EN

(...PICT...)|COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES|

Brussels, 5.2.2010

SEC(2010) 99 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Country fiches

accompanying document to the

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Proposal for the Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2010

COM(2010)25 final SEC(2010)98

Table of contents

BELGIUM 4

BULGARIA 8

CZECH REPUBLIC 11

DENMARK 15

GERMANY 20

ESTONIA 24

IRELAND 30

GREECE 34

SPAIN 37

FRANCE 41

ITALY 46

CYPRUS 50

LATVIA 53

LITHUANIA 57

LUXEMBURG 61

HUNGARY 65

MALTA 69

NETHERLANDS 73

AUSTRIA 77

POLAND 81

PORTUGAL 85

ROMANIA 89

SLOVENIA 92

SLOVAKIA 95

FINLAND 100

SWEDEN 104

UNITED KINGDOM 108

BELGIUM

1. CURRENT SITUATION

The population of Belgium, which stood at 10.85 million at 1 August 2009, grew 0.8% from 1 January 2007 and 1 January 2008 (the strongest growth since 1965). The average size of households in 2007, which was unchanged from 2006, was 2.31 persons (it was smaller in Brussels at 2.04 and larger in Flanders at 2.37). The distribution among types of household also remained constant at around 27% for single-person households and around 6% for families. In 2008 there were nearly 5 million dwellings in Belgium. Single-family houses make up the very large majority (75.3% in 2001), except in Brussels (where they comprise 28.2%). The percentage of households owning their dwelling is very high (69.5% in 2001), with the exception of Brussels (42.7%). No national statistics are available on the number of empty dwellings, but in 2006 the water distribution agency in Brussels put the number in Brussels at 15 000 in 2006.

The risk of poverty is nearly three times higher for a tenant than for someone who owns the property they live in (10.2% against 28.4%) and is over three times higher in Wallonia. Those at risk of poverty are twice as likely to be unsatisfied with their accommodation than the population as a whole. 17% of the population live in housing with a structural problem, which is close to the EU average (18.1%). The percentage of the population for whom the cost of accommodation exceeds 40% of their disposable income is 3.2% (2007) for owners, 4.5% for owners with a mortgage, 11.4% for tenants paying a moderate rent or who pay no rent and 33% for ‘normal’ tenants. Only the latter category are in a clearly less favourable situation than the European average (25.4%). The median percentage of the share of disposable income (with or without a housing allowance) allotted to accommodation is 17%, which is much lower than in Germany or the Netherlands. The overcrowding rate is very significantly below the European average (5.7% against 16.9%); nonetheless, the rate rises for tenants renting at market prices (11.6% against 17.6% for the EU) and is higher than in Germany and the Netherlands in almost all cases. Lastly, the purchase price of dwellings doubled from 2000 to 2008.

There are no national statistics on homelessness, probably because of Belgium’s complex institutional set-up. Flanders is the only region with a fairly uniform, comprehensive and effective registration system ( Tellus ). However, the number of homeless in Belgium can be estimated at 17 000, although the reliability of such figures varies significantly with the region. A recent survey in Brussels puts the number of homeless in the capital at 2 766 while regional surveys have estimated the number at 18 000 in Wallonia and 10 315 in Flanders. According to a survey of centres publics d'aide sociale (CPAS – municipal public social assistance centres) under way, young people and those with psychiatric problems or problems of dependency appear to make up a growing percentage of the homeless. A Flanders Region study covering the period 1982-2002 also notes a clear increase in women, non-nationals and persons in debt among the homeless in Belgium.

2. POLICY FRAMEWORK – GOVERNANCE

The players are the political authorities at national, regional or community level, the municipalities (which run the CPAS), charities (which may be subsidised), specialised bodies such as the Centra voor Algemeen Welzijnswerk (CAW – centres for general welfare work), assisted by the Steunpunten Algemeen Welzijnswerk (SAW – support centre for general welfare work) in Flanders, social housing companies, rental agencies, and organisations of owners which rent out the latters’ properties for them. Consultation bodies, such as the Concertation bruxelloise de l'aide aux sans-abris and La Strada in Brussels, exist at each level. All actors also take part in implementing the national social inclusion action plan ( PAN-Inclusion ).

Housing and homelessness are to a very great extent the responsibility of the regions (housing and exclusion) and the communities (homeless), while the federal authorities remain mainly responsible for legislation on rents, taxation, urban policy and policy on poverty (emergency accommodation); major land reserves belong to certain State departments. The CPAS (municipalities) are the most important public actors in the system. This complex situation has the advantage of subsidiarity but calls for extensive coordination of the actors. An interministerial conference on coordinating policies applied took place in 2005 but did not bring very tangible results. A cooperation agreement between the Federal State, the Communities and the Regions on continuity of policy on poverty ( http://www.luttepauvrete.be/accordcooperation.htm ) was approved by Belgium’s six Parliaments in 1998.

The right to lead a life in dignity and the right to housing are recognised by the Constitution (Article 23) and are reflected in regional legislation. Nevertheless, the right to lead a life in dignity, which is implemented by the CPAS, is not enforceable. Moreover, rents are not subject to general surveillance.

The major national policy framework is the Belgian social inclusion plan. Its general goal is to offer decent, adequate accommodation to all and it approaches the housing issue from the viewpoint of both access and quality. Its target for 2010 is a national percentage of social housing in the rental sector equal to 8% of the total number of households (compared with 6.2% in 2006); this focus on social housing is criticised by the experts, who would prefer a reference to a general accessibility target. The ‘housing’ programme of the national urban policy also has access and quality as priorities; a total budget of €69 million has been set aside for investment programmes at local level. The regions and communities have set other, generally unquantified, targets with the stress on the supply of decent, accessible housing (without any target for the homeless). Various programmes exist:

(1) Flanders: establishment of supplementary social housing through the development of public-private partnerships; supported accommodation and introduction of a rent allowance scheme;

(2) Wallonia: aid for the establishment of community housing; improvement in quality; development of public-private partnerships; investment in public housing; utilisation of empty property and supply of accommodation vouchers;

(3) German-speaking Community: aid for establishment of emergency accommodation, accommodation designed to encourage residents’ social inclusion and transitional accommodation;

(4) Brussels: easier access to private rental accommodation (with planned supply of 5 000 extra dwellings, reform of rent allowance, trial with subsidised rent); support for homeless centres; training of social workers (assistance to homeless in underground); supported accommodation and aid for access to property ownership.

Very little information is provided on spending at national and regional level.

3. Accessibility and quality of housing

3.1. Access

In terms of prevention, joint landlord/tenant committees were set up in 2007 in three cities to regulate relations between landlords and tenants, mediate in conflicts and establish a scale of rents. The trial does not appear to have been followed up. Furthermore, the judiciary must notify the CPAS where persons are under threat of eviction. In Flanders and in Brussels homeless reception centres and supported or guidance centres also play a part in forestalling the eviction of social tenants. Rent allowance mechanisms also play a role.

Various measures are applied to stimulate the supply of housing for persons with a low income, such as increasing the stock of low-cost housing (new buildings and renovation), rent allowances and removal and installation allowances. Construction of new housing is encouraged by the imposition of town-planning rules, support for social housing agencies, management of private housing by the latter (and incentives for owners to entrust their property to them) and the establishment of public-private partnerships.

In 2006 Belgium had 62 social housing units for every 1 000 households, not including low-cost accommodation belonging to local authorities or entrusted by private owners to public bodies such as agences immobilières sociales (AIS – social real-estate agencies). These had 2 000 housing units in Brussels and 3 000 in Wallonia. The supply of low-cost housing seems to be far from adequate: in 2006 the waiting list was equivalent to 60.5% of social accommodation existing across the country; it was less in Wallonia (45.6%) but much more in Brussels (79.2%). Flanders adopted a decree in March 2009 setting a target of an extra 43 000 social housing units by 2020 (in collaboration with the private sector). Conditions of access to social housing vary with the region: Flanders recently made its criteria stricter.

In terms of access to privately owned accommodation, Flanders has gradually extended the rent subsidy system in the last few years. Social housing agencies in Flanders rent accommodation on the private market and sublet it. Aid towards payment of rent guarantees has been introduced. Wallonia is seeking to develop public-private partnerships, the establishment of collective accommodation managed by approved private associations, the utilisation of empty private property and the supply of accommodation vouchers. Although it has been the subject of discussion for several years, no system for controlling rents (currently a federal competence) has yet been introduced and this seems to be holding back the introduction of a rent-allowance mechanism on a wide scale.

To help former inmates on their release from penal establishments or asylums, the preference is for collective accommodation (independent living units with communal areas). In Brussels a system called Concertation de l'aide aux justiciables was set up in 2006 to coordinate assistance to such persons.

Emergency accommodation (subject to an eight months maximum), managed by the CPAS and financed by the National Lottery, has been in place since 2006 at federal level, with assistance in searching for long-term housing. Similar systems, at times for certain target groups (such as battered housewives) also exist at regional level.

The supply of supported accommodation is a regional responsibility. In Flanders the service is seen as an intermediate stage between residential accommodation and independent housing. The support is flexible in form and degree: special home services may be provided. The regions are also responsible for finding long-term solutions. Flanders has designated seven pilot regions since 2002: bodies help the homeless to find social housing and to become autonomous.

Certain services are there for specific target groups in Brussels (shelters for women, who may also have priority access to social accommodation) and in Flanders (special temporary accommodation for young people, men and women; accommodation for battered housewives, non-nationals and victims of human trafficking). Lastly, ensuring a social mix is a political goal for each region.

