This report presents the main findings of the ESRC-funded FOR-HOME study of the experiences of 400 single homeless people aged 16+ years who were resettled from hostels and other temporary accommodation into independent tenancies in London, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. They were interviewed in depth on three occasions over up to 18 months. The report also sets out the practice and policy implications of the findings and makes evidence-based suggestions for constructive changes in both areas. Even eight years ago, when FOR-HOME was first conceived, economic and political trends had generated a consensus that it was increasingly important to maximise the effectiveness of the resources available to support homeless people and for their resettlement into mainstream housing. It was also accepted that the evidence about what worked and what did not was lamentable. It was in this context that the FOR-HOME study was designed by the researchers with the encouragement and substantial collaboration of six homelessness service provider organisations (Broadway, Centrepoint, Framework, St Anne’s, St Mungo’s and Thames Reach). The proposal went through several iterations and grant-awarding panels and was eventually funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council. In essence, the contents of this report are of three kinds – the factual evidence, evaluations and recommendations. The report’s main and first task is to summarise and analyse the substantial and original data collected by FOR-HOME about the process of resettlement and its outcomes. This includes accounts of the experiences of those resettled, of the type and condition of property that they moved into, of the respondents’ satisfaction with the move and adjustments to independent living, and of how they coped over the first 18 months. Among many notable findings, four have attracted great interest. They are: almost all the respondents retained their original tenancy or moved to another and an encouragingly small number returned to homelessness. Second, fewer received tenancy support after the move than has been generally assumed, and the allocation of this support was poorly related to need. Third, the most pervasive and unsettling problem faced by the respondents was debt, which increased over time. Fourth, resettlements into private-rented tenancies have been growing but, compared to moves into social housing, associate with higher levels of debt, abandonment, eviction and dissatisfaction with the home.