The

Mag

azin

e o

f FE

AN

TSA

-T

he

Eu

ro

pe

an

Fe

de

ra

tio

n o

f N

at

ion

al

Or

ga

nis

at

ion

s W

or

kin

g w

ith

th

e H

om

ele

ss

AIS

BL

IN THIS ISSUE

2 Editorial

3 Why is client participation inwelfare services a problem?Danny Lescrauwaet

4 My experience on the Board ofDirectors of the Dublin SimonCommunityBrian Brady

5 A greater say for people who arehomeless at local level? TheDutch practice of participation ofpeople who are homeless inclient councilsTrudi Nederland

8 Participation of service users inHungaryPéter Bakos

9 User participation: a right in the makingNathalie Latour

12 The “Council for SociallyMarginalised People”: 4 yearsdown the road!Preben Brandt

14 Organising for action: the FederalInitiative of people experiencinghomelessness in Germany Roland Saurer

16 Giving a voice to people who arehomeless – the work ofGroundswellAmarjit Kaur

18 Homeless Empowerment ActionResearch Team (H.E.A.R.T.) – anexample of peer research inIrelandBill Heaney

Autumn 2006

Participation of service users:giving a voice to the experts

Userparticipation: a right in the

making

FEANTSA is supported financiallyby the European Commission.The views expressed herein arethose of the author(s) and the

Commission is not responsible for any use that maybe made of the information contained herein.

Participation of service users:giving a voice to the experts

Userparticipation: a right in the

makingPage 9

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

au

tum

n 2

00

6

2

The term participation refers to the idea of ensuring the full inclusionof all who are affected by decision-making; in processes at politicallevel but also in non-political bodies seeking to operate in an inclu-sive and democratic way. Participation can be particularly empower-ing for groups whose opinions may all too often be sidelined, suchas people experiencing homelessness. To be given this chance maycontribute to the reintegration of excluded groups and to the devel-opment of a new understanding of their own capacities.

In the social services sector the concept of user participation hasgained importance over the past 30 years. It can be defined as theinvolvement of service users in the service design and/or the deci-sion-making processes affecting the services that they use. The ori-gins of user participation can be traced back to the civil rights move-ments, when in particular organisations of people with disabilities orpeople with mental health problems started to question the imageof service users as passive victims and objects of charity. Instead, theyviewed themselves as autonomous individuals and actors in theirown right.

Another notion that has influenced the debate on user involvementis consumerism. This concept describes how consumers exert controlover the goods and services available to them. Today, there is the general understanding that the active involvementof people who are homeless in the design and implementation ofservices dedicated to them is key for a successful reintegration plan.In the context of a growing demand for quality assessment of serv-ices and increased professionalism in the sector, users have beengiven more opportunities to make their voice heard.

The level of user participation varies from organisation to organisa-tion and country to country. In several European member states, theparticipation of people experiencing homelessness in the organisa-tions providing care has become a legal obligation. Homeless or for-merly homeless people are represented on executive boards of someorganisations or participate in councils designed for consultationwith socially disadvantaged groups.

However, the establishment of systematic participation procedures atthe level of the organisation providing the services, as well as in pol-icymaking processes, remains a challenge in all countries. Userinvolvement happens, but it is often not yet well established oroccurs only in an ad-hoc way.

The aim of this edition of the FEANTSA magazine is to present expe-riences of user participation in different European countries. Theexamples describe different approaches to participation and high-light their positive outcomes without neglecting the problems thatremain.

The first article, written by Danny Lescrauwaet from Belgian FEANTSAmember Steunpunt Algemeen Welzijnswerk and chair of theFEANTSA participation working group, is a general introduction touser involvement in homelessness services. Danny Lescrauwaet refersto the consumerist approach to user involvement. He argues that inthe case of voluntary organisations, the power of its consumers – theservice users – to influence service provision is only limited, as a thirdparty, the funders, who actually pay for the services, intervenes. Therefore, organisations should themselves become more active inthe area of user involvement in order to ensure that service users’needs are met in an effective way.

This recommendation is in line with the article written by BrianBradey, who reports on his experience on the Board of Directors ofDublin Simon Community. As a person who was homeless for fiveyears, he stresses the positive outcomes of stronger user participa-tion for both the organisation providing the services as well as itsusers.

The next articles describe how different countries and organisationshave implemented the legal obligation for user involvement. TrudiNederland and Maarten Davelaar, who work as researchers at theVervey-Jonker Institute, present the main findings of their evaluationof client councils in the Netherlands. The authors highlight that,despite a continuing democratisation taking place at local level, theparticipation of people experiencing homelessness in these councilsis still very limited. They present recommendations how this might beimproved in the future. Péter Bakos, from FEANTSA member Refomix, provides a similaranalysis of the Advocacy Forums which were created in Hungary inorder to promote participation and to protect service users’ rights.While recognising the positive potential of the Advocacy Forums, heunderlines the need to further develop the systematic involvement ofservice users in Hungary. Nathalie Latour describes how user participation has been integrat-ed into the work of French FEANTSA member Fnars. She explainsthe functioning and the role of the Social Life Councils (“Conseils deVie Social”) and presents a number of success factors that wereidentified in the context of a members’ survey on user participationin 2005.

A rather positive first assessment of the Danish Council for SociallyMarginalised People is provided by Preben Brandt, who works forthe Project Udenfor. Preben Brandt is chairman of this Council,which was set up by the Ministry of Social Affairs four years ago.Although homelessness has not been tackled in an adequate way,the author is confident about the positive impact of the Council onpolicies affecting the lives of people who are socially disadvantaged.

The following article deals with the organisation of people experi-encing homelessness in Germany. Roland Saurer from theBundesbetroffeneninitiative Wohnungsloser Menschen e.V. (BBI)describes the history and current activities of his organisation, whichhas been fighting for the rights and interests of people who arehomeless in Germany since 1991.Supporting people who are homeless to create their own solutionsto homelessness is also the mission of Groundswell, the first organ-isation dedicated to increasing user involvement in homelessnessservices in the UK. In her article, Amarjit Kaur, director ofGroundswell, presents the various activities of her organisation andin particular its work with homeless charity St Mungo’s on increasingthe level of resident involvement in all aspects of the organisation. An example of peer research is described by Bill Heaney who wasmember of the HEART project support group in Ireland. The HEARTproject was designed to explore homeless people’s experiences ofthe services in the Galway area. The innovative aspect was that all ofthe research was conducted by people who had experienced home-lessness themselves.

As always, FEANTSA extends its sincere thanks to all contributors ofthe magazine for their time and expertise. We hope you will enjoyreading the FEANTSA magazine. Your comments are welcome. Youcan send them to silke.paasche@feantsa.org.•

Editorial

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

au

tum

n 2

00

6

3

This article deals with client participation, and is based on a coursetext written a few years ago at the Steunpunt AlgemeenWelzijnswerk. Later contributions from members of FEANTSA's par-ticipation working group have further developed the subject.

SERVICES REQUIRE PARTICIPATIONSocial services can only function with the client’s participation. Theservice is created only through the active involvement of the client.The client is thus not only consumer, but also “co-producer.” If adoctor wishes to make a diagnosis, the patient will have to cooper-ate and give correct information. If one wishes to teach or tutor, thestudent will have to do the learning. If a person who is homelesswishes to stay in a reception centre, he/she will have to comply withall sorts of rules and requirements. In order for the service to bedelivered, the user - by definition - must actively participate.

Any service that does not keep in touch with the reactions and inputon the client’s part, will eventually become redundant. That soundspretty obvious, but how many organisations are inclined to incorpo-rate client’s feedback into their own structures? How many organi-sations are inclined to create a structural setting, such as complaintbooks, complaint services, consultation meetings, client boards, etc.where clients can comment freely? Of all the organisations obligedto take such steps, how many consider it a waste of time and unnec-essary bureaucracy? What worries them? Do they feel heard?

WHAT DOES PARTICIPATION MEAN TO THE USER?Despite the fact that a service can only be rendered in conjunctionwith the client’s participation, the client still tends to feel dependenton the service provider. Much is organised without much input orchoice for the user. The social service is pre-structured into severalphases. The user must often do a number of things without know-ing why. The individual often has only a hazy understanding of thegoals and the meanings involved in the whole process.

