HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to give special thanks to Volunteer Census Counters for their commitment to
field counting. The census wouldn't have been successful without their great help.
We thank all institutions and organisations providing data and making practical comments to
the project.
We thank social workers from Prague City Authority, who helped to allocate homeless
localities in each Prague Borough, and provided figures ­ numbers of homeless. We thank
them also for helpful comments to the project.
We thank Doc. Ing. Ladislav Průša, CSc., the Director of the "Institution of Labour and Social
Affairs Research" (Výzkumý ústav práce a sociálních věcí) for help with analysis, data
processing and specifying the estimations.
We thank "Dopravní podnik HMP" (Prague Integrated Transport System) that Volunteer
Census Counters were not charged when using public traffic.
We thank the City Police, Prague City and the State Police ČR for helpful information
concerning the numbers of homeless in the City Boroughs and for the quiet course of the
field census.
We thank all the homeless who took part in collecting data and providing us with a lot of
useful comments.

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
ANNOTATION
The project "Homeless Census Praha 2004" was prepared and implemented by
Arcidiecézní Charita Praha, Armáda Spásy, Městské Centrum Sociálních Služeb a Prevence
and Naděje, with the patronage of Mgr. Hana Halová, Councillor of the City of Prague
(Health, Social Care and Ethnic Minorities Department.)
The goal of the project was to find out the most accurate number of homeless in Prague
City. The combined counting method was used.
The project was focused on the visible homelessness phenomenon. The definition of visible
homelessness was created by FEANTSA1
for the EU:
1) Rooflessness ­ sleeping outside of classical accommodation, this is the most visible
form of homelessness.
2) Homelessness ­ crisis accommodation or long term accommodation in institutions.
The field counting took place on 19th
February 2004 within a 2 hour period (20:00 ­ 22:00),
all other data added were valid as of the same date.
The field counting that was implemented by 242 Volunteer Census Counters was a
significant source of information. Prague City was divided into 82 localities (1054 homeless
counted), 21 metro, bus and tram stops were determined as counting points (323 homeless
counted).
Data was supplemented with figures obtained from hostels, night shelters (719 homeless),
day centres opened during the time period (411 homeless), institutions like hospitals,
prisons, psychiatric facilities etc (98 homeless). Self counting also took place (491
homeless)2
The total number of homeless came to 3096 - 2662 (85,99%) men, 434
(14,01%) women.
Results and figures could serve as a base for City of Prague Council policy, for the planning
and development of social services for the homeless.
1
European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless
2
Self counting took place in localities(derelict houses, gardens, caves, etc), which cannot be visited by Census
Counters during counting time. Numbers were obtained through social trustees, street workers, police and
homeless themselves.

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
CONTENTS
CONTENTS.............................................................................................................................. 3
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 4
2. STARTING SITUATION....................................................................................................... 5
3. AIM OF PROJECT................................................................................................................5
4. PREPARATION AND PRESENTATION ............................................................................. 6
4.1. Preparation......................................................................................................................6
4. 2. Presentation................................................................................................................... 7
5. METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................8
5. 1. Basic issues................................................................................................................... 8
5.2. Definition of Target Group.............................................................................................. 9
5.3. Homeless census methods used in European countries .............................................10
5. 4. Method used in our project.......................................................................................... 11
5. 5. Timing.......................................................................................................................... 11
5. 6.Allocation.......................................................................................................................12
6. IMPLEMENTATION............................................................................................................ 13
7. CENSUS OUTPUTS
................................................................................................................................................ 14
7. 1. Review .........................................................................................................................14
7. 1. 1. Results.................................................................................................................. 14
7. 1. 2. Accommodation (beds)......................................................................................... 15
7. 1. 3. Day centres........................................................................................................... 16
7. 1. 4. Institutions............................................................................................................. 16
7. 1. 5. Public transport..................................................................................................... 17
7. 1. 6. The field counting ­ localities................................................................................18
7. 1. 7. The field self-counting...........................................................................................18
7. 2. Interpretation of the census results..............................................................................19
8. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................... 21
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................. 23

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
1. INTRODUCTION
Homelessness is one of the most significant issues in the social field. The City of Prague
Council considers this issue as very important. The resolution of the City of Prague Council
no. 1035, dated 8.7.2003 is reflecting and responding to the social situation, in particular,
social exclusion.
The project "Homeless Census Praha 2004" is one of the steps contributing to fulfilling the
goal given by the Resolution of the City of Prague Council. It is linked to the output of the
document "Visible Homelessness in Prague ­ Analysis and Proposals for Winter 2003/04"
(Zjevné bezdomovství v Praze ­ Analýza a návrhy řešení problematiky pro zimní období
2003/2004)3
. The goal of this project is to collect maximum information about homelessness
and submit it, together with proposals, to the City of Prague Council Representatives. The
City of Prague Council can then prepare basic conceptions of the development of social
services supporting groups who are exposed to social exclusion the most.
The significant aspect of the project is the cooperation of the participating organisations ­
the City of Prague Council as founder of the project and Social Service providers as
investigators - Arcidiecézní Charita, Armáda Spásy, Městské Centrum Sociálních Služeb a
Prevence and Naděje.
Cooperation and dialogue of local authorities, state authorities and social service providers
on regional and local level is common in EU countries. This process has also begun in the
Capital City of Prague and we consider it as very positive. Experience gained during this
project can be beneficial for further the City of Prague Council programmes.
The project "Homeless Census Praha 2004" is very significant for many other reasons. The
final report is released during the time of preparing the National Action Plan. This report can
serve as inspiration for the preparation group of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.
Information about the project and outputs will be handed over to FEANTSA ­ European
Observatory of Homelessness.
3
Zjevné bezdomovství v Praze ­ Analýza a návrhy řešení problematiky pro zimní období 2003/2004, Praha:
MCSSP 2003. Materiál established in co-working by Arcidiecézní Charity, Armády Spásy, Městského Centra
Sociálních Služeb a Prevence and Naděje.

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
2. STARTING SITUATION
The Homeless Census is a pilot project in the Czech Republic. Homelessness has not been
monitored, therefore figures were received from inexact information gathered independently
by social service providers4
. S.A.D. sought for the unification of all data gathered by each
service provider5
. A research report, comparing life conditions of the homeless in the Czech
Republic and other countries was released in 19976
. Despite this endeavour, still there was a
lack of valid figures. The estimations ranged from 300 to 15,000 homeless in Prague; the
professional community estimated figures from 3,000 to 5,000 homeless.
These figures could not serve as base of valid results for many reasons. Firstly , there was
no methodology for the inclusion of groups living in derelict houses, woods, channels and
streets, those, who do not use (or use very rarely) day centres and hostels.
The Czech Statistical Office (Český statistický úřad)7
released interesting information
included in the report of the latest census as of 1.3.2001. The table no. 12 "Family Housing
according to category and size of flat and legal reason of usage as of 1.3.2001" stated that
the legal usage is distinguished into the categories:
1.flat in own house,
2.flat ­ private ownership,
3.lease flat,
4. flat of member of housing association,
5.flat of member of leaseholders association founded for privatisation purpose.,
6. others. This sixth group includes 78,647 housekeepers and service flats, 173,656 other
free usage flats, 18,959 legal reason was not found. 312,236 households live in 71 262 flats.
These families can be considered as exposed to social exclusion.8
3. AIM OF PROJECT
The aim of Project "Homeless Census Praha 2004" (Sčítání bezdomovců Praha 2004) was
to gain valid figures of the homeless population in Prague City during the winter time. The
census was based on the field counting and observation. The census was focused on
4
Např. Hradecká, Vlastimila ­ Hradecký, Ilja: Bezdomovství ­ extrémní vyloučení, Praha: Naděje 1996.
5
Sdružení azylových domů - SAD associates more than 100 accommodation facilities for homeless.
6
M. Pellegrino compares the numbers of homeless, their living conditions, access to service and legal conditions
in 4 documents (EU­12, Sweden, USA a Czech Republic). Pellegrino, Mauro: Uno su mile? in: Rassegna di
servizio sociale No. 3/1997, Roma: EISS 1997.
7
http://www.czso.cz/csu/edicniplan.nsf/publ/A4C54C09A904E412C1256CD80040ED28/$File/strana_ 12.pdf
8
The method of the General Census in 2001 did not recognise the homeless as a specific group in society.
Persons were counted in their permanent residence. Person counted away from his/her permanent residence,
was "moved" to his/her permanent residence. If a person was not at their permanent address, Census Counters
had to check the Register of Citizens; whether any person was registered at that address. If so, the numerator
had to enter basic data into the form. But absentees could not be automatically considered as homeless. The
reasons of absence can be various. The goal of the census in 2001 was not to find out the number of homeless.

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
people sleeping in the streets and people using specific social services, people, who have
limited access to basic means of living (food, clothes, hygiene, medical care) or who are not
able to use the means.
4. PREPARATION AND PRESENTATION
4. 1. Preparation
The idea to conduct a homeless census was mentioned in the document "Visible
Homelessness in Prague ­ Analysis and solution proposals of homelessness in winter
2003/2004". This document was prepared at the request of the City of Prague Council.
Since April 2003 the methodology was being prepared, based on the Denmark Method of
one day counting9
and a study released by FEANTSA in November 2003 - European
Observatory of Homelessness.10
The proposed methodology was presented to the
professional community at the conference "Prague Home without a Home" (V Praze doma
bez domova) in December 2003. Census sheets had been prepared by November 2003.
In January 2004 two important meetings were arranged, the meeting of social workers
(kurátor), street workers and others from the Prague Boroughs and the meeting of social
service providers involved in the preparation and implementation of the project. The aim of
these meetings was to make a list of the localities often inhabited by homeless. The Census
Counters recorded the number of homeless at these localities11
. Prague City had to be
divided into regions for the Census Counters to check. The map was being refined and new
localities added on up to the beginning of census.
In January we started working on the Methodological Instruction for Census Counters and
we addressed potential volunteers for the field Census Counters, e.g. students, and
homeless. A professional advisory service was provided by National Volunteer Centre Praha
­ Hestia. Professionals were a significant part of the Census Counters. Recruitment of
volunteers began in the second half of January, some volunteers already obtained at the
Prague Conference "Prague Home without a Home" (V Praze doma bez domova).
9
Avramov, Dragana: Les sans­abri dans l'Union Européenne, Bruxelles: FEANTSA 1995, str. 88­89
10
Edgar, Bill; Doherty, Joe; Meert, Henk: Review of Statistics on Homelessness in Europe, European
Observatory of Homelessness November 2003, Bruxelles: FEANTSA 2003
11
Term ,,numerator" is taken of specialized terminologie ČSÚ. The word numerator should be used with
quotation in this project.

