The Everyone In Social Investment Pilot (SIP) is one of the most ambitious recent attempts to rethink how homelessness services are financed and delivered in England. Launched during the Covid-19 pandemic, it took the emergency “Everyone In” initiative — which rapidly rehoused people sleeping rough or who were in unstable accommodation — and added a novel financial layer: social investment. The pilot blended public funding with private capital to acquire housing for people experiencing homelessness.

At its core, the programme tested a simple but radical proposition: that housing could be treated as a social-impact asset class. Investors accepted modest financial returns in exchange for delivering measurable social outcomes, while charities and housing providers gained access to capital to purchase or lease properties. This created a £50 million pilot which leveraged a further £138 million of investment.

What makes the SIP particularly interesting is that it was not a single model but a testbed of approaches. Different financing mechanisms — leasing, social loans, and equity investment — were deployed across several providers and places. The evaluation, led by Manchester Metropolitan University in partnership with the Centre for Homelessness Impact, the universities of Glasgow, Herriot-Watt, and Cincinnati and People’s Voice Media, combined process tracing, economic analysis, and lived-experience research, reflecting a serious attempt to understand not just whether the model worked, but how and why.

The findings are, on balance, positive. In implementation terms, the programme largely delivered as intended despite operating in volatile housing markets. It successfully targeted areas of highest need: over 90% of properties were located in the 40% of local authorities with the greatest levels of homelessness. The model also enabled relatively rapid procurement of good-quality housing, often outperforming traditional grant-funded approaches in speed and quality.

Economically, the SIP compares well with business-as-usual. The evaluation found it to be broadly cost-neutral or cost-saving relative to private rented sector or temporary accommodation, while also delivering returns to investors. In some cases, costs were significantly lower—for example, supported housing leases were around 15% cheaper than equivalent private rents, and substantially cheaper than temporary accommodation.

Most importantly, there is credible evidence of positive outcomes for tenants. Across the pilot, individuals experienced improved housing stability, safety, and wellbeing. Secure, decent housing acted as a platform for better mental health, stronger social connections, and greater independence. These gains were often underpinned by relational, person-centred support—suggesting that the service model mattered as much as the financing mechanism.

The pilot also generated wider system benefits. Delivery organisations developed new capabilities, blending housing management, care provision, and financial expertise. In effect, the SIP acted as a catalyst for innovation, pushing providers towards more integrated and investment-ready models.

However, the evaluation also identified challenges. The model does not solve structural shortages of affordable housing, nor does it replace grant funding. Scale was constrained, and in some areas tenancies remained time-limited, creating risks of “cliff edges” when support ended. There are also ongoing risks linked to welfare policy, market volatility, and the need to refinance properties beyond 2030.

For policymakers, the evaluation suggests that, while social investment is not a silver bullet, it is a credible additional tool to help achieve important policy outcomes. The SIP shows that private capital can be mobilised for social good, that it can deliver value for money, and that it can sit alongside relational, person-centred services rather than undermine them.

The real opportunity now is to build on this foundation: scaling models that provide genuinely permanent housing, embedding them within local systems, and ensuring they are supported by wider welfare and housing reform. Done well, social investment could become a routine part of the policy toolkit for tackling homelessness — not replacing the state, but strengthening its capacity to act.

• Chris Fox is Professor of Evaluation and Policy Analysis at Manchester Metropolitan University
• Findings the evaluation are available via our 'Publications' page