Presentation given by Nicholas Pleace and Deborah Quilgars, Centre for Housing Policy, University of York, UK at a FEANTSA Research Conference on "Homelessness and Poverty", Paris, France, 2009

1. Homelessness and Social
Exclusion in England
Poverty, social exclusion and family
and youth homelessness
Nicholas Pleace and Deborah Quilgars

2. Disclaimer
• Based on UK government funded
research
• The views expressed in this presentation
are not necessarily those of the
Department for Communities and Local
Government or any other government
department.

3. English concept of social exclusion
• Social exclusion as an idea arrived relatively late
in England
• New Labour late 1990s
• Focused on paid work as the main route out of
poverty
• And out of social exclusion
• Because ‘social exclusion’ is defined in large
part as worklessness and the consequences of
worklessness

4. Relationship to homelessness
• “Shallow” or “structural” exclusion
– There might be educational disadvantage, poor
childhood experiences, location in a ‘zone of
worklessness’, poor housing or homelessness
– But this population can work, can secure and
maintain housing, if reasonably paid work and
adequate and affordable housing are available
– Homeless families are most commonly
associated with this more form of ‘structural’
exclusion

5. Relationship to homelessness
• Chronic or deep exclusion
– “Mutually reinforcing” sets of needs and experiences
substance misuse, severe mental illness, offending,
anti-social behaviour, sustained worklessness,
homelessness, very negative childhood experiences
and social and emotional isolation
– Associated with people on the street, in emergency
and supported homelessness accommodation, mainly
lone men
– Concern that young can enter this population and be
‘dragged down’ by it
– They are homeless because they cannot work,
cannot live independently

6. Most support needs
Least support needs

7. Different kinds of homelessness?
• Small group of multiply excluded people who
are a “high cost, high risk” population (top of
the pyramid)
• A bigger structurally excluded population
(bottom of the pyramid)
• A group of individuals and households that
are between these two extremes
– Street homeless people who are on the street for
‘structural’ reasons and will not remain there
– Families whose homelessness is caused by
substance misuse and other support needs

8. Exploring some recent evidence
• Major surveys of households assisted under the
homelessness legislation conducted in 2005
• Focused on families and young people aged 16-17
• Does not include all homelessness, but a big
enough and diverse enough sample to explore
these ideas
• Young people should be closer to ‘high cost, high
risk’, families should reflect structural exclusion
with lower support needs, if these ideas are right

9. English statutory definition of
homelessness
• English definition of ‘Homelessness’ is
close to the ETHOS definition of
homelessness and housing exclusion
• Not just literal rooflessness
• Also includes households that have no
accommodation they can reasonably
occupy
• Definition is derived from legislation
originally passed in 1977

10. About the sample
• Focused on people accepted for re-housing under
the English legislation
• Be eligible for assistance (asylum seekers and
some A8 citizens are ineligible)
• Be ‘homeless’ under the terms of the legislation
• Be in priority need (have support needs, be at
risk of violence, contain a child and/or a pregnant
woman, or be aged 16-17)
• Not be intentionally homeless
• Usually demonstrate a local connection
(excepting cases of domestic violence)

11. The surveys
• Adults in homeless families accepted for
re-housing in a six month window (first six
months of 2005), 2,053 respondents
• Young people aged 16-17 accepted for re-
housing in the first six months of 2005,
350 respondents

12. Characteristics of families
• Highly gendered
• Young women with young children
• Over-representation of ethnic minority
groups
• Over-representation of former asylum
seekers and refugees

16. 11% of all families had
sought asylum in the UK
mainly concentrated in
London
Cannot access system if
a current or failed asylum
seeker

17. Experience of social exclusion:
Worklessness
• Limited evidence that homelessness was
associated with losing work
• But most workless prior to homelessness
• Low incomes, high rates of dependence
on welfare benefits

20. Experience of social exclusion:
Negative childhood experiences
• 45% experienced divorce as a child
• One third (33%) reported missing a lot of
school as a child
• One quarter excluded from school (24%)
• One quarter experienced violence
between their parents (24%)

22. Negative experiences as an adult
• High rates of depression, anxiety and
stress – over one half of respondents
• 41% reported being in a violent
relationship at some point – as the abused
person
• One third had been on welfare benefits for
most of their adult life

24. But not “deeply” excluded?
• Some educational attainment
• Some paid work (29% of households)
• Good social supports
• Indicators of chronic exclusion not
common
– Severe mental illness
– Substance misuse
– Offending
– Anti-social behaviour

29. Causation
• Relationship breakdown a major cause
– One partner leaves, there is not enough income to
cover rent or mortgage and homelessness results
– Male violence and abuse towards women and/or
children a major cause of relationship breakdown
• Loss of affordable tenancy
• Lost housing and/or experienced relationship
breakdown, stayed with family or friends, but that
arrangement broke down
• Substance misuse, mental health problems,
chaotic behaviour not evident as causes

31. Trying to avoid homelessness
• Evidence of agency
• Tried to make alternative arrangements
• Quite often only approached a local
authority for help with informal
relationships with family or friends broke
down

33. Young people aged 16-17
• Mainly lone persons
• 49% lone young women
• 37% lone young men
• 82% White or White British origin

34. Differences with homeless families
• More likely to have had negative childhood experiences
– Parental divorce
– Disruption to education
– Running away, abuse, violence
• More likely to have childhood experiences of substance
misuse
• Mental health problems comparable with adults in homeless
families but almost three times the level found in general
population of 16-17 year-olds
• Evidence of mutually reinforcing relationship between
substance misuse and mental health problems
• Social supports broadly good though, like homeless families
(85% had someone to listen to them, 80% had someone to
help out in a crisis)

36. Worklessness
• Much less likely than general population of
16-17 year-olds to be in education or
training
• More ‘workless’ than the homeless
families
• 57% were not in education, training or
paid work
• 34% had ceased education or training
when they became homeless

38. Causes of homelessness
• Relationship breakdown predominates
– Mainly with parent(s)
– Also break down of informal short term housing
with friends or relatives
• Also evidence of short term arrangements
with other family and friends breaking down
• Mental health problems, offending, substance
misuse and anti-social behaviour not
widespread

40. Different ‘types’ of homelessness?
• Does appear to be evidence of ‘deeper’ social
exclusion in some respects among young people
• And a more ‘shallow’ exclusion among homeless
families
• But these are broad patterns, the evidence does not fit
neatly into tidy paradigms of homelessness types
• Poverty is the only thing approaching a constant in all
of this
• The idea of ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ forms of social
exclusion being associated with different ‘types’ of
homelessness is probably too simplistic
• Patterns are complex

41. Limitations
• There are conceptual difficulties
• ‘Social exclusion’ and ‘homelessness’ are
broad taxonomies built by political ideology,
policy, research definitions and administrative
processes in the UK
• Looking for relationships between these two
taxonomies may be an over simplistic
comparison of broad paradigms rather than
an examination of a more complex reality

42. Lessons 1
• If we acknowledge issues are in some senses
“structural”, i.e. there aren’t enough jobs that pay
enough and there aren’t enough adequate and
affordable homes
• We also acknowledge that – while valuable –
interventions centred on individual support needs
therefore have limits
• Mutually reinforcing relationship between
substance misuse, severe mental illness,
offending and anti-social behaviour and
homelessness also cannot be addressed using
services to counter ‘shallow’ homelessness

43. Lessons 2
• Addressing homelessness should not be
seen as necessarily addressing all aspects of
social exclusion
• Something that is evident from these
research results is a continuity of widespread
poverty
• Families and young people are poor and
marginalised before they become homeless
• They don’t ‘fall from grace’ into
homelessness, rather it is a bad bump on a
road they should not be on to begin with

44. Next steps for research
• Would more data (including longitudinal data,
a real gap in UK) reveal clearer causation?
• Or would seemingly apparent patterns
unravel the more we learned? Are the
‘patterns’ only there because our data are not
fine grained enough?
• The answer may lie in part in international
comparison, which is not straightforward, but
may reveal (or not reveal) ‘universal’ risk
factors

45. The report and contact details
• Full report (PDF):
• www.york.ac.uk/chp/
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/chp/publications/PDF/familyhomelessness.pdf
• Nicholas Pleace, Senior Research Fellow
np3@york.ac.uk
• Deborah Quilgars, Senior Research
Fellow djq1@york.ac.uk