Urban Audit

Feantsa

Informations

• Publié par: Sior
• Nombre de lectures: 40
• Langue: English

Extrait

FEANTSA proposal – December 2005

FEANTSA proposal for Urban Audit 2006 Definition of homelessness for the collection of urban-level data on the number and profile of homeless people in 300 European cities Context of proposal The Urban audit currently collects information on the number of homeless people in order to create an indicator: number of homeless people/total resident population. The current definition to be debated and adopted around mid-December (by an Urban audit taskforce) can be found in the Urban Audit Methodological Handbook (p.24) at the following link:http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-BD-04-002/EN/KS-BD-04-002- EN.PDF There are currently 8 categories: (a) outdoors; (b) in buildings which do not meet commonly agreed criteria for human habitation (e.g. privacy;hygiene; space); (c) in night-time emergency hostel accommodation provided by public sector or charitable organisations; (d) in longer-stay hostels provided by public sector or charitable organisations (e.g. non- emergency centres, refuges for battered women, deportation centres for asylum seekers and illegal immigrants); (e) in Bed & Breakfast accommodation; (f) in other short-stay accommodation (duration less than 1 month); (g) in the homes of friends or relatives; (h) in registered squats; FEANTSA, the European federation of national organisations working with the homeless, (European network financed by DG EMPL of the European Commission, and leading network in the framework of the EU social inclusion strategy)has been asked to: •Comment on the Urban Audit definition •Provide point-in-time (i.e. stock) data where possible on the number of homeless people in the cities concerned, by filling in a CSV file between January and June 2006 for the next Urban audit round, and clearly stating the source of data (administrative data, survey data, NGO data)

1

FEANTSA proposal – December 2005

Introduction to ETHOS – European Typology on Homelessness and housing exclusion FEANTSA has developed a European Typology on Homelessness and housing exclusion (ETHOS) – see Annex – which has been and is currently being used as a reference in the academic world, NGO world, ministries, local authorities, and other stakeholders involved in tackling homelessness.ETHOS covers all 8 categories of the current Urban Audit definition.Before commenting on the 8 categories, the following section clarifies the origin and characteristics of ETHOS. Creation process of ETHOS Homelessness is one of the main societal problems dealt with under the EU Social Inclusion Strategy, requiring member states to ensure access to decent housing, to prevent the risks of (housing) exclusion and to help the most vulnerable in society. Policies addressing and preventing homelessness are increasingly developed simultaneously and therefore demand a broader conception of homelessness than the visible face of rough sleeping to include people who live in vulnerable situations at risk of homelessness or in conditions that amount to ‘homelessness’ than appear on the streets. The prevention of homelessness or the re-housing of homeless people requires an understanding of the pathways and processes that lead there and hence a much broader perception of the meaning of homelessness. FEANTSA (European Federation of organisations working with the homeless) has developed a typology of homelessness and housing exclusion that allows for improved, and more consistent, policy approaches and data collection on homelessness ETHOS. This was a joint effort of the Data Collection working group of FEANTSA (experts among national homeless service providers) and theEuropean Observatory on Homelessness (researchersfrom EU15 member states), and ETHOS has been formally adopted by the FEANTSA members. Characteristics of ETHOS The ETHOS typology begins with the conceptual understanding that there are three domains which constitute a “home”, the absence of which can be taken to delineate homelessness. Having a home can be understood as: having an adequate dwelling (or space) over which a person and his/her family can exercise exclusive possession (physical domain); being able to maintain privacy and enjoy relations (social domain) and having legal title to occupation (legal domain). These are used to provide four main concepts of Rooflessness, Houselessness, Insecure housing and Inadequate housing all of which can be taken to indicate theabsence of a home. ETHOS therefore classifies homeless people according to their living or “home” situation: rooflessness(without a shelter of any kind, sleeping rough),houselessness(with a place to sleep but temporary in institutions or shelter), living ininsecure housing (threatenedwith severe exclusion due to insecure tenancies, eviction, domestic violence), living ininadequate housing(in caravans on illegal campsites, in unfit housing, in extreme overcrowding). These broad categories are used to identify 13 operational categories that can be used to collect or collate data, and that is a flexible enough tool to adapt to different policy purposes: to map the homeless problem (needs assessment), to develop and monitor policies, and to evaluate policies. •ETHOS is a dynamic typology which can be adapted to new developments in the phenomenon of homelessness.Homelessness may change as policies become to take effect e.g. when street homelessness starts to decrease, homeless policies may start shifting towards more re-housing and resettlement. •It is not a hierarchy of the severity of exclusion e.g. living in a shed or a garage (inadequate housing) is not necessarily better than living in shelters or supported accommodation (houselessness).

