Srna MANDIČ Stanovanje, družina in otrok: nekaj problemov v tranzicijskem obdobju^ Housing, Family and Children: Some of the Issues in the Transitional Period^ št. 28, 29/1995 Uvod Obdobje t.i. tranzicije je čas, ki go zaznamujejo velike in temeljne spremembe. Spreminja se sistem stanovanjske oskrbe, nekateri prejšnji akterji so odpravljeni, novi pa so še v različnih fazah implementacije. Spreminjajo se pravila v delovanju posameznih akterjev in njihovi viri. Poglavitna pozornost strokovne javnosti je sedaj namenjena prav vprašanju oblikovanja sistema - aii in do kolikšne stopnje so nove institucije že oblikovane in opremljene s potrebnimi viri. Veliko manj pozornosti je namenjene samim rezultatom delovanja sistema in posamičnih institucij ter vrednotenju posamičnih akterjev z vidika učinkovitosti in uspešnosti pri doseganju ciljev v zvezi s stanovanjsko preskrbo prebivalstva. V tem prispevku si tako vprašanje zastavljamo s specifičnega vidika življenjskih razmer v družinah in pri otrocih. Pri sedanji obravnavi stanovanjskih razmer prebivalstva in njegovih možnosti za uporabo institucionaliziranih stanovanjskih virov je zlasti problematično to, da ni na voljo primernih podatkov, Z odpravo prejšnje institucionalne strukture, v kateri se je oblikovala in izvajala stanovanjska politika, je izgubil svoj pomen tudi prejšnji informacijski sistem, novega pa še nimamo. Stanovanjska politika tako v novih okoliščinah še nima izoblikovanih svojih ciljev in ni določila specifičnih problemov in ogroženih skupin, ki jih je treba spremljati. Brez tega pa Introduction Major and fundamental changes are characteristic of the "transition" period. The system of housing provision is being changed, some of the former institutions have been a!x)-lished and some new ones are still in difTerent phases of implementation. llie n-iles of the institutions and Uieir sources are changing. The attention of the experts focuses mainly on Üie creation of tlie new system and the important question is how far are the new institutions established and eqLiipped with the necessary resources. Much less attention is devoted to the actual results of the operation of tliis system and institutions and to tlie evaluation of individual agents from the standpoint of efficiency and perfonnance in acliieving the goals related to housing provision, lliis paper deals with the issue alx)ut specific aspects of Uie living conditions of families and children. 'llie lack of aclecjuate data is the main proi:)Iem in the present consideration of tlie population's housing circumstances and theii" opportunities to use institutionalised housing sources. With the elimination of the fomier institutional structure of housing policy, the former infomiation system was also abolished while a new one has not yet been established. In the new circumstances, housing policy has not yet set its objectives or defined tlie specific problems and Inrget groups to be monitored ut Stanovaiya Staiiovojyska polilika Tržilo gospodarslix) Družina Slove-nija Avtoiicä obravnava proces "tranzicije" v stwiovwyski sferi predvsem z vidiJca družine in otrok. Ugotavlja, da Je prehodiio obdobje zelo prizadelo prav najemni stonoLian/sfci seklor in s tem tildi njegove potencialne uporabnike. Housing Housing policy Market economy Family Slovenia Tbe author deals with the process of transition in the multifamily housing sector paiiicularly wiiJi regard to the family and children. She contends that the transitional period has had agreateßect on the rented sector and thus also qßected potential users. no. 28,29/1995 ne moremo ocenjevati stanovanjske politike niti njenih Inštrumentov z vidika uspešnosti in učinkovitosti pri doseganju ciljev v zvezi z družino in otrokom. Te okoliščine so pomembne tudi pri analizi sedanje stanovanjske preskrbe družin in otrok v Sloveniji, saj moramo v zvezi s njimi upoštevati delne, večkrat pa tudi le posredne podatke. Družina in otrok v stanovanjski politiki -normativna ureditev Ali stanovanjska politika s svojimi Instrumenti zagotavlja družini in otroku posebne ugodnosti oziroma podporo? Najprej poglejmo zakonske določbe pri dveh trenutno najpomembnejših Inštrumentih stanovanjske politike: a) Socialno najemno stanovanje: merila upravičenosti do socialnega stanovanja upoštevajo stanovanjske razmere, število ožjih družinskih članov, skupni prihodek na družinskega člana, premoženjsko stanje in socialno-zdravstvene razmere, prednost pa imajo družine z več otroki, družine z manjšim številom zaposlenih, mlade družine, invalidi in družine z invalidnim članom. b) Ugodna stanovanjska posojila Stanovanjskega sklada RS: med tistimi, ki so tudi po drugih me-rilih upravičeni do posojila (zlasti kadar gre za nakup prvega stanovanja, zadosten dohodek za odplačevanje posojila ter za kritje preostalih 60 % vrednosti stanovanja), naj bi imele prednost^ "mlade družine, družine z več otroki, družine z manjšim številom zaposlenih, mladi, invalidi in družine z invalidnim članom". Glede na navedeno lahko ugotovimo, da imajo novoosnovane družine (mlade družine) ter tiste z našteti-, ml problemi prednost, ki je tudi zakonsko določena. Prednost