Lesbian, gay, bisexual and trangender people's experiences of homelessness

Question 1

Executive summary

Accepted Answer

Background and research aims

The Government Equalities Office, which is now part of the Cabinet Office Equality Hub (EH), commissioned this study in partnership with the Department for Levelling up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), which was previously known as the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). This research was undertaken by Sheffield Hallam University. Equalities and homelessness policy makers previously identified a gap in understanding of homelessness among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)^{[footnote 1]} people.

The study therefore aims to improve understanding of:

the experiences, attitudes and needs of homeless LGBT people
how housing and support services are being delivered to LGBT people and how they can be improved to better meet their needs

Methods

The study findings are based on:

a critical evidence review, to establish what is currently known about LGBT homelessness from UK and international sources, published from January 2000 to March 2019
qualitative interviews with 39 LGBT people who, at the time the study was conducted between March and June 2019, were currently, or had recently experienced, homelessness
qualitative interviews and consultation with 20 stakeholders in housing and support services

Full details of method and sample can be found in Chapter 1.3. and Appendices 1 and 2.

Key findings

This report considers the findings from the academic and research literature alongside those from the primary data gathered by the research team to draw conclusions about the experiences of homelessness and homelessness support services amongst LGBT people.

1. There was no robust data measuring the number of LGBT people currently homeless in the UK. However, existing evidence indicates that LGBT people may be at greater risk of becoming homelessness than people not identifying as LGBT.

LGBT people tend to be overrepresented in surveys of homeless people. Within US and Canadian literature, the proportion of (mainly young) homeless respondents identifying as LGBT ranges from 15% (Leslie and others, 2002) to 44% (Gattis, 2013), while in the UK estimates of homelessness service users identifying as LGBT ranges from 16% (McCoy, 2018) to 32% (Porchlight, 2015), a significant over-representation compared to the national average of 1.4%.

A relatively high proportion of LGBT people – trans people in particular – are found to experience homelessness compared to non-LGBT people. Robust international evidence shows a statistical relationship between (mainly youth) sexual orientation/gender identity and homelessness.

Known risk factors for homelessness such as early transitions to independence and mental health issues are found to be common experiences for LGBT people in the UK and international evidence.

LGBT people become homeless for the same reasons as non-LGBT people but issues related to sexual and gender identity often underpin their triggers of homelessness. For example, the familial abuse that can trigger homelessness for anyone, is usually homophobic, biphobic or transphobic amongst LGBT homeless people.

Homophobic, biphobic and transphobic family conflict and abuse during young adulthood was the main trigger of homelessness amongst LGBT participants in this study, a finding reflected in existing evidence.

LGBT people have greater difficulty preventing impending homelessness because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. They face discrimination by landlords and employers, familial and social networks can dissipate when they come out, and concerns for safety restrict their housing options.

Homophobic, biphobic and transphobic abuse is a key feature of LGBT people’s homelessness experiences. It is a common cause of homelessness among LGBT people; it informs their housing options and choices while homeless (for example avoiding certain locations or types of accommodation for fear of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic harassment); and participants in this study had experienced harassment and abuse in mainstream homelessness services.

3. The experiences of homeless LGBT people and stakeholders participating in this study show that, currently, the housing needs of LGBT homeless people are not being met fully by housing and support services.

LGBT homeless people are usually supported by mainstream homelessness services, or by LGBT support services without a remit for homelessness. Study findings indicate that there is limited understanding of the distinct experiences of LGBT homeless people within mainstream housing and support services, especially for transgender people. Conversely, LGBT support organisations provide a sensitive and understanding service to LGBT people but rarely have housing expertise. There appears to be, therefore, a gap in services with expertise to address housing problems informed by understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Sexual orientation and gender identity appears not well understood by many mainstream housing and support services, or not thought to require tailored policies and practices. Evidence from this study suggests that this can result in inappropriate service delivery to LGBT homeless people. Research participants cited many examples of inappropriate interventions, offensive service delivery, and of policies and practices being delivered by mainstream providers which were not sensitised to the needs of LGBT homeless people.

Sexual orientation and gender identity are not routinely monitored by mainstream housing and support services.

Facilities in mixed and single-sex temporary housing were reported by participants not to meet the needs of trans people well, which caused daily practical issues.

LGBT-specific housing services, and mainstream housing services that had actively developed inclusive practice and policies were experienced very positively by LGBT homeless research participants.

Existing evidence reveals some principles and good practice lessons for how housing and support services can be improved to meet the needs of LGBT homeless people. The most common suggestions to emerge from both existing evidence and this study were: training for staff on LGBT inclusion; LGBT-specific temporary accommodation; visible signs of inclusive practice, underpinned by appropriate policy; and better monitoring of gender identity and sexual orientation.

4. Mainstream temporary accommodation can be a hostile space for LGBT homeless people.

Homeless LGBT participants in this study often reported feeling unsafe in temporary and supported accommodation such as hostels.

Existing evidence finds that temporary housing such as hostels and night shelters can be chaotic environments that homeless people find difficult to live in (Crisis, 2018; Homeless Link, 2018) regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. However, the evidence base suggests that some experiences are specific to, or more common amongst, LGBT homeless people. Issues of safety, harassment and victimisation are both more prominent in the LGBT homelessness literature than the generic homelessness literature and are explicitly related to sexual orientation and gender identity.

Existing evidence is fairly conclusive that, internationally, LGBT people often experience homophobic and transphobic harassment in current mainstream homelessness services. This is consistent with the experiences of the LGBT homeless people participating in this study who reported homophobic, biphobic and transphobic harassment from other residents and, sometimes, a lack of intervention by staff.

LGBT participants’ expectations of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic harassment, often rooted in their own experiences, caused anxiety about approaching or accepting a referral to mainstream homelessness services, deterred future engagement with services, and prompted some to hide their sexual orientation or gender identity from service providers.

5. LGBT homeless people sometimes rely on informal, hidden, and sometimes unsafe temporary housing

Many of the LGBT homeless participants in this study had relied on friends, acquaintances and strangers for accommodation. Many had also slept rough. Some had engaged in survival sex and attended all night parties as ways of putting a roof over their head which may put them at risk of victimisation, sexual violence and exploitation.

These situations were considered by some participants to be preferable to staying in mainstream hostels because of their fears of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic harassment within those spaces. In common with all homeless people, others were unable to access alternative accommodation because they were not considered ‘priority need’ or did not have a ‘local connection’ to the area.

6. ‘Place’ matters to LGBT homeless people, who have reasons for migrating to certain areas

Consistent with other studies, mobility was a key feature of LGBT participant’s homelessness pathways, with many having relocated from the area of their last settled home. Some were unable to remain in their home town because of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic hostility from family or the local community and many migrated to locations where they would be less likely to suffer harassment and where there were LGBT networks and services.

The importance of living somewhere safe and free from harassment was reportedly not always understood by local services that participants approached for assistance. Some participants, therefore, found they were ineligible for homelessness assistance and accommodation because they had no ‘local connection’ to the area. There have been changes to the homelessness legislation, specifically the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, as well as a strengthening of the Homelessness Code of Guidance in response to the Domestic Abuse Bill, since the study was conducted. These changes should mitigate some of the problems participants had encountered.

Question 2

1.  Introduction

Accepted Answer

This report is the final output from an exploratory research study to better understand the needs and experiences of homeless lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. It was commissioned by the Equality Hub (EH) in partnership with the Department for Levelling up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) and was undertaken by the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (CRESR) and the Centre for Development and Research in Education (CDARE) at Sheffield Hallam University.

The study was commissioned in response to an identified gap in evidence about homelessness among LGBT people in 2 reviews (Alma Economics, 2019; Hudson-Sharp and Metcalf, 2016). A key review of evidence about the causes of homelessness commissioned by DLUHC and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) identified only a small number of sources about LGBT people from which little could be gleaned (Alma Economics, 2019). A 2016 evidence review funded by the government to understand inequality among LGBT people in the UK, meanwhile, concluded that evidence about LGBT homelessness in the UK is weak and non-comparative (GEO, 2016).

This study was commissioned in 2019 to begin to address these gaps in knowledge to support government efforts to improve the lives of LGBT people and tackle homelessness. In particular the study considered how, why and in what ways LGBT people’s homelessness experiences – including their experiences of housing and support services – are distinct from people not identifying as LGBT. By identifying whether, and in what ways LGBT homeless people’s experiences and needs are distinct, it can help policymakers and service providers develop services to better meet the needs of LGBT homeless people. Finally it should be noted that this report, and the research it is based on, all took place before the COVID-19 pandemic.

1.1. Policy context

At the time the research was commissioned, the government committed to end rough sleeping before the next Parliament. The government recognised that tackling homelessness required solutions that are targeted to the needs of those involved and that LGBT people who find themselves homeless may have a different experience of homelessness.

In April 2018, the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 came into force. It places duties on local housing authorities to take reasonable steps to try to prevent and relieve a person’s homelessness. These new duties apply irrespective of whether a person has ‘priority need’ or may be regarded as being ‘intentionally homeless’.

Most recently, the government pushed forward homelessness provisions in legislation by extending priority need to all eligible victims of domestic abuse who are homeless as a result of being a victim of domestic abuse in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The 2021 Act brings in a new definition of domestic abuse which housing authorities must follow to assess whether an applicant is homeless as a result of being a victim of domestic abuse.

In September 2022, the government released the End Rough Sleeping for Good strategy, which aimed to tackle homelessness via a locally led approach. The government announced over £1 billion of investment into the Homelessness Prevention Grant 2022 to 2025 which funds local authorities to work with landlords to prevent evictions and offer financial support for people to find a new home and move out of temporary accommodation.

The new Rough Sleeping Strategy, published in September 2022, set out that government had extended investment into coordinated local rough sleeping services to ensure tailored support aimed to meet individual needs, including through the £500 million Rough Sleeping Initiative 2022 to 2025 and the £10 million Night Shelter Transformation Fund to increase provision of quality single-room provision within the night shelter sector. This includes tailoring interventions to ensure that support meets the needs of LGBT people.

The government recently took its first steps in working with experts in the LGBT and homelessness sector, with Ministers leading a roundtable with partners to discuss LGBT homelessness and raise awareness with local authorities of the particular challenges LGBT people may experience when homeless. The government has promised to further these discussions to identify and share good practice to support local authorities in discharging their duties, including ensuring H-CLIC data on sexual orientation and gender identity is gathered effectively, and in their efforts to reduce the impact of LGBT homelessness.

Tackling homelessness and rough sleeping in all its forms is a key priority for this government and this report is a significant step in establishing an evidence base about LGBT homelessness on which policy decisions can be made.

1.2. Study aims

The aims of the study were to improve understanding of:

the experiences, attitudes and needs of LGBT homeless people compared with homeless non-LGBT people
how housing and support services are being delivered to LGBT people and what can be done to improve support

In doing so, it focused on 3 key areas:

identifying what is known about the scale of homelessness among LGBT people
the causes of homelessness for LGBT people
the quality of delivery and experiences of housing and support services

1.3. Overview of methods

A full description of the methods is provided in the Appendices.

The research comprised 3 components:

a rapid evidence review
interviews with LGBT homeless people
interviews with stakeholders

Critical evidence review

A search was conducted for evidence on LGBT homelessness from January 2000 to March 2019, using a range of tools, databases and networks (as outlined in Appendix 2). Key words relating to sexual orientation, gender identity, and homelessness were used in the search.

The initial search yielded 167 sources whose titles and abstracts were screened against inclusion criteria. The included sources were scored in a review matrix against the EPPI-Centre’s Weight of Evidence framework^{[footnote 2]} (Gough, 2007). Eighty-eight sources were included in the review following scoring. Studies given an overall medium-high ranking were synthesised to answer the review questions. Virtually all the evidence cited in this report has therefore been judged to pass a certain quality threshold and is considered reliable and robust. However, given the acknowledgement that the quality of evidence on LGBT research is generally low (Hudson-Sharpe and Metcalf, 2016)^{[footnote 3]} a small number of studies which scored ‘low’ on the quality dimensions of the framework^{[footnote 4]} were included in the report. Usually this was where the content of a source was highly relevant and so scored highly against this dimension of the framework and it concurred with other more robust sources. This, as well as notable limitations of all studies cited, is made clear throughout the report.

Generic evidence about homelessness – that is, that which is not focused on LGBT people – from January 2010 to March 2019 was included in the review for comparative purposes. This supplemented comparative studies identified through the search of LGBT homelessness evidence. Given time constraints, while the review of evidence about LGBT homelessness was designed to generate as detailed an understanding as possible, stricter criteria was applied to the search and review process for the more extensive generic homelessness literature. Priority was given to sources which met a high overall ranking (through methodological rigour and relevance). Where existing evidence reviews adequately covered a research question, the research team did not consider it necessary to search further or to review the original sources.

Qualitative interviews with LGBT homeless people

The study team conducted qualitative interviews with 39 LGBT people between March and June 2019, who were currently, or had recently experienced homelessness. Appendix 1 provides details of the interview sample. In summary:

participants aged from 18 to 61 years
11 participants identified as female, 5 of whom were transgender; 23 identified as male, 5 of whom were transgender; 4 identified as non-binary; and one as gender fluid
35 participants identified as a minority sexual orientation, 12 of whom also identified as a minority gender identity – this included 5 who identified as lesbian, 17 as gay, 8 as bisexual, with less than 5 individuals identifying as pansexual, queer, and trans^{[footnote 5]}
18 participants were White British and 21 were from a minority ethnic background (see Appendix 1 for further details)
all participants had been homeless within the past 5 years – 28 were currently homeless and a further 5 had been homeless in the past year

Participants were asked to choose a pseudonym for reporting purposes. Some did, others asked the study team to choose a name, and a few requested that their real name was used.

Qualitative interviews with stakeholders

A total of 20 professionals, across 18 organisations participated in the study through formal interviews (17) and informal consultation (3). Three were from the same organisation and were interviewed together. These professionals acted as ‘key sources’, sampled and interviewed because of their knowledge on specific, but often different issues of relevance to the study. As such, each added expert insight to particular issues arising from the review of evidence and interviews with LGBT homeless people. The scope and content of each interview was, therefore, different, depending on the source’s role and professional expertise. These data are drawn upon selectively through the report to add explanation, detail and nuance to the primary data generated from interviews with LGBT homeless people. Key sources – referred to as ‘stakeholders’ in the report – from the following types of organisations participated:

LGBT housing/homelessness organisations
LGBT support services, including those with a remit for particular groups such as young people and asylum seekers
mainstream homelessness organisations
domestic abuse charities
statutory services

Some organisations operate nationally (in 2 cases across Europe and internationally); others were local services. Staff in the following roles participated:

CEO / managers
front-line
commissioners
research
policy
service development

To protect the anonymity of participants, the specifics of their role or the organisational remit is not always provided although some indication is always given. There are relatively few LGBT housing and homelessness organisations, for example, and so referring to a participant as ‘CEO of LGBT homelessness charity’ would compromise the confidentiality offered to participants. Similarly some participants had unique roles within organisations that could identify them. The role of ‘manager’ therefore might refer to a CEO or to a team leader or the manager of a department. To avoid disclosure of participants’ personal information, some demographic information where categories have less than 5 individuals have been suppressed or made groups derived together (see Appendix 1).

1.4. A note on the research

The following issues should be borne in mind when reviewing and interpreting the findings presented in this report.

Methodology

This was a qualitative exploratory study and so where the findings from primary data are presented these are derived from analysis of the reported experiences, views and perceptions of participants, based on their life experiences and/or professional expertise and knowledge.

The use of qualitative methodology also means the study did not quantify the nature and scale of LGBT homelessness, nor map service provision; the evidence review did cover this.

Phase 1 of the study employed a ‘rapid’ rather than a ‘systematic’ methodology for the evidence review. It followed a thorough and rigorous process of searching, assessing and reviewing, but rapid evidence reviews allow for more subjective assessments of the utility of sources than systematic reviews.

Sample and data quality

Qualitative research is concerned with understanding certain issues. To do this it relies on people who have knowledge or personal experience of the issue being studied in order to understand things like meaning and process. Qualitative samples are therefore contextual. Their size is dictated by a range of issues, including the scope and nature of the research, the amount of rich data gained from each participant, study methods, and the time and resources available to carry out the research.

The sample of LGBT homeless people chosen for this study was carefully selected to ensure that the participants had direct experience of being LGBT and being homeless; along with experience of homeless accommodation, and in some cases first-hand experience of LGBT specific homeless accommodation. It was also designed to reflect diversity in relation to profile characteristics, such as age, ethnicity and location. The stakeholders interviewed were selected to talk authoritatively about homeless provision generally and homeless provision for LGBT people specifically. This robust purposive sampling approach provided the foundation to achieve quality data for this study.

Definitions

The term and acronym LGBT is used throughout the report but when specific studies are referred to from the evidence review, the sample terminology for that study is used. It is recognised that the term LGBT comprises a range of different sexualities and gender identities and so is being used in this report as a descriptor for diverse populations. It is also recognised that the acronym LGBT encompasses people who identify as a gender or sexual orientation other than lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Participants in this study, for example, identified as pansexual and non-binary. ‘LGBT’ is used in this report to refer to all minority gender identities and sexualities.

Participants were asked to self-define their ethnicity, their sexual orientation and their gender identity and these labels are used throughout the report. In most cases participants’ self-definitions were consistent with standard categories, albeit sometimes more detailed in the case of ethnicity (for example, White Australian rather than White Other). Where this was not the case the decision was made to respect participants’ choices by preserving these categories in the report. All ethnicities, sexualities and gender-identities attributed to respondents in the report are the choice of the participant.

1.5. Structure of the report

This report is structured around the key themes of interest set out above in Section 1.2, with thematic chapters as follows:

Chapter 2. What is the prevalence of homelessness among LGBT people? Drawing on the review of evidence this chapter presents what is known about the scale of LGBT homelessness.

Chapter 3. What are the causes of homelessness among LGBT people? Drawing mainly on the review of evidence and data from interviews with LGBT homeless people, this chapter considers the extent to which the causes and triggers of homelessness for LGBT people are distinct from those who do not identify as LGBT.

Chapter 4. What are LGBT homeless people’s experiences of housing and support services? Drawing on all datasets, this chapter offers insights into the types of homelessness services available to LGBT people and the extent to which these currently meet LGBT homeless people’s needs.

Chapter 5. What are LGBT homeless people’s strategies for dealing with and their responses to homelessness? This chapter explores the types of ‘informal’ accommodation LGBT people rely on in response to homelessness.

Chapter 6. What are LGBT homeless people’s housing and support preferences? This chapter explores how the needs of LGBT homeless people can be better met.

Each chapter begins with a critical summary of the evidence base. This sets out what is known about the theme in question and offers commentary on the nature and robustness of current evidence. The exception is Chapter 2 which is based solely on existing evidence. At the outset, each chapter also provides a summary of the key conclusions, responding to the question which frames each chapter and considering how gender identity and sexual orientation influence LGBT people’s homelessness experiences and outcomes

Question 3

2.  What is the prevalence of LGBT homelessness in England?

Accepted Answer

Summary

This research collated findings from research studies that measured the scale of homelessness among LGBT people, paying particular attention to whether LGBT people are at greater risk of homelessness than non-LGBT people.

At the time the research was being conducted there were no robust data measuring the number of LGBT people currently homeless in the UK, or comparing rates of homelessness between LGBT and non-LGBT people. In addition, most of the international evidence is focused on younger LGBT people.

However, evidence suggests that homelessness may be more prevalent among LGBT people: a relatively large body of international evidence (mainly in the US and Canada) shows a statistical relationship between being LGBT and homelessness.

Studies indicate that (particularly young) LGBT people are more likely to experience homelessness than their non-LGBT peers.

Studies also suggest that trans young people report the highest rates of homelessness among LGBT groups.

Mental health issues, domestic abuse in the parental home, and relatively young independent living emerged as common experiences for LGBT people, which are all known to be risk factors for homelessness.

2.1. To what extent is homelessness more prevalent among LGBT people than non-LGBT people?

At the time the research was being conducted there were no robust data measuring the number of LGBT people currently homeless in the UK. This section brings together what evidence there is on the prevalence of homelessness amongst LGBT people. It also collates the findings from a range of research studies that have attempted to measure the extent to which LGBT people are more likely than their non-LGBT counterparts to become homeless.

A relatively large body of international evidence from the US and, to a lesser extent, Canada shows a statistical relationship between LGBT identity and homelessness, particularly in relation to younger people who are the focus of the majority of studies. Studies frequently indicate that (young) LGBT people are more likely to experience homelessness than their heterosexual, non-transgender^{[footnote 6]} peers. This claim is based on a body of methodologically rigorous research that indicates that LGBT people:

are both disproportionately represented within homeless population groups (that is, more homeless people identify as LGBT than do people in the general population, indicating a greater likelihood of experiencing homelessness) and more likely than heterosexual non-transgender people to report experiencing homelessness within comparative studies
are more likely to report risk factors that are known to increase vulnerability to homelessness

The remainder of this chapter considers the evidence on each of these points that, taken together, indicates a greater prevalence of homelessness, or a greater risk of homelessness, amongst LGBT people compared to people who do not identify as LGBT.

Statistical relationship between LGBT identity and homelessness

Within US and Canadian literature, the proportion of (mainly young) homeless respondents identifying as LGBT ranges from 15% (Leslie and others, 2002) to 44% (Gattis, 2013), and it is estimated that LGBT youth comprise approximately 40% of the clientele served by 354 agencies from across the US^{[footnote 7]} (Durso and Gates, 2012). In terms of the existing comparative data, a US study of over 6,000 school students found that young LGB people had an odds of reporting homelessness that was between 4 and 13 times that of their heterosexual peers (Corliss and others 2011). Another large quantitative study of 1,839 high school students similarly found that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning (LGBTQ) respondents were more likely to report staying the night in a public place or with a stranger (experiences which increase risks for violence and victimisation) than young people who did not identify as LGBTQ (Rice and others, 2014). Identifying as LGBTQ in this survey was statistically significantly associated with any experience of homelessness in the past year. In another US study, sexual orientation was the only statistically significant correlate of different types of homelessness experiences (Rice and others, 2015).

It is important to take into account the fact that this body of empirical work almost exclusively focuses on the experiences of young people under 25, with only a few exceptions (for example, Kattari and Begun, 2017; Flentje and others, 2016). This may have the effect of inflating LGBT homelessness statistics because young people are more likely to identify as LGBT, experiment with their sexual orientation (Mercer and others, 2013, YouGov, 2015) and/ or be homeless (Watts and others, 2015). The dearth of research into homelessness among LGBT people during adulthood and longitudinal research that explores developing sexual orientation reflects a key gap in the international evidence base (Ecker, 2016; Ecker and others, 2019). The international evidence is also scant on the relative experiences of different sexual and gender minority sub-groups, such as trans people. This is for 2 key reasons. First, the scope of some studies is specific, often pre-defined population groups (for example, gay males only). Second, in many of the quantitative studies which compare heterosexual to LGBT young people, trans people are either removed from analyses (for example, Rice and others, 2015; Van Leeuwen and others, 2006) or their responses aggregated with those of LGB respondents because numbers are so small (for example, Forge and others, 2018; Gattis, 2013). The responses of transgender young people are only disaggregated in a small number of studies, including that of Rhoades and others (2018) and Gaetz and others (2016). These studies suggest that transgender young people report the highest rates of homelessness among LGBT groups.

Within the UK literature, there are very few national or large-scale and accurate measures of the number of LGBT people who are homeless. Those identified point to an over-representation of LGBT people within their homeless samples as well as a disproportionately high rate of homelessness within LGBT samples, although not as high as those identified within US studies. With regard to the proportion of LGBT people within homeless populations, in research conducted by the charity DePaul (McCoy, 2018), 16% of 712 young people living in temporary accommodation identified as LGBT. However, a headcount carried out by Porchlight in England in 2011, identified that double this number – 32% – of residents in their young persons’ services identified as LGBT, a considerable over-representation compared to the national average of 1.4% (Porchlight, 2015).^{[footnote 8]}^{[footnote 9]},

In terms of wider population samples, an online, self-selecting survey of over 5,000 LGBT people in Great Britain conducted in 2017 found that 18% had experienced homelessness at some point in their lives. For transgender respondents, this increased to one in 4 (25%). LGBT women were more likely to have experienced homelessness than men (20% and 15% respectively) (Bachman and Gooch, 2018a). A local study in Brighton and Hove found similar rates of homelessness, with 22% of the 819 LGBT respondents reporting experience of homelessness. For trans people the figure was 36% (Browne, 2007; Browne and others, 2007). However Brighton and Hove has the twelfth highest number of people sleeping rough across England on a single night between 1 October and 31 November 2020 (MHCLG, 2021). It might be expected, then, that rates of homelessness – both general and in the LGBT population – may be higher in the above studies than they would be generally across the UK. Furthermore, there are no ‘robust’ comparative surveys of the general UK population that demonstrate high levels of methodological rigour and so it is not known whether these studies indicate high, low or average rates of homelessness among LGBT people in England compared to people not identifying as LGBT.

Evidence is scant on the prevalence of homelessness amongst other disadvantaged groups such as ethnic minority people and people with disabilities, and it was beyond the remit of this study to report comparative rates of homelessness between homeless sub-groups. It is not currently clear, therefore, the extent to which other groups with protected characteristics are also overrepresented amongst the homelessness population and how this compares with LGBT people. This is an important area for further research.

The greater prevalence of homelessness risk factors amongst LGBT people

It is well-established that some groups, for example care leavers, are overrepresented in homeless populations, that mental ill health and domestic abuse are common triggers of homelessness, and that people with adverse childhood experiences^{[footnote 10]} are at higher risk of homelessness (see for example, Alma Economics, 2019; Fitzpatrick and others, 2013; Reeve and Batty, 2011; Seria-Walker, 2018; Watts and others 2015). A review of the evidence base suggests that some of these homelessness risk factors are common experiences for LGBT people (Albert Kennedy Trust, 2015; Browne, 2007; Porchlight, 2015), and international evidence suggests that they may be at greater risk (Kidd and others, 2017; Tyler, 2008), compared with non-LGBT people, of experiencing some of these risk factors. Evidence suggests they are:

More likely to report involvement with child protection services. In Gaetz and others’ (2016) study, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning and Two-Spirit (LGBTQ2S)^{[footnote 11]} youth were more likely to report involvement with child protection services, for their own protection, than straight youth (63% vs. 56%). Van Leeuwen and others (2006) reported on data obtained from 670 youth participants, 150 (22.4%) of whom identified as LGB, as part of a public health survey conducted in 6 US states by homeless youth providers. They found that more LGB youth (44%) than non-LGB youth (32%) reported ever being in the custody of social services. In Forge and others (2018), those with prior child welfare system-involvement comprised 43% of the full sample of 693 homeless and runaway youth (Atlanta Youth Count). Of these, 9% were transgender and 30% were LGBQ.
More likely to have experienced abuse as a child (Frederick and others, 2011). In Gaetz and others (2016), transgender youth and LGBTQ2S youth were much more likely to have experienced all types of abuse as a child. Likewise, in Forge and others’ (2018) study which drew on data from 295 young people experiencing homelessness who had previous child welfare system involvement, two-thirds of young people who were LGBTQ, compared to over one half of youth who were heterosexual and non-trangender, reported experiencing child abuse. In a (non-comparative) UK study with a sample of 44 LGBT homeless young people aged 16 to 25, Cull and others (2006) found that 26% of the homeless young people in the study had been physically abused as children and 30% had been sexually abused or sexually assaulted.
More likely to have experienced a disrupted education as a result of discrimination or bullying, which may also be a factor contributing to homelessness amongst LGBT people, and higher than average numbers of LGBT homeless young people have left school early (Bidell, 2014; Forge and others, 2018). In one study, 67% of homeless young people reported they had been bullied at school and this appeared to be linked to truanting and exclusion (Cull and others, 2006). In Gaetz and others (2016), while 46% of respondents had ‘often’ been bullied at school, this rises to 63% of LGBTQ2S homeless youth.
More likely to experience mental ill health. High levels of mental ill-health amongst homeless people have been recorded by a range of different UK studies (Dumoulin and others, 2016; Homeless Link, 2018; Rees, 2009; Reeve and Batty, 2011). A systematic review of academic research from Western Europe and North America found a higher prevalence of mental health issues amongst homeless people than within the general population (Fazel and others, 2008). Furthermore, UK evidence finds higher than average rates of mental ill health amongst LGBT people. A recent Stonewall survey (Bachman and Gooch, 2018b) found that 52% of LGBT respondents^{[footnote 12]} had experienced depression in the past year (two-thirds of transgender respondents), 61% had experienced anxiety (71% of transgender respondents) and 12% of transgender respondents had attempted to take their own life (2% of LGB people who were not transgender). Rates of self-harm were also high, particularly amongst younger people (over half of whom reported self-harming). Bachman and Gooch (2018b) report that these rates are higher than national comparative statistics.^{[footnote 13]} High rates of mental ill health among young people are found to be linked to HBT bullying, LGBT-hostile family environments, navigating heterosexual and non-transgender norms as well as factors unrelated to sexual orientation or gender identity (McDermott et al, 2016). A systematic review of UK evidence on the nature of inequality and relative disadvantage experienced by LGBT people in the UK (Hudson-Sharp and Metcalf, 2016) found robust evidence of bullying being a cause of emotional distress experienced by LGB young people. The more extensive international surveys support the UK evidence, consistently finding far higher rates of mental ill health, including suicidality, among LGBT people compared to those not identifying as LGBT.^{[footnote 14]} In many instances the differences are stark. For example, in Frederick and others’ (2011) study comparing heterosexual and sexual minority street-involved youth in Toronto, 60% of the 25 sexual minority young women (aged 16 to 21) they interviewed perceived themselves as having a mental illness compared to 25% of the 48 heterosexual females in the sample. One large-scale Canadian survey^{[footnote 15]} (Kidd and others, 2017) provides compelling data showing that LGBTQ2S homeless youth reported a 70% suicide attempt rate as compared with 39% for straight and non-transgender participants.

