Homelessness and Housing Exclusion in Serbia

European Research ConferenceAccess to Housing for Homeless People in Europe

York, 21st September 2012

Homelessness and Housing

Exclusion in Serbia

Mina Petrović, University of Belgrade

[email protected]

Milena Timotijević, Housing Center, Belgrade

[email protected]



HAUSING DEVELOPMENT CENTER FOR

SOCIALLY VULNERABLE GROUPS

Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups is a non-profit, non-

governmental organization founded in 2004. in Belgrade, Serbia aiming to improve

the living conditions of socially vulnerable groups and support their social integration

and independence, through different activities (construction of housing units, support

in social integration, research, public advocacy, education and other).

HC pioneered Social housing in protective environment model – in accordance

with Housing first policy.

In 2011/2012 Housing Center undertook the research on homelessness in Serbia, in

partnership with the DISC, NGO from UK and with funds from European Union.



Conceptual frame: homelessness as the

most serious example of social exclusion

Multidimensional phenomenon: deprivation of (adequate/secure) housing (ETHOS –

FEANTA 2010); exclusion from the (labor) market, from the civil status (the state

redistribution - problems of access and / or stigmatization in access to social

services); from the community or reciprocal relationships (including family and other

social networks) (Hutchinson 2002: 172, Mandic, 2004).

Dynamic interaction of individual characteristics and structural changes – culture

of poverty challenges

Individual- lacking of key capitals: economic, human, cultural, social, symbolic

(Firdion 2005)

Structural - transitional changes: economic restructuring, searching for the new

concept of social and housing policy, etc.

Different routes of entry and exit in different population groups

Constructivist approach – visibility of the problem, way of perceived

responsibilities and strategic approaches



Context of Serbian society Homelessness as hidden phenomenon – without official definition,

mainly reduced to those living rough or in spaces inhabited out of

necessity, increasing visibility in public spaces but not in public and

policy discourses

High risk of homelessness stemming from:

1. widespread unemployment and poverty

2. large number of refugees

3. undeveloped social housing policy

4. restructuring of social care system

5. decreasing capabilities of family to act as social safety net



Undeveloped social housing policy

1. insufficient capacities -dramatically reduced social housing stock after housing privatization (around 2%)

2. undeveloped safety net measures (lacking housing allowance system and regulation of private rental sector)

3. extensive problem of inadequate housing equipment and infrastructure among the poor households

4. extensive illegal construction (almost 20% of the housing stock) – informal social housing policy



Restructuring of social care system

1. inadequate capacities & resources: irregular and small amounts of social assistance, inadequate covering of targeted population, insufficient number of beds in shelters.

2. insufficient flexibility and diversity in approaches: neglected role of the third sector, services reduced to emergency accommodation, little efforts directed on empowerment and sustainability of exiting homelessness, lack of support services for people leaving institutions.

3. lack of coordination between relevant stakeholders on both service and policy level.

4. data collecting basic and not standardized - data analysis rudimentary .



Research aim and methodology To study the characteristics of population in shelters for adult and

elderly persons in three largest cities in Serbia: Belgrade (136), Novi

Sad (32) and Nis (5).

Explorative research – descriptive analysis attempting to

reconstruct key characteristics/events that lead to homelessness, as

well as expected routes out of homelessness

Combination of questionnaires, interviews and focus groups with

persons accommodated in the shelters

Research conducted in winter 2011/2012 (from December to

February)



Profile of average shelter beneficiary

Man , 51-65 years old, low education, never married

Has no income (salary or pension)

Worked his whole life, now unemployed longer than 5 years and not looking for

a job

Hasn’t used social care services prior to shelter (soup kitchen, social

assistance)

Weak and exhausted social network

Suffers from health problems (most usually mental health problems)

Feels helpless, expects help from the state – regularly votes



Events that led to homelessness



The way of coming into shelter



In the condition that preceded entering the shelter, respondents

lacked (sufficient) institutional support – 31% receive social

assistance, 25,7% pension, others are unemployed (mostly not

registered with NEA)

The facts that every third of the beneficiaries was transferred from the

hospital, while 12% had nobody to take care of them, raise the

question on efficiency and adequacy of the existing

health/social care system.

