This review of international and national perspectives on homelessness has revisited the policies and programs of the SAAP III Technical Paper (Manicaros and Lanyon, 1999). The current investigation explored recent developments with regard to research, policy and programs relating to homelessness. Unfortunately, despite an expanded understanding of the diversity of the homeless population, there has been limited progress in international responses to homelessness.
The discussion in Chapter 2 found that conceptualisations of homelessness have become more sophisticated and complex. Homelessness is increasingly viewed within a framework of social exclusion, a focus on 'new' homelessness has emerged, and homelessness is now conceived of as a pathway, career or trajectory.
One of the outcomes of these increasingly nuanced conceptualisations is that homelessness responses must incorporate the identified complexities and diversities of the relevant target groups. The programs and policies considered to be good practice are those that appropriately and adequately respond to a homeless population that we now know is not homogeneous. Good practice policies and programs involve combinations of prevention, early intervention, crisis intervention and long-term support strategies aimed at facilitating independence.
8.1 International Responses to Homelessness
This current review has found that there is a growing awareness of the diverse nature of homelessness as reflected in the progressively more detailed definitions of what constitutes homelessness. Advances in policy and program responses have not developed at the same pace. This is particularly the case in the EU where FEANTSA found the first round of National Action Plans for Social Inclusion (NAPs) deficient in producing solutions for homelessness that did not rely exclusively on housing. There was a notable absence of integrated solutions. FEANTSA identified seven countries (Sweden, Luxembourg, Ireland, Greece, Denmark, Finland, Italy) that were unable to offer examples of good practice that tackled the various dimensions of homelessness. For the remaining countries (Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Austria, France, Finland and the United Kingdom), a number of emerging programs have been acknowledged as possible examples of good practice, however it is too early to judge their effectiveness (FEANTSA 2002n). FEANTSA also commented that countries might not include all programs responding to homelessness in their NAPs, especially those with a local or regional focus. This may mean that there are local or regional programs that could be considered good practice but are unknown at a national level.
In the United Kingdom, the policy focus of the ODPM has been on specific parts of the homeless population through the creation of two units: the Rough Sleepers Unit and the Bed and Breakfast Unit. The common themes in these responses are consistent with those considered to be good practice. They include:
- Preventing homelessness, such as sustaining tenancies and financial management;
- Providing 'joined up' solutions at a government and local authority level;
- Providing employment and training strategies;
- Providing health care, particularly for addictions and mental health; and
- Providing housing by removing barriers to creating rental accommodation and finding better quality temporary accommodation (ODPM 2002a).
Both these programs have met their initial targets. The RSU reports that the numbers of rough sleepers fell by at least two thirds by 2002 (ODPM 2002a) and the Bed & Breakfast Unit has reduced the numbers of families living in B&Bs. Against these trends however, the numbers of older people sleeping rough has increased and the number of homeless persons using B&Bs has also increased, which demonstrates the complexity of attempting to target responses to specific groups.
The United States' 'Continuum of Care' programs are still considered to be good practice as they stress the importance of educational programs to build the social skills and employability of clients. This provision is seen to be a critical component in the construction of 'social independence'. Still the most widespread US solution is to address the symptom of homelessness and not the cause or pathways to homelessness. Another positive move that demonstrates commitment to the 'continuum of care' model is demonstrated through mandated programs that promote education for homeless youth.
[ top ]
8.2 Barriers to Effective Responses to Homelessness
There are a number of barriers to responding to homelessness. At the most basic this includes inadequately defining and enumerating homelessness. Definitions in the UK and US do not consider homelessness to be a 'pathway'. While FEANTSA does recognise complexity and the multi-faceted nature of homelessness, particularly homelessness as a continuum of situations, many countries in the EU have narrow understandings and definitions, where definitions exist. Narrow approaches ignore the range of factors related to homelessness and the fact that for many it is a dynamic process that may include sleeping rough, insecure tenure, chronic homelessness and, at times, being housed. Narrow definitions can also lead to the neglect of emerging important areas of homelessness, such as those involving migrants, refugees and asylum seekers.
It was also demonstrated by the review that while the complexity in issues associated with homelessness is starting to be recognised, there is very little understanding of the extent of homelessness in each country. For example, Appendix One is a comprehensive illustration of statistics of homeless people in the EU. It can be seen that there are substantial gaps in each country, with some unable to provide the most rudimentary estimates of homelessness at a national level (Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal and France) (Edgar Doherty et al 2002). Differing collection methods, time frames and measures make it impossible to fully appreciate the extent of homelessness or to compare countries and their policy responses. It also makes the application of empirical performance standards for identifying good practice impractical.
It is also very difficult to fully appreciate who is homelessness when a number of groups are excluded from accessing homeless services. For example, asylum seekers or migrants who do not have resident's permits do not have access to housing or to any other social or health services. Statistics in the UK are frequently based on being accepted as homeless (which means eligible, unintentional and in priority need). This would exclude those who choose not to present to a service and those not seen to be 'eligible' for services.
Another barrier relates to the allocation of resources to homelessness and the lack of statutory responsibility for homelessness. For example, some countries in the EU have a statutory responsibility for housing, but not for homelessness. Housing is but one of the responses to alleviating homelessness. Also, homelessness is not a primary policy area; it is located at the periphery of housing and social policy, thus responses may not be targeted or appropriate.
