WHAT CAN A HOMELESS PERSONS EXPECT FROM HOUSING POLICIES IN BELGIUM Some preliminary thoughts Pascal

1
WHAT CAN A HOMELESS PERSONS EXPECT FROM HOUSING
POLICIES IN BELGIUM?Some preliminary
thoughtsPascal De DeckerOASeS-Antwerp
University/Hogeschool Gent

• European Science Foundation SCSS Exploratory
  Workshop
• Developing the EU Social Scientific Evidence
  Base On Integrated Approaches To Prevent And
  Address Homelessness
• York, 26 - 28 March 2006

2
STRUCTURE

• CONTEXT
• INPUT FOR THE RESEARCH QUESTION
• FUNCTIONING OF THE HOUSING MARKET AND HOMELESS
  PERSONS
• (HOUSING) POLICIES AND HOMELESS PESONS
• CONCLUSIONS

3
CONTEXT

• Chronic absence of structured research
• housing research is ac hoc (former Flemish
• government did not start any research)
• scarce research on homelessness is either
• ad hoc or organised by the sector
• Illustrative a (single) research finished in
  the mid of
• 2004 will be presented at 30 March 2006
• Monitoring
• absent on housing (policies)
• starting up again on homelessness (only SAW)
• Chronic absence of an evaluation attitude as a
  consequence evaluation
• Consequence absence of evidenced based policies
  in the research areas homelessness housing

4
INPUT

• Research on the move from homeless reception
  services to normal housing
• Report on the evolution of profiles of homeless
  persons
• Report on the need of supported housing
• Past experiences and the foundation of social
  rental agencies
• Local authorities set up services for homeless
  persons
• ? Conclusions quest for understanding the
  relation between care for the homeless
  housing (policies)

5
INPUT 1. The impassable road from homeless
services to social housing

• Research by D. Lescrauwaet et al. (SAW)
• Starting point social rental housing is an
  excellent housing solution for a large number of
  HL persons since social rental housing
• (1) is income related rent,
• (2) offers security of tenure,
• (3) offers reasonably quality housing
• Survey among service for HL persons, February
  2000

6
INPUT 1. The impassable road from homeless
services to social housing

• Results
• 5,630 take-in in 1999 ? 213 could go to social
  rental housing 4!
• 60 of the services 0
• 33 of the services 5 à 10
• 7 of the services /-20
• Context
• Appr 2,000 HL persons were able to live an
  independent life
• Appr 10,000 social rental dwellings are assigned
  every year
• Consequences
• inadequate filtering up
• silting up of the services
• homeless persons are channelled to the quasi
  unregulated private rental sector

7
INPUT 2. The evolving profile of homeless
persons

• Research by SAW on the evolution of the profiles
  of HL persons published in December 2003
• Evolution between 1982 2002
• Survey
• Residential services for HL persons
• Services for supported housing
• Data
• on 273 HL persons
• info from 134 social workers

8
INPUT 2. The evolving profile of homeless
persons

• A career of institutionalisation
• 73 of the men 48 of the women lived in an
  institution before (youth care, psychiatry,
  prison)
• Men who lived in a service for HL persons before
  the last admission has increased 44 in 1982 ?
  62
• Women who lived in a service for HL persons
  before the last admission has decreased 46 ?
  40 (important new phenomenon migrant/Muslim
  women fleeing the family home

9
INPUT 2. The evolving profile of homeless
persons

• Reason for application in 2002 according to the
  client (more answers possible)
• Housing problem 51
• Financial problem 46
• Homeless 35
• Reasons for applications in 2002 according to the
  social worker (more answers possible)
• Financial problem 55
• Personal/psychiatric problem 52
• Housing problem 51

10
INPUT 2. The evolving profile of homeless
persons

• Immediate reason for application in 2002 (top 5)
• Housing problem 24
• Homeless 20
• Personal/psychiatric 12
• Abuse at home 10
• Relational problems 10

11
INPUT 3. Needs for supported housing

• Research of SAW on the need for supported housing
• Published sept 2005
• Data CAW 2004

12
INPUT 3. Needs for supported housing

• Illustration of congestion of services for the
  HL of references due to a lack of capacity
• Youth services 27
• Services for men 32
• Services for women 51
• Mixed services 55
• Crisis reception 22
• Refugee shelters 26

13
INPUT 3. Needs for supported housing

• Length of stay has increase
• In 2004
• For men 101 days
• For women 66 days
• To compare (period 1991-1996)
• For men between 68 72 days
• For women between 33 42 days
• Reasons (among others)
• Waiting list social housing companies
• private renting is not affordable
• Increase of re-entrances

14
INPUT 4. Going back in time the foundation of
social rental agencies during the 1980s or the
invasion of welfare work in de housing market

• Context
• Economic crisis high unemployment rate
• Crisis of the state budget
• cuts in social security
• cuts in social housing construction (down to 0
  dwellings in the BCR)
• One consequence housing crisis
• bad housing (living in rooms lodging housing) ?
  housing exploitation (term out of a 1986 report)
• filling up of homeless reception houses and
  homeless persons wandering from one service to
  another
• Reaction the foundation of social rental
  agencies by welfare work
• SRA intermediary (ngo or branch of local social
  service) between the (dominantly) private
  landlord the tenant
• Now recognised financed by all regional
  governments

15
INPUT 5. Local authorities start up services for
the homeless

• Local authorities little involvement in housing
  policies ? de facto the solution of housing
  problems is subcontracted to either social
  housing companies or the individual household
  (do it yourself)
• Official care for homeless is targeted to SAW (a
  pluralistic branch of welfare sector)
• Recently local social services are starting up
• a range of services for the homeless in the wait
  of filtering up to regular housing (emergency
  housing, transit housing, crisis housing)
• formulas of supported housing
• indicating a rising need since clients of the
  local services and the SAW cannot find adapted
  housing

16
CONCLUSIONS

• Mid 1980s SRAs are founded out of welfare work
• 20 years later complaints are still the same ?
  near to zero filtering up of HL persons to social
  housing
• Consequences
• congestion in HL services
• SRAs are caught by long waiting list
• slum landlordism triumphs/squatting/living on
  camp sites
• Quest lets look beyond the services lets look
  at the other side ? is the housing sector
  (private public) anxious to house homeless
  persons? If so, why? And what are the mechanism
  and motivations behind it?
• Context of the question the welfare sector in
  general and the homeless services sector in
  particular wont solve the problem

17
BARRIERS

• Functioning of the housing market
• Home ownership
• Private renting
• Social rental housing
• Social rental agency housing
• Features of (housing) policies
• Homelessness is not an issue
• Housing policies are fragmented
• Housing policies are locked into historical
  options
• Entering of social renting will become more
  difficult

18
BARRIER 1. The functioning of the housing market

• 1. Home-ownership (75 in Flanders) is not
• an option for people leaving HL services
• Lack of secure income
• Lack of income that affords to pay down even the
  smallest mortgage
• only 1 on 10 HL has an income out of work in 2002
  (compare 25 in 1982)
• 1 on 4 HL has an unemployment benefit
• Rest lives on all kinds of benefits
• 60 HL has debts
• ? banks would even consider to give them a
  mortgage
• ? entrance of h o is not realistic as a solution
  to
• solve the housing need of HL persons

19
BARRIER 1. The functioning of the housing market

• 2. Private renting (appr. 20 in Flanders)
• Rents are free becoming expensive
• average 25 of the income for rent
• higher in bigger cities, esp. in Brussels
• average rent in Flanders is appr 50 of a
  subsistence income
• Rental market is squeezed
• due to the sale for home ownership
• rising demand of all categories of low income
  persons/households ? PR is marginalising
• Quality is at stake ? rise of slum landlordism,
  living on camp sites, squatting
• Tenancy is not sufficiently secure
• ? Private renting is not a decent option for HL
  persons to catch up reintegrate

20
BARRIER 1. The functioning of the housing market

• 3. Social rental housing (6 of the market)
• Appr 51,000 candidates wait for one of the
  135,000 social rental dwellings this number is
  stable
• Eligibility income (not very selective)
• Allocation chronology, with priority access
  rules
• HL have no priority access ? application for a
  deviation of the rules is possible
• HL someone who can prove that he had no right
  to a dwelling (as an owner or tenant) for 6
  months
• temporary relief for psychic, social or medical
  reasons are not counted
• residence with relatives are not counted
• local social services can ask for deviation ? if
  the local SHM agrees ? confirmation has to be
  asked to the umbrella organisation
• if successful the SHM can ask additional
  measures
• ? As indicated earlier since social rental
  housing is following this heavy procedure
  hardly an option

21
BARRIER 1. The functioning of the housing market

• 4. Social rental agency housing
• e.g. SRA Woonfonds, Gent
• end 2002 92 dwellings (now appr 150)
• Number of people on the waiting list
• End 1998 129
• End 1999 170
• End 2000 380
• End 2001 532
• End 2002 682
• ? Although targeting at the most vulnerable, it
  is difficult to enter SRA due to a small supply
  of dwellings

22
BARRIER 1. The functioning of the housing market

• General conclusion the functioning of the
  housing market, being the market-led side or the
  public-led side, hardly offer poor vulnerable
  people decent, affordable secure housing

23
BARRIER 2.Features of (housing) politics

• 1. Homelessness is not a societal
• nor politic issue
• not even this winter ? problem seems to be solved
  by opening some accommodation in army barracks
  for rough sleepers
• attention in policy notes of the current Flemish
  responsible ministers on homelessness is limited,
  vague without perspectives