Imajo tudi družine z več otroki, vendar otrok kot tak nI posebej opredeljen; sklepamo, da je to določilo v zvezi s populacijsko politiko (nagrajevanje tistih, ki k številu prebivalstva prispevajo čim večje število otrok), ne this it is not possible to evaluate housing policy and its instruments in terms of perfoiTnance and efficiency in achieving its objectives concerning tlie family and child. Hiese circumstances are also important for the analysis of present housing provision for families and children in Slovenia because we must use partial and often indirect data. The family and the Child in Housing Policy -a Regulatory Framework Does housing policy provide (lie family and child with special advantages or support? Let us first consider tlie legislative provisions concerning the two most important in-stiximents of housing policy at the momenü a) Social housing: the criteria for eli-gibility^ to social housing include housing conditions, the number of immediate family membei"s, total income per fainily member and social and health conditions; priority is given to families with more children, families with fewer employed members. young families, disabled persons and families with a disabled member. b) Favourable housing loans from the HoLising Fund of the Republic of Slovenia: among those who are entitled to loans according to the other criteria (that tlie loan is for the purchase of a first home, that tliey have adequate income to repay the loan and cover the remaining 60 % of Uie value of the property), priority"^ is given to "young families, families with more children, families witli fewer employed members, young people. disabled persons and families with a disabled member". Taking all this into account it may be concluded that newly formed families ^oung families) and those with the problems mentioned above are given priority by the legislation. Priority is also given to families with more children than one. Let us as-smne that this provision is linked št. 28,29/1995 pa tudi z družinsko politiko, ki skuša zagotavljati sprejemljive bivalne razmere otroku kot takemu - torej tudi takrat, ko ima družina samo enega otroka. Seveda pa ostaja še vprašanje, koliko omenjena prednostna merila dejansko prispevajo k boljši stanovanjski preskrbi različnih tipov družin in otrok. Prvi pomislek ima-mo glede samega obsega teh programov in razpoložljivosti dobrine, ki jo alocirajo. Menimo, da» sorazmerna prednost za pridobitev socialnega stanovanja po letu 1991 ni Imela vidnih rezultatov, saj je biio v dveh letih in pol v državi na novo dodeljenih le nekaj več kot 300 socialnih stanovanj''. To pa je bistveno manj kot pred sistemsko spremembo leta 1991, ko je bilo letno dodeljenih okoli 1700 solidarnostnih stanovanj, zato menimo, da so se kljub omenjenim prednostnim merilom možnosti za pridobitev stanovanja pri tem delu prebivalstva bistveno zmanjšale. Tako smo z Ljubljansko stanovanjsko anketo® ugotovili, da 1920 ljubljanskih iskalcev stanovanj izpolnjuje vsa zakonsko dolo-" čena merila upravičenosti do socialnega stanovanja, vendar stanovanj ni. Poleg tega ugotavljamo tudi splošno zmanjšanje števila razpo-ložljvih najemnih stanovanj, saj delodajalec ni več odgovoren za stanovanjsko oskrbo svojih zaposlenih (prejšnji stanovanjski skladi delovnih organizacij), pridobivanje neprofitnih najemnih stanovanj pa je šele v zametku.. Drug pomislek pa imamo v zvezi s součinkovanjem. različnih prednostnih meril. Pri tem gre za vprašanje, kakšen pomen imajo prednostna merila za mlade družine, družine z otroki ter družine s socialnimi in zdravstvenimi težavami v primerjavi z drugimi prednostnimi merili in izločilnimi pogoji. Nekaj takih problemov pri prednostnih merilih^ za pridobitev socialnega stanovanja je nakazala Ljubljanska stanovanjska anketa. Naj navedem problem, da so starši mladoletnega otroka zaradi neprimernega stanovanja oddali v rejništvo oziroma v zavod. Te okoliščine prinesejo enako število prednostnih točk (72 točk) kot kletno ali podstrešno stanovanje wiUi Uie population policy (Lo reward Lhose who contribute the highest niiniber of children to the population) and not the fajiiily policy which is Liying to provide a:c-ceptable housing conditions for eveiy child ~ even if the family has only child. Tlie question, however, remains as to what extent do these criteria actually contribute Lowaj-ds better housing provision for different types of families and children? Our first consideration is related to Uie scope of these programmes and the availability of the resources Uiey ai-e allocating. In our opinion the relative priority for the entiy to social housing after 1991 did not produce any obvious, results, since only slighlly over 300 new social housing uniLs were allocated in Slovenia in two and a half yeai-s.^ Hiis is considerably less Uian the figure before Uie system was changed in 1991 when around 1,700 solidariLy housing units were allocated annually. 'Hierefore we believe Uiat in spite of Uie priority ciiteria mentioned alcove Llie possibilities for obtaining housing have been significantly reduced for Ulis section of Ihe population. The Ljubljćma Housing Sui-vey4 has shown Lhat 1,920 people looldng for housing in Ljubljana saLisfy all Üie criteria for eligibility to social housing, but housing is not available. Additionally we find Lhat the amount of available rental housing has decreased because employers are no longer responsible for providing housing to employees (Lhe fonner compajiy housing funds) and Lhe acquisiLion of non-prolìL rental housing is sLill in its eaj'ly stages Our second consideraLion refers Lo Llie coexisLence of differenL prioriLy criteria and Lhe relative weight of priority criteria for young families, families wiUi children and families witli social and health problems, as compared to oüier prioriLy criteria and eligibiliLy. The Ljubljana Housing Sui-vey has indicated some of Lhe problems concerning prioriLy criteria® for Lhe acquisiUon of social housing. The IlrsL problem concerns yoimg children senL Lo foster pa-renLs because their pai'enLs live in no. 28, 29/1995 (ó4 točk) z nadstandardno visokim stropom (8 točk). Zakonodajalec je torej manjšim ar[~iitekturnim nevšečnostim v stanovanju pripisal enak pomen kot stanju, ko je zaradi neprimernega stanovanja družina dezintegrirana. Menimo, da je ne samo ta ukrep, temveč tudi takšno točkovanje povsem v nasprotju s' predpostavkami družinske politike: ta bi morala zagotavljati razmere, v katerih do takšnih ločitev otrok od staršev sploh ne bi prihajalo, že nastale podobne razmere pa bi morala prednostno reševati. Podatkov o obsegu tega pojava pri nas nima-rrio, v Ljubljani pa smo z anketo ugotovili 64 podobnih primerov. Tudi trajna bolezen, povezana s slabimi stanovanjskimi razmerami (tuberko-loza in astma), prinaša nesorazmerno nizko število prednostnih točk. Tabela 1: Izbrani sLanovanJsla kazalci v Sloveniji in treh državah Ev- inadequate housing condillons. These circumstances are awarded Uie same number of prioriLy points (72 points) as a basement or attic dwelling (64 points) with a ceiling height above the standard (8 points). Thus the legislative body has attributed the same significance to minor architectural disadvantages as it has to situations where a family is broken up because of in-adeqLiate housing. We believe that tliis, measure and such weight con-ti-adict the aim of tlie family policy: it should establish conditions whereby such separations of children and parents do not occm" and where they have already occurred, fmd-ing a solution should be given the highest priority. There is no data on the scale of this phenomenon across the countiy, but in Ljubljana the Table 1: The selected hoiisiiig indicators in Slovenia and in three EU countries in 1991 Povprečno štev. članov gospodinjstva / Average household size Povprečno štev. $ob v stanovanju / Average number of rooms per dwelling Povprečna površina stanovanja (v m ) / Average useful floor space (m ) GRČIJA/GREECE 3.1 3.8 79.6 ŠPANIJA/SPAIN 3.3 4.8 85.7 PORTUGALSKA / PORTUGAL 3.1 3.6 84 SLOVENIJA/SLOVENiA 3.1 2.6 69 Viri: za dežele Evropske skupnosti- Who is Who in Housing in the European Community, OTB Research Institute for Policy Sciences and Technology and European Networl< for Housing Research; Delft,1994; povzeto iz tabel za posamezne države v danem vrstnem redu na str 62, 75, 163, ter Statistics on Housing in the European Community 1992; Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and the Environment, The Hague; str 40 in 48; za Slovenijo - Statistični letopis RS 1993, preračunano po podatkih na str.250; ocena za podatke popisa 1991 v Nacionalnem stanovanjskem programu-Sintezno gradivo za osnutek; MOP 1991; str.45. Opombe: pri podatku o številu sob je treba upoštevati definicije "sobe" v različnih državah, saj ponekod sem sodi tudi kuhinja. Kuhinja šteje med sobe, če je večja kot? nf v Grčiji in večja kot 4n^ v Španiji in na Portugalskem (Statistics of Housing, že citirano); v Sloveniji kuhinje nismo šteli kot sobo. Source: for the EC countries r- Who's Who in Housing in the European Community, OTB Research Institute for Policy Sciences and Technology and European NeMork for Housing Research; Delft, 1994; taken from the tables for individual countries in the given order on pp. 62, 75. 163, and Statistics on Housing in the European Community 1992; Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and the Environment, The Hague; pp. 40 and 48; for Slovenia - Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Slovenia 1993, calculated according to data on p. 250; the estimate for the data from the national census in 1991 in the National Housing Programme - Synthesis material for the draft; Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning 1991;p. 45. Notes: With respect to the data on the number of rooms the definition of the term "room" in different countries must be taken into account since sometimes the kitchen is counted as a room. The kitchen is counted as a room if it exceeds 7 n^ in Greece and 4 nž in Spain and Pođugal (Cf. Statistics on Housing); in Slovenia the kitchen is not counted as a room. št. 28, 29/1995 Stanovanjske razmere in stanovanjski standard Kot je prikazano v tabeli 1, se raven stanovanjskega standarda glede komunalne opremljenosti