2

FEANTSA proposal – December 2005

•It captures the new realities of homelessness – especially acknowledging the different scope and nature of the phenomenon in the new member states where many people live in poor inadequate housing conditions, sometimes create situations where people in their own homes suffer from homelessness or are threatened by homelessness. Moreover, it provides a new approach to poverty – not only linked to lack of employment but also lack of a home. For more information please see2005 Review of Homeless Statistics in Europe (Edgar et al.) on FEANTSA websitewww.feantsa.organd see morehere. ETHOS and the 8 categories of the current Urban Audit definition All 8 categories outlined above are covered under specific conceptual categories of ETHOS: Roofless (a) outdoors; Comment: “outdoors” can be defined in different ways, and also most countries use a time definition - last night, at least once in the last week or last month.So in order to collect consistent data for each city, this would need to be spelled out (see ETHOS category 1.1). See relevant extract from2005 Review of Homeless Statistics in Europe(Edgar et al.) – soon to be published – which refers to ETHOS category 1. “Although all countries should be able to agree on the notion of rough sleeping as a core definition of homelessness, there is a lack of information in almost all countries on the size and nature of the population.A number of countries have conducted national surveys of the roofless population (France, Italy, Sweden) but these are now some years old. Furthermore, they have not been carried out with a frequency or in a consistent manner that would allow meaningful comparison over time.In some countries regional or major city counts are available (e.g. Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Czech Republic).In the UK local authorities are expected to conduct regular (annual or six-monthly) counts of people sleeping rough and annual estimates are published. Where surveys of rough sleeping have been conducted approaches to undertaking these surveys vary substantially and this affects the overall count.For example, whether the count is carried out on a single night of the year or averaged over a week, and whether the survey is conducted on one night in the year or is repeated at different times in the year to account for seasonal change will all affect the scale of the count involved. Although the definition of sleeping rough is similar in most countries there are differences in interpretation that would affect the final result.One difference relates to the places included as public spaces for the purposes of defining rough sleeping in surveys or counts.This difference arises partly because people who are sleeping rough move around between sleeping on the street, in makeshift shelters, in places not meant for habitation, and in night shelter or emergency accommodation provided by homeless agencies.Some countries include people sleeping in tents or cars while others do not.A number of countries (e.g. Poland, Hungary) define containers / huts / barracks and buildings not intended for habitation as non-conventional property. It is evident that, in some countries, there are people who live (almost permanently) in non-conventional properties not intended for habitation.Whether non-conventional properties and makeshift or temporary structures are included in counts of rough sleeping differs between countries. Another difference relates to the time-scale linked to the survey period.Some surveys count only those sleeping rough in defined places between certain hours on the night of the count (e.g. 5pm to midnight in Poland, overnight in Italy). Othersurveys count those who had slept rough or relied upon night shelters during a given period.For example, the INSEE survey in France included those who had slept the previous night in a hostel or place not meant for habitation; while in Scotland, rough sleeping is defined as – “have slept outside in a place not specifically designed for human habitation, at least once in the last seven days”. Taking these differences into account a generic definition of rough sleeping may include people who: •have to spend (part of) the daytime in a public place / space (i.e. does not have access to 24-hour accommodation) and / or •have no fixed abode – move around between and spend the night in the street / public places / places not designed for habitation / rooms (of friends) / night shelters.” 2005 Review of Homeless Statistics in Europe (Edgar et al.)

3

FEANTSA proposal – December 2005

(c) in night-time emergency hostel accommodation provided by public sector or charitable organisations; Comment: This is very clear but it may be useful to clarify 'provided for or paid for' since some agencies use low budget hotels where there is insufficient accommodation. Houseless (d) in longer-stay hostels provided by public sector or charitable organisations (e.g. non- emergency centres, refuges for battered women, deportation centres for asylum seekers and illegal immigrants); No comment (e) in Bed & Breakfast accommodation; Comment: This category indeed needs to be included, but the nomenclature is different in many countries. (f) in other short-stay accommodation (duration less than 1 month); Comment: -Threeor monthssixmonths can also apply depending on whether this is temporary accommodation (awaiting re-housing) or interim accommodation (awaiting assessment). It is also useful to use the term 'intended period of stay'. Insecure housing (g) in the homes of friends or relatives; Comment: It would be useful to clarify that these people are 'living temporarily'in the homes of friends or relatives (to capture the sofa-surfers , for example) and to distinguish it from families sharing accommodation (for example parents and married children or unmarried aunt). Inadequate housing (b) in buildings which do not meet commonly agreed criteria for human habitation (e.g. privacy; hygiene; space); No comment (h) in registered squats; No comment

4

FEANTSA proposal – December 2005

Annex: ETHOS European Typology on Homelessness and Housing Exclusion: Revision 2005 Conceptual OperationalGeneric DefinitionNational Category CategorySub- Categories ROOFLESS 1People Living Rough1.1 RoughSleeping (no access to  24-houraccommodation) / No  abode 2 Peoplestaying in a2.1 Overnightshelter night shelter HOUSELESS 3People in3.1 Homelesshostel accommodation for the homeless3.2 TemporaryAccommodation 4 Peoplein Women’s4.1 Women’sshelter Shelter accommodation 5 Peoplein 5.1Temporary accommodation / accommodation forreception centres (asylum) immigrants 5.2Migrant workers accommodation 6 Peopledue to be6.1 Penalinstitutions released from institutions 6.2Medical institutions 7 Peoplereceiving 7.1Residential care for homeless support (due topeople homelessness) 7.2Supported accommodation 7.3 Transitionalaccommodation  withsupport 7.4 Accommodationwith support INSECURE 8People living in8.1 Temporarilywith  insecurefamily/friends accommodation 8.2No legal (sub)tenancy 8.3 Illegaloccupation of building 8.4 Illegaloccupation of land 9 Peopleliving under9.1 Legalorders enforced (rented) threat of eviction9.2 Re-possessionorders (owned) 10 Peopleliving under10.1 Policerecorded incidents of threat of violencedomestic violence INADEQUATE 11People living in11.1 Mobilehome / caravan temporary / non-11.2 Non-standardbuilding standard structures11.3 Temporarystructure 12 Peopleliving in unfit12.1 Unfitfor habitation (under housing nationallegislation; occupied) 13 Peopleliving in13.1 Highestnational norm of extreme overcrowding overcrowding

5