Key lessons learned from peer reviews

1
Key lessons learned from peer reviews

• The English Rough Sleeping Strategy
• the Danish Action Programme Preventing and
  Tackling Homelessness

2
Some preliminary remarks

• Two fairly different initiatives, difficult to
  compare
• State of affairs at moment of peer review
• What has happened since the peer review?
• A selection of items...
• ... made by Jan Vranken, University of Antwerp
  (Belgium) - Research Unit on Poverty, Social
  Exclusion and the City (OASeS)
• www.ua.ac.be/oases

3
Structure of the presentation

• Why?
• Policy framework from strategy programme to
  policy
• Institutional arrangements
• Definitions indicators
• Goals targets target groups
• Means to achieve goals CATS Freak Houses
• What about prevention?
• What about integration? Through trajectories or
  isolation?
• What is needed?
• About the transferability of a model

4
Why?

• England
• An extraordinary growth of rough sleeping from
  the mid 80s
• A new and coherent approach was needed
• Denmark
• ? Part of an overall reorientation of Danish
  social policy (from institutional to residual)

5
Policy framework (Denmark)

• Since 2001 social policy focuses on the most
  marginalised
• the homeless, drug and alcohol abuse victims,
  prostitutes, and the mentally disabled
• In 2002 action programme Our Common
  Responsibility
• Defined in the peer review as a
• comprehensive homeless strategy
• developed within a framework of social
  inclusion
• using a broad legal framework of existing
  legislation

6
Policy framework (England)

• Sleeping Rough Strategy a specific government
  strategy
• Test case for governments social inclusion
  effort
• Local authorities have been under a duty to
  produce homeless strategies
• Inclusion of RS into homelessness policy
• Institutionalisation of homelessness policy
• Implies some form of co-ordination between
  actors, levels, domains
• Importance of national co-ordination and steering
  (at least a vice-minister)
• Important step Homelessness Act of 2002

7
A strategy (E) or a programme (D)?

• Dk Preventing and Tackling Homelessness an
  action programme
• E Sleeping Rough Strategy a specific
  government strategy
• Which relation to a more comprehensive (social)
  policy?
• England test case for governments social
  inclusion efforts specific homelessness
  legislation has been used to direct policy
• Denmark part of comprehensive strategy, legal
  social inclusion framework
• So either/or
• bottom-up approach from programme or strategy
  to policy
• top-down approach programme implementing
  general policy priorities
• Also visible in institutional arrangements (next)

8
Institutional arrangements (E)

• Administrative co-ordination DETR
• The RSU (Rough sleepers Unit) 1999
• To implement the recommendations of the SEU
• Political
• Ministerial Committee
• To track the action and achievements of
  government and the progress towards the target
• Meaning of establishing this committee

9
Institutional arrangements (Dk)

• Responsibility for delivering homelessness
  policy is shared between the various levels of
  government
• Ministry of Social Affairs enabling legislation
• 271 local authorities provide general assistance
  (e.g. cash benefits, job activation schemes)
• 13 Regional authorities specialised assistance
• NGOs over half of delivery
• A real role for the Council for Socially
  Marginalised People?

10
Definition of Rough Sleeping (E)

• One of the most extreme manifestations of
  homelessness
• The homeless persons legislation includes rough
  sleeping in its definition of homelessness
• 3 subgroups in the homeless population at large
• rough sleepers
• statutory homeless (accepted as homeless because
  they pass four tests and are thus recognised as
  being in priority need)
• non-statutory homeless (to whom no duty is owed
  because deemed intentionally homeless, or not in
  priority need categories).

11
Definition of homeless people (Dk)

• (Legal definition in Denmark)
• Persons with special social problems
• who are without or are unable to live in
  their own apartment,
• and who are in need of a place to stay,
• and of offers of activating support, care and
  subsequent assistance

12
Questions

• Does...
• a recognition of heterogeneity
• a focus on the individual
• and on help
• ... not imply a (further) step towards
• deserving non-deserving
• blaming the victim ?
• inclusion through exclusion (freak houses,
  return policy)
• Still too much focus on the housing dimension in
  those countries?

13
Indicators

• Stock (one night) and flow (period count)
• (flow 10 x stock in one year?)
• Different type of indicator?
• Flow the level of demand of services
  accommodation
• Stock changes over time

14
Goals and targets - Dk

• The intention is that no one without a roof over
  their heads need be turned away
• Aim
• to improve the quality of life of these target
  groups
• on their own terms,
• rather than to attempt to integrate them forcibly
  into the community.

15
Goals and targets - E

• Six key principles
• Tackle the roots
• Pursue approaches that help people off streets
• Focus on those most in need
• Never give up on the most vulnerable
• Help RS to become active members of society
• Be realistic about what we can offer
• Prevention is the only means of ensuring a
  lasting and sustainable end to the problem of
  rough sleeping

16
Most remarkable

• In England to prevent newcomers to join
  population of RS to guarantee their lasting
  integration into society
• In Denmark to improve the quality of life of
  these target groups on their own terms, rather
  than to attempt to integrate them forcibly into
  the community

17
Target groups

• Different definitions of target groups
• E One very specific group (a high risk of
  becoming homelessness)
• Dk or/and summing up?
• If and Why bring these groups under the same
  heading?
• The wider community as a hidden target group?
• In E. volunteers in daycentres and shelters
• In both countries the general public (NIMBY,
  feeling safe)

18
Means to achieve goals and targets - E Dk

• Standard means constitute the context
• Innovative initiatives (CATs freak houses)
• Standard
• E Hostels, permanent housing, Health Care and
  other support
• Dk different types of care homes, projects
  providing support and training and which teach
  homeless people how to live in a home again,
  teams of support and contact persons for
  homeless people to improve life quality

19
New means to achieve targets (E)

• Street work CATs (Contact and Assessment Teams)
• multidisciplinary teams
• run by the voluntary sector
• but with statutory involvement
• that take responsibility for discrete areas
• and operate from midnight to early morning
• using an outreach approach

20
About CATs

• Success factors include
• Time spent on the streets
• Persistence in contacting rough sleepers
• Detailed action plans with a limited goal and a
  clear focus
• Team work
• Close collaboration with other agencies
• Diversion of newcomers to their home areas
• The importance of specialist staff?
• What about the increasing involvement of the
  police?
• Putting an end to identification RS and criminal
  activities?

21
Problems in E.

• People more difficult to help
• Because strategy is not adapted to their
  accumulated, complex and specific needs
• Especially addiction hard drugs - intermediate
  group
• Attractiveness of street life
• To give up on them is no real alternative

22
Freak houses for freak existences (Dk)

• Specialised permanent dwellings
• Unconventional homes (barracks or summer houses),
  located in small groups - mostly in less
  populated areas of cities.
• Residents can behave differently without causing
  problems.
• Freak house sites are looked after by a social
  caretaker
• Municipalities or voluntary organisations
  initiate the projects
• A more or less permanent community with mutual
  support
• Projects for men, for women only, for young
  people.
• Policy on issues such as drug use and keeping
  pets varies.

23
Problems in Denmark

• When the homeless come off benefit they have to
  repay any debts to the public authorities,
• which acts as a disincentive to find work.
• Therefore, a debt reduction scheme is currently
  being worked out.

24
What about prevention? - E.

• Have the production lines been cut off or at
  least slowed down?
• Has the pull effect less impact?
• Services are aimed at help people move away
• Destroying of the mythical dimension of RS
• Counteract the willingness of the public to give
  to beggars
• Have the push factors become less strong and/or
  better controlled?
• General exclusion processes (education, work,
  housing)
• From specific forms of social exclusion
  (homelessness)
• Rebuilding the lives of former RS - empowerment

25
Integration through trajectories? - E

• Is present in E., absent in Dk.
• Implies
• developing comprehensive programmes
• co-operation between many services
• independent expert to guide and counsel former RS
• follow-up needed after crucial steps (job,
  dwelling)
• Should become an even more central device
• Integrate the wide array of accommodations and
  services
• Identify definite stages and points of entrance
• In combination with life events and needs

26
Integration through isolation? - Dk

• Since when are to integrate forcibly
  compatible?
• Real integration is not forced integration
• Integration?
• What is the real meaning of on their own terms?
• Reintegrating homeless into permanent
  accommodation
• ... but not to promote reintegration of homeless
  into conventional housing
• On the other hand ...isolating them on specific
  sites (quasi-ghettos)
• Afraid of a NIMBY syndrome?
• ... and using a survival approach

27
What is needed? - 1

• A definition of homelessness
• and of rough sleeping and their interrelation
• Better, regular and more in-depth information
• A count of homeless people/rough sleepers
• Set of indicators
• Explanatory models (always present in any policy
  and strategy)

28
What is needed? - 2

• At what level?
• Individual institutional structural
• Which approach?
• A cohesive set of measures
• not just a collection of (generalised) good
  practices Integrated and positive
• Prevent(at)ive
• Trajectory, including a follow-up of returnees
  (socially and spatially)
• Ethical questions
• patronising people
• the general publics behaviour,

29
Transferability of any model - 1

• Is homelessness experienced as an economic or as
  a social issue?
• Is the focus on housing or is it perceived as a
  multifaceted situation?
• What is the dominant belief in public opinion and
  with policy makers?
• From personal responsibility to social
  responsibility
• In other words focus on homeless people or on
  homelessness?
• How is tolerance to be understood - as
  indifference, as long as NIMBY?
• How strong and comprehensive is the welfare
  system?
• And (social) housing policy in particular

30
Transferability of any model - 2

• (What kind of) partnership between (which)
  actors?
• Within public authorities (between departments)
• Between public and private (NGO and business)
• Between different levels
• Is there a common strategy? Are means delegated
  together with responsibilities?
• Is legislation enabling or mandatory?
• What about user involvement
• Which rung on the ladder of participation?
• As an individual or a group (self-organisations)
  
• What about knowledge and monitoring
• Or acting off the top of ones head?

31
Should transferability be the aim

• Or just learning from each other?
• The Prime Ministers target may be simple, but
  the solutions to deliver it are complicated
  (RSU, 2000)