1. home and garden

HOW TO HELP PEOPLE
EXCLUDED FROM
DECENT HOUSING
CO-OPERATE!
Experiences from nine European cities
REPORT
on Good Practice in Cooperation and
Transferable Lessons
based on the project
INTEGRATED FORMS OF COOPERATION
IN HOUSING STOCK POLICY FOR
HOUSING PROVISION FOR RISK GROUPS
HOW TO HELP PEOPLE
EXCLUDED FROM
DECENT HOUSING
CO-OPERATE!
Experiences from nine European cities
editors
the co-ordinating institutes
supported by the
A
B
CZ
D
NL
PL
UK
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG EMPLOYMENT, SOCIAL AFFAIRS
AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
co-ordinating institutes
Bundesministerium für Soziale Sicherheit,
Generationen und Konsumentenschutz (A)
Habitat Platform (NL)
Vienna
Brussels
Praha
Bochum
Delft
Krakow
York
SRZ
PSPC
´ RS
U
InWIS
OTB
IRM
CHP
VS/2004/0582, VS/2004/0666 _ November 2005
REPORT
on Good Practice in Cooperation and
Transferable Lessons
based on the project
INTEGRATED FORMS OF COOPERATION
IN HOUSING STOCK POLICY FOR
HOUSING PROVISION FOR RISK GROUPS
SUMMARY
HOW TO HELP PEOPLE
EXCLUDED FROM
DECENT HOUSING
CO-OPERATE!
Experiences from nine European cities
editors
the co-ordinating institutes
supported by the
A
B
CZ
D
NL
PL
UK
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG EMPLOYMENT, SOCIAL AFFAIRS
AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
co-ordinating institutes
Bundesministerium für Soziale Sicherheit,
Generationen und Konsumentenschutz (A)
Habitat Platform (NL)
Vienna
Brussels
Praha
Bochum
Delft
Krakow
York
SRZ
PSPC
´ RS
U
InWIS
OTB
IRM
CHP
VS/2004/0582, VS/2004/0666 _ November 2005
Report on Good Practice in Cooperation
and Transferable Lessons
Table of contents
Executive Summary
Preamble
Setting the stage: introduction to case studies
Case Studies
Austria: the Vienna case
Context Vienna
Good practice: Centre for Secure Tenancy FAWOS
Good practice: Social Allocation of Flats
Good practice: Flat Exchange
Team Austria: Transferable lessons
Belgium: the Brussels case
Context Brussels-Capital Region
Good practice: SLRB Housing association
Good practice: Social Rental Agency IRIS
Team Belgium: Transferable lessons
Czech Republic: the Brno case
Context Brno
Good practice: Brno Reconstruction of Council Housing
Good practice: Brno Half Way House
Team Czech Republic: Transferable lessons
Germany: the Duisburg and Hanover case
Context Duisburg and Hanover
Good practice: Integrated Support System for the Single homeless
Good practice: SWH Rehousing Homeless people
Team Germany: Transferable lessons
Poland: the Krakow and Poznan case
Context Krakow and Poznan
Good practice: Krakow City + Housing Associations
Good practice: Darzybor Settlement – BARKA Foundation
Team Poland: Transferable lessons
The Netherlands: the Rotterdam case
Context Rotterdam
Good practice: Local Care Networks LZN
Good practice: Steering Committee
Good practice: With(out) A Roof
The Dutch Team: Transferable lessons
The United Kingdom: the Leeds case
Context Leeds
Good practice: St Anne’s Alcohol Services
Good practice: Leeds Refugees and Asylum Services
Good practice: Nowell Court
Team United Kingdom: Transferable lessons
Lessons learnt and policy implications
Editors of the report (the national coordinating institutes)
National partners and contributors
I
1-1
2-1
2-2
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-9
2 - 11
2 - 12
2 - 13
2 - 15
2 - 17
2 - 18
2 - 19
2 - 21
2 - 23
2 - 24
2 - 25
2 - 27
2 - 29
2 - 30
2 - 31
2 - 32
2 - 34
2 - 35
2 - 36
2 - 37
2 - 39
2 - 41
2 - 42
2 - 43
2 - 44
3-1
Coop Consortium, November 2005
How to help people excluded from decent housing
CO-OPERATE!
Experiences from nine European cities
Report on Good Practice in Cooperation and Transferable Lessons
based on the project COOP Integrated Forms of Cooperation in Housing Stock Policy
for Housing Provision for Risk Groups
Executive Summary
The securing of decent and affordable housing plays an important role in the fight against poverty and social exclusion.
However, growing numbers of people experience difficulty in accessing good quality accommodation. In many EU cities,
people continue to live in poor housing while others experience housing loss and homelessness. Conventional forms of
housing do not always sufficiently address the needs of risk groups who require assistance in accessing and maintaining
decent and appropriate accommodation.
This EU project – COOP – focuses on integrated forms of co-operation between local authorities, housing providers
and social care providers in preventing and addressing homelessness or housing loss. It aims to explore the added
value of cooperating, as opposed to working separately, through the study of a number of EU cities.
Context
The COOP project was supported by the European Commission within the framework of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) to combat poverty and social exclusion in the Member States. The OMC consists of five main elements of which one is the establishment of a Community Action Programme (2002-2006). In this framework the Directorate General for Employment and Social Affairs of the European Commission launched a Transnational Exchange
Programme. Its objective is to promote mutual learning between the 25 EU Member States, candidate countries and
EFTA / EEA countries. COOP was one of the projects supported within this programme.
European policies stress the securing of decent and affordable housing as a key priority in the fight against poverty
and social exclusion. There is still a growing number of people living in poor housing conditions, threatened by homelessness, or already homeless. The COOP project is based on the hypothesis that housing provision for vulnerable
groups could be improved through integrated client-oriented forms of cooperation including a triangle of local authorities, housing providers and social care providers.
Approach
In the COOP project seven national teams from old and new European Member States (Austria, Belgium, the Czech
Republic, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK) formed a consortium to exchange information, learn about
strengths and weaknesses of each others’ partnerships, and discuss the transferability of approaches. Each team consisted of one coordinating institute and partners from the fields of local authorities, housing, social services and homelessness organisations.
I
CO-OPERATE!
The method of the exchange was based on a continuous process of input and feedback. Using key criteria of good
practice the national teams selected good practice cases in their cities. To assess these cases the consortium worked
out a list of good practice criteria. This list is divided into three main dimensions: relevance, effectiveness and efficiency
which together define the ‘added value’ of cooperation as opposed to working separately. Using these criteria the national teams assessed their cases and presented their findings to the international consortium. Over a period of three
years the European Commission financed nine meetings to build the network and to promote the process of mutual
learning.
Coordinating institutes steering the exchange of information with regard to reflection and focussing proved helpful –
i.e. they worked out the good practice criteria, supervised the selection and analysis of good practice examples using
scientific methods, processed the findings and provided the documentation.
This report presents the main outputs of COOP: the selected good practice examples of cooperation, embedded in
their national and local context, the lessons the national teams learnt from each other and finally as a synthesis the
common lessons learnt and policy implications to promote cooperation as a key element in successfully fighting homelessness.
Good practices in seven countries
Within the COOP framework, 17 good practice cases in nine European cities were discussed. They represent a
broad range of activities in the field of meeting the housing needs of vulnerable groups. According to their main aim
these activities can be grouped into four categories: prevention of housing loss (5 cases), provision of permanent housing (7 cases), expansion of the accessible housing stock for vulnerable groups (2 cases), and social re-integration into
mainstream society (3 cases).
1. Prevention of housing loss: The activities of cases in this group include counselling people threatened by eviction
and negotiating with landlords (Centre for Secure Tenancy – FAWOS in Vienna, A); improving housing conditions and
legal status of tenure for Roma people (Reconstruction of council housing in Brno, CZ); providing council dwellings to
people threatened by eviction (local authorities and housing associations in Krakow, PL); outreach assistance to people with complex social problems (Local Care Networks in Rotterdam, NL), and the provision of resettlement and follow-on floating support to help people sustain their housing (St. Anne’s Alcohol Service in Leeds, UK).
2. Provision of permanent housing: The good practices summarised in this group are active in coordinating housing
provision and accompanying social support (Steering Committee in Rotterdam, NL); allocating flats with individual rent
agreements in council housing (Social Allocation of Flats in Vienna, A); providing appropriate housing, subsistence
and support based on a clearing process (for different target groups: Integrated Support System in Duisburg, D;
Leeds Refugee and Asylum Service, UK); building and maintaining dwellings and providing social support for homeless people (SWH Rehousing Homeless People in Hanover, D); provision of intermediary accommodation and floating
support to assist move-on to permanent housing (Nowell Court in Leeds, UK); information, advice and accompaniment in flat hunting (Flat Exchange in Vienna, A).
3. Expansion of the accessible housing stock: In this group we find two activities in Brussels which deal with
diversifying the social housing stock, stock management and development of social support services (SLRB Brussels,
B) and mediation between socially weak tenants and private landlords (with respect to rent level and guaranteed rent
payment) and provision of social support for the tenants (Social Rental Agency IRIS in Brussels, B).
4. Social re-integration: Three good practices have the aim of social re-integration, the first providing rehabilitation,
intermediary accommodation in standard housing and support with establishing an independent tenancy for (former)
alcohol and drug addicts (With(out) a Roof in Rotterdam, NL), the second, by building a new neighbourhood based on
self-help of the target group (Darzybor settlement in Krakow, PL) and the third, by providing intermediary housing and
advice and support on how to organise life and housing for young homeless people (Half Way House in Brno, CZ).
In the COOP project a key focus was the role of partnerships including a TRIANGLE of (professional) partners: local
authorities, housing providers and social care providers. Looking at the 17 cases we found that on the part of the local
authorities mainly the housing department and the social services department are involved. On the part of the housing
providers the focus lies on municipal housing and social housing providers. On the part of the social care providers in
most partnerships non-profit organisations are involved.
Each of the 17 examples is assessed as good practice in its respective (legal, economic and social) context. Although the framework conditions in all the cities (and countries) differ considerably, the national teams did identify components of other cases which could be transferred to their own city / country.
II
CO-OPERATE!
Lessons learnt
1. The COOP triangle of housing providers, social service providers and local authorities has been seen to be effective
in delivering services which prevent housing loss, provide housing and support vulnerable groups.
2. Successful cooperation forms are embedded in national and local systems for housing and care provision or at least
do not conflict with local and national policy.
3. Each angle of the triangle can be filled by very different types of actors, each with very different interests. Social
housing and publicly owned housing stock remain key in housing provision for vulnerable groups. To include private
landlords is more difficult, but examples show that financial guarantees and social support for tenants help to convince them to join a partnership.
4. The importance of involving customers in conceptualising and improving services is widely recognised. However,
the extent and intensity of users’ involvement vary a good deal.
5. Besides the three main ‘COOP triangle’ actors the involvement of other agencies (e.g. courts, health services) and
providers (e.g. utility providers) can support in helping people to sustain decent housing.
6. Cooperation is more successful when all actors are equal partners in the cooperation and when they share a vision
and a common goal. Cooperation is smoothed when the partners make their interests and decisions transparent and
inform each other about relevant issues at an early stage. Conflicting interests must be recognised and addressed.
7. Cooperation functions most efficiently where duties and responsibilities of partners are clearly delineated and
defined. One partner taking over a leading role ("engine of cooperation") and coordinating the work of the partnership
makes cooperation more efficient.
8. To combat homelessness through prevention is key. Early intervention is important to prevent housing crises. Early
signs of social problems must be recognised and addressed in cooperation of the relevant actors.
9. Whilst "independent" housing is the desired outcome for most individuals some people will require ongoing (low
level) support in order to sustain their housing.
10. Stigmatising people by labelling them as a risk group should be avoided. However, some groups have specific
needs (e.g. asylum seekers due to their legal status) which should be specifically addressed.
11. National standards or requirements could help to ensure that all local authorities meet their obligations to vulnerable groups on a high quality level.
12. National and local governments claim that they are in favour of fighting homelessness. However, funding does not
always keep pace with policy.
13. Monitoring and evaluation on both national and local levels can be used to continuously improve services. However, over-regulation should be avoided.
III
CO-OPERATE!
Policy recommendations
To all levels
1. There is a need to ensure awareness of, and promote support for, the aims of the National Action Plans for Social
Inclusion.
2. It is important that all member states develop strategies to meet the objectives of their NAPs/Inclusion, to promote
social inclusion, to combat homelessness and to tackle housing need.
3. The EC has already stressed the need for setting more ambitious quantified targets and for financing plans in the
NAPs/Inclusion and this should be pursued. If NAP aims are to be met then adequate funding must be made available to Member States to develop strategies and services.
4. The prevention of homelessness should receive much more attention. A shift of emphasis from crisis intervention to
addressing the causes of impending homelessness is needed.
5. The EU, national and local governments must recognise and address conflicting policy aims that can undermine the
work of cooperations and services.
6. Policy makers at all levels should seek to ensure that the general public is aware of the difficulties faced by vulnerable groups.
7. All services should aim at achieving independent living of customers. Appropriate solutions should be further developed so that people can live as independently as possible in decent, permanent housing within mainstream society.
8. While it is important to provide specialist accommodation for people who find it difficult to integrate, individuals can
change. If people change, make progress and find motivation, they should be provided with the possibilities to move
on to regular accommodation.
9. It should be recognised at all levels that while "independent living" is a desirable goal this is not realistic for every
member of the risk groups. Services should help people progress as far as they can but in some cases ongoing
support may be needed. Policy makers must ensure that funding is available for such ongoing support.
10. Some people may encounter difficulties that threaten their housing situation after resettlement. All services should
ensure that appropriate support is available and that customers are aware of this support.
11. Whilst cooperations and services should have the prevention of homelessness, reintegration and social inclusion as
their ultimate goals, there remains a need (within this broader strategy) for emergency accommodation and outreach work if the most marginalised homeless people are to be engaged and supported in addressing their problems.
12. Governments, policy makers and providers must not lose sight of the individual: Cooperations and services should
be required to use individual action plans developed with the customer and these should be subject to regular review with the customer.
© Wohndrehscheibe, A
© Wohndrehscheibe, A
IV
CO-OPERATE!
To European Commission and other European Union bodies
1. The EC should continue to stress the importance of adequate and appropriate housing as key in reducing social
exclusion but should also promote a more holistic approach recognising the roles of a wide range of services which
contribute to social inclusion. The European Parliament should be closely involved in these issues.
2. The EC and the European Parliament should promote the role of social housing in its social inclusion policies.
3. The EC should also recognise and promote the role of local governments in addressing social exclusion and promoting inclusion through the provision of housing.
4. The right to housing assistance should be adopted in EU policy.
5. The Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities DG should bring together and assess the outcomes of the
various strands of the Community Action Programme concentrating on thematic groups. The EC should facilitate
better dissemination of research findings not only through published reports but through workshops and seminars.
6. The EC should commission further in-depth thematic studies not only on the issue of access to housing for migrants and ethnic minorities but also for other vulnerable groups, with a particular focus on emerging vulnerable
groups such as young people and women without children.
7. In further exchange programmes the EC should stipulate the inclusion of scientific institutes in the networks to
ensure a high quality of knowledge.
8. Social exclusion is a multi-faceted problem and the plan for improved joint action is very welcome. Concerted action
is required not only from the Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities DG but also the DGs responsible for
health and for structural funds if the various needs of excluded groups are to be addressed holistically.
To European, national and regional levels
1. Policy makers must continue to work to address the structural factors (poverty, unemployment and housing shortages) that make people vulnerable to housing loss.
2. The EU and national governments should work towards formulating national standards for the provision of housing,
care and support for vulnerable groups. All services should be subject to robust monitoring and evaluation.
3. The EU and national governments should continue to work on the development of common indicators and definitions to monitor developments.
4. Policy makers should require cooperations and services to develop strategies to involve customers in the development, delivery, monitoring and evaluation of services.
5. National and regional governments should investigate the opportunity for legal changes regarding privacy policy and
data protection and promote the development of information-sharing protocols to optimise prevention opportunities.
6. Publicly owned housing stock is an important resource for vulnerable groups. National, regional and local authorities
should not (further) reduce their housing stock.
© Feigelfeld
© Feigelfeld
V
CO-OPERATE!
7. Social housing policy should be strengthened and social housing providers encouraged and supported in maintaining an adequate stock of decent and affordable housing.
8. Policy makers should stress the social responsibility that is linked to ownership (in a social market economy system) and should recognise this when talking about strategies to open the housing market to new actors.
9. Policy makers should recognise the potential role of private, profit oriented providers (e.g. private landlords and
real estate investment trusts) and develop strategies to involve them in the provision of housing for vulnerable groups.
To national, regional and local levels
1. The development of cooperation forms including a broad range of actors should be encouraged. It is recommended
that local authorities should take the lead in developing and coordinating partnerships. Where necessary local authorities should consider commissioning external experts to support the development of integrated services.
2. National, regional and local governments should consider piloting cooperation forms and robustly evaluating their
efficiency and effectiveness. The experiences should be disseminated and fed into the policy-making process.
3. National and local governments should provide funding for seminars, workshops or round table discussions
which would provide the opportunity for key stakeholders to meet and discuss their shared objectives, to overcome
any conflicts of interest; to formulate strategies and work towards developing successful cooperations.
3. Governments must work to engage representatives of vulnerable groups in the policy-making process and in the
development of services.
4. Services that provide housing information, advice and advocacy at local level to help people to maintain their tenancy should be promoted and supported financially in all Member States.
5. Governments must recognise the specific needs of different vulnerable groups and develop support policies and
interventions which seek to address these without stigmatising these groups.
Need for further research / action
To avoid parallel action in further DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities activities, a forum should be
set up where institutions and groups which have contributed to the Community Action Programme on issues of securing
housing for vulnerable groups should develop concentrated on key challenges and key priorities.
DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities should build alliances with DG Research and other institutions supporting European research to stress future research on social inclusion issues in the 7th Framework Programme
and similar programmes.
Further research is needed …
…on the gender dimension within the issues of housing and social inclusion.
…on the needs and preferences of the most marginalised homeless people and/or dissemination of the findings of
research conducted in the UK.
…on the issue of whether vulnerable groups should be housed dispersed or not. Some groups might wish to live close
together, but the building of ghettos or re housing in the most disadvantaged areas is to be avoided.
…to improve understanding of how services can best support people into work, the barriers faced by marginalised
groups and how these can be overcome.
…on the role of other forms of meaningful activity (voluntary work, social activities, leisure pursuits, education and
training) in promoting social inclusion and sustainable housing solutions.
…in some countries (though not all) in order to understand how to engage customers and encourage their active
participation in service development and practice.
Overall, there is a need for further development of evaluation tools that can be used in research (to measure effectiveness and efficiency) that will assist in the formulation of evidence-based policy.
VI
Preamble
Key priority: access to housing
European policies stress the securing of decent and affordable housing for all as a key priority in the fight against poverty and social exclusion. There is still a growing number of people living in poor housing conditions, threatened by
homelessness, or already homeless. In particular, the Joint Reports on Social Protection/ Social Inclusion (2002, 2004,
2005) have highlighted homelessness as one of the most extreme forms of social exclusion.
The increase of housing exclusion may be influenced by the national economic situation, labour market conditions,
household changes, trans-national migration and, last but not least, the situation of the national / local housing markets
and social and housing policies. In addition, the increasing complexity of society seems to take its toll on families and
individuals: being uprooted, the breakdown of family and social networks and drug and alcohol abuse are some of many
reasons that are considered to contribute to increasing housing exclusion.
Of course, there are differences between the people affected. Many of them face multi-dimensional problems such as
physical disablement, over-indebtedness, mental health problems and substance addiction, many migrants and ethnic
minorities face major challenges to integration in sometimes hostile communities. The conventional forms and opportunities for finding and maintaining housing do not sufficiently assist these groups. Due to the complexity of the problems,
the efforts of a range of organisations are required to address the needs of those who are threatened by housing loss or
experiencing problems with accessing and/or re-establishing permanent housing and it is necessary to join forces to deal
with the interrelated problems more efficiently and effectively.
How to learn from promising practice?
The most recent Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion (2005) emphasised how Member states needed
to develop integrated and co-ordinated strategies to address key priorities including ensuring decent housing for all. In
the COOP project seven national teams from (old and new) European member states formed a consortium to learn from
an exchange of information on how organisations in different countries and large cities work together and form partnerships to prevent and fight housing exclusion. The project’s goal was to add a small contribution to the broad range of
ambitious and targeted social inclusion policy objectives and measures that are currently developed on European and
national level.
The hypothesis was that building a network through integrated client-oriented forms of cooperation – joining forces of
local authorities, housing providers and social care providers – would bring added value to the task of improving housing
provision.
Key elements were the exchange of information on policies, strategies and practices for working with vulnerable groups,
comparison of the framework conditions, discussion of effectiveness and efficiency and assessment in view of recent
policy approaches. This led to the identification of the lessons learnt and formulation of policy recommendations to various
levels.
After comprehensive engagement over three years, the consortium concludes that the organisation of such institutions
as “cooperation forms” – preferably in the form of a “triangle” of these three groups of actors – contributes substantially
to effectiveness for clients and to the efficiency of the work, and could lead to a better strategic and more integrated
approach. It accords with current key EU and Member States policy priorities and proposed strategies (importance of a
multi-dimensional approach which mobilises all relevant bodies and a wide range of policies (including housing policy).
Who supported the project?
The COOP project was made possible through the framework of the Community Action Programme of the European
Union, as part of the Social Inclusion Process.
Following the introduction by the Amsterdam Treaty of the fight against social exclusion to the Union Objectives, the
Lisbon European Council of March 2000 asked Member States and the European Commission to take steps to make a
decisive impact on the eradication of poverty by 2010. The Member States should coordinate their policies for combating
poverty and social exclusion on the basis of a voluntary process - the 'Open Method of Coordination' (OMC).
The body responsible for the OMC in the Lisbon Strategy is the EC-DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. The OMC contains five main elements: agreeing common objectives, establishing common indicators, developing
National Action Plans for social inclusion (NAPs/Inclusion), reporting their assessment and establishing a Community
Action Programme (2002-2006). Within the latter, a Trans-national Exchange Programme was launched. Its objective is
to support the organisation of exchanges and promote mutual learning between EU 25 Member States, candidate coun1-1
tries and EFTA / EEA countries. The COOP project represents one of 31 studies in Phase 2 of the Programme, but only
one of a few that focus on the housing issue (along with FOHOIN Forum for Holistic Integration and CATCH Creative
Approach to Combating Homelessness).
Who cooperates in the project?
Each of the seven national teams – Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and the
UK - forming the COOP consortium (involving 38 institutions over three years) consists of one coordinating institute and
partners from the fields of local authorities, housing, social services and homelessness organisations. All contributors to
the project are shown in the following table.
Austria
Coordinating
Institutes:
SRZ Vienna
(project leader)
Partners / Cities:
City of Vienna,
Dpt of housing
Partners / Housing:
Gbv Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
Germany
The Netherlands Poland
UK
PSPC Brussels
ÚRS Praha
InWIS Bochum
OTB Delft
IRM Krakow
CHP York
Ministry
Brussels Rg.,
Dpt of Housing
City of Brno,
Dpt Social Affairs
Dpt of Housing
City of
Duisburg, Dpt
of Social Affairs
and Housing
City of Rotterdam,
Dpt of Housing
Dpt Social Affairs
City of Krakow
Dpt of Housing
City of Leeds
Dpt of Neighbour-hoods and
housing
S.L.R.B,
Brussels
CSRB, Praha
GEBAG
Duisburg
Maaskoepel
KRAKUS
Krakow
Ridings HA
Leeds
SWH
Hanover
COHAR
Rotterdam
Caritas Lodz
St. Annes
Community
Services Leeds
DiCV Köln
CVD
Rotterdam
BARKA
Foundation
Poznan
VdW
Rhein-Land
Westfalen
Partners / Social:
Volkshilfe Österreich
AMA, Brussels
Volkshilfe Wien
IRIS, Brussels
Caritas Wien
BAWO Austria
Salvation Army
Brno
Diakoniewerk
Duisburg
BAG W
(See also “editors of the report” and “national partners and contributors” in the annex.)
Methods and outcomes
The method of the exchange and accumulation of knowledge was based on a continuous process of input and feedback,
both on national and trans-national levels.
It involved close cooperation between scientists (the national coordinators) and practitioners (the national partners) according to a stringent working programme based on steering by the coordinating institutes. The overall project coordination (including both organisation and content) lay in the hands of a scientific institute.
The national coordinators (from various scientific fields) were responsible for the joint development of the working
method, the structuring and guidance of project activities and the recording of results. However, all project activities
concerning both working method and results were discussed and decided on in consortium meetings (nine in three
years) following preparations carried out at national level. Thus, knowledge was acquired and edited in a step by step
process, while establishing an enduring network of trans-national peers and their close communication.
A criteria catalogue was developed for systematic assessment of possible “good practices” of cooperation, defined as
cooperation forms providing added value as opposed to working separately. Three main criteria for ‘good practice’ were
distinguished:
•
relevance and embeddedness in local and national systems;
•
effectiveness for the groups concerned, and;
•
efficiency for the organisations involved.
1-2
Case studies were pre-selected, further investigated and sifted through analysis of an extensive qualitative questionnaire
completed by the actors involved. At trans-national level, cases selected as ‘good practice’ at national level were presented at consortium meetings and (peer) reviewed. Subsequently, at national level examples of good practice from the
other cities were evaluated regarding the congruency to EU objectives and transferable lessons useful in one’s own city
and country.
The intense cooperation and discussion between research and practice, the decision-making body and the institutions
working in the field is one of the most outstanding qualities of this project. This led to the establishment of an international network of practitioners and scientists that will continue to be valuable for future reference and exchange of knowledge. This was precisely one of the main intentions of the EC when proposing “mutual learning” not only in a regional
sense, but also between nations and promoting the development of a “European accord".
The main outcomes of COOP are presented in this report: the selected good practice examples of cooperation, embedded in their national and local context, the lessons the national teams learnt from each other and finally as synthesis the
common lessons learnt and policy implications to promote cooperation as a key element in successfully fighting homelessness.
The report is directed both to policy makers at European, national, regional and local levels and to practitioners involved
in housing provision for vulnerable groups. It will be widely further disseminated through national and international presentations and availability on the internet.
Our hope would be that the obviously successful idea of establishing cooperation forms in major cities for obtaining better results in securing the housing situation of vulnerable groups in a sustainable manner would expand into as many
political strategic decisions as possible, into the development of concrete innovative projects and to improvements in
current practice.
1-3
Setting the stage:
Introduction to the case studies
Essential information that could be of interest to readers of this manual concerns the added value generated by the joint
work of different institutions in a cooperation form. The key elements are the features of these cooperation forms as well
as the assessment by national teams of other countries' examples, and the identification of relevant valuable aspects
that may be transferable to one's own city in future.
For this purpose, we here present 17 cooperation forms that were selected as “good practice” in the three-year exchange process.
Under different national and local framework conditions, the participating institutions undertake either to support vulnerable groups to maintain their current housing situation, or to assist them in re-establishing an individual, independent and
permanent housing situation after varying transitional periods. Findings are available from nine cities in seven countries.
The examples vary not only in their main task - prevention or permanent individual provision – but also in size, co-action
of the public, semi-public and private sector, main target groups, level of action – from regional, city-level to district level
– and type of support provided to the client.
The case studies all have in common the joint working of three main actors – the government and administration of the
city or the region, the housing provider and the social care provider – in order to increase effectiveness for clients and
the efficiency of the organisation.
Part 2 of the manual provides an overview of the case studies and comments on their transferability to other national
contexts. They are in alphabetical order by country.
The ‘good practices’ are presented concisely - each on a one-page description sheet. These sheets are preceded by a
brief description of the context of the respective European city, where the cooperation form was established – with key
data on demography, the housing situation and housing and social policy.
The case study description, drafted by the respective national team under the coordination of the national institute, provides information on the problem that led to the setting up of a cooperative response. The solution is described, as well
as the actors and their main duties and responsibilities. On the basis of the criteria developed in the framework,
the profile of the cooperation form is characterised including its main strong points, main weak points and key factors of success.
Brief information about the cooperation institution is added in a column on the description sheet. Links to websites with
more comprehensive information about the institution are also provided. Comprehensive reports on the case studies can
be found on the project's website http://www.srz-gmbh/coop under "reports and papers".
The case descriptions are followed by comments from the team about aspects of other good practices they have found
during the project and which are considered valuable or innovative and worth transferring to one's own city or country,
general lessons learnt from the exchange with other countries and comments on the respective National Action Plan for
Social Inclusion.
2-1
Context
Vienna (Austria)
Social context of the city
Population /
Households
Population (2001)
1.550.123
Foreigners (non-Austrian 16%
citizenship) (2001)
Unemployment rate
(2005)
9%
Vienna, the capital of Austria with a population of about 1.55 million, is the only city in Austria with more
than 300.000 inhabitants (Austrian total - 8 million): the situation and trends in the composition of the
population (age groups, types of households) are similar to other large European cities. The proportion of
the elderly, of single person households and the variety of household types is increasing. Unemployment
in Vienna is still low in European comparison, but currently rising.
Households
771.706
average HH size
1,98
Households on social
benefits
6,01%
About 17% of households are defined as "households at risk of poverty", many of them are migrant
households (in Vienna one in ten is an immigrant household without Austrian citizenship, half from former
Yugoslavia, plus Turkey). Based on corporate welfare state policies, a complex system of delicately coordinated burden and support in a combination of national and provincial contributions has been established since WWII.
Private rental
34,0%
The number of homeless, in its narrowest definition as those sleeping rough, is only between 100 and
200 people. Together with about 2.300 accommodated homeless (in shelters or flats) there are about
2.500 people affected by the problems of homelessness, not counting the different un-quantified forms of
hidden homelessness (26% women in transitory accommodation).
