On 10 June 2026, the Home Office published the long-awaited evaluation of three initiatives introduced in late 2024 to improve the ‘move on’ process for people granted refugee status: the temporary extension of the move on period to 56 days, the roll-out of Asylum Move-on Liaison Officers (AMLOs), and £2.8 million of funding to support local authorities’ move on work. The evaluation was carried out by two independent research bodies, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) and Fortia Insight.
You can read the full report here. Our analysis of the contents can be found here.
We welcomed the introduction of the 56-day pilot from the outset, and this evaluation confirms what our members have told us for years: that a longer move-on period gives people and services the time they need to prevent homelessness at the point asylum support ends. The evidence of reduced safeguarding concerns, better forward planning, more trauma-informed support and smoother transitions out of the asylum system is a strong endorsement of a simple, low-cost change to the end of the asylum process.
That evidence makes the decision to end the extension for single adults in September 2025 difficult to understand. Participants reported that single adult men ‘face greater difficulties securing accommodation’ — reflecting the fact that they are less likely to be in priority need for housing assistance — and the evaluation recommends considering an even longer move on period for this group. In light of this evidence, the group for whom the pilot was prematurely ended is the very group the evaluation suggested needed the most time to navigate the move-on period.
The timing and manner of the pilot’s conclusion raise similar concerns. In March 2026, before the evaluation had been published, the Home Office replaced the pilot with a 42-day move on period for all newly recognised refugees. This was introduced quietly through updated guidance rather than a formal announcement, with no explanation of why 42 days was chosen — contrary to the evaluation’s own call for ‘clear, consistent communication to LAs and VCS organisations about upcoming policy changes and notice periods.’ A minister later told Parliament that the decision drew on key findings from the evaluation, yet neither the public, local authorities, nor organisations like ours could scrutinise those findings until the report appeared three months later. Now that it has, we can see the evidence points unambiguously towards a period of at least 56 days. Given that the average stay in Home Office support before the pilot was already 41 days, the introduction of a 42-day move-on period is extremely disappointing.
Whilst the next round of statutory homelessness statistics will provide some indication of the impact of the ending of the pilot, evidence from our network tells us that the ability to request an extension of asylum support when at imminent risk of homelessness — the product of a successful legal challenge that NACCOM and partners contributed to — is providing a lifeline for refugees for whom the 42-day period is not sufficient. We urge government to publish statistics on how many people are reliant on this safeguard, and to improve communications so that more people are aware of their right to request an extension when threatened with homelessness.
None of the evaluation’s findings will surprise those working on the frontline. The rise in prevention duty cases and fall in relief duty cases during the pilot shows why aligning the move-on period with the Homelessness Reduction Act matters: 56 days matches the window in which local authorities owe a prevention duty, giving them a genuine opportunity to stop homelessness before it happens rather than only responding to it afterwards. But services can only use that window if they have the right information early. Alongside the evaluation’s recommendations on data sharing, we believe newly granted refugees should receive all key documents relating to their decision and the ending of their support together and as early as possible, with clear escalation routes for resolving delays and errors, and asylum support extended where documentation issues arise. The Homelessness Reduction Act’s Duty to Refer should also be extended to the Home Office.
As we set out with Homeless Link during Refugee Week last year, extending the move on period is just one step towards stemming the flow of homelessness from the asylum system. We continue to call for a longer move-on period for everyone leaving asylum accommodation — including people refused asylum, who currently have just 21 days before their support ends, and those whose claims have been withdrawn — and for people seeking asylum to be granted the right to work after six months.
Crucially, the evaluation recognises that none of this works without access to stable, quality housing. A longer move on period can buy people the time they need, but if there is nowhere for people to actually move on to, the underlying driver of refugee homelessness remains untouched. This is about more than extending timelines — it is about building a move-on process that genuinely supports everyone leaving the asylum system to make the most of the time they are given.
Fundamentally, preventing homelessness among people leaving the asylum system requires a truly cross-government approach. In England, the government must treat the current homelessness strategy and the upcoming refugee integration strategy as opportunities to address the move on process — Home Office policies must not be considered in a silo, and their impact on homelessness must be weighed whenever decisions like this are made. The same joined-up thinking should apply to how value for money is assessed. Any future economic assessment of the move-on period should count the temporary accommodation, health and voluntary sector costs avoided when homelessness is prevented, not just the savings to the Home Office’s own accommodation budget.
We are concerned that the decision to not extend the move-on period to 56 days, despite the evidence in its favour, signals a backsliding in the Home Office’s commitment to collaborating to reduce homelessness — at precisely the moment when that commitment is most needed. The Home Office Homelessness Team has been disbanded just as work to implement the National Plan to End Homelessness, which will require greater cross-departmental working and accountability, gets underway. This sends the wrong signal to external partners, and casts doubt on the Home Office’s willingness to cooperate and collaborate with the strategy.
We will continue to press the Home Office to reinstate, and make permanent, a 56-day move-on period for all people leaving the asylum system, and to work with government and our members to ensure the evidence in this report translates into lasting change.