2.2 Conclusion

At the time the study was conducted there were no national statistics in England to provide evidence of the relative scale of homelessness among LGBT people and only 2 published sources, both journal articles, reporting findings from international evidence reviews about LGBT homelessness (Ecker, 2016; Ecker and others, 2019). These reviews drew on a relatively small number of sources and highlighted LGBT homelessness as a significant evidence gap.

By focusing attention specifically on LGBT people, and how their experiences may differ from people not identifying as LGBT, the rapid review of homelessness evidence conducted for Phase 1 of this study was able to confidently identify all robust evidence that offer any insights into the prevalence of homelessness among LGBT people. The evidence base is far from conclusive or comprehensive; transgender people are often absent from or comprise a very small proportion of study samples; the most robust evidence is international and so transferability of findings to a UK context is questionable; and most is focused on younger people. Therefore, robust quantitative UK evidence, and evidence about LGBT people over the age of 25, remain key evidence gaps. Nevertheless, by drawing down, assessing and reviewing all available robust evidence, some indicative conclusions can be drawn suggesting that LGBT people may be more at risk of homelessness than people who do not identify as LGBT.

Question 4

3.  What are the causes of homelessness amongst LGBT people?

Accepted Answer

Summary

Evidence from this research and other studies suggests that LGBT people become homeless for the same reasons as non-LGBT people: their relationships with parents or partners break down; they have to escape familial or partner abuse; they are given notice to vacate by landlords; and/or they are unable to sustain tenancies due to mental ill-health or dependencies.

However, exploring participants’ experiences in more detail reveals that issues related to sexual orientation or gender identity often underpin these triggers of homelessness, for example experiencing homophobic, biphobic or transphobic discrimination, harassment or abuse.

Interview participants’ said the circumstances that resulted in them becoming homeless included: familial abuse or conflict (the most common cause); given notice to end a tenancy or tied accommodation; seeking asylum/not having access to public funds; drug dependency resulting in rent arrears and eviction; escaping domestic abuse not in the parental home; a mental health crisis resulting in loss of accommodation; relationship breakdown; leaving care; no longer able to afford accommodation due to job loss.

The research indicates that LGBT people face barriers to resolving the housing problems they encounter that are specifically related to their sexual orientation or gender identity. This, in turn, increases their risk of homelessness. For example, participants often experienced rejection and abuse from their families and communities which reduced the safety net available to them when facing homelessness.

Family conflict and abuse during young adulthood was the main trigger of homelessness amongst younger LGBT homeless people, for instance participants were told to leave the family home when they came out, or participants left the family home of their own accord to escape actual, threatened, or feared homophobic, biphobic and transphobic violence.

Safety was of paramount importance to the LGBT homeless people interviewed, and participants reported feeling unsafe in certain locations or types of accommodation that were perceived as unwelcoming or hostile to LGBT people.

3.1. What is known about the causes of homelessness amongst LGBT people? A critical summary of the evidence base

The evidence review brought together research findings from 41 sources of literature on the causes of homelessness amongst LGBT people and how these compare to those of people without a minority sexual or gender identity. Over half (24) of these sources were North American studies – 12 studies were from the UK, 2 were Canadian and one was from Australia. Two journal articles (Ecker, 2016; Ecker et al, 2019) included were international evidence reviews. This body of work is dominated by evidence derived from quantitative data (n=20) that identify patterns and relationships between LGBT identities and different outcome variables. A smaller proportion of the evidence identified (13) is qualitative in nature and generally designed to offer a greater depth of understanding about how and why being LGBT is linked to homelessness. All sources were judged to be ‘robust’.^{[footnote 16]}

The majority of the 41 studies reviewed (33) focus on the experiences of ‘youth’, ‘adolescents’ or ‘young adults’, generally those above 12 and below 25 years of age. As such, the evidence base on the causes of homelessness amongst LGBT people is mainly an evidence base on the causes of homelessness amongst LGBT young people. This is acknowledged by Ecker and others (2019) in their review of the literature, who conclude that very few studies explore the causes of homelessness for LGBT adults or the extent to which LGBT youth homelessness leads to adult homelessness. Although not entirely absent from the literature, little attention has also been given to the role of ethnicity and racism within LGBT people’s homelessness journeys. In part due to small LGBT sample sizes, there have also been few attempts to differentiate the experiences of sub-populations of LGBT people in homelessness research. This means that, often, transgender people are either removed from analyses or their responses aggregated with those of LGB participants. Only 4 studies (all from the US) in the review focused solely on the particular experience of transgender people (Kattari and Begun, 2017; Mountz and others, 2018; Shelton and Bond, 2017; Yu MD, 2010).

Comparative statistics on the causes of homelessness

Within the general homelessness literature, there have been considerable attempts over time to provide a rounded explanation for homelessness. Drawing on and developing this body of scholarship, recent work by Bramley and Fitzpatrick (2018) concludes that a combination of individual, interpersonal and structural factors all play a role in homelessness, although a comprehensive review assessing evidence on the bi-directional links between homelessness and poverty found ‘consistently and compellingly’ that experience of poverty is a common denominator shared by the vast majority of homeless people in the UK and elsewhere (Johnsen and Watts, 2014).

Notwithstanding evidence about the influence of structural factors such as poverty on homelessness, there is also strong evidence that certain life histories place particular groups at higher risk of homelessness than others, including those with an experience of the care system, young people who have offended, people with childhood experiences of abuse and/or neglect, poor educational experiences and mental health problems (Watts and others in Alma Economics, 2019). Literature focused on youth homelessness has consistently found that relationship breakdown between young people and their family to be a leading cause of homelessness for this group (Homeless Link in Alma Economics, 2019). Adding nuance to this broad conclusion, it is suggested that the link between young age and homelessness is more accurately explained by the disproportionate experience of poverty amongst young people, rather than their youth, per se (Watts and others, 2015).

In many respects, the reasons LGBT (young) people become homeless are found to be similar to those for all homeless people. In their analysis of the life histories of 19 homeless LGB young people, for example, Prendergast and others (2001) identify a range of experiences, factors and behaviours, which together contributed towards the complex pathways that led to homelessness. Their participants’ stories shared common themes of disadvantage and exclusion that echoed the wider literature on homelessness. However, while LGBT people’s homelessness pathways may appear similar to people who do not identify as LGBT, there are clear ways in which LGBT people’s experiences differ and their gender or sexual identity interacts in complex ways with their homelessness. Prendergast and others (2001) emphasise that when explaining the influence of sexual orientation on the causes (and experiences) of homelessness, it is necessary to understand sexual orientation as it is embedded in the material circumstances and lived experience of people’s everyday lives.

It is useful that 14 of the studies reviewed about causes of LGBT homelessness comprised comparative quantitative analysis of LGBT and heterosexual groups. Nearly all of these (12) were from the US or Canada, rather than the UK, and so the transferability of the results must be treated with caution but they were all considered to be high-quality, often employing standardised scales and measures. Two fairly recent studies were identified from the UK but these were considered to not be of comparable quality (McCoy, 2018; Stonewall, 2016). Robust quantitative data on the causes of LGBT homelessness within a UK context is therefore lacking. Bearing these caveats in mind, these quantitative studies identified common causes of homelessness amongst LGBT people relative to non-LGBT people.

Statistical patterns and relationships were identified which suggest that LGBT (usually but not exclusively young) people are:

More likely to experience a loss of stable accommodation (Corliss and others, 2011; McCoy, 2018). Using data from a representative sample of public school students in grades 9 through 12 (n=6317), Corliss and others (2011) found that minority sexual adolescents are more likely to leave home than young people who did not identify as LGBT. Evidence from Cochran and others’ (2002) study, in which a sample of 84 LGBT adolescents were matched with 84 heterosexual adolescents, suggests that LGBT young people have left home more often. In Moon and others’ (2000) research with 334 homeless/runaway young people (aged 12 to 21) using health services, LGB people entered homelessness at an earlier age. A similar finding emerged from Gaetz and others’ (2016) survey of 1103 homeless young people across Canada in which LGBTQ2S youth (who made up 30% of the sample) were more likely (46.7%) than heterosexual youth (37.1%) to report becoming homeless before turning 16.
More likely to become homeless because of parental conflict. Reporting on the experiences of 295 homeless young people who had previous child welfare system involvement, amongst the 114 young people who identified as LGBTQ, Forge and others, (2018) found that 33% were told to leave their homes compared to 19.7% who were heterosexual and non-transgender. In Whitbeck and others’ (2004) study involving 428 homeless and runaway young people, gay adolescent males were 5 times more likely than heterosexual males to have left home because of a conflict regarding sexual orientation.
More likely to leave home as a result of physical abuse or violence (Cochran and others, 2002; McCoy, 2018). In a quantitative survey of 712 young people who were receiving help from homelessness organisations operating in the UK (McCoy, 2018), LGBT young people were more likely than non-LGBT young people to say they had left stable accommodation: to escape emotional or mental abuse (36% compared with 17%); to escape violent abuse (21% compared with 12%), or because of their own mental health issues (21% compared with 8%).

The role of family conflict in the causes of homelessness for LGBT people

An overriding position in the comparative and non-comparative literature, both quantitative and qualitative, is that LGBT homelessness occurs through family conflict and breakdown during young adulthood, particularly when people ‘come out’ to their families (Durso and Gates, 2012; Rhoades and others, 2018; Robinson, 2018; Shelton and Bond, 2017; Whitbeck and others, 2004; Yu MD, 2010). In addition to the comparative data cited above, a study by Shelton and others (2018a) found that 70% of 442 LGBTQ survey respondents (who were between the ages of 18 to 26) reported being ejected from/asked to leave their family home by their parents.

Likewise, amongst the 52 people who self-identified as LGB in a study of 268 homeless youth (aged 14 to 22), arguments with parents was the most frequently cited reason for leaving home (51%) along with verbal abuse (34%) (Gangamma and others, 2008). Rhoades and others’ (2018) national (US) study of 542 young users of an LGBT crisis service similarly found that disclosing LGBT identity to parents, and having experienced parental rejection because of LGBT identity were associated with increased likelihood of having experienced homelessness. In a UK study too (Albert Kennedy Trust, 2015), the most common causes of homelessness amongst LGBT young people, as reported by housing providers, were parental rejection, familial physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, and familial aggression and violence. In the same study, 77% of young people surveyed believed their sexual/gender identity to be a causal factor in their rejection from home. Cull and others’ (2006) study investigating the needs and experiences of LGBT homeless youth in Brighton and Hove (UK) presented a more nuanced picture. They found that some young people were evicted from the family home, or chose to leave, because their parents were intolerant of the young person’s sexual identity; others chose to leave because they presumed their parents would have a negative reaction if they did know about the young person’s sexual identity.

Some young people chose to leave home because they felt isolated in the place where they lived and wanted to live in a place where LGBT lives were more visible.

Shelton and others (2018a) – one of the few studies on this issue that disaggregates transgender participants – examined the experiences of transgender youth compared to the full LGBTQ sample in their study and found that, in comparison, transgender youth reported higher frequencies of running away or being ejected from their family home, foster home or relatives’ home.

Notwithstanding the caveat that the most robust evidence on the causes of homelessness is international, mainly from the US, it is quite conclusive that family conflict and abuse plays a significant causal role in LGB homelessness, and probably in homelessness amongst transgender people too although the evidence is much scarcer on this group. However, because many studies are focused on younger people it must be noted that greater prominence may be given to the role of family conflict than might otherwise be the case, given that family conflict and abuse may be a more common cause of homelessness amongst younger people generally.

The role of sexual orientation and gender identity in homelessness journeys: a more nuanced picture

There is a small but significant body of mainly qualitative work from the UK and North America that directly challenges taken-for-granted assumptions about the relationship between sexual identify and homelessness (Matthews and others, 2018; Prendergast and others, 2001; Tunåker, 2015), arguing that sexual or gender identity is not necessarily the driving force in people’s life histories (Prendergast and others, 2001). Matthews and Poyner (2017), for example, found evidence of LGBT people being made homeless due to familial rejection, but this was not a common experience amongst their 20 respondents and they concluded that ‘sexual or gender identity is often not the root cause of someone’s homelessness’ (2017, p.1). Others within this tradition emphasise that sexual or gender identity is rarely a single, determining causal factor, and that becoming homeless is not always a direct consequence of sexual orientation (Ecker, 2016; Ecker and others, 2019; Prendergast and others, 2001; Tunåker, 2015; World Habitat, 2018). This echoes the general homelessness literature which points to the interaction between structural and individual factors in causing homelessness, rather than one single determinant (Bramley and Fitzpatrick, 2018; Johnsen and Watts, 2014)

A small body of robust qualitative evidence offering a more nuanced analysis of the role of family conflict in LGBT people’s pathways to homelessness makes a similar point. These studies demonstrate that although sexual or gender identity may often play a role in homelessness, the influence of sexual and gender identity on homelessness can take different forms beyond familial rejection after ‘coming out’ (Castellanos, 2016; Cull and others, 2006; Dunne and others, 2002; O’Connor and Molloy, 2001; Prendergast and others, 2001; Tunåker, 2015). An ethnographic study with 14 gay and bisexual young Latino men in New York by Castellanos (2016), for example, found that GB youth homelessness was not merely the result of conflict over sexual orientation for most. Although sexual orientation played a role in exacerbating family conflict and creating housing instability, over half had left home before disclosure. This is one of the few sources that focuses specifically on minority ethnic LGBT, or in this case GB, homeless people. In their study, Prendergast and others (2001) suggest that over time sexual orientation played a significant role in their participants’ homelessness journey but that this did vary across the sample.

They grouped their sample into the following 4 categories to illustrate this point:

homeless young people who happened to be gay
those for whom homelessness brought opportunities to challenge an assumed heterosexual identity
those for whom being gay had greatly influenced their homeless status; and
those who were homeless because they were gay

Related to this, a small body of literature challenges the assumption that LGBT homeless people are ‘victims’ because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Rather than being seen as a negative correlate of homelessness, sexual and gender identity is instead recognised as a positive driving force in people’s homeless journeys. Prendergast and others (2001) identified how ‘difference’ in the guise of sexual identity can enable new forms of inclusion to emerge and bring advantages such as freedom to explore sexual orientation, entry into the gay ‘scene’, and access to support. In their research, Matthews and others (2018) also emphasise the agency expressed by their participants when they described their move to homelessness. In a variety of extremely difficult situations it was a choice which allowed another part of their identity – their sexual orientation or gender identity – to flourish. Bidell (2014) too suggests that dropping out of school and leaving home may be adaptive ways to cope with negative environments and help lessen psychological distress.

3.2. The causes of homelessness amongst LGBT homeless participants: Overview

The LGBT homeless participants interviewed for this study were asked about the circumstances resulting in them becoming homeless for the first time. Interview participants’ responses were then categorised into one of the following reasons:

to escape domestic abuse or familial conflict in the parental home
to escape domestic abuse not in the parental home
given notice to end a private rented tenancy or the end of a job/course with tied accommodation
seeking asylum/not having access to public funds
drug dependency resulting in rent arrears and eviction
a mental health crisis resulting in loss of accommodation for example through tenancy abandonment or loss of housing while in psychiatric care
relationship breakdown
other reasons including leaving care and no longer able to afford accommodation due to job loss

Participants had first become homeless between the ages of 16 and 59, with just over one quarter of the sample having first become homeless in their teens and the same proportion in their 20s, just under a quarter in their 30s and the same proportion in their 40s, and one participant having first become homeless in their 50s.

Familial conflict or abuse was the most common cause of participants’ homelessness, providing the trigger for homelessness for over one third of participants. All other causes of homelessness applied to a much smaller number of between 2 and 5 participants.

The causes of homelessness amongst participants did not differ notably by sexual orientation or gender minority sub-group except that it was only -Transgender gay men in the sample whose homelessness had been triggered by drug dependency. The number of participants to whom this applied to was, however, very small.

However, some differences according to age were evident, partly reflecting the diverse ages represented in the sample. Inclusion of participants of different ages was a conscious sampling decision, in an effort to respond to an identified weakness with the evidence base, in which there is a significant over-representation of younger LGBT participants. Further analysis of the causes of homelessness by sub-group revealed that the majority of participants who had become homeless due to family conflict or abuse were under the age of 22. This was true of all but 3 of these participants, who were in their late 20s and mid-30s when they became homeless and were all gay, non-transgender men from families opposed to homosexuality for religious reasons.

The small number of participants who became homeless escaping violence from partners, because their tenancy was terminated, or because they had no recourse to public funds were older. The youngest of these became homeless at 34 after his asylum application was refused and the oldest at 59 when she was given notice to quit her tenancy. All those who became homeless escaping domestic abuse (not in the parental home) or because their tenancy was terminated were in their 40s and 50s. The age profile of those who became homeless due to drug addiction and subsequent eviction for non-payment of rent or anti-social behaviour, or due to mental health issues was more mixed. The numbers of participants who became homeless for these reasons are small and so no implications can be drawn from this.

The findings from this study do, however, support the wider evidence base that family conflict and abuse is a common cause of homelessness amongst LGBT people and that it is particularly common amongst younger LGBT homeless people.

For many participants, underlying these ‘causes’ of homelessness were the difficulties they faced accessing accommodation when their current housing situation broke down. In other words, wider aspects of exclusion and disadvantage – poverty and discrimination – combined with their personal circumstances, resulted in homelessness. This echoes the findings of the generic homelessness literature (see above) which emphasises poverty as a key underlying cause of homelessness (Johnsen and Watts, 2014; Prendergast and others, 2001) but draws attention to the way structural causes intersect with individual experiences such as mental ill health, drug use, and familial abuse to cause homelessness. The causes of homelessness in the sample appear, then, similar to those identified in any study of homelessness irrespective of sexual orientation or gender identity. However, and as is also found in the evidence base on LGBT homelessness, close analysis of participants’ pathways to homelessness reveals ways in which their experiences differ, and their homelessness is often intrinsically linked to their gender identity or sexual orientation.

The next section discusses in more detail those causes of homelessness most clearly related to participants’ sexual orientation or gender identity. In doing so it exposes the unique experiences of LGBT homeless people and the way in which their homelessness journeys differ from people who do not identify as LGBT.

3.3. The role of sexual orientation and gender identity in the causes of homelessness amongst LGBT participants

Analysis of participants’ histories revealed that sexual orientation and gender identity were commonly associated with participants’ pathways into homelessness in ways that would not be the case for non-LGBT identifying people. For example, and as discussed further below:

the familial abuse many participants suffered that triggered their homelessness was usually homophobic, biphobic or transphobic
participants who had become homeless when their relationship ended had usually separated from partners when they came out
a small number strongly suspected that they were the victims of discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity when private landlords gave them notice to quit a tenancy, although landlords had not been explicit about this
some of the participants seeking asylum, on the grounds of risks in their country of origin because of their sexual orientation, were unable to afford housing because their immigration status meant they were unable to work and become self-sufficient
those who lost their accommodation because of drug dependency had usually first taken drugs regularly as part of Chemsex, which is sub-culture usually understood to only involve men who have sex with men

There was also evidence that LGBT people face barriers to resolving an impending housing crisis, thereby increasing their risk of homelessness at such times, specifically because of issues related to their sexual orientation or gender identity. For example, the rejection some participants had experienced from family because of their sexual orientation or gender identity limited the support networks and resources they could draw on to secure housing when a tenancy or relationship ended.

There were only a small number of examples in the sample where participants’ sexual orientation or gender identity appeared to be unrelated to becoming homeless. This included a small number of participants whose homelessness was triggered by a mental health crisis and participants escaping violence from partners. In these cases, participants did not report, and analysis of their histories did not suggest a link between these causes and their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Homophobic, biphobic and transphobic parental conflict and abuse

Drawing on participant’s accounts of becoming homeless due to familial conflict or abuse, in nearly all cases the rejection, abuse or conflict experienced was homophobic, biphobic or transphobic, providing a point of contrast with non-LGBT identifying homeless people. When explaining the circumstances leading to their first episode of homelessness, only 2 participants described the breakdown of their relationship with parents or carers in terms that were unrelated to their sexual orientation or gender identity. One young lesbian, for example, explained that her foster carers had asked her to leave because of her increasingly problematic behaviour. Participants’ gender identity or sexual orientation was also not always the only point of conflict or source of abuse but it was usually a key factor. A few participants reported long-standing strained relationships with parents, or ‘dysfunctional’ families, where coming out had exacerbated tensions not specifically related to participants’ sexual orientation or gender identity.

This supports the overriding position in the evidence base, as reported above, that family conflict and abuse during young adulthood is the main trigger of homelessness amongst younger LGBT homeless people.

There were 4 ways in which participants left their family home to a situation of homelessness following conflict or abuse over their sexual orientation or gender identity. First were those participants who were told to leave the family home when they came out to their parents. For example:

“They threw me out. I had to leave, then and there, in the clothes I was wearing. It was midnight.” – Kiki, bisexual, transgender woman, 22, Asian British

“My mum kicked me out, I told her I was trans and she kicked me out and said it’s a phase and stuff like that and said that she don’t want a tranny living in her house.” – Sarah, lesbian, transgender woman, 19, White British

As indicated in the quotes above, these participants’ transition to homelessness was usually sudden. Second were those participants who left the family home of their own accord to escape actual, threatened, or feared homophobic or transphobic violence. They had experienced physical violence from family members or had been threatened with violence. For example:

“It was me sort of staying out and not being able to come back home because I knew it wouldn’t be safe, I wouldn’t feel safe basically.” – Josh, gay, non-transgender man, 22, Black British

“I came from a South Asian family and also a Muslim family and I’m a gay man. My family were sort of pressurising me and forcing me to get married [to a woman] and there was elements of domestic violence as well, usually bullying, harassment, all sorts of different things.” – Naheem, gay, non-transgender man, 33, Asian British

Third were those participants who left the family home of their own accord to escape extreme hostility or coercive control. One young gay gender fluid participant, for example, described the ‘derogatory terminologies used against me’ by their parents and being told by their father and step-mother that ‘I want no **ing queers in my house’. Another participant, below, describes being ‘screamed at’. He reported finding the situation at home so hostile that he attempted suicide.

“When I was 18 I came out as trans. My parents didn’t take it very well. Partly I didn’t explain it very well but partly they were just very hostile towards any discussion about it and some of the big flash points were using men’s toilets and they were like ‘oh, you’re going to get raped’ or something and I remember my mum screaming at me that I’d always be a girl and there was nothing I could do to change that.” – Luke, bisexual, transgender man, 22, White British

Fourth were those participants who left the family home of their own accord to escape expectations of hiding their sexual orientation or gender identity. Some participants initially received acknowledgement of their sexual orientation or gender identity but it quickly became clear that being out would not be tolerated. Participants’ sexual orientation or gender identity was treated as a ‘family secret’, mentioned no further, or not accommodated, for example through incorrect use of names and pronouns or not accepting same-sex partners. One participant described their mother’s apparent acceptance as a ‘pretence’ that did not translate into practice, and eventually forced them to leave the family home. Another described how his sexual orientation had been acknowledged, but then ignored, leaving him unable to express his sexual orientation as he wanted.

“It’s [my homelessness] probably sexuality-related and gender-related. She [mum] has difficulties with that kind of stuff. She pretended to accept it but didn’t really get it, and didn’t really accommodate it and we’d argue all the time.” – Luca, pansexual, non-binary, 22, Mixed White/Black Caribbean

“My parents in Ireland found out I was gay. I come from a very difficult Catholic family and left quite quickly…I could have stayed there, and I was very unhappy with all the second guessing, that wasn’t going to go very well in the end, so I just thought now it’s [my sexual orientation] confirmed I just want to go and do my own thing and be myself. The confirmation really was the problem. They knew then [that I was gay] …but then they don’t want to know and you’re like, ‘what do I do now’?’” – Brendan, gay, non-transgender man, 39, White Irish

An important point raised by the quote directly above is that some participants reported being at risk of domestic abuse violence because of their family’s religious beliefs which were very hostile to LGBT people. Several participants – 2 transgender participants and one gay, non-transgender man – reported fearing for their lives, as the following quote illustrates:

“I can’t really go to my family and go ‘hey, I’m trans’ and then drink tea and eat croissants or something, you don’t do it, if I told them I’m trans I’m probably going to get killed, I can’t tell you what could have happened to me. So I was really scared, fearful for my life.” – Xade, heterosexual, transgender man, 28, Pakistani Iranian

Relationship breakdown triggered by coming out

A few participants living with partners and family members other than parents became homeless when those relationships broke down.

Only a very small number of participants in this study became homeless because of a romantic relationship breakdown (excluding the 2 participants who became homeless escaping domestic abuse from a partner) but in one of these cases the relationship ended when the participant came out as transgender. She explained:

“I started the process of transitioning and it was clear our relationship wasn’t going to work because I can’t suddenly ask her to be bisexual if she’s not. So we’d arranged for me to leave in late January but it just got really upsetting for her so she kind of kicked me out in December time.” – Topaz, lesbian, transgender woman, 30, White British

Roger’s relationship with his adult son, with whom he lived, also broke down, triggering homelessness, when he came out as bisexual:

“I’d got my own place and I’ve got my son and he found out I was bisexual and he’s like took it really bad against me, he don’t like it, calling me names, I couldn’t take the violence so I just went on the streets and that’s how it [my homelessness] started.” – Roger, bisexual, non-transgender man, 47, White British

Having no recourse to public funds: seeking asylum on the grounds of sexual orientation

Five of the sample had sought asylum, had an asylum claim rejected, or overstayed their visa. They had no recourse to public funds^{[footnote 17]} or right to work, participants felt that this was a factor in their homelessness.^{[footnote 18]} Homelessness is a risk for some who have no recourse to public funds; however, 4 of the 5 participants had sought asylum in the UK because their sexual orientation placed them in danger in their country of origin. For these participants, a relationship between their sexual orientation or gender identity can be traced, albeit not directly. It was having to flee persecution due to their sexual orientation and gender identity that placed them at risk of homelessness. There was also evidence of participants refusing, or leaving shared accommodation provided for them, because they feared being unsafe as an LGBT person amongst others of a particular religion. For example, they believed that the religious and cultural backgrounds of other residents may make them hostile to LGBT people. This is discussed further in Chapter 4.

Drug dependency and Chemsex

In the evidence base, drug dependency is commonly identified as an indirect cause of homelessness (Alma Economics, 2019; Fitzpatrick and others, 2013; Reeve and Batty, 2011; Seria-Walker, 2018). As was found in this study, people who develop drug (and alcohol) dependencies may stop prioritising rent payments, accrue rent arrears and be evicted; become unreliable at work, lose their jobs and can no longer afford their rent; or their relationships break down.

In this study, however, some participants associated drug dependency with their sexual orientation or gender identity, marking their experiences as distinct from non-LGBT homeless people:

“I became homeless about 15 years ago. I had trouble round drink and drugs, partly through trying to understand who I was…I was in denial [about my sexual orientation] for many years. Where I grew up, the people I grew up around, being gay wasn’t a cool thing.” – Eric, gay, non-transgender man, 31, White Irish

Several participants whose homelessness had been caused by drug use had developed dependencies when they became involved in the Chemsex scene. Chemsex refers to the use of particular drugs, specifically for sex, by men who have sex with men (Stuart, 2019). As such, it is usually understood as a subculture involving only gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men. The accounts of 2 participants make clear links between their sexual orientation and involvement in Chemsex, and between involvement in Chemsex and homelessness:

“I was working at the time, getting off my face a bit too much… which I managed to mix to a certain point, and then I was arriving at work always late, not extremely fresh and the worst thing happened and I lost my job…..Within this gay community you’ve got this community of partying and the whole Chemsex thing which is like sex parties and through that, if I didn’t fall into it certainly the whole homelessness thing wouldn’t have happened.” – Joseph, gay, non-transgender man, 33, White European

“I don’t think if I would have been straight I would have got involved in the methamphetamine and GBL scene, the Chemsex scene, definitely not, I think that’s specific to being an LGBT person, to being a gay man.” – Tom, gay, non-transgender man, 40, White European

However, participants’ drug use was more complicated than being part of LGBT ‘culture’. One participant, for example, saw it as connected to mental health issues and other adverse life experiences (HIV diagnosis and low self-esteem). He also felt a profound sense of loneliness and isolation which he reported to be both a trigger and a consequence of involvement in Chemsex.

