investing in the right to a home: housing, haps and hubs · investing in the right to a home:...

Peer Researchers:Paul Haughan, Emma Richardson, Kathleena Twomey

Dr Rory Hearne and

Dr Mary P. Murphy

Investing in the Right to a Home:Housing, HAPs and Hubs

This project has received funding from the Euro peanUnion’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programmeunder Grant Agreement No 649447. The Euro pean Unionis not responsible for the content nor for any use made ofthe information contained in this publication.

Policy recommendations:

1 Prevention In keeping with the EU SIP focus on preventinghomelessness, there is a need to focus additional investmentin and adequately support preventative policy and practice.

2 An emergency plan to rapidly increase supply of social homesIntensify an urgent social housing building and acquisitionprogramme as the primary vehicle for addressing the housingcrisis and develop a fair and transparent allocationsmechanism for all social housing stock.

3 HAP and private rental sector security. The market should bea secondary mechanism to address social housing and resolvehomelessness. Legislation is required to amend Part 4 S 34PRTA and enhance security of tenure and to create longerprivate rental tenure options.

4 HUBS While advocating against institutionalised emergencyprovision we focus on design and operational models thatrespect autonomy, regulate and inspect standards and theneed for legal time limits on residence and a 2019 sunsetclause on the use of family hubs.

5 Power, voice and participation Noting the power of vestedinterests to influence housing policy we stress human rightsapproaches to housing and the need for adequate redress, aswell as voice, participation, and governance.

Contact details:Dr Rory Hearne, [email protected] Dr Mary Murphy, [email protected]

Department of SociologyMaynooth University Social Sciences Institute Iontas Building North Campus Maynooth University Maynooth, Co Kildare Ireland


ISBN: 978-0-9932012-1-9

Designed and Printed by Printwell Design, www.printwell.ie

Introduction

This report is written in the context of a largerEuropean Union H2020 funded research projectRe-InVest1, and focuses on the structural crisis offamily homelessness in Ireland, a direct outcomeof long-term disinvestment in social housing,privatization and marketization of social housing,and private housing market failure. Using ahuman rights and capability theoretical frame -work and a participatory approach the report isorganized around three key themes: a) a criticalassessment of Rebuilding Ireland’s over reliance onthe private rental sector as the primary mechanismto resolve the social housing deficit and home -lessness crisis; b) a review of the effectiveness ofthe private rental subsidy, homeless HousingAssistance Payment (HAP); c) the development offamily hubs (hubs) as an emerging form ofemergency accommodation for homeless families.

In the full research report we introduced threetheoretical concepts informing this research; socialinvestment, human rights and capability theoryand we outlined our methodological framework.We then reviewed, through a human rightsframework, the policy shift from traditional socialhousing building programmes to the greater useof Rent Supplement (RS), then the Rental Accom -modation Scheme (RAS) and finally the HousingAssistance Payment (HAP). In this context wereviewed Rebuilding Ireland, and argue againstthe use of HAP and the private housing market asthe primary mechanism to meet social housingneed. We examined from various perspectives thedegree to which the market mechanism to securesocial housing, the HAP and homeless HAP, isworking, including whether it can deliver thesecurity of tenure associated with the right tohousing. Examining vulnerable families’ experi -ence of attempting to access HAP in a context oftight private rental market supply, we note theirexperience of both competition and discriminationin that market, and that despite state and NGOefforts to support families accessing HAP, a rangeof barriers prevent HAP working to meet suchfamilies’ social housing need. A cost benefitanalysis of HAP shows it to be an expensive policy

option and far more costly than directly buildingsocial housing. Having established that both theprivate market and HAP are failing to fully meetsocial housing needs and rights, we turned to thereality of life in emergency homeless accom -modation and the emerging family hubs. A capa -bility framework is used to draw attention to howhotels and hubs restrict the capacity to live normalfamily lives and curtail functioning in parenting,child development, education, employ ment andmaintaining wider family and social networks. Thecombined effect is devastating on family, adultand child well-being. While con clud ing suchinstitutional responses to home lessness should beavoided, we argue that if and when they are usedthat design and opera tional models shouldmitigate the worst damage by prioritisingautonomy, quality standards and time limits onresidence, and for the importance of a legislative‘sunset’ clause on the use of Family Hubs.

HOMES We find a core tension within Irishhousing and economic policy – with policy tryingto address the social housing crisis while en -couraging and relying on the private market todeliver investment in housing. Absence of invest -ment in social housing negates the housing rightsof the most vulnerable in Ireland. We are not atthe peak of the contemporary housing crisis andwe expect the housing crisis to escalate over thenext five years, a frightening scenario for manyfamilies and a scenario that should be unaccept -able for Irish society and the Irish govern ment.

HAPUntil HAP offers effective security of tenure weargue it is not a valid mechanism to meet the rightto housing. This does not mean HAP is not a validor welcome housing option rather that it should beoperationalised as a secondary rather than aprimary housing mechanism with direct localauthority or approved housing body’s social hous -ing remaining as Ireland’s primary social housingmechanism. While we make this argu ment from asecurity of tenure perspective we also note thatfrom a cost perspective that direct build socialhousing presents a far greater return on stateinvestment, and is thus a more cost efficient policychoice than investment in private rental subsidies.

1

1 Re-InVEST, a H2020 funded project involves 19 organizations (universities, research centres and civil society organizations workingwith vulnerable groups). Re-InVEST aims to investigate the philosophical, institutional and empirical foundations of an inclusiveEurope of solidarity and trust. To this end it draws on capability and human rights based participatory approaches to examine howsocial investment can be strengthened across the European Union.

Executive SummaryInvesting in the Right to a Home: Housing, HAPs and Hubs

HUBS We find no international research orevidence base to justify the emerging family hubsmodel and note there have been no pilots todemonstrate how they might work. The dangerwith ‘hubs’ is that they both institutionalise andreduce the functioning capacity of families. Thistype of institutional approach can lead to a formof ‘therapeutic incarceration’ and over time maylead society to blame these families – pre -dominantly lone parent mothers, working class,migrant and ethnic minority women – forsomething they did not cause. This follows a longIrish history of gen dered forms of social violenceinflicted on poor mothers and their children whowere made invisible, incarcerated and excludedfrom society. We caution that hubs may be a newform of institutionalisation of vulnerable womenand child ren, and poor families, and that housingmarket failures will be forgotten as these familiesbecome the ‘problem’ that needs to be solved.Therefore, we stress the need for an urgent socialhousing building programme and that short termstays in emergency accommodation hubs need tomaximise family functioning and ensure residentsexperience dignity and respect.

In the likely scenario of a continued escalation ofthe homelessness crisis we highlight five policyrecommendations; prevention, building homes,enhancing HAP, mitigating the potential negativeimpacts of hubs, and issues of power, voice andparticipation, all of which are premised by theurgent need to act now.

1 Prevention, stocks and flowsPrevention and early intervention are in manyways the most cost-effective policies for con -fronting homelessness. Reintegra tion costsincrease sharply after somebody has becomehomeless, and the longer the experience of home -lessness the more time and effort are needed forreintegration. Various cost bene fit analysis haveshown significant returns on investment in pre -ventative measures and already Irish pre ventionservices have proved effective. A pilot FocusIreland service in Dublin 15 produced valuablelessons concerning communication and outreachstrategies for preventative services (Focus Ireland2016). The Threshold delivered Tenancy ProtectionService operates through a Freephone to workwith key services to make assistance available tofamilies at risk of losing a home in the privaterented sector. Such is the demand; over 800contacts were made with this service in the firstquarter of 2017. Dublin City Council now employsthree prevention officers and has found their workto be cost effective in less than a year. As discussedbelow the fastest and most effective way to

prevent homelessness, however, is to build housesand to strengthen security of tenure in the privaterental market.

t Many HAP recipients are in receipt of socialwelfare payments. Mechanisms are needed toensure that reduction in or cessation of theprimary social welfare payment does not leadto a premature loss of housing though cancel -lation from the household budget scheme ofthe HAP tenant rent contribution.

t It is crucial to achieve a balance between invest -ment in prevention and investment in all evi a ting the situation for those already homeless,this requires adequate new investment in pre -ventative measures to ensure that pre ven tion(lessening the flow of people into home -lessness) is not paid for by those alreadyex perien cing the problem (the stock).

t A second way of limiting flow is to limit thoseentering homeless services. There is a balanceto be achieved between preventing home -lessness by supporting people to stay wherethey are and denying people the legitimateright to access emergency accommodation.

2. An emergency social housing buildingprogramme

There is an urgent need to intensify the socialhousing building and acquisition programme asthe primary vehicle for addressing the home less -ness crisis and to develop a fair and transparentallocations mechanism for all social housing stock.Local authorities and housing associations do nothave sufficient direct exchequer capital funding toprovide the level of house building required. Theyare in the process of increasing their capacity todeliver housing and this should be consolidatedand accelerated through the increase of securecapital funding. Additionally a new semi-state, not-for-profit, Irish Affordable Homes Company shouldbe established by government to build affordable‘cost rental’ houses and homes for ownership for amix of household incomes. This mechanism canprovide an additional supply of affordable housingwithout significant capital funding requirement asit can be borrowed ‘off-books.’

t Increase capital funding for local authority andApproved Housing Bodies (AHB) rapid housing:triple direct capital ex chequer funding to €1bnper annum to enable the rapid building within16 months of 5,000 additional social housingunits.

t Emergency legislation to enable rapid pro -curement to facilitate the above rapid building

2

Executive Summary Investing in the Right to a Home

programme. In particular redirect use of state-owned land in Dublin for emergency buildrather than marketing to developers in variousPublic Private Partner ships Lands Initiative.

t Establish a new semi-state Irish AffordableHomes Company as proposed by both theNational Economic and Social Council (NESC2015) and the Nevin Institute (NERI 2017).

t Increase use of vacant housing for socialhousing through the combination of incen tives,a vacant homes tax and a compulsory leasingorder of vacant housing.

3. HAP and security of tenure in privaterented sector

The erroneous move away from direct build andstate supplied social housing to a major relianceon HAP private rental (from 2011, but under -pinned from earlier) has contributed to this socialhousing and homelessness crisis. The policyemphasis needs to return to primarily stateprovided new build social and affordable housing.Legislative measures to address security of tenureare required for the private rental market to be aneffective secondary mechanism to address socialhousing and resolve homelessness. In particulargovernment should amend Part 4 Section 34 of thePrivate Rental Tenancies Act which allows land -lords regain possession of private rental property.At the same time there is a need for more diverseforms of private rental tenure including longerlease options. The human right to secure housingrequires the cessation of ‘self-accommodation’.Local authorities should be responsible forsourcing Homeless HAP accommodation forfamilies and to re-house families who lose HAPaccommodation

t HAP should be de-prioritised as the mainprovider of social housing in Rebuilding Ire -land. Prioritise state lead building pro grammeinstead.

t Legislative measures to address security oftenure. Amend Part 4 section 34 of the PRTA.

t A minimum 5 year tenant protection/lease –length of security for homeless HAP tenancies

t Local authorities as duty bearers with theobligation to source and offer HAP accom -modation and to re-house if HAP tenants loserental accommodation.

t Greater clarity is needed for HAP tenants as totheir status on local authority social waitinglists, they should retain their full priority basedon their full time on the social housing list.

4 Family HubsThe real risk and danger of family hubs as‘temporary’ solutions is that they will become apermanent feature with homeless families left foryears in inappropriate and potentially damagingaccommodation. The experience of direct pro -vision centres – now in existence for almost twodecades – demonstrates the likelihood that theseinstitutions, once formed, will not be easily dis -mantled. This threatens the human rights of thesefamilies, particularly children, with con ditionslikely to do significant harm to families andparticularly to the well-being of children who stayany length of time in emergency accommodation.Suggestions that families are gaming the systemto present as homeless in order to more quicklyaccess council housing can be easily refuted.Families are actively seeking HAP accommodationbut are unable to access it because of thecompetition in a tight private rental housingmarket. While some families require supports, themost important support is the provision of a securehome – a housing first approach.

t Family hubs have emerged as a policy optionwith little public deliberation and con siderableconfusion as to their rationale and policyintent. The Rebuilding Ireland review needs tosituate hubs within a clear strategy to eliminatefamily homelessness.

t Stable long term housing is the only viableoption to resolve family homeless and any formof emergency accommodation in cluding familyhubs can only be a very short term solution. Arights based perspec tive requires regulatoryand legisla tive safe guards concerning maxi -mum limits on the length of time a familymight reside in a family hub. A three monthlimit as well as standards and inspectionregimes should be legislated in an amendmentof Section 10 of the 1988 Housing Act.

t There is a real danger that family hubs maybecome the next ‘direct provision’, an additionto Ireland’s long lamentable experience of insti -tutional responses to social policy. To ensurefamilies are not forgotten, there is a clear needfor a legislative sunset clause whereby all hubsclose by December 2019.

t Choice and autonomy are important principles,some families may for under standable reasonsprefer the more auton o mous hotel environ -ment and should be accommodated in hotelswith access to relocation supports. No familyshould be required to ‘self-accommodate’.

t Ideally accommodation management andlandlord functions shoud be separate fromfamily support and advocacy functions.

3

Investing in the Right to a Home Executive Summary

5 Power, Voice, and Participation

We find power inequalities dominate housingpolicy. Powerful vested interests, domestic, andincreasingly international, appear able to profitfrom maintaining the dominant position of themarket as the preferred mechanism to deliversocial housing. Conservative interpretations of theright to property in the 1937 Irish constitution areused to veto more progressive regulation of thehousing market. This policy orientation issustained by a powerful political and mediametanarrative that at once makes the marketseem an inevitable and natural presence in socialhousing provision. The same metanarrative injectselements of morality into public discourse wherethose who cannot access housing are made bearthe blame for market and policy failure. To datemedia representation of the family hubs has beenrelatively uncritical leaving the public with astrong impression that hubs are a significantimprovement on hotel based family accom -modation. In this context families living in familyhubs may fall under the radar.

