Scottish Government

CHAPTER THREE - NATIONAL STATISTICAL EVIDENCE

Chapter scope

3.1 Partly to set our original research findings in context, this chapter looks at the national database of homelessness statistics. The main aims are to examine recent trends in (a) the recorded incidence of homelessness, and (b) local authority action to assist people claiming homelessness. In addressing these issues the chapter is mainly based on analysis of Scottish Executive monitoring data (both published and unpublished). It also draws on findings from the national survey of local authority homelessness staff. There is a particular emphasis on the extent to which local authorities arrange private sector tenancies as a means of preventing or otherwise addressing homelessness. This is partly because Rent Deposit Guarantee ( RDG) schemes are one of the most widely operated forms of homelessness prevention according to testimony (see Chapters 2 and 6). The official HL1 dataset (see below) should provide a means of establishing the scale of such use, as well as potentially revealing something about the circumstances in which private lettings are used to accommodate homeless applicants. The special focus on private lettings also follows from the recent Ministerial call for authorities to make greater use of the private sector in tackling homelessness ¹⁶. If such 'greater use' is to be made, what is the baseline for such a development?

3.2 In explaining the context for the analysis, the chapter begins by discussing some of the salient features of the official monitoring framework; in particular, issues around the system's scope in terms of how 'homelessness applications' are defined for this purpose. This discussion is relevant to broader questions on local authority procedures for handling 'presentations' by people claiming homelessness. We then go on to look at the changing scale of recorded homelessness demand. The main body of the chapter - focusing on what HL1 data can tell us about homelessness prevention - then follows. First we examine the incidence of 'potential homelessness' and local authority action in such cases. We then investigate the use of the category 'homelessness resolved prior to assessment decision'. Finally, we analyse the recorded scale and nature of private sector placements and advice provision for homeless households.

The official monitoring framework

3.3 The Scottish Executive's homelessness monitoring system is based on ' HL1' case returns completed by local authorities in respect of households applying for housing on grounds of homelessness. Batches of returns are periodically submitted to, and analysed by, the Executive. Several important features distinguish the system from its counterparts in England and Wales. Firstly, it contains an explicit measure of 'expressed demand' from homeless households in the form of 'homelessness applications' (sometimes termed 'presentations'). Hence, the scope of the system is broader than that south of the border where local authorities are required to record only homelessness assessment decisions.

3.4 Secondly, linked with its broader scope, the system collects detailed data about all households recorded as 'homelessness presentations', and about local authority actions in respect of such applications. This contrasts with the English and Welsh monitoring systems which collect detailed information only in respect of applicants assessed as unintentionally homeless and in priority need. Thirdly, being based on case returns rather than summary statistics, the Scottish system generates data susceptible to far more flexible analysis. Thanks, in part, to its broad scope and detailed data collection requirements, the HL1 system provides a rich source for analytical and policy development work (e.g. in terms of informing the thrust of local authority homelessness strategies). It also has the potential to inform analyses of local authority homelessness prevention activities. However, since the system was not designed primarily for this purpose it is to be expected that it will have significant limitations in this context.

Scope of the HL1 system

3.5 In law, local authorities in Scotland - just as in England and Wales - are obliged to undertake a formal assessment of households seeking assistance with housing and where the authority has 'reason to believe' that the household may be homeless. This assessment determines the household's status in terms of the four statutory tests:

• Homelessness
• Priority need
• Intentionality
• Local connection ¹⁷.

3.6 Legally, therefore, it is open to authorities to 'filter' initial presentations for the purpose of determining whether the 'reason to believe' condition is met (see above). Such procedures are important in the current context because they leave open the possibility that HL1 returns are completed only for the 'filtered' group. Whilst such filtering is perfectly lawful, it means there is scope for varying local authority practice in terms of the scope of HL1 monitoring.

3.7 In practice, under longstanding tradition, most local authorities profess a commitment to the formal assessment (and official recording) of all presentations (that is, there is no routine procedure of first establishing whether there is 'reason to believe' that the applicant may be homeless). As confirmed by our telephone survey findings, this reflects a view that making a 'homelessness application' is a legal right for anyone who sees themselves as actually or imminently homeless. Connected with this is a local authority concern about being perceived as 'gatekeeping' as defined by Communities Scotland within the housing inspection context. CS sees gatekeeping as procedures preventing or discouraging homeless people from seeking housing assistance ¹⁸.

3.8 At least among some authorities there is a degree of uncertainty about official requirements here. For example, one case study local authority reported guidance given in the context of a recent inspection that 'advice and assistance only' homelessness cases did not need to be recorded within the HL1 system. Communities Scotland sees this as a mistaken interpretation of its stance here. Indeed, our review of CS inspection reports found several instances of local authorities criticised for failure to record homelessness presentations until applicants were interviewed by homelessness staff and/or placed in temporary accommodation (e.g. South Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire). Official advice on the completion of HL1 returns refers to the Homelessness Code of Guidance (para 4.22) which stipulates that an HL1 record should be created for every case where 'an application is made under the Homeless Persons legislation' ¹⁹. Nevertheless, whether local authorities should necessarily treat a presenting individual's claim of homelessness as constituting 'an application' remains a matter for individual local authority discretion.

3.9 The telephone survey confirmed that, as might be expected, authorities committed to formal assessments for all presenters systematically recorded such presentations within their HL1 returns. However, five authorities were operating a 'housing options' approach where presentations were handled through a defined two-stage process. Here, normal practice involved convening an initial informal interview with people presenting as homeless before deciding whether a formal homelessness assessment would be undertaken (see Chapter Four for further discussion of housing options approaches). In at least one of the five authorities cited above the 'housing options' approach had important consequences for statistical recording in that an HL1 record was initiated only for households judged as meeting the 'reason to believe' test via their initial interview and therefore going forward to a formal homelessness assessment. Whether this was true in the other four local authorities reporting the operation of similar procedures is not known.

The changing scale of homelessness demand

3.10 Within the Scottish context, public debate about overall homelessness demand usually focuses on 'homelessness presentations' (see above). Figure 3.1 shows that logged presentations have continued to rise strongly since 2000. This may, in part, reflect the impact of the wider local authority duty introduced under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 in relation to temporary accommodation provision for homeless applicants (see Footnote 7). However, the continuing upward trend in 2005/06 may be partly attributable to the adoption of a 'maximal' approach to recording on the part of certain councils. In other words, some authorities have changed their procedures to include, as HL1 entries, cases which would previously not have been considered as formal applications (perhaps on grounds of not meeting the 'reason to believe' condition described above). In the most recently published homelessness statistical bulletin, three quarters (74 per cent) of the national increase in 2005/06 presentations was attributable to four authorities. These increases were driven in part by councils recording as formal applications for assistance approaches which, in the past, may have been treated as a general inquiry and not recorded ²⁰.

3.11 Even allowing for easily identifiable changes in recording practice, however, the recorded total of homelessness presentations has continued to increase (albeit at a slower rate than the published figures would suggest). At the same time, however, it is notable that the number of presenting households assessed as homeless has flattened out in recent years (see Figure 3.1). Hence, whilst presentations rose by 16 per cent in the three years to 2005/06, those assessed as homeless rose by only six per cent. Following on from a period of rapid increase from 2000/01-2003/04, subsequent years seem to have witnessed a plateau in homeless numbers.

Local authority action in response to homelessness presentations

3.12 Some 56,000 homelessness cases were logged by Scottish local authorities as having been completed in 2005/06. Just over half the households concerned (52 per cent) were classed as unintentionally homeless and in priority need. As shown in Figure 3.2 at least 57 per cent of these were offered a social sector tenancy. We state 'at least' on the basis that information on the local authority's 'last action' was missing in respect of almost 20 per cent of cases (see Figure 3.1). The 57 per cent figure cited here equates to some 16,600 cases (see Table 3.1). This total includes a number of instances where the household refused their final tenancy offer (1,900) as well as a small number referred to a third party local authority (300).

