…problems [in stating a usual residence] may arise in dealing with the following groups of persons:
persons who maintain more than one residence, e.g., a town house and a country home;
students who live in a school or university residence, as boarders in a household or as a one-person household for part of the year and elsewhere during vacations;
persons who live away from their homes during the working week and return at weekends;
persons in compulsory military service;
members of the regular armed forces who live in a military barrack or camp but maintain a private residence elsewhere;
persons who have been an inmate of a hospital, welfare institution, prison, etc., for a sufficiently long time to weaken their ties with their previous residence to which they may return eventually;
persons who have been at the place where they are enumerated for some time but do not consider themselves to be residents of this place because they intend to return to their previous place of residence at some future time;
persons who have recently moved into an area and may not feel that they have lived there long enough to claim it as their place of usual residence—this may apply in particular to immigrants from abroad;
persons who have left the country temporarily but are expected to return after some time; …and
nomads, homeless and roofless persons, vagrants and persons with no concept of a usual address.
“The treatment of all these cases should be set out clearly in the census instructions,” note the guidelines, and, “if possible, objective rules should be formulated for dealing with them” (UNECE, 1998:11).
The guidelines further suggest that “people in groups (a) to (i) should treat the address at which they spend the majority of their daily night-rest to be their usual residence. For persons with a spouse/partner and/or children, the usual residence should be that at which they spend the majority of the time with their family…. People in group (j) should be treated as usually resident where they are enumerated.”
Of particular note is point (f) on the treatment of persons in “institutional households,” which the guidelines later define as “persons whose need for shelter or subsistence are being provided by an institution” (UNECE, 1998:42). The language of (f) evokes the “enduring ties” concept of Franklin v. Massachusetts (Box 2-5), but suggests that the tie can decay after a “sufficiently long time.” In the discussion of “usual residence,” the guidelines provide no specific guidance on what constitutes such a time period, but in