The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FIVE: ISSUES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

INTRODUCTION

5.1 This research has focused on some key issues relating to intentional homelessness, including the numbers of households assessed as intentionally homeless, their characteristics, and their support needs. It also considered the types of accommodation and support that may assist intentionally homeless households to move on and sustain more secure accommodation. In this final chapter we shall summarise the key issues and findings, and we draw conclusions on their implications for policy and practice.

KEY FINDINGS

The incidence and profile of intentionally homeless households

5.2 The study found that a small and declining proportion of priority homeless applicants has been assessed as intentionally homeless. The pro-forma exercise generated information on 99 homeless applications supplied by 23 local authorities over a 3 month pilot period. The level of pro-forma returns from individual authorities varied significantly. No clear relationship was found between the numbers of applicants assessed as intentionally homeless and those assessed as being in priority need. Overall, local policy and practice, including the operation of discretion, were key influences on local intentionality decision making.

5.3 Households with children were significantly represented (55% of the pro-forma returns) and almost half were lone parent households. The presence of children clearly has implications for the type of accommodation provided to intentionally homeless households, and particularly so for those who are not entitled to a short SST in view of the need to comply with The Unsuitable (Temporary Accommodation) (Scotland) Regulations (Scottish statutory instrument, 2004). Additionally, children may have particular support needs. Households without children were notably single men (20% of returned pro-formas, compared with 12% for single women). Couples without children comprised 9% of households assessed as intentionally homeless.

5.4 Given the high presence of children in intentionally homeless households, the most common reason for a determination of priority need was that the household contained dependent children. The second most significant reason was the catch all "other" category. Other types of priority need identified were: having a medical condition (9%); having a drink or drug problem (6%) and that the applicant was aged 16 to 17 years (5%).

5.5 Two main reasons for homelessness identified through the pro-forma analysis, were eviction for rent arrears (26%) and giving up accommodation assessed as suitable (14%). The principle reason identified for assessed intentionality was that households had previously given up their property, either formally or though abandonment (29 cases overall). Property abandonment featured strongly, and was represented in 19 of the 29 cases.

5.6 The pro-forma exercise also identified 2 main reasons why households gave up properties that housing officers considered suitable. First, household/ family circumstances influenced the desire to move, and secondly, there were external influences, including harassment and violence. Both service users and professional interviewees confirmed the extent to which violence and harassment featured and over one quarter of service users' interviewed reported having experienced vandalism, harassment or violence before abandoning their accommodation.

5.7 Few households had been evicted for anti social behaviour ( ASB) or had previously had a short SST that failed (pro-forma) - 2 households had been evicted for ASB and a third was subject to eviction proceedings. Only 2 applicants had previously had a short SST which had not been sustained. None of the households had an ASBO in force against any of its members. Of the 29 service user interviewees, only one had been evicted for ASB reasons, but had successfully appealed the decision. These numbers may increase however in the future, if for example there is increasing use of evictions on grounds of ASB or if households allocated short SSTs fail to sustain these.

5.8 Repeat homelessness is significant in households assessed as intentionally homeless, with 53% of pro-forma applicants having been homeless before. Around a third of service users interviewed had previously been homeless. This suggests a key role for advice information and more pro active responses to prevent eviction.

Service users' experiences and views in regard to intentionality

5.9 The service user interviewees were almost equally men and women. Most had experienced the poverty impacts that were highlighted in Chapter 3. Less than a quarter was employed and some of those on Income Support had lost their employment when they became homeless. Most were financially dependent on a range of state benefits. In all the areas, and for over half the interviewees, financial and housing-related debt problems, and being 'in and out of work' had clearly impacted on evictions and homelessness. Therefore money advice needs and financial support were critical.

5.10 Reasons interviewees identified for the assessment of intentional homelessness included:

• Having voluntarily left the family home - e.g. due to tensions stemming from substance misuse, and depression following divorce
• Abandoned tenancy - histories included having a care background, having been in prison and having left their home to look after an ill relative
• Anti-social behaviour ( ASB) - one interviewee had successfully appealed an intentionally homeless decision related to an ASBO
• Eviction - one person said their eviction was for suspected drug dealing and that their intentionally decision was upheld although they were cleared at court
• Staff perceptions of misinformed choice or inaction: One person believed that staff felt they had not taken appropriate steps to find alternative accommodation.

