11 21 17 Private rented minimum standards … · Ireland research. CornerStone ... there wasn’t...

I S S U E 3 4

A P R I L 2 0 0 8 CornerStone

11 EU10 homeless service users

14 Reflections on RAS

17 Private rented minimum standards

21 Working together to make it happen

23 Portrait of a project: Bentley House

The magazine of the Homeless Agency

7 HomelesspathwaysFocusIrelandresearch

CornerStone

note from the editor

There’s a lot in this issue about migration. Karin O’Sullivanwrites about her study looking at people from EU10 countriesusing homeless services in Dublin; the news section mentions

an article by Paul Sheehan from Cork Simon Community inFEANTSA’s magazine about the needs of homeless new arrivals inCork, and also summarises research on A8 nationals usinghomeless services in London. All these conclude that the needs ofmost new arrivals tend to be short-term and concerned with

income and accommodation, rather than mental or physical health or addiction. Anecdotal evidence is already circulating about EU10 nationals moving from

Ireland to London where there is said to be plenty of work getting the city ready for the2012 Olympics. But this does not mean that in a short while there will be no morenew arrivals knocking on the doors of homeless services. For a start, immigration intoIreland isn’t suddenly going to stop just because the Olympic village in London is nowhiring labour. There’s another factor too: immigrants who fail to get work don’t all goback home; some cannot face returning as a failure and will end up in homelessservices. And these people are precisely the ones who are most likely to have ordevelop health and addiction needs. Anyone who has worked in homeless services inEngland will have met many Irish men in exactly that situation.

One thing is certain, regardless of future immigration patterns, more ethnic minoritypeople will use homeless services in the future, and as time goes on, their needs willmore closely match the needs of other service users.

In a world that appears to be full of academic journals (can there really be enoughinteresting material to fill European journal of housing policy; Housing, care andsupport; Housing studies; Housing, theory, and society; Housing and society; and

Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, to mention but a few?), it is encouragingto see a new entry, which if the contents page of the first issue is anything to go by, willreally tickle the taste buds of anyone interested in homelessness. As I write this –literally – the first issue of the European Journal of Homelessness, which is edited byBill Edgar, has just appeared on FEANTSA’s website at www.feantsa.org/forum. You haveto register but it’s no big deal.

The sharp-eyed amongst you will notice that there is no Homeless Agency News inthis issue of CornerStone. This is not, you will be relieved to hear, because there isno Homeless Agency news but because the Homeless Agency’s bi-monthly

newsletter Update has taken on a bigger identify of its own, and we all agreed thatthere wasn’t much point in repeating the same news in two different places. So if it’sHomeless Agency news you want, you want Update, which you can find atwww.homelessagency.ie

Simon BrookeEditor of CornerStone · Housing and Social Policy Consultant

[email protected]

EDITORSimon Brooke

ADVISORY GROUPLisa Kelleher, Homeless Agency

Eithne Fitzgerald, Independent

Brian Harvey, Independent

Alice O’Flynn, Health Service Executive

PUBLISHERThe Homeless Agency, Parkgate Hall

6–9 Conyngham Road, Dublin 8

Telephone 01 703 6100, Fax 01 703 6170

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.homelessagency.ie

CONTRIBUTORS■ Fran Cassidy is a writer and researcher

■ Dermot Coates is a researcher at the Centre for

Housing Research

■ Lisa Kelleher is communications and public relations

officer at the Homeless Agency

■ Eddie Lewis is principal officer, social housing

(procurement and construction) section, at the

Department of the Environment, Heritage,

and Local Government

■ Sinead McGinley is research officer with Focus Ireland

■ Karin O’Sullivan is research officer at Merchants

Quay Ireland

■ Jane Pillinger is an independent researcher and

policy advisor

DESIGNIdentikit Design Consultants

PRINTINGTurner Print Group

The views expressed in CornerStone do not necessarily

represent the views of the Homeless Agency, its

management board, or consultative forum

The Homeless Agency is a governmentalbody launched in May 2001 which isresponsible for the planning, co-ordinationand delivery of quality services to peoplewho are homeless in the Dublin area. The staff team is advised by a consultativeforum, and reports to a board ofmanagement comprising representativesfrom the statutory and voluntary sector.The agency brings together a range ofvoluntary and statutory agencies that areworking in partnership to implementagreed plans on the delivery of services to

people who are homeless, assisting themto move rapidly to appropriate long termhousing and independence. A major taskis the implementation of the third actionplan A Key to the Door covering theperiod 2007–2010. The HomelessAgency co-ordinates all homelessservices in the Dublin area; deliverssome direct services; provides trainingand other supports; monitors andevaluates the effectiveness of services;carries out research; and administersfunding to homeless services.

feature article

Homeless pathwaysJane Pillinger describes a research study

she carried out for Focus Ireland using the

pathways approach

contents I S S U E 3 4

A P R I L 2 0 0 8

2 NEWS

Enforcing private rented standards,What people think about homelesspeople, Migrants in Ireland andUK, Case management inBallymun, New CEO at Focus Ireland

10 …WHAT HAPPENED NEXT

Sinead McGinley explains whatFocus Ireland will do with theHomeless Pathways research

11 EU10 PEOPLE USINGHOMELESS SERVICES:WHO ARE THEY?

Karin O’Sullivan reveals thefindings of her study of peoplefrom EU10 countries

14 REFLECTIONS ON RAS

RAS has been up and running forfour years now so it’s time forEddie Lewis to take stock

17 PRIVATE RENTEDMINIMUM STANDARDS:THE CASE FOR BETTERSERVICE DELIVERY

In his second article, DermotCoates looks at enforcement ofstandards and finds localauthorities lacking

21 WORKING TOGETHER TO MAKE IT HAPPEN

Lisa Kelleher reports on a seminaron delivering solution to problemdrug and alcohol users

23 PORTRAIT OF A PROJECT

Bentley House

26 CORNERSTONEQUESTIONNAIRE

Kerry Anthony CEO of DePaul Trust

11 14 21

7

2 A P R I L 2 0 0 8 · C O R N E R S T O N E

NEW

S

CornerStone has moaned repeatedlyover the years about the dismalenforcement of standards in private

rented sector by many local authorities(Dublin City Council being an honourableexception); so the latest set of GoodPractice Guidelines from the Centre forHousing Research is very welcome.

The context of all this is of coursethat the private rented sector is playingan ever-greater role in Irish housingpolicy. Dermot Coates’ articles in thelast issue and in this issue dealunderline this.

Overall the amount of fundingavailable to local authorities forenforcement of standards has increasedsignificantly in the last couple of years (forexample they get 70% of the registrationfees collected by the Private ResidentialTenancies Board), so the DoEHLG now

takes the view that they don’t have anyexcuses any more for not doing the job.

The guidelines remind localauthorities that as well as responding totenants’ complaints and doing plannedinspections of high risk premises, they willalso have do inspections:■ As part of the RAS process■ To verify the housing conditions of

people on housing waiting lists■ In response to request from a CWO

who is considering a rent supplementapplication, and

■ As part of a PRTB dispute resolution

CornerStone observed (Issue 32page 6) that the number of localauthority inspections increaseddramatically in 2006 over 2005, butpointed out that there appeared to behuge variations in practice across thecountry. It’s not just a numbersgame; the object of the exercise is toimprove conditions for tenants in theprivate rented sector, and it is to behoped that these guidelines will helplocal authorities to do just that.CornerStone will continue to monitorthis carefully. ■

Enforcing privaterented standards

The Eurobarometer is the EU’s wayof monitoring public opinion on awhole range of subjects from the

environment, the Common AgriculturalPolicy, to holidays, tobacco, andanimal welfare. In 2007,Eurobarometer no. 279 surveyed theviews of EU citizens’ on poverty andexclusion, and included a section onattitudes towards homeless people.And very interesting reading it is too.

Have a look at Table 1 on thefollowing page for example. It shows

that people think that unemployment isby far the most important reason forbecoming homeless. This is consistentwith other surveys which show thatunemployment is the main concern ofEuropeans, and is also consistent withan earlier finding in the sameEurobarometer, that having a job is byfar the most important factor in having agood life. Interestingly, lack of affordablehousing comes fifth on the list.

These figures mask significantdifferences between countries. For example:

■ In Sweden, Denmark, and TheNetherlands most people take theview that addiction best explains whypeople become homeless.

■ In France, and Italy people aremore likely to say that lack ofaffordable housing is a cause thanin other countries.

Only 7% of Europeans said it was likely orvery likely that they would become home-less. Not surprisingly, poor people weremore likely to say this than rich people.

What people thinkabout homeless people

Good Practice in Housing Management: Guidelines for Local AuthoritiesStandards in the Private Rented Sector: Strategic Planning, Effective EnforcementIf you have the moolah it’ll set you back €15 but you can download it free from www.chr.ie

3C O R N E R S T O N E · A P R I L 2 0 0 8

NEW

S

The survey also asked about helpinghomeless people. Table 2 shows that overa third of Europeans say they give moneyto homeless charities and slightly less thana third say they give money directly tohomeless people on the streets. But nearlyone in five say that they don’t thinkhomeless people should be helped at all.

Perhaps it’s not surprising thatpeople in high economic strain (this isa self-assessment of poverty andfinancial difficulty) are less likely to givemoney to homeless charities thanpeople in low economic strain. But theworst off Europeans are both far morelikely to say that people who arehomeless shouldn’t be helped and tosay that they are likely or very likely tobecome homeless themselves. So thosewho are most threatened byhomelessness have the least sympathyfor homeless people. At first sight thisappears contradictory, but perhapsproximity and fear can breed disdain.

Once again, these pan-Europeanfigures hide large differences betweencountries. For example:

■ In Malta a whopping 82% ofpeople say they give money tohomeless charities.

■ In Spain, and the Czech Republic,people are far more likely to say thathomeless people shouldn’t be helpedthan in other countries.

■ If you have copies of the Big Issue tosell, you should head for Slovakia,Sweden, or The Netherlands wherethe biggest percentages of people saythey buy papers sold by thehomeless. But you should avoidMalta or Bulgaria where practicallyno-one buys them.

■ In Greece, France, Lithuania,Romania, Slovenia, or Croatia, peopleare most likely to give money topeople on the streets. But very few doin the Czech Republic, or Malta.

