Homelessness prevention has to go down as one of the success stories of the noughties in the wake of new figures showing that 130,000 families were helped last year.
Published for the first time yesterday, the homelessness prevention and relief statistics show that local authorities in England helped 75,000 families obtain alternative accommodation and 48,000 remain in their own home in 2008/09.
That’s great news even if the suspicion remains that in some local authorities the work is more about homelessness application prevention than homelessness prevention. As with the stats on homeless acceptances, that doubt will persist even though it’s hard to tell whether or where such gatekeeping is happening.
That health warning aside, when taken as a whole the figures are vindication of the duty placed on authorities under the Homelessness Act 2002 to gave a strategy on preventing homelessness in their district. That duty applies to everyone, not just those in priority need.
The broad scope of that work is shown by the breakdown of the help provided. For people helped to get alternative accommodation, half came from private rented sector accommodation, 18% through social housing and 10% through a hostel or HMO place. For people who were able to remain in their existing homes help ranged from debt advice to family mediation and resolution of housing benefit problems to sanctuary scheme measures for domestic violence.
That may not be as progressive as the legislation introduced in Scotland to phase out the whole concept of priority need by 2012 but it’s still a big step forward from what went before and has helped far more people than more-publicised help to prevent repossessions. What is also highlights though is the crucial role of the private rented sector at a time when tenants are under more financial pressure than ever - something that, as Shelter pointed out in its response, makes it all the more urgent to improve standards and management.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (1)
Len White | 30/11/2009 10:13 am
Jules is right that these are fascinating new statistics, but I feel the balance of his analysis is wrong. Genuine prevention work is of course to be welcomed but the stats show that the majority of the 130,000 have in fact been referred to private rented accommodation or hostels. This is not 'prevention' but 'diversion', a wholly different concept in my view. In combination with far more draconion gatekeeping rules by many authorities, the clear aim is to avoid as many people as possible claiming the right to come into social rented housing. This is more than a 'health warning' or caveat, it is the primary purpose of the policies being carried out by most local authorities and it is a dramatic shift in homelessness policy. It is surprising how little analysis has been carried out about this - and the toothless Shelter seems to be very quiet on the subject - but diversion into the private rented sector at higher rents must have a huge cost in terms of housing benefit and is likely to place many households in a position where they face huge disincentives to work. Gradually removing access by homeless people to social rented housing is a major issue and there seems to be a conspiracy of silence about it - I'd hate to count the number of times I've heard senior housing officers and housing association chief executives say things 'off the record' like 'the homeless have had their share, it's time for others to have a chance' or 'we need to prevent so many vulnerable people coming into social housing because it makes it too hard to manage' or 'we have enough poor people, the priority is to get more people who work'. It would be good if IH could spark a debate about this - it is urgently needed.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment