Life on the Margins of the Housing Market

European Research Conference, Budapest, 17th September 2010UNDERSTANDING HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING EXCLUSION IN THE NEW

EUROPEAN CONTEXT

ENHR

Life on the Margins of the Housing Market

GYŐRI, Péter and FEHÉR, Boróka BMSZKI (www.bmszki.hu)

Budapest Methodological Centre of Social Policy and Its Services

Budapest, Hungary

Insert your logo here


EUROPEAN CONTEXTENHR


Conceptual

Category

Operational Category Generic Definition

ROOFLESS 1 People Living Rough 1.1 Rough Sleeping (no access to 24-

hour accommodation) / No abode2 People staying in a night

shelter

2.1 Overnight shelter

HOUSELESS 3 People in accommodation for

the homeless

3.1

3.2

Homeless hostel

Temporary Accommodation4 People in Women’s Shelter 4.1 Women’s shelter accommodation5 People in accommodation for

immigrants

5.1

5.2

Temporary accommodation /

reception centres (asylum)

Migrant workers accommodation6 People due to be released from

institutions

6.1

6.2

Penal institutions

Medical institutions7 People receiving support (due

to homelessness)

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

Residential care for homeless

people

Supported accommodation

Transitional accommodation with

support

Accommodation with supportINSECURE 8 People living in insecure

accommodation

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

Temporarily with family/friends

No legal (sub)tenancy

Illegal occupation of building

Illegal occupation of land 9 People living under threat of

eviction

9.1

9.2

Legal orders enforced (rented)

Re-possession orders (owned)10 People living under threat of

violence

10.

1

Police recorded incidents of

domestic violence INADEQUATE 11 People living in temporary /

non-standard structures

11.

1

11.

2

11.

3

Mobile home / caravan

Non-standard building

Temporary structure

12 People living in unfit housing 12.

1

Unfit for habitation (under national

legislation; occupied)13 People living in extreme

overcrowding

13.

1

Highest national norm of

overcrowding

What is homelessness?ETHOS 2006




What is homelessness? Hungarian definition

Social Law of 1993

Article 6 and Sections II and III of this Act a person not possessing a registered abode is homeless except for those whose registered abode is the homeless shelter.

Articles 7, 78, 84 and 89 of this Act people who spend their nights in public areas or in premises not built for residential purposes are homeless




Homeless people within the meaning of the Hungarian Social Act

1 People living rough 1.1 Public spaces or external space

2 People living in emergency accommodation

2.1 Night shelter

3 People living in accommodation for the homeless

3.13.23.3

Homeless hostelTemporary accommodationTransitional supported accommodation

4 People living in Women’s shelter 4.1 Women’s shelter accommodation

7 People receiving long-term (housing) support (due to their being homeless)

7.1 Residential care for older homeless people

11 People living in temporary/non-conventional structures

11.111.211.3

Mobile homesNon-conventional buildingTemporary structures

12 People living in unfit housing 12.1 Occupied dwellings unfit for habitation



Life on the Margins of the Housing MarketConceptual

Category

Operational Category Generic Definition

ROOFLESS 1 People Living Rough 1.1 Rough Sleeping (no access to 24-

hour accommodation) / No abode2 People staying in a night

shelter

2.1 Overnight shelter

HOUSELESS 3 People in accommodation for

the homeless

3.1

3.2

Homeless hostel

Temporary Accommodation4 People in Women’s Shelter 4.1 Women’s shelter accommodation5 People in accommodation for

immigrants

5.1

5.2

Temporary accommodation /

reception centres (asylum)

Migrant workers accommodation6 People due to be released from

institutions

6.1

6.2

Penal institutions

Medical institutions7 People receiving support (due

to homelessness)

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

Residential care for homeless

people

Supported accommodation

Transitional accommodation with

support

Accommodation with supportINSECURE 8 People living in insecure

accommodation

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

Temporarily with family/friends

No legal (sub)tenancy

Illegal occupation of building

Illegal occupation of land

9 People living under threat of

eviction

9.1

9.2

Legal orders enforced (rented)

Re-possession orders (owned)10 People living under threat of

violence

10.1 Police recorded incidents of

domestic violence INADEQUATE 11 People living in temporary /

non-standard structures

11.1

11.2

11.3

Mobile home / caravan

Non-standard building

Temporary structure12 People living in unfit housing 12.1 Unfit for habitation (under

national legislation; occupied)13 People living in extreme

overcrowding

13.1 Highest national norm of

overcrowding

What is homelessness?ETHOS in Hungarian perspective(according to the second definition)



Who are we thinking about?

