Formerly homeless people’s perceptions
and experiences of resettlement into social
housing and private-rented tenancies
Tony Warnes, Maureen Crane and Sarah Coward
University 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 interrelated 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
The FOR-HOME study
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
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
Policies driving faster resettlement from hostels
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 accommodation has led to strong support for resettlement into
private-tenancies
Profiles of
those 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
29.8
16.5
Conflicts with other rels/friends
8.8
10.6
9.3
Drug problems
15.9
8.7
14.0
Alcohol problems
16.2
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
accommodation
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)
Who went into the different tenures?
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
Type of accommodation by tenure
80
76
Percentages
60
63
43
40
33
31
26
22
20
4
2
0
Local authority
Housing association
Self-contained flat
Studio flat
Private-rented
Bedsit
Type of accommodation by region
80
79
Percentages
60
40
56
36
16
20
8
5
0
London
Self-contained flat
Notts/Yorks
Studio flat
Bedsit
Amount of choice by type of accommodation
70
61
Percentages
60
50
47
38
40
37
31
30
26
25
22
20
13
10
0
Self-contained flat
Studio flat
A lot
A little
Bedsit
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 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 (%)
Item
Local
authority
Housing
association
Privaterented
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
Local authority
35
Housing association
30
Private rented
25
20
15
10
5
0
Heating, boilers
Windows
Dampness
Leaks, flooding
Dirty communal
areas
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
90
When resettled
After 6 months
73
Percentage with debts
75
60
59
60
45
54
44
46
44
45
30
15
0
L.A.
H.A.
PRS
All
Amount (value) of debt at six months
Percentage of respondents
60
Local authority
Housing
association
40
Private-rented
20
0
No debts
< £500
> £1,000
Contact with a tenancy support worker
100
Percentage of respondents
89
80
79
75
59
60
43
40
35
20
0
Local authority
Housing association
Expected contact
Private-rented
Had contact
Extent to which benefited from tenancy
support (those who received support)
Percentage of respondents
70
A lot
60
A little
Not at all
50
40
30
20
10
0
Local authority
Housing
association
Private-rented
Housing outcomes
at six 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
223
177
400
Sample sizes
Housing outcomes at 6 months by tenure (%)
Outcome
Local
Housing
authority assoc.
Private
rented
All
In original
accommodation
86
93
68
87
Moved to another tenancy
2
2
11
3
Evicted / abandoned
5
3
11
5
Died, in prison or rehab
3
0
4
2
Not known
4
2
7
3
191
152
57
400
Sample sizes
Housing outcomes at 6 months by type
of accommodation (%)
Self-contained
flat
Studio
flat
Bedsit
All
In original
accommodation
95
98
74
94
Moved to another
tenancy
2
1
22
3
Evicted / abandoned
3
1
4
3
234
99
23
356
Outcome
Sample sizes
Thought of giving up tenancy (those still housed)
Outcome
Local
Housing
authority assoc.
Private
rented
All
Percentages
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
move 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
authority
Housing
Asstn
Private
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
flat
Studio
flat
Bedsit
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
evaluation
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