Research and analysis

Systems-wide evaluation of homelessness and rough sleeping: Supported housing

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, social housing allocations and transition from the asylum estate. It focusses on the effect of commissioning, oversight and supply of supported housing on homelessness, drawing on qualitative insights from across England. It identifies structural issues, such as fragmented commissioning and the supply of supported housing, and highlights potential challenges with the implementation of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023.

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, including the Supported Housing Review and evaluation of the Housing First Pilots, 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 aspects of the funding, commissioning and delivery of supported housing may be impacting on homelessness and rough sleeping. In addition to outlining the evidence obtained during fieldwork, the report contains a set of specific policy insights garnered by the evaluation team to help inform the ways in which the policy, funding and practice around supported housing can be adapted to better prevent or relieve homelessness and rough sleeping.

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

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 the availability and delivery of supported housing impacts the homelessness and rough sleeping system.

Supported housing plays a specific role in providing accommodation with support for individuals with higher or more complex needs, including people leaving prison, individuals recovering from substance use, and those fleeing domestic abuse It is generally not positioned as a primary solution to homelessness but is considered a key part of the wider housing system for groups requiring more intensive assistance. However, there is also a need for less intensive support and transitional support. It will also identify the level of need in each Local Authority area via the requirement for local supported housing strategies.

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 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

Local and national stakeholders consistently described how overall reductions in funding, removal of ringfencing, and the short-term nature of that funding, has led to a decline in supported housing provision. National stakeholders explained that the lack of long-term investment makes it difficult to sustain or develop services, particularly for people with higher support needs. Local stakeholders added that this funding insecurity prevents forward planning, and the overall shortage of provision and lack of move on accommodation contributes to system blockages and wider pressures on crisis services, as individuals ready to move on from the streets or from short-term emergency accommodation into supported housing face limited options.

Many stakeholders described the withdrawal of the Supporting People programme as a turning point. They praised its ringfenced funding, describing how it enabled the creation of specialist pathways, and supported the commissioning of floating support to people already in tenancies. Since its removal, they noted, supported housing has become scarcer and more generalised, with services needing to accept a much broader set of needs and losing their effectiveness for those with complex needs.

Many stakeholders strongly supported reintroducing dedicated, multi-year funding to enable the long-term planning and delivery of supported housing. However, they also cautioned that funding reforms must include robust oversight and alignment with local housing strategies to avoid misallocation or unintended consequences.

Stakeholders also described how fragmented funding, as well as a reliance on multiple funding sources, such as housing benefit (for housing management) and local authority funding (for support) creates inconsistency in service quality and availability. Some local areas reported complete loss of provision, while others struggle with limited collaboration and access within two-tier authority structures. One stakeholder described the growing reliance on short-term funding programmes as leading to “cliff-edge” service delivery which poses risks to long-term housing stability.

To address this, participants suggested that long-term funding structures and better alignment between housing-related funding streams could support the expansion and sustainability of supported housing. They called for strategic investment to prevent funding fragmentation and recommended that local and regional authorities be resourced to lead strategic commissioning based on local housing needs.

Interviewees widely criticised the inconsistent quality of exempt supported accommodation and the lack of oversight and strategic ownership. They described how some providers fail to deliver meaningful support or operate substandard properties, exploiting the ability to charge higher rents for ‘supporting’ vulnerable people. Stakeholders welcomed the introduction of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which they believed would raise standards. However, they warned that smaller providers may struggle with new regulatory requirements, potentially reducing supply during implementation. Stakeholders also described uneven preparedness for the Act across regions, with urban areas generally more ready than rural ones. They suggested that local authorities need adequate support and resources to guide good providers of exempt supported housing through the transition, helping to define what good practice looks like, and ensure continuity of provision.

Cross-government collaboration emerged as another key theme. Stakeholders described how supported housing clients frequently interact with multiple systems—housing options, health, social care, and criminal justice—but that services are not always aligned to meet needs. National and local participants advocated for integrated strategies and formalised co-commissioning between NHS Integrated Care Boards and local and regional authorities. They described this as a way to reduce service fragmentation and improve efficiency, but noted that successful collaboration depends on clear roles, shared accountability, and well-designed data-sharing protocols. They also described how supported housing should feature more prominently in national housing and homelessness strategies, highlighting its preventative function and calling for some alignment with the government’s commitment to deliver 1.5 million new social homes.

Several participants described the Housing First model as a promising alternative for individuals with complex needs. Local stakeholders shared examples of effective Housing First schemes supported by flexible funding. However, national representatives noted that current funding structures—particularly the inability to draw on housing benefit to meet care, support or supervision costs—make Housing First difficult to scale. While pilots have shown promising results, participants noted that Housing First remains inconsistently implemented in England and constrained by rigid funding structures. They stressed the importance of national guidance, local flexibility, and adequate housing supply (particularly one-bedroom homes) to scale up effectively. However, they cautioned that growth in Housing First must not destabilise existing services that meet the needs of individuals who require more intensive, ongoing support. They emphasised the need for long-term funding to sustain and expand Housing First, while recognising that more traditional shared supported housing remains an important option for some groups.

