From Exclusion to Inclusion: Finland’s Path towards Ending Homelessness

Irene Toivanen, Els Schipaanboord & Stefan van Tongeren

Homelessness is an issue that can potentially affect anyone. While public perception often associates homelessness with substance abuse or poor life choices, many become homeless due to unexpected life events. In Finland, for example, leading reasons for homelessness are the increasing rent prices and domestic violence, the latter particularly affecting women. No one knows when their housing situation might (suddenly) be disrupted, whether due to unforeseen financial hardship, a relationship breakdown, or a carelessly placed curler resulting in a house fire.

In Finland, homelessness manifests in various forms. The most common form is hidden homelessness, referring to individuals who temporarily stay with family or friends and do not have stable housing of their own. Hidden homelessness often goes unrecorded in national statistics and remains invisible to social service systems. As of 2024, an estimation of up to 63% of homelessness cases in Finland were reported to be cases of hidden homelessness. This may be partly explained by the fact that, although Finnish law and policy have moved away from punitive approaches, homelessness is still widely viewed through a punitive and stigmatising lens in public attitudes.

The European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless (FEANTSA) has developed a standard definition of ‘homelessness’. According to their European Typology of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion (ETHOS), ‘homelessness’ encompasses four categories: rooflessness (living without any shelter); houselessness (having a place to sleep but temporary in institutions or shelter); living in insecure housing (threatened with severe exclusion due to insecure tenancies, eviction, or domestic violence); and living in inadequate housing (e.g. in a caravan on an illegal campsite, in unfit housing, in extreme overcrowding).

While homelessness is interpreted quite broadly in Finland, this interpretation does not fully comply with the ETHOS typology. Instead, Finland’s definition corresponds to the so-called ETHOS Light typology. As such, homelessness in Finland encompasses people sleeping rough or in shelters, people living in dormitories and ‘accommodation establishments’, people living in various institutions, convicts who are soon to be released with no place to reside after, and people temporarily staying with relatives and acquaintances. It should be noted that people living under threat of violence or eviction are not officially regarded as homeless in Finland. Other situations that are not uniformly seen as homelessness but instead evaluated on a case-by-case basis, are people living in unfit housing and people living in extreme overcrowding. The acceptable living conditions are regulated in Finnish legislation, for example, by requiring a minimum standard for housing size.

There are several advantages to adopting a broad interpretation of the concept of homelessness. According to Finland’s largest social housing provider, the Y-Foundation, a broad definition “enables all the actors” – such as the state, municipalities, cities, companies, and other organisations – “who the phenomenon concerns to participate in preventing and solving it”. A broad definition captures the full spectrum of homelessness and the diverse situations that can lead to it. This makes it easier to prevent homelessness and encourages cross-sector collaboration, thus maximising the effectiveness of prevention efforts. These efforts can be both implicit, such as the acquisition of small rental apartments, and explicit, for instance, by reaching out to people and supporting them first-hand.

Moreover, subsection 4 of Section 19 of the Finnish Constitution emphasises the importance of this comprehensive approach by stating that “[t]he public authorities shall promote the right of everyone to housing and the opportunity to arrange their own housing”. Although this provision might suggest that Finland primarily relies on judicial enforceability to eradicate homelessness, in practice, the right to housing is rarely enforced through the courts; instead, most efforts to combat homelessness stem from public organisations, municipalities, the Ministry of Environment, and broad social policy measures.

This blog discusses homelessness in Finland in light of the Finnish Constitution and other relevant national legislation. It aims to assess the extent to which the legacy of criminalising homelessness continues to influence the laws and their enforceability in Finland today. In doing so, it explores historical legal approaches to homelessness, as well as the ways in which various actors – including the state, municipalities, and other organisations – provide support to those experiencing homelessness.

A brief historical overview

Between 1936 and 1986, Finland enforced the Vagrancy Decree (irtolaislaki), which effectively criminalised homelessness. Because the decree fell under administrative law rather than criminal law, it denied people the legal protection that criminal proceedings offer, such as the right to be subjected to a court investigation. In addition, Finland ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) relatively late, in 1990. Hence, Articles 6 ECHR (the right to a fair trial) and 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life) were not available to citizens for a long time.

