|
PRB 99-1E
DEFINITION OF HOMELESSNESS
Prepared by:
Lyne Casavant
Political and Social Affairs Division
January 1999
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 Search for a Definition
of Homelessness
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.
Three Types of
Homelessness
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.
Methodological Issues
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.
Summary
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.
(1)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 25, par. 1 (emphasis added).
(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-doeuvre
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.
|
|