Comparing Social Exclusion Among Young Homeless People in the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Portugal and UK

European Research Conference, Budapest, 17th September 2010UNDERSTANDING HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING EXCLUSION IN THE NEW

EUROPEAN CONTEXT

ENHR

Comparing social exclusion among young homeless people in four European countries: the Czech Republic compared with

the Netherlands, Portugal and UK.

Dr Joan Smith – Center for Housing and Community Research, Cities Institute, London Metropolitan University

Contact: [email protected]

Dr Selma Muhič Dizdarevič – Department of Civil Society Studies, Faculty of Humanities, Charles University in Prague

Contact: [email protected]


EUROPEAN CONTEXTENHR

CSEYHP (Combatting Social Exclusion among Young Homeless Populations)

- The CSEYHP study compares youth homelessness in 4 countries and shares methods of working to combat social exclusion among young homeless people. It is working with NGOs in 4 countries. It is funded by EU Framework 7 programme (Social-economic Sciences and Humanities).

Youth homelessness in context Differences between the welfare and governance regimes in European states. Social housing vs none or little social housing; and a declining social housing sector

in some countries. Separate housing and homelessness systems; Whether statutory services take responsibility for young homeless people or only

voluntary sector services. Multiple agency involvement; Differences in legal definitions of homelessness. Minimum (roofless or roofless plus,

CR and PT) or Maximum (housing need, UK and France) or in between and in construction (NL). Implications for youth homelessness.

Homelessness a hidden or an acknowledged issue.

4 countries in our study: Czech Republic (Eastern Europe), NL (Northern Europe), Portugal (Southern Europe) and the UK.



Combating Social Exclusion among Young Homeless Populations

Three Phases to the CSEYHP project:

Phase I. Review of existing data, literature and interviews with workers in NGOs in four countries.

Phase II. Trained young homeless people as co-researchers who interviewed 54+ young people in each country. The young people to include those born in the country (both dominant and minority ethnic groups) and those born outside the country.

Today we report headline findings of Phase I and Phase II.

Thematic reports based on the analysis of findings from Phase II will be posted on the websites in September 2010 once agreed with the European Commission.

Phase III. Began in March 2010 through presentations the models of early intervention and prevention from the UK and of case management and key working from Netherlands. Models available through DVD and Toolkits. These models with be tested in the other countries of the network from September 2010.



Phase I: The national contexts for the risk of homelessness for young people.

The comparative report on youth homelessness in four countries reported:

NL and UK highest proportion of young people aged under 15 years, 18%. NL and UK highest proportion of foreign born, 10.6%. Two thirds of CR foreign born

are Slovaks. PT are from Africa and Brazil; Portugese speaking countries (PALOP). PT lower secondary education achievement among yp 40% vs 13% NL and UK, 6%

CR. NL and UK higher proportions of young people employed 15-24 years. NL and UK higher proportions of young people living independently 18-24 years, 33%

and 46%. Average age of motherhood is 29-30 years for all. But adolescent fertility rate in the

UK is 26 per 1000 women 15-19 years vs 17 PT, 11 CR, 5 NL. Limited social housing in CR, PT and UK compared with NL. Social housing is 3% of

PT housing stock, UK 18%, NL 33%. NL and unaddressed gap between youth services and adult services at age 18 years.

A similar gap in CR.



Phase I: Specific risks for insertion identified by NGO workers interviewed for CSEYHP project

Young people leaving state care. Particularly important in CR. Least important in PT and UK. UK has addressed this issue through legislation and case law (2002, and Southwark ruling) but young people from care have more problems with life skills and rules.

Young people with low educational attainment. PT a general issue. NL young people not Dutch speaking and Dutch speaking who leave school early. In the UK problem for those born in country.

Young people from workless households and areas of workless households identified in UK. No expectations and no motivation. ‘You have to want to be included’.

Young refugees. In UK refugees are more focused on education but some trauma support required. In NL problem of achieving fluency in dutch. In PT lack of papers, undocumented.

Young people from ethnic minorities. Definition in PT and NL. In PT a lack of documents on criminal records from country of origin.

Criminalisation of young people. Referred to by key workers both in CR and UK but seen as a risk factor in all four countries.

Gangs a problem in UK. Young men feel unsafe.