The enforcement of the Vagrancy Decree was to be carried out by a newly established police force. This vice squad was expected to assist vagrants by helping them find housing or providing medical treatment when necessary. Yet, even during the legislative process, doubts arose as to whether implementing this approach would be viable. In practice, the promise to support the homeless under the Vagrancy Decree never really materialised.

The Vagrancy Decree provided a four-tiered system of sanctions, the least serious being a warning combined with support efforts, followed by the so-called ‘vagrancy supervision’, imposing rules on the vagrant’s lifestyle, living environment, apartment, or employment. The third level of sanctions required the vagrant to be relegated to a work facility, while the most serious sanction entailed forced labour in prison. Despite its classification as an administrative law measure, these sanctions indicate that vagrancy – and thus homelessness – was effectively criminalised.

In practice, the promise to support the homeless under the Vagrancy Decree never really materialised.

The Vagrancy Decree of 1936 not only banned homelessness but also targeted other forms of so-called ‘detachment’, such as unemployment, prostitution, and vagabond wandering (irtolainen). Even so, it was less extensive in regulating certain groups of people than earlier legislation, since it focused more on behaviour than inherent traits or classifications. Notably, unlike earlier laws, the 1936 decree excluded minors, ‘dull-minded people’, and those labelled as ‘imbeciles’.

After many years of criticism – particularly focused on the sanction of forced labour, which was deemed inhumane – the 1936 decree was abolished in 1986, along with several other social decrees. There appeared to be a growing consensus in parliament to shift focus from vagrants’ personal characteristics to the societal structures that may cause vagrancy. The abolition marked a new era in Finnish social policy, integrating the efforts to tackle homelessness into the general social welfare framework rather than treating it as a separate issue.

Following the abolition of the Vagrancy Decree in 1986, efforts to regulate vagrancy continued through the newly adopted Substance Care Decree, before the care for homeless people was codified in the 2000 Constitution. The Finnish Constitution provides some basic rights regarding the prevention of homelessness and “defines as the task of public authorities to promote everyone’s right to a dwelling”. Section 19 of the Constitution, which focuses on the right to social security, specifically provides for a right to housing and holds that public authorities are responsible for realising this right.

Regulating homelessness in today’s Finland

While Finland’s legislative branch has taken concrete action to eradicate homelessness and to reverse the historical criminalisation of homelessness, the constitutional right to housing lends very little support for judicial enforcement compared to other economic, social, and cultural rights. This is because the constitutional provision holds that public authorities are responsible for realising the right; enforcing it through the judicial branch could conflict with these public authorities’ autonomy.

Whereas the realisation of the right to housing in Finland therefore lies with the legislator, public authorities, and political actors, opinions differ on whether it should be enforceable in court. Taylor, Loubière, and Auquier argue that justiciability may be counterproductive, as it may lead to an increased workload for the justice system and shift the focus away from addressing issues that contribute to homelessness, such as poverty, discrimination, and housing market failures. Nonetheless, international law seems to favour the judicial enforceability of social and economic rights, although its application may vary significantly across national contexts. Given the legislative branch’s significance in the realisation of constitutional housing rights, when studying their application today, other relevant legislation ought to be examined.

Among the legislation that aid in realising the right in the Finnish Constitution, several other pieces are relevant. First, the Finnish Non-Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination in various contexts, such as employment, the exercise of public authority, and the provision of goods and services, including the rental of housing. One of the Act’s aims is to ensure that no one is placed at a disadvantage due to discriminatory practices, promoting equal treatment for all. As a result, the Non-Discrimination Act functions as a foundation for the efforts to address and eradicate homelessness.

Section 19 of the Constitution, which focuses on the right to social security, specifically provides for a right to housing and holds that public authorities are responsible for realising this right.

