Memorandum by Shelter (HOM 55)
Shelter is the UK's largest provider of independent
housing advice, helping over 100,000 homeless or badly housed
people every year. Our services include:
— Over 50 housing aid centres providing
information, advice and advocacy to people with housing problems.
— Shelterline, our free national 24
hour housing helpline.
— The National Homelessness Advice
Service which provides second tier housing advice through citizens
advice bureaux.
— Our Homeless to Home and other tenancy
support services working with homeless households, or those at
risk of homelessness, to help them sustain their tenancies.
This evidence is based on the experience of
our front line staff and the local campaign officers we employed
to work with local authorities as they developed their homelessness
strategies under the Homelessness Act. It also draws on extensive
research including:
— Living in limbo, our recent report
based on a survey of more than 400 homeless households living
in temporary accommodation.
— Three surveys we undertook with a
sample group of 28 local authorities to monitor their experience
of implementing the Homelessness Act.
— The Act in Action, a report based
on independent research into homelessness reviews and strategies
in 15 local authorities.
— The independent evaluation of our
Homeless to Home services carried out by the University of York.
OVERVIEW
The homelessness landscape has changed significantly
in recent years. Meeting and sustaining the target to reduce rough
sleeping by two-thirds and ending the prolonged use of bed and
breakfast accommodation for homeless families are significant
achievements. The Homelessness Act and accompanying extension
of priority need to new groups of vulnerable people have significantly
strengthened the legal safety net and successfully implemented
a new, more strategic approach to tackling homelessness among
local authorities. And the publication of the More than a roof
report in March 2002 signalled an ambitious new approach to policy
and practice based on preventing homelessness.
More broadly, there are welcome signs that homelessness
is at last being seen as central to the Government's wider social
policy agenda. The establishment of the Homelessness and Housing
Support Directorate (HHSD) within ODPM has given homelessness
a strategic focus and higher priority within government. This
summer's Child Poverty Review identified the need to tackle homelessness
as a key priority if the Government's child poverty objectives
are to be met and the number of homeless families in temporary
accommodation is now one the indicators used to track poverty
in the annual Opportunity for all report. And the Every child
matters green paper identified homelessness as a key risk factor
associated with poor outcomes among children (although the Children
Bill currently before Parliament fails to identify housing need
among the key factors that contribute to a child's well being).
However, in many ways, homelessness is now a
more significant problem than ever before. The number of people
accepted by local authorities as being unintentionally homeless
and in priority need has increased by over a third since 1997
and is approaching the record levels of the early 1990s. The number
of homeless households forced to endure the misery of temporary
accommodation has more than doubled over the same period and will
soon top 100,000 for the first time. These households are among
the most socially excluded in our society, with children particularly
disadvantaged in terms of the impact on their health, education
and well being.
Shelter supports the work of the HHSD and its
continued emphasis on promoting innovative services aimed at preventing
homelessness. However, more broadly, we believe the Government
needs to significantly increase the political commitment and priority
it gives to tackling homelessness and, in particular, set out
a strategy that aims both to reduce the use of temporary accommodation
and, critically, to ameliorate its damaging impact, especially
on children. The forthcoming publication of the ODPM's Five Year
Plan is a key opportunity to do this. We also hope the Ministerial
Committee on homelessness will be proactive in driving forward
policy initiatives across government.
This should be seen as part of a wider long
term strategy to address the drivers and impact of homelessness
that also includes:
— Increased investment over the long
term to significantly increase the supply of social housing.
— Measures to improve affordability
and promote stability in the housing market.
— A continued emphasis on driving forward
efforts to prevent homelessness whilst ensuring that all relevant
agencies meet their statutory obligations to assist homeless households.
— A strategic approach to providing
appropriate support and ensuring that all relevant services—including
housing, health, education and social services—work together
to improve outcomes for homeless people.
— Further reforms to the Right to Buy
and low cost home ownership schemes to balance the aspirations
of tenants to own their own homes with the need to retain valuable
social housing and promote mobility in the social sector.
— A strong emphasis on maximising the
supply of affordable housing through the planning system.
— Alongside the proposed Property Investment
Funds aimed at boosting the supply of private rented housing,
improvements to regulation to drive up standards and safeguard
security in the private rented sector.
In the meantime, this inquiry offers a crucial
opportunity to build political momentum and to identify the policy
solutions needed to address one of this country's most pressing
social problems.
1. OVERALL LEVEL
AND NATURE
OF NEED
FOR HOUSING
FOR HOMELESS
PEOPLE
It is important to distinguish between the different
statistical measures used to record homelessness, none of which
provide a complete picture[98]
Homelessness acceptances
The official measure of homelessness is the
number of households that local authorities accept as being unintentionally
homeless and in priority need. This is not an absolute measure
of all instances of homelessness—it records the number of
homeless households approaching local authorities whom they under
a duty to accommodate. Homelessness under this measure has increased
by over a third since 1997-98, to 137,000 households in 2003-04.
This level is approaching the record peak of 145,080 in 1991-92.
At that time, the key structural factor underpinning the high
levels of homelessness was the collapse of the housing market.