Home-less people

People without flat

Effective homeless people

Rough sleepers

International definition of homelessness

Homeless definition before 1945 in Hungary

Recent homeless definition in Hungary




Data Collection

To understand the scope and depth of the problem...

Who should collect data?(should we count at all?)

How? Whom? Where?

state? service-providers? researchers?



Data collection: Hungary 1

Since 1999 annual survey in Budapest services (mostly hostels and shelters):

February 3rd working group (service provider initiative)

In 2005 headcount as well

Since 2005, other service-providers in other cities joined

What is it good for?

● Comparison of (concrete) service users from year-to-year – helps to plan the running of the service

● Comparison of services

We can find answers to concrete questions, and be surprised

We can compare data with other groups of the population

We can lobby for policy change based on evidence




Surprises● ¾ of the homeless move between various forms of accommodation, ¼

stable on the street or in the service – the role of services can be to minimize the time spent between flats

● 60% have some kind of a work income – it is growing – the working poor

● 20-25% are from Roma background (3x as much as national average)

● Health: growth in people with serious health problems, over 60 population not so different from rest of Hun population of that age group – importance of access to health care




Comparisons● 2002 – health issues

● 2007 – drug use (international)

● 2007 – What do people think of Budapest? - similar questions regarding attitudes towards the homeless

● 2009-2010 employment, finances

http://www.bmszki.hu/english




Findings of three research projects:

1. National census of 2001

2. February 3rd annual survey (national)

3. In-depth look at life of rough sleepers (Budapest and Debrecen)



National Census 2001 1People without homes on the basis of the census data[1]

Total number of people not living in housing units 260,653 persons

Of this: persons living in other inhabited housing units[2] 12,267 persons

People living in institutional households[3] 248,386 persons

of which:

in social institutions providing temporary accommodationof which: in homeless accommodation

5,851 persons3,934 persons

in workers’ hostels, mobile structures (barracks), accommodation for employees, etc.

10 ,000 pers.

in stations admitting refugees 1,697 persons

in healthcare children’s homes, hospitals 3,657 persons

in infant and children’s homes, corrective institutions, establishments for homeless children

128,000 persons

in social homes, hospices, etc. 62,000 persons

in detention facilities 17,000 persons

in military accommodation 13,000 persons[1] The housing and life situations described in the summary may overlap each other.[2] Other inhabited housing unit: Those non-housing units (shops, offices, workshops, warehouses, laundries, garages, press houses, etc.) that are used by at least one person for residing without any conversion, as well as temporary, mobile and other facilities (caravans, barges, railway cars, caves, huts, booths, wagons, bus bodies, circus cars, etc.).[3] Institutional households is the group of those living in institutions, and there are provided with community accommodation or accommodation and services, and at the theoretical time of the census they actually stayed at the place of registration, lived there permanently, the persons registered at the given addresses could be regularly contacted, and the most frequently spent their nights there, went to work or study from there. The place of the census can be the registered (permanent) address of the person concerned, the registered (temporary) place of residence, and even non-registered address.



National Census 2001 2

Total number of inhabited apartments3,723,509

apartments

Total number of uninhabited apartments341,144

apartments

Total number of households 3,862,702

households

Total number of people living in households 9,944,832 persons




Dwellers of apartments

People living in uncertain legal statuses[1]

privately owned rented apartment 99,445 apartments

households renting privately owned apartment106,833

households

Members of households renting privately owned apartment 243,581 persons

persons using households under any service title 77,846 persons

households under the legal title of sub-lease or bed lease 20,648 households

member of a household under the legal title of sub-lease 30,607 persons

member of a household under the legal title of bed lease 571 persons

apartment under s. c. “other” legal title 26,790 apartments

household under s. c. “other” legal title34,271

households

Member of a household under any „other” legal title[2] 57,217 persons[1] The uncertain legal status is obviously true for people living in privately owned, rented apartments, and some of those using apartments on favour, which mean actual housing uncertainties.[2] Other legal title: not owned, rented or received on service. E.g. the use of the entire apartment without paying any rental fee, the so-called dweller on favour (sofa surfer), or unauthorized dweller in the given apartment.



