« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Preventing and tackling homelessness is a priority for the Scottish Executive 1 and prevention was a key concern of the Executive's Homelessness Task Force ( HTF) 2. The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 requires local authorities ( LAs) to draw up strategies for tackling homelessness. Under official guidance, homelessness prevention should form a key theme within such strategies. Under this theme, strategies need to specify interventions which will support people at risk of losing accommodation 3. Prevention work will become more significant as local authorities respond to the target of abolishing the priority need distinction in 2012 as laid down in the Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003.
With the first round of homelessness strategies being launched in 2003, LAs in Scotland are developing a range of prevention-oriented activities as detailed in their strategies. Despite this, only one authority took account of this work in assessing its capacity to meet future housing need as part of the recent exercise to assess local authorities' readiness for the abolition of priority need by 2012 4. An evaluation of current activity which aids local authorities in identifying the impact that preventative work may have on capacity, and which provides guidance on good practice and future evaluation is therefore timely.
Aims, Objectives and Methods
This report draws on research commissioned by the Scottish Executive and undertaken during 2006. The aim of this research was to provide LAs and partner agencies with information on the usefulness of different approaches to prevention activity and to establish the basis for ongoing monitoring of these activities. The main objectives of the project were as follows:
- To map and categorise homelessness prevention activities being undertaken by local authorities ( LAs) and their partner agencies
- To identify the extent of homelessness prevention monitoring and evaluation activity undertaken by LAs - including criteria for 'success'
- To explore the views of key stakeholders on approaches to prevention
- To assess what prevention activities work best for particular 'at risk' groups
- To identify and make recommendations on key data that LAs could collect to assist in future evaluation of prevention activities, including any information which would facilitate cost-effectiveness assessment.
The study involved a review of LA homelessness strategies and local outcome agreements, a review of Communities Scotland LA inspection reports, a telephone survey of all 32 Scottish LAs, case study work focusing on five LAs selected partly on the basis of the national survey findings, telephone interviews with 26 homelessness prevention service users.
Key Findings
Homelessness prevention activities targeted on specific groups
In line with Homelessness Task Force advice, many authorities structured their homelessness strategies according to groups believed to be at particularly high risk of homelessness. Hence most homelessness strategies acknowledged the need for specific measures to address possible homelessness involving tenants threatened with eviction, and individuals scheduled for institutional discharge (e.g. care leavers). Two types of measures have been widely developed in response. Firstly, 'early warning' procedures (or protocols) to ensure that homelessness staff are made aware of such cases and, ideally, have sufficient time to act before loss of accommodation occurs. And, secondly, policies and practices to prevent eviction or arrange planned rehousing.
At least half of authorities have protocols in place to warn homelessness staff about the impending discharge of prisoners, long-stay hospital patients and young people in council care. A few authorities routinely provide outreach housing advice services in prison settings.
Beyond the specific concerns around care leavers (see above) most homelessness strategies addressed the wider issue of youth homelessness. Most authorities target youth homelessness through family mediation, and through support/independent living skills projects. Particularly in urban and/or central belt authorities, projects of this latter type are generally set up on a residential basis. Similarly targeted partly on young people forming households for the first time, virtually all LAs operate or fund schemes to provide essential furniture items to formerly homeless people taking on social sector tenancies.
Key messages from national monitoring data
As well as measuring the overall scale of homelessness demand, the Scottish Executive's HL1 national monitoring system records LA responses to individual homelessness applications and the outcomes of those applications. Nationally, homelessness presentations have continued to rise over recent years, albeit at a reduced rate in 2005/06. At the same time, however, the number of households assessed as homeless has remained relatively constant since 2003/04.
Nationally, some 14 per cent of 2005/06 presentations were assessed as 'potentially homeless'. This group should be seen as a key target group for prevention efforts. There is a need to promote greater consistency in recording here - it appears that many LAs are currently under-stating 'potentially homeless' numbers. Notwithstanding some uncertainty about their robustness, latest figures show that only around a third of potentially homeless households become actually homeless before the outcome of their application. At the same time, however, most of those concerned end up being granted a social sector tenancy rather than being successfully helped to retain their existing home. Whilst LAs have a statutory duty to take reasonable steps to try to ensure that priority potentially homeless households retain existing accommodation, this outcome is in fact fairly unusual (relating to just 13 per cent of such applications).
