Objective: Our home can have a major impact on our physical and mental health; this is particularly true for older people who may spend more time at home. Older people in social (i.e., public) housing are particularly vulnerable. Housing options for older people in social housing include standard design dwellings or specially designed “sheltered housing.” The most suitable housing model should be identified, with older people consulted in this process. Method: Survey of older people (aged ≥60) living in standard or sheltered social housing. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics in SPSS Version 22. Results: Overall, 380 surveys were returned (response rate = 47.2%). All older people had similar housing needs. Those in sheltered housing were more satisfied with the physical home design and reported more positive outcomes. Older people in standard housing were less likely to have necessary adaptations to facilitate aging-in-place. Discussion: Older people in standard housing reported more disability/illnesses, are worried about the future, and felt less safe at home. However, few wanted to move, and very few viewed sheltered housing as an alternative, suggesting limited knowledge about their housing options. Future social housing designs should be flexible, that is, adaptable to the needs of the tenants over time.

This paper compares continuity and change in homelessness policy in Ireland, Scotland and Norway with a particular focus on the period of post-crisis austerity measures (2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016). The analytical approach draws on institutional theory and the notion of path dependency, which has rarely been applied to comparative homelessness research. The paper compares welfare and housing systems in the three countries prior to presenting a detailed analysis of the conceptualisation and measurement of homelessness; the institutions which address homelessness; and the evidence of change in the post-2008 period. The analysis demonstrates that challenges remain in comparing the nature of homelessness and policy responses across nation states, even where they have a number of similar characteristics, and despite some EU influence towards homelessness policy convergence. Similarly, national-level homelessness policy change could not be interpreted as entirely a result of the external shock of the 2008 general financial crisis, as existing national policy goals and programmes were also influential. Overall, embedded national frameworks and institutions were resilient, but sufficiently flexible to deliver longer term policy shifts in response to the changing nature of the homelessness problem and national policy goals. Institutionalism and path dependency were found to be useful in developing the comparative analysis of homelessness policy change and could be fruitfully applied in future longitudinal, empirical research across a wider range of countries.

No abstract

This themed issue of Social Inclusion provides a timely opportunity to reflect on how contemporary research is addressing the multi-dimensional issue of homelessness around the world. The papers presented here provide a wide range of new evidence on homelessness including theoretical, methodological and empirical contributions. They draw on a range of national experiences in Europe and beyond, and addressing the issue of social inclusion and social exclusion of homeless or previously homeless people from a range of perspectives and approaches. It is hoped that the contributions to this themed issue will prove influential in terms of both scholarship and potential to enhance policy making and service delivery to some of our most excluded citizens.

This issue of Social Inclusion explores the interconnected, but multi-faceted concepts of home, housing and communities as fundamental tenets of an inclusive society. Our editorial introduces our motivation for this topic, outlines the contributions to the collection and highlights some crosscutting themes, which emerge from the articles. The research presented was largely completed in advance of the full impact of the 2020 global coronavirus pandemic. In concluding the editorial, we reflect on the equal centrality of home, housing and communities to surviving the pandemic and ensuing economic crisis and encourage greater commitment to home and housing as a human right to mitigate social and economic inequality and underpin sustainable, inclusive settlements for the future.