Research and analysis

​Systems-wide evaluation of homelessness and rough sleeping: Social housing allocations​

Published 11 December 2025

Applies to England

Foreword  

This report has been produced as part of the Systems-wide Evaluation of Homelessness and Rough Sleeping. The aim of this innovative evaluation is to identify opportunities to improve the way that the homelessness and rough sleeping system works to ensure it is delivering the best possible outcomes for those who need to make use of services and value for money for the taxpayer.   

This report builds on the first interim report and complements other reports from the evaluation on policy areas that influence homelessness and rough sleeping, including the criminal justice system, supported housing and transition from the asylum estate. It focusses on how local social housing allocation policies and practise affect homelessness, drawing on qualitative insights from across England. It identifies structural barriers, such as limited housing stock, and discusses how the use of affordability and qualification checks can prolong homelessness for vulnerable groups.

We would like to thank the Centre for Homelessness Impact and their partners for their expertise and continuing hard work to deliver this ambitious programme of research, local authority staff and other stakeholders who participated in the research, and the analysts at MHCLG who provided input to the research materials and reviewed the outputs.   

Most importantly, we are hugely grateful to the individuals with lived experience of homelessness who participated for giving us their time and sharing their experiences with the research team.  

The findings in this report build on a substantial evidence base published by MHCLG which informs the new Cross-Government Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy. This evidence base, summarised in the strategy’s Analytical annex, demonstrates MHCLG’s commitment to identifying the causes of and solutions to homelessness and rough sleeping, and to ensuring that policy and practice are grounded in robust analysis.  

MHCLG will continue to develop the evidence in this area and work collaboratively to fill remaining gaps. MHCLG’s plans for improving data and evidence on homelessness and rough sleeping are set out in Section 5 of the Analytical annex.  

Stephen Aldridge 

Director for Analysis and Data & Chief Economist  

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government 

Executive summary

This report outlines the findings from an exploration of how the allocation of social housing might impact homelessness and rough sleeping. In addition to outlining the evidence obtained during fieldwork, the report contains recommendations from the evaluation team on ways in which social housing allocations practice and policy can be adapted to better prevent homelessness and rough sleeping.

The report was written by RSM UK Consulting LLP in partnership with the Centre for Homelessness Impact.

Scope and purpose

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government commissioned the Centre for Homelessness Impact, in consortium with RSM UK Consulting LLP and Cordis Bright, to conduct a systems-wide evaluation of the homelessness and rough sleeping system. This element of the evaluation aims to enhance the government’s understanding of how social housing allocation processes impact the homelessness and rough sleeping system.

A shortage of affordable housing is a key driver of homelessness in England. The country has faced a long-standing undersupply of new homes. The previous government set an annual target of 300,000 new homes, but this was last achieved in the late 1960s when local authorities played a significant role in housing provision (Wilson and Barton, 2023). Over the period 2004 to 2024, the number of new homes built per year averaged c.147k (Office for National Statistics, 2025), and with a population growth of 15 million between 1964 and 2024, housing development remains insufficient (Office for National Statistics, 2025).

Social housing provides a key source of accommodation for households on low incomes or experiencing housing instability. Eligibility for social housing, and the way in which local authorities are required to allocate it, is determined by Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2025). While the statutory framework provides overarching guidance, allocation policies vary at the local level, with local authorities able to determine their own approach to prioritisation and qualification within the confines of the statutory guidance.

Existing research into how these schemes operate in practice, and their specific impact on homelessness prevention, remains limited. This research contributes practical insights that may support future policy development in this area.

Research methods

This research employed a qualitative approach to fieldwork with representatives from six local areas across England. As part of the fieldwork, researchers conducted semi-structured group interviews with local, regional, and national stakeholders across the statutory and voluntary sectors. These 17 group interviews include the insights of 56 participants, 52 directly involved in housing policy or delivery and four individuals with lived experience of homelessness. Interview content was analysed using thematic analysis and triangulated to provide the findings presented in the report.

As with any methods, there were some limitations. The research relied on interviews with stakeholders from selected local areas, chosen for diversity in urbanisation and geography. However, the small sample size cannot fully capture the experiences across England and is not representative. The research utilised qualitative interviews with open-ended questions rather than closed questions with pre-defined response options. This means it was not possible to directly compare the responses of different types of stakeholders to understand systematic variations.  However, this approach provided a level of depth and richness in experiences that would otherwise not have been captured. Given the importance of context in influencing individual experiences, the findings may not be fully generalisable to other settings or populations.

Summary of findings

Adapting existing legislation or guidance governing policy and practice in social housing allocations could improve homelessness and rough sleeping outcomes

Research participants from local, regional, and central government, as well as commissioned support organisations, described a range of ways in which existing legislation, policy and practice around social housing allocations could be adapted to better relieve or prevent homelessness, noting that at a time of an overall shortage in affordable housing, changes need to be carefully considered.

Prioritising homeless households for social housing: All the local authorities that participated in this research gave reasonable preference to applicants who are experiencing homelessness in their allocations policies, in line with legislation and guidance. Additionally, local authority research participants were motivated by escalating temporary accommodation costs to take further action to prioritise homeless households. Some local authorities reported using “direct let” approaches, where homes are allocated outside of the usual bidding systems, to speed up housing access for homeless households. Others increased the proportion of relets made available to homeless households. These methods were believed to reduce pressures on temporary accommodation. However, stakeholders cautioned that these types of actions could have consequences for other groups who are deprioritised, such as single adults without children, who may remain in unsuitable or unstable living situations for longer. This trade-off was described as a direct result of the overall limited stock of affordable housing.

The Homelessness Code of Guidance encourages local authorities to secure sustainable solutions for people who are homeless, reinforcing this focus. Yet, research participants described how this could unintentionally incentivise households to present as homeless to access social housing more quickly if properties become unattainable through other routes. Both national and local representatives suggested that some people see the ‘homelessness route’ as a fast track to social housing, though they acknowledged that there is limited reliable evidence as to the extent of this and that genuine increases in homelessness presentations are also driven by broader structural issues.

Local authorities described tensions caused by prioritising people who are homeless, or at risk of becoming homeless, as this can result in other vulnerable groups being deprioritised. Some councils have tried giving equal preference to those in relatively stable but unsustainable arrangements, like staying with family, to meet housing needs before the point of crisis, and reduce the need for temporary accommodation. Stakeholders recommended further research into these approaches, including the potential of promoting a ‘homeless at home’ model to inform national policy and prevent homelessness and temporary accommodation use more effectively.

Inconsistency in qualification criteria: A core theme in the research was inconsistency in housing allocation policies. Representatives from all levels explained how flexibility introduced by the Localism Act (2011) allows local authorities to set policies that reflect local needs and local housing availability and affordability. While necessary in some circumstances, for example a local authority housing an airport having a longer qualifying period of residence, representatives from national and local stakeholder groups described the wide variation in qualification criteria as contributing to a “postcode lottery” around the allocation of social housing. Differences between local authority and housing association criteria were also frequently cited as a source of tension.