Irish people are the second highest giversto homeless charities – at 74%, more thandouble the average. A slightly higherproportion of Irish people than theEuropean average give money to people onthe streets, and a slightly lower percentagethan the average think that you should nothelp homeless people at all. ■

Table 1: Reasons for homelessness

QB16 In your opinion, which three of the following best explain why people become homeless? (Max. 3 answers – EU27)

They loose their job or cannot find one ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||62%

They run into debt |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||49%

They suffer from addition (drugs or alcohol) ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||46%

They go through a family break-up ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||30%

They have no access to affordable housing ||||||||||||||||||||||||24%

They become ill ||||||||||||||||16%

They cannot access adequate social benefits ||||||||||||||14%

They do not benefit from adequate support services ||||||||||||12%

They do not have identification papers or official papers ||||||||||10%

They loose a close relative ||||4%

Other (spontaneous) |1%

DK ||2%

QB18 Do you ever help homeless people by doing any of thefollowing? (Multiple answers possible – EU27)

Giving money to charities||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||36%

Giving money to people living on the streets|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||29%

Buying papers sold by the homeless||||||||||||||||16%

Directing them to appropriate services/institutions|||||||7%

Helping them find a job||||4%

Helping them to access emergency shelters|||3%

You do not help homeless people (Spontaneous)||||||||||||||||||18%

You are not converned/There is no homeless in the area where you live (Spontaneous)||||||||||11%

Other (Spontaneous)||||4%

DK|||||5%

Table 2: Helping homeless people


NEW

S

In the features pages of this issue KarinO’Sullivan writes about her research onEU10 nationals using homeless services

in Dublin. Not surprisingly, the experienceof homeless services in Dublin is far fromunique. Cork Simon’s Paul Sheehan,writing in FEANTSA’s magazine Homelessin Europe identifies a growing number ofpeople from accession states using CorkSimon’s service, from 2005 onwards. Staffat Cork Simon’s Day Centre noticed that incontrast to the complex range of mentalhealth, addiction, and physical healthneeds exhibited by people normally usingthe service, the needs of new arrivals weregenerally related to income andaccommodation. Furthermore, their needswould often be short-term and most wouldpresent for two to three days although asmall number would have more complexneeds arising from sleeping rough. PaulSheehan argues that existing homelessservices are not an appropriate response toimmigrants with low-support needs, andproposes a low-cost better-targetedalternative incorporating temporary

accommodation; help with language, withsecuring a job, and long-termaccommodation. He reminds us that theESRI has suggested that migrant workershave added between 2.5% and 3% toIreland’s GNP so we have benefited greatlyfrom their presence, and they deservebetter help than they currently receive.

And in London too, similar issueshave arisen. In 2007, Broadway – alarge homeless charity in London –carried out a qualitative researchproject that aimed to establish the storyof A8 nationals routes into homelessservices. Key findings of the Londonresearch included:

■ A8 nationals face a cycle ofinterrelated barriers when trying toaccess accommodation, work andsupport i.e. the need to know aboutthe process of getting work in theUK to secure employment, the needfor a job to afford accommodation,and the need for an address to geta bank account.

■ Lack of English language ability wasseen as the principal barrier forintegrating into life in the UK as itprevents people from accessing work,accommodation and support.

■ A lack of clear, official advice on whereto go for support and information wasa key theme in responses.

■ Not all participants understood thelong-term implications of failing toregister on the Workers RegistrationScheme and of working illegally, i.e.problems accessing employment rightsand entitlement to benefits.

■ All participants were currently living insquats or sleeping rough and manywere moving between the two.

■ The majority of participants wereready as well as willing to work.Many were skilled and hadqualifications to work in a varietyof industries. However, severalneeded to translate documentsfor employers or found that theirqualifications were not equivalentto similar qualifications in theUK. The majority of participantshad worked illegally in the UK atsome point.

■ The majority of those interviewedplanned to stay in the UK for the nextfew years - with some intending tosettle more permanently and othersplanning to move to another country orreturn home in the future.

■ Homelessness agencies were themain source of support for allparticipants.

■ Participants reported that overall,experience of living in the UK isdifficult, however many said thequality of life was still better than intheir home country.

Migrants in Ireland and UK

The EU expanded in 2004 to include ten new countries. Only three existingmember countries – Sweden, Ireland and the UK – allowed citizens from theeight new Central and Eastern European countries free access to the labour

market immediately on EU enlargement. Both Ireland and the UK put limitationson the extent to which A8 citizens are eligible for state benefits.

A8 refers to Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,Slovakia and Slovenia. EU 10 includes Cyprus and Malta. No restrictions wereput in place for citizens of Cyprus or Malta.

Migration and Homelessness in Cork, Ireland: The impact of European UnionLabour Mobility, by Paul Sheehan, in FEANTSA magazine Autumn 2007. http://www.feantsa.org/files/Month%20Publications/EN/EN_final_autumn07_socdem.pdf

Routes into London’s homelessness services: the experiences of A8 nationalsby Anne-Marie Binley, published by Broadway, Londonhttp://www.broadwaylondon.org/broadwayvoice/reportfull.pdf


NEW

S

A Recommendations for the government:1 Provide A8 nationals with clear advice and support on arrival in the UK to aid initial orientation. Information is needed on

finding work, the housing market and other areas including access to health care. Orientation packs in communitylanguages could provide this information. These should be distributed as close to arrival points as possible and would be auseful resource for homelessness agencies. A community language information and advice line for those who need furtherassistance could be provided and publicised in any orientation/signposted to by agencies working with A8 nationals.

2 Work with the European Union and the new EU members to raise awareness of the realities and risks people might facewhen moving to a new country, ensuring that people have access to information on which to base a decision aboutmigrating and where appropriate to prepare for a successful move.

3 Ensure that research and policy work regarding hidden homelessness and overcrowding considers A8 nationals as theyare a key group experiencing these conditions.

B Recommendations for the European Union: 4 Develop a campaign to raise awareness of the realities and risks of migration from A8 countries to other parts of

Europe. Information about what factors lead to successful or unsuccessful migration should be included incampaign materials. Case studies from research could be included to illustrate problems faced by a small butsignificant proportion of migrant workers.

C Recommendations for the Embassies of the A8 countries: 5 Support nationals without the means to support themselves in the UK by assisting with return to their home country

where appropriate.

6 Consider helping nationals who fall on difficult times by providing access to hardship funds and temporary respiteaccommodation.

7 Recognising the contributions A8 nationals have previously contributed through taxes in their home country whensupporting them though embassies in the UK.

8 Regulate employment agencies where possible to ensure that they meet basic standards and create recognised standards/branded codes of practice to enable agencies to publicise their adherence to government backed schemes. Providepotential migrant workers with a list of legal and reputable employment agencies and means to report poor practice.

D Recommendations for Homelessness agencies: 9 Collate monitoring data relating to A8 nationals to demonstrate the need for services amongst this group.

10 Be clear on the role of homelessness agencies and take steps to manage expectations of A8 nationals, ensuring peopleunderstand what services they can and cannot receive and why this is.

11 Provide access to training and information for staff working with A8 nationals in the following areas:

a Awareness of workers rights, exploitation and what A8 clients should expect from employers in the UK. An example is Homeless Link’s ‘Working with clients from the new EU member states’ training.

b Awareness of the cultural needs of A8 nationals and how these may differ from other clients staff are working with.

12 Provide a crisis intervention services to assist A8 nationals in dealing with problems such as loss of passports and otherdocuments, which can be resolved quickly and can make a huge difference to an individuals chances of successfullysecuring legal employment and avoiding homelessness.

13 Recognise there is a lack of knowledge and experience of working with people from A8 countries within the sector.Develop partnerships to help address this for example with organisations from A8 countries and interpreting services. ■

Recommendations from the London research included the following:


NEW

S

In October 2005, following anassessment of the extent ofhomelessness in Ballymun,

discussions between DePaul Trust andlocal statutory organisations and NGOsled to the establishment of a pilot casemanagement programme in Ballymun.The Ballymun Case Management Team(BCMT) has two interlinked aims:

■ To provide an outreach service topeople in Ballymun who use alcoholand are homeless or threatened withhomelessness, using a casemanagement, harm reductionapproach; and

■ To gather information and views fromservice users and service providers onthe future needs for alcohol supportservices in Ballymun through an actionbased research project.

An evaluation of the programmeconcluded that there was a need for aservice similar to that operated byBCMT to continue and to be developedfurther in the future.

Recommendations included:■ To ensure the continued operation of

the BCMT;■ To support the implementation of

the Ballymun Community Alcohol Strategy;

■ To ensure the development andresourcing of a supportive space forpeople who use alcohol in Ballymun;

■ To ensure that those with alcohol issuesin Ballymun have access to socialhousing, homeless accommodation andother housing services;

■ To ensure that an integrated approach,using the continuum of care model isimplemented in Ballymun;

■ To ensure that the support needs offamilies and children are addressed. ■

Case management in Ballymun

Joyce Loughnan is the new CEO at Focus Irelandwhere she is taking over from Declan Jones.Joyce was previously programme director with

Fujitsu Services Ireland for 11 years where sheimplemented large scale IT systems and managedlarge programmes of change. Joyce has a MBA fromDublin City University. ■

New CEO atFocus Ireland

Support needs of those in Ballymun with alcohol and homeless issues isdownloadable from www.depaultrust.ie/publications/annual_reports.htm

Homelesspathways

The pathways approach is a wayof understanding homelessnessthrough a kind of longitudinalresearch. It involves tracingpeople’s homeless ‘careers’ andthrough this trying to find outthe best ways of preventinghomelessness and the best waysof ensuring that people who arehomeless are enabled to leavehomelessness. Jane Pillingerdescribes a research study shecarried out for Focus Irelandusing the pathways approach.On page 10, Sinead McGinleysets out what Focus Ireland isdoing with the research.


FEATU

RES

Jane Pillinger is anindependent researcherand policy advisor

For a copy of

Homeless Pathways:

Developing effective

strategies to address

pathways into,

through and out of

homelessness,

contact Focus Ireland,

9–12 High Street,

Dublin 8

Tel 01 881 5900

Introduction

Working with people’s life events andexperiences, it is possible to identifyindividual’s homeless pathways andhighlight ‘what works’ in getting peopleout of homelessness, the barriers that

they experience, and the issues that impact on theirhomeless pathways. Focus Ireland’s research studyHomeless Pathways: Developing effective strategiesto address pathways into, through and out ofhomelessness uses a life course approach to showhow a preventative approach can work in practice.

‘Homeless pathways’ research methodThe pathways approach provides insights into people’sroutes into homelessness, their experiences ofhomelessness and their routes out of homelessness.Homeless pathways are an integral part of housingpathways and ‘to the household forms in whichindividuals participate and the routes they take overtime in their experience of housing’ (David Clapham –see ‘Further reading’ box). As Anderson and Tullochargue: ‘At the most complex level, a unique pathwaycould be ascribed to all those who have everexperienced homelessness’.

The report uses this research methodology totrace an individual’s experiences of moving into,through and out of homelessness. The research wasbased on in-depth interviews with seventeen FocusIreland customers who worked with the researcher toidentify routes into, through and out of homelessness

and particularly what enabled people to havesuccessful pathways out of homelessness.Interviewees met with the researcher twice and jointlydrew up a biography documenting their homelesspathways. This was part of an ethical approach usedin the research, based on enabling those participatingin the research to be active participants. Part of thisapproach was also to give people an opportunity tocomment on what would have worked to keep themout of homelessness or prevent them from becominghomeless in the first place.

This method provides a dynamic and compre-hensive approach to understanding the causal andrisk factors leading people into homelessness.