stanovanj v Sloveniji bistveno ne razlikuje od držav Evropske unije, temveč glede stanovanjskih površin, Slovenija dokaj zaostaja za državami, ki imajo podoben družbeni proizvod: povprečno število sob v stanovanju in povprečna velikost stanovanja so tam znatno višje, čeprav je število oseb v stanovanju približno enako. Kakšen pa je položaj specifičnih skupin prebivalstva glede nezadostne stanovanjske površine? V tabeli 2 so navedeni podatki o tem, kako pogost je problem sta nova nj- Tabela 2: Odstotek anketirancev v prenaseljenem stanovaiyu SLiivey has identified 64 cases. We shoLild also mention Uiat chronic illnesses related to poor housing condiUons (such as tuberculosis and asthma) are awarded a clis-propcrlionately small amount of priority points, too. Housing Conditions As shown in Table 1, Uie standai'd of housing in tenns of public utilities provided does not difler significantly in Slovenia from that of in EU countries. This does not hold for useful floor space. Slovenia lags some way behind tJiose countries witli a comparable GDP: the average number of rooms Table 2: Percentage of interviewees VSI ANKETIRANCI / ALL INTERVIEWERS % N 40.5 563 ä) O) < « o S tn 15-24 let/year 36.9 82 25-34 let/year 60.5 107 35-44 let / year 43,8 146 45-54 let/year 34.3 105 55-64 let/year 24.6 65 65 let in več / year + 29.3 58 Q-ffl^ 0 0 « s ® samsko/single 59.5 37 dvojica brez otrok / couple without children 17.7 96 enoroditeljsko / single parent 57.6 59 dvoroditeljsko / two parents 41.8 371 O O c ä b fi> o o >- m > = o to brez otrok / without children 37.6 141 en / one child 54.8 115 dva / two children 36.2 259 tri / three children 34.3 35 štiri in već/four-I- 46.2 13 Vir podatkov: Anketa Kvaliteta življenja v Sloveniji 1991. Povzeto in preračunano po: Mandič: Sociološka presoja zasnov nacionalnega stanovanjskega programa, 1991, str. 22. Podatki zajemajo le tisti del reprezentativnega vzorca prebivalstva, ki živi v mestnem naselju in ki ne žive v razširjenem gospodinjstvu. Opomba: za prenaseljeno šteje tisto stanovanje, v katerem je razmerje med številom oseb in sob takšno, da na dve osebi pride manj kot ena spalnica, pri čemer se dnevna soba ne šteje kot spalnica. To merilo je tudi zakonsko določeno kot 'primerno stanovanje". Source: Sun/ey on the Quality of Life in Slovenia 1991. Taken from and calculations based on Mandič: Sociological Evaluation of the Outlines for the National Housing Programme. 1991, p. 22. The data comprises only the part of the representative population sample living- in urban settlements and not those living in extended households. Note: An overcrowded dwelling is a dwelling in which the ratio between the number of persons and rooms results in two persons having less than one bedroom, whereby the living room does not count as a bedroom. This criteria is also defined in the legislation as a "suitable dwelling". no. 28, 29/1995 ske prenaseljenosti. Očitno je, da so temu problemu najbolj izpostavljene predvsem kohorte v starosti 25-34 let, to po je obdobje, v katerem se družine največkrat oblikujejo, Prenaseljenost je tudi velik problem med enoroditeljskimi družinami, med družinami pa so glede na število otrok najbolj prizadete tiste, v katerih imajo le enega otroka. Vendar pa se pri nekaterih delih prebivalstva problemi glede neprimernega stanovanjskega standarda izraziteje pojavljajo in intenzivirajo. Tako smo z Ljubljansko stanovanjsko anketo med 5500 iskalci stanovanj ugotovili tudi naslednje: kuhinjo, ki ni tudi stalni spalni prostor, ima le dobra polovica iskalcev, pri kar polovici iskalcev ima otrok, starejši od-ene-ga leta, stalno ležišče v spalnici staršev, druga polovica iskalcev brez pa nima otrok ali pa Imajo otroci ločen spalni prostor; 40 % iskalcev ima na osebo 8 m^ povprečne stanovanjske površine ali manj, kar sicer velja za prag patološke prenaseljenosti. Med iskalci je prevladovalo predvsem mlajše prebivalstvo, saj je bila njihova povprečna starost 32 let, 66 % iskalcev pa je imelo vsaj enega otroka. Stanovanjski status in problemi avtonomnega in vamega uživanja stanovanja v Sloveniji se pogosto pojavlja, da mlajše polnoletne kohorte prebival-stva nimajo samostojnega stanovanja ali pa si niso pridobile avtonomnega stanovanjskega statusa, marveč prebivajo v stanovanju staršev ali drugih sorodnikov. Ta pojav uporabljamo kot kazalnik neugodnega položaja mlajšega prebivalstva, saj posamezniku ne zagotavlja avtonomnega nadzora nad stanovanjem, pri odraslih osebah pa ovira tudi ustanavljanje samostojnih gospodinjstev. Podatki o razširjenosti tega pojava so podani v tabeli 3. Pri tem je treba opozoriti, da tu uporabljamo takšno klasifikacijo stanovanjskega statusa, kije primerna za merjenje obrav- per dwelling and Uie average size of dwellings are considerably larger in these countries although the number of pei"sons per dwelling is almost the same. What is the situation of specific population groups with respect to inadequate useful floor space? Table 2 contains the data on tlie frequency of overcrowded dwellings. It is obvious that the groups aged between 25 and 34, which is also the period when families are most frequently fonned, are most exposed to this problem. Overcrowded dwellings represent a great problem for single parent families, '^fhe most affected families are fajnilles with only one child. However, in certain parts of tlie population the problems of inadequate housing are more evident and intensified. 