The current peak is being driven by a number of factors, including
the extension of priority need to additional categories of vulnerable
people at particular risk of homelessness. However, the main structural
issue is the shortage of housing in many parts of the country
and the resulting pressures on the housing market.
STATUTORY HOMELESSNESS ACCEPTANCES BY REGION
(1997-98—2003-04)
| Region | Unintentionally homeless and in priority need: 1997-98
| Unintentionally homeless and in priority need: 2003-04
| % change | Number per 1,000 households: 2003-04
|
| | |
| |
| North East | 4,380 | 8,350
| 91% | 7.8 |
| North West | 13,060 | 18,010
| 38% | 6.4 |
| Yorkshire and Humber | 9,130
| 16,150 | 77% | 7.7
|
| East Midlands | 7,550 | 9,590
| 27% | 5.5 |
| West Midlands | 14,670 |
15,630 | 7% | 7.2
|
| East of England | 8,120 |
11,230 | 38% | 4.9
|
| London | 24,570 | 31,530
| 28% | 9.8 |
| South East | 12,170 | 15,290
| 26% | 4.5 |
| South West | 9,000 | 11,230
| 25% | 5.3 |
| Total | 102,650 | 137,000
| 33% | 6.6 |
Homelessness acceptances have risen in all regions since
1997-98, with the largest relative increases in the North East
and Yorkshire and Humber. However, this masks different regional
patterns. Broadly speaking, acceptances rose significantly in
London and the South in the late 1990s before levelling off more
recently. The largest increases in recent years have occurred
in the North, where acceptances have risen by 43% since 2001-02,
and where the trend is still upward. This pattern appears to follow
fluctuations in the housing market. There is also evidence that
increased homelessness may be linked to local housing market factors
such as renewal activity which can increase the number of evictions
where compulsory purchase is anticipated.
The majority of acceptances are families with children (51%)
or include someone who is pregnant (11%). Of those single person
households accepted, the majority are found to be vulnerable due
to their young age (8%, including 16-17 year olds and 18-20 year
old care leavers) or mental health problems (9%).
Causes of homelessness
Homelessness is often the result of a complex interaction
between structural factors (such as changes in labour and housing
markets) and personal circumstances (such as relationship breakdown
or domestic violence). According to official statistics, the main
causes are family and friends no longer being willing to accommodate
a household (36%), relationship breakdown (including domestic
violence, 20%) and the ending of assured shorthold tenancies in
the private rented sector (13%). It is likely that the increase
in the first two categories masks a range of different causes
of homelessness and reflects wider pressures on housing supply.
CAUSES OF HOMELESSNESS 1996-97—2003-04
| Cause | Number: 1996-97
| %: 1996-97 | Number: 2003-04
| %: 2003-04 |
| Parents no longer able to accommodate
| 18,800 | 17% | 30,100
| 22% |
| Friends no longer able to accommodate | 13,580
| 12% | 21,310 | 16%
|
| Violent relationship breakdown | 19,920
| 18% | 17,670 | 13%
|
| Non-violent relationship breakdown | 7,720
| 7% | 9,520 | 7%
|
| Mortgage arrears | 7,590 |
7% | 2,070 | 2%
|
| Rent arrears | 2,310 | 2%
| 2,740 | 2% |
| End of assured shorthold tenancy | 13,380
| 12% | 17,220 | 13%
|
| Loss of other rented/tied accommodation |
10,560 | 9% | 7,420
| 5% |
| Other | 19,440 | 17%
| 28,980 | 21% |
| Total | 113,300 | 100%
| 137,010 | 100% |
Intentional and "non-priority" homelessness
In addition to households who are accepted as being unintentionally
homeless and in priority need, many are deemed intentionally homeless
or are not considered to be in priority need. These households
are not entitled to accommodation. In 2003-04, 67,900 households
were found to be homeless but not in priority need and 12,970
were deemed intentionally homeless. The latter figure has more
than doubled since 1997-98, and has increased at a much higher
rate than the overall number of decisions. We believe this is
as a result of local authorities interpreting intentionality more
strictly than originally intended (see below).
Temporary accommodation
The growing shortage of social rented housing has resulted
in an increased reliance on temporary accommodation to house homeless
households. There are currently 99,380 households in temporary
accommodation, by far the highest on record, and up from 41,250
in March 1997. For many homeless people, this experience is now
anything but "temporary". Since 1997, the average period
of time spent in temporary accommodation has increased from 98
days to 267 days. In London, it has increased from 91 days to
391 days.
