Coping on marginal incomes: homeless people who are rehoused Tony Warnes, Maureen Crane and Sarah Coward University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England European Research Conference: Homelessness and Poverty Paris, 18 September 2009

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 Aims of the FOR-HOME study

Sample and data collection  Sample of 400 single homeless people in two clusters: London, and Nottinghamshire / Yorkshire.  Resettled into permanent accommodation by six homelessness sector organisations. Broadly representative of those resettled by the organisations in  Semi-structured interviews immediately before being resettled, and after 6 and 18 months. Interviews from June 2007 to November 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

Aims of the presentation To describe and evaluate the experience of being resettled from hostels into independent accommodation for homeless people on a very low income. The presentation will:  Outline the United Kingdom policy and service provision context  The characteristics of the study respondents  The difficulties of setting up a new tenancy  The respondents’ income and changes since moving  How they managed financially and adjusted to paying rent and bills

The policy and service provision contexts Photo ‘Leeds high density housing’ by Lynne Kirton

Homelessness policies and interventions: # Prevention # Alleviation # Restoration, recovery, return to self-reliance and independent living

Non-profit homeless sector organisations manage hostels for homeless people. The places are funded (largely) by the state: # Capital element by occasional grant programmes # Revenue element by (a) Housing Benefit, a social security benefit, and (b) Supporting People, a housing- plus-support budget. Both are administered by local authorities. The policy and service provision context

The UK government’s aim is to change homeless people’s hostels from ‘place(s) of last resort (to) centres of excellence and choice which positively change lives’. From 2005, the Hostels Capital Improvements Programme (HCIP) provided £90m of capital funding over three years to rationalise, modernise and change the functions of hostels. From April 2008, HCIP was succeeded by the three-year Places of Change Programme with a budget of £80m. ‘The purpose of the programme is to help (hostel residents) to move on to sustainable independent living’ (DCLG 2006: 5). Source: Department of Communities and Local Government Places of Change: Tackling homelessness through the Hostels Capital Improvement Programme. DCLG, London The policy context

The role of hostels and moving on  Hostels are important as temporary accommodation for people who become homeless.  Hostel residents receive help with addressing their problems and rebuilding their lives.  In the past, people remained in hostels for years as there were no resettlement programmes.  Now some people remain in hostels longer than needed because of a lack of move-on accommodation.

The average weekly rent for this group* is £107 and the average Supporting People cost is £206. The total cost is over £227,500 per week or £11,800,000 per year. If the same people were living in housing association bedsits with floating support the average rent would be £54.32 and floating support £42.58 a week. The total cost for the same 727 people would be under £70,500 per week or £3,700,000 per year. The difference is more than £8.1 million. * 727 people needing low support accommodation in 76 London hostels for homeless people Source: Homeless Link No Room to Move, Homeless Link, London, p. 7. See Costs of state support for people in hostels who are ready to be rehoused

The respondents’ characteristics 400 respondents:  74% men; 26% women  56% in London; 44% in Nottingham / Leeds / Sheffield  24% aged 16-24; 62% aged 25-49; 14% aged 50+  60% White British / Irish; 40% other ethnic groups  18% homeless up to 12 months; 14% homeless 10+ years  Most reliant on social security benefits: only 4% working full-time and 5% part-time

Respondents’ problems and housing experiences  18% literacy difficulties  37% physical health problems  62% mental health problems in last five years  33% alcohol problems in last five years  56% used illegal drugs in last five years  45% had debts  52% previously lived alone in a tenancy; 33% for 2+ years

Readiness to move  Most felt ready to move – only 1 per cent had doubts.  Many had worries about moving and wondered if they would cope – 25% thought they might have problems with finances and paying bills; 19% with loneliness; and 12% with occupying their time.  Other concerns: the practicalities of moving and furnishing the accommodation; staying off drink or drugs and away from other users; coping alone without support from hostel staff.

Difficulties of setting up new tenancy  Most moved to unfurnished accommodation – but had no furniture or bedding  Once offered a tenancy, 22% had to move very quickly (within 7 days), and another 28% within 14 days. 19% had 30+ days to prepare  80% received grant or loan to help them set up home – Community Care Grant, Budgeting Loan, small grants from charities or homelessness organisations  If moved quickly, insufficient time for grants to come through. If working, not entitled to CCG or Budgeting Loan

The resettlement accommodation  46% rehoused in local authority housing; 41% housing association tenancies; 13% private-rented accommodation.  Many had no contact with relatives or friends, or they were unable to provide practical or financial help with the move.  Some had help from hostel and resettlement staff with furnishing the accommodation, sorting out the utility connections and with the actual move, but others received little or no help.  At the time of moving, 57% had no bed and 67% no cooker  Several were without heating or electricity when they first moved.

Levels and sources of income Social Housing, Lenton, Nottingham

Income change from baseline to 6 months Income change£ per weekNumber% Decrease No change Increase Total345100

Reasons for changes 1. Interruptions to benefits: administrative hiccups ‘Just before moving my Incapacity Benefit was stopped so I appealed and won the appeal in November. Am waiting to receive the backdated money (about £2,000)’ ‘When I first moved in my benefits stopped as I changed areas. Now been reinstated.’ ‘Should be getting £114 a week DLA but it’s been stopped. X (my housing officer) didn’t fill in my DLA form and send it in on time – it stopped a few weeks ago.’ 2. Interruptions to benefits: changes in circumstances When I was pregnant, I was on income support. Now I am no longer pregnant, this has caused problems. HB was stopped in August Income support stopped in August. HB has still not been reinstated. JSA started end of November Was getting £73.80 a week income support and HB. Now get a student loan and have to pay full rent

Reasons for changes 3. Interruptions to benefits: reassessments ‘Was getting JSA, but this stopped as I’m unable to work. I am to get Income Support (£59 a week), but not until they have verified that I’ve been in the country for five years (I’ve been here six). They are still checking – won’t get any money for two weeks.’ 4. Interruptions to benefits: not following the rules ‘About 2 months after I moved in, they stopped my benefits as I didn’t tell them that I had changed address.’ ‘Was on Job Seekers Allowance but this stopped at Christmas because I missed signing on (I was ill and had a kidney stone). Was told that my claim is closed because I didn’t sign on.’ ‘Sometimes my benefits are stopped if I miss my signing on day – I hate the Job Centre. They are stopped for one week and then reinstated.’

Reasons for changes 5. Having marginal, insecure, unstable jobs ‘Was on Income Support when I moved in, then I got a job in Sep 08. Was then made redundant in Dec 08, so am now on Job Seeker’s Allowance.’ ‘Got a job from Sep 07 until Nov/Dec 07 – an agency job in a factory – night shift – 8 and 3 hour shifts a day. Finished in Dec 07 and am now back on JSA.’ ‘Started part-time work four weeks ago but haven’t been paid anything yet. Was supposed to be paid last Friday but wasn’t, so I’m not getting any income until I get paid from my job.’

… Managing financially

Budgeting and financial problems  Had to get accustomed to paying for utilities (in hostel, most paid small service charge)  43% had no problems budgeting and making their money last, 28% had problems ‘frequently’, 29% ‘occasionally’. Financial difficulties: … the need to furnish the accommodation … coping with lack of household equipment (take-away meals, using launderettes) … paying rent, utility bills and debts … spending on non-essentials or on alcohol or drugs … financially supporting children

Rents  Varied greatly, from £47 to £300 per week  Private-rented accommodation: rents two to four times higher  For 46% of the respondents, Housing Benefit (housing subsidy) paid all the rent  43% paid a proportion of their rent  11% paid all the rent themselves

Rent arrears  During the first 6 months, 48% had rent arrears, 12% had arrears of £500+.  At 6 months after being rehoused, 22% had rent arrears. Only one-half were paying back the arrears.  14% had been threatened with eviction for rent arrears.  Many early arrears due to housing subsidy administration problems.  Continuation of arrears due to personal factors, e.g. respondent neglected to pay rent or comply with social security benefit rules, or changes in their circumstances such as started work.

Utility payments  Most respondents responsible for electricity, gas and water payments.  Various payment methods used: 3/6 monthly bills; ‘pay- as-you-use’ schemes; weekly, 2-weekly or monthly payments.  63% coped well with utility payments. Many preferred ‘pay-as-you-use’ schemes, and became accustomed to making regular payments when received their Social Security benefits.  37% had problems with utility payments, and at 6 months 25% had utility debts. Only a few paying back the debts.

Income and items of expenditure 1 In-work and earning 2 On Income Support and DLA 3 On Job Seeker’s Allowance Income Rent-– Electricity, gas, water-–24.80-–17.00-–23.00 Council tax-– Travel-–15.75-–10.00-–13.80 Balance (discretionary income) Income and essential and discretionary expenditure at six months (£ per week): three cases Note: DLA Disability Living Allowance

Debts at 6 months

Characteristics of those with debts Debts at 6 months were most common among those who were:  Unemployed or working only part-time  In private-rented accommodation  Had been homeless 5 years or less  Had recent histories of alcohol or drug problems  Had debts at the time resettled No difference between: … men and women … London and Notts/Yorks sub-samples

Debts by type of accommodation

Comparison of national and FOR-HOME prevalence of debts by age groups Ratio: For-Home % to National %

CONCLUSIONS

How settled and independent after 6 months?  87% still in original accommodation, 3% moved to new tenancy, only 4% are known to be homeless again (no contact with 4% and the rest in prison, died or in rehab.).  Most on low incomes. Some have found ways to ‘survive’ and have a routine – pay bills, then buy food, and then buy things for their home.  16% reduced alcohol use and 27% drug use since moving – cannot afford habit as priority given to bills.  A few (18 people) who were unemployed when resettled working at 6 months. Several others looking for work.

Has the ‘restore to independent living’ policy been sufficiently thought through, and is it reasonable? It is too early to make a firm judgement, but several aspects of resettlement cause avoidable problems:  Many people are very much ‘on their own’, have no furniture at the time of moving, and have debts. For many, the move is a difficult task.  Many experience a big change in housing-related support, from a great deal while in hostels to little or none after moving. Many organisations have no funding to provide tenancy support.  There are a worrying number of cases of interruptions in benefit income as a consequence of the move, at a time when those being resettled face exceptional expenditure.  Although most were still housed at 6 months, many were struggling financially. More information will be available once the 18 month interviews have been completed.

The FOR-H ME study

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: Maureen Crane: Sarah Coward: