Housing Options: Local authority ‘gatekeeping’
or a route to safety for victims of domestic
violence?
Gemma Burgess and Anna Clarke
Context
• LAs have a range of legally prescribed duties to
those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
• Housing Options have emerged in the last 10 years
as a parallel means to offering assistance, with a key
focus on prevention.
Focus of the research
• Adults without dependent children (“single adults”
hereafter) who have to leave their home because of
domestic violence.
and
• Who seek help with housing from a local authority in
England.
Domestic violence
• Domestic violence = “any incident of threatening
behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological,
physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between
adults who are or have been intimate partners or
family members, regardless of gender or sexuality”
• Evidence suggests it does affect both genders, but
women more commonly than men, especially when
involving repeat victimisation or physical injury.
• Victims commonly find it hard to leave a perpetrator.
• A lack of safe, affordable independent
accommodation is known to be one major reason for
failing to leave.
Homelessness legislation - local
authorities determine:
• Are they homeless?
– Local authorities must give proper consideration to applicants for
housing assistance if they have reason to believe they are
homeless or threatened with homelessness (within 28 days)
• Are the eligible for assistance?
– Eg. not if they are from outside EU and no recourse to public funds.
• Are they in priority need?
– Families with children
– Pregnant women
– Other people who are vulnerable as a result of old age, mental
illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason
• Are they intentionally homeless
– Did they do something or fail to do something which would have
prevented them becoming homeless?
If yes to all of this:
• Full duty is owed. This involves:
– securing temporary accommodation until settled accommodation
can be found.
– Offering a secure tenancy (i.e. a social rented tenancy) unless
the applicant voluntarily accepts one in the PRS.
If no:
• Advice and assistance need to be offered:
– may include referral to temporary accommodation in the
voluntary sector.
– may include other advice and assistance in accessing settled
housing via the waiting list or in the PRS.
Homeless victims of domestic violence
• Would generally be owed a full duty if they have
children or are pregnant.
• If not, the decision hinges on whether they are
considered vulnerable.
• 2002 Act specifies that a person can be vulnerable:
“as a result of ceasing to occupy accommodation
because of violence from another person or threats of
violence from another person which are likely to be
carried out”.
Methods
•
•
•
•
Web-based survey of all LAs (128 replied).
Stakeholder interviews.
Analysis of CORE, P1E and SP data.
Survey of Women’s Aid refuges (data on 392 single
women).
• Case study work in 4 LAs (1 London, 1 SE urban, 1
Midlands city, 1 Northern largely rural).
Research findings: LA survey
• Around a quarter of local authorities consider people
fleeing domestic violence to be vulnerable in all or
virtually all cases.
• The remaining three quarters consider cases on an
individual basis and make an assessment of whether
the domestic violence has made the applicant
“vulnerable” in some way – i.e. less able to fend for
themselves if homeless.
Assessing vulnerability
• LAs who assess vulnerability on a case by case basis
generally find it a difficult judgement to make in the context of
domestic violence:
“It is not an easy test. It is unscientific. It boils down to the approach of the
local authority and your approach as an individual. It is a judgement, not a
matter of the degree of training you have had. The same circumstances of
an individual in one local authority may be classed as vulnerable in one
local authority and not in another... [Despite the case law]…..it is still clear
as mud”. (Local authority, northern case study)
• Other agencies (including agencies specialising in domestic
violence support, police and women’s refuges) generally had
a poor understanding of the vulnerability legislation.
• Refuges and other agencies were concerned that proving
vulnerability could be a stressful process for their clients (e.g.
needing to provide doctor’s notes on their mental health, etc).
Housing Options
• Greater focus on prevention of homelessness than
previously.
• Greater use of PRS (rent deposit schemes, etc).
• Have made considerable impact on numbers of
homelessness presentations (Pawson 2007).
• Unclear to what extent homelessness is prevented or
homeless applications are prevented.
How does Housing Options work sit
alongside the formal homelessness
application process?
• As a forerunner – Housing Options work carried out
to prevent homelessness where possible; formal
assessment if it fails.
• Alongside - Housing Options work carried out at the
same time as a formal assessment. Solution often
found before assessment is concluded.
• After assessment – All assessed on first contact and
Housing Options work focussed on those who are not
owed a full duty, or LA has no reason to believe may
be homeless or threatened with homelessness.
Does the use of Housing Options
services improve outcomes for victims
of domestic violence?
Sometimes a positive impact:
• Assistance for all, irrespective of whether owed full duty.
• Removing need for assessment and related stress and uncertainty for
clients.
• Speeding up access to temporary accommodation.
• More appropriate temporary accommodation (general purpose
hostels often used for statutory homeless were the most commonly
reported forms of inappropriate housing for this client group).
• Greater choice of accommodation, especially if applicants are
interested in the PRS.
Sometimes no impact
– Previously, a homeless application taken and
referral to women’s refuge whilst enquiries made,
then social rented tenancy offered (Homeless
acceptances 1; homeless preventions 0).
– Under Housing Options, no application taken,
referral to women’s refuge whilst given additional
priority on waiting list, then social rented tenancy
offered (Homeless acceptances 0; Homeless
preventions 1).
– Different process, same outcome for client.
Sometimes a negative impact
– Housing Options could feasibly be used as a
means of ‘gatekeeping’ as applicants prevented
from making homeless applications until they have
exhausted Housing Options services.
– Reduced access to some forms of temporary
accommodation and to social rented housing in
the long term.
– Reduced certainty that accommodation will be
found for applicant (i.e. no safety net).
What factors determine whether the
impact is positive?
• Homeless assessment either alongside or before Housing
Options work – ie Housing Options not a barrier to making
application
• On-going case work under Housing Options to ensure
applicants actually find accommodation and that they go there –
e.g. accompanying them, phoning for them, etc.
• Outcomes of Housing Options monitored and known to the local
authority.
• Sufficient supply of appropriate temporary and long term
accommodation
• Final tenure? Social renting more secure and affordable but
PRS more anonymous. No evidence found to suggest victims of
domestic violence any safer in social housing, though in high
priced areas they do prefer it.
Moving forward
• New legislation will allow LAs to discharge their
duties to homeless applicants by offering a tenancy in
the PRS.
• What possible impact will this have on people made
homeless by domestic violence?
– Less incentive for clients to be accepted as homeless?
– LAs happier to accept homeless applications because it will
be easier to discharge their duties to them?
– Those deemed vulnerable more likely to enter PRS?
• If Councils spend less of their grant funding on
domestic violence projects this may affect provision
of suitable supported housing such as refuges