first steps towards housing first. possible implementation of the housing first approach in hungary

EUROPEAN RESEARCH CONFERENCE

Housing First. What’s Second?

Berlin, 20th September 2013

First steps towards Housing First.

Possible implementation of the Housing First

approach in Hungary

Anna Balogi




Hungarian context

Social services in general:

Social benefits very insufficient

No real housing benefit (inadequate, difficult to access)

Extremely low proportion of social housing units

Unemployment (especially among undereducated

people)

No guaranteed minimum income

Result: lack of affordable housing for those in need




Hungarian context

Homeless services

Homelessness most often not seen as a housing

or poverty problem – criminalization

„How do we end homelessness? By placing the

homeless in shelters” – increasing ban on public

sleeping

Staircase model very widespread

Dead-end staircase




Housing first approach in practice

Governmental schemes:

Housing support program 2005-2009

2007-2009: Pilisi Forest Project

2012-2013: „Back from the streets”

from 2012 ongoing: ESF-funded projects (at

early stages)

Civil projects:

2013: an initiative of The City is for All




Pilisi Forest Project

Original aim: clear the forest areas

Implemented by 7 NGOs

Social support

Financial support – 240 000 HUF (960 euro) / user/ year

Rent, renovation

Utensils, furniture

Travel costs

Any other (medication, food, clothing, etc.)

Duration: one year, could be prolonged




Housing retention

11

2

7

32

53

5

19 19

2 2

7

1 1

6

19

4

18 17 15

64

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Number of clients

type of housing

Chart 1: Type of housing during and at the end of co-operation period




Main results of the project

Out of total 152, 118 people stayed in proper

housing during and 45 people (29,6%) until the

end the co-operation period

Couples (greater financial and psychologial

stability), families with small children

Employment status, stable income

No severe addiction

Motivation




Strengths of the project

Flexibility

Tailored housing solutions

„Real help” for rough sleepers

Follow-up care

Cooperation with other organizations

Experiences gained, new skills learnt




Challenges of the project

Housing not sustainable without stable income

Financial support rather low and short term

No guideline nor training for support workers

Support work carried out besides daily tasks of staff (not

enough time, not enough money)

Lack of psychological and employment support

Period too short for preparation and selection

Difficulties in finding apartments, rental contracts

No inner evaluation




„Back from the streets” initiative

Funded by the ministry – „dealing with visible

homelessness”

between 1 March 2012 and 15 January 2013 (after-care:

February – June 2013)

18 projects (after-care: 15 projects)

Primary target group: chronic homeless – rough sleepers

with complex needs

Secondary target group: homeless service users able to

move on

Principles: innovative, tailored services providing housing

for participants that support their social integration




Services and figures enabling homeless service providers/institutions to host

target group – e.g. by ensuring more space and privacy

– 21 new places

making low threshold beds available for primary target

group by providing other type of accommodation to

secondary target group

tailored, complex services based on the cooperation with

a key worker (psychologist, addiction specialist, medical

check-up, dentist)

Employment or preparation to be employed (in 5

projects)

Renovation of 2 social housing units




Housing retention (%)

primary

target group

secondary

target group total

rental 25,2 7,3 32,5

family reunion 1 0,7 1,7

workers' hostel 11,6 7,6 19,2

53,30% homeless

services 27,5 3,3 30,8

institutions 2 1,3 3,3

rough sleeping 5,6 1 6,6

other 0,7 1 1,7

missing 1,7 2,5 4,2

total 75,3 24,7 100




„Back from the streets”

- an example

Project for rough sleeping women in Budapest

Difficulties with finding apartments

2x3 women sharing an apartment

Individual apartments not affordable

Community work seen as attribute (cooking together, for ex.)

Additional 2 women moved to workers’ hostel




„Back from the streets”

– an example 2

Intensive care

first weeks, several visits

later, weekly visits

Group work (self-help group, violence

against women self-esteem group)





Intensive and multidisciplinary approach

Involvement of couples as well as flexible housing solutions

Housing-related expenses (furniture, equipment, cleaning stuff)

New relationships – other than homeless people and homelessness services





Limited in time (8 months only)

Long-term success completely dependent on employment – 8 months was not enough to secure that

More time needed to build self-esteem and break away from homeless friends and services

Real difficulty in finding affordable apartments that provide a bill




From the forest to housing

– a special initiative

Cooperation of The City is for All, local

municipality, Social Housing Reconstruction

Project, Red Cross and several NGOs

Grassroot

Tenants and volunteers

renovating 1 social housing unit

together





Real cooperation between various stake-holders

Could serve as a model for other public

authorities

Involvement of homeless beneficiaries as well as

homeless peers in reconstruction

Good message: homeless people active and

willing to work and help others

Sustainable – integrated into housing support

services





Very small scale

Renovation costs and workforce provided by

NGOs and their volunteers

Housing allowance much less than in other

projects

Two people needed to be able to cover own

costs

No official intensive floating support




Conclusions

Housing or employment first? A general

dilemma of social workers

No housing without employment in the long-term

Insufficient social and housing benefits

Lack of financial sustainability

Duration of projects is too short (8-12 months)

No support after project ends (financial or mental)

Cannot be mainstreamed into „normal” housing

support as that is very insufficient




Conclusions 2

Target group: often not the most vulnerable;

priority given to those „most likely” to succeed

Couples and small groups

Those with less severe addiction/health problems

Those with an income

Those motivated (and likely) to find work

In several cases to those already using services –

rough sleepers can access the beds thus freed in

services (maybe modified to low-threshold)




Conclusions 3

Staircase approach is still mainstream

Half of the Back from the street projects place people in services

or workers’ hostels

Most support workers working with re-housed rough sleepers do

this job after their regular working hours in the staircase system

– attitudes cannot shift so fast

Staircase system – indicators are less risky, especially when

funding comes from ESF…

Housing First approach is slowly spreading

Not part of mainstream policy

Can any short-term project be considered housing first without

the element of sustainability?




Thank you for your attention!

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

first steps towards housing first. possible implementation of the housing first approach in hungary

Business

project housing

type of housing

housing retention

housing chart1

proper housing

housing support program

lack of affordable housing

projects primary target