The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FOUR - ORGANISATIONAL APPROACHES TO HOMELESSNESS ASSESSMENT AND HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION

4.1 This chapter is based mainly on the national survey of local authorities. It also draws on evidence from the five LA case studies.

The delivery of homelessness prevention work

Overall impact on staff numbers

4.2 The homelessness strategies regime, with its increased emphasis on prevention, has generated substantial numbers of new staff posts, both within LA departments and in voluntary agencies delivering prevention services under contract. Such impacts have been particularly marked in relation to tenancy sustainment and young persons supported accommodation services, both of which are mainly funded through Supporting People.

4.3 In Edinburgh, for example, the Council had created 16 posts in Neighbourhood Support Teams tasked with helping tenants at risk of losing their tenancy. Other recently-established positions included a homelessness co-ordinator post, as well as five housing advice officers located in area offices, and two intensive family support officers. These new posts were in addition to the 19 Housing Options Team staff whose role included prevention-oriented advice alongside the statutory assessment of homeless applicants, as well as numerous staff working on private rented sector projects directly or indirectly related to preventing homelessness.

4.4 Many authorities have established designated posts to co-ordinate homelessness strategies and/or to provide specialist prevention services. In Renfrewshire, for example, the Council has established posts of Youth Homelessness Development Officer, Youth Homelessness Prevention Officer and Homelessness Prevention Outreach Officer. Posts of this kind have, in many instances, been underpinned by Scottish Executive Homelessness Strategy funding (see Chapter One).

4.5 In two of our five case study local authorities, the establishment of staff posts devoted to prevention activities had taken place against a broader centralisation of homelessness functions. This was true in both in East Dunbartonshire and North Ayrshire and was seen as important in helping to facilitate a more professional approach to both homelessness assessment and associated advice provision. In Edinburgh, however, a partially decentralised system remained in place, with people at risk of homelessness being able to make applications through area offices accommodating specialist housing advice staff as well as estate management teams.

Homelessness prevention activities: division of labour

4.6 As demonstrated by the telephone survey, and through case study fieldwork, homelessness casework staff play a key role in prevention. Such activities sit alongside caseworkers' primary responsibility for assessing and investigating homelessness applications. Caseworker prevention activities typically involved the provision of advice, information and housing options work, providing support to households and making referrals to specialist agencies.

4.7 Among the case studies, North Ayrshire stood out somewhat from the other four local authorities in that casework and prevention responsibilities were largely split, with the former being a local housing office function, but the latter being handled by a recently-created centralised team. (Note, however, that North Ayrshire was in the process of restructuring homelessness functions such that these were to become largely centralised).

4.8 In some instances, housing advice to homeless households was provided primarily through homelessness caseworkers. In larger local authorities, however, this function was often discharged through designated advice officers or teams, with these staff receiving referrals from homelessness caseworkers, as well as dealing with self-referrals and others.

4.9 In most local authorities (28), council staff outwith homelessness casework teams also played a significant role in prevention. Such 'other active staff' primarily included housing officers, tenancy support workers and social work staff, although health professionals (e.g. psychiatric practitioners) were also involved in some areas. Such staff were reported as contributing, in particular, to tenancy sustainment activities intended to reduce future homelessness.

4.10 External agencies are also highly active, contributing to homelessness prevention under contract in 30 LA areas. There were a number of agencies active across more than one LA area. These included familiar names such as Cyrenians, Citizens Advice, SACRO, National Children's Homes ( NCH), Barnardo's, Women's Aid and Shelter. Locally based services were also commonly involved, with agencies such as Govan Law Centre offering services in more than one local authority area. From the LA perspective such contracting out makes sense since it provides an opportunity to exploit existing expertise in providing services to specific groups (e.g. young people leaving care or 'dysfunctional families'). Chapters 6 and 8 discuss the role of voluntary agencies in these roles in greater detail.

4.11 Most authorities had also negotiated discharge notification or other protocols with external agencies such as hospitals, prisons and social work 'leaving care' teams.

Joint working

4.12 Related to the division of responsibilities for homelessness prevention work, there is evidence that the prevention-focused approach has led to increased joint-working involving homelessness staff and other agencies. For example, CS inspection reports commend some local authorities (e.g. East Lothian, South Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire) for having established joint assessment procedures involving homelessness caseworkers and social work colleagues. Such procedures are designed to institutionalise the proper consideration of support needed to give a vulnerable homeless person the best chance of sustaining their tenancy.

Homelessness prevention and early intervention

4.13 As well as asking local authorities about systems to monitor homelessness prevention activity, the national survey also explored whether local authorities had developed 'early warning' mechanisms with respect to people at risk of homelessness but who had not (yet) presented as homeless. Virtually all respondents reported the existence of such systems. Almost without exception, these related to tenants in social rented sector (especially in council housing). A range of approaches were described, generally notifications or referrals triggered by signs of vulnerability, such as rent arrears, antisocial behaviour, eviction proceedings or general support needs. Usually, this involved the offer of support or practical assistance to help the household sustain their tenancy.

4.14 Going beyond such an approach, three authorities actively reviewed new housing list applications to identify any potential 'triggers' placing the household at significant risk of homelessness. This may include 'care of' addresses, evidence of a marital or family dispute, poor literacy or other types of vulnerability. The implication was that the authority would proactively make contact with such households in an effort to determine interventions which could help to avert homelessness occurring.

4.15 The majority of authorities had some form of protocol established with local prisons and hospitals. The aim was to enable the housing needs of such 'at risk' households to be dealt with in advance of discharge. Such arrangements ranged in intensity (from drop-in surgeries to proactive support throughout the sentence).

4.16 When discussing 'early warning' systems, instead of discussing specific procedures, other authorities highlighted joint working and awareness raising as the most significant activity. Joint-working and raising awareness about homelessness prevention activities were regarded as the most important tool for ensuring that the early warnings are identified and acted upon. An essential element of this was staff training, not only for council officers, but also for external agencies.

4.17 In relation to early warning systems, the procedures adopted by three local authorities are worthy of further description:

• In Dundee, homelessness prevention services were advertised and marketed widely, using posters, leaflets and service directory. This work had been combined with substantial training across all sectors (health, homelessness, frontline staff, support workers, community nurses etc) on the triggers of homelessness and how to respond to them. As well as developing an 'at risk' register for existing tenants, the Council had also integrated 'trigger' questions within their housing application form.
• East Lothian has researched 'triggers of vulnerability'. According to the Council, this was a significant change for staff and one that required extensive and ongoing awareness raising and training. The homelessness service had developed a formal procedure for inward referrals and the team was working to strengthen links with outside agencies. The homelessness manager had recently produced a briefing for front-line staff on 'at risk' triggers such as poor literacy or citation of 'care of' addresses which 'should ring alarm bells'.
• North Lanarkshire has published fact sheets about the causes of homelessness and was building up an electronic library on homelessness to which all staff will have access. Again, raising awareness and training was seen as key to the success of such work.

'Housing options' approaches

4.18 The research examined the extent to which local authorities are incorporating prevention activities into their routine homelessness assessment procedures. A particular issue explored was whether any LAs in Scotland have adopted a 'housing options' approach - i.e. where newly presenting households are expected to participate in an initial 'housing options' interview before any decision is made as to whether a formal homelessness assessment should be undertaken. Such an approach has been commended by ODPM guidance for English LAs ²⁶ and recent research has shown that such an approach has been adopted by a number of LAs within the context of a 'prevention-centred strategy' ²⁷.

4.19 The purpose of a 'housing options' interview is to review an applicant's housing circumstances and prospects. The aim is to discuss the feasibility of securing the applicant's existing accommodation or, failing that, to examine the full range of possible routes to accessing a new tenancy. Essentially, housing options interviews are a forum for communicating housing advice (a service discussed in more detail in Chapter Five). In a legal sense, however, such contacts may also serve as a basis for determining whether there is 'reason to believe' that an applicant 'may be homeless' (see Chapter Three). In this way, they can act as a form of 'filtering' before a household presenting as homeless (i.e. claiming actual or imminent homelessness) undergoes a full assessment under the legislation.

4.20 The national survey confirmed that in most authorities official policy envisaged everyone making a homelessness presentation being formally assessed under the legislation (and, in parallel, recorded as an HL1 case). In the course of such assessments, housing options-style advice would often be provided. Some authorities also acknowledged that, in practice, some informal 'filtering' of presenters by housing receptionists or other staff might sometimes occur, though this was generally seen as something to be minimised. This understanding is in line with advice in the Code of Guidance which states that such practices are unacceptable where implemented by untrained staff who may unwittingly or not dissuade a homeless applicant from seeking other help from the council. It should, however, be acknowledged that a local authority's legal obligation to assess a household under the homelessness legislation is triggered only where the LA has 'reason to believe' that the applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness ²⁸ (see also paras 3.5-3.9).

4.21 However, five LAs reported that they would normally convene some kind of housing options-style interview with people presenting as homeless before deciding whether to undertake a formal homelessness assessment. Five other authorities reported that they were moving towards such an approach.