Policy insights

This report sets out a series of practical, evidence-informed policy insights for central government to consider in order to improve and strengthen supported housing provision as a means of both preventing and alleviating homelessness and rough sleeping.

Policy insight 1: Ensure sufficient implementation support for the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act. Research participants welcomed the introduction of the Act, which they felt would raise the standard of provision, but highlighted the additional burden that implementation would create for local authorities. Central government could ensure local authorities are equipped to support the implementation of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023. While the Act is expected to improve standards and accountability in exempt supported accommodation, some smaller providers may struggle to meet new regulatory requirements. Government could offer additional funding and guidance or explore other ways to minimise burden to help local authorities work in partnership with providers to set clear expectations, support compliance, and reduce uncertainty.

Given the fact that exempt supported housing is not always commissioned by, or used by, the local authority in which it is located, there may be a role for regional government in supporting implementation of the Act by helping to ensure effective partnerships are in place, for instance, providing aspects of guidance, regulation and strategic oversight.

Policy insight 2: Review funding models for supported housing. Research participants attributed the reduction of suitable supported housing in recent years to the removal of ringfenced funding. Central government should review how supported housing is funded in the context of future welfare reforms. This research has highlighted the benefits of ringfenced funding for supported housing, alongside multi-year funding commitments to improve service stability. A dedicated supported housing fund, protected from competing crisis pressures, could enable local authorities to commission services in a more sustainable and strategic manner. This may provide a more cost-effective means of providing accommodation for single people with support needs than temporary accommodation – especially given the prevalence of the use of expensive and unsuitable unsupported B&B and hostel placements for single people with support needs in the current system. It may be possible to achieve the benefits of ringfenced funding through other types of thematic funding allocations, but this would need further investigation. Any funding settlement should include a balance of capital and revenue funding to reflect the need for additional infrastructure and support staff.

Policy insight 3: Promote strategic co-commissioning between housing, health, criminal justice and care provision. This research identified fragmented short term funding arrangements as a barrier to strategic planning. Central government could support the wider adoption of co-commissioning between housing, health, probation and social care services to improve outcomes for individuals with complex needs. This could include provision of case studies of effective models of supported housing and floating support, toolkits and incentives.

Policy insight 4: Ensure compatibility between the new requirement to develop supported housing strategies and the existing requirement to produce homelessness strategies. This research highlights the importance of supported housing and significant declines over the past two decades. Central government could better integrate supported housing within national and local homelessness and housing strategies. Stakeholders emphasised that supported housing plays a critical role, particularly for individuals with high support needs or transitioning from institutions.

Policy insight 5: Local authorities should ensure they plan strategically to have a range of models of support available within their local area to meet different levels of need. This report highlights the insufficient supply of supported housing as well as the wide range of needs that exist. Though it is not the only model of support required, there is a strong evidence base on the effectiveness of Housing First. Local authorities should therefore consider the role of Housing First within their local commissioning plans. Despite positive evaluations of government-funded pilots, Housing First remains inconsistently implemented across England. A toolkit based on experience and practice observed during the evaluation is also available for those looking to implement Housing First.

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 supported housing and how its use can be developed to better prevent and alleviate 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 the relevance and importance of supported housing within the homelessness and rough sleeping systems. 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 supported housing 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 the 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 the use and availability of supported housing can impact homelessness and rough sleeping. The goal is to provide the government with insights into these dynamics and identify factors which can be leveraged to better support individuals at risk of and experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping. This focus on supported housing as one of the policy areas meriting further examination within the systems-wide evaluation of homelessness and rough sleeping was based on a rapid evidence assessment as well as consultations with expert advisors and government policy colleagues.

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 housing policy and homelessness evaluation

Research Question Number	Research Question
RQ1	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?
RQ2	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?
RQ3	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?
RQ4	How does consideration of people at risk of different forms of homelessness impact on q1-3?
RQ5	How do the levers identified across the different policy areas interact and how can central government take these interactions into account?

1.2 Supported housing and homelessness and rough sleeping

1.2.1 Housing policy context

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).

Whilst housing supply more generally is critical to both tackling and preventing homelessness and rough sleeping, this research is focused on policies governing supported housing. Understanding this policy area more deeply will support effective homelessness prevention and determine how best to deliver supported housing to alleviate homelessness and rough sleeping.

While supported housing is only one component of the broader response to homelessness and rough sleeping, it plays a significant role for specific groups, particularly those with complex needs. It provides accommodation alongside tailored support services for individuals such as those fleeing domestic abuse, disabled people, people leaving prison, those recovering from substance use, and those with multiple complex needs who are rough sleeping (Department for Work and Pensions, 2021). It is considered relevant in preventing homelessness as a means of cost-effectively accommodating those who have support needs that can best be met in that setting, rather than implying it is a primary solution to homelessness overall. Supported housing faces on-going challenges—including funding constraints and variability in service quality—which limit its effectiveness as a housing option. The evidence on best practice is limited, signalling a need for further research to improve service delivery and ensure it works in a way that is complementary to wider housing and prevention strategies.