Council housing
27,1%
Limited profit housing
14,5%
Owner occupied
17,4%
Housing Stock
Dwellings:
Period Dwellings built before
1919
32,3%
1919-1980
50,1%
after 1980
17,6%
Technical standard Standard A
85,1%
Standard B
5,8%
Standard C and D
9,0%
Average No of rooms per
habitant
1,7
average square meter per
habitant
35,9
Sources: Statistics Austria, Statistical
Yearbook 2005; Dwellings Census
GWZ 2001;
Employment Service AMS 2005
Housing context
The Vienna housing stock is dominated by rental dwellings (more than 80%). There is an extensive stock
of social dwellings (nearly the half of the 771.000 dwellings), most of it is even owned by the municipality
(one third of the Vienna stock). About one third of the stock is owned by private landlords and rented
(mostly buildings dating back to before 1914).
Housing policy plays an important role within the welfare system. Until a few years ago, this housing policy was noted for its high continuity in international comparison. Building promotion does not view housing provision of the socially deprived as its only primary concern. It consciously also favours the broad
middle class.
It is based on national and provincial legal frameworks and public subsidy schemes, regulated by provincial law, which are structured in a dual system as either so-called "object funding/object-related housing
subsidisation", supply-sided and the main form, and ‘subject funding/subject-related housing promotion’
(demand-sided). Depending on options, access to the different forms of support for socially vulnerable
clients is supported or organised in the framework of the activities of the cooperation forms.
Good practice in addressing the needs of ‘special target groups’
The City of Vienna is the country’s most important actor for provision for low wage earners, groups
threatened by poverty, and the poor. Step-by-step over the last 15 years – started by an initiative of some
NPOs - concepts and projects have been developed to shift from accommodation in big shelters to preventative help to “find one’s feet”.
Activities for the homeless can now be seen in the total context of an implementation plan for the gradual
reintegration of the homeless by the City of Vienna / Fund ‘Social Vienna’, whose main measures are
the prevention of as many evictions as possible, support for the homeless living on the streets, emergency accommodation, supported housing of varying standards, adequate permanent housing forms,
and re-integration. Not all steps must be taken from the graduated scheme, but instead it offers various
possibilities adapted to individual problem situations. Political support is good. There is great appreciation
of cooperative forms of organisation in many areas of social support.
Regarding the integration of migrants, still better access to municipal housing will be provided in the near
future according to the EU-Council Directive 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who
are long term residents.
2-2
A model of a prevention service is described in the following pages (FAWOS). For people already homeless, there is the main clearing office – P7 for immediate information and access to accommodation.
There are offers of mobile help, or during the day, emergency beds (about 100), then places for first time
placement (more than 1.000). 260 places to live in smaller units are reserved for specific target groups,
and nearly 600 places to live can be found in supported accommodation. The aim is to live independently, but for those not ever able to reach this target, there are another 360 permanent places to live in
senior citizens’ homes.
The largest cooperation form for re-housing is the “Social Allocation of Flats” (see following description).
Furthermore there are provisions for advice and allocation from various social service providers for special groups, NPOs that mostly fall back on the private rental housing stock. (see following description of a
cooperation form acting mainly for migrants, “Wohndrehscheibe”).
The effects have been a slow but continuous reduction in the number of homeless people in Vienna, and
the ambitious, but realistic current objective is that in 2006 there should be no "permanently" (more than
2 years) homeless people and no homeless families in Vienna. This was cited in the Austrian
NAP/Inclusion, and was mentioned positively in the Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2005 of the EC.
2-3
Centre for Secure Tenancy FAWOS
Cooperation form for prevention
FAWOS
Fachstelle für Wohnungssicherung
Centre for Secure Tenancy
Austria / Vienna
Schiffamtsgasse14
A 1020 Vienna
fawos@volkshilfe-wien.at
Responsible agency
Volkshilfe Wien
People’s Aid Vienna
Members in the cooperation
Local authority: City of Vienna
Housing provider: private landlords,
housing managers / lawyers, limited
profit housing associations
Social care provider: People’s Aid Vienna (NPO), Municipal Department 15
Health and Social Welfare, numerous
NPOs
Local courts
Main aim of the activity
Avoiding housing loss (prevention)
Main type of activity
Information, advice and negotiations for
customers
Main target groups
Those threatened by eviction
Migrants (40%)
Families and Single Parents (46%)
Since 1996
Sites one
Employees 14
Personal customer contact yes
Average customers per year 2,000
Links
www.srz-gmbh.com/coop
www.volkshilfe-wien.at
Problem
For vulnerable households, housing loss is a crucial step into a downward spiral, from which they cannot
escape for years, if ever. Ultimately, this process is also linked with high costs for public authorities.
People affected are threatened by eviction, mostly because of rent arrears. It is beyond their capacity to
cope with this and they are insufficiently informed about the law and financial support.
Vulnerable groups to be assisted are the poor, those threatened by poverty, people in life crises;
(about 52/48% ♂/♀; 40/26/20/14% single households/ families/ single parents/ others; there are high
rates of unemployed people and migrants). They are tenants in the private housing sector (about 90%)
and in the stock of limited profit housing associations (about 10%).
Solution
An easily accessible counselling centre supports people affected, with the objective of preventing eviction. It offers crisis intervention in the form of information and advice. This includes comprehensive
analysis of the problems and information about possible solutions (financial plan, legal claims), as well as
contact to the landlord/lawyer, agreement about postponement and in special cases also procurement of
extra grants from the City of Vienna to cover rent arrears.
It is a good practice mainly because of the well-established, continuous and efficient cooperation of all
actors.
Actors
The actors are an NPO in the social sector as the agency, plus formally: local courts, the local authority
(as funding body, plus three members of staff from the Municipal Social Welfare Department on site), informally: various private landlords, limited profit housing associations and social sector NPOs.
FAWOS is the hub and the engine of the cooperation, and it supports the clients. The local courts inform
FAWOS when eviction proceedings are started, FAWOS negotiates with the landlords and the Social
Welfare Department allocates grants.
Added value and strong points of partnership
The cooperation makes a holistic approach possible. Result is a substantial reduction in the number of
evictions (success rate about 78%).
It results in a reduction in homelessness and avoids “sending clients around the block”, it increases customer’s ability to deal with problems, creates a basis of trust with landlords and a certain safeguard for
them (financial guarantees), relieves the housing market of repeated changes of domicile and the need
for publicly financed temporary accommodation as well as reducing costs for public authorities (ratio 1:7
versus reintegration).
Weak points
External: The inclusion of the council housing stock is still at the planning stage. Even earlier information
for clients would be helpful. Outreaching social work with follow ups could reach still more people affected.
Internal: There is no structured, regular contact to the housing sector (no "round table"). No field work
(on-site findings, mediation of neighbourhood conflicts etc.) can be done because of lack of funding.
Key success factors
Besides encouraging the customers to manage their problems, the most important success factor in the
cooperation, and the indispensable basis for access to people affected, is the legally secured access to
information from the responsible courts about eviction proceedings (Austrian Federal Tenancy Law).
This enables information and support to be offered by post.
Furthermore, secured financing of the institution is indispensable.
2-4
Social Allocation of Flats
Cooperation form for comprehensive housing provision / re-housing
Soziale
Wohnungsvergabe
Social Allocation of Flats
Austria / Vienna
Graumanngasse 7
A 1150 Vienna
Responsible agency
City of Vienna
Municipal Department 50 / Housing
Members in the cooperation
Local authority: City of Vienna
Housing provider: ‘Vienna Housing’
(council housing), “Housing Service
Vienna” (other funded dwellings)
Social care provider: about 60; MD 15
Vienna Social, MD 11 Youth Office,
Vienna Social Fund, numerous NPOs
Main aim of the activity
Re-integration of special groups in an
independent permanent
housing situation
Main type of activity
Allocation of flats with individual rent
agreement (mostly) in council flats
Main target groups
Persons after stay in institutions (49%)
Homeless (36%)
Migrants with emergency needs (15%)
Since 1993
Sites one
Employees 5
Personal customer contact yes
Average customers per year 5700
(2300 allocated flats)
Links
www.srz-gmbh.com/coop
http://www.wien.gv.at/amtshelfer/ma50/s
ozialwohnung.html
http://www.wien.gv.at/amtshelfer/ma50/n
otfallswohnung.html
Problem
Although the City of Vienna provides council housing and other publicly funded housing, there is a need
for special support for groups for whom this accommodation is not accessible or appropriate; for various
reasons – emergency need, affordability, special conditions of access, information deficit or personal difficulties in dealing with this challenge.
Vulnerable groups to be assisted are people with low incomes or specific handicaps, either leaving sheltered / cared accommodation or homeless. Another group is migrants, for whom access to funded dwellings is difficult for various reasons, and who often live in insecure and unacceptable housing conditions.
Solution
"Social Allocation of Flats" is a contact point, which finds dwellings for all these groups. Various social
care institutions submit applications for housing from their clients to this special municipal institution,
where needs are clarified and an offer made from the available pool of municipal housing.
For migrant households, who are entitled to the service because of precarious housing situation and a
particular legal status (based on the guidelines of the “Emergency Housing” programme), a similar procedure applies (clarification in a "circle of experts").
Those living on the street can also address the institution with a direct application.
It is good practice mainly because of the direct cooperation of all actors, the coordination process and the
transparency of allocation.
Actors
The actors are made up of a special department of the municipality in the housing field as the responsible
body for the activity, further municipal departments and a very wide range of institutions for social information, advice and accommodation.
Wiener Wohnen (Vienna Housing) – administrating council housing – and the Wohnservice Wien (Housing Service Vienna) - advice centre for flat hunters for subsidised rental flats – act as housing mediators
and housing providers.
The social care services attest that their clients are "able to live independently" and apply for them. A circle of experts meets regularly.
Added value and strong points of partnership
The allocation of available flats appropriate to the needs of the different client groups can be better harmonised by interaction and the mutual exchange of information.
Strategy and implementation levels are better linked. Decisions become transparent. Mutual trust and effective communication are built up informally in a lively exchange of ideas and experience.
As a result, permanent housing is highly sustainable.
Weak points
Success greatly depends on the availability of an adequate stock of appropriate (small, affordable) dwellings. The limited profit housing sector is still included far too little. With few exceptions, there is no consistent accompanying integration process for the clients.
Key success factors
The most essential element is the concentration of all these kinds of activities. Integration of the most important actors in this field is a great benefit to customers and to the numerous social care services. This is
coupled with direct competence for allocation from a large housing stock. Thus, the service is quick and
effective. Through continuous contacts among the cooperating institutions, shared understanding for this
sensitive field is increasing.
2-5
Flat Exchange
Cooperation form for housing provision for migrants
Wohndrehscheibe
Flat Exchange
Austria / Vienna
Möllwaldplatz 4
A 1040 Vienna
wohndrehscheibe@volkshilfe.at
Responsible agency
Volkshilfe Österreich
People’s Aid Austria
Members in the cooperation
Local authority: City of Vienna MD 17
Integration and Diversity
Housing provider: “Housing Service
Vienna”, private landlords, housing managers, limited profit housing associations
Social care providers: People’s Aid Austria, more than 100 social services and
municipal departments, Vienna Social
Fund
Main aim of the activity
Support of low income people with special handicaps in housing provision in
Vienna
Main type of activity
Information, advice and
accompaniment in flat hunting
Main target groups
Low income flat hunters
Migrants (75+%)
Homeless families
Since 1999
Sites one
Employees 7
Personal customer contact yes
Average customers per year about
1,600 households, 4,000 counselling
sessions
Total 2,000+ acquired dwellings
Links
www.srz-gmbh.com/coop
www.wohndrehscheibe.at
Problem
Migrant households are confronted with numerous barriers and disadvantages in housing provision.
Lack of transparency and neo-liberal tendencies in the private housing market, information deficit and
low financial scope play a dominant role.
Target groups are people on low incomes or with specific social problems (42/58% ♂/♀; 28/72% single
households/families; high rates of large families). The overwhelming majority are migrants and refugees
(more than 70%).
Solution
Customers have been referred to Flat Exchange for flat hunting by more than one hundred institutions –
municipal departments and social care providers in Vienna. Since mid 2004, there is also direct access
and first counselling.
Flat Exchange provides information, advice and accompaniment in flat hunting in several languages.
This includes information about all segments of the Vienna housing market, financing possibilities and
various grants and benefits, legal entitlements, the offer of further social care providers and information
about available flats. Besides finding adequate housing, one of the main aspects of the work is the empowerment of customers, training and encouragement to deal successfully and independently (if possible) with often unknown structures on the housing market. It is a good practice mainly because of the
experienced, flexible and success oriented cooperation of all actors and because of the focus on empowerment of the customers.
Actors
The actors are an NPO from the social services field as the responsible body, plus, formally: the municipality (as the funding body, via Housing Service Vienna – an advice centre for flat hunters – and by informal networking); informally: various private landlords, limited profit housing associations, numerous
NPOs in the social services field. “Flat Exchange” is at the centre of the cooperation and supports the
customers.
Added value and strong points of the partnership
This cooperation offers concise, comprehensive advice and accompaniment in flat hunting. It accelerates
the search and lowers the complication of information for all those involved.
It also provides increased security for landlords in the selection of tenants and targeted housing supply.
For the municipality, it means filling a gap in Viennese support for the most vulnerable, avoiding an increase in homelessness, relieving public temporary accommodation and linking up to the private rented
housing sector. For the social service providers, it provides a direct link to an expert service for their clients. The fact that more advice is being given with stable costs proves the service's efficiency and effectiveness for customers.
Weak points
External: There is great dependency on the current housing market situation. Current policies still lead
both to a lack of affordable supply in the social housing sector and limited cooperation in the municipal
housing sector, and to a reduction in social welfare. There is no structured regular contact between the
housing sector, the Municipality and private organizations (no “round table”).
Key success factors
The inclusion of the private housing sector, as well as the provision of comprehensive information, are
fundamental elements for successful and sustainable housing provision. Participation and emancipation
of the customers should be the focus. This should be supported by a multi-lingual staff with various ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
2-6
Team Austria:
Transferable lessons
The discussion among the Viennese team about the position of the Vienna cases in a European comparison led to a set
of insights about what would make sense for the local context and be transferable. First of all, however, we are positively
impressed that local efforts to create more effective and efficient housing provision for vulnerable groups with the help of
forms of cooperation can by all means match current innovative policies and practices in other European cities. Secure
and sustainable housing is one of the key factors in preventing social exclusion and promoting inclusion. Thereby, it was
generally seen that the creation of "triangular" forms of cooperation contributes much to the success of the services. (in
certain cases, an extension of the cooperation to more than these three corners also makes sense.)
In general, the improvement of measures for homeless people in the Austrian Länder (provinces) was also mentioned
positively in the Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2005. In particular, the objectives of eradication of
homelessness (no homeless families, no homelessness longer than two years) were judged to be realistic. Thus, the
Vienna strategy could be used as a model. Also, in the Austrian NAP/Inclusion 2003, close cooperation of local
authorities, housing providers and social care providers for securing housing for vulnerable groups was mentioned as
one of the two key challenges for the future. (In this connection, the COOP project under Austrian guidance was cited.)
However the Joint Report still notes as a challenge ahead, “To ensure the allocation of sufficient funds for the
implementation of the ambitious policy objectives on all government levels,“ which is certainly of high importance for all
homelessness services.
The Vienna cases have received much positive feedback with regard to the scope of the fields involved, the degree of
institutionalisation, the range of groups addressed, acceptance (political support, satisfaction of the cooperation partners
and of customers) and the variety of the provisions.
Nevertheless, it was also clear that there is still room for development of the basic philosophy and strategic political
objectives in Austria. Based on the insights into policy and practice of other countries the following should be promoted:
o Better understanding of the societal, structural background of homelessness as opposed to individualistic
approaches, which stress personal failure as a main cause.
o A more holistic approach to solutions (increased awareness of the interplay of participation in working life and
the housing situation, giving priority to prevention – "invest to save", early warning systems, greater involvement
of the health sector with regard to physical and psychological deficits, differentiation of provisions related to
gender-specific problems, more comprehensive networking and participation on neighbourhood level, more
extensive inclusion of all sectors of the housing stock into prevention and provision for a broad range of groups.)
o Better integration of grass roots strength and knowledge: better use of knowledge and innovative
ideas/proposals from practitioners for policy making (boards, forums, hearings etc.); development of a more
pronounced culture of empowerment, e.g. more scope for self-engagement of customers, more involvement of
representatives of affected groups in advisory and organising boards (less "top down").
o In migration policy, further development of a positive policy towards ethnic minorities, migrants and refugees,
based on an understanding of human and basic rights (also in access to housing and services), and practical
steps in this direction (diversity plus supporting services for the vulnerable).
o The lack of public acceptance and support for measures for the benefit of marginal groups found in all cities
studied is also true for Vienna. Here, more intensive investment in public relations is necessary and stimulation
of stronger engagement of the civil society.
To a certain extent such objectives have already been included in (progressive) programmes of the relevant institutions
(e.g. the Viennese Integration Programme for the Homeless, the Viennese Integration and Diversity Programme) and the
national partners feel partially confirmed in their previously raised demands for improvement.
Furthermore, the Austrian team was also confirmed in its opinion that the quality of the local, federal and national social
system and the system of funding for housing should not be diminished under the dictates of neo-liberal cost arguments.
Monitoring and evaluation can lead to improvements within the existing framework. However, certain guarantees about
funding prospects are indispensable here.
Concerning the concrete development of existing services or the supplementation of Viennese provisions with new
services, quite a number of aspects of cooperation forms in European cities should be emphasised. Since Vienna has an
efficient and comprehensive support system for different groups – also with regard to a satisfactory housing situation –
attention is more strongly focused on certain interesting, promising aspects of good practices in other European cities
than on the transfer of an overall concept for a particular provision.
2-7
Furthermore, regarding access to housing, Vienna finds itself in a quite unique "privileged" position compared to other
European cities. Although in some other cities there is also a large stock of social housing (managed by housing
associations with varying levels of social responsibility and local authority allocation rights), the City of Vienna has at its
disposal a very large municipal rental stock, which is exclusively accessible to the socially weak. However, the currently
still restricted access of migrants to the latter was fiercely criticised by the international consortium. This will be changed
in the near future (see the Vienna context page).
Particularly the following showed evidence of good practice and procedures that would also make sense and be
applicable to Vienna and Austria:
LZN Local Care Network / Lokale Zorgnetwerken, Rotterdam (NL): LZN looks for early access to persons at risk,
also those who are not willing or able to use social services ("care avoiders"), by contacting them in their homes.
Although similar neighbourhood related networks also exist in Vienna, discussion should be initiated with those
responsible, to what extent the structure of the Dutch cooperation serves to stimulate innovation (great involvement of
health services, integration of the local police – and the form of organisation of the cooperation – one network
coordinator per quarter, exchange and networking among the various LZNs). Organisation of outreaching care for the
elderly in Vienna should be included in the discussion.
Whilst it is recognised that some clients are difficult to engage there was some concern among the national partners
about how far “meddling care” could go in gaining access to clients and in the sensitive area of integrating referrals being
made by the neighbourhood.
Steering Committee, Rotterdam (NL): This recently established institution brings together many housing providers with
the municipality and with social care providers, to balance the supply and demand of housing for risk groups. With
"Maaskoepel", the social housing associations have a common "spokesperson".
Viennese concepts could be supplemented with some aspects of this "round table" cooperation. In addition to the current
concentration of the "social allocation of flats" on municipal housing in Vienna, this would be a method to include the
limited profit housing associations in a stronger and coordinated way in order to enlarge the pool of available dwellings.
Such a platform, organised in cooperative form, should be set up. This could also serve as a contact point for housing
allocation to migrants from the institution "Flat Exchange" and for similar activities. As in Rotterdam, limited aftercare by
social care providers (if necessary) should also be coordinated by this committee at the same time.
In Vienna (as in Rotterdam), one should consider whether such an institution could extend its steering scope by the
inclusion of an institution for the prevention of eviction (like FAWOS). The greater involvement of the limited profit
housing sector would ease the concentration of risk groups in the municipal housing sector inevitably caused by the
successful activity of the institution “Social Allocation of Flats”.
IRIS Social Rental Agency Brussels (B) shows ways for greater inclusion of the private housing sector, although under
the explicitly different framework conditions of a very small social housing stock. It should also be considered whether
further potential in the large old private housing stock could be activated in Vienna with the help of special contracts with
private landlords, which include (financial) incentives and guarantees.
Such a scheme would complement the work of the Viennese institution "Flat Exchange" by providing more secure
accommodation in the private rented sector.
At the Leeds Refugee and Asylum Service (UK) the evident warm welcoming attitude towards people who have been
granted asylum is impressive. These people are seen as potential for the city and are provided with access (housing,
school, health treatment, but also ethnic networks and neighbourhoods) and accompanying care as soon as possible.
This corresponds with the currently newly defined concept of Vienna integration and diversity policy and of social policy
(MD 17 and Vienna Social Fund). The Leeds example could provide stimuli for detailed work on integrated cooperation
and a link up of policy towards asylum seekers and policy for approved refugees and persons with consolidated status of
resettlement.
Some of the activities of the new member states also provide interesting lessons and ideas for developments in Vienna.
Both the reconstruction of council housing for Roma in Brno (CZ) and the Darzybor Settlement Project in Poznan
(PL) actively involve current and future tenants in the projects’ work e.g. in the construction of accommodation. In Brno,
tenants who give their services in this way enjoy a reduction in rent but more importantly their involvement and the
inclusion of the Romany organisation contribute to a positive identification with their housing situation and to a sense of
‘ownership’ of the scheme. The holistic approach in Poznan, which provides housing alongside the opportunity to
acquire and develop job skills, is one which promotes integration and would be of interest in Vienna.
2-8
Context
Brussels-Capital Region (Belgium)
Population
(situation on 1 January 2004)
Total: 999.899
By age groups: 0-19: 236.920
20-64: 606.564
65+ : 156.415
Foreigners : 263.451
Private households
(situation on 1 January 2004)
Total: 489.203
One person: 268.785
Lone mother with children: 50.221
Housing stock by tenure
(Survey 1 October 2001)
0wner occupied: 41,3%
Tenant occupied: 58,7 %
Social housing: 8,4 % of the total
housing stock and 14,3 of the
total rental sector
Source www.statbel.fgov.be
Access to social housing
and rent levels
Income threshold and the family composition are the main criteria for access to
social housing.
Foreign citizens have the same access
rights as nationals, and rent levels for all
are determined in the function of household income.
Publicly funded housing cannot be sold
to sitting tenants.
Statutory basis for the duration of
tenancy contracts in the private rental
market
The formula is “3-6-9” years, which
means that a tenancy contract is as a
rule concluded for 9 years and that both
tenant and landlord can terminate it at
the end of the 3rd and the 6th year by
means of a notice.
Rent regulations in the private rental
market
Rents can be freely negotiated at the
beginning of the tenure. This is an initial
advantage for landlords. However, the
law guarantees protection of tenants
against excessive rent increase during
the lease and against unwarranted notice
to quit.
The Brussels-Capital Region is one of the three constituent regions of the Belgian state together with
Flanders and Wallonia. Brussels is the capital of Belgium, the capital of Flanders, and the capital of
Europe. Its population totals some one million inhabitants and just over one quarter is foreign. One in five
people of active age able and willing to work are unemployed.
The legislative and policy context
During the federalization of the Belgian state, housing was one of the first domains of policy for which
competence was passed onto regions in the 1970s. The Housing Act of the Brussels Region adopted on
17 July 2003 and 1 April 2004 defines actors, instruments and priorities, particularly with respect to insalubrious and abandoned dwellings in disrepair.
The housing market
There is no shortage of housing in Brussels. It is estimated that between 15 thousand and 30 thousand
dwellings are empty. Housing problems are associated with higher demand than supply of publicly
funded social housing, and of low cost standard-quality apartments for rent in the private rental sector.
The share of home-owners is not particularly high in comparison to the other Belgian regions. Four out of
every 10 dwellings are owner occupied, whereas in Flanders and Wallonia owner occupancy stands at 7
out of every 10 dwellings. In Brussels the majority of households are tenants - six out of every 10 dwellings are rented out by landlords. The rental market is pervaded by the private sector, and mainly by small
landlords. The private dwelling stock includes large proportions of old houses. The high density of small
and modest houses built by the 19 century industrial workers still mark the housing landscape and the
housing market of the Brussels region. Many houses are in disrepair and constitute a residual housing
market, both for low-income home buyers and for poor tenants.
Groups at risk of exclusion from standard housing
Labour market conditions that define access to jobs, wage levels and flexibility for employers largely profile risk groups. People in the labour market in casual and part-time jobs, and those who are excluded
from the mainstream labour market due to unemployment and temporary or long-term low employability
have the lowest level of housing integration with regard to affordability, housing quality and crowding.
Single person households, one-parent families, one-income households, and foreigners (especially Moroccans and other non-Europeans) are over-represented in bad housing in the inner city. Better- off residents tend to settle in the suburbs. One person households account for 55 percent of all households and
lone mothers with children for 10 percent of all households. They are particularly at risks when labour
market conditions and benefits systems move towards flexibility without ensuring security.
Social and housing security
All persons without sufficient resources are entitled to a replacement income guaranteed by the Law of
7 August 1974. The statutory basis applicable today is the Law of 26 May 2002 on the Right to social integration. Whereas this benefit is the social safety-net that buffers extreme poverty, integration in the
mainstream labour market is of primary importance for the overall social integration. Housing policies
have a complementary protective function, which is of particular significance when young people leave
institutions or a dysfunctional family before having acquired the necessary skills to be competitive on the
mainstream labour market, when risks of unemployment or sickness materialise for those of working
age, and when people reach pension age after a disruptive employment history and/or family break-up.
Relevant services that address housing problems
The system that addresses a broad variety of problems that entail a housing dimension encapsulates:
access to information, access to social housing and social support for tenants in social housing who
need it, assistance to socially disadvantaged people to negotiate and maintaining a tenancy in the private
rental market, and transitional accommodation in crisis situations and social assistance.
Two examples of good practice are presented in the fact sheets: SLRB active in the social housing sector and IRIS in the private rental market.
2-9
Each year the maximum allowable rent
increase is calculated on the basis of the
official index given by the public authorities.
Socially vulnerable people
Number of people looking for work:
85.211 (4th trimester 2003)
Number of households beneficiaries of
minimum subsistence means: 24.068
(2nd trimester 2002)
Source: www.iristat.be
Guarantee of minimum subsistence
means
The general non-contributory minimum is
granted as a matter of individual right to
persons not disposing of sufficient resources and who are unable to procure
them by personal effort or other means.
The duration of the benefit is unlimited
and beneficiaries are nationals, stateless
persons, refugees and persons of a foreign nationality registered at the population office.
Examples of monthly amounts (without
family allowances):
Person living alone: €595.32
Couple with or without children: €793.76
Single parent family: €793.76
Cohabitant:€ 396.88
Source: MISSOC 2004
However, these actors operate in conjunction with others: access to information and access to emergency services are part of the complex Brussels system of prevention of housing exclusion and assistance to people who find themselves homeless.
Access to information is the first step towards integration. The Information Centre on Housing in the
Brussels Region (Le Centre d’Information sur le Logement en region bruxelloise) analyses the demand,
provides information, and general guidance. It is a reception centre that directs clients towards specific
operators who can answer their needs and it also provides help with the paper work to those who may
need it. The multicultural and multilingual character of Brussels is taken into consideration in the design
of the broad range of assistance to persons. The Brussels Government has appointed the Ministry of the
Brussels-Capital Region, Administration for Management of the Territory and Housing as the operator so
as to ensure and guarantee the long-term functioning of the Information Centre.
Association of Shelters and Social Assistance Services for the Homeless ( Association des Maisons
d’Accueil et des Services d’Aide aux Sans-Abri- A.M.A.asbl) brings together a variety of actors, be it nonprofit or public, that have as specific mission to receive, provide social support, shelter to homeless people and/or those in difficulty, with or without children, without any discrimination and with full respect for
their human dignity. It encompasses 70 services for the French speaking community in Wallonia and
Brussels. Some 25 services are located in Brussels. AMA assists people who temporarily cannot access
an adequate personal dwelling, or maintain such a dwelling with their own resources. The housing dimension is central for reintegration but so are many other problems associated with “social poverty”.
Building up the capacity for personal autonomy, and social networks, is associated with prolonged duration of stay in reception centres, especially of families. In the tight low-cost housing market in Brussels it
is not easy to assist people to access self-contained housing following their stay in collective environment.
Centre for the Prevention of Marital and Family Violence (Centre de Prévention des Violences Conjugales et Familiales), member of AMA gives a strong impetus in Brussels to the prevention of homelessness of women and children victims of domestic violence. It also provides conditions for healing and reintegration following the experience of abuse. It covers a broad range of client tailored activities ranging
from telephone assistance, interviews, administrative and social aid, counselling for individual couples,
women’s groups, and housing for women (with or without children) at a disclosed location in Brussels.
Two facilities operate in conjunction: a reception centre and a housing refuge with place for 24 women
and children. The aim is to provide a sheltered environment, to stabilize and heal traumatized persons.
While at the beginning of the stay psychological issues, legal matters and administrative procedures to
access protection and social rights are the most urgent and complex dimensions to address, at the end
of the healing process finding adequate housing becomes a difficult issue to resolve. While domestic violence affects women from all social classes in recent years the Centre is receiving growing numbers of
foreign nationals with many children and accumulation of social problems. These women are often referred to sheltered accommodation by one of the municipal centres for social assistance and will encounter most difficulties in accessing adequate housing at the end of the healing in the collective housing environment.
Homeless people
The number of homeless people is estimated at 1000 by the Association des Maisons d’Accueil et des
Services d’Aide aux Sans-Abri (AMA). Whereas in the 1970s it was women prostitutes and men exoffenders who were in need of transitional accommodation, today many centres provide shelter to people
with mental health problems, who are not sufficiently ill to be hospitalised and not sufficiently well to live
alone, drug and alcohol addicts, people released from hospitals after long illnesses, who are faced with
solitude, and people, who are waiting to enter various social structures.
