Strategic Innovation

Contents USA Finland Long term and repeated homelessness Family homelessness Finland Comprehensive and coordinated strategy Outcomes Other examples

North America Key issue in the USA is long-term and repeated homelessness linked to high support needs Costs: Million Dollar Murray Existing ‘housing ready’ models not working Attractions of prevention in terms of costs In USA, some concerns about family homelessness, though main efforts are around veterans

North America Source: Los Angeles County

Prevention and Housing-Led Services Two stage strategy Array of preventative services All familiar, mediation, housing advice, support against unfair/illegal eviction, rapid re-housing models Housing-led responses, using various combinations of mobile support teams and ordinary housing Housing First, Critical Time Intervention (CTI) etc. Confusingly called ‘supported housing’ whereas we would say floating support, tenancy sustainment etc.

Prevention Americans tried to target Found it very difficult to be accurate And that the effects of prevention could be mixed Blanket provision could make only a marginal difference to outcomes But reviews in New York said it still made financial sense

Innovation Housing-led, Housing First and Critical Time intervention Improved outcomes In combination with enhanced preventative services Results around rapid re-housing of families more mixed Rapid re-housing is, in effect, LHA/Housing Benefit, but time limited, works while in place

Successes Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Successes 31% reduction in level of chronically homeless people between 2007-2014 in USA 29% of homeless people were chronically homeless in 2007, falling to 23% in 2015 in USA 13% reduction in overall homelessness between 2007-2014 Some reductions in homeless children

Finland Finland is perhaps the best example of a truly coordinated National homelessness strategy Bringing together homelessness NGOs, “Y Foundation”, municipal and central government Response has also been comprehensive: Development of preventative services and successes in homelessness prevention Specialist services for particular groups, e.g. young people and former prisoners A range of supported housing services alongside Housing First

Innovation Housing ‘social work’ as part of the preventative offer Alongside the more familiar services offering housing advice, mediation, prevention of eviction Housing First programme and related services, housing-centred, mobile, flexible support Built new affordable, social rented housing

Targeting Long-Term Homelessness Substantial success in reducing long-term homelessness The most individually, socially and economically damaging form of homelessness has been reduced This has not been accomplished on the same scale elsewhere, though not unprecedented, e.g. London

Successes Long term homelessness fell by 1,200 people between 2008-2014 Which may not sound a lot… But total homelessness in Finland in 2015 was 7,100 people (including families) Finland is close to achieving a functional zero in homelessness Homelessness is minimised, not accumulating

Successes Source: Y Foundation

Successes Source: ARA

Challenges No matter how coordinated Or how effective prevention and other homelessness services are Run into problems once affordable housing supply is insufficient Cannot coordinate or plan your way out of a housing shortage This was recognised, the Finns built and bought more social housing But housing supply remains an issue

Limits of Strategy Is the potential to save money through innovation in prevention and homelessness services Which can at least offset the costs of reform Can improve outcomes and reduce total levels of homelessness Including long-term and recurrent homelessness But cannot organise a way of not needing affordable housing and other resources

More Information Review of the Finnish Strategy On CHP website www.york.ac.uk/chp And https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/153258