Phase 1. The context of youth homelessness in the Czech Republic 1

Age of 15 is crucial. 15 years is the age at which compulsory education ends. Children under 15 and over 15 but still going to school are not allowed to work. At15 years the young person according to the Czech Criminal Code becomes criminally responsible.

Almost one third of 1.8 million youngsters in the CR up to age of 29 still live with their parents (Czech Statistical Office survey) .

Rate of youth age 20-24 who complete at least secondary education (those who completed secondary schools, apprenticeship schools or those graduating from the university) in CR is the highest of all Member States of the EU.

The unemployment rate in 2007 in the CR was 5.3%, one of the lowest in the EU 27 countries. The groups most at risk when coming to job market are: youth without education, with incomplete

or not finished elementary education and practical school i.e. youth who lack vocational training and also lack qualifications.

In the age group of 15-24 those particularly in danger of social exclusion are Roma. Currently it is estimated that only 26% of the economically active Roma population has never been unemployed, 35% face recurring unemployment and up to 39% are repeatedly and long-term unemployed. What is characteristic for the Roma unemployment is its durability. 75% of all unemployed Roma are unemployed long-term out of which 30% are unemployed for more than 4 years.



Phase 1. The context of youth homelessness in the Czech Republic. 2

One of the groups which is temporarily disadvantaged in the access to housing for material reasons (lack of financial means for the first independent housing, difficulties in acquiring jobs) are particularly young people leaving state care institutions and beginning independent life without necessary financial or family background. Other groups include national and ethnic minorities particularly Roma, immigrants, refugees and homeless.

The significant proportion of children and youth who commit crimes comes from facilities for institutional and compulsory care.

The most significant risk factor are various types of institutional care, which may be related to inability of the parents to provide care but also only to their poverty. In the latter case the CR was criticized for not applying polices for family support and instead of that chose breaking the families.

Criminal records of the youth are then complicating their job integration since in the CR it is often required to present clean criminal record even for manual and not demanding jobs.

Most of the young homeless have basic or apprenticeship education. They have limited access to some benefits such as unemployment benefits. However if they have valid documents, they may access the social benefit system.

There is increasing factor of debts, which often make it very difficult for reinsertion because even if they find a job, penalties on the debts make it impossible to pay from their salaries or their benefits might be taken by liquidators.




There is no official definition of homelessness in the Czech Republic (CR) therefore there is no definition of the young homeless persons.

In the mobile home not intended as place of usual residence (category 11.1) according to census from 2001 there were 222 persons, there were 44 836 persons living in a dwelling defined as unfit for habitation by national legislation (12.1) and 12 519 persons lived in recreational facilities or weekend houses. Total number of young persons age 15-24 in such categories was 9 018 which is 0.6% of the whole population of persons in this age group in 2001. 7 537 or 84% of them lived in the dwellings defined as unfit for habitation, 1 413 (15.7%) lived in recreational facilities and 32 (0.3%) lived in mobile homes.

Within the NGO census the following values were indicated: total of 3 096 persons, out of which 2 662 men (85.99%) and 434 women (14.01%). From the total number the category of persons under 25 years was 14.2% (337 men, 102 women, in total 439 persons).

In the housing network there is a very limited capacity for the families with children or couples and the worst case is with single women.

Based on 3-months field research in one the Prague districts with a high frequency of the homeless people it is possible to get a limited idea on typology of the young homeless people. There are two basic groups of such people: the squatters and the drug-users.




Majority of the homeless population in the CR, according to the respondents, is 40 year of age and more. The estimates for the youth homeless is less than 15% of the homeless population and majority of them are male, with no or low qualification, with drug-abuse history, Czech citizenship, from the institutional care or broken families, more majority members than Roma, (none of the organizations interviewed has ethnic or religious statistics though). In case of Roma it is necessary to take into account they are often reluctant to declare themselves as Roma due to the social stigma.

“17 is our average age of the clients. During summer it’s 15. We are not allowed to report the younger ones since the Ministry of Interior would revoke our license to work. We should take those younger than 15 by the hand and take them to the Police, but we can’t do it because then you kill the field social work which is based on trust. But it’s hard to establish age when a client has no documents with him/herself. The others say he is 14 and he claims he is 18. So how old is he? There are other institutions which should care for such people, that’s the basic problem.” (expert interview)



Phase II: Interviewing young homeless people in four countries

The interview schedule was agreed by four country teams. The structure of the interview schedule allowed for the collection of both qualitative and quantitative interviews.

