International Perspectives on Poverty, Social Exclusion, and

Homelessness

European Observatory on Homelessness18 September, 2009

Marybeth Shinn,Vanderbilt Universitybeth.shinn@vanderbilt.edu

Outline: Homelessness in Industrialized Countries

• Definitions & comparative numbers• Pathways into Homelessness:

– Poverty and lack of social safety net– Housing affordability and subsidies– Structural changes income and housing– Social exclusion– Individual factors– Relationship among levels of analysis

If a turtle loses its shell, is it naked, or is it homeless?

Definitions Matter

• U.S.: Literal homelessness: rough sleeping; shelters (specialized homelessness services)

• Europe: Broader focus on tenuous or inadequate ties to housing

• Australia: 3 levels– Primary = rough sleeping– Secondary = shelters and doubling up– Tertiary = inadequate housing

Focus on Literal Homelessness

• Inadequate housing is almost by definition a function of poverty

• Literal homelessness often theorized to be a function of disability

• Goal is to switch lens to focus on structural factors, including poverty and social exclusion

• Even disability may operate via poverty and access to housing

Self-Reported Homelessness Over Lifetime in US as of 1990

Literal Literal Plus Doubled Up

Percentage 7.4% 14.0%

Number 13.5 million 26.0 million

(Link et al., 1994)

% Lifetime Literal Homelessness U.S. and Europe:

Telephone Surveys

US UK Italy Belgium Germany

6.2 / 8.1 5.0 / 7.7 4.0 3.4 2.4

(Toro et al., 2007; Shinn, 2007)

Pathway: Poverty and Lack of Social Safety Net

• Income inequality

• Social benefits

• Social and subsidized housing

US UK Ital Bel Ger Fra Swe Jap Aus

% lifetime literal homelessness

6.2/

8.1

5.0/

7.7

4.0 3.4 2.4

% income for

lowest 10%

1.9 2.1 2.3 3.4 3.2 2.8 3.6 4.8 2.0

GINI coefficient

40.8 36.0 36.0 33.0 28.3 32.7 25.0 24.9 35.2

Social Policies: Income Inequality

U.N Development Report (2007/8)

Inequality and Homelessness

• Models of housing markets (O’Flaherty, 1995, 1996)

– At the bottom, increasing inequality increases demand for low-quality housing

– At the top, increasing inequality increases demand for land

– Both factors increase the price of low-quality housing, increasing homelessness

US UK Ital Bel Ger Fra Swe Jap Aus

% lifetime literal homelessness

6.2/

8.1

5.0/

7.7

4.0 3.4 2.4

% income for

lowest 10%

1.9 2.1 2.3 3.4 3.2 2.8 3.6 4.8 2.0

GINI coefficient

40.8 36.0 36.0 33.0 28.3 32.7 25.0 24.9 35.2

Social benefits as % of GDP

10.6 15.6 20.5 19.6 20.2

Family benefits as % of GDP

0.5 2.3 2.7 2.7 3.3

Social Policies: Social Benefits and Transfers

Alesina & Glaeser (2004)

Homelessness and Family Policy: U.S.

• ¼ of all episodes of poverty begin with birth of a child (Waldfogel, 2001)

• Homelessness among families associated with childbirth (Weitzman, 1989)

• Infancy is the age at which risk of shelter use is highest (HUD Annual Homeless Assessment Report, 2007)

US UK Ital Bel Ger Fra Swe Jap Aus

% lifetime literal homelessness

6.2/

8.1

5.0/

7.7

4.0 3.4 2.4

GINI coefficient

40.8 36.0 36.0 33.0 28.3 32.7 25.0 24.9 35.2

GINI Market Income (Luxembourg)

45 45 50 43 49 44 45

% Reduction by Taxes and Benefits

18 24 48 42 47 43 31

Effects of Taxes and Benefits on GINI

Smeeding (2000)

Poverty: United States• Highest income inequality in OECD• Greatest increase in inequality over past 2-3

decades• Transfers do least to redistribute• Both low social benefits and low wages lead

to poverty (Smeeding, 2000)

Attitudes Towards Social Spending

• Belief that poverty is society’s fault explains variance in social spending– 82% of variance among nations with 1998

per capital GDP > $15,000– 43% of variance among 30 nations

– Alesina & Glaser (2004)

Alesina & Glaeser (2004)

Housing Affordability• There is no State in the United States:

– Where a full-time minimum wage worker can afford a two-bedroom apartment

– Where a person on disability benefits can afford a studio apartment (NLIHC: Waldrip, Pelletiere, & Crowley, 2009)

78

74

109

89 70

12491

CT:108

DE:99DC :131

109

90

HI:163

79

8967

82

77 73

92

83

MD:130

MA:115

78

92

77

73

71

77111

NH:108

NJ:129

69

130

81

66

72

76

69

86

RI:101

79

70

94

86

VT:87

111

79

63

87

80

Work Hours/Week at Minimum Wage Needed to Afford 2 Bedroom Apartment (NLIHC, 2009)

= >120= >80 and <120= <80

Housing Affordability and Homelessness: Economic Models• Rise in homelessness in U.S. corresponded to

rising gap in housing affordability (Shinn & Gillespie, 1994)

• Homelessness is higher when– Rental costs are higher relative to incomes– Vacancy rates are lower (Quigley et al. 2001)

– (Problem: quality of homelessness data)

• Recessions associated with rise in

homelessness in New York City (O’Flaherty & Wu, 2006, Cragg & O’Flaherty, 1999)

Housing Subsidies and Homelessness: Economic Models• Studies of rates of subsidized housing and

rates of homelessness are not convincing• Some find clear benefits to subsidies (Mansur et

al, 2002)

