The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION

Policy and legislative background

1.1 Homelessness prevention is not a new concept. Local authorities' obligation to prevent as well as respond to homelessness is longstanding, both in law and in good practice advice (especially the Homelessness Code of Guidance). Ever since the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, authorities have been legally required to assist people under imminent threat of homelessness (and classed as 'in priority need') by taking reasonable steps to prevent them from losing existing accommodation (see also para 3.14).

1.2 Since its establishment in 1999, however, the Scottish Executive has increased the official emphasis on preventing homelessness. This is in keeping with the Executive's wider commitment to promoting social inclusion. Initially, the new drive to prevent and alleviate homelessness was targeted on reducing rough sleeping, with the Executive aiming to create a situation where 'nobody should need to sleep rough in Scotland by 2003' ⁵.

1.3 Subsequently, the scope of homelessness prevention policy has broadened to encompass the full range of people at risk of homelessness and consequently seeking help from local authorities ( LAs). The specific impetus for a new approach here originated with the Homelessness Task Force established by Ministers in 1999 and the consequential legislative changes carried through in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003. Of key importance was the requirement contained in the 2001 Act for local authorities to develop homelessness strategies to set out plans for 'preventing and alleviating homelessness' in a local authority's area ⁶⁷. A similar obligation was placed on English local authorities by the Homelessness Act 2002. Key homelessness prevention commitments set out in Scottish local authority strategies are integrated within Chapter 2 of this report.

1.4 Another important aspect of the policy context for the research is the further reform of homelessness legislation incorporated within the Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003. Taking forward the Homelessness Task Force recommendations, the Act envisages broadening local authority responsibilities towards homeless households; in particular, through the abolition of the 'priority need' test. Hence, from 2012, authorities' permanent rehousing duties towards homeless households will encompass 'non-vulnerable' single persons of working age who are currently classed as 'non-priority' applicants entitled to advice and assistance only.

1.5 By 2005/06 households provided with permanent accommodation under the homelessness legislation already accounted for 41 per cent of local authorities' lettings to new tenants across Scotland ⁸. This figure has been rising even ahead of the planned widening of legal responsibilities - up from 28 per cent in Q1 2003 ⁹. In eight authorities, the 2005/06 figure was already in excess of 50 per cent. Not surprisingly, there is a growing recognition among LAs that the planned legal changes will place additional pressure on rehousing resources. This is becoming an increasingly significant factor in evoking LA interest in homelessness prevention techniques.

1.6 The Scottish Executive funds LAs to take forward activities outlined in their homelessness strategies. This funding began in 2001/02 and in 2006/07 amounted to £20.5m. In addition, the Executive provides funding for LA activities which were formerly part of the Rough Sleepers Initiative (and which are now included in their homelessness strategies) as well as general homelessness funding. (Excluding monies from its Supporting People budget - see below) Executive funding for LA homelessness activities in 2006/07 totalled £57m. Central Government funds have also been directed to homelessness prevention activities through the Supporting People regime introduced in 2003. Annual SP funding now amounts to around £400 million in Scotland. More recently, the Executive has made available further funding for 'innovative projects' aiming to prevent homelessness ¹⁰.

1.7 The first wave of Scottish homelessness strategies were submitted to the Executive in 2003 for introduction in financial year 2003/04. With these strategies now having been in place for over three years, the time is ripe to review their impact on the ground in terms of the prevention initiatives generated.

Defining homelessness prevention and measuring 'success'

1.8 As well as stressing that homelessness strategies 'should prioritise the prevention of homelessness', the Scottish Executive guidance listed various forms of activity which might give effect to this objective. Homelessness prevention is more succinctly defined in the Code of Guidance as 'action to be taken by local authorities to prevent homelessness arising in the first place and then recurring' ¹¹. It can, therefore, involve both interventions to enable a household to retain existing accommodation or to help someone access new accommodation.

1.9 Efforts to define homelessness prevention link with considerations of what constitutes 'success' and how this might be measured. As the main body of the report makes clear, different forms of 'prevention' have different objectives. Some are primarily aimed at preventing the need for someone to make a homelessness application (as reflected by a reduction in homelessness presentations). A second group of 'prevention initiatives' mainly seeks to help avoid the need to rehouse a homeless applicant in social housing (as recorded by a reduction in households assessed as unintentionally homeless and in priority need). A third approach involves attempting to measure more directly the success of specific forms of intervention in terms of the extent to which people subject to such help are enabled to retain their existing accommodation (e.g. through family mediation) or make a planned move (e.g. into a private tenancy accessed with LA assistance). The family mediation example highlights tensions in terms of the primary objective of the service - and hence, how 'success' should be measured. As discussed more fully in Chapter 7, there is a distinction between schemes focusing single-mindedly on ensuring that a young person remains in the family home and, thereby, does not require to be rehoused in social housing, and initiatives primarily aimed at reconciling a young person and their parents, irrespective of whether this enables the young person to remain in or return to the family home.

