3.2 LOS DERECHOS DE LA MUJER

In discussing the variety of measurement techniques in use across the EU, it is an easy matter to note the inconsistencies in methodology and in the quality and comprehensiveness of the data that are collected. Denmark has an understanding of homelessness that is unparalleled, and Finland a clear comprehension of the nature and extent of the homelessness problem that exists at national level. Elsewhere the data are less comprehensive in terms of the range of information collected, who is enumerated and surveyed, and how frequently data collection takes place. France has some detailed understanding of homelessness, but the major surveys it has used to secure this knowledge did not cover all of the country and took place 11 years apart. Again, one region of Germany, North Rhine-

Westphalia, knows a lot more about homelessness than the rest of the country, just as London understands who is living rough, and how many of them there are, far more thoroughly than the rest of the UK does.

However, one very positive finding, allowing for all the inconsistencies in definition and methodology and the frustrations they bring to understanding homelessness at the national and international level, is that everyone knows at least something about homelessness. This finding that something, even if it is only partial and limited, is known about homelessness in all fifteen Member States participating in this research is of considerable significance. The 2011 census, for all that it was almost a textbook example of a failure to coordinate at European level, where even a modest attempt to standardise measurement of homelessness was either ignored or incorrectly administered, nevertheless brought attention to homeless popula- tions for the first time in some Member states.125 _{Statistics are being collected on}

homelessness. They are, for the most part, far from perfect statistics, but they do represent data on homelessness from a wide array of situations and contexts. Even partial data that allows some understanding of how homelessness exists in different contexts is useful; knowing something about how many people are homeless, what their characteristics are, and how and why they enter and exit from homelessness – even if it is flawed and limited data – still gives some insight into homelessness. In many EU Member States there is a very long way to go in terms of developing robust and effective measurements of homelessness, which involves the development of methodologies that are acceptably robust after arriving at a coherent, clear and comprehensive definition. The most advanced countries still have gaps in their data and there are aspects of homelessness that are inherently difficult to measure. People staying temporarily with family, friends and acquaintances because they have nowhere else to go are methodologically challenging to count and to survey accurately, as is anyone staying illegally in an empty or derelict home or other building and as are people living rough who stay hidden for safety reasons (which may, in particular, lead to under- counting of women living rough). Yet at the same time, the need for longitudinal data and the limits of point-in-time estimates are starting to be understood; past mistakes in attempting to understand homelessness have been learned from.

Recent research in Northern Ireland,126 _{which looked at whether ETHOS should and}

could be employed, concluded that even in that relatively data-rich environment, it is inherently difficult for service providers, commissioners and policy-makers to 125 _{Baptista, I., Benjaminsen, L., Pleace, N. and Busch-Geertsema, V. (2012) Counting Homeless}

People in the 2011 Housing and Population Census (EOH Comparative Studies on Homelessness, No 2) (Brussels: FEANTSA/EOH).

126 Pleace, N. and Bretherton, J. (2013) Measuring Homelessness and Housing Exclusion in Northern Ireland: A Test of the ETHOS Typology (Belfast: Northern Ireland Housing Executive).

learn about the extent and nature of homeless populations that do not connect with. Surveys can, of course, be used to reach these difficult–to-reach homeless popula- tions who do not make contact with the State’s database systems because they do not access welfare, health or criminal justice systems, or use homelessness services that collect and share data on their service users, but the challenges of finding and accurately representing groups that are inherently hard to count remain. It is also very evident that many EU Member States are not in a position where it is possible to supply the data to complete ETHOS Light. Not only are there gaps in data for individual countries, but in some cases entire categories – such as people living in mobile homes, non-conventional buildings and temporary structures – are largely blank. As noted in Chapter 5, with the data available in the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, the breaking down of data by ETHOS Light categories was simply not possible.

Nevertheless, if the research reported here shows anything, it shows that for all the flaws, limits and gaps, something is known about homelessness almost everywhere – that there are some data and that there is some understanding. The position is not ideal, but it is better than hopeless; data exist, data are being collected and analysis is taking place. Importantly, there also seem to be some commonalities in what those data are saying, which give interesting hints about the possible nature of homelessness and areas where robust research might be productively directed.