DANS CE NUMÉRO

Compter les sans-abri en Europe

3 Dr. Thomas Specht-Kittler:Chiffres sur le sans-abrisme entreréalité et fiction

5 Dr. Dragana Avramov: Chiffresrevisités sur l’ampleur du sans-abrisme dans l’Union européenne

7 Freek Spinnewijn: La Task Forced’Eurostat sur le sans-abrisme

Les indicateurs et l’Union européenne

9 Padriac Kenna: De quoi parle-t-on quand on parled’indicateurs sur le sans-abrisme?

11 Samara Jones: Et les indicateursde logement? Le Comité deProtection Sociale et ledéveloppement d’indicateurs

Certaines perspectivesnationales sur la manière decombattre le sans-abrisme(Perspectives nationales)

12 Autriche : Heinz Schoibl : Aspects quantitatifs du sans-abrisme en Autriche

14 Ecosse : Task Force sur le sans-abrismeDr Isobel Anderson: Recherchesur le sans-abrisme et évolutionspolitiques en Ecosse: le travail dela Task force sur le sans-abrisme

16 M. Bill Edgar: les statistiques surle sans-abrisme – collecte dedonnées en Ecosse

17 Les Pays-Bas: Maria De Cock:Federatie Opvang et la collecte dedonnées des prestataires de services

18 France: Cécile Brousse: l’enquête del’Insee sur le sans-abrisme. INSEE estl’Institut National des Statistiques etdes Etudes Economiques

New

slet

ter

• FE

AN

TSA

-T

he

E

ur

op

ea

n

Fe

de

ra

tio

n

of

N

at

ion

al

Or

ga

nis

at

ion

s

Wo

rk

ing

w

ith

t

he

H

om

ele

ss

Figures on the Extent of

Homelessnessin the EuropeanUnion Revisited

Page 5

Spring 2002

Numbers and indicators:How do we count thehomeless in Europe

Numbers and indicators:How do we count thehomeless in Europe

IN THIS ISSUE

2 Editorial

Counting the Homeless in Europe

3 Dr. Thomas Specht-Kittler:Numbers on Homelessnessbetween Fact and Fiction

5 Dr. Dragana Avramov: Figures onthe Extent of Homelessness inthe European Union Revisited

7 Freek Spinnewijn: Eurostat TaskForce on Homelessness

Indicators and the EuropeanUnion

9 Padraic Kenna: What are wetalking about when it comes toindicators on homelessness?

11 Samara Jones: What abouthousing indicators? The SocialProtection Committee and thedevelopment of indicators

Some national perspectiveson tackling homelesness(National perspectives)

12 Austria: Heinz Schoibl:Quantitative aspects ofhomelessness in Austria

14 Scotland: Task Force onHomelessnessDr. Isobel Anderson:Homelessness Research andPolicy Development in Scotland:the work of the HomelessnessTask Force

16 Mr. W. Edgar: HomelessnessStatistics – Data Collection inScotland

17 The Netherlands: Maria de Cock:Federatie Opvang and datacollection from service providers

18 France: Cécile Brousse: Insee'ssurvey of homelessness

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

2

This edition focuses on the collection of data

and development ofhomelessness and

housing indicators both in different European

countries and for the EU as a whole.

Dear Readers,

The FEANTSA newsletter has a newlook and a new concept for 2002. Bymoving to a digital format, we hope tobring you a newsletter that is moredynamic and colourful, that is bothpleasant and interesting to read. Thedigital format allows for easy on-screen reading, as well as printingfrom your desktop printer. Links tointeresting websites and articles havebeen included and can be followeddirectly from the newsletter.

The new focus on themes allows bothcontributors and readers to studyimportant issues from different per-spectives. In its new format, thenewsletter will provide a forum fordiscussion and commentary on keyissues.

This edition focuses on the collectionof data and development of homeless-ness and housing indicators both indifferent European countries and forthe EU as a whole. This issue is ofgreat importance to many FEANTSAmembers, as well as policy-makers andothers concerned with determiningthe size of the homeless population,assessing their needs, and creatingappropriate strategies to tackle theproblem.

Inside you will find articles that look atthe nature of statistics on homeless-ness; FEANTSA's president, ThomasSpecht-Kittler, discusses the possibili-ties of developing sound strategies ofdata production on different levelswith different aims. Dr. DraganaAvramov revisits her own research intothe number of homeless people inEurope. Freek Spinnewijn looks to thefuture and explains the context of theEurostat Task Force on the feasibilityof reaching common indicators onhomelessness for the EU.

Turning more specifically to indicatorsthemselves, two articles look at theEuropean strategy to combat socialexclusion and poverty and the stepsbeing taken to create appropriateindicators. Padraic Kenna outlines thestructures in place and the linkbetween homelessness indicators andhuman rights, while Samara Jonesdescribes the work of the SocialProtection Committee's sub-group onindicators and their inability to agreeon housing indicators.

Turning to more concrete examples,we look to the EU Member States whohave already produced strategies forcounting or addressing the homeless.In Austria, Heinz Stoibl has beeninvolved in Salzburg's annual countand comments on its structure. BillEdgar and Dr. Isobel Anderson providean insight into Scotland's strategy byfocusing on the recently completedTask Force on Homelessness. Movingto the Netherlands, Maria de Cock out-lines the work of FEANTSA member,Federatie Opvang, in its collection ofstatistics and user profiles. Finally, wehave included a review of the surveycarried out by Insee, France's nationalstatistics agency.

Once you have read through the arti-cles, please let us know what you thinkof the new format. We are also eagerfor contributions to upcoming editions.At the end of the summer we will puttogether a newsletter that looks at theNational Action Programs – SocialInclusion, and after FEANTSA's confer-ence and seminar in Berlin, we will ded-icate the winter edition to the issue ofimmigration and homelessness.

We look forward to your comments, sug-gestions and contributions – please sendthem to samara.jones@feantsa.org •

Editorial

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

3

Counting the homeless in Europe

When it comes to homelessness, debates onnumbers, either qualitative or quantitative, tendto be taken to extremes. Even the task ofcounting rough sleepers can be qualified asimpossible. In addition, given the hete-rogeneous composition and vague borders of the homeless population, qualitative num-bers on rates of alcoholism, psychiatric illness, unemployment or family status are highly debated because no common point of reference or defined population exist.

The distance politicians take to numbers on homelessness is closely related to their desire to distance themselves from the basicissues of poverty and homelessness: it is better not to know too much. This attitudegives way to the production of myths on homelessness rather than a description of rele-vant facts.

It is not easy to produce relevant numbers on homelessness but despite the obvious lackof comprehensive data on homelessness it is possible to develop sound strategies of data production on different levels and with different aims.

Three main approaches: Research,Documentation and Public StatisticsIn the field of statistics on homelessness there isgenerally a rather confused debate on thescope, descriptive aim and absolute numbers ofthe homeless population. Numbers are pro-duced for different reasons, with differentmethods and aims. Thus, before entering intoa political debate on the best strategy for pro-ducing numbers on homelessness, it is useful toclarify the basic concepts normally used in the"counting business".

In general we can distinguish three generalapproaches to quantifying social phenomena:• Quantitative scientific research• Documentation based on social service

record keeping• Public statistics: statistics produced by official

agencies (national or regional)

The approaches are different in terms of theirlogic, political implications and values, depend-ing on the social phenomena at stake. One canroughly describe the function and structure ofthe three approaches as follows:

Homelessness and Numbers: between Fact and Fiction

APPROACH ACTOR SPECIFIC FUNCTION POLITICAL IMPLICATION

Research Universities/ Describing specific or representative - no long-term data set availablePrivate research institutes/ populations of homeless people in depth, - normally no time-series data forResearch units but usually not on a regular basis long-term developments

- irregular data production due todependency on research interests

Documentation Social services for the homeless Describing the social profile of homeless - if done regularly and standardised,service users and sometimes the measures time-series data and results within the integration process - restricted to service -users only

–not always representative- usually no in depth data in a

scientific sense, as data are used for practical reasons

Public Statistics Public administration on Counting the absolute number of all - if done properly – will not bedifferent levels homeless people and those threatened by restricted to service users of

homelessness and describing their minimum specific services; thereforedemographic profile produces more representative time-series data - official publication ensures public

distribution and visibility

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

4

Of course much more could be said aboutthese basic approaches, especially on thedifferent merits and flaws of each. In theend, it is the intelligent and well-balancedcombination of all three approaches that willlead to valuable quantitative information onhomelessness.

I think that FEANTSA should ask for bet-ter strategies, methods and results in allthree approaches:

1. In every country there should be a mini-mum of basic quantitative research (tar-geted surveys), including representativeprofiling of different parts of the home-less population. There should be national,regional and local studies

2. In every country the social service sectorfor homeless people should develop anintegrated, standardised computer-basedrecord keeping system for clients. Itshould contain a mechanism by whichthe statistics of local services can be inte-grated to a national database on home-less clients of social services.

1. In every country there should be publicstatistics on homelessness, mainly refer-ring to the dimension of housing need.These statistics should be based on natio-nal law and done on a yearly basis. Thesurvey should be based on fluctuation(the period of the year) as well as on aday-count-basis. Covering not only thepersons actually homeless but also thosethreatened by homelessness.

Social IndicatorsWe should also clarify the concept of indica-tors: an indicator in the statistical sense ofthe word is a quantitative measure which issupposed to give information on a socialphenomena, e.g. the decline or growth ofthe gross national product is generally sup-posed to give information on economicgrowth.

In the case of homelessness the overall num-ber of people sleeping rough could beregarded as a measure of:a) How open or restrictive the service system is b) Development of absolute poverty in a

countryc) Tolerance of the police system towards

people sleeping rough

Clearly no number used as an indicator hasmeaning in itself, but it can be interpretedaccording to broader concepts.

