1In a context of growing social precariousness and increasing difficulty in accessing housing, accurately documenting the reality of homelessness has become a central issue in guiding frontline organisations and public policy. Too often, people experiencing homelessness fall outside official statistics, particularly when they live in informal accommodation. To address this lack of data, Bruss’help has been organising a biennial count of people experiencing homelessness. Based on the European ETHOS Light typology, the count covers a broad range of housing precariousness, extending well beyond the sole focus on people sleeping in public spaces (Figure 1).
2This fact sheet summarises the main findings from the most recent count: key figures, population profiles and implications for social policy.
Figure 1. ETHOS Light typology adapted to the Brussels context
|
ETHOS Light category
|
Living situation
|
|
1. People living in public spaces
|
Indoor public spaces (railway stations, metro stations, car parks, etc.) and outdoor public spaces (streets, green spaces, etc.)
|
|
2. People in emergency accommodation
|
Night shelters, emergency or crisis accommodation centres
|
|
3. People in accommodation centres
|
3.1. Reception centres
3.2. Transitional housing
3.3. Social hotel scheme
|
|
4. People leaving an institution
|
4.1. Healthcare institutions
4.2. Penal institutions
4.3. Facilities for asylum seekers
|
|
5. People living in non-conventional housing
|
5.1. Squats
5.2. Occupancy agreements
5.3. Non-recognised accommodation facilities
|
|
6. People living temporarily with friends or family
|
Conventional housing which is not the usual place of residence
|
|
7. People threatened with eviction
|
Enforcement of an eviction order
|
3The Brussels count is based on collaboration between professionals, volunteers and partners from a wide range of sectors (health, transport, prevention services, police, CPAS). These stakeholders are involved in identifying structures, collecting data and analysing results [Quittelier and Horvat 2019]. The methodology combines night counts, institutional data and surveys, making it possible to cover situations which are difficult to document, such as squats or non-recognised accommodation facilities.
4Counting people in public spaces: on the night of the count, teams survey the region between 11pm and midnight, according to zones defined with the expertise of social workers.
5Data from reception facilities: shelters, accommodation, care and prevention facilities provide their figures, including non-recognised organisations.
6Questionnaires: finally, each organisation supporting homeless people completes an individual questionnaire for all target groups. It was identical nationwide and was developed by teams at KU Leuven [Mertens et al., 2025].
7Of the questionnaires completed by the facilities, 4,553 were selected for analysis. Their breakdown according to ETHOS category is broadly consistent with the street count, although some groups may be over-represented depending on the profile of the participating organisations. Conversely, the most precarious or least visible situations – such as people sleeping in public spaces (ETHOS 1) or in non-conventional housing (ETHOS 5) – remain under-represented, as they are less connected to services or more difficult to document.
8These limitations are a reminder that questionnaires provide a useful but partial picture of homelessness and underscore the importance of combining methods for the count.
Figure 2. Comparison of persons counted by data collection method: quantitative results (data + street count) and questionnaires
9On the night of 6-7 November 2024, 9,777 homeless people were counted in the Brussels-Capital Region (based on quantitative data collection), i.e. 7.8 per 1,000 inhabitants. This rate is significantly higher than those observed in Flanders (1.08 ‰) and Wallonia (2.97 ‰), highlighting the scale of homelessness in Brussels [Mertens et al., 2025].
Figure 3. Number of people counted according to housing situation
Sources: street count and data from accommodation facilities
- 1 The Brussels Deal is a co-financing arrangement between the federal government and the Brussels-Cap (...)
10The increase in the number of people counted in public spaces – interrupted only in 2020 (Figure 4) – illustrates the growth of the most extreme forms of homelessness. Emergency accommodation has grown even faster, particularly over the past two years as a result of the Brussels Deal1.
11By contrast, accommodation centres have remained stable due to limited capacity. While they accounted for 45 % of provision in 2008, reception centres now represent only 9 %, reducing access to sustained psychosocial support and hindering long-term exits from homelessness.
12People leaving institutions are more clearly identified thanks to improved documentation.
13Non-conventional housing represents the largest category, although it remains difficult to measure due to its volatility. The increase partly reflects improved identification of squats, occupancy agreements and non-recognised accommodation facilities.
14Finally, accommodation with third parties – integrated into the count in 2022 – has increased, notably due to greater participation by CPAS. This form of homelessness nevertheless remains largely underestimated, as it is particularly difficult to quantify.
Figure 4. Trends in the number of people counted according to housing situation from 2008 to 2024
Sources: street count and data from accommodation facilities
15Although men remain the majority among completed questionnaires, these results must be interpreted in light of research on women’s homelessness [Reeve, 2008; Paquot, 2022]. Studies show that women experiencing homelessness more often adopt concealment strategies or rely on informal solutions to avoid the streets and protect themselves from gender-based violence. These dynamics affect the visibility of women in homelessness counts.