Ending a tenancy: perceived homophobic, biphobic or transphobic discrimination

Some participants became homeless when their landlord served notice on their tenancy. A few were given notice for what seemed to be valid reasons, such as the landlady selling the property, but others suspected the reason was discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity (which would be illegal). A few participants who became visible as LGBT people by coming out or transitioning while living in their rented properties were served notice shortly after and they believed this had prompted their landlord to serve notice:

“People that were from the LGBT community were sometimes coming round, and of course my landlord did see them… and he commented to me that ‘your new friends, they’re a bit weird, I think they’re not good company’… the way he talked to me he quite clearly was thinking ‘you’ve fallen into the wrong company and that I used to like you but I don’t like you anymore’.” – Angelina, bisexual, non-transgender woman, 46, White European

“When I came out [as trans] I got evicted from this house.” – Elizabeth, trans female, sexual orientation unknown, 61, White British

Another participant was dismissed from his job, losing his tied accommodation, after he became romantically involved with his employer’s son. Like the participants quoted above he did not know for sure that his employer’s actions were rooted in homophobia but he strongly suspected this to be the case. Prior, he reported having an excellent work record and a good relationship with his employer. He explained what happened:

“Me and [my employer’s] son had a bit of a flirty relationship…we were just fooling around a bit, nothing too extreme, [but] his dad caught us and took it very badly and put it down to I was a pervert [for being gay], I was the one trying to corrupt his son… So I got up the next day to be told ‘you’ve lost your job with immediate effect and I want you to move out’.” – Timothy, gay, non-transgender male, 35, White British

Barriers encountered by LGBT people attempting to resolve homelessness

Homelessness does not occur only because of the events that trigger the end of stable accommodation – that is, the ‘causes’ of homelessness discussed so far in this chapter – but because people are unable to find alternative secure accommodation when this happens. Households facing constraints on securing alternative accommodation will, therefore, be at greater risk of homelessness when faced with losing their existing housing, and their efforts to resolve homelessness will be hindered to a greater extent than those not facing the same constraints. An obvious illustration of this point is that people with very low incomes will be at far greater risk of homelessness if they are given notice on a tenancy than people on higher incomes.

Participants in this study recounted in some detail the circumstances that led to their homelessness and their efforts to resolve their homelessness. Analysis of their accounts revealed numerous ways in which their options were restricted to a greater extent than for non-LGBT identifying people, thereby increasing their risk of homelessness and hindering efforts to escape homelessness. These were: suspected homophobic, biphobic and transphobic discrimination from landlords and employers; the loss of supportive networks; and safety concerns limiting where LGBT participants felt able to live.

Some participants had tried, or were trying to find work so they could afford a private rented tenancy and avoid or escape homelessness. In the sample it was only transgender participants who had tried to find work to whom this applied. They reported suspected discrimination by employers that prevented them from securing the paid employment they needed to be able to afford a tenancy. For example:

“That’s why I haven’t got a job cos they judge me…like I go in and they’re all judgemental but they can’t say it obviously, but you can see it.” – Katie, heterosexual, transgender woman, 26, White British

“I’d never failed a sales interview up to that point, I had a fantastic record, I’d worked with some amazing companies, I had fantastic references and it never really took much more than me turning up for me to get a job. But I think I was quite naïve as to how much the way I presented played into that because I was relatively boring and I looked very much the part in a suit and when that went away I just looked silly, I found it impossible to get work.” – Topaz, lesbian, transgender woman, 30, White British

Others, particularly transgender participants, suspected discrimination by landlords when they attempted to secure alternative private rented accommodation to avoid homelessness:

“I was looking at places on the outskirts of [town], that’s when the rainbow acceptance fades a bit so in [area], representing a bit masculine, or androgynous is a bit….it felt like cos of the way I presented, some places on the outskirts of [town] were less keen on me.” – Robin, non-binary, bisexual, 24, White British

As reported above, participants often experienced rejection and abuse from their families and communities. This reduced the safety net available to LGBT participants when they faced homelessness. For example, some did not have the option of returning to the parental home, or staying temporarily with a friend rent free, while they saved for or organised settled independent housing. One gay, non-transgender male participant, who was sleeping rough at the time of his interview, made this point when he expressed the view that:

“I wouldn’t be homeless now if I was straight. I would still have a lot of family, friends.” – Eric, gay, non-transgender man, 31, White Irish

He was confident that when he became homeless his family and friends would have helped him resolve his housing problems but he could not turn to them because he had never come out to his friends and family and he knew they would be hostile. Another participant similarly had not come out to their parents, but had been given clear signals about the consequences if they did. When their university course ended and they had to leave their halls of residence they could not, therefore, return home, as they would have been able to had they not identified as LGBT.

“I grew up in a Catholic household…my dad saying he’d beat the gay out of me or even with gender stuff, my mum said she’d send me to hospital….If they [parents] were cool with my sexuality and gender, if I wasn’t who I am, it would have been easier to just go home…but, I think coz of me being in the closet with them, it was just another thing I’d have to hide.” – Robin, non-binary, bisexual, 24, White British

Others did seek help when they faced homelessness but were turned down by friends and family, as one participant explained:

“I called the best man at my wedding [asking to stay] and he was just like ‘no, it’s too weird’. I called my parents and they said I could come back if I changed my name….so I knew I couldn’t do that coz I knew everything that was making me hurt myself was coming from that, so I was homeless.” – Topaz, lesbian, transgender woman, 30, White British

It is worth noting that other participants found new networks of support when they came out. One woman (queer, non-transgender woman, 32, White British), who had been homeless several times, is a case in point. During periods of homelessness she reported always having friends within the LGBT community to rely on:

“I came out at university and just kind of met my people… I think a lot of people in the LGBT community look out for each other quite a lot and they’re very, especially my friendship group, is very kind.” – Ashley, queer, non-transgender woman, aged 32, White British

Safety was of paramount importance to the LGBT homeless people interviewed, as it is for many LGBT people (Formby, 2017). Many had experienced homophobic, biphobic and transphobic harassment and made judgements on a daily basis about when and where they would be safe. Safety was, therefore, a key consideration in participants’ housing decisions as in other areas of their life. They reported feeling unsafe in certain locations or types of accommodation that were perceived as unwelcoming or hostile to LGBT people. For example, they were reluctant to move into shared accommodation for fear of harassment, yet in some areas this was the only affordable option. Archie explained why he turned down an offer of temporary accommodation:

“…they [local authority] were saying about going into, you know those people that open their homes to young people? And I just thought ‘what if they was a really transphobic person?’” – Archie, pansexual, transgender man, 21, White British

Valid concerns about safety were perceived to reduce the (safe and appropriate) options available to LGBT people in ways that would not be the case for non-LGBT homeless people.

3.4 Conclusion

This chapter has identified and explored the causes of homelessness for LGBT people. Such understanding is important because the development of appropriate and effective intervention relies on a thorough understanding of the nature of the problem. The existing evidence base, which identifies homophobic, biphobic and transphobic family conflict and domestic abuse as a key cause of LGBT people’s homelessness, focuses predominantly on younger LGBT people, rarely disaggregates transgender from LGB participants, and is dominated by studies from the US. Although a generally robust evidence base which often provides comparative statistics, the extent to which findings are applicable to people of different minority sexualities and gender identities, of different ages, or are transferable to a UK context remains unclear.

The sample for this study, in contrast, included participants across the age spectrum as well as people of different minority gender identities and sexualities. It identified LGBT people who first became homeless at a variety of ages suggesting that LGBT homelessness is certainly not just a ‘youth’ phenomenon, raising the question of why existing evidence so often focuses on younger LGBT homeless people. By including a more diverse age range this study is able to concur with the evidence base that family conflict does appear to be a key cause of homelessness for LGBT people. However, this was much more common as a cause of homelessness amongst younger participants in the study, with older participants becoming homeless for a more diverse range of reasons. The emphasis on homophobic, biphobic and transphobic familial conflict and abuse in the existing evidence is important – this clearly is a key trigger of LGBT youth homelessness – but the predominance of younger people in study samples may have resulted in an overemphasis on homophobic, biphobic and transphobic familial conflict, to the exclusion of understanding the wider range of experiences that trigger homelessness for LGBT people. This study has begun to redress that balance and generate understanding of the causes of homelessness for LGBT people of all ages.

This study has also added a more in-depth qualitative understanding to the evidence base on LGBT people’s journeys into homelessness. Much, although by no means all, of the existing evidence is derived from quantitative studies. Such evidence is very useful for establishing the comparative prevalence of different experiences and outcomes using robust statistical measures but is less able to interrogate why and how gender identity and sexual orientation influence homelessness journeys. The qualitative methodology employed for this study generated a more nuanced understanding of the causes of homelessness so that the role of sexual orientation and gender identity could be explored. On the basis of this analysis, the study concludes that issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity do appear to underpin the triggers of homelessness for LGBT people. This suggests that policy and practice interventions designed to improve the lives of LGBT homeless people will need to be informed by understanding of the distinct characteristics of LGBT homelessness.

Question 5

4.  What are LGBT homeless people’s experiences of housing and support services?

Accepted Answer

Summary

LGBT homeless people are usually supported by mainstream homelessness services, or by LGBT support services without a remit for homelessness. Data from this study and existing evidence suggests that there is inconsistent service provision.

Study findings indicate that there is limited understanding of the distinct experiences of LGBT homeless people within mainstream housing and support services, especially for transgender people.

Study participants’ experiences of mainstream homelessness services often involved inappropriate and/or insensitive support, with policies and practices not adapted or responsive to the needs of LGBT homeless people. Participants reported being anxious about approaching or accepting a referral to mainstream homelessness services.

Examples of being treated insensitively or offensively by staff in mainstream housing and support services included being repeatedly misgendered, being asked inappropriate questions (for example, about medical transition), staff displaying offensive or ignorant attitudes, and having unnecessary conditions imposed because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Negative experiences of services prompted a number of participants to disengage from that service, and sometimes from other/all services.

Participants had also experienced harassment and abuse from other service users.

The research suggests that homophobic, biphobic and transphobic familial abuse is not always recognised as domestic abuse by mainstream homelessness services. There is also evidence that partner abuse within same-gender relationships is also not always taken seriously by statutory services.

Facilities in mixed and single-sex temporary housing were reported by participants to not meet the needs of transgender people, which caused daily practical issues).

In contrast to the way in which many participants talked about their experiences of mainstream homelessness services, they talked in relaxed, comfortable terms when describing their involvement with LGBT support or leisure services, though these cannot usually meet housing needs.

4.1. What is known about LGBT homeless people’s experience of housing and support services? A critical summary of the evidence base

The review uncovered a limited number of sources (28 in total) on LGBT homeless people’s experience of housing and support services. Nine out of 28 sources focused directly and specifically on experiences of housing and support services for this group (Abramovich, 2013; 2017; Begun and Kattari, 2016; Coolhart and Brown, 2017; Maberley and Coffey, 2005; Oakley and Bletsas, 2018; Shelton and others, 2018a ; Stonewall Scotland, 2007; Tyler and others, 2012); in the other 19 sources, experiences of housing and support services was one sub-topic among many, including protections for transgender youth (Sellers, 2018), risk factors for trauma in the lives of LGB homeless youth (Tyler and Schmitz, 2018), resilience and resistance among transgender youth experiencing homelessness (Shelton and others, 2018b), and LGBT homeless young adults’ relationships with families (Schmitz and Tyler, 2018). The majority of sources in this section were judged to be robust.^{[footnote 19]} Although 2 of the sources included are service guides or workshop papers, which scored relatively low in terms of methodological rigour, their content was highly relevant and the evidence concurred with more robust sources.

Similar to other topics investigated in the evidence review, the sources relevant to this question were predominantly international^{[footnote 20]} and focused on young people.^{[footnote 21]} The predominance of international evidence is particularly problematic in relation to this theme because housing, homelessness and equalities policy and service delivery is likely to vary greatly by country, influencing access to and experiences of services. Seventeen sources included lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in their samples; 6 sources focused solely on transgender, ‘gender-nonconforming’ and ‘gender-expansive’ people (Begun and Kattari, 2016; Sellers, 2018; Shelton, 2015; Shelton and others, 2018b; Shelton and Bond, 2017; Strauss and others, 2017; Yu MD, 2010) and 4 focused only on LGB people (Dunne and others, 2002; Maberley and Coffey, 2005; O’Connor and Molloy, 2001; Tyler and Schmitz, 2018).^{[footnote 22]} Where transgender people were included in samples of LGBT people, they tended to represent around 20% of the sample. Due to limited research focused on transgender people, and the underrepresentation of transgender people in study samples, there remains a significant knowledge gap around transgender homeless people’s experiences of housing and support services. The same applies to older (50 plus) LGBT homeless people and LGBT homeless people’s experiences of housing and support services in the UK.

In most cases, the evidence identified for this review refers to housing or homelessness services^{[footnote 23]} rather than other types of support services (for example, mental or physical health services, drug and alcohol, prison and probation services) about which there was very little evidence, especially from a UK context. It is possible that there is more evidence about LGBT people’s experiences of support services (that is, not specifically related to homeless people) that could have offered some insights. However, these were less likely to be identified because the search strategy and terms were housing and homelessness related. In this section, where specific types of services are cited in the evidence, this is made explicit. Where the generic term ‘service’ is used, the source did not specify further.

The evidence about delivery of homelessness services within the UK is general in nature, typically presenting information about levels of provision rather than about the nature or experience of service delivery. Drawing on data from the Homeless England database, a study by Homeless Link estimates that in 2019 there were 991 accommodation projects for single homeless people in England (Homeless Link, 2020). The same source identifies a reduction in the number of accommodation projects (by 9%), day centres (by 3%) and bed spaces (by 3%) in England between 2018 and 2019. Drawing on data from their telephone and online survey of 387 accommodation projects and 72 day centres, Homeless Link (2020) found that existing homelessness services in England are largely male-dominated.^{[footnote 24]} When considering non-LGBT specific housing services, the evidence reviewed points to a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach (Crisis, 2018). Comprehensive studies confirm a low level of specialist provision for LGBT homeless people nationally and internationally (Albert Kennedy Trust, 2015; Homeless Link, 2013; Sellers, 2018^{[footnote 25]}). There is also a suggestion of an uneven geography of specialist provision which, in the UK, tends to be concentrated in London or the South East of England (Porchlight, 2015). However, there is a need for a more robust mapping exercise to be able to quantify this finding, which originates from qualitative research.

A review of the evidence suggests that the unique challenges faced by LGBT homeless people due to the “heteronormative”^{[footnote 26]} nature of mainstream homelessness services are additional to the known difficulties experienced by all homeless groups. Studies have highlighted the chaotic environments of some hostels in the UK, where substance misuse, violence, and bullying are rife, and staff are under-resourced to adequately support the increasingly high numbers of people with complex needs (Crisis, 2018; Homeless Link, 2018; Watts and others, 2015). It is also well-acknowledged that mainstream services are often unable to effectively engage those living in complex situations or address issues of long-term recovery, and people with these needs often struggle to access services and go without the help they need (Homeless Link, 2018; Lamb and others, 2019; Reeve and Batty, 2011; Revolving Doors Agency, 2015; Seria-Walker, 2018). However, there are a number of additional issues specific to LGBT homeless people, or where gender identity and sexual orientation is found to make negative experiences considerably more pronounced or commonplace in relation to their experience of housing and support services. In particular, issues of access, safety, harassment and abuse, and exclusion are both more prominent in the LGBT homelessness literature than the generic homelessness literature and they are explicitly related to sexual orientation and gender identity. In the generic homelessness literature, where safety and harassment are highlighted this is rarely related to specific aspects of participants’ identities, other than sexual harassment and fear for safety experienced by women in hostels and night shelters (Reeve and others, 2006).

Research suggests LGBT homeless people are at greater risk of experiencing difficulties and discrimination in accessing services than non-LGBT homeless people in the UK and internationally (Begun and Kattari, 2016; Cull and others, 2006; O’Connor and Molloy, 2001; Strauss and others, 2017). In England, this has been found to arise at the point of presenting as homeless to the local authority. LGBT homeless youth in Brighton and Hove^{[footnote 27]} reported negative experiences of local authority homelessness applications such that their vulnerability, and hence their potential priority need for housing, is not always recognised (Cull and others, 2006). While Tyler and Schmitz (2018) found that LGB youth have greater difficulty in accessing shelters in the US than non-LGB youth, they offer only speculation on why this might be the case: the avoidance of using shelter services for fear of experiencing prejudice and discrimination from service providers. In a qualitative study with 16 LGBT youth^{[footnote 28]} who had experienced homelessness, and service providers working with youth in agencies, schools, and shelters, participants discussed dynamics related to LGBT youth not accessing the shelter services they needed. Several providers and one young person reflected on how the fear of mistreatment due to their LGBT identity may prevent them from accessing shelter services in the US (Coolhart and Brown, 2017). With no clear understanding of the policy and service delivery landscape in other countries, and the similarities and differences compared to England, the international evidence must be treated with a high degree of caution.

The evidence review did not identify many sources which examined general usage and access to services beyond housing and homelessness. Tyler and others (2012) examined the frequency and correlates of service utilisation including shelters, food programmes, counselling, street outreach, and STI and HIV testing among 249 homeless youth^{[footnote 29]} in the US, albeit only with a small sample of LGBT participants (43 identified as LGBT; 202 as heterosexual). This study found no significant differences between heterosexual youth and LGBT youth in terms of their service usage; they do acknowledge, however, that more research is needed with LGBT homeless youth to understand their usage patterns and barriers to seeking services.

Discrimination when trying to access services appears to be especially prevalent for transgender people, although the robust evidence on this is international and so cannot be assumed to be transferable to a UK context. A large-scale survey of transgender/gender-nonconforming people in the US found that 28% of the sample^{[footnote 30]} had been denied access to a shelter, and this was attributed to discrimination based on their gender identity (Begun and Kattari, 2016). Begun and Kattari (2016) caution that very few prior research efforts have quantified the actual rates at which the transgender population accesses emergency shelter services in general, making the results of their study difficult to consider in relation to prior investigations. However, this statistic is supported by evidence from Australian Trans Pathways (Strauss and others, 2017), a large mixed-methods, cross-sectional online study which draws on qualitative vignettes of 859 transgender young people^{[footnote 31]} being refused access to shelters because of their gender identities, and having to sofa-surf (sometimes on strangers’ sofas) and sleeping rough as a consequence. One participant reported having to endure physical abuse and be homeless for a year, having being unable to receive emergency accommodation due to being transgender (Strauss and others, 2017: 25). In a qualitative study of the Canadian shelter system,^{[footnote 32]} Abramovich (2017) also found that transgender and gender non-conforming youth were often denied access to shelters based on their gender identity. Ingrained cultures and institutional rules of the shelter system that are based on the assumption that people’s acquired genderwill match their birth sex marginalises transgender people (an example is given in this study of staff using identity documents to place people on gendered floors). All of the studies referred to above are, however, from an international context and their transferability to the UK service landscape is at this stage unknown.

International evidence suggests that there is also a lack of a sense of safety for LGBT people once in shelters. The results of a large-scale survey of transgender people in the US suggest that shelters are not emotionally or physically safe spaces for them (Begun and Kattari, 2016). The survey found that 51.4% had been verbally harassed at the shelter; 24.7% had been physically attacked; 21.7% had been sexually assaulted; and almost half (44.2%) had left the shelter for safety reasons. These findings are corroborated by studies about the Australian housing system. Negative experiences of boarding house accommodation were prevalent in a small qualitative study with young LGBT homeless people,^{[footnote 33]} as young people reported experiencing non-acceptance, bullying and harassment due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Another common experience of housing and support services for LGBT people was related to challenges associated with navigating institutions that did not recognise or affirm their self-designated gender and/or gender expression (Shelton, 2015). Institutional barriers included policies and procedures that were “cisnormative”^{[footnote 34]} in nature (that is, assuming a female/male binary and the ‘normality’ of non-transgender identities) which failed to address the unique needs of the participant group. Segregation practices based on biological sex within hostels have been shown to cause significant distress for LGBT homeless people leading to feelings of being ‘othered’ and ostracised (Coolhart and Brown, 2017). There is some evidence that expectations of hostility, discrimination, or inappropriate service provision leaves LGBT homeless people reluctant to disclose their sexual or gender identity to housing and support services in both a UK and international context (Porchlight, 2015). Youth LGBT participants in one Australian study explained that the choice to disclose or not was complex and required careful consideration and appraisal of the service and situation (Maberley and Coffey, 2005). Following experiences of homophobia, physical violence, harassment (particularly for transgender young people) and sexual harassment in Australian supported housing services, participants highlighted the following factors as impacting on decisions not to disclose their identities:

assessment of the service providers and other residents’ LGBT friendliness;
concerns about maintaining safety; and
the lack of privacy amongst young people in the homelessness sector.

Some of the literature looks beyond homelessness support services to consider LGBT people’s expectations of services related to general needs housing and for other groups, such as older (50 plus) LGBT people who are not homeless (King and Stoneman, 2017) or Housing Association tenants of all ages (Stonewall Scotland, 2007). Stonewall Scotland (2007), in focus group sessions with tenants of Housing Associations, found that the consequence of coming out to a landlord was ‘too high a price to pay’ for LGBT tenants and they would rather tolerate inadequate housing situations than report housing issues related to sexual orientation or gender. Although not focused on homelessness, relevant and useful insights can also be drawn from King and Stoneman’s (2017) study of older LGBT people’s housing in the UK. Their mixed methods study highlighted particular concerns, issues and constraints faced by LGBT people over the age of 50 in relation to their housing options and experiences that would be less relevant to many non-transgender heterosexual people. Participants were older and in permanent housing but the findings are likely to be applicable to other age groups, and relevant to those in temporary accommodation. Issues mostly stemmed from experiences and fears of prejudice, and concerns about safety. This included being fearful of disclosing their sexual orientation in staffed accommodation (in this case to wardens in sheltered housing), concerns about others entering their home, and needing to consider the potential behaviour of neighbours when seeking accommodation. They found that concerns about safety were particularly prevalent amongst transgender participants, with the caveat that they comprised a small proportion of the survey and focus group samples.^{[footnote 35]} The majority of concerns for transgender participants related to perceptions of transphobia and transphobic hate crime in neighbourhoods, care homes and sheltered housing.

The evidence is fairly conclusive that LGBT people often experience homophobic and transphobic harassment and abuse in current mainstream homelessness services (and support services, although the evidence base is much weaker here). Homelessness accommodation services can, therefore, be considered or perceived to be unsafe for LGBT people, with a small number of studies indicating that LGBT people may be at greater risk of rough sleeping as a result. There is also some evidence that discrimination can prevent LGBT people from accessing the services they need although there is a lack of UK evidence on this issue to draw firm conclusions. Beyond these broad findings, the evidence is somewhat limited in relation to LGBT homeless people’s patterns of service use and experiences of services. In addition, it is questionable how far the international evidence can be transferred to a UK context given national differences in policy and practice that will influence the accessibility, and people’s experiences of, homelessness provision. Removing this international evidence leaves very few sources and an even more limited evidence base.

4.2. Available housing and support provision to LGBT homeless people in England: insights from qualitative interviews

There has been no comprehensive mapping of service provision for LGBT people at risk of, or experiencing homelessness in England. This was outside of the scope of this study and represents a gap in knowledge and understanding. The findings reported in this section are based on the experiences and perceptions of the LGBT homeless people and the stakeholders interviewed only. Nevertheless, some important indicative insights about the way services are delivered to LGBT homeless people emerged that suggest there may be gaps in appropriate provision. These are covered in turn.

LGBT homelessness services seem to be rare

Drawing on data from interviews with stakeholders and LGBT homeless people, and from the study team’s existing knowledge and expertise, 4 different types of homelessness services were identified as being available to LGBT homeless people in England:

services providing housing and support specifically to LGBT homeless people, often referred to as ‘LGBT homelessness organisations or services’
housing projects delivered by LGBT (non-housing) organisations
housing and support services for LGBT homeless people hosted by mainstream homelessness organisations
generic housing and homelessness organisations which do not provide services specifically for LGBT people but cater for the needs of homeless people

In addition, there are services for LGBT people that do not specifically cater for the needs of homeless people.

At the time the research was conducted, there were only a very small number of LGBT homelessness organisations in England. The Albert Kennedy Trust supports young (16 to 25 year old) LGBT homeless people across the UK, and the Outside Project operates a homelessness shelter and community centre for LGBT people in London. In addition, Stonewall Housing provides accommodation and housing advice to LGBT people. Their housing and advice centres are based in London but they also operate a national telephone advice line.

Reflecting limited specialist provision, LGBT homeless participants reported difficulties accessing LGBT homelessness services when they tried to do so. Participants raised issues with high demand for the few services on offer or, more commonly amongst participants outside London, a dearth of provision locally. For example:

“They are full so it’s first come first served.” – Philip, gay, non-transgender man, 46, Asian

“I asked them [local authority] for LGBT organisations but they didn’t have any.” – Xade, heterosexual, transgender man, 28, Pakistani Iranian

There is no robust evidence on the number of LGBT initiatives operating in mainstream homelessness services but in 2015 only 2.6% of the 76 organisations responding to a survey sent to 473 housing service in Great Britain by the Albert Kennedy Trust ran services specifically for LGBT people (Albert Kennedy Trust, 2015). The situation may have changed since 2015 but these findings do resonate with the experiences and perceptions of stakeholders and LGBT homeless people interviewed for this study. Stakeholders were asked about their understanding of the accommodation and support available to LGBT homeless people. Those who felt sufficiently knowledgeable to comment, mainly those working in homelessness organisations or in LGBT organisations, consistently reported that they knew of very few projects or initiatives within mainstream services targeted specifically at LGBT homeless people and that provision specifically for transgender people was particularly scarce. Some also reported that specialist projects and staff posts, when they were funded, were often short-term.

Stakeholders with experience of working with the homelessness sector to improve provision for LGBT homeless people explained the scarcity of LGBT-specific services for homeless people with reference to 2 main issues:

LGBT homelessness not being recognised as an issue – ‘…it’s just not hitting the radar as being something of concern’ (homelessness organisation, co-ordinator)
the view that services for LGBT homeless people are an ‘add on’ rather than part of the core business

As one stakeholder commented:

“I think with the funding situation things like LGBT inclusion are more likely to be seen as nice to have rather than an essential thing to do…like the cherry on top rather than the fundamental part of the practice that organisations should be providing.” – LGBT charity, policy officer

As the participant quoted directly above indicated, lack of funding was reported by stakeholders to be a barrier to developing services in a context where meeting the needs of specific groups is not considered a core component of service delivery. He went on:

“I think lack of consistent and significant funding has been the biggest difficulty and the fact that you’ve got organisations who are able, for a short, fixed time, to set up an LGBT homeless service and then they’ll have to close it down because the funding hasn’t been renewed.” – LGBT charity, policy officer

The dearth of LGBT-specific homelessness services means that mainstream services appear to be the main source of homelessness support for LGBT people currently.

Places considered more welcoming to LGBT people may not have better developed LGBT homelessness provision

This study included homeless participants from a range of places across England to explore whether LGBT homeless people’s experiences differed according to geography. In larger cities where fieldwork for this study took place, and in places with sizeable LGBT communities, there appeared to be more opportunities for participants to connect with LGBT organisations and groups. Participants reported feeling safer and less likely to be harassed by the public, and some described extensive networks of support from other LGBT people.

However, this did not appear to translate into service provision for homeless people that was notably more accessible or more responsive to the needs of LGBT people. Further research would be needed to confirm whether this is the case but, based on the knowledge of stakeholders working in homeless organisations in towns and cities considered more ‘LGBT friendly’, and the experiences of LGBT homeless participants living in those places, local provision appeared to be no more LGBT inclusive or responsive than in other locations in which fieldwork took place for this study. When a place considered ‘LGBT friendly’ by participants did not translate into better service provision, easier access to housing, or greater feelings of safety in services, it came as a ‘second kick in the teeth’, as one stakeholder put it. One participant reported his disappointment as follows:

“I thought I could come and try and be myself here […] It’s really the opposite, you do find that they don’t know what to do with you down there.” – Brendan, gay, non-transgender man, 39, White Irish

Homelessness services appear to have limited knowledge of LGBT people’s specific needs, while LGBT services appear to have limited knowledge about the needs of homeless people

Taking all the evidence into account – the professional expertise of some of the stakeholders interviewed, and the experiences reported by LGBT homeless people in this study and in the evidence base (Albert Kennedy Trust, 2015; World Habitat, 2018^{[footnote 36]}) of using homelessness and LGBT support services – there was indication of a gap in understanding of LGBT homeless people’s needs between homelessness services and LGBT services. This point was articulated well by one stakeholder:

“Homelessness service provision know what to do in terms of helping people access housing but have no idea about how the needs of LGBTIQ people differ, while LGBTIQ services know everything about identity issues but have no idea how to assist with homelessness.” – Homelessness organisation, LGBT lead

A 2015 survey lends some support to these views in relation to mainstream homelessness services, although the survey was focused on young LGBT people only. Only 3 housing organisations responding to the survey (4% of all those surveyed) indicated an understanding of the unique needs of LGBT homeless young people and had initiatives in place to meet those needs (Albert Kennedy Trust, 2015). It is worth noting that stakeholders interviewed for this current study did point to some inclusive practice in mainstream housing and homelessness organisations, with one LGBT charity worker reporting having seen some ‘positive developments’ in more recent years.

Other stakeholders made a similar point in relation to LGBT organisations. One homelessness professional, for example, reported his experience of working with LGBT organisations as follows:

“It was really an eye-opener for us to find that LGBT groups didn’t understand homelessness.” – LGBT housing organisation, manager

Many of the stakeholders interviewed, some of whom had worked with LGBT homeless people for many years, reported the view that, as a result, neither LGBT nor homelessness services were consistently able to effectively meet the needs of LGBT homeless people. This was reflected in some of the experiences of homeless participants detailed in Section 4.3 below. One participant, for example, talked positively about the support available from a local LGBT organisation but stopped using the service because they were unable to help him access housing. As some one who was a rough sleeper, this was his priority.