WHY DO NON-PROFIT ORGANISATIONS OFTEN SUFFERFROM A LACK OF CLIENT PARTICIPATION?In Belgium there is a common expression: ‘wiens brood men eet,diens woord men spreekt’1. In order to secure their funding, not-for-profit organisations are obliged to ensure that their sponsors andsubsidising authorities keep them in mind. At the same time, theyneed to keep attracting new clients. Thus, there is a structural needto keep focused on two very different groups of people. In order tosurvive, a non-profit organisation must continually prove that theirexistence can be socially justified. There is a danger that this canbecome more important than providing high quality services.

For private companies, profit is the reason of existence. Increasedprofitability is seen as an expression of client satisfaction. The gener-ated profit is the direct feedback from the market to the company.

In the non-profit sector this price signal does not work. The client’scontribution says nothing about the value the person attaches to theservices he/she receives. Consequently, non-profit organisations donot receive clear, tangible and financially relevant feedback from theclient.

As most of the money comes from governmental authorities anddonors, the chances are that much of the attention of the organisa-tion will shift to their relationship with the funders. Non-profit organ-isations invest much time and energy in proving their usefulness tothe funding authorities: they write policy reports, policy statements,work reports, evaluations, project applications, etc. This time cannotbe spent on the actual provision of services. Non-profit organisationstherefore risk detaching from their target groups. Because a thirdparty disturbs the classic market mechanism, there is no direct andeffective feedback from clients about the usefulness and quality ofthe services provided. Not-for-profit organisations are obliged to findan alternative guide. They must clearly define their mission, vision andtarget audience and regularly evaluate their services.

IMPACT OF THE THIRD PARTY ON THE CLIENT As a third party (public authorities, donors) intervenes to finance aparticular service, the service becomes available at a price which isbelow the market level. Client feedback and complaints will haveless impact on the service and are not easily translated into policymaking. If no conscious action is taken to continually evaluate theservices and to request feedback from the clients, it becomes diffi-cult to be aware and responsive to changing client needs. Whenclients are not satisfied, they do not always have the option of goingelsewhere. Client dissatisfaction is often the reason new organisations are setup, using new methods, rather than transforming existing services.Because the market mechanism cannot play its role, not-for-profitorganisations are scarcely dependent on their clients. A strong clientfocus is not necessary for survival. Services are dependent on thirdparties for their funding, and clients are dependent on the services.The client has very little impact on determining whether a particularservice is necessary or not. The client is not given a voice and isdependent on the social, political and ethical choices others make.•

References: - Staut,P., Op zoek naar de eigenheid van social-profitdiensten,

Opleiding leiden van een organisatie (course text), Balans.- Verbeek, G, (1993) Wat zeggen onze cliënten, Gebruikers-

raadpleging als middel voor kwaliteitsbevordering, NederlandsInstituut Voor Zorg en Welzijn.

- Driessens, K., e.a., (1998) ‘Welzijn en cultuur’ in: jaarboekarmoede en sociale uitsluiting, Acco.

1 Dutch expression, meaning ’you speak the words of the person that feeds you’.

Why is client participation in welfare services a problem?By Danny Lescrauwaet, Steunpunt Algemeen Welzijnswerk, Belgium and chair of FEANTSA’s participation working group

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

au

tum

n 2

00

6

4

“The most important work youand I will ever do will be withinthe walls of our own homes.”Harold B. Lee

I am starting my second year on the Boardof Directors of the Dublin Simon Community(an organisation based in Dublin, Irelandwhose goal is the eradication of homeless-ness). Last year I sat on the StrategicPlanning Committee and this year I havebeen given the honour to serve on the Auditand Organisation Sub Committee.

This may all sound fine and noble to theaverage person. The unusual thing about mysituation is that I was homeless for five years,and have first hand experience of the chal-lenges that people who are homeless face.

When the Dublin Simon Community heldan open election for the board in 2005 anumber of homeless people who used theirservices stood for election. Two of us wereelected and by the high number of votes wereceived, it was clear the Communitythought our presence was needed at boardlevel. As it transpired we were the first peo-ple in our situation to take such positions inany organisation in Ireland.

The whole issue of participation boils downto those that are willing to get involved;only 30% of the population voted in the2004 EU elections. Just think of all peoplewho are homeless, alienated, disenfran-chised: people who are dealing with mentalhealth problems, addiction to drugs or alco-hol or just serious financial issues. How canthey be expected to become involved withwhat, to some, seems to be an extension ofthe establishment that has marginalisedthem in the first place?

Not everybody who is using a homelessservice will want to participate, or indeedbelieve that it is worth their while partici-pating in the organisation. Before you can

have participation you need change andfrom my experience with the Dublin Simonthey are more than happy to listen to thepeople they are here to help. This in part isa result of the Dublin Simon taking a morebusiness-like approach to the business ofhelping people. One major change was thatif the Simon is providing a service then theyshould listen to their customers. Having twomembers of their target demographic sit-ting on the strategic planning group was amajor display of the Communities willing-ness to “walk the walk” and try to meet theneeds of the people they are set up to help.

“The ordinary acts we practiceevery day at home are of moreimportance to the soul thantheir simplicity might suggest.”Thomas Moore

The main challenge to the organisation wasto change from providing services that theythought were useful, to providing supportand trying to meet the needs of each indi-vidual that came to the Simon for help. Letme state what seems the obvious: mostpeople who are homeless want somewheresecure and safe that they can call home,knowing that when they go out they will stillhave a home to return to at the end of theday. This is a serious issue as it brings thelocal and national government authoritiesinto the picture! It is the job of voluntaryorganisations to supply the means of hous-ing that is by rights a government issue.

The work FEANTSA is undertaking to bringawareness to the European Parliament orother relevant bodies is hopeful, but as weknow the wheels of the EU turn slowly andin unexpected ways, any policy change canbe ignored by the member states ad infini-tum. This leaves the organisations set up toend homelessness at a distinct disadvantagein finding or providing suitable properties inwhich to house the people they are tryingto bring into society where they will be

treated as equals. Later this year one of ourfellow NGOs – Focus Ireland – is hosting amajor conference on the challenges of cre-ating housing for people who have nohome, and I look forward to its outcome.

As I recover from the causes and effects ofmy homelessness, my time with the Simonhas shown me that one of the most impor-tant symptoms of being homeless is alien-ation from society. Here in Ireland a recentpoll revealed that 52% of the populationthinks that it is an individual’s own fault ifthey end up living on the streets.

Increasingly the various kinds of addictionand their numerous causes are now beingrecognised as diseases. The flawed plan ofleaving suffers of mental heath problems tofend for themselves in a community whereit is all too easy to fall through the cracks inIreland’s completely inefficient health sys-tem must be tackled.

By becoming involved with the Simon I havebeen placed in different situations and metmany new people, this has been ‘characterbuilding’ for me (a euphemism for some-thing that hurts). I hope I have shown oth-ers that the fact that I was once homelessdoes not mean I am unable, with the helpof the housed community, to return and bea useful member of that community. I feelthat an open mind is important for all wish-ing to help in this area, be it the newly cleanand sober homeless person or the busi-nessperson wishing to give something backto the community they live in.

“A Journey of a thousand milesstarts with the first Step”Confucius

It’s a journey that not all are willing to makebut I feel for those that are willing to helpbring homelessness to an end (which in arich western country like Ireland should beno problem at all), it will be a most reward-ing trek.•

My experience on the Board of Directors of the Dublin Simon CommunityBy Brian Brady, Director, Dublin Simon Community

Irela

nd

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

au

tum

n 2

00

6

5

In this article, we describe the involvement ofpeople experiencing homelessness in develop-ments regarding client councils in Dutch munic-ipalities. Research conducted by the Verwey-Jonker Institute into the current state of munic-ipal client participation shows that the partici-pation of people who are homeless is still in itsinfancy.1 People experiencing homelessness alsorun the risk of getting insufficiently involved inpolicy developments that are relevant to them inthe future. We will sketch the municipalities’view of the involvement of people experiencinghomelessness. Next, we will describe how theadvocates of the interests of people who arehomeless consider the issues of either theinvolvement in, or the rejection of, client partic-ipation. Finally, we will address the question ofhow the involvement of people who are home-less in municipal policy might be improved.

THE CONDITIONS FOR THEPARTICIPATION OF PEOPLE WHO AREHOMELESS IN CLIENT COUNCILS In the Netherlands, the conditions and opportu-nities for people who are homeless to have a sayin the provisions set up for them seem toimprove constantly. Legal rights have beenadopted with regard to care institutions, incomesupport and social support. The questionremains, however, how people who are home-less can exercise these rights.

