youth homelessness in the north east survey report 2016 · youth homelessness in the north east |...

Youth Homelessness in the North East Survey Report 2016

Report by Adele Irving, Senior Research Fellow, Northumbria University

Youth Homelessness in the North East | Page 1

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Northern Rock Foundation and The Millfield House Foundation for

their funding support which allows us to conduct the annual survey.

Thank you also to Homeless Link for their cooperation in allowing us to align our regional

survey with the national ‘Young and Homeless’ survey.

Our appreciation is given to Adele Irving, Senior Research Fellow, in the Department of

Social Sciences and Languages at Northumbria University for producing the survey and

analysing and writing up the results.

Finally, we appreciate the commitment and time taken by local authorities, the voluntary

and community sector and housing associations in compiling the data and completing the

survey, particularly in the light of reduced capacity.

| Youth Homelessness in the North East

Contents

Executive Summary 3

Research Overview 3

Research Findings 3

Introduction 5

Research Overview 5

Methodology 5

The National Picture 5

Survey Findings 8

The Extent of Youth Homelessness 8

Homeless Young People’s Experiences 8

The Causes of Youth Homelessness 9

Young People’s Support Needs 10

Local Authority Prevention Activities 12

Homelessness Strategy 15

Temporary Accommodation 15

Moving On 15

Conclusion 18

References 19


Executive Summary

Research Overview

In March 2016, Youth Homeless North East (YHNE) conducted its annual survey into youth homelessness in the North East for the fifth year running. Each year, the research aims to establish the nature, extent and causes of youth homelessness in the North East and to identify how the wider social, political and economic context is impacting on the experiences of young people, as well as levels and the nature of service provision over time. In total, responses were received from ten local authorities and eight housing and homelessness service providers.

Research Findings

Both local authorities and providers reported decreases in the number of homeless

young people engaged with in February 2016, compared to February 2015.

The most common characteristics of homeless young people in the region were young

people aged 16-17 and young parents/pregnant young people. Reported levels of

homelessness among care leavers and offenders were lower than expected in light of

the national averages and previous survey results.

Reflecting long-standing trends, parents no longer being willing or able to accommodate

young people was by far the most common cause of youth homelessness, followed by

relationship breakdown with other relatives or friends, eviction as a result of rent arrears

and abuse/domestic violence.

The most common needs of young people (in addition to housing needs) supported by

local authorities and providers were: lack of independent living skills, not being in

education, training or employment and mental health problems. Poor mental health

among young people appears to be more prevalent than in February 2015.

Positively, 86% of providers said the internal service provision, as well services provided

externally, have increased or remain unchanged over time.

Two thirds of respondents thought the number of young people presenting with complex

needs had increased in the 12 months leading up to February 2016 and three quarters

thought the complexity of needs had increased. Five providers reported being unable to

assist young people in February 2016 due to this.

Family mediation, resolving housing benefit problems and crisis interventions providing

emergency support were most frequently cited as effective prevention activities.

All ten local authorities that responded have a protocol in place between Housing and

Children’s Services for the joint assessment of 16-17 year olds. The protocol was

judged to be very effective in two cases (20%), effective in six (60%) and ineffective in

two (20%).

Eight of nine (89%) local authorities judged that they had an adequate range of

prevention services available in their area to meet the needs of young people at risk of

homelessness in February 2016.

The most common uses for the homelessness prevention fund were: paying rent


deposits for young people, addressing their rent arrears and supporting young people in

crisis.

Bed and breakfast accommodation for young people was said to be only rarely used in

some local authorities across the North East.

The majority of respondents reported no change in the provision of a range of

emergency and short-stay supported accommodation options for young people since

February 2015.

Housing association owned property was the most commonly cited move on route for

young people by local authorities. Providers were most likely to report young people

moving on to local authority owned housing.

Local authority respondents were highly confident, very confident or confident in the

quality or features of move on accommodation for young people. However, affordable

move on accommodation was said to be lacking in some areas, particularly in areas

where Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates are very low.

There is concern that the proposed removal of young people’s entitlement to housing

costs under Universal Credit could have a catastrophic effect on young people’s ability

to obtain and sustain independent tenancies. To counter this, services are placing

greater emphasis on supporting young people with debt, income maximization and

employment. But, limited employment opportunities and zero hour contracts remain

challenges.


Introduction Research Overview

This report outlines the findings of the fifth year of Youth Homeless North East’s (YHNE) annual survey of youth homelessness. The survey aims to establish the nature, extent and causes of youth homelessness in the North East and identify how the wider social, political and economic context is impacting on the experiences of young people and levels and the nature of service provision over time. Specifically, the key questions explored through the research are:

How many young people are homeless in the North East?

What are the main causes of youth homelessness?

How many homeless young people have had adverse life experiences?

What are the primary needs of homeless young people in the region?

What homelessness prevention, accommodation and support services are in place to

assist vulnerable young people and how effective are these?

What should be the region’s future strategic and operational objectives in respect of

youth homelessness?

Going forward, we hope that the findings of this report are useful in informing regional policy and practice.

Methodology

This year’s research was carried out through two online surveys: one tailored to local authorities and one to homelessness agencies and housing associations (collectively referred to as ‘providers’ in this report). The surveys largely reflect those used by Homeless Link’s (2015) ‘Young and Homeless’ research, which looks at the nature of youth homelessness in England as a whole each year. This is to ensure that the regional and national data collected are comparable.

The surveys consisted of a mixture of quantitative and qualitative questions and asked for information relating to single homeless people, aged 16-24. Furthermore, it focused on two timeframes: February 2016 for snapshot figures and the previous 12 months for the assessment of changes over time. Ten responses were received from local authorities. Eight responses were received from providers. Of these, six described themselves as specialist youth organisations. Not all respondents answered every survey question so baseline figures are given for the findings presented. The smaller the baseline (denoted by ‘n’), the fewer respondents received and the less confident we can be that the findings are representative of the picture in the North East. Individual responses have been anonymised within the finding. Where relevant, comparisons are made between regional and national figures and figures from previous regional surveys.

The National Picture

Before considering the findings of the survey, it may first be useful to briefly review the national picture of youth homelessness and the wider social, economic and political environment in which young people are operating.

Limited official data and the multitude of forms which homelessness can take make precise estimates of the scale of youth homelessness in the UK highly challenging (Homeless Link,


2015a; Watts et al, 2015; Clarke et al, 2015). Figures nonetheless indicate that youth homelessness remains a significant issue in our society. Recent research by Centrepoint (2015) calculated that roughly 136,000 young people a year in England and Wales present to their local authority asking for help because they are homeless or at risk of homelessness (of which only an eighth are accepted as statutory homeless). Meanwhile – although there is some scope for double counting – roughly 80,000 are in touch with homelessness services (Watts et al, 2015). Currently, young people aged 16-24 account for half of those living in supported accommodation (Homeless Link, 2015b) and are three times more likely to have experienced homelessness in the last five years than older members of the general population (Watts et al, 2015).

Although levels of statutory homelessness among young people have decreased over recent years, overall levels are thought to have remained stable, if not increased (Homeless Link, 2015a). This could be due to more young people receiving support outside of the statutory framework (through ‘prevention and relief’ services, for example) and more young people approaching charities for support directly, rough sleeping or sofa-surfing (Clarke et al, 2015). Indeed, levels of rough sleeping by young people have doubled in London since 2009/10 (St. Mungo’s, 2010).

Equally concerning is the complexity of the needs of a growing number of young people. Half of the young people living in supported accommodation are considered to have ‘complex needs’ and over a third have mental health problems (Homeless Link, 2015a).

The increasing number of young people in crisis is, to some extent, reflective of wider social, economic and political realities. The long-term effects of the post-2007 recession continue to hinder the employment opportunities available to young people – with the youth unemployment rate being three times that of the working-age population – and young people in work found to typically occupy low-paid and insecure positions (Watts et al, 2015). Financial pressures within families is also a key contributory factor in a number of young people being asked to leave the family home, which remains the biggest cause of youth homelessness – accounting for almost 50% of cases (Homeless Link, 2015a).

The Conservative government’s ‘Fair Chance Fund’ (see DCLG, 2014) and ‘Platform for Change’ (see HCA, 2015) initiatives are welcome developments and the 2009 House of Lords ruling (the Southwark Judgement) is argued to have led to improved responses to homeless 16-17 year olds (Homeless Link, 2015a). However, young people aged 16-24 remain more likely than any other group to be unemployed and living in poverty (Maclnnes et al, 2015) and difficulties accessing and sustaining housing are being significantly compounded by changes to the benefits system – particularly the extension of the Shared Accommodation Rate (SAR), reductions in Local Housing Allowance (LHA) and the implementation of stricter welfare conditionality (Homeless Link, 2015a; Harding et al, 2015). A huge concern is the proposed removal of the automatic entitlement of the housing cost element of Universal Credit to young people aged 18-21 from April 2017. Many young people claim this as a necessity, rather than a choice and homelessness organisations fear that the removal will result in increased youth homelessness, increased financial hardship for those who are on the margins of the labour market and will exacerbate tensions in family relationships (Centrepoint et al, 2015).

Homeless Link (2015a, 21015b) research suggests that nationally, the homelessness sector is responding well to the needs of young homeless people and is becoming more sophisticated in its approach. The development of the ‘Positive Youth Accommodation Pathway’ framework by youth homelessness charities in partnership with government and


local authorities is a positive step and more local authorities and providers are now using the model than in 2014. Local authority prevention and relief efforts are resulting in a greater proportion of successful outcomes and a greater proportion report joint working between Children’s services and Housing departments is said to be effective over time. Furthermore, at present, the use of ‘Bed and Breakfasts’ to accommodate homeless young people continues to be, at worst, ‘rare’ in roughly half of the responding local authority areas (Homeless Link, 2015a).

However, public spending cuts are hindering the impact of the sector to respond to needs. Centrepoint (2015) recently found that at least 30,000 young people experiencing or at risk of homelessness are turned away from their local authority every year in England and Wales. Forty percent of local authority respondents to Homeless Link’s (2015a) Young and Homeless research reported the range of prevention tools available within their areas to be inadequate. The provision of youth-specific emergency accommodation options across the country is patchy and a particular gap in accommodation provision for young people with complex needs who require high levels of support is reported. Restrictions imposed on the use of funding – such as local area connection – continue to result in young people being turned away from services and while longer-term supported accommodation options remain reasonably widespread, 7,000 bed spaces have been lost by homelessness services. In addition, average length of stay in supported accommodation (now 16 months) has doubled since 2014, in part resultant from returning to the family home now being the least common move on option for young people (Homeless Link, 2015a, 2015b).

In light of this, Homeless Link (2015a) recommended the following:

A national strategic response to young people at risk, which involves better

understanding and mitigation of the impacts of recent and proposed changes to

housing, employment and welfare on young people;

Access to affordable and sustainable housing, supported by private rents and LHA

being more closely aligned to local wages;

Improved advice and support services, notably floating support, greater move on

planning, more ‘life skills’ training and more accessible welfare benefits advice;

A greater focus on prevention services, with schools, colleges and the NHS working

more closely in partnership with local authorities and homelessness services.;

Greater financial, housing and employment support to better assist young people to

access and sustain education, training and employment, with more tailored support

given to young homeless people.; and

Greater monitoring of the scale and trends of youth homelessness.


Survey Findings

The Scale of Youth Homelessness

The survey results reveal an inconclusive picture regarding the changing scale of youth

homelessness. Ten local authorities indicated that a total of 1,255 persons of all ages

presented as homeless in February 2016. Of these, just 66 (5%) were young single people

between the ages of 16-24. This compares favourably to February 2015, where 174 young

people presented as homeless (Harding et al, 2015). Furthermore, six local authorities

(60%) perceived that youth homelessness had decreased in their areas compared to the

previous 12 months (although four perceived that it had increased). As such, the regional

findings can broadly be considered to reflect national trends regarding declines in statutory

homelessness among young people or fewer young people presenting to local authorities

as homeless (Homeless Link, 2015a).