It was agreed that all interviews should be digitally recorded. Great care was taken with the wording of the consent forms to be signed by the

interviewees. The consent form stressed that young people were free to stop the interview immediately, that they did not have to answer any specific question and could stop the interview at any moment, and senior researchers who have to be informed if they disclosed anything that meant they or another young person was still ar risk. The consent forms and ethic policies were approved by the Ethics Committee of London Metropolitan University.

Interviews were based as far as possible on a quota of young people; equal numbers of young men and women; one third born in the country ethnic dominant, one third born in the country ethnic minority, one third foreign born. This quota was not possible for CR. 54 young people were interviewed in each country.

Interview were undertaken by young co-researchers who were or had themselves been homeless and were trained specifically for this research project.



Phase II: The CSEYHP approach to working with co-researchers

Extensive training in all 4 countries on interviewing techniques and ethical issues. Support during the interviews.

When co-researchers told interviewees that they had also been homeless, or were still homeless this broke the ice. Respondents felt less ashamed and there was a more equal relationship between co-researcher and interviewee.

Co-researchers also thought it was more helpful that they were at the level of the interviewees – ‘age, group-wise and some of the time we use slang’.

Co-researchers also functioned as a role model for the interviewees. They demonstrated that they had overcome their situation and that progress was possible.

In the UK it was possible for one co-researcher to interview five young people in their original language, providing interviews as long as those of other young people, and insights into the isolation of this group.

An annex on working with co-researchers is a deliverable of this project and is available at the project website.



Phase II: Qualitative information from interviews

Young people provided unstructured narrative information for the first part of each interview. There were also several open questions

Because each interview was digitally recorded it has been possible to transcribe many interviews and to check information in particular cases.

This information has been used to look at the life trajectories of young people in the four countries.

Qualitative information has provided evidence for:CR on institutional care trajectories and family violence and disruption.NL on young people on the streets, and with criminal careers.PT on the housing trajectories of young homeless people including homeless with their

own parents and/or being raised by grandparents.UK on family disruption, the different family backgrounds of young people born in the UK

and those not born in the UK, and the differences between migration based on family reunification and being a refugee.

An annex on life trajectory is a deliverable of this project and available on the project website.



Phase II: The Childhoods of Young People in our study

Over 216 interviews in the 4 countries collected by co-researchers. Living with at 12 years: In no country sample were a majority of young people living with

2 birth parents at 12 years although the proportion was highest in CR (22 out of 54 CR young people).

Family Background: Violence in the family. Sometimes or frequent hitting was reported by 72% in CR, 56%-50% in NL, PT, UK. (Only women in NL were more likely to report hitting than men; the other countries the opposite.)

Problems with parents: lack of money/ unemployment (28% CR; 35% NL; 57% PT; 70% UK), verbal aggression (48% CR; 43% NL; 57% PT; 57% UK;) physical aggression (41% CR; 46% NL; 43% PT; 41% UK); drinking (48% CR; 33% NL; 39% PT; 15% UK;) drugs (11% CR; 20% NL; 20% PT; 10% UK;) absent through illness (30% CR; 22% NL; 33% PT; 17% UK;) being ill (37% CR; 52% NL; 43% PT; 53% UK;), parents with mental health problems (37% CR; 46% NL; 6% PT; 17% UK;) .

Living with at 16 years: Rarely living with both parents. In CR 14 out of 54, PT 10 cases, UK 8 cases, and NL 5 cases. Most with single parents, or reconstituted families, A minority moving into precarious living situations

Left home for the last time: 36 of 54 in the UK by age 17 years, 28 in NL, 23 in CR, and 22 in NL. 8 had not left in PT – homeless with parents in past or current.



Phase II: The profile of young people in each country sample

Low educational attainment. Running away high for CR and NL (70%), then UK (60%) and low in PT (30%) Money from benefits more common in NL and UK; family and work more common in

CR and PT. Income much higher in NL sample than in other 3 country samples. Housing situation. Squatting in CR, hostel or move-on accommodation in UK and NL,

a parent or relatives or cohabitees in PT. Physical health issues among young people in NL (26%), PT (10% a registered

disability) Mental health issues – stress, depression, anxiety



Phase II: Services to aid young homeless people

Childhood – Institutional care in CR, limited in PT, extensive youth service in NL working through Care and Advice teams and using at-risk monitors to identify young people, Connexions service in UK but also family mediation and schools work by homeless agencies.