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
The time schedule was settled and professional advisory help secured in the first half of
February. The training of the Volunteer Census Counters took place in the main hall at the
faculty of Philosophy, Charles University on the 10th
February. Over 200 volunteers attended
the training.
"Prague Integration Transport System" (Dopravní podnik) and the City of Prague Council
gave very strong support to the project. The Census Counters could use the City Transport
System free of charge when doing the field counting and "Prague Integration Transport
System" (Dopravní podnik) complied with the request of organisers to tolerate the homeless
on MHD (public transport) vehicles. The State Police and City Police were also tolerant of
the homeless during the census.
4. 2. Presentation
The project was introduced to the professional community and media, as well as to the
homeless in the conference "Prague Home without a Home" (V Praze doma bez domova
2003) at the beginning of December 2003. The presentation12
included the main points of
future census.
  Who is homeless? There is no definition of homelessness. It is missing in official and
legal documentation. There is generally a negative understanding of homelessness in
Czech society.
  The definition of homelessness created by FEANTSA. Introduction of the relevant target
group.
  Why conduct a homeless census? Isn't it useless? Here is the answer. There are people
among us living below the poverty line, suffering from absolute poverty. Reduction and
elimination of homelessness and poverty "costs money". But it is an advantageous
investment for the future. By reducing poverty, we contribute to social reconciliation. If we
want to increase the quantity of social service, we need to know the number of people in
crisis as accurately as possible.
  The Homeless Census method used in Europe. Introduction of the methods used for the
estimation of the number of homeless in EU countries.
  Common Prague Project ­ the methodology. The pilot project requires the cooperation of
all involved parties. A suitable method must be decided and refined into the plan. After
the counting, the figures need to be evaluated and errors eliminated. The project was
inspired by the Denmark method of "One Day Counting".
  What to do with the outputs of the project? The goal is to find out objective figures, the
number of visible homeless staying on the Prague streets in winter. We strive to create
the proposal which can serve as a basis for the planning and funding of a sufficient
social service necessary for the survival and dignified living of people excluded from
society.
Media Organisation like TV, press and radio showed their interest in the homeless census .
Organisers held a series of interviews (about the homeless census and homelessness) in
January and February. Nový Prostor (Homeless Street Newspaper) was invited to participate
and they specifically focused on the project. Organisers arranged two press conferences
with press release presentations the day before and the day after the census.
12
Hradecký, Ilja: Jak sčítat ryby v moři, presentation in conference ,, V Praze doma bez domova, Praha 2003".

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
5. METHODOLOGY
5. 1. Basic issues
There are two main reasons that makes a census difficult. The first is the fluctuation of the
homeless. The homeless are people with no home, as the word itself indicates. They are
often lonely, with no family base and permanent housing. They live from day to day, from
night to night. They are expelled from one place so they move to another. They move also in
another way ­ up and down ­ a period, when they can earn their living and stay "under a
roof" in a cheap hostel etc. and a period, when they loose this "luxury". Then they become
more visible, because they spend their time at public places, on trams, buses, metro and
open public buildings. As in all big cities, the homeless are concentrated near railway
stations and shopping centres13
.
The second reason is that the word "homeless" is not clear. Any general definition is
misleading, because homelessness is a "package" of phenomena. It is fallible and
misleading to say "homeless" is a person, who has lost, left or never had any home, any
family, homeless is a person, who cannot or does not want to resolve his/her problems and
seek the help of social workers, local authorities, NGOs and sometimes he/she does not
seek for any help at all.
The general definition of homelessness is misleading, either it excludes anyone marginal or
includes everyone with social problems. We should distinguish the visible homeless ­ living
in the streets, parks, public places, derelict houses, cellars, channels and the latent and
potential homeless. These groups of people "have a roof over their head" but they live in
insecure accommodation, often due to lease departments or disadvantageous lease
contracts. We should not overlook the "low social class" people having temporary
accommodation. These people do not know when they have to leave the temporary
accommodation. This fact hinders them in making plans for the future and often they slip
down to a "day to day" style of life.
Two more aspects are evident in Czech society. It is the negative understanding of the
general public. The second aspect is even more significant ­ the word "homeless" is missing
in official documents and in legislation. In legislation, the word "homeless" indicates a
person without nationality.
13
These places can offer gratification of basic physical needs(warm, food, hygiene).

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
5.2. Definition of Target Group
The FEANTSA14
definition of homelessness was used for the sake of the homeless census.
According to this definition homeless can be divided into four groups:
1) Rooflessness
2) Houselessness
3) Living in insecure accommodation
4) Living in inadequate accommodation
Ad 1) Rooflessness - Staying outside of "classical" accommodation, it is the most visible
modul of homelessness. People with a chaotic lifestyle are in risk of losing their home. The
successful accommodation for these people depends not only on capacity (temporary or
permanent) but also on suitable support.
Ad 2) Houselessness ­ Despite the fact these people have access to crisis or long term
accommodation, there is not sufficient support to reintegration. People, who cannot obtain
sufficient accommodation (provided by local authority ­ social flats) are made to live in
various hostels and they can be considered as homeless. In this context homelessness is
not only inaccessibility to accommodation but also a failure of social relationships.
Ad 3) Living in insecure accommodation (insecure claim on accommodation, temporary
accommodation). Such a situation can be caused by inaccessibility to permanent
accommodation. Providing suitable support can be very important in order to gain permanent
accommodation under their name and responsibility. This category includes also those who
are forced, by various circumstances, to live together with other people in insufficient
conditions, people imminently threatened with physical or psychological abuse and violence
(for example persons exposed to domestic violence, race violence, forced prostitution,
abuse).
Ad 4) Living in inadequate accommodation. This category includes those living in
accommodation which does not comply with hygiene regulations. It can be caused by a high
number of "room-mates" (referring to the actual legislation in a particular country). This also
includes people living on houseboats and caravans.
The Homeless Census in Prague was focused on the first and second groups of homeless ­
roofless and houseless. The professionals in ČR have united these two groups into one
category, visible homeless. This category again does not have a strict delimitation, therefore
it had to be redefined (for this project). Homeless15
are people with a lack of the necessary
means of living and without the possibility or ability to earn or use these means reasonably.
People of this target group totally depend on social services provided by local authorities or
NGOs, e.g. day centres, crisis centres, night shelters, hostels etc. There are homeless, who
do not use any social service and they live in extreme conditions.
14
Edgar, Bill; Doherty, Joe; Meert, Henk: Review of Statistics on Homelessness in Europe, European
Observatory of Homelessness November 2003, Bruxelles: FEANTSA 2003.
15
Homeless ­ people with no home; "home" - it means also social conditions, not only permanent or temporary
accommodation.

