Moving on or just moving out?

Resettling homeless young people into independent accommodation.

Centrepoint 1

Published by Centrepoint in 2011 © Centrepoint All rights reserved. Short extracts from this report may be produced with an appropriate credit, without prior permission. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Centrepoint staff members and young people who contributed to this research, as well as participating staff and young people from three services that are part of Centrepoint’s Partnering programme (Coatham House in Redcar, New Roots Housing Project in Nottinghamshire, and Young Mothers Group Trust in Bristol). We would also like to thank the authors of the University of Sheffield’s FOR-HOME study: Maureen Crane, Tony Warnes and Sarah Coward for their permission to use some of the data collected from Centrepoint young people for that study.

Centrepoint 2

Contents Executive summary.........................................................................3

1. Introduction ...............................................................................7

What is resettlement? ...........................................................8

The resettlement needs of homeless young people ....................9

2. Resettlement: the policy context..................................................11

Recent changes .................................................................12

Prospects for the future....................................................... 14

3. Preparation for resettlement ....................................................... 16

Pre-resettlement support.....................................................16

What support do young people find valuable? ......................... 18

4. Homeless young people’s views about moving on ........................... 20

What is important to young people? ......................................20

Young people’s perceptions of resettlement ............................ 21

Young people’s expectations of resettlement........................... 23

5. Moving on ................................................................................25

Where do homeless young people go when they move on? .......26

What challenges are there in moving on successfully? ..............28

Local housing allowance changes: quantitative analysis ............34

6. Post-resettlement support .......................................................... 36

The condition of the move-on accommodation ........................ 36

Cost of living .....................................................................38

Interpersonal relationships ..................................................39

Support received from homelessness services......................... 40

7. Conclusion and recommendations ................................................42

Centrepoint 3

Executive summary The resettlement of young people from supported accommodation to independent living is a crucial stage in their move out of homelessness. This report draws upon interviews with 80 young people and staff, as well as quantitative analysis of survey and secondary data to assess the factors that determine the success of young people’s resettlement, with a view to making recommendations for both policy makers and homelessness service providers. The key findings of the report: Pre-resettlement

Sustained pre-resettlement support is crucial for young people to move on to independent living successfully, with financial training and support most valued.

Despite the acknowledged importance of good pre-resettlement information and support, too many young people lack knowledge about what will happen when they move on. This includes unrealistic expectations about their likelihood of accessing social housing and insufficient skills for managing their own money.

Security of tenure and affordability are seen by young people as the most important characteristics of a successful move-on, and this is reflected by a strong preference for social rather than private rented accommodation. The perceived problems with private tenancies including poor condition and lack of stability meant that only one in four (26%) of young people would be happy with a private rented property.

“Young people need more training on managing money.” Nieve, young person, out of London. Moving on

Reductions in the local housing allowance (LHA) introduced in April 2011 are having a significant negative impact on the ability of homelessness services to resettle homeless young people, increasing the likelihood of repeat homelessness. For those young people that do move on, Centrepoint figures suggest the amount the average young person will have to top-up their housing benefit will more than double to £13.90 a week as a result of the LHA changes. Given that the median income of a young person leaving Centrepoint is £50.00 a week, this is equivalent to over a quarter (28%) of their budget for living costs.

The procedure for allocating social housing to homeless young people can be inconsistent and sometimes arbitrary, leading to inefficiencies in distributing scarce social housing stock.

Many young people reported that moving on was difficult and stressful. This is exacerbated by their perceptions that young people get a worse deal when moving on to independent living than

Centrepoint 4

older people, reporting that they are allocated the worst quality housing stock in both the social sector and private rented sector (PRS).

Social landlords can exacerbate the problem by refusing to take tenants that they perceive to be a risk, making it more difficult for the most vulnerable homeless young people to move on. This is of particular concern given that these are likely to be the young people who will fare worst in the PRS.

“I think [the LHA changes are] going to be a step backwards. Young people need somewhere to call home just like everyone else, and this is going to make it harder.” Alice, young person, out of London. Post-resettlement

Young people value the support that they received after they had moved on and think that it plays a positive role in successfully maintaining their tenancies.

Nine out of ten (90%) of young people who were resettled into social accommodation successfully maintained their tenancy after 15-18 months, compared to no young people who moved into the private rented sector.

Both young people and staff in homelessness services believe that there needs to be more support after young people move on and that this would improve outcomes.

Young people face greater problems with the properties that they move on to compared to older people, with 86% of young people reporting problems with their property at six months compared to 70% of all homeless people.

The discretionary social fund plays a crucial role in providing financial support to young people once they have moved on, particularly in social tenancies. Plans to de-ringfence the fund risk having a substantial negative impact.

The findings of this research suggest that there are a number of viable steps that government and local authorities can take in the short to medium term to increase successful resettlement: The key recommendations of the report include: National government

1. Reinstate the local housing allowance at median local rents – the research suggests that the effect of the April 2011 cuts to local housing allowance are making it significantly more difficult for young people to move on to private sector accommodation, increasing the likelihood of repeat homelessness. We strongly recommend that the government reverses this reform.

“The most important thing [for the government to do] is to help young people afford a place to live – it can’t be too expensive,

Centrepoint 5

that’s the mot important thing.” Jasper, young person outer London.

2. Allow councils the freedom to find innovative solutions to local problems – the housing options available to formerly homeless young people vary dramatically from area to area. Government policy must similarly allow flexibility. Additional freedoms such as giving local authorities the option to waive the shared accommodation rate restriction for formerly homeless young people in their area could allow more effective, area-appropriate solutions.

3. Invest in affordable, accessible social accommodation –

Under-investment by successive governments has led to a severe shortage of social housing, meaning that homeless young people who would benefit from the stability and affordability that are the hallmarks of social housing are being pushed into unsuitable housing, risking costly episodes of repeat homelessness. This is exacerbated by some social landlords’ unwillingness to accept young people with high support needs as tenants.

4. Reform the benefits system to work for homeless young

people – in addition to reversing the April 2011 reduction in LHA from the 50th to 30th percentile of market rents, a number of important changes can be made to the existing benefits system to help young people move on successfully, including: exempting formerly homeless young people from the shared accommodation rate, ensuring that tenants can choose to have LHA paid direct to their landlords and making community care grants available to formerly homeless young people in higher education.

“I think [the shared accommodation rate restriction] is wrong – government should come and witness the problems that this causes for young people.” Sian, young person, out of London. Local authorities and housing associations

5. Set up private sector access schemes – initiatives such as rent deposit schemes and social letting agencies can offer effective support to homeless young people who are resettled into the private rented sector, increasing successful outcomes and reducing the risk of tenancy failure. Local authorities should seize the chance to use existing national funding to set up these schemes.

6. Commission homelessness services that can staircase young

people into independence – different types of services, from emergency, high-support hostels to floating support are essential if local authorities are to successfully resettle homeless young people. Local authorities need to ensure that they commission the full range of homelessness services in their area to give young people the support that is appropriate to their stage in their journey to independence.

Centrepoint 6

7. Review local procedures for housing vulnerable young

people – local authorities and housing associations should work with young people and homelessness service providers to ensure that young people with high support needs are given the opportunity to enter and maintain independent tenancies. Local authorities could aid this by installing ‘resettlement workers’ with a remit analogous to that which leaving care workers perform for young people leaving care; bringing different services together to offer better holistic support.

Homelessness services

8. Make resettlement a priority from when young people first enter supported accommodation – the research suggests that there is a need for clear advice as soon as young people enter the homelessness service. This should include managing young people’s expectations about what their housing options are likely to be, tailoring training to their particular circumstances and setting their successful move-on up as a goal to work towards during their time at the service.

9. Introduce clear guidance on young people’s entitlements

after they move on – many young people were unsure about the support they were entitled to from their previous service after they moved on. In the worst case scenario, this can lead to young people not using support that they want and are entitled to. If support is time-limited, young people should meet with staff to decide on their individual support plans for after they move on, including pre-arranged, regular contact.

“There should be a trial period for living independently, with the option to move back in to full support if this is unsuccessful.” John, young person, out of London.

Centrepoint 7

1. Introduction This report presents the findings of research looking at homeless young people’s resettlement into independent living. In particular, it looks at the factors that determine the success of young people’s resettlement with a view to making recommendations for both policy makers and homelessness service providers. It also discusses the effect that the recent and ongoing changes to housing benefit and to social housing provision will have on resettlement options and outcomes. The most recent estimate suggests that at least 78-80,000 young people are homeless in the UK each year.1 Furthermore, statutory homelessness statistics from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) suggest that the number of homeless young people is rising. Year-on-year homelessness is currently increasing at around 15% after previously falling to historic lows.2 It is more important than ever to give young people the chance to escape homelessness for good. The data for the research on which this report is based is made up of four component sources. Firstly, Centrepoint’s internal resettlement data were used, covering around 4,500 young people aged 16-25 who have departed Centrepoint services since 2007. Secondly, a stratified random sample of 73 young people from eleven different Centrepoint and Centrepoint’s partner services across England took part in a quantitative survey to assess their views on resettlement. The third source of information was in-depth individual and group interviews with 80 interviewees from five groups: (i) young people currently in Centrepoint services (ii) young people who have moved on from Centrepoint services (iii) Centrepoint staff (iv) young people from Centrepoint’s partner services across the country and (v) staff from these services.3 The fourth and final source was data for the 44 ex-Centrepoint service users who participated in the recent FOR-HOME study conducted by the University of Sheffield,4 which constituted an invaluable source of information on young people’s situation up to 18 months after they had been resettled. In the following sections, all figures are taken from the quantitative survey responses unless otherwise indicated. Quotes from the interviews are labelled to indicate whether the interviewee is a young person or staff member, the young person’s name5 and the area in which they are based

1 Quilgars, D., Fitzpatrick S., and Pleace N. (2011) Ending youth homelessness: possibilities, challenges and practical solutions. 2 DCLG (2011) Live tables on homelessness: table 781. [Accessed November 2011] 3 Interviews were conducted with staff and young people at Centrepoint partner services at Coatham House in Redcar, New Roots Housing Project in Nottinghamshire and Young Mothers Group Trust in Bristol. 4 Crane, M., Warnes T., and Coward, S. (2011) Moves to independent living: single homeless people’s experiences and outcomes of resettlement. 5 All names have been changed to protect the young people’s identities.

Centrepoint 8

(either inner London, outer London, or out of London). The exact locations outside of London have not been given so as to maintain the confidentiality of both the young people and homelessness services involved. What is resettlement and why is it important? The resettlement or ‘move-on’ of homeless young people describes their transition from supported housing or other homelessness services to (more6) independent living. As such, it is clearly a crucial stage in young people’s progression out of homelessness. But how do we define successful resettlement, and what are the consequences of getting it right compared to getting it wrong? Successful resettlement is characteristically composed of a number of different elements. One definition is given by a predecessor of the current Department for Communities and Local Government, that successful resettlement is:

“[securing] access, for vulnerable homeless people… to long term accommodation which best suits their needs and reasonable preferences, and [ensures] that they do not subsequently lose it or move to less suitable accommodation."7

This definition has two important characteristics. Firstly, that successful resettlement requires not just any accommodation, but specifically accommodation which fits the particular (reasonable) needs of that person. Secondly, it highlights the importance of successful resettlement being sustainable over a period of time. However, while it captures the need for suitable, stable accommodation, this ‘housing-centric’ definition of resettlement seems incomplete as an account of what successful move-on consists of. While housing remains the core of a successful move-on for homeless young people, it seems appropriate to suggest that resettlement will also include much more, including:

o engagement in education, training or employment; o adequate skills for independent living; o sufficient support networks from family, friends or support from

service workers; and o access to appropriate welfare benefits or other financial support.

This broader view of what successful resettlement looks like was shared by many of the young people we interviewed for this report.

6 Young people may continue to receive support after they have moved on to independent accommodation, including from the homelessness service provider that they have left form other bodies such as local authorities. 7 Department of the Environment (1995) Outreach and Resettlement Work with people Sleeping Rough.

Centrepoint 9

“The most important things about move-on are having a place to stay and then having the education and qualifications to do something with it.” Aisha, young person, out of London. From this broader definition we can also see why successful move-on is likely to be important. A stable home provides the basis for young people to move on to positive activity, including engaging and sustaining participation in education or training and ultimately finding a job.8 We also know that there is a strong positive link between good housing and positive results in other areas of wellbeing such as mental health.9 Perhaps most importantly, successful resettlement can reduce the incidence of repeat homelessness. The headline finding from the University of Sheffield’s FOR-HOME study was that three quarters (73%) of homeless people resettled from the homelessness providers involved remained in their original accommodation over 15 or 18 months. A further one in twelve (8%) moved on to new accommodation, while only one in 20 (5%) returned to hostels or the streets.10 In financial terms, successful resettlement represents the potential for very significant savings. The New Economics Foundation found that, even on a conservative estimate, the cost of a homeless person to the public purse is £26,000 per year.11. A 2003 report from the New Policy Institute drew up some indicative case studies, which suggested a cost of up to £83,000 for each homeless person, per period of homelessness.12 While no detailed figures are available, the per annum costs for homeless young people are likely be similar to that for older people. Centrepoint analysis based on the full package of support that is offered to young people in supported housing services suggests an average cost of up to £24,504 per annum.13 The resettlement needs of homeless young people The young people that Centrepoint and other homelessness providers work with have a variety of complex needs which can mean they face additional challenges when moving on compared to their peers. These include poorer health outcomes, lower levels of education and training and greater propensity to be involved in crime and other destructive behaviour. 8 See e.g. Shelter (2006) Chance of a lifetime: the impact of bad housing on children’s lives. 9 See, for example, Friedman, Danny (2010) Social impact of poor housing. 10 Crane, M., Warnes T., and Coward, S. (2011) Moves to independent living: single homeless people’s experiences and outcomes of resettlement. 11 New Economics Foundation (2008) Work it out: barriers to employment for homeless people. 12 New Policy Institute (2003) How Many, How Much? Single homelessness and the question of numbers and costs. 13 Centrepoint internal analysis.

Centrepoint 10

Centrepoint research in 2010 found that a third (33%) of young people in Centrepoint present with symptoms of a mental health problem and one in eight (13%) present with physical health problems. Young people’s literacy, numeracy and other skills were found to be significantly below the national average – one in six (16%) of young people were found to be without basic literacy skills compared to only one in fifteen (6%) of all young people.14 In addition, homeless young people are more likely than other young people to face financial constraints on accessing properties, for example due to barriers to finding paid employment, and to lack resilience, for example due to dysfunctional family support networks. These additional needs suggest strong prima facie reasons why homeless young people might face more difficulties in moving on to independent living than their peers. As a result of this, it is important that both policy-makers and service providers such as Centrepoint are able to provide the extra support and opportunities that homeless young people need to ensure that they can successfully make this transition. This research seeks to isolate some of the solutions to the particular challenges that this group faces.

14 Centrepoint (2010). Complex needs: the changing face of youth homelessness.

Centrepoint 11

2. Resettlement: the policy context While this report discusses the general characteristics of successful resettlement, it does so in fluid policy context. In particular, the series of significant reforms that have occurred following the election of the Conservative Liberal Democrat Coalition government in May 2010 has meant that the specifics of resettlement are undergoing rapid change. This change includes a number of reforms to housing and welfare benefits which directly impact upon young people who are moving out of homelessness services. It is vital, therefore, to review the policy context in which attempts to make resettlement more successful are situated. Despite the importance of resettlement for helping people of all ages make a sustainable transition out of homelessness, and the political imperative of avoiding homelessness on the scale seen during the 1980s and 90s, the issue of resettlement itself has not always been high up the political agenda. In 1989, the cross-party Single Homelessness in London Working Party reported that less than a quarter of the move-on need generated by supported accommodation for single homeless people was being met. By 1991/2 it had plummeted further to just over a tenth.15 A combination of reduction in the availability of accommodation due to dwindling social housing stock and insufficient resettlement support created a logjam in the system for the growing number of homeless young people in the 1980s. The perception of a failure to get to grips with resettlement led to the then Conservative government including a plan for better support in resettling homeless people as part of the Rough Sleepers’ Initiative (RSI), which was introduced in 1990.16 Building on this, various funding projects in the late 1990s and 2000s aimed to earmark some of the money invested in homelessness support for improving resettlement success rates. In 2003, the introduction of the Supporting People programme aspired to deliver an approach “that delivers quality of life and promotes independence” and an explicit commitment “to help the smooth transition to independent living”.17 The 2006 Places of Change capital funding initiative included support for resettlement, including a focusing on supporting homeless people to move into sustainable independent living. These measures to improve resettlement outcomes were driven by a series of targets aimed at reducing homelessness, including cutting the number of people rough sleeping and bringing down the number of formerly homeless people moving on into temporary accommodation. While not all of these targets have been met (notably, the number of 16

15 SHIL (1992) Silt-up or move-on? Housing London’s single homeless. 16 See Department of the Environment (1993) The Rough Sleepers Initiative: An Evaluation. 17 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004) What is Supporting People?

Centrepoint 12

and 17 year-olds in bed and breakfast-style accommodation, which despite falling is now on the rise again) they have spurred on a number of successful initiatives over the last decade. However, despite the success of such schemes in improving support for resettlement, successful move-on is ultimately highly contingent upon the availability of permanent move-on accommodation that is accessible and affordable for young people. Unfortunately, the background to the measures described above has, in the main, been an ongoing decline in the affordability of housing for low-income groups, greatly reducing the options for homeless young people looking to move-on to independent living.18 This has partly been the result of long-term decline in the amount of social housing stock available (see figure 1, below).19 However, the availability of affordable private sector accommodation has also been falling in recent years, particularly in areas of high demand such as inner London.20

Recent changes

18 Barker, Kate (2004) Review of housing supply: delivering stability, securing our future housing need. See also Schmuecker, Katie (2011) The good, the bad and the ugly: housing demand 2025. 19 Note that this doesn’t accurately reflect changing levels of total social housing stock, given privatisation of social housing stock. Most notably, since 1980, the ‘Right to Buy’ scheme has led to a significant loss of stock. 20 See e.g. Shelter (2011) Shelter private rent watch. Report one: analysis of local rents and affordability.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009

Social housing completions in the UK, 1979 - 2009

Figure 1: social housing units completed between 1979 and 2009 in the UK Source: DCLG

Centrepoint 13

Against this backdrop, it is possible to evaluate the current government’s reforms to housing and welfare benefits in the June 2010 budget and subsequent announcements, which have heralded a number of important changes affecting homeless young people’s move-options. A recent national survey for Centrepoint showed that public awareness of housing benefit cuts to families and young people is high, with two-thirds (66%) of people saying that they had either ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ heard about these particular cuts.21 The changes focused upon here are limited to the major changes in affordability and accessibility of private rented accommodation and social rented accommodation affecting young people. These are as follows. Private rented sector changes

1. The maximum local housing allowance (LHA) payable has been reduced from 50th percentile broad market rental area (BRMA) rents to 30th percentile (change introduced April 2011).

Social housing changes

2. Changes in the way social housing is funded, one of the results being that social landlords are now able to charge up to 80% of local market rents (change introduced summer 2011).

3. Social housing tenancies which were previously ‘lifetime’ tenancies can be set at as little as two years.22

In addition to this, there are a large number of other changes that have either been implemented, or are due to be implemented by 2013/14. The following five are likely to be of moment in the present context:

4. the reduction in Supporting People funding for homelessness services as a result of the spending decisions emanating from the comprehensive spending review in autumn 2010;

5. the removal of the maximum £15 weekly excess from April 2011;

6. a set of caps on the LHA rates for one, two, three and four-bedroom properties also from April 2011;

7. the increase in the age threshold of the shared accommodation rate restriction on LHA from 25 to 35, from January 2012;23 and

21 NfP Synergy (2011) Charity Awareness Monitor Results Member Intelligence: Wave 4 of 6, July 2011. 22 During the passage of the Localism Bill, and in a letter accompanying a consultation on draft directions to the social housing regulator, the Housing Minister Grant Shapps made clear that while two years would be the legal minimum imposed by the Bill, there would be an expectation of a minimum of five years. See ‘Amendment to proposed direction to the Social Housing Regulator on tenure - Letter from the Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP’, available at http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1956470.pdf [accessed October 2011].

Centrepoint 14

8. uprating LHA by the consumer price index (CPI) rather than by local rents from April 2013.

The effect of these combined changes on the resettlement of homeless young people is complicated. The central reform evaluated below is the move from median to 30th percentile rents, given that (i) this directly affects homeless young people and (ii) has been implemented for long enough to be able to collect indicative results. Nevertheless it is important to see that the other changes to the private rented sector (numbers five to eight, above) will also affect homeless young people, both indirectly and directly. Numbers six and seven (the LHA caps and the increase in the shared accommodation rate restriction) will only affect young people indirectly due, respectively, to the large majority of young people moving on before the age of 25 and homeless young people being granted an exemption from SAR increase. However, there are still likely to be serious effects. Both changes will serve to decrease the size of the sub-market of the PRS available to low income young people. This is due to the increased competition for shared accommodation that likely to result from both recipients of the one-bedroom LHA rate choosing to downsize to shared accommodation and the LHA recipients aged 25-34 who will be forced to downsize as they are restricted to the shared accommodation rate from January 2012. It is difficult to calculate the effect of the remaining two changes to the PRS (numbers five and eight) on homeless young people in particular. However, we know from Department for Work and Pensions impact assessments that the removal of the £15 excess for tenants paying less than the maximum LHA rate will mean that those in shared accommodation will lose an average of £9 per week.24 The overall average notional loss as a result of uprating LHA by CPI is projected to be £5 per person per week by 2014/15, or over £250 per year.25 Prospects for the future

23 Young people who have been in a homelessness hostel for at least three months in the past will be exempt from this change. However, they are likely to still be affected indirectly by the increased demand for shared accommodation. 24 Department for Work and Pensions (2011) Impacts of Housing Benefit proposals: Changes to the local housing allowance to be introduced in 2011-12. 25 Department for Work and Pensions (2011) Housing benefit: uprating local housing allowance rates by CPI from April 2013.

£9.00 The average amount of money per week that tenants in shared

accommodation lost as a result of the removal of the £15 excess

Centrepoint 15

Some of the challenges outlined above for increasing successful resettlement outcomes are likely to persist in the short to medium term. While the government’s current spending plans signal that pressure on welfare and other revenue streams will continue until at least 2015, a potential longer term problem is a severe under-supply of affordable housing, particularly in London.26 While some innovative projects have been introduced to mitigate these supply-side weaknesses, for example measures to increase access to the PRS by introducing ‘social letting agencies’ (see section 5, below), adequate housing supply will continue to be a necessary condition of significantly increasing the successful resettlement of homeless young people.

26 Schmuecker, Katie (2011) The good, the bad and the ugly: housing demand 2025.

Centrepoint 16

3. Preparation for resettlement Pre-resettlement support All of the homelessness services visited for this research offered resettlement support for the young people they support. This included a variety of learning modules including courses on an introduction to living in the private rented sector and advice for young people on managing their tenancies once they move on. All services also offered young people advice about resettlement from a keyworker or similar, whose job included providing ongoing advice and guidance to help the young person gain the skills to move-on successfully. Pre-resettlement learning module case study – Centrepoint’s Introduction to the private rented sector ‘Introduction to the private rented sector’ is the third in a series of three learning modules accredited by AQA, which aim to prepare young people to manage independent tenancies in the PRS. It is delivered by a staff member to small groups of young people, over a total time-period of around two hours. While not formally assessed, both staff and young people review young people’s progress together to meet a set of shared objectives. Content covered on the course includes: - how to locate private sector properties that are available for renting by

housing benefit claimants; - questions that young people should ask of the landlord and what

questions might be asked of them; and - housing benefit eligibility for young people in the private rented sector. The course includes role plays for young people to experience a conversation between themselves and an estate agent or landlord and group discussion on what young people look for in a private rented property. It also includes an introduction the Centrepoint rent deposit scheme (RDS), which provides financial and other support in accessing a private tenancy. Completion of this course is a requirement for referral to the Centrepoint RDS. Evaluations of the pre-resettlement support that young people receive were positive amongst the majority of young people. Among the aspects particularly valued were, the gaining of skills for living independently, and support in navigating the applications process for both social and private rented housing.

Centrepoint 17

“[the homelessness service] really helps to give you independence to be able to live by yourself once you move out.” Sam, young person, out of London. Young people who had moved on were almost unanimous in talking about the value that they placed in pre-resettlement support now that they had been resettled, even if they had not fully appreciated it at the time. One of the aspects that they most valued was staff’s efforts to educate them in the reality of their move-on options and to tackle misconceptions amongst young people about the housing options they were likely to have after they left the service. “It was important to receive good black and white advice from staff, letting me know what my options were and what would be the consequences of taking those options.” Rahel, young person, outer London. Some young people indicated that they would have appreciated more pre-resettlement support being given, and reported that resettlement preparation was not always given the same weight as other types of support and guidance in their experience. “If the kind of help that is available with learning and education was available with housing, that would be great.” Carlos, young person, inner London. In addition to giving those young people the skills and support they needed to move on successfully, some current service users expressed the opinion that they would like staff and politicians to challenge stereotypes about young people in the communities into which they were moving. This ‘advocacy’ role was seen as important in aiding integration once young people moved on. “I think more needs to be done to tell people that not all young people are badly behaved and difficult [because] it makes it more difficult to move on when no-one will accept you if they think you’re just going to cause trouble.” Mark, young person, out of London. During the interviews, staff consistently stressed the importance of pre-resettlement support in helping young people move successfully into independent living. Particularly prominent was the importance that staff placed in the following three aspects: (i) starting talking to young people about their resettlement options as early as possible (ii) managing expectations about young people’s likelihood of getting their preferred move-on option and (iii) focus on the skills that will help young people maintain private tenancies, as this tenure is increasing their most likely option. “When young people come to see me they often have no idea about what their options are when they move on from here. We essentially have to start from scratch in telling them what they

Centrepoint 18

need to do to find somewhere to go after they are resettled.” Staff member, inner London. However, staff also noted that it was often difficult to dedicate enough time to talking about resettlement given the more immediate demands that exist in the running of their service. Relatedly, they reported that it was hard to persuade many young people of the importance of talking about their move-on unless they were coming to the end of their stay at the service. This was perceived to be partly because of the many other pressures that young people had, such as finding education, training and work placements, or coping with personal problems. What kinds of pre-resettlement support do young people find valuable? When asked to rate the importance of pre-resettlement assistance, young people strongly indicated that they value a range of support in helping them move on. The aspects of support that they found most important were help in finding a job, and financial assistance with paying the deposit on the property they were moving into, with 93% and 92% of young people respectively indicating that these were either ‘quite important’ or ‘very important’ in helping them move on successfully. Young people living in London were disproportionately likely to think that these kinds of support were important, compared to their peers living out of London. However, while these two more outcomes-focused forms of support were rated as critical, young people were slightly less likely to think that help with claiming benefits was important in their successfully moving on, with a third rating this as important. Around one in seven young people (14%) thought this was ‘not important’, with 45% describing this as ‘very important’. This figure was broadly consistent across the different groups surveyed, including care leavers and young people who were not British citizens. The interviews suggested that the importance of finding a job and help with the initial hurdle of paying the deposit on the move-on property reflects an understanding of the difficulty of affording to maintain a tenancy in the PRS. One young person said: “If you’re living in private [accommodation] it’s more important to not be on benefits because the rent is expensive and… you won’t be able to afford it otherwise.” Beth, young person, out of London. Others highlighted having a job as a necessary condition of their wanting to rent privately. “I think that if I have a job then private housing would be ok, if not then social housing.” Michael, young person, outer London.