Most important, however is that indicatorsare normally constructed on the basis ofpublic statistics, because they are regular,representative and public. Only quantitativemeasures on this basis can be used as socialindicators of any political importance. Quantitative indicators for the evaluation ofthe NAPs (National Action Plans – SocialInclusion) can only be politically successful ifthey are based on statistics gathered bynational agencies.While not arguing against the value of qual-itative data, clearly only well-defined quanti-tative measures will be used in the statisticalpolitical agenda of Member States as well asthe EU as a whole.

Definitions of homelessnessThe debate on definitions on homelessnesson the EU level is long, controversial andcomplicated by the fact that there are differ-ent national traditions of understanding theproblem.Nevertheless it is essential to stop trying tocreate one single definition of homelessness.Instead, any definition of homelessness hasto be looked at in terms of its function andits aim, which sometimes implies a certaincontradiction among different definitions. A solution to this problem of contradiction isthe reference to a broad and general defini-tion that must be specified according to itsmain function and context.

One can make distinctions between the fol-lowing functions and contexts:

Legal function and context (importantfor funding)Integration function (important forsocial services)Housing function (important for hous-ing providers)Research function (important for empir-ical and theoretical research)

These specific definitions might vary withinand between countries to a certain extent. Amore general definition should be flexibleenough to serve all these functions as wellas the communication between the respec-tive social actors. Such a general definitiondoes not by itself imply a certain explanationof homelessness but serves as an operationaldefinition.

It is obvious that this definition is not anoperational definition for a social serviceagency for homeless people which has to be

much more specific in terms of problemsand needs, but it is broad enough to befunctionally specified.

Most importantly however is that this defini-tion assumes a continuum between differentsituations of social and housing exclusionand clearly includes preventive approaches.Groups at risk must be included to allow forscientific explanations, provision of socialservices, counting by statistical agencies,and the granting of legal status.

OutlookOf course the clarification of concepts is stilldebatable. It may seem too far-reaching forsocial workers within the service system. Itmay be too broad for those politicians whowould like to see homelessness restricted tothe literal homeless in the streets. But homelessness will only be solved whenall sectors of society work together and thatis why we need a broad definition as a start-ing point.

FEANTSA will follow different paths toimprove the numbers: fostering research,developing NGO documentation systemsand demanding public statistics. By follow-ing these steps, FEANTSA can help to reducethe gap between fact and fiction when it comes to putting numbers on home-lessness.•

Thomas Specht-Kittler – President ofFEANTSA, BundesarbeitsgemeinschaftWohnungslosenhilfe,bagwohnlos@aol.com

Counting the homeless in Europe

A definition serving all relevant functions seems to be the following

- People in acute homelessness: all people or households living without a privatehome

- People threatened by acute homelessness: all people or households directlythreatened by the loss of a private home

- People in housing exclusion: all people living in severe forms of housingexclusion such as overcrowding, bad quality housing, areas of urban deprivation

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

5

In the late 1980s and early 1990s reports from supported accommodation services in severalEuropean countries, notably the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg,pointed to the considerable growth in the number of people who were provided short-term shelteror permanent housing because they were homeless or threatened by homelessness. Surveys amongproviders of short-term accommodation in France and the United Kingdom and experts reports fromall but one of then 12 European Union countries, Denmark, indicated that there was a remarkableshortage of sheltered accommodation available to people who found themselves homeless. Therewere indicators of the rising tide of homelessness but no credible data about the extent of the prob-lem and numbers of people affected by homelessness in the European Union.

The starting point for my initial estimates of homelessness for FEANTSA werepopulation census data, local authorities’ reports on resettled householdsor those on waiting lists for housing, surveys on poverty, reports fromsupported accommodation services on the number of peoplesheltered on a particular day or number of people who passedover the course of the year. Figures from different countrieswere by default ‘standardised’. They reflected the coun-try-specific housing situation, norms regarding standardsof adequacy of accommodation, and availability ofemergency and long-term accommodation services.Just as in poverty research, the level of income meas-ured in purchasing power parity (PPP) at the samepoverty cut-off point (50 percent or less of the medi-an income adjusted for household size) was threetimes higher in Luxembourg than in Portugal, so didstatistics on homelessness reflect different ‘socialconstructions’ of homelessness. In the census data ofPortugal, for example, a person living in a tent, con-tainer, shack or even an elevator cage was not classifiedas homeless but as someone living in ‘units other thanconventional dwellings’. In the Swedish census such livingpremises did not qualify as accommodation.

On the basis of reports from service providers, be it charities giv-ing short-term shelter or local authorities providing permanentaccommodation, I estimated the total number of users defined as peoplewho were unable to access accommodation from their own resources. When datafrom a one-day census were available I adjusted them according to an estimated turn-over rate togive an indication of the number of people who had passed through shelters or benefited from re-housing over the course of one year; and vice versa, when only data on the number of clients overthe course of one year were available they were adjusted according to the turn-over rate to give across sectional figure. This procedure brought us a step closer to comparing ‘raw’ data for Denmark(one day census) and Belgium (yearly turn-over). Estimates gave a reasonably comparable picture ofthe service users who had been assisted or were on waiting lists for accommodation with public ornot-for-profit organisations at one point in time and over the course of one year. This procedure wasapplied to data for Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Spain, Denmarkand Luxembourg. The methodological shortcoming of the estimate lies in the fact that it was basedon the turn-over rate established for West Germany. It is generally known that turn-over rates maybe quite different from country to country and even from one region to another, but I had no researchresources to measure them and no primary research was under way in any of the EU countries. A ten-tative analogy with West German data appeared to be the only feasible tool. I resorted to populationcensus data for France, a survey on extreme poverty for Italy, and informed hypotheses advanced byexperts from Greece and Portugal to get an overview on homelessness for the then EU-12.

In order to avoid misleading the public into believing that the figures proposed were actual counts ofhomeless people I did not produce a table giving relative figures with decimal points (e.g. homeless asa percentage of the total population) in the report drafted for FEANTSA. I did not even add up country-specific figures in a single table. The data were very different: for Denmark, Luxembourg and Ireland, Ihad exact figures from one-day counts, for France a rough estimate based on the general populationcensus, for Spain reports from the largest charity but not from local authorities. Giving a total in onetable could have been misread as an exact count of homeless people rather than an informed estimate.

The estimates made were not meant to serve for mapping homelessness according to different wel-fare regimes but rather to give a preliminary idea of the extent of the problem in the EU-12. Myassessment was: on an average day as many as 1.1 million people may rely on supported accom-modation services and over the course of one year the figure may be as high as 1.8 million.

Figures on the Extent of Homelessness in the European Union Revisited

Counting the homeless in Europe

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

6

The second step was to look at a variety of data sources ranging from statistical information onseverely sub-standard accommodation to expert interviews. I built a database consisting of: figuresfrom general population censuses and poverty research in Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal onvagrants, people living in shacks and premises not meant for human accommodation; indicationsabout the extent of non-assistance in France and the United Kingdom because of the shortage insupply of supported accommodation; figures on temporary accommodation provided to immigrantsin Germany; and interviews with experts in the EU-12 regarding people sleeping-rough, squatting,temporarily doubling up with friends or relatives because they could not afford their own accom-modation. I proposed the estimate with a rather broad range for the early 1990s - between 2.3 and2.7 million people may have been homeless over the course of one year.

It is the upper end of the range, namely 2.7 million, usually rounded-up for convenience to 3 mil-lion, which 10 years later is still generally used as a figure to describe the extent of homelessness inthe European Union.

With a 10-year time span and 10 additional years of research on homelessness, housing stress andsocial exclusion, insight into the existing databases and currently funded research projects, I believethat similar ‘creative’ methodology is still the only possible tool to estimate the magnitude of peo-ple unable to access accommodation from their own resources at European level.

It appears that in the late 1990s the number of people dependent on services for homeless peopleor doubling up with friends and relatives may have been decreasing slightly in some countries(notably Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, the United Kingdom and Germany). But changeswere small and may have been indicators of fluctuation in the service environment rather than a sig-nificant decline in the numbers of people in need of supported accommodation. Indeed, in the early2000s figures appear to be on a slight increase.

Measuring trends, rather than monitoring indicators, which is what I have been doing up to date,requires good databases that enable the use of advanced statistical methodology. The term ‘home-less’ has remained, both in research and policy environments, an umbrella concept that encom-passes a broad variety of human conditions. To agree on a common definition on homelessness andthus be able to quantify it in order to provide effective and efficient support to people in need, wefirst need to reach an all-European consensus on standards of social protection, welfare provisionand supported accommodation services. This is a road not yet travelled.

Has it been useful to tentatively estimate the extent of homelessness? My answer is a qualified ‘yes’.In the late 1990s the policy makers and general public could no longer reduce the social phenom-enon to the tip of the iceberg - to the faces of people sleeping rough. Figures drew attention to thefact that it may indeed be said that a small minority of the total EU population was homeless butthat this minority includes an unacceptably high number of people.

Finally, if we were to measure successes and failures in combating homelessness in terms of num-bers, I would propose going back to the indicators of the rising tide of homelessness in the 1980s.On the basis of the index of growth in the number of people officially recognised by the authoritiesin England and Wales to be homeless or threatened by homelessness between 1978 and 1992 I hadmade, at the time, a simple extrapolation. The conclusion was that if public authorities did nothingto prevent homelessness and if only those policies and measures used in the 1980s were pursuedthe number of homeless people in the European Union could soar to 6.6 million by the turn of the20th century. Much has been done to prevent this from happening.•Brussels, 15 April 2002

Dr. Dragana AvramovPopulation and Social Policy Consultants (PSPC), Brussels

For further reading see projects:People, Demography and Social Exclusion, Council of EuropeHousing Dimension of Welfare Reform, European CommissionHousing the Poor in Europe, European Commission Contact address: PSPC@skynet.be

Counting the homeless in Europe

It is the upper end ofthe range, namely 2.7

million, usuallyrounded-up for

convenience to 3million, which 10 years

later is still generallyused as a figure to

describe the extent ofhomelessness in the

European Union.

