Presentation given by Lynette Šikić-Mićanović, Institute of Social Sciences, Zagreb, Croatia at a FEANTSA Research Conference on "Homelessness and Poverty", Paris, France, 2009

1. EUROPEAN RESEARCH CONFERENCE
HOMELESSNESS AND POVERTY IN EUROPE
– International and European Perspectives
PARIS, 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009
Seminar 6: Homelessness and Poverty:
National Case Studies
Homelessness in Croatia
Lynette Šikić-Mićanović (Institute of Social
Sciences, Ivo Pilar, Zagreb)

2. Introduction
HOMELESS STUDY – CROATIA 2009
 pioneering national study -- first qualitative study
with the homeless in Croatia
 project is in its initial stages – fieldwork started
earlier this year
 aims to provide a fuller understanding of the
perceptions and experiences of the homeless in
Croatia
 This project is funded by the ERSTE Foundation

3. Post-transition Croatia
 Post-transition countries experienced significant socio-
economic and political changes in which economic
reforms and political liberalisation transformed
institutional structures, including social services, beyond
recognition.
 Social policy in socialist countries was part of the ideology
integrated in the political systems and part of the political
rhetoric
 Some advantages included:
full employment, social security, food/ flat
subventions, free health care, free education, gender
equality, etc
(although some authors have argued in reality these social
policies were far from ideal—some were ‘more privileged’
Szalai; Zrinščak)

4. Post-transition Croatia
 The transition phase of the Croatian economy from a
socialist to a market economy was complicated by the war
(1991-1995)
This had a devastating impact on Croatia’s economic
and social fabric characterised by hyperinflation and
a decline in output, especially industrial output,
depreciation of the country’s currency, increasing
rates of unemployment, higher levels of poverty, and
the growth of an informal economy
(Human Development Report 1997).
 -‘produced’ an enormous population of poor unemployed
persons, displaced persons, refugees dependant on
relatives, friends, humanitarian organizations and the state
-marked lack of NGOs in Croatia in the early 1990s

5. Post-transition Croatia
 Studies have found that there was a rapid and large growth
of social inequalities in all transition countries (Bićanić &
Franičević, 2005)
-elimination of job security/higher unemployment
-increasing social insecurity (adequate health
care/social benefits)
-decrease in living standard (explosion of public
utility and food prices)

6. Research on poverty in Croatia
 Knowledge about the incidence and scope of poverty in
Croatia is very limited as little academic research was
conducted on poverty until late 1990s in Croatia
 There is no official poverty line in Croatia
 -survey-based social statistics were not developed in
Croatia in the pre-transition period
There was no need for data on poverty,
inequality during socialism /this phenomena was
largely ignored by policymakers

7. Research on poverty in Croatia
However since transition, there has been an increasing need
for this kind of data.
Some examples of studies on poverty carried out since
transition:
 1) World Bank and the Central Bureau of Statistics
(Croatia) conducted joint national research on poverty in
1998 (World Bank, 2001),
-a measure of absolute poverty was used, based on the
Food–Energy Intake (FEI) method
-it was found that about 5% of the population was below
the poverty line.

8. Research on poverty in Croatia
 2) Poverty Monitoring Study (Centre for the Promotion of
Social Teachings of the Church and Croatian Caritas)
-investigated financial difficulties of households,
subjective poverty, trust in institutions, attitudes towards
public assets, solidarity and willingness
 3) UNDP study - Human Development Report 2006-
comprehensive analysis of social exclusion issues in
Croatia and examines the ways in which individuals and
groups of people may find themselves socially
marginalized due to limited access to social services,
employment, education, housing, and human rights.

9. Research on poverty in Croatia
Shortcomings:
 very little statistical data are available on poverty
dynamics in Croatia (on how long people remain in
poverty and what happens to them during that period).
 a number of vulnerable groups are either not sufficiently
covered by research or else are too small or hidden from
large-scale surveys such as the homeless

10. Homelessness in Croatia
 The homeless have become an increasingly vulnerable
group in Croatia and are the definite losers of the transition
Evidence:
1) only 1% of GDP for unemployed and the poor in
Croatia (Babić 2007)
2) more and more shelters have been opened,
particularly in the last decade
-7 more shelters are planned throughout Croatia --
Pula, Vukovar, Slavonski Brod, Vinkovci,
Dubrovnik, Sisak, and Petrinja)
3) Media analysis -- only 10 articles were found on
homelessness 20 years prior to 1991 compared to over
400 in the following years.

