RCT proposal of housing first for homeless families in

BrnoStepan Ripka, University of Ostrava,

Platform for Social Housing

Conceptual framework

Roma Housing

Rent arrearsShelters

Hotels

Social housingHomelessness

Municipal housing

Conceptual framework

•Roma in hostels are homeless Roma•Homeless Roma are no specific groups of homeless people•The most effective strategy to tackle homelessness is rapid provision of housing and floating support in housing•Lack of affordable housing we need social housing which will serve the most vulnerable (in most acute need). HOW TO DO IT???

Background: Housing stock and family homelessness

Municipal housing stock in CR: 76% privatized between 1991 and 2001.

Tenancy by ethnicity(2011 RRS and census)

Indebted tenants evicted, new tenants hardly accepted (high thresholds, municipalities and owners prefer vacancy)

No social housing, 80% funds towards owners

  Roma Overall CROwner-occupied 13% 78%Rrental 79% 19%

Background: Ways to homelessness

Discrimination on housing market (66%) High indebtedness both towards

municipalities and utilities providers Construction of housing allowance that

preferred hostels since 2011

Large portion of Roma families driven to secondary housing market, especially hostels (at least 2 700 families in 2014)

Previous housing

Barriers to housing

Families in temporary hostels

Insufficient resources for rental housing Low qualification, low employability Children mostly between 2-8 y\o, single

parents with children 1-3, often coming from shelters

High vulnerability: pilot of family VI-SPDAT in Brno: 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, 12, 15, 17

Solutions to family homelessness in the CR

Long-term hostels as solution to homelessness in 2013 – denied, but for how long?

Transitional housing in the CR since 2000s, well established. Effectiveness for families 20%, complex needs are not addressed. Politically desirable – keeps deservingness and mainstream concept of getting people motivated and view on learning skills prior to being housed.

No HF pilot yet, experience with DI piloting

Situation in Brno South Moravia, 380 000 inhabitants 15 000 Roma, number of families in

hostels not known, estimated hundreds Over 26 000 municipal flats, over 800

vacant. Proposal to end homelessness in Brno Workshops, planning, projects for 200

flats, HF pilot, RRH pilot

Sources of inspiration Culhane (2007) Typology of family

homelessness Rapid rehousing in US (Rapid Exit, spread

of RRH following HEARTH act) Pilot project Home to Stay (NY)

RCT on 120 Episodically homeless families CTI for families, MI Scaled up after RCT (LINC 2)

Why ending? Use of shelters Culhane et al. (2007): Testing a Typology of

Family Homelessness:• More than half of resources used for 20% of

families• Episodically homeless (2 – 8%) did not get

support• Conclusion: Long-term stays of families in

shelters are not due to objective characteristics of families, but due to the system of homeless care itself.

Rapid Re-housing (USA)

• Since 2009 1,5bil USD, federal program• Aims to minimize time of homlessness rehousing in matter of

DAYS or WEEKS• Aims at STABILIZATION of the homeless household in MONTHS• Household is then supported in deciding how, when, and where they

will tackle other problems or aims using mainline services and resources.

• Partnership with owners and clients.• Good case management is extremely important – motivational

interviewing, strengths based approach, CTI

Houston: The Way Home (2015)

Pilot RRH project in Brno Coordinated by the city, municipal flats,

service provider IQ Roma Servis 50 intervention families, 100 control (TAU) Outcomes measured after 6 and 12

months Service: FACT, (CTI), MI, SBA

treatment manual

 Program stages

Prehousing – outreach, ID, prehousing training orientation for clients, inquiry into housing preferences

Move-in - 2 offered flats for everyone, setting up payment with the city, move-in package 

Stabilization - connecting to school, well-being of children, neighbors, healthcare 

Eligibility criteria From 3 – 4 districts Families with 2 – 5 children in hostels\

shelters\inadequate housing Children born in Brno or going to school in

Brno Eligibility for benefits Only non-serious criminal background will

be tolerated

RCT stages 1. Survey of the „universe“ - (possibly part

of registry week). VI-SPDAT + other data 2. Enrollment of 150 families for the RCT 3. Random assignment of 50 flats + 100

families in control group 4. Gradual move-in (10 families\month) 5. Survey at move-in 6 and 12 months 6. Scaling up to Brno

Expected outcomes Improved school attendance Reunification\children placed outside home,

juvenile justice High housing retention rate (above 60%,

compared to 20% of transitional programs) Improved employment chances More predictable family budget Improved quality of life Cost analysis

Intervening factors

Ethnicity (disrimination on housing market)

Level of indebtedness

Other data collected at 0, 6, 12

Children’s school grades Changes in household composition Interactions\arrests\jails Drug and alcohol use Relapse Health conditions Community participation Complaints

Possible qualitative research

Schools - research with teachers Neighbors City officials MPs Children

Comments and suggestions welcome!

stepanripka@gmail.com