Centrepoint 19

The reasons for the discrepancy between eagerness for support with finding a job compared with help with benefits may be a result of young people’s expectations for their future. When asked about their futures after they had moved on from the homelessness services in which they were staying, many young people did not envisage themselves to still be in receipt of welfare benefits. However, some staff expressed a concern that young people – particularly care leavers – may not realise the importance of housing benefit for financial support after they move-on. “At the moment I just don’t think that young people realise what it’s going to be like down the line. [They] don’t understand their benefits and what they pay for, particularly when their circumstances change.” Staff member, outer London. In terms of training, the young people surveyed were more likely to value financial training rather than training on other personal skills, such as cleaning or preparing meals. While almost nine in ten (89%) of young people thought that training in financial skills were ‘quite important’ or ‘very important’, three-quarters (75%) of young people thought the same about training in personal skills. This seems to reflect young people’s self-evaluation of their own competence in carrying out the kinds of tasks associated with independent living. When asked how much experience they have in carrying out various financial household duties, almost half (49%) ranked their amount of experience in paying rent or bills as only ‘some’ or ‘none’. The amount of experience in this area appears to be highly dependent upon the length of time that individuals have been in the homelessness service, with the one in three (36%) of young people who had been at their service less than six months reporting that they had ‘a lot’ of experience rising to two in three (67%) by the time young people have been in the service for two years or more. The lower value that young people placed in receiving training in personal skills for independent living also appears to mirror their assessment of their experiences in these areas. Over three-quarters (77%) of young people surveyed thought that they had ‘a lot’ of experience in a keeping their home clean and almost three-quarters (73%) assessed themselves as having a lot of experience in preparing meals. Self-assessment of experience in personal skills was not correlated with variables such as age, or care leaver status but young people who were not British Citizens (i.e. young people who had leave to remain, or refugee status) on average self-assessed as having more experience in this area. However, the number of young people surveyed in this group is too small to draw robust conclusions. Finally, young people expressed far less confidence in their experience of practical skills, such as performing minor repairs, than in other areas. Less than one in three (32%) though that they had a lot of experience in this area and more than one in ten (11%) indicated that they had no

Centrepoint 20

experience at all. On average, younger residents rated their experience in this area as lower than their older peers.

4. Homeless young people’s views about moving on What features of resettlement accommodation are important to young people? Young people thought that the most valuable feature that a move-on property could have was affordability, closely followed by security of tenure. Close to nine out of ten (86%) of young people indicated that affordability was a ‘very important’ concern for them when moving on, with almost the same number (85%) thinking that security of tenure was a ‘very important’ feature. The importance of these two factors was linked for many young people, with a number expressing the opinion that a lack of affordability and consequent rent arrears, which might then lead to eviction, was a source of worry for them. “The main thing I worry about is it being too expensive… I don’t want to be kicked out and made homeless again.” Saba, young person, outer London. Young people also expressed a strong preference for avoiding sharing once they moved on, with almost two-thirds (62%) saying that not sharing was ‘very important’ and almost nine out of ten (87%) saying it was ‘quite important’ or ‘very important’. One young person said that this was because of bad experiences with other young people in a service. “Sharing with other people [in a homelessness hostel] is the hardest thing that has happened to me since I came to this country.” Mo, young person, inner London. For many homeless young people, an aversion to sharing was made more pronounced by difficult experiences in their past or by higher support needs which meant that they found it hard to share their personal living space with others. Other complaints included having less control about who was in the house, particularly if the property was not in the right location. “If you share then it’s really difficult to know who other people are bringing in. I think it’s got to be in the right part of town or it wouldn’t feel safe.” Lorna, young person, out of London. Other young people were more circumspect about the topic, saying that sharing might be an appealing option but this depended heavily on who

Centrepoint 21

the other tenants were and whether the shared house was big enough to allow each to have their personal space. “I think sharing could work but [it] really depends on who you have to share with.” Gemma, young person, outer London. The feature of move-on accommodation that young people thought was least important was proximity to family and/or friends. Less than three in ten young people (29%) thought that this was very important and almost two in ten (18%) thought that this was not important at all. This figure was most pronounced among young people who were not British Citizens, in virtue of their families often still living overseas. However, location more generally was seen as important by a number of young people, particularly those who were used to the amenities of living in a particular area or else need to live in a certain location to access education or work opportunities, or to stay in touch with support services. Young people’s perceptions of different resettlement options Young people were surveyed on the type of property that they would be satisfied with when they moved on and given three options: social housing with a ‘lifetime tenancy’, a more limited term social tenancy (e.g. two years) and a more limited term private tenancy (e.g. two years). More than four in five (82%) of young people said that they would be satisfied with an open-ended social tenancy, an option which was more than twice as popular as either of the other two options. Less than two in five (37%) of young people said that they would be satisfied with a fixed term social tenancy and only just over a quarter (26%) were satisfied with a fixed term private tenancy.

26% The number of young people who said they would be

satisfied with a fixed term private tenancy A striking feature of these results is the number of young people who signalled that they were unsure about whether they would be satisfied with each of the three options. However, the uncertainty was particularly pronounced in the options with fixed term tenancies, where one in four (25%) of respondents said they did not know whether or not they would be satisfied with these options. This appeared to be largely because of unfamiliarity with the concept of tmie-limited tenancies. Nevertheless, the core finding that young people prefer social housing tenancies to other alternatives is clear. Only one in 17 young people (6%) indicated that they would not be satisfied with a social tenancy, compared to two in five (40%) for private tenancies. Young people who were care

Centrepoint 22

leavers were more likely than their peers to be satisfied with social housing but unsatisfied with a private tenancy. The rationale behind these preferences appears to rest on a number of respects in which private rented sector is seen to be less desirable to social accommodation. As figure 2 below suggests, the most two most important advantages of social housing are perceived to be its affordability and stability. Almost three-quarters of answers (74%) expressed the view that social housing was more affordable than in the private rented sector, with young people who were not British citizens slightly more likely than average to express this view.

This is corroborated by the answers that young people gave in the interviews, when asked about their perceptions of different move-on options. “If I had a good job then I wouldn’t mind going into private, but if not then I would have to go social to be able to afford it.” Mark, young person, outer London. The view that social housing was a more secure option than a PRS tenancy was widespread among interviewees, with young people using words such as “peaceful” and “solid” to describe their views about social

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

stable goodlandlord

goodneighbours

good size affordable

socialnot sure

private

Figure 2: young people’s perceptions of which of social or private housing better satisfies multiple characteristics Source: Centrepoint

Young people’s perceptions of the characteristics of social and private housing (%)

Centrepoint 23

accommodation, while describing private accommodation as “living on edge” and “worrying”, due to a perceived lack of rights. “You just feel really vulnerable in the private sector…landlords can kick you out at any minute.” Ellen, young person, inner London. Typically, young people referred to the experiences of siblings or friends, or their own family experiences from when they were younger to back up their perceptions on this issue. In areas other than affordability and security, young people were more ambivalent between private and social accommodation. Just under a third (32%) of young people thought that social housing tended to be a better size than PRS accommodation, with 29% thinking the opposite was true. An equally large number (29%) were unsure either way. Young people did however, think that social tenants were more likely to have a good landlord than their private counterparts, by a margin of around one in ten (43% compared to 33%). Those young people who expressed an opinion on this issue raised concerns about repairs and leniency in the event of rent arrears as justifying reasons. “[Social housing] is more reliable and no one comes to do the repairs in the private sector.” Jason, young person, out of London. On staff member suggested that many young people thought that social landlords had some sort of duty of care towards them which meant that would offer better support. “Young people generally think social landlords have a responsibility to treat them better than private landlords.” Staff member, inner London. The one area in which accommodation in the PRS was preferred to social housing on average was in the quality of the other tenants. One in three young people (33%) thought that private tenants made for better neighbours than social tenants, with just over one in five (22%) thinking the opposite. However, again there were a large number of people who said they did not know which was preferable in this respect. Young people’s expectations of resettlement One of the main themes from interviews with staff members was the prevalence of unrealistic expectations among young people about what their options would be when they move on. The most commonly reported of these was the belief amongst young people that they would be able to access social housing. The extent to which the expectation of social housing was perceived to be unrealistic was highly dependent on geographic location, with staff in London-based services typically more concerned about this than in other parts of the country.

Centrepoint 24

“There are a group of young people – I’d say more than 25% of the young people that I work with, who think that they are entitled to social housing. The reality, of course, is that only a few of these will actually get a council or housing association property.” Staff member, inner London. “Most young people expect to get a council flat… the concept of living in the private rented sector is quite foreign to them.” Staff member, inner London. There appeared to be multiple reasons for this gap between young people’s expectations of being able to move into social housing and the reality. Some staff attributed it mainly to whether the young people’s family had grown up in council housing, as this could lead to young people assuming that social housing was the norm. Care leavers were generally seen to have higher expectations than other young people, and be more confident that they would be able to move on into social accommodation as they are in a priority need group. Another reason given for young people’s expectations around social housing was “wishful thinking” – where young people were so convinced of the superiority of social housing to accommodation in the private rented sector that they refused to countenance moving on into the latter. However, while some staff members emphasised young people’s unrealistic expectations for social housing, the response of many young people themselves was notable for its lack of any expectations about what would happen when they were resettled. “No, I haven’t really thought about [move-on]… [I’m] not sure what’s going to happen.” Aisha, young person, outer London This lack of expectations reflects some staff member’s reports on the poor knowledge that young people had about any of the resettlement options available to them. In addition, staff members commented that, alongside ignorance, there was a widespread pessimism amongst many young people about what their future held after they moved on. “Most young people either don’t know [about their resettlement options] or think there’s not anything for them - they feel stuck” Staff member, outer London. Young people who were asylum seeking, or who had previously slept rough were seen to be particularly vulnerable to having low expectations about their future due to their previous experiences of hardship. Reactions to the government’s housing policy changes

Centrepoint 25

While most young people were not aware of the government changes that were relevant to their resettlement, when those changes were explained to them, almost all felt that they would make it harder for them to move on successfully. Amongst the concerns raised were that it would be particularly difficult for young people to access social housing tenancies in the future, that they would have to move to a different part of town to afford somewhere to live and that it would lead to more young people having to share. “I think this is going to be a step backwards. Young people need somewhere to call home just like everyone else, and this is going to make it harder.” Alice, young person, out of London. Some young people also said that they thought the changes to social housing tenancies would make it more likely that young people would not move into work if that meant they would thereby lose their tenancy. “Personally, I think that’s stupid. I’ll tell you the truth: people I know aren’t going to go and get a job if that means they then kick you out... people will be scared about being homeless again.” Sam, young person, outer London.

Centrepoint 26

5. Moving on Where do homeless young people go when they move on? Just over a third (35%) of young people that were positively resettled from Centrepoint services in 2010-11 moved into independent living. This leaves almost two-thirds who moved elsewhere, for example returning to their previous home, or living with other family members. The largest group apart from those who moved into independent accommodation was the third of young people (32%) who, as part of their move to independent living moved on to another hostel or supported accommodation provider. Often this was as part of ‘staircase’ model of moving to independence, whereby support is progressively withdrawn as young people become more ready to live independently. Of those young people who moved on to independent living over half (51%) moved into local authority properties. Just under one in five (18%) moved into housing association properties and just under a third (31%) were resettled into the PRS. When we compare this to the statistics for homeless people of all ages, the figure for resettlement into local authority properties is similar, but the striking difference is the much larger percentage of young people that move on into the PRS – more than double the all-age rate of 14%.27 Looking at changes over time, Centrepoint figures from the last five years show reasonably marked fluctuation between the different types of tenure (see graph below). While the percentage of young people moving on into local authority accommodation has stayed largely stable, there are quite dramatic year-on-year changes of more than 10% in the numbers of young people moving into housing association and private rented properties. The type of property in which young people were resettled appeared to be highly dependent upon other variables. Although sample sizes were too small to gain any reliable quantitative results, information from the interviews suggested that in the north of England, a smaller private rental market and relative abundance of social housing meant that a much higher proportion of young people moved on into social housing. Likewise, for young mothers, who due to their particular situation were highly unlikely to have to move into the PRS.

27 Crane, M., Warnes T., and Coward, S. (2011) Moves to independent living: single homeless people’s experiences and outcomes of resettlement.

Centrepoint 27

The process by which young people moved into private rented accommodation, and either local authority or housing association properties is quite different. In the case of the private rented sector, young people either engaged in searching for properties by themselves, with support from their keyworker, or else were given more comprehensive support by a private sector access project such as a ‘rent deposit scheme’ (RDS), either run by the homelessness service, or by the local authority. Centrepoint’s rent deposit scheme is typical in the main features it offers: help searching for private rented accommodation, a loan to pay for the deposit on the property and assistance in maintaining a good relationship with the private landlord. Research conducted by the University of Sheffield, involving six homelessness providers including Centrepoint suggests that private access schemes of this sort can be highly successful in improving the sustainability of private tenancies.28 This conclusion was supported by young people who had moved on through Centrepoint’s scheme. “It was really helpful having [RDS staff member’s] help in finding a property and moving in – she helped me with all the paperwork and once we found it, I could move in really quickly”. Asha, former homeless young person, inner London.

28 Crane, M., Warnes T., and Coward, S. (2011) Moves to independent living: single homeless people’s experiences and outcomes of resettlement.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10

Housingassociation

Localauthority

Privatesector

Resettlement destinations by tenure (%)

Figure 3: resettlement destinations of Centrepoint young people by tenure since 2006/7 Source: Centrepoint

Centrepoint 28

The predominant ways in which young people accessed social housing was either through their services being granted ‘nominations’ for social housing tenancies or by applying direct to the local authority or housing association. In the case of nominations, staff in the service were given a certain amount of discretion to allocate social housing places to young people, after those prioritised by the local authority allocations policy – e.g. care leavers and young mothers – had been allocated properties. The way in which nominations were used by staff varied considerably across different homelessness services. Generally, individual services chose to allocate social housing nominations by one of two principles:

i. Responsibility – on this principle, young people were allocated social housing if they were deemed to have behaved in ways that merited it, for example no anti-social behaviour and a good record of paying their service charges on time.

ii. Need – on this principles, young people were given nominations who were assessed as having particularly high support needs, or who would particularly value staying in the local area or the extra stability that social housing offered.

In practice, there was some mixing of the two types of allocative principle, for example a service might offer the tenancy based on need as long as certain minima (e.g. reliable service charge payment) had been met. The justification given for the first policy was typically twofold. Firstly, it was stressed that if social housing allocations became dependent on good behaviour then this incentivised that behaviour occurring. Staff also spoke of the advantages for behaviour management if it was know that non-compliance might threaten their chances of receiving a social tenancy. Secondly, staff expressed a concern that if they gave the nominations to young people whose support needs were too high – and who subsequently caused trouble with the social landlord – this would reduce the number of nominations they were likely to receive in the future. Needs-based allocation policies were justified primarily on the grounds that vulnerable young people would be much more likely to experience tenancy failure if they missed out on a social housing tenancy. What challenges are there in moving on successfully? Interviewees generally saw the challenges to successful move-on were seen as significant and increasing. In particular, there was a high level of concern at the reductions in local housing allowance (LHA) and a widespread view that this would make it more difficult to successfully resettle homeless young people. “We’ve seen a big difference since April 2011 with the amount of properties available, before it was ridiculous but now it’s just hopeless.” Manager, inner London service.

Centrepoint 29

Social accommodation As outlined in the previous section, most young people would prefer to move into social housing rather than be resettled into the private rented sector. However, for many young people this is not an option, given the limited supply of social accommodation, particularly in London. While the supply of social properties has grown smaller over the last thirty years, more recently year-on-year figures from Centrepoint suggest that the numbers of young people moving on into social housing has been relatively static.29 However, given that social house building is currently in a state of flux, these figures are unlikely to be a firm basis for projecting future trends. Furthermore, it is worth noting these statistics do not take into account the most recent data. A number of staff and service managers expressed concern that over the last few years the number of nominations for social housing that they were receiving were falling and had become less consistent. “Where we used to get 30 nominations, it’s now fallen to around three”. Staff member, London. “Our service used to get seven nominations from a housing association, but now we only get a few every now and then through the local authority”. Staff member, London. Given this scarcity, the method of distributing scarce nominations is an increasingly important task for staff within services. Some young people reported that they felt the priority that some groups received in the nomination process was unfair and should be changed. It was suggested that this could breed resentment amongst some young people who found it much more difficult than their peers to access social housing. “If you’re leaving care it’s ok – you always get a place to live. I don’t see why it doesn’t apply to us… the situation we’re in is no different”. Young person, out of London. While most services noted that there was a severe shortage of social housing in their area, even where this was not the case – for example in some areas in the midlands and north of England – it was reported that there was often a problem in getting social landlords to accept homeless young people. This was mainly because of problems with a record of bad behaviour or who had accrued rent arrears while in their service. Housing associations were seen as particularly culpable for this; sometimes refusing to take young people who had a criminal record or other evidence of anti-social behaviour. Where there was also a shortage of willing private landlords, this led to young people having no realistic move-on options.

