According to the latest data, there are around 5,000 homeless people in Ireland, of whom about 2,300 live in Dublin and surrounding areas. The Irish government spends about 62 million EUR each year on addressing homelessness in Dublin, from the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Health. In addition to the state support in Dublin, more than 20 non-governmental organizations also raise funds for this purpose and look for volunteers willing to spend hours in volunteer service across the whole city.
During the 1970s and 1980s in Ireland, homelessness was one of the peripheral political issues. At that time, the affected people were reliant on the help of individual volunteer groups, who supported and advocated for them. In 1988, the Housing Act introduced new powers for local authorities, which could address the housing needs of homeless people. It became the state's obligation to establish and run a dedicated unit that people without shelter could turn to. As soon as it was verified that someone was homeless, the unit was required to secure temporary accommodation for that person. The unit was also tasked with providing people living around Dublin with basic life necessities. In reality, professionalization of services gradually took place, and homeless people began to be seen as people who deserve quality care.
Despite these laws, practice was completely different. In the 1990s, several hostels were built in Dublin for this purpose, but they required residents not to drink and not to take drugs. So if someone came 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 most in need of accommodation were most likely to be refused.
All these arguments recall how and why low-threshold social services for people without shelter actually emerged in Ireland. Yes, the approach was considerably more professional and the state was responsible for these people, yet many times the state transferred this responsibility to non-governmental organizations, which are able to deal with these problems more flexibly and innovatively, not to mention more cost-effectively. However, there were still many marginalized groups whose needs the city could not cover.
The development of low-threshold social services in Ireland was triggered by the deaths of young homeless people
In 2001, during the winter, 3 young people using heroin died in the streets of Dublin. They died on the streets mainly because it was known that they used drugs, and therefore they were not accepted into any of the hostels. It is a known fact that in Ireland 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.
The Irish government therefore asked non-profit organizations for help in addressing this problem. For this reason, a tender was announced for this service, but no one applied. The government then contacted the international organization Depaul International, which agreed to begin providing low-threshold social services for this group of clients. This led to the creation of the Clancy Hostel—a low-threshold facility for people dependent on drugs—which opened its doors. The hostel continues to operate today and its capacity is fully utilized every day. At least services meeting basic life needs must be provided to these people.
The international organization Depaul International works with homelessness in 5 countries including Slovakia. The main principle of this organization, following the example of Saint Vincent de Paul, who lived 400 years ago, is that it is necessary to take risks—not unmanageable risks, but ones that can be measured and calculated. Providing such low-threshold services is risky, but the result of all this is change, and above all, the fruits of this effort that we can observe today in the streets of Dublin.
Depaul Ireland today operates 12 projects in Ireland, and more than 70% of its work functions according to a principle commonly referred to as harm reduction. What can one imagine under the term low-threshold approach or harm reduction? Low-threshold approach essentially means a high degree of tolerance, especially when working with the poorest people, who, for various reasons, need extensive care. In low-threshold facilities, rules and regulations are kept to a minimum so they can serve and be accessible to everyone who needs them, and so that the number of people rejected is as small as possible.
As part of low-threshold work, whether it is accommodation or outreach services, we try to work within a harm reduction philosophy. Low-threshold approach is not about observing risks, but about actively engaging people in various activities so that we support them and at the same time reduce the harm they may cause to 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 if it is not always beneficial for the person. We do not force clients to change their lifestyle because we believe everyone has rights. In our view, this approach supports people in reducing the harm they cause themselves, whether physical or psychological. The resulting effect of adopting such an approach at the individual level has a major influence on wider society.
In line with the values of Depaul Slovensko, this model acknowledges that a person can change. But real change usually comes very slowly. This model generally applies to work with people dependent on drugs, but we are convinced it can also be used in work with people in relation to other aspects of their lives. We believe that these types of services are essential for providing life necessities for those in the greatest need at the edge of society. By providing services that are key and important for further care and continuity, we are not only trying to respond to the needs of people without homes, but also openly challenging others to evaluate their work methods and to see that sometimes it is worth taking risks.
The Slovak path of applying a low-threshold approach in facilities in Bratislava
The trigger for starting low-threshold services for people without shelter in Slovakia were events from the winter of 2005/2006, when 19 homeless people died in Bratislava from frostbite during severe cold, according to the General Prosecutor's Office data. These deaths resulted in a temporary solution, where the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic set up a tent city to prevent further deaths from hypothermia. The tent city was visited by an average of 140 people per night, but it was a very expensive and non-systemic solution.
After persistent pressure by non-profit organizations on the Bratislava City Magistrate, it became possible to establish, as the first in Slovakia, a low-threshold night shelter for homeless people, which has been operating for the fourth year. The shelter provides social services for people in the most critical condition even when they are entirely without means, which is not possible in the case of other hostels and night shelters. Clients come from Slovakia and abroad, each night there are around 130, in winter the number rises to 180.
Many of the clients are in serious mental or physical condition; often they are people dependent on alcohol or drugs. Establishing a low-threshold shelter meant the start of work with a group of homeless people with whom other organizations have no interest in working. The shelter is operated by Depaul Slovensko, n. o., which established another facility for people without shelter with an unfavorable health condition, where daytime stay is offered mainly for people discharged from hospitalization. Thus, the social network in Bratislava has acquired facilities that partially cover the existential needs of people without homes and thereby provide a certain intermediate step for clients toward social inclusion.
Author: Kerry Anthony – Depaul Ireland Juraj Barát – Depaul Slovensko, n. o. http:>www.deapaulslovensko.org E-mail: info@depaulslovensko.org
This article was published in the journal Social services - December 2010