Causes of Homelessness

Keywords: homelessness coverage, homelessness impact,

Homelessness can significantly impact on the health, welfare and employment potential customers of these unfortunate enough to experience it. The life expectancy of tough sleepers is definitely 42 years. Children residing in temporary or shared lodging include their education disrupted and so are more likely to suffer from behavioural problems (Residence of Commons Committee of Open public Accounts 2005).

Whilst lack of educational achievement is certainly classed as “disadvantage” in the jobs market, people that have no qualifications (who do not have problems with any other type of disadvantage) have a “relatively substantial” rate of employment. On the other hand, where there is further disadvantage such as for example homelessness, element misuse or criminal record these factors combine to depress employment costs. The “client group” strategy has prevailed in targeting specific organizations such as single moms and the disabled, assisting them to move out of welfare dependency. This approach has been less effective regarding clients who suffer from multiple disadvantages (Freud 2007).

In 1998, the afterward Prime Minister pledged to reduce the number of tough sleepers by two-thirds by 2002. A lot of those who’ve made the transition from rough sleeping have done so through the use of hostels as an initial step (Division for Communities and Local Government 2006). Even so, fundamental to the accomplishment of successful outcomes with respect to homelessness is to encourage homeless people into “meaningful activity”, training and in the end employment (Office of the Deputy Primary Minister 2005, Division for Communities and MUNICIPALITY 2006). There is also a recognition that products and services for the disadvantaged should be “joined-up”, which will help out with providing co-ordination to those who face homelessness (Department for Communities and MUNICIPALITY 2003).

Research indicates that there are two approaches apparent as the utmost successful regarding homeless people – the ones that will be “holistic and tailored” (Freud 2007, Butcher et al 2007). Therefore addressing each of the problems faced by the individual including employment, health along with housing. The key benefits associated with this approach happen to be “sustainable outcomes” and “effectiveness in tackling homelessness and multiple wants” (Butcher et al 2007).

However, the homeless face significant issues relating to training and employment. This review seeks to examine the key issues with respect to homeless persons and their ability to access training and occupations. This is fundamental as employment is considered among the primary pathways addressing sociable exclusion and resulting in financial independence (Lownsbrough 2005, Sodha and Grant 2010).


Legally, regulations classes a person as homeless if indeed they do not have the right to occupy any living accommodation, or the accommodation they occupy isn’t suitable or habitable. Many regard homelessness as tough sleeping but this disguises other forms of homelessness such as those living in short-term accommodation, bed & breakfast, hostels etc. (Shelter 2007).

The obligations on localized authorities are included in the Housing Act 1996, that was amended by the Homelessness Work 2002. This areas a duty on regional authorities to house people who fit in the homelessness criteria. However, not everyone defined as “homeless” will be entitled to accommodation. To qualify for housing under the homelessness legislation an applicant must meet eligibility conditions, be legally thought as homeless, maintain priority need rather than have become intentionally homeless. Whilst a person may have a significant housing need, if indeed they do not fulfil the criteria, the local authority does not have a duty to house them (Shelter 2007).

It is complicated to quantify amounts of homeless people due to the level of “hidden homelessness”. You can also get those who encounter “episodes of homelessness” between more stable periods (Shelter 2007). Opinion Innovator Research (2006) discovered that the majority of homeless were in a routine of repeated episodes of homelessness and this was related to debt problems, drug and liquor dependency and the type of hostel accommodation i just.e. “noisy, violent, costly”.

“Daytime homelessness” has also been identified (Jones and Pleace 2005). Originally used in the USA, the word refers to the situation where hostel dwellers happen to be ejected from their lodging during the day so whilst they could have over-night accommodation, the lack of a home throughout the day benefits in “daytime homelessness”.


The factors behind homelessness are various and varied, but generally fall into the categories of “structural factors” (unemployment, poverty, insufficient suitable housing, the extent of legal rights, social trends, benefits issues and policy development including the closure of long-stay establishments) and “personal factors” (drug / alcohol misuse, challenges at university, debts, physical and mental health issues, relatives breakdown, leaving the attention system or military) (Shelter 2007, Butcher et al 2007).