Whilst the numbers remain relatively small, the proportion of homelessness presentations recorded as having been 'resolved prior to assessment' has been rising in recent years. In 2005/06 this was the outcome for almost 4,000 households. Whilst not all of these cases will necessarily be a result of LA intervention, this trend appears to be encouraging evidence of the increasing scale of LA homelessness prevention activities.
Organisational approaches to homelessness assessment and homelessness prevention
Most forms of homelessness prevention are quite staff-intensive. Consequently, the new regime has generated substantial numbers of new staff posts. Many of these are specialist positions responsible for strategic or operational prevention-related matters. Alongside their primary role in assessing applications, homelessness caseworkers also play a key role in providing prevention-oriented advice and making referrals as appropriate.
Other council departments and voluntary agencies also make important contributions to prevention work in some authorities.
A small number of authorities reported operating a 'housing options approach'. This refers to a distinct two-stage procedure where a formal assessment is undertaken only if an initial 'housing options' interview gives 'reason to believe' that a household may be homeless. Most authorities remained committed to formally assessing (and recording) all households claiming homelessness. Such approaches, in part, reflected concerns about possible accusations of 'gatekeeping'.
Only three LAs had a routine practice of 'home visits' for homelessness applicants - e.g. in cases involving 'family/friend exclusions' (i.e. young people asked to leave the homes of parents, friends or other relatives). The LAs concerned saw such visits as potentially valuable in enabling caseworkers to cross-check applicant testimony on the circumstances surrounding their loss of accommodation as well as to negotiate between young people and their parents. Some other LAs saw home visits as problematic mainly because of the cost in staff time. A few even viewed such visits as an unacceptable form of 'checking up on the applicant'.
Developing and operating a prevention-centred service is widely seen as requiring a distinct break with the traditional reactive and legalistic culture of homelessness work but is consistent with HTF recommendations. Staff training programmes have been contributing to such a change, as have peer reviews and initiatives to share good practice.
Housing advice in homelessness prevention
Housing advice can play a crucial role both in terms of helping tenants retain existing accommodation and in helping potentially homeless households find new tenancies. The new emphasis on homelessness prevention has boosted the status of housing advice activities and the staff responsible. In most LAs, prevention-oriented advice is provided by homelessness caseworkers, and by generic housing advice staff. Voluntary agencies also often contribute, generally with respect to specific groups (e.g. young people).
Most LAs report making available housing advice customised to the needs and circumstances of individual homeless applicants (sometimes under the title 'personal housing plan'). The housing advice role sometimes extends to more active assistance e.g. contacting private landlords on applicants' behalf.
Statistical data on housing advice service effectiveness in preventing homelessness is thin on the ground. In one case study LA, however, it was reported that more than a quarter of housing advice service users at risk of homelessness were housed as an immediate outcome of their contact with advice staff. Service cost figures were universally unavailable, though this was partly an understandable consequence of the way that the service was provided (e.g. by generic homelessness casework staff alongside other duties).
Preventing youth homelessness: family mediation and transitional supported housing schemes
Within their strategies to prevent youth homelessness, most authorities provide some form of family mediation intervention. As a rule, efforts are targeted mainly on young people aged 16-17 who would, if actually homeless, be classed as 'priority need' applicants entitled to permanent rehousing.
Mediation is provided in a variety of ways. In some authorities it is integrated within homelessness assessment procedures (usually as an aspect of caseworker responsibilities). In others it is provided within the context of an externalised youth homelessness project where mediation is an element alongside other functions. Where integrated within the statutory assessment process there may be an overlap between mediation aimed primarily at family reconciliation and casework focusing mainly on testing an applicant's claim to be legally homeless. This can take place through a home visit where a young person claiming homelessness and their parents may be jointly interviewed.
