The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER THREE: PREVENTION OF HOMELESSNESS

General

The importance of preventing homelessness is broadly acknowledged but opinion varies regarding the impact it will have in reducing the numbers of households seeking assistance. A substantial number of councils believe it will only have a marginal effect yet requires a considerable shift in focus and a re-alignment of resources. Others see it as central to tackling homelessness but it is a principle which must be adopted across all services and agencies dealing with homeless people not just homelessness teams.

All councils have preventative measures of some sort in place comprising mainly Housing Information and Advice or Housing Options Guidance; Rent Deposit Guarantee Schemes; Mediation Services and Housing Education Projects. A number have individual officers or small teams dedicated to preventing homelessness and actively working with strategic partners and stakeholders in spreading the message.

There is some cynicism that prevention is being promoted as a substitute for increasing housing supply but this is a minority view. Opinion in favour of a greater emphasis on prevention tended to be stronger in those councils where fundamental services responding to homelessness were better established and working reasonably well - the firefighting phase of the strategy was under control. At this stage there was perhaps more time to consider the bigger picture and adopt a wider strategic approach. This may also reflect the level of resources which the team had at its disposal and the amount having to be channelled towards responding to immediate crisis compared to broader strategic objectives. One council still concentrating on "crisis management" referred to prevention as a "worthy sideshow to the main event", inferring that prevention is something they would get round to once the pressure on basic services had eased off.

Issues:

• How to define prevention.
• Limited impact on homeless presentations.
• Identifying what works.
• Monitoring & evaluation (and recording).
• Establishing a systematic approach.
• Corporate/partnership issues.
• Expertise.
• Changing the culture of service delivery.
• Negative responses.
• Capacity issues.
• Benefits & Grants.
• Section 11.
• Role of other sectors.

Defining Prevention

Prevention can be viewed from a number of different perspectives.

• Prevention of homelessness occurring in the first place for those who have never previously left home, or places of care.
• Prevention of people becoming homeless from secure tenancies who have never been homeless before.
• Prevention of repeat homelessness.

The first is to do with not having to leave home at that particular time because causes might be resolvable, or leaving in a planned way which allows for a smooth transition to independent living. Two and three are about ensuring the management and support systems are in place to respond to people's need for them and that people know where to go in the event of crisis.

Councils need to be clear what aspects of prevention they are tackling if they are to target resources effectively and accurately monitor the impact and outcomes of the measures they take. A number of councils are finding the concept difficult to "tie down" in operational terms.

Limited Impact

All councils acknowledged the principle that 'prevention is better than cure' but many thought its application in regard to homelessness would only have a limited impact on the numbers of cases presenting for assistance. This view was attributed to a number of factors. The lack of supply of rented housing combined with long waiting lists encouraged more people to apply as homeless giving rise to a generalised increase in applications likely to be greater than any reductions brought about by prevention.

Increases in homelessness applications are mainly from single people wishing to leave the parental home; as a result of friends or family no longer willing to accommodate them or the consequence of relationship breakdown between married or cohabiting couples. While mediation projects might have some influence in stemming the flow or slowing it down a little their main effect was to buy a bit more time or make the transition through homelessness a better managed process by preserving links with family or building alternative support mechanisms.

In this context homelessness is a factor relating to wider trends in society around people leaving home and higher levels of family/relationship breakdown. Homelessness as a result of domestic violence and abuse is also significant but presents limited options as far as prevention is concerned as either perpetrator or victim(s) will have to move out.

What Works?

It is interesting that as the visits to councils proceeded over time, views about prevention became more positive and its potential contribution acknowledged more widely.

Homelessness teams were keen to find out what other councils were doing and to identify what works. They were aware of recent research commissioned by the then Scottish Executive and were looking for guidance to be issued around its findings.

All councils were providing preventative services either directly or through partnership arrangements with the voluntary sector, the most common being Rent Deposit Schemes, Mediation Services and Housing Education Projects through local schools. Most had either developed or were in the process of developing housing advice or housing options guidance as a means of steering potentially homeless people around the homelessness system rather than through it.

Throughout the country as a whole there is a wide range of services, many very innovative in their structures, objectives and approach, targeted at prevention. Those councils which have already developed or are considering "second stage" strategies give a central focus on prevention, sometimes combining that with long-term or sustainable solutions, looking beyond a sole concern with simply responding to homelessness.

Monitoring Prevention.

Most of the councils expressed concerns around monitoring prevention services and how positive outcomes could be evidenced and recorded - how do you demonstrate that something didn't happen as a result of a specific, or set of specific, interventions? There were also fears that certain prevention activities might be interpreted as "gatekeeping", not only on the part of inspectors but also service users themselves.

