COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Confronting Homelessness in the European Union Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Towards Social Investment for Growth and Cohesion - including implementing the European Social Fund 2014-2020
Date: 2013-02-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Social Fund, homelessness, job access, marginalisation, poverty, right to health, social integration

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 20.2.2013  
SWD(2013) 42 final 

Social Investment Package 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Confronting Homelessness in the European Union  

Accompanying the document 

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

Towards Social Investment for Growth and Cohesion - including implementing the 
European Social Fund 2014-2020 

{COM(2013) 83 final} 
{SWD(2013) 38 final} 
{SWD(2013) 39 final} 
{SWD(2013) 40 final} 
{SWD(2013) 41 final} 
{SWD(2013) 43 final} 
{SWD(2013) 44 final}

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. 

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 2 

PART ONE: UNDERSTANDING HOMELESSNESS ..................................................... 4 

2.  DEFINING HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING EXCLUSION.............................. 4 

3.  THE URGENCY TO ACT ON HOMELESSNESS................................................... 5 

3.1. Grave impact on and cost to individuals and society ........................................... 5 

3.2. Rising levels of homelessness .............................................................................. 6 

3.3. Multiplied risks for homelessness ........................................................................ 7 

3.4. Access barriers to quality and affordable housing ............................................. 10 

PART TWO: POLICIES TO ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS ......................................... 12 

4.  PREVENTING HOMELESSNESS.......................................................................... 12 

5. 

IMPROVING SERVICE PROVISION TO THE HOMELESS ............................... 17 

5.1. 

Improving the employability of homeless people ........................................... 18 

5.2. 

Improving homeless people’s access to healthcare......................................... 19 

5.3.  Providing emergency accommodation ............................................................ 20 

5.4.  Emergency services for coping with extreme weather conditions .................. 21 

6.  PARTICIPATION AND EMPOWERMENT........................................................... 22 

7. 

IMPROVING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING........................................ 23 

8.  CORE ELEMENTS OF HOMELESSNESS STRATEGIES ................................... 27 

8.1.  Mobilising Member State and EU policies to confront homelessness............ 27 

8.2. 

Improving governance, partnerships and funding to combat homelessness ... 30 

8.3.  Measurement  and  monitoring  of  homelessness  at  Member  States  and  EU 

level ................................................................................................................. 36 

ANNEX I: RECENT EU ACTIONS RELEVANT TO HOMELESSNESS.................... 39 

ANNEX II: TABLES AND DATA ON HOMELESSNESS............................................ 44 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

All the signs point to a worsening of the problem of homelessness in the European Union 
since 2008. As the ongoing financial and economic crisis puts more people out of a job 
and  makes  more  people  dependent  on  social  protection,  the  risk  of  homelessness  in  all 
Member  States  of  the  European  Union  is  increasing.  This  Commission  Staff  Working 
Document  (CSWD),  which  is  part  of  a  wider  Social  Investment  Package,1  argues  for 
more urgent concerted action to take preventative measures that can reduce the risk and 
magnitude of homelessness. 

Having access to decent housing and being part of society is crucial for allowing people 
to  realise  their  full  economic  potential  and  to  contribute  productively  to  society. 
Targeted, integrated policies that mitigate the overall impact of homelessness are good 
examples  of  investments  with  high  rates  of  return.  Providing  permanent  housing  and 
support measures for the homeless and preventing the circumstances which might lead to 
homelessness  has  long-term  social  and  economic  benefits  including  lower  public 
expenditure  on  shelters  and  crisis  support  services,  healthcare,  increased  employment, 
higher  tax  revenues  and  lower  judicial  system  costs  and  contributes  to  a  better  social 
cohesion.2  

While  the  primary  responsibility  for  tackling  homelessness  lies  with  EU  Member 
States  and  their  regional  or  local  authorities,  the  European  Union  continues  to 
complement  and support their  efforts. Attention to homelessness  is now  deep-rooted 
and  a  key  aspect  of  in  the  EU’s  broader  efforts  to  fight  poverty  and  social  exclusion 
within  the  Europe  2020  process  and  in  line  with  Article  153  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 

There  is  already  a  significant  history  of  addressing  homelessness  at  European  Union 
level.  The  Europe  2020  Strategy,3  through  its  European  Platform  against  Poverty 
and  Social  Exclusion  flagship  and  the  accompanying  Communication,  identified 
homelessness as one of the most severe forms of poverty and deprivation. It called for the 
development  of  appropriate  and  integrated  responses,  both  to  prevent  and  tackle 
homelessness in the framework of a wider EU social inclusion policy. The Strategy also 
set  a  headline  target  to  reduce  the  number  of  people  living  in  poverty  and  social 
exclusion  by  at  least  20  million  by  2020.  The  poverty  reduction  target  is  monitored 
annually through the European Semester process. 
The  European  Year  of  Combating  Poverty  and  Social  Exclusion  in  20104  raised 
awareness  of  the  specific  problem  of  homelessness  in  a  general  poverty  and  exclusion 
context  all  over  Europe.  A  Consensus  Conference  held  in  December  20105  under  the 
Belgian  Presidency  of  the  Council  of  Ministers  brought  together  a  wide  range  of 
interested parties and produced valuable recommendations on elements of comprehensive 
homelessness strategies.  

Homelessness has for some years now been featuring on the policy agenda of different 
EU  institutions  and  bodies  as  well  as  being  part  of  the  Social  Open  Method  of 

1  Commission  Communication  –  Towards  Social  Investment  for  Growth  and  Cohesion  -  including 

implementing the ESF 2014-2020, COM(2013) 83. 

2     For the cost- benefit angles of homelessness, see in particular Chapters 3.1, 4 and 7. 
3  Commission  Communication  COM(2010)2020  final  on  Europe  2020  A  Strategy  for  Smart, 

Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. 
See http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=637  
See http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=88&langId=en&eventsId=315&furtherEvents=yes  

4 
5 

2 

 
                                                 
Coordination.  In  2008  in  a  Written  Declaration  the  European  Parliament  asked  the 
European  Union  to  address  street  homelessness  as  an  urgent  priority  and  to  assist 
Member  States  with  the  development  of  winter  plans  for  the  homeless6.  In  2010,  in 
another  Written  Declaration,  MEPs  called  upon  the  EU  to  support  Member  States  in 
their efforts to reduce and solve the problems of homelessness7. In September 2011, the 
European  Parliament  adopted  a  Resolution8,  urging  Member  States  to  make  progress 
towards the goal of ending street homelessness by 2015 and calling for a development of 
an  ambitious,  integrated  EU  strategy,  underpinned  by  national  and  regional  strategies 
with  the  long-term  aim  of  ending  homelessness  within  the  broader  social  inclusion 
framework. 

In the Social Protection Committee (SPC) Member States together with the European 
Commission  work  on  homelessness-  related  issues  through  the  Open  Method  of 
Coordination. The SPC chose homelessness as a priority issue in its work plan for 2009 
('homelessness  light  year').  All  SPC  members  produced  extensive  national  reports  in 
which  they  outlined  how  homelessness  was  addressed  in  their  country.  A  set  of  peer 
reviews has been conducted on homelessness since 2004, hosted by England, Denmark, 
Norway,  France,  Austria,  Portugal  and  Finland.9  Moreover,  the  SPC  is  active  in 
developing  indicators  and  monitoring  methods  on  social  inclusion  through  its 
Indicators Subgroup. 

In  2010  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  of  the  EU  adopted  an  Opinion  on  Combating 
Homelessness10. In 2011 the European Economic and Social Committee followed suit 
by adopting an Opinion on Homelessness.11  

The  June  2012  EPSCO  Council  called  on  Member  States  and  the  Commission  to 
develop  and  promote  adequate  social  schemes  for  persons  who  are  homeless  in 
accordance  with  their  respective  competences,  and  taking  into  account  the  specific 
situation in each Member State. The May 2012 Danish Presidency conference on the 11th 
European  meeting  of  People  Experiencing  Poverty  was  devoted  to  homelessness  and 
housing rights in the context of the crisis. The participants called for real homelessness 
and  inclusion  strategies  in  the  EU,  including  improved  data  collection  and  a  better 
understanding of the realities facing people at risk of homelessness, backed by strategic 
use of European Structural Funds. 

Important recent policy documents and actions include the 2010 Joint Report on Social 
Protection  and  Social  Inclusion,12  which  called 
the  development  and 
implementation of national or regional homelessness strategies and provided guidance on 
how  to  do  this,  placing  a  strong  emphasis  on  effective  governance,  monitoring  and 
evaluation, and the setting of specific targets. 

for 

This  CSWD  seeks  continuity  with  Member  States  and  EU  actions  taken  to  date, 
promoting social investment in the field of homelessness. It consists of two main parts. 
Part One looks at  recent  trends  and  data  on  homelessness, with particular emphasis 
on the impact of the financial and economic crisis. Part Two discusses policy practices 
and  approaches  in  the  Member  States,  showing  how  the  European  Union  intends  to 
support the Member States through the Europe 2020 governance process, targeted use 

6  Declaration of the European Parliament on ending street homelessness, April 2008. 
7  Declaration of the European Parliament on an EU homelessness strategy, December 2010. 
8  Resolution of the European Parliament on an EU Homelessness Strategy B7-0475/2011. 
9  Background note for the European Consensus Conference on homelessness, December 2010. 
10  Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Combating homelessness. 2011/C 15/08. 
11  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on homelessness. CESE 1592/2011. 
12 

Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2010. European Commission February 2010. 

3 

 
                                                 
of  the  EU  Funds  and  various  sectorial  policies.  Annex  I  contains  a  selection  of  recent 
actions at EU level with relevance for homelessness and Annex II provides a compilation 
of the most relevant data and tables on homelessness. 

PART ONE: UNDERSTANDING HOMELESSNESS 

This Part provides an overview of homelessness in the European Union today, showing 
the main data and trends. It explains in more detail what homelessness means, how it is 
defined in the broader sense and what its main causes are. It will discuss the complexity 
of  the  triggers  and  circumstances  that  influence  the  risk  of  homelessness,  while  also 
paying  attention  to  the  high  costs  and  detrimental  effects  of  homelessness,  both  for 
individuals and for society. 

2.  DEFINING HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING EXCLUSION 

There is not a single definition of homelessness that is accepted in all the EU Member 
States. In some, homelessness is  still limited to the most visible and needy category of 
rough  sleepers,  i.e.  people  who  spend  the  night  in  the  open  air.  This  approach  fails  to 
consider  people  living  in  homeless  shelters  or  very  precarious  housing  conditions  and 
substandard  housing and people  at imminent risk of homelessness due to very insecure 
tenure or ownership, which in effect amounts to homelessness.  

At a 2010 European Consensus Conference, stakeholders and the European Commission 
agreed  on  the  ETHOS13  definition  for  homelessness  and  housing  exclusion.  This 
definition is derived from the physical, social and legal interpretation of what a ‘home’ 
means. It classifies the following four living circumstances as homelessness or extreme 
forms of housing exclusion14: 

1.  Rooflessness (people living rough and people in emergency accommodation),  

2.  Houselessness (people in accommodation for the homeless, in women's shelters, 
in accommodation for immigrants, people due to be released from institutions and 
people receiving long-term support due to homelessness),  

3.  Insecure  accommodation  (people  living  in  insecure  tenancies,  under  threat  of 

eviction or violence), and  

4.  Inadequate housing (living in unfit housing, non-conventional dwellings e.g. in 
caravans  without  adequate  access  to  public  utilities  such  as  water,  electricity  or 
gas or in situations of extreme overcrowding).15 

DE, DK, FI, LU, NL, SE and the UK already use a broad definition of homelessness 
following the logic of the ETHOS definition, albeit in many cases with the exception of 
ETHOS category 4. BE, FR, HU, IE, PT use a more narrow definition for policy and a 
broader  one  for  counting  and  research  purposes.  AT,  CZ,  ES,  GR,  IT,  PL  use  a  more 

13  ETHOS stands for the "European Typology of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion", see also Table 

1 in Annex II. 

14  There  have  been  other  attempts  to  provide  a  broad  definition  of  homelessness,  see  in  particular  the 
definition used for population census purposes. This CSWD will adhere to the ETHOS definition. 
15  H. Frazer, E. Marlier and I. Nicaise: A Social Inclusion Roadmap for Europe 2020. Garant, 2010. 

4 

 
                                                 
narrow definition, while BG, CY, ET, SK, LT, LV, MT, RO and SI have not yet begun 
to use a standardised definition.16 

3.  THE URGENCY TO ACT ON HOMELESSNESS 

3.1. Grave impact on and cost to individuals and society  

Homelessness  is  an  extreme  manifestation  of  poverty  and  social  exclusion  which 
reduces a person’s productive potential and is a waste of human capital. 

Even  a  short  spell  of  homelessness  can diminish  a  person’s  chances  of  reintegration 
and may lead to rapid deterioration in physical and mental health, in employability and in 
social  skills.  The  longer-term  consequences  can  be  irreversible.  Homeless  people  often 
have a significantly lower life expectancy. Their lifespan may be reduced by as many as 
30  years  compared  to  that  of  the  general  population  and  many  of  them  die  in  their 
forties.17  

Health problems are particularly linked to homelessness, both as a triggering factor and 
as  a  consequence.  Unsanitary,  exposed  and  overcrowded  living  conditions  make 
homeless people very vulnerable to illnesses, physical injury and violence. It is very 
common for a homeless person to have or develop mental health problems, personality 
disorders,  offending  behaviour,  learning  difficulties,  physical  health  problems  or 
vulnerability  because  of  premature  ageing.  Respiratory,  cardio-vascular  and  infectious 
diseases such as HIV, tuberculosis and hepatitis are also much more prevalent among the 
homeless.  Alcohol,  tobacco  or  drug  abuse  is  very  frequent,18  as  is  malnutrition.19 
Homeless people are also more likely to attempt suicide. 

The  homeless  suffer  from  limited  access  to  healthcare,  social  and  other  services  and 
cannot  always  exercise  their  basic  human  and  civil  rights.  Homeless  people  are  often 
stigmatised,  discriminated  against  or  even  criminalised.  They  may  commit  minor 
crimes such as squatting or take up work in the black and grey economy. 

People  experiencing  or  at  risk  of  homelessness  face  a  range  of  personal  and  social 
barriers to finding and keeping work. At the personal level they may have a disability, 
mental  illness  or  addiction,  poor  work  history,  low  levels  of  literacy  and  a  lack  of 
relevant skills. At the social level there is a lack of support resources, e.g. family, friends, 
networks  and  there  are  problems  in  accessing  services  with  set  operating  times  while 
only limited types of employment are available to homeless people. 

Not having a fixed address makes it difficult for people to hold on to or look for a job 
and  to  wear  clean  and  proper  clothing.  Hindered  access  to  affordable  basic  services 
such  as  transport,  childcare  or  healthcare  can  also  frustrate  job-seeking.  Few  homeless 
people are in permanent employment and their main source of income often comes from 
social support, charity or begging. 

The  costs,  in  real  terms,  of  not  addressing  homelessness  is  very  high.  Though 
European  data  are  scarce,  international  statistics  are  available:  the  annual  cost  of 

16  Paragraph based on the Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2010, data updated. 
17  See  for  instance  the  2011  Crisis/Sheffield  university  report  in  the  UK  and  the  2009  Charity 

Intelligence report in Canada. 

18  References in this paragraph are based on The Right to Health is a Human Right. Ensuring Access to 

19 

Health for People who are Homeless. FEANTSA, 2006.  
Impact  Assessment  of  the  Fund  for  European  Aid  for  the  Most  Deprived  programme.  European 
Commission, 2012.  

5 

 
                                                 
homelessness in Canada for instance in 2007 was estimated at between $4.5 billion and 6 
billion.20 Another study showed that a homeless person costs between $700.000 to $4.5 
million to the Australian society.21 The social costs of homelessness are especially high 
in the justice and health domains.22 Roofless people often require complex, integrated 
types of support over a longer period of time and tend to use the most expensive and 
intensive forms of support such as emergency hospital care. The cost of homelessness to 
the  welfare  system  is  even  higher  if  one  considers  the  shortfall  in  tax  and  social 
contributions  which  could  be  recouped  if  homeless  people  were  reintegrated  into  the 
labour force. 

3.2. Rising levels of homelessness 

According  to  an  expert  estimate  for  the  year  2009,  under  categories  1  and  2  of  the 
ETHOS  definition  -  that  is,  when  counting  with  the  most  vulnerable  roofless  and 
houseless people  23- there could be as many as 410.000 homeless people on any given 
night in the European Union. This could imply that about 4.1 million people in the EU 
are exposed to rooflessness and houselessness each year for a shorter or longer period.24 
According to a 2010 Eurobarometer survey, more than 3 million Europeans say that they 
feel at risk of becoming homeless.25 

In most Member States for which recent data are available, homelessness seems to be 
on the rise.26 According to national experts27, homelessness increased over the past five 
years up to mid-2011 in fifteen Member States (AT, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FR, HU, IE, IT, 
LT, PL, PT, SI, SW, UK28), it decreased in two (FI, NL)29 and it remained stable in one 
(DK). 