24
BARRIER 2.Features of (housing) politics

• The Housing policy note 2004-2009 on homelessness
• More additional attention will be given in order
  to avoid home and rooflessness. It is important
  that eventual problems which can lead to home or
  rooflessness should be recognized in a early
  stage by the landlord, and especially the social
  housing organisations. Based on good and clear
  agreements with local welfare organisations,
  preventive support and accompaniment can be
  organised so that the problems do not accelerate.
  This is good for as well the concerned tenant,
  the living together in the neighbourhood as the
  housing society

25
BARRIER 2.Features of (housing) politics

• The Welfare policy note 2004-2009 on homelessness
• A significant part of the general welfare work
  deals with homelessness. It is necessary for the
  homeless sector to further develop methods,
  reception types and co-operation forms in order
  to limit the in stream and increase the out
  stream. The supply should be flexible and more
  tailor made short crisis reception, reception of
  homeless persons with particular problems,
  victimised women, young homeless, roofless, I
  shall explore how we can enlarge the offer of the
  homeless reception houses. The existing
  initiatives concerning supported housing and
  support being the least intervening form of
  care remain subsidized. I will them - starting
  from an inclusive approach - integrate in the
  Flemish housing policy. () Following the fact
  that housing and welfare coincide I will contact
  the housing minister in order to stimulate
  co-operation

26
BARRIER 2.Features of (housing) politics

• 2. Policies are fragmented
• At Flemish level a separation between welfare
  (responsible for HL) housing policies
• Different ministers (always since the
  restructurering of the state started in the
  1970s)
• Different administrations
• welfare is part of Welfare, Health Culture
• housing is part of Environment Infrastructure
• Different commissions in parliament
• compartmentalised segregated policies
• since a few years a working group Welfare
  Housing is installed
• unclear status
• no fierce results so far ? superficiality rules

27
BARRIER 2.Features of (housing) politics

• Division of housing policies since the
  restructurering of the state in the 1970s
• Regions are responsible according to the
  constitution
• but federal state remained responsible for
• private renting (civil law a matter of contract)
  ? problems have to be solved before the court
• housing fiscal policies ? largest amount of money
  (1999 65 billion BEF vs 13 billion BEF in
  Flanders)
• no hierarchy in laws
• ? consequence no integration of policies ad hoc
  policies (e g installation grant) doing what one
  already did (no adaptation the new needs)

28
BARRIER 2.Features of (housing) politics

• 3. Entrance of social rental housing will become
  more difficult
• Social housing is marginalising
• 42 is single 18 is single parent (B)
• 50 lives on benefit or has only a part-time job
• Solution 1 broaden the target group
• Socialist Party in the proposal for its new
  document on its principles The inhabitants of
  social dwellings should mirror society. Therefore
  the income limits should increase drastically
• Solution 2 limit the allocation to so-called
  problem tenants being migrants (asylum seekers),
  addicted persons homeless persons by
• language terms
• The abolishment the possibility to ask deviation
  for HL persons (is asked)
• Fear same rules for SRA housing

29
BARRIER 2.Features of (housing) politics

• 4. Housing policies are locked in historical
  options
• Meaning
• ongoing promotion of home ownership
• refusal to develop alternatives
• no effective policies to combat slum landlordism
  ? media attention hides limited number of actions
• no intention to regulate private renting
• no housing allowances
• combat of discrimination exploitation of
  migrants, single single persons is meagre
• market share social housing is at best stable
  (Flanders, 6) or decreasing (in other regions)
• Symbolic again the Socialist Party in her new
  document on its principles We want that as many
  people as possible can own there house. This is
  the best guarantee on good housing.

30
GENERAL CONCLUSION

• THE COMBINATION OF THE INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES AND
  THE OPERATION OF THE HOUSING MARKET SHOW THAT IT
  IS DIFFICULT FOR VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN GENERAL AND
  HOMELESS PERSONS IN PARTICULAR TO OBTAIN DECENT,
  AFFORDABLE SECURE HOUSING AND AS A CONSEQUENCE
  TO LIVE AN DECENT INDEPENDENT LIFE
• INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES
• PROBLEM OF RESPONSIBILTIES FED VS REG
  GOVERNMENTS
• SEPARTION BETWEEN WELFARE AND HOUSING POLICIES
• HOMELESSNESS NOT A CORE ISSUE NOT AT THE HEART
  OF POLITICS, NOT EVEN IN WELFARE POLITICS
• HOUSING MARKET/POLICY
• SOCIAL RENTAL HOUSING
• WAITING LIST
• AVOIDING PROBLEM TENANTS
• SOCIAL RENTAL AGENCIES WAINTING LIST
• OWNER-OCC NOT AT STAKE BUT HEAVILY SUBSISED
• PRIVATE RENTING
• RENTS ARE FREE
• LETTING BAD QUALITY HOUSING IS LUCRATIVE
  (Everything can be let)
• DISCRIMINATION IS IN PLAY