3.2. Quality

The regions, which are responsible in this area, have set binding quality criteria and clearly defined legal categories for housing. Progress in improving quality is encouraged by positive and dissuasive incentives: an administrative authorisation is required in Flanders and Brussels for renting out certain accommodation against which there is a question mark. Regional and federal urban regeneration programmes have been put in place and renovation premiums introduced. No information has been provided on Structural Fund assistance in this area.

4. Homelessness and access to services

No clearly defined active inclusion strategy seems to exist. However, social workers within the social welfare services monitor pathways to integration. A comprehensive approach to the problems encountered (education, training, childcare and employment) and networking of the actors involved are promoted. Work experience is offered in the social economy sector (for example, via the wep-plus plan in Flanders) and certain social groups, e.g. women ( M/V United in Flanders) and immigrants ( inburgering ), are given priority. Flanders also holds training courses in ICT ( AKMC ).

Access to health care is facilitated through medical centres open to all and local nurses in Brussels and local health centres in Flanders ( wijkgezondheidscentra ), projects in place since 2007 to combat drug, alcohol and tobacco abuse, particularly among disadvantaged groups and free vaccination campaigns and campaigns to promote a healthy diet. One of the CPAS’ tasks is also to facilitate access to care.

Quality standards have been laid down by law in Flanders on the quality of services.

5. Monitoring and evaluation

Belgium still seems to be looking for a coherent, coordinated policy on homelessness. The Service de lutte contre la pauvreté , a body set up by the interparliamentary agreement of 1998 (see above) to combat poverty, has the task of making recommendations, while the regions have published reports and convene coordination meetings of the actors. Bodies like La Strada in Brussels help with the work of gathering the necessary data, which are still incomplete; in Flanders the CAW are under an obligation to provide the authorities with data on registration each year.

BULGARIA

1. Current situation

While there is no official definition of ''homelessness'' and ''housing exclusion'', an unofficial definition entered standard use in the last couple of decades and includes only those citizens who are clearly without shelter: people who sleep on the streets, in parks and in other public places. Information on housing conditions and the housing fund in Bulgaria is collected via the regular census of the population (last one in 2001). Following a review of the ETHOS typology, it was estimated that the National Statistical Institute (NSI) can provide data for some of the 13 operational categories but only under the more generalised category of primitive dwellings. The Bulgarian Academy of Sciences suggested a typology which was not accepted by the government and which, to a certain extent, corresponds to the ETHOS one. Experts on housing tend already to use the ETHOS typology, albeit informally. Relevant national statistical data does not exist at the moment and, as a consequence, Eurostat is limited in the data it can provide for Bulgaria. The next national census is foreseen for March 2011 at which point data in compliance with Eurostat requirements and the ETHOS typology should be available.

According to data from national statistics National Statistical Institute , the housing stock (as of 31.12.2008) amounts to 3 767 081 d wellings , 2 391 516 of which are in the cities and 1 375 565 in villages. The rate of d wellings availability in 2008 is 495 d wellings per 1000 people with an average of 2.02 people living in one dwelling (2.26 in the cities, 1.60 in the villages). The average floorage per person for the country is 20.35 square meters –17.87 square meters in cities and 26.45 square meters in the villages.[1]

National Statistical Institute

As per research data in 2005 Homeless and Homelessness in Bulgaria , Iskra Dandolova, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - 2005 - http://www.cuhp.org/admin/EditDocStore/Dandolova.pdf , the allocation of the available housing stock was as follows: 96.8% private and 3.2% public (municipal or state). The share of the latter was the highest in and around the capital (6%) and the big cities (3.6%).[2]

Homeless and Homelessness in Bulgaria , Iskra Dandolova, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - 2005 - http://www.cuhp.org/admin/EditDocStore/Dandolova.pdf

There remains a serious need for construction of financially-affordable d wellings and mass renovation of the existing housing stock. Data shows that more than half of the investment in construction is in residential buildings. The constructed buildings are primarily in the private sector with the share of public investment barely exceeding 10%. Housing generally is considered to be a private issue and not a concern of the authorities. T he municipalities have legally-defined responsibilities regarding the care for the housing stock but have no resources for its maintenance. Nevertheless, they are entitled to undertake investment projects for renovation and restructuring of blocks of flats. At the same time, the National housing strategy National housing strategy - http://www.mrrb.government.bg/index.php?lang=bg&do=law&type=4&id=220 shows that only 3% of all blocks are State or municipal property.[3]

National housing strategy - http://www.mrrb.government.bg/index.php?lang=bg&do=law&type=4&id=220

6. Overall policy framework and governance

The two most important levels of policy management are the national and municipal ones. At national level, the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works (regarding the implementation of the national housing policy) and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, State Agency for Child Protection and Agency for Social Assistance (regarding the social inclusion aspects) are the main stakeholders. The government adopted in 2004 the National Housing Strategy which, although not limited in time, does not contain clear measurable and comparable outcomes. Moreover, there is no evidence of what funding has been allocated to implement the strategy and what has been achieved as regard targets for the last five years of implementation.

In reality, responsibility to undertake action regarding the needs of housing of homeless people rests at municipal level. While each municipality should have its own strategy, permanent lack of financial resources does not allow for any real action on the ground.

It remains unclear to what extent the central level supports the development and most importantly the implementation of the municipal strategies on homelessness within a concise policy and especially those in big cities where the most vulnerable appear to reside.

In relation to the Roma population in particular, there is an operational strategic document related to real funding - the National Programme for Improvement of the Housing Conditions of the Roma in Bulgaria until 2015 which was adopted by the government in 2006. The programme involves ambitious measures and not insignificant financial resources - 1.26 billion BGN until 2015 - from the State and municipal budgets and EU Structural Funds. Funds absorption, however, is extremely low (only 10 million BGN for 2007 and 20 million BGN in 2008 were used).

It is clear that, at national level, the authorities should take political commitment in the field of housing policy and homelessness which, at present, remains marginal to the social inclusion process. There is a need of a new realistic strategy having timeline objectives and activities linked to specific funding, not only from the EU funded Operational Programmes, but also from the state budget with responsibility clearly defined in reference to the implementation of these policies.

In general, although there is legislation regarding housing, in reality there are difficulties in guaranteeing shelter and residence to citizens who are in serious housing need. Moreover, social services for people without housing are not well developed. It is, accordingly, necessary to enforce the existing legislation and create special one if needed, backed up by appropriate funding, which could ensure temporary or permanent housing, as well as accessible social services, to people who have found themselves without shelter. This is particularly necessary for big cities where the number of homeless people grows steadily as reported by NGOs.

7. Access to and quality of housing

Given the general situation and the overall policy, it is evident that, in general, access to housing is extremely limited. In practice, preventive measures do not exist with a resulting lack of support for people who have been evicted or are in danger of being evicted from their homes. In effect, the issue is left to the local governments with no state involvement as such. Data from of the Social Assistance Agency http:// www.asp.government.bg clearly show that the existing 12 Temporary accommodation centres in the country have the capacity to accommodate 713 people. There are 30 Centres for Home-Type Accommodation in the country. The centres are for children and have capacity for 353 people. There are 4 Shelters in the country with capacity of 65 people with all of them for children and not adults. There are 11 centres for street children with capacity of 186 people. There are 94 services providing protected housing for 783 people (all of them are adults). All of these services are funded by the state budget. Such services are also provided by private providers but their number is rather limited. Accommodation for homeless people is provided by specialized institutions as well. Urgent placement in temporary accommodation was extremely difficult until November 2009 especially for people who have lost their IDs and do not have health insurance. Obtaining accommodation in such institutions required 8 different documents and allows the person to stay there for up to 3 months. However after November 2009 all the necessary paper work is done by the social workers, including for obtaining ID cards. Unlike in the mid 90s when a lot of street children existed, according to the NGO sector observations, the number of homeless adults is now visibly higher with all their attendant needs.[4]

http:// www.asp.government.bg

In general, the reports of different experts from the NGO sector HOMELESSNESS IN BULGARIA . Douhomir Minev. Prepared for FEANTSA – September 2003 - http://www.feantsa.org/files/enlargement/research_bulgaria.pdf conclude that the social policy of Bulgaria in this particular area is inadequate. There is no statistical data and, moreover no adequate social services based on modern social work type approaches to overcoming housing exclusion related issues and homelessness. Access to independent housing is also very limited. What remains a serious issue, although limited services are available, is the access to housing for the most vulnerable and helpless people who have lost their housing – mostly people with mental and personality disorders, people who have gone out of institutions, drug addicts, alcoholics, etc.[5]

HOMELESSNESS IN BULGARIA . Douhomir Minev. Prepared for FEANTSA – September 2003 - http://www.feantsa.org/files/enlargement/research_bulgaria.pdf

As regards the quality of the housing stock, it is evident that, again due to the lack of regulation and overall policy strategy, the quality varies depending on the level of commitment of the local authorities. Issues like illegal housing for Roma, deteriorating housing conditions on State-owned properties, although well below acceptable standards, still do not elicit an adequate political response.

8. Homelessness and access to services

As homelessness is not in the focus of social policy, very limited number of services are provided to people without shelter. Moreover, there is no data to what extent the social work for integration of people with housing problems that is in place in relation to access to the labour market – training, retraining, employment initiatives, communication skills etc. gives tangible results and leads to a change of the life of the homeless people or the children from the Centres for street children.

While in theory opportunity for access to health care exists (the state budget provide funds for the health insurance of the people subject to social assistance and for diagnosis and medical treatment of people without incomes and/or property that allow their personal participation in the health insurance process ), in reality this is a very complicated issue. The latest changes in the Law on health insurance seem to add additional burden on the homeless people in that respect.

