The Possibilities and Limitations of Housing-led Projects: A Hungarian example
Introduction:
The paper explores the possibilities and limitations of a fixed-term, housing-led project targeting rough sleepers, in Budapest, Hungary. Firstly, homelessness in the Hungarian context will be discussed, followed by the barriers faced by rough sleepers in attempting to access affordable housing – at both a structural and individual level. In particular, there is a lack of social housing stock, a relatively weak welfare system for unemployed people, difficulties homeless people encounter in accessing unemployment benefits, and insufficient housing benefits. The paper will then describe a housing-led project in Budapest – which was in operation at the time of writing – offering housing as well as support services to 20 homeless people for the duration of 12 months.
Social and housing services in Hungary:
The Hungarian social welfare system is both overly-restricted and inadequate in responding to those living below the poverty line. Many of those who are unemployed are not entitled to unemployment benefit, with some working in informal or insecure employment which negatively impacts on their eligibility in accessing unemployment benefit, and even if they do qualify. Unemployment benefit amounts to approximately €100 per month.
Homelessness and rough sleeping in Hungary:
There are two definitions of homelessness in the Social Act of 1993, both of which are narrower than in most EU member states. Firstly, those who are either roofless or sleeping in homeless services are considered homeless, and secondly, those without a registered abode, or whose address is either a homeless facility or other public institution. As such, people living in overcrowded, substandard accommodation, or who are ‘sofa surfing’ are not officially recorded as homeless. According to the ETHOS typology of homelessness, homelessness in Hungary is defined in relation to categories 1 to 3 (i.e. public spaces, night shelters, and other homeless shelters).
Specific schemes to assist rough sleepers:
Initiatives aimed at resettling homeless people have a long history in the European Union, particularly in countries like the United Kingdom. European adaptations of the Housing First philosophy have proven successful in Denmark, Holland, Portugal and Scotland. Similar programs have been developed more recently in Hungary and other Central and Eastern European countries, where the system of provision for homeless people still operates using the ‘staircase’ model of provision, despite the documented limitations of such an approach.
Aims and targets of the Independent Housing Project:
In this section, one of the on-going projects in Budapest will be described, with a particular emphasis on its housing-led characteristics, success rates so far, and strengths and limitations. The project was run by BMSZKI (Budapest Methodological Centre of Social Policy and its Institutions) – the largest homeless service provider in Budapest which operates several services ranging from outreach work and health services, to shelters and hostels for single people, couples and families with children. The ‘Opening to the Street’ project aims to reduce the number of rough sleepers and enable their social integration by improving their employment prospects and promotes independent living.
Recruitment of service users and finding accommodation:
As mentioned before, the primary target group of the “Opening to the Street” project consists of former rough sleepers. Applicants to the Independent Housing Project element were also required to demonstrate a history of rough sleeping through providing a recommendation form filled by any outreach team operating in the territory of Budapest and its surroundings. Outreach teams were informed about the project in advance, and asked to provide feedback on service users to BMSZKI’s Housing Office. The application period was open until such time as enough participants had joined the project. Participants were chosen on a first come-first-serve basis was and only one applicant was turned down as all places had already been taken.
Experiences of independent housing:
As mentioned above, the preparation phase (i.e. finding adequate housing for participants) lasted for a month only. This tight deadline put pressure on service users and case-workers alike. Difficulties in finding adequate accommodation within a tight timeframe included:
• finding an apartment/room with rent and utilities that could be afforded, given the relatively low financial subsidy.
• finding an apartment/room where the landlord agreed to forgo two-month deposit in advance.
• finding an apartment for former rough sleepers in terms of prejudice of landlords.
Conclusion:
Fixed-term housing-led projects, although limited, demonstrate some benefits in a social context where homeless people with complex needs have no alternative options. Evidence shows that housing and social support that only lasts for 12 months can be meaningful, and trigger positive changes for those with histories of rough sleeping, even those with chaotic backgrounds. If participants can secure an adequate income (whether from employment or some sort of pension), they can maintain their housing once the financial support ceases, while their social care can be transferred to mainstream support system.
Also Read: Effective of Cost Control and Cost Reduction Techniques for Building Materials