'Hius the Ljubljana Housing Survey which included 5.500 people looking for dwellings has also shown tlie follov/ing: only half of these people have a kitchen which is not also used as a pennanent bedroom area: in half of these families a child has apennanentbed in his/herparents* bedroom: the oUier half have no children or their children have a separate bedroom, 40 % have 8m2 or less of average useful floor space per person - which is considered to be the threshold of pathological overcrowding. A:nong those looking for dwellings most were young, with an average age of 32. and 66 % had at least one child. Tenure and Problems of Independent and Secure use of Dwellings It is veiy common in Slovenia for young adults to live with their parents or oUier relatives rather than in homes of their ov/n, as householders in Üieir own right. This phenomenon can be used as an indicator of the unfavourable situation young people fmcl tliemselves in. Individuals do not have autonomous control over the place where Uiey live and young adults are prevented from establishing independent households. št. 28,29/1995 navanega pojava in se razlikuje od kiosifikacije, ki jo običajno uporabljamo. Običajno namreč prikazujemo lastniško strukturo stanovanjskega sklada, v njej pa so zastopane naslednje kategorije: lastno stanovanje, javno / socialno najemno, privatno najemno in zadružno stanovanje. Naša klasifikacija pa upošteva pravni položaj posameznika, kije opredeljen tako: med "najemnike" spadajo tisti, ki imajo najemni pravni položaj (oni ali pa njihov partner); med "(so)lastnike" tisti, ki so sami (so)lastniki ali pa njihovi partnerji; "pri sorodnikih" pa pomeni, da posameznik prebiva pri lastnih ali partnerjevih sorodnikih. Takšna klasifikacija pa je seveda primerna le za odrasle osebe. Če neavtonomni stanovanjski status uporabimo kot kazalnik priložnosti za ustanavljanje novih samostojnih gospodinjstev in družin, se lahko vprašamo, ali seje ta status v obdobju tranzicije spremenil. Po podatkih ankete Kvaliteta življenja v Sloveniji, ki so podani v tabefi 3, se je ta pojav v zadnjem desetletju zelo razširil. To je bilo najočitneje med kohortami v starosti 25-34 let: pred desetimi leti jih je imelo tak status 30 %, leta 1994 pa kar 41 %. Iz tega sklepamo, da so se v obdobju tranzicije možnosti za pridobitev stanovanja, obenem pa tudi možnosti za ustvarjanje novih družin, zelo zmanjšale. V obdobju tranzicije se je občutno zmanjša! delež najemnikov, kar vi- Tabela 3:SLnücliirastaroslnü\ kategorij prebivalstva po stanovanjskem statusu v letili 1984 in 1994 (u %) Tlie data on the scale of Ulis phenomenon is shown in Table 3. Note that we have Lisecl a tenure classification here which is suitable for measuring tliis particular phenomenon. Ulis is not the classification which we usually apply. Nonnally we present the ownership stiaicture of housing and include the following categories: home - ownership, public / social rental, private renlal and co-operative housing. Our classification takes into account the individual's legal tenure whereby we distinguish between "tenants" having a leased legal tenure (themselves or tlieir partners); "(co-jowners" who aj'e themselves or whose partners are (co-)owners; "wlüi relatir ves" means Uiat an individuial lives with relatives or with a partner's relatives. This classification is, of course, suitable only for adults. If we use the non-autonomous tenure as an indicator of Uie opportunity for tlie establishment of new independent households and families we can ask ourselves whetlier this tenure has changed during the transition period. According to the data from tlie Quality of Life in Slovenia survey, presented in Table 3. this phenomenon has increased over the last decade. Tliis is most evident among people aged between 25 and 34: ten years ago only 30 % had Ihis type of tenure; in 1994 tliis had risen to as many as 41 %. One may conclude tliat housing opportunities and chances for new household fonnalion have significantly Table 3: Age groups according to ieiuire in the years 1991 and 1994 (in %l N^emnik/ Tenant (so)lastnik/ Home owner and co/owner Pri sorodnikih / Residing in relative's residence Drugo / Else 1984 1994 1984 1994 1984 1994 1984 1994 15-24 letVyear 6,2 2.4 7.7 6.8 84.9 87.7 1.2 3.1 25-34 let/year 31.0 9.8 34.5 45.5 29.9 40.9 4.8 3.4 35-44 let/year 34.2 10.4 55.1 77.8 9.6 10.0 1.1 1.7 45-54 let/year 21.6 5.4 72.7 86.1 4.4 7.0 1.3 1.5 55 let in vec/year + 21.0 8.4 68.1 80.9 9.9 7.9 1.0 . 