Memorandum by the Chartered Institute
of Housing (CIH) (HOM 67)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH)
is the only professional body for individuals working in housing.
Its primary aim is to maximise the contribution that housing professionals
make to the well being of communities. Membership status is dependent
on completion of a professional qualification and a track record
of professional achievement.
1.2 CIH has over 18,000 individual members
working for local authorities, housing associations, Government
bodies, educational establishments and the private sector. Many
of our members are engaged in day-to-day work in preventing and
addressing the problems of homelessness.
1.3 CIH welcomes this inquiry and the opportunity
it provides for a deeper investigation into the level and nature
of homelessness, and the corresponding need for investment in
support and preventative services.
2. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
2.2 We acknowledge the positive steps that
the Government has taken to address the most extreme manifestations
of homelessness—rough sleeping and the use of Bed and Breakfast
accommodation for families with children. Following the Homelessness
Act there has been a real attempt to adopt a more preventative
approach, which should be encouraged.
2.3 Our main recommendations for moving
forward include:
— Continue to increase levels
of investment for affordable housing.
— Make better use planning guidance
to depress land prices to deliver some types of affordable housing
(eg for key-workers) through the market.
— Reduce the use of poor quality
temporary accommodation in the long term.
— Give landlords greater confidence
in letting properties to 16-17 year olds.
— Strengthen the Children's Bill
to provide better accommodation options for intentionally homeless
families with children.
— Make temporary and permanent
accommodation available in more locations to reduce disruption
to children's education and other services.
— Better monitoring of the effects
of various initiatives, to ensure they are implemented sensitively
and are having the desired impact.
— Government loans to "kick
start" initiatives that are expected to make savings in the
long term.
— Change plans to reduce the Supporting
People budget, as this is likely to affect the support services
to certain homeless people significantly.
3. LEVEL AND
NATURE OF
NEED
3.1 Levels of homelessness have increased
consistently over the last few years. Government statistics show
a year on year rise in households found to be unintentionally
homeless and in priority need from 102,430 in 1997-98 to 137,000
in 2002-04. This is approaching the 1991-92 peak of 145,080 (Shelter).
The proportion of households accepted from BME groups has increased
to a far greater extent than amongst the population generally—perhaps
reflecting the need for a greater variety in the size and type
of housing required. Also, the numbers found to be in priority
need but intentionally homeless have more than doubled in seven
years from 1997-98.
3.2 By the end of the year, it is expected
that the numbers in temporary accommodation will have risen to
100,000—a further indication of the level of need.
3.3 A number of factors appear to be contributing
to this rise. Broad "structural" influences include:
— the overall shortage of accommodation,
examined in the Barker Review, resulting in increased house prices;
— high rent levels in the private
rented sector; and
— insufficient social housing
available, due to a decline in the numbers being developed and
loss of stock through right to buy.
3.4 The lack of supply and increased costs
has meant that households who would not formerly have encountered
difficulties are experiencing real hardship in securing accommodation.
3.5 The extension of the "priority"
category to 16 and 17 year olds, and those vulnerable due to life
experiences such as mental health problems, leaving institutions
etc is very welcome. Nevertheless, the changes have placed greater
pressure on local authorities.
4. SUCCESS OF
POLICIES
4.1 Successful policies geared towards individual
homeless households are essential, but meeting the needs of homeless
households in the long run will depend on adequate investment
to increase the supply of housing.
4.2 The emphasis on prevention in the Homelessness
Act is starting to have a positive effect in many areas, although
the resource levels made available for implementation have been
far too small. The Homelessness Act is discussed further in section
6.
Families
4.3 Local authorities have responded to
the target to stop the use of bed and breakfast accommodation
for families with children (except in an emergency for a limit
of six weeks) so well that that target has largely been met the
use of B&B overall seems to be reducing. The increasing number
of homeless applications will continue to put this target under
pressure, and local authorities must plan strategically to continue
to drive down B&B use.
4.4 However, the target is very limited
and includes only private B&B accommodation, not that under
local authority ownership. In the long term it will be important
to address this within the context of reducing the use and standard
of temporary accommodation more generally. Quality issues could
be dealt with by greater use of RSL properties and the adoption
of measures to improve the private rented sector. Reducing the
use of temporary accommodation will depend on the availability
of adequate numbers of suitable properties.
4.5 In addition, support services are needed
that help to mitigate the effect of homelessness on families,
and children in particular—links into Sure Start programmes
for example, and ensuring that homeless families can access GPs
etc. Better arrangements will depend on better joint working between
housing and social service teams around homelessness.
Single people
4.6 Homeless single people have, in the
past, only been eligible to receive very limited help from local
authorities—that of housing advice. The extension of priority
need to 16 and 17 year olds, and other single people made vulnerable
due to certain circumstances has been a welcome one and applications
from young people have increased. This would be expected and should
be seen as a measure of success of this policy.
4.7 The Rough Sleepers target has been achieved.
However, the surveys/counts on which success is based are limited
in their capacity to accurately measure the full extent of rough
sleeping. Many homeless people of necessity do not disclose where
they sleep, and evidence suggests that many are not being counted
when the survey (which provides a snap-shot only) is undertaken.
There are several schemes coordinated through various voluntary
organisations that record the experiences people have of rough
sleeping (such as Liverpool's multi agency monitoring). If these
data-sources were more widely used, a fuller picture could be
developed that could also be used to shape the nature of accommodation
and support services need.
4.8 In seeking to prevent homelessness,
many local authorities are using mediation, particularly for young
people at risk of homelessness due to family disputes. This is
to be welcomed, as long as it is recognised that this will not
be appropriate in cases where the young person is at risk, for
example. We are concerned that mediation may be being used as
a means of avoiding a proper homelessness investigation.
4.9 There can be difficulty in accessing
suitable accommodation for 16-year olds. Landlords (including
RSLs) are often uncertain whether under 18s are able to take on
tenancies and of the means of redress where rent arrears accrue.
Rent guarantors are not always available. Alternatives such as
licences and equitable tenancies need to be more widely used to
overcome the reluctance of RSLs and other landlords in accepting
young people.
4.10 For young people or those vulnerable
due to leaving care or other institutions, suitable support services
(as well as accommodation) are crucial. It is important not only
that these services are adequately funded, but that training for
front line staff is available to identify those needing support—many
may not request it if they are under the impression that this
will make them less likely to gain accommodation.
Intentionally homeless
4.11 We are aware, anecdotally, of significant
variation in the categorisation of homeless applicants by local
authorities between intentionally and unintentionally homeless.
This may be an effort, by some, to make their homelessness caseload
manageable.
4.12 For families found intentionally homeless
but in priority need, there should be greater clarity over the
opportunities that a local authority has to provide assistance
under section 17 of the Children's Act. Joint working with housing
to provide such help wherever possible should be developed, as
an alternative to the trauma caused to a family where the duty
to the children is fulfilled by them being taken in to care. Greater
resources for this help should be made available, in consideration
of its potential for prevention of distress to children and families,
of the cost of keeping children in care, and the adverse effects
this can have on their long term health, development and life
opportunities, including possible future homelessness.
4.13 The Children's Bill provides an opportunity
to strengthen the provision for such joint working and the recognition
of suitable, adequate housing as fundamental to the well being
and development of children. Unfortunately this is currently lacking
from the Bill, and may come to be seen as a wasted opportunity.
5. INVESTMENT
IN HOUSING
AND HOUSING
QUALITY
5.1 The additional spending on housing in
the SR04 is welcome, but inadequate to meet the level of housing
need (including homelessness). There is scope for more affordable
housing, of a range of types, to be produced by capturing the
value of land. We are not convinced that the Planning Gain Supplement
recommended in the Barker Review is the best way of achieving
this, but favour a local charge that can be requested in numbers
of affordable units (on site and mixed together with market housing)
rather than in cash. This will make the new developments more
sustainable in the long term.
5.2 In the shorter term, authorities need
adequate investment to access suitable temporary accommodation
and to provide appropriate support.
6. IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE
HOMELESSNESS ACT
2002
6.1 The focus from the Act on prevention
is a welcome one, but reshaping services to address this takes
time and resources (including for staff training).
6.2 Monitoring of the effects of various
initiatives, to ensure they are implemented sensitively and are
having the desired impact (such as the use of mediation) also
consumes resources (time, training and funding). The additional
funds provided to address this were inadequate. One local authority
was granted only one tenth of the resources it bid for.
6.3 In general, local authorities are offering
a broader service, although some are still very reactive. Where
effective homelessness strategies have been developed, local authorities
are finding them a useful ongoing tool to get a better handle
on the nature of homelessness and support needs, enabling then
to tackle the issues in terms of priorities for action.
6.4 The introduction of schemes such as
Harrow's Home Finder requires investment in the incentives provided
to private sector landlords to participate. Many such schemes
save money in the long term, but local authorities can experience
difficulties in finding the funding to invest. We suggest that
Government should consider providing loans to "kick start"
specific prevention schemes that are expected to lead to long
term savings.
6.5 The strategies must embrace support
services to prevent loss of accommodation, repeat homelessness,
and address behaviour patterns which can contribute to homelessness
(eg debt advice, changing anti-social patterns of behaviour etc).
The short and long term impact of wider housing policies on homelessness
also needs to be considered and planned for—how compulsory
purchase and decanting of areas is handled in areas of market
renewal for example.
