Parliamentary Research Branch

PRB 99-1E

The definition of homelessness is at the centre of some major policy considerations. Clearly, any definition has a direct influence on quantitative evaluations of the number of people affected by the phenomenon and consequently on the scope of the resources that ought to be devoted to it. For example, the use of relatively broad definitions tends to increase the number of those deemed to be homeless and implies the need for a reassessment of the criteria for access to decent housing, low-cost housing construction policies, and the funding of the services directed to this population.

The various definitions used in the literature on homelessness are briefly discussed below, as are some of the methodological problems resulting from the lack of consensus on a definition of the condition.

The difference between those with shelter and those without seems obvious, at first glance: to be "homeless" is to be without a place in which to live. The issue surrounding this situation is complex, however, and is expressed through a set of definitions. For example, there is clearly more than one answer to the question of who is to be classified as homeless; some writers even maintain that there are almost as many definitions as there are studies on the subject. To reflect the significance of the variations in the definitions, some researchers refer to a "continuum of homelessness."

At one extreme on this continuum, a "homeless" person is defined solely with reference to the absence of shelter in the technical sense; this is obviously the most restrictive definition. But, although a large sector of the community has adopted this definition, and use the term "homeless" exclusively to describe people living on the street or in emergency shelters, and although all of the researchers and field workers agree that such people certainly ought to be characterized as homeless, many think that this is too restrictive a definition.

At the other extreme, researchers propose a broad and inclusive definition such as that adopted by the United Nations when it declared the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. According to this definition, a "homeless" person is not only someone without a domicile who lives on the street or in a shelter, but can equally be someone without access to shelter meeting the basic criteria considered essential for health and human and social development. These criteria would include secure occupancy, protection against bad weather, and personal security, as well as access to sanitary facilities and potable water, education, work, and health services. The right to a home must be seen as a basic humanitarian principle, recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.(1)

The United Nations definition acknowledges that the absence or extreme precariousness of housing gives rise to a number of problems that are major factors in the deterioration of the quality of life, such as difficulty in maintaining emotional ties, obtaining services, protecting personal property and securing physical safety. The lack of access to a decent private space that would allow the homeless to prepare for work or school and to provide and receive care and attention keeps them in extreme poverty.(2) The UN definition would therefore include persons who, because they inhabit inadequate dwellings, are in serious danger of being thrown into the street.(3)

Between these two opposite ends of the continuum, a number of researchers propose other definitions of homelessness. Each is valid to some degree and to attempt to compare the various definitions is virtually impossible. To cite only one example, in 1987, the Homeless Committee of the City of Montreal adopted the following definition of the homeless, which was subsequently applied by the Quebec Department of Health and Social Services in La Politique de la santé et du bien-être:(4)

[Translation] A person with no fixed address, stable, safe and healthy housing for the next 60 days, an extremely low income, adversely discriminated against in access to services, with problems of mental health, alcohol and drug abuse or social disorganization, and not a member of any stable group.(5)

Those who favour this definition say that it has the advantage of taking into account the complexity of the functional problems in the dynamics of homelessness. However, this definition, like those presented earlier, remains subject to interpretation. How, indeed, should housing be defined? Can a car, an unused building or even a trailer be considered to be housing? And what about individuals who sleep at friends’ homes, a woman fleeing spousal violence who seeks assistance in a shelter, a former prison inmate temporarily residing in a halfway house, or a drug addict undergoing substance abuse treatment in a specialized centre? Should all of these people be considered homeless?

Overall, it is clear that all the definitions of homelessness can be interpreted in different ways and reflect a particular point of view. And it is just as clear that all the definitions are governed by some time considerations. The changing status of those who experience homelessness creates difficulty for anyone attempting to define the population touched by this tragedy. Homelessness is not a characteristic of an individual but is rather a life situation that may be temporary, periodic or more or less permanent. Some longitudinal studies seem to indicate that a lack of housing over a long period is uncommon, at least in North America.(6) Some U.S. and Canadian researchers have even said that "typically, homelessness consists of residential instability, rather than an enduring absence of accommodation over a long period of time."(7) Accordingly, many researchers add a time element to their definition of homelessness, so that, for example, to qualify as homeless a person must have been without housing for a certain number of days or weeks.

The issue of duration is significant for everyone interested in homelessness. Often, how long homelessness has lasted becomes the decisive factor in distinguishing the varied levels of difficulty experienced by the individuals. One of the most common ways of categorizing the homeless is to divide the total population into three subgroups: the chronically homeless; the cyclically homeless; and the temporarily homeless.(8)

The chronically homeless group includes people who live on the periphery of society and who often face problems of drug or alcohol abuse or mental illness.

The cyclically homeless group includes individuals who have lost their dwelling as a result of some change in their situation, such as loss of a job, a move, a prison term or a hospital stay. Those who must from time to time use safehouses or soup kitchens include women who are victims of family violence, runaway youths, and persons who are unemployed or recently released from a detention centre or psychiatric institution.

Finally, the temporarily homeless group includes those who are without accommodation for a relatively short period. Likely to be included in this category are persons who lose their home as a result of a disaster (fire, flood, war) and those whose economic and personal situation is altered by, for example, separation or loss of job. Some researchers do not consider this group as being truly homeless and exclude them from their studies.

The range of definitions used in the literature on homelessness constitutes a very real obstacle to research. Since researchers, in presenting their findings, often do not specify the definition they adopted for analytical purposes or their method of identifying the homeless, it is quite difficult to conduct comparative studies. Significant variations in the number of homeless people reported in one country, or even one city, may be explained by the different definitions or methods adopted by researchers.

All definitions present some difficulties in terms of their application, posing substantial challenges to research in, for example, the choice of the environment for data collection, evaluation of the representative sample, the extent to which the results can be generalized, and comparison of results. Though most researchers in Canada adopt the definition used by the United Nations, it is hard to use from the methodological standpoint. How, in fact, can one locate the people living in dwellings that do not meet the basic UN criteria? Given these difficulties, most of the empirical research in Canada relies on the first part of the UN definition — that is, homelessness as meaning literally without shelter. The research methods are therefore focused on the services directed to the homeless. So the definition is cited in terms of theory, but in practice is used only in part. In Canada, however, it is acknowledged that these methods make it impossible to have the full picture of the situation, whose gravity is therefore underestimated.

In addition to all the difficulties of identifying the concept of homelessness, as expressed in the lack of consensus over its definition, it should be stressed that no one definition has been systematically applied in the studies of homelessness. There is therefore a lack of consensus on the term and the appropriate methods for assessing the phenomenon ? that is, how to determine who is included in the definition and who is excluded.

In summary, two issues must be kept in mind when reviewing studies of homelessness. The definition of that term favoured by the researchers and the method they employ to identify the homeless must both be clear. It is important to remember that the term "homelessness" can refer to various situations — people living with friends, women staying for a short period in shelters for abused women, and prisoners are all sometimes put into this category. It is necessary, therefore, to be aware that, unless they are seen in context, the research findings are meaningless.

(2) Canadian Council on Social Development, Homelessness in Canada, Ottawa, 1987.

(3) Many researchers advocate a more inclusive definition of the phenomenon, similar to that put forward by the United Nations.

(4) Quebec, Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux, La Politique de la santé et du bien-être, 1992.

(5) Comité des sans-abri de la Ville de Montréal, Vers une politique municipale pour les sans-abri, Montreal, 1987.

(6) J. Ward, Organizing for the Homeless, Canadian Council for Social Development, Ottawa, 1989; Federation of Canadian Municipalities Big City Mayors' Caucus, National Action Plan on Housing and Homelessness, Montreal, 1991; Ministère de la Main-d’oeuvre et de la Sécurité du Revenu, Les sans-abri au Québec: étude exploratoire, 1988.

(7) M. Sosin, I. Piliavin and H. Westervelt, "Toward a Longitudinal Analysis of Homelessness," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 46, No. 4, 1990, p. 171.

(8) Some researchers propose two subgroups, one consisting of the chronically and permanently homeless and one consisting of the occasionally and temporarily homeless.