Further reading■ Anderson I and Tulloch D (2000),

Pathways Through Homelessness: A Reviewof Research Evidence: A summary series ofrecent research commissioned by ScottishHomes for the Homeless Task Force, No 121, Edinburgh: Scottish Homes

■ Clapham D (2005), The Meaning ofHousing. A Pathways Approach, Bristol: The Policy Press

■ Pillinger J (2005), Preventing Homelessness:A Comprehensive Strategy to PreventHomeless in Dublin, 2005–2010, Dublin: Homeless Agency

The pathways approach also focuses on theexperiences, interactions, choices, constraints andbehaviours of people experiencing homelessness andhow these experiences can inform appropriatepathways out of homelessness. This makes itpossible to more effectively understand ‘what works’in practice, which helps to inform the evidence-baseneeded for policy and for the development ofappropriate service provision.

Key messages from the researchThe research outlined five key messages from thepathways biographies of people experiencinghomelessness:

1 The provision of affordable, secure and good qualityhousing is at the heart of any policy to prevent andeliminate homelessness.

2 Homelessness strips people of dignity, independenceand autonomy. Building the capacity of peopleexperiencing homelessness and meeting their needsthrough the more effective coordination of serviceprovision becomes as important a goal of policy asproviding access to decent accommodation.

3 The longer an individual or household is homeless,the greater the likelihood that they will be exposed toa second layer of risks and dangers in their lives,including social exclusion, additional social problems,mental health difficulties, alcohol and drug addiction,service exclusion and exclusion from mainstreamsociety, family, friends and local communities.

4 Services need to be more effectively coordinated,service provision targeted to meet needs, and gapsin service provision addressed.

5 There are generally higher levels, in the homelesspopulation compared to the general population, ofcomplex and problematic drug or alcohol use, andphysical and mental ill health.

Pathways into homelessnessThe biographies of people experiencing homelessnesspoint to a range of causal and risk factors that impacton routes into homelessness, including structural,social and personal/individual factors, and life eventsand triggers. Key life course events, such asadulthood, divorce/separation, loss of employment, lowincome and traumatic or problematic life events, canimpact on pathways into homelessness. Poverty,coupled with weak or broken family and social ties,were found to be common underlying risks ofhomelessness. Factored into these are life courseevents related to key youth, adult and later life age-related pathways into homelessness, as well as differ-ential pathways as experienced by women and men.Common themes from people’s biographies includedpoor access to the labour market and training, lack ofeducational qualifications, and low incomes.

These risk factors are influenced by theavailability and affordability of housing, the security ofhousing and the choices available to people. Thelesson for policy makers is the importance ofimproving people’s capacity to have control over and

choice in their housing situation so that they are not atrisk of homelessness, particularly where this istriggered by a significant or traumatic life event.Improving understanding of the causes and complexityof homelessness needs to be situated in a preventativeapproach, that makes it possible for people to besupported in tackling personal problems or life eventsthat can lead to homelessness or repeat homelessness.

Samantha became homeless after years ofstruggling with depression and mental healthdifficulties, which also led to drug and alcoholaddition. She has five children with whom sheis rebuilding a relationship with after twelveyears of homelessness. She now has long termaccommodation provided through Focus Irelandand has a key worker who has supported herinto independence. Samantha acknowledgesthat her problems go back to her earlychildhood experiences. Today she is livingindependently and has rebuilt her life. Shebelieves that her pathway out of homelessnesswas facilitated by a combination ofappropriately tailored support, confidence andself-esteem building and the provision of longterm, affordable and secure accommodation.

Pathways through homelessnessThe research looked at people’s pathways throughhomelessness, their experiences of living inhomelessness, the role that services play in enablingpeople to take routes out of homelessness, ‘whatworks’, and the blockages and barriers that exist.The structural, social and individual/personal factorsthat influence people’s pathways into homelessnesscan also influence their journey throughhomelessness and can be the cause and effect ofenduring problems that lock people intohomelessness. In some cases the experience ofhomelessness creates further exclusion anddifficulties that make it hard to find a pathway out.Risks of other more enduring social problems andmarginalisation were often exacerbated byhomelessness and were sometimes typified by low-self esteem, poor coping strategies, stress, complexaddiction related risks, as well as mental andphysical health problems.

Michael became homeless after beingdischarged from St Ita’s hospital in Portrane.He was homeless for six months before cominginto St Ita’s after hitting rock bottom andfollowing a number of suicide attempts. Hehad been living in his car for about six monthsand was not getting any support. He describesthe lack of coordination between the hospitaland community based services, where therewas no information or provision of temporary


FEATU

RES

▼ ▼

...it is possible

to identify

individual’s

homeless

pathways and

highlight ‘what

works’ in getting

people out of

homelessness...

‘

’


FEATU

RES

accommodation given to him when he left thehospital. The lack of information andpreparation given for this meant that Michaelwas left with no accommodation, as it was toolate to contact any services for the weekend.Michael can now see a pathway out ofhomelessness before him; he lived in B&B andhostel accommodation before gainingtransitional accommodation. He is now lookingat the possibility of finding housing in theprivately rented sector, although theaccommodation he has looked at so far hasbeen of very poor quality. He attributes hispathway out of homelessness to the fact thathe began engaging with services and throughhis key worker he has been able to see thepossibility of finding accommodation andgetting back into a routine of work.

Pathways out of homelessnessThe research found that the most important factorcontributing to an individual’s or household’s pathwayout of homelessness is the provision of adequate,secure and affordable housing.

The provision of support services – includingfamily support, tenancy support/sustainment andkey worker support, mental health support andfamily support – were found to be critical tosustaining pathways out of homelessness in the longterm. The provision of adequate, affordable andappropriate housing is fundamental and once this isin place, support and care needs that are oftenneglected or difficult to organise if a person is inhomelessness, can be put into place and tailored tothe situation faced by an individual or household.

Chloe is living in privately rented accommo-dation that was organised through the RentAssistance Scheme (RAS) pilot scheme run bythe local authorities. This has provided her withaffordable, good quality accommodation. FocusIreland provided her with long-term transitionalaccommodation when she left care at the age of18 years. Focus Ireland helped to organise hercurrent accommodation and provide a keyworker service, with regular support and weeklymeetings. Along with the support she received,she has been able to build her trust in others,her confidence and practical skills in her dailyliving. Chloe was in foster care from the age of13 years after her mother died and she had alsoexperienced abuse from her mother’s boyfriend.Chloe believes that the services provided byFocus Ireland have been crucial to her gainingindependence, particularly after she left care atthe age of 18 years. She sees her key worker asbeing a huge source of support to help her tolive independently.

Implementing a multi-faceted approach can help toensure that people can have long term pathways out ofhomelessness, with appropriate accommodation,support services (through key workers, tenancy supportand settlement), access to employment and training,and effective methods to enable people to engage withpublic services and for them to receive appropriate,coordinated and integrated service provision.

Ryan became homeless three years ago whenhe split up with his wife and left the familyhome. Before that he had been working andhad also played hurling for Waterford when hewas younger. He has experienced some mentalhealth difficulties during his life, and combinedwith heavy drinking, found it difficult to find aplace to live. He lived in sheds, on friend’sfloors and in temporary accommodation beforehe came in contact with Focus Ireland services.Brian’s story is an example of how the coordi-nation of services, between the local authority,the HSE mental health services and FocusIreland has worked well together. He has beengiven long-term accommodation through thelocal authority, and through his Focus Irelandtenancy support worker Ryan has gainedindependence and autonomy.

The biographies show that successful pathways out ofhomelessness include a combination of prevention,crisis intervention, intensive and relevant targetedsupport, and supporting people into autonomous andindependent living in transitional and long termaccommodation, with appropriate support services.

RecommendationsThe research calls for:■ Improved access to long-term accommodation,

with or without floating and flexible support;■ The provision of appropriate key work and mental

health support services;■ Improved access to education, training and

employment; and■ Improved focus on preventative measures and

early intervention.

Specific issues are raised concerning Focus Irelandservices and national policy issues that address theneed for access to good quality accommodation,including sufficient move on accommodation so thatpeople’s pathways out of homelessness are notblocked and delayed. ■

▼ ▼

As Anderson and Tulloch argue: ‘At the most complex

level, a unique pathway could be ascribed to all

those who have ever experienced homelessness’.‘ ’

The pathways

approach

provides insights

into people’s

routes into

homelessness,

their experiences

of homelessness

and their routes

out of

homelessness.

‘

’

...what happened nextJane Pillinger’s pathways research will not gather dust on a bookcase,as Focus Ireland’s research officer Sinead McGinley explains.


FEATU

RES

Focus Ireland is using the evidence-based findings from thisresearch to further improve its understanding of homelesspathways and to identify how prevention can work toblock pathways into homelessness. A number ofstrategies, actions and initiatives have already been

undertaken by Focus Ireland in conjunction with this researchreport in relation to its services, policy, research andcommunications work:

Services■ The report has been disseminated to all Focus Ireland

services throughout the country. The evidence-based findingsand recommendations have also been presented to allservices staff.

■ The biographies show that effective responses that impact onpathways out of homelessness include a combination ofaccess to accommodation, support services and preventativemeasures. Focus Ireland will continue to provide acombination of these services through the provision ofaccommodation, advocacy, tenancy support and settlementservices and community preventative services.

■ Focus Ireland is involved in a number of partnerships with localauthorities and private landlords, in which tenants are providedwith RAS scheme accommodation and Focus Irelandsettlement support. Focus Ireland is currently assessing thebenefits of these partnerships in providing better access toprivately rented accommodation for its customers.

■ An evaluation of the tenancy support and settlementservices in Dublin has recently been completed, andprovides findings on the accommodation of Focus Irelandcustomers in terms of cost, suitability, standards, safety, andsatisfaction levels, and consequently the impact of thesefactors on settlement. The findings of this research arecurrently being used by Focus Ireland to further advocate forthe provision of adequate, secure and affordable housing.

Policy■ Focus Ireland will continue to campaign and lobby the

Government for the delivery of supported housing with aclear revenue funding stream. This process has beenstrengthened by the completion of a Focus Ireland positionpaper on the issue.

■ Focus Ireland will continue to lobby for the delivery of socialhousing through Part V of the Planning and DevelopmentActs 2000–2004. Ongoing research and analysis into thelevel and type of units that have been delivered and thereasons for the slow roll-out of Part V housing is currentlybeing undertaken by Focus Ireland.

■ Focus Ireland recognises that homelessness is a complexsocial problem – prevention of this is an essential and, in thelong-term, more cost-effective approach to addressinghomelessness. Focus Ireland will continue to lobby for better

monitoring and reform of the rental sector, an increase in therent supplement and greater resources for the PrivateResidential Tenancies Board.

■ Focus Ireland has recently made a submission to the JointOireachtas Committee on Children in relation to the impendingChildren’s Rights Referendum.

■ Focus Ireland will continue to campaign for an end to povertyand social exclusion by strengthening partnerships andalliances through the European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN),End Child Poverty Coalition (ECPC), Children’s Rights Alliance(CRA), and MakeRoom Alliance.

Research■ In partnership with the Immigrant Council of Ireland, Focus

Ireland is currently undertaking a study into the ‘housingcareers’ of migrants from four communities in theBlanchardstown area. It is anticipated that this researchproject will, for the first time in Ireland, highlight thehousing/homeless pathways of non-nationals based on theexperiences of 40 participants.