4.22 Rather than leading to a formal assessment, an initial 'housing options' interview could result in preventative work such as housing advice or a referral to a specialist agency. Authorities operating such an approach emphasised that these procedures would never replace or delay a formal homelessness assessment where there was reason to believe that someone was homeless or threatened with homelessness.

4.23 There were two reasons for the continued commitment towards formal assessment of all presenters on the part of most authorities. The first reflected a belief that making a 'homelessness application' is a legal right for anyone who sees themselves as actually or imminently homeless. The Code of Guidance indeed refers to such a 'legal right'. The relevant section of the homelessness legislation refers to a local authority duty to undertake an assessment where certain conditions are met (see above). To this extent there is a right to apply as homeless. Connected with an awareness of the law and guidance in this area was a local authority concern about being perceived as 'gatekeeping' as defined by Communities Scotland within the housing inspection context - i.e. a process operating to prevent or discourage homeless people from seeking housing assistance ²⁹. For example:

"The local authority would not like to think of themselves as gatekeeping homeless presentations or filtering applicants in some way"

"The local authority has a strong standpoint on this issue and would never want to be construed as preventing formal homeless applications."

4.24 A related issue was an anxiety as to whether such practices were consistent with the stipulations of the homelessness Code of Guidance. One interesting example involved a local authority that had recently appointed a member of staff with previous experience of homelessness work in England. The new staff member was accustomed to undertaking 'housing options' interviews prior to formal assessment. Having debated the issue internally, however, the LA opted not to adopt such an approach as staff felt they "did not know where this approach sits within the Code of Guidance". Another authority, reportedly moving towards the use of an initial 'housing options' interview stated, " we are going to build in housing options at initial presentation. However, we not sure what is classed best practice [by the Scottish Executive]". Overall, it was felt that the Code of Guidance, as it currently stands, has not been adequately updated to reflect the official policy shift from crisis response to prevention.

4.25 Despite the issues raised around initial 'housing options' interviews, authorities using the procedure did not believe that it should be construed as 'gatekeeping', as a formal assessment would follow the interview if it was determined that there was 'reason to believe' that the household could be 'homeless or threatened with homelessness' in a legal sense. Edinburgh, who recently received a Communities Scotland 'A' grade for their homelessness service, concluded:

"The process is about choice, accessibility of services and what is best in each individual case. The Communities Scotland Report concurred with this perspective. However, the Council is not complacent and work with all frontline staff to ensure gatekeeping does not occur".

Home visits

4.26 Recent research focusing on England found that home visits have in recent years re-emerged as a standard aspect of homelessness work ³⁰. In some authorities these have become routine for 'family/friend exclusions' - i.e. households reportedly at risk of homelessness having been asked to leave the homes of friends, parents, or other relatives. This is partly a response to the typically ambiguous status of such applicants in terms of whether they are, in fact, legally homeless (or threatened with homelessness). Particularly in the case of young people wishing to leave the parental home, it is possible that this ambiguity may be exploited through collusion between 'excluder' and 'excluded' because of the perception that this is the young person's only route to obtaining independent accommodation. Home visits also provide an opportunity for caseworkers to negotiate between the parties (whether or not this is formally recognised as 'family mediation' - see Chapter Six).

4.27 A recent survey of English LAs found that 76 per cent undertook home visits ³¹ (though it was not clear whether this was a common or infrequent occurrence). The current research revealed that only three Scottish authorities routinely undertake home visits:

• Stirling - home visits are undertaken in all cases involving 'family/friend exclusions', except those where the caseworker may be at risk or where it was judged that a home visit would aggravate a delicate situation.
• North Ayrshire - perceived success of routine home visits in relation to all applications involving young people aged 16-18, has led to the policy being expanded to encompass all applications by16-25 year olds (North Ayrshire practice here is further discussed in Chapter Six).
• Dundee - whilst the authority treats each case as appropriate, it is estimated that caseworkers visit 80 per cent of people claiming homelessness.

4.28 For 26 LAs, home visits were undertaken only occasionally. This was usually for the convenience of the applicant where the person was physically disabled or otherwise inhibited in their ability to travel to a local authority office. Three authorities reported that home visits were not undertaken in any circumstances. Only five authorities expressed concern over their limited use of home visits. Pressure on staff time and, for rural areas, the particularly time-intensive nature of such work, were the main factors thought to prevent home visits. Two authorities reported having discontinued home visits as a direct result of cutbacks in staffing resources.

4.29 Three authorities explicitly stated that home visits were not appropriate as a means of "checking up on the applicant". The implication that a homelessness application should be necessarily accepted at face value rather than being subjected to scrutiny appears somewhat surprising.