The Economic and Social Rights campaign success -fully brought their case for a constitutional rightto housing through the 2015 ConstitutionalConvention. A rights approach to housing cancreate an alternative public narrative and a focusfor policy change, as seen in how the Home SweetHome mobilisation created a public discourse tochallenge market dominant policy. The EU SocialInvestment Programme analysis stresses theimportant role of participation and em power mentof those directly affected by homelessness,arguing for measures that enable their voice andparticipation in policy debate, advocacy, adviceand information as well as peer support pro -grammes. The principles underlying a right tohousing also offer standards against which toproof policy and practice, for example whetherthere are adequate systems for service user’sparticipation and consultation and for redress andsafe-guarding entitlements.

t Those residing in emergency accom moda tionneed formal redress mechanisms or proceduresin the event of complaints about allocationdecisions, housing standards and loss of socialrights.

t A media code of practice can hold media togreater account for implicit bias in housingpolicy reportage.

t Providers of homeless services are, under theterms of their service delivery agreements,often prohibited from advocacy about housingpolicy, they in turn sometimes prohibit service

users from overt advocacy or protest. The voicesof both homeless agencies and service users arecrucial voices and all effort should be made toenable these voices challenge inequality andpro mote positive change in the public sphere.

t Academic researchers have a role to play incommitting to engaged and policy relevantresearch. Significant advances can be made tocreate a learning culture where data andevaluations can be shared across the differenthousing actors; political, policy makers, NGO’s,activists and academics.

Conclusion

The housing crisis is likely to continue for manyyears to come. Given the on-going mortgagearrears crisis, the private rental crisis, and the lackof private supply, HAP, even with reconfiguration,is unlikely to provide a stable and secure home forthese families. Rather than social housing pro tect -ing lower income households from the inequalitiesof the private market, using HAP as the primarysocial housing vehicle further exposes them to themarket. Family hubs are not socially and politicallyacceptable solutions to this crisis. Families in hubsremain inadequately housed and exposed toinstitutionalisation. Hidden away, their homeless -ness may be forgotten and ignored. There is analterna tive to hubs – it is straight forward – homes.We find insufficient political will to address thisvery real crisis. The core solution is the sufficientnew build of social houses and other forms ofaffordable rental. The real emergency responserequired is houses not hubs.

As researchers we would like to respectfully thankall those we spoke with and engaged with in thecourse of this short research project, not leastthose families living in emergency accommodationwho shared their hope and fears with us, andthose who work on the front-line with families. Itis clear that all who work in this field care deeplyabout the plight of these families. We would liketo thank the housing NGOs we worked with,MUSSI and the Department of Sociology atMaynooth University. It is our collective moralobligation to ensure these families are not leftignored and hidden in new institutionalisedresponses to housing and home lessness. Therevision of Rebuilding Ireland must make socialhousing build the primary mechanism to meetsocial housing need, and an urgent house buildingprogramme must proceed in the context of thishousing emergency.

4

Executive Summary Investing in the Right to a Home

Contents

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 6

Section One:

Conceptual and methodological framework 7

Section Two:

Reviewing Rebuilding Ireland 9

Irish private rental subsidies for social housing: RS, RAS and HAP 9

Rental Accommodation Scheme (RAS) 10

Assessment of housing rights across social housing mechanisms 11

Housing and homelessness social housing need 12

Social housing build targets 13

Increase in family homelessness and use of emergency accommodation 13

Reviewing Rebuilding Ireland: The housing crisis and financialisation 15

Section 3:

Experience of the HAP & the homeless HAP – evidence from the research 17

HAP and security of tenure 18

Experience of competing in the private rental market for HAP accommodation 19

Discrimination and stigma as single mothers 21

Challenging the assumption of policy makers 22

Cost benefit analysis of HAP 23

HAP strengths and weaknesses

Section 4:

Emergency Accommodation and Family Hubs 24

From hotels to hubs 24

Emerging concerns about use of family hubs 26

Autonomy, choice and ability to plan 26

Treatment, stigma and discrimination 27

Parenting efficacy and family functioning 28

Contextualising family hubs: therapeutic incarceration 30

Section 5:

Conclusions and policy recommendations 32

Conclusions 32

1. Prevention, stocks and flows 32

2. An emergency social housing building programme 33

3. HAP and security of tenure in private rented sector 33

4. Mitigating potential damage from use of family hubs 34

5. Power, voice, and participation 34

Conclusion 35

Bibliography 36

5

Introduction

6

2 Re-InVEST, a H2020 funded project under Euro 3 Europe after the Crisis, involves 19 organizations (universities, research centres and civil society organizationsworking with vulnerable groups). Re-InVEST aims to investigate the philosophical, institutional and empirical foundations of an inclusive Europe of solidarityand trust. To this end it draws on capability and human rights based participatory approaches to examine how social investment can be strengthened acrossthe European Union.

This Report is written in the context of a largerEuropean H2020 funded research project Re-InVest2, and focuses on the structural crisis offamily homelessness in Ireland, a direct outcomeof long-term disinvestment in social housing,privatization and marketization of housing, andprivate hous ing market failure. Using a humanrights and capability theoretical framework andparticipatory approach the report is organizedaround three key themes: a) a critical assessmentof Rebuilding Ireland’s over reliance on the privaterental sector as the primary mechanism to resolvethe social housing deficit and homelessness crisisb) a review of the effectiv eness of the privaterental subsidy, homeless Hous ing Assistance Pay -ment c) the dev el op ment of family hubs, anemerging form of emergency accommodation forhomeless families.

This report is organised into six sections. Followingthis brief introduction, Section one introduces thecontext in which this report was produced as wellas its theoretical and methodological framework.

Section two uses a human rights framework toreview how, over time, Irish social housing policyshifted from a traditional social housing buildingprogramme to the greater use of Rent Supple -ment, the move to the Rental Accom modationScheme and, in Rebuilding Ireland, to the HousingAssistance Payment and the private market as theprimary mechanism to meet social housing need.In the context of the review of Rebuilding Irelandwe argue the financialisation of the Irish housingmarket moves it further and further from meetingsocial housing need.

Section three reviews from various perspectivesthe degree to which the market mechanism to

secure social housing, the HAP and homeless HAP,is working, including whether it can deliver thesecurity of tenure associated with the right tohousing. It examines vulnerable families’ experi -ence of trying to access HAP in a context of tightprivate rental market supply, their experience ofboth competition and discrimination in thatmarket, state and NGO efforts to support familiesaccess HAP, as well as barriers to making HAPwork. The section concludes with a cost benefitanalysis of HAP.

Having established that both the private marketand HAP are failing to fully meet social housingneeds and rights, Section Four examines the realityof life in emer gency homeless accommodation andthe emer ging family hubs. A capability frameworkis used to draw attention to how hotels and hubsrestrict the capacity to live normal family lives andcurtail functioning in parenting, child develop -ment, education, employment and maintainingwider family and social networks. The combinedeffect is devastating on family, adult and childwell-being. While concluding such institutionalresponses to homelessness should be avoided, weargue that when they are used design andoperational models should mitigate the worstdamage by prioritising autonomy, quality stan -dards and time limits on residence and a sunsetclause on use of hubs.

Section five focuses on factors underpinning thelikely continuation and escalation of the home -lessness crisis, and concludes with five policyrecommendations; prevention, building homes,enhancing HAP, mitigating the potential negativeimpacts of hubs and issues of power, voice andparticipation, all of which are premised by theurgent need to act now.

1 Prevention In keeping with the EU SIP focus on preventinghomelessness, there is a need to focus additional investment inand adequately support preventative policy and practice.

2 An emergency plan to rapidly increase supply of socialhomes Intensify an urgent social housing building andacquisition programme as the primary vehicle for addressing thehousing crisis and develop a fair and transparent allocationsmechanism for all social housing stock.

3 HAP and private rental sector security. The market should bea secondary mechanism to address social housing and resolvehomelessness. Legislation is required to amend Part 4 S 34 PRTA

and enhance security of tenure and to create longer private rentaltenure options.

4 HUBS While advocating against institutionalised emergencyprovision we focus on design and operational models that respectautonomy, regulate and inspect standards and the need for legaltime limits on residence and a 2019 sunset clause on the use offamily hubs.

5 Power, voice and participation Noting the power of vestedinterests to influence housing policy we stress human rightsapproaches to housing and the need for adequate redress, as wellas voice, participation, and governance.

Box 1 – Policy recommendations: Prevent, Build Homes, Security in HAP, Time limit HUBs, Voice

7

Section One:Conceptual and Methodological Framework

Social investment and homelessness

In 2013 the European Commission (EC) issued acommunication on social investment for growthand cohesion, the Social Investment Package (SIP).While housing is not an European Union (EU)competence, the SIP includes a module on home -lessness which explores how states might realisesocial housing rights of vulnerable groups1.Following a ‘housing first’ philosophy it recognisesthe grave impact of homelessness on individualsand society in terms of integration, social co -hesion, health, education, employment, familyfunctioning and well-being. Over the crisis, andrelated disinvestment in social housing, the com -position of the homeless population has changedacross the EU with lack of afford able housingsupply a common cause of home less ness in the EUand people waiting longer for social housing. Ourresearch interest in Irish responses to home less nessis informed by this stress on social invest ment andthe prism of rights and capabilities.

Human right to housing

Human rights are indivisible and housing isintrinsically linked to other rights, includinghealth, work, leisure, family and children’s rights.The Right to Housing has been codified by a widerange of International legal instruments under theumbrella of the UN Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights 1948. Article 25 (1)

“Everyone has the right to a standard of livingadequate for the health and well-being ofhimself and of his family, including food,clothing, and housing and medical care andnecessary social services, and the right tosecurity in the event of unemployment,sickness, disability, widowhood, old age orother lack of livelihood in circumstancesbeyond his control.

Specific elements of the right to housing havebeen further developed in two main generalcomments (1991 and 1997) adopted by the UNCommittee on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights. The UN Special Rapporteur on HousingAdequacy has established that the human right toadequate housing includes legal security oftenure, availability of services, materials, facilitiesand infrastructure, affordability, habitability,accessibility, location and cultural adequacy. TheIrish Constitution does not contain a fundamentallegal right to housing and Ireland has traditionallypursued a largely selective or dualist housingpolicy (Bengtsson 2001). Dimensions of the rightto housing are covered in the 1966 Housing Actwhich establishes the right to adequate housing,and the 1988 Housing Act which legally defineshomelessness, while the 2009 Housing (Miscellan -eous Provisions) Act extended and amended theHousing Acts 1966 – 2004. This report focuses onrights directly related to social housing andhomelessness and examines how marketizationdiminishes legal rights to social housing includingsecurity of tenure and the state’s housing obliga -tions, albeit we acknowledge private rentedtenants have stronger right to redress through thePrivate Residential Tenancies Board and thatvarious private rental subsidies strengthened theright to work.

Capability approach

The Capability approach defines a person’s well-being in terms of ‘what a person can do’ to lead alife one values and has reason to value. It prom -otes having autonomy and freedom to choose.Housing is an essential prerequisite in enabling aperson to exercise choices in almost every area oflife a person might need to maximize personal andfamily well-being including work, leisure, cooking,health and parenting, all types of family function -ing and what we think of as ‘normal’ well-being.In common with Wang (2017) we use a capabilityframework to examine the detrimental conse -quences of homelessness and transitional housingfor families with children. Effective strategies forrelieving family home lessness are not only econ -omi cally beneficial saving the state significantcosts of homelessness but are also the foundationfrom which children and parents can grow to beproductive members of society and achieve funda -mental human rights.

3 Social Investment Package 2013 Confronting Homelessness inthe EU Brussels, 20.2.2013 SWD(2013) 42 final

3 Social Investment Package 2013 Confronting Homelessness in the EUBrussels, 20.2.2013 SWD(2013) 42 final

Methodology: Participatory ActionHuman Rights and Capability Approach(PAHRCA)

The research was conducted by two researchersfrom Maynooth University and supported by threepeer researchers who were tenants of an Irishhousing association. We worked through a partici -pative methodological approach to go beyonddata extraction and empower research partici -pants. The approach combines participative quali -ta tive research with quantitative data to deepenunderstanding of how social housing policiesrelate to rights and capabilities and to co-constructknowledge across academic researchers, peerresearchers, NGO’s and people directly experien -cing homelessness.

An iterative and ongoing process of action,knowledge creation and dialogical reflectiveprocess attempted to “merge” academic know -ledge, knowledge from lived experience andknowledge of NGO’s and policy makers. Theresearch was conducted over the last six monthsworking in a collaborative partnership with NGOs,10 families living in emergency homeless accom -modation in the Dublin area, 15 qualitativeinterviews with key policy experts and practi -tioners and statistical analysis including costbenefit analysis.