A “spiral” or “chain of events” may possibly also lead to homelessness. An event like a family breakdown contributes to loss of home or family members support, which triggers a reply such as for example substance misuse, loss of self-esteem and determination (Butcher et al 2007).

There are also a number of “risk elements” or indicators that confront the homeless or probably homeless (Jones and Pleace 2005). They are:

“school exclusion and insufficient qualifications; time in local authority good care; multiple needs: combined mental health medication / alcohol problems; contact with the criminal justice system; time in the military; previous experience of homelessness; insufficient a cultural support network; troubles in furnishing or preserving a residence; debts, especially lease or mortgage arrears; triggering nuisance to neighbours (frequently linked to multiple needs)”.


Homelessness is traumatic. Furthermore, many have experienced a trauma top rated homelessness such as home repossession, medicine and alcoholic beverages misuse, domestic violence etc. Homelessness can cause “disempowerment, isolation and poverty”. Homeless persons rely on benefits which in-turn can result in dependency due to the high rents payable in backed housing such as hostels (Shelter 2007). Facts suggests that homeless people will remain in supported housing such as for example hostels for quite a while, impacting on the attempts to re-go into “the mainstream” (Singh 2005).

The reliance on benefits because of the high rents in short-term accommodation has a significant effect on a homeless person’s ability to get a job and move on. As cash flow rises Housing and Gain and Council Tax Profit are lowered. If a homeless person manages to locate a job, they might be no better of as their benefits are reduced consequently. When travel and different costs linked to working is accounted for the homeless person could be no better off (Shelter 2007) – this is examined in greater detail below.

Young homeless people face challenging in the transition to adult lifestyle (Foyer Federation 2001). They face issues such as poverty, insufficient qualifications, relatives encouragement and self-esteem.

Those who had been homeless and the ones providing services have typically referred to a “homelessness traditions” (Crisis 2005), but this was in fact a reference to the most damaging aspect of many homeless people’s ex – way of life i.e. drug and alcohol dependency.

The importance of Life Skills

Many authors possess examined and highlighted the value of life abilities in tackling homelessness and cultural exclusion (Foyer Federation 2001, Section for Communities and Local Government 2003, Parsons and Palmer 2004, Lownsbrough 2005, Lownsbrough et al 2005, Singh 2005, Section for Communities and Local Government 2006, Opinion Leader Exploration 2006, Whitehead 2006, New Economics Foundation 2008, Quilgars et al 2008). However, Jones and Pleace (2005) recommend that research from dating back to the 1980s indicates that there are more complex issues resulting in the risk of homelessness, rather than just a insufficient life abilities. They cite Jones et al (2001) assertion that life skills training is completed with homeless people since it is “accepted practice” rather than because of an evidence base linked to its efficacy.

Employers and the ones in education are paying increasing attention to “skills” instead of just “knowledge”. This relates to how someone might react to a particular situation instead of just how much they know. The work environment is significantly focussed on “key skills”, “learning skills” and “life skills”. This focus has coincided with a similar debate about the acquisition of lifestyle skills to tackle interpersonal exclusion and address welfare reform. Life abilities are recognised as being essential for folks to managing their lives and associations. They are also vital with respect to finding and sustaining employment (Lownsbrough et al 2005).

There is an “underlying assumption” of a correlation between lack of life skills and being component of a socially excluded group. This raises two essential questions; do persons become excluded as a result of poor life skills? Or are life abilities “forgotten” therefore of public exclusion and working with the challenging instances that exclusion throws-up? Whilst there is absolutely no evidence to advise a causal link there is an interaction, this means “families can use generations trying to escape” (from exclusion) (Lownsbrough et al 2005).

Life skills are the activities that relate to daily living such as for example washing, cleaning and owning a household budget alongside the “soft” skills such as communication that allow individuals to create and manage relationships.

