Research and analysis

Measuring the wellbeing impacts of temporary accommodation and social housing (accessible version)

Published 14 July 2025

Applies to England

About this document

This document has been prepared for Homes England by:

SQW Ltd

Oxford Centre for Innovation

Blue Boar Court

9 Alfred Street

Oxford

OX1 4EH

www.sqw.co.uk

Study team

Lauren Roberts (SQW)

Stuart Wells (SQW)

Bill Carroll (SQW)

Carolyn Hindle (SQW)

Dr Sergei Plekhanov (SQW)

Izabela Zawartka (SQW)

Matthew Timms (SQW)

Jane Meagher (SQW)

Colin Warnock (Colin Warnock Associates)

Richard Crellin (Independent Consultant)

Laura Fuller (IFF Research)

Shahina Begum (IFF Research)

Reviewer

Dr Tessa Peasgood (University of Sheffield)

Acknowledgements

Homes England and the study team would like to thank all the local authorities and Registered Providers of social housing and temporary accommodation who have participated in this research, particularly in disseminating the primary research tool to their tenants.

We would also like to thank those that took part in the research, by taking part in a scoping interview, taking part in the research tool testing and qualitative interview process, and/or by completing one of the surveys.

Disclaimer

This report has been prepared for Homes England in accordance with SQW’s Proposals (dated April and October 2024) and agreed revisions to the Proposals. SQW assumes no responsibility to any user of this document other than Homes England.

Contact

economic.appraisal@homesengland.gov.uk

0300 1234 500

gov.uk/homes-england

List of abbreviations

DCLG — Department for Communities and Local Government

DLUHC — Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (now Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government)

GDP — Gross Domestic Product

H-CLIC — Homelessness Case Level Information Collection

ISCWeB — International Survey of Children’s Wellbeing

LA — Local Authority

LVU — Land Value Uplift

MHCLG — Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (formerly known as Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), and Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)

NEETs — Not in Education, Employment, or Training

ONS — Office for National Statistics

PRP — Private Registered Provider

QALY — Quality Adjusted Life Year

SH — Social Housing

TA — Temporary Accommodation

ToC — Theory of Change

UK HLS — The UK Household Longitudinal Study

VfM — Value for Money

WELLBY — One wellbeing adjusted life year

WWCW — What Works Centre for Wellbeing

1. Foreword

In the fourth quarter of 2024 there were 127,890 ^{[footnote 1]} households in temporary accommodation. A 16% increase from a year earlier. Within these households there are 164,040 children, a 15% increase from the previous year. This trend of increasing numbers of households in temporary accommodation has been ongoing since 2012.

There is a considerable financial cost associated with temporary accommodation, in terms of the cost to local authorities in providing it (£2.3 billion in 2023 and 2024 ^{[footnote 2]}). But importantly, there is also a significant cost to society due to the impact on the lives of those living in temporary accommodation.

Within our Strategic Plan we set ourselves the mission of driving regeneration and housing delivery, to create high-quality homes and thriving places. We have 5 interconnected strategic objectives that work together to deliver our mission. One of these strategic objectives is to facilitate the creation of the homes people need, intervening where necessary, to ensure places have enough homes of the right type and tenure. Part of this includes supporting the construction of new social housing, which can help to bring households out of temporary accommodation.

This is the sixth research paper in our series on the measurement of social value. The research focused on the measurement of the wellbeing impacts associated with temporary accommodation and the impact on individuals’ wellbeing that comes from moving from temporary accommodation to social housing. This research provides a wealth of new evidence to robustly quantify the impact of temporary accommodation on individuals’ wellbeing and those features of temporary accommodation that have the most significant impact. Also, by applying the HM Treasury Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal, appraisers can now consider new monetised estimates of wellbeing improvements associated with people moving from temporary accommodation to new social housing.

The report is part of a broader programme of research we have been undertaking, working in close collaboration with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and in consultation with HM Treasury, focused on strengthening Homes England’s ability to measure and assess the full social value delivered through our housing and regeneration activities. Read Homes England: Measuring Social Value.

I would like to thank SQW and IFF Research for their work on this project along with their independent advisors Colin Warnock and Richard Crellin and Dr Tessa Peasgood for the advice and quality assurance undertaken as the project progressed. I would also like to thank the local authorities and registered providers who supported the development of the research and dissemination of the survey among their residents. This research would not have been possible without their support.

Andy Wallis

Chief Economist, Homes England

2. Executive summary

Research aim

1 . For those who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness, local authorities are legally required to provide both emergency housing and support to individuals and families, to help them find longer-term housing. Those eligible for support are placed into temporary accommodation whilst a longer-term housing solution is identified. In recent years, there has been a substantial rise in the number of households being placed in temporary accommodation; this rose from 80,720 households in 2018 to 123,100 in quarter 2 2024 ^{[footnote 3]}.

2 . There are a number of routes out of temporary accommodation that a household may be able to take. One of the most common routes out of temporary accommodation is into social housing. This tenure of housing is typically provided by a local authority or registered provider of social housing. Rents for these properties are set using a formula linked to the relative value of the property, the size of the property and relative local income levels ^{[footnote 4]}.

3 . Moving individuals from more insecure and unsuitable temporary accommodation into social housing is believed to have a number of benefits for those individuals. However there has been a lack of evidence to demonstrate the impact that this may have on their wellbeing.

4 . Research into this is important, so that the effects can be understood and could be included within HM Treasury Green Book appraisals for the development of new social housing. Typically, economic appraisers would use Land Value Uplift (LVU) ^{[footnote 5]} to assess the private benefits delivered by the development of social housing. However, it is expected that LVU does not fully capture the social value associated with delivering more social housing.

5 . This research generates new evidence to better demonstrate the wellbeing impacts that occur when an individual moves from temporary accommodation into social housing.

Defining the wellbeing focus of the study

6 . Wellbeing is how we are doing as individuals, communities and as a nation, and how sustainable that is for the future. It encompasses the environmental factors that affect us and how we function in society, and the subjective experiences we have throughout our lives ^{[footnote 6]}.

7 . To articulate the differences in wellbeing between those living in temporary accommodation and social housing, a wellbeing framework and theory of change were developed as part of this research. These built upon a number of well-established and validated tools to measure wellbeing. For this study, the following focus was agreed:

How people who live in temporary accommodation are doing, individually and collectively, relative to those currently living in social housing (and who previously lived in temporary accommodation).

8 . A range of wellbeing frameworks were reviewed to identify the different domains that are impacted when an individual moves from temporary accommodation into social housing. This review found the ONS Domains of National Wellbeing as being the most relevant, specifically Domains 1 to 7.

9 . The most critical of these was Domain 1, and in particular life satisfaction, which was a central measure of wellbeing for this study. The remaining domains helped to nuance how research participants rated their life satisfaction and the key factors contributing to it. Building upon this, the following wellbeing framework was developed, complemented by a range of existing datasets and validated tools that provide data in relation to wellbeing.

10 . In addition, there was interest in understanding how temporary accommodation impacts upon children. For this, measures from the ONS Children’s Wellbeing Framework were also selected, with a wellbeing framework developed for children, also complemented by a range of existing datasets and validated tools that provide data in relation to wellbeing.

Figure 2.1 — Wellbeing framework

Wellbeing — How people who live in social housing (and who previously lived in temporary accommodation) are doing, individually and collectively, relative to those currently living in temporary accommodation.

Adults

Personal wellbeing — Life satisfaction, Happiness, Worthwhile, Anxiety

Our relationships — Loneliness, People to rely on

Health — Health satisfaction, Depression or anxiety, Mental wellbeing

Where we live — Satisfaction with accommodation, Feeling safe, Belonging to neighbourhood

What we do — Unemployment, Job satisfaction

Personal finance — Financial difficulties

Education and skills — Skills to manage a tenancy

Children

Personal wellbeing — Life satisfaction, Happiness, Worthwhile

Our relationships — Loneliness

Health — Happiness with health

Where we live — Happiness with home, Outdoor spaces, Crime

Personal finance — Workless households, Relative low income household

Education and skills — Pupil absences, Happiness with school, Further education plans

Source: SQW, 2025

Typologies of temporary accommodation and social housing

11 . Defining the typologies for analysis was key for identifying the housing type of interest, but also to ensure there was a clearly defined comparator group.

12 . There are a number of different definitions that can be used to define temporary accommodation. In defining temporary accommodation, a degree of pragmatism was required, especially given the number of different typologies, and the diversity of their offerings. It would prove challenging to undertake primary research on multiple different typologies of temporary accommodation, given a number of factors:

Multiple different typologies would require a larger sample size (overall, given the need for sufficient data from each typology) or a larger effect size to be observed for robust results to be generated

It is unclear if residents would be able to accurately self-identify which typology of housing they are currently in, and some typologies may prove more difficult for residents to accurately identify than others.

13 . In reviewing existing definitions, the following definition was selected for temporary accommodation:

Typology 1 — temporary accommodation — this includes a range of different accommodation provided to those who are unintentionally homeless. This includes a range of different sub-typologies, and includes accommodation provided by local authorities, registered providers and the private rental sector.

14 . Social housing was identified as the most appropriate comparator group, but it was recognised that there is considerable diversity across this type of housing. In 2022 and 2023, around 17% of new social housing lettings in England were for households moving from temporary accommodation (which includes ‘any other temporary accommodation’, bed and breakfast and direct access hostel accommodation). Of those who move from temporary accommodation into social housing, 86% move into a social rent tenancy, and 13% move into an affordable rent tenancy. A total of 72% of those moving from temporary accommodation into social housing move into general needs accommodation (housing that is suitable for people who are independent and do not have special housing or support needs) and 28% move into supported housing (accommodation where residents receive additional support, supervision or care designed to meet their needs).

15 . When considering the practicalities of undertaking primary research, it was decided that the approach that would lead to the most robust results in the available resourcing and timeframe was to focus on general needs social housing, with supported housing considered out of scope for this research project.

16 . Since the ultimate objective of this research is to derive wellbeing values which can be used in the appraisal of social housing schemes, then it is essential that the resulting values can be additive to other social values used in appraisal, notably Land Value Uplift (LVU). In order to avoid potential for overlap with LVU, it was suggested that the comparator group should only include those living in social housing who had previously lived in temporary accommodation within the last 3 years. The 3 year period was selected to mitigate the risk of capturing the wellbeing of those who had lived long-term/lifetime in social housing.

17 . As a result, the typology of social housing and cohort of residents considered in this study is as follows:

Typology 2 — Social housing (for rent) — General needs — Housing that is suitable for people who are independent and do not have special housing or support needs. Individuals living in social rent, London affordable rent and affordable rent housing who previously lived in temporary accommodation in the last 3 years.

Wellbeing impact

18 . Primary research was undertaken with people living in temporary accommodation and who live in social housing (but had lived in temporary accommodation within the last 3 years) to identify differences in their wellbeing and to understand what factors contribute to these differences. The research tool that was developed built upon many of the existing recognised and validated tools and was tested through interviews with individuals living in temporary accommodation and social housing.

19 . The surveys were shared with 36 local authorities and 11 registered providers of social housing. In total there were 2,341 observations for the analysis, of which 2,007 (85%) were from respondents residing in temporary accommodation and 334 (15%) from social housing residents (who had lived in temporary accommodation within the last 3 years).

20 . The analysis suggests that on average, after controlling for relevant observable characteristics, survey respondents who reside in temporary accommodation reported lower life satisfaction scores than those living in social housing. The difference is approximately –0.86 on the 0 to 10 scale, and it is statistically significant at the 5% level ^{[footnote 7]}.

21 . Relative to other interventions for which there is good evidence available, the improvement in the life satisfaction scores for those moving from temporary accommodation into social housing performs well. The table provides an overview of some other interventions mentioned within the Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal ^{[footnote 8]} and previous research published by Homes England on the wellbeing impacts of housing for older people compared to the findings of this research.

Table 2.1 — Difference in life satisfaction score by selected interventions

Intervention	Change in life satisfaction score	Source
Temporary accommodation to social housing	+ 0.86 [footnote 9]	SQW, 2025
From unemployment to employment	+0.5	Clark et al., 2018
Change in job quality (for example, security, autonomy and support	+ 0.25	Clark et al., 2018
Increase of green space in surrounding area	+ 0.0031	White et al., 2013
Living within 500 meters of flooding incident in 6 months	– 0.044	Fujiwara et al., 2018
Moving from general housing to older persons’ housing	+0.283 to +0.345	Homes England and SQW, 2024

Source — Homes England and SQW, 2024 — Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal, HM Treasury, 2021

22 . The research has identified that children living in temporary accommodation have a lower reported level of happiness relative to those living in social housing (who had previously lived in temporary accommodation). Given that the survey sought to capture parental views of their children, it was not felt appropriate to ask questions about life satisfaction, and so instead a question relating to happiness was adapted from the ONS Children’s Wellbeing Measures. This question related to the child’s happiness with their life as a whole, and not about their happiness yesterday (which is the wording of the question from the ONS Children’s Wellbeing Measures), so it could be used as a proxy for life satisfaction.

23 . Parents reported for both age groups (0 to 4 and 5 to 15 years) a difference of 1.01 on the 0 to 10 scale for happiness, which is statistically significant at the 1% level.

Application of results

24 . The Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal ^{[footnote 10]} provides guidance on how and where wellbeing should be considered in the relevant parts of the Green Book methodology. It includes a ‘step by step’ guide on how analysts can assess the wellbeing impacts of interventions, and (where evidence allows) monetise and include these wellbeing impacts in cost benefit analysis. The calculated wellbeing uplift monetised values for adults are shown in Table 2.2. These values are per adult, per annum.

Table 2,2 — Wellbeing uplift monetised values (2024 prices per adult, per annum)

Average life satisfaction change (respondents living in social housing relative to those living in temporary accommodation	Low	Central	High
+0.86	£10,593	£13,771	£16,949

Source — SQW, 2025

25 . We have applied the WELLBY values from the Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal to monetise the uplift in the child’s happiness in their life as a whole. This assumes that the proxy report of child happiness is equivalent to life satisfaction and adopts the same value of changes in life satisfaction for children as used in the current WELLBY for adults, on the grounds of equity (Parkes, 2025) ^{[footnote 11]}.

26 . The calculated wellbeing uplift monetised values for children are shown in Table 2.3. These values are per child, per annum.

Table 2.3 — Wellbeing uplift monetised values for children are shown in Table 2.3. These values are per child, per annum.

Average happiness change (respondents living in social housing relative to those living in temporary accommodation)	Low	Central High
+1.01	£12,410£16,133	£19,856

Source: SQW, 2025.

27 . It should be noted that as per the guidance provided within the Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal, changes in wellbeing which occur in future years should be discounted using the Green Book ‘health’ discount rate. This starts at 1.5% for years 1 to 30, and drops to 1.286% for years 31 to 60, as the ‘wealth effect’ or real per capita consumption growth element of the discount rate is excluded. Further guidance on this is provided within the Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal.

28 . Appraisers should consider undertaking sensitivity analysis as per the Green Book guidance. It is recommended that appraisers select the most appropriate WELLBY value for their intervention (typically this would be the ‘Central’ value) and use the ‘Low’ and ‘High’ values to undertake sensitivity analysis on the expected outcomes.

Areas for further research

29 . Through the research, a number of areas for further research have been identified that would help to strengthen the evidence base and analysis used to underpin the wellbeing impacts associated with an individual moving from temporary accommodation into social housing. These are:

More in-depth qualitative research — the qualitative elements of this study draw upon interviews with 9 people. More in-depth qualitative research with adults would help to reinforce and expand upon the evidence collected in this report.

Quantitative research directly with children and young people — this research sought to understand the impact of temporary accommodation on children by asking parents about their perception of their child’s wellbeing as a proxy. Further quantitative research could be done directly with children and young people to test the results of our research, and understand what impact it has on their wellbeing. This should also consider those aged 16 to 25 years who have some of the worse wellbeing outcomes associated with temporary accommodation.

Qualitative research on the effects on children and young people — this research has only captured qualitative insights on children and young people by interviews with parents. Qualitative research directly with children and young people, would help to better understand their experiences of living in temporary accommodation and social housing, and the impact that this has on their wellbeing.

Research into the impact of children changing schools and effects on attendance — the qualitative research identified that some children had been forced to move schools. Whilst the full impact of this wasn’t assessed through the survey (that is to say, total number of missed learning days at school), future research could monetise this if it could get more accurate sense of missed learning days (with Department for Education (DfE) guidance ^{[footnote 12]} available to monetise the impact).

Research into the wellbeing impacts of Supported Accommodation (Living) – as set out in Chapter 4, given practical considerations, it was decided this research would focus on those in general needs housing (which accounts for 72% of those leaving temporary accommodation and moving into social housing). However it was recognised that 28% of those moving from temporary accommodation into social housing move into supported housing. Further research is needed to understand the wellbeing impact of this move, which is hypothecated to see those with additional support needs better supported through the provision of adequate housing that meets their needs.

3. Introduction

Background

30 . For those who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness, local authorities are legally required to provide emergency housing and support in finding longer-term housing. Those eligible for support are placed into temporary accommodation whilst a longer-term housing solution is identified. In recent years, there has been a substantial rise in the number of households being placed in temporary accommodation; this rose from 80,720 households in 2018 to 127,890 in quarter 4 2024 ^{[footnote 13]}.

31 . This rapid rise has put pressure on local authorities required to provide these services. It has increasingly led to households being put in inadequate accommodation for their circumstances, and/or being placed outside of their local area. Living in temporary accommodation can also lead to other impacts (including effects on access to employment, health services and education) and is believed to have a detrimental effect on an individual’s wellbeing as they live in temporary accommodation ^{[footnote 14]}.

32 . There are a number of routes out of temporary accommodation that a household may be able to take. One of the most common routes out of temporary accommodation is into social housing. This tenure of housing is typically provided by a local authority or Registered Provider of social housing. Rents for these properties are set using a formula linked to the relative value of the property, the size of the property and relative local income levels ^{[footnote 15]}.

33 . Moving individuals from more insecure and unsuitable temporary accommodation into social housing is believed to have a number of benefits for those individuals. However there has been a lack of evidence to demonstrate the impact that this may have on their wellbeing. Research into this is important, so that the effects can be understood and could be included within HMT Green Book appraisals for the development of new social housing.

34 . Typically, economic appraisers would use Land Value Uplift (LVU) ^{[footnote 16]} to assess the private benefits delivered by the development of social housing. However, it is expected that LVU does not fully capture the social value associated with delivering more social housing. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) Appraisal Guide ^{[footnote 17]} does provide guidance on additional benefits of rented social housing which can be monetised within economic appraisal. These include health impacts of affordable housing, distributional impacts (the net welfare gain to society of redistributing the grant funding from the general taxpayer towards the provision of lower rents for the tenants accessing the new affordable units (compared to renting an equivalent home in the private rental sector) ^{[footnote 18]} and fiscal impacts related to changes in housing benefit. However, these will not fully capture the impact on an individual’s own wellbeing.

35 . To respond to this, Homes England commissioned SQW, with support from IFF Research, to generate new evidence to better demonstrate the wellbeing impacts that occur when an individual moves from temporary accommodation into social housing, with the headline objective of this study being “to develop a monetised value for the wellbeing impacts associated with people moving from temporary accommodation into social housing, for use in business cases.”

36 . This research seeks to build upon existing research and also the Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal; ^{[footnote 19]}, which provides analysts, policy professionals and decision-makers with the tools to understand how to measure wellbeing and use it within Green Book-compliant business cases. It also builds upon the recently published Measuring the Wellbeing and Fiscal Impacts of Housing for Older People ^{[footnote 20]} research, that monetised the wellbeing impacts associated with the provision of housing for older people.

Research context

37 . Local authorities across England have a responsibility to provide housing for people who are homeless or are at risk of being homeless within 56 days ^{[footnote 21]}. Emergency accommodation such as hostels, bed and breakfasts, hotel rooms and bed-sits are provided in the short-term while the council makes a decision on the application for housing support. This includes carrying out a homeless assessment and preparing a personal housing plan.

38 . Emergency accommodation is often basic and may not be suitable for the individual or individuals. However, refusing accommodation can jeopardise housing applications. Occupiers generally have limited housing rights, often creating precarious living situations which can change with a week’s notice ^{[footnote 22]} . Once the local authority has decided the household requires longer-term housing support, they are moved into temporary accommodation. This is often similar to that used for emergency accommodation, such as hostels or bed-sits, but residents’ legal rights are different.

39 . Despite the label of ‘temporary accommodation’, the housing crisis and severe shortage of social housing means that the time spent in this type of housing can be months or even years, depending on the local authority ^{[footnote 23]}. For instance, in the second quarter of 2024, over 123,000 households were living in emergency and temporary accommodation, the highest figure recorded in the last 25 years ^{[footnote 24]}. This figure has increased by 16% just in the past year (quarter 2 2023 to quarter 2 2024). Only around a quarter of households (23%) in emergency or temporary accommodation were living in local authority or housing association stock. Just over a fifth (22%) were housed in private sector accommodation leased by the local authority or a registered provider, whilst 15% were in bed and breakfasts and hostels.

40 . There were 159,000 children living in temporary accommodation in the second quarter of 2024 ^{[footnote 25]}, accounting for nearly half of all households living in temporary accommodation (49%). Of these, 5,900 children were living in bed and breakfasts (of which 3,770 had been living in them for more than 6 weeks). This was despite the fact that the government advises housing authorities to avoid using bed and breakfasts, especially for children as it can be “particularly detrimental to the health and development of children” ^{[footnote 26]}.

41 . Overall in England, 2.6 households for every 1,000 were living in temporary accommodation last year; in London there were 18.9 households living in temporary accommodation per 1,000 in the second quarter of 2024 ^{[footnote 27]}.

42 . The reliance on bed and breakfasts and hostels has been exacerbated by shortages in social housing. Moving a family from temporary accommodation to social rented accommodation is reported to save local authorities around £7,760 (per family moved) per year ^{[footnote 28]}. To prevent dependence on B&Bs and hostels, there have been various initiatives designed to encourage councils to secure private rented housing through lease agreements with private landlords. However, due to restrictions through Housing Benefit and the housing cost element of Universal Credit, many landlords are reported to be choosing to let on the open market to non-claimants, as they can secure higher returns for their property ^{[footnote 29]}.

43 . The demand for temporary housing has led to some local authorities seeking to accommodate households out of their area. Of all households living in temporary accommodation in the second quarter of 2023, 26% were in a different local authority district to the one they had applied to ^{[footnote 30]}.

44 . Social housing is one of the most common destinations for those currently living in temporary accommodation; 14% of new social housing lettings in 2023 and 2024 were to people that had previously been in temporary accommodation. Waiting lists for social housing are currently high; there were 1.29 million households on local authority waiting lists at 31 March 2023, an increase of 6% compared to 31 March 2022 and the highest it has been since 2014 ^{[footnote 31]}. Homeless households are often given ‘reasonable’ preference for social housing (albeit local allocations policy varies across the country, households with a history of anti-social behaviour (for example) can be disqualified, and the process can be complicated ^{[footnote 32]}.

45 . The size of the waiting lists is in part the result of a lack of supply of social rented housing. The delivery of new housing at social rent has slowed considerably over the last few decades, particularly since 2011. Other models of affordable housing have become increasingly prominent, in particular affordable rent tenures linked to local market rents. While these are normally a fixed proportion of local market rents, they can be more expensive to occupy than social rented homes (although London Affordable rent tends to be closer to social rent levels, as this is set by the Greater London Authority).

Figure 3.1 — Affordable homes delivered by tenure, England, 1991 to 2004

Year	Social rent	Other affordable tenures excluding social rent
1991 to 1992	25705	3969
1992 to 1993	57023	8698
1993 to 1994	48941	14795
1994 to 1995	52190	18200
1995 to 1996	56949	17581
1996 to 1997	42465	14079
1997 to 1998	35780	11684
1998 to 1999	33579	8874
1999 to 2000	28794	6297
2000 to 2001	27087	6072
2001 to 2002	26810	6205
2002 to 2003	23955	8968
2003 to 2004	22661	15408
2004 to 2005	21674	15796
2005 to 2006	23633	22362
2006 to 2007	24683	19630
2007 to 2008	29643	23533
2008 to 2009	31122	24670
2009 to 2010	33491	24806
2010 to 2011	39562	21527
2011 to 2012	37677	20669
2012 to 2013	17580	25497
2013 to 2014	10924	32200
2014 to 2015	9331	56628
2015 to 2016	6803	25811
2016 to 2017	5827	36379
2017 to 2018	7049	40339
2018 to 2019	6363	50863
2019 to 2020	6766	52198
2020 to 2021	6051	46021
2021 to 2022	7659	51337
2022 to 2023	9453	54328
2023 to 2024	10153	53590

Source — Table 1000, live tables on affordable housing supply, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2024

‘Other affordable tenures’ includes London Affordable Rent, Affordable Rent, Intermediate Rent, Shared Ownership, Affordable Home Ownership, First Homes tenures.

Objectives

46 . The headline objective of this research was to develop evidence of the wellbeing impacts associated with the delivery of social housing (and therefore reducing the number of people in temporary accommodation), to enable Homes England to better appraise the social value of its interventions in this area.

47 . There were also secondary objectives associated with this research. These were to:

• define a set of typologies for temporary accommodation and social housing
• develop a wellbeing framework for adults and children that can be used to define wellbeing (in the context of temporary accommodation and social housing) and use this as the basis for quantifying the wellbeing impact that arises when an adult or child moves from temporary accommodation into social housing
• develop a theory of change (ToC) that demonstrates how the provision of social housing (and therefore enabling more people to move out of temporary accommodation into social housing) generates wellbeing impacts
• capture qualitative insights to help to explain any wellbeing differences identified between temporary accommodation and social housing

Report outline

48 . The remainder of the report is structured as follows:

Chapter 4 — Approach: sets out the approach to the research, the ToC that demonstrates how the delivery of social housing (and therefore enabling more people to move out of temporary accommodation into social housing) generates wellbeing impacts, and the wellbeing framework developed specifically for the purposes of this study.

Chapter 5 — Primary Research Approach: sets out the primary research that was undertaken with the aim of identifying the wellbeing impacts associated with individuals moving from temporary accommodation into social housing. This outlines how engagement with local authorities and registered providers of social housing was undertaken, how the primary research tool was co-created and how the primary research was conducted.

Chapter 6 — Respondent Profile and Analysis of Primary Research Data: provides an overview of the headlines from the primary research undertaken, including the profile of respondents and descriptive analysis of their survey responses.

Chapter 7 — Econometric Analysis of Primary Research: provides the econometric outputs from the primary research, including the wellbeing impact identified, and further relationships seen in the survey data relevant to both temporary accommodation and social housing.

Chapter 8 — Qualitative insights on wellbeing impact: provides a summary of the qualitative evidence that has been shared that helps to explain why individuals’ wellbeing changes when moving into or out of temporary accommodation.

Chapter 9 — Wellbeing Impacts: sets out the approach for monetising the wellbeing impacts identified, utilising the approach set out in the Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal ^{[footnote 33]}, and the values that have been calculated.

Chapter 10 — Conclusions: provides the final values identified from the research on wellbeing impacts and identifies areas for further research based on the findings of this report.

49 . The main report content is supported by an appendix, which provides further detail on the survey questionnaires used and a more detailed presentation of survey results.

4. Approach

50 . This section provides an overview of the approach used in this study. This includes:

• detailing the approach used to identify and define wellbeing, building upon the existing research
• showing the wellbeing framework developed for the purposes of this study, which identifies the domains of wellbeing considered to be the most impacted by an individual moving from temporary accommodation into social housing
• identifying the typologies of housing products that have been considered as in scope, for both temporary accommodation and social housing
• demonstrating the ToC that shows the mechanisms through which an individual’s wellbeing is expected to change when moving from temporary accommodation into social housing

Defining our persons of interest

51 . People of all ages and backgrounds enter temporary accommodation. At the outset, Homes England were keen to understand the experiences of all people going through temporary accommodation, and how their experience differs depending on their characteristics. The latest evidence shows that 64% of households living in temporary accommodation have children, with 159,380 children living in temporary accommodation in quarter 2 2024 ^{[footnote 34]}.

Figure 4.1 — Number of households in temporary accommodation with and without children, by typology

Accommodation	Households with children	Households without children	Total
Bed and breakfast hotels	5910	12470	18380
Nightly paid, privately managed accommodation	25350	11440	36790
Hostels including reception centres, emergency units and refuges	3640	3130	6770
Private sector accommodation	20140	6900	27040
Local authority or housing association (LA/HA) stock	19610	9220	28830
Any other type of temporary accommodation	3770	1520	5290

Source — Statutory homelessness live tables, MHCLG, 2024.

52 . Of those living in temporary accommodation, there is a mix of household compositions. The largest group is single females with dependent children; this group accounts for 34% of all households living in temporary accommodation. The next largest household groups are couples with dependent children (20% of all households in temporary accommodation) and male single adults (17%).

Figure 4.2 — Breakdown of households in temporary accommodation, by household composition

Households	% of households in temporary accommodation
Couple with dependent children — all	20%
Single parent with dependent children — male	3%
Single parent with dependent children — female	34%
Single parent with dependent children — other or gender not known	1%
Single adult— male	17%
Single adult — female	12%
Single adult — other or gender not known	1%
All other household types	12%

Source — Statutory homelessness live tables, MHCLG, 2024.

53 . There is diversity of household composition amongst those living in temporary accommodation. All of the household compositions are of interest to this study, given our interest in both adult and children’s experiences of living in temporary accommodation, and the wellbeing impact that arises from a move into social housing. This was all considered when developing the ToC and wellbeing framework.