Australia is arguably at the forefront of the definition and enumeration of homelessness. Current definitions are evidence-based, robust and take into account homeless pathways as well as the age and cultural background of homeless people. However, some definitions have been introduced relatively recently and it remains to be seen whether service delivery can take into account these various conceptualisations of homelessness. While it is not yet possible to fully enumerate homeless populations, both the NDC and the Census provide useful and relatively comprehensive statistics on homeless people who are both service and non-service users.
The most significant recent development in Australia is the introduction of strategic approaches to policy and programs, such as a National Homelessness Strategy and various state homelessness strategies. There is some concern that the NHS is not a 'strategy' as such (that is, a long term plan) but a number of initiatives and programs. It is also a point of concern that the state responses do not appear to be linked to the national strategy. Most States do not have homelessness strategies. There is an opportunity to have a much more united response to homelessness in Australia, both in addressing the causes and in the immediate responses. One of the benefits of a more strategic response is the inclusion of evaluation as a requirement of program provision. This will enable both the Australian Government and State Governments to determine the success or otherwise of the strategies and demonstration projects. This then provides a clear set of benchmarks from which to assess program effectiveness and to develop further strategies and responses.
[ top ]
8.3 Punitive Responses to Homelessness
The review revealed that in some countries there is a shift towards 'punitive responses' to homelessness, in direct contradiction to the notion of social inclusion. In an increasing number of countries particular groups who are homeless are not defined as such. For example, migrants, asylum seekers, gypsies and itinerants are not considered to be homeless because their lifestyle is related to 'choice' or 'tradition' (as is the case in Greece and Spain). The result of this is that large groups in the homeless population are not considered to be deserving of assistance.
There is also a move towards denying access to housing as a punishment for anti- social behaviour. The United Kingdom anti-social behaviour Bills are considered to be an additional tool to deter anti-social behaviour before it becomes too problematic. What is of concern is that this approach does not take into account people with high and complex needs (such as those with mental illness or drug dependency) who are likely to need additional support and services, at least in the interim, to demonstrate behaviour that is appropriate and self-reliant.
Another issue is whether the use of priority need is promoting discrimination. There is evidence from the UK where homeless single people are not presenting to agencies because they feel that they will not be a 'priority need'. Closely linked with this is the notion of 'intentional' homelessness. Those who are deemed to be 'unintentionally' homeless are then seen to be in priority need. Clients require a level of sophistication to fully understand the definition of 'intentional' and whether they will be able to receive assistance. This has led to a culture of homeless people being judged or 'tested' and then found to be either deserving or undeserving of assistance. The result of this is an assessment process where people do not feel they can be frank with assessors about their housing careers.
An extension of this punitive orientation is the criminalisation of homelessness and of behaviours commonly associated with homelessness. A number of cities in the United States are developing legislation such as anti-panhandling and anti-sleeping laws. They remove homeless people from the public eye, sometimes through incarceration. This practice is widespread in cities with shortages of emergency shelter and affordable housing (Jerome et al. 2003). Another instance is the criminalisation of behaviours on the basis of the location of their conduct. Thus behaviours such as sleeping, bathing, lying, drinking or storing belongings, which would be 'lawful if performed in a home' (Lynch 2003), become unlawful when conducted in a public space. As an example, a council by-law in Darwin 'makes it an offence for a person to fall asleep in a public place between sunrise and sunset' (Goldie 2002). Goldie (2002) suggests that denying homeless people the right to sleep in public spaces 'is contrary to their human rights'. While a discussion regarding homelessness and human rights is outside the scope of this report, what is a concern is the 'arbitrary or selective enforcement of laws' (Lynch 2003). As Lynch (2003) notes, 'a homeless person...is far more likely to be 'moved on', harassed or fined for drinking in public than a non-homeless person consuming alcohol at a picnic'.
All of these punitive responses are clearly not in keeping with current Australian approaches to the definition of homelessness, and the policies and programs designed to support those in the community who are without a home.
[ top ]
8.4 Summary
Since the SAAP III Technical Paper there has been a significant increase in the recognition of the diversity and complexities of homelessness, particularly in the EU and the UK. However, this has not always translated into a service delivery response. The majority of the countries are developing strategies and responses (such as the NAPs) but it remains to be seen whether they are effective. There have been a number of wider changes that impact on homelessness legislation, policies and programs. For example, the devolving of policy responsibility in the United Kingdom has resulted in new legislation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This devolution has also resulted in the establishment of new commissions and the formulating of new strategies. There is also a growing reliance on non-government agencies, particularly in the United States, to respond to homelessness.
None of the policies or programs reviewed achieved full performance against all of the evaluative criteria for good practice (although some are relatively new so that information about their effectiveness is incomplete). Many performed well against some of the criteria. The discussion in the report shows clearly that fully effective programs and policies addressing homelessness need to address all of the criteria identified in the report. The national-level reviews on which the report had to be based may not have reported local or regional programs that might qualify as 'good practice'.
This review on international and national perspectives on homelessness provides an informative database to compare the extent and nature of homeless between Europe, the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia. It has shown that responses to homelessness vary considerably across countries. The review also illustrates that Australia's approaches to homelessness are progressive and well informed, demonstrating a detailed understanding of who is homeless and sophisticated program and policy responses to homelessness that are fair, equitable and supportive of diverse and complex needs.