2 - 10
SLRB Housing association
Cooperation form for prevention and housing provision
Societé de logement de la
Région bruxelloise
SLRB
The Housing Association
of the Brussels Region
Belgium
Rue Jourdan, 45-55
1060 Bruxelles, Belgium
Contact : Pol Zimmer
slrb@slrb.irisnet.be
pzimmer@slrb.irisnet.be
Members in the cooperation
Local Public Service Housing
Associations (SISP)
Social care providers from the public and
the non-for-profit sectors
Main aim of the activity
Expand the social housing sector; manage the social housing stock and social
support to tenants
Main type of activity
Implementation of the social housing
policy defined by the regional government with respect to the investment,
stock management, rent levels, and
development of social support services
Main target groups
Applicants for social housing and tenants in social housing
History
The establishment of the BrusselsCapital Region in 1989 marks the regional autonomy in housing matters and
the creation of SLRB
Problem
The social housing sector faces three clusters of challenges: high demand for publicly-funded rental
housing, complex needs for social support of tenants and fragmentation of public housing providers.
Some 25 thousand households are on the waiting list for social housing (1 June 2005). Since the mid1990s increased social deprivation has been observed among the tenants necessitating the redefinition
of the mission of social housing. Social rental housing is spread over 19 municipalities and is administered by 33 local public housing associations.
Solution
In 1989 SLRB as the regional supervisor of the housing sector setup a partnership with the 33 Public
Service Housing Associations (SISP), which administer social housing at local level. The initial aims of
the cooperation between SLRB and SISP was to extend the housing stock and its quality. Today, it fosters the diversification of offer by various systems of financing and a broad spectrum of services provided
to socially vulnerable tenants. The activity is extended to problem-solving together with those tenants who
have accumulated overlapping disadvantages, in order to provide care and assistance and ultimately
prevent eviction from social housing or placement in institutions.
Actors
The rights and obligations of SLRB and SISP derive from their function as public landlords. As the regional administrator of the sector, SLRB ensures the application of regional objectives, allocates funds
and follows up the implementation of objectives.
As executive agencies SISPs implement the regional objectives in view to: increase the number and
quality of social housing; avoid ghetto formation and adapt services to the changing needs of tenants;
balance the budget; and improve general effectiveness of the different levels or sectors of action.
The first generation partnership encompassed public-public (SLRB and SISP) actors. The second generation partnership brought on board publicly subsidized associations which are delegated specific tasks
in providing social support to tenants suffering various forms of deprivation. The public actor SISP sets up
cooperation with new actors as partners – the regionally and locally operating non-for-profit associations.
Added Value and strong points of partnership
Originally ‘social housing business’ was essentially a real estate company serving low earning households. Today, social guidance and support of tenants is an important part of the core activities. This is a
more pro-active social policy implementation approach encapsulating a significant increase in allocations
for transfer payments to tenants and provision of different forms of social support.
The partnership pursues a holistic approach to protect people from housing loss, guides people in need
towards social and health care (local or regional), and provides assistance and support in people’s
homes.
Sites: SLRB headquarters; 33 SISPs;
38.320 social dwellings (31 December
2002) spread over 19 municipalities
Weak points
Shortage of social housing for rent and high needs for support of some categories of tenants are main
challenges. Older persons and people with mental health problems are among the most difficult to cater
for in view to prevent placement in institutions or evictions.
Links
www.slrb.irisnet.be
www.pspc-Brussels.org
www.srz-gmbh.com/coop
Key success factors
Strong responsibility of the legislator that provides coherent and durable framework conditions and a
guarantee for sustainability through public funding of activities and actors. Both public authorities and civil
society associations active in the housing field are funded exclusively or almost exclusively from public
funds. Thus, the cooperation between public authorities and publicly-funded or co-funded non-for profit
services is the cornerstone of sustainable cooperation.
2 - 11
Social Rental Agency IRIS
Cooperation form for housing provision
Agence Immobilière
Sociale IRIS
Social Rental Agency IRIS
Brussels, Belgium
Rue du Vieux Marché aux Grains,
20 bte 10
1000 Bruxelles, Belgium
asbliris@freegates.be
Contact : Isabelle Jennes
Members in the cooperation
Local and regional authorities
Private landlords
Social protection and care providers
Main aim of the activity
Socialise part of the private rental market
Main type of activity
Mediation between socially weak tenants
and private landlords, follow up
Main target groups
Financially precarious people with a
broad range of problems.
Initial targeted population: homeless
people needing social support. This
group encompasses problems
associated with drug-addiction; mental or
physical handicap, prostitution, asylum
History
Founded in 1981 by private persons and
two non- profit organisations, one shelter
and one social support service (not
subsidised at the time). IRIS was officially recognised as an SRA in 1998
when the Government of Brussels Region passed a Decree on the creation of
Social Rental Agencies and their funding.
Housing stock: 86 dwellings
New clients per year: On average
15 households
Links
www.pspc-Brussels.org
www.srz-gmbh.com/coop
Problem
Pressure on the private rental market in Brussels is very high and rents increase from year to year faster
than income from work in casual or part time employment or social replacement income. Negotiating
rents, providing proof of the capacity to pay rent regularly, and making a down payment as a guarantee
for possible damages to property, require skills and resources which socially disadvantaged people may
not have. Particularly the unemployed and those on welfare benefits encounter difficulties in negotiating
with private landlords.
Solution
Agence Immobilière Sociale IRIS is one of the 18 social rental agencies (SRA) in Brussels that was set
up in order to ‘socialise’ part of the private rental market by mediating between tenants and landlords to
achieve leasing of dwellings at lower than market rents. This is achieved via lease contracts or management agreements with mainly private owners. SRAs have two main arguments to convince the owners to
reduce their rent and to give up choosing their tenants themselves: it guarantees rent payments (if the
tenant stops paying it, or if the dwellings is temporarily vacant); and it guarantees refurbishing of the
dwelling at the end of the leasing period if damages, other than usual wear and tear, occur. It assumes
the rental management of the dwelling, including legal proceedings if necessary. SRAs receive subsidies
from the Brussels Region for the payment of its personnel and operational costs. SRAs must respect a
rent grid per type of dwelling approved by the Government of the Brussels-Capital Region. This grid in
cludes the maximum rent SRA is allowed to ask from the tenant and the (higher) maximum rent SRA
may propose to the owner. If SRA proposes a higher rent than the tenant can pay, it has to use part of its
subsidy to cover the difference.
Actors
Social Rental Agency as a non-for-profit organisation mediator between socially fragile tenants and private landlords works with public authorities that provide the legal basis for its operation and allocate public funding to subsidise the activity, and with public social support and care providers.
Added value and strong points of partnership
By socialising part of the private rental market, SRAs increase the supply of dwellings to disadvantaged
people. Owners, who do not want or do not have the time or the competence to manage their housing
transfer this role to SRA and in turn receive financial security. The cost for the public of subsidised mediation in the private rental market is estimated to be much lower than the cost of so-called emergency or
transitional housing. It may be said that the Brussels political authorities have legitimised the existing
initiatives, which were launched by the civil society associations, have provided them with funding, and
have created opportunities to develop by allowing the existing ones to grow and new ones to emerge.
Weak points
The activity of SRAs cannot compensate for the shortage of social rental housing. Their micro-level activity is limited in scope as all 18 SRAs currently manage only some 1,300 dwellings. SRAs encounter difficulties with tenants who have behavioural problems, drug and alcohol addiction, but who refuse assistance from social services. Some ultimately have to be evicted.
Key success factors
The requirements for success are in the framework conditions: sufficient supply of private rental dwellings in the city; a strong legislative framework and a clear administrative line of responsibility; strong political commitment at the city, regional and national level to facilitate access to housing for vulnerable
groups; and public resources for co-funding the programme.
2 - 12
Team Belgium:
Transferable lessons
Identifying practices that work in their current national, regional and local context is the starting point for enhancing the
depth of the learning process at the trans-national level. Much can be learned in a comparative international context from
the background context operating and specific cooperative practices that form part of an overall system. By exchanging
knowledge within the COOP project we learned about others and we also sharpened our perspective on our own policies
and practices both by measuring them against other cities and by seeing them through the eyes of others.
COOP’s transferable lessons pitch directly into the priorities set out by Belgium in the National Action Plan for social
inclusion (http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/social_inclusion/docs/belgium_fr.pdf.) Regarding the housing dimension of social inclusion the main challenge is that of improving access to decent and affordable housing. It is
recognised that supply of social housing is unsatisfactory. Involvement of the private sector is mentioned as one of the
options to be considered. Homeless persons, as well as those with modest income are now eligible for a housing benefit
to facilitate their settling in a dwelling. COOP however, confirms that much needs to be done to support socially fragile
people, and particularly those who have accumulated overlapping handicaps (as most homeless people have) to stay in
independent housing, with adequate outreach support tailored to the individual needs.
Good practices cannot be exported from one country to another without comprehensive understanding of the institutional
setting and norms and values underpinning them, and without considerable adaptation of ones own policies, institutions
and practices.
Exchange of knowledge about individual practices and services that are successful in their local context contributes to
the cumulative nature of research in particular with respect to the identification of the key success factors for a service or
practice which is missing in our own environment.
The city of Vienna as the biggest social landlord in Austria gives much substance to the learning process across Europe.
The share volume of the Viennese social housing stock is an example of good public policy. The provision of social
housing for a broad population base brings about several advantages for tenants and the general population: it prevents
housing exclusion, buffers stigmatisation of tenants, facilitates a social mix of tenants in publicly funded housing, and
can reinforce the overall sense of security and quality of life in the city. In the Brussels-Capital Region public authorities
are especially concerned with facilitating access to decent housing to medium and low income households both as tenants and home-owners. There is general acknowledgement of the shortage of social housing and public resources are
being channelled towards construction of new dwellings. The current tight supply of social housing creates at least two
problems: high level of unmet needs among medium and low income households and high concentration of tenants in
social housing who in addition to income poverty have multiple other problems. However, even in Vienna the changing
socio-economic climate brings about difficult choices with respect to the allocation and management of tenancies of
people with overlapping personal and social handicaps. The allocation of cheaper older social dwellings to particular
vulnerable groups may be seen as a creation of a residual housing market within the council and limited-profit rental
housing in the city.
Integrated support system in Duisburg (D), with a central clearing house to accelerate the direction of homeless people
to the appropriate and available shelter as quickly as possible and self-contained housing when they are judged to be
able to cope alone, is a strong point of the cooperation of the city and the social provider. In view to create such a centralized system in Brussels much reform would be needed to overcome the fragmentation of services and compartmentalization of funding of the housing providers and non-for-profit organizations working with homeless people.
The importance of understanding the deontological approach in each country when addressing transferability of practices cannot be overestimated. Whereas housing supply and support services targeted at catering to immigrants, alcoholics, or drug addicts are well received in many cities, in Brussels there is much concern that group targeting brings
about stigmatisation of people, and this should be avoided.
Wohndrehscheibe (A), as actor in providing information and support for home-seekers, generally low income foreigners
who are not acquainted with the housing market and lack language skills, is a choice that appears to work well in the
Vienna context. These groups may require more intensive guidance than what the general city housing information centre is able to provide. However, the Brussels choice is not to opt for targeting specific social and ethnic population-sub
groups but to provide information for all within the general framework and propose complementary customer tailored
assistance when necessary.
Nowell Court & Floating support in, Leeds (UK) involved in the provision of high quality self-contained accommodation
and support to women with children to enable them to live independently with support, especially those who are victims
2 - 13
of abusive partner or husband, as a micro activity is pertinent. Families are moved on into assured tenancies with the
local authority or other social landlords. Obviously the success of the project depends on the availability of appropriate
housing in the public or semi-public sectors. The similar constraints are present in Brussels due to the insufficient supply
of social housing for rent.
Mediation in the private rental market between socially fragile home-seekers and tenants with financial problems is increasingly gaining in importance in many cities.
FAWOS (A) as an intermediary between landlords and tenants threatened by eviction due to rent arrears is an example
of good practice within the overall system operating in Vienna. In Brussels, the eviction procedure foresees a conciliation
phase between the landlord and the tenant who is at fault. If neither has tried to negotiate or both arrive in court without
a proposition for reconciliation, the court decides. No non-for-profit mediating agency is foreseen as a facilitator in the
conciliation process. There may be scope also in Brussels for an intervention by a facilitator. This, however, would require considerable reflection and consultation between different stakeholders. The swift intervention of FAWOS is made
possible by the legal provision that gives access to information from the competent court about eviction proceedings
affecting any tenant. The Belgian tenancy law does not foresee dispatching of information on evictions to a third party
and many concerns over the protection of privacy would be raised in the event of dissemination of names of people
threatened by evictions without their prior informed consent.
Important dimensions of transferable lessons relate also to:
•
The ways integration is pursued between different services that assist a very broad and diverse population
base;
•
The state of the evaluation culture; and
•
Conditions for sustainability of good practices.
With respect to the integration of services one of the COOP lessons that we have learned is that there is much complementarity between operators in various localities but in many cities, including Brussels, there is still insufficient integration between existing services and activities. Fragmentations of services clustered around individual projects and competition between providers for limited resources enhances the climate of ‘clientilism’ and appears as the key limiting factors
to the implementation of integrated integration systems.
Concerning the evaluation culture we have learned that monitoring of performance is as a rule limited to the selfevaluation requested by the funding agencies. When there is more than one funding agency this process is time and
money consuming and provides little if any benefit for the end-users. On the basis of self-evaluation usually something
can be said about immediate outputs, namely in terms of numbers of clients entering and exiting a specific social service
or programme entailing a housing dimension, and user satisfaction with what they have received. Virtually nothing is
known about those who for a variety of reasons were denied access to a particular service and little if anything is known
about longer-term social integration of accepted clients. Follow-up of outcomes by independent evaluators over a period
of one or more years is rare in most cities considered by the COOP project.
Regarding sustainability, Brussels seen in a comparative perspective provides evidence of advantages of a clear legislation which is combined with the statutory obligation to provide financial support. Sustainability of the partnership providing a service is a measurement of good strategy that forms integral part of the transferable lessons. In the Brussels
case, the key guarantor of long-term stability are the national and regional authorities that provide the general policy
framework, the legislation and the statutory basis for funding of services that are perceived as good practice. This approach is in sharp contrast to the policy choices made in some other countries and cities where one-off or seed funding
is allocated by the public authorities to launch a project but the sustainability of a social dimension of the activity is not
adequately ensured. One or more services that are described as examples good practice in the COOP project may soon
cease to operate due to lack of sustained financial support from the public authority which is one of the partners in the
co-operation triangle.
2 - 14
Context
Brno (Czech Republic)
Population 31.12.2004
Czech Republic
10 220 577
South-Moravian Reg.
1 123 201
Praha
1 170 571
Brno
367 729
Monthly average wages CZK 2003
Czech Republic
South-Moravian Region
Praha
Brno
18 582
16 815
23 174
18 249
Unemployment rate July 2005 (%)
Czech Republic
8,8%
South-Morawian Region
8,9%
Praha
3,4%
Brno
9,7%
Households 1.3.2001:
Czech Republic
4 270 717
South-Moravian Reg.
455 546
Brno
167 740
Permanently occupied dwellings
1.3 2001
Czech Republic
3 827 678
South- Moravian Reg.
404 876
Praha
496 940
Brno
151 724
Permanently occupied dwellings
per 1000 population 1.3.2001
Czech Republic
374.2
South-Moravian Region
359.0
Praha
425.1
Brno
403.3
Dwellings by years of construction
in Brno by Census 2001 (%)
Dwellings built:
Before 1919 and unknown 14.2
1920 – 1945
39.0
1946 - 1970
13.4
1971 - 1980
13.3
1981 - 1990
8.7
1991 - 2001
11.3
Social context of the city
Brno is the second largest city in the Czech Republic. The population of the City of Brno as of
31.12.2004 was 367,729. Brno is located in the middle of Moravia. It is the seat of the SouthMoravian administrative region. It is subdivided into 29 districts with their own elected bodies and
district offices. Brno is a part of the Danube Basin and is located close to Vienna (110 km). Currently, Brno is also the seat of several central institutions of the Czech Republic, especially in the
field of justice. The social position of Brno is illustrated by data on average monthly wages per
employee, by average monthly pensions and by the unemployment rate, in comparison with the
Czech Republic, the South-Moravian region and Prague:
The table indicates that Brno has slightly better indicators than the surrounding region (which is
valid for most big cities), but with respect to average wages and unemployment worse than the
Czech Republic on average. The exceptional position of Prague in comparison to all other regions
reflects its great part in financial activities, seats of central offices and headquarters of many companies.
If not only rough sleepers are estimated, but also people without permanent accommodation, living
in various refuges, halfway houses and other temporary facilities, the number of homeless people
in Brno is about 600. A more exact figure should be obtained from a survey of homeless people to
be carried out in the winter months.
Housing context
A total of 165,366 dwellings were recorded in Brno (Census 2001). 91.8% of them were permanently occupied and 13,642 (8.2%) were unoccupied. However, only a small number of the unoccupied dwellings are available for the accommodation of families looking for a flat. Within this decade legal tenure has also changed considerably. The percentage of ownership (own house, own
dwelling or dwelling in a cooperative of owners) increased from 19.2% to 27.2%, but the percentage of rental dwellings declined from 46.7% to 44.4% and in housing cooperatives from 31.9% to
24.5%. There was 33.4% of dwellings in public ownership in Brno at the 2001 Census (most of
them in multi-dwelling houses), but the process of privatisation continues.
Currently, two systems of rent exist for rental houses. The minority of rental dwellings have market
oriented rents; the majority of rents is officially regulated. Both types of rent increased by a higher
rate than the CPI, but the difference is now enormous, especially in large cities. The level of rents
in both systems should be gradually balanced, but opinion is divided on the required time and on
the rate at which the regulated rent should increase each year. The expected rent increases require the preparation of a subsidy system for households unable to cope with this growth. But
even now, existing rent levels are too high for the lowest income groups and contribute to an increase in the number of homeless people.
Housing construction decreased considerably from 1989 till 1995, thereafter it grew gradually. In
2004, 2.43 dwellings were completed per 1,000 inhabitants, but in Brno the figure was 3.37. (In
Prague it was 5.08.) In 8 years (1997-2004), the share of dwellings completed in multi-dwelling
houses (including extensions) represented 67.1 % of all completed dwellings in Brno (the country
average was 35.7 %), but their use after completion changed considerably. Municipal housing
concentrates mainly on multi-dwelling houses, but its share has changed radically since 1995,
much more than in the country as a whole (and even in comparison to the South-Moravian region).
From 1997 till 2003, only 182 (5.4 %) municipal dwellings out of the total of 3,355 dwellings were
completed in new multi-dwelling buildings (extensions not recorded). But the use of constructed
municipal dwellings has also changed considerably recently. All 134 municipal dwellings completed in 1998-1999 were destined for social use, and all 48 municipal dwellings completed in
2002-2003 were destined for commercial rental use. (No municipal dwelling, at least in any new
building, was completed in Brno in the years 1997, 2000 and 2001). This indicates an unfavourable social shift in housing policies. A better situation appears with the construction of community
2 - 15
Dwellings completed 2004
per 1000 inhabitants
Czech Republic
3.16
South-Moravian Region
3.42
Brno
3.37
Social facilities number 2003
Czech Republic
1 068
South Moravian Region
124
Brno
49
Social facilities (beds)
Czech Republic
77 135
South-Moravian Region 8 777
Brno
3 475
Retirement houses number 2003
Czech Republic
369
South-Moravian Region
30
Brno
10
Retirement houses (beds)
Czech Republic
38 196
South-Moravian Region
3 687
Brno
1 395
Monthly average pensions 2003
CZK (all kinds)
Czech Republic
South-Moravian Region
Praha
Brno
6 936
6 825
7 376
7 062
care service homes (incl. boarding houses). 259 dwellings were completed in Brno in such facilities in the period 1999–2003, all in the last 4 years, and 117 were under construction on 31 Dec.
2004.
Provision of social assistance
The city municipality, the city district offices and NGOs provide assistance for particular target
groups (people in temporary difficult social situations, the disabled, senior citizens and lower income groups). Various facilities are provided for them, e.g. single parents accommodation
(homes, boarding houses), facilities for children and juveniles returning from institutional homes or
with behavioural difficulties after coming of age, senior citizens and disabled people, sheltered
housing for people with a criminal background, drug addicts and alcoholics, ex-convicts and the
homeless etc.
Assistance for lower income groups should be provided by cheap municipal rented housing. Demand for such dwellings is much higher than supply; new construction is very low. A law for the
creation of non-profit institutions for the construction of cheap rented accommodation is currently
under discussion, but no real draft so far exists. This also conflicts with the intention to balance
previously regulated rents with rents established by market forces and to provide subsidies for
low-income households to meet the expected increase in regulated rents.
The housing department of the municipality is responsible for housing policy in Brno, analysis of
needs and the state of the housing stock owned by the city and puts policy into practice. Municipal
housing also includes community care homes and the construction of rental dwellings for households with very low incomes and the construction of supportive housing carried out by municipalities or by voluntary associations with state subsidies, such as dwellings for people with special
needs.
The social care department provides the general survey, analysis and the concept for this assistance. Basic documentation on the concept of social assistance in Brno is available on Brno City
web sites.
The city districts provide, among other things, the practical management of the municipal housing
stock in their areas and provide social assistance for applicants living in their areas. They are also
responsible for a large proportion of municipal social care facilities and provide assistance for contributing organisations and NGOs engaged in social care.
More than 50 NGO organisations provide social care in Brno. Some of them are active all over the
country. Three of them may be mentioned: Naděje (Hope), Caritas and The Salvation Army.
Naděje (Hope) is a civic association founded in 1990. It has branches in 14 towns. Its goal is to integrate, find a place for, and return to society individuals who find themselves on the margins of
society, for any reason. Its activities in Brno comprise of a senior citizen programme (accommodation in 3 facilities with 81 beds) and a healthcare programme.
The Czech Catholic Caritas is the largest non-government organisation providing social-heath services in the Czech Republic. It provides assistance to a broad segment of vulnerable groups. It
has 8 facilities in Brno, providing accommodation for mothers with children, for senior citizens and
for people with mental problems, together with almost 200 beds and also versatile daily services.
The most prominent of them is the St. Markéta's home for mothers with children in stress with 29
units for social dwellings (100 beds).
The Salvation Army has an international background. In the Czech Republic it is a civic organisation with local branches in 9 towns. In Brno it has four facilities. The most important of them is the
Josef Korbel Hostel, with accommodation of 118 beds for adult men and women. It offers a multistep re-socialisation programme (day centre, night shelter, hostel, and halfway house) that allows
active clients to return to normal life. In addition, the reconstruction of a centre with 12 dwellings,
also providing social services, will be completed by January 2006.
2 - 16
Brno Reconstruction of Council Housing
Cooperation form for prevention and housing provision
Reconstruction
of two municipal
apartment houses
in Brno Centre
Problem
Two houses under reconstruction, owned by Brno City, had 110 dwellings of the lowest category, without
WC and bath. They were built around 1900 for textile factory workers. Mainly Romany families occupied
them. A large proportion of them are not able to pay rents and utility charges, 75% of residents had no
rent contract and had rent arrears. The share of unemployment was close to 100%.
Brno, Czech Republic
Bratislavská 41 and Cejl 49
Brno
Czech Republic
Responsible agency
Brno Centre Office (district authority)
Members in the cooperation
Local authority: City of Brno
Housing provider: City of Brno
Housing Dept.
Social care provider: City of Brno Social
and Health Department
Ministry for Regional Development (funding)
DROM Romany organisation
Old and new tenants
Main aim of the activity
Prevention of housing loss
Improvement of housing conditions
Main type of activity
Reconstruction of old houses
Main target groups
Old prevalently Romany tenants
New tenants on low income
Since 2000-2004 (pilot project)
Sites two houses in Brno centre
Employees Provided by a housing
management company of the Brno Centre
office plus some work by tenants
Personal customer contact yes
Customers 110 households
Links
www.srz-gmbh.com/coop
Solution
The reconstruction of both houses was approved by the government. The state subsidy covered
22% of the total cost of about 5 m. EUR, the main part was covered by the City of Brno. The tenants were integrated into the construction activity. It is a unique project that can serve as a pilot for
a future programme.
The aims of the project were:
• to improve the legal status of the tenancy by making a regular tenancy agreement, if the tenant fulfils all given conditions
• alternative settlement of debts by an appropriate amount of voluntary work;
• agreement of instalment schedules for rent arrears and utility charges;
• to improve housing conditions – reconstruction of the building, modernisation of flats;
• participation of the community in improving the housing culture;
• participation of a Romany organisation in the building's administration;
• the Romany organisation's own activities for the community’s development.
All principal aims were gradually implemented at Bratislavská 41. Most of the tenants properly fulfilled the agreed conditions. Quite different results were achieved at Cejl 49, from where residents
moved out to provisional accommodation during reconstruction. Only 6 families, out of the
45 original dwelling users, entered the agreement on debt payment.
The Brno Centre Council therefore decided to allocate the remaining dwellings in this house by
public selection with emphasis on the social needs of the applicants, also including non-Romany
residents of Brno.
Actors
Various departments of Brno Municipality, the Ministry for Regional Development, Romany institutions,
former and new tenants. It was agreed that the tenants would work off their outstanding debts. Added
value and strong point of partnership: The positive result in Bratislavská was attainable only through the
close participation of the tenants and their organisation DROM, which supervised the fulfilment of the
contract.
Added value and strong points of partnership
The positive result in Bratislavská was attainable only through the close participation of the tenants and
their organisation DROM, which supervised the fulfilment of the contract.
Weak points
It was not possible to realise the aim in the house in Cejl street, from which the residents were to be
moved to temporary accommodation. It is often also difficult to find any reliable contact with representatives of the people involved, especially if they belong to different social or national communities.
Key success factors
Key success factors are a practical solution to the problem of how to cultivate the Romany ghetto; the
home-rule regulation of the house order and culture at an acceptable level and a solution to social fieldwork inside the Romany community to prevent a relapse into socially difficult behaviour and its direct
consequences - social exclusion of these inhabitants.
2 - 17
Halfway House in Brno
Cooperation form for integration
Salvation Army
National Headquarters
Petržílkova 2565/23
158 00 Praha 5
Czech Republic
Responsible unit
Dům Josefa Korbela
Mlýnská 25,
602 00 Brno
Members in the co-operation
Brno City Municipality
Social care department and Housing
department;
Ministry of Labour and Social affairs;
South-Moravian Region;
Romany society Džipiven;
International Salvation Army
Main aim of the activity
To provide a stepping stone for persons
leaving temporary accommodation to
standard form of living
Main type of activity
Accommodation, cheap lunches and
social services for the homeless
Target groups
Clients from the Salvation Army
Hostel
Clients from children's homes
Planned start January 2006
Sites 12 small flats
Employees 5 employees
3 volunteers
Personal customer contact yes
Links:
http://www.armadaspasy.cz
Problem
Young people leaving children's homes at the age of 18 often have nowhere to go. With this project, the Salvation Army wishes to offer them small flats in the Halfway House, where they can gain some sort of independence so that they can then integrate into society. Besides clients from children′ s homes, dwellings in the
Halfway House should also be provided to clients of the Salvation Army Asylum House (Hostel), who have
already attained a certain level of social integration.
Solution
The object consists of two houses in Staňkova Street No. 4/6. Besides the main reason for reconstruction, it may also serve as a preventive safety net for persons, who have lost their dwelling or are in
danger of doing so but do not yet fall into the category of homeless clients, who firstly need assistance
for regaining basic life habits. The Halfway House will help to prevent such people falling through the
social safety net.
The Salvation Army acquired the ground floor of the house in Staňkova Street No. 6 in 1990 and set up a
community centre providing to its clients social services (cheap lunches and social services for the homeless)
and a possibility to spend free time there and socially integrate themselves with people living in similar conditions. The rent contract and contract on the donation of both buildings were concluded between the Salvation
Army and Brno Municipality in February 2004.
Both houses were vacated and reconstruction of the building started in October 2004. A total of 12 dwellings
will be built there. The idea of the project is to provide accommodation for clients in small bedsitters (1+ kitchenette), always 1 bedsitter for 1 client. One or two dwelling units (2+1) are also planned to en-able the accommodation of families, maybe also with children. The main sponsor is the International Salvation Army.
Activities in this renovated building should start in January 2006.
Actors
The project was carried out by the Salvation Army in Brno, but with a great contribution from others, first of all
from the International Salvation Army, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and also from some donors.
The City of Brno also contributes to its operation.
Added value and strong points of partnership
The project combines various activities in one facility and has ambition aims. The project offers young people
coming from children′ s homes gradual integration into society; bridges the period between leaving an asylum
house until finding a permanent dwelling; serves as a safety net to citizens in need of housing precedes and
prevents the syndrome of institutional dependence of the client. It reinforces the independence of clients to
integrate into social life and, if necessary, it disrupts links of a client to a defective environment.
Weak points
As in other NGO projects in the Czech Republic, the provision of sustainable housing for vulnerable groups is
still not assured. Living together of young adults coming from homes with people with a homelessness
carreer could pose problems.
Key success factors
This process bridges a gap for young people leaving institutional accommodation at the age of 18 and for
persons leaving temporary accommodation in hostels before moving to a standard form of living.
2 - 18
Team Czech Republic:
Transferable lessons
Examples of good practice presented by particular countries provide much interesting information. Unfortunately, their
application depends not only on their transfer to other countries, but even more on conditions existing in the receiving
countries and the possibilities resulting from them. In the Czech Republic, especially the following aspects should to be
taken into account:
a) The NAP/Inclusion identified the most urgent challenges, but monitoring indicators and targets are to be specified,
as well as public awareness of the problems.
b) Demand for decent, even small flats affordable for the majority of households is higher than supply, especially in
large cities. It could be said that a free housing market exists, in essence, only for luxury flats, which promise high
profits for their developers; but not all high-quality dwellings in large cities are occupied.
c) Opinion on housing policies differs considerably and many desirable laws have not yet been adopted, even if their
necessity is generally recognised (e.g. a law on rent paid in rental houses, a tenancy law and a law on the creation of non-profit housing corporations etc.).
d) There is state support for the construction of rental housing for very low-income groups and a construction programme for supported housing (specific health conditions or old age; halfway housing due to a disruptive lifestyle
or a risk environment; entry-level building). However, the amount provided for such construction only partially covers the needs of socially vulnerable people. (There is also support for the housing of the young generation, housing savings, mortgage credits, and subsidies for cooperative housing, but these forms are applicable to mediumincome households, not to socially vulnerable groups).
e) Homeless people are considered as belonging to the socially vulnerable group. Various programmes provide for
them, in the best case, only temporary accommodation, as only a minimum of standard flats is available for them.