■ A major research project on youth homeless pathways andprevention will be undertaken this year, tracking the movementof Focus Ireland customers as they move through its servicesprovided for this cohort.

■ Focus Ireland is committed to developing best-practice servicesand presenting policy solutions based on strong research andevaluation-based evidence. The organisation will continue toundertake internal evaluations of its services and participate inand actively support ongoing evaluations of services bystatutory bodies, e.g. the Homeless Agency.

■ The experiences of the ‘Homeless Pathways’ participants andthe research findings will be used as evidence in theMakeRoom Alliance’s Shadow report submission to theCommittee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights under theState’s third examination of the International Covenant onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Communications■ The communications work of Focus Ireland will continue to

be informed by evidence-based findings on homelesspathways, in order to raise public and Governmentawareness of homelessness and ‘what works’ in reducingand preventing homelessness.

■ It is planned that a feature article on the research will bepublished in a leading national newspaper, possibly includingan interview with one of the research participants. This willraise further awareness on the evidence-based findings onhomeless pathways and how prevention can work to blockpathways into homelessness.

■ Continued use of evidence-based findings from research toinform annual campaigns and press statements/responsesby Focus Ireland. ■


FEATU

RES

EU10 people usinghomeless services: who are they?Anecdotal evidence of arise in the number ofpeople from EU10 statesusing homeless services inDublin led to a researchstudy that looked at thenumber, profile, and needsof accession statesmigrants who wereaccessing those services.Karin O’Sullivan, whocarried out the research,reveals the findings.

The research was carried out in partnership byMerchants Quay Ireland and The HomelessAgency, and was funded by the HomelessAgency. It involved a count, carried out overseven consecutive days in homeless services

in early December, 2006, and a survey of, and groupdiscussions with, the target group. Service providers incontact with people from the accession states alsoparticipated in the study.

The count283 people from the EU10 accession states werecounted in homeless services during the week of thecount. Men accounted for 83% of respondents andover half were in the 26–39 years age group (55%, n=108). The majority were Polish nationals65% (n=165), 10% (n=29) were Lithuanian, and 9% (n=27) were from the Czech Republic.

In the context of the number of people living andworking in Dublin from the accession states at thetime1, the numbers were relatively few. However, therise from prior research estimating between 60 and1202 migrants from the EU10 states in services wassubstantial. Economic reasons were identified asbeing the main reason why accession state migrantswere coming to Ireland.

The survey170 people took part in the survey component of thestudy. The general picture emerging from the studywas firstly one of a sizeable number of recent andrelatively recent arrivals to Ireland. Figure I show that47%, n=76 were in Ireland less than 6 months, anda further 18%, n=29 were in the country between 6 and 12 months. Many reported living in touristaccommodation (18%, n=19), staying with relatives

Karin O’Sullivan isresearch officer atMerchants Quay Ireland

This study was carried out before Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU. The 10 EU states referred to are Poland,

Lithuania, Latvia, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Hungary, Cyprus and Malta.

1 Based on CSO 2006 figures the count representedapproximately 0.8% of the total population of EU10nationals in the Greater Dublin Area.

2 Bergin & Lalor (2006) Away from Home and Homeless.Quantification and Needs of EU10 Nationals usingHomeless Services.


FEATU

RES

and friends (23%, n=24), or living in private rentedaccommodation (20%, n=21) while smaller numbersreported living in a squat (8%, n=8), sleeping rough(9%, n=9), living in homeless accommodation (6%, n=6), or continuously moving between housingcategories (5%, n=5). High levels of unemploymentwere found and links between poor English languageskills and unemployment were identified which maywell contribute to delays finding work. The evidencesuggests the need for a focus on factors that wouldfacilitate faster access to employment, accommodationand language services which would ease the initialarrival phase for migrants.

Figure 1. Length of time In Ireland

Also found was a smaller group of people (N=56) whowere in Ireland for a year or more. 36% (n=20) of thisgroup reported sleeping rough or living in a squat. Afurther 16% (n=9) were living in homeless hostels orB&B’s, and 11% (n=6) reported that they were movingbetween various housing circumstances. While not allof these were unemployed (including not all of thosesleeping rough or living in a squat) it was found that ofthose who were, many had worked at some point whilein Ireland. Experiences of long gaps of unemploymentbetween short-term working contracts were found tocontribute to experiences of hardship and influenceservice use. While the overall trend suggests that manymigrants move away from homeless services once theybecome established, it also alerts us to a smallerproportion that get ‘left behind’ and who may becomevulnerable to longer term homelessness (see Figure 1).

Homelessness and housing exclusionIn terms of the total study population (N=170) andbased on the definition of homelessness set out in theHousing Act, 1988, 44% (n=75) were considered tobe homeless at the time of the study. Using a broaderdefinition of housing exclusion3 which is inclusive ofthose deemed to be living in insecure accommodation(i.e. staying with family/friends, or residing in touristaccommodation) this percentage rises to 76% (n=129).

Income and working 17 (10%) participants did not identify having anysource of income at the time of the study. On the otherhand, it was found that a substantial percentage ofmigrants who were accessing homeless services alsoreported being in receipt of some form of income (70%,n=105). Those included participants who reportedreceiving most of their income from regular employment(24%), working odd jobs (21%), in receipt of statebenefits (13%), or from informal labour (11%). Reasonswhy these participants were accessing homelessservices was unclear but possible contributing factorsmay include poor wages, a desire to save money, ormay be related to cultural differences.

Habitual Residency Condition related restrictionson social welfare benefits were found to impact uponhomeless service use by migrants who experiencedhardship. While over one in ten participants reportedbeing in receipt of a welfare allowance, a pattern ofrejection for state benefits also emerged. A key issuerelating to this was that 26% of the study participants(n=44) reported that they had been employed withouta Personal Public Service Number (PPSN). Workingwithout a PPSN increases vulnerability. For example,migrants who become unemployed may not be entitledto receive state benefits as a result of not proving awork history (see box). They may also feel they haveno course to redress in the event of encounteringworker exploitation. In general it was found that therewas a lack of awareness of the Irish State welfare andtaxation system, knowledge of which would allowmigrants to make more informed work related choices.

Health and drug useThe low rates of self-reported physical healthcomplaints and drug and alcohol use points to one ofthe key differences between migrants accessinghomeless services and the indigenous homelesspopulation. Notwithstanding this, upon an examinationof general well-being (carried out by asking participantswhether they currently, felt isolated, unable to cope,anxious, or if they were experiencing depression), 58%(n=98) of the sample reported experiencing one ormore of the symptoms inquired into. The averagenumber of complaints reported was 1.7 per person.Extreme housing exclusion including reports of sleepingrough, living in a squat or constantly being on themove between housing circumstances was found to beexperienced by a number of participants (n=22, 12%)who were experiencing 3 or more of the symptoms

3 This refers to the ETHOS Framework as developed by FEANTSA, The European Observatory on Homelessness.

Habitual Residency Condition and state benefitsRestrictions on access to state benefits by migrants from theaccession states exist which are detailed in the Habitual ResidencyCondition (HRC). The thrust of the HRC is that an individual fromany of the 10 EU accession states must have a proven link toIreland, measured in terms of a range of conditions. A more recentchange to the HRC based on EU law provides for welfare entitlementbased on being EU or EEA workers (European Economic Areaworkers). Benefits attached to this change include, Child Benefit,One Parent Family Benefit, and Supplementary Welfare Allowance.

Economic

reasons were

identified as

being the main

reason why

accession

state migrants

were coming

to Ireland.

‘

’

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

< 6

mon

ths||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

6-12

mon

ths||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

12-1

8 mo

nths||||||||||||||||||

18-2

4 mo

nths||||||||||||||||

24-3

6 mo

nths||||||||||||||

>36

mon

ths||||


FEATU

RES

inquired into. Also notable was that during the week ofthe count 17 non-Irish nationals accessed the needleexchange at MQI.

Use of homeless servicesThe homeless services identified as being accessedthe most since arrival in Ireland were food centres(54%, n=92) followed by emergency homelessaccommodation services (29%, n=29), outreachservices (24%) and drop-in centres (22%). Foodcentres and emergency accommodation serviceswere found to be used frequently (i.e. on a daily orweekly basis) by a high percentage of those whoreported their use. Feedback from the groupdiscussions suggested that periods of service useusually coincided with periods of unemploymentand/or economic hardship. Language issues wereidentified as a key barrier to accessing specificsupports from service providers within these services.

Service needsThe service needs identified most often both byservices users and services providers who were incontact with the target group were not homelessservices per se but rather more generic services thatwould facilitate better integration into Irish societysuch as accommodation, language classes and accessto employment and social welfare. It was also foundthat many of the needs identified were inter-relatedwhere for example a PPS number is required to secureemployment, and in order to get a PPS number proofof address must be supplied. This was found to be asignificant barrier for the target group.

Service provider support needsThe key support needs identified by service providersincluded access to interpreters and translators, referralroutes to accommodation for migrants presenting attheir services, greater clarity around welfare rights forservices staff, funding in order to provide staff with thenecessary training to meet the needs that migrantspresent with, and funding for the production ofinformation leaflets in a range of languages.

RecommendationsOverall, the findings point to the need for a shift inhomeless service planning and delivery that isinclusive of migrant groups. Key also to the researchfindings is the fact that many of the needs of migrantspresenting to homeless services are needs pertainingto the migration experience itself and the homelesssector may not be best placed to address them.Recommendations arising from the findings weredrawn up by the research steering group to addressthese conclusions and included:

■ A Homeless Resource Pack and Directory for EUMigrants (EU12) be developed in a range oflanguages, that details information onrestrictions, rights and entitlements, along withdetails of migrant organisations and NGOproviders and advocates.

■ As part of the local authority plans on integrationand diversity a local authority interpretation servicefor homeless service providers should beconsidered. This would greatly assist in overcominglanguage barriers in the provision of services.

■ The interpretation service should be staffed bymigrant services co-ordinators with a combined setof skills including EU language skills, homelessservices knowledge and service deliverycompetencies. This role would include; – the recruitment and deployment of volunteer

interpreters, – identification and ensuring access to English

language courses; – an active diversion programme to employment

supports, tied accommodation and trainingoptions (links via FAS, IBEC, ICTU etc),

– formal referrals to regulatory bodies to secureentitlements and redress;

– diversion programmes to home countries; and – an active in-reach/outreach programme to

deliver information and advice to migrants atrisk of homelessness.

– training and awareness on use/function of theHolistic Needs Assessment for service users whoare homeless migrants and who have a differentcultural understanding of the role of the stateand social service provision in Ireland.

Recommendations for the Homeless AgencyPartnership were also drawn up including the supportof additional in-service costs as a result of theincreased level of service use as well as the provisionof immigration-related cultural awareness training forservice providers. In terms of monitoring and reportingon the demand for, and use of, homeless services bymigrants it was suggested that a high level workinggroup on homeless migrants be developed in relationto this. Ongoing monitoring will help inform policy andpractice more broadly. Finally, it was recommendedthat a policy position on migration and homelessnessbe developed that can be the basis of submission onpublic policy related to migration, integration andsocial inclusion.

