Elections are not principally fought on youth homelessness, and housing featured only cursorily in the most recent election. The Conservative Manifesto for the 2015 election said only that “We have also pioneered the use of social impact bonds and payment-by-results, and we will look to scale these up in the future, focusing on youth unemployment, mental health and homelessness”, and “We have always believed that churches, faith groups and other voluntary groups play an important and longstanding role in this country’s social fabric, running foodbanks, helping the homeless, and tackling debt and addictions, such as alcoholism and gambling”.  Arguably, those groups often end up having to fight fires rather than fit smoke alarms. The Conservative Party were far from having an active policy on homelessness in their manifesto, let alone specific policies for different demographics of homeless people.

It is not at all easy to give accurate figures for youth homelessness.  Shelter point out that “there are no accurate national statistics to measure the extent of youth homelessness as there is no requirement on any statutory agency to identify the scale of the problem. Also, young homeless people, like other homeless groups, tend to be mobile and not always visible to services. This further exacerbates existing problems with quantifying the number of homeless people.” This should be remedied; if increasing powers are being devolved to local government, it is also an excellent opportunity to devolve responsibility.

If there is neither an electoral impulse to discuss youth homelessness, nor a legal obligation to look into the problem, it is likely to fester until it can no longer be ignored because the problem has grown so great. A report by the Homeless Link, based on responses from 207 frontline homelessness charities and local authority housing departments, estimated that 52% of those seeking help with homelessness are under 25. More than six in ten of these people are so called NEETS. Of those surveyed, 74% said they were unable to support a young person due to limited capacity.

Conservatives have always been clear on the importance of stable family life, and that the principal responsibility for children’s welfare lies with their parents. Citing a 2001 study, a Shelter factsheet claims “evidence shows that family conflict is the main precipitating factor leading to homelessness among under-18s, and is sometimes associated with physical or sexual abuse. It is estimated, that for at least two thirds and possibly up to 90 per cent of homeless young people, conflict with their families was the immediate cause of their homelessness.”  Various studies make similar claims. This should highlight the mythic nature of the claim that youth homelessness is a choice. Or, if it is a choice, it is a malign Hobson’s choice between unbearable home life, and no home life at all.Those over sixteen are merely ‘licensees’ in their family home, and can be thrown out of home legally after their sixteenth birthday. In our modern economy, it is unlikely that a sixteen or seventeen year old could fund themselves if forced to leave home. One practical step would be to give sixteen and seventeen year olds more rights to stay in their family home, and criminalise parents who fail to put their children first. 

For those over eighteen whose place at home has become untenable, different solutions are required. The concept of the Big Society could be fleshed out in this area. Government could offer start up support for charitable or private initiatives, which would energetically seek to connect those with spare bedrooms to those who are willing to accept young lodgers for below the market rate; those letting rooms could conceivably also act as mentors. Government could also reduce the cost of moving into rental property, focussing on the high deposit required at the start of tenancies.  Inflexible contracts and high initial costs hit all young people, both those who depend on the state for financial help, and those who are self-sufficient. Those who are forced to move out but unable to save enough to enter into a rental contract often end up in hidden homelessness, sleeping on a friend’s sofa or illegally squatting. This is another part of the poverty trap; it is almost impossible to get a job without a permanent address.

It is both in national and party interest to address this problem. It is in the interest of social cohesion and the nation’s finances that we tackle homelessness and its causes directly. It would reduce health and social care costs in the future, as homelessness can create long-term health problems, and lead to crime and substance abuse. Support for the Conservatives is notoriously low among young people at the moment; and though the electorate has an increased proportion of elderly people, the youth of today will be the elderly of tomorrow.