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
5.3. Homeless census methods used in European countries 16
Denmark is a pioneer in the field of homelessness issue, in collecting data and information
about the development of homelessness. The situation in Denmark has been described by
the FEANTSA specialist: "Thanks to data brought by service providers, findings of local
researches and figures of one day census, we are able to identify particular items leading to
homelessness..."17
There are 8 basic census modules used in Europe. Each modul has it's
advantages and disadvantages.
1) Germany - the most exact method.
The local authority collects data in conjunction with the register of people looking for
support. So the evaluation includes the number of people in need and the period during
which they are in the difficult situation. In Germany, the total number is scaled up by
38,5% in order to estimate the fluctuation ­ difference between momentary and annual
number. This method is also used in Holland. This method is considered as sufficient.
2) France ­ This method counts only certain statistic groups ­ people without permanent
residential address (sans domicile fixe) ­ it means people living in homeless hostels and
centres, in streets, channels, cellars, sheds, derelict houses etc. The total is considered
as the number of homeless in France. The disadvantage of this method is the method of
recording those living in the street stigmatized by social exclusion.
3) Great Britain - The definition was stated in the 1977 Homeless legislation ­ there is a
central register where all homeless have his/her identification number. Homeless is
defined as a person, who lives in the street for minimum 6 months and who has been
recorded by street workers appointed by the government. All homeless have to declare
his/her identification number when using the homeless hostel or coming to offices and
authorities. Data is collected by the local authorities and published on local levels and
generally for England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland.
4) Ireland ­ the method of so called official estimation made by local authority. This method
is criticised by specialists, because of an under-estimation of the real total.
5) Italy ­ less exact method. It is a method using the questionnaires within a general census.
It overlooks people living in extreme conditions. It is criticised by the NGO "Commissione
d'indagine sulla povert".
6) Belgium, Spain ­ the method is based on collecting data from social service providers
providing accommodation for the homeless. The method includes only those living in
hostels, not those in the streets. It is used also by S.A.D. in the Czech Republic.
7) The Denmark method is based on a "One Day Counting" of the homeless using hostels.
Once a year (one particular winter day), service providers count clients accommodated in
their hostels. So, the figure is exact, but again, it does not include people staying out of
the hostels. This method is used also in Luxembourg. Accommodation is on a very high
level in these two countries (Luxembourg and Denmark), so the error is negligible (there
are not many homeless living in streets). 18
16
Information about methods of homeless census in Europe : Edgar, Bill; Doherty, Joe; Meert, Henk: Review of
Statistics on Homelessness in Europe, European Observatory of Homelessness November 2003, Bruxelles:
FEANTSA 2003.
17
Avramov, Dragana: Les sans­abri dans l'Union Européenne, Bruxelles: FEANTSA 1995, str. 89.
18
The method for Homeless census Prague 2004 was inspired by Denmark method, it had to be adjusted to our
conditions, when demand is higher than provision.

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
8) Portugal, Greece ­ very inexact method based on the experience of professional workers
and their estimation. A similar method has been used in the Czech Republic.
5. 4. Method used in our project
We used the Denmark method of "One Day Census" with some elements of the French
method. We counted people accommodated in homeless hostels, those using day centers,
and people sleeping in various places all over Prague City. The Census did not include any
homeless accommodated in commercial hostels, in short term lodging, staying with friends
or relatives. The aim of the census was to map the situation of a target group ­ visible
homeless. The field counting did not embrace all places, which could serve as potential
"shelters" (nocležiště)19
. A different approach was adopted in that case as described below.
It is one day counting, in one particular winter evening within two hours, when groups of
professionals and Volunteers Census Counters counted homeless in each location
(according to the pre-prepared list of localities). Each locality included known and relatively
easy accessible homeless "shelters" (places, where homeless stay). For safety reasons
organisers did not include counting at places that are not easily accessible (e.g. no street
lighting, caves, channels etc.). The data was given by social workers and street workers or
the homeless themselves ­ self counting20
.
Census Counters also featured the public places, which are usual homeless points, for
instance non-stop snack bars, restaurants and gambling clubs. Census Counters also
checked large railway stations including some trains.
Some Census Counters checked metro station termini, junction and tram termini and
counted homeless sleeping on public transport vehicles. The Census Counters observed
homeless and recorded data on sheets using basic characteristics: gender and age. The
homeless were divided into three categories ­ young (up to 25 year), middle age (25 ­ 60
year), older (over 60 year).
At the same time, social service providers participating in the project, recorded numbers of
homeless coming to the night shelters, hostels and day centres.
5. 5. Timing
The winter time was decided, because the homeless fully used the social service
accommodation and the possibility of staying at day centres at night. So the high number of
19
,,Nocležiště" (shelter) it is a working term of places, that are inhabited by homeless for long or short periods ­
cellars, derelict houses, lofts, haylofts, channels, caves, sheds, garages etc.
20
Self counting ­ took place in localities that could not be checked by Census Counters. It means mainly
"shelters" (derelict houses, gardens, caves etc,). The number of homeless were brought by social workers
(kurátoři), street workers, Police and by the homeless themselves.