Migrant experiences within a changingeconomic landscape The more recent ‘downturn’ in the Irish economymay well impact upon migrants’ experiences inIreland, and not only accession state migrants. The forecasted slow down in housing development inparticular will hit the construction industry, onesector associated with providing employment tomany migrants workers. In the event of risingunemployment among this group many could findthemselves destitute, which in turn may well haveconsequences for numbers accessing homelessservices. Research into experiences of migrants andtheir families in the context of rising unemploymentand a shifting economy would prove useful for thefuture planning and delivery of services. ■

Language

issues were

identified as

a key barrier

to accessing

specific

supports

from service

providers

within these

services.

‘

’


FEATU

RES

The Rental Accommodation Scheme [RAS]was born out of a debate on housing policythat followed the publication by the NationalEconomic and Social Council [NESC] ofHousing in Ireland and the more expansive

work, The Developmental Welfare State [DWS].1

Four key ideas from these reports stand out ashaving a major bearing on the thinking behind RAS;the aim of realising a service dividend through anincrease in the supply of social housing, a focus onmeeting housing need as part of a ‘life cycle’approach, the importance of enhancing individualchoice and the widening of public service deliverymechanisms to improve effectiveness and efficiency.

To these ideas might be added one other, agrowing concern that the traditional way of providingsocial housing in local authority estates was no longeradequate and indeed had created a legacy of acutesocial problems that the State was only beginning tocome to terms with. The words of the sociologistEsping-Andersen in looking at the future of the welfarestate in Europe presented a direct challenge to theway social housing had been provided in Ireland:

‘The foremost challenge we face is to avert that socialills become permanent, that citizens becomeentrapped in exclusion or inferior opportunities insuch a way that their life channels are affected’2

Allowing that it was not seen as a solution to all socialhousing ills, the Rental Accommodation Scheme wasperceived as a policy response in keeping with thebroad objectives of the DWS.

The Rental Accommodation Scheme, which is sort of semi-socialhousing involving private landlords, local authorities, sometimeshousing associations, and of course tenants, has been up andrunning for four years now. So it’s time to take stock, and no betterperson to do this than Eddie Lewis who was there at the birth.

Eddie Lewis is principalofficer, social housing(procurement andconstruction) section,Department of theEnvironment, Heritageand Local Government

The views in this article are those of theauthor and do not purport to be astatement of public policy.

Reflectionson RAS

1 NESC 113, The

Developmental

Welfare State

[2004] and NESC

112, Housing in

Ireland, Performance

and Policy [2005]2 Esping-Andersen

[2002], ‘Towards

the Good Society,

Once Again?’ [P6].

In Why we need a

New Welfare State.

Oxford UP.


FEATU

RES

The policy frameworkThe success of the Irish economy during the 1990shad by the turn of the century led to a demand for adividend in terms of improvements in the quality andscope of public services. This translated into ademand for an additional 73,000 social housing unitsover the period 2004–2012 which was subsequentlyacknowledged in the Social Partnership Agreement,Towards 2016. But concerns about the ability toincrease the supply of accommodation while at thesame time avoiding the social problems associatedwith some of the large mono-tenure local authorityhousing estates, prompted a search for more than justan increase in the number of housing units but for awidening of the supply options.

Although the use of the private rented sector tomeet social housing need is a feature of housingsystems in many countries it had a limited role inIreland. Of course rent supplement already provided foraround 60,000 households, many of whom were alsoseeking social housing, but this was always intended asan income support rather than an instrument ofhousing policy. Into this environment RAS wasintroduced as a supply based housing intervention withthe aim of augmenting the existing sources of socialhousing and providing a more flexible and dynamicmeans for meeting long term housing need. Theimportance of using RAS as a way of expanding andwidening the supply base was cemented in thenegotiation of the social partnership agreement wherethere was an explicit commitment to provide over1,000 new social housing units through RAS over theperiod 2007–09. These units are inaddition to the transfer ofhouseholds under arrangementswith their existing landlords.

Commitment to a life cycleapproach to welfare policy hasassumed greater importance sincethe publication of the NESC reporton the developmental welfarestate3. Making this meaningful forhousing, however, is not easy. Thepermanence built into the allocation of a local authoritydwelling militates against the use of a life cycle modelfor meeting housing need. Increasingly, however, it isbeing accepted that providing a house in a localauthority estate to a young family is not always thebest way of meeting their long-term welfare needs.Housing allocations made before the evolving health,educational and occupational requirements of thehousehold are known can easily result in the trappingof families in inferior solutions, as referred to by

Esping-Andersen earlier. In this context, RAS offered amore flexible policy response, one that can provide aninterim step before the allocation of permanentaccommodation or may even allow for a lastingsolution for particular households.

Although allocation policy has always sought toreflect the preferences of households, this is too oftensubordinated to the dictates of the available housingsupply. Housing authorities do try to meet thepreferences of households for a particular location ortype of accommodation but this is often not possible.

Again RAS allows for an expansionof choice to areas where there islittle available social housing and toa wider range of housing options.

Finally, RAS helps fulfil thegoal of expanding the deliverymechanisms for social housing.As such it is part of a generalmove to make greater use of thevoluntary and co-operative sectorto achieve housing solutions.

This extends beyond the simple procurement ofsocial housing to a range of opportunities to providemanagement, maintenance and tenancy services forhouseholds by private, non-profit and voluntary/co-operative housing bodies.

If the above factors define the broad terms underwhich RAS became part of social housing policy itquickly became evident that the scheme couldcontribute to resolving other welfare and housingconcerns. One immediate benefit for households was

3 ‘A quite fundamental standpoint, therefore, from which to judge the adequacy and effectiveness of overall social protection is

to assess the risks and hazards which the individual person in Irish society faces and the supports available to them at

different stages in thye life cycle’ [NESC:2005. P226]. This is explored further in People, Productivity and Purpose

[NESC:114] but without articulating exactly how this affects housing policy.

RAS – Delivery to date

In July 2004 the government of the day announced theintroduction of a new scheme to transfer responsibility for thehousing of those recipients of rent supplement, deemed to have along term housing need, from the Health Service Executive tohousing authorities. Just over one year later the first actual transferstook place under the Rental Accommodation Scheme. At the timeof writing (see chart above) close to 6,000 households on rentsupplement with a long-term housing need have transferred to RASand a further 5,000 to local authority housing.

...providing a

house in a

local authority

estate to a

young family

is not always

the best way

of meeting

their long-

term welfare

needs.

‘

’

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

Feb06

Feb06

Jun06

Aug06

Oct06

Dec06

Feb07

Apr07

Jun07

Aug07

Oct07

Dec07

Local Authority

Voluntary

Private

the removal of the employment trap that existingunder rent supplement. Under RAS if householdincome increased rent support would not end butwould be gradually reduced, broadly in line with thedifferential rents scheme in operation in localauthorities. Although it is still early days, reports fromcertain large urban areas indicate that up to 20% ofhouseholds transferring to RAS have moved to fulltime employment.

An equally important benefit of the scheme,though one that will take longer to realise, is theimprovement in standards in the private rented sector.Not only do housing authorities visit all properties takeninto the scheme but also it has encouraged them tobecome more active in carrying out inspections ofrented properties generally. This has helped support theinitiatives being taken by the Private Rented TenancyBoard and the Department of the Environment,Heritiage and Local Government to improve theenforcement of standards in the private rented market.Further, if a property does not meet the requirementsfor social housing set by the local authority the landlordis invited to make improvements to bring it into thescheme. If this does not happen local authorities willset about sourcing alternative accommodation of abetter quality to which the rent supplement householdcan be transferred. Although this takes time themedium term knock-on effect will be to raise standardsgenerally in the private rented sector.

A third contribution the scheme has made is tofocus attention on a segment of the population thathistorically has not been well served by social housing.The process of allocating social housing has longfavoured provided accommodation for families and in

particular those withchildren. While thisin itself isunderstandable itdoes serve to hide amajor area ofhousing need, thatof single personsliving alone in poorquality privaterented accommo-dation. In somecases single personswere on housingwaiting lists forextended periodswithout beingoffered suitableaccommodation.

In other cases low expectations of the system meantthat individuals simply hadn’t applied for housing. One of the main benefits of RAS has been to bringmore of these cases to light and to provide amechanism for meeting their long term housing needs.

While the primary objectives and some of therelated benefits set out above were envisaged in theoriginal decision to set up RAS, the development ofhousing policy that culminated in the statement onhousing policy, Delivering Homes, SustainingCommunities, saw an evolution in thinking thatcreated a central role for RAS within social housingpolicy. This statement, published in February, 2007,endorsed the life cycle approach to meeting housingneed and highlighted the importance of RAS in helpingto provide ‘the necessary springboard to accessingemployment, training or educational opportunitieswhich may lead to broader accommodation options forthe individual in the future’. Furthermore RAS wasincluded as an important social housing option thatcan assist in bringing about better tenure mix andthereby help achieve more sustainable communities.

The future for RASNo significant policy initiative survives fully intactfollowing contact with the real world. Since thescheme was announced three years ago it has alreadyundergone significant changes. Initially, theexpectations were that the majority of householdstransferring to RAS would come directly from rentsupplement in their existing properties. For a varietyof reasons, e.g. the unwillingness of individuallandlords to participate, the high level of market rentsin particular areas, the standard of some properties,this did not happen. This has meant that there hasbeen a shift in policy towards directly expanding thesupply of leased accommodation. Local authoritieshave been to the fore in this although voluntarybodies have also been active and, in a novelapproach, the Affordable Homes Partnership iscurrently engaged in procuring over 1,000 privaterented units on long-term leases in the Dublin region.

We are at the mid-point in the initial implemen-tation period for RAS. The Department is currentlycarrying out a Value for Money and Policy Review ofthe scheme that is due to be completed in the firsthalf of 2008. This will help refine the terms for RASand allied with the provision of a specific statutoryunderpinning for the scheme in the forthcomingHousing [Miscellaneous Provisions] Bill, will provide asecure basis for its long-term future. The next step willbe to fully integrate it within the housing servicesprovided by local authorities to the point where itceases to have a distinct existence and becomesinstead simply another instrument in the armoury ofthe authority in meeting social housing need. It is onlywhen this is achieved that we will be able to realisethe full potential of RAS. ■


FEATU

RES

Table: Rent Supplement Recipient Numbers. 1996–2007Year Number of recipients—————————————————————————1996 34,700—————————————————————————1997 36,800—————————————————————————1998 40,000—————————————————————————1999 41,873—————————————————————————2000 42,683—————————————————————————2001 45,028—————————————————————————2002 54,213—————————————————————————2003 59,976—————————————————————————2004 57,874—————————————————————————2005 60,176—————————————————————————2006 59,861—————————————————————————2007 [end November] 58,877

...up to 20% of households transferring to

RAS have moved to full time employment.

‘ ’


FEATU

RES

Private rentedminimumstandards: the case forbetter servicedelivery

In the last issue of CornerStone, Dermot Coates argued that the minimumstandards that applied to the private rented sector were too low andwelcomed the commitment to improve them. In his second article, he looksat enforcement of standards and finds service delivery to be lacking.

