Voices

Views from elsewhere

Young, gay, homeless - and likely to stay that way

The potential withdrawing of housing benefit for the under-25s is an assault on the lives of young

By Petra Davis Published 23 April 2012 15:05

25% of homeless people in urban areas are LGBT. Photo: Getty Images

We have seen before, under this and previous administrations, the rhetoric of fairness used to justify reducing access to affordable housing for those on benefits. Fairness, claimed George Osborne in 2010, demanded the introduction of housing benefit caps: why should families on benefits live where working families cannot afford to rent?

And so when, just before Easter weekend, Downing Street airily mentioned cutting housing benefit entirely for young people under 25, it was again on the basis of fairness. Many low-paid working young people live with their parents, unable to move out, so why, asked the coalition, should young benefit claimants be supported to live independently?

"We are always looking at ways to change the welfare system to reward hard work and make work pay," was the Downing Street response to the furore that followed. This version of fairness seeks to pit claimants against the low-paid in an effort to further reduce the welfare bill. It fundamentally misunderstands the role of housing benefit in helping to stave off homelessness and rough sleeping among the young. Perhaps most importantly, it conveniently ignores the fact that not all young people are equally able to remain in the parental home.

Young LGBT people in particular are already at much higher risk of homelessness than their straight and cisgender counterparts, with around 25% of the young homeless population in urban areas identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Parental rejection is still an issue for these young people; many face the prospect of losing their homes on coming out, or increasingly, in the age of social media, being outed. Still more are living with parents or family members who are openly hostile or even violent. For some, the price of staying at home includes attempts by family members to ‘cure’ them of their sexual or gender identities, through reparative therapy, religious ritual, torture, corrective rape or forced marriage. Is it reasonable to expect them to remain at this cost? Is it fair to withdraw the housing benefit that gives them somewhere else to go?

Homelessness services are already stacked against young LGBT people. On losing their homes and the support of their families, many move to cities that will give them a community and a social network, but ‘local connection’ requirements have further reduced the help they can get once they arrive. Domestic violence services are largely based around the needs of women experiencing partner violence; they’re not designed for young men, women and trans people fleeing violence from their families. Few hostels are welcoming or safe spaces for LGBT young people, and some give up hard-won temporary accommodation in the face of homophobic, biphobic or transphobic abuse. The transition from homeless teen to working adult is difficult to make: many young LGBT people are forced to leave the parental home long before they have acquired the skills to compete in the jobs market or support themselves successfully. Without housing benefit to fund secure, longer-term independent accommodation, many will be street homeless and at risk of exploitation.

In the US, where welfare services are meagre, the consequences for young LGBT people are severe: the prevalence of LGBT young people within the urban homeless population is around 40%, according to the Ali Forney Center, which provides help, support and a place to stay for young LGBT people in New York. The centre has 77 beds, which are constantly full, and the waiting list runs into the hundreds.

“LGBT youth here are 8 times more likely to become homeless than straight kids,” says Bill Torres, Director of Community Resources. “More than 80% of those who come to us have been kicked out of their homes for being who they are. The remainder run away due to abuse, neglect, or a combination of rejection and abuse. And we have much less of a safety net in place [in the US].”

Torres feels the young people who come to the Ali Forney Center are especially vulnerable to sexual exploitation. “Surviving the street is a brutal experience. In a matter of days after being thrown out, the youth begin to beg or panhandle or steal to feed themselves. They have to jump the turnstiles in the subway where they will sleep overnight. Inevitably, many end up supporting themselves by ‘survival sex.’ There are ‘wolves’ – exploitative adults - that offer food and shelter and encouragement and eventually expect payback in the form of sex or in money earned from prostitution. We see kids who’ve lived this way for years.”

