1. HOUSING SOCIALE PER CHI? Judith Allen Professor of Housing and Regeneration University of Westminster England

2. Source: SOCOHO, 2007

3. Three interlinked political decisions: Who will be housed? What type of subsidy will be used? To whom will subsidy be paid?

4. PANDORA’S BOX Who will be housed? To whom will the subsidy be paid? What type of subsidy?

5. Types of subsidy: capital subsidy (bricks and mortar) operating subsidy to providing organisations personal subsidy to occupiers Who receives the subsidy: individual person housing organisations: public, private/public partnership, private social welfare organisations

6. PER CHI? The question of deciding who will get to live in social housing General types of allocation systems

7. THREE TYPES OF ALLOCATION SYSTEMS 1. Universalistic 2. Targeted a) Generalist: income ceiling b) Residual: focused on specific vulnerable groups

8. Only the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden have universalist systems. Targeted generalist systems : Austria, Czech Republic, France, Finland, Poland, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Greece. Targeted residual systems: UK, France, Ireland, Belgium, Estonia, Germany, Malta, Hungary, Cyprus, Portugal, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Spain

9. PER CHI? People with low incomes People currently living in substandard housing People who are socially vulnerable

10. Low income Socially vulnerable Substandard housing

12. Low incomes

13. Source: SOCOHO, 2007

15. Source: Housing Statistics 2005

16. Source: SOCOHO, 2007

17. Substandard housing

18. TECHNICAL CONDITION OF HOUSING In general, Italy compares well with other European countries in terms of the technical quality of the buildings although the poorest 20% live in the worst buildings Households are the most dissatisfied, among the comparator countries, with the physical environment of their homes: noise, pollution, etc They are close to the average in terms of worry about crime and vandalism On these last two indicators, there is no difference between all households and the poorest 20%

19. OTHER PHYSICAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO DISSATISFACTION WITH HOUSING: New dwellings appear to be very much smaller than those in the existing stock, and the smallest compared to other European countries There aren’t very many new dwellings being built (only UK and Denmark have lower rates of new building) A disproportionate amount of dwellings are in multi- family and high-rise blocks

20. Source: Housing Statistics, 2005 * estimated

21. Source: Housing Statistics, 2005

22. Socially vulnerable groups

23. SOCIALLY VULNERABLE GROUPS The good, the bad and the ugly

24. Elderly people, especially the frail and very old Minority ethnic groups facing discrimination in the housing market Young people living in or leaving care institutions Those leaving a variety of institutions: prisons, armed forces, etc Physically disabled Those with chronic and/or terminal illnesses

25. Women experiencing domestic violence (and their children) Those who are mentally ill or mentally disabled Substance abusers: alcohol, drugs Refugees and asylum seekers Gypsies and travellers

26. Organisation of health, police and social welfare services: state and non-state Who should provide the housing? Ability of personal and housing services to coordinate their work

27. The good news...... there appears to be a low risk of homelessness in Italy (Although the data are not very dependable, and...... the age of emancipation and of marriage are also very high.)

28. Source: SOCOHO, 2007

29. CATEGORIES OF HOMELESSNESS 1.Roofless: sleeping rough or in night shelters 2.Houseless: in special housing for the homeless, women’s shelters, special housing for immigrants, due to be released from institutions, receiving personal support in specialised housing 3.Insecure housing: temporarily with friends or family, no legal tenancy or right to occupy, living under threat of eviction 4.Inadequate housing: temporary or non-standard structures, unfit housing, extreme overcrowding

30. Homelessness and social vulnerability are overlapping categories. The question is whether services aim to deliver to the socially vulnerable (social services, health services) or to the homeless (housing provision).

31. CONCLUSIONS: HOUSING SOCIALE PER CHI? Deciding who is to be housed is one way to consider the specific aspects of subsidy arrangements and how to link subsidy arrangements to issues of subsidiarity and proportionality.

32. CONCLUSIONS: HOUSING SOCIALE PER CHI? The key choice is the relative balance between targeted generalist and residual allocations systems. This choice also implies considering what type of organisation to support (social services, or housing organisations, or joined-up projects.

33. CONCLUSIONS: HOUSING SOCIALE PER CHI? Housing programmes can be used to support other important objectives: regeneration, town planning, energy efficiency, counter- cyclical economic policy, social services, etc.

34. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING