1. European Consensus Conference on Homelessness Policy Recommendations of the Jury

2. Key Question 1: What does homelessness mean? ETHOS typology should be used as a common EU framework definition. An EU-wide monitoring system is required, based on robust national data collection strategies. Continued important role for indicators sub- group of the SPC in developing homeless indicators within the ETHOS framework. Eurostat should develop a retrospective question on episodes of homelessness in the EU-Silc household surveys.

3. Key question 2: Ending homelessness: A realistic objective? Shift of paradigm from ‘managing’ to ‘ending’ homelessness is required. Ending homelessness only possible within an integrated approach. Integrated homelessness strategies should elaborate targets that aim to progressively reduce homelessness. Specifically, Member States should set dates for ending street homelessness and long-term homelessness Additional key areas for progress include prevention, improvement of quality of services for homeless people and access to affordable housing (as put forward by Joint Report 2010).

4. Key Question 3: Are ‘housing-led’ policy approaches the most effective methods of tackling homelessness? Evidence that ‘housing-led’ policy approaches are the most effective. A shift in service delivery concept is needed - a move away from shelters and transitional accommodation towards prevention, access to adequate affordable housing and provision of in- housing support on the basis of need. An integrated approach is a condition for success. Much potential to develop ‘housing-led’ approaches in the framework of social innovation, which is a key strand of Europe 2020 and the EPAP Strong potential links to the EU structural funds. ERDF has already been opened up to housing for marginalised groups including the homeless.

5. Key Question 4: How can meaningful participation of homeless people in the development of homeless policies be assured? Issue of dignity – homeless people’s rights and autonomy must be recognised. Need to facilitate the realistic participation of homeless people, where this is feasible at the level of individuals, services and policies. Need for ongoing mutual learning and transnational exchange to establish good practices. In the context of the high value that has been placed on the participation of people experiencing poverty in EU policy development, mechanisms should be developed to facilitate the participation of homeless people in EU-level homeless policy development.

6. Key Question 5: To what extent should people be able to access homeless services irrespective of their legal status and citizenship? Need for better understanding of the relationships between homelessness and migration as well as internal free movement. Jury call for an EU study. No person in the EU should face destitution. Basic fundamental rights must be respected irrespective of legal/administrative status. Need for an integrated approach, with a particular responsibility for migration policy. Homeless services should not be systematically used to compensate for inconsistent migration policies. Homeless services should not be used systematically to regulate migration. The EU should recognise its special responsibility concerning the relationship between homelessness and destitution and the free movement of EU citizens.

7. Key Question 6: What should be the elements of an EU strategy on homelessness? The jury calls for an ambitious EU homelessness strategy that can provide a framework for the development of national/regional strategies. An EU homelessness strategy should provide a monitoring and reporting framework. A multi-annual work-programme is required to support integrated strategies in the Member States. This should comprise of  A strong research agenda;  A focus on social innovation, in particular in relation to ‘housing led’ approaches  Ongoing mutual learning and transnational exchange  Focus on the promotion of quality homeless services  Strong links to EU funding  Mainstreaming across relevant policy areas. An appropriate governance structure is required to allow the involvement of all stakeholders, such as a high-level steering group.