The way of coming into shelter



Housing as cause of homelessness

Housing situation before coming to the shelter



Dimensions of housing exclusion

Legal domain – a significant exclusion of the beneficiaries from

the status of the owner or a joint owner (only 21% in the society

of homeowners)

Respondent, not married; used to live with his brother in their parents’

flat (in social property), which his brother bought off through housing

privatization, after which he gave a three-month deadline to

respondent to move out. After that he lived on the street for 7 to 8

years. He talks about that calmly: «He bought it off. We could have

done it together, but I told him to take it as I am alone and he has

got a family. Which is normal… I have got two brothers and a sister.

But that is not their problem but my own. He bought the flat and I

moved out … and that’s the end of the story. I have no reason to

love him more or to hate him more».




Substandard and illegal housing - no indication of significant impact,

although, among those who named housing as a reason for coming

to the shelter, those who were previously living rough or in a

substandard flat are concentrated.

Respondent used to work in a construction company, which he was, as

he puts it, “thrown out” of, he managed to obtain his pension, but he

did not get a flat from the company. He spent 20 years living in a

single room, in an unclear legal status, he built a bathroom, i.e., that

he found ways to upgrade the housing standard through an illegal

construction. He was evicted from these premises, after which he

lived on the street for more than a year.




Unaffordable renting at the private market (prevailing solution for

those who do not own the flat) as the major problem – over

represented tenure status (22% among all respondents, 26%

among those who stated housing as the main cause, and 43%

among those who stated poverty as the main cause)

If you live in private accommodation, and if you do not pay between the

first and the fifth of the month, they will not keep you. He has a right

to evict you in winter. Earlier on he could not throw you out, but now

... to throw you out even with a child. "," They don’t give a damn.

Believe me I have lost the ability to talk and I don’t talk about

anything anymore. I'm afraid so much, I do not know where I will go,

don’t know what to do, that’s it ... “




Inaccessible rental flats in public / social sector – equal share as in

general population - inadequately targeted and insufficiently

covered.

Respondents expressed high level of uncertainty over the payment of

utility bills in social housing, and have no information about the

conditions under which social housing is granted," Let's say

these flats are given for 5 years, what will happen after 5 years. We

are not informed about that ... If you did not regularly pay, and

should apply again, you will certainly be refused." The lack of

money is generally perceived as the biggest problem related

even to social housing.



Expected routes out of homelessness



The most needed support



Sheltering without empowering

Respondents complain about the lack of information

and support from social workers in applying for

social housing .

«The center for social work informed me, last time they

deceived me, they told me that the deadline was in May

and it was in March…. They tell you what you need,

and you are on your own....»;



Sheltering without empowering

Respondents are dissatisfied with the support in finding jobs:

«There are so many staff members here, so that at least one of

them could concentrate on the employment ».

«They mainly say that we should find a way, they distance

themselves and say it's not their job»; «… Find me a job, I won’t

chose. If I had worked for three months I would have earned

150.000 RSD and would have solved my problem and told them

„Thank you and good bye”. Why don’t they call the City authorities

and ask if they have any work for us »



Concluding remarksRespondents’ high risk to housing exclusion comes from:

1. poor coverage with social services in spite of financial poverty due to high

unemployment or low pensions

2. unaffordable and completely unregulated private rental sector

3. poor access to social housing.

Consequently, there are low expectations from state support in housing and no

encouragement in claiming right to the housing.

Housing exclusion as inadequate or insecure housing is less significant factor than

expected due to rather high institutional tolerance towards illegal construction.

Homelessness and housing exclusion as multidimensional phenomena (accompanied

with other dimensions of social exclusion) are additionaly aggravated by

insufficiently developed risk prevention and institutionall support.

Homelessness and Housing Exclusion in Serbia

Documents

Transcript of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion in Serbia