Since 1996, the Act on Client Participation hasbeen effective in the social service sector. The Act’sobjective is to secure a body for client participa-tion on the institutional level. These client councilsare obligatory within relief centres as well.

People experiencing homelessness using thesefacilities can participate in these councils. Inpractice, however, a closer examination of theinstitutions’ fulfilment of this obligation revealsserious gaps. Research reveals that not even halfof all the relief centres has a client council.2

Furthermore, another study on the functioningof this Act shows that the institutions’ boards

do not take much notice of these councils’ rec-ommendations.3 Moreover, the councils oftenalso function only with difficulty, due to a lackof facilities and the lack of representativity ofmany of them. A recent study recommends thatclient participation in relief centres will onlyfunction properly when it has become an inte-grated part of the organisation’s thinking andactions. For this, there still is a long way to go.4

At local level, a continuing democratisation istaking place, since municipalities are obliged toinvolve their citizens in their policies in evermore areas. Client participation is a legal obli-gation, for instance, with respect to all policyregarding income support and reintegration ofthe labour market. Since 2004, when theReformed Social Assistance Act (WWB) cameinto effect, the municipalities have been respon-sible for the execution of both. The legislationrequires a specific form of client participation.Within municipal policy, this obligation to haveclient participation already existed with regardto transport provisions for the elderly and thehandicapped. As a result, in most Dutch munic-ipalities, both senior citizen councils and coun-cils for the handicapped have emerged.

As of 1 January 2007, in addition to thesetransport provisions, the municipalities willalso be responsible for the support of vulnera-ble citizens. The Social Support Act (WMO),which will then come into effect, obliges amunicipality to provide services for peoplewho, because of their situation, are unable tomanage by themselves. The transport provi-sions are a part of this, as are social welfareand care provisions. The Social Support Act(WMO) presents the municipalities with tworequirements: participation and accountability.Citizens are to participate actively in both pol-icy development and policy implementation,and are to exercise their influence on theseprocesses. In addition, the municipality mustgive account to its citizens and local institu-tions by publicizing its results.

A greater say for people who are homeless at local level?The Dutch practice of participation of people who arehomeless in client councilsBy Trudi Nederland and Maarten Davelaar, researchers at the Vervey-Jonker Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands

ABSTRACT

The

Net

herlands

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

au

tum

n 2

00

6

6You only get to know

10% of what vulnerablepeople are concerned

about.

THE PARTICIPATION OF PEOPLE WHO AREHOMELESS IN CLIENT COUNCILS INPRACTICEResearch on the current situation in theNetherlands with regard to client involvementin municipal policy-making shows the elderlyand the handicapped to be strongly represent-ed within the advisory structure. This is muchless the case for other target groups, like men-tal health care clients and volunteer aides.People who are homeless are hardly represent-ed at all. Furthermore, it seems that they willstay out of the picture for the near future, too.The municipalities are planning to activelyinvolve clients in policy regarding domestic careand the putting in place of information centres,however, the area of social relief has not beengiven priority. This position at the bottom of thepriority list carries with it the danger that therewill be no renewal in the services provided forpeople who are homeless, and that the involve-ment of people who are homeless will stagnate.

This unfavourable trend is strengthened by themunicipalities’ focus on restructuring the proce-dures of client participation. The city ofAmsterdam, for example, is setting up one largeorganisation for the approximately eightyorganised interest groups in the field of careand social welfare. The municipality expects theinterest group for people who are homeless tojoin this organisation. However, this focus onthe procedural side of client participation makesa far from inviting impression on the advocatesof the interests of people who are homeless.Thus, the Amsterdam interest group for peoplewho are homeless states that it does not wantto participate in the shortly to be formed organ-isation, saying: “we don’t want to get caught ina bureaucratic straitjacket.” This group alsorejects consultations with other groups, like theelderly and the handicapped: “For us, this isalso remote. We will deal with care issues whenthe need arises.”

Generally, advocates of the interests of peoplewho are homeless carefully choose the bodiesin which to participate. Thus, one such advo-cate is a member of the client council of theReformed Social Assistance Act (WWB). Thismembership is directly related to the socialsecurity benefit policy of this municipality. Ashort time ago, a differentiation policy wasintroduced into the social security benefit for

people who are homeless. Before, people whoare homeless received 70% of the minimumwage (the common social security benefit). Butnow, they receive 50% of the minimum wage ifthey live on the street, and 60% if they usenight shelter facilities. If they are involved in areintegration plan, they are entitled to 70%.The problem is mainly for those people receiv-ing 60%. If they indicate that they sometimessleep on the street, they get a so-called ‘shrub-bery visit’. This is similar to the house calls madeto applicants for social security benefit. Officialsset out to check whether homeless individualsreally spend the night at the locations they haveindicated. To prevent these ‘shrubbery visits’ isan important issue for the advocates of theinterests of people who are homeless. In addi-tion, this particular advocate regularly consultswith other local organizations working for andwith people who are homeless. This consulta-tion is useful: here, concrete issues are tackled.One example was the cooperation around theissue of the use of a hostel for homeless people.The hostel was intended to provide occasionalshelter for those homeless people permanentlyliving on the street, in order for them to have aproper meal, a rest, and a bath. But the bedswere occupied by the regular clients of one ofthe relief centres, preventing the intended tar-get group from being reached. Beside this,there were complaints of women beingharassed by the male hotel guests. By address-ing these issues during the consultation, con-crete measures could be taken to improve thesituation. For example, men now get a repri-mand for harassing women, and the secondtime they are thrown out.

When we were making our circuit of the munic-ipalities, we seldom encountered any vision con-cerning the client participation of people whoare homeless. An exception to this was the cityof Enschede, in the east of the Netherlands. Anofficial stated: “Formal client participation issomething done by people who dare to speakout. Because of this, you only get to know 10%of what vulnerable people are concerned about.But as a municipality, it is precisely the needs ofthe other 90% of the people that you want toknow more about.” In order to reach that 90%,municipalities need to develop other methods ofparticipation. One of the examples mentionedby the official is to organize panels in the winterrelief centres for people who are homeless.

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

au

tum

n 2

00

6

7

THE IMPROVEMENT OF PARTICIPATIONON THE LOCAL LEVELThe participation of homeless people in the for-mal client councils of the Social Support Act(WMO), which are now established all over theNetherlands, still seems to be one bridge too far.The positions of the municipalities on the onehand, and people who are homeless on the other,represent colliding worlds of mutual incompre-hension. The municipalities have yet to occupytheir new role in the social support of people whoare homeless. Homeless people and their advo-cates will have to present their concerns moreclearly to policy makers, in order to exercise someinfluence on the preparation of policy.

We can conclude from the above, that the inter-est representation of people who are homelessfocuses on concrete, negative issues, which sur-face during the implementation of policy. All themore reason then to involve the advocates ofthe interests of homeless people in the develop-

ment of a specific policy for this group. Tobridge the gap between the two worlds, wepropose that more attention be given to settingup employment projects for people who arehomeless. Until now, the municipalities haveprimarily focused on care, shelter, and the city’spublic safety, but not on work. In our study onemployment projects for people who are home-less in the Netherlands, we concluded thatdoing ‘real’ work provides an important contri-bution to the identity formation of homelesspeople.5 To live an (adapted) working life meansbreaking out of the hopeless vicious circle of thefrequently multiple problems many people whoare homeless have to face. The social participa-tion of these people is a first condition to turnaround the negative spiral that holds them cap-tive. When municipalities take the social sup-port and the involvement of homeless peopleseriously, they will start by setting up projectsfor employment and activation for, but especial-ly with, people who are homeless.•

1 In January 2006, only 9% of the municipalities had passed a policy document on the Social Support Act (WMO). This is shown in the reportAdviseren over maatschappelijke ondersteuning. Cliëntenparticipatie bij gemeenten (2006). Utrecht: Verwey-Jonker Institute.

2 See, for instance, the report Evaluatie Wet Medezeggenschap Zorgsector (2000), Utrecht: Verwey-Jonker Institute.3 See Bewijzen van goede dienstverlening (2004), The Hague: Scientific Council for the Government’s Policy [WRR].4 See the report De grenzen en mogelijkheden van cliëntenparticipatie in de maatschappelijke opvang (2005), Utrecht: NIZW.5 See our report Aan de slag in de Rafelrand. Werk en activering voor daklozen en verslaafden. Assen: Van Gorcum.

