This essay critically discusses the social issue of homelessness and its impact on young people and will show by the conclusion that there is no need for homelessness in England.
Choose a social issue addressed in the module and critically discuss its impact on young people.
This essay critically discusses the social issue of homelessness and its impact on young people and will show by the conclusion that there is no need for homelessness in England.
First to be addressed is who are the homeless or classified as homeless within the Housing Legislation Act and the Local Authorities acceptance of 'deserving' or 'undeserving' homeless and what underpins this and why. Next to be discussed is the problem of having to be in 'priority need', the underlying causes and push factors of young homeless people.
Then the essay will highlight that the statistics are problematic in reflecting the actual figures measuring homeless young people in England. Additionally, the official statistics on homelessness are not only inadequate because they do not provide an actual count of applications or do not qualify as homeless under the current legislation, but also that the statistics do not represent 'hidden' homelessness.
The essay will discuss if the historic debt for council houses could be written off, councils could then invest that money in improving existing stock and building new stock, therefore reducing homelessness (House of Lords Website, 2007). Next an outline of the Government's proposed package of tackling homelessness and a response to this from the campaigning homeless charities will be discused.
The issue of Bed and Breakfast will be critically examined and finally, an in-depth look at 'Rough Sleepers' and how the measuring of them is manipulated to make it look that the Government have met their targets reducing rough sleeping by two thirds since 1998.
Because the Government's definition of Homelessness is 'rooflessness,' which comes from the Government's Framework Initiative of homelessness (communities.gov website, 2007), it has narrowed the goalpost and does not take into account sofa hoppers, temporary shelters, living in squats or young people not registering with the Local Authority. Oldman (in Roche and Tucker, 2002), argues for an alternative definition of homelessness which would include issues such as a lack of affordable, decent and secure housing. This definition would then include over crowdedness, poor housing and living in tents, caravans or sofa hopping for example which within the present Government Framework is hidden.
People are more likely to become homeless if they were in care as a child or had a problematic childhood; or have a mental illness or addiction, have been in the armed forces; have spent time in prison; from minority ethnic communities. Steele (1997) (in Somerville, 2001) found people are more likely to be homeless if they have migrated to this country from Eastern or Central Europe or arrived as an asylum seeker. One group that is over-represented among the homeless are black people (Davies et al. 1996 and Law et al., 1999) (in Somerville 2001).
Law et al. (1999), in chapter 10 of Somerville's 'Race', Housing and Social Exclusion (2001), found two common causes of homelessness within Minority Ethnic Groups (MEG); one is a family crisis or breakdown, where 50% were found to be under 21 years of age and were more likely to be African-Caribbean. They found many young people wanted to assert their independence which brought them into conflict with other family members. 'However, this could be said regardless if young people were from a MEG or not' (my emphasis). A second cause of homelessness in MEG is domestic violence and this was mainly significant for Indian and Pakistani women. Other causes found for homelessness in this group included failure of the care system and that one-third of African-Caribbean homeless young people had been in residential care. High levels of unemployment and also the withdrawal of benefits from 16 to 17year-olds were other reasons given. Although the causes of homelessness for ethnic minority young people are similar to those for white youths, their experience of homelessness is different. Patel (1994) and Steele (1997) (in Somerville, 2001) argue that there is a lack of awareness from the statutory and voluntary services of the needs of ethnic minority homeless young people.
According to Morris and Wynn (1990) it is widely accepted that Homelessness is a serious social problem. However, there are also disputes surrounding the problem, such as the causes and the policies. They argue that it is how homelessness is perceived and the way in which assumptions about the causes of homelessness underlie this perception that influences housing policies. Thompson (in Morris and Wynn, 1990) shows in her analysis of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act Part 3 1977, that this legislation was not meant to be the solution of homelessness, but the compromise of those who questioned the legitimacy of Local Authorities (LA) housing the homeless and the different Homeless charities that were demanding all homeless people should have the statutory right to be housed. Thompson found that this Act was influenced by the view held by many different Local Authorities (LA) that housing homeless people interfered with the provision and management of housing 'ordinary' people. The LA argued that the homeless being housed should be secondary to disrupting 'ordinary' people's lives such as the waiting lists or living in the same street. It was this attitude Thompson argues, alongside the fear that LA did not have the resources to house all homeless people and 'ordinary' people, which ended up with very limited definitions of Homelessness in the legislations.
Morris and Wynn (1990) suggested that there are two problems underlying the homelessness legislation, 'which can be argued still stand today' (my emphasis) that dominates the perceptions of homelessness. First there is failure to consider what is meant by 'home'; homelessness in legislation is taken to mean lack of 'accommodation'. Therefore the housing needs by different groups remain hidden, for example, single people forced to share or women wishing to leave an unhappy relationship who need their own accommodation to class as their own home rather than just a roof over their heads. However, this need is not ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Morris and Wynn (1990) suggested that there are two problems underlying the homelessness legislation, 'which can be argued still stand today' (my emphasis) that dominates the perceptions of homelessness. First there is failure to consider what is meant by 'home'; homelessness in legislation is taken to mean lack of 'accommodation'. Therefore the housing needs by different groups remain hidden, for example, single people forced to share or women wishing to leave an unhappy relationship who need their own accommodation to class as their own home rather than just a roof over their heads. However, this need is not recognised in the general definition of homelessness nor is it measurable by the available statistical sources.
Morris and Wynn (1990) state the second problem is the way in which LA distinguishes between who they define as 'deserving' or 'undeserving' of help through the qualifications put in the Act of 'priority need'. The problem is that not only does it undermine the legitimacy of housing need by different groups but it also has an under-recording in the statistics of homelessness. Glen Bramley (in Morris and Wynn, 1990) argues that what all groups have in common whether it is a rough sleeper or someone wanting to leave the parental home is "the lack of a right or access to their own or secure and minimally adequate housing space".
The Homelessness Act 2002 requires LA to compile a five year strategy for preventing and tackling homelessness in their area (Centrepoint website, 2007). However, different Local Authorities have different interpretations of the frameworks and their obligations to young people under the Housing Act 2002. The number of young people accepted as homeless by local authorities almost doubled between 2001 and 2004 (Shelter website, 2007). However, Randall (1997) found that 90% of the young people he interviewed had not been in contact with any Local Authority since becoming homeless. The current rate of acceptances by local authorities suggests that over 100,000 young people experience homelessness every year.
The Department of Environment release homelessness statistics quarterly. The data that is collected to produce these statistics are drawn by different Local Authorities which show households who have been defined as having a 'priority need'. The 2002 Homelessness Act (opsi.gov website, 2007) stipulates that Local Authorities must now consider 16 and 17 year olds and 18 to 21 year olds leaving care to be in priority need of housing. Centrepoint highlight that 17% of care leavers become homeless within the first two years (Centrepoint website, 2006).
Young people have to be considered as vulnerable and to have little life skills to be 'priority need'. This in itself is problematic because if a family becomes homeless any child in the family aged 18 or above who is not considered vulnerable, Local Authorities are not obliged to home the young person even though the young person became homeless with the rest of the family. Therefore this contradicts their duties under the 1989 Children's Act (opsi.gov website, 2007). In terms of legislation, the Children Act gives local authorities duties and powers to accommodate young people and children 'in need' (JRF website, 2007). Furthermore if a woman claims homelessness due to domestic violence, the Local Authority and any refuge she may go to will refuse to house the young male over the age of 16, even though young people are staying in education longer and have less chance of gaining employment at the age of 16 (JRF website, 2007) .
There are many push factors that a young person may become homeless. It can be a combination of factors such as a mental illness, learning disability, abuse or emotional issues; the actions or status of parents and other adults responsible for caring for the child; along with larger social issues such as racism, poverty and other forms of oppression (JRF website, 2007).
