« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
APPENDIX ONE: METHODOLOGY AND CONSIDERATIONS
The study generated the following methods and outputs.
Method | Outputs |
|---|
A contextual literature review of the relevant legislation and guidance, reviewing wider research on homelessness, support needs and on related models of accommodation and support provision for homeless people in the U.K | This identified some patterns of intentionality and related assessment issues; the range of support models used in homelessness response and good practice considerations |
Pilot pro-formas issued to local authorities in December for implementation between 1 January and 31 March 2005, in respect of all households assessed as in priority need but intentionally homeless or potentially homeless | Generated 99 returns in respect of applicants from 23 of the 32 Scottish local authorities 17. This provided information on support needs and assessments beyond that supplied in HL1 returns to the Scottish Executive |
Statistical review: Analysed both the Scottish Executive's published homelessness statistics and additional local authority level statistical information on the year from April 2003 to the end of March 2004, supplied by Scottish Executive | Information on patterns of intentionality at local authority area level and on household characteristics. |
A survey on provision was conducted of all 32 local authorities and sought information on the range of accommodation and support services for homeless people | Obtained 31 responses
Identified local services along with gaps and deficits |
Case studies on the response to homelessness in 4 urban and urban-rural areas. Reviewed local policy and strategy documents; interviewed policy and operational staff across relevant agencies. Interviewed 29 service users assessed as intentionally homeless in 4 areas | The case study method used an incremental approach to identify key agency interviewees, using interviews to build up a picture of the relevant service network and key stakeholders. Aimed to reach around 40 people, but this was not feasible (see below). Generated information on service users' experience and views on accommodation and support needs and responses. Four case study reports were produced - one for each area. |
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
A number of practical constraints were faced which limited the achievement of research objectives. These constraints related to the time-frame of the study; the capacity of agencies to meet information requirements and the wider context of change that was affecting local authorities.
Case study delay - One case study area was initially concerned about whether they could participate given current demands stemming from other critical aspects of policy implementation that were pressing.
Clarifying patterns of intentionality assessment, support needs and outcomes - the 3 month time period for the pilot pro-forma meant that some cases had not been concluded ( i.e. the homelessness duty had not been discharged) within the period.
Service user interviewees - The aim was to reach around 40 service users who had been assessed as intentionally homeless within the previous 6 month period. In some case study areas with few intentionally homeless assessments, invites had to be extended to those who had been assessed as intentionally homeless outside the 6 month period. Routes of access to intentionally homeless households were primarily achieved through the homelessness services. Staff invited intentionally homeless households to participate, giving them a letter requesting participation from the research team. In one area there was difficulty in obtaining interviewees through this route and some appointments made did not take place. It was therefore resolved to consult a voluntary agency that runs a centre for homeless people, and this agency contacted some individuals who were known to be intentionally homeless.
Assessing potential resource implications of the changes to intentionality. One research task aimed to identify the costs associated with establishing, running or providing the different existing and proposed models of accommodation and support identified. On this front the survey method did not produce systematic findings on costs of different models. Cost information was supplemented through the agency interviews, and the information gathered is treated as indicative costs in the report (see Appendix Five). As no service model was identified as being specifically relevant to the needs of homeless households, there were no associated costings to obtain.
« Previous | Contents | Next »