In the past, homelessness was a short-lived experience for many people, especially those 
who, apart from their need for housing required little additional support. But the crisis is 
exposing  more  people  to  longer  periods  of  homelessness.  Deepening  poverty  and  a 
sharp  increase  in  unemployment  have  increased  the  general  risk  for  homelessness. 
Budgetary  consolidations  have  diminished  the  capacity  of  the  welfare  state  to  alleviate 
and prevent homelessness. Rising housing costs and prices combined with uncertain 
financial  markets  have  increased  the  vulnerability  of  homeowners  in  a  number  of 
Member States. Mortgage or rent arrears plus high energy and utility bills have taken 
many people into financial trouble. 

In 2011, on average 12 % of the EU-27 population was overburdened by housing costs, 
but for those at risk of poverty the figure was 39 % and for the non-poor it stood at less 

20    S. Gaetz: The Real Costs of Homelessness: Can We Save Money by Doing the Right Thing? Toronto, 

2012. 

21    E. Baldry, L. Dowse, R.McCausland and M. Clarence: Report on the lifecourse institutional costs of 

homelessness for vulnerable groups, Australia, May 2012. 

22  P. Flatau- K. Zaretzky: The Economic Evaluation of Homelessness Programmes. European Journal of 

Homelessness, Vol. 2. December 2008. 

23    For the ETHOS definition categories, see Chapter 2. 
24  H.  Frazer,  E.  Marlier  and  I.  Nicaise:  A  Social  Inclusion  Roadmap  for  Europe  2020.  Non-validated 

figures. 

25  Special  Eurobarometer  Report  on  Poverty  and  Social  Exclusion.  European  Commission,  December 

2010. 

26  Homelessness during the crisis. European Commission Research Note, August 2011. 
27  Data in the paragraph are from Monitoring Report on Homelessness and Homeless Policies in Europe. 

FEANTSA, September 2012. See Table 2 in Annex II. 
28 
Increase has also been reported in England and Wales within the United Kingdom. 
29  Decrease in homelessness was also reported from Scotland and North Rhine Westphalia. 

6 

 
                                                 
than 6 %.30 The latest results of the Quality of Life Survey on the impact of the crisis 
have  confirmed  the  rise  in  the  likelihood  of  having  to  leave  accommodation  due  to 
unaffordability. The percentage of Europeans who say they are very and/or quite likely to 
have to leave their accommodation within the next six months has increased from 4% in 
2007 to almost 6% in 2011.31 

Households  struggling  with  mortgage  and  rent  arrears,  high  utility  bills  and  over-
indebtedness and which are not receiving any support may in the end face repossession 
and eviction. A sharp rise in evictions and repossessions has been registered e.g. in ES, 
FR, HU, IE and IT 32 but also in several other Member States. 

3.3. Multiplied risks for homelessness 

Other  factors  that  have  increased  homelessness  are  rising  housing  costs,  intra-EU 
mobility  and  migration  from  third  countries,  ageing  and  changes  in  family 
structures,  such  as  the  growth  of  single  households,  and  long-term  health  problems. 
Family breakdown and deinstitutionalization, without adequate follow-up support are 
also major drivers. 

The  ‘traditional  core’  of  the  homeless  population  is  largely  made  up  of  middle-aged 
men  with  long-standing  social  problems,  mental  health  issues  and/or  alcohol  and  drug 
addiction,33 who usually require very complex and intensive support. But as of the late 
1990s  and  increasingly  since  the  onset  of  the  crisis,  the  composition  of  the  homeless 
population  has  begun  to  change.34  Strongly  influenced  by  the  recession,  the  risk  of 
homelessness has increased in particular among citizens from other EU Member States, 
migrants  from  third  countries,  young  persons,  the  newly  unemployed,  victims  of  legal 
loan sharking and those who generally have a low income.  

Women,  single-parent  and  large  families,  older  people,  Roma  and  other  minorities  are 
also  more  exposed  to  homelessness.  As  is  some  parts  of  the  rural  population  even  if 
homelessness remains a predominantly urban phenomenon. The lower educated seem to 
be overrepresented among the homeless. A Commission study found that some 70 % of 
the homeless young had left school with no more than lower secondary education.35 

The on-going inflow of migrants is an important driver of homelessness, particularly in 
urban areas. Migrants from within the EU are severely affected by the crisis. They are 
hit  by  massive  layoffs  and  wage  cuts  and  often  lack  a  supportive  social  network.  In 
particular,  the  employment  rate  in  low  skilled  sectors  such  as  construction  and 
manufacturing, where many migrants used to work, was reduced by the crisis. 

Although migration policies vary across Member States, access of migrants without a 
residency status to emergency social care such as shelters, social benefits, housing, 
healthcare,  education  and  labour  market  integration  services  is  usually  restricted 
everywhere.  Undocumented  migrants  typically  do  not  have  access  to  the  most  basic 

30  Housing  cost  overburden  shows  expenditures  on  housing  exceeding  40 %  of  income,  see  Table  4  in 

Annex II. 

31  3rd European Quality of Life Survey: Quality of life in Europe: Impacts of the crisis. Eurofound, 2012. 
32  EU Employment and Social Situation Quarterly Review. European Commission, June 2012. 
33 
34 

Idem. 
J.  Minnery,  E.  Greenhalgh:  Approaches  to  Homelessness  Policy  in  Europe,  the  United  States,  and 
Australia. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 63, No 3, 2007. 

35  CSEYHP  project,  Combating  social  Exclusion  among  Young  Homeless  Populations.  European 
Commission,  2010.  Project  supported  under  the  7th  Research  Framework  Programme  (2008-2011), 
see: http:// www.movisie.nl/homelessyouth/ . 

7 

 
                                                 
services. Asylum seekers are only granted temporary protection in their first EU country 
of entry, resulting in a limited duration of any entitlements.36 EU citizens who are mobile 
across the EU are usually in a better position than third-country nationals but they also do 
not have the same social security rights as nationals.37 

The crisis has also increased the number of Roma families affected by homelessness and 
housing  exclusion.  A  2011  study38  indicated  that  evictions  targeting  the  Roma  are 
widespread  in  many  countries.  The  study  pointed  out  that  Roma  are  not  always  given 
enough priority when it comes to the allocation of social housing.39 

Excluded Roma people and other marginalised ethnic minorities often live in segregated 
areas,  and  are  thus  frequently  deprived  of  work  opportunities,  access  to  affordable 
quality housing and basic utilities. A recent report40 found that almost half of the Roma – 
those living in  areas  with  a  concentrated  Roma population – live in houses that lack at 
least one basic amenity such as an indoor kitchen, toilet, shower or bath and electricity. 
Access to utilities for Roma is found 50 % lower than for the general population living 
nearby. 

People  leaving  institutions  such  as  prisons,  hospitals,  mental  health  institutions  and 
alternative  foster  care  homes  can  be  particularly  vulnerable  to  homelessness41  without 
adequate preparation for their after-care life and sufficient follow-up support e.g. to help 
them find housing. Many deinstitutionalised people do not have a family home to return 
to, have lost their own home during their care stay or cannot find suitable new housing. 
The  homelessness  risk  for  young  people  leaving  care  is  greater  also  because  they  are 
often forced to become self-sufficient at a much younger age than their peers growing up 
in  a  family  home.  Incarceration  can  have  a  long-term  exclusionary  effect  but 
stigmatisation is very common among institution-leavers in general. 
Among  the  homeless  more  and  more  families  with  children  are  being  seen,42  even  if 
they usually manage to stay in temporary or insecure accommodation rather than being 
exposed  to  rough  sleeping.43  Roma  children,  unaccompanied  asylum-seeking  children, 
undocumented or non-registered children and children leaving care are especially at risk. 
Spells of rough sleeping have been reported for children under the age of 12.44  

Life cycle transitions during adolescence, like leaving education, the parental home or a 
care institution for work or early parenthood may also increase the risk of homelessness. 
Youth  homelessness  has  risen  as  a  result  of  the  high  youth  unemployment  due  to  the 
crisis and early school-leaving. Many youngsters find themselves also in precarious jobs, 
on  a  temporary  or  part-time  contract  of  employment  without  much  access  to  social 

36  Homelessness and migration in Europe: finding responses. FEANTSA, Summer 2010. 
37  EU Employment and Social Situation Quarterly Review. European Commission, June 2012. 
38  Transition Project 2011, available at http://travailderue.org/ 
39    See also the recent EUROFOUND 2012 study: Living conditions of the Roma: Substandard housing 

and health on http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2012/02  

40  The  situation  of  Roma  in  11  EU  Member  States:  Survey  results  at  a  glance.  Joint  Report  of  the 
European  Union  Agency  for  Fundamental  Rights  and  the  United  Nations  Development  Programme, 
May 2012. 

41  Report of the European Consensus Conference on homelessness, December 2010. 
42  Child Homelessness in Europe - an Overview of Emerging Trends. FEANTSA, June 2007. 
43  Call for an EU Recommendation on Child Poverty and Child Well-being. Background paper to the EU 
Presidency  Conference:  Child  Poverty  and  Child  Well-Being.  Belgian  Presidency  of  the  European 
Union, June 2010. 

44  SPC  Advisory  Report  to  the  European  Commission  on  Tackling  and  Preventing  Child  Poverty, 

Promoting Child Well-Being, June 2012. 

8 

 
                                                 
support.45 A problematic harmful family background caused for example by sexual or 
physical  abuse  during  childhood,  loss  of  a  parent  and  additional  lack  of  a  supporting 
network  can  also  trigger  youth  homelessness.46  A  significant  number  of  low-income 
families  are  struggling  to  support  their  children,  especially  during  teenage  years,  at 
school.47 

Young  people  from  a  disadvantaged  background are  more  often  exposed  to  mental  and 
physical health problems, drug abuse, gambling and petty crime. This puts them more at 
risk  of  forced  evictions  even  if  youth  homelessness  tends  to  remain  invisible  because 
many manage to stay temporarily with friends or relatives. 

A considerable and growing number of older (over 50s) persons have been homeless or 
exposed  to  housing  exclusion  for  at  least  a  year.48  Divorce,  death  of  spouse  and  an 
inadequate  pension  are  the  major  trigger  factors.  The  growing  lack  of  carers  in  ageing 
societies may also increase the vulnerability of older people to housing exclusion. Older 
people who depend on affordable home care and who are left struggling are exposed to 
homelessness. 

Homelessness  is  an  example  of  a  gendered  phenomenon  where  the  majority  of  the 
disadvantaged  are  men  even  if  the  number  of  women  exposed  to  homelessness  is 
growing.49  Women  are  more  likely  to  be  found  in  insecure  accommodation  or  in 
inadequate housing than roofless. They also tend to spend shorter periods in shelters or 
specialised  centres  than  men.50  A  survey  on  women’s  homelessness  estimated  that 
women make up 11-17 % of the street homeless and 25-30 % of all homeless people in 
Europe.51  Homelessness  among  women  is  often  caused  by  domestic  violence.  Lack  of 
childcare increases the vulnerability of single parents, usually mothers, to homelessness.  

is  generally 

Homelessness 
interplay  of  structural, 
triggered  by  a  ‘complex 
institutional,  relationship  and  personal  factors’.52  The  table  below53  shows  that 
homelessness is usually due to an accumulation of vulnerability factors and not the result 
of  a  single  trigger  or  cause.  For  example,  unemployment  and  financial  hardship  or 
substance  abuse  –  primary  triggers  of  homelessness  themselves  –  may  put  pressure  on 
personal  relationships,  increasing  the  risk  of  family  breakdown,  which  is  another 
important trigger of homelessness.54 

45  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  COM(2009)200  EU  Youth  Report,  accompanying  the 

Commission Communication on Youth – Investing and Empowering. 

46  P.  Mayock,  E.  O’Sullivan  and  M.  L.  Corr:  Young  People’s  Pathways  Through  Homelessness. 

47 

Homeless in Europe, Autumn 2010. 
J.  Minnery,  E.  Greenhalgh:  Approaches  to  Homelessness  Policy  in  Europe,  the  United  States,  and 
Australia. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 63, No 3, 2007. 

48  Paragraph based on the Report on the European Consensus Conference on Homelessness, December 

2010. 

49  Homelessness during the crisis. European Commission Research Note, August 2011. 
50  See for instance the reply from Belgium (Brussels Capital) to the 2012 Commission questionnaire on 

51 

homelessness to the Social Protection Committee members. 
J.  Minnery,  E.  Greenhalgh:  Approaches  to  Homelessness  Policy  in  Europe,  the  United  States,  and 
Australia. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 63, No 3, 2007 

52  V.  Busch  Geertsema  (ed):  Homelessness  and  Homeless  policies  in  Europe:  lessons  for  research. 

Report prepared for the European Consensus Conference on Homelessness, December 2010. 

53  B. Edgar: European Review of Statistics on Homelessness. European Observatory on Homelessness, 

December 2009. 

54  Homelessness during the crisis. European Commission Research Note, August 2011. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Table No 1: Risk factors and triggers for homelessness 

Cause 

Factor of vulnerability 

Trigger 

Structural 

Economic 
unemployment 

process 

Housing market processes 

(poverty, 

Rent or mortgage arrears 

Eviction from rented or owned housing 

Loss of tied accommodation 

Change of place for job search 

Social protection and welfare 

New arrival 

Immigration and citizenship 

Change of status 

Institutional 

Shortage  of  adequate  mainstream 
services  and  lack  of  coordination 
between  existing  services  and  to 
meet demand or care needs 

Allocation mechanisms 

Institutional  living  (foster  and  child 
care), prison, long-term hospital 

Institutional  procedures  (admission, 
discharge) 

Access  to  affordable  housing  and  social 
protection blocked 

Support breakdown or no adequate support 
in case of emerging need 

Discharge 

Loss of home after admission 

Relationship 

Family status 

Leaving family home 

Relationship 
partners or parents) 

situation 

Relationship 
divorce, separation) 

breakdown 

(abusive 

Domestic violence 

(death, 

Living alone 

Personal 

Disability,  long-term  illness,  mental 
health problems 

Low educational attainment 

Illness episode 

Support breakdown or problems in getting 
adequate support 

Addiction (alcohol, drugs, gambling) 

(Increased) substance misuse 

Source: European Review of Statistics on Homelessness, 2010 

The  causes  of  becoming  homeless  follow  also  a  geographical  pattern.  In  the  Nordic 
countries for instance, alcohol and drug abuse are twice as frequently cited as a cause of 
homelessness than in other Member States.55 

3.4. Access barriers to quality and affordable housing 

While  homelessness  is  generally  seen  as  a  big-city  phenomenon,  it  has  recently  also 
increased in smaller towns and rural areas, e.g. in Denmark and the United Kingdom.56 
Housing shortages in rural or non-metropolitan regions exist frequently because of lower 
incomes and reduced job prospects, relatively high construction costs, the ‘redlining’ of 
rural  areas  by  some  financial  institutions  and  lower  housing  standards  when  compared 

55  Housing  and  Homelessness:  Models  and  practices  from  across  Europe.  Homeless  in  Europe,  Winter 

2008. See also Table 7 in Annex II. 

56  Homelessness during the crisis. European Commission Research Note, August 2011. 

10 

 
                                                 
with  metropolitan  regions.  Many  rural  areas  lack  affordable  rental  housing,  which 
particularly  affects  young  people.  In  general  services  for  the  homeless  such  as  shelters 
are less developed in smaller settlements. This can trigger migration to larger towns and 
cities or may result in hidden homelessness. 

Even if an affordable, good-quality home is  crucial to a person’s well-being and social 
participation,  access  to  affordable  housing  is  becoming  more  difficult  in  today’s 
Europe. The crisis has halted the construction of new  social housing  in  many  Member 
States and even led to the sale of existing stocks by owners. According to CECODHAS 
there is in many countries an acute lack of adequate and affordable social and private 
rental  housing.57  Homeless  people's  access  to  housing  is  limited  as  allocation 
mechanisms for social housing rarely prioritise the homeless.58 

The waiting time for social housing has further increased during the crisis in IE, LU and 
the UK.59 Vacancy rates are very low as tenants tend to stay for long periods while there 
has been little investment in new social housing. Vacancies are particularly scarce in BG, 
CZ, PL and PT.60 

On  average,  roughly  two  in  three  (65 %)  Europeans  consider  that  housing  is  too 
expensive. Less than a third (30 %) of the people surveyed have said that it is easy to find 
decent housing at a reasonable price in their area.61 

In  the  wake  of  the  financial  crisis,  access  to  mortgages  and  consumer  loans  has  also 
become severely restricted in a number of Member States. Almost every second citizen 
mentions  more  strict  conditions  for  getting  a  mortgage  (47 %)  and  about  one  in  three 
Europeans  say  it  is  more  difficult  to  get  a  consumer  loan  (34 %).  The  figures  for  those 
who claim to they face difficulties in making ends meet are 68 % and 60 % respectively.62  
Over  32 %  of  people  at  risk  of  poverty  live  in  overcrowded  accommodation,63  as 
opposed to just 18 % for the general population.64 The overcrowding rate for the at-risk-
of-poverty population is over 50 % in the new Member States. Low-income households 
often  live  in  accommodation  of  poorer  quality.  A  good  measure  for  this  is  housing 
deprivation.65 In the EU on average 22 % of the population live in housing of inadequate 
quality, lacking basic utilities such as a bathroom or flushing toilet, having a leaking roof 
or  being  too  dark.  More  than  52  million  people  cannot  keep  their  accommodation 
adequately  warm.66  Housing  quality  is  generally  worse  in  the  Central  and  Eastern 
European (CEE) Member States. 