“I’ve tried that. I’ve spoken to people in the [service] and they’ve been very good, but they don’t know themselves [how to access housing]. They’re great if you’re feeling depressed, there’s someone to speak to, they’re great at all that, but they don’t have direct links to housing.” – Brendan, gay, non-transgender man, 39, White Irish

There appears to be limited sexual orientation and gender identity monitoring within homelessness services

The LGBT people interviewed reported rarely being asked about their sexual orientation or gender identity by mainstream homelessness and other support providers. This emerged as a key concern for many of the stakeholders interviewed.

Those with a role in providing LGBT training to, or for developing LGBT services in mainstream homelessness provision, reported that mainstream homelessness services do not consistently monitor sexual orientation or gender identity. Where services were failing to monitor sexual orientation or gender identity, stakeholders suggested that this reflected the following issues:

assumptions that very few LGBT people access the service and so it is not necessary – stakeholders working with LGBT homeless people were unanimously of the view that this is a misapprehension, even allowing for the fact that LGBT homeless people may under-utilise mainstream services (see below)
anxiety about asking someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity – this point was made by several stakeholders who had witnessed mainstream providers’ reticence to ask questions about sexual orientation or gender identity
a view that LGBT identity is not relevant to homelessness and so need not be identified

As one stakeholder commented:

“A lot of the services we spoke to said ‘we don’t ask that question because it’s not relevant to their homelessness’ but it so could be, and for LGBT people it’s much more likely.” – LGBT youth organisation, development worker

The last point was reflected in the stakeholder sample for this study. As the following quote makes clear, in this example the mainstream hostel provider, the local authority and referral agencies were reportedly not monitoring sexual orientation and gender identity:

“I don’t ask, no. A lot of the residents that I interviewed for the project did state that they were [LGBT] but it doesn’t make any difference to us or anything and it’s not a question we happen to ask, and the supported housing forms we receive through [the] council, or [referral organisation] don’t state or ask what your sexuality is or how you identify. So no, it wasn’t relevant to us.” – Homeless hostel, manager

One stakeholder (from a charity for vulnerable people) made a related point about monitoring. She reported that contracts for commissioned services often include a clause about meeting the needs of LGBT people. Yet, in her experience, commissioners rarely monitor whether services are meeting this obligation, and services cannot demonstrate compliance if they do not monitor sexual orientation and gender identity. There could be a role for commissioners to ask commissioned service providers to monitor this in the future.

Stakeholders working with or for LGBT people suggested that sexual orientation and gender identity monitoring is important because it is a first step towards meeting LGBT homeless people’s needs. If sexual orientation and gender identity are not monitored, these stakeholders argued, services are unlikely to acknowledge, understand, and respond to the distinct needs of LGBT clients.^{[footnote 37]} This, in turn, is likely to increase the risk that LGBT homeless people will have poor experiences of, and outcomes from, engagement with housing and support services; compared with people who do not identify as LGBT. The following section explores some of these experiences and outcomes.

4.3. LGBT homeless people’s experiences of housing and support services

A consistent picture emerged across all 3 datasets analysed for this study (existing evidence, interviews with LGBT homeless people, and interviews with stakeholders) that the specific needs of LGBT homeless people are not comprehensively understood by housing and housing support services. The LGBT homeless people interviewed reported that their sexual orientation or gender identity was rarely considered by mainstream service providers when making referrals, determining eligibility for services, or developing support packages. According to stakeholders interviewed for this study, and resonating with other UK studies (for example Albert Kennedy Trust, 2015; Cull and others, 2006^{[footnote 38]}), this may be because mainstream services do not always consider sexual orientation or gender identity to give rise to particular, or additional, needs, requirements, or vulnerabilities. For example:

“They’re [local authority homelessness department] just not responsive at all and they don’t really seem to see the vulnerabilities of our community as anything.” – LGBT homelessness organisation, manager

“My instinct would say that frontline workers don’t see gender and sexual orientation as being a support need, or certainly sexual orientation, as being something that should be considered, particularly in the overall spectrum of developing a support package for people.” – Homelessness organisation, co-ordinator

Other evidence concurs that the design of homelessness services is often informed by non-transgender and heterosexual needs (Shelton, 2015). As the remainder of this chapter shows, the evidence from this study suggests that this can result in inappropriate service delivery, and policies and practices that are not sensitised or responsive to the needs of LGBT homeless people. Issues that emerged in the experiences of LGBT homeless participants utilising housing and support services, or were of particular concern to stakeholders were:

the ‘local connection’ criteria sometimes used to determine eligibility for housing and support services works against LGBT homeless people because they frequently move when they become homeless to escape abusive or hostile families and communities
the role domestic abuse plays in LGBT people’s homelessness is not always recognised or understood by mainstream housing providers
LGBT homeless people are sometimes treated insensitively or offensively by front-line staff, owing to their sexual orientation or gender identity
mainstream homelessness services are often not equipped to meet the needs of transgender people
LGBT people experience harassment and abuse from other service users

These are now discussed in more detail.

The ‘local connection’ criteria

Local authorities have a statutory duty to accommodate anyone who is assessed as homeless, in ‘priority need’, who has not made themselves ‘intentionally homeless’ and has a local connection.^{[footnote 39]} Since the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 local authorities also have an obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent the homelessness of all eligible people who are at risk of homelessness, they must do so irrespective of whether they are a family or single person, the reason they are at risk, or if they have a local connection to the area.  Local authorities also have a statutory duty to take reasonable steps to relieve an eligible person’s homelessness, irrespective of whether a person has ‘priority need’ or may be regarded as being ‘intentionally homeless’.^{[footnote 40]}

If applicants have no local connection, they can be referred to the authority where a local connection exists for assistance or for rehousing. The exception, however, is in situations where an applicant is at risk of violence. The Homelessness Code of Guidance^{[footnote 41]} that accompanies English homelessness legislation advises that homeless applicants should not be referred back to the local authority where they have a local connection if there is a risk of violence. It also places the obligation on the local authority to enquire whether there is such a risk.

At the time of writing, the Homelessness Code of Guidance was being updated to strengthen these obligations and procedures, reflecting changes arising from the Domestic Abuse Bill.

Positive outcomes resulting from a strengthening of the Code of Guidance will not be reflected in the experiences of the LGBT people interviewed for this study and reported below. In addition, some participants were reporting experiences that occurred before the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which should also have impacted positively on people with ‘no local connection’. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 requires local authorities to carry out an ‘assessment of need’ for all homeless applicants. This should allow for applicants’ full circumstances to be identified and considered, which might include their reasons for having left their previous area of residence or feeling unable to return. The assessment of need should be progressed for applicants with no local connection, at least until such time as they are informed that they may be referred to another local authority. The guidance issued to local authorities is not definitive about the point in the process when a referral can be made, and does allow for referrals before a full assessment has been concluded. Nevertheless, it is important to note that recent and impending policy and legislative changes have occurred since fieldwork for this study was conducted, and the findings reported below should be read with this in mind.

It was common for the LGBT homeless people interviewed for this study to be homeless in an area other than their hometown – typically to escape people or places hostile to LGBT people and/or to seek somewhere safer or more welcoming to LGBT people – and this is consistent with the evidence base (Cull and others, 2006; Tunåker, 2015). This level of mobility represents a distinct characteristic of LGBT homelessness because it is often driven by the increased risk of violence and harassment to LGBT people within and outside the home (see Chapter 5.6). Having moved away from their place of origin, often to escape violence, many participants in this study reported having been found ineligible for local services, housing or assistance because they did not have a ‘local connection’. The evidence presented in this section suggests that such policies, as they were being implemented at the time the study was conducted, can fail to appreciate the reasons why LGBT homeless people live where they do. In some cases, this may be because of the way domestic abuse is interpreted in relation to LGBT people.^{[footnote 42]}

Participants reported that their reasons for having moved away from their ‘local connection’ were generally not discussed when they approached services, or were apparently not considered relevant to the eligibility and ‘local connection’ decisions. Two participants, both living in cities with relatively large LGBT populations but highly pressured housing markets, reported their experience of approaching the local authority for homelessness assistance:

“His first response was ‘move to [home city]’…I knew straight away that they weren’t going to help me.” – Bobbie, non-binary, lesbian, 42, White Australian

“I didn’t want to leave. I was offered to go back up to the midlands and I was like ‘no, I can’t go through that again’, I’m not going to be that person, I’ve come down here, new life, new start, might be on the streets but I felt good, I was happy.” – Ian, gay, Non-Trans man, 42, White British

As the quote directly above indicates, the importance attached to being in a place of relative safety was such that moving back to their place of origin because of ineligibility for housing or services was rarely considered a viable option by the LGBT participants interviewed. Some LGBT homeless participants who were clearly at risk of violence if they returned home reported having not being asked this question by the local authority homelessness officer, told they have no local connection, and to return to their place of origin. The full details of these participants’ cases are not known to the study team but it does seem that risk of violence was not always being identified, or was not considered sufficient to undermine the local connection criteria. For example, one participant, who had fled from his family, described being ‘basically in fear of my life because of my sexuality’. He reported the following outcome from his homelessness assessment, just prior to the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 coming into force.

Some of the stakeholders interviewed for this study had worked with LGBT homeless people over many years. Based on their professional experience during this time, they identified the ‘local connection criteria’ as a significant barrier to accessing housing amongst LGBT homeless people. This suggests that experiences reported by LGBT homeless people interviewed for this study were not isolated incidents. Stakeholders suggested that local authorities, historically, have not always recognised, or sought information about, the reasons why LGBT people move to a different area when they become homeless, or the significance of transphobic, homophobic and biphobic violence in their mobility decisions. For example:

“The hurdles of getting through the homelessness legislation and ticking all of those boxes is very difficult, I would say especially localism, needing to stay or get support from their local area, if they’re fleeing violence because of their gender or sexual orientation then the likelihood is they’ve moved to a different local authority and again that already means they won’t get support there, so that’s a big hurdle.” – Charity for vulnerable people, front line worker

“Local connection and that bar of vulnerability, people not really being recognised that hate crime is a reason for someone not to return to their home or that area, I think that’s something that local authorities just don’t see.” – LGBT homelessness organisation, manager

However, the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and changes to the Homelessness Code of Guidance should bring positive changes in this regard.

Responding to domestic abuse

Experiencing or being under threat of violence is a specified category of ‘vulnerability’ in the homelessness legislation when determining ‘priority need’. A person can be found in priority need if they have had to leave their home, and are assessed as vulnerable as a result of violence.^{[footnote 43]} If a homeless person is assessed as being in priority need, they have a statutory right to housing.

It was reported in Chapter 3 that domestic abuse is a key cause of homelessness among LGBT people, and that, compared to people not identifying as LGBT, familial domestic abuse is very often driven by homophobia, biphobia or transphobia.

In addition, LGBT people experience homophobic, biphobic and transphobic domestic abuse from wider geographical or cultural communities, limiting their residential choices to a greater degree than is the case for people who are not LGBT. These forms of domestic abuse therefore are closely related to LGBT people’s homelessness. They were not, however, found to be understood well by mainstream services. As a result, amongst the LGBT homeless sample, it was reportedly not always taken into account when determining eligibility for housing or identifying appropriate housing and support.

Drawing on analysis of the qualitative data gathered for this study, 2 issues of particular relevance to LGBT homeless people emerged that are discussed in more detail in this section: firstly, that familial domestic abuse may not, historically, always have been recognised as domestic abuse by mainstream housing services; and secondly that domestic abuse within same sex relationships may not always be treated seriously.

Analysis of LGBT homeless participants’ experiences of seeking assistance, and the experience of stakeholders working with LGBT people and with survivors of domestic abuse suggests that homophobic, biphobic and transphobic familial violence is not always recognised as domestic abuse by mainstream homelessness services.

Stakeholders and LGBT homeless participants recounted numerous situations they had experienced, witnessed, or had been reported to them by LGBT clients in which local authority housing officers had apparently mistaken parental homophobia, biphobia and transphobia for unexceptional family arguments. One young participant, who reported being coercively controlled by his mother who had subsequently asked him to leave the family home, described his experience as follows:

“The first time my mum said ‘leave the house and don’t ever come back’ was when I was 16, nearly 17 and I was a wreck and I went to the council…and they were asking me questions about what had happened and there were things that I couldn’t say cos I didn’t feel… you can’t really say this person thinks this type of way, but I always know, I always have a sixth sense about what someone thinks or the way they see things… I just had this man who kept talking about his relationship with his dad and that it will all get better and it’ll be fine and it was just a blip and I was sat there in tears in my pyjama bottoms thinking ‘will it?’” – Josh, gay, non-transgender man, 22, Black British

This participant’s situation raises an important point about disclosure that is consistent with the experiences of other LGBT homeless people interviewed. The details that this participant was reluctant to disclose, which related to homophobic abuse from his mother, might have helped the local authority officer make more informed, appropriate decisions. Few of the participants who became homeless escaping familial abuse revealed full details when they approached the local authority because a) they weren’t asked, or b) they expected a response lacking understanding, or c) they themselves did not recognise their experience as domestic abuse.^{[footnote 44]}

Whether local authority housing officers recognised and acknowledged parental abuse as domestic abuse or not, several participants felt that the abuse they suffered from family members was not considered serious enough for them to qualify for assistance. Two participants reported coercion to marry, alongside physical and psychological abuse from family. They described their experience of seeking assistance from the local authority:

“As a result I presented myself to the council and I said to them ‘enough is enough, I can’t cope with living in that situation’…they said to me….’you need to find a place for yourself, you’re a single man, it’s not really our problem’. They weren’t that interested.” – Naheem, gay, non-transgender man, 33, Asian British

“I went to the local authority and I told them ‘I’m trans, I might be forced to be married off, I might be sent back home, I might be killed, I might be beaten, I might be locked away, I need you to support me, I need accommodation. This is a genuine case, this is actually happening to me’, but all I got was a piece of paper over the counter that says here’s a list for private renting.” – Xade, heterosexual, transgender man, 28, Pakistani Iranian

Some stakeholders were able to draw on their professional knowledge and experience to add valuable insights on, and nuance to the issue of how services respond to LGBT homeless people who are victims of domestic abuse. This included stakeholders working in domestic abuse charities and those working with LGBT people, including young people specifically. These stakeholders had knowledge of the ways in which different sectors and organisations understand and respond to domestic abuse generally and/or expertise of supporting LGBT victims of domestic abuse in their encounters with other professionals and services. Two relevant points emerged from analysis of their interviews. First, that forms of familial abuse commonly experienced by LGBT people, such as coercive control, may not always be recognised as abuse by front-line workers in mainstream housing organisations; and second, that partner abuse within same sex relationships is not always taken seriously by statutory services. On the latter point, a youth worker explained:

“There is such a strong discourse around domestic abuse anyway being men’s violence against women and particularly for gay, bi and transgender men, were not being seen as victims of domestic abuse…there was just a bit of an attitude of it’s not that serious cos it’s not about a big scary man hitting on a little tiny woman, it’s between equals.” – Youth organisation, domestic abuse worker, front-line

There was limited evidence of this in the sample of LGBT homeless people interviewed for this study. Only 2 had become homeless escaping violence from a partner and only one of these had approached services for help. This participant’s experience of reporting domestic abuse to the police accorded with the stakeholder evidence. He explained:

“At the end of that interview, these probably weren’t the words he used, but he literally said ‘in 6 months’ time you’ll look back on this situation and you’ll be laughing…’ I was treated like it was ‘oh you just had a tiff with your boyfriend’.” – Joe, gay, non-transgender man, 47, White British

However, when this participant approached the local housing authority he was very promptly provided with emergency accommodation, suggesting that the domestic abuse he reported from his male partner was taken seriously. Nevertheless, this point was so strongly emphasised by stakeholders with professional expertise and experience of domestic abuse that it is worth noting.

Inappropriate treatment by staff in mainstream services

Many of the LGBT homeless people interviewed recounted examples of being treated insensitively or offensively by staff in mainstream housing and support services. This included:

being misgendered repeatedly
being asked inappropriate questions (for example about physical transition)
staff making offensive comments or assumptions based on ignorance
staff displaying offensive ignorance or assumptions
having unnecessary conditions imposed because of their sexual orientation or gender identity

Transgender participants in the study sample were more likely to report offensive treatment by professionals in housing and support services but this was also true for LGB participants.

Misgendering by staff in services was commonly reported by the transgender participants. For example:

“It was horrible. Even though I had told them [local authority], they kept using ‘he’ instead of ‘she’. When they did the assessment they called me ‘he’.” – Kiki, bisexual, transgender woman, 22, Asian British

“The youth support worker that was helping me get housing, she misgendered me quite a lot…. she said to me ‘well you don’t sound like a man so I can’t stop mis-gendering you’ so I was like ‘great, thanks’. I don’t think she was being deliberately malicious, she was just being very ignorant.” – Luke, bisexual, transgender man, 24, White British

In a small number of these instances, temporary housing providers had apparently made active decisions not to recognise participants’ gender:

“When I went into the hostel I put down my title as Mx and all the letters I got said miss on them and I went to the worker and said ‘I’m not happy coz it says Miss’ and she said ‘yeah but Mx isn’t an option on our system so we had to put it down as Miss’ and I said ‘well can you not put it down as Mr, then?’.” – Archie, pansexual, transgender man, 21, White British

“The 3 times I was there [hostel] I was like ‘I’m called [name] I do not wish to be called [male name]’ they went ‘because you’ve not done it by deed poll we will not call you [name] we will call you [male name]’… I felt belittled, I just felt belittled and small, I felt like apparently I don’t matter to them, that’s good to know. And they just didn’t care.” – Francis, gay, gender fluid, 22, White British

Some participants expressed deep distress at their experiences and were visibly upset when recounting these experiences in the research interview.

The stakeholder sample included professionals involved in training and advising housing and support services so they can better meet the needs of LGBT people. A key aspect of their work involved interrogating current organisational practice in order to recommend changes. Based on their experiences, these stakeholders reported that when sexual orientation and gender identity are monitored in housing services, questions are often asked inappropriately. The following comment was typical:

“You get a lot of monitoring questions where people say ‘I have to ask you this, not that I think you are or anything, but are you trans?’ Nobody is ever going to come out after you’ve asked the question that way.” – Charity for vulnerable people, front line worker

Other examples of insensitive and offensive practice experienced by research participants extended beyond homelessness organisations. For example, participants reported mental health professionals questioning ‘whether transgender was really a thing’ and commenting that being gay was incompatible with the participant’s religion. One participant, a gay man, reported being told by a voluntary sector mental health project a few years ago that his HIV status would have to be disclosed to other staff if he were to use their service.^{[footnote 45]} This context contributes to LGBT people’s fears and apprehension about accessing services that flowed throughout the research.

In 2019, DLUHC launched training through Stonewall Housing to provide staff working with LGBT people across various housing services an understanding of the issues this group face and how best to support LGBT people. Delivered by Stonewall Housing, the training package develops awareness as to why LGBT people may be at greater risk of homelessness, and the barriers LGBT people face when seeking homelessness support. Additionally, the training seeks to outline the statutory and non-statutory options that are available to support clients

Mainstream homelessness services can be hostile spaces for LGBT people

As discussed in Section 4.1, studies show that mainstream temporary housing such as hostels and night shelters can be chaotic environments that are difficult to live in for some homeless people (Crisis, 2018; Homeless Link, 2018) regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. However, the evidence base suggests that some experiences are specific to, or more common amongst, LGBT homeless people. Issues of safety, harassment and victimisation are both more prominent in the LGBT homelessness literature than the generic homelessness literature and are explicitly related to sexual orientation and gender identity. Studies have found that LGBT homeless people feel unsafe in temporary and supported accommodation, experiencing homophobic, biphobic and transphobic harassment from other residents and a lack of appropriate intervention by staff (O’Connor and Molloy, 2001).

Many of the LGBT homeless people interviewed for this study had stayed in mainstream homeless hostels, interim supported housing or night shelters and some had used homelessness day centres. Many reported instances of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic harassment in these services, reporting situations where they were obviously unsafe. For example:

“I got quite scared about being LGBT in the hostel ‘cause you don’t know who the other people are or what they think, they could be anybody…there was this guy that intimidated me a bit…he was just like ‘[male name] isn’t your birth name, it is?’ and I was like ‘no’ and he was like ‘well what is your birth name’ and I was like ‘I’m not going to tell you’… I knew then that he’s clocked me and I thought, ‘what if it goes round’.” – Archie, pansexual, transgender man, 21, White British

The 2 participants quoted above were both transgender. In the sample for this study, transgender and ‘out’ LGB participants alike reported abuse in mainstream homelessness services, particularly hostels. However, stakeholders with experience of working with LGBT homeless people emphasised that mainstream homelessness services are particularly hostile and unsafe for transgender people. One described their professional experience:

“There have been projects that I’ve worked in in the homelessness sector, in the hostels where trans people have been treated very differently, not by the staff team but by their peers….They get bullied, harassed….By the community, by their peers in hostels as well, and I find that other residents maybe wouldn’t make a joke if someone identified as gay or as a lesbian, but as soon as they identify as trans I think the treatment is very different.” – Homeless hostel, manager

Participants did not always recognise the abuse perpetrated against them. When asked if they had ever experienced harassment in temporary accommodation or day centres some, for example, initially responded that they had not, before going on to describe encounters that clearly constituted HBT abuse. They presented it as ‘just teasing’ or ‘nothing out of the ordinary’. It is likely therefore that harassment against LGBT people in mainstream homelessness services is underreported because of low expectations about safety and acceptance.

Homelessness services rarely accommodate the specific needs of transgender people

In this study, particular issues emerged for transgender people trying to navigate institutions that did not recognise or affirm their gender identity. This has been implicit in some of the findings already presented in this chapter.

Segregation practices based on sex registered at birth were found to cause significant distress, leaving LGBT homeless participants feeling ostracised. This is consistent with findings from the evidence base. One study, for example, notes that, with very few transgender homelessness spaces, they are left with no place of belonging (Coolhart and Brown, 2017). Stakeholders and homeless participants cited examples of transgender people being excluded from women’s groups and events in homelessness day centres, and from single-sex temporary accommodation.^{[footnote 46]} A stakeholder with a remit for developing homelessness services for LGBT people explained the situation in the city in which he worked:

“We started a women’s night shelter this year but there was a decision that transgender women wouldn’t be welcome there… [So] they would have to go into a mainstream night shelter, mixed night shelter. The ones we have, we’ve got the [X] night shelter, I’ve never known any trans clients to go into the [X] night shelter…the [Y] night shelter, it’s one big room with a screened off women-only area … I don’t know whether they had any trans clients, I don’t know how they would have been managed in that environment either and supported to feel safe.” – Homeless organisation, co-ordinator

A participant described a similar situation. As an asylum seeker her accommodation was provided by the Home Office. She reported being told she was ineligible for women’s housing and so was offered the one single room in a male hostel.

“[the Home Office] send me to the…accommodation, they say you are transgender woman, you cannot stay here…I recommend for you in [another city] ….In [Y city] there’s no LGBT, men, everything, so 100% share but he put [me in] men block, only men, but I get [the only] one room.” – Ryyan, heterosexual, transgender woman, 39, Asian

Facilities in mixed and single- sex temporary housing were also reported by participants as not meeting the needs of transgender people and this could cause daily practical issues. For example, hostels were reported to often lack suitable individual bathrooms or accommodation:

“Some trans women will still need to shave and they’ll be carrying hormones with them and issues around that’ (homelessness organisation). One trans woman confirmed that ‘I couldn’t even have a shave, I was walking round like Ozzy Osborne.” – Katie, straight, transgender woman, 26, White British

Other participants explained the importance of how toilets are labelled:

“Going to the toilet, that’s an embarrassment, I didn’t go in a toilet or a bathroom up until a year ago, 2 years ago I wouldn’t use toilets unless they’re neutral and that’s impossible to find in this country.” – Xade, heterosexual, transgender man, 28, Pakistani Iranian

Access to single-sex spaces is a complex issue needing further scrutiny, and is outside of the remit of this report. The Equality and Human Rights Commission published guidance on the laws surrounding single-sex spaces.[^47]

[^47]: Equality and Human Rights Comission’s guide to the law in relation to single-sex spaces: [Separate and single-sex service providers: a guide on the Equality Act sex and gender reassignment provisions

Equality and Human Rights Commission](https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and-gender)

4.4. Experiences of services responsive to LGBT homeless people’s needs

There was a stark contrast between the way participants described their engagement with mainstream services and with LGBT-specific services. This is captured well by one participant who contrasted the hostel where he lived, and where he is not out, with the LGBT support group with whom he enjoys activities:

“Inside the house it was difficult…but when you go outside and when we are with out, like-minded people then it was more comfortable than the house.” – Siv, gay, non-transgender man, 36, Asian

In contrast to the way in which most participants talked about their experiences of mainstream homelessness services, they talked in relaxed, comfortable terms when describing their involvement with LGBT services, whether support services or leisure groups. For example:

“I can just go dressed up and have cups of tea and get on with people who are like me.” – Elizabeth, unknown sexual orientation, transgender woman, 61, White British

“They’re really discreet, really non-judgemental. I don’t like having to define my gender….so it’s quite nice to meet other non-binary people, even though we’re there because it’s a gender support thing, it’s like we’re not hung up on gender, it’s just people hanging out which is good.” – Bobbie, lesbian, non-binary, 42, White Australian

As reported above, LGBT-specific organisations often did not meet participants’ needs but their accounts of their experiences of LGBT support and leisure services demonstrates the value to LGBT homeless people of services with an understanding of gender identity and sexual orientation. Participants who had been accommodated by one of the few LGBT homelessness organisations also talked about being comfortable with other service users and also with staff because they understand the needs and experiences of LGBT people. For example:

“When I come here [LGBT shared temporary housing] I’m so happy because…we are [an] LGBT group, we understand each other, we are happy, we are cooking, we eat together so I’m really thankful for the [organisation], it’s a good place.” – Ryyan, straight, transgender woman, aged 39, Asian

“At least they [referral organisation] had the foresight to know that it’s better to refer people that are LGBT to an organisation like this, because they know… all of the things I’ve spoken about, they know all about that and I wouldn’t have to actually say this is something that’s going to be a problem for me, they know all the things that go on, so that’s just easier. Even now I have a hard time saying exactly what can happen to you if you’re LGBT.” – Josh, gay, non-transgender man, 22, Black British

These 2 participants both live in temporary accommodation provided by LGBT organisations and there is a 3 month limit on one of the participant’s housing. Yet, he reported feeling more at ‘home’ – ‘my first ever experience of being in a home that’s actually home and being myself, being accepted’ than in the settled family house where he lived until he was 22. Other participants expressed similar feelings about their accommodation:

“So it’s about feeling safe and feeling comfortable. I can’t explain it really. When I go home I don’t have this thing inside me, like I don’t know what’s going to happen, I don’t have this anxiety or this stress, I can just open the door and feel comfortable, yes it’s a hostel but I can feel comfortable and they provide that.” – Josh, gay, non-transgender man,22, Black British

“I feel a lot happier here yeah, I don’t know, I actually look forward to coming home.” – Stan, bisexual, transgender man, 18, White British

Some mainstream homelessness organisations have developed inclusive practices and made efforts to meet the needs of their LGBT clients. Based on the experiences of LGBT homeless participants in this study, these efforts make a qualitative difference. Participants spoke enthusiastically about these homelessness services, which included a day centre, a night shelter and a hostel. When asked why they liked these services they responded as follows:

“It’s located [X location] and everyone there is very accepting of absolutely everyone, so that was my favourite place to go.” – Xanthe, queer, non-binary, 23, mixed White/Asian

“They [day centre] are very LGBT-friendly. They allow me to go to the women’s group there and they have female clothes to give me. I told them once (pronouns) and they never made a mistake. They also look out for me. If, say, some young people get it wrong, they get on their case. And they tell people in advance, like if volunteers come to do a session, so I don’t have to be offended.” – Kiki, bisexual, transgender woman, 22, Asian British

The participant quoted directly above went on to mention some highly valued facilities in the day centre, with good food, hot showers and activities. These are vital for homeless people – particularly for people sleeping rough – in trying to meet their daily needs. But they were clearly second order influences on how positively this participant experienced these services.

Participants living in mainstream hostels with other out LGBT residents were also more likely to recount positive experiences in their accommodation than participants in hostels where, to their knowledge, they are the only LGBT resident. They reported that the visibility of LGBT people in mainstream services further strengthened the welcoming environment. The following 2 participants, for example, both lived in the same mainstream voluntary sector hostel and talked positively about living with other LGBT people:

“They’ve got a high percentage of LGBT people here actually which is really nice. I guess thinking about when I was moving in here I was like ‘oh god, it’ll be loads of straight people and it’s going to be a really different environment than I’m used to’.” – Ashley, queer, non-transgender woman, aged 32, White British

“I’ve been here a month and I’m more comfortable here, more happier and my friends said you look so much happier, you look healthier, you’ve got a smile on your face, and I’ve not had a bad day here because there’s other gay residents and other lesbian residents.” – Michael, gay, non-transgender man, aged 26, White British

This was contrasted with a previous hostel where:

“I kept it [sexual orientation] quiet because I didn’t know who I was living next to, if they liked gay people, if they didn’t, because you can never tell.” – Michael, gay, non-transgender man, aged 26, White British

4.5 The consequences of insensitive or inappropriate service provision for LGBT homeless people

Tracing participants’ responses to their negative experiences of services revealed a number of consequences. Participants’ expectations of harassment or offence, often rooted in their own experiences, caused anxiety, deterred future engagement with services, and prompted some to hide their sexual orientation or gender identity. This was true across the sample, regardless of age, gender identity, sexual orientation, or location. This section explores these issues in more detail. On the last of these points, it is important to remember that some participants had left settled housing such as the parental home so they could express their identity. It was very troubling for participants to find that they were still unable to do so.

