Formerly homeless people’s perceptions and experiences of resettlement into social

housing and private-rented tenancies

Tony Warnes, Maureen Crane and Sarah CowardUniversity of Sheffield

Regional Studies Association Conference,

Global Recession: Regional Impacts on Housing, Jobs, Health and Wellbeing

27 November 2009, London

Aims of the presentation

To describe the FOR-HOME study

To profile those resettled into local authority (LA), housing

association (HA) and private-rented (PRS) tenancies

To profile the resettlement accommodation and

experiences during the first six months

To examine the implications of the findings for two inter-

related current housing and welfare policy initiatives:

• Ever stronger assertion of the Supporting People principle that

support for homeless people is limited to two-years, i.e. generally

hostel residence should be no more than two years

• Current drive to promote private-rented sector tenancies for resettling

homeless people

Aim: to produce authoritative and longitudinal information

about: (a) the experiences of homeless people who are

resettled, and (b) the factors that influence the outcomes.

To assess the relative contributions to settledness, tenancy

sustainment and achieved independence of:

* the resettled person’s characteristics

* the resettlement preparation and follow-up support

* the condition and amenities of the accommodation

* events and experiences post-resettlement

Funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council

The FOR-HOME study

Sample and data collection 400 single homeless people in two clusters: London, and

Nottingham / Leeds / Sheffield (Notts/Yorks).

Resettled into permanent accommodation by six homelessness sector organisations. Representative of those resettled by the organisations in 2006.

Semi-structured interviews immediately before being resettled, and after 6 and 18 months. Interviews from June 2007 to November 2009. Key-worker completed questionnaire at baseline.

Information collected includes: accommodation histories; education, training and employment; personal problems; income and expenditure; use of time; family and social networks; help and support before and after moving.

Partner organisations

The policy and service provision contexts

Photo ‘Leeds high density housing’ by Lynne Kirton

Changes in Supporting People

The programme grant for 2008/9 was £1.66 bn (n.b. (£1.8 bn in 2003/4). Changed to an ‘unringfenced grant’ with no conditions. Pressure to reduce spending further. Assertion of ‘two-year’ principle.

Changing the roles of hostels for homeless people

Consistent with hostel capital investment programme Places for Change

Promoting the role of the private sector

Long-term shortage of affordable move-on accomm-odation has led to strong support for resettlement into private-tenancies

Policies driving faster resettlement from hostels

Profiles of Profiles of those resettledthose resettled

The respondents’ characteristics

400 respondents:

74% men; 26% women

56% in London; 44% in Nottingham / Leeds / Sheffield

24% aged 16-24; 62% aged 25-49; 14% aged 50+

60% White British / Irish; 40% other ethnic groups

18% homeless up to 12 months; 14% homeless 10+ years

Most reliant on social security benefits: only 4% working full-time and 5% part-time

Main reasons for becoming homeless

Reason Men % Women % All %

Relationship breakdown 21.3 20.2 21.0

Conflicts with parents 11.8 29.829.8 16.5

Conflicts with other rels/friends 8.8 10.6 9.3

Drug problems 15.9 8.7 14.0

Alcohol problems 16.216.2 1.9 12.5

Mental health problems 9.8 7.7 9.3

Financial problems 11.8 6.7 10.5

After leaving statutory care 1.4 3.8 2.0

Fleeing own country 3.4 8.7 4.8

Death of parents, spouse or other 8.1 4.9 7.3

Leaving correctional institution 9.8 3.8 8.3

Respondents’ problems and housing experiences

18% literacy difficulties

37% physical health problems

62% mental health problems in last five years

33% alcohol problems in last five years

56% used illegal drugs in last five years

45% had debts

52% had previously lived alone in a tenancy; 33% for two or more years

The resettlement The resettlement accommodationaccommodation

Social Housing, Lenton, Nottingham

Housing tenure by region (%)

Tenure London Notts / Yorks Total

Local authority 30 71 48

Housing association 54 18 38

Private rented 17 11 14

Sample sizes (223) (177) (400)

No significant ‘background’ differences across the three tenures:

• by age, gender and ethnicity

• by the main reasons for current homeless episode, … including alcohol, drug and mental health problems … or by debt

• by previous frequency and duration of homelessness

Who went into the different tenures?