57  Based on an interview with CECODHAS, Summer 2012. 
58  Social Housing Allocation and Homelessness. FEANTSA, December 2011. 
59  Joint  assessment  by  the  SPC  and  the  European  Commission  of  the  social  impact  of  the  crisis  and  of 

policy responses, SPC/0911/1, 2011.  

60  Social Housing Allocation and Homelessness. FEANTSA, December 2011. 
61  Data in this paragraph are based on the Special Eurobarometer Report on Poverty and Social Exclusion 

2010. 
Idem. 

62 
63  A dwelling is considered overcrowded if one of the criteria mentioned below is not fulfilled: 

- one room for the household; 
- one extra room for each couple; 
- one extra room for each single person aged 18+; 
- one extra room - for two single people of the same sex between 12 and 17 years of age;  
- one extra room - for each single person of different sex between 12 and 17 years of age;  
- one extra room - for two people under 12 years of age 

64  See Table 3 in Annex II. 
65  See Table 6 in Annex II. 
66  Housing affordability in the EU. Current situation and recent trends. CECODHAS, January 2012. 

11 

 
                                                 
 
Severe  housing  deprivation67  is  an  indicator  combining  overcrowding  with  housing 
deprivation. In 2011, on average, 6% of the EU population experienced severe housing 
deprivation, while the figure for people at risk of poverty was twice as high (13 %). In 
HU, LT and RO, more than 30% of the at-risk-of-poverty population was affected, while 
in most of the EU-15 Member States the corresponding figure was below 5 %. The share 
of children under 18 experiencing severe housing  deprivation is always higher than for 
the whole population and Roma particularly are exposed to this phenomenon.68 

PART TWO: POLICIES TO ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS 

The  EU  Member  States  are  primarily  responsible  for  tackling  homelessness.  Part  Two 
firstly  highlights  various  national,  regional  and  local  policy  practices  across  the 
homelessness spectrum (prevention, service delivery, re-housing and reintegration), and 
then identifies (cost-)efficient ways to combat homelessness. 

With an eye to more concerted action to tackle homelessness, the closing chapters of Part 
Two  summarise  the  essentials  of  an  efficient  homelessness  strategy.  It  also  shows  how 
the  European  Union  can  help  with  the  implementation  of  Member  States  homelessness 
strategies  by  improving  monitoring  and  governance  and  through  the  mobilisation  of 
funding and EU policies relating to homelessness. 

4.  PREVENTING HOMELESSNESS 

Prevention and early intervention are in many ways the most cost-effective and harm-
minimising policies for confronting homelessness. Reintegration costs increase sharply 
after somebody has become homeless. A person’s mental and physical health deteriorates 
quickly  once  exposure  to  homelessness  starts.  Research  has  shown  that  the  longer 
someone stays homeless, the more time and effort are needed for their reintegration.69 

General  prevention  programmes  try  to  reduce  the  risk  of  homelessness  through 
structural measures that are part of welfare, housing, employment, education and family 
and related policies. 

It  appears  that  welfare  policies,  based  on  broad  universal  provisions  coupled  with 
properly  targeted  measures,  have  a  very  important  role  when  it  comes  to  preventing 
homelessness.70  A  2010  Commission  study71  found  a  clear  link  between  the  level  of 
expenditure of welfare regimes and outcomes for homeless people. The results were most 
pronounced  in  ‘democratic/hybrid’  regimes  like  those  of  Sweden  or  the  Netherlands 
where benefit levels are high. Worse outcomes were found for the lower benefit regimes 
of  the  Mediterranean  and  in  some  Central  and  Eastern  European  Member  States.72 The 
study  also  demonstrated  that  'liberal  regimes'  as  found  in  the  United  Kingdom  or 

67  Eurostat defines the severe housing deprivation rate as the proportion of persons living in a dwelling 
which is considered as overcrowded, while having at the same time at least one of the four housing 
deprivation indicators set out in Table 5 in Annex II. 
68  Report on Roma and Street Work. Dynamo, Autumn 2012. 
69   Housing  and Homelessness:  Models  and  Practices  from  across  Europe.  Homeless  in  Europe, Winter 

2008. 

70  Social Housing Allocation and Homelessness. FEANTSA, December 2011. 
71  Study  on  Housing  Exclusion:  Welfare  Policies,  Housing  Provision  and  Labour  Markets.  European 

Commission, April 2010. 
Idem. 

72 

12 

 
 
                                                 
Germany can also provide efficient protection, thanks to well-targeted support measures. 

Good  coordination  between  welfare,  housing  and  homelessness  policies  is  a 
precondition  for  effective  delivery. A  rise  in  welfare  expenditure  for  instance  does  not 
always  translate  into  better  provision  for  the  homeless.73  Also,  uncoordinated  policy 
targets  for  social  housing  may  actually  exclude  those  most  in  need.  Evidence-based, 
targeted  policy-making  makes  it  possible  to  adjust  measures  to  the  specific 
circumstances of the homeless. 

Certain  categories  of  homeless  people  such  as  women  with  children  fleeing  from 
domestic  violence  seem  to  be  better  protected  against  homelessness  and  receive 
assistance  more  quickly.  In  some  Member  States,  the  safety  net  tends  to  be  weaker  for 
migrants  and  young  people  who  may  not  have  access  to  social  support,74  or  people 
struggling with mortgage arrears.75 

The  fact  that  homelessness  continues  to  persist  even  in  countries  with  the  strongest 
welfare  systems  and  that  homelessness  patterns  are  similar  across  Europe  shows  that 
some groups of homeless people fall through all safety nets.76 These very vulnerable 
people — such as undocumented migrants — may well be invisible to service providers. 
The  help  of  support  networks,  like  families,  friends  and  religious  communities  can 
complement  welfare  system  but  they  should  not  be  regarded  as  a  substitute  for 
homelessness service and support provision.  

Housing policies and corresponding taxation and mortgage policies, if well designed, 
can  contribute  to  preventing  homelessness  and  housing  exclusion.  The  main  challenge 
lies  in  the  affordability  and  accessibility  of  the  various  housing  offers/tenures.  As 
homelessness is often due to a complexity of factors, a further set of education, labour 
market, family, gender, migration, integration and health policies have an important 
role to play in the general prevention of homelessness. 

Targeted  actions  are  most  efficient  when  tailor-made  and  directed  towards  the  root 
causes  while  taking  account  of  specific  circumstances.  For  instance,  timely  family 
counselling  and  prevention  of  early  school-leaving  can  help 
to  avoid  youth 
homelessness.77 Counselling, assistance with job-seeking and finding housing as well as 
follow-up support may help to prevent homelessness among those leaving institutions. 
Guaranteeing basic rights and improving access to work and basic services can prevent 
homelessness  among  undocumented  migrants.  Other  groups  particularly  at  risk  are 
people  with  mental  health  problems,  families  in  poverty  and  minorities  such  as  Roma 
who again need different approaches to avoid homelessness or to escape from it early. 

 1 spent on preventing homelessness, about 
A Dutch study has calculated that for every €
 2.20 in costs are saved elsewhere.78 This study identified areas where savings are most 
likely to occur, in emergency healthcare, semi-clinical cure, psychiatric services, prisons, 
police interventions, tribunal procedures, drug ambulances, temporary housing provision 
and nursing homes. 

73  Social Housing Allocation and Homelessness. FEANTSA, December 2011. 
74 
75  Study  on  Housing  Exclusion:  Welfare  Policies,  Housing  Provision  and  Labour  Markets.  European 

Idem. 

Commission, April 2010. 
Idem. 

76 
77  CSEYHP  project,  Combating  Social  Exclusion  among  Young  Homeless  Populations.  European 

Commission, 2010. 
J. van Leerdam: Cost-benefit analysis of tackling homelessness in the Netherlands. CEBEON, 2011. 

78 

13 

 
€
 
                                                 
Recent  studies  have  confirmed 
the  cost-effectiveness  of  preventing  eviction. 
Calculations  made  for  Scotland  in  2010  showed  that  whilst  providing  temporary 
accommodation  and  re-housing  cost  about  £ 5300  per  household  a  year,  successful 
mediation  between  the  landlord  and  household  to  avoid  eviction  amounted  to  hardly 
£ 600.79  An  Austrian  survey80  showed  that  the  prevention  of  evicting  one  person  cost 
altogether  some  €
 370  in  2007.  For  reintegration,  Austrian  municipalities  had  to  spend 
 460 a month per person for a period of more than 12 months on average. 

Housing  homeless  people  in  crisis  accommodation  like  hostels  is  usually  much  more 
expensive than helping tenants to stay in their homes. Staff costs, the administrative 
burden and lengthy hostel (shelter) stays come at a high expense.81 The costs of evictions 
are also high due to the usually long court proceedings or police intervention. 

Evidence shows that a considerable number of evictions can be prevented. Between 2009 
and  2010,  in  Munich,  a  special  unit  was  able  to  prevent  846  evictions  out  of  the  1001 
received applications. In the United Kingdom, anti-repossession measures helping home-
owners  to  cope  with  sudden  income  drops  contributed  to  a  fall  in  evictions  by 
approximately a quarter (36000 evictions in 2010 compared to 46000 in 2009).82 In the 
Netherlands  in  2006,  evictions  from  social  housing  were  reduced  to  70 %  of  the  2005 
level.83 

Timely contact with tenants when they are starting to encounter problems is crucial to 
successfully preventing evictions. In Sweden, all housing companies must send a written 
notice to the local social welfare committee as soon as the first rent payment problems 
arise,  long  before  the  formal  termination  of  the  lease,  giving  enough  time  to  find  a 
solution.  Outreach  services  are  warned  ex  officio  about  planned  evictions  e.g.  in 
Amsterdam, where landlords have to report 2-month arrears to service providers, and in 
Vienna,  where  courts  automatically  alert  the  Secure  Tenancy  Centre  (FAWOS)  to  any 
eviction procedure.84 

Identifying tenants in difficulty often poses a challenge but persistent follow-up action 
will  pay  off.  In  Austria  for  instance,  counselling  centres  send  consecutive  letters  to 
tenants in trouble and also offer them a follow-up home visit. This practice has improved 
the contact rate with clients to an 80 % outreach instead of the earlier 30 %.85 

Early access to integrated, low-intensity support, including personalised counselling 
and  guidance,  mediation  between  tenants  and  landlords,  financial  institutions  and 
authorities are the cheapest ways to reduce evictions. In Austria, social workers provide 
comprehensive  counselling  services  for  tenants  to  advise  them  on  how  they  can  access 
the benefits they are entitled to, how they can best manage their debts and pay their rent 

79   Habitact e-bulletin, September 2010 
80   Housing  and Homelessness:  Models  and  Practices  from  across  Europe.  Homeless  in  Europe, Winter 

2008. 
81   Idem. 
82  Data in this paragraph are based on Homelessness during the crisis. European Commission Research 

Note, August 2011. 

83  Monitoring  report  on  Homelessness  and  Homelessness  Policies  in  Europe.  FEANTSA,  December 

2012. 
Idem. 
Idem. 

84 
85 

14 

 
€
                                                 
on time.86 Housing companies in Sweden cooperate widely with the relevant authorities 
to help tenants overcome their financial difficulties.87  

The advantage of mediation services is that they can settle disputes between landlords, 
credit  institutions  and  tenants  or  within  families  with  the  help  of  a  neutral  third  party. 
Arbitration procedures may be initiated by credit institutions as is the case in Cyprus, by 
the  borrower  as  in  Ireland  or  by  both  parties  like  in  France.88  Under  a  UK  Code  of 
Conduct  for  financial  institutions,  parties  in  arrears  are  required  to  liaise  with  a 
mediator.89 

Reconciliation may prevent evictions by exploring alternatives to the repayment of debt. 
In Belgium, credit institutions have a legal duty to make an attempt at conciliation before 
a judge starts a foreclosure procedure. In other Member States such as Hungary, Ireland, 
the Netherlands or the United Kingdom, credit institutes have signed Codes of Conduct 
committing themselves to an obligatory pre-foreclosure consultation with the borrower.90 
Service  providers  are  better  positioned  to  handle  evictions  upon  receiving  financial, 
legal and psychological training.  

Anti-eviction  measures  are  incorporated  into  the  law  in  some  Member  States, 
replacing  ad-hoc voluntary commitments or recommendations  to lenders and  landlords. 
In  Scotland,  for  instance,  no  motion  for  eviction  can  be  granted  by  the  courts,  unless 
independent advice was first provided to the household concerned and reasonable steps 
were taken to avoid eviction.91  

Another useful measure involves legal minimums for rental contracts, enabling tenants 
to  have  long-term  fixed,  stable  tenancies.  Rent  regulations  are  legal,  policy  and/or 
contractual  arrangements  to  regulate  rental  prices  or  ownership  rights  so  as  to  increase 
affordable  housing  on  offer  in  the  event  of  rental  market  imbalances  or  acute  housing 
shortages. They may cover public housing and non-subsidised private rentals.92  

There  are  some  examples  of  eviction  moratorium,  too,  if  certain  exceptional 
circumstances apply. In Greece, eviction of households having no other housing options 
or means to pay their loans can be suspended; for those who lose their jobs, it has been 
proposed  to  suspend  evictions  for  6  months  by  law.93  In  Italy,  low-income  people  in 
small  towns  whose  lease  has  expired  are  offered  such  protection.94  In  Hungary,  until 
2011  no-one  was  allowed  to  be  evicted  in  the  coldest  period  of  the  year,  between  1 
December and 1 March.95  

A special and not uncommon case of eviction is when a dwelling becomes unfit to live 
in.  Imposing  a  legal  requirement  on  the  owner  for  purposes  of  proper  maintenance, 
renovation and insulation of the building may prevent such a situation. 

86  Housing  and  Homelessness:  models  and  practices  from  across  Europe.  Homeless  in  Europe,  Winter 

2008. 
Idem. 

87 
88  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper  SEC  (2011)357  on  National  measures  and  practices  to  avoid 

foreclosure procedures for residential mortgage loans.  
Idem. 
Idem. 

89 
90 
91  Monitoring  report  on  Homelessness  and  Homelessness  Policies  in  Europe.  FEANTSA,  December 

2012. 

92  Paragraph based on C. Donner: Rental Housing Policy in Europe. Vienna, 2011. 
93  Monitoring  report  on  Homelessness  and  Homelessness  Policies  in  Europe.  FEANTSA,  December 

2012. 
Idem. 

94 
95  Reply  from  Hungary  to  the 2012 questionnaire on  homelessness  to  the  Social  Protection  Committee 

members. 

15 

 
                                                 
Financial  support  schemes  —  whether  short-term  or  long-term  —  can  be  an  effective 
way  to  prevent  evictions.  Budgetary  impact  must  of  course  be  calculated  and  also  care 
must be taken to ensure that support schemes do not disincentivise employment. Means-
tested,  targeted  housing  allowances  are  proven  to  be  useful  instruments  for  improving 
housing  outcomes.96  Housing  allowances  for  low-income  people  exist  in  many  EU 
countries though it can be difficult for those living in unstable housing conditions to gain 
access to such support. Usually only a small part of the rent or of other housing costs is 
covered but there are good examples of housing allowances which also cover real costs, 
running  charges  and  energy  costs,  especially  during  winter  time.97  In  the  United 
Kingdom, housing allowances can be used to pay for temporary hostel accommodation. 
Housing  support  is  based  on  an  individually  enforceable  right  to  social  support  e.g.  in 
Germany.98  Flexible  housing  allowances  can  be  adapted  to  floating,  unstable  incomes 
stemming  from  insecure  jobs  and  changing  rent  prices.  Publicly  guaranteed  rent 
deposit  schemes  can  make  it  easier  for  people  on  a  low  income  to  sign  a  rental 
agreement in the first place. 

In  Sweden,  rents  are  negotiated  once  a  year  by  the  tenants’  associations,  municipal 
housing  companies  and  private  landlords,  on  the  basis  of  extensive  criteria  such  as  the 
quality of the dwellings and the value of the area. Rent control systems are also in place 
in  Austria  and  Germany  at  the  municipal  level  and  they  seem  to  work  well.99  In 
Germany, some housing companies may temporarily lower rents when there are payment 
problems.100 In France, a solidarity fund and temporary rent support for up to 6 months 
are made available to tenants with financial difficulties.101 

Special  mortgage  schemes  like  the  ‘datio  in  solutum  mortgage’  can  help  indebted 
homeowners.  Under  this  scheme  borrowers  who  cannot  repay  their  mortgage  loans  are 
released in full from the underlying debt after handing their mortgaged property over to 
the lender. Another interesting concept is reversed mortgages, offering old people who 
need to finance a credit loan against the value of their own property. To secure a better 
price  for  forcefully  auctioned  housing,  the  possibility  of  holding  electronic  auctions, 
which are known to attract a wider range of potential buyers, was introduced in Hungary 
in 2009. 