Defining wellbeing

54 . Wellbeing is how we are doing as individuals, communities and as a nation, and how sustainable that is for the future. It encompasses the environmental factors that affect us and how we function in society, and the subjective experiences we have throughout our lives ^{[footnote 35]}.

55 . There are 3 key aspects to wellbeing described within the What Works Centre for Wellbeing’s (WWCW’s) Different People, Same Place briefing ^{[footnote 36]}.

Individual or personal wellbeing — feeling good and functioning well, affected by internal and external factors such as the physical and social context of the place where we live and personal relationships.

Community or collective wellbeing — how we are doing as a community. This goes beyond just adding up the individual wellbeing of the people in that group, to include considerations of how wellbeing is distributed. Community wellbeing is defined as “the combination of social, economic, environmental, cultural and political conditions identified by individuals and their communities as essential for them to flourish and fulfil their potential” ^{[footnote 37]}

National wellbeing — how we are doing as individuals, communities and as a nation, and how sustainable that is for the future.

56 . These definitions of wellbeing are not mutually exclusive; individual wellbeing sits within collective or community wellbeing, which itself sits within national wellbeing. The research has mainly focused on individual wellbeing, but it is acknowledged that this sits within other levels of wellbeing as indicated here.

57 . WWCW’s Understanding Local Needs for Wellbeing Data report ^{[footnote 38]} notes that wellbeing indicators “are an interaction between external conditions, social context and personal resources”. There is a distinction to be made between objective measures (such as income, wealth, hospital admissions, number of crimes) as well as subjective measures (an individual’s perception of their wellbeing, such as satisfaction with their health, fear of crime, and so on). Objective measures tend to capture a societal rather than individual perspective on wellbeing, based on material, tangible and quantitative indicators.

Domains of wellbeing

58 . This research builds upon the recently published research conducted by SQW and Homes England on Measuring the Wellbeing and Fiscal Impacts of Housing for Older People ^{[footnote 39]}. This research undertook a substantial review of 16 other wellbeing frameworks (or reports and discussion papers related to wellbeing frameworks) to identify common features across these frameworks. The analysis included UK and international examples. Those interested in understanding more about this evidence should consult these previous research papers (in particular Appendix 4 in the supplementary report).

59 . The domains of wellbeing selected for this study draw upon the evidence from the existing research and seek to ensure consistency across the research studies. As a result, it was decided that the ONS Domains of National Wellbeing ^{[footnote 40]} presented the best starting point to identify the key domains relevant to this study. There are 10 overarching domains that are considered by the ONS:

1 — Personal wellbeing

2 — Our relationships

3 — Health

4 — Where we live

5 — What we do

6 — Personal finance

7 — Economy

8 — Education and skills

9 — Governance

10 — Environment

60 . Following the approach taken in the previous research study, it is the ‘personal wellbeing’ domain that was identified as being the most relevant to understanding an individual’s own wellbeing.

61 . The ONS have defined 4 questions (‘ONS-4’) to create a harmonised standard for measuring personal wellbeing. People are asked to respond to the questions on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 is “not at all” and 10 is “completely”. These questions are set out in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 — ONS 4 measures of personal wellbeing

Measure — Life satisfaction

Question — Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?

Measure — Worthwhile

Question — Overall, to what extent do you feel that the things you do in your life are worthwhile?

Measure — Happiness

Question — Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday?

Measure — Anxiety

Question — On a scale where 0 is “not at all anxious” and 10 is “completely anxious”, overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday?

Source — Measures of National Wellbeing, ONS, 2024

62 . It is widely recognised that there is variation in personal wellbeing across a range of different factors, including age, gender and ethnic group. Understanding how people’s personal wellbeing changes by their demographic characteristics was considered as an important control when conducting the final analysis; we want to ensure that any change in wellbeing that is identified is a result of someone’s housing situation changing (that is, moving from temporary accommodation to social housing) and is not explained by their demographics.

Wellbeing framework

63 . In this section we set out the wellbeing framework developed for the purposes of understanding the wellbeing impacts associated with people moving from temporary accommodation into social housing. It sets out how we have defined wellbeing (for the purposes of this exercise) and the domains of wellbeing that we have considered.

64 . Given that households in temporary accommodation and social housing include both adults and children, 2 separate wellbeing frameworks have been developed; these are articulated in more detail here.

Defining the wellbeing focus

65 . For the purposes of this study, we have been exploring the following:

How people who live in temporary accommodation are doing, individually and collectively, relative to those currently living in social housing (and who previously lived in temporary accommodation).

66 . This focus is based on the ONS definition of wellbeing as “‘how we are doing’ as individuals, communities and as a nation and how sustainable this is for the future”. We have adapted it to make it applicable to this research; specifically, to focus on how the wellbeing of those moving from temporary accommodation into social housing changes, and looking at individual and collective (community) wellbeing (rather than national).

67 . In addition to the definition of wellbeing, there are a number of other key considerations, identified from our scoping research and consultations, which have informed the development of the wellbeing framework. Specifically:

• the focus of the framework is largely on the individual wellbeing of people, although there is scope to define and measure community or collective wellbeing using the proposed measures

• the focus of the framework is largely on subjective measures of wellbeing and the subjective measures are aligned with the ONS Domains of National Wellbeing.

Wellbeing framework

Approaches to measuring adult wellbeing

68 . Building upon the approach developed for the Measuring the Wellbeing and Fiscal Impacts of Housing for Older People study ^{[footnote 41]}, this research has sought to extract from the most relevant ONS Domains of National Wellbeing to identify those that would be most impacted by an adult moving from temporary accommodation into social housing.

69 . Common themes suggested by consultees in relation to the main drivers of negative wellbeing in temporary accommodation included: access to employment, access to education, access to friends, family, social networks, uncertainty or instability, impact on (mental and physical) health and poor quality housing.

70 . As a result of this, Domains 1 to 7 (Personal Wellbeing; Our Relationships; Health; Where we live; What we do; Personal Finance; and Education and Skills) are thought to be the most relevant for the cohort in focus, with the potential to make a strong positive contribution to the overall wellbeing of those moving from temporary accommodation into social housing.

Table 4.2 — Reasons for including or excluding ONS wellbeing domains in the wellbeing framework

1 — Personal wellbeing (Included)

ONS associated sub-domains — Life satisfaction, Worthwhile, Happiness, Anxiety, Mental wellbeing

Reason for inclusion or exclusion — Key for understanding changes in individual wellbeing and for monetising wellbeing in line with Green Book guidance.

2 — Our relationships (included)

ONS associated sub-domains — Unhappy relationships, Loneliness, Trust, People to rely on

Reason for inclusion or exclusion — Community or collective wellbeing was identified as important to explore; these were identified as possible proxy indicators of this. Relationships were identified during scoping as important in affecting wellbeing and relevant to the focus of this study, especially given the strain that living in temporary accommodation may play on this (including if people are relocated away from their family and friends).

3 — Health (Included)

ONS associated sub-domains — Life expectancy, Disability, Health satisfaction, Depression and, or, anxiety

Reason for inclusion or exclusion — An important domain for understanding if there are any differences in wellbeing as a result of a health condition, and for understanding if mental health is impacted by living in temporary accommodation. Life expectancy not covered via the survey.

4 — Where we live (Included)

ONS associated sub-domains — Crime, Safety, Access to natural environment, Access to key services, Satisfaction with accommodation

Reason for inclusion or exclusion — In the context of temporary accommodation and social housing, the importance of living conditions and feelings of safety are important to understanding how housing specifically impacts upon an individual’s wellbeing. Crime, access to key services and access to natural environment were not covered via the survey.

5 — What we do (Included)

ONS associated sub-domains — Unemployment, Job satisfaction, Leisure satisfaction, Volunteering, Arts and culture participation, Sports participation

Reason for inclusion or exclusion — It is important to understand how living in temporary accommodation leads to wider impacts, particularly in relation to people’s ability to continue their current employment (or if a move has forced them to leave their job or change their working hours). Leisure satisfaction, volunteering, arts, culture and sports participation were not covered via the survey.

6 — Personal finance (Included)

ONS associated sub-domains — Income, Wealth, Financial difficulties

Reason for inclusion or exclusion — Given that many of those living in temporary accommodation and social housing will likely be encountering financial difficulties, it is important to understand this, and the impact it has on an individual’s wellbeing. Income and wealth were not covered via the survey.

7 — Education and skills (Included)

ONS associated sub-domains — Human capital, NEETs, Qualifications

Reason for inclusion or exclusion — Having the skills to maintain a tenancy is important in understanding how prepared they may be to take a social housing tenancy, and therefore will impact on their experience and, or, wellbeing of living in this type of housing. Human capital and NEETs and qualifications were not covered via the survey, but confidence in managing a tenancy was.

8 — Economy (Not included)

ONS associated sub-domains — Disposable income, Public sector debt, Inflation

Reason for inclusion or exclusion — These are largely national measures of wellbeing, so are not deemed relevant for this wellbeing framework.

9 — Governance (Not included)

ONS associated sub-domains — Voter turnout, Trust in government, Civic engagement

Reason for inclusion or exclusion — These are largely national measures of wellbeing, so are not deemed relevant for this wellbeing framework.

10 — Environment (Not included)

ONS associated sub-domains — Greenhouse gas emissions, Renewable energy, Recycling

Reason for inclusion or exclusion — These are largely national measures of wellbeing, so are not deemed relevant for this wellbeing framework.

Not all sub-domains from the ONS framework were included in the wellbeing framework developed for this study. An assessment of each was undertaken to decide which were the most relevant. Sub-domains included were:

• life satisfaction
• worthwhile
• happiness
• anxiety
• mental wellbeing
• unhappy relationships
• loneliness
• trust
• people to rely on
• disability
• health satisfaction
• depression and, or, anxiety
• safety
• satisfaction with accommodation
• unemployment
• job satisfaction
• financial difficulties
• human capital

71 . Building upon Domains 1 to 7, a bespoke wellbeing framework was developed for this research, with the inclusion of the most relevant sub-domain or sub-domains for each relevant domain defined by the ONS. As above, the most relevant sub-domains have been selected based on the literature and our scoping consultations, to select those thought to be most influenced when people move from temporary accommodation into social housing.

72 . Life satisfaction is a central measure of wellbeing for this research — the remaining measures were used to add nuance to how research participants have rated their life satisfaction and the key factors contributing to it.

Approaches to measuring children’s wellbeing

73 . There is a growing interest in understanding children’s wellbeing and how it is distinct from that of adults. In addition to the ONS Domains of National Wellbeing for adults (which have been measured for the last 10 years), over the last 6 years the ONS has also collated indicators of children’s wellbeing using 31 indicators with 8 domains. The domains are broadly similar to those used in the adult version, but the indicators are more focused on the concepts of ‘being, becoming and having been’, given that a child’s current wellbeing is affected by their potential.

Table 4.2 — Reasons for including or excluding ONS wellbeing domains in the children’s wellbeing framework

1 — Personal wellbeing (Included)

ONS associated sub-domains — Life satisfaction, Worthwhile, Happiness, Appearance

Reason for inclusion or exclusion — Key for understanding changes in individual wellbeing. Appearance not included in wellbeing framework.

2 — Our relationships (included)

ONS associated sub-domains — Happiness with family, Bullying, Happiness with friends, Loneliness

Reason for inclusion or exclusion — Relationships for children were identified during scoping as important in affecting wellbeing and relevant to the focus of this study, especially given the strain that living in temporary accommodation may play on this (including if people are relocated away from their family and friends). Happiness with family, Bullying and Happiness with friends were not included in wellbeing framework.

3 — Health (Included)

ONS associated sub-domains — Happiness with health, Mental disorder, Food insecurity

Reason for inclusion or exclusion — An important domain for understanding if there are any differences in wellbeing as a result of a health condition, and for understanding if mental health is impacted by living in temporary accommodation. Mental disorder and Food insecurity not included in wellbeing framework.

4 — Where we live (Included)

ONS associated sub-domains — Feeling safe in care, Happiness with home, Outdoor spaces, Crime

Reason for inclusion or exclusion — In the context of temporary accommodation and social housing, the importance of living conditions and feelings of safety are important to understanding how housing specifically impacts upon an individual’s wellbeing. Feeling safe in care were not included in the wellbeing framework.

5 — What we do (Not included)

ONS associated sub-domains — Time use, Online harms, Physical activity, Visited nature

Reason for inclusion or exclusion — Although this domain was considered to be partially impacted by a change in accommodation, it was not considered to be the most impacted by a move to temporary accommodation.

6 — Personal finance (Included)

ONS associated sub-domains — Workless households, Income material deprivation, Relative low income household, Happiness with possessions

Reason for inclusion or exclusion — Given that the parents of those children living in temporary accommodation and social housing will likely be encountering financial difficulties, it is important to understand the impact it has on a child’s wellbeing. Income material deprivation, and Happiness with possessions not included in the wellbeing framework.

7 — Education and skills (Included)

ONS associated sub-domains — Development level, Pupil absences, Happiness with school, Further education plans

Reason for inclusion or exclusion — The evidence shows that disruption to a child’s housing situation impacts their ability to access and participate in education. Development level was not included in the wellbeing framework

8 — Future and voice (Not included)

ONS associated sub-domains — Happiness with choice, Happiness with future

Reason for inclusion or exclusion — It was recognised that these measures would be more difficult to capture through primary research, and so this domain was discounted.

Not all sub-domains from the ONS framework were included in the wellbeing framework developed for this study. An assessment of each was undertaken to decide which were the most relevant. Sub-domains included were:

• life satisfaction
• worthwhile
• happiness
• loneliness
• happiness with health
• happiness with home
• outdoor spaces
• crime
• workless households
• relative low income household
• pupil absences
• happiness with school
• further education plans

74 . It is well recognised within the existing literature that experiences of homelessness and, or, temporary accommodation in early life can also impact children’s life chances, and the longer they experience homelessness, the more likely it is that their health and wellbeing will be at risk ^{[footnote 42]}. Much of this points to a variety of wellbeing concepts being affected, including specific ‘domains’ of cognitive wellbeing, changes in emotional wellbeing, and also changes in wellbeing linked to autonomy, environmental mastery and purpose.

75 . Parents are generally able to judge their child’s wellbeing reasonably accurately, with research showing a correlation between a parent’s perception of their child’s wellbeing, and child’s own reporting of their wellbeing. The correlation is not strong (usually reported as moderate or weak) but still significant ^{[footnote 43]}, ^{[footnote 44]}. More recent data in a 2023 wellbeing report from The Children’s Society confirmed this moderate association ^{[footnote 45]}. Whilst collecting insights directly from children remains the gold standard for understanding their wellbeing, we can obtain important insights from parental reports.

Bringing the adult and children’s frameworks together

76 . To develop the wellbeing framework for this study, we brought together both the adult and children’s domains of wellbeing into one combined wellbeing framework. This contains all of the key indicators that we sought to capture insights on through quantitative and qualitative research.

Figure 4.3 — Wellbeing framework

Wellbeing — How people who live in social housing (and who previously lived in temporary accommodation) are doing, individually and collectively, relative to those currently living in temporary accommodation.

Adults

Personal wellbeing — Life satisfaction, Happiness, Worthwhile, Anxiety

Our relationships — Loneliness, People to rely on

Health — Health satisfaction, Depression or anxiety, Mental wellbeing

Where we live — Satisfaction with accommodation, Feeling safe, Belonging to neighbourhood

What we do — Unemployment, Job satisfaction

Personal finance — Financial difficulties

Education and skills — Skills to manage a tenancy

Children

Personal wellbeing — Life satisfactions, Happiness, Worthwhile

Our relationships — Loneliness

Health — Happiness with health

Where we live — Happiness with home, Outdoor spaces, Crime

Personal finance — Workless households, Relative low income household

Education and skills — Pupil absences, Happiness with school, Further education plans

Source: SQW, 2025

Notes:

Mental wellbeing moved to ‘Health’ from ‘Personal Wellbeing’.

A degree of pragmatism was adopted in designing the primary research tools, which meant some subdomains were not explored (particularly from the children’s domains) due to the need to avoid the tools becoming unwieldy or overly burdensome.

Defining our typologies for analysis

77 . Defining the typologies for analysis was key for identifying the housing type of interest, but also to ensure there was a clearly defined comparator group.

Defining temporary accommodation

78 . There are a number of different definitions that can be used to define temporary accommodation; the following definition was selected for the purposes of this study:

Temporary accommodation is accommodation provided by local authorities for unintentionally homeless households in priority need. ^{[footnote 46]}

79 . Broadly all of the definitions that exist for temporary accommodation refer to the short-term nature of the accommodation, and it being provided by a local housing authority under their statutory homelessness functions.

80 . Within temporary accommodation there are different sub-typologies. These depend on the local authority in which temporary accommodation is located, what is available, and the expected duration of time that someone might spend in temporary accommodation. Within the Homelessness Case Level Information Collection (H-CLIC) Specification (published by MHCLG) ^{[footnote 47]}, the following typologies are identified.

Table 4.1 — Sub-Typologies for temporary accommodation, and proportion of people living in each sub-typology, as defined by MHCLG

Sub-typologies for temporary accommodation	% of people living in temporary accommodation living in this typology
Privately managed bed and breakfast hotels (privately managed, meal or meals provided, shared facilities)	14%
Other nightly paid, privately managed accommodation, shared facilities	24%
Other nightly paid, privately managed accommodation, self-contained	24%
Hostels (including reception centres and emergency units)	6%
Refuges	6%
Private sector accommodation leased by your authority or leased or managed by a registered provider	26%
Accommodation within your own (LA) stock	24%
Accommodation within registered provider stock	24%
Directly with a private sector landlord	6%
Any other type of temporary accommodation	6%

Source — The Homelessness Case Level Information Collection (H-CLIC) Specification, DLUHC, 2021 and Statutory homelessness live tables, DLUHC (now MHCLG), 2024.

81 . Much of the existing evidence points to residents having very different experiences across the different sub-typologies of temporary accommodation; for example, those living in bed and breakfast hotels typically do not have access to cooking facilities, making cooking healthy meals challenging; whereas those in local authority or registered provider stock would typically have access to a wider range of facilities (although this might not always be the case). The experience of those living in these different sub-typologies will also vary depending on the characteristics of the household; those with young children typically need space for playing and similar, which might not be available in some typologies.

82 . In defining temporary accommodation, a degree of pragmatism was required, especially given the number of different typologies, and the diversity of their offerings. It would prove challenging to undertake primary research on multiple different typologies of temporary accommodation, given a number of factors:

• multiple different typologies would require a larger sample size (overall, given the need for sufficient data from each typology) or a larger effect size to be observed for robust results to be generated
• it is unclear if residents would be able to accurately self-identify which typology of housing they are currently in, and some typologies may prove more difficult for residents to accurately identify than others

83 . Given the ambitions of this study (that is, to understand the wellbeing effect associated with living in temporary accommodation, when compared to social housing), it was decided that a single typology for all temporary accommodation would be considered.

84 . However, when conducting the primary research, there were a number of nuances that we sought to identify within the data (subject to sample sizes), including differences:

• across sub-typologies of temporary accommodation (where respondents were able to identify the type of accommodation they live in)

• between accommodation that has no, shared or private kitchen facilities — the research base suggests that the presence of kitchen facilities in temporary accommodation tends to be a distinguisher of wellbeing impacts

• based on the duration of time that an individual has spent in temporary accommodation, and the number of different temporary accommodation properties they have resided in since becoming homeless

Typology 1 — temporary accommodation — This includes a range of different accommodation provided to those who are unintentionally homeless. This includes a range of different sub-typologies, and includes accommodation provided by local authorities, registered providers and the private rental sector.

Defining the social housing comparator group

85 . Across consultees, social housing was identified as the best comparator group for consideration, but it was noted that it is important to recognise diversity of offer within this.

86 . There are a range of different affordable housing products available, of which social housing is one type, as detailed in recent research undertaken for Homes England, shown in the table.

Table 4.1 — Affordable housing products

Housing for rent

Social housing

• social rent
• London affordable rent
• affordable rent

Intermediate Housing

• discounted market rent
• London living rent
• rent to buy (intermediate rent)

Affordable home ownership

Intermediate housing

• discounted market homes including first homes
• help to buy equity loan scheme
• shared ownership

Need-specific housing

Supported housing

• sheltered housing
• specialised housing

Social housing

• temporary accommodation

Source — Homes England and SQW, 2024

87 . In 2022 and 2023, around 17% of new social housing lettings in England were for households moving from temporary accommodation (which includes ‘any other temporary accommodation’, bed and breakfast and direct access hostel accommodation).

Figure 4.4 — Previous tenure of new social housing lettings in 2022 and 2023

Tenure	Number of new social housing lettings
Living with friends and family	47973
Private sector tenancy	41861
Other	31882
Any other temporary accommodation	25744
Lifetime local authority general needs tenancy	20510
Lifetime private registered provider general needs tenancy	19075
Supported housing	14043
Fixed term private registered provider general needs tenancy	10214
Fixed term local authority general needs tenancy	9290
Rough sleeping	4261
Owner occupation	4107
Bed and breakfast	3641
Direct access hostel	2352
Residential care home	782
Mobile home or caravan	762
Specialist retirement housing	757
Extra care housing	603
Tied housing or renting with job	552

Source — Continuous Recording of Lettings in Social Housing in England, 2023

88 . Analysis of MHCLG’s Statutory Homelessness live tables provides some insights on the previous housing situation of lead tenants in new social housing lettings, and also the typology of social housing letting, which provides an insight into the type of social housing those in temporary accommodation are moving into, and also what proportion of new social housing lettings are taken by those in temporary accommodation.

89 . Of those who move from temporary accommodation into social housing, 86% move into a social rent tenancy, and 13% move into an affordable rent tenancy. A total of 72% of those moving from temporary accommodation into social housing move into general needs accommodation (housing that is suitable for people who are independent and do not have special housing or support needs) and 28% move into supported housing (accommodation where residents receive additional support, supervision or care designed to meet their needs).

Figure 4.5 — Previous housing situation of lead tenant for new social housing lettings, 2021 and 2022

Previous housing situation of lead tenant	Number
General Needs social tenancy	70389
Living with friends or family	55765
Private sector tenancy	44851
Other	37893
Temporary accommodation	36445
Supported housing	15646
Owner occupation — private or shared ownership	5787

Source — Statutory homelessness live tables, MHCLG, 2024

Figure 4.6 — Type of new social housing letting taken by those moving from temporary accommodation, 2021 and 2022

Type of new social housing letting	Number
Social rent — general needs — local authority	10480
Social rent — general needs — private registered provider	11052
Social rent — supported housing — local authority	833
Social rent — supported housing — private registered provider	9031
Affordable rent — general needs — local authority	568
Affordable rent — general needs — private registered provider	3825
Affordable rent — supported housing — local authority	87
Affordable rent — supported housing — private registered provider	514
Intermediate rent — general needs — local authority	0
Intermediate rent — general needs — private registered provider	52
Intermediate rent — supported housing — local authority	1
Intermediate rent — supported housing — private registered provider	2

Source — Statutory homelessness live tables, MHCLG, 2024.

90 . There are 2 typologies for social housing that are the most common destination for those leaving temporary accommodation:

• general needs — social housing for rent including social rent, London affordable rent and affordable rent housing
• supported housing for rent — housing schemes where accommodation is provided alongside care, support or supervision (primarily let at ‘social’ or ‘affordable’ rent levels)

91 . Since the ultimate objective of this research is to derive wellbeing values which can be used in the appraisal of social housing schemes, then it is essential that the resulting values can be additive to other social values used in appraisal, notably Land Value Uplift (LVU). In order to avoid potential for overlap with LVU, it was suggested that the comparator group should only include those living in social housing who had previously lived in temporary accommodation within the last 3 years. The 3-year period was selected to mitigate the risk of capturing the wellbeing of those who had lived long-term or lifetime in social housing. A 3-year period ‘post-intervention’ (that is, someone moving from temporary accommodation to social housing) was seen as the most appropriate, given the need to achieve a large sample size (only 31,396 people moved from temporary accommodation into new social rent lettings in 2021 and 2022 ^{[footnote 48]}), and that it may take time for the adaptation effect to be noticeable (that is, the time needed for someone to settle into their new accommodation and make changes to things that might impact their wellbeing, for example, employment, starting new schools, developing relationships with neighbours and so on).

92 . When considering the practicalities of undertaking primary research, it was decided that the approach that would lead to the most robust results in the available resourcing and timeframe was to focus on general needs social housing, with supported housing considered out of scope for this research project (given the additional support needs of the cohort, study timelines, resourcing and domains in the wellbeing framework that would need to be considered).

93 . As a result, the typology of social housing and cohort of residents considered in this study is as follows:

Typology 2 — social housing (for rent) — general needs

Housing that is suitable for people who are independent and do not have special housing or support needs.

Individuals living in social rent, London affordable rent and affordable rent housing who previously lived in temporary accommodation in the last 3 years.

94 . It is the difference in life satisfaction between residents in typology 1 (temporary accommodation) and typology 2 (social housing), after controlling for other factors, which results in the wellbeing effect of moving out of temporary accommodation into social housing.

Theory of change

95 . A ToC sets out “how the intervention is expected to work and what evidence supports this thinking” ^{[footnote 49]}. ToCs are routinely used in evaluation studies and visually present the underpinning logic of a particular intervention or policy. They set out the intended inputs, activities or outputs, outcomes and longer-term or ultimate impacts expected, alongside key contextual factors and assumptions.

96 . For the purposes of this project, a ToC was developed based on the evidence captured during the scoping research; namely, insights from consultations with a range of stakeholders, and a document and evidence review regarding wellbeing impacts (including definitions, frameworks and measurement) for residents in temporary accommodation and social housing.

97 . The ToC model is designed to show how moving people from temporary accommodation into social housing leads to a series of positive outcomes and impacts, the measurement of which would be supported by the framework.

98 . The first column presents the inputs required for delivery of social housing and the supporting infrastructure required to move people into this accommodation. These are high level categories of inputs associated with the development and delivery of social housing, including those which are provided by developers (specifically, investment funds and operational resources), costs in getting residents into the accommodation (for example, moving costs, rents and readiness inputs needed to give people the skills to manage a tenancy) and planners and designers (such as architectural design, engineering, building control and planning approval).

99 . The second column presents the activities that occur as a result of these inputs. Specifically, these relate to the construction and operation of social housing, and any support provision that may be offered (in the case of supported housing).

100 .The third column presents the outputs that are generated as a result of the inputs and activities. Outputs are products or things generated which can be quantified or counted. For social housing, the outputs are the actual number of homes developed, the numbers of people who live in this type of housing, and the provision of specific support (in the case of supported housing).

101 .The outcomes presented in the ToC are what is expected to occur as a result of these outputs. These are outcomes for those now living in social housing (who had previously lived in temporary accommodation).

102 .The impacts shown in the ToC are the ultimate benefits expected as a result of providing social housing; namely, benefits for individuals, but also for the wider economy and society as a whole.

103 .The ToC in underpinned by several key assumptions, which are outlined on the following page. There are also a series of contributory factors or mechanisms, which will affect the extent to which the ToC is realised.

Figure 4.7 — Theory of change — wellbeing and social housing, moving from temporary accommodation

Provision and funding for temporary accommodation and social rented housing (links to) typologies of temporary accommodation and social rented housing (links to) routes into and out of temporary accommodation (links to) inputs.

Inputs

• investment for building and, or, converting development
• operational inputs (for example, maintenance, management and admin, support costs)
• resident costs (for example, moving costs, rent, readiness inputs)
• planning and design inputs

Activities

• construction and, or, conversion of accommodation
• management of processes, maintenance
• eligibility criteria and assessment
• movement into and out of temporary accommodation and social housing
• social housing allocations
• support provision (in case of supported housing)

Outputs

• number of homes provided, with characteristics including typology of housing and facilities and services offered
• number of residents housed, with characteristics including routes into that accommodation, household composition, health and disability status and need, time living in that accommodation
• provision of specific support

Outcomes

• safe and secure housing
• increased autonomy and independence
• improved access to employment opportunities
• increased sense of stability, certainty and permanence
• improved sense of belonging and, or, neighbourhood
• access to healthier meal options
• improved access and, or, stability to education
• improved child development and behaviour

Items that refer specifically to children’s outcomes are:

• improved access and, or, stability to education
• improved child development and behaviour

Impact

• improved quality of life and wellbeing for residents
• improved physical and mental health outcomes
• improved educational outcomes
• improved employment outcomes
• improved community cohesion
• economic benefits and fiscal benefits for the exchequer

Item that refers specifically to children’s impact:

• improved educational outcomes

Assumptions

• willingness and readiness of resident to move into property
• willingness of resident to leave temporary accommodation
• social housing meets residents’ needs
• social housing is available for the target population
• intended support services and, or, facilities are available for residents to access as appropriate
• private registered provider and local authority social housing are of comparable quality and, or, suitability
• general needs and supported social housing are of comparable quality and, or, suitability

Contributing factors and mechanisms

• affordability of accommodation — ability of resident to live comfortably and within their means
• design — physical and design aspects and key features of the accommodation
• local environment — the local area or neighbourhood in which the accommodation is located
• household composition — whether the household includes children, caring responsibilities, disability and health status
• access — residents’ access to local services, transport, employment opportunities, education, and so on
• location — the resident’s proximity to family and, or, other support networks
• routes into temporary accommodation — the pathway that people take into temporary accommodation, and how many addresses they have over the previous 12 months
• stigma and identity – the subjective experience of living in this type of housing
• time — time spent in temporary accommodation and, or, social housing
• health — adaptations needed for accommodation, existing levels of physical and mental health
• management and, or, maintenance — quality of housing management and ongoing maintenance
• autonomy and control — being able to control and decide on accommodation

5. Primary research approach

104 . This section summarises the primary research approach adopted for the study.

Figure 5.1 — Summary of scoping activities and primary research approach

Scoping and feasibility phase

1. Inception meeting
2. Documentation review
3. Scoping consultations — government stakeholders, research organisations and charities — phase 1, April to June 2024
4. Development of typologies, Theory of Change, and Wellbeing Framework
5. Workshop with Homes England and wider colleagues
6. Initial engagement with local authorities and registered providers of social housing
7. Development of primary research approach and feasibility

Primary research and analysis phase

1. Re-engagement with local authorities and registered providers of social housing — phase 3a, October to January 2025
2. Tool design
3. Local authorities and registered providers’ learning network — phase 3b, October 2024
4. One-to-one testing interviews
5. Survey dissemination — phase 4. February to March 2025. Typology 1 — temporary accommodation. Typology 2 — social housing (for rent) — only including those who lived in temporary accommodation within the last 3 years.
6. Study findings workshops with learning network and Homes England and wider colleagues — phase 5, summer 2025.

Source: SQW, 2025.

Study findings workshops in summer 2025 will be undertaken following the publication of this report.

Engaging with key stakeholders

105 . SQW has conducted engagement with a range of stakeholders involved in the delivery of and, or, research into temporary accommodation and social housing. This stakeholder engagement consisted of 5 main phases:

Phase 1 — April to June 2024

This phase consisted of engagement with government stakeholders, as well as research organisations, sector bodies and charities who had previously researched the wellbeing of those living in temporary accommodation and, or, social housing. The purpose of these conversations was to introduce them to the research, identify and understand existing research on the wellbeing impacts of temporary accommodation and, or, social housing, identify any existing recognised definitions for temporary accommodation and comparator (social) housing, and to understand how feasible it might be to conduct primary research on those living in temporary accommodation and a comparator housing typology (with exploration of social housing as the potential comparator).

Phase 2 — June to September 2024

This phase consisted of initial engagement with local authorities and registered providers of social housing to test the feasibility of conducting primary research with those currently living in their temporary accommodation and, or, social housing, and to understand what the practicalities might be in delivering this research, as well as anticipated appetite for engagement.

Key feedback from this phase included:

Many of the local authorities and registered providers of social housing consulted with were keen to support the research as much as they could (given resource pressures being experienced).

Many identified a need to incentivise the completion of the survey, to encourage a high response rate. This was seen as particularly important given the financial situation of many of those living in temporary accommodation.

Some felt that in-person surveying might result in richer data and yield higher response rates, but that this posed a number of operational challenges, and would reduce the overall sample size that could be generated given the resourcing implications of in-person surveying. In light of this, there was general consensus among stakeholders that an online survey would be the most effective method of engaging a large sample of people in temporary accommodation and/or social housing for the purposes of this research.

The majority of stakeholders noted that offering the option to complete the survey in languages other than English was essential.

Stakeholders also raised a number of key risks and, or, challenges that the research might face, including survey fatigue, low response rates, internal capacity within local authorities to engage with the research, and risks in conducting research with vulnerable people.

Phase 3a — October 2024 to January 2025

This phase consisted of follow-up conversations with local authorities and registered providers of social housing to confirm recruitment, sample sizes and to inform the design of the primary research tool. Conversations were held with 30 local authorities and 15 registered providers of social housing.

Phase 3b — December 2024

An online Learning Network event was held with those local authorities and registered providers of social housing interested in participating in the research to get their feedback on the draft primary research tool that had been developed, and to explore the practicalities of disseminating the primary research tools.

Phase 4 — February to March 2025

SQW engaged with local authorities and registered providers of social housing to discuss the practicalities of the primary research such as how many people they expected to be able to send the survey to, the approach to disseminating the survey, and answering any queries related to the dissemination of the survey. We also confirmed the telephone survey approach with subcontractor IFF Research; this was available for anyone requesting an alternative language or format of the survey. All engaged local authorities and registered providers of social housing received a detailed email in February 2025 with links to the online survey or surveys and an introductory email that could be sent to their eligible residents, as appropriate. The survey was open for completion for four weeks, from mid-February to mid-March 2025.

Phase 5 — Summer 2025

Following the publication of this report, SQW will undertake 2 study findings workshops; 1 with the Learning Network (with local authorities and registered providers of social housing) and 1 with Homes England and MHCLG colleagues

Primary research tool design

106 . Following sign-off of the wellbeing framework, primary research tools were developed, comprising 2 online surveys — 1 for residents of temporary accommodation, and the other for residents of social housing (who had previously lived in temporary accommodation in the past 3 years). The questions asked in each survey, and the introductory wording, were largely consistent across the 2 surveys.

107 . To inform the survey tool design, the measures and indicators used in a number of datasets, tools and questionnaires that provide data regarding wellbeing were reviewed. These were compared against the domains and sub-domains identified in the wellbeing framework to ensure as many questions as possible were from recognised and validated tools. These included:

• the ONS-4, a widely recognised tool used by the ONS (and more widely) to measure personal wellbeing through subjective reports of satisfaction, purpose, happiness and anxiety

• the Community Life Survey, a survey focused on social cohesion, community engagement and social action which includes questions on loneliness

• the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, a longitudinal survey focusing on the English population aged 50 and over and containing questions on a range of different areas, including loneliness (using the UCLA loneliness Scale, a scale designed to measure subjective feelings of loneliness as well as feelings of social isolation)

• the English Housing Survey, a national survey of people’s housing circumstances which includes questions on relationships, community and accommodation.

• the UK Household Longitudinal Study, a longitudinal household panel study which includes questions on a range of different areas including health satisfaction, satisfaction with accommodation, safety and belonging.

108 . Table 5.1 details the specific questions that were then selected from each of these validated datasets or surveys to address each domain and sub-domain.

109 . A range of bespoke questions were also included, to address priority topic areas in the framework or flagged as important during engagement but not appropriately covered by existing tools.

110 . A selection of demographic questions were also included within the surveys to enable comparisons to be made between different groups and characteristics in the analysis. These questions were largely based on the wording used in the latest Office for National Statistics census.

111 . The final survey questionnaires are included in Appendix 1.

Table 5.1 — Primary research tool questions and corresponding sub-domains – adult questions

Domain	Sub-domain	Question	Question source	Temporary accommodation	Social housing
Personal wellbeing	Life satisfaction	Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?	ONS-4	Yes	Yes
Personal wellbeing	Worthwhile	Overall, to what extent do you feel that the things in your life are worthwhile?	ONS-4	Yes	Yes
Personal wellbeing	Happiness	Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday?	ONS-4	Yes	Yes
Personal wellbeing	Anxiety	On a scale where 0 is “not at all anxious” and 10 is “completely anxious”, overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday?	ONS-4	Yes	Yes
Our relationships	Loneliness	How often do you feel lonely?	English Housing Survey	Yes	Yes
Our relationships	Loneliness	Does living in your current accommodation have an impact on how often you can see friends or family, if you want to?	Bespoke	Yes	Yes
Our relationships	People to rely on	To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement ‘If I needed help, there are people who would be there for me’?	Community Life Survey	Yes	Yes
Health	Health satisfaction	Please choose the number which you feel best describes how dissatisfied or satisfied you are with your health.	Adapted from UK-HLS	Yes	Yes
Health	Health satisfaction	Do you have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more?	Census	Yes	Yes
Health	Health satisfaction	Do any of your conditions or illnesses reduce your ability to carry out day-to-day activities?	Census	Yes	Yes
Health	Depression or anxiety; Mental wellbeing	To what extent do you agree with the following? I am worried about my housing situation, I feel able to manage my emotions.	Bespoke	Yes	Yes
Where we live	Satisfaction with accommodation	Please choose the number which you feel best describes how dissatisfied or satisfied you are with your current accommodation, the area in which you live.	Bespoke	Yes	Yes
Where we live	Satisfaction with accommodation	Does your current accommodation have any of the following: bathroom, kitchen, living room.	Bespoke	Yes	Yes
Where we live	Satisfaction with accommodation	Does your current accommodation have: the facilities to cook the meals you wish to, enough space to carry out the daily activities you need to, damp and, or, mould, draughts from windows and, or doors.	Bespoke	Yes	Yes
Where we live	Satisfaction with accommodation	In your current accommodation, are you allowed to have friends or family visit?	Bespoke	Yes	No
Where we live	Feeling safe	How safe do you generally feel …	Bespoke	Yes	Yes
Where we live	Belonging to neighbourhood	To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement ‘I feel like I belong to this neighbourhood’?	UK-HLS	Yes	Yes
What we do	Unemployment	In the last 7 days, were you doing any of the following? Working as an employee, self-employed or freelance, temporarily away from work ill, on holiday, or temporarily laid off, on maternity or paternity leave, doing any other kind of paid work, none of the above	Census 2021	Yes	Yes
What we do	Unemployment	(For ‘none of the above’) – Which of the following best describes what you were doing in the 7 days? Retired, Studying, Looking after home or family, Long-term sick or disabled, actively seeking employment, Other	Adapted from Census 2021	Yes	Yes
What we do	Job satisfaction	Have you had to change jobs, or leave a previous job, as a result of your move into temporary accommodation?	Bespoke	Yes	No
What we do	Job satisfaction	Have you changed your working patterns, as a result of your move into temporary accommodation?	Bespoke	Yes	No
Personal finance	Financial difficulties	How easy or difficult have you found it to get by financially in the past month?	Opinions and Lifestyle Survey, ONS	Yes	Yes
Education and skills	Skills to manage a tenancy	To what extent do you agree with this statement: ‘I feel confident managing my tenancy’?	Bespoke	Yes	Yes
Demographic questions	—	What is your sex?	Census 2021	Yes	Yes
Demographic questions	—	Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?	Census 2021	Yes	Yes
Demographic questions	—	What age are you?	Census 2021	Yes	Yes
Demographic questions	—	What is your ethnic group?	Adapted from Census 2021	Yes	Yes
Housing history	—	Excluding you, how many people live in your household at your current address… aged 16 and over, aged 5 to 15, aged 0 to 4.	Bespoke	Yes	Yes
Housing history	—	What is the first part of your current postcode?	Bespoke	Yes	Yes
Housing history	—	What was the first part of the postcode of your last address before you became homeless?	Bespoke	Yes	No
Housing history	—	Do you still live in the local authority (council) area in which you were registered as homeless?	Bespoke	Yes	No
Housing history	—	Is your current accommodation in the local authority (council) area that you applied to live in?	Bespoke	No	Yes
Housing history	—	How long have you lived in your current accommodation for?	Bespoke	Yes	Yes
Housing history	—	What type of temporary accommodation do you currently live in?	Bespoke	Yes	No
Housing history	—	In the past 12 months, excluding where you currently live, which of these types of accommodation have you lived in?	Bespoke	Yes	No
Housing history	—	Including your current accommodation, how many temporary addresses have you lived at since you became homeless?	Bespoke	Yes	No
Housing history	—	What type of accommodation do you currently live in?	Bespoke	No	Yes

Table 5.2 — Primary research tool questions and corresponding sub-domains – children questions (routed)

Age	Sub-domain	Question	Question source	Temporary accommodation	Social housing
0 to 4	Personal wellbeing	How happy is your child with their life as a whole?	Adapted from Children’s Society Household Survey	Yes	Yes
0 to 4	Health	Does your child have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more?	Census	Yes	Yes
0 to 4	Where we live	How happy would you say your child is with your current accommodation?	Adapted from Children’s Society Good Childhood Youth report	Yes	Yes
0 to 4	Where we live	In the area in which you currently live, to what extent do you agree that there are enough places for your child to play?	Adapted from International Survey of Children’s Wellbeing (ISCWeB)	Yes	Yes
0 to 4	Where we live	To what extent do you agree with the following statement: ‘In my current accommodation, there is enough space for my child to play’?	Bespoke	Yes	Yes
0 to 4	Education and skills	Has your child had to move school or nursery as a result of your move into temporary accommodation?	Bespoke	Yes	No
5 to 15	Personal wellbeing	How happy is your child with their life as a whole?	Adapted from Children’s Society Household Survey	Yes	Yes
5 to 15	Our relationships	How often do you think your child feels lonely?	Adapted from UK HLS	Yes	Yes
5 to 15	Health	Does your child have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more?	Census	Yes	Yes
5 to 15	Where we live	How happy would you say your child is with your current accommodation?	Adapted from Children’s Society Good Childhood Youth report	Yes	Yes
5 to 15	Where we live	Is the area that you live in safe for your child (for example, for them to play, walk to where they need to get to etc.)?	Bespoke	Yes	Yes
5 to 15	Where we live	In the area in which you currently live, to what extent do you agree that there are enough places for your child to play?	Adapted from International Survey of Children’s Wellbeing (ISCWeB)	Yes	Yes
5 to 15	Where we live	To what extent do you agree with the following statement: ‘In my current accommodation, there is enough space for my child to play’?	Bespoke	Yes	Yes
5 to 15	Where we live	To what extent do you agree with the following statement: ‘In my current accommodation, there is enough space for my child to study’?	Bespoke	Yes	Yes
5 to 15	Education and skills	Has your child had to move schools as a result of your move into temporary accommodation?	Bespoke	Yes	No
5 to 15	Education and skills	Has moving into your current accommodation affected your child’s attendance at school?	Bespoke	Yes	Yes
5 to 15	Education and skills	Overall, how happy is your child with the school they go to?	Bespoke	Yes	Yes

Testing of the surveys

112 .The survey tools were each tested with people who would be eligible to complete one of them, via a series of one-to-one ‘tool testing interviews’. In total, 10 interviews were conducted via telephone or MS Teams, comprising interviews with 7 individuals living in temporary accommodation (3 were able to comment on the child-focused questions), and 3 individuals living in social housing who had recently lived in temporary accommodation (all 3 were able to comment on the child-focused questions).

113 . Interviewees were recruited via an optional sign up survey distributed by 2 local authorities in January 2025. Interviews were conducted between mid-January and early-February, each lasting between 40 and 90 minutes. Each interview was led by an SQW researcher, with a second SQW researcher present to take notes. One interview was attended by an external translator (organised by the relevant local authority) to support participation.

114 . During the conversations, the SQW researcher asked questions about the draft survey and cover note to find out what participants thought of the wording, their interest in completing the survey, and reflections on the proposed prize draw incentivisation. In the second half of the interview, if participants consented (and if there was sufficient time), they were asked questions to understand their own housing situation and how their housing affects their wellbeing (and that of their children, where relevant). The purpose of these questions was to capture qualitative insights which would not be gathered through the survey, including verbatim quotations. The analysis of this qualitative data is included in section 8 of this report.

115 . Draft versions of the questionnaires were also shared with local authorities and registered providers of social housing for their feedback, which was received via email and also as part of the learning network event in December 2024. The study’s 3 external expert advisors also reviewed and fed back on the draft questionnaires, as did IFF Research.

Dissemination of the survey

116 . The surveys were shared with 36 local authorities and 11 registered providers of social housing. Of this number 38 authorities or providers had agreed to share it with both residents in temporary accommodation and residents in social housing who had previously been in temporary accommodation in the last 3 years, while 7 had agreed to share it just with residents in temporary accommodation ^{[footnote 50]}, and 2 registered providers agreed to share it with residents in social housing who had previously been in temporary accommodation in the last 3 years.

117 . Around the point of survey launch, 4 local authorities and 1 registered provider of social housing notified SQW that they would be unable to disseminate the surveys.

118 . Participating local authorities and registered providers received an instruction email, which contained detail on the survey or surveys (including the closing date), a reminder of the cohort or cohorts of interest, and an email attachment with suggested email text for sharing the survey with eligible residents (as appropriate – some authorities or providers only received the text for residents in 1 typology, as this was the cohort they had confirmed they would be able to share with). The suggested email text contained links to the relevant survey. Authorities and providers were also each sent a checklist of instructions to follow for disseminating the survey or surveys, including ensuring:

• they had the necessary local data use and, or, information governance permissions to send out the survey links to residents
• they were sending the appropriate wording and link to the right cohort
• the emails were sent in blind carbon copy (BCC), or the equivalent on their system, to preserve anonymity of recipients
• the survey link was correctly embedded and hyperlinked before sharing

119 . They were also offered a quick response (QR) code to share with their eligible residents if preferred, alongside the survey link; 2 local authorities requested this and were provided with the relevant QR code or codes.

120 . A total of 18 local authorities and 5 registered providers confirmed they had shared the survey with the relevant cohort or cohorts. A further 7 local authorities and 2 registered providers of social housing acknowledged receipt of the initial survey emails, but did not ultimately confirm whether they had shared the survey or surveys with residents or not, and 7 local authorities and 4 registered providers did not acknowledge receipt of the initial survey emails. As such, we can confidently say that the survey was shared by 23 organisations; it is possible that it was also shared by more local authorities and registered providers of social housing who did not confirm this directly with the study team.

121 . Periodic reminders were sent to all engaged authorities and providers throughout the period that the survey was live, as well as targeted outreach to authorities and providers who had not confirmed dissemination.

Limitations of approach and key considerations

122 . The study was conducted to address the research brief within the resources available and required timescale. When considering the content outlined in this report it is important to note the following key considerations or limitations, which relate to the study design and sampling.

Study design

Pragmatism versus rigour — it was important that this study generated robust insights and evidence which stands up to scrutiny. It was also important that it was delivered pragmatically and with a view to producing practical, meaningful outputs. The research approach agreed with Homes England was structured to strike an appropriate balance between these 2 priorities. Not all subdomains in the wellbeing framework could be explored within the survey tools, particularly those relating to children, to avoid the tools becoming overly lengthy and arduous to complete. Prioritisation was undertaken to ensure focus remained on key subdomains and areas of interest, as well as issues most effectively explored via an online tick-box survey. It was also not considered feasible within the resource and timeframe for the study to capture primary data directly from children.

Variation even within typologies — literature suggests there is a difference in an individual’s experience of temporary accommodation depending on the type of temporary accommodation they are placed in, and the duration of time they spend in that accommodation. They may also experience multiple types of temporary accommodation before a more stable housing offer is made. This research sought to capture the effects of the variation in temporary accommodation, the number of temporary properties experienced, and time spent in temporary accommodation, to understand this in more detail. However, sample sizes affected the extent to which subgroup analysis was possible.

Data collection method — surveys were conducted online across both typologies, to ensure consistency. One respondent took up the offer of a translated telephone interview with our sub-contractor IFF Research, and their responses were inputted by IFF Research into the survey software. Respondents were invited to anonymously complete the survey, although they were required to provide some limited contact information in order to enter the prize draw (name and email address), should they wish to. There is a risk that this may have affected the responses that people provided, but assurances were given that contact details would be separated from the survey response data for analysis purposes.

Optional question completion — with the exception of 1 or 2 key question or questions in each survey, all other responses were optional, for example, respondents could skip over any questions they did not understand or did not want to answer. This means that the number of responses provided to each question varies.

No ‘before, during and after’ data — it has not been possible to capture data from the same cohort of people at multiple time points; for example, prior to living in temporary accommodation, when they live in temporary accommodation and after they move into social housing. To mitigate for this and to explore how similar or different the individuals in the different cohorts may be, data on wider variables was captured, which was used as part of the analysis.

Snapshot in time — the data presents a snapshot in time of people’s feelings and housing circumstances; it is possible that on another day their responses may have been different.

‘Parental’ categorisation — those with children aged 15 and under living in the household were invited to provide insights into their perceptions of the child or children’s wellbeing, school attendance and happiness, as well as other key issues. Throughout this report we refer to these people as ‘parents’, and refer to ‘parent reported’ effects. However, it is possible that respondents to these questions may not be the parents of the children they were referring to.

Duplicate responses — SQW did not capture respondents’ IP addresses, to minimise the amount of personal data captured via the survey. It is possible that some people completed the survey more than once; indeed, prize draw entries suggest that this occurred on a handful of occasions across both surveys (accounting for less than 1% of total respondents). We estimate that the effect of this on the overall responses and findings is minimal. We monitored the time taken to complete the survey and no responses were completed in an excessively quick timeframe.

Not possible to establish causality — we do not track the same sample from temporary accommodation to social housing, and it is not possible to definitively confirm causality of any findings in the data. Qualitative insights and the wider evidence base provide an indication as to possible explanations and causalities for findings observed, and the findings are founded in the wellbeing framework and ToC. Therefore, any differences the models attribute to typologies can reasonably be used to inform the monetisation of wellbeing in appraisals.

Sample

Limited qualitative fieldwork sample — despite a small ‘thank you’ incentive being offered to encourage qualitative tool testing interview participation, and extending the interview fieldwork timelines, we were unable to undertake more than 10 interviews with people living in the relevant accommodation typologies. 2 local authorities supported with recruitment and issued multiple rounds of invites across different residents, for which we are grateful. Further qualitative interviews may have yielded additional insights.

Targeting of survey sample to maximise results — SQW largely targeted engagement with those local authorities and registered providers of social housing who had the largest numbers of tenants in either temporary accommodation and/or social housing, using data from MHCLG to identify those which were the largest. This was to ensure we prioritised our focus on those that were likely to generate the largest number of responses, given resource and timescale constraints for the study. This may mean however that the results are not fully representative (in particular of those living in less densely populated and, or, rural locations).

Reliance on local authorities and providers to identify an accurate sample — we were reliant on the engaged local authorities and registered providers to disseminate the survey to an eligible sample of their residents. This study could not have taken place without their support, for which we are grateful. It is however possible that some people received the survey who were not eligible to complete it.

Representativeness of the sample — it is not possible to assess how representative the wellbeing and experiences of survey respondents are of the overall cohort of people living in the 2 typologies. It is possible that those in the most challenging circumstances may have been unable or unwilling to complete the survey; conversely, those with the most challenging circumstances may actually have been more motivated to complete it, to share their experiences and enter the prize draw.

6. Respondent profile and analysis of primary research data

123 . This section of the report presents the descriptive analysis of the survey returns, identifying the distinguishing features of each group in the sample. It also answers a set of secondary research questions by comparing the responses collected from residents of temporary accommodation (typology 1) and social housing (typology 2) and statistical testing for the differences in the average answers (for example, using 𝑡 and 𝜒2 tests). These questions included differences in wellbeing:

• by housing typology
• by characteristics of accommodation
• across households with and without children
• by region
• across individuals who had to move between different types of accommodation

124 . To maximise the response rate and ensure our surveys were accessible and user friendly, respondents had an option to complete the relevant survey and not to provide answers to some of the questions. They could also stop participating part way through the survey. In our analysis we considered all responses collected from people who finished the survey (albeit while skipping some questions in some cases) or abandoned it after providing us with the information on their housing situation, satisfaction with it and their responses to ONS-4 wellbeing questions.

Sample

125 . In total we had 2,341 observations for the analysis, of which 2,007 (85%) were from respondents residing in temporary accommodation and 334 (15%) from social housing residents (who had lived in temporary accommodation within the last 3 years).

126 . Since prize draw incentives were used to boost the response rates, there was a risk that some of the collected data records could potentially be fraudulent, for example, people ‘completing’ the questionnaire without any thought or providing random answers only to be considered for the prize. To minimise the risk of using such unreliable data we filtered out any respondents who took less than 90 seconds to complete the survey (although this did not apply to any of the respondents). The threshold amount of time was determined through testing and correspondent to the time it would take to click through the survey with pauses between questions long enough to select a random answer. The average completion time among the remaining responses was approximately 15 minutes (excluding the cases where people left the survey window open for multiple hours, for example. to complete the survey the following day).

127 . After the filtering was applied, the sample was further examined for obvious meaningless patterns (for example. the same high or low answers to all questions). We gave particular attention to the ONS-4 questions because they were the main outcomes of interest for the research and because 1 of them (the anxiety question) is ‘flipped’. The question is worded such that lower values represent better outcomes, while the other 3 questions (life satisfaction, happiness and doing things that are worthwhile) use an ascending scale. This discrepancy could catch out those respondents who were not paying attention.

128 . Our pre-analysis power calculations suggested that the sample would allow us to identify differences in the averages across the 2 typologies in the region of around 0.2 of the standard deviation in the data ^{[footnote 51]}. Such differences are often considered to be ‘small’ suggesting that our survey strategy succeeded in providing us with a sufficient sample ^{[footnote 52]}.

129 . We analysed certain characteristics of the sample to check if it was broadly representative in terms of type of accommodation, household composition and regional distribution. The majority of respondents from temporary accommodation lived in a self-contained flat or house (68%). This reflects the national profile, in which 74% of those living in temporary accommodation live in private managed accommodation, or local authority or registered provider stock. Nationally, 14% of those living in temporary accommodation live in privately managed bed and breakfast hotels; this is 9% of respondents in our sample.

Figure 6.1 — a) Current accommodation of respondents in temporary accommodation

Accommodation	%
Self-contained flat or house	68%
Bed and breakfast or hotel	9%
Hostel	7%
Other	6%
House in multiple occupation or bedsit	6%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	4%
Refuge	0%

Source — SQW, 2025 — Number in temporary accommodation = 1,998.

Figure 6.1 — b) Current accommodation of respondents in social housing

Accommodation	%
Council housing	59%
Rental accommodation from a registered provider such as a housing association	40%
Other	1%
Don’t know	0%

Number in social housing = 332. Source — SQW, 2025.

130 . Data on the household composition of those responding to our survey relative to the latest temporary accommodation statistics shows that we have a similar profile of respondents to the national picture. The higher proportion of ‘other’ responses reflects the number of people living in hostels or housing of multiple occupation, in which a higher number of adults living in the household was reported, but we expect that in reality many of these are classified as ‘single adult’ under the national classification.

Figure 6.2 — Household composition of respondents in temporary accommodation compared to national data

Household composition	National data %	Our survey data %
Couple with dependent children	21%	27%
Single parent with dependent children	37%	27%
Single adult	30%	18%
Other	13%	26%

Source SQW, 2025 and Statutory homelessness live tables, MHCLG, 2024

131 .We aimed to get as representative a sample from across England as was possible, given that we were dependent on local authorities and registered providers to distribute the survey to their residents. The graphic below shows the distribution of responses (by region) and compares this to the regional distribution of temporary accommodation placements (in September 2024) and social housing lettings (in 2023 and 2024). The temporary accommodation sample is broadly representative of the regional distribution of temporary accommodation (albeit we received a higher proportion of responses from the West Midlands than might have been expected), but for social housing the sample was skewed towards respondents in London and the East of England.

Figure 6.3 — Distribution of survey responses received by region, relative to each region’s proportion of overall numbers placed in temporary accommodation and social housing lettings in 2023 and 2024

Region	Temporary accommodation survey responses %	Temporary accommodation (September 2024) %	Social housing survey responses %	Social housing actual number of social lettings (2023 and 2024) %
North East	0%	1%	1%	8%
North West	10%	7%	12%	15%
Yorkshire and The Humber	1%	3%	1%	12%
East Midlands	0%	3%	0%	9%
West Midlands	20%	7%	10%	12%
East of England 0	6%	7%	21%	12%
London	54%	56%	47%	10%
South East	7%	12%	7%	13%
South West	1%	4%	0%	9%

Source — SQW, 2025; Statutory homelessness live tables, MHCLG, 2024; and Continuous Recording of Lettings in Social Housing in England, MHCLG, 2024.

Differences in ONS-4 by observable characteristic

132 . This section looks at how survey data on the ONS-4 questions the key metric for personal wellbeing used in this analysis – varies by other characteristics asked about in the survey. As described in Chapter 4, the ONS-4 questions ask respondents about 4 key measures of wellbeing: overall life satisfaction, feeling that the things one does are worthwhile, happiness, and anxiety. Figure 6.4 shows the average scores for each of these measures in the whole survey sample. For ease of interpretation, higher scores are more positive outcomes across all 4 measures; we ‘inverted’ the anxiety measure relative to the ONS data collection tool ^{[footnote 53]}. In the remainder of the report, a higher score corresponds to a lower level of anxiety.

Figure 6.4 — Average ONS-4 scores in sample

Metric	Average score	Sample size
Life satisfaction	4.57	2,326
Worthwhile	5.46	2,317
Happiness	4.81	2,320
Anxiety	4.27	2,319

ONS-4 anxiety scores range from 0 — Not at all to 10 — Completely.

For the purpose of the analysis, we have inverted the Anxiety score such that 0 — Completely anxious and 10 — Not at all anxious. This way, higher wellbeing corresponds to higher scores across all 4 metrics.

Source — SQW.

133 . Overall, respondents score relatively low on ONS-4 measures as compared to the UK population (the average life satisfaction in the UK is 7.45, worthwhile is 7.73, happiness is 7.39, and ‘inverted’ anxiety is 6.77) ^{[footnote 54]}. Notably, scores below 5 are considered to represent low wellbeing, and only approximately 5% of the UK’s population fall into the low wellbeing category ^{[footnote 55]}. The following sections look at how these average scores vary by a number of characteristics, using 2-tailed t-tests to test the statistical significance of differences between means.

By housing typology

134 . As shown in Table 6.1, average scores are lower across all measures of ONS-4 for respondents residing in temporary accommodation (typology 1) compared to social housing (typology 2). The differences are highly statistically significant. We also note that the life satisfaction scores reported by our sample of social housing residents are broadly in line with the results of the English Housing Survey, albeit somewhat lower (the average life satisfaction score in that sample is 6.9 ^{[footnote 56]}). This increased our confidence in the representativeness of our sample, despite its relatively small size (334 respondents residing in social housing).

Table 6.1 — ONS-4 scores by housing typology

ONS-4	Social housing average score	Social housing standard deviation	Social housing n	Temporary accommodation average score	Temporary accommodation standard deviation	Temporary accommodation n	Difference p-value (t-test)
Life satisfaction	6.16	3.02	332	4.31	3.12	1,994	0.000
Worthwhile	6.72	2.87	328	5.25	3.08	1,989	0.000
Happiness	6.22	3.00	329	4.58	3.22	1,991	0.000
Anxiety	5.11	3.25	328	4.14	3.21	1,991	0.000

Source — SQW

By duration residing in current accommodation

135 . The average ONS-4 life satisfaction score is relatively stable across the 0 to 6 months to 2 to 3 years categories for both housing typologies. However, the average life satisfaction for those staying in temporary accommodation for over three years dips below 4, and is statistically significantly lower than the average across the shorter durations (4.42). ^{[footnote 57]}

Table 6.2 — ONS-4 life satisfaction by duration of stay

Duration of stay	Social housing average score	Social housing standard deviation	Social housing n	Temporary accommodation average score	Temporary accommodation standard deviation	Temporary accommodation n
0 to 6 months	6.42	3.39	79	4.40	3.18	521
6 to 12 months	6.40	2.77	72	4.35	3.10	393
1 to 2 years	6.17	2.81	105	4.62	3.24	381
2 to 3 years	5.63	3.11	76	4.21	2.97	189
Over 3 years	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	3.98	3.02	510

The mean life satisfaction across 0 to 3 years in temporary accommodation is 4.42. The p-value for a t-test vs the mean in the over 3 years category (3.98) is 0.005.

Source — SQW.

By type of accommodation

136 . The analysis of wellbeing measures by type of accommodation revealed no differences across the sub-groups for residents of social housing. However, there were differences in the average scores for 2 sub-groups of residents in temporary accommodation. Respondents living in a hostel or self-contained flat or house had statistically significantly higher average scores across all ONS-4 measures (see Table 6.3). The comparison is presented for this ‘grouping’ because the responses from those residents were similarly high and distinct from the results for other types of temporary accommodation (including bed and breakfast and hotel, House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) or bedsit, refuge and similar.). We note that the higher satisfaction of hostel residents could be partly explained by the relatively small size of the subsample (7% of temporary accommodation respondents) which may not necessarily be fully representative of the typical experience of hostel residents more generally. However, the sample is of a comparable size to that of HMO or bedsit and bed and breakfast or hotel occupants.

Table 6.3 — ONS-4 scores by type of temporary accommodation

ONS-4	Hotel and self-contained flat or house average score	Hotel and self-contained flat or house n	Bed and breakfast, hotel, HMO, bedsit, refuge, other average score	Bed and breakfast, hotel, HMO, bedsit, refuge, other n	Difference p-value (t-test)
Life satisfaction	4.63	1,492	3.33	420	0.000
Worthwhile	5.56	1,490	4.35	417	0.000
Happiness	4.89	1,489	3.66	419	0.000
Anxiety	4.30	1,488	3.66	421	0.000

Source — SQW.

By access to kitchen facilities

137 . Anecdotally, having access to private kitchen facilities (as opposed to sharing a kitchen or not having one at all) may be a major contributing factor to an individual’s anxiety and overall life satisfaction. This hypothesis is supported by the patterns observed in the data collected from both social housing and temporary accommodation residents. On average, the survey respondents with access to private kitchen facilities reported statistically significantly better results across all 4 ONS-4 wellbeing measures (Table 6.4).

Table 6.4 — ONS-4 scores by access to private kitchen

ONS-4	Private kitchen average score	Private kitchen n	Shared or no kitchen average score	Shared or no kitchen n	Difference p-value (t-test)
Life satisfaction	4.57	1,933	3.06	364	0.000
Worthwhile	5.47	1,925	4.22	363	0.000
Happiness	4.85	1,928	3.32	363	0.000
Anxiety	4.25	1,925	3.54	365	0.000

Source — SQW.

By household size

138 . The analysis of survey responses in relation to the household size and the number of children in the household revealed that at least some of the surveyed individuals had misinterpreted the question, and possibly referred to all adults and children sharing the space (for example, in a hostel) rather than their household. To address this issue, we focused on observations with 10 or fewer people in the household.

139 . The tables show the relationship between self-reported wellbeing and household size, as well as the correlation between the size of the household, number of children and the number of times the survey respondents moved between different temporary accommodation. The correlation coefficients presented in the tables are measures of linear relationships between the variables. Positive numbers indicate that when one of the variables is higher (for example, the number of children) the other one (for example, life satisfaction) also tends to be higher (but does not always have to be). The correlation coefficient is bounded between -1 and +1. When the absolute value is close to unity, the relationship is strong (for example, higher values of one variable are almost always linked with higher values of other variables). Low absolute values suggest a weak or no relationship. ^{[footnote 58]}.

Table 6.5 — Correlation between ONS-4 scores by household size

ONS-4	Social housing correlation	Social housing n	Temporary accommodation correlation	Temporary accommodation n	All correlation	All n
Life satisfaction	0.102	322	0.015	1,892	0.000	2,214
Worthwhile	0.090	318	0.053	1,887	0.036	2,205
Happiness	0.104	319	0.023	1,890	0.011	2,209
Anxiety	0.003	318	0.008	1,889	-0.006	2,207

Source — SQW.

140 . Table 6.6 presents household size by time in temporary accommodation.

Table 6.6 — Average household size by time in temporary accommodation

Duration of stay	Average household size	N
0 to 6 months	3.64	499
6 to 12 months	3.52	374
1 to 2 years	3.66	360
2 to 3 years	3.66	185
Over 3 years	4.17	485

Source — SQW.

141 . The correlation between the household size and wellbeing is very low, suggesting that either that relationship is not present (on average), or possibly it is not linear. The average number of people in households staying in temporary accommodation for over 3 years is somewhat higher than for shorter tenures. This could be because larger households are harder to place, that is, there is a shortage of social housing units suitable for larger families. Affordable housing programme grant rates are per housing unit, which tends to make larger family accommodation less viable. This relationship can be seen in Figure 6.5, which shows a scatterplot of the number of moves versus the household size and number of children (the size of the points represents the number of observations with that particular combination of answers). The top right corner on both scatterplots is empty suggesting that larger households tend to move less frequently.

Figure 6.5 — Correlation between ONS-4 scores by household size

This diagram could not be made accessible. Please refer to the PDF version of this document. If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email enquiries@homesengland.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

142 . Our analysis of responses from survey respondents with and without children revealed that on average individuals from households with children score higher on wellbeing metrics (excluding the measure of anxiety, where having children has no statistically significant effect). This pattern is consistent across both housing typologies. Table 6.8 demonstrates this result (the data is pooled across social housing and temporary accommodation).

Table 6.8 — ONS-4 scores by having children in the household

ONS-4	No children average score	No children n	Children average score	Children n	Difference p-value (t-test)
Life satisfaction	4.38	642	4.64	1,684	0.079
Worthwhile	5.07	636	5.60	1,681	0.001
Happiness	4.42	638	4.96	1,682	0.000
Anxiety	4.28	640	4.27	1,679	0.953

Source — SQW.

By region

143 . The regional distribution of survey respondents (across temporary accommodation and social housing) was skewed, with approximately half of responses collected from people in London. We did not have enough observations to compare the measures of wellbeing in every English Region, however we investigated the differences in London versus the rest of the country, as well as in the south (London, south east, south west and east of England) versus the north. We found no differences in the averages in the first comparison, whereas the second one suggested that residents of the south had around 0.3 higher life satisfaction scores (when pooling the data across both housing typologies).

Table 6.9 — ONS-4 scores by region ^{[footnote 59]}

ONS-4	London average score	London n	Rest of UK average score	Rest of UK n	P-value (t-test)	North average score	North n	South average score	South n	P-value (t-test)
Life satisfaction	4.45	1,034	4.48	912	0.825	4.23	596	4.57	1,350	0.029
Worthwhile	5.37	1,028	5.43	910	0.677	5.35	593	5.42	1,345	0.644
Happiness	4.70	1,031	4.81	911	0.459	4.63	595	4.81	1,347	0.266
Anxiety	4.26	1,028	4.19	910	0.620	4.16	595	4.25	1,343	0.590

Source — SQW.

By loneliness

144 . The feeling of loneliness was found to be strongly associated with lower scores across all 4 domains of wellbeing, as measured with the ONS-4 tool, regardless of housing type. The differences in the averages between the surveyed individuals who reported never or hardly ever feeling lonely and the rest of the sample exceeded 2.5 points on a 0 to 10 scale for all 4 measures.

Table 6.10 — ONS-4 scores by loneliness

ONS-4	Never or hardly ever lonely average score	Never or hardly ever lonely n	Occasionally, sometimes, or often, or always, lonely average score	Occasionally, sometimes, or often, or always, lonely n	Difference p-value (t-test)
Life satisfaction	6.82	386	4.12	1,930	0.000
Worthwhile	7.88	387	4.98	1,923	0.000
Happiness	7.44	385	4.29	1,928	0.000
Anxiety	6.46	385	3.84	1,927	0.000

Source — SQW.

By satisfaction with current accommodation

145 . Table 6.11 shows the correlation coefficients (a measure of linear relationship) between wellbeing and satisfaction of the survey respondents with their current accommodation. The relationships are statistically significant and positive, meaning that individuals who are more satisfied with their accommodation tended to report higher wellbeing (apart from anxiety where the relationship is weak and not statistically significant). The link between satisfaction with the place they live in and wellbeing was found to be stronger among the respondents residing in social housing.

Table 6.11 — Correlation between satisfaction with current accommodation and ONS-4

ONS-4	Social housing correlation	Social housing n	Temporary accommodation correlation	Temporary accommodation n	All correlation	All n
Life satisfaction	0.725	332	0.646	1,991	0.670	2,323
Worthwhile	0.606	328	0.482	1,987	0.514	2,315
Happiness	0.606	329	0.527	1,988	0.554	2,317
Anxiety	0.224	328	0.183	1,988	0.205	2,316

Source — SQW.

By feelings of safety

1. The same pattern as for the general satisfaction with accommodation is present in the survey responses in relation to feeling safe in their accommodation. The safer the respondents feel, the higher their wellbeing is in general, albeit there is no statistical link with the anxiety levels. The same patterns also hold in the data about the area (for example, feeling safe in the area rather than in the accommodation specifically).

Table 6.12 — Correlation between feelings of safety in current accommodation and ONS-4

ONS-4	Social housing correlation	Social housing n	Temporary accommodation correlation	Temporary accommodation n	All correlation	All n
Life satisfaction	0.670	289	0.616	1,992	0.626	2,281
Worthwhile	0.619	286	0.509	1,989	0.527	2,275
Happiness	0.613	286	0.522	1,989	0.538	2,275
Anxiety	0.243	286	0.212	1,990	0.222	2,276

Source — SQW.

Difference in happiness of children (reported by parents) by observable characteristic

147 . The survey also collected parent-reported data in relation to happiness of their child or children living with them in their current accommodation. Parents were asked questions about one child as close to the age of 5 as possible. This was done under the assumption, that at that age parents have the most complete understanding of their children’s perceptions (since they can communicate their feelings and usually wish to share them with their parents) ^{[footnote 60]}. A total of 1,638 respondents answered the question about their child’s happiness — 1,241 were for children aged 5 to 15 (76%) and 397 were for children aged 0 to 4 (24%).

Figure 6.6 — Average parent reported children’s happiness in temporary accommodation

Age	Average score	Total sample
Aged 0 to 4	7.00	397
Aged 5 to 15	5.99	1,241
All children	6.23	1,638

Source — SQW.

By housing typology

148 . There are 2 main findings from the descriptive analysis of children’s happiness: first, the parent-reported child scores are substantially higher than the adult scores recorded by the same survey respondents. Although, the proportion of children with low scores (below 5) is substantially higher than that in the UK’s general population (around 40% versus around 9%).

149 . Second, similar to adults, children in temporary accommodation on average are reported by their parents to have lower happiness than those in social housing, and this is true for both age groups (0 to 4 and 5 to 15 years).

Table 6.13 — Parent reported children’s happiness by housing typology

Age group	Social housing average score	Social housing n	Temporary accommodation average score	Temporary accommodation n	Difference p-value (t-test)
Aged 0 to 4	8.45	51	6.78	346	0.000
Aged 5 to 15	7.72	143	5.76	1,098	0.000
All children	7.91	194	6.01	1,444	0.00

Source — SQW.

By duration residing in current accommodation

150 . Table 6.14 shows the average parent reported happiness of children in temporary accommodation by duration of stay. The overall average scores across both age groups are fairly constant, however the average happiness among those who have been in temporary accommodation for over 3 years is vastly different between younger and older children. One explanation for this could be that despite the survey’s effort to collect data on children around 5 years old, some households responding had only older children who may be benefitting from the relative stability of the situation that allows them to form friendships in the area.

Table 6.14 — Parent reported children’s happiness by duration of stay in temporary accommodation

Duration of stay	Aged 0 to 4 average score	Aged 0 to 4 n	Aged 5 to 15 average score	Aged 5 to 15 n	All children average score	All children n
0 to 6 months	7.05	100	5.35	247	5.84	347
6 to 12 months	6.95	84	5.62	274	6.03	274
1 to 2 years	6.87	99	5.86	296	6.20	296
2 to 3 years	7.00	35	5.69	135	6.03	135
Over 3 years	4.82	28	6.08	392	5.99	392

Source — SQW.

Children’s reported satisfaction with current accommodation

151 . According to the survey responses, similar to adults, the more satisfied parents report their children to be with their current accommodation, the happier they are reported to be with their life. This pattern is present in both typologies and both age groups.

Table 6.15 — Correlation between parent reported children’s happiness and satisfaction with the accommodation

Typology	Aged 0 to 4 correlation	Aged 0 to 4 n	Aged 5 to 15 correlation	Aged 5 to 15 n	All children correlation	All children n
Social housing	0.634	51	0.626	142	0.628	193
Temporary accommodation	0.662	345	0.604	1,096	0.622	1,441
All	0.670	396	0.624	1,238	0.638	1,634

Source — SQW.

Summary

152 . In summary, overall our survey responses have provided us with a sufficient sample to analyse differences in wellbeing between households living in temporary accommodation and those currently living in social housing but who previously lived in temporary accommodation.

153 . The descriptive analysis and statistical testing of the differences in the average responses suggests that residents of temporary accommodation tend to have lower wellbeing as measured with the ONS-4 tool compared to the residents of social housing. These differences are statistically significant for adults.

154 . Several other factors appear to be correlated with wellbeing and life satisfaction, such as duration of stay in temporary accommodation, satisfaction with the accommodation and feeling lonely. All these findings informed our approach to the regression modelling aimed at identifying the average differences in life-satisfaction across the housing typologies while accounting for other factors. We present the results of that analysis in the next section of the report.

7. Econometric analysis of primary research

155 . This section of the report presents the results of our econometric analysis. The analysis investigated the average differences in the self reported wellbeing of survey respondents in temporary accommodation vs social housing, after controlling for the variation in key observable characteristics and determinants of life satisfaction, such as health, age, and personal finance. Specifically, the analysis focuses on the ONS-4 life satisfaction measure, as that measure is the key indicator that is typically used to monetise wellbeing benefits (as per the Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal) ^{[footnote 61]}. For conciseness, in this section of the report we present only the main estimates of interest. Full regression outputs can be found in Annex B.

156 . While the research is unable to definitively demonstrate a causal link between living in a particular typology and life satisfaction due to not tracking the same individuals as they moved between typologies — the statistical models used are founded in the wellbeing framework and ToC. Therefore, any differences the models attribute to typologies can reasonably be used to inform the monetisation of wellbeing in appraisals.

157 . Considering the self-reported nature of the data, available sample sizes, and the policy area, prior to the analysis it was determined that any relationships that are statistically significant at the 10% level would be of policy significance. In other words, a 10% chance to be wrong is allowed for when concluding that a relationship exists. For transparency, we also present p-values to allow those using the research to draw conclusions if they wish to use a different threshold (for example, the 5% level) ^{[footnote 62]}.

158 . The chapter also presents the result of our within sample analysis of the survey respondents residing in temporary accommodation, which investigated the key drivers of wellbeing (and specifically life satisfaction) for that group.

Model selection

159 . The descriptive analysis of survey responses presented in Section 6 showed that the average self-reported life satisfaction of temporary accommodation residents was around 1.85 lower than for those in social housing (on a 0 to 10 scale, read Table 6-1). However, some of this difference may be due to the influence of other factors not directly related to the housing provision. To avoid overestimating the effect of housing typology on life-satisfaction, the results presented in this section were obtained using statistical models that accounted for the influence of a set of self-reported observable characteristics, based on the survey data ^{[footnote 63]}.

160 . Our choice of variables to include in the final model specification for the analysis was informed by the wellbeing framework (presented in Section 4) and the results of descriptive analysis of survey data (summarised in Section 6). We wanted the model to reflect the domains of wellbeing as fully as possible. However, there was a trade-off between adding data from a wider set of survey questions and attrition (that is, maximising the sample that can be used for the analysis) ^{[footnote 64]}. A more cautious approach was taken, with variables controlled for where there was some level of ambiguity, to ensure that the final results presented are a conservative result, rather than trying to over-state the final results.

161 . The model selection was further complicated by the overlap between the components of personal wellbeing (as per the wellbeing framework) and intended impacts from provision of social housing (as described by the ToC, see Section 4). Specifically, according to the ToC, social housing is expected to have a positive effect on individuals’ health, job outcomes (and therefore financial circumstances) and loneliness.

162 . Indeed, moving from temporary accommodation to social housing can have positive impacts on these aspects of life, which, in turn, all contribute to a higher life-satisfaction and wellbeing more generally. Therefore, one could argue that the measures of health, loneliness and personal wellbeing should not be included in the model because doing so would effectively disregard those possible routes to impact. However, all of these aspects are also influenced by external factors and events that are not related to the provision of housing, and in many cases it is plausible that the influence of housing typology is relatively small. For example, loneliness can depend on having a family, and physical and mental health may be substantially affected by an accident.

163 . After careful consideration, we decided to control for the ‘overlap’ characteristics, acknowledging that the results of our analysis are likely to yield a conservative ‘lower bound’ of the effect of the housing typology on life satisfaction. Results from models excluding these controls can be found in Annex B. The final specification of our model accounted for the average differences in wellbeing across the following individual-level characteristics of respondents (by wellbeing domain):

Our relationships — loneliness, having someone to rely on

Health — health satisfaction, mental wellbeing (approximated through the ability to manage emotions)

Personal finance — financial difficulties ^{[footnote 65]}

Personal characteristics — sex, age, ethnic group, whether the respondent has children under 15 years of age ^{[footnote 66]}.

Results — impacts on life satisfaction

164 . Our analysis suggests that on average, after controlling for relevant individual-level characteristics, survey respondents who reside in temporary accommodation reported lower life satisfaction scores than those living in social housing. The difference is approximately -0.86 on the 0 to 10 scale, and it is statistically significant at the 5% level (Table 7.1). Full results can be found in B2.1 in Annex B.

Table 7.1 — Life satisfaction for people living in temporary accommodation relative to the social housing comparator group, regression analysis

Typology	Average difference in life satisfaction, temporary accommodation vs social housing (0 to 10 scale)	95% confidence interval	p-value
Temporary accommodation (Typology 1)	–0.863	–1.171 to –0.555	0.000

95% confidence interval and p-values were derived using robust standard errors.

Source – SQW.

165 . The model also revealed other important factors that contribute to higher life satisfaction alongside the housing typology. Table 7.2 summarises these findings (in the order of the magnitude of effects, largest to smallest).

Table 7.2 — Predictors of life-satisfaction (beyond type of housing), regression analysis

Contributing factor	Average effect on ONS-4 life satisfaction	95% confidence interval	p-value
Feeling lonely occasionally, some of the time, or often or always (relative to never, or hardly ever)	–0.893	–1.217 to –0.569	0.000
Agreeing that there is someone there for them when they need it (relative to disagreeing)	+0.806	0.569 to 1.043	0.000
Being aged 41 to 60 (relative to 16 to 25)	+0.741	0.397 to 1.085	0.000
Being aged 60 or over (relative to 16 to 25)	+0.510	–0.071 to 1.091	0.085
Satisfaction with general health (a point increase on a 0 to 10 scale)	+0.455	0.405 to 0.505	0.000
Being aged 26 to 40 (relative to 16 to 25)	+0.382	0.059 to 0.704	0.020
Finding it fairly difficult or very difficult to get by financially in the past month (relative to neither easy nor difficult, fairly easy, or very easy)	–0.347	–0.587 to -0.108	0.005
Being of a Black, Black British, Caribbean, or African ethnicity (relative to White)	–0.339	–0.609 to –0.069	0.014
Being of an Asian or Asian British ethnicity (relative to White)	+0.334	0.048 to 0.621	0.022
Feeling able to manage their emotions (a point increase on a 0 to 10 scale)	+0.188	0.138 to 0.237	0.000

95% confidence interval and p-values derived using robust standard errors.

Source — SQW

166 . All variables corresponding to the characteristics covered by the wellbeing framework were found to have a statistically significant effect, with the highest magnitude of the effects associated with feeling lonely and having someone to rely on. Additionally, Black respondents reported lower and Asian participants reported higher life satisfaction, on average.

Supplementary models and robustness checks

167 . For completeness, and to test robustness of our findings, we estimated 2 supplementary models: the first one excluded measures of loneliness, since compared to health and financial difficulties we considered this variable to be affected by the housing typology to a greater degree. The second model also excluded the health and financial difficulties variables, and controlled only for such personal characteristics as age, sex and ethnicity. The full estimation results for those models are presented in Annex B (Tables B2.7 and B2.8). The impact estimate from the model without loneliness (–0.938) is in line with our main results, whereas the effect obtained from the second supplementary model (–1.948) is close to the ‘raw’ differences between the averages across the 2 typologies.

168 . We further note that our final model omitted variables that reflected the duration of respondent’s stay in their current accommodation. It also excluded the data that covered the ‘where we live’ domain of the wellbeing framework: respondents’ subjective perceptions of the quality of their current accommodation and objective characteristics of the accommodation. We investigated the influence of those factors on life satisfaction through a range of auxiliary models.

169 . The duration of stay could potentially play an important role in determining life satisfaction. It is plausible that the longer people are exposed to the uncertainty associated with the temporary nature of their accommodation the less happy they are. It is also possible that any positive effect on life satisfaction from the transition to social housing may wear off over time. Finally, the strength of the initial effect from accessing social housing after a spell in temporary accommodation may depend on the duration of the spell and quality of each housing type experienced.

170 . However, our analysis of this factor revealed that, after we accounted for other characteristics represented in our final model, duration of a respondent’s stay in their current accommodation did not play any statistically significant role neither in determining the level of life satisfaction of respondents nor the difference in the averages across the 2 typologies. The difference in life satisfaction between the typologies itself remained statistically significant and well within the 95% confidence interval of our main result presented in Table 7.1. Therefore the duration of stay was excluded from our final model specification. See Table B2.5 in Annex B for an estimation output from a model that included this factor.

171 . The ‘where we live’ domain was removed from the model because the variables that represent it are likely to be strongly influenced by the type of accommodation. From a statistical point of view, they are ‘collinear’ with the typology, so a regression model would struggle to differentiate their influence and the effect of typology. From the ToC point of view, improved perceptions of the accommodation, its higher quality and greater stability in life it gives are all channels through which a wider provision of social housing can increase life satisfaction of individuals living in temporary accommodation. In other words, 2 objectively identical dwellings might be perceived very differently depending on whether they are a temporary or permanent home, and because temporary accommodation is not subject to the same regulations as social housing its objective quality may vary to a greater degree, and may on average be lower.

172 . This conjecture was confirmed through descriptive and regression analysis of data. The survey respondents residing in temporary accommodation reported being substantially less satisfied with their accommodation and tended to note issues with the space more often than social housing respondents — detailed breakdowns of survey responses can be found in Annex B. When the ‘where we live’ data were added to the regression model, the estimate for the difference in the average life satisfaction by housing typology remained highly statistically significant but, as expected, had a lower magnitude (around 0.36) ^{[footnote 67]}. At the same time the majority of additional variables were statistically significant with expected coefficients (for example, a higher satisfaction with the accommodation was linked to a higher life satisfaction, as was access to private facilities, feeling of safety, having fewer worries about the housing situation and similar).

173 . These patterns in the regression findings suggest that the positive effect of gaining access to social housing is likely to be at least partly reflected in the quality and satisfaction with the accommodation. Therefore, we suggest that such metrics should not be part of a model when the objective of the model is to test and quantify the impact of the transition from temporary accommodation to social housing. However, full estimation outputs from a model that does control for the ‘where we live’ aspect of wellbeing are presented in Annex B (Table B2.6).

Results: impacts on happiness, anxiety and doing things that are worthwhile

174 . The analysis of wellbeing measures recorded with the ‘component’ elements of the ONS-4 tool (that is, the measures of happiness, anxiety, and feeling worthwhile), revealed that the respondents residing in temporary accommodation, on average, feel less happy than respondents of social housing, and agree less that what they do is worthwhile. However, there were no statistically significant differences in self-reported levels of anxiety (Table 7.3). Full results for these regressions can be found in Tables B2.2 to B2.4 in Annex B.

Table 7.3 — Doing things that are worthwhile, happiness, and anxiety, regression analysis

Doing things that are worthwhile (ONS-4, 0 to 10 scale)

Typology	Average difference in life satisfaction, temporary accommodation vs social housing (0-10 scale)	95% confidence interval	p-value
Temporary accommodation	–0.460	–0.737 to –0.183	0.001

Happiness (ONS-4, 0 to 10 scale)

Typology	Average difference in life satisfaction, temporary accommodation vs social housing (0-10 scale)	95% confidence interval	p-value
Temporary accommodation	–0.597	–0.894 to –0.301	0.000

Anxiety (ONS-4, 0 to 10 scale)

Typology	Average difference in life satisfaction, temporary accommodation vs social housing (0-10 scale)	95% confidence interval	p-value
Temporary accommodation	–0.214	–0.596 to 0.167	0.271

95% confidence interval and p-values derived using robust standard errors.

The anxiety score was reversed compared to the ONS data collection tool for consistency in the interpretation of positive and negative effects — a higher score is a positive outcome (lower anxiety).

Source — SQW.

175 . It is noteworthy that the anxiety measure is an outlier, in the sense that we did not detect any statistically significant differences in our sample across the 2 typologies, although we could expect a more stable housing situation to relieve some of the psychological pressure experienced by the residents of temporary accommodation. We hypothesise that this result may potentially be explained by the subjective nature of individual perception (and definition) of anxiety. It is also possible that moving to social housing in itself is not enough to offset the negative effects of external circumstances on anxiety levels specifically. Further research, with a larger qualitative component and anxiety focus, could provide valuable insights.

Differences in parent reported happiness of children

176 . To investigate the effect of residing in temporary accommodation on child wellbeing, we analysed parents’ responses to a question about their child or children’s happiness ^{[footnote 68]}. The results suggest that, controlling for observable characteristics, the children of survey respondents who reside in temporary accommodation have lower parent reported happiness scores than the children of respondents living in social housing, on average. The difference is approximately 1 point on the 0 to 10 scale, and it is statistically significant at the 1% level (Table 7.4). Full results can be found in Table B2.11 in Annex B.

Table 7.4 — Parent reported children’s happiness relative to social housing comparator group, regression analysis

Typology	Average difference in happiness, temporary accommodation vs social housing (0 to 10 scale)	95% confidence interval	p-value
Temporary accommodation (Typology 1)	–1.011	–1.379 to –0.642	0.000

95% confidence interval.

Source — SQW.

177 . The model for children’s happiness was nearly identical to the model used for adults’ life satisfaction. It contained the same vector of observable characteristics covering domains of the wellbeing framework and personal characteristics of survey respondents, however we were also able to include a variable that reflected children’s health. The estimated effect size is within the 95% confidence interval.

Key drivers of wellbeing for residents of temporary accommodation

178 . To further explore the drivers of wellbeing in temporary accommodation, we estimated the relationship between ONS-4 life satisfaction scores and a range of observable characteristics for respondents residing in this typology. As above, we aimed to include data from a wide set of survey questions, while minimising the losses to the overall sample size by excluding questions with a high degree of missingness ^{[footnote 69]}. The results of this analysis, sorted by the magnitude of effect (highest to lowest), are shown in Table 7.5 (with full results in Table B2.9 in Annex B).

Table 7.5 — Predictors of life-satisfaction for individuals in temporary accommodation, regression analysis

Contributing factor	Average effect on ONS-4 life satisfaction	95% confidence interval	p-value
Not having access to a kitchen (relative to having access to a kitchen for private use by their household or their family)	+0.748	0.044 to 1.452	0.037
Residing in an ‘other’ type of accommodation (relative to residing in a self-contained flat or house)	–0.654	–1.052 to –0.256	0.001
Feeling lonely occasionally, some of the time, or often or always (relative to never, or hardly ever)	–0.595	–0.916 to –0.275	0.000
Agreeing that they feel they belong to their neighbourhood (relative to neutral or disagreeing)	+0.540	0.301 to 0.78	0.000
Being aged 41 to 60 (relative to 16 to 25)	+0.505	0.143 to 0.867	0.006
Residing in a bed and breakfast or hotel (relative to residing in a self- contained flat or house)	–0.457	–0.955 to 0.041	0.072
Being able to have friends or family visit whenever they want (relative to not being allowed)	+0.444	0.124 to 0.764	0.007
Being of an Asian or Asian British ethnicity (relative to White)	+0.400	0.121 to 0.678	0.005
Satisfaction with general health (a point increase on a 0 to 10 scale)	+0.284	0.232 to 0.336	0.000
Satisfaction with accommodation (a point increase on a 0 to 10 scale)	+0.280	0.225 to 0.334	0.000
Agreeing that there is someone there for them when they need it (relative to disagreeing)	+0.209	–0.02 to 0.437	0.073
Perceived safety of accommodation (a point increase on a 0 to 10 scale)	+0.149	0.099 to 0.198	0.000
Feeling able to manage their emotions (a point increase on a 0 to 10 scale)	+0.130	0.084 to 0.176	0.000
Being worried about their housing situation (a point increase on a 0 to 10 scale)	–0.056	–0.092 to –0.020	0.002
Confidence in managing tenancy (a point increase on a 0 to 10 scale)	+0.056	0.021 to 0.092	0.002

95% confidence interval and p-values derived using robust standard errors.

Source — SQW.

179 . A number of factors related to housing were found to have a statistically significant effect on respondents’ life satisfaction. Positive perceptions related to the accommodation – for example, a sense of belonging to the neighbourhood, satisfaction with the accommodation, and the perceived safety of the accommodation —are linked with higher ONS-4 life satisfaction scores. Negative feelings (for example, being worried about their housing situation and lower confidence in managing the tenancy) are associated with lower scores. These results are intuitive, but nonetheless illustrate the importance of housing for residents’ wellbeing.

180 . Furthermore, the type of temporary accommodation was found to influence life satisfaction scores, potentially suggesting that accommodation that better supports a feeling of being in one’s own space can contribute to higher wellbeing. Specifically, residents of a bed and breakfast or hotel or ‘other’ type of accommodation were found to have statistically significantly lower wellbeing than those in a self-contained flat or house, when controlling for other factors, while those living in a hostel or housing of multiple occupation or bedsit had comparable scores.

181 . There was one surprising finding: in our survey sample, not having a kitchen is associated with higher life satisfaction. However, we believe that this is an artefact of the sample. Only 92 (or 5%) of respondents reported not having access to a kitchen in their accommodation, and over half of those respondents resided in a bed and breakfast or hotel. Therefore, it may be likely that the higher life satisfaction is linked to a higher level of catering and fewer housekeeping responsibilities, or the avoidance of poor quality facilities.

182 . A number of factors beyond the housing characteristics were also found to contribute to residents’ wellbeing. Unsurprisingly, those who report feeling lonely occasionally, some of the time or often or always on average have lower ONS-4 life satisfaction scores (by approximately 0.6 points on the 0 to 10 scale). Social factors which are influenced by one’s housing situation, namely being able to have friends or family visit whenever they want and agreeing that there is someone there for them when they need, were also linked with higher wellbeing scores, providing evidence of the positive influence of housing that allows one to maintain ties to their social network.

183 . ONS-4 life satisfaction scores in the temporary accommodation sample are heavily skewed toward the lower end of the distribution. Approximately one-fifth of respondents gave a score of 0 and two-thirds of respondents gave a score of less than 5.

184 . To assess the influence of this pattern on our results, we specified a model that investigated the probability of being in the top 25% of the sample by the life satisfaction score (that is, reporting the life satisfaction of at least 7). The results provided by this model, which can be found in full in Table B2.10 in Annex B, were largely similar to those of the linear specification. The differences included:

• the type of accommodation not being a statistically significant predictor of giving a score of 7 or above

• keeping everything else constant, each additional type of temporary accommodation lived in since becoming homeless on average reduced the probability of giving a score of 7 or above by 2.5 percentage points

• saving children increased the probability of giving a score of 7 or above by 5 percentage points

Summary

185 . In summary, our analysis suggests that, when other observable characteristics of respondents are controlled for, there are statistically significant differences in self-reported life satisfaction between residents of temporary accommodation and social housing. On average, the difference is approximately 0.86 on a 0 to 10 scale (around 0.28 of the standard deviation), and it is significant at the 5% level. Effects of such magnitude are often classified as ‘medium’, and from the policy perspective they are substantial and relevant in the context of the shortage of social housing.

186 . Other important factors contributing to higher life satisfaction alongside the type of housing include: not feeling lonely and having someone to rely on; being over 25 years old; being in better health (both physically and mentally) and not struggling financially.

187 . We also found statistically significant differences in happiness: survey respondents in temporary accommodation are less happy, by around 0.6 points, and feel they do less worthwhile things, by around 0.46 points (both on a 0 to 10 scale). From the statistical point of view, the self-reported levels of anxiety are the same across the typologies.

188 . The analysis of the difference in the happiness of children confirmed the gap between respondents from temporary accommodation and social housing. However, these results are based on responses provided by parents. Therefore, the absolute size of the effect should not be overinterpreted.

189 . The analysis of a wider set of drivers of life satisfaction for the residents of temporary accommodation revealed the following important contributing factors: positive perceptions of the accommodation, for example, belonging to the neighbourhood, liking the accommodation, and feeling that it is safe; and social links, for example, not feeling lonely, being able to have friends or family visit without restrictions, and agreeing that there is someone there when needed.

190 . In section 9 we discuss the monetisation of the differences in life satisfaction observed in the survey data.

8. Qualitative insights on wellbeing impact

191 . This section of the report presents the findings from qualitative interviews undertaken with residents in temporary accommodation, and residents in social housing who had lived in temporary accommodation within the previous 3 years.

Approach

192 . In the second half of tool testing interviews, if participants consented (and if there was sufficient time), they were asked questions to understand their own housing situation and how their housing affects their wellbeing (and that of their child or children), where relevant). The purpose of these questions was to capture qualitative insights which would not be gathered through the survey, including verbatim quotations.

193 . In total 9 participants were able and willing to respond to these questions. This comprised 7 individuals living in temporary accommodation, and 2 individuals living in social housing who had recently lived in temporary accommodation.

194 . The anonymised data collected was analysed in MaxQDA, a specialist qualitative analysis software, to identify common themes and illustrative insights. Key findings are outlined here, beginning with insights from those participants living in temporary accommodation, before moving onto findings from those living in social housing who had previously lived in temporary accommodation.

Housing type

195 . Interviewees were asked about the type of housing they lived in at the time of interview. The majority of interviewees in temporary accommodation were living in a self-contained flat or maisonette (5 of 7). Of the remaining 2, 1 was living in a self-contained house, while the other was living in a room in a refuge, with a shared bathroom and kitchen. In comparison, of the 2 interviewees living in social housing, 1 was living in a house and the other did not specify. Interviewees also specified how long they had been living in their current accommodation: for temporary accommodation residents this ranged from 1 month to 2 years, and for social housing from 7 months to 1 year.

196 . Regarding their previous housing type, the majority of interviewees currently living in temporary accommodation had either moved from other temporary accommodation with shared facilities (for example, bathrooms and, or, kitchens), or from privately rented or mortgaged accommodation. For example, 1 interviewee currently living in a self-contained house had moved from bed and breakfast accommodation: “When I first was in temporary accommodation, it was a bed and breakfast and there were no cooking facilities. Obviously with children, they tried to get me to a self-contained place as soon as possible.” Of the 2 interviewees living in social housing, 1 had moved from self-contained temporary accommodation and the other did not specify.

Housing situation

197 . All interviewees were asked to reflect on their housing situation, including what they like and do not like about the property, the condition of the property, their reflections on the local area, and whether they feel part of the local community. Key findings by question are presented here:

What do you like about the property?

4 interviewees in temporary accommodation provided insights on what they like about their current property (no insights were captured from social housing interviewees for this question). Key aspects highlighted included the size or spaciousness, the condition and cleanliness, the self-contained nature, and the proximity to local amenities and schools. These points are illustrated by the quotes:

Very spacious, building (is) well maintained, staff are friendly and helpful. It’s good because being self- contained, you’re not losing the independence of living on your own.

Temporary accommodation interviewee

Yeah I like it here. Especially my view and my situation. It is near to (the) town centre and school. I am happier.

Temporary accommodation interviewee

What do you not like about your current accommodation?

6 interviewees living in temporary accommodation and 2 living in social housing provided insights into what they do not like about their current accommodation. Key aspects highlighted by those in temporary accommodation included the condition of the accommodation (including presence of mould and outdated fixtures), the uncertainty of their housing situation (being in temporary accommodation), and a lack of storage space.

Several interviewees in temporary accommodation also highlighted the fact that they are not allowed guests at their accommodation (to visit or stay), and in some cases the fact that they also cannot stay somewhere else for a night, as a key aspect they do not like about their property.

Of the 2 interviewees in social housing, one did not like the distance of their housing to their child or children’s school, although noted they were planning to get a car to solve this issue, while the other reported having mould in their kitchen. Again, these points are illustrated by the quotes:

Not great to be honest. I’m miles away from my support network. The place I’m in has leaks, can’t use one of the bedrooms because the roof leaks. There’s black mould in my bedroom, not great.

Temporary accommodation interviewee

No extraction fan in the bathroom, so mould is growing in there. It’s not home, could get kicked out at any point. Not allowed to have visitors and families and friends (round). Not allowed to light candles. It’s basically like a prison.

Temporary accommodation Interviewee

It’s a bit far away from my daughter’s school, but once I get a car that shouldn’t be a problem.

Social housing interviewee

What do you think about the area where the accommodation is located?

The 7 interviewees living in temporary accommodation and 1 in social housing provided reflections on the area in which their current accommodation is located. Of those living in temporary accommodation, 3 did not like the area where the accommodation is located for a range of reasons: 1 did not feel safe in their area (covered in more detail later), 1 is located on a hill making it hard for them “to get out and about”, and 1 did not like that they have had to move away from where they grew up: “It’s ‘2 towns over’. I think because I was born and bred in that area I feel traitorous elsewhere”.

In comparison, 4 interviewees stated that they like the area where their temporary accommodation is located, with reasons predominantly relating to the proximity of the accommodation to local amenities, schools and, or, their place of work. Some interviewees also noted that their neighbours or people in the local area are nice.

Likewise, the interviewee living in social housing stated their “neighbourhood is okay. I don’t have any problems”. The quotes provide examples:

Before I lived by the main road, and it was so busy that I always locked myself away. This one here is by a shopping street which is very boujee, with supermarkets and cafes — I’ve gotten extremely lucky. I’ve been out 3 times since I’ve lived here, whereas I didn’t go out for 7 months in my previous home.

Temporary accommodation interviewee

It’s fine, people are quite friendly. It’s really ideal, close to town and easy access distance if you don’t drive. There’s plenty to do in the area.

Temporary accommodation interviewee

Do you have any comments about the condition of the accommodation?

All interviewees living in temporary accommodation and social housing provided feedback on the condition of their property. Of those living in temporary accommodation, 4 indicated that the condition of their accommodation was poor, reporting issues including leaks, mould, cracked windows and broken fixtures. For example: “The place I’m in has leaks, can’t use 1 of the bedrooms because the roof leaks. There’s black mould in my bedroom, not great”.

Meanwhile the remaining 3 reported that their accommodation was in a reasonable condition, for example 1 stated that it is “easy to keep clean”, while another noted that “the condition is nice in this one, and it is much better than where I was previously”.

For those in social housing, one stated that their accommodation was “well maintained”, while the other noted that there was mould in the kitchen which was an issue, but “otherwise, most of the things are okay”.

Do you feel part of the local community?

5 interviewees reflected on whether they felt part of their local community, comprising 4 living in temporary accommodation and 1 in social housing. Among those living in temporary accommodation, all 4 reported that they do not. For 2 this was seen as a negative: “No, I don’t know anyone” and “I have no friends around this area, except those in the building I have made”, while the other 2 interviewees reported that that was maybe a “personal choice”.

The resident in social housing indicated that while they do not engage much, they do feel like part of the local community:

Yes, but I don’t really engage much… although during Halloween I did engage quite a bit and took the little one out for trick or treats. Loads of people came round.

Social housing interviewee

Effects of current housing on interviewees

Temporary accommodation

198 . All interviewees in temporary accommodation (7) were asked a series of questions to understand if and how their current accommodation has affected them. These included questions related to health, wellbeing, happiness, safety, financial security and ability to see friends or family. Key findings are:

Ability to see friends and, or, family: 4 interviewees indicated that their current accommodation has had a negative impact on their ability to see friends and, or, family, either due to restrictions preventing them from being able to have visitors or go and stay at a friend or family member’s house. For example:

We have 2 kids and they want to play with their friends. But we are not allowed to invite people (over), but we are not allowed to stay outside of this home.

Temporary accommodation interviewee

Most of my friends still live at home with parents. I have to go out to meet them, they can’t come round here and chill as we aren’t allowed guests. Every time we go out we have to spend money which is hard and means sometimes I can’t — it would be nice to have some friends or my partner come round. Not being able to have that is a bit of a downer.

Temporary accommodation interviewee

However, 1 interviewee stated that they do not see the visitor restrictions as negative, as demonstrated by the quote: “I’m able to meet up with people when I want, although since (I’m) not allowed visitors that means I have to go out. But I don’t think that’s a bad thing, it encourages me to leave more. And I don’t like random people coming through all the time.”

Another interviewee said that although their current housing has moved them away from their support network, the bus networks mean it is “quite easy” for them to go and visit.

Ability to travel to work and, or, study — the 2 interviewees who provided insights on this indicated that their current housing had not impacted negatively on their ability to travel to work and, or, study. For example, 1 stated that their current temporary accommodation is “close to work so okay”.

Safety — 6 interviewees reflected on whether their current temporary accommodation has affected how safe they feel. Half of interviewees stated that they feel safe in their accommodation; for example 1 interviewee currently living in a refuge stated “I feel safe here – lots of cameras around”.

In comparison, 3 consultees reported not feeling safe in their current housing, with this relating to the area in which the accommodation is located, for example: “I don’t feel safe at all, (there are) a lot of alcoholics and drug users in the area”.

Finance — in terms of whether moving into their current temporary accommodation has made things easier or harder financially, 5 interviewees provided reflections.

2 stated it has made things more difficult financially. 1 reported challenges associated with the increased cost of travel to get their children to school: “I haven’t moved my children’s school. I then have to spend £50 a week just getting them to school. So yeah it is a bit ridiculous”.

Another reported that they have had to reduce their working hours due to where they live and their mental health, which is causing financial difficulties:

I had a mental health breakdown last year, got into loads of debt and then I have had to reduce my hours at work because of where I live and my mental health. I have tried to explain that to the council that although I have a salary I also have this debt to pay off, but the council aren’t offering support. So, struggling financially yes.

Temporary accommodation interviewee

By comparison, 3 reported that moving into their current temporary accommodation has either not had an impact or made things easier financially. For example, one stated that there has been no change, noting “it’s the same as having your own flat, you pay the bills as standard each month”. Meanwhile, another reported that things have stabilised as they have closed their business since moving, but this has had wider implications for them: “it’s made things more financially stable since I’ve closed my business, but in doing that I’ve lost purpose a little bit.”

Happiness — 4 interviewees reflected on whether their current temporary accommodation has affected their happiness overall. 2 stated that it has had a broadly positive impact, for example 1 interviewee said “In the middle. Happy I’ve got a roof over my head. I’m somewhat warm. I’ve got somewhere stable which is somewhat good”. However 1 interviewee reported feeling unhappy in their current home “I’m unhappy here and I’m anxious all the time” and another said their happiness varies daily: “Every day is very different, I can have a really good day or a bad day. Having the social aspect of not being able to have visitors does put a downer on my mood. On days where I feel anxious it makes it worse”.

Health — 5 interviewees reflected on whether their current temporary accommodation affects their health. Overall, 4 indicated that it does not, while one identified a positive effect: “Since moving into my new property I’ve been so much better. I’ve lost weight, look more put together.”

Wellbeing — reflecting across all the above points, interviewees were asked whether their current temporary accommodation affects their wellbeing, with the majority indicating that it has had a negative impact on their wellbeing. Reasons for this predominantly linked to either the limited scope to see friends and, or, family or the condition of the accommodation, as illustrated by the quotes:

My mental health is much worse after having moved into TA (temporary accommodation). They’re isolating you from having a normal life, because I can’t meet people.

Temporary accommodation interviewee

If I am having a bad day then I just shut off and don’t speak to anyone, I don’t live with anyone I can really talk to about that. Having that struggle and suffering with that is hard as I don’t want to leave my room when that happens - and the best thing would be to have people coming to see me, but that can’t happen.

Temporary accommodation interviewee

Definitely negatively. With the mould I’ve got a bad chest anyway and it makes it so much worse. I suffer from depression — I need my support network — because I’m not allowed visitors I have to have special permission just to have my other children (at the accommodation). It is a bit ridiculous.

Temporary accommodation interviewee

Social housing

199 . The 2 interviewees in social housing were asked how moving from temporary accommodation into their current home had affected them. Insights from each interviewee are summarised here:

Interviewee 1 had moved from a “very clean” self-contained flat (temporary accommodation) into another self-contained flat (social housing) in another area less than a year ago. The interviewee noted that their current property was “very far” from their previous accommodation and had required them to change the family GP and their children’s school. The interviewee stated that overall, it was “really hard to move a big family from one house to one house”. However, the interviewee noted that their social housing worker had supported them to move: “She helped me to move. Still also tries to help me. She does her best to visit and check how I feel. She tried to do her best to help seriously”. In addition, the interviewee noted that their wellbeing has improved since they moved and that they are in a better location should they need to access healthcare services: “When I moved here, I got also some advantage because before I was very far away from the city centre - if I needed to go to hospital, it was very hard. When I moved here, everything is close”. Overall, the interviewee felt positive about their current accommodation compared to their previous temporary accommodation, despite the initial challenges: “The difficulty was moving to a new area — the beginning is hard. But it’s okay now we’ve settled. I’m happy here and my family are happy now”.

Interviewee 2 had moved from temporary accommodation into a self-contained house (social housing) approximately 12 months before the interview. The interviewee noted that the move had positively impacted their wellbeing and made them feel much happier than their previous temporary accommodation: “I’m really happy. I’m overjoyed about where I live now…”. One element that had significantly improved was their sense of safety compared to their previously accommodation: “It’s very safe. I haven’t had any issue of burglary, I had 2 to 3 issues with burglary in my previous house so this is really safe.”. When asked to reflect on whether moving has made things easier or harder financially, the interviewee did note that it is “More expensive than where I used to live”, however they did not see this as an issue, stating that “it’s worth it, it should be expensive”.

Parental reported effects of temporary accommodation and social housing on children

200 . In order to gain insights into perceived wellbeing effects for children, interviewees were asked to reflect on how their current accommodation affects any child or children living with them. In total, 5 interviewees were able to provide insights, comprising 3 living in temporary accommodation and 2 living in social housing who had previously lived in temporary accommodation.

201 . Interviewees living in temporary accommodation identified a range of ways in which their current accommodation was affecting their children. In summary, key effects included:

Seeing friends and, or, family — 2 interviewees indicated that their current accommodation makes it difficult for their child or children to see friends and, or, family. For some, this relates to the fact they cannot have friends or family to visit or stay in their current accommodation. For others this relates to the fact they have had to move further away from friends and, or, family. For example, 1 interviewee stated: “I think it is mainly being out of town that is affecting them (the children). The fact that they can’t have their friends over here or anything like that, it does affect them”.

Wellbeing and mental health — 2 interviewees noted that their current accommodation has negatively impacted on their children’s wellbeing and mental health. For example, one interviewee stated that the uncertainty of being in temporary accommodation was having a negative effect on their child: “My daughter doesn’t want to be here. It’s not somewhere we can call home. She’s on edge all the time too. We are living out of suitcases all the time. (It has a) huge impact on her mentally because she can’t call this home — she wants to be able to call somewhere home”. Another interviewee stated that their child was now more reluctant to leave their home: “my 15-year-old daughter doesn’t leave the house anymore. It’s affecting her mentally. She used to always get about”.

Changing schools and effects on attendance — experiences of changing schools varied by interviewee. For example, 1 noted that their children hadn’t had to move schools. However, another interviewee said that their child had been told not to move schools which was originally seen as a positive, but “this has now impacted attendance” negatively. The third interviewee noted that their child had to move school when they moved area and that this had been “hard for him” and although he has settled in now this had “taken a long time”.

202 . More widely, some interviewees provided examples of elements that their child or children like about their current temporary accommodation. For some this related to the property itself, for example 1 interviewee stated that their children “like living in a house because we were in a flat before, we had 6 flights of stairs” and another noted that they have “enough space” to play and do homework. For another this related to the local area and amenities near their accommodation: “It is near to the library. My son goes to the library. It is close to the town centre. He can shop easily”.

203 . By comparison, the 2 interviewees living in social housing were asked to reflect on how moving from temporary accommodation into their current home had affected their child or children. In summary:

One interviewee stated that although their child had to change school (and form new friendships) due to the move, their new home broadly had a positive effect on their child.

It gives a peace of mind. It allows her to sleep early. Previously, the stomping upstairs was really inconsiderate. When you struggle to put a 4 or 5-year-old (to bed), and then the music wakes her up… you know? She has enough space for homework and privacy in our current house. We had to change school when we moved into this property, but that’s okay. She just got on with it. She is 6-years-old, going on 7 this year. It’s had a positive effect on my child. She doesn’t have friends around in her age group that she can play with, but she’s just much more settled here.

Social housing interviewee

The second interviewee stated that their children were “happy” as a result of the move and have settled in. However, the interviewee had concerns for their children regarding mould in the kitchen which had been reported to the council.

9. Monetised wellbeing impacts

204 . This section provides information on how the difference in life satisfaction has been monetised. This approach complements the approach taken in the recently published Measuring the Wellbeing and Fiscal Impacts of Housing for Older People ^{[footnote 70]} research, that monetised the wellbeing impacts associated with the delivery of housing for older people.

Appraisal values

205 . The Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal ^{[footnote 71]} provides guidance on how and where wellbeing should be considered in the relevant parts of the Green Book methodology. It includes a ‘step by step’ guide on how analysts can assess the wellbeing impacts of interventions, and (where evidence allows) monetise and include these wellbeing impacts in cost benefit analysis.

206 . As described within Annex 2 of the Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal (‘Quantifying and monetising wellbeing effects’), there are a range of options which can be considered for ‘translating’ a change in life satisfaction into income that can then be incorporated into an economic appraisal. It is our intention to apply the values recommended within the Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal, with the change in life satisfaction converted to a monetary value by multiplying it by £13,000 with adjustment for inflation (low: £10,000; high: £16,000). This is the recommended standard value of a one point change in life satisfaction for one year, or one wellbeing adjusted life year (a WELLBY) in 2019 prices and values.

207 . 2 different approaches were used to calculate the development of this value (based on Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs, Frijters and Krekel, 2021) or income co-efficient (Fujiwara, 2021) methodology), with further detail on the methodologies behind each provided in the Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal. For the purposes of this research, these values have been inflated from 2019 prices to 2024 prices using the approach recommended within Annex 2 of the Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal ^{[footnote 72]}.

Table 9.1 — Monetary value for valuing wellbeing (WELLBY value)

WELLBY Values	2019 prices	2024 prices
Low	£10,000	£12,275
Central	£13,000	£15,958
High	£16,000	£19,640

Source — Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal, HM Treasury, 2021 and GDP Deflator, HM Treasury, 2025

208 . The calculated wellbeing uplift monetised values for adults are shown in Table 9.2.

Table 9.2 — Wellbeing Uplift Monetised Values (2024 prices, per adult, per year)

Average life satisfaction change (respondents living in social housing relative to those living in temporary accommodation)	Low	Central	High
+0.86	£10,593	£13,771	£16,949

Source — SQW, 2025

209 . As reported in Chapter 7, the research has identified that children living in temporary accommodation have a lower reported level of happiness relative to those living in social housing (who had previously lived in temporary accommodation). Given that the survey sought to capture parental views regarding their children, who are of varying ages, it was not felt appropriate to ask questions directly about life satisfaction. Instead a question relating to happiness was adapted from the ONS Children’s Wellbeing Measures. This question explored the parent’s perception of their child’s happiness with their life as a whole, and not about their happiness yesterday (which is the wording of the question from the ONS Children’s Wellbeing Measures), and as such it has been used as a proxy for life satisfaction.

210 . Parents reported for both age groups (0-4 and 5-15 years) a difference of 1.01 on the 0 to 10 scale for happiness, which is statistically significant at the 1% level.

211 . We have applied the WELLBY values from the Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal to monetise the uplift in the child’s happiness in their life as a whole. This assumes that the proxy report of child happiness is equivalent to life satisfaction and adopts the same value of changes in life satisfaction for children as used in the current WELLBY for adults, on the grounds of equity (Parkes, 2025) ^{[footnote 73]}.

212 . The calculated wellbeing uplift monetised values for children are shown in Table 9.3.

Table 9.3 — Wellbeing Uplift Monetised Values (2024 prices, per child, per year)

Average happiness change (respondents living in social housing relative to those living in temporary accommodation)	Low	Central	High
+1.01	£12,410	£16,133	£19,856

Source — SQW, 2025

10. Conclusions

Summary of findings

213 . The key objective for this research was to improve the understanding of how wellbeing changes when an individual moves from temporary accommodation into social housing. This was to improve Homes England’s ability to better capture the appraisal of social value generated when investment is made into delivering social housing, thereby offering more secure and appropriate accommodation to those currently living in temporary accommodation.

214 .To identify how an individual’s wellbeing is expected to change when moving from temporary accommodation into social housing, a wellbeing framework was developed for both adults and children that includes the domains that were anticipated to be the key drivers of a change in wellbeing when someone’s housing circumstances change. One of the key criteria that was established in developing the housing typologies and the ToC for this study was the need to avoid the potential for overlap with LVU. Having a clearly defined comparator group was fundamental; and therefore the comparator group only includes those who live in social housing who had lived in temporary accommodation within the previous 3 years. The 3 year period was selected to mitigate the risk of capturing the wellbeing of those who had lived long-term and, or, lifetime in social housing, and also to avoid the decay of any effects associated with moving into social housing from temporary accommodation.

215 . An extensive primary research programme was undertaken. Following scoping, design, recruitment and testing, an online survey was issued to those living in temporary accommodation, and those currently living in social housing who had lived in temporary accommodation within the previous 3 years. In total we had 2,341 observations for the analysis, of which 2,007 (85%) were from respondents residing in temporary accommodation and 334 (15%) from social housing residents.

216 . The analysis suggests that on average, after controlling for relevant observable characteristics, survey respondents who reside in temporary accommodation reported lower life satisfaction scores than those living in social housing. The difference is approximately –0.86 on the 0 to 10 scale, and it is statistically significant at the 5% level ^{[footnote 74]}.

217 . Table 9.3 presents the key summary findings from the survey for adults:

There were statistically significant differences in happiness: survey respondents from temporary accommodation are less happy, by around 0.6 points, and feel they do less worthwhile things, by around 0.46 points (both on a 0 to 10 scale).

From the statistical point of view, the self-reported levels of anxiety were the same across the typologies.

Average life satisfaction for those residing in temporary accommodation for over 3 years dips below 4, and is statistically significantly lower than the average for those residing in temporary accommodation for less than 3 years (4.42).

Respondents living in a hostel or self-contained flat or house had statistically significantly higher average scores across all ONS-4 measures than those living in other types of temporary accommodation (including bed and breakfast, hotel, house in multiple occupation, bedsit, refuge and so on).

218 . Children residing in temporary accommodation were reported by their parents to have lower levels of happiness than those in social housing, and this is true for both age groups (0 to 4 and 5 to 15 years). The difference is 1.01 on the 0 to 10 scale and it is statistically significant at the 1% level.

219 . Relative to other interventions for which there is good evidence available, the improvement in the life satisfaction scores for those moving from temporary accommodation into social housing scores well. Table 10.3 presents an overview of some other interventions mentioned within the Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal ^{[footnote 75]} compared to the findings of this research.

Table 10.3 — Difference in life satisfaction score by selected interventions

Intervention	Change in Life Satisfaction Score	Source
Temporary accommodation to social housing (adults)	+0.86 [footnote 76]	SQW, 2025
From unemployment to employment	+0.5	Clark et al., 2018
Change in job quality (for example, security, autonomy and support)	+0.25	Clark et al. 2018
Increase of green space in surrounding area	+0.0031	White et al., 2013
Living within 500 metres of flooding incident in 6 months	–0.044	Fujiwara et al., 2018
Moving from general housing to older persons’ housing	+0.283 to +0.345	Homes England and SQW, 2024

Source — Homes England and SQW, 2024; Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal, HM Treasury, 2021.

Application of results

Wellbeing impacts

220 . Guidance from the Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal ^{[footnote 77]} has been used to monetise the wellbeing uplift identified for those moving from temporary accommodation into social housing. The values are presented in Table 10.4. These values are per adult, per annum.

Table 10.4 — Wellbeing Uplift Monetised Values (2024 prices, per adult, per year)

Average life satisfaction change (for those living in social housing, relative to those living in temporary accommodation)	Low	Central	High
+0.86	£10,593	£13,771	£16,949

Source — SQW, 2025

221 . The calculated wellbeing uplift monetised values for children are shown in Table 10.5. These values are per child, per year.