9. Monitoring and Evaluation

There is limited statistical data on homelessness. Information so far is available only by research commissioned by NGOs or the Council of Europe TRENDS AND PROGRESS IN HOUSING REFORMS IN SOUTH EASTERN EUROPE – October 2005 - http://www.coebank.org/upload/infocentre/Brochure/en/Housing_reforms_in_SEE.pdf . Since November 2009 registering of homeless persons in Social Assistance Directorates has been introduced. As per the Law on Census of the population and the housing stock, the next census will be in March 2011. It is at that point that all the current gaps in statistics might at least be partially filled. The Law on Census of the population states that a preliminary pilot census is to be carried out as a first phase in order to test the process and the means for the census. It is at that stage that a careful analysis of the indicators on homelessness and housing is to be made and corrective actions taken if needed. This will help the policy makers adapt the required actions to homeless people which, by that point, should be supported by an appropriate system for monitoring of progress and evaluation of results. [6]

TRENDS AND PROGRESS IN HOUSING REFORMS IN SOUTH EASTERN EUROPE – October 2005 - http://www.coebank.org/upload/infocentre/Brochure/en/Housing_reforms_in_SEE.pdf

CZECH REPUBLIC

1. CURRENT SITUATION

According to the Population Census of 2001, there were 4,366,293 flats in the Czech Republic (427 flats per 1000 inhabitants) and since then the number of private flats and houses being constructed has been increasing but there has been almost no construction of rental housing. The main problem remains a lack of financially affordable flats for low income households. Significant part of the housing stock transferred to municipalities from the state after 1989 was sold and only very small part is recently used for social purposes. In recent years the state expenditure on housing has been 0.7-0.9% of GDP.

The share of population with housing costs exceeding 40% of the total income was 10.3% in 2007, which was lower than the EU average (12.3%). However, when broken into categories by tenure status, only the share of tenants with reduced price or free (9.7%) was lower than the EU average (13%), households of outright owners, with mortgage or market price rents was above the EU average. The overcrowding rate is very high (32% in 2007, EU: 17.3%) with a considerable difference between non-poor (28.8%) and poor citizens (63.1%). The proportion of people deprived was lower than the EU average, 81.5% of people reported to live in acceptable living standards (EU: 75.2%). However, there are several seriously deprived localities inhabited mostly by Roma with worsening conditions.

The Czech definition of homelessness covers only "roofless" and "houseless". There is no system of regular collection of data neither monitoring. Partial data can be obtained from three sources: the Population Census of the Czech Statistical Office (CZSO), the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MoLSA) data on people living in institutions and shelters, occasional surveys of NGOs working with the homeless. There are thousands of citizens that can be classified as homeless in the Czech Republic, concentrated in the largest cities. According to the NGOs statistics, the numbers are following for roofless: Prague (3074 in 2009), Brno (452 in 2006), Ostrava (2158 in 2009); houseless: Prague (1696 in 2009), Brno (380 in 2006), Ostrava (521 in 2009), in the CR (4484 in 2005 according to NGOs and 4542 in 2007 according to the MoLSA). According to the CZSO, there were following numbers of people in insecure housing (17213 subletting according to the 2001 Census); inadequate housing: 222 in mobile housing, 3232 in unfit provisory housing, 12519 in recreation chalet or country house and around 129 thousand of people, who do not live in standard housing (institutions, austerity shelters, recreation objects). [7]

According to the NGOs statistics, the numbers are following for roofless: Prague (3074 in 2009), Brno (452 in 2006), Ostrava (2158 in 2009); houseless: Prague (1696 in 2009), Brno (380 in 2006), Ostrava (521 in 2009), in the CR (4484 in 2005 according to NGOs and 4542 in 2007 according to the MoLSA). According to the CZSO, there were following numbers of people in insecure housing (17213 subletting according to the 2001 Census); inadequate housing: 222 in mobile housing, 3232 in unfit provisory housing, 12519 in recreation chalet or country house and around 129 thousand of people, who do not live in standard housing (institutions, austerity shelters, recreation objects).

The homeless are mainly men, middle-aged, long-term unemployed, disabled, alcohol and drug users. The main reasons for homelessness are broken family relationships, economic problems (unemployment, over-indebtedness, etc.), the lost of housing, addictions, psychological and mental problems. People released from prisons, institutions and children's homes are also vulnerable in this respect. Present crisis factors are increasing prices of rents and energies and the lack of social housing. Special housing benefits and housing supplement allowance are provided for people in need, but latter only in case of legally contracted housing.

10. OVERALL POLICY FRAMEWORK AND GOVERNANCE

The Czech legislation does not acknowledge the right to housing, only specific social benefits for housing are guaranteed for low-income groups. The system of administration is decentralised and thus responsibility for housing is with the municipalities. The government (Ministry for Regional Development) sets the rules and provides financial contributions to the local governments for the construction of municipal flats via targeted programmes. Otherwise it does not have a tool to influence municipalities to allocate specific number of flats to people in need or to influence their way of dealing with socially excluded localities and people facing eviction. The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs is responsible for the methodology and for setting the rules for social services that are delivered by the regions and municipalities. The regions must elaborate the Medium Term Plans for the Development of Social Services on the basis of the Act on Social Services. A key role in delivering social services for the homeless is played by NGOs that are well organised and trusted.

There are weaknesses in the housing policy. The social housing sector is almost non-existent and there is a preference to target directly citizens with special social benefits than support the building of social housing. There is no prevention strategy with regarding to loosing one's home and to homelessness, and financial support to NGOs working in this field is insufficient. Municipalities use only a very small part of their stock of flats for people in need and before social work and solving the situation of people in danger of loosing their housing they prefer zero tolerance and evicting people to sub-standard housing usually in the suburbs. As a consequence, problems with socially excluded localities have been increasing.

In 2005, the Concept of Housing Policy was approved by the government with fairly vague objectives to increase financial affordability and overall offer of housing, its quality and preservation, etc. In 2000, the State Housing Development Fund was established with fluctuating budgets, reaching 16,899 Mio CZK in 2008, however, the share devoted to municipal rented housing is small and decreasing due to EU regulations of state aid. Since 2003, the Programme for the Construction of Subsidised Housing for socially disadvantaged groups (the elderly, people with disabilities, people leaving the institutions, etc.) of Ministry for Regional Development is in place, however, also with decreasing allocation.

11. ACCESSIBILITY AND QUALITY OF HOUSING

As already mentioned the sector of social housing is underdeveloped and there are not enough dwellings for low-income groups. The government support is focused especially on support to ownership of dwellings and on reconstruction of prefabs built before 1989 (1.5 billion CZK), where significant part of the middle and low income groups live. Special social benefits are available: the housing benefit (since 1995) and the new housing supplement allowance (since 2007) that is, however, provided only in case of legally contracted housing. People living in non-standard housing cannot get this allowance. Moreover, the amount is limited by the normative costs in the particular locality.

The leases are protected by the Civil Code, which lays down the obligation in certain cases to provide substitute housing in case of lease termination. The municipalities are not obliged to help people without housing to access one and furthermore, they prefer evicting people with arrays. Social work is ongoing in socially excluded communities (inhabited mainly by Roma) carried out by NGOs and some municipalities but their capacity is insufficient to meet the demand.

Temporary accommodation for the homeless is provided by means of low threshold day centres and overnight shelters, hostels, temporary housing. The maximum length of stay is one year in one facility, many people move among different facilities over the years. Supply of provisions is not sufficient. According to the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs 2007 Statistics Yearbook, there were 4208 places in 162 night shelters; 334 places in 29 halfway houses; 459 places in 29 hostels. As regards half-way houses (for persons up to 26 years of age), which provide also mediation, therapy and advocacy, there is around 330 places but more than 1000 youngsters are released from children's homes each year. For example according to the 2004 Prague's Survey only 37% of the homeless were living in temporary accommodation. Several thousand places are available for women with children but there are no places for men with children. [8]

According to the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs 2007 Statistics Yearbook, there were 4208 places in 162 night shelters; 334 places in 29 halfway houses; 459 places in 29 hostels. As regards half-way houses (for persons up to 26 years of age), which provide also mediation, therapy and advocacy, there is around 330 places but more than 1000 youngsters are released from children's homes each year.

As there is almost no social housing, transition from emergency to permanent accommodation is almost impossible. Only the programme for supported housing (2003) is implemented through direct subsidies to municipalities for the construction or modernisation of housing without barriers for the disabled, the elderly and people in difficult life situation. Rents in these dwellings should not exceed the average market price. As regards the entry flats, the target group is defined by low income and by difficulties in accessing the rental market (people leaving institutions, children's homes, hostels for the homeless, members of ethnic minorities, refugees). Contracts are for two years and it is possible to renew them.

Low-income groups of the population have problems with the affordability of housing due to high selling prices. At the same time the rental market is getting expensive as well due to the gradual rents' deregulation and increases of energy prices. In 2006 an act was approved by the government with the aim to align regulated rents with market prices by 2010. This change will affect approximately 20% of the population. After the rapid rent growth in years 2006 – 2009, the government decided, according to social impacts of deregulation, to divide the last phase finalizing deregulation in 3 following years (2010, 2011, 2012) in the selected cities.

All new buildings are governed by regulations to ensure the minimum building quality, such as the Building Act and the Act on Public Health Protection. Otherwise, there are no minimum standards guaranteeing the quality of temporary housing for the homeless. This type of housing is defined as social service, and thus has to follow the standards of quality of social services.

