Une information citoyenne au service d'une identité européenne
Réactions, commentaires et débats avec des invités

Glossaire interactif des termes de l'Espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice
Observatoire législatif de l’Espace européen de liberté, de sécurité et de justice
Veille juridique et documentaire axée sur la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne
Actualités des grands projets de l'Union européenne
Dossiers documentaires thématiques
Actualités sur le rôle de l'Union européenne dans le monde
Une information citoyenne au service d'une identité européenne

There are no simple recepies when dealing with complex phenomena such as homelessness, nevertheless there are some recepies which may work better than others: housing led approaches Vs staircase model.“Homelessness is one of the most extreme forms of poverty and social exclusion, and is unacceptable in European societies.” László Andor

pdf mise en ligne :19 01 2015 ( NEA say… n° 153 )

COOPERATION JUDICIAIRE PENALE > Lutte contre le trafic d'armes

Homelessness is a growing problem in the EU, also due to the currentcrisis, and homeless population includes now new groups, such as youngpeople, older people and migrants but also large families. MemberStates have the responsibility to tackle this phenomenon by applyingdifferent strategies which may space from staircase model to housingfirst led approaches or a mix of those. The second model is inspiredby a programme developed in the United States and which seems to bemore efficient, although there are some concerns regarding itsapplicability to the European contexts. This article has the purposeof presenting Housing First (HF) programme as designed for the UScontext and also how it was applied in some European countries,underlying the differences between this and the staircase model.

Homelessness is a growing problem in the EU, also due to the current
crisis, and homeless population includes now new groups, such as young
people, older people and migrants but also large families. Member
States have the responsibility to tackle this phenomenon by applying
different strategies which may space from staircase model to housing
first led approaches or a mix of those. The second model is inspired
by a programme developed in the United States and which seems to be
more efficient, although there are some concerns regarding its
applicability to the European contexts. This article has the purpose
of presenting Housing First (HF) programme as designed for the US
context and also how it was applied in some European countries,
underlying the differences between this and the staircase model.

Housing First is a programme created by Dr. Sam Tsemberis which aims
at providing homeless people immediate access to permanent supported
housing. It was first applied in New York at the beginning of the
1990s and now is also being adopted in some European countries as a
part of the national strategies to end homelessness. Housing-led
approaches to tackling homelessness are now supported across Europe
because of emerging evidence on their effectiveness if compared to
other existing models.

The traditional way of dealing with this problem is based on the
staircase model which considers that homeless persons must first deal
with the problems which led them to be homeless or have arisen as a
result of homelessness, such as drug and alcohol misuse or mental
health issues. They become ready for long term accommodation only if
they succeed in recovering or demonstrate improvements. Before being
eligible for access to housing the client has to undergo treatment.
The candidate must demonstrate to have some basic living skills and
also show commitment to continue/engage in treatment. Criticism to
this strategy is that of losing clients between the different stages
because people often do not succeed in passing through all the
required steps before being considered ready for a permanent
accommodation. Before arriving there they are offered shelters and
hostels but these are only temporary solutions which do not give
people the stability needed in order to face their other problems.

A different approach is Housing First programme which is aimed at
placing people into permanent housing and offers them the possibility
to access other services without making them compulsory. It was
firstly designed for chronically homeless people who showed a record
of repeated and sustained street homelessness, high rates of
problematic alcohol and drug consumption, severe mental illness and
poor physical health. The leading principle is that of housing as a
basic human right and it does not require participation in treatment
and sobriety as a precondition for housing, although it offers support
services for people such as drug and alcohol services and psychiatric

Dr. Sam Tsemberis declared that they did not start with the idea of
Housing First. They only went asking people what they wanted and the
answer was: quick access to permanent housing. This is how they
decided to radically change the approach by capsizing it: housing
became the first step in tackling homelessness rather than an end
goal. One thing which must be stressed is the fact that housing is
offered along with support services which may consist in helping them
reconnecting with their families, assuring them medical services and
also a psychiatrist. Because of decoupling of housing and services,
people can choose not to use the help and keep drinking and using
drugs. One of the main challenges for social workers is that of trying
to provide very attractive services if they want their clients to use
them. The approach is always oriented towards harm reduction but this
happens in the long term.

