Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Third Report


3 Prevention

78. Preventing people becoming homeless is one of the key elements in reducing the overall rates of homelessness. The 2002 Homelessness Act obliged local authorities to develop local homelessness prevention strategies. Our evidence demonstrates that many organisations are involved in prevention work, especially in relation to priority needs groups. Nightstop UK, a charity providing emergency accommodation for 16-25 year olds, told us "public agencies are not effective in preventing people becoming homeless. Currently their role is like ambulances going around picking up the casualties after the event".[108]

79. Prevention is one of the areas where the Government is working in close partnership with voluntary agencies. The ODPM told us

    "direct funding has helped authorities to pump-prime schemes targeted towards the main causes of homelessness in their particular areas. Around £100 million was available in 2002-03; £60 million in 2003-04; and £60 million in 2004-05. Of this, around £15 million - £20 million was allocated direct to voluntary sector agencies who were providing national or cross-borough services".[109]

Shelter stated

    "The funding and support given to local authorities … 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 [the Government] 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".[110]

80. We welcome the Government's pump-priming funding to local authorities for prevention work. We recommend that the Government continues to support the efforts of local authorities and voluntary organisations in projects to prevent homelessness, and evaluates the need for future funding beyond the scope of initial pump-priming.

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR?

81. Ms Jenny Edwards of Homeless Link, suggested that the operation of prevention schemes be introduced as a local authority performance indicator. Mr Jeremy Drew, representing the Foyer Federation, supported this suggestion.[111] Ms Genevieve Macklin, of the Association of London Government (ALG), told us

    "I think [the level of acceptances] would have increased more significantly but for the work that boroughs have been doing around prevention strategies and there has been some real success in that area. We carried out recent research at the ALG and the prevention strategies, particularly around rent deposit schemes and mediation for young people, 16- and 17-year-olds, have shown to be very effective in terms of preventing, and, for example, the mediation services for young people have had an effect of almost 45 per cent in those young people who have been presenting themselves not then being accepted as homeless and alternative options there".[112]

82. We recommend that the operation of prevention schemes should be introduced as a local authority performance indicator.

PREVENTION AMONGST YOUNG PEOPLE

83. Prevention work with young people should have high priority, given the rising number of homelessness acceptances among 16-17 year olds. We visited St Basil's in Birmingham, an organisation working with under 25s who are homeless or threatened with becoming homeless. We heard there that programmes in schools, in which those who had experienced homelessness spoke to children long before their sixteenth birthday, were considered very effective in adjusting perceptions of what a homelessness application would lead to. Workers also went to housing centres to talk to those making applications and suggest alternatives. Family mediation services were often extremely effective. Funding constraints prevented them from running as many of these schemes as they wanted to. St Basil's also suggested that the Government consider introducing housing issues to the citizenship curriculum for secondary schools.[113]

84. We heard examples of effective prevention schemes. The Foyer Federation works with people under 25 across the country. In written evidence, the Safe Moves programme is described in detail.

    "Safe Moves is a project run by the Foyer Federation, developed in partnership with the Connexions Service National Unit. It is a new initiative to create a national network of projects aimed at preventing youth homelessness. ..The projects are based around peer mentoring, family mediation and life skills training. The intention is that some young people will be assisted to continue living at home, by improving relationships with their parents or carers. If this is not appropriate, for example because of abuse, they will be helped to make a safe transition to independent or supported accommodation, without the risks involved in an unplanned departure from home".[114]

Pilots are now being expanded nationwide. Centrepoint told us that

    "The evidence from our work with the Peabody Trust on our the successful joint "Safe in the City" action-research on preventing youth homelessness in London is that early work to prevent young people becoming homeless will combine work on family mediation with the personal and social development of young people through youth-work, and more specific education and training interventions".[115]

EX-OFFENDERS

85. Prevention is also a key issue with ex-offenders. We had evidence from three organisations deeply involved in working with ex-offenders, one of which was a regional branch of the National Probation Service. This group is seen as important in part because the rates of homelessness are so high, and in part because the risk of a prisoner re-offending is far higher if they are homeless, whether on the streets or in temporary accommodation. Mr Paul Cavadino of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO) told us

The prison population is controlled and it is possible for the Home Office to make some assessment of how many prisoners its prevention programmes may be reaching.