5.11 Some service users said that they did not understand the intentionality assessment and felt that it was unfair. Despite this, only 3 of the 29 interviewees had appealed, or were appealing, the intentionality decision. This inaction in the face of perceived inequity can be interpreted as reflecting a mix of lack of knowledge about options and entitlement, feelings of powerlessness in the face of "the system" and a lack of confidence amongst those affected that taking action would make a difference. It is possible that more information and advice and access to advocacy would generate more appeals.

Professionals views on reasons for intentionality decisions

5.12. Reasons that staff identified for the intentionality assessment included that people had given up accommodation without seeking advice; that owner occupiers had sold their houses then applied as homeless, and that people had been evicted for rent and mortgage arrears. Anti social behaviour was seen as a reason in a tiny minority of cases.

5.13 On the decline in the incidence of intentionality assessment, some housing staff saw this as reflecting a cumulative improvement in the assessment process. Another view was that this may reflect a stricter adherence to the Code of Guidance.

Local authorities' future investigation of intentionality

5.14 Seventeen of the 29 local authorities that responded to a question on future intentionality assessment had taken a decision on this. Only a minority (4) had resolved not to investigate intentionality, while over three quarters had decided to continue to do so. This suggests that most authorities will continue to investigate intentionality in the future.

The support needs of intentionally homeless households

5.15 The pro-forma exercise found that many intentionally homeless applicants' had not had their support needs formally assessed - 41 pro-formas noted that no assessment had been conducted and 26 left this section blank. Where respondents stated reasons for this lack of assessment, these included that applicants had identified themselves as having no support needs, and that the local authority had insufficient service capacity to conduct an assessment.

5.16 Where support needs were noted in the pro-formas, the main types of support noted were: tenancy support (26); social work support (22) and support with addictions (15). Support in relation to anti-social behaviour was noted in 5 cases.

5.17 A significant proportion of applicants identified through the pro-forma analysis had received support prior to the homeless application (29%) but the provision of such support had not prevented homelessness. Support provided addressed a range of needs, such as for practical advice, money advice and targeted support to address particular needs.

5.18 Professionals interviewed did not consider intentionally homeless households to have support needs that were distinctive from those of other homeless households. Rather they identified that homeless households may have particular support needs that relate to substance misuse, mental health problems, chaotic behaviour or youth, while some have multiple and/or complex needs. They emphasised that the accommodation and support response should be led by a holistic assessment of individual household's needs, rather than their assessed homelessness status in relation to intentionality. Professionals further indicated that the support needs of those only entitled to section 7 accommodation should not be generalised, and they must be assessed on an individual basis.

5.19 Service users interviewed most commonly identified needs for "lower level" support, such as for: money advice, including to avoid the loss of a home; help with form filling and claiming benefit; help with transport to enable children to remain in the same school; general emotional support, and help with decorating and furniture to move on and sustain accommodation.

5.20 Drawing on all strands of the study, potential support needs are identified in Table 5.1 below. It should be noted that 'potential support needs' should not imply that local authorities and partners are not currently addressing the needs identified.

Table 5.1 Applicants situations and potential support needs

Accommodation and support provision

5.21 Almost all local authorities used their own stock to provide temporary accommodation and to meet their homelessness obligations. Most authorities also used hostel accommodation, bed and breakfast, other types of temporary/ transitional accommodation, including supported accommodation. None used dedicated accommodation for intentionally homeless households and none of the professionals interviewed felt that this was necessary.

5.22 In some case study areas it was evident that hostel type accommodation is generally used for single households, while furnished self contained accommodation is more likely to be provided for families.

5.23 Most local authorities are striving to increase the stock and the quality of their temporary furnished accommodation but in several areas they are constrained by the limits on the local supply of social housing.