For  those  who  are  evicted,  the  offer  of  instant  re-housing  programmes  exists.  In  the 
Walloon  region  of  Belgium,  evicted  people  are  rehoused  by  law  and  in  principle 
evictions  cannot  even  take  place  before  a  rehousing  solution  is  found.102  In  Hungary, 
local authorities are also obliged to provide housing for families or parents with children 
who have become homeless.103 The swapping of apartments - including social housing 
- can help tenants find a home that is better suited to the size and needs of the household 
(e.g. big families or single tenants) as well as their financial capacity. 

96  Study  on  Housing  Exclusion:  Welfare  Policies,  Housing  Provision  and  Labour  Markets.  European 

Commission, April 2010. 

97  See  for  instance  the  reply  from  Austria  to  the  2012  questionnaire  on  homelessness  to  the  Social 

Protection Committee members. 

Interview with CECODHAS, Summer 2012. 

98  Report for the European Consensus Conference on Homelessness, December 2010. 
99 
100  Report on the 11th European Meeting of People Experiencing Poverty, May 2012. 
101  Idem. 
102  Reply  from  Belgium  to  the  2012  questionnaire  on  homelessness  to  the  Social  Protection  Committee 

members. 

103  Reply  from  Hungary  to  the 2012 questionnaire on  homelessness  to  the  Social  Protection  Committee 

members. 

16 

 
                                                 
5. 

IMPROVING SERVICE PROVISION TO THE HOMELESS 

Tackling  homelessness  efficiently  presupposes  the  coordinated  provision  of  a  broad 
range  of  quality  services.  Beyond  healthcare,  social  services  and  housing  provision, 
employment, education, counselling and mediation play a crucial role in the support and 
reintegration  of  homeless  people.  The  following  types  of  service  provision  for  the 
homeless can be identified:104 

The ultimate aim of policies tackling homelessness is to enable homeless people to gain 
access to and remain in permanent housing. The prevailing staircase-type service model 
presumes  that  homeless  people  would  go  through  various  stages  before  getting  housed 
permanently,  often  spending  prolonged  periods  in  e.g.  crisis  accommodation  and 
transitory  housing.  This  model  seems  less  cost-effective  compared  to  housing-led 
approaches and also less suitable for satisfying users’ needs.105 

Integrated  approaches,  with  good  cooperation  between  social  and  health  services  can 
reduce  service  and  administrative  costs  and  increase  the  efficiency  of  outcomes.  ‘One-
stop-shop’  service  models  are  best  equipped  to  take  care  of  the  needs  of  the  clients 
because they are easily accessible and ready to meet complex needs. Integrated models 
can  ensure  coordination  between  relevant  authorities  and  services  and  allow  for  the 
tracking  of  service  take-up  which  can  be  used  to  calculate  future  spending.  Since 
homeless policies often contribute to other policy goals like e.g. drug prevention or child 
protection, synergies can be created between the different (local) service providers. 

While  some  form  of  basic  service  access  is  usually  available  to  homeless  people  in 
Member States, it is not always guaranteed, and this is especially true for undocumented 
migrants.  Access  barriers  to  services  may  include  the  lack  of  an  address  and  ID 

104  Report for the European Consensus Conference on Homelessness, December 2010. 
105  V.  Burtschema:  Normalisation  of  Housing  and  Living  Conditions  in  the  field  of  Homelessness 
Services: Some Financial Arguments. Presentation for the 7th European seminar on local homelessness 
strategies, June 2012. 

17 

 
 
 
                                                 
documents  and  the  non-affordability  of  services.  Certain  access  conditions  can  be 
restrictive  for  persons  such  as  alcoholics  and  drug  addicts  or  undocumented  migrants. 
Service providers may not be prepared to meet the needs of homeless people or may be 
prejudiced.106  The  provision  of  flexible  support,  tailor-made  to  the  homeless  person’s 
needs, is critical. 

Well-coordinated organisation of service provision at the local level can overcome the 
limitations of rural  or  remote  areas. This is especially  important for homeless  people 
since they often suffer from reduced mobility due to health problems and poor access to 
transport. 

Research  has  shown  that  successful  service  provision  entails  cooperation  of  service 
providers,  long-term  planning  of  service  delivery  and  budgets,  as  well  as  data-based 
policies allowing services to be adapted to the needs of the homeless population.107 

The  remainder  of  this  Chapter  will  focus  on  some  key  areas  of  service  delivery  to  the 
homeless,  such  as  providing  temporary  accommodation,  vital  services  for  combating 
extreme weather conditions, and the role of health and employment services. 

5.1. 

Improving the employability of homeless people 

The  number  of  homeless  people  in  permanent  employment  is  very  low.108  The 
reintegration of homeless people into the labour market is a long, holistic and complex 
process109  given  that  many  of  them  have  disadvantages  influencing  their  employability 
such as physical or mental health problems110, low educational attainment and the lack of 
a safe, permanent home. Expectations about the success and speed of reintegration into 
employment must remain realistic. 

Locally available employment services, the provision of specialised and individualised 
support  and  reconciliation  measures  such  as  affordable  childcare  or  public  transport 
can help greatly in enabling homeless persons to find employment.111 
Integrated  employment  programmes  for  the  homeless  have  proven  to  be  efficient.112 
Collecting  data  on  the  homeless  to  better  understand  their  profiles,  skills  and  needs 
facilitates the development of policies to boost the employability of the homeless. 

Skills training can further improve employability chances. In Croatia, in the libraries of 
Zagreb, IT literacy and employment search workshops are offered to homeless people.113 
Targeted reintegration training is provided by the Caritas programme in Lithuania.114 

106  See for instance The Right to Health is a Human Right. Ensuring Access to Health for People who are 

Homeless. Feantsa, 2006.  

107  H. Frazer, E. Marlier and I. Nicaise: A Social Inclusion Roadmap for Europe 2020. Antwerpen, 2010. 
108   See Part I, Chapter 3.1. 
109  Access to Employment for People Experiencing Homelessness – Recommendations for Member States 

and the European Union. FEANTSA, May 2009. 

110  Finding  Work:  Homelessness  and  Employment.  National  Institute  of  Labour  Studies,  Flinders 

University, April 2011. 

111  Study  on  Housing  Exclusion:  Welfare  Policies,  Housing  Provision  and  Labour  Markets.  European 

Commission, April 2010. 
112  Paragraph  based  on  Access 

to  Employment 
Recommendations for Member States and the European Union. FEANTSA, May 2009. 

for  People  Experiencing  Homelessness  – 

113  Reply  from  Croatia  to  the  2012  questionnaire  on  homelessness  to  the  Social  Protection  Committee 

members. 

114  Reply from Lithuania to the 2012 questionnaire on homelessness to the Social Protection Committee 

members. 

18 

 
                                                 
Homeless services115 traditionally focus on providing accommodation and social support 
rather than integrated assistance for employment, though a number of shelters offer help 
with job-seeking or engage in social economy activities. Homeless service providers can 
be  involved  as  intermediaries.  A  day  centre  in  Zagreb  for  instance  involves  homeless 
people in the printing and publishing of the local magazine.116 Street papers are sold by 
homeless  people  e.g.  in  Austria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  France,  the  United 
Kingdom and many more countries. 

incentive  schemes117  can  motivate 

Well-designed 
the  homeless  when  seeking 
employment.  Job  quality  in  this  regard  is  an  important  issue  as  precarious  jobs  may  in 
fact not be a route out of poverty.118 Still, getting a first foothold in work is an important 
achievement,  even  through  a  start  under  temporary  or  part-time  contracts.  Making 
employment  pay,  ensuring  that  work  income  exceeds  benefits  is  important  to  avoid 
situations  where  workers  may  come  out  financially  worse-off  after  losing  their  social 
benefits. 

Social enterprises play a key role in bringing homeless people back to the job market. 
They  may  be  run  by  homeless  people  themselves.  In  Poland  for  instance,  homeless 
people operate a Bicycle Service Point as well as cleaning and recycling workshops.119 
Private enterprises can also be mobilised as employers of homeless people, such example 
being the Business Action for the Homeless in the United Kingdom. 

Some  homeless  programmes  merge  housing  provision  with  employability  measures. 
For  instance  in  the  Netherlands,  Amsterdam’s  Housing  &  Work  project120  is  run  in 
cooperation  with  two  shelter  organisations,  the  Amsterdam  Street  Paper  and  an 
employment reintegration organisation. This initiative involves finding housing, dealing 
with paperwork and debt and finding a trainee job after which the person is given a work 
placement sponsored by the city of Amsterdam. Another example of a social enterprise 
can  be  found  in  France,  with  Le  Chênelet121  building  environmentally  friendly  and 
affordable social housing, providing at the same time vocational training. 

5.2. 

Improving homeless people’s access to healthcare 

Mainstream healthcare provision could be adapted to better meet the needs of homeless 
people,  so  that  unnecessary  emergency  care  use  can  be  avoided.122  Improving  the 
accessibility of healthcare services is especially an issue in rural areas. Outreach mobile 
medical  services  (e.g.  ACT  teams)  can  facilitate  contacts  with  homeless  people. 
Healthcare service access is increasingly conditional on having local residence status. In 
some Member States, homeless people can use a hostel address as proof of residence. 

115  Employability  Starter  Kit  –  How  to  Develop  Employability  Initiatives  in  Homelessness  Services? 

FEANTSA, September 2011. 

116  Reply  from  Croatia  to  the  2012  questionnaire  on  homelessness  to  the  Social  Protection  Committee 

members. 

117  Access to Employment for People Experiencing Homelessness – Recommendations for Member States 

and the European Union. May 2009. 

118  Finding  Work:  Homelessness  and  Employment.  National  Institute  of  Labour  Studies,  Flinders 

University, April 2011. 

119  Idem. 
120  Idem. 
121   See http://www.chenelet.org  
122  Paragraph based on The Right to Health is a Human Right: Ensuring Access to Health for People who 

are Homeless. FEANTSA, 2006. 

19 

 
 
                                                 
Enabling the provision of specialist services for the homeless, e.g. dental services is also 
a challenge. Good practices include putting into place special public health insurance 
packages to remove upfront financial requirements for vulnerable groups and providing 
training  of  healthcare  professionals  and  shelter  staff  to  better  meet  the  healthcare 
needs of homeless people. 

5.3.  Providing emergency accommodation 

While  there  is  a  gradual  shift  towards  housing-led  approaches  in  Member  State 
policies,123  the  temporary  housing  needs  of  those  who  experience  sudden  episodes  of 
homelessness have to be addressed. Reducing the length of stay in shelters depends  on 
the availability of affordable, accessible housing. Long-term shelter stayers may well lose 
their  ability  to  lead  an  individual  life.  For  want  of  adequate  income  and  follow-up 
support, they may not be able to maintain permanent housing. 

Best  practice  requires  shelter  places  to  be  locally  available  and  accessible  so  that 
potential users of the service do not have to travel far. Access conditions need also be set 
reasonably  and  with  regard  to  the  protection  of  other  occupants.  Some  shelters  for 
instance  ask  for  health  certificates  to  be  produced  (e.g.  tuberculosis  screening,  skin 
doctor statements), others do not. 

The  contact  points  for  rough  sleepers  -  such  as  emergency  accommodations  but  even 
more  so,  supported  permanent  housing  -  offer  a  key  opportunity  to  provide  relevant 
information  and  services  on  the  spot.  Services  can  for  instance  cover  detoxification, 
rehabilitation, reintegration programmes and social work. 

Quality standards can redress the substandard living and safety conditions often found 
in shelters. Bathing and toilet facilities, heating and insulation, bed sizes and food quality 
are frequently not satisfactory. Many shelters are overregulated and offer an impersonal 
living environment.124 Shared rooms and facilities often do not provide enough privacy 
and do not meet people's differing needs. For instance, couples or families with children 
would prefer to stay together in the same room. Victims of domestic violence would need 
special  safe  shelter  places.  Migrants  would  often  need  linguistic  support.  Difficult 
individuals  such  as  addicts  are  hard  to  separate  from  other  shelter  tenants.  Quality 
shelters  employ  qualified  staff  and  make  swift  arrangements  to  move  homeless  people 
into permanent accommodation. 

A good practice on how to run shelters is the ‘Places of Change’ hostels concept in the 
United  Kingdom.125  The  Places  of  Change  Programme  is  led  by  the  Homes  and 
Communities Agency (HCA). Accommodation for rough sleepers has been transformed 
and  large  institutions  are  being  replaced  with  smaller  hostels  (‘places  of  change’).  The 
aim of these places is to strengthen the sense of independence, well-being and dignity of 
occupants,  while  offering  them  integrated,  empowering  services  such  as  education  and 
training and meaningful employment encouraging them to express themselves and learn 
new  skills.  Some  hostels  provide  opportunities  for  homeless  people  to  work  in  social 
enterprises.  But  while  adapted  shelters  better  suit  users'  needs,  they  arguably  remain 
expensive  and  do  not  provide  a  permanent  housing  solution,  unlike  the  housing-led 
programmes. 

123  See Chapter 7 on the housing-led policy approach. 
124  Participation  of  People  Experiencing  Homelessness:  Sharing  the  Power  and  Working  Together. 

Homeless in Europe, Autumn 2009. 

125  J. Bright: Places of Change. Improving Hostel Accommodation. Presentation on the Seminar on Social 

Innovation to Tackle Homelessness. European Commission, July 2011. 

20 

 
                                                 
5.4.  Emergency services for coping with extreme weather conditions 

Those  who  have  the  sky  as  their  roof  or  live  in  dwellings  which  are  not  properly 
insulated  or  where  the  roof  is  leaking  are  exposed  to  the  dangers  of  cold  weather  or  a 
summer  heat  wave.  To  protect  homeless  people  from  extreme  weather  conditions,  a 
range of crisis measures are mobilised as necessary. 

Protection  against  critical  cold  or  heat  works  best  if  provided  all  year  long,  as  an 
integrated  part  of  homelessness  systems  as  is  the  case  in  Sweden.  Preparation  should 
ideally start early, well ahead of winter for example, and be accompanied by information, 
awareness-  and  fund-raising  campaigns.  Close  cooperation  and  coordination  between 
social  workers,  NGOs,  public  authorities,  controllers  of  public  spaces  and  emergency 
service  providers  is  crucial.  Homeless  hotlines  can  be  used  or  the  already  established 
emergency lines, which is the practice already in many Member States. For instance in 
Riga, Latvia, the standard 112 number is used and the police alert outreach teams when 
necessary, while Valencia in Spain has introduced a new three-digit hotline and created a 
special  police  team.126  Professional  staff  and/or  volunteers  ought  to  be  involved  in 
emergency teams to increase outreach. 

A  very  frequent  form  of  support  is  soup  kitchens,  the  distribution  of  hot  drinks  and 
handing  out  warm  clothes,  blankets  and  gloves.  Floating  service  provision  can  be 
intensified.  In  Berlin,  Germany,  a  winter  cold  emergency  bus  service,  the  so-called 
‘Kältebus’, collects rough sleepers.127 

Service  hours  may  be  extended,  covering  day  and  night,  and  the  access  conditions  for 
homeless  people  could  be  relaxed.  For  example  in  Riga,  people  who  have  consumed  a 
small amount of alcohol are accepted exceptionally in shelters if a winter frost period has 
set  in.  To  compensate  for  increased  social  isolation  during  the  winter  holidays,  festive 
meals and lively programmes can be organised.  

Some  homeless  people  refuse  to  go  to  warm  accommodation  even  during  periods  of 
extreme cold. Spending the night in a shelter to save lives can become a legal obligation 
once  the  temperature  drops  below  a  certain  level.  In  Groningen,  the  Netherlands, 
sleeping  outside  is  prohibited  if  the  temperature  falls  below  -10C  and  all  homeless 
people are escorted to reception centres by the police and mental health workers.128 
In Lille, France, 750 extra beds can be mobilised in case of extreme weather.129 In Elbers, 
Germany,  heated  tents  are  set  up  as  night  shelters,  spacious  enough  to  receive  many 
people in need and also attractive to users who prefer to stay anonymous and need more 
privacy.130  Access  to  protected  public  spaces,  especially  metro  and  train  stations,  can 
save  lives  during  the  winter,  though  only  as  a  secondary  measure  to  complement 
homeless services. In Berlin, if the temperature falls below -3C, three metro stations stay 
open for homeless people. In Austria and Italy, stations are also left open in winter for 
homeless people.131 

Winter  shelters  do  bring  in  homeless  people  who  otherwise  would  rarely  use  services 
designed  for  them.  This  is  an  opportunity  to  move  beyond  emergency  support  and  to 

126  HABITACT e-bulletin, March 2010. 
127  Idem. 
128  Idem. 
129  Report on the 11th European Meeting of People Experiencing Poverty, May 2012. 
130  HABITACT e-bulletin, March 2010. 
131  Report on the 11th European Meeting of People Experiencing Poverty, May 2012. 

21 

 
                                                 
offer these difficult clients individually targeted support and use it as an opportunity for 
counting them. 