“When I came here first I was muchhappier. Spending time here takes

something away from you. I’m justfed up (visibly upset, crying –

pointing to her head)…now I don’twant to talk to people anymore…I just

want to be on my own… it’s thesystem… my child asks me when arewe going to live in our own house and

have our own toys - I say I don’tknow...you have to keep the children

inside..you cannot bring your friendshere…what is it like that your children

remind you to ‘sign out’ when youleave this place in the morning – whatkind of life is that? And with all thestress you have to stop yourself fromyelling at the children. You have to be

in the room with your children sowhen they go to sleep, you can’t watchthe TV, you have to go to sleep too. It’s

not right for a mother and twochildren – a boy and a girl – in one

room here. All the time” (Karina)

8

Section One Investing in the Right to a Home

Ireland has traditionally delivered on the right tohousing through the provision of social housingbuilt or procured and managed by a localauthority, and more recently also by approvedhousing bodies (not for profit housingassociations). Over the last three decades theprovision of social housing shifted from directbuild by the state (through local authorities) tobeing predominantly provided through theprivate market through private rental or purchasefrom the private market, alongside an increased

role for AHBs (Hearne, 2011). The decline of directbuild of social housing provision is illustrated inChart 1. In 1975 local authorities built 8,794 socialhousing units representing one-third of totalhousing provision that year, by 2005 this buildreduced to 5,559, just 6% of housing provided andby 2015 the state built only 75. In 1961 18.4% ofhousing stock was social housing but this reducedto 12.5% in 1981 and just 8.7% in 2011 (143, 975houses) (Byrne and Norris 2017).

Austerity intensified this decline in social housebuilding, with the Department of Environmentsuffering the second highest proportionatebudget reductions between 2008 and 2012reflecting a bias against social housing investmentand resulting in the lowest levels of provision ofnew social housing in over 35 years. Table 1 (onp.10) shows this decline and highlights that ifsocial housing continued to be built at the samescale as 2009, an additional 31,136 social housingunits would have been built in the period 2010 to2016 (Hearne, 2017). The absence of this stock is amajor contributory factor in the growing home -less ness crisis.

Irish private rental subsidies for socialhousing: RS, RAS and HAP

Instead of direct social housing building, privaterental market subsides have played an increasingrole in provision of social housing. Here we chartthe historical evolution of Irish private rentalsubsidies for social housing.

Rent Supplement: Since 1977 the Rent Supplementscheme (RS) has been available as a temporaryincome support to private rental tenants unableto afford to pay private rent. It was a form ofincome support and was not considered to meetsocial housing need. To qualify tenants had to passa means test, be on the local authority social

9

Section Two:Reviewing Rebuilding Ireland

Local Authority Voluntary & Co-operative

Social house completions by sector

Chart 1 Irish social housing completions

housing list and not be in full time employment(30 hours + per week). A 1994 review of thisscheme highlighted a number of serious policyanomalies including the cost of the scheme andsevere unemployment and poverty traps. Thereview recom mended that accommodatingpeople’s long term social housing needs should beadministered by local authorities. In 2000 it wasestablished that RS would remain as a short termincome support while those relying on the privaterented sector to meet longer term housing needs(18 months +) would transfer onto a new RentalAccommodation Scheme (RAS).

Rental Accommodation Scheme (RAS):

Under the RAS the local authority is responsiblefor finding suitable accommodation in the privaterental sector for qualifying tenants, enters intodirect contracts with Landlords to lease theirproperties for a minimum of four years, pays rentto the landlord directly and then rents theproperty as social housing under the localauthority differential rent scheme to tenants. Thisgives the tenant the same basic suite of rights aslocal authority tenants or approved housing bodytenants4. Crucially the local authority differentialrent scheme enabled the tenant to work full time.If a landlord exits the scheme, the Local Authority

are responsible for finding an alternative RASproperty for the tenants prior to their eviction.RAS also aims to improve the quality of privaterental accom modation for low income tenants andoffer integration between social housing andprivate tenants.

RAS was rolled out in the early days of theeconomic crisis in which local authorities ex peri -enced sharp declines in local capacity. Staffnumbers and budgets were reduced by as much as25% and local authorities were reluctant to takeon the maintenance obligations associated withlong term lease arrangements of private rentalproperties which often failed to meet higher localauthority accommodation standards. Furthermore,landlords were unhappy with the regulations andstandards required in RAS and were reluctant tosign long term leases at 80% of the market rent.The numbers entering RAS grew, with over 3,600entering the scheme in 2008 but slowed subs -equently, with just 1,800 entering in 2015. RASnever realised the policy objective as a long termsocial housing programme capable of replacingRS. In the context of austerity RS numberscontinued to grow and reached a peak of almost100,000 in 2010/2011. It is in this context theHousing Assistance Payment (HAP) emerged as analternative to RAS.

10

4 The major exception was that local authority ‘housing’ tenants had a right to buy at a discounted price, this right did not extend to local authority tenants inmultiple occupancy buildings (marionette’s, flat blocks and apartments)

Year

LocalAuthority

new build socialhousing

HousingAssociations

new build –AHBs

Social Housing

Total new build

Acquistions Austerity & Privatisationrelated reduction in supply (‘loss’) of social housing

2009 3,362 2,011 5,373 727 0

2010 1,328 753 2,081 850 3,292

2011 486 745 1,231 325 4,142

2012 363 653 1,016 351 4,357

2013 293 211 504 253 4,869

2014 158 357 515 183 4,858

2015 75 401 476 1,099 4,897

2016 234 418 652 1,200 4,721

Total 31,136

Table 1: Impact of austerity and privatisation on new social house buidling, 2009-2016

Section Two Investing in the Right to a Home

11

Chart 2: ‘RS, RAS and HAP 1999-2016

Housing Assistance Payment: In contrast to RAS,the local authority is no longer responsible forsourcing housing for HAP eligible households.Rather households source their own accom -modation in the private rented sector and make aHAP tenancy agreement with the private landlord.This means when/if the tenancy is not renewedthere is no obligation on the local authority torehouse the tenant, an important diminution ofsocial rights. The HAP payment is subject to termsand conditions including rent limits that are similarto the RS. Rolled out on a statutory phased basissince September 2014, it has been available to alleligible households across the State since 1 March2017. Chart 2 shows how 5,680 additional house -holds were supported by HAP at the end of 2015,increasing to 12,075 in 2016, with 15,000 targetedby end 2017. As is common with RS some HAPrecipients make ‘top up’ payments directly to their

landlords, beyond the amount of HAP being paidon their behalf. Partly in response to this problemand partly to give social housing candidatescapacity to compete in a tight housing privaterental market a Homeless Pilot of the HAP schemehas been operational since February 2015.

In 2016, there were 50,000 tenants in receipt ofrent allowance, 16,000 HAP recipients and 20,000RAS recipients, at a cost of almost half a billion perannum (€29m on HAP, €136m on RAS, €300m onRS).

Assessment of housing rights across socialhousing mechanisms

We can understand these policy shifts as shifts insocial rights. Table 2 assesses Ireland’s differentsocial housing mechanisms to determine whetherand how they enhance of diminish housing rights.

Investing in the Right to a Home Section Two

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Rent Supplement Recipients Rental Accommodation Scheme Hap Tenancies

Housing and Homelessness Social Housing Need

The Housing Policy Statement 2011 identifiesforms of private rental, social housing leasinginitiative and, in particular, the Rental Accom -modation Scheme (RAS), as forms of “long termsocial housing”. HAP is understood as a long termsocial housing support and HAP recipients, unlikethose on RS, are not entitled to be on the socialhousing list but are entitled to transfer theirwaiting time on the social housing waiting list tothe housing transfer list, an option taken up byover 95% of HAP recipients. This means the socialhousing list includes those on RS, who qualify forlong term social housing, but does not includeeither RAS tenants (who the local authority has anobligation to rehouse) or HAP tenants on transfer

lists (as they are considered to be in social housingwithout a local authority obligation to rehouse).

The number of households on local authorityhousing waiting lists grew exponentially over thecrisis. Nationally social housing lists grew from28,000 in 1996, to 42,000 in 2005 and 90,000 in2013 and 91,600 in 2016. Many have been on thewaiting list for an extended period of time.Twenty-one per cent of those on the list are on itfor over seven years and just under half (47%) areon it for over five years (Housing Agency, 2017).Over a third (35,572) of those on the waiting listin 2016 were in the Dublin region, while DublinCity had the largest increase between 2013 and2016, with 19,811 households in need of housingin 2016, up from 16,171 in 2013.

12

Human Right RS RAS HAPApproved housing body

Social Housing

Adequate Housing -

Legal Security

Poor – landlord canterminate to sell/

accommodate familymember

Good – LA legally obliged to rehouse

Poor – landlord canterminate to sell/

accommodate familymember

V Good

Life lease –no inheritance

V Good

Life lease –with inheritance

Adequate Housing -

Affordability

Rent review every twoyears.

Top ups in competitivemarket where rentexceeds RS limits

Rent review every twoyears, differential rent

Rent review every twoyears, differential rent

Top ups in competitivemarket where rentexceeds RS limits

Good differential rent,

legislative controls

Good differential rent,

legislative controls

Adequate Housing -

RedressGood – PRTB

Good – PRTB but someconfusion

Good – PRTBGood – PRTB, some

confusion Poor – subject of

collective complaint

Right to WorkVery poor – extensive

poverty andunemployment traps

Good, differential rentwith tapered increases




Adequate Housing -

HabitabilityStandard - PRTB butenforcement issues

Standard PRTB butenforcement issues

Standard PRTB butenforcement issues

Stronger but redress and

enforcement issues

Stronger but redress and

enforcement issues

Adequate Housing -

ChoiceSome but limited bycompetitive market

Choice based letting, 3 refusals

Some but limited bycompetitive market

1 refusal if approvedhousing body

Choice based lettings, 3 refusals only

Right to buy No No No NoYes – houses, No – multiples

Social housing list

priorityYES YES No, only transfer list Transfer Transfer

Table 2: Assessment of housing rights across social housing mechanisms


13

BUILD ACQUISITIONS LEASING RAS HAP

2016 2,260 1,755 225 1,000 12,000

2017 3,200 1,250 600 1,000 15,000

2018 4,119 1,750 2,000 668 17,000

Table 3: Rebuilding Ireland targets for social housing provision

Social housing build targets

The government’s housing plan ’RebuildingIreland (Department of Housing, 2016), see Table3, makes clear that the government’s primarystrategy for providing additional social housing isthe HAP with over 87,000 units to come from theprivate rental sector over the 2016-2021 period. Inthe short term HAP is expected to provide 32,000households with ‘social housing’ in 2017 and 2018.In contrast just 15% (21,300) of the 134,000 ‘new’social housing outlined in Rebuilding Ireland arenew builds by Local Authorities and HousingAssociations.

Headline social housing figures disguise the realityof an extremely low level of planned new buildsocial housing and the over-dependence on theprivate market to provide social housing. Not onlyare such targets insufficient but they are alsounlikely to be met. For example, while it wasstated that 18,000 new social housing ‘solutions’were provided in 2016, in fact there were just 650actual new build social housing units (and only 210of these were built by local authorities with just40 in Dublin). This was far below the 2,200projected new builds for 2016.

While just 200 new social housing units were builtin Q1 2017 – below the target of 600. And only 175of the 1,000 Rapid build social housing unitspromised in Rebuilding Ireland for homelessfamilies will be delivered by end 2017. The realityis that a very low level of new social housing isexpected to be built in the coming two to threeyears. In Dublin City there are just 537 new socialhousing units at the building stage of being ‘on-site’, at this rate of delivery it will take over 35years to meet the housing waiting list need inDublin City (Hearne, 2017).

Increase in family homelessness and use ofemergency accommodation

The most significant indication that RebuildingIreland is not working is the growth in familyhomelessness and the development of familyhubs. A new phenomenon of family homelessnesshas emerged in Ireland in recent years, particularlyfrom 2014 onwards. Nationally 1,312 familiesincluding 852 lone parent families were homelessin Ireland in May 2017. Of these, 1,099 families, or84% of all homeless families, are in Dublin, with2,266 children. The number of people homeless inIreland over doubled from 3,226 to 7,699 between


Source: Department of Housing, 2016

Region Total Families Total Adults(of which) singleparent families

Total dependents

Dublin 1,099 1,477 721 2,266

Mid-East 21 31 11 63

Midlands 26 40 12 54

Mid-West 53 66 40 102

North-East 18 32 4 44

North-West 2 2 2 7

South-East 16 23 9 32

South-West 58 75 41 150

West 19 26 12 59

TOTAL 1,312 1,772 852 2,777

Table 4: Family Homelessness in Ireland May 2017

Source: Department of Housing, Homelessness Report, May 2017

July 2014 and May 2017. The number of homelessfamilies in Dublin increased four-fold in thisperiod, rising from 271 to 1,099. A profile ofhomeless families in September 2016 also showedthat there were a high number of young parents,with 67% under the age of 36. A majority (60%)were born in Ireland and 40% were migrants (ofwhich 20% were EU and 20% Non-EU). A majorityof these families were headed by lone parents(65%) of which 86% were women (Focus Ireland2017).

The Dublin Regional Homeless Executive co-ordinates responses to homeless in the Dublinarea. Chart 3 below illustrates the number ofadults and children including families living inemergency accommodation in this region. As ofMay 2017, 647 homeless families were beingaccommodated in commercial hotels and B&Bs inthe Dublin region. The vast number of Dublinbased homeless families are housed in emergencyhotel accommodation and the rate of increase innumbers entering homelessness remains fasterthan the rate of exit. While up to 600 families areaccommodated in emergency hotels and providedkey worker supports through the Focus IrelandHousing Assistance Team, other families have to‘self-accommodate’ i.e. find their own accom -modation which is then funded on a short termbasis by the relevant council. This means familiescan be asked to vacate the hotel accommodationto accommodate prior bookings (a commonoccurrence for weddings, major concerts, sportingevents, conferences and bank holidays and

vacation seasons). The reality of living intemporary ‘self-accommodating‘ conditions isillustrated by the experience of a family of twoadults and five children over one year (March 2016to March 2017) moved 10 ten times and found itprogressively more difficult to find such accom -modation and cope with related disruption toschool attendance, health appointments, signifi -cant loss of belongings, cost, anxiety, stress andemotional turmoil.

Over 2016 in the context of increased media andsocietal pressure, the political and administrativesystem responded to pressure about use ofcommercial hotels to house homeless families bystating in Rebuilding Ireland that “It is widelyacknowledged that any medium to long-termperiod living in a hotel seriously impacts on normalfamily life and is particularly detrimental tochildren”. A key action in Rebuilding Irelandcommitted to

‘ensure that by mid-2017 hotels are only used inlimited circumstances for emergency accom -modation for families, by meeting housing needsthrough the HAP and general housing allocationsand by providing new supply to be deliveredthrough an expanded Rapid Build housingprogramme (1500 units) and an Housing Agencyinitiative to acquire vacant houses (1600 units).‘

So within Rebuilding Ireland there was clearly apolitical commitment to house such families butthere was no mention of family hubs. However inearly 2017 the then Housing Minister Coveney

14


Chart 3 Type of Accommodation accessed by families in the Dublin Region, monthly Jan 15 - March 17

Q1 2017

4

stated he was moving ‘to increase the number offamily hub type services and reduce reliance oncommercial scatter site hotels and B&Bs’. In late2016 Respond established a ‘family hub’ or coliving model in High Park, Drumcondra, othershave since come on stream and are detailed insection 4 of this report. Families are referred tosuch Hubs by Central Placement Services inParkgate St, who up to June 2016 havepredominantly referred first presenters to familyhub accommodation but over time expect torelocate families in hotel based emergencyaccommodation to such hubs.

In April 2017 with 1091 families (2, 262 children)in emergency accommodation in Dublin (700 ofthem in hotels/B&Bs) the updated RebuildingIreland outlined the provision of ‘Family-focussedfacilities to provide better short-term accom -modation solutions for families, and that ‘Family-Hubs’ – provide families with child-friendlyaccommodation and a range of family supports”.In 2017 Dublin City Council commissioned 9 newFamily Hubs to open in July 2017 (to accommodatea total of 254 families) and announced plans torecommission at least five existing hotel basedemergency accommodation centres as family hubs,these will accommodate a further 371 family units.In total, fifteen hubs are being developed by theDublin Region Homeless Executive to provideaccommodation for some 600 families.

Reviewing Rebuilding Ireland: The housingcrisis and financialisation

The failure of Rebuilding Ireland to halt thegrowth in homelessness is intimately related to thewider housing crisis where a tightening of supplyin the private rental sector led to rent increasescausing an increased loss of tenancies (evictions)especially among low income households. Risingrents have also resulted in a growing gap betweenthe rent limits set for state housing support andthe actual market rent. Private rental sectorfailures have to be understood in the context ofdecline in investment in social housing over threedecades of marketization, and more recently,austerity. An additional contributing factor hasbeen the mortgage arrears crisis with 1,694principal dwelling house or homes (PDH)repossessed in 2016, and with 34,500 of mortgagesin arrears over 720 days. Almost a fifth of buy-to-let mortgages (26,000) are in arrears with rentreceivers appointed to 6,023 such properties(Central Bank, 2017). While eviction from owneroccupied housing does not usually translate intohomelessness, evictions from private rental

properties are a major cause of homelessness.

The fault lines of Rebuilding Ireland have to beunderstood in the context of financialisation ofhousing and property where various governmentpolicies have proactively encouraged investors andspeculators - global equity investor and vulturefunds, and Real Estate Investment Funds (REITS) -to buy up and invest in housing. Government forexample in order to ‘facilitate the attraction offoreign investment capital to the Irish propertymarket’ made REIT rental profits exempt fromcorporation tax in 2013 (Noonan 2013). Increasedrents and house prices are welcomed as they makethe Irish rental and housing property market‘attractive’ (i.e. hugely profitable) and the limitless‘build-to-rent’ sector is seen as a ‘compellingopportunity for private equity investors’. From2013 onwards there was a significant increase ininvestor purchases amounting to 38% of all buyersin the first quarter of 2017, up from just 21% in2010 (Hearne, 2017).

Government, promoting the private rental sectorand housing generally as a financialised com -modity (Madden & Marcuse, 2016) and seeking toincrease investor appetite to ‘supply’ of privaterental accommodation, is hesitant to introducemeasures that might address the causes ofhomelessness by improving tenants’ rights. Thefear is that such measures could potentiallynegatively impact on investor interest and reducesupply. Over-reliance on HAP to provide socialhousing in the private rental sector compoundsthe reluctance to legislate for greater length oftime/security of tenure. The fear is this would limitlandlord interest but the reality is such fears aremisplaced. As Sirr (2017) has shown improvementsin tenants’ rights have in fact overlapped with anincreased number of investments in private rentalsector.

Private rental social housing provision provides a€500million pa corporate subsidy to privatelandlords. These subsidies play a functional role inenabling landlords survive high levels of mortgagearrears for buy-to-lets and keep many landlordsafloat, thus shoring up Irelands economic model.It also provides an economic floor for institutionalinvestors who can use HAP as a mechanism toguarantee a base line return on investment, thusreinforcing the profitability of the Irish privatehousing market as a site for international investorsand contributing significantly to the dynamic ofhouse price increases.

Lack of supply in the private rental sector posesimmense challenges in operationalising HAP as afunctioning response to the social housing and

15


homelessness crisis. In particular the DRHE faces aconsiderable challenge in finding adequatenumbers of private rental properties in Dublin.The problem is augmented by the lack of socialhousing supply coming on stream for the next fourto five years. As pressure on scarce supplyintensifies the scale of homelessness is likely toincrease. Lack of protection for tenants in theprivate rental sector, combined with an increasedrole of global equity funds and REITSs in rentsupply means likely rising rents and a moreaggressive property management approachleading to more evictions and homelessness. Thereremains too over 90,000 households on socialhousing waiting lists, living in overcrowdedsituations, waiting for years for social housing.

The situation is stark, Rebuilding Ireland socialhousing build targets will not be met, HAP will notprovide the level of social housing required andthe numbers of homeless families will rise.

This analysis reveals the choices available togovernment as it reviews Rebuilding Ireland. Thechoice is between a financialised private marketdominated housing model that will result in anescalating homelessness crisis, and a model ofhousing that approaches the provision of housingas a human right and social need and, therefore,prioritises adequate state investment in thebuilding of new social housing. Having set themacro context we now explore the experience ofHAP and specifically, the homeless HAP, in moredetail.

16


The Homeless HAP Scheme is implementedthrough the Dublin Region Homeless Executive(DRHE) on behalf of the four Dublin localauthorities and has been operational sinceFebruary 2015.

The scheme allows additional discretion to theDRHE to pay a rental subsidy for homelesshouseholds which is up to 50% above the generalHAP limits in three Dublin Local Authority areasand 25% above the limits in South Dublin Council.

Chart 4 shows that in terms of adult ‘move-ons’from homelessness, HAP tenancies provided just15% of tenancies for those exiting homelessnessin the Dublin region in Q4 2015. This increased to62% in Q1 2017, or 368 tenancies. Social housingprovided 208 exits in that period.

At the end of Q1 2017 there were 967 HAPsupported households in Dublin City Council, 73 inFingal, 11 in Dun Laoghaire, and 1,636 in SouthDublin County Council.

At the end of Q1 2017, 88% of the HAP supportedhouseholds in Dublin City Council area exceededthe maximum HAP rent limit in contrast to 14.4% nationally and just 3.2% in South Dublin County

Council. The average monthly payment perhomeless HAP household in Dublin City Council is€1,244, in Dun Laoghaire Rathdown, €1,085,South Dublin, €1,104, and Fingal, €1,333.

The DRHE have made it clear that HAP willcontinue in the coming years as the primarymechanism for assisting persons to exit or avoidhomelessness with supplementary supply comingfrom the Local Authority or Approved HousingBody housing stock.

However, it is clear from the increase in thenumbers of homeless families in emergency

17

Section Three:Experience of the HAP & the homeless HAP –evidence from the research Q1 2017

Chart 4 Moves to Tenancies in Dublin Region Q 1 2013 to Q1 2017

County CouncilNumber of HAP supportedhouseholds (end of Q1 2017)

Dublin City* 1,099

Fingal 21

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown 26

South Dublin 53

Table 5: Location of Homeless HAP scheme & numbers in Dublin Region

Source: Department of Housing

accommodation, and the escalation in the lengthof time being spent in that accommodation (seeTable 10), that the supply of homeless HAPproperties is not meeting the growing need ofhomelessness in Dublin.

The following section provides an analysis of thehomeless HAP in terms of security of tenure andaccess and competition. It also provides a costbenefit analysis and an assessment of theadvantages and disadvantages of HAP.

HAP and security of tenure

Our research lead us to question the appropriate -ness of HAP as the primary vehicle for housingprovision for homeless families given the inabilityof the private rented sector in Ireland, as it iscurrently constituted, to provide adequate securityof tenure to tenants. Homeless families believethat the exemption provided in the ResidentialTenancies (Amendment) Act 2015 allowinglandlords to terminate leases by declaring that theproperty is to be sold or is needed for a familymember, effectively limits security of tenure andthis makes HAP less than ideal for social housingprovision for families with children.

The issue of security of tenure is particularlyimportant for homeless families given theirexperience of acute housing insecurity throughbecoming homeless. They are terrified about re-entering the private rental sector and of puttingtheir children at risk of becoming homeless again:

“I don’t want to keep moving mydaughter around all the time... andthen I’m afraid that I will end back upin the homeless services again after mylease is up… I would take HAP if I wasguaranteed to be able to stay in theaccommodation for a five year lease orwhatever, and that I would beguaranteed somewhere else after thatlease was up… once it’s not back to thehomeless services. I will not keepputting my daughter through the samesituation – it’s not fair on her” (Emilia)

The families were asked to describe what, forthem, are the key aspects of having the right to ahome. They answered by describing what a homeshould provide. They identified security, stability,safety and freedom as key defining factors. Asecure home is the base from which families canprovide stability, safety, security and normalityessential for childhood well-being. The families’expressed housing need, therefore, was for long-term, secure, accommodation. HAP does notprovide such security:

“Security for families? No HAP doesn’tgive it. If they are looking for socialhousing they know they are getting tohave a long term tenancy and that istheir long term goal – if they take HAPit’s 1 year or 2 years – 1 year goes byvery quickly. It’s huge especially whenyou have children - the security....Families are saying to us they wanta minimum of five or ten yrs security– an obvious thing you need”

(Key Worker)

In contrast to the private rental sector, the securityof tenure in the social housing sector is wellprotected by the provisions of the Housing Acts1966 (and 2014) and social housing tenancies aregenerally lifetime in nature, and evictions can onlytake place in very limited and prescribed circum -stances. This explains why families’ preference isfor a council house (local authority social housing)as it is seen as the only way to provide a long-termsecure home for their children:

“I would love a corporation house togive me the security for my child”

(Amy)

“I would love a right not to be evicted”(Laura)

Parents are not willing to leave their childrenexposed to the possibility of continual relocation(with school moves, loss of social networks,disorientation etc.). Some ration ally determinethat it is better to trade a longer wait inemergency homelessness against the likelihood ofachieving longer-term security through traditional

18

Section Three Investing in the Right to a Home“The problem with HAP is it there is nosecurity. You are there six months and

you are worried and stressed abouthaving to move again”

(Sandra)

social housing. Duncan (2004) refers to this processof ‘gendered moral rationality’ to show how loneparents place child well-being at the centre ofdecision-making. Parents, and lone parents inparticular, need to be housed in the area close totheir essential supports from family and com -munity networks. This is also linked with decisionmaking around the loss of priority on the socialhouse waiting lists as a result of taking up a shortterm HAP tenancy:

“People are seeking a forever home andthat is their priority. Which is

understandable because if you havebeen eight or ten years on the list, and

then ending up homeless, and thenspending one and a half years in a

hotel room. If you then go into HAP –it might be for a year, or two years atthe mercy of the landlord again. Butyou want to be able to put down roots

and have security for your kids”(Public Representative)

The fear of becoming homeless from HAP prop -erties is not an irrational fear. Department ofHousing data demonstrates the insecurity attach -ed to HAP as a form of social housing. Since theHAP scheme commenced in September 2014, tothe end of Q4 2016, 1,737 households exited thescheme. Table 6 shows that a quarter of the exitsrelated to the landlord withdrawing the property,causing 435 HAP tenants in the last year to findalternative HAP accommodation.

Furthermore, there is a risk that as the end of thefirst phase of two year HAP tenancies comes to anend in 2017 that some landlords might seek to endtheir HAP leases in order to gain vacant possessionin order to sell the property etc. Even if this was tooccur on a modest scale, it would have majorimplications for the affected families and thehousing system in coping with an additionalsource of homelessness:

My worry is what happens at the endof the first two year tranche. Are we

going to get at some point in 2017 –to get hundreds of HAP tenancies

coming to an end, all at the one time -at the same time where the rental

market is already HAP saturated?”(Public Representative)

Experience of competing in the privaterental market for HAP accommodation

The HAP and Homeless HAP schemes are reliant onsupply from the private rental sector, a sector inan un prece dented crisis with a dramatic increasein demand for rental housing in recent years,combined with the lack of new private rentalsupply and signifi cant rent increases by landlords.

In this context homeless HAP recipients find itextremely difficult to compete for the limited (andincreasingly expensive) new private rentalaccommodation available on the market. They aretrying to compete against tenants who are morelikely to have recent work and landlord references,access to social networks, as well as the capacity tonegotiate (engage in ‘bidding wars’) rent tops ups,‘hello money’ or offer higher rents than thoseadvertised and, higher than the HAP limits.Homeless families are experiencing what we havedescribed as a structural exclusion of homelessfamilies from the private rental market in Dublin,which is in some instances reinforced by the HAPsystem.

