ICCARus – Improving Housing Conditions for Captive Resident in Ghent

Ghent faces a significant shortage of affordable, quality housing for its low-income residents, with 15.5% of the population—around 39,761 people—living in poverty. Many of these individuals are "captive residents", which refers to residents stuck in unsafe, poorly maintained, and energy-inefficient homes. They often lack the financial means, or the social support needed to renovate their properties, leaving them in deteriorating conditions. This situation not only affects their living standards but also leads to social isolation and stigma.[1]

[1] ICCARus (Gent knapt op) - Improving housing Conditions for CAptive Residents in Ghent | Portico

To address these challenges that the city is facing, the project created a revolving fund to enable renovations of houses of captive residents in Ghent, but without adding a monthly cost to the houses. The main purpose of this IFS is to enable renovations of the houses of captive residents, and once the house is alienated (i.e., house is sold, rented, or the owner dies) the money invested into the renovations comes back to the revolving fund that will be used to renovate other houses. One of the partners, the Public Centre for Social Welfare (OCMW), gets the renovation funds back mainly through property sales or if the owner passes away, with repayment handled by a notary. If the owner cannot repay immediately (e.g., the house is rented or inherited), the Public Centre for Social Welfare arranges a monthly repayment plan.

Figure 1. Visual representation of the IFS

The revolving fund is a financial mechanism used to continuously replenish and reuse capital for specific purposes, such as financing projects or providing loans. In the context of the ICCARus project, this fund was set-up to have a continuous system of house renovations of captive residents. Residents looking to renovate their houses could apply to receive up to € 30,000 for essential renovation works. The residents have also received social[1] and technical[2] counselling aside from the renovations outside the renovation sum. Once the houses are alienated (i.e., sold, rented, or when the owner dies), the money used for the renovation of the house comes back into the revolving fund to renovate other houses in the future.

The revolving fund not only recovers the original investment but also benefits from any increase in the house’s value resulting from the renovations, allowing the fund to grow over time. This ensures that the same public money can be reused to help more people, rather than being a one-time expenditure. Throughout the renovation process, residents receive comprehensive support, including technical, financial, social, and administrative assistance, to ensure the renovations are carried out smoothly and effectively.

[1] Social workers provided social support to all participants whose house was undergoing renovation. This was done by Sivi and Samenlevingsopbouw Gent.

[2] Technical counselling was given by Domus Mundi and REGent.

This concept of using the revolving fund for such renovations started with an organisation that focused on renovations in one single neighbourhood of Ghent[1]. This concept has been expanded by the Municipality with the support of the UIA funding, which allowed for a larger revolving fund and for a bigger partnership to be established in order to implement a more complex project (i.e., at the level of the whole city of Ghent rather than one neighbourhood, and including supporting with counselling activities).

The UIA funding supported the establishment of the collaborations, the necessary steps for creating the fund and making it sustainable in the long-run.

[1] Dampoort Knapt Op

The IFS implemented in ICCARus was perceived by project coordinators as rather complex, both in terms of developing the IFS and in terms of implementing it. One reason for this complexity was the involvement of many stakeholders, each requiring time and collaboration. In particular, the contracting process to renovation contractors was time-consuming, and the political environment—with two city councils involved—added additional layers of complexity. For other cities considering a similar project, a preparation period of at least a year, involving 6-7 stakeholders, is recommended to navigate the numerous challenges involved. Additionally, the Housing Department of the City of Ghent had not worked closely with the Public Centre of Public Welfare before, therefore not having experience working together.

Another reason for this perceived complexity was regarding the fund itself. Given the nature of the IFS and that it funds renovations, it is not clear when the funding will come back, so it is a long-term commitment, and it adds a layer of uncertainty.

Further complicating matters were the administrative demands, such as monitoring the housing and ensuring that residents were still in their homes (i.e., they did not sell the house or rent it). Defining the target group, assessing the state of buildings, and determining whether there was sufficient funding also required extensive coordination, discussion, and clarification.