HOMELESS HOUSEHOLDS IN TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION (1997-98—2003-04)
| Region | At 31 March 1997
| At 31 March 2004 | % Change
|
| | |
|
| North East | 480 | 770
| 38% |
| North West | 2,100 | 2,830
| 35% |
| Yorkshire and Humber | 1,000
| 2,400 | 140% |
| East Midlands | 1,380 | 2,820
| 104% |
| West Midlands | 1,070 | 2,140
| 100% |
| East of England | 2,600 |
8,220 | 216% |
| London | 24,060 | 59,170
| 146% |
| South East | 6,390 | 12,790
| 100% |
| South West | 2,210 | 6,150
| 178% |
| Total | 41,250 | 97,290
| 136% |
"Non-statutory" homelessness
Many homeless people do not approach local authorities for
assistance at all. Those who are homeless but not in contact with
statutory services will include people staying with family and
friends, living in emergency accommodation including direct access
hostels or self-placed in bed and breakfast hotels and those squatting
in empty houses. In 1997, Shelter estimated that there were over
70,000 people self-placed in bed and breakfast hotels in England
and Wales[99] There are
currently 35,000 bed spaces in hostels in England[100]
almost all of which are full on any given night.
Street homelessness
The most recent data from official street counts found 508
people sleeping rough in England[101]
This suggests that the target to keep rough sleeping as low as
possible is being sustained, a significant and very welcome achievement.
However, it is also important to bear in mind the limitations
of the methodology which only provides a snapshot covering the
areas where street counts are conducted. This means that the actual
numbers of rough sleepers at any one time is likely to be higher
than the official figure. In some areas, multi-agency monitoring
conducted by the statutory and voluntary sector provides a more
comprehensive picture and estimates from the ODPM suggest that
ten times that number sleep rough over the course of a year[102]
Black and minority ethnic homelessness
Homelessness amongst black and minority ethnic (BME) households
has risen twice as fast as in the general population in recent
years. By the end of March 2003, BME households accounted for
30% of homelessness acceptances, whilst making up only 9% of the
general population. The disproportionate increase in BME homelessness
could have been caused by a number of factors, including a failure
of homelessness prevention services to meet the developing needs
of particular ethnic groups and a reduction in the availability
of appropriate housing for BME households. ODPM has commissioned
research into the causes of BME homelessness. This research is
desperately needed if the causes of the sharp rise in BME homelessness
are to be fully understood and tackled.
2. THE SUCCESS
OF POLICIES
MEETING THE
NEEDS OF
HOMELESS HOUSEHOLDS
(a) Families
Shelter's survey of over 400 homeless households living in
temporary accommodation, published in our report Living in
limbo, highlighted its devastating impact on the health, education,
opportunities and well being of homeless families. The findings
of the survey included:
— More than half the respondents had been waiting
in temporary accommodation for more than a year.
— Over half said that their health or their family's
health had suffered due to living in temporary accommodation.
— Those who had been living in temporary accommodation
for more than a year were twice as likely as those who had been
living there for less than three months to report that their health
had suffered.
— Children had missed an average of 55 days of school
due to the disruption caused by homelessness and frequent moves
between schools.
— Nearly half of parents described their children
as "often unhappy or depressed" and said that their
education had suffered as a result of being in temporary accommodation.
— Only a fifth of families with children aged under
four years of age were accessing Sure Start.
— Over three quarters of households had no member
working—the reasons for this included health or mobility
problems, the insecurity of their accommodation and the disincentives
to work caused by the interaction of Housing Benefit with high
rents.
Based on a comparison between the needs of the households
in our survey and those of recently homeless households in social
housing, we estimate that the additional cost to the public purse
associated with the use of temporary accommodation is around £500
million. This includes approximately:
— £300 million on additional Housing Benefit
expenditure linked to higher rents and greater dependency on housing
benefit.
— £90 million on additional take up of Income
Support.
— £50 million on out of school provision as
a result of missed school.
— £30 million on additional take up of sickness
benefits.
— £10 million on additional visits to GPs.
As set out above, Shelter strongly welcomes the end to the
prolonged use of bed and breakfast to accommodate homeless families.
However, with the numbers of households in temporary accommodation
at record levels and set to top 100,000 in the near future, we
believe that the Government must, as a priority, set out a national
strategy to reduce the use of temporary accommodation and tackle
the damaging impact of living there, particularly on children.
This should be identified as a key priority in the ODPM's Five
Year Plan, due to be published in the autumn; be underpinned by
a high profile and challenging target linked to the Department's
PSA; and identified as a key priority in the next round of regional
housing strategies.
The long term solution to reducing the use of temporary accommodation,
as set out elsewhere in this submission, is a significant increase
in the supply of social housing. In the short term, regional housing
strategies should set out measures to maximise the supply of permanent
lettings to homeless households. In London, where the problem
is particularly acute, the GLA should work with the boroughs and
RSLs on an emergency programme of acquisitions to boost supply.
The evidence from our Living in limbo report highlights
the damaging impact of prolonged stays in temporary accommodation,
particularly on children. With temporary accommodation already
a reality for over 100,000 children and the average length of
time spent there now nearly nine months, it is vital that the
Government also sets out a package of support to minimise the
social exclusion it causes. The announcement of new measures to
improve standards in temporary accommodation are an important
step forward. However, much more needs to be done, particularly
to tackle the impact on education of prolonged stays, and moves
between, temporary accommodation:
— The subsidy regime should be reformed so that
the bulk of the cost of temporary accommodation is paid directly
via a grant-based system rather than through Housing Benefit—this
proposal, which has been promoted jointly by the ALG, GLA, NHF
and Shelter, would significantly improve work incentives and would
be cost neutral.
