Scottish Government

	Research Findings No.198/2005
Development Department Research Programme

Valerie Strachan, Laurie Naumann, Chris Adams and Jane Elrick
Tribal HCH

This document is also available in pdf format (108k)

Main Findings

Introduction

Under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 local authorities have the power to refer households, with some exceptions, that are assessed as unintentionally homeless and in priority need to another local authority for housing, if the household has a local connection with that authority and none with the authority to which it had applied. The Homelessness Task Force (HTF) considered that most homeless people apply to their local council, and that the others tend to have a good reason for applying elsewhere. The HTF felt that people should, therefore, have the option to apply to the authority of their choice.

The Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 addresses the HTF's recommendations by giving Scottish Ministers the power to modify current local connection provisions. There is a wide range of ways in which the power could be implemented. For example, Ministers could suspend the local connection provisions altogether, stopping local authorities from referring homeless households to other authorities; they could stop specific local authorities making local connection referrals; or they could stop authorities referring households to specified authorities.

The change in the local connection provision does not take place automatically. Before taking up this power, Ministers are required to make a full statement on the circumstances under which the power will be used and the criteria which will apply.

Level of referrals

The number of referrals to other authorities is very small - accounting for 1.3% of those assessed as unintentionally homeless and in priority need in 2002/3 (c. 260 households). This rate of referrals has remained relatively steady over time.

The incidence of referrals varies between local authorities. In 2002/03, for instance, it ranged between 4.6% in East Lothian and 3% in East Renfrewshire, to no referrals at all in five authorities. Almost 60% of all referrals (154 out of the c. 260 cases) are accounted for by only three authorities, Glasgow, Edinburgh and South Lanarkshire. Aside from these three authorities only two authorities referred more than 10 individual cases during 2002/03.

Not all authorities maintain a record of the authority to which the household was referred. Of those that do, most commonly households are being referred to neighbouring authorities.

Current practice

The low level of referrals to other authorities may be expected. Seventeen of the 26 authorities responding to our survey noted that they do not have written policies on local connection, although all cited either the Code of Guidance criteria for assessing local connection or listed the criteria, when asked how they assessed households for local connection.

The case study interviews revealed that the local connection test appears to be a fairly unimportant part of the homeless assessment. Most authorities indicated that they do apply the test, but all of these noted that they found themselves referring people fairly infrequently. This was particularly the case if a suitable property was available for the household.

Some authorities noted that it was fairly straightforward for someone to secure a local connection in the local area, usually by getting a job.

Impact of change

An estimate of how the number of no-local-connection cases would change over the period to 2012 was made. This was based on the current number of referrals, so assumes that current practice would continue through time. Assuming that homelessness remains a fairly steady proportion of households (as it has in the past) and assuming that the target to abolish the priority need distinction is achieved by 2012, then the number of referrals would increase by about 52% by 2012 to c.400, an overall increase in the number of referrals of 140.

However, this assumes that current patterns of migration remain the same, and that is something we have no way of assessing: partly because we cannot estimate how migration might change, and partly because we have no way of estimating whether households would have/be able to establish a local connection in the area they have moved in to.

Options for modification of the provisions

Views on how the current provisions could be modified were extremely straightforward and consistent.

While the local connection provision is used rarely in most authorities, there is the possibility that applications could increase substantially in a small number of authorities as a result of the change in the legislation. Reallocation of resources would obviously be useful in providing services and staffing, to help address this increase. However, if the supply of housing was simply not there to meet demand, and as a result the council was failing in its duty to homeless households and other households in housing need, then there would be a need to reconsider the provision.

We would suggest that the most appropriate mechanism for reviewing the need for reversal would be on a case-by-case basis. The case would need to demonstrate: an increased level of homeless acceptances; evidence that this is a persistent situation; and evidence that the level of no-local-connection cases is prejudicing the authority's capacity to fulfil its homeless duty and its duty to house people in housing need.

Monitoring

The study remit anticipated that a baseline, against which future levels of homelessness and no-local-connection cases could be compared, would be developed as part of this study. However, it has not proved possible to construct a baseline with the data that are available because: not all authorities apply the test; only priority need homeless are covered by the test; and the referral figures also include those households referred voluntarily to other authorities.

However, a formal baseline may not be necessary. Authorities wishing to make a case for reversal will need to be in a position to demonstrate that overall applications are increasing at an unsustainable rate, or a rate which is well above the national trend. They will then need to demonstrate that this rise is due at least in part to the presence of applicants who have a local connection elsewhere but not with them. Further detailed monitoring may also be useful depending on the modifications in place, and options for reversal (e.g. it may be demonstrated that most of these applicants potentially have a local connection in a neighbouring authority).

Some additional fields may be required in the HL1 to enable recording of the data required to build a case for reversal or resource reallocation. This data collection may be onerous for those authorities for whom local connection is not a problem. We therefore suggest that an alternative would be to make the collection of monitoring data optional.

About the research

The research was conducted during 2004 by Tribal HCH. The study was undertaken to inform the criteria that would be used when exercising the local connection power, and to inform the approach to monitoring the practical operation and effects of any changes made to the local connection provisions. The study had four broad objectives: to establish a baseline against which the effects of any future changes to the local connection provision can be assessed; to identify options for possible changes to the provisions; to establish criteria to guide the exercising of the power to change the provisions; and to establish the methodology by which any changes can be monitored effectively.

The study was carried out in conjunction with another piece of work to inform the implementation of the 2003 Act - this considered the expansion, and ultimate abolition, of the priority need distinction.

The study drew on a mix of data collection methods. The qualitative component comprised: interviews with six key stakeholders identified by the Research Advisory Group; a discussion with the Scottish Housing Best Value Network Homelessness Sub-group; a stakeholder workshop; and eight case studies, which involved interviews with local authority officers and stakeholders from local housing organisations. The quantitative work comprised: a postal survey of local authorities (26 of the 32 councils responded) and analysis of secondary data sets including the HL1 data, the Census and the RSI data.

ISBN 0-7559-3890-9