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

au

tum

n 2

00

6

8

DEFINITION AND PRACTICEIn 2005, FEANTSA and its member organisation Off the Streets andinto Work (OSW) conducted a small survey among some ofFEANTSA member organisations on the participation of serviceusers. The results of this Participation Audit1 showed that the levelsof involvement of service users in the service design process rankfrom informal exchanges between the staff and service users, to thehighest level of participation which is to empower users via specifictraining on participation in decision-making processes that affectthem beyond the framework of the given organisation.

If we strictly insist on the definition of participation used inParticipation Audit, namely „the involvement of homeless people inservice design and/ or the decision-making process affecting theservices that they use”, we have to admit that participation inHungary is in its infancy.

However, the modified Hungarian Social Act which came into forcein January 2003 has established a so-called Advocacy Forum in insti-tutions providing residential care. It can be considered as an initia-tive measure, which promotes the participation as well as the pro-tection of basic rights of services users who are homeless.

Certainly, prior to this statutory obligation, certain forms of informalparticipation did exist in homeless institutions, depending much onthe culture and the leadership style of the given organisation. Therecan be big differences between local authority run and church orNGO run organisations regarding the level of participation beyondwhat is regulated by law.

In institutions and shelters providing long-term residential care, reg-ular assemblies are organised every month. These occasions make itpossible for service users to have their voice heard on issues con-nected with the services they use or their actual problems. Someservice providers collect the remarks of their service users by placinga suggestion box in the common premises and seek to take intoaccount their advice and wishes in the development of services. Inmany cases, there are financial barriers that hinder the provision ofbetter quality conditions.

In general, the input of service users is restricted to less importantdecisions, such as, what leisure activities they would like to partici-pate in, or how their belongings can be locked away safely. The levelof involvement does not go as far as participation in the organisa-tion’s governing board or involvement in the recruitment of staff asindicated in the above mentioned Participation Audit.

WHAT THE LAW REGULATESThe law on social management and social services2 names the abovementioned Advocacy Forum which is to be compulsory in all longterm residential institutions. The director of the institution providingresidential care is obliged to define the rules of the establishmentand the activities of the Advocacy Forum. The Advocacy Forum isthe body that aims to enhance service users’ rights and interests inresidential institutions.

In accordance with the law, members of an Advocacy Forum are

• elected among service users,- two persons in institutions with less than 200 beds,- four persons in institutions with more than 400 beds,

• one person elected among the relatives as well as legal repre-sentatives of service users,

• one person elected among the staff of the institution,

• on the basis of assignment, one person representing the ownerof the institution.

An Advocacy Forum gives its opinion in advance about some of thedocuments drafted by the director of the institution which are relat-ed to the service users and the internal life of the institution. TheForum has the possibility to discuss and comment on the vocation-al programme, the annual work plan, the rules of the institution aswell as leaflets prepared for service users.

An Advocacy Forum also discusses the complaints of the residents –except for complaints on entering and leaving the institution andtransfers of services users – and presents its own proposals to thedirector of the institution. The Forum can ask the director for infor-mation on issues that affect service users and responsibilities associ-ated with the organisation of services.What is more, the Forum canintervene if it believes that the service provider organisation or otherrelevant authorities did not respect certain rules.

The rights of service users are also advocated by the PublicFoundation of Patient’s Rights, Rights of Service Users and Children’sRights. This organisation was established in January 2004 andemploys advocacy experts on different client groups. The PublicFoundation provides the necessary equipment for the experts andorganises and monitors their vocational work. There are representa-tives of all three major target groups represented in the name of theorganisation in each county of Hungary.

CONCLUSIONHungarian legislation regarding the participation of service users is afavourable initiative, but its effect should not be overestimated. Thefact that there are fewer complaints made by people who are home-less in winter than in other periods of the year, for instance, is most-ly due to the fear of exclusion from services and should not beexplained by the improvement of services through user participation.

People who are homeless represent a special target group amongpeople in residential care. During the process of becoming homelessthey have lost their self esteem, their hope to improve their lives,their communication skills, etc. All of this would be important totake part or influence decisions affecting their lives. It would not befair from service providers to simply provide the possibility of partic-ipation to those who are not able to exploit this right because of theabove mentioned lack of skills. Therefore the encouraging first ini-tiatives in the area of participation should be further developed byservice providers in order to empower service users and ensure amore democratic involvement. Participation of people experiencinghomelessness can be considered as a direct feedback from serviceusers which provides important information to feed into the processof creating more needs based services.•

Participation of service users in HungaryBy Péter Bakos, Refomix, Hungary

1 FEANTSA and OSW Participation Audit2 Social Act 1993/III. § 99

Hung

ary

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

au

tum

n 2

00

6

9

The federation'savowed aim is tosupport a real shiftfrom an assistanceapproach to astakeholder one.

ACT 2002-2: THEORY AND PRACTICEThe Act of 2 January 2002 reforming the 1975Social Care and Community Health ProvisionAct lays down a number of guidelines, includingan express requirement to promote rights forusers of institutions and services. It reflects agradual shift in the approach to users frombeing a recipient of provision and services tobeing a stakeholder to be accounted for.

Section 1 of the Act of 2 January 2002 sets out“to promote the individual’s autonomy, socialcohesion, the exercise of citizenship, preventand address the consequences of exclusion”.Seven fundamental principles of “care” are laiddown in the section headed “Users’ rights”:respect for the user’s integrity, privacy, safetyand security, free choice of services, guaranteedreceipt of quality individual support definedwith the user, and confidentiality of their per-sonal information. Institutions must provideusers at intake with a resident’s handbook, indi-vidual resident’s agreement, and the houserules. They must also set up and run a users’consultative body known as the “Conseil de VieSociale” (“Social Life Council”).

The Social Life Council gives opinions and canmake proposals on all matters relating to themanagement of the facility: the organisation ofdaily life, activities, social and cultural events,day-to-day organisational matters, etc. It alsohas to be consulted on drawing up and changesto the operating plan and house rules. Users’representatives elected by secret ballot hold themajority on the Social Life Council, which alsoincludes employee representatives and adminis-trators appointed by the administrative council.The Council must meet at least three times ayear. The Act, which sets out to make user par-ticipation in services the rule, also suggestsmore flexible consultation procedures (useropinion groups, satisfaction surveys, etc.) thatmay be appropriate in services such as shelter orhome services.The approach stems from a desire to engage anongoing dialogue between the different actorsin voluntary welfare provision, which includesusers. It is all about fostering the introduction ofa form of social democracy within institutions.

USERS IN THE FEDERATIONThis new legislative and regulatory affirmationof individuals’ rights in dealings with institutionsis an irreversible part of societal change. One ofthe key priorities in Fnars’ five-year plan adopt-

ed in 2004 concerns the place of users in thenetwork and community life. The federation’savowed aim is to support a real shift from anassistance approach to a stakeholder one,focused mainly on service users’ own needs andplans. It aims to achieve that by:

• promoting users’ voice and participation inmember associations and organisations,especially through collecting and disseminat-ing experiences,

• setting up a users’ committee in each ofFnars' regional associations,

• promoting participation by users’ representa-tives in Fnars’ regional and national bodies,

• supporting and training users to be actors inlocal, national and European social policy-making bodies,

• supporting user participation in local civic lifeand encouraging them to vote (by rallyingassociations behind a campaign to be runfrom autumn).

Fnars has run a series of initiatives on the firstobjective1.

THE STATE OF USER PARTICIPATION INTHE FNARS NETWORKThe national users support group received morethan 200 replies to its questionnaire on “SocialLife Council and other forms of user participa-tion: how providers took ownership of the Act2002-2 measures” between July and September2005.

Analysis of the responses shows that serviceproviders have made efforts to set up formalparticipatory bodies, although these are still farfrom the Social Life Council as envisaged by theimplementing order of March 2004. 30 to 35%of bodies can be regarded as Social LifeCouncils, with administrator and employee rep-resentatives and user representatives elected bysecret ballot, chaired by an elected user-chair-person, with formal agendas and minutes sentout to all actors of the association. .

According to the respondents, things are mov-ing, but there is still not enough involvement ofadministrators in Social Life Councils, becauseeven where an administrator attends the meet-ings, the minutes are not always circulated backto the administrative council. So the Social LifeCouncil is not yet an independent institutionalbody. However, interviews with 43 residents in20 establishments2 reveal real satisfaction thatthese participatory bodies exist, and a desire for

User participation: a right in the makingBy Nathalie Latour, Policy Officer for European Affairs, Fnars, France

Fran

ce

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

au

tum

n 2

00

6

10

them to continue being actively involved out-side meetings.