This kind of exploitation is already happening in the UK. A 2007 research report by the children’s charity Barnardos, ‘Tipping The Iceberg,’ found that young homeless LGBT people were already at higher risk of sexual exploitation, with many transitioning into sex work and drug and alcohol issues. Those who are supported to end this destructive cycle largely rely on benefits to provide them with secure housing and support until they can resume education or employment away from the risks of street life. It is surely no reasonable person’s idea of fairness to take that option away.

Petra Davis is an activist and writer working in LGBT homelessness in London

Tags: homelessness housing LGBT

More from Petra Davis

View the discussion thread.

50 comments

Tue, 2012-06-26 00:11 — TrisPW (not verified)

I noticed how after 5 years of Sarkozy there were many many people sleeping on the streets of Paris. I didn't stop to ask their sexual preference.

I imagine that's what you can expect on the streets of your big cities. Just as well you are not doing it before the Olympics. How embarrassing would that be?

Tue, 2012-06-26 13:30 — lancet (not verified)

'I didn't stop to ask their sexual preference.', that's their business, the same way as it's their business to stay on the street. At times they can be helped, but if they do not want to be helped, nobody is obliged to even try. It's their choice to live the way they live, no matter they are aware of that or not, as to their choice being conscious decisson or not. They're not underage children (it's the only option when people actually are entitled to help).

Mon, 2012-06-25 22:42 — richie72 (not verified)

How's pointing out that 25% of homeless likely to be gay giving LGBTs special treatment? Simply stating a fact. Some people need to get over themselves

Tue, 2012-06-26 11:30 — Lance63 (not verified)

Don't forget even in this day and age even kids who come out as LGBT are still not accepted even by their own family and can be kicked out of the family home. Lif is not easy for some people - even if they 'get over themselves' others do not!

Mon, 2012-06-25 21:57 — studiostu (not verified)

There are homeless people now, with the current system, it doesn't prevent it. Removing housing benefit from under 25s may encourage families to help each other, and in cases where somebody is kicked out, and made homeless, there should be a safety net. Like hostels with bunks etc. where those people can stay until they get a job and move into their own place.

Tue, 2012-06-26 17:28 — Under 25 (not verified)

You are so deluded!
You can't just get a job and move into your own place, I work full time in a Supermarket and I cannot afford to pay my rent + bills without my housing benefit let alone feed myself!
Things are just way too expensive to just move into your own place.

Mon, 2012-06-25 21:34 — Vince Justin Marce (not verified)

The Tories will be creating a bigger broken Britain causing wide spread misery.

What about all the people that have worked hard all their lives and paid into the system then suddenly find themselves redundant ?

People really need to sit up and think this through because anyone could end up out of a job and made to face these evil measures that are really in place to make people severely suffer just because a bunch of millionaires think that they know better. The fact is, these Tories are out of touch and completely out of control.

Mon, 2012-06-25 21:14 — anonywee (not verified)

The governing class of the UK have absolutely no idea what is happening outside of the M25.

They all live in their bubbles, meeting pollsters and advisers who tell them what to say attract media attention and votes.

Mon, 2012-06-25 13:57 — Julia773 (not verified)

Fantastic! I believe people would stare at my feet when they saw me running in these five finger running Shoes.

Sun, 2012-06-24 21:03 — Aynadan (not verified)

psikolojik danışmanlık merkezi

Sun, 2012-06-24 21:01 — porno (not verified)

porno

Mon, 2012-06-25 00:10 — the real porn is (not verified)

: I'm a poor poor worker, not particularly qualified. Give me a job! I have the right to have a job! No, I don't get that it is my responsibility to get qualifications, I demand qualifications to be handed over to me. Now I've got a job and I want more money (being a bus driver), no? Strike then!
And so on. Give me benefits because i'm poor and have children. Give me mortgage because I want a house. No? How dare you not to lend me more money? I'm entitled to more money!!! And so on. Or I'll scream with my mates.

Mon, 2012-06-25 09:57 — Your Mum (not verified)

fuck off you twat.