“I am up against professionals and Idon’t stand a chance in getting it”

(Chloe)

Most families report that they are filtered out ofthe private rental search at the first hurdle, oftenunable to get emails, phone calls or texts returnedand unable to access viewing appointments.Homeless mothers described it as “extremely

19

Investing in the Right to a Home Section Three

14% Transfers to other forms of social housing

14%Compliance exits, which include non-tax compliance by a landlord, non-payment of rent contribution by a tenant, failure to meet theminimum standards for rental accommodation (which all landlords must adhere to)

24% Landlord exits, which include a landlord giving notice to a tenant, and a landlord selling a property; and

48%Voluntary tenant exits, which include working in a different area, medical, education, change in household composition and deceasedtenants.

Table 6: Self-Reported Reasons for Exits from HAP scheme

Source: Department of Housing

difficult” and “soul-destroying” trying to find HAPaccommodation:

“I have sent out numerous emails onDaft over the last two months. Themajority of these emails that I sent

have not even received anacknowledgment. …I have tried very

hard to get us a home on the HAP andI am really finding it impossible. Thevery few replies from my emails I doreceive are asking for current workreference and landlord reference.

The trouble is I do not have a landlordreference as I ran into rent arrears inmy last home. I do not have a current

work reference either as I am notworking. I feel like I am at a loss

trying to find a home for my kidsand I simply do not have what they are

looking for. It seems to me HAP doesnot help in my situation as I am

getting no luck in even getting to aviewing stage of a property, not even

once in the past two months.It is very disheartening for me. All Iwant is a little apartment—even itdoes not have to be a house—for the

kids near their schools. I do not have acar. I am literally finding it

impossible. I am trying so hard…. Ifeel like I am getting nowhere”

(Amy)

The inequality in competition for housing in theprivate rental market leads to this structuralexclusion of the most vulnerable families. Theyface much reduced chances of findingaccommodation through HAP:

“The demographics of the lower incomeend of the HAP tenants – such as

migrants, single parents - in terms ofpeople with other complex issues going on

in their lives such as families withchildren with special needs. Very clearly

you can see there isn’t a level playingfield in terms of accessing properties.

The fact that HAP also putsresponsibility for identifying theproperty on to the tenant creates

additional difficulties. For Travellers,for those with limited literacy, people

without access to computers regularly,people whose income is so low, ringingaround landlords is additional cost.Across a whole range of layers thosepeople are not given equal access to

compete in the private rental market”(Public Representative)

Failing to compete in this competitive housingmarket has severe socio-emotional impacts on thehomeless families:

“You can only go on so many viewingsbefore your mental health is affected. Itknocks you back every time you go see aplace and you aren’t successful” (Chloe)

“I am getting nowhere with HAP …youget your heart broke because you don’t

hear anything back from them” (Laura)

“Some families here have been to 35viewings. How hard it is getting turned

down all those times? They just cryafterwards. What does that do to your

self-esteem? They have learned not to tellthe kids until they have the keys in their

hand…it’s just knock back after knock back for them …”

(Key worker)

Some families have a greater capacity to pickthemselves back up again after a rejection from alandlord or estate agent and they go back lookingagain. However, others are more vulnerable and

20

Section Three Investing in the Right to a Home

lack such resilience, and reducing their effort insearching for a property becomes a form of self-protection against further rejection:

“They are refused one property andthen they are not looking for another

for weeks. ..it’s tough but we encouragethem to keep firing out emails –…if

someone builds them up for a propertyand then think they got it and it’s a

no..it takes time to build themselves back up again and look for

another property… “(Key Worker)

The vulnerability of the most socially excludedfamilies is further exacerbated by the marketwiseapproach in HAP to accessing housing.

There are also practical barriers faced by thefamilies given their homeless situation inemergency accommodation. They are oftentravelling long distances to bring their children toschool, and then have to incur the additionalexpense of travelling (and putting their childrenthrough further travel ) to multiple viewings ofproperties to rent. This has a major toll on thefamilies as Emilia explains:

“It’s really hard. Getting up at 6…toget the kids on the bus to school. And

then get a bus into town and thenanother one back here. I get €30 a weekfor travel and I spend €70 on it. I have

to take the baby on the bus – on allthose journeys. …It’s so hard trying to

view places that know you are notgoing to get. They never ring me back.

I just feel like giving up”.

The issue of appropriate location also presentschallenges when there is little rental propertywithin the set HAP rent limits in the areas where afamily has their support system, the child goes toschool etc.

“because sometimes families arelooking in certain areas but simply

no properties are available in that area.So they have to look outside of wheretheir network is, their community,

their connection is, their schools. I’veworked with families who have to moveschools to get rented accommodationwhere they have no family, no local

connections. That was a huge impacton them. …” (Key worker)

Discrimination and stigma as single mothers

Homeless families already experience feelings ofstigma. But these feelings are reinforced anddeepened by the search for private rental accom -modation through HAP. The families, the over -whelming majority of whom were female loneparents, identified a double aspect of stigmatisa -tion as they were discriminated against within theprivate rental sector for being both single mothersand homeless. They were asked by landlords ifthey were single, if they were in relationships, andasked their age.

21


Issues faced by homeless families in competing foraccommodation in private rental sector

t Emailing – not getting replies

t Attending many viewings not getting any reply

t Competing with professionals-with work references,bidding wars, extra top-ups

t Asked for work reference before even get to viewingstage

t Rent above HAP limits

t Impact of discrimination on feelings and wellbeing offamilies- feeling depressed, rejected with negativeimpact on self-esteem.

t Feeling discriminated against because of being asingle mother

t Issue of viewing times with young children

t Forced to look in areas where they have no family, nolocal connections, change child school

22

“I have been homeless for six monthsand I have had no replies to emails

from landlords. They say they don’ttake children and they don’t allow

children in the house. When I tell themthat I am a single mom - they say the

viewing list is full, but there is awaiting list and they will put my

name on that. But I never get back areply. They are saying they are not

taking me because I am a single mombecause they think I can’t pay”

(Sandra)

Landlords and estate agents appear lesslikely to reply when families are on HAP andin emergency accommodation:

“I went to a place and was told that Iwould have to give €1000 on top of the

rent and deposit – because I was onHAP – that it wasn’t my money andI’d only wreck the place – so I would

have to give this extra money” (Laura)

Challenging the assumptions of policy makers

Our research found an underestimation on thepart of policy makers of the inequalities inherentto the private market approach in HAP. Inparticular, the severe negative impacts on families’mental health from the rejection and failing tosecure HAP accommodation within the privaterental sector. The assumption that low income,socially excluded, families and lone parents canself-secure accommodation in the private rentalsector is wrong. It places the responsibility ofhousing on to the homeless family and assumestheir success in achieving this is down to their levelof motivation (i.e. the more motivated will accesshousing more quickly). This approach brings socialpolicy down a path of dividing between thedeserving and undeserving poor, with all theattendant injustices that brings.

One policy maker expressed the view that HAPworks because individuals are ‘more motivated’ tofind housing than a local authority official:

“if you really need somewhere to liveyou will be highly motivated to findsomewhere…and you will keep puttingin effort until you do. The localauthority official behind a desk is notas motivated” (Policy maker)

This ignores the structural exclusion resulting frommarket competition and the way in which HAP asa form of marketised social housing exposes themost vulnerable families to market failure (andmakes them feel responsible for that marketfailure) and thus reinforces and deepens homelessfamilies’ disadvantage and social exclusion. It is anunsuitable and ineffective process underpinned byassumptions of policy makers who are generallymarket ‘winners’. Lone parent families inevitablyfail and suffer from such policies.

Cost benefit analysis of HAP

The significant rise in rents in recent years meansthat the assumptions underlying the government’s2013 economic assessment of HAP can no longerbe considered accurate. A review of RebuildingIreland, therefore, needs to include a new CostBenefit Analysis (CBA) of HAP, that updates it tocurrent (and projected) market rents and alsocompares HAP with the cost of direct socialhousing building and state provided cost rentalhousing provision. Here we draw on Reynolds(2017) analysis to provide a CBA of HAP and directbuild social housing.

This analysis shows that over a thirty year periodthe provision of a typical HAP dwelling in Dublinis €274,128 more expensive per unit than if it wasprovided through state funded local authoritybuilding of social housing. This means that theRebuilding Ireland target of providing 87,000private rental units will be €23.8bn moreexpensive than providing these units via localauthority building, over a thirty year life span.

If the approach in Rebuilding Ireland continuesthere could be in excess of 120,000 households inreceipt of various state subsidies in the privaterental sector by 2021, requiring state spending ofapproximately €1bn p.a., and most of which willbe going to private landlords, including REITs andglobal investment funds. Providing these 120,000social housing units through HAP will be €32.9bnmore expensive than local authority provision overa thirty year period, or €1bn per annum moreexpensive.

Section Three Investing in the Right to a Home

HAP strengths and weaknesses

Table 8 below provides an overview of theadvantages and disadvantages of HAP. HAP, intheory, offers some useful features, particularlythe homeless HAP which offers 50% more than theHAP limits, albeit that rent increases in the privaterental sector tend to erode this com peti tiveadvantage over time. For some families HAP offersan attractive housing route with greater choice oflocation and more mobility as well as providingthe ability to work. However, there have beenimplementation issues and administrative errorsby local authorities in paying rent to landlordscausing HAP tenancies to fail in some instances.

HAP also results in a reduction in the human rightto housing in relation to the security of tenurewhich is provided under traditional social housingand the RAS scheme.

This, however, is in line with a shift in housingpolicy (reflected in the 2011 Housing PolicyStatement) away from providing social housing asa permanent form of housing, or ‘housing for life’to a more temporary response.

“The HAP introduction – was done ina way to keep people off the social

housing waiting lists, so that theydon’t expect to get social housing. It is,

trying to remove the aspiration ofsocial housing as legitimate”

(Policy maker)

In this context it is interesting to note that 95% ofthose taking up HAP have opted to go on thesocial housing transfer list – which shows the highlevel of aspiration and desire for the traditionalform of social housing among HAP recipients.

But by far the greatest obstacle to makinghomeless HAP work is the deficit in private rentalhousing supply and the degree to which homelessfamilies find themselves structurally excluded fromthe private rental market as they are at thebottom of the queue in a highly competitivehousing market, and vulnerable to class, gender,ethic or family status based discrimination.

23


5 The CBA is based on the following formula provided by Reynolds (2017). Thirty years of renting is a cost which results in no transfer of title at the end of the period: theresidual value for renting is zero. The residual value of a directly-procured Local Authority Home after 30 years is €180,000. State cost of funding a local authority homeat a 5% borrowing interest rate with 2% inflation and a 30 year term = repayments €800 per month vs the Dublin City avg HAP rent of €1,244. HAP is €5,328 moreexpensive p.a . The 30 year Net Present Value (NPV) saving for a Local Authority mortgage over a typical HAP rental= €94,128. Total saving for a directly-procuredLocal Authority home over a typical HAP dwelling in Dublin City = the sum of Residual value + NPV mortgage saving = €274,128.

HAP Direct Build

State MonthlyPayments

€1,244 €800

Residual Value 0 €180,000

Additional cost perHAP unit vs direct over 30 years

€94,128

Total additional costper HAP unit

€274,128

Total additional costfor 87,000 RebuildingIreland private rentalunits over 30 years

€23.8bn

(€800m per annum)

Table 7: Cost Benefit Analysis5 of HAP via Local Authority provision of social housing

Advantage Disadvantage

An uplift of up to 50% of theRent Supplement rate in theregion (25% for South Dublin).

Rent increases negate thisadvantage over time

Rent paid directly to thelandlord by the local authority

Administrative issues anddelays

Security deposit & first monthrent paid to landlord inadvance

Administrative issues anddelays

More mobility and choice oflocation

Certain locations excludedbecause rents above rent limits

No change in rent to landlordif tenant’s employmentsituation changes

Increase in differential rentpaid by tenant to LA

Tenant can be on LA housingtransfer list

Tenants must forgo place onsocial housing list andhomeless priority list

Private rental securityimproved since 2014 PRTARTB

Security of tenure is limited -2014 PRTA exemption clausefor landlord to sell or give tofamily member

Redress under PRTB isbetter than for LA tenant

Recipients report poorstandard of accommodation inHAP market

Prospective tenantsprotected from SESdiscrimination under equalitylegislation

Nature of competitive rentalmarket leaves little opportunityfor HAP tenant to compete

Allows increased stateprovision of ‘social’ housingunder current funding

More expensive method ofsocial housing provision in thelong term than local authoritysocial housing

Table 8: Overview of the advantages anddisadvantages of providing social housing via HAP

From hotels to hubs

In May 2017 over 1,312 families were living inemergency accommodation nationally, with 1,099families in the Dublin region. Older Irish studies ofthe impacts of living in emergency accom moda -tion (Hickey and Downey 2003, Smith, McGee andShannon 2001; Halpenny, Keogh & Gilligan, 2002,Hickey & Downey, 2003) found issues for familiesmanaging and storing food, food poverty andvulnerability to poor nutrition amongst thehomeless popula tion in Dublin shel ters. Morerecent Irish studies are not numer ous butconsistently report the negative impact of living inemergency accom modation and the feelings ofstigma associated with poor quality services. A2015 Housing Agency review of fami lies’ experi -ence of homelessness found that living inemergency accommodation was trau matic andstressful with the many varied rules leading todisempowerment for parents, and with theadditional costs of purchasing food and extratransport very expensive. The experience alsoinvolved families having to split up on a temporarybasis and cope with poor conditions in emergencyaccommodation while trying to access services andsupports to exit homelessness (Walsh and Harvey2015). Fallon (2016) found that public healthnurses observe significant impacts on child dev -elop ment with gross motor delay, speech delay,infections and behavioural problems as develop -mental delays. They also found difficulties inaccessing services as constant movement meantfollow up appointments fall through leading toinadequate support for families. Various news -paper articles, television docu menta ries, radioreports and social media coverage documentedthe reality of hotel living, including lack offacilities for cooking and food storage, lack ofinternal space, lack of external space for child rento play, arbitrary termination of occupationwithout procedural safe guards, and distance fromschools, services and social networks. Variouschildren’s NGO’s have also made representationsconcerning the unsuitability of such accom moda -tion for children (Children’s Rights Alliance 2017).Various national and international rights institu -tions have made observations concerning thedegree to which longer stays in emergency accom -modation violates family and child rights.