There was clear anxiety conveyed by participants about approaching or accepting a referral to mainstream homelessness services such as temporary housing and day centres. Their fears were not always realised, but the stress remained, supporting previous evidence in relation to LGBT people’s fears about mainstream health services being a barrier to service access (Formby, 2011). While any homeless person may be anxious about being in such environments, at the forefront of LGBT participants’ fears was whether their gender identity or sexual orientation would make them a target for hostility or abuse. LGBT homeless people therefore face additional challenges and barriers to accessing mainstream homelessness services.

Participants described a constant process of deliberation when making decisions about using services. In effect, they were conducting ongoing risk assessments prior to, and during their engagement with a housing or support service, increasing their anxiety about the treatment they may receive. One participant described his thought process when considering temporary accommodation:

“If I do this [go into the hostel] am I going to end up putting myself in the firing line? It’s all about risk. Yes, it sounds like a good idea but if I’m there and I’m gay and they find out will it make my life harder? So you’re constantly trying to stay under the radar.” – Brendan, gay non-transgender man, aged 39, White Irish

When participants’ concerns were not realised, they tended to consider themselves ‘lucky’, or the service an exception. One female participant, for example, spent one week in mixed temporary accommodation when she first became homeless. Her partner stayed with her for support and she explained that:

“Luckily we were all right. The people in the house were all right.” – Suzie, lesbian, non-transgender woman, 23, Black British

It is worth noting that Suzie considered her gender to place her at greater risk in mixed accommodation than her sexual orientation. This is consistent with evidence from studies about homeless women (Reeve and others, 2006) that find mixed hostels, day centres and night shelters can be hostile and unsafe for women. It also demonstrates the way in which intersecting aspects of LGBT homeless people’s identity affect their homelessness experiences.

In response to the hostility or insensitivity they encountered, LGBT homeless participants reported often hiding their gender identity or sexual orientation in some mainstream homelessness services. Brendan’s comment in the previous section about ‘staying under the radar’ and his concern that other residents would ‘find out’ his sexual orientation were relatively common. In most areas of his life, he was an out, gay man but in homelessness services he carefully considered whether to disclose his sexual orientation. He lived in a city considered to be LGBT friendly and had moved there for that reason when he became homeless. Another respondent, also living in a city with a large LGBT community, similarly described ‘thinking ‘oh my god, if people find me out…’ when he had been offered hostel places and so pretending he was straight:

“A few years ago when I did come out and for me it’s just easier to say I’m straight and I think I’ve got used to that now, it’s easier for me to just keep it to myself.” – Eric, gay, non-transgender male, 31, White Irish

Others only disclosed their sexual orientation once reassured that other service users would not be hostile. For example:

“To tell the other homeless people, I thought I’m probably going to be the only gay person here, they’re going to beat me up, stab me, whatever […]. I was worried to let people know I was gay down here but now I know there was nothing to worry about at all.” – Ian, gay, non-transgender man, 42, White British

A negative experience of a service also prompted a number of participants to disengage from that service, and sometimes from other/all services. The study team actively recruited some people who were not receiving formal homelessness and related support. In a small number of these cases, participants had not sought support because of low expectations about entitlement/eligibility (for example, for housing) combined with a safety net provided by family or friends. In others, however, participants had disengaged from, or were deterred from, approaching services because they anticipated hostility from other service users or an inappropriate response from staff. This applied to housing and other support services. As one participant’s experience shows:

“[in a mental health project] the worker that did my assessment said ‘oh we will need to inform the duty worker that you’re HIV+’ and I said ‘Why is that?’ and he said ‘oh, in case you have an accident and cut yourself or something’ so I just thought, ‘you know what, this is not the service for me’.” – Tom, gay, non-transgender man, 40, White European

Those who did approach services sometimes expressed regret:

“I got it wrong, I genuinely wish I should never have gone to the council.” – Naheem, gay, non-transgender man, 33, Asian British.

This point was strongly emphasised by stakeholders too. For example:

“I still think there are a lot of homeless LGBT young people who don’t dare to use the services for fear of discrimination. I did speak to some young people who were outside of services and rough sleeping or sofa surfing and in those cases there was definitely a fear that they would encounter violence or similar things in hostels.” – Charity for vulnerable people, front line worker

“Because LGBTIQ people have such negative experiences they withdraw.” – Homelessness organisation, LGBT lead

It is not unusual for homeless people to be deterred from services because of negative expectations or experiences as found in the UK, US and Australian literature (Albert Kennedy Trust, 2015; Strauss and others, 2017; Tyler and Schmitz, 2018). One participant’s comment, for example, is typical of attitudes reported in general homelessness studies:

“During that time I was very low and angry. If one person said no I was like ‘ugh, that’s what all services are like, I’m not going to bother’.” – Robin, bisexual, non-binary, 24, White British

However, the evidence from this study suggests that LGBT homeless people may be more likely to be treated insensitively, inappropriately, and to experience harassment.

4.6 Conclusion

There is only a very small body of existing evidence providing insights into LGBT homeless people’s access to and experience of housing and support services in England. There has been no mapping of service provision for LGBT homeless people in England, representing a key evidence gap. Such an exercise lay outside the remit of this study but insights from stakeholder and research participants that provision may be scarce and not meet LGBT homeless people’s needs, suggest that this would be worthwhile.

Reflecting the wider LGBT homelessness evidence base, many sources are international. International studies can provide useful evidence on some issues and experiences, particularly those less likely to be influenced by national context. However, the predominance of international evidence is particularly problematic in relation to this theme because homelessness and equalities policy and service delivery can vary greatly by country, and these influence access to and experiences of services. Stripping the international evidence away leaves very little current knowledge about LGBT homeless people’s experiences of services in England and that which does exist, as with the international evidence, tends to be quite general.

The existing evidence suggests that LGBT homeless people face harassment and abuse in, and exclusion from, mainstream homelessness services because of their sexual orientation and gender identity but does not explore this in depth. This study has corroborated the findings of a small evidence base on LGBT experiences of housing and support services. It has also, importantly, provided qualitative evidence of LGBT homeless people’s lived experiences of accessing and using homelessness services in England. In doing so, it has been able to highlight some specific policy and practice points about: monitoring of gender identity and sexual orientation; the way in which the homelessness legislation is being interpreted; and inappropriate treatment of LGBT people. This study was being conducted during a time of significant reform to homelessness legislation and so the findings do not reflect the positive outcomes that may have come from the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act. Specifically, some of the problems and issues that participants in this study encountered when approaching the local authority as homelessness may now be mitigated.

Some LGBT participants were found to disengage from housing and support services and in some cases deny their gender identity or sexuality in mainstream services to feel safe. This behaviour, caused by the fear and lived experience of discriminatory treatment, may deter LGBT people from using services in the future and does not promote service provision that is accessible to all.

Question 6

5.  What are LGBT people’s strategies for dealing with and their responses to homelessness?

Accepted Answer

Summary

Existing research often focuses on mental ill-health, sex work and sexual violence, substance use, and victimisation as experiences, outcomes and ‘risk behaviours’ that LGBT people may face during homelessness.

Literature suggests that sofa surfing and sleeping rough are both common for LGBT people, in part due to issues about access and safety in formal housing provision. Evidence shows that LGBT homeless people are more likely to be victims of violence and sexual exploitation, bullying, discrimination and substance misuse, and experience higher rates of physical and mental health issues, suicidality, and suicide attempts compared to non-LGBT homeless people.

In this study, LGBT participants commonly relied on ‘hidden’ and informal accommodation such as sofa surfing and rough sleeping, as well as staying with strangers, survival sex, and all-night parties. These situations were often seen as preferable to staying in a hostel, because of fears about accessing these spaces as LGBT people.

Despite a series of negative outcomes associated with homelessness, there was also evidence in this research of improved mental wellbeing, recovery from or reduction in drug/alcohol use and progress with transitioning, because leaving the familial/parental home – even if resulting in homelessness – can present an opportunity to ‘come out’.

Place and mobility were important features in homelessness pathways, and participants moved from place to place and were drawn to locations which they perceived to be LGBT-friendly.

Echoing existing literature, participants were often reluctant to engage with, or unaware they were entitled to help from, formal services.

5.1. What is known about LGBT people’s experiences of homelessness? A critical summary of the evidence base

The evidence base about LGBT people’s experiences of homelessness comprised 47 individual sources. The material reviewed was predominantly based on international empirical studies carried out in the US (n=29), Canada (Frederick and others, 2011; Gaetz and others, 2016; Kidd and others, 2017) and Australia (Oakley and Bletsas, 2018; Strauss and others, 2017). The remaining 7 UK studies offered only limited insights on this theme (Albert Kennedy Trust, 2015; Cull and others, 2006; Dunne and others, 2002; Matthews and others, 2018; McCoy, 2018; Stonewall Housing, 2016; Tunåker, 2015). Most of the empirical studies used quantitative methodologies (30), with around a third (14) reporting on predominantly qualitative methods. Seven international sources looked at the particular experience of transgender or gender non-conforming people (Begun and Kattari, 2016; Kattari and Begun, 2017; Shelton, 2015; Shelton and Bond, 2017; Shelton and others, 2018a; Shelton and others, 2018b; Strauss and others, 2017). As noted elsewhere in this report, the literature is concerned almost exclusively with the experiences of young people. Only 3 different sources, based on data derived from 2 empirical studies, did not limit their focus to this age group (Begun and Kattari, 2016; Kattari and Begun, 2017; Stonewall Housing, 2016). All studies were considered ‘robust’.

A majority (26, or 60%) of the 47 studies were quantitative and comparative, seeking to compare the consequences of homelessness for LGBT homeless people with their heterosexual and non-transgender counterparts. As a way to identify disproportionate challenges and barriers that LGBT people may face during homelessness, these studies measure the prevalence rates of a range of adverse experiences, outcomes and ‘risk behaviours’ as discrete variables. Common areas of focus within this literature were mental health, sex work and sexual violence, substance use, and victimisation.

The evidence review identified a number of gaps in the existing evidence base on LGBT people’s responses to becoming, and daily experiences whilst homeless. There is less evidence overall about LGBT people’s lives while homeless and while in different accommodation situations beyond formal provision such as hostels or shelters (Abramovich, 2017; Coolhart and Brown, 2017; Porchlight, 2015). The majority of studies – US studies in particular – employ large-scale quantitative surveys. While useful in terms of identifying the prevalence of risk factors and adverse outcomes, and providing comparisons between the consequences of homelessness for LGBT and non-LGBT homeless people, there is a lack of evidence on LGBT people’s daily lives while homeless. This is in contrast to the (largely UK) evidence base on non-LGBT homelessness which offers relatively rich, qualitative accounts of homelessness experiences, including in hidden and informal housing situations such as rough sleeping and sofa surfing (staying temporarily with family, friends or acquaintances) (Hodgetts and others, 2010; Lancione, 2019; May, 2000; Reeve and Batty, 2011).

LGBT homeless people’s experiences of ‘informal’ accommodation situations

Evidence about LGBT homelessness that focuses on particular accommodation situations, tends to be about formal housing provision, such as hostels, shelters or other forms of supported accommodation (Abramovich, 2017; Begun and Kattari, 2016; Coolhart and Brown, 2017). Studies on LGBT people’s qualitative experiences of informal and non-accommodation based homelessness situations such as sofa-surfing and rough sleeping are scarcer. Nevertheless, there is some indication within the literature that both sofa surfing and rough sleeping are common experiences for LGBT people. This is in part due to the issues of access to formal accommodation such as hostels, safety, harassment and abuse, and exclusion experienced by LGBT people in formal housing provision (see Section 4.1 for an overview of what is known about LGBT people’s experience of housing and support services). Subsequent discussion in this section summarises what can be deduced from the rather limited and tentative evidence base on LGBT people’s strategies for dealing with homelessness and their responses to it.

What is striking across a range of studies – from the UK and internationally – is LGBT people’s inability to find a space in which they feel safe (Abramovich, 2017; Begun and Kattari, 2016; Coolhart and Brown, 2017; Dunne and others, 2002). As reported in Chapter 4.1, the results of a large-scale survey of 6,456 transgender/GNC people^{[footnote 48]} in the US suggest that shelters are not emotionally or physically safe spaces for them (Begun and Kattari, 2016). As a result, participants in some studies have been found to sleep rough or sofa surf instead. In Australia, Oakley and Bletsas (2018) found that some of their young LGBT participants described feeling safer while sofa surfing than they did in boarding houses. In other qualitative international studies, LGBT homeless youth reported having left unsafe situations at home hoping but failing to find safety in shelter systems and instead often felt safer on the streets despite the risks of rough sleeping (Abramovich, 2017; Coolhart and Brown, 2017). Qualitative evidence from the Australian Trans Pathways study (Strauss and others, 2017) draws on vignettes of transgender young people being refused access to shelters because of their gender identities, and having to sofa surf (sometimes on strangers’ sofas) and sleep rough as a consequence. Participants recalled intense feelings of isolation and exclusion in shared housing.

There is also evidence to suggest that LGBT people are more likely to rely on more informal, risky, means of accommodating themselves temporarily while homeless. In the Australian Trans Pathways study, after being refused access to a shelter due to their gender identity, one participant reported sleeping rough. During this time he reported being very vulnerable, going home with strangers and enduring physical abuse (Strauss and others, 2017).

Similarly, a large quantitative study from the US – using a random sample^{[footnote 49]} of Los Angeles public high school students – found that homelessness, in the form of staying with strangers, which is particularly risky, was a more common homelessness experience for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning adolescents than for non-LGBTQ adolescents (Rice and others, 2014).

There is also evidence to suggest that LGBT people are more likely to engage in survival sex – either engaging in sex work to fund a night in a hotel or bed and breakfast or spending the night forming an unwanted sexual partnership with someone to obtain a roof over their head (Gangamma and others, 2008; Gattis, 2013; Kattari and Begun, 2017; McCoy, 2018; Van Leeuwen and others, 2006; Walls and Bell, 2011). A quantitative survey involving 712 young people (aged 16 to 25) who were receiving help from homelessness organisations in the UK found that 12% of all survey respondents said they had engaged in sexual activity in exchange for a place to stay. This proportion rose considerably for LGBT young people of whom nearly a quarter had engaged in sexual activity for a place to stay (McCoy, 2018). Tyler (2008) identified that ‘trading sex’ is more of a risk factor for sexual victimisation for LGB youth compared to their heterosexual peers. This reflects other research, including that about single homeless women, where ‘survival sex’ is prominent (Reeve and Batty, 2011), (Gangamma and others, 2008) regardless of whether they were gay or heterosexual.

While the majority of the studies focus only on survival sex for lesbian, gay or bi people, or draw on a very small sample of transgender participants, one study by Kattari and Begun (2017), analyses the relationships between homelessness and survival sex among transgender/GNC people.^{[footnote 50]} They found that those recorded male at birth were significantly more likely to participate in survival sex than those recorded female at birth, and those who identify as female today were significantly more likely to participate in survival sex compared to those who identify as male today as well as in comparison to those who present their authentic gender only some of the time (Kattari and Begun, 2017). They speculate that this may be a result of the intersectional marginalised identities of being both transgender and a woman in society, with both groups being more likely to experience oppression.

LGBT homelessness and mobility

Similar to literature about other ‘hidden (single) homeless’ groups (Reeve and Batty, 2011), LGBT people’s housing pathways while homeless tend to be characterised by insecurity and transience as moves between different forms of homelessness and accommodation types are common. In Shelton and Bond’s (2017) study with young homeless transgender people, it was typical for participants’ pathways, following departure from their homes, to be characterised by frequent moves. Young people moved from one shelter to the next; their stays often being contingent on them being able to conform to programme rules, their perceived safety of the shelter, and length-of-stay restrictions.

Frequent mobility is a common finding in studies of single homeless people (Jackson, 2012; 2015; Reeve and Batty, 2011) and is not unique to LGBT homeless people. However, the evidence base presents a much more mixed picture of the drivers and patterns of mobility amongst homeless people generally, compared to LGBT homeless people. One ethnographic study conducted in London, for example, notes many influences on homeless participants’ residential mobility including moving to access homelessness services and accommodation, to connect with family and friends, and to move away from problems such as debts and involvement with criminal gangs (Jackson 2012; 2015). The study also finds that homeless people sometimes choose to remain in their local area because they feel safer in a familiar neighbourhood. In contrast, the evidence base on LGBT people’s mobility shows young people fleeing the familial home – which several studies have shown can be felt as unsafe by LGBT people if there is conflict or unacceptance regarding their sexual orientation or gender identity (Tunåker, 2015; Whitbeck and others, 2004) – and choosing to live in a place where LGBT lives are more visible and accepted (Cull and others, 2006; Kattari and Begun 2017; Robinson, 2018; Strauss and others, 2017). Shelton and others (2018a) – one of the few studies on this issue that disaggregates transgender participants – examined the experiences of transgender youth compared to the full LGBTQ sample in their study and found that, in comparison, transgender youth reported higher frequencies of running away or being ejected from their family home, foster home or relatives’ home.

Experiences and outcomes while homeless

The evidence reviewed suggests that a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity places them at disproportionate risk of a range of negative outcomes while homeless. LGBT homeless people are more likely to be victims of violence and sexual exploitation, bullying, discrimination, substance misuse, and experience high rates of physical and mental health issues, suicidality, and suicide attempts compared to non-LGBT homeless people (Albert Kennedy Trust, 2015; Milburn and others, 2006; Tyler and Beal, 2010; Tyler and Schmitz, 2018; Van Leeuwen and others, 2006; Walls and others, 2009; Whitbeck and others, 2001; World Habitat, 2018). In one large-scale study (Kidd and others, 2017) drawing on data from 1103 young people accessing Canadian homelessness services, of the 310 young people who reported sexual or gender minority identities, there was a 70% suicide attempt rate compared with 39% for straight and non-transgender participants. Frederick and others (2011) also found sexual minority youth reported using a greater number of different types of drugs in the 12 months prior to the interview than heterosexual-identified youth; and sexual minority young women were more likely to report daily drug use. A number of studies have found that LGBT homeless people are more likely to be subject to sexual violence (Cochran and others, 2002; Gaetz and others, 2016; Tyler, 2008). In Forge and others’ (2018) research with 295 homeless youth who have previous child welfare system involvement (30% of whom identified as LGBQ and 9% as transgender), over half of LGBTQ youth were victimised while they were homeless compared to one third of youth who were heterosexual or non-transgender.

Some studies, however, caution against an overly negative understanding of LBGT homelessness journeys. Reflecting on qualitative research with 20 LGBT people who had experienced homelessness in Scotland, Matthews and others (2018) critique what they see as an over-emphasis on the public health implications and risk associated with LGBT homelessness within the North American literature which works to highlight very negative experiences, such as drug use and sexual exploitation. They also draw attention to the important point that this research comes from a context where the welfare safety net is very poor. In the UK (and particularly Scotland), the negative outcomes identified in the US may be mitigated by the broader welfare entitlement system, homelessness safety nets and supported housing options.

Shelton and others (2018a; 2018b) have also looked beyond the structural constraints and oppressive narratives of homelessness for LGBT people to practices of resilience and resistance. They (Shelton and others, 2018b) found that young transgender participants experiencing homelessness employed various strategies to reframe their challenges as positive experiences. The homes of the transgender and gender-expansive homeless young people in Shelton’s (2016) study were characterised by instability, danger and risk (similar to women leaving abusive homes), where expressing authentic gender identity was prohibited. Once homeless, some participants described finding a community in which they felt a part and wherein they could access information relating to living authentically, available support services, and transgender history.

Overall, the evidence does not provide enough detail on the extent of difference in strategies of dealing with homelessness between LGBT and non-LGBT homeless people. There are no large-scale – especially UK studies – that statistically compare the propensity of LGBT homeless people who sleep rough or sofa surf compared to non-LGBT people, for instance. There is also a lack of in-depth qualitative work that explores the nuances in everyday response and strategies. For instance, most of the literature on survival sex is based on surveys and offers comparative analysis rather than in-depth qualitative accounts from LGBT people themselves.

What can be concluded quite confidently from the literature is that the difficulties faced when homeless – difficulties that all homeless people endure – are compounded by gender or sexual identity. This includes certain detrimental outcomes, or what are sometimes referred to as ‘risk behaviours’, being more common within LGBT groups. There are also some homelessness experiences that are distinct and unique to LGBT people, in addition to the common daily challenges faced when homeless such as survival, meeting basic needs, finding a place to sleep, finding food, a place to wash clothes or shower.

5.2. LGBT participant experiences while homeless: overview of key findings

Analysis of LGBT participants’ journeys through homelessness – the different accommodation situations they have stayed in and how they managed daily life – revealed that they commonly relied on ‘hidden’ and informal accommodation such as sofa surfing and rough sleeping as well as more marginal situations such as staying with strangers, survival sex and overnight parties. Chapter 4 provided evidence that LGBT participants often encountered barriers to accessing formal homelessness services and so it is, perhaps, not surprising that this should be the case. Participant accounts also suggested that these informal ways of coping with homelessness and securing shelter carried risks.

The LGBT homeless participants interviewed for this study provided information about the different temporary accommodation situations in which they had stayed whilst homeless. This prompted discussion on a range of experiences including priorities for bedding down, whether their situation felt safe and appropriate, and what a typical day looked like. The following issues emerged from this discussion:

sofa surfing was a common experience but came with problems of lack of space, security, stability, autonomy, as well as pressures on friendships – participants were sometimes at risk of sexual exploitation while sofa surfing
LGBT participants relied on a number of risky hidden accommodation situations including staying with strangers, ‘survival sex’, and all-night parties
rough sleeping was often the only option open to participants – it was also commonly seen as a preference to a stay in a hostel because of fears about accessing these spaces as an LGBT person
there was some evidence that participants were vulnerable to negative outcomes while homeless
despite there being a series of negative outcomes associated with homelessness there was also evidence in this study of improved mental wellbeing amongst the interview sample since leaving the familial/parental home – for a small number of participants, homelessness also represented an opportunity to come out
place and mobility were important features in homelessness pathways – participants moved from place to place frequently and were drawn to places which they perceived as being LGBT-friendly

These experiences and responses to homelessness are not specific to LGBT people. Existing evidence has found that rough sleeping and hidden homelessness are common amongst homeless people generally, particularly the single homeless population (Reeve and Batty, 2011), frequent mobility is identified as a feature of homelessness pathways (Jackson, 2012; 2015) and the adverse impact on homeless people’s mental health and other aspects of their lives are noted (Dumoulin and others, 2016; Fazel and others, 2008; Rees, 2009; Reeve and Batty, 2011). There is no robust quantitative evidence, particularly in the UK that confirms whether these experiences and outcomes apply to a greater extent to LGBT homeless people than those not identifying as LGBT, or whether the specifics of their experiences differ. Nevertheless, this chapter explores these key findings in more detail for 3 reasons.

First, because so little is known about the daily lives and survival strategies of LGBT homeless people, it is important to address this gap by reporting on those experiences whether or not they are related to participants’ sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, drawing on the concept of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989), which posits that varying aspects of a person’s identity overlap and complicate their experiences, this research demonstrates that people’s LGBT identities and other aspects of their identity and/or life experiences (for example, of mental ill-health, domestic abuse) intersect and, together, impact on their experiences of – and responses to – homelessness. Whilst some of these factors are also experienced by non-LGBT people, it is the intersection of these experiences with their LGBT identities that operate to impact on, and often limit their options within, experiences of homelessness. That is to say that homelessness experiences are underscored by multiple facets of identity (for example, being black and transgender, or being white, non-transgender, gay and disabled). These particularities – and underlying fears of accessing services and informal support as LGBT – often underpinned participants decision-making about, for example, whether to approach a homelessness service.

Second, the existing evidence and the primary data gathered for this study indicates some possible reasons why LGBT people could be at greater risk of relying on informal, and sometimes risky, survival strategies and consequently, experience adverse outcomes to a greater degree. Evidence from existing sources and the primary data gathered for this study, as described in detail in Chapter 4, indicates that LGBT homeless people encounter barriers to accessing formal homelessness services, and to resolving their homelessness because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. Groups that face greater constraints on accessing accommodation and support services may have little choice but to rely on informal arrangements and devise alternative survival strategies. Stakeholders interviewed for this study who worked with LGBT homeless people expressed the view that this was true of LGBT homeless people, although their perceptions were based on professional experience and observation rather than on robust research evidence. They reported views that echoed the findings from the LGBT homeless participant accounts that the negative experiences of mainstream provision deters LGBT homeless people from applying for accommodation, thereby increasing their likelihood of sofa surfing, rough sleeping and engaging in survival sex. One stakeholder from a domestic abuse charity suggested that, with familial abuse and domestic abuse being a particularly common experience amongst LGBT people (see Chapter 3) they may be more likely to prefer to stay with trusted friends rather than in temporary hostels where the other residents are unknown to them. Whilst no firm conclusions can be drawn from this rather scant evidence, it does represent an area for further investigation.

Third, as reported in Section 5.1, the evidence base demonstrates that LGBT people are at greater risk of victimisation and violence whilst homeless than people not identifying as LGBT. As such, LGBT homeless people in hidden, informal, or marginal situations may be more vulnerable than their heterosexual and non-transgender counterparts.

5.3. Sofa surfing

It was common for LGBT homeless participants in this study to have turned to friends, acquaintances and sometimes, but less commonly, to family members for temporary accommodation during a period of homelessness. This is commonly referred to as ‘sofa surfing’, a term used and understood to refer to people staying temporarily with friends, family or acquaintances for short periods and usually not having their own private room or space

Over half of the participants in this study had sofa surfed. This was consistent across different age ranges, sexualities and gender identities, amongst those living in different parts of the country and regardless of the level of homelessness provision in their area. Participants in large cities such as Manchester and London were as likely to report having sofa surfed as those in smaller towns and locations with fewer homelessness services. This may indicate that the primary driver for sofa surfing was not a lack of availability of other services, although it is worth noting that in places where there is greater provision, there is often also higher demand for services.

Exploring participant accounts of their options for securing temporary accommodation when they became homeless suggests that many did have friends able and willing to accommodate them for a short period. However, as reported in Section 3.3, several participants were unable to stay temporarily with others because they were not out to their friends, or they were refused help because of their gender identity. Very few had the option of staying with family members. This reflects the common experience amongst the LGBT homeless sample of homophobic, biphobic or transphobic abuse from parents and sometimes wider family networks. Nevertheless, participants with friendship networks found it relatively easy initially to find friends with whom they could stay temporarily. This finding applied mostly to those participants who reported being closely connected to a local LGBT community which was, usually those participants who lived in locations with relatively large LGBT communities. This was true of both the participants quoted below:

“My first reaction is I don’t know, I didn’t know for sure that there would be friends that would put me up, it was actually the other way around, I was like I don’t know what I will do and then one of my friends said ‘I can put you up, don’t worry’.” – Angelina, bisexual, non-transgender woman, 46, White European

“They said they [friends] were fine [about me staying] and I think a lot of people in the little LGBT community look out for each other quite a lot and they’re very, especially my friendship group, is very kind.” – Ashley queer, non-transgender female, 32, White British

Ashley reported the view that the same informal support network would not have been available to them in their smaller home town, where there was no visible LGBT community.

Participant accounts of their time spent sofa surfing revealed a series of challenges associated with such an arrangement, similar to the challenges that would face non-LGBT identifying people: strains on friendships/relationships and mental health; the impracticalities of not having space or a permanent address; and the uncertainty of not knowing how long you can stay. Participants reported that friends’ help was not limitless which resulted in patterns of forced mobility and frequent moves between sofa surfing and rough sleeping.

“I felt tension cos I don’t want our friendship to erode. I understand it’s such a small space, if you go to the toilet in the middle of the night the door’s going to creak and make noises and in the morning I wake up early, he likes to sleep late so you’ve got to respect that because he’s helping me, I’ve put some of my stuff there as well so I don’t want to lose that friendship so I’ll stay a week or two and then probably I can move on.” – Philip, gay, non-transgender man, 46, Asian

Like the participants quoted above, others expressed feelings of anxiety associated with wanting to protect friendships but also a sense of not belonging in their space. One trans participant connected this with his sense of not belonging in his body, which emphasised these feelings for him:

“As if being trans isn’t bad enough and you’re already going through the fact that I don’t belong in this body, but you have to then deal with I don’t belong in this space either.” – Xade, heterosexual, trans man, 28, Pakistani Iranian

Most participants were out to the people who allowed them to stay but this was not always the case. A couple of participants, both gay, non-transgender men, felt unable to come out to the people on whom they relied for support. This represents a point of departure from the experiences of homeless people who do not identify as LGBT and who do not, therefore, risk losing vital sources of support if their identity is revealed. One LGBT homeless participant, for example, had no recourse to public funds and so was completely reliant on his family and community for survival but did not feel able to be out with them. In line with a study by Reck (2009), about the experience of coming out for transgender and gay youth of colour where ‘coming out […] endangers the gay person’s connections to the larger community’ (p.228) this respondent had to keep his sexual orientation ‘top secret’ so as not to be excluded from his social circle and only source of support. Another participant, who frequently relied on people he barely knew for accommodation similarly spoke of the difficulties he faced in deciding whether it was safe to disclose his sexual orientation:

“You were terrified of telling people you’re gay because you just think they’re not going to let you stay here, there’s things like that. So you’re constantly thinking is this a situation where they’re going to be fine, or do I [not] say anything.” – Brendan, gay, non-transgender man, 39, White Irish

Further exploration of the support and assistance that participants were receiving while in different accommodation situations showed that they were less likely to engage with formal services, and therefore get the help they need, while sofa surfing. This was true across the sample of participants who had sofa surfed, with no obvious differences between those living in areas with fewer or greater numbers of homelessness services. As one participant explained:

“I think I didn’t realise what help was out there really, and I think ‘cos I was couch surfing I didn’t really consider myself homeless, like I didn’t deserve that and someone else would probably need the service more than I did. So it took me a while for my friends to say you’re entitled to this, you have a right to ask for help.” – Ashley, queer, non-transgender woman, 32, White British

This echoes the findings from other homelessness studies and is not specific to LGBT people. One mixed methods study in England, for example, correlated homeless people’s housing pathways with their patterns of service use and found clear evidence that periods of ‘hidden homelessness’, including sofa surfing, were associated with lower levels of service engagement (Reeve and Batty, 2011^{[footnote 51]}).