Another crucial piece of legislation is the Act of Residential Leases, which serves as the basis for all housing programmes and sets the ground rules for renting and leasing. Notably, Chapter Three of the Act stipulates the requirements for determining rent and allows both the tenant and the landlord to request a rent reassessment from the court. Afterwards, the court can adjust the amount if deemed necessary. Chapter Eight of the Act regulates eviction procedures and the issuance of preliminary warnings. Lastly, it governs supported housing units and so-called ‘scattered housing’,  which are discussed below, and sets requirements for the quality and reliability of housing.

Besides that, the Social Welfare Act outlines the duties of the wellbeing service counties (administrative units responsible for ensuring healthcare for the region’s citizens). It regulates social services, including their quality and scope. These social services include services for homeless people. Moreover, it states that municipalities are responsible for organising housing services. The Act on Public Procurement and Concession Contracts regulates the municipalities’ procurement of apartments designated for homeless people.

Furthermore, the Act of Developing Housing Conditions mandates municipalities to improve housing conditions, especially for people living in inadequate housing and homeless individuals. Section 1 of the Act defines inadequate housing and includes a stipulation that the rent must be reasonable compared to the income and necessary living costs of the tenant(s). Living conditions are also regulated to some extent in the Act on Accommodation and Food Service Activities, which sets the minimum conditions in shelters. However, section 5 of the Act states that under certain circumstances, a person can be removed from the shelter or other accommodation. The Act on the Status and Rights of Social Welfare Clients regulates the support given in a supported housing unit.

In addition to legislation, Finland also observed a form of customary law called jokaisenoikeus (‘freedom to roam’), which provides individuals with the right to move freely in nature, regardless of property rights, as long as that right is not exercised with malicious intent. It also allows camping without the landowner’s permission, provided it is temporary, short-term, and harmless. This does not apply in city-owned territory in Helsinki and Vantaa.

When focusing on the potential criminalisation of homelessness, the regulation of behaviour in public spaces by the Public Order Act should also be taken into account. This Act prohibits the use of intoxicants such as alcohol in certain public areas. It should be noted that this does not apply to all public areas. Drinking in public places like parks is allowed, provided that it complies with Section 3, namely that it does not cause disturbance. Public urination and defecation fall into a grey area, being allowed as long as it does not pose a threat to public health. This can be interpreted quite broadly, but forests are occasionally used as substitutes for toilets. Many groups of people, such as hikers and travellers, urinate and defecate in forests, which are also usually geographically accessible even from city centres. Larger cities have public toilets which rough-sleeping homeless people use – besides their original purpose – as shelters during cold nights. Public indecency is also prohibited under the Act, which may limit homeless individuals’ options for maintaining personal hygiene in public. Violations under the Act may result in fines, but not imprisonment, as the Act falls under administrative law.

How Finland helps the homeless beyond legislation

If one finds themselves in the middle of Helsinki as night falls and temperatures drop, emergency shelters provide immediate assistance to those experiencing homelessness. They function as shelters for one to two nights and are offered free of charge, including a complimentary breakfast. Children, however, cannot be accommodated in these shelters, which limits their accessibility for families. Foreigners without a visa have a separate shelter, also provided by the city. Besides breakfast, the shelters offer coffee and tea, a warm meal, food aid, showers, laundry facilities, donated clothes, storage boxes, internet access, support and information, legal advice, clean needles, and health services. The availability of these services depends on the shelter; however, assistance can be found throughout the capital city area.

In addition to government services, faith-based organisations play an essential role in supporting homeless individuals. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland offers free food through its so-called ‘soup kitchens’ and free cafés, access to a personal mentor to assist with daily challenges, and internship opportunities within the Church. These internships are specifically designed to help build one’s resumé, gain work experience, and (re)integrate into the labour market. It should be noted that while there is no requirement to join the Church to use its services, some abstain from using them because they do not wish to be affiliated with the Church.

A variety of guidance centres also support preventive efforts to address homelessness in Finland. There are centres specifically for housing advice, such as the Finnish Youth Housing Association and Y-Foundation. For general counselling, Ohjaamo is a very low-threshold guidance centre, where anyone can walk in, even without an appointment. The organisation also provides counselling for preventative substance abuse work, EHYT, which operates under the Act on Organising Preventive Substance Abuse Work. Its role is further concretised in its action plan for 2015-2025.

