Coping on marginal incomes:
homeless people who are rehoused
Tony Warnes, Maureen Crane and Sarah Coward
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England
European Research Conference: Homelessness and Poverty
Paris, 18 September 2009
Aims of the FOR-HOME study
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
 Sample of 400 single homeless people in two clusters: London,
and Nottinghamshire / Yorkshire.
 Resettled into permanent accommodation by six homelessness
sector organisations. Broadly 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
Aims of the presentation
To describe and evaluate the experience of being resettled from
hostels into independent accommodation for homeless people on a
very low income. The presentation will:
 Outline the United Kingdom policy and service provision context
 The characteristics of the study respondents
 The difficulties of setting up a new tenancy
 The respondents’ income and changes since moving
 How they managed financially and adjusted to paying rent and bills
The policy
and service
provision
contexts
Photo ‘Leeds high density housing’ by Lynne Kirton
Homelessness policies and interventions:
# Prevention
# Alleviation
# Restoration, recovery, return to self-reliance
and independent living
The policy and service provision context
Non-profit homeless sector organisations manage
hostels for homeless people. The places are funded
(largely) by the state:
# Capital element by occasional grant programmes
# Revenue element by (a) Housing Benefit, a social
security benefit, and (b) Supporting People, a housingplus-support budget. Both are administered by local
authorities.
The policy context
The UK government’s aim is to change homeless people’s
hostels from ‘place(s) of last resort (to) centres of excellence
and choice which positively change lives’. From 2005, the
Hostels Capital Improvements Programme (HCIP) provided
£90m of capital funding over three years to rationalise,
modernise and change the functions of hostels. From April
2008, HCIP was succeeded by the three-year Places of
Change Programme with a budget of £80m. ‘The purpose of
the programme is to help (hostel residents) to move on to
sustainable independent living’ (DCLG 2006: 5).
Source: Department of Communities and Local Government 2006. Places of Change: Tackling homelessness
through the Hostels Capital Improvement Programme. DCLG, London
The role of hostels and moving on
 Hostels are important as temporary accommodation
for people who become homeless.
 Hostel residents receive help with addressing their
problems and rebuilding their lives.
 In the past, people remained in hostels for years as
there were no resettlement programmes.
 Now some people remain in hostels longer than
needed because of a lack of move-on
accommodation.
Costs of state support for people in hostels
who are ready to be rehoused
The average weekly rent for this group* is £107 and the
average Supporting People cost is £206. The total cost is
over £227,500 per week or £11,800,000 per year.
If the same people were living in housing association bedsits
with floating support the average rent would be £54.32 and
floating support £42.58 a week. The total cost for the same
727 people would be under £70,500 per week or £3,700,000
per year. The difference is more than £8.1 million.
* 727 people needing low support accommodation in 76 London hostels for homeless people
Source: Homeless Link 2004. No Room to Move, Homeless Link, London, p. 7. See
http://www.homeless.org.uk/policyandinfo/research/archive/noroomtomove.pdf
The study
respondents
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
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% previously lived alone in a tenancy; 33% for 2+
years
Readiness to move
 Most felt ready to move – only 1 per cent had doubts.
 Many had worries about moving and wondered if
they would cope – 25% thought they might have
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.
Difficulties of setting up new tenancy
 Most moved to unfurnished accommodation – but had no
furniture or bedding
 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 –
Community Care Grant, Budgeting Loan, small grants from
charities or homelessness organisations
 If moved quickly, insufficient time for grants to come
through. If working, not entitled to CCG or Budgeting Loan
The resettlement accommodation
 46% rehoused in local authority housing; 41% housing
association tenancies; 13% private-rented accommodation.
 Many had no contact with relatives or friends, or they were
unable to provide practical or financial help with the move.
 Some had help from hostel and resettlement staff with
furnishing the accommodation, sorting out the utility
connections and with the actual move, but others received
little or no help.
 At the time of moving, 57% had no bed and 67% no cooker
 Several were without heating or electricity when they first
moved.
Levels and sources
of income
Social Housing, Lenton, Nottingham
Income change from baseline to 6 months
Income change
Decrease
No change
Increase
Total
£ per week
Number
%
0.1-9.9
53
15.4
10-29.9
30+
25
25
7.2
7.2
0
0.1-9.9
10-29.9
36
81
59
10.4
23.5
17.1
30+
66
19.1
345
100
Reasons for changes
1. Interruptions to benefits: administrative hiccups
‘Just before moving my Incapacity Benefit was stopped so I
appealed and won the appeal in November. Am waiting to receive
the backdated money (about £2,000)’
‘When I first moved in my benefits stopped as I changed areas.
Now been reinstated.’
‘Should be getting £114 a week DLA but it’s been stopped. X (my
housing officer) didn’t fill in my DLA form and send it in on time – it
stopped a few weeks ago.’
2. Interruptions to benefits: changes in circumstances
When I was pregnant, I was on income support. Now I am no longer
pregnant, this has caused problems. HB was stopped in August
2008. Income support stopped in August. HB has still not been
reinstated. JSA started end of November 2008.
Was getting £73.80 a week income support and HB. Now get a
student loan and have to pay full rent
Reasons for changes
3. Interruptions to benefits: reassessments
‘Was getting JSA, but this stopped as I’m unable to work. I am to
get Income Support (£59 a week), but not until they have verified
that I’ve been in the country for five years (I’ve been here six).
They are still checking – won’t get any money for two weeks.’
4. Interruptions to benefits: not following the rules
‘About 2 months after I moved in, they stopped my benefits as I
didn’t tell them that I had changed address.’
‘Was on Job Seekers Allowance but this stopped at Christmas
because I missed signing on (I was ill and had a kidney stone).
