Written evidence submitted by Nacro [HOL 143]

About Nacro:

At Nacro, the crime reduction charity, we are dedicated to changing lives, building successful communities and reducing crime and reoffending in communities across England and Wales. We design and deliver programmes that equip people with the skills, advice, attitude and support they need to move their lives on and move away from crime.   We do this through education, learning and preparing service users for work, by providing housing and support to provide stability and skills to maintain housing going forward, by helping people to recover from addiction and by working with offenders through the court and prison systems to support rehabilitation reducing the risk of re-offending. 

Working in partnership to develop policy: We use our knowledge of “what works”, with the experiences and voice of our service users at the heart to develop policy, thought leadership and to contribute to government consultations and debates. 

Nacro is an experienced deliverer of housing related support, other prevention and early intervention services.  This is of course a difficult area in which to operate, given the reducing public sector funding environment. 

Our response has been written around our experiences of working with homeless individuals and as such we have not referred to all the suggested points in the terms of reference.

1. Causes of homelessness

Through our knowledge and experience of homelessness, its prevention and supporting those that have experienced it, we know that homelessness can be categorised in a number of ways. This includes the statutory homeless, street homeless as well as the hidden homeless, including significant numbers of young people sofa surfing or moving in and out of temporary and insecure accommodation. Most recent figures released by the government in December 2015 show that the biggest single cause for statutory homelessness is tenancies in the private sector coming to an end[1], highlighting the important role of social housing.

Causes of homelessness are varied, often revolving around employment, loss of housing benefit through for example sanctions which jeopardises a tenants ability to pay rent, mental ill health, substance misuse problems and/or family breakdowns. Research shows the complex links between offending and homelessness. One in five individuals being released from custody said they had no accommodation to go to on release, and almost half of homeless people in one survey had been in prison or a young offender’s institution at one point[2]. 15% of newly sentenced prisoners reported being homeless before custody and 12% of prisoners depend on housing benefit to help with their rent before they enter custody[3]. Having suitable accommodation is the cornerstone to effective resettlement, providing stability for the individual to rebuild a positive life.

While local authorities have a statutory duty to assist homeless and vulnerable ex offenders, the Localism Act 2011 gave more discretion for local authorities to prioritise  certain applicants – for example those in work. This means it is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain housing for single homeless with complex needs. Acknowledging the link between suitable and stable accommodation and preventing re/offending is vital. Providing appropriate accommodation and support for people leaving prison is pivotal in avoiding re-offending, leading to safer communities and in turn less pressure on local blue light services.

This is especially true of young people; research carried out by Beyond Youth Custody[4] shows that young people leaving custody are at particular risk of homelessness due to their higher levels of needs, vulnerabilities and chaotic lives. Thirteen per cent of young homeless people are offenders and 22 per cent have an offending history.[5] Accommodation is critical for effective resettlement.[6] A return to the family or neighbourhood may expose them or their families to risk of harm and the negative social networks they are trying to leave behind. Young people at the point of release need stability and support to help them adjust at this critical time when the risk of reoffending is greatest.

Moreover, we know that accommodation provided needs to be appropriate. Bed and breakfast or hostel accommodation can often lead to individuals with criminal or substance abuse histories continuing a cycle of abuse and/or crime. Supported housing is vital for individuals with complex needs. It provides stability and direct support at particular cross roads and crisis points that enable individuals to address problems, secure work and move forward. Hostels and temporary accommodation are not a solution to addressing homelessness. As we explain later, they provide short term respite but not long term solutions. Without investment in support that helps people to move on, homelessness and its hidden costs to tax payers through health, crime and criminal justice will continue to rise.

The requirements of the Localism Act 2011 dictate that someone must have a ‘local connection’ to be classed as statutorily homeless, meaning that those wanting to move away from unsuitable areas are not able to do so as they will not be deemed to be owed a duty of care by other local authorities. For many people this means getting caught in a cycle of crime, tied to local negative influences and unable to move on to a more positive life in a different area. In some instances, where the risk is deemed to be significant, efforts will be made to re-house outside the area, however this process is arbitrary and more consistency is needed to ensure individuals and communities are kept safe.

2. Steps to tackle homelessness

Nacro’s housing services provide support to individuals with substance misuse and/or mental health issues. Tackling homelessness goes beyond physical shelter and requires addressing causes and appropriate access to wider services. Supported housing providers like Nacro offer that extra layer of support individuals need for a short period to achieve long term stability.

To ensure a long term move away from homelessness, there is a need for interim accommodation offering support. This support is vital in helping individuals to build productive and positive lives away from the cycle of homelessness. It is therefore imperative that local authorities are able to fund this adequately. 

Recent government policy initiatives to apply the Local Housing Allowance to supported housing will make running our services unviable. Nacro has already made a number of significant efficiency savings to cover reduced income from LA contracts spanning across our housing, education and justice delivery, this year alone Nacro has made 18.9% savings to its central overheads with only 12.7% of our costs going towards support infrastructure (which covers HR, health and safety, finance, property management and legal support). Unlike housing associations, we do not have the margins available to absorb these reductions in rent.

Whilst assurances have been given about top up resources being channelled locally through the Discretionary Housing Pot there is no clarity over priorities for funding, leaving this open to local areas. The nature of homelessness means that individuals may not have a strong anchor towards a local area that will prioritise them. 

The effect on our service users and the wider communities we work in will be significant, leaving many individuals without life changing accommodation and related support. In 2014-15, we helped 73% of our service users to go to planned move on accommodation, enabling them to progress into sustainable accommodation, employment and/or training and personal stability. The reducing social housing provision is only set to get more limited, increasing the prospects for homelessness.

