To what extent, therefore, has current Labour Government Policy successful tackled the issue of Homelessness and Overcrowding?
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.
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
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 should be equal across all need groups; no individual 'should be permanently excluded from social housing.'13 Hence the Act repealed the clause permitting Local Authorities to derive their own exclusions. However in contrast to this, the Homelessness Act demonstrated a concern over anti-social tenants, stating those found guilty of 'unacceptable behaviour serious enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant' 14 must be immediately excluded from social housing.
In relation to enforcing equality in allocations, Adam Sampson (director of the Shelter group) illustrates a criticism corresponding to policy towards anti-social tenants. He states that 'much of the concern about the way anti-social behaviour legislation is being framed is that it doesn't accord with the principles of social justice.'15 Specifically the proposals to remove Housing Benefit subsidy from 'anti-social tenants' are criticised to the respect that they involve 'inadequate testing of benefits.' Such commentators return the view that 'housing is a fundamental right,' hence 'people should not be entirely without housing because of their behaviour' - inline with the economic perspective of housing as a merit good.
A fundamental criticism of the Act is that it refrains from providing a 'tightly prescriptive framework' and appears to accept the existence of regional variations. Such attitude carries both equity and labour immobility consequences.
2.2: FOCUS ON PREVENTATIVE MEASURES
In considering current Labour legislation towards homelessness it is important to take note of the large amount of commentary directed towards homelessness prevention. The Government clearly perceive the view that 'homelessness in 2002 is a manifestation of social exclusion.' To this respect a significant proportion of financial resources and local authority time is directed towards achieving homelessness prevention. The list of implemented programmes relevant to tackling social exclusion is exhaustive and beyond the scope of this assignment. For clarity a brief overview is provided in Appendix 3.
2.2.1: SUPPORTING PEOPLE PROGRAMME
From April 2003 the 'Supporting People Programme' will come into force, carrying the aim to 'identify more clearly and strategically the ways in which housing related support, and associated programmes in health and social services, can help maintain independent living.' In short, the programme aims to encourage those deemed 'vulnerable' to sustain greater independence, hence carrying potential to decrease repeat homeless cases. However even before implementation the scheme faced mixed response. When independently reviewed the programme was praised for making 'genuine progress towards a more coherent approach of supporting independent living'. In a negative light on the other hand, criticism was passed on the inequitable nature of charging for support and furthermore the 'pivotal weakness in the way personal care was defined'. Time will reflect the success of this programme, and pass judgement over whether these criticisms are justified in practice.
2.2.2: SUSTAINING THE TWO-THIRDS REDUCTION IN ROUGH SLEEPING:
A clear area of success in homelessness strategy can be shown in the reduction in the level of rough sleeping; ahead of schedule in December 2001, the Prime Minister announced that the target to reduce the level of rough sleepers by at least two-thirds in 2002 had been achieved. In fact the number of people sleeping rough in the UK has declined by over 70% over the last three years. On the basis of this success the Government reflect a continuing need to reduce figures further, emphasising prevention through education, training and employment and the integration of local strategies within homelessness reviews. Such policy once again reflects a proactive attitude towards addressing inequalities.
2.2.3: REDUCING THE USE OF BED AND BREAKFAST HOTELS FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN:
It has been widely recognised that the use of Bed and Breakfast accommodation as a means of temporary accommodation is particularly damaging to children, however its use as a short-term solution to homelessness has significantly grown (Figure 1.0). In reaction to this therefore the Government introduced an aim to end the use of Bed and Breakfast accommodation for this use, except in emergency cases by March 2002. Even in emergency cases the time of occupation was to be limited to six weeks. Families with children, within such accommodation represented 3,190 households at the end of September 2003, of which 1,590 households had been resident for greater than six weeks. As only recently introduced it is unclear how successful this policy will be in the long-term, specifically concerning its impact on preventing homelessness. Recent figures demonstrate that although far from complete abolition, a large degree of progress has been reached. Adam Sampson, director of Shelter, returned the confident opinion that 'the Governments target to end Bed and Breakfast use for families will be met - if not absolutely hit then damn near hit'
3.0-HAS LEGISLATION ADDRESSED THE INHERENT PROBLEMS?
3.1: SHORTFALL OF SUPPLY OVER DEMAND - EFFICIENCY CONCERNS
The Governments Green Paper 'Quality and Choice: A decent home for all - The way forward for Housing' indicates that under current strategy committed resources are predicted to return 100,000 new affordable homes between 2001/2 and 2003/4. Whilst such figures represent an impressive turnaround to the reactive nature of the Conservative predecessors, it is questionable as to whether they will prove sufficient to downsize the rising problem. The underlying level of funding within the capital investment programme for housing, available through Local Authorities and the Housing Corporation, represents a case in point. Soon after entry into Government in 1997, Labour were faced with a declining investment fund, which stood at £1.5 billion, seen as a consequence of previous static investment planning; when questioned about the efficiency of capital spending in September 1997 one Local Authority responded 'the system does not allow for rational planning...we are reluctant to over programme for the future because we are never sure about resources (ILLAH).'16
By 2001, this situation had been successfully reversed, with investment levels reaching £3.3 billion, coinciding with an ongoing aim to achieve an outstanding 250% increase, compared to 1997/8 levels, over the succeeding two years. However even with such ambitious plans to increase capital spending one must consider whether these increases are consistent with rising demographic trends for the same period.
In this respect the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in their independent report 'Tackling disadvantage' provide some interesting statistics. Firstly, taking the 1998 figures of the number of UK Households reported by the Government's Actuary Department as a base, and applying historical trends as a future prediction of how Households will continue to form, leads to the prediction that between 1996 and 2021 4.3 million extra Households will require accommodation.
Performing further calculations reveals that this figure relates to an estimated requirement to increase the supply of new homes to a proportion extensive enough to house an extra 172,000 Households per year. Comparing this to the expected output of committed resources, as stated at 100,000, indicates a clear shortfall. Although such analysis is inherently simplistic, there are two further considerations that should taken into account at this point:
* The derived figure of 4.3 million is understated; no account is taken for the increase in supply required to house those accumulated Household need groups; those in temporary accommodation, concealed families currently overcrowded within one residence, the homeless and hostel residents. Evidence approximates the number in these accumulated need groups in 1996 to be around 650,000 Households.
* The analysis makes no attempt to consider the potential impact of the Governments current emphasis on tackling the root causes of Homelessness as a focus of policy. Through the perception that 'homelessness in 2002 is a manifestation of social exclusion,' Labour indicate a desire to place resources in preventative measures to reduce future shortages. This was discussed in section 2.2 above.
These two factors will have an opposing influence on estimates of the predicted housing shortage. The former point will raise concerns, extending the total number of extra households that will require accommodation by 2021 to 4.95 million. The latter point however will, if successful, offset the extent of shortage - unfortunately only time will reveal the extent of success.
Obviously 'major increases in the supply of affordable homes are extremely unlikely without the underpinning of adequate subsidy for production,' and from this quantitative analysis one can conclude, as Richard Best indeed argues, that it is 'by no means certain that the amounts of additional funding so far announced in the early 2000's will be sufficient to head off the impending, deep-seated crisis of housing shortage and homelessness.' 17
In addition, although the Government is keen to boast a significant reversal in its capital investment programme, the facts demonstrate inaction. Regardless as to whether future capital expenditure plans will be significant enough to meet rising demographic trends, the declining output of the social housing stock (shown in Figure 2.0) reflects widespread concern over the potential acceleration of the housing deficit. If social housing stock remains deplete, the negative consequences will fall disproportionally on lower socio-economic groups.
3.2: AFFORDABILITY - EQUITY CONCERNS
Where supply can be increased to balance with demand and retain a market equilibrium house prices and market rents would, following general economic analysis, be more affordable to a larger proportion of the population. However as the above assessment has demonstrated it is unlikely that, in the short-term at least, supply can reach the sustained increases required considering predicted demographic trends.
The main solution the Government provides to addressing issues of affordability in these circumstances, is through the provision of subsidies, which take two main forms:
* Personal subsidies to individual tenants; specifically housing benefit, which aims to minimise the discrepancy between affordability and housing costs.
* Subsidies to providers; namely Social Housing Grants provided to Registered Social Landlords, which allow housing to be produced at a cost lower than the market would return.
However, as shown in Figure 3.0 below, the provision of such subsidies has declined in recent years, specifically those allocated to individuals. Still, even in situation where support levels could be sustained, the provision of substantial personal income supplements or grants to purchasers will essentially, with the housing stock static, achieve little more than rising house prices. Furthermore, in these conditions, the provision of aid to support low-income households in priority need will merely 'displace those slightly better off.'
It appears true therefore that in tackling issues of affordability, as well as the housing deficit, the answer lies in the 'reintroduction of a much bigger supply of subsidised housing'. Hence, increasing the supply of social housing becomes important from both an efficiency and equity viewpoint.
Affordability is a huge constraint upon addressing homelessness. This issue will prove a dominant theme of this assignment, for in considering those at risk of homelessness one must consider potential inefficiencies with both personal subsidies (housing benefit) in the social housing sector and insurance protection in the owner-occupied sector (mortgage concerns). Detailed assessments of the inherent problems of these affordability concerns are discussed in section 4.
3.5: ALLOCATIONS ON BASIS OF NEED? FUTURE CONCERNS
Allocation for social housing supposedly takes place on the basis of need, yet in reality several criticisms exist.
In a positive respect Labour did reverse the clause of the Housing Act 1996 imposed by the Conservatives that removed the 'fast track' priority given to the Homeless in gaining accommodation, hence allowing those deemed homeless to be housed 'on average twice as quick as other applicants'.18 Although through focusing allocations in this manner and 'giving the local authority a greater responsibility towards those who can demonstrate 'homelessness' than anyone else in housing need, the current legislation creates a perverse incentive for people to have themselves accepted by a local authority as homeless'19
Furthermore, under the current system, once given a tenancy and property is occupied for one year, the individual has a permanent right to remain housed within the property regardless to how ones personal circumstances alter - is this equitable? In reality this implies as incomes rise people may become unwilling to move into owner occupation, or private rental sectors, due to the existence of security in their current position and the advantage of lower rent structures. In short, tenure mobility is restricted.
Combining this fact with the empirical evidence shown above, concerning inadequate current investment levels when compared to future demand implies large detrimental forces on the supply of social housing. With a declining social housing stock and resistance of current social tenants to enter alternative tenures, it appears logical to suggest that a stagnant situation will result, inhibiting upward tenure mobility. The apparent long-term consequence of this being a restriction on the ability of the most needy to gain access.
