european research conference, budapest, 17th september 2010

European Research Conference, Budapest, 17th September 2010UNDERSTANDING HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING EXCLUSION IN THE NEW

EUROPEAN CONTEXT

ENHR

New experiments in social housing for (former) homeless in The Netherlands

Lia van Doorn, professor for Innovation of Social Work, Centre for social Innovation,

University of applied sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands

(Co-researchers: Raymond Kloppenburg & Peter Hendriks)


EUROPEAN CONTEXTENHR

Presentation

The aim of the research and research questions Presentation of the characteristics of six new

experiments of social housing for (former) homeless

What can be learned from these experiments? Main outcomes of the research



The aim of the research

The Dutch national organisation for social housing (Housing Experiments Steering Group / SEV) wants housing associations to be kept better informed about innovative experiments in housing for former homeless and other vulnerable groups who have difficulty living independently in standard housing.

What lessons can be learned from these innovative experiments for social housing?



Research questions

Which innovative forms of social housing with assistance and supervision for vulnerable residents are realized in The Netherlands? How can these social housing experiments be characterised?

How do these experiments of social housing involve the local area / neighbourhood?

What type of expertise do staff members need? Which institutions work together in the experiments and

what form does this cooperation take? To what extend is upward social movement involved for

residents of these experiments for social housing?



Innovative experiments of social housing

We selected and described six innovative experiments of social housing:

1. Woonhotel & Flexibel wonen, Rotterdam

2. Nieuwe Energie, Leiden

3. Omnizorg, Apeldoorn

4. Begeleid Wonen, Hoogezand

5. Je Eigen Stek, Amsterdam,

6. ‘T Groene Sticht, Utrecht



1. Woonhotel & Flexibel Wonen, Rotterdam-Rijnmond



1. Woonhotel & Flexibel Wonen, Rotterdam-Rijnmond

A hotel with a combination of upmarket hotelrooms for regular guests and affordable short stay facilities for (former) homeless. Set up by three Rotterdam social housing corporations.

Also: supervision contracts for rented social housing for (ex) homeless / ex-convicts etc. spread across the city and properties with shared facilities.

Housing supervisors (‘streetwise’) focus on quality of life and case managers (from the health institution) handle individual cases: combination of care and control: carrot and stick.

Contracts adjusted at 1½ year periods with decreasing control. Residents receive a regular rental agreement in a small

presentation ceremony.




Former textile factory on the edge of central Leiden. Joint project between the municipality, the Portaal

housing corporation and social services. Housing from: office of the housing corporation, ICT

businesses, restaurant (ROC study workshop). Night shelter for homeless people and workshop/day-care centre.

Integration where possible and segregation where necessary (entrance corridor).

Less disturbance in the city, a controlled increase in the local area.



3. Omnizorg, Apeldoorn



3. Omnizorg, Apeldoorn Joint project between the municipality and

health-care institutions (mental health authority, homeless shelters and addiction care centres).

Building forms part of overall urban plan. All employees (from health-care institutions)

involved in contact with the residents. Building fitted to reflect housing progression. Expected stay of 3 to 5 years. Less disturbance in the city, more disturbance

around the building.



4. Begeleid Wonen, Hogezand



4. Begeleid Wonen, Hogezand

Newly constructed building in former problem area. Initiative by housing corporation. Building has independent housing units for various target

groups (young people, former homeless people, those with drugs or mental health issues).

Focuses on independent living, social contact is not encouraged (to prevent disturbances).

Case managers at corporations handle allocation, social concierge plays an important role in contact with residents.

Supervision by health-care institutions failed to materialize as hoped.



5. ’T Groene Sticht



5. ’T Groene Sticht Residential / working development in Leidsche Rijn Not imposed in an existing area but developed on the

drawing table of a new satellite city. Combination of housing for sale and rent, homeless

shelter, charity shop, restaurant. Visitor’s quarters are self-managed. Residents selected on the basis of affinity and

willingness to contribute (concept of ‘neighbourliness’) Search for a balance between support and

dependency. Project is running successfully for 6 years.



6. Je eigen stek (my own place), Amsterdam Half-way house for formerly

homeless people Completely self-managed. Formerly homeless people without

any additional complicating factors. As little professional intervention

as possible. Residents proud of the success of this

project.



Outcomes of the research: 1. the expertise

Pioneers with passion, able to break down barriers. Cooperation between administrators, health workers,

local residents, local facilities and clients. Hands-on professionals: streetwise, language of the

target group, people with first-hand experience. Case managers: focus on the step-by-step acquisition of

independent living skills. Supervisors: signal problems with quality of life.



2. The local areaImportant themes: security and quality of life, concentration of disturbance.

Contact with local neighbourhood is a critical success factor.

Open communication; do not shy from providing clear information about risks.

Involve residents from the planning phases. Effective complaints procedure.

Contact with a wide range of welfare institutions, sports associations, voluntary organizations, and churches is essential for projects to become firmly rooted in society.



3. Cooperation

Responsibility for administration/ policy direction lies with municipality as part of their duty to provide social support.

Responsibility for implementation lies sometimes with housing corporations and sometimes with health-care institutions.

Division of roles often along lines of supervision by corporations and assistance by health-care institutions.

Development of shared objectives between the partners.



4. Upward social movement Policy ambition of upward social movement (after a stay

of one year) is not usually achieved. Upward social movement is a limited concept; more than

just moving up the housing ladder. Improvement in quality of life, improvement of the living

environment in the city. Some people will remain dependent on some form of

supervision, while others will have more opportunities to succeed.

For former homeless people, getting used to not living on the streets.

As few relocations as possible for individual cases.



Final remarks The distinction between social assistance and

supervision is often made very strongly: they are both implicitly part of the service to be provided.

Disengagement of professionals from the primary process leads to empowerment of the residents. Favour self-management and using those with first-hand experience.

Social professionals have more responsibility than previously for cooperation between institutions but are not getting the right training for this.



Thanks for your attention

european research conference, budapest, 17th september 2010

Business

social housing experiments

rented social housing

combination of housing

housing associations

standard housing

housing progression

social contact

social innovation