17

SWOT Analysis of Social Investment Package proposals on homelessness (Commission Staff Working Document on homelessness – CSWD)

Strengths / Social investment concept: social investment offers economic and social return over time. This is highly applicable to homeless policies and particularly to support transition to more ambitious, integrated and evidence-based strategies focusing on housing-led responses and integrating prevention.
Strong evidence base for action on homelessness: the CSWD cites 410.000 homeless people on an average night in the EU, and refers to various trends which are increasing risks of homelessness for parts of the population such as women, single-parent and large families, older people, Roma and other minorities.
The CSWD proposes to use ETHOS, the European typology of homelessness and housing exclusion, based on the recommendations of the European Consensus Conference on Homelessness organised in 2010. This provides an important framework for transnational comparisons and exchanges.
The policy recommendations (part two of the CSWD) are quite comprehensive and provide initial guidelines for addressing homelessness. These guidelines served as a basis for reporting on homelessness in the 2014 National Social Reports.
Generally the CSWD calls for better integration of homelessness concerns in other EU policies such as the European Semester (national reform programmes, country specific recommendations), EU Roma framework, Active inclusion recommendation, and in the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESF, ERDF, etc)
Weaknesses / The SIP generally has an over-simplistic focus on efficiency and budget constraints rather than on improving the outcomes of social policy for beneficiaries and society or realising fundamental rights.
The SIP is a highly fragmented package, with lack of clarity on implementation and follow-up. There is a risk that without a clear social policy framework for implementation that there will be no follow-up of the CSWD on homelessness (and other SIP recommendations).
No links are made to the EPAP key actions on homelessness (DeveloptheVoluntaryEuropeanQualityFrameworkonsocialservicesatasectorallevel,includinginthefieldoflong-termcare and homelessness + Identifymethodsandmeanstobestcontinuetheworkinitiatedonhomelessnessandhousingexclusion,takingintoaccounttheoutcome of the consensus conference of December 2010)

1

Opportunities / Clear recommendations for EU and MS actions.
EU level:
-Targeting homelessness in relevant sectoral policies (e.g. regional development, health, human rights, youth, migration)
-Integrating homelessness in the European Semester, linked to the poverty target, CSRs, NRPs
-Use of EU funding instruments (EaSI, ESF, ERDF, FEAD, etc) to address homelessness
-Thematic reporting on the use of the structural funds for tackling homeelssness
> EU framework to bring this all together through bi-monthly multi-stakeholder meetings on homelessness?
MS level:
-Putting into place integrated strategies,
-ensuring adequate funding,
-preventive approach (e.g. reducing evictions),
-strengthening cooperation across sectors (e.g. health and social),
-improving the quality of emergency accommodation,
-improving employability of homeless people,
-empowering homeless people,
-reinforcing partnerships, etc
> Peer Review programme to test these approaches, drive innovation, learning and accountability of MS?
Threats / General SIP focus on targeting, conditionality, temporary nature of support in terms of social policies, cash benefits, and services may actually contribute to increasing (risk of) homelessness.
Call for private investment (non-profit and for-profit) in social policies and social services – while this is potentially interesting, especially in the current economic crisis, this should NOT lead to reduction in public funding for services of general interest
Overall lack of clarity on implementation and overreliance of mainstreaming in the European Semester without specific guidance about how to do this.
Lack of clarity about how the calls for MS action on homelessness should be followed and what leadership/initiative the Commission will take in terms of monitoring and support.

Recommendations for EAPN position on ensuring follow-up of the CSWD on homelessness

EU level

  • Ensure that homeless people have a strong voice in the annual meeting of people experiencing poverty;
  • Call for inclusion of CSRs on homelessness in the Semester process – see communication on the 2013 CSRs which states that MS should pay more attention to different forms of poverty including homelessness, child poverty, in-work poverty and over-indebtedness;
  • Call for improvement of EU social policy governance, which provides space to make progress on all the topics of the SIP including homelessness, in other words call for an EU framework on homelessness in a renewed social OMC;
  • Call for analysisand monitoring of progress on homelessness as part of the mid-term review of Europe 2020.

National level

  • Encourage MS to highlight integrated homelessness strategies the 2014 National social reports, in order to support overall monitoring of progress on homelessness prevention and alleviation;
  • Call for addressing the non-take up of income support by homeless people (through the EMIN network)
  • Call for active inclusion strategies targeting people who are homeless or affected by housing exclusion (see ETHOS typology);
  • Recommend effective use of EU structural and investment funds to address homelessness through a combination of FEAD, ESF and ERDF.

1