To allow efficiency, the economy requires movement of existing social tenants into alternative forms of housing tenure. The Right to Buy Scheme, which originated from Conservative policy, moved to encourage owner-occupation, however with the ultimate result of heavily reducing the size of the public sector; 'nationally 1.7 million council homes were sold...between 1979 and 2001.'20 Those who remained within the sector consisted of a constrained social base, explicitly low income, benefit dependent families. This can be argued to be the main justification behind the scheme, an aim to ensure social housing is occupied by those deemed most in need, specifically those in the lower socio-economic groups. However to ensure this remains the case over time, policies need to be in force to encourage upward mobility.
To address this issue schemes such as 'Homebuy and Cash Incentive Schemes' were introduced in April 1999. The former provides Local Authorities with the ability to give those eligible up to 25% of the open market value to purchase a property, and therefore move into the owner-occupied sector; essentially the programme provides a 'contribution to helping those in the middle ground between owner occupation and social housing'.21 Such a scheme is, in a positive light economically sensible, although in conjunction to this it is extremely inequitable. In the case of the former the system promotes upward mobility and eventual security. Conversely as the scheme is not obligatory, not everyone receives aid hence the system is horizontally inequitable.
In addition to these economic criticisms, concern exists that 'local authorities decision-makers often fail to recognise the benefits of making shared ownership, Homebuy and other low-cost schemes part of the mix when considering new housing developments in their area'.22 Due to this inherent management flaw, alternative schemes such as the provision of Government loan guarantees (to allow access to capital markets) have been suggested as a means to reform, designed to provoke a similar upward tenure mobility trend. For further discussion see section 6.3.
4.0-SUBSIDIES:
4.1: HOUSING BENEFIT
When considering the issue of Homelessness it is vital, as policy has demonstrated, to consider not only those classed as homeless at present, but also those representing future high risk groups, namely low-income tenants. This vulnerable class derive a large, if not entire, proportion of their housing costs from housing benefit, which provides tenants with a ex-post rebate of rents due. To this respect a succinct analysis of the housing benefit system is justified.
4.1.1 BENEFIT DECLINE:
Published figures concerning the period from May 1996 to May 200023 indicate a sharp decline in the number of housing benefit claimants; a reduction of 30% within the private rental sector (1,141,000 to 814,000) and a lower 10% decline within council and Registered Social Landlord24 Sectors (3,621,000 to 3,257,000). This followed the introduction in February 1996, of local reference rate limits on eligible rents and soon after the single room rent limits. The combination of the effect of such policy, united with the impact of the following, returned an extensive £6.5 billion saving in Housing Benefit expenditure within the four-year period assessed:
* Decline in unemployment figures,
* Introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit (October 1999),
* Government Benefit Fraud Detection Scheme,
* Introduction of the facility to make Housing Benefit payable in arrears.
In placing these findings in content to the subject matter of this assignment a question is posed; has such decline in benefit actually helped the homelessness plight, specifically considering the fact that 'housing benefit is the primary form of government expenditure in support of housing policies'?25
It appears logical that if levels of benefit are diminishing, either it is true that the overall degree of support towards low income groups is being withdrawn, hence hindering affordability, or aid is being more effectively distributed to higher need groups, hence improving the vertical equity of the system. An important case in point here is if, and where, funds saved are being reinvested.
Evidence demonstrates that in many respects support is being transferred to the new system of Working Family Tax Credits, which have reduced the number of tenant families who are dependent on Housing Benefit, representing a 'positive attack on housing affordability problems'.26 However Working Family Tax Credits only benefit those of this nature. Analysis shows that the social housing stock that remained after the initial introduction of the Right to Buy Scheme was mainly that within areas of high unemployment and low labour demand. Whilst this implies a more concentrated demand for housing benefit among these areas of remaining social housing tenants, it does not suggest any reduced access to benefit.
What is clear is that total funds derived from property sales under this owner-occupier scheme (in excess of £20 billion) were used to repay debt on loans for capital expenditure (new builds) and invested directly into current expenditure. Such reinvestment would carry direct positive repercussions for the homelessness cause.
4.1.2 PROBLEMS OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM AND PROPOSED REFORMS:
Professor Peter Kemp, of Glasgow University emphasised the current problems of the Housing Benefit system and in reaction to these emphasized some potential reforms.
4.1.2.1: PROBLEMS OF THE CURRENT HOUSING BENEFIT SYSTEM:
* Housing benefit contributes to a large degree to the high marginal tax rates imposed on household earnings as they increase beyond Income support thresholds. Essentially the system as it stands imposes a disincentive on low-income households to move into the labour market from a benefit dependent position. Any additional income from employment is 'taxed away', resulting in a situation where the marginal benefit from entering work over a reliance on benefit is minimal, encouraging people to remain in this latter position. This is known as the poverty trap.
* Due to the ex post feature of the subsidy claimants are fully protected against changes in gross rent prices - an effect known as 'upmarketing'. This prevents any incentive being established to encourage claimants to negotiate rent terms or transfer to smaller accommodation where there current residence is beyond a claimant's requirement. This latter point is extremely important in aiming to balance property size and need, which if equated would have homelessness and overcrowding implications.
* Payment of benefit is directed towards landlords over tenants.
4.1.2.2: PROPOSED REFORMS:
. THE REMOVAL OF HOUSING BENEFIT IN FAVOUR OF A HOUSING TAX CREDIT: to be calculated on the basis of average local rents and accounting for differentiations in tenure (Private, Housing Association and Local Authority Tenants). In theory such a reform should increase the number of working low-income households reached though housing support. This sector represents those most susceptible to experiencing homeless and overcrowding problems, where low working income cannot be supplemented.