• Housing subsidies may be poorly targeted (Early, 2002, 2003; Early & Olsen, 2002)

• Size of social housing sector is not closely related to rates of homelessness

US UK: Eng

Ital Bel Ger Fra Swe Jap Aus

% lifetime literal homelessness

6.2/

8.1

5.0/

7.7

4.0 3.4 2.4

Social Rental Sector as % of Stock

3.2 18-- 7-- 17.3 17.7 4.9

Housing: Size of Social Rental Sector

Fitzpatrick & Stephens (2007)

Housing Subsidies and Homelessness: Interventions

• Vouchers reduced shelter entry for families in national randomized study (US) (Wood et al., 2008)

• Subsidies for families exiting NYC shelter associated with:– Lower returns to shelter (Wong et al., 1997)

– Long-term stability (Shinn et al., 1998)

– Lower shelter populations (O’Flaherty & Wu, 2006, Cragg & O’Flaherty, 1999)

• Subsidized housing & entitlement benefits associated with exits from homelessness for adults and families in California (Zlotnick et al., 1999)

Structural Changes and Homelessness

• Japan – Loss of lifetime employment, tied accommodations (Okamoto, 2007)

• Central Europe – Change to market economy and social disruption (Hradecky & Hladikova, 2007; Fitzpatrick & Stephens, 2007)

• France – Industrial restructuring (Firdion & Marpsat, 2007)

• Global Economic Crisis

Pathway: Social Exclusion• Homelessness more common

among socially excluded groups– U.S.: African Americans, Native

Americans (Burt et al., 1999)

– Japan: Ainu, Koreans, Okinawans; Eta and Hinin (Okamoto, 2007)

– France: Africans and people from overseas departments (Firdion & Marpsat, 2007)

– Australia: Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders (Homelessness Task Force, 2008)

Social Exclusion

• Racial and linguistic heterogeneity are inversely associated with social welfare spending– Across nations (total spending)– Across states in U.S. (welfare benefit)

– Alesina & Glaser (2004)

Alesina & Glaeser (2004)

Mechanisms Linking Social Exclusion to Homelessness

• Current discrimination – income, employment

• Past discrimination – wealth (housing)

• Current discrimination – housing access

• Differential rates of imprisonment

Mechanisms of Social Exclusion (U.S. Black vs. White)

• Median family income 55% as high

• Median household net worth 1/8 as high– Conley (1999)

• Ongoing residential discrimination in tests – Turner et al. (2002)

• Male imprisonment 7.1 times higher – Harrison & Karberg (2004)

Imprisonment Rates per 100,000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

U.S. NZ UK Aus Italy Germ Fran Jap

Source: International Centre for Prison Studies, 2006

Individual Pathways

• Economic capital

• Human capital/ Disability

• Social capital

• Life transitions

• All have implications for poverty and housing needs

Economic Capital

• Current poverty

• Poverty in family of origin– Culture of poverty?– Inability to assist young adults– Health and mental health problems– Differential access to human capital

Poverty and Homelessness : NYC Families

• Poverty in family of origin– Predicted shelter entry– Unrelated to post-shelter housing stability,

after subsidized housing controlled– (Shinn et al., 1998)

• Implications:– Lack of resources, not “culture” important– Social policy can counteract individual

vulnerability

Human Capital/ Disability

• Education and skills to get employment• Mental health, substance abuse problems

– Higher for single adults than for families– Bi-directional relationship: Risk amplified by

homelessness (Johnson & Chamberlain, 2009)

– Important minority

• Physical health (also bi-directional)

• All related to ability to earn income

Social Capital• Bi-directional relationship with

homelessness (Firdion & Marpsat, 2007)

• Particularly important for groups who may be dependent on others– Older adults– Women in some societies– Adolescents

• Negative relationships: conflict, violence (Philippot et al., 2007)

Social Capital Evidence: NYC Families

• Families entering shelter reported MORE social ties than other poor families

• Also more negative relationships– Domestic violence– Foster care, other childhood disruptions

(Shinn et al., 1998)

• Domestic violence paradox

Cures for Individual Factors: Housing Important for All

• Poor people: Subsidized housing– New York: Homeless families same level of

stability as other poor families (Shinn et al., 1998)

• Adolescents: French foyer model• Adults with mental illnesses:

– Supported housing; housing first model (Tsemberis et al., 2003, 2004)

Relationships Among Levels• Policy, socio-cultural, structural factors:

– rates of homelessness – social groups at risk

• Individual vulnerability factors: – who becomes homeless (Musical chairs)

• Implications for prevention– General social policy– Support for vulnerable groups

Relationships Among Levels

• Risk amplification over time– Adolescents (Whitbeck & Hoyt, 1999)

– Older adults (Shinn et al., 2007)

• Implications for prevention– Intervene quickly – “Break the cycle” – (Homeless Task Force, 2008)

Interactions Across Levels

• Policies and services can compensate for individual vulnerabilities

– Single parenthood: U.S. vs Belgium – Subsidized housing for families in NYC– Supported housing, especially housing

first programs for individuals with mental illnesses

Summary: Pathways & Cures

• Poverty & Structural Change– Reduce inequality via wages, tax and

transfer programs– Provide social benefits, housing subsidies

• Social exclusion– Identify and counteract mechanisms– Enforce anti-discrimination policies– Compensate for discrimination

Summary: Pathways & Cures

• Individual factors– Social policy to counteract individual

vulnerabilities– Support for transitions

• Young people (families)• People leaving institutions

– Ongoing supported housing, housing first• People with mental illnesses• Older adults