— The Supporting People programme should prioritise
support services aimed at homeless people in temporary accommodation
and funding should be made available to provide dedicated child
support workers within tenancy sustainment and other support teams
working with homeless families.
— DfES should review the Sure Start programme to
identify ways to promote access and take up of Sure Start services
among homeless children.
— Support services working with homeless families
should work closely with educational welfare services to ensure
that homeless children can access school places and that support
needs relevant to their education are met.
— Grants should be made available to cover the additional
cost of transport, school uniforms and extra-curricular activities
as a result of moves into and between temporary accommodation.
— The Vulnerable Children Grant, which funds projects
to integrate vulnerable children in school, should be reformed
to ensure that it targets homeless children as well as other excluded
groups.
(b) Single people
As set out above, Shelter strongly supports the Government's
commitment to sustain the reduction in rough sleeping but remains
concerned at the number of people who continue to end up on the
street. Shelter's services continue to be contacted by significant
numbers of people seeking accommodation because they are sleeping
rough. It is therefore essential that services to assist street
homeless people and stem the flow of vulnerable people onto the
street are maintained.
Single homeless people experience serious problems in gaining
access to good quality emergency and hostel accommodation. The
number of available hostel vacancies on any given night is very
small—a Resource Information Service (RIS) survey of hostels
and supported housing projects in London carried out in February
2003 indicated a vacancy rate of 1.3%. This equates to 18 vacancies
within a total of 5,941 bedspaces. We therefore welcome the announcement
that funding for improving hostel provision will be a priority
within the £90 million Inclusive Communities Fund.
A shortage of "move on" accommodation and the pressure
on lettings through local authority allocations policies also
makes it increasingly difficult for this group to access social
housing. The RIS survey found that 30% of hostel residents assessed
by staff as ready to move into permanent housing were prevented
from doing so by a lack of move on accommodation. This "silt
up" also further decreases the number of vacancies available.
It is therefore important that single people benefit from the
increased investment in social housing announced in the Spending
Review.
Although they are classed as vulnerable through their priority
need status, Shelter is seeing a growing number of cases where
the well-being of young people is threatened because they are
being placed in unsuitable accommodation without support. We therefore
believe there is an urgent need for Government to issue guidance
on the suitability of placements for 16-17 year-olds and care
leavers.
Under the Homelessness Act 2002, the duty to provide "non-priority"
homeless people (the majority of whom are single) with advice
and assistance was strengthened. Despite this, many local authorities
have not improved their services. Many are still not undertaking
individual housing needs assessments and only provide housing
advice in the context of homelessness interviews.
(c) Those who are intentionally homeless
The concept of "intentionality" was introduced
in the 1977 Homeless Persons Act to prevent people deliberately
taking advantage of the homelessness provisions. As set out earlier
in this submission, the number of intentional homeless decisions
has more than doubled since 1997.
The consequences of being found intentionally homeless are
severe in terms of reducing a household's opportunities to access
housing and it is therefore important that authorities make careful
judgments when applying the intentionality provisions. However,
our experience is that intentional homelessness decisions are
often harsh and in many cases inadequate—our housing advisers
are often successful in overturning them. We believe that some
authorities may be interpreting intentionality very strictly in
order to reduce the number of homeless households they are required
to re-house.
More research is needed into the circumstances of, and what
happens to, intentionally homeless households. However, we believe
that, in the face of evidence that the current provisions are
being misapplied, the Government should review the legislation
with a view to returning it to its original aim that intentional
homelessness decisions should be made sparingly and clarify the
circumstances in which they should be made.
A particular problem faced by intentionally homeless families
(and by those who do not qualify for assistance due to their immigration
status) is the widespread failure of social services to respond
to "children in need". Section 17 of the Children Act
places social services under a general duty to safeguard and promote
the welfare of children in need and, wherever possible, to do
so by keeping the family together. This should provide an important
safety net for ensuring that appropriate housing solutions are
found for homeless families with children who are not eligible
for assistance under the homelessness legislation.
However, our evidence is that the response of social services
in these circumstances is very patchy. Not all practice is bad.
For example, Norfolk has a protocol covering the social services
authority (county) and its seven housing authorities (district)
aimed at securing appropriate accommodation and preventing future
homelessness. Nevertheless, our experience is that social services
sometimes offer no assistance at all, regularly fail to carry
out children in need assessments and frequently limit their response
to "offering" to take the children into care. This forces
many families into inappropriate and unsuitable housing situations.
One recent caller to our Shelterline service had been sleeping
rough in a local park with her three children rather than have
them taken into care.
It is abhorrent to suggest that children should be taken
into care simply because a family is homeless. This undermines
the principle that families should be kept together wherever possible
and is contrary to the policy direction set out in Every child
matters—that the needs of the children should be at the
centre of policy.
In response to concerns raised previously following a number
of court cases, the Government introduced amendments to the Homelessness
Act and the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to ensure that housing
and social services work together and to clarify that accommodation
can be provided in these circumstances. A circular was also sent
to local authorities by the Department of Health in June 2003.
