Published

 

Published in Business , Real Estate
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
298
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. EUROPEAN RESEARCH CONFERENCE Housing First. What’s Second? Berlin, 20th September 2013 Housing for the homeless? Not yet first… Julia Wygnańska, Research&Advocacy Camilian Mission for Social Assistance www.misja.com.pl Warsaw, Poland Insert your logo here
  • 2. EUROPEAN RESEARCH CONFERENCE Housing First. What’s Second? Berlin, 20th September 2013 Hold your horses!  Title of this Conference calls for immediate reaction: Housing first? WHERE? Isn’t asking for second stage premature? Are we not too quick?  Audience of Final Conference of Housing First Europe in Amsterdam, June 2013 might have heard we test housing first projects in Poland in two places. Here they are in national context: 1. Who is considered homeless? 2. What services are provided 3. The nature of social work 4. Measuring effectiveness 5. Two HF projects mentioned in Amsterdam
  • 3. EUROPEAN RESEARCH CONFERENCE Housing First. What’s Second? Berlin, 20th September 2013 1. Policy: to whom it is (not) addressed? Official scale of homelessness (headcounts):  Housing and Population Census 2011: (ETHOS 1,11=9789; 2,3,4=15948)  Ministerial Headcount 2013: ETHOS 1,11= 8554; 2,3,4=22158; Warsaw 1,11= 431 (people in temporary/supported housing counted as „usamodzielnieni”=not homeless any more)  People in public space in Warsaw – alternative data:  DOM Fundation 2012 – 410 clients in few districts of whom 70% declared current place of stay ETHOS 1,11 (public space, unconventional dwelling)  CMSA Research 2012 – about 140 clients of streetowrker in two districts over 6 months (long term homeless, possible mental/social disorders, long term alcoholics, many times rejected from shelters/removed from shelters.)  http://www.misja.com.pl/living-in-public-space-in-warsaw-street-work-by- camilian-mission-for-social-assistance/ And the rest (uncounted):  People addicted to drugs – they stay in facilities for drug addicted people not for the homeless.  Living with family and friends, temporary/seasonal work rooms  People on the margins of homelessness (Loss of housing safety due to conflict in a family/financial problems; Evictions, re-possession orders)  Young people (leaving care – we know about successful ones)
  • 4. EUROPEAN RESEARCH CONFERENCE Housing First. What’s Second? Berlin, 20th September 2013 2. Range of services  Prevailing:  Warming-ups, food distribution, nightshleters, shelters, long term homes, social work, community homes (Barka, Emaus, Chleb Życie), advice and information  Existing (there are some):  supported/training appartments (1300 people in them according to Ministerial Count 2012) (by-laws include sobriety, control of social worker, income level and other), streetworking, social economy  Lacking:  Personal Advocacy, mental health and post traumatic services, prevention – immediate intervention in crisis sitautions experienced by well functioning people (single mom - Gdańsk). Welfare only to the poorest.  System:  Employment led staircase model; apartment as a reward for graduating from the shelter;
  • 5. EUROPEAN RESEARCH CONFERENCE Housing First. What’s Second? Berlin, 20th September 2013 3. (Specific) Quality of „social work”  Comparison of support system for the homeless to war/field hospital where the surgeon has to quickly decide who should be operated and who is left to die. Prognosis has to be made on who has a chance to exit homelessness and be therefore supported by more advanced services (like housing) and who is hopeless and should be left to his fate in public space, night shelters and sobering up stations.  Low effectiveness of social work interpreted as a fault/choice of supported person not as inadequacy of support.  Emotional problems of people who help others (lack of supervision, short and inadequate education, specific recruitment to „profession of helping”, lack of reflection on impact of one’s own limitations on relationship of helping); social help as „social violence”;  In self-help groups where staff recruits from former clients: „I was able to stop my problems so should you (e.g. drinking as a choice)”  By-laws and contracts to meet them as major tools for „motivating” clients. Lack of knowledge on how to work on internal self motivation, self-steering.
  • 6. EUROPEAN RESEARCH CONFERENCE Housing First. What’s Second? Berlin, 20th September 2013 4. Measuring effectivness  „We are ngos, we work in gaps, we volunteer, we have low salaries so everything we do is a blessing and is good a priori.”  Major criteria: „administrative” correctness  Prevalance of performance measures  Lack of indicatiors of effectiveness/benefits of basic services  Lack of cost and benefit analysis of exisiting services  Lack of need to measure effectiveness…
  • 7. EUROPEAN RESEARCH CONFERENCE Housing First. What’s Second? Berlin, 20th September 2013 5. HF programs  Context of GSWB systemic project – „Model of standardised services” drafted by ngo experts put under test by pilot implementations on local level in 19 communities. Standardised services include forms of shelter/housing for the homeless. 100% EU funded.  In GSWB Model HF is declared as one of alternative general rules (paradigm) for the system (next to staircase model, patette model and community model) but range of services/programmes does not include HF programmes. Housing first described as unconditional housing for every homeless person.
