|
|
|
|
5.1 For each case return, authorities note the year and month in which the application is made and the month in which it was concluded. An application is concluded when either permanent or short stay accommodation has been secured for the applicant, or when the authority determines that no action is necessary under the Act. (The Annex gives more detail.) The time taken by local authorities to complete a case is closely related to the type of action taken. Where local authority or other public sector accommodation is secured on a permanent basis, this tends to take longer than other actions. Thus local authorities take longer on average to complete action on the priority homeless or potentially homeless cases, where a secure tenancy is a likely outcome.
5.2 Sixty four per cent of those assessed as priority homeless or potentially homeless had their applications completed either in the month of application or in the following month, compared to 95 per cent of non-priority applicants (with no accommodation eventually being secured for over half of the latter). (Table 9) There were, however, marked differences between authorities in the time taken to complete applications. In the majority of authorities over half of all applications were completed within the same or the following month with Midlothian recording all applications as complete within the first month. All authorities had completed more than half of their applications within 3 months, and the majority had completed at least 70 per cent within 3 months. (Table 10) It should be noted that some local authorities record an application as completed once short stay accommodation is secured, even if the authority intends to offer permanent accommodation at a later date. To that extent, the use of permanent accommodation and the time taken to complete may be understated.
5.3 As noted above, it generally takes longer for authorities to secure accommodation in public sector housing than to conclude applications where it has been possible to assist the households to retain their own accommodation or return to previous accommodation. Table 11 shows that for 86 per cent of priority households returning to their current or previous accommodation, their application was completed either in the month of application or the following month, compared to 57 per cent where permanent accommodation in a local authority dwelling was secured. Only three areas recorded a wait of at least 4 months for more than half of those applications where a local authority dwelling was finally secured. East Lothian (60 per cent), Orkney (67 per cent) and Shetland (76 per cent). The two latter authorities dealt with a very small number of cases.
6.1 Local authorities may arrange for households to stay in temporary accommodation while the household is being assessed and accommodation sought for them, and also, in some cases, temporary accommodation is arranged following such an assessment. Local authorities provide, each quarter, an estimate of the number of applicant households in temporary accommodation at the end of the quarter. Table 12 summarises the position at the end of March each year. This differs from the presentation in tables 6, 7, 8, 9 ,19 and 21 which show the number secured temporary (short stay) accommodation at any time during the year, and exclude those who also had permanent accommodation secured. Table 12 is the only table which includes figures on households in temporary accommodation pending enquiries under the legislation.
6.2 The number of households in temporary accommodation at the end of March each year increased between 1988 and 1995 from 1,629 to 4,364, then decreased in 1996, 1997 and again in 1998 (4,020). The increase in the number of households in hostel accommodation is accounted for by Glasgow, which since 1990-91 has treated most households living in hostels as homeless, with the result that from 1991 they have been included in Glasgow’s homeless and in temporary accommodation figures.
6.3 The number of households in bed and breakfast accommodation at 31 March 1998 stood at 476, an increase of 14 per cent from the 1997 figure of 418 and 184 below the peak figure of 660 in 1993.
7.1 Of those homeless or potentially homeless households assessed as in priority need 55 per cent were assessed as in priority need because the household had dependent children (Table 13(a)). This proportion peaked in 1989-90 when it was 69 per cent. The largest percentage increases have been recorded in some of the smaller groups. In particular, those vulnerable for "other special reasons" have gone from representing 9 per cent of the total in 1987-88 to 23 per cent in 1997-98.
7.2 A small number of households in each year are assessed as non-priority despite falling into one of the priority need categories (Table 13(b)). The reason for this apparent discrepancy is not known.
7.3 In 1997-98, 23 per cent of those assessed as neither homeless nor potentially homeless, or with whom contact was lost, were not in any priority need category (Table 13(c)).
|
|
|