Homelessness and Social Exclusion in England

Poverty, social exclusion and family and youth homelessness

Nicholas Pleace and Deborah Quilgars

Disclaimer

• Based on UK government funded research

• The views expressed in this presentation are not necessarily those of the Department for Communities and Local Government or any other government department.

English concept of social exclusion

• Social exclusion as an idea arrived relatively late in England

• New Labour late 1990s• Focused on paid work as the main route out of

poverty• And out of social exclusion• Because ‘social exclusion’ is defined in large

part as worklessness and the consequences of worklessness

Relationship to homelessness

• “Shallow” or “structural” exclusion– There might be educational disadvantage, poor

childhood experiences, location in a ‘zone of worklessness’, poor housing or homelessness

– But this population can work, can secure and maintain housing, if reasonably paid work and adequate and affordable housing are available

– Homeless families are most commonly associated with this more form of ‘structural’ exclusion

Relationship to homelessness

• Chronic or deep exclusion– “Mutually reinforcing” sets of needs and experiences

substance misuse, severe mental illness, offending, anti-social behaviour, sustained worklessness, homelessness, very negative childhood experiences and social and emotional isolation

– Associated with people on the street, in emergency and supported homelessness accommodation, mainly lone men

– Concern that young can enter this population and be ‘dragged down’ by it

– They are homeless because they cannot work, cannot live independently

Least support needs

Most support needs

Different kinds of homelessness?

• Small group of multiply excluded people who are a “high cost, high risk” population (top of the pyramid)

• A bigger structurally excluded population (bottom of the pyramid)

• A group of individuals and households that are between these two extremes– Street homeless people who are on the street for

‘structural’ reasons and will not remain there– Families whose homelessness is caused by

substance misuse and other support needs

Exploring some recent evidence

• Major surveys of households assisted under the homelessness legislation conducted in 2005

• Focused on families and young people aged 16-17

• Does not include all homelessness, but a big enough and diverse enough sample to explore these ideas

• Young people should be closer to ‘high cost, high risk’, families should reflect structural exclusion with lower support needs, if these ideas are right

English statutory definition of homelessness

• English definition of ‘Homelessness’ is close to the ETHOS definition of homelessness and housing exclusion

• Not just literal rooflessness• Also includes households that have no

accommodation they can reasonably occupy

• Definition is derived from legislation originally passed in 1977

About the sample

• Focused on people accepted for re-housing under the English legislation

• Be eligible for assistance (asylum seekers and some A8 citizens are ineligible)

• Be ‘homeless’ under the terms of the legislation• Be in priority need (have support needs, be at

risk of violence, contain a child and/or a pregnant woman, or be aged 16-17)

• Not be intentionally homeless• Usually demonstrate a local connection

(excepting cases of domestic violence)

The surveys

• Adults in homeless families accepted for re-housing in a six month window (first six months of 2005), 2,053 respondents

• Young people aged 16-17 accepted for re-housing in the first six months of 2005, 350 respondents

Characteristics of families

• Highly gendered

• Young women with young children

• Over-representation of ethnic minority groups

• Over-representation of former asylum seekers and refugees

11% of all families had sought asylum in the UK mainly concentrated inLondon

Cannot access system ifa current or failed asylumseeker

Experience of social exclusion: Worklessness

• Limited evidence that homelessness was associated with losing work

• But most workless prior to homelessness

• Low incomes, high rates of dependence on welfare benefits

Experience of social exclusion: Negative childhood experiences

• 45% experienced divorce as a child

• One third (33%) reported missing a lot of school as a child

• One quarter excluded from school (24%)

• One quarter experienced violence between their parents (24%)

Negative experiences as an adult

• High rates of depression, anxiety and stress – over one half of respondents

• 41% reported being in a violent relationship at some point – as the abused person

• One third had been on welfare benefits for most of their adult life

But not “deeply” excluded?

• Some educational attainment• Some paid work (29% of households)• Good social supports• Indicators of chronic exclusion not

common– Severe mental illness– Substance misuse– Offending – Anti-social behaviour

Causation

• Relationship breakdown a major cause– One partner leaves, there is not enough income to

cover rent or mortgage and homelessness results– Male violence and abuse towards women and/or

children a major cause of relationship breakdown

• Loss of affordable tenancy • Lost housing and/or experienced relationship

breakdown, stayed with family or friends, but that arrangement broke down

• Substance misuse, mental health problems, chaotic behaviour not evident as causes

Trying to avoid homelessness

• Evidence of agency

• Tried to make alternative arrangements

• Quite often only approached a local authority for help with informal relationships with family or friends broke down

Young people aged 16-17

• Mainly lone persons

• 49% lone young women

• 37% lone young men

• 82% White or White British origin

Differences with homeless families

• More likely to have had negative childhood experiences– Parental divorce– Disruption to education– Running away, abuse, violence

• More likely to have childhood experiences of substance misuse

• Mental health problems comparable with adults in homeless families but almost three times the level found in general population of 16-17 year-olds

• Evidence of mutually reinforcing relationship between substance misuse and mental health problems

• Social supports broadly good though, like homeless families (85% had someone to listen to them, 80% had someone to help out in a crisis)

Worklessness

• Much less likely than general population of 16-17 year-olds to be in education or training

• More ‘workless’ than the homeless families• 57% were not in education, training or paid

work • 34% had ceased education or training when

they became homeless

Causes of homelessness

• Relationship breakdown predominates– Mainly with parent(s)

– Also break down of informal short term housing with friends or relatives

• Also evidence of short term arrangements with other family and friends breaking down

• Mental health problems, offending, substance misuse and anti-social behaviour not widespread

Different ‘types’ of homelessness?

• Does appear to be evidence of ‘deeper’ social exclusion in some respects among young people

• And a more ‘shallow’ exclusion among homeless families

• But these are broad patterns, the evidence does not fit neatly into tidy paradigms of homelessness types

• Poverty is the only thing approaching a constant in all of this

• The idea of ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ forms of social exclusion being associated with different ‘types’ of homelessness is probably too simplistic

• Patterns are complex

Limitations

• There are conceptual difficulties

• ‘Social exclusion’ and ‘homelessness’ are broad taxonomies built by political ideology, policy, research definitions and administrative processes in the UK

• Looking for relationships between these two taxonomies may be an over simplistic comparison of broad paradigms rather than an examination of a more complex reality

Lessons 1

• If we acknowledge issues are in some senses “structural”, i.e. there aren’t enough jobs that pay enough and there aren’t enough adequate and affordable homes

• We also acknowledge that – while valuable – interventions centred on individual support needs therefore have limits

• Mutually reinforcing relationship between substance misuse, severe mental illness, offending and anti-social behaviour and homelessness also cannot be addressed using services to counter ‘shallow’ homelessness

Lessons 2

• Addressing homelessness should not be seen as necessarily addressing all aspects of social exclusion

• Something that is evident from these research results is a continuity of widespread poverty

• Families and young people are poor and marginalised before they become homeless

• They don’t ‘fall from grace’ into homelessness, rather it is a bad bump on a road they should not be on to begin with

Next steps for research

• Would more data (including longitudinal data, a real gap in UK) reveal clearer causation?

• Or would seemingly apparent patterns unravel the more we learned? Are the ‘patterns’ only there because our data are not fine grained enough?

• The answer may lie in part in international comparison, which is not straightforward, but may reveal (or not reveal) ‘universal’ risk factors

The report and contact details

• Full report (PDF):

• www.york.ac.uk/chp/ http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/chp/publications/PDF/familyhomelessness.pdf

• Nicholas Pleace, Senior Research Fellow np3@york.ac.uk

• Deborah Quilgars, Senior Research Fellow djq1@york.ac.uk