However such a reform is fundamentally flawed when considering those who are currently unemployed. For this sector such a policy would increase the poverty gap between moving from reliance on benefit towards self-support through work, as the transition would involve larger financial concerns. Specifically in the case where employment opportunities are extensively for temporary work, people will be reluctant to risk loosing benefits provided, hindering labour mobility.
2. THE INTRODUCTION OF A 'HOUSING ALLOWANCE SCHEME' APPLICABLE TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR: this carries the aim to fund the current disparity between actual rent and a minimum rent contribution.
3. REFORMING SOCIAL HOUSING RENTS IN AN AIM TO REFLECT CAPITAL VALUES (already seen as an attempted aim of the Conservative Government, however achieved only at regional level). This measure coincides with the aim to devise a 'target rent structure' for social housing institutions. Rents would be retained at below market levels, however set in proportion to capital values, in order to reflect size, location and quality. In addition, the reform of social housing allocation systems is proposed, to encourage efficient transfers of stock, in an aim to balance the size of social residence inhabited and actual need requirements. This in theory will prevent situations of overcrowding amongst families.
4. INTRODUCING THE PAYMENT OF HOUSING BENEFIT DIRECTLY TO TENANTS, as opposed to Landlords with the possible implication of decreasing feelings of stigma.
5. THE INTRODUCTION OF A NOTIONAL RENT CONTRIBUTION FOR SOCIAL TENANTS, leading to eventually a 'Housing Allowance Scheme' similar to that proposed for the private rental market. This concept captures the idea of incorporating a standard 'housing addition' into social security rates, and then calculating housing benefit on the basis of full rent less the housing addition. The justification behind such policy is that social housing tenants would be required to make a contribution towards their rent from their own funds, increasing their concern over the rents charged. In reality tenants would receive the same amount of aid, however this is now split between housing benefit and social security benefit. Through making tenants aware of rents charged the problems of 'upmarketing' will be downsized.
6. EQUITY-BASED REFORMS: The Homelessness Act 2002, as stated above, identified a new priority need group, namely 16-17 year olds. However the benefit system appears to impose disadvantageous treatment upon under-25-year-olds in contrast to older single people requiring assistance. Under equity grounds this need group should receive full assistance, which if imposed would carry an estimated annual cost of £25 million (excluding costs of rising take-up). Once again, given current public spending levels such a move appears politically unworkable, even though 'one may expect to see wider benefits from the protection of 16- and 17-year-olds from homelessness that the reforms would allow.'27
7. INTRODUCTION OF BASIC INCOMES: In short, extending the basic personal allowance to provide an additional cash subsidy, thereby guaranteeing all households a certain level of income. Such a scheme would remove the inherent problems associated with the poverty trap, however at a high expense, both in terms of cost and enticing more individuals into the welfare system.
Generally critics have argued that the inherent shift from general subsidies to housing providers to income transfers should in fact be reversed. The justification behind such a radical change in policy direction would be to decrease social housing rents, and therefore those dependent on housing benefit. Furthermore in context to the poverty trap, which is an unavoidable characteristic of such a system, such a change in policy would allow working households to free themselves from this restraint, ensuring work is favoured over a reliance on benefit. This form of reasoning may appear beneficial in aiding a reduction in the levels of repeat homeless cases, encouraging the perception that government support represents only a temporary solution.
4.2: MORTGAGE INTEREST TAX RELIEF
Difficulty in making mortgage repayments has been identified as one of the major causes of homelessness; 'despite the currently benevolent economic environment, in recent years on average a thousand families have had their homes repossessed by lenders every fortnight.'28 With the phasing out of Mortgage Interest Tax Relief (with its eventual abolition in the year 2000) and the decline in Housing Benefit (as shown above) combined total Government spending to provide a support base to those in all housing tenures has significantly diminished over recent years.
Whilst the debate remains over whether the abolition of Mortgage Interest Rate Tax Relief was necessary on equity grounds, it remains clear, in context to the issue of homelessness, that the decision to do so will carry a negative impact, unless effectively replaced. This form of tax relief acted effectively as a subsidy to owner-occupiers hence its removal could potentially act as a disincentive to enter this form of tenure, placing pressure on social housing and private rental sectors.
Since 1991, both the Conservative and Labour Governments alike have favoured policies to ensure an insurance-based safety net, over suggestions to introduce tenure-neutral housing allowances. The former chosen policy, Mortgage Payment Protection Insurance, is in many respects flawed; firstly the scheme, as voluntary, has low take-up rates - approximated at 21% of those with mortgages and less than 30% of first-time borrowers - and secondly, cover excludes relationship breakdowns and income reductions (major causes of homelessness). Furthermore increasing numbers of mortgages entered into posted 1995 are subject to a nine-month delay before help can be obtained for mortgage costs where Job Seekers Allowance or Income support is claimed. This fact would spell disaster if the economy were to enter a downturn.
To increase efficiency of this scheme it would appear appropriate to make take-up compulsory amongst all mortgage payers, therefore helping to spread risk and reduce costs. However, it should be noted that, as widely criticised, the existence of such an insurance-based scheme is not a sufficient substitute for a 'universal needs-related housing allowance'.
Nevertheless, figures from 2000 highlight a huge reduction in the amount of home-buyers who faced repossession; a total of 22,610 compared to 30,030 in 1999 (the lowest annual figure recorded since 1986). Such obvious success can be attributed both to the benign state of the economy and government policy. The introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, for example is boasted as a major factor behind the 'improved sustainability of low-income home-ownership,' particularly in cases where a partner in a 'dual earning household' faces unemployment. However, arguments for reform to protect the vulnerable still carry significant weight.
