EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Reid Howie Associates was commissioned by the Scottish Government in Summer 2008 to carry out an evaluation of a pilot advice service on disability issues provided by Ownership Options for Registered Social Landlords ( RSLs) taking part in Scottish Executive (now Scottish Government) funded shared equity provision in Scotland. The pilot service provided advice, support and guidance to RSLs across Scotland, to try to maximise the impact of the development of the "Homestake" shared equity schemes on the housing circumstances of disabled people. The evaluation took place from June - August 2008.
Background
It has been recognised that disabled people face a range of barriers to housing, and in 2005 the (then) Scottish Executive launched the "Homestake" schemes (one addressing new supply properties and the other supporting purchases in the open market in designated areas). These schemes were intended to make it easier for people facing difficulties in purchasing property, with first time buyers and disabled people as key target groups. It was recognised that some RSLs may face difficulties in involving disabled people in shared equity, and the pilot advisory service was developed to address this. Ownership Options provided the service during the period from July 2006 - March 2008.
The evaluation
The overall aim of the evaluation of the pilot service was identified as being to:
"evaluate how effective the service has been at meeting its aim and objectives, and to identify options for ensuring operators of Government funded shared equity provision respond to the needs of, and are accessible to, disabled households in future."
The evaluation involved a number of strands, which included:
- Examination of documentary evidence.
- Interviews (32) with: Ownership Options staff and Board members (3); RSLs who received support and advice (11); RSLs who were involved in shared equity but who did not use the service (10); Scottish Government staff (1); and other stakeholders (7).
- A postal survey / written material from RSLs who received support and advice (5).
- Exploration of work in other areas.
- Examination and discussion of a draft guide prepared as part of the pilot.
The main findings
The evaluation gathered a range of information about the operation of the pilot service, perceptions of the achievements and effectiveness of this, and suggestions for the way forward. The main findings are summarised below.
The work undertaken
Over the period of the pilot service, Ownership Options delivered the following:
- 4 roadshows / awareness sessions (November 2006).
- Preparation of a leaflet for RSLs.
- 4 newsletters (January 2007 - January 2008).
- Preparation of a website area.
- Presentations, workshops and training sessions to some individual RSLs, other bodies, conferences and network meetings.
- Direct assistance to 38 RSLs over the 2 year period, varying from one-off responses to queries (estimated to be a third to a half of these) to more detailed support and assistance with individual cases.
- Operation of a "hotline".
- Assistance to some other types of organisations.
- Development of a draft written guide.
The need for, and nature of the service
The evaluation found a generally shared view that there had been a need for this service, to support the implementation of the Homestake schemes. The role and remit of Ownership Options and its expertise suggested that the organisation had been well-placed to provide this. The types of work undertaken by the pilot service (awareness-raising, advice and support and casework) appear to have been appropriate for the needs identified. Although the focus of the pilot project was primarily upon support to RSLs, it was also clear that some work had been done with other stakeholders and disabled people themselves (as part of the support provided to RSLs with individual cases). Overall views of the service from those who received input ( RSLs and other stakeholders), were positive. Most found it useful, believed the service was good, and were positive about work done with clients. The development of information (such as that contained in the draft good practice guide) was widely seen to be useful, and the evaluation gave a clear indication of the nature and content of such a document.
Addressing the aim and objectives of the service
The aim of the service was to:
"Plan for, target and directly assist disabled people to purchase homes under the Homestake scheme".
Ownership Options was set 3 specific objectives by Communities Scotland. These were to enable RSLs to:
- Incorporate the specialist issues affecting disabled people when they are establishing the strategic and local market context for shared equity and identifying target groups.
- Integrate the needs of disabled people when identifying appropriate locations, types and prices for new housing developments.
- Directly help disabled people who may rely on unconventional income sources, have legal capacity issues, or have particular housing issues when buying a shared equity home.
In addition, Ownership Options was required to provide a draft good practice guide on the use of shared equity for disabled people by RSLs.
The evaluation found evidence of achievements in relation to a range of issues linked to the aim and objectives of the pilot service, particularly with those RSLs which were most closely involved. It also found that the pilot service had addressed its contractual obligations.
While the aim and objectives were not directly measureable in themselves, the evaluation found evidence of the achievements of the service in a range of issues which linked to these. A number of strengths and weaknesses (or potential areas for development) were identified.
There was evidence of the service having had some achievements in:
- Promoting and providing the service.
- Raising awareness and knowledge of disability issues and shared equity with some RSLs and others.
- Developing practice within some RSLs and others, including skills, confidence and capacity, and other aspects of policy and practice.
- Enabling the use of shared equity by a small number of disabled people.
There were positive views of the different strands of the work as well as positive views of the service overall. Ownership Options was found to be well-regarded.
There were also some limitations to these achievements, however, or aspects of the service which were seen to have been less successful, and these included:
- Variations in awareness and levels of use of the service, and constraints to service use.
- Some remaining gaps in awareness and knowledge of disability and shared equity issues.
- A limited impact on RSLs' policy and practice, with problems in developing organisation-wide capacity, targeting "key influencers" and sustaining developments.
- A low number of RSLs overall who were involved in providing shared equity for disabled people, and a low number of disabled people purchasing homes using shared equity.
The main overall areas in which there was seen to have been more limited success, therefore, related not to the impact upon the individual RSLs who worked closely with Ownership Options, but to the apparently more limited broader impact of the service acrossRSLs on raising awareness, changing broad policy and practice and mainstreaming shared equity for disabled people.
Limitations and constraints
A number of factors constrained the pilot service, including: a lack of clarity of its role and expectations; a lack of clear deliverables, inputs and costs; a lack of a strategic, structured and proactive approach to delivery; staff changes and shortages; timing issues with some aspects of the input; and limited consideration of the effectiveness of the service in the course of its implementation. There were also a range of external constraints, such as the general lack of accessible housing and other barriers for disabled people. Within these constraints, the level of commitment to the work by Ownership Options was recognised.
Added value
The pilot service was found to have addressed its contractual obligations and to have provided "added value" to justify the separate funding,, although the unknown factor is whether or not more could have been achieved within the level of resources had a more proactive approach been taken to promoting the involvement of disabled people in shared equity.
The need for future provision
The evaluation found a clear view that there is a continuing requirement for the provision of advice and support relating to disability and shared equity. Many respondents identified the potential value and relevance of shared equity to disabled people, while highlighting a number of current barriers to its implementation. It was also widely agreed that RSLs do not yet have sufficient knowledge to make service provision unnecessary. There was also a common view that advice and support should extend beyond provision to RSLs themselves, to include other stakeholders and disabled people (including, for example, local authorities in the development of Strategic Housing Investment Plans).
Overall, there was seen to be a need for a combination of: continuing strategic development; awareness raising and training; the input of specialist information and advice; and casework. There was seen to be a need for the provision of a specific service, using a range of forms in combination, including: face to face, telephone (e.g. helpline) and e-mail support; internet information; a written guide (to include a range of issues identified in the evaluation); and other written material (e.g. a series of leaflets or booklets; newsletter; guidance notes; training tools etc.).
There was seen to be a need for national and local support (although it was recognised that some local areas currently lack the appropriate infrastructure to do this). The need for a proactive approach and for clarity of roles and responsibilities between national and local organisations, along with a need for close links and joined-up working was identified. There was a common view that a specialist advice and support service would be unlikely to be self-financing.
A number of issues were identified by respondents of all types which it was argued should be wider priorities in developing housing work with disabled people. A number of wider developments to shared equity were also identified by respondents of different types as being required.
Recommendations
The full report makes a number of recommendations, based upon the findings. These recommendations are summarised below.
In terms of the overall provision of advice and support relating to disability and shared equity, the report recommends that: some form of service should be provided at a national level, focusing on developing understanding of the issues, providing support and developing a national strategic approach; consideration should be given to who should carry out this work (and to capacity issues); direct support should be provided at a local level to RSLs and disabled people with individual cases, but there will be a need for local gap-filling by the national service where there is a lack of funding, capacity or a suitable local organisation.
In terms of the nature of services, the report recommends that a national service should provide: overall direction and strategy, and links to other relevant work; promotional work, information, awareness-raising and training; policy and specialist case by case advice and support (including a helpline) to relevant local organisations; gap-filling casework; networking; and the development of data about housing needs. Local services should develop: advice and information to disabled people and relevant organisations; community profiling; joint working and a coherent local approach; casework; and the identification of other sources of support, with referrals made to these services.
In terms of the management and operation of services, the report recommends: a clear set of aims, objectives and targets for services; a proactive approach to developing shared equity work; monitoring of progress; identification of the best means of funding provision; development of close links between national and local providers and to the core service provided by Ownership Options; clarification of the roles and responsibilities of relevant national and local organisations; and the collection of feedback on the use of information by those organisations targeted.
In terms of the development and production of a good practice guide, the report recommends that such a guide should be developed and that it should be: based on the existing draft document and amended to reflect the comments made; aimed at a range of relevant organisations; and part of a range of types of information and support.
The report also makes a number of recommendations relating to overall developments in disability, housing and shared equity. These include that: there should be a strategic approach to shared equity for disabled people (which, at a local level, could be through the Strategic Housing Investment Process); a mapping exercise should be carried out of organisations across Scotland with a role in the promotion of shared equity to disabled people; each local area should develop a list of relevant service providers and organisations; a register of disabled people with an interest in shared equity should be developed Scotland-wide, and RSLs and other organisations should register the housing that they have available; there should be clearer monitoring of shared equity sales; information should be required on shared equity properties constructed to lifetime homes or equivalent standard and the sale of these; and the recently revised LIFT guidance should be examined by a specialist in housing and disability issues in terms of whether it meets the needs of RSLs and addresses issues for disabled people (and revised if required).
The report also suggests that all relevant organisations should continue to address wider barriers to housing for disabled people in a range of ways, including by: making consideration of issues for disabled people a priority; developing and promoting accessible and affordable housing; involving disabled people in housing policy and practice (particularly in terms of local housing strategies and related processes); promoting partnership working; providing resources to develop housing to meet the needs of disabled people; challenging and changing inappropriate attitudes to disability and shared equity; and developing policy and practice to tackle other barriers to participation and independent living by disabled people.
The findings of the evaluation, presented in detail in the body of the report, can help to inform relevant work in this area in the future, and can help to ensure that the development of such work addresses the needs of disabled people.