Memorandum by the National Housing Federation
(NHF) (HOM 37)
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
— People who are homeless need access
to homes in sustainable and diverse communities providing long-term
security. This approach reduces the "revolving door"
that homeless people often fall into.
— Current financial arrangements can
militate against resolving homelessness in a sustainable way.
— Further investment in affordable
housing will reduce the number of households presenting as homeless.
We argue for 60,000 more affordable homes a year by 2007-08.
— The Federation believes that mixed
neighbourhoods in terms of housing type, tenure, income, age,
economic status, faith, ethnicity, household size and special
needs have the best chance of thriving and providing long term
housing solutions and that these should be promoted.
— There is a need for good quality
temporary housing but appropriate permanent housing must be provided
for single people so their current hostel or other short-term
accommodation is freed up to provide intensive support for new
clients.
— The positive introduction of the
Supporting People Programme in providing support to maintain tenancies
is acknowledged, but the lack of stability and cuts to this programme
are a cause for concern.
— There is a need to further co-ordinate
local homelessness strategies with strategic regional housing
plans: improving these links will provide a more long-term effective
housing strategy to reduce homelessness.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 The National Housing Federation (the
Federation) represents nearly 1,400 independent, not for profit
housing providers. Our members include housing associations, Co-ops,
Trusts and transfer organisations. They manage more than 1.8 million
homes provided for affordable rent, supported housing and Low
Cost Home Ownership, and deliver an increasingly diverse wide
range of community and regeneration services. The Federation's
in business for neighbourhoods programme, promotes inclusive communities
and neighbourhoods and a commitment to supporting people and diversity.
Almost all the Federation's members work with local housing authorities
in housing people who are accepted as homeless. Some members operate
the local authorities duties on homelessness under contract.
3. SUSTAINABLE
COMMUNITIES
3.1 The Federation believes that mixed neighbourhoods
in terms of housing type, tenure, income, age, economic status,
faith, ethnicity, household size and special needs have the best
chance of thriving and providing long term housing solutions and
that these should be promoted. Also, that individual life chances
are adversely affected if people are ghettoised into areas where
poverty and social exclusion are concentrated and that such concentrations
within social housing should be challenged as they stigmatise
its tenants and the sector as a whole. The issues have been documented
and debated for a very long time, including recent work from the
Social Exclusion Unit.
3.2 Settled accommodation can offer people
a springboard to better life chances as roots are put down, children
settled into schools, social connections made and employment and
other opportunities taken up. However, too frequently (via one
offer policies or time limited choice-based systems for homeless
households) homeless people are re-housed far away from where
they want to be and seek to move-on as soon as possible or avoid
putting down roots. As a result some neighbourhoods have very
high turnovers, fail to stabilise, feel less cared for and become
stigmatised places where the most vulnerable continue to be concentrated.
Our submission considers how more sustainable routes into housing
for homeless households can be found.
Case Example 1
A single parent living in private rented accommodation
is on a council's housing waiting list. Nothing happens. She and
her six year-old girl are then threatened with eviction. They
are accepted as unintentionally homeless and the council accepts
a duty to them. They spend some time in a B & B.
Then they are placed in private sector leased
temporary housing. It is far away from the girl's school and all
their family and friends. They spend a lot of their income on
travel but still see their family less than they would like. The
rent is too high for the mother to take up the sort of jobs she
can get with her experience and skills, especially given the way
her housing benefit would be effected.
Also, it would be difficult for the mother to
afford out of school care for her daughter-she used to rely on
her mum for this when she lived close-by. She and her daughter
live here for two and half years and the mother feels increasingly
isolated and stressed. Finally they are offered a permanent home.
This fits an official assessment of their needs in terms of the
number of bedrooms etc but they would have liked to have been
nearer their family. They take it because they will not be offered
anything else. As soon as they can they register for a transfer
and do not seek to make ties with the area. They will wait a very
long time.
4. FINANCIAL
IMPERATIVE
4.1 Homeless households are often given
little choice of where they will be re-housed permanently and
are often routed through one offer policies (or the expiry of
time limited choice) to the least popular areas where there are
concentrations of the most vulnerable people. There are strong
financial drivers behind this as the burden of securing temporary
accommodation for homeless households to whom a local authority
owes statutory duties falls exclusively on that authority.
4.2 People accepted as unintentionally homeless
are placed in various types of temporary housing. The costs of
the temporary accommodation fall on the General Fund and are thus
ultimately met directly by the tax and council taxpayers. There
is thus a strong pressure from councillors and spending departments
of the local authority to minimise the financial impact of homelessness
on the local area.
