|
| Since 1991-92 additional capital allocations have been made available by The Scottish Office to local authorities for projects to tackle homelessness. This research examined the effectiveness of the allocations resulting from bidding competitions in 1991-92 and 1992-93 when a total of £22.6 million was awarded for 160 projects. |
|
| Main Findings |
- The projects added to provision in particular for young single homeless people who best met the criteria set by The Scottish Office for the projects.
- By November 1993, 60% of the projects were in operation, providing 1,669 additional places (with the potential for 2,532 places once all the projects were completed).
- Half of the projects involved the use of local authorities' own stock to provide furnished tenancies or hostel accommodation. These provided 70% of places and were the easiest projects to establish, in particular in urban areas. The other main type of project, which was more common in rural areas, involved the local authorities purchasing and adapting property.
- The projects stimulated useful partnership with other agencies in terms of provision, management and support. This enhanced the effectiveness of projects and the integration of services for homeless people.
- The great majority of projects provided temporary accommodation; moving on was a major problem and residents generally exceeded The maximum stay.
- Project residents were generally satisfied with the accommodation provided. However, the high level of rents, which were met from housing benefit in most cases, meant that residents had little incentive to seek work.
- The additional capital allocations provided opportunities for improving the effectiveness of the homelessness service by increasing the availability of suitable temporary accommodation, improving assessment and providing support which helped to prevent people entering a cycle of homelessness.
|
|
| Introduction |
| Against a background of increased homelessness applications in the late 1980s, The Scottish Office Environment Department made additional capital allocations available to local authorities to tackle homelessness in 1991-92 and 1992-93. In a series of bidding competitions, local authorities could submit bids for projects which met the Department's criteria by focusing on problems of young, single homelessness and rooflessness. Over those two years additional capital allocations totalling £22.6 million were awarded for 160 projects. |
| The aims of this research were to evaluate the effectiveness of the projects funded through additional capital allocations and to identity good practice in provision for homeless people. The research involved a monitoring exercise to track progress with the bids and their implementation, and an evaluation of 15 projects in 5 local authority areas selected to cover a wide geographical spread and the full range of project types. |
|
| The Monitoring Study |
| Of the 160 projects awarded additional capital allocations in the study period, 60% had been completed by November 1993; 17% were underway but not yet operational; and 14% had been dropped. 1,669 additional places for homeless people had already been provided; when all the projects were completed, they would provide a potential 2,532 places. |
| Half of the projects involved using the local authority's own stock to provide furnished tenancies or hostel provision which was the cheapest option in terms of capital cost per place. The other main type of project was more common in rural areas and involved purchasing property and adapting it for use by homeless people. A few projects comprised new build, grants to other agencies or the provision of prefabricated homes or chalets. |
|
| The Case Study Authorities |
| Bidding and Project Development |
| Case study authorities were critical of the tight timescale for submitting bids and achieving spend and considered that the projects reflected these constraints. Larger urban authorities were considered better placed to develop a strategic approach and to bring projects 'off the shelf'. |
| The case study authorities did not want to incur substantial expenditure on projects from their mainstream allocations in future years and had to balance the costs incurred by the projects against the savings which might be achieved. |
| The availability of suitable property was a major development issue. It could prove difficult to obtain planning permission or meet building control requirements which could add substantially to project costs. The support of elected members could prove critical where there was local opposition to a homelessness project. |
|
| Management and Support |
| The case study authorities agreed that it was important to have good management arrangements in place at the outset. The provision of support was seen as part of the housing management task and managing organisations had to develop good networks and liaison with other agencies to ensure adequate support was available. |
| The projects stimulated useful partnership between local authority departments and with other agencies. In some cases management agreements were set up with other agencies to provide specialist management and support expertise. Putting such arrangements in place could be resource intensive. |
| The principal management tools for the projects were tenancy or residency agreements and house rules. |
| These could provide a framework for the development of programmes for independent living skills. A 'keyworker' approach allowed continuity and the effective assessment of the nature and level of support required by individual residents. |
|
| Project Residents |
| Residents expressed a high level of satisfaction with the project accommodation and with management and support arrangements. Residents with previous experience of temporary accommodation thought the project provision was much better, On the whole, they found project staff approachable and helpful. The location of projects, security and privacy were all ranked highly by residents as important factors in provision. |
| In nearly all cases, residents' rent was met by housing benefit. Residents thought the full rent was high and some felt they would be unable and unwilling to pay the rent if they were working and their benefits were reduced. |
|
| Moving On |
| All but two of the case study projects provided temporary accommodation and moving on was identified as a major problem. In most cases the intended maximum stay was exceeded, reducing turnover and blocking opportunities for other homeless people. The rate of turnover varied greatly between projects, however. |
| Most residents thought their only option was to remain in the project until they were offered a permanent local authority or housing association tenancy. Few were inclined to seek accommodation themselves because of the perceived lack of affordable options in their area. They would only consider working or training once they found more settled and cheaper accommodation. Most project residents thought it unlikely that they would become homeless again. |
| Information available on where residents moved on to was patchy and patterns varied according to the case study area, residents' needs and the project type. 28% moved into permanent local authority or Scottish Homes tenancies and almost 13% returned to their family homes. In over 16% of cases, contact was lost with former residents, |
|
| Project Costs |
| The additional capital allocations provided leverage in some cases to obtain extra funding for projects from authorities' main allocations. The major challenge to projects was to meet continuing running costs; these were generally funded from rent revenue which was highly dependent on housing benefit. |
|
| Effectiveness |
| It is difficult to distinguish the effects of the projects themselves in meeting local needs from the effects of changes in policies on homelessness and allocations and from wider demographic changes. Homelessness applications fell in 4 of the 5 case study authorities between 1992-93 and 1993-94 and the use of bed and breakfast accommodation reduced substantially in the 3 case study authorities that previously relied heavily on it. These changes were not clearly associated with the use of additional capital allocations. |
| The projects added considerably to the provision available to homeless people although concern was expressed that this might mean a reduction in the housing available to mainstream waiting or transfer list applicants in areas which used local authority stock. The lack of move on accommodation and voids in project accommodation limited the effectiveness of the additional provision for homeless people. |
| The increased availability of suitable temporary accommodation led to an improvement in the homelessness service generally. Those placed in bed and breakfast were there for less time, the number of inappropriate placements was reduced, and the provision of support enabled people to move on more successfully. The additional capital allocations facilitated the reorganisation of the homelessness service in some cases leading to the speedier turnaround of cases and improved assessment and placement with a wider range of placement options. |
| Most projects did not directly address the issue of the prevention of homelessness but improved assessment and increased options helped prevent people getting into the cycle of homelessness. |
| An accurate calculation of cost effectiveness is not possible given the limited information available from the study. However, all the case study authorities considered the projects represented value for money. Partnerships between local authorities and other agencies brought added value to the additional capital allocations. |
|
| Conclusions |
| Although the funding mechanism which the study evaluated has now been superseded, the research has important messages about good practice in homelessness provision. It emphasises the importance of developing suitable, flexible provision in the right location with the support of the local community; the importance of management and support and the involvement of other agencies; the need for careful assessment of the individual in terms of appropriate placement and support; the value of developing a strategic approach to homelessness provision; the link between unemployment and homelessness and the need to address training and employment as well as housing needs. |
|
| " Additional Capital Allocations for Homelessness Projects ", the research report summarised in this Research Findings, may be purchased (price £5 per copy). |
Cheques should be made payable to The Stationery Office and addressed to:
The Stationery Office Ltd, Mail Order Department, 71 Lothian Road, Edinburgh, EH3 9AZ. Telephone: 0131 228 4181 Fax: 0131 622 7017 The report can also be ordered online from:www.thestationeryoffice.co.uk |
|
| This Research Findings may be photocopied, or further copies may be obtained from: |
The Scottish Office Central Research Unit
Area 2J CRU
Victoria Quay
Edinburgh EH6 6QQ
Tel No: 0131 244 7560 |