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
homeless was supposed to be recorded at these places. The homeless also seek "warmth"
on public transport vehicles, restaurants, pubs, railway stations etc.
The concrete date was set according to the long range weather forecast ­ from second half
of January to the end of February21.
The cold weather, with temperatures about -5 ­ 10°C,
suited the purpose of the project. The final date was set on Thursday 19th
February 2004.
Working days in the middle of the working week were considered as the most convenient.
The weekend and days close to the weekend could cause distortion, which, of course,
cannot be specified without experience and research.
The exact time was decided ­ evening hours ­ from 20:00 to 22:00. It is a time when the
homeless were coming to, or have already been at their "shelters" preparing themselves for
sleeping. The Census Counters could record the homeless at, or on their way to, these
"shelters". It is not too early, when the homeless are still moving from one place to another. It
is not too late, so we can avoid problems when Census Counters disturb someone sleeping.
The two hour period was decided in order to give sufficient time for Census Counters to
check their locality, and also in order to avoid duplicity ­ homeless cannot manage to be at
two or three places at the same time within two hours.
5. 6.Allocation
The homeless census embraced the following places:
  facilities providing services for homeless
  specified localities
  public transport vehicles
Facilities providing services for homeless were as follows:
  day centres
  night shelters
  residential houses and hostels
  half way houses
  other centres of social services
The Census Counters received a map with specified localities. They counted the homeless
in these localities including public transport vehicles:
  railway stations and its neighbourhood
  hypermarkets and supermarkets
  non-stop restaurants, pubs, bars and gambling clubs
  cinemas projecting free of charge (the film "Jesus").
21
December and the beginning of January could be impacted by Christmas time and New year. March isusually
warmer therefore less critical for homeless.

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
  places known as homeless "shelters"
  metro stations ­ mainly in the centre and its neighbourhood
  metro coaches (6 station termini)
  night trams (junction and termini).
Facilities providing service for homeless were chosen by participating organisations during
the beginning of the project. Localities and homeless "shelters" were being specified and
updated over the preparation period. Social workers from each Prague Borough, street
workers with the help of homeless people made up the list of homeless places. Census
Counters counted also the homeless at hospitals, prisons, psychiatric facilities, and medical
centres for alkohol effected people.
6. IMPLEMENTATION
The Homeless Census took place on 19th
February 2004. There were 242 Census Counters
participating in the counting. There were 82 localities and 21 tram stops and metro stations.
Census Counters gathered at St. Thomas Church at 18:00. They were given final
instructions and materials as follows:
  Census sheets
  maps of localities
  Volunteer Census Counter Identification Cards (cards were used as public transport
tickets)
  a list of centres collecting the sheets
  instructions for counting
  press release
A Telephone information link was set up for the Census Counters. Census sheets were
collected (Census Counters brought them) at following places by 23:00 the same day.
  Advisory office for homeless (roofless), Karoliny Světlé 7, Praha 1;
  Naděje, Bolzanova 7, Praha 1;
  Úřad městské části Praha 10, Vršovická 68, Praha 10;
  Redakce Nového Prostoru, Pod svahem 12, Praha 4;
  Arcidiecézní charita Praha, Pernerova 20, Praha 8;
  Armáda spásy, Tusarova 60, Praha 7.
The census sheets in day centres, hostels, residential houses, psychiatric facilities,
hospitals, prisons and medical centres for alcohol effected people were filled in by an

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
appointed member of staff (within two hours) and the sheets were handed over to the
collecting points the next day, Friday 20th
February 2004.
7. CENSUS OUTPUTS
7. 1. Review
7. 1. 1. Results22
The total number of homeless recorded within the census is 3.096 people23
, 2.662 men
(85,99%) and 434 women (14,01%). The Census Counters estimated the age of observed
homeless and divided them into three age categories. Graph no. 1 shows that majority of
homeless come within the category "25 ­ 60 year" (72,78%), then the category "up to 25
year" (14,20%) and finally "over 60 year" (8,48%), the Census Counters were not able to
estimate the age of 140 people (4,53%). Graph no. 2 shows the number of people
accommodated (bed capacity) 719 people (23,23%), in day centres 411 people (13,28%),
other institutions 98 people (3,17%) and on public transport vehicles 323 people (10,43%).
The field counting recorded 1.054 people (34,05%) and field self-counting 491 people
(15,85%) .
Absolutní počty mužů a žen podle věkové struktury
337
1954
231
140102
299
32 0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
do 25 25-60 60 ... nezjištěno
věková struktura
MUŽI
ŽENY
Graph No. 1
22
The deviations in total of relative figures (in text and tables) are given by rounding of relative figures.
23
The estimation of duplicity is 4%. It should avoid (minimise) counting one person twice.
Total men and women - age categories
Age structure
unidentifiedup to
men
women

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
Rozdělení podle místa sečtení bez duplicity
719
411
98
323
1054
491 Lůžka
Denní centra
Instituce
MHD
Terén sečtené
Terén samosčítání
Graf č. 2
7. 1. 2. Accommodation (beds)
There were 719 homeless recorded in accommodation facilities, it is 23,23% of the total
number. There were 610 men (84,84%) and 109 women (15,16%). Table 1 shows the
number of homeless staying in the various facilities within census time. There were 537
(74,69%) of people aged "25 - 60 year", 121 (16,83%) "up to 25 year" and 61 (8,48%) "over
60 year" (see graph 3).
organisation
total percentage
men
total
women
total total
men
total
women
total total
DOM 5 6 11 0,70 % 0,83 % 1,53 %
Naděje, P 16 16 0 16 2,23 % 0,00 % 2,23 %
Arcidiecézní charita Praha 24 18 42 3,34 % 2,50 % 5,84 %
Armáda spásy 152 22 174 21,14 % 3,06 % 24,20 %
MCSSP, Ubytovna 43 0 43 5,98 % 0,00 % 5,98 %
MCSSP, Noclehárna 42 0 42 5,84 % 0,00 % 5,84 %
Naděje, Na Slupi, P 2 0 13 13 0,00 % 1,81 % 1,81 %
Naděje, Krejcárek, P 8 100 0 100 13,91 % 0,00 % 13,91 %
Naděje, P 11, neplatiči 5 4 9 0,70 % 0,56 % 1,25 %
Naděje, P 11, noclehárna 45 0 45 6,26 % 0,00 % 6,26 %
Naděje, P 3, noclehárna 50 0 50 6,95 % 0,00 % 6,95 %
Naděje, P 10, dům 1/2 cesty 8 0 8 1,11 % 0,00 % 1,11 %
Naděje, P 10, senioři 24 0 24 3,34 % 0,00 % 3,34 %
Dům EZER, P 7 0 3 3 0,00 % 0,42 % 0,42 %
Společnou cestou, P 11 18 25 43 2,50 % 3,48 % 5,98 %
Emauzský dům 21 0 21 2,92 % 0,00 % 2,92 %
Kolpingův dům, P 8 0 15 15 0,00 % 2,09 % 2,09 %
Dům světla 57 3 60 7,93 % 0,42 % 8,34 %
Total 610 109 719 84,84 % 15,16 % 100,00 %
Table 1
Localities ­ without duplicity
Beds
Day centres
institutions
Public transport
Field counting
Self counting

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
Absolutní počty mužů a žen podle věkové struktury
102
451
57
19
86
4
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
do 25 25-60 60 ... věková struktura
MUŽI
ŽENY
Graph 3
7. 1. 3. Day centres
411 homeless, 13,28% from total number, were recorded at day centres. 337 men (82,00%)
and 74 women (18,00%). Table 2 shows the number of homeless staying in facilities. 335
(81,51%) people aged 25 - 60 year, 38 (9,25%) up to 25, and 38 (9,25%) over 60.
Day centre
total percentage
men
total
women
total
total
men
total
women
total total
MCSSP, Poradna POBP 37 11 48 9,00 % 2,68 % 11,68 %
Arcidiecézní charita Praha 20 2 22 4,87 % 0,49 % 5,35 %
Armáda spásy 67 21 88 16,30 % 5,11 % 21,41 %
Nový prostor 88 17 105 21,41 % 4,14 % 25,55 %
Naděje, P 1, Bolzanova, ml. 9 2 11 2,19 % 0,49 % 2,68 %
Naděje, P 1, Bolzanova 116 21 137 28,22 % 5,11 % 33,33 %
Total 337 74 411 82,00 % 18,00 % 100 %
Table 2
7. 1. 4. Institutions
The census also took place in certain institutions, where homeless were supposed to stay -
hospitals, psychiatric facilities, prisons, medical centres for alcohol effected people. There
were 98 homeless, it is 13,17% from total number, 96 men(97,96%) and 2 women (2,04%).
Table 3 shows the number of homeless staying at specific institutions. There were recorded
78 (79,59%) people aged 25 - 60, 11 (11,22%) up to 25, and 9 (9,18%) over 60.
institution
total percentage
men
total
women
total total
men
total
women
total total
Prison Pankrác 16 0 16 16,33 % 0,00 % 16,33 %
Custody Pankrác 19 0 19 19,39 % 0,00 % 19,39 %
Custody Prison Ruzyně 2 0 2 2,04 % 0,00 % 2,04 %
unidentifiedupto 25
Total men and women - age categories
men
women

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
Psychiatric institution Bohnice 46 2 48 46,94 % 2,04 % 48,98 %
Hospital- Krč 2 0 2 2,04 % 0,00 % 2,04 %
Hospital- Vinohrady 2 0 2 2,04 % 0,00 % 2,04 %
Hospital- Motol 1 0 1 1,02 % 0,00 % 1,02 %
Medical point for alcohol
effected 0 0 0 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,00 %
Hospital- Bulovka 3 0 3 3,06 % 0,00 % 3,06 %
Hospital- Na Františku 4 0 4 4,08 % 0,00 % 4,08 %
Psychiatric clinic, Ke Karlovu 1 0 1 1,02 % 0,00 % 1,02 %
Total 96 2 98 97,96 % 2,04 % 100 %
Table 3
7. 1. 5. Public transport
The Homeless were also recorded on the vehicles of the public transportation. The Census
Counters checked particular junction tram stops and metro termini stations. The output of
counting on public transport vehicles is not included with figures from the field counting and it
is placed as an independent item in the final figures.
323 homeless were recorded on the vehicles of the public transportation, it is 10,43% of the
total figure - 287 men (88,85%) and 36 women (11,15%). Table 4 shows the number of
homeless recorded at specific places. There were 255 (78,95%) people aged 25 to 60, 51
(15,79%) up to 25, and 12 (4,64%) over 60, the Census Counters were not able to estimate
the age of 2 persons (0,62 %).
Public Transport
(A+D ­ arrival a departure)
total percentage
men
total
Women
total
total
men
total
women
total
total
Liboc Divoká Šárka (20+26)
A+D
49 14 63 15,17 % 4,34 % 18,61 %
Petřiny (1+2+18) A+D 12 1 13 3,72 % 0,31 % 4,02 %
Bílá Hora (22+ 25) A+D 4 0 4 1,24 % 0,00 % 1,24 %
Malovanka (23+15) passing 4 1 5 1,24 % 0,31 % 1,55 %
Řepy (9+10) A+D 52 0 52 16,10 % 0,00 % 16,10 %
Kotlářka (4+7) A+D 9 4 13 2,79 % 1,24 % 4,02 %
Barrandov (12+14) A+D 6 2 8 1,86 % 0,62 % 2,48 %
Hostivař (22+26) A+D 21 0 21 6,50 % 0,00 % 6,50 %
Kubánské náměstí
(6+19+23+24) passing
12 0 12 3,72 % 0,00 % 3,72 %
Černokostelecká (11+7) passing 5 0 5 1,55 % 0,00 % 1,55 %
Spojovací (1+9+16) A+D 3 0 3 0,93 % 0,00 % 0,93 %
Lehovec (3+19+31) A+D 13 0 13 4,03 % 0,00 % 4,03 %
Vysočanská (8) + M + nádraží
Vysočany, A+D
3 0 3 0,93 % 0,00 % 0,93 %
Sídliště Ďáblice (10+17+24+136)
A+D
7 0 7 2,17 % 0,00 % 2,17 %
Střelničná (14+15+25) passing 12 0 12 3,72 % 0,00 % 3,72 %
Spořilov (11) A+D 3 0 3 0,93 % 0,00 % 0,93 %
A Dejvická A+D 19 3 22 5,98 % 0,93 % 6,82 %
A Skalka A+D 10 0 10 3,10 % 0,00 % 3,10 %
B Zličín A+D 7 0 7 2,17 % 0,00 % 2,17 %
B Černý Most A+D 31 11 42 9,59 % 3,41 % 13,00 %
C Háje A+D 5 0 5 1,55 % 0,00 % 1,55 %

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
Total 287 36 323 88,85 % 11,15 % 100,00 %
Table 4
7. 1. 6. The field counting ­ localities
The field counting took place at 83 localities of Prague Boroughs 1 ­ 18. Prague Boroughs
19 ­ 22 were not included. The social workers from these Prague Boroughs confirmed,
there were no homeless staying in these areas. Technically we were not able to ensure the
census in some Prague outlying areas.
Absolutní počty mužů a žen podle věkové struktury
115
598
81
116
34
93
17 0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
do 25 25-60 60 ... nezjištěno
MUŽI
ŽENY
Graf č. 4
Within the field counting there were 1.054
homeless recorded, it is 34,05% of the total figure.
- 910 men (86,34%) and 144 women (13,66%).
Graph 4 shows the age range - 691
(65,56%) aged 25 - 60, 149 (14,44%) up to
25, and 98 (9,30%) over 60. The Census
Counters were not able to estimate the age
of 116 people (11,01%). Table 5 shows the
number of homeless in each Prague
Borough. The highest number of homeless
was recorded in Prague 1. (21,44%) and
Prague 5 (13,19%), the lowest number of
homeless was recorded at Prague 16 and
Prague 18 (both 0,76%).
Table 5
7. 1. 7. The field self-counting
Praha
men
total
women
total
total
1 196 30 226
2 69 11 80
3 31 1 32
4 56 8 64
5 118 21 139
6 66 12 78
7 61 8 69
8 81 16 97
9 14 1 15
10 32 1 33
11 35 5 40
12 14 1 15
13 32 8 40
14 8 4 12
15 35 5 40
16 6 2 8
17 50 8 58
18 6 2 8
Total 910 144
1054
Total men and women ­ age categories
up to unidentified
men
women

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
The field counting was provided by the homeless themselves. It took place in the hard
accessible and risky localities.
We had to estimate the rate of duplicity24
, which is 4%, this is considered as standard
statistical deviation. 491 homeless were recorded within the field self-counting, it is 15,85%
of the total figure. 422 men (85,99%) and 69 women (14,01%). The age range was indicated
on the basis of statistical methods (previous data about age distribution), it means 357
(72,78%) aged 25 - 60, 70 (14,20%) up to 25, and 42 (8,48%) over 60, 22 people (4,53%)
the age was not estimated. Table 6 shows the number of homeless recorded within the self-
counting at each Prague Borough.
Prague Total %
1 28 5,48 %
2 77 15,07 %
3 30 5,87 %
4 25 4,89 %
5 79 15,46 %
6 63 12,33 %
7 97 18,98 %
8 26 5,09 %
9 39 7,63 %
10 9 1,76 %
11 20 3,91 %
12 0 0,00 %
13 6 1,17 %
14 3 0,59 %
17 5 0,98 %
18 0 0,00 %
duplicity estimated ­
4%
21 4 0,78 % 4 %
Total 511 100,00 % 491
Table 6
7. 2. Interpretation of the census results
The census outputs describes only basic characteristics of the target group. There is still
space for questions and reflections of different aspects of homelessness. The census
outputs include valid data, what are currently unique in the Czech Republic.
The first reflection comes out of the final figure. What does this figure mean? Is it a real
number of all the homeless in Prague? Is the number 3.096 positive or negative? Is this
figure alarming? The last questions must be answered by political representatives and state
authorities, because they are responsible for social politics and they decide on the priorities
in society.
24
to reduce the possibility that one person would be recorded twice ­ within field-counting and self-counting.