The IFS intended to reach the renovation of 100 houses of ‘captive residents’ in Ghent. The target group within the reach of the revolving fund were people with a difficult socio-economic situation. More specifically, the participants were single or single parents, facing significant economic hardship. Many have children, with an average of two per household, and they often lack higher education. A substantial portion struggles with precarious financial conditions, with fewer than half receiving a salary and a notable number of cohabiting partners also without income. A considerable number of participants experienced difficulties paying off mortgages, a problem exacerbated by the pandemic. Overall, these participants face a higher risk of poverty compared to the general population in Ghent and Flanders (the region in which Ghent is located).

The budget of the revolving fund was € 2,378,702.00. This involved setting up the revolving fund by assigning a repayable contribution (€ 30,000) per dwelling to be renovated.[1]

[1] Based on information from the Application form of ICCARus, Work Package 8.

The cost per renovation per household during the duration of the project was around € 30,000 [price set starting 2018], with social guidance costing €1,000 per household and technical guidance requiring approximately 80 working hours, amounting to €7,000. Some renovations are more complex than others. Overhead costs include smaller investments like the Energy Performance Certificate (€300), mortgage registration (€600), and real estate estimation (€250), along with project management and administrative tasks.

ICCARus required more strategic partnerships and involved 5,000 hours of renovations, along with social and technical support per renovation. In contrast, the current project, which builds on and continues the work of ICCARus, adopts a simpler approach. However, long-term maintenance poses challenges, as there is uncertainty around when contributions will be returned to the fund. On-going legal, financial, and administrative monitoring will be required, including yearly check-ups for each household.

The governance structure is led by the City of Ghent, with key partners including the Public Centre for Social Welfare, which manages the revolving fund and day-to-day operations. Renovation partners REGent and Domus Mundi handled technical work, while social services are provided by Samenlevingsopbouw, Sivi vzw and the Public Centre for Social Welfare. A research consortium, including KU Leuven, Ghent University, and AP Hogeschool Antwerpen, supported the project with academic insights.

A steering group of all partners met monthly to address major issues, while smaller bilateral groups manage day-to-day tasks focused on renovations and social guidance. This structure ensures effective collaboration and oversight of the project.

• Effective partnership: Collaboration among stakeholders, fostering shared responsibilities and using diverse expertise.
• Capacity building: Strengthening the skills and knowledge of stakeholders to implement the project effectively.
• Financial incentives and support: Direct funding, including contributions from UIA (Urban Innovative Actions), to enable project implementation.
• Expert contributions: Guidance, policy recommendations, and technical expertise provided by academics and universities (i.e., KU Leuven, Ghent University), to fill gaps in local entities like housing services and the Public Centre for Social Welfare.
• Sharing best practices: Disseminating knowledge and lessons learned to optimise project outcomes and inspire replication.

The project faced delays and additional challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of the war in Ukraine on material availability and delivery which impacted the continuation of the project. Despite these obstacles, the project received strong political support, as it was embedded in the broader Ghent 2030 agenda, which promotes inclusion and affordable housing for all.

Citizens were actively involved in the project through various recruitment efforts. For those not eligible for the ICCARus project, alternative options were offered, such as the opportunity to participate in social council meetings focused on enhancing their living conditions by exercising their social rights. Feedback on living conditions was regularly gathered by academics and the social organisation, primarily through testimonies. Additionally, the Public Centre for Social Welfare implemented a proactive rights approach to ensure citizens' needs were met.

Moreover, strong support from the City of Ghent and its administrative leaders provided the necessary influence to drive the project forward and an enabling regulatory framework and policies facilitated smooth project execution.

• Collective leadership model challenges: The implementation of the IFS required shared ownership among partners, which comes with its own set of challenges. A core team from the City of Ghent and the Public Centre for Social Welfare was formed to streamline decision-making and resolve smaller issues.
• Public procurement and participant selection: The innovative and inclusive approach proved challenging. Specific criteria were developed, and technical counsellors were involved in renovation planning.
• Building trust with participants. Social counsellors played a key role in guiding participants through the process.
• Cross-departmental collaboration and social impact monitoring required coordination across various departments. A multidisciplinary team and academic evaluation support were utilised.
• COVID-19 pandemic: The pandemic disrupted recruitment and renovation phases. Timelines and processes were adapted to accommodate delays.
• Funding shortfalls: The initial budget for renovations was insufficient. Additional funding was secured from Flemish government subsidies, and the Public Centre for Social Welfare pre-financed grants to allow participants to access subsidies after completing renovations. The maximum renovation budget was increased to €50,000 to account for rising costs.
• Shortage of skilled contractors for renovations: the project team encountered difficulties finding contractors willing to work with vulnerable populations. Tender documents were revised twice to improve contractor engagement.

The revolving fund has facilitated both the project's activities and results, as well as their continuation beyond its completion. The IFS has enabled the project’s outputs to sustain house renovations and achieve outcomes such as enhanced quality of life, improved housing standards, better energy efficiency, reduced CO2 emissions per house, increased property values post-renovation, growth in the revolving fund, and mitigation of gentrification.

The project has shown significant success in improving various aspects of living conditions and energy efficiency. Some key results include reduction in health hazards due to renovations: risk of CO intoxication dropped from 60% to 4% and risk of electrocution incidents from 84% to 3%, though both fell slightly short of the 0% target. Problems related to moisture were reduced from 96% to 4%, surpassing the target of 10%. Housing quality improved by an average of 55 points[1], significantly above the 36-point target, and energy performance saw a marked improvement of 227 kWh/m²/year, more than double the 90 kWh/m²/year target. CO₂ emissions decreased by 5406 kg/year per house, far exceeding the 250 kg/year target, and property values increased by an average of € 58,947 at the end of the project, compared to the expected € 30,000 increase.

The project was rated 8/10 in participant satisfaction, slightly under the 9/10 target, while the recurring fund increased to € 6 million as planned, and 87% of residents expect to stay in their homes, exceeding the 85% target for reducing gentrification.

Despite these successes, some targets were not fully reached. Awareness of rights and services increased from 10% to 65%, falling short of the 90% target due to the complexity of the information provided. Similarly, pre-financing grants[2] unlocked per house were lower than anticipated at € 3,806, against a target of € 6,800, largely because of delays in the Flemish government subsidy system. Other areas, such as social cohesion and participation, and knowledge of energy-saving attitudes, also fell short of targets but showed positive progress overall.

To date, 82 houses have been renovated during the project out of the target of 100, and those who didn’t fully meet the requirements of the programme—non-participants—were still engaged through social counselling. These individuals were invited to social council meetings where their overall living conditions were assessed, and they were informed of potential social rights they had not previously accessed. Many non-participants were found to be unaware of social rights that could benefit them, expanding the project's social impact beyond its initial renovation focus.

So far, only 8 houses have returned funds to the scheme out of a total of 220 houses (i.e., that is the target that includes renovations during the ICCARus project but also target of houses after the project ended). Despite this, the project's actual reach has been broader than just the participants in the renovation programme.

[1] Measurements based on the Flemish Housing Code

[2] Renovation grants received from the Flemish Government that needed pre-financing, which was given by the Public Centre for Social Welfare.

The effectiveness and impact of the IFS in achieving the objectives of the project are intertwined, as the project is based on the revolving fund, as such the IFS has been instrumental in achieving the overall goals of the project.

The innovation of the project is the revolving fund itself. The project would not have existed without the fund. According to the coordinators, the project has also moderately helped in changing the culture within the city of how projects can be financed.

The project’s sustainability and long-term impact are reinforced by its design, notably through the revolving fund, which allows for continuous reinvestment into home renovations. This fund, initially developed during the ICCARus project, has been extended by the City of Ghent until 2026. Despite rising renovation costs leading to a reduction in the target number of homes from 200 to 150, the commitment to renovating homes of vulnerable, captive owners remains firm, with budgets per home now ranging between €15,000 and €45,000. The decision[1] to extend the project reflects Ghent's broader strategy to ensure housing equity through structural support, backed by continued local government funding and early repayments from homeowners benefiting from the renovations. The involvement of former project partners, including organisations like the Public Centre for Public Welfare Ghent (Ocmw), vzw Sivi, and Domus Mundi vzw, ensures that the expertise and collaboration from the initial project phase are sustained.

Moreover, the continuation of the revolving fund, an essential mechanism for financial sustainability, has seen early successes in terms of repayments, which will support future home renovation projects. This reflects broader literature on sustainable housing interventions, where long-term success hinges on securing financial tools like revolving funds that can adapt to rising costs and changing circumstances. With 117 new agreements signed post-project, and ongoing evaluations set to determine future adaptations of the fund, Ghent demonstrates a proactive approach to balancing financial viability with social equity, ensuring that vulnerable homeowners continue to benefit from essential housing improvements.

[1] Raadpleegomgeving - Open Data - Agendapunt

The project’s revolving fund model has demonstrated significant scalability potential, both within the City of Ghent and in other cities across Flanders. Originally, the project focused on four neighbourhoods in Ghent. However, as part of its scalability strategy, the scope was expanded to include all neighbourhoods and broadened the target group to encompass homeowners of any age with physical limitations or future adaptation needs. This broadened approach is essential for achieving Ghent’s larger goal of climate neutrality by 2050. Plans are underway to recommend further investment in the revolving fund to the Board of Mayor and Deputy Mayors following the 2024 elections, highlighting the city’s commitment to scaling the initiative post-UIA funding. Moreover, knowledge transfer activities carried out between 2022 and 2023 have supported the project’s expansion and encouraged the replication of similar initiatives elsewhere.

The success of Ghent’s model has inspired other cities in Flanders, leading to the creation of revolving funds in cities like Antwerp and Leuven in Belgium. The Flemish government has even introduced a "Flemish Captive Owners Fund" (Vlaams Noodkoopfonds), which, while operating differently from the ICCARus model, provides financial support for vulnerable homeowners, with a particular focus on improving energy efficiency. This initiative allows cities with smaller budgets to implement their own independent revolving funds, tailored to local needs. The fact that cities across Belgium are researching and applying different combinations of revolving funds to address both social and structural challenges reinforces the potential of this approach to be replicated beyond Ghent, creating a sustainable housing solution across the region. Most cities possess the necessary structures—local governments, a Public Centre for Social Welfare, and experienced NGOs—to adopt a similar model. However, successful replication requires political commitment to launch the project, and careful consideration of the specific housing market context, as the model may not be universally applicable to all locations.

ICCARus has combined the UIA and partner funding with Flemish government subsidies for inflation. The Public Centre of Social Welfare pre-financed the subsidies.

• Potential: The revolving fund model offers a promising approach to improving housing conditions and supporting vulnerable populations. Financing through the fund enables renovations for homes in poor condition, addressing housing needs for those who are most disadvantaged.
• Time commitment: Implementing the revolving fund model requires a long-term perspective. Replenishing the fund through homeowner repayments takes a long time, which demands sustained engagement and collaboration among multiple organisations and stakeholders over many years (20 to 30 years are estimated to replenish the fund through repayments by homeowners).
• Transferability: The success of replicating this model in other cities heavily depends on the local context. Essential conditions for transferability include having a similar housing stock, a high rate of homeownership, and limited social housing alternatives. Without these factors, the model may face significant challenges in achieving comparable results.
• Cost and challenges: The model involves high implementation costs, making it important to evaluate the feasibility of adoption based on specific housing challenges in each area. Local contexts, such as the state of the housing market and financial capacity of stakeholders, must be carefully considered to ensure the model's effectiveness.

• ICCARus (Gent knapt op) - Improving housing Conditions for CAptive Residents in Ghent | Portico
• Raadpleegomgeving - Open Data - Agendapunt
• ICCARus Project Application Form, Internal document, made available by UIA Permanent Secretariat
• ICCARus Project Closure & Sustainability Fiche, Internal document, made available by UIA Permanent Secretariat
• Interview with Derkien De Baets ICCARus project, manager and Adinda Baro ICCARus project, Housing Service at the Municipality of Ghent