The National Action Plan on Social Inclusion 2004-2006 states: "At present no comprehensive strategies for preventing and combating homelessness have yet been developed …". Integration programmes of both Naděje and
The Salvation Army try to reduce this gap. However, the final stage of this programme (subsidised independent
housing) has not yet been reached.
With respect to these conditions, all good practice examples should be considered for application:
- if conditions are comparable with those existing in the Czech Republic. An exchange of useful ideas between professionals dealing with such activities is always desirable.
- if examples illustrate a new approach, which is not known or not applied in the receiving country. It would bring an
improvement and a new quality of work, but should be supported by official bodies, otherwise its application is very
difficult.
- if the examples need a new legal framework, which may be expected in the near future. Such examples may even
assist in drawing up expected new housing legislation. However, in this case the support of high-level decisionmakers is essential.
- if rents affordable for low-income households are a necessary condition for the application of the good practice example. High-level decision-makers should be made acquainted with it, as it could assist them in the preparation of
a long-term housing strategy.
St Anne's alcohol services Leeds (UK)
One general feature is evident in the presented good practice examples: in most cases, the system of services is more
involved and comprises of individual personal plans for clients. As an example, St Anne's Alcohol Services (Leeds) also
includes analysis of the housing situation. Local Care Network in Rotterdam presents a similar example. It does not
mean that a similar approach does not exist in some institutions in the Czech Republic. As examples, the "Integration
Programme" could be mentioned. However, many charity organisations are dedicated only to a specific agenda.
FAWOS, Vienna (A)
This is one of the most interesting examples. Its main aim is to prevent eviction and to provide the necessary assistance
to this end. Cover is (more or less) comprehensive and is provided in close cooperation with the courts. In the Czech
Republic, some institutions also provide some assistance to people threatened by eviction, but it is occasional and
mainly consists only of legal advice. It is not regulated by legalisation. On the other hand the FAWOS report states: "The
Austrian Federal Tenancy Law comprises 2 articles, which put the courts under the obligation to inform the Municipality
2 - 19
of Vienna about summonses, verdicts and the dates of evictions." Moreover, the courts send FAWOS information material to landlords, property management offices and to tenants when the first summons is issued. Such an approach is
very useful and its application in the Czech Republic should be recommended. However, it requires not only close cooperation with responsible politicians, but probably also an amendment to existing legislation.
IRIS Social Rental Agency, Brussels (B)
This is a non-profit organisation, whose aim is to meet the housing demand of socially disadvantaged people by mediating between landlord and tenant. The dwellings are rented by landlords at a rent lower than the market level, but the
social rent agencies guarantee the payment of the rent (even if the tenant does not pay the rent, or refurbish the dwelling
at the end of the tenancy, if damages were caused by the tenant). The regional authority determines the maximum rent
paid by the tenant to the SRA. If the rent asked by the landlord (its maximum is also specified by the regional authority)
is higher than that of the tenant, the difference is covered by the SRA from a subsidy received from the regional authority. The costs of such a system are lower than housing subsidies, which would be paid to the tenant. Such a system may
be compared to the system of "social landlords" in Great Britain. There the "social" rents are lower because landlords
receive subsidies for the construction of the building. In contrast to the system existing in the Czech Republic, housing
subsidies are not granted to the tenant, but transferred to the landlord renting the dwelling at a reduced rent. The introduction of such a system in the Czech Republic would require many legal amendments. However, as "regulated" rent will
grow very rapidly in coming years, the number of households receiving the housing subsidy, and the value of the subsidy, will also increase considerably and new ways of processing this "cash flow" will be sought.
Wohndrehscheibe / Flat Exchange, Vienna (A)
This agency was established with the aim of improving the housing market for refugees and migrants in lower income
brackets. Its knowledge and experience is also useful for the Czech Republic, but probably in other contexts and times.
Housing exchange is not too intensive in this country and is carried out mainly via advertisements or by commercial
organisations. However, the expected increase in rents in coming years may significantly change this situation, and high
rents may become unbearable, especially for low-income households, which will look for other, cheaper accommodation.
With respect to their financial situation any assistance will become very useful.
SWH Soziale Wohnraumhilfe, Hanover (D)
This organisation provides new, normal, self-contained dwellings with normal tenancy contracts to mostly single homeless people. Such activity is very desirable and fulfils the last stage in the housing reintegration process, which now often
ends in the Czech Republic with some kind of temporary solution (hostels, dormitories, halfway houses etc.). But homelessness will probably increase with increasing rents and the problem of homelessness must be solved by the return of
many homeless people to permanent housing (even if there is now no deadline for a solution to this problem). The main
problem is financial, but homelessness is also accompanied by many other features which require a specific approach.
For this reason, an exchange of ideas and opinions among people dealing with homelessness in public institutions as
well as in NGOs and private organisations would be very useful.
BARKA Foundation, Poznań (PL)
The Barka Foundation has long experience with housing problems in Poland. Housing conditions in Poland and the
Czech Republic have many similar features, determined by historical developments (drop of housing construction in the
first half of 90s, change of ownership, development of the housing market, increased rents, diversification of income
groups, homelessness etc.). There are also many similar features in the revitalisation of neglected real estate and the
rural and urban environments. In view of the similar conditions, a similar approach to problem solving could be expected.
It would also be possible to compare the state programmes for the support of social housing construction and ways to
deal with increased rents.
Transfer of the Czech experience
Anybody interested in the experience of the Czech republic may ask for further information. From the examples
produced we should stress only one finding: any development is successful only if future users are involved and
interested in the solution.
2 - 20
Context
Duisburg and Hanover (Germany)
Funding
Unemployment benefits for 12 months
related to the previous income,
eventually additional housing benefits
Unemployment resp. social benefits plus
rent costs for all others
Social housing
Time-limited restrictions regarding target
group and rent level
Fast decreasing stock
No municipal housing
Local authorities
In general responsible for allocation of
citizens, but without legal consequences
(no right of housing)
Are obliged to provide temporary
housing for homeless persons
The national context
Some national government regulations are relevant to the issue of housing provision for vulnerable
groups at local level: these primarily concern the system of social benefits as well as the system of social
housing and tenant protection.
The unemployment and social benefit systems are relevant to the financial possibilities of households to
provide for themselves. In January 2005 a new system was implemented, which combines social assistance and the former benefits for the long-term unemployed. Wage-related unemployment benefit is paid
for twelve months after becoming unemployed (‘Arbeitslosengeld’). If the amount is under a defined
threshold a household can receive additional housing benefits (‘Wohngeld’). The long-term unemployed
(more than one year of unemployment) and people who have never had a job receive a second kind of
unemployment benefit (‘Arbeitslosengeld II’) resp. social benefits (due to whether they are considered as
able to work or not). This consists of a defined amount for each household member plus the rent costs
for an ‘appropriate’ dwelling. The definition of appropriate lies with the local authorities who have to take
over the housing costs. With the introduction of the new system of benefits the proportion of households
dependent on the low-price segment has increased, which represents a new challenge for housing provision.
In Germany the state does not provide social housing itself but subsidises housing construction by other
providers. In return the housing providers (non-profit, limited profit or profit oriented) are obliged to let the
dwellings to the defined target group for social housing at limited rents. However, these obligations are
time-limited. After the defined period of time dwellings can be let as “normal” privately financed dwellings.
Due to this time-limitation and to decreasing subsidies from the state and reduced interest in social housing on the part of housing providers, the social housing stock has decreased substantially over recent
decades.
Many municipalities have their own housing companies but most of them now work on a profit-oriented
basis and only provide part of their housing stock to the low-price segment of the market. Municipal
housing for vulnerable groups as known in other countries is not common in Germany.
Against this background provision for vulnerable groups has to be organised to a great extent in the privately financed rented housing stock. The proportion of rented dwellings in Germany is comparatively
high (58% in 2002) and the rented housing stock overall is of high quality. Tenant protection is quite high:
tenancy contracts are usually not temporary, notice to quit is only allowed in specific cases and the rent
level is restricted.
Municipalities are responsible for housing provision for risk groups (even when there is no right to housing), at least they are obliged by law to provide temporary accommodation for households already or at
risk of becoming roofless.
Hanover
Hanover is the capital of the federal state of Lower Saxony and has about 516,000 inhabitants, although
the population is declining. The number of households is about 300,000. The unemployment rate in
2004 was on average 11.5% and thus a little over the national average (10.5%). At the end of 2004,
7.5% of all households were on social benefits. 540 persons were accommodated in homeless shelters,
the number of rough sleepers is unknown.
The housing stock in Hanover includes 286,000 units (Dec. 2004), of which about 25,000 were publicly
subsidised rented dwellings (for different income groups) (9% of the housing stock in total).The City of
Hanover owns only a marginal number of dwellings. However, the public owned housing company (Gesellschaft für Bauen und Wohnen Hannover mbH) administrates approximately 14,000 dwellings (about
5% of the housing stock in total). With about 3% empty unoccupied dwellings the housing market is quite
relaxed. However, in the segment of low-priced rented dwellings demand still outstrips supply.
2 - 21
Hanover (31.12.2004)
Population
515,841
Foreigners
85,476
Unemployment rate
Number of households
Average household size
Households on social
benefits
Housing stock
15.9%
298,603
1.7%
38,278
(7.5%)
285,972
State aided tenancies
approx. 25,000
tenancies administrates
by GBH
Number of vacancies
approx. 14,000
Living area / habitant
Number of homeless
persons
9,087
(3.2%)
41.5 m²
540
Sources: City of Hanover, Federal Statistical Office Germany, Federal Agency for
Employment Germany
Duisburg (31.12.2004)
Population
Foreigners
Unemployment rate
Number of households
Average household size
Households on benefit
(long-term unemployment
and social benefit)
On benefit as % of households
Housing stock
State aided tenancies
Tenancies administrated
by GEBAG
Number of vacancies
Living area / habitant
Number of homeless
persons
503,664
75,195
18% (07/2005)
246,000
2.06
36,108 (07/2005)
Duisburg
Duisburg has about 500,000 inhabitants and is part of the Ruhrgebiet metropolitan area with about 5.5
million inhabitants. The number of inhabitants has been decreasing in recent years but the number of
households is quite stable at about 246,000.
The Ruhrgebiet is an old industrial region and suffers from changes in the economic structure. The economic situation in Duisburg is characterised by an increasing number of households on benefit or incomes below the minimum standard of living. At 18% the unemployment rate is considerably above the
national average (11.5%). About 15% of all households in Duisburg receive social benefits (due to unemployment or incomes below the minimum standard of living).
The housing stock in Duisburg consists of about 260,000 dwellings, of which approximately 211,000 are
rented dwellings. 19% of the stock is social housing, but this proportion will decrease fast in the coming
years. The municipally owned housing company GEBAG administrates about 15,000 dwellings.
The situation on the housing market is relaxed; the proportion of empty unoccupied dwellings is estimated at 4-5%. However, in the low-price segment demand still outstrips supply.
Housing policy in Duisburg shows some peculiarities regarding provision for vulnerable groups and in
coping with housing stress and housing loss. In 1997 a central department in charge of all relevant tasks
regarding housing provision and prevention of housing loss was founded. This department has more
than 40 members of staff. To prevent housing loss the department takes over rent arrears, provides advice on social and financial issues, cooperates with housing providers (early information about rent arrears) and when an eviction notice cannot be avoided supports with the allocation of a new dwelling.
The central department has agreements with various housing providers on different kind of payments:
guarantees to take over rent arrears and to pay the rent if the household provided for is not able to pay,
compensation for expenses that arise if a household has to be evicted and rent losses occur and if the
apartment needs to be renovated.
In 1993 the “round table of brokers” (Maklerrunde) was established. The round table provides for clients
of different departments (youth welfare office, social services department, etc.) and supports households
who have difficulties in accessing the housing market in general. The cooperating housing providers
(companies as well as private landlords) inform the round table about available apartments. The round
table discusses the cases of dwelling seekers regarding the type of apartment and (if necessary) social
support needed and suggests an appropriate apartment from the stock.
14.7%
(07/2005)
260,674
19.3%
15,000
4-5%
36.32 m²
98
Sources: City of Duisburg, Federal Statistical Office Germany, Federal Agency for
Employment Germany
2 - 22
Integrated Support System for the Single Homeless
Cooperation form for housing provision / re-housing
Zentrale Anlauf-,
Beratungs- und
Vermittlungsstelle
(Clearing Centre)
Duisburg, Germany
Beekstraße 45
47051 Duisburg
zabv@diakoniewerk-duisburg.de
Responsible agency
Diakoniewerk Duisburg (NPO),
Roland Meier; City of Duisburg,
Hendrik Kretzschmar
(h.kretzschmar@stadt-duisburg.de)
Members in the cooperation
Local authority: Department for secure
tenancy / prevention of housing loss
(Zentrale Fachstelle für Wohnungsnotfälle), City of Duisburg
housing provider: various housing
providers
social care provider: Diakoniewerk
Duisburg (social provider, NPO)
Main aim of the activity
Provision of permanent housing
Main type of activity
Clearing, housing provision and
clarification of financial and social support
Main target groups
Single homeless persons
(exception: drug addicts and young
people)
Since 2004
Sites Clearing centre, dwellings for
different kinds of supported housing,
clearing accommodation (5 units), shelter (5 units)
Employees 13 of Diakoniewerk,
5 of City of Duisburg
Personal customer contact yes
Average customers/year 730 with
first contact in 2004, total of 1,218 clients
in 2004
Links
www.diakoniewerk-duisburg.de
www.duisburg.de
www.gebag.de
Problem
Access to the support system was complicated because the single homeless had to contact several agencies
for the various forms of support (accommodation, financial and social support). The actors involved regarded
the system as insufficiently effective and efficient, both for the homeless and the agencies, because: a) due to
the decentralised intake revolving door effects (often) would not be recognised, b) there was no systematic
management to solve conflicts between the different support segments, c) it was not safeguarded that all single homeless persons would be reached, d) the support given would not always be adjusted to the client’s
specific needs properly (some clients only needed housing and occasionally social support, but were accommodated in (expensive) shelters).
Solution
An integrated support system with only one contact point for the homeless. At the heart of the system is
a clearing centre where, after a clearing process, the single homeless are provided with adequate
housing (all kinds of housing between regular dwellings with own tenancy contract and supported housing with high degree of social support), social benefits, financial emergency aid (cash for the first few
days) and social support as needed. The whole process should not take longer than two hours.
It is good practice because it combines well-targeted and clearly arranged support for customers with high efficiency for the agencies and very close cooperation between the local authorities and the social provider with
staff working hand in hand and door by door on the same floor.
Actors
The City of Duisburg with the Department for the Prevention of Housing Loss and Diakoniewerk Duisburg developed the new system together. Diakoniewerk is responsible for the clearing process, follow-up social support and the administration of the different forms of supported housing. The local authorities take over the allocation of dwellings and financial support for clients. Housing providers are also involved via the local
authorities (“round table of brokers”, see description of the local context above).
Added value and strong points of partnership
The added value of the partnership lies in the construction of a support system which integrates the different
support segments and minimises friction losses for customers and agencies. Through better adjustment of
provision and supply to clients' needs, costs are minimised and over-support of clients is avoided. Most support segments within the system are funded on the basis of legal obligations. The cooperation therefore has a
sustainable basis.
Weak points
Some support segments are financed by the local authorities on a voluntary basis (e.g. the clearing process
itself) and are therefore at risk of cuts. The effectiveness of housing provision is highly dependent on a
sufficient supply of low-priced dwellings. The social provider bears a high financial risk for pre-financing the
facilities.
Key success factors
Cooperation partners require a high degree of probability of a long-term solution and partnership for such
complex restructuring processes. In this regard a stable legal basis for funding is needed. The implemented
solution for housing provision in dwellings on the regular housing market requires a relaxed market situation.
Furthermore, the expected reduction of expenses for accommodating homeless persons encouraged the
willingness of the local authorities to implement the new system.
2 - 23
SWH Rehousing Homeless People
Cooperation form for housing provision
Soziale Wohnraumhilfe
Hannover (SWH)
Rehousing homeless people
Hanover, Germany
Schaumburgstraße 3
30419 Hannover
info@swh-trio.de
Responsible agency
SWH (NPO)
Contact: Carl-Dietrich Verdick
Phone: +49 511 27 80 30
Members in the cooperation
Local authority: City of Hanover,
Housing department, Social Services
Department;
Housing provider: diverse
Social care provider: Soziale
Wohnraumhilfe Hannover (NPO)
Main aim of the activity
Provision of permanent housing for
homeless persons
Main type of activity
Building and maintaining of dwellings,
provision of social support
Main target groups
Single homeless persons
(exception: drug addicts)
Since 1991
Sites Several buildings each with 12
to 20 dwellings, 153 units in total
Employees 8
Personal customer contact yes
Currently provided clients 153
Links
www.iccr-international.org/impact/downloads.html
(Rehousing homeless people)
www.srz-gmbh.com/coop/report
Problem
The market segment of small, cheap apartments in Hanover is tight. The local authorities have allocation
rights for only 3% of the housing stock. Thus, housing provision for single homeless people was difficult.
The acquisition of dwellings from the stock for this group was not thought reasonable because it would
result in displacement of other low-income tenants.
Solution
Building new dwellings especially conceived and designed for the target group. Tenants receive
unlimited contracts and social support as long as needed. The Soziale Wohnraumhilfe Hannover
(SWH) was founded as an intermediary agency aimed to initiate and organise the building of housing and social support for (formerly) homeless people.
It is good practice because it achieves high user independence (permanent housing with regular
tenancy contracts) and user satisfaction (proven by survey).
Actors
Housing companies use their know-how and financial capacity to build dwellings (by new construction or
reconstruction in the stock), let them to SWH and thus avoid the financial risk linked with tenancy. The local authorities make subsidies available in their public housing programme and pay the rent to the tenants (as part of social benefits). SWH acts as the landlord and arranges, as social provider, demandorientated social support for all tenants. Furthermore, SWH acts as the “engine” in the cooperation and
provides for smooth coordination.
Added value and strong points of partnership
The added value of the partnership lies in its outcome (self-contained dwellings for formerly homeless
people) which would not have been achieved without cooperation. In addition to the dwellings the projects have another, ideal outcome: they have proven that homeless people are able to live independently
in their own dwellings with their own tenancy agreements if adequate social support is provided to meet
their needs. Furthermore, this method of provision is much more cost-effective than traditional forms of
provision in shelters.
Weak points
New construction or renovation of dwellings is by nature time-consuming and cost-intensive and therefore
quite inflexible to changing resources and increasing quantitative needs. Linked to this, in quantitative
terms new construction or renovation of dwellings can only play a limited role in provision for risk groups.
Furthermore, SWH itself and the social support for the tenants are highly dependent on voluntarily public
subsidies.
Key success factors
All cooperation partners keep to their core business and do what they can do best. Political support is
required because (in Hanover) public subsidies for construction and social support are not granted by law
but on a voluntary basis. The following were helpful in Hanover a) the provision of building sites and
financial support by the protestant church, b) the skills of SWH staff coordinating the partnership
(architect, economist) and c) the participation of a well-known and committed housing company in the first
building project, opening the door for projects with other housing providers.
2 - 24
Team Germany:
Transferable lessons
Practice in emergency housing help in Germany diverges widely among the individual federal states and especially
among individual local authorities. Considerations about how good practice models from other countries can be transferred must therefore each be concretely related to a particular local context. The members of the German COOP team
are active at local level in Duisburg and Hanover and in this discussion we therefore refer exclusively to these two cities.
In the discussion about the transferability of other countries' approaches to Duisburg it must also be taken into account
that just over the last few years the city, as a model project as part of the federal state programme "Avoiding homelessness – securing permanent housing", has completely overhauled the various assistance segments for the homeless and
brought them together into an comprehensive support system. In addition, Duisburg has a centre, located in the Social
and Housing Office, which attends to the prevention of homelessness. Due to this, Duisburg is regarded as especially
progressive in specialist circles in Germany. This view was predominantly shared by COOP partners from other countries. It is therefore rather individual aspects of other good practice approaches that will be of interest for the special
situation in Duisburg.
Access to housing
All cooperation forms in housing provision presented within the COOP project particularly draw on the council housing
stock or social housing. In comparison, the inclusion of private commercial housing providers has proved to be considerably more difficult. Cooperation with private (amateur) landlords has nowhere been established to a relevant extent.
Cities such as Vienna (with a high proportion of council housing stock) and Rotterdam (particularly social housing) therefore have a decisive advantage in housing provision for risk groups. The inclusion of private (amateur) landlords in
Hanover and Duisburg has so far only been achieved on a small scale and the willingness of private commercial housing
providers to cooperate in the provision of accommodation for risk groups depends to a large extent on their business
philosophy and also on the respective situation of the housing market. Both seem to be quite applicable to Germany. It is
therefore advisable to retain housing stock in municipal or other public ownership and make efforts to preserve or create
secure tenancies in the rest of the housing stock (whether by financial support or via agreements with housing providers).
Besides this general aspect, the German team is particularly interested in the following approaches for further discussion
of the transferability of the concepts or individual aspects to the situations in Hanover and Duisburg.
Centre for Secure Tenancy / Fachstelle für Wohnungssicherung (FAWOS), Vienna (A)
FAWOS in Vienna follows a similar approach to the centre in Duisburg. The important starting point of both centres is,
through early information about rent arrears and (impending) eviction lawsuits, to be able to build up contact with affected households at a time when eviction can still be averted by settling rent arrears and safeguarding the future regular
payment of rent. The centres receive this information from the courts, which report when eviction proceedings are
started. This cooperation between the centre and the courts is therefore particularly appropriate for avoiding homelessness.
The German team therefore takes the view that the establishment of such a centre should also be intensively discussed
in Hanover. Soziale Wohnraumhilfe Hannover (SWH) (Social Housing Assistance Hanover) does cooperate with various
housing providers and is informed by them of rent arrears that can no longer be cleared as part of the normal regulation
of housing business, but this approach is limited to the stock of cooperating companies. In comparison, a centre that is
located in local authority administration would be in a position to offer its services for all of the housing stock and could in
addition also make use of information from the courts. Such centres should follow a wide definition of prevention and
promote the issue of prevention for example by working groups with housing providers or projects on preventing arrears
in general.
LZN Lokale Zorgnetwerken (Local Care Networks), Rotterdam (NL)
The LZN are an affiliation of various assistance and care organisations in local neighbourhoods. The aim is, through
bringing assistance to people, to help at an early stage those who have had to be cared for by various organisations
because of their multiple problems and to offer them a comprehensive assistance plan, coordinated by the network. This
is intended to avoid eviction as a further step in the personal downward spiral. The network draws on the information
channels of the individual assistance organisations, contacts to housing providers as well as information from third par-
2 - 25
ties. Via a telephone hotline people (neighbours, acquaintances etc.) can give information about people if they suspect
that intervention may be necessary. This helps to prevent threatened evictions at a very early stage.
For the situations in Hanover and Duisburg two aspects of the LZN are particularly interesting. Firstly, in comparison to
the warning signal about rent arrears, households potentially threatened with homelessness can be recognised at a still
earlier stage than is possible on the basis of information from housing providers and the courts. Secondly, through the
inclusion of other actors such as health institutions, local police etc. further access to information can be opened up
which a central specialised unit could also draw on. However, the telephone hotline, which can also be seen as an instrument of denunciation, is viewed critically.
Wohndrehscheibe (Flat Exchange), Vienna (A)
Flat Exchange aims to improve access to the housing market for refugees and migrants on low incomes. These groups
often have inadequate knowledge of the housing market, flat-seeking and renting accommodation and additionally run
the risk of discrimination when looking for accommodation. This problem can also be observed in Hanover and Duisburg
– and certainly also in other German cities. The approach of Flat Exchange – to empower migrants for independent flatseeking through information and counselling and where necessary through social care, also in the period after moving in,
and supporting mediation between tenant and landlord (and thereby also increasing the willingness of housing providers
to rent to these client groups) – therefore also seems to make sense for German cities. In cooperation with housing
providers and social organisations, local authorities should consider setting up such a provision.
The National Action Plan against Poverty and Social Exclusion
Germany does not describe a consistent strategy to prevent and reduce homelessness in its NAP/inclusion as some
other member states do. However, according to the NAP/Inclusion 2003-2005 (update 2004) the federal government
attaches great importance to avoiding and reducing homelessness, whereby prevention shall have priority. Against the
background of COOP lessons this priority seems meaningful. To prevent homelessness the government makes funding
available within the frame of social benefits to take over rent arrears when homelessness is to be avoided. This instrument is used successfully in Duisburg and Hanover.
From the COOP examples it could be learnt that social housing is an important resource to house vulnerable groups. To
fight the problem of decreasing social housing stock accessible for this target group since 2002 the federal government
has targeted (newly built) social housing exclusively at vulnerable groups. Furthermore, the social housing programme
now includes the instrument of agreements between housing providers and local authorities. Subsidies can be used to
make dwellings from the privately owned housing stock available to vulnerable groups (e.g. by limiting the rent level or
taking over the lessor’s risk). Effects of these changes have not been evaluated yet.
Furthermore, the German NAP mentions the programme ‘Neighbourhoods with a Special Need for Development – The
Social City’, which shall combat social exclusion at neighbourhood level, as good practice. The case of Local Care Networks has shown that neighbourhoods are an important level for early prevention of homelessness. From this perspective the neighbourhood approach is reasonable. To what extent the programme ‘Social City’ in practice is linked to housing needs of vulnerable groups needs to be analysed.
As well as the federal government, which sets the framework conditions, the Länder (and the municipalities) have a key
role for social inclusion policy. As a policy example from North-Rhine Westphalia the programme ‘Preventing homelessness – safeguarding permanent homes’ is mentioned. The development of the ‘Integrated support system’ in Duisburg
has been subsidised within this programme.
Overall, the NAPinclusion mentions various instruments that are already used to combat homelessness, but no strategic
approach how to improve the prevention of homelessness and the re-integration of homeless people.
2 - 26
context
Krakow and Poznan (Poland)
City of Krakow
Population
Total (2004) 758.326
Population according to age (2004):
- pre-school and school age
(0-17 years): 16.7%
- working age 66.4%
- post-working age 16.9%
Registered unemployment rate:
7,5%
Average employment in enterprises: total
– 159.406,
private sector - 137.783
Households
Households receiving social benefits?
Aid 34.928 (2003)
Because of .– the reasons (2003):
- homelessness :2,4% 848
- unemployment: 16,6%5804
- long-term illness and disability:
47,8%16.700
- alcohol/ drugs: 2,7%/ 0,3%956/120
- other social problems: 30%10.500
Households receiving housing
allowances – 13 700
Households with applications for municipal and social dwelling: 3683 (2004)
Housing Stock
Total number of dwellings (2003)
285.100
- Municipal
27.000 (9,5%)
- Housing Cooperatives 121.000 (42,4%)
- Private owners
125.700 (44,1%)
Average useable area m2/ dwelling: 55,8
Persons/ dwelling: 2,5 – 2,8
Dwellings new construction completed –
4.131 (2003)
Dwelling acquired by municipality:
425 (2003)
Social and housing context of Poland
The process of transformation towards a market economy started in 1990. Between 1992 and
2002 the Polish economy experienced the full cycle of growth and decline, growing rapidly in the
mid-1990s, but slowing considerably in 2001 and 2002. The Polish economy is characterised by
high unemployment – this is mainly due to the restructuring of inefficient industrial sectors. The
number of people employed de-creased from 15.4 million in 1998 to 13.7 million in 2003 (total
population 38.3 mil-lion). At present the unemployment rate is one of the highest among all EU
Member States (19.5% in 2003). The share of long-term unemployed amounted to half of the unemployed. Critical factors are the high rate of unemployment (45%) among young people and
those with primary education (25%). The structural changes took a different course in different regions of the country. The most difficult situation is ob-served in the regions around post-state
farms and with collapsing heavy industry. Demographic and social trends are characterised by
the increasing share of single-parent families (19%), the high proportion of persons who are legally disabled (4.5 mil-lion) and an increasing share of households below the minimum subsistence (11.7%).
Ethnic minorities (German, Slovak etc) minorities represent a low percentage (3.3%). Mainly the
Romany group (12.7 thousand of people) is affected by social problems. According to NC2002,
there were 34.1 thousand immigrants and refugees. According to estimates, there are 30–80
thousand homeless people in Poland. Homelessness tends to be associated with such phenomena as mental illness, disability, joblessness and crime.
The Law on social assistance has imposed on the municipalities the tasks of social assistance,
prevention and solving alcohol and other social problems in order to foster inclusion of endangered people and families. The main organisational form are the Municipal Centres for Welfare
Assistance and specific institutions like homes for the elderly or sheltered housing for homeless
people, mainly financed and man-aged by the municipalities.
The current housing situation in Poland reflects the social and economic changes since the introduction of the market economy. The main factors in the transformation of the housing system in
Poland after 1994 were: the reduced role of the state in housing construction and provision, the
restitution of property to private owners, the ownership of the housing stock and the transfer of
responsibility to the municipalities with the reform of the rent system and the introduction of a
housing allowances sys-tem were Political transformations in Poland also revolutionised the ownership structure of housing resources. Much of the housing stock was sold to tenants at greatly
discounted rates (5% - 20% of value) change was also observed in municipal housing resources,
in the legal form of utilising co-operative housing and the transfer of ownership rights in company
housing. The number of apartments owned by municipalities fell by 657,000 in 1992. by another
third until 2000. Among the 11.9 million dwellings in Poland, 29% are owned by the housing cooperatives, 11.5% by municipalities and 55% are owner-occupied.
The present housing problems consist of, firstly, a shortage of appropriate housing (housing statistical deficit estimated at 1.7 million dwellings) and the low level of construction of new council
housing, and secondly, the poor condition of the existing stock. The municipalities in Poland are
mainly obliged to provide dwellings for evicted families/ persons. Housing assistance for other
groups depends on local housing policy, vulnerable groups such as those on a low-income, older
people, or people with a disability can apply for municipal housing but there is no obligation on the
municipalities to provide accommodation for them. Government programmes support the development of Social Housing Associations (since 1995) and construction of social dwellings by municipalities (pilot small scale programme at 2004-2005).
