In our 2018 report ‘Mind the Gap’, we set out how a 28 move-on period does not give newly granted refugees enough time to find alternative accommodation, secure employment, and access vital support such as Universal Credit, before their asylum support ends. This pushes many people into homelessness and rough sleeping, while placing huge pressure on statutory homelessness services and the voluntary sector.

Efforts by the previous government to clear the asylum backlog led to a dramatic rise in refugee homelessness in 2023 and the first half of 2024, with record numbers of people seeking emergency homelessness assistance from charities immediately after being granted status and leaving Home Office accommodation. Across 2023-2024, cases of homelessness among people leaving asylum accommodation rose by 251%, as the NACCOM network recorded a 99% increase in refugees being accommodated by our members.

In response, the Home Office introduced three initiatives in late 2024: a temporary extension of the move on period to 56 days, the deployment of AMLOs in selected local authority areas to provide additional support to people navigating the move on period, and £2.8 million in recognition payments to help local authorities support newly granted refugees.

The Home Office subsequently commissioned NatCen and Fortia Insight to conduct a mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation, early impacts and value for money of the three initiatives. Fieldwork ran between April and September 2025, drawing on 76 interviews and focus groups with 110 participants — including Home Office staff, local authorities, voluntary and community sector organisations and refugees themselves — alongside surveys of AMLOs and local authorities, and analysis of Home Office and MHCLG data. The final report was published on 10 June 2026.

We were pleased to be invited to contribute to NatCen’s evaluation, giving us the chance to share evidence and reflections gathered from across our network during the pilot period.

Extension of the move-on period: a timeline

  • 9 December 2024 – The 56-day pilot begins, initially announced as a six-month trial running to June 2025. Under the pilot, the move on period is calculated as 56 days from the date of the asylum decision, rather than 28 days from the date the discontinuation letter is issued, as was previously the case.
  • July 2025 – The Home Office confirms the trial will be extended to the end of the year.
  • 1 September 2025 – The extension is ended early for single adults, who revert to a 28-day period calculated from the discontinuation letter. The 56-day period is retained only for families, pregnant women, people aged 65 and over, and those with a disability under the Equality Act 2010.
  • 8 March 2026 – The pilot is ended and the Home Office sets a single 42-day move on period for all newly recognised refugees, calculated from the date of the asylum decision.
  • 10 June 2026 – The evaluation is published.

What did the evaluation find?

Support for extending the move-on period

The evaluation identified unambiguous support for the extension to 56 days, which was considered the most impactful of the three initiatives. According to the evaluation, ‘the extension of the move on period to 56 days was widely welcomed by all participant groups, who emphasised how the extension enabled more organised and less chaotic transitions for refugees from asylum support accommodation to mainstream support services.’

During the pilot, as intended, the average length of stay in Home Office support rose from 41 to 56 days. NatCan found that this longer period between asylum decision and needing to leave asylum support ‘afforded greater flexibility to individuals needing time to navigate the process of exiting support’ and ‘reduced the pressure faced by both refugees and support providers, giving people more realistic time to secure housing, apply for Universal Credit, and open bank accounts.’ Benefits reported by participants included ‘reduced homelessness, fewer safeguarding concerns and lower stress among refugees.’

The 56-day pilot was perceived to have changed the nature of support work, with services describing how the additional time allowed by the extension enabled them to provide better support to people navigating the move-on period, whilst easing the urgency and ‘extreme firefighting’ associated with the 28-day model. Both local authorities and voluntary services reported that the pilot ‘improved planning, and enabled more trauma-informed support’ while also enabling ‘better partnership working and fewer crisis interventions.’

According to a survey of local authorities carried out as part of the evaluation, 88% said the 56-day pilot was working “very” or “fairly” well in their area, 76% said that they believed the pilot improved refugees’ overall experience of the move on period, and 73% said that it enhanced their ability to plan and deliver services.

The evaluation also notes that, in England, homelessness prevention duty cases rose while relief duty cases fell. This suggests that a longer move-on period enabled local authorities to intervene earlier, before people actually became homeless, rather than only supporting people once they had exited asylum accommodation and were already homeless.

Based on the perceived success of the pilot, the evaluation identified ‘a strong consensus among participants that the move on period should be extended.’

Continuing challenges

Despite these positive findings, challenges with the move-on period remained. At times these hindered people’s ability to navigate the process successfully, and limited services’ ability to prevent homelessness among the people they work with.

Data from the local authority survey showed mixed perceptions on housing outcomes, with only one-third of respondents believing that the pilot had reduced the number of individuals requiring homelessness relief duties. Likewise, only one-third of respondents believed that the pilot had successfully reduced rough sleeping.

The evaluation also surfaced lingering implementation problems. Delays in the issuing of decision and Notice to Quit letters meant that, in practice, many refugees did not benefit from the full 56 days. Meanwhile, confusion amongst some local authorities about which stage of the move on period triggered their statutory duties to prevent homelessness, and some local authority housing support only commencing after refugees received a Notice to Quit letter, significantly increased vulnerability at the end of the move on period.

Unsurprisingly, the evaluation identified that severe housing shortages remain the biggest barrier affecting the move on initiatives and the ability of newly granted refugees to avoid homelessness at the end of the move-on period. As one participant put it: “the move on period could be 156 days and we still wouldn’t be able to find housing.” In particular, the private rental sector was reported as being largely inaccessible for refugees, due to affordability and the reluctance of landlords to accept refugees and/or people in receipt of housing benefit.

Value for money

As part of the evaluation, NatCen and Fortia Insight carried out a formal Value for Money (VfM) assessment, using a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) approach that compared the direct costs of the initiatives — staffing, data systems, and recognition payments to local authorities — against monetised benefits.

According to the evaluation: ‘the main monetisable benefit included in the analysis is the reduction in average (mean) length of stay in accommodation, attributed to the extension of the move on period and the introduction of AMLOs. Other potential benefits, such as reduced rough sleeping and improved integration, were not included in the CBA due to data limitations and attribution challenges.’

Subsequently, the evaluation likely understates the true value for money of the extension of the move-on period. Whilst focusing on one easily measurable saving to the Home Office, the evaluation did not factor in the costs incurred when homelessness can’t be prevented: temporary accommodation costs, downstream costs on the NHS and other public services, and the wider costs absorbed by local authorities and the voluntary sector.

The evaluation acknowledges this limitation and recognises that, with statutory homelessness data pointing to a reduction in homelessness during the pilot period, ‘this benefit could represent cost savings to government for public services provided to those newly granted refugees who are rough sleeping and experiencing homelessness.’

Other initiatives to enhance the move-on process

The evaluation’s findings on AMLOs were mixed. AMLOs themselves were positive about their impact, with 93% feeling the role was helping to meet refugees’ needs, but wider feedback suggested that delivery was hampered by a lack of clarity about the role’s responsibilities, inconsistent visibility and integration with existing local support, and practical challenges including geographic dispersion and the absence of structured appointment systems.

Meanwhile, the evaluation found that while the £2.8 million in recognition payments was welcomed by local authorities under real financial pressure, its design limited its impact. Payments were reactive and one-off, arriving without the advance notice councils needed to plan and commission move on support proactively. Because these payments were not ring-fenced, there was also a risk of the money simply being absorbed into general homelessness budgets rather than directed at move on work specifically.

What did the evaluation recommend?

The evaluation suggests the following six recommendations:

  • extend the move on period and consider an even longer move on period for single adults (especially males and those aged 34 and under for whom it is more difficult to find housing)
  • strengthen AMLO integration within the support sector and clarify roles and responsibilities
  • provide sustainable, ring-fenced funding where possible for LAs with advance notice
  • address housing shortages to provide refugees with a better chance of finding appropriate housing by the end of the move on period
  • improve communication between the Home Office and LAs and provide training for Home Office and LAs on notice periods
  • improve data sharing and monitoring for robust evaluation