Figure 4 below visualises the trends highlighted in sections 4.1 and 4.2 above, specifically the declining levels of personal housing subsidies within the UK.
5.0-FUNDING:
5.1: HOW EQUITABLE IS THE DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC FUNDING TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES?
Assessment above of current levels of capital and current expenditure committed to the housing cause has demonstrated possible inadequacies in the levels of resources devoted. However, in specific reference to budget allocations attributed to tackling homelessness directly, the current Labour Government can be highly credited. In March 2002, coinciding with the legislation, the Government set up the new Homelessness Directorate, responsible for leading prevention strategies, hence allocating funds to return results. Such policy appears to reflect a vast turnaround from attitudes of the Conservative regime, not only in the respect of moving from a reactive to a proactive stance, but furthermore in both isolating funds specifically for the homeless plight and addressing confusion in identifying core objectives. A widespread criticism among local authorities during the 1980's and early 1990's was the incomprehension of the notion of 'equity'; 'I have never heard anyone describe equity or even fairness of distribution as an objective...' (OLLAH).29 Through isolating the issue of homelessness as a cause for action, creating a direct body with which local authorities can interact and lastly basing allocations directly on quantitative measures of need, one can anticipate that confusion over objectives will be reduced.
The figures provided below represent an extra supplement to 'existing mainstream funding', provided to allow a direct focus on homelessness prevention.
* Homelessness Directorate has announced a revenue budget for £60 million in 2004/5 and 2005/6.
* Although this figure is £10 million less than 2003/4, (stated due to the need to place additional resources into reducing Bed and Breakfast usage) it remains twice as high as the central Government Homelessness grant programme, which existed before 2002.
* To reflect the extra duties placed upon local authorities due to recent legislation the local authorities revenue support grant has been increased by £8 million per annum.
* Annual resource investment for capital expenditure has budget of £23.5 million (allocated by the Housing Corporation). The Government states that ''most of the resource investment budget for 2002/3 has been committed on initiatives to provide housing for homeless families, hostels for rough sleepers and refuge provision for victims of domestic violence'.30 Exact figures have not been disclosed.
In accepting funds local authorities are deemed to accept the responsibility of:
* Reducing levels of rough sleeping to zero
* Ensuring B&B hotels are not used to accommodate homeless families with children (except in emergencies and for less than 6 weeks).
* Tackling homelessness more effectively through legislation and derived strategies.
In addition, those receiving more than £50,000 will be required to set additional targets to reduce,
* levels of repeat homelessness,
* levels of homelessness against main causes,
* inappropriate use of temporary accommodation.
Funds are distributed across local authorities in two steps, which appear to adhere to equity principles. Firstly funding occurs based on a set allocation; revenue funding is offered to 'every local authority in England based on historical levels of homelessness in the area'.31 This, in theory at least, offers the opportunity to base allocations on quantitative measures of need. In excess of this authorities are invited to 'bid' for additional funding from the Directorate through the completion of a self-assessment form, where allocations are issued based on 'promoting and rewarding successful approaches in areas where there is clear evidence of a strong corporate commitment to tackle homelessness more effectively'.32
This latter point appears to introduce a competitive element into resource distribution. This form of strategy was originally pursued by the Conservatives, in context to capital allocations at the end of their dominance (for example in the condition to submit annual HIP bids). Apportioning budgeted funds in this manner, in contrast to an index based system (favoured in other elements of housing finance policy - such as use of the GNI in capital fund distribution) is inclined to show the realisation that it is 'impossible to construct any index which is universally agreed to be appropriate and fair'.33
Although, unavoidably, regional variations in resource allocation will be apparent, it is hoped that in directing funds to areas of most need, disparities will be reduced in future years. Furthermore in rewarding those authorities with proven successful approaches, efficient spending is more likely to result.
6.0-REFORMS:
6.1: THE FUTURE OF HOUSING FINANCE IN THE UK
The analysis above has demonstrated that due to the growing of number of Households within the UK, a significant increase in capital expenditure is required to increase the capital stock to match the proportions of demand. However regardless of whether access to such increased funding can be sustained affordability remains an issue. The housing benefit reforms outlined above will form a key area to improving affordability concerns.
On this point, Gibb et al. express a valid point; 'there is (not) much point in implementing a full 'in principle' tenure-neutral reform of housing benefit, unless all elements of the housing finance system are also brought into line'34
Obviously, the total system of housing finance within the UK is heavy complex. Hence an analysis of underlying financial mechanisms and suggestion of potential reforms is somewhat beyond this assignment, as the inherent focus is upon homelessness. In this context Labour must be credited with the independent addressing of finance through the establishment of the Homelessness Directorate. As only a recent addition to the system, only time will reveal the extent of success and need for reform.
6.2: THE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR - POTENTIAL SOLUTION?
Hutton refers to modern society as moving to a 40-30-30 composition; in other words, the top 40% slice represent those with high incomes and secure employment, the lower 30% segment have lower incomes and face some degree of uncertainty and the bottom 30% sector represent those of low incomes, poverty, disadvantage and social exclusion. Analysing this structure demonstrates that, although favourable, access to the owner-occupied sector of the housing market is likely to be limited to these two upper segments. With inevitable exclusion from this private market and the declining social housing stock how can the future propose to aid this lower sector?