A large part of the housing stock (the panel apartment blocks) that was built before 1989 from the prefabricated technologies does not have the satisfactory technical parameters. Moreover, dwellings are fairly small. Thus the improvement of quality of these houses is one of the biggest priorities of the Czech housing policy with significant amount allocated (for loans and subsidies) through the programme PANEL. The overcrowding rate is high as compared to the EU, but the proportion of people deprived is significantly lower in all monitored categories. Proportion of people deprived in 2007: leaking roof 15.6% (EU: 18%), bath or shower 0.8% (EU: 3.3%), indoor toilet 1.2% (EU: 3.6), dark dwelling 4.4% (EU: 8.1%)[9]

Proportion of people deprived in 2007: leaking roof 15.6% (EU: 18%), bath or shower 0.8% (EU: 3.3%), indoor toilet 1.2% (EU: 3.6), dark dwelling 4.4% (EU: 8.1%)

Since 2001 Program on recovery of panel housing estates of Ministry for Regional Development has been in force. The subsidy is provided to municipalities for reconstruction of public areas within panel housing estates in order to make these parts of town attractive. Subsidies of this national program do not cover reconstruction of the block of flats that is the reason why the Czech Republic has taken advantage of drawing financial sources from ERDF and created Integrated Operation Programme (IOP). IOP includes activities on renovations, reconstructions and modernisations of the blocks of flats in socially deprived localities and also targeted projects aiming at prevention and reduction of spatial and social segregation estates especially inhabited by Roma. Moreover, the Regional Operational Programmes support the creation of the Integrated Development Plans of the cities.

12. HOMELESSNESS AND ACCESS TO SERVICES

Attention is paid to active inclusion to support entering the labour market, but especially by means of increased conditionality of benefits. A complex social protection system is in place but as regards the employment services still more needs to be done to increase their capacity and ensure individualised approach. No specific strategy is focusing on the homeless, who are usually long-term unemployed. The Act on Social Services (in force since 2007) created the basis for the obligatory standards of quality together with the Inspection of Quality. The scope and quality of services have been increasing and positive development has been stimulated also by the community planning of social services (based on the Act as well).

All citizens are entitled to health care that is based on compulsory health insurance; however, the homeless usually do not pay insurance and therefore are sometimes refused treatment. Only one specialised medical service exists in Prague. The homeless have approximately ten times higher prevalence of TBC and also are more often exposed to chronic diseases, infections, and mental disorders.

13. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

No regular monitoring system or evaluation is in place. NGOs have been carrying out surveys on an irregular basis in the largest cities. Sources of data are incomplete and not entirely reliable. Some evaluations were elaborated by researchers and representatives of the NGO sector, for example the National Reports on Homelessness 2005 and 2006. http://www.nadeje.cz/index.php?q=node/28[10]

http://www.nadeje.cz/index.php?q=node/28

DENMARK

1. Current situation

A national definition of homelessness has been adopted as part of the national count of homelessness which was carried out in 2007 and 2009. It consists of a conceptual definition and an operational definition with 8 categories, which are based on the ETHOS typology adapted to the Danish context.

The national count of homeless people showed that approximately 5000 individuals were homeless in the reference week (week 6, 2009). This corresponds to 1 per 1000 inhabitants (in Copenhagen 2.9 per 1000). It is estimated that 11000 to 13000 persons are affected by homelessness per year. Of the 4998 persons registered in the national count, 506 persons were sleeping rough, 1952 were sleeping in homeless hostels, and 1086 were staying temporarily with family and friends. The rest belong to the remaining categories. 2432 (49%) of the homeless were registered in the Copenhagen metropolitan area.

Homelessness in Denmark is to a very large extent related to substance abuse and/or mental illness. A majority of homeless are men (78%) and 22% are women. Around 20% among the homeless are young (18-29), while more than 50% are 30-49 year olds and few (5%) are above 60 years. Approx. 20% belong to ethnic minority groups. For 20% of the homeless, evictions were mentioned as an important reason for their situation. The number of evictions has increased during recent years from 1823 in 2002 to 3762 in 2008 Figures provided by the Danish Courts .[11]

Figures provided by the Danish Courts

There is substantial regional variation in waiting lists for public housing but no official national statistics are available. There are relatively short waiting lists in most provincial towns and cities but relatively long waiting lists in the Copenhagen area. Waiting lists for public housing are open to all Danish residents, but municipalities can refer at least 25% of vacancies to individuals with social needs.

The share of population living in a household where housing costs represent more than 40% of the total household income was 13.4% in 2007 (EU average: 12.3%). By tenure status, the share is bigger for the tenants paying a market price rent (25.4% (EU average: 25.4%)).

The overcrowding rate is very low (6.8% in 2007, EU: 17.3%). As to the proportion of people deprived, it was significantly below the EU average in 2007 (the rate of population reported to live in acceptable living standards was 85.0% in Denmark, 75.2% in EU).

Denmark’s social expenditure destined to housing benefits (% of total benefits) was 5.3% in 2006 (EU27: 2.3%).

14. Overall policy framework and governance

While there is no statutory right to housing in the Danish legislation, the law on social services defines a range of interventions such as homeless hostels, medium-term supported housing, long-term supported housing, social support attached to the individual, social drop-in centres and substance misuse treatment. The provision of these services is the responsibility of local authorities (municipalities). The law on public housing enables municipalities to refer 25% of vacancies in public housing to socially vulnerable groups. The Ministry of the Interior and Social Affairs has the overall administrative responsibility for policies and services for homeless people. The Ministry of Employment has the responsibility for general labour market activation policies and social assistance to homeless people.

A national strategy to combat homelessness has been adopted for the period of 2008-2011 with four objectives: a) reduction of the number of people sleeping rough; b) young people should be offered better options than staying in a homeless hostel; c) the average time spent in a homeless hostel should be reduced to 3-4 months; d) housing problems should be solved prior to release from prison or treatment centres. The strategy links efforts to the principle of "housing first".

The Danish government has reserved funding of €66 Mio for the implementation of the strategy. The main part of the funding will be distributed to selected municipalities with the largest homeless populations. An important aim is to develop methods with documentation of their effectiveness and to distribute this knowledge to municipalities in other parts of the country. Each selected municipality will adopt an action plan to reduce homelessness within one or more of the four national objectives. The action plan will also include an obligation to continue the initiatives after the 4-year period. The main stakeholders are municipalities, central government and NGOs.

NGOs also play an important role in services for the homeless. They often operate services such as homeless hostels and social drop-in centres. The management of social drop-in centres is generally supported by municipalities but also partly funded by the NGOs themselves.

A national user organisation (SAND) has been established among the homeless facilitated by the central government. SAND is often consulted in matters such as policy development and implementation.

15. Accessibility and quality of housing

15.1. Accessibility

The law on social services specifies a municipal obligation to provide temporary accommodation for the homeless (individuals who have no dwelling or cannot use the dwelling they have due to social problems). Homeless hostels exist in almost all larger cities and towns and are organised in a national association. The supply of places generally meets demand, though normally places are utilised to a high degree. It can occur that hostels are full for the night and that users will have to use emergency night shelters. There are no general national standards for quality of accommodation, but the hostels are like all other public institutions subjected to rules of general inspection.

The most important general mechanism for accessing permanent accommodation is the referral to social housing via municipal waiting lists. In the Copenhagen region in particular, there is excess demand for public housing and relatively long waiting lists. Social housing is generally open to all but locally there can be barriers which act against the re-housing of certain groups. This may be the case for example of active substance users, making up a large proportion of homeless people, who could be a problem for the neighbours.

According to the law on social services, social support in own home can be provided. A continuous challenge is to provide sufficient social support to individuals in there own homes in order to enable them to stay there. One of the key priorities in the national homelessness strategy is to strengthen the provision of social support at municipal level.

Social housing is non-profit (cost) based. Segments of the private rental stock (based on age and status of renewal) are subject to rent control. Individuals with low income can uphold a rent subsidy based on income, rent and size of the dwelling.

The number of evictions has increased over the last years. A new initiative aims to provide counselling for people who are at risk of eviction and obliges housing authorities to notify municipalities of individuals with eviction orders.

Institutional release can be a pathway into homelessness. A recent project has focused on better procedures with regard to release from prisons. One of the four goals of the national homelessness strategy is to secure that a housing solution is established upon institutional release and projects under the strategy will focus on strengthening procedures of coordination in this area.

Besides the referral to social housing, there are targeted forms of supported housing available for groups with specific needs in the law on social services. An example is the so-called alternative nursing homes for individuals who are in need of care due to long term substance use and where there is a relatively high staff ratio to provide specialised care. A continuous challenge is to provide more places of supported housing for those with special needs. The so-called ‘skaeve huse’ (untraditional housing) consist of small independent housing units with social support attached and provide a housing alternative for those who do not fit into ordinary housing.

It is an objective to have a socially sustainable composition of dwellers in social housing areas. Thus, rules may be applied locally to the effect that priority is granted to people with stronger resources in order to create a more balanced composition of dwellers in the area.

15.2. Quality

There are no national definitions of inadequate or overcrowded housing. The rental housing stock is generally subject to municipal supervision. There is a general emphasis on renewal of the public housing stock through both large scale renewal of estates and local renovation projects.

There has generally been emphasis on providing area based interventions in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Many larger housing areas have undergone intensive renewal programs and there is a tradition for programs of social activities and interventions in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Social services in disadvantaged neighbourhoods are generally integrated into mainstream municipal social services.

At 6.8% in 2007, the overcrowding rate is very low (EU average: 17.3%). As to the proportion of people deprived, it was significantly below the EU average in 2007.

16. Homelessness and access to services

The services for homeless people are specified in the law on social services and thereby included into general social service provision. As described above, the national strategy on combating homelessness aims at strengthening service provision. Particular aims are to strengthen the municipal provision of individualised social support for individuals with complex needs.

