The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FOUR: HOUSING AND WIDER FORMS OF HOUSING SUPPORT

General

Homelessness isn't just a housing problem nor just about housing supply - important as that is! For many people it is just about getting a house and getting on with their lives, perhaps with some transitional support or assistance in moving into a first time tenancy and settling into a new neighbourhood. These will not be households with high (or even medium) support needs but who are homeless only because certain options - such as ownership - are closed to them. They are more likely to be couples or couples with children and older single people, some of whom will be moving on from broken relationships/marriages. Good housing management practices or a degree of enhanced housing management services will be sufficient for their needs.

However a substantial number of homeless people, as already noted, do present with other issues which also have to be addressed and call for further resources and the involvement of a wide range of other services and agencies if these are to be resolved.

A number of authorities have noted an increase in applications from households who will require additional support. All councils are faced with a minority of applicants with multiple and complex needs who present particular challenges in terms of their behaviour and erratic lifestyles and for whom an independent secure tenancy may not be the most appropriate option at this stage in their lives. In these more severe cases, homelessness is just one of a range of symptoms of deeper rooted factors which will need to be addressed first if stability in their lives is to be re-established.

Rooflessness would obviously have to be addressed but following from that some type of emergency or supported accommodation, linked into whatever type of support or services required, might be the medium to longer term solution to the more immediate issues.

In between those with no, or low, support needs and those with high dependency are households with a range of housing support needs which may have to be provided with care delivered by more specialist services at home - elderly people; ex-institutionalised; younger/vulnerable age groups; disabled people; learning disabled; minor mental health needs.

Meeting both the housing/accommodation and support needs of homeless people, plus access to essential, specific services such as mental health or drug/alcohol rehabilitation programmes, requires high level corporate and partnership working across agencies and different sectors as well as a variety of strategic approaches including early intervention and prevention.

These can be difficult to co-ordinate and when working with the voluntary sector require commissioning procedures and the development of monitoring systems which allow progress to be measured and demonstrated.

Services and projects need to be planned for and, often, piloted in advance with funding from a variety of sources or streams applied for, often in competitive bids. Staff need to be recruited and time spent getting the service promoted and established within the community.

Issues:

• Funding.
• Effective corporate and partnership working.
• Multiple and complex needs.
• Community hostility.
• Interim Accommodation guidance.
• Monitoring Outputs.

Funding.

There are widespread concerns concerning the level and security of funding, particularly Supporting People, for projects or services providing medium to long term housing support. Many councils have already experienced reductions in their Supporting People allocations from the Scottish Government and were having to consider cutting back their services.

It can be difficult for some homelessness services to secure what they regard as their proportionate share of Supporting People, which is often managed through social work and tends to be directed towards elderly or disabled tenants requiring this type of support rather than homeless people. As more people come through homelessness to be housed there is a concern that there will not be enough funding and other resources to go round to provide the level and range of housing support which ex-homeless people will need to sustain their tenancies.

There is also frustration with the current short-term nature of most funding streams. Many projects involve seeking funding from a number of sources which amount to quite complex packages, each bit of which has to be separately applied for and negotiated. More often than not councils will not know how successful they have been until very late into the process and then have to meet tight deadlines to get the project or service organised and up and running.

Staffing can be difficult as jobs cannot be guaranteed beyond three years, while continuation of funding will not be known until well into the third year by which time key staff, trained and developed by the project, may well have moved on.

A number of schemes had been set up as pilots which provided an important service and established a strong local client base but had to be abandoned when the money ran out, often leaving service-users high and dry.

Three years is not sufficient time to set up a service, get it established, known and running effectively. The first year alone is likely to be taken up by recruitment of staff, establishing procedures and promoting its service amongst potential users and referral agencies. Mediation services; rent deposit schemes; outreach projects take a while to "bed-in" and build the links they need with other service providers. It can be that the benefits which the service provides will not be clear or at their most obvious until well into its second or even third year of operations.

