Insecure Housing, Homelessness and Social Europe

Erasmus Intensive Program – Tilburg, February 18th 2014

Gert Verschraegen

1

Overview

1. Intro: Insecure Housing and Homelessness in Europe

2. Pro memoria: What is the EU all about ? What about ‘Social Europe’?

3. -What can the EU do about insecure housing and homelessness?

-What are they doing?

2 General rise of homelessness, partly due to financial and economic crisis

(2006-2011)

Trend Reported Member State Total

Increase in homelessness over

past 1-5 years Austria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,

Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Poland, Slovenia, Spain,

Sweden, UK (England, Northern Ireland, Wales)

15 Member States

Reduction in homelessness over

past 1-5 years Finland, Netherlands

Plus German Länder North Rhine-Westphalia and UK

country Scotland.

2 Member States

Plus 2 specific cases within

Member States No trend identified Romania, Luxembourg, Belgium 3 Member States

Stable levels of homelessness

past 1-5 years Denmark 1 Member State

Total Member States (Source table: Feantsa 2012)

3

Crisis and homelessness: some piecemeal data

• France’s Samu Social has seen a 24% rise in requests for shelter during the winter (2006 2011)

• German NGO’s noted a 10% increase in use of homeless services (2008-2009)

• Greek service providers noted an approximate 25% increase (2008-2010)

• Ireland: number of homeless households applying for social housing doubled (2008 – 2011)

• Poland: official statistics indicate a 25% rise in the number of homeless people (2005 – 2010)

4

Increasingly heterogeneous profile of ‘the homeless’

• Traditionally: alcohol/drug addicted middle aged men

• Recent years: rising percentages of immigrants and young people (including children).

5

Be careful in interpreting these data

• In countries where recent data are available homelessness seems to be on the rise

• Extent of the rise appears to vary between countries and there is no clear relationship between size of increase and scale of recession (f.i. Latvia vs Ireland)

• However, this may conceal potential differences between different places within countries: some local policies might have mitigated the effects of the economic crisis (f.i. Hamburg)

• strong regional differences indicate importance of local

policies and social-economic contexts

6

7 Extra caution: acute lack of reliable and

comparable data

• Most member states have only recently begun to collect official data on homelessness and insecure housing.

• Most data rely on proxies such as the use being made of homeless services.

• Furthermore: the small amount of available data is rarely comparable due to differences in defining homelessness, and the use of different

data collection methods

8 Differences in defining homelessness in EU member states

• In many countries, homelessness is defined by legislation:

- Ireland : defined by Housing Act (1988), which includes people sleeping rough but excludes those living in state institutions.

- UK: several categories of homeless are legally defined: street homeless (those sleeping rough), the statutory homeless (households for which local authorities have a duty to provide temporary accommodation) and non-statutory homeless (regarded as “voluntarily” homeless).

- Czech Republic and Italy: homeless are considered to be those living on the streets and those using specific social services.

- Finland and France, the homeless cover all who have no permanent accommodation and who sleep in places not meant for human habitation as well as in various types of temporary shelter, including those living in long-term hostels (such as women living with their children in refuges). In France, however, statistics on homelessness exclude those forced to stay in ‘bed-and-breakfasts’ or with friends or relatives.

9 Differences in data collection and monitoring of homelessness in EU Member States

• Finland: annual surveys send out to local authorities

• Sweden: national survey, approximately every 5 years

• Denmark: register-based system for accomodation

• Ireland: local authorities are responsible for making periodi quantitative and qualitative assessments of homeless households in their administrative zones

• France: three sources of data on homelessness (general population census, targeted surveys, administrative data

• Austria, Belgium, Germany, Spain: data are collected at regional and municipal levels rather than national level

10 Member states have different traditions in tackling homelessness

• only the UK and Finland have used specific strategies for tackling homelessness since the 1970s

• often no or low priority in Eastern-European countries such as Czech Republic (an exception would be Hungary)

• Only recently, a small number of other European countries have started developing specific strategies as well (Netherlands, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Ireland)

• differences in the structural support for local governments, who are central in tackling homelessness

• differences in quality of housing

11

Different strategies in tackling homelessness

Enforceable

right to settled

housing?

Enforceable right to

emergency

accommodation?

Evidence of successful

policies?

Germany

No

Yes

Yes – on prevention (especially with respect to evictions for rent arrears)

Hungary No Yes No

Netherlands No No Yes – on rough sleeping and evictions

Portugal No No No

Sweden

No Yes

No

UK (England)

Yes - for priority

groups

Yes – but only for priority groups; being roofless is neither necessary nor sufficient

Yes – on prevention, rough sleeping, and youth homelessness

Source: Stephens et al 2010. Study on housing exclusion.

12

Different priorities for different profiles

DE HU NE PT SE UK

Single man Reasonably

strong Very weak Relatively

strong Weak but

improving Weak

(unless

conform)

Relatively

strong

Young

people Relatively

weak Very weak Weak Weak Relatively

weak Strong

Women

fleeing

violence

Strong Weak Strengths

and

weaknesses

Reasonable Strong Strong

Families with

mortgage

arrears

Strong Weak Strong Weak but

improving Strong Weak

Immigrants Relatively

weak Not

applicable Weak Relatively

weak Strong Weak

Source: Stephens et al 2010. Study on housing exclusion

13 Different ‘housing regimes (source: Fitzpatrick &

Stevens, 2013)

Country Welfare regime Features of housing system

Sweden Social-democratic Largest social rented sector; Unitary state; ‘unitary’ rental system’

Netherlands Corporatist / social-democratic Largest social rented sector; Unitary state; ‘unitary’ rental system’

Germany Corporatist Small & shrinking social sector, But within ‘unitary’ rental structure

UK Liberal ‘Dualist’ rental system; Extensive focus on home-ownership

Portugal Mediterranean Familialism; High level of home-ownership History of self-build

Bron: Fitzpatrick & Stephens 2013

14 Is there a role for the EU ?

• Homelessness and insecure housing has become major policy concern at EU level as well as in many member states

• one of the most visible symptoms of the crisis and the inability of the European welfare to address severe social exclusion and poverty

• Homelessness is tied up with national institutions and problems (f.i. insufficient minimum income protection), housing policies (f.i,lack of social housing), cultures.

• Member states are primarily responsible and competent to deal with homelessness.

• Particularly important role for local government institutions and NGOs.

15

EU CRASH COURSE

16

What is the EU doing?

Jacques Delors : “EU is based on three key elements”

1. Competition

2. Cooperation

3. Solidarity

17

1. Competition

• Treaty of Rome (‘58): eliminating obstacles to free movement of

- Goods (almost completed)

- Persons (more complicated)

- Services (complicated, very uneven)

- Capital (almost completed - EMU)

• Objective (Why is the EU doing it?):

- creating best conditions for economic action and growth (point of comparison = US)

- Peace / reining in Germany

18

2. Cooperation

• Doing things together (f.i. environmental policy, trade policy, energy policy, education policy etc.)

• Why?

- Often a consequence of economic integration like in education, cooperation in justice, home affairs (f.i. European warranty arrest)

- Common external borders require common immigration

policy, foreign policy, etc.

- Scale advantages (f.i. European science policy, foreign policy,

military cooperation, etc.), especially relevant in times of globalization

19

3. Solidarity

• While the European integration process is basically aiming for economic integration through completion of the single market solidarity has always been present in European discourse and policy decisions

- Europeanization of income protection in agriculture, establishing direct links between the farming population of the member states and the EU

- Territorial solidarity through structural funds which implies financial transfers between countries and territories

- Solidarity towards workers through the European Social Fund (to finance workers ‘s training and retraining) and more recently the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (to compensate workers who are victims of company relocations)

20

3. Solidarity

• Yet, solidarity angle in the European project is limited:

- EU budget amounts to less than 1% of GDP

- EU has not a lot of real legislative power in the field of social policy

- Most member states have not been willing to give up sovereignty on social and employment policies

- Absence of a ‘European Demos’: necessity for ‘social sharing’ ?

• Scope for solidarity is even decreasing:

- Old division of labour between “open economies and outward-looking economic policies on the one hand and closed welfare states and inward-looking social policy on the other” (Maurizio Ferrera) is not working anymore

- No balance between the economic and social dimensions of the EU

- After the Greek crisis, the EU has tried to set up a new form of solidarity through the stability mechanisms (e.g. EFSF), but this has proved ineffective from a social, political and economic point of view.

