international perspectives on poverty, social exclusion, and homelessness
DESCRIPTION
Presentation given by Professor Marybeth Shinn, Professor of Human and Organizational Development Vanderbilt University, Peabody College, Nashville, USA at a FEANTSA Research Conference on "Homelessness and Poverty", Paris, France, 2009TRANSCRIPT
International Perspectives on Poverty, Social Exclusion, and
Homelessness
European Observatory on Homelessness18 September, 2009
Marybeth Shinn,Vanderbilt [email protected]
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