Understanding of the role of more traditional forms of supported housing has fallen behind that of other newer models of housing, like Housing First, but the new legislation and regulatory framework for supported housing that are likely to follow the signing into law of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act provides an opportunity to understand what type of support is needed where and renew focus on how to make supported housing work to maximum effectiveness.

1.2.2 Definitions

To help frame this research on supported housing, it is important to first clarify the terminology used throughout this section. The terms—supported housing, specified accommodation, and exempt accommodation—are often used interchangeably in policy and practice, but each carries a distinct meaning with differing implications for funding, regulation, and service delivery.

Supported housing refers to accommodation that is provided alongside care, support, or supervision to help people with specific needs live as independently as possible within the community (MHCLG, 2023a). This broad definition captures a wide range of housing types and support models, covering individuals with experiences of homelessness, mental health conditions, substance use, learning disabilities, or involvement with the criminal justice system. Additionally, support can be provided to those who need it through floating or tenancy support services. Floating support refers to care, support, or supervision that is not tied to a particular residence and which can continue to accompany an individual even if they relocate (DWP, 2022).

However, from a funding perspective (particularly in relation to housing benefit) only certain types of supported housing fall under what is known as specified accommodation. This term refers to supported housing that meets specific housing benefit criteria, allowing eligible tenants to receive support for their housing costs through housing benefit. Importantly, for people living in specified accommodation, their housing benefit is excluded from the benefit cap calculation (MHCLG, 2023a). Specified accommodation is categorised into four types: exempt accommodation, managed properties, refuges, and local authority hostels.

The focus of much of the current policy and legislative attention is on exempt accommodation, the first and most widely referenced category within the specified accommodation framework. To be classified as exempt accommodation, a provider must meet one of two criteria. The accommodation must either be a resettlement place, or be provided by a non-metropolitan County Council, Housing Association, registered charity, or voluntary organisation that offers care, support, or supervision directly, or through an agent, to the tenant. The provider must also be a not-for-profit organisation and be responsible for issuing the tenancy or licence agreement (MHCLG, 2023a).

These distinctions matter because they determine not only how supported housing is funded, but also which forms of provision are subject to specific oversight mechanisms.

1.2.3 Overview of supported housing

Supported housing serves a diverse range of individuals, including those at risk of or who have already experienced homelessness. It also supports older people, individuals with physical or learning disabilities, those recovering from substance dependence, people with criminal justice system experience, young people with support needs, people with mental ill health, and those fleeing domestic abuse. These categories often overlap, with many individuals having multiple needs. By addressing the specific needs of these groups, supported housing can play a role in fostering independence, providing housing stability and preventing homelessness and rough sleeping (MHCLG, 2020; Imogen Blood & Associates, 2023).

According to Homelessness Case Level Information Collection (H-CLIC) data (MHCLG, 2024), 324,990 households in England were owed a prevention or relief duty in 2023/24, and more than half of these households—around 54%—reported having support needs. The most commonly reported needs included mental health problems, physical ill health or disability, and experiences of domestic abuse. Among the 176,120 households with support needs, 45% had one need, 24% had two, and 31% were managing three or more overlapping challenges. Since 2019/20, there has been a gradual but notable shift in the level of complexity, with a 3% increase in the proportion of households presenting with three or more needs—equivalent to 17,610 additional people in 2023/24 (MHCLG, 2020; MHCLG, 2024). This growing complexity highlights the need for housing and support models that can respond to multiple, intersecting needs.

Supported accommodation within the homelessness sector typically acts as part of a ‘housing-ready’ model, where it is offered to individuals who need to stabilise in a time-limited supported setting, work toward support goals with staff who are usually on-site or visiting regularly and then move on to independent housing. As an alternative to this type of supported housing, some local areas have explored the Housing First model, providing housing with support without the need for someone to prove they are ‘ready’ to manage a tenancy. In contrast to supported accommodation, Housing First offers immediate access to a long-term, stable tenancy with ongoing, voluntary support that adjusts to changing needs. Individuals are given choice and control regarding both their housing and the support they receive, with no requirements related to readiness or engagement in treatment. Instead, stable housing is viewed as a foundation from which other issues can be addressed. It offers person-centred, holistic support that is open-ended (Homeless Link, 2024a; MHCLG, 2024).

MHCLG commissioned England’s first nationally funded Housing First pilots, alongside a series of evaluations of the pilots, in 2018. A year after entering Housing First, clients showed significant improvements across several areas, including housing stability, social connections, safety, wellbeing, health, and reduced contact with the criminal justice system. However, no significant improvements were noted for drug and alcohol use, income, and employment. Differences in outcomes were particularly notable based on gender, age, and mental health conditions (MHCLG, 2024).

In England, local authorities are responsible for the types of supported housing that they commission, and Housing First is not currently embedded within a national strategy. In contrast, in Scotland and Wales, Housing First is delivered as part of their respective nationally coordinated strategies to end homelessness (Welsh Government, 2021; Scottish Government, 2020).

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 individuals with lived experience of homelessness.

Topic guides, 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 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 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. Supported Housing

This section explores the factors affecting the supply of supported housing and the key levers available to central government to drive more effective provision of supported housing for people who have experienced or are at risk of homelessness. It finds that a combination of funding shortages, lack of regulatory oversight, unclear lines of responsibility and a fragmented funding landscape has led to an insufficient supply of supported housing, which in its current form is often not equipped to meet increasingly complex needs or prevent people from returning to homelessness and rough sleeping.

