Transcript 'The experience and outcomes of resettlement into private rented tenancies: findings from the FOR-HOME study'

The experience and outcomes of
resettlement into private rented tenancies:
findings from the FOR-HOME study
Tony Warnes, Maureen Crane and Sarah Coward
University of Sheffield
Crisis Conference
The Private-rented Sector: Making it Work
for Homeless Households
22 October 2009, Birmingham
Objectives and organisation
To describe and evaluate the outcomes of the resettlement
of single homeless people from hostels into private-rented
sector tenancies (PRS). The presentation will:
 Describe the FOR-HOME study
Profile those resettled into PRS
Profile the accommodation
Review the tenants’ experiences over the first six months
Evaluate the advice and support received prior to, with
00andiafter the move
The FOR-HOME study
Aims: to produce authoritative and longitudinal information
about: (a) the experiences of homeless people who are
resettled, and (b) the factors that influence the outcomes.
To assess the relative contributions to settledness, tenancy
sustainment and achieved independence of:
* the resettled person’s characteristics
* the resettlement preparation and follow-up support
* the condition and amenities of the accommodation
* events and experiences post-resettlement
Funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council
Sample and data collection
 400 single homeless people in two clusters: London, and
Nottingham / Leeds / Sheffield (Notts/Yorks).
 Resettled into permanent accommodation by six homelessness
sector organisations. Representative of those resettled by the
organisations in 2006.
 Semi-structured interviews immediately before being resettled,
and after 6 and 18 months. Interviews from June 2007 to
November 2009. Key-worker completed questionnaire at
baseline.
 Information collected includes: accommodation histories;
education, training and employment; personal problems; income
and expenditure; use of time; family and social networks; help
and support before and after moving.
Partner organisations
The policy
and service
provision
contexts
Photo ‘Leeds high density housing’ by Lynne Kirton
Policies driving resettlement into PRS
Changes in Supporting People
The programme grant of £1.66 bn announced
in Nov. 2008 is being paid as an ‘unringfenced
grant’ with no conditions attached
Changing roles of hostels for homeless people
Capital investment programmes: ‘Places for
Change’
Changing roles of social housing
Long term trend to target tenancies to
vulnerable people
Three policies driving resettlement into PRS
Profiles of those
resettled into PRS
Private rented tenants by gender
Men
Women
All
Private rented
46
11
57
Social housing
249
94
343
All
295
105
400
Tenure
57 (14.3%) of the FOR-HOME respondents were
resettled into private-rented tenancies.
Characteristics of the PRS respondents
No significant ‘background’ differences between PRS
and social tenants:
• by age, gender and ethnicity
• by the main reasons for current homeless episode,
…including alcohol, drug and mental health problems
…and debt
• by previous frequency and duration of … … … … … …
… homelessness
A slightly higher percentage of the respondents in
London were resettled into PR tenancies than in
Notts/Yorks (16.6 to 11.3%) but not significant
PRS and social housing tenants by age group
pr tenant
Social housing tenant
32
Percentage
24
16
8
0
17-24
25-34
35-44
Age group (years)
45+
The resettlement
accommodation
Social Housing, Lenton, Nottingham
Number of bedrooms
80
70
PRS
Social housing
Percentages
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
No separate
bedroom
1 bedroom
2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms
Kitchen arrangement
90
80
Has separate kitchen
No separate kitchen
70
Percentages
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PRS
Social housing
Basic furniture missing when moved in (%)
Item
Local
authority
Housing
association
Privaterented
Bed
65
52
47
Cooker
86
64
11
Fridge
81
60
13
Carpets / floor
covering
85
54
2
Defects during first six months
35
Local authority
30
Housing association
Percentages
25
Private rented
20
15
10
5
0
Heating, boilers
Window s
Dampness
Decorating,
repairs
Dirty communal
areas
Outcomes at 6 months
Housing outcomes at 6 months by tenure
PRS
Outcome
LA
HA
Real
Lettings
Other
All
Percentages
In original accommodation
86
93
95
59
87
Moved to another tenancy
2
2
0
16
3
Evicted / abandoned
5
3
5
14
5
Died, in prison or rehab
3
0
0
5
2
Not known
4
2
0
5
3
191
152
20
37
400
Sample sizes
Thought of giving up tenancy at 6 months
PRS
Outcome
LA
HA
Real
Lettings
Other
All
Percentages
Yes, still am
23
24
23
45
25
Yes, but no longer
13
9
6
5
10
No
64
67
71
50
65
160
140
17
22
339
Sample size
Available online at
http://www.broadwaylondon.org/
Debts by type of accommodation
Percentage with debts
90
When resettled
73
After 6 months
75
60
60
59
54
45
44
46
44
ty
ori
ion
t
a
i
rd
dlo
45
30
15
0
L
a
al
c
o
uth
u
Ho
g
sin
a
o
ss
c
iv
Pr
lan
e
at
All
Amount (value) of debt at six months
Percentage of respondents
60
Local authority
Housing
association
40
Private-rented
20
0
No debts
< £500
> £1,000
Contact with a tenancy support worker
59
Percentage of respondents
60
43
40
35
20
0
Local authority
Housing
association
Private-rented
Extent to which benefited from tenancy
support (those who received support)
Percentage of respondents
70
A lot
A little
Not at all
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Local authority
Housing
association
Private-rented
The ‘Right Move Scale’
Has eight items, such as:
1. I am ready to take the next step and move to my own
accommodation.
