Homelessness: A Growing Crisis and the Role of Housing Associations

As homelessness in the United Kingdom continues its relentless rise, reaching over 350,000, the pressing question remains: why are housing associations (HAs), the wealthiest players in the housing sector, doing so little to stem this tide? With millions of pounds flowing into their coffers annually, housing associations have the financial muscle to make a significant impact. Yet, their contributions to addressing homelessness seem conspicuously limited.

HAs have long been a cornerstone of social and affordable housing, managing extensive property portfolios and collecting substantial rental incomes from their tenants. These funds are intended for the maintenance and expansion of housing stock, ensuring that affordable housing remains available to those who need it most. However, a closer examination reveals that the priorities of these associations have shifted over time.

The increasing pressure to operate with a business-like efficiency has led housing associations to focus on financial sustainability and growth. This often translates into prioritising developments aimed at middle-income earners, rather than expanding affordable housing options for the homeless. The desire to generate surplus income has overshadowed the social mission that once defined these organisations.

Tightened regulatory constraints further complicate the situation. HAs operate within a framework that emphasises financial prudence, often leading to conservative decision-making. This cautious approach can result in a reluctance to experiment or to invest in high-impact initiatives to tackle homelessness, despite the availability of substantial resources.

Additionally, the fragmented nature of the UK's approach to homelessness dilutes accountability. With responsibilities shared among the government, local councils, and various charities, housing associations can justify their limited involvement by pointing to the roles of other entities. This lack of a coherent strategy hinders the potential for a unified, effective response to homelessness.

It is important to acknowledge that not all housing associations are disengaged from the homelessness crisis. Some are making commendable efforts to address the issue. However, the overall impact remains insufficient given the scale of the problem. For a meaningful change, there needs to be a concerted and co-ordinated effort from all stakeholders, with HAs taking a more proactive role in supporting a range of solutions.

In conclusion, whilst HAs will give individual examples of support for the homeless, the rising tide of homelessness in the United Kingdom demands urgent action. HAs, with their substantial financial resources, must be supported and encouraged to prioritise their social mission. By working collaboratively with other agencies and embracing their role in addressing homelessness, they can help turn the tide and provide safe, affordable homes for the most vulnerable members of society.

Comments

Leadership and Seductive Innovation

Whatever sector, whatever industry you are in, these are challenging times. It is all hands to the pump to find the right course. And for those fearing their very survival, it is understandable that the search for that new, powerful idea should dominate. But success will never lie in new technology alone; it is also critical to look in the right direction, not to get waylaid into seemingly seductive solutions. Look at the business and be honest, are a series of technological innovations likely? And if they are, will they make the impact on your industry that you anticipate? For service organisations in particular, constant technomania is probably an absolute distraction from the core business. Worse, it will beguile you into believing there is a promised land; that there is a magic bullet that will solve the organisation’s problems. The techno-fetishists earn their crust by promoting ever whackier and unachievable ideas. New jobs are being created, innovation labs are springing up. Cha...

Homing in on the public sector

Published in The Guardian, 8th February 1995

1984 and Truth Social

How Orwell’s masterpiece can predict Trumps next steps I decided, with a grim sort of duty, to re-read Orwell. Pulled my old, dog-eared copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four from the shelf, expecting, perhaps, a historical curiosity. A powerful warning, yes, but one whose specific horrors belonged to the mid-20th century, to Stalin and the nascent Cold War fears that birthed it. Instead, I found myself gripped by a chilling, nauseating sense of déjà vu . Page after page wasn't just resonant; it felt like a dispatch from the present. Not the whole terrifying architecture of Airstrip One, not yet. But the tools, the language, the psychological distortions – they leaped off the page, smeared across the news reports from Donald Trump’s second presidency, barely four months old. It’s uncanny, and frankly, terrifying. Orwell wasn't just writing about totalitarianism; he was dissecting the mechanisms by which truth is dismantled and power becomes absolute. And seeing those mechanisms depl...