4.30 Two authorities planned to develop home visits. Clackmannanshire had recently appointed two 'Homeless and Visiting Officers'. These posts were to take on responsibility for a combination of homelessness assessment and family mediation (see below). Officers would offer support to young people, re-establish family networks and help keep them in the family home. Angus anticipated moving to a system where a 'diagnostic interview' would be conducted at first contact. This was to involve a home visit to explore issues of finance, support needs and housing options (see earlier discussion on this topic).

4.31 West Lothian and Inverclyde, although not routinely undertaking home visits, would on occasion visit a young person being asked to leave the home of friends, parents or other relatives. Although staff would not consider themselves as providing a 'mediation' service, it was seen as allowing the young person and the host household to consider the options available to them. Chapter Six provides a more detailed account of family mediation services.

Shifting organisational attitudes and culture

4.32 Consistent with the growing prevalence and importance of homelessness prevention work, there has been a cultural and attitudinal shift among the staff involved. The introduction of homelessness strategies, the 2012 target and the growing pressure on housing supply are all key factors in driving this forward.

4.33 Although some LAs were more positive than others about the efficacy of homelessness prevention, all professed themselves as working towards a pro-active and person-centred approach. As one respondent stated:

"There is now a changing focus. Previously we responded to homelessness as it occurred. Now we have a person-centred approach, providing housing options and choices".

4.34 The LAs surveyed had, over the previous 2-3 years, introduced a range of new services with the specific remit of preventing homelessness. A number of others were establishing new posts and restructuring departments to ensure they were better placed to undertake prevention activities. Examples included:

• Fife had created multi-agency 'Home for Good' centres. These centres allowed voluntary agencies and Council officers to work side by side, providing an accessible and integrated service to anyone (not just homeless households) with advice, information and housing options.
• Falkirk Council was in the process of creating a joint homelessness assessment and housing options post to integrate the services offered to homeless households and people at risk of homelessness.
• Following the creation of a specialist homelessness unit, Inverclyde Council was merging the 'prevention officer' and 'assessment officer' posts to provide a more integrated service.

4.35 Although the introduction of new strategies, services, structures and posts has facilitated attitudinal change among homelessness caseworkers; staff training has been integral to this process. Most LAs were training homelessness staff to Homepoint Standards, and many were also involving reception staff and housing officers in such programmes.

4.36 Despite making advances, ten authorities still believed that attitudinal barriers were impeding their ability to be more active in homelessness prevention work. Staff were described as having "embedded attitudes" or as "being stuck in their old ways". Interestingly, the barriers described were not confined to staff outwith homelessness teams (such as housing or other departments). Over the last three years, homelessness staff have faced major changes to the way they work and it can be difficult for attitudes and culture to keep pace. Some reservations and concerns about the homelessness prevention agenda as expressed by LA staff are discussed in Chapter 10 (see paras 10.20-10.25).

4.37 The attitudinal issues described were not confined to local authority staff. In particular, Elected Members and local community were groups which local authorities sometimes mentioned as holding negative attitudes towards homeless people. This alludes to the issue about 'consciousness raising' as discussed in a number of homelessness strategies (see Annex 4) ³².

Chapter summary

4.38 Most forms of homelessness prevention are relatively labour-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.

4.39 Other local authority departments and voluntary agencies also make important contributions to prevention work in some authorities.

4.40 A small number of authorities reported operating a 'housing options approach'. This refers to a distinct two-stage procedure for handling homelessness presentations where a formal assessment is undertaken only if an initial 'housing options' interview gives 'reason to believe' that a household may be homeless. Such procedures have been commended in official guidance to English LAs. In Scotland, however, most authorities remained committed to formally assessing (and recording) all households claiming homelessness. Such approaches, in part, reflected concerns about possible accusations of 'gatekeeping'.

4.41 Only three LAs had a routine practice of 'home visits' for homelessness applicants. This contrasts sharply with England, where the practice has recently re-gained popularity. Home visits are now undertaken (at some scale) by 76 per cent of English LAs - particularly in relation to 'family/friend exclusions' (i.e. young people asked to leave the homes of parents, friends or other relatives). Scottish 'home visit' LAs believe these to be 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. Others, however, see such visits as an unacceptable form of 'checking up on the applicant'.

4.42 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. Staff training programmes have been contributing to such a change, as have peer reviews and initiatives to share good practice. A number of authorities nevertheless accepted that fully embedding a prevention ethos among homelessness staff remained a challenge calling for further effort.

« Previous | Contents | Next »