Establishing a Systematic Approach.

Thinking preventatively calls for a very different approach than simply responding to a situation or set of circumstances and requires the development of a range of different skills on the part of assessment officers. More time needs to be spent with the client and to identify and investigate alternative options which mean cases take longer to close. There is likely to be a greater emphasis on case management, negotiations with other service/support providers, a higher dependence on other agencies to engage and play their part in arriving at solutions which meet the needs of the applicant.

Joint Working.

This gave rise to another widely expressed point that if prevention is to work other services and agencies need to buy-in to this approach and be available and accessible at the point of need. This is an aspect of the wider issues of effective corporate and partnership working. Many Homelessness teams felt that other services within their own councils were not taking enough of a strategic approach in addressing their own management issues.

These included:

• Housing Management services adhering to rigid or traditionally hard-line policies towards rent arrears or anti-social behaviour; lack of enhanced housing management support to potentially vulnerable households; lack of early intervention activity to prevent crisis.
• Social work services providing assistance only at the point of crisis rather than earlier when it might have been averted or in regard to young people leaving care or being looked after being directed down the homelessness route. The case of Looked after Children being routed through homelessness services has already been commented on earlier in this report.
• Criminal justice departments' lack of planning for the accommodation needs of prisoners on liberation.
• The tendency on the part of some services not to deliver on commitments made to provide support to clients once they have been accommodated. This task then falls to homelessness staff who may not have the particular skills or expertise in working with the client groups involved. This could ultimately result in subsequent failure to sustain the tenancy.
• NHS services where access is granted only at the point of crisis.
• RSLs in relation to their own housing management practices and wider landlord functions.

If prevention is to work then all the necessary services need to play their part. It is incumbent on senior officers and councillors to do all they can to encourage this approach.

Expertise.

Prevention calls for different skills from staff and requires specific training. Some councils have established dedicated officers or small teams which incur extra costs or resources, much of which can be recouped through savings if service users can be directed around temporary accommodation or B&B and costs associated with abandoned tenancies etc. can be avoided.

Changing the Culture of Service Delivery.

Prevention represents a substantial change in the culture of service delivery and makes extra demands on staff and the service itself which can take time to settle down and become customary practice. If occurring in isolation in some services it can cause tensions and misunderstandings with others if traditional expectations and assumptions no longer match up across departments etc. Working with users in a preventative approach is very different from working with them in a merely responsive manner and the relationship will be different - implying a more representative, even advocacy, role when trying to get other services to get involved.

Negative Responses.

In certain situations the preventative approach might be misinterpreted, or unwelcome, to the service user who may see it as an attempt to stop them getting what they want and to which they feel they have a "right" - their own council tenancy. This can result in a refusal to engage with other services.

Inspectors too, along with some advocacy groups, can interpret prevention methods as a means deployed by councils to avoid their legal obligations to applicants. In other words prevention can make life more complicated and challenging for staff, requiring extra support and back - up from management.

Prevention can also be more challenging in stock transfer situations where homelessness teams are completely dependent on another agency for access to accommodation, particularly in this case temporary or supported accommodation.

In terms of influencing housing management practices based on earlier intervention or greater tenancy support it is likely to be the case that leverage is greater within a single organisation than between different organisations. This was a view expressed by some homelessness teams in councils whose stock had been transferred. In others it was feared that as homelessness applications increase and the pressure is on to give more houses to homeless people, relationships with the transfer RSL which are presently cordial will be stretched, making negotiations more difficult in the future.

Capacity Issues.

In smaller or rural areas implementing prevention can be more challenging where the numbers of voluntary organisations can be limited or, as in some cases, barely existent. Voluntary agencies play a big role in providing the type of services which can assist in homelessness prevention, such as tenancy or specialist support; mediation and mentoring; independent housing advice or advocacy; rent deposit guarantee schemes; social networking; employability; legal advice/representation etc.

Homelessness teams themselves are likely to be smaller with less scope or resources to engage fully in prevention work while also providing the essential services of assessment and movement out of crisis.

Benefits & Grants.

There is also the need to address existing institutional and bureaucratic obstacles to prevention presented by the Housing Benefits system or regulations. Delays in payments could result in loss of tenancies particularly in the private rented sector. In cases where Housing Benefit overlap payments are not made, people will be moving into new tenancies where rent arrears will have already accrued.

The serious difficulties encountered by many applicants for community care grants coupled with the short periods in which people have to move into their new tenancies has already been referred to. These delays can give rise to considerable distress and have resulted in people abandoning their tenancies.