Sun, 2012-06-24 19:46 — Barry Ewart (not verified)

Socialists beilieve we should all contibute but where are jobs for young? 2 welfare states- m class good, w class bad? M class subsidised 2 hilt - £125b tax loopholes rich! Tories deliberately setting those in work against those on benefits - divide and rule whilst trying 2 make rich invisable! A futue Lab Govt needs build society built on social justice and fairness but priority is to stand by young and poor. "Rise up with me against the organisation of misery" - Pablo Neruda.

Sun, 2012-06-24 23:58 — poor poor people (not verified)

'where are jobs for young?'
Create them yourselves, stop demanding from others to create them for you using public and private money. Why would anyone who works like a dog and earns a lot sponsor through taxes those who don't want to work and have demands all the time? In the name of fairness? What kind of fairness? Fairness of the kind 'let's organize legal action' = we have the right to legal action and in time of legal action we will not work. What is it, nhs work-to-rule standard? If w class feels bad about being w class, why not start working and make more money? Yes, that would require real work instead of standard 'work'. Give, give, give, give, give generously. Give, give, give, give. What were you complaining about again? Just shut it, really. Meet reality! I'm happy Labour is over and that it's over for a long time.

Sun, 2012-06-24 18:05 — blinkers

It will affect heterosexual young people under 25 too, you know the young mums carrying i-fones, wearing designer clothing and clubbing it every night.

Sun, 2012-06-24 17:04 — ha! (not verified)

'homeless; on the streets; abuse, neglect, arguments; "in this together"!'
Yes, it makes me think why people (families) have so many children in the first place. For example a lady few days ago, plus 5 children, she was below 30 years old.
And then I hear on the radio, oh, how tragic, because there will no longer be free meals for children at schools. Really? Who is going to pay for 'free' meals, parents of the needy children? How? Since they count on free meals for their children and otherwise their children are simply hungry. Don't you guys have 'free' contraception? I bet pill is cheaper than racing social issues.
No!
State is bad.
Politicians are evil.
And poor people are just poor. Poor good people who can't feed their children, keep making them and when this takes its toll, they move to younger orifices as the means of contraception. Or abuse others, as an alternative that is (coz life is hard and you have to vent out, eh).
Let's find some way who's gonna pay!!!! In this together! Yay!!!

Tax avoidance is eating this country up. Yay! And what else?
CAN'T FEED 'EM, DON'T MAKE 'EM.
Gosh, it just came out like that... 'Shut the f*** up right now' - mother to a 3 year old girl, mother is pulling the girl up by kid's one hand, so the kid is dangling and screaming (no wonder she's screaming, it must hurt).
CUT THE BENEFITS TO SPARE SUFFERING TO THE CHILDREN WHO HADN'T BEEN BORN YET.

Sun, 2012-06-24 19:31 — Dark Heart of Toryland (not verified)

If you think the state is so bad, why don't you go and live somewhere the state is very weak, such as Somalia or Afghanistan?

Sun, 2012-06-24 23:33 — read: sarcasm (not verified)

-----------

Sun, 2012-06-24 16:37 — antisylphid (not verified)

I love it,
:-)))))))))
house benefits, LOL.

House Prices are problem in the first place (and this won't go on forever, however you name it, house benefits or unemployment or homelesness). There was a time while American economists were giving predictions when ZSRR is going to come to an end...

Sun, 2012-06-24 15:06 — Cel (not verified)

Excellent article - makes all the points which deeply concerned me from the moment this absurd policy was proposed.

Sun, 2012-06-24 14:27 — therealguyfaux (not verified)

Ah, the "points-system" of "oppression, and how to deal with it!" LGBT trumps straight under-25 homeless because they suffer more, yeah? Does a black or Asian gay trump an indigenous or other "caucasian" gay? Does an "L" trump a "G"? How shall I prove I am "G"-- couldn't I be shamming as a benefits-scrounger? ( And AHA! Enoch "Nucky" Powell, who in quite another curious turn of events crusaded to decriminalise homosexuality, rears his "ugly" head-- "It's those IMMIGRANTS who have sopped up all the housing innit?" Careful, you're straying awfully close to Ed Miliband "we've got to do SOMETHING about immigration" country here-- let's keep it on the subject of LGBT and why being so makes you more likely to become a ward of of the State!)