Singh (2005) discovered that some homeless people’s lack of life skills meant these were not able to access providers and behavioural “norms” such as for example punctuality were not developed.

Acquiring and maintaining life skills has been found to do something as a “gateway” to more formal training in the same skill, which has ultimately resulted in employment. There are many of illustrations where learning standard cookery abilities have stimulated a pastime in undertaking technical training and subsequent employment in catering (Lownsbrough 2005).

When a person turns into excluded for a specific reason, the problem defines them in world plus they are offered services that aim to alleviate the issue that has caused the exclusion, like the provision of hot foods, clean garments etc. They are afterward offered services that enable them to overcome the exclusion such as for example training, job search etc. Life skills training can provide a vital bridge between these offerings (Lownsbrough et al 2005). Whilst for some, undertaking formal training will eventually bring about independence; others may need to acquire more basis skills for a while. Homeless persons generally need a variety of training from formal education to aid regarding “support services including basic life skills, psychological support, social skills, economic management, basic abilities and job related skills” (Opinion Leader Research 2006).

Meaningful Activity

Lack of inspiration is a common problem among homeless persons (Jones and Pleace 2005, Singh 2005, Centrepoint 2006, OSW 2007, New Economics Foundation 2008). However, taking part in meaningful activity is seen as a means of engaging the socially excluded and disadvantaged in activity that, whilst not actually concerning education, job-search etc, incorporates activities that teach those engaged about teamwork, social expertise etc., which are of help in the jobs market. Activities could be volunteering, art-centered activity (theatre, painting, picture taking) or those involving wellness such as for example Tai Chi. Engaging with the homeless via the utilization of meaningful activity can offer a gateway into more formal training and job search and features been found with an impact on social issues such as for example self-esteem and the capability to form and maintain associations (Jones and Pleace 2005, Department of Creativity, Universities and Skills 2009).

Meaningful activity around arts based projects also has a number of advantages including the possibility to be creative. Furthermore, there happen to be no “entry requirements” or “skills requirements” so participants feel less “exposed” and may progress at their own speed. In addition, it affords the chance of allowing the person to “express and reflect what has got took place to them” (Cameron et al 2003).

Government Policy relating to Work

The government has made good progress in its Welfare to Do the job agenda and the creation of New Offer and Jobcentre plus features been research proposal topics instrumental in reaching this success. However, the government must build on its achievements up to now to ensure that the most disadvantaged in contemporary society are also given opportunities to go from benefits dependency, but this should recognise that they may have special requirements which ought to be addressed in a holistic approach (Freud


As a result of improved economic prosperity, authorities “has transformed job and prospect in Britain. The purpose of full employment issues because work provides the chance for creation, progression and monetary independence (Department for Function and Pensions 2007a).

Government’s intention is to make the circumstances whereby people move from being “spectators to becoming individuals, actively seeking and preparing for work ” (Department for Work and Pensions 2007b). There are five key elements which will be used to attain the aim of full employment:

  • A more robust framework of rights and responsibilities to move benefit claimants from getting passive recipients to being effective jobseekers
  • A personalised and responsive methodology will empower advisers and present heightened discretion to Jobcentre Plus staff
  • Partnership – the general public, non-public and third sectors doing work together on the basis of what works best
  • Targeting regions of large worklessness by devolving and empowering communities
  • Not simply just jobs, but jobs that pay and offer opportunities for progression

There are also strategies to improve support and offer work incentives together with a benefits program that rewards responsibility together with a greater decision over the support that’s provided (Green Paper – Department for Work and Pensions 2008a). The intention is to:

Simplify benefits with the result that you will have two payments, Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) for all those with a state that prevents working and Task Seeker’s Allowance (JSA) for all those actively seeking work.

Ensure that there is a no to “life on benefits”.

Disregard child maintenance payments when calculating entitlement.

The subsequent Light Paper (Department for Do the job and Pensions 2008b) pieces out a program to implement proposals with respect to changing the huge benefits system, improving job search solutions, adding conditionality to rewards entitlement, offering and defining extra support and ending child poverty.

In January 2009, the Welfare Reform Act 2009 translated into statute this policy and discussion records, aiming to improve the employment rate to 80%, end child-poverty, give customized support to job-seekers and place conditionality on rewards entitlements.

There are a quantity of initiatives that will be aimed at helping to move homeless people into work (Crisis 2007). These are:

Pathways to Work: Aimed at supporting those declaring Incapacity Benefit to make the transition into work. That is particularly highly relevant to the homeless as circa 70% of homeless people claim this advantage (Crisis 2007).

The New Offer / Flexible New Deal: Selling counselling and guidance, training and education. In 2004, the initiative was adapted to create it more suitable to the homeless (Department for Do the job and Pensions 2004). On the other hand, as eligibility is restricted to those in receipt of JOB HUNTERS Allowance for at least six consecutive months, this may end up being a barrier to the homeless as their lifestyles generally lead to gaps in claims (Crisis 2007).

Jobcentre Plus: 2006 found the opening of a centre in London specialized in dealing with the homeless and this coincided with a countrywide commitment to prioritise the desires of the homeless (crisis 2007).

“progress2do the job” and the “improvement2work-LinkUP”: These pilot schemes recognise that disadvantaged customers need more time together with specialist interventions from statutory and different agencies to create lasting impact on employment outcomes. The prospective system used to evaluate Jobcentre In addition and others recognises there are some clients that may necessitate specialist, long-term assistance (Department for Function and Pensions 2004). However, there can be concern over the power of the unit to justify its presence over the three-calendar year term before the committed financing runs out (Crisis 2007).

New Offer and Flexible New Package as well as Jobcentre Plus have got proved successful – assisting circa 90% back into work within twelve months. Before the recession Work Seeker’s Allowance claim amounts were the lowest for thirty years. Unemployment amounts during the recession had been at lower rates than predicted by the government (Sodha and Grant 2010).

Whilst the “welfare-to-work” program has undoubtedly had assisted in creating a populace of “more competent, educated and active”, the homeless continue steadily to face exclusion and operate the risk of suffering more drawback (Sodha and Grant 2010).

Homelessness and Work

In 1986 83% of homeless persons were in some type of paid employment but by 2005 this amount had dropped to 5% and by 2007 only 4% were in do the job (St Mungo’s 2005 and 2007). Singh (2005) discovered that 77% of these surveyed wanted to operate. 97% of hostel residents wish to work (St Mungo’s 2007) and a 2010 study executed by St Mungo’s revealed that “80% agreed with the assertion one of my goals is usually to return back to work”. Research features reliably indicated that rates of employment among little homeless persons are very low and that they face a blend of significant barriers that impact on their educational achievement and employment potential (Centrepoint 2006).

” worklessness lies at the root of deprivation” (Meadows 2008). Employment is one of the “primary routes” toward addressing interpersonal exclusion and reaching independence, both socially and financially (Lownsbrough 2005, Sodha and Grant 2010). However, “financial rewards” are not the singular determination for the homeless wanting to find do the job (New Economics Foundation 2008).


Homeless people face a variety of concerns, which form barriers with their progression from benefits into training, function and independence. These barriers are “person-related” and “systemic” or “structural”.

Person-related barriers include:

  • Lack of expertise (including life-skills) and / or qualifications
  • Low motivation
  • Lack of assurance and self-esteem
  • Poor job search skills
  • Lack of work experience
  • Health, both physical and mental
  • Addictions
  • Cultural / language barriers
  • Fear of modification and the unknown
  • Low respect for / mistrust of “authority”
  • Criminal record
  • The structural / systematic barriers include:
  • Living in concentrations of worklessness
  • Living in social housing / hostels and the stigma attached
  • Poor local transport
  • Limited local job opportunities
  • High price of hostel rents
  • Poor monetary incentives and the “benefits trap”
  • Lack of ongoing support
  • Discrimination

(Parsons and Palmer 2004, Jones & Pleace 2005, Lownsbrough 2005, Singh 2005, Centrpoint 2006, Opinion Innovator Exploration 2006, Butcher et al 2007, New Economic Base 2008, Sodha & Grant 2010, Business Actions on Homelessness 2009)

37% of homeless people haven’t any formal qualifications whilst 13% contain Level 3 qualifications (a lot more than 1 AN EVEN) or above. This comes even close to just fewer than 50% of the general population (New Economic Foundation 2008).