People  may  need  to  be  resettled  from  inadequate  dwellings.  In  Geneva,  Switzerland, 
specialised winter shelters are created for Roma travellers.132 Good insulation is an issue 
for both private houses and shelters. Higher heating costs may necessitate a higher level 
of welfare support for tenants. Austria for instance provides higher income support and a 
special fuel allowance during winter,133 and similar measures are in place in a number of 
other Member States. 

6.  PARTICIPATION AND EMPOWERMENT 

Social  participation  is  an  important  element  of  reintegration  programmes.  It  can  boost 
personal relationships, reduce isolation, improve people’s skills and confidence and show 
how to live an individual life and take responsibility for one’s decisions. 

Interest groups increase the capacity of homeless people to make their voice heard and 
defend  their  interests  The  EU-wide  umbrella  organisation  HOPE  (’Homeless  People 
Network for service users in Europe’) is composed of homeless and formerly homeless 
persons.  National  HOPE  members  aim  at  improving  living  conditions  in  homeless 
shelters  and  beyond:  the  Danish  HOPE  member,  SAND  for  example  also  operates 
specialised working groups e.g. for homeless women, offers courses to its volunteers and 
is involved in awareness-raising.134 

Early intervention for reintegrating young homeless people into society is especially 
important. In the Netherlands, young homeless people run an advice platform for roofless 
and homeless young people and have carried out a successful audit project to improve the 
quality of homelessness services.135 

Art  activities,  specialised  (e.g.  street)  training  programmes  can  improve  a  homeless 
person’s  self-esteem  and  chances  for  social  and  labour  market  reintegration.  Sport 
activities, especially team sports, can equally have a beneficial impact on health, social 
skills and participation. The Homeless World Cup136 has been organised each year since 
2003. It is estimated that 1 million or so players are preparing annually for the event in 
75 different nations. The tournament creates an opportunity for players to represent their 
country,  to  build  relationships  with  homeless  people  from  all  over  the  world,  raise 
awareness  of  homelessness  in  a  positive  way,  and  improve  relations  with  the  public. 
Business  sponsors  are  also  mobilised.  Reportedly  some  70 %  of  the  players  undergo 
meaningful  change  such  as  quitting  drugs  or  alcohol,  changing  their  housing  situation, 
finding a job (e.g. as professional football players or trainers), going back to school, or 
restoring relationships with family and friends.  

Peer programmes can provide a meaningful activity for people experiencing or having 
experienced  homelessness.  In  the  United  Kingdom,  formerly  homeless  people  act  as 
‘Peer TB educators’ and help promote screening, raise awareness and provide emotional 
support to other homeless people.  

132  HABITACT e-bulletin March 2010. 
133  Idem. 
134  Participation  of  People  Experiencing  Homelessness:  Sharing  the  Power  and  Working  Together. 

Homeless in Europe, Autumn 2009. 

135  CSEYHP  project,  Combating  Social  Exclusion  among  Young  Homeless  Populations.  European 

Commission, 2010. 

136  See http://www.homelessworldcup.org/about 

22 

 
                                                 
Homeless  people  are  best empowered by having  their basic rights recognised which 
includes  the  right  to  choose  where  to  stay.  Penalties  imposed  mostly  on  homeless 
people, e.g. for public space use or begging, are often the result of failure to address the 
social  context  as  recognised  by  the  Hungarian  Constitutional  Court  in  a  recent 
decision.137  Such  approaches  to  homelessness  seem  inefficient,  costly  and  stigmatising. 
Having  a  basic  bank  account,  an  address,  ID  card  and  a  passport  are  necessary 
preconditions  for  allowing  homeless  people  to  participate  in  economic  and  social  life, 
exercise civil rights, vote or access services. 

Homeless  people  also  entitled  to  the  right  to  be  informed.  In  Belgium,  there  are 
information stands for homeless people and a school for homeless experts by experience. 
The SAND network in Denmark runs a homeless radio station. 

7. 

IMPROVING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING 

The  ultimate  solution  to  homelessness  is  getting  access  to  permanent  accommodation. 
Having a stable home stands at the heart of the so-called housing-led policy approach. 
This approach or principle means that homelessness strategies should be geared towards 
securing permanent accommodation for the homeless as quickly as possible138 and thus 
minimizing the human and social costs of homelessness. The housing-led principle may 
translate  in  homeless  strategies  as  a  goal  to  prevent  the  loss  of  permanent 
accommodation and to provide assistance for the swift, stable re-housing of homeless 
people, with support if necessary. 

Prevention of evictions was discussed in Chapter 4. Re-housing is more of a challenge in 
most  Member  States.  Common  practice  in  most  European  countries  is  to  focus 
primarily on the most basic and urgent needs of homeless people and hence the provision 
of temporary accommodation to homeless people. In the prevailing ‘staircase’ policy 
model, homeless people usually face a short or more frequently, longer stay in a series of 
temporary accommodations, first in a night shelter, then a hostel and transitory housing 
before  'earning'  access  to  permanent  accommodation,  if  at  all.  Their  social  or  health 
problems  are  addressed  through  a  set  of  subsequent  services  that  follow  a  gradual 
rehabilitation process ('staircases').  

The staircase system is heavily criticised. First of all, this model threatens to prolong 
long-term  homelessness.139  Due  to  the  lack  of  individual  capabilities,  knowledge  or 
motivation  of  homeless  people  to  engage  with  homelessness  services  and  the  internal 
inconsistencies  of  the  service  system,  people  drop  out  repeatedly,  and  often  even  find 
themselves directly back on the streets.  

The final move to permanent housing may take many years during which time high 
user expenses have to be paid.140 Standardised ‘one size fits all’ support provided at the 
temporary 
different  stages  may  not  respond 
accommodation  can  not  usually  provide  the  stability  required  to  address  serious  social 

individual  needs.  Moreover, 

to 

137  See www.mkab.hu 
138  Housing-led policy approaches are also called housing first approaches. Housing-led will be used as 
terminology  to  avoid  potential  confusion  with  the  more  restrictive  term  ‘Housing  First  concept’ 
introduced later in this Chapter. 

139  Paragraph based on The Housing First in Finland. See www.housingfist.fi  
140  Paragraph based on V. Burtschema: Normalisation of Housing and Living Conditions in the field of 
Homelessness Services: Some Financial Arguments. Presentation on the 7th European seminar on local 
homelessness strategies, June 2012. 

23 

 
                                                 
and/or  health  problems.  The  homeless  are  exposed  to  stress  and  dislocation  on  the 
different steps of the staircase, they often lack privacy and autonomy while a prolonged 
stay within an institution may reduce their capacity to live alone. 

Homelessness  strategies  following  the  housing-led  policy  approach  may  address  the 
shortcomings of the staircase policy model and better meet the needs of homeless people. 
A  further  potential  advantage  is  that  rehoused  (former)  homeless  people  can  now  be 
found  at  a  single  entry  point  –  at  the  permanent  accommodation  -  if  they  need  further 
assistance. Different kinds and intensities of personalised support can be offered them 
on the spot. 

Housing-led  homelessness  policies  are  still  not  widespread  in  Europe  but  have  been 
gaining ground, as can be seen from the data below:141 

•  Group 1: Countries implementing a housing-led strategy where immediate access to 
housing  with  support  as  necessary  becomes  the  dominant  mode  of  service  delivery 
(DK, FI) 

•  Group  2:  Countries  which  have  adopted  a  housing-led  strategy  in  principle  but 

where it is not yet an operational reality (FR, IE, PT) 

•  Group  3:  Countries  where  supported  housing  is  widespread  but  where  the 
transitional ‘staircase’ approach to service delivery remains central for at least some 
groups of homeless people (DE, NL, SE, UK, except Scotland142) 

•  Group  4:  Countries  where  housing-led  strategies  are  generally  not  widespread, 
although there may be some local initiatives (AT, BE, CZ, ES, GR, HU, PL, RO, SI) 

The  Finnish  housing-led  homelessness  strategy  was  adopted  in  February  2008 
(renewed  in  2011).  It  aimed  at  halving  long-term  homelessness  by  2011  and  ending  it 
completely by 2015. The programme includes an ambitious goal to convert all traditional 
short-term  shelters  into  supported  housing  units  that  facilitate  independent  living.  1250 
additional homes — supported housing units or places in care — are expected to be made 
available  for  the  long-term  homeless.  The  programme  includes  supported  housing 
provision for recently released prisoners, programmes to reduce youth homelessness and 
prevent evictions, e.g. by expanding housing advisory services.143 

There  is  a  growing  body  of  evidence  that  the  housing-led  policy  approaches  can  not 
only deliver more positive outcomes for homeless people but can also be cost-effective 
in comparison with more traditional staircase approaches. 

The  cost-efficiency  of  preventing  evictions  has  already  been  shown  in  Chapter  4.  In 
Finland  (Tampere),  an  evaluation  conducted  on  the  housing-led  strategy  showed 
substantial cost savings in service use after re-housing. The average cost-savings for one 
tenant were 14000 euros per year when compared to the situation and service use while 
homeless. The greatest savings came from reductions in the number of hospital visits and 
the use of intoxicant rehabilitation services. To this figure one could add the extra taxes 
paid by persons who have been successfully reintegrated into working life.144 

141  Monitoring  report  on  Homelessness  and  Homelessness  Policies  in  Europe.  FEANTSA,  December 

2012. 

142   Scotland has a housing-led strategy which fits into Group 1 
143  Peer review on the Finnish National Programme to reduce long-term homelessness, December 2010. 
144  See  the  reply  from  Finland  to  the  2012  questionnaire  on  homelessness  to  the  Social  Protection 

Committee members. 

24 

 
                                                 
Housing-led  policies  gained  inspiration  of  the  so-called  Housing  First  concept,  which 
was developed in the United States. It was discovered in the US namely that the instant 
re-housing  of  long-term  homeless  people  with  complex  needs  (alcohol  or  drug 
dependency,  mental  health  problems  etc.)  and  providing  them  service  support  in  their 
homes e.g. through a mobile, multidisciplinary service team can deliver better results 
than using the staircase services.145 

Figures  for  the  US  obtained  from  a  recent  study  show  remarkable  savings  through 
applying  the  Housing  First  concept,  as  opposed  to  emergency  homeless  shelter,  jail, 
emergency  hospital  or  psychiatric  hospital  use.146  A  Canadian  study147  showed  that 
Housing  First  demonstrated  cost  efficiencies  in  relation  to  reductions  in  inpatient  stays 
(average  annual  savings  of  $2,184  or  $25,899  for  high  service  users)  and  less 
involvement  with  the  police  and  the  criminal  justice  system  (annual  cost  savings  of 
$9,390 per person for high service users). Furthermore, this study presented compelling 
evidence  of  improved  health  and  quality  of  life,  and  a  reduction  in  mental  health 
disorders and addiction.  

More  knowledge  and  understanding  is  needed,  however,  on  how  to  best  adapt  the 
Housing First concept for Europe. For instance, while service costs would most likely be 
offset  for  ‘high  cost’  homeless  people  (i.e.  who  require  complex  support),  not  all 
homeless  people  are  frequent  or  long-term  users  of  the  health  and  justice  system.148 
Besides, housing homeless people in ordinary housing may increase their loneliness and 
isolation. Certain groups of homeless people with very high support needs cannot live in 
individual housing. Service support attached to the housing unit can be stigmatising for 
the  living  environment.  Intoxication  treatment  for  alcohol  or  drug  users  is  not  required 
for permanent housing access, which may hinder efforts to deal with these dependencies. 
Identifying service providers willing to work in mobile teams with difficult clients on a 
regular basis also poses a challenge. A Housing First Europe project - financed from the 
PROGRESS EU fund - started in August 2011 and will test and evaluate Housing First 
projects in five European cities by the end of 2013.149 

Homeless  strategies  following  the  housing-led  principle  need  to  address  how  to  ensure 
the  access  of  homeless  people  to  quality,  affordable  housing.  Social  housing150  for 
example  is  usually  provided  to  accommodate  the  poorest  members  of  our  society.  But 
when  it  comes  to  social  housing  allocation,  some  groups  of  homeless  people  are  not 
given much priority, especially single men and certain ethnic minorities.151 In Belgium 

145  N. Pleace: Housing First. European Observatory of Homelessness, 2012. 
146   Idem. 
147   S. Gaetz: The Real Costs of Homelessness: Can We Save Money by Doing the Right Thing? Toronto, 

2012 

148  V.  Burtschema:  Normalisation  of  Housing  and  Living  Conditions  in  the  field  of  Homelessness 
Services: Some Financial Arguments. Presentation for the 7th European seminar on local homelessness 
strategies, June 2012. 

149   On the Housing First Europe project, see also Annex I. 
150   Though there is no standard definition in use, social housing can be defined as provision of housing to 
disadvantaged citizens or socially less advantaged groups, who are unable to obtain housing at market 
conditions  on  a  non-profit  basis  (under  market  price)  addressing  failures  on  the  housing  market. 
Allocation normally follows non-market methods and allocation criteria are set to cover specific target 
groups and/or households in need who cannot otherwise gain access to accommodation in the private 
housing  market.  Source:  European  Commission  Study  on  Social  Services  of  General  Interest,  Final 
Report, October 2011.  

151  Paragraph based on Social Housing Allocation and Homelessness. FEANTSA, December 2011. 

25 

 
 
 
                                                 
(Flanders),  Sweden  and  the  United  Kingdom,  larger  social  housing  units  suitable  for 
large  families  are  widely  lacking,  which  particularly  affects  certain  ethnic  and  cultural 
minorities.  In  Germany  and  Portugal,  the  supply  of  smaller  units  for  single-person 
households is insufficient.  

Further to improving access to social housing, Member States may choose from among 
many  other  alternatives  to  ensure  affordable  housing  options  for  homeless  people,  best 
matching their local needs, circumstances and budgetary options. New, affordable homes 
may be constructed  with  co-financing  from the European Regional Development Fund, 
which  is  available  for  integrated  housing  interventions.152  An  innovative  way  is  to 
mobilise  privately  owned  housing  stock  for  social  purposes.  This  works  through 
arrangements  with  private  landlords  to  lower  rent  in  exchange  for  fiscal  benefits. 
Social  rental  agencies  can  be  useful  intermediaries  between  social  housing  applicants 
and  private  landlords:  The  public  authority  (i.e.  the  municipality  or  the  region) 
guarantees  that  the  accommodation  is  rented  out  at  a  comparatively  low  rent  and  the 
landlord  in  turn  receives  assurance  that  the  rent  will  be  paid.  This  system  is  used  in 
Belgium and in some regions of Italy and Spain.153 In France and Germany landlords are 
sometimes obliged to rent out their homes to specific groups of people at a fixed price 
for a stipulated period of 10-40 years, after which they are then free to rent them out on 
the private market.154 

Housing  cooperatives  can  also  contribute  to  social  housing  provision.  This  is  a 
participatory approach to home-ownership driven by the cooperative of owners. It can be 
cost-saving  and  sustainable  as,  instead  of  profit-maximisation,  the  owner  residents  are 
more interested in keeping their costs low and maintaining the building in a good state. 
Housing cooperatives are wide-spread in CZ, PL and SE.155 

Making  use  of  vacant  houses  or  freeing  unused  state  or  local  authority  land  for 
social housing purposes is another option. As a result of the housing bubble having burst, 
empty neglected houses and buildings can be found all over Europe but especially in 
Ireland  and  Spain.  The  United  Kingdom  government  has  set  £ 100  million  of  targeted 
investment aside as part of the Affordable Housing Programme. The funding is targeted 
at  long-term  empty  properties  which  would  not  come  back  into  use  without  the 
intervention.156  In 
temporary 
accommodation  for  applicants  on  waiting  lists  for  social  housing.  Public  funding  is 
available  for  landlords  who  renovate  empty homes  which  are  considered  unfit  and  rent 
them  out  to  low-income  groups.  There  is  also  an  additional  tax  on  landlords  who  keep 
their homes empty to discourage them from doing so.157 

the  Brussels  region,  empty  homes  are  used  as 

Territorial  planning  and  development  may  play  a  useful  role  in  providing  social 
housing through making affordable housing creation a pre-condition of issuing extensive 
construction permits. In this way new affordable homes have been created in the United 
Kingdom  in  the  area  around  London.  In  Ireland,  the  Planning  and  Development  Act 
provides  that  up  to  20 %  of  the  units  in  a  new  private  housing  development  project  be 
made  available  to  the  local  authority  as  social  housing  or  affordable  ownership 

152   For the European Regional Development Fund, see Chapter 8.2. 
153  Information provided by CECODHAS, Summer 2012. 
154  Social Housing Allocation and Homelessness. FEANTSA, December 2011. 
155  Cooperative  Housing.  A  Key  Model  for  Sustainable  Housing  in  Europe.  Committee  of  the  Regions, 

April 2012. 

156  See http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/empty-homes-toolkit?page_id=&page=1 
157  See for instance: http://www.doulkeridis.be/blog/category/mes-competences/logement/ 

26 

 
                                                 
dwellings.158 Vulnerable tenants must have a choice where to live, e.g. close to where 
they  have  economic  and  social  links.  At  present,  most  social  housing  offers  are  non-
negotiable  and  refusal  may  even  lead  to  loss  of  entitlement.159  Swapping  schemes  can 
increase tenant mobility. 