Sun, 2012-06-24 13:32 — blinkers

dit

Sun, 2012-06-24 13:33 — blinkers

dit

Sun, 2012-06-24 13:34 — blinkers

dit

Sun, 2012-06-24 13:41 — blinkers

Seems the MPs and Lords want more variety of rent-boys, and rent girls at a far cheaper rate.

Can someone please tell me why we have people coming here via immigration to fill up houses and inflate the rents in inner city area's, and have not any intention of working, whilst our own are homeless, or forced into destitution?.

I notice not one MP or Lord is homeless, or facing benefit cuts to feed billionaires importing cheap labour to staff their shops at below the minimum rate.

I do hope that Guy Fawkes has a second coming and all of the members of both Houses find Hell too hot to handle within a short time.

Sun, 2012-06-24 11:28 — Steve AM (not verified)

I guess we just need to put up with more young people on the streets from stopping this benefit. In the terms of the Tories and it seems Lib Dems, it will be a price worth paying.

Sun, 2012-06-24 11:26 — Natacha (not verified)

It may not seem particularly important to some but in this case what goes for LGB young people goes for young trans people many times over.

In proportion with their numbers young trans people are many times more likely to be homeless, and cutting housing benefit to U-25s is only going to make this situation worse. There are no accurate stats kept in the UK but in the US around a third of homeless young people in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles are transgender.

The problem is compounded because most shelters tend to be single-sex, so trans people who wish to transition find themselves being thrown out onto the street again, or forced to endure the continued psychological torture of having to be a gender they are not.

Tue, 2012-04-24 20:22 — hugh markey (not verified)

Life's not fair, y'know. Having read the above article and responses nary a mention of 'Housing' Grant Shapps.
Now, Grant is a regular member of the meritocracy. Attended grammar school and poly before the name change.
Made his first magabuck at age 21. Forgot to mention this minister is a computer geek - a child of the interweb and its siblings ****book and Twitter.
Whether Grant was being economical with truth when jousting with Today's Evan Davis( BBC Radio 4) or had extra tutoring at the Tessie O'Shea School of Mutes(Maths) we can't say. Challenged when he stated 'rents are going down', good old Grant grandstanded.
Evan did a little research and later in the progamme advised listeners that rents 'are going up - monthly and annually.
Twitter is agog at Grant's barefaced claim and many have quoted the correct statistics regarding rents.
However, this wunderkind lived to he Housing Minister, NO not the Landlords' Friend!
Had a sleep-over at Victoria Main Line Station when he was Shadow Housing Minister. IT even showered on him and he woke up quite the wet blanket.
Ethnic cleansing. If Grant doesn't get the message Boris will have a **** in his ear.
How is it that rents are rising when we're all in this together? Have no fear, Grant's here and he's going to something or other.
He'll show Keef Josheph. Keef's wife gave out cups of tea to the homeless who marched right up to her front door.
As Grant sighs - 'Thank God for Jeremy Hunt!"

Dave Ricardo

Tue, 2012-04-24 14:29 — Indu Pendent

Why is it fair to single out LGBTs for special treatment? It should be blindly and objectively about the extent to which people need state support not whether they are LGBT. And definitely not about writing articles trying to make people feel sorry for LGBTs as underdogs.

If as Petra seems to be saying (I just totally disagree with her) LGBTs are different inferior weak people (err not the ones I know) then the state should address this early on in life to save costs later on. I thought in the UK we had largely got over that kind of biggoted mindset in the 1980s and 90s. So Petra needs to get over it too - LGBTs are ordinary not special.