National representatives suggested that legislative reform or the creation of new guidance would serve to improve consistency across the social housing allocations system. They suggested that introducing national standards or guidance around how affordability and qualification checks are used could reduce variation in how individuals are assessed for, and allocated, social housing. Stakeholders described how current practices, particularly the assessment of individuals with rent arrears or complex tenancy histories, can lead to exclusion from the housing register, even when individuals are actively addressing their financial difficulties. However, national representatives also cautioned that overly prescriptive standards could undermine housing providers’ discretion, affecting their ability to manage risk and meet regulatory requirements for landlords.

Some national representatives also highlighted learning from devolved nations, such as in Scotland where local authorities can require housing associations to rehouse homeless households referred to them within a reasonable timeframe, without applying further tests of eligibility. Adopting a similar duty for England could improve access but would require careful definition and implementation.

The use of affordability and other pre-qualification checks: Local stakeholders reported that most housing associations now carry out affordability checks. If a property is deemed unaffordable in the eyes of the housing provider based on these affordability checks, offers may be withdrawn, requiring individuals to bid for alternative accommodation. Whilst local authorities do also undertake qualification checks, they were generally described as more lenient than those used by housing associations and less focused on affordability. Since assessments vary this leads to potential inconsistencies and exclusions, particularly for individuals with rent arrears or complex tenancy histories. While it was accepted that there is a need to strike a balance between uniformity and flexibility, national stakeholders felt there was room to make access to housing fairer while still safeguarding the viability of housing associations and ensuring that individuals and families are not put at risk of arrears or debt by taking on tenancies that are unaffordable to them.

Local stakeholders highlighted that allocations policies may see some individuals excluded from the housing register entirely. It was reported that exclusion often applies to individuals with a history of tenancy breakdowns, significant rent arrears, previous evictions, or criminal convictions which are deemed to be “high-risk”. When local authorities and housing associations exclude people from the housing register based on any of these qualification or affordability checks, securing stable housing becomes increasingly difficult, often prolonging the person’s experience of homelessness.

Funding and delivery opportunities to address differential access to social housing. Most local authority representatives described how demand is particularly high for family-sized properties (three bedrooms and above), although other groups—such as single-person households seeking one-bedroom homes—also face long waiting times. Some local authorities noted how recent new build developments have eased pressures slightly, reducing the waiting time for one-bedroom homes somewhat. However, access to larger homes remains a core challenge, with families often waiting significantly longer for suitable accommodation. Overall, there was consensus from local authority representatives that demand for social housing continues to outpace supply.

Local stakeholders described examples of different groups of people who have experienced particular challenges in accessing social housing. One key issue they highlighted was the requirement by some housing associations for rent to be paid a month in advance. This policy presents an obstacle for individuals at a crisis point, many of whom are unable to cover upfront costs. While local authorities have the ability to ameliorate this with the use of Homelessness Prevention Grant or Discretionary Housing Payments, they stated that wider pressures on housing budgets linked to the costs of Temporary Accommodation make this difficult to do routinely.

Another group that local stakeholders described as having additional difficulties in accessing social housing were those with criminal convictions. They described how specific criminal convictions, such as arson, can create considerable barriers to being rehoused.

Some local authorities noted that residency-based allocations’ criteria that give more priority to those with a local connection to an area help to prioritise long-term residents and ensure that limited social housing stock is allocated to those already embedded in the community. However, other local authorities and individuals with lived experience expressed concerns about the fairness of this, particularly for those vulnerable groups who are most likely to fall foul of these types of lengthy local connection criteria. In recognition of this, in July 2025 the formal guidance given to councils across England on their obligations to prioritise vulnerable people applying for social housing was updated to confirm that young care leavers and domestic abuse survivors must be exempt from any local connection tests. Veterans were also exempted.^{[footnote 1]}

To address these challenges, some stakeholders suggested that a more dynamic approach to assessing risk could help support qualification assessments, particularly for individuals with past convictions, rent arrears, or high support needs. Implementing a more nuanced risk assessment that requires housing providers to consider the current risk rather than past action (with an assessment tool developed within the national guidance for providers described above), could result in more informed and equitable allocation decisions. However, they acknowledged that implementing such a tool may require training and some capacity building.

Linked to efforts to reduce exclusion, stakeholders suggested that reforms to affordability assessments could include the introduction of a dedicated fund to support individuals repaying rent arrears. This could reduce the number of households disqualified from social housing registers. However, if financial incentives are not carefully structured, they may inadvertently lead to perverse outcomes, such as housing associations prioritising certain groups over others to maximise opportunities to collect arrears.

Improved data-sharing to improve outcomes: Improving data-sharing between local authorities and housing associations could improve outcomes for people accessing social housing. Effective data sharing between local authorities and housing providers is key to support timely and appropriate social housing allocations. Shared access to relevant information, such as applicant details, support needs, risk factors, and past housing history, can improve decision-making, reduce duplication, and ensure that housing offers are matched appropriately.

Local stakeholders shared their experiences with data-sharing protocols, noting both strengths and challenges. One representative mentioned that their information-sharing protocol is well-established and effective. However, another representative pointed out that while the system works well for sharing information about standard allocations, it becomes more complex when dealing with more complex cases involving multiple agencies, especially in health-related areas. They highlighted that data protection regulations can present a barrier, slowing down the ability to achieve holistic solutions and increasing costs.

Some local stakeholders suggested there was, however, a common misunderstanding of data protection rules, noting that people often use them as an excuse not to share information, even when it is permissible under law. This over-cautious approach can be detrimental to individuals who need support. Representatives emphasised that certain information should be shared as part of public functions, and that fear of accountability and reputational challenges often leads to unnecessary restrictions on data-sharing.

These issues suggest a lever for central government to support a clearer, system-wide understanding of data protection rules and what constitutes lawful data sharing in the context of housing allocations. This could be achieved by providing practical guidance, model protocols, or webinars to reduce risk aversion and promote confident, lawful sharing across services.

While stakeholders described that formal data-sharing protocols are in place in many areas, there was a consistent message that these protocols are not always implemented consistently. Improving shared understanding of data protection and enabling smoother information flow was viewed as important to ensure effective case management, especially in cases which may be complex or involve multiple agencies.

Policy insights

This report provides a series of practical, evidence-informed policy insights for central government to consider as a means of improving social housing allocation processes, with a view to them contributing more positively to tackling homelessness and rough sleeping.

Policy insight 1: Introduce national standards or guidance for the operation of affordability and qualification assessments. This research found variation in qualification criteria for allocation of social housing across local authorities and between local authorities and housing associations. While the flexibility introduced by the Localism Act (2011) was important in allowing local authorities to set policies that reflect local needs and local housing availability and affordability, the research found that the wide variation in criteria is contributing to the sense of a “postcode lottery” around the allocation of social housing and potential unfairness for some groups. This includes those for whom local connection policies are particularly difficult (people with dependency issues or engaged in the criminal justice system) and those for whom gathering evidence in support of affordability checks is difficult (people sleeping rough or hidden homeless). The use of affordability checks and other qualification criteria was felt to be unnecessarily prolonging some people’s experiences of homelessness and making it increasingly difficult for them to secure accommodation. Clear, consistent national standards or guidance to support housing providers in undertaking affordability and qualification assessments would be beneficial. Currently, these assessments vary across housing associations and local authorities, leading to potential inconsistencies and exclusions, particularly for individuals with rent arrears or complex tenancy histories. Additionally, more explicit guidelines to support operational changes such as to the amount of rent housing associations can require to be paid in advance and other barriers identified in this report could be beneficial.

Policy insight 2: Explore developing and testing risk assessment tools for affordability and qualification checks. This research found that affordability checks sometimes don’t take account of changes in people’s circumstances such as when they are taking positive steps to improve their finances. Central government could support the development and implementation of a specific risk assessment tool to evaluate qualification for social housing. A more nuanced, dynamic approach would allow for individualised assessments, promoting a positive view of risk and achieving a more inclusive approach to allocation decisions.

Policy insight 3: Introduce or encourage review mechanisms for affordability and qualification decisions. This research highlights a lack of transparency and a high degree of variability in the way social housing allocations are carried out. To improve this, central government could adopt a similar approach to Scotland where local authorities or housing associations have the right to appoint an arbiter to review cases of an unreasonable refusal to accommodate someone. However, this would require broader legislative changes which could have unintended consequences. Alternatively, central government could address this by issuing guidance on contractual arrangements between local authorities and housing providers to promote greater transparency and fairness.

Policy insight 4: Support local authorities to improve data-sharing infrastructure. This research identified some variability in the effectiveness of data sharing, especially for the most complex cases that involve multiple agencies. Central government could provide targeted funding and technical support to improve data-sharing infrastructure between local authorities and housing providers.

Areas for further research

This research identified evidence gaps in following areas where further research may yield insights to better inform policy development. This is explored in more detail later in the report.

Review the impact of social housing allocation processes on homelessness outcomes. Central government could commission research to examine the impact of housing allocation policies on homelessness and rough sleeping. This work would help to ensure that the operation of priority banding systems and direct lets to social housing for homeless households do not inadvertently contribute to homelessness by incentivising households to pursue a homelessness application as a means of securing housing more quickly.

Review and learn from social housing policies in the devolved nations. Central government could examine social housing allocation policies implemented in devolved nations to identify effective strategies applicable to the English context. For instance, Scotland’s Section 5 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 allows local authorities to require housing associations must rehouse homeless households referred to them within a ‘reasonable period’ unless there is a ‘good reason’ not to.

Review and seek to improve how data is shared and used in support of eligibility checks. Central government could examine areas of good practice and use of information-sharing protocols with a view to identifying ways of supporting local authorities, through guidance, to streamline and speed up the exchange of information between local authorities and housing associations.

This report

This report sets out findings from an evaluation undertaken as part of the second phase of the systems-wide evaluation of homelessness and rough sleeping. This report focuses on social housing allocations and how policy and practice may influence homelessness and rough sleeping.

Chapter 1 introduces the research, its intended scope and objectives, outlining the research questions that the evaluation set out to answer. It provides some context of how housing policy factors can influence homelessness and rough sleeping systems, and an outline of the policies in place to support those at risk of experiencing homelessness. This chapter also presents the approach taken to the fieldwork and how research output was synthesised and analysed.

Chapter 2 uses the output from fieldwork (group interviews with local, regional and national stakeholders) to outline how housing policy factors can influence homelessness and rough sleeping. The chapter also includes an outline of the learning related to potential levers the government could use to effectively influence improvements and wider considerations for implementing change.

Chapter 3 brings together the findings and learning from this research to outline key Policy insights for central government.

Annex 1 describes the qualitative methods used in support of this research. The chapter further outlines the approach taken to the fieldwork and how research output was synthesised and analysed. The chapter concludes with a summary of the limitations of the methodology used in this evaluation.

The report concludes with a list of references.

1. Introduction and context

The aim of this research is to enhance the government’s understanding of how social housing allocation policy and practice can influence homelessness and rough sleeping. The goal is to provide the government with insights into factors which can be leveraged to better support individuals at risk of and experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping. The allocation of social housing was considered to merit further examination as a policy area following a rapid evidence assessment and consultations with expert advisors and government policy leads.

1.1 Research questions

To fulfil the aims of the research outlined above, the evaluation was guided by research questions as set out in Table 1 below.

Table 1 - Research questions for the social housing allocations evaluation

Research Question
Within this policy area, which factor(s) have the most impact on the flow of people into and out of homelessness and rough sleeping, considering but not restricted to the following: legislation, governance, commissioning, funding and operational delivery? What are the mechanisms by which these factors impact on the flow of people into and out of homelessness and rough sleeping?
What central government levers and structures (e.g. legislation, funding, monitoring, cross-government collaboration, data sharing, etc.) relating to this policy area, and how it intersects with the HRS system, could be used to positively impact the flows of people into and out of homelessness and rough sleeping and enable local areas to deliver effective prevention?
To what extent could factors enable and/or inhibit the effective use of these levers including consideration of how they would interact with the rest of the system and unintended consequences?
How does consideration of people at risk of different forms of homelessness impact on q1-3?
How do the levers identified across the different policy areas interact and how can central government take these interactions into account?

1.2 The influence of social housing allocations on homelessness and rough sleeping

A shortage of affordable housing is a key driver of homelessness in England. The country has faced a long-standing undersupply of new homes. The previous government set an annual target of 300,000 new homes, but this was last achieved in the late 1960s when local authorities played a significant role in housing provision (Wilson and Barton, 2023). Over the period 2004 to 2024, the number of new homes built per year averaged c.147,000 (Office for National Statistics, 2025), and with a population growth of 15 million between 1964 and 2024, housing development remains insufficient (Office for National Statistics, 2025).

1,2.1 The allocation of social housing

Research demonstrates that social housing serves as a vital resource for low-income households and those at risk of experiencing homelessness. Eligibility for social housing, and the way in which local authorities are required to allocate it, is determined by Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2025). While the statutory framework provides overarching guidance, allocation policies vary at the local level, with local authorities able to determine their own approach to prioritisation and qualification within the confines of the statutory guidance.

Whilst believed to be important in the context of any strategy to combat homelessness and rough sleeping, there is a lack of research on how best to use social housing allocations to prevent and relieve homelessness, the positives and disbenefits, and how to avoid qualification criteria that exclude the people who may need housing support the most.

1.3 Methodology

1.3.1 Data collection

This study used a qualitative approach, conducting fieldwork in six diverse local authority areas selected with support from MHCLG advisors to capture a mix of urban, rural, and metropolitan contexts. A total of 17 semi-structured group interviews were held with 56 stakeholders from national, regional, and local levels. This included government representatives, local authority staff, third-sector organisations, academics, housing providers, and four individuals with lived experience of homelessness.

Topic guides were co-designed with the Centre for Homelessness Impact and MHCLG. Group interviews were held virtually via MS Teams and transcribed automatically. Findings were thematically analysed and triangulated to inform the final report.

1.3.2 Synthesis and analysis

A framework-based thematic analysis, informed by Braun and Clarke’s principles (2006), was used to analyse the data. Key themes and patterns were identified across interviews using a deductive approach aligned with the research questions.

Triangulation workshops and roundtable discussions with MHCLG stakeholders helped validate the findings, incorporate multiple perspectives, and refine the messaging to ensure that insights were actionable and policy relevant. This collaborative process enhanced the credibility and depth of the analysis and enabled a nuanced understanding of how various housing policies and practices impact homelessness and rough sleeping.

1.3.3 Limitations

As with any methodology, there were some limitations. The research relied on interviews with stakeholders from selected local areas, chosen for diversity in urbanisation and geography. However, the small sample size cannot fully capture the experiences across England and is not representative. The approach gathered diverse insights based on different roles and experiences, across local areas and across their regions, which made it challenging to attribute a singular perspective for each area or compare differences between areas. However, this approach provided a level of depth and richness in experiences and insights that would otherwise not have been captured. Given the importance of context in influencing individual or organisational experiences, the findings may not be fully generalisable to other settings or populations.

2. Social housing allocations

2.1 Introduction

Social housing in England refers to low-cost rented accommodation provided by local authorities or registered providers (commonly housing associations) to individuals and families in housing need. Social housing rents are typically lower than market rents and may be set at “social rent” or “affordable rent” levels, the latter being up to 80% of local market rent (MHCLG, 2023a). The social housing sector plays a key role in providing long-term housing security and supporting vulnerable populations with their housing needs.

The way social housing is allocated in England shapes the lives of individuals and families seeking secure and affordable homes. Effective allocation policies help to prioritise limited housing resources, ensuring that individuals and families facing housing insecurity, overcrowding, or homelessness receive appropriate support (Fitzpatrick et al. 2014; Crisis, 2023). However, challenges in the allocation process can mean that those in greatest need do not always receive timely access to stable housing.

Local authorities are responsible for social housing allocations in England, though some contract this function out. This involves allocating any social housing stock that the local authority owns and nominating households from their waiting list to a housing association (or other housing provider) property. Social housing allocation in England is regulated by Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996, which requires local authorities to develop allocation schemes that define qualification criteria and outline the process for assigning homes (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2025a).

The legislation also establishes the principle of reasonable preference, which ensures that certain disadvantaged groups, such as those experiencing homelessness or living in overcrowded conditions, are given priority in social housing allocations (Shelter, 2024). This statutory framework is designed to ensure fairness in the allocation process, directing resources to those with the greatest need.

For all local authorities, the process of allocating social housing is structured around multiple stages, ensuring that applicants meet specific requirements before being considered for a home. The allocation procedure involves three stages – eligibility check (e.g. immigration status, age), qualification tests determined by each local authority (e.g. local connection and/or residency based tests, past offending behaviour, income), and a further determination of priority (e.g. on the grounds of homelessness, being overcrowded, or having specific medical needs) (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2025a).

Once these criteria have been satisfied and assessed, the primary method of allocation is choice-based lettings, where applicants bid for properties as they become available. Allocations are primarily made based on priority status and date order of when priority status was assigned. In 2011, the Localism Act granted local authorities greater flexibility to determine who qualifies for social housing. As a result, qualification criteria, priority thresholds and interpretations of reasonable preference now vary between local authorities. This flexibility allows councils to design allocation processes which reflect local housing pressures and local policy priorities.

These variations in policy and interpretation can significantly influence whether and how individuals access social housing. The following section explores a number of factors that play a crucial role in shaping the flow of people into or out of homelessness, outlining implications for both housing stability and broader social outcomes. It concludes that, whilst it is important to preserve flexibility to allow local authorities to tailor allocations processes to their local context, this flexibility has led to some practices, particularly around affordability checks, which should be addressed through national standards.

2.2 Factors that can influence the flow of people into or out of homelessness

A central issue in allocating social housing is the provision of access to limited social housing stock. The undersupply of social and affordable private lettings necessitates some form of prioritisation, but this carries a risk of reinforcing disadvantage if not carefully designed. For the most part, these difficult decisions are best taken by local authorities who have a fuller appreciation of their local context. This research found that there is significant variation in how social housing is accessed both within and across local authorities. This is driven by several factors, including differences in approach to qualification and affordability checks and varying interpretations of who should receive reasonable preference for social housing. Whilst this is not necessarily harmful in itself, this flexibility can create challenges when local authority processes and housing providers own allocation policies and affordability criteria are misaligned. In some cases, the use of pre-qualification and affordability checks is preventing those who would most benefit from accessing housing. 

2.2.1 Findings

The challenge of housing allocations is made all the more formidable by the undersupply of housing, particularly social and affordable rented accommodation. Most local authority representatives described how demand is particularly high for family-sized properties (three bedrooms and above), although other groups, such as single-person households seeking one-bedroom homes, also face long waiting times. They noted how recent new build developments have eased pressures slightly, reducing the waiting time for one-bedroom homes. However, access to larger homes remains a key challenge, with families often waiting significantly longer for suitable accommodation.^{[footnote 2]}

Local representatives noted that the shortage of larger properties is contributing to a rise in the use of temporary accommodation, with families increasingly being placed in hotels, which can disrupt access to schools, healthcare, and other essential services. This not only places additional strain on families but has also led to a rise in complaints received by the local authority. While some new supply has helped to improve the situation, stakeholders noted that the pace and scale of the delivery of new homes are not yet sufficient to meet need, particularly for larger and fully accessible homes

Overall, there was consensus from local authority representatives that demand for social housing continues to outpace supply. Recent research published by the National Housing Federation suggests that the number of families on waiting lists in England has increased by 37% since 2015, six times the rate of the waiting list overall (National Housing Federation, 2025). They noted that in 32 local authorities across England (including within and outside London) the wait is now longer than an entire childhood (18+ years). More specifically, the number of households on waiting lists in a reasonable preference category has also increased by 37% from 2015/16 to 2023/24 (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2025b).^{[footnote 3]} The corresponding waiting times for these households or for families at a national level are not included in local authority housing statistics.

One stakeholder attributed this to the rate of social homes lost through Right to Buy far exceeding the number that are being replaced through new development. Others suggested the situation is further compounded by a shortage of affordable and suitable development sites in their areas, limiting opportunities to grow the local social housing offer in line with need.

The lack of housing supply means that prioritising those at risk of homelessness is making it more and more difficult for other groups to improve their housing situation. Reasonable preference refers to the legal requirement for local authorities in England to give certain groups priority when allocating social housing, as outlined in the Housing Act 1996 (Part 6). This includes, but is not limited to, individuals experiencing homelessness who are owed a relief duty or prevention duty. It also applies to those at immediate risk of homelessness who are owed a prevention duty. Additionally, it includes individuals living in overcrowded or unsanitary conditions, as well as those with medical or welfare needs. Whilst national representatives described reasonable preference categories as helpful, they emphasised that they are not “directive” so the degree of preference which is given to different groups can vary locally.

Local stakeholders as part of this research described how local authority housing teams do prioritise applicants who are currently experiencing homelessness or who face an immediate risk of homelessness. This is in line with the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities in England which supports this by providing directives on securing suitable accommodation and encouraging a shift toward more sustainable and long-term housing solutions (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2018). However, the representatives from the local authorities who took part in this research were also motivated by a desire to reduce rising temporary accommodation costs which are adding considerable pressure to local authority budgets.

One way that some local authorities do this is through the use of “direct let” approaches for these households. This can facilitate quicker access to housing and reduce pressures on temporary accommodation. Direct let approaches refer to instances where local authorities allocate a specific property directly to an applicant, rather than requiring them to bid through a choice-based lettings system. However, research participants also highlighted the predictable consequences this has for other groups of people on the housing register who are deprioritised as a consequence, such as non-priority adults without dependent children. As a result, these groups may remain in unstable or insecure living situations, such as sofa surfing, or get stuck renting below-standard accommodation.

Local and national stakeholders highlighted the challenges of balancing how housing is allocated between different groups when demand exceeds supply. Some stakeholders noted that prioritising those at immediate risk of homelessness can impact other households, such as families who have been waiting for social housing for an extended period:

“We have to give [people at risk of or currently experiencing homelessness] reasonable preference on the housing register… sometimes that works against us because we have a lot of families who we have to accommodate and who are relying on a social housing offer, who then don’t get it because of… competition with people who are assessed as threatened with homelessness or who are homeless.” - Local authority representative

This tension highlights the complexity of housing allocation decisions and the challenge of ensuring fair access to limited social housing stock. Whilst there is no quantitative evidence to support this, both local and national stakeholders suggested that an increasing number of people may be incentivised to deliberately pursue the ‘homelessness route’ to access social housing quickly, rather than waiting on the housing register. One national representative described:

“more and more people are going down the homelessness route to get what’s seen as a fast track into social housing.”

Another national representative emphasised:

“We are human beings…we’ll gravitate to whatever seems to be the fastest way into a social home.”

However, it is obviously important to acknowledge that homelessness presentations may be increasing due to other well-established drivers of housing insecurity, such as rising housing and living costs.

Flexibility in housing allocation policies is valued, but it has also contributed to inconsistencies across areas. The Localism Act (2011) introduced flexibility in local housing allocation policies. National representatives viewed this flexibility as a positive development, particularly when it allows local authorities to allocate housing in a way which aligns with local needs. Yet local, regional, and national representatives also suggested that this has resulted in variations in reasonable preference qualification criteria and the interpretation across regions. According to national representatives, these inconsistencies can create a “postcode lottery”, where individuals with similar levels of housing needs face differential levels of access depending on where they apply for housing. Variation is determined by a range of factors including local housing supply and allocations policies.

Local, regional and national representatives explained that housing associations often operate under their own allocation policies, which may not always align with the priorities set by local authorities. Representatives acknowledged that this creates challenges when local authorities nominate individuals for social housing, as housing associations have the discretion to apply their own criteria when deciding whether to accept a nomination.

As a result, some individuals who have been identified as having reasonable preference by the local authority may still be rejected by housing associations, leading to difficulties in securing social housing:

“Whilst we consult with registered provider partners when we bring local authority allocations policy forward, it isn’t the case that their policy has to be the same and so you end up sometimes in a little bit of a difference of opinion about who should be accepted when we nominate someone to them.” - Local authority representative

National representatives suggested that this is a particular challenge for local authorities with limited housing stock as they rely more heavily on housing associations to provide social housing. Furthermore, according to local authority housing statistics, 50 local authorities hold no social housing stock at all (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2025b). As a result, these local authorities may face additional barriers in providing accommodation to those most in need.

Pre-qualification and affordability checks can prevent people from accessing housing. Local stakeholders reported that most housing associations carry out affordability checks, and if a property is deemed unaffordable in the eyes of the provider, offers may be withdrawn, requiring individuals to find alternative accommodation. Local stakeholders highlighted that rent arrears can further complicate access to social housing, as housing associations often refuse applications from individuals with outstanding debts, even if they are actively repaying them.

Local and national stakeholders reported that individuals with a history of homelessness may face increased challenges during affordability assessments. This is due to the difficulties many experience in maintaining a stable income or credit history, which can prevent them from passing affordability checks. Moreover, for those who have been rough sleeping or living in hidden homelessness situations—where there is no formal paper trail or documented history of housing payments—the lack of evidence of financial stability further exacerbates this challenge. Without a record of consistent payments or a verifiable history of managing housing costs, these individuals may struggle to demonstrate their ability to meet housing requirements, further perpetuating the cycle of homelessness and increasing their vulnerability to continued housing instability.

During a recent consultation, 75% of local authorities who responded to the consultation reported conducting assessments for antisocial or criminal behaviour prior to a social housing allocation (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2024a). While acknowledging that this may create barriers for some groups of people, local authorities suggested that the assessments help determine how to best support people into appropriate housing and are particularly important in managing potential challenges related to tenant behaviour.

Local stakeholders noted that following pre-qualification and affordability checks, individuals with declined or withdrawn housing offers have their housing options significantly limited. It was also noted that, whilst local authorities can still undertake qualification checks, they were generally more lenient than housing associations.

When local authorities and housing associations exclude people from accessing social housing based on any of these qualification or affordability checks, securing stable or affordable housing obviously becomes increasingly difficult, often prolonging their experiences of homelessness.

In some cases, people are excluded altogether. Local stakeholders highlighted that exclusion also often applies to individuals with a history of tenancy breakdowns, significant rent arrears, previous evictions, or other types of criminal conviction which are deemed to be “high-risk”. Local stakeholders highlighted that individuals found to have criminal offences related to arson are particularly challenging to accommodate in social housing. They described that this is because such residents may attract higher insurance premiums or coverage refusals from insurers, as arson is considered a high-risk factor for property damage. If social housing providers have significant concerns about the potential impact of housing individuals, they will not receive an offer of housing, and/or see existing offers withdrawn contributing to further exclusion and deepening the likelihood of homelessness.

This research has also highlighted the added complications linked to local authorities choosing to assess whether someone is intentionally homeless:

“[There have been] people who might have lost a tenancy due to a short custodial sentence, for example, are often deemed intentionally homeless—a term I really, really dislike, but it exists, nonetheless. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, there’s often a lengthy appeal process to have it reconsidered. It’s yet another barrier. And often, as [fellow interviewee] said, with the people we work with, this is the reality: they’ve had a tenancy before, and it’s broken down for a range of reasons. And those reasons [viewed through the lens of intentionality] might be what excludes them from the social housing register.” – Local authority representative

Even if applicants pass these checks, some housing associations require rent to be paid a month in advance. This policy presents an obstacle for individuals at crisis points—many of whom are unable to cover these upfront costs. One local representative felt such requirements run counter to the purpose of social housing, which is designed to support people at their most vulnerable.

There were mixed views on the use of residency-based and local connection tests. Almost 90% of local authorities in England (276 of the 309 who returned their data) apply residency-based or local connection tests as part of their housing register criteria (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2024a). Residency-based tests may require applicants to have lived in the area for a certain number of years. Local connection tests seek to establish the existence of an applicant’s connection to the local area through work and/or family ties over a specific period before being eligible to join the social housing register.

Some local stakeholders noted that these criteria can help prioritise people with a long-term link to the area and ensure that limited social housing stock is allocated to those already embedded in the community.

“We have developed a local connection policy that gives additional preference to those who have been living in the area for a certain period, which helps to address the needs of long-term residents experiencing or at risk of homelessness.” – Local authority representative

However, other local authorities and individuals with lived experience expressed concerns about the fairness of this process:

“The local connection rule is a really big problem. It is also discriminatory… As somebody once said, if you were buying a property or [privately] renting, you could get it wherever you like.”- Individual with lived experience homelessness and social housing

Some local authority areas suggested that the local connection criteria is particularly unhelpful where individuals have “good reasons not to be in that area…for example if you’ve got dependency issues or criminal justice issues.” Therefore, while local connection tests may help prioritise long-term residents for social housing, they can also create barriers for individuals who need to relocate for safety, support, or rehabilitation.

Veterans are exempt from local connection tests under the Allocation of Housing (Qualification Criteria for Armed Forces) (England) Regulations 2012, and victims of domestic abuse are also protected from disqualification on local connection grounds, following the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and subsequent guidance (MHCLG, 2021). In 2023, the government reiterated its expectation that local authorities take a flexible approach and consider exemptions for other vulnerable groups where appropriate (MHCLG, 2023b). Shortly after this research was undertaken, government made regulations and updated guidance on the use of local connection criteria for vulnerable groups to specifically exempt care leavers and victim survivors of domestic abuse from having residency and local connection criteria applied to them.

2.2.2 Actions that central government could take to improve outcomes

Issuing of guidance or standards are key levers available to central government to improve social housing allocations. A central issue identified by stakeholders is that inconsistencies in how affordability and qualification checks are applied across providers can result in individuals being unfairly excluded from accessing social housing. People with previous rent arrears or complex tenancy histories are often rejected by one provider but might be accepted by another, despite presenting with similar levels of need. This fragmented approach undermines transparency and contributes to tangible harm—leaving some individuals in prolonged housing insecurity, unable to access the support they require.

One potential response raised by national stakeholders was the introduction of national standards or guidance to promote greater consistency across housing providers. In principle, national standards or guidance could help address variation, support fairer access, and improve transparency in decision-making. They could also make it easier to monitor patterns across providers and regions, supporting stronger oversight and accountability. However, such an approach could also have unintended consequences. If affordability guidance is too prescriptive, housing providers may not feel they can be adapted to local contexts or feel that their ability to exercise discretion is undermined, potentially leading to wider inefficiencies in matching individuals with suitable housing. There were further concerns that shifting the balance of responsibilities between local authorities and housing associations might undermine housing associations’ financial autonomy, particularly given the need to demonstrate long-term viability to lenders and regulators.

One straightforward change that could be made is that guidance could be introduced that makes clear that individuals who are actively repaying rent arrears should not automatically be excluded or otherwise penalised in terms of the housing register. This could support a more balanced approach that supports tenancy sustainability without disproportionately disadvantaging those with previous financial difficulties.

Some national stakeholders referenced that there could be learning from devolved nations’ policies around social housing allocations to help influence effective levers for central government. Of particular note would be for central government to consider introducing a new duty akin to Section 5 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 which makes clear that a housing association must rehouse a statutory homeless household referred to them within a ‘reasonable period’ unless they have a ‘good reason’ not to do so. The precise parameters in terms of timeliness and rationale would need to be explored and agreed upon for the English context.

Given these tensions, a first step may be to issue targeted guidance to address the most pressing operational challenges identified through this research. While full legislative reform may require further exploration, doing nothing is not a viable option to address the challenges. Guidance could go beyond high-level principles and provide actionable standards to shape practice. It could also set clearer expectations around partnership working, ensuring that local authority duties under homelessness legislation are better aligned with housing association allocation frameworks. National representatives have suggested that fostering a “one outcome” culture across all housing partners should encourage more coordinated and consistent allocation policies. This raises the potential for central government to act as a convenor, setting clearer expectations around partnership working through guidance or regulation, to reduce fragmentation and support more joined-up decision-making across the housing system.

Some stakeholders suggested that a risk assessment tool could help support qualification assessments, particularly for individuals with past convictions, rent arrears, or high support needs. Unlike static eligibility checks, which tend to offer a one-time snapshot of an applicant’s circumstances and lean heavily on past actions, a dynamic risk tool would take into account changes in an individual’s situation over time. This would allow providers to assess not only historic risk factors but also indicators of positive progress, such as sustained rent repayment, engagement with support services, or evidence of rehabilitation and stability. By incorporating a more holistic and longitudinal view of applicants’ trajectories, dynamic assessment models could lead to more proportionate and evidence-based decisions. This approach is likely to improve outcomes by reducing unnecessary exclusion and offering earlier, more preventative routes into stable housing. It would be particularly beneficial for individuals whose support needs are episodic or who have been affected by structural disadvantage.

Implementing a more nuanced risk assessment that (in line with national guidance for providers described above), could result in more informed and equitable allocation decisions. However, new training and risk assessment models would require investment in resources and capacity building, which may be challenging for some local authorities and housing providers. Additionally, there would be value in supporting methods and future research to understand who has been rejected due to qualification checks and the rationale behind the decision. This can help give insights into equality practices, proactively look for patterns in decisions and find solutions to ensure that people with a housing need are suitably accommodated.

Linked to efforts to reduce exclusion, stakeholders suggested that reforms to affordability assessments could be allied with the use of dedicated funding to support individuals in repaying rent arrears. This could reduce the number of households disqualified from social housing registers. However, if financial incentives are not carefully structured, they may inadvertently lead to perverse outcomes, such as housing providers prioritising certain groups over others to maximise funding opportunities. Furthermore, any guidance or standards developed by central government would need to ensure that any funding model does not create additional bureaucratic hurdles that could slow down social housing allocation processes and potentially increase the risk or length of time that people may experience homelessness.

The need to minimise additional administrative burdens alongside wider measures to improve affordability and supply. If central government mandates a more uniform approach to allocations and assessments, there is a risk that housing associations may perceive this as a constraint on their operational flexibility, leading to a wider reluctance to accommodate tenants perceived as higher risk in financial terms. Furthermore, national representatives have noted that any reforms must account for the administrative burden of increased standardisation, ensuring that efforts to promote fairness do not result in allocation delays due to additional bureaucratic processes.

It was also noted that one of the key fundamental challenges, and often the reason financial qualification checks are conducted, is related to restrictions on Local Housing Allowance in the private rented sector and benefit caps, which have combined to limit the ability of low-income tenants to cover housing costs in the first place.

2.2.3 Considerations for future research

Further research is needed to understand the impact of allocation practices and explore what works. While the impact of welfare cuts on homelessness and housing affordability has been well documented, further research is needed to understand how these policy challenges influence housing providers’ processes and practices. There is a distinct lack of research on social housing allocations processes and their impact. On-going research by CaCHE and Crisis, which is exploring social housing allocation policies operated by housing associations, should be reviewed when published and consideration given to mirroring the research with local authorities.