Service providers look for a place where the person can live, help
people with the deposit and furniture in order to assure them the
effective possibility to move in and in the end they also assign a
support worker on ground which helps these persons to go on. Support is
the key success of the programme since it helps people to keep the
house once they have obtained one.

According to where HF is applied it may present some different
features but there are three main versions: Pathway Hosing First,
Communal Housing First and Housing First “light”.

Pathway Housing First

This is the original programme and has the characteristics described
above. A fundamental element of this version is that they provide
scattered site housing throughout the city and accommodation in
independent apartments, along with separation of housing and services.
It uses private rented housing, usually with the service being the
“tenant” and the former homeless person having the sub tenancy.
Consumers’ choice and self-determination are the core philosophy of
this approach. Moving to a normal neighbourhood with a rental contact
can help people recovering in a better way. The retention rate is very
high, around 80-90% of people are still in housing at 12-18 months
from the start, provided that they get the support they need.
Therefore, mobile support services are available under the form of
Assertive Community Treatment Team (ACT) composed by a team leader,
part-time psychiatrist, a part time doctor or nurse practitioner and a
full time nurse, a qualified social worker (mental health),
specialists in supported employment, a drug and alcohol specialist, a
‘Peer specialist’ and sometimes a family specialist (reconnection) and
‘wellness management and recovery specialist’ (healthy lifestyle).
Usually a ten person ACT team is responsible for around 70 people in
scattered housing.

In also include an Intensive Case Management Team (ICM) with a case
management or service brokerage role connecting service users to
mental health, drug and alcohol health and social work services
alongside other services to meet other needs. ICM team staff are each
assigned up to 20 service users in scattered housing.

Communal Housing First

A first striking difference is that of providing communal
accommodation and not independent scattered housing with the support
staff on site or nearby but it can also offer self-contained
apartments. CHF maintains the other characteristics of PHF such as
separation between services and housing and also the harm reduction
approach, therefore drinking and drug use is allowed and psychiatric
services are not compulsory. In this model too both ACT and ICM teams
are available. This version is widely used in Finland and USA. It has
higher cost than PHF as it requires the use of entire buildings and a
support team fully available. It may pose problems because of the
presence of many people with complex problems in the same site with a
potential negative impact on the service users. It seems that CHF can
be the perfect solution for people who fear isolation and loneliness
if collocated in scattered housing.

Housing First “Light”

It is mostly used in the UK and provides low intensity mobile support
workers to formerly and potentially homeless people living in their
own homes. It also gives some direct support aimed at promoting
housing stability. In some cases it can provide some type of care and
health services directly but usually the approach is that of service
brokerage with HFL acting as intermediary between the service user and
the local service. An additional difference is that of time limit,
while the two previous programmes are virtually endless, they last as
long as the service user needs assistance.

HFL enable access to health, social care and welfare systems for
vulnerable homeless people who might not have using them before with
an impact on total costs which may be higher although here again it
depends on the welfare system present in the country where HFL is

Does Housing First really work?

Studies showed that 85% of people who go in Housing First remain in
the house, opposed to 30-45% of people involved in staircase model.
There is evidence of stabilised and fall of the consumption of drugs
and alcohol but this does not seem to necessarily lead to giving up
their use. It seems also that well-being improves among service users,
mainly due to the presence of a place to live. The impact is
important, since having a house allows people to store food in a
fridge and not spending all their money on food in fast foods like
they do while living in the street. It also lowers the possibility of
getting in trouble with the police.

Furthermore it seems also to be cost effective, since it allows to
save money with respect to other approaches but on this point there is
not a common view since it depends on the welfare system of the
country where implemented and also on the cost of support personnel
which is needed in order to run the programme.

Funding may come from the State, NGOs, or municipalities and the
services might be covered by the Ministries of social and health care
but this changes from country to country.

In several countries, namely Denmark and Finland, this has become part
of national strategies, in other countries there are some projects,
for example in Netherlands there were around 15 projects, in France
projects involved four cities, in Belgium five cities and also
Portugal, Italy and Poland have adopted this programme, although with
small projects in no more than two sites.

European Commission, DG for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion,
funded a project called Housing First Europe (HFE) under the PROGRESS
from August 2011 to July 2013. The aim was that of obtaining
an evaluation and mutual learning between, local projects in ten
European cities. HFE involved five test sites where the approach was
evaluated (Amsterdam, Budapest, Copenhagen, Glasgow and Lisbon), and
facilitated the exchange of information and experiences with five
additional cities (Dublin, Gent, Gothenburg, Helsinki and Vienna)
where Housing First projects were planned or elements of the approach
were being implemented. The project was followed by a report by
Busch-Geertsema in 2013 which analyses the outcome. Comparison between
these projects resulted difficult, since they had different features,
started in different moments and were inserted in different types of
welfare systems. Considering these problems the document reports that
after two years from the start the retention rate was 80% in Lisbon,
90% in Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Glasgow with no certain data for
Budapest. Some of these projects included communal housing and in
Copenhagen both models of housing were present and it was possible to
measure the satisfaction in both the cases. The result was that of a
higher degree of satisfaction of people living in scattered housing
than the others. In Lisbon 96% of the participants declared to be
satisfied with the accommodation in terms of privacy, comfort,
tranquillity and empowerment. Life quality seemed improved for the 70%
of participants. In 50% of the cases there was a drop or an
interruption in the use of alcohol and drugs, mainly in Lisbon and
Amsterdam and 67% of participants in Amsterdam were reconnected with
their children. In Lisbon there has been a drop of 90% of access in
jail and psychiatric emergency services. With the exception of
Amsterdam, where there have been several complaints by the neighbours
about the noise, there have been no problems with the other tenants.

What about the costs of HFE? A comparison among the several projects
is almost impossible because of the difference in costs of services
among the locations. In Amsterdam a HF full user has a cost of 70
euros per day, which is lower than the cost of hosting a person in a
shelter with 24 hours support. In Lisbon the daily cost per person was
around 16.40 euros, far lesser than the daily recovery in a
psychiatric hospital, which can reach 2500 euros. These findings seem
to support HF as a cost effective solution but we should not forget
that data obtained must always be contextualised. Local and national
existing policies and services and their cost vary from place to
place, therefore it is important to keep this in mind when trying to
assess cost effectiveness.

Now HFE has ended and there is a wide consensus in considering it a
success. In occasion of the World Homeless Day on the 10th of October
2014 Commissioner Lazslo Andor declared that “For its part, the
Commission has provided policy guidance as part of the February 2013
Social Investment Package, urging Member States to tackle homelessness
through integrated, preventive and housing-led strategies and by
revising current eviction practices. EU support for action by Member
States is available from the European Social Fund, the Fund for
European Aid to the Most Deprived and the European Regional
Development Fund. Concrete action is long overdue to ensure that all
EU citizens can live a dignified life.”

While it is clear that the solution lies at national and local level,
European projects may have a very positive impact, thanks to exchange
of experience and best practices among different MS. Every version of
HF may work for certain categories of persons with different needs but
it certainly cannot cover all the homeless population. HF is not
suitable for emergency accommodation, for migrant homelessness, groups
with specific needs, such as women at risk of gender based violence
and for people with low support needs. Furthermore, PHF works well on
a small scale approach, CHF can work at a larger scale and FHL may be
used together with other existing services. The ideal solution would
be that of including housing led projects in the national strategies
to tackle homelessness while continuing to offer shelter system and
staircase services.

HF may not represent the perfect solution but it remains one of the
most interesting and challenging ways to tackle homelessness. We have
to wait longer before assessing its success or failure, since it deals
with complex issues which require a longer timeframe. Up to now
concerns regarding its adapting capacities to new contexts seem to
have been exaggerated. Further research regarding European projects is
needed since most part of the literature on this issue regard projects
in the US and Canada and it is not surprising since those are the
first countries which have adopted it.

(Ana Daniela Sanda)

To know more:

      -. Statement of Commissioner László Andor on World Homeless Day

      -. House First Europe: Final Report by Busch-Geertsema

      -. Elosh platform:

       -. FEANTSA Homeless in Europe Magazine: Autumn 2014