Housing for the Homeless? Not Yet First!

EUROPEAN RESEARCH CONFERENCE

Housing First. What’s Second?

Berlin, 20th September 2013

Housing for the homeless?

Not yet first…

Julia Wygnańska, Research&Advocacy

Camilian Mission for Social Assistance

www.misja.com.pl

Warsaw, Poland

Insert your logo here




Hold your horses!

Title of this Conference calls for immediate reaction: Housing first?

WHERE? Isn’t asking for second stage premature? Are we not too

quick?

Audience of Final Conference of Housing First Europe in

Amsterdam, June 2013 might have heard we test housing first

projects in Poland in two places. Here they are in national context:

1. Who is considered homeless?

2. What services are provided

3. The nature of social work

4. Measuring effectiveness

5. Two HF projects mentioned in Amsterdam




1. Policy: to whom it is (not) addressed? Official scale of homelessness (headcounts):

Housing and Population Census 2011: (ETHOS 1,11=9789; 2,3,4=15948)

Ministerial Headcount 2013: ETHOS 1,11= 8554; 2,3,4=22158; Warsaw 1,11=

431 (people in temporary/supported housing counted as „usamodzielnieni”=not

homeless any more)

People in public space in Warsaw – alternative data:

DOM Fundation 2012 – 410 clients in few districts of whom 70% declared current

place of stay ETHOS 1,11 (public space, unconventional dwelling)

CMSA Research 2012 – about 140 clients of streetowrker in two districts over 6

months (long term homeless, possible mental/social disorders, long term

alcoholics, many times rejected from shelters/removed from shelters.)

http://www.misja.com.pl/living-in-public-space-in-warsaw-street-work-by-

camilian-mission-for-social-assistance/

And the rest (uncounted):

People addicted to drugs – they stay in facilities for drug addicted people not for the

homeless.

Living with family and friends, temporary/seasonal work rooms

People on the margins of homelessness (Loss of housing safety due to conflict in a

family/financial problems; Evictions, re-possession orders)

Young people (leaving care – we know about successful ones)

http://www.misja.com.pl/living-in-public-space-in-warsaw-street-work-by-camilian-mission-for-social-assistance/































2. Range of services Prevailing:

Warming-ups, food distribution, nightshleters, shelters, long term homes,

social work, community homes (Barka, Emaus, Chleb Życie), advice and

information

Existing (there are some):

supported/training appartments (1300 people in them according to Ministerial

Count 2012) (by-laws include sobriety, control of social worker, income level and

other), streetworking, social economy

Lacking:

Personal Advocacy, mental health and post traumatic services, prevention –

immediate intervention in crisis sitautions experienced by well functioning people

(single mom - Gdańsk). Welfare only to the poorest.

System:

Employment led staircase model; apartment as a reward for graduating from

the shelter;




3. (Specific) Quality of „social work” Comparison of support system for the homeless to war/field hospital where

the surgeon has to quickly decide who should be operated and who is left to

die. Prognosis has to be made on who has a chance to exit homelessness

and be therefore supported by more advanced services (like housing) and

who is hopeless and should be left to his fate in public space, night shelters

and sobering up stations.

Low effectiveness of social work interpreted as a fault/choice of supported

person not as inadequacy of support.

Emotional problems of people who help others (lack of supervision, short

and inadequate education, specific recruitment to „profession of helping”,

lack of reflection on impact of one’s own limitations on relationship of

helping); social help as „social violence”;

In self-help groups where staff recruits from former clients: „I was able to

stop my problems so should you (e.g. drinking as a choice)”

By-laws and contracts to meet them as major tools for „motivating” clients.

Lack of knowledge on how to work on internal self motivation, self-steering.




4. Measuring effectivness

„We are ngos, we work in gaps, we volunteer, we have low salaries

so everything we do is a blessing and is good a priori.”

Major criteria: „administrative” correctness

Prevalance of performance measures

Lack of indicatiors of effectiveness/benefits of basic services

Lack of cost and benefit analysis of exisiting services

Lack of need to measure effectiveness…




5. HF programs

Context of GSWB systemic project – „Model of standardised

services” drafted by ngo experts put under test by pilot

implementations on local level in 19 communities. Standardised

services include forms of shelter/housing for the homeless. 100%

EU funded.

In GSWB Model HF is declared as one of alternative general rules

(paradigm) for the system (next to staircase model, patette model

and community model) but range of services/programmes does not

include HF programmes. Housing first described as unconditional

housing for every homeless person.




5 cd. Housing first examples Nowe

1 person chosen based on three criteria: high institutinal costs, causing high

social problems, having prospects for income

Criteria for holding the apt: monthly payments, cooperation with social workers

and staff

Kielce, Pomost Fundation

6 people of 50 who applied (many not homeless, wanted to improve housing

situation), (no long term rough sleepers with multiple needs)

major criteria for selection: difficult housing situation, no analysis of past housing

situations eg. rough sleeping, shelter rejections, etc.; no analysis of

psychological profile

no criteria for clients eg. indywidual programme for getting out of homelessness,

employment, etc., no by-law,

Support: job advisor, family assistant, psychologist, coordinator

GSWB Evaluation („Scientific Audit”): no information on effectiveness of

implementation of HF by local partnerships; staircase model got better opinions but

report provides no conclusions.




Context - conclusions Population of people experiencing homelessness and housing

exclusion researched partially – we do not have full picture, we

shape our thinking/programms/policies on fragmented data

Still basic service is a roof/soup not home and

psychological/therapeutic support

Social work – by-law/contracts as major tool for motivation, lack of

neccessary qualifications of people helping others

Unknown effectivness (and cost effectiveness) of existing services

HF – maybe 20 people in PL do understand the idea - for general

audience HF remains out of the blue:

Do we want to have HF because it is a sophisticated and fancy

programme which is trendy in Europe? Or do we really want it

because we want to put people first and do what they tell us they

need?




Questions? How imaginative should (European conferences shaping) policy

goals be? Is there anything to loose by delibarating on what is

second while first does not exist?

What do we know about homelessness in national contexts

(anegdotal observation?)

Pathways for policy development – shall we hope to jump over some

stages (improving shelter system) and move directly to most

advanced ideas (Housing First as paradigm fed with HF

programmes)? How can that be done?

Researching vs implementing?

Any project that supports people in critical housing situation is great. … Why we

need to analyse them if they are or they are not HF or anything else?

Do we really get that much from (policy oriented) research?

It is good we have tested hf - 7 people were supported. Kropka




CMSA Plans

CMSA offered Municipality of Warsaw cooperation in

implementation of HF programme for 15 people living in public

space in Warsaw looking forward to new EU Financial Perspective

2014-2020 and engagement of local government.

CMSA continues to research costs of living in public space to gather

pro-Housing First data.

In 2012 CMSA adopted The Advocacy Strategy based on three

pillars: research, netowrking and transparency. Long term goal:

creating pro HF dynamics in PL




www.misja.com.pl




Biblio Cieplak, Wygnańska (2012) Akceptacja kluczem do zmiany. Streetworking w

Kamiliańskiej Misji Pomocy Społecznej KMPS, Warszawa, In English:

http://www.misja.com.pl/living-in-public-space-in-warsaw-street-work-by-camilian-

mission-for-social-assistance/

GSWB (2012) „Model GSWB” http://www.pfwb.org.pl/wp-

content/uploads/2012/11/pfwb_model_gswb_www.pdf

GUS (2012) Narodowy Spis Powszechny Ludności i Mieszkań 2011. Raport z

wyników, GUS, Warszawa

MPiPS (2013) Sprawozdanie z realizacji działań na rzecz ludzi bezdomnych w

województwach w 2012 roku oraz wyniki ogólnopolskiego badania liczby osób

bezdomnych 7/8 lutego 2013, Materiał informacyjny, Warszawa

Wygnańska, (2012) Mieszkańcy warszawskich pustostanów, działek i śmietników –

beneficjenci Fundacji D.O.M., Fundacja D.O.M., Warszawa

Wygnańska (2013) Ekspertyza merytoryczna Modelu Gminny Standard Wychodzenia

z Bezdomności na zlecenie Caritas Diecezji Kieleckiej pt. „Model GSWB – opis

rzeczywistości zastanej vs projekt przyszłej polityki społecznej”, CARITAS Kielecka

Information on pilot implementation of HF received via emails from Wojciech

Kuziemski from Local GSWB Partnership in Nowe, and Krzysztof Nowak from Local

GSWB Partnership in Kielce.




























http://www.pfwb.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/pfwb_model_gswb_www.pdf



Business

Housing for the Homeless? Not Yet First!