|
|
|
|
8.1 The recorded reason for loss/threatened loss of accommodation is the immediate rather than the underlying reason for homelessness. Thus, it is known that a number of applicants who originally became homeless for other reasons, e.g. marital breakdown, may record "friends or relatives no longer willing/able to accommodate" as the reason for loss of their most recent accommodation.
8.2 Thirty two per cent of applicants assessed as homeless or potentially homeless and in priority need gave the reason that relatives or friends were no longer willing or able to accommodate the applicant. A further 35 per cent gave a dispute with spouse/cohabitee as the reason - violence has been involved in the majority of these cases over the past ten years. The most common named reason among the remaining third of priority applicants in 1997-98 was landlord action other than court orders (8 per cent). (Table 14(a))
8.3 The pattern of reasons for loss/threatened loss of accommodation was slightly different among those who were homeless or potentially homeless but not in priority need. They were more likely to give as a reason that friends or relatives were no longer willing or able to accommodate them (46 per cent). They were less likely to have had a dispute, particularly involving violence, with a spouse or cohabitee. Twelve per cent of this group were threatened with loss of accommodation because of the loss or threatened loss of a hostel or lodging house place. (Table 14(b))
8.4 Applicants assessed as neither homeless nor potentially homeless, or with whom contact was lost, had a similar profile of reasons to the priority homeless or potentially homeless, apart from being less likely to cite a violent dispute with their spouse or partner. (Table 14c))
8.5 Overall 37 per cent of all applicants reported that friends or relatives were no longer willing or able to accommodate them as being the reason for loss or threatened loss of accommodation. In most (27 out of the 32) local authorities this reason was given by more than 30 per cent of applicants. Midlothian reported the highest proportion of cases (51 per cent) giving this reason. Overall 24 per cent of all applicants stated that a dispute (violent and non violent) with spouse or cohabitee was the reason for homelessness. Amongst the authorities the percentage varied in the main between 20 and 35 per cent. Three authorities indicated that this was the reason given by less than 20 per cent of their applicants; South Ayrshire (19), Eilean Siar (18) and Falkirk (9). Four authorities indicated that this was the reason given more than 35 per cent of their applicants; Clackmannanshire (37), West Dunbartonshire (39), Renfrewshire (40) and East Dunbartonshire (41). Although action by landlord accounted for 7 per cent of reasons overall, it was very frequently mentioned in some rural areas, accounting for 27 per cent in Moray, 20 per cent in Orkney, 19 per cent in Perth & Kinross and 18 per cent in Eilean Siar. (Table 15)
8.6 In comparing local authorities, it is important to bear in mind that for those authorities where the number of applicants is small, the characteristics of single applicant household can have a very large impact on the percentages in the table.
9.1 Sixty per cent of all applicant households consisted of a single person. The figure was as much as 77 per cent in Glasgow City, whilst in Perth & Kinross and Highland it was much lower (26 per cent and 35 per cent respectively). Around half of all single person households were aged between 25 and retirement age, and 20 authorities reported that at least 10 per cent of all applicants were single persons aged under 18. Single parent households accounted for 28 per cent of all applications, ranging from 17 per cent in Glasgow City and 19 per cent in South Ayrshire to 45 per cent in Renfrewshire and Perth and Kinross, and 51 per cent in West Dunbartonshire. Applicant households consisting of couples with or without children account for 11 per cent of the Scottish total. Perth & Kinross (26 per cent), Highland (22 per cent) and Argyll and Bute (22 per cent) are well above the Scottish average whilst Glasgow City and Inverclyde (5 per cent and 4 per cent respectively) are well below the Scottish average. (Table 16)
Assessment by Household Type
9.2 Table 14(a) shows that in 1997-98 just under half (46 per cent) of the households assessed as homeless or potentially homeless and in priority need were single parent households. Couples with children accounted for a further 11 per cent and single person household accounted for a further 37 per cent. The number of single people aged under 18 assessed as homeless or potentially homeless and in priority need increased by 5 per cent from 1,900 in1996-97 to 2,000 in 1997-98. The majority (93 per cent) of households assessed as homeless or potentially homeless but not in priority need are single person households.
9.3 Lone parent applicants were most likely to be assessed as unintentionally homeless and in priority need (Table 18). Thirty nine per cent of single person households aged under 18 were deemed to be unintentionally homeless and in priority need, confirming that many local authorities consider this group to be vulnerable on the grounds of age. Single person households aged from 18 to retirement age were the most likely to be classed as non priority homeless.
Reasons by Household Type
9.4 The reasons given by applicant households in priority need (Table 19) for becoming homeless vary quite markedly by age and composition of the household. A large proportion of single people aged under 18 (80 per cent) were homeless or potentially homeless because friends or relatives were unwilling or unable to accommodate them. Thirty eight per cent of single parent households where the parent was aged under 25 also gave this reason, in contrast to older single parent households where the main reason (57 per cent of applicants) was a dispute with a spouse or cohabitee. Mortgage default (11 per cent) and landlord action (19 per cent) featured as important reasons for homelessness or threatened homelessness among couples with children. Nine per cent of single person households aged 25 to retirement age were homeless or potentially homeless because of discharge from an institution, the highest percentage of any group.
Action by household type
9.5 Among, those 1997-98 applicant households in priority need (Table 20), 68 per cent had permanent accommodation secured in 1997-98. In most cases, this was a secure public authority or assured housing association tenancy. Seventy three per cent of single parent households had permanent accommodation secured although this was as low as 16 per cent in Midlothian and 21 per cent in West Lothian, and as high as 98 per cent in Eilean Siar and 97 per cent in Moray (Table 21). The probability of securing a public authority or housing association tenancy ranged from 51 per cent to 64 per cent for all household types except for single person households aged under 18, for whom only 41 per cent were offered such a tenancy. This group was also the most likely to have short stay accommodation, with mainly hostel accommodation (12 per cent) secured. (Table 20)
|
|
|