2. I am pleased with the accommodation to which I will
move. ... ... …
8. Having my own place will enable me to structure my life
and become involved in meaningful activities.
Scored: 1 ‘Yes, definitely’, 0.5 ‘I think so’, -0.5 ‘Not really’, -1
‘Definitely not’ and ‘Don’t know’
Administered at baseline, 6 months and 18 months.
Gives detailed picture of relative advantages and
disadvantages of the different tenancies
Right move scale score at baseline
and at 6 months by tenure
Local auth.
HA
PRS
All
Baseline
4.7
4.9
4.6
4.8
At 6 months
4.2
4.4
3.7
4.2
Index of settledness at six months
None settled
Private rented
Housing association
Local authority
All settled
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
Index of settledness
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
…
How lives changed
Harry *: 51 years-of-age, homeless 24 months
Advantages of moving to PRS:
‘Able to come and go as I please’.
Problems faced after moving:
‘I did not like the area. The flat was damp. The
Housing Benefit was paid to me but I spent some
of it on drink and only paid a small amount to the
landlord. I asked twice for it to be paid directly to
the landlord but this did not happen. I got into
arrears of £2,190. I was taken to court and
evicted … I was in the flat just 8 months. I had no
support. It would have been better if the rent had
gone straight to the landlord’.
* Pseudonyms used
Stephen, 44 years-of-age
Homeless since 2003, mainly in hostels. Had bidded
for social housing for four years with no success.
Advantages of moving to PRS:
‘I have privacy and independence. I have my two
sons stay with me at the weekends; I couldn’t do
that in the hostel. They’ve become closer to me
since I moved here’.
Concerns:
‘I’m now looking for work. I’m worried if I’ll be able
to afford the rent if I get a job. The rent’s £1,000 a
month. I think I might get help but I don’t really
know’.
Derek, 38 years-of-age, homeless 20 months
Low support needs. On streets for short while
and then in a hostel. Lost job while on the
streets. Applied to the local authority for
rehousing but low priority.
Advantages of moving to PRS:
‘I have peace, quiet and freedom. I got another
job while in the hostel but it was difficult … the
hostel was noisy at night, I couldn’t sleep, and I
had to get up early each morning. Now I can
come home, cook my food and get rest … You
need access to move-on accommodation quickly
if you are in a hostel and keen to work’.
Stephanie, 21 years-of-age
Homeless and in temporary supported housing for
four years. Has mental health problems.
Advantages of moving to PRS:
‘I’m really happy in my flat … I don’t have to share a
kitchen and bathroom, and friends can visit. I feel
safe here and am making my flat homely. I’ve
started voluntary work one day a week’.
Problems faced after moving:
I’m on the top floor … and the water pipes above me
burst last winter and my flat was flooded. The landlord and Broadway were quick to sort out the mess
… I would have found it difficult without their help; I
would have got very stressed and anxious’.
Conclusions
Summary points 1
• Many resettlements into PRS are successful,
but some are not
• PRS tenancies have an elevated risk of debt
accumulation, stemming in some cases from
HB administration through the Local
Housing Allowance, and in others from the
relatively high rent
• PRS tenancies less likely to encourage a
sense of ‘settledness’
Summary points 2
• PRS tenancies associated with relatively
low provision of tenancy support, and (as
in other tenures) whether people receive it
is not consistently related to needs,
especially in London
• Many service users and staff of homelessness sector organisations still have
negative views about the suitability of PR
tenancies for resettling homeless people
Summary points 3
* PRS
resettlements enable people to move
more quickly out of hostels
* The condition and facilities of PRS tenancies
are as good and in some respects superior to
those in social housing when occupation
begins – an important asset for many single
homeless people
* PRS tenancies clearly suit some with
independent living skills and low or no
support needs
Summary points 4
• A PRS tenancy for a vulnerable person can be
successful when his/her needs are correctly
assessed and adequately met
• Closely-managed placement schemes with cooperation between landlords and homeless
people’s service providers have good
outcomes
• Assessing clients' earnings potential and
need for advice and tenancy support; and
putting appropriate services in place are keys
to successful resettlement
Thanks to …
All the respondents who have participated in this study over an
extraordinarily long time.
Ruby Fu, Camilla Mercer and Louise Joly who have helped
massively with running the project and coding the data.
The freelance interviewers – Gary Bellamy, Paul Gilsenan, Louise
Joly and John Miles.
Members of the Management Committee: David Fisher
(Broadway), Caroline Day and Jennifer Monfort (Centrepoint),
Peter Radage and Rachel Harding (Framework), Julie Robinson
and Tony Beech (St Anne’s), Simon Hughes and George Miller (St
Mungo’s), and John Crowther and Debra Ives (Thames Reach),
and to all their colleagues who have been Link Workers or have
otherwise assisted with recruitment and tracking.
Contact details
Tony Warnes: [email protected]
Maureen Crane: [email protected]
Sarah Coward: [email protected]
www.shef.ac.uk/sisa/research/fields/homeless