housing

What works in homelessness and rough sleeping

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Jason Lowther

We’ve just started a new series of Inlogov blogs summarising the growing body of evaluation evidence in local government, and what it tells us about how councils are learning what works. Nowhere is that learning more urgent or more complex than in homelessness and rough sleeping. A series of recent national evaluations provide a rich, if sometimes uncomfortable, picture of how programmes are operating on the ground, what difference they are making, and where the system continues to struggle. 

Systems‑wide evaluation of homelessness and rough sleeping

The systems‑wide evaluation represents a deliberate attempt to step back from individual programmes and understand homelessness as a complex, interconnected system rather than a set of discrete services. Led by the Centre for Homelessness Impact with research partners, the early reports combine systems‑mapping, policy analysis and qualitative fieldwork in five local authority areas.

The core finding is stark: the system is not working as intended. Public spending and organisational effort are disproportionately focused on crisis response rather than prevention, even though this approach places increasing pressure on local authorities and delivers poorer outcomes. Fragmented funding streams, short‑term grants and inconsistent incentives across departments actively undermine joined‑up working. The evaluation does find examples of strong local partnership practice,but these are often working around the system rather than being supported by it.

The central conclusion is that meaningful progress requires sustained, cross‑government commitment to prevention, better alignment between housing, health, justice and welfare systems, and a clearer understanding of how national policy choices shape local outcomes.

Rough sleeping and complex needs process evaluation

The rough sleeping and complex needs evaluation zooms in on services supporting people facing the most entrenched disadvantage. This process evaluation examined interventions funded through the Rough Sleeping Grant and Rough Sleeping Social Impact Bonds, focusing on people with co‑occurring mental health and substance misuse needs.

Using case studies across 12 areas, interviews with service users and staff, and cost analysis, the evaluation explored how different models worked in practice. It found that progress, including improved housing stability and engagement with services, was most likely where support was flexible, persistent and relationship‑based. Small caseloads, psychologically informed approaches and multi‑disciplinary working were all important.

However, delivery was often hampered by structural barriers beyond local control: gaps in mental health provision, restrictive criteria in mainstream services, workforce instability and the limitations of short‑term funding.

Rough Sleeping Initiative process evaluation

The Rough Sleeping Initiative (RSI) process evaluation complements earlier impact analysis by explaining how and why the initiative achieved results. While the impact evaluation estimated a significant reduction in rough sleeping in RSI areas, the process evaluation explored local delivery through surveys of all funded authorities and in‑depth qualitative case studies.

Local authorities consistently reported that RSI funding enabled them to expand outreach, create specialist roles, and strengthen partnerships with health and voluntary sector providers. Rapid mobilisation, local flexibility and visible political commitment were key strengths. Many areas highlighted the value of multi‑disciplinary teams and assertive outreach in engaging people who had been sleeping rough for long periods.

At the same time, the evaluation identified familiar challenges: recruitment difficulties, reliance on short funding cycles, and the risk of losing skilled staff when funding ends.

Next Steps Accommodation Programme evaluation (briefing paper)

The Next Steps Accommodation Programme (NSAP) evaluation focuses on what happened after the incredible emergency response of “Everyone In” during the Covid pandemic lockdowns. It draws on two waves of interviews with service users in 34 local authorities, around 12 and 18 months after they were placed in longer‑term accommodation.

The findings are cautiously positive. Many people reported improved stability, safety and wellbeing, and a reduced use of emergency services. Sustained accommodation outcomes were more likely where individuals received ongoing, tailored support alongside housing. However, the evaluation is clear about its limits: the absence of baseline data, attrition over time, and the likelihood that those still in contact with services are the “success cases”.

Crucially, it highlights risks to sustainability, particularly affordability pressures, isolation, and unmet support needs.

Capital Letters process evaluation

The Capital Letters process evaluation adds an important organisational and commercial dimension to the evidence base. Capital Letters was established in 2019 as a borough‑owned, non‑profit company to reduce homelessness and temporary accommodation use in London by collectively procuring private rented sector homes, reducing competition between boroughs and driving better value for money.

The evaluation, based on interviews with boroughs, board members, landlords and MHCLG officials, alongside document and performance data review, focuses on how the initiative was set up, governed and sustained. It finds that Capital Letters had early success in demonstrating the potential of scale, shared negotiation and coordinated landlord engagement. Boroughs valued the ambition to change market dynamics rather than simply manage them.

However, the evaluation also highlights significant challenges. Achieving financial self‑sufficiency while meeting social objectives proved extremely difficult, particularly in a highly pressured London housing market. Tensions emerged between commercial risk, borough expectations and the constraints of homelessness legislation. Governance and accountability arrangements were complex, and uneven borough engagement limited the company’s ability to operate at the scale originally envisaged. Ultimately, despite grant support, Capital Letters was unable to become financially sustainable and subsequently wound down operations in 2025.