The government has taken steps to address concerns over the quality of provision through the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, but this does not address supply issues. Creating a supported housing sector that is fit for purpose requires a coordinated national strategy with funding attached to develop required provision, reduce fragmentation in approach and delivery and provide high quality services. Evidence suggests that Housing First models could be an effective part of a wider supported housing strategy but there is also a need for less intensive forms of shared supported housing and for floating support that sustains existing tenancies and continues after someone has moved on from supported housing to enable the sustainment of move on outcomes. 

Previous research has shown that individuals in unstable or insecure living situations, such as sofa surfing or staying in temporary accommodation, may have some degree of initial protection due to their social capital—meaning the community networks that provide people with informal support (Scottish Government, 2025). Being unable to access housing that meets their needs means individuals become increasingly reliant on these networks, and they may exhaust these resources, leading to a shift in their homelessness status into rough sleeping.

For individuals with multiple and high support needs, such as those experiencing substance use or mental health conditions, supported housing can provide vital housing and care. However, participants highlighted that when the quality of care or available support is insufficient, these individuals may be at a higher risk of prolonged homelessness, including of rough sleeping. Previous research has shown a strong correlation between homelessness and other complex needs, suggesting that without adequate support, individuals may struggle to maintain stable housing (Scottish Government, 2025). When protective factors like quality care and accessible support are lacking, the risk of rough sleeping may increase.

Some of those individuals with multiple and high support needs may qualify as being in priority need and be eligible for statutory housing assistance. However, in the absence of a suitable supply of supported housing, the offer of temporary accommodation may be unsupported and unsuitable for meeting their needs. Move on from temporary accommodation may be inhibited by the lack of suitable, settled accommodation which includes an offer of support. 

It is worth noting that during the interviews, the majority of stakeholders chose to focus on the shortage of more traditional forms of supported housing. Only a few interviewees mentioned alternative housing-led approaches, such as Housing First, and this is noted in the section below.

Where relevant, this section draws on existing research. It must also be acknowledged that the outcome of consultation on the implementation of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 is not yet known. Though stakeholders reported that while the exact implications of the Act are unclear, local authorities and providers are already making changes to how they are funding and delivering exempt supported accommodation and understanding this should be a research priority.

2.1 Funding reforms to increase the supply of supported housing and support available for people in need

There has been a significant decline in the availability of supported housing over the past two decades. The Supported Housing Review (MHCLG, 2024) estimated that there are 634,000 units of supported housing in Great Britain, with 535,400 units located in England. Research commissioned by the National Housing Federation (2024) shows that there were 1,540 fewer supported homes in 2023 compared to 2007, despite the adult population of England having grown by 12% (Office for National Statistics, 2023). The review estimated that by 2040, between 995,600 and 1.275 million more supported housing units will be needed to meet current and future demand, considering demographic trends and unmet needs. Of the supply needed by 2040, 310,800 units will be for working age adults (MHCLG, 2024). In addition, the research by Imogen Blood & Associates (2023) estimates that without supported housing at its current rates, an additional 71,000 people would be experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness.

Both local and national stakeholders agreed that this decline was due to overall reductions in funding for local government and the removal of ringfenced funding associated with the Supporting People programme. Research participants viewed the Supporting People programme as beneficial due to its provision of dedicated funding to commission diverse, specialist supported housing and floating support services tailored to different needs, such as mental health and substance use. They described the programme’s specialised pathways as being crucial in delivering the necessary support for individuals to move out of homelessness and rough sleeping and into more stable accommodation where support needs could be met. Stakeholders highlighted that dedicated funding, and the more generous staffing levels associated with Supporting People, allowed them to do more to quality assure supported housing provision and to assure the maintenance of safe and supportive housing environments.

Additionally, one stakeholder noted that the floating support services that were funded under the programme supported homelessness prevention, assisting individuals within the community and reducing their risk of homelessness and repeat homelessness:

“… I think the great thing about Supporting People was it included floating support as well and that had a big preventative impact. I suppose my ideal would be to go back to something like Supporting People with its flexibility and with its various dimensions including floating support and community-based support…” – Third sector representative

In line with the findings of the Supported Housing Review (MHCLG, 2024), stakeholders felt that funding constraints had led to inconsistent levels of funding being applied to supported housing across different areas, with considerable provision lost placing further strain on local homelessness pathways and prolonging time on the streets spent waiting for supported housing.

They explained that the lack of financial certainty makes it difficult to plan ahead or maintain services in a meaningful way. With more stable and predictable funding, they anticipated that there would be greater opportunity “to invest in lasting solutions rather than relying on temporary fixes.”

