Article Urban Studies 2016, Vol. 53(10) 2041–2063 Ó Urban Studies Journal Limited 2015 Homelessness in a Scandinavian Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav welfare state: The risk of shelter use DOI: 10.1177/0042098015587818 in the Danish adult population usj.sagepub.com Lars Benjaminsen The Danish National Centre for Social Research, Denmark Abstract This article analyses the risk of homelessness in the Danish adult population. The study is based on individual, administrative micro-data for about 4.15 million Danes who were 18 years or older on 1 January 2002. Homelessness is measured by shelter use from 2002 to 2011. Data also cover civil status, immigration background, education, employment, income, mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, and previous imprisonment over five years prior to the measurement period. Prevalence of shelter use shows a considerable risk of homelessness amongst individuals experi- encing multidimensional social exclusion. Nonetheless, even in high-risk groups such as drug abu- sers and people with a dual diagnosis, the majority have not used shelters. A multivariate analysis shows significantly higher use of homeless shelters amongst immigrants and individuals with low income, unemployment, low education, mental illness, drug or alcohol abuse, or a previous impri- sonment. The highest risk of shelter use is associated with drug abuse, alcohol abuse, mental ill- ness and previous imprisonment, whereas the risk associated with low income is smaller than for the psychosocial vulnerabilities. The results show that homelessness in Denmark is widely con- centrated amongst individuals with complex support needs, rather than associated with wider poverty problems. Keywords homelessness, mental illness, poverty, risk factors, shelter use, substance abuse Received February 2015; accepted April 2015 Introduction widespread consensus in the research litera- ture is that homelessness arises from social Homelessness is one of the most extreme mechanisms that operate on structural, sys- forms of social marginalisation in contempo- temic, interpersonal and individual levels, rary society. Even in the Scandinavian coun- often in complex interplay (Fitzpatrick, tries, representing some of the world’s most advanced welfare systems, homelessness has been shown to be a persistent social phenom- Corresponding author: Lars Benjaminsen, The Danish National Centre for Social enon (Benjaminsen and Dyb, 2008; Research, Herluf Trolles Gade 11, Copenhagen, 1052 K Benjaminsen and Lauritzen, 2013; Dyb and Denmark. Johannessen, 2013; Socialstyrelsen, 2012). A Email: [email protected] 2042 Urban Studies 53(10) 2005; Fitzpatrick et al., 2013). Individual However, no study has used individual, psychosocial vulnerabilities interact with administrative micro-data to analyse the risk structural factors such as poverty, unem- of homelessness for the population of an ployment and the lack of affordable housing, entire country. This article analyses the risk and systemic factors such as the lack of ade- of homelessness measured by the use of quate social support systems. These social homeless shelters over a ten-year period, mechanisms are generally embedded in using individual, administrative data for the broader characteristics of welfare systems. entire Danish adult population and with Thus the risk factors of homelessness identi- individual data on key risk factors, mea- fied in statistical models are generated by sured prior to the measurement period for more complex underlying social mechan- shelter use. isms. Yet risk analysis is very useful in identi- The analysis is based on individual fying patterns that appear on the individual administrative data from various data level. Not only can risk analysis identify the sources for 4.15 million people who were 18 relative importance of various factors such years or older on 1 January 2002. The data as poverty and psychosocial vulnerabilities, are combined on individual level through but it can also identify how large a part of unique identifiers. Homelessness is measured risk groups is actually affected by homeless- with data from a national client registration ness, thereby contributing to a better under- system in homeless shelters from 2002 to standing of the possible shortcomings in 2011. In addition to demographic factors, welfare and support systems. socioeconomic characteristics include The risk factors of homelessness and the income, employment and education. The risk profiles of homeless people are well analysis also includes individual vulnerabil- described in the research literature. Studies ity factors: mental illness, drug and alcohol generally show that a broad range of risk abuse problems, and imprisonment. Because factors such as