An International Review

The National Homelessness Strategy

Nicholas Pleace, Dennis P. Culhane, Riitta Granfelt and Marcus Knutagård

About the Review

• Brought together academics from Finland, Sweden, the UK and USA

• Two visits to Finland by international component of the team

• Talking to people responsible for homelessness policy, both centrally and at local government / municipality level, homelessness service providers and to formerly homeless people

• Visited homelessness services, including services for specific groups and Housing First projects

Goals of the Review

• Explore the successes and limitations of Paavo 1 and Paavo 2 programmes

• Look at where further work may need to be done

• Draw on relevant experience from the Sweden, the UK and USA that might be useful for future planning

• Produce a report based on this work

The Successes of the Finnish Homelessness Strategy

Successes

• Reduction in long term homelessness

• Development of a comprehensive strategic response to homelessness

• Movement towards homelessness prevention

• Critical reflection

Success 1: Reducing long term homelessness

• Substantial success in reducing long-term homelessness

• The most individually, socially and economically damaging form of homelessness has been reduced

• This has not been accomplished on the same scale elsewhere

• Use of Communal/Congregate models of Housing First has been subject of debate, but effectiveness of strategy is also evident

International Comparisons: long term homelessness

• Sweden and the UK have begun small scale experiments with Housing First services

• Some successes although unclear how well they may work medium to long term

• USA has multiple examples of Housing First and other ‘Supported Housing’ services that have reduced long-term/recurrent homelessness but these services vary in form, it may be that various types of services can all work

• Staircase/linear treatment models remain widespread

International Comparisons: long term homelessness

• Sweden, UK and USA responses can be uneven

• Some US States and cities have better policies than others, some groups, particularly homeless veterans, get more help than others

• Rough Sleepers Initiative (RSI) in London and Scotland saw substantial falls in rough sleeping up to mid 2000s, but not applied everywhere, problem persists in London, No Second Night Out

• The wide scale reductions in long-term homelessness across Finland have not been achieved in these three countries

Success 2: Coordination and Comprehensiveness

• Finland is perhaps the best example of a truly coordinated National homelessness strategy

• Bringing together homelessness NGOs, Y Foundation, municipal and central government

• Response has also been comprehensive, alongside focus on long-term homelessness:

• Development of preventative services and successes in homelessness prevention

• Specialist services for particular groups, young people and former prisoners

• A range of supported housing services alongside Housing First

International Comparisons: Strategy

• The Finnish Homelessness Strategy is more coordinated and comprehensive than equivalent strategies in Sweden, the UK and USA

• A key difference centres on regional and local inconsistency in responses to homelessness, there is good practice in all three countries, but it is confined to certain areas and/or groups of homeless people

• Finland is bringing levels of homelessness down, it is not successful in all areas of homelessness, but elsewhere levels are rising

Success 3: Prevention

• Development of specialist services designed to stop association between homelessness and leaving institutions e.g. prison, psychiatric hospital.

• Prevention targeted at specific groups such as young people

• Development of housing advice and support services that prevent eviction and are able to help arrange access to housing to avoid actual homelessness from occurring

International Comparisons: Prevention

• Finland reflects much of the the best practice in homelessness prevention seen in countries like the UK, although Finnish prevention services have developed independently

• There is relatively little to learn from other countries because Finland already follows successful approaches to prevention seen elsewhere

Success 4: Critical Reflection

• Willingness to explore, examine and criticise approaches to homelessness is a major strength of Finnish national policy

• Major shifts in policy have occurred elsewhere, such as move to supported housing models in USA and away from ‘staircase’ approaches or the UK shift towards prevention

• But willingness to continue asking questions after policy change, to continue looking at effectiveness, is more evident in Finland

The Limitations of the Finnish Homelessness Strategy

Limitations

• Housing supply

• Social integration

• Specific groups

Limitations 1: Housing Supply

• Major pressures on affordable housing supply in some areas, particularly Helsinki City

• Work of Y Foundation and municipalities is important in providing new affordable housing

• But capacity to meet new demand is limited

• Harder to respond to homelessness when affordable housing supply is limited

• Dilemmas arise, e.g. homeless people needing housing while other groups, such as working families on low incomes, also need housing

International Comparisons: Housing Supply

• Sweden, UK and USA also have difficulties in delivering sufficient supply of affordable housing

• At strategic level for the entire population, as well as within the very expensive housing markets like those New York or London

• Social housing was seen as a solution, but it can be seen as producing negative effects, distorting housing markets, geospatial concentration of poverty, and it is expensive

• No obvious ‘quick fix’, including allowing a totally free market in housing, which produces slums

