First, I would like to present the current situation in Ireland and, at the same time, highlight some differences compared with the Slovak system. Although I am also responsible for our projects in Northern Ireland, I would focus mainly on the situation in Ireland, since each country has different legal regulations and a funding system.

According to the latest data, there are about 5,000 homeless people in Ireland, of whom around 2,300 live in Dublin and surrounding areas. The government spends roughly 62 million EUR annually on addressing homelessness in Dublin, from the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Health. In addition, several NGOs also raise money for this purpose and seek volunteers willing to spend countless hours in volunteer service across the city. In Dublin, more than 20 NGOs operate.

The situation was not always this severe. During the 1970s and 1980s in Ireland, homelessness was a peripheral political issue. At that time, those affected were left to the help of individual volunteer groups who supported and advocated for them. In 1988, the Housing Act introduced new powers for local authorities, enabling them to address the housing needs of homeless people. The state had an obligation to establish and run a Special Department where people without shelter could turn for help. Once they were verified as homeless, the department was required to provide temporary accommodation. The department was also responsible for providing people living around Dublin with basic life necessities. In practice, services were gradually professionalized, and homeless people began to be seen as people who deserve quality care.

Nevertheless, practice was very different. In the 1990s, several hostels were built in Dublin for this purpose, but they required residents not to drink or use drugs. So if someone arrived and smelled of alcohol, or could not provide a clean urine sample, they could not be accommodated in such a facility, which in practice meant that those who needed accommodation most were most likely to be refused. All these arguments remind me of how and why Depaul actually began operating in Ireland. Yes, the approach was far more professional and the state was responsible for these people, but many times the state passed this responsibility on to NGOs, which are capable of addressing these issues more flexibly and innovatively, not to mention more financially efficiently. Yet there were still many marginalized groups whose needs the city could not cover.

In 2001, during the winter, 3 young people who used heroin died in the streets of Dublin. They died in the streets mainly because it was known they used drugs, and therefore they were not accepted by any hostel. It is a known fact in Ireland that 60-70% of people without shelter are dependent on drugs or alcohol, and somewhere between 20-30% need urgent help to change a lifestyle they chose themselves.

At the time when the managing director of our group, Mark McGreevy, was visiting Ireland, he was asked whether Depaul could do something so that such young people would not be excluded from society. Of course we could, Marc said, but he also added that it would probably not have been too appropriate because at that time there were already several organizations with a similar focus in Ireland. Therefore, a tender was announced for this service, but no one applied. So they contacted us again, and we said: Yes, we are the ones to do this, to work with this client group. That is when the Clancy Night Shelter— a low-threshold facility for people dependent on drugs — opened its doors. The shelter has been operating ever since, and its capacity is fully used every day. We need to provide these people with at least basic life necessities, through which we can also support them greatly on an emotional level.

Just as Vincent de Paul did 400 years ago, one of our main principles is that we are prepared to take risks—not unmanageable risks, but risks that can be measured and calculated. Yes, creating such a service was risky, yet the outcome is change, but above all the fruits of our effort, which we can now see in the streets of Dublin. In 2003 we established another low-threshold facility, Aungier Street, mainly intended for people living on the streets who are dependent on alcohol. The facility, often referred to as a ‘wet house’, was again the first of its kind in Ireland. Thanks to Aungier Street, our attitude toward working with people also changed. Depaul Ireland now runs 12 projects in Ireland and more than 70% of our work is based on a social philosophy commonly referred to as harm reduction. Depaul Ireland’s activities are largely (approximately 90%) funded by the government. This is linked to the ability to create a larger number of smaller low-threshold facilities and to adequately financially motivate staff. In Slovakia, in my opinion, multiple smaller facilities should rather be created, focused on specific groups of people without homes. This is, however, primarily tied to support from government and local authorities, without which financing such projects in the current economic situation will not be possible, and also to appropriate legislation that ensures stability.