Young person presenting as homeless – In CR young people directed to other services, in PT a new strategy designating an individual case worker to help reinsert young person, in NL shelters and accommodation, in UK prevention through family mediation and supported accommodation.

What services do young people think that they needed? Services that would have made a difference when they were younger.

Social Services; 42% (61% CR; 41% NL; 39% PT; 32% UK) Counselling; 40% (37% CR; 50% NL; 35% PT; 39% UK) A place to stay in an emergency; 34% (26% CR; 44% NL; 19% PT; 46% UK) Education Support: 28% (20% CR; 32% NL; 26% PT; 33% UK) Family mediation: 23% (17% CR; 35% NL; 4% PT; 37% UK) Local advice centre: 21% (15% CR; 33% NL; 15% PT; 22% UK;) Other services Advocacy (12%), support after care (13%), move on support after prison

(12%), Lawyers/Rights Support (13%)



Phase II: Interviewing in CR

Co-researchers Argument that no young homeless from agencies but … When interviews took place young people emerged More than a third were living on the streets at time of interview (35%, 19

cases). X young people were living in squats but three-quarters (74%) had squatted in the past .

In CR it was not possible to find refugees to interview or people not born in the country. The large majority were all from CR. A minority were from

Slovakia. Sample slightly older than the other three samples but left home for the last

time at 17-18 years of age therefore comparable.



Phase II: CR young homeless 1 CR young people were different from the other three samples. Possibly

because we had to interview more street homeless. More difficult childhoods. One fifth (20%, 11 cases) had parents who had

been homeless. Nearly three quarters (73%) had experienced some or frequent violence in their childhood (compared with half of young people interviewed in other countries). Nearly three quarters (72%) had run away; over half for 3 or more nights.

A quarter (24%, 13 cases) had experience with children’s homes or foster care

Nearly half of CR young people mentioned that parents were verbally aggressive and had drinking problems (48%)

A large minority said they needed social services during this period and hadn’t had the support (39%, 21 cases). A similar proportion had no one to talk to (37%, 20).

At age 16, 6 young people in custody.



Phase II: CR Young Homeless 2 - Most of the respondents, c. 85 %, graduated from primary and secondary

school in the Czech Republic. Rest of the respondents, c. 10 %, graduated in Slovakia. Twenty percent of the respondents attended special schools or special classes.

- Almost half of the respondents are unemployed, 25 (46 %). Second most frequent group, 24 (44 %), make up respondents who are hanging with friends. None of the respondents was self-employed or student (in part-time or full-time education). Seldom respondents attended government retraining schemes, training within an NGO program or worked as volunteers.

Currently 43 (80 %) respondents have problems in getting the work that they want and 21 (39 %) respondents have problems in getting the training they want.

18 (33 %) of the respondents get money from employment, 13 (24 %) of the respondents get money from illegal activities and 11 (20 %) of the respondents get money from family.



Phase II: CR Young Homeless 3 - Half of the respondents had some physical or mental problems before

16 years of age – 29 (54 %) and 28 (52 %) respondents have had physical or mental problems since 16 years of age and later. Today most of them, 47 (87 %), are not registered as having some form of disability (no treatment, no therapy).- Drugs affect 44% and alcohol 32%

- While stress affected most frequently the respondents before leaving home, after leaving home it was depression.

- The respondents need support in looking for accommodation and looking for work; both possibilities were mentioned by 30 (56%) respondents. No one needs sexual health info and help in creative activities.

- The respondents would appriciate more info on the type of services offered by various social services agencies.



More results from the research to follow

Phase II Thematic report 1: Trajectories into homelessness and reinsertion points. Thematic report 2: Social exclusion and homelessness in Northern, Southern and

Central Europe. Thematic report 3: Capabilities and resiliencies among homeless youth populations

(including use of technology to protect themselves and ways of supporting this). Thematic report 4: Gender, ethnic group and migrant dimensions of homelessness.

These reports will be posted on the CSEYHP website after being agreed with the European Commission.

Phase IIIFree dvds and Toolkits available for Early Intervention Models in the UK and the Eight

Steps Model in the Netherlands in Czech, Dutch, Portugese and English.

www.movisie.nl/homelessyouth and click on publications.

Documents

Comparing Social Exclusion Among Young Homeless People in the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Portugal and UK