- Email: [email protected]
Homelessness: a proposal for a global definition and classification1
Habitat International 24 (2000) 475}484
Homelessness: a proposal for a global de"nition and classi"cation Sabine Springer* UNCHS (HABITAT), Tools & Statistics, Urban Secretariat, P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya
Abstract On the base of an analysis of the de"nitions of homelessness currently in use, "rst a change of the notion `homelessnessa to `houselessnessa is proposed. Houseless persons are then de"ned as those sleeping rough or using public or private shelters. To better understand the causes of houselessness, its environment is involved in this classi"cation under the notion of inadequate shelter. This comprises the following non-exclusive categories: risk of houselessness, concealed houselessness and substandard housing situations. This classi"cation has the advantage to be adaptable to regional and national di!erences, while at the same time providing a global basis for data collection and comparison. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Housing; Homeless; Housing de"nitions
1. Introduction `Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, (2)a (United Nations, 1948) is the beginning of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. An adequate shelter is not only a human right but the base for human relationships, the free development of the individual and for the playing of an active role in the social and cultural life of the community. The recent changes in the family structures, economic situations of individuals and states, the break down of social institutions and the increasing drug consumption in many regions
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 254-2-623911; Fax: 254-2-623080. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Springer). The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and not necessarily re#ecting the views of the United Nations Center of Human Settlements (UNCHS). 0197-3975/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 9 7 - 3 9 7 5 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 1 0 - 2
476
S. Springer / Habitat International 24 (2000) 475}484
have given additional importance to the problem of secure and minimum standard housing. Other factors adding to the problem are man or nature made disasters, depriving people of their homes. Because of the increasing population density the number of individuals hit by disaster is also increasing. In the `Global Report on Human Settlements 1996a (United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT), 1996) the problem of homelessness, the lack of information and the di$culty to "nd a global de"nition has been mentioned. Most of the rare statistics about homelessness come from Europe or Northern America, while in the developing world only India seems to study this part of the population. Therefore, an acute lack of statistical information about those without shelter has to be stated as well as a lack of appropriate data collection methods for the enumeration and estimation of the number of homeless persons. Being aware of the importance and the evolution of the phenomenon of people living without any form of shelter or in substandard housing units, UNCHS (HABITAT) intends to make homelessness one of the main issues of the third `Global Reporta due to be published in 2001. Reliable data about the homeless is a basic need of policy makers to "nd positive solutions, avoiding ignorance or suppression of the visible signs of homelessness. Therefore, a de"nition and classi"cation with regional adaptation which can be accepted globally is urgently required. Furthermore with the help of quantitative data and in-depth studies of the causes of homelessness policy solutions can be more sustainable in time and less emergency orientated. To comply with this need, information has been gathered about de"nitions of the homeless and relevant classi"cations currently in use. The present paper is presenting the results of these e!orts in the form of a uni"ed global de"nition of houselessness and a classi"cation of its environment, which allows for regional interpretation.
2. Problem speci5cation Every society has di!erent perceptions of individuals or households called `homelessa. The regional di!erences between the de"nitions of what is homelessness and who is considered homeless are therefore very important. These de"nitions are in#uenced by di!erent factors such as climatic patterns, traditions, culture, social infrastructure and welfare systems, "nancial and gender issues. The subject of homelessness is politically sensitive, because the choice of the de"nition of who is homeless determines who will be enumerated and who will in the end receive "nancial or other support (Peressini, McDonald & Hulchanski, 1995). Homelessness as the bottom end of the spectrum of housing situations is increasing and therefore indicating a de"cit on the service and supply level. Therefore, information about the homeless is of general interest to any government to develop a policy to target assistance to this poorest part of the population. Answers must be found to the questions: How many are they? Who are they? Why are they in this situation? For the time being the "nancial and other support is still mainly restricted to developed countries.
S. Springer / Habitat International 24 (2000) 475}484
477
To "nd these answers, the age and gender structure of the population without shelter is of high interest as well as their family status. Are they homeless because of a family break up, are they living alone or is a whole household homeless? Is there an important number of any minority groups, abused women or street children among them? The latter phenomenon is no longer only of importance in developing countries. The emerging incident of homelessness in rural areas could also be included in the analysis. The health conditions of individuals without adequate shelter are equally important. Mentally ill, chronically or not, drug consumers, might be over-represented in the population of the homeless. Tuberculosis has an easy target in these people as well as AIDS and other sexual transmitted diseases, because of the unhygienic conditions and the non-availability of prevention information and/or methods. Furthermore, it can be helpful for the policy formulation to know the economic situation of homeless persons, if they are unemployed and for how long and how often. To better understand the situation it is also important to have information on their strategies to earn money like begging, working in the informal sector, prostitution, trading of drugs, social welfare, etc. Disasters, either man or nature made, can also cause homelessness and their victims have to be included in any study about homelessness. Even if the range of solutions available to these persons might be di!erent (international help, insurance payment), they are nevertheless part of the population living in either inadequate housing situations or without a roof at all, and the government has the responsibility to help them to adequately replace the housing structure they have lost. All these personal and structural reasons for homelessness might have an in#uence on the security situation in urban settlements (e.g. drugs, prostitution, petty crime), but also on the general health situation (spread of tuberculosis and AIDS). Di!erent de"nitions of the minimum housing standard, varying by region, make it di$cult to "nd a global agreement on which housing situations should be included in the de"nition of homelessness. Concealed forms of homelessness and the fact that many people stay against their will with relatives or friends (`double-upa (Peressini et al., 1995)), should be studied in this context as well as insecure housing situations. Last but not least the word `homelessnessa itself is under discussion as an appropriate notion for the problem under study. These settings are the base on which a de"nition of homelessness has to be developed, which can be accepted by as many countries as possible. Method considerations will be taken into account at a later stage, as `2 most researchers agree on one fact: who we de"ne as homeless determines how we count thema. (Peressini et al., 1995). This shows the importance that should be accorded to the de"nition "nding process.