How social landlords must respond to Trump tariff impacts

Economic turmoil will have knock-on impacts for affordable housing supply chains in the UK, but it also presents an opportunity for social landlords to demonstrate resilience, argues Peter Brown Trump's tariff barrage, with a 10% baseline tariff on its goods exports to the US includes a 25% tariff on steel and aluminium imports , materials fundamental to the construction industry. Manufacturing and construction supply chains are directly in the firing line and perhaps more importantly, unforeseen turbulence creates uncertain future costs, risks of contract failure and possibly more company insolvencies. This is no longer a distant concern. How should the sector respond? Decisive action is needed. The potential impact of these tariffs, particularly on steel and aluminium, will ripple through our supply chains, inflating construction costs and jeopardising project viability. Housing organisations, from the largest G15 to the smallest community-led associations, must adopt a war-room...

Shared Ownership - a housing market fix?

Shared Ownership has given homes to around 180,000 families and it’s claimed that it offers a third way, an opportunity to house many more at a lower cost, another tenure that broadens the landlord offer. Some housing association websites go further and claim “It’s about getting your foot on the housing ladder. It’s a great alternative to renting and perfect if you can’t afford to buy a house outright.” Really? Whilst housing associations like selling them, the experiences of the occupiers can be quite different. Higher entry costs, administrative charges, rents rising annually, plus the responsibility for all repairs can mean the worst of all worlds. Why do increasing numbers feel trapped in the tenure? “It’s a step on the ladder” , yet Cambridge University found ( 2012 ) that over 12 years only 27,908 had staircased to 100%, and in many rural areas freehold ownership is expressly prohibited. They concluded that many shared owners simply cannot afford to buy their property in fu...

Redefining acceptable conduct: Using social landlords to control behaviour

Abstract The 1996 Housing Act brought ‘antisocial behaviour’ within the remit of housing legislation for the first time. This legislation is directed exclusively at those living in council housing. There still remains uncertainty about the exact nature of ‘antisocial’ behaviour. This has implications for the reasons for outlawing it and for the application of this legislation. Using data from the British Crime Survey, it is argued that there is insufficient evidence of a growth in antisocial behaviour. This legislation is directed exclusively at those living in council housing. What appears to be occurring on local authority housing estates is that a combination of, among other things, high unemployment, high child densities and lack of public funding in community and associated facilities is resulting in higher rates of vandalism. The legislation, in reality, seeks to legitimise opposition to a range of previously acceptable behaviours. For publication click here . For complete ...

8 facts you need to know about welfare reform

8 facts you need to know about welfare reform This blog is simple. It gives facts that contradict commonly held and repeated views. It debunks the myths that we hear regularly. Print it out and keep it near you. MYTH 1. Keeping the rise in benefits to only 1% is fair because it hits shirkers, not workers. Fact: 60% of the reduction falls on in-work households. Why? Because the 1% rise - which equates to a real-terms cut - affects universal benefits like child benefit and tax credits like child tax credit. MYTH 2. Spending on benefits for those out of work is out of control. Fact: the majority of all welfare spending is on pensioners - 53%. Also, benefits for those out of work is less than a quarter of the total welfare budget. Second, on average, between 2000 and 2010, welfare spending grew annually, in real terms, by only 1.75% - compared to 5.5% in the 1950s and 1960s, and 3% in the 1980s. Third, benefit spending in 2011-12 accounted for 10.4% of GDP, lower than the mid-80s ...

Will Housing Investment be Pivotal?

Rachel Reeves’ Spring Statement on 26th March is poised to be a defining moment. We stand at a crossroads, with stark choices before us. The Chancellor must resist the siren song of austerity and instead embrace a bold vision of investment, especially in housing, and safeguard the vital safety net of welfare. The idea that we can achieve economic growth by slashing benefits and public spending is not just misguided, it’s downright dangerous. It’s a cruel delusion to think that we can starve the very people who need support the most and somehow expect the economy to flourish. Cutting wages and benefits for the poor, the old, the sick, and the disabled is not just morally reprehensible, it’s economically illiterate. It will only deepen inequality and stifle any hope of real progress. Instead of these shortsighted cuts, Reeves must prioritise investment in social housing. A decent home is not a luxury; it’s a fundamental human right. Building more social housing will not only provid...

Who should cast the first stone?

Published in The Guardian 18th April 1998

Housing: creative solutions

Search This Blog