5.24 All case study authorities provided tenancy support. The extent to which intentionally homeless households received such support depended on factors such as whether they had been placed in temporary accommodation by the homeless service (one area excluded those in 'care of' arrangements); or whether the authority had a policy of providing support to all homeless households or only to those assessed as requiring it. While some professionals interviewed thought support should be offered to all applicants, others felt that such a policy could reduce the scope to respond adequately to higher support needs. Some professionals emphasised that some households' non-engagement with support prevented positive outcomes. Others stressed that services must 'stick with' clients and were critical of the way in which some services themselves "disengage" if clients miss appointments. Service user interviewees valued this 'sticking with' approach - commenting positively on experiences of staff who are "always phoning back" and who persist with agreed support plans.

5.25 In one case study area with a high proportion of households assessed as intentionally homeless, such applicants were often offered short SSTs with support. In some other case study areas, such applicants had been allocated tenancies through the waiting list. It thus appeared that intentionality assessment was no clear indicator of eventual housing and support outcomes.

5.26 The research highlighted that local authorities are increasingly developing new and often innovative types of support, usually in partnership, to meet unmet and often particular needs. These include dedicated services for households with children, stabilised substance misusers, households with histories of anti-social behaviour and others who have been unable to sustain accommodation and are often viewed as 'hard to reach'. No distinctive or best practice model was identified for such services. Overall, support was delivered across a range of accommodation options, including short SSTs and group living situations. In some instances support was on site while in others floating support was used. Some services were explicitly transitional in approach, expecting service users to move onwards; for others both the accommodation and support were intended to be longer term.

5.27 Table 5.2 below considers some key implications of models of accommodation and support, including in relation to the changing balance of provision in Scotland.

Table 5.2 Models of accommodation and support

5.28 It is important to note that the 3 types of support considered - 'in-house', floating and mixed models - are relevant to crisis, temporary/ transitional accommodation services and longer-term accommodation. Additionally, support itself may focus on crisis, transitional or continuing needs.

Gaps identified in accommodation and support services

5.29 The research identified a number of gaps in service provision, including where 'more of the same' services were needed to address homelessness prevention adequately and to alleviate homelessness. These gaps included:

• more services to prevent homelessness such as money advice and advocacy;
• more one stop and joint approaches;
• more temporary accommodation and support e.g. to address particular needs;
• more specialist crisis supported services;
• more longer term specialist supported accommodation for some households with particular and complex/multiple needs;
• more good quality mainstream accommodation with continuing housing support.

Joint working

5.30 The study identified a continuing rise in joint working to prevent and alleviate homelessness, and particularly for homeless people with additional needs such as addictions or mental health problems, or for those whom services considered difficult to engage. It also found that local authorities and their partners are addressing key service gaps through strategic planning. The professionals saw joint working as being critical to achieving positive outcomes and recognised the scope for further collaborative innovation to address the needs of client groups with particular needs, multiple and/or complex needs. Some service users accounts of their experiences indicated gaps in joint working. The research also identified some of the outstanding challenges for joint work that stem from the fragmentation of budgets, commissioning and inter-agency responsibilities.

Costs of providing accommodation and related support for intentionally homeless households

5.31 This study has not identified a pilot service model along with associated indicative costs of providing accommodation and support for intentionally homeless households, and this is for 2 reasons. Firstly the research found that the support needs of intentionally homeless households are wide-ranging. Intentionally homeless households have varying needs for advice and advocacy to prevent homelessness, support to prevent repeat homelessness and to sustain a tenancy, and some intentionally homeless households have particular and/or complex/ multiple needs. This spectrum of needs cannot be distinguished from that which is relevant to homeless households more generally. It thus follows that strategic improvements and innovation in services to meet identified local gaps and to improve service quality and the range of options for homeless households, should also benefit intentionally homeless households. The converse may also hold true. Secondly, the research found that the costs of providing accommodation and support varied considerably for Supporting People funded services for example, across services that provide a few hours support a week to far more intensive support (40-60 hours support weekly) in the case of a tightly structured 'wrap around' service. Regarding the latter example, funding sources other than homelessness-related resources were used, such as social work funding.

5.32 Overall, the picture that has emerged across Scotland is one of innovation and change in local service networks, with many areas having a spectrum of accommodation and support services. The following Diagram represents the interconnected processes involved in developing the support response where there is a spectrum of services for tackling homelessness.

