There have been significant policy developments across the UK to address youth homelessness in recent years, most particularly the extension of priority need groups and a new emphasis on the prevention of homelessness. This study, the first UK-wide review of youth homelessness for a decade, explores whether these changes have been effective in tackling youth homelessness. Data on the scale of homelessness (which is limited to young people who are in contact with services) indicates that at least 75,000 young people experienced homelessness in the UK in 2006–07. More young people were accepted as homeless following the extension of priority need groups in the early 2000s, but numbers have fallen in England and Wales in the last three years.
Young people from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds and/or experiencing disruption or trauma in childhood are at increased risk of homelessness, and a significant minority experienced violence in the parental home. Homelessness can instigate or compound existing mental health and/or drug misuse problems amongst young people. There is a strong association between homelessness and withdrawing from education, employment or training, with a discord evident between the welfare benefit system and employability initiatives. New approaches to homelessness assessment, and services, had been developed in response to the government’s preventative agenda. However, tensions remained about the role and timing of some interventions, and there was scope for further development of earlier ‘pre-crisis’ interventions, including parenting initiatives. Effective prevention also requires the creation of affordable housing pathways for young people. Models of temporary accommodation for young people were well developed, although further clarity was needed as to whether some should be short-term or more ‘transitional’ accommodation. Nonetheless, there remained a lack of suitable emergency accommodation and move-on housing options. Floating support was widely available and appeared successful. Agencies were more effective and coordinated in their approach to meeting the needs of young people aged 16 and 17, and those looked after by the local authority, than a decade ago. However, they regarded young people aged between 18 and 24 as in a comparatively worse position. Overall, agencies considered that policy was moving in the right direction although young people were less positive, pointing to the continuing challenges they faced in securing appropriate and affordable housing.

Weblink

8 May 2008
© Joseph Rowntree Foundation