Low-threshold approach and harm reduction The low-threshold approach essentially means a high degree of tolerance, especially when working with the most deprived people, who, for various reasons, need extensive care. In low-threshold facilities, rules and regulations are limited to a minimum so they can serve and be accessible to everyone who needs them most, while minimizing the number of people turned away. Within our low-threshold approach, whether accommodation or street-based services, we strive to work within a philosophy of harm reduction. The low-threshold approach is not about observing risks but about actively involving people in various activities, so that we support them and at the same time reduce the harm they may cause themselves or others.

Harm reduction is a professional approach in which we do not judge people and recognize that everyone has the right to choose their lifestyle, even when it is not always beneficial for the person. We do not force clients to change it, because we believe that everyone has rights. In our view, this approach encourages people to reduce the harm they cause themselves, whether physical or psychological. The resulting effect of adopting this approach at the individual level has a major impact on broader society. In line with our organizational values, this model recognizes that a person can change. But real change usually comes only very slowly. This model generally applies to work with people dependent on drugs, yet we believe it can also be applied in work with people regarding other aspects of their lives.

We believe that these kinds of services are essential for providing life necessities to those in greatest need at the margins of society. By providing services that are key and important for further care and continuity, we not only try to meet the needs of people without shelter, but also openly challenge others to reassess their work methods and to see that sometimes it is worth taking risks.

That is not to say that providing such services is easy; on the contrary, it involves dealing with many demanding phenomena, processes, and tasks: 1. Problematic behavior 2. Employee morale 3. Working with people who are not well in terms of health 4. Monitoring risks and reducing and measuring them 5. Access to multiple accommodation options 6. Public perception 7. Genuine relationships in the workplace and effective communication 8. Involving clients in decision-making processes regarding individual services 9. Dual diagnosis And much more... These are all essential services that need to be carried out in any work with people without homes. Of course, in our work we encounter problems and painful situations. But we always keep hope. Our job is to sustain hope in our clients, even when they themselves do not have it. We must remember that everyone can change and support them in fulfilling their goals.

Need for systemic change

As I prepared this presentation, I was pleased by how much had changed in Dublin over those 8 years. We no longer just stand by passively and drop coins into the tin of some charitable collection. This, however, does not mean we do not need financial support. Our role is much more demanding. Someone once told me that people prefer to talk about justice rather than charity, but consider charity as a means to achieve justice. I liked this thought very much. Within the Vincentian family, we often speak about creating systemic change. When I visited your projects three years ago, I realized that you are exactly the ones beginning to implement these changes. Of course, every change is a long-term process that takes its own time, as it did for us in Ireland. You not only influence the individuals you work with each day, but your work also has broader social impact, where you can encourage others to change their mindset.

Depaul as an organization needs ever new challenges in its work, but let us ask ourselves: Are we inflating the problem of homelessness through excessive zeal? Or are we, in fact, trying to bring about systemic change? By this I mainly mean work on solving the root causes of homelessness at a structural level. Doing things differently—taking on risk and sharing problems together with others, being able to objectively assess our services, and constantly striving to adapt them to new needs. Because of projects such as Clancy and Aungier Street, which I have already mentioned, a shift also occurred in the operation of other service providers for people without homes. These organizations are today much more integrated. By taking this risk ourselves, we also prompted the changes that happened in our sector. For me, these are precisely the people in whom it is worth investing our services. Of course, it is always necessary to review how our services have improved and changed. In Dublin, we are going through such a process at the moment. We are ready to move forward in supporting people without shelter and want to try to end this problem, which is in fact our main goal.

Author: Kerry Anthony, MBE / Depaul Ireland

The contribution was published in the conference proceedings ,,Inclusion of the socially excluded and models of operation of low-threshold facilities in Slovakia', organized by Depaul Slovakia, a non-profit organization in Bratislava, on October 26, 2010. Reviewers of the proceedings: Ing. Mgr. Juraj Barát, Mgr. Jaroslava Poloňová, PhD. Publisher: DEPAUL SLOVENSKO, a non-profit organization, Bratislava 2010 ISBN: 978-80-970578-2-4