3. De5nitions and classi5cations of homelessness currently in use In the past, a set of de"nitions for homelessness has been developed in the UN System, used for example in the `Compendium of Human Settlement Statisticsa (United Nations Department for `Stra{enkinder in Zahlena. Retrieved December 1998 from the World Wide Web http://www.fehlhaber.de/kinder/zahlen.html.
478
S. Springer / Habitat International 24 (2000) 475}484
Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis } Statistics Division, UNCHS 1995). The expression `Homeless householda refers to `(2) households without a shelter that would fall within the scope of living quarters. They carry their few possessions with them sleeping in the streets, in door ways or on piers, or in any other space, on a more or less random basisa. (United Nations, 1998). This de"nition is taken from the UN Manual `Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censusesa, while about the same is used in South Africa (Hirschowitz, 1999). The main characteristics of this de"nition are the carrying of the possessions and the random sleeping place. This does not seem to be su$cient to describe the di!erent realities of homelessness in every country. Possessions can be placed with another person and people might sleep in a public shelter on a regular basis. Other countries have therefore widened this description to include people sleeping in institutions meant for those without any form of shelter. This is the case for de"nitions used in the USA, India (Dupont, 1998) and France (Marpsat & Firdion, 1996). For example: `The Census of India uses the notion of &houseless population', de"ned as the persons who are not living in &census houses', the latter referring to &a structure with roof '; hence, the enumerators are instructed `to take note of the possible places where the houseless population is likely to live such as on the roadside, pavements, in hume pipes, under staircases, or in the open, temple, mandaps, platforms and the likea (Census of India, 1991: 64)'' (Dupont, 1998, p. 5). This part of the population which includes those sleeping without shelter, in constructions not meant for habitation and in welfare institutions can be called literally homeless. This de"nition seems also to be the one mostly used for surveys (Peressini et al., 1995). In other cases, the de"nition of the homeless has been more detailed and o!ers a classi"cation. In Austria the risk component has been introduced to distinguish di!erent groups of homeless. The situation of being houseless can be acute, imminent or potential. This de"nition is about the same as the one used in a Canadian study (Peressini et al., 1995): literally homeless, moving in and out of homelessness, marginally housed and at risk of homelessness. A quality oriented de"nition has been developed by the European Federation of National Organizations working with the Homeless (FEANTSA) and has been cited in the Global Report 1996. `The Observatory has developed a four-fold classi"cation of housing situation which can be used to both de"ne the condition of homelessness and evaluate its extent: } roo#essness (i.e. sleeping rough); } houselessness (i.e. living in institutions or short-term &guest' accommodation); `Priority: Home! The Federal Plan to Break the Cycle of Homelessnessa, March 1994, p. 22: `In the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, the legislation which created a series of targeted homeless assistance programs, the Federal government de"ned ahomeless` to mean: (1) An individual who lacks a "xed, regular, and adequate night-time residence; (1) An individual who has a primary night-time residence that is: (i) A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelter, and transitional housing for the mentally ill); (ii) An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or (iii) A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodations for human beings. (3) This term does not include any individual imprisoned or otherwise detained under an Act of Congress or state law. BAWO Projekt BuK ro, OG stereich, Grundsatzprogramm, retrieved January 1999 from the World Wide Web http:// www.bawo.at.
S. Springer / Habitat International 24 (2000) 475}484
479
} insecure accommodation; and } inferior or substandard housinga (Daly, 1994). The de"nition used by the American Homeless Society is about the same. A problematic point of this de"nition is that the two last classes are overlapping as an accommodation might be at the same time insecure and substandard. In Austria (see footnote 5) other quality oriented criteria have been developed to classify housing situations. These criteria are the minimum standard of the housing unit, the infrastructure, which means schools, shopping opportunities and transport, psychological and health criteria and the juridical security of the housing situation. A last classi"cation used in a study about homelessness in the community of Australian aborigines takes the time component as criteria, therefore distinguishing situational or temporary, episodic and chronic forms of homelessness (Beavis, Klos, Carter & Donehant, 1997). Not only the de"nition and the classi"cation of homelessness is controversy worldwide, but also the use of the word itself. As home contains a component concerning having a family and friends, in an Indian study this word was dismissed and the notion `shelterlessa or `houselessa used instead. In Austria (see footnote 5) too, the word `houselessnessa or literally translated `dwellinglessnessa is preferred to the less neutral `homelessa. This shows that the word `homelessnessa, its de"nition and its classi"cation are not homogeneously used, but re#ects the di!erent realities of people without shelter in di!erent regions of the world. One can summarize that there are as many classi"cations and de"nitions of homelessness as there are di!erent point of views. A de"nition of homelessness might refer to a special housing situation, to a special minimum standard, to the duration and the frequency of a stay without shelter, to lifestyle questions, to the use of the welfare system and to the being part of a certain group of the population, to the risk of becoming houseless and to the possibility to move or not if desired.
Answer to a question about the de"nition of homelessness, retrieved from World Wide Web http://csf.colorado.edu/homeless/southard.html, Dee Southard's Home Page (International HOMELESS Discussion List and Archive) in February 1999. &&People de"ne homelessness in many di!erent ways. Our American Homeless Society de"nition is `any person, family or other group of persons without housing, or living in illegal or substandard housing conditionsa. A lot of people, like ranch or farm workers, live in the "elds they work in, in their cars, caves and dangerous shacks around farm animals and other health hazards, so we consider them homeless, too.'' &&While presenting the "ndings of this case study, we shall refer to the population surveyed by using equally the terms &houseless', &shelterless' or &pavement dwellers. But, we deliberately avoid use of the term &homeless' since it conveys not only a situation of deprivation of shelter but also the loss of familial moorings. This term is commonly used in the North American context where it corresponds to a certain social reality (FIRDION, MARPSAT, 1994), but, as will be shown in the case of Old Delhi, it is inappropriate in the context of Indian cities where houselessness does not necessarily imply homelessness. The concept of family has to go beyond the concepts of household and home related to a single residential unit, in order to integrate familial segments which can be spatially scattered, but linked between themselves by economic and emotional ties. Thus, we use here the terms &shelterlessness' or &houselessness' to refer to a concrete situation (the deprivation of physical shelter) in a speci"c place at a given time (in Delhi during the period of observation); yet, the situation currently observed in Delhi is not necessarily a permanent state and it may be compatible with the existence of a house and/or a home somewhere else (especially in the native village)'' (Dupont, 1998, p. 5).
480
S. Springer / Habitat International 24 (2000) 475}484
4. Proposal of a global de5nition and classi5cation As has been developed in the previous paragraphs, homelessness is a complex subject, even more as the homeless population is not static. On the contrary, it is characterized by a high mobility in time and place, and from one housing situation to another. To understand the dynamics of this population its environment has to be studied. It must be understood where these people come from, where they go, under which circumstances, and which are the deeper causes for their situation. As mentioned above the word `homelessa is not seen without controversy because it is not only restricted to the housing situation in the socio-economic sense. Prerogatives can be the result of the use of a word burdened with non-neutral meanings. The notion `houselessa, which has already been used by researchers and in surveys (Dupont, 1998) is therefore proposed as a substitute. People sleeping rough, which means in the street, in public places or in any other place not meant for human habitation are those forming the core population of the `homelessa. Those sleeping in shelters provided by welfare or other institutions will be considered as a part of this population. Persons or households living under these circumstances will furthermore be de"ned as &&houseless''. As this de"nition avoids the use of characteristics that may vary by regions (like climatic conditions, cultural or traditional variables) it should be acceptable to all countries. An individual with no access to housing will be considered as houseless all over the world. Another, not obvious side of the problem is the &&concealed houselessness''. Under this category fall all people living with family members or friends because they cannot a!ord any shelter for themselves. Without this privately o!ered housing opportunity they would be living in the street or be sheltered by an institution of the welfare system. This phenomenon is extremely di$cult to enumerate, above all in countries where the system of the extended family takes care of its members if necessary. Furthermore, more and new strategies of sharing housing units are developed as the pressure on the housing market increases (e.g. Eastern Europe) making the exercise of enumerating these situations even more challenging. Another group living under the threat of `houselessnessa are those facing the risk of losing their shelter either by eviction or the expiry of the lease, with no other possibility of shelter in view. Prisoners or people living in other institutions facing their release and having no place to go to are considered as part of this population. The notion we propose for this category is `risk of houselessnessa. Before becoming houseless many people have been living in &&substandard housing'' situations. Their way out of houselessness is also likely to pass by this sort of housing unit. Households with
The expression `not meant for human habitationa has to be de"ned by regional standards. If any temporary structure is involved, a staircase for example, the comparison with slum structures of the same kind can be used. If the structure is `out of placea, disturbs the use of the place as it has been intended, if eviction is more likely, the sanitary conditions worse or do not allow any hygienic activities at all, then the place can be classi"ed as not meant for human habitation. Still even with this clari"cation, the structures classi"ed under this notion will vary at least from region to region.
S. Springer / Habitat International 24 (2000) 475}484
481
a feeble and perhaps insecure income are likely to live in substandard housing units and might also experience houselessness because of economic di$culties. Their situation is somehow comparable with those without shelter, as they are all deprived of the human right of a housing situation without health hazards, allowing the full development of the individuals capacities. Therefore, the population living in substandard houses should be included in the study of houselessness as the population which feeds mostly the group of houseless, but which is also likely to receive them when they attempt to escape the situation. The three last de"ned categories are overlapping, but none includes the others as a whole. Therefore somebody can live in the house of a family member (in concealed houselessness), which must not be substandard. But a person might also live in the house of a relative, which is of substandard quality and who is himself in danger of being evicted. These not exclusive classes of housing situations will in future be summarized under the notion &&inadequate shelter'', which is used policy oriented in `The Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000a (United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), 1990) and in the Habitat Agenda (United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), 1997). This classi"cation of di!erent housing situations is, contrary to the above de"nition of houselessness, exposed to regional interpretations. The in#uence of characteristics linked to the geographic position of the country, like climatic conditions, but also socio-economic characteristics, traditions and other culture-based di!erences are therefore introducing regional variations in the de"nition of inadequate shelter. For example, a house without a heating possibility can be of very high standard in a country with mild climatic conditions, while in Northern Europe a housing unit which does not o!er this facility is not considered as o!ering adequate shelter from the cold winters. For technical reasons this de"nition has to be restricted to measurable elements. Therefore, we would propose the following statistical dexnition of inadequate shelter : a housing unit without a roof and/or walls that does not allow privacy; without adequate space, adequate security (legal and physical), adequate lighting, heating and ventilation and adequate basic infrastructure, such as water-supply, sanitation and waste-management facilities; without suitable environmental quality and health-related factors, and with housing costs that are not reasonable. The concrete de"nition of each element depends upon regional speci"cations because of the di!erent cultural, social, environmental and economic factors involved. This de"nition includes the two subclasses of concealed houselessness and the risk of becoming houseless.
`Adequate shelter means more than a roof over one's head. It also means adequate privacy; adequate space; physical accessibility; adequate security; security of tenure; structural stability and durability; adequate lighting, heating and ventilation; adequate basic infrastructure, such as water-supply, sanitation and waste-management facilities; suitable environmental quality and health-related factors; and adequate and accessible location with regard to work and basic facilities: all of which should be available at an a!ordable cost. Adequacy should be determined together with the people concerned, bearing in mind the prospect for gradual development. Adequacy often varies from country to country, since it depends on speci"c cultural, social, environmental and economic factors. Gender- and age-speci"c factors, such as the exposure of children and women to toxic substances, should be considered in this contexta. A problem comparable to this is the de"nition of `urbana and `rurala. The concept used allows every country to de"ne an area as rural or urban in consequence of their own perception. These de"nitions are therefore varying widely between countries, but the data collected is nevertheless used for global comparison.
482
S. Springer / Habitat International 24 (2000) 475}484
Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 tries to clarify the relations between the di!erent classes concerning houselessness as identi"ed above. Houselessness is in general part of the inadequate shelter situation, forming its bottom end. Its distinction in the present paper is meant to help the statistical analysis of movements in and out of houselessness. This splitting into two main categories is supported by three more arguments: "rst, these groupings re#ect the di!erent forms of actions to be developed by policy makers. Emergency actions are needed by the houseless part of the population, while those in inadequate shelter situations must be targeted by actions preventing the worsening of their situation and to eventually stabilize their insecure form of residence. The second fact supporting the splitting of the notion is based on data collection considerations. While the di!erent forms of inadequate shelter can be enumerated, even if it is di$cult, by census or surveys based on housing units, this is by de"nition not possible for the houseless population. To capture and enumerate this phenomenon new methods must be developed. The identi"cation of concealed houseless situations for data collection is also challenging on the methodological level. As a third argument for the splitting the fact can be advanced that for the statistical analysis the comparison between characteristics of the houseless population, the population living in inadequate housing situations and a general control group can be very useful. A deeper understanding of the causes of homelessness and inadequate shelter situations can be reached and eventually adequate solutions developed. Last but not least the interpretation of the notion of inadequate shelter will vary at the regional basis. While the de"nition of houselessness should be globally acceptable, the de"nition of what is a substandard housing unit will be di!erent at least for each region and must therefore be de"ned on a regional or even national level.
`Priority: Home! The Federal Plan to Break the Cycle of Homelessnessa, March 1994.
S. Springer / Habitat International 24 (2000) 475}484
483
5. Summary and conclusion After a review of de"nitions currently used in di!erent countries a proposal for a global de"nition and classi"cation has been developed. To take into account the mobility dynamics inherent in this population, a splitting into two di!erent population groups has been proposed. The core population, de"ned as houseless, consists therefore of people sleeping in the street or other places not meant for human habitation and those "nding shelter in institutions established by the public or private welfare system. The other group consists of persons living in inadequate shelter situations, this combining the categories of concealed houselessness (taking shelter with a relative or friend), the risk of houselessness (eviction, release from an institution) and substandard housing. Both groups are related by a frequent exchange of individuals. Inadequate shelter situations will have to be de"ned on a regional level in order to conform to the regional housing standards, while the de"nition of houselessness should be acceptable all countries. This splitting not only supports di!erent types of political actions, but also di!erent enumeration methods, which have to be developed in the near future, and deeper statistical analysis. As a conclusion it can be said that in the future this de"nition and classi"cation should allow to produce coherent and comparable data about people being houseless or living in inadequate shelter situations, and allows for the analysis of the deeper causes of houselessness.
References Beavis, M. A., Klos, N., Carter, T., & Douchant, C. (1997). Aboriginal peoples and homelessness. Executive Summary, Institute of Urban Studies, University of Winnipeg, retrieved from World Wide Web http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/ Research/Homeless/F}aborig.html in January 1999. Daly, M. (1994). The right to a home, the right to a future. The Third Report of the European Observatory on homelessness. Brussels: FEANTSA, (p. 2). Dupont, V. (1998). Mobility pattern and economic strategies of houseless people in Old Delhi. Communication au SeH minaire &Delhi Games, Use and control of the urban space: power games and actors' strategies, Session 2 Population movement and structuring of the urban space, 3}4 April 1998 (33 pp). Hirschowitz, R. (1999). Personal e-mail communication, 20.1.1999. Marpsat, M., & Firdion, J.-M. (1996). Devenir sans-domicile: ni fataliteH , ni hasard. Population and Socie& te& s vol. 313 Paris: INED. (p. 2). Peressini, T., McDonald, L., & Hulchanski, D. (1995). Estimating Homelessness ¹owards a Methodology for Counting the Homeless in Canada. Executive Summary, Centre for Applied Social Research Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto. Retrieved December 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/Research/Homeless/F}estima.html. United Nations (1948). ¹he ;niversal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25.1. United Nations (1998). Principles and Recommendation for Population and Housing Censuses. Statistical Papers, Series M No.67/Rev.1. Sales No. E.98.XVII.8 (p. 50). United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) (1990). The Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000. Nairobi UNCHS, Sale No. Hs/185/90 (p. 4). United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT) (1996) An ;rbanizing =orld: Global Report on Human Settlements 1996. Oxford: Oxford University press (p. 229).
484
S. Springer / Habitat International 24 (2000) 475}484
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) (1997). ¹he Istanbul Declaration and the Habitat Agenda with Subject Index. United Nations conference on human settlements (Habitat II), Istanbul, Turkey, 3}14 June 1996. United Nations Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis * Statistics Division. United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT) (1995). Compendium of Human Settlements Statistics 1995. 5th Issue, United Nations, New York, Sales No. E 95.XVII.11 (p. 38).
Homelessness: a proposal for a global de"nition and classi"cation Sabine Springer* UNCHS (HABITAT), Tools & Statistics, Urban Secretariat, P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya
Abstract On the base of an analysis of the de"nitions of homelessness currently in use, "rst a change of the notion `homelessnessa to `houselessnessa is proposed. Houseless persons are then de"ned as those sleeping rough or using public or private shelters. To better understand the causes of houselessness, its environment is involved in this classi"cation under the notion of inadequate shelter. This comprises the following non-exclusive categories: risk of houselessness, concealed houselessness and substandard housing situations. This classi"cation has the advantage to be adaptable to regional and national di!erences, while at the same time providing a global basis for data collection and comparison. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Housing; Homeless; Housing de"nitions
1. Introduction `Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, (2)a (United Nations, 1948) is the beginning of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. An adequate shelter is not only a human right but the base for human relationships, the free development of the individual and for the playing of an active role in the social and cultural life of the community. The recent changes in the family structures, economic situations of individuals and states, the break down of social institutions and the increasing drug consumption in many regions
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 254-2-623911; Fax: 254-2-623080. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Springer). The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and not necessarily re#ecting the views of the United Nations Center of Human Settlements (UNCHS). 0197-3975/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 9 7 - 3 9 7 5 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 1 0 - 2
476
S. Springer / Habitat International 24 (2000) 475}484
have given additional importance to the problem of secure and minimum standard housing. Other factors adding to the problem are man or nature made disasters, depriving people of their homes. Because of the increasing population density the number of individuals hit by disaster is also increasing. In the `Global Report on Human Settlements 1996a (United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT), 1996) the problem of homelessness, the lack of information and the di$culty to "nd a global de"nition has been mentioned. Most of the rare statistics about homelessness come from Europe or Northern America, while in the developing world only India seems to study this part of the population. Therefore, an acute lack of statistical information about those without shelter has to be stated as well as a lack of appropriate data collection methods for the enumeration and estimation of the number of homeless persons. Being aware of the importance and the evolution of the phenomenon of people living without any form of shelter or in substandard housing units, UNCHS (HABITAT) intends to make homelessness one of the main issues of the third `Global Reporta due to be published in 2001. Reliable data about the homeless is a basic need of policy makers to "nd positive solutions, avoiding ignorance or suppression of the visible signs of homelessness. Therefore, a de"nition and classi"cation with regional adaptation which can be accepted globally is urgently required. Furthermore with the help of quantitative data and in-depth studies of the causes of homelessness policy solutions can be more sustainable in time and less emergency orientated. To comply with this need, information has been gathered about de"nitions of the homeless and relevant classi"cations currently in use. The present paper is presenting the results of these e!orts in the form of a uni"ed global de"nition of houselessness and a classi"cation of its environment, which allows for regional interpretation.
2. Problem speci5cation Every society has di!erent perceptions of individuals or households called `homelessa. The regional di!erences between the de"nitions of what is homelessness and who is considered homeless are therefore very important. These de"nitions are in#uenced by di!erent factors such as climatic patterns, traditions, culture, social infrastructure and welfare systems, "nancial and gender issues. The subject of homelessness is politically sensitive, because the choice of the de"nition of who is homeless determines who will be enumerated and who will in the end receive "nancial or other support (Peressini, McDonald & Hulchanski, 1995). Homelessness as the bottom end of the spectrum of housing situations is increasing and therefore indicating a de"cit on the service and supply level. Therefore, information about the homeless is of general interest to any government to develop a policy to target assistance to this poorest part of the population. Answers must be found to the questions: How many are they? Who are they? Why are they in this situation? For the time being the "nancial and other support is still mainly restricted to developed countries.
S. Springer / Habitat International 24 (2000) 475}484
477
To "nd these answers, the age and gender structure of the population without shelter is of high interest as well as their family status. Are they homeless because of a family break up, are they living alone or is a whole household homeless? Is there an important number of any minority groups, abused women or street children among them? The latter phenomenon is no longer only of importance in developing countries. The emerging incident of homelessness in rural areas could also be included in the analysis. The health conditions of individuals without adequate shelter are equally important. Mentally ill, chronically or not, drug consumers, might be over-represented in the population of the homeless. Tuberculosis has an easy target in these people as well as AIDS and other sexual transmitted diseases, because of the unhygienic conditions and the non-availability of prevention information and/or methods. Furthermore, it can be helpful for the policy formulation to know the economic situation of homeless persons, if they are unemployed and for how long and how often. To better understand the situation it is also important to have information on their strategies to earn money like begging, working in the informal sector, prostitution, trading of drugs, social welfare, etc. Disasters, either man or nature made, can also cause homelessness and their victims have to be included in any study about homelessness. Even if the range of solutions available to these persons might be di!erent (international help, insurance payment), they are nevertheless part of the population living in either inadequate housing situations or without a roof at all, and the government has the responsibility to help them to adequately replace the housing structure they have lost. All these personal and structural reasons for homelessness might have an in#uence on the security situation in urban settlements (e.g. drugs, prostitution, petty crime), but also on the general health situation (spread of tuberculosis and AIDS). Di!erent de"nitions of the minimum housing standard, varying by region, make it di$cult to "nd a global agreement on which housing situations should be included in the de"nition of homelessness. Concealed forms of homelessness and the fact that many people stay against their will with relatives or friends (`double-upa (Peressini et al., 1995)), should be studied in this context as well as insecure housing situations. Last but not least the word `homelessnessa itself is under discussion as an appropriate notion for the problem under study. These settings are the base on which a de"nition of homelessness has to be developed, which can be accepted by as many countries as possible. Method considerations will be taken into account at a later stage, as `2 most researchers agree on one fact: who we de"ne as homeless determines how we count thema. (Peressini et al., 1995). This shows the importance that should be accorded to the de"nition "nding process.
3. De5nitions and classi5cations of homelessness currently in use In the past, a set of de"nitions for homelessness has been developed in the UN System, used for example in the `Compendium of Human Settlement Statisticsa (United Nations Department for `Stra{enkinder in Zahlena. Retrieved December 1998 from the World Wide Web http://www.fehlhaber.de/kinder/zahlen.html.
478
S. Springer / Habitat International 24 (2000) 475}484
Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis } Statistics Division, UNCHS 1995). The expression `Homeless householda refers to `(2) households without a shelter that would fall within the scope of living quarters. They carry their few possessions with them sleeping in the streets, in door ways or on piers, or in any other space, on a more or less random basisa. (United Nations, 1998). This de"nition is taken from the UN Manual `Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censusesa, while about the same is used in South Africa (Hirschowitz, 1999). The main characteristics of this de"nition are the carrying of the possessions and the random sleeping place. This does not seem to be su$cient to describe the di!erent realities of homelessness in every country. Possessions can be placed with another person and people might sleep in a public shelter on a regular basis. Other countries have therefore widened this description to include people sleeping in institutions meant for those without any form of shelter. This is the case for de"nitions used in the USA, India (Dupont, 1998) and France (Marpsat & Firdion, 1996). For example: `The Census of India uses the notion of &houseless population', de"ned as the persons who are not living in &census houses', the latter referring to &a structure with roof '; hence, the enumerators are instructed `to take note of the possible places where the houseless population is likely to live such as on the roadside, pavements, in hume pipes, under staircases, or in the open, temple, mandaps, platforms and the likea (Census of India, 1991: 64)'' (Dupont, 1998, p. 5). This part of the population which includes those sleeping without shelter, in constructions not meant for habitation and in welfare institutions can be called literally homeless. This de"nition seems also to be the one mostly used for surveys (Peressini et al., 1995). In other cases, the de"nition of the homeless has been more detailed and o!ers a classi"cation. In Austria the risk component has been introduced to distinguish di!erent groups of homeless. The situation of being houseless can be acute, imminent or potential. This de"nition is about the same as the one used in a Canadian study (Peressini et al., 1995): literally homeless, moving in and out of homelessness, marginally housed and at risk of homelessness. A quality oriented de"nition has been developed by the European Federation of National Organizations working with the Homeless (FEANTSA) and has been cited in the Global Report 1996. `The Observatory has developed a four-fold classi"cation of housing situation which can be used to both de"ne the condition of homelessness and evaluate its extent: } roo#essness (i.e. sleeping rough); } houselessness (i.e. living in institutions or short-term &guest' accommodation); `Priority: Home! The Federal Plan to Break the Cycle of Homelessnessa, March 1994, p. 22: `In the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, the legislation which created a series of targeted homeless assistance programs, the Federal government de"ned ahomeless` to mean: (1) An individual who lacks a "xed, regular, and adequate night-time residence; (1) An individual who has a primary night-time residence that is: (i) A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelter, and transitional housing for the mentally ill); (ii) An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or (iii) A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodations for human beings. (3) This term does not include any individual imprisoned or otherwise detained under an Act of Congress or state law. BAWO Projekt BuK ro, OG stereich, Grundsatzprogramm, retrieved January 1999 from the World Wide Web http:// www.bawo.at.
S. Springer / Habitat International 24 (2000) 475}484
479
} insecure accommodation; and } inferior or substandard housinga (Daly, 1994). The de"nition used by the American Homeless Society is about the same. A problematic point of this de"nition is that the two last classes are overlapping as an accommodation might be at the same time insecure and substandard. In Austria (see footnote 5) other quality oriented criteria have been developed to classify housing situations. These criteria are the minimum standard of the housing unit, the infrastructure, which means schools, shopping opportunities and transport, psychological and health criteria and the juridical security of the housing situation. A last classi"cation used in a study about homelessness in the community of Australian aborigines takes the time component as criteria, therefore distinguishing situational or temporary, episodic and chronic forms of homelessness (Beavis, Klos, Carter & Donehant, 1997). Not only the de"nition and the classi"cation of homelessness is controversy worldwide, but also the use of the word itself. As home contains a component concerning having a family and friends, in an Indian study this word was dismissed and the notion `shelterlessa or `houselessa used instead. In Austria (see footnote 5) too, the word `houselessnessa or literally translated `dwellinglessnessa is preferred to the less neutral `homelessa. This shows that the word `homelessnessa, its de"nition and its classi"cation are not homogeneously used, but re#ects the di!erent realities of people without shelter in di!erent regions of the world. One can summarize that there are as many classi"cations and de"nitions of homelessness as there are di!erent point of views. A de"nition of homelessness might refer to a special housing situation, to a special minimum standard, to the duration and the frequency of a stay without shelter, to lifestyle questions, to the use of the welfare system and to the being part of a certain group of the population, to the risk of becoming houseless and to the possibility to move or not if desired.
Answer to a question about the de"nition of homelessness, retrieved from World Wide Web http://csf.colorado.edu/homeless/southard.html, Dee Southard's Home Page (International HOMELESS Discussion List and Archive) in February 1999. &&People de"ne homelessness in many di!erent ways. Our American Homeless Society de"nition is `any person, family or other group of persons without housing, or living in illegal or substandard housing conditionsa. A lot of people, like ranch or farm workers, live in the "elds they work in, in their cars, caves and dangerous shacks around farm animals and other health hazards, so we consider them homeless, too.'' &&While presenting the "ndings of this case study, we shall refer to the population surveyed by using equally the terms &houseless', &shelterless' or &pavement dwellers. But, we deliberately avoid use of the term &homeless' since it conveys not only a situation of deprivation of shelter but also the loss of familial moorings. This term is commonly used in the North American context where it corresponds to a certain social reality (FIRDION, MARPSAT, 1994), but, as will be shown in the case of Old Delhi, it is inappropriate in the context of Indian cities where houselessness does not necessarily imply homelessness. The concept of family has to go beyond the concepts of household and home related to a single residential unit, in order to integrate familial segments which can be spatially scattered, but linked between themselves by economic and emotional ties. Thus, we use here the terms &shelterlessness' or &houselessness' to refer to a concrete situation (the deprivation of physical shelter) in a speci"c place at a given time (in Delhi during the period of observation); yet, the situation currently observed in Delhi is not necessarily a permanent state and it may be compatible with the existence of a house and/or a home somewhere else (especially in the native village)'' (Dupont, 1998, p. 5).
480
S. Springer / Habitat International 24 (2000) 475}484
4. Proposal of a global de5nition and classi5cation As has been developed in the previous paragraphs, homelessness is a complex subject, even more as the homeless population is not static. On the contrary, it is characterized by a high mobility in time and place, and from one housing situation to another. To understand the dynamics of this population its environment has to be studied. It must be understood where these people come from, where they go, under which circumstances, and which are the deeper causes for their situation. As mentioned above the word `homelessa is not seen without controversy because it is not only restricted to the housing situation in the socio-economic sense. Prerogatives can be the result of the use of a word burdened with non-neutral meanings. The notion `houselessa, which has already been used by researchers and in surveys (Dupont, 1998) is therefore proposed as a substitute. People sleeping rough, which means in the street, in public places or in any other place not meant for human habitation are those forming the core population of the `homelessa. Those sleeping in shelters provided by welfare or other institutions will be considered as a part of this population. Persons or households living under these circumstances will furthermore be de"ned as &&houseless''. As this de"nition avoids the use of characteristics that may vary by regions (like climatic conditions, cultural or traditional variables) it should be acceptable to all countries. An individual with no access to housing will be considered as houseless all over the world. Another, not obvious side of the problem is the &&concealed houselessness''. Under this category fall all people living with family members or friends because they cannot a!ord any shelter for themselves. Without this privately o!ered housing opportunity they would be living in the street or be sheltered by an institution of the welfare system. This phenomenon is extremely di$cult to enumerate, above all in countries where the system of the extended family takes care of its members if necessary. Furthermore, more and new strategies of sharing housing units are developed as the pressure on the housing market increases (e.g. Eastern Europe) making the exercise of enumerating these situations even more challenging. Another group living under the threat of `houselessnessa are those facing the risk of losing their shelter either by eviction or the expiry of the lease, with no other possibility of shelter in view. Prisoners or people living in other institutions facing their release and having no place to go to are considered as part of this population. The notion we propose for this category is `risk of houselessnessa. Before becoming houseless many people have been living in &&substandard housing'' situations. Their way out of houselessness is also likely to pass by this sort of housing unit. Households with
The expression `not meant for human habitationa has to be de"ned by regional standards. If any temporary structure is involved, a staircase for example, the comparison with slum structures of the same kind can be used. If the structure is `out of placea, disturbs the use of the place as it has been intended, if eviction is more likely, the sanitary conditions worse or do not allow any hygienic activities at all, then the place can be classi"ed as not meant for human habitation. Still even with this clari"cation, the structures classi"ed under this notion will vary at least from region to region.
S. Springer / Habitat International 24 (2000) 475}484
481
a feeble and perhaps insecure income are likely to live in substandard housing units and might also experience houselessness because of economic di$culties. Their situation is somehow comparable with those without shelter, as they are all deprived of the human right of a housing situation without health hazards, allowing the full development of the individuals capacities. Therefore, the population living in substandard houses should be included in the study of houselessness as the population which feeds mostly the group of houseless, but which is also likely to receive them when they attempt to escape the situation. The three last de"ned categories are overlapping, but none includes the others as a whole. Therefore somebody can live in the house of a family member (in concealed houselessness), which must not be substandard. But a person might also live in the house of a relative, which is of substandard quality and who is himself in danger of being evicted. These not exclusive classes of housing situations will in future be summarized under the notion &&inadequate shelter'', which is used policy oriented in `The Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000a (United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), 1990) and in the Habitat Agenda (United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), 1997). This classi"cation of di!erent housing situations is, contrary to the above de"nition of houselessness, exposed to regional interpretations. The in#uence of characteristics linked to the geographic position of the country, like climatic conditions, but also socio-economic characteristics, traditions and other culture-based di!erences are therefore introducing regional variations in the de"nition of inadequate shelter. For example, a house without a heating possibility can be of very high standard in a country with mild climatic conditions, while in Northern Europe a housing unit which does not o!er this facility is not considered as o!ering adequate shelter from the cold winters. For technical reasons this de"nition has to be restricted to measurable elements. Therefore, we would propose the following statistical dexnition of inadequate shelter : a housing unit without a roof and/or walls that does not allow privacy; without adequate space, adequate security (legal and physical), adequate lighting, heating and ventilation and adequate basic infrastructure, such as water-supply, sanitation and waste-management facilities; without suitable environmental quality and health-related factors, and with housing costs that are not reasonable. The concrete de"nition of each element depends upon regional speci"cations because of the di!erent cultural, social, environmental and economic factors involved. This de"nition includes the two subclasses of concealed houselessness and the risk of becoming houseless.
`Adequate shelter means more than a roof over one's head. It also means adequate privacy; adequate space; physical accessibility; adequate security; security of tenure; structural stability and durability; adequate lighting, heating and ventilation; adequate basic infrastructure, such as water-supply, sanitation and waste-management facilities; suitable environmental quality and health-related factors; and adequate and accessible location with regard to work and basic facilities: all of which should be available at an a!ordable cost. Adequacy should be determined together with the people concerned, bearing in mind the prospect for gradual development. Adequacy often varies from country to country, since it depends on speci"c cultural, social, environmental and economic factors. Gender- and age-speci"c factors, such as the exposure of children and women to toxic substances, should be considered in this contexta. A problem comparable to this is the de"nition of `urbana and `rurala. The concept used allows every country to de"ne an area as rural or urban in consequence of their own perception. These de"nitions are therefore varying widely between countries, but the data collected is nevertheless used for global comparison.
482
S. Springer / Habitat International 24 (2000) 475}484
Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 tries to clarify the relations between the di!erent classes concerning houselessness as identi"ed above. Houselessness is in general part of the inadequate shelter situation, forming its bottom end. Its distinction in the present paper is meant to help the statistical analysis of movements in and out of houselessness. This splitting into two main categories is supported by three more arguments: "rst, these groupings re#ect the di!erent forms of actions to be developed by policy makers. Emergency actions are needed by the houseless part of the population, while those in inadequate shelter situations must be targeted by actions preventing the worsening of their situation and to eventually stabilize their insecure form of residence. The second fact supporting the splitting of the notion is based on data collection considerations. While the di!erent forms of inadequate shelter can be enumerated, even if it is di$cult, by census or surveys based on housing units, this is by de"nition not possible for the houseless population. To capture and enumerate this phenomenon new methods must be developed. The identi"cation of concealed houseless situations for data collection is also challenging on the methodological level. As a third argument for the splitting the fact can be advanced that for the statistical analysis the comparison between characteristics of the houseless population, the population living in inadequate housing situations and a general control group can be very useful. A deeper understanding of the causes of homelessness and inadequate shelter situations can be reached and eventually adequate solutions developed. Last but not least the interpretation of the notion of inadequate shelter will vary at the regional basis. While the de"nition of houselessness should be globally acceptable, the de"nition of what is a substandard housing unit will be di!erent at least for each region and must therefore be de"ned on a regional or even national level.
`Priority: Home! The Federal Plan to Break the Cycle of Homelessnessa, March 1994.
S. Springer / Habitat International 24 (2000) 475}484
483
5. Summary and conclusion After a review of de"nitions currently used in di!erent countries a proposal for a global de"nition and classi"cation has been developed. To take into account the mobility dynamics inherent in this population, a splitting into two di!erent population groups has been proposed. The core population, de"ned as houseless, consists therefore of people sleeping in the street or other places not meant for human habitation and those "nding shelter in institutions established by the public or private welfare system. The other group consists of persons living in inadequate shelter situations, this combining the categories of concealed houselessness (taking shelter with a relative or friend), the risk of houselessness (eviction, release from an institution) and substandard housing. Both groups are related by a frequent exchange of individuals. Inadequate shelter situations will have to be de"ned on a regional level in order to conform to the regional housing standards, while the de"nition of houselessness should be acceptable all countries. This splitting not only supports di!erent types of political actions, but also di!erent enumeration methods, which have to be developed in the near future, and deeper statistical analysis. As a conclusion it can be said that in the future this de"nition and classi"cation should allow to produce coherent and comparable data about people being houseless or living in inadequate shelter situations, and allows for the analysis of the deeper causes of houselessness.
References Beavis, M. A., Klos, N., Carter, T., & Douchant, C. (1997). Aboriginal peoples and homelessness. Executive Summary, Institute of Urban Studies, University of Winnipeg, retrieved from World Wide Web http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/ Research/Homeless/F}aborig.html in January 1999. Daly, M. (1994). The right to a home, the right to a future. The Third Report of the European Observatory on homelessness. Brussels: FEANTSA, (p. 2). Dupont, V. (1998). Mobility pattern and economic strategies of houseless people in Old Delhi. Communication au SeH minaire &Delhi Games, Use and control of the urban space: power games and actors' strategies, Session 2 Population movement and structuring of the urban space, 3}4 April 1998 (33 pp). Hirschowitz, R. (1999). Personal e-mail communication, 20.1.1999. Marpsat, M., & Firdion, J.-M. (1996). Devenir sans-domicile: ni fataliteH , ni hasard. Population and Socie& te& s vol. 313 Paris: INED. (p. 2). Peressini, T., McDonald, L., & Hulchanski, D. (1995). Estimating Homelessness ¹owards a Methodology for Counting the Homeless in Canada. Executive Summary, Centre for Applied Social Research Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto. Retrieved December 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/Research/Homeless/F}estima.html. United Nations (1948). ¹he ;niversal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25.1. United Nations (1998). Principles and Recommendation for Population and Housing Censuses. Statistical Papers, Series M No.67/Rev.1. Sales No. E.98.XVII.8 (p. 50). United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) (1990). The Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000. Nairobi UNCHS, Sale No. Hs/185/90 (p. 4). United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT) (1996) An ;rbanizing =orld: Global Report on Human Settlements 1996. Oxford: Oxford University press (p. 229).
484
S. Springer / Habitat International 24 (2000) 475}484
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) (1997). ¹he Istanbul Declaration and the Habitat Agenda with Subject Index. United Nations conference on human settlements (Habitat II), Istanbul, Turkey, 3}14 June 1996. United Nations Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis * Statistics Division. United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT) (1995). Compendium of Human Settlements Statistics 1995. 5th Issue, United Nations, New York, Sales No. E 95.XVII.11 (p. 38).