1.10 'Direct' measures of success (as defined above) are particularly problematic for initiatives whose main objective is to reduce the risk of future homelessness (e.g. through tenancy sustainment support or equipping young people with 'life skills'). Even where such 'direct measures' of 'prevention success' can be devised (see above) important questions are raised about the sustainability of solutions. There is also the possibility that schemes which rate as 'highly successful' in these terms may be seen by the households concerned as not entirely helpful (see Chapters 7 and 8).

Research aims and scope

1.11 The main aims of the research were:

• To map and categorise homelessness prevention activities being undertaken by 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.

It should be noted that the report's focus on homelessness prevention activities being undertaken (or commissioned) by local authorities should not be taken as implying that prevention is an issue of interest only to LAs. Agencies such as housing associations, prisons and voluntary agencies all have a key part to play here.

Methodology

1.12 The research, undertaken in summer/autumn 2006, involved five main elements:

• Review of homelessness strategies and local outcome agreements
• Telephone survey of all Scottish LAs
• Review of the 12 Communities Scotland inspection reports of LAs published as at December 2006 ¹²
• Detailed case study work in five LAs, focusing on specific homelessness prevention initiatives
• Qualitative interviews with homelessness prevention service users.

Review of strategies and Local Outcome Agreements

1.13 This review drew on the original homelessness strategy documents submitted to the Executive by LAs in 2003. It also covered subsequent strategy updates (as produced by some LAs) as well as authorities' Local Outcome Agreements ( LOAs) specifying precise actions planned and reporting on progress against stated objectives. Unfortunately, 2006/07 LOAs (recording the position in early 2006) were available for only five councils. For most authorities, therefore, this analysis was based on 2005/06 LOAs - documents setting out prevention activities in operation in 2005.

1.14 Prevention issues and activities were explicitly covered in every strategy document examined bar one. In many strategies, much discussion was devoted to prevention matters. In East Lothian's strategy, for example, two thirds of the specified objectives and four fifths of the identified actions concerned prevention. It was clear from the 2003 documents that certain prevention activities and initiatives were already functioning at that time. For example, a number of strategies referred to 'reviewing the operation' of rent deposit schemes. Nevertheless, there was a strong sense that for many authorities the production of strategies marked something of a new beginning in terms of developing a prevention-focused approach. Evidently, a whole range of prevention issues and techniques were often being considered for the first time.

1.15 Whereas the strategies review was intended to illustrate LA intentions at the start of the new regime, the LOA analysis was designed to complement the picture of 'current practice' as drawn from our own telephone survey (see below). In practice, however, not all authorities submitted LOAs for 2005/06 and some of the material from this source was, therefore, drawn from 2004/05 LOAs. Material drawn from both strategies and LOAs is set out in Chapter 2. For two main reasons, however, data collated in this way cannot be expected to produce entirely conclusive findings. First, where no reference to a technique (say, family mediation) was identified in a strategy or LOA this does not necessarily mean that the authority concerned had not considered - or was not operating - this technique. Second, strategies referred to homelessness prevention approaches in various ways. In some instances, it was clearly stated that a particular technique was already in operation. Sometimes an initiative was 'planned', in others its possible use was 'being considered'. In interpreting Chapter 2 these qualifications should be borne in mind.

Telephone survey

1.16 The survey involved a questionnaire designed in consultation with the Scottish Executive and piloted with two LAs in advance of the main fieldwork. The questionnaire contained a mix of open and closed questions about current and planned 'homelessness prevention' practices. Whilst it did not seek any numerical data, respondents were asked whether - in principle - they would be able to provide activity or outcome statistics with respect to specific interventions (e.g. family mediation). Responses were obtained from all 32 LAs. Four of these were generated through face-to-face interviews.

Case study work

1.17 The case study investigation focused on a specific range of homelessness prevention initiatives as identified from the telephone survey (see Table 1.1). The services selected for this in-depth assessment were those most commonly cited by telephone survey respondents as being currently operated. Three of the five services (housing advice, Rent Deposit Guarantee projects and family mediation) could be classed as 'crisis response' measures. In contrast, the other two forms of 'prevention activity' examined in detail (tenancy sustainment support and transitional supported accommodation) are essentially 'precautionary' in the sense that they are 'pre-crisis interventions' focused on people considered at high risk of future homelessness. The case study fieldwork involved in-depth interviews with key stakeholders (mainly LA and voluntary agency staff), as well as the collection of relevant documents (e.g. committee reports, monitoring returns, draft homelessness strategy updates). As far as possible, case study LAs and partner agencies were asked to provide statistical data indicating the scale and effectiveness of specific initiatives. Service cost data was also sought.

1.18 Case study LAs were selected partly on the basis of the telephone survey findings as authorities apparently 'relatively active' in the homelessness prevention field. The selection also aimed to encompass a diverse set of LAs in terms of local circumstances and administrative arrangements.