The City of Krakow is the third biggest city in the Poland (after Warsaw with a population of 1.6
million and Lodz with 774, 000). The rate of unemployment is one of the lowest In Poland. Being
one of the largest scientific, educational, health care and tourism centres, it creates workplaces in
the public sector and services not only for the inhabitants of the city but also for the whole metro2 - 27
City of Poznan
Population
Total (2004): 570.800
Population according to age (2003):
- pre-school and school age
(0-17 years) 16.7%
- working age 66.9%
- post-working age 16.4%
Employed persons: 213.700
- 61,4% - private sector
- 38,5% - public sector
Registered unemployment rate:
7,1% / 55,8% women
Households
Persons receiving social benefits
37.000 – 6.6% of the total population
Household receiving social benefits:
46% - big families with many children
41% - one –person households
Household receiving social benefits
the reasons:
- poverty
12.366
- unemployment
6.870
- disability and long term illness
10.800
- alcoholism
1.068
- prisoners families
400
- other social problems 4.068
Housing Stock
Total number of dwellings (2003)
216.400
- Municipal
10%
- Housing Cooperatives
47%
- Private owners
37%
80% of dwellings in multifamily buildings
48% of dwellings constructed before
1970
Average useable area m2/ dwelling: 63,0
Persons/ dwelling: 2,65
118 households/ 100 dwellings
Housing deficit:
35.000 - 40.000 dwellings
Average number of new construction per
year: (2000-2003) – 1.900
politan area. However, Krakow is also touched by the typical problems of European metropoles.
The restructuring of heavy industry and enterprises in other inefficient sectors influenced the social structure of the City. An increased number of legally acknowledged disabled persons creates
pressure on the social welfare system in Krakow. The dynamic life of the city (increasing traffic,
temporary inhabitants, millions of tourists and a concentration of homeless people in the city) is
an important factor for the increase in social deprivation, crime and other social problems. The
number of homeless people in Krakow is estimated to be 1,300 (89% male) although this can
fluctuate depending on seasonal factors and mobility and can be as high as 2000.
The City of Poznan is a city with a strong economic position, it has a large service sector and a
well developed small and medium enterprises sector. Poznan is the main centre of international
fairs in Poland. The rate of unemployment is similar to Krakow. Almost 7% of the population of
Poznan was a client of the social welfare system in 2003. One-person families and families with
many children are the most vulnerable groups. The most important reasons for applying for social assistance are: Poverty, unemployment, long-term illness and disability. In recent years, the
number of clients of the social welfare system has increased.
The social care system of Poland
Following the economic changes and the organisational reform of the local and regional government system in Poland, the main responsibility for social welfare tasks lies with the municipalities (‘gminas’), in the framework of Municipal Centres for Welfare Assistance, Social Affairs Departments and specific institutions partly financed and managed by the municipalities such as:
homes for elderly people; mentally and physically disabled people (18 homes in Krakow with
2,242 places – 15 of them financed directly by the municipality); sheltered housing for homeless
people (600 places); homes for mothers with children and pregnant women; a home for victims of
violence; a centre for homeless people (providing also move on support e.g. assistance with
seeking employment; 40 places). Municipal Centres for Welfare Assistance also provide financial
support for different groups in a permanent housing situation (housing allowances) or in temporary housing. There is a broad spectrum of assistance / service and care (funding of food, heating, school lunches, education). Part of the social assistance is provided by charity and nongovernmental organisations and associations, on a basis of agreements with the municipalities.
The municipalities and ‘voivod-ships’ (regional authority / administration) are responsible for the
preparation of the social strategies and the local social policies. The main elements of the social
care system are similar in Krakow and Poznan.
The social housing system
The social housing system in Poland consists of: the National Housing Fund supporting social
housing associations by long term preferential loans, the municipal housing stock with a decreasing number of dwellings as a result of privatisation, a housing allowances system currently financed by the municipalities and local initiatives focused on construction of new dwellings in the
framework of municipal budgets.
Good practice in addressing the needs of ‘’special target groups’
The Krakow municipality “case study” is an example of an efficient and stable solution for the
15,000 municipal tenants threatened by eviction from private housing stock. The case of Darzybor Settlement Association of Barka Foundation at Poznan describes a new model of cooperation
between a local authority, a non-governmental organisation and volunteers, with the active involvement of socially excluded and vulnerable people in a complex project which includes the
construction of new accessible housing with intensive social support).
2 - 28
Krakow City + Housing Associations
Cooperation form for prevention
Housing Department
of Krakow City Council
Krakow, Poland
Pl. Wszystkich Sw. 3/4
Poland / Krakow
Responsible agency
Housing Department of the Krakow
Municipality
Members in the cooperation
Local authority: City of Krakow
Housing provider: social housing
associations
Social care provider: Municipal Social
Welfare Centre, Social Affairs
Department
Main concern of the activity
Avoiding eviction
Main issue of activity
Providing municipal dwellings for the
group threatened by eviction
Main target group
Those threatened by eviction
Since 1996
Sites Krakow City Council,
Municipal Social Welfare Centre
Personal customer contact yes
Average customers per year
- 486 tenancies in the housing stock of
social housing associations (2004)
- 2,576 applicants for municipal dwelling
and 1034 for social dwellings (with
eviction by court decision) at the end
of 2004
Links
www.srz-gmbh.com/coop
www.krakow.pl
Problem
Cooperation is focused on the specific situation of the important part of municipal tenants threatened by
eviction from private housing. Krakow is a city with a large number of multi-family buildings owned by private persons. The majority of tenants in private residential buildings occupy their flats based on administrative decisions. The number of such households is estimated at approx. 15,000. Most often, they are
elderly people, disabled or ill, retired or pensioned, who have been living in a private tenement house,
sometimes for several decades, and who cannot afford to rent a free-market flat. The affected persons
may apply for housing assistance from the Municipality of Krakow. Priority is given to residents of private
tenement houses who have already received notices on the termination of tenancy agreements related to
their current dwellings and are threatened with eviction and who are not able to meet their housing needs
on their own.
Solution
Cooperation with non-profit social housing associations (SHA) is a solution for those tenants threatened with eviction from private housing. Construction of the SHA dwellings is supported by the National Housing Fund in the form of preferential credit (up to 70% of investment costs). The Municipality of Krakow contributes only 30% of construction costs without being involved in the construction process or the maintenance of new housing stock. The rent level in the social housing associations is subject to regulation. Construction costs are controlled. Proposed persons / families are selected by the Municipal Social Welfare Centre and the Social Affairs Department from the group of
municipal tenants in private housing.
Actors
The actors are: 15 non-profit social housing associations, the local authority (as financing body), the
Housing Department and the Municipal Social Affairs Department (supporting tenants with housing
allowances) and the Municipal Social Welfare Centre (social aid). The Krakow Council Housing Department is responsible for the whole process of cooperation with SHA.
Added value and strong points of partnership
The City allocates few resources (30% of the costs) to the acquisition of flats for municipal tenants. Social
housing associations, acting under market conditions, are responsible for the fund-raising, construction
and maintenance of the housing stock. This helps reduce costs and increase the quality of the services
provided. The buildings and flats are of a good standard and new technologies are applied. Public–
private partnership rules are clear and transparent. Smaller new dwellings result in lower rent. People
from various backgrounds are integrated. Cooperation is embedded in the municipality's long-term housing policy.
Weak points
The proposed solution supports only some municipal tenants with a sufficient income level. Results also
greatly depend on government policy and the National Housing Fund's insufficient financial resources.
Increasing numbers of applications to NHF reduce the possibility of financing new housing construction
undertaken by Social Hosing Associations. The locations of SHA housing stock are less attractive. The
rent level must cover repayment of the NHF loan.
Key success factors
An important success factor in the cooperation is the support of the SHA by the municipality in the process of loans acquisition from the National Housing Found and in the pre-construction phase of projects
(land provision, permission for construction etc.).
2 - 29
Darzybor Settlement - BARKA Foundation
Cooperation form for housing provision / re-housing
Barka-Darzybor
Association for
Accessible Housing
Darzybor Settlement
Poznan, Poland
ul. Sw. Wincentego 6/9
61-003 Poznan
www.barka.org.pl
Responsible agency
Barka Foundation (NGO)
Members in the cooperation
Local authority: City of Poznan
Housing provider: Barka Foundation,
City of Poznan
Social care provider: City of Poznan,
Social Affairs Department,
Barka Foundation
Private sponsors and companies
Volunteers, future tenants
Main aim of the activity
Social reintegration. Pilot program of
accessible housing for the risk group
Main type of activity
Provision of dwellings for the threatened
group by building new houses
Main target groups
Evicted families, persons after
re-socialisation, orphans, refugees
Since 2001
Sites one (Poznan), 32 dwellings, later:
100 dwellings
Personal customer contact yes
Customers
32 families till the end 2005 in the first
phase – 100 families in the 5 year period
Links
www.srz-gmbh.com/coop
www.barka.org.pl
Problem
The crisis resulting from industrial and social change, unemployment, loss of income and confidence, and
economic and social burdens is especially critical in Poland. Reintegration of people and families with social problems should be supported by housing provision. A lack of affordable municipal / social dwellings
is one of the main problems. The responsibility for providing social housing lies with local administration
lacking sufficient resources. To solve housing problems efforts should be made by many partners. Polish
NGOs still concentrate on providing occasional social support such as shelter, meals and clothing but do
not offer an all-embracing sustainable solution.
Solution
The main objective of the “Darzybor settlement” project was the development of the model of cooperation of NGOs, local authorities, beneficiaries and volunteers for other accessible housing projects supporting social reintegration. The new settlement project for the risk group was undertaken
by Barka Foundation in close cooperation with the City of Poznan. Barka has a long tradition of social activity and revitalisation of neglected real estate for a social purpose with the involvement of
self-help groups. The project will provide housing for about 400-500 people (100 families). The settlement will provide a place to live, work, and learn. It is integrated with the environment and gives
opportunities for recreational and sports activities. The Barka-Darzybor Association for Accessible
Housing was established. An agreement concerning mutual cooperation on the settlement’s construction was signed with the local administration. The local administration designated 5 ha of land
for the project. The site was characterised as an area of intensive social activities. The City of
Poznan submitted an application to the government for co-financing of 1/3 of the project’s costs.
Future tenants and volunteers were involved in the construction work.
Actors
The City of Poznan (provided the land and submitted the grant application and also prepared some
of the technical documentation), the City of Poznan Social Affairs Department (supported social
part of the activity), private sponsors and companies (provided part of the building materials and
technical projects) and volunteers. The Barka-Darzybor Association for Accessible Housing was responsible for the whole process.
Added value and strong points of partnership
Creation and verification of the model for development of affordable housing with the involvement of
NGOs, local government, sponsors and volunteers supported also by government financing. A holistic
approach to the reintegration process where housing provision is one of the key elements. The project involves the active participation of socially excluded people at all its stages. This participation has educational and rehabilitation character and reduces building costs (also providing job qualification and training
after the end of the construction phase). The qualifications achieved will enable the inhabitants to care for
their houses and earn additional income.
Weak points
Darzybor does not provide an individual, independent and permanent housing situation but is a special
housing project with a concentration of vulnerable groups. Currently no scenario for becoming
independent (with a limited rent agreement) is foreseen. Management of the technical aspects of the
project in the framework of NGOs can create difficulties.
Key success factors
Support by diverse partners and volunteers in the accessible housing programme and the experience of
the Barka Foundation in similar projects and social activity.
2 - 30
Team Poland:
Transferable lessons
The process of transformation towards a market economy in Poland began in 1990 and the transformation had implications for the social care system and the housing sphere. The main reasons for social exclusion are a high unemployment
rate, a growing differentiation in personal income and an increasing level of poverty. The increasing risk of social exclusion demands fundamental reform of the social care system and methods of social reintegration. The National Action
Plan on Social Inclusion for 2004 – 2006 creates the framework for the structural reforms and the thesis for diverse
forms of social activities. However, housing provision for risk groups, as the basis for sustainable social reintegration or
for the prevention of social exclusion, received rather low priority in the National Action Plan. In Poland, integration of
different actors (not only the municipalities) and different forms of actions (not only financial support) during the prevention or reintegration processes are rarely implemented. The experience of Poland during the period of 1990 – 2005
showed that an effective social care system should include a broader spectrum of institutions, associations and nongovernmental organizations. The COOP project has led to the recognition of the possible direction of changes.
The main lessons learned from the COOP good practice examples are the following:
a) housing provision is the most important factor in the prevention of exclusion and in supporting social reintegration.
b) the importance of integration in social care activities (education, re-qualification, housing provision, financial
support)
c) the practical solutions for the cooperation of different partners in “the triangle”,
d) the recognition of the real needs and opinions of the clients in the social care system as an important element
of monitoring and improvement of services.
Those elements can and should be implemented in the Polish social care and housing system at the regional and municipal level. Relevant governmental programmes – including the “pilot project of the construction of social dwellings for
2004 - 2005” should be continued during the next period on a wider scale with the involvement of not only the municipalities but also nongovernmental organizations.
Most of the specific organizational forms or the type of activities from “the good practice examples” can be implemented
in Poland. There are no special obstacles (political, social, organizational) to the transfer of the proposed solutions.
The Integrated Support System for single homeless persons in Duisburg, D is an example that should be transferred
to Poland as a model for the existing Municipal Centres for Welfare Assistance focused on the financial aspects. Joint
actions of the MCWAs and Municipal Housing Departments allow the provision of more “client oriented” aid.
The role of FAWOS (Vienna, A) in the prevention of evictions has additional value in the first stage of social exclusion
(the social care institutions in Poland are focused on the final phase, when the scale of the efforts must be higher than in
the preventive phase).
The common initiative of the City of Brno and Roma representatives (CZ) with the active involvement of the future
tenants is a good model for a solution of the problems of the Roma minority in Poland.
The small number of the refugees and immigrants in Poland do not create this type of social and housing problem, however the existing centres for refugees could be improved using the example of Leeds Refugee and Asylum Service (UK).
The example of coordination of social care activity at city level such as the “Local Care Networks in Rotterdam”)
would be of particular interest to the municipalities in Poland.
The form of the cooperation between the local authority and the social housing associations implemented in Krakow
could be developed using the solutions of the “Steering Committee for Housing provision” in Rotterdam (NL) or IRIS
Social Rental Agency (SRA) in Brussels (B).
The idea of “Flat Exchange” (A) is also useful for the housing market in part of the Polish cities like Krakow, where a
large proportion of the municipal tenants is threatened with eviction by private landlords.
2 - 31
Context
Rotterdam (The Netherlands)
Population
Total (01.01.2005) 596.597
Population according to main
activity (01.01.2003):
pre-school and school age
(0-15 years): 18.5%
employed labour force 59.0%
unemployed labour force 4.5%
potential labour force not active on
labour market 24.0%
pensionable (65 years or older) 14.6%
Individuals receiving social benefits
(01.01.2004) 14.4%
Non-Dutch (at least one parent born
abroad, 01.01.2005) 45.7%
Households
Total (01.01.2005) 278.440
Average household size 2,14
Households receiving housing
allowances (01.07.2003) 26.3%
Households on low income (2000) 22%
Index average household income (2000,
NL=100) 88
Housing Stock
Total number of dwellings (01.01.2004)
286.967
Social rental/council housing 54.6%
Private rental 20.8%
Private owner-occupied 24.6%
Unoccupied (according to
administration) 8.4%
Dwellings built before 1945 34.5%
Dwellings built 1945-1969 26.4%
Dwellings built 1970-1989 24.9%
Dwellings built after 1990 14.1%
Dwellings with 1 or 2 rooms 19.8%
Dwellings with 3 rooms 35.1%
Dwellings with 4 rooms 26.3%
Dwellings with 5 or more rooms 18.8%
Single family dwellings 22%
Social context of the city
Rotterdam, with a population of almost 600,000 people, is the second biggest city in the Netherlands. Like any big city, Rotterdam is struggling with typical urban problems. However, from a
socio-economic perspective, Rotterdam lags behind Amsterdam, Den Haag and Utrecht, the other
three major Dutch cities. This applies to, for example, the low average levels of education, employment and household income. In Rotterdam, 22 percent of households are on a low income,
that is a level considered to be the social minimum according to national standards. This is almost
double the national share (11.9 percent). Relatively many people receive social security or disablement benefits.
One of the central problems of the city is the selective nature of migration. In broad terms, many
underprivileged and deprived people move into and stay in the city, while people who succeed in
improving their socio-economic position, tend to leave Rotterdam. Consequently, the city has to
deal with relatively high levels of social deprivation, social segregation, crime, vandalism, and other
problems. In 2003, a population prognosis made clear that the city will face a fast growing number
of deprived people. The local authorities claim that the limits to the city’s capacity to deal with these
deprived groups have been reached. Fewer jobs can be created than necessary and the demand
for social care and social benefits exceeds the available supply.
Especially in certain areas of the city, there is a permanently high influx of deprived people and
‘troublemakers’, while the middle class and higher-income households leave these areas and the
city. In order to turn the tide and improve the city’s position and image, the city council has
launched some forceful policy measures. In the action programme ‘Rotterdam Perseveres’ (Rotterdam Zet Door), the local authorities present measures aimed at curbing the influx of deprived people on the one hand, and improving the situation of the underprivileged already living in Rotterdam
on the other. At the same time, policy focuses on the reduction of public nuisance and investments
in naturalisation programmes, care, (floating) support, education and job opportunities. New national immigration policy combines strict demands towards new immigrants with more integration
opportunities for those allowed to stay in The Netherlands. Thus, immigration policy on national
and local level has become strongly intertwined. Moreover, the issues mentioned are not only considered for the city of Rotterdam, but also for the region. The ‘Rotterdam Perseveres’ policy aims
for a better dispersion of deprived people over the city and its region.
The social care system
In Rotterdam, there is a broad spectrum of institutions addressing the needs of socially vulnerable
groups of various kinds, including the elderly in need of care, the mentally and physically disabled,
the over-indebted, substance addicts and the homeless. Several of these institutions are national
organisations with local branches, such as the Salvation Army and the Mental Health Care Service.
Others are locally based, such as Social Work and the CVD (Centre for Services). The social care
providers are mainly financed by the local authorities, which have acquired growing autonomy in
the implementation of various parts of local welfare policy. A national insurance (AWBZ) covers
specific needs not covered by the regular health insurance, on an individual basis.
The groups addressed by social care providers also have a say in the policies and practice of the
institutions that assist and guide them. Based on 1996 legislation, clients of institutions for care,
ranging from hospitals to childcare centres and including institutions for the homeless, are organised in client boards. These boards function as advisory boards for the management of the institutions concerned, giving advice from a client’s perspective. They are increasingly involved in the
early stage of policy development. Experience from the CVD’s Client Board for Homeless People
shows successful involvement, but also instability due to the outflow of clients who have, e.g., reintegrated in a regular way of living. Recruitment of volunteers among homeless people proves to be
difficult.
2 - 32
The social housing system
In the Netherlands, 35 per cent of the housing stock is social rented housing. In Rotterdam this
share is almost 55 per cent and only a quarter of the housing stock is owner-occupied. This is said
to be one of the main causes of selective migration of low-income groups to the city.
However, the large percentages demonstrate that the social sector caters to a broad layer of the
population. It consists of various dwelling types (although flats are most common), sizes, prices
and quality, housing a wide range of income groups. The houses are owned and managed by
‘authorised institutions’, almost exclusively housing associations.
Since the abolition of subsidies in 1989, housing associations have become private institutions
functioning within the public framework of the Housing Act. They have accumulated sufficient financial resources to carry out dwelling construction and rehabilitation. Housing associations are
required to give priority to allocating social rental housing to people on low incomes, the so-called
primary target group. The regular allocation system of social housing requires an active response
from eligible dwelling seekers to the vacant dwellings offered. A system of income-related personal
housing allowances enables the lowest income groups to live independently in social rented housing. Supported housing and nursing homes for the elderly are also considered to be part of the
regular housing system.
People who are eligible, but not able to acquire a dwelling without specific guidance, are considered to be ‘special target groups’. These comprise e.g. the homeless and people sleeping rough,
the mentally disabled, (former) drug and alcohol addicts, (former) psychiatric patients, people recently discharged from prison and institutions, and other groups on the margins of society. Housing
provision for these groups is implemented through agreements between the local authorities, housing associations and social care providers. The private rental sector is hardly involved in the housing provision for ‘special target groups’, although there are intentions to change this situation.
Good practice in addressing the needs of ‘special target groups’
Provision of housing for ‘special target groups’ requires close cooperation, in contrast to the regular
provision of housing for lower-income groups, where the housing associations are the main actors.
The housing associations provide both independent dwellings and buildings for collective accommodation, such as short stay facilities and social boarding houses. They manage the buildings,
whereas the social care providers offer the social guidance. The local authorities are involved particularly in the allocation of the necessary subsidies and sometimes as the formal ‘tenant’ of the
dwellings. They (re-)establish the social benefits relationship with the client, if necessary.
The cooperation between the many actors and the city-wide management of the demand and supply of housing and care for these special target groups is coordinated by a Steering Committee.
This is the subject of the first example of good practice presented in the following pages.
A more concrete trajectory to re-integrate a specific group of homeless people, the (formerly) addicted through a chain approach is described in the fact sheet about the ‘With(out) a Roof’ project.
This trajectory requires close cooperation between the three ‘COOP triangle actors’ and the client
on the shop floor.
Cooperation involving an outreaching approach of people struggling with multi-dimensional problems at home, including risk of housing loss, is described in the third fact sheet about the Local
Care Networks operating in Rotterdam neighbourhoods.
2 - 33
Local Care Networks
Outreaching approach to prevention
LZN
Lokale Zorgnetwerken
Local Care Networks
Rotterdam/ The Netherlands
Responsible agency
Municipal Health Service
GGD Rotterdam e.o.
Postbus 70032
3000 LP Rotterdam
Members in the cooperation
Local Authority: City of Rotterdam
Municipal Health Service (coordination),
Department of Social Affairs and
Employment, Local Police
Housing provider:
housing associations
Social care providers: (depending on the
specific network) Social Work, Care for
the Elderly, Mental Health Care,
Addiction Health Care
Main aim of the activity
Prevention of housing loss
Immediate assistance for
a range of problems
Main type of activity
Outreaching provision of
assistance and advice followed by
monitoring of follow-up aid
Main target groups
People struggling at home with
problems, who do not ask for help
Since 1992
Sites none, but client visits on site
In 2005: 22 networks
(two in formation)
Personal customer contact yes
Links
www.srz-gmbh.com/coop
Problem
People living in regular housing, who have landed in a situation of accumulated problems such as social
isolation, over-indebtedness, mental health problems, drug or alcohol dependency. These problems, if
not addressed, can cause housing loss through eviction or lead to confinement in an institution for mental
care. The problems are often very complex, requiring a variety of assistance. The clients are often not
able to call in or find their way to the appropriate assistance, or sometimes belong to the group of socalled care avoiders who do not seek help.
Solution
Local Care Networks operate at neighbourhood level. Where necessary, they administer a form of
outreaching help, called ‘meddling care’. Clients are approached at their home. Negotiation, persuasion, and, only as a last resort, a small amount of coercion, is used to get access to clients.
People can also turn to the networks for help themselves. The client group is defined broadly, so
that people are not left without help because they do not comply with specific criteria. Each Network
consists of a coordinator, a core group of care workers from the district and the necessary contacts
with other relevant organisations. The core group meets regularly to discuss new cases and to draw
up joint action plans. New cases are usually spotted by one of the network participants, the landlord
(usually a housing association), family or neighbours. If required, immediate action is taken. Care is
provided as much as possible in the immediate living environment of the client. The Network retreats as soon as care for the client is no longer necessary or can be limited to care by one care
provider, but continues to monitor the case for another three months.
Actors
The Municipal Health Service employs the network coordinators and manages the municipal system of
networks, involving coordinators’ meetings. Municipal district councils and some housing associations
contribute to the costs of, for example, accommodation. The Department of Social Affairs may guarantee
clients’ rent payments. Housing associations function as problem detectors and cooperate in maintaining
the rent contract. The district police (‘local bobby’) are important intermediaries. Other members of the
core group and other care providers operate within the scope of their working field.
Added value and strong points of partnership
The holistic and outreaching approach, and fast coordinated action, has a strong preventive effect. It is effective for the client, who is guided through the ‘institutional jungle’, and efficient for the various care providers because clients no longer need to ‘shop’ for help. The joint approach increases the chance of success through mutual support and learning of the partners involved. Housing providers save money by
avoiding eviction procedures and securing rent payments. Help for the client can prevent or end nuisance
in the neighbourhood and fosters neighbours’ acceptance for his situation.
Weak points
Due to the economic recession, resources available have been reduced and participating organisations
are obliged to economise. This makes organisations reluctant to spend unpaid time in Local Care
Network meetings. Some organisations have retreated, at the expense of the strength and scope of the
Network. Another weak point is, that private landlords are not involved in the cooperation.
Key success factors
Local Care Networks are efficient and effective through their out-reaching approach, their flexibility and
their focus on prevention. They enjoy strong political support because they contribute to the ‘safe and
sound’ policy which is currently at the focal point of local policy attention.
2 - 34
Steering Committee
Matching housing provision, care provision and needs
Stuurgroep Huisvesting
Bijzondere Doelgroepen
Steering Committee
Rotterdam / The Netherlands
Secretary
Maaskoepel
PO Box 29269
3001 GD Rotterdam
Members in the cooperation
Local Authority: City of Rotterdam, especially the Department of Urban Planning, Housing and Traffic, the Department of Social Affairs and Employment,
and the Municipal Health Care Service
Housing providers: 10 Rotterdam
housing associations that are
represented by the Maaskoepel
Social care providers: about 25 institutions, each for one or more specific
target groups
Main aim of the activity
Housing provision
Coordination of housing provision and
accompanying social care
Main type of activity
Listing housing demand of social care
providers and monitoring the realized
supply;
Matching supply and demand of housing
and care for risk groups;
Inclusion of regional actors
Main target groups
People who are not able to independently arrange their own housing, e.g.
homeless, addicted people, people
suffering from socio-psychiatric problems, and refugees with a permit to stay
Since 2003
Sites no, one office (secretary)
Personal customer contact no
Number of dwellings provided
Until end of 2004: 287
Until end of 2005: 339 (est.)
Links
www.srz-gmbh.com/coop
Problem
Although there are many suitable cheap rental homes in Rotterdam, finding one can be a problem for
‘risk groups’. There are many house-hunters in competition. It is difficult to find a dwelling on a short term
and self-searching is often unsuccessful (can’t find, won’t get). Sometimes the persons concerned cannot, will not or are not allowed to pay the rent themselves. Sometimes the available dwellings are in the
wrong location. And last but not least, housing is often just one part of the solution. The risk group are
homeless, in a shelter or in an institution and they are not able to rent a room or dwelling on their own due
to lack of personal abilities (e.g. deviant social behaviour), addiction, mental health problems or being
over-indebted. Sometimes they are refused a contract unless personal guidance is guaranteed. Welfare
organisations are continuously in search of adequate dwellings for their clients.
Solution
There are many organisations involved in supporting risk groups. Most of these address one specific group. Most can offer only part of the solution and none of the organisations overlook the
whole field. Many solutions are presented by many organisations, which are sometimes competitive
in their requirements for dwellings, but it is impossible to tell if these requirements add up to the
right level. Thus, the need to cooperate has resulted in cooperation of 25 social care providers with
10 housing associations and 10 municipal organisational parts. This cooperation extends to the authorities at three local governmental levels. The cooperation is led by a Steering Committee, consisting of a limited number of representatives, which attunes the demand for and supply of housing
and care on a city-wide (in future regional) basis.
Actors
The Steering Committee represents local authorities, housing providers and social providers. The Committee points out trends that influence policy development or create bottlenecks in implementation. It deploys its advisory competence to bring developments and bottlenecks to the attention of actors who can
arrange proper measures. The individual partners carry out their core business. The care providers take
stock of the housing needed for their clients. Maaskoepel negotiates the supply of adequate dwellings to
be delivered by housing providers (mainly housing associations) and the social providers arrange support
and care for special needs groups. The local authorities provide funding for several of the social providers
and contribute their own policy for the “basement of the housing market”.
Added value and strong points of partnership
The coordination activities of the Steering Committee increase the actors’ insight into total supply and
demand for housing and accompanying social care, as well as specific housing demands of individual
care providers and the (potential) supply of each housing association. The detailed survey activities of the
Committee improve knowledge of the specific needs of the target groups. This transparency results in
less competition between care providers and leads to more efficient allocation of housing and care. This,
in turn, is less expensive than maintaining people in shelter facilities or institutions.
Weak points
Despite strong consensus on the need for cooperation and matching, supply synchronisation of housing
and care is not easy. Either the dwelling or the necessary social care may not be available when the
other is. Converting policy into supply agreements has proved to be difficult. Care provision is
increasingly problematic due to budget cuts for many social care providers, which is why the necessary
level of support cannot always be arranged the moment the dwelling is delivered.
Key success factors
Through its function as a central point where supply and demand are listed and matched, the Steering
Committee improves knowledge of the number and structure of risk groups on the housing market in
Rotterdam. Improved knowledge enables made-to-measure solutions for the housing and care for
individual dwelling seekers with special needs and enhances allocation efficiency.
2 - 35
With(out) A Roof
Re-housing and re-habilitation of (formerly) addicted people
(Z)Onder Dak
With(out) A Roof
Rotterdam/ The Netherlands
Responsible agency
CVD (former Centre for Services)
PO Box 208
3000 AE Rotterdam
The Netherlands
Members in the cooperation
Local Authority: City of Rotterdam,
mainly the Department of Social Affairs
and Employment (SoZaWe)
Housing providers: Maaskoepel,
umbrella organization of housing
associations in Rotterdam
Social care providers: six institutions
focusing on homelessness, drug addicts
and psychiatric care
Main aim of the activity
Reintegration into (supported) housing
through a holistic
chain approach
Main type of activity
A joint client, care provider, housing
provider and local authority effort by
contract aimed at re-housing,
rehabilitation and normalisation
Main target groups
(Formerly) addicted + homeless people
(‘double-diagnosis group’)
Since 2000
Sites dwellings, boarding houses
Personal customer contact yes
Clients / Residents
June 2005: 275, of whom
84% men, 75% age 30-50
Number of dwellings provided
Until June 2005: 197
Results
Independent rent contract 5%,
other outflow 20%, long-term support
needed 75%
Links:
www.srz-gmbh.com/coop
Problem
Many homeless people in Rotterdam also suffer from drug or alcohol addiction. Apart from being a probable cause of eviction and homelessness, addiction, debt and lifestyle problems obstruct these people's
access to social rental dwellings. Many of these clients continuously occupy places in shelters, and so
obstruct opportunities for other shelter-seekers. In turn, this increases the nuisance and insecurity of
homeless people wandering on the streets. Diminishing this type of nuisance was one of the goals of the
‘Responsibly Clean’ policy of the city government. This policy implies reducing the increase of homeless
people in shelters and creating and improving follow-up opportunities for the target group.
Solution
The project involves a step-by-step approach involving all cooperating actors to reintegrate homeless addicted people frequenting shelters into a regular (supported) housing situation. This includes a combination of housing, training and social guidance. A contract is made up stating the rights and obligations of
both the client and the care provider, making the success of the reintegration efforts a joint responsibility.
After a period of training in a social boarding house, to get used to a more regular lifestyle, the client is
placed in a With(out) A Roof dwelling. The client receives social security benefits from the municipality
(SoZaWe), who withholds rent payments from these benefits to pay these directly to the landlord (a housing association). Guidance continues on site through weekly counsellors’ visits. Guidance is offered with
regard to domestic skills, restrained drug consumption, dealing with spare time, and establishing and restoring social contacts.. If the client does well, guidance is gradually decreased in time. In the end, an independent rent agreement may even be established, implying full reintegration. However, should the client relapse into his old behaviour, a temporary move back to a social boarding house is possible. Thus,
clients can move forward and backward in the chain approach.
Actors
The different actors each carry out their core business, but there is a shared responsibility for the clients.
Care providers select, motivate and match the residents, and provide the required counselling. Maaskoepel coordinates the provision of an agreed number of social rental dwellings from the available stock
of housing associations. COHAR, a section of the Centre for Services (CVD) delivers the maintenance of
the dwellings provided. SoZaWe is the tenant of the houses.
Added value and strong points of partnership
The project consists of a chain approach of a holistic nature including housing, social, medical, legal and
domestic care. The focus on the client’s possibilities and empowerment means that he/she has the key to
success in his/her own hands. The contract embodies a persuasion-coercion-safety net, enabling the client to move forward, but also backward in the chain approach. Thus, the client does not ‘disappear’ if a
relapse into former behaviour occurs. A unique housing opportunity and normalisation in the local community is provided for a difficult and stigmatised target group. Housing with support is less expensive than
shelter facilities, and there are potential savings on nuisance control. Finally, the landlords’ rent proceeds
are secured.
Weak points
Lack of a uniform registration of input and output of the project makes assessment of efficiencies difficult.
The success of the project is limited by the available funds for social care. The project does not remove
the causes of homelessness, thus, new clients continue to emerge.
Key success factors
The project has a well-established chain approach that creates housing opportunities for a difficult target
group. It provides a safety net that prevents the client from falling out of the programme if a relapse occurs. Contracts exact strong client participation and foster empowerment, which are key factors for the
successful reintegration into a more or less regular housing situation.
2 - 36
The Dutch Team:
Transferable lessons
The Netherlands is a country fortunate enough to dispose of a sound housing stock and wide possibilities for housing
and care provision to diverse groups at risk. Nevertheless, the exchange and discussion of examples of good practice
has pointed to several possibilities for improvements, particularly involving the cooperation between actors, and ranging
from some basic thoughts about approaches to be followed to concrete practical solutions. Four main issues come to the
fore. The first is a greater involvement of the private rental sector in both the provision of housing for ‘special target
groups’ and the prevention of housing loss. The second is a more centralised intake of clients and allocation of forms of
housing and care, which not only improves efficiency and effectiveness in addressing the clients’ needs, but also contributes to a greater insight into the scope of the problem and the services needed. The third is a greater involvement of
volunteer workers in ambulant care, people who are or feel close to the clients. Voluntary work is not only in keeping with
national policy trends, entailing e.g. cost efficiencies, but it is also thought to increase client acceptance of assistance
and to contribute to public support for the rehabilitation of these groups. Fourthly, notwithstanding the local autonomy of
municipalities regarding the provision of care, a framework of general standards for ambulant care is perceived as necessary to guarantee a minimum quality level in all municipalities. But made-to-measure solutions for individuals should
remain possible.
Integrated Support System, Duisburg (D)
Dutch COOP partners recognise the integrated support system, with a central clearing house, as a practice that would
increase the efficiency of getting homeless people to the right place or shelter as quickly as possible. Rotterdam is already working on a system of central and integrated intake. However, the direct provision of appropriate housing, in
accordance with the client’s level of coping, will be more difficult to accomplish in the tight housing market of Rotterdam
than in Duisburg. Added value provided by a central intake system also concerns improved registration and monitoring of
clients and services rendered.
FAWOS, Vienna (A)
Re-integration into a regular housing situation is difficult once the homeless ‘scene’ has been entered. Therefore, preventive action against eviction is important and effective. Prevention of eviction also saves a lot of community money.
Actively approaching people confronted with eviction proceedings, as FAWOS (A) does, could certainly provide an
added value to the preventive measures in operation in Rotterdam. The obligation for the court to report all requested
evictions to a central point is a factor that should be transferred to the Netherlands, even if it means legislative amendments. In Rotterdam, an institution such as Maaskoepel should be appointed to manage the reports and distribute these
to the appropriate care and support providers. This practice also increases insight into the numbers of pending evictions,
including those in the private rental sector, which is more difficult to penetrate than the social sector. General registration
will also lead to more uniformity in ‘last chance’ policy, independent of the landlord.
IRIS Social Rental Agency, Brussels (B)
Involving the private rental sector would mean a welcome increase of opportunities to house special target groups. In
Rotterdam, such additional opportunities would be most suitable for the relatively ‘light cases’, particularly at the outset.
The attractive components of the Brussels practice are the agreements drawn up between local authorities, private landlord(s), care providers (and the client), guaranteeing rent payments (by the local authorities), repair of damages to the
house and provision of guidance of the resident. Such agreements provide mutual benefits for all participants. In the
Dutch context, establishing a completely new institution comparable with the Social Rental Agency is not necessary. All
requirements can be provided by institutions and funding already available. COOP national partners felt that the agreement should cover a fixed period, after which the case is reconsidered. As in the Belgian example, enabling the tenant to
conclude an independent rent contract should remain the objective.
Soziale Wohnraumhilfe, Hanover (D)
Building new homes and rebuilding old ones specially for homeless people and taking their special needs into consideration, is an approach that deserves more attention in the Netherlands. The approach entails specific attention being paid
to these groups and comprises a new form of civil society entrepreneurship. Dutch housing associations could and
should include specific target groups in their plans for new developments and urban neighbourhoods to be restructured.
While there are many good initiatives and plans, realisation proves to be a stubborn and slow. Aspects of the Hanover
practice considered unsuitable for the Dutch and Rotterdam context are the exclusion of addicted people and the ‘open
end’ character of the model. The service should encompass a stimulus to move on to a ‘normal’ housing situation wherever possible, so that the ‘special dwellings’ again become available for new clients.
2 - 37
St. Anne’s Detoxification Service, Leeds (UK)
Making a distinction between alcohol misuse and drugs misuse and between youngsters and elderly alcohol misusers,
when dealing with care and housing provision for substance misusers, is a lesson to be learnt in Rotterdam. The opportunity for (former) alcohol abusers to return to their own home after treatment, and to rehabilitate in their neighbourhood
with the help of floating support is the main added value to be derived from the Leeds practice. Also, the commitment of
voluntary workers especially in the residential detoxification programme fits in with new Dutch national and local programmes for sustaining the civil society by engaging citizens to take care of each other. These programmes are related
to the current process of de-institutionalisation of welfare in the Netherlands. The costs are expected to be lower than
the “carrousel of care” that some clients have to experience.
Nowell Court & Floating support, Leeds (UK)
In Rotterdam shelter for women with children mainly focuses on domestic violence and teenage mothers, such as the
facility “Het Roer”. A key value, as in other UK examples, is the involvement of the Floating Support system, which contributes to the empowerment of the women. The Supporting People System, introduced in the Netherlands, could provide a national standard and control mechanism for dealing with risk groups. Strategic choices made by local authorities,
would then remain within these standards.
Leeds Refugee and Asylum Service, Leeds (UK)
Continued care for refugees after they have acquired housing decreases the risk of housing loss later on. The draft refugee integration strategy, an initiative taken in the Leeds practice, is a transferable lesson for Dutch policy makers. The
fact that the limited available funds of the LRAS for continued care prove to be an important obstacle, forms another
lesson to be learnt. Adoption requires (policy) acknowledgement of the fact that it takes time for people to settle. In the
Netherlands / Rotterdam, there is a lot of care available specially for people who have the status of ‘asylum-seeker’ and
live in housing rented by the Social Service or the national organisation for asylum-seekers (COA). Having acquired a
permit to stay, refugees find or are provided with permanent housing and are supposed to use the regular welfare organisations, when necessary. Some people, however, are not able to find their way to the appropriate care provider.
Their number is bound to increase in the near future. Strong policy efforts put into action recently, will soon shorten legal
procedures, which until now have usually been very long. This means that the period of care and learning is also shortened. A shift of funding from asylum-seekers to refugees could make specific guidance possible for those who need it.
Wohndrehscheibe, Vienna (A)
An information and support centre for people who for diverse reasons lack the knowledge, language skills or other skills
for independent house hunting could supplement activities already undertaken by housing associations in Rotterdam
and ‘Steunpunt Wonen’, an organisation designed to support residents and dwelling seekers. The centre could cater to
ethnic minorities as well as to people with a low level of education and certain elderly people. In the Dutch context the
service need not focus on migrants and the private rental sector. Asylum seekers are provided with housing for the duration of their legal proceedings. Foreigners have the same rights as nationals to (social) housing, provided their presence
is not illegal. Added value is seen in the ‘buddy’ approach and the focus on empowerment, with workers who connect
with the clients through similar background features.
Darzybor Settlement – BARKA Foundation (P) and Brno Reconstruction of Council Housing (CZ)
The Dutch national partners appreciate the active involvement of tenants in the (re)construction of houses for the tenants
themselves. Several (local) institutions are developing plans to do something comparable, e.g. renovation of houses. But
there is still a long way to go before such initiatives become reality in The Netherlands.
Relation to National Action Plans for Social Inclusion (NAP)
The first Dutch NAP (2001) formulated a strategy to achieve a cohesive local package of provisions aimed at prevention,
shelter, enablement (of people to function at their own level) and recovery: activities promoting to live (as) independently
(as possible). In the second NAP (2003), measures addressing the homeless and people at risk of becoming homeless
are reduced to the increase of social relief capacity, particularly for vagrant youths and women. The improvement of the
position of the most vulnerable people mainly aims at close collaboration between care and reintegration into the labour
process. However, the NAP 2003 remains relatively silent about trajectories to re-house homeless people and the availability of appropriate housing as an important strategy for social inclusion. The target in NAP 2001 on the prevention of
eviction, mainly by tackling debts and psycho-social problems, does not recur in the NAP 2003. It is argued that sufficient relevant measures to this aim are already in operation. The lessons from COOP examples demonstrate, however,
that measures and targets for preventing loss of housing and re-housing the homeless are always important to prevent
exclusion and deserve a firm place and even further elaboration in national action plans for social inclusion. The NAPs
have maintained a focus on better registration and monitoring for assessment of needs and services provided for vulnerable people. The COOP lessons learnt about this issue are in line with this focal point and form valuable additions.
2 - 38
Context
Leeds (The United Kingdom)
Population
Total (2001): 715,402
Age breakdown (2001):
0-15 years: 20%
16-29: 20%
30-59: 40%
60 years or older: 20%
Ethnicity (2001):
White: 91.85%
Mixed: 1.35%
Chinese: 0.48%
Asian or Asian British: 4.51%
Black or Black British: 1.44%
Other: 1.44%
Individuals receiving social benefits
(2003): 112,646 (15.75%)
Unemployment rate (2003): 2.80%
Households
Total (2003): 296,703
Households receiving social
benefits (2003): 23.02%
(47% of households on benefits contain
people exclusively over 60)
Average household size: 2.41
Housing Stock
Total number of dwellings (2003): 310,919
(4.6% unoccupied)
Council housing: 21%
Housing associations: 4%
Private rental: 13%
Private owner-occupied: 62%
Social context of the city
Leeds is the second largest metropolitan local authority in England, covering 562 square kilometres with a population of 715,402 (2001 Census) and is the capital of the Yorkshire and Humber
region. Until the 1990s, Leeds was a declining manufacturing city however, following substantial
investment, it is now an economically and culturally successful city with low levels of unemployment and a concentration of wealth (jobs and residential property) in the city centre. Major sectors
include manufacturing, service sectors, financial and business sector and legal services. However, despite this renaissance, many people still remain socially excluded and six wards in Leeds
are among the lowest 10 per cent of deprived neighbourhoods in England and Wales.
In 2001, the Leeds Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy was launched to attempt to narrow the gap
between the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods of Leeds and the rest of the city. Whilst only 3%
of the population are formally registered as unemployed, 23% of households receive social benefits although half of these are older people. In terms of diversity, Leeds is very similar to the UK
average with 8% of the Leeds population being from Black and Minority Ethnic groups. In addition,
Yorkshire and Humber region is a dispersal area for asylum seekers in the UK, supporting over
10,000 people since 2000, with Leeds supporting over 2,000 people at any one time.
The social care system
Leeds Social Services Department, as with all UK local authorities, are responsible for providing
social care services to children at risk of abuse and to vulnerable adults, including disabled people, people with severe mental health problems, people with learning difficulties and older people.
The Health Authority, via five Primary Care Trusts, works closely with social services departments
to deliver health and social care services (for example, in providing psychiatric inpatient and community support). Social services and health services together deliver ‘community care’ services to
people in their own homes, in public and private residential settings and hospital. Resource constraints mean that those with high level and crisis needs are prioritised.
Lower level ‘support’ needs are addressed through a separate framework of Supporting People
services. This framework has been in place since 2003, both nationally and locally, in recognition
that many people living in unstable housing circumstances may require support as well as appropriate housing. Leeds Supporting People services are delivered through a partnership of the local
authority, Probation, voluntary sector and housing providers. The services aim to improve people’s
quality of life and promote independence by the provision of housing-related support (e.g. budgeting, accessing benefits) to people living in their own homes, irrespective of tenure (and including
some group living and hostel arrangements). Client groups include all vulnerable groups, including
homeless people, those with drug or alcohol problems, ex-offenders, young people at risk, older
people and disabled people. There are a total of 12,415 units/ bed spaces funded through Supporting People, approximating to 1.7 per cent of the Leeds population.
The social housing system
As in the UK as a whole, owner occupation is the dominant tenure in Leeds although the proportion of home owners is slightly less than the average for England and Wales (62% compared with
68% in England and Wales), the proportion of tenants is slightly higher than the average with 21%
renting from the council (13% in England and Wales); 4% renting from housing associations also
known as registered social landlords (RSLs) (6% in England and Wales) and 13% renting from
private landlords (12% in England and Wales). Leeds, like many other local authorities, has recently transferred the management of its housing stock to ‘Arms Length Management Organisations’ (ALMOs) although the local authority retains some housing functions.
Leeds, like all local housing authorities in the UK (since 1977), has a statutory duty to provide
permanent housing for homeless households in ‘priority need’ (those with children and certain vulnerable households). Whilst this legislation has been recently extended to cover a larger range of
2 - 39
vulnerable groups (for example, people leaving prison, 16 and 17 year olds), many single homeless people do not qualify for help. Homelessness applications have risen from 5717 households
in 2001/2 to 8906 in 2003/4. The main reasons for homelessness are domestic violence; relationship breakdown; friends and relatives no longer able to accommodate and leaving National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation. In England and Wales, the Homelessness Act 2002
requires housing authorities to review homelessness provision, including preventative measures,
and to develop homelessness strategies.
Leeds operates a Housing Register which is utilised by its ALMOs and 14 housing associations. A
Choice Based Lettings system is also in operation. Approximately 50% of lettings are made to
homeless households (compared to 10% in 2001).
Average weekly rents (2004) in Leeds were €74 in housing associations; €55 for council housing
and €103 in the private rented sector. Housing Benefit (social sector) and Local Housing Allowances (private sector) provide financial assistance with rent for those on low incomes.
Good practice in addressing the needs of ‘special target groups’
The importance of cooperation in addressing the needs of vulnerable groups in Leeds is recognised with a number of city-wide forums and steering groups. In particular, the Leeds Housing
Partnership brings together key players to oversee housing and neighbourhood issues including
the provision of supported housing for vulnerable groups. Strategic links also exist into the formal
health and social services although these are less commonly formalised at the operational level;
St Anne’s Alcohol Services is a case study where different agencies across key sectors have
worked together to deliver services. The provision of ‘floating support’ to people in their own tenancies, mainly through Supporting People funding, is the most important part of preventative and
resettlement services in Leeds (and nationally): both Nowell Court, a service for women at risk,
and St Anne’s, incorporate this into their service provision. Migration and asylum remain highly political issues and the successful housing and re-integration of asylum seekers, and the development of socially cohesive communities is a major challenge; here, a large cooperation, led by the
Leeds Refugee and Asylum Service, has been established to deliver effective services across
housing, health, social services and education. These good practice examples are illustrative of
the key dimensions of joint working in Leeds and in the UK.
All case studies resonate well with the UK National Action Plan for Social Inclusion 2003-5 with its
focus on decent housing, the preventative Supporting People programme and other measures designed to address homelessness, including the importance of addressing the needs of women facing relationship breakdown as a result of domestic violence.
2 - 40
St Anne’s Alcohol Services
Cooperation form for prevention
St Anne’s Alcohol services
Leeds, UK
Responsible agency
St Anne’s Community Services
Head Office
6 St Mark's Avenue
Leeds, LS2 9BN
England
Members in the cooperation
Local Authority: Leeds City Council
Housing providers: Leeds Arms Length
Management Organisations (ALMOs),
St Anne’s supported accommodation,
housing associations, private landlords
Social care provider: St Anne’s
Community Services, Leeds Social
Services Department, Leeds Primary
Care Trusts
Main aim of the activity
Avoiding housing loss (prevention)
and resettlement
Main type of activity
Provision of intensive residential
rehabilitation and follow-on housing
floating support
Main target groups
People with alcohol problems (100%),
irrespective of housing status
(11% homeless in 2004).
Both men and women (40% women)
Since 1976 (detoxification & rehabilitation); 1998 (floating housing support)
Sites residential and service to people in
their own homes
Employees 1 manager, 1 deputy manager, 7.4 nursing staff, 11.1 alcohol
support workers, 2 administrative workers,
1 cook and 1 cleaner
Personal customer contact Yes
Average customers/year 98 (rehab);
31 floating support - 2003
Links
www.st-annes.org.uk
www.srz-gmbh.com/coop/
Problem
Alcohol dependency can place some individuals at risk of losing their home, through relationship breakdown and/or increasing difficulties in managing a home (both tenancies and mortgages).
Solution
A combination of residential accommodation and floating support. St Anne’s has a 7 bed detoxification unit and a 20 bed residential rehabilitation centre offering a 13 week programme to address
alcohol dependency issues and promote independence. In addition, an alcohol floating support
service to support people who have completed rehabilitation but require some ongoing support to
re-establish themselves in homes and the wider community. The service enables vulnerable people to maintain tenancies due to reduction in alcohol dependency, increased life-skills and time
limited follow-on support. In 2003/4, 78% of homeless people using the service both completed
their alcohol treatment and were resettled successfully. All of the 31 households receiving floating
support in 2003 maintained their tenancies. The service can prevent hospital admissions and the
need for long-term support.
Actors
St Anne’s Community Services, a voluntary organization, is the lead provider, responsible for the
detoxification, rehabilitation and floating support service. Five Leeds Primary Care Trusts pay for
the detoxification centre. Leeds Social Services Department provides funding for the rehabilitation
centre and has shared responsibility for strategic direction. Supporting People (a national programme allocated by the local authority) funds the floating support service. The Arm’s Length
Management Organisations (that manage local authority housing stock) are the main housing providers, although people also move onto housing association properties, private landlords and
owner occupation. Long-term supported accommodation is provided for a minority of very vulnerable individuals via St Anne’s or other specialist providers.
Added value and strong points of partnership
The cooperation provides a holistic approach, helping individuals manage their alcohol dependency and
assisting them to regain control of their lives through support with social networks, employment or training and maintaining or re-establishing a home. The St Anne’s floating support service will provide support to people leaving the rehabilitation centre irrespective of housing provider, working with private
land-lords, housing associations, Arms Length Management Organisations and people living in the family home. Landlords are more willing to re-house people with high support needs because of the provision of on-going support by St Anne’s Service user involvement and empowerment is central to St
Anne’s Alcohol (e.g. Services users participate in the recruitment and selection of staff). A Ser-vice Improvement Group (involving key actors and users) is in place.
Weak points
The floating housing support is the least formalized part of the partnership and it can still be difficult to
find customers appropriate move-on accommodation when required. In 2005, the viability of the service
was threatened due to funding difficulties from the commissioning bodies, with the result that there has
been a reduction in detoxification and rehabilitation beds (7 to 3 and 20 to 17 beds, respectively). As
with all service users, St Anne’s is not able to provide a service to homeless street drinkers unless they
demonstrate a commitment to addressing alcohol misuse issues. Due to limited places, the service is
not able to respond relatively quickly to changes in demand for the service.
Key success factors
The ability to work with a range of health and social care providers, all housing providers (including private landlords) and service users in various tenures (including owner occupation). The service is embedded in the local homelessness, community care and social services strategies.
2 - 41
Leeds Refugee and Asylum Service
Cooperation form for housing provision / resettlement
Leeds Refugee and Asylum
Service (LRAS)
Leeds, UK
155 Kirkstall Road
Leeds
LS4 2AG
England
Responsible agency
Leeds City Council
Members in the cooperation
Local Authority: Leeds City Council
Housing provider: Leeds Arms Length
Management Organisations & private
sector landlords (asylum seekers); above
and housing associations (refugees)
Social care provider: Leeds Social Services Department; 5 Primary Care Trusts;
Refugee Community Organisations;
voluntary sector
Others: Regional Consortia; Legal
services; Immigration Service;
Education Service
Main aim of the activity
Provision of housing/ resettlement to
enable longer term integration
of refugees into the UK
Main type of activity
Provision of appropriate housing,
subsistence and support
Main target groups
Asylum seekers and refugees
Since 1999
Sites One office but works across city
Employees (LRAS) 37 (12 FTE)
Personal customer contact Yes
Average customers/year 1,100 new
households (2004); over 2,500 households supported at one time
Links
www.leeds.gov.uk
www.srz-gmbh.com/coop
Problem
Increasing numbers of asylum seekers and refugees arriving in the UK with no accommodation and few
skills with which to obtain a settled home and access to other core services such as health and education. A concentration of most asylum seekers in London.
Solution
A central government policy of dispersal of asylum seekers across the UK (National Asylum Support Service (NASS)). At a local level, Leeds local authority was given an ‘enabling role’ as part of
Regional Consortia arrangements in resettling asylum seekers. Whilst this role was not defined
nationally, Leeds City Council proactively responded to this by developing cooperative mechanisms via the Leeds Refugee and Asylum Service (LRAS).
Actors
Leeds City Council is the lead partner in this cooperative partnership, being responsible for the delivery of LRAS. Interim housing is provided via Leeds Arms Length Management Organisations
(ALMOs) (who manage the local authority housing stock) and three private sector landlords, with a
full range of housing providers involved in final resettlement, including housing associations providing floating support funded by Supporting People. Social care providers include Leeds Social
Services Department and Primary Care Trusts. Voluntary sector organizations are also key partners, including diverse Refugee Community Organisations (RCOs), as well as education and legal
services.
Added value and strong points of partnership
A strategic commitment to joint working by Leeds City Council. The co-operation is not formalized by
service agreements making it more flexible and responsive to meeting service users’ needs. Wellattended partnership meetings with sub-group structures. Strong inter-agency links with social care providers. Leeds Social Services Department funds a specialist asylum seekers team and the local Primary
Care Trust funds a Health Access Team, both located within the housing-led LRAS. Considerable preplanning and information given to public/ liaison with community representatives before housing of asylum seekers. Because of joint working, a holistic response to the needs of asylum seekers is achieved.
A care plan is drawn up by LRAS with input from other agencies. At all stages, service users are encouraged to identify their needs and support workers attempt to maximize the (limited) choices available
to them. The cooperation is well placed to respond to changes in demand (e.g. housing is dispersed
around the city), although national funding restricts this flexibility.
Weak points
At present, under national rules, asylum seekers are not allowed to stay in their placed accommodation
when they are accepted as refugees. LRAS, working with the local authority housing department and
housing associations, have to attempt to resettle the households at this point. Some housing
associations (e.g. Ridings HA) provide both housing and floating support to refugees but until very
recently there was no city-wide provision and some housing (particularly in the private sector) will be of
variable quality. However, a Refugee Integration Strategy for Leeds is presently being drafted and
Leeds City Council has just been awarded one of only four national ‘Sunrise’ pilots (Strategic Upgrade
of National Refugee Integration Services). From October 2005, a team of caseworkers will work with
both individuals and groups in Leeds and Sheffield, in close consultation with service users and other
key pro-viders, to support refugees with all aspects of resettlement for up to one year.
Key success factors
It is a good practice mainly because LRAS has successfully engaged a very wide range of key players
in the task of resettling asylum seekers and refugees, despite potential political sensitivities. The
cooperation has some formal arrangements but is also flexible and responsive.
2 - 42
Nowell Court
Cooperation form for re-housing
Nowell Court
Supported Accommodation
Leeds, UK
Responsible agency
The Ridings Housing Association
205 Roundhay Road
Leeds, LS8 4HS
Members in the cooperation
Local Authority: Leeds City Council
Housing and Social Care Provider: The
Ridings Housing Association
Main aim of the activity
Housing and resettlement for women
Main type of activity
Provision of supported accommodation
and preparation and support for move to
permanent accommodation
Main target groups
Women with children (or who are pregnant)
Since 1996/97
Sites one (plus follow-on support)
Employees 9 full time equivalent project
workers
2 deputy project managers
1 project manager
Personal customer contact Yes
Average customers per year
66 (22 units of accommodation,
average stay 4 months)
Links
http://www.theridingsha.org.uk/
http://www.srz-gmbh.com/coop
Problem
In the early 1990s Leeds City Council recognised that there was a shortage of high quality intermediate
accommodation with support for homeless women with children and approached The Ridings to develop accommodation together with high intensity housing management and support specifically and
exclusively for this group.
Solution
Provision of high quality self-contained accommodation and support. An initial assessment is
undertaken when a family moves in, this focuses on immediate concerns, for example benefits,
childcare concerns and schooling; legal issues such as injunctions against partners; drug, alcohol
and mental health issues; and debt – particularly rent arrears which make the household ineligible
for re-housing. Support workers help service users in-house but can refer them to more specialist
agencies if necessary and can provide translators and interpreters for the growing proportion of
clients who are not English speakers. The support is intended to provide households with the resources to successfully sustain permanent tenancies and thus to avoid repeat homeless-ness.
Families are moved on into assured tenancies with the local authority or other social landlords.
Support staff can continue to provide support for a short time after re-housing and will then refer
households to relevant services if they require ongoing support to maintain their tenancies. The
Ridings provides a floating support service for its own tenants. Nowell Court staff work with local
authority staff to optimise the use of the scheme for its users (who otherwise might not be able to
use the system optimally). Nowell Court aims to make about 50% of moves to permanent accommodation with an assured or secure tenancy.
Actors
The actors include Leeds City Council as funder (through Supporting People) and key referral
source, other voluntary and statutory social care providers such as social services, Women’s Aid,
Leeds Addiction Units as well as The Ridings provide housing and support The Ridings Housing
Association. The current co-operation is a formal agreement, regulated by contract, between the
local authority Supporting People Team and The Ridings.
Added value and strong points of partnership
The contractual arrangement requires that the activities of the service are monitored, evaluated and reviewed regularly. This includes collection of data on referrals and admissions, demographic characteristics of service users, and outcomes. The service is required to conduct a self-assessment based on a
quality assessment framework and this is then validated by the Supporting People Team which visits
the project and checks that the self-assessment is a true reflection of the position and quality of the service. The project is part of the local Homelessness Strategy. The Supporting People Team assesses
the strategic relevance of the service. If any service, however efficient and effective, is not strategically
relevant then it will be considered unnecessary and will not be commissioned. The team also looks at
value for money.
Weak points
The contractual agreement means that there is little flexibility e.g. in the way the service is delivered,
although there are opportunities for discussion periodically. The success of the project depends on the
availability of sufficient, appropriate housing in suitable areas (e.g. away from abusive ex-partners).
Key success factors
The close working relationship between Nowell Court and housing providers, via the local authority
‘Leeds Homes’ housing register, is key to its success, as is the funding provided under the Supporting
People programme.