4.3 The financial imperative translates
into an incentive for local authorities to interpret homelessness
duties narrowly as opposed to operate as facilitators of sustainable
re-housing. It acts as an incentive to limit the choices available
to homeless applicants compared to others. Also, it means that
authorities maximise the use of permanent lettings, including
nominations to housing associations, to homeless households owed
a statutory duty. Where there are lots of lettings to be made
at once, for example on new developments or in areas where there
is high turnover due to the unpopularity of the stock or transient
nature of the population this can lead to high concentrations
of statutorily homeless households with priority needs. Under
the current legislative framework this results in skewing neighbourhoods
with high concentrations of children or households who are particularly
vulnerable.
4.4 This concentration of the most vulnerable
is reinforced by the financial imperative of prioritising new
housing developments to match the profile of homeless households
rather than provide a mix of housing types.
4.5 Statutorily homeless households are
housed at the expense of other homeless households (such as childless
couples and the single homeless who do not meet the vulnerability
tests), other people in arguably equally urgent, as well as less
urgent, housing need (such as those desperately overcrowded or
in otherwise unsuitable private sector or social rented accommodation),
people wishing to move within and beyond local authority boundaries
to take up employment or training opportunities or to give or
receive support from family and friends.
4.6 While local authorities must consider
all applicants, they are able to prioritise people with a local
connection and the financial imperative means that there is no
incentive to promote cross authority mobility. The choices of
housing applicants (including homeless households) are generally
confined to a local authority area or moving to a lower demand
area. This limits people's opportunity to move to take up job
or educational opportunities or to give or receive support from
family and friends. Yet where people want to move is rarely confined
by thoughts of administrative boundaries.
4.7 This distorted market creates a perverse
incentive to go down the homelessness route to obtaining re-housing
despite the social, economic and health risks. Too frequently
people emerge from the homeless route in a more vulnerable state
or as if their life has been on hold (in terms of taking up for
example employment opportunities or making social connections).
This not only has immense human costs to individuals, but also
has an impact on the wider community as concentrations of re-housed
statutory homeless households are less sustainable and arguably
have less social capital.
4.8 The Federation is keen to explore the
possibility of removing the financial burden on individual local
authorities to meet homelessness duties for temporary housing.
If this is possible it may help unlock the potential for housing
associations and local authorities to work in partnership to provide
more sustainable routes into permanent housing and to meet a wider
spectrum of housing needs. This could reduce the overall tax burden
of homelessness as it opens up other routes into permanent re-housing.
It could also open up wider choices for homeless households and
others. Action to address the acute shortage of housing and affordability
gap are also important as explored further below.
5. GROWTH AREAS
AND HOUSING
MARKET PATHFINDERS
5.1 Attention also needs to be given to
how homes will be let in the growth areas. Such areas present
the opportunity to let for mixed communities from the outset.
Not to do so, would be to repeat the mistakes of the past across
a wide area. Community cohesion strategies will need to be in
place if the diverse communities of the wider London and South-East
regions are to benefit equally from the new housing opportunities.
This reflects the potential racism that non-white ethnic groups,
including homeless households, might face if they move to some
areas, which are largely white. If "choices" are to
be opened up for all and the needs of those with pressing housing
needs are to be met this issue cannot be ignored.
5.2 It should also be noted if we are considering
how not to repeat the mistakes of the past, that many of the Housing
Market Pathfinders have identified creating mixed neighbourhoods
as a major factor in addressing cross tenure housing market failure.
For example, Liverpool has taken lettings, population change and
tenure diversification as core steps to revitalising its housing
markets
6. SUPPLY OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
6.1 In meeting the needs of homeless people
it is an obvious fact that the shortage of affordable housing
is a key factor in the number of homeless households.
6.2 The Treasury commissioned Barker report
looks at housing supply from a macro economic perspective of stabilising
house price inflation. As a result it recommends an increase of
17,000-23,000 affordable homes each year above current provision,
and a doubling of provision from the private sector from 125,000
to 140,000 homes per year. We look at supply side issues from
the perspective of what is needed to deliver the long-term objective
of sustainable communities and balanced housing markets in different
localities. In our joint Spending Review 2004 submission with
the Local Government Association and Chartered Institute of Housing
we argued for a mixed housing association programme, towards meeting
future housing needs and the backlog of unmet need, to deliver
60,000 affordable rented, low cost home ownership and intermediate
rented homes a year by 2007-08 building up from a programme of
35,000 homes in 2005-06.