Corporate & Partnership Working

Addressing the broader needs of homeless people requires a well co-ordinated and effective framework of corporate and partnership working. Corporate refers to systems which promote efficient joint working across services within the council, while partnership refers to parallel arrangements between the council and external stakeholder and partnership agencies such as the Health and Voluntary sectors.

The effectiveness of corporate working is patchy and varies considerably across the country.

The term implies a structure which reflects shared priorities, objectives and outcomes with clarity about what resources each party will bring to the process to achieve these. Formal protocols and referral systems; agreed procedures; communication strategies; casework models and access to services all play a part in making joint working across services and agencies a success - and where these are in place the results tend to be better than where arrangements are more ad-hoc or informal.

Many homelessness teams expressed frustration about other services which attend strategy meetings and endorsed decisions etc but when actual demands were made they may not deliver all or part of what was required.

Particular examples arose relating to social work and health mainly around the issue of what was agreed at the strategic level didn't always translate into fact operationally. A couple of the main points of contention here are being able to access services at the point they are needed - particularly important for people with erratic lifestyles for whom it can be difficult to sustain contact with services or support - and failing to keep commitments to provide more specialist support once a client has been accommodated. As already mentioned there is also an issue around the extent to which corporate partners buy-in to the principle of prevention.

Housing management sections could also be problematic in terms of their operational management practices. These in some cases lack a strategic approach to rent arrears or anti-social behaviour or for not being more pro-active in identifying and supporting potentially vulnerable tenancies. Very often different policies were at odds with each other expressed by contradictory targets in dealing with rent arrears or taking a "robust" stand against "problem" tenants. Attitudes towards homeless people could be more negative than they should be as expressed through allocations officers unwilling to let houses to homeless people. This tended to be stronger in decentralised area offices than where the allocations function was centralised. In allocations too, insufficient time is allowed for people who have nothing in the way of furniture or adequate resources to gather all they need to move into a house and take on the responsibility of a tenancy.

Partnership working with the voluntary sector is not without its tensions and frustrations, but in many cases seemed easier than working with corporate partners. In most cases there were contracts or Service Level Agreements which formally stated mutual obligations and expectations between the parties concerned. The extent to which these were monitored did vary however.

The degree to which voluntary sector agencies were consulted on the strategy or were involved in the strategic process and able to influence it also varied. A contractual arrangement is not a partnership. There were instances where it might be claimed a particular voluntary agency, because it enjoyed a near monopoly of provision - allied with some political clout - could wield a disproportionate influence. The voluntary sector "tail" wagging the council "dog". In other areas there was a general shortage of voluntary agencies to take on the kind of role they played elsewhere, leaving the council to find the resources from within their own staff who might not have the specialist experience or knowledge best suited to the needs they were looking to address.

A strong feature of the voluntary sector is the diversity of approach or ethos it can offer. The very fact of not being seen to be the council makes the sector more attractive to certain sections of service users. It can offer greater flexibility and choice, a difference in perspective and general approach to issues. This was something which most councils working with the sector appreciated and there are many very good examples of joint working which are making a positive impact on the outcomes for homeless people.

MULTIPLE & COMPLEX NEEDS ( MCN)

This is an increasing area of activity for homelessness teams. People with complex needs present with a mix of associated problems any one of which on its own would be difficult enough to cope with let alone all together. They include: poverty, mental illness; drug and/or alcohol dependency or abuse; personality disorder; history of criminal behaviour; low skills; low educational achievement; broken relationships; traumatic events; loss of a loved one or carer.

At this level of homelessness, virtually all will have had previous contact with one or more of social and/or health services; criminal justice system; institutional care etc, which at some stage has broken down or been interrupted.

The point was made that people with multiple and complex needs can be the most challenging to work with and take up a disproportionate time on the part of homelessness staff who will not have the most appropriate skills to deal with them. It can be very difficult however to get the other services to engage and it is suggested that the all encompassing nature of homelessness and its "never ending" duty is taken advantage of by some services.

Many cases fall between different services, never quite matching all the designated criteria so that they are continually passed around. People diagnosed with 'personality disorder' -not considered a mental illness - are particularly prone to this kind of treatment, yet can be a particularly vulnerable group with no one accepting a responsibility for them.

Professions and associated services still largely operate within highly demarcated bunkers designed around their own administrative or bureaucratic convenience rather than coming together in a way that meets the needs of the people they are meant to be helping. For too many people, homelessness can be the direct result of the breakdown or weak joint working arrangements on the part of other services.

Without adopting an approach based on prevention, or early intervention and the commitment from other required services, people will continue to plunge through the "safety nets" designed to catch them. Prevention is important here as it implies planned and coordinated transitions through and across services.

The more persistent cases will be people who are often excluded from services and frequently evicted from accommodation because of their behaviour. They will test to the limits any new service or management regime they come across. They are generally people damaged in their past and see the prospect for things to get any better as highly unlikely. As a result many will be difficult to engage with or find it difficult to sustain contact with essential services. In many cases the way services are organised or fail to link up, or the range of criteria which have to be met to provide access, makes them difficult to reach by the very people who need them most.

Accommodation will be required but it is important that it meets the immediate to mid-term needs of the user. Getting the assessment right at each stage is crucial. It should be established which service takes the lead in case management on the understanding that this role might be taken by another as progress is made. It is also a question of resources and access to the appropriate services at the point of need. These are all matters which cannot just be determined by homelessness teams. If the solution at a particular stage is supported accommodation, including hostels, when is duty discharged?

The circumstances MCN cases find themselves in may be a consequence of homelessness but it is just as likely that homelessness arose as a result of one or more of the other factors. What are the issues which need to be addressed first? There is no point in giving someone a tenancy if they are in no position to take on that responsibility or it is not what they are looking for at that time. The other principal agencies which need to be involved are Health; Social Work and Criminal Justice while much of the support will be provided by voluntary organisations, including outreach services.

The role of other housing providers is also very important. Many RSLs have progressive policies relating to tenancy support, the management of arrears and responses to neighbour disputes, but these can be at odds with Housing Management targets on rent arrears levels and other service standards which conflict with more strategic approaches.

Housing Departments too need to regularly review their own practice in these areas and to include lettings procedures which identify potentially vulnerable tenants and build in procedures to assist settling in, ensure access to benefits and advice where to seek assistance when required.

In many areas, particularly rural areas and islands, there will be no specialist services available locally, requiring people to be sent elsewhere for the treatments they need. Accessing these services can be very difficult, with long waiting lists etc, with clients themselves failing to keep appointments or maintain contact as a result of inadequate supervision.

The provision of services for this group can be expensive and in many areas the numbers do not make a local project viable. There is a need for neighbouring authorities to consider how they might work together to address their joint needs. This will be particularly useful where NHS Board boundaries cover more than one council area.

Community hostility towards homeless projects.

There is generally a great shortage of specialist supported accommodation and hostel provision. This is particularly the case in smaller, rural and island councils and is often accompanied by a shortage of agencies or people with the skills to manage them and provide staff.

Where such accommodation is best located is another issue. Ideally location should, as far as possible reflect the needs of the particular client group in terms of proximity to social networks, vital services, sources of support and transport links. Life is made more difficult if accommodation for drug abusers is remote from the acute health or detox services they need or young people are situated far from the kind of social activities they look for.

In most cases councils have to work with what is there in terms of buildings which can be upgraded or adapted for new use. Alternatively there is new build. In doing so planning regulations have to be accommodated and local opinion taken into consideration.

As already noted projects of this sort are likely to run into community opposition, sometimes supported by the local councillor, MP or MSP. In overcoming these, myths and misconceptions about the proposed client group need to be challenged and genuine concerns addressed.

In the main these attitudes derive from negative and stereotypical views towards homeless people and a lack of knowledge or understanding about the causes and nature of homelessness - most of all its local character.

Interim Accommodation.

There is some confusion around the terminology "interim accommodation" and "Section 7 Accommodation" and regulations pertaining to the latter. The Code of Guidance states that interim accommodation is provided on the basis that the applicant or someone in household is in need of support which cannot otherwise be "reasonably" provided in permanent accommodation. There are a number of other conditions, including a regular review of whether it is still appropriate to the needs of the occupier. Legally interim accommodation does constitute a discharge of duty but there is confusion around this and different interpretations of the law.

There is also clarity required regarding Section 7, which some interpret as a form of yet undefined accommodation for households deemed intentionally homeless, where in fact it relates to regulations governing people staying in hostel accommodation.

There is a lot of speculation on what form of accommodation will be devised for intentionally homeless people, how it will be managed and terms and condition of occupancy.

Monitoring Progress.

Working across a range of services and agencies requires the development of commissioning procedures and monitoring arrangements that are "fit for purpose". In the context of Best Value, councils need to ensure that the right agencies, with the appropriate skills are selected for the job and from there demonstrate that strategic objectives are being achieved.

As progress is made the focus of the strategy will shift and services will have to be re-aligned in accordance with the new aims with new agencies brought in to do the work. Those agencies will be expected to either have systems of their own by which they can evidence they are achieving what is expected of them or, increasingly, buy into such systems run by councils themselves. Time and effort must be spent in pulling statistics together, compiling quantitative and qualitative information against set targets or outcomes. Increasingly agencies will be expected to demonstrate their ability and capacity to produce such information as part of the commissioning process prior to winning the contract.

This is fundamentally changing the nature of the relationship between councils and the voluntary sector, requiring much more structured and formalised arrangements and systems than previously existed, subjected to much higher levels of scrutiny. Adjusting to this 'new contract culture' is a painful process for both sides. For councils in terms of staff learning new skills, the development of new systems for tendering and commissioning contracts and much more detailed and stringent monitoring frameworks. For agencies within the voluntary sector, many small scale and local, who may not have the resources or staff to put into this type of work and will have to account for it when applying for funding, there is a real fear that they will lose out to larger, national organisations with greater capacity to meet these new contractual terms.

What are councils looking for?

• Level and Security on Funding: Councils and partners need to know the funding will be there to continue or develop vital services, particularly around supporting and sustaining tenancies in the long term. There was a general concern that removing ring-fencing around specific areas of funding would result in that money being allocated to other competing council priorities. In some areas it is already difficult for Homeless teams to secure a "fair" share of Supporting People funding.
• Longer term funding: There is a plea that funding be granted over a more realistic time-span to allow projects to be properly established and up and running as well as provide adequate security of employment to staff. The current 3 year period does not do this, with key staff often moving on by the third year as they don't know whether they will have a job or not the year after.
• Corporate & partnership working: Given the broad based nature of homelessness joint working across a range of services, agencies and sectors is vital. In the corporate sphere, other key services beyond homelessness must be genuine in terms of their commitments to agreed priorities and the allocation of resources. There is also the need for a corporate commitment to prevention. One approach is to 'prevention proof' all appropriate policy and procedures in considering the needs of excluded and vulnerable groups.
• Multiple & complex needs: No other issue demonstrates the importance of prevention and effective joint and collaborative working than attempting to meet the needs of people whose problems are both multiple and complex. Homeless teams are expecting that other relevant services acknowledge their responsibilities to this group and commit the necessary resources.
• There is also the need for wider services to adopt a more preventative approach to avoid people falling into crisis before their requests for assistance are listened to.
• More consideration should be given to what are the best accommodation options for people with long term support needs. For many the immediate solution to their situation might not be an independent, secure tenancy. For some that may never be a realistic option. A range of accommodation and tenancy models, including hostels and other shared forms of housing, needs to be in place with the support services geared to the needs of the occupants.
• There is a need to share information and current good practice in tackling the needs of this group. Examples include Glasgow in terms of hostel reprovisioning, Edinburgh in terms of joint working across social and medical needs and models of accommodation e.g. The Access Point; Cowgate Medical Centre; Thorntree Street (Secure tenancies for ex hostel dwellers and rough sleepers).
• People in this category require access to services at the point of need otherwise contact can be lost and support plans interrupted. Erratic or chaotic lifestyles can make continuity of engagement with services difficult. There is a need for specific local strategies to address MCN involving all appropriate agencies.
• Currently there are no clear demarcation points to indicate where the responsibilities of various services begin or end or indicate who takes the lead in co-ordinating continuing joint working through case-management - or at least that is the perception.
• Virtually all those at the sharp end of homelessness - regular rough sleepers; most likely to be excluded from services or most regularly evicted from accommodation - are people with multiple and complex needs. They will always be the most challenging to work with and the most difficult for whom to find sustainable solutions. There is a need for guidance and direction to all agencies in how best to work together to achieve that objective.
• Supported Accommodation/Specialist Support: In the context of an overall shortage of supply where permanent housing has to be accounted for plus the provision of temporary accommodation for "mainstream" homeless applicants, there is little left over to provide more dedicated or specialist supported accommodation for more vulnerable groups and those with higher level support needs.
• Homelessness teams are looking for guidance in how best to address these issues but also need their political leadership to provide support. If there are valid and relevant reasons against a development these obviously have to be considered, but in many cases the views of the political representatives appear to be based on short term electoral considerations or the same level of misconceptions or lack of awareness within the community at large. More needs to be done to better inform people at all levels about the realities of homelessness and its local causes and consequences.
• There is a strong view that the Scottish Government should do more to talk up the progressive aspect of its legislation and policies on homelessness which is widely acclaimed elsewhere. It was felt local councils could do more to promote positive attitudes to homelessness and challenge the misconceptions about homeless people.
• The provision of specific supported accommodation and specialist support is particularly difficult for island authorities where capacity to build can be more limited and costs considerably higher. The small numbers involved may make projects of this nature unviable. In many cases people have to be sent to the mainland to get the kind of service they need. Such councils will require greater resources if they are expected to provide for these cases locally.
• Interim Accommodation and Section 7 regulations: Clarity and guidance on what these are. Councils are aware of the regulations regarding standards and residents rights from previous consultation of three years ago but have heard nothing since. They are also looking for more information on what
  form and type of accommodation needs to be planned for against the
  needs of households deemed intentionally homeless when new legislation is implemented.