86. The crucial issue for many prisoners is finding or keeping a place to live while in prison. Many prisoners lose tenancies while serving their sentences. A client of the Revolving Doors Agency said

    "Work should be done before leaving prison, if possible, because when you lose your tenancy, you don't just lose your tenancy you lose the contents of your home - they take as well. You come home to nothing—that's supposed to keep someone out of trouble is it?".[117]

87. The National Probation Service Northumbria told us "virtually all prisoners living in the private sector lose their homes and the majority of owner occupiers have their homes repossessed".[118] Prisoners in local authority accommodation often do not realise that they need to surrender tenancies and end up with rent arrears, leaving them liable to being declared intentionally homeless on release. The Revolving Doors Agency told us

    "Given that on entering prison, many of our clients face the prospect of a combination of deteriorating mental health and the effects of withdrawal from drug or alcohol dependency they are unlikely to consider relinquishing a tenancy as their top priority. Moreover, in the absence of appropriate support, it is unlikely that they will have sufficient knowledge of the housing system to do so".[119]

88. Housing advice centres in prisons can provide trained staff aware of the issues facing those entering and leaving prison, and this appears to reduce the number of those leaving prison to no fixed address. NACRO told us "housing advice services should be established in every prison. Advice should be available to every prisoner who requires it (at present many such services only cater for a proportion of the prison's population)".[120] Mr Nick O'Shea, from the Revolving Doors Agency, told us

    "When we did the national rehabilitation strategy we went to a lot of prisons to see what they were doing in terms of getting housing advice in there and there were some excellent examples and there were some very poor examples where the local authorities ignored what was going on".[121]

Mr O'Shea also told us that 47 of 138 prisons had advice centres, which he considered too few. He told us that in his opinion "it is the local authorities because at the end of the day they are the ones who can provide the housing when they are released".[122] He felt that this responsibility extended to the provision of advice while imprisoned.[123]

89. We asked Mr Paul Goggins MP, Minister for Correctional Services and Reducing Re-offending, how many prisons provided housing advice services. He thought that 70 prisons (from 137) provided housing advice.[124] We cannot explain the discrepancy in these figures. Mr Goggins told us what he saw the housing advice centres role to be:

    "dealing with this issue starts right at the beginning of the prison sentence as part of the induction process. There is now a common assessment tool that is used right across the 70 prisons that have housing advice and support within the services they offer, so that right from the beginning a person's housing need can be established and then through the forward planning that takes place while somebody is in prison we can try to deal with housing need on release. Obviously liaison and communication with housing providers—local authorities and also other social housing providers as well —is absolutely critical".[125]

We asked if the other prisons did not provide housing advice. Mr Goggins replied

    "All prisons would offer housing advice. I am talking about a specific housing advice service which is fully staffed and so on. The most important thing to emphasise here is that every local prison - and these are the prisons mainly in our big cities where many prisoners come and go with great rapidity- has a well-developed housing advice service now".[126]

He also told us about the funding of this advice.

    "£3 million in the Custody to Work programme is spent on providing housing advice. We will have to show in the medium to long term that that actually produces higher numbers of ex-prisoners moving into accommodation and sustaining that accommodation but also of course reducing the rate of offending because that is the purpose of this investment".[127]

90. Mr Goggins also told us about other prevention projects run in English prisons, for example the Bridge Project in Doncaster Prison.

    "A feature of that is a rental bond scheme for people who might be able to access private accommodation but do not have the up-front rent in order to be able to achieve that tenancy, so there is a £400 rental bond paid as part of this project which is repayable after six months, again providing a very practical bridge from prison into accommodation".[128]

In Birmingham, local housing advisors go into prisons and deal directly with prisoners.[129] Housing will be a key aspect of the Reducing Re-offending Action Plans that must be developed by each area by March 2005.

91. We believe that all prisons should have a specialist housing advice centre, or, at the least, ready access to specialist housing advice, in order to reduce the number of prisoners who leave without settled accommodation and thereby reduce the rate of re-offending.

EX-SERVICE PERSONNEL

92. The work that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) does with ex-service personnel was praised by Ms Jenny Edwards of Homeless Link. "There has been a really determined effort recently and that is really starting to show dividends in pre-discharge cases".[130] Mr Tarig Hilal of Crisis reinforced this. "Anecdotally, our experience is that there has been a big impact and that they have helped a lot of people, especially on the prevention side".[131] We asked whether the MoD was working with those who had left the services some time ago as well as those who were leaving or had recently left. Mr Hilal thought that they covered both areas.[132]