Limitations 2: Social Integration

• Housing First, but what is second? Title of FEANTSA European Homelessness Research Conference in Berlin in 2013

• Key question, once housing needs have been met, what needs to be done to stop homelessness reoccurring and to limit or reverse the damage homelessness may cause someone

• Three key areas

• Health and well-being

• Social support

• Economic integration

Limitations 2: Social Integration

• Communal or congregate models of Housing First used in Finland have been criticised

• Separate, large apartment buildings only occupied by formerly homeless people, physically separated from community

• Some have said this makes it more difficult to form relationships with community, with neighbours

• Forming personal relationships or getting into work might be more difficult if living in a ‘Housing First’ building, stigmatisation

International Comparisons: Social Integration

• Not that straightforward

• Living in scattered, ordinary housing within a ordinary neighbourhood might be positive, might help lead to social integration

• But it can also be an isolated experience and can, some UK research shows, result in persecution, some neighbourhoods are ‘toxic’, they lack social capital and cohesion

• Idea that housing is a first step towards social integration has some research support, but whether housing in itself is enough is debatable

International Comparisons: Social Integration

• UK evidence suggests that separate, dedicated services focused on social integration may be required, such as the Crisis UK Skylight Programme

• But still an uphill struggle, many barriers around support needs, poor mental and physical health, drug/alcohol use and the stigmatisation of homelessness between formerly homeless people and social integration

• Nevertheless, successes can be achieved

Limitations 3: Specific Groups

• Migrant homelessness

• Dilemma of finding humanitarian response against not ‘importing’ social problems

• Women

• Women experience homelessness in ways that mean their needs are unmet

• Ex-offenders

• Breaking the association between prison and homelessness

• Youth homelessness

• Linked to wider problems of social integration

International Comparisons: Specific Groups

• Migration, Sweden and UK share the same dilemmas, some ‘solutions’ e.g. UK use of ‘reconnection’ (repatriation) services is arguably morally questionable

• Research evidence suggesting that women use informal arrangements, i.e. vulnerable women with experience of gender-based violence living with acquaintances, friends and family when they have no home of their, new attention on this e.g. Women’s Homelessness in Europe Network (WHEN) – there is scope to explore whether some women’s homelessness is being missed in Finland

International Comparisons: Specific Groups

• Finland already has comprehensive services focusing on preventing homelessness among former offenders

• Sweden, UK and USA have developed similar responses

• Some evidence suggests that comprehensive, coordinated responses are most effective, when offenders are not well supported on release, they are more likely to become homeless (and may be more likely to reoffend).

International Comparisons: Specific Groups

• Youth homelessness, linked to groups of young people who are not socially integrated, is an issue in Sweden, UK and USA

• Evidence suggests that coordinated, comprehensive approaches that attempt to address all aspects of social integration, of which housing is just one aspect are the best answer to this form of homelessness

• May be essential to tackle this problem, some evidence from USA that youth homelessness can become long-term homelessness

Recommendations

Recommendations 1

• Increasing affordable housing supply is key to reducing and preventing homelessness

• High pressure housing markets, e.g. Helsinki City, are a particular concern

• Partnership working with social housing providers is crucial, municipalities and the Y Foundation, both in homelessness prevention and reduction

• Models such as local lettings agencies from UK and equivalents can enhance access to private rented housing

Recommendations 2

• Prevention needs to identify people at risk of long-term and recurrent homelessness

• Services like Critical Time Intervention and Housing First can be used to prevent long-term homelessness among high need and vulnerable groups of people

• Indebtedness can also be a route into homelessness and can be counteracted

• There is scope to explore using lower intensity models of support to both prevent and reduce homelessness

Recommendations 3

• Housing is not enough to solve homelessness

• Have to think about social integration, an emotionally rewarding personal life, work or education or training, something positive to structure their lives and days around and community integration – Finnish and global evidence points to this as the best solution to homelessness

• There is scope to improve the evidence base, comparing services effectiveness and cost effectiveness scientifically

Thanks for listening

• Nicholas Pleace, University of York • nicholas.pleace@york.ac.uk

• www.york.ac.uk/chp/

• Dennis P. Culhane, University of Pennsylvania • culhane@sp2.upenn.edu

• works.bepress.com/dennis_culhane/

• Riitta Granfelt, Tampere University • Riitta.Granfelt@uta.fi

• http://www.uta.fi/yky/sty/yhteystiedot/granfelt.html

• Marcus Knutagård, Lund University • marcus.knutagard@soch.lu.se

• http://www.soch.lu.se/