BackgroundAt the request of the Department of Environment,Heritage and Local Government (DoEHLG), the Centrefor Housing Research has undertaken a body ofresearch with regard to regulation – and indeed theenforcement of such regulations – in the private rentedsector and it is hoped that the findings of this researchwill contribute to the development and modernisationof this tenure envisaged by the policy frameworkDelivering Homes, Sustaining Communities (2007).However, the research has identified a number ofweaknesses in the operation of this regulatory regime.Following on from the discussion of the efficacy of thecurrent regulatory requirements presented in theprevious issue of Cornerstone, these are explored herein the form of a brief critique on the need to improveservice delivery in terms of the coverage attained andthe consistency of prosecution activity.

Improving service deliveryThe conduct of inspections of privately-renteddwellings pursuant to the current ‘minimum’ standards– the Housing (Standards for Rented Houses)Regulations 1993 – and the pursuit of enforcement

measures, where appropriate, has long been a role forthe housing function within each local authority.Unfortunately, this service has not been delivered on aconsistent basis across the local authority sector or,put simply, the standards are simply not enforced bymany local authorities. Indeed, the editor ofCornerstone has previously characterised inspectionactivity pre-2006 as ‘woeful’ whilst Punch (2005) hasnoted that the ‘effective regulation of standards hasalso remained largely a foreign practice…The problemlies in part in the failure to enforce these regulations’.

Indeed the reality is that inspection activity hastended to be somewhat ad-hoc and consequently, thecoverage attained by the inspection activity has beenunacceptably low with most dwellings unlikely to haveever been the subject of an inspection, particularlyoutside the key urban centres (see Table 1). Over theperiod 2001–2005, just 27,000 inspections wereconducted – an average of 5,500 inspections perannum. As Table 1 illustrates, 3 in 4 of these wereundertaken by the city councils with 18 countycouncils reporting that no activity had been undertakenin 2005. Indeed, 7 of those had not conducted a singleinspection over this entire 5 year period. Furthermore,Table 2 shows that the inspections undertaken havenot necessarily correlated with the registration oftenancies. For example, although almost half of alltenancies registered with the PRTB by 2005 were incounty council operational areas, these were subject toonly one-third of all inspections.

The views expressed in this article are those ofthe author and do not necessarily reflect thoseof the funders or the board of management ofthe Centre for Housing Research.

Dermot Coates is aresearcher at the Centrefor Housing Research

Promoting Improved

Standards in the

Private Rented

Sector: Review of

Policy and Practice,

by Dermot Coates and

Naomi Feely is

published by the

Centre for Housing

Research. You can

cough up €7.50 for a

hard copy or

download it for free

from www.chr.ie

The annual output of this service remained broadlystagnant year-on-year until recently despite thesubstantial increase in the size of this tenure.However, recent changes in the sector have served todrive the level of reported inspection activity rapidlyupwards. These include the following:

■ the increased availability of funding ■ a renewed commitment by central government to

promote greater inspection volumes, and ■ the introduction of the Rental Accommodation

Scheme (RAS)

The latter factor has been of particular importance, aslocal authorities must necessarily inspect eachdwelling before transferring a tenancy into the scheme,thereby linking the implementation of the new schemeto the conduct of inspections. In 2006, more than9,800 inspections were reported (see Table 3) andmore than 1 in 4 of these were undertaken for thepurposes of the RAS. This represents an almost 50 percent increase on the position for 2005 with countycouncils responsible for much of the additional activity.Moreover, only 3 county councils reported noinspections in 2006.


FEATU

RES

Table 1: Breakdown of inspection activity, 2001–05

Local authority 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Totals N Totals %————————————————————————————————————————————————————Cork City Co 544 850 838 730 794 3,756 13.7————————————————————————————————————————————————————Dublin City Co 2,127 3,178 3,201 4,354 3,735 16,595 60.4————————————————————————————————————————————————————Limerick City Co 52 2 1 6 0 61 0.2————————————————————————————————————————————————————Galway City Co 2 0 0 94 113 209 0.8————————————————————————————————————————————————————Waterford City Co 0 80 0 0 3 83 0.3————————————————————————————————————————————————————City Councils 2,725 4,110 4,040 5,184 4,645 20,704 75.3————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Carlow Co Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0————————————————————————————————————————————————————Cavan Co Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0————————————————————————————————————————————————————Clare Co Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0————————————————————————————————————————————————————Cork Co Co 28 0 8 0 0 36 0.1————————————————————————————————————————————————————Donegal Co Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0————————————————————————————————————————————————————Dun L.-Rath. Co Co 79 122 0 678 650 1,529 5.6————————————————————————————————————————————————————Fingal Co Co 516 297 290 1,188 719 3,010 10.9————————————————————————————————————————————————————Galway Co Co 63 0 0 0 0 63 0.2————————————————————————————————————————————————————Kerry Co Co 129 21 80 1 2 233 0.8————————————————————————————————————————————————————Kildare Co Co 3 0 0 0 0 3 0————————————————————————————————————————————————————Kilkenny Co Co 0 0 3 4 3 10 0————————————————————————————————————————————————————Laois Co Co 0 1 11 10 0 22 0.1————————————————————————————————————————————————————Leitrim Co Co 0 237 260 0 389 886 3.2————————————————————————————————————————————————————Limerick Co Co 8 0 0 3 0 11 0————————————————————————————————————————————————————Longford Co Co 0 0 0 0 89 89 0.3————————————————————————————————————————————————————Louth Co Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0————————————————————————————————————————————————————Mayo Co Co 0 0 1 1 0 2 0————————————————————————————————————————————————————Meath Co Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0————————————————————————————————————————————————————Monaghan Co Co 3 3 2 3 1 12 0————————————————————————————————————————————————————Offaly Co Co 0 0 0 1 0 1 0————————————————————————————————————————————————————Roscommon Co Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0————————————————————————————————————————————————————Sligo Co Co 46 19 5 0 0 70 0.3————————————————————————————————————————————————————South Dublin Co Co 82 206 0 92 314 694 2.5————————————————————————————————————————————————————Tipperary (NR) Co Co 0 0 1 61 0 62 0.2————————————————————————————————————————————————————Tipperary (SR) Co Co 0 23 0 0 0 23 0.1————————————————————————————————————————————————————Waterford Co Co 0 20 0 0 1 21 0.1————————————————————————————————————————————————————Westmeath Co Co 0 0 0 1 0 1 0————————————————————————————————————————————————————Wexford Co Co 3 0 0 2 1 6 0————————————————————————————————————————————————————Wicklow Co Co 0 0 2 3 1 6 0————————————————————————————————————————————————————County Councils 960 949 663 2,048 2,170 6,790 24.7————————————————————————————————————————————————————Grand Totals 3,685 5,059 4,703 7,232 6,815 27,494 100————————————————————————————————————————————————————

However, the resultspresented in Table 3 doaffirm a view previouslyexpressed by the editor ofCornerstone in that ‘theresults of the inspectionsdo vary wildly across thecountry’. The most striking differential is thatalthough 1 in every 3 dwellings in a city counciloperational area is deemed not to meet thestandards, this falls to just 1 in every 10 in thecounty councils. Moreover, there are a number ofcounty councils which found no dwellings to be non-compliant in spite of having reported a highvolume of inspections (i.e. Donegal, Leitrim, etc).

Commitment to modernisationFollowing on from the commitments to the improvedregulation of the private rented sector contained inTowards 2016, the DoEHLG contacted each authorityin 2006 in order to indicate the need to intensifyinspection and enforcement activity and hascommitted itself to a programme of action to addressthe relevant issues. Under this programme, theDoEHLG has undertaken to address the need toimprove service delivery in terms of the coverageattained and the efficacy of the current regulatoryrequirements. The plan focuses upon a number of keyareas, as follows:

■ Regulation – that a general review and update ofthe standards would commence from late-2006

■ Resources and enforcement – that funding tolocal authorities would be increased whilst aplanned and strategic approach to enforcementwould be adopted

■ Research, information and promotion – that astudy would be undertaken of measures topromote improvements in standards ofaccommodation whilst the provision of publicinformation would be increased

■ Co-ordination – that local authorities would co-ordinate and co-operate with relevant agenciesand other local authority functions

The DoEHLG has also delivered additional funding tothese ends, albeit in a more targeted andperformance-linked manner and with a commitment tofurther develop the link between the attainment oftargets and funding receivable going forward. This willencourage all local authorities to roll-out a programmeof inspection activity and is consistent withcommitments under the public service modernisationprogramme(s) to make effective use of resources.

In 2005, the local authorities recouped €1.6mfrom the PRTB in order to fund inspection activity. Inlate 2006 an interim payment of €1m was allocatedthrough the PRTB for that year. These funds wereallocated on the basis of the distribution of registeredtenancies with each local authority guaranteed aminimum payment of €1,000. This constituted asignificant rise in funding compared to the fees

Table 2: Distribution of registered tenancies and inspections, 2005

Tenancies Tenancies Inspections InspectionsN % N %

———————————————————————————————Cork City Co 4759 6% 794 12%———————————————————————————————Dublin City Co 28119 35% 3,735 55%———————————————————————————————Limerick City Co 1839 2% 0 0%———————————————————————————————Galway City Co 4949 6% 113 2%———————————————————————————————Waterford City Co 1206 2% 3 0%———————————————————————————————City Councils 40,872 51% 4,645 68%———————————————————————————————

Carlow Co Co 866 1% 0 0%———————————————————————————————Cavan Co Co 414 1% 0 0%———————————————————————————————Clare Co Co 1175 1% 0 0%———————————————————————————————Cork Co Co 3465 4% 0 0%———————————————————————————————Donegal Co Co 865 1% 0 0%———————————————————————————————Dun L.-Rath. Co Co 4708 6% 650 10%———————————————————————————————Fingal Co Co 3910 5% 719 11%———————————————————————————————Galway Co Co 1216 2% 0 0%———————————————————————————————Kerry Co Co 1618 2% 2 0%———————————————————————————————Kildare Co Co 2518 3% 0 0%———————————————————————————————Kilkenny Co Co 779 1% 3 0%———————————————————————————————Laois Co Co 420 1% 0 0%———————————————————————————————Leitrim Co Co 306 0% 389 6%———————————————————————————————Limerick Co Co 798 1% 0 0%———————————————————————————————Longford Co Co 459 1% 89 1%———————————————————————————————Louth Co Co 1153 1% 0 0%———————————————————————————————Mayo Co Co 942 1% 0 0%———————————————————————————————Meath Co Co 1087 1% 0 0%———————————————————————————————Monaghan Co Co 349 0% 1 0%———————————————————————————————Offaly Co Co 554 1% 0 0%———————————————————————————————Roscommon Co Co 410 1% 0 0%———————————————————————————————Sligo Co Co 928 1% 0 0%———————————————————————————————South Dublin Co Co 3493 4% 314 5%———————————————————————————————Tipperary (NR) Co Co 607 1% 0 0%———————————————————————————————Tipperary (SR) Co Co 910 1% 0 0%———————————————————————————————Waterford Co Co 559 1% 1 0%———————————————————————————————Westmeath Co Co 1300 2% 0 0%———————————————————————————————Wexford Co Co 1537 2% 1 0%———————————————————————————————Wicklow Co Co 1929 2% 1 0%———————————————————————————————County Councils 39,275 49% 2,170 32%———————————————————————————————Grand Totals 80,147 100% 6,815 100%———————————————————————————————