29 Due to a change in the method of collecting data, no comparable information is available before 2005-6.

Centrepoint 30

“[Housing association] are never going to choose young people, when they get older people… Although they don’t bar them from applying, in reality when the shortlists are drawn up they don’t have a chance”. Staff member, out of London. Young people in this situation largely blamed the social housing provider for their unwillingness to give them a ‘second chance’. “It’s really wrong that they just see you were in trouble and… write you off… I know [a young person] who had loads of trouble when he was just a kid and now can’t find [anywhere to] move on even though now he’s a completely different person”. Kevin, young person, out of London. However, they also thought that in many cases staff needed to do more to act as ambassadors on behalf of young people and better convey the message to the housing association that they were confident a particular young person could be a responsible tenant. One young person thought that this was related to a wider problem about the perception of homeless young people as more likely to cause trouble. “I don’t think enough has been done to challenge the idea that young people are all badly behaved and difficult… this makes it difficult to move on.” Sam, young person, out of London. Young people also expressed frustration that they did not get always get the type of property that they felt they needed. This was particularly pronounced amongst social tenants – perhaps because constraints on social housing seemed more obviously driven by individual’s decisions rather than merely by market constraints. This was put particularly vividly by one young person, who reported that her requests not to have a top-floor flat on the grounds of her history of depression were ignored. “The council don’t pay attention to what you want... I had been suicidal in the past and asked not to be put on a flat high up, but they did it anyway. I didn’t get a choice.” Pauline, young person, outer London. Private rented accommodation The interviews with staff and young people both suggested large disparities between the challenges faced in moving on in different parts of the country. As suggested above, although almost all interviewees agreed that there was insufficient access to social housing in their area, this was seen as a much greater problem in London. Accessing private rented accommodation was also seen as a problem across regions, but for different reasons. Outside of London, a major complaint was that there was simply not enough appropriate shared private rented accommodation – and in some cases not any at all. Inside London, interviewees reported that there was a large amount of private

Centrepoint 31

rented accommodation that was potentially appropriate but, particularly for those young people in receipt of housing benefit, was nevertheless unaffordable. This was partly because of huge demand from more attractive tenants such as ‘young professionals’. Across regions, the issue of local housing allowance was seen as problem on two main grounds. Firstly, that many private landlords refused to take tenants in receipt of housing benefit. Secondly, it was not seen as generous enough to allow young people to rent a property in many areas, or led to young people taking substandard properties and/or ‘topping up’ their rent in a potentially unsustainable fashion. The perception that most private landlords were unwilling to consider taking young people in receipt of housing benefit was widespread. “When you’re in private it’s hard to find a place because not many landlords take DSS [housing benefit]”. Kevin, young person, out of London. This led to particular problems for young people who were looking for private rented properties to move in to. Many remarked on the length and difficulty of the process, with some saying that they did not have the skills necessary to undertake the search without significant support from a member of staff. “It’s very difficult to move-on into a private house… it’s taken me over a year since I wanted to go and still I’m here.” Showkat, young person, outer London. One staff member commented that there was a particular problem for young people who were in work but on a low enough income to still qualify for some housing benefit. “Young people on partial housing benefit can get the worst of both worlds and it can make landlords more nervous of taking young people on if they don’t know where the money is coming from.” Staff member, inner London. Another widely reported challenge in moving in to the private sector young was young people’s lack of references. Interviewees reported that in an increasingly competitive rental market, young people were disadvantaged even compared to other groups on low income because their age meant they were less likely to have had experience of an independent tenancy. This could mean they were overlooked by private landlords who required a reference from their previous landlord. Some landlords simply had blanket bans on under 25s. Social letting agencies Social letting agencies can be set up by local authorities or registered social landlords to expand the use of privately owned temporary accommodation for homeless people. Since April 2010, a government

Centrepoint 32

subsidy has allowed such schemes to be backed by a subsidy arrangement from the Department for Work and Pensions based on LHA rates. Since April 2011, a new statutory instrument has expanded the scope of this subsidy by allowing it to include accommodation which is either leased or licensed30 by either a local authority or a registered social landlord. Furthermore, the subsidy is pegged to January 2011 LHA rates, meaning that it is set at the 50th percentile of market rents, rather than the 30th percentile which has been in operation since April 2011. This higher rate is fixed until March 2013 when it will be reviewed. The subsidy arrangements allow significant potential to engage with private landlords, who can be offered a better deal than in the current housing benefit sub-market, where potential rents will be around the 30th percentile. Even with margins set aside for staffing and administration, it should still be possible to offer many private landlords a better deal than in the open market. In addition to facilitating the relationship between tenant and private landlord by drawing down government subsidy, social letting agencies can offer other services such as checking property is in a suitable condition, operating a rent deposit scheme, mediating disputes or providing advice to tenants and landlords. Several local authorities, including the London Borough of Southwark have already committed to introducing social letting agencies. A large number of staff and young people who were interviewed expressed the opinion that the kinds of private rented accommodation that were appropriate for young people in receipt of housing benefit were extremely limited by the low level of LHA. This was partly because young people under 25 currently are restricted to a rate of housing benefit which is pegged to the local rent of a room in a shared house, meaning that most young people are restricted to looking for shared accommodation in the private. However, the recent change in April 2011 which reduces the rate of LHA by calculating it at the 30th percentile, rather than the median or 50th percentile (henceforth ‘the April 2011 changes’), was perceived to have wide-ranging negative effects. In areas (predominantly outside of London) where there was very little availability of shared accommodation, the reduction in rates was seen to have removed the chance of young people being able to access a one bedroom private flat, and left them with little or no options in the private rented sector. Within London, it was reported that the amount of properties available for move-on had dramatically decreased.

30 Accommodation held on a license allows a body such as a local authority to use private accommodation for a given purpose without having an interest in the property, which still remains in the owner’s possession and control.

Centrepoint 33

“Before the [April 2011] changes we were moving about five people a month on into the private sector, now it’s more like one.” Service manager, outer London. “The changes [to LHA] are making things even more difficult than they already are, large areas of central London will be a no-go area.” Staff member, inner London. Other staff members reported that although the number of properties they were able to find for young people to move on to hadn’t decreased dramatically since April, the quality of accommodation that they were able to move them into had suffered as a result. “The quality of properties that young people can move into is worse [since the April [LHA changes]… grottier and more likely to be in a worse condition.” Staff member, outer London. A further finding was that young people were increasing the amount of money that were paying in addition to their housing benefit to be able to afford the increased shortfall between their rent and LHA rates as a result of the April 2011 reductions. “More young people are now having to top-up by a lot more per week to afford the [private rented] properties. This increased topping up is unsustainable in the long term.” Staff member, inner London. This was particularly seen as important by some staff members who thought that young people were naïve about the consequences of not paying this top-up. In particular, there was seen to be a lack of knowledge on behalf of young people about the greater severity of not paying a rent top-up compared to a service charge in a homelessness hostel. This in turn was seen to be due to a lack of budgeting skills and relative inexperience of independent living amongst young people. Importantly, no staff members interviewed thought that the government’s claim that as a consequence of the reductions in LHA landlords would reduce their rents was being realised.31 “There is no evidence of landlords lowering rent in response to the cuts in local housing allowance”. Staff member, inner London. In fact, as adduced above, housing benefit reforms are leading to higher demand in the private rental sub-market for low-income households, often driving prices up rather than down.

31 Alongside the imperative of deficit reduction, this was posited as a justification of the policy by the Welfare Reform Minister Lord Freud. This claim receives sceptical treatment in Chartered Institute of Housing and British Property Federation (2011) Leading the market? A research report into whether local housing allowance (LHA) lettings are feeding rent inflation.

Centrepoint 34

Local housing allowance changes: quantitative analysis To further interrogate the reports from the interviews, quantitative data was collected for young people who moved on through a local private sector access scheme in London during the six months since April 2011. As a control group, data for the same scheme for the twelve months prior to April 2011 was collected. Using this data as well as figures collected since the LHA changes were implemented, it was then possible to model the effects of the reforms on the 2010/11 cohort. Although the relatively small number of resettlements in the scheme mean that the results are only indicative, they nonetheless show some strong trends.32 In 2010/11, all of the young people in the scheme moved into a shared flat or room in a shared house. This is consistent with the reports from the interviews suggesting that rent levels in the private rented market in London were too high for young people to afford to move into a one-bedroom flat. At the point of resettlement, around one in seven (15%) of young people were paying for their rent purely by wage income, a further 15% were paying by a combination of rent and LHA and the remainder (70%) were meeting their rent purely by housing benefit. The areas that the young people moved into were a variety of inner and outer London boroughs.33 Based on the LHA rates for the areas into which the young people moved, and information on the rent they were paying when they moved on, it is possible to calculate the shortfall between the amount of housing benefit received and the rent due. For the cohort that moved on in 2010/11 (before the LHA changes), the average weekly shortfall was £5.82 or just over 10% of the weekly budget for living costs of the average young person. By using the details from that same cohort, alongside the post-April 2011 LHA figures, it is possible to calculate the projected shortfall for the same young people in 2011-12. On average, the projected LHA loss as a result of the April changes is £8.08. This varies dramatically from one local authority area to another, with some young nominally losing up to £21.04 as a result of the changes, whilst other young people losing only £5.00.

32 The figures below were calculated using Valuation Office Agency data on LHA rates for the period May 2010 to April 2011 (inclusive). 33 Research from the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research suggests that “Most inner London boroughs are likely to become almost entirely unaffordable to low-income tenants on LHA by 2016”. Fenton, Alex (2011) Benefit reform and the spatial segregation of low-income households in London.