Homeless people receiving cash benefits are subject to the legislation on activation, where consideration of individual resources should be given. Counselling services at local job centres are available to individuals without employment. The national count of homeless people showed that 14% among the homeless were participating in labour market activation. This indicates that there is a considerable distance to the labour market for most of the homeless people, and this generally reflects the complex social problems of many homeless individuals.

Homeless persons are like other inhabitants in Denmark covered by universal health care services free of charge. There can be practical barriers of access, for instance due to lack of knowledge of the particular needs of the homeless among staff in the general health care system, or due to individual circumstances. Specialised outreach health care services have been set up in some larger cities to reach homeless people with health needs who do not seek assistance from the general health care system.

Street outreach work is aimed to render general support to rough sleepers and to facilitate their use of existing services. The law on social services gives the legal base for so-called social contact persons aiming at social outreach work in municipalities. Social drop-in centres (many run by NGOs) exist in most large cities to provide support to rough sleepers.

There are no national standards for quality of social services for homeless people.

17. Monitoring and Evaluation

There is a national system of documentation of the use of homeless hostels. Numbers of users are registered together with basic client information. Annual statistics are published. A national count of homeless people was carried out in 2007 and 2009 and a third count is planned in 2011 as part of the monitoring of the implementation of the national strategy. The reporting system is generally good, even if it remains difficult to estimate with accuracy the number of rough sleepers.

No general policy evaluation has been carried out recently. An evaluation of the so-called city programme ("Storbypuljen" 2003-2005) in 2007 concluded that the programme had succeeded in establishing more targeted interventions towards the most marginalised individuals including the homeless, but that there was a continued need to further develop services and interventions.

GERMANY

1. CURRENT SITUATION

In official reports (such as its Report on Poverty and Wealth Lebenslagen in Deutschland. Der 3. Armuts- und Reichtumsbericht der Bundesregierung ("Life Situations in Germany". The German Federal Government's 3rd Report on Poverty and Wealth), in particular chapter XI 1. ), the German government refers to a definition of homelessness (" Wohnungslosigkeit ") used by the BAG W Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Wohnungslosenhilfe e.V. , an association of public and private bodies and institutions that offer services and assistance to people suffering from homelessness. According to this definition, a person/a family is considered as "homeless", when they live in a dwelling without having a leasing contract for it or being the owner of that dwelling. The definition encompasses both, dwellings that are provided by an institution or on an informal basis (e.g. by friends). The government operates with the notion of "people in very difficult life situations" "Personen besonderen Lebensverhältnissen mit sozialen Schwierigkeiten" (Achtes Kapitel SGB XII).. and links it with the issue of homelessness. The government does not make references to the ETHOS-typology. [12][13][14]

Lebenslagen in Deutschland. Der 3. Armuts- und Reichtumsbericht der Bundesregierung ("Life Situations in Germany". The German Federal Government's 3rd Report on Poverty and Wealth), in particular chapter XI 1.

Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Wohnungslosenhilfe e.V.

"Personen besonderen Lebensverhältnissen mit sozialen Schwierigkeiten" (Achtes Kapitel SGB XII)..

The Government quotes estimates presented by the BAG W according to which 254,000 people (0.3% of the total population) have been homeless in 2006 (18,000 rough sleepers), suggesting that the overall number of homeless people has halved since 1998. 25% are estimated to be women, 64% men and the remaining 11% children or adolescents.

There is a lack of empirical data but it appears that the overall situation on the housing market is good in view of the overall offer of accommodation, its quality and its price level: the different dimensions of deprivation show low figures (e.g. leaking roof: 14% for DE (2008) and 18% for EU27 (2007); bath/shower: below 1% to 3%; indoor toilet 1 % (2008) to 4% for EU27 (2007) etc). "Overcrowding" is not an issue The respective rates are low, amounting to 4% for all households (17% for EU27) and even lower when one-person households are excluded, amounting to 3% (18%. for EU27). They do not show any gender gap with higher figures for the young (5.1%) and a very low rate for people above 65 (1% – EU27: 7%). Overcrowding occurs more often in densely populated areas (4%; EU27: 17%) than in rural areas (2%; EU27: 24%). In terms of household composition families composed of two adults and one or two children are better off (2% and 3% respectively) than families with 3 or more children (6%) or lone parents (12%). . Between 1997 and 2007, rents have increased more slowly than the general inflation rate. While for the time being It is expected that data will be available in 2011. , no data are available on the share of housing costs in total disposable income and the share of population whose housing cost burden exceeds 40%, housing costs in general or access to housing for people with a low income do not appear to be of major concern. [15][16]

The respective rates are low, amounting to 4% for all households (17% for EU27) and even lower when one-person households are excluded, amounting to 3% (18%. for EU27). They do not show any gender gap with higher figures for the young (5.1%) and a very low rate for people above 65 (1% – EU27: 7%). Overcrowding occurs more often in densely populated areas (4%; EU27: 17%) than in rural areas (2%; EU27: 24%). In terms of household composition families composed of two adults and one or two children are better off (2% and 3% respectively) than families with 3 or more children (6%) or lone parents (12%).

It is expected that data will be available in 2011.

Data on waiting periods for social housing and the different dimensions of the ETHOS-typology are not available.

As to the reasons for homelessness, the government sees primarily an accumulation of problems people have been or are still confronted with (such as unemployment, high debt, problems within the family, social problems, psychological problems etc). In view of the relaxed situation on the housing market and of the effectively working social protection system, the government doubts that homelessness could be explained in general by a shortage of affordable housing space.

18. OVERALL POLICY FRAMEWORK AND GOVERNANCE

At the Federal level, the Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development Ministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung. is responsible for housing allowances ( Wohngeld ); the Ministry of Justice is responsible for the law of tenancy, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs for social assistance benefits, including housing costs (Kosten der Unterkunft) . The competence for providing social accommodation is with the regions ( Länder ) and the task to provide rough sleepers with an accommodation or shelter lies with the local authorities ( Kommunen ). [17]

Ministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung.

The government identifies as the overall objective ensuring an appropriate provision of housing space for all households that do not have enough resources at their disposal to provide themselves with sufficient housing space.

In view of preventing and combating homelessness, the government uses legal provisions (protecting tenants), benefits and allowances, the provision of – affordable - social accommodation and other legal instruments (such as the referral of people that run the risk of becoming rough sleepers into temporary accommodation).

Explicit target groups are low-income households, households with children, lone-parents households, pregnant women, older and disabled people, homeless people and other needy persons. The German Constitution obliges to mainstream the gender aspect in all policy areas.

Given that the relevant action is organised at the federal, regional and local level, there is not a single, nation-wide dedicated budget to fight homelessness. Within the Operational Programme for the federal level ( Bund ), the ESF lends financial support (€124 Mio) to a programme "Die Soziale Stadt – Bildung, Wirtschaft, Arbeit im Quartier (BIWAQ)" http://www.esf.de/portal/generator/834/programm__soziale__stadt.html that sets out to integrate measures in the field of housing, employment and social inclusion in a local context.[18]

http://www.esf.de/portal/generator/834/programm__soziale__stadt.html

Social housing policy is implemented primarily at the level of and by the local authorities in cooperation with social NGOs fighting homelessness ( freie Träger der Wohnungslosenhilfe ).

The German Constitution contains a general social policy objective that encompasses the housing dimension; however, this provision does not give rise to an individual right.

19. ACCESSIBILITY AND QUALITY OF HOUSING

19.1. Accessibility

There is a broad range of instruments in place to reduce the risk of eviction: (1) the tenancy law protects tenants against eviction to a large extent. In principle, lease contracts run without any limit of time. A termination of a contract is possible only in case of serious reasons e.g. if the landlord shows that he needs the dwelling for himself or for close relatives. In any case, the tenant can contradict the termination if it constitutes a non acceptable burden. A landlord that wants to terminate a contract has to motivate his/her decision with reasons that can be checked. (2) households with low income can apply to receive a housing allowance ( Wohngeld ). The amount depends on the number of people living in the household, the total income and the rent to be paid. (3) in the framework of minimum income provisions, the amount of benefits covers housing costs. In the case of impending loss of accommodation, the competent public body pays the costs for housing and heating directly to the landlord. There is also a possibility to bail out a tenant that has not paid the rent for some time; (4) in the framework of the promotion of social accommodation ( soziale Wohnraumförderung ), the state provides affordable accommodation to households facing problems in accessing housing; (5) in emergency cases, there is a possibility of referral to social accommodation/shelter.

In view of temporary accommodation, the local authorities are obliged to provide, equip and maintain appropriate facilities to offer housing space for homeless people and their families. In case of need, it is a subjective right to get access to a temporary accommodation in at least some sort of shelter ( Notunterkunft ). In the case of emergencies, the provision of a shelter should be temporary (in principle not longer than 6 months but de facto it happens that some people (have to) stay much longer). The local authorities can work together with - and delegate parts of their task to provide accommodation to - social NGOs (such as the Red Cross).

Although there are no empirical data, it appears that the supply of temporary accommodation is generally sufficient. Quality standards are defined at the regional level. Given that such accommodation is supposed to be temporary, their standards, in terms of size and equipment, are below normal accommodation. Jurisprudence has ensured that, on grounds of respecting the human dignity, a minimum standard has to be respected.

There is no nation-wide policy on how to support the move from emergency accommodation to more permanent solutions; these vary from region to region and sometimes from city to city. Evaluations about the effectiveness of these policies are not available.

In view of affordability, a combined approach is used: legal stipulations ensure that the rent cannot be increased in an inappropriate way; the construction of affordable accommodation for low-income households is subsidised by the State and households with a low income can receive the housing allowance or housing costs in the framework of social assistance benefits.

19.2. Quality

In the case of non-social accommodation, the tenant has the right to reduce the rent when the quality standard is insufficient. In the case of social accommodation, quality standards reached such a high level that the respective stipulations were not needed any longer and were abolished in the mid-eighties.

In view of the links between policies to promote adequate housing and other urban regeneration policies, the mainstream policy ( soziale Wohnraumförderung ) described above, is complemented by targeted action at the local level (BIWAQ-programme).

20. HOMELESSNESS AND ACCESS TO SERVICES

Most people affected by homelessness are considered as "capable of work" ( erwerbsfähig ) and are entitled to the same benefits as any other job-seeker (in the first place a job-seeker’s allowance). They are also entitled to receiving support to find or keep a dwelling. The same applies for employment measures (such as training, job counselling etc), however public authorities usually take into account the specific problems linked to being homeless and focus on establishing first of all a stable relationship between them and the client before considering activation measures (such as an insertion contract that encompasses obligations and sanctions).

Since the last health care reform, all citizens have a right to be ensured. In addition, a range of measures tries to reach out to people more distant from the mainstream medical system (e.g. medical streetwork; medical visits in temporary accommodation/shelters). Streetworkers also try to get in contact with rough sleepers to help them make use of the possibilities offered by the social protection system.

To the extent that homeless people are considered fit to work and therefore are entitled to receive the entire range of benefits and services for job seekers, the quality control for these measures is carried out by the Public Employment Service (and, in the case of so-called accompanying measures, such as debt advice service or counselling for drug addicts, by the local authorities).

21. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

There is not nation-wide statistics on homelessness. The government did not report on any evaluations carried out.

ESTONIA

1. CURRENT SITUATION

For a total population headcount of 1.340 million living in Estonia (Statistics Estonia, 2009), there were 638,200 dwellings (2007) with 96% of them in private ownership. In 2006, the estimated number of households was 573,400, the average household had 2.3 members. Approximately 85% of households live in dwellings wich they own, and 15% are tenants. 65.7% of dwellings are in urban areas, and 34.3% in rural areas. One third of the total households lived in Tallinn or in its surroundings in 2006.

Housing costs represent 15.2% of the expenditure of households in 2006, and household costs 5.9%. Housing costs were the highest in Tallinn. The share of population living in a household where housing costs represent more than 40% of the total household income was 5.2% in 2007 (EU average: 12.3%) . By tenure status, the share is bigger for the tenants paying a market price rent (24.6% EU average 25.7%). In case of social housing, t he housing lease and other costs are generally paid by local government while the person pays rent and other utility costs.

Statistical data on people needing social housing or night shelters is available from year 2000, when the Ministry of Social Affairs The Ministry of Social Affairs provides national and regional annual statistical data on: 1) night shelter services for the homeless (the number, age, sex, etc.) 2) shelter services and rehabilitation services to people released from penal institutions; 3) housing services in the form of social housing, premises, support homes. started gathering data from the local governments that are responsible for providing social care and housing services. At the end of 2006 the number of places in establishments providing night shelter services was 383 (as Tallinn has the biggest number of homeless peoplme, the number of places was 130 in 2006 and 160 in 2009) and there were 11establishments providing 24h services. This service was used by 1535 people (2006): 1250 (81%) were homeless and 285 (19%) had other reasons. An expert opinion puts the number of homeless people in Estonia in 2006 at 3000-3500, Norway 2006, National strategy to prevent and tackle homelessness, Comment paper, Estonia, J üri Kõre, Tartu University. NGOs have been very active and have the biggest experience in dealing with homelessness. In Tallinn the Centre of Welfare Services provides shelter and counselling service; Tallinn Centre for Social Work provides social accommodation, shelter services and emergency social care (clothes, food), since 2006 they also provide debt counselling service, and since 2007 counselling those who own rent for municipal dwellings (so-called social counselling). Catering for the homeless in soup kitchens are organised in Tallinn by the Estonian Red Cross Tallinn section, JK Taverni OÜ, Salvation Army in Estonia, SA Social Work Centre Sõbra Käsi (Friend’s Hand). In Tartu NGO Iseseisev Elu (Independent Life) is providing homeless day centre services and the service of supported housing (living); SA Varjupaik (Shelter) provides lodging service, etc. [19][20][21]

The Ministry of Social Affairs provides national and regional annual statistical data on: 1) night shelter services for the homeless (the number, age, sex, etc.) 2) shelter services and rehabilitation services to people released from penal institutions; 3) housing services in the form of social housing, premises, support homes.

An expert opinion puts the number of homeless people in Estonia in 2006 at 3000-3500, Norway 2006, National strategy to prevent and tackle homelessness, Comment paper, Estonia, J üri Kõre, Tartu University.

In Tallinn the Centre of Welfare Services provides shelter and counselling service; Tallinn Centre for Social Work provides social accommodation, shelter services and emergency social care (clothes, food), since 2006 they also provide debt counselling service, and since 2007 counselling those who own rent for municipal dwellings (so-called social counselling). Catering for the homeless in soup kitchens are organised in Tallinn by the Estonian Red Cross Tallinn section, JK Taverni OÜ, Salvation Army in Estonia, SA Social Work Centre Sõbra Käsi (Friend’s Hand). In Tartu NGO Iseseisev Elu (Independent Life) is providing homeless day centre services and the service of supported housing (living); SA Varjupaik (Shelter) provides lodging service, etc.

The peak for the need for night shelter services was in 2004, the number of homeless decreased by 21% in 2006 compared to that of 2003. The Environment Strategy until 2030 In 2007 the number of homeless people in night shelters was 1346 and in 2008 it had decreased to 957. There are very few homeless people in the counties and in those that provided such service, the demand was fully met (average occupancy rate of one shelter place was 59 % in 2007).[22]

The Environment Strategy until 2030

National statistical data is collected on the basis of service users and for this purposes a person is considered homeless There is no definition in law, neither is ETHOS typhology officially used though all the categories of that typhology receive support. if he or she does not have any legal relationship (ownership, tenancy, permanent accommodation agreement) with any dwelling, room or part of these that can be qualified as a living area. People in this group do not have a residence; they do not earn the income to purchase or rent a residence, and they lack the social abilities to change the situation they are in. FEANTSA Annual Theme 2008 Housing and Homelessness – National Report Estonia.[23][24]

There is no definition in law, neither is ETHOS typhology officially used though all the categories of that typhology receive support.

FEANTSA Annual Theme 2008 Housing and Homelessness – National Report Estonia.

22. OVERALL POLICY FRAMEWORK and GOVERNANCE

The principle of the social State is reflected in the Constitution where it is stated that "the State cannot let a citizen down, it must take care of those who cannot earn a living by themselves as well as guarantee subsistence for them”. The right to housing as a social right has been indirectly recognised by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. Decision of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, 18 October 2000 (3-2-1-104-00). – Riigi Teataja (The State Gazette) III 2000, 25, 278 (in Estonian). Namely, it is forbidden to evict from a municipal dwelling in case the local government is obliged to provide social assistance to the person living in the apartment, and the rent debt has arisen for valid reasons. The court in delivering its judgment also referred to section of the Constitution, which stipulates that families with many children and people with disabilities are under the special care of the local governments. [25]

Decision of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, 18 October 2000 (3-2-1-104-00). – Riigi Teataja (The State Gazette) III 2000, 25, 278 (in Estonian). Namely, it is forbidden to evict from a municipal dwelling in case the local government is obliged to provide social assistance to the person living in the apartment, and the rent debt has arisen for valid reasons. The court in delivering its judgment also referred to section of the Constitution, which stipulates that families with many children and people with disabilities are under the special care of the local governments.

The right to housing (right to State assistance in case of need) is realised with mechanisms set in place under the Social Welfare Act (1995). These include: 1) the right to apply for social housing from the local government in case the person or family is not able to ensure it for itself and 2) the right to receive inevitable social assistance that also includes the opportunity to use temporary shelter.

Local governments have according to the Local Government Organisation Act (1993) responsibility for: provision of public services and amenities, social care, welfare services, housing and utilities, spatial planning, etc. The financial resources for provision of the services to the homeless are included in local government budgets. Every local government is free to set exact rules on who is eligible for public housing. Many local governments have specified priority target groups in their procedures for allocating social apartments that aim to prevent people from becoming homeless. These target groups include single parents, elderly people living alone, disabled people, and people who start independent life after being raised in a substitute home.

The main policy instrument for housing in Estonia is the Estonian Housing Development Plan (EHDP) 2008-2013 http://www.valitsus.ee/failid/_eluasemevaldkonna_arengukava_2008_2013.pdf . On the basis of EHDP the state shall invest into: increasing municipally owned housing stock, making available housing services, enhancing the quality and energy efficiency of the housing stock and into works needed to develop residential areas. The budget for EHDP is nearly 140 MEUR. This EHDP until 2013 is a follow-up to the previous plan for 2003-2008 . The objectives and measures of the EHDP served as a basis for planning the state budget resources as well as for funding from the EU Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund during the period of 2007- 2013. [26]

http://www.valitsus.ee/failid/_eluasemevaldkonna_arengukava_2008_2013.pdf

Both the Estonian National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2008-2010 and especially the EHDP foresee measures to support families with difficulties to cope to cover housing expenses and help to find possibilities for housing acquisition. The themes and objectives of the Estonian Environmental Strategy 2030 and National Environmental Action Plan of Estonia for 2007-2013 are closely related to EHDP.

23. ACCESSIBILITY AND QUALITY OF HOUSING

23.1. Accessibility

In order to buy a 120 m² property in early 2009, 23 years of rent were needed, which corresponds to the EU average. Nevertheless, in early 2009, the ratio of the square metre price on disposable income per capita for Estonia was still around 35% higher than that in the EU. Balázs Egert & Dubravko Mihaljek, 2007. " Determinants of House Prices in Central and Eastern Europe ," CESifo Working Paper Series CESifo Working Paper[27]

Balázs Egert & Dubravko Mihaljek, 2007. " Determinants of House Prices in Central and Eastern Europe ," CESifo Working Paper Series CESifo Working Paper

In 2000, housing provision was divided between sectors as follows: 81% were in owner occupied sector, 4% co-ops, 11% in private rentals, and only 4% in public rentals (of which 25% was state owned and 75% constituted municipal housing fund) . Such distribution of the housing stock is the result of the large-scale privatisation and restitution programmes that took place in the 1990s. The share of public housing dropped from 61% in 1992 to 4% by 2000. As a result, the public sector has retained only a minimal opportunity to directly influence housing provision by offering affordable rental dwellings. FEANTSA Annual Theme 2008 Housing and Homelessness – National Report Estonia. Therefore b etween 2003 and 2006, local governments used state financing (EHDP) for building 1032 municipally owned dwellings.[28]

FEANTSA Annual Theme 2008 Housing and Homelessness – National Report Estonia.

According to the legislation, a distinction should be made between the social housing (which is also in a municipal ownership) and municipal housing in general (includes dwellings which have not yet been privatised as well as ‘social dwellings’). Usually, the same rent level and rental conditions apply to both types of social dwellings and other dwellings in a municipal ownership. FEANTSA Annual Theme 2008 Housing and Homelessness – National Report Estonia. At the end of 2007, 157 local governments (69.2% of local governments) possessed social or municipal housing. In total, local governments owned 6,393 residential spaces that could be used to provide the housing service at the end of the 2007. 302 or 4.7% of these residential spaces had been adapted for people with special needs; 5.796 or 90.7% of the residential spaces were occupied. The use of social housing is generally regulated by a contract with a term of one or two years, which can be extended if the need persists. Social housing services are also provided by private or the non-profit sector. [29]

FEANTSA Annual Theme 2008 Housing and Homelessness – National Report Estonia.

There are no direct limits on housing costs, although regulations exist on prices of electricity, thermal energy (heat), water and sewage services, natural gas where prices must be approved by local municipalities or by Estonian Competition Authority. Some local municipalities have also set rent controls on municipal buildings.

In 2006 subsistence benefits, foreseen by the Social Welfare Act , were paid to 19,229 households (ca 3.4% of the total number of households) and an estimated 46% of the amount was used to compensate housing costs. The global economic and financial crisis has had considerable impact on Estonia. The local governments have paid out 92.1% more support in Q2 2009 than in Q2 2008 in order to guarantee the minimum income for its inhabitants (64 € per first person and additional 51 € per person).

23.2. Quality

In 2006, around 50% of the housing stock dated back to before 1970, while the stock of low-quality Soviet era apartment blocks, built during 1971-1989, accounted for some 44% of the total housing stock. Around 20% of them were of very low quality. Dwellings of less than 15 years of age accounted for only 6%. Fewer than 1000 dwellings were added annually from 1996 to 2001. Construction activities accelerated to 5100 units in 2005 and more than 7000 in 2007.

70.5% of all households live in an apartment, 19.5% in family dwellings and terraced houses and 10% in farmhouses. In the first half of 2007, 91.8% of the dwellings were permanently inhabited. The average floor area per capita was 28.9 m² in 2008. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication15590_en.pdf Two-room apartments make up the largest share of dwellings, i.e. 229 860 apartments or 36% of the total.[30]

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication15590_en.pdf

The quality and energy consumption of the housing stock is poor. Dwellings in Estonia are smaller, older and in some cases have poorer standard amenities and the share of apartments is larger than that of private houses. In addition to the amortisation of the structures and technical systems of residential buildings the supporting infrastructure and utility systems are obsolete. However, only one tenth of the households regarded the condition of their dwelling as poor, more than 40% of the households regarded the conditions of their dwellings as good, and almost a half of the households thought that it was satisfactory. Anneli Kährik, Ene-Margit Tiit, Jüri Kõre, Sampo Ruoppila. Access To housing for vulnerable groups in Estonia, Praxis Centre For Policy Studies, 2003, http://pdc.ceu.hu/archive/00001650/01/raport.pdf[31]

Anneli Kährik, Ene-Margit Tiit, Jüri Kõre, Sampo Ruoppila. Access To housing for vulnerable groups in Estonia, Praxis Centre For Policy Studies, 2003, http://pdc.ceu.hu/archive/00001650/01/raport.pdf

Housing deprivation by item is higher than EU-27 average (21.6% and 18.0%, respectively), whereas deprivation proportion is higher than average in the case of more than one deprivation item. T he rate of population reported to live in acceptable living standards was 64.7% in Estonia in 2007, whereas it was 75.2% in EU.

Comparison to the other EU countries demonstrates that the Estonian overcrowding rate (42.8%) is one of the highest compared with other EU countries (EU-27 17.3%). At the same time the number of 1-person households that are excluded from such statistics is also very high (44.9%, the EU average 18.1%). Overcrowding by gender is the highest for females (43.4%; EU-27 16.8%); by age groups the highest for 0-17 (54.6%; EU-27 22.1%); by poverty status for poor (47.3%; EU-27 26.8%); by degree of urbanisation for intermediate (55.9%; EU-27 10.8%); by tenure status for tenants - market price (70.7%; EU-27 17.6%); by quintiles for the first quintile (46.9%; EU-27 25.5%); by households with dependent children for other household type (68.4%; EU-27 44.2%); by households without dependent children for other household type (43.3%; EU-27 19.4%).

According to a study analysing the housing-related problems 17% of households claim that their dwelling is too small and that the number of rooms is not sufficient, compared to the overcrowding rate of nearly 43% it might be surprising. However overcrowding occurs in apartments that are mainly in the capital where people prefer to come to work from all over Estonia, therefore they tend to put up with overcrowding while attempting to improve their situation. 11% of the households claims that the lack of conveniences is a very important problem; for 10% of the households the poor condition of the dwelling is a very important concern. Ibid.[32]

Ibid.

24. HOMELESSNESS AND ACCESS TO SERVICES

According to FEANTSA report Estonia – National Report, Housing Solutions for People who are homeless, FEANTSA Annual Theme 2008, Housing and Homeless, p. 9. on Estonia's situation t he typical chains of events leading to becoming homeless are the following: [33]

Estonia – National Report, Housing Solutions for People who are homeless, FEANTSA Annual Theme 2008, Housing and Homeless, p. 9.

– Alcohol abuse -> unemployment -> rent debts -> eviction or sale of apartment (29% of cases);

– Release from a detention institution -> incapability to find employment -> incapability to rent housing in the private market due to no income and the social background (25%);

– Unemployment -> alcohol abuse -> rent debts -> eviction or sale of apartment (15%);

– Unemployment -> alcohol abuse -> family falling apart or end of partnership -> loss of housing (15%).

All local government authorities are required to provide assistance and counselling service, irrespective of the place of residence of the person in the population register. Counties have developed county-level information and counselling centres that provide people with special needs and their families with comprehensive advisory and counselling services (social, psychological, family, legal and debt counselling).

In the capital the number of homeless people is bigger but more financial means to figth the problem are available, therefore they have been able to provide social accommodation whereby every service user receives 24-hour accommodation in combination with a plan that specifies actions to reintegrate society. The objective is to assist the person in relocating to social or municipal housing or a rental apartment. In smaller local governments, the movement from night shelter to social housing is smoother and faster.

25. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The national housing policy (EHDP) is implemented by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Culture and in cooperation with the Credit and Export Guarantee Fund KredEx, Enterprise Estonia, National Heritage Board as well as by local governments and the relevant non-profit associations active in this field.

The EDHP shall be updated at least once every four years. The Development Plan shall be implemented on the basis of annual implementation plans, defining the specific nature, volume and organisation of the activities to be carried out during the nearest year. The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications shall be directly responsible for the implementation of the Development Plan and evaluate the progress of the activities undertaken on the basis of the impact and output indicators specified in the Development Plan. Evaluations shall be conducted on a quarterly basis and also at the end of the year, based on the quarterly reports and comprehensive annual reports submitted by KredEx.

IRELAND

1. Current Situation

The general issue of access to housing in Ireland has been significantly affected by both population and economic growth in recent years. The population increased by 9% between 2001 and 2006 to 4.11 million while the average household size declined to 2.82 in 2006 from 3.33 in 1991 According to Census of Ireland, http://www.cso.ie/census/ . These demographic patterns helped create huge demand for housing and a consequent 'boom' in house construction - 93,419 housing units were constructed in 2006 compared to 33,725 in 1996). Despite this, the average price of a house in Ireland rose from €102,222 in 1997 to €322,634 in 2007 (although they dropped to €305269 in 2008) Housing construction and housing cost figures are taken from national statistics from the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/StatisticsandRegularPublications/HousingStatistics/ . [34][35]

According to Census of Ireland, http://www.cso.ie/census/

Housing construction and housing cost figures are taken from national statistics from the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/StatisticsandRegularPublications/HousingStatistics/

The 2006 census www.cso.ie estimated that there were 1.452 million occupied permanent housing units in Ireland with a further 216,500 (12% of total) unoccupied housing units and a 50,000 (3% of total) holiday homes. [36]

www.cso.ie

Eurostat figures reveal that, in terms of affordability, 3.1% of the population had a housing cost burden of more than 40% in 2007, compared to an EU average of 12.3%, with the first quintile the most represented among this at 11.3% (compared to 35.2% in EU). However, there is a marked difference in this group between 'owners' and 'tenants', with only 1.5% of the former (with a mortgage) exceeding the 40% threshold (compared to 8.5% in EU), but 23% of the latter group (paying market rates), just below the EU average of 25.4%. The median for the population as a whole of the share of housing costs in household income was 10% (compared to 18% in EU) falling to 9% when housing allowances are taken into account. The highest median for different groups of the share of housing costs in household income was for households headed by a lone parent or classed as 'poor' – 15% for both after housing benefits (compared to 28% in EU), and 'tenants' – 16% compared to 27% in EU.

In relation to the incidence of 'homelessness', the 2008 Housing Needs Assessment, carried out by all local authorities, found that, of those households experiencing a form of ' housing need', over 50% related to ability to meet housing costs, while 3% were classed as 'homeless', 3% lived in 'unfit accommodation', 9% were in overcrowded accommodation and another 9% in involuntary sharing. The survey also found that while 31% of those with a housing need have that need met within 12 months, a further 29% waited between 12 and 36 months The result of the assessment was included in the reply to the SPC HHE questionnaire by the Irish authorities. . [37]

The result of the assessment was included in the reply to the SPC HHE questionnaire by the Irish authorities.

However, a disadvantage to the Housing Needs Assessment is that it only takes account of those who have registered as having a housing need. The 'Counted In' survey 'Counted In' is the 2008 version of a survey of homelessness carried out in Dublin every 3 years by the Homeless Agency and is available here: http://www.homelessagency.ie/getdoc/10ba727c-4a3f-4450-9478-15c083b899de/Counted-In,-2008.aspx , on the other hand, is a point-in-time assessment of those using homeless services which was extended from Dublin to the cities of Cork, Galway and Limerick in 2008 and so can be considered as more comprehensive in coverage. For Dublin, this survey found that 1361 households (covering 1634 individuals) were homeless, compared to 1361 households in 2005 (a 5% increase which is the same as the population increase during the same period), while a further 708 households were regarded as living in long-term of transitional accommodation. The number of people sleeping rough in Dublin was reported to have fallen by over 40%, to 110 from 185 in 2005. In the cities of Cork, Limerick and Galway, a further 767 households were reported to be homeless, including those in transitional and long-term accommodation. Males made up more than two thirds of the homeless (68% in Dublin) while the majority of individuals were single – accounting for 60% in Dublin. The average age of homeless people was 39 in Dublin and 43 – 44 in other urban centres. 16% of homeless people in Dublin were of non-Irish nationality. [38]

'Counted In' is the 2008 version of a survey of homelessness carried out in Dublin every 3 years by the Homeless Agency and is available here: http://www.homelessagency.ie/getdoc/10ba727c-4a3f-4450-9478-15c083b899de/Counted-In,-2008.aspx

26. Overall Policy Framework and Governance

Ireland has not adopted a formal definition of homelessness but, in operational terms, it is narrower than that developed by ETHOS (although there is a commitment to review the operational definition). Access to housing is neither a legal nor a constitutional right in Ireland, although the Housings Acts and associated legislative and administrative provisions do aim at ensuring that housing needs are adequately addressed.

Overall responsibility for homelessness and housing exclusion is dispersed across a number of areas, mainly in relation to the division between housing and adult homelessness (The Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government) and child homelessness (Health Service Executive - HSE) while policy implementation is primarily the responsibility of the HSE and local authorities.

Attempts at improving the coordination of governance arrangements have recently been made with the establishment of a Cross Departmental Team on Homelessness (which oversaw the preparation of the latest homelessness strategy and includes representatives of all relevant government departments and agencies) and a National Homeless Consultative Committee. The consultative committee marks a move towards more a 'partnership' based governance model (as it brings together statutory and voluntary bodies) which is further in evidence in the new homelessness strategy and the establishment of the Homeless Agency – which oversees the integrated implementation of the strategy in Dublin and whose board of management includes statutory and voluntary stakeholders.

Reflecting the definition of homelessness used, Irish public policy objectives primarily reflect a concern with housing, in so far as they are focused on preventing homelessness and, where it does happen, to ensuring it is as short as possible. These objectives are set out in the national strategy. The Way Home: A Strategy to Address Adult Homelessness 2008 – 2013 which also sets out roles and responsibilities for implementation across the different levels and sets out an integrated long-term system for funding. The strategy also envisages a strong role for locally based homeless fora which help coordinate action at local level and which involve non-statutory stakeholders.

27. Accessibility and Quality of Housing

27.1. Accessibility

In terms of prevention, Ireland has focused in recent years on strengthening the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants in the private rental market through the Residential Tenancies Act, which legislates for issues such as minimum periods of notice. The follow-up of people due to be released has been addressed by homeless strategies since 2000 but an independent review has recommended that actions be improved in this area, including through better integration of services for those leaving institutional care.

Emergency accommodation for the homeless in Ireland is provided through hostels or bed and breakfast establishments while voluntary services also provide other services such as day centres and outreach services. The reports notes that there is a sufficient number of emergency places for this wishing to avail of them while also stating that policies are being put in place to support the move from emergency to more permanent accommodation. However, the details of these policies are not yet available.

Two new schemes (Support to Live Independently and Homeless RAS Initiative) are being developed by the authorities in order to promote independent living with appropriate supports. These involve sourcing accommodation through long-term leasing in the private sector combined with procurement of support services, where required. While these are currently based in Dublin, plans are afoot to roll them out nationally.

Housing in Ireland is dominated by private ownership (approximately 3 in every 4 houses are privately owned), leaving private rental (about 10%) and social rented housing (about 10%) very much as less favoured options According to Census 2006, 1,068,368 dwellings in permanent housing units are 'owner occupied' out of total number of dwellings in permanent housing units of 1,462,396. http://beyond2020.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=76512 . However, given affordability issues brought on by the housing boom of the last 15 years, Ireland has invested significantly in social and affordable housing in recent years (delivered mainly by local authorities and voluntary and cooperative bodies) in order to help those on low incomes to gain access to housing. Access to social housing can be provided through either discounted houses for purchase (at significantly below market value), shared ownership (with the local authority) or social housing for rent. Access to housing through these avenues is based on a persons 'housing need' which in turn is assessed by the relevant local authority. [39]

According to Census 2006, 1,068,368 dwellings in permanent housing units are 'owner occupied' out of total number of dwellings in permanent housing units of 1,462,396. http://beyond2020.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=76512

Increased investment in recent years ensured that 21,250 'affordable' units were made available for purchase between 2002 and 2008. In addition, the government significantly increased resources for other forms of social housing, including direct construction by local authorities and voluntary housing groups, with the result that between 1997 and 2007 the annual provision of all forms of 'social and affordable' units almost doubled from 9,296 to 18,341 Figures provided by national authorities in the reply to the SPC HHE questionnaire. . The official Government target is to address the housing needs of 60,000 households between 2007 and 2009. Given the low rents and subsidised purchase prices, affordability of social rented accommodation is not a major issue. However, the rapid rise in private rents in recent years means that those working on low wages, or families with one income, are most concerned by affordability issues while the increase in unemployment may now lead to increased affordability problems for those with mortgages. [40]

Figures provided by national authorities in the reply to the SPC HHE questionnaire.

27.2. Quality

Ireland has traditionally focused on structural criteria when legislating for 'quality' housing. Local authorities are empowered to inspect dwellings under these criteria and to force owners to make improvements. The issue of 'over-crowding' is also legislated for in that two people of the opposite sex, who are over ten years of age and not living together as husband and wife, who must sleep in the same room shall be regarded as living in an over-crowded house. The rate of inspections of properties by local authorities has also increased significantly in recent years.

28. Homelessness and Access to Services

Housing and health are the two main elements of the policy response to homelessness in Ireland although the latest strategy document does show a more integrated approach in recognising the need for cooperation among a wide range of service providers, including in relation to education, training and employment. Here, a number of supporting measures are set out while guidance has been provided and protocols signed between agencies on providing access to these employment and education related services. Such cooperation among service providers in this area is a relatively new departure in Ireland so the success of the strategy in terms of service provision will depend on the availability and coordination of these services on the ground.

29. Monitoring and Evaluation

Data availability and its use for monitoring and evaluation has been an issue for some time in Ireland, in particular with different techniques for gathering data in use across different local authorities. However, the new homeless strategy does appear to target this issue by setting specific performance indicators for each of its six strategic aims. In addition, the roll-out of a new data collection across the country following its piloting in Dublin should address the deficiencies in how data is collected. Evaluation of strategies and their implementation is carried out under the aegis of the cross departmental team on homelessness and the national consultative committee.

GREECE

1. Current situation

In 2008, population in Greece increased to more than 11 million people Data extracted from: http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE due mainly to the continuation of influx of immigrants. According to the 2001 population Census, the number of households exceeded 3,6 Mio units. There were 36,600 people living in non-regular dwellings (tents, caravans, mobile homes, etc), while there were 76,200 people sharing their dwelling. According to a recent survey, in 2009, there were 7.720 homeless people and people confronted with housing exclusion (excluding Roma and refugees). However, other studies show that their number has been on the increase over recent years: approximately 14,000 people in 2005 and 20,000 people in 2008. [41]

Data extracted from: http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE

As regards the number of houses, official data show that in 2000 there were 5.4 Mio houses, 3.6 Mio of which were inhabited and 1.8 were empty : http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/BUCKET/A1604/OTHER /A1604_SAP05_TB_DC . Home ownership amounted to 74.2 % of the total population, 20.2% we