The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER TWO: EVIDENCE BASE

55. The 2003 Act states that the priority need test can only be abolished at such a time as Scottish Ministers are of the view that local authorities can reasonably be expected to fulfil the new duty. Scottish Ministers are therefore required to assess local authorities' capacity to meet their homelessness duties without regard to the priority need distinction before legislating to bring the abolition of priority need into effect. The ability to accurately measure capacity is therefore a key issue. It is addressed by three questions in this section. The consultation document recognised the need to have a wider range of data in order to measure progress and capacity, and stated that it was crucial that responding to the needs of homeless people is seen in the wider context of identifying and providing for others in housing need.

Specific answers to Questions 1 and 2

56. Answers to these questions are considered together as there was much overlap between responses, with many of the answers to question 1 on other sources of information relating more closely to information gaps (question 2). Overall, there was a great deal of similarity between responses in terms of both information gaps identified and recommendations of additional sources of information. The following summarises the factors identified in the consultation paper and summarises the issues raised in responses.

Q1) What other sources of information should be considered in assessing capacity to meet need?

Q2) What are the main gaps in the evidence base in relation to assessing the capacity to meet need?

57. The consultation document identified various information sources as key to assessing capacity. In relation to homelessness, these were: the HL1 and HL2 data collections; Homelessness Strategies, and monitoring of these; and information from the Glasgow decommissioning programme. In relation to housing stock and management it noted: the Affordable Housing Review; information from RTB sales; SHCS; Scottish Continuous Recording System and local authorities lettings information; Communities Scotland inspections; Local Housing Strategies and housing needs assessments; SHQS delivery plans; Community Ownership Business Plans. Regarding housing support the Supporting People Strategies were regarded as the key source of information. The pro-forma exercise was identified as a means by which information from these various sources could be pulled together to inform planning for 2012.

Prevention

58. The need for monitoring and evaluation of preventative activities, including their impact on homelessness figures was a recurrent theme. Some respondents also commented on the difficulties of assessing preventative activity, especially given the newness of much of this work. There was a view that RSLs and private landlords should be encouraged to monitor and report upon activities aimed at sustaining tenancies and that their roles and responsibilities with regard to this and homelessness prevention should be made clear.

Accuracy of data

59. There was a widely shared concern that the evidence base on homelessness needed to be sensitive to differences at the local level, and there was a view that this might require different sources of information in different areas: 'the same approach in assessing capacity will not apply in different geographic regions (e.g. urban or rural) or local authorities where stock transfers have taken place' ( APN5). For some respondents, analysis needed to go beyond the level of the local authority to a 'micro-level' analysis of demand and supply and related factors, as authority area analysis could mask acute difficulties in particular areas. Local Housing Strategies together with Local Housing Needs Assessments were seen as useful sources of local level data, needing to be more closely linked to the process of assessing capacity and to Homelessness Strategies at a national level. In particular, links between the Local Housing Needs survey work and pro forma were requested. There was also a view that introducing a sub-area identifier as part of the HL1 system for areas such as Highland should be considered. A need for clear guidance on needs assessment methodology for Scotland was noted.

60. Revision of both the HL1 and HL2 data collection systems was seen as required by several respondents and forthcoming revision of the HL1 was welcomed. In particular respondents felt that definitions used in data collection, for example of repeat homelessness, needed to be tightened to ensure consistency in interpretation, and also that collection of data on the use of temporary accommodation in the HL2 returns needed strengthening to allow for an assessment of capacity. Similarly, while some respondents commented on the usefulness of the pro-forma in bringing together relevant data to give an assessment of demand and supply, this was also seen as in need of revision, to tighten definitions of, for example 'support needs', and to include additional data around health and local level data ¹. There were also more general comments made about the need to improve the accuracy of existing data sources, and a view that 'the one main gap is the accuracy of data' ( APN 8). There was also a request for HL1 and HL2 forms to allow for an accurate identification of numbers of women presenting as homeless as a result of domestic abuse.