7. LOCATION OF
PROVISION
7.1 The location of provision of housing,
especially temporary accommodation is very important. The experience
of homelessness can dislocate households from all of their natural
lines of support (friends and families). Children's education
can be disrupted by the experience of one or more moves, and permanent
offers can frequently be in areas too far removed from current
schooling etc. Most council have two or three hostels for temporary
use and frequently this can lead to children having to attend
a different school for a short period, with the likelihood of
another school move when permanent housing is found.
7.2 Under the Homelessness Act 2002, applicants
can request a review of suitability but given the pressure of
resources and alternatives available, there are great difficulties
in this. Schemes to access more private rented sector accommodation
throughout a locality (for temporary or permanent housing) may
help to redress this.
8. BALANCE OF
INVESTMENT FOR
HOMELESS PEOPLE
AND KEY-WORKERS
8.1 CIH acknowledges the issues for key-workers
that the Government is seeking to address, although we and others
have voiced concerns about the narrow definition of key-worker
that continues to be applied. We are concerned, though, that Government
sees fit to top-slice the budget for key-worker housing, but not
for other types of housing need.
8.2 We do not think this is necessarily
an either/or issue, but there could be a win-win outcome. Much
of this housing, particularly the key-worker element (shared/low
cost home ownership) could be provided through the market, rather
than requiring direct public subsidy, if land values could be
encouraged to respond to published planning policies on affordable
housing supply and mix. This is partly being addressed through
the review of PPG3. Public subsidy could then be directed at areas
with already low land values and towards property types that require
higher levels of subsidy—to make unviable developments viable.
9. PRIORITY IN
ALLOCATIONS
9.1 The method of allocating priority differs
between local authorities, and in agreements with RSL partners.
In particular it is important for research to assess the impact
of Choice Based Lettings systems are having on the ability of
local authorities to meet the obligations to homeless households,
and the experiences those households have had in accessing permanent
housing within that context.
9.2 The Housing Corporation's Code of Guidance
refers to the obligation on RSLs to help local authority partners.
There is, though, no explicit reference to helping local authorities
meet obligations to homeless households. Amending the Code to
include this, and making good practice/protocols widely available,
might persuade RSLs to assist councils more in discharging their
homelessness duties. This is particularly important where councils
have transferred their stock. There is some indication that nomination
failure rates are increasing raising concerns about the implications
for homeless households (Pawson and Mullins, Changing Places:
Housing Association policy and practice on nominations and lettings,
2003).
10. COORDINATION
OF HOUSING
AND NON
HOUSING SERVICES
10.1 Coordinating services properly can
improve the quality of life for homeless households immensely.
It can reduce disruption to children's education and health services,
for example, and ensure that support services are not "lost"
when the household moves. For many local authorities there is
still some way to go before successfully coordinating these services.
The ODPM's Homelessness and Housing Support Unit and the Department
of Health have produced a publication aiming to address some of
these factors (Achieving Positive Shared Outcomes in Health and
Homelessness: A Homeless and Housing Support Directorate Advice
note to local Authorities, Primary Care Trusts and other partners,
April 2004).
10.2 Many important support services that
help to prevent homelessness and sustain tenancies are funded
through the Supporting People programme. The reduction of this
funding stream over the next three years is therefore a major
concern in terms of how this will impact support to homeless households.
Some of the needs of homeless people are multiple and complex—including
mental health problems, addictions etc. There is a real concern
that these less popular groups will suffer reduction in services
in the context of reduced funding. Monitoring would help to ensure
that this does not occur. A problem that has already arisen is
the difficulty in coordinating capital funding through the Regional
Housing Boards (RHBs) and the revenue funding under the locally
administered SP programme which has caused delays to the development
of new schemes. CIH welcomes the Government's recent call for
RHBs to be proactive in resolving this.
11. EFFECTIVENESS
OF PUBLIC
AGENCIES IN
PREVENTING HOMELESSNESS
11.1 Some local authorities have moved to
a very strong and proactive preventative agenda with great success
(such as Harrow). In other areas, schemes to more effectively
monitor the extent and implications of homelessness are being
developed, that provide valuable information to shape effective
services (such as Liverpool's multi-agency monitoring).
11.2 Greater working across public and voluntary
sectors including RSLs is required to ensure delivery of provision
that will meet the varying needs of homeless people. This kind
of cross sector partnership working takes time and effort to develop,
and this should be supported through investment such as loans
for programmes that focus on a "spend to save" basis
(the example of Harrow's Home Finder scheme was given previously).
The Homelessness and Housing Support Directorate's funding allocation
to local authorities should be maintained, if not increased.
11.3 It is important that services to prevent
homelessness should be carefully monitored to ensure that they
are being used sensitively and appropriately and are achieving
real outcomes in terms of prevention. They should not become merely
a means of managing a scarce resource—but of delivering
a quality service that meets the needs of vulnerable people.
| 