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

7

In the past few years, homelessness hasbecome a more visible issue in EU policymaking. In March 2000, the EuropeanCouncil of Lisbon decided to make the fightagainst homelessness an important part ofthe EU strategy against poverty and socialexclusion. As part of this strategy allMember States are required to develop andimplement National Action Plans (NAPs), inwhich measures addressing homelessnessshould be included.

FEANTSA is currently preparing a detailedanalysis of the first set of NAPs. From a firstreading of the NAPs, it is clear that policiesagainst homelessness remain largely under-developed. It is now up to the EU toadvance homelessness policies in the nextround of NAPs in 2003 and 2004.

There is however a critical lack of knowledgeand expertise on homelessness and severehousing exclusion in the EU institutions. Asa result, the EU is prevented from seriouslytaking up its role as promoter of the fightagainst homelessness in the framework ofthe EU strategy.

It has not been possible to reach agreementon indicators for the common Europeanobjectives on access to housing and home-lessness as set out in the EU strategy, clearlydemonstrating this weakness. Obviouslythese indicators are essential to strengthenfuture NAPs as regards access to housingand homelessness. In the ‘Report on indica-tors in the field of poverty and social exclu-sion (2001)’, the EU acknowledged that alack of knowledge was the main obstaclereaching an agreement.

In order to make progress on homelessnessindicators, the EU asked EUROSTAT to set upa Task Force on Homelessness. EUROSTAT isthe statistical office of the EuropeanCommission and works closely with thenational statistical offices of the MemberStates. The mandate of the Task Force is toexplore the possibilities of statistical analysis ofthe homelessness phenomenon at EU level.

The Task Force consists of representatives ofthe national statistical offices of Spain, Italy,Finland, France and The Netherlands.FEANTSA was asked to become member ofthe Task Force to represent the NGO sector.It is rather unusual for NGOs be members ofEUROSTAT expert groups. We believe thatFEANTSA’s participation was deemed neces-sary to compensate for the lack of knowl-edge and expertise on homelessness of thenational statistical offices.

The Task Force will present its final conclu-sions to the Social Protection Committee(SPC) in early 2003. The SPC, which consistsof governmental delegates of all MemberStates, monitors the EU strategy and isresponsible for strengthening the strategy inthe coming years. The conclusions of theTask Force should help to reinforce the NAPsin terms of homelessness during the nextround of NAPs in 2003 and 2004.

The Task Force's initial discussions demon-strated that EU decision-makers wereespecially interested in knowing moreabout the size of the homelessness prob-lem, i.e. the total number of homelesspeople in the EU. As is the case in manyMember States, EU decision-makers regarda head count of the homeless as the bestway to evaluate the effect of policiesaddressing homelessness.

FEANTSA defended a slightly differentapproach to homelessness statistics at theTask Force meeting. We agree that it wouldbe useful to know the total number ofhomeless people and how that numberevolves over time. FEANTSA believes thatpublic authorities should be responsible fordetermining this number and to carry outthe count. In some Member States, such asIreland and Finland, public authorities countthe total number of homeless people on aregular basis. At the Task Force meetingFEANTSA highlighted the difficulties withcounting total numbers. There will alwaysbe the danger of excluding some peoplewho are homeless and including otherswho cannot be considered homeless (anylonger). Also the issue of double countingand other statistical problems are difficultto overcome.

FEANTSA understands that counting thehomeless can help decision-makers setprecise and measurable targets. However,examples in some Member States haveproved that there is a danger; reachingthese targets often becomes a statisticalexercise rather than a matter of policy(e.g. head count of rough sleepers in UKin 2001).

At the Task Force meeting, FEANTSA arguedthat the profile of the homeless person ismore relevant for policy making. The age,gender, ethnic origin, health status, exclu-sion history, family situation, etc. are impor-tant parameters for creating better targetpolicies aimed at the eradication of home-lessness. It is clear that an increase in thenumber of young homeless people or home-less women require specific policy initiatives.

FEANTSA is aware that it is very difficult andvery expensive to monitor the changing pro-file of the homeless population by carryingout regular representative sample surveys.There would probably be very little politicalsupport in most Member States for nationalstatistical offices to carry out such surveys.But there is an alternative. Most of theorganisations working with homeless peo-ple monitor the profile of their clients on aregular basis. In some Member States, suchas the Netherlands, data coming from theseorganisations are collected and processed atnational level. The data from these organi-sations concern the people who use home-lessness services, such as shelters, hostels,advice centres, soup kitchens, centres forbattered women etc. Certainly there arehomeless people who are not using theseservices. The data should therefore be han-dled with care. We are convinced however

Counting the homeless in Europe

Eurostat Task Force on homelessnessFEANTSA urges for a more important role for NGOs in homelessness statistics!

Counting the homeless in EuropeH

OM

ELES

Sin

Eu

rop

es

pr

in

g

20

02

8

that the data allow an early identification oftrends and changes in the homeless population.

Therefore, we believe that FEANTSA, whichrepresents a substantial part of the homeless-ness sector in the EU, should be closelyinvolved in statistical monitoring and evaluat-ing of the fight against homelessness in theframework of the EU strategy. The EU shouldmake use of the continuous work of the organ-isations working with homeless people withregard to data collection.

In order to enforce our position, FEANTSAdeveloped a proposal to research the data col-lection systems of organisations working withhomeless people in the Member States of theEU. The aim of the research is to find out whatdata are collected on a regular basis, determinethe quality of these data, assess whether thedata is representative of the homeless popula-

tion and determine whether they comparable atthe level of the EU. We are now looking forsupport from the European Commission toundertake this research.

In the meantime we would like to call upon allFEANTSA member organisations to inform usabout NGO data collection systems in theircountries. We would also like to know aboutrecent results or analysis of collected data.•

Freek Spinnewijn – Director, FEANTSA

For more information on this issue contactChristine Lambertchristine.lambert@feantsa.org or Freek Spinnewijnfreek.spinnewijn@feantsa.orgin the FEANTSA office.

EUROSTAT launched the European Community Household Panel survey in 1994. In 1994 samples of 60,000households in 12 countries were taken, and in 1995 another 13,000 households were added. (In 1998, Norway alsojoined the group). Homelessness and homeless families were not included in the survey. All the adults in eachhousehold in the sample were initially interviewed in detail about their family structures, their employment andhousing, and a wide range of other subjects. The same respondents have been re-interviewed each year since then,forming a representative 'panel' which can be used to follow the experiences of individuals, and whole families,over time. The annual interviews have continued through to 2001; the series will now end, eventually providingcontinuous coverage over an eight-year period.

A massive database has been building up over the subsequent period that can provide the most direct comparisonsbetween countries. A number of working papers prepared by the European Panel Analysis Group were baseddirectly on the ECHP and can be viewed on their site:

http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/epag/pubs/index.php.

The last wave of interviewing for the ECHP in its currentform was completed in 2001. Eurostat proposes to replaceit with a harmonised series of national data sets knowncollectively as the European Union Survey of Income andLiving Conditions (EU-SILC). It is not yet clear exactly whatform the new survey will take, and how muchlongitudinal data will be included. EU-SILC willnevertheless provide the primary internationallycomparable European data in the coming decade, and itwill as important for socio-economic research in theEuropean Research Area as the ECHP has been.

This information was taken from the above website.Please follow the link for more details.

THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HOUSING PANEL

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

9

Indicators and the European Union

Homeless people across Europe have received a new prominence in the past two years. At theEuropean Council of Lisbon in March 2000 the heads of state and government decided to put thefight against social exclusion and poverty onto the EU agenda. The Council of Lisbon set itself anew strategic goal for the next decade: "to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobsand greater social cohesion". In Lisbon, the European Council decided on a number of impor-tant social initiatives in its conclusions, under the heading "Modernising the European social modelby investing in people and building an active welfare state." This new strategy is based on a methodof open co-ordination that combines activities at both EU and national level and respects the com-petencies of the Member States.

The EU strategy sets out clear objectives and called upon Member States to create national two-yearaction plans (NAPs/incl) for combating poverty and social exclusion. From 2001, progress would bemade on the basis of the indicators adopted by the States in their national action plans, towardsachieving compatibility as regards those indicators and the defining of commonly agreed indicators1.It was recognized that Social Protection must be modernised, since social protection systems are anessential component of the European social model, and although they remain the responsibility ofeach Member State, they face common challenges2. Indeed, the EU Social Protection Committeehas now developed a set of indicators that "address social outcomes rather than the means bywhich they are achieved."3

A special concern was raised in our discussions – homelessness…We therefore concluded thatNational Action Plans should contain quantitative information covering three issues – decent hous-ing, housing costs, homelessness and other precarious housing conditions. As far as homeless peo-ple and people living in institutions were concerned, it was agreed that it would be necessary tohave better information on these groups. On the basis of survey work already carried out inMember States, Eurostat and the Commission should explore the possibility of better comparabledata across the EU on homeless people and people living in precarious housing conditions.4

Of course, FEANTSA is supporting this initiative, having already built up and published a range ofcomparative data and analysis of homelessness across Europe over the past ten years.