While a wide range of circumstances might cause youth homelessness, CHAR (Housing Campaign for Single people) (in Shelter website, 2007) argue that there are two main causes for the homeless youth population, which is a lack of secure affordable housing for one, with the rising cost of housing, many young adults face insufficient income to maintain housing, especially those who have been in foster care or otherwise have little support from adults; and secondly unemployment and low wages; Due to lower incomes and unemployment many young people have severe problems with finding affordable accommodation. Restrictions in levels of Income Support and Housing Benefit for under 25 year olds, and lack of entitlement to Income Support for most 16 and 17 year olds have contributed to increased homelessness amongst young people. However, Oldman (in Roche and Tucker, 2002) also argues that the causes of homelessness go further than the housing model and that it is the withdrawal of the benefit system for 16 and 17 year olds in 1988 which increased the youth homeless population and then the further experience of being homeless left them vulnerable and exposed physically, mentally and emotionally. For instance, young homeless people are more at risk from violence, sexual abuse, petty crime and drugs.
According to estimates from charities, housing benefit numbers and local authority data more than 250,000 people under the age of 25 in England and Wales could be classified as homeless (endhomelessness website, 2006). However, the problem of youth homelessness may be larger than official figures suggest. Crisis found that 400,000 single homeless adults still do not have the right to access housing and the services they urgently need (Crisis website, 2007). However, Dromey argues that there is no need for homelessness as there are in excess of 700,000 empty homes in the UK (SocietyGaurdian website, 2003). For example, 3.1 percent of the population of Tower Hamlets are living in temporary accommodation and yet 7.1 percent of the borough's housing stock stands empty. Also in London and the south-east there are 185,000 empty homes. Of this total more than 80% are in the private sector and 70,000 have been empty for more than six months.
Young homeless people often have difficulties in finding suitable hostel accommodation and many hostels will not accept 16 or 17 year olds (Shelter website, 2006). Some of the large hostels house mostly older male residents and young people can feel intimidated and unsafe in such accommodation. In response to this problem and the general rise in youth homelessness in recent years, some homelessness organisations have set up hostels, day centres and advice services specifically for young people (Crisis website, 2007).
A £164m package for young homeless people in England, which will provide training and emotional support, has been proposed by the Government. £74m will support new measures while a further £90m is being invested through the hostels capital improvement programme. Plans involve establishing a national network of supported lodging schemes and providing universal access to family mediation services (Society Gaurdian website, 2006). However, the National Children's Home quotes "Government plans to tackle youth homelessness are a good first step but wider measures need to be considered" (NCH website, 2006). They have been campaigning for an end to the use of B&BS for care leavers and other vulnerable young people.
According to the Government, B&B hotels will no longer be used to house young people by 2010, except in emergencies (Shelter website, 2007). Shelter found that children who experience homelessness are not having their rights protected through the present legislations. They highlight evidence on the detrimental effect on the physical, mental and emotional well being of children living in temporary accommodation and B&B. Centrepoint highlighted that young people are still spending the same amount of time and longer in B&B accommodation because families with children are prioritised for re-housing, although there are still families living in B&Bs (Centrepoint website, 2007). 26 per cent of homeless MEG use hostels and bed-and-breakfast accommodation; this proportion increased to 44 per cent of 16 to 17year-olds and 38 per cent of those were under 25 (Anderson, Kemp and Quilgars, 1993) (in Somerville, 2001).
The BBC No Homes Series (2006) found families in B&B are likely to live in extreme poverty, with little employment. The series highlighted that many are caught in the benefits trap, where taking a full time job, and a loss of housing benefit, would mean they could no longer afford their B&B. In addition, being housed outside of their local areas they cannot afford the transport costs to work. This increases the pressure of poverty that homeless families already face. The series did show a lack of kitchen facilities (if any) in B&B making it impossible for families to cook and eat healthily. Families are putting tins of food on the radiator before they have to leave in the morning so that they are warm for them to eat in the evening which could cause food poisoning. B&B provide no security of tenure, living with the constant worry that they will be moved from one temporary unsuitable home to another. Rates of clinical depression amongst homeless families are three times higher than those amongst the general population. Children living in B&B undergo recurrent health problems such as headaches, diarrhoea and chest pain and become more common the longer that they stay in B&B. Children in B&B are less likely to attend school and leave with no qualifications. 4,000,000 school days are missed by children every year due to being homeless. Homeless children are twice as likely to be bullied at school. The longer children stay in B&B the more their future educational achievements will be affected. 645 days is the average that families are spending in bed and breakfast accommodation (ibid).
Now turning to rough sleepers where Davies et al. (1996) (in Somerville, 2001) suggests that street homelessness is generally perceived to be a white issue as there is little visibility of black homeless youths on the streets. He found that whites were much more likely to have slept rough than MEGs, as these groups were likely to remain as hidden homeless due to sofa hopping when they find themselves homeless and only as a last resort live on the streets. For example, Steele (1997) (in Somerville, 2001) found 30% were staying with friends or family and ten per cent were rough sleepers.
The count of rough sleepers is problematic and manipulated and will now be explained. Communities and Local Government publish a yearly national rough sleeping estimate to establish the current position against a 1998 baseline (communities.gov website, 2007). Annual figures for 2006 show a 73% reduction in rough sleeping in England and Wales since 1998 from 1,850 to 502. In 1998 the New Labour Government set a target that by 2002 the numbers of rough sleeping would be reduced by at least two thirds from the statistical level of 1,850. This came from the 1980s when the numbers of people sleeping on the streets increased. The Conservative Government established the Rough Sleepers Initiative in 1990 putting extra funding into hostels, outreach and other services to help people escape from the street (communities.gov website, 2007). When New Labour came to power it renewed the focus on rough sleeping and set a target to reduce rough sleeping to by two thirds over the following three years. Figures from the Home Office for 2006 indicate that this level has been achieved (home office website, 2007).
The annual estimate of rough sleeping is based on a combination of street counts and estimates, which are conducted by LAs in partnership with local homeless agencies. The Street counts are meant to provide a snap shot of the number of people sleeping rough in a given geographical area on a single night. The Government through their count on a single night in 2006 stated there were 502 people sleeping rough in England on any single night (see appendices for table). These statistics are problematic and manipulated. This target was met by narrowing the goalpost and by changing the Government definition of rough sleeping.
The actual definition of rough sleeping for the count is: "People sleeping, or bedded down in the open air; people in buildings or other places not designed for habitation" (communities.gov website, 2007). The definition does not include people in hostels or shelters, people in campsites or other sites used for recreational purposes, squatters, travellers, people who were there earlier or who were known to sleep rough on other occasions, but who were not there at the time of the count, people wandering around and sleeping sites without occupants (ibid). The government argues that people seen drinking in the street or begging (even if they have a blanket or a sleeping bag) or people sleeping in tents away from campsites who might be homeless but could be tourists, or people sleeping in derelict buildings are not necessarily sleeping rough and that they should not be included unless they are clearly bedded down at the time of the count. In Portsmouth the count for 2005 states that there only are six rough sleepers and zero for Chichester (see appendices). I have been working voluntary at night in Portsmouth with homeless rough sleepers for the last seven years and have never seen only six rough sleepers. This narrow definition does not take into account that rough sleepers do not bed down until 5 or 6 o' clock in the morning when all the clubbers are out and home, due to their vulnerability of being attacked or having their sleeping bags set alight (Portsmouth rough sleepers reasons for not bedding down early). Many homeless young people in Albert Road, Portsmouth sit outside the shops or near cash-points and there are a significant amount of homeless rough sleepers that now use tents to sleep in so according to the narrow definition of rough sleeping they can no longer be counted. I have counted in Portsmouth on many occasions in excess of 60 homeless people living on the streets and most are below the age of 25.
According to the guidance to LA (communities.gov website, 2007) many of rough sleepers will be staying in hostels on the night of the actual count. This is due to there being two elements to the Count; one is to provide a snapshot of rough sleeping; two to see how many of the hostels are being used to their full capacity, to ensure to the tax payer that the input of funding is being effectively used (ibid). This statement suggests that for this night of the count the usual rough sleepers will be housed either in hostels or bed and breakfast, therefore manipulating the figures of rough sleepers to meet the Government targets.
To conclude, this essay has critically discussed homelessness and its impact on young people and has shown that there is no need for homelessness in England. It has looked at who are the homeless and over represented within that group, or classified as homeless within the Housing legislation Act and also the Local Authorities acceptance of 'deserving' or 'undeserving' homeless, the 'priority need' and what underpinned this and why. Also, the underlying causes and push factors of young homeless people was discussed, highlighting that the statistics are problematic in reflecting the actual figures measuring homeless young people in England. It was found the statistics on homelessness are inadequate not providing a true count of applications due to not qualifying as homeless under the current legislation and also that the statistics do not represent 'hidden' homelessness.
The House of Lords report implied that if the historic debt for council houses could be written off, councils could then invest that money in improving existing stock and building new stock, therefore reducing homelessness.
Discussed during the essay was what could be done to reduce the impact homelessness has on young people, such as ending the use of B&BS by providing more accommodation for young homeless people rather than using hostels housing older people as highlighted by Shelter. Also Oldman (in Roche and Tucker, 2002) argued an underlying cause of homeless young people is the lack of benefits and training which, if tackled would reduce homelessness. Davies et al. (1996) and Law et al. (1999) (in Somerville, 2001) argued to provide support to young homeless people with a family mediation service which would assist in either enabling the young person to return home or, to benefit from the continued support of family and friends if returning home is not an option. However, the biggest solution shown during this essay was Dromey who highlighted that there is no need for homelessness as there are over 700,000 empty homes in the UK (SocietyGaurdian website, 2003).
References
Randall, G.(1997) No Way Home: homeless young people in Central London, Centrepoint: Soho.
Roche, J and Tucker, S. Editors, Joe Oldman Chapter 10, Beyond Bricks and Mortar in Youth in Society, (2002) Sage: London.
Somerville, P. Editor 'Race', Housing and Social Exclusion. Chapter 10, Philadelphia, PA, USA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2001.
Wynn and Morris (1990) Housing and social inequality London: Hilary Shipman.
Webography
The BBC No Homes Series (Panorama BBC1 19/11/06)
Available from:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6143970.stm
Accessed on: 19/11/06 / 1/12/2006 & 2/03/2007
Tackling Homelessness / care leavers/ B&B [online]
Available from: http://www.centrepoint.org.uk/
Accessed on 16/11/2006
Guidance to LA and the Count of Rough Sleeping [online]
Available from:http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/465/Evaluatingtheextentofroughsleeping
Accessed on 17/03/2007
Communities and Local Government on Homelessness [online]
Available from: http://www.communities.gov.uk/index
Accessed on 10/11/06 & 10/02/2007
Homeless and reducing homeless [online]
Available from: http://www.crisis.org.uk
Accessed on 27/01/07
Campaigns and advice on Homeless issues [online]
Available from:http://www.endhomelessness.org.uk
Accessed on: 10/10/2006
Figures from the Home Office for 2005/2006 [online]
Available from: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pubsstatistical.html
Accessed on: 16/03/2007
Children's Act 1989/ domestic violence/ homelessness [online]
Available from:http://www.jrf.org.uk
Accessed on: 10/11/2006
Homelessness Act 2002/ 1989 Children's Act.
Available from:http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000035.htm 27/01/07 [online]
Accessed on 01/02/2007 & 06/03/2007
Campaign for an end to the use of B&BS for vulnerable young people. [online]
Available from: http://www.nch.org.uk
Accessed on 03/03/2007
Housing and Homeless Report [online]
Available from: http://www.parliament.uk/lords/index.cfm
Accessed on 10/03/2007
Evidence on the detrimental effect of children living in temporary accommodation. [online]
Available from: http://www.shelter.co.uk
Accessed on 17/03/07
Dromey - Empty homes in England and Wales [online]
Available from:http://society.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4771787-105907,00.htm
Accessed on 10/02/2007
0402417
4
