1. Maria Iglesias Head of Services
Praxis Homes
Maria Iglesias
Head of Services

2. Praxis homes- Problems & solution
Inadequate housing for destitute migrant families (section 17).
Provision of bed spaces for single women with NRPF
Immigration advice
-Praxis observed an increase in migrant destitution, partly due to government changes in immigration policy – NRPF
-Where Local Authorities had a duty to support, there were invariably housing families at considerable cost in unsuitable accommodation
-Accommodation provided under section 17 was often outside London, leaving vulnerable families isolated and with limited help to access to support and -immigration advice
-For clients to be helped out of destitution it was clear that a holistic package of support was needed, which included decent housing, informal support networks and crucially immigration advice.

3. Praxis homes
A portfolio of 7 properties (in outer London) – purchased using Social Investment and coordinated by Commonweal plus one extra house
18 bed spaces for families and up to 6 for single women
A commitment to shared accommodation
Immigration Advice
Holistic Support
Appropriate referrals from social services and for single women with NRPF
External Evaluation
Key elements
A portfolio of suitable properties – purchased using Social Investment and coordinated by Commonweal-
A commitment to shared accommodation – this was central to the model to foster support amongst clients but for the financial and cross-subsidy model to stuck up.
Immigration Advice
Holistic Support- support in accessing key local services such as health, schools, etc. Health in gaining access to community and social networks, move on support, support ‘at the end of the road’ assessing their options.
Appropriate referrals from social services (95% occupancy) and for single women with NRPF

4. Financial Model Cross-subsidy Model
Financial risk – spot purchasing from Local Authorities for family referrals.
95% occupancy to make it work
Referrals from 7 different Local Authorities in London

5. Outcomes 46 households were placed in the 8 houses.
33 families & 14 single women.
Clients gained better understanding of their legal situation and status.
Family average length of stay is 9months.
95% positive resolution of cases where there has been a final immigration decision.
Better access to services, increased sense of wellbeing and social connection and greater confidence and positivity
Moving on was sometimes hard.
Outcomes over the lifetime of the 3 year evaluation of the pilot:

6. External Evaluation
Residents appreciate the holistic support and quality of accommodation.
Praxis immigration advisers have played an important role in most cases by supporting, advising and advocating, even when not leading on immigration cases.
Flexible holistic advice and support and a degree of housing stability helps immigration casework because there is a safe space to keep documents in order and plan and attend appointments more easily.
Holistic support offer is important to many clients. Group work and other Praxis based services have provided a lifeline to many otherwise isolated destitute families, including once they have moved on.
Softer client outcomes are multi-faceted. With more residents households in total compared to 15 last year – it is becoming easier to see the value of the project. Residents appreciate the holistic support & quality of accommodation, comparing this often favourably with previous experiences of accommodation. Those moving on are particularly appreciative of Praxis’ accommodation, reporting it almost as a moment of respite from a very challenging journey. Clients have also appreciated sharing over the last year – with positive feedback from sharing arrangements in two households compared with negative in two houses last year.
‘Hard’ immigration status outcomes achieved. There are now some outcomes which reveal success in immigration cases including: acceptance by the Home office that a fresh application or appeal is under consideration resulting in a transition into asylum support accommodation; lifting of the NRPF condition enabling access to welfare benefits and housing; and for a few, a positive decision on an asylum or immigration application so that they secure leave to remain in the UK with access to the necessary benefits and housing to support their integration and transition into mainstream services as necessary.
Legal outcomes gained, but background support for case progress also useful. Although Praxis is not leading on all immigration cases as was envisaged in the model it is clear from examination of case studies and feedback from residents that Praxis immigration advisers have played an important role in most cases by supporting, advising and advocating. Immigration expertise and a rights-based focus is part of the DNA of Praxis and reinforces the added value of its holistic support. Moreover, although we have no control group through which to compare results, it seems obvious that the combination of a flexible package of holistic advice and support and a degree of housing stability helps immigration casework because there is a safe space to keep documents in order and plan and attend appointments more easily.
Holistic support offer is proving important to many clients. The majority of residents interviewed were extremely positive about their experiences of Praxis overall. Over the last year a significant number have used a range of Praxis services, in particular the various groups that Praxis runs. Group work and other (non immigration advice) centre-based services were not envisaged as integral to the scheme but have provided a lifeline to many otherwise isolated destitute migrants, including once they have moved on to houses and situations which are sometimes worse. Such clients are returning to attend Praxis groups which they describe as “a lifeline” as they readjust to life after being in the (relatively comfortable) Praxis accommodation. Move-on has also demonstrated the importance of the holistic approach as users have needed a lot of help to access their entitlements as part of this.
Move on is problematic. Although we have conducted only three follow up interviews with residents who moved on we have analysed information from staff and other agencies as to what ‘move on’ will generally involve. Standards for these three are distinctly poorer than in the Praxis houses and there is little control over the location in housing secured by local authorities (usually temporary), NASS and/or safe accommodation which are the most frequent destinations for single destitute people who have occupied the free bedspaces. Building longer term resilience is a challenge as though Praxis accommodation and support packages may make a welcome contrast to what people had before and can expect after, how far such support enables residents to cope with poor housing and ongoing uncertainty after they leave is unclear. Most residents leave still in limbo in terms of whether they will be able to remain in the UK/get status; many move into temporary housing even if they get status. Some describe the time spent with Praxis almost in the terms you might use to describe a holiday, and arguably this can contribute towards resilience, as long as realistic expectations are created of what will come next.

7. “I liked my time there very much, it was a change, it was a rest”
Quotes from clients
“It’s the place that’s given me light. It made me know the value of living.”
“It has a bed!” - S, aged 4
‘‘Everyone is polite, we have security here, we are like one big family (…) we understand each others’ pressures but we are polite and calm’’.
“Praxis has been a light for me. It got me from a deep hole, a pit. (…) I used to live in fear but when I went to Praxis House it stopped ”
Feedback from clients to the evaluators
“I liked my time there very much, it was a change, it was a rest”

8. Referrals S
Lullaby Project with WINGS and Irene Taylor Trust

9. Referrals S

10. Referrals S

11. Referrals

12. Referrals S