6.3 Our analysis is grounded in a belief
that a failure to meet the needs of medium and low income households,
who are priced out of private sector options, will threaten the
achievement of sustainability objectives. More than 95,000 families
are in forms of temporary accommodation, and 1,260,000 are on
housing waiting lists. Behind these figures are the immense costs
to individuals and society of people inadequately housed, or placed
in temporary accommodation, in some cases far from friends and
family and unable to put down roots.
6.4 The outcome of the Spending Review resulted
in resources that should enable development of 115,000 homes over
three years still a shortfall of 25,000 from the Federation's
submission to the Spending Review. We will continue to argue for
additional investment to bridge this gap.
6.5 In addition to the lack of new housing,
is the shortage of the right type and mix of housing in terms
of tenure, size and cultural attributes in many areas, including
areas of low demand and in places with failing markets.
6.6 In arriving at the required mix of homes
needed in different areas on a local, sub-regional and regional
level we stress the importance of whole market needs assessments.
It is important for such assessments to examine the need for affordable
rented housing, as well as shared ownership and other low cost
home ownership and intermediate priced housing options. We are
actively engaging with the ODPM on its proposals to produce guidance
on local housing assessments in this regard.
6.7.1 The current reform of planning policy
provides an opportunity to ensure that there is a presumption
in planning guidance that all new developments cater for a spectrum
of housing needs. This is the supply side of the equation that
is needed to underpin the delivery of mixed and sustainable communities.
Again, it is important to recognise the role that this plays in
addressing the needs of homeless households and other people in
housing need in a sustainable manner.
7. FUTURE AFTER
ROUGH SLEEPERS
AND BED
AND BREAKFAST
TARGETS
7.1 The ODPM set two major targets in recent
years, to end rough sleeping and to end the use of Bed and Breakfast
accommodation for families with children The Federation has supported
these initiatives but expresses caution over the "knock on
effect" of these targets.
7.2 The key change in recent years is the
level of need of rough sleepers. The majority of those who are
sleeping rough or have recent experience of sleeping rough have
complex needs including enduring mental health problems and drug
addiction. The push to remove people from the streets has had
many successes and the support of the Homelessness Directorate
in the hostel improvement policy was welcomed, although more involvement
of providers of this accommodation in the planning of the timetable
and priorities may have provided more results faster.
7.3 The success of hostel providers in reducing
the "revolving door" of moving from the street to hostel
and back means short term housing is being "silted up"
by people ready to move to their own accommodation but none being
available. The success of the rough sleepers programme is in danger
of becoming the next problem.
7.4 The most recent new people who are street
homeless or with very poor temporary places to stay are people
who have experience of the asylum system and people from the new
European Union countries. Providers of services both in the statutory
and voluntary sectors must address the need of these communities.
7.5 Federation members have been fully engaged
in helping meet the ODPM target to end the use of Bed and Breakfast
accommodation for families with children. The need for quality
temporary housing remains high in London alone numbers within
temporary housing had increased to nearly 55,000 in April 2004.
This is an increase of over 3% in the last quarter of 2003. The
total number of households in temporary housing is now 95,000.
7.6 Our members have been key players in
the provision of temporary accommodation as an alternative to
bed and breakfast, especially in London. Providing temporary housing
is a specialist housing function that small numbers of housing
associations are organisationally in a position to carry out.
7.7 In our Joint Spending Review submission
we recommended that the DWP and ODPM urgently re-open consideration
of a grant-based model to fund private leasing, which has been
proposed by a range of groups as an alternative to Housing Benefit
funding, we still believe this would increase the supply of good
quality temporary housing, and contribute to social inclusion
by enabling homeless adults to take up employment.
8. HOUSING RELATED
SUPPORT
8.1 The development of the Supporting People
Programme has the potential to be extremely beneficial in providing
housing related support to ensure tenancy sustainment by people
with a history of homelessness or chaotic life styles. The initial
expansion of the programme led to the creation of many new services
aimed at ensuring tenancy sustainment. However the continuing
uncertainty over the long term level of resources for this programme
means there is little confidence that the level of support required
to ensure we do not return to high levels of street homelessness
and that permanent move on from hostel accommodation will be successful.
8.2 There is a great capacity for Supporting
People funded services to contribute to the prevention agenda
across departments, assisting in reducing or preventing homelessness.