Most recently Harvey and Walsh’s (2017) review of25 families’ experience of living in emergencyaccommodation found the day-to-day reality ofliving in homeless accommodation over anextended period of time had caused themsignificant stress, in turn affecting their sleep andultimately their mental health, and having to usevarious strategies to cope with the stress. A shiftfrom independent living to that of dependency onothers for food can compromise nutritional andmental health (Share and Hennessy, 2017). Bothstudies note the overall impact on capacity toparent effectively, the impact on child andparental well-being. Figures from September 2016to February 2017 show a significant escalation inthe length of time families are living in emergencyaccommodation in the Dublin region, with thenumbers 18-24 months increasing from 42 familiesto 138 families.

24

Section Four:Emergency Accommodation and Family Hubs

Rights Insitutions Source

United nations Committee onthe Rights of the Child

2016 CRC/C/IRL/CO/3-4 para61, 62

United Nations InternationalCovenant Economic and SocialCultural Rights

Submission 2015

United nations Convention onthe Elimination ofDiscrimination Against Women

Submission 2017

Human Rights Council Report of UN SpecialRapporteur MagdalenaSepulveda Carmona Mission toIreland

Irish Human Rights andEquality Commission

Policy statement The provisionof emergency accommodationto families experiencinghomelessness June 2017

Ombudsman for Children Annual report 2016 p 45

Office of the Ombudsman Annual report 2017 p 58

Table 9: Domestic and rights based institutionsexpression of concern regards emergency

accommodation

This contextualises the 2016 political commitmentto cease long-term use of hotels as emergencyfamily homeless accommodation.

The policy decision to develop family hubs hasbeen con tro versi ally received. Many havecautiously wel comed the concept of family hubsrecognising that formany families livingin a family hub maybe better than acommercial hotel orB&B. How ever othersquestion the degreeof poten tial trade-offs in terms of in creased in sti t u tion -alis a tion and loss ofpersonal autonomy.Others remember ingIreland’s shamefullegacy of insti tu tion alfail ures fear historymay repeat itself,while the IrishHuman Rights andEquality Commission(2017) have high -lighted the absenceof a human rightsproofing of homelesspolicy and pointed toissues of partici pa -tion, redress, regula -tion and inspec tion.Particularly worryingare plans to buildfamily hubs in Cork,Limerick and Kildare,

where there is no significant problem of familyhomelessness.

254 families will be accommodated in nine newlyacquired properties which, having undergoneminor alterations, will open on a staggered basisover summer 2017. These hubs have to date beendeveloped outside the normal planning processand with little consultation with electedcouncillors. At the time of completion of thisreport there is still only emerging informationabout which five hotels presently used foremergency accommodation will be converted intoand reclassified as family hubs for 371 people. It isimportant to note that decisions about manage -ment and services in family hubs are still in aplanning and negotiating stage.

Table 11 shows the considerable variety ofbuilding types (ranging from former religiousinstitutions, student accommodation, offices,warehouses and former B&B’s and hotels), varietyof size ranging from 9 to 50 families, variouslocations as well as the range of providers(including Salvation Army, Respond, Cross Careand the Sons of the Divine Providence, and others

25

Investing in the Right to a Home Section Four

Duration in emergencyaccommodation

September

2016

February

2017

Families in 24 months + 22 40

Families in 18-24 months 42 138



Families in 6 months or less 385 374

Total 919 1003

Table10: Family duration in emergencyaccommodation (EA) in the Dublin Region

Hub Accommodation ProviderNumber to beaccommodated

High Park, Drumcondra (in operation)

Former convent used asstudent accommodation Respond 42

Ashling house, Clontarf Former B&B Respond 13

Mater Dei, Drumcondra Former convent used asstudent accommodation Cross care 50

Greencastle ParadeCoolock

Former Bargaintownindustrial park retail outlet Salvation Army 40

Kinsealy Lane Large residential home Peter McVerry Trust 11

Clonard Rd Crumlin Former public office Salvation Army 30

Sarsfield Rd Ballyfermot Former boys home Sons of the DivineProvidence 11

Gleann na hEornain Apartments Respond 10

Millmount, Dundrum Accommodation Private operator 12Merchant O Shea’s Guest house Private operator NA

Lynam Hotel Former hotel Private operator 45

Regency Former hotel Private operator X

Sunnybank Former hotel Private operator X

Bram Stoker Former hotel Private operator X

Viking Lodge Former hotel Private operator X

Table 11: Family hubs planned for Dublin Region, June 2017 – 625 family rooms

yet to be identified). This leads to immediateconcerns about consistency of standards and thelikely experiences of hub life for families.

“I’m afraid hubs might wind down thepolitical pressure to address homeless -ness and the system will turn into a

new form of direct provision” (Public representative)

Emerging concerns about use of family hubs

A key concern for this research is whether, incommon with other jurisdictions, family hubs maylead to an entrenched longer term insti tu tional -ised response to family homelessness where therehousing need of families living in family hubs isconsidered less urgent, or is even forgotten, as thepublic at large assume such families are relativelywell accommodated. A second concern is that thereality of institutional life will, over time, damagefamilies’ ability to function independently. Thiscould cause families with housing problems to,over time, become ‘problem’ families who arethen blamed for their homelessness, which theydid not create and could not solve. A third concernis the general absence of public plans concerningthe design model or operational principles formanaging family hubs. Former hotels are likely tobe managed by private operators with key workersupport and child services provided by specialisednon-government organisations. The differentmodel for other family hubs is potentially prob -lem atic in the context of dual roles of organisa -tions that have accommodation manage mentfunctions while also providing key supports forfamilies to assist them exit the hubs. It is not clearthat these organisations have the appro priateskill-set or experience in providing key worksupport or services to families with children, andthere is a potential conflict of interest wherebehavioural conditions can be imposed on resi -dents by accommodation managers or land lordswho are, at the same time, a first source of familysupport.

The public are concerned with the quality of livesof families in homeless accommodation and haveexpectations of improvements following politicalcommitments to end the use of hotel basedemergency accommodation. Many are hopefulthat family hubs will live up to their promise ofincreased living space, childcare facilities, andcooking and laundry facilities. This study is the firstto capture the experience of living in Irish familyhubs, and while limited in scale and to the degree

that it captures family hubs early in an evolution -ary stage, our reflections are offered with thepurpose of enabling early collective learning. Weproceed by using Burchart’s (2017) capabilityframework to conceptualise the impact onhomelessness through three lens: Autonomy,Treatment, and Functioning.

Autonomy, choice and ability to plan

We found that rules and conditions attached tofamily hub type emergency accommodation meana significant number of practical restrictions on‘capability to live the life one chooses and values’.Like Paquette and Bassuk (2009) we found familieswho are homeless have many strengths and seekto love, protect, nurture, guide and detachchildren to grow, develop and thrive. Homeless -ness undercuts parents ability to do all this and canleave mothers and fathers depressed, anxious,guilty and ashamed (ibid p292), and finding it verydifficult to protect children from adult realities.

We find that the dual role of the accommodationmanager/landlord and key support worker canpresent a conflict of interest as homeless familieswho find strong conditional co-living rulesimposed and monitored by key workers who arealso the first source of support to the families. Inparticular the imperative on management toimplement child protection guidelines determinesthe dominant approach to management. It iscommon to have living behaviour monitored withstrict curfews, no accommodation of visitors in anypart of the building, overnight leave rules (with amaximum three days per month permittedabsence from the emergency accommodation),restrictions on movement (a ban on being inothers bedrooms), and parental rules (including aban on holding and/or minding each other’schildren).

26

Section Four Investing in the Right to a Home

)

'!)!!

!

) ) ) ) ) ))))!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!` !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!8& !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !!!

D ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ))+) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ))+)) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ))

L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ))

D ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

“I feel my parenting is checked all thetime ….I got a warning, its feels like

an institution instead of a home ….wedon’t need our authority taken awayfrom in front of our children…. ourparenting is questioned in front ofour children …..they are taking the

parenting role off the parent … whensomeone speaks down to you like this

you feel you are on the bottom” (Laura)

After a number of weeks working with familiesliving in a family hub the peer researchersreflected:

“participants expressed a fear of beingthreatened with social workers being

called, for child neglect, for sillythings like leaving a child with a

friend when going to the bathroom –parents are fearful of social workersand afraid to make mistakes. TakeLiz, for example, she told us how herlittle fella goes to bed at 7.30pm…soshe has to stay in the room from 730

until the child wakes up in themorning…she got a warning because

she went and made a cup of tea in the kitchen”. (Peer Researcher)

“Since we met them they all have gonedownhill…the first week they were

happy, they were bubbly – now it’s allnegative – every time we see them

something new is happening that theydon’t like – it is really unfair not

being allowed to talk to each other incorridors and in each other’s kitchens,they cannot even socialise with eachother – it is affecting them because

they have to stay in their roomconstantly. Now they are miserable –

now a lot of them want to give up” (Peer Researcher)

Treatment, stigma and discrimination

Families in institutional settings are open togreater degrees of scrutiny and environmentalstressors. Positive maternal identity is a key identityfor working class women (Edin and Kefelas 2005:204). When emergency accom moda tion limitscapacity to parent or, even worst, questions one’sworth as a parent it strikes at the core of maternalidentity. Parents described the undermining oftheir role and capacity to parent as a key factorleading to depression and low esteem. Conditionsin hubs limit their capacity to parent effectivelyand cause down ward spirals of well-being. Parentsreported feeling ‘demeaned’ and ‘spoken downto’, ‘like a child’, ‘in school’ and being ‘in prison’.This has consequences for physical and mentalhealth leading to increased use of anti-depressantsand other prescription medications.

“Then there is the way people look at youbecause you are homeless. My children on

the bus and talking … and I could seepeople over hearing it and staring at me”

(Chloe)

For Wang (2017) family homelessness is a ‘severeform of poverty’ leading to increased vulnerabilityto traumatic life experiences and systematicchallenges which rob children and families of theirbasic human rights and capabilities, disruptingfamily functioning (routines, parenting behavi ours,developmental outcomes). Policy options for ad -dres sing family homelessness are filtered throughdifferences in attitudes to or assumptions abouthomelessness and families own capabilities, oftenwith paternalistic assumptions under estima tingwhat families are capable of achieving and valuing.

Milburn and D’Ercole (1991) find homelessmothers are in close contact with social relation -ships and that this is important for resettlementstrategies, parents often stress the importance oflocation in their search for housing as they seek tomaintain social relationships. Rules banningvisitors undermine such social relationships.

“coming to a service like this cannotjust open the door and let your

children play outside , you can’t letyour next door neighbour mind yourchild while you go down to the shops…

we understand that it is difficult..child protection comes up the front of

everything we do here” (Keyworker)

27


“I was told I could not have mychildren playing in the room of

another person…they are best friendswith the other little girl and the workertells me we can’t be in there playing…

(Liz)

We can’t mingle – she can’t play withother children…So the children have tobe kept in our room to play with theirtoys by their self all the time – locked

away – it is not right….”Children can’t run around -they can’tbe free. She says to me mommy whencan we go to our house…I tell her that

this is our home now…- this is no goodfor her…”

“It’s all about child protection but whatabout child development and theparents mental health” (Sandra) I really feel my mental health is

suffering ….my state of mind isdeteriorating, my child is seeing that

and it is causing anxiety (Kelly)

“it’s very hard for us as a service tomanage them wanting people to come

in from outside of here for babysittingand for visitors – we have to protect all

the families that are here – familiesfind that difficult themselves”

(Keyworker)

“My sister comes over, but I have totalk to her outside the door, what is sheto do, she is gone in twenty minutes”

(Chloe)

“This place is restrictive – it is like aprison, we have to keep the children

inside. ..we can’t have friends over.. inour culture we like to socialise”

(Laia)“My dad was going to help me bring

in stuff but they would not let him in,he was not allowed carry stuff into the corridor”

(Sandra)

Parenting efficacy and family functioning

International literature suggests strict shelter rulescan undermine parent’s self-respect especiallywhen they cannot set and maintain rules for theirchildren and are effectively required to parent inpublic. Monitoring and rigid rules means living incircumstances that can undermine their otherwiseeffective parenting practices and capacity toparent autonomously (Milburn and D’Ercole 1991,p295), with related issues of stigma and discrimin -a tion and what parents report as humiliating anddehumanising experiences (ibid p 295) whichimpact on parental stress and mental health.

Hubs mean a lack of private space or structuredenvironment within which to effectively parent.Parenting efficacy, confidence in ability to influ -ence one’s child’s development, and relatedcompetence is undermined by environmentalfactors with negative implications for child adjust -ment, with some homeless accommodation sitesmore facilitative than others in helping parentsresolve issues (Gewirtz et al 2009 p341).