Table 5.3 A Spectrum of services to meet Homeless households' support needs

ISSUES FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE

External drivers and influences

5.33 Overall this study indicated that ongoing and wider changes have contributed to a significant decline in assessments of intentionality across Scotland and over time. These include: The Homelessness Task Force's agenda which has established a shared policy and practice context for local authorities and practitioners across Scotland; the implementation of the 2001 Act, the development of Homelessness Strategies and preparation for the implementation of the 2003 Act, which have increased the focus on intentionality and priority need. In parallel, HomePoint's agenda has promoted information and advice strategies, integrated approaches to prevention, an increased emphasis on quality standards and monitoring of the role of advice in preventing homelessness.

5.34 Another change stemming from the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003 will result in RSLs and private sector landlords having to inform the local authority when a notice for proceedings for possession is raised, and creditors will have to inform the local authority when raising a calling notice. These changes should allow Councils to intervene to prevent homelessness.

5.35 Just as indicated above, policies may impact variably on intentionality assessment. For example:

• Policy implementation in relation to anti-social behaviour could increase intentionality assessment. Alternatively, successful interventions in tackling ASB could lead to less people becoming homeless and assessed as intentionally homeless.
• The national guidance and movement towards Single Shared Assessment, could on the one hand, result in increased detection and greater awareness of the support needs of those assessed as intentionally homeless. On the other, better identification of support needs might serve to reduce intentionality decisions.
• Policy and action oriented research programmes can sharpen the focus on and modify the research subject matter under investigation. In this study, both the case studies and the pro-forma pilot exercise indicated that the research prompted increased scrutiny of intentionality assessments.

Changes in the system of provision and related resources and options

5.36 The study highlighted changes in provision that have implications for assessed housing and support options. These include:

• There is ongoing restructuring of the local systems of provision for tackling homelessness. A key trend identified was the expansion of ordinary housing and support arrangements, alongside the contraction of institutional services.
• There is increasing variation and innovation in the housing and support models and options available in different areas. However the case studies indicated the varying capacity of tenancy support teams and that this may influence support options for many homeless people.
• There are service gaps and deficits in relation to addressing complex and multiple needs, although these are not specific to intentionally homeless applicants. While Supporting People services have expanded, the problematic capacity of low support services to address multiple and complex needs was highlighted in this study as elsewhere. Watson et al (2003), for example, noted "in practice, however, it can be very difficult to obtain funding for high support needs". Indications are that many Supporting People funded services that respond to homelessness would expand staff teams and specialist expertise within them, if it were not the case that budgets are constrained. Without additional funding certain needs are likely to be prioritised at the expense of others and one outcome may be to limit prevention.

Institutional changes, including joint planning and joint working

5.37 The 2001 Act has encouraged the development of a more positive framework for tackling homelessness through joint working, although local variations may be significant:

• Homelessness joint planning arrangements have increasingly been established and developed, drawing on the community care planning experience, and this is reflected in joint working protocols between health, housing and social work.
• Additionally the 2001 Act has generated section 5 protocols between local authorities and housing associations to improve access for homeless households, and it established the Single Regulatory Framework under the 2001 Act, with inspections of homelessness services by Communities Scotland.

Discretionary decision making

5.38 One key internal factor relevant to the incidence of intentionality assessment is that of the operation of discretion. Discretion was found to play a key role in this study in regard to local policies and practices in respect of intentionality. Particular organisational roles and/or procedural frameworks may influence the exercise of discretion and outcomes for practice; differences may also be reflected in recording practices over time in the same area, or between authorities. However, there are indications that scrutiny of homelessness assessments may increase, partly reflecting the impact of the Single Regulatory Framework. This may influence some aspects of discretion.

Support needs assessment and support services

5.39 The study showed that the assessment of the support needs of homeless applicants is partial and variable and that local authorities are beginning to turn their attention to this.

• There are clear indications that local guidelines may help to improve support assessment for all homeless applicants.
• Additionally many authorities identified the need for specialist services to provide support for those with substance misuse and mental health problems.

Organisational/ service culture - characteristics and changes

5.40 A widespread movement towards more person-centred assessment has been identified by this as well as other recent research (Rosengard et al, 2002).

