Scottish Government

7. LOCAL AUTHORITY AND RSL VIEWS ON LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS

7.1. The survey sought the views of respondents on the effectiveness of their local arrangements, what worked well and less well in these arrangements and their views on whether they considered local arrangements to be transparent and equitable.

Key Issues

• Overall, most landlords considered that their local arrangements were either very or quite effective in assisting statutorily homeless households to access accommodation in the RSL sector. There was very little difference in the overall balance of views between local authorities and RSLs.
• It is the extent to which views of effectiveness differs among RSL respondents which is striking: in one area, the 6 RSL respondents ranged from those who consider the local arrangements to be 'very effective', 'neither effective nor ineffective', 'quite ineffective' and 'totally ineffective'.
• RSLs were asked whether they consider the basis on which referrals were made to them to be transparent and equitable. Just over two thirds considered that local arrangements were transparent, while just under three quarters considered them to be equitable. Given that transparency and equity could be considered to be core to the successful operation of a referral system, these responses are not wholly positive. There is certainly a close link between views on transparency, on equity and on the overall effectiveness of the local arrangements.
• The issue of insufficient information was noted as a factor both in relation to transparency and equity. A number of RSLs noted that they were not aware of the performance of their own RSL compared to others in the area and hence did not consider the current arrangement to be transparent.
• For their part, most local authorities considered that statutorily homeless households referred by them were treated equitably compared to other applicants to RSLs. There was a level of distrust evident between some local authorities and RSLs, but it appears to be restricted to the local authority's relationship with particular associations, rather than reflecting a wider culture within any of the areas.

Overall assessment of effectiveness

7.2. Overall, most landlords (83%) considered that their local arrangements were either very or quite effective in assisting statutorily homeless households to access accommodation in the RSL sector. Only 7% (10 respondents) considered that their local arrangements were either quite or totally ineffective.

Figure 7.1 Local authority and RSL views on effectiveness

Source: Local Authority and RSL Surveys

7.3. Generally, this is a positive picture that was supported by the findings from the case studies. However, it is worth emphasising that the responses are in relation to effectiveness in providing access to statutorily homeless households and are not about satisfaction with actual arrangements.

7.4. There was very little difference in the overall balance of views between local authorities and RSLs. However, comparing responses from RSLs and the local authority within particular areas does produce some differences:

• In only 2 local areas did all the RSL respondents and the local authority have the same assessment of their local arrangements; in one instance this was that the arrangements were very effective and in the other they were quite ineffective;
• In other areas the differences in assessment were considerable: for example, one local authority rated their local arrangements as 'very effective', while 4 of the 5 RSL respondents considered it to be 'quite ineffective';
• RSLs tended to have a less positive picture of the local arrangements than the local authority;
• Overall, however, it is the extent to which views of effectiveness differ among RSL respondents which is striking: in one area the 6 RSL respondents ranged between those who considered the local arrangements to be 'very effective', 'neither effective nor ineffective', 'quite ineffective' and 'totally ineffective'.

Transparency and equity

7.5. RSLs were asked whether they considered the basis on which referrals were made to them to be transparent and equitable. Just over two thirds of survey respondents (69%) considered that the local arrangements were transparent, while closer to three quarters (72%) considered them to be equitable. Given that transparency and equity could be considered to be core requirements of such a system, these responses are not wholly positive.

Table 7.1 RSL views on transparency and equity of local arrangements

Source: RSL Survey

7.6. Both the survey and the case studies suggest there is a close link between views on transparency, on equity and on the overall effectiveness of the local arrangements. In areas where RSLs were generally positive about the effectiveness of the local arrangements, they also considered their local system to be transparent and equitable. Ninety percent (90%) of RSLs that thought the basis on which referrals were made to them was transparent, and 88% of those who said that their system was equitable, considered their local system to be quite effective or very effective.

7.7. Most commonly RSLs gave a lack of information, or an inconsistency in the approach being used, as the reasons for considering that their local arrangements were not transparent or not equitable. Some RSLs expressed concern that the process did not appear to be equitable or transparent because the applicant did not seem to have been involved in the decision about being referred to any RSL or to their particular RSL.

'It has not always been discussed with nominees whether they wish to be housed by an RSL.' ( RSL)

'Sometimes I'm clearly contacting them (applicants) out of the blue…and they've not heard of us…or at least if they have it was too long ago.' ( RSL)

7.8. There were wider concerns expressed about the equity of the process by which certain households received a homeless priority. This echoed findings in the recent Scottish Government research on tensions between allocations policy and practice ³⁰, in which a significant number of social landlords expressed concern about the current balance of priority between statutorily homeless households and those in other 'reasonable preference' categories.

7.9. The issue of insufficient information was noted as a factor both in relation to transparency and equity. A number of RSLs noted that they were not aware of the performance of their own RSL compared to others in the area, and hence did not consider the current arrangement to be transparent.

'The local authority does not provide the Association with details / statistics of the types of households nominated and the number of applicants re-housed by other RSLs across XXX. I feel that this prevents the Association from being able to compare its performance and therefore fails to demonstrate transparency and accountability.' ( RSL)

7.10. For their part, local authorities mostly considered that statutorily homeless households referred by them were treated equitably with other applicants to RSLs, with 17 out of 29 respondents stating this was always the case and a further 5 considering that it was sometimes but not always the case. These findings were borne out by the case study element of the research, with local authorities generally considering that applicants were treated equitably by the majority of RSLs they referred to.

7.11. As was the case with the RSL responses, those local authorities who considered that referrals were always treated equitably were more likely to consider their system to be very effective (10 out of 17 local authorities).

Table 7.2 Local authority views on the equity of treatment of statutorily homeless households

Source: Local Authority Survey

7.12. There was a level of distrust evident between some local authorities and RSLs as evidenced by the reasons given for considering that statutorily homeless households were not always treated equitably. The case study findings found limited evidence of this and it tended to be restricted to the local authority's relationship with particular associations, rather than reflecting a wider culture within any of the areas.

'…have concerns with this organisation of taking previous tenancy history/arrears history into account to an unequal degree when dealing with homeless applications.' (Council)

'They "cherrypick" the best applicants and seem to decline applicants that have support needs or may be poor tenants.' (Council)

'As vacancy led, would question if on occasions the Council is offered low demand properties such as flats rather than houses when a vacancy occurs.' (Council)

7.13. This issue of trust was also recognised by RSLs, some of which suggested that some of the problems of lack of transparency, and associated lack of information being provided, were because the local authority did not trust the RSL with this information. As one RSL noted:

'Insufficient information sharing based perhaps on a lack of trust of RSL that information may be used for NOT supplying accommodation when in fact it is required to enable appropriate support to be put in place to help sustain tenancies.' ( RSL)

7.14. It was noticeable that in those case study areas where staff and management generally felt their system was working well, there tended to be a high level of transparency, not only between individual RSLs and the Council but also between the RSLs themselves: RSLs tended to be aware of the contribution that their neighbouring associations were making and how it compared to their own organisation's contribution towards housing statutorily homeless households.

Case Illustration 7

In 2 case study areas, the high level of transparency was partly seen as stemming from regular scheduled joint meetings between the Council and all the RSLs with a significant stock holding in their area³¹. These meetings tended to be held at the equivalent of local area level, had a clear operational focus and covered issues such as:

• Presentation of monthly or quarterly statistical performance reports;
• Discussion of day to day operational issues around referral, information exchange etc;
• General discussions around the profile of lets that would be required over the following weeks and the likely availability of properties for let;
• Discussions of any specific requirements of households that the Council would be seeking to re-house in the near future e.g. in terms of property type or very specific location needed etc.

7.15. It is very clear from the case study fieldwork in particular, that front line staff and the management in both local authorities and RSLs valued highly the good working relationships they generally had with their counterparts in other organisations and considered them to be a vital component of an effective referral system.

7.16. In some case study areas organisations had built on already good existing working relationships and in some the development of Section 5 and other referral protocols and procedures was identified by some as the catalyst that has led to improving working relationships. However, it was also clear that this is a potentially difficult area in which to develop agreement and build consensus.

'There was already a really positive approach to partnership working in XXX, nominations already worked really well and that made all of this (introducing Section 5) a lot easier…and if anything things are even better now.' ( RSL)

'I thought the idea of developing a protocol was to get agreement…but we were effectively told to sign up or they'd just send referrals through anyway…' ( RSL)

What works well or less well

7.17. The survey went on to ask respondents which aspects of their local system for statutorily homeless households accessing RSL accommodation they felt worked well and which less well:

• Working relationships were identified as one of the elements that work well by 14 local authorities;
• This was considerably higher than the 1 out of 5 RSLs (18) that identified working relationships as one of the elements that worked well;
• Views on information exchange divided RSLs. This aspect was most commonly identified as something that worked well but also most commonly identified as not working well;
• Other areas that were identified as working less well were support packages, the lack of stock, general procedures and too many inappropriate referrals; and
• There were 13 RSLs that felt there was nothing about their local system that did not work well.

Table 7.3 'Top 5' areas identified as working well or less well

Source: Local Authority and RSL Surveys

7.18. Finally in this section it is worth noting that, for the applicants interviewed as part of this study, satisfaction with the final outcome of their application emerged as key to whether they felt the overall system had worked well for them. All but 2 of the fifteen people interviewed were very pleased with the final outcome, namely the home they were now living in. Even when applicants had waited some time before receiving an offer of permanent housing they still considered the system to have worked well. This may be because applicants often had a very clear understanding of the realities of looking for social rented housing in a pressured housing market.