Family Homelessness in Europe

1. Family Homelessness in Europe Nicholas Pleace

2. About the Work • Seventh in a series of annual comparative research reports • Experts from 14 member states • European Observatory on Homelessness supported by FEANTSA • Written with • Isabel Baptista • Lars Benjaminsen • Volker Busch-Geertsema

3. Key Findings Belgium Denmark France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK

4. Key Findings • Low or no support needs • Gendered • Lone women with dependent children • Clearly associated with gender-based/domestic violence • Linked to low income and poverty • Shortage of affordable housing

5. Key Findings • Two parent family homelessness less common • The gendered nature of the social problem is everywhere • Lone women with dependent children • More extensive welfare systems seems to be linked to less family homelessness • But protections to stop children experiencing destitution exist everywhere • Only Romania reported street homeless children

6. Domestic violence Reported as a significant cause in all 14 countries Male violence directed at women Strong associations reported in all 14 countries

7. Economic marginalisation • Disproportionately experienced by low income and poor households • Younger women with small children who are economically marginalised • Associated with precarious housing positions • Income just covers the rent or mortgage and is lost or reduced

8. Housing Supply Less affordable housing Less extensive welfare benefits to assist with housing costs Heightens risks Some evidence that systems to prevent child deprivation provide protection

9. Pictures of family homelessness • Most countries described this scenario as ‘typical’ of family homelessness • A single mother, aged 35 with two dependent children, aged 6 and 9. She is long-term unemployed and on social assistance benefits. She has been divorced from the children’s father following domestic violence. She stayed for a while in a women’s shelter and has also been staying temporarily with family and friends.

10. Levels • Not high in some countries • Much more visible in others • But some family homelessness may not be visible • Women with dependent children falling back on family, friends, not using services, i.e. ‘hidden homelessness’ • Domestic violence services working with families recorded as at risk from DV, when they are homeless, but this is not formally recognised • Targeted interventions as in Ireland, England, may make the issue more visible • Presumed not to exist on any scale because welfare and social services systems should prevent it

11. Levels • Difficult to be certain • May be more widespread than we realise • Gendered responses to homelessness • Evidence from USA • Evidence from England

12. Trends Broad evidence of increases Sweden (Malmö) 10% families with children in 2009, 16% in 2013, 34%, 2016 Ireland, 265% increase, 344 families in July 2014, 1,256 families in March 2017 England, 59% increase, 2010-2016 (homeless families owed the Main Duty under homelessness law) Paris, helpline 115 reported 300% increase in families between 1999 and 2010 But not everywhere, e.g. Denmark

13. Trends Broadly reported associations between increases in family homelessness And declines in affordable housing supply Or relative increases in demand for affordable housing And welfare benefits not being enough to cover rent/mortgage costs

14. Differences • In much of Western Europe, lower income families in rental accommodation • In the East, much more likely to be owner occupiers • South and East have less extensive welfare and health systems • With the caveat that systems exist for dependent children, but still big differences • Services have to play different roles • Quite challenging to draw broad comparisons

15. A Cautionary Tale • English statutory homelessness • Cut social housing supply • Deregulate housing markets • Allow rampant house price inflation • Allow private rented sector rent levels to soar • Deregulate labour markets • Make cuts to welfare systems as full time employment declines

16. English experience • If housing demand is high enough relative to supply • The private rented sector has multiple markets and will always seek to maximise returns • And owner occupancy becomes unaffordable • Private sector often avoid housing homeless people • So you can’t use much of it for temporary accommodation • Or for prevention or as settled housing • Even if you ban use of hotels for families you end up using them again • Unless affordable housing supply is increased

17. Prevention B&B use is banned for families beyond 6 weeks B&B use increases Expanded use of PRS Lower end of PRS becomes full Social housing lost at faster rate than it is replaced Welfare system does not pay enough to cover PRS rents in high pressure markets Affordable housing supply constricts for decades PRS not available at scale 40% of former social homes rented privately

18. Patterns are evident • Family homelessness has obvious economic drivers • But it is not as simple as economics • Because it is also about gender • Domestic/gender-based violence • And economic opportunities for women

19. Thanks for listening Professor Nicholas Pleace Director Centre for Housing Policy University of York European Observatory on Homelessness FEANTSA Women’s Homelessness in Europe Network (WHEN) Trinity College Dublin University of York