The "single room rent" for young people up to the age of 25 can also be a serious barrier to providing settled accommodation for this age group. Like other benefits it has its anomalies in that a single person under 25 with a new born baby is not subject to this rule but a single person who is pregnant is.

Section 11.

Section 11 of the Homelessness Etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 is generally seen as a useful prevention tool but there are issues around its interpretation, implementation and administration. It is regretted that there are no effective sanctions against landlords who do not comply with it and that the courts are not obliged to take it into consideration when deciding eviction proceedings.

Other Sectors.

It is increasingly felt that the role of the private sector in preventing homelessness can be further extended. It is already involved in many areas through rent deposit guarantees or private sector leasing schemes.

As already noted, contact between councils and private landlords is now much greater than it was and there are examples of very positive working relationships. This is not the case everywhere and occurs less in rural or island areas where the sector can be very small or virtually non-existent or in circumstances where private landlords have no particular need to look to councils to secure a market for their accommodation.

However it is felt that existing homelessness legislation places too many restrictions on the use of the sector, particularly in regard to discharge of duty and as a viable alternative option for people threatened with homelessness.

It is appreciated that there are issues around security of tenure, particularly the widespread use of short assured tenancies, as well as affordability, but even in the current legislative context there is no reason why the sector cannot be used for certain groups of homeless people who may not themselves be looking exclusively for secure tenancies in the social sector.

The biggest group of homeless applicants are single people aged 25 - 60, not all of whom are particularly vulnerable or require high levels of care. Younger single people are debarred the sector through the single room rent restriction but many amongst this group are highly mobile and not always vulnerable to the extent of not being capable of managing their lives for themselves.

Where required support can be provided to people in the private sector and the fact that it can be may provide some assurance to landlords who would not otherwise consider letting to certain groups of homeless or potentially homeless people.

Many councils are requesting more flexibility in this area or a review of the legislation regarding different rental regimes. Housing benefit regulations, particularly around Housing Benefit caps and local housing allowances should also be reviewed to provide councils with more scope to negotiate with private landlords at the local level.

What are councils looking for?

• Guidance/advice on what works; dissemination/sharing of information. Despite some expressions of doubt regarding the level of the impact it will have in reducing applications it is generally accepted that prevention has a central role in tackling homelessness. There are a wide range of projects and initiatives already in place and homelessness teams are keen to find out what is being done across the country which might assist them in their own areas. There are certain core activities that are generally widespread across a majority of councils, these being rent deposit guarantee schemes; housing options guidance and HomePoint accredited housing advice and information services; Housing/Homelessness Education Projects based largely on SCSH materials; and mediation services.
• Early intervention teams and tenancy support provision are areas of growth along with supported accommodation targeted at specific categories of homeless people. In many areas the role of the voluntary sector is strong in delivering these services under contract arrangements with the council.
• Discharge protocols are in place for people leaving hospitals but making them work effectively is another matter. Outreach work in prisons is also reasonably common but approaches vary across the country, with equally variable results. Dealing with young people previously looked after or leaving care is a particularly sensitive area, with many councils still channelling their young people through the homelessness route to access permanent housing. This raises serious questions around corporate parenting and whether such practice is in the best interests of this particularly vulnerable group.
• Any preventative activity must be based on the thorough understanding of the causes of homelessness in the specific area and must reflect the local context. Therefore it is not simply importing ideas from elsewhere and standing back to wait for the problem to go away - what works in one location might not work in another, for very good reasons. Initiatives may have to be adapted for local characteristics to be accounted for. There is a need for specific guidance around particular projects which takes into consideration that local circumstances and resources vary - what does it take to make prevention work in circumstances where options are more limited?
• Guidance on how best to monitor and evaluate the impact of prevention measures. It can be difficult to establish clear criteria by which to measure the impact of prevention work. In some cases the outcomes may not entirely match the original objectives but produce beneficial results in other ways.

Many councils commissioned mediation services with the aim of cutting the number of applications from young people leaving, or being thrown out of home, following a dispute with parents or guardians. While a degree of reduction in applications has occurred it was just as often the case that the young people left anyway although in a better planned way and maintaining links with their families and the support the latter could offer. By maintaining these links repeat homelessness would better be avoided in the event of a crisis or the young person finding it difficult to cope.