Almost everyone living in Finland is eligible for financial support from Kela, the country’s social insurance institution. Kela is a state institution that operates under the parliament to secure a reasonable income for everyone. The right to social security is enshrined in the Finnish Constitution, and eligibility is determined by residency or employment in Finland. It moreover covers unemployment support and housing assistance.

One of the most important actors in the field of homelessness is the Y-Foundation. It acquires and builds rental units, allocating them especially to individuals with limited financial means. The Y-Foundation is also actively involved in international cooperation, including its partnership with FEANTSA through the Housing First Europe Hub, whichpromotes the Housing First model across Europe. It furthermore cooperates with several domestic organisations, such as the Housing Finance and Development Centre of Finland (ARA). It is most known for funding non-profit organisations and managing statistics on homelessness in Finland.

Despite all these measures, however, there are some shortcomings in the practical decisions made by the Finnish government. As a welfare state, Finland allocates significant resources to public services. Yet, due to the current financial situation, the government has decided to make budget cuts, some of which negatively affect the homelessness situation. Moreover, while existing policies and interventions aimed at reducing homelessness are, forthe most part, effective, critics argue that Finland should focus more on preventive measures to achieve its goal of ending homelessness.

Conclusion

The history of criminalising homelessness may continue to influence how homelessness is perceived and addressed in Finland today. The Vagrancy Decree, with its punitive approach, still echoes in societal attitudes, contributing to ‘hidden homelessness’ and a reluctance among those affected to ask for help, whether from personal networks or institutional actors. However, it should be noted that not all stigma or reluctance can be attributed to past criminalisation. Finland has a deep-rooted culture of shame, which can influence how people experience the issue, making it more difficult for individuals to confide in others and ask for support.

The Vagrancy Decree, with its punitive approach, still echoes in societal attitudes, contributing to ‘hidden homelessness’ and a reluctance among those affected to ask for help, whether from personal networks or institutional actors.

The strong commitment to eradicate homelessness that Finland showcases today may well be an overcorrection to the Vagrancy Decree’s harmful legacy. Failing to realise the support mechanisms embedded in the decree, in practice, it enforced punitive measures such as forced labour, undermining efforts to provide structured support. While as long as Finland has had its independence in 1917, the aim of all legislation, even the ones criminalising vagrancy, has been on helping the homeless instead of punishing them, the ways to do that have drastically changed: from trying to correct behaviour to aiming to uproot the problem without shaming the people involved in it. This change is particularly evident in the shift from homelessness being governed by administrative law to being regulated by social work and regulations governing it.

It can be argued that Finland’s international identity also plays an important role. As a Nordic welfare state, it has a reputation for strong protection of social rights. This status is critical to Finland due to its geographical proximity and historical ties to Russia. Because of these reasons, Finland has long sought alignment with Western countries. The constitutionalisation of a wide array of rights stems from these historical reasons – as an attempt to prepare for the worst during the division of Europe into the East and West blocs, Finland saw the importance of upholding citizens’ rights.

Despite these international and historical incentives to maintain strong social rights protections, the realisation of these rights largely depends on the government and the parliament. While no drastic change in realisation is foreseen, numerous decisions have recently been made that affect Finnish housing rights. For example, there have been cuts to the housing benefits distributed by Kela, with all students studying in Finland no longer being eligible from the end of July 2025. The consequences of these changes remain to be seen. Still, they are expected to be significant, particularly given that high housing costs constitute a leading cause of homelessness in the country, especially in the more populated areas.

The laws regulating homelessness have changed significantly throughout time and will most likely continue to change in the future. Housing rights are protected by the codification of the right to housing in the Finnish Constitution and by a mindset of support rather than shame for the homeless community. While Finland must live with the past criminalisation of homelessness and its consequences, which echo in today’s world, the country is actively working toward bettering the housing situation, and there is no foreseeable stop to it.