The Housing Dimension of Welfare Reform - the ICCR

More documents

Recommendations

Info

expertise. Staff/service user relationship should be managed and supervised as professional relationship. Appropriate procedures need to be put in place in case of conflict of interest or divergence in service management philosophies and beliefs and user personal philosophies and beliefs. User participation. Services should develop the policy and practice of giving the opportunity to service users to give their opinion and input in the running of service. They should consult, as far as possible, with the people who use the service regarding the running of service. This should be a component of the evaluation of the service environment and implementation of users rights. User rights. Service users should be given the opportunity to make informed autonomous decisions regarding their own lives and, to the extent possible, several options regarding the type and scope of support they might take. Users should be assisted by staff in making choices but not be subject to pressures based on value judgements or beliefs of service providers. They have the right to early and confidential assessment of their needs. When the service is not able to meet the assessed needs of the client there should be an obligation of referral to another appropriate service. Information should be presented in a userfriendly manner and provide clear and relevant up to date information. A complaints procedure should be put in place for service users. The service should provide users with clear information about the process of termination of services in case of failure of conflict resolution or referral to another service. Services and assistance provided to service users should be treated in a confidential manner. Likewise information on the users’ background should be treated in a confidential manner. Follow-up support for service users after they leave the service should be made available when necessary and appropriate, but only supplied when users agree. EUROHOME-IMPACT FINAL REPORT 60
4 Conclusions and recommendations In this chapter of the EUROHOME-IMPACT final report we report on the main conclusions and recommendations of the project based on the research findings presented in the previous chapter. The discussion is organised in two main parts. In the first section (4.1) we present the implications of the project results towards the specification of a method for social policy impact assessment in the framework of the open method of coordination – currently the approach followed for supporting the coordination and gradual integration of policies in areas governed by multilevel governance and subsidiarity. The second part (section 4.2) advances the project’s main conclusions and recommendations with regard to welfare policies and housing. 4.1 A method for social policy impact assessment 4.1.1 The policy context The open method of coordination (OMC) was introduced at the Lisbon Council as a procedure to support flexible integration in areas governed by subsidiarity, like social policy. It foresees the gradual harmonisation of policy goals (and, subsequently, but not necessarily, policy measures) through learning by comparison and benchmarking. As stated by Frank Vandenbroucke, Minister of Social Affairs in Belgium and one of the main proponents of the open method of coordination in social policy: “An efficient learning process requires the use of comparable and commonly agreed indicators in order to monitor progress towards the common goals, as well as evaluation and, possibly, soft recommendations made by the European Commission and the Council. The exchange of reliable information aims – at least to some extent – at institutionalising intelligent ‘policy mimicking’” (Vandenbroucke, 2002, Speech at the Max Planck Institute, June 2002). The results of the EUROHOME-IMPACT project are in this respect of high policy relevance. The approach adopted by the EUROHOME- IMPACT project combines quantitative and qualitative methods as well as assessments with different units or at different levels of analysis. We think that this approach can be generalised to social policies or programmes more generally in the framework of the open method of coordination for the promotion of a European social policy agenda. EUROHOME-IMPACT FINAL REPORT 61
Page 1 and 2:
EUROHOME-IMPACT The Housing Dimensi
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents Abstract_________
Page 5 and 6:
large numbers of persons facing hou
Page 7 and 8:
[1.6] The most important actors in
Page 9 and 10: Germany, Luxembourg and the UK: the
Page 11 and 12: involvement: first, through the org
Page 13 and 14: 2 Background and objectives of the
Page 15 and 16: Deliverable R[4] has sought to form
Page 17 and 18: policy reform at the substantive le
Page 19 and 20: ole as that of supporting all to th
Page 21 and 22: Owner occupation is the primary pol
Page 23 and 24: of payment, disturbance of domestic
Page 25 and 26: Social housing The social housing s
Page 27 and 28: provide rent assistance to the poor
Page 29 and 30: Social tenants may purchase their h
Page 31 and 32: - The accommodation is characterise
Page 33 and 34: The summary statistics indicate tha
Page 35 and 36: Pure crowding or affordability prob
Page 37 and 38: Table 3. Any-time poverty rate vs.
Page 39 and 40: 3. Housing related characteristics
Page 41 and 42: The implications of our logistic re
Page 43 and 44: Europe. Across the EU-14, 54 per ce
Page 45 and 46: close to a 0 percent reduction rate
Page 47 and 48: Effectiveness Assessing the effecti
Page 49 and 50: Transferability This dimension comp
Page 51 and 52: activities and mediation have been
Page 53 and 54: The DCCSS staff support rough sleep
Page 55 and 56: were less marginalized and deprived
Page 57 and 58: isolation and lack of social networ
Page 59: deliberation with service providers
Page 63 and 64: (b) When evaluating the ‘success
Page 65 and 66: like, for instance, the gini coeffi
Page 67 and 68: anti-poverty strategies can therefo
Page 69 and 70: 5 Dissemination and exploitation of
Page 71 and 72: 70 pages Available also in French D
Page 73 and 74: Berthoud, R. and Gerschuny, J. (eds
Page 75 and 76: European Commission (1997), Social
Page 77 and 78: Kleinman, M. (1996), Housing, Welfa
Page 79 and 80: Whelan, C. T., Layte, R., Maître,
Page 81 and 82: ueber Wohnquartiere in den alten un
Page 83 and 84: Istat (1996), Famiglie, abitazioni,
Page 85 and 86: Havel, M., Fink, K. and Barta, H. (
Page 87 and 88: North Y. et al. (1996), Le Logement
Page 89 and 90: Heitzmann, K. (1999), Transitions t
Page 91 and 92: Whelan, C. T., Layte, R., Maitre, B
Page 93 and 94: Redl, H. (2001), ECHP-Austria Forsc
Page 95 and 96: Rossi, P. H. & Freeman H. E., Evalu
Page 97 and 98: G. Schuler-Wallner/I. Mühlich-Klin
Page 99 and 100: Kristensen, H. (1999) Housing Polic
Page 101 and 102: Department of Health (2000): The He
Page 103 and 104: Avramov, D. (1999a) Background Pape
Page 105 and 106: Esping-Andersen, G. ed. (1996) Welf
Page 107 and 108: EUROSTAT (2001) The Social Situatio
Page 109 and 110: Pilgram A. H. Steinert (2001) Socia
show all

The Housing Dimension of Welfare Reform - the ICCR

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?