2 - 43
Team United Kingdom:
Transferable lessons
Introduction
Overall, the UK has an established and relatively extensive housing and social care sector to support people who are
unable to find and maintain independent housing. Involvement in COOP has reassured us that the system operates
according to important principles and good practices (such as user involvement and a holistic approach) and that the
value of cooperative working practices are both acknowledged and encouraged. In particular, the UK National Action
Plan on Social Inclusion 2003-5 stressed the importance of the Supporting People programme in supporting vulnerable
households in their own homes (utilised by all of the UK case studies), as well as national and local level strategies on
tackling homelessness. However, in common with many other countries, the provision of adequate housing remains a
problem in the UK and this limits many cooperative ventures. In addition, COOP has pointed to a number of ways that
our system could be improved or strengthened. However, whilst some lessons could be relatively easily transferred,
others would require a radical restructuring of housing and social systems which would not be realistic, at least in the
short to medium term. Transferable lessons include:
•
The importance of coordinated early intervention and prevention initiatives to ensure that people at housing
risk are supported to address a range of problems so that they do not become homeless or further socially
excluded. The UK National Action Plan, and national policy more generally, acknowledges the need for
preventative measures but services are still underdeveloped in many areas. Further, preventative services
need to involve effective joint working if they are to prove successful.
•
COOP good practice examples have indicated that other Western European countries have much clearer
lines of responsibility for housing and social care tasks than the UK. In countries such as Austria and
Germany, housing providers tend to provide housing, and social work agencies deliver support and care.
However, in the UK, housing providers often deliver both housing and support, whilst ‘care’ is delivered via a
separate organisational and funding framework. A blurring of ‘housing’, ‘support’ and ‘care’ tasks is
experienced. Whilst many housing providers have worked creatively within this framework, it also sometimes
leads to a more complex set of organisational arrangements than may be necessary, in turn impeding
coordination efforts. Clearer lines of responsibility could simplify the system for both provider and client.
•
The coordinated delivery of services at neighbourhood level appears to be more successfully implemented in
some European countries than the UK. The UK NAP/Inclusion highlights the clear strategic lead at local
authority/ city level, and the considerable area-based interventions in deprived neighbourhoods under the
National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal , however at a local authority level many services work to
different geographical boundaries making coordination more difficult. Whilst, again, there is movement
towards local delivery of services, this presently is in its infancy and would not be able to deliver a service
such as the Local Care Networks.
•
Some services need to recognise further the strengths and skills of many people who are experiencing
housing and social difficulties, as well as helping them address personal and structural difficulties. It is
acknowledged in the UK that good practice should foster empowerment of the client rather than reliance on
potentially paternalistic services, but again further work is still required in this area. On the other hand, it also
has to be recognised that some people may require low level ongoing support to maintain a certain level of
independence.
•
The UK has a number of well-developed systems for the regulation and monitoring of services for vulnerable
people, however where providers have to work within a number of frameworks this can take up time that
could otherwise be spent on service delivery. Regulation is often less well-developed in other countries. It
appears that a middle-way effective but streamlined regulatory framework is required. It is noted that the UK
NAP/Inclusion 2003-5 highlights that new performance indicators will be introduced for Supporting People
services in 2005.
Transferable lessons from good practice
Three good practice examples from COOP were selected by the UK team for their potential to add value to the delivery
of coordinated services for households at risk of housing loss:
FAWOS, Vienna (A)
In the UK, local housing authorities are now required to produce a homelessness strategy that identifies preventative
strategies to support vulnerable groups from becoming homeless. However preventative services are still in their infancy,
2 - 44
with most preventative services to date focussed on preventing homelessness re-occurrence (through tenancy support).
FAWOS offers a potential model that could be developed nationally to reduce eviction rates which remain a problem in
the UK. At present, there is no service that systematically approaches those served with eviction notices. Advice
agencies exist but these tend to rely on people approaching them for help and there is also no presumption of
intervention in these matters by the court. However, UK courts tend to issue suspended orders before evicting to give
people a chance to address problems, so it is possible that a service of this nature would receive support. It would be
important to extend the service to all those threatened by eviction, including social tenants and owner occupiers, as well
as private tenants; it would also be advantageous to intervene at the earliest stage of legal action. The key value would
be the savings to be made i.e. eviction and re-housing costs and the costs to individuals who would otherwise become
homeless. Also, as FAWOS provides advice about budgeting and benefits etc., it also works to reduce the chances of
tenants facing eviction in the future.
Wohndrehscheibe, Vienna (A)
Nationally in the UK, and locally in Leeds, refugee integration strategies, focused on assisting people to (re-) build their
lives when they receive a positive decision on their asylum claim, are in the early stages of development. At present, the
National Asylum Support Service (NASS) provides formal assistance with housing and subsistence to asylum seekers
whilst they are awaiting a decision but formal resettlement support is minimal once people receive leave to remain (and
have to move on from their NASS accommodation).
However, the Sunrise programme (Strategic Upgrade of National Refugee Integration Services) was launched in
October 2005 to pilot resettlement services for refugees (with Leeds Refugee and Asylum Service as one of the four
pilots).
The Austrian Wohndrehscheibe service could offer a potential service model to assist refugee resettlement in the UK. A
focus on assisting refugees and other migrants to find accommodation for themselves, empowering clients and providing
them with new skills, would fit well with the general UK policy emphasis on rights and responsibilities. Helping refugees
and migrants find housing through traditional housing routes would also assist with public acceptability and community
cohesion policies. Nonetheless, the ‘buddy’ system is likely to be effective in meeting the needs of different refugee
groups and respects the potential for most refugees to assist themselves, complementing the role of refugee community
organizations (RCOs) who play a vital longer term resettlement role (but struggle for funding).
Housing however remains the central need for most refugees to give them a chance to build a new life. In the UK, a
Wohndrehscheibe service would seek to assist people to access both social and private housing. Due to this high level
of transferability and added value, the Ridings Housing Association attempted to secure funding to set up such a
scheme in Leeds. Whilst the first funding attempt was unsuccessful, the Ridings HA also passed on the lessons of the
Wohndrehscheibe service as part of the consultation process for the development of the successful Sunrise pilot
scheme. The principles of the Austrian service could be transferred relatively easily to the UK context. It could also be
cost efficient given the numbers of people who can access the service and the benefits it offers to landlords as well as
refugees.
Local Care Networks (NL)
Presently the UK has a tandem system of care and support: with local social services departments and health authorities
delivering ‘care’ to those with high level needs and housing providers and the voluntary sector delivering ‘support’ to
other groups. However, often individuals do not fit into these neat categories and may need both care and support, but
only receive one or neither of the two. The local care networks could offer a number of benefits: they aim to work with
people with complex needs who do not readily fit into one service’s remit; at the same time they appear to function more
effectively and efficiently than similar localized networks in the UK which tend to be overly bureaucratic; and finally, they
offer a preventative service to help people sustain tenancies (similar to Supporting People services but again with a
broader remit), fitting into present UK priorities of early intervention as well as addressing neighbourhood level tensions
and anti-social behaviour. Transferring the networks to the UK context would however represent a challenge as present
funding, legal and regulatory frameworks would need modification. Further, the present emphasis on ‘meddling care’ sits
uneasily alongside principles of empowerment and would also need to be modified.
2 - 45
Lessons learnt and policy implications
Introduction
This final chapter begins with a brief discussion of the main conclusions before going on to present the lessons learnt
from the COOP project. These lessons relate both to the cooperation forms and, though to a lesser degree, the quality
and delivery of services. Reference is made throughout the chapter to the EC Social Inclusion Process, especially the
activities within the Open Method of Cooperation1 (OMC) in order to contribute to the process of streamlining the OMC.
The chapter concludes with a number of policy recommendations and suggestions for further action and research.
Conclusions
The triangle of cooperation between actors
The COOP project has demonstrated the effectiveness of a triangle model of cooperation between local authorities,
housing providers and social care providers in meeting the needs of vulnerable people. The provision of secure housing,
care, and support in sustaining accommodation are inseparable components of interventions designed to meet housing
need among vulnerable groups. The examples of cooperation highlighted the importance of good working relationships
between the agencies providing housing and social care, local authorities, which play a key role in facilitating (and in
some cases providing) services, and customers. Close collaboration and good cooperation between the actors have
been shown to be important if vulnerable groups are to be reintegrated successfully into permanent independent housing
situations and mainstream society, and if they are to avoid homelessness (primary and/or secondary episodes). Cooperations also have an important role in meeting the needs of those who are not yet ready, or who are unable, to live
independently or fully participate in mainstream economic and social life.
The 17 examples of services delivered through various cooperative forms, assessed in the COOP project, include interventions aimed at: preventing housing losses; providing permanent housing; providing support to maintain accommodation; providing information and advice, and the empowerment of clients in housing issues. Most of the examples embrace a multidimensional approach, working with a range of agencies to meet the needs of their customer group. Some
of these interventions are site based and work with a relatively small number of customers at any one time, some are
based in a number of locations while others work on a city wide level and deal with large numbers of people.
The triangle model, the work of the cooperations and the range of services they deliver, reflect and support European
objectives and priorities. The Council of the European Union highlights the importance of a multi-dimensional approach which mobilises all relevant bodies and a wide range of policies (including housing policy) in preventing social
exclusion, poverty and in mitigating life crises which can result in homelessness.2
1
2
Member States co-ordinate their policies for combating poverty and social exclusion on the basis of an 'Open Method of Co-ordination' .
Council of the European Union (2002) Fight against poverty and social exclusion: Common objectives for the second round of National Action
Plans .http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/social_inclusion/objectives_en.htm
3-1
Added value of cooperation
The examples show that through cooperation it is possible to develop holistic and integrated support systems. Cooperation in the provision of services can facilitate the development and delivery of various solutions that would otherwise not
be possible. The integration of various forms of support allows for better targeted and effective individual approaches to
the multidimensional problems of customers than traditional provision in shelters. Solutions based on the provision of
self-contained dwellings (with appropriate support where necessary) are more cost effective than shelter accommodation. Coordination of activities can simplify procedures and improve effectiveness leading to more sustainable solutions
for agencies and customers. This proved true for services for a broad range of vulnerable people including refugees,
migrants, women, and people with substance misuse issues.
The COOP findings demonstrate that cooperations are working to achieve at least some of the seven3 key policy priorities identified in the 2005 Social Inclusion Process, in particular: ensuring decent accommodation, more integrated approaches to tackling homelessness and improving access to quality services and, in some cases, increasing labour
market participation.4 The examples also show how integrated and coordinated strategies at local level can be implemented by adapting policies to the local situation and involving all relevant actors.5
Lessons learnt
The COOP triangle of housing providers, social service providers and local authorities has been seen to be effective in
delivering services which prevent housing loss and provide housing and support for vulnerable groups including: single
homeless men with multiple disadvantages; women, mostly with children, threatened by domestic violence; migrant
households and people from ethnic minorities. National teams have recognised components of cooperation and strategies in other countries that could supplement and improve the support systems in operation in their own country and
used to inform the future development of strategies and policy at European, national, regional and local level.
The good practice examples presented by the COOP project do not always correspond to the existing framework conditions and practice in other countries or their current priorities and therefore may not be of immediate relevance nor easily
transferable. Further, the new Member States faced a much larger problem than other countries in terms of the scale of
the problem of housing need and a lack of resources6. However, national partners believed that the COOP findings (and
those from other projects in the Transnational Exchange Programmes) should be used to argue for change and that any
obstacles to transferability could be overcome if there was sufficient political will.
This demonstrates the value of the Transnational Exchange Programme in contributing more in depth learning from
practical examples, adding to the body of knowledge on good practice and innovation in combating social exclusion (in
particular, meeting housing need), contained in the joint analysis and assessment by the EC and the Council of the National Action Plans (NAP/Inclusion). 7
Although COOP focused on good practice examples, none of these was perfect, and the national teams have also learnt
from the negative experiences of some cooperation partners.
As the European Commission has stressed, “the exchange of good practice needs to be supplemented by a transparent identification of good and bad practice in order to be of effective use for Member States in policy making.”8
The four other key priorities are: modernising social protection systems; tackling disadvantages in education and training; eliminating child poverty.
EC, Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2005, http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/social_inclusion/jrep_en.htm.
5 Ibid. Page 9.
6 The exchange with our new Member States partners (CZ, PL) endorsed manifestly the challenges ahead, the implications for the future (e.g.
mobilisation and exchange of learning) and the comments on the NAPs regarding the homelessness issue mentioned in the Report on Social
Inclusion in the 10 new Member States 2005: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/social_inclusion/jrep_en.htm.
7 Joint Report on Social Inclusion (JIR 2004), http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/social_inclusion/jrep_en.htm
8 Ibid. Page 9, see also Joint Report on Social Inclusion (JIR 2004), pdf on
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/social_inclusion/jrep_en.htm.
3
4
3-2
(1) Embeddedness
Successful cooperation forms are embedded in national, regional and local systems for housing and care provision. The
way to success is smoothed if strategies are in line, or at least do not conflict with local and national policy. A strategic
approach to tackling homelessness, to monitoring demand and evaluating services, helps to ensure the effectiveness
and relevance of the service and the integration of services locally (for example within local homelessness strategies).
This endorses the JR 2005 statement: “Member States should strengthen implementation capacity through better coordination across different government branches and levels (i.e. national, regional, local) and the strengthening of
monitoring and evaluation of policies”. 9
(2) The inclusion of a broad range of relevant partners
Each angle of the COOP triangle can be filled by very different types of actors, each with very different interests. Care
providers cover a multitude of disciplines and backgrounds. Actual involvement of local authorities in the working process is usually the responsibility of a specific department such as social services and/or the housing department. Housing
providers can be private landlords, not for profit housing associations, the municipality and cooperatives.
Social housing and publicly owned housing stock remain key in provision for all vulnerable groups, and increasingly so
for migrants and people from ethnic minorities. Therefore, adequate access to this housing stock for all is needed.10
However, as the examples have shown, successful housing strategies need not rely solely on traditional providers of
social housing. In particular, in tight housing markets, it is important to include other sectors, such as the private rental
sector, to supplement the stock of dwellings available under agreements made with care providers and the local authorities. The examples have shown that it is possible to secure the cooperation of private landlords in the provision of housing to vulnerable groups, for example, through financial guarantees and support for tenants. However, it is important to
recognise that the willingness of private landlords to cooperate will depend on the local housing market (i.e. where demand for private rented accommodation is high landlords are unlikely to wish to let to vulnerable groups).
(3) Involving customers and encouraging self-sufficiency
The importance of involving customers and taking account of their views and preferences (for example, through exit
surveys and tenant satisfaction surveys) is widely recognised. However, the extent to which cooperations actively consult and involve customers varies a good deal. In most countries, there is still much to work to be done in terms of customer involvement. The development of more effective and appropriate interventions requires far more involvement of
service users and organisations representing the interests of vulnerable groups in the policy making process as part of
the process of wider integration in social, political and economic life.
© The Ridings, UK
© The Ridings, UK
Ibid. Page 9.
10 All Member States have to provide access not only for EU citizens, but also for third-country nationals who are long-term residents. Council
Directive 2003/109/EC.
9
3-3
Most of the good practice examples also recognise the importance of ‘empowerment’ or helping customers to help themselves. In these cooperations and services, individual cases are not “managed” by the service provider, rather, the service supports the individual, providing advocacy and advice where necessary, to deal with the problem of preventing
housing loss or re-integration into the “housed society” in an independent and responsible way. Examples are training
and instructing people how to deal with the specific conditions (and traps) of the local housing market, (as in the Vienna
Flat Exchange, A) or involving the active participation of customers in the (re-) construction of housing – (which has
added value in terms of job experience), for example, the Darzybor Settlement (Poznan, PL) or the Brno reconstruction
projects (CZ).
The JIR (2004)11 highlights the importance of involving and consulting customers – not only because this leads to the
development of better focussed and more relevant policies and services but because participation helps to foster the
personal development and empowerment of the individual.
(4) Extension of cooperation to other actors
Besides the three main ‘COOP triangle’ actors, many other agencies and providers can be directly and indirectly involved in helping people sustain a decent home and standard of living. The holistic approach described above depends
on the involvement of a range of statutory, voluntary and not for profit agencies and organisations, e.g. education, training, health, employment, debt counselling, advisory services and welfare departments and (as in Vienna, A, and Duisburg, D), the courts, as well as for profit companies and agencies such as private landlords and utility providers (gas,
water, electricity companies). The examples show that information sharing between a range of providers and services is
necessary not only to prevent housing loss but also in assessing demand and the planning of services.
Most National Action Plans emphasise the very important role that non-governmental agencies (NGOs) play in the delivery of social inclusion measures and this was certainly the case in the good practice examples. The FOHOIN project
(another project within the Transnational Exchange Programme, also dealing with the issue of homelessness and services for homeless people) also highlights – as a key priority – an holistic approach to tackling homelessness.
(5) Equality between cooperation partners with shared vision and goals
The examples have shown that cooperation is more successful when all partners are equal. Partners in successful cooperations also have a shared vision and common goal, however, it is important to recognise that there may be some
conflict of interests even within cooperations (for example, housing providers’ eviction policies versus the desire to avoid
homelessness). Partners in successful cooperations seek to understand the roles and limitations of their cooperation
partners, respect diverging interests and work to address any conflicts of interest that may have an adverse impact on
the aims of the cooperation. Cooperation is smoothed when the partners make their interests and decisions transparent
and inform each other about relevant issues or difficulties at an early stage.
© The Ridings, UK
© The Ridings, UK
11
Op cit pp112-114.
3-4
(6) Good coordination makes partnerships more successful
The analysis of good practices has shown that, in most cases, cooperation functions most efficiently where the duties
and responsibilities of each partner are clearly delineated and defined. The blurring of housing, support and care tasks
(as in the UK) can create a more complex set of organisational arrangements that impedes coordination efforts. The
examples have also shown that cooperations function more efficiently where one partner takes the lead in coordinating
the work of the partnership. For example, the coordinator or project manager would ensure that partners are only involved in discussions or meetings when this is appropriate and relevant. This reduces unnecessary burdens on partners
and saves valuable time and financial resources.
Services must be efficient and provide value for money. This is particularly the case given the worsening of the European economic situation and the reduced capacity for organisation and financing by local and national governments,
as the 2005 Joint Report 12 emphasises.
(7) Close collaboration between measures at local, regional and national level
The inclusion of other actors also implies closer collaboration between institutions working at different levels and/or in
different sectors, for example in Vienna (A) the cooperation between the courts and the Centre for Secure Tenancy
(FAWOS) and in the UK between national government (which provides the framework and funding for Supporting People), local authorities (which conduct needs assessments and commission services) and voluntary sector organisations
(which provide services) working at regional or national level.
(8) Prevention first!
The good practice examples highlighted the key importance of early intervention in preventing housing crises. It is important that service providers are able to identify and respond to early signs of social problems, e.g. rent arrears, before
problems escalate or when (legal) procedures, agreements or practices have already made intervention impossible or
too late to be effective. The example of FAWOS in Vienna (A) demonstrates the added value of a proactive approach
(i.e., making contact with and providing advice and support for people threatened with eviction before court decisions are
made). This is made possible because, under the Austrian Federal Tenancy Law, there is legally secured access to
information from the responsible courts about (summons of) eviction complaints.
This explicit lesson from the COOP exchange proved again the importance of the main objective in the fight against
poverty and social exclusion: “to prevent the risks of exclusion”.13. It is also supported by the strong emphasis on prevention that was formulated repeatedly in the FEANTSA European Conference 2005. 14
(9) Achieving independent living
The examples show that preparation for move on, resettlement, tenancy sustainment services and floating support all
have a role in helping people access and maintain their own accommodation. Most services work towards encouraging
and empowering their customers to exercise choice and to take responsibility for maintaining their homes although this
can be a long process for some (for example, long term rough sleepers who find it difficult to engage with services, to
move on and to resettle). Whilst ‘independent’ housing is the desired outcome for most individuals the examples show
that some people with complex and ongoing needs (for example, people with mental ill health or frail elderly people) will
require ongoing support in order to sustain their housing and prevent repeated episodes of homelessness.
(10) Targeting customers with specific needs
Whilst some providers felt it important not to stigmatise customers or to label them it is clear that some groups require
targeted services if they are to reintegrate into mainstream housing and society. For example, substance misusers, vulnerable women, ethnic minorities (e.g. Roma people), immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees have all been seen to
have specific needs. Notwithstanding this, it should be remembered that people within these risk groups have individual
needs, and, of course, people often belong to more than one ‘vulnerable’ group and may have diverse needs and preferences.
In the Social Inclusion Process, key policy priority is given to the increased integration of ethnic minorities and immigrants by developing targeted approaches, paying particular attention to Roma people15 (see the Brno case (CZ) in the
COOP project). The 2003 NAPs underline the need to take more account of the situation of people facing multiple
EC, Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2005,
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/social_inclusion/jrep_en.htm.
13 Council of the European Union (2002) ibid.
14 FEANTSA and FNARS: Social emergency and crisis intervention in large European cities;
European conference 27-28 October 2005, Paris.
12
3-5
risks, such as ex-prisoners, people leaving institutions and alcohol and drug misusers, with an emphasis on gender differences among them.16
(11) Local strategies, national standards
The provision of services for people in housing need is a local activity, however the examples have shown that it is important to have national (or in some countries regional) standards and requirements. These include national standards
for the quality of care and housing; an obligation for local authorities to conduct needs assessments, to produce homelessness strategies and to provide appropriate services. These help to ensure that all local authorities and municipalities
understand and meet their obligations to vulnerable groups.
(12) Political support and funding
National and local governments claim that they are in favour of reducing homelessness and preventing new cases of
homelessness. However, funding does not always keep pace with policy, particularly in times of economic recession.
The COOP study again highlighted the fact that insufficient funding undermines the best efforts of otherwise successful
projects. Successful cooperation is reliant on secure funding and a long term approach to the solution of housing problems. Frequent changes in policy and priorities and/or in funding regimes place an unnecessary burden on cooperations
and providers
(13) Increased focus of both cooperation and funding
on registration and monitoring of the problem (input) and solutions (output)
Monitoring and evaluation on both local and national level by cooperating partners can be used to assess demand and
supply of services and to inform national and local strategies. Regular monitoring of the services (over the short, medium
and longer term), both internally (by staff and service users) and externally (e.g. by funding bodies and regulators) also
demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the cooperation and its continuing relevance (through data on referrals,
acceptances and outcomes). This is an aspect which should be improved in all countries. Many services collect comprehensive socio-demographic data which could be used as a baseline for long(er)-term monitoring. However, some cooperations and practitioners stressed the importance of avoiding over-regulation. In their experience various regulators and
funding bodies have different demands in terms of monitoring and evaluation, resulting in unnecessary administrative
burdens on services.
The lessons learned from the COOP project informed the development of a number of policy recommendations and
recommendations for further action and research directed at the EU and governments at all levels (national, regional and
local). The recommendations are detailed below.
Policy recommendations
To all levels
•
There is a need to ensure awareness of, and promote support for, the aims of the National Action Plans
(NAPs/Inclusion). It was clear that many of the national partners from the voluntary and statutory sectors were
unaware of the existence of these plans prior to the COOP project.
•
It is important that all Member States develop national strategies to meet the objectives of their NAPs, to promote social inclusion, to combat homelessness and to tackle housing need. Of the Member States involved in
the COOP project only the UK has introduced strategies to eradicate homelessness whilst Belgium is in the
process of developing a strategy.
•
The EC has already stressed the need for setting more ambitious quantified targets and of financing plans in
the NAPs/Inclusion and this should be pursued. If NAP aims and objectives are to be met then adequate funding must be made available to Member States to develop strategies and services.
•
The prevention of primary and secondary homelessness (through effective resettlement and tenancy sustainment support) should receive much more attention. A shift of emphasis from crisis intervention (emergency accommodation, alleviation of homelessness) to addressing the causes of impending homelessness and the prevention of evictions is needed. In some cases a more proactive outreach approach would be beneficial for those
See also the thematic study within the Community Action Programme - Focus Consultancy Ltd.; European Roma Rights Center, the European
Roma Information Office: The situation of Roma in an Enlarged European Union; 2004, emphasising to „encourage the inclusion of Romani
communities, and to „include specific measures on Roma ...including ... housing and social services and assistance.“
16 See Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2005, and Joint Inclusion Report 2004.
15
3-6
people who find it difficult to access mainstream services or deal with bureaucracy (although the longer term
aim would be to support the client to manage as independently as possible).
•
The EU, national and local governments must recognise and address conflicting policy aims that can undermine
the work of cooperations and services. For example, policies designed to counteract anti-social behaviour
which focus solely on enforcement rather than on rehabilitation and resettlement can lead to evictions and a cycle of homelessness.
•
Policy makers at all levels should seek to ensure that general public are aware of the difficulties faced by vulnerable groups. At a local level, agencies should work with local communities and keep neighbourhood groups
informed of developments in order to achieve a better understanding of the problem and gain their cooperation..
•
It should be recognised at all levels that while ‘independent living’ is a desirable goal this is not realistic for
every member of the risk groups. Policy makers and funding bodies should not place unrealistic demands on
services and their customers. Services should help people progress as far as they can but in some cases ongoing support may be needed in order to help people to maintain accommodation. Policy makers must ensure that
funding is available for such ongoing support which can prevent secondary homelessness (and the associated
costs) and promote social inclusion over the longer term.
•
While it is important to provide specialist accommodation for people who find it difficult to integrate, such accommodation should not be regarded as permanent. As the EC Peer Review and the FEANTSA Shadow Peer
Review17 on the Danish ‘Freak houses’ notes, individuals can change. If people make progress and find motivation, they should be provided with the possibilities to move onto regular accommodation.
•
Appropriate solutions (for example, sheltered housing and floating support) should be further developed in order
that people can live as independently as possible in decent, permanent housing within mainstream society.
Customer needs and preferences should be reviewed regularly to ensure that their accommodation and support
is still appropriate.
•
It should also be recognised that some people may encounter difficulties that threaten their housing situation after resettlement. All services should ensure that appropriate support (e.g. housing and legal advice, debt counselling) is available and that customers are aware of this support and how to access it.
•
Whilst cooperations and services should have the prevention of homelessness, reintegration and social inclusion as their end goals, there remains a need for emergency accommodation and outreach work if the most
marginalised homeless people (e.g. those sleeping on the streets) are to be engaged and supported to address
their problems.
•
Whilst it is important to recognise the needs of specific groups, governments, policy makers and providers must
not lose sight of the individual. Cooperations and services should be required to use individual action plans developed with the customer (for example under national standards) and these should be subject to regular review with the customer.
To European Commission and other European Union bodies
•
The EC should continue to stress the importance of adequate and appropriate housing as key in reducing social
exclusion but should also promote a more holistic approach recognising the roles of a wide range of services
(health, education, social services and employment) which contribute to social inclusion, including economic inclusion. The European Parliament should be closely involved in these issues.
•
The EC recognises that all Member States, because of the deficiencies in their housing markets, need to intervene in order to combat the exclusion of disadvantaged households. Housing is normally regarded as a national
competence, but access to decent accommodation is a key EC policy priority. As the JIR (2005)18 suggests, it is
essential to take social inclusion into account in the design and implementation of EU policies if they are to be
supportive of national efforts to promote social inclusion. The EC and the European Parliament should therefore
promote the role of social housing in its social inclusion policies.19
Meert, Henk: Preventing and Tackling Homelessness, Synthesis Report. Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies. Denmark 2005;
FEANTSA Shadow Peer Review (2005), Homelessness in Denmark: Freak Houses for Freak People or Unusual Housing for Unusual Lifestyles,
Brussels: FEANTSA.
18 Op cit. pp112-113
19 The importance of this issue was also strongly emphasised in the European Social Housing Week „Housing Europe“, Brussels, 10-14 October
2005.
17
3-7
•
The EC should also recognise and promote the role of local governments/municipalities in addressing social
exclusion and promoting inclusion through the provision of housing.
•
The COOP project demonstrated the effectiveness of housing information, advice and advocacy at a local level
(e.g., FAWOS and Wohndrehscheibe in Vienna, A) in helping people maintain their tenancy and secure decent
housing. These types of model should be promoted (and supported financially) in all Member States.
•
The right to housing assistance is currently under discussion at the European level, this right (to all forms of
assistance) should be adopted in EU policy.
•
The Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities DG should bring together and assess, within the OMC
process, not only the NAPs/Inclusion (in the Joint Report) but also the outcomes of the various strands of the
Community Action Programme concentrating on thematic groups, in our case on the issue of homelessness.
These strands include: objectives, indicators, outcomes of peer reviews, thematic studies, SILC, Round Tables
and Transnational Exchange Projects. The EC should facilitate better dissemination of research findings not
only through published reports but through workshops and seminars.
•
The EC should commission further in depth thematic studies not only on the issue of access to housing for migrants and ethnic minorities but also for other vulnerable groups, with a particular focus on emerging vulnerable
groups like young people and women without children.
•
The trans-national transfer of knowledge between the practitioners is simplified when the process is steered by
experienced research institutes with regard to reflection and focussing and supported by scientific methods. In
further exchange programmes the EC should therefore stipulate the inclusion of scientific institutes in the networks to ensure a high quality of knowledge transfer.
•
Social exclusion is a multi-faceted problem and the plan for improved joint action is very welcome. Concerted
action is required not only from the Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities DG but also the DGs
responsible for health and for structural funds, if the various needs of excluded groups are to be addressed holistically (e.g., health and mental health; structural issues and prevention).
To European, national and regional level
•
Policy makers must continue to work to address the structural factors (poverty, unemployment and housing
shortages) that make people vulnerable to housing loss.
•
The EU and national governments should work towards formulating national standards for the provision of
housing, care and support for vulnerable groups. All services should be subject to robust monitoring and
evaluation in order to ensure that acceptable standards are maintained and that services are relevant and cost
effective. As far as possible, the monitoring and evaluation of services should be standardised in order to avoid
unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication of effort.
•
The EU and national governments should continue to work on the development of common indicators, definitions, including the Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) data. Comparable data would help to
make the challenges facing each Member State clear. Comparable data would also help in the monitoring of
national and local efforts and in the NAPs/Inclusion. These should also continue to be a part of the activities developed within the Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC). 20
•
Policy makers should require cooperations and services to develop strategies to involve customers in the development, delivery, monitoring and evaluation of services. However, it should also be recognised that some
individuals may not wish to become involved and their wishes should be respected.
•
Governments must recognise the specific needs of different vulnerable groups (e.g., refugees, victims of abuse,
women, young people, ethnic minorities, substance misusers) and develop support policies and interventions
which seek to address these but without stigmatising these groups. While the ultimate aim is to help people in-
201st
strand within the Community Action Programme, research and analysis, see
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/social_inclusion/programme_en.htm: and Common indicators, see
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/social_inclusion/indicators_en.htm;
European Commission/Eurostat: the production of data on homelessness and housing deprivation in the European Union: survey and proposals,
2004. http://www.eds-destatis.de/downloads/work/en3wp_production_of_data.pdf; http://www.eustatistics.gov.uk/themes/population/index.asp.