FEATU

RES

Table 3: Inspections and ‘fail’ rates, 2006Dwellings Non-compliant

Inspections inspected dwellings Non-compliance

Local Authority N N N %————————————————————————————————————————————————Cork City Co 780 780 351 45.0%————————————————————————————————————————————————Dublin City Co 3,639 2,506 995 39.7%————————————————————————————————————————————————Galway City Co 158 129 10 7.8%————————————————————————————————————————————————Limerick City Co 412 308 4 1.3%————————————————————————————————————————————————Waterford City Co 341 341 0 0.0%————————————————————————————————————————————————City Councils 5,330 4,064 1,360 33.5%————————————————————————————————————————————————

Carlow Co Co 39 39 0 0.0%————————————————————————————————————————————————Cavan Co Co 1 1 1 100.0%————————————————————————————————————————————————Clare Co Co 174 174 34 19.5%————————————————————————————————————————————————Donegal Co Co 1,102 1,102 0 0.0%————————————————————————————————————————————————Dun L.-Rath. Co Co 281 201 114 56.7%————————————————————————————————————————————————Fingal Co Co 675 550 8 1.5%————————————————————————————————————————————————Galway Co Co 86 86 0 0.0%————————————————————————————————————————————————Kerry Co Co 242 242 4 1.7%————————————————————————————————————————————————Kildare Co Co 220 220 8 3.6%————————————————————————————————————————————————Kilkenny Co Co 43 43 3 7.0%————————————————————————————————————————————————Laois Co Co 9 9 0 0.0%————————————————————————————————————————————————Leitrim Co Co 202 202 0 0.0%————————————————————————————————————————————————Limerick Co Co 0 0 0 –————————————————————————————————————————————————Longford Co Co 192 192 67 34.9%————————————————————————————————————————————————Louth Co Co 270 270 0 0.0%————————————————————————————————————————————————Mayo Co Co 127 127 1 0.8%————————————————————————————————————————————————Meath Co Co 0 0 0 –————————————————————————————————————————————————Monaghan Co Co 0 0 0 –————————————————————————————————————————————————North Tipperary Co Co 60 60 0 0.0%————————————————————————————————————————————————Offaly Co Co 102 102 12 11.8%————————————————————————————————————————————————Roscommon Co Co 40 40 2 5.0%————————————————————————————————————————————————Sligo Co Co 9 9 0 0.0%————————————————————————————————————————————————South Dublin Co Co 426 426 80 18.8%————————————————————————————————————————————————South Tipperary Co Co 3 3 1 33.3%————————————————————————————————————————————————Waterford Co Co 71 71 0 0.0%————————————————————————————————————————————————Westmeath Co Co 40 40 0 0.0%————————————————————————————————————————————————Wexford Co Co 19 19 1 5.3%————————————————————————————————————————————————Wicklow Co Co 71 71 1 1.4%————————————————————————————————————————————————County Councils 4,504 4,299 337 7.8%————————————————————————————————————————————————Grand Totals 9,835 8,364 1,697 20.3%————————————————————————————————————————————————

collected by the local authorities in 2004,particularly as they are no longer responsible foradministering the system.

Further payments in respect of 2006 and 2007are due to follow over the next 18 months and at thetime of writing are expected to bring total funding to€2m per annum. In the period 2005–2007, it isexpected that cumulative total of almost €6m will beallocated for the purpose of property inspections bylocal authorities. This contrasts favourably with totalfunding of around €10m for the operation of bothregistration and standards enforcement in the period

1996 to 2004. In line with the DoEHLG’s programmeof action, this future funding will be more directlyrelated to the level of enforcement activity.

Finally, in addition to this enhanced funding theDoEHLG has committed to the review and upgradeof the ‘minimum’ standards. Furthermore, goodpractice guidelines currently being prepared by theCentre for Housing Research at the request of theDoEHLG are intended to promote a more strategicand co-ordinated approach to inspection activity andshould produce greater consistency than thatdemonstrated in Table 3. ■


FEATU

RES

...inspection

activity has

been

unacceptably

low with most

dwellings

unlikely to

have ever

been the

subject of an

inspection...

‘

’

working together to make it happen


FEATU

RES

Working Together to Make it Happen tookplace on Monday December 10th in2007 in the Royal Hospital Kilmainhamand was officially launched by Mr PatCarey T.D., Minister of State at the

Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairswith responsibility for the National Drugs Strategy andCommunity Affairs.

Drug and alcohol misuse and its association withhomelessness is a central concern for both theHomeless Agency Partnership Action Plan A Key tothe Door 2007–2010 and the National DrugsStrategy. Homeless service providers recognise thatincreasing numbers of people using their service aredrug users; similarly drug service providers are awarethat many of their clients are currently homeless orliving in insecure accommodation and vulnerable tohomelessness. A critical improvement that needs tobe made in the future is stronger coordination andmulti-agency working between homeless services andaddiction services. The seminar marked theseorganisations’ commitment to work together toaddress the needs of problem drug and alcohol usersexperiencing homelessness in Dublin.

Working Together to Make it Happen wasorganised and hosted by the Homeless Agency incollaboration with the National Drugs Strategy Team inpartnership with Drug Task Forces and the SocialInclusion Office of the CEO at the Health ServiceExecutive. Other partners in the delivery of the seminarwere Safetynet (Primary Healthcare for People who areHomeless), the Homeless Network and the Departmentof Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.

The seminar arose from recommendations madein response to a recent assessment of the needs ofpersons engaged in street drinking and drug misuse inthe city centre, conducted by Merchants Quay Irelandon behalf of the Homeless Agency and Dublin CityCouncil. Specifically, the seminar heard how a city-centre based response is being developed for thoseexperiencing homelessness and with complex needs interms of addiction.

Last December the Homeless Agency,together with others, organised a seminar ondelivering solutions to problem drug andalcohol users experiencing homelessness inDublin. Lisa Kelleher reports.

Lisa Kelleher iscommunications andpublic relations officer atthe Homeless Agency


FEATU

RES

The main focus of the day included informing theHomeless Agency Partnership care and casemanagement initiative through the development ofcare pathways for problem drug and alcohol usersexperiencing homelessness; to further developinteragency working across homeless and addictionservices through case conferencing sessions; tosupport and inform the development and roll out ofthe Health Service Executive primary care teams andto facilitate sharing of expertise and experienceamongst frontline professionals.

Over 180 people attended the seminar from awide range of services including: homeless andaddiction services, housing and residential services,health and social welfare services, training, educationand employment services, probation and communityGardaí. The seminar heard from a range of expertspeakers on topics related to delivering solutions foraddiction service users experiencing homelessness.

Case conferencing sessionsCase conferencing sessions took place in theafternoon, whereby the participants were divided intogroups of ten with a representative from homeless oraddiction services facilitating each group. The sessionswere very practical in nature with each group receivinga case study of an individual or family who is experi-encing homelessness in Dublin.

The aim of the case conferencing session for thepurposes of the workshop was to provide participantswith an opportunity to take part in a ‘case conference’or ‘interagency case meeting’ on the basis of a pre-determined case study/needs assessment.

Guidelines on how to convene a ‘case conference’were taken from a section of the interagency protocolsfor Homeless and/or Drugs services. These have beendeveloped in collaboration with the Progression RoutesNetwork as part of core action 4 of the HomelessAgency’s action plan A Key to the Door, which states,‘Implement the Holistic Needs Assessment and Careand Case Management Approach across the sector’.Each facilitator was provided with these in order tohelp them coordinate the meeting and support them inacting as the ‘case manager’.

Session aims■ To explore interagency responses to a range of

complex needs in working with problemdrug/alcohol users who are experiencinghomelessness in Dublin

■ To identify barriers/solutions to issues raisedthrough joined-up working

■ To gain familiarity with one aspect of theinteragency protocols: case meetings

■ To review a particular case with a view to agreeing:– A lead agency/case manager – A complete care plan responding to all issues

identified, including:■ Actions to be taken■ Person/organisation responsible for

these actions■ Target dates for these actions

– Long term goals for this case– Any gaps/blocks in completing this care plan

Feedback from sessionsLead facilitators Joseph Doyle, national drugs strategycoordinator, office of the CEO, Health ServiceExecutive; and Mary Martin, manager of services forsocial inclusion, Health Service Executive Dublin NorthCentral provided an overview of the feedback fromeach case conferencing facilitator, highlighting thefollowing key points:

■ Case conferencing sessions were useful whendealing with complex cases

■ Group knowledge was positive and supportive whentrying to create solutions and care plans for peoplewho are experiencing homelessness

■ The sessions provided a platform to learn andunderstand the views and priorities of other services

■ The sessions allowed clarification of roleswhen a number of organisations were workingwith one individual

■ The concept of role playing allowed participants tobe more empathetic to the needs of the person intheir case study

■ The time constraints of the sessions were useful aspeople were forced to operate and deliver solutionwithin a specific timeframe

Dr Brion Sweeney, Dublin North East AddictionServices, Health Service Executive, conducted theplenary session and examined the key outcomes fromthe case conferencing sessions including;

■ Care and case management is crucial in theprocess of providing solutions for people

■ It is important when planning a case conferencingsession that there is one lead person/organisationwho will work to coordinate the work of group

■ Planning for client is important right from thebeginning from when a person presents as homeless

■ There is an identified need for more move onaccommodation options

A full report outlining the feedback and dialogue fromWorking Together to Make it Happen will bedistributed to participants of the seminar by theHomeless Agency in early 2008.

For further information please contact Lisa Kelleheron 01 703 6106 or [email protected] ■

The seminar marked these organisations’

commitment to work together to address the

needs of problem drug and alcohol users

experiencing homelessness in Dublin.‘ ’


PO

RTR

AIT O

F A P

RO

JEC

T

Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Counciland Crosscare won the 2007 Irish Councilfor Social Housing award for communityhousing for Bentley House, which openedin December 2006.

I meet Jack Dunphy, Crosscare’s programmemanager for homeless services, and Ciara Moen theproject manager in Bentley House. The four-storeybuilding, which nestles ‘cheek by jowl’ with atraditional terrace of two storey houses, is clearlywell designed both inside and out. Jack who is fromthe area stresses the importance of listening to andrespecting the neighbours and is obviously pleasedthat the building enhances its surroundings. He tellsme that the bi-annual award was for ‘the design of

the building, the concept, and experimental natureof what the service is doing’.

As well as six emergency beds the buildingcontains eleven shared self-contained apartments,with a total capacity of forty-two residents. Ciaracredits architect Dr Eugene Gribbin for the‘uplifting nature’ of the building, and Jack withbeing the key for pushing for the quality of theinterior and the apartments.

It’s certainly a long way from the night shelteron Tivoli Road, Crosscare’s initial ‘ground zero’winter project for rough sleepers, which, despiteoffering the basics as well as it could, was severelyhampered by the fact that it resembled ‘a containeron the back of a lorry’.

