There are around 2,000 homeless people in Croatia and only 420 places in shelters, while the rest of them use public and abandoned spaces, the executive president of the Croatian Homeless Network, Zvonko Mlinar, said in Osijek on Thursday on the occasion of World Homeless Day, observed on 10 October.

On this occasion, the Croatian Homeless Network, in cooperation with the City of Osijek and the Caritas charity of the Djakovo-Osijek Archdiocese, organised the 16th national conference on the homeless.

“The number of homeless people in Croatia has been on the rise as of late, mostly due to increased food prices, household bills and rent,” Mlinar said, noting that this is particularly evident in cities like Zagreb, Split, Rijeka and Osijek.

The worst situation is in Zagreb where, according to the data from the Homeless Network, between 700 and 1,000 people live on the street, using abandoned railway carriages to live and sleep in.

Speaking of the causes of homelessness, Mlinar cited family breakups, unemployment, addiction and health issues. He said that homeless people include all groups of social welfare beneficiaries, elderly people with mental conditions, and 1991-95 war veterans.

Mlinar said that homeless people are often perceived as alcohol, drug and gambling addicts, but stressed that this is not true. “There are more and more retired people among them who end up on the street due of circumstances,” he said.

He said that the minimum monthly social benefit is HRK 1,000 (€133), which is not enough to meet basic needs, such as rent and food. “Most homeless persons use soup kitchens, where they get only one meal a day, and they still have to take care of their other needs, such as other meals, clothing, shoes, and hygiene products.”

Mlinar said that the Homeless Network has been struggling with the system ever since homeless people were included in the Social Welfare Act. “Little progress has been made. Shelters are still financed through projects, which means that those who are required to provide funding under the Social Welfare Act have not done so.”