However, if LGBT people are more reliant on sofa surfing and other informal arrangements than people who do not identify as LGBT for the reasons discussed in Section 5.2 above, then they may also be at greater risk of being disengaged from services.

5.4. Rough sleeping

Rough sleeping was a relatively common experience amongst the LGBT homeless people interviewed, with over one third reporting sleeping rough at some point. Participants also talked about sleeping on 24 hour buses and staying awake through the night when they had nowhere else to stay. Nearly as many participants had slept rough as had accessed a place in a homeless hostel.

The limited existing evidence finds very high rates of rough sleeping amongst homeless people (see for example Reeve and Batty 2011 in relation to single homeless people). However, LGBT participants reported making concerted efforts to remain out of sight to avoid other homeless people as a result of fearing for their safety as LGBT people. They reported preferring to stay away from well-known rough sleeping locations and other people sleeping rough because this made them feel safer, as non-LGBT homeless people were understood as a possible threat because of potential adverse reactions to LGBT people. For example:

“I feel safer on me [my] own, when I’m on me [my] own I know nothing can happen, no-one will hurt me or judge me and all that or discriminate, any of that.” – Roger, bisexual, non-transgender man, 47, White British

People sleeping rough who are less visible are also less likely to be identified by support services such as rough sleeper outreach teams.

As with sofa surfing, no one sub-group appeared more likely to sleep rough compared to another. Participants who had slept rough ranged from those in their late teens to their 40s, who were of different sexualities and gender identities, and lived in different parts of the country. Some participants moved through several other forms of accommodation such as sofa surfing and hostels before sleeping rough but a small number slept rough the first night they became homeless. Whether a participant slept rough related to what other options they had, if any, on any particular night.

As is the case for all homeless people, sleeping rough was sometimes the only option for participants when the safety net of friends and family was absent, and for those with no recourse to public funds, with no ‘local connection’ to the area or ‘priority need’ for housing and so were owed less support from their local authority. There was also evidence in the accounts of the LGBT homeless participants that sleeping rough was not always a ‘last’ resort but that it was sometimes considered preferable to staying in a hostel. Several of the LGBT people interviewed reported moving back to the streets, or expressing a desire to do so, after finding the environments in hostels or emergency accommodation unbearable. Some participants raised issues about the quality and conditions of the provision that would affect any homeless person. One, for example, reported that he was warmer sleeping on 24 hour buses than in his asylum seeker accommodation and another explained that:

“I went and presented myself as homeless and they put me in an emergency accommodation […] it was absolutely horrendous, the worst place, I’d rather be on the street than be in there, it was the worst place ever.” – Faiz, gay, non-transgender man, 31, Black

Others, however, directly related their ‘choice’ to sleep rough, or their ‘preference’ for sleeping rough over hostel accommodation to the HBT harassment they experienced from other residents (see Chapter 4.3 for more details). For example:

“I had a bit of a fight there with somebody that gets to me and he was being a bit homophobic, so I was like ** you, I’d rather be back on the street with those people that I know and I can go there and just relax and I can walk away from this, I don’t want to be in the bed next to you.” – Lawrence, gay, non-transgender man, 33, White British

The evidence base suggests that rough sleeping is far from a safe ‘choice’ for LGBT homeless people sleeping rough in terms of health and victimisation (Cochran and others, 2002) as is true for all homeless people (Sanders and Albanese, 2016). One participant, for example, described how staying up all night while on the streets – as he did intermittently – was the safest thing he could do to stay vigilant, but that to stay awake for long periods often involved substance abuse, as it did for other participants:

“There was lots of drinking, most of us were intoxicated a lot of the time because it’s just really rough and you never know what kind of day you’re going to have, whether you’re going to find food, it’s just really scary sometimes, you have to kind of just build up an armour using whatever substances you can.” – Xanthe, queer, non-binary, 23, Mixed White/Asian

The strategies for managing homelessness and rough sleeping reported by the participants quoted above are not specific to LGBT homeless people. However, drawing together the different datasets analysed for this study, there is some tentative evidence that LGBT homeless people may be more at risk of rough sleeping than people who do not identify as LGBT and so may be exposed to the dangers of rough sleeping to a greater extent than homeless people not identifying as LGBT.^{[footnote 52]} There is also tentative evidence that LGBT homeless people may face greater or additional risks while sleeping rough than non-LGBT identifying people, because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. One large US study, for example, found that LGBT homeless participants were more likely to have slept rough than those who did not identify as LGBT (Rice and others, 2015^{[footnote 53]}), although the transferability of this study to a UK context is unclear. This message was, however, reinforced by some stakeholders interviewed for this study who worked with LGBT homeless people. They reported the view that LGBT homeless people were at particular risk of rough sleeping because mainstream hostels can be hostile spaces for this group. These stakeholders were reporting their perceptions only, rather than referring to robust research evidence, but it was a view firmly expressed by some, based on reported experiences of their clients. As reported above, the accounts of some of the LGBT homeless people interviewed for this study lend support to these stakeholder perceptions. Stakeholders who worked with LGBT homeless people also suggested that LGBT people, and transgender people in particular, might be particularly vulnerable to sexual assault as well as homophobic, biphobic and transphobic assault when they sleep rough.

“What I’ve come across a few times is working with trans men where they’re at extremely high risk of sexual assault for instance when they’re rough sleeping […] is that risk fully understood by services? I think not really.… and of course trans women sleeping out as well, they’re at extremely high risk of sexual assault, or any kind of assault, certainly it’s been reported lots of times.” – Homelessness organisation

Again, this was a view based on professional experience of working with LGBT homeless people rather than comparative studies of the experiences of people sleeping rough but given the seriousness of the issue, it is worth reporting. One young transgender female participant in this study reported that she had been sexually assaulted the first night she slept rough.

5.5. LGBT homeless people’s survival strategies: forms of ‘hidden’ homelessness

LGBT homeless participants often relied on informal sources of support and housing. Sometimes this placed participants in dangerous spaces below the radar of services. Among the more risky strategies identified in participant accounts were overnight stays with strangers, survival sex, and engaging in the Chemsex party scene to secure several nights’ shelter. These were not mutually exclusive and it was common for participants to have relied on more than one of these informal sources.

Overnight stays with strangers and survival sex

While sofa surfing, several participants reported staying at the homes of people with whom they were not well acquainted. Two gay, non-transgender men in their 30s, for example, spoke about staying overnight at houses of people they had ‘randomly met’. They described being approached on the street by strangers and street drinkers inviting them to spend the night. They both lived in a city with a large LGBT population but were not originally from the area. Neither were eligible for local temporary accommodation or many of the other homelessness services because they had no ‘local connection’, and neither had close friends in the area.^{[footnote 54]} They explained that their only options were to accept these invitations or to sleep rough.

Staying with strangers inevitably came with risks. As reported in Section 4.1 above, it is well established in the literature that LGBT homeless people are more likely to be victims of violence and sexual exploitation and take part in ‘risky sexual behaviour’ and survival sex than non-LGBT homeless people (Albert Kennedy Trust, 2015; Milburn and others, 2006; Tyler and Beal, 2010; Tyler and Schmitz, 2018; Van Leeuwen and others, 2006; Whitbeck and others, 2001; Walls and others, 2009; World Habitat, 2018), and this came through in the interviews with participants in the current study. Several participants – a small number of non-transgender gay men and one transgender lesbian^{[footnote 55]} – reported engaging in survival sex. This included meeting strangers through dating sites and engaging in sex work, as a reported strategy to avoid rough sleeping. Participants described the constrained choices they faced between spending nights on the streets or using dating apps to find somewhere to stay, having exhausted networks of friends. They also talked about how unsafe they felt, with one questioning whether he may have been relatively ‘safer’ sleeping rough:

“There were times when I didn’t have a friend’s place to go to, or I didn’t have anywhere else to go other than the streets and I couldn’t do that, so I would end up on Grindr trying to find somewhere to stay and then obviously drugs and stuff get into the mix. I feel like when you’re LGBT it’s much easier to find yourself in an unsafe situation […] Had I chosen to be on the streets, sure I might have been cold and I might have got robbed or whatever, but I wouldn’t have been in a place where someone was actually trying to harm me.” – Josh, gay, non-transgender man, 22, Black British

“Yeah I used to stay with men I met on social media just to have somewhere to stay for the night, it wasn’t safe thinking about it now, obviously it’s not the best thing to do but it was either that or be on the street, especially with somebody, with me, I’ve got mental health issues and things like that, it wasn’t the ideal place for me to be so that’s what I used to do sometimes.” – Faiz, gay, non-transgender man, 31, Black

Other participants reported similar experiences while sex working. Two participants, a gay, non-transgender man and a lesbian, transgender woman, both in their 30s and living in northern cities, engaged in sex work as a means of survival and reported the inherent dangers:

“I think you get used to it after a while and it’s not so bad, but there is a certain type of client who’s there to abuse women and they will always pick on the newbies so it was very difficult to start with.” – Topaz, lesbian, transgender woman, 30, White British

Overnight and Chemsex parties

Several of the gay men interviewed reported involvement in the Chemsex party scene, which is often understood to be a specific sub-cultural phenomenon among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (Stuart, 2019). This acted as a trigger for homelessness (see Chapter 3) but also a way of securing accommodation for a few nights while homeless. One participant, for example, reported that when he became homeless, he stayed temporarily at a Chemsex ‘party house’. He reported having to go ‘from party to party’ in-between sleeping rough in order to meet basic needs such as keeping clean, resting and eating. He reported that this left him feeling exhausted physically and mentally, which he referred to as ‘just letting myself die’. He kept this up until an outreach worker found him and found him a place at a winter shelter which allowed him to ‘recover physically’. Other participants also used all-night parties, including Chemsex parties, as a way of accommodating themselves.

In many ways, partying was a form of survival and coping – a way of meeting basic needs but with the risk of being drawn further into a cycle of addiction and mental ill health.

5.6. Homelessness as an opportunity for coming out

There was a notable minority of LGBT homeless participants in the sample who, having fled unsafe, restrictive homes, found a space to feel more comfortable in their identities once homeless. This reflects a small body of UK qualitative research that emphasises the agency expressed by LGBT homeless people. Matthews and others’ (2018) small qualitative study of 20 LGBT people who had experienced homelessness in Scotland, for example, found that in homelessness, aspects of identity sometimes flourished:

“Homelessness was intertwined in a complex way with the people’s emerging identities and broader experiences of exclusion and abuse.” (Matthews and others, 2018, p.12)

In the sample for the present study, this was true of participants of different gender identities, sexualities and ages but was particularly the case amongst participants who had experienced abuse, neglect, or rejection in their family homes, and those who were out at the time of their interview. On the latter point, this was more common although not exclusive to participants being supported or housed by specialist LGBT homelessness organisations.

It is important to stress that these participants all reported negative experiences and outcomes associated with being homeless. One (bisexual, transgender woman, 22, Asian British), for example, explained that she hid her gender identity which was affecting her mental health. She was thrown out and suffered severe adversities while sleeping rough for the following week. However, she also framed her homelessness as a chance to start again – ‘I left everything to start a new life’ – and was due to begin hormone treatment shortly. The idea of ‘starting again’ was a relatively common theme within participant accounts. Another participant, for example, spoke about his experience of homelessness as a catalyst to move away from the restrictive space of the family home to one where he felt comfortable to transition (from female to male) and ‘dignified’ in his identity.

“I think being homeless made me realise, gave me my independence and ownership back, cos going forward I am now in my own place, no-one can say they own me or I owe them or anything like that, it’s made me more independent, more wise, it’s equipped me with skills for the future. It’s opened up thousands of opportunities like these opportunities I’ve been getting, so I think it’s given me more confidence and it’s given me a cause.” – Xade, heterosexual, transgender man, 28, Pakistani Iranian

A small number of participants were explicit in their accounts that because they were now more able to express their gender identity or sexual orientation and could be out, their mental wellbeing had improved since becoming homeless. One young gay man living in LGBT-specific supported accommodation at the time of interview reflected on how his mental health had improved as a result of living there, rather than with his mum who did not accept his sexual orientation. Similar findings were reported by a small number of participants in less stable and riskier situations such as sleeping rough or sofa surfing but this was more common amongst those living in LGBT specialist accommodation.

Other participants did not make this point explicitly but analysis of their biographies revealed that it was relatively common for participants who were out to describe better mental health since becoming homeless than historically, regardless of whether they had received mental health support. On the face of it, this seems counter-intuitive because homelessness is known to be detrimental to mental health. However, amongst study participants, mental ill health usually stemmed from or was exacerbated by trauma associated with denying or hiding their sexual orientation or gender identity, and being bullied, abused, or ostracised by family with whom they lived. For example:

“I was married, and I’d gone through a few years of serious depression and then there were a lot of suicide attempts…and then just I realised that all of it was coming from being gendered incorrectly, so I started the process of transitioning.” – Topaz, lesbian, transgender woman, 30, White British

“I attempted suicide twice, when I was 14, because I didn’t know how to come out.” – Kiki, bisexual, transgender woman, 22, Asian British

This being the case, it may be that recovery became possible through being able to express their identity once homeless.

5.7. Mobility and the importance of ‘place’

Mobility was a key feature of LGBT people’s homelessness pathways with many participants having relocated from the area of their last settled home. This was equally true across the sample, and consistent with other studies. In Shelton and Bond’s (2017)^{[footnote 56]} study of young homeless transgender people, for example, it was typical for participants’ pathways following departure from their homes to be characterised by frequent moves.

As noted in Section 5.1 above, frequent mobility is a common finding in studies of single homeless people (Jackson, 2012; Jackson, 2015; Reeve and Batty, 2011) and so is not unique to LGBT homeless people. However, the generic homelessness evidence base presents a very mixed picture of the drivers and patterns of mobility amongst homeless people. In contrast, the majority of LGBT participants in this study reported having moved to escape people and places hostile to LGBT people and/or to seek somewhere safer, more welcoming or LGBT-friendly. Other factors may have additionally influenced participants’ residential choices but most explained their mobility decisions in terms of how LGBT-friendly, or otherwise, they perceived places to be. For example:

“I’d never even visited [current city] and it was never on my radar but I knew through the way that it identifies hugely with LGBT.” – Lawrence, gay, non-transgender man, 33, White British

“I kind of came because it was a queer scene, I fell in love with it.” – Ashley, queer, non-transgender woman, 32, White British

Once homeless, a small number of participants described finding a community, whether on the streets, in a day centre, or a hostel, within which they felt a part, were accepted, and wherein they could access information relating to living authentically, available support services, and transgender history. For example:

“People accepted me for me, didn’t matter what I looked like, didn’t matter about my sexuality, I was a friend, they’d come and talk to me, I’d talk to them and whatever. I was just so shocked and surprised that, you hear all this bad stuff about homeless people and down here it’s great.” – Ian, gay, non-transgender man, 42, White British

Participants expressed the view that the ‘place’ they had chosen to move to was likely to have made a difference in them being accepted among homeless people.

They often had contrasting experiences having come from places where they had faced abuse, discrimination, and hostility. One queer non-binary participant, for example, had moved to a city they perceived to be ‘the queer capital of the UK’ and expressed the view that they would have been ‘harassed a lot more than in actuality’ if they had slept rough in any other place in the country. It is worth noting, however, that not all participants living in places with visible LGBT communities were able to be out, or felt safe in those towns and cities.

5.8. Conclusion

The evidence base relevant to this theme provides useful, robust and often comparative findings about the prevalence of adverse homelessness outcomes among LGBT homeless people, albeit this is often derived from international rather than UK sources and sampling mainly younger LGBT people. However, there is virtually no evidence about LGBT people’s homelessness pathways – the accommodation situations upon which they rely and move through while homeless – or about their experiences of temporary accommodation situations other than hostels and similar formal provision. Little is known, therefore, about LGBT people’s daily strategies for finding shelter, or experiences of situations such as rough sleeping. This body of literature also largely neglects a qualitative exploration of LGBT homeless people’s daily lives and survival strategies – their ‘lived realities’ of homelessness.

This contrasts with the UK generic homelessness evidence base which offers relatively rich, qualitative accounts of homelessness experiences. This is a key gap in understanding, but also one which it is important to address, as there is some evidence to suggest that LGBT homeless people may be relying on informal accommodation and personal survival strategies to a greater degree than people who do not identify as LGBT. This study has therefore begun to generate important qualitative understanding of the types of informal accommodation which LGBT homeless people rely on and their experiences while doing so, and the key influences on their housing decisions.

Question 7

6.  What are the housing and support preferences of LGBT homeless people?

Accepted Answer

Summary

This study found that LGBT people have specific needs related to their sexual orientation and gender identity, and may be disproportionately affected by issues already common within the homeless population such as mental ill-health and family conflict. It is therefore important to consider how services can be developed to meet their needs specifically.

Existing evidence reveals some principles and good practice lessons for how housing and support services can be improved to meet the needs of LGBT homeless people, such as: the provision of safe spaces free from homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia; knowledge of specific services for LGBT homeless people locally and nationally; knowledge, understanding and affirmation of LGBT identities; and awareness of transgender people’s needs.

The most common suggestions to emerge from both existing evidence and this study were: training for staff on LGBT inclusion; LGBT-specific temporary accommodation; visible signs of inclusive practice, underpinned by appropriate policy; and better monitoring of gender identity and sexual orientation.

Participants did not usually express a preference for services accommodating people only of the same sexual orientation and/or gender identity as themselves (apart from one transgender man who stressed it was important that he was supported by transgender services/workers). Most participants were happy to share with anyone under the LGBT umbrella, assuming this would increase their safety, support and friendship (though this was based on hypothetical discussion as only a small number had experience of LGBT-specific homelessness accommodation).

Visible signs of inclusivity (for example, rainbow lanyards and flags, posters welcoming LGBT people, the presence of LGBT staff, and written notices of zero tolerance of HBT behaviour) were thought to make LGBT people feel more engaged, comfortable and safe, thus reducing anxiety about using these services.

However, participants stressed that such efforts must not be tokenistic: if organisations advertise an inclusive service, it must be underpinned by consistent practice.

Existing research and this study’s participants suggested that LGBT people – young people in particular – are in favour of sexual orientation and gender identity monitoring, if done sensitively by services.

Monitoring comes with responsibility, however, to use the data effectively to improve services, and to collect and manage the data sensitively.

6.1. What is known about the housing and support preferences of LGBT homeless people? A critical summary of the evidence base

The evidence base on the housing and support preferences of LGBT homeless people is relatively modest. Twenty-eight sources specific to LGBT homelessness were reviewed which were deemed relevant to this sub-theme, 6 of which have an explicit focus on housing and support preferences for LGBT homeless people. Other studies indirectly reference housing and support preferences but focus on other factors including: experiences of homelessness (Albert Kennedy Trust, 2015; Shelton, 2015; Stonewall Housing, 2016) and housing (Stonewall Scotland, 2007; World Habitat, 2018); causes and triggers of homelessness (O’Connor and Molloy, 2001; Tyler, 2008); mental health (Strauss and others, 2017; Yu MD, 2010); survival sex (Walls and Bell, 2011); and social service needs (Walls and others, 2007).

The majority of sources in this section were judged to be robust.^{[footnote 57]} Five of the sources are service guides, briefing papers, or workshop papers which scored relatively low in terms of methodological rigour but their content was highly relevant and the evidence concurred with more robust sources.

Just over half (16 of 28) of sources are international studies^{[footnote 58]} and focus on young homeless people of varying age ranges between 12 and 29 years (18 of 28).^{[footnote 59]} Transgender people are notably underrepresented in the samples and focus of this selection of studies. Only 4 studies (all international) focus solely on transgender people; 4 on LGB people; and where studies include LGBT people, participants who identify as transgender make up a very small part of the sample, often less than 20%. This research gap is reflective of the wider literature on LGBT homelessness.

The evidence suggests that the housing and support service requirements of LGBT homeless people are broadly similar to those of heterosexual and non-transgender homeless people. The Albert Kennedy Trust (2015)^{[footnote 60]} – after surveying 473 housing providers in 30 English cities and 88 organisations providing services to young (aged 16 to 25) LGBT people in England as well as carrying out a Vox Pop survey at 3 Pride events – found that young people would have benefited from better access to mental health services, social support, substance misuse support, and homelessness services. These echo the needs and preferences expressed by respondents in general homelessness studies (Homeless Link, 2018; Reeve and Batty, 2011).

Similarly a qualitative study^{[footnote 61]} by Stonewall Housing (2016) in 3 English cities^{[footnote 62]} identified the housing and support preferences of LGBT people^{[footnote 63]} who had experienced rough sleeping, as being both generic (as experienced by all homeless people) and specific to being LGBT. They require: somewhere to get clean and carry out basic daily tasks; someone to talk to who can relate to their experience; knowledge of services for LGBT homeless people locally and nationally; an awareness of transgender needs; knowledge of LGBT prison-leavers’ needs; somewhere safe to go in the form of appropriate accommodation; peer-led projects offering support; and a safe way to make comments and complaints about services. As is the case with the wider literature on LGBT homelessness, the sample in this study was overwhelmingly White British, male, and people who identified as gay predominated so it cannot be said to be representative of preferences across all LGBT people who are homeless.

It is more difficult to explore differential housing and support preferences amongst LGBT and non-LGBT older (aged over 50) homeless people given the limited literature generally about older homeless people and specifically older LGBT homeless people. Homeless Link (2018) note a lack of single homeless people over 50 accessing the 272 accommodation projects across England surveyed between April 2016 and March 2017 and suggest this is due to prevalence, citing research which has shown most single homeless people in England to be between 21 and 50 years old (Crisis, 2014). While evidence suggests that older homeless people are less likely to be service users, the housing and support preferences of this smaller group of homeless people are not well established.

Perhaps not surprisingly, even less is known about older LGBT people who are homeless. The 3 studies reviewed which focus specifically on older LGBT people’s housing and service preferences (King and Stoneman, 2017; Wathern and Green, 2017; World Habitat, 2018) were carried out solely with older LGBT people with permanent accommodation (King and Stoneman, 2017; Wathern and Green, 2017), or based on secondary data about either LGBT homeless or older LGBT people (World Habitat, 2018). In spite of these caveats, presuming some degree of transferability between the housing and support preferences of homeless and non-homeless LGBT older people, evidence suggests that: older LGBT people do not have confidence in mainstream housing, care and support providers to offer safe and appropriate services and fear a lack of acceptance (World Habitat, 2018); there is a preference for both specialist and appropriate and improved mainstream housing provision (Wathern and Green, 2017); and a differentiation in need exists across the LGBT community.

There was a clear preference in King and Stoneman’s (2017) study, for instance, amongst older lesbians, for gender-specific housing, whereas this was not true of gay men who mostly expressed a preference for housing for anyone, with sexual orientation-specific housing a close second.

The evidence suggests, then, that LGBT homeless people do share some housing and support requirements and preferences with homeless people who do not identify as LGBT. However, they also have requirements and preferences that are related specifically to their sexual orientation and gender identity. Some sources also suggest that early intervention is particularly important for meeting the needs of LGBT people because of evidence that their homelessness often begins at an early age, although the evidence here is less conclusive.

Evidence is more mixed still on whether the needs of LGBT homeless people would be better met through increased specialist provision, by developing mainstream provision to better meet the needs of LGBT people, or through a greater range of options. Key requirements for LGBT homeless people that emerged from the review of the existing evidence were: safety; the legitimacy of LGBT identity to be understood and acknowledged; and staff with knowledge and understanding of LGBT identity. This section provides further detail on each of these key themes.

Safety arose as a key theme within the literature on the housing and support preferences of LGBT homeless people in numerous ways. A safe space was seen as one free from homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia in primary research from the UK with LGB youth aged 15 to 24 (O’Connor and Molloy, 2001), and international (Australian) research with LGBT people aged between 16 and 67 (GALFA, 2017). Evidence from an in-depth ethnography about the lived realities of LGBT youth (16 to 25 years) in the UK showed an expressed preference for trained staff with whom LGBT homeless people could feel comfortable (Porchlight, 2015). For homeless young transgender people (aged 18 to 25) in a US shelter, the notion of safety was directly related to participants’ self-designated gender and/or gender expression, as many had previously experienced persistent discrimination and mistreatment (Shelton, 2015). It is worth noting that most of these studies sampled young LGBT people only.

Participants in several studies, both international and UK-based and with LGBT people of varying age groups, highlighted the need for the legitimacy of LGBT identity to be acknowledged by services (Albert Kennedy Trust, 2015; Cull and others, 2006; GALFA, 2017; Homeless Link, 2018; Stonewall Housing, 2016). A US study by Shelton and others (2018c) found that participants – LGBT youth aged 18 to 26 – felt affirmed when asked about their sexual orientation and gender identity, with the understanding that sharing this information is a personal choice.

Increasing the knowledge and understanding of staff in support organisations is a prevalent theme in many sources, and is deemed vital in ensuring the needs of LGBT homeless people are better understood and catered for. It is recommended that training is trauma-informed (Ferguson and Maccio, 2015; Forge and others, 2018),^{[footnote 64]} and that staff have an understanding that a person’s background and prior negative experiences may affect trust (Stonewall Scotland, 2007). Services are encouraged to develop robust policies and procedures to deal with homophobic, biphobic and transphobic abuse (World Habitat, 2018).

Intervening early to prevent LGBT people from becoming homeless is a prevalent theme, but one which is repeated within the wider homelessness literature. For example, a number of studies cited in a major review of international evidence on homelessness by Seria-Walker (2018) highlight how effective intervention should focus on early signs of risk, and suggest that the current model of prevention in the UK, in the form of homelessness applications to local authorities, intervenes too late. Although making a point applicable to all homeless people, US research has shown that homelessness for LGBT people tends to begin at an early age (in social care, as a result of family breakdown, or childhood sexual abuse) and so, it is suggested, early intervention may have particular relevance. Sources suggest, as a result, that it may be necessary to improve existing systems and institutions to make them safer and more inclusive to prevent LGBT youth becoming homeless (Rosario and others, 2012; Van Leeuwen and others, 2006).

Based on the views of LGBT homeless people, whether through qualitative or quantitative research, most evidence suggests a need to develop services to respond to the specific needs of LGBT homeless people, with increased specialist support. Some argue that LGBT people feel more comfortable accessing services that are explicitly LGBT-friendly or run for or by LGBT people (Social Care Institute for Excellence, 2011). Conversely, a number of sources cite support for improving mainstream services and developing them as ‘centres of excellence’ which are open, safe and welcoming (Matthews and Poyner, 2017). There is a further view within the literature that a range of options should exist, and that this should include both developing LGBT specific services and ensuring that mainstream accommodation is tailored to and accommodating of LGBT people. There is a general consensus that the approach taken by services needs to be proactive and open – advertising that LGBT people are welcome in services (Albert Kennedy Trust, 2015) and are encouraged to access them (Tyler, 2008). However, these findings are based on studies with either no transgender people in their sample (Tyler, 2008), or very few (Matthews and Poyner, 2017; Albert Kennedy Trust, 2015), highlighting a critical evidence gap around the preference for specialist or mainstream support amongst transgender people.

Recommendations for improving housing and support more generally for transgender people are scarce. As Shelton (2015) argues in a US context, as the primary source of support for transgender people experiencing homelessness, housing and support services should be aware of the challenges associated with gender transitions, including a recognition of the additional support people might need. Evidence suggests it is imperative that transgender service users are able to express their gender freely, with authors across different national contexts arguing that transgender homeless people should have the right to self-select the part of a shelter that aligns to the gender they identify with (Abramovich, 2017; Porchlight, 2015).

World Habitat (2018) highlights that LGBT people’s housing and support needs remain relatively underexplored, under-researched and under-disseminated. The limited amount of research is attributed, in their study, to a lack of prioritisation of the topic by mainstream organisations and a lack of specialised organisations that might commission research in this field. They call for housing professionals, academics and those within the voluntary sector to highlight the needs of LGBT people through sharing research and examples of good practice. Future research is encouraged to investigate particular gaps, including the under-researched needs of transgender people. The current evidence review echoes these concerns and recommendations, and found a number of additional gaps in research, including the housing and support preferences of older LGBT people and LGBT homeless people in the UK.

