Numbers of homeless households drop
Share
The number of people homeless dropped by 22 per cent in the last quarter of 2009, compared to the same period the previous year.
The Communities and Local Government department released statistics yesterday which showed 9,430 applicants were accepted as homeless between October and December last year. This compares to 12,070 the previous year.
The number of households in temporary accommodation also fell to 53,370 on December 31 2009 . This was 21 per cent lower than the same date the year before.
The number of households in temporary accommodation has now fallen for 17 consecutive quarters, the CLG stated .
Eighty-nine per cent of households were in self-contained accommodation and 4 per cent were in bed and breakfast hotels.
The CLG reports also says: ‘Between October and December, in 57 per cent of acceptances the presence of dependent children in the household was the primary reason for priority need, and a further 12 per cent of households were in priority need because they included a pregnant woman.
‘The majority of the remainder were in priority need due to vulnerability, for example, mental illness (8 per cent) or physical disability (6 per cent).
‘Six per cent of acceptances were in priority need through being a young person (either 16 or 17 year olds, or 18 to 20 year olds formerly in care). ‘Homeless in an emergency accounted for less than 1 per cent of all acceptances.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (5)
Len White | 13/03/2010 12:19 pm
What these figures tell you is that local housing authorities are becoming much tougher gatekeepers than before. The mission is to stop people even applying as homeless, let alone accepting them and rehousing them. Now, through 'housing options' interviews, people who would previously be regarded as homeless are redirected into private rented accommodation, often with a short term tenancy. Alongside this, there is admittedly much better practice in terms of preventing homelessness through tenancy advice, negotiations with landlords and money and debt advice. This is to be welcomed.
The strategy of shunting as many people as possible into the private rented sector is very attractive in the short term because it reduces demand for social rented homes. But it comes at a cost: families are left in insecure accommodation which is less likely to be suitable to their needs, the chances of repeat homelessnesss are much higher, private rented rents are a huge work disincentive and the housing benefit bill is much higher for those that need it.
Much of the new practice is highly dodgy legally and should be challenged. In the past, Shelter would have been up in arms about it but they seem so meek and feeble these days.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mike Nash | 15/03/2010 11:21 am
It's also worth noting that the CLG statistics only report statutory homeless cases and completely ignore the single homeless problem. Our experience in Stevenage running a single homeless emergency hostel is that there's been no real change in demand now for at least 7 years and last year saw a rise in demand. Our hostel runs at 97% occupancy all year i.e. it is normally full. Last year we turned away just under 600 referrals from agencies normally because we were full while in the previous 6 years referrals refused were on average 498 referrals refused each year - a very different picture than that painted by CLG.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 15/03/2010 12:27 pm
I bet the great majority of homelsees shunted into the private sector are single people. For the very dubious reason that single people are not a priority are also the majority of the ones who are given asbos and evicted and ending up in streets as well as they constitute the greatest majority of those ending up with a mental illness... Punishing single people has been a permanent feature of social housing with the escuse that they have to prioritize.
Is it not because it is not politically correct to have homeless people with kids kids living on the streets? While a single homeless person sleeping on the street you they can just brush it off with the excuse that he is just a sad case who escaped the so called safety-net?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
The Reaper | 15/03/2010 1:15 pm
We should be more content that there are less people in temporary accommodation. Even if these are non-secure tenancies in the private sector. Housing is housing. Many people without any housing priority have no choice but to live in private non-secure property and do not suffer unduly because of it. Often this can be more suitable housing as it encourages them to be mobile in their life and career, rather than becoming reliant on one property and associated benefits supplied by the RSL.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joanie M | 15/03/2010 1:22 pm
I agree completely with Len and Mike. Especially about the councils acting as gatekeepers. In our area I've known many a prospective homeless applicant be told by a receptionist that they'd be waiting for 2 weeks for an appointment so why don't you try the hostel up the road or the rent deposit scheme. So people end up trudging round town based on advice from "the council" completely misinformed and turned away by services because they don't meet criteria or they are just full.
So these people aren't even making it to options interviews - so they don't affect the statisics becasue they never see anyone more official than a temp at the front desk. Call me cynical...
The other problem we're seeing is due to targets to get people out of bed and breakfast, schemes aimed at young families are being burdened with other statutory homeless people with needs that outweigh the capabilities of the staff at the scheme. Violence and general disruption are becoming commonplace in services that are understaffed and incapable of dealing with a problem that shouldn't be theirs in the first place.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment