To what extent, therefore, has current Labour Government Policy successful tackled the issue of Homelessness and Overcrowding?

Authors Avatar
QUESTION:

Statistics show that during the period 1979 to 1995, under the Conservative Government 'Homelessness...almost doubled' (Barr: 1998). Although a direct comparison cannot be made, the exact figures were reported at 55,530 (1979) and 121,280 (1995).1

To what extent, therefore, has current Labour Government Policy successful tackled the issue of Homelessness and Overcrowding?

ABSTRACT:

This assignment focuses on analysing current Government Policy with regard to the following specific aims:

* 'Achieving a decent home for every family at a price within their means'

* The provision of 'a degree of priority in access for people in housing need who in the past have found themselves at the end of the queue.'

Recent release of statistics published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), indicate that for the third quarter of 2003 Local Authorities accepted 36,260 households as 'unintentionally homeless' and 'in priority need,' representing an 8% increase from the previous year. Furthermore approximately 10% were perceived as repeat homelessness cases. Such figures demonstrate the underlying trend of rising homelessness within the UK, which is expected to accelerate well into the future. The existence of such an issue demonstrates both economic inefficiencies, in terms of the size and quantity of housing stock, and in addition equity concerns over equality of opportunity and unequal access to adequate housing, upon which this assignment will focus.

. 0-INTRODUCTION:

In considering the subject matter of this assignment, one automatically conjures up images of rough sleeping, tramps and street beggars. However in context to the vast majority of homeless need groups within the UK this perception is a vast misconception. In reality the majority of those deemed homeless represent families/singletons who are housed in temporary circumstances among friends and relatives, as a result of increasing societal trends: breakdown of the nuclear family, rising divorce rates and escapism from domestic violence, representing a few cases in point. Hence the term homelessness follows similar analysis as that concerned with the concept of overcrowding. Within this assignment the terms will be used interchangeably.

An examination of Housing Policy as a whole in context to social welfare reveals some interesting conclusions concerning its implications upon disadvantaged groups. On the one hand, housing policy can be shown to aggravate disadvantage; creating concentrated regions of poverty and social exclusion, and furthermore exacerbating poverty and unemployment traps through the benefit system. In contrast policy can be directed towards remedying disadvantage; through ensuring resources remain focused on the most vulnerable need groups, for example. The existence of rising homeless trends within the UK indicates policy is unbalanced towards this former direction. The imposition of such a detrimental impact upon social welfare can, from an economic point of view, be shown to consist of two major concerns,

. Economic inefficiencies in terms of the size and quality of housing stock,

2. Equity concerns over equality of opportunity and unequal access to adequate housing.

The inherent focus of this assignment is upon current policy and therefore it is important to refrain from a detailed analysis of Conservative Homelessness measures. However it is important in this case to make some comparative in order to form a conclusion over current success; one cannot fully comprehend current policy without an understanding of what has gone before.

As the title to this assignment implies there is significant factual evidence to suggest that the Conservative Government (1979 to 1995) failed to address the issue of rising homelessness within the UK, with figures between this period rising by a concerning 118%. With hindsight it can be seen that the legislation passed in context to the homeless cause was limited, restricted to parts VI and VII of the Housing Act 1996. This however, did not appear to be a positive move forward to relieve the homeless plight, rather it was 'a response to the increasing proportion of (a decreasing stock available) local authority accommodation being allocated to homeless people.'2 Measures passed imposed increased limitations on authorities duties, and furthermore refrained from adequately defining the underlying issues. In short, their approach in tackling homelessness was, like many aspects of social policy, essentially reactive; 'we are committed to maintaining an immediate safety net, but this should be separate from a fair system of allocating long-term accommodation...Arrangements are intended to tide people over the immediate crisis of homelessness and to give them time to find longer-term accommodation.'3

Such policies, which were essentially responsible for downsizing homelessness as a priority need for attention, were short-lived. On entry into Government in 1997 Labour amended several elements of the Housing Act, and progressed towards developing a comprehensive act focused specifically upon the Homeless cause (the first of its nature since 1977). As shall be uncovered as analysis develops, current policy is far from perfect in considering efficiency and equity arguments. However Labour can be significantly credited for laying the foundations for future success and clearly recognising the inherent issue.

.1: HOMELESSNESS DEFINED: Reference Appendix 2

.2: CONTRIBUTING DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS:

With the underlying aim of Housing Policy stated at to 'provide a decent home for every family' one must consider how changes in social composition in today's society will place pressure upon the ability to fulfil this aim. An analysis of current demographic trends within the UK appears to support the growing concern that a 'crude housing shortage may become one of the most significant social issues facing the UK over the next 20 years.'4 The core demographic trends consist of:

* Increased longevity of life - creates a situation where houses are occupied for longer periods. Older generations are maintaining occupation in their homesteads, rather than living with children or entering care accommodation, thus creating inaccessible spare capacity.

* Increased number of singletons - progressively more people are opting to delay parenthood and marriage until later in life, which combined with increasing divorce and separation rates creates smaller single-person households in larger quantities. Empirical evidence suggests this trend is likely to continue over the next 20 years.

* Inward Migration - the overall migration effect within the UK is an inward force. The Government Actuary's Department estimate the total net inward migration to the UK for the period to 2021 at 135,000 people. In context to Homelessness this pressure is not as significant as the above due to the Government persistence to sustain the 'ineligibility of persons from abroad for an allocation of housing'.5

Although an inherently simplistic economic argument it appears evident that if the Government cannot secure capital and current expenditure to levels appropriate to ensure adequate housing to meet these pressures then overcrowding and homelessness will result; 'although a sufficiency of housing does not guarantee that every household finds a home, if there is insufficient housing then many will certainly be compelled to share or become homeless.'6

.3: DECEMBER 2003 THIRD QUARTER STATISTICS AND REPEAT HOMELESSNESS: Reference Appendix 1

2.0-CURRENT GOVERNMENT POLICY:

2.1: LEGISLATION AND IMMEDIATE CRITICISMS - COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF 'QUALITY AND CHOICE' AND THE HOMELESSNESS ACT 2002:

The Housing Bill 1996, passed by the Conservatives, was short-lived in reference to the application of Homelessness clauses (parts IV and VII), due to the introduction in February 2002 of the Homelessness Act. This legislation followed arguably the 'first comprehensive review of Housing Policy for 23 years,' namely 'Quality and choice: a decent home for all' (DETR, 2000), which sought to address explicitly the fundamental aim that had dominated decades of political policy - 'achieving a decent home for every family at a price within their means'. In short the Green Paper emphasised the following proposals regarding the reform of Homelessness Policy:

* Extend the definition of priority need categories to 'ensure our most vulnerable citizens are protected by the homelessness safety net'.7 Specifically the paper proposed to include the following need groups; those leaving an institutional/care background, those fleeing domestic violence, and those within the 16-17 year old age category.

* Guarantee that those classed as 'unintentionally homeless' and in 'priority need' are provided with satisfactory temporary accommodation until settled accommodation is available, within either the public or private sector.

* Permit Local Authorities to provide their housing stock as temporary accommodation for more extensive periods, via a removal of the restriction that such housing can only provide this function two years over three. Local Authorities are now required to secure housing until a permanent settled solution can be enforced.

* Provide those in temporary accommodation a reasonable period in which they can 'exercise the same degree of customer choice of settled accommodation as is available to other people with urgent housing needs waiting on the housing register.'8

* Increase the ability of Local Authorities to aid those deemed as 'non-priority' homelessness cases, specifically in regions where demand is inherently low.

* Support a 'strategic approach' to both the prevention of homelessness and re-housing of homeless households.

The reaction to these proposals was one of 'unanimous support, from those who responded,' 9 however from an economic viewpoint aims appeared poorly specified. What is apparent from the outset, is the innate problems attached to the original macro-efficiency aim, from which all homelessness policy since 1971 has derived, specifically unclear definitions; what exactly constitutes a 'decent home' or 'family'?

Furthermore, and of a similar concern, are homelessness categories (those in 'priority need,' 'intentional' and 'unintentional') appropriate and comprehensible? As can be shown from Appendix 2, which quotes the direct definitions taken from the act, these key terms appear to be adequately defined. In context to those in 'priority need' a comprehensive list of quantitative characteristics are provided to ensure adequate identification. However in relation to the category of 'unintentional' homelessness, the definition provided can be viewed as vague; with the use of terms such as 'likelihood,' 'reasonable' and 'act made in good faith' leading to the need for subjective judgement. Obviously this is to some degree unavoidable, however it should be noted that there is no explicit definition of 'intentional,' or mention (at this point) of 'repeat homelessness'.10 Lastly, in content to point four concerning those in temporary accommodation, what can be considered equivalent to a 'reasonable period'?

The proposal outlined in point four represents another case in point. This micro-efficiency aim is somewhat unrealistic. As will hopefully become clear as this discussion evolves choice is inherently restricted, and therefore providing equal access is problematic. Regardless of the exact class of homelessness category - those with urgent needs or in temporary accommodation - choice is restricted, both in the inability to gain access to tenures outside social housing (discussed further below) and within social housing itself, in the removal of rights to be housed after the decline of an initial offer of social housing is made.

Aside from these issues, the fundamental proposals of the Green Paper where subsumed within the Homelessness Act which succeeded. In practice the homelessness proposals above were directed into forms of action:

Strategies: Section 1-4 outlined how the 'strategic approach' was to be fulfilled, specifically emphasising the requirement for each local authority to undertake a review of homelessness (homelessness audit) and from this form a proactive strategy to tackle homelessness issues within their localities. The aim of the audit was stated as 'to establish the extent of homelessness in the district, assess its likely extent in the future, and identify what is currently being done, and by whom, and what level of resources are available to prevent and tackle homelessness.' 11

Local Authorities were, in short, specifically advised to coordinate homeless strategies and HRA business plans within their overall housing strategy, and work in unison with their corresponding social services authority. The construction of the strategy was largely independent, however authorities were advised to consult good practice documents, specifically 'Homelessness Strategies: a good practice handbook' and 'Preventing tomorrow's rough sleepers: a good practice handbook'.

Duties: The 1996 Housing Act restricted the duty placed on Local Authorities to house homeless people to only two years. This, together with the clause that limited the amount of an authorities stock which could be used to house the homeless, were repealed under the 2002 Homelessness Act. However the length of time to which the duty applies is not limitless, even though the terms relating to when an authority can discharge its duty have been extended from the 1996 Act.
Join now!


Non-Priority Need Cases: Section 5 provides the right for Local Authorities to house the 'unintentionally homeless' who are not in 'priority need'.

Definitions of Homelessness and Intentionality: Definitions were extended to ensure those suffering from violence - aside from domestic, therefore introducing considerations such as racial harassment or intimidation - were accepted as 'unintentionally homeless'.

Allocations: all amendments made to the 1996 Housing Bill appear inline with the aim to 'bring greater choice to the allocation process by local authorities.'12 In addition, the Government maintains that, with the exception of persons from abroad, allocations ...

This is a preview of the whole essay