Editor's blog: The complex business of meeting housing need

The law of unintended consequences states that any intervention into a complex economic system will always create unanticipated, often undesirable, outcomes. As it is with economics, so too with social policy and the complicated business of meeting housing need. Housing providers and charities are joining together to highlight the potentially devastating impact of localism on homelessness. The policy aims to free up councils to house those in the greatest need more quickly, but it could prove to have quite the opposite effect. Removing a statutory duty to house homeless people in long-term social housing could lead to even greater instability in the lives of homeless people. The government hopes the greater flexibility enjoyed by local authorities will allow councils to bring homes from the private sector into play, finding a roof for those without one and cutting down on the bureacracy of allocating housing to the most needy. But support workers warn the policy could lead to a cycle of homelessness, with short-term tenancies offering only short-term solutions rather than a long-term answer to the problem of housing need. Already, before the policy has been implemented across the country, homelessness is on the rise. Last week, government data revealed that 26,400 people approached a local council for housing help in the first three months of 2011, a rise of 23% compared with the same period last year. Some of the biggest rises came in London; Bromley reported a staggering 99% increase in approches. Housing minister Grant Shapps put the rise down to the difficulties of the recession, but charities including Shelter are warning that under localism there will be more to come. And so to local offers. This week on the housing network Ian Hembrow warned the policy, which aimed to offer a more bespoke landlord service designed by tenants and residents, was at risk of becoming a "damp squib". Not only have many housing associations ignored the call to establish new local services, but residents have also questioned the wisdom of the policy. When questioned by the Tenant Services Authority, many admitted feeling uncomfortable with the fact that residents in area A could end up receiving a profoundly different type of service than those living in area B. In both cases unintended consequences appear to have arisen as a result of localist policies being implemented at the centre. Though offering freedom to house the homeless wherever possible may seem like a good idea in the abstract, drawn up on the desks of Whitehall, the key support worker can pull at the holes of the policy until it unravels. And though offering residents choice may sound empowering from the housing office, the fact is that many residents will want to defer to a prescriptive service set out by landlords Importantly, what works in one area will not work in all, and until those at the grassroots of the sector are more effectively consulted in the process of policymaking (which must inevitably be instituted – if not designed – at the top) so the law of unintended consequences will continue to play itself out across the country. Hannah Fearn is editor of the Guardian housing network. This content was brought to you by Guardian Professional. Join the housing network for more like this direct to your inbox.