61. There was a suggestion that information from the Rough Sleepers Initiative Common Monitoring System ( RSICMS) could be used in assessing homelessness pathways and identifying issues about the capacity to meet need. It was suggested that through the CMS it would be possible to demonstrate and measure in a more qualitative way the impact of legislative changes, and that there is the opportunity to develop a means to aggregate HL1 data and data from CMS on a periodic basis to give a fuller picture of the extent and nature of homelessness in Scotland. Another respondent suggested that CMS would provide valuable data about service capacity in voluntary and RSI funded services.

Supply and stock issues

62. Information on stock availability, across all sectors and including the impact of stock transfer and taking into account infrastructure requirements for new builds, was a key issue in responses. There was widespread emphasis on the need to address the 'mismatch' of available stock to housing need in terms of size, type and location, with comment that capacity assessments needed to address not just the volume of stock, but also its suitability. Demographic information on age, household size and type and information on location, size, type and quality of stock as well as its suitability for disabled people was thought to be necessary. Demographic trends and projections regarding the numbers of young people leaving the care system, young offenders units and prison were also suggested as sources of information to assist planning. One respondent commented that the concentration of RSL new builds on housing for particular needs (sheltered or amenity housing for older people) made them unsuitable for the majority of households presenting as homeless in that area. Location factors were raised as particularly important in rural contexts where travel distances could be very great. Research into rent levels across the social rented sector was also identified as a potentially useful exercise along with considering income levels of homeless people and other applicants for social rented housing to assess the impact that poverty is having on homelessness at both national and local levels.

Support needs

63. Support needs, including health support needs, and the growing numbers of applicants presenting with complex and often multiple needs were consistently raised as relevant to measuring capacity. Various sources of information were suggested including user views, health and homelessness action plans, knowledge held in health and social work sectors and supporting people reviews and returns. Two responses recommended the development of a shared authority database containing information on support needs and health, socio-economic and demographic issues of clients and one noted that the data protection legislation could be a barrier to sharing information at present. Related to this, there was also a view that joined up working needed to be improved, with homelessness becoming a core aspect of other services' work. Requiring social work services in particular to routinely record the housing/homelessness status of clients and asking others e.g. health boards to do the same was suggested. A frequently stated view was that there was a need for an agreed methodology for assessing support needs. Some respondents also commented that a review of existing support was needed to identify what support, at what level, is being provided to whom.

The private sector

64. Information on the private rented sector including local sector size, stock condition, affordability, lettings and type of stock was seen by many respondents as an information gap, and one which made predicting capacity difficult. The proposed registration of private landlords was identified as a possible source of such information. This issue was also linked to wider concerns about the use of the private rented sector raised in response to later questions. For many, the lack of information about this sector was a barrier to addressing some of these other issues about the suitability and security of rents in this sector.

Housing Need

65. Information on the total numbers of homeless people, and likely increases in need were noted as difficult to assess, particularly given levels of latent need, hidden homelessness and rough sleeping. Numbers of lost contacts were also seen as an issue. Analysis of waiting list applicants was suggested as potentially giving a better indication of those who potentially could apply as homeless. Analysis of waiting lists, including needs, transfer requests, rate of new applications, time spent on the list, accommodation required was also seen as necessary to assess capacity and to provide evidence on the issue of 'balancing needs' raised earlier. A need for consistency between Local Authority and RSL recording practices and use of definitions was noted.

66. The resource implications of meeting needs and improving stock were specifically raised by some as important in assessing capacity and 'cost' was identified by one respondent as 'the single most important gap in assessing the capacity to meet need, and the one which is causing councils anxiety about their ability to meet their obligations' ( APN 42).

67. Less frequently stated suggestions included the need for employability and social network services to form part of the measure of capacity to reflect wider understanding of meeting needs and the need for a better understanding of the causes of, or reasons for, homelessness which go beyond the primary cause, and which could be disaggregated by age and household type. Similarly further work on reasons for repeat applications was requested. The impact of de-population in areas was also raised. There was also a view that a more integrated Information Technology database for the voluntary sector was needed, which would require to be compatible with local authority databases.

68. Information on the impact of other legislative changes, particularly any likely impact of the proposed suspension of Local Connection, changes to intentionality and the impact of Anti-Social Behaviour legislation, specifically on evictions, was requested and seen as necessary to assess capacity.

The pro-forma

69. The consultation paper stated that the Scottish Executive considers it would be useful to re-run the pro-forma exercise at a later date - in order to reality-check the forecast, test the assumptions made in the original return and revise forecasts for 2012. It also noted that this would provide an opportunity to refine the exercise and to promote good practice for local authorities in their own local planning. The paper asked for respondents' views on this.

Q3) Would it be useful to re-run the pro-forma exercise at a later date and if so when? If not then what process would be helpful to inform local authority planning for 2012?

70. Thirty-eight responses addressed this question and of these 33 (87% of those who answered) were in favour of re-running the proforma exercise. Sixteen of those in favour of a rerun were of the view that the pro-forma should be further refined or amended to include additional information. Three (3) respondents were of the view that it should only be re-run if refined and 2 respondents felt it should not be re-run.

71. Refinements required to the pro-forma centred on reducing possibilities for differences in interpretation of the exercise between Local Authorities with the aim of and increasing consistency. Specifically, requests were made for: further clarification and refinement of definitions within the pro-forma (demolition, housing support, prevention); a clearer 'steer' to local authorities to ensure greater consistency, and a stricter definition of methodology.

72. The following were proposed as additional data to be included in the pro-forma:

• Support needs (with a refinement of methodology and definitions to be used in gathering data);
• Preventative activity; suitability of stock (size and location);
• Number of temporary accommodation units available and time taken to re-house;
• Potential impact of extension of Right to Buy to assured tenants of housing associations;
• Local area demand and supply factors;
• Private sector information; and
• The changing nature of client groups presenting as a result of increased access rights to permanent accommodation.

73. It was also suggested that training could be provided to local authorities on both the methodology and completion of the pro-forma under agreed criteria. There was a view that re-runs of the pro-forma might require additional resourcing and a request for a more planned and achievable timescale for re-runs was made.

74. With regard to the timing of a re-run, 14 felt this should or could be annual, 2 that re-runs should be linked to any phasing of priority need categories introduced, 7 that it should be run 'regularly' or 'several times' (including those who suggested every 1-3 years or 3 times), 6 that it should be re-run once and 2 that it should be re-run twice, (2 did not express a view).

75. There was no consensus on when the pro-forma exercise should be re-run, but 2007 and 2008 were cited most often.

76. There was a view that the pro-forma exercise should be linked to homelessness strategies and local housing needs assessments and monitoring of these rather than seen in isolation, and one respondent remarked that the pro-forma exercise should not be the only method to assess capacity. There was a request for more detailed guidance on the form and content of the needs assessment to ensure consistency with the pro-forma analysis. One respondent, while supportive of a re-run also felt that 'it would be more appropriate to invest the time and resource in solving the problem rather than re-measuring it' ( APN 35).

77. The pro-forma exercise was also discussed at the regional seminars and the following points were raised:

The pro-forma should be more sophisticated, and in particular should reflect supply and demand issues within Local Authority boundaries and any potential mismatches between available accommodation and housing need. There was support for an annual monitoring or updates of the pro-forma exercise.

Key points

78. In summary, respondents identified the main gaps in the evidence base as:

• Information on the private rented sector
• Information on the levels and impact of preventative activity
• Information on stock quality, turnover, suitability, voids and developments across all housing sectors
• Information on housing and support needs, including latent need, hidden homelessness and rough sleeping and the quality and extent of current provision
• Use and quality of temporary accommodation
• Impacts of other legislative changes
• Infrastructure and land issues
• Impacts on allocations policies

79. In addition, there was a recurring view that the accuracy of existing data need to be improved, and there was also support for a more qualitative understanding of homelessness and related capacity issues.

80. Respondents identified a range of additional data sources to address the information gaps they reported.

81. The majority of those who commented (87%, 33 respondents) were in favour of re-running the pro-forma exercise, with 19 respondents commenting that the pro-forma should be further refined to increase consistency or amended to include additional information.