The private rental sector, although also flawed with individual problems, may represent a solution if significant Government attention is applied. This tenure 'plays an important role in the housing system adding flexibility to the owner-occupied sector and be housing households that are unable to access social housing'.35 Specifically five overriding issues must be addressed,
. The unwillingness of landlords to provide tenancies to housing benefit claimants - 'most landlords judge perspective tenants by their economic status';36
2. Linked to the above, the inefficiency of housing benefit administration, resulting in delayed payment;
3. The intense support needs of potential tenants classed as 'vulnerable';
4. The need to secure sufficient long-term funding to ensure successful access schemes;
5. The limited supply of affordable, reasonable quality private rental properties.
In some respects the Government can be credited for identifying the need to increase access to the private rental sector as a solution to rising homelessness. Policy to date has focused upon 'Landlord accreditation schemes', and the provision of increased regulation via 'targeted licensing schemes'. Furthermore, and arguably most crucial, Labour have begun to tackle the dominant barrier in securing access of the homeless to the private rental sector, explicitly expressing an aim to 'raise the standard of housing benefit administration'. The initiatives implemented to date are far from conclusive in solving the problem; reforms expressed in section 4.1.2.2, may prove beneficial in both improving social allocations, equity and in addition access to this tenure.
Action must also be focused to ensure support mechanisms are in place to sustain long-term tenancies within this tenure. In short, access schemes must be 'able to respond in a flexible way to these problems...and operate a preventative role by aiming to set up sustainable tenancies which provide a long-term solution to an individuals housing need'. 37
6.3: ROLE FOR GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN PROVIDING LOW INCOME GROUPS ACCESS TO CAPITAL MARKETS
A key deterrent to achieving 'upward tenure mobility,' as discussed earlier, lies in the inability of lower socio-economic groups to gain access to capital markets. In an aim to encourage movement out of social housing the government enforced the Right to Buy scheme. However this in reality favoured only those occupants of social housing with higher relative incomes: those with the ability to gain access to capital markets. As implied by Barr (1998) this justifies public intervention in the form of loan/loan guarantees, in a desire to increase tenure neutrality on both efficiency and horizontal equity grounds. Furthermore, such reform may solve the inherent problems attached to low take-up rates established under Mortgage Payment Protection Insurance
7.0-CONCLUSIONS:
The analysis above has clearly shown that 'the role of housing in relieving poverty and disadvantage - social exclusion - continues to have a justifiably high political profile'.38 Quantitative assessment of data from the last quarter demonstrates homelessness continues to rise; 36,260 households were accepted for re-housing, representing an 8% increase from the previous year. However this does not automatically imply failure. Labour can be accredited for explicitly identifying the issue within legislation, developing independent financial bodies and extending those deemed 'vulnerable.' It is this later point that perhaps explains the rising statistics.
Policy however is not without fault as shown. Assessment has returned the criticism that due under-funding in the social housing sector and the continued encouragement of owner occupation incentive schemes, the future could show a potential stagnant social housing supply. Suggested reforms are extensive, however in reality reform is likely to be restricted by the 'desire to present low tax rates to voters and to maximise the efficiency of public expenditure leading to continuing downward pressure on housing subsidies'.39
The opening statement of 'more than a roof: a report into tackling homelessness' outlined a valid point; 'we are still living with the consequences of decisions taken and policies created in the 1980's,'40 the period of Conservative power. Their reluctance to address the underlying problems, undercutting funding and refraining from passing effective legislation has largely been reversed by Labour. In this respect success can be shown, however due to the time limitations the success of current policies are unclear. Focus on preventative measures, for example will take time to show results and even then may prove hard to quantify.
APPENDIX 2: HOMELESSNESS ACT 2002:
DEFINITION OF HOMELESS:
Section 175 A person is homeless if:
i) he/she has no accommodation in the UK or elsewhere which is available for his/her occupation and which that person has a legal right to occupy;
ii) he/she has accommodation but cannot secure entry to it, or where he/she has accommodation that is a moveable structure (caravan or house boat) and there is no place where it can be placed in order to provide accommodation;
iii) he/she has accommodation but it would not be reasonable for him/her to continue to occupy it.
DEFINITIONS OF INTENTIONAL HOMELESSNESS:
Section 191 (1) and 196 (1) A person becomes homeless, or threatened with homelessness, intentionally if:
i) he/she has ceased to occupy accommodation (or there is a likelihood of him/her being forced to leave accommodation) as a consequence of a deliberate action or inaction to him/her,
ii) the accommodation is available for his/her occupation, and
iii) it would have been reasonable for him/her to continue to occupy the accommodation.
For this purpose, an act or omission made in good faith by someone who was unaware of any relevant fact must not be treated as deliberate.
Section 191 (3) and 196 (3) A person must be treated as homeless, or threatened with homelessness, intentionally if:
i) the person enters into an arrangement under which he/she is required to cease to occupy accommodation which would have been reasonable for the person to continue to occupy,
ii) the purpose of the arrangement is to enable the person to become entitled to assistance, and
iii) there is no other good reason why the person is homeless or threatened with homelessness.
DEFINITIONS OF PRIORITY NEED:
Section 189 (1) provides that the following categories of applicant have priority need:
i) a pregnant women or a person with who she resides or might reasonably be expected to reside;
ii) a person with whom dependent children reside or might be reasonably expected to reside;
iii) a person who is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason, or with who such a person resides or might reasonably be expected to reside;
iv) a person who is homeless, or threatened with homelessness, as a result of an emergency such as flood, fire or other disaster.
Secretary of State added to these categories in the Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) Order 2002:
i) a person aged 16 or 17 who is not a relevant child or a child in need to whom a local authority owes a duty under section 20 of the Children Act 1989;
ii) a person under 21 who was (but no longer) looked after, accommodated or fostered between the ages of 16-18 (except a person who is a 'relevant student');
iii) a person aged 21 or more who is vulnerable as a result of having been looked after, accommodated or fostered (except a person who is a 'relevant student');
iv) a person who is vulnerable as a result of having been a member of Her Majesty's regular naval, military or air forces;
v) a person who is vulnerable as a result of:
i. having served a custodial sentence
ii. having been committed for contempt of court or any other kindred offence, or
iii. having been remanded in custody;
vi) a person who is vulnerable as a result of ceasing to occupy accommodation because of violence from another person or threats of violence from another person which are likely to be carried out.
For points (ii) and (iii) the terms 'looked after, accommodated or fostered' have the same meaning as in section 24(2) of the Children Act 1989 (as amended by the Children Leaving Care Act 2000).
Furthermore 'relevant student' bears the meaning of a care leaver to whom section 24B (3) of the Children Act 1989 applies, who is in full-time or higher education and whose term time accommodation is not available during a vacation.
APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY THIRD QUARTER HOMELESSNESS STATISTICS (1 JULY TO 30 SEPT 2003)
* 36,260 Households were accepted for re-housing (represents and 8% increase from the previous year).
* 10% of these households are estimated as repeat homelessness cases.
Temporary Accommodation:
* Nearly 50% of the households accepted as homeless were placed in temporary accommodation.
* On 30 September 2003, there were 93,930 households living in temporary accommodation (an increase of 10% compared to the same date in 2002).
* Of this amount...
o 46.7% were housed temporarily in privately leased/rented housing,
o 11.5% in hostels/women's refuges,
o 11% in Bed and Breakfast hotels, and
o 30.9% in other forms of housing (including local authority/housing association homes let on a temporary basis).
* Number of Households in temporary accommodation is rising, however the number of Households in Bed and Breakfast accommodation is declining (22% reduction 2002-2003).
Settled Solutions:
* 14,930 households were found a 'settled solution' to homelessness.
* Of this amount...
o 93% were offered a tenancy in social housing with long-term security of tenure.
o 6% accepted a fixed-term assured shorthold tenancy in the private sector.
o 29% of these households received an immediate settled solution without resorting to temporary accommodation.
Ethnic Minorities:
* People from Black and Minority Ethnic Groups are continually over-represented amongst those classed as homeless.
* 23% of the 36,260 households accepted as homeless were from a black/ethnic minority background.
Priority Needs:
* 'Around 50% of all Households accepted as homeless during the third quarter of 2003 were in 'priority need'...because they were families with dependent children and a further 11% of households included pregnant woman'
Causes for Homelessness: nationally, the top three causes of homelessness remained consistent. All of the following were accepted as 'unintentionally homeless' and 'in priority need'
* Parents, Relatives or friends not being able or willing to provide accommodation - lead to 38% (13,660) of households being accepted.
* Relationship Breakdown - lead to 20% (7,310) of households being accepted. Domestic violence was a cause in 2/3rds of cases, representing a slight increase.
* End of Assured Shorthold tenancy - lead to 12% (4,490) of households being accepted.
A significant proportion of homeless households are stated as repeat homelessness cases - levels are estimated as high as 20-30%.
APPENDIX 3: PREVENTATIVE MEASURES: CONFRONTING SOCIAL EXCLUSION:
The following programmes have been identified as the core focus in tackling the issue of social exclusion, as part of the Government's 'Strategic Approach to Tackling Homelessness':
* Quality Protects: one of the eight priorities listed under this scheme corresponds to providing support to young people leaving care, a group identified as 'vulnerable to social exclusion'. Programmes follow an aim to prevent young people being wrongly discharged from care on reaching 16. To this end Quality Projects were extended to 2003/4, and provided with an enlarged budget to £885 million.
* Connexions: this service aims to provide young people between the age of 13-19 with access to a personal adviser and support system. This scheme is designed to provide a gateway into identifying and tackling issues that can lead to social exclusion, and homelessness, namely exclusion from school, mental ill health, teenage pregnancy, and substance abuse to mention a few.
* 'Tackling Drugs to build a better Britain': a 10-year strategy to resolve drug misuse, to which local agencies, including homelessness organisations have a duty to implement.
* The National Healthy Schools Standard: acts as a support to learning and the promotion of health. This scheme is boasted to play an important role in supporting youth learning, and development and reducing health inequalities.
* Sure Start/The Children's Fund/Neighbourhood Renewal: collectively these schemes are working towards tackling deprivation and providing opportunities for the disadvantaged.
REFERENCES:
TEXT REFERENCES:
GLENNERSTER, H ET AL 'PAYING FOR HEALTH, EDUCATION AND HOUSING: HOW DOES THE CENTRE PULL THE PURSE STRINGS?'
ARDEN, Q.C AND HUNTER, C (2002) 'HOMELESSNESS AND ALLOCATIONS'
(1999) GIBB, MUNRO AND SATSANGI 'HOUSING FINANCE IN THE UK: AN INTRODUCTION' 2ND EDITION, MACMILLIAN PRESS LIMITED
BARR, N (1998) 'THE ECONOMICS OF THE WELFARE STATE'
BURROWS, R ET AL (1997) 'HOMELESSNESS AND SOCIAL POLICY'
WEBSITE ARTICLES:
UNITED KINGDOM PARLIAMENT STATISTICS: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo970728/text/70728w12.htm
WEBSTER, A (3RD OCTOBER 2003) 'CALL TO ARMS' - INSIDE HOUSING
(APRIL 2001) 'THIRTY PER CENT FALL IN PRIVATE TENANTS GETTING HOUSING BENEFIT' - HOUSING FINANCE REVIEW - http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/451.asp
PROFESSOR PETER KEMP OF THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW (JUNE 1998) 'HOUSING BENEFIT: TIME FOR REFORM' - http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/HR718.asp
PROFESSOR STEVE WILCOX (Dec 2002)'BORDER TENSIONS: DEVOLUTION, RENTS AND HOUSING BENEFIT' - http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/d52.asp
BEST, R (2001) 'TACKLING DISADVANTAGE - MORE SHORTAGES AND HOMELESSNESS?' -
GRIFFITHS, S (OCTOBER 2000) - 'AN OVERVIEW OF THE SUPPORTING PEOPLE PROGRAMME' - http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialcare/080.asp
(DECEMBER 2001) 'JRF TASK FORCE URGES EXPANSION AND REFORM OF LOW-COST HOME OWNERSHIP' - http://www.jrf.org.uk/pressroom/releases/201201.asp
(AUGUST 2003) 'HOMELESSNESS FUNDING 2004/5 AND 2005/6' - www.homelessness.odpm.gov.uk
GOVERNMENT PAPERS:
'HOMELESSNESS STATISTICS: DECEMBER 2003 AND REPEAT HOMELESSNESS' - http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_homelessness/documents/page/odpm_home_026079.hcsp
'MORE THAN A ROOF: A REPORT INTO TACKLING HOMELESSNESS' -
'QUALITY AND CHOICE: A DECENT HOME FOR ALL'
'ACHIEVING POSITIVE OUTCOMES ON HOMELESSNESS'
Figures are not directly comparative due to alterations made to the reporting requirements in 1980 (non-metropolitan districts) and 1982 (London boroughs and metropolitan districts).
2 Source: Arden QC, A and Hunter, C (2002) 'Homelessness and Allocations - sixth edition' p19
3 Conservative White Paper 'Our Future Homes' p36 and 37 (Chapter 6)
4 Source: Best, R (2001) 'Tackling Disadvantage: Housing - More Shortages and Homelessness' p140
5 Source: Arden QC, A and Hunter, C (2002) 'Homelessness and Allocations - sixth edition' p30
6 Source: Best, R (2001) 'Tackling Disadvantage: Housing - More Shortages and Homelessness' p140
7 'Quality and Choice: a decent home for all' (DETR, 2000) paragraph 9.42
8 As above
9 'Quality and Choice: a decent home for all' (DETR, 2000) paragraph 7.3
0 An increasingly relevant issue, beginning to be addressed only recently in an advice note 'Achieving Positive Outcomes on Homelessness' (April 2003).
1 Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (2002) - Chapter 1 'Homelessness Reviews and Strategies' - paragraph 1.10
2 Source: Arden QC, A and Hunter, C (2002) 'Homelessness and Allocations - sixth edition' p29
3 'Quality and Choice: a decent home for all' (DETR, 2000) paragraph 9.13
4 Housing Act 2002 Section 14
5 Source: 'Inside Housing' - 3rd October 2003
6 Source: Glennerster, H et al (1997) 'Paying for Health, Education and Housing: how does the centre pull the purse strings?' p170
7 Source: Source: Best, R (2001) 'Tackling Disadvantage: Housing - More Shortages and Homelessness' p126
8 Source: Burrows, R et al (1997) 'Homelessness and Social Policy'
9 Source: Arden QC, A and Hunter, C (2002) 'Homelessness and Allocations - sixth edition' p20
20 Source: 'More than a roof: a report into tackling homelessness'
21 Source: Joseph Rowntree Federation (2001) 'JRF task force urges expansion and reform of low-cost home ownership'
22 As above
23 Source: (April 2001) 'Thirty percent fall in private tenants getting housing benefit'
24 RSL is an alternative expression for a non-profit housing association. Essentially these bodies perform an identical function to that of Local Authorities - the provision of housing at below market rents, with tenancies proportioned on a need basis.
25 Wilcox, S (December 2002) 'Broader Tensions: devolution, rents and housing benefit'
26 Source: Source: Best, R (2001) 'Tackling Disadvantage: Housing - More Shortages and Homelessness' p140
27 Source: Gibb, Munro and Satsangi 'Housing Finance in the UK' p198
28 Source: Best, R (2001) 'Tackling Disadvantage: Housing - More Shortages and Homelessness' p139
29 Source: Glennerster, H et al (1997) 'Paying for Health, Education and Housing: how does the centre pull the purse strings?' p163
30 (August 2003) 'Homelessness Funding 2004/5 and 2005/6' - www.homelessness.odpm.gov.uk
31 As above
32 As above
33 Source: Gibb, Munro and Satsangi 'Housing Finance in the UK' p71
34 Source: Gibb, Munro and Satsangi 'Housing Finance in the UK' p239
35 Source: Gibb, Munro and Satsangi 'Housing Finance in the UK' p236
36 Burrows, R et al (1997) 'Homelessness and Social Policy' p174
37 Burrows, R et al (1997) 'Homelessness and Social Policy' p187
38 Source: Gibb, Munro and Satsangi 'Housing Finance in the UK' p239
39 As above - p238
40 (March 2002) 'More than a roof: a report into tackling homelessness'