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
The homeless census was focussed on the target group, what Czech experts indicate as
"visible homeless". The project did not include potential and latent homeless which means
people living in insecure accommodation, e.g. commercial hostels, in flats without the
contract of lease, living at their relatives or friends. People living in insecure accommodation
can easily loose their life standard if they lose their job, or illness, or divorce etc. It is difficult
to recognise these groups of people and it requires close cooperation with state authorities,
local authorities, NGOs and the public. To find out the number of visible homeless is easier,
but the total number coming out of the census cannot be considered as a "real" number of all
the homeless in Prague.
The German census modul (see chap. 5. 3.), is considered as one of the most exact
methods. This method adds 2/5 to the total figure, which is the supposed objective figure
(state, situation). 3.096 homeless recorded within the homeless census in Prague can
represent 65% - 75% of the real number of homeless. Although the census was not able to
give the real number of homeless, it can be recognised as significant step forward. The
estimation made in the past oscillated across a very wide range ­ from hundreds to
thousands. The census showed also the fact, that many homeless are almost non-
contactable even by social and street workers. These homeless live in very extreme
conditions and social exclusion, they live at hardly accessible and hidden places e.g.
channels, heat pipe lines, air shafts, underground tunnel mazes, derelict houses etc. These
people do not use any social service or they consciously keep away from them. Therefore
there is no exact information describing this group of homeless. According to homeless
participating on census, there are hundreds of homeless living in the places mentioned
above.
The census showed, that only approximately 37% recorded homeless stayed in hostels and
homeless centres over the night-time period. Despite this, the occupancy of homeless
facilities was almost 100%. The rest, 63% of homeless could not have used the facilities
even if they had come. In the winter season 2003/2004 there were 800 beds for the visible
homeless in Prague. Approximately 2/3 of the capacity is used by long term accommodated
homeless involved into re-socialisation and integration programs. 1/3 of capacity is used by
short term accommodated people. There is a lack of beds for short term accommodated
homeless during the winter time. That cold be a reason why more than 10% of homeless
recorded within the census were seeking shelter and warmth on public transport vehicles.
Public transport workers, specially night tram drivers say that many homeless seek for
warmth on vehicles between 23:00 and morning hours during the winter time. It can seem
that there is high number of homeless using the public transport vehicles at nights, but this
can be caused by the low frequency of night trams.

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
Another issue emerges from the capacity. It is it's structure. As it was mentioned above, 2/3
of capacity is used by long term accommodated clients involved into re-socialisation and
integration programs. The capacity structure does not give much space to families with
children or to couples. There is not much space for female-homeless, who are treated with
much less respect from the public side than male homeless. The public is not open-minded
to female homeless. But women become homeless from the same reasons as men ­ loss of
family, various addictions and psychiatric diagnosis.
Women represent approximately 14% (men 86%) of the total number. But we can suppose
many women belong to latent homeless. Women probably prefer insecure family
relationships to life in the street. Insecure and non-functional relationship can ensure some
accommodation but on the other hand women are exposed to danger of domestic violence,
forced prostitution and other kinds of abuse.
Very significant question concerning to the age of homeless ensued from the census. More
than 23% of female homeless are younger than 25. If we have a look at the male homeless,
it is less than 13% up to 25.
The total number of homeless younger than 25 is 14%. As specialists state these young
homeless have only basic education, no family relationship, they are often mentally and
physically disabled with minimum ability to establish any relationship. Their limited abilities
hinder access to employment. Currently the number of young homeless with psychiatric
diagnosis is increasing.
The number of homeless over 60 is relatively low. It is approximately 8%, 7% of men and 1%
of women. It can be caused by a lower life span of homeless. Older homeless have difficulty
to find employment or to earn a living to ensure a life independent of other's help. There is a
lack of facilities providing care for elderly homeless. Homeless are rarely admitted to state
elderly homes (founded by the City of Prague Council) and they usually cannot afford their
stay.
The field census also gives the overview of a homeless fluctuation within Prague Boroughs.
The highest number of homeless was recorded in Prague 1 with about 21% of homeless,
then Prague 5 with about 13% and Prague 8 with approximately 9%. There are many places
like railway stations, shopping and entertainment centres and junction stops of public
transport, where homeless can fulfill the means of life.
8. CONCLUSION

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
The project is a continuation of previous activities. It should give wide information about
homelessness to the public and professional community. This project can help Prague
Authorities to recognise the situation and prepare a plan for the development of social
service for people exposed to social exclusion.
The first impulse for the project was given by the City of Prague Council. The document
produced from the project can serve for further development of the cooperation of involved
organisations and authorities. The outputs can help to find other ways of dealing with
homelessness.

HOMELESSNESS CENSUS
PRAHA 2004
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Avramov, Dragana: Les sans­abri dans l'Union Européenne, Bruxelles: FEANTSA 1995.
Edgar, Bill ­ Doherty, Joe ­ Meert, Henk: Review of Statistics on Homelessness in Europe,
European Observatory of Homelessness November 2003, Bruxelles: FEANTSA 2003.
Firdion, Jean­Marie: Les sans­abri et l'enqute statistique, in: Fondations, Revue
internationale, Les sans­abri, Paris: Le dossier, 1995.
Hradecká, Vlastimila ­ Hradecký, Ilja: Bezdomovství ­ extrémní vyloučení, Praha: Naděje
1996.
Hradecký, Ilja: Jak sčítat ryby v moři, referát na konferenci V Praze doma bez domova,
Praha 2003.
Obadalová, Miroslava: Přístup k bydlení sociálně ohrožených skupin obyvatel, Praha:
VÚPSV 2001.
Pellegrino, Mauro: Uno su mile? in: Rassegna di servizio sociale No. 3/1997, Roma: EISS
1997.
Sčítání lidu, domů a bytů Základní informace o rodinách a domácnostech v České republice
získané ze SLDB 2001, in:
http://www.czso.cz/csu/edicniplan.nsf/otisk/41n2­02­ziskane_ze_sldb_2001­
metodicke_vysvetlivky
http://www.czso.cz/csu/edicniplan.nsf/publ/A4C54C09A904E412C1256CD80040ED28/$
File/strana_12.pdf
Usnesení Rady hlavního města Prahy číslo 1035 ze dne 8. 7. 2003 k návrhu na řešení
aktuálních problémů zjevného bezdomovství v Praze.
Ústavní zákon č. 2/1993 Sb., Listina základních práv a svobod.
Zjevné bezdomovství v Praze ­ Analýza a návrhy řešení problematiky pro zimní období
2003/2004, Praha: MCSSP 2003.