The temporary accommodation crisis

I have been co-organising a workshop about crises as dysfunctions of government (taking place at Cardiff Law School building), at which there are four papers addressing the housing crisis in one form or another.  What seems pretty clear (to me, at any rate) is that the idea of crisis or emergency or scandal doesn’t do justice to the range of issues faced within the housing system (or, as some prefer, systems) (*I’ve put some resources at the end on “crisis”, which might be of interest).  They are linked, but they are also separate; they are also linked to broader ideas and institutions (eg liberalism and the supposed free market – on which see Paddy Ireland’s interesting new book on property in contemporary capitalism).  I am excited, and somewhat daunted, to be exploring these ideas across a series of different sessions addressing different aspects of crisis at the workshop.

One particular thing that we call a crisis relates to the use of temporary accommodation, although we can see this as a scandal or even a direct outcome of contemporary ideas about property.  The Bevan Foundation published a report on 21st February on this issue, with some thoughts about solutions to the issues raised.  The report’s title, Getting people out of temporary accommodation by boosting access to social homes, gives you the gist of what they are concerned about.  Rather than the revolving door of homelessness and temporary accommodation, the goal must be to move towards permanent or long-term accommodation for households.  The current position is, quite simply, unsustainable.  Not only are too many households living in temporary accommodation, and too many children in this insecure state and thus not meeting any of the aspirations of the Welsh Government, but £99 million per year is being spent on paying for it (according to Shelter Cymru).  Much of that temporary accommodation is sourced from the private sector and “over half of the people in temporary accommodation are living in B&Bs, hotels, holiday accommodation (such as static caravans) and private sector rental homes”.  That money could, of course, be used elsewhere in the system, but rising rents and costs of temporary accommodation, together with increased demand, mean that those costs are only going one way.

The Bevan Foundation’s solutions are perfectly reasonable – water down existing standards for new build and existing social housing, think more innovatively about private finance and the national development corporation, stop selling off social housing which can’t meet standards, convert unused space.  I am tempted to write yeah-de-yeadah, not because this is unworthy but because, in a way, and without disrespect to the Bevan Foundation (who are doing a magnificent job publicising and thinking about innovative solutions to housing issues), we have been down these roads before.  The position is worse in London, I think, and there is no easy answer (hence the large-scale use of out-of-area placements).  One can say that the local authority is the best central administrator of the stock of temporary accommodation, and their duties in relation to homeless people require its use; but temporary accommodation is expensive and limited, and much of it is of poor quality (or not good enough for general stock).  Certainly, part of the stock cannot be regarded as suitable for children for lengthy or even short periods.

But, as Janet Roitman puts it, crisis creates “moments of truth” in which history is re/formed.  And, the concern must be that this might be used to roll back on the rights of applicants for homelessness assistance, or to make further reductions in quality.  The former is not on the agenda (as far as I know) but it might be argued to be a plausible way of dealing with the issues.  That would be to let the cart pull the horse, though – the issues are the lack, and expense, of temporary accommodation, and lack of suitable move-on accommodation.  The help to secure duty should be key in this respect, and there is reason to agree that the help to secure element should be (for want of a better word) upgraded.  That doesn’t help with cost or supply of temporary accommodation, and might make them worse.  Reducing the quality/size of move-on accommodation might be the price worth paying, as the Bevan Foundation indicates, but that might simply be storing up problems for later.  The clarion (I’m tempted to say, siren) call is to get rid of the mandatory possession ground, which is the cause of so much misery and homelessness; but that is replaced with other grounds and, in any event, is unlikely to help those in temporary accommodation move on.

The requirement for more social housing is the key, but also, as the Bevan Foundation notes, problematic.  Forgive my broken record, but the issues are not exactly being helped by the Coastal case and its potential effects on the financial viability of the sector.  Maybe the time for the WG to intervene and wipe the slate clean has come?

On crisis generally, see the following resources:

Hall, S. et al (1978), Policing the Crisis, London: Penguin.

Hay, C. (1996) “Narrating crisis: the discursive construction of the ‘winter of discontent’”, Sociology, 30, 2, 253-277.

Roitman, J. (2014), Anti-crisis, Durham: Duke UP.

Walby, S. (2015), Crisis, Cambridge: Polity.