“some people can be institutionalisedafter 3 months - if you are

institutionalised – you are dependenton the staff – you are not learning

anything, you are losing skills, thereis a question of over reliance…. don’tmake the client become dependent on

the key worker” (Amy)

28


The cruel irony is that effective parenting is acritical protective process predictive of resiliencein high risk children (Gewirtz et al 2009 p 337) butparents need to manage their own wellbeing andmental health in order to be able to help theirchildren cope and manage adversity. Rafferty andShinn (1991) review of the impact of homelessness(living in emergency shelters in US) on childrenfinds sobering impacts on their ability to succeedand their future well-being but that such con -sequences can be mediated by public policyinterventions that enable family functioning,parental autonomy and that address underlyingpoverty. Gewirtz et al (2009) find a significantimpact of homelessness on children’s functioningwith risk factors including maternal psychologicaldistress, mental ill health and parenting practice.Effects of homelessness (disruptions, loss ofpossessions, instability) can be mediated by eco -logical factors, parental responses and access towider family networks.

The practical environment of emergency accom -modation matters as well-being and functioningis limited by lack of privacy, intimacy and security,and presence of negative stressors such as a senseof powerlessness (Lewinson 2010 p181). Enablingcoping strategies and capacity to adapt or adjustsurroundings (make space, more comfortable(bedding), facilitating personal items (pictures/plants), getting away spaces, storage or diningequipment (plate holders) are all crucial. Supportsto manage and mitigate maternal depression canalso potentially improve child well-being anddevelopment. Policy makers assume families haveproblematic back grounds and relatively highsupport needs, however in common with international trends 80 percent of Irish families enteredhomelessness in the context of private marketrental failure.

Milburn and D’Ercole (1991) find homeless moth -ers are likely to be similar in characteristics to other(poor) mothers albeit with fewer instru mental res -ources (lower income). Market failure is com -pounded by low income and poverty, and oftenloss of virtually all possessions. Most families willnot need high support to transition into main -stream housing, but they do need practical sup -ports to minimise the impacts of homelessness,including, for example, storage space to keep pos -ses sions, adequate provision of household goodsin hubs (cooking equipment and table ware) andmeaningful transport support in mov ing goodsfrom accommodation to accom moda tion.

“Sometimes you just want quiet but thechild is beside the adult all the time, theyare getting into bed with you clinging,

wanting to feel safe but you areexhausted, it is essential to be able to

walk away when you feel stressed but wecan’t, we have to stay in the bedroom, we

cannot leave the bedroom at night“(Laura)

Advice from child psychologists suggests familyhubs can only work if they build support aroundparents to help children cope with the challengesof homelessness. Feeling secure, having a safehome, a bedroom and regular meals are very basichuman needs and prerequisites to playing andlearning, positive social interactions, developingself-esteem and striving for and achieving ourgoals. Instability can cause children to beconsumed with worry and unable to focus ontypical pursuits of childhood development.Children rely upon routine, habit and consistentresponses from adults to learn about the world.Routines that vary significantly from the normmakes for an unpredictable world and feelings ofanxiety and insecurity leaving a child unsettledand out of control and likely to attempt to exertcontrol – often expressed through regression inbehaviours i.e. acting younger than their age,sleep disturbance, feeding issues, bedwettingthough they have been previously toilet trained,clingy behaviour, behaviour problems in school,etc. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) inclu -ding homelessness are related to develop ment ofrisk factors for less well-being throughout life.Traumatic childhood experiences can result insocial, emotional and cognitive difficulties, whichin turn may lead to mental health difficulties, pooracademic achievement, early school leaving,chronic health conditions, depression andsubstance misuse. Even when homeless, childrencan thrive when their basic needs are met inenvironments which can foster safety, belonging,achievement, personal power, a sense of purposeand adventure that immunise children against theharshest aspect of homelessness.

29


“children are seeing everything –watching it”

“It’s the impact on the children -especially as they get older in school ,they can’t bring their friends back,

can’t tell their friends where they live,they’re embarrassed and teased about

it .I find that very difficult….ateenage boy sharing a bunkbed with

his mother…that’s hard for the parentsto cope with that…. we won’t know the

effects on these families until thechildren are older themselves”

(Key worker)

Contextualising family hubs: TherapeuticIncarceration

An 1834 Poor Law principle ‘less eligibility’determined that, to deter people claiming poorrelief, conditions in workhouses had to be worsethan conditions available outside. Irish policymakers appear to be following a similar principleof ‘less eligibility’ in managing homelessness.Fearful of creating ‘moral hazards’, Irishemergency accommodation is made difficult toaccess and conditions in emergency accom -modation are made relatively uncomfort able lestpeople might choose to make themselveshomeless and/or stay longer in homeless accom -modation waiting until they are offered socialhousing.

The aim appears to be to make conditions suchthat families will be motivated to quickly move onand out into mainstream housing options, even ifsuch options do not meet their families’ need forsecurity or choice of location. Designing (con -ciously or sub consciously) accommodation that isdifficult to live in is even more problematic if andwhen families, even when highly motivated ordesperate to move, are unable to move and so arelocked into such difficult conditions which destroyautonomy, which create stigma and disablecapacity to function as a parent, a family member,a worker and a citizen or resident.

The policy maker’s motivation to avoid ‘perverseincentives’ is underpinned by a core assumptionthat families act rationally to maximise short-termhousing and well-being, however these under-lying assumptions of policy makers do not reflectthe reality of how families put long-term ambitionand needs for their family and their children’s

well-being at the heart of housing decisions. Irishfamilies’ decisions are motivated by factors similarto Fisher et al’s (2014) findings that familiesprioritise familiar neighbourhoods near children’sschools, transportation, family and friends, andstability, all important for autonomousfunctioning and development.

Homeless families have little opportunity to selectoptimal solutions, rather they “satisfice” bymaking decisions that meet their highest-priorityneeds and are satisfactory for the given time andcontext (Simon, 1956). Duncan and Edwards (1997)warns of a ‘rationality mistake’ in assumingrational economistic decision making. Policymakers can underestimate the degree to whichpeople are emotional, affective beings and thedegree to which a ‘gendered morality’ placesparenting, care and children’s needs at the centreof decisions. Lone parent’s decisions are mediatedprimarily by childcare responsibilities and parentalresponsibility is prioritised over financial or othermaterial gain. Policies that that impose false timelimits on stays and require recertification foreligibility can produce greater anxiety which couldbe debilitative as well as productive of anxiety(Fisher et al 2014 p 381).

Gerstal et al (1996) coined the termed therapeuticintervention to describe the move of voluntaryhomelessness agencies into service-intensiveprograms with unintended consequences forpersonal autonomy of the homeless residents.Issues of autonomy, hidden conditionality andsurveillance are common in analysis of varioustypes of institutional care settings and welfarepolicy (activation, prisons, elder care and alsohomeless services), where use of enforcement andgreater degrees of interventionism are oftentypically justified on the grounds of ‘serviceresistant’ individuals who are not responsive topolicy ‘offers. There has been an internationaltrend toward increasing levels of ‘interventionism’in support services. British policy, for example,reflects an escalation in expectations thathomeless people ‘engage’ and/or change aspectsof their lifestyle or behaviour (Dobson, 2011;Whiteford, 2010).

While US research does not necessarily translateinto an Irish context, pertinent observations canbe drawn from US literature on the impact ofhomeless emergency accommodation on parent -ing, child wellbeing, and parental auton omy.Milburn and D’Ercole (1991) and Culhane et al(2007) observe that in the US, like Ireland, housingmarket failure rather than family inadequacy isthe cause of homeless for 80% of homeless

30


families. However US policy makers assume thathomeless families are needier of more intensiveforms of support and consequently designregimented services that ultimately undermine thevery social networks all families need to survive. Inthe Irish context we argue that family hubs areerroneous and distract from the underlying supplyor affordability issues which are the real problem,while also having real potential to underminefamily self- sufficiency (Culhane et al 2007 p 24-25).

Our findings reflect the real difficulty ofdeveloping an institutionalised living experiencethat both respects child protection guidelines andenables autonomous parenting and familyfunctioning. The impossible task of deliveringthese two competing objectives leaves us toconclude that the only answer to family home -lessness lies in an urgent building pro gramme anda functioning property market. For this reason weargue that even limited use of family hubs requirestime limits on any one family’s stay and that thereshould be a sunset clause on the existence offamily hubs as a policy option, as well as im -mediate policies to mitigate the negative impactsof forced institutional living.

31


Conclusions

Having critically assessed Rebuilding Ireland’s overreliance on the private rental sector as the primarymechanism to resolve the social housing deficitand homelessness crisis we conclude thatgovernment needs to resolve a core tension withinIrish housing and economic policy. Governmentpolicy cannot address the social housing crisisthrough an over reliance on the private market todeliver investment in social rental housing. Currentpolicy fails to take account of the impact of marketfailure on the well-being of homeless familiesbeing forced to continually expose themselves tothe social violence resulting from the failure ofHAP and the private rental market.

Absence of investment in social housing negatesthe housing rights of the most vulnerable inIreland. We are not at the peak of the con tempor -ary housing crisis and we expect the housing crisisto escalate over the next five years, a frighteningscenario for many families and a scenario thatshould be unacceptable for Irish society and theIrish government.

Until HAP offers effective security of tenure weargue it is not a valid mechanism to meet the rightto housing. This does not mean HAP is not a validor welcome housing option rather that it shouldbe operationalised as a secondary rather than aprimary housing mechanism with direct localauthority or approved housing body’s socialhousing being Ireland’s primary social housingmechanism. While we make this argument from asecurity of tenure perspective, we also note thatfrom a cost perspective direct build social housingpresents a far greater return on state investmentand is thus a more cost efficient policy choice thaninvestment in private rental subsidies.

We find no international research or evidence baseto justify the emerging family hubs model andnote there have been no pilots to demonstratehow they might work. The danger with ‘Hubs’ isthat they both institutionalise and reduce thefunctioning capacity of families. This type ofinstitutional approach can lead to a form of‘therapeutic incarceration’ and over time may leadsociety to blame these families – predominantly

lone parent mothers, working class, migrant andethnic minority women – for a situation that theydid not create. This follows a long Irish history ofgendered forms of social violence inflicted on poormothers and their children who were madeinvisible, incarcerated and excluded from society.We caution that hubs may be a new form ofinstitutionalisation of vulnerable women andchildren, and poor fami lies, while housing marketfailures will be for gotten as these families becomethe ‘problem’ that needs to be solved. Whileconcluding such institutional responses tohomelessness should be avoided we argue that if,and when, they are used, design and operationalmodels should mitigate the worst damage byprioritising auton omy, quality standards and timelimits on residence, and for the importance of alegislative ‘sunset’ clause on the use of hubs.

Fundamentally we stress the need for an urgentsocial housing building programme and short termstays in emergency accommodation hubs need tomaximise family functioning and ensure residentsexperience dignity and respect. In the likelyscenario of a continued escalation of the home -lessness crisis we highlight five policy recom -mendations; prevention, building homes,en han cing HAP, mitigating the potential negativeimpacts of hubs, and issues of power, voice andparticipation, all of which are premised by theurgent need to act now.

1 Prevention, stocks and flows

Prevention and early intervention are in manyways the most cost-effective and harmonisingpolicies for confronting homelessness. Reintegra -tion costs increase sharply after somebody hasbecome homeless. Various cost bene fit analysishave shown significant returns on investment inpreventative measures and already Irishprevention services have proved effective. A pilotFocus Ireland service in Dublin 15 producedvaluable lessons concerning communication andoutreach strategies for preventative services (FocusIreland 2016). The Threshold delivered TenancyProtection Service operates through a Freephoneto work with key services to make assistanceavailable to families at risk of losing a home in the

32

Section Five Investing in the Right to a Home

Section Five:Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

private rented sector. Such is the demand; over 800contacts were made with this service in the firstquarter of 2017. Dublin City Council now employsthree prevention officers and has found their workto be cost effective in less than a year. As discussedbelow the fastest and most effective way toprevent homelessness, however, is to strengthensecurity of tenure in the private rental market.

t Many HAP recipients are in receipt of socialwelfare payments. Mechanisms are needed toensure that reduction in or cessation of theprimary social welfare payment does not leadto a premature loss of housing though can -cellation from the household budget scheme ofthe HAP tenant rent contribution.

t It is crucial to achieve a balance betweeninvestment in prevention and investment inalleviating the situation for those alreadyhomeless, this requires adequate new invest -ment in preventative measures to ensure thatprevention (lessening the flow of people intohomelessness) is not paid for by those alreadyexperiencing the problem (the stock).

t A second way of limiting flow is to limit thoseentering homeless services. There is a balanceto be achieved between pre venting homeless -ness by sup porting people to stay where theyare and by denying people the legitimate rightto access emergency accommodation.

2. An emergency social housing buildingprogramme

There is an urgent need to intensify the socialhousing building and acquisition programme asthe primary vehicle for addressing the home -lessness crisis and to develop a fair and transparentallocations mechanism for all social housing stock.Local authorities and housing associations do nothave sufficient direct exchequer capital funding toprovide the level of house building required. Theyare in the process of increasing their capacity todeliver housing and this should be consolidatedand accelerated through the increase of securecapital funding. Additionally a new semi-state,not-for-profit, Irish Affordable Homes Companyshould be established by government to buildaffordable ‘cost rental’ houses and homes forownership for a mix of household incomes. Thismechanism can provide an additional supply ofaffordable housing without significant capitalfunding requirement as it can be borrowed ‘off-books.’

t Increase capital funding for local authority andAHB rapid housing: triple direct capitalexchequer funding to €1bn per annum toenable the rapid building within 16 months of5,000 additional social housing units.

t Emergency legislation to enable rapid pro -curement to facilitate the above rapid buildingprogramme. In particular redirect use of state-owned land in Dublin for emergency buildrather than marketing to developers in variousPublic Private Partnerships Lands Initiative.

t Establish a new semi-state Irish AffordableHomes Company as proposed by both theNational Economic and Social Council (NESC2015) and the Nevin Institute (NERI 2017).

t Increase use of vacant housing for socialhousing through the combination of incentives,a vacant homes tax and a compulsory leasingorder of vacant housing.

3. HAP and security of tenure in privaterented sector

The erroneous move away from direct build andstate supplied social housing to a major relianceon HAP private rental (in 2011, but underpinnedfrom earlier) has contributed to this social housingand homeless crisis. The policy emphasis needs toreturn to primarily state provided new build socialand affordable housing. Legislative measures toaddress security of tenure are required for theprivate rental market to be an effective secondarymechanism to address social housing and resolvehomelessness. In particular government shouldamend Part 4 Section 34 of the Private RentalTenancies Act which allows landlords regainpossession of private rental property. At the sametime there is a need for more diverse forms ofprivate rental tenure including longer leaseoptions. The human right to secure housingrequires the cessation of ‘self-accommodation’.Local authorities should be responsible forsourcing Homeless HAP accommodation forfamilies and to re-house families who lose HAPaccommodation

t HAP should be de-prioritised as the mainprovider of social housing in RebuildingIreland. Prioritise state lead building pro -gramme instead.

t Legislative measures to address security oftenure. Amend Part 4 section 34 of the PRTA.

t A minimum 5 year tenant protection/lease –length of security for homeless HAP tenancies

33

Investing in the Right to a Home Section Five

t Local authorities as duty bearers with theobligation to source and offer HAP accom -modation and to re-house if HAP tenants loserental accommodation.

t Greater clarity is needed for HAP tenants as totheir status on local authority social waiting lists,they should retain their full priority based on theirfull time on the social housing list .

4 Mitigating potential damage from use offamily hubs

The real risk and danger of family hubs as‘temporary’ solutions is that they will become apermanent feature with homeless families left foryears in inappropriate and potentially damagingaccommodation. The experience of direct pro -vision centres – now in existence for almost twodecades – demonstrates the likelihood that theseinstitutions, once formed, will not be easilydismantled. This threatens the human rights ofthese families, particularly children, with con -ditions likely to do significant harm to families andparticularly to the well-being of children who stayany length of time in emergency accom modation.Suggestions that families are gaming the systemto present as homeless in order to more quicklyaccess council housing can be easily refuted.Families are actively seeking HAP accom modationbut are unable to access it because of thecompetition in a tight private rental housingmarket. While some families require supports, themost important support is the provision of a securehome –a housing first approach.

t Family hubs have emerged as a policy optionwith little public deliberation and considerableconfusion as to their rationale and policyintent. The Rebuilding Ireland review needs tosituate hubs within a clear strategy to eliminatefamily homelessness.

t Stable long term housing is the only viableoption to resolve family homeless and any formof emergency accommodation including familyhubs can only be a very short term solution. Arights based perspective requires regulatoryand legislative safeguards concerning maxi -mum limits on the length of time a familymight reside in a family hub. A three monthlimit as well as standards and inspectionregimes should be legislated in an amendmentof Section 10 of the 1988 Housing Act.

t There is a real danger that family hubs maybecome the next ‘direct provision’, an additionto Ireland’s long lamentable experience ofinstitu tional responses to social policy. Toensure families are not forgotten, there is aclear need for a legislative sunset clausewhereby all hubs close by December 2019.

t Choice and autonomy are important principles,some families may for understandable reasonsprefer the more autonomous hotel environ -ment and should be accommodated in hotelswith access to relocation supports. No familyshould be required to ‘self-accommodate’.

t Ideally accommodation management andlandlord functions shoud be separate fromfamily support and advocacy functions.

5 Power, voice, and participation

We find power inequalities dominate housingpolicy. Powerful vested interests, domestic, andincreasingly international, appear able to profitfrom maintaining the dominant position of themarket as the preferred mechanism to deliversocial housing. Conservative interpretations of theright to property in the 1937 Irish constitution areused to veto more progressive regulation of thehousing market. This policy orientation issustained by a powerful political and mediametanarrative that at once makes the marketseem an inevitable and natural presence in socialhousing provision. The same metanarrative injectselements of morality into public discourse wherethose who cannot access housing are made bearthe blame for market and policy failure. To datemedia representation of the family hubs has beenrelatively uncritical leaving the public with astrong impression that hubs are a significantimprovement on hotel based family accom -modation. In this context families living in familyhubs may fall under the radar.

The Economic and Social Rights campaign success -fully brought their case for a constitutional rightto housing through the 2015 ConstitutionalConvention. A rights approach to housing cancreate an alternative public narrative and a focusfor policy change, as seen in how the Home SweetHome mobilisation created a public discourse tochallenge market dominant policy. The EU SocialInvestment Programme analysis stresses theimportant role of participation and em power mentof those directly affected by homelessness,arguing for measures that enable their voice andparticipation in policy debate, advocacy, adviceand information as well as peer support pro -grammes. The principles underlying a right tohousing also offer standards against which toproof policy and practice, for example whetherthere are adequate systems for service user’sparticipation and consultation and for redress andsafe-guarding entitlements.

34

Section Five Investing in the Right to a Home

t Those residing in emergency accommodationneed formal redress mechanisms or proceduresin the event of complaints about allocationdecisions, housing standards and loss of socialrights.

t A media code of practice can hold media togreater account for implicit bias in housingpolicy reportage.

t Providers of homeless services are, under theterms of their service delivery agreements,often prohibited from advocacy about housingpolicy, they in turn sometimes prohibit serviceusers from overt advocacy or protest. The voicesof both homeless agencies and service users arecrucial voices and all effort should be made toenable these voices challenge inequality andpromote positive change in the public sphere.

t Academic researchers have a role to play incommitting to engaged and policy relevantresearch. Significant advances can be made tocreate a learning culture where data andevaluations can be shared across the differenthousing actors; political, policy makers, NGO’s,activists and academics.

Conclusion

The housing crisis is likely to continue for manyyears to come. Given the on-going mortgagearrears crisis, the private rental crisis, and the lackof private supply, HAP, even with reconfiguration,is unlikely to provide a stable and secure home forthese families. Rather than social housingprotecting lower income households from theinequalities of the private market, using HAP asthe primary social housing vehicle further exposesthem to the market. Family hubs are not sociallyand politically acceptable solutions to this crisis.Families in hubs remain inadequately housed andexposed to institutionalisation. Hidden away, theirhomeless may be forgotten and ignored. There isan alternative to hubs – it is straightforward –homes. We find insufficient political will to addressthis very real crisis. The core solution is thesufficient new build of social houses and otherforms of affordable rental. The real emergencyresponse required is houses not hubs.

As researchers we would like to respectfully thankall those we spoke with and engaged with in thecourse of this short research project, not leastthose families living in emergency accommodationwho shared their hope and fears with us, andthose who work on the front-line with families. Itis clear that all who work in this field care deeplyabout the plight of these families. It is ourcollective moral obligation to ensure these familiesare not left ignored and hidden in newinstitutionalised responses to housing andhomeless. The revision of Rebuilding Ireland mustmake social housing build the primary mechanismto meet social housing need, and an urgent housebuilding programme must proceed in the contextof this housing emergency.

35

Investing in the Right to a Home Section Five

Bibliography

Byrne, M. and Norris, M. (2017) ‘Pro-cyclical social housingand the crisis of Irish housing policy: marketization, socialhousing and the property boom and bust’ in Housing PolicyDebate

Central Bank (2017) Residential Mortgage Arrears andRepossessions Statistics: Q4 2016, Central Bank of Ireland

Culhane, D. P., Metraux, S., Park, J., Schretzman, M., &Valente, J. (2007) Testing a Typology of FamilyHomelessness Based on Patterns of Public ShelterUtilization in Four U.S. Jurisdictions: Implications forPolicy and Program Planning

Dublin Regional Homeless Executive (2017) Homeless DataReport

Department of Housing (2016) Rebuilding Ireland.Government of Ireland

Department of Housing (2017) Homelessness Data

Dobson, R. (2011) Conditionality and homelessnessservices, Social Policy and Society, 10(4), pp. 547-557

Duncan, S. (2003), Mother Knows Best: Social Division andWork and Childcare, WP 31, Families, Life Course andGenerational Research Centre Working Paper Series, LeedsUniversity

Duncan, S. and Edwards, R. (1997) Single mothers in aninternational context: mothers or workers, London: UCL Press

Edin, K. and Kefelas, M. (2005) Promises I can keep,Berkerely: University of California Press

Edin, K. and Lein, L. (1997) Making ends meet: How singlemothers survive on welfare and low wage work, New York:Russell Sage Foundation

Focus Ireland (2017) Insights into Family Homelessness No.7Survey of the families that became homeless during September2016, Focus Ireland

Fisher, B W et al. (2014) Leaving Homelessness Behind:Housing Decisions Among Families Exiting Shelter,Housing Policy Debate, 2014 Vol. 24, No. 2, 364–386,

Gerstel, N. et al. (1966) The Therapeutic Incarceration ofHomeless Families: Social Service Review, Vol. 70, No. 4(Dec., 1996), pp. 543-572

Harvey, B. and Walsh, K. (2017) Families exiting homelessness,Dublin, Focus Ireland

Hearne, R. (2011) Public Private Partnerships in Ireland: failedexperiment or the way forward? Manchester, ManchesterUniversity Press

Hearne, R. (2017) A home or a wealth generator? Inequality,financialization and the Irish housing crisis. TASC

Hickey, C., & Downey, D. (2003) Hungry for Change: Socialexclusion, food poverty and homelessness in Dublin. APilot Research Study.

Housing Agency (2017) National Statement of Housing Supplyand Demand 2016 and Outlook for 2017-18, Housing Agency

Howard KS and Cartwright S Examining the impact ofparental risk on family functioning among homeless andhoused families, American Journal of Orthospsychiarty 79 3326-335

Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (2017)Homeless Family Emergency Accommodation Policy Brief,Dublin: IHREC

Johnsen, S., Watts, B. and Fitzpatrick, S. (2014) ‘Extendinghospitality’ or ‘killing with kindness’? normative stancesregarding interventionism and enforcement in thehomeless sector. Presentation to the Housing StudiesAssociation annual conference, York, April 15-17

Kelly, E. (2001). Assessment of dietary intake of preschoolchildren living in a homeless shelter. Applied nursingresearch: ANR, 14(3), 146-154

Madden, D. & Marcuse, P. (2016) In Defence of Housing: ThePolitics of Crisis. Verso, New York

NESC (2014) Financing of Social Housing in Selected EuropeanCountries, NESC Secretariat Papers Paper No. 11 July 2014

NERI (2017) Housing Emergency – Time for a Game Changer,Nevin Research Institute

Noonan, M. (2013) Opening Address by Minister for FinanceMichael Noonan, TD at the Life and Pension IndustryConference, January 30th, Department of Finance

Rafferty and Shinn, M. (1991) The impact of homelessnesson children, American Psychologist 46 11 1170 -1179

Reynolds, M. (2017) State could save over €9bn over 30years on social housing, Village Magazine, April 2017

Share & Hennessy (2017) Food Access and nutritionalhealth among families in emergency accommodation in theDublin region: Focus Ireland

Shinn, M. et al (2016) Can Housing and ServiceInterventions Reduce Family Separations for Families WhoExperience Homelessness? Community Psychology (2016)0:1–12

Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of theenvironment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138.

Smith, M., McGee, H. M., & Shannon, W. (2001) OneHundred Homeless Women: Health status and healthservice use of homeless women and their children inDublin

United Nations (1991) The Right to Adequate Housing, Officeof the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

Wang J.J (2017) Reducing Family Homelessness andImproving Child Outcomes: A Housing-First ApproachWashington and Lee University

Whiteford, M. (2010) Hot tea, dry toast and theresponsibilisation of homeless people, Social Policy andSociety, 9(2), pp. 193-205.

Walsh, K. and Harvey, B. (2015) Family experience of pathwaysinto homelessness, the families perspective. Dublin: TheHousing Agency

36

Investing in the Right to a Home

Peer Researchers:Paul Haughan, Emma Richardson, Kathleena Twomey

Dr Rory Hearne and

Dr Mary P. Murphy

Investing in the Right to a Home:Housing, HAPs and Hubs


Policy recommendations:

1 Prevention In keeping with the EU SIP focus on preventinghomelessness, there is a need to focus additional investmentin and adequately support preventative policy and practice.

2 An emergency plan to rapidly increase supply of social homesIntensify an urgent social housing building and acquisitionprogramme as the primary vehicle for addressing the housingcrisis and develop a fair and transparent allocationsmechanism for all social housing stock.

3 HAP and private rental sector security. The market should bea secondary mechanism to address social housing and resolvehomelessness. Legislation is required to amend Part 4 S 34PRTA and enhance security of tenure and to create longerprivate rental tenure options.

4 HUBS While advocating against institutionalised emergencyprovision we focus on design and operational models thatrespect autonomy, regulate and inspect standards and theneed for legal time limits on residence and a 2019 sunsetclause on the use of family hubs.

5 Power, voice and participation Noting the power of vestedinterests to influence housing policy we stress human rightsapproaches to housing and the need for adequate redress, aswell as voice, participation, and governance.

Contact details:Dr Rory Hearne, [email protected] Dr Mary Murphy, [email protected]

Department of SociologyMaynooth University Social Sciences Institute Iontas Building North Campus Maynooth University Maynooth, Co Kildare Ireland


ISBN: 978-0-9932012-1-9

Designed and Printed by Printwell Design, www.printwell.ie

investing in the right to a home: housing, haps and hubs · investing in the right to a home:...

Documents