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, 2009

1. International Perspectives on
Poverty, Social Exclusion, and
Homelessness
European Observatory on Homelessness
18 September, 2009
Marybeth Shinn,Vanderbilt University
beth.shinn@vanderbilt.edu

2. 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

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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)

7. % 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)

8. Pathway: Poverty and Lack of
Social Safety Net
• Income inequality
• Social benefits
• Social and subsidized housing

9. Social Policies: Income Inequality
US UK Ital Bel Ger Fra Swe Jap Aus
% lifetime 6.2/ 5.0/ 4.0 3.4 2.4
literal 8.1 7.7
homelessness
% income for 1.9 2.1 2.3 3.4 3.2 2.8 3.6 4.8 2.0
lowest 10%
GINI 40.8 36.0 36.0 33.0 28.3 32.7 25.0 24.9 35.2
coefficient
U.N Development Report (2007/8)

10. 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

11. Social Policies: Social Benefits and Transfers
US UK Ital Bel Ger Fra Swe Jap Aus
% lifetime 6.2/ 5.0/ 4.0 3.4 2.4
literal 8.1 7.7
homelessness
% income for 1.9 2.1 2.3 3.4 3.2 2.8 3.6 4.8 2.0
lowest 10%
GINI 40.8 36.0 36.0 33.0 28.3 32.7 25.0 24.9 35.2
coefficient
Social benefits 10.6 15.6 20.5 19.6 20.2
as % of GDP
Family benefits 0.5 2.3 2.7 2.7 3.3
as % of GDP
Alesina & Glaeser (2004)

12. 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)

13. Effects of Taxes and Benefits on GINI
US UK Ital Bel Ger Fra Swe Jap Aus
% lifetime 6.2/ 5.0/ 4.0 3.4 2.4
literal 8.1 7.7
homelessness
GINI 40.8 36.0 36.0 33.0 28.3 32.7 25.0 24.9 35.2
coefficient
GINI Market 45 45 50 43 49 44 45
Income
(Luxembourg)
% Reduction 18 24 48 42 47 43 31
by Taxes and
Benefits
Smeeding (2000)

14. 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)

15. 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)

16. Alesina & Glaeser (2004)

17. 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)

18. Work Hours/Week at Minimum Wage Needed
to Afford 2 Bedroom Apartment (NLIHC, 2009)
VT:87 83
79 NH:108
71 66 MA:115
92 130
69 RI:101
87
79 70 78 CT:108
80 86 NJ:129
67 72
77 DE:99
111 89 82 63111 DC :131
86 91 73 73 MD:130
124 77 81
78
79
76 70
89 69 74 90
77
94 92 109
109 = >120
= >80 and <120
HI:163 = <80

19. 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)

20. 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

21. Housing: Size of Social Rental Sector
US UK: Ital Bel Ger Fra Swe Jap Aus
Eng
% lifetime 6.2/ 5.0/ 4.0 3.4 2.4
literal 8.1 7.7
homelessness
Social Rental 3.2 18-- 7-- 17.3 17.7 4.9
Sector as % of
Stock
Fitzpatrick & Stephens (2007)

22. 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)

23. 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

24. 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)

25. 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)

26. Alesina & Glaeser (2004)

27. Mechanisms Linking Social
Exclusion to Homelessness
• Current discrimination – income,
employment
• Past discrimination – wealth (housing)
• Current discrimination – housing access
• Differential rates of imprisonment

28. 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)

29. Imprisonment Rates per 100,000
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
U.S. NZ UK Aus Italy Germ Fran Jap
Source: International Centre for Prison Studies, 2006

30. Individual Pathways
• Economic capital
• Human capital/ Disability
• Social capital
• Life transitions
• All have implications for poverty and
housing needs

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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)

35. 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

36. 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)

37. 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

38. Relationships Among Levels
• Risk
amplifi
cation
over
time
– Adolescents (Whitbeck & Hoyt, 1999)
– Older adults (Shinn et al., 2007)
• Implica
tions

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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