Was told that my claim is closed because I didn’t sign on.’
‘Sometimes my benefits are stopped if I miss my signing on day – I
hate the Job Centre. They are stopped for one week and then
reinstated.’
Reasons for changes
5. Having marginal, insecure, unstable jobs
‘Was on Income Support when I moved in, then I got a
job in Sep 08. Was then made redundant in Dec 08, so
am now on Job Seeker’s Allowance.’
‘Got a job from Sep 07 until Nov/Dec 07 – an agency job
in a factory – night shift – 8 and 3 hour shifts a day.
Finished in Dec 07 and am now back on JSA.’
‘Started part-time work four weeks ago but haven’t been
paid anything yet. Was supposed to be paid last Friday
but wasn’t, so I’m not getting any income until I get paid
from my job.’
Managing financially
…
Budgeting and financial problems
 Had to get accustomed to paying for utilities (in hostel,
most paid small service charge)
 43% had no problems budgeting and making their money
last, 28% had problems ‘frequently’, 29% ‘occasionally’.
Financial difficulties:
… the need to furnish the accommodation
… coping with lack of household equipment (take-away
meals, using launderettes)
… paying rent, utility bills and debts
… spending on non-essentials or on alcohol or drugs
… financially supporting children
Rents
 Varied greatly, from £47 to £300 per week
 Private-rented accommodation: rents two to four
times higher
 For 46% of the respondents, Housing Benefit
(housing subsidy) paid all the rent
 43% paid a proportion of their rent
 11% paid all the rent themselves
Rent arrears
 During the first 6 months, 48% had rent arrears, 12% had
arrears of £500+.
 At 6 months after being rehoused, 22% had rent arrears.
Only one-half were paying back the arrears.
 14% had been threatened with eviction for rent arrears.
 Many early arrears due to housing subsidy administration
problems.
 Continuation of arrears due to personal factors, e.g.
respondent neglected to pay rent or comply with social
security benefit rules, or changes in their circumstances
such as started work.
Utility payments
 Most respondents responsible for electricity, gas and
water payments.
 Various payment methods used: 3/6 monthly bills; ‘payas-you-use’ schemes; weekly, 2-weekly or monthly
payments.
 63% coped well with utility payments. Many preferred
‘pay-as-you-use’ schemes, and became accustomed to
making regular payments when received their Social
Security benefits.
 37% had problems with utility payments, and at 6 months
25% had utility debts. Only a few paying back the debts.
Income and essential and discretionary expenditure at six months (£
per week): three cases
1 In-work
and earning
2 On Income
Support and
DLA
3 On Job
Seeker’s
Allowance
Income
+225.75
+97.00
+60.00
Rent
-–96.25
0.00
0.00
Electricity, gas, water
-–24.80
-–17.00
-–23.00
Council tax
-–19.00
0.00
0.00
Travel
-–15.75
-–10.00
-–13.80
69.95
70.00
23.20
Income and items of expenditure
Balance (discretionary income)
Note: DLA Disability Living Allowance
Debts at 6 months
Percentage of respondents
60
41
40
25
20
14
9
6
4
0
none
Up to 500
>500-1000
>1000-5000
Amount of debts (£s)
>5000
amount
unknown
Characteristics of those with debts
Debts at 6 months were most common among those who were:
 Unemployed or working only part-time
 In private-rented accommodation
 Had been homeless 5 years or less
 Had recent histories of alcohol or drug problems
 Had debts at the time resettled
No difference between:
… men and women
… London and Notts/Yorks sub-samples
Debts by type of accommodation
Percentage with debts
90
73
75
60
54
60
46
44
45
59
44
45
30
15
0
L
ity
or
h
t
u
la
a
oc
n
t io
c ia
o
ss
a
g
u
Ho
s in
te
iv a
r
P
When resettled
d
lor
d
lan
After 6 months
All
Comparison of national and FOR-HOME
prevalence of debts by age groups
70
64
61
61
58
Percentage of people with debts
60
56
Ratio: For-Home % to National %
50
47
48
47
1.8
1.7
40
37
1.6
1.5
30
1.4
22
1.3
1.2
20
1.1
1.0
10
18-24
0
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55+
Age groups (years)
For-Home study (344 respondents at 6 months)
Bank of England 2006 survey (580 people in rented accommodation)
25-34
35-44
45-64
65+
CONCLUSIONS
How settled and independent after 6 months?
 87% still in original accommodation, 3% moved to new
tenancy, only 4% are known to be homeless again (no
contact with 4% and the rest in prison, died or in rehab.).
 Most on low incomes. Some have found ways to ‘survive’
and have a routine – pay bills, then buy food, and then buy
things for their home.
 16% reduced alcohol use and 27% drug use since moving
– cannot afford habit as priority given to bills.
 A few (18 people) who were unemployed when resettled
working at 6 months. Several others looking for work.
Has the ‘restore to independent living’ policy been
sufficiently thought through, and is it reasonable?
It is too early to make a firm judgement, but several aspects of
resettlement cause avoidable problems:
 Many people are very much ‘on their own’, have no furniture at
the time of moving, and have debts. For many, the move is a
difficult task.
 Many experience a big change in housing-related support, from
a great deal while in hostels to little or none after moving. Many
organisations have no funding to provide tenancy support.
 There are a worrying number of cases of interruptions in benefit
income as a consequence of the move, at a time when those
being resettled face exceptional expenditure.
 Although most were still housed at 6 months, many were
struggling financially. More information will be available once
the 18 month interviews have been completed.
The FOR-H ME study
Thanks to …
All the respondents who have participated in this study over an
extraordinarily long time.
Ruby Fu, Camilla Mercer and Louise Joly who have helped
massively 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