Evidence base for preventing homelessness and rough sleeping strategy

During 20/21 the number of households owed a prevention duty dropped by 20% on the previous year. It is somewhat surprising that it didn’t drop by a greater amount during the pandemic; however, there were significant rises in approaches from rough sleepers, from single households who are likely to have been ‘sofa surfing’ prior to the pandemic and from those suffering domestic abuse.

The number of households owed a prevention duty because of the ending of an AST dropped by over 50%, reflecting legislation which was put into place to prevent evictions in the short term. The number of households owed a relief duty went up slightly, by 6%, this may reflect difficulties in persuading friends and family to continue to offer accommodation in the short-term. The number of households with children at risk of becoming homeless because of domestic abuse rose by 14% , representing a fifth of all households with children at risk of becoming homeless.

The number of households assessed as rough sleeping went up by almost 40%, reflecting the drive to get people off the streets under the ‘Everyone In’ initiative. The number of households owed a prevention or relief duty with a support need due to an offending history also increased, by 26%; this may also reflect the ‘Everyone In’ campaign where people were accommodated to prevent them sleeping rough.

Households whose lead applicant is black were over-represented, making up almost 10% of total households owed a duty; it is estimated that these households comprise only 3.5% of the population. This may reflect the disproportionate impact that Covid is known to have had on BME households. The number of households where the lead applicant was unemployed also rose by 18%, again reflecting increased unemployment during the pandemic.

The majority of households with children where the prevention duty ended were able to secure a new tenancy for six months or more. A third of these were able to remain in their existing accommodation. The number of households in temporary accommodation increased by 14% when compared to the previous year; the number of single households in temporary accommodation increased by 46% (this figure includes those housed under ‘Everyone In’)

A similar number of main homelessness duty decisions were made in 20/21 as in the previous year, with a slight drop in the number of main duty accepted decisions. This is likely to reflect the additional work that was done with households during the pandemic under the prevention and relief duties.

For households with children owed a prevention duty, the main reasons for loss of last settled accommodation were:

• Ending of AST
• Family and friends no longer willing to accommodate
• Domestic abuse

It is noted that these were the main reasons for loss of last settled accommodation prior to the HRA and to the pandemic

For households with children owed the relief duty it was:

• Domestic abuse
• Family and friends no longer willing to accommodate
• Other/not known

For households with children owed a prevention duty, accommodation at time of application was:

• Private rented sector
• Living with family
• Social rented.

For households with children owed the relief duty, the top 3 were as above; there were also smaller but significant numbers living with friends and having no fixed abode.

For households with children the main reasons for support needs were:

• Domestic abuse
• Mental health
• Physical health/disability.

For households with children, the main accommodation outcomes were:

• Private rented sector
• Social housing
• Family/friends
• For the relief duty, a significant number not known

Taken together, these figures suggest a number of things. Where domestic abuse was not a factor, more households were enabled to remain in their existing accommodation, allowing the prevention duty to be ended. It is not surprising that many of those unable to remain in their existing accommodation were those suffering domestic abuse and those where friends and family were no longer willing to accommodate. The shift towards greater use of the private rented sector reflects on-going trends prior to the pandemic; it may also reflect the increasing reduction in the number of social housing lettings year on year.

For single households, main reasons for homelessness are:

• Family/friends no longer able to accommodate
• Other/not known
• Ending of assured shorthold tenancy (generally private sector rent)
• Relationship breakdown (non-violent relationship breakdown accounts for a larger proportion of applications for single households than violent relationship breakdown)

The majority of single households were living with family/friends at time of application. Smaller numbers were in privately rented or social rented housing. For single households, the picture on support needs is quite different; the main support needs were:

• Mental health
• History of rough sleeping
• Physical health
• Drug and alcohol
• Offending.

The majority of households with children where there is a support need have only one support need, but up to a third of single households have two or three support needs.

2020/21 national figures also show a large increase in applications from households with a history of offending; as noted above this may be due to the work of the new Homelessness Prevention Task Forces established by the Ministry of Justice.

In terms of accommodation outcomes, single households are more likely to go into supported housing or a hostel.

In addition to the ‘Everyone In’ campaign referred to above, legislative changes in response to the pandemic included restrictions on evictions from rented accommodation, lengthened notice periods for landlords, and restrictions on bailiff activities. Lenders were also required to offer mortgage holidays or reduced payments in appropriate cases.