We are calling for the government to exempt supported housing, through specified accommodation definitions, from the Local Housing Allowance cap to ensure we can continue to serve the most vulnerable individuals and wider communities.
 

3. Local authorities and the statutory duty of care

It is imperative that local authorities prioritise homelessness prevention strategies and assess their need and provision carefully. The direct effect of homelessness puts significant strain on other local services including health, police and social services. Unsurprisingly, mental and physical ill health is prevalent amongst homeless individuals, (73% have reported physical problems, while 80% report mental health problems[7]) and the cost to the Department for Health for homeless people is estimated at £85million.

As stated above, the Localism Act 2011 gave local authorities the power to prioritise certain groups over others, depending on their local needs assessments. In many cases, local authorities do not have a duty to house single homeless people. As a provider that houses single homeless, we know how important it is not to neglect this cohort.

We would argue that a duty to house single homeless should be reinstated. Housing is fundamental to recovery. At the very least local areas should provide essential guidance and signposting to services that may be able to help with health and substance misuse problems, regardless of whether they owe a duty to house or not. Research has shown that this does not always happen[8] . While we recognise that it would not be possible to categorise everyone as priority need, local authorities need to make every effort to provide advice and guidance to help them resolve their housing problems.

We would argue that by extending the statutory of care to single homeless, and those at risk of homelessness, local authorities will be investing in a longer term strategy to prevent long term, chromic homelessness as well as reducing impact on other local services.

Moreover, the devolution agenda presents a significant opportunity to reshape the approach to homelessness strategies. Working over larger geographical areas, there is scope for collaboration between organisations such as the National Offender Management Service and the Ministry of Justice, to look at rehousing released prisoners effectively, for example. Rehousing people in places that work better for them and that are sustainable will reduce the cycle of homelessness. Work needs to be done to ensure these ideas and strategies are embedded early on.

4. Homelessness and the benefits system

Evidence from our services suggests that benefit sanctions are having an effect on successful move on from our properties, as it is impacting on tenants’ abilities to manage payments, and as such accrue arrears. Landlords are less likely to consider applicants with arrears for move on placement, meaning that move on can be extremely difficult.

Benefits sanctions can have a long term and significant effect on an individual’s stability and well-being. Recent research[9] has shown the significant links between benefits sanctions and homelessness. 44% of individuals in homeless shelters or hostels are under 25, which is also the largest cohort of individuals who are sanctioned. This cohort present the most complex vulnerabilities and sanctions can have a devastating effect on the ability to create a stable future. In order to address the increase in homelessness, the use of sanctions needs to be reviewed. There is no robust evidence to show that sanctions do what they were intended to do, i.e. ‘change behaviour of claimants’, but in fact in many cases push individuals into positions where they cannot move on, accruing arrears, debt and possibly turning to crime to survive. 

5. Homelessness and the availability of social housing

The availability of social housing is inextricably linked to homelessness; it provides a safety net for families, young people and single parents who need affordable housing. There is already a significant lack of affordable housing meaning many individuals and families are pushed into unsuitable and temporary accommodation.

On top of an existing lack of available social housing, the Localism Act 2011 also introduced the ability of landlords to issue time limited tenancies for as little as two years, meaning lack of security for many tenants who need stability. While the Act also states that if the individual becomes homeless again through no fault of their own within two years they must re-house them, this could still mean upheaval and lack of consistency for individuals with already chaotic and challenging situations.  The reality is that someone experiencing homelessness is very unlikely to be able to move to ownership solutions and that their vulnerabilities may be exposed in the private rented sector.  Lifetime tenancies in social housing are therefore the most appropriate solutions for many.

As stated above, the current government policy push towards home ownership will not be a realistic option for many social housing tenants. It creates a risk of pushing the most vulnerable further towards homelessness by depleting already reduced stock by the extension of Right to Buy to the Housing Association sector. There needs to be clear assurances that councils will have the ability to keep up the replacement of social housing sold under this scheme.

More widely the housing crisis, particularly in inner cities, requires visionary solutions. Nacro led national thinking on ‘secured by design’ which was initiated by Lord Heseltine’s Safer Cities work in the 1980’s. We know that safe, secure and affordable homes are crucial to creating spaces that are crime free and generate opportunity. Regeneration must consider the needs of the most vulnerable in communities. This cannot solely be left in the hands of developers to meet the needs of first time buyers. As cities transform, a secure supply of social and supported housing that enables people to have a stake in and connect with the local area are vital to the development of prosperous communities. This is for the benefit of all and means that the hidden needs of homeless groups are addressed in future urban designs.

Further, the agenda of the recently established Estate Regeneration task force to address the problems of some 100 of the UK’s social housing estates will go further towards depleting social housing stock – at the very least in the short term.

6. Conclusion

Homelessness is not solely about having somewhere to sleep; it is about addressing root causes and related issues to ensure an individual has the right support to move on to a sustainable future, accommodation and beyond.

Supported housing provides a vital role in giving this support and delivering long term solutions to homelessness and the causes of homelessness. For many individuals, having the right support available, whether it is for substance misuse or mental health issues and support to access education and work is the difference between a stable future and continued homelessness. It is critical that as decisions are taken on the future of social housing, secure support for the most vulnerable in communities continues. This means protecting supported housing.

We strongly emphasise the importance of exempting specified housing from the Local Housing Allowance cap to ensure we can continue to support individuals from a cycle of homelessness. We also urge that serious consideration is given to how social housing will continue to be depleted by the various government policies currently being modelled, and the huge impact this will have on homelessness.  

February 2016