Table 1.1 - Case study work: range of activities examined within each case study LA

*Notes: 1. Edinburgh case study work here involved initiatives facilitating access to private tenancies other than via the Edinburgh rent deposit guarantee scheme. 2. In North Ayrshire the research examined two schemes aimed at promoting tenancy sustainment in social rented housing and two schemes targeted on youth homelessness prevention.

Service user interviews

1.19 In order to probe the 'consumer perspective' on LA homelessness prevention activities, we undertook 26 interviews with individuals classed by authorities as having received help which enabled them to retain or acquire accommodation and, hence, avoid homelessness. These interviews, undertaken by telephone, aimed mainly to probe:

• Whether the service user had, in practice, avoided homelessness
• Whether advice/assistance provided by the LA (or other service provider) was crucial in helping the interviewee avoid homelessness
• The service user's experience of interaction with the LA (or other service provider) in relation to the advice/assistance provided.

The interview schedule developed for this purpose is attached at Appendix I. Further details on methodology are set out in Appendix II.

Limitations to the research

1.20 It is important, at the outset, to note a number of limitations which have constrained the research. Most of these stemmed from the relatively small scale of the project. Firstly, this affected the project's coverage of initiatives potentially classed as constituting 'homelessness prevention'. As agreed by the Executive, the study focused primarily on such activities which were (a) undertaken (or facilitated) by LAs (interventions by voluntary agencies were explored only where these were LA-commissioned/funded), and (b) crisis interventions rather than activities with the potential to contribute to reducing homelessness only in the more distant future. In general, therefore, we did not investigate projects with 'longer term aims' such as programmes providing training, advice and support for private landlords (e.g. Edinburgh's Letwise project). Similarly, school-based housing education initiatives are mentioned only briefly in Chapter 2 and were excluded from detailed case study work.

1.21 A second limitation stemming from the modest scale of the research was the extent of evidence-collection. It was possible to undertake more detailed work in only five LAs. And, even within these LAs, the scope of the fieldwork was strictly limited. It was not, for example, possible to match up 'homeless prevention' cases as recorded on LAs internal monitoring systems with respective HL1 returns. Similarly, the number of service user interviews was necessarily relatively small.

1.22 Linked with the previous point was the decision to limit the national-level research in favour of focusing a substantial part of the research on case study work aimed at developing a detailed understanding of service content and processes. This, in turn, limited the scope for the research to 'map' homelessness prevention activities across all 32 authorities (which would have been possible to undertake more fully as an alternative to case study work). The issue here is that whilst it is relatively easy for authorities to report having certain arrangements (e.g. protocols) in place or 'making available' certain services, the exact scale, nature and effectiveness of such arrangements or services can be determined only through fairly exhaustive follow-up questions. This issue is further discussed in Chapter 2. To the extent that we have been able to map homelessness prevention activity, the findings are presented mainly in Tables 2.1-2.2 and 3.2-3.3.

1.23 Other challenges included the difficulties of many LAs in precisely defining their homelessness prevention activities. This was partly because such work was often undertaken by staff for whom this was only a small aspect of their overall responsibilities - e.g. homelessness caseworkers primarily engaged in applicant assessments. Partly for these reasons, LAs often found it very difficult to estimate the costs of homelessness prevention. And, to compound this problem, some were reluctant to disclose the costs of outsourced projects because these were seen as commercially sensitive. Finally, as expected, the relatively under-developed state of LA record-keeping systems with respect to homelessness prevention was a widespread problem.

Structure of the report

1.24 Drawing on our telephone survey of all authorities and on the LOA analysis, Chapter 2 presents an overview of LA homelessness prevention activities in terms of those targeted on specific 'high risk' groups. This chapter also alludes to homelessness prevention commitments as set out in LAs' 2003 strategies. Chapter Three analyses data from the Scottish Executive's ' HL1' national monitoring system, focusing on aspects of the data captured in HL1 returns with a bearing on the prevention issue. Drawing on both our national survey and case study work, Chapter Four looks at the varying organisational approaches to homelessness assessment and homelessness prevention, highlighting also related monitoring issues.

1.25 Chapters 5-8 look in turn at specific kinds of activities operated to prevent homelessness resulting from different causes and/or involving different groups: housing advice, family mediation, transitional supported housing projects, assisted access to private tenancies, and tenancy support schemes. In focusing on these specific services, the report reflects the findings of the telephone survey which demonstrated that these tended to be the most widely operated forms of homelessness prevention - a finding confirmed by our review of Communities Scotland's LA homelessness inspection reports. As a rule, these four chapters begin by briefly defining the services involved. They go on to discuss the targeting of the relevant initiative, the content of the service and the measurement of outcomes and effectiveness. Where available, data on service costs are discussed at the end of each of these chapters.

1.26 Chapter 9 reports on the findings of our telephone interviews with individuals classed by LAs as homelessness prevention service users (people for whom a local authority intervention is logged as having successfully prevented homelessness). Finally, in Chapter 10 we return to some of the main questions for the research as set out in the Scottish Executive's research brief.

« Previous | Contents | Next »