3-8
tegrate or reintegrate other studies (e.g., Edgar, 2004) have pointed to the importance of specialist providers,
for example, ethnic-led housing associations, in some countries. 21
•
Governments must work to engage representatives of vulnerable groups in the policy making process and in
the development of services if these are to achieve an appropriate and effective solution to housing need.
•
National and regional governments should investigate the opportunity for legal changes regarding privacy policy
and data protection and promote the development of information sharing protocols (for example, in eviction procedures) to optimise prevention opportunities.
•
Public owned housing stock is an important resource for vulnerable groups. National, regional and local authorities should not (further) reduce their housing stock.
•
Social housing providers remain key in meeting the housing needs of vulnerable groups. Social housing policy
therefore should be strengthened and social housing providers encouraged and supported in maintaining an
adequate stock of decent and affordable housing.
•
Policy makers should stress the social responsibility which is linked to ownership (in a social market economy
system) and should recognise this when talking about strategies to open the housing market to new actors.
•
Policy makers should recognise the potential role of private, profit oriented providers (e.g. private landlords and
real investments trusts) and develop strategies to involve them in the provision of housing for vulnerable
groups.
To national, regional and local level
•
The development of cooperation forms including a broad range of actors (e.g. health, employment, utility services) should be encouraged. It is recommended that local authorities or municipalities should take the lead in
developing and coordinating partnerships (see among others, the Local Care Networks in Rotterdam (NL)
which are coordinated by municipal staff). Where necessary local authorities or municipalities should consider
commissioning external experts to support the development of integrated services (as, among others, in Duisburg, D).
•
If successful cooperation forms involving a diverse range of actors are to be developed it is important to ensure
that partners are equal, that they share common goals and values and understand their respective roles and
responsibilities, and limits and constraints. National and local governments should provide funding for seminars,
workshops or round table discussions which would provide the opportunity for key stakeholders to meet and
discuss these issues; to overcome any conflicts of interest; to formulate strategies and work towards developing
successful cooperations.
•
National, regional and local governments should consider piloting cooperation forms and robustly evaluating
their efficiency and effectiveness. The experiences (successes and failures, strong and weak points, key success factors etc) of the pilot cooperation forms (and the services they deliver) should be disseminated and fed
into the policy making process through discussion with policy makers, practitioners and customers.
Need for future research / action
•
Although a great deal of research has been conducted in the UK on the needs and preferences of the most
marginalised homeless people - long term rough sleepers22 - there is a need for more research (and/or dissemination of these findings) in other Member States. This is required in order to improve understanding of
some of the barriers individuals face in accessing services and moving on in their lives and to develop appropriate and accessible services. There is a danger that the needs of individuals who find it difficult to engage with
services or who do not progress quickly enough to independent living and reintegration will be neglected by
service providers.
•
An issue that was raised during the COOP project but could not be fully explored within the remit of the research was the question of where vulnerable groups are housed, that is whether people should be dispersed or
not. There was recognition that some groups, e.g. people from ethnic minorities, might wish to live close together but there was also concern that vulnerable groups should not be ‘ghettoized’ or re-housed in the most
Edgar, B. (2004) Policy Measures to Ensure Access to Decent Housing for Migrants and Ethnic Minorities, St Andrews: Joint Centre for Scottish
Housing Research.
22 http://www.ODPM.gov.uk
21
3-9
disadvantaged areas or the poorest accommodation. Further research is required on the preferences of vulnerable groups but at the same time policy makers should work to ensure the provision of decent accommodation
in appropriate areas for all citizens.
23
24
•
In order to avoid duplication of research efforts and to develop a more integrated approach in further DG activities, it is recommended that a forum of institutions and groups which have contributed to the Community Action
Programme on issues of securing housing for vulnerable groups should be set up. This would allow for more effective dissemination and the sharing of knowledge on good practice in meeting the key priorities and challenges in tackling social exclusion.
•
Enabling exchange on homelessness issues through EC funding is a very worthwhile activity, but there are limitations when new basic research is needed. DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities should
build alliances with DG Research and other institutions supporting European research to stress future research
on social inclusion issues in the 7th Framework Programme and similar programmes.
•
It was not possible within the remit of the research to fully explore the gender dimension but as Edgar and Doherty23 noted in 2001, there is a need for further research on the specific needs of women, including women
from ethnic minorities, particularly in the new Member States.
•
COOP did not address the issue of economic inclusion through paid employment although a small number of
the good practice examples embraced training and employment as part of their holistic approach to sustainable
housing and social inclusion. There are examples of programmes and schemes which help formerly homeless
people into work (e.g. Business Action on Homelessness in the UK) and research has been conducted on the
role of employment in combating homelessness (this was one issue examined by FOHOIN24 in a study conducted under the Trans-national Exchange Programme). Whilst economic inclusion is clearly an important goal
and one that is widely recognised within the European Commission, there is a need for further research to improve understanding of how services can best support people into work, the barriers (including for example,
benefit systems and discrimination) faced by marginalised groups and how these can be overcome.
•
Further research is required on the role of other forms of meaningful activity (voluntary work, social activities,
leisure pursuits, education and training) in promoting social inclusion and sustainable housing solutions. Much
homelessness research suggests that boredom, isolation and a lack of structure can threaten housing stability
yet little is known about the needs and preferences of vulnerable groups.
•
In some countries (though not all) more research is required in order to understand how to engage customers
and encourage their active participation in service development and practice.
•
Overall, at the EU level, most effort has been concentrated on describing various services and their policy and
practice context. Whilst such studies are useful in raising key issues and providing illustrative examples of possible effective practice, they are not able to provide the necessary evidence to predict outcomes. There is a
need for further development of evaluative tools that can be utilised in research (to measure effectiveness and
efficiency) that will assist in the formulation of evidence based policy.
Edgar, B. and Doherty, J. (2001) Women and Homelessness in Europe: Pathways, services and experiences, Bristol: Policy Press.
FOHOIN Forum for Holistic Integration, www.fohoin.info
3 - 10
ANNEX
Editors of the report (the national coordinating institutes):
Institution
SRZ urban+regional research ltd.
SRZ Stadt+Regionalforschung G.m.b.H.
Address
Lindengasse 26/2/3, A 1070 Vienna, Austria
Phone (office):
+43 (0) 1 523 89 53 12
Fax: +43 (0) 1 523 89 53 12
Website
www.srz-gmbh.com
Contact person
Heidrun Feigelfeld
E-mail
hf@srz-gmbh.com
The interdisciplinary team of the COOP project promoter SRZ, connecting urban sciences to social and political sciences, has more than twenty years' experience in housing and urban development research and consultancy for authorities at all levels. Since its foundation in 1991 SRZ has carried out studies on: housing policies, housing systems,
housing for special groups (immigrants, women, the elderly, vulnerable groups etc..), various types of housing stock
and new construction, housing regulations and subsidies, housing demand, need and supply, and also evaluation of
social services. On trans-national level SRZ has carried out comparisons of housing systems, organised and documented exchange on urban requalification in Europe and led the SOCOHO EU project “The importance of housing
systems in safeguarding social cohesion in Europe” (DG Research).
Heidrun Feigelfeld (Dipl.Ing.) is the project leader of the COOP project. She is co-founder, partner and senior researcher at the SRZ, thereby project leader and collaborator on many projects. Her focus lies on research and consultancy in the field of urban development, urban requalification housing and vulnerable groups. She has published
more than twenty books and project reports and numerous scientific articles in several languages. She is a member
of the ENHR European Network of Housing Research.
Institution
Population and Social Policy Consultants (PSPC)
Address
Maria-Louizasquare 33/b2, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
Phone (office):
+32-(0)2-2300224
Fax:+32-(0)2-2300224
Web-page
www.pspc-Brussels.org
Contact person
Dragana Avramov
E-mail
avramov@avramov.org ; pspc@skynet.be
Population and Social Policy Consultants (PSPC) was founded in 1995 with headquarters in Brussels. It brings together,
around interdisciplinary research projects, researchers and experts with specific qualification and experience in social sciences and policy impact studies at the international, national and regional level. Population and Social Policy Consultants
exercises its activities of scientific research in the domains of population and social studies, public policies and development, social exclusion and social protection, housing and homelessness, and demographic, social and family policies in
Europe.
Examples of recent projects include: Integrated Policies on Gender Relations, Ageing and Migration in Europe;
Needs for female immigrants and their integration in ageing societies; Population Policy Acceptance Study: The
Viewpoint of Citizens and Policy Actors Regarding the Management of Population Related Change; Network for Integrated European Population Studies: Major Trends Affecting Families in the New Millennium; Demographic Implications of Social Exclusion; Human Dignity and Social Exclusion; Active Ageing; Population and Ageing- Challenges for
Policies and Programmes in Developed and Developing Countries; The Housing Dimension of Welfare Reform;
Housing for Families on Low Income; Emergency and Transitory Housing for Homeless People: Needs and Best
Practices; research coordination of the European Observatory on Homelessness.
Dragana Avramov (Ph.D sociology) serves as consultant to the Council of Europe and expert to the European
Commission and is currently Policy Reviewer in the Area of Social Exclusion and Social Security Systems for the EU DG
Research. Publication record includes twelve books and over 70 scientific articles in several languages in the domain
of sociology, population and development, social policy and social protection.
Institution
ÚRS Engineering and Consulting Company
Department for Regional Development and Housing
Address
Pražská 18, 102 00 Praha 10, Czech Republic
Phone (office) +420 271 751 327
fax: +420 271 751 175
Web-page
www.urspraha.cz
Contact person Miloš Červený
E-mail
cerveny@urspraha.cz
ÚRS Praha, a.s. was established as a successor of the Institute of Rationalization in the Construction Industry in
1992. The primary activities of the firm include complex services in the area of pricing of the construction production.
The department for Regional Development and Housing was established in 2001 and provides analyses, prognoses
and development concepts of demography and housing at national, regional and local level, for central government
and other public and private institutions. It provides also secretarial services for the Czech Society for Housing Development.
Miloš Červený – employed 9 years in the Czechoslovak Planning Commission, regional department, since 1963 in a
company for regional planning, inclusive settlement network and housing development. Miloš spent nine years working abroad in UN projects on the development of metropolitan areas in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nigeria and was for
five years responsible for the Czech secretariat of the EU programmes INTERREG II/C and III/B. He was actively involved in the preparation of the first version of the National development plan of the Czech Republic 2000-2006.
Institution
Institute for Housing, Real Estate and Urban and Regional Development / Institut für
Wohnungswesen, Immobilienwirtschaft, Stadt- und Regionalentwicklung GmbH an der
Ruhr-Universität Bochum (InWIS)
Address
Springorumallee 20, 44795 Bochum, Germany
Phone (office):
49 234 9447 700
Fax: 49 234 9447 777
Web-page
www.inwis.de
Contact person
Melanie Kloth
E-mail
melanie.kloth@inwis.de
The institute was founded in 1994. InWIS is a non-profit research institute and is affiliated to Ruhr-University of Bochum. The institute is supported by an association including housing companies, the federal and some regional federations of housing companies, the German Tenants’ Association, assurance companies and credit banks. InWIS´
tasks are academic as well as applied research on housing, real estate and urban and regional development. A special objective is the transfer of knowledge between research and practice. Among the institutions commissioning InWIS are federal and regional ministries, the European Commission, city councils, housing and building companies
and credit banks. InWIS’ staff consists of about 20 persons constituting an interdisciplinary team (sociologists,
economists, geographers, town planners).
Melanie Kloth – employed at InWIS since 1999 – is a town and country planner. She is involved in research and
consultancy in the spheres of housing (market analysis, evaluation of housing programmes) and urban development
(revitalisation of urban areas, integration of migrants, cooperation of social providers and local authorities).
Institution
Institute of Urban Development IRM
Address
ul. Cieszyńska 2 30-015 Krakow,Poland
Phone (office):
4812 633 85 72
Fax: 4812 633 94 05
Web-page
www.irm.krakow.pl
Contact person
Jerzy Adamski
E-mail
jerzyadamski@wp.pl , jadamski@irm.krakow.pl
The Institute of Urban Development (IRM – Instytut Rozwoju Miast) located in Krakow, was established in November
2002 following the decision of the Polish Minister of Infrastructure to combine the resources of the Institute of Physical Planning and Municipal Economy - Krakow Branch and the Housing Research Institute in Warsaw. IRM is a scientific and research institute. The institute's personnel is composed of 79 persons constituting an interdisciplinary
team of research and technical staff. The institute's experience includes work on: spatial planning, municipal economy, environmental assessment, communication, strategy and housing policy at national, regional and local levels,
social and economic problems of housing, management of housing resources, building market and real estate market.
Jerzy Adamski – employed in the former Housing Research Institute since 1983, involved in research and implementation in the housing sphere (housing needs, evaluation of housing policy, local housing strategies, management
of the municipal housing stock and privatisation, real estate market analysis). Member of the international teams in
the framework of the projects financed by the British Know How Fund (local housing strategies), USAID (Local Government Partnership Programme – local economic development), Open Learning Centre - Sofia, OSI Budapest.
Institution
Address
OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies (OTB)
Delft University of Technology
OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies
PO Box 5030, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands
Phone (office):
+31 (0)15 278 30 05
Fax:
+31 (0)15 278 44 22
Web-page
www.otb.tudelft.nl
Contact persons
Helen Kruythoff and Reinout Kleinhans
E-mail
H.Kruythoff@otb.tudelft.nl - R.Kleinhans@otb.tudelft.nl
OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies specializes in independent scientific research and
consultancy in the field of housing, construction and the built environment. The institute is part of Delft University of
Technology and was founded in 1985. The OTB Research Institute works to achieve international cooperation and
knowledge transfer. The policy areas of OTB are centred around various aspects of the built environment. Research
is carried out into such areas as housing, urban renewal, transport and infrastructure, urban and regional development, sustainable building and building policy, land policy, geo-information resources and GIS technology.
Helen Kruythoff (PhD) – employed in OTB since 1987 - is a senior researcher in the OTB department ‘Urban renewal and Housing’. She has been working on a broad range of issues, e.g. urban renewal, social segregation, tenant participation and co-operation. Until recently, she was theme leader of the research team ‘social and spatial integration’.
Reinout Kleinhans - employed in OTB since 1999 – is a researcher in the same department as Helen Kruythoff. He
has specialized in research into urban restructuring and social capital. On November 8th 2005, he defended his PhDthesis that deals with social implications of urban restructuring and relocation in post-war neighbourhoods.
Institution
Centre for Housing Policy, University of York (CHP)
Address
Centre for Housing Policy, University of York, York, Y010 5DD
Phone (office):
+ 44 1904 321480
Fax: + 44 1904 321481
Web-page
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/chp/
Contact person
Deborah Quilgars / Anwen Jones
E-mail
djq1@york.ac.uk / naj3@york.ac.uk
The Centre for Housing Policy was established in 1990 and is one of the leading academic and policy centres of
housing research in the UK and internationally. As part of the University, CHP is located with one of the highest rated
universities in the UK and as part of the department of Social Policy and Social Work it received a five rating in the
last Research Selectivity Exercise. The Centre has a proven track record with undertaking work for UK government
departments and agencies including the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Scottish Executive. It has also
completed a large number of projects for the charitable sector including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Shelter. The Centre also undertakes research at a European level for the European Commission and other funders. The
Centre is an institutional member of the European Network of Housing Research (ENHR).
Deborah Quilgars is a Senior Research Fellow who has worked at the Centre for Housing Policy since 1990. Her
main research interests are homelessness, housing and support, and housing and risk. Along with CHP colleagues,
Deborah has undertaken surveys of homeless people and evaluations of homelessness prevention, supported housing and floating support services for young people, people with mental health problems and homeless families. Deborah is a member of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Research Committee on Immigration and Inclusion.
Anwen Jones is a Research Fellow who joined the Centre for Housing Policy in 1997. Her main research interests
are in homelessness and anti-social behaviour. Anwen has undertaken research on the needs of homeless people;
the experiences of homeless women; access to general practice for people sleeping rough; and on Shelter’s ‘Homeless to Home’, a resettlement service for homeless families. Anwen is currently working on an evaluation of a rehabilitation and resettlement project for perpetrators of anti-social behaviour.
National partners and contributors
Austria
Overall project coordination+
national coordination
SRZ-Stadt+Regionalforschung GmbH
SRZ-Urban+Regional Research ltd.
Heidrun Feigelfeld
Lindengasse 26/2/3
A-1070 Vienna
phone +43-1-523-89-53-12
fax +43-1-523-89-535
hf@srz-gmbh.com
www.srz-gmbh.com
BAWO – Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft
Wohnungslosenhilfe
Austrian Association of Service Providers
for the Homeless
Renate Kitzman, Alex Hrach, Stefan Ohmacht
Radetzkystraße 27/2/14
A-1030 Vienna
phone +43-1-812-72-02
fax +43-1-817-67-85
Kitzman.fawos@volkshilfe-wien.at
www.bawo.at
Belgium
partners
national coordination
Österreichischer Verband gemeinnütziger
Bauvereinigungen – Revisionsverband
Austrian Federation of Limited-Profit Housing Association
Eva Bauer
Bösendorferstraße 7
A-1010 Vienna
phone +43-1-505-58-24-25
fax +43-1-505-58-28-25
ebauer@gbv.at
www.gbv.at
Population and Social Policy Consultants (PSPC)
Dragana Avramov
Maria Louizasquare 33/b2
1000 Brussels
Belgium
phone +32-2-230.02.24
fax +32-2-230.02.24
avramov@avramov.org
www.pspc-brussels.org
Volkshilfe Österreich „Wohndrehscheibe“
Flat Exchange
Christian Perl
Auerspergstraße 4
A-1010 Vienna
phone +43-1-893-61-17-15
fax +43-1-893-61-20
christian.perl @volkshilfe-wien.at
www.volkshilfe.at
Volkshilfe Wien „FAWOS“
Centre for Secure Tenancy
Renate Kitzman
Schiffamtsgasse 14/3
A-1020 Wien
phone +43-1-218-56-90-85011
fax +43-1-218-56-90-85030
Kitzman.fawos@volkshilfe-wien.at
http://members.aon.at/fawos/
Caritas der Erzdiözese Wien (Caritasverband)
Caritas Vienna
Hermann Schuster
Albrechtskreithgasse 19-21
A-1160 Vienna
phone +43-1-545-36-06-21
fax +43-1-545-36-06-30
hschuster@caritas-wien.at
www.caritas-wien.at
Stadt Wien, Magistratsabteilung 50/Wohnen
Social Allocation of Flats
Gabriele Mörk
Graumanngasse 7
A-1150 Vienna
phone +43-1-4000-74571
fax +43-1-4000-99 74574
moe@m50.magwien.gv.at
www.magwien.gv.at
partners
Ministère de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale,
Administration de l’aménagement du territoire
et du logement, Direction du logement
Ministry of the Region of Brussels-Capital,
Administration of environmental planning and housing –
Housing directorate
Myriam Bossuroy
CCN, Rue du progrès, 80, Bte 1
1035 Bruxelles
phone +32-2-204 24 21
fax +32-2-204 15 18
mbossuroy@mrbc.irisnet.be
www.mrbc.irisnet.be
Société du logement de la Région Bruxelloise (SLRB)
Housing Association of the Brussels Region
Pol Zimmer
Rue Jourdan, 45-55
1060 Bruxelles
Belgium
phone +32-2-533 19 11
fax +32-2-533 19 00
pzimmer@slrb.irisnet.be
www.slrb.irisnet.be
Association des Maisons d’Accueil et des Services d’Aide
aux Sans-Abri (AMA)
Association of Shelters and Social Assistance Services
for the Homeless
Pascale Paternotte
Centre Antoine Dansaert
Rue d'Alost, 7-11
1000 Brussels
Belgium
phone +32-2-513 62 25
fax +32-2-514 23 00
ama@ama.be
Agence Immobilière Sociale asbl IRIS
Social Rental Agency IRIS
Isabelle Jennes
Rue du Vieux Marché aux Grains, 20 bte 10
1000 Brussels
phone +32-2-5141849
fax +32-2-5024805
asbliris@freegates.be
Germany
national coordination
InWIS GmbH
Melanie Kloth, Regina Höbel
Springorumallee 20
44795 Bochum
phone +49-234-9447-717
fax +49-234-9447-777
melanie.kloth@inwis.de
www.inwis.de
Czech Republic
partners
national coordination
ÚRS Praha a.s.
Department for Regional Development and Housing
Miloš Červený
Pražská 1279/18
10200 Praha 10
Czech Republic
phone +(420)271 751 327
fax +(420)271 751 175
cerveny@urspraha.cz
partners
Brno City Municipality
Social Care Department
Jitka Tesařová
Koliště 19
60167 Brno
phone +(420)54 21 73 732
fax +(420)54 21 73 802
tesarova.jitka@brno.cz
Brno City Municipality
Housing Department
Jitka Kalášková
Malinovského nám. 3
60167 Brno
phone +(420)542 173 242
kalaskova.jitka@brno.cz
Armáda spásy (The Salvation Army)
Pavel Akrman
Mlýnská 25
60200 Brno
phone +(420)543 212 530
fax +(420)543 245 530
reditel_adbrno@armadaspasy.cz
Czech Society for Housing Development
Jaroslav Dupal
c/o ÚRS Praha
Prazská 1279/18
10200 Praha 10
Czech Republic
phone +(420)267 219 322
fax +(420)271 751 175
andrle@urspraha.cz
dupal@urspraha.cz
Stadt Duisburg, Amt für Soziales und Wohnen
City of Duisburg, Department for Social Affairs
and Housing
Andrea Bestgen
Schwanenstraße 5-7
47051 Duisburg
phone +49-203-283-3086
fax +49-203-283-3123
a.bestgen@stadt-duisburg.de
www.stadt-duisburg.de
Stadt Duisburg, Amt für Soziales und Wohnen
City of Duisburg, Department for Social Affairs
and Housing
Hendrik Kretzschmar
Fachstelle für Wohnungsnotfälle
Bismarckplatz 1
47198 Duisburg (Homberg)
phone +49-203-283-8858
fax +49-203-283-8890
h.kretzschmar@stadt-duisburg.de
www.stadt-duisburg.de
Diakoniewerk Duisburg GmbH
Roland Meier
Beekstraße 45
47051 Duisburg
phone +49-203-9313-131
fax +49-203-99299-40
roland.meier@diakoniewerk-duisburg.de
www.diakoniewerk-duisburg.de
GEBAG – Duisburger Gemeinnützige
Baugesellschaft AG
Hans Aholt
Tiergartenstraße 24-26
47053 Duisburg
phone +49-203-6004-170
fax +49-203-6004-146
aholt@gebag.de
www.gebag.de
Soziale Wohnraumhilfe GmbH
Carl-Dietrich Verdick
Schaumburgstraße 3
30419 Hannover
phone +49-511-27803-11
fax +49-511-27803-19
verdick@swh-trio.de
www.swh-trio.de
Diözesan-Caritasverband Köln
Caritas Association in the Diocese of Cologne
Andreas Sellner
Georgstraße 7
50676 Köln
phone +49-221-2010-248
fax +49-221-2010-398
andreas.sellner@caritasnet.de
www.caritasnet.de
VdW Rheinland Westfalen e.V.
Association of the Housing Industry
Rhineland Westphalia
Roswitha Sinz
Golteinstraße 29
40211 Düsseldorf
phone +49-211-16998-46
fax +49-211-16998-50
r.sinz@vdw-rw.de
www.vdw-rw.de
BAG Wohnungslosenhilfe e.V.
National Federation of Organisations
helping the homeless
Dr. Thomas Specht-Kittler
Quellenhofweg 25
33617 Bielefeld
phone +49-521-14396-0
fax +49-521-14396-19
bagwohnlos@aol.com
www.bagw.de
The Netherlands
Fax:+ 31 10 453 37 95
c.vangerven@sozawe.rotterdam.nl
j.weltevrede@sozawe.rotterdam.nl
www.sozawe.rotterdam.nl
Maaskoepel (umbrella organisation of Rotterdam’s
housing associations)
Rob Sonneveld
Weena 723, 3013 AM Rotterdam
P.O. Box 29169, 3001 GD Rotterdam
Phone:+ 31 10 413 27 55
Fax:+ 31 10 240 04 83
sonneveld@maaskoepel.nl
www.maaskoepel.nl
CVD (Centre for Services), department COHAR
(Coordination Reception and Housing of Asylum Seekers)
Bas Franssens
Stoomtramweg 122, 3071 ZH Rotterdam
The Netherlands
Phone:+ 31 10 486 23 77
Fax:+ 31 10 486 22 77
bfranssens@cvd.nl
www.cvd.nl
CVD (Centre for Services),
department Shelter and Housing
Peter Zuidam
Glashaven 50, Rotterdam
The Netherlands
P.O. Box 208, 3000 AE Rotterdam
Phone:+ 31 10 243 81 30
Fax:+ 31 10 467 82 01
pzuidam@cvd.nl
www.cvd.nl
national coordination
OTB Research Institute for the Built Environment,
Delft University of Technology
Helen Kruythoff, Reinout Kleinhans
Jaffalaan 9, 2628 BX Delft
P.O. Box 5030, 2600 GA Delft
phone + 31 15 278 69 53 / 61 17
Fax+ 31 15 278 34 50
h.kruythoff@otb.tudelft.nl
r.kleinhans@otb.tudelft.nl
www.otb.tudelft.nl
partners
City of Rotterdam, Department of Urban Planning,
Housing, and Traffic
Stella Adams, Pieter Bol
Galvanistraat 15, 3029 AD Rotterdam
P.O. Box 6699, 3002 AR Rotterdam
Phone + 31 10 489 31 47 / 63 98
Fax + 31 10 489 72 58
s.adams@dsv.rotterdam.nl
p.bol@dsv.rotterdam.nl
www.dsv.rotterdam.nl
City of Rotterdam, Department of Social Affairs
and Employment
Christl van Gerven, Jaap Weltevrede
Willem Ruyslaan 225, 3063 ER Rotterdam
P.O. Box 1024, 3000 BA Rotterdam
Phone:+ 31 10 453 34 54 / 35 77
Poland
national coordination
Instytut Rozwoju Miast
(Institut of Urban Development)
Jerzy Adamski
Ul.Cieszynska 2
30-015 Krakow
phone +(48 12) 634 29 53
fax +(48 12)633 94 05
jerzyadamski@wp.pl
partners
Barka Foundation for Mutual Help
Jaroslav Poludnikiewicz
Ul. Sw. Wincentego 6/9
61-003 Poznan
phone +(48 61) 872 02 86
fax +(48 61) 872 02 86
barka@barka.org.pl
Housing Cooperative “KRAKUS”
Anna Kosior
Ul. Swietokrzyska 12
30 - 015 Krakow
phone +(48 12)630 23 05
fax +(48 12)630 23 74
spoldzielnia@krakus.net.pl
Caritas Archidiecezji Lodzkiej
Tomasz Kopytowski
Ul. Gdanska 111
90 - 507 Lodz
phone +(48 42) 639 95 81
fax +(48 42) 639 95 80
t.kopytowski@toya.net.pl
associated partner
City of Krakow, Housing Department
Elzbieta Rzycka
Ul. Wielopole 17 a
31 -072 Krakow
phone +(48 12) 616 82 40
fax +(48 12) 616 82 43
rzyckael@um.krakow.pl
St Anne’s Community Services
Sharon Allen
6 St Mark’s Avenue
Leeds LS2 9BN
Phone: +44 113 2435151
Fax: +44 113 2451526
Sharon@st-annes.org.uk
http://www.st-annes.org.uk/
Leeds City Council – Neighbourhoods
and Housing Department
Tom Wiltshire
110 Merrion Centre
6th Floor West
Leeds LS2 8BB
Phone:+44 113 2476073
Fax: +44 113 2243859
tom.wiltshire@leeds.gov.uk/
http://www.leeds.gov.uk/
United Kingdom
associated partner
national coordination
School of Planning and Housing
UCE Birmingham
Faculty of the Built Environment
Henryk Adamczuk (Adam)
Birmingham
B42 2SU
Tel: (+44) (0)121 331 5116
Henryk.Adamczuk@uce.ac.uk
http://boris.uce.ac.uk/
Centre for Housing Policy, University of York
Deborah Quilgars, Anwen Jones
Heslington / York
YO10 5DD
Phone:+44 1904 321480
Fax:+44 1904 321481
djq1@york.ac.uk
naj3@york.ac.uk
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/chp/
partners
The Ridings Housing Association (RHA)
Jenny Brierley, Barbara Kempf
205 Roundhay Road
Leeds LS8 4HS
Phone:+44 113 2350202
Fax: +44 113 2350482
jenny.brierley@theridingsha.org.uk
barbara.kempf@theridingsha.org.uk
http://www.theridingsha.org.uk/
Editors
Jerzy Adamski
Dragana Avramov
Miloš Červený
Heidrun Feigelfeld
Anwen Jones
Reinout Kleinhans
Melanie Kloth
Helen Kruythoff
Deborah Quilgars
With Contributions from
The national partners and contributors from seven countries (see list)
Editorial and Design Coordination
SRZ Stadt+Regionalforschung GmbH / Urban+Regional Research ltd.
Heidrun Feigelfeld
Lindengasse 26/2/3
A 1070 Vienna, Austria
Supported by
Jürgen Hajek
Bernhard Schöffmann
Eva Stocker
Translation
Steve Gander, Vienna, A (German to English)
Cover Design
Atelier Unterkircher Jankoschek, Vienna, A
Print
Facultas Verlag, Vienna, A
Edition
500 Copies. Also available on CD-ROM and on the website http://www.srz-gmbh.com (pdf).
Copyright
© SRZ Stadt+Regionalforschung GmbH
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or translated in any form whatsoever without the
written permission of the publisher and the authors.
This project has received funding from the European Community.
Sole responsibility lies with the author and the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the
information contained herein.
PSPC