Providing additional services for social housing may be necessary for some tenants. A 
good  example  is  to  employ  on  a  permanent  basis  skilled  social  caretakers  with 
pedagogical,  health  or  craftsman  qualifications  as  is  the  case  in  Denmark.160  Highly 
dependent homeless people, on the other hand, may fit better into multiple added support 
schemes  like  the  Housing  First  models.161  Awareness-raising  can  help  in  combating 
prejudices and misperceptions of social housing operators, who are often reluctant to rent 
out  to  homeless  people,  fearing  they  would  be  difficult  tenants  or  troublesome 
neighbours.162 

Increasing  private  rental  housing  and  supported  ownership  schemes  can  also  help 
low-income people to avoid homelessness. Adapting existing housing especially to the 
needs of elderly people may become a necessity to reduce their risk of homelessness.163 

8.  CORE ELEMENTS OF HOMELESSNESS STRATEGIES 

8.1.  Mobilising Member State and EU policies to confront homelessness  

The  previous  chapters  of  Part  Two  have  summarised  the  most  important  elements  of 
successful policies that tackle homelessness. A growing number of Member States have 
adopted  integrated  strategies  to  diminish  homelessness.  These  strategies  are  national, 
like in DK, FI, FR, IE, NL, PT, SE or regional as in DE, ES and the UK.164 The adoption 
of  such  a  strategy  has  helped  to  push  the  agenda  forward,  has  improved  coordination, 
policy  design  and  implementation,  and  has  helped  to  identify  more  financial  resources. 
Comprehensive strategies are more effective because they can mobilise support services 
in an integrated way. 

Beyond these national policy practices, EU policies can have a significant impact on the 
causes  and  magnitude  of  homelessness.  They  can  also  help  to  improve  both  the 
understanding of homelessness and the data situation. Ways in which various EU policies 
and actions can help Member States to reduce homelessness are described below.  

The Commission continues to address homelessness through its general social inclusion 
framework  and  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  relevant  actions.  Recent  EU  actions 
include  the  Communication  on  the  Social  Investment  Package  and  its  accompanying 
documents such as the CSWD on Long-term Care in Ageing Societies.165 The Package 

158  Impact of the crisis and austerity measures on the social housing sector. CECODHAS, February 2012. 
159  Report on the 11th European meeting of People Experiencing Poverty. May 2012. 
160  Housing  and  Homelessness:  models  and  practices  from  across  Europe.  Homeless  in  Europe,  Winter 

2008. 

161  The Housing First approach is discussed in Chapter 7. 
162 
163  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  -  Long-term  care  in  ageing  societies-  challenges  and  policy 

 Social Housing Allocation and Homelessness. FEANTSA, December 2011. 

options, SWD(2013) 41. 

164  Based  on  the  analysis  of  the  Independent  Experts  on  Social  Inclusion.  More  information  on 

http://www.peer-review-social-inclusion.eu/network-of-independent-experts. 

165    Commission  Staff  Working  Document  -  Long-term  care  in  ageing  societies-  challenges  and  policy 

options, SWD(2013) 41..  

27 

 
                                                 
contains  also  a  Recommendation  on  Child  Poverty166  addressing  housing  and  living 
conditions of poor children. The CSWD on Active Inclusion167 follows up on the 2008 
Recommendation  on  Active  Inclusion,168  which  called  on  Member  States  to  provide 
services that are essential for supporting social inclusion policies such as housing support 
and  social  housing.  The  Commission  has  developed  guidelines  on  the  best  ways  to 
transfer people from institutions to community-based care with the help of EU funds. 

The EU Framework for national Roma integration strategies169 recognises housing as 
a  key  area  of  intervention  alongside  education,  employment  and  health.  The 
Commission,  in  its  assessment  of  national  Roma  integration  strategies,  has  encouraged 
Member States to prioritise the following areas:170 desegregation; local integrated housing 
approaches  paying  special  attention  to  utility  and  social  service  infrastructure; 
availability,  affordability  and  quality  of  social  housing  and  halting  sites  with  access  to 
affordable services as part of an integrated approach. 

Some  homeless  people  face  discrimination  because  of  their  ethnic  background.  The 
Racial  Equality  Directive171  provides  protection  to  everyone  in  the  EU  against 
discrimination  on  the  basis  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin  in  areas  such  as  employment, 
education,  social  protection,  healthcare  and access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services 
such  as  housing.  The  Commission  continues  to  monitor  the  correct  implementation  of 
this Directive and is ready to take legal action against Member States where infringement 
occurs. 

to  explore 

Social  policy  experimentation  can  help 
to 
homelessness.  EU  financial  and  consumer  policies  can  influence  homelessness  levels 
by  mitigating  poverty  and  improving  housing  outcomes,  e.g.  through  regulating  the 
mortgage market and internal energy market, improving access to basic financial services 
as well as supporting Member States’ work to tackle indebtedness and foreclosures. The 
Commission  monitors  market  imbalances  including  housing  market  imbalances  that 
might be related to social housing policies. 

innovative  approaches 

State aid rules for the provision of social services including social housing, implemented 
through  EU  competition  policies,  will  also  have  an  effect  on  homelessness  services. 
Public service obligations can be introduced for public transportation providers through 
EU transport policies. 

Education  can  prevent  homelessness,  especially  among  young  people,  and  assist  the 
reintegration  of  homeless  people,  often  early  school-leavers  with  low  educational 
attainment. As part of EU education policies a number of projects have been launched to 
improve  education  outcomes  and  to  increase  knowledge  about  homeless  people.  EU 
youth  policies  can  reduce  youth  unemployment  and  early  school-leaving,  support  life 

166    Commission  Recommendation  -  Investing  in  children:  breaking  the  cycle  of  disadvantage,  C(2013) 

778. 

167  Commission Staff Working Document - Follow up on the implementation by the Member States of the 
2008 European Commission Recommendation on active inclusion of people excluded from the labour 
market- Towards a social investment approach, SWD(2013) 39. 

168  Commission  Recommendation  2008/867/EC  of  3  October  2008  on  the  active  inclusion  of  people 

excluded from the labour market. 

169  Commission Communication COM(2011)173 final of 5 April 2011 on an EU framework for national 

170 

Roma integration strategies up to 2020. 
 Commission Staff Working Document COM(2012)133 of 21 May 2012 – accompanying the national 
Roma integration strategies: a first step in the implementation of the EU Framework.  

171  Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between 

persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. 

28 

 
                                                 
transitions,  mitigate  the  harmful  consequences  of  mobility  and  thus  reduce  the  risk  of 
youth homelessness.  

Health  problems  prevalent  among  the  homeless  population  are  both  a  trigger  for 
homelessness  and  a  grave  consequence  of  it.  EU  health  policies  can  support  national 
policies aiming to improve health outcomes for vulnerable people such as the homeless. 
The  rising  proportion  of  migrants,  especially  those  who  are  undocumented,  among  the 
homeless  is  alarming.  EU  migration  and  integration  policies  can  bolster  national 
policies  to  improve  integration  and  to  reduce  homelessness,  which  is  increasingly 
affecting undocumented third-country migrants but also EU migrants. EU research and 
statistical  data  collection  and  analysis  policies  may  improve  understanding  of  the 
homelessness phenomenon and enable data-based homelessness policies to be created. 

A  wider  selection  of  recent  EU  actions  with  a  direct  or  indirect  bearing  on 
homelessness can be found in Annex I. 

Summary of Chapters 4 to 8.1 

Based  on  the  analysis  in  Chapters  4  to  8.1,  efficient  policy  practices  to  confront 
homelessness can be summarised as follows: 

A) In the Member States 

1.  Putting into place integrated, housing-led, long-term homeless strategies at national, 

regional and local levels, setting specific targets to reduce homelessness. 

2.  Preventing  homelessness  and  intervening  through  early  identification  of  people  at 
risk  of  homelessness,  offering  them  tailor-made  support  schemes;  applying  a  wide 
range of anti-eviction measures — including financial measures — guaranteed by law 
and regulatory frameworks; enabling legal representation for those who cannot afford 
eviction procedure costs; offering instant support to evicted persons. 

3.  Strengthening  cooperation  between  social  and  health  systems,  ensuring  the 
effectiveness of social nets, focusing on people in the process of deinstitutialisation. 

4.  Providing sufficient financial support — such as income support, housing support or 
rent  allowances  —  to  prevent  homelessness  and  to  provide  relief  to  those  who 
experience it; ensuring that housing support covers real costs and can flexibly adapt 
to fluctuating incomes; making rent support and rent deposit schemes available. 

5.  Improving homelessness service delivery by promoting integrated approaches, long-
term planning and financing; enabling service access for homeless people; ensuring 
quality service and staff preparedness. 

6.  Providing emergency accommodation of decent quality which is locally available and 
accessible,  matching  users’  needs;  offering  information  and  other  services  on  the 
spot; involving users in running and managing shelters. 

7.  Making  arrangements  for  helping  homeless  people  to  cope  with  extreme  weather 
conditions, enabling critical interventions all year long; preparing in time for seasonal 
bad  weather;  introducing  mechanisms  enabling  quick  mobilisation  of  services  and 

29 

 
 
enhancing  service  capacities;  ensuring  a  wide  local  outreach  by  involving  public 
space providers and public services. 

8.  Improving  employability  of  homeless  people  by  introducing  relevant  measures  and 
mobilising  the  employment  services;  offering  training,  incentives  for  homeless 
people  to  seek  employment  and  support  to  stay  in  employment;  fighting  workplace 
discrimination;  providing  adequate  levels  of  income  support;  counterbalancing 
precarious jobs, fluctuating incomes and insecure employment. 

9.  Empowering  homeless  people  through  their  participation  in  service  delivery  and 
relevant policy-making; ensuring that homeless people’s basic human and civil rights 
are  respected;  avoiding 
the  criminalisation  of  homelessness;  offering  peer 
programmes, sport, art and training activities for the homeless. 

10. Improving access to locally available and affordable permanent housing of homeless 
and  low-income  people  by  following  a  housing-led  policy  approach;  considering 
procedures to guarantee the right to housing; offering supported ownership schemes 
for the most vulnerable people. 

11. Reinforcing  partnerships  and  involving  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders  to  combat 
homelessness  including  national  ministries  and  public  authorities,  NGOs,  charity 
organisations, public space controllers, healthcare, social housing and social economy 
actors,  police  and  judicial  system  workers;  mobilising  volunteers;  involving  private 
investors to finance homelessness programmes or services. 

B) At European Union level 

12. Continued  targeting  of  homelessness  through  the  relevant  EU  sectorial  policies, 
especially  but  not  exclusively  in  the  regional  development,  health,  human  rights, 
youth, gender, migration and integration domains. 

13. Providing  for  a  more  favourable  ecosystem  for  social  enterprises  at  EU  level, 
regulatory 

finance,  education  and 

training  and 

the 

to 

improving  access 
environment.172 

8.2. 

Improving  governance,  partnerships  and 
homelessness 

funding 

to  combat 

Improved governance is an important tool for making strategies more effective. Policies 
to  fight  homelessness  usually  fall  under  the  responsibility  of  different  ministries  at 
national  level  and  involve  different  levels  of  government.  Three  elements  prove  to  be 
particularly  useful  in  improving  governance  when  responsibilities  are  shared  between 
different  levels  of  government  and  NGOs:  the  overall  leadership  must  remain  in  the 
hands of the public authority in charge of homelessness and housing exclusion policies; 
all stakeholders who participate in the programme should be consulted on policy design 
and implementation and there should be a consensus on the strategy. 

172  Commission  Communication  COM(2011)682  final  on  a  Social  Business  Initiative.  Creating  a 
favourable climate for social enterprises, key stakeholders in the social economy and innovation. 

30 

 
 
                                                 
Typically,  the  national/regional  government  is  responsible  for  planning  and  overall 
policy  design,  while  responsibility  for  delivery  is  devolved  to  local  and/or  regional 
authorities.  Some  degree  of  central  coordination  and  supervision  of  policies  and 
services  is  necessary  to  measure  homelessness,  to  monitor  trends  and  to  respond 
appropriately to new macro-level challenges and to lead and fund the policies in place. 
Fragmentation or blurring of responsibilities is one of the main obstacles to the effective 
design of integrated policies. At the same time, the lack of capacity and resources at local 
level is one of the main problems faced in implementing such policies. 

In most European countries — including Austria, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and 
Poland  —  local  authorities  are  in  charge  of  direct  homelessness  service  provision  and 
funding.173  Services  provided  by  the  central  government  exist  in  Greece  and  Slovenia. 
Municipalities can function as both service providers and enablers, as is the case e.g. in 
England,  Germany,  Hungary  or  Sweden.  Local  authorities  are  best  placed  to  grasp  the 
local  needs  but  central  coordination  must  remain  in  place  to  ensure  service  continuity, 
quality and territorial coverage. 

The  most  common  service  providers  are  non-governmental  or  charity  organisations 
except in a very few countries.174 Private donations, charitable funds and voluntary work 
are  important  sources  of  contributions,  especially  for  low-threshold  services  or  the 
distribution of basic goods. The involvement of commercial or for-profit organisations is 
also on the rise, as authorities increasingly purchase services or rent accommodation like 
tourist  hotels  on  the  market.  While  such  partnerships  are  important,  responsibility  for 
continuity and good-quality services must remain with the (local) government. 

In several Member States including BE, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, LU, MT, NL, PL, 
PT  and  the  UK,  there  is  an  increasing  tendency  to  involve  key  stakeholders  in  the 
planning, delivery and monitoring of services. This practice deserves to be more widely 
promoted in other Member States. 

In  most  countries,  there  is  not  much  direct  involvement  of  people  who  experience 
homelessness.175  Partnerships  with  other  stakeholders  such  as  actors  from  the  health 
sector,  social  economy  or  controllers  of  public  spaces  like  railway,  bus  or  metro 
stations,  airports,  shopping  malls  and  parking  places  are  important  as  well  as  their 
involvement  in  forming  homeless  policies.  Public  places  may  provide  the  necessary 
living  conditions  for  many  homeless  people,  access  to  water  and  toilets,  as  well  as 
heating, and can reduce their social isolation. There are some good examples of railway 
station operators taking action on behalf of the homeless.176 

Cooperation  with  the  police  and  judicial  system  actors  is  also  crucial.  In  Paris,  the 
police  have  created  a  special  division  to  assist  homeless  people  called  BAPSA 
(Assistance  Brigade  for  Homeless  People  in  Paris).  This  specially  trained  brigade 
collaborates with the organisations that provide support services to homeless people and 
has  direct  contact  with  social  workers.  BAPSA  does  not  use  force  to  remove  homeless 
people from the streets.  

173  Report for the European Consensus Conference on Homelessness, December 2010. 
174  Idem. 
175  Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, European Commission, 2010. 
176  See  for  instance  the Hope  in  Stations  and Work  in  Stations projects below, funded  by  the European 

Union. 

31 

 
                                                 
It  is  important  to  engage  volunteers  in  providing  services  for  the  homeless.  The 
deployment of volunteers can raise general awareness of problems177 and boost capacities 
to  help  more  people,  especially  when  there  is  an  increased  need  for  services  (e.g.  in 
winter time). Volunteers, however, should not be used to replace paid staff. In ES, IE, NL 
and  the  UK,  annual  awareness-raising  events  on  the  subject  of  homelessness  are 
organised, often with the involvement of the media to mobilise wider public support. 

Homeless strategies rely both on an adequate, long-term funding enabling homelessness 
to  be  tackled  efficiently  and  on  continuous  homelessness  service  provision.  Beyond 
public  budgets,  private  investors  can  be  mobilised  for  new  housing  construction  and 
rental housing provision as well as financing. 

An interesting – though as yet experimental – new scheme for financing social projects is 
the ‘Social Impact Bonds’ (SIBs) concept. A Social Impact Bond is a form of outcomes-
based  contract,  in  which  public  sector  commissioners  commit  to  pay  a  private  or 
voluntary-sector  organisation  to  improve  the  social  outcomes  of  a  defined  population, 
such  as  long-term  homeless  people.  SIBs  may  attract  new  investment  around  such 
outcomes-based  contracts  that  benefit  individuals  and  communities.  Through  a  SIB, 
private  investment  is  used  to  pay  for  interventions,  which  are  delivered  by  service 
providers. 

Financial  returns  to  investors  are  made  by  the  public  sector  on  the  basis  of  improved 
social outcomes. More understanding is still needed, however, on how the SIB schemes 
work in practice. The results-based return on investment requires careful assessment of 
the  outcomes  and  the  effectiveness  of  innovative  solutions,  though  concerns  have  been 
raised about potential perverse- incentives that encourage 'gaming' behavior on the part 
of  service  providers  (i.e.  choosing  selectively  clients  who  have  a  greater  likelihood  of 
achieving the desired outcomes). 

The SIB or payment by results approach is already being used in the United Kingdom to 
fund  some  voluntary  sector  schemes  which  promote  private  rented  sector  access  for 
single homeless people, with funding of £ 10.8 million being provided by the Government 
until  2014.  £ 5 million  will  be  provided  by  the  government  to  launch  the  world’s  first 
homelessness Social Impact Bond in London. This SIB will aim at reducing the number 
of  regular  rough  sleepers  as  well  as  Accident  and  Emergency  admissions,  and  at 
increasing  the  number  of  rough  sleepers  relocated  into  stable  accommodation  and 
employment.178 

European  Union  Funds  can  be  used  to  finance  actions  for  the  benefit  of  homeless 
people through investment in infrastructure such as social housing, the establishment of 
service centres for the homeless and also individually targeted reintegration programmes.  