• The research indicated an increased recognition that households' needs may be complex and not always emerge at the initial assessment stage.
• There is also increasing attention to the particular needs of homeless households, such as outcomes for children stemming from Homelessness Assessments and Children's Services Plans.

5.41 The interplay of these and other changes and influences will be reflected in the level of intentionality assessment at local and national levels, as well as in qualitative aspects of assessment and accommodation/ support planning in the next phase of tackling homelessness.

RESEARCH FINDINGS ON IMPLICATIONS OF INTENTIONALITY CHANGES

5.42 While this study found that the number of households assessed as intentionally homeless is low, we cannot simply assume that a downward trend in intentionality decisions will continue. Could policy implementation in regard to the abolition of priority need and local connection act as push factors, generating a higher incidence of assessments of intentionality? Could the implementation of housing benefit regulations cause rent arrears for vulnerable new tenants and influence future intentionality decisions? Or another push factor could stem from the implementation of the continuing duty to accommodate: this may encourage households who have refused a housing offer and stayed 'care of' for example, to re-present as homeless.

5.43 The study also found that the majority of households assessed as intentionally homeless would have been entitled to short SSTs. However, it is worth considering whether in the future, the proportion of households assessed as intentionally homeless, who are not entitled to a short SST but entitled to section 7 accommodation only, may increase if applicants who are allocated short SSTs fail to sustain these. This stresses the case for the support needs of intentionally homeless to be properly assessed and addressed.

5.44 The approach applied in one area may have wider relevance. Here it has been found that most households are managing to sustain short SST's, and that if one fails, it is worth trying again. This authority's approach however, is seen to require a significant support input, and particularly so in regard to responding to complex needs. Some concerns were stressed that, without additional resources, "a rationing scenario" and "crisis management" could result. Given that it is early days in terms of implementing this approach, it will be important to monitor and evaluate outcomes over a period of time.

5.45 The research has found most local authorities do not see section 7 accommodation as a unique model of provision; rather that a variety of types of temporary accommodation could be used as section 7 accommodation resources, depending on applicants' needs and the options available - "Just more of the same, for small numbers of people who need a lot of input". This could include hostels and interim/ transitional supported accommodation, but would potentially exclude furnished flats, as these arguably constitute common law tenancies. It should be noted however that the research could not clarify how far the temporary accommodation that local authorities may use as section 7 accommodation would meet the unsuitable temporary accommodation regulations.

5.46 Some views emerged on the suitability of potential section 7 resources. Broadly, non-self contained accommodation, is considered unsuitable for some households, particularly those who are vulnerable and those with children. However the accommodation type was seen to be less critical than the capacity to respond appropriately to the support needs of individual households. Some authorities felt that existing hostel provision would play a role mainly for single homeless people, while other temporary accommodation (including B&B) that meets the unsuitable temporary accommodation regulations was regarded as potentially appropriate for pregnant women and households with children. Others however stressed that more hostel-type provision is needed and that some homeless people may not ever want a tenancy - particularly if they have stayed long-term in institutions. Elements of good practice for section 7 would relate to those for good quality temporary accommodation generally - "person centred; outcome focused and involving partnership working with other agencies" - as one manager put it. However, the need for additional section 7 and transitional/ interim accommodation was widely identified for all client groups.

5.47 There is a consensus overall that temporary accommodation, including supported and specialist provision is in short supply, that lengthy stays in temporary accommodation result from a lack of appropriate, affordable move on accommodation, and that further modernisation and improvement is required. Additionally, more appropriate intensive support services are required to meet challenging, complex and multiple needs, and many providers highlighted that such provision is currently under-resourced.

5.48 In rural and urban areas the implications of the 2003 Act are seen to require more intensively supported accommodation and housing support services, while some rural respondents identified a need for further investigation of models of support that will work effectively in rural areas. A clear preference emerged for developing the models of ordinary housing/ housing support and/or specialist supported accommodation, rather than the traditional hostel model, to address the requirements of implementing intentionality provisions.