People living under the minimum housing circumstances

six or more people live in a single-room apartment 6,697 persons

two or more families or households live in a single apartment

of which: the apartment has two rooms at the maximum 91,160 apartments

living in such apartments 394,424 persons

family household with an ancestor[1] 192,212 households

living in a household of any “other” composition[2] 103,279 persons

apartment in a socially inappropriate environment[3] 5,759 apartments

apartment with walls from loam, wood or other materials 699,082 apartments

living in apartment with walls from loam, wood or other materials 1,730,578 persons

of which: apartments without proper foundations 189,941 apartments

living in such apartments 462,664 persons

water supply from outside the building plot 95,782 persons

toilet outside the apartment 113,477 persons

no bathroom or shower 806,962 persons

no bathroom and kitchen 89,667 persons

no bathroom and premises for cooking(in other words living in emergency or other apartments)

58,110 persons

no heating facilities 11,756 persons

[1] Multi-generation families cannot obviously be regarded as automatically excluded.[2] Household of other composition: where only such persons live who do not form a family, such as a) co-dwelling relatives forming a family (e.g. sisters and brother, single father or mother living only with the married and/or formerly married child, single grandparent living together with a grandchild of any family status), b) households of not related persons (e.g. friends), c) households consisting of relatives not forming a family and co-dwelling persons not being relatives (e.g. brother and sister with friends).[3] Socially inappropriate residential zone: the residential zones of residential buildings of deteriorated conditions, temporarily built sites, shacks, Gipsy streets, cave houses and similar units.




living in single-room apartments without conveniences 243,235 persons

“living“ in apartments of 19 sq m at the maximum 337,754 persons

apartments with partial or without conveniences, emergency and other apartments

674,803 apartments

of which: single-room 189,405 apartments

living in apartments with partial or without conveniences, emergency and other apartments

1,662,515 persons

of which: living in single-room 377,714 persons




10–12% of all the apartments are of substandard quality, without or just partly equipped with conveniences, or emergency apartments. In addition, more than 100 thousand people live at segregated colonies that are hardly suitable for housing. Furthermore, serious structural problems are faced: housing estates, old and deteriorating districts, housing units in depopulating villages with disadvantageous infrastructure, or block-type enclosures being hardly suitable for housing call for different solutions.




The affordability of housing costs represents serious problems for low-income groups, which is not solely associated with low incomes (unemployment, individual disadvantaged situations), but the differing costs of the various housing units (e.g. large costs carried by apartments in housing estates with district heating). In more than 20% of Hungarian households, the proportion of housing costs exceeds 30% of the volume of incomes. In 2003, cc. 500 thousand households had arrears threatening the security of housing, while only 180–200 thousand households received housing support.




The proportion of lease apartments owned by local governments dropped from 22% to 4% due to the privatization of apartments in the 1990s and the conditions of support–taxation–incentives, while the proportion of privately owned lease apartments was cc. 4%. (Meaning that the proportion of privately owned apartments is outstandingly large within the European Union, i.e. 92%.) Thus, the traditional housing base of social housing policy narrowed (lease apartments of local governments), and on the other hand there emerged no comprehensive system to guarantee the security of housing, and manage social and housing policy elements in a standard manner.



February 3rd Annual Survey 1

• Since 1999• survey • 03 February • annually

In 1999, 2,539 homeless people responded to the questions, 67 among them rough sleepers.2009, 7,270 homeless people (2,913 rough sleepers) In 2010, we reached 8,075 homeless individuals (3,090 rough sleepers)

In cooperation with the Menhely Foundationand the Oliver Twist Foundation




Egy évvel korábban (teljes, fő)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

egyéb lakás

hajléktalanszállás

intézmény

önálló lakás

közterület

„Where did you sleep on February 3rd one year ago?”

One year ago (individuals)

other

homeless serv.

institution

own apartment

outdoors




„Where did you sleep on February 3rd one year ago?”

Egy évvel korábban (szállók, %)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

egyéb lakás


intézmény

önálló lakás

közterület

Egy évvel korábban (közterület, %)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

egyéb lakás


intézmény

önálló lakás

közterület

Shelters/hostels (%)

Rough sleepers (%)

other

homeless serv.

institution

own apartment

outdoors




an average person spent

29 weeks in homeless services 8 weeks on streets 7 weeks in normal housing 4 weeks in hospital 1 week in prison

23% 65 %70%76%96%

„Where did you spend the 52 weeks of last year?”