In addition, many suffer barriers associated with “competing issues” (Singh 2005, Jones & Pleace 2005). Competing issues arise where a pressing need such as for example dealing with dependency prevents the person addressing the issue of finding work. Singh (2005) cites “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Requirements” model, which implies that fundamental needs such as for example finding a home take on precedence in the hierarchy over, for instance, addressing concerns around self-esteem.

“Lower level” barriers involve insufficient suitable clothing to wait an interview, inadequate usage of a telephone or computer and the lack of somewhere appropriate to complete an application (Parsons and Palmer 2005, Singh 2005).

Pathway to Employment

The “traditional” pathway to employment model employed by the homelessness sector is normally a three-stage process where the first “engagement” stage can be centred on addressing the issues that resulted in homelessness such as for example treatment for chemical misuse. In the second stage of “pre-work support” the procedure is about wanting to get clients work-ready and can include volunteering, job-search, training, work placements etc, which will hopefully result in employment offer. The last stage involves “in-work support” that may take the type of job-coaching and at-work training (New Economics Foundation 2008).

However, a revised style should be used that more easily reflects the voyage into work (New Economics Foundation 2008). The new model highlights the need for “intensive support” through the 1st twelve weeks of job, as this is actually the period when homeless persons “struggle financially, emotionally and practically”. The model is founded on four key stages i actually.e. “Engagement, Pre-do the job support, Settling into function, Sustainable employment”. Whilst this latest unit represents a “linear” way to employment it may must be modified to reflect the reality a person with excessive support demands may drop out at any stage. Therefore if a person drops out at the “Settling into work” phase, this may result in further work on the “Pre-work” and even “Engagement” phases (New Economics Foundation 2008).

Butcher et al (2007) reported a seven-stage “voyage to employability” comprising “engagement, needs assessment, individual actions system, support, and labour marketplace preparation, in job support, sustainable employment”. This content of the seven-stage route shares various similarities with the revised style above. Fothergill (2008) develops the version to create “The Right Deal for Homeless People” to show a “holistic” and “co-ordinated” selection of support to assist the homeless into do the job and independence.

Meadows (2008) indicated that homeless people come from a variety of backgrounds with diverse needs associated with education, health and wellbeing (both physical and mental), connection with the justice program etc. The most efficient interventions regarding homeless people and their pathway to career are the ones that address the necessities of the individual, which might require interventions via referrals to specialist agencies.

As a result of the Places of Change programme (Section of Communities and MUNICIPALITY 2006), St Mungo’s instituted a five-stage “Pathways to Employment” programme, you start with an “Occupational Wellbeing Check” which in turn proceeds with activities such as basic skills training, vocational advice, long-term meaningful activity, exterior accredited training, job search, coaching and end with in-work support. Clients are also provided with suitable clothing to attend interviews. (St Mungo’s 2007). Evaluation of this programme noted the job ” having a significant effect on participants lives. The quest towards raising independence and job has started for participating clients.” The programme can perform significant outcomes but interpretation of outcomes must recognise the improvement that clients can realistically help to make (Sodha and Grant 2010).

The “Ready for Function” programme under the auspices of Business Action on Homelessness (BAOH) targets those that may be ready for work but lack skills, self-confidence or will be long-term unemployed. In a two-week do the job placement they are allocated a “buddy”, together with support from BAOH qualified staff for six months following the placement. Since its inception 2000 out of 5000 people have found do the job and of the individuals 38% continue to regular work. 500 businesses are involved and they article the “valuable contribution” that the homeless could make” (Sodha and Grant 2010).

There is scope to employ homeless persons in the homelessness discipline (Ireland 2010). Circa 20% of the personnel within Thames Reach, Tyneside Cyrenians and P3 are former services users. There are 17,000 used in the sector and if all organisations used “service users” at this 20% rate, this would realise some 3,400 positions case study method definition. Although there is absolutely no single pathway unit, the similarities of each organisations approach certainly are a lead from senior supervision, incorporating the version into business arranging and ensuring personnel buy-in. Personnel who are former assistance users display a “high level of commitment” to the job, other service users and so are able to use their experience to gain their case-load. There are a variety of rewards in employing provider users:

  • Beneficial impact on culture
  • Credibility and affect with policy makers
  • Adding value to support delivery therefore of the knowledge of staff (Ireland 2010)

Sustaining employment can be a particular issue with respect to the homeless and reasons for not being able to sustain work include transport, “not being mentally all set” and difficulties with integration into the workforce. This reinforces the necessity for tailored “one-to-one” support during the first stages of employment (Singh 2005, Sodha and Grant 2010).

In addition to facing problems “fitting in” (Business Actions on Homelessness 2009) in the initial stages of career, there are other concerns that may prove significant in deciding whether a homeless person can sustain the new job. They are “poor economical planning”, which pertains to the transition from benefits, particularly where in fact the person’s income is price neutral or where they are only slightly better off, “the result of temporary, casual contracts” as the benefits system is not ready to address this sort of do the job and “social isolation” especially where the transfer to employment is along with a move from a hostel into even more permanent accommodation, leading to less or no contact with existing social networks.

Barriers to

sustaining employment likewise incorporate drug / alcohol dependency, “emotional” problems, especially during tense or demanding periods and the likelihood was that the work would be low skilled and low-paid resulting in little job satisfaction (Opinion Innovator Research 2006).

Meadows (2008) as well highlighted the need to work with fresh homeless and disadvantaged persons to build up a “work-focussed” lifestyle can help in tackling the areas of disadvantage.

Benefits System

Generally known as the “benefits trap”, this situation occurs when the decrease in benefits because of this of having employment means that the individual can be marginally, or no better off. When questioned, nevertheless 56% of homeless specific stated they would have a job in these situations whilst 21% would take other issues into consideration before coming to a decision (Singh 2005).

Many people find that they are no better off in do the job:

Taking into account the costs of work (travelling or work-related clothing, for instance) a JSA claimant older than 25 faces a “participation tax rate” exceeding 100% for the majority of the first 20 hours of work (and just below 100% for the time after. Consequently, the individual gains only £29.06 after 40 time of job (Sodha and Grant 2010).

Caseworkers, clients and authorities in the field of homelessness discover that the tax and benefits system is confusing. The benefits system plays a fundamental role in the transition from benefits dependency into work, but the perception is that the system operates as a “bureaucratic function” that militates against “support into work”. These difficulties cause people not claiming entitlements, particularly with respect to in-work, benefits and tapering payments. There is also the concern among claimants that benefits entitlements have been calculated incorrectly, resulting in claw-back at a later date. The system of Working Tax credits has also resulted in some becoming worse off after carrying out a recalculation of entitlement after 12 months in function (New Economics Foundation 2008).

Bearing in mind that lots of homeless people already are with debt, poor transitional arrangements led to many dealing with more debts, thereby increasing the likelihood of a further episode of homelessness. This difficult knowledge in getting into work reduces the motivation to “try once again” (New Economics Foundation 2008). Difficult benefits to work transitions can bring about a four-week period between rewards concluding and the arrival of the first pay-slip (Sodha and Grant 2010).

Workless people are not “well informed” about the availability of Working Tax Credit, Casing Benefit, Childcare Tax Credit rating and additional kinds of support. The complicated inter-relationships of these benefits as well as family circumstances, earnings and location imply that the system includes a limited role to enjoy in encouraging the changeover to work (Meadows 2008, Sodha and Grant 2010, Business Action on Homelessness 2009).