However, this appears to have made little impact.
It is clear that the weakness of the current legislative
framework is being used by some authorities to justify an inadequate
response. Shelter does not wish to create a "back door"
route into social housing for those who are not entitled to assistance
under the homelessness legislation. We simply want to ensure that
social services work effectively with housing departments to facilitate
appropriate housing solutions for homeless families in these circumstances
(for example by providing assistance with a rent deposit). We
therefore believe that the Children Bill, which is currently before
the House of Commons, should be amended to achieve this.
3. THE ADEQUACY
OF INVESTMENT
IN HOUSING
FOR HOMELESS
PEOPLE AND
QUALITY OF
ACCOMMODATION AVAILABLE
TO THEM
Shelter believes that the shortage of social housing has
reached crisis levels in some parts of the country. In addition
to the record numbers of homeless households living in temporary
accommodation, it is also estimated that half a million are living
in overcrowded conditions[103]
This crisis has been exacerbated by the swingeing cuts in investment
in new affordable housing during the late 1990s. Alongside the
necessary refocusing of investment on those areas with the highest
needs, increases in land values and higher construction costs,
this has meant that fewer social rented homes have been built
than at any time since 1945.
We therefore welcome the recent Spending Review announcement
that capital spending on new social rented housing is to increase
by £430 million over the period to 2007-08, delivering an
extra 10,000 homes annually. However, this level of new build
is barely half that recommended by the Barker Review and falls
far short of the estimated 55,000 affordable homes needed according
to work carried out for Shelter by the University of Cambridge[104]
It is, therefore, absolutely critical that this investment is
targeted on delivering homes for those in greatest need and is
not diverted into schemes for other groups (see below).
4. FACTORS AFFECTING
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE
HOMELESSNESS ACT
2002
As set out above, Shelter worked closely with local authorities
as they developed their homelessness strategies and carried out
extensive research into their experience as they implemented the
Homelessness Act. We also developed an innovative website to promote
good practice in implementing the Act which has been used by every
authority in England.
Based on this work, we believe that the overall experience
of implementing the Homelessness Act has been very positive, showing
that local authorities have responded well to the challenge of
the new legislation. The vast majority met the statutory target
to publish their homelessness strategies by July 2002. Our research
indicates that they have benefited from this process, with many
saying it has helped improve their understanding of the causes
of homelessness in their area and how they should respond to it.
Most are planning to review their strategies within 12-18 months
and will use this information to improve their response. Perhaps
most importantly, there seems to have been a genuine shift away
from crisis management towards a more strategic approach based
on preventing homelessness.
Some of the other key findings from our research include:
— Lack of resources, in relation to both time and
skills, was a key problem identified by many authorities in developing
their homelessness strategies.
— In developing their strategies, most authorities
adopted a consultative approach, although a number flagged up
consultation with service users as an area of weakness.
— Many authorities highlighted the need to improve
data collection and analysis, with particular gaps acknowledged
in data on homelessness among BME groups.
— Many local authorities recognised the need to
alter their current working practices—this was identified
particularly in relation to rent arrears management.
— Three quarters of authorities we surveyed identified
affordability or a shortage of affordable housing as a significant
outstanding challenge to tackling homelessness.
— Over 80% of authorities in our final survey of
28 "sample" local authorities identified gaps in the
provision of housing advice services in their area.
— The process of developing homelessness strategies
has improved joint working between different local authority departments
and other agencies and led to a more "multi-agency"
approach to tackling homelessness.
— However, joint working between housing and social
services remains problematic in many areas, with evidence that
social services are not engaging sufficiently either at a strategic
or operational level and conflicting planning cycles hampering
integration between homelessness and other strategies, particularly
in relation to Supporting People.
— Our surveys also indicated that many authorities
failed to review their allocations policies in line with the requirements
of the Homelessness Act—this is in danger of undermining
the more positive approach they are taking to tackling homelessness.
5. LOCATION OF
PROVISION FOR
HOMELESS PEOPLE
RELATIVE TO
WHERE THEY
LIVE
The severe shortage of all forms of housing in some areas
means that homeless households are often placed in temporary accommodation
outside their "home" authority[105]
For example, the GLA found that only 55% of households in bed
and breakfast and 44% of those in self-contained annexes are placed
in their home borough. Overall, across all types of temporary
accommodation used by authorities in London, 15% of placements
are outside the household's home borough. Evidence from our services
suggests that out of area placements are also becoming more common
outside the Capital.
Out of area placements increase the likelihood of becoming
dislocated from support services and social networks. Our research
into the impacts of living in temporary accommodation showed that:
— Almost half of those surveyed felt isolated from
friends and family and many indicated that their children had
lost friends through moving.
— A fifth said they were a long way from facilities
such as shops and schools.
— A third of parents said that their children had
missed time at school as a result of transport problems, an inability
to get a school place in a new area or having to move several
times in temporary placements.