28% The projected weekly proportion of their income that a

young person will have to ‘top-up’ following the April 2011 LHA cuts

Centrepoint 35

This means that the average nominal shortfall following the April changes has more than doubled to £13.90. For the average young person leaving Centrepoint, this now represents more than a quarter (28%) of their budget for living costs. Further figures from the same private sector access scheme for the six months from April 2011 can be compared to the 12 months prior to April 2011, to assess the time it took for young people to move on. Before April 2011, over four out of five young people (83%) moved on in one-two months, with only one in 17 (6%) taking five-six months. By contrast, less than one in five (18%) moved on in one-two months and over one in three (36%) took five-six months. This significant increase suggests that it is taking far longer to move young people on from homelessness services. This result was strongly re-enforced by the qualitative interviews, during which time a number of staff noted the increased time that it took for young people to move on and the negative consequences this was happening. “I’m thinking of a recent case of two young men, who we thought were in danger from other young people [in the area], but we couldn’t get them moved on because there just wasn’t the places for us to move them to.” Manager, inner London service. This was seen to have a knock-on effect on the number of bed spaces available for new young people to enter the service, resulting in a reduction in the capacity of homelessness services. A more worrying result raised by comparing the post-April 2011 figures from the private sector access scheme to the 2010-11 cohort, was the increase in the number of young people who were leaving the scheme because they had run out of time at their homelessness service or were otherwise unable to find a property to move on to. In 2010-11, 14% of the young people who entered the scheme failed to finish, but in the six months after April 2011, this rose to 38%. These preliminary results suggest that one effect of the LHA reduction is a reduction in the proportion of young people successfully moving on. By hypothesis it is not clear where those young people who leave the system go, but it is likely that at least some of them will experience repeat homelessness.

Centrepoint 36

6. Post-resettlement support None of the services who took part in the research collected comprehensive data on the outcomes of young people after their resettlement was complete, although many continued to offer support on a formal or informal basis. However, using quantitative data from Centrepoint young people who were involved in the pioneering FOR-HOME study, carried out by researchers at the University of Sheffield, combined with qualitative interview data from staff, and young people who have moved on from Centrepoint, it is possible to draw some conclusions about post-resettlement outcomes and support.34 Most young people were still maintaining their tenancy at 15 or 18 months after they were resettled, when they were interviewed for the final time. However, there is a dramatic discrepancy between outcomes for young people in social accommodation compared to private accommodation. While nine out of ten (90%) of young people who were resettled into social accommodation were still in that tenancy at 15/18 months, none of the young people who moved into a private tenancy had remained in the same property, although a third (33%) had moved to other properties.35 While numbers are too small to draw any reliable conclusions, the number of young people who left to unknown whereabouts or back to the streets or a hostel from private accommodation is also a third (33%) compared to none of the young people who were resettled into social accommodation. The condition of the move-on accommodation A number of young people were unhappy with the general condition of their property upon resettlement. “The quality of the [social accommodation] was awful... I had to do the whole house up so that we could live in it”. Mark, young person, out of London. The experience of private accommodation was also often negatively reported, with young people complaining of the general poor condition of the property.

34 While the FOR-HOME data is detailed, there are no comparable data sets to draw upon to ascertain how resettlement outcomes have changed over time. Consequently it is not possible to draw conclusions as to how policy changes have affected the successful resettlement rates. 35 Crane, M., Warnes T., and Coward, S. Centrepoint data from the FOR-HOME Study (unpublished). All figures in this section are drawn from this source unless otherwise specified. Note that, given small sample sizes many of the statistics given are merely indicative.

Centrepoint 37

“When we moved it was really damp... things like the front doorbell not working were really annoying”. Sarah, young person, outer London. The FOR-HOME data also suggests that the problems that young people experienced with the general condition of the properties they were resettled into was evenly spread across social and private accommodation. What is striking about the results, however, are the number of young people who reported problems with the accommodation. At six months, almost nine out of ten young people (86%) reported that they had a problem with the accommodation. In the interviews, young people suggested that there was a conscious decision on the part of social landlords to give young people the lowest quality accommodation available. “The worst [housing association] flats go to young people under 25… All the real horrible one go to young people ‘cos they think that we won’t complain so much”. Sam, young person, out of London. The level of furnishing between move-on properties varied considerably. Private tenancies were on average much more completely furnished than social tenancies, with no young person reporting that they were without a bed, or either a cooker, microwave or hob when they first moved in. By contrast, the majority of social tenancies were without one or more of these basic goods, with almost two in three (64%) without a bed and four out of five (82%) without either a cooker, microwave or hob. This seems congruent with the national picture. Although no specific data is collected nationally, a report from the Joseph Rowntree foundation in 1997 estimated that there were only 7,000 furnished social housing tenancies in England.36 A high number of the young people who had moved on reported that support from the discretionary social fund37 was important in allowing

36 Joseph Rowntree Foundation (1997) The viability of furnished tenancies in social housing. 37 The discretionary social fund is administered by the Department for Work and Pensions to provide support to those on low incomes in times of need. Support covered by the fund includes community care grants and crisis loans. Community care grants are primarily designed for people who need financial support to live independently. Crisis loans are interest-free loans provided by the Department for

86% The proportion of young people who reported

a problem with their accommodation after moving on

Centrepoint 38

them to buy basic goods for their property. Community care grants were particularly crucial for young people who had moved into social tenancies with a number reporting that they had made use of them to furnish their property with items such as a bed or a cooker. “It was really important to get the money [from the community care grant] in order to be able to get the things I needed for my flat.” Grant, young person, out of London. Other young people reported that they had used crisis loans and budgeting loans to buy basic goods for their property. Other had made use of a local charity which provided second-hand furniture and electrical goods at a reduced price in order to be able to afford the items they required to furnish their homes. Staff reported that there were discrepancies in the amount of money that they could receive from financial support such as community care grants, due to its discretionary nature. Some expressed scepticism about the consistency of the allocations process. “How much money you get all depends on when you apply... sometimes if they’ve got loads of money left, they’ll give you loads, other times hardly any at all.” Airash, young person, inner London. Others expressed frustration at the way that community care grants and similar financial support were allocated, which they felt made them ask for more than they needed because the discretion was exercised so stringently that it was rare to receive the amount that they had asked for, even when they felt there were good reasons for doing so. “It don’t want to be dishonest. I don’t want to lie to get what I need.” Sarah, young person, outer London. One hole uncovered in the support offered by the discretionary social fund was amongst young people in higher education. One young person relayed how they had moved into social accommodation while studying a full-time education course. Her education status meant that she was ineligible to claim under the discretionary social fund and was therefore unable to purchase crucial household goods. “I had to sleep on the floor for nine months until I could get together the money to buy a bed... it wasn’t very nice.” Aisha, young person, inner London. Cost of living

Work and Pensions for those who need financial help as the result of an emergency or disaster. Budgeting loans are interest free loans to pay for certain essential costs, like furniture or clothing.

Centrepoint 39

The cost of independent living was raised by the majority of interviewees who had moved on. While some described themselves as financially comfortable, others stressed that living by themselves was much more financially difficult than they had thought. Young people in social housing, or in private accommodation where utility bills were included as part of their rent were less likely to raise concerns about financial pressure. “The rent is not too bad… it’s manageable, and all the bills are included.” Mohammed, young person, inner London. However, for others, being financially independent was a significant worry. “After I’ve paid my rent, it doesn’t leave a lot a money for other things and some months can be tough.” Sam, young person, inner London. Some young people stressed how financially vulnerable having come from a homelessness hostel and having no financial support from their families made them. “When you move out of [the homelessness service] you have literally nothing.” Dion, young person, outer London. One young person reported how his problems making ends meet had meant that he had turned to ‘loan sharks’ in order to meet his obligations. “[not having any money] forces you into getting payday loans.” Patrick, young person, out of London. Interpersonal relationships The relationship with landlords and neighbours was important for most young people, with many saying that it had turned out to be one of the most significant factors in determining whether they thought their move-on had been a success. “[Relationships in the neighbourhood] make a big difference… in my block of flats it used to be ok when I first moved in, but then lots of other young people moved in and are causing all sorts of trouble with drugs and anti-social behaviour…” Sadie, young person, outer London. Young people who had moved into shared accommodation were particularly likely to raise the issue of relationships with their co-tenants as important. Views were mixed, but most young people stressed the challenges of living with other tenants. “It’s difficult living with other people and just not having a place that you can say ‘this is mine’”. Natasha, young person, out of London.

Centrepoint 40

Relationships with landlords were also extremely varied. Some were reported as extremely good, with the young people stressing the motivational or support aspects of the relationship were generating positive outcomes in other areas of their lives. “[My private landlord’s] amazing - really good - she supported me when I was moving on and has really helped me to make a change in my life.” Faisal, young person, inner London. Other young people were more circumspect, describing their relationship with their landlord as “fine”, or “ok”. Many tenants – both private and social – reported that they did not know their landlord at all and had either only seem them once or twice, or not at all. Data from the FOR-HOME study shows a strong positive correlation between contact with relatives and young people reporting that they feel settled in their property. Almost three-quarters (71%) of young people who reported that they were were settled were seeing at least relatives at least once a week. Conversely, half (50%) who did not think they were settled, or reported they were definitely not settled did not see relatives at least once a week, compared to 29% for those who did. Amongst the interviewees, young mothers were mostly likely to see their parents on a regular basis once they had moved on. “My mum helps me out with looking after they baby.” Sara, young parent, out of London. “Being near family is really important.” Genevieve, young parent, out of London. Support received from homelessness services While all homelessness services visited offered post-resettlement support, the length and amount of support ranged from six months of optional support; to indefinite support combined with regular meetings in the immediate months after the young person had moved on. One factor in the amount of support that services provided was capacity – both in terms of staff and finances. Some staff members said that they would like to offer more comprehensive resettlement support, but did not have the resources to do so. However, more prevalent was the view that when young people did not come back it was because they did not think that support would be forthcoming. “I think that we should encourage more young people to come back after they have moved on… staff have a big role to play in keeping in touch with those young people who have moved on and still need support.” Service manager, inner London.