There is also a notion amongst homeless people that working will not make them better off, specifically as the careers they could apply for are low skilled and low paid. There is also facts that pressure from federal government agencies to take do the job has driven various to forego benefits in favour of begging or in your free time informal work (Opinion Leader Research 2006).

The system of benefits is “poorly structured”, especially with respect to sign-on times so there is proof those on “Prepared to Work” placements having to take days off in order to avoid loosing benefits payments. The complex characteristics of Housing Gain recalculations makes it problematic for those on variable hours or short-term contracts (Organization Action on Homelessness 2009).

Attitudes of Employers

In a survey of fifteen employers, all thought that “industrial and non-commercial” companies had a duty to greatly help socially disadvantaged people including the homeless. Companies consider that “Corporate Sociable Responsibility” at a local level is specially important as it affords them the chance of “putting something back again”. Although most companies had recruitment plans, they tended to be influenced by equivalent opportunities legislation rather than addressing the demands of disadvantaged groups like the homeless (Singh 2005).

Involving employers can be complex as they are “likely to be resistant to anything that is time consuming and does not have clear outcomes”. However, very good relationships with employers provides opportunities for do the job placements and the potential with an effect on recruitment policies (Meadows 2008).

Of those organisations that presented job placements to homeless persons, they suggested several benefits to the organisation:

  • Improved understanding of the problems.
  • Challenge to existing policies within the organisation.
  • Utilisation of “untapped abilities”.
  • Seeing first hand someone “reclaiming their lives, dignity and self-respect”.
  • The negative factors were reported as:
  • Some individuals not being “work-ready”.

Although some displayed attributes such as time-keeping and good attitude, they lacked the “relevant skills” for the position so as a result, “struggled to deal”.

Workplace behavioural norms such as for example punctuality were without some individuals (Singh 2005).

A survey by Nacro associated with recruiter’s attitudes discovered that three quarters rated overall look, education and references as significant. OSWs data source indicates that only over 25 % of homeless people possessed no relevant qualifications. It also unlikely that homeless people would have direct access to references or ideal clothing (Singh 2005).

The perception between homeless people is that employers will discriminate against them due to their homelessness (Lownsbrough 2005, Singh 2005, Opinion Leader Research 2006)

The Cost of Homelessness and Unemployment

In addition to the personal cost that homelessness is wearing the person, there are a number of financial costs including failed tenancies, habit and other medical issues resulting in increased connection with the NHS, involvement with the criminal justice system together with long-term benefits statements and reduced economical activity (Homeless Link 2010).

Total Spending

In 2005 it had been estimated that government spent £1 billion on homelessness. This linked to direct costs such as support and accommodation but excluded indirect costs such as for example health (Homeless Link 2010).

In 2009, government investigated the financial great things about the “Supporting People” programme and reported net personal benefits associated with £3.41 billion on an overall purchase of £1.61 billion. The costs included indirect costs including health, social products and services etc (Homeless Link 2010).

Sodha and Grant (2010) cite research carried out by St Mungo’s in 2007, that was able to demonstrate that by assisting 125 homeless people into sustainable function can produce savings of £5.6 million i just.e. £45,000 per person each year.

Spend per Person

A number of studies have attemptedto assess the net cost to the exchequer of homelessness. Nevertheless, the estimation methods fall behind different sectors such as for example health. Research address the direct costs of agencies offering additional companies to the homeless such as day centre services, drug rehabilitation, criminal justice, short-term accommodation etc. Three studies were completed in 2003, 2008 and 2009. The gross annual costs per person annually were £24,500, £26,000 and £24,350 respectively (Homeless Link 2010).

Cost Benefit Analysis

In common with estimating the spend per person, the methodology for estimating the expenses and great things about homelessness and work assignments falls behind areas such as transport and wellness. Homeless Website link (2010) cite many studies, which have found that:

OSW’s four-year Transitional Places Project produced a keeping of £2,840 per person after task costs.

The Emmaus Community model of accommodation with attached community enterprise where “companions” were used, saved the exchequer £31,000 per person.