It is unclear how many local authorities have adopted a direct letting approach or lettings plans.^{[footnote 4]} The extent of the impact of such approaches on homelessness outcomes, including whether it is relieving pressures on temporary accommodation is unknown. Further research into its effectiveness in areas that are making fuller use of these approaches could provide valuable insights. If found to be effective, and after having fully tested the possible perverse incentives that may result, central government could consider updating the Code of Guidance to encourage or establish direct letting or lettings plans as standard practice for homeless households across all local authorities. If taken forward, the relative value for money of direct letting versus lettings plans could also be considered, as it may be that the approaches are associated with varying effectiveness and resource efficiency.

This research has highlighted that the prioritisation of individuals at immediate risk of homelessness, often driven by pressures on temporary accommodation, can create tensions in the housing allocation system. While reasonable preference is granted for those experiencing or at risk of homelessness, some local stakeholders have highlighted that this may result in other vulnerable groups being deprioritised.

There were examples cited of local authorities that had taken steps to ensure that individuals with stable but temporary living arrangements, such as staying with family while seeking permanent housing, are not disadvantaged in the allocation process. By providing the same level of preference to these individuals as those in more precarious situations, one local authority sought to promote housing stability while reducing unnecessary moves into temporary accommodation, which can place further strain on social housing resources.

While providing the same level of preference may offer a means to support individuals in remaining in stable living situations, there is a need for further research. Central government could review the impact of these approaches, as there has not yet been a formal evaluation of their impact on homelessness outcomes, access to housing or wider unintended consequences. This approach could support the ‘homeless at home’ model that allows individuals to await more suitable accommodation while maintaining temporary but stable arrangements, reducing pressure on temporary accommodation or their safety.

Further research could enable central government to review and learn from social housing policies in the devolved nations. Examining and understanding the impact of how social housing allocation policies are implemented in the devolved nations may lead to the identification of effective strategies that might be applicable to the English context. For instance, Scotland’s Section 5 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 allows local authorities to require housing associations must rehouse homeless households referred to them within a ‘reasonable period’ unless there is a ‘good reason’ not to.

Review and seek to improve how data is shared and used in support of eligibility checks. Improving data-sharing between local authorities and housing associations could improve outcomes for people accessing social housing. Effective data sharing between local authorities and housing providers is key to support timely and appropriate social housing allocations. Shared access to relevant information, such as applicant details, support needs, risk factors, and past housing history, can improve decision-making, reduce duplication, and ensure that housing offers are matched appropriately.

Local stakeholders shared their experiences with data-sharing protocols, noting both strengths and challenges. One representative mentioned that their information-sharing protocol is well-established and effective. However, another representative pointed out that while the system works well for sharing information about standard allocations, it becomes more complex when dealing with more complex cases involving multiple agencies, especially in health-related areas. They highlighted that existing UK General Data Protection Regulations (UK GDPR) can present a barrier, slowing down the ability to achieve holistic solutions and increasing costs.

These issues suggest that further research by central government aimed at understanding and supporting a clearer, system-wide understanding of data protection and lawful data sharing would be useful in the context of housing allocations. This could lead to the provision of practical guidance, model protocols, or training to reduce risk aversion and promote confident, lawful sharing across services.

3. Policy insights and further research

3.1 Policy insights  

Building on the learning for central government described in each thematic chapter, this section presents policy insights that central government may find useful in this policy area to inform future action to improve homelessness and rough sleeping outcomes.  

Policy insight 1: Introduce national standards or guidance for the operation of affordability and qualification assessments. This research found variation in qualification criteria for allocation of social housing across local authorities and between local authorities and housing associations. While the flexibility introduced by the Localism Act (2011) was important in allowing local authorities to set policies that reflect local needs and local housing availability and affordability, the research found that the wide variation in criteria is contributing to the sense of a “postcode lottery” around the allocation of social housing and potential unfairness for some groups. This includes those for whom local connection policies are particularly difficult (people with dependency issues or engaged in the criminal justice system) and those for whom gathering evidence in support of affordability checks is difficult (people sleeping rough or hidden homeless). The use of affordability checks and other qualification criteria was felt to be unnecessarily prolonging some people’s experiences of homelessness and making it increasingly difficult for them to secure accommodation. Clear, consistent national standards or guidance to support housing providers in undertaking affordability and qualification assessments would be beneficial. Currently, these assessments vary across housing associations and local authorities, leading to potential inconsistencies and exclusions, particularly for individuals with rent arrears or complex tenancy histories. Additionally, more explicit guidelines to support operational changes such as to the amount of rent housing associations can require to be paid in advance and other barriers identified in this report could be beneficial.

Policy insight 2: Explore developing and testing risk assessment tools for affordability and qualification checks. This research found that affordability checks sometimes don’t take account of changes in people’s circumstances such as when they are taking positive steps to improve their finances. Central government could support the development and implementation of a specific risk assessment tool to evaluate qualification for social housing. A more nuanced, dynamic approach would allow for individualised assessments, promoting a positive view of risk and achieving a more inclusive approach to allocation decisions.

Policy insight 3: Introduce or encourage review mechanisms for affordability and qualification decisions. This research highlights a lack of transparency and a high degree of variability in the way social housing allocations are carried out. To improve this, central government could adopt a similar approach to Scotland where local authorities or housing associations have the right to appoint an arbiter to review cases of an unreasonable refusal to accommodate someone. However, this would require broader legislative changes which could have unintended consequences. Alternatively, central government could address this by issuing guidance on contractual arrangements between local authorities and housing providers to promote greater transparency and fairness. 

Policy insight 4: Support local authorities to improve data-sharing infrastructure. This research identified some variability in the effectiveness of data sharing, especially for the most complex cases that involve multiple agencies. Central government could provide targeted funding and technical support to improve data-sharing infrastructure between local authorities and housing providers.  

3.2 Areas for further research 

This research identified evidence gaps in following areas where further research may yield insights to better inform policy development.  

Review the impact of social housing allocation processes on homelessness outcomes. Central government could commission research to examine the impact of housing allocation policies on homelessness and rough sleeping. This work would help to ensure that the operation of priority banding systems and direct lets to social housing do not inadvertently contribute to homelessness by incentivising households to pursue a homelessness application as a means of securing housing more quickly.  

Review and learn from social housing policies in the devolved nations. Central government could examine social housing allocation policies implemented in devolved nations to identify effective strategies applicable to the English context. For instance, Scotland’s Section 5 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 allows local authorities to require housing associations must rehouse homeless households referred to them within a ‘reasonable period’ unless there is a ‘good reason’ not to.  

Review and seek to improve how data is shared and used in support of eligibility checks. Research by central government aimed at understanding and supporting a clearer, system-wide understanding of data protection and lawful data sharing would be useful in the context of housing allocations. Promoting an understanding of how local authorities and housing associations can share data and streamline processes and leading to the provision of practical guidance, model protocols, or training to reduce risk aversion and promote confident, lawful sharing across services.

Annex 1: Methods

A1. Data collection

This research employed a qualitative approach that included fieldwork in six local areas:

• Fenland;
• Greenwich;
• Leicester;
• Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole;
• Westminster;
• Southend.

These areas were selected in collaboration with MHCLG to represent local areas with a range of urban, rural, and metropolitan characteristics. Fenland, Greenwich, and Leicester were recruited as part of phase two of the systems-wide evaluation. To increase the sample size, local authorities who had participated in phase one of the systems-wide evaluation (Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, Westminster, and Southend-on-Sea) were added. 

As part of the fieldwork, researchers conducted 17 semi-structured group interviews with 56 stakeholders, including local, regional, and national stakeholders across the statutory and voluntary sectors. Findings from these research streams were analysed using thematic analysis and triangulated to provide the findings presented in the report. The research findings were shared in the form of triangulation workshops with MHCLG stakeholders in February 2025.

Topic guides for group interviews were co-designed with the Centre for Homelessness Impact and MHCLG, and questions were designed relating to each research question. Qualitative data collection involved group interviews conducted via MS Teams, lasting up to 90 minutes, and transcribed using the automated MS Teams service. Of these, 17 group interviews including the insights of 56 participants directly focused on housing policy. These included:

• Six group interviews with regional and national stakeholders that included insights from 22 participants;
• Ten group interviews with local stakeholders, including local authority representatives, which included insights from 30 participants;
• One group interview with those with lived experience of homelessness, facilitated by the Centre for Homelessness Impact, to provide insights to social housing allocations.

Examples of stakeholders in each group included:

• National government representatives from MHCLG including housing policy leads, homelessness policy leads, LA partnership, engagement and delivery leads and HAST advisors with expertise in social and supported housing;
• Local authority housing teams from both a strategic and frontline perspective;
• Academic experts in housing;
• Third sector, frontline delivery staff, including housing providers;
• Individuals with lived experience of homelessness.

A2. Synthesis and analysis

Researchers collected and analysed findings descriptively from the qualitative group interviews. Findings were mapped and collated using deductive thematic analysis which identified key themes and patterns across the sources. This process was guided by employing a framework-based approach aligned with Braun and Clarke’s principles (2006). Triangulation workshops with the research team and roundtables were conducted with representatives from MHCLG to validate findings, explore different perspectives, and refine key messages. These collaborative sessions were integral to ensuring that the analysis was robust, actionable, and aligned with stakeholder priorities. This structured approach to the analysis ensured the findings were both credible and grounded in the evidence collected.

A3. Limitations of the methodology

The research was rich in qualitative detail and relied on interviews with stakeholders from six selected local areas. Although these areas were chosen to provide diversity in rurality and urbanity, the small sample cannot fully capture the experiences across England and is not representative.

Furthermore, this study aims to explore the system as a whole and does not seek to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions delivered to provide housing guidance or support and alleviate the risk of an individual experiencing homelessness. This means that while the report provides an overview of how the system interacts, including interventions delivered to provide social or supported housing, it does not assess the impact or success of specific interventions.

The research utilised qualitative interviews with open-ended questions rather than closed questions with pre-defined response options. This means it was not possible to directly compare the responses of different types of stakeholders to understand systematic variations.  However, this approach provided a level of depth and richness in experiences that would otherwise not have been captured. Given the importance of context in influencing individual experiences, the findings may not be fully generalisable to other settings or populations.

A key limitation of this research is the challenge of recruiting people with lived experience of homelessness to participate in the engagement process. Despite efforts to include these vital perspectives, barriers such as service disengagement, unstable housing, and mistrust of institutional processes made consistent participation difficult. As a result, the sample of lived experience voices may not fully reflect the breadth and diversity of those affected by homelessness. However, the contributions that were gathered offered valuable, grounded insights into the realities of navigating housing systems, highlighting issues and priorities that may be overlooked in more conventional stakeholder consultations.

Another limitation of this research is that it was not always possible to account for all contextual factors that may shape local housing systems, such as stock ownership patterns, the availability of supported housing, the complexity of local allocations processes, or the prevalence of residents with multiple and complex needs. These elements, while highly relevant, were not consistently captured across all regions due to data availability, variability in stakeholder knowledge, or limitations in scope. As a result, some important structural or systemic influences may not be fully reflected in the findings. Nonetheless, the research offers valuable insights into overarching trends and dynamics, while recognising that local nuances may warrant further exploration.

The analysis and synthesis stages combined findings using a framework-based thematic analysis, which enabled triangulation across data sources.^{[footnote 5]} However, data interpretations are influenced by the perspectives of both research participants and the researchers themselves. While efforts were made to mitigate bias through triangulation workshops, the findings reflect the contexts and experiences of those engaged in the research. Given the importance of context on influencing individual experiences, findings may not be fully generalisable to other settings or populations.

References

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77–101.

Crisis .(2023). The Homelessness Monitor: England 2023.

Fitzpatrick, S., Bengtsson, B. and Watts, B. (2014). Rights to Housing: Reviewing the Terrain and Exploring a Way Forward. Housing, Theory and Society, 31(4), pp.447–463.

House of Commons Library. (2023b). Tackling the under-supply of housing in England.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2012). The Allocation of Housing (Qualification Criteria for Armed Forces) (England) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/1869.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2018). Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities - Chapter 16: Securing accommodation.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2020). Social housing allocations guidance.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2021). Improving access to social housing for victims of domestic abuse in refuges or other forms of temporary accommodation: Statutory guidance.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2023a). Policy statement on rents for social housing.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2023b). Supported Housing Review.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2024). Consultation on reforms to social housing allocations.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2025a). Updates - Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2025b). Local authority housing data.

National Housing Federation. (2025). Over a hundred years’ wait for a family-sized social home.

Office for National Statistics. (2025). Indicators of house building, UK: permanent dwellings started and completed by country.

Office for National Statistics. (2025). Estimates of the population for England and Wales.

Scottish Government. (2025). Housing insecurity and hidden homelessness: research.

Scottish Government. (2020). Ending Homelessness Together Updated action plan, October 2020.

Shelter England (n.d.) Allocation of social housing.

Welsh Government. (2021). Ending Homelessness in Wales: A high-level action plan 2021-2026.

Wilson, W., Barton, C. (2023). Tackling the Under-supply of Housing in England. Housing Supply - Historical Statistics for the UK   

---

1. Barrier to social housing now lifted for vulnerable people. ↩

2. According to local authority housing statistics, 47% of households on the housing register in 2023/24 required a one-bedroom property and , compared to only 22% which required a property with three or more bedrooms. Notably, this data does not reflect the number of people per household. It is also not possible to use currently available public data to determine waiting times for households broken down by demand for different sized properties. ↩

3. Reasonable preference categories include people occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions and people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds, including grounds relating to a disability. ↩

4. Some local authorities adopt lettings plans that reserve a specific percentage of properties to go to particular groups. These plans are set up to respond to local housing need and demand, help to suitably match applicants to properties, and help achieve a balanced housing mix within a particular area. It is important to note that local lettings plans work alongside the local authority’s needs based Allocations Policy. It is unclear how many local authorities adopt such plans or schemes. ↩

5. The framework analysed participant responses to research questions. This allowed thematic coding of responses to be completed across all participant groups to find similarities, differences and create comparison. The framework included the full verbatim response from each participant when asked each question. Trained researchers then grouped these responses per theme. ↩