Receive email updates
24-hour Helpline0800 567 7699
Slipping through the net: Homeless people in Kent
Published: 27 January 2010
Produced by: School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent. Commissioned by Porchlight.
Images: Some images courtesy of Tim Stubbings Photography www.timstubbings.co.uk
Executive Summary:
1. The aim of the present study is to present a picture of homeless provision for single
people in Kent (and Medway). It is based on 91 interviews with local authorities,
prison and probation services, addiction and mental health units, agencies providing
housing and services, and single homeless people.
2. The number of households accepted as homeless and in priority need by councils
in Kent and Medway fell from 2982 in 2002/3 to 1159 in 2008/9; 44% of those who
applied in 2008/9 were rejected. There is no total for the number approaching
agencies directly, but one estimate is that agencies are housing three times as many
homeless people as councils.
3. The provision of housing for homeless people via councils and agencies is best
understood as a ‘non-system’. Council provision is variable and leads to some
homeless people having to leave their home areas to find housing. The level, type
and location of agency provision is in the hands of the agencies. There is no overall
strategy within Kent to match supply with demand. The result is patchy provision
across the area. Homeless people with complex needs are very badly served.
4. Service users, who were mostly from Kent, had had a mixed experience with
agencies from very good to very poor. Their experience of councils had been worse.
They had often had the experience of being pushed from ‘pillar to post’. Most were
positive about their future.
5. Councils varied in their level of provision and conversely in their diversion of
homeless people to neighbouring councils; all expressed the need for more hostel
accommodation for young homeless people. What is not clear is the level of
knowledge of homeless people about council eligibility rules and access to agency
hostels.
6. Most drug agencies, prisons and psychiatric hospitals gave a high priority to placing
service users and senior staff spend a lot of time on this. They had a mixed experience
with councils.
7. One third of agencies providing housing had experienced an increase in demand
from homeless under- 25s in the previous year. A few had vacancies. 58% felt they
were meeting the needs of the groups they worked with. 65% took 70% or more
of their residents by referral. 48% faced strong financial constraints and 37% faced
strong capacity constraints. 86% had good relations with other agencies, whereas
only 46% said they had good relations with councils.
8. The fragmentation of the provision and lack of a strategic approach needs to be
addressed. This could involve agencies and/or Supporting People. There is scope
for learning among the different parts of the area. This could be supported by
research on innovative policies such as single assessment of all homeless people
in a district, the rent deposit scheme, choice-based letting and how homeless
people negotiate the non-system of provision.
Download
Slipping through the net: Homeless people in Kent (PDF 1.32MB – opens in new window)
Website by Grow