6.2. The housing and support preferences of LGBT homeless people: key themes

Across all datasets analysed (the evidence review and qualitative interviews with LGBT homeless people and stakeholders) preferences and suggestions for service improvement for LGBT homeless people reflected the problems they are found to encounter in mainstream organisations. This is made clear when considering the most common suggestions to emerge from all the data for this study about ways of better meeting the service needs and preferences of LGBT homeless people. These are:

training for staff
LGBT-specific temporary accommodation
visible signs of inclusive practice, underpinned by policy and practice
better monitoring of gender identity and sexual orientation

This chapter does not comprehensively identify gaps in service provision. Rather, it reports the results from discussions with stakeholders and LGBT homeless people during their interviews about ways in which services could be improved to meet the needs of LGBT people. Analyses of these data were considered alongside what was already known from the review of existing evidence conducted in phase one of the study, and summarised in the previous section.

Staff training

It was of paramount importance to the LGBT people interviewed to be treated with respect by staff in the services they used, for their needs as LGBT people to be understood and accommodated, and for efforts to be made by staff in services to ensure they were safe, for example by challenging the homophobic, biphobic and transphobic (HBT) behaviour of other service users. For transgender participants, acknowledgment of their gender identity was also crucial, for example, demonstrated through use of correct pronouns and unquestioned entitlement to women/men-only sections of the service. To achieve inclusive, respectful, service delivery, a level of understanding of the distinct issues faced by LGBT homeless people – as detailed in this report – was reported by LGBT homeless and stakeholder participants to be required.

It is not surprising, then, that when asked about improvements in service delivery for LGBT homeless people the majority of homeless participants suggested training for staff in mainstream services. This directly reflected their negative experiences of approaching front-line statutory and voluntary sector housing and support services. For example:

“I think more training [is needed] on how to come across with people like me cos they haven’t got a clue really, they don’t know what to say, it’s like they’re hiding behind a mask and they’re scared to say owt. So I’d say more training…you can tell they need training.” – Katie, heterosexual, transgender woman, 26, White British

A number of stakeholder organisations that delivered and had received training, including associated activities such as audits or reviews of their policies, were interviewed for this study. Trainers and trainee organisations expressed the view that training impacts very positively on the service they provide to LGBT homeless people. They reported that it improved staff understanding of the distinct issues LGBT homeless people face, that they have made changes to policies, have reviewed their written and verbal language, their monitoring and recruitment practices and made changes to the physical environment. One stakeholder from a national charity explained the potential impact of staff training:

“The first impression that an individual gets when they access a service is either you’re thinking about ‘is this a safe place for me, is this somewhere I can come out’ and by having staff who are trained to ask for pronouns or not to make assumptions and having those leaflets etc. that rolls out the red carpet for an LGBT person who’s in a vulnerable position to disclose their identity. It’s always the difficulty between the importance of those really little things and getting those right, which is not particularly expensive, but also making sure they’re not tokenistic, and I think staff training is the key to that, to ensure they’re not tokenistic.” – LGBT charity, policy officer

Other stakeholders and homeless participants made explicit links between staff training and (more) effective services. One homeless participant, for example, reported that when one of her support workers attended LGBT training, she noticed positive differences and felt that the worker ‘understood me more’ (Katie, heterosexual, transgender woman, 26, White British) as a result. Similarly, a front-line worker in a mainstream homeless hostel made the following comments when talking generally about harassment that LGBT people experience in temporary accommodation:

“It wasn’t something I encountered, but that’s probably also because the organisation I worked in had a lot of training and awareness-raising.” – Homelessness hostel, front line worker

Increasing the knowledge and understanding of staff in support organisations was also a common recommendation in studies included in the evidence review. World Habitat’s (2018) headline recommendation calls for all housing services to implement a programme of training to enable improvements in service design and support mechanisms.

As noted in Chapter 4, since this study was conducted, DLUHC have launched training through Stonewall Housing to provide housing professionals working with LGBT people an understanding of the issues they face.

LGBT temporary accommodation and LGBT ‘safe’ spaces

There is debate in the literature about whether LGBT homeless people’s needs are better met in specialist or mainstream provision (Wathern and Green, 2017). Some evidence suggests that LGBT homeless people feel more comfortable accessing services explicitly run for or by LGBT people (Social Care Institute for Excellence, 2011), a conclusion confirmed by this study (see Chapter 6).

When asked what developments were needed to better meet the needs of LGBT homeless people a few participants spontaneously expressed a preference for specialist temporary accommodation. Others, when asked for their views on this type of provision, responded positively to the idea, reporting that they would feel, or had felt safer in LGBT specific accommodation.

Participants did not usually express a preference for services accommodating people only of the same minority sexual orientation and/or gender identity as themselves. Only one participant – a transgender man – stressed how important it was that he was supported by transgender services or workers. In the current context of such limited specialist provision, it seemed enough for participants to share a(ny) minority sexual orientation or gender identity (that is, anyone within the LGBT umbrella). However, only a small number had been resident in LGBT specific homelessness accommodation and so their expressed preference for such provision was not always evidence-based. The needs of different LGBT groups may be specific and so ‘LGBT specialist’ accommodation may not meet the needs of all. The needs of a heterosexual transgender man may be very different to a non-transgender lesbian, for example. In addition, homeless people’s needs as LGBT people will intersect with those arising from other aspects of their identity such as ethnicity or disability. In Shelton’s (2015) study several transgender participants had faced discrimination and exclusion from LGB people and a stakeholder interviewed for this study who had spent her career working in different homelessness hostels made a similar observation.

When asked to explain their preference for LGBT specific temporary housing, participants tended to emphasise the known or assumed positive benefits and experience of living with other LGBT people. This included safety, support and friendship. Preferences for LGBT specialist housing provision were also connected to wider preferences for ‘safe spaces’ for LGBT homeless people. For example:

“[There should be] a safe space for the LGBT young people to go to and they can feel safe that they can open up and be who they want to be, and not feel like they’ve got to be partially closeted because they don’t want people beating them up and being nasty to them, and I think you shouldn’t have to live like that.” – Francis, gay, gender fluid, 22, White British

“Specialist services are really specialist people, niche and be able to relate so I can walk through the door and be comfortable and be happy to go to you.” – Xade, heterosexual, transgender man, 28, Pakistani Iranian

Visible signs of inclusivity

LGBT homeless participants suggested that displays in mainstream services of LGBT inclusivity make a difference to whether LGBT people engage, feel comfortable and safe, and that it reduces the anxiety many feel about using these services. Suggestions included rainbow lanyards and flags, posters welcoming LGBT people, the presence of LGBT staff, and written notices of zero tolerance of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic behaviour. These suggestions were made across participants of all ages, sexualities and gender identities, and living in different geographical locations.

“I think if there was a thing that LGBT people use these services, and make that really clear, and there’s zero tolerance towards people discriminating it would make you feel safer and welcome here [day centre].” – Eric, gay, non-transgender man, 31, White Irish

“I saw there’s a thing that the NHS have lanyards with rainbows on them to let people know that they are LGBT friendly and people can speak to them, and when I saw that that was kind of a help, a green flag if you like, that’s alright, I can talk to that person.” – Josh, gay, non-transgender man, 22, Black British

Stakeholders from mainstream services that had implemented these kinds of practices expressed the view that it had improved the accessibility of the service, although evaluation evidence was not available to verify this. They did qualify their comments, however, stressing that such efforts must not be tokenistic. If organisations advertise an inclusive service, they argued, then it must be underpinned by consistent practice. Some of the homeless participants made similar points:

“…rainbow flags or that kind of thing, which can be a good thing, but also it can be a bad thing if they just have them without having the process in place, if their staff aren’t trained but they’re just well, ‘we don’t hate gay people’, then it’s not very helpful.” – Luke, bisexual, transgender man, 24, White British

“…because obviously you can have a poster that says we don’t tolerate homophobia, but then if a member of staff says something inadvertently which is homophobic that’s a mixed message.” – LGBT charity, policy officer

As these comments indicate, staff training is one mechanism to make sure that good intentions translate into practice.

Monitoring

The practice of accurately, sensitively and consistently recording sexual orientation and gender identity was deemed essential by stakeholders if the needs of LGBT homeless people are to be met. One pointed to the benefits that can flow from monitoring for LGBT homelessness service development.

“I think monitoring is one of the core things, so ensuring that you have good quality data on your service users, so I guess good practice is making sure that you are routinely monitoring the sexual orientation and the trans status of your service users and then you’re not just leaving that data once you’ve collected it but you’re drilling down into the data, identifying the experiences of LGBT service users and identifying any inequalities or any trends that you see and then on the basis of that you can use that data to inform specific initiatives, programmes, services to better support LGBT people. For example we’ve seen services, mainstream homelessness services setting up LGBT-specific shelters for example, or local authorities realising that they’re working with a large number of LGBT homeless people and realising that they’re not equipped to do that at that current point so they invest in training for their frontline staff so they know that they’re going to be delivering inclusive services.” – LGBT charity, policy officer

Homeless people pointed out that monitoring can also equip services to appropriately safeguard LGBT clients:

“It should be [asked] because at end of the day it’s also classed as a safeguarding issue for the person’s safety, they could identify as gay, trans, gender fluid, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, cis-sexual and all that but it’s not asked on any forms and I think it should be, cos at the end of the day it gives that accommodation providers more things to look into about safeguarding and confidentiality and also the person’s safety, and helping them access services where they’re allowed to be who they want to be.” – Francis, gay, gender fluid, 22, White British

Research suggests that LGBT people – young people in particular – are in favour of services monitoring sexual orientation and gender identity, if done sensitively (Cull and others, 2006). This was also true of many of the homeless people interviewed for this study, although not all agreed. One, for example, replied ‘No, does it matter? I don’t know what your sexuality is, what does it matter?’ and research has found that questions about gender identity make some people feel burdened by having to provide a steady stream of explanations about who they are (Shelton, 2015). It is worth noting that no transgender person expressed that monitoring gender identity or sexual orientation was unnecessary or unwelcome. Shelton and others (2018c) found that some (although, as in this current study, not all) participants in their study felt affirmed when asked about their sexual orientation and gender identity by services, stating that it helped them to feel reassured they were in an inclusive, safe place where they could be open about aspects of their identity.

However, monitoring comes with responsibility – responsibility to use the data effectively to improve services, and to manage the data sensitively as one stakeholder from an LGBT charity made clear:

“I think there’s a really important piece of work to be done around how sexual orientation and trans status is monitored because there needs to be a clear assurance from the service provider from that frontline member of staff collecting the information that the information will be stored securely, to be able to explain, if asked, why they’re collecting that information and why it’s important and to really give assurances about confidentiality and how sensitive that data is.” – LGBT charity, policy officer

This is a very important point considering concerns reported by homeless participants and in the evidence base that inadvertent ‘outing’ can put LGBT people at risk of abuse (Walls and others, 2007). There are also stringent policies and laws in place about sharing of personal data.

6.3 Conclusion

Existing evidence on the housing and support preferences of LGBT homeless people is limited with only a small number of sources directly addressing this issue. Fewer still, provide evidence in a UK context. As has been the consistent message in this report, transgender homeless people are notably under-represented in studies providing evidence on this issue. The evidence base does reveal some principles and good practice lessons for how housing and support services can be improved to meet the needs of LGBT homeless people (or, perhaps, LGB homeless people, given the underrepresentation of transgender participants). The evidence from this study about the housing and support preferences of LGBT homeless people largely concurs with the evidence base but has the benefit of being drawn from a diverse, if relatively small sample, in which transgender people, and people of all ages are better represented.

Question 8

7.  Conclusion

Accepted Answer

The findings from this study suggest that further work is needed to develop effective, appropriate housing and support services to LGBT homeless people. It also confirms that LGBT people should be considered as a specific group (or groups) in the development of homelessness commissioning strategy and service development. This study has found, for example, many ways in which LGBT people’s homelessness experiences are informed by their sexual orientation and gender identity and their needs are distinct to other groups experiencing homelessness. Without recognition of this, there is a risk of housing and support organisations delivering services that are inappropriate, insensitive, homophobic, biphobic or transphobic and, therefore, unsafe. Indeed many examples of this were found in the course of the research. As a result, some LGBT participants disengaged from services, relying instead on hidden and potentially risky temporary housing. If LGBT people are deterred from using services because of the treatment they receive then they do not have equal access to the housing and support available to homeless people, because of their gender identity or sexual orientation.

7.1. Gaps in the evidence base

The rapid evidence review conducted in Phase 1 of the study identified gaps in understanding LGBT homelessness. Many sources present statistics but fail to provide an explanation of their evidential basis; they use different terminology, measurements, comparators, and are often researching different sample populations (a discussion of these issues can be found in Ecker, 2016 and Ecker and others, 2019). Definitions of homelessness are often contingent upon the sampling frames that are used in the studies. For example, some only sample homeless people in hostels, drop-in centres, or schools. This means that studies will often only capture a small portion of the homeless population and questions remain about the generalisability of the findings. No standardised terminology is employed across studies so there is no uniform process for determining the sexual orientation or gender identity of research participants. For data analysis purposes, some quantitative studies reduce sexual identity categories into a dichotomous variable with heterosexual being one, and all other choices (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and so on) placed into a ‘non-heterosexual’ category. Transgender people are sometimes removed from analyses or combined with LGB people because of their small numbers. Where transgender people are included, they usually comprise a very small proportion of the sample and are rarely divided into the categories of ‘transgender male’ and ‘transgender female’ (less still other minority gender identities). Studies do not commonly disaggregate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender samples.

In addition, certain subgroups are overlooked, creating distinct gaps in knowledge. In particular, the evidence base is dominated by studies about young LGBT people, and by studies conducted outside the UK. Very little is therefore known about the situations and experiences of, or prevalence of homelessness among LGBT people over the age of 25, or in England. The experiences of LGBT homeless people are much more visible in North American literature and, to a lesser extent, Canada and Australia, than in England. Robust evidence about LGBT homelessness in England is therefore rare, and the transferability of findings from international evidence cannot usually be established.

There is also a dearth of literature that focuses exclusively on the relationship between gender identity and homelessness, partly reflecting the sampling and representation issues mentioned above. This is a crucial gap because the limited evidence on transgender homelessness, including from this study, indicates that problems encountered by LGBT homelessness people – for example homophobic, biphobic and transphobic harassment within services and risk of violence while sleeping rough – may be more pronounced amongst transgender homelessness people compared with LGB people. Evidence focusing on sexual minorities and homelessness is often either general (does not disaggregate sub-group experiences) or samples only gay males. The evidence about homeless lesbians and bisexual people is much more limited.

This study has taken some important steps toward addressing gaps and weaknesses in the evidence base but it is a small-scale, qualitative study and so gaps remain. The research aimed to expand and build on the limited evidence base on transgender homeless people as nearly half of the homeless participants were transgender, but this is only a small step in improving understanding of the distinct experiences of transgender people. Sexual orientation and gender identity intersects with religious and cultural identity to create specific issues for ethnic minority LGBT people but, to date, there has been virtually no UK and very limited international evidence on ethnic minority LGBT people. Ethnic minority participants comprised over half the sample of this research, but this only represents 21 people, many of whom have a range of other diverse characteristics. Further research is therefore needed to build on these research findings, especially the experiences of transgender (and) ethnic minority LGBT people.

7.2. Building an evidence base about LGBT homelessness: the contribution of this study

This study has made inroads into the evidence gaps around LGBT homelessness, not least by focusing on the experiences of English LGBT homeless people and thereby supporting, but also largely corroborating, a small evidence base. This study also purposefully derived a very diverse sample. It included participants across the age spectrum as well as people of different minority gender identities and sexualities, and ethnicities. It sampled participants with experience of different temporary accommodation including staying in hostels but also those who slept rough, stayed with friends, or employed other informal means of securing shelter. LGBT homeless people living in small towns with limited homelessness or LGBT support provision, as well as in large cities and places with significant LGBT communities participated in the study. Such a diverse sample has its limitations in so far as sub-group differences are much more difficult to identify, but has the benefit of accessing a much wider range of experiences than is found in the existing literature. For example, the study is able to concur with the evidence base that family conflict does appear to be a key cause of homelessness for LGBT people, but that this is more common among younger people. Older participants became homeless for a much more diverse range of reasons that are not well recognised in the evidence. It concurs with existing evidence that LGBT homeless people often have adverse experiences in mainstream homelessness services such as hostels but has also generated important additional understanding of the types of informal accommodation on which LGBT homeless people rely. However, further research is needed to determine the scale and extent of these conclusions.

This study has also added a more in-depth qualitative understanding to the evidence base on LGBT people’s journeys into homelessness. It has provided evidence about the lived realities of LGBT homeless people that is largely absent. Much of the existing evidence is quantitative, which although useful for establishing the comparative prevalence of different experiences and outcomes, is less helpful in interrogating why and how gender identity and sexual orientation influence homelessness journeys, or expose the realities of homelessness for LGBT people. The qualitative methodology employed for this study generated a more nuanced understanding of the causes of homelessness, and homelessness experiences, so that the role of sexual orientation and gender identity could be explored. On the basis of this analysis, the study concludes that issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity do appear to underpin the causes of homelessness and homelessness experiences for many LGBT homeless people.

7.3. Better meeting the needs of LGBT homeless people: looking forward

Noting the caveats outlined above, evidence from existing sources summarised in this report and from the primary data collected for the study, suggests that LGBT people may be at greater risk of homelessness, more likely to experience adverse outcomes, and face harassment and discrimination in some services compared with homeless people who are not LGBT. This being the case it is important to respond to these issues to ensure equality of access to homelessness services that meet the needs of LGBT people.

Accruing knowledge and evidence is an important first step. For example, this was a qualitative study not designed to quantify LGBT homelessness and so the scale of LGBT homelessness remains unknown. Making sure that surveys and case level information systems collect data about sexual orientation, gender identity, and housing situation, would help to fill this gap. Commissioners can support this effort by requiring all commissioned services to monitor gender identity and sexual orientation. They could also contractually oblige services to meet the needs of LGBT people and demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Similarly, this study was not designed to produce a comprehensive understanding of the service landscape for LGBT homeless people. The insights obtained have been reported but no comprehensive mapping was undertaken. An audit of the nature, extent and effectiveness of available services for LGBT homeless people could help inform service commissioning.

The more positive experiences reported by participants also offer suggestions for ways in which commissioners and practitioners can provide services that are safer and more inclusive to successfully meet the needs of LGBT homeless people. For example, the small number of LGBT-specific homelessness services in operation were highly valued by participants, as were those mainstream services that had developed inclusive practices and made concerted efforts to better meet the needs of LGBT clients. This suggests that relatively modest interventions such as staff training, visible signs of inclusion (posters, lanyards), better monitoring of sexual orientation and gender identity, and a specialist LGBT worker can make a positive difference to the lives of LGBT homeless people.

Question 9

Glossary

Accepted Answer

Chemsex: The use of particular drugs, specifically for sex, mostly by gay and other men who have sex with men

Cisnormativity: The systematic assumption and promotion of a female/male binary and the ‘normality’ of non-transgender identities.

Gender: Often expressed in terms of masculinity and femininity, gender refers to socially constructed characteristics, and is often assumed from the sex people are registered as at birth.

Gender identity: A person’s internal sense of their own gender. This does not have to be man or woman. It could be, for example, non-binary.

Homophobic, biphobic and transphobic discrimination, harassment or violence: Discrimination, harassment or violence directed towards a person based upon their sexual orientation or gender identity. Homophobia is directed to a person who identifies as gay; Biphobia is directed towards a person who identifies as bisexual and; Transphobia is directed towards a person who identifies as transgender.

Heteronormativity: Refers to the systematic assumption and promotion of heterosexual orientation as the ‘normal’ or superior sexual orientation.

Hidden homelessness: Living in temporary accommodation situations that are not provided by organisations, such as staying with friends, where people are less visible to support services. Hidden homelessness includes people who live in overcrowded, insecure or uninhabitable conditions. Many people in this group do not present to the local authority for help.

Hostel: Temporary accommodation for homeless people provided by a local authority, voluntary sector or charitable organisation. Some hostels provided by the voluntary and charitable sector are commissioned by local authorities.

LGBT: Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. It is used in this report to refer to all minority gender identities and sexual orientation; unless where otherwise specifically stated.

Local connection: Local connection is a discretionary test applied by local authorities to establish, alongside other tests, whether they have a duty to house a homeless person who approaches them for assistance. Local connection can be established on the grounds of normal residency, employment, family association and other special circumstances.

‘Mainstream’ homelessness / support services: Used to denote services open to people regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity in contrast to ‘specialist’ services specifically for LGBT people.

Non-Transgender: A term used to refer to people whose gender identities match their registered sex at birth (that is, people who are not trangender).

Rough sleeping: Sleeping or bedding down, in the open air such as on the streets, in tents, doorways, parks, bus shelters or encampments; people in buildings or other places not designed for habitation such as sheds and cars.

Shelter: The term used in North America and some other non UK countries to refer to the equivalent of a hostel (see above).

Sofa surfing: Staying temporarily with friends, family or acquaintances, usually involving moving from one arrangement to another and sleeping on people’s sofas rather than in their own room.

Substance misuse or dependency: The problematic use of, or addiction to alcohol and other drugs.

Supported housing: Housing that is provided with staff who provide support to residents. Supported housing does include short-term temporary accommodation such as hostels but is usually used to refer to: medium-term housing, usually for up to 2 years and designed as an interim stage between emergency homelessness accommodation (hostels, night shelters) and independent living; and housing without a time restriction for those who need support in the longer term. In the context of homelessness it is usually used to refer to ‘interim’ accommodation.

Transgender/Trans: An umbrella term used to describe individuals who have a gender identity that is different to the sex recorded at birth. Non-binary people may or may not consider themselves to be transgender.

Question 10

References

Accepted Answer

Abramovich, A. (2013). No Fixed Address: Young, Queer, and Restless. In Gaetz, S., O’Grady, B., Buccieri, K., Karabanow, J., and Marsolais, A. (Eds.), Youth Homelessness in Canada: Implications for Policy and Practice (pp. 387-403). Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.

Abramovich, A. (2017). Understanding how Policy and Culture Create Oppressive Conditions for LGBTQ2S Youth in the Shelter System. Journal of Homosexuality, 64(11), 1484-1501. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1244449

Albert Kennedy Trust. (2015). LGBT Youth Homelessness: A UK National Scoping of Cause, Prevalence, Response, and Outcome. The Albert Kennedy Trust. https://www.theproudtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/download-manager-files/AlbertKennedy_ResearchReport_Youth-Homelessness.pdf

Alma Economics. (2019). Causes of homelessness and rough sleeping: rapid evidence assessment. MHCLG and DWP. [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/793471/Homelessness_-REA.pdf](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/793471/Homelessness-_REA.pdf)

Bachman, C.L. and Gooch, B. (2018a). LGBT in Britain: Home and Communities Report. Stonewall. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/lgbt_in_britain_home_and_communities.pdf

Bachman, C.L. and Gooch, B. (2018b). LGBT in Britain: Health Report. Stonewall. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/lgbt_in_britain_health.pdf

Begun, S. and Kattari, S.K. (2016). Conforming for survival: Associations between transgender visual conformity/passing and homelessness experiences. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 28(1), 54-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2016.1125821

Bidell, M.P. (2014). Is There an Emotional Cost of Completing High School? Ecological Factors and Distress among LGBT Homeless Youth. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(3), 366-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2013.842426

Bramley, G. and Fitzpatrick, S. (2018). Homelessness in the UK: who is

most at risk?. Housing Studies, 33(1), 96-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2017.1344957

Browne, K. (2007). Count me in too: LGBT Lives in Brighton and Hove: Domestic Violence and Abuse Additional Findings Report. University of Brighton. https://www.brighton.ac.uk/_pdf/research/ssparc/cmit-dv-report-final-dec07.pdf

Browne, K., Church, A. and Law, A. (2007). Count me in too: LGBT Lives in Brighton and Hove Initial Findings: Academic Report. University of Brighton.

Castellanos, H.D. (2016). The Role of Institutional Placement, Family Conflict, and Homosexuality in Homelessness Pathways among Latino LGBT Youth in New York City. Journal of Homosexuality, 63(5), 601–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1111108

Cochran, B.N., Stewart, A.J., Ginzler, J.A. and Cauce, A.M. (2002). Challenges Faced by Homeless Sexual Minorities: Comparison of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Homeless Adolescents With Their Heterosexual Counterparts. American Journal of Public Health, 92(5), 773 to 777. https://dx.doi.org/10.2105%2Fajph.92.5.773

Coolhart, D. and Brown, M.T. (2017). The need for safe spaces: Exploring the experiences of homeless LGBTQ youth in shelters. Children and Youth Services Review, 82, 230–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.09.021

Corliss, H.L., Goodenow, C.S., Nichols, L. and Austin, S.B. (2011). High Burden of Homelessness among Sexual-Minority Adolescents: Findings from a Representative Massachusetts High School Sample. American Journal of Public Health, 101(9), 1683 to 1689. https://dx.doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2011.300155

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 8, 139-167. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8

Crisis (2014). Nations apart? Experiences of single homeless people across Great Britain. Crisis. https://www.crisis.org.uk/media/20608/crisis_nations_apart_2014.pdf

Crisis (2018). The lived experience of homelessness. Crisis. https://www.crisis.org.uk/media/238836/the_lived_experience_of_homelessness_report_2018.pdf

Cull, M., Platzer, H. and Balloch, S. (2006). Out On My Own: Understanding the Experiences and Needs of Homeless Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth. University of Brighton. https://phantom.brighton-hove.gov.uk/Data/Equalities%20Forum/20061012/Agenda/Item%2024%20LGBT%20Housing%20Needs%20Appendix%20-%20Out%20On%20My%20Own%20(summary).pdf

Dumoulin, D., Orchard, B., Turner, S. and Glew, C.. (2016). Stop the Scandal: An Investigation into Mental Health and Rough Sleeping. St. Mungo’s. https://www.mungos.org/publication/stop-scandal-case-action-mental-health-rough-sleeping/

Dunne, G.A., Prendergast, S. and Telford, D. (2002). Young, gay, homeless and invisible: A growing population? Culture, Health and Sexuality, 4(1), 103-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/136910502753389404

Durso, L.E. and Gates, G.J. (2012). Serving Our Youth: Findings from a National Survey of Services Providers Working with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth Who Are Homeless or At Risk of Becoming Homeless. The Williams Institute with True Colors Fund and The Palette Fund. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/80x75033

Ecker, J. (2016). Queer, Young and Homeless: A Review of the Literature. Child and Youth Services, 37(4), 325-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/0145935X.2016.1151781

Ecker, J., Aubry, T. and Sylvestre, J. (2019). A Review of the Literature on LGBTQ Adults Who Experience Homelessness. Journal of Homosexuality, 66(3), 297-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1413277

Fazel, S., Khosla, V., Doll, H. and Geddes, J. (2008). The Prevalence of Mental Disorders among the Homeless in Western Countries: Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis. PLoS Med, 5(12), e225. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050225

Ferguson, K.M. and Maccio, E.M. (2015). Promising Programs for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer/Questioning Runaway and Homeless Youth. Journal of Social Service Research, 41(5), 659-683. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2015.1058879

Fitzpatrick, S., Bramley, G. and Johnsen, S. (2013). Pathways into Multiple Exclusion Homelessness in Seven UK Cities. Urban Studies, 50(1), 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0042098012452329

Flentje, A., Leon, A., Carrico, A., Zheng, D. and Dilley, J. (2016). Mental and Physical Health among Homeless Sexual and Gender Minorities in a Major Urban US City. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 93(6), 997-1009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-016-0084-3

Forge, N., Hartinger-Saunders, R., Wright, E. and Ruel, E. (2018). Out of the System and onto the Streets: LGBTQ-Identified Youth Experiencing Homelessness with Past Child Welfare System Involvement. Child Welfare, 96(2), 47-74.

Formby, E. (2011). Lesbian and bisexual women’s human rights, sexual rights and sexual citizenship: Negotiating sexual health in England. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 13(10), 1165-1179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2011.610902

Formby, E. (2017). Exploring LGBT spaces and communities: Contrasting identities, belongings and wellbeing. Routledge.

Frederick, T.J., Ross, L.E., Bruno, T.L. and Erickson, P.G. (2011). Exploring gender and sexual minority status among street-involved youth. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 6(2), 166-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450128.2011.564225

Gaetz, S., O’Grady, B., Kidd, S. and Schwan, K. (2016). Without a Home: The National Youth Homelessness Survey. Canadian Observatory on Homelessness Press. https://www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/attachments/WithoutAHome-final.pdf

GALFA. (2017). LGBTI Homelessness Research Project. Gay and Lesbian Foundation of Australia. http://www.lgbtihomeless.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/LGBTQ-Homelessness-project-Final-report-September-2017-Final_.pdf

Gangamma, R., Slesnick, N., Toviessi, P. and Serovich, J. (2008). Comparison of HIV Risks among Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Heterosexual Homeless Youth. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 37, 456–464. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10964-007-9171-9

Gattis, M.N. (2013). An Ecological Systems Comparison between Homeless Sexual Minority Youths and Homeless Heterosexual Youths. Journal of Social Service Research, 39(1), 38-49. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F01488376.2011.633814

Gough, D. (2007). Weight of Evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520701296189

Government Equalities Office (2018). Reform of the Gender Recognition Act – Government Consultation. Government Equalities Office. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721725/GRA-Consultation-document.pdf

Hodgetts, D. J, Stolte, O., Chamberlain, K., Radley, A., Groot, S., and Nikora, L.W. (2010). The Mobile Hermit and the City: Considering Links between Places, Objects, and Identities in Social Psychological Research on Homelessness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(2), 285-303. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X450465

Holly, J. (2017). Mapping the Maze: Services for women experiencing multiple disadvantage in England and Wales. Agenda and AVA. https://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Mapping-the-Maze-final-report.pdf

Homeless Link (2013). Young and Homeless 2013. Homeless Link. https://www.homeless.org.uk/sites/default/files/site-attachments/Youth%20and%20Homeless%202013%20Full%20Report.pdf

Homeless Link (2018). Support for single homeless people in England - Annual Review 2017. Homeless Link. https://www.homeless.org.uk/sites/default/files/site-attachments/Annual%20Review%202017_0.pdf

Hudson-Sharp, N. and Metcalf, H. (2016). Inequality among lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender groups in the UK: a review of evidence. NIESR. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/539682/160719_REPORT_LGBT_evidence_review_NIESR_FINALPDF.pdf

Jackson, E. (2012). Fixed in Mobility: Young Homeless People and the City. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(4), 725-741. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01124.x

Jackson, E. (2015). Young Homeless People and Urban Space: Fixed in Mobility. Routledge.