What does this mean for local authorities?

Read together, these evaluations paint a coherent but challenging picture of what local government can do in homelessness and rough sleeping.

First, prevention and system change demand stability. The biggest barriers to progress lie beyond individual projects. Short funding cycles, fragmented policy levers and misaligned national incentives consistently undermine local efforts, even where practice is strong. Councils can innovate, but without longer‑term certainty the system pulls them back towards crisis response.

Second, relationships and capability are critical. Outreach teams, assertive support for people with complex needs, and sustained tenancy support all rely on skilled staff, trust and persistence. These are precisely the elements most at risk from time‑limited programmes and competitive commissioning.

Third, housing supply and affordability are constraints. The Rough Sleeping Initiative and Next Steps evaluations both underline that service innovation only works when there are viable move‑on options. Capital Letters reinforces this at a system level: even ambitious collective approaches struggle when the underlying market is stacked against local authorities.

Fourth, collaboration is necessary but tricky. Whether through multi‑disciplinary teams or borough‑owned companies, partnership working requires time, governance capacity and shared risk. The evidence suggests collaboration works best when it is supported by clear national frameworks, realistic financial models and space to mature, rather than when it is required to develop and achieve results rapidly.

Finally, these evaluations show the growing value of learning‑focused evaluation in local government. They do not offer simple answers or “magic bullet” models. Instead, they help councils articulate what they are already experiencing on the ground and provide credible evidence to challenge policies and funding arrangements that make homelessness harder, not easier, to resolve.

The learning is no longer about whether local authorities know what works. It is about whether the wider system will allow them to do it.

Placemaking: how do we design better homes and neighbourhoods?

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Jon Bright and Vincent Goodstadt

The Government wants to build 1.5m new homes. Here, we discuss one aspect of this ambition: how to ensure that they are designed well. Many in the past have not been.

Good design results in attractive homes, streetscapes and neighbourhoods. It contributes to placemaking, creating popular places, with community facilities, green spaces and essential services.

Well-designed neighbourhoods are sustainable: they don’t rely on high levels of car ownership and energy consumption. As a result, homes are more affordable with low energy bills and access to public transport.

There’s lots of guidance on design, for example, the ‘National Model Design Code’, Oxfordshire County Council’s ‘Street Design Guide’, and the Building Beautiful Commission’s report ‘Living with Beauty’. The problem is not primarily with the guidance.

The problem is that developers and housebuilders don’t use the guidance that exists and planning authorities don’t enforce it.

What’s the evidence?
A 2020 report, ‘A housing design audit for England ‘, concluded that the design of new housing developments in England is overwhelmingly ‘mediocre’ or ‘poor’.

The audit reveals that 75% of new housing developments studied should not have gone ahead due to ‘mediocre’ or ‘poor’ design. It inspected 142 housing developments and found that one in five should have been refused planning permission outright as their poor design was contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). A further 54% should not have been granted permission without improvements to their design.

The importance of design has been reaffirmed in the new NPPF (December 2024).

In addition:
• Housing for less affluent communities is much more likely to be poorly designed.
• Low-scoring developments scored badly in terms of character and sense of place.
• The worst places were dominated by access roads, storage, bins and car parking.
• More positively, schemes scored highly for security and included homes of varying sizes.

The author, Professor Matthew Carmona said: “Planning authorities are under pressure to deliver new homes and are prioritising numbers over the long-term impacts of bad design. At the same time, house builders have little incentive to improve when their designs continue to pass through the planning system. Some highways departments do not even recognise their role in creating a sense of place.

“House builders, planning authorities and highways departments need to significantly raise their game. This can’t come soon enough”.

A second study – ‘Delivering Design Value’ – assessed the problem of design quality by looking at what happens on the ground when large housing schemes are built. It confirmed that although planners want to create attractive places, design is frequently overlooked because of the pressure to meet housing targets. This is because we don’t have enough planners, especially with design skills.

Of course, developers are also responsible for design quality. But it’s widely known that volume house builders use tried and tested site layouts and house types that lack design value. Too often, local authorities approve them when they shouldn’t.

The study recommends that design should be at the heart of development and design value standards prepared that are simple, concise and translatable into clear guidance.
Without change, the housebuilding industry will continue to receive a ‘free pass’ on design and local authorities’ powers to shape places will be eroded further.

What is to be done?
Central government has revised the NPPF and the chapter on design is strong. But much will depend on how its implemented. Drawing on the two studies, we recommend that:

National design standards should place design at the heart of planning and housebuilding. Local design codes should be prepared for each major site and highways design should be a part of the planning process.

