Report highlights difficult progress in combating homelessness and housing exclusion
Newsletter 2009-4
Publication date : 2010-01-19
Homelessness
and housing exclusion represent a very serious challenge in most Member States
and, although significant improvements have been made in some countries, a
recent overview prepared by the Core Team of the European Network of
Independent Experts on Social Inclusion shows that things are clearly getting
worse in others, especially as a result of the economic and financial crisis. The
overview draws on 27 non-governmental country reports, assessing the situation in
terms of the social and economic inclusion of homeless people and access to
adequate housing in each Member
State. It finds that the
key barriers faced by countries when trying to develop effective strategies for
tackling homelessness and housing exclusion (HHE) include insufficient
political commitment, lack of understanding of the causes of HHE, lack of
agreement on definitions and appropriate indicators, fragmentation of policy
responsibility, as well as an absence or inadequacy of data and of monitoring and
reporting tools. Currently,
definitions of HHE vary widely across Member States, with almost half of them
lacking any official definition at all. This makes it impossible to get a clear
and accurate picture of the extent of HHE and of the main trends across the EU.
It also prevents policymakers from having a proper understanding of the problem
and adopting appropriate measures. The
“ETHOS” definition1,
developed by the European Federation of National Organisations Working with the
Homeless (FEANTSA), which classifies homeless people according to their living situation
(the roofless, who are sleeping rough; the houseless, who have a temporary bed
in institutions or shelters; those in insecure housing, including people facing
eviction or domestic violence; and those in inadequate housing, such as overcrowded
houses or caravans on illegal campsites), could provide an appropriate starting
point for a common definition. However, so far, only a small handful of countries
have adopted the ETHOS or a similar definition, with many preferring a narrower
definition that focuses more on homelessness than on housing exclusion and that
even sometimes excludes entire categories of homeless, such as refugees and
immigrants. Although there are
significant gaps and limitations in available data in numerous countries, five
main categories of causes of HHE stand out across the EU-27. These include
structural factors (such as high unemployment levels or the way housing markets
operate, causing shortages in adequate accommodation and non-affordability of
housing); institutional factors (e.g. risks relating to people leaving care
institutions or prisons); personal factors (e.g. mental illness and drug abuse);
family and relationship breakdowns; and discrimination and lack of legal status
(e.g. the position of migrants and of ethnic minorities such as the Roma). Some
country reports highlight the importance of recognising that homelessness is
generally due to multiple causes and that strategies must address each of these
factors. However, many Member States continue to focus excessively on
individual reasons for homelessness while neglecting structural explanations. There
does nevertheless appear to be growing recognition of the need to address structural
causes and the more successful countries in combating HHE move beyond temporary/crisis
accommodation measures to more comprehensive progression strategies to help people
move from temporary accommodation to supported accommodation and/ or into more
permanent housing such as social housing. In
terms of preventing HHE, two approaches are particularly evident: developing initiatives
to reduce the number of evictions and increasing support for people leaving
institutions to access suitable housing. Increasing the supply of social housing,
as well as its affordability, is also considered key to preventing HHE. Indeed,
excess demand for public housing and relatively long waiting lists represent a
widespread problem which in some cases results from the sell off of existing
public stock and/or the priority being given to private housing and
deregulation of the housing market. Some
Member States have made considerable efforts to develop instruments to improve
the affordability of housing. These include rent subsidy systems, rent
allowance guarantees, regulations on maximum rents, mortgage tax reliefs,
housing allowances and the determination of rent levels based exclusively on
household income. Various countries have also implemented policy measures to
enhance housing standards, whether via financial bonuses, increased regulation
and oversight or advantageous loans. However,
only a minority of Member States have developed truly integrated strategies that
go beyond accommodation issues, covering access to employment, income support
as well as access to services such as health and social services – i.e.,
strategies that adopt an “active inclusion approach”. Others still continue to
apply only piecemeal strategies. The
governance structures of a country emerge as a particularly important factor in
developing effective policies to address HHE. Most commonly, responsibility for
HHE policymaking lies with the central government, while responsibility for
delivery is devolved to regional and/or local levels. In some countries, policy
responsibility is also largely devolved. Without
effective coordination and integration mechanisms, such devolution arrangements
have sometimes led to a fragmentation in responsibility and insufficient coordination
between ministries and agencies. In some cases, it has also resulted in an
unclear or inefficient allocation of resources, hindering local capacity to
actually deliver policies and programmes.
A
policy’s success will also depend strongly on the extent to which stakeholders are
involved in its design, implementation and evaluation. An increasing number of
Member States have established mechanisms ensuring an active involvement of key
stakeholders, such as local authorities and NGOs, in the planning, delivery and
monitoring of services. However, in most cases, the beneficiaries themselves
are still seldom consulted and a few Member States continue to ignore relevant
stakeholders when drawing up their strategies. Based
on this panorama, the report makes fifteen suggestions for policy at the national
and/or EU level to strengthen the fight against homelessness and housing exclusion.
These cover aspects relating to definitions, governance, resources, measurement,
monitoring and evaluation, and the exchange of knowledge and good practice. 1 For more information on
the ETHOS definition: http://www.feantsa.org/
code/en/pg.asp?Page=484. No common definition of the
problem
Addressing the root causes
Good governance