• In regard to Housing/Homelessness Education Projects delivered to school pupils, it is difficult to measure the extent to which this prevents young people leaving home in an unplanned way or enabled them to seek out advice prior to leaving. It is possible that by informing them of their rights under the legislation and the support services available, the programmes may encourage some young people to leave home, albeit better prepared and informed about what they could be getting themselves into.
• However, it tends to be harder to demonstrate the effectiveness of interventions designed to stop things happening rather than make things happen while being able to attribute the result to a specific cause or factor. Each initiative or project needs to find ways by which it can demonstrate it is achieving its objectives and these are written into the contract or Service Level Agreement with the agency or department providing the service. The results can then be passed on to funding bodies to show that strategic progress is being made.
• Getting this right is important for the commissioning process as well, so that the parties involved are clear and in agreement about what it is they are trying to achieve to avoid future disagreement.
• Corporate and Partnership adoption of the preventative principle and practice. It cannot just be the responsibility of homelessness services to apply the principles and practice of prevention. The causes of homelessness are multi-faceted and often very complex. A great deal more can be done to prevent many people getting to the point of homelessness in the first place. The role of other services and agencies is crucial. Reference has already been made to the many examples where Looked After Children ( LAC) are being inappropriately routed through homelessness services despite the existence of a dedicated Pathways planning framework to address their specific accommodation needs.
• Traditionally public services tend to be narrowly responsive in approach. In too many cases assistance is only made available once a preventable crisis point has been reached. All too often people reach a crisis and are then accused of manipulating the situation selfishly for their own ends!
• Homelessness is rarely a situation which just happens without a chain of other events preceding it. There may be a minority who through their own unthinking or reckless actions contribute largely to their own homelessness - assistance has been offered and rejected; criminal or anti - social behaviour knowingly continued - but for the most part it arises from situations over which the principal has lost control and where opportunities for earlier interventions have been missed. This is particularly the case for people with Multiple & Complex Needs, for whom the principles of corporate and partnership working combined with a preventative approach are particularly important.
• Clarify inspection processes relating to prevention. Many councils expressed the concern that what they regard as prevention might be interpreted as "gate-keeping" by inspectors. Examples: mediation in attempts to convince young people to stay in family home; housing options guidance; alerting people to the homelessness process and potentially long stays in temporary accommodation.
• There is a need for clarification from the inspection regime on what constitutes "gate - keeping" and how that can be differentiated from genuine efforts to prevent or avoid homelessness or fully inform people to make them aware of what the homelessness system may imply. In addition it is essential that inspectors appreciate that prevention may take longer to resolve a case and involve more staff resources and the co-ordination of services.
• How best to organise services to maximise prevention. Some councils have invested more in prevention than others by recognising that the prevention role should not simply be an add - on to the assessment function of the homelessness officer. Everyone should be aware of the potential for prevention but it calls for a different approach and possibly more time. As a result it may be necessary for more dedicated staff with a different range of skills. This implies extra resources and staff training, some of the costs of which might be met by savings from prevention itself. It also implies a shift in focus away from more customary practices and staff need support in making this transition.

Prevention Of Homelessness

Actions currently underway.

The Scottish Government is in the process of implementing Section 11 with appropriate guidance.

The guidance by CRISIS on how best to establish and promote Rent Deposit Guarantee schemes and Mediation Services has been published. COSLA & ALACHO should work with CRISIS to disseminate the guidance and encourage councils and their partners to use it.

Suggested Actions in recommended order of priority

17. Given the vital role prevention will play in meeting the 2012 target ALACHO, Society of Local Authority Chief Executives ( SOLACE), COSLA and CiH must encourage councils to develop a greater corporate approach to prevention through introduction of procedures such as prevention screening of all policies and practice.

18. Given the importance early intervention has in preventing homelessness it is essential that the Scottish Government, NHS Scotland and Community Health Partnerships ensure people are able to access services they need in order to avoid the types of crises which can result in more acute health and homelessness issues.

19. With regard to councils' corporate parenting role the Scottish Government, the Association of Directors of Social Work in Scotland ( ADSWs) along with the Throughcare & Aftercare Forum should review practice regarding the current questionable use of homelessness services by Throughcare & Aftercare for resettlement of Looked After Children ( LAC). The review should have particular regard to current emphasis on what makes for responsible corporate parenting and the 'We can and must do better' agenda within the Scottish Government.

20 SHBVN and CiH should develop guidance and training on prevention on the basis of the Hal Pawson research and the 'Prevention Tool-Kit' already developed for ODPM.

21. The Scottish Government and SHBVN should have regard to specific guidance on prevention in rural/island settings where options may be more limited than elsewhere.

22. The Scottish Government's Schools Directorate, Council Education Departments, SCSH and Learning Teaching Scotland should promote and
co-ordinate schools based housing and homelessness education programmes.

23. The Scottish Government, SSN and SHBVN should actively promote the Scottish Social Networks Tool-Kit launched in November 2007.

« Previous | Contents | Next »