GOOD PRACTICES FOR ORGANISEDPARTICIPATION?Activities run within the network have revealedwhat is needed for Social Life Councils to beimplemented successfully. There are seven keyrecommendations:

1. Involvement of the management andthe administrative council: The membersof the administrative council and the man-agement must support the Social LifeCouncil, be involved and recall the issues atstake. Training must be provided to mobilisestaff and manage the cultural change thatthe introduction of a new form of socialwork to supplement individualised supportrepresents. The way the institution operates- decision-making channels, budgets - needsto be made understandable and users haveto be empowered in order to have an actualimpact on their environment: improvingintake, thinking about house rules, devisingactivities, being consulted on investmentplans, meeting other institutions. The man-agement must provide the Council withwhat it needs to operate - a budget, freetime for elected officials, material resources -and invite its representatives to attendadministrative council meetings to explainthe work of the Social Life Councils.

2. Spell things out in detail: The role of eachdiscussion body in establishments and therole of user, employee and administrator rep-resentatives towards nominees and electorsmust be spelled out in detail.

3. Training and information: Users must begiven information and training about serviceprovision and institutions to develop a betterunderstanding of the system within whichthey live; this includes the terms andacronyms used, what they stand for, andmethods that enable them to fulfil their rolebetter: listening, self-advocacy, summarising,reporting, motivating. Joint training of users,employees and administrators should beorganised in order to facilitate the develop-ment of common projects.

4. Provide guidance and help to users’ rep-resentatives: Users’ representatives must beable to ask for guidance and help in suchthings as drawing up meeting notices,preparations for organising meetings, writ-

ing minutes, etc. This can be provided by aperson working in the organisation or a“neutral” individual with no personalinvolvement in the Social Life Council.

5. Address user turnover: As service usersmay be only short-stay residents, thoughtmust be given to the case that users who areelected to represent their peers in the SocialLife Council leave the institution. This prob-lem can be overcome by electing alternatesto take over from members who leave,and/or by setting up a former users’ commit-tee that maintains a collective memory.

6. Devise ways and means of putting theSocial Life Council to work: Beyond thescope of the executive order, it is possible toidentify common issues which will raise theinterest of all service users (e.g. living in indi-vidualised accommodation, for example).Ways of communicating and creating allkinds of media to support and extenddebates (newsletter, notes posted in sharedareas, etc.) are crucially important to moti-vate users.

7. Open up the establishment to the out-side world: Organising open days can be away for users to gain ownership of their lifeplace or accommodation by presenting it toothers, and thus starting an ongoingexchange. Users should be encouraged tomeet with other institutions and other actorsin community life, and to participate in local,regional, national and European fora.

THE OUTCOMESAll stakeholders of an organisation (employees,users, administrators) discover the value ofworking together. It sets a powerful institution-al momentum going which results in the devel-opment of new projects and encourages user-originated suggestions and ideas. This co-oper-ation generates creative conflict: discussions ona seemingly innocuous paragraph in the resi-dent’s handbook or on the creation of theSocial Life Council lead the participants to callinto question the “easy consensuses” aroundvalues, principles or unexpressed working prac-tices, which may not be shared, get to gripswith different views and arrive at an informed,reasoned and shaped consensus!

In some cases, the work done by groups of rep-resentatives from different services and facilitiesrevealed existing inequalities and helped togenerate a reflection on how to bring more

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

au

tum

n 2

00

6

11

Participation raisesservice users'awareness of their ownvalue and restores theirconfidence and self-esteem.

consistency between practices. Schemes thathave brought together outside partners or a setof associations have helped improve the waysthey work together, bringing about change inmutual perceptions, clarifying areas where co-operation is possible, making exchanges morespontaneous, reactive, and effective. Users alsorefer to benefits from participation: pride in hav-ing produced something worthwhile duringtheir stay, pride in having put forgotten or hith-erto unknown skills to use, feelings of member-ship/identification, the desire to do other things,the incentive to become involved.

While in most cases only a minority of users aremotivated in this way, the effect of their partic-ipation is still seen as very positive and as a con-tributing factor to future changes. This form ofparticipation raises service users’ awareness oftheir own value and restores their confidenceand self-esteem. They learn how to consult,how to advocate, how to vote on proposals,which are fundamental aspects of the demo-cratic process. What is more, social workerslearn a new way of working. They get to knowthis new form of collaboration, working withusers and partners, and gradually adapt it toother activities, such as community work, medi-ation, and collective problem resolution.

THE SUPPORT WANTED AND PLANNEDMembers and in particular users wantexchanges with nearby services and regionaldiscussion. The focus should be on the locallevel; in the form of thematic seminars withplenty of opportunity for discussions aboutexisting practices.

For several years, Fnars’ national users supportgroup has aimed to support regional anddepartmental users committees to make up forthe fact that the impetus for participation stilltoo often depends on the commitment of onedirector or one social worker. Two interregionalmeetings - in Tours on 25 and 26 October 2002and in Lille on 18 and 19 January 2005 - havealready given residents/users, professionals andvolunteers/administrators the opportunity tohave their say on user participation in the provi-sion of services and in the network (there weremore than 500 participants, including 300users). Fnars’ 50th anniversary Conference inNovember 2006 will be an opportunity to affirmthe recognition of the user’s role. 100 user rep-resentatives will attend the conference inStrasbourg. Two of the 6 workshops will bespecifically on user participation (we would liketo invite European partners along). There willalso be a round table on “The users’ role andvoice in establishments, associations and thefederation in light of the pledges given in thefive-year plan”.

Fnars (Fédération nationale des associationsd’accueil et de réinsertion sociale) bringstogether around 750 voluntary welfare agenciesthat run almost 2 200 institutions and servicesworking to help adults and families facingexclusion from society and/or work. Accordingto its statutes, Fnars’ mission is “to develop ini-tiatives striving for the dignity, self-realisationand autonomy of individuals, couples, familieswith or without children finding it hard to copewith or integrate into society, without discrimi-nation of any kind”.•

1 -A 2004 programme entitled “Innovative Actions” funded by the Social Welfare Department and coordinated by Fnars focused entirely on“Implementation, support and evaluation of institutional changes arising from Act 2002-2 for users”. 85 projects were supported. 5 inter-regional feedback days on activities were held in 2005 bringing together 530 participants. An account of the good practices and issues aris-ing out of the projects supported is available in French.

- The Fnars Aquitaine and Poitou Charente regional associations did a qualitative study in 2005 on the Community Life Councils and otherforms of participation developed by the members in both regions.

- A questionnaire on “Social Life Councils and other forms of user participation: how providers took ownership of the Act 2002-2 measures”was launched by the federation’s national users support group between July and September 2005.

2 Qualitative study done in 2005 by the Fnars Aquitaine and Poitou Charente regional associations on the Social Life Councils and other formsof participation developed by the members in both regions.

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

au

tum

n 2

00

6

12

Founded in 2002, the Danish “Councilfor Socially Marginalised People” is nowfour years old. The time is ripe for mak-ing a first assessment: Can professionalsand people with experience of exclusionwork together in one council? What arethe outcomes of the Council so far?

BACKGROUNDIt was the Minister for Social Affairs who setup the Council for Socially MarginalisedPeople. With this decision, the governmentwas seeking to increase the collectiveresponsibility for the weakest groups insociety, in the light of the idea that the val-ues of a welfare society can - to a wideextent -be measured in terms of initiativesaimed at its weakest citizens. In our termsthis means those who live on the peripheryof the social community on account of drugmisuse, mental disorder, homelessness orother serious problems.

It is a characteristic feature of Danish societythat virtually all groups have an advocate topromote their specific interests – and most ofthe time they are very large, efficient organi-sations. However, the weakest groups areoften forgotten and neglected since they donot have their own advocate. To ensure thatthe Council actually speaks on behalf of thesocially marginalised groups, it is independ-ent of the Ministry of Social Affairs, and allmembers of the Council are appointed per-sonally by virtue of their special insight into,and practical experience of, the areas inquestion and not as representatives of somekind of organisation. More than four of the

twelve members have personal experience ofexclusion due to homelessness, drug or alco-hol addiction, mental illness, prostitution orethnic minority background. Like the othermembers of the Council, some of them nowcarry out practical work or work as leaders inthe field of exclusion.

