Young people leaving care are significantly overrepresented in the homelessness population. The transition out of care is often abrupt, with support dropping away at 18 while expectations of independence sharply increase. The consequences are stark: around one in three care leavers experience homelessness within two years of leaving care, and estimates suggest a quarter of the wider homeless population has spent time in care.

More recent data reinforces the scale of the issue. In England, over one in ten care leavers aged 18–20 are already facing or at risk of homelessness, with numbers rising year on year.
This is not a marginal problem within homelessness. It is a structural pipeline.

At its core is what many describe as the “care cliff”: a system in which corporate parenting responsibilities effectively end just as financial pressure, housing barriers, and isolation begin to intensify, leaving many care leavers exposed to heightened threats of homelessness. 

A new approach: what happens when you simply give people money?

A recent UK trial, led by the Policy Institute at King’s College London, tested a simple idea: what happens if care leavers are given a one-off, unconditional cash payment?

Participants received £2,000 with no restrictions on how it should be spent.

The results challenge long-held assumptions. After a check-in 12 months post-intervention, those who received the payment were:

• More likely to be in stable housing
• Less likely to be sofa surfing
• Less likely to require crisis public services

Crucially, participants did not spend the money recklessly. Instead, many used it to secure housing, invest in education, or build a small financial buffer. The trial provides rare, robust UK evidence that direct financial support can shift trajectories at the exact moment risk is highest.

Agency, dignity, and the missing piece in homelessness prevention

The findings point to something deeper than just effectiveness. They expose a persistent discomfort within policy: the idea that giving people money, directly and without conditions, is inherently risky.

Of course, homelessness is rarely caused by a single factor. It is shaped by a combination of structural pressures, housing supply, labour markets, health, and personal circumstances. But within that complexity, there are often specific financial pressure points that determine whether someone can sustain or secure a home. 

These are not abstract challenges. They are immediate, practical barriers: 

• A deposit that cannot be raised
• Essential items for an unfurnished tenancy
• The cost of moving, training, or accessing work

For care leavers, these barriers are amplified by the absence of family support networks. Where others might turn to parents, care leavers are expected to navigate these moments alone.

What the trial demonstrates is that agency is not a luxury within homelessness policy; it is a prerequisite for stability. When people are trusted to make decisions about their own lives, they tend to do so in ways that are rational, forward-looking, and grounded in their immediate needs.

The question of giving people money is often framed as whether people can be trusted. But in reality, the reluctance to provide direct financial support says more about the system than the people within it. It reflects a longstanding assumption that individuals, particularly those facing hardship, will make poor decisions if given autonomy. The evidence increasingly shows the opposite. When trusted with resources, people act pragmatically and in line with their needs. It is the system’s lack of trust, not individual behaviour, that drives inefficiency, delay, and, too often, homelessness.

From evidence to practice: why this matters now

At Greater Change, this is not a new insight. Our personalised budgets model is built on the same principle: that timely, flexible financial support, designed by the individual, can unlock exits from homelessness that existing systems alone cannot deliver.

However, there is an important distinction. While the trial demonstrates the impact of unconditional cash transfers, personalised budgets are delivered within a supported, relational framework. Greater Change personalised budgets are co-designed with the individual and a trusted frontline worker, ensuring it is both responsive to need and grounded in a wider plan for stability. This is not about limiting choice. It is about pairing agency with support, and the result is a model that retains the core strength of cash transfers: speed, flexibility, and trust, while embedding it within existing local services and pathways. 

Where the trial provides experimental validation, personalised budgets demonstrate what this looks like in practice, at scale:

• Tailored to the individual, not the system
• Delivered at the right moment, not after crisis escalation
• Focused on removing specific barriers, not managing symptoms

For care leavers in particular, this approach offers something the current system often fails to provide: a bridge between care and independence that is practical, immediate, and human.

The bigger shift

There is a tendency in public policy to treat financial support as inherently high-risk, particularly when given directly. But the evidence is increasingly clear.

Giving people money should not be controversial. What is controversial is a system built on mistrust, which withholds support and then bears the far greater cost of failure.

‍