  • 8. EUROPEAN RESEARCH CONFERENCE Housing First. What’s Second? Berlin, 20th September 2013 5 cd. Housing first examples  Nowe  1 person chosen based on three criteria: high institutinal costs, causing high social problems, having prospects for income  Criteria for holding the apt: monthly payments, cooperation with social workers and staff  Kielce, Pomost Fundation  6 people of 50 who applied (many not homeless, wanted to improve housing situation), (no long term rough sleepers with multiple needs)  major criteria for selection: difficult housing situation, no analysis of past housing situations eg. rough sleeping, shelter rejections, etc.; no analysis of psychological profile  no criteria for clients eg. indywidual programme for getting out of homelessness, employment, etc., no by-law,  Support: job advisor, family assistant, psychologist, coordinator  GSWB Evaluation („Scientific Audit”): no information on effectiveness of implementation of HF by local partnerships; staircase model got better opinions but report provides no conclusions.
  • 9. EUROPEAN RESEARCH CONFERENCE Housing First. What’s Second? Berlin, 20th September 2013 Context - conclusions  Population of people experiencing homelessness and housing exclusion researched partially – we do not have full picture, we shape our thinking/programms/policies on fragmented data  Still basic service is a roof/soup not home and psychological/therapeutic support  Social work – by-law/contracts as major tool for motivation, lack of neccessary qualifications of people helping others  Unknown effectivness (and cost effectiveness) of existing services  HF – maybe 20 people in PL do understand the idea - for general audience HF remains out of the blue:  Do we want to have HF because it is a sophisticated and fancy programme which is trendy in Europe? Or do we really want it because we want to put people first and do what they tell us they need?
  • 10. EUROPEAN RESEARCH CONFERENCE Housing First. What’s Second? Berlin, 20th September 2013 Questions?  How imaginative should (European conferences shaping) policy goals be? Is there anything to loose by delibarating on what is second while first does not exist?  What do we know about homelessness in national contexts (anegdotal observation?)  Pathways for policy development – shall we hope to jump over some stages (improving shelter system) and move directly to most advanced ideas (Housing First as paradigm fed with HF programmes)? How can that be done?  Researching vs implementing?  Any project that supports people in critical housing situation is great. … Why we need to analyse them if they are or they are not HF or anything else?  Do we really get that much from (policy oriented) research?  It is good we have tested hf - 7 people were supported. Kropka
  • 11. EUROPEAN RESEARCH CONFERENCE Housing First. What’s Second? Berlin, 20th September 2013 CMSA Plans  CMSA offered Municipality of Warsaw cooperation in implementation of HF programme for 15 people living in public space in Warsaw looking forward to new EU Financial Perspective 2014-2020 and engagement of local government.  CMSA continues to research costs of living in public space to gather pro-Housing First data.  In 2012 CMSA adopted The Advocacy Strategy based on three pillars: research, netowrking and transparency. Long term goal: creating pro HF dynamics in PL
  • 12. EUROPEAN RESEARCH CONFERENCE Housing First. What’s Second? Berlin, 20th September 2013 www.misja.com.pl
  • 13. EUROPEAN RESEARCH CONFERENCE Housing First. What’s Second? Berlin, 20th September 2013 Biblio  Cieplak, Wygnańska (2012) Akceptacja kluczem do zmiany. Streetworking w Kamiliańskiej Misji Pomocy Społecznej KMPS, Warszawa, In English: http://www.misja.com.pl/living-in-public-space-in-warsaw-street-work-by-camilian- mission-for-social-assistance/  GSWB (2012) „Model GSWB” http://www.pfwb.org.pl/wp- content/uploads/2012/11/pfwb_model_gswb_www.pdf  GUS (2012) Narodowy Spis Powszechny Ludności i Mieszkań 2011. Raport z wyników, GUS, Warszawa  MPiPS (2013) Sprawozdanie z realizacji działań na rzecz ludzi bezdomnych w województwach w 2012 roku oraz wyniki ogólnopolskiego badania liczby osób bezdomnych 7/8 lutego 2013, Materiał informacyjny, Warszawa  Wygnańska, (2012) Mieszkańcy warszawskich pustostanów, działek i śmietników – beneficjenci Fundacji D.O.M., Fundacja D.O.M., Warszawa  Wygnańska (2013) Ekspertyza merytoryczna Modelu Gminny Standard Wychodzenia z Bezdomności na zlecenie Caritas Diecezji Kieleckiej pt. „Model GSWB – opis rzeczywistości zastanej vs projekt przyszłej polityki społecznej”, CARITAS Kielecka  Information on pilot implementation of HF received via emails from Wojciech Kuziemski from Local GSWB Partnership in Nowe, and Krzysztof Nowak from Local GSWB Partnership in Kielce.