RCT proposal of housing first for homeless families in Brno

1. RCT proposal of housing first for homeless families in Brno Stepan Ripka, University of Ostrava, Platform for Social Housing

2. Conceptualframework Roma Housing Rent arrears Shelters Hotels Social housing Homelessness Municipal housing

3. 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???

4. 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

5. Background: Ways to homelessness • Discrimination on housing market (66%) • Highindebtednessbothtowardsmunicipalities and utilitiesproviders • Constructionofhousingallowancethatpreferredhostelssince 2011  Largeportionof Roma familiesdriven to secondaryhousing market, especiallyhostels (at least 2 700 families in 2014)

6. Previous housing

7. Barriers to housing

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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.

13. 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

14. Houston: TheWayHome (2015)

15. 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

16. 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 

17. Eligibility criteria • From 3 – 4 districts • Families with 2 – 5 children in hostels\shelters\inadequate housing • Children born in Brno orgoingto schoolin Brno • Eligibility for benefits • Only non-serious criminal background will be tolerated

18. RCT stages • 1. Surveyofthe „universe“ - (possibly part of registry week). VI-SPDAT + other data • 2. Enrollmentof 150 familiesforthe RCT • 3. Randomassignmentof 50 flats + 100 families in controlgroup • 4. Gradualmove-in (10 families\month) • 5. Surveyatmove-in 6 and 12 months • 6. Scaling up to Brno

19. 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

20. Intervening factors • Ethnicity (disrimination on housing market) • Level of indebtedness

21. Other data collected at 0, 6, 12 • Children’sschool grades • Changes in household composition • Interactions\arrests\jails • Drug and alcohol use • Relapse • Health conditions • Community participation • Complaints

22. Possible qualitative research • Schools - research with teachers • Neighbors • City officials • MPs • Children

23. Comments and suggestionswelcome! stepanripka@gmail.com