The Commission report5 on the NAPs/incl revealed a wide disparity in definitions and measuresadopted in relation to homelessness, and that lack of access to adequate housing or accommoda-tion is a significant factor in increasing isolation and exclusion. Particular groups such as immigrantsand ethnic minorities (notably the Roma and Travellers) can also face greater difficulties in securingadequate accommodation and thus experience greater exclusion. Many Member States, notablyAustria, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, the UK and Finland, highlight serious problems of homelessness,and some have attempted to estimate the numbers involved.6

The information on homelessness in the NAPs/incl however is generally poor. Moreover, whenev-er indicators are available, they often reflect administrative concerns and outputs (people dealtwith by homelessness services) instead of focusing on outcomes. Most Member States admit thatthey know (too) little about both the magnitude and the nature of the problem, which also pre-vents them from developing more strategic and preventive measures against homelessness.

A few Member States provide an estimate of the number of homeless…some Member Statesrecognise that homelessness may be increasing, but this perception is not shared by all…Thereare indications that homeless populations comprise rising proportions of women, young people,people of foreign origin, persons with mental health and/or addiction problems…Five MemberStates indicate in their NAPs/incl a commitment to strengthen indicators and their informationsystems on homelessness.7

Meanwhile at EU level – a group of 15 national experts – the Subgroup on Indicators, under theauspices of the EU Social Protection Committee, is working on the development of indicators onhousing and homelessness. FEANTSA also decided last year to set up a permanent WorkingGroup on Data Collection and Statistics with the intention of bringing together the expertise ofservice managers and academic researchers. Naturally, any attempt to collect data about home-less people must respect the right to privacy and freedom of choice of each individual.Organisations that provide services for homeless people are in a unique position to collect infor-mation about the homeless population.

What are we talking about when it comes to indicators on homelessness?

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

10

Data on indicators of homelessness can follow a continuum from street sleeping to overcrowdedaccommodation. At a macro level, homelessness can be measured by the extent of exclusion fromthe housing market or social housing. Thus, creating a common definition of homelessness caninvolve the minimalist approach of simple (but often inaccurate) headcounts of people sleepingrough. More holistic definitions encompass those living in shelters, institutions, poor quality, unaf-fordable, and overcrowded accommodation, women fleeing violence, refugees andTravellers/Gypsies and Roma. Clearly, the definitions adopted have important administrative out-comes, and FEANTSA has an important role in ensuring that the definition of homelessness is notconfined to absence of physical shelter, at any level, or ignores the structural changes taking placein European housing systems.

Of course, indicators relate largely to statistical data, based on definitions and criteria. General aver-ages can hide pockets of deprivation, as well as individual and group disadvantage. Questions arisein relation to how data collected on vulnerable and marginalised groups will be used. While thereis a commitment under the EU strategy to monitor States' NAPs/incl and to improve them in thefuture, what involvement for the homeless person is allowed? Will the development of Europeanwide data result in centralised solutions, or will the needs of each individual be addressed?

Indeed, there is another approach to indicators, which views homelessness as a denial of rights - tohousing, to healthcare, to an adequate standard of living etc. These rights are enshrined in theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and CulturalRights among others. All European States have accepted these obligations and regularly report to therelevant monitoring bodies on how they are giving effect to these rights. The monitoring of the "pro-gressive development" of these rights, including the right to housing, is based on indicators:

"A human rights indicator is a piece of information used in measuring the extent to which a legalright is being fulfilled or enjoyed in a given situation.8"

Indeed, the report on the NAP/incl accepted that this rights-based approach was deficient in theNational Action Plans, despite the fact that all these States make regular reports on the implemen-tation of international rights within their jurisdictions.

Perhaps surprisingly given the emphasis in the Nice objectives on access to rights, the issue of accessto the law and justice only features in a few NAPs/incl…Access to law and justice is a fundamentalright. Where necessary citizens must be able to obtain the expert legal assistance they require in orderto obtain their rights. The law is thus a critical means of enforcing people's fundamental rights. Forsome vulnerable groups access to the law can be particularly important but also problematic…9

Accurate indicators and data collection are important in monitoring the extent and level of homeless-ness across Europe, and to develop policy measures in each State under the EU strategy. Indeed,FEANTSA has a vital role to play in this welcome development. But we must not lose sight of the rightsguaranteed to homeless people by international agreements and instruments. Perhaps we are actual-ly measuring the enjoyment or denial of these rights when we talk of indicators on homelessness.•

Padraic Kenna is a Board Member of the Irish Council for Social Housing and has managedsocial housing projects for 14 years in the UK and Ireland. He is currently completing a PhDon the Right to Housing at the Faculty of Law, National University of Ireland Galway, and isa member of the FEANTSA Working Group on Indicators and Data Collection.

Indicators and the European Union

1 Presidency Conclusions. Nice European Council Meeting 7, 8 and 9 December 2000. Annex 1. para. 11.Website: europa.eu.int/council/off/conclu/dec2000/dec2000 Section III.

2 Ibid., Section IV.3 Social Protection Committee, Indicators Sub-Group. October 2001.4 Ibid., paras. 56-58.5 European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of the Regions - Draft joint report on social inclusion 2001.6 Ibid., p. 20.7 Ibid., p. 51.8 Green, M. "What we talk about when we talk about Indicators: Current Approaches to Human Rights Measurement. Human Rights

Quarterly, Vol. 23 (2001) pp. 1062-1097.9 European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of the Regions - Draft joint report on social inclusion., p. 46.

"A human rightsindicator is a piece of

information used inmeasuring the extentto which a legal right

is being fulfilled or enjoyed in a

given situation."

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

11

Indicators and the European Union

The development of indicators to measuresocial inclusion, or more precisely the effector efficiency of social inclusion policies, is a complicated and delicate matter.Elaborating such indicators at the nationallevel requires the agreement of many differ-ent actors; establishing common indicatorson a European level poses a whole range of new problems in terms of finding con-sensus. Member States of the EuropeanUnion may share a desire to combat socialexclusion and eliminate poverty, but nation-al agendas tend to feature different sets of priorities.

The Social Protection Committee andthe development of indicatorsFollowing the creation of the EU Strategy tocombat social exclusion and poverty, theSocial Protection Committee was estab-lished to monitor the progress towards theobjectives set by the Nice treaty. The Com-mittee, made up of governmental experts,works with the Commission. At theStockholm Spring Council in 2001, theheads of state and government gave a clearpolitical mandate to the Social ProtectionCommittee to develop common Europeanindicators to help facilitate the measure-ment of policy output. The SocialProtection Committee (SPC) thus created asub-group on indicators and appointedexperts from all 15 Member States to beginthe arduous task of finding and agreeingupon common indicators.

The SPC sub-group had a clear task: devel-op and agree on social inclusion indicatorsby the end of the Belgian Presidency of theEuropean Union. The Belgian Presidencymade important progress on indicators,first, by making the development of indica-tors a political priority, and ensuring that social inclusion in general and indica-tors specifically remained on the EU's agen-da for the last six months of 2001.Secondly, the Belgian government helpedthe sub-group in its labours by asking a group of experts to write a scientificreport to feed the discussion on indicatorsand to give the sub-group a basis for its work. The Atkinson et al report providedan important insight into the issuessurrounding the development of socialinclusion indicators. Thirdly, a majorEuropean conference in Antwerp inOctober 2001 allowed the sub-group to dis-cuss the report in depth with its authorsand with knowledgeable participants fromall over the continent.

18 indicators, but what about housing?The sub-group had reached agreement on18 solid indicators that cover four dimen-

sions of social exclusion by the December2001 deadline. In its report to the Councilon 3 December 2001, the sub-group pre-sented indicators on:1. income and poverty2. work, with particular emphasis on long-

term unemployment3. health, with a unique focus on the

self-perception of health of the rich andthe poor

4. education

The fifth dimension of social exclusion,homelessness and housing was conspicu-ously absent from the sub-group's report in2001. FEANTSA expressed its disappoint-ment at the lack of housing or homelessnessindicators, and wondered why such key indi-cations of social exclusion had not beentaken into account.

Some consolationsWhile the sub-group had not managed toagree on indicators for housing or home-lessness, the Laeken Declaration of 15December 2001 clearly indicates theirimportance. Paragraph 28 of the BelgianPresidency Conclusions states that "a set ofcommon indicators constitute importantelements in the policy defined at Lisbon foreradicating poverty and promoting socialinclusion" including "health and housing".Obviously the heads of state and govern-ment still considered the creation of housingindicators to be a priority.

Obstacles to developing housingindicatorsThe sub-group on indicators encounterednumerous obstacles in its attempt to devel-op housing and homelessness indicators.The recurring issue of available data causedsevere problems; in some countries no dataexists, in the countries where statistics canbe found, they simply cannot be comparedwith other European data sets. The expertscould not agree that the European housingdata collected first by the Commission andlater by the Dutch and Finnish governmentswere the 'right' data to use in the develop-ment of indicators.

In addition the notion of quality of hous-ing also provoked debate; southern andnorthern countries hold understandablydifferent opinions about the necessity ofproper heating. Furthermore, the 15national experts found it difficult to agreeon using such things as waiting lists forsocial housing as indicators, simplybecause the definition of social housingvaries from country to country. TheAtkinson et al report included some inter-esting suggestions for housing indicators.

The group took considerable time to dis-cuss the propositions, but could not reachan agreement. One of the many challenges faced by thegroup was the complex nature of indica-tors. Indicators must be created in a man-ner that reduces the possibility of misin-terpretation. The sub-group focused ondeveloping outcome indicators ratherthan input indicators that compare differ-ent policies. Outcome indicators assessthe quality of life of those groups beingsurveyed, and thus analyse the efficiencyof the policy.

Moving forwardOver the course of one year and approxi-mately 13 meetings, the sub-group devotedthe majority of its time to finding commonindicators for social inclusion. The deadline– the end of the Belgian Presidency – wit-nessed success on many fronts, but not interms of housing indicators. Thus, the sub-group delegated the task of finding com-mon housing indicators to the MemberStates. The national governments are nowresponsible for reporting on three aspects:homelessness, housing costs and quality ofhousing. In the very likely event that the fif-teen EU countries come up with divergingindicators, the sub-group is prepared to goback to work. It is hoped that commonhousing indicators will be developed in thesub-group in the next few months, on thesole condition that this process is placedhigh on the political agenda of the EU.Without strong political backing and anofficial mandate from the heads of stateand government, and tangible supportfrom the country holding the Presidency, itwill remain impossible for the sub-group tocome to a consensus on housing indicators.Pressure from the European Commission,organisations like FEANTSA and its mem-bers, academics and policy advisors is notenough: a political impetus is essential tomotivate the Member States to reach anagreement.

Room for lobbyingPerhaps FEANTSA and its members shouldtake it upon themselves to actively lobbythe Danish Presidency to address the issueof housing indicators in conjunction withits round-table on poverty and social exclu-sion. This focus would complement theDanish Presidency's professed desire tomake the National Action Plans – SocialInclusion a priority.•

Samara Jones, FEANTSA

What about housing indicators?

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

12

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

12

1. Homelessness in Austria – a nationwide overviewIn Austria there is a lack of research onhomelessness so it is still impossible to quan-tify the extent and structure of homeless-ness. There has been only one seriousattempt, undertaken by the umbrella organ-isation of the service providers for the home-less in Austria (BAWO) in 1997, which givesa figure and an empirical basis for nation-wide estimations. In 1997 all services for homeless people inAustria, as well as social services dealingwith homeless clients, were invited to takepart in a survey. This survey produced anoverview of the services, of individual sup-port and of supported housing (Eitel, Schoibl1999). But with this kind of survey it isimpossible to reach the hidden homeless, forexample young adults and women inextreme housing stress. Furthermore thissurvey could not deal with the services formigrant households and refugees, thus thissignificant section of the homeless popula-tion is not adequately included.

For a more detailed view on the extent andstructure of homelessness in Austria it is nec-essary to look at additional surveys onhomelessness at local and / or regional level.In the following section you can find a sum-mary of the results of a recent survey onhomelessness in the city of Salzburg (2001).

2. Annual survey on homelessness in the City of Salzburg Each autumn since 1994, service providersfor the homeless in Salzburg undertake a sur-vey on homelessness (Gölzner, Wrba 2002).The survey focuses on homelessness in thecity of Salzburg because there are no servic-es in the rural parts of the county of Salzburgand it is not possible to provide adequatedata about homelessness outside of the city.

An annual follow up survey on homelessnessis completed with information from the serv-ice providers for the homeless and othersocial services (social workers in prisons, hos-pitals etc.) who give data about clients whohave experienced extreme housing stress oreven homelessness during the period of themonth of October 20011. The city of Salzburg has 150 000 residents,and the 553 homeless people make upapproximately 0.35% of the total popula-tion. The survey on homelessness in

Salzburg shows where these homeless peo-ple live, or at least spend the night. It is evident that only 22% of the knownhomeless adults live in services for thehomeless like supported housing in sharedor single accommodation. But there are dif-ferences between the rate of provisions formale and female homeless people. A signif-icantly higher percentage of homelesswomen compared to homeless men live insupported accommodations (28% of thewomen and 21% of the men). The same istrue in other housing categories. So themale homeless are more often in unsupport-ed boarding houses, in emergency shelters,sleeping rough or in prison than women.On the other hand, the survey on homeless-ness in Salzburg proves that the services forthe homeless have difficulties reachingyoung adults and women with housingstress or homelessness due to issues of eligi-bility and/or a lack of age and gender spe-cific provisions of support. The share ofyoung and female clients is decreases inpeople over 18 years old.In long-term comparisons of the surveysthere is almost no observable developmentof the extent and structure of homelessnessaside from some meagre effects of certainchanges in the system of services providedfor the homeless.

Some national perspectives on tackling homeless(National perspectives)

Quantitative aspects of homelessness in Austria Salzburg, 2/02

The results of the BAWO-survey canbe summarised as follows:

• About 21 000 people were homelessand in contact with services for thehomeless in 1998 (about 0.3% of theinhabitants of Austria).

• Approximately 2 000 of these personswere sleeping rough (0.03%).

• Another 12 000 persons stayed infacilities (such as shelters and/or sup-ported accommodations) for thehomeless – about 25% of the clientsof shelters and supported accommo-dations are women.

• About 7 000 migrants from non EU-countries lived in refugee camps andfacilities for migrants from non EU-countries.

• The survey also gives evidence thatthere are huge local and regional dif-ferences in measures against homeless-ness and in standards of supportedhousing, specific services for targetgroups and levels of individual support,especially in the rural areas of Austriawhere almost no services are provided.

Homelessness in the city of Salzburg,October 2001

•519 adult homeless, 19% of them arewomen,

•34 juvenile homeless (less than 18years), 38% of them are female.

DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING CONDITIONS / ADULT HOMELESS ONLY; N= 582

HOUSING SITUATION TOTAL IN % MEN IN % WOMEN IN %

at friends etc. 131 22% 106 22.0% 25 22%

supported housing in 129 21% 98 20.0% 31 28%shared or single apartments

emergency shelter 100 17% 85 17.0% 15 13%

boarding house etc. 93 15% 77 16.0% 16 14%

sleeping rough 42 7% 35 7.0% 7 6%

in prisons 41 7% 34 7.0% 7 6%0

in semi-permanent or permanent treatment 42 7% 51 10.0% 10 9%in hospitals

in abbeys etc. 4 1% 3 0.6% 1 1%

582 --- 489 --- 112 ---

Aus t

ria

(In this table homeless people who were named twice are not excluded so the total number of housing is higher than the number of homeless persons)

1 In the appendix you can find detailed information about the methodology of the local surveys in the city of Salzburg.

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

13

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

13

National perspectives

3. Homelessness in urban areasSince 1994 a number of surveys have beenundertaken in several Austrian cities andregions. These surveys are the empirical basefor an estimate on the demand for servicesand provisions in terms of housing stress andhomelessness (Eitel, Schoibl 1999), relatingto surveys in the cities of Vienna, Salzburg,Linz and Innsbruck. Experience from serviceproviders in other cities and regions confirmthese figures. For cities and regions withnearly no professional services for homelesspeople (e.g. Graz, Klagenfurt) an extrapola-tion is not possible hence there is no empiri-cally based evidence on homelessness. In Austria almost 3.5 million inhabitants livedin cities with more than 10 000 residents in1991 (last census). This number will serve asthe total for the following estimations of theextent of homelessness in the Austrian cities:

4. Homelessness in the rural areas ofAustria – widely unknownDue to the unavailability of sufficient data itis simply impossible to estimate the amountof housing stress and homelessness in vil-lages and small towns in the countryside.There are no services for the homeless, noempirical statistics and no scientific surveys.The practical experience of social services inrural parts of Austria shows that there areproblems like poverty and social exclusion.Recent research on poverty in Austria showsthat the risk of becoming poor and sociallyexcluded is even higher, living in a village orsmall town, than in an urban area(Wiesinger 2000).

The practical experience of the social servic-es in rural areas shows that homelessnesswill be hidden as long as possible and that,if this strategy does not work anymore, thehomeless person is forced to leave the ruralsociety and move to one of the nearby larg-er cities. The problem is exported into urbanareas. Individual motives for moving to thecities include seeking employment, afford-able accommodation and – last but not least– to flee stigmatisation in the rural society.

5. Homelessness of migrant householdsMigrant households without EU-citizenshipdo not contact services for homeless even ifthey are in urgent housing stress due to thespecific legal and administrative barriers andrisks (e.g. loss of permit of residence).Furthermore the services for the homeless inalmost all Austrian counties are funded bythe welfare system and non-EU immigrantsonly have limited access to welfare benefits.These restrictions mean that services for thehomeless in some counties are not evenallowed to provide immigrants and refugeeswith support on a systematic level. As thetarget group of non EU-citizens is excludedfrom most of the services there is very littleevidence of their social problems and needs. Therefore the BAWO-survey (Eitel / Schoibl1999) had to rely on the simple estimationsof 7000 homeless migrants from non-EU-countries – actually based on insufficientlyupdated and incomparable reports ofmigrant offices and service providers. Forexample: in 1999 approximately 4 500 peo-ple were placed in detention because theirapplications for asylum were denied but theycould not be sent back ("anti refoulement").De facto illegalised they have no access tosocial benefits, social housing or social servic-es. The correct figure of homeless refugeesand migrant households is likely to be muchhigher than the given estimate.

APPENDIXTarget groups and methodologicalaspects of the annual Salzburg surveyson homelessnessThe survey on homelessness in the city ofSalzburg is exclusively based on a question-naire completed by service providers andinstitutions like supported housing, emer-gency shelter, counselling services, support-ed employment, churches and abbeys,boarding houses, social services in hospitals

and jails, facilities in the range of psychoso-cial / psychiatric services. The survey is mainly focused on acute home-lessness of adult EU-citizens. Inhabitants oflong-term accommodations and specific sup-ported housing institutions like therapeuticcommunities, housing for ex-homeless seniorsetc. are not categorised as homeless. Servicesfor migrant people do not participate in thesesurveys because legal and administrative dif-ferences hinder a common definition ofhomelessness or a transfer of reliable data.