Figure 5. Distribution by gender
Source: questionnaires
16Count data show a sustained increase in the number of minors since 2018, confirming that homelessness also affects children and families. While unaccompanied minors remain few, it is important to note that 1,272 accompanied minors were identified through their parents’ questionnaires. As they were not surveyed directly, they do not appear in Figure 6, which presents a demographic profile essentially centred on the middle age groups.
Figure 6. Distribution by age
Source: questionnaires
17The significant proportion of European Union nationals raises questions (Figure 7), particularly in a context of free movement. While these individuals are legally entitled to reside temporarily in Belgium, many hope to find work quickly but encounter inaccessible housing conditions (high rents, lack of guarantors, administrative insecurity) or experience social breakdowns shortly after arrival [Striano, 2022]. In the absence of support, such pathways can quickly lead to homelessness.
18The category of people recorded as stateless should be interpreted with caution, as it is likely to include individuals without valid residence documents.
Figure 7. Distribution by nationality
Source: questionnaires
19Among the non-Belgian people experiencing homelessness for whom a questionnaire was completed, 25.3 % had no valid residence permit, highlighting the scale of homelessness linked to an irregular administrative status.
20A further 7.4 % were in an ongoing procedure, often awaiting a decision, with provisional documents providing only limited access to rights. Another 10.4 % had a temporary residence permit linked to specific situations (subsidiary protection, family reunification, medical grounds, etc.). Although this status grants some access to rights, it remains conditional on regular renewals, which can result in administrative disruption.
Figure 8. Distribution by residence status (excluding Belgians and persons of unknown nationality)
Source: questionnaires
21The vast majority of people counted are single adults without children. This confirms that homelessness is predominantly experienced individually, partly reflecting migration histories which are often undertaken alone.
22Single-parent families are largely composed of women with children (90.5 % of people in this category are women). Couples, with or without children, remain very rare, likely due to the limited suitability of accommodation services for these household configurations.
Figure 9. Distribution by household composition
Sources: street count and data from accommodation facilities
23The analysis of types of income does not reflect the number of people or questionnaires, as individuals could report several sources of income. These data (mentions) nevertheless reveal trends in terms of precariousness.
24Among those for whom information was collected, 36.9 % have no official income, reflecting severe economic exclusion and greatly limiting access to housing.
25Social integration income is the main source of subsistence (38.8 %), underlining the central role of CPAS in meeting basic needs.
26Only 4.8 % report income from paid employment, illustrating the many barriers to labour market integration faced by people experiencing homelessness.
Figure 10. Distribution by type of income (mentions)
Source: questionnaires
27Among the reasons cited for the loss or absence of housing (with multiple responses possible), migration is the most frequent (32 %), illustrating the vulnerability of migrants, particularly those without residence permits. Limited access to legal housing options, administrative barriers and restricted access to support services are contributing factors [Demaerschalk et al., 2018].
28Overall, these figures show that homelessness is rarely attributable to a single cause. It seldom results from one isolated event [Mayock and Sheridan, 2012]. Rather, it is due to an accumulation of multiple factors which, combined, lead to housing instability and recurrent homelessness [De Decker and Segers, 2014].
Figure 11. Distribution by origin of homelessness (mentions)
Source: questionnaires
- 2 Within this group (n = 1284), 328 people (8.95 %) report having been without stable housing for mor (...)
29Among the 3,665 people whose ETHOS Light category was known on the night of the count, those housed in emergency facilities (ETHOS 2) are the most likely to report long-term homelessness. One quarter2 of people in emergency accommodation have been without a stable housing solution for more than a year, calling into question the idea that these facilities are intended exclusively for short-term stays.
30This finding is consistent with research on pathways through emergency accommodation. Several studies highlight the risk of institutionalising homelessness when short-term solutions become prolonged due to the lack of structural alternatives [Pleace, 2016; Serme-Morin et al., 2022].
Figure 12. Distribution by duration of homelessness
Source: questionnaires
31The results of this count confirm a steady increase in the number of homeless people, often with long histories and highly mixed profiles. This trend is partly explained by the difficulty of exiting emergency accommodation, which – due to the lack of alternatives – tends to become a long-term solution. At the same time, integration options such as reception centres or transitional housing remain limited, unable to meet demand or offer sustainable exit pathways.
32The strong presence of people without residence permits, for whom access to housing and rights is restricted, further exacerbates these dynamics. In a context of structural inadequacy within the federal reception system, many turn to emergency services, which increasingly become the default option.
33A homelessness count does more than describe a situation: it creates accountability. It commits the public authorities to “being held to account” [Drilling et al., 2020] and to reviewing priorities. It also commits the sector to asserting realities on the ground in defence of policies based on needs and rights. Only under these conditions can we move beyond crisis management and build sustainable pathways out of homelessness.
We would like to thank the 400 professionals and volunteers who worked so hard to collect data and to set up and carry out the in-depth surveys. We would also like to thank the public authorities for their active involvement, which grows stronger with each event.