11. Homelessness in Croatia
 Following the collapse of socialism, Croatia was literally
unprepared for a phenomenon such as homelessness
-marked lack of resources and understanding.
The homeless in Croatia:
- no legal status –there is no law in Croatia that guarantees
the social inclusion of the homeless (enormous problems
for persons with no addresses since benefits or rights to
employment are only available through the welfare
system/employment bureau based on county residence)
- no political representation/lobby groups no one is
responsible for their welfare
- no national housing programme for vulnerable groups
such as the homeless
-no national prevention programmes (e.g., for youth who
grew up in institutions)

12. Homelessness in Croatia
 Rough estimates on the number of homeless range around
400 for Zagreb, between 50-100 for Osijek, around 30 in
both Split and Rijeka, and between 20-25 in Varaždin
(Bežovan 2008)
 No qualitative research has been conducted with this
marginalised group as yet (only one quantitative study was
conducted on the socio-demographic features of the
homeless in Zagreb in 2002 – (Bakula-Anđelić & Šostar
2006).

13. Research Methodology
 As almost no ethnographic research has been conducted
with the homeless in Croatia, this study aims to contribute
new data (on a completely unresearched social group in
Croatia)
 Anthropological field methods:
participant observation and in-depth interviews/life
histories
(with special attention to ethical considerations since this
work is with a marginalised population in crisis).

14. Research Methodology
 Fieldwork was carried out in 7 cities:
Zagreb (capital); Varaždin; Karlovac; Osijek;
Rijeka; Split; and Zadar by our team of researchers from
the Institute Ivo Pilar and a number of students
 Since the homeless are a hard-to-reach group, research was
mainly conducted at shelters throughout Croatia
(arrangements were always made with shelter coordinators
prior to fieldwork).
 Shelter life can offer a number of provisions such as food
water, shelter, security, safe sleep, a place for their
possessions, health care, structure to their day,
companionship, independence, dignity, self respect,
hope… (but this largely depends on the shelter i.e., their
objectives, services and the staff)

15. Field locations
Name of Location Year of Capacity Capacity/
shelter establishment /men women
Red Cross Zagreb 1943 65 25
City of Zagreb Zagreb 1992 76 10
Caritas/Rakitj Zagreb 2003 45-50 -
e
City of Varaždin Varaždin 2001 14 3
Caritas/Osijek Osijek 1999 10 10
MOST Split 2000 16 -
MOST Split 2003 - 8
Ruže sv. Franje Rijeka 2007 13 -
Caritas/Zadar Zadar 2007 12 4
HVIDR Karlovac 2008 8 -

16. Research Methodology
 Sample: more men (60) than women (6) *
-Men more frequently use shelters of this type (separate
facilities for women are often not available or are
inappropriate).
 The project was designed to give voice to participants
- interview transcriptions are collections of their
perspectives that were sometimes confirmed or refuted
by other shelter users and shelter workers
(credibility issue)
* Sample of women still too small for statistical analysis

17. Shelter Sample
Homeless Study 2009
 Ages of research participants
N=57
20s
30s
40s
50s
60s
70s

18. Shelter Sample
Marital status
 Over half of the males in this sample are divorced (55%)
while a third are single (33%)
Education
 Most of the males in this sample finished secondary school
(69%) while a quarter either have only 4 or 8 grades of
primary school (25%). Only three have completed a
tertiary education.

19. Shelter Sample
Years of formal employment (prior to homelessness)
1-10yrs
10-19yrs
20-29yrs
30-36yrs

20. Shelter Sample
N.B. None of the research participants had full-time/part-
time jobs in the formal economy at the time of
interview
pensions
social
assistance
shadow
econom y

21. Shelter Sample
Periods of Homelessness
20
18
16
14
12 relatives/friends
10 street
8 shelter
6
4
2
0
rs
rs
rs
s
s
s
s
yr
yr
yr
yr
yr
5y
0y
0y
1
2
6
8
4
0-
-1
-2
1
1-
3-
5-
7-
9-
11
16

22. Paths into homelessness
Their paths into homelessness include:
-violence and trauma (abuse and neglect) in childhood
(dysfunctional families, institutionalised childhoods)
-job loss and not being able to get another job (even after
years of work experience)
-poor health
-family break-up following divorces
-loss of home/displacement due to war
-imprisonment
-flight from abusive relationships

23. Social exclusion and marginalisation
 Findings show that the homeless in this study are not only
economically poor but often culturally, socially and
symbolically poor)
-low earnings/no economic capital/limited resources
-low-educational backgrounds/lack of cultural capital
-lack social networks
-no political/social/ symbolic power
 They are often excluded and marginalized from
participating in activities (economic, social, cultural,
symbolic) that are the norm for other people