The Council is required to prepare an annu-al report on the situation of the weakestgroups and to present proposals forimproved initiatives aimed at these groups,including proposals for a better involvmentof civil society organisations in the policymaking process. The government isrequired to consult the Council.

COUNCIL STRATEGIESBased on its terms of reference, the Councilfor Socially Marginalised People works toimprove both short and long-term condi-tions for the group of socially marginalisedpeople. Our strategy calls for a two-pronged approach. This aims firstly toincrease the understanding of socially mar-ginalised groups in society. The second aim– closely related to the first – is to increasesocially marginalised people’s own chancesof making themselves heard in the publicdebate.

The Council believes that a better under-standing must be based on the premise thatsocially marginalised people are citizens andnot inferior to anyone else in society. Far toooften, the perception of people who aresocially margnalised is that they are irre-sponsible and that the only solution is to

patronise them and to demand their “treat-ment” and normalisation. Many peoplethink that their opinion is of no value andthat we – the professionals – know betterthan they do what their needs are.

The Council uses the term ‘socially margin-alised people’ which includes people whoare homeless, drug abusers, prostitutes orpeople with mental illness or an alcoholaddiction within its scope. However, there isa more nuanced understanding underlyingthis term, as we decided not to take such anunsubtle and diagnosis-oriented approachto the issue. We define marginalised peopleas people who have to face multiple prob-lems and, in this way, we focus less on peo-ple with simple needs – such as, for exam-ple, an otherwise well-functioning person,who suffers from a mental illness or alcoholmisuse. The Council focuses rather on peo-ple with complex profiles, such as peoplewho live in isolation with a mental disorderand whose primary contact with the out-side world is the legal system; people with ahistory of substance abuse who have noeducation and work experience and whodo not have a stable home; and people whowork as prostitutes and suffer from a drugaddiction, who live on and off with friendsand acquaintances and have had their chil-dren taken away.

We do not work with individual cases butconcentrate on the cross-cutting factors thatplay a role in the process of exclusion, i.e.everything ranging from prevention, politicalinitiatives and legislation to integration.

The “Council for Socially Marginalised People”: 4 years down the road!By Preben Brandt, chairman of the Council for Socially Marginalised People, Denmark

Den

m

ark

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

au

tum

n 2

00

6

13

OUTCOMEThe Council’s objectives, as set out in itswork plan, refer to three interconnecteddimensions: social inclusion and integration;a reasonable level of living; and participationin activities, including the labour market.

Most of the Council’s work in its first andsecond years concentrated on measures toincrease awareness of the actual living con-ditions of socially marginalised people: howthey are affected by general trends in socie-ty and how planned and current politicalactions affect their living conditions. But during this period we also presentedsome concrete suggestions. These includedcalls for increasing the possibilities in thearea of indebtedness support and debt con-solidation for socially marginalised groups;further development of the governmentpolicy on ‘Special housing for alienated peo-ple’, improved conditions for people whoare homeless in order to reduce the numberof people in need of long-term shelter acco-modation; as well as a call to set the objec-tive in the NAPs 2003-2005 of reducing thenumber of people living on low-income.

The Council won’t and shouldn’t work onlyon behalf of socially marginalised people,but rather it must also cooperate with themto improve their chances of promoting theirown interests. Since our second year wehave organised an annual ‘user bazaar’ inalternating Danish cities in order to create aspace for an open dialogue. At the ‘bazaar’,people who are marginalised meet withother citizens, professionals, politicians andgovernment officials in a context of enter-tainment, musical performances and discus-sions.

In addition to our annual report, we publisha series of leaflets. One of the leafletsfocused on homes and looked at barriers toaccessing ordinary housing and, in particu-

lar, on conditions that have to be met inconnection with temporary residential facili-ties for people who are homeless.

We should of course focus on concretemeasures, and as a matter of fact we dotake concrete action on some issues. Butover the years we have – in my view – cometo the conclusion that it actually makes adifference to address the issues in a broadercontext, even if the results are not visibleright away, or maybe never to the extent wehope. Every year we therefore organise asurvey on local, regional and national gov-ernment budgets in the activity areas of theCouncil. As we both publicise and discussthe results, I feel confident – especially inview of the fact that both the media andMembers of the Parliament pay a lot ofattention to our figures – that these surveyshave a preventive effect on budget cuts inthe area, as well as encouraging the plan-ning of special activities in areas that used tobe neglected.

One of the areas that has not been ade-quately addressed is homelessness. Weobserve with great concern that the numberof users of homeless agencies has notdeclined in the past few years. During thesame period, the number of persons evictedfrom their flats has increased and more peo-ple are living on the streets and the level ofbegging has gone up. The same is true forthe field of social psychiatry where – in spiteof substantial investment in activities – weobserve a growing number of court ordersfor psychiatric treatment.

During the last two years, the Council hasparticularly focused on the consequences offinancial inequality in Denmark. The Councilbelieves that various cuts in transfer pay-ments to particularly vulnerable groups ofthe population – such as migrant families,mentally ill young people and long-term

claimants of assistance suffering from severepsycho-social problems – are the primarycause of increased poverty and related prob-lems such as poor education, low workexperience, chronic psycho-social problemsin general, health problems and anincreased vulnerability to crime, homeless-ness and negative intergenerational trans-mission.

CONCLUSIONI dare conclude that the Council is consult-ed, and not only the Council in general, butalso its individual members. The press regu-larly publishes our point of views, either inthe form of summaries of our publicationsor through reporting on our activities. Andthe government pays attention to our views.Many of our proposals for improved legisla-tion have been adopted and implemented.Our discussion of the special circumstancesrelating to debt has brought about changes.The government has put more than 20 ofthe Council’s proposals into effect. However,in some areas where – I am tempted to say– attitudes of a more ideological nature areat stake, it has been extremely difficult tomove the government. An example is theproposal to raise the financial assistance tosocially marginalised groups. Finally, I dareto further conclude that we have managedto establish a form of cooperation in theCouncil that is based on mutual respectamong people with very different views andexperiences of marginalisation. I firmlybelieve that we would not have been able toachieve the same success without theimportance balance in our membership. Itwould not have been possible without thevital contributions of both the memberswho have the experience as experts and themembers who have the experience asusers.•

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

au

tum

n 2

00

6

14The BBI aims to lobby

for structuralimprovements in the

area of housingexclusion.

The Bundesbetroffeneninitiative Wohnungsloser Menschen e.V. (BBI) is the federal initiative of peo-ple experiencing homelessness. It brings together organisations of people who are homeless inGermany. It was created in 1991 when several local organisations of people experiencing home-lessness, mostly from Berlin and Braunschweig, decided to work together. An official associationwas set up in Bielefeld in 1994 with the support of German FEANTSA member BAGW, the federa-tion of service provider organisations for people who are homeless in Germany.

The BBI’s activities are based on respect of the fundamental rights of every human being. It aims tolobby for structural improvements in the areas of housing exclusion, social justice and better involve-ment of civil society actors in the policy making process.

BBI members live in around twelve different cities and regions in Germany. Its executive board con-sists of homeless or formerly homeless people. For instance, the director, Rolf Bünger, from Cologne,lived on the streets for several years.

All of BBI’s work is done on a voluntary basis. The association has almost no own financial resourcesand depends on the support of homeless charities. So far, all requests for funding from the federalgovernment have been declined by the responsible ministry.

The BBI meets four to five times a year, generally in a central location, like Frankfurt am Main, whereit can use the meeting rooms of local associations, such as the Frankfurter Verein or CaritasFrankfurt. The meetings are held on a Saturday afternoon, as most delegates need the morning fortravelling. They serve to coordinate and prepare events and conferences as well as the policy state-ments of the organisation. For example, one of the main policy actions that the BBI calls for is thecreation of a Federal Commissioner for people experiencing poverty in Germany.

The BBI closely works together with its “sister organisation” the BAG W. Through its director, theBBI is represented on the executive board of BAGW. In addition, the BBI is systematically involved inthe preparation of BAGW’s national conference. Members of the BBI organise their own forum on“Participation and user involvement” and take part in other fora and working groups at the con-ference. Unfortunately, the participation in BAGW’s working groups on issues such as health,employment, data collection or housing are still limited. This is mainly due to the lack of financialresources. However, since 2006, one activist of the BBI, Wolfgang Jeckel, is member of FEANTSA’sparticipation working group.