The European Social Fund (ESF) supports the inclusion in the labour market of a wide 
variety  of  vulnerable  groups,  including  homeless  people.  More  than  €11  billion  of  the 
2007-2013  ESF  budget  was  allocated  for  this  purpose.  To  increase  their  employability 
and social inclusion, the ESF can fund a large array of projects such as support services 
(i.e. relief, counselling and multipurpose centres), vocational, professional and business 
training  centres,  as  well  as  social  economy  programmes  aimed  at  facilitating  the 

177  Report  of  the  seminar  on  Funding  strategies.  Building  the  case  for  homelessness.  Committee  of  the 

Regions, June 2012. 

178  Reply  from  England  to  the  2012  questionnaire  on  homelessness  to  the  Social  Protection  Committee 

members. 

32 

 
                                                 
integration of individuals into the labour market. Homeless community care projects or 
family-oriented,  social  and  cultural  campaigns  can  also  be  financed  from  the  ESF.  The 
homeless  can  be  a  specific  target  group  of  mainstream  ESF  interventions.  Besides,  the 
ESF  can  be  used  to  finance  projects  that  aim  at  collecting  better  statistics  on  the 
homeless. 

More than 30 ESF-funded projects directly targeted homeless people in the period 2007-
2013. A good example is the Hungarian TÁMOP-5.3.3 project, which helps the social 
integration of homeless people through assistance for buying second-hand furniture and 
other  household  equipment,  offering  'Housing  First'  -  type  solutions  for  rough  sleepers 
and  housing  assistance  to  former  rough  sleepers,  subsidising  institutional  capacity 
building and support for voluntary work in the area of homelessness.179 

The  Commission’s  PROGRESS  programme,  running  from  2007  to  2013,  is  an  EU 
financial  instrument  supporting  the  development  and  coordination  of  EU  policy  in  the 
areas  of  employment,  social  inclusion  and  social  protection,  working  conditions,  anti-
discrimination and gender equality. It has provided significant multi-annual support to a 
number  of  EU-level  networks  active  in  the  field  of  homelessness,  such  as  ATD  Quart 
Monde,  Caritas,  Dynamo  International,  FEANTSA  and  PICUM  and  many  others. 
PROGRESS money has also been used to finance events and studies on homelessness. 

A good example of PROGRESS in the area of homelessness was a transnational project 
run  between  2010  and  2011  promoting  social  inclusion  of  homeless  people  at  railway 
stations.  The  HOPE  in  Stations  project  (HOmeless  People  in  European  train  stations) 
brought  together  the  stakeholders  of  the  train  stations  of  Paris  Nord  and  Paris  East, 
Brussels  Central,  Roma  Termini,  Berlin  Zoo,  Madrid  Antocha,  Warsaw  Central  and 
Luxembourg Central. The project managed by local authorities and social organisations 
improved the understanding between the homeless and railway companies. The training 
of  employees  of  the  stations,  in  particular  the  security  services  and  the  contacts  with 
different  stakeholders  have  led  to  a  softer  approach  towards  homeless  people  and  to 
fewer expulsions from the stations. 

During  the  programming  period  2007-2013,  the  European  Regional  Development 
Fund  (ERDF)  was  able  to  invest  in  social  infrastructures  in  the  fields  of  education, 
health  and  social  housing.  In  2010  the  ERDF  Regulation180  was  amended  in  order  to 
extend the eligibility of social housing to marginalised communities located in all urban 
and rural areas of the EU. This was done explicitly though not exclusively to target the 
marginalised  Roma  communities.  The  extended  eligibility  was  made  conditional  on  an 
integrated  approach  whereby  housing 
to  be  accompanied  by 
interventions in the fields of employment, education, healthcare, etc. ERDF subsidies are 
also  available  to  improve  energy-efficiency  and  the  use  of  renewable  energy  in 
existing housing. 

investments  had 

Measures  under  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD) 
such as the basic services may be relevant to the issue of homelessness in the future, as it 
allows Member States – in the framework of their Rural Development Programmes – to 
set up basic social services. Furthermore, it can finance investments in temporary public 
housing  for  homeless  people  or  prevention  centres,  with  clear  differentiation  from 
housing interventions that are co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund 

179  Reply  from  Hungary  to  the 2012 questionnaire on  homelessness  to  the  Social  Protection  Committee 

members. 

180  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  1080/2006  on  the  European  Regional 

Development Fund. 

33 

 
                                                 
There  are  possibilities  for  funding  small-scale  infrastructure  too,  which  may  also 
contribute to improving  the situation of homeless  people in  rural areas.  The  LEADER 
approach helps further local communities more widely to elaborate and implement their 
strategies  for  improving  quality  of  life  with  small-scale  projects,  which  can  also 
contribute to social inclusion. 

The Common Agricultural Policy does not currently deal specifically with the issue of 
homelessness,  however,  it  has  contributed  to  poverty  reduction  and  social  inclusion  by 
means of the EU`s Food Distribution programme for the Most Deprived Persons of the 
Union  since  1987.  Over  the  years,  the  scheme  has  become  an  important  source  of 
provisions for organisations working in direct contact with the least fortunate members of 
society. In 2010, over 18 million people benefited from the scheme, many of whom were 
homeless. 

As  a  successor  to  the  Food  Distribution  programme  for  the  Most  Deprived  Persons, 
which  will  end  in  2013,  the  Commission  has  presented  a  proposal  for  a  Fund  for 
European Aid to the Most Deprived. The proposed budget is EUR 2.5 billion for the 
period 2014-2020 under the Cohesion heading. The objective of the Fund is to promote 
social  cohesion  within  the  EU,  by  contributing  to  achieving  poverty  reduction  through 
supporting  national  schemes  which  provide  non-financial  assistance  to  the  most 
deprived persons via partner organisations. In terms of scope, the Fund addresses food 
deprivation, homelessness and material deprivation of children, combining with activities 
aiming at social inclusion of the persons assisted. 

For the next multiannual financial framework period from 2014 to 2020, the Commission 
has  proposed  that  at  least  25 %  of  funding  on  cohesion  policy  be  concentrated  on  the 
European  Social  Fund  and  at  least  20 %  of  this  amount  is  to  be  earmarked  for  social 
inclusion,  including  homelessness  policies.  Better  access  to  funding  for  homelessness 
projects  and  a  reinforced  partnership  with  civil  society  organisations,  including  those 
dealing  with  homelessness,  have  been  identified  from  experience  as  key  elements  in 
improving ESF delivery for the homeless. 

The  proposal  for  a  European  Regional  Development  Fund  Regulation  post-2014 
includes,  among  its  investment  priorities,  ‘promoting  social  inclusion  and  combating 
poverty,  support  for  physical  and  economic  regeneration  of  deprived  urban  and  rural 
communities’, thus encompassing integrated housing investments. 

Combined use of the Structural Funds is already possible but ought to be fully exploited. 
For  instance,  following  an  integrated  approach  is  a  pre-condition  for  social  housing 
investments  under  the  ERDF,  while  the  necessary  integrated  -  e.g.  employment  or 
education-related - actions can be financed by the ESF. Integrated housing interventions 
can thus improve access to good-quality, affordable housing. 

The  Structural  Funds  can  also  be  combined  with  other  financial  instruments.  The  loan 
guarantee  programmes  of  the  European  Investment  Bank  and  the  Council  of 
Europe Development Bank could be taken into account to give a new impulse to social 
housing investments.  

The  Commission’s  proposal  for  the  new  EU  Programme  for  Social  Change  and 
Innovation (PSCI) 2014-2020 will build on the successful results of PROGRESS. It will 
continue  to  support  stakeholders  active  in  the  field  of  social  inclusion  as  well  as  to 
develop  new  innovative  approaches  with  strong  EU  value  added.  It  will  also  reinforce 
support  for  social  innovation  through  social  experimentation  (i.e.  testing  ideas  for  new 
policy measures) thanks to an earmarked budget. The aim will be to scale up successful 

34 

 
practices with the help of the European Social Fund. Some of these practices will be of 
relevance to the homeless. 

Governance  of  the  policy  measures  tackling  homelessness  will  have  to  be  strengthened 
notably  through  a  meaningful  monitoring  of  homelessness  at  EU  level.  This  can  only 
happen  when  the  Member  States  address  the  issue  of  homelessness  in  their  National 
Reform Programmes. In this connection, the Commission has the opportunity to discuss 
the  issue  during  the  European  Semester  and  to  make,  if  necessary,  proposals  for  a 
Country  Specific  Recommendation.  Thematic  reporting  on  the  use  of  the  European 
Social Fund targeting homelessness can usefully complement the monitoring framework.  

Summary of Chapter 8.2 

Based on the analysis in Chapter 8.2., the following elements seem to be efficient ways 
to improve governance, partnerships and funding for combating homelessness: 

A) At Member State level 

1.  Reinforcing  partnerships  and  involving  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders  to  combat 
homelessness, including national ministries, regional, local public authorities, NGOs, 
charity  organisations,  public  space  controllers,  healthcare,  social  housing,  social 
economy actors, police and judicial system workers; mobilising volunteers;  

2.  Ensuring  an  adequate  level  of  funding  to  confront  homelessness  and  enable 
continuous, high-quality provision of services, involving private investors if possible; 

3.  Reporting  on  homelessness  by  addressing  the  issue  in  the  National  Reform 

Programmes. 

B) At European Union level 

4.  Further integrating homelessness into the Europe 2020 governance process, possibly 
the  Member  States  with  Country  Specific 

the  efforts  of 

complementing 
Recommendations. 

5.  Encouraging  better  utilisation  of  EU  financing  instruments  (European  Social  Fund, 
PROGRESS,  PSCI,  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  JESSICA,  European 
Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development,  LEADER,  Aid  for  the  Most  Deprived 
Programme) to combat homelessness. 

6.  Proposing  the  introduction  of  thematic  reporting  on  the  use  of  Structural  Funds  to 
combat homelessness and housing exclusion, with a view to achieving Europe 2020 
poverty and social inclusion targets. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
8.3.  Measurement  and  monitoring  of  homelessness  at  Member  States  and 

EU level 

Comparative  data  on  homelessness  and  data  collection  methodologies  to  measure 
homelessness  are  few  and  far  between  at  both  European  and  national  levels.  This  is  a 
major  handicap  when  trying  to  develop  evidence-based  policies  on  homelessness  and 
housing  exclusion.  It  is  also  an  obstacle  to  monitoring  homelessness  in  the  European 
Semester procedure. 

A  comprehensive  definition  of  homelessness  can  improve  the  capacity  for  data 
collection, comparison and analysis. The ETHOS framework for instance can provide 
the  required  consistency181  and  is  already  being  used  as  a  reference  across  the  EU. 
Common  frameworks  for  measuring,  monitoring  and  reporting  on  homelessness  can 
further improve outputs. 

Homelessness  strategies  that  have  formulated  specific  targets  are  more  effective  in 
following  developments  against  these  targets.  Examples  of  targets  are  the  (number  of): 
prevented evictions; persons followed up after being discharged from a public institution; 
most  severe  cases  of  homelessness  ended,  such  as  rough  sleeping;  reduction  in  the 
duration  of  homelessness  (in  particular  the  time  spent  in  emergency  and  temporary 
accommodation);  improvement  in  the  quality  of  services  and  accommodation  for 
homeless  people;  demand  vs.  supply  of  emergency  accommodation;  increase  in  the 
supply of affordable housing units182 as well as increase in funding. 

An in-depth survey by INSEE of France at the request of Eurostat has proposed a number 
of practical recommendations on how information on homelessness is best collected 
in a country.183 Through client registration systems, it is possible to keep a daily log of 
the  number  of  people  accommodated  and  of  the  number  of  people  to  whom 
accommodation  was  refused.  Aggregate  data  can  then  be  supplied  at  the  time  of  the 
interview.  Interviews  with  users  of  shelters  and  hostels  (and,  perhaps,  other  types  of 
support  services)  could  produce  a  wide  range  of  data  through  general  questions, 
retrospective questions on homelessness and specific questions on the period prior to the 
survey.  In  every  Member  State  a  national  facility  for  collection  of  data  on 
homelessness could be created.184
The  MPHASIS  study185  financed  by  the  European  Commission  proposed  the  use  of 
standard  core  variables  in  measuring  homelessness,  addressing  basic  demographic 
characteristics  (i.e.  age  and  gender),  nationality  and  migration  background  (country  of 
birth),  composition  of  homeless  households,  housing  situation  (immediately  before 
service  period  and  at  time  of  data  collection),  duration  of  (current)  homelessness  and 
reasons  for  (last)  homelessness.  This  study  shows  that  cooperation  between  Member 
States on data development can raise overall efficiency. 

In  a  similar  way  the  Clandestino  project,  which  ran  between  2007  and  2009  and  was 
financed by the European Commission,186 aimed at supporting policymakers in designing 
and implementing data-based policies regarding undocumented migrants. This is another 

181  Policy  Recommendations  of  the  Jury  at  the  European  Consensus  Conference  on  Homelessness. 

December 2010. 

182  Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion. European Commission, 2010. 
183  I.  Dennis:  The  production  of  data  on  homelessness  and  housing  deprivation  in  the  European  Union: 

  Executive Summary – Measurement of Homelessness at EU Level. European Commission, 2007. 

survey and proposals. INSEE, 2005. 

184
185  See http://www.trp.dundee.ac.uk/research/mphasis/ 
186  See http://clandestino.eliamep.gr/about/ 

36 

 
  
                                                 
hard-to-reach  population  group  comparable  to  the  homeless.  It  was  built  around  a 
transnational multidisciplinary network of five research centres based in different EU 
countries, a European NGO plus a number of individual experts who studied the situation 
on the ground both in the EU and in three important transit ‘neighbourhood’ countries. 
The  multilateral  cooperation  resulted  in  an  estimate  of  the  number  of  undocumented 
migrants in selected EU Member States. 

The  Belgian  government  recently  commissioned  a  very  interesting  complementary 
survey  (SILC-CUT)  targeted  at  homeless  people  and  undocumented  migrants,  two 
groups that are not covered in the sampling frame of the EU-SILC survey. It is estimated 
that  these  groups  together  could  make  up  about  2%  of  the  Belgian  population,  i.e. 
200.000  persons.  SILC-CUT  asks  more  or  less  the same questions on income, material 
deprivation  and  work  as  EU-SILC  to  ensure  comparability.  In  the  end  around  500 
roofless  or  homeless  persons  and  undocumented  migrants  all  across  Belgium  were 
questioned, which is a very good score, given the difficulty of the target group. The main 
achievement of this Belgian project is that it has shown that a survey among difficult-to-
reach  persons  not  covered  by  EU-SILC  such  as  the  homeless  is  feasible  although 
significant statistical difficulties are still encountered.  

At European Union level, the Social Protection Committee (and its Indicators Subgroup) 
and Eurostat are driving data collection and analysis on homelessness. 

Summary of Chapter 8.3. 

Based on the analysis under Chapter 8.3, the following monitoring and measurement 
tools appear to be effective in supporting the development of evidence-based policy-
making on homelessness: 

A) At Member State level 

1.  Reinforcing  measurement  and  monitoring  of  homelessness  by  exploiting  the 

information that can be found in client registration systems;  

2.  Creating  a  trans-border  cooperation  and  learning  network  in  the  Member  States 
for  awareness  raising  and  exchange  of  good  practices  on  data  collection  and 
harmonisation; 

3.  Putting into place standardised, broad definitions of homelessness, following the 

framework of the ETHOS definition; 

4.  Implementing 

standardised  monitoring  methods 

and 

regular 

data 

collection/evaluation mechanisms; 

5.  Monitoring in particular the trends in homelessness, housing exclusion, evictions, 
prioritising homeless people at social housing allocation, housing price changes; 

B) At European Union level 

6.  Helping  Member  States 

to  reinforce 

the  analytical  basis  and  monitor 
homelessness  and  housing  exclusion  and  explore  the  feasibility  of  collecting 
(non-)harmonised  data  on  homelessness;  With  the  involvement  of  Eurostat, 
continue  working  in  the  Social  Protection  Committee  with  Member  States  to 
37 

 
 
analyse trends and development of homelessness, to exchange good practices e.g. 
through  peer  reviews  on  homelessness  and  through  promoting  transnational 
cooperation and exchange on data collection; 

7.  Further  developing  indicators  and  measures  for  monitoring  homelessness  in  the 

SPC Indicators Subgroup. 

38 

 
 
ANNEX I: RECENT EU ACTIONS RELEVANT TO HOMELESSNESS187 

1. EU financial and consumer policies 

The  European  Foundation  for  the  Improvement  of  Living  and  Working  Conditions  has 
been  looking  at  ‘quality  household  debt  advisory  services’  in  the  European  Union: 
evidence  from  case  studies188  suggests  that  the  provision  of  debt  counselling  is  an 
important for preventing evictions.  