Further details:• The survey on homelessness in Salzburg is

not funded by local or regional authorities–it must be conducted with the availableresources of the local service providers;

• the annual follow up survey on homeless-ness started in November 1994;

• each of these surveys covers the period ofone month; recently the month ofOctober;

• the main instrument is a questionnaire,with additional questions and clarifica-tions by telephone;

• services for immigrants are excluded fromthe survey because the results in the earli-er surveys (1994 to 1996) were insufficientand there was no realistic chance toimprove the data;

• in spite of repeated contact with socialsecurity and social benefit providers at thelocal and regional level these institutionsrefuse to participate in any form of deliv-ering or checking data;

• these surveys are strictly anonymous butbased on socio-demographic data likegender, date of birth, family status, firstletter of the last name – so it is possible toeliminate double votes;

• these surveys only include one aspect ofthe definition of homelessness accordingto BAWO: acute homelessness (based ondata from service providers, it is impossibleto maintain systematic data on inade-quate, overcrowded or unsafe housing aswell as the threat of homelessness due to insecure tenancy contracts, danger ofeviction etc.);

• the interpretation of the data is edv-based.•

Heinz Schoibl is FEANTSA's researchcorrespondent in Austria and works withHelix – Research and Consulting.heinz.schoibl@helixaustria.com

• 2% of urban residents (about 70 000persons in Austria) are threatened byeviction in the period of one year; abouthalf of them (48%) are women (FAWOS1/97).

• 0.35% of urban residents (about 12 500people) are homeless every month andthus need services and support.Approximately 21% of them are female(survey on homelessness in Salzburg,10/2000).

• Approximately 0.1% of the urban resi-dents (approximately 3 500 people) livein supported housing (at least in thosecities where services for homeless areprovided).

• Approximately 0.2% of the urban resi-dents (approximately 7 000 persons) livein unsupported accommodations likeboarding houses (mainly with very lowliving and housing standards) or withfriends etc. (survey on homelessness inthe city of Salzburg 10/2000).

• Approximately 0.05% of the urban resi-dents (approximately 1 750 persons)actually sleep rough – in the streets etc.(survey on homelessness in the city ofSalzburg 10/2000).

POVERTY RISK ACCORDING TO A URBAN – RURAL – TYPOLOGY

TYPES OF REGIONS NUMBER OF PEOPLE POVERTY RATEIN POVERTY RISK IN %

rural settlements 350 000 17%

small towns 320 000 12%

medium and large towns 270 000 10%

total 940 000 13%

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

14

This article focuses onrecent developments in

Scotland, and inparticular on the workof the Homelessness

Task Force, whichpublished its final report

in February 2002.

Homelessness remains high on the policy agen-da in the United Kingdom. This article focuseson recent developments in Scotland, and in par-ticular on the work of the Homelessness TaskForce, which published its final report inFebruary 2002.

Devolving homelessness policy in the UKThe Scottish Parliament was created in 1999, aspart of a programme of devolution of govern-ment within the UK. There are also NationalAssemblies for Wales and Northern Ireland, anda Greater London Assembly. However, theScottish Parliament has the greatest degree ofautonomy. Members of the Scottish Parliament(MSPs) are elected by proportional representa-tion. While New Labour have an overall majori-ty in the UK Parliament, the current govern-ment in Scotland, is a New Labour/LiberalDemocrat coalition. Housing policy is fullydevolved to the Scottish Parliament as arehealth and social care, along with educationand most employment policy. Homelessnesspolicy is now within the ‘Social Justice’ remit inrecognition that it is ‘not just a housing issue’.While Scotland already had its own legislativeprocedures, post-1999 the opportunities fordivergence from the rest of the UK haveincreased as the Scottish Parliament acquiredgreater freedom to set priorities across differentpolicy areas.

The Homelessness Task ForceAs in England and Wales, the ScottishParliament embarked on a comprehensivereview of housing policy. As part of this process,a Homelessness Task Force (HTF) was set up inAugust 1999. Its remit was:

‘to review the causes and nature of home-lessness in Scotland; to examine currentpractice in dealing with cases of home-lessness; and to make recommendationson how homelessness in Scotland can bestbe prevented and, where it does occur,tackled effectively’.(HTF, final report, p1).

Task Forces have been a feature of NewLabour’s approach to policy review in the UK, asa mechanism for incorporating a wide range of‘stakeholders’ into the process. Membership ofthe Scottish HTF included:• The Ministers for Social Justice who held

office during the period of operation• Staff of the Scottish Executive and Scottish

Homes (the national housing agency, nowfully part of the Scottish Executive andrenamed Communities Scotland)

• Representatives from

˚ The Department for Work and Pensions(Westminster Government)

˚ Local Government: housing and socialwork authorities

˚ Housing and homelessness NGOs, includ-ing Robert Aldridge of Scottish Council forSingle Homelessness, the UK’s FEANTSArepresentative.

˚ The academic/research community.

The Task Force held 30 meetings, over a periodof more than two years. An interim report waspublished in April 2000, in order that early rec-ommendations could feed into the legislativeprocess. The subsequent Housing (Scotland) Act2001 placed new duties on local government todevelop comprehensive local homelessnessstrategies. Existing duties to provide assistanceto homeless households were also extended toinclude the provision of temporary accommo-dation for those without the defined ‘priorityneed groups’. Previously, such households hadno clear entitlement to help beyond general‘advice and assistance’.

Homelessness Research ProgrammeThe Task Force commissioned a programme ofresearch to inform its deliberations. Some 13projects were completed on the two mainthemes of understanding homelessness anddocumenting ‘what works’ in terms of goodpractice in tackling homelessness.

All of the research reports have been publishedand are available from either the ScottishExecutive or Scottish Homes/CommunitiesScotland. A summary of the main findings fromthe research programme was also published toaccompany the final report of the Task Force.

Helping Homeless PeopleThe final report of the Homelessness Task Forcewas published by the Scottish Executive inFebruary 2002. In principle, the Minister forSocial Justice has accepted all of its recommen-dations. Effectively, the report constitutes anaction plan for preventing and responding tohomelessness in Scotland. Given theMembership of the Task Force, the recommen-dations represent a broad consensus acrossstatutory and non-statutory agencies, as to thebest way forward.

The report sets the problem of homelessnessfirmly within the context of the current housingsystem, mechanisms for care and support, andeconomic opportunities. It recognises the struc-

Homelessness research and policydevelopment in Scotland: the work of the homelessness Task Force.

Sco

t land

National perspectives

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

15

tural causes of homelessness, the range of crisissituations which trigger homelessness, and theneed for comprehensive, long term solutions toreduce the incidence of homelessness inScotland. Some of the key recommendationsinclude:• Promotion of the empowerment of homeless

people and their participation in policy, prac-tice and service delivery

• Phasing out of the differential treatment ofhouseholds according to ‘priority’ or ‘non-priority’ need status by 2012

• A wide range of recommendations regardingcollaborative working across service providersto prevent homelessness and to supporthomeless people through the resettlementprocess

• A commitment to liase with the Westminstergovernment regarding improving the bene-fits system for homeless people.

The report has been well received by the hous-ing and homelessness policy communities inScotland and is generally considered to set outa package which now leads the other UK prin-cipalities in terms of a progressive approach totackling homelessness.

Implementation and evaluation As we move to the implementation stage of theprocess, it is worth noting some key issuesemerging from the HTF research programme.Scotland and the rest of the UK have a very sub-stantial research evidence base on the nature,causes and consequences of homelessness.However, a review of the studies reveals thatthe robust evaluation of policy and practice ini-tiatives, and especially the measurement of out-comes, is much less well developed.

Key weaknesses in policy and practice evalua-tion include:• A lack of clarity of aims, objectives and crite-

ria for evaluation at policy and project level.

• A lack of planning for evaluation.Implementation often leads evaluation,which may then constrain the collection ofkey monitoring data.

• Evaluations are often too early, and too short,to determine the full impact of a particularinitiative.

• Available resources are often inadequate fora comprehensive study.

The Scottish Executive, in partnership withScottish housing and support providers, nowhave an opportunity to make a significantimpact on the alleviation of homelessness. It isimperative that the changes implemented inresponse to the HTF recommendations are ade-quately monitored and evaluated. Otherwise, itwill not be possible to judge its success. Shouldthe political climate change to one lessfavourable to the homelessness cause, qualitydata on the outcomes from new initiatives willbe crucial to protecting essential funding andthe sustainability of developments in policy andpractice over the long term. The time to put arobust evaluation strategy in place is now.

Helping homeless people: an action planfor prevention and effective response.Homelessness Task Force Final Report. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. February 2002.

The report can be viewed at:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/soci-ety/htff-00.asp

Isobel Anderson is FEANTSA's UKcorrespondent for the EuropeanObservatory on Homelessness; she is aprofessor with the Housing Policy andPractice Unit at the University of Stirling inScotland, UK.

The UN-Habitat website allows visitors to access its Global Urban Observatory (GUO). The GUO was established by UN-HABITAT inresponse to a decision of the United Nations Commission on Human Settlements, which called for a mechanism to monitor globalprogress in implementing the Habitat Agenda and to monitor and evaluate global urban conditions and trends.

The site seeks to address the urgent need to improve the worldwide base of urban knowledge by helping governments, local authoritiesand organizations of the civil society develop and apply policy-oriented urban indicators, statistics and other urban information.

The site contains information on over 1000 cities, so it can take a while to load and view the data. The Global Urban databases are veryimportant resources and are worth a look.

http://www.unhabitat.org/guo/

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

15

National perspectives

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

16

Under new legislation every local authority inScotland now has to prepare a HomelessnessStrategy. The first strategies are to be submit-ted to the Scottish Executive for approval byApril 2003. These strategies are to be based onan analysis of the scale, nature and causes ofhomelessness and a quantitative and qualitativeanalysis of provision and gaps in provision ofaccommodation and services. This requirementassumes that local authorities have adequateinformation available to make such an assess-ment. For this reason the Homelessness TaskForce – which was the consultative group usedin preparation of the legislation – changed themethod and content of data collection by localauthorities.