Applications for new housing should reflect national design standards and local policies covering placemaking, sustainability, streetscape, landscaping and access for pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles.

Local Design Panels should include specialists and review the design of major housing schemes. This should not cause delays if guidance has been followed. Design guidance should be a part of the Local Development Plan.

Local Authorities need more planners with design expertise. The main players – house builders, planners, design experts and community leaders – should collaborate on the design and master planning of large housing developments.

Conclusion
Too many housing developments are poorly designed. This must change. Local Authorities should give more attention to design, review large developments and set and enforce planning conditions.

As the new NPPF notes, ‘Development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on design.’ (Para 139).

Developers and housebuilders need to raise their game by drawing on their best achievements and stop relying on a small number of site layouts and building types.

(Our full paper which amplifies the views in this blog can be accessed through the link here.

Jon Bright is a former Director at the Department of Communities and Local Government. He was involved in designing and implementing the Government’s national strategy for neighbourhood renewal (1998-2007) and is currently a Trustee of a charity that advises communities on Neighbourhood Planning. His book ‘Modern Management and Leadership: People, Places and Organisations’ was published in 2023.

Vincent Goodstadt is a member of the Design Council’s Network of Experts and advises organisations in the public, private, and voluntary sectors. Previously, he held senior planning posts in local government. He is a Past President of the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), holds an Honorary Professor at the University of Manchester, and is a Vice-President of the Town & Country Planning Association.

The disparities in housing and public health within the BAME community and the pandemic crisis

/ inlogov / 1 Comment

Cllr. Ketan Sheth

Public Health is important: it prolongs life. A fundamental quality of Public Health is its preventative nature; prevention is far more effective and far less expensive than cure. Public Health is important because we are constantly striving to close the inequality gap between people and encourage equal opportunities for children, all ethnicities and genders. Health is a human right and we should be ensuring no one is disadvantaged, regardless of their background, their ethnicity or where they live. Becoming the voice for people who have no voice is our collective duty. Simply put, our influence on the improvement of someone’s health is a fundamental act of kindness.

Poor housing and living environments cause or contribute to many preventable diseases, such as respiratory, nervous system and cardiovascular diseases and cancer. An unsatisfactory home environment, with air and noise pollution, lack of green spaces, lack of personal space, poor ventilation and mobility options, all pose health risks, and in part have contributed to the spread of Covid-19. The disparities in housing and public health within the BAME community have persisted for decades cannot be doubted, and is underscored by a raft of research over the past six decades as well as highlighted by the recent analysis of the impact of Covid -19. The death rate among British black Africans and British Pakistanis from coronavirus in English hospitals is more than 2.5 times that of the white population.

What are the possible reasons? A third of all working-age Black Africans are employed in key worker roles, much more than the share of the White British population. Additionally Pakistani, Indian and Black African men are respectively 90%, 150% and 310% more likely to work in healthcare than white British men. While cultural practices and genetics have been mooted as possible explanations for the disparities, higher levels of social deprivation, particularly poor housing may be part of the cause, and that some ethnic groups look more likely than others to suffer economically from the lockdown.

Homelessness has grown in BAME communities, from 18% to 36% over the last two decades – double the presence of ethnic minorities in the population. BAME households are also far more likely to live in overcrowded, inadequate or fuel poor housing. What’s more, around a quarter of BAME households live in the oldest pre-1919 built homes. And their homes less often include safety features such as fire alarms, which is striking given the recent Grenfell Tower tragedy. Over-concentration of BAME households in the

neighbourhoods in London, linked to poor housing conditions and lower economic status all ensure negative impacts on health, all of which means lower life expectancy. The roll-out of Universal Credit is having greater effects on the living standards of BAME people since a larger percentage experience poverty, receive benefits and tax credits, and live in large families.
Larger household size also means that ethnic minorities are far more vulnerable to housing displacement because of the Bedroom Tax or subject to financial penalties if they do not move to a smaller home.
These stark facts, sharply bring to our attention the health, social and economic inequalities among our minority ethnic community, all of which are critical to understanding why some ethnic minority groups are bearing the brunt of Covid-19. In this time of reflection, it is not enough to observe; we must think about what more we can do, right now, to reduce the health, housing and economic vulnerabilities that our BAME communities are much more exposed to in these fragile times. Let’s act and prolong life together, as a flourishing community.

Cllr. Ketan Sheth is a Councillor for Tokyngton, Wembley in the London Borough of Brent. Ketan has been a councillor since 2010 and was appointed as Brent Council’s Chair of the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee in May 2016. Before his current appointment in 2016, he was the Chair of Planning, of Standards, and of the Licensing Committees. Ketan is a lawyer by profession and sits on a number of public bodies, including as the Lead Governor of Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust.