Passive adaptation or active engagement? The challenges of Housing First internationally and in the Italian case

Abstract

In recent years a peculiar homelessness' policy that goes under the name of 'Housing First' has become increasingly popular all over the world. Epitomising a quintessential case of policy-mobility, Housing First can today be considered an heterogeneous assemblage of experiences and approaches that sometimes have little in common with each other. Introducing and commenting upon this heterogeneity, the paper critically analyses why and how Housing First has become a planetary success and what are the issues at stake with its widespread implementation. If recent scholarship published in this journal has granted us a fine understanding of Housing First's functioning in the US, this paper offers something currently absent from the debate: a nuanced and critical understanding of the ambiguities related to the international success of this policy, with specific references to the challenges associated to its translation in the Italian case.

Goals and Principles of Providers Working with People Experiencing Homelessness: A Comparison Between Housing First and Traditional Staircase Services in Eight European Countries

“…In Europe, the Housing First model (HF) of homeless services delivery [1,2,3] is gaining traction as an alternative to the Traditional Staircase model (TS). In HF, people in homeless situations move directly from the street into independent accommodation with wraparound supports, and without any pre-condition to start a process of recovery [4].…”

Hospital collaboration with a Housing First program to improve health outcomes for people experiencing homelessness

“…The emphasis is on housing people rapidly with no pre-conditions, and providing support services in conjunction with the long-term housing to support people exiting homelessness to sustain tenancies and address other issues (Johnson et al , 2010). There are now many Housing First programmes across the USA and Canada (Woodhall-Melnik and Dunn, 2016), and a growing number across the globe, including Finland (Busch-Geertsema, 2013), Italy (Lancione et al , 2018) and Australia (Conroy et al , 2014; Wood et al , 2017; 500 Lives 500 Homes, 2016). Around the world, no two Housing First programmes are the same, with iterations reflecting variations in programme funding and partners, along with adaptation to cultural, social and political contexts (Lancione et al , 2018).…”

Punishment, support, or discipline? Taking stock of recent debates about homeless governance in neoliberal cities

“…A compendium of applied research has examined the efficacy of Housing First (Baxter et al, 2019; Leclair et al, 2019; Ly & Latimer, 2015; Rog et al, 2014; Tsai, 2020; Woodhall‐Melnik & Dunn, 2016). To date, sociologists have devoted little if any attention to the use of this governmentality to manage urban homelessness (see Baker & Evans, 2016; Clarke & Parsell, 2020; Lancione et al., 2018; Parsell & Marston, 2016). This knowledge gap hinders sociologists from identifying, explaining, and evaluating emergent trends of homeless governance.…”

“…Lastly, Housing First emphasizes the prioritization of people suffering chronic homelessness. In European cities, where refugees constitute a large proportion of the local homeless population, authorities may select different eligibility criteria and wraparound services than advocated by Housing First (Lancione et al., 2018).…”