OSW calculated that it cost £29,000 to accommodate an unemployed person in a hostel. If see your face have been in work, the saving could have been £27,000. yearly.

The Tyneside Cyrenians’ Self Build Task employed unemployed homeless people to re-build a hostel. In the five years prior, costs to the exchequer relating to the participants were £513,779. The reduction in offending, improvement in health and reduced addictions offered a saving of 89% following training, support and employment.

With respect to employing assistance users, Thames Reach discovered that the cost of the training programme was £23,000 but this was offset by a decrease in services delivery costs of £88,000 per annum and a decrease in recruitment costs of £6,000 (Ireland 2010).

Conclusion and Recommendations

A review of the literature features indicated that homeless persons are just about the most disadvantaged groups in world. Not only do they face disadvantage from not having a permanent home, in addition they face problems associated with health, skill levels and education, cultural exclusion and unemployment.

Evidence suggests that among the key pathways to handle social exclusion is normally by obtaining paid work. However, many persons face numerous barriers that prevent them moving into work.

Due to the different range of needs, homeless people may need to access a range of offerings before they are “do the job ready” (Singh 2005). The key to supporting the homeless into employment should be the acknowledgement that they face numerous barriers including “too little basic skills, a lack of self-self confidence, poor physical and mental wellbeing” and “lack of access to adequate casing” (Sodha and Grant 2010).

Therefore, authorities that commission back again to work programmes need to recognise this rather than be driven by “really difficult outcomes” (Singh 2005, Sodha and Grant 2010). Homeless persons should be allowed to be a part of voluntary “welfare to work” schemes without the risk of benefits withdrawal (Business Action on Homelessness 2009).

The current program of “welfare to work” needs to recognise that homeless persons are a “long distance” from do the job and need extensive support to help ease the transition into function. A two-step methodology should recognise:

The need to furnish support for homeless persons to achieve basic life skills

Only when these abilities have already been achieved can further job skills training, job search, function placements etc be undertaken

Many homeless people are not receiving the holistic services that they might need so it is recommended that benefits claimants receive a “basic capability evaluation” to ascertain whether they are “job ready”. Persons not meeting this evaluation will be referred to a consultant to commission the support that they need. In this way, clients needing “intensive support” would acquire it before shifting to the Flexible New Deal (Sodha and Grant 2010).

The homelessness sector must build romantic relationships with the personal sector. This will this address the stigma that presently exists and could help to remove the discrimination against homeless people (Singh 2005). Furthermore, companies should offer flexible salary arrangements for latest starters together with “work buddies” to aid homeless people within their first weeks at the job (Business Action on Homelessness 2009).

There also needs to be recognition of the risk that companies ingest employing a homeless person with a “mixed background”. The 3rd sector can work with the exclusive sector to address these worries. A dedicated fund could be primarily endowed by large firms, subsequently “topped up” by beneficiaries. The fund would provide you with insurance to go over any losses to a provider in having a homeless person (Lownsbrough 2005).

Many homeless people recognise the value of a job but are caught in a “peculiar paradox” i.e. they have to address the most pressing issue within their lives (finding a house) before thinking about employment (Singh 2005).

The high price of rents in temporary accommodation and the reliance on housing benefit to pay for the rent ensures that many homeless people cannot afford to consider up work. Financing mechanisms for hostel accommodation should be restructured so that the individual pays less, assisting the changeover into do the job. The administration of Casing Benefit should be improved. “Vulnerable people should not be made even more vulnerable due to fears about Housing Benefit” (Singh 2005).

Reforms to the tax and benefit system must make the advantages of working clear. The “earnings disregard” is currently £5 for an individual. This should be increased to £60 to provide a real incentive to sustain a job (Sodha and Grant 2010).

On the basis that every “ready to job” homeless person costs the exchequer £26,000 in benefits obligations, there is an economic argument to consider introducing a financial incentive to encourage persons into work. A repayment of £20,000 which would taper over a four yr period has the potential to attain a saving of £1.7 billion over a for time period (Business Action on Homelessness 2009).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *