EXCI PROJECTHousing/employment –against

exclusionRoger Spear, Centre for Complexity and

Change, Open University

EMES Researcher on Social Enterprise

Overview

• Approaches to housing/work integration

• Exci Project overview

• Review of preliminary findings

• Work integration and social enterprise

• housing against social exclusion

• Issues and Models

Approaches to housing/work integration

• Dimensions of social exclusion• (language,ethnicity,gender, disability)• Poor education• Poor housing• High crime• Lack of work/skill• Poor welfare services• Poor health• Fragmented communities• Address separately, strategically/institutionally

Emergence of integrated approaches

• Two fundamental bases: housing/work

• Focus for support/development

• Potential for synergies: eg local labour content principle in housing maintenance, regeneration, cleaning, refurbishment, security.

• Social economy role

Exci Project overview

• Are local policies for inclusion consistent with European and national plans for inclusion?

• Are local policies for inclusion consistent with an approach based on rights, mainly right to quality employment and quality housing?

• How local policies can be adapted to this approach?• Which kinds of actions have to be put into practice for

creating inclusion policies based on the above-mentioned rights?

• Which kind of action should be put into practice for achieving participative inclusion strategies?

EU OBJECTIVES IN THE FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY

AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION

• Agreed at the Nice Summit in December 2000 and revised in December 2002.

• There are 4 main objectives:• 1. To facilitate participation in

employment and access by all to resources, rights, goods and services

• 2. To prevent the risks of exclusion • 3. To help the most vulnerable • 4. To mobilise all relevant bodies

Project overview

• NAPs (indicators) against exclusion – method of open coordination

• Vertical/horizontal coordination

• Work integration (social enterprise)

• Adding value in housing (homeless)

• National/international dimensions from Reves/Cecodhas/Cecop (Emes)

• Cases from 5 cities/regions

Cases• EXCI Case Studies• Brussels• Delphine Huybrecht – Febisp, • Régie AJJA - Régie locale de travaux d'intérêt collectif• 6 associations linked in multi-stakeholder structure for

regeneration and insertion• Orebro• Anna Mostrum – Cesam• Baronbackarna – multi-stakeholder partnership for development• Social co-operative for work integration

(removal of barriers)• Area Forum for participation/involvement

Cases 2• Messina• Anna Crea – CISME, • Mental Hospital to enterprise - rehabilitation projects: “Gaia” and

“Nuova Idea” co-operatives both multi-stakeholder co-ops.• Gaia co-operative is engaged in biological production and in

gardening activities. • Nuova Idea co-operative is engaged in cleaning and maintenance

activities.• 3 promoting stakeholders plus involvement of other social

enterprise• Pordenone• Carlotta Galli – Comune di Pordenone, • Projet “Cerco casa” (Je cherche un logement)• Multi-stakeholder network for migrant housing (mediation

services)• Progetto Punto lavoro - Projet Point pour l’emploi• Integration services for wide variety of vulnerable groups

Cases 3

• Catalunya• Lara Capel, AEISC• housing: Project “Barcelona Shaks”• multi-stakeholder initiative, where both the public

sector and organisations in the field of architecture, urban planning and social assistance are involved for developing knowledge /practices for addressing housing crisis

• employment/housing: Project IGLOO-Catalonia• multi-stakeholder project (international) for work

integration of disadvantaged via refurbishment of housing (for them)

Housing overall comments• housing in general is not felt as a means to combat social exclusion • Knowledge of European and national strategy very scarce, if not

absent. • Lack of any strategic approach; actions for housing improvement

exists, but inserted in different policies• The importance of improving housing is not felt just as an

improvement of housing quality, but also as improvement of community general quality

• In those cases where housing is not an emergency, but a limited structural problem, communities take in charge the question, through budgetary decisions (Orebro)

• In other cases, there is an interesting intervention of different resources (Pordenone) as for instance banks.

• the main approach is the traditional one

Work integr. overall comments

• At EU level there are at least 42 different political frames of reference for social enterprises

• There is very often a confusion in responsibilities among different levels of authorities and low communication

• in situations where there is low number of excluded, these people are in hard core exclusion; with low possibility of entering the labour market; in such cases even the social economy can have difficulty intervening

• the most advanced cases of inclusion via employment are done using multi-partnership approaches

Trends in work integration measures

• Passive to active labour market measures

• Active labour market strategies improve efficiency of market:

• -improving information flow

• - improving skill levels through training

• - improving access and mobility

• - improving the matching

Tradn work integration programmes

• Matching jobs/vacancies - placement & job search

• Improving skills – training

• Increasing demand - temporary work and employment subsidies

• Promoting equality of opportunity – e.g. youth, older people

• Work integration against social exclusion

Types of Work Integration

Individual Collective

Temporary Contract

[ILM]

ILM

Permanent Placement Other Social Enterprise

Variables

• extent of training,

• wage subsidies,

• other support

• (for worker incapacities – temporary or permanent).

• sector: mainstream economy vs state markets

Work integration & social enterprise

• Social enterprise refers to organisations

• with enterprise characteristics

• (trading in the market or contracting, employing people)

• And with social goals

• (participation, user involvement, community benefit).

Dimensions of Social Enterprise

• The EMES criteria are:

• Four factors have been applied to define the economic and entrepreneurial nature of the initiatives.

• Five indicators have been selected for the social dimensions of the initiatives:

Dimensions of Social Enterprise

• Four factors have been applied to define the economic and entrepreneurial nature of the initiatives.

• a) A continuous activity producing goods and/or selling services

• b) A high degree of autonomy (vs dependency)

• c) A significant level of economic risk• d) A minimum amount of paid work

Dimensions of Social Enterprise

• Five indicators for the social dimensions of the initiatives:

• i) An initiative launched by a group of citizens

• ii) A decision-making power not based on capital ownership

• iii) A participatory nature, which involves the persons affected by the activity

• iv) Limited profit distribution• v) An explicit aim to benefit the community

Characteristics of new social enterprises

• 1. Co-operative/mutual and voluntary sector• 2. Multi-stakeholder • 3. Resource mix• 4. Social Capital• - multi-stakeholder• - strong user linkages• - worker involvement.• See www.emes.net • for EMES research projects

European Experience of WISE

• Mutual aid associations - for Unemployed in Finland

• Finnish Labour Co-operatives

• Ireland – community busines

• Social enterprises in Italy

housing against social exclusion

• Various bodies involved –public/private/SE

• Partnership a developing theme

• Increasing moves towards adding value– Home care– Work integration– Homelessness– Self-build/refurbish– Social care (disabled)

Emerging themes

• Focus: segment vs general/community (assns strengths)

• Participation/involvement (SE strengths)

• Multi-stakeholder structures

• X sector synergies: work and local services

• Innovations: not just actions but ideas/knowledge

Some project dilemmas

• Ownership when helping• Collaboration: municipalities – social econ.• Control of funding – intermediaries, democracy,

accountability• Local difference but global measures• Process: involving people but sharing

knowledge, giving guidance• Asset base – valuable• Initiatives are embedded• Involvement fatigue – activists and beneficiaries

Some problems

• Admin bureaucracy

• Late payments

• Mix of resources: managing risk: diversity vs transaction costs

Some suggestions

• Long term perspective – Lille 5 yrs +

• Good use of volunteers

• Multiple projects in one structure vs multi-stakeholder partnerships

• Importance of intermediaries– Coordinative– entrepreneurship

Summary

• Approaches to housing/work integration

• Exci Project overview

• Review of preliminary findings

• Work integration and social enterprise

• housing against social exclusion

• Issues and Models