How Housing First for the homeless could end rough-sleeping
On a recent visit to a Housing First centre, a shelter with no strings attached, Torbitt discussed its warm, welcoming atmosphere with a resident. 'It's like a family,' the man said.
Both men understood the importance of getting a home without preconditions — a right denied to thousands who are sleeping rough.
• Read more expert advice on property, interiors and home improvement
Since the pandemic, rough-sleeping rates have doubled, and continue to rise. In February Florence Eshalomi, the chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government committee, called the trend a national shame. Yet despite lamenting the 'all-too-common sight' of rough sleeping in its election manifesto, the government has done little, and its promised homelessness strategy is missing in action.
The most puzzling aspect of the government's inaction is the notion that we don't know how to solve this. We do.
Housing First is a tried-and-tested policy that flips traditional homelessness strategies on their head. Rather than require people to prove they are sober or employed before they are given shelter, Housing First finds them a tenancy with no strings attached. This is no charity. Recipients pay rent through wages or benefits, while support staff with manageable caseloads tailor assistance to individual requests. Their home is permanent, and recipients aren't shuffled through temporary housing bureaucracies.
The results are stupendous. In pilot programmes in England the proportion of recipients without long-term accommodation fell from 86 per cent to 8 per cent, and those sleeping rough fell to zero. There were mental and physical health improvements, and contact with the criminal justice system fell — both as victims and offenders. I covered these benefits in detail last year.
The success isn't limited to England. Scotland's Housing First programme maintained 80 per cent of tenancies after two years and had similar positive side effects. Finland, an early pioneer in providing shelter with no preconditions, has reduced long-term homelessness by 72 per cent. Similar successes have been recorded in the US, Canada, Norway and Denmark.
• My council left me and my child homeless
But for the cash-strapped Treasury, the most persuasive argument could be financial. Councils spent £2.3 billion on temporary accommodation last year, double the amount in 2020, with costs expected to double again by 2027. Add in £3.1 billion in homelessness-related costs, including healthcare and crime, and Britain's most visible injustice also becomes a financial quagmire.
Analysis from the Social Market Foundation uses real-world data from England's pilot schemes. We estimate that housing 9,300 people — the peak last autumn — through Housing First would cost £72 million. That is probably an overestimate, since not everyone needs such support, but the costs are outweighed by the returns. An estimated £147 million in savings would be generated through improved wellbeing and reduced pressure on services.
Housing First would cost no more than £43 million a year and would yield at least £66 million in savings; that means the government wasting less taxpayer money on inefficient services, while providing a home for those at the sharpest end of the housing crisis.
However, dedicated funding is scarce. The money earmarked for Housing First is bundled up in a broader pot covering support for accommodation, prison leavers, immigration and training. This dilutes the resources needed to hire staff or secure tenancies — the foundation of a Housing First strategy.
Both Matthew Torbitt and the man he spoke to found safety and dignity in a simple premise: housing without preconditions. The question is why others aren't being offered the same.
Gideon Salutin is a senior researcher at the Social Market Foundation think tank
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
16 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump says US is close to reaching a trade deal with China
TURNBERRY, Scotland, July 27 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Sunday his administration was close to reaching a trade deal with China, but gave no other details. "We're very close to a deal with China. We really sort of made a deal with China, but we'll see how that goes," Trump told reporters at the start of a meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland.
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on talking in class: the writers speaking up for oracy education are right
Two years ago, Sir Keir Starmer enthused about teaching speaking skills. So schools campaigners were understandably dismayed when oracy – otherwise known as speaking and listening – did not appear in the interim report of the curriculum review for England headed by Prof Becky Francis. Peter Hyman, the former New Labour adviser who became a headteacher, has been a key figure behind the revival, over the past decade, of an idea developed in the 1960s. Steps to embed the importance of verbal communication in education have already been taken, with more than 1,000 schools working with the charity Voice 21, and a parallel project in Scotland. The hope expressed by children's authors and others last week is that its absence from the draft report was an oversight which will soon be rectified. The task before Prof Francis's commission is a daunting one, with reformers of all kinds looking to it for solutions. An evidence call attracted 7,000 responses, with the future of special educational needs provision, and a wish to reduce exams, among key issues raised. But it should be clear to the panel, and to ministers, that oral learning also matters. One reason is the rising number of children arriving in primary school with speech and language skills below the expected level. While some pupils catch up later, others need specialist help. Communication difficulties are one reason for the increase in the number of education, health and care plans (EHCPs), which set out what such support entails. The reasons for such complex changes are not yet fully understood, although the pandemic has had an impact. The challenge of artificial intelligence, in relation to university studies as well as schools, is another factor behind a renewed emphasis on talking. Given the easy availability of technological tools to aid writing, it is arguably more important than ever that people are equipped to share ideas and knowledge through speech as well. In many European countries oral examinations are far more common, in schools as well as universities, whereas in the UK 'vivas' are mostly reserved for postgraduate studies. In foreign language learning, the importance of speaking is taken for granted. But while oracy already features in the maths and science curriculum, as well as in English, it is often marginalised. The tricky task of reformers is to alter teaching practice so that more weight is placed on verbal communication, without making this yet another assessment hurdle to be cleared. For its champions, the core of oracy education is the ability to make connections. They want young people to be able to express themselves, and point out that this is a vital life skill – for example, in job interviews and the kinds of public‑facing work that seem least likely to be taken over by machines – for which school should prepare them. Big gaps in confidence about public speaking have long been recognised among the most glaring social inequalities. This doesn't mean that everyone should aspire to be a debating champion. Different accents, personalities and ways of relating should be valued, not ironed out. But if our schools are to keep pace with our frenetically changing world, it is surely right that they should maximise the facility for language, which is part of what makes us human.
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Remembering victims of historical injustice
Campaigners are right to say that the miners' strike, which saw the violent repression of strikers at Orgreave in 1984, remains an enduring source of injustice (Government launches Orgreave inquiry, 40 years after clashes at miners' strike, 20 July). And Pete Wilcox, the bishop of Sheffield, who is to chair the Orgreave inquiry, is right to recognise that the acknowledgment of truth is essential for long-term community healing. Sadly, Orgreave is not the only example of where truth and justice have been forsaken when excessive violence has been used against people on strike. Two hundred years ago, on 3 August 1825, six people were seriously wounded and seven killed by soldiers at North Sands, Sunderland, during the 1825 seamen's strike. The killings were met with anger and outrage, with many local people believing that those who died had been wilfully murdered. Soldiers had fired like target practice into a crowd of 100 from a boat on the River Wear. The threat posed by the crowd, made up of a combination of women, children, strikers, workers and bystanders, was greatly exaggerated. The only inquiries were two short inquests into just two of the seven deaths. At the time, the killings were reported in national newspapers and were undoubtedly one of the most significant events of 1825. What happened at Sunderland is not so different from that six years earlier at Peterloo, on 16 August 1819, yet knowledge and awareness of these two massacres are vastly different. The Sunderland seafarers' union, the Seamen's Loyal Standard Association, stated that 3 August 1825 should 'ever be remembered', but over time, the North Sands Massacre has been virtually forgotten. The denial of truth and justice at Orgreave is unfortunately just one of several incidents where those policing industrial action have used unnecessary violence and then placed the blame on their victims. All victims of historical injustice should be remembered and their communities allowed to David Gordon ScottThe Open University Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