6. THE BALANCE
OF PUBLIC
INVESTMENT FOR
HOUSING FOR
KEY WORKERS
AND HOMELESS
PEOPLE
The Government is giving an increasingly high priority to
subsidising housing for certain "key workers" on moderate
incomes who are priced out of home ownership. Current programmes
tend to focus subsidy on specified groups such as teachers, police,
nurses and other public sector workers in areas where house prices
are high. £250 million has been spent since 2001 under the
Starter Homes Initiative and £690 million more will be spent
through the new "Key Worker Living" programme over the
next two years. In addition, English Partnerships' London Wide
initiative will provide 2,000 key worker homes across the capital
during the next two-three years.
Nationally, the Housing Corporation has allocated over £1
billion for intermediate and key worker housing in 2004-05 and
2005-06. This reflects a 32-68% investment split respectively
between intermediate (including key worker) housing and social
housing for rent[106]
However, as the figures below highlight, the numbers of outturn
units against levels of investment are far higher for intermediate
housing.
RESOURCES (£m)—HOUSING CORPORATION INVESTMENT
IN LONDON
| Year | 2001-02
| 2002-03 | 2003-04
|
| | |
|
| Social housing for rent | 431.0 (87%)
| 456.3 (84%) | 626.99 (71%)
|
| Low cost home ownership | 61.7 (13%)
| 89.5 (16%) | 198.91 (22%) |
| Intermediate rent | 0 | 0
| 57.86 (7%) |
| Total | 492.7 | 545.8
| 883.76 |
Figures for 2003-04 include £300 million of additional resources
allocated through the Challenge Fund.
NUMBERS OF UNITS—HOUSING CORPORATION INVESTMENT
IN LONDON
| Year | 2001-02
| 2002-03 | 2003-04
|
| | |
|
| Social housing for rent | 5,198 (77%)
| 5,019 (72%) | 7,100 (53%) |
| Low cost home ownership | 1,541 (23%)
| 1,970 (28%) | 4,735 (35%) |
| Intermediate rent | 0 |
0 | 1,538 (12%) |
| Total | 6,739 | 6,989
| 13,373 |
Figures for 2003-04 include 6,617 homes funded through the Challenge
Fund.
More research is needed to show the extent of intermediate
housing need, who is benefiting from these schemes and if these
people could otherwise rent or buy market housing (ODPM research
has found that many people buying through low cost home ownership
programmes in the North and Midlands could afford to buy on the
open market)[107] There
is also the added concern of giving people public subsidy without
it being clawed back—the Government's Home Ownership Task
Force concluded that since individuals in these circumstances
are getting access to an asset, it is reasonable to recoup the
public subsidy. We therefore believe that equity loans are preferable
to grants as they allow for public subsidy to be repaid.
This submission highlights the devastating impact of living
in temporary accommodation on health, education and well being.
The crisis of housing need is most acute in London, which accounts
for 60% of those living in temporary accommodation. Yet, in 2003-04,
only 53% of Government funded homes built in the Capital will
be for social rent. At a time where the numbers in temporary accommodation
have reached record levels, we strongly question the shift away
from using public subsidy to provide social housing for those
most in need towards low cost homeownership and rented housing
for key workers.
7. PRIORITY FOR
HOMELESS PEOPLE
WITHIN THE
OVERALL ALLOCATION
OF SOCIAL
HOUSING
One of the key aims of the new framework for allocations
policies introduced by the Homelessness Act was to outlaw the
"blanket" exclusion of particular groups of people from
social housing. The then Housing Minister, Lord Falconer of Thoroton
QC, made it clear in Parliament that households should only be
denied access to social housing in circumstances in which a court
would be prepared to grant an immediate possession order. Yet,
Shelter continues to assist large numbers of clients who have
been denied access to housing on grounds which, when challenged,
have proved to be unsound. Examples include minor rent arrears
and previous criminal convictions. As set out above, our research
into the implementation of the Homelessness Act also showed that
allocations polices are in danger of undermining the progress
being made on homelessness in some authorities.
We understand the pressure many local authorities are under
to manage competing demands for social housing. In London and
other areas of high demand for housing, the number of lettings
available has dwindled in recent years as a result of low levels
of social housebuilding, the impact of sales under the Right to
Buy and reduced mobility in the social sector. This makes it more
difficult for authorities to balance their obligations to house
those most in need with objectives to promote sustainable communities.
In the late 1990s, we were very concerned that, whilst the
number of homeless acceptances and households in temporary accommodation
were increasing significantly, the proportion of lettings given
to homeless households fell steeply. Since then, the proportion
of local authority lettings going to homeless households has returned
to the levels of the mid-1990s, although housing association lettings
continue to lag behind previous levels. However, the national
figures mask a much more complex picture with levels of demand,
the number of available lettings and routes into those lettings
varying greatly between areas, regions and property types. This
is an area we think it would be particularly useful for the Committee
to explore.
Further concerns arise where applicants are nominated to
RSLs. Nomination failure rates have been estimated at up to 50%
in some areas, and are highest in low demand areas of the North
and Midlands[108] In
these regions, the main reason for failure is said to be outdated
details of applicants' needs so that they are being put forward
for unsuitable vacancies. The most common reason for vulnerable
applicants being turned down in London is either because they
have been nominated without a suitable support package, or because
the RSL has a local lettings policy in place which makes them
unsuitable. These policies—which prioritise applicants with
particular characteristics—often disadvantage homeless households.
There often appears to be a tension between policies designed
to promote community sustainability and the needs of those in
the most severe housing need, particularly vulnerable homeless
applicants. Shelter does not accept that meeting need and promoting
sustainable communities are mutually exclusive objectives. We
believe ODPM should explore options to resolve these tensions
through the provision of support packages, tenancy sustainment
programmes, assistance with parenting and behavioural problems,
and community development to ensure that both objectives can be
met.
8. CO -ORDINATION
AND SUPPLY
OF NON-HOUSING
SERVICES PROVIDED
FOR HOMELESS PEOPLE
Shelter strongly supports the development of information-sharing
schemes, such as the "Notify" scheme developed by the
ALG and GLA which provide an effective means of ensuring that
all homeless households are in contact with essential services
and should be extended nationally.
We acknowledge the progress made in improving primary health
care services for homeless people and in joint working between
housing and health agencies. Our research into the implementation
of the Homelessness Act showed that 80% if authorities had had
at least some contact with Primary Care Trusts in developing their
homelessness strategies. However, there is evidence that specialist
primary health care provision needs to be expanded to fill the
gaps in services that still exist, especially in areas with a
low incidence of homelessness and for homeless families[109]
Although we also acknowledge the significant benefits brought
about by the advent of Supporting People, we do have concerns
about the programme:
— Gaps in services: Our research shows that
there are gaps in the range and capacity of support services for
vulnerable homeless people, including those with mental health
problems, young people, people with multiple needs and those with
substance misuse problems[110]
This is backed up by the Robson Rhodes evaluation of the Supporting
People programme[111]
and evidence provided to this Committee which indicated that unpopular
groups, such as substance misusers are at risk of losing out on
funding, despite their need for services[112]
— Funding issues: Our research also highlighted
concerns among local authorities about lack of co-ordination in
the timescale for development of homelessness and Supporting People
strategies and between capital and revenue funding streams. Evidence
presented to this Committee confirms that the number of projects
funded this year is down on previous years[113]
Shelter agrees with many of the recommendations made in the
recent ODPM select committee report on Supporting People. We believe
that ODPM should consider ring-fenced funding for unpopular groups
and drawing in funding from other departments, such as the Department
of Health, where there are clear benefits to their objectives.
We would also like to see Regional Housing Boards take a stronger
lead in integrating capital and revenue support.
9. EFFECTIVENESS OF
PUBLIC AGENCIES
IN PREVENTING
HOMELESSNESS
The funding and support given to local authorities by the
HHSD, linked to specific targets and guidance on achieving positive
outcomes, has been very successful in encouraging a more preventative
approach to tackling homelessness. We would therefore like to
see HHSD continue its current level of resource allocation to
local authorities. This will help sustain progress and ensure
that development of innovative services to prevent homelessness
continues to be possible.
With the understandable desire to reduce the number of homelessness
acceptances and many local authorities under pressure due to shortages
in the social housing stock, it is important that, whilst promoting
services that prevent homelessness, they continue to fulfil their
statutory duties under the homelessness legislation. For example,
Shelter supports mediation schemes that work with young people
and their families to resolve difficulties that may otherwise
result in them leaving home and lead to homelessness. However,
it is important that such schemes take a sensitive approach in
the particular circumstances so that, for example, young people
are not left in a situation where they are at risk of violence.
Preventative services must be focused on improving outcomes
for potentially homeless applicants rather than artificially reducing
the number of homelessness acceptances or "demand managing"
access to social housing. However, housing advisers are raising
concerns about the approach to practice in some areas where, for
example, vulnerable applicants are being pushed into private rented
tenancies without support.
It is important that performance measures are carefully constructed
to encourage genuinely preventative services. The new Best Value
Performance Indicator on housing advice is a welcome development
in this respect. The ODPM have commissioned an evaluation which
should provide important information about practice in this area.
It is also important that a co-ordinated approach is taken
to developing policy and practice, both at a national and a local
level. We hope that the Ministerial committee on homelessness
will improve co-ordination between departments and give tackling
homelessness a higher priority across government. For example,
more effective housing advice services would help meet Department
for Constitutional Affairs objectives as well as prevent homelessness
(see below).
There are a number of key areas where we believe further
progress can be made in preventing homelessness, some of which
are highlighted below.
Tenancy sustainment
The transition from temporary to permanent accommodation
is a difficult one, practically, financially and psychologically.
Many people struggle to maintain their new tenancies and become
trapped in what has been described as the "revolving door"
of homelessness. There is growing evidence that many of those
accepted as homeless have been homeless before (estimates suggest
levels of "repeat" homelessness lie somewhere between
10% and 30%), an issue the HHSD have targeted as a key outcome
for local authorities.
Tenancy sustainment services work with formerly homeless
households or those at risk of homelessness, providing support
to help them maintain their home. They have been shown to be very
successful in helping people to maintain their tenancies—Shelter's
Homeless to Home services have been shown to achieve a
tenancy sustainment rate of 90% after nine months. These services
are also cost effective. We have estimated that, based on the
average cost of our Homeless to Home service (£3,400); the
Audit Commission's estimate of the cost of tenancy failure (£1,650);
and the cost of spending a year in temporary accommodation (£5,000),
these services can save the public purse an average of £2,800
per household.
Whilst the number of tenancy sustainment services has expanded,
we have been concerned that pressure on the Supporting People
budget has limited the scope for developing these services. Now
that the future of the Supporting People programme has been clarified,
HHSD and local authorities should give priority to the development
of these services.
Rent arrears
Over the past decade, increasing numbers of social housing
tenants have been taken to court and threatened with eviction
for rent arrears. Between 1994 and 2001, the number of possession
actions taken out by social landlords more than doubled to over
150,000 per annum. It is estimated that approximately 90% of these
cases are for rent arrears.
However, only around 30,000 cases result in outright possession
orders. Of the remainder, around 70,000 result in a suspended
possession order and 50,000 no further action. This suggests that
many social landlords are using possession as a first rather than
a last resort for managing rent arrears. This not only undermines
efforts to prevent homelessness, it is also an inefficient and
costly use of the courts.
Shelter therefore welcomes the establishment of a cross-departmental
working group on this issue, led by ODPM and DCA. This has coincided
with a number of very welcome policy changes including amendments
to the Best Value Performance Indicator on rent arrears to discourage
unnecessary possession action and a new requirement on local authorities
and housing associations to monitor the number of people they
evict. We also look forward to forthcoming guidance in this area
from the Housing Corporation.
We continue to believe that further progress can be made
by improving the administration of Housing Benefit, encouraging
more proactive housing management and increasing the provision
of advice on housing, debt and welfare benefits. We also believe
that the Government should fund independent "arrears resolution"
services to negotiate between landlords, tenants and other relevant
agencies to prevent possession action, help resolve outstanding
issues such as delays in the payment of Housing Benefit and ensure
that landlords can recover the rent due to them.
Housing advice
Housing advice is a vital and cost effective means of preventing
homelessness. Our evidence suggests that spending as little as
£400 on good quality housing advice can often prevent homelessness.
We are therefore concerned at increasing evidence of chronic shortages
in housing advice services in many parts of the country. For example,
there are no suppliers contracted to by the Legal Services Commission
to provide specialist housing advice across the whole of Gloucestershire
and North Somerset. We draw attention to the findings of the recent
Constitutional Affairs Select Committee inquiry into Civil Legal
Aid and suggest that ODPM and DCA work together to ensure that
housing advice is more widely available. We would also like to
see a jointly administered fund set up to support the development
of innovative housing advice services.
Ex-offenders
We welcome the publication of the Home Office's National
Action Plan on reducing re-offending and the acknowledgement of
the positive impact that stable accommodation has on re-offending[114]
This provides a good starting point for improving and evaluating
housing advice services for prisoners and should lead to more
accommodation being arranged on release and more tenancies being
sustained. We particularly welcome proposals to re-issue homelessness
guidance to local authorities to give clear advice on establishing
priority need for ex-prisoners and on working with other agencies
to prevent homelessness. However, we believe that all prisoners
should have access to good quality housing advice and would also
encourage prison resettlement services to include protocols with
local authorities to accept homelessness applications as early
as possible prior to release.
98
These figures are based on the ODPM's Statutory homelessness statistics
published on 13 September 2004. Back
99
The Last resort (Shelter, 1997). Back
100
Homelessness Policy Briefing Eight-Improving the quality of hostels
and other forms of temporary accommodation (ODPM, 2004). Back
101
ODPM Estimate of the number of people sleeping rough June/July
2004. Back
102
Helping rough sleepers of the streets (G Randall and S Brown,
ODPM, 2002). Back
103
Survey of English Housing, 2000-01. Back
104
Building for the Future-2004 Update (Shelter, 2004). Back
105
Homelessness in London 48 (GLA 2003). Back
106
Housing Corporation Investment Bulletin 2004. Back
107
Evaluation of the low cost home ownership programme (ODPM,
2002). Back
108
Changing Places: Housing Association policy and practice on
nominations and lettings, (H Pawson & D Mullins 2003). Back
109
Guide to Addressing Family Homelessness for PCTs (S Gorton,
2004). Back
110
Local Authority Progress and Practice: Local authorities and
the Homelessness Act 2002 (Shelter 2003). Back
111
Independent Review of the Supporting People Programme (E
Sullivan & Robson Rhodes 2004). Back
112
Evidence presented to ODPM Select Committee, Supporting Vulnerable
and Older People: The Supporting People Programme, Tenth Report
of Session 2003-04. Back
113
Ibid. Back
114
The Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) report "Reducing re-offending
by ex-prisoners" found that stable accommodation reduced
the risk of re-offending by around 20%. It also found that a third
of prisoners lost their accommodation whilst in custody and only
a third of prisoners had accommodation arranged on release. Back
| 
