The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER EIGHT - TENANCY SUSTAINMENT

Chapter scope

8.1 Tenancy sustainment services provide support to help vulnerable tenants retain their tenancies. They can play an important role in reducing repeat homelessness among recently rehoused social renters. In principle, services of this kind can also support private tenants at risk of homelessness. In practice, however, they are less commonly targeted in this way.

8.2 As noted in Chapter 2, most authorities have established tenancy support staff or teams as an element of their overall 'homelessness prevention' provision. Brief details of tenancy support activity across Scotland are set out in Table 2.2. Based on three projects being operated in two case study LAs, this chapter describes, in greater detail, how tenancy support schemes operate in practice. The relevant case study projects were:

• Edinburgh - early intervention for families at risk of eviction due to anti-social behaviour
• North Ayrshire - tenancy support service for single and childless council tenants at risk of homelessness
• North Ayrshire - tenancy support service for families at risk of eviction due to anti-social behaviour (operated under contract by Barnardos).

8.3 It should be noted that the research evidence on tenancy support projects is somewhat limited because this subject was covered only in the case study work and not in the national telephone survey. This was because of the need to limit the scope of the survey - partly in the interests of avoiding interviews of excessive length.

Tenancy support projects

Inward referrals

8.4 Although many LAs have early interventions in place for preventing evictions, this work tends to focus on authorities' own tenants. Unlike a number of other services covered in this research (e.g. RDG schemes, mediation) referrals involve people who are already in social rented housing (rather than seeking to enter the tenure). And, for this reason, referrals tend to come from housing management staff rather than from homelessness casework colleagues.

8.5 With respect to the North Ayrshire single persons tenancy support ( SPTS) service, the trigger for referrals (usually from housing officers) was the accumulation of rent arrears, though it also reflected a housing officer judgement that the issue was symptomatic of underlying issues calling for support.

8.6 Similarly, the main source of referral for the North Ayrshire tenancy sustainment support for families ( TSSF) service was housing officers, though some cases originated from homelessness casework staff. Self-referrals were also allowable, in principle, though it was understood that these would need Council endorsement before being accepted by Barnardos. Edinburgh's early intervention for families ( EIF) project received some referrals from health visitors, primary schools and social workers, as well as from housing managers.

8.7 Whilst both the 'family support' projects ( TSSF and EIF) were presented as addressing the problems of 'families at risk of eviction' it was in neither case clear whether there was any specific trigger for referral in terms of the repossession process (e.g. referral following warnings and where cases would otherwise be entered in court). However, eligibility for referral to EIF clearly related to families with children responsible for ASB, especially where there was also:

• Parental or sibling involvement with the criminal or youth justice system
• Observably poor parenting practices such as weak supervision and monitoring of children's activities, whereabouts and peer associations.

8.8 Larger families (four or more children) were also prioritised. It was also a key eligibility criterion that the family concerned was judged as requiring 'case management'.

Service content

8.9 Clearly, the kinds of services useful to people with financial problems (as at SPTS) are liable to differ substantially from those relevant to families referred for support mainly because of unruly behaviour on the part of children. Nevertheless, many problems affecting both sets of people stem from poverty as well as from issues such as substance abuse and mental ill health. Hence the services provided by all three projects had certain common themes.

8.10 The kinds of problems addressed by the TSSF project included drug addiction, violence within the home and within the neighbourhood. Hence, the kinds of support provided included:

• Help with benefits claims
• Help in accessing funds for furniture
• Budgeting advice
• Help with parenting
• Help to combat low self-esteem
• Help in accessing specialist help such as treatment for mental ill health or substance addiction.

8.11 The project also expects to help service users to develop responsible 'door-keeping skills' and 'how to be a safe and responsible tenant'.

8.12 The EIF project was reported as focusing on commissioning and co-ordinating support packages in collaboration with a range of other agencies. Again, there was also an emphasis on issues such as improving parenting skills and dealing with routines.

8.13 Both projects stressed the importance of identifying a designated support worker or case manager to shepherd a family from their initial inward referral through to the completion of their support plan.

8.14 Practical assistance provided to service users by TSSF included furnishing and decorating the home. The importance of these issues was reportedly not confined to recently homeless clients. Help provided here included assisting clients to make grant applications to the Community Care Fund and/or a range of charities which have funds available for this purpose. Clients were also helped to access furniture via recycling schemes. Support workers also helped to link families with the local Fabpad project which taught decorating skills.

8.15 Duration of support was reported to be typically around six months for the SPTS service. Barnardos reported that families referred to the agency's TSSF project could be 'on the books' for anything from six weeks to three years. At EIF the expectation was that families would typically be signed up for around 9-12 months.

Service scale and effectiveness

8.16 In terms of scale, the three projects can be summarised as follows:

• Edinburgh EIF - 67 inward referrals received in the first 10 months of the project (September 2005-June 2006), of which 27 families were accepted as service users.
• North Ayrshire SPTS - 110 cases closed during 2005; as a rule, however, staff worked with a caseload of 8-10 cases at any one time. Average duration of cases was estimated as around six months. This would suggest around 18 cases per staff member per year.
• North Ayrshire TSSF - 100 inward referrals in 2004/05, of which half were taken on as service users. The service was reported to be usually handling around 22-33 cases at any one time. Assuming an average duration of six months this would suggest an annual throughput of cases of around 56.

8.17 In North Ayrshire, it was envisaged that service effectiveness would be measurable mainly through the use of the service needs matrix under development at the time of the fieldwork As further explained in paras 6.61-6.63 the matrix is intended to provide a tool for the systematic assessment of support needs as well as measuring progress in addressing these needs. Whilst acknowledging the potential value of measuring tenancy sustainment for households exiting from tenancy support (e.g. percentage of tenancies retained for at least 12 months) such figures had not been produced and could not be made available to the research team.

8.18 In respect of the Council's EIF project Edinburgh reported operating a procedure for reviewing families' progress six months after 'case closure' to check continuing adherence to the last action plan and, in doing so, assess the degree of medium term success in addressing the family's original problems. In relation to cases closed prior to June 2006, this monitoring was reported as having revealed that:

• 70 per cent of families reviewed showed an overall improvement in family functioning
• 90 per cent of cases showed a reduction in the number of complaints against family members by neighbours and others
• In 88 per cent of cases there had been a reduction in agencies' concerns about children's involvement in ASB.

8.19 Similarly, at case closure case managers judged that the support had been useful in relation to two thirds of the families involved.

Servicecosts and funding

8.20 Whilst costs and funding data were unavailable for the Edinburgh EIF project, it was reported that both North Ayrshire schemes were wholly funded through Supporting People. As noted above, the SPTS service was estimated as handling approximately 18 cases per staff member per year. Assuming each staff member costs £42K p.a. (£25K salary plus NI plus pension costs plus overheads) this works out at £2,333 per case. It is not, however, easy to express this in terms of the cost per instance of 'homelessness prevented' because it is impossible to know what proportion of those helped would otherwise have become homeless.

8.21 For the North Ayrshire TSSF project, the annual project budget for 2004/05 (net of the 'inclusion project' worker) totalled some £185K. On the basis of an annual caseload of 56 (see above), this works out at £3,300 per family assisted. The number of families involving 'homelessness prevented' will be much fewer than 56 and so, on this basis, the unit cost of homelessness prevention will be much higher than the £3,300 figure. In reality, however, such projects are not primarily about homelessness prevention and their benefits are much wider than this.

Assessing service 'success'

8.22 Asked, in the telephone survey, which single prevention activity was most significant (in terms of scale), the largest number of LAs commenting referred to provision of support services (to tenants in social rented housing). This probably reflects the scale of tenancy support service staffing and the gross numbers of households subject to such help. In two of our case study LAs, for example, 16 (Edinburgh) and 10 (North Ayrshire) tenancy support worker posts had been established. By comparison with the numbers of ( FTE) staff involved in delivering services such as family mediation and rent deposit guarantee work, these are large figures. It would seem that their scale owes much to the availability of Supporting People funding since 2002. As in the case of supported transitional accommodation schemes, however, there could be implications for such schemes arising from the 'mainstreaming' of SP funding as envisaged for the future (see para 6.68).

8.23 As well as being typically the 'most significant' form of homelessness prevention, local authorities tended to rate tenancy sustainment schemes as being the most effective form of prevention intervention. However, it appears that such judgements were usually based on a purely subjective assessment. Few, if any, authorities were able to draw on any hard statistical evidence demonstrating 'service effectiveness'. In none of the case study LAs was there any systematic monitoring of the extent to which tenants subject to support actually sustained tenancies (see also para 6.60). Even with such monitoring measures in place, of course, questions would remain on the extent that such help was decisive in enabling tenants to retain their tenancies.

8.24 In assessing the 'success' of tenancy support services we are also at a disadvantage in that the necessarily small scale of the service user interview exercise meant it was not possible for households in receipt of such support to be included. In the circumstances, therefore, we must rely on evidence from other studies which at least indicates the potential for such services to prove effective ⁴⁸.

Chapter summary

8.25 From the local authority perspective, the largest scale and most effective form of homelessness prevention was support provided to existing council tenants to help them retain tenancies. Some help of this kind is about 'crisis intervention' for tenants threatened with eviction for rent arrears. Somewhat separately, most authorities have established teams to support vulnerable tenants believed to be at risk of abandoning or otherwise 'failing to sustain' their tenancy. A third variant, 'intensive family support schemes' are targeted at tenants considered at risk of eviction for anti-social behaviour.

8.26 Tenancy support schemes may provide help with issues such as budgeting, welfare benefits, self-esteem and employment. Support workers may assist clients by making referrals to specialist services to address problems such as mental ill-health or drug addiction. Service users may also be helped to link into local social networks. In projects targeted on vulnerable families responsible for anti-social behaviour there is also typically an emphasis on parenting skills. Particularly where clients are newly homeless people, support workers help service users furnish and equip their flats.

8.27 Measuring the impact of tenancy support services is particularly difficult. The first step here would involve monitoring the proportion of service user tenancies sustained in the period following their engagement with the service. Case study evidence suggests such monitoring is rarely undertaken. Authorities are in no position to even speculate as to the proportion of those assisted who might otherwise have become homeless. Hence, whilst tenancy support schemes are expensive in terms of staff time, it is very difficult to estimate the cost per instance of homelessness prevented.

« Previous | Contents | Next »