« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Factors set out in the Ministerial Statement on the Abolition of Priority Need
173. Through their local outcome agreement and progress reports and participation in the 2012 Homelessness Support Project, local authorities have provided the following assessment against the primary indicators set out in the Statement:
a) Impact on social lets:
174. Social lets to homeless households are recorded through the national homelessness statistics, the annual performance statistical returns for registered social landlords and the lettings return made by local authorities. These sources of data do not agree exactly but indicate that in 2006/07 a fifth of all RSL lets and between 34% - 39% of all local authority lets were to homeless households. In the local authority sector, the proportion of all lets going to homeless households has almost doubled in the last five years. If transfers are excluded then a quarter of remaining RSL lets and between 43-49% of remaining local authority lets were to homeless households.
175. However the situation is varied between local authorities with three giving less than 20% of all lets to homeless households and nine giving 50% or more of lets. Potential impact on lets should continue to be a key consideration in assessing capacity to meet the 2012 target.
176. A number of councils are working to improve the accessibility of available social lets through development of a common housing register; developing referral and nomination protocols with housing associations; and revising allocations policies. Others have developed, or are in the process of developing, a more effective relationship with private landlords and the voluntary sector so that they can play a more significant role in rehousing homeless households.
177. However overall supply remains a key issue for many authorities. In this context, local authorities reported significant concerns about meeting the needs of homeless households whilst also coping with demands from others in housing need; one of the island authorities reported that all its lets in the main towns are now going to homeless households. Other authorities forecasted that they will need a high percentage of lets, or all lets, to go to homeless households in order to meet the 2012 target.
178. Within the available supply, local authorities are also facing challenges relating to mismatches between demand from households and current stock (in terms of size and location). Some authorities also mentioned challenges posed by negative reaction to housing homeless households on the part of some communities. In part, this reaction may be an adverse local response to lack of housing stock; however, it also highlights the need for continued work to change attitudes towards homelessness. Further engagement with communities may be helpful in promoting better understanding of the circumstances of homeless households and help dispel prejudice where it occurs.
b) Temporary accommodation
179. The national figures on temporary accommodation show that usage is continuing to increase, following on from the new duties to provide accommodation to all homeless households introduced in 2002, demographic change and limited availability of appropriate permanent social lets. As at 31 March 2007 there were a record number of 9,164 households in temporary accommodation. Of these, 59% were in social rented stock, 17% were in hostels and 17% in B&B.
180. Nine local authorities recorded breaches of the Homeless Persons (Unsuitable Accommodation) Order 2004 on this date, affecting 34 households containing children or pregnant women. However, the number of breaches has decreased substantially and many authorities who breached the Order in the past have now stopped doing so. Some areas reported having to use B&B accommodation due to overall pressures on temporary accommodation despite having moved away from this practice previously. Authorities who have breached the Order have put in place policies to avoid future breaches such as sourcing more temporary accommodation from RSLs and the private sector.
181. More than half of authorities mentioned the pressure on temporary accommodation as a key challenge in meeting the 2012 target in their local outcome agreements and progress reports. In the majority of cases this is linked directly to limited availability of permanent social tenancies as people spend longer in temporary accommodation awaiting a permanent let. In some authorities this pressure on temporary accommodation has led to situations where some homeless households cannot be offered appropriate accommodation.
182. Through the 2012 Homelessness Support Project particular difficulties were raised regarding sourcing temporary accommodation in remote and rural areas and more broadly ensuring that accommodation is suitable in terms of access to social networks and services. The potential for negative reaction to the location of temporary accommodation for homeless people in particular areas was also mentioned, as were the costs of temporary accommodation and benefit rules which have a bearing on the cost to the provider and to the occupier.
c) Sustainability of solutions
183. Local authorities did not focus on repeat homelessness as a major concern in terms of meeting the 2012 target. However a number did emphasise difficulties in terms of effectively meeting the needs of individuals and families with multiple and complex needs and continuing drug users.
d) Progress towards the Scottish Housing Quality Standard ( SHQS)
184. Six authorities noted that working towards the SHQS and wider regeneration activity will have some impact on their ability to meet the needs of homeless households and achieve the 2012 target. One stated that this will probably only be a minor impact and another expected a short-term disadvantage which would have a positive impact by 2012. One further authority stated there may be an impact but was unclear as to the extent of it. However the other three were more concerned that demolitions associated with regeneration would have a significant negative impact on the availability of social lets for homeless households and therefore on their ability to meet the 2012 target.
185. In terms of the secondary factors the feedback was as follows:
e) Voids management
186. Through local outcomes agreements and progress reports, two authorities explicitly stated that improvements in void management procedures had helped to reduce the duration of homelessness and the time spent in temporary accommodation. A number of other authorities referred to streamlining allocation processes which may have encompassed an improved approach to void management.
f) Support Needs
187. Just under half of authorities explicitly mentioned in their local outcome agreement and progress report that pressure on support services is a key challenge in meeting the 2012 target. While lack of adequate support services in itself does not impact on the 2012 target to provide permanent accommodation to unintentionally homeless households, it has a clear link with prevention of homelessness and tenancy sustainment. As is noted above, local authorities placed particular emphasis on the challenge of providing an effective response to those with multiple and complex needs but more broadly there is concern that funding for appropriately targeted support services is not at an adequate level to ensure that related outcomes on prevention and sustainable resettlement are achieved.
g) Hidden Homelessness
188. As is noted in Section 2 Outcome 2 three local authorities noted through their local outcome agreement and progress report that currently hidden homelessness may have a significant impact on their ability to meet the 2012 target. Another noted that the perception that being homeless was the only way to be allocated a social let would have the same effect. Through the 2012 Homelessness Support Project a number of local authorities also raised this issue - feeling that more people would present as homeless given increased rights to accommodation and a perception that the 'homelessness route' was the most effective way into social rented accommodation. It is important to note that achieving the top level outcome to make homelessness more visible may place greater pressure on local authorities in relation to meeting 2012.
h) Preventative activity
189. As is clear from Section 2 Outcome 4, all local authorities are carrying out actions aimed at preventing homelessness. However there is some doubt expressed about the impact of these activities in terms of assisting towards meeting the 2012 target with only 3 authorities specifically stating that prevention activity will be a major factor in determining their capacity to do so.
190. The main issues noted through the 2012 Homelessness Support Project were that prevention activity could be difficult to resource in the absence of tangible benefits up-front. This was linked to inconsistent corporate buy in and a perceived inflexible approach from other services - i.e. a failure to engage at an early stage to address relevant issues. The lack of support services or voluntary agencies in some areas was also flagged as a barrier to prevention activity, as were benefit rules (particularly in relation to Single Room Rent for young single people).
« Previous | Contents | Next »