Housing and Wider forms of Housing support

Actions currently underway

The Scottish Government are considering amending the Interim Accommodation regulations to give councils greater flexibility and are also in the process of following up on previous consultations on Section 7 regulations and implementation.

Suggested Actions in recommended order of priority

24. ALACHO, COSLA and SOLACE should ensure that councillors and senior officers promote effective corporate working across services more rigorously.

25. ALACHO, SOLACE and COSLA should ensure that there are clear criteria by which corporate working can be evaluated in terms of actual services and resources provided by separate agencies and services within the agreed strategic framework.

26. COSLA, the Scottish Government and NHS Scotland should ensure that councils have clear guidance on how councils co-ordinate effective responses to people with multiple and complex needs. A Single Outcome Agreement ( SOA) (see page 6) sets out the outcomes which each council is seeking to achieve with its Community Planning Partnership ( CPP) e.g. NHS. An SOA should reflect local needs, circumstances and priorities, and will be related to the relevant national outcomes agreed in the Concordat. SOAs should assist in harnessing corporate leadership and multi-agency working.

27. COSLA and its member councils along with SCSH and Shelter should take positive measures to address negative attitudes throughout communities towards the provision of specialist or supported accommodation for homeless people. To assist with this the Scottish Government, with support from ALACHO and COSLA, should be more pro-active in promoting and publicising the internationally acclaimed legislation and national policy on homelessness.

28. COSLA, the Scottish Government and Shelter should issue guidance/advice to councils on how to address local antagonism and opposition to homelessness projects and facilities.

29. Councils need to adequately reflect the resource needs of the homelessness service when apportioning Supporting People and other funding across councils services to meet 2012. The Concordat between the Scottish Government and COSLA (see page 6) underpins the funding arrangements to be provided to local government over the period 2008-09 to 2010-2011. The removal of ring fencing provides a new framework for councils to determine the allocation of their resources to best meet the needs of homeless people while also addressing the issues previously relating to short-term funding and pilot schemes.

Action 17 [relating to corporate prevention work] under Prevention of Homelessness addresses Support issues also.

« Previous | Contents | Next »