The  Commission  is  carrying  out  a  study  on  'The  over-indebtedness  of  European 
households:  update  mapping  of  the  situation,  nature  and  causes,  effects  and 
initiatives for alleviating its impact'. It is based on the same methodology as the 2008 
study 'Towards a common operational definition of over-indebtedness'189 and will report, 
inter alia on the possible links between over-indebtedness and the chances of maintaining 
housing. 

A mapping study foreseen for the end of 2012 was looking at the various instruments in 
the  Member  States  that  can  protect  consumers  in  financial  difficulty  against  personal 
bankruptcy, datio in solutum of mortgages and abusive debt collection practices. It 
will identify the best legal and regulatory (including self-regulatory) frameworks in place 
in a representative sample of Member States.190 

In  2011  the  Commission  published,  together  with  the  Proposal  on  Credit  Agreement 
Related  to  Residential  Property,  a  Staff  Working  Paper  on  national  measures  to  avoid 
foreclosure. The purpose of this paper is to draw Member States' attention to the different 
schemes  in  operation  at  national  level  throughout  the  EU  to  help  people  who  face 
difficulties in repaying their mortgages.  

 In  2011,  the  Commission  Recommendation  on  access  to  basic  payment  accounts 
aimed  at  strengthening  access  to  the  mainstream  financial  services  market  to  reduce 
social exclusion of the most vulnerable parts of the population such as homeless people. 
After having assessed the measures taken at national level, the Commission announced in 
the Single Market Act II191 and in its 2013 work programme that it will make legislative 
proposals on access to payment account with basic features as part of the Bank Account 
Package.  The  Single  Market  Act  II  of  October  2012  stressed  the  importance  of  a 
legislative  initiative  to  improve  access  to  the  payment  account  market,  enhance  the 
transparency  and  comparability  of  bank  fees  and  facilitate  bank  account  switching.192 
The  aim  is  to  guarantee  a  right  of  access  to  a  payment  account  with  basic  features  to 
facilitate  social  and  financial  cohesion  as  well  as  mobility  regardless  of  a  consumer's 
residence or level of income. 

187  Actions  listed  in  Annex  I  are  non-exhaustive  and  based  on  the  mapping  of  homelessness-related 

activities of European Commission services conducted in March/April 2012.  

188  See http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2011/89/en/1/EF1189EN.pdf 
189See 

http://ec.europa.eu/social/keyDocuments.jsp?pager.offset=20&langId=en&mode=advancedSubmit&ad
vSearchKey=towards a common operational definition of over 

190   Results are not available by the date of finalising the present Commission Staff Working Document. 
191   Commission Communication COM(2012)573 Single Market Act II -Together for new growth. 
192   Idem. 

39 

 
 
                                                 
The European Banking Authority is mapping out Member States’ practices in the area of 
the  post-contractual  phase  of  a  mortgage  credit.  As  a  result  of  this  work,  it  should 
become easier for indebted property owners to stay in their homes. 

2. EU competition policy  

On  20  December  2011  and  on  25  April  2012,  the  Commission  adopted  new  State  Aid 
rules applying to Services of General Economic Interest (SGEI), which simplify the 
procedure  for  the  financing  of  social  services  by  the  public  authorities  in  the  Member 
States. 

These  new  rules  exempt  public  authorities  from  the  obligation  to  notify  to  the 
Commission  state  aid  for  the  provision  of  social  services,  as  long  as  the  compatibility 
conditions are respected. The social services exempted refer, inter  alia, to the 'care and 
social inclusion of vulnerable groups' and cover a wide variety of services for people who 
are having difficulties in finding housing, in particular homeless people.193 The financing 
of social housing is also exempted from the obligation of notification, if all compatibility 
conditions are fulfilled, as was already the case under the 2005 rules. 

3. EU transport and energy policies 

In the case of public transport, in line with Regulation 1370/2007, public authorities in 
the Member States can decide to consider certain transport services as being of general 
interest, which they can then subsidise by imposing a so-called 'public service obligation' 
on the service provider. 
Following  the  success  of  the  Hope  in  Stations  project,194  the  pilot  project  ‘WORK  in 
Stations’  was  launched  in  November  2011  across  three  countries  (Belgium  -  Brussels, 
Central  Station,  Italy  -  Rome  Termini,  and  France  -  Paris  North  and  East  Stations)  to 
develop innovative cooperation models in the field of inclusion through work within each 
train station’s economic area. The project aims at building a common approach among all 
partners and creating efficient partnerships in this field for disadvantaged people. 

The EU internal energy market legislation offers protection to vulnerable customers of 
electricity and gas supply companies. It makes specific references to energy poverty and 
to the prohibition on disconnecting such customers in times of dire need. 

4. EU education and youth policies  

Recent  EU  education  policy  projects  with  relevance  to  homelessness  include  a  2009 
Grundtvig learning partnership entitled ‘Implementing social pathways to ameliorate the 
situation  of  wandering  homeless  persons’195  and  two  further  Grundtvig  projects  which 
covered  the  homeless  as  part  of  their  target  group.196  There  has  also  been  a  Leonardo 
partnership197  on  homelessness  and  a  Comenius  partnership  project  dealing  with 
attitudes towards homeless people.198 One Youth in Action project has directly involved 

193  See  European  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  -  3rd  Biennal  Report  on  Social  Services  of 

General Interest, SWD(2013) 40. 

194   See in Chapter 8.2 on EU Funding-PROGRESS. 
195  See http://www.europeansharedtreasure.eu/detail.php?id_project_base=2009-1-FR1-GRU06-07065 
196  See 

http://www.europeansharedtreasure.eu/detail.php?id_project_base=2008-1-GB2-LEO04-00144 

http://www.europeansharedtreasure.eu/detail.php?id_project_base=2009-1-IT2-GRU06-06393 
197  See http://www.europeansharedtreasure.eu/detail.php?id_project_base=2009-1-GB2-LEO04-01281 
198  See http://www.europeansharedtreasure.eu/detail.php?id_project_base=2010-1-IT2-COM07-13954  

40 

 
                                                 
homeless  people.199  The  Youth  in  Action  and  the  Grundtvig  programme  also  fund 
volunteering  programmes  for  people  under  30  or  over  50,  to  take  care  of  homeless 
people. More than 170 Youth in Action projects (2007-2011) have dealt directly with the 
problem of homelessness. 

The Commission presented in December 2012 a new Youth Guarantee Scheme, as part 
of a wider Youth Employment Package. The scheme is designed to help EU countries 
to  get  young  people  into  employment,  further  education  or  (re)training.  Within  four 
months  of  leaving  school,  young  people  should  receive  a  good-quality  offer  of 
employment, continued education, apprentice- or traineeship. 

Volunteering  is  also  a  way  to  mobilise  people  to  become  involved  in  tackling 
homelessness. The Commission has made proposals to establish a European Voluntary 
Corps.200  This  would  provide  practical  training,  set  standards  for  managing  volunteers 
and  match  them  with  humanitarian  organizations  running  projects  in  the  EU  and 
worldwide.  Between  2014  and  2010  about  10  000  Europeans  could  get  training  and 
another 10 000 would support the volunteers from home on a computer. 

5. EU health policy 

The Commission Communication on Health Inequalities201 identified homeless people 
as a particularly vulnerable group with much poorer average levels of health and spelled 
out the need for more action to address their health problems. Health along with housing, 
education  and  employment  are  four  priorities  of  the  EU  framework  for  national  Roma 
integration strategies.202 

The EU health programme funded a project called ‘Best Practice in Promoting Mental 
Health  of  Socially  Marginalised  People  in  Europe  (PROMO)’.  This  project  reviewed 
legislation  and  policies  and  assessed  systems  of  health  and  social  services  for 
marginalised  people.  It  considered  six  different  factors  of  social  marginalisation  and 
defined  guidelines  for  best  practice  in  promoting  mental  health  among  socially 
marginalised people and the guidelines were disseminated among stakeholder groups. 

The  European  Foundation  for  the  Improvement  of  Living  and  Working  Conditions  has 
paid attention to the issue of homelessness through its European Quality of Life Surveys, 
see  for  instance  the  ‘Living  conditions  of  the  Roma:  substandard  housing  and 
health’.203 

The  ‘Joint  Action  on  mental  health  and  well-being’  will  be  launched  in  early  2013. 
The  participating  EU  and  EFTA  countries  will  consider  evidence-based  policies  and 
practices  to  improve  the  capacity  of  health  systems  to  prevent  mental  health  problems 
and tackle the challenges related to mental disorders - a frequent cause of homelessness -
building  innovative  partnership  with  other  sectors,  in  particular  employment,  education 
and  social  policy.  The  work  plan  will  cover  1)  promotion  of  mental  health  at  the 

199 

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/eve/alfresco/navigate/browse/workspace/SpacesStore/f6856
da9-f24c-11df-8ec3-7ddbf18362f2?searchPage=true 

200  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  SWD(2012)265  final  on 

Establishing the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps.  

201  Commission  Communication  COM(2009)567  final  on  Solidarity  in  Health.  Reducing  Health 

Inequalities in the EU. 

202   Commission Communication COM(2011)173 final on an EU framework for national Roma integration 

strategies up to 2020. 

203  See http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2012/02/en/1/EF1202EN.pdf 

41 

 
                                                 
workplace; 2) prevention of mental health problems in schools; 3) managing transition to 
community-based  services;  4)  taking  evidence-based  action  against  depression;  5) 
promoting cooperation with other policy areas. 

6. EU migration and integration policies  

As part of the European Agenda for the Integration of Third Country Nationals,204 
social inclusion measures are proposed to remove barriers that block effective access to 
social  and  health  services.  In  particular,  policies  targeting  beneficiaries  of  international 
protection  should  be  designed  to  minimise  isolation,  provide  for  effective  language 
training and access to accommodation and health care. 

Following the Council Conclusions on integration adopted by the JHA Council in June 
2010,205  the  Commission  developed,  in  dialogue  with  the  Member  States,  common 
indicators  to  strengthen  the  European  learning  process  and  to  improve  the 
monitoring of integration policy results. There is a list of on-going projects, activities 
and conferences related to the homelessness of migrants at European, national and local 
levels, which can be consulted at the European Website for Integration.206 
In the new ‘Study on mobility, migration and destitution in the European Union’207 
the Commission will explore the causes of destitution with an emphasis on homelessness 
and the problems in accessing support services. 

Regarding  the  situation  of  irregular  or  undocumented  migrants,  the  approach 
underlying  the  EU  acquis  places  an  obligation  on  Member  States  to  either  return  an 
irregular  migrant  to  his/her  country-  of-  origin  or  to  grant  him/her  a  legal  residence 
status. It is no longer acceptable that migrants are kept in a 'legal limbo', a grey zone 
where they are often deprived of basic civil or socio-economic rights. Pending return, 
and  for  those  who  cannot  be  returned  (mainly  because  readmission  to  the  country-of-
origin is not possible), the Return Directive,208 which is increasingly being relied upon as 
a source of legal rights for irregular migrants, provides this group with access to certain 
basic minimum rights such as health care, access to education and family unity. It does 
not, however, include a right to housing or subsistence. 

One  group  deserving  specific  attention  are  the  so-called  'non-removable'  irregular 
migrants.  These  are  persons  who  cannot  be  removed  because  the  necessary  travel 
documentation cannot be obtained or because of the non-refoulement principle, which 
forbids the rendering of a true victim of persecution to their persecutor, usually the state 
of  origin.  There  are  large  numbers  of  'non-removable'  persons  in  the  EU,  with  very 
divergent  approaches  across  Member  States.  A  comparative  study  on  this  category  of 
persons, financed by the EU Return Fund, is on its way. 

7. EU policies to better understand and measure homelessness 

204  Commission  Communication  SEC(2011)957  on  an  European  agenda  for  the  Integration  of  Third-

Country Nationals. 

205  See http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/114881.pdf 
206  See http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/search_result.cfm 
207  See http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/news/newsdetail.cfm?ID_ITEMS=22788 
208    Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  2008/115/EC  on  common  standards  and 

procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. 

42 

 
                                                 
Within  research  policies,  a  EUROHOME  IMPACT  project  has  been  conducted  on 
homelessness and housing exclusion,209 a CUPH project about definitions and concepts 
related  to  homelessness  and  data  collection,210  and  a  CSEYHP  study  on  youth 
homelessness,  comparing  the  homeless  paths  among  local  white  people,  local  ethnic 
groups and migrant young  men  and women, and investigating appropriate reintegration 
methods.211 

the  TENLAW  project  provides 

Currently, 
large-scale  comparative 
and  European  law  survey  of  tenancy  law  and  will  develop  a  proposal  for  a  better  co-
ordinating role of the EU in tenancy law and housing policy.212 The WILCO project is 
studying  innovations  in  local  welfare  systems  (in  the  areas  of  housing,  employment, 
family and immigration) directed towards social inclusion.213 

first 

the 

As  part  of  EU  Information  Society  policy,  a  study  called  ‘MC-eGov’  has  been 
commissioned  on  Multi-channel  Delivery  Strategies  and  Sustainable  Business  Models 
for  Public  Services  addressing  socially  disadvantaged  groups.  EUROSTAT  has 
commissioned  a  large  study  by  INSEE  on  the  problem  of  data  collection  regarding 
homelessness. New data on homelessness in all Member States from the 2011 census are 
expected  to  arrive  by  2014.  In  the  framework  of  social  innovation,  a  pilot  project  on 
European  use  of  the  US  Housing  First  model  was  launched  in  2011,  with  the 
participation of five European towns. 

209  See http://www.iccr-international.org/impact/overview.html 
210  See http://www.cuhp.org/ 
211  See http://www.movisie.nl/118836/eng/ 
212   See http://www.tenlaw.uni-bremen.de/ 
213   See http://www.wilcoproject.eu 

43 

 
                                                 
ANNEX II: TABLES AND DATA ON HOMELESSNESS 

Table 1: The ETHOS definition of homelessness214 

214  The ETHOS definition of homelessness was developed by FEANTSA 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 2: Overview of recent trends in the extent of homelessness over the past 
1-5 years 

Trend reported 

Member State 

Increase 

Decrease 

AT, CZ, FR, DE, ES, GR, 
HU, IE, IT, LT, PT, PL, 
SE, SL,UK  
(England+Wales) 

FI,  NL  +  North  Rhine 
Westphalia, Scotland 

No trend identified 

RO, LU, BE 

Stable 

DK 

Total number of Member States examined: 21 

Source: FEANTSA Country Report 2012 

Total 

15 

2 

3 

1 

Table 3: Overcrowding rate by poverty status — 2011 

Source: EUROSTAT; EU-SILC 2011 (Note: data for IE refer to 2010) 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4: Share of population overburdened by housing costs in 2011 

Note: share of the population living in a household where housing costs (net of housing 
allowances)  represent  more  than  40%  of  the  total  household  income).  Data  on  DE 
omitted because key components of the housing cost variable were missing. Data for IE 
refer to 2010. 
Source: EUROSTAT; EU-SILC 2011 

Table 5: Share of severe housing deprivation rate, by age and poverty status, 2011  

Source: EUROSTAT; EU-SILC 2011 (Note: Data for IE refer to 2010) 

46 

 
 
 
Table 6: Housing deprivation items, share of the population - 2011 

Having 
neither a 
bath, nor a 
shower in 
their dwelling

Not having 
indoor 
flushing toilet 
for the sole 
use of their 
household

Considering 
their dwelling 
as too dark

No item

Living in a 
dwelling with 
a leaking 
roof, damp 
walls, floors 
or 
foundation, 
or rot in 
window 
frames
15.5
21.2
14.9
11.9
16.0
13.7
19.2
12.5
15.3
15.6
10.9
23.2
28.3
25.8
19.2
15.5
21.8
9.9
14.6
13.6
11.5
21.3
18.0
34.7
7.8
5.7
8.4
15.9
14.8

EU27
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
IT
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
HR

2.8
0.9
15.2
0.5
2.5
0.1
10.5
0.9
1.3
0.0
0.6
0.5
1.1
18.2
16.0
0.2
4.0
0.2
0.0
0.5
4.5
1.3
36.8
0.6
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.3
1.3

Source: EUROSTAT; EU-SILC 2011. 

6.8
7.8
7.0
3.6
5.1
4.1
4.7
4.3
6.7
4.2
7.8
8.8
5.3
9.8
7.6
4.1
8.6
7.7
3.8
5.9
7.0
7.1
7.7
12.1
3.0
3.9
6.0
10.4
5.5

78.5
73.2
66.2
85.9
79.0
83.1
72.2
84.6
80.0
81.9
83.3
72.4
69.5
61.6
68.7
82.2
73.8
83.6
82.6
82.0
82.1
74.6
52.6
59.4
90.3
90.3
86.1
77.2
81.8

3.1
1.4
24.8
0.7
0.6
0.9
9.6
0.2
0.9
0.0
0.6
0.4
1.1
16.1
16.6
0.1
4.7
0.1
0.0
1.2
4.0
1.2
38.7
0.5
1.4
0.7
0.0
0.1
1.4

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  7:  In  your  opinion,  which  three  of  the  following  reasons  best  explain  why 
people become homeless? 

Source: Special Social Eurobarometer report survey, 2010 

48