Meanwhile, 622 young people were reported to have sought housing advice and support in February 2016. Of ten local authorities, six (60%) said the number of young people seeking advice and support had decreased compared to the previous 12 months; three (30%) said it had increased and one (10%) said there had been no change. In February 2015, however, just 495 young people were said to have approached local authorities for advice and support (Harding et al, 2015); this figure is significantly lower than the current survey result.

Eight providers reported that 224 young people – of an even gender split – sought support from their service in February 2016. Of six who answered the question, five (83%) reported no change in the number of young service users over time and just one (17%) reported an increase.

Young Homeless People’s Experiences

All three types of organisations were asked about the different categories of young people seeking support. In the case of local authorities, the question asked was about the categories of young people applying as homeless in February 2016. For the housing associations and homelessness charities, the question was how many young people in each category had been supported during that month. The questions were, therefore, slightly different and there is likely to be an element of double counting.


Figure One: The characteristics of homeless young people in February 2016

Of 178 young people where information was provided, the most common characteristics were young people aged 16-17 (40%) and young parents/pregnant young people (32%). Few of the young people had experiences of local authority care (10%) and engagement with the criminal justice system (8%). The figures are in contrast to February 2015 where a history of local authority care and offending behaviour were the most prevalent characteristics of homeless young people in the region (Harding et al, 2015). The figures also compare favourably to the national figures, where 14% were reported to be care leavers and have offending histories, respectively (Homeless Link, 2015a). The positive picture could be due to the effectiveness of support offered to care leavers in the region. In order to prevent homelessness among care leavers, seven of nine (78%) local authorities who answered the question said they offer young people the option of longer-term support after leaving the care system. Support options include: remaining in placements in certain circumstances, moving into specific move-on supported accommodation for young people, being given priority on social housing waiting lists, assistance with furniture packages and the provision of rent deposits. Local authorities and providers reported that just 12 young people engaged with during February 2016 were rough sleeping immediately prior to accessing support. Positively, three of five (60%) local authority respondents felt that levels of rough sleeping immediately prior to accessing support had not changed compared to February 2015; just one (20%) felt it had decreased and one (20%) felt it had increased (Harding et al, 2015). The same results were yielded from five provider respondents. The Causes of Homelessness Both local authorities and providers were asked about the reasons for homelessness among young people. Local authorities were asked about those who presented as homeless, while providers were asked about the young people who they had supported. The prevalence of each cause of homelessness is shown in the graph below. Reflecting long-standing trends (see Homeless Link 2014; Irving, 2014; Homeless Link, 2015a; Harding et al, 2015; Watts et al, 2015), parents no longer being willing or able to accommodate young people was by far the most common cause of youth homelessness, followed by relationship breakdown with other relatives or friends, eviction as a result of rent arrears and abuse/domestic violence.


Figure Two: The causes of homelessness among young clients supported in February 2016 Where parents were no longer willing or able to accommodate young people, the most frequently cited reasons for this by local authorities were: ‘breakdown in relationship with parent’, followed by ‘violence/abuse perpetrated by the young person’ and ‘overcrowding’. Financial difficulties were less frequently cited than expected. The most frequently cited reasons by providers were: ‘breakdown in relationship with parent’, followed by ‘breakdown in relationship with stepparent or other family member’ and ‘violence/abuse perpetrated by the young person’. Young People's Support Needs Providers were asked about the number of young people accessing their services in February 2016 that had different types of support need. The same question was asked of local authorities, with reference to those young people who approached them as homeless. There is a danger of double counting, but the findings nonetheless give an indication of the most common needs of young people, in addition to housing needs. The most common support needs identified by both sets of respondents were: lack of independent living skills; not being in education, training or employment (NEET); and, mental health problems. While lack of independent living skills and NEET were common support needs in February 2015 (Harding et al, 2015), the findings suggest that poor mental health has become more prevalent among young people compared to the situation 12 months prior.