93. We asked Mr Ivor Caplin MP, Minister for Veterans at the Ministry of Defence, about the MoD's prevention work. He told us that, since 2004, everyone leaving the services had undergone a transition interview, enabling the MoD to identify those at risk of homelessness before they left. Previously only those with more than three years service had had such an interview.[133] He explained that the MoD was taking a long-term approach to tackling homelessness among ex-service personnel, assessing housing needs in advance so it did not come as a surprise in their last year. Those who are able are encouraged to buy homes, and two years rotations were being phased out, in part to allow people to put down roots in areas.[134] When asked about those who had left the services some time ago, Mr Caplin referred to a recently produced leaflet on veterans' rights, produced with the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which was aimed at the 13 million veterans in the UK.[135]

94. Both Crisis and Mr Caplin referred to a study at King's College, London, commissioned by MoD, looking at the causes, geographical distribution and possible prevention methods of homelessness among ex-veterans. The results of this survey are expected early in 2005. We recognise the efforts that the Ministry of Defence has already made to reduce homeless levels among veterans. We hope that the results of the survey into homelessness among ex-service personnel will be used to design further prevention schemes.

RENT DEPOSIT SCHEMES

95. A frequent barrier to the move into permanent, or even some temporary accommodation, is the lack of deposit money. Rent deposits schemes lend or give the money to applicants, to help them into accommodation. The money is held either by the landlord or the deposit scheme. Rent deposit schemes are one of the Government's prime examples of prevention work, although they are perhaps more designed to prevent people falling back into homelessness rather than becoming homeless in the first place. The National Rent Deposit Forum, a charity which represents local rent deposit schemes and encourages new ones, told us "we estimate that our members advise 60,000 people and house 14,000 each year, using over 8,500 private landlords, and held over £2.75 million for bonds, cash deposits and rent in advance in 2001-02".[136] Several respondents to our inquiry welcomed rent deposit schemes as a very useful solution to a longstanding problem.

USE OF PREVENTION SCHEMES

96. Some agencies expressed concern about the purpose of the ODPM's prevention programmes. Shelter, for one, said

The Connection at St Martin's was also wary:

    "Homelessness prevention has become an increasingly popular objective in recent months and years. Like all other "trends", it suffers from a lack of precision and definition. For young people in care, for example, are you preventing them going into care, preventing them leaving care and becoming homelessness, preventing them rough sleeping if they become homeless, or preventing them from misusing drugs if they are rough sleeping?...Any prevention strategy has to be linked to causes. Homelessness, however, does not always distil down to neatly identified causes, as there is often a random element as to why some people end up as homeless and others do not. For example, softer factors like the extent of friendship, the ability to network, to live independently, manage anger, use services and presentational skills can all make a difference, as can location, self-esteem, ethnicity and gender. Prevention strategies therefore do need to encompass these wider life-skills issues".[138]

97. We agree that 'prevention' can cover many things. Indeed distinguishing 'prevention' measures from gatekeeping measures has proved problematic throughout our inquiry. We feel that many of the individual prevention schemes are well-focused, working with well-defined groups, but it is clear that we should be cautious about over-reliance on prevention strategies. Prevention work should not be viewed in isolation. The ODPM should keep in mind that prevention work alone cannot solve many of the problems that lead to homelessness. We hope that the useful work being done on prevention schemes continues, but it should only be viewed as one element in an overall strategy to tackle homelessness.

Housing Benefit

Processing delays

98. One subject which arose when talking about prevention, across several different areas, was Housing Benefit. Some evidence suggest that the current system does not help people stay out of homelessness and may in fact lead to it, or prevent people from moving on. The first issue is the delay in payment of Housing Benefit. Crisis told us a report by the Audit Commission stated that, in 2000-01, new claims for housing benefit took an average of 51 days to process.[139] The National Rent Deposit Forum told us "with mortgages and bills to pay, landlords are reluctant to wait for up to six months to start receiving any rent. This discourages landlords from letting to anyone on benefits, hence the number of adverts stressing 'No DSS'".[140] It can also result in the eviction of the tenant. Thames Reach Bondway told us:

    "the variable nature of performance across local authorities in this area is frankly staggering and sadly we have examples of tenants abandoning accommodation and returning to the street or a hostel as a result of rent arrears that are not the fault of the tenant but entirely due to administrative bungling and delay in the processing of housing benefit claims".[141]

99. We explored the issues of processing times for Housing Benefit with Mr Chris Pond MP, , Minister for Work. He assured us

    "The efforts that we have been putting in, in partnership with local authorities to improve the processing time for claims for housing benefit, are very important and we have reduced quite considerably the amount of time it takes local authorities, especially in London and especially among the 60 worst-performing authorities to process those claims to make sure people do not find themselves homeless".[142]

MOVING INTO WORK

100. We were also concerned at the 'tapering' of Housing Benefit when recipients move into work. This can create a gap in income between the last benefit payment and the first wage packet. High cost temporary accommodation means that many feel unable to make this move. We asked Mr Pond about this problem. We also questioned whether he thought accommodation could be subsidised, rather than the tenants, in order to help more people into work. He told us

HOUSING BENEFIT FOR PRISONERS

101. Housing Benefit is only payable for 13 weeks for sentenced prisoners. This compares with 52 weeks' entitlement for those on remand. The Revolving Doors Agency and NACRO both brought this issue to our attention. This policy should apply only to those serving sentences of over 26 weeks, however NACRO told us "in practice frontline staff sometimes apply it to people serving shorter sentences".[144] Coupled with problems with resigning tenancies, this system means that prisoners "will be almost certain to continue to owe rent even though their benefits were stopped on the day of sentencing. Even if they were in a position to act immediately they would still accrue substantial rent arrears because they would be expected to pay rent for the notice period on their tenancy (typically four-six weeks) without receiving any benefits".[145]

102. We were pleased to hear in evidence from Mr Pond that Housing Benefit will shortly be payable to prisoners for the notice period on a tenancy. He told us that this, in partnership with the 13 week allowance, was intended to keep people in housing after prison. "It makes no sense at all that the rules on housing benefit should force people to leave their accommodation when they emerge from a relatively short spell in prison".[146] When asked about the length of receipt of Housing Benefit for sentenced prisoners, he explained "for people who are in prison for a longer period of time of course there is going to be a potential problem of housing debt which is why we seek to limit the payment of housing benefit to that 13 weeks so that people do not find themselves committed to rent for a longer period of time".[147] We welcome the Government's decision to pay Housing Benefit to sentenced prisoners for the duration of a tenancy surrender notice period of 4 weeks. We hope consideration can be given to covering tenancy notice periods of up to 6 weeks in future reforms.

THE 16-HOUR RULE

103. The Foyer Federation raised the problem of Housing Benefit for those aged 19 and over who wish to study over 16 hours a week. It stated that "this rule is a significant impediment to Foyer residents, and others in a similar position, fulfilling their economic potential. Our research shows that around 50% of young people affected by this rule simply abandon their attempts to gain qualifications at Levels 2 and 3".[148] This appears to us to be a barrier to homeless adults who wish to acquire an education that could take them out of homelessness.

104. Mr Pond told us that the Department for Work and Pensions had been discussing the issue of the 16 hour rule with young people and the Foyer Federation. "I hope we are going to be able to come up with something in the next few weeks…It is something that we have been looking at very carefully over the past few months. Clearly there are practical implications and there are financial implications which we consider very seriously, but we do recognise the problem".[149] We await the Government's announcement on potential reform of the 16 hours of study Housing Benefit rules with interest. We believe that this rule should be rescinded in order to help and not hinder those who wish to gain qualifications to move themselves out of homelessness.

105. We understand that Housing Benefit is to be the subject of a Government consultation. We welcome the Government's consultation on the Housing Benefit system. We hope that eventual proposals will result in the faster processing of claims, and the removal of barriers into work for those in temporary accommodation.


108   Ev 6 Back

109   Ev 173-74 Back

110   Q 194 Back

111   Q 232 Back

112   Q 91 Back

113   Information gathered on an informal visit to Birmingham Back

114   Ev 50 Back

115   Ev 111 Back

116   Q 265 Back

117   Ev 159 Back

118   Ev 145 Back

119   Ev 159 Back

120   HC 61-II, Ev 123 Back

121   Q 308 Back

122   Q 312 Back

123   Q 313 Back

124   Q 319-320 Back

125   Q 319 Back

126   Q 321 Back

127   Q 330 Back

128   Q 323 Back

129   Q 321 Back

130   Q 244 Back

131   Q 246 Back

132   Q 249 Back

133   Q 319 Back

134   Q 336 Back

135   Q 338 Back

136   Ev 195 Back

137   Ev 194 Back

138   Ev 33-34 Back

139   Ev 163 Back

140   Ev 197 Back

141   Ev 4 Back

142   Q 372 Back

143   Q 371 Back

144   Ev 159 Back

145   Ev 159 Back

146   Q 377 Back

147   Q 378  Back

148   Ev 51 Level 3 education is A Levels, Advanced BTEC and equivalent, NVQ3 and Access courses. Back

149   Q 380 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 27 January 2005