mental illness, substance micro-data are available on homelessness abuse, incarceration, institutional care in and other dimensions of social exclusion for childhood, relationship breakdown, weak the entire adult population, the analysis social ties, poverty and unemployment are offers unique insights into the actual occur- overrepresented amongst homeless people rence of homelessness in risk groups such as (Allgood and Warren, 2003; Bearsley-Smith the mentally ill, substance abusers, the poor et al., 2008; Caton et al., 1994, 1995, 2005; and those excluded from the labour market. Culhane and Metraux, 1999; Folsom et al., Moreover, the analysis shows whether 2005; Herman et al., 1997; Kemp et al., homelessness is a rare or frequent occurrence 2006; Koegel et al., 1995; van Laere et al., in these groups and to what extent homeless- 2009; Piliavin et al., 1989; Sosin and Bruni, ness is embedded in a pattern of multiple 1997; Sullivan et al., 2000; Susser et al., social exclusion. The analysis also investi- 1991, 1993). Quantitative studies of risk fac- gates the relative importance of various risk tors of homelessness have generally been factors, including the relative importance of based on surveys comparing homeless peo- psychosocial vulnerabilities and socioeco- ple with the general population or to at-risk nomic characteristics. In the regression populations (such as people in poverty or model the large data set enables interaction individuals with mental ill health), or com- effects between key explanatory variables. paring subgroups of homeless people, e.g. This analysis provides important knowledge according to the duration of their homeless- on how the interplay between the main risk ness situation. factors affects the risk of homelessness. Benjaminsen 2043 Theoretical understanding argues that the social mechanisms generating homelessness must be understood as an open A scholarly understanding of the relation and contingent interplay between structural, between homelessness and broader forms of systemic, interpersonal and individual fac- housing exclusion has been growing, with a tors, with none of these levels a priori more general consensus in the research literature fundamental than others. In some cases that not only rough sleepers (individuals homelessness may be a consequence of struc- sleeping outdoors) and people in homeless tural factors such as a lack of affordable shelters but also a broader group of people housing, whilst in other cases interpersonal in various forms of short-term accommoda- or individual factors may be more signifi- tion and transitional housing are in a home- cant. Therefore, no single ‘trigger’ of home- less situation, as their housing situation has lessness or any one necessary or sufficient no permanency. In Europe the housing- cause of homelessness can be identified based ETHOS (European Typology of (Fitzpatrick et al., 2013; Neale, 1997). This Homelessness and Housing Exclusion) defi- approach also applies to cross-country com- nition has been gaining widespread support parisons explaining why not only the pat- (Busch-Geertsema et al., 2010). Based on terns of homelessness but also the generative theoretical assumptions on the nature of mechanisms underlying these patterns may housing exclusion, this definition distin- vary across different societies and welfare guishes amongst four main categories of systems (Fitzpatrick, 2012; Fitzpatrick and homelessness and housing exclusion; roof- Stephens, 2007; Fitzpatrick et al., 2013; lessness, houselessness, insecure housing and Stephens and Fitzpatrick, 2007). inadequate housing (Edgar and Meert 2005). A more dynamic understanding of home- A revised definition (‘ETHOS light’) includes lessness has also been conceptualised within categories only for homelessness, differen- the ‘pathways theory’, informed by empiri- tiating amongst rough sleepers, emergency cal research showing that socially vulnerable night shelter users, shelter users, people in individuals often enter and exit homelessness transitional accommodation, people await- several times over a life course and that dif- ing institutional release without a housing ferent pathways into and out of homeless- solution in place, and individuals staying ness can be identified (Anderson and temporarily with family or friends (Edgar Tulloch, 2000; Clapham 2003; Culhane et al., 2007). et al., 1994, 2007; Kuhn and Culhane, 1998; Theoretical understandings of the causes MacKenzie and Chamberlain, 2003; and dynamics underlying the phenomenon Metraux and Culhane 1999; Shinn et al., of homelessness have been influenced by the 1998). Furthermore, homelessness has been general synthesising trend in social theory analysed within the conceptualisation of (Avramov, 1999; Blid et al., 2008; social