Figure Three: The support needs of homeless young people in February 2016 Providers were asked about a range of support services that they provided. Feedback from eight providers is shown in the chart below.

Figure Four: Provider feedback on support services available to young people

Positively, 6 of 7 (86%) providers said the services which they provide internally and those provided externally which they refer clients on to have increased or remain unchanged compared to the previous 12 months. Just one (14%) said their service provision had increased. Additionally, all three types of organisational respondents were asked to judge the number of young people approaching them for support with complex needs. Rather worryingly, almost two thirds of respondents (7 of 11 or 64%) thought the number of young people presenting with complex needs had increased in the 12 months leading up to February 2016, three (27%) thought that the number had not changed and one (9%) thought the number had decreased. Equally, three quarters of respondents (11l of 15 or 73%) thought


that the complexity of young people's needs had also increased; just four (27-%) thought the complexity of needs had not changed. These findings reflect those of previous years. Indeed, year on year, respondents report increases in the proportion of young people with complex needs and the complexity of needs (see Irving, 2014; Harding et al, 2015). Nationally, however, there appears to have been a small reduction in the proportion of young people presenting with complex needs (Homeless Link, 2015a).

Figure Five: Reasons for providers being unable to assist young people in February 2016 Linked to this, five providers said they had been unable to assist young people in February 2016 for a range of reasons, as outlined in the chart above. Three attributed this to young people being considered high risk to others and their needs being too high, respectively. The picture regarding the provision of youth services was more mixed. Three of seven (42%) providers said it remained unchanged, one (14.5%) said it had increased, two (29%) said it had decreased and one (14.5%) did not know. Local Authority Prevention Activities Ten local authorities reported on the level of prevention activities undertaken with young people in February 2016. The definition of prevention used was ‘when someone avoids homelessness and is assisted to obtain alternative accommodation or remain in their existing home’. A total of 106 positive actions to prevent youth homelessness were reported during the month. They were also asked to report on homelessness relief activities. The definition of relief used was ‘when youth homelessness cannot be prevented but the young person is supported to secure accommodation even though the local authority is under no obligation to do this’. A total of 25 cases of successful homelessness relief were recorded for February 2016.

Local authority respondents were asked what they considered to be the most effective prevention activities in operation in their areas in February 2016. As indicated in the chart below, family mediation, resolving housing benefit problems and crisis interventions providing emergency support were most frequently cited as being most effective.


Figure Six: Local authority views on most effective prevention activities

All ten of the local authority respondents said that there was a protocol in place between Housing and Children’s Services for the joint assessment of 16 and 17 year olds. The protocol was judged to be very effective in two cases (20%), effective in six (60%) and ineffective in two (20%). Effective here meant meeting the requirements clarified by G v Southwark in 2009. This suggests that joint working was less effective in February 2016 than in the previous year (Harding et al, 2015). Similar to February 2015 (Harding et al, 2015), however, eight of nine (89%) local authorities judged that they had an adequate range of prevention services available in their area to meet the needs of young people at risk of homelessness in February 2016; just one (11%) local authority stated that it did not. When asked to explain the reasons for their positive outlook, feedback included: ‘We have a number of supported housing schemes which accommodate young people’ ‘We have a number of schemes for 16-25 year olds for families as well as singles. There are also a number of schemes in the voluntary sector which are very good’ ‘We provide homeless prevention to 16-17 year olds, as well as floating support to 16-24 year olds. We also run a 10-bed hostel and a 16-bed block of supported accommodation flats. There are two other hostels in [name of area] for 16-24 year olds, which accommodate 16-17 year olds. There are a range of other hostels for those aged 18+. There is also emergency accommodation for 16-17 year olds’ ‘The number of bed spaces in supported housing has increased by 26 in the last year. Housing Related Supported Accommodation is available in [name of area], Floating Support services are available, use of DHP, loans, priority banding on Choice Based Lettings, excellent relationship with Children Services, joint assessments and best use of accommodation - links with Nightstop and referral pathways into support services are well established and working’


‘It is adequate in a sense that we have some options available however it could definitely be improved. There is limited supported accommodation for young people within the [area]. The mediation service previously used is no longer in place’. In December 2015, the government announced a package of measures to help tackle homelessness, including additional funding for local authority homelessness prevention activities. So, for the first time in this area, local authorities were asked about their use of the homelessness prevention grant for young people. The number of local authorities which used the grant for various purposes is outlined in the table below.

Use of Prevention Grant Number of Local Authorities

Rent deposits 8

Rent arrears 7

Crisis payments 6

Core funding/staff costs 3

Other 5

The most common uses for the prevention fund were: paying rent deposits for young people, addressing their rent arrears and supporting young people in crisis.

Homelessness Strategy

In light of many policy changes affecting young people’s lives, it seems only appropriate that central government and local authorities have a good understanding of the impacts of existing and proposed policy on vulnerable young people and develop a strategy for supposing adversely affected individuals in response.

Positively, eight of ten local authorities (80%) said they have a youth homelessness strategy, which is outlined within their overall homelessness strategies and one local authority (10%) said it has a specific youth homelessness strategy. The respondent for one local authority (10%) did not know the answer to this question.

Endorsed by local authorities, the YHNE Regional Youth Housing Strategy and Action Plan (2016-19) include priorities set through consultation with the region’s authorities and wider providers to:

1. Increase early intervention and prevention work;

2. Increase training and employment for young people affected by homelessness to

enable them to secure a long-term future;

3. Influence policy makers and support joint commissioning in order to prevent, tackle

and resolve youth homelessness in the North East; and

4. Improve the quality and range of temporary and supported accommodation.

The Positive Pathway aims to prevent young people becoming homeless by giving local authorities and homelessness services a clear framework and sets out the sort of services and support needed to help young people who do become homeless. Two thirds (4 of 6 or 67%) of respondents said a Positive Pathway is in place in their area. The remaining third (2 of 6 or 33%) said it is not.


Temporary Accommodation

Local authority respondents were asked whether the supply of a range of forms of emergency accommodation had changed in the 12 months leading up to February 2016: crash pad beds, youth specific assessment centres/short stay accommodation, all agency emergency hostels, No Second Night Out provision, supported lodgings, bed and breakfast hotels and other short stay accommodation. Reflecting the findings of previous surveys, in all cases, the majority of respondents reported levels of provision to be unchanged (see Irving, 2014 and Harding et al, 2015). Provision in the North East appears to be more widespread than the national picture suggests. Roughly half of local authority respondents to Homeless Link (2015a) reported that Nightstop or similar schemes, youth specific assessment centres and short-stay supported accommodation are not available in their areas.

Of ten local authority respondents, five (50%) said that they never used bed and breakfast accommodation for young homeless people and five (50%) said they rarely used it. Although this is a highly positive result, nine local authorities said they never used bed and breakfasts in February 2015, suggesting that levels of usage have increased slightly over time. The North East figure, however, seem comparable with the national figure, where 59% of areas report to occasionally use Bed and Breakfasts to accommodate young people (Homeless Link, 2015a).

Regarding short-term accommodation options, the majority of local authority respondents said that there had been no change in the provision of hostels/foyers, supported lodgings, shared housing for those in education, training or employment and other non-short stay accommodation. However, there were three forms of provision that three respondents said had decreased: supported lodgings, shared housing with floating support and self-contained units with low or no support. No increases in provision were reported. Just one respondent commented on difficulties in their area of finding emergency accommodation for young people with challenging/complex behaviour.

Providers too agreed that temporary accommodation had largely unchanged in their area. Specifically, five of eight (62.5%) said provision had not changed over a 12 month period, one (12.5%) said it had increased, one (12.5%) said it had decreased and one (12.5%) said they did not know.

Moving On

Both local authorities and providers were asked about the most common housing outcomes for young people moving on from homelessness. Four local authority respondents (50%) reported this to be housing association owned accommodation, two (25%) reported this to be local authority owned housing and two (25%) reported this to be young people returning to live with family and friends. Providers, however, reported that young people were most likely to move on to local authority owned housing (4 of 7 or 57%) and private rented sector tenancies (3 of 7 or 43%).Nationally, providers reported that moving on to private rented sector accommodation is most common amongst their young clients (Homeless Link, 2015a).

Local authorities were asked about the range of move on services available to young people in their areas. By far, the most common support available was rent deposit or cashless bond schemes. Other forms of support are less common.


Figure Seven: Move on services available across the region Finally, local authority respondents were asked about their level of confidence with regard to different features of the accommodation that young people move on to in their area, in line with the standards set by young people within the YHNE Youth Housing Charter. The results are shown below. In all but one case, all respondents were highly confident, very confident or confident in the quality or features of move on accommodation for young people. Respondents were most confident about the provision of housing with adequate facilities, security and locks on doors. In just one area, one respondent lacked confidence about young people being able to access move on accommodation near to friends, family and other social networks.

Aspect of accommodation Highly confident

Very confident

Confident Unconfident Don’t know

Housing with adequate facilities, security and locks on doors

4 1 4 0 1

Secure permanent accommodation they can call their own rather than moving between temporary accommodation

1 1 7 0 1

Housing in an area they know, feel safe, where they are aware of available facilities and services, where to go for help, what the transport links are and close to training and employment

1 1 7 0 1

Where they want it, housing in an area close to family, carers, friends and other support networks

1 1 6 1 1


When asked to elaborate further on the quality of move on provision in their areas, some of the positive feedback included:

‘Housing stock is of a good standard and young people can usually be accommodated in their preferred areas’ ‘Any person over the age of 16 can apply to the county’s housing register for suitable permanent secure accommodation. As this is a choice based lettings scheme, young people can choose where they want to live. Most housing providers offer support packages to young people to help sustain and manage their tenancies and referred to local floating support services’ ‘We have a robust move on service for young people and close links with voluntary sector organisations and housing associations. We try and make sure that we get housing for young people right the first time and we have a good range of options to offer them’ ‘The choice based letting scheme operated in [name of area] gives priority to applicants who are looking to access permanent re-housing through the Move-on Protocol, services are co-ordinated and customers are assisted to secure the right property available to them. However, for single people the stock is reducing and can be more challenging to secure’ However, several respondents said that ensuring an adequate supply of affordable move on accommodation is challenging, particularly in areas where levels of LHA are very low:

‘The continual erosion of the housing benefit system is making it increasingly more difficult to house young people. This will only get harder’

‘The biggest challenge is welfare reform, especially the proposed changes to Housing Benefits for under 35s’

‘Local Housing Allowance affordability in the private rented sector and the concerns of the roll out of this in the social sector by 2018 will push young people under 35 into less and less secure accommodation’

There was also concern among respondents that proposed removal of young people’s entitlement to housing costs under Universal Credit could have a catastrophic effect on young people’s ability to obtain and sustain independent tenancies. To counter this, it seems that local authorities are placing much greater emphasis on supporting young people with debt, income maximization and employment. Limited employment opportunities and zero hour contracts, however, remain barriers to this. Furthermore, young people with anti-social behaviour problems, offending backgrounds, learning difficulties and mental health problems are often more difficult to house.


Conclusion

While the survey findings are not fully reflective of the entire homelessness sector in the North East and are inconclusive about the scale (and changing scale) of youth homelessness in the region, they nonetheless draw attention to sizeable groups of vulnerable young people who are both homeless and at risk of homelessness.

Unlike in previous years, where the survey findings have stressed the need to focus attention on those aged 20-24, offenders, care leavers and rough sleepers, this year’s findings highlight the significant proportion of young people falling victim to homelessness who are just 16-17. It is critical that the needs of this group are addressed to help prevent homelessness becoming an experience which dominates their teenage years and early and later adulthood. At the same time, however it is important that we recognise the hard work which has and continues to go into supporting offenders care leavers and rough sleepers to successfully transition from homelessness to independent living. The survey highlights a number of good practice support services in place – particularly for care leavers – and it is vital that these continue despite constraints on mainstream and homelessness-specific services.

Once again, the defining characteristic of the data was the sharp contrast between areas that organisations are able to influence and those that they were not. Over recent years, all local authorities have introduced joint protocols between Housing and Children’s Services, and the large majority judge them to be effective. A number of prevention schemes are in operation and a range of emergency, short-stay and longer-term supported accommodation options for young people appear to be relatively widespread across the region.

However, the findings emphasise the adverse effects of recession, welfare reform and public spending cuts on pathways in and out of homelessness and the capacity of local authorities and homelessness services to respond effectively. The primary causes of youth homelessness in the region suggest high levels of stress within families. Meanwhile, the growing numbers of young people for whom housing is part of a pattern of complex needs is likely to be reflective of the region’s labour market, stricter welfare conditionality, cuts to housing benefit and service closures. Another area largely beyond the control of responding organisations is the supply of suitable housing for young people (particularly those with poor mental health and who exhibit challenging behaviours) and this was frequently identified as a difficulty.

While campaigning for more suitable housing and a more supportive benefit system is something that organisations have been highly pro-active in doing for decades, this data demonstrates that they remain perhaps the most important areas in which to try to influence policy.


References

Centrepoint (2015). Beyond Statutory Homelessness. London: Centrepoint. Centrepoint, Crisis, Homeless Link, Kids Company, Shelter, St Mungo's Broadway, & YMCA. (2015). Access to housing benefit for 18 to 21 year olds. http://www.mungosbroadway.org.uk/documents/6402/6402.pdf. Clarke, A., Burgess, G., Morris, S., & Udagawa, C. (2015). Estimating the scale of youth homelessness in the UK. Cambridge: Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research. Department of Communities and Local Government (2014). Fair Chance Fund: Full bid specification documentation. London: DCLG. Harding, J., Irving, A., & Stretesky, C. (2015). Youth Homeless North East Survey Report. 2015. Newcastle: Youth Homelessness North East/Northumbria University Homeless Link (2015a). Young and Homeless: Annual; Report 2015, London: Homeless Link. Homeless Link (2015b). Support for single homeless people in England: Annual Review 2015. London: Homeless Link. Homes and Communities Agency (2015) Platform for Life: prospectus and supporting information. London: HCA. Irving, A. (2014). Youth Homelessness in the North East, Newcastle: Youth Homelessness North East/Northumbria University. MacInnes, T., Aldridge, H., Bushe, S., Tinson, A., & Born, T. B. (2014). Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2014. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. St. Mungos Broadway (2010). Street to Home: Annual Report. http://www.mungos.org/chain/street_home_annual_reports. Watts, B. Johnsen, S. and Sosenko, F. (2015). Youth Homelessness in the UK: A Review for The OVO Foundation. Institute for Social Policy, Housing, Environment and Real Estate (I-SPHERE), Heriot-Watt University. Youth Homeless North East (2013). Regional Youth Housing Strategy 2013-2014. http://youthhomelessnortheast.org.uk/what-we-do/youth-homeless-strategy/. Youth Homeless North East (2013). Regional Youth Housing Strategy 2013-2014 Action Plan. http://youthhomelessnortheast.org.uk/what-we-do/youth-homeless-strategy/. Youth Homeless North East (2013). Youth Housing Charter. http://youthhomelessnortheast.org.uk/what-we-do/youth-housing-charter/.

http://www.mungos.org/chain/street_home_annual_reports

http://youthhomelessnortheast.org.uk/what-we-do/youth-homeless-strategy/

http://youthhomelessnortheast.org.uk/what-we-do/youth-homeless-strategy/

http://youthhomelessnortheast.org.uk/what-we-do/youth-housing-charter/

For more information:

www.yhne.org.uk

[email protected]

@YouthHomelessNE

facebook.com/YouthHomelessNorthEast

linkedin.com/YouthHomelessNorthEast

http://www.yhne.org.uk/

mailto:[email protected]

youth homelessness in the north east survey report 2016 · youth homelessness in the north east |...

Documents