The example below shows how one of our members is providing a
tenancy sustainment service to people who have experienced homelessness.
These low level preventative services potentially save significant
NHS and social care resources as people are helped to start managing
issues rather than spiral into crisis. They also help prevent
people reappearing in housing departments as homeless.
Case Example 2
Circle 33's EPIC Trust launched a specialist
support scheme for families in Haringey called Harts (Haringey
Tenancy Sustainment). Noew they have nearly 70 members of staff
helping more than 600 families. This specialist team of advisors
provides floating support to people in their own homes on a range
of issues, from language difficulties to alcohol and substance
misuse. The team also tackle issues such as child welfare, anti-social
behaviour and domestic violence. Harts recruited skilled staff,
who speak 27 languages between them. This is a vital part of how
the service has excelled in achieving outstanding levels of customer
engagement, as the support worker is able to converse with the
service user in their own language. With Haringey having a population
of almost 50% BME residents, it is important that the HARTS service
user base reflects the rich diversity of the borough and that
there are no barriers to prospective service users on grounds
of race, gender or language.
8.3 Examples such as the one above show
that resources are required to stop the "revolving door"
of homelessness. The reduction of the Supporting People funds
raises concerns about the ability of government to meet their
own targets in reducing homelessness and leaving support providers
without the tools to address the need for tenancy sustainment
support.
9. HOMELESSNESS
STRATEGIES
9.1 The Homelessness Act 2002 requires every
district and unitary authority in England to adopt and publish
a homelessness strategy. Strategies must aim to prevent homelessness
and ensure that accommodation and support will be available for
people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.
9.2 The Federation fully supports the benefits
from such strategies and the ability of authorities to focus on
planning for the future. However, with the advent of Regional
Housing Boards, how the strategies are used to inform the regional
housing strategies is not clear. It is only the South East Regional
Strategy that links performance in tackling homelessness in their
region to local homelessness strategies. The London Regional Strategy
focuses heavily on homelessness but without reference to individual
strategies
9.3 There is a need for a review of the
way local action on homelessness contributes to meeting the aims
of the regional housing strategies. How regional housing boards
consider housing people who are homeless in their plans is not
consistent or in some places given enough priority. There are
353 authorities producing homelessness strategies, it is important
that the sum of these is truly represented in the nine regional
housing strategies. The West Midlands Housing Forum has begun
to address this for the next round of regional strategies. The
objectives of this group highlight the importance of connecting
local strategies and action to the regional housing strategy and
other local strategies.
Purpose of a West Midlands Homeless Strategy
1. To provide a regional steer on preventing
and tackling homelessness.
2. To inform the Regional Housing Strategy
and the Regional Supporting Strategy and other regional and local
strategies.
3. To establish regional housing investment
priorities to prevent and tackle homelessness and influence other
related investment.
4. To contribute to the development of sustainable
communities and successful housing markets within the context
of urban and rural renaissance.
5. To focus on cross boundary issues which
can only be tackled at a regional or sub-regional level.
6. To identify priority areas for action/investment
as part of the wider objective of tackling social exclusion.
7. To foster a spirit of cross-sectoral working
through collaborative action.
9.4 As the West Midlands example shows the
local homelessness strategies also need to link to the Supporting
People strategies. This revenue grant administered with much flexibility
by county and unitary authorities must relate to the local level
homelessness strategies. In some county areas this is yet to be
achieved.
9.5 The use of housing related support grant,
Supporting People, is fundamental to achieving the most appropriate
support for people when they first move to their new tenancies.
We would welcome clear direction from the ODPM on the prioritising
of Supporting People grant across client groups to assist administering
authorities in achieving the goals of local homelessness strategies.
9.6 For homelessness strategies to be really
effective they need to be fully integrated with other local strategies:
for example local crime reduction partnerships, where tenancy
sustainment work would assist in reducing anti social behaviour.
10. CONCLUSION
10.1 The Federation acknowledges the major
strides taken by the Government in the last few years to address
key issues concerning homelessness, especially the concentration
on reducing the numbers of rough sleepers and tackling the use
of bed and breakfast accommodation by families.
10.2.1 The momentum needs to be kept up.
A detailed look at the financial structure for tackling homelessness
is needed and the impact of the loss of Supporting People funds
to maintain tenancies needs to be considered. This should to be
done in conjunction with regional housing boards to focus on the
reduction of homelessness as part of the development of long-term
sustainable communities.
Diane Henderson
Head of Care Support and Diversity
| 