Sun, 2012-06-24 13:59 — Xyl (not verified)

Society at large singles LGBT people out for special inferior treatment all the time! This needs to be recognised since LGBT people have particular difficulties in accessing services for the homeless, particularly trans people. You can't objectively recognise the extent to which a person needs state support without recognising the issues that person faces.

There is no implication that LGBT people are "different inferior weak people", just that they are statistically more likely to face certain challenges than non-LGBT people are.

Equality is not about treating everyone the same regardless of their differences. Treating some people as they are and some people as they are not isn't equal.

Tue, 2012-04-24 19:24 — Mark....Mark (not verified)

This article brings to light that LGBT youth are significantly more likely to be kicked kicked out of the house or abused at home, and how the new US legislation on housing is causing disproportional problems for these kids.

Nowhere in the article did it ask for special treatment for LGBT youth. The article sates that the law should be changed.....not that it is only changed for LGBT youth. This way kids that don't have a stay home option can still find housing.

Tue, 2012-04-24 22:11 — john P reid (not verified)

transgender maybe, but why are lGB more likely to be kicked out the door, and i recall taht as nearly 20% of people have one gay experince it's no big proprtion ,plus most of the tories in london are gay.

Fri, 2012-05-04 13:29 — Cel (not verified)

Lots of LGB young people are still rejected by their families. You may not believe it, but that does not make it untrue.

Mon, 2012-04-23 23:57 — Agent (not verified)

Great article, shame about Flashbuck, but then we're used to him.

Mon, 2012-04-23 18:20 — Flashbuck

Most of those gayers are on drugs. Fact. No wonder they're homeless, since they've clearly blown their income on crack or whetever. If they want to be cheap rent boys selling their poop chute for more crack that's their business. Get over it.

Tue, 2012-06-26 11:36 — Lance63 (not verified)

I see the 'big society' and brotherly love is alive and well! Even these days it is not easy to be LBGT - you could still be shunned by your family and kicked out of the family home. Surely the sign of a 'civilised society' is to look after everyone?
Methinks you protest too much - and would hope you would be shown more sympathy if you were gay.

Tue, 2012-06-26 13:17 — lancet (not verified)

Nothing extraordinary in being gay, extra sympathy for being gay? Awesome approach.
Society can't be responsible for individuals, 'civilized society' may help, but is not obliged to help. There are individuals who given one little finger will take whole palm, then whole arm, then everything else; just let them. Some people suffer from inner void that can never be filled, that's why their demands never end. And public sector is convenient in such cases, there are easy money in public sector (more or less, money are always there), you just need to tear them out, because you are Entitled (every reason is good enough, being gay, being poor, being born into council flat, being sexually abused, etc.). Give us more sympathy because we are entitled to it (no, you are not), give us more money because we are entitled, because we were born into council flats and abused [endless reasoning of such kind](no, you are not entitled). Everyone has personal difficulties in life, everyone, not only the abused or born into council flats, some are just self centred emotional vampires who know no boundaries at all.

Mon, 2012-04-23 19:04 — Gareth

Yes, rates of drug and alcohol abuse are higher among the homeless than the population at large. But I'm sure you'll be aware of the significant body of research showing the complicated relationship between homelessness and substance abuse: for some, it is an inability to manage persistent drug use that leads to becoming homeless. For others, of course, it is the distress of life on the streets (with its accompanying likelihood of experiencing marginalisation, theft, violence, and often rape) that leads to their drug habit.

You'll also be aware that the vast majority of these homeless drug users will have endured multiple traumatic events in their life which precede both their substance usage and their homelessness. In such circumstances, substances are used as a means of coping with the ongoing psychological trauma, but can easily trap these individuals into addiction and dependency. Once this occurs, it can take significant help to get someone back on their feet, including detoxification, housing support and counselling.

Shall I provide a list of referneces so you can read more about this issue, about which you seem so obviously concerned yet woefully ill-informed?

Mon, 2012-04-23 18:22 — 861 (not verified)

Hideous

Mon, 2012-04-23 18:13 — 861 (not verified)

This crisis of housing is not the governments fault. Although the lack of dealing with it lies with them. The truth is social housing has been abused for too long by immigration. The millions that came under labour needed a home. With unaffordable private housing, everyone claims need. The answer is not to cut it to under twenty five the answer is to make sure we have enough to home our own in need before we home the rest of the world. Don't get me wrong I think immigration is good for a country but not at the criminal levels it is and has been for too long!

Mon, 2012-04-23 17:45 — Obversity (not verified)

MON, the idea is that if someone is to be homeless, it should be through lack of effort and bad decisions on their part, not because of any economically irrelevant feature of that individual. A disproportionately high number of lgbt individuals being homeless is significant evidence that this (very neo-liberal) idea is questionable if not downright silly as a description of what actually happens as a result of this kind of policy.

Another point that the article doesn't make is that homelessness in certain classes or groups of people, disproportionate to their relative size within the population as a whole, is an issue separate from homelessness itself, because it can create local -- and not so local -- stereotypes. People start to think that perhaps it's a problem with the type of people they are, and not the result of some underlying factor.

Sun, 2012-06-24 12:43 — Jennie Kermode (not verified)

Absolutely. And alongside lgbt people, there's another big group of young people who don't have the option to go back to the parental home - those who have experienced violence or sexual abuse there. Such people already make up a substantial proportion of those on the streets. They often suffer from PTSD or other mental health problems brought on by their experiences and so find it difficult to access even the small amount of help there is. Where they don't end up on the streets, trapping these young people in desperate situations within their family homes will lead to an increase in self harm, suicide, and, very probably, violence against others - all much greater social ills than short term benefit dependency (which, in the case of housing benefit, may not even mean being out of work).

Mon, 2012-04-23 17:48 — Obversity (not verified)

Ahah, the dangers of being the second poster, not having commented on the site before, and not carefully verifying which part of a post is the username and which is the day of the week. My previous comment was in reply to MCMAC.

Mon, 2012-04-23 17:48 — Obversity (not verified)

Mon, 2012-04-23 17:39 — HugoRune (not verified)

It doesn't matter whether they are gay or straight, this policy is flat-out wrong. Housing benefit should not be denied to the under 25's on the basis that they should be living with their parents if there is no legal requirement for the parents to house them.

Is there going to be a corresponding change to the law to extend parental responsibility to age 25, and will children in local authority care have their care orders extended to age 25?

Mon, 2012-04-23 17:32 — Paul Martin (not verified)

Those young adults brought up in 'the care' of local authorities may not have a parental home to return to. Does central government intend to continue to fund these young adults, between the ages of 18 and 25, in former foster care placements or other supported funded accommodation?

Mon, 2012-04-23 17:16 — Dr Robin Guthrie (not verified)

Sometimes the REASON they are homeless is BECAUSE they are gay.

There parents kicked them out.

Mon, 2012-04-23 16:26 — McMac

I don’t like this article.

Being homeless is the problem and the reason why someone needs support from the state, not the fact they are gay.

Mon, 2012-04-23 17:19 — Gareth

But it's vital to understand the reasons why an individual has become homeless (both immediate triggers and long-term influences) if the issue is going to be successfully and permanantly tackled. While there are a diverse set of reasons why adults end up on homeless, young people overwhelmingly tend to end up on the streets for reasons connected to their families: abuse, neglect, arguments etc.

For this reason, it is extremely short sighted of the government to suggest that all young people could be living with their families; for some, it can be profoundly dangerous to force them to do so, and many will choose to remain on the streets or in hostels, rather than return home. This policy can only serve to push more young people into the already overburdened care system, into reliance on the squeezed voluntary sector, or leave them vulnerable to a life of homelessness from which it can be extremely difficult to escape. Not very "in this together"!