Other considerations

5.49 The research identified other issues that local authorities should focus on in implementing the provisions of the 2003 Act. These include:

• The need to prepare for the potential change from a Short SST to a SST: When local authorities offer short SSTs to an intentionally homeless household they will need to consider if the accommodation is suitable as permanent housing, as if an applicant completes their 12 month stay successfully, that tenancy will convert into a Scottish secure tenancy.
• An equity issue: The situation could arise that households assessed as intentionally homeless could be housed permanently quicker than those assessed as being unintentionally homeless. This could occur in those areas with an acute shortage of social rented housing, where for example some non-intentionally homeless applicants wait in temporary accommodation for over 12 months for an offer of permanent housing. By contrast, intentionally homeless households who have successfully sustained short tenancies, will have these converted to permanent housing at the end of the 12 month period.
• Continuing responsibility: In Chapter Two we pointed to the current uncertainties about the implications of a continuing duty to accommodate under the 2003 Act. Specific uncertainties relate to when a local authority can be seen to have discharged its duty towards an intentionally homeless household (and when this should be recorded for HL1 purposes). Can the duty be considered to have been discharged if an applicant refuses an offer, but then reapplies soon afterwards? Or will it be discharged once the applicant has been offered a short SST or s7 accommodation, for those who are only entitled to that accommodation. Or will it be discharged when the applicant has had a short SST converted into a Scottish secure tenancy? If the latter case is true, then the local authority may not discharge its duty for some considerable time, for example if the applicant's behaviour continues to prevent progression to permanent accommodation. Since this report was drafted the Scottish Executive has announced that the issue of 'discharge of responsibility' will be a policy priority (Scottish Executive, Ministerial Statement, December 2005).
• Issues of non-engagement and the approach to support: A key challenge for service providers arises when support is refused or inappropriate, and particularly for homeless people who are vulnerable and have complex needs. Such cases may be associated with crises, and positive outcomes may depend on joint responsibilities and effective inter-agency action. Managers and practitioners highlighted that at times homeless people or families refuse help and/or no agency is prepared to accommodate them because of extremely problematic or threatening behaviour. Usually different agencies and services have been involved in assisting the person or household over a period of time, and in some cases repeatedly. At some subsequent stage however, the individual/ family may be ready to take the support that is on offer. Table 5.4 below summarises issues of non-engagement and implications for good practice.

Table 5.4 Reasons for non engagement and good practice implications

5.50 Overall a positive approach to these issues requires that:

• Joint strategies and guidelines address the need for crisis and follow on responses and their joint work implications in the local setting - such as joint case reviews
• The relevance and feasibility of innovative models, such as Connected Care centres and liaison and advocacy roles, should be considered by Scottish authorities and their partners (Rankin and Regan 2004)
• Support services must recognise 'chaotic lifestyles' and incorporate pro-active and flexible rather than tightly structured (appointment based) support, including the 'assertive outreach' model, although funding implications must be considered as most teams do not have this capacity
• No agency should operate a blanket exclusion for all time
• Joint training could usefully focus on case examples.

5.51 Despite their funding uncertainties, voluntary organisations, working in partnership with the local authority, are likely to be best placed to provide pro-active and flexible support to 'hard to reach' clients and those with complex needs. Their role is often more acceptable because it is not associated with 'officialdom' and statutory responsibilities.

5.52 The approach to the resettlement of intentionally homeless households that is promoted by the 2003 Act implies a staged or 'staircase'-type movement towards permanent accommodation. Questions have been raised about such models, and particularly if rigidly applied ( e.g. Harvey 1999). This could lead, for example, to costlier options, should inappropriate 'section 7' accommodation be used as a first 'rung'. This could inhibit achieving appropriate options, positive resettlement and inclusion for some applicants. Again this would emphasise the need for a flexible range of provision and person/ household-centred assessment and support planning.

MONITORING, REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF SUPPORT NEEDS, SERVICES AND OUTCOMES

5.53 There is a strong case for the systematic monitoring of support needs, provision and outcomes in relation to applicants who are assessed as intentionally homeless. Given the significance of discretion in intentionality assessment and the indications that scrutiny of decision making may serve to increase consistency, there is also a case for local authorities to establish a clear framework for monitoring intentionality decisions in the future.