Family mediation may be aimed at enabling the young person to remain at home, but this is not always the main or only objective. Mediation may also aim to ensure that a young person's move from the family home can be a managed process, in which mediation can be used to ensure the young person continues to have familial support once they have left the home. While in these cases a homelessness application may still be made, the 'prevention' activity is targeted at minimising any experience of homelessness (e.g. through allowing a 'planned' move into other accommodation) and at promoting the sustainability of new accommodation (by allowing the young person and family to prepare for this and by strengthening support networks).
A number of LAs report their mediation efforts being compromised through a low rate of engagement. However, whilst this is in some instances attributed to the voluntary nature of the process, case study evidence suggests that this need not be so. Two case study LAs reported mediation 'success rates' (i.e. proportion of referrals to the service resulting in a return to the family home) as 19 per cent and 58 per cent. As noted above, not all schemes would consider a return to the family home as the only definition of a 'successful outcome'.
About half of all LAs have established 'supported transitional housing' schemes for young people. These are usually run by external agencies (e.g. Quarriers, Loretto, NCH) and have a primary stated purpose of equipping young people to successfully manage and sustain mainstream tenancies to which they will move. To this end, service users are helped to develop a wide range of 'independent living skills' as well as - in some cases - being assisted in relation to training, employment and other matters.
Case study evidence suggests that only around half of those referred to supported transitional housing projects subsequently move on to mainstream council tenancies. Others return to the parental home whilst significant numbers are evicted for anti-social behaviour. Whilst projects' main stated aim is to maximise subsequent tenancy sustainment, this was not formally monitored in the two relevant case study LAs.
Transitional housing projects of this kind cater for many young people with extensive support needs which demand fairly intensive provision from highly trained staff. This is reflected in the £16,750 per bedspace per year housing support cost cited by one of our case study schemes.
Assisted access to private tenancies
Almost all LAs operate rent deposit guarantee ( RDG) schemes to help homeless people access private tenancies. As well as providing a form of financial support, these schemes usually encompassed a range of services to help clients find and - in some cases - retain tenancies.
Schemes were mainly targeted on non-priority homeless households involving adults aged over 25, though some also accommodated families who had been declared 'intentionally homeless' or refused their 'final offer' of social rented housing. Single Room Rent restrictions on Housing Benefit ( HB) payments were cited as the prime limitation on RDG schemes' ability to help young people aged 18-25.
In arranging private sector rehousing, LAs typically check property conditions, as well as prospective rents. Where chargeable rents exceed amounts normally payable via Housing Benefit, LAs look to Discretionary Housing Payments ( DHPs) to bridge the gap. However, despite a widespread awareness that HB limits constrain the potential scale of RDG schemes, some LAs substantially underspend their DHP allocations. In eight cases, more than half of 2005/06 allocations remained unspent at year end.
In some case study LAs, the service provided by RDG staff continues beyond the creation of tenancies - e.g. in representing the tenant's interest in disputes with landlords over repairs. One case study LA obliged landlords receiving referrals under its RDG scheme to notify the Council if the tenancy created was under any threat (a more far-reaching commitment than that created in S11 of Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 Act which will, when brought into force, require landlords to notify councils where possession proceedings are instituted).
National homelessness monitoring data suggests the extent of RDG activity to be rather modest. Excluding three aberrant LAs, 2005/06 homelessness cases where the council's 'last action' was facilitating a private tenancy offer totalled less than 600 across the whole of Scotland (or less than two per cent of the homelessness cases handled by the 29 councils concerned). And although case study evidence suggests that such action may be somewhat under-recorded in ' HL1' returns, it would still appear that in most areas RDG activity remains quite small in scale.
Tenancy sustainment schemes
From the LA perspective, the largest scale and 'most effective' form of homelessness prevention was support to help vulnerable council tenants retain tenancies.
Virtually all authorities reported operating some form of debt counselling to help people avoid eviction resulting from rent arrears, either in-house or through external agencies such as the Citizens Advice Bureau or locally based money advice centres. As a rule, debt counselling services provided in-house were physically separated from homelessness services, often under the remit of 'welfare rights' staff. Consequently, there was seldom a specific focus on the potential role of debt counselling in homelessness prevention. Some LAs were seeking to address this by creating dedicated debt counselling provision for people at risk of homelessness.
Tenancy support schemes may provide help with issues such as budgeting, welfare benefits, self-esteem and employment. Clients may be helped through 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.
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 have little basis to estimate the proportion of those assisted who might otherwise have become homeless. Official monitoring data suggests that this proportion may be relatively small. And, since such schemes are staff-time intensive, it may well be that they come at a relatively high cost per instance of homelessness prevented.
Homelessness prevention service user perspectives
Among 26 households logged as 'homelessness prevention service users', around half saw the council's intervention as having helped them to resolve their housing problems; two said that intervention had definitely not helped in this way.
Experiences among RDG scheme users tended to be generally positive. Respondents appreciated the wide ranging assistance typically provided by RDG staff, though they were not entirely uncritical (see below). Importantly, most RDG service users appeared to lack the knowledge, confidence and finances to have accessed a private tenancy unaided. RDG intervention was, therefore, vital in helping service users avoid homelessness.
Among young people 'helped to return to the parental home', however, the council's action in facilitating this outcome tended to be seen as largely negative in denying them access to social housing whilst providing little in the way of mediation or other ongoing support. Some said that they had been advised by council staff that the alternative of entering institutional accommodation would expose them to unpalatable behaviour on the part of other residents and could place them at risk of being drawn into undesirable lifestyles.
Outreach support provided to young people to promote sustainment of council tenancies was generally viewed very positively and the recipients were optimistic about their ability to retain such tenancies.
Mixed feelings on the part of some RDG service users usually reflected dissatisfaction in dealings with homelessness casework staff, contrasting with positive experiences of help from RDG officers. A significant number valued the housing choice afforded through this route - aware that accessing a council tenancy might mean having little or no say in the property offered. Around half saw their private tenancy as constituting a 'permanent solution'. Others, however, saw this housing outcome as definitely 'second best' and continued to aspire to a council tenancy.
Conclusions
In requiring local authorities to produce homelessness strategies, the Scottish Executive's main objective was to foster a more prevention-centred LA approach. It appears that this has met with considerable success. Across the country, it is clear that many prevention initiatives have been developed or expanded since 2003. Most authorities can point to various recently-established schemes or practices demonstrating a commitment to 'early intervention' which is at the heart of the prevention ethos.
However, three years into the new regime, many homelessness prevention services remain rather small and often fairly experimental. In most LAs, distinct prevention services or procedures have been developed to target particular at-risk groups. It is often difficult to generalise on which activities work best for specific groups. This is only partly because of the typical paucity of service monitoring data. Rent Deposit Guarantee schemes, for example, are judged successful by many LAs and such assistance appears generally well-received by service users. At the same time, some LAs have found their efforts to expand RDG activities frustrated by lack of supply and/or 'unaffordable rents'. It is, nevertheless, clear that some LAs could be making fuller use of available central funding to ensure that private sector placements are affordable for service users. LAs facing 'supply shortfalls' may need to consider how participation in their RDG schemes can be made more attractive to landlords (e.g. by offering enhanced Housing Benefit services, guaranteed rental payments to cover void periods or even 'bounty payments').
Other areas where LAs may be able to enhance their prevention services include evaluating the potential benefits of 'home visits' in appropriate cases. And whilst most LAs report having arrangements in place for 'early warning' systems for identifying people who may benefit from homelessness prevention activities, LAs may be well-advised to look at broadening such schemes beyond an exclusive focus on vulnerable tenants in social rented housing.
Similarly, whilst most authorities have at least experimented with family mediation to prevent homelessness, service user evidence suggests it may be appropriate to reconsider the aims of some schemes of this sort. Authorities need to prioritise family reconciliation rather than placing overwhelming emphasis on avoiding the need to rehouse the young person involved. And whilst tenancy support activity aimed at minimising tenancy breakdown is widely seen as the most significant form of homelessness prevention, authorities face a challenge in balancing the need to support 'at risk' tenants with the imperative of justifying that the considerable resources currently devoted to such schemes are being effectively used.
Although most authorities are aware of the need for effective monitoring and evaluation of prevention activities there is substantial scope for improved practice here. Whilst this is, in many cases, likely to require the establishment of internal bespoke systems and procedures, authorities should also think harder about how they can make better use of the HL1 framework for this purpose.
« Previous | Contents | Next »