Nature and patterns of homelessness service provision in Europe

• Author: Isabel Baptista - Eric Marlier
• Pages: 75-111

National strategies to fight home lessness and housing exclusion Synthesis Report

75

3 NATURE AND PATTERNS OF HOMELESSNESS SERVICE PROVISION

IN EUROPE

This section examines current patterns of service provision for homeless people, based on the

analysis provided by the ESPN Country Teams and with reference to the discussion on recent

attempts to construct a typology of the range of homelessness services in Europe (Pleace et al.

2018). The section starts by briefly presenting the proposed typology (Sub-section 3.1), followed

by a description of the main types of support services provided across Europe (Sub-section 3.2),

including a brief discussion of the main approaches which underpin the countries’ current responses

to HHE. The section then looks at the available evidence on the effectiveness of existing responses

at three different levels, i.e. in preventing HHE, in providing access to permanent accommodation

solutions, and in providing comprehensive and flexible support (Sub-section 3.3). A description of

the main service providers of HHE services as well as their role, followed by the identification of

important innovations in the provision of homelessness services in the last 5 years, will be the

focus of the following two sub-sections (3.4 and 3.5, respectively). The Section will end by

identifying the main systemic causes limiting and/or enhancing effective and sustainable ways out

of homelessness across Europe. It gives a summary table with a comparative perspective on the

main challenges to be addressed, as well as on the main priorities for improvement identified at

the national level (Sub-section 3.6).

3.1 A European framework for the classification of services for homeless

people

The attempt to develop a European classification of services for homeless people (Pleace et al.

2018) made by the European Observatory on Homelessness (EOH) may constitute a helpful

transnational reference definition, enabling us to better understand the diversity of the current

patterns of service provision for homeless people across the 35 countries analysed.

This typology recognises the considerable differences between the responses to homelessness in

Europe, as well as the diversity of existing interpretations of what a homelessness service may be.

These depend notably on the country’s definitions of homelessness which, as highlighted in Section

1, may vary considerably.

Thus, the authors argue, any attempt to build a European typology of homelessness services

must encompass “housing-led, choice orientated, comprehensive and flexible services that

recognise housing as a human right”, as well as “emergency shelters that offer a bed, a meal and

nothing else”. (Pleace et al. 2018 21)

The proposed typology is structured around two main questions: a) is the support provided housing-

focused, i.e. are services centred on using ordinary housing (e.g. housing-first services), or non-

housing-focused, i.e. they are mostly aimed at making someone “housing ready” by providing

support and treatment (e.g. shelters and temporary accommodation)?; and b) how intense is the

support provided (e.g. a food-distribution service is a low-intensity service, whereas Intensive Case

Management (ICM) services, which are provided for people with complex needs are an example of

a high intensity service)?

A wide range of different types of services can be identified within this overall framework:

emergency shelters, hostels, day centres, street outreach services, floating mobile support,

temporary supported housing, Housing-first services, transitional housing, housing-led services,

temporary accommodation, specialised health services, tenancy sustainment services, debt

counselling support, local letting agencies/housing access schemes, etc.

National strategies to fight home lessness and housing exclusion Synthesis Report

76

The diversity of services described by the national experts confirms the existence of such patterns

of service provision, which can be roughly classified according to the proposed typology presented

in Figure 4.

Figure 4: A Proposed Typology of European Homelessness Services

Source: Pleace et al. (2018). Homelessness Services in Europe, FEANTSA, Brussels. Available online.

It is important to highlight that although this typology may be a helpful tool for classifying the

main types of homelessness services identified across the 35 countries, it is not intended to provide

clear cut positioning of existing homelessness provision, neither between, nor within individual

countries. Lower intensity non-housing services are present in countries where housing-led, Housing

First services may be highly developed and, at the same time, in countries where there is a

predominance of non-housing lower intensity services, Housing First programmes may also be

present.

3.2 Main types of support services

3.2.1 Prevailing approaches to homelessness and housing exclusion

Back in 2010, the Jury’s recommendations to the European Consensus Conference acknowledged

the need to enhance a paradigm shift away from the traditional policy response of “managing

homelessness” towards a focus on housing as a human right. More recently, Pleace et al. (2018)

recalled the growing body of evidence on a “demonstrably effective response” which can be used

National strategies to fight home lessness and housing exclusion Synthesis Report

77

at a strategic level for reducing the risks of “experiencing homelessness” and, particularly, of

“experiencing homelessness for any amount of time or on a repeated basis”.

The national experts’ descriptions of the nature and patterns of homelessness service provision

within their countries provide some insights into the prevailing approaches which are currently in

place and, in some cases, show the emergence of a shift towards housing-led approaches within

the overall provision of homelessness services. In some cases, it is not possible to identify a

“shifting trend”, but there is evidence of isolated examples of housing-led initiatives (often Housing

First projects).

Table 9: Grouping of countries according to the dominant approach in the provision of

homelessness services

Predominantly staircase approach Predominantly staircase approach with evidence

of shifting trend

BA, BG, CY, CZ, EE, EL, HR, LT, LV, ME, MK, MT, PL, RS, TR AT, BE, DE, ES, FR, IE, IT, LU, NL, SI

Predominantly staircase approach with evidence

of small-scale initiatives Predominantly housing-led/Housing First approach

HU*, PT, RO, SE, SK, AL, DK, FI, UK, XK

*The national experts note a trend towards the criminalisation of homelessness, leading in late 2018 to the

criminalisation of rough sleeping.

Source: ESPN national reports.

A staircase model of service provision seems to prevail in the overwhelming majority of

European countries, i.e. in most countries the different types of support aim at assisting homeless

people with their needs through different forms of temporary housing support up to the point

where they are ready to live independently in their own home. Contrary to Housing First services,

housing comes last.

In Latvia, for example, the description of the overall approach to tackling homelessness illustrates

the traditional supply of non-housing focused support services, revealing some important frailties

of the existing system: “low-intensity services, offering basic non-housing support and emergency

accommodation form the bulk of the homelessness service provision in Latvia. The services offered

(emergency accommodation) for homeless people are a reactive response to homelessness

(neither curative, nor preventive), disorganised (without a strategy) and segmented (not

continuous)”.

The categorisation provided in Table 9 also shows that in several countries there is evidence of

shifts occurring in service provision, as more intensive services are provided together with

access to permanent accommodation. In Spain, for example, the national expert argues that while

the traditional system of shelter provision seems to be in crisis, there is an increasing supply of

housing-led services. The Housing First model is making its way to different Autonomous

Communities, and the new public strategies, with the impulse and initiative of a growing NGO

sector, are replacing the staircase model approach by the Housing First model. Resistance to this

evolving trend is apparent, particularly from the managing bodies of shelters and other traditional

services.

In other countries, the staircase model or “continuum of care” is still dominant, but there is

evidence of the introduction of small-scale Housing First programmes in the local provision of

homelessness services. In Sweden, for example, the introduction of Housing First services is

underway in 20 out of the 290 municipalities, and it is defined as “one intervention alongside the

ordinary organisation of homelessness support”. In pract ice, the staircase model still prevails.