National and local stakeholders also noted that the shortage of supported accommodation is particularly pressing for individuals with higher levels of need, such as those with mental health issues or those affected by substance use. Research participants also described how the lack of appropriate accommodation options and support services may lead to longer periods of rough sleeping and increased pressure on temporary accommodation and wider services:

“There is a clear relationship between the inadequate supply of supported housing and the increase in homelessness and especially rough sleeping.” – Third sector representative

Moreover, stakeholders indicated that the issues with meeting the demand for supported housing are intensified by the lack of appropriate move-on options, including floating support for to those wanting to move to independent housing:

“There’s not enough move on accommodation to support rapid move on from supported housing and that is a common concern across providers and local authorities.” – Academic expert in supported housing

A local authority representative estimated that around two fifths of residents in commissioned supported housing in their area were ready to move on to independent living and manage a tenancy themselves. However, with private rented sector housing largely unaffordable, those who are ready to leave often have no choice but to remain in supported accommodation while they wait for social housing to become available. In line with the findings of the Supported Housing Review (MHCLG, 2024), research participants highlighted that the lack of suitable move-on options creates blockages in the system, limiting the availability of places for new individuals in need of support. As a result, more people are left without access to the supported accommodation they need, especially those sleeping rough or those seeking supported housing after leaving an institution.

Some interviewees suggested that a dedicated long-term supported housing fund could ensure that local authorities have the resources needed to commission services sustainably, rather than having to make year-on-year funding decisions alongside other competing local priorities. Many providers currently operate on short-term contracts, linked to these short-term funding cycles, which some interviewees said makes long-term planning difficult and discourages investment in new supported housing units. A move toward five-year or longer-term models could provide greater certainty for developers and providers and allow local authorities to develop strategic commissioning plans that match supply with long-term demand.

However, stakeholders also noted potential risks associated with such funding reforms. One concern was that some local authorities may not have the capacity to manage increased funding effectively. Some interviewees suggested that funding allocations should be linked to local housing strategies, perhaps at a regional level, ensuring that investment is directed toward areas of highest need. Others highlighted that funding increases alone may not be sufficient without mechanisms to ensure quality and oversight, as past experience has shown that some providers have prioritised financial gain over service quality.

2.2 Legislative reforms have the potential to improve the quality of supported housing

One-third of all supported housing falls under special housing rules, with 83% of these claims being for exempt accommodation (MHCLG, 2024). Exempt accommodation refers to housing where the landlord provides or has arranged for, care, support, or supervision for residents. Stakeholders explained that exempt supported accommodation is primarily used by individuals with moderate to high support needs, such as those with mental health needs, those affected by substance use, and those who have experienced trauma. It also serves people transitioning from more intensive support environments, like hospitals or rehabilitation centres, and those reintegrating into society after involvement with the criminal justice system. Such accommodations are exempt from certain housing benefit rules, allowing higher housing benefit payments to cover the extra costs of support services for residents. The review (MHCLG, 2024) also noted that there is no clear legal definition of “care, support, or supervision” within housing benefit rules. This ambiguity can lead to inconsistencies in how minimal levels of care, support or supervision are interpreted.

A recent government inquiry into supported housing found that exempt accommodation can be of poor quality and has little regulation or oversight, leaving it open to unscrupulous providers (House of Commons, 2023). As a result, there is a lack of protection for residents being housed in this poor-quality accommodation, with unsuitable or no additional support provided. Interviewees with firsthand experience shared that some providers do not provide any support and may provide substandard accommodation, operating the supported housing simply to exploit the higher rent levels that can be charged. They felt this often resulted in services that increase people’s risk of harm or of experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping rather than reducing it.

To address these concerns, the government introduced the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 which became law in August 2023, with councils expected to enforce it via new regulatory requirements. This Act aims to reform the regulation of supported exempt accommodation by allowing the government to create new National Supported Housing Standards and requiring local authorities to introduce licensing schemes for supported exempt accommodation providers. It also sets out how a new Supported Housing Advisory Panel will advise on matters related to supported housing. The Act also introduces changes to the rules on intentional homelessness ensuring residents leaving inadequate supported housing can still qualify for homelessness assistance from local authorities.

The Act was generally welcomed by local and national stakeholders, who felt it was an important step in improving the regulation of exempt supported accommodation, ensuring greater oversight of providers and raising minimum quality standards. They were optimistic that the Act would improve the quality and regulation of exempt supported accommodation, leading to better outcomes for residents.

Local stakeholders highlighted the importance of the provisions aimed at improving collaboration between housing benefit teams, commissioning teams, the NHS Integrated Care Boards, probation and other stakeholders to ensure a more holistic approach to supporting individuals:

“The Act includes provisions for better collaboration between local authorities and supported housing providers. This should help streamline the allocation process and ensure that those in need can access accommodation more quickly.” – Local authority representative

One national stakeholder noted the recent legislative change will now recognise that a person is not intentionally homeless if they leave substandard supported exempt accommodation. They stated, “the changes to intentional homelessness rules will protect residents from being penalised for leaving substandard accommodation.” They viewed this as a positive change that will ensure that individuals can seek better housing options without fear of losing support.

However, national and local stakeholders also noted that the introduction of the Act may impose financial strain and administrative burden on providers who may decide to exit the exempt supported accommodation market as a result. They described how smaller landlords, in particular, may struggle to meet the increased regulatory requirements, leading to potential service closures. Interviewees shared concerns that this could result in a temporary reduction in the availability of supported housing stock and concomitant increases in homelessness and rough sleeping.  

National stakeholders anticipated that there would be regional variations in the implementation of the new legislation due to varying levels of preparedness across local authorities. Interviewees suggested that urban areas might adapt more quickly due to existing resources and previous experience of working with exempt accommodation providers, whereas rural areas could face more difficulties. They described how staffing levels have also been a constraint for many local authorities before the introduction of the Act:

“We don’t actually have lots of resource to be checking the quality and standard consistency of all the exempt accommodation that we have.” – Local authority representative

More practically, in terms of preparations and adaptations to address the changes brought by the Act, few stakeholders provided their insight into this. National stakeholders acknowledged that the government is working on establishing the National Supported Housing Standards to ensure consistency in the quality of supported housing. They also noted that a new Supported Housing Advisory Panel is being set up to provide guidance and monitor the implementation of the new standards.

One national stakeholder cited examples of local authorities assessing their supported housing provision ahead of time, with some citing financial pressures linked to not being repaid by DWP the full amount of housing benefit they paid to providers under the exempt supported housing subsidy regime and others seeking to identify services needing improvement to meet the new standards. Some regions were said to be piloting new approaches to supported housing to better understand the impact of the upcoming changes, as one interviewee mentioned:

“Regional partnerships are being formed to share best practices and coordinate efforts to comply with the new regulations.”  – Central government representative

Local authorities need sufficient capacity to work closely with housing providers to set expectations of what good exempt supported accommodation is and how it will be regulated based on the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act legislation. This cooperation will ensure that housing providers have adequate support during the implementation period. By reducing uncertainty over the new regulatory requirements, local authorities can retain good providers within the exempt supported accommodation market.

It should be noted that since this research was conducted, the government launched its first consultation on the Act which closed on 15th May 2025. The consultation proposed that the term “supported exempt accommodation” within the Act encompasses all four categories of specified accommodation as defined in housing benefit regulations. The government is proposing that the licensing regime introduced under the Act will apply to all types of supported housing, rather than focusing solely on exempt accommodation as previously (MHCLG and DWP, 2025).

2.3  Cross-government collaboration has the potential to address fragmented processes of delivery

Currently, responsibility for commissioning, delivering and overseeing supported housing is shared across local government, with councils expected to coordinate efforts across relevant teams—including commissioning, revenues and benefits, licencing, adult social care, children’s services (for care leavers), public health and housing—and, where appropriate, then engage local health commissioning bodies and providers in decision-making (MHCLG, 2020).

Both national and local stakeholders highlighted the fragmented approach to supported housing across different local authorities in England. They explained that this variation can lead to significant differences in the level and quality of support available, depending on where someone lives. One national stakeholder illustrated this point, noting that while supported housing operates effectively in some areas, it falls short in others—emphasising the need for greater consistency across local authorities. For example, one of the local areas included in this research described that they have faced challenges in maintaining supported housing over the years:

“Many years ago [local area name] did have a spread of supported housing in place and due to various different reasons, it was all closed down.” – Local authority representative

In addition, research participants noted challenges in two-tier councils, where responsibilities for supported housing are divided. They highlighted that upper-tier councils, which previously commissioned supported housing, may now be less involved due to funding constraints:

“The other issue is kind of the two-tier councils. So upper tiers [are] saying homelessness isn’t our responsibility, where they previously would have commissioned supported housing. But they’re only really saying that, I suppose, because they haven’t got the funding, the money to carry on commissioning it.” – Local authority representative

This suggests that funding constraints and budget cuts, rather than a lack of willingness, may be influencing decisions on service provision for supported housing, especially given its non-statutory function. Moreover, stakeholders also noted that the reliance on multiple funding sources, such as local authority grant and housing benefit, for the provision of accommodation and support services further fragments the funding process for supported housing:

“The fact that the two elements that make up supported housing are funded by two different funding streams is a problem. You have [housing] benefit and the funding from commissioners for support, and it doesn’t seem to be quite meeting up, and then everybody’s trying to push the costs one way or another.” – Local authority representative

Stakeholders explained that support for people experiencing homelessness is being reduced, with some responsibilities being shifted into tasks classed as intensive housing management so they can be funded through housing benefit. The Supported Housing Review also found a trend of reclassifying parts of support services, previously funded through commissioned services, so they fall under the definition of housing management and can be paid for via housing benefit under the Specified Accommodation rules (MHCLG, 2024). However, it was noted that any support not directly related to housing remains ineligible for housing benefit funding.

Relying on different funding streams can cause inconsistencies and fragmentation in service delivery disrupting the effectiveness of supported housing programmes due to support gaps. One local stakeholder described that current government funding programmes, including the Rough Sleeping Accommodation Programme (RSAP), the Single Homelessness Accommodation Programme (SHAP), and the previously active Next Steps Accommodation Programme (NSAP) provide valuable capital and revenue funding for supported housing. However, they also noted there is a significant need for longer-term revenue funding to sustain high-level support, especially for individuals with complex needs. Short-term revenue funding of the type provided within these discrete programmes were described as creating a “cliff edge” scenario, where ongoing support for individuals in high-level supported housing is at risk. This can make it difficult for individuals both to access and maintain stable housing and extend periods of homelessness.