From September 2002 local authorities have aduty to provide either interim or temporaryaccommodation for all people who apply tothem as homeless. Information is collected onall homeless people applying to the localauthority to be accepted as homeless. Thebasic information includes :

Household Characteristics:

number of adults by age and gender

number of children by age and gender

ethnic group.

Applicant Characteristics

Has applicant come from the family home

Has any member of the household slept roughin previous 3 months

Has any member of the household slept roughlast night

Was most recent accommodation settled (i.e.had lived there for 6 months)

Where was last settled accommodation

Reasons for homelessness (32 reasons identified)

AssessmentHomeless, potentially homeless, not homeless

In priority need (i.e. local authority has duty tohouse)

Category of priority need (see below fordescription of this)

Housing Outcome

Lost contact

Offered tenancy (local authority, housing associ-ation or private)

Temporary accommodation provided (and whoprovided it)

Referred to another local authority

Information and advice only

Was accommodation provided with support

Was social work involved (contacted)

Was route to permanent accommodationthrough temporary accommodation

Because the duties of the local authority relatemainly to people in priority need it is maybe help-ful to explain the types of need which are record-ed as having priority for housing. These include:

Household with children or household memberis pregnant.

Vulnerable due to – old age, mental illness,learning disability, physical disability, medicalcondition, drink/drug problem.

Young person under 21 (previously in care)

Young person aged 16-17

Young person vulnerable due to youth (no agelimit)

Household fleeing domestic violence

Household fleeing violence from persons out-side the household

Household fleeing racial violence

Asylum seeker, refugee

Woman suffering miscarriage or in abortion

Household discharged from institution (includ-ing hospital or prison)

Homeless as a result of an emergency (fire,flood, storm etc.).•

Mr W. Edgar co-ordinates FEANTSA'sEuropean Observatory on Homelessnessand directs the Joint Centre for ScottishHousing Research (JCSHR).

Homeless statistics – data collection in Scotland S

cot la

nd

New Cronos http://www.datashop.org/en/bases/newcronos.html offers visitors a wide range of statistics cov-ering all EU member states, the candidate countries and principal economic partners of the EU. The site containsmore than 180 million social and economic statistical data which may be daily, monthly, quarterly, half-yearly or annual, according to the statistical domain covered – are expressed in a whole range of different units.

The site divides it statistics into nine themes, which cover several domains and includes sections on Income and Living Conditions as well asHousing. A fee is charged to enter the database. Visitors can select the criteria for their search and send their request by email.

National perspectives

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

Federatie Opvang is a federation of institu-tions in the area of social relief work (socialsupport services) and is mainly concernedwith promoting interests and providing serv-ices. All forms of care and assistance aimedat clients from the lowest levels of societyand at those in a vulnerable situation due to(sexual) violence are represented.

Federatie Opvang- closely monitors developments in this

field and calls attention to trends andproblem areas. Federatie Opvang inter-prets these, for example, for leaders atstate and municipal level and for policymakers.

- plays a role in public debate and bringssocial signals to the notice of the generalpublic through articles, congresses andpublications.

- offers support by providing specializedservices to institutions or social work unitsin the area of quality control, client regis-tration and consultancy work.

Every year, Federatie Opvang collects fig-ures on social support centres and women'sshelters. These figures come from FO's ownregistration system (Klimop) and from theSalvation Army's registration system (Klaver).Annual surveys are also carried out amongsocial boarding houses and transition centresand among all institutions with regard tocapacity, sources of subsidies, personnel,absence due to illness, etc.

In cooperation with the NIZW (the Dutch insti-tute for health and welfare, an independentorganisation aimed at reform and improve-ments in the health and welfare sector), fig-ures are turned into clear tables that can thenbe used to make analyses. The latter are pub-lished in brochures and in a detailed report.

Some alarming signals from the 2000 figures• An increase in the number of children

being cared for in centres for the home-less, due to a lack of space in women'sshelters

• Insufficient financial means to expandcapacity

• A serious personnel shortage because ofabsence due to illness (12 – 15%)

• Total numbers of (mainly young) accom-panying children rose from 4,900 in 1999to 5,162 in 2000 in women's shelters. Inother types of social support or reliefcentres, the total rose from 1,676 to1,873 with the sharpest rise (11%!) beingseen in crisis centres.Some 55% of these children are under theage of 6 and 86% under the age of 12.

• Total registrations at both women's andother social relief centres rose sharply,from 32,581 (1999) to 34,626 (2000) forthe former and from 32,417 (1999) to35,681 (2000) for the latter.

Federatie Opvang continues to stress theissue to the government: more money isneeded for adequately trained personnel,more beds, improved security, etc.In order to maintain social and women'srelief work and centres, a minimum amountof 95 million EUR is required.

Monitor Maatschappelijke Opvang(MMO) was set up in 2000 on the initiativeof VWS, the Dutch government departmentfor health.The aim of MMO is to maintain and gain aninsight into social relief or social supportservices, more specifically with regard to sup-ply, demand and municipal policy. MMO'stask is to promote three functions, under theresponsibility of different but cooperatingauthorities:• carrying out monitoring activities• coordinating activities• presenting and incorporating data from

these activities in reports to State andmunicipal authorities, to institutions andother actors such as Federatie Opvangand the VNG.

Once a year, MMO publishes a review(Annual Report) with figures for demand andsupply of social support centres as well aswomen's shelters. Every year, information onmunicipal policy is added to this. Informationis mainly based on nationally available regis-tration figures from the so-called Klimop sys-tem, FO's own registration system and fromannual surveys carried out among institu-tions affiliated to FO.

Collection and presentation of informationby MMO take place based on so-called cen-tral indicators. By regularly monitoring devel-opments in these central indicators, it is pos-sible to call attention to trends and also todetermine the relationship between policy,practice and research. At the end of 2001,central indicators were definitively estab-lished for monitoring demand and offer forresidential relief centres. The indicators fordemand and supply for non-residential reliefor social support centres and for street chil-dren will follow in mid-2002.

The Trimbos institute acts as the moni-toring authority. Trimbos is an independ-ent national research institute that works topromote people's mental health. It is both aresearch institute and a service provider.These services include providing guidance

and information, providing advice on thequality and organization of relief work orsocial support services, promoting theexpertise of professionals, and scientificresearch. The orientation towards the practi-cal side distinguishes Trimbos from universityinstitutions. Trimbos takes into accountmany different sectors of society: healthcare,welfare, education, the authorities (national,provincial and municipal), the justice andprison systems and the Dutch population.

Through MMO, the VWS (Ministry of Health)aims to make more use of locally availableinformation and is therefore making contactsand building up cooperation with local mon-itors in municipal centres. Within the frame-work of MMO, the ministry also wishes tocarry out annual research on different themesand topics. In 2001, the Trimbos institutebegan research on the increased demand forwomen's shelters and started an inventory ofthe services available for street children.•

Maria de Cock is a member ofFEANTSA's working group on DataCollection; she works with FederatieOpvang in The Netherlands.

Federatie Opvang and data collection from service providers Th

eNe

th

erlands

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

17

Some alarming signalsfrom the 2000 figures

National perspectives

Fra n

ce

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

18

INSEE STUDY ON PERSONS USINGACCOMMODATION SERVICES OR HOTMEAL DISTRIBUTION POINTSIn traditional surveys, the persons concerned areidentified according to their accommodation;persons of no fixed abode are therefore exclud-ed from most statistics.

As we do not have a basis for a survey among per-sons of no fixed abode, the method used consistsin sampling the welfare services mainly intendedfor these people. The methodology of the surveyis based on the work of the Institut national d'é-tudes démographiques (National Institute forDemographic Studies) (1995 and 1998) and thatof the American Census Bureau (1996).

The survey was conducted from 15 January to 15February 2001 among a sample of 4,109 users offree (or low-cost) accommodation services or hotmeal distribution points. The welfare services dis-tributing takeaway food packs are not included inthe scope of the survey as they are normallyintended for persons with accommodation.

SampleThe sample is the result of a three-tiered selection:

1 80 towns with more than 20,000 inhabitantswere selected according to size.A complete census of accommodation andhot meal distribution services was carried outin these 80 towns by consulting the files ofthe Ministère de l'emploi et de la solidarité(Ministry of Employment) and the INSEE fileon establishments and by conducting surveysamong associations, regional authorities andplaces of worship; this census made it possi-ble to identify 2,398 services and to measuretheir reception capacity and their average use.

2 In the second stage, the statistical unit usedwas the "service x day of use" pair; 1,225 suchpairs were selected according to the averageuse per type of service; the major services cov-ered several days. The cooperation of the serv-ices was excellent, with fewer than 2% ofthem refusing to take part in the survey.

3 In the third stage, the researchers selectedtwo or four users at random on each visit,either from a registration list or by selectingan order of arrival number, for an interviewlasting about an hour.

CollectionIt sometimes happened that the researchercould not carry out the interview because theperson did not speak French or was unable toanswer the questions or refused to be inter-viewed. It was frequently impossible to conductthe survey at mobile food distribution points inthe evening. In such cases, the researchersnoted the sex, apparent age and motive andselected another person at random: in all, 6,281contacts were required in order to obtain 4,109completed questionnaires.

Once accepted, the interviews went well.According to the reports by the researchers,incidents occurred in 3% of interviews, espe-cially at mobile food distribution points withpersons under the influence of alcohol, drugs ormedication. The researchers also noted that thequestions were clearly understood; they experi-enced problems of understanding with only 4%of the respondents.

WeightingWith this survey method, persons using the serv-ices every day are more likely to be included inthe survey than those only using them occasion-ally. Part of the questionnaire allowed utilisationto be evaluated over a week, so as to correct thisbias by means of differentiated weighting.