Bentley House is an award-winning project run by Crosscare inDun Laoghaire which from the outside looks more like a marinehotel than a homeless service. Fran Cassidy sailed round toDun Laoghaire where Jack Dunphy showed him round.

BENTLEY HOUSE

Fran Cassidy is a writerand researcher


PO

RTR

AIT O

F A P

RO

JEC

T

Jack explains that there was a commitment fromDún Laoghaoire-Rathdown County Council (DLRCC)that Tivoli Road was a staging post on the way to this‘wonderful permanent facility that allows Crosscare todevelop the concept of homeless services andintegrate a whole health and holistic needs programmebased around peoples’ multiple needs’.

‘I think that this project has allowed us toexperiment a bit. There were doubts in the sectoras to whether you could mix emergencyaccommodation, those with high support needs andpeople trying to move on, in together. We decidedto try it. To create an environment which is reallyrespectful of people and to engage with them in aresponsible way. A year on, there are many morepositive outcomes than negative ones’.

Ciara points to one big change with the newbuilding. ‘In Tivoli Road there used to be a lot oftrouble because of peoples’ frustration and the poorliving environment, but now in this new service, thechange in them has been enormous because they’reactually in a nice, bright, calm space.’

‘Absolutely’ Jack agrees. ‘We set a standard here.We had interior designers create individual homelyapartments of the same quality that you would wantfor yourself. It was a risk. There were the usualbudgetary concerns, but Crosscare said go ahead andthe Department of the Environment (DOEHLG) andDLRCC reimbursed us for the fit out.

‘The experience of living in an apartment andbeing treated well, has really paid off in terms ofhow people perceive themselves, their confidence,motivation and their ability to engage withprogrammes. The level of conflict, frustration andanger that people had around their life, livingconditions and fragmented choices of services hasnow almost been eliminated.

‘It’s very much about the way you treat people’Ciara adds ‘and I think people feel respected here.There is equality here and residents understand thatand welcome it. They have no problem approachingstaff about anything.

‘We’re working towards developing a programmehere, at the heart of which is respect for theindividual’ says Jack. ‘People have challengingbehaviour, often largely informed by their experiences.Our approach is to try and get past the behaviour tothe person, and help them to unpack the reasons whytheir behaviour is like this’

‘We’ve been very lucky in having a funding streamfrom the HSE that has allowed us to develop ourWellbeing Programme, which is an internal mentalhealth focused programme.’

Ciara explains that the Wellbeing Programmestarted with one resident engaging with the visitingpsychotherapist Paul Bradley who ‘used motivationalinterviewing and other techniques to deal withaddiction, bereavement and other relevant issues.

‘That resident benefited hugely and thisencouraged us to develop the service further andmake it more widely available. The feedback wasextremely positive and now the psychotherapist ishere full time and we now have also a nutritionist,homeopath and reflexologist. They deal with peoples’life experiences and also issues arising from beingout of home. It also provides support to people whohave been through the mental health services, andoffer them a way of managing their day to daymental health in their own manageable way, asopposed to being completely reliant on medication orre-accessing services that they’ve had badexperiences with.

‘Some residents diagnosed with schizophrenia, bi-polar or other deliberately choose not to taketheir medication and we would have to respect

that, so we are developing in-house training tounderstand and help people manage their mentalhealth without medication if that is their wish’ explainsJack, ‘so that the person can be in more control oftheir illness and recognize triggers at an early stageand engage with it in a more controlled way, ratherthan reacting when the illness has developed into acrisis. So we have explored alternatives to workingwith people with mental health issues, and we arenow in the process of developing a WRAP programme(Wellness Recovery Action Plan) which promotes allpeople to manage their mental health in a responsibleand realistic way.

Currently, Ciara tells me, Bentley House offers‘adult education and a strong social programmethat is complementary to the Holistic Wellbeing

Programme. We urge people to keep busy: there is astep up project here every day, which is a VECprogramme including core social skills, literacy,cooking, computers, arts and crafts, photography etc.We also have a GP and a nurse that have an in-houseweekly clinic, a weekly CWO clinic and a clinic withthe local DLRCC outreach worker. The key workersassist residents in developing a care plan informed bythe HNA and encourage working towards goals,outcomes and independent living. They also assistwith budgeting and encouraging household duties.

The experience

of living in an

apartment and

being treated

well, has

really paid off

in terms of

how people

perceive

themselves...

‘

’


PO

RTR

AIT O

F A P

RO

JEC

T‘A lot of people have very poor diet when they

come here and the nutritionist is great at explaining thebenefits of small dietary changes – with some reallypositive outcomes. We have people eating regularly thatnever did before. We have a communal breakfast andevening meal each day, which is also a chance forpeople to come down and get used to sitting round thetable, eating healthily and socializing.’

‘It’s a caring approach’ Jack elabourates. ‘Food isa common shared experience that we all engage in, sowe try and make it almost a celebratory thing; thefood, the person and the social experience together.And we would put a lot of emphasis on that as beingpart of the programme here.’

Ciara agrees. ‘Food is a great way to get peopletogether and initially we did it once a week and then itjust developed. People actually enjoyed the process ofbuying food and cooking it – they wanted to comedownstairs and get together. It’s very relaxed, residentshelp with the cooking in the communal kitchen.

‘The communal area on the ground floor hasreading lamps and nice easy chairs. We deliberatelydecided that we wouldn’t have a television (except forbig matches or occasional films) because it becomes apoint of conflict, and soaks up peoples’ opportunity tocommunicate. It is a very comfortable space to playmusic, listen to the radio, read and chat.’

‘All of the apartments are self-contained. They are generallyshared by two to four people.

They have a kitchen, sitting room,bedroom and bathroom. All areequipped with a television, washer,cooker, fridge, microwave and so forth.

We have six key workers and fournight time project workers. It’s staffed24 hours.’

Jack points to differences betweenwhat is required of the night and dayteams. ‘The daytime is more focused interms of progression, outcomes andappointments. At night the staff try tocreate a caring family atmosphere.They knock at the door and visitpeople in their apartments. They mightcreate a social occasion down in thekitchen. They ensure that people feelminded rather than just being locked intheir apartments awaiting the day staff.We insist however that apartments arerespected and autonomous and if they don’t want toinvite you in they don’t have to.’

‘In the licence agreement we state that peoplecontrol and maintain their apartment – keep it clean,pay the rent, things like that, it’s about promotingindependence and responsibility’ says Ciara. Staff willalways respect your right to not invite them in – theonly reason we would enter an apartment without ananswer is if there are concerns around your safety.

‘Our rules are very low key. We’re high tolerance,low threshold and we don’t want to lose that. We do

however ask that people in the emergency beds don’tbring in alcohol and that they come in by eleven. We also have a strict drugs policy and we endeavor tomaintain a drug free environment although we dorecognize the need for properly equipped services foractive drug users.’

‘We don’t feel we have the support services inplace for that’ Jack explains ‘and we have got a dutyof care to methadone users and people dealing withtheir addiction, to ensure that open drug use is notpart of the service delivery.

Twenty people have successfully moved on fromBentley House in the last year, some to supportedsocial housing, some to other transitional projects andsome to private rented. But options are limited in thecase of the latter.

While their experience is that the RentalAccommodation Scheme has improved things recently,Ciara points to the fact that the rent cap is dispropor-tionately very low in comparison to the price of anaverage bedsit as a major ongoing difficulty. This isexacerbated by the fact that demand for private rentalaccommodation in Dún Laoghaire outstrips supply.’We are committed to challenging all these issues andpromoting peoples rights to standards, quality andservice. The key is providing opportunity and you canonly provide opportunity by taking risks.’

Jack takes up the theme. ‘The standard ofprivate rented accommodation is appalling for a lotof the people we work with, because the rent cap isso low that some landlords think they can givepeople accommodation that is totally substandard tolive in. We’re saying that has to change. We have tochange how we view people and the standards thatwe expect people to be living in.

‘We make no apologies for setting a really highstandard here. This is the new standard; it can’t beless than this. Isn’t that the challenge? ■

‘We make no

apologies for

setting a really

high standard

here. This is

the new

standard; it

can’t be less

than this.

Isn’t that the

challenge?

‘

’

CornerStone Questionnaire

When and why did you first getinvolved in the area of homelessness?About 12 years ago in a semivoluntary capacity in a hostel inLondon, I was straight out ofUniversity, it was the dole plus aten pounds a week! I loved it rightaway, and it was the best first jobI could have had.

Has your understanding ofhomelessness changed since then?Yes, I was definitely a little naivethen. At that time I thought it mustbe possible to prevent a youngperson from becoming homelessand ending up in a hostel, but somany of the strategies in placewere about intervention notprevention. Today I am pleased tosee that there is a strong emphasison preventative measures in theHomeless Agency Action Plan, ‘A Key to the Door’.

What one policy initiative wouldmake the most difference tohomelessness people?There are many but I think that thereneeds to be a commitment to fundingfor appropriate long term supportedhousing options for people, so thatwe can provide people with a homeand put supports in place aroundthem to meet their needs. In general

I think we need to be more needs ledrather than resource led – stillsounding naive?

What have you learnt from homelesspeople you have met?Through life circumstances, it isnot beyond the realms of possibilityfor anyone of us to find ourselveshomeless. I have also learnt a greatdeal about forgiveness, respect and honesty.

Do you think poverty andhomelessness will always be with us?I don’t think it has to be, and Icertainly don’t think that in this dayand age it should be.

Can you think of anything we canlearn from another country abouttackling homelessness? Depaul Trust is an all-Irelandorganisation so we have the benefit oflearning from two jurisdictions, forexample the Supporting Peopleprogramme in the UK, particularly inrelation to quality standards.

I think we can learn a lot fromcountries such as Canada andAustralia in their approaches to harmreduction and working with peoplewho are most in need of homelessservices but are often multiplyexcluded them.

What’s the difference between NGOsand the statutory sector?NGOs are established and work tocharitable objects that are specificand defined. Often the statutorysector has a multitude of clientgroups to deal with and so mayhave competing priorities, which isnot so great for the homelesssector when it comes to theallocation of funds.

Which matters most, charity orpolitical change?I think they are inter-linked, I wouldlike to keep both. Someone oncetold me that they like to talk aboutjustice rather than charity and thatcharity is a mechanism to achievejustice. I like that.

What would you do if thehomelessness problem was solvedand you were no longer needed? Well, a nice world tour would bein order! A friend of mine and Ioften talk about setting up ourown business in design, maybewe would actually find time tomake it a reality!

Do you give money to people whoare begging?Not generally, but despite knowing thesector well I still feel very torn. ■

Kerry AnthonyCEO, DePaul Trust

Homeless AgencyParkgate Hall6–9 Conyngham RoadDublin 8Tel 01 703 6100Fax 01 703 6170Email [email protected] www.homelessagency.ie

CornerStone is

distributed free by the

Homeless Agency.

If you know someone

who would like to

receive CornerStone,

or you would like your

own copy, contact:

11 21 17 Private rented minimum standards … · Ireland research. CornerStone ... there wasn’t...

Documents

Transcript of 11 21 17 Private rented minimum standards … · Ireland research. CornerStone ... there wasn’t...