Table 10.5 — Wellbeing Uplift Monetised Values (2024 prices, per child, per year)

Average happiness change (respondents living in social housing relative to those living in temporary accommodation)	Low	Central	High
+1.01	£12,410	£16,133	£19,856

Source — SQW, 2025

222 . It should be noted that as per the guidance provided within the Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal, changes in wellbeing which occur in future years should be discounted using the Green Book ‘health’ discount rate. This starts at 1.5% for years 1 to 30, and drops to 1.286% for years 31 to 60, as the ‘wealth effect’ or real per capita consumption growth element of the discount rate is excluded. Further guidance on this is provided within the Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal.

223 . Appraisers should consider undertaking sensitivity analysis as per the Green Book guidance. It is recommended that appraisers select the most appropriate WELLBY value for their intervention (typically this would be the ‘Central’ value) and use the ‘Low’ and ‘High’ values to undertake sensitivity analysis on the expected outcomes.

Areas for further research

224 . Through the research, a number of areas for further research have been identified that would help to strengthen the evidence base and analysis used to underpin the wellbeing impacts associated with an individual moving from temporary accommodation into social housing. These are:

More in-depth qualitative research — the qualitative elements of this study draw upon interviews with 9 people. More in-depth qualitative research with adults would help to reinforce and expand upon the evidence collected in this report.

Quantitative research directly with children and young people – this research sought to understand the impact of temporary accommodation on children by asking parents about their perception of their child’s wellbeing as a proxy. Further quantitative research could be done directly with children and young people to test the results of our research, and understand what impact it has on their wellbeing. This should also consider those aged 16 to 25 years who have some of the worse wellbeing outcomes associated with temporary accommodation.

Qualitative research on the effects on children and young people — this research has only captured qualitative insights on children and young people by interviews with parents. Qualitative research directly with children and young people, would help to better understand their experiences of living in temporary accommodation and social housing, and the impact that this has on their wellbeing.

Research into the impact of children changing schools and effects on attendance — the qualitative research identified that some children had been forced to move schools. Whilst the full impact of this wasn’t assessed through the survey (that is, total number of missed learning days at school), future research could monetise this if it could get more accurate sense of missed learning days (with Department for Education guidance ^{[footnote 78]} available to monetise the impact).

Research into the wellbeing impacts of Supported Accommodation (Living) — as set out in Chapter 4, given practical considerations, it was decided this research would focus on those in general needs housing (which accounts for 72% of those leaving temporary accommodation and moving into social housing). However it was recognised that 28% of those moving from temporary accommodation into social housing move into supported housing. Further research is needed to understand the wellbeing impact of this move, which is hypothecated to see those with additional support needs better supported through the provision of adequate housing that meets their needs.

225 . In terms of future research, it is worth noting that the younger age group (16 to 25 years) experiences very poor outcomes. Gaining a deeper understanding of the impact of temporary housing on this age group would be particularly valuable.

Annex A — survey questionnaire

Table A.1 — Survey questions for Temporary Accommodation (TA) and Social Housing (SH) residents

Question Number	Question	In TA Survey?	In SH Survey?	Child focused questions
Q1	How long have you lived in your current accommodation for?	Y	Y	—
Q2	What type of temporary accommodation do you currently live in?	Y	—	—
Q3	In the past 12 months, excluding where you currently live, which of these types of accommodation have you lived in?	Y	—	—
Q4	Including your current accommodation, how many temporary addresses have you lived at since you became homeless?	Y	—	—
Q5	What type of accommodation do you currently live in?	—	Y	—
Q6	Please choose the number which you feel best describes how dissatisfied or satisfied you are with: your current accommodation, the area in which you live	Y	Y	—
Q7	Does your current accommodation have any of the following: bathroom, kitchen, living room?	Y	Y	—
Q8	Does your current accommodation have: the facilities to cook the meals you wish to, enough space to carry out the daily activities you need to, damp and, or, mould, draughts from windows and, or, doors?	Y	Y	—
Q9	In your current accommodation, are you allowed to have friends or family visit?	Y	—	—
Q10	How safe do you generally feel: in your current accommodation, in the area your current accommodation is in?	Y	Y	—
Q11	To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement ‘I feel like I belong to this neighbourhood’?	Y	Y	—
Q12	Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?	Y	Y	—
Q13	Overall, to what extent do you feel that the things you do in your life are worthwhile?	Y	Y	—
Q14	Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday?	Y	Y	—
Q15	On a scale where 0 is “not at all anxious” and 10 is “completely anxious”, overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday?	Y	Y	—
Q16	To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement ‘If I needed help, there are people who would be there for me’?	Y	Y	—
Q17	How often do you feel lonely?	Y	Y	—
Q18	Does living in your current accommodation have an impact on how often you can see friends or family, if you want to?	Y	Y	—
Q19	Please choose the number which you feel best describes how dissatisfied or satisfied you are with your health.	Y	Y	—
Q20	Do you have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more?	Y	Y	—
Q21	Do any of your conditions or illnesses reduce your ability to carry out day-to-day activities?	Y	Y	—
Q22	To what extent do you agree with the following: I am worried about my housing situation, I feel able to manage my emotions?	Y	Y	—
Q23	In the last 7 days, were you doing any of the following?	Y	Y	—
Q24	Which of the following best describes what you were doing in the last 7 days?	Y	Y	—
Q25	Have you had to change jobs, or leave a previous job, as a result of your move into temporary accommodation?	Y	—	—
Q26	Have you changed your working patterns, as a result of your move into temporary accommodation?	Y	—	—
Q27	How easy or difficult have you found it to get by financially in the past month?	Y	Y	—
Q28	To what extent do you agree with this statement: ‘I feel confident managing my tenancy’?	Y	Y	—
Q29	What is your sex?	Y	Y	—
Q30	Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?	Y	Y	—
Q31	What age are you?	Y	Y	—
Q32	What is your ethnic group?	Y	Y	—
Q33	What is the first part of your current postcode?	Y	Y	—
Q34	What was the first part of the postcode of your last address before you became homeless?	Y	—	—
Q35	Do you still live in the local authority (council) area in which you were registered as homeless?	Y	—	—
Q36	Is your current accommodation in the local authority (council) area that you applied to live in?	—	Y	—
Q37	Excluding you, how many people live in your household at your current address: aged 16 or over, aged 5 to 15, aged 0 to 4	Y	Y	—
Q38	How happy would you say your child is with your current accommodation?	Y	Y	Asked to those with 1 or more child or children aged 5 to 15 (as identified in Q37)
Q39	How often do you think your child feels lonely?	Y	Y	Asked to those with 1 or more child or children aged 5 to 15 (as identified in Q37)
Q40	Is the area that you live in safe for your child (for example, for them to play, walk to where they need to get to and similar)?	Y	Y	Asked to those with 1 or more child or children aged 5 to 15 (as identified in Q37)
Q41	In the area in which you currently live, to what extent do you agree that there are enough places for your child to play?	Y	Y	Asked to those with 1 or more child or children aged 5 to 15 (as identified in Q37)
Q42	To what extent do you agree with the following statement: ‘In my current accommodation, there is enough space for my child to play’?	Y	Y	Asked to those with 1 or more child or children aged 5 to 15 (as identified in Q37)
Q43	To what extent do you agree with the following statement: ‘In my current accommodation, there is enough space for my child to study’?	Y	Y	Asked to those with 1 or more child or children aged 5 to 15 (as identified in Q37)
Q44	Has your child had to move schools as a result of your move into temporary accommodation?	Y	—	Asked to those with 1 or more child or children aged 5 to 15 (as identified in Q37)
Q45	How happy is your child with their life as a whole?	Y	Y	Asked to those with 1 or more child or children aged 5 to 15 (as identified in Q37)
Q46	Has moving into your current accommodation affected your child’s attendance at school?	Y	Y	Asked to those with 1 or more child or children aged 5 to 15 (as identified in Q37)
Q47	Overall, how happy is your child with the school they go to?	Y	Y	Asked to those with 1 or more child or children aged 5 to 15 (as identified in Q37)
Q48	Does your child have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more?	Y	Y	Asked to those with 1 or more child or children aged 5 to 15 (as identified in Q37)
Q49	How happy would you say your child is with your current accommodation?	Y	Y	Asked to those with 1 or more child or children aged 0 to 4 (as identified in Q37)
Q50	In the area in which you currently live, to what extent do you agree that there are enough places for your child to play?	Y	Y	Asked to those with 1 or more child or children aged 0 to 4 (as identified in Q37)
Q51	To what extent do you agree with the following statement: ‘In my current accommodation, there is enough space for my child to play’?	Y	Y	Asked to those with 1 or more child or children aged 0 to 4 (as identified in Q37)
Q52	Has your child had to move school or nursery as a result of your move into temporary accommodation?	Y	—	Asked to those with 1 or more child or children aged 0 to 4 (as identified in Q37)
Q53	How happy is your child with their life as a whole?	Y	Y	Asked to those with 1 or more child or children aged 0 to 4 (as identified in Q37)
Q54	Does your child have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more?	Y	Y	Asked to those with 1 or more child or children aged 0 to 4 (as identified in Q37)
Q55	Would you like to enter the prize draw?	Y	Y	—

Annex B — Analysis of survey results

This section provides further detail on the analysed survey data that is described in more detail within Sections 6 and 7 of the main report. This contains the survey responses that were received on a question-by-question basis.

For clarity, the following graphs do not show where people have not responded to a survey question; they only show where a response was provided by a respondent. The vertical axis always gives the proportion of responses relative to the typology (that is, those living in temporary accommodation or social housing.

We list the domains covered by the surveys and the pages on which graphs of the responses are presented.

Domain	Page	Graphs
Personal wellbeing	72 to 73	B1 to B4
Our relationships	74	B5 to B7
Health	75 to 76	B8 to B11
Where we live	77 to 78	B12 to B17
What we do	83 to 84	B18 to B21
Personal finance	85	B22
Education and skills	85	B23
Demographic questions	86 to 88	B24 to B27
Housing history	88 to 91	B28 to B37
Personal wellbeing (aged 0 to 4)	92	B38
Health (aged 0 to 4)	92	B39
Where we live (aged 0 to 4)	93	B40 to B42
Education and skills (aged 0 to 4)	94	B43
Personal wellbeing (aged 5 to 15)	94	B44
Our relationships (aged 5 to 15)	95	B45
Health (aged 5 to 15)	95	B46
Where we live (aged 5 to 15)	96 to 98	B47 to B51
Education and Skills (aged 5 to 15)	98 to 99	B52 to B54
Personal wellbeing (aged 0-15)	100	B55
Health (aged 0-15)	100	B56
Where we live (aged 0 to 15)	101	B57 to B59
Education and skills (aged 0 to 15)	102	B60

Personal wellbeing

Figure B1 — Responses to the question ‘Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?’, where 0 is ‘Not at all satisfied’ and 10 is ‘Completely satisfied’ (n = 2326)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	22	384	406
1	13	109	122
2	15	136	151
3	19	196	215
4	15	164	179
5	43	310	353
6	38	160	198
7	38	182	220
8	49	148	197
9	17	57	74
10	63	148	211

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
0	7%	19%	17%
1	4%	5%	5%
2	5%	7%	6%
3	6%	10%	9%
4	5%	8%	8%
5	13%	16%	15%
6	11%	8%	9%
7	11%	9%	9%
8	15%	7%	8%
9	5%	3%	3%
10	19%	7%	9%

Social housing = 332

Temporary accommodation = 1994

Figure B2 — Responses to the question ‘Overall, to what extent do you feel that the things you do in your life are worthwhile?’, where 0 is ‘Not at all worthwhile’ and 10 is ‘Completely worthwhile’ (n = 2317)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	15	211	226
1	9	90	99
2	9	129	138
3	17	149	166
4	9	153	162
5	52	352	404
6	30	180	210
7	27	196	223
8	51	185	236
9	36	90	126
10	73	254	327

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
0	5%	11%	10%
1	3%	5%	4%
2	3%	6%	6%
3	5%	7%	7%
4	3%	8%	7%
5	16%	18%	17%
6	9%	9%	9%
7	8%	10%	10%
8	16%	9%	10%
9	11%	5%	5%
10	22%	13%	14%

Social housing = 328

Temporary accommodation = 1989

Figure B3 — Responses to the question ‘Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday?’, where 0 is ‘Not at all happy’ and

10 is ‘Completely happy’ (n = 2320)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	21	350	371
1	10	114	124
2	20	135	155
3	12	167	179
4	20	161	181
5	43	302	345
6	34	146	180
7	38	182	220
8	43	169	212
9	29	75	104
10	59	190	249

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
0	6%	18%	16%
1	3%	6%	5%
2	6%	7%	7%
3	4%	8%	8%
4	6%	8%	8%
5	13%	15%	15%
6	10%	7%	8%
7	12%	9%	9%
8	13%	8%	9%
9	9%	4%	4%
10	18%	10%	11%

Social housing n=329

Temporary accommodation n=1991

Figure B4 — Responses to the question ‘On a scale where 0 is “not at all anxious” and 10 is “completely anxious”, overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday?’ (n = 2319)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	58	195	253
1	18	60	78
2	14	94	108
3	20	145	165
4	21	132	153
5	46	277	323
6	29	167	196
7	40	176	216
8	40	248	288
9	11	107	118
10	31	390	421

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
0	18%	10%	11%
1	5%	3%	3%
2	4%	5%	5%
3	6%	7%	7%
4	6%	7%	7%
5	14%	14%	14%
6	9%	8%	8%
7	12%	9%	9%
8	12%	12%	12%
9	3%	5%	5%
10	9%	20%	18%

Social housing n=328

Temporary accommodation n=1991

Figure B5 — Responses to the question ‘How often do you feel lonely?’ (n = 2320)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Often or always	73	672	745
Some of the time	82	595	677
Occasionally	92	419	511
Hardly ever	46	169	215
Never	36	136	172

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Often or always	22%	34%	32%
Some of the time	25%	30%	29%
Occasionally	28%	21%	22%
Hardly ever	14%	8%	9%
Never	11%	7%	7%

Social housing n=330

Temporary accommodation n=1986

Figure B6 — Responses to the question ‘Does living in your current accommodation have an impact on how often you can see friends or family, if you want to?’ (n = 2325)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
I see them much more often	34	82	116
I see them a little more often	25	84	109
No impact	122	482	604
I see them a little less often	52	421	473
I see them much less often	69	768	837
Don’t know or prefer not to say	30	156	186

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation number %	Grand total %
I see them much more often	10%	4%	5%
I see them a little more often	8%	4%	5%
No impact	37%	24%	26%
I see them a little less often	16%	21%	20%
I see them much less often	21%	39%	36%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	9%	8%	8%

Social housing n=332 Temporary accommodation n=1993

Figure B7 — Agreement with the statement ‘If I needed help, there are people who would be there for me’ (n = 2316)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Strongly agree	109	497	606
Slightly agree	132	699	831
Slightly disagree	49	411	460
Strongly disagree	40	379	419

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Strongly agree	33%	25%	26%
Slightly agree	40%	35%	36%
Slightly disagree	15%	21%	20%
Strongly disagree	12%	19%	18%

Social housing n=330

Temporary accommodation n=1986

Figure B8 — Responses to the question ‘Please choose the number which you feel best describes how dissatisfied or satisfied you are with your health’, where 0 is ‘Not at all satisfied’ and 10 is ‘Completely satisfied’ (n = 2315)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	38	317	355
1	9	88	97
2	9	145	154
3	19	182	201
4	19	163	182
5	62	336	398
6	31	156	187
7	36	191	227
8	41	166	207
9	18	89	107
10	50	150	200

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
0	11%	16%	15%
1	3%	4%	4%
2	3%	7%	7%
3	6%	9%	9%
4	6%	8%	8%
5	19%	17%	17%
6	9%	8%	8%
7	11%	10%	10%
8	12%	8%	9%
9	15%	4%	5%
10	15%	8%	9%

Social housing n=332

Temporary accommodation n=1983

Figure B9 — Responses to the question ‘Do you have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more?’ (n = 2324)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total
Yes	153	1096	1249
No	139	706	845
Prefer not to say	40	190	230

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Yes	46%	55%	54%
No	42%	35%	36%
Prefer not to say	12%	10%	10%

Social housing n=332

Temporary accommodation n=1992

Figure B10 — Responses to the question ‘Do any of your conditions or illnesses reduce your ability to carry out day-to-day activities?’ (Only asked to those who previously identified as having a physical or mental health condition or illness expected to last 12 months or more) (n = 1245)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Yes, a little	55	432	487
Yes, a lot	82	552	634
Not at all	11	74	85
Prefer not to say	3	36	39

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Yes, a little	36%	39%	39%
Yes, a lot	54%	50%	51%
Not at all	7%	7%	7%
Prefer not to say	2%	3%	3%

Social housing n=151

Temporary accommodation n=1094

B11.1 — Agreement with the statement ‘I am worried about my housing situation’, where 0 is ‘Strongly disagree’ and 10 is ‘Strongly agree’ (n = 2324)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	94	130	224
1	18	40	58
2	22	57	79
3	14	46	60
4	17	43	60
5	35	154	189
6	9	91	100
7	33	133	166
8	25	161	186
9	15	116	131
10	50	1021	1071

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
0	28%	7%	10%
1	5%	2%	2%
2	7%	3%	3%
3	4%	2%	3%
4	5%	2%	3%
5	11%	8%	8%
6	3%	5%	4%
7	10%	7%	7%
8	8%	8%	8%
9	5%	6%	6%
10	15%	51%	46%

Social housing n=332

Temporary accommodation n=1992

Figure B11.2 — Agreement with the statement ‘I feel able to manage my emotions’, where 0 is ‘Strongly disagree’ and 10 is ‘Strongly agree’ (n = 2315)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	23	216	239
1	9	71	80
2	5	119	124
3	12	149	161
4	17	143	160
5	58	355	413
6	27	187	214
7	41	230	271
8	40	193	233
9	28	107	135
10	71	214	285

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
0	7%	11%	10%
1	3%	4%	3%
2	2%	6%	5%
3	4%	8%	7%
4	5%	7%	7%
5	18%	18%	18%
6	8%	9%	9%
7	12%	12%	12%
8	12%	10%	10%
9	8%	5%	6%
10	21%	11%	12%

Social housing n=331

Temporary accommodation n=1984

B12.1 — Satisfaction with current accommodation, where 0 is ‘Not at all satisfied’, and 10 is ‘Completely satisfied’ (n = 2331)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	25	406	431
1	5	97	102
2	6	132	138
3	17	167	184
4	15	147	162
5	40	276	316
6	32	133	165
7	37	148	185
8	41	148	189
9	32	100	132
10	82	245	327

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
0	8%	20%	18%
1	2%	5%	4%
2	2%	7%	6%
3	5%	8%	8%
4	5%	7%	7%
5	12%	14%	14%
6	10%	7%	7%
7	11%	7%	8%
8	12%	7%	8%
9	10%	5%	6%
10	25%	12%	14%

Social housing n=332

Temporary accommodation n=1999

B12.2 — Satisfaction with the area in which the respondent lives, where 0 is ‘Not at all satisfied’, and 10 is ‘Completely satisfied’ (n = 2326)

Rationale	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	12	266	278
1	10	71	81
2	10	96	106
3	14	124	138
4	15	104	119
5	29	274	303
6	22	139	161
7	33	181	214
8	39	199	238
9	31	127	158
10	116	414	530

Rationale	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
0	4%	13%	12%
1	4%	3%	3%
2	3%	5%	5%
3	4%	6%	6%
4	5%	5%	5%
5	9%	14%	13%
6	7%	7%	7%
7	10%	9%	9%
8	12%	10%	10%
9	9%	6%	7%
10	35%	21%	23%

Social housing n=331

Temporary accommodation n=1995

Figure B13.1 — Responses to whether the respondents’ current accommodation has a bathroom (n = 2331)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Yes, for private use by my household or family only	318	1833	2151
Yes, shared with other households or families in the building	6	121	127
No	6	24	30
Don’t know or prefer not to say	2	21	23

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Yes, for private use by my household or family only	96%	92%	92%
Yes, shared with other households or families in the building	2%	6%	5%
No	2%	1%	1%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	1%	1%	1%

Social housing n=332

Temporary accommodation n=1999

Figure B13.2 — Responses to whether respondents’ current accommodation has a kitchen (n = 2327)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Yes, for private use by my household or family only	321	1619	1940
Yes, shared with other households or families in the building	3	264	267
No	6	92	98
Don’t know or prefer not to say	2	20	22

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Yes, for private use by my household or family only	97%	81%	83%
Yes, shared with other households or families in the building	1%	13%	11%
No	2%	5%	4%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	1%	1%	1%

Social housing n=332

Temporary accommodation n=1995

Figure B13.3 — Responses to whether respondents’ current accommodation has a living room (n = 2311)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Yes, for private use by my household or family only	314	1487	1801
Yes, shared with other households or families in the building	4	104	108
No	11	365	376
Don’t know or prefer not to say	3	23	26

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Yes, for private use by my household or family only	95%	75%	78%
Yes, shared with other households or families in the building	1%	5%	5%
No	3%	18%	16%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	1%	1%	1%

Social housing n=332

Temporary accommodation n=1979

Figure B14.1 — Responses to whether respondents’ current accommodation has ‘the facilities to cook the meals you wish to’ (n = 2327)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Yes	305	1728	2033
No	20	223	243
Don’t know or prefer not to say	5	46	51

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Yes	92%	87%	87%
No	6%	11%	10%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	2%	2%	2%

Social housing n=330

Temporary accommodation n=1997

Figure B14.2 — Responses to whether respondents’ current accommodation has ‘enough space to carry out the daily activities you need to’ (n = 2324)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Yes	270	1113	1383
No	50	787	837
Don’t know or prefer not to say	12	92	104

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Yes	81%	56%	60%
No	15%	40%	36%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	4%	5%	4%

Social housing n=332

Temporary accommodation n=1992

Figure B14.3 — Responses to whether respondents’ current accommodation has ‘damp and, or, mould’ (n = 2325)

Response	Social housing	Temporary accommodation	Grand total number
Yes	111	1011	1122
No	194	815	1009
Don’t know or prefer not to say	26	168	194

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Yes	34%	51%	48%
No	59%	41%	43%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	8%	8%	8%

Social housing n=331

Temporary accommodation n=1994

Figure B14.4 — Responses to whether respondents’ current accommodation has ‘draughts from windows and/or

doors’ (n = 2325)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Yes	163	1122	1285
No	137	668	805
Don’t know or prefer not to say	30	206	236

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Yes	49%	56%	55%
No	42%	33%	35%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	9%	10%	10%

Social housing n=330

Temporary accommodation n=1996

Figure B15 — Responses to whether respondents are allowed to have friends and family visit in their current accommodation (temporary accommodation only) (n = 1999)

Response	Number
Yes, whenever I want	1083
Yes, at certain times or under certain circumstances	352
No	400
Don’t know or prefer not to say	164

Response	%
Yes, whenever I want	54%
Yes, at certain times or under certain circumstances	18%
No	20%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	8%

Figure B16.1 — How safe respondents feel in their current accommodation, where 0 is ‘Not at all safe’ and 10 is ‘Completely safe’ (n = 2328)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	18	223	241
1	8	71	79
2	9	94	103
3	18	140	158
4	8	125	133
5	36	253	289
6	22	146	168
7	30	198	228
8	40	199	239
9	41	152	193
10	100	397	497

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
0	5%	11%	10%
1	2%	4%	3%
2	3%	5%	4%
3	5%	7%	7%
4	2%	6%	6%
5	11%	13%	12%
6	7%	7%	7%
7	9%	10%	10%
8	12%	10%	10%
9	12%	8%	8%
10	30%	20%	21%

Social housing n=330

Temporary accommodation n=1998

Figure B16.2 — How safe respondents feel in the area that their current accommodation is in, where 0 is ‘Not at all safe’ and 10 is ‘Completely safe’ (n = 2320)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	14	173	187
1	12	82	94
2	9	98	107
3	10	132	142
4	10	123	133
5	43	281	324
6	28	162	190
7	32	206	238
8	51	238	289
9	34	153	187
10	87	342	429

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
0	4%	9%	8%
1	4%	4%	4%
2	3%	5%	5%
3	3%	7%	6%
4	3%	6%	6%
5	13%	14%	14%
6	8%	8%	8%
7	10%	10%	10%
8	15%	12%	12%
9	10%	8%	8%
10	26%	17%	18%

Social housing n=330

Temporary accommodation n=1990

Figure B17 — Agreement with the statement ‘I feel like I belong to this neighbourhood’ (n = 2328)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Strongly agree	56	263	319
Agree	95	446	541
Neither agree nor disagree	108	672	780
Disagree	38	273	311
Strongly disagree	35	342	377

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Strongly agree	17%	13%	14%
Agree	29%	22%	23%
Neither agree nor disagree	33%	34%	34%
Disagree	11%	14%	13%
Strongly disagree	11%	17%	16%

Social housing n=332

Temporary accommodation n=1996

What we do

Figure B18 — Activities undertaken by respondents in the previous 7 days – responses were not mutually exclusive (n = 2313)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary housing number	Grand total number
Working as an employee, self-employed or freelance	124	581	705
Temporarily away from work ill, on holiday, or temporarily laid off	23	152	175
On maternity or paternity leave	12	82	94
Doing any other kind of paid work	7	41	48
None of the above	172	1153	1325
Total	332	1981	2313

Response	Social housing %	Temporary housing %	Grand total %
Working as an employee, self-employed or freelance	37%	29%	30%
Temporarily away from work ill, on holiday, or temporarily laid off	7%	8%	8%
On maternity or paternity leave	4%	4%	4%
Doing any other kind of paid work	2%	2%	2%
None of the above	52%	58%	57%
Total	100%	100%	100%

Social housing n=332

Temporary accommodation n=1981

Figure B19 — Main activity undertaken by respondents in the previous 7 days for those who identified ‘None of the above’ in the previous question (n = 1315)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Looking after home or family	46	416	462
Long-term sick or disabled	62	312	374
Actively seeking employment	17	138	155
Studying	12	80	92
Retired	13	18	31
Other	22	179	201

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Looking after home or family	27%	36%	35%
Long-term sick or disabled	36%	27%	28%
Actively seeking employment	10%	12%	12%
Studying	7%	7%	7%
Retired	8%	2%	2%
Other	13%	16%	15%

Social housing n=172

Temporary accommodation n=1143

Figure B20 — Responses to the question ‘Have you had to change jobs, or leave a previous job, as a result of your move into temporary accommodation?’ (Temporary accommodation only - ‘Not applicable’ responses have been removed) (n = 1568)

Response	Count number	Proportion %
Yes	262	17%
No	1170	75%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	136	9%

Figure B21 — Responses to the question ‘Have you changed your working patterns, as a result of your move into temporary accommodation?’ (TA Only - ‘Not applicable’ responses have been removed) (n = 1233)

Response	Count number	Proportion %
Yes, I now work more hours	67	5%
Yes, I now work fewer hours	182	15%
Yes, I now work different hours or shifts, but the same amount overall	97	8%
No change	686	56%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	201	16%

Personal finance

Figure B22 — Responses to the question ‘How easy or difficult have you found it to get by financially in the past month?’ (n = 2320)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Very easy	8	28	36
Fairly easy	30	91	121
Neither easy nor difficult	84	369	453
Fairly difficult	99	569	668
Very difficult	83	815	898
Don’t know or prefer not to say	27	117	144

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Very easy	2%	1%	2%
Fairly easy	9%	5%	5%
Neither easy nor difficult	25%	19%	20%
Fairly difficult	30%	29%	29%
Very difficult	25%	41%	39%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	8%	6%	6%

Social housing n=331

Temporary accommodation n=1989

Education and skills

Figure B23 — Agreement with the statement ‘I feel confident managing my tenancy’, where 0 is ‘Not at all confident’ and 10 is ‘Extremely confident’ (n = 2302)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	14	251	265
1	6	58	64
2	5	88	93
3	6	127	133
4	15	112	127
5	43	368	411
6	20	141	161
7	41	178	219
8	46	207	253
9	42	131	173
10	93	310	403

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
0	4%	13%	12%
1	2%	3%	3%
2	2%	4%	4%
3	2%	6%	6%
4	5%	6%	6%
5	13%	19%	18%
6	6%	7%	7%
7	12%	9%	10%
8	14%	11%	11%
9	13%	7%	8%
10	28%	16%	18%

Social housing n=331

Temporary accommodation n=1971

Demographic questions

Figure B24 — Sex of respondents (n = 2323)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Female	247	1436	1683
Male	78	528	606
Prefer not to say	6	28	34

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Female	75%	72%	72%
Male	24%	27%	26%
Prefer not to say	2%	1%	1%

Social housing n=331

Temporary accommodation n=1992

Figure B25 — Responses to the question ‘Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?’ (n = 2317)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Yes	322	1926	2248
No	3	21	24
Prefer not to say	6	39	45

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Yes	97%	97%	97%
No	1%	1%	1%
Prefer not to say	2%	2%	2%

Social housing n=331

Temporary accommodation n=1986

Figure B26 — Age of respondents (n = 2328)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
16 to 20	7	72	79
21 to 25	29	178	207
26 to 30	43	263	306
31 to 35	47	349	396
36 to 40	50	341	391
41 to 45	40	302	342
46 to 50	29	210	239
51 to 55	40	139	179
56 to 60	19	76	95
61 to 65	14	38	52
66 to 70	7	18	25
71 to 75	4	6	10
76 to 80	0	2	2
81 or over	2	3	5

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
16 to 20	2%	4%	3%
21 to 25	9%	9%	9%
26 to 30	13%	13%	13%
31 to 35	14%	17%	17%
36 to 40	15%	17%	17%
41 to 45	12%	15%	15%
46 to 50	9%	11%	10%
51 to 55	12%	7%	8%
56 to 60	6%	4%	4%
61 to 65	4%	2%	2%
66 to 70	2%	1%	1%
71 to 75	1%	0%	0%
76 to 80	0%	0%	0%
81 or over	1%	0%	0%

Social housing n=331

Temporary accommodation n=1997

Figure B27 — Ethnicity of respondents (n = 2322)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Asian or Asian British	33	410	443
Black, Black British, Caribbean or African	68	518	586
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups	25	124	149
White	174	669	843
Other	14	166	180
Prefer not to say	17	104	121

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Asian or Asian British	10%	21%	19%
Black, Black British, Caribbean or African	21%	26%	25%
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups	8%	6%	6%
White	53%	34%	36%
Other	4%	8%	8%
Prefer not to say	5%	5%	5%

Social housing n=331

Temporary accommodation n=1991

Housing history

Figure B28 — Household size of respondents (n = 2341)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
1	81	256	337
2	77	352	429
3	61	383	444
4	42	303	345
5	32	237	269
6	11	150	161
7 or more	30	326	356

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
1	24%	13%	14%
2	23%	18%	18%
3	18%	19%	19%
4	13%	15%	15%
5	10%	12%	11%
6	3%	7%	7%
7 or more	9%	16%	15%

Social housing n=334

Temporary accommodation n=2007

Figure B29 — Current home postcode of respondents (n = 1990)

This diagram could not be made accessible. Please refer to the PDF version of this document. If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email enquiries@homesengland.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Figure B30 — Distance between postcode in which a respondent was registered as homeless, and the current postcode of the respondent (Temporary accommodation only – distances are measured from centre of postcode regions) (n = 1144)

Response	%
0 to less than 1 kilometre	2%
1 to less than 5 kilometres	45%
5 to less than 10 kilometres	27%
10 to less than 25 kilometres	18%
25 to less than 50 kilometres	5%
50 to less than 100 kilometres	1%
Over 100km	1%

Figure B31 — Responses to the question ‘Do you still live in the local authority (council) area in which you were registered as homeless?’ (Temporary accommodation only) (n = 1986)

Response	%
Yes	65%
No	30%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	6%

Figure B32 — Responses to the question ‘Is your current accommodation in the local authority (council) area that you applied to live in?’ (Social housing only) (n = 330)

Response	Count number	Proportion %
Yes	276	84%
No	21	6%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	33	10%

Figure B33 — Duration of living in current accommodation (n = 2341)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number
0 to 6 months	79	527
6 to 12 months	105	382
1 to 2 years	77	189
2 to 3 years	73	395
Over 3 years	0	514

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
0 to 6 months	24%	26%	26%
6 to 12 months	22%	20%	20%
1 to 2 years	31%	19%	21%
2 to 3 years	23%	9%	11%
Over 3 years	0%	26%	22%

SH (n=334)

Temporary accommodation n=2007)

Figure B34 — Responses to the question, “What type of temporary accommodation do you currently live in?” (TA only) (n = 1998)

Response	Count number	Proportion %
Self-contained flat or house	1367	68%
Bed and breakfast or hotel	170	9%
Hostel	130	7%
Other	123	6%
House in Multiple Occupation or bedsit	121	6%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	78	4%
Refuge	9	0%

Figure B35 — Responses to the question “In the past 12 months, excluding where you currently live, which of these types of accommodation have you lived in?” (Temporary accommodation only) (n = 1980) Responses are not mutually exclusive.

Response	Count number	Proportion %
Self-contained flat or house	972	49%
Bed and breakfast or hotel	386	19%
Living with friends or family	262	13%
None of the above	226	11%
Hostel	166	8%
House in Multiple Occupation or bedsit	155	8%
Other	104	5%
Rough sleeping	84	4%
Refuge	56	3%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	51	3%

Figure B36 — Responses to the question “Including your current accommodation, how many temporary addresses have you lived at since you became homeless?” (Temporary accommodation only) (n = 1999)

Response	Count number	Proportion %
1	607	30%
2	619	31%
3	371	18%
4	154	8%
5	86	4%
6	45	2%
7	14	1%
8	8	0%
9	3	0%
10 or over	14	1%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	78	4%

Figure B37 — Responses to the question “What type of accommodation do you currently live in?” (Social housing only) (n = 332)

Responses	Count number	Proportion %
Council housing	195	59%
Rental accommodation from a registered provider (for example, a housing association)	133	40%
Other	3	1%
Don’t know	1	0%

Personal wellbeing (children aged 0 to 4)

Figure B38 — Responses to ‘How happy is your child with their life as a whole?’, where 0 is ‘Extremely unhappy’ and 10

is ‘Extremely happy’ (Asked to those who had at least one child aged 0 to 4, and no children aged 5 to 15 in their household) (n = 397)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	1	24	25
1	0	3	3
2	0	16	16
3	0	15	15
4	0	14	14
5	2	43	45
6	4	23	27
7	8	29	37
8	7	48	55
9	5	37	42
10	24	94	118

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
0	2%	7%	6%
1	0%	1%	1%
2	0%	5%	4%
3	0%	4%	4%
4	0%	4%	4%
5	4%	12%	11%
6	8%	7%	7%
7	16%	8%	9%
8	14%	14%	14%
9	10%	11%	11%
10	47%	27%	30%

Social housing n=51

Temporary accommodation n=346

Health (children aged 0 to 4)

Figure B39— Responses to the question ‘Does your child have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more?’ (Asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 0 to 4 and no children aged 5 to 15 in their household) (n = 398)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Yes	12	46	58
No	38	279	317
Prefer not to say	1	22	23

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Yes	24%	13%	15%
No	75%	80%	80%
Prefer not to say	2%	6%	6%

Social housing n=51.

Temporary accommodation n=347.

Where we live (children aged 0 to 4)

Figure B40 — Responses to the question ‘How happy would you say your child is with your current accommodation?’, where 0 is ‘Completely unhappy’ and 10 is ‘Completely happy’ (Asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 0 to 4, and no children aged 5 to 15 in their household) (n = 398)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	4	75	79
1	2	12	14
2	1	23	24
3	1	31	32
4	1	26	27
5	5	47	52
6	1	20	21
7	8	31	39
8	5	15	20
9	1	11	12
10	22	56	78

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
0	8%	22%	20%
1	4%	3%	4%
2	2%	7%	6%
3	2%	9%	8%
4	2%	7%	7%
5	10%	14%	13%
6	2%	6%	5%
7	16%	9%	10%
8	10%	4%	5%
9	2%	3%	3%
10	43%	16%	20%

Social housing n=51.

Temporary accommodation n=347.

Figure B41 — Agreement with the statement ‘In the area in which you currently live… there are enough places for your child to play’ (Asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 0 to 4, and no children aged 5 to 15 in their household) (n = 398)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Strongly agree	8	34	42
Agree	19	70	89
Neither agree nor disagree	8	79	87
Disagree	8	64	72
Strongly disagree	7	81	88
Don’t know or prefer not to say	1	19	20

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Strongly agree	16%	10%	11%
Agree	37%	20%	22%
Neither agree nor disagree	16%	23%	22%
Disagree	16%	18%	18%
Strongly disagree	14%	23%	22%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	2%	5%	5%

Social housing n=51.

Temporary accommodation n=347.

Figure B42 — Agreement with the statement ‘In my current accommodation, there is enough space for my child to play’ (Asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 0 to 4, and no children aged 5 to 15 in their household) (n = 399)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Strongly agree	11	35	46
Agree	16	72	88
Neither agree nor disagree	8	51	59
Disagree	7	62	69
Strongly disagree	7	122	129
Don’t know or prefer not to say	2	6	8

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand Total Grand Total
Strongly agree	22%	10%	12%
Agree	31%	21%	22%
Neither agree nor disagree	16%	15%	15%
Disagree	14%	18%	17%
Strongly disagree	14%	35%	32%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	4%	2%	2%

Social housing n=51.

Temporary accommodation n=348.

Education and skills (children aged 0 to 4)

Figure B43 — Responses to ‘Has your child had to move school or nursery as a result of your move into Temporary accommodation?’ (TA Only - Asked to those who had at least 1child aged 0 to4, and no children aged 5 to 15 in their household) (n = 345)

Response	Count number	Proportion number
Yes	55	16%
No	170	49%
Don’t know, prefer not to say or not applicable	120	35%

Personal wellbeing (Children aged 5 to 15)

Figure B44 — Responses to the question ‘How happy is your child with their life as a whole?’, where 0 is ‘Extremely

unhappy’ and 10 is ‘Extremely happy’ (Asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 5 to 15 in their household) (n = 1241)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	2	116	118
1		32	32
2	3	57	60
3	2	69	71
4	3	71	74
5	17	171	188
6	7	60	67
7	19	127	146
8	28	130	158
9	24	106	130
10	38	159	197

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
0 1%	11%	10%
1	0%	3%	3%
2	2%	5%	5%
3	1%	6%	6%
4	2%	6%	6%
5	12%	16%	15%
6	5%	5%	5%
7	13%	12%	12%
8	20%	12%	13%
9	17%	10%	10%
10	27%	14%	16%

Social housing n=143.

Temporary accommodation n=1098.

Our relationships (children aged 5 to 15)

Figure B45 — Responses to the question ‘How often do you think your child feels lonely?’ (Asked to those who had at least one child aged 5 to 15 in their household) (n = 1260)

Responses	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Often or always	12	253	265
Some of the time	23	246	269
Occasionally	22	192	214
Hardly ever	34	159	193
Never	47	201	248
Don’t know or prefer not to say	5	66	71

Responses	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Often or always	8%	23%	21%
Some of the time	16%	22%	21%
Occasionally	15%	17%	17%
Hardly ever	24%	14%	15%
Never	33%	18%	20%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	3%	6%	6%

Social housing n=143.

Temporary accommodation n=1117.

Health (children aged 5 to 15)

Figure B46 — Responses to the question ‘Does your child have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more?’ (Asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 5 to 15 in their household) (n = 1246)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Yes	42	334	376
No	91	703	794
Prefer not to say	10	66	76

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Yes	29%	30%	30%
No	64%	64%	64%
Prefer not to say	7%	6%	6%

Social housing n=143.

Temporary accommodation n=1103.

Where we live (children aged 5 to 15)

Figure B47 — Responses to the question ‘How happy would you say your child is with your current accommodation?’, where 0 is ‘Completely unhappy’ and 10 is ‘Completely happy’ (Asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 5 to 15 in their household) (n = 1263)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	10	351	361
1	2	58	60
2	6	91	97
3	6	73	79
4	8	67	75
5	17	131	148
6	15	54	69
7	10	75	85
8	13	63	76
9	10	22	32
10	46	135	181

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
0	7%	31%	29%
1	1%	5%	5%
2	4%	8%	8%
3	4%	7%	6%
4	6%	6%	6%
5	12%	12%	12%
6	10%	5%	5%
7	7%	7%	7%
8	9%	6%	6%
9	7%	2%	3%
10	32%	12%	14%

Social housing n=143.

Temporary accommodation n=1120.

Figure B48 — Responses to the question ‘Is the area that you live in safe for your child (for example, for them to play, walk to where they need to get to and similar)?’ (Asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 5 to 15 in their household) (n = 1263)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Yes, very safe	31	171	202
Yes, fairly safe	51	381	432
No, fairly unsafe	33	225	258
No, very unsafe	13	227	240
Don’t know or prefer not to say	15	116	131

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Yes, very safe	22%	15%	16%
Yes, fairly safe	36%	34%	34%
No, fairly unsafe	23%	20%	20%
No, very unsafe	19%	20%	19%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	10%	10%	10%

Social housing n=143.

Temporary accommodation n=1120.

Figure B49 — Agreement with the statement ‘In the area in which you currently live, there are enough places for your

child to play?’ (Asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 5 to 15 in their household) (n = 1249)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Strongly agree	25	103	128
Agree	51	251	302
Neither agree nor disagree	19	236	255
Disagree	22	214	236
Strongly disagree	18	231	249
Don’t know or prefer not to say	8	71	79

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Strongly agree	17%	9%	10%
Agree	36%	23%	24%
Neither agree nor disagree	13%	21%	20%
Disagree	15%	19%	19%
Strongly disagree	13%	21%	20%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	6%	6%	6%

Social housing n=143.

Temporary accommodation n=1106.

Figure B50 — Agreement with the statement ‘In my current accommodation, there is enough space for my child to play’ (Asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 5 to 15 in their household) (n = 1248)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Strongly agree	28	94	122
Agree	55	229	284
Neither agree nor disagree	18	168	186
Disagree	14	225	239
Strongly disagree	18	350	368
Don’t know or prefer not to say or not applicable	8	41	49

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Strongly agree	20%	8%	10%
Agree	39%	21%	23%
Neither agree nor disagree	13%	15%	15%
Disagree	10%	20%	19%
Strongly disagree	13%	32%	29%
Don’t know or prefer not to say or not applicable	6%	4%	4%

Social housing n=141.

Temporary accommodation n=1107.

Figure B51 — Agreement with the statement ‘In my current accommodation, there is enough space for my child to study’ (Asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 5 to 15 in their household) (n = 1244)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Strongly agree	31	89	120
Agree	61	328	389
Neither agree nor disagree	23	177	200
Disagree	11	186	197
Strongly disagree	12	282	294
Don’t know or prefer not to say or not applicable	4	40	44

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Strongly agree	22%	8%	10%
Agree	43%	30%	31%
Neither agree nor disagree	16%	16%	16%
Disagree	8%	17%	16%
Strongly disagree	8%	26%	24%
Don’t know or prefer not to say or not applicable	3%	4%	4%

Social housing n=142.

Temporary accommodation n=1102.

Education and skills (children aged 5 to 15)

Figure B52 — Responses to the question ‘Has your child had to move schools as a result of your move into temporary accommodation?’ (Temporary accommodation only - asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 5 to 15 in their household) (n = 1100)

Response	Count number	Proportion %
Yes	409	37%
No	589	54%
Don’t know or prefer not to say or not applicable	102	9%

Figure B53 — Responses to the question ‘Has moving into your current accommodation affected your child’s attendance at school?’ (Asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 5 to 15 in their household) (n = 1240)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary number	Grand total number
Yes, they now attend more often	14	66	80
No change	102	563	665
Yes, they now attend less often	5	238	243
Don’t know or Prefer not to say or not applicable	22	230	252

Response	Social housing %	Temporary %	Grand total %
Yes, they now attend more often	10%	6%	6%
No change	71%	51%	54%
Yes, they now attend less often	3%	22%	20%
Don’t know or prefer not to say or not applicable	3%	5%	5%

Social housing n=143.

Temporary accommodation n=1097.

Figure B54 — Responses to the question ‘Overall, how happy is your child with the school they go to?’, where 0 is ‘Not at all happy’ and 10 is ‘Completely happy’ (Asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 5 to 15 in their household) (n = 1235)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	4	69	73
1	0	17	17
2	3	13	16
3	3	36	39
4	3	39	42
5	13	106	119
6	7	56	63
7	18	93	111
8	26	134	160
9	19	114	133
10	47	415	462

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
0	3%	6%	6%
1	0%	2%	1%
2	2%	1%	1%
3	2%	3%	3%
4	2%	4%	3%
5	9%	10%	10%
6	5%	5%	5%
7	13%	9%	9%
8	18%	12%	13%
9	13%	10%	11%
10	33%	38%	37%

Social housing n=143.

Temporary accommodation n=1092.

Personal wellbeing (children aged 0 to 15)

Figure B55 — Responses to ‘How happy is your child with their life as a whole?’, where 0 is ‘Extremely unhappy’ and 10 is ‘Extremely happy’ (Asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 0 to 15 in their household) (n = 1638)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	3	140	143
1		35	35
2	3	73	76
3	2	84	86
4	3	85	88
5	19	214	233
6	11	83	94
7	27	156	183
8	35	178	213
9	29	143	172
10	62	253	315

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
0	2%	10%	9%
1	0%	2%	2%
2	2%	5%	5%
3	1%	6%	5%
4	2%	6%	5%
5	10%	15%	14%
6	6%	6%	6%
7	14%	11%	11%
8	18%	12%	13%
9	15%	10%	11%
10	32%	18%	19%

Social housing n=194.

Temporary accommodation n=1444.

Health (children aged 0 to 15)

Figure B56 — Responses to ‘Does your child have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more?’ (Asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 0 to 15 in their household) (n = 1644)

Response	social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand Total number
Yes	54	380	434
No	129	982	1111
Prefer not to say	11	88	99

Response	social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand Total %
Yes	28%	26%	26%
No	66%	68%	68%
Prefer not to say	6%	6%	6%

Social housing n=194.

Temporary accommodation n=1450.

Where we live (children aged 0 to 15)

Figure B57 — Responses to the question ‘How happy would you say your child is with your current accommodation?’, where 0 is ‘Completely unhappy’ and 10 is ‘Completely happy’ (Asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 0 to 15 in their household) (n = 1661)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	14	426	440
1	4	70	74
2	7	114	121
3	7	104	111
4	9	93	102
5	22	178	200
6	16	74	90
7	18	106	124
8	18	78	96
9	11	33	44
10	68	191	259

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
0	29%	26%
1	2%	5%	4%
2	4%	8%	7%
3	4%	7%	7%
4	5%	6%	6%
5	11%	12%	12%
6	8%	5%	5%
7	9%	7%	7%
8	9%	5%	6%
9	6%	2%	3%
10	35%	13%	16%

Social housing n=194.

Temporary accommodation n=1467.

Figure B58 — Agreement with the statement ‘In the area in which you currently live, there are enough places for your child to play’. (Asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 0 to 15 in their household) (n = 1647)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand total number
Strongly agree	33	137	170
Agree	70	321	391
Neither agree nor disagree	27	315	342
Disagree	30	278	308
Strongly disagree	25	312	337
Don’t know and prefer not to say	9	90	99

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand total %
Strongly agree	17%	9%	10%
Agree	36%	22%	24%
Neither agree nor disagree	14%	22%	21%
Disagree	15%	19%	19%
Strongly disagree	13%	21%	20%
Don’t know and prefer not to say	5%	6%	6%

Social housing n=194.

Temporary accommodation n=1453.

Figure B59 — Agreement with the statement ‘In my current accommodation, there is enough space for my child to play’. (Asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 0 to 15 in their household) (n = 1647)

Response	Social housing number	Temporary accommodation number	Grand Total number
Strongly agree	39	129	168
Agree	71	301	372
Neither agree nor disagree	26	219	245
Disagree	21	287	308
Strongly disagree	25	472	497
Don’t know or prefer not to say or not applicable	10	47	57

Response	Social housing %	Temporary accommodation %	Grand Total %
Strongly agree	20%	9%	10%
Agree	37%	21%	23%
Neither agree nor disagree	14%	15%	15%
Disagree	11%	20%	19%
Strongly disagree	13%	32%	30%
Don’t know or prefer not to say or not applicable	5%	3%	3%

Social housing n=192.

Temporary accommodation n=1455.

Education and skills (children aged 0 to 15)

Figure B60 — Responses to ‘Has your child had to move school or nursery as a result of your move into temporary accommodation?’ (TA only - Asked to those who had at least 1 child aged 0 to 15 in their household) (n = 1445)

Response	Count number	Proportion %
Yes	464	32%
No	759	53%
Don’t know or prefer not to say or not applicable	222	15%

ONS-4 metrics

Tables B2.1 to B2.11 present regression outputs for the models that investigated the average differences in self reported ONS-4 life satisfaction scores by typology (the preferred model, as well as alternatives).

Coefficients that are statistically significant at the 5% level are highlighted in light teal and those significant at the 10% level are highlighted with orange.

‘Conf.low’ and ‘Conf.high’ columns show the lower and upper boundaries of the 95% confidence (conf.) interval.

This annex does not include the outputs from alternative model specifications for the ‘component’ elements of the ONS-4 measure (that is, the measures of happiness, anxiety, and feeling worthwhile). Those results were not affected by the changes to the models (and the coefficients of interest are largely statistically insignificant even in the preferred specification).

The teal and orange shading present in the PDF version of this report is not shown in this accessible version. We are working on distinguishing the shaded information in this version.

Table B2.1 —ONS-4 life satisfaction score, preferred model

Variable	Estimate	Std.error	p-value	Conf.low	Conf.high
Intercept	2.198	0.319	0.000	1.572	2.823
Typology (base: social housing)	-0.863	0.157	0.000	-1.171	-0.555
Agreeing that there is someone there for them when they need it (base: disagreeing)	0.806	0.121	0.000	0.569	1.043
Feeling lonely occasionally, some of the time, or often/always (base: never, or hardly ever)	-0.893	0.165	0.000	-1.217	-0.569
Satisfaction with general health (0 to 10 scale)	0.455	0.026	0.000	0.405	0.505
Feeling able to manage their emotions (0 to 10 scale)	0.188	0.025	0.000	0.138	0.237
Finding it fairly difficult or very difficult to get by financially in the past month (base: neither easy nor difficult, fairly easy, or very easy)	-0.347	0.122	0.005	-0.587	-0.108
Sex: Female (base: Male)	0.188	0.129	0.143	-0.064	0.440
Age (base: 16 to 25)
26-40	0.382	0.164	0.020	0.059	0.704
41-60	0.741	0.175	0.000	0.397	1.085
60+	0.510	0.296	0.085	-0.071	1.091
Ethnicity (base: White)
Asian or Asian British	0.334	0.146	0.022	0.048	0.621
Black, Black British, Caribbean, or African	-0.339	0.138	0.014	-0.609	-0.069
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups	0.112	0.205	0.586	-0.290	0.514
Other	-0.230	0.204	0.260	-0.630	0.170
Having children (base: Not having children)	-0.188	0.125	0.133	-0.433	0.057

R²=0.492, F(15,1922)=124.069, p-value=0.000

Highlighted coefficients are statistically significant at the 5% (teal) and 10% (orange) levels, robust standard errors.

Source — SQW.

Table B2.2 — ONS-4 doing things that are worthwhile score, preferred model

Variable	Estimate	Std.error	p-value	Conf.low	Conf.high
Intercept	2.592	0.298	0.000	2.007	3.177
Typology (base: social housing)	-0.460	0.141	0.001	-0.737	-0.183
Agreeing that there is someone there for them when they need it (base: disagreeing)	0.892	0.120	0.000	0.657	1.126
Feeling lonely occasionally, some of the time, or often/always (base: never, or hardly ever)	-1.000	0.141	0.000	-1.277	-0.723
Satisfaction with general health (0 to 10 scale)	0.374	0.026	0.000	0.324	0.424
Feeling able to manage their emotions (0 to 10 scale)	0.278	0.025	0.000	0.229	0.328
Finding it fairly difficult or very difficult to get by financially in the past month (base: neither easy nor difficult, fairly easy, or very easy)	-0.356	0.115	0.002	-0.582	-0.130
Sex: Female (base: Male)	0.447	0.124	0.000	0.204	0.690
Age (base: 16-25)
26-40	0.167	0.148	0.258	-0.123	0.457
41-60	0.374	0.160	0.020	0.060	0.688
60+	0.245	0.286	0.393	-0.317	0.807
Ethnicity (base: White)
Asian or Asian British	-0.061	0.135	0.648	-0.326	0.203
Black, Black British, Caribbean, or African	-0.156	0.128	0.225	-0.408	0.096
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups	0.431	0.227	0.058	-0.014	0.875
Other	0.298	0.223	0.182	-0.140	0.736
Having children (base: Not having children)	-0.045	0.126	0.720	-0.293	0.202

R²=0.514, F(15,1917)=135.173, p-value=0.000

Highlighted coefficients are statistically significant at the 5% (teal) and 10% (orange) levels, robust standard errors.

Source —SQW.

Table B2.3 — ONS-4 happiness score, preferred model

Variable	Estimate	Std.error	p-value	Conf.low	Conf.high
Intercept	2.659	0.316	0.000	2.041	3.278
Typology (base: social housing)	-0.597	0.151	0.000	-0.894	-0.301
Agreeing that there is someone there for them when they need it (base: disagreeing)	0.868	0.122	0.000	0.628	1.107
Feeling lonely occasionally, some of the time, or often/always (base: never, or hardly ever)	-1.187	0.162	0.000	-1.504	-0.870
Satisfaction with general health (0 to 10 scale)	0.425	0.026	0.000	0.373	0.476
Feeling able to manage their emotions (0 to 10 scale)	0.235	0.025	0.000	0.185	0.285
Finding it fairly difficult or very difficult to get by financially in the past month (base: neither easy nor difficult, fairly easy, or very easy)	-0.489	0.123	0.000	-0.730	-0.247
Sex: Female (base: Male)	0.133	0.131	0.310	-0.124	0.391
Age (base: 16-25)
26-40	-0.021	0.154	0.889	-0.324	0.281
41-60	0.213	0.167	0.202	-0.114	0.539
60+	0.024	0.312	0.938	-0.588	0.636
Ethnicity (base: White)
Asian or Asian British	0.080	0.143	0.574	-0.200	0.361
Black, Black British, Caribbean, or African	-0.116	0.140	0.410	-0.391	0.159
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups	0.100	0.202	0.623	-0.298	0.497
Other	-0.385	0.193	0.046	-0.763	-0.007
Having children (base: Not having children)	0.039	0.132	0.766	-0.220	0.299

R²=0.521, F(15,1920)=139.093, p-value=0.000

Highlighted coefficients are statistically significant at the 5% (teal) and 10% (orange) levels, robust standard errors.

Source —SQW.

Table B2.4 — ONS-4 anxiety score, preferred model

Variable	Estimate	Std.error	p-value	Conf.low	Conf.high
Intercept	4.098	0.427	0.000	3.260	4.936
Typology (base: social housing)	-0.214	0.195	0.271	-0.596	0.167
Agreeing that there is someone there for them when they need it (base: disagreeing)	0.371	0.142	0.009	0.093	0.649
Feeling lonely occasionally, some of the time, or often/always (base: never, or hardly ever)	-1.429	0.213	0.000	-1.847	-1.012
Satisfaction with general health (0 to 10 scale)	0.225	0.030	0.000	0.166	0.284
Feeling able to manage their emotions (0 to 10 scale)	0.163	0.030	0.000	0.103	0.222
Finding it fairly difficult or very difficult to get by financially in the past month (base: neither easy nor difficult, fairly easy, or very easy)	-0.363	0.151	0.012	-0.680	-0.086
Sex: Female (base: Male)	0.041	0.173	0.814	-0.298	0.379
Age (base: 16-25)
26-40	-0.892	0.207	0.000	-1.299	-0.485
41-60	-0.483	0.221	0.029	-0.915	-0.050
60+	-0.501	0.420	0.233	-1.325	0.323
Ethnicity (base: White)
Asian or Asian British	0.495	0.181	0.006	0.141	0.850
Black, Black British, Caribbean, or African	0.625	0.172	0.000	0.287	0.963
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups	0.374	0.247	0.130	-0.110	0.857
Other	0.416	0.250	0.097	-0.075	0.907
Having children (base: Not having children)	-0.195	0.166	0.241	-0.520	0.131

R²=0.276, F(19,1913)=38.130, p-value=0.000

Highlighted coefficients are statistically significant at the 5% (teal) and 10% (orange) levels, robust standard errors.

Source —SQW.

Table B2.5 — ONS-4 life satisfaction score with duration of stay at current accommodation

Variable	Estimate	Std.error	p-value	Conf.low	Conf.high
Intercept	2.163	0.437	0.000	1.307	3.020
Typology (base: social housing)	-0.817	0.348	0.019	-1.500	-0.135
Duration in current accommodation (base: 0-6 months)
6-12 months	-0.185	0.399	0.643	-0.967	0.597
1-2 years	0.332	0.420	0.430	-0.493	1.156
2-3 years	-0.188	0.426	0.659	-1.024	0.648
Over 3 years	-0.197	0.166	0.236	-0.524	0.129
Agreeing that there is someone there for them when they need it (base: disagreeing)	0.805	0.121	0.000	0.568	1.042
Feeling lonely occasionally, some of the time, or often/always (base: never, or hardly ever)	-0.919	0.167	0.000	-1.246	-0.592
Satisfaction with general health (0 to 10 scale)	0.453	0.026	0.000	0.403	0.504
Feeling able to manage their emotions (0 to 10 scale)	0.187	0.025	0.000	0.136	0.236
Finding it fairly difficult or very difficult to get by financially in the past month (base: neither easy nor difficult, fairly easy, or very easy)	-0.343	0.123	0.005	-0.584	-0.102
Sex: Female (base: Male)	0.207	0.133	0.120	-0.054	0.468
Age (base: 16-25)
26-40	0.406	0.166	0.014	0.081	0.731
41-60	0.783	0.179	0.000	0.432	1.135
60+	0.541	0.296	0.067	-0.039	1.121
Ethnicity (base: White)
Asian or Asian British	0.350	0.147	0.018	0.061	0.639
Black, Black British, Caribbean, or African	-0.327	0.140	0.020	-0.602	-0.051
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups	0.128	0.206	0.534	-0.276	0.533
Other	-0.210	0.204	0.304	-0.610	0.190
Having children (base: Not having children)	-0.184	0.125	0.143	-0.430	0.062
Typology interactions
Typology: 6-12 months in current accommodation	0.153	0.433	0.725	-0.697	1.002
Typology: 1-2 years in current accommodation	-0.219	0.454	0.630	-1.109	0.671
Typology: 2-3 years in current accommodation	0.179	0.469	0.703	-0.741	1.099
Typology: Over 3 years in current accommodation	Read note	Read note	Read note	Read note	Read note

R²=0.494, F(22,1915)=84.828, p-value=0.000

Highlighted coefficients are statistically significant at the 5% (teal) and 10% (orange) levels, robust standard errors.

‘Read note’ denotes analysis for those living over 3 years in current accommodation not possible, as those living more than 3 years in social housing were removed from sample (as per sampling approach).

Source —SQW.

Table B2.6: ONS-4 life satisfaction score with housing quality

Variable	Estimate	Std.error	p-value	Conf.low	Conf.high
Intercept	0.162	0.298	0.587	-0.423	0.747
Typology (base: social housing)	-0.355	0.135	0.009	-0.620	-0.090
Agreeing that there is someone there for them when they need it (base: disagreeing)	0.249	0.100	0.013	0.052	0.446
Feeling lonely occasionally, some of the time, or often/always (base: never, or hardly ever)	-0.763	0.136	0.000	-1.030	-0.496
Satisfaction with general health (0 to 10 scale)	0.280	0.023	0.000	0.235	0.325
Feeling able to manage their emotions (0 to 10 scale)	0.135	0.020	0.000	0.095	0.175
Satisfaction with accommodation (0 to 10 scale)	0.304	0.023	0.000	0.259	0.349
Access to facilities, i.e. kitchen, bathroom, living room (base: all private)
At least one shared	-0.278	0.117	0.018	-0.508	-0.046
No access to facilities	0.904	0.482	0.061	-0.042	1.850
Number of problems with the accommodation, i.e. presence of damp and/or mould, or draughts	0.120	0.057	0.037	0.007	0.233
Perceived safety of accommodation (0 to 10 scale)	0.153	0.023	0.000	0.108	0.197
Agreeing that they feel they belong to their neighbourhood (base: neutral or disagreeing)	0.649	0.107	0.000	0.439	0.858
Finding it fairly difficult or very difficult to get by financially in the past month (base: neither easy nor difficult, fairly easy, or very easy)	-0.159	0.100	0.113	-0.355	0.038
Sex: Female (base: Male)	0.216	0.110	0.051	-0.001	0.432
Age (base: 16-25)
26-40	0.149	0.141	0.291	-0.128	0.426
41-60	0.409	0.151	0.007	0.114	0.705
60+	0.034	0.284	0.906	-0.523	0.590
Ethnicity (base: White)
Asian or Asian British	0.354	0.122	0.004	0.115	0.594
Black, Black British, Caribbean, or African	0.053	0.117	0.650	-0.176	0.283
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups	0.346	0.160	0.031	0.032	0.660
Other	0.155	0.165	0.347	-0.168	0.478
Having children (base: Not having children)	0.036	0.112	0.745	-0.183	0.256

R²=0.661, F(21,1875)=174.340, p-value=0.000

Highlighted coefficients are statistically significant at the 5% (teal) and 10% (orange) levels, robust standard errors.

Source —SQW.

Table B2.7 — ONS-4 life satisfaction score without ‘our relationships’ domain

Variable	Estimate	Std.error	p-value	Conf.low	Conf.high
Intercept	1.685	0.277	0.000	1.142	2.228
Typology (base: social housing)	-0.938	0.160	0.000	-1.251	-0.625
Satisfaction with general health (0 to 10 scale)	0.507	0.025	0.000	0.459	0.555
Feeling able to manage their emotions (0 to 10 scale)	0.226	0.025	0.000	0.176	0.275
Finding it fairly difficult or very difficult to get by financially in the past month (base: neither easy nor difficult, fairly easy, or very easy)	-0.470	0.124	0.000	-0.713	-0.228
Sex: Female (base: Male)	0.144	0.131	0.271	-0.112	0.400
Age (base: 16-25)
26-40	0.420	0.167	0.012	0.093	0.747
41-60	0.719	0.178	0.000	0.369	1.069
60+	0.522	0.303	0.085	-0.073	1.117
Ethnicity (base: White)
Asian or Asian British	0.326	0.148	0.028	0.035	0.616
Black, Black British, Caribbean, or African	-0.355	0.142	0.013	-0.633	-0.076
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups	0.016	0.206	0.937	-0.388	0.421
Other	-0.284	0.202	0.161	-0.681	0.113
Having children (base: Not having children)	-0.203	0.129	0.114	-0.456	0.049

R²=0.469, F(13,1930)=131.228, p-value=0.000

Highlighted coefficients are statistically significant at the 5% (teal) and 10% (orange) levels, robust standard errors.

Source —SQW.

Table B2.8 — ONS-4 life satisfaction score with personal characteristics only

Variable	Estimate	Std.error	p-value	Conf.low	Conf.high
Intercept	5.696	0.303	0.000	5.102	6.291
Typology (base: social housing)	-1.948	0.193	0.000	-2.327	-1.570
Sex: Female (base: Male)	0.226	0.174	0.193	-0.144	0.566
Age (base: 16-25)
26-40	-0.221	0.215	0.304	-0.643	0.200
41-60	0.105	0.225	0.643	-0.338	0.547
60+	0.522	0.379	0.169	-0.222	1.266
Ethnicity (base: White)
Asian or Asian British	0.278	0.196	0.155	-0.106	0.662
Black, Black British, Caribbean, or African	0.129	0.173	0.458	-0.211	0.468
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups	-0.296	0.286	0.301	-0.857	0.265
Other	-0.598	0.287	0.038	-1.161	-0.034
Having children (base: Not having children)	0.581	0.170	0.001	0.247	0.916

R²=0.058, F(10,2069)=12.698, p-value=0.000

Highlighted coefficients are statistically significant at the 5% (teal) and 10% (orange) levels, robust standard errors.

Source —SQW.

Table B2.9 — ONS-4 life satisfaction score for temporary accommodation only – linear model

Variable	Estimate	Std.error	p-value	Conf.low	Conf.high
Intercept	-0.568	0.422	0.179	-1.396	0.261
Duration in current accommodation (base: 0-6 months)
6-12 months	0.010	0.151	0.946	-0.286	0.306
1-2years	0.099	0.155	0.522	-0.206	0.404
2-3 years	0.260	0.177	0.142	-0.087	0.607
Over 3 years	0.133	0.162	0.410	-0.184	0.450
Type of accommodation (base: Self-contained flat or house)
Bed & Breakfast/Hotel	-0.457	0.254	0.072	-0.955	0.041
Hostel	0.098	0.290	0.735	-0.471	0.667
House in Multiple Occupation/Bedsit	-0.004	0.219	0.987	-0.432	0.425
Other	-0.654	0.203	0.001	-1.052	-0.256
Refuge	-0.631	0.551	0.253	-1.712	0.451
Number of types of accommodation lived in (count)	-0.009	0.071	0.895	-0.149	0.130
Number of temporary addresses lived in since becoming homeless (count)	0.039	0.034	0.242	-0.027	0.106
Being allowed to have friends or family visit (base: No)
Yes, at certain times/under certain circumstances	0.264	0.170	0.120	-0.069	0.597
Yes, whenever I want	0.444	0.163	0.007	0.124	0.764
Agreeing that there is someone there for them when they need it (base: disagreeing)	0.209	0.116	0.073	-0.020	0.437
Feeling lonely occasionally, some of the time, or often/always (base: never, or hardly ever)	-0.595	0.164	0.000	-0.916	-0.275
Satisfaction with general health (0 to 10 scale)	0.284	0.026	0.000	0.232	0.336
Being worried about their housing situation (0 to 10 scale)	-0.056	0.018	0.002	-0.092	-0.020
Feeling able to manage their emotions (0 to 10 scale)	0.130	0.024	0.000	0.084	0.176
Satisfaction with accommodation (0 to 10 scale)	0.280	0.028	0.000	0.225	0.334
Having access to a kitchen (base: Yes, for private use by my household/ family only)
Yes, shared with other households/families	0.010	0.219	0.962	-0.420	0.441
No	0.748	0.359	0.037	0.044	1.452
Number of positives about accommodation, i.e. facilities to cook meals they wish to, enough space to carry out the daily activities they need to	0.016	0.107	0.880	-0.193	0.225
Number of problems with the accommodation, i.e. presence of damp and/or mould, or draughts	0.096	0.068	0.159	-0.037	0.229
Perceived safety of accommodation (0 to 10 scale)	0.149	0.025	0.000	0.099	0.198
Agreeing that they feel they belong to their neighbourhood (base: neutral or disagreeing)	0.540	0.122	0.000	0.301	0.780
Being an employee (base: not being an employee)	-0.022	0.103	0.830	-0.225	0.180
Finding it fairly difficult or very difficult to get by financially in the past month (base: neither easy nor difficult, fairly easy, or very easy)	0.027	0.119	0.824	-0.208	0.261
Confidence in managing tenancy (0 to 10 scale)	0.056	0.018	0.002	0.021	0.092
Sex: Female (base: Male)	0.116	0.138	0.402	-0.155	0.387
Age (base: 16-25)
26-40	0.132	0.167	0.429	-0.196	0.460
41-60	0.505	0.185	0.006	0.143	0.867
60+	-0.232	0.331	0.482	-0.822	0.417
Ethnicity (base: White)
Asian or Asian British	0.400	0.142	0.005	0.121	0.678

Highlighted coefficients are statistically significant at the 5% (teal) and 10% (orange) levels, robust standard errors.

Source —SQW.

Table B2.9 — ONS-4 life satisfaction score for temporary accommodation only – linear model

	Estimate	Std.error	p-value	Conf.low	Conf.high
Black, Black British, Caribbean, or African	0.017	0.138	0.904	-0.254	0.287
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups	0.166	0.182	0.363	-0.191	0.523
Other	0.157	0.200	0.431	-0.234	0.549
Having children (base: Not having children)	0.039	0.134	0.769	-0.223	0.302

R2=0.654, F(37,1382)=70.491, p-value=0.000

Highlighted coefficients are statistically significant at the 5% (teal) and 10% (orange) levels, robust standard errors.

Source —SQW

Table B2.10 — ONS-4 life satisfaction score for temporary accommodation only – logit model, scoring 7 or above

Variable	Estimate	Std.error	p-value	Conf.low	Conf.high
Intercept	-6.826	0.798	0.000	-8.390	5.261
Duration in current accommodation (base: 0-6 months)
6-12 months	-0.038	0.255	0.882	-0.537	0.462
1-2years	0.174	0.262	0.507	-0.339	0.687
2-3 years	0.159	0.331	0.631	-0.489	0.807
Over 3 years	-0.113	0.291	0.697	-0.683	0.457
Type of accommodation (base: Self-contained flat or house)
Bed & Breakfast/Hotel	0.148	0.470	0.753	-0.772	1.068
Hostel	0.529	0.425	0.213	-0.303	1.362
House in Multiple Occupation/Bedsit	0.015	0.524	0.977	-1.013	1.043
Other	-0.553	0.420	0.188	-1.377	0.271
Refuge	-13.306	434.811	0.976	-865.520	838.908
Number of types of accommodation lived in (count)	-0.235	0.126	0.062	-0.483	0.012
Number of temporary addresses lived in since becoming homeless (count)	0.006	0.062	0.919	-0.115	0.128
Being allowed to have friends or family visit (base: No)
Yes, at certain times/under certain circumstances	0.599	0.317	0.059	-0.023	1.221
Yes, whenever I want	0.517	0.295	0.079	-0.061	1.096
Agreeing that there is someone there for them when they need it (base: disagreeing)	-0.008	0.205	0.967	-0.409	0.392
Feeling lonely occasionally, some of the time, or often/always (base: never, or hardly ever)	-0.581	0.239	0.015	-1.050	-0.113
Satisfaction with general health (0 to 10 scale)	0.306	0.040	0.000	0.227	0.385
Being worried about their housing situation (0 to 10 scale)	-0.061	0.031	0.052	-0.122	0.001
Feeling able to manage their emotions (0 to 10 scale)	0.122	0.039	0.002	0.046	0.198
Satisfaction with accommodation (0 to 10 scale)	0.215	0.038	0.000	0.141	0.288
Having access to a kitchen (base: Yes, for private use by my household/ family only)
Yes, shared with other households/families	-0.518	0.444	0.243	1.389	0.352
No	0.333	0.618	0.590	-0.879	1.546
Number of positives about accommodation, i.e. facilities to cook meals they wish to, enough space to carry out the daily activities they need to	0.109	0.183	0.552	-0.250	0.469
Number of problems with the accommodation, i.e. presence of damp and/or mould, or draughts	0.110	0.115	0.338	-0.115	0.336
Perceived safety of accommodation (0 to 10 scale)	0.223	0.043	0.000	0.140	0.307
Agreeing that they feel they belong to their neighbourhood (base: neutral or disagreeing)	0.847	0.182	0.000	0.489	1.204
Being an employee (base: not being an employee)	-0.217	0.180	0.227	-0.570	0.135
Finding it fairly difficult or very difficult to get by financially in the past month (base: neither easy nor difficult, fairly easy, or very easy)	-0.149	0.187	0.425	-0.517	0.218
Confidence in managing tenancy (0 to 10 scale)	0.057	0.034	0.093	-0.009	0.123
Sex: Female (base: Male)	0.081	0.228	0.724	-0.367	0.529
Age (base: 16-25)
26-40	-0.062	0.274	0.822	-0.599	0.476
41-60	0.246	0.297	0.408	-0.337	0.828
60+	-0.710	0.599	0.236	-1.884	0.464
Ethnicity (base: White)
Asian or Asian British	0.369	0.247	0.135	-0.115	0.853
Black, Black British, Caribbean, or African	0.041	0.227	0.856	-0.403	0.486
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups	0.448	0.403	0.265	-0.341	1.237
Other	0.056	0.376	0.881	-0.680	0.792
Having children (base: Not having children)	0.522	0.240	0.030	0.052	0.993

AIC=986.948, χ²(37) = 742.715, p = 0.000

Highlighted coefficients are statistically significant at the 5% (teal) and 10% (orange) levels, robust standard errors.

Source —SQW.

Table B2.11 — Parent reported children’s happiness

Variable	Estimate	Std.error	p-value	Conf.low	Conf.high
Intercept	5.944	0.484	0.000	4.995	6.892
Typology (base: social housing)	-1.011	0.188	0.000	-1.379	-0.642
Parents agreeing that there is someone there for them when they need it (base: disagreeing)	0.923	0.167	0.000	0.596	1.251
Parents feeling lonely occasionally, some of the time, or often/always (base: never, or hardly ever)	-0.545	0.199	0.006	-0.935	-0.155
Parent’s satisfaction with general health (0 to 10 scale)	0.287	0.034	0.000	0.220	0.355
Parent’s feeling able to manage their emotions (0 to 10 scale)	0.140	0.034	0.000	0.072	0.207
Parents finding it fairly difficult or very difficult to get by financially in the past month (base: neither easy nor difficult, fairly easy, or very easy)	-0.402	0.152	0.008	-0.701	-0.104
Parent’s sex: Female (base: Male)	0.389	0.218	0.074	-0.038	0.817
Parent’s age (base: 16-25)
26-40	-0.624	0.211	0.003	-1.038	-0.210
41-60	-0.986	0.238	0.000	-1.454	-0.519
60+	-1.199	1.112	0.281	-3.381	0.983
Ethnicity (base: White)
Asian or Asian British	-0.346	0.195	0.077	-0.729	0.038
Black, Black British, Caribbean, or African	-0.470	0.185	0.011	-0.832	-0.107
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups	0.182	0.295	0.538	-0.397	0.762
Other	-0.460	0.308	0.136	-1.065	0.145
Child having physical or mental health conditions/illnesses lasting or expecting to last 12 months (base: no conditions/illnesses)	-0.815	0.177	0.000	-1.163	-0.468

R²=0.330, F(15,1323)=43.419, p-value=0.000

Highlighted coefficients are statistically significant at the 5% (teal) and 10% (orange) levels, robust standard errors.

Source —SQW.

References

This references list includes all sources reviewed in the preparation of this report, including documents that are not directly cited in the report. Sources that are directly cited in the report are listed here and also detailed in footnotes where relevant throughout.

ACT Government, 2020, Australian Wellbeing Framework. Canadian Index of Wellbeing, Canadian Index of Wellbeing. Carnegie UK, 2022, SEED Framework.

Centre for Thriving Places, 2023, The Shared Ingredients for a Wellbeing Economy.

Clark, A., Layard, R., Flèche, S., Ward, G., and Powdthavee, N. (2018). The origins of happiness: The science of wellbeing over the life course. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 2021, Defining and measuring rural wellbeing.

Fujiwara, D., Houston, D., Keohane, K., Gramatki, J. and Maxwell, C. (2018). Valuation of the impact of roadworks and flooding using the Wellbeing Valuation method. Report presented to Anglian Water.

Greater London Authority, 2023, London Wellbeing and Sustainability Measure. HM Treasury, 2020, Magenta Book: Central Government guidance on evaluation.

HM Treasury, 2021 (updated 2022), Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal: Supplementary Green Book Guidance. Homes England and SQW, 2024, Measuring the Wellbeing and Fiscal Impacts of Housing for Older People MHCLG, 2025, MHCLG Appraisal Guide.

National Infrastructure Commission, 2022, Quality of Life Discussion Paper. Office for National Statistics, 2015, Measuring national well-being.

Office for National Statistics, 2022, UK Principal Population Projections.

Office for National Statistics, 2023, Measures of National Well-being Dashboard. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Better Life Index.

Parkes, I., 2025; The C-WELLBY: Towards a Universal Measure of Children’s Wellbeing for Policy Analysis Te Tai Ohanga 2021, New Zealand Wellbeing Framework.

What Works Centre for Wellbeing, 2017a, Housing and wellbeing: A rapid scoping review of reviews on the evidence on housing and its relationship to wellbeing.

What Works Centre for Wellbeing, 2017b, Understanding local needs for wellbeing data: measures and Indicators. What Works Centre for Wellbeing, 2022a, Different People, Same Place.

What Works Centre for Wellbeing, 2022b, Understanding wellbeing in a local area.

White, M.P., Alcock, I., Wheeler, B.W., and Depledge, M.H. (2013). “Would you be happier living in a greener urban area? A fixed-effects analysis of panel data.” Psychological Science, 24, 920-928.

Wiseman, J and Brasher, K., 2009, Community wellbeing in an unwell world: trends, challenges, and possibilities.

1. Tables on homelessness - GOV.UK ↩

2. Local authority revenue expenditure and financing England: 2023 to 2024 individual local authority data - outturn - GOV.UK ↩

3. Tables on homelessness - GOV.UK ↩

4. Consultation on future social housing rent policy - GOV.UK ↩

5. Land uplift value is the change in the value of land that results from its development (that is, for housing). It is calculated in terms of the (private) returns to developers net of development costs and fees and factoring normal profit (DLUHC, 2023). ↩

6. What is Wellbeing?, What Works Centre for Wellbeing website, https://whatworkswellbeing.org/about-wellbeing/what-is-wellbeing/ ↩

7. This includes having ‘loneliness’ as a control variable, providing a conservative estimate on the impact on life satisfaction. ↩

8. HM Treasury, 2021 (updated 2022), Green Book supplementary guidance: wellbeing - GOV.UK ↩

9. This is the value when controlling for Our relationships (loneliness, having someone to rely on); Health (health satisfaction, mental wellbeing; Personal finance (financial difficulties); and Personal characteristics. ↩

10. HM Treasury, 2021 (updated 2022), Green Book supplementary guidance: wellbeing - GOV.UK ↩

11. Parkes, I., 2025; The C-WELLBY: Towards a Universal Measure of Children’s Wellbeing for Policy Analysis. Available at: https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/occasional/op069.pdf ↩

12. The Impact of School Absence on Lifetime Earnings, Department for Education, 2025. The impact of school absence on lifetime earnings ↩

13. Tables on homelessness - GOV.UK ↩

14. Still Living in Limbo: Why the use of Temporary Accommodation must end, Shelter, 2023 ↩

15. Consultation on future social housing rent policy - GOV.UK ↩

16. Land uplift value is the change in the value of land that results from its development (that is, for housing). It is calculated in terms of the (private) returns to developers net of development costs and fees and factoring normal profit (DLUHC, 2023) ↩

17. The MHCLG Appraisal Guide - GOV.UK ↩

18. The MHCLG Appraisal Guide - Annex H - GOV.UK ↩

19. HM Treasury, 2021 (updated 2022), Green Book supplementary guidance: wellbeing - GOV.UK ↩

20. Measuring the Wellbeing and Fiscal Impacts of Housing for Older People, Homes England and SQW, 2024 Measuring the Wellbeing and Fiscal Impacts of Housing for Older People - GOV.UK ↩

21. Housing Act 1996 ↩

22. Emergency and temporary accommodation - Advicenow ↩

23. Emergency and temporary accommodation - Advicenow ↩

24. Tables on homelessness - GOV.UK ↩

25. Tables on homelessness - GOV.UK ↩

26. Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities - Chapter 17: Suitability of accommodation - Guidance - GOV.UK ↩

27. Statutory homelessness in England: April to June 2024 - GOV.UK ↩

28. CIH and Centre for Homelessness Impact report looks at major savings in housing sector ↩

29. Households in temporary accommodation (England) - House of Commons Library ↩

30. Tables on homelessness - GOV.UK ↩

31. Social housing lettings in England, tenants: April 2022 to March 2023 - GOV.UK ↩

32. housing-homeless-research-report.pdf ↩

33. HM Treasury, 2021 (updated 2022), Green Book supplementary guidance: wellbeing - GOV.UK ↩

34. Tables on homelessness - GOV.UK ↩

35. What is Wellbeing?, What Works Centre for Wellbeing website ↩

36. What Works Centre for Wellbeing, 2022, Different people, same place ↩

37. Wiseman, J and Brasher, K., 2009, Community wellbeing in an unwell world: trends, challenges, and possibilities - PubMed ↩

38. What Works Centre for Wellbeing, 2017, Understanding local needs for wellbeing data: measures and indicators ↩

39. Measuring the Wellbeing and Fiscal Impacts of Housing for Older People, Homes England and SQW, 2024, Measuring the Wellbeing and Fiscal Impacts of Housing for Older People - GOV.UK ↩

40. Office for National Statistics, 2023, UK Measures of National Well-being Dashboard - Office for National Statistics ↩

41. Measuring the Wellbeing and Fiscal Impacts of Housing for Older People, Homes England and SQW, 2024, Measuring the Wellbeing and Fiscal Impacts of Housing for Older People - GOV.UK ↩

42. The Impact of Homelessness on Health: A Guide for Local Authorities, Local Government Association, 2017. ↩

43. The Good Childhood Report, The Children’s Society, 2014. ↩

44. What relationship variables predict a more reliable proxy reporter of adolescent wellbeing? A systematic review, Nortfield, Saliba and Harris, 2024. ↩

45. Feeling the Strain, The Children’s Society, 2023. ↩

46. Households in temporary accommodation (England), House of Commons Library, 2023. ↩

47. The Homelessness Case Level Information Collection (H-CLIC) specification, MHCLG, 2023. ↩

48. Statutory homelessness live tables, MHCLG, 2024. ↩

49. Magenta Book: Central Government Guidance on Evaluation, HM Treasury, 2020. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-magenta-book. ↩

50. This was due to a) local authorities not holding social housing stock or b) authorities or providers being unable to accurately identify or use email lists of social housing residents that would meet the criteria of previous tenancy in temporary accommodation within the previous 3 years. ↩

51. For categorisations of effect sizes see, for example, Sawilowsky, S.S., 2009. New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of modern applied statistical methods, 8(2), p.26. Statistical power is the probability to identify the effect when it is indeed present. All our calculations assumed 95% statistical power (the accepted standard). The level of statistical significance represents the chance to be wrong when concluding the effect is present. Considering the nature of the policy area and a relatively small sample of people in social housing, we consider all differences across the typologies that are significant at the 10% level to be of policy relevance. However, we also report p-values — numerical representations of the level of statistical significance. ↩

52. We note however, that the sample sizes and as a result our statistical power varied across questions. We also note that the sample of social housing residents is substantially smaller than that for temporary accommodation. We estimate that the margin of error for that subsample was around 5 percentage points compared to around 2 percentage points in the temporary accommodation subsample. In other words, if 50% of the social housing sample reported a particular outcome we could be 95% certain that between 45% and 55% would report that outcome had we been able to survey the whole population of social housing residents, whereas this range would be narrower for temporary accommodation (48% to 52%). ↩

53. For example, a 10 on the ONS-4 anxiety scale corresponds to a 0 on our inverted scale, 9 to 1, 8 to 2 and similar. ↩

54. Personal well-being in the UK: April 2022 to March 2023 (2023), Personal well-being in the UK - Office for National Statistics. ↩

55. UK measures of personal wellbeing dashboard. ↩

56. Annex tables for English Housing Survey 2023 to 2024 headline findings on demographics and household resilience - GOV.UK ↩

57. Similar patterns can be observed in the ONS-4 measures of worthwhile and happiness, with both scores around 0.3 lower in the group of respondents who have stayed in their current accommodation for over 3 years. ↩

58. Correlation measures the strength of a linear relationship. Non-linear relationships may be misrepresented by this measure. ↩

59. North refers to: the north west, the north east, Yorkshire and the Humber, the west midlands, and the east midlands. South refers to: London, the south east, the south west, and the east of England. ↩

60. The following criteria were used in the survey: (1) if parents had any children aged 5 to 15, they were asked to respond based on the youngest child in this age bracket; (2) if they did not have any children aged 5 to 15, but they had any children aged 0 to 4, they were asked to respond based on the oldest child in this age bracket; (3) if a respondent had no children, they were not asked any child-related questions. ↩

61. HM Treasury, 2021 (updated 2022), Green Book supplementary guidance: wellbeing - GOV.UK ↩

62. P-values are a numerical representation of the probability to be wrong when suggesting a relationship based on the data. ↩

63. ‘Accounted for’ means that survey responses to relevant questions were added as variables to the model, ensuring that the average differences in those characteristics across the typologies do not get attributed to the effect that the typologies may have on wellbeing. For example, if individuals in a particular age group tend to have higher self-assessed wellbeing in general and there are more respondents of that age group in temporary accommodation than in social housing, failing to consider this factor within the model may wrongly lead to the conclusion that temporary accommodation is characterised by higher wellbeing. ↩

64. To make the survey more inviting and user friendly, only a minority of questions were mandatory to complete. Therefore, respondents could skip some of the questions or select the “Don’t know” or “Prefer not to say” response option. All 3 of those actions would result in missing information. When a variable is added to the model, only the responses with non-missing information for that variable can be used in the analysis. As a result, including variables with a high degree of missingness lowers the statistical power – that is, our ability to identify any effect present. It may also introduce attrition bias. For example, if a group of people with particular characteristics tended to avoid a certain question (for example, around their confidence in managing a tenancy) they would be underrepresented in the analysis if that question was included. ↩

65. Employment status is often seen to be an important driver of wellbeing and was tested when developing the model specification. However, this was not found to be statistically significant and is expected to be highly correlated with the financial difficulties metric. Employment status was therefore excluded from the final model specification. ↩

66. The final analytical sample had 1,937 respondents, including 1,671 respondents in temporary accommodation (86%) and 266 respondents in social housing (14%). This split by typology closely mirrors that of the original sample, which has 2,007 respondents residing in temporary accommodation (86%) and 334 respondents residing in social housing (14%), suggesting that the model selection process was unlikely to introduce any attrition. According to our pre-analysis power calculations, with these sample sizes, even without controlling for observable characteristics, we would be able to detect ‘small’ differences in life satisfaction across the 2 typologies (below 0.2 of the standard deviation). ↩

67. The ‘where we live’ variables included in an alternative model specification included: satisfaction with the accommodation, the degree to which the respondents worry about their housing situation, feeling of safety in the accommodation, feeling of belonging to the neighbourhood, access to private facilities (bathroom, kitchen, living room), issues with the accommodation (mould, draughts, and similar). ↩

68. Parents were asked questions about one child, based on the following criteria: (1) if parents had any children aged 5 to 15, they were asked to respond based on the youngest child in this age bracket; (2) if they did not have any children aged 5 to 15, but they had any children aged 0 to 4, they were asked to respond based on the oldest child in this age bracket; (3) if a respondent had no children, they were not asked any question about effects on children. Our analysis is based on a combination of responses about children in both age brackets: 1,000 children aged 5 to 15 (75%) and 342 children aged 0 to 4 (25%). ↩

69. For example, there was a high degree of missingness to questions about having to change jobs or working patterns as a result of moving into temporary accommodation; these were excluded from the final model specification. ↩

70. Measuring the Wellbeing and Fiscal Impacts of Housing for Older People, Homes England and SQW, 2024. Measuring the Wellbeing and Fiscal Impacts of Housing for Older People - GOV.UK ↩

71. HM Treasury, 2021 (updated 2022), Green Book supplementary guidance: wellbeing - GOV.UK ↩

72. GDP deflators at market prices, HM Treasury, 2025 and GDP (Average) per head, CVM market prices, HM Treasury, 2025 ↩

73. Parkes, I., 2025; The C-WELLBY: Towards a Universal Measure of Children’s Wellbeing for Policy Analysis. Available at: https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/occasional/op069.pdf ↩

74. This includes having ‘loneliness’ as a control variable, providing a conservative estimate on the impact on life satisfaction. ↩

75. HM Treasury, 2021 (updated 2022), Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal: Supplementary Green Book Guidance ↩

76. This is the value when controlling for Our relationships (loneliness, having someone to rely on); Health (health satisfaction, mental wellbeing; Personal finance (financial difficulties); and Personal characteristics. ↩

77. HM Treasury, 2021 (updated 2022), Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal: Supplementary Green Book Guidance ↩

78. The impact of school absence on lifetime earnings, Department for Education, 2025. ↩