Other partners who cooperate with the BBI include the two big Christian charity organisations inGermany: Caritas Germany, as well as the Diakonisches Werk der Evangelischen Kirche Deutschland(the main charity organisation of the protestant church in Germany). Together, these charities pro-vide 80% of the services for people who are homeless in Germany.In a context of a changing welfare system, both Caritas Germany as well as the Diakonisches Werk,have understood the need to deal with questions such as professionalism, sustainability and userinvolvement. Are service users regarded as “clients” who “pay” to receive a certain service or arethey regarded as “citizens” who have fundamental rights that must be protected?

Organising for action: the Federal Initiative of people experiencing homelessness in GermanyBy Roland Saurer, BBI – Bundesbetroffeneninitiative WohnungsloserMenschen e.V., Germany

Ger

m

any

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

au

tum

n 2

00

6

15

In the middle of the 1990’s, Caritas Germany started to discuss the involvement of users in the pro-vision of homeless services. These discussions were not always easy due to the discrepancy betweenthe world of the professional service provider and the life of the person experiencing homelessness.However, the persistence of the BBI finally paid off. In 2001, Caritas Germany organised a one weekseminar on participation. And in 2006, the national conference of Caritas Germany dealt with theissue of user involvement. In a resolution, which was presented in the final plenary session, BBI mem-bers defined social work as a work of dialogue and participation as a process in which power is redis-tributed from professionals to service users. This year, Caritas Germany also discussed a paper onquality standards of homeless services. The BBI took part in the consultation process and ensuredthat one paragraph will be dedicated to the participation of service users.

As mentioned above, in addition to its work with Caritas Germany, the BBI also collaborates withthe protestant charity in Germany. The “Diakonisches Werk” will dedicate its national conference inNovember 2006 to the issue of user participation and empowerment.

The BBI is also involved in other social initiatives and current social movements in Germany. The BBIparticipated in the first Social Forum in Germany, which was held in July 2005 in Erfurt. Members ofthe BBI took part in demonstrations against the European Services Directive (the “Bolkestein direc-tive”) in Strasbourg in February 2006.

What is more, members of the BBI are involved in the “Berbertreffen”, the biggest meeting of peo-ple who are homeless, professionals working in the homeless sector and researchers in Germany.Since 1997, these meetings take place in Offenburg every summer. In the beginning, around 60-70people came together. Since then, the number kept on growing. In 2006, the 10th anniversary ofthe “Berbertreffen”, almost 500 people from all over Germany participated in the three day event.

The aim of the “Berbertreffen” is to discuss topics related to homelessness such as welfare state,health, labour market and exclusion. The meetings also help to organise political campaigns of peo-ple experiencing homelessness in Germany. For instance, in 1998 the “March to Stuttgart” was pre-pared by the “Berbertreffen”. This year’s meeting focused on ways to empower people who arehomeless to participate more actively in the design of services and the necessary conditions thatneed to be in place in order to facilitate this participation.

Since its creation the BBI has had to deal with many challenges and crises. However, since 2000, theBBI has become more stable. Meetings have become more regular and more effective and the coop-eration with the charity organisations has improved as well. The biggest challenge is to raise aware-ness about poverty and social exclusion in Germany. The BBI tries to contact Members of theGerman Federal Parliament or the regional parliaments in the German “Länder”.

There are some promising signs. For instance, Elvira Dobrinski-Weiss, Member of the German FederalParliament, visited the homeless charity in Offenburg, which functions as a ‘headquarters’ of the BBI,recently and promised to come back: “I will continue this dialogue. First of all, I will find out who isresponsible for homelessness and poverty in my political group. I just do not know.” It seems thatshe will keep her promise. In November 2006, she is coming back to work for one day in the home-less charity in Offenburg.•

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

au

tum

n 2

00

6

16

Groundswell is the leading user involvement organisation workingin the field of homelessness in the UK. Groundswell began as a proj-ect in the National Homelessness Alliance in 1996. Its aim was toensure that people who are homeless were given a voice in deci-sions, which affected them, and to create a network of homeless-led self-help projects. Groundswell was the first organisation dedi-cated to increasing user involvement in homelessness services in theUK. It is now widely accepted that people who are homeless shouldplay an active part in influencing the services they use. Groundswellbecame an independent charity in 2001.

Groundswell’s mission:

• Supporting people who are homeless to create their own solu-tions to homelessness.

We aim to:

• Enable people who are homeless to set up and run their ownprojects

• Increase homeless people’s influence in policy and decision making

• Increase homeless people’s meaningful involvement in the servic-es they use.

Our objectives

• To support people who are homeless in setting up projectsthrough grant award schemes, training and fundraising advice

• To support a network of homeless led projects to promote theexchange of ideas and best practice.

• To create opportunities for people who are homeless to cam-paign and lobby local and national decision-makers.

• To develop and deliver user involvement strategies for serviceproviders.

The Groundswell Grant Award Scheme offers up to £700 for peo-ple who are homeless to create or maintain their own projects. Inthe seven years of the Awards, Groundswell has supported aninspiring range of initiatives. From user-groups in hostels and daycentres, running forums, events, art projects and creating maga-zines to Travellers setting up support groups. Groundswell has dis-tributed £150,000 to 318 groups since April 1998. For 67% of win-ners, this was the first funding they had ever received. 73% havegone to achieve funding from other agencies. On average eachAward winner goes on to raise a further £47,268

In 2006 Groundswell was commissioned by the Department ofCommunities and Local Government to undertake a consultation ofpeople experiencing homelessness to find out their views on servic-es as part of their Supporting People Strategy consultation. Theresulting report ‘Being Supported’ was recently published.

In October 2004, Groundswell began a project with St Mungo’s toincrease the level of resident involvement in all aspects of the organ-isation. There are many reasons for people who use a project to beinvolved in deeper levels of participation. It gives people the spaceto reclaim their own voices and empower themselves, to expresstheir particular needs and viewpoints rather than being drownedout by others in more powerful positions that feel they can speakon their behalf.

There are various models and definitions of participation in organi-sations from tokenistic consultation to a deeper approach to partic-ipation involving shared power and responsibility for decision mak-ing. This project was an attempt to go beyond the tokenistic todeeper levels of participation.

Groundswell’s unique approach ensured residents took a lead in allaspects of the project, beginning by auditing the current levels ofparticipation and throughout the planning and implementationprocess. People with personal experience of homelessness conduct-ed all training and facilitation.

Mike McCall, St Mungo’s Executive Director of Operations, said: “Ihave had first hand experience of Groundswell’s training and alongwith other members of our senior staff team found real inspirationin their approach.”

The main objectives of the project were:

• To audit the existing level of participation at St Mungo’s projects

• To identify barriers to participation

• To improve St Mungo’s service users ability to influence how theorganisation plans and delivers services

• To increase the skill level and awareness of involvement amongstaff and residents

• To develop a range of involvement techniques appropriate to StMungo’s diverse service user group

• To create systems that sustain ongoing involvement.

Six pilot projects were chosen to reflect the diversity of St Mungo’sprojects.The project began with a participation audit conducted byresidents trained by Groundswell in peer research skills. The auditrevealed that, although there was a range of existing consultationmechanisms in St Mungo’s, often they were not used. 76% of thepeople interviewed were uncertain who was the residents’ repre-sentative at their project and 46% had never been to a residentsmeeting. The audit also explored what areas residents wished to beinvolved in. There was a high level of interest in becoming involvedin a range of activities including staff recruitment, volunteering andhaving a say in policymaking.

Giving a voice to people who are homeless – the work of GroundswellBy Amarjit Kaur, Director of Groundswell, UK

Unite

dK ingdom

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

au

tum

n 2

00

6

17

Groundswell then began training staff and residents in user involve-ment theory and methods. Senior staff was trained first. It was feltthat this was essential to ensure a high level of commitment to theproject from the top of the organisation. Frontline staff was thentrained. The main theme that came out of this training was thatstaff did not feel adequately supported or resourced themselves toinvolve residents.

Residents in the pilot projects were also given training. There was adistinct difference between the sessions at hostels and specialistprojects and semi-independent projects. At hostels, the emphasiswas on a greater say in resident meetings and the day-to-day run-ning of the hostel. At semi-independent projects there was less of aconcern about meetings but a greater demand for more volunteeropportunities either to make use of their skills and abilities or to‘give something back’

Action Planning Workshops followed the training in the pilot proj-ects facilitated by Groundswell. The aim was to create a safe spaceto enable residents and staff to come together as equals to devise auser involvement plan within each individual project. Each actionplan identified five aims. For example, in one front line hostel theaims were:

• Residents meetings to be facilitated by residents

• Residents to have their own newsletter

• Create a democratic voting system accessible to all residents

• Involve residents in the recruitment process

• Make the management of the hostel more transparent and opento residents

The project culminated in a conference for St Mungo’s staff and res-idents led by Groundswell and residents who had taken part in theproject. Groundswell made a series of recommendations to StMungo’s. These included recommending a ‘Peer Facilitator’ schemewhere instead of having resident representatives, a team of StMungos residents should receive training to go into projects to facil-

itate meetings and mediate. Recommendations were also madethat frontline staff should receive adequate training support andresources to enable them to increase user involvement.

It would have been easy to gloss over the difficulties in making userinvolvement a reality in St Mungo’s projects. At times in the processboth residents and staff voiced a concern that it might be a mere‘box ticking ‘exercise. This project was about seeking a service thatis more responsive to residents needs. Change needs to happen atorganisational level and it is to St Mungo’s credit that many of ourkey recommendations have now been enacted.

Andy Williams, St Mungo’s User Involvement Co-ordinator said:”Groundswell’s ethos was spot on, there were challenges, but Iwould recommend that any organisation in a similar position get anexternal appraisal. St Mungo’s took a risk inviting another organisa-tion to judge it, but it shows clients we are taking user involvementseriously.”

‘User involvement’ is a relatively new concept within homelessness.Historically service users have been placed in a passive positionviewed as unable, uninterested or ‘too chaotic’ to become involvedin decisions that effect housing provision and individual lives. Inother sectors, user participation has recognised the expertise ofservice users in forging a new direction for many services.Groundswell is at the forefront of a movement to bring thisapproach into homeless services.•

You can contact Groundswell at:

Elmfield House5 Stockwell MewsLondonSW99 GXamarjit@groundswell.org.uk+44(0)20 737 5500www.groundswell.org.uk

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

au

tum

n 2

00

6

18

The HEART Project was initiated in 2004 and was designed to explore homeless people’s experiencesof the services in the Galway area, with a view to improving the statutory and voluntary services inthe city. The team undertook all aspects of the research project. This included mapping experiences,research design, data collection, data analysis, and report writing.

The HEART project was designed by an interagency group including representatives of COPE, HSEWestern Region and Mental Health Ireland. The interagency group formed a support group to theproject and met with the HEART team weekly to provide support and information.

A Consultative Committee, consisting of agencies working with people who are homeless, alsoworked with the HEART project.2 It met with the researchers every two months to receive feedbackfrom HEART and to act as an information resource, provide support and encouragement and to dis-seminate information back to their own organisation about the project.

THE HEART TEAMThe HEART Team is a team of people who have all experienced homelessness. In fact, some wouldstill be regarded as homeless, living in voluntary sector housing projects in Galway. The team wasbrought together in order to carry out research into homelessness and the experience of the servic-es for homeless people in Galway City.

The HEART research team was formed following a series of open information sessions which werewidely advertised locally. A number of features in both local papers and local radio generated inter-est amongst both service users and providers. Information leaflets were placed in services and ven-ues frequently used by people experiencing homelessness. Current and past service users were con-tacted via outreach work by resettlement workers and residents’ meetings. A number of open infor-mation evenings in a central location gave individuals a chance to find out more about the project.One-to-one sessions were held with the support team and those individuals who were interested,in order to further explain the project. Through this process the HEART team was formed.

“Getting to the HEART of Homelessness” was the vision of the project. Its mission was: “To empow-er homeless people through inclusion: a voice in the process of change to current provision of serv-ices”

HEART RESEARCH PROJECTThe aim of this peer study was to research people’s experience of homelessness and their experienceof services that cater for people who are homeless, and to make suggestions for changes to thoseservices in Galway city. Another element of the research was a postal questionnaire sent to serviceproviders to map the existing services for people who are homeless.

The research was undertaken in a unique way. The study was entirely led by a group of people whohave experienced homelessness and who have used the services in Galway city. The HEART teamundertook the study with their peers. Empathy, respect and understanding were at the core of theirapproach to the research. The team was made up of three women and three men. They took partin a process of mapping their own personal experiences of being homeless and their use of servic-es while homeless. Through this process they devised questions and interviewed 50 people who arecurrently homeless or who had experienced homelessness at an earlier stage.

This process was quite challenging in that the peer researchers had to go back to experiences thatoften were painful and difficult to revisit. However, they all felt that when they got to carry out theinterviews, they were able to empathise with each person as they had been through some of theexperiences themselves.

A major challenge for the team in the early stages was to be taken seriously by service providers. Itwas difficult for them to make contact with organisations and this was one of the reasons the con-sultative committee was set up.

Homeless Empowerment Action ResearchTeam (H.E.A.R.T.) – an example of peerresearch in IrelandBy Bill Heaney, resettlement worker at COPE 1 and member of the HEARTproject support group, Galway, Ireland

Irela

nd

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

au

tum

n 2

00

6

19

A major challenge forthe team in the earlystages was to be takenseriously by serviceproviders.

The findings of this study have given an insight into the causes and consequences of homelessness;and the direct experiences of services from the perspective of people who have experienced home-lessness. The causes of homelessness for the people we interviewed were generally a combinationof multiple factors, including mental health problems, addiction problems, domestic violence, insti-tutional care and relationship difficulties. Some of these factors, such as addiction and mental healthdifficulties, were intensified by their homeless situation. Many have had problems at home and dif-ficulties early in life. The findings indicate the need for a combination of adequate supports in addi-tion to appropriate housing, so that underlying issues, as well as accommodation needs, can beaddressed.

The study provided an opportunity for people who have experienced homelessness to talk abouttheir experiences and the effects on their lives. The experiences and consequences of being home-less were overwhelming. Being homeless had an extreme effect on many areas of people’s livesincluding their health and well being; their self-esteem; their financial situation and on their socialnetworks. However, while there is a great need and demand for services, the experiences of thoseinterviewed highlight that services also need to be accessible, available and appropriate to the needsof people experiencing homelessness. In particular people sleeping rough, but also people in sup-ported accommodation, experience barriers to accessing services, which include lack of information,stereotyping and inflexible procedures.

The experience of the “inverse care law” by homeless people has been described elsewhere.Essentially, this means that while the needs of people experiencing homelessness are demonstrablygreater, their access to care is poorer than that of the greater population3.

While mainstream services need to understand and be responsive to the needs of people who arehomeless, specialised services with expertise, understanding and back up support, are necessary.Service plans for people experiencing homelessness in Galway city need to include short, as well asmedium and long-term, plans.

Some specific issues highlighted by the people who participated in this study concerned the provi-sion of information. Information on services mostly came from other homeless people, family andfriends, suggesting a need to look at how information is provided by services. There is also a needto ensure that information is appropriate and accessible.The study shows that the approach within the service is key and seems to have an influence on thesubsequent use of the service. The attitude of staff is crucial for those using the services indicatinga need for training in this area for all front-line staff of services. It is important that referral to serv-ices is appropriate and that appropriate options are open to people in relation to services such asaddiction treatment.

This study was a first step in evaluating services from the direct experiences of people who are home-less. It is essential that people who have experienced homelessness continue to be part of the planto improve services in Galway city. The challenge for service providers is to actively involve serviceusers in ongoing consultation. An audit of service user input in Galway city is recommended as astep to ensuring that active participation is part of the ethos of all organisations.

Many people who read this report will, unlike the HEART team, never experience the trauma, fear,poverty, rejection and ill health associated with being homeless. While many will never experiencehomelessness, or fully appreciate what is like to be homeless, everyone should treat those that havehad this experience with empathy, respect and understanding. We should all open our eyes and earsto people who have experienced homelessness, listen to their experiences and ensure that servicesmeet their needs.

The full report is due to be published in the next two months.•

1 COPE (Crisis Housing, Caring Support) is voluntary organisation providing emergency services to people who are homeless in Galway City2 This committee included all agencies working with homeless people in Galway such as COPE, Galway Simon Community, Galway City

Council, HSE , Western Region, (Mental Health and Older People, Health Promotion, Social Work, Community Welfare, Public Health, PrimaryCare, Corporate and Public Affairs) Mental Health Ireland, Galway City Partnership, Cuan Mhuire, Threshold and Bros of Charity.

3 Crisis UK, 2002.