The sample was also conventionally rectifiedaccording to type of service and size of town.

National estimateTo extrapolate the results for towns of over20,000 inhabitants to the country as a whole,the capacity and utilisation of services over therest of the territory were estimated by means ofa survey on services in 80 towns of 5,000 to20,000 inhabitants selected at random. We alsoused the 1999 population census (census ofaccommodation centres) in small towns offewer than 5,000 inhabitants and in rural com-munes. Towns with over 20,000 inhabitantsprovide 85% of services.

Limit to the survey: persons of no fixedabode who never who never use welfareservices.Some persons of no fixed abode sleeping on thestreets or in places not designed for habitationin January 2001 were not taken into account inthis study.

Firstly, those having spent a very short period onthe streets without using the welfare network and,

Insee's survey of homelessnessInsee, the French National Statistics agency, recently published the results of its survey on the use of accommodation and hot-meal services.

National perspectives

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

19

secondly, those forced to sleep in the street forone night, following domestic violence, forexample, were not counted in the study.

Nor did the survey cover persons of no fixedabode having spent several days on thestreets in January 2001 without ever goingto an accommodation centre or a hot mealdistribution point, either through ignoranceof their existence or through choice. Thesepersons survive through various means ofsubsistence: welfare allowances, beggingfrom passers-by, casual jobs, help frominhabitants of the neighbourhood, foodpicked up at markets, products given byshopkeepers.

Finally, the study does not cover persons of nofixed abode living in towns with no accom-modation or hot meal distribution services.Here, it is mostly a question of small towns.

All in all, these omissions probably representonly a small percentage. An additionalmethodological study carried out by theInstitut national d'études démographiques(National Institute for Demographic Studies)in collaboration with INSEE uses other meth-ods in an attempt to assess the proportionof persons of no fixed abode who have nocontact with accommodation and food dis-tribution services.

Persons of no fixed abodeA person is said to have no fixed abodeif he or she sleeps on the streets or in aplace not designed for habitation or istaken charge of by an organisation pro-viding free or low-cost accommodation.This accommodation consists of communalstructures, hotel rooms or ordinary apart-ments; it can be offered for one night orseveral months.

Places not designed for habitation are as follows:- streets, bridges, public gardens, waste

land, ruins, building sites;- underground (metro) stations, railway

stations, shopping malls, car parks;- factories, warehouses, farm buildings;- communal parts of apartment blocks, cellars;- cars, wagons, sheds, boats, etc., with no

cooking facilities.

The organisations offering accommodationcomprise:- accommodation and social rehabilitation

centres;- mothers-and-children centres;- social hostels;- municipal or associative reception centres;- places reserved for emergencies in youth

hostels, hostels for migrant workers orsocial residences;

- public bodies or associations reservinghotel rooms or apartments;

- working communities;

- accommodation centres for asylum seek-ers, temporary accommodation centresand staging centres.

The survey was not conducted in the last-men-tioned centres due to language problems; thepopulations housed in accommodation cen-tres for asylum seekers, temporary accommo-dation centres and staging centres are estimat-ed at 6,500 by France Terre d'Asile (an NGO).

Defined in this way, the category of per-sons of no fixed abode is larger thanthat of the homeless; it includes personshoused for long periods, such as women liv-ing in mothers-and-children centres.

Conversely, this definition may appearrestrictive. It regards certain forms of precar-ious housing as an "abode" and alsoexcludes persons with no personal domicilewho are forced to sleep in a hotel (at theirown expense) or to stay with friends.

Thus, some people live in buildings not orig-inally designed for habitation but fitted out,often in a rudimentary fashion, through theinstallation of cooking facilities. They are notregarded as persons of no fixed abode, eventhough they are clearly badly housed. The1999 census counted 41,000 people livingin these makeshift dwellings, such as build-ing site huts, immobilised caravans or con-verted farm buildings or sheds.

The 1999 census also counted 51,000 peo-ple for whom a hotel room constitutes themain residence.

According to the housing survey of 1996,80,000 people between 17 and 60 years ofage and having completed their full-timeeducation live with friends or distant rela-tives because they cannot live on their own.

Furthermore, persons living in dwellingswithout the right to do so (squatters) are notregarded as being of no fixed abode eventhough these dwellings are often dilapidat-ed or awaiting demolition.

FOREIGNERS OF NO FIXED ABODESome foreigners of no fixed abode arerefugees housed in accommodation centresfor asylum seekers, temporary accommoda-tion centres and staging centres. These cen-tres did not fall within the scope of the sur-vey. During the winter of 2001 they housedabout 6,500 people.

Other foreigners of no fixed abode usingaccommodation or hot meal distributionservices were selected at random in the sam-ple, as with French people. However, thoseunable to speak French were not included inthe survey: a third of the fruitless contactsmade were due to the persons concernednot being French-speakers.

In the findings of the survey, the global esti-mates take account of non French-speakingforeigners, but the description of situationsdoes not. The particularly precarious situa-tion of foreigners included in the surveywould certainly be aggravated if the nonFrench-speakers had been able to reply.

The Institut national d'études démo-graphiques (National Institute forDemographic Studies) is embarking upon anadditional survey among these populationswith the help of interpreters.

Partners- Observatoire national de la pauvreté et

de l’exclusion (National Observatory onPoverty and Social Exclusion)

- Ministère de l’emploi et de la solidarité,direction de la recherche, des études, del’évaluation et de la statistique (Ministryof Employment – department of researchand statistics)

- Ministère de l’équipement, du transportet du logement, direction générale del’urbanisme, de l’habitat et de la con-struction (Ministry of Transport andHousing – department of urbanisation)

- Institut national d’études démo-graphiques (National Institute forDemographic Studies)

- Caisse nationale d’allocations famil-iales,(National Family Benefit Office)

- Conseil de l’emploi, des revenus et de lacohésion sociale (Council on employ-ment, salaries and social cohesion) •

Report prepared by Cécile Brousse,Division Conditions de vie des ménages,INSEE (Department for living conditionsand households)

Much of the INSEE site has been translatedinto English and offers a wide range of inter-esting statistics and analyses. www.insee.fr

SAN

S A

BR

IEn

Eu

rop

ep

rin

tem

ps

20

02

SAN

S A

BR

IEn

Eu

rop

ep

rin

tem

ps

20

02

19

National perspectives

Calendar of events

FEANTSA would like to thank all those whocontributed to this edition of the newsletter,and to encourage others to do so in thefuture. If you have information or articleson this subject that might interest otherreaders, please do not hesitate to send it toFEANTSA. Comments and additional itemson the theme of Counting and Indicatorswill be posted on the FEANTSA website(www.feantsa.org).

IN THE NEXT ISSUE:

The National Action Plans – SocialInclusion are of vital importance toFEANTSA member organisations, policymakers and others involved in the field ofhomelessness. Following its June 2002seminar on the NAPs, FEANTSA will puttogether an edition of the newsletter focus-ing on the impact of the NAPs in differentEuropean countries. All readers are encour-aged to consider contributing, as thisnewsletter should be a forum for differentperspectives. If you are interested in writ-ing an article for the next newsletter, pleasecontact samara.jones@feantsa.org.We look forward to hearing from you!

HO

MEL

ESS

in E

uro

pe

sp

ri

ng

2

00

2

20

May 14, 2002. Brussels, BelgiumFlemish Congress on HomelessnessOrganised by Steunpunt, please contact Peter.Dekoster@steunpunt.befor more information.

May 23 – 24, 2002. Brussels, BelgiumEuropean Conference on young transients –hosted by the non-profit organisation: Prévention Santé as part of a

European Project on social inclusion. For more information contact Catherine Bilger: mbilger@club.internet.fr

June 14, 2002. Barcelona, SpainFEANTSA seminar on the NAPsinclFor more information contact office@feantsa.org

24-28 juin 2002. Rotterdam, Pays-Bas.30th International Conference on Social Welfareorganised by the International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW)For more information, please contact:Netherlands Institute for Care and Welfare – Conference Officeat e-mail: icsw2002@nizw.nl. Tel +31 30 2306510,website: www.nizw.nl/icsw2002

June 12–14, 2002. Casablanca, MoroccoInnovative strategies for the habitat of the poor – Stratégies innovantespour l'habitat des pauvres:Analysis and perspectives for the 21st century – Bilan et perspectives pourle 21e siécleAn international symposium hosted by the Moroccan secretary of state forHousing in partnership with the World Bank and the World Urban DevelopmentForum. For more information contact: colhabmaroc@hotmail.com

July 1 – 5, 2002. Vienna, AustriaInternational Research Conference – Centre for Urban Dialogue and European PolicyOrganised by Europaforum and the ENHRHousing Cultures – Convergence and DiversityPre-Conference for PhD students and other young housing researchersJune 29-30, 2002 ViennaFor details please contact: Europaforum WienRahlgasse 3/2A-1060 WienTel. +43 (1) 585 85 10 24, Fax. +43 (1) 585 85 10 30, Enhr2002@europaforum.or.at

September 20-21, 2002. Brussels, BelgiumFEANTSA Communications SeminarFor more information, please contact Samara.Jones@feantsa.org

October 17 – 18, 2002. Aarhus, DenmarkFirst European Round Table on SocialCo-coordinated by the European Commission and the Danish Presidency

November 7-8, 2002. Berlin, GermanyFEANTSA Conference on MigrationFor more information, please contact office@feantsa.org

194 Chausée de Louvain1210 Brussels, Belgiumw w w . f e a n t s a . o r g

tel. +32 (0)2 538 66 69fax +32 (0)2 539 41 74

With the support of the European Commission,DG Employment and Social Affairs.