Supported housing does not operate in isolation—many individuals in need of supported housing also have interactions with health services, social care, and the criminal justice system. Some stakeholders emphasised that a more integrated approach across government departments and local/regional agencies could improve outcomes, particularly for people with complex support needs. National and local stakeholders highlighted that joint strategies and cross-sector initiatives can help to align objectives, making sure that housing, health, and social care policies work together rather than at cross-purposes.

Relatedly, national stakeholders have emphasised that the government’s commitment to a new homelessness strategy must prominently feature the role of supported housing, highlighting both its preventative function and its relative cost effectiveness compared to housing people with support needs in expensive temporary accommodation which often comes without support.

As the government develops a broader housing strategy, interviewees have pointed out the need for the commitment to creating 1.5 million new social homes to include provisions for supported housing, addressing the diversity of housing needs across the country. Research participants anticipated that providing more specialised supported housing options would have a positive impact on the system by reducing the risk of homelessness and ensuring stable, supportive environments for individuals. It was suggested that the government should also consider providing resources to local authorities for regular monitoring of increased funding and evaluation of the strategic plan. This will ensure commissioned services meet demand and enable a proper assessment of the impact that providing more supported accommodation might have across the system.

Several interviewees highlighted co-commissioning as an approach that could help align housing, health, and social care objectives. This could involve joint funding models, where local NHS Integrated Care Boards (ICBs), probation services, substance use service commissioners within Public Health teams and housing, and support leads in local authorities are encouraged to pool resources to fund supported housing for individuals with support needs. Some participants noted that this type of approach is already in place in some areas but is not yet widely adopted. A national stakeholder suggested that formalising co-commissioning processes and incentivising the pooling of funding could help reduce service fragmentation and improve efficiency. Stakeholders also suggested opportunities to learn from best practice of current co-commissioning processes, including practicalities on effective data sharing.

However, achieving better collaboration across services could present challenges. Some stakeholders warned of the risk of diffusion of responsibility, where different agencies assume that another organisation is leading on a particular aspect of service delivery, potentially leading to gaps in provision. To mitigate this risk, some interviewees suggested that the government could introduce clearer guidelines on roles and responsibilities across agencies, supported by joint performance indicators and shared accountability mechanisms.

2.4 Housing First presents an opportunity to consider effective operational delivery models in addition to traditional supported accommodation models

Housing First offers an alternative to traditional models of supported accommodation by providing immediate access to independent housing alongside personalised, flexible support that adjusts to changing needs. However, the recent evaluation of Housing First pilots (MHCLG, 2024b) highlighted that a key challenge in implementation was the limited availability of appropriate housing stock.

Several local and national stakeholders noted that the Housing First model can offer advantages over traditional models of supported housing, particularly for individuals with multiple and high-level needs. One local stakeholder described how they have used various government funding streams to deliver more Housing First tenancies over the past few years. They found these to be very effective as they explained how individuals in this accommodation can manage their own circumstances while the local authority provides support:

“Housing First and housing-led approaches have been effective for people with complex needs who need their own front door and ongoing support. These approaches are starting to meet the needs of people who have been through the system repeatedly.” – Local authority representative

One national stakeholder acknowledged that compared to traditional supported housing, the Housing First approach allows greater flexibility and personalisation of support that can be adjusted in intensity as needs change. They noted the following:

“In Scotland, it’s a bit more advanced in terms of Housing First models which aren’t like traditional supported housing models, but then the money comes from different pots. Some providers really like that freedom and think it’s very progressive and person-centred. Psychological approaches are the way to go.” – Academic expert in supported housing

They also further explained that moving to Housing First models can offer flexibility in funding which can be prioritised for support for individuals rather than linked to specific accommodation. However, they also noted that some providers still recognise that traditional supported housing remains necessary for those who require continuous, intensive support for longer periods of time.

Both local and national stakeholders emphasised the importance of funding considerations for the Housing First approach. A national stakeholder explained that some providers view moving entirely to Housing First approach as challenging due to how this model differs in funding. They explained that the type of floating support going into Housing First accommodation does not always fit the formal criteria for exempt supported accommodation and, hence, cannot tap into the same levels of housing benefit that many supported housing schemes do. Some local stakeholders addressed the need for longer-term funding to be able to sustain the Housing First model and expand it more widely, as they said:

“We either want Housing First and therefore invest properly in the support on a long-term basis or we don’t.” – Local authority representative

Government-funded pilots of Housing First in England have already been undertaken and formally evaluated (described in the introduction chapter). These evaluations have demonstrated encouraging results, particularly in supporting individuals with complex needs who have experienced repeated or prolonged homelessness. Despite these promising findings, the scale of Housing First delivery in England remains unknown at a national level.

Under current arrangements, local authorities have the flexibility to use existing funding streams to include Housing First provision within commissioning plans as part of their overall housing strategy (alongside other models where appropriate). Central government provides support in the form of a Housing First toolkit for local areas interested in exploring and implementing Housing First. There is a further opportunity for central government to support a more effective and sustainable approach to Housing First within the existing flexible funding arrangements. This could include clarifying the role of Housing First within national homelessness policy, supporting further evaluation and learning across a range of local contexts, and considering how current funding frameworks might better support local delivery.