3.13 In passing, it is interesting to note that far from all unintentionally homeless priority need households are recorded as being offered social sector tenancies (see Figure 3.2 and Table 3.1). For example, at least seven per cent are offered temporary accommodation as a final action by the local authority. It is possible that such cases include households who have been placed in temporary accommodation pending re-housing, but then return to their former home or find new accommodation without assistance, with the final action being recorded as 'temporary accommodation'. Another outcome which might be recorded as such is where supported housing is used for discharge of duty (because such action is not recorded by HL1, it could appear that an offer of temporary accommodation is an authority's final action in such circumstances). In any event, an offer of temporary accommodation to an applicant classed as unintentionally homeless and in priority need would not normally constitute a discharge of duty. It should also be noted that some of those recorded as being offered 'advice and assistance only' may, in fact, have been offered temporary accommodation and advice and assistance. Similarly, some of those logged as having been offered temporary accommodation may also have been offered advice & assistance.

Table 3.1 - Local authority action by assessment decision: 2005/06

(a) Numbers of cases

(b) Percentages

Source: HL1 returns submitted by local authorities to the Scottish Executive Development Department Analytical Services Division (Housing Statistics). Notes: 1. All cases closed in period. 2. Some of those recorded as being offered 'advice and assistance' may, in fact, have been offered temporary accommodation and advice and assistance. Similarly, some of those logged as having been offered temporary accommodation may also have been offered advice & assistance.

Local authority responses to 'potential homelessness'

3.14 The homelessness legislation distinguishes between households classed as 'homeless' and those 'threatened with homelessness'. The latter (sometimes termed 'potentially homeless') are people judged likely to lose their existing accommodation within two months of being assessed. As the Code of Guidance stipulates, 'Where an applicant is still in accommodation but is assessed as being unintentionally threatened with homelessness and in priority need, a local authority has a duty under to ensure that accommodation does not cease to be available for occupation' ²¹. An authority must take 'reasonable measures' to this end ²². It should be borne in mind that this duty dates back to the establishment of the homelessness legislation and relates to an era where most private tenancies were 'open-ended' in terms of their security of tenure. Thus, the 'reasonable measures' envisaged here will have included legal assistance to help households defend repossession actions brought by landlords. Now, in a context where very few private tenancies confer security, this is rarely an option. Hence, the scope for preventing homelessness in these circumstances is likely to be more restricted in the case of a private sector tenancy, although there is more scope for intervention if the household is at risk of losing a social sector tenancy due to circumstances such as rent arrears or anti-social behaviour. Where households are assessed as threatened with homelessness but not in priority need (or where assessed as intentionally homeless) the authority's legal duties are currently limited to the provision of advice and assistance.

3.15 Potentially homeless households should be a prime target for prevention efforts since their designation as under threat of losing accommodation suggests that there may be sufficient time for local authority action to help them retain their existing home or make a planned move. How numerous are 'potentially homeless' households? At the national scale, households recorded as such accounted for 14 per cent of all 'homeless and potentially homeless' households in 2005/06. At local authority level, however, there are extreme variations between local authorities on this measure. The 2005/06 figures, for example, range from one per cent in North Ayrshire, South Ayrshire and Stirling to 62 per cent in Dundee ²³.

3.16 To an extent, the inter-authority variations described above could reflect differences in operational practice. Higher figures here might be interpreted as suggesting a more 'pro-active' approach to homelessness, since proportionately more applications are recorded as having been logged prior to homelessness actually occurring. Nevertheless, given the scale of inter-authority disparities there would appear to be a strong likelihood that at least part of the recorded differences result from a lack of consistency in applying the prescribed definitions from authority to authority. The issue might, for example, relate to the point at which the judgement about 'potential' versus 'actual' homelessness is being made (at the time of the initial approach or at the point where the assessment is complete).

3.17 Given the possible value in using 'potentially homeless' numbers as a benchmark measure of households for whom prevention might be feasible, there is a case for encouraging local authorities to focus more attention on recording such assessments consistently. However, leaving aside these concerns, the national data for 2005/06 show that only a third of households assessed as potentially homeless became actually homeless before the local authority discharged its duty (see footnote to para 3.15). This might be interpreted as suggesting 'effective intervention' by local authorities in most cases.

3.18 'Housing outcome' figures for 'potential homelessness' cases show that the majority of such applications result in a social sector tenancy. This was true for 57 per cent of all 'potentially homeless' cases in 2005/06 (see Table 3.2). The figures in Table 3.2 for potentially priority homeless are particularly interesting since - as explained above - local authorities have a statutory duty to take reasonable steps to try to ensure that such households retain existing accommodation. In 2005/06, more than two thirds of such applicants (69 per cent) ended up being rehoused in social housing, whilst only 13 per cent retained their former accommodation.

3.19 For 21 per cent of all 2005/06 potentially homeless cases, the recorded outcome involved the household returning to their former accommodation. Numerically, this group involved some 900 households in 2005/06 (about 1.5 per cent of all homelessness presentations, nationally). Actual homelessness was averted in such instances; in some cases local authority intervention may have helped to bring about this outcome. It should, nonetheless, be noted that the proportion of potentially homeless cases resulting in a social sector tenancy has been rising in recent years and the proportion of those returning to their former home has been falling (see Table 3.2).

Table 3.2 - Housing outcome for applications assessed as potentially homeless by assessment decision: 2002/03 to 2005/06

Source: HL1 returns submitted by local authorities to the Scottish Executive Development Department Analytical Services Division (Housing Statistics).. Notes: All cases closed within period. Figures exclude households for whom the housing outcome was recorded as 'not known'.

3.20 To summarise, the discussion above has argued that households recorded as 'potentially homeless' should be seen as a key target group for prevention efforts. There is a need to promote greater consistency in recording here - it would appear that many local authorities are currently misrepresenting the numbers of households who are (at the point of their initial approach) potentially, rather than actually, homeless. Notwithstanding doubts about their robustness, latest figures generated from HL1 returns show that only around a third of potentially homeless households actually become homeless before the outcome of their application. At the same time, however, most of those concerned end up being granted a social sector tenancy. In only around a fifth of cases of potential homelessness are households recorded as returning to their existing home. Whilst local authorities have a statutory duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that priority potentially homeless households retain existing accommodation this outcome is, in fact, fairly unusual.

Cases resolved before completion of assessments

3.21 Asked how they would record their assessment decision in respect of a household helped to avoid actual homelessness ten out of the 32 local authority respondents in our telephone survey mentioned 'homelessness resolved prior to assessment decision'. This is a possible assessment outcome option in addition to that of 'potentially homeless'. To set this in context, it may be helpful for the reader to note the full list of 'assessment outcome' options allowed for HL1 purposes:

• Homeless - priority unintentional
• Homeless - priority intentional
• Homeless - non-priority
• Potentially homeless - priority unintentional
• Potentially homeless - priority intentional
• Potentially homeless - non-priority
• Neither homeless nor potentially homeless
• Lost contact or withdrew before assessment decision
• Homelessness resolved prior to assessment decision

3.22 For households classed in the last category, the term 'homelessness' should be interpreted in the broad sense as referring to housing difficulties in general as it will not be known whether a household is in fact homeless or not prior to assessment..

Table 3.3 -Homelessness presentations recorded as 'homelessness resolved before assessment': 2002/03 to 2005/06

Source: HL1 returns submitted by local authorities to the Scottish Executive Development Department Analytical Services Division (Housing Statistics). Note: All applications within period.

3.23 Case study evidence demonstrated that some local authorities recorded instances of 'successful homelessness prevention' (e.g. through family mediation) by classing the household as 'not homeless'. Hence, prevention activity is certainly not entirely encompassed by the 'homelessness resolved prior to decision', and 'potentially homeless: returned to previous accommodation' assessment categories. It is, however, of interest that the number of cases classed as resolved prior to assessment decision is substantially larger than the number classed as potentially homeless: returned to previous accommodation (3,900 compared with about 900 in 2005/06). And, while the resolution of homelessness before the completion of an assessment does not necessarily stem from local authority action, the trend shown in Table 3.3 nevertheless appears consistent with local authorities' own claims to have been stepping up their prevention activity.

Private sector placements

3.24 As shown in Table 3.1, some 1,300 households logged as claiming homelessness in 2005/06 were offered a private tenancy (97 per cent accepted the offer) whilst 5,600 were offered temporary accommodation (68 per cent accepted the offer). In addition, 9,800 were offered advice and assistance only ²⁴.

3.25 Table 3.1 suggests that - at the national scale -the use of private sector placements is similar for unintentionally homeless households in priority need and non-priority homeless households, representing three per cent of final actions in both cases ²⁵. However, this does not represent typical practice across all local authorities as three quarters of priority homeless private sector placements in 2005/06 were made by just three authorities: Edinburgh, Fife and Glasgow (see Table 3.4). If these authorities are excluded from the national totals, a somewhat different picture emerges, with private sector placements being used on a smaller scale for unintentionally homeless priority cases compared to non-priority homeless (one per cent of the former compared with three per cent of the latter).

3.26 The broader point is that private sector placements continue to account for only a relatively small proportion (three per cent) of all local authority 'last actions' in relation to 'assessed homeless' cases, nationally (see Table 3.4). In a few authorities, nonetheless, such placements are more significant. Particularly notable are Edinburgh and South Ayrshire (see Table 3.4).

Table 3.4 - Use of private sector placements by assessment decision and local authority: 2005/06

Source: HL1 returns submitted by local authorities to the Scottish Executive Development Department Analytical Services Division (Housing Statistics). Note; All cases closed within period.

3.27 In twelve authorities, the number of private tenancies offered to logged homeless households (i.e. those recorded under the HL1 system) during 2005/06 was fewer than ten (see Table 3.2). This is relevant to the recent ministerial call for authorities to make greater use of the private sector in tackling homelessness (see footnote to para 3.1).

3.28 Taking the mapping of 'private sector placement' activity one stage further, Table 3.5 relates the proportion of homelessness presentations handled in this way to the total size of the private rented sector in each local authority area. There is no clear pattern in terms of the types of authorities liable to be 'more active' or 'less active' in this respect. For example, authorities ranked highly on this indicator include large cities as well as rural and island authorities. There is no obvious correlation between 'activity rate' as measured in this way and the gross size of the private rented sector ( PRS). This suggests that the extent to which local authorities make use of private tenancies to accommodate otherwise homeless households is not directly related to simple variations in supply. It should, nevertheless, be acknowledged here that the gross volume of PRS housing in a locality may not be directly related to the numbers of properties potentially suitable for the placement of otherwise homeless households. For example, only a proportion of private tenancies will be both accessible and affordable and this proportion may vary from area to area), and the availability of social sector accommodation will also be a factor influencing the use of the private sector. This issue is further discussed in Chapter 7.

Table 3.5 - Use of private sector placements as final action by local authority: 2005/06

Sources: HL1 returns submitted by local authorities to the Scottish Executive Development Department Analytical Services Division (Housing Statistics).. Note: All applications assessed as homeless and closed within period. Data on size of private rented sector from 2001 Census adjusted tenure tables - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/18531/13575.

3.29 One further relevant point on the use of the private sector is that whilst such placements accounted for only 1,300 of the 56,000 'last actions' recorded for 2005/06, private tenancies were the eventual 'housing outcome' for an additional 1,000 households. In most of these additional cases, the 'last action' recorded was an offer of temporary accommodation, an offer of social housing refused, or advice and assistance only. It is assumed that the households concerned subsequently found private tenancies without external assistance.

Provision of advice and assistance

3.30 Partly as a backdrop to Chapter 5 (Housing Advice), this chapter concludes by briefly examining what the HL1 data reveals about the provision of advice and assistance to homeless applicants. For a substantial number of recorded presentations, the outcome is 'advice and assistance' (see Tables 3.1 and 3.6). In some instances, such help may have amounted to homelessness prevention.

Table 3.6 - Last action by assessment decision: 2002/03 to 2005/06

(a) Households assessed as unintentionally homeless & in priority need

(b) Households assessed as non-priority homeless

Source: HL1 returns submitted by local authorities to the Scottish Executive Development Department Analytical Services Division (Housing Statistics).. Note: All cases closed within period

3.31 Whilst 'homelessness prevention' cases cannot be specifically identified from the HL1 data, Table 3.7 attempts to probe the issue a little further by analysing the housing outcomes of cases where the authority's last action was 'advice & assistance'. There are some oddities here - e.g. the 299 cases coded as 'last action advice & assistance', and yet where a social tenancy resulted. Perhaps the main point to draw from the table, however, is that in the majority of cases for which information is available, advice & assistance leads the household to return to their former home. This was even true of 530 priority homeless cases - perhaps partly reflecting households' reluctance to endure a substantial period in temporary accommodation whilst awaiting a permanent social tenancy. Despite having been assessed as legally homeless (without accommodation reasonable to occupy), the households concerned are, indeed, returning to their former home. It is possible that some of these cases may involve instances where the accommodation has been improved since the household's application, or where a commitment has been made - e.g. by a landlord - to make such improvements.

Table 3.7 - Housing outcomes for applicant households offered advice and assistance by assessment decision: 2005/06

Source: HL1 returns submitted by local authorities to the Scottish Executive Development Department Analytical Services Division (Housing Statistics).. Note: All cases closed within period

Chapter summary

3.32 As well as measuring the overall scale of homelessness demand, the Scottish Executive's HL1 national monitoring system records local authority responses to individual homelessness applications and the outcomes of those applications. Nationally, homelessness presentations have continued to rise over recent years, albeit at a reduced rate in 2005/06. At the same time, however, the proportion of households assessed as homeless have stabilised since 2003/04.

3.33 Households recorded as 'potentially homeless' should be seen as a key target group for prevention efforts. There is a need to promote greater consistency in recording here - it appears that many local authorities are currently misrepresenting 'potentially homeless' numbers. Notwithstanding concerns about their robustness, latest figures show that only around a third of potentially homeless households become actually homeless before the outcome of their application. At the same time, however, most of those concerned end up being granted a social sector tenancy rather than being successfully helped to retain their existing home. This latter outcome is recorded in only around a fifth of all potential homelessness cases. Whilst local authorities have a statutory duty to take reasonable steps to try to ensure that priority potentially homeless households retain existing accommodation, this outcome is in fact fairly unusual (relating to just 13 per cent of such applications).

3.34 Whilst the numbers remain relatively small, the proportion of homelessness presentations recorded as having been 'resolved prior to assessment decision' has been rising in recent years. In 2005/06 this was the outcome for almost 4,000 households. Whilst not all of these cases will necessarily be a result of local authority intervention, this trend appears to be encouraging evidence of the increasing scale of local authority homelessness prevention activities.

3.35 Some 20 per cent of homeless presentations result in advice and assistance or placement in a private tenancy. In some of these cases, such actions may be accurately described as constituting 'homelessness prevention' on the part of the local authority. The past few years have seen a growing number of private tenancies arranged for households claiming homelessness. Set against the overall scale of homelessness presentations, however, the numbers remain relatively small (amounting to approximately two per cent of all cases). With the exception of three atypical local authorities, such cases usually involve households assessed as non priority homeless or not homeless.