2.8 Opomba: *!eta 1984:18-24 let. Vir podatkov: Anketa Kvaliteta življenja leta 1984in 1994; podatki za leto 1994souteženi zRGHutežmi. Note: 'in 1984:18-24 Source: The Quality of Life survey in 1984 and 1994; the data for 1994 are weighted with RGH weights. no. 28, 29/1995 dimo tudi v tabeli 3. V celotnem skladu stanovanj so se najemno stanovanja skrčila s 33 % v letu 1991 na 12 % v letu 1994. Menimo, da je tolikšno zmanjšanje števila na-jem-nih stanovanj povzročilo, da so se stanovanjske priložnosti mlajšega prebivalstva zmanjšale. Domnevamo, da lastniška stanovanja niso mogla v celoti kompenzirati izpada cenovno dosegljivejših , najemnih stanovanj. Tudi opozorila o potrebni "normalizaciji" (Lavrač, 1994) izražajo to, da takšna lastniška struktura stanovanj ni najboljša. Poleg obsega pa se je spremenila tudi kakovost najemnih stanovanj. Najprej se je s privatizacijo zmanjšala kakovost najemnega sklada, saj so ostala predvsem manjša in slabše opremljena stanovanja (Stanovnik,1994). Kakovost najemnega stanovanja pa seje spremenila tudi drugače; zmanjšali sta se varnost in trajnost uporabe stanovanja ("security of tenure"). Prej je bilo najemno (družbeno) stanovanje sinonim za trajno uporabo stanovanja in sorazmerno varnost, saj je prihajalo do odpovedi najemnega razmerja le izjemoma, najemnine v družbenih stanovanjih pa so bile regulirane In nizke. Po letu 1991 je to ostalo značilno za socialna in neprofitna najemna stanovanja (izjema je nedavno povišanje neprofitnih najemnin), vendar so se tema dvema kategorijama pridružile tudi druge, manj varne in cenovno dosegljive oblike najemnega stanovanja: službeno in profitno najemno stanovanje ter najem dela stanovanja, ki je last fizične osebe (prej znano kot podnajem). Tako sedaj najemno stanovanje vključuje oblike, ki segajo od cenovno zmernih in varnih do zelo neugodnih oblik, pri katerih je pravna zaščita minimalna ali pa je sploh ni.. V zvezi s tem se kažejo naslednji problemi: • Del najemnikov je povsem zunaj zakonske zaščite, saj nimajo sklenjenih najemnih pogodb. Ocenjujemo, da je glede na celotno število število najemnikov takih primerov 18 % (Anketa Kvaliteta življenja v Sloveniji). Med iskalci stanovanj je to število znatno višje: po podatkih Ljub- decreased during Uie transition period. In Lhe transition period the proportion of tenants has considerably decreased as is evident from Table 3. 'llie proportion of rental dwellings in total housing stock decreased from 33 % in 1991 to 12 % in 1994. In our opinion this reduction resulted in less opportunities for young people to obtain housing. We believe Uiat home - ov/nership cannot completely compensate for the lack of afiprdable rental housing. This is also expressed in the warnings about the present tenui-e strticture and tlie necessary "normalisation" (I^vrac. 1994). Along witli the reduction in the amount of available rental housing there has also been a change in its quality. Mostly smaller and lower quality units remained unsold after privatisation (Stanovnik. 1994).'llie quality of rental housing has changed in oÜier ways too: the security of tenure has been limited. Rental (socially-owned) housing used to be a synonym for tlie permanent use of a dwelling and for relative security, because tenancy could only be tenninated in exceptional cases and rents were regulated and low. After 1991 this remained characteristic of social and non-profit rental housing (the exception being Uie recent Increase in non-profit rents) but these categories were joined by other less secure and less favourably priced fonns of rental housing: company housing, profit rental housing and sub - letting. HiLis rental housing now includes types of housing ranging from the moderately priced and secure to the exti-emely umfavourable where legal protection is minimal or does not exist at all. Linked with this are the following problems: • Some tenants ai-e completely without legal protection, because they have not signed rental contracts. According to our estimates 18 % of Uie total number of tenants fall into this category (Quality of Life in Slovenia survey). Among Üiose looking for št. 28,29/1995 Ijanske stanovanjske ankete je brez pogodbe 36 % najemnikov iskalcev, pogodbo za določen čas in neregulirano najemnino pa ima 47 % najemnikov iskalcev. • Delovanje institucij, ki so zakonsko predvidene za varstvo najemnikov, ni deležno nikakršne pozornosti in poročanja, čeprav se pri njihovem zagonu nedvomno pojavljajo hude težave. Tu je najprej problem preprečevanja "oderuških najemnin" v najemnih stanovanjih, ki nimajo neprofitne najemnine. Potrebne podatke v zvezi s tem naj bi zagotavljali občinski registri stanovanj, ki pa jih šele vpeljujejo. Nadalje, neznana sta usoda in delovanje občinskih svetov za varstvo pravic najemnikov, ki jih naj bi ustanovili. V Ljubljani, kjer je največje število najemnikov, takega sveta, recimo, še ni. • Subvencioniranje najemnin se je po letu 1991 znatno zmanjšalo: leto 1990 je to obliko podpore prejemalo 21000 gospodinjstev^, leta 1995 pa - po sicer nepopolnih podatkih® - le 1170. Sistem subvencioniranja najemnin je usmerjen le k majhnemu številu prejemnikov denarne pomoči, ki jim pomeni to edini in dopolnilni vira preživljanja, ne zagotavlja pa tega, da bi stanovanjska najemnina ostala v mejah, ki bi bile za dohodke v gospodinjstvu še sprejemljive. Zatoje del gospodinjstev najemnikov še naprej izpostavljen nerazumno visokim stanovanjskim stroškom, ki v sistemu socialnih transferjev še vedno ni priznan, čeprav