Centrepoint 41

This was corroborated by some young people, who expressed frustration at what they perceived to be the unwillingness of some staff members to provide support once they had moved on. “I wanted to talk to my [previous] keyworker, but I didn’t think it was possible.” Mohammed, young person inner London. Many young people expressed a strong preference in favour of an ongoing variable level support, which was sensitive to the needs of the young person rather than constrained by a pre-determined maximum time period. “[Homelessness services] should give you support all the way through, until you stay stop” Natasha, young person, out of London. Post-resettlement support was not always facilitated by members of staff. Centrepoint services in London were linked to a team of Centrepoint volunteer mentors as part of a private sector access scheme, linking mentors with homeless and formerly homeless young people to provide them an additional source of support and advice. This kind of support was popular with young people. “It’s good to have someone to talk to about any problems you have living by yourself. Isaiah, young person, outer London. However, others pointed out that, while welcome, the scheme had its limitations. “Because [the mentors] aren’t proper members of staff they’re hampered in some ways. They can’t come into your flat for example.” Gemma, young person, outer London.

Centrepoint 42

7. Conclusion and recommendations Successful resettlement may not always sufficient to meet the challenges that homeless and formerly homeless young people face.38 Nevertheless, it is necessary if sustainable good outcomes are to be achieved. Not least because homeless young people have faced housing disadvantage in the past, the provision of suitable housing is central to their successful future. The findings of this research make clear what support young people think benefits them when they move on. Young people reported that pre-resettlement support was valuable, particularly when it was tailored to their individual needs given their particular trajectories. Training in building the kinds of skills that they might not have picked up during their time in supported housing, particularly financial management and paying their rent and bills was reported to be most important. However, too many young people were found not to be engaged in thinking about what would happen to them when they move on, and this meant they do not take advantage of the opportunities for building skills for independent living that are offered to them. Staff reported that a lack of knowledge amongst many also lead to unrealistic expectations of different move-on options, hampering successful transition. Young people were clear about much of what needs to happen when they actually undergo the move-on process. They appreciated transparent advice and help navigating the often complex system of obtaining both private and social housing. They also valued financial and pastoral support in helping them meet the demands of living independently. There were a number of differences in the housing options available to young people, based upon their particular circumstances, and the area of the country in which they live. While many young people expressed preference for social housing on the grounds of affordability and stability – and said they would largely continue to do so even given the recent social housing changes reforms – many are unable to access a social tenancy. These young people are then forced to seek resettlement accommodation in the private sector. However, the evidence suggests that reforms to the local housing allowance are making it increasingly difficult for young people to be resettled, and reducing the section of the market that is accessible to young people. This suggests that the changes are increasing the risk of repeat homelessness amongst young people. Once they moved on, young people were more likely than older homeless people to have problems with their properties. However, they reported that the support they did receive, both from public authorities and homelessness services, was valued and made a difference to tenancy sustainment.

38 Centrepoint (2010). Complex needs: the changing face of youth homelessness.

Centrepoint 43

On the basis of these findings, the following are short-medium term recommendations to increase the successful resettlement outcomes amongst homeless young people. National government

1. Reinstate the local housing allowance at median local rents – the research suggests that the effect of the April 2011 cuts to local housing allowance are making it significantly more difficult for young people to move on to private sector accommodation, increasing the likelihood of repeat homelessness. We strongly recommend that this reform be reversed.

“The most important thing [for the government to do] is to help young people afford a place to live – it can’t be too expensive, that’s the mot important thing.” Jasper, young person outer London.

2. Allow councils the freedom to find innovative solutions to local problems – the housing options available to formerly homeless young people vary dramatically from area to area. Government policy must similarly allow flexibility if successful resettlement outcomes are to be achieved across the country. The fact that councils currently manage the supporting people budget for homelessness services will provide an incentive to prevent repeat homelessness. Additional freedoms such as giving local authorities the option to waive the shared accommodation rate restriction for formerly homeless young people in their area could allow more effective, area-appropriate solutions.

3. Maintain funding for private sector access schemes – a sustainable solution to resettling homeless young people must involve the private rented sector. The government should continue to support local authorities to build capacity in these schemes, initially by committing to safeguarding funding until the end of this Parliament. A current government initiative which runs up to 2013 gives incentives to private landlords to engage in local authority backed schemes which provide appropriate private accommodation for tenants who might have previously moved into social housing.

4. Invest in affordable social accommodation – while there are

beneficial changes that can be made to the way existing social housing is allocated – for example embedding a policy of higher social rents for those who can afford it - this cannot be a solution to the severe under-supply of social housing currently being experienced. The shortage means that homeless young people who would benefit from the stability and affordability that are the hallmarks of social housing are being pushed into unsuitable housing options, risking costly episodes of repeat homelessness.

5. Exempt formerly homeless people from the shared

accommodation rate of LHA – currently, the age-related

Centrepoint 44

restriction on the amount of housing benefit private sector tenants can claim is providing a major barrier to the resettlement of homeless young people. This has been exacerbated by the April 2011 LHA reforms and further affected by the widening of the scope of that restriction from January 2012. An exemption would be a recognition of the additional challenges that homeless young people face in successfully moving into independent accommodation, and the problems that their support needs can pose to them sharing with others. The government should also ensure that tenants can choose for their LHA to be paid direct to landlords.

“I think [the shared accommodation rate restriction] is wrong – government should come and witness the problems that this causes for young people”. Sian, young person, out of London.

6. Review the role of housing associations in housing vulnerable young tenants – despite major changes over the last decade, the social housing sector retains a crucial role in housing vulnerable tenants, including homeless young people. However, the research has indicated that some housing associations are unwilling to take on these young people. In parts of the country without a developed private rental market, this can lead to young people left without any move-on options. Government should review whether additional measures are required to ensure housing associations are effectively fulfilling their social duties in this area.

“[The housing association] needs to do better at helping young people.” Patrick, young person, out of London.

7. Make community care grants available to formerly homeless young people in higher education – currently a loophole in the discretionary social fund means homeless young people who move on while at university do not qualify for community care grants and similar support. This can lead to a young person moving into an unfurnished social property without essentials such a bed or cooker. To protect the support that the discretionary fund offers we recommend that the plan to remove its ring-fence in 2013 is dropped.

Local authorities and housing associations

8. Make use of the subsidy available for social letting agencies

– the Department for Communities and Local Government has provided a guaranteed subsidy stream based on (pre-April 2011) LHA rates until at least 2013 for local authorities to work with private landlords to transform private tenancies into ‘social lets’ for vulnerable tenants bound for the private rented sector. While this has generated innovative programmes in local authorities such as the London Borough of Southwark, other local authorities have been slow to make use of this facility.

Centrepoint 45

8. Engage with private landlords through rent deposit schemes – schemes either run or sponsored by local authorities to give young people a helping hand into a private tenancy by offering financial support and building relationships with private landlords should be set up in every local authority. They are valued by young people and can effectively make the private rental market more accessible to young people moving on from supported accommodation.

9. Commission homelessness services that can staircase young

people into independence – different types of services, from emergency, high-support hostels to floating support are essential if local authorities are to successfully resettle homeless young people. Local authorities need to ensure that they commission the full range of homelessness services in their area to give young people the support that is appropriate to their stage in their journey to independence.

“There should be a trial period for living independently, with the option to move back in to full support if this is unsuccessful.” John, young person, out of London.

10.Review procedures for housing vulnerable young people – local authorities and housing associations should work with young people and homelessness service providers to ensure that young people with high support needs are given the opportunity to enter and maintain independent tenancies. Local authorities could aid this by installing ‘resettlement workers’ with a remit analogous to that which leaving care workers perform for young people leaving care; bringing different services together to offer better holistic support.

Homelessness services

12.Make resettlement a priority from when young people first enter supported accommodation – the research suggests that there is a need for clear advice as soon as young people enter the service. This should include managing young people’s expectations about what their housing options are likely to be and setting their successful move-on up as a goal to work towards during their time at the service.

13.Tailor resettlement support to young people’s circumstances

– young people and staff reported that they found pre-resettlement support most valuable when it was interactive and addressed their particular needs. Given the variety that was found in young people’s knowledge and experience of independent living, a ‘one size fits all’ model of support is unlikely to be able to provide the necessary information and advice for all young people. Instead, young people should have a choice of support in a wide range of areas and the option to not do lower-level training if staff think they have the requisite knowledge. Staff should ensure that they talk to young

Centrepoint 46

people about their plans and help them make informed choices about the future.

“Young people need more training on managing money”, Nieve, young person, out of London.

14.Introduce transparent and consistent criteria for allocating social housing nominations – the research found the criteria for allocating social housing nominations varied dramatically. Homelessness organisations should adopt a consistent policy on their criteria for awarding nominations and proactive steps should be taken to make young people aware of this. While there are pragmatic reasons to use nominations to influence good behaviour and keep social housing providers happy, the needs of the young person should be the paramount consideration when allocating nominations.

15.Introduce clear guidance on young people’s entitlement

after they move on – many young people were unsure about the support they were entitled to from their previous service after they moved on. In the worst case scenario, this can lead to young people not using support that they want and are entitled to. If support is time-limited, young people should meet with staff to decide on their individual support plans for after they move on, including pre-arranged, regular contact.