Johnsen, S. and Watts, B. (2014). Homelessness and poverty: reviewing the links. Heriot-Watt University. https://pureapps2.hw.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/7467281/Homelessness_Poverty_FullReport.pdf

Kattari, S.K. and Begun, S. (2017). On the Margins of Marginalized: Transgender Homelessness and Survival Sex. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 32(1), 92-103. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0886109916651904

Kidd, S, Gaetz, S., and O’Grady, B. (2017). The 2015 National Canadian Homeless Youth Survey: Mental Health and Addiction Findings. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry / La Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie, 62(7), 493-500. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F0706743717702076

King, A. and Stoneman, P. (2017). Understanding SAFE Housing – putting older LGBT* people’s concerns, preferences and experiences of housing in England in a sociological context. Housing, Care and Support, 20(3), 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1108/HCS-04-2017-0010

Lamb, H., Moreton, R., Welford, J., Leonardi, S., O’Donnell, J. and Howe, P. (2019). Understanding Multiple Needs. The National Lottery Community Fund. https://www.tnlcommunityfund.org.uk/media/insights/documents/Understanding-multiple-needs-Briefing-Two-2019.pdf?mtime=20190621182148&focal=none

Lancione, M. (2019). Weird Exoskeletons: Propositional Politics and the Making of Home in Underground Bucharest. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 43(3), 535-550. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12787

Leslie, M.B., Stein, J.A. and Rotheram-Borus, M.J. (2002). Sex-Specific Predictors of Suicidality among Runaway Youth. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31(1), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3101_05

Maberley, E. and Coffey, P. (2005). Opening the Door? Exploratory research into LGBT young people’s access to supported accommodation in Queensland. Queensland Youth Housing Coalition. https://www.qyhc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/opening_the_door.pdf

Matthews, P. and Poyner, C. (2017). Homelessness support for LGBT people. University of Stirling. https://www.stir.ac.uk/media/stirling/services/faculties/management/research/documents/LGBT-People-and-homelessness-services.pdf

Matthews, P., Poyner, C. and Kjellgren, R. (2018). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer experiences of homelessness and identity: insecurity and home(o)normativity. International Journal of Housing Policy, 19(2), 232-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2018.1519341

May, J. (2000). Of Nomads and Vagrants: Single Homelessness and Narratives of Home as Place. Environment and Planning D, 18(6), 737-759. https://doi.org/10.1068%2Fd203t

McCoy, S. (2018). Danger Zones and Stepping Stones: Phase Two: A quantitative exploration of young people’s experience of temporary living. Depaul UK. https://uk.depaulcharity.org/sites/default/files/DANGER-ZONES-REPORT-FINAL-EMBARGOED-TILL-00.01AM-THURSDAY-22-MARCH-2018.pdf

McDermott, E, Hughes, E, and Rawlings, V (2016). Queer Futures Final Report: Understanding Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) Adolescents’ Suicide, Self-harm and Help-seeking Behaviour. Lancaster University. http://www.queerfutures.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Queer-Futures-Final-Report.pdf

Mercer, C., Tanton, C., Prah, P., Erens, B., Sonnenberg, P.,Clifton, S., Macdowall, W., Lewis, R., Field, N., Datta, J., Copas, A., Phelps, A., Wellings, K. and Johnson, A. (2013). Changes in sexual attitudes and lifestyles in Britain through the life course and over time: findings from the National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. The Lancet, 382(9907), 17810-1794. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62035-8

MHCLG (2020). Rough sleeping snapshot in England: autumn 2019. MHCLG. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rough-sleeping-snapshot-in-england-autumn-2019/rough-sleeping-snapshot-in-england-autumn-2019#technical-notes

Milburn, N.G., Ayala, G., Rice, E., Batterham, P. and Rotherham-Borus, M.J. (2006). Discrimination and Exiting Homelessness among Homeless Adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12(4), 658 – 672. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F1099-9809.12.4.658

Moon, M.W., McFarland, W., Kellogg, T., Baxter, M., Katz, M.H., MacKellar, D. and Valleroy, L.A. (2000). HIV Risk Behaviour of Runaway Youth in San Francisco: Age of Onset and Relation to Sexual Orientation. Youth and Society, 32(2), 184-201. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0044118X00032002003

Mottet, L. and Ohle, J.M. (2003). Transitioning Our Shelters: A Guide to Making Homeless Shelters Safe for Transgender People. National Coalition for the Homeless. https://srlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/TransitioningOurShelters.pdf

Mountz, S., Capous-Desyllas, M. and Pourciau, E. (2018). ‘Because We’re Fighting to Be Ourselves:’ Voices from Former Foster Youth who are Transgender and Gender Expansive. Child Welfare, 96(1), 103-125.

NHS Digitial. (2016). Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey: Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, England, 2014. NHS. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/adult-psychiatric-morbidity-survey/adult-psychiatric-morbidity-survey-survey-of-mental-health-and-wellbeing-england-2014

Oakley, S. and Bletsas, A. (2018). The experiences of being a young LGBTIQ and homeless in Australia: Re-thinking policy and practice. Journal of Sociology, 54(3), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1440783317726373

O’Connor, W. and Molloy, D. (2001). ‘Hidden in Plain Sight’: Homelessness Amongst Lesbian and Gay Youth. NatCen and Stonewall Housing Association. https://natcen.ac.uk/media/23798/hidden-plain-sight-homelessness.pdf

Porchlight. (2015). Flying the flag: Making a difference to homeless LGBTQ youth. Porchlight. https://www.porchlight.org.uk/downloads/attachments/Porchlight-lgbt-research.pdf

Prendergast, S., Dunne, G.A. and Telford, D. (2001). A story of “difference”, a different story: young homeless lesbian, gay and bisexual people. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 21(4/5/6), 64-91. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443330110789448

Reck, J. (2009). Homeless Gay and Transgender Youth of Color in San Francisco: “No One Likes Street Kids”—Even in the Castro. Journal of LGBT Youth, 6, 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361650903013519

Rees, S. (2009). Mental Ill-health in the Adult Single Homeless Population: A review of the literature. Crisis. https://www.crisis.org.uk/media/20611/crisis_mental_ill_health_2009.pdf

Reeve, K. and Batty, E. (2011). The hidden truth about homelessness: Experiences of single homelessness in England. Crisis. https://www.crisis.org.uk/media/236816/the_hidden_truth_about_homelessness_es.pdf

Reeve, K., Casey, R. and Goudie, R. (2006). Homeless Women: Still being failed yet striving to survive. Crisis. https://www4.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/homeless-women-striving-survive.pdf

Revolving Doors Agency (2015). Comprehensive Services for Complex Needs: A Summary of the Evidence. Revolving Doors Agency. http://www.revolving-doors.org.uk/file/1831/download?token=Lxpv22sK

Rhoades, H., Rusow, J.A., Bond, D., Lanteigne, A., Fulginiti, A. and Goldbach, J.T. (2018). Homelessness, Mental Health and Suicidality Among LGBTQ Youth Accessing Crisis Services. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 49, 643–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-018-0780-1

Rice, E., Barman-Adhikari, A., Rhoades, H., Winetrobe, H., Fulginiti, A., Astor, R., Montoya, J., Plant, A. and Kordic, T. (2014). Homelessness Experiences, Sexual Orientation, and Sexual Risk Taking Among High School Students in Los Angeles. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 773-778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.11.011

Rice, E., Petering, R., Rhoades, H., Barman-Adhikari, A., Winetrobe, H., Pplant, A., Montoya, J. and Kordic, T. (2015). Homelessness and Sexual Identity among Middle School Students. Journal of School Health, 85(8), 552-557. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12280

Robinson, B.A. (2018). Conditional Families and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Youth Homelessness: Gender, Sexuality, Family Instability, and Rejection. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80, 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12466

Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E.W. and Hunter, J. (2012). Risk Factors for Homelessness Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youths: A Developmental Milestone Approach. Child Youth Serv Rev., 34(1), 186–193. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.childyouth.2011.09.016

Sanders, B and Albanese, F. (2016). “It’s no life at all” Rough sleepers’ experiences of violence and abuse on the streets of England and Wales. Crisis. https://www.crisis.org.uk/media/20502/crisis_its_no_life_at_all2016.pdf

Schmitz, R.M. and Tyler, K. A. (2018). The Complexity of Family Reactions to Identity among Homeless and College Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Young Adults. Arch Sex Behav, 47,1195–1207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1014-5

Sellers, M.D. (2018). Absent Inclusion Polices: Problems Facing Homeless Transgender Youth. Public Integrity, 20(6), 625-639. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2018.1446629

Seria-Walker, E. (2018). Evidence review: Adults with complex needs (with a particular focus on street begging and street sleeping). Public Health England. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/680010/evidence_review_adults_with_complex_needs.pdf

Shelton, J. (2015). Transgender youth homelessness: Understanding programmatic barriers through the lens of cisgenderism. Children and Youth Services Review, 59, 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.10.006

Shelton, J. (2016). Reframing risk for transgender and gender-expansive young people experiencing homelessness. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 28(4), 277-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2016.1221786

Shelton, J and Bond, L. (2017). “It Just Never Worked Out”: How Transgender and Gender Expansive Youth Understand Their Pathways Into Homelessness. Families in Society, 98(4), 284–291. https://doi.org/10.1606%2F1044-3894.2017.98.33

Shelton, J., DeChants, J., Bender, K., Hsu, H.T, Santa Maria, D., Petering, R., Ferguson, K., Narendorf, F. and Barman-Adhikari, A. (2018a). Homelessness and Housing Experiences among LGBTQ Young Adults in Seven U.S. Cities. Cityscape, 20(3), 9-33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26524870

Shelton, J. Wagaman, M.A., Small, L. and Abramovich, A. (2018b). I’m more driven now: Resilience and resistance among transgender and gender expansive youth and young adults experiencing homelessness. International Journal of Transgenderism, 19(2), 144-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2017.1374226

Shelton, J., Poirier, J.M., Wheeler, C. and Abramovich, A. (2018c). Reversing Erasure of Youth and Young Adults Who are LGBTQ and Access Homelessness Services: Asking about Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Pronouns. Child Welfare, 96(2), 1-28.

Social Care Institute for Excellence. (2011). Implications for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. Personalisation Briefing. Social Care Institute for Excellence.

Stonewall Housing. (2016). Finding Safe Spaces: Understanding the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans rough sleepers. Stonewall Housing. https://stonewallhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/FindingSafeSpaces_StonewallHousing_LaptopVersion.pdf

Stonewall Scotland. (2007). Safe and Secure? LGBT experiences of social housing in Scotland. Stonewall Scotland. https://www.lgbthealth.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/lgbt_housing_report.pdf

Strauss, P., Cook, A., Winter, S., Watson, V., Wright Toussaint, D., and Lin, A. (2017). Trans Pathways: The mental health experiences and care pathways of trans young people. Telethon Kids Institute. https://www.telethonkids.org.au/globalassets/media/documents/brain–behaviour/trans-pathways-report.pdf

Stuart, D. (2019). Chemsex: origins of the word, a history of the phenomenon and a respect to the culture. Drugs and Alcohol Today, 19(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1108/DAT-10-2018-0058

Tunåker, C. (2015). “No Place Like Home?”. Home Cultures, 12(2), 241-259. https://doi.org/10.1080/17406315.2015.1046300

Tyler, K.A. (2008). A Comparison of Risk Factors for Sexual Victimization Among Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Homeless Young Adults. Violence and Victims, 23(5), 586-602. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.23.5.586

Tyler, K.A., Akinyemi, S.L. and Kort-Butler, L.A. (2012). Correlates of service utilization among homeless youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 1344-1350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.03.010

Tyler, K.A. and Beal, M.R. (2010). The High-Risk Environment of Homeless Young Adults: Consequences for Physical and Sexual Victimization. Violence and Victims, 25(1), 101-115. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/sociologyfacpub/96?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fsociologyfacpub%2F96&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Tyler, K.A. and Schmitz, R. (2018). A comparison of risk factors for various forms of trauma in the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and heterosexual homeless youth. Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, 19(4), 431-443. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2018.1451971

Van Leeuwen, J.M., Boyle, S., Salomonsen-Sautel, S., Baker, D.N., Garcia, J.T., Hoffman, A. and Hopfer, C.J. (2006). Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Homeless Youth: An Eight-City Public Health Perspective. Child Welfare, 85(2), 151-170. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16846110/

Walls, N. and Bell, S. (2011). Correlates of Engaging in Survival Sex among Homeless Youth and Young Adults. Journal of Sex Research, 48(5), 423-436. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2010.501916

Walls, N., Hancock, P. and Wisneski, H. (2007). Differentiating the Social Service Needs of Homeless Sexual Minority Youths from those of Non-homeless Sexual Minority Youths. Journal of Children and Poverty, 13(2), 177-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/10796120701520309

Walls, N., Potter, C. and Leeuwen, J. (2009). Where risks and protective factors operate differently: Homeless sexual minority youth and suicide attempts. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 26(3), 235-257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-009-0172-2

Wathern, T. and Green, R. (2017). Older LGB&T housing in the UK: challenges and solutions. Housing, Care and Support, 20(3), 128-136. https://doi.org/10.1108/HCS-08-2017-0019

Watts, B., Johnsen, S. and Sosenko, F. (2015). Youth Homelessness in the UK: A review for The OVO Foundation. OVO Foundation. https://www.ovoenergy.com/binaries/content/assets/documents/pdfs/ovo-foundation/youthhomelessnessbriefing.pdf

Whitbeck, L., Chen, X., Hoyt, D., Tyler, K., and Johnson, K. (2004). Mental Disorder, Subsistence Strategies, and Victimization among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Homeless and Runaway Adolescents. Journal of Sex Research, 41(4), 329-342. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490409552240

Whitbeck, L., Hoyt, D., Yoder, K., Cauce, A. and Paradise, M. (2001). Deviant Behaviour and Victimization among Homeless and Runaway Adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(11), 1175-1204. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F088626001016011005

World Habitat. (2018). Left Out: Why many LGBTQ+ people aren’t accessing their right to housing in the UK. World Habitat. https://world-habitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Left-Out-Why-many-LGBTQ-people-aren%E2%80%99t-accessing-their-right-to-housing-in-the-UK.pdf

YouGov (2015). 1 in 2 young people say they are not 100% heterosexual. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2015/08/16/half-young-not-heterosexual

Yu MD, V. (2010). Shelter and Transitional Housing for Transgender Youth. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health, 14(4), 340-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2010.504476

Question 11

Disclaimer

Accepted Answer

This research was commissioned under the previous government and before the COVID-19 pandemic. Owing to delays in publication, the content may not reflect current government policy or the latest available evidence. The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the government. While the Equality Hub has made every effort to ensure the information in this document is accurate, they do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of that information.

In this report we refer to LGBT people; this refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and includes all minority sexual orientations and gender identities, unless otherwise specifically stated. ↩
The EPPI-Centre Weight of Evidence framework follows 4 dimensions: coherence and integrity; specific judgement on forms of evidence; specific judgement on relevance; and overall judgement. Studies are scored low, medium or high against each dimension. ↩
As LGBT research is hampered by data and sampling difficulties. ↩
For instance, where non-representative samples were used. ↩
‘Trans’ would not usually be classed as a sexuality but as a gender identity. However, a participant was very clear that they wanted their sexuality recorded in this way and the research team adhered to their wishes. ↩
Non-transgender is the term used in this report to refer to people whose gender identities match their sex registered at birth (that is, people who are not transgender). ↩
91% of the agencies represented in the sample reported using intake forms to track demographic information of their clients, including information on sexuality and gender identity; and around 30% of agencies use staff estimates to approximate the number of LGBT youth. Given that youth may not be willing to self-identify as being LGBT when initially presenting for services, these data may underestimate the proportion of LGBT youth served by homeless youth providers (Durso and Gates, 2012). ↩
Based on a sample of 712 young people (16 to 25) in McCoy (2018), and more than 50 interviews with young people, Porchlight staff, other agencies and members of the public, and participant observation in 5 young persons’ projects across Kent for a period of one year in Porchlight (2015). It was beyond the scope of this research to identify whether groups from other protected characteristics were similarly over-represented. ↩
Since the report was written data from the 2021 Census have shown that: 3.2% of the adult population in England and Wales (or 1.5 million people) identify as LGB+ (“gay or lesbian”, “bisexual” or “other sexual orientation”); and 0.5% of the adult population in England and Wales (or 262,000 people) reported that the gender they identify with was not the same as their sex registered at birth. Both questions were voluntary: 7.5% of adults chose not to respond to the sexual orientation question, and 6% chose not to respond to the question on gender identity. ↩
Such adverse childhood experiences include physical/sexual abuse; neglect; domestic abuse in the household; parental substance misuse; parental mental health issues; socio-economic disadvantage/poverty; and homelessness (Seria-Walker, 2018). ↩
“2 spirit” refers to a person who identifies with both masculine and feminine spirits and is a term used by some Indigenous people to describe gender, sexual, and/or spiritual identities. ↩
The sample consisted of 5,375 LGBT people across England, Scotland and Wales of all ages. 14% said they identified as trans and another 4% said they were unsure of whether they were trans or were questioning their gender identity. While the authors acknowledge this is a snapshot (data was collected between February and April 2017), due to the large sample size, and the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bi and trans respondents of all ages, this was considered to be robust data. ↩
Bachman and Gooch (2018b) make comparisons with NHS Digital (2016) Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey: Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, England, 2014 (https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/adult-psychiatric-morbidity-survey/adult-psychiatric-morbidity-survey-survey-of-mental-health-and-wellbeing-england-2014) which outlines the proportion of the population who report having self-harmed has increased from 2% of 16 to 74 year olds in 2000 to 4% in 2007, and 6% in 2014. This increase is evident in both men and women and across age-groups. ↩
These are mostly surveys of homeless people, rather than LGBT people, so it is sometimes the experience of homelessness that explains higher rates of mental ill health. ↩
Survey data was obtained from 1103 youth accessing Canadian homelessness services. ↩
Scored ‘medium’ or ‘high’ on the ‘coherence and integrity’ dimension of EPPI-Centre’s Weight of Evidence framework. ↩
‘No recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) is a condition imposed on people because of their immigration status. People with NRPF are prohibited from accessing specified welfare benefits and social housing. ↩
The Home Office provides accommodation if the individual agrees to take steps to leave the UK. If this offer of accommodation is rejected, this can be a trigger to homelessness. The immigration status and circumstances of the participants in this study were often extremely complex, or unclear. As a result it was not always possible to establish why they had not accessed this housing, or had left it. ↩
Scored ‘medium’ or ‘high’ on the ‘coherence and integrity’ dimension of EPPI-Centre’s Weight of Evidence framework. ↩
17 out of the 28 sources were international – 11 from the US; 4 from Australia and 2 from Canada. ↩
22 of the 28 sources were focused on young people with age ranging from 14 to 29. Three sources focused on all ages, 2 on older (50 plus) people, and one source did not specify age. ↩
This was either due to research design or in one case (Maberley and Coffey, 2005) being unable to recruit trans people to the study. ↩
The housing and homelessness services referred to in the sources mainly include experiences in and access to shelters (US and Canada), but also touch upon other services used by homeless LGBT people such as social housing (Scotland), supported accommodation and housing assistance (Australia), drop-in centres and transitional housing programs (US), and social services, medical providers, food programs, street outreach, counselling, STI and HIV testing, and education environments (US). ↩
64% of those accessing the accommodation services and 81% accessing day centres were male https://www.homeless.org.uk/sites/default/files/site-attachments/Single%20Homelessness%20Support%20in%20England%20-%20Annual%20Review%202019.pdf ↩
Homeless Link (2013) and The Albert Kennedy Trust (2015) based on surveys of around 500 projects in England and Sellers (2018) on content analysis of the State Equality Index and Municipality Equality Index, which rated governments in 2016 based on their inclusiveness of the LGBT community in the US. ↩
Heteronormativity refers to the systematic assumption and promotion of heterosexuality as the ‘normal’ or superior sexuality. ↩
Aged 16 to 25 ↩
Aged 14 to 21 ↩
Aged 14 to 21 ↩
N = 2,608 ↩
Aged 14 to 25 ↩
The study involved interviews with 33 LGBT homeless youth aged between 16 and 29 years. ↩
Aged 16 to 25 ↩
Cisnormativity is the systematic assumption and promotion of a female/male binary and the ‘normality’ of non-transgender identities. ↩
7% and 4 of 13 participants in the respective studies. ↩
Both sources, a UK quantitative study and an evidence review, were considered robust. ↩
This is required by the Public Sector Equality Duty within the Equality Act 2010, which requires public bodies to tackle discrimination and promote equality for protected groups, which includes LGBT people as part of the sexual orientation and gender reassignment protected characteristics. ↩
These were both considered robust qualitative and quantitative studies, respectively. ↩
Local connection can be established on the grounds of normal residency, employment, family association and other special circumstances. Individual local authorities can and do use more and less stringent criteria to establish local connection. This might include requiring applicants to have lived in the area for longer or shorter periods of time to establish normal residency. It is discretionary and so a local authority can choose to assist an applicant without a local connection, rather than refer them to another local authority. ↩
Some LGBT homeless participants interviewed for this study had become homeless, and reported experiences that predated the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. ↩
The Homelessness Code of Guidance is issued by the Department for Levelling up, Housing and communities (DLUHC) and provides statutory guidance on how LA should interpret and apply the homelessness legislation. ↩
The Homelessness Code of Guidance is being updated to reflect changes arising from the Domestic Abuse Bill which will apply once the Bill received Royal Assent. The changes emphasise that local authorities cannot refer applicants to another authority if they are at risk of domestic abuse in that district, that local authorities have a positive duty to enquire whether applicants are at such risk, and should not assume that the applicant will take steps to deal with the threat of abuse. This should prevent some of the experiences reported here. Also, as noted above, some participants were describing experiences that occurred prior to the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. ↩
In 2021, the government extended provisions in the Domestic Abuse Act, 2021 to give those who are homeless as a result of being a victim of domestic abuse ‘priority need’ for accommodation secured by the local authority. ↩
As part of the introduction of the Homelessness reduction Act (HRA) 2017, all staff received training to promote understanding of the Act, and to prepare staff to deliver the required processes and effective relief and prevention work. See the independent evaluation of the HRA https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/919748/Evaluation_of_the_Implementation_of_the_Homelessness_Reduction_Act_Final_Report.pdf ↩
Under the Equality Act 2020 this would be discriminatory as HIV falls under the protected characteristic of disability. ↩
This is despite the fact that the Equality Act allows for single-sex services, where these are justified, but does not allow for any blanket bans on transgender people accessing these services. ↩
The sample covered all age groups, from 18 to 98 years. ↩
N = 1,839 ↩
N = 6,456 ↩
This study comprised a survey of 437 single homeless people in 11 locations in England and in-depth interviews with 27 hidden homeless people. ↩
There may, of course, be other groups also at greater risk of rough sleeping, or more vulnerable while rough sleeping, because of other aspects of their identity or circumstances. ↩
This study was considered robust with an adequate sample size (n=1285) and with representative data. ↩
It should be noted that if participants were applying at a local authority where they didn’t have a local connection, they could be referred elsewhere and eligible for advice for example. ↩
These experiences were reported by participants through general discussion about the way in which they responded to homelessness and sought to secure temporary accommodation. They were not directly asked whether they had engaged in survival sex. As something that not everyone will want to disclose, this could have been more prevalent amongst the sample than was identified. ↩
This was a qualitative study with a final sample of 27 young people (aged 21 to 25) which was generally considered robust but with the expected limitations of a fairly small qualitative study which cannot claim to be generalisable due to the small sample size and purposive sampling strategy. ↩
Scored ‘medium’ or ‘high’ on the ‘coherence and integrity’ dimension of EPPI-Centre’s Weight of Evidence framework. ↩
Twelve are from the US; 3 are from Australia; and one is from Canada. ↩
Three sources have an explicit focus on older (aged 50 plus) LGBT people; 2 on all ages; and in 4 sources age is not specified). In most cases this is to fit the service remit of the organisations from which participants were recruited. ↩
This source was given a high overall weighting based on methodological rigour and relevance. ↩
Based on around 40 qualitative interviews by community researchers all identifying as LGBT and with either lived experience of rough sleeping or working with people who had. ↩
Manchester, Brighton and East London. ↩
All ages below 50 were included, but the sample was mainly made up of those aged 31 to 40. ↩
The recommendations for trauma-informed training come from US studies, perhaps reflecting the origins of the approach in the US. A trauma-informed approach involves ensuring that organisational practice understands the prevalence and impact of trauma. It requires wholesale change in an organisation’s ideology and approach (Holly, 2017). ↩

Cookies on GOV.UK

Applies to England

Executive summary

Background and research aims

Methods

Key findings

1. There was no robust data measuring the number of LGBT people currently homeless in the UK. However, existing evidence indicates that LGBT people may be at greater risk of becoming homelessness than people not identifying as LGBT.

2. Published evidence and the findings from this study suggest that some of the homelessness experiences of LGBT people are distinct, and closely related to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

3. The experiences of homeless LGBT people and stakeholders participating in this study show that, currently, the housing needs of LGBT homeless people are not being met fully by housing and support services.

4. Mainstream temporary accommodation can be a hostile space for LGBT homeless people.

5. LGBT homeless people sometimes rely on informal, hidden, and sometimes unsafe temporary housing

6. ‘Place’ matters to LGBT homeless people, who have reasons for migrating to certain areas

1. Introduction

1.1. Policy context

1.2. Study aims

1.3. Overview of methods

Critical evidence review

Qualitative interviews with LGBT homeless people

Qualitative interviews with stakeholders

1.4. A note on the research

Methodology

Sample and data quality

Definitions

1.5. Structure of the report

2. What is the prevalence of LGBT homelessness in England?

Summary

2.1. To what extent is homelessness more prevalent among LGBT people than non-LGBT people?

Statistical relationship between LGBT identity and homelessness

The greater prevalence of homelessness risk factors amongst LGBT people

2.2 Conclusion

3. What are the causes of homelessness amongst LGBT people?

Summary

3.1. What is known about the causes of homelessness amongst LGBT people? A critical summary of the evidence base

Comparative statistics on the causes of homelessness

The role of family conflict in the causes of homelessness for LGBT people

The role of sexual orientation and gender identity in homelessness journeys: a more nuanced picture

3.2. The causes of homelessness amongst LGBT homeless participants: Overview

3.3. The role of sexual orientation and gender identity in the causes of homelessness amongst LGBT participants

Homophobic, biphobic and transphobic parental conflict and abuse

Relationship breakdown triggered by coming out

Having no recourse to public funds: seeking asylum on the grounds of sexual orientation

Drug dependency and Chemsex

Ending a tenancy: perceived homophobic, biphobic or transphobic discrimination

Barriers encountered by LGBT people attempting to resolve homelessness

3.4 Conclusion

4. What are LGBT homeless people’s experiences of housing and support services?

Summary

4.1. What is known about LGBT homeless people’s experience of housing and support services? A critical summary of the evidence base

4.2. Available housing and support provision to LGBT homeless people in England: insights from qualitative interviews

LGBT homelessness services seem to be rare

Places considered more welcoming to LGBT people may not have better developed LGBT homelessness provision

Homelessness services appear to have limited knowledge of LGBT people’s specific needs, while LGBT services appear to have limited knowledge about the needs of homeless people

There appears to be limited sexual orientation and gender identity monitoring within homelessness services

4.3. LGBT homeless people’s experiences of housing and support services

The ‘local connection’ criteria

Responding to domestic abuse

Inappropriate treatment by staff in mainstream services

Mainstream homelessness services can be hostile spaces for LGBT people

Homelessness services rarely accommodate the specific needs of transgender people

4.4. Experiences of services responsive to LGBT homeless people’s needs

4.5 The consequences of insensitive or inappropriate service provision for LGBT homeless people

4.6 Conclusion

5. What are LGBT people’s strategies for dealing with and their responses to homelessness?

Summary

5.1. What is known about LGBT people’s experiences of homelessness? A critical summary of the evidence base

LGBT homeless people’s experiences of ‘informal’ accommodation situations

LGBT homelessness and mobility

Experiences and outcomes while homeless

5.2. LGBT participant experiences while homeless: overview of key findings

5.3. Sofa surfing

5.4. Rough sleeping

5.5. LGBT homeless people’s survival strategies: forms of ‘hidden’ homelessness

Overnight stays with strangers and survival sex

Overnight and Chemsex parties

5.6. Homelessness as an opportunity for coming out

5.7. Mobility and the importance of ‘place’

5.8. Conclusion

6. What are the housing and support preferences of LGBT homeless people?

Summary

6.1. What is known about the housing and support preferences of LGBT homeless people? A critical summary of the evidence base