Type of accommodation by tenure

43

22

33 31

2 4

26

63

76

0

20

40

60

80

Local authority Housing association Private-rented

Per

cen

tag

es

Self-contained flat Studio flat Bedsit

Type of accommodation by region

56

36

16

85

79

0

20

40

60

80

London Notts/Yorks

Pe

rce

nta

ge

s

Self-contained flat Studio flat Bedsit

Amount of choice by type of accommodation

47

38

13

2225 26

31

37

61

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Self-contained flat Studio flat Bedsit

Per

cen

tag

es

A lot A little None

Readiness to move

Most respondents felt ready to move – only one per cent had doubts.

Many had worries, however, and wondered if they would cope – 25% anticipated problems with finances and paying bills; 19% with loneliness; and 12% with occupying their time.

Other concerns: the practicalities of moving and furnishing the accommodation; staying off drink or drugs and away from other users; coping alone without support from hostel staff.

…

The first six monthsThe first six months

Difficulties of setting up new tenancy

Most moved to unfurnished accommodation

Once offered a tenancy, 22% had to move very quickly

(within 7 days), and another 28% within 14 days. 19%

had 30+ days to prepare

80% received grant or loan to help them set up home –

mainly Community Care Grant or Budgeting Loan.

Those who moved quickly, insufficient time for grants

to come through.

Basic furniture missing when moved in (%)

ItemLocal

authorityHousing

associationPrivate-rented

Bed 65 52 47

Cooker 86 64 11

Fridge 81 60 13

Carpets / floor covering 85 54 2

Common problems with the condition of the accommodation

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Heating, boilers Windows Dampness Leaks, flooding Dirty communalareas

Local authority

Housing association

Private rented

Rent and utility payments

Rents varied greatly, from £47 to £300 per week. Rents two to four times higher in private-rented housing.

Most respondents entitled to Housing Benefit (HB) for all or most of their rent.

During the first 6 months, 48% had rent arrears. 22% still had arrears at 6 months. Early arrears often due to HB administration problems. Continuation of arrears due to personal factors.

63% coped well with utility payments. At 6 months, 25% had utility debts.

Debts by tenure

44 46 44 45

6054

73

59

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

L.A. H.A. PRS All

Pe

rce

nta

ge

wit

h d

eb

ts

When resettled

After 6 months

Amount (value) of debt at six months

0

20

40

60

No debts < £500 > £1,000

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

res

po

nd

en

ts

Local authority

Housingassociation

Private-rented

Contact with a tenancy support worker

79

89

75

43

59

35

0

20

40

60

80

100

Local authority Housing association Private-rented

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

res

po

nd

en

ts

Expected contact Had contact

Extent to which benefited from tenancy support (those who received support)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Local authority Housingassociation

Private-rented

Per

cen

tag

e o

f re

spo

nd

ents

A lot

A little

Not at all

HousingHousing outcomes at outcomes at six monthssix months

Housing outcomes at 6 months by region (%)

Outcome London Notts/Yorks Total

In original accommodation 89 82 87

Moved to another tenancy 3 4 3

Evicted / abandoned 3 7 5

Died, in prison or rehab 1 4 2

Not known 4 3 3

Sample sizes 223 177 400

Housing outcomes at 6 months by tenure (%)

OutcomeLocal

authorityHousing assoc.

Private rented All

In original accommodation

86 93 6868 87

Moved to another tenancy 2 2 1111 3

Evicted / abandoned 5 3 1111 5

Died, in prison or rehab 3 0 4 2

Not known 4 2 7 3

Sample sizes 191 152 57 400

Housing outcomes at 6 months by type of accommodation (%)

OutcomeSelf-contained

flatStudio

flatBedsit All

In original accommodation

95 98 7474 94

Moved to another tenancy

2 1 2222 3

Evicted / abandoned 3 1 4 3

Sample sizes 234 99 23 356

Thought of giving up tenancy (those still housed)

OutcomeLocal

authorityHousing assoc.

Private rented

All

P e r c e n t a g e s

Yes, still am 23 24 36 25

Yes, but no longer 13 9 5 10

No 64 67 59 65

Sample sizes 160 140 39 339

Satisfaction with the Satisfaction with the move and settlednessmove and settledness

Social Housing, Lenton, Nottingham

The ‘Right Move Scale’

Has eight items including:

1. I am ready to take the next step and move to my own accommodation.

2. I am pleased with the accommodation to which I will move. ... ... …

8. Having my own place will enable me to structure my life and become involved in meaningful activities.

Scored: 1 ‘Yes, definitely’, 0.5 ‘I think so’, -0.5 ‘Not really’, -1 ‘Definitely not’ and ‘Don’t know’

Administered at baseline, 6 months and 18 months.

Gives composite picture of relative advantages and disadvantages of the different tenancies. Scores can range from -8 to +8.

‘Right move’ score at baseline and at 6 months by tenure

 Local

authorityHousing

AsstnPrivate rented

All

Baseline 4.7 4.9 4.5 4.8

At 6 months 4.2 4.4 3.7 4.2

Note: Scores can range between -8 and +8

‘Right move’ score at baseline and at six months by type of accommodation

 Self-contained

flatStudio

flatBedsit All

Baseline 4.8 4.8 3.9 4.8

At 6 months

4.3 4.1 3.5 4.2

Note: Scores can range between -8 and +8

Concluding Concluding evaluationevaluation

How successful is current resettlement from hostels?

At six months …

87% still in original accommodation, 3% moved to new tenancy, only 5% are known to be homeless again. Quite low rate of returns to homelessness

The great majority still housed, but many struggling financially and have rent arrears or other debts.

Many without basic furniture, some without heating or hot water, and many not eating healthily

Many have experienced a big change in housing-related support, from ‘considerable’ while in hostels to ‘little or none’ after moving. Many organisations have no funding to provide tenancy support.

Is resettlement into private rented sector tenancies satisfactory?

PRS resettlements enable people to move quickly out of hostels

PRS tenancies generally have less space, more domestic equipment from day one, and bring a raised risk of debt accumulation, stemming in some cases from HB administration, and in others from the comparatively high rents

PRS tenants least likely to say they were ‘settled’ and most likely to be thinking of moving on

Conclusions

• The policies: (a) to reduce returns to homelessness, and (b) to reduce the duration of Supporting People funding are to a degree antagonistic.

• Avoidable stress, discomfort, settlement failures and housing dissatisfaction are being caused

• The ‘move on quickly’ policy does not sufficiently take into account the special disadvantages of many single homeless people:

● never lived independently before

● few possessions, especially furniture

● little or no family or friends support

● still dealing with the problems or trauma that led to … … … … … homelessness

Our thanks to …

All the respondents who participated in this study and willingly gave three interviews.

Ruby Fu, Camilla Mercer and Louise Joly who have helped immensely with running the project and coding the data.

The freelance interviewers – Gary Bellamy, Paul Gilsenan, Louise Joly and John Miles.

Members of the Management Committee: David Fisher (Broadway), Caroline Day and Jennifer Monfort (Centrepoint), Peter Radage and Rachel Harding (Framework), Julie Robinson and Tony Beech (St Anne’s), Simon Hughes and George Miller (St Mungo’s), and John Crowther and Debra Ives (Thames Reach), and to all their colleagues who have been Link Workers or have otherwise assisted with recruitment and tracking.

Contact details

Tony Warnes: a.warnes@sheffield.ac.uk

Maureen Crane: m.a.crane@sheffield.ac.uk

Sarah Coward: s.e.coward@sheffield.ac.uk

www.shef.ac.uk/sisa/research/fields/homeless