5.54 In general this research found a lack of systematic and longer-term monitoring evidence to draw on in respect of homeless people's support needs and support outcomes, although individual agencies are clearly making efforts on these fronts, whether through an internal drive towards quality improvement (McNaughton 2005) and more generally in response to the Supporting People monitoring framework. As stated in Chapter 4, there is considerable scope to improve monitoring and evaluation of services in Scotland, although this will require a lead from commissioners, agency prioritisation and adequate resources. Fortunately there is now a substantial body of work on improving the evidence base on the underlying causes of homelessness and on identifying and promoting effective homelessness prevention services ( ODPM Homelessness Directorate publications 2003, 2004 and 2005). The ODPM Guidance (Pleace and Quilgars 2003) points out that longer-term assessment of effectiveness may require low level monitoring of the housing status of former service users over several years. (Focus on the Future document available on http://www.spkweb.org.uk).

5.55 Consideration is required on how best to involve service users in the monitoring and evaluation of support services and the 2003 guidance stresses that service users should be involved in agreeing the objectives of the services they receive and in reviewing their achievement. While one-off evaluations can enable service users to have a voice and for their voice to be heard, ongoing monitoring can make a key contribution to effective evaluation. Simple routine feedback systems such as 'exit' and 'follow up' surveys (and their analysis) and regular consultation with service user forum, may usefully inform service reviews, quality assessment and service development. Beyond this there is scope for longitudinal qualitative investigation, which albeit more resource intensive, can provide a more in-depth appreciation of the effectiveness of different service models and approaches.

5.56 On the issue of service user involvement in monitoring and review, it will be important to assess the potential to involve service users in the monitoring and evaluation of homelessness services. This should draw on the experience of projects such as the Scottish Housing Best Value Network's recent involvement of service users in peer reviews of homelessness services. The Glasgow Simon Community's longitudinal evaluation (McNaughton 2005) and the Glasgow Homeless Partnerships involvement of a service user forum in informing the assessment process, are also relevant examples.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for local authorities and partners

5.57 At local authority level, the following steps should make a positive difference to households assessed as intentionally homeless as well as to many other homeless applicants:

• Review the range of accommodation and support services in each local authority area and their capacity to meet needs, being clear as to the purpose of the accommodation in terms of emergency, transitional and longer term accommodation.
• Review the current protocols/arrangements for section 5 referrals:
  • to ensure that these enable optimum access to permanent accommodation;
  • to take account of the impending change that will enable local authorities to refer intentionally homeless households; and
  • to ensure an agreed reporting framework is in place.
• Review and improve the consistency and sensitivity of the assessment of homelessness and related support needs as an ongoing and joint process, ensuring that all homeless households, including those who are assessed as intentionally homeless, have their needs assessed.
• Improve recording and monitoring, including of intentionality assessment and outcomes.
• Increase the systematic monitoring and review of support services and outcomes.
• Enable homeless applicants to access independent advocacy.
• Maximise the quality of all temporary and transitional accommodation to ensure a respectful environment for all homeless households. The accommodation used, including under section 7, should not stigmatise homeless people further.
• Ensure that housing and homelessness staff are trained in the use of Short SSTs.
• Examine the needs of intentionally homeless households who are not entitled to short SSTs to assess if their needs could be met more productively in a short SST rather than in s7 accommodation.
• Review and improve the effectiveness of prevention through pro-active information, advice and assistance, through all relevant measures including better planning for discharge from institutions and moving on from hostels.
• Prepare with other housing providers and lenders an appropriate framework for intervention in regard to receiving notices of eviction/repossession (when s11 of the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act is implemented).
• Develop and sustain user involvement in monitoring and reviewing services.

Recommendations for the Scottish Executive

5.58 The focus on the needs of the specific client group of intentionally homeless households raises wider implications for the Scottish Executive in its enabling, funding and regulatory role. The Scottish Executive (corporately and in partnership) should assess how best it can ensure:

• Longer-term and higher levels of funding for both specialist supported accommodation and appropriate levels of floating support services through Supporting People funding to meet more intense and complex needs.
• More resources to increase local housing options by improving the stock and quality of temporary accommodation and by increasing the availability of affordable, permanent housing to rent, particularly so in high stress areas. All this will be critical to enable positive move on from crisis and temporary accommodation.
• A policy and funding environment that increases the confidence of local agencies to develop and sustain in partnership, the creative responses and longer-term flexible support services that are required to address intense and complex/ multiple needs positively - recognising that support may not always be used when it is on offer.
• Positive innovation through piloting new approaches to address complex needs better, such as localised strategic and joint homelessness initiatives in rural areas, and/or community based flexible 24 hour support services that are non-stigmatising and well linked with all relevant services. Connected Care centres offer one such model, while Rankin and Regan's 'service navigator' role offers another, as highlighted in Chapter 4. This would address a key area of concern to many of the local authorities consulted in this study.
• Issue guidance on implementation of Section 11 and monitor the outcomes of implementing the new provision.

5.59 The above 5 priorities would jointly make a positive difference to homeless applicants in general. In regard to intentional homelessness specifically, the Scottish Executive should:

• Provide guidance or further guidance and monitor progress and outcomes in regard to:

• support needs assessment
• when a local authority can be considered to have discharged its duty under the homelessness legislation.

• Discuss with local authorities/ CoSLA the introduction of monitoring systems to record support assessments and outcomes, the allocation of short SSTs and their conversion to full SSTs.
• Monitor the use of section 7 accommodation, short SST's, along with the support provided - including instances of failure of short SSTs, failures to sustain section 7 accommodation, and conversions of short SSTs to SSTs.
• Consider with Communities Scotland, the assessment of intentional homelessness within the inspection process to encourage greater consistency across local authority areas.
• Continue to monitor intentionally homeless assessments and outcomes in relation to further changes to priority need to enable systematic review of access to accommodation and support for homeless applicants.

Overall, addressing the gaps highlighted in this study should help to prepare the ground for the next phase in progressing the agenda of the Homelessness Task Force in Scotland.

5.60 This study alerts us to the value of going beyond limited mapping exercises to systematically describe support services and related good practice pointers for homeless related services. Given the growth in services and providers through Supporting People, it can be difficult for managers and staff across agencies to keep up with changes and innovation. A thematic information bank on homelessness-related support services, building on information accumulated through the development of homelessness strategies and information and advice strategies, as well as on the experience of monitoring, service reviews and evaluations, could be a very useful resource that could be developed and regularly maintained locally. Such a venture could potentially build on the joint expertise and information resources located within the Supporting People Division and Enabling Unit, the Scottish Housing Best Value Network, Shelter's Changing Homelessness in Practice, Scottish and local Councils on Homelessness and the Glasgow University Community Care Works database. Themes to cover could include: preventative services; crisis responses; temporary and transitional/ interim services; resettlement and longer-term options; rural and urban services; services that address particular and complex needs; equality (gender and ethnic minority) and inclusion issues, such as literacy, constructive activity, training and education and access to community-based resources. Some of these themes would be cross-cutting.

5.61 Finally, beyond the needs for increased and improved accommodation resources there are funding implications for support services that raise significant issues in respect of Supporting People and its role in contributing to the quality of the service response to tackling the needs of vulnerable homeless people. Appendix Five, that identifies the indicative costs of a range of services, indicates the policy requirement to accept the need to continue to fund a wide spectrum of housing support costs in order to meet the wide ranging support needs found in this study. Where intensive support is required for people with multiple and complex needs to enable and sustain ordinary living, this cannot be a low cost option.

5.62 This research stresses the need to meet homeless people's needs through the provision of a locally relevant spectrum of accommodation and support and the flexible delivery of support services to homeless households, with the capacity to deliver higher levels of support and integrated services to meet complex, intense and multiple needs as required. While the initial stages of the Supporting People regime has enabled innovation in person-centred and floating support models that complement community care and health provision, the research alerts us to the need for the financial and operating systems of the regime to actively promote the appropriateness, quality and flexibility of the support response. It will be important for progress in these areas to be reviewed nationally and at local authority level. Moreover, given that we are in the early stages of the expanded role for floating housing support in responding to homelessness, the next phase of Supporting People service reviews offers an excellent opportunity to clarify the flexibility, outcomes and effectiveness of services, as does ongoing regulation by the Care Commission. This next phase will require central regulatory, monitoring and funding agencies to be familiar with the particular implications of homelessness and homelessness people's needs.

« Previous | Contents | Next »