Evidence base for preventing homelessness and rough sleeping strategy

Last updated: 1 January 2022 Evidence base for Homelessness Strategy print version (pdf, 731.1 KB)

16. Buckinghamshire homelessness stats 2020/21

The information below is for the financial year 2020/21, the first year that Buckinghamshire operated as the new unitary authority. The total number of households who were assessed under the legislation was 1,918, and a duty was owed to the vast majority: 1,767 (92%).

For most cases, only the prevention duty applied: 1,038 cases (54%). Of these, only a very small number (24) approached because of the ending of an assured shorthold tenancy.
The relief duty applied to 729 households (38%). A further 151 households (8%) were found not to be threatened with homelessness.

16.1 Reason for approach

The tables below give the reasons for clients approaching the service, broken down by year. This shows the main reasons people become at risk of homelessness.

Table 8 – reason for loss of last settled accommodation
Reason	Prevention numbers	Prevention % age	Relief numbers	Relief % age
Other	348	20	225	-
Family/friends no longer willing to accommodate	223	13	205	12
End of private rented tenancy – AST	170	7	25	1
Relationship with partner ended (non-violent breakdown)	90	5	59	1
End of social rented	66	4	7	1
Domestic abuse	64	4	103	6
End of private tenancy – not AST	25	1	18	1
Left institution with no accommodation available	23	1	41	1
Non-racially motivated/other motivated violence or harassment	21	1	20	1
Eviction from supported housing	8	1	26	1
Required to leave home office accommodation	-	-	-	-
Total	-	-	-	-

Source: MHCLG live tables

These figures are largely in line with the national picture. Approaches due to domestic abuse is perhaps slightly lower than might be expected, and given the period covered, ending of an assured shorthold tenancy may be slightly higher. Similarly, ending of social rented tenancies is higher than would be expected for this particular year, though may reflect the trend towards an increasingly harder line being taken by Registered Providers towards rent arrears. These differences are not significant but should continue to be closely monitored.

16.2 Accommodation at time of application

Table 9 – accommodation at time of application for those for whom a duty is owed
Accommodation at time of application	Prevention Nos	Prevention &age	Relief Nos	Relief %age
Private rented sector	358	20	43	2
Living with family	253	14	96	5
No fixed abode	-	-	192	11
Social rented	193	11	43	2
Living with friends	74	4	65	4
Homeless leaving an Institution	34	2	72	4
Rough sleeping	-	-	76	4
Owner occupier (including shared ownership)	16	1	3	-
Temporary accommodation	9	1	35	2
NASS	-	-	-	-
Refuge	7	1	29	2
Other/Not known	94	5	75	4

Source: MHCLG live tables

Again, this is largely in line with the national picture. The fact that the majority of households living in social rented housing have their homelessness prevented suggests that local authority interventions are effective.

16.3 Household type

Table 10 – type of household owed a duty
Type of household owed a duty	Prevention duty	Relief duty
Single parent with dependent children (male)	22	2
Single parent with dependent children (female)	281	92
Single parent with dependent children (other/n/k)	1	0
Single adult (male)	308	424
Single adult (female)	214	153
Single adult (other/n/k)	4	1
Couple with dependent children	126	16
Couple/two adults no children	67	37
Three or more adults with dependent children	7	3
Three or more adults no children	8	1

Source: MHCLG live tables.

The most common household type owed both the prevention and relief duties is single men, followed by single women. This is likely to reflect the increased emphasis on tackling rough sleeping and the more limited opportunities for sofa surfing during the pandemic. Female single parents with dependent children are the next largest group, again this is in line with the national picture.

16.4 Employment status

Table 11 – employment status of main adult owed a duty (2018/19)
Employment status of main adult owed a duty	Numbers	% age
Registered unemployed	589	33
Not working due to long term illness or disability	185	10
Working full-time	276	16
Working part-time	198	11
Not seeking work/at home	122	7
Not registered unemployed but seeking work	91	5
Retired	31	2
Student/training	22	1
Other	177	10
Not known	76	4

Source: MHCLG live tables

A third of all households owed a duty were headed by someone who was unemployed. Just under a third were headed by someone working full or part time.

16.5 Age

Table 12 – age of main adult owed a duty (2018/19)
Age	Numbers	% age
16/17	8	1
18 – 24	315	18
25 – 34	597	34
35 – 44	429	24
45 – 54	254	14
55 – 64	122	7
65 – 74	34	2
75+	8	1

Source: MHCLG live tables

The age profile is largely in line with the national picture – the majority of households owed a duty were headed by someone aged 25 – 34. The numbers who are aged 65+ are small.

16.6 Duty to refer

Table 13 – households assessed as a result of referral, including ‘duty to refer’
Households assessed as a result of referral	Numbers	% age
Total households assessed as a result of a referral	333	100
Household referred under ‘duty to refer’	182	55
Adult secure estate (prison)	13	3
Youth secure estate	-	-
National probation service	44	13
Community rehabilitation company	13	4
Hospital A&E urgent treatment centre or in-patient care	16	5
Mental health in-patient care	12	4
Job Centre Plus	16	5
Adult social services	14	4
Children’s social services	16	5
Other/not known	38	11
Referrals from agencies not subject to ‘duty to refer’	151	45

Source: MHCLG live tables

The duty to refer is an important part of the HRA, enabling local authorities to begin work to prevent homelessness at the earliest possible stage. Table 13 looks both at the total number of households assessed as a result of a referral, and the source of those referrals. 17% of all households assessed were as a result of a referral. This is relatively high, which may be down to two factors. A significant number of referrals came from agencies not subject to the legislative duty, which is very encouraging – Buckinghamshire is clearly getting the message out to stakeholders that it is actively seeking referrals. It also suggests that referral mechanisms are working. The sources of referral are widely spread, with the probation service accounting for 13% of referrals, and the remainder evenly spread across other stakeholders. The majority of referrals not subject to the duty are coming from voluntary sector agencies, including RPs.

16.7 Ethnicity

Table 14 – ethnicity of main applicants owed a prevention or relief duty
Ethnicity	Numbers	% age
White	1,259	71
Black/African/Caribbean/Black British	144	8
Asian/Asian British	194	11
Mixed/multiple ethnic groups	79	4
Other ethnic groups	29	2
Not known	62	2

Source: MHCLG live tables

This table again reflects the national picture, where black/African/Caribbean/black British households are over-represented. They make up 8% of households owed a duty, compared to 3.5% of the population (Census 2011 figures, I’ll see if I can find something more up to date). While the percentage of Asian/Asian British households is higher at 11%, this is more in line with the population figure of 8% (same source, ditto).

16.8 Nationality

Table 15 – nationality of main applicants owed a prevention or relief duty
Nationality	Numbers	% age
UK	1590	90
on-EEA	80	4
A8, A2 and Croatia	47	3
Other EEA	39	2
Ireland	750	-

Source: MHCLG live tables

Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of households owed a duty were UK nationals.

16.9 Sexual identification

Table 16 – sexual identification of main applicants owed a duty
Sexual identification	Numbers	% age
Heterosexual	1479	84
Homosexual (lesbian/gay)	20	1
Other	102	6
Prefer not to say	166	9

Source: MHCLG live tables

The number identifying as homosexual is low – around half of the UK-wide figure. It is likely that some lesbian/gay applicants may have chosen ‘other’ or ‘prefer not to say’; this is not particularly significant but the homelessness strategy must reflect the needs of all applicants, regardless of sexual orientation.

16.10 Support needs

Table 17 – Support needs of applicants owed prevention or relief duty
Support need	Numbers	% age
History of mental health problems	634	36
Physical health and disability	390	22
At risk of/experienced domestic abuse	356	20
Offending history	316	18
History of repeat homelessness	312	18
Drug dependency	156	9
History of rough sleeping	204	12
Alcohol dependency	119	7
Learning disability	215	12
18-25 requiring support to manage independently	75	4
Access to education employment or training	43	2
At risk of/experienced non-domestic abuse	87	5
At risk of/experienced sexual exploitation	105	6
Old age	22	1
Care leaver 21+	22	1
Care leaver 18 - 20	19	1
16/17 year olds	15	1
Young parent requiring support	7	1
Former asylum seeker	13	1
Served in HM forces	32	2

Source: MHCLG live tables

Again, these are largely in line with the national picture. The repeat homelessness figure is not untypical; in developing the strategy we will look at ways to reduce this. We will also examine support available to those with mental health needs; nationally we have seen increasing pressure on homelessness services arising from cuts to community mental health services and long waiting times to access treatment.