Europe 2020

Integrated Guidelines

1. Macro-economic

surveillance

(Integrated Guidelines 1-3)

2. Thematic coordination

(Integrated Guidelines 4-10)

Monitored through 5 EU

Headline Targets

3. Fiscal

Surveillance

National Reform Programmes

(NRPs)

(including national targets)

Member States - April

Stability and Convergence

Programmes (SCP)

Member States – April

Stability and Growth

Pact

synchronized

What about the social dimension in the new EU 2020-Strategy (‘smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’)?

22

Social dimension subsumed to financial and economic objectives

- fulfillment of debt criteria is sacrosanct at the moment

- Close link NRPs and Stability and Convergence Programmes

- Synchronisation: NRPs and Stability programme read together (loss of autonomy of social inclusion policy)

23 What can the EU do about homelessness?

• An important key to tackling homelessness and insecure housing lies with national governments, local governments and NGO’s

• EU?

- Little or no room for direct legislation (requirement of unanimity, yet, largely differing policy preferences between MS)

- New governance (OMC’s): sharing experiences/ learning from each other

- More spending could create a quick payoff; yet, EU budget is very limited and leaves little room for amendment

24

24

European instruments for social policy

EU law (a.o. gender equality,

health and safety at

work, anti-

discrimination

directives)

New

Governance (a.o. EES; OMC

Sociale inclusion; OMC

Pensions)

Structural

Funds (o.a. ESF, EFRD)

European

Social

Dialogue

25

EU ‘New Governance’ or ‘soft law’ (EES / OMC Social Inclusion: cyclical process of monitoring / evaluation aiming to enhance policy learning

Launching (1999)

Common Objectives Indicators NAPIncl Targets

Joint Report Peer Review

Supported by

PROGRESS

26

What is the EU doing about homelessness?

• re-directing of available EU funds (ESF, ERDF, FEAD) towards local projects (e.g. local governments in Eastern Europe), and research (e.g. through supporting Feantsa)

• New governance (OMCs)

- elaborating a common framework for defining homelessness, using the ethos-typology

- improving monitoring of homelessness: elaborated national reports, followed by sets of peer reviews

27

The Ethos categories of homelessness

28

What is the EU doing about homelessness?

• Awareness raising and policy recommendations

- Inclusion of ‘homelessness’ in 2020 Strategies, through the European Platform

against Poverty and Social Exclusion

- ‘Social Investment Package’ (2012): recommending member states to integrate their regional and national policies with respect to homelessness; to prevent homelessness; and to improve their services to the homeless (emergency accommodation; employability; access to healthcare; services for coping with extreme weather conditions).

- EP urged member states to diminish winter homelessness by 2015;

- Committee of the regions (2010) and the European Economic and Social committee formulated opinions on homelessness

- Consensus Conference 2010 formulates a set of policy recommendations for both individual member states and the EU.

- The Social Protection Committee chose homelessness as the priority issue for the 2009 ‘homeless light year’

29 Sources

• Feantsa 2012 On the way home. Feantsa monitoring report on homelessness and housing policies in Europe.

• Fitzpatrick & Stephens 2014 Welfare regimes, social values and homelessness: comparing responses to marginalized groups in six European countries. Housing Studies 29/2.

• Fondeville & Ward 2011 Research note 8/2011 Homelessness during the crisis. European Commission ;

• N. 2013 Confronting homelessness in the European Union. (Social Investment Package, European Commission).

• Spinnewijn F & Van Dijck L 2010 Naar een doelmatig beleid ter bestrijding van thuisloosheid. In: Vranken et al (eds.) Arm Europa. Over armoede en armoedebestrijding op het Europese niveau. Leuven: Acco

• Stephens, Fitzpatrick, Elsinga, van Steen & Chzhen 2010 Study on housing exclusion: welfare policies, housing provision and labour markets. (European Commission)

30

Discussion Questions

• There is a huge variety of approaches towards tackling homelessness. Should there be a more uniform way of approaching this problem? Why or Why not?

• Do you think the EU should do more to tackle homelessness? If so, how?