24. Ethnographic examples
Economic poverty
many participants in this study have financial problems
and do not feel valued, independent or connected to others
Explanations:
- they work in the shadow economy (e.g., collection of
recyclables-bottles, construction work, care work, etc) that
is characterised by irregular work, difficult conditions,
poor pay, lack of security, discrimination / ill-treatment
and no health coverage
The risk of poverty is particularly high among this group
because their low levels of education are combined with
unemployment
N.B. Just over a third of the sample has bank accounts (37%)
while two thirds (63%) do not have a bank account

25. Ethnographic examples
Nutritional poverty
 Food (depending on the city) is
-sometimes only available once a day
-not available on Sundays
-soup kitchens are sometimes too far away and public
transport is unaffordable
Many participants and shelter workers mentioned hunger as a
problem of day-to-day living especially if they lack social
networks (cravings for particular foods were very
common)

26. Ethnographic examples
Nutritional poverty (cont.)
 coping mechanisms that have been developed among the
poor relating to food (e.g., producing one’s own food,
receiving food from relatives, cooking meals, fruit and
vegetable gardens, food storage for winter) are not options
for the homeless in this study
N.B. it is still legal to share food in public places in Croatia
as there is no criminalisation of intervention

27. Ethnographic examples
Poor Health
 Being sick is more complicated when you live in a shelter
because remedies such as good nutritional food/special
dietary food and rest are beyond reach
Strategies: -often take aches and pains for granted
-treat themselves by buying their own
medications
-go to doctors who will make exceptions if
they don’t have cover
-don’t go at all
N.B. Almost three quarters of sample (74%) have health
insurance while as many as a quarter (26%) do not have
health cover

28. Ethnographic examples
Poor health (cont.)
In addition, homeless people are further disadvantaged
because they often have to cope with a whole range of
health problems such as:
 Mental health problems (PTSP, schizophrenia, depression)
 Addictions to nicotine, drugs, alcohol, gambling…
 Acute and chronic illnesses
Problem: shelters often lack trained professional staff; often
don’t even have a social worker

29. Ethnographic examples
Poor health (cont.)
Fatigue
-early mornings ‘get up and out’
-not able to ‘sleep in’
-do not have the luxury of staying in bed
-often are deprived of sleep because it is too noisy for
them to sleep
-lack of privacy (men and women have to share
sleeping/bathroom spaces)
-lack of security (often do not feel that they are safe or that
their belongings are secure)
N.B. homeless persons can fall asleep in a public place and
not get arrested for vagrancy)

30. Ethnographic examples
Social Poverty
The participants in this study often lack social capital
networks to alleviate any hardship:
- by choice (ashamed of their homelessness so hide it from
others)
- or have been disconnected from former work circles of
support or family support
- or have already exhausted all channels of assistance and
do not wish to further burden relatives/friends

31. Ethnographic examples
Social poverty (cont.)
As a result their days often lack structure and meaning
- Shelter rules means that they have to be outdoors for 12
hours a day -- difficult when physical conditions are harsh
– (when it is cold, windy and raining outside) and when
they are sick
-being alone (with nowhere to go and nothing to do) does not
alleviate the psychic conditions of homelessness such as
hopelessness, despair, and loneliness.

32. Concluding remarks
Need to take into account the cumulative effect of all these
problems in a context of non-recognition, stigmatisation
and lack of support
Homelessness is hard living particularly when their access to
different forms of capital (economic, cultural and social)
are limited = no political/social/symbolic power
Findings from this study suggest that homelessness is a
mortifying (Goffman) and impoverishing experience in
which a person is stripped of all identity and deprived of
so many rights (to housing, suitable healthcare, social
services, a respectable job, self-dignity, social networks,
legal rights, etc.)

33. Recommendations
 Systematic monitoring of shelter users and the wider
homeless population by teams of qualified persons –
(assessment of needs, provision of comprehensive
information and assistance to people)
 Programmes need to be developed at the local level to
meet different contextual needs –funds should be given to
cities/local communities to develop their own continuum
of care
e.g., Introduction of public bath houses, day centres,
doctor’s/dentist’s surgery for the homeless, subsidized
accommodation for homeless persons

34. Recommendations
 Professional qualified and sensitized staff at shelters to
deal with the wide scope of problems
 Managers/supervisors at shelters to facilitate better
communication with Ministries and other stakeholders for
financial support
 Organisation (among all age groups) of suitable voluntary
work to increase public awareness of this problem
 Introduction of prevention programmes-changes in social
policy addressing the needs of those who are at risk of
becoming homeless (eg institutionalised youth-child
welfare institutions, youth who grew up in dysfunctional
families

35. Thank you