Aims of the presentation

1. Formerly homeless people’s perceptions and experiences of resettlement into social housing and private-rented tenanciesTony Warnes, Maureen Craneand Sarah CowardUniversity of SheffieldRegional Studies Association Conference, Global Recession: Regional Impacts on Housing, Jobs, Health and Wellbeing27 November 2009, London

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. Partner organisations

6. The policy and service provision contexts Photo ‘Leeds high density housing’ by Lynne Kirton

7. Policies driving faster resettlement from hostels Changes in Supporting PeopleThe 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 peopleConsistent with hostel capital investment programme Places for ChangePromoting the role of the private sectorLong-term shortage of affordable move-on accomm-odation has led to strong support for resettlement into private-tenancies

8. Profiles of those resettled

9. 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

10. Main reasons for becoming homeless

11. 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

12. The resettlement accommodation Social Housing, Lenton, Nottingham

13. Housing tenure by region (%)

14. 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

15. Type of accommodation by tenure

16. Type of accommodation by region

17. Amount of choice by type of accommodation

18. 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.

19. … The first six months

20. 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 whomoved quickly, insufficient time for grants to come through.

21. Basic furniture missing when moved in (%)

22. Common problems with the condition of the accommodation

23. 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.

24. Debts by tenure

25. Amount (value) of debt at six months

26. Contact with a tenancy support worker

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

28. Housingoutcomes at six months

29. Housing outcomes at 6 months by region (%)

30. Housing outcomes at 6 months by tenure (%)

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

32. Thought of giving up tenancy (those still housed)

33. Satisfaction with the move and settledness Social Housing, Lenton, Nottingham

34. Has eight items including: • 1. I am ready to take the next step and move to my own accommodation. • 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. The ‘Right Move Scale’

35. ‘Right move’ score at baseline and at 6 months by tenure Note: Scores can range between -8 and +8

36. ‘Right move’ score at baseline and at six months by type of accommodation Note: Scores can range between -8 and +8

37. Concluding evaluation

38. 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.

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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.

42. 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