lahko bistveno spremeni dohodkovni položaj gospodinjstva. Nujna stanovanjska pomoč, ki bi družini zagotavljala nastanitev v hudi stanovanjski stiski, v sistemu socialne varnosti ni institucionalizirana, čeprav sta deložacija in tudi odpoved najemnega razmerja ne samo zakonita, marveč ukrepa, kiju tudi uporabljajo. Potreba po takem inštrumentu v stanovanjski politiki pa je še zlasti izrazita med tranzicijo, ko delovanje relevantnih institucij še ni utečeno (sveti za zaščito najem- housing Ulis fìgLire is considerably higher: according to the data from the LjLibljana Housing Survey, 36 % of Uiose looking for rental housing have no contracts and 47 % have a contract for a liniiled period and unregulated rent. • No attention is devoted to (and no reports ai'e written on) the functioning of institutions being legally inti-oduced to monitor and protect tenant* rights, despite the fact that there are undoubtedly many dilTiculties in tlie initial phases of the development of Uie-se institutions. The first problem relates to the prevention of "exorbitant rents" in rental housing which does not have a non-pi-ofit rent. 'ITie municipal housing registers which are being introduced should provide the necessary data. We do not Imow much about tJie functioning of municipal councils witli respect to the protection of tenant' rights. In Ljubljana, for example, where the number of tenants is highest, such a council has not yet been established. • Since 1991 there are have been considerably less subsidies for rents; in 1990, 21,000 households^ received Üiis fonn ofsup-port, in 1995 - according to incomplete data® - the figure was only 1,170. llie system of subsidised rents is orientated to-wai'ds a small number of recipients of cash assistance for which this is their only and or supplemenlaiy income but it does not ensure that the rent remains witiiin Uie limits acceptable for tlie income in a household. Therefore a number of tenant households are still exposed to imreasonably high housing costs which ai-e not recognised by the system of social tiansfers, even though tliese costs may significantly change the disposable income of a household. • Urgent housing assistance which could provide accommodation for families with acute housing is not institutionalised. At the same ti- no. 28, 29/1995 nikov, stanovanjska zbornica, začetni primanjkljaj socialnih in ne-profitnili najemnih stanovanj, nesoglasja pri denacionaliziranih stanovanjih itd.). Menimo, da v teh okoliščinah večkrat prihaja do hudih stanovanjskih stisk, vendar pa se zaradi kulturnih in klimatskih razmer le izjemoma kažejo tudi navzven, na primer kot klasično brezdomstvo t.j. prenočevanje zunaj stanovanja (na cestah, v parkih itd.) ali v zavetiščih za brezdomce. Podatkov o brezdomcih v ožjem ali širšem pomenu pri nas ne ugotavljamo sistematično, prav tako pa tudi ne spremljamo reševanja teh problemov, V Ljubljani je brezdomcev približno 300', število ležišč v zavetišču za brezdomce pa je 22, Vendar pa sta brezdomstvo in zaščita za brezdomce tipično individualna pojav. Tega, kako rešujejo hude stanovanjske stiske družine, ne vemo. Domnevamo pa, da je pri tem pomembna pomoč socialnega omrežja (začasno prebivanje pri sorodniki, znancih itd.), ki pa je večkrat možna le, če se družina (začasno) razide. SKLEP Menimo, da razmere v najemnem stanovanjskem sektorju močno omejujejo stanovanjske priložnosti družin, zlasti v fazi njihovega nastajanja in zgodnejših ciklih obstoja. To ne prizadeva le varnosti otrok, marveč verjetno prispeva tudi k temu, da se ljudje odločajo za otroke v kasnejših letih. Najemno stanovanje lahko s svojimi manjšimi stroškovnimi zahtevami in možnostjo začasne uporabe omogoča zelo primerne razmere v prvi fazi nastajanja novega gospodinjstva in družine. To pa velja le, če je stroškovno in glede na varnost uporabe primerno regulirano. Sklep Menimo tudi, da je "tranzicijski šok" v zvezi z najemnimi stanovanji so-raz-merno močen, kaže pa se tudi v neustreznem delovanju novoustanovljenih institucij, ki naj bi uravnavale njihovo vlogo (sveti za varstvo pravic najemnikov, stanovanjska inšpekcija, informacijsko spremljd- me. eviction and lenninaUon of lease are legal measures which are actually being applied. Tlie need for such an instrument in housing policy is especially extreme during the transition period when Uie relevant institutions ai-e not functioning properly (councils for the protection of tenants, housing chamber, the initial lack of social and non-profit rental dwellings, discord linked with denationalised dwellings, etc.). We believe Üiat under such conditions cases of urgent housing need occur more often yet are rarely manifested - (because of cultural and climatic reasons) -as classic homelessness, i.e. people sleeping outside (in the streets, parks, etc.) or in shelters for the homeless. Tlie data on homeless people is not systematically collected in Slovenia. Neither is tlie tackling of tlie problem properly monitored. There are around 300® homeless people in Ljubljana and there ai-e only 22 beds available in tlie shelter for the homeless. However, homeless people and shelters for the homeless. are an individual rather tlian family phenomenon. We do not know how families solve their housing crises. We assmne Uiat the assistance provided by tlie social netv/ork plays an important role (temporaiy residence with relatives, acquaintances, etc.), which is often possible only if tlie family is sepai"ated. Conclusion In our opinion conditions in the rental housing sector place a significant restriction on the housing opportunities for families, especially in the case of young families. It does not only affect children's security but it probably also contributes to Uie fact that people decide to have children later. Rental housing can. witli its lower cost and the possibility of temporary use. provide very suitable conditions for the first phase of the formation of a new household and family. This is only true if it is suitably regulated in tenns of costs and security. We believe that the "shock of ti'ansition" nje trga najemnih stanovanj, nujno stanovanjska pomoč itd.)- obenem pa tudi varnost pri njihovi uporabi. Srna.Mandič, sociologinja, Univerzav Ljubljani, Fakulteta za družbene vede. Inštitut za družbene vede with respect to rental housing is quite severe and also evident in the inappropriate functioning of newly established institutions which should regulate it (coLuicil for the protection of tenant' rights, housing inspection, infonnation monitoring of Uie rental housing maiket, urgent housing assistance, etc.). Srna Mandič,sociologist. Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana št. 28,29/1995 Opombe ' Besedilo je dopolnjena verzija ekspertize z naslovom Stanovanjska problematika z vidika zadovoljevanja potreb družin, ki jo je naročil Slovenski odbor za UNICEF, uporabljena pa je bila za Analizo položaja otrok in njiliovili družin v Sloveniji. ^ 102. člen Stanovanjskega zakorui Republike Slovenije ^ 91. člen Stanovanjskega zakona T^e-publike Slkovenije ^ Osnutek Nacionalnega stanovanjskega programa 1994, str. 21; podatek velja za obdobje do aprila 1994. ® Majidič. S.(1994): Obdelava in interpretacija podatkov Ljubljanske stanovanjske ankete: Ljubljana: FDV. ® Pravilnik o pogojih In merilih za pridobitev socialnili stanovanj v najem Stanovanjskega sklada ljubljanskih občin. Pravilnik temelji na republiškem Pravilniku o merilih za dodeljevanje' socialnih stanovanj v najem, Uradni list RS. št. 18/92. ^ Letopis o zdravstvenem in sociabiem vareLvu v Sloveniji. Ljubljana 1991; str. 156. ® Evidenca Ministrstva za delo. družino in socialne zadeve aprila 1995; evidenca zajema 47 od 58 občinsiuh Centrov za socialno delo. ® Ocena Oddelka za zdravstvo in socialno varstvo Mesbie občine Ljubljana, septembra 1995. Notes This text is tlie revised version of tlic paper "Housing Problems from Üie Stéindpoint of Fulfilling Llie Needs of Families" commissioned by tlie Slovenian UNICEF Committee and used for the Amüysis of the Conditions of Children and tlieir Families in Slovenia. ^ Housing Act of tJie Republic of Slovenia. Article 102 ® I lousing Act of the Republic of Slovenia. Article 91 Draft of iJic National Housing Program 1994, p. 21; tlie data is for the period until April 1994. ^ Miuidič, S. (1994): Processing and Interpretation of tlic Data from the Ljubljana Housing Survey; Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences. ^ Rules on Conditions and Criteria for tlie Acquisition of Ix;asecl Social Dwellings of Uie Housing Fund of tlic Ljubljana Municipalities. Tlicse Rules are based on the national Rules on Criteria for Llie Alloccxtion ofLeased Social Dwellings, The OITicićil Gazette of tlie Republic of Slovenia No. 18/92. Yearbook on HeallJi Care ajid Social Welfare in Slovenia. Ljubljana 1991; p. 156. ® Data base of tlie Ministry of Lalx)ur, Uie Family and Social Alfairs, April 1995; Data base comprises 47 out of 58 municipal Centres for Social Work. ^ The estimate of tJie Departinent for Health Care and Social Welfare of tlie Ljubljana Town Municipality, September 1995. Viri / Bibliography Letopis 0 zdravstvenem in socialnem varstvu v Sloveniji '90; Ljubljana, september 1991. Lavrač, I.: Predlogi socialnih in fiskalnih instrumentov za nacionalni stanovanjski program; Zl^omik posvetovanja "Država-državljani - stanovanja", Ljubljana. SSRS in MOP, 1994. Mandič, S. Sociološka prcsojazasnovnacionalnoga stanovanjskega programa; FDV. Ljubljana, 1991. Mandič, S.: Obdelava in interpretacija Ljubljanske stanovanjske ankete; FDV Ljubljana, naročnik: Stanovanjski sklad ljubljanskih občin. 1994. Nacionalni stanovanjski progrtim, predlog 1995. Izubijana, Miiilstrstvo za okolje in prostor. Pravilnik o merilih za dodeljevanje socialnili stanovžuij v nsycm. Uradni list RS. št. 18/92. Stanovanjski zakon; Ljubljana, ČZURRS. 1994. Stanovnik, T; Položaj najemnega sektorja in njegovo mesto v Nacionalnem stanovanjskem programu; Zbornik posvetovanja "Država - državljani - stanovanja", Ljubljana, SSRS in MOP, 1994. Statistics on Housing in the European Commvinity 1992; Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Envimment Hague. Wlio is who in Housing In die European Community; OTB Research Institute for Policy Sciences and Teclinology, Delft; ENHR.