Not at all




„Where did you sleep one year ago?”

Együtt

Éjjeli menhely

25%

Átmeneti szálló23%

Más lakhatás

18%

Saját lakás

5%

Egyéb9%

Közterül.20%

• own housing 5%

• other housing (usually sofa surfing) 18%

• homeless hostel 23%

• other 9%

• rough sleeping 20%

• shelter 25%




„Where did you sleep one year ago?” (according to sleeping place this year)

Most éjjeli menhelyenSaját lakás

5%

Egyéb5%

Közterül.9%

Éjjeli menhely

55%

Átmeneti szálló

8%

Más lakhatás

18%

Most közterületen

Közterül.46%

Átmeneti szálló

5%Éjjeli

menhely2%

Más lakhatás

21%

Saját lakás12%

Egyéb14%

Most átmeneti szállónEgyéb

5%Saját lakás4%

Közterül.5%

Éjjeli menhely

10%

Más lakhatás

14%


Now sleeping in shelter Now sleeping in hostel

Now sleeping rough

• saját lakás = own housing

• más lakhatás = other housing (usu sofa surfing)

• átmeneti szálló = hostel

• éjjeli menhely = shelter

• közterület = rough sleeping

• egyéb = other




„Where will you live one year from now?”

EgyüttSaját

lakásban14%

Más lakhatás

21%


Éjjeli menhely

15%

Közterül.10%

Egyéb21%

Együtt

Éjjeli menhely

25%


Más lakhatás

18%

Saját lakás

5%

Egyéb9%

Közterül.20%

Next year

Last year






• egyéb = other




Közterületen

Éjjeli menhely

2%

Átmeneti szálló

5%

Más lakhatás

21%

Saját lakásban

12%

Egyéb14%

Közterül.46%

Éjjeli menhelyen Saját lakásban

15%

Egyéb12%Közterület

en1%

Éjjeli menhely

36%

Más lakhatás

23%


Átmeneti szállón

Egyéb25%

Éjjeli menhely

2%

Közterül.1%


Más lakhatás

16%

Saját lakásban

16%

„Where will you live one year from now?”(according to sleeping place this year)

Now sleeping in shelterNow sleeping in hostel

Now sleeping rough






• egyéb = other




WRIGHT, BRADLEY R. (1998): Behavioral Intentions and Opportunities Among Homeless Individuals: A Reinterpretation of the Theory of Reasoned Action. IN: Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 4 (dec.) 271-286.

Intentions and optimism?



In-Depth Study of Rough Sleepers 1

Research leaders: Péter Győri + Péter Breitner + Zoltán Gurály

161 individuals in two cities (Budapest and Debrecen)

Structured interviews More detailed description of previous

housing situation Although focus more one life history

and current lifestyle

Why have you become homeless? (N=155)

Pers. %

Family problems 35 22,6

Divorce (ex-spouse stayed in shared housing)

32 20,6

Was forced to leave housing 17 11,0

Could not keep paying rent 10 6,5

Was evicted 15 9,7

Sold own housing 11 7,0

Housing had been provided by workplace, became unemployed

3 1,9

27,1

Released from state care/prison/hospital

15 9,7



In-Depth Study of Rough Sleepers 2

7 % never had own housing (whether owned or rented)

25 % was staying where growing up (mostly with family)

50% owned or rented own housing

35% lived in a one-room apartment (15% National Census)

13% lived in a one-room apartment before turning 18.

People tended to move down the housing ladder as approaching homelessness

They did not start from very high, either

„What was your last housing like (before you became homeless)?” (N=155)



Threat of loosing livelyhood and home

Puffer1

„workers’ hostels”

Puffer3

„prison”

Puffer4

„informal nets„

Puffer2„sublet or bed-let”

Puffers prevent becoming homeless, no contact with social services

The „modell” of social protection – before 1989



home-less people

People without flat

Effective homeless p.

Rough sleepers

Continuity: those living on the margins may shift to the edges, and then back

Change: who shifts from living on the margins to the edges of the margins



Threat of loosing livelyhood and home

Those who have lost livelyhood and home

Homeless services

The „modell” of social protection – after 1989

Attempt to catch people falling, with use of social services




Thank you for your attention.

[email protected]

[email protected]

Life on the Margins of the Housing Market

Documents

Transcript of Life on the Margins of the Housing Market