Please note: The Public Health Research (PHR) Programme would like to draw researchers’ attention to the commissioning brief below, which was first advertised in Spring 2022. This is a brief that we have previously advertised as a commissioned funding opportunity. We are still interested in receiving applications in this research area, as it remains a priority in our portfolio. However, please note that the commissioning brief, along with the underpinning literature searches, has not been updated since originally written.
Research question
What is the effectiveness of interventions which impact on eviction rates in the UK?
Why this is important
Evictions are costly to society, as well as being a traumatic experience for people being evicted and can have both negative short and long-term impacts on multiple measures of health, particularly mental health. Preventing evictions is therefore vital. Tenant evictions are a significant cause of homelessness, as well as having direct impact on health and wellbeing. Evictions are experienced overwhelmingly by vulnerable populations, including low-income households, single parents, and minority groups. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 significantly reformed England’s homelessness legislation by placing duties on local authorities to intervene at earlier stages to prevent homelessness in their areas.
It has long been argued that section 21 evictions should be stopped to give more security to private tenants. In England, Section 21 enables private landlords to repossess their properties from assured shorthold tenants (ASTs) without the need to establish fault on the part of the tenant. Private tenants, their representative bodies, and others working in the sector argue the ability of landlords to terminate an AST at short notice has a detrimental effect on tenants’ wellbeing. Research suggests tenants are reluctant to exercise their rights to secure repairs and/or challenge rent increases due fear of eviction, leading to living in less favourable conditions. The current Government has committed to abolish ‘no fault’ section 21, and the report ‘The end of 'no fault' section 21 evictions (England)’ was published in July 2021. The programme recognises that the laws on evictions are different in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and is interested in interventions to reduce eviction across the UK.
At the start of the COVID-19 crisis the Government imposed a ban on evictions and introduced the furlough scheme, which protected many ordinary households from full economic impact of the lockdown. Nevertheless, this has now been lifted and there is a real concern of a rise in demand for temporary accommodation, from households facing homelessness. Homelessness is recognised as a widespread public health problem and evictions are a major cause of homelessness. Most research into the prevention of evictions has been conducted internationally and little is known about which interventions are (cost-)effective in preventing evictions in the UK content.
The Public Health Research (PHR) Programme wishes to commission research on interventions which impact eviction rates, this would include evictions of tenants from both the private and social sector. This call is not about unstable housing or homelessness unconnected to eviction. We are predominantly interested in interventions that are likely to have impact on populations at scale, addressing health inequalities and the underlying wider determinants of health.
We recognise that this call is broad, and invite researchers to be targeted in their research area. Suggested research areas of interest could include (but are not limited to):
- Evaluations of the effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness and the acceptability of interventions aimed at preventing eviction
- Evaluations of interventions offering tenants training in finance management
- Evaluations of interventions aimed at specific vulnerable groups facing or having experienced eviction
- Evaluation of the long-term effects of short-term assistance such as emergency loans, debt advice and legal assistance
- Evaluations focused on community development to strengthen tenancies
- Evaluations of the lessons learned and new ways of working following the Covid-19 pandemic
- Evaluations of interventions unrelated to evictions that might have an indirect impact on eviction rates (increasing or decreasing)
- Evaluations of the role of Local Authorities in addressing the causes of the causes of evictions
- Evaluation of the effectiveness of the ‘Duty to refer’ introduced in the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017.
A range of study designs and outcome measures can be used, and it is likely that natural experiments will be the focus of this work. Researchers will need to clearly describe and justify their choice of target population group and geography, as well as rationalise the most suitable methodological approach. Primary outcomes must be health related. Outcome measures of interest may include eviction rates, subjective wellbeing, quality of life, depression, anxiety, loneliness and social exclusion, sleeping problems, housing outcomes and life satisfaction. Researchers are encouraged to consider other outcome measures on the broader determinants of the inequalities of health, which should be specified and justified. Researchers will also need to specify key outcomes and how these will be measured in the short, medium and long term. Understanding the value of public health interventions - whether the outcomes justify their use of resources - is integral to the PHR programme, where resources relating to different economic sectors and budgets are potentially relevant. The main outcomes for economic evaluation are expected to include health (including health-related quality of life) and the impact on health inequalities as a minimum, with consideration of broader outcomes welcomed. Different approaches to economic evaluation are encouraged as long as they assess the value and distributive impact of interventions. Applications that do not include an economic component should provide appropriate justification.
Researchers are strongly encouraged to ensure that service users or people with lived experience from the target audience are involved in the design and planning of the intervention and/or as potential costed members of the research team. Researchers should demonstrate the relevance of their proposed research to decision-makers and they might do this through involving them as a costed member of the research team. Researchers are encouraged to explain how they will share their findings with policy makers, public health officers, special interest groups, charities, community audiences and other relevant stakeholders. Researchers are expected to be aware of other studies in this area and ensure their proposed research is complementary. Moreover, Inter-disciplinary research approaches are welcomed.
For further information on submitting an application to the PHR Programme, please refer to the PHR supporting information for applicants submitting stage 1 and stage 2 applications.