At the same time, government may need to consider the potential consequences of scaling up Housing First. The limited availability of affordable and appropriate housing, particularly one-bedroom homes, presents a significant barrier to expanding the model in many areas. The success of Housing First depends not only on funding and support models, but also on access to stable housing stock and a skilled support workforce. These elements may lead to inconsistent implementation across localities. A potential way forward may be to consider repurposing of existing hostels and supported housing into congregate Housing First models, enjoying the benefits of the Housing First model but making more use of existing stock.

3. Policy insights

This report sets out a series of practical, evidence-informed policy insights for central government to consider in order to improve and strengthen supported housing provision as a means of both preventing and alleviating homelessness and rough sleeping. 

Policy insight 1: Ensure sufficient implementation support for the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act. Research participants welcomed the introduction of the Act, which they felt would raise the standard of provision, but highlighted the additional burden that implementation would create for local authorities. Central government could ensure local authorities are equipped to support the implementation of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023. While the Act is expected to improve standards and accountability in exempt supported accommodation, some smaller providers may struggle to meet new regulatory requirements. Government could offer additional funding and guidance or explore other ways to minimise burden to help local authorities work in partnership with providers to set clear expectations, support compliance, and reduce uncertainty. Given the fact that exempt supported housing is not always commissioned by, or used by, the local authority in which it is located, there may be a role for regional government in supporting implementation of the Act by helping to ensure effective partnerships are in place, for instance, providing aspects of guidance, regulation and strategic oversight. 

Policy insight 2: Review funding models for supported housing. Research participants attributed the reduction of suitable supported housing in recent years to the removal of ringfenced funding. Central government should review how supported housing is funded in the context of future welfare reforms. This research has highlighted the benefits of ringfenced funding for supported housing, alongside multi-year funding commitments to improve service stability. A dedicated supported housing fund, protected from competing crisis pressures, could enable local authorities to commission services in a more sustainable and strategic manner. This may provide a more cost-effective means of providing accommodation for single people with support needs than temporary accommodation – especially given the prevalence of the use of expensive and unsuitable unsupported B&B and hostel placements for single people with support needs in the current system. It may be possible to achieve the benefits of ringfenced funding through other types of thematic funding allocations, but this would need further investigation. Any funding settlement should include a balance of capital and revenue funding to reflect the need for additional infrastructure and support staff.  

Policy insight 3: Promote strategic co-commissioning between housing, health, criminal justice and care provision. This research identified fragmented short term funding arrangements as a barrier to strategic planning. Central government could support the wider adoption of co-commissioning between housing, health, probation and social care services to improve outcomes for individuals with complex needs. This could include provision of case studies of effective models of supported housing and floating support, toolkits and incentives. 

Policy insight 4: Ensure compatibility between the new requirement to develop supported housing strategies and the existing requirement to produce homelessness strategies. This research highlights the importance of supported housing and significant declines over the past two decades. Central government could better integrate supported housing within national and local homelessness and housing strategies. Stakeholders emphasised that supported housing plays a critical role, particularly for individuals with high support needs or transitioning from institutions.  

Policy insight 5: Local authorities should ensure they plan strategically to have a range of models of support available within their local area to meet different levels of need. This report highlights the insufficient supply of supported housing as well as the wide range of needs that exist. Though it is not the only model of support required, there is a strong evidence base on the effectiveness of Housing First. Local authorities should therefore consider the role of Housing First within their local commissioning plans. Despite positive evaluations of government-funded pilots, Housing First remains inconsistently implemented across England. A toolkit based on experience and practice observed during the evaluation is also available for those looking to implement Housing First.

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-on-Sea.

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—and people with Lived Experience. 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. The topic guides were also tailored to stakeholder groups and ensured comprehensive coverage of the research questions. 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, which included insights from 4 participants.

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. By combining these methods, the research team developed a nuanced understanding of how different factors within the policy area can influence homelessness and rough sleeping. 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 diverse engagement provided a deeper, more nuanced understanding of how housing policy influences the risk of homelessness, capturing a breadth of perspectives that a narrower approach might have overlooked. 

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 the availability of supported housing 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 1]} However, data interpretations are influenced by the perspectives of participants and researchers. 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.

Department for Work and Pensions. (2022). Housing Benefit guidance for supported housing claims.

Department for Work and Pensions. (2024). 1 October 2024 to 31 March 2025: Household Support Fund guidance for county councils and unitary authorities in England.

House of Commons. (2023). Public Accounts Committee on Supported Housing.

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

Imogen Blood & Associates. (2023). Research into the supported housing sector’s impact on homelessness prevention, health and wellbeing.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2020). Supported housing: national statement of expectations.

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). Evaluation of the Housing First Pilots Final synthesis report.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2024). Mobilising Housing First toolkit: from planning to early implementation.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Department for Work and Pensions. (2025). Supported Housing regulation: consultation.

National Housing Federation. (2024). Supported housing in England: Estimating need and costs to 2040.

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.

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. 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. ↩