Prevention of Homelessness Duties - A Joint Scottish Government and COSLA Consultation

We are supportive of these as the right foundational principles. As part of our Rapid Rehousing Transition Plan, we have committed to prevention as a key element of this, and are putting together a three-year plan for the prevention of homelessness, with dedicated staff resource.

We have used this consultation as a means to begin conversations with key partners and agencies about how we work together to meet the aims of homeless prevention. The outcomes of these conversations are reflected in our responses.

We support the principle that the prevention of homelessness should be a shared public responsibility, but we are mindful of the challenges that incorporating other duties on public services may be, and the need to ensure clarity on how these duties are introduced.

We are satisfied with these as the key principles.

We are pleased that the ending homelessness action plan has recognized the importance of prevention and that prevention ultimately will be the driving force to ending homelessness in Scotland.

In addition to the above, we would support trauma informed practice being included as a key principle, to ensure that a person-centred approach is developed across all areas.

Yes, we are supportive of this proposal, as a key part of preventing homelessness. We have a lot of pre-existing structures in place for helping, assessing and supporting people who are referred to us – however, this would allow us to formalise them in the model of prevention, and also to ensure that action is taken to prevent homelessness at an earlier stage.

Yes, we know that homelessness is rarely an isolated issue, and that people often are involved in other agencies in the months prior to a homelessness presentation. It is right then, that collectively we work to alleviate the impact and trauma that homelessness can bring.

We have concerns as to how effectively this will be achieved and monitored from other public bodies. A partnership approach needs to be encouraged throughout Local Authorities to ensure that all are on board and following the principle with clear and simple referral pathways.

The process/procedure needs to be simple and straight forward to ensure access and participation. Public bodies need to be informed and potentially given basic training on how to identify and ask questions on housing circumstances e.g. living with family, are they overcrowded, that may lead to people becoming homeless.

Scottish Prison Service, Health Boards, GPs, Social Work, Children’s services, Education.
Named persons for young people and families seeking support.
Emphasis that mechanisms to refer on for assistance to prevent homelessness need to be straight forward and simple.

Yes, this needs to be in place, and they need to be put in place from an early stage when people are admitted to institutions. For example, planning for discharge as soon as someone is admitted to hospital, rather than at the discharge stage, ensuring all relevant partners are included at an early stage. This duty will allow for suitable housing options to be realised before a crisis occurs and the trauma and stigma of homelessness is a threat.

There are difficulties however in ensuring that all relevant bodies know how to identify risk factors of homelessness, particularly for those who have short stays in hospital.

We would also ask whether ambulance services would be included in this, as they would often see people in crisis and be able to ask relevant questions at that time. In addition, they information from the ambulance service can be invaluable in identifying housing issues such as hoarding and allow us to provide early intervention to prevent homelessness in such cases.

Prevention services will need to ensure that they are simple and clear referral pathways and that training is provided to all partners to identify needs. Review of local information sharing agreements would also be beneficial, including guidance on how to provide consistency for this across authorities.

Yes, we would agree with this, particularly around partnership working. There are already strong links and strategies to ensure that HSCP are working with the social rented sector to achieve strategic planning processes. Prevention of homelessness should be included within tis and the delivery of Local Housing strategies. However, our HSCP feedback is that more information is needed on the operational implications for our Social Work teams and how they undertake this duty.

Yes, it is an one of several important tools for preventing homelessness, provided that knowledge of this is effectively shared across HSCP staff, and that effective, clear and simple referral processes are in place. This will provide effective upstreaming. However, this will be dependent on how effectively the knowledge and training can be embedded with relevant staff in the HSCP.

Yes, it can often be the case that the homeless service ends up with the cases which are complex and no obvious mainstream housing solution can be found for them. This can be due to the level of support needs required and these needs sitting outwith the traditional housing support services. It’s not always the most appropriate or effective for the homeless service to be finding or providing the support for people who may need high levels of support, and this isn’t always the safest option for the person. Homeless services can often have to assist where the HSCP does not have appropriate resources.

However, we would need clear guidance and processes in place to identify people who fall into this category, and how we then move these cases on from the homeless service to the HSCP. Consideration would also be needed to the funding required and how this works in practice for people with these needed.

It is an adult protection and Social Work duty to keep these individuals safe either in specialist units or high levels of care packages in the community. This will also need to strike a balance with closer to home approaches, and diversions from care/institutional models.

There will still require to be cooperation – for example, as a Housing Service, we have the advantage of owning properties which can be used or configured to meet the needs of complex individuals, with the HSCP taking the lead on long-term support provided and the type of tenancy/accommodation offered.

We have further work to do with the HSCP to work out where the needs are, and what would be required from both sides, including looking at existing data, caseloads, etc. to see who is falling through the cracks and what their actual needs would be. There may not be clear-cut solutions as the range of complex needs are individual to each person.

Yes, will have a positive impact, but for a minority of people who may present to the service nevertheless, these cases should not need to come through homeless services. Their accommodation and support needs should be planned appropriately as a multi-agency approach.

Yes, we agree with this proposal for social workers and social care workers, as they can be in a position to recognize where issues and difficulties are escalating for a person and allow us to intervene early.

There also needs to be a recognition that social work intervention may be a consequence of housing situation. In order to deliver a trauma informed response for individual, and mitigate any future homelessness both for the individual and their families, we need to be working to ensure that accommodation is adequate and secure and meets the individuals needs. There will also be significant work required to embed this into Social Work services and assessment processes.

Yes, often the challenges that people face culminate in homelessness, but there can too often be a stance that only their homelessness situation needs solved, and not wider issues in their lives. This duty will ensure that longer-term needs get met, and hopefully prevent homelessness and the repeat of homelessness from being an additional trauma in their lives.

There are a number of changes required. Firstly, a strategic approach to developing a referral process between HSCPs and local authorities so referrals can be made quickly, easily and with the relevant information required to progress prevention work.

The identification and assessment of risk factors leading to homelessness, and surrounding education and training for staff members of the HSCP will be critical to ensure that potential referrals are identified. This will require an ongoing training programme to keep this knowledge up to date, and also for new staff members. Processes will need to be fully revised to ensure this is included as part of standard questioning, both at first point of contact, and during the persons journey with health and social care.

We will also need to look at information sharing and how this can be done effectively for referrals.

We need this to be embedded as a systematic approach across the HSCP, where all staff have the knowledge and tools to identify risks of homelessness, and easy access to referrals processes and contacts to help when identified. At present, we are very dependent on existing individual relationships between officers, but this needs to be expanded so that it’s in place for everyone to know how to tackle this. We would need this embedded as a strategic priority across the HSCP.

Yes, where they are threatened with homelessness and there is a clearly coordinated planned discharge. We would currently provide this assistance anyway, but for this to be done in a more planned fashion, with earlier interventions and referrals, will allow us to secure better housing outcomes for people and prevent homelessness from occurring.

For those that do not have a planned discharge, then consideration needs to be taken as to the best outcome for individuals. Often emergency homeless services are left with individuals that are vulnerable and/or difficult to manage at no notice, due to the pressures within hospitals. A more coordinated approach to discharge individuals when a comprehensive support needs assessment can be completed will allow us to secure appropriate accommodation for the individual at the right time and reduce significant traumas that they will have experienced.

Allowing them to have a planned approach to their housing situation, reducing trauma and uncertainty in their lives, and ensuring clear working together by partners to support the person.

The main challenge will be identifying where a need for housing exists, and doing this early in the process. Many hospital stays can be significantly shorter than six months and this reduces time for planning and action before someone is discharged, particularly where there is pressure to free up beds within hospitals. Where someone is only seen in A&E then discharged but with a housing need, this means less available time to provide anything other than supported or crash pad accommodation. This is even more difficult when someone can discharge themselves voluntarily.

Every admission to hospital needs to have exit/discharge plan put in place right at the start, so that as much planning time can be given as possible.

The availability of properties is also a factor, particularly where people may have physical health needs which require specific features or adaptations to a property. In addition, we need to consider someone may have a home but the actual environment of it may not be suitable, for example, hoarding, and how we can work with other agencies to resolve these situations, which may take some time.

Yes, we agree with this proposal. GP’s often are giving a time-limited service and this can often be over the phone, so it’s important that all who may come into contact with the patient are given the knowledge and training to recognize housing issues – for example, practice nurses, receptionists, etc.

We understand that people often see their GP surgery as a place to find support information, so it’s ensuring that GP’s have this information to hand for themselves as well, particularly if they are dealing with a patient over the phone or virtually.

They would need effective toolkits to identify and question on risk factors relating to homelessness, particularly given that appointment times are short, and access to a referral process which works effectively for them. Identification of temporary addresses or frequent changes of address with the GP would also be of assistance in this.

Yes, we agree with this proposal. We already have a number of processes in place for case conferences for certain types of case who have presented as homeless and are in crisis, so will be a case of taking this upstream for a more preventative approach. We need all relevant partners to be on board with this, and to work together with them to develop and deliver these approaches.
The hospice service in our area have advised that this approach would be beneficial for their patients with palliative care needs as well.

More operational detail is needed, but by having a cross service/agency group to collaborate and assess cases for taking the lead role, this could help to ensure fairness and consistency of approach.

Ensuring that all relevant services are able to take the lead, and not just left to the homeless service to lead on these types of cases. This should be helped by moving further upstream with the cases we are dealing with.

There are already several multi-agency case conference processes in place, so it will be ensuring that these consider the homeless prevention issue and that we complement existing processes, rather than developing new ones when not required.

This will potentially mean that other issues can be addressed and supported for people through a multi-agency approach, which may lead to prevention of homelessness and other successful outcomes.

Yes, this would help to identify where people are at risk, especially children and those who are new parents. Education will already have a significant involvement in children’s lives through the Named Person approach and the GIRFEC model therefore should identify issues arising. This would complement the current systems. By preventing the trauma of homelessness to both of these groups, this will lead to more favourable outcomes for them.

Development of referral mechanisms to the local authority, in conjunction with health visitors and head teachers, so that these are as smooth and effective as possible. Training programmes put in place so that head teachers and health visitors can identify potential risk factors and know when to refer for homeless prevention work, and the action that we are then able to take.
We have had a previous similar initiative with Health Visitors referring to our Community Advice services, so could build upon this work.
Named officers in each service area of local authorities and partner agencies should be in place to develop relationships to assist this.

Six months before homelessness occurs is reasonable for this.

By listening to the lived experience of young people who have used our services, and to agencies and services who work directly with young people. We are currently carrying out a Young Person’s consultation to find out their needs and aspirations for housing, including different ways of providing housing solutions for them. The outcomes from this will then help inform our RRTP and prevention plans.

We also need to ensure that the specific needs of all groups are covered – for example, kinship care.

We need to work together with Education to refine and develop our knowledge of other key trigger points, and encouragement needs to be given towards working on improving the already positive relationships with other services and agencies to develop a full collaborative approach.

By developing a real, effective, upstream approach with our young people, this is our best opportunity to break later cycles of homelessness in people lives, before it becomes a recurring feature. For young people, this will include identifying trigger points, such as the age of 15, where it can allow us to truly prevent homelessness. In many cases, it may take several years before the outcomes of this work are fully realized.

A lot of young people may have missed out on earlier Social Work involvement where it may have been needed, so still have vulnerabilities or experienced trauma. Where we know that a young person has experienced an ACE or some kind of trauma, putting the right support in place at the earliest opportunity to prevent behaviours developing which put them at risk of homelessness.

Yes. We already have a Family Mediation service in place, and preliminary findings from our Young Persons Consultation indicate that the young people surveyed think that this is valuable and want to know more about it.

For young people, often the most suitable housing option is not a property of their own, but to help resolve the issues they are facing in the family home, and Family Mediation can be a significant help in this.

However, we need to ensure that if is introduced as a legislative duty on local authorities, that this is as part of a suite of options rather than a blunt instrument that must be deployed in every case. People will only engage effectively with options that they see as beneficial to them, and we need to be considering this as part of a person-centred approach. Mediation in essence is a voluntary service and works best when parties are willing to engage and talk, and in a position to do that. It is not something that should be forced on parties as a requirement – may alienate those who are initially resistant.

Family mediation should also sit independently outwith homelessness, with the ability to self-refer to this, and the ability for other agencies to refer to it where they see a need. It needs to be an accessible service to all who need it.

‘Cooling off’ resources may also be useful in this type of instance, which can help to prevent homelessness with young people who are having family difficulties. This can include working with them to look at income streams and employment opportunities, as part of a wraparound service.

We think it would be more likely to have a negative impact, and that ‘cooling off’ and Family Mediation options may be more helpful at this stage.

We are unsure of the legal implications of this, given that 16-17 year olds are treated as adults in some ways, but children in others.

In our area, we are still likely to be giving them the same types of accommodation with support due to their age.

The definition of ‘receive assistance’ needs to be given more clarity and definition so we know what the definite ask is from Social Work.

Young people can refuse to engage with Social Work, unless they are under a statutory order, so need to consider how this would work if they did not wish assistance.

Those who are most at risk are already in Social Work systems, and it seems unnecessary to put other young people into the system where their needs otherwise do not require this level of intervention, or may not meet this need.
From our discussions with partners, we would like to see Education having a prominent role in the support for 16 and 17 year olds, as they are already involved in the lives of young people through the named person approach, and this provides the support the need in a GIRFEC model. For some young people, Social Work involvement will be required to meet their needs, but this shouldn’t be a blanket approach.

There will be cases where 16/17 year olds are not in Education, and an individualized approach should be taken based on their needs and circumstances regarding further support.

Feedback we received indicated that many 16/17 year olds who present may have a younger age in terms of how they operate, which can be based on their previous life experiences or trauma. In cases such as these, they would benefit from an advocate or similar to help them make key decisions if estranged from family. However, we do not agree that Social Work Children’s Services is the right place for this support to come from.

There are several unintended consequences of this proposal. Firstly, we may find that 16 and 17 year olds are reluctant or refuse to engage with homelessness services if they do not wish Social Work involvement. This could lead to less desirable outcomes for young people, including sofa surfing, hidden homelessness and living in unsafe situations, which would also have greater impacts on other areas of their lives.

There is a stigma to homelessness and Social Work services, especially for young people, however, homelessness services can give the tangible outcome of securing accommodation. Social Work involvement may appear to be unnecessary and overly prying into people’s lives.

By involving an additional service, does this slow down our ability to deal with homelessness cases within required timescales.

Social Work Services are already very stretched in terms of staffing resources and requirements, so this would add an additional duty to the service and stretch these resources even further.

In addition, this needs to be considered in terms of the proposals for a National Care Service, and whether Children’s Services will eventually sit within this. We understand that the findings from this consultation are still to be published, but consideration needs to be given as to how this would work if it was a national service, and also if it was separated from Education Services in this way.

Yes, we agree that this should be introduced and that they should be working in partnership with local authorities. We would support the existing SHORE standards being revisited and reviewed to support his work, in a partnership approach between Scottish Prison Service, local authorities and other partners.

Existing practice, including the SHORE standards, would have to be revisited and revised to ensure it meets these requirements. This would be best done by the Scottish Prison Service in a partnership approach with all other relevant bodies. This could include representation for all local authorities within prisons, to deal with housing issues. We currently have an Outreach Officer working with prisons, which has been very successful in outcomes achieved, but we also end up supporting other areas or prisoners from other areas as a result.

The resources which they have do this with. Prisoner turnover, staffing levels and multi agencies within prison setting all present challenges.
One suggestion was for resident housing officers to be placed in prisons, to deal with housing issues across different local authorities, to provide dedicated support to help prevent homelessness.

We would need to ensure that we were working closely with SPS, and all other relevant agencies and services, to provide a joined-up service which works best for each individual. We are already looking at co-location options within the Council to facilitate improvement of our current work.

We could also consider referrals from prisons to Family Mediation Service for young persons within prison who will not return to family home & will be homeless or concerns about that person returning to family home. This again could help young person have support in tenancy from family if mediation works and help them to manage gatekeep property appropriately.

Yes, we agree with this proposal. There needs to be consideration of capacity and resources for this type of work, however, we need to learn from alternative methods of provision developed over the pandemic, such as virtual consultations, and utilise these for the delivery of support and advice. We could also link in with Court Officers from our Justice Services to help develop this work.

There would also be a role for defence lawyers to be ensuring that clients know that they can get housing options advice and to ask about their housing circumstances if they have concerns, as this could also provide a route to preventing homelessness.

Homeless services are often utilised for individuals who have found that their bail conditions prohibit them from returning to their home address. This can be for a limited period until the case is heard at court and often the individual can return home, for example, where there has been a domestic dispute and police remove them from the home. There could be additional work done around this to prevent homelessness.

Yes, we agree with this proposal.

The difficulty is that the police work in very ‘time-sensitive’ situations with people, and would need the time to work through the housing circumstances and complete the referrals. In practice, it would need to be very clear that the ‘Act’ part of this needs to be carried out, with clear, effective referral mechanisms in place, so this isn’t just a signposting activity carried out. This needs to include effective information sharing about all relevant characteristics of a case. The police will already ask questions around this in terms or public protection, and for those presenting at police stations.

In order for us to fully realise the benefits that the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001 and the Domestic abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 provides we need to amend homeless legislation to complement. That said we need to ensure that, from those affected by abuse that they are supported to mitigate the impact of homelessness and that a smooth transition is provided so as not to further exacerbate the trauma that they have already experienced.

To prevent homelessness we know that we need to apply an upstream approach. For domestic abuse is an upstream approach achievable. Models such as safe and together work to support families. A larger national approach is needed to tackle the causes and impact of rising domestic abuse numbers in Scotland.

Yes, there should be a duty to accept the referral. We need to be able to record the referral at both ends of the process, both those that are offered by another service/agency and those that the person actually agrees to have referred over. This may have an impact later on if considering intentionality of a homeless presentation, or for evidence in pre-action requirements if they refuse a referral.

Allowing us to work quicker with people will hopefully reduce the number of homelessness cases, this then will impact on the levels of temporary accommodation required as well as reduce the time taken to rehouse statutory homeless cases.
With more time to provide suitable interventions we can ensure that we achieve better and sustainable housing outcomes.

Predicting the volumes of referrals received, this may have a significant impact on staff resources.
Ensuring that we are able to monitor referrals and where they are received from.
At what point does a prevention of homelessness case become an HL1 case, we do not want to create an extra layer of bureaucracy with additional processes if we can help it – would rather complement and expand on existing processes.
People may not want to engage with homeless services, there can be a stigma attached to this, which can lead to us not being able to carry out that prevention work.

The individual should consent to the referral being made, and given as much information as possible about the next steps. Without their consent, we run the risk of them not engaging with the process and not being able to secure housing outcomes for them. However, we should be looking at information sharing protocols for cases where it is felt a referral is required, particularly in crisis situation or if the person is not safe in their current living situation.

If someone is identified as potentially at risk, but then refuses to engage with the local authority, and then ends up making a homeless presentation, we may need to consider intentionality in terms of their homeless assessment. However, there are difficulties in how we as a local authority identify where someone has refused a referral where it is offered to them by another service or agency, and how we will know that this has occurred.

As part of our Local Housing Strategy, we develop a Housing Contribution Statement to show how we interact and collaborate with the Housing and Social Care Partnership, and we would suggest that prevention of homelessness be added as a priority to this work. Outcomes are reported annually to Council Committee.

In terms of locality planning, we believe this would sit best in our overall Local Outcomes Improvement Plan (Falkirk Plan), rather than individual locality plans which are focused on particular areas and their unique issues.

Using existing senior management arrangements to have the oversight of this to ensure that all areas of partnership are using this as a priority. A range of KPI’s could help support this work

There should already be in place effective data sharing protocols to assist individuals, however, we will need to re-visit information sharing agreements as processes are reviewed.

Yes, agree with these steps. A lot of this work is ongoing already in local authority housing services and Registered Social Landlords, so it would be ensuring that it builds upon this work that is already being carried out, rather than creating new processes and adding extra bureaucracy. Landlords have a number of mechanisms in place already to support this, such as Eviction Panels and Tenancy Sustainment Funds. Consideration also needs to be given to the right time to make referrals to local authorities, particularly where the person has not engaged with their landlord.

Section 11 referrals – need to look at how these are carried out and the information provided to local authorities, can this be improved as part of this work to ensure that local authority homeless services can contact the person in improved ways to get them to engage.

We also discussed with local landlords the importance of providing longer-term support to tenants; at present, support offered can often be short-term, but some people will have longer-term support needs to help them maintain tenancies and not fall into crisis.

Yes, we agree with this proposal.

Yes, but need to ensure this takes a person-centred, trauma informed approach rather than a blaming approach when considering these protocols and actions. This needs to take into consideration that antisocial behaviour and other criminal actions may stem from trauma or other issues in a persons life, and support mechanisms provided where this is the case.

Yes, as this will allow more time and opportunity to engage with the tenant and provide support to prevent homelessness occurring.

We need to look at how these are carried out and the information provided to local authorities, and whether this can be improved as part of this work, to ensure that local authority homeless services can contact the person in improved ways to get them to engage.

Six months is a reasonable position for this. Early intervention by social landlords should be encouraged. They should be able to access or provide advice and support to households to avoid eviction.

Yes, we agree with this to provide extra support and a defined process for tenants who may be facing eviction. Landlords should be trying to work with tenants before raising eviction proceedings, and this provides a framework for this to be done consistently.

This would depend on the provision of housing support and debt/welfare advice across local authorities. Some local authorities may be in a position to provide support for all tenures whereas others may have limited resources. This also depends on the size of the private rented sector in the local authority area. Logically it would be a spend to save exercise to avoid the cost of homelessness however it will require engagement and trust from both landlords and tenants.

Working with local authority private sector teams to ensure they promote the referral process to landlords, along with other work around pre-action requirements and eviction protocols, so they understand their responsibilities as a landlord. A smooth referral process where they are made aware of their responsibilities at the same time.

Yes, while we are working to prevent homelessness, often people will come to us at a late stage where eviction is imminent. The ability to delay this will allow us time to seek further advice and support for tenants from any areas required. However, we will need to ensure that the outcome is achievable with the support provided, and that clear timescales are in place, to make the process palatable for both landlord and tenant.

However, we do not feel this would be fair for the landlords who have gone through the correct process to evict their tenant to then have a further delay placed on them. Therefore, ensuring that notifying the local authority of potential homelessness as part of the pre-action requirements will be beneficial to homeless prevention work.

Yes, we need more emphasis and education for people that the private rented sector is a secure and stable housing option for them, so having additional support and assistance available will help towards this.

This very much depends on the availability and nature of the private rented stock in an area. Where areas have a buoyant private rented sector then it would be beneficial in term of early intervention to provide support and assistance to private sector residents to sustain their tenancies and prevent homelessness. In terms of accessing private rented accommodation this could prove more problematic again depending on the nature of the sector in the area. It also would be an additional role for the local authority, and we would be unsure of what quantities and ask there would be for this. We feel that working together with local landlords, and our Private Sector team, to identify issues within the sector and how best to resolve these on a voluntary basis would be more beneficial.

Yes, we agree with the principles but emphasis that it will require a collaborative approach to ensure that it is effective and meaningful.

The importance of collaboration and a coordinated approach with all relevant agencies, so that all other services are ‘wrapped around’ homelessness prevention, and are part of the work to find housing solutions for people at risk. Early intervention allows everyone involved to get round the table and take a coordinated approach to planning in a person-centred way.

Naturally we should see a reduction in the volume of homeless cases that need urgent or crisis assistance which may reduce the numbers in temporary accommodation and the trauma of homelessness that individuals experience.

Yes, we agree with this extended prevention duty. However, we need to consider the wording/naming of the duty and processes that sit underneath it. There is a stigma of homelessness, which may discourage people from engaging with the process at this early intervention stage if they do not, consider that homelessness is a risk for them, or do not want involvement in services related to homelessness. It would need to be clear that housing solutions can be offered as part of a housing options approach, rather than relying on homelessness as the main angle for this.

It will require a reconfiguration of homeless services and additional resources to facilitate. Homelessness should be a response to an immediate crisis that cannot be resolved. The prevent of homelessness should always be prioritised where it can before that crisis, however, the stage that we classify the prevention of homelessness is crucial. The Scottish Government's aim is to end homelessness. To achieve this, we need to have an upstream approach that focuses on the at risk groups and the provision of advice without the stigma and label of homelessness.

Clear identification of what the root source of the instability of accommodation needs to be identified e.g. support needs, forthcoming discharge from institution. There should then be clear identified pathways for identified “at risk” groups. As mentioned there are good support assessment tools available at present. These are person centred to illustrate the areas where individuals are struggling. The only concern is that these are resource intensive and normally facilitate by housing support services. They may not be beneficial at an assessment stage although some format or variation may be useful to consider.

Yes, agree that the specific measures should be made available in every case, but not all of these will be appropriate in each case, e.g. Family Mediation. We need to be careful that local authorities do not provide advocacy for clients due to a conflict in interests. We need to be mindful that some of the functionalities suggested would be best provided by an independent service provider.

Each case can have its own complexities and we cannot plan for every eventuality.
Looking at the digital connectivity of the person – do they require devices or connectivity for the device? As so much is done online, this can be crucial to taking all required steps to access benefits, household goods and communicating with agencies.

It is clear that there are specific “at risk” groups that we can offer advice and assistance to mitigate homelessness and the work around e.g. SHORE standards provides the guidance to achieve this but perhaps not the measures. Many of the specific measures will have clear outcomes that we can illustrate however others such as family mediation will be more difficult to show the outcome as it depends on engagement and the outcome of process. For instance it might be that two parties agree that living together is no longer sustainable but that support will be available to facilitate a good move to a safe housing option

Compliance with performance and monitoring outcomes – while we wouldn’t want these to be too onerous, the requirement to complete these will assist with compliance. Also, guidance relating to the framework for preventing homelessness to be clear and easily accessible for all required agencies. Clear guidance on how to implement procedures to apply that ask and act duty and how compliance with this can be monitored.

By including them in decisions made about their situation, and ensuring that all relevant options are outlined to them. The earlier that prevention work commences, the more change applicants will have to express their views and have these incorporated in the process. A more holistic and person centered approach is required that ensures that we are able at an assessment to identify the reasons for homelessness in their words and understanding. The current system is very ridged and does not allow us to effectively record identified support needs particularly for complex cases.

We need to consider this in a person-centred way – for some people, the prevention of homelessness may be an unfortunate one-off event, and support may not be necessary or required. We cannot assume that support is required for all, and this may contribute to the stigma of homelessness if people are not in actual need of support.

However, personal housing plans will have a place for other people we are working with, and will provide a method of defining their needs. However, we need to consider that a number of support outcomes models are already in place in local authorities as investment has already been placed in these systems. We need the work of Personal Housing Plans to complement these, or for authorities to use their own models if this is preferable, particularly if these are already working successfully.

Yes, we agree that this should be part of the homeless prevention duty. Homelessness is often interlinked with other issues in a persons life, so may provide an opportune time to provide support. Addressing homelessness should be a holistic and person centered approach for the individual and should be supportive rather than following a process.

There should be flexibility in this process – ideally, this would be at the start of the process, but need to consider that people won’t always want to disclose all information at the start. There won’t be a one-size-fits-all approach, but the ability to review/update plans through the process would be useful.

Another consideration is that many services don’t have systems that interact with each other, so we need to design plans so that people don't have to tell their same story repeatedly. We want to avoid giving people multiple steps to deal with, and for information sharing to work effectively, so they aren’t having to explain potentially traumatic events to different bodies.

The need to have a safety net through the current homelessness legislation should always be available to individuals. There should be no system that does not allow individuals to seek the right assistance at the right time. it should be a fluid process and services will need to talk to one another to ensure that the crisis support is available.

In general, we agree with the principles for specific groups. However, there is some difficulty with the groups who may be going through legal proceedings which may result in the loss of accommodation, as this conflicts with the antisocial behaviour legislation. As a last resort, we will look to take legal action against someone’s tenancy which will mean they will be homeless. Ultimately if a person has refused to adapt their behaviour or recognise the impact on others and has not engaged in support offered to them to maintain their tenancy/help with other issues, and that behaviour continues then our only option may be tenancy action. It must be balanced with the needs of the other parties (tenants) that have been impacted significantly by serious and persistent ASB that may have been ongoing for months or years. However, the extended duty to people have lost their homes following legal action by our antisocial behaviour teams, is then at odds with the fact the same local authority would have instigated that action against them and removes the consequence of losing accommodation.

There is a clear indication that the ask and act duty will ensure that a lot of the “at risk” groups will come through statutory organisations but there needs to be clear guidelines and expectations set out for NHS, HSCP and SPS to ensure that this happens.

Yes, we agree with these protocols, a framework such as MARAC should be considered to ensure that all needs are addressed.

Potentially a framework for the provision of domestic abuse services in local authority areas to ensure continuity of service provision

We disagree with the proposals for ‘non-standard’ discharge, where people may have duty discharged to stay with friends and family. We do not consider that this provides sufficient protections should the accommodation or relationship breakdown and would be more likely to lead people to a crisis homeless situation when this happens. With standard discharges of duty, the person will be accommodated in a property with suitable legal protections against them losing this.

Yes, so long as there are appropriate legal protections in place around how the tenancy can be ended (social rented and private rented tenancies)

Yes, as there are appropriate legal protections in place around how the tenancy can be ended.

Yes, as there are appropriate legal protections in place around how the tenancy can be ended.

There isn’t the same legal standing and protections for people to return to the family home/live with a relative, so there is no protection if the arrangement fails in that period, and the person may then present as homeless again. We wouldn’t be happy that this was stable enough to discharge duty. It would seem to delay the inevitable homelessness for many, and would lead to repeat presentations.

Yes, these are reasonable grounds to be considered in terms of suitability of housing outcomes.

The proposal for living with family/friends for 12 months seems counter-intuitive to the rest of the protections and security of tenure offered under homelessness legislation. It would offer less protection for the person against future homelessness, particularly our ability to prevent this. Also, it may significantly disadvantage groups such as care leavers, who may wish to return to family but this may not be in their best interests long-term.
We do not agree that this would lead to a wider range of housing options, or better outcomes for applicants.

No, we don’t believe these provide the appropriate safeguards, as should the accommodation placement break down, they do not give the legal protections of a process of pre-action requirements prior to eviction that they would receive in other sectors. Accommodation could break down at short notice, and without legal protections in place, we are liable to see people presenting as homeless again without the opportunity of being able to prevent their homelessness through other actions.

Yes, we are happy in principle for there to be an external right to review for homeless applicants through a mechanism such as the First Tier Tribunal. These will help us to ensure that our processes are being followed internally, as well as providing useful information at a national level on reviews carried out, which can then be used to inform and improve practices.

However, we would want to ensure that a similar type of review was in place for homeless applications. In addition, there would need to be clarity on what circumstances could be submitted for a right to review under the prevention duty. We may have people who do not fully engage with the process, or are dissatisfied with the prevention options we can provide, but this may then not be suitable to be considered for review. The review process will need to be clear for authorities and those being assisted.

The proposed appeal criteria suggests an appeal process for those where the prevention of homelessness has not been achieved. They then would be considered under homeless legislation which they have a right to appeal against. Is there a need to implement further hurdles and administration for clients and local authorities?

Clear monitoring of outcomes will need to be established to provide the Scottish Housing Regulator with the required indicators for future engagement. We need to be clear that the interpretation of the legislation is not counterintuitive to the homeless legislation, but also that the prevention duty recognizes that the recorded outcomes may illustrate a clients choice (e.g. to not engage) and that the route of homelessness is a choice.

There should be an emphasis on lived experience within this and ensuring that this is collected regularly. While they have the National Panel of Tenants and Service Users, they could put more of an emphasis on homelessness issues as part of this. In addition, using the work of other agencies who collect information on lived experience to inform this work would also be helpful, as a lot of excellent work is carried out by them.

This depends on how the “ask and act” duty is monitored. If failings are found from other statutory agencies how will this be addressed/challenged particularly if it is not within their legislative responsibilities.

Yes, this should also be consider as part of the Housing Contribution Statements.

Yes, these are the right package of reforms to meet these aims. It doesn’t cover every eventuality that we may see, but does cover all the key themes, by looking at a wide range of issues and subject areas.

While we do agree that these are generally the right package of reforms, there is further work that would be needed to reform the system to meet these policy principles. This would require a whole systems approach, for example, there are many elements of the current benefit system that are counter-intuitive to these aims. This includes delays to benefit claims being paid, limited benefit entitlement for prisons sentences, inability to apply for direct payments to landlords until three months arrears accrued – all of these disadvantage people and limit the impact that these reforms will have in preventing homelessness.

There are also significant gaps in how we prevent homelessness for owner occupiers and working with mortgage providers. A lot of owner occupiers won’t know how to access these kind of Council services until in crisis which limits our ability to do prevention work with them.

The whole package generally strikes a good balance, but there are difficulties as we are moving into a whole different place as a society since this was conceived, with both local and global issues. Affordability is a big concern. There are different financial issues and pressures now, particularly around owner occupiers. Increased numbers of referrals for those with mortgage arrears are still to be seen.

As above, a whole systems approach is needed to have the greatest impact in preventing homelessness. Homelessness never comes by itself and we have to deal with all the issues in a person’s life to get effective prevention. There are many needs we are currently unable to meet, and we need to ensure that the package promotes the strongest forms of working together across a variety of agencies/services to effectively prevent homelessness.

There shouldn’t be any disadvantage for any protected group. Any changes we are making should be subject to an EPIA and would expect this to be done for Scottish Government’s overarching approach. We will assess potential impact at the stage of reviewing procedures, policies, etc. and will do EPIA’s to ensure there is no disadvantage.

However, it’s worth considering that complex individuals don’t always comply with all the theories, practices, etc. – it’s how you get this balance that works in a person-centred way, and despite our best efforts, we can’t get them to engage at that particular moment in time.

We have already committed to the prevention of homeless as a key and core part of RRTP, and we are doing this through the upstream approach. We do need more resources and time to fully achieve this, and won’t know full implications until embark on this. We are putting in place a three year plan including cost and benefit analysis until this is embedded into main practice, so we can see outcomes and then reallocate resources as required. Once we implement this, it will need to be kept under constant review to ensure we are reflecting and learning lessons in a fluid way like the RRTP document.

When homelessness reduces, we can then reallocate resources, or can be in a dual role of prevention and assessment through time. However, until that time, we may need to invest more in resources and money to achieve our aims.

Some parts of the plan require more specific, operational detail to allow us to know what the ask is of us as partners. It brings the new duties into realisation we need to ensure that there is a clear, simple and consistent approach across councils and services.

We know that significant time and resources will also be required for training, promotion, development and implementation of our prevention plan and team – will take significant time away from other duties for a time. Thus far the implementation of the prevention duties will take time to develop locally with partners and within homeless services.

We will have a much more focused approach to prevention, working in partnership with our other keys services and agencies, to move forward in how prevention can be a key part of their response.
We have been talking to our partners as part of response to this consultation, which have led to a key commitment to prevent homelessness, and the duty will allow us to enforce this where the commitments may not be fully there to consider housing needs of people using other services. This will be further developed into a more strategic approach, but has allowed us to have those initial discussions.

Yes, there is potential for savings, but will first need to redirect services and resources towards prevention. Our aim is to look at the cost benefit analysis of this work to identify savings. There is also potential for savings in other agencies and services, not just homeless service.
In addition, rather than savings, we can often ensure more appropriate interventions for people at earlier opportunities, and benefits will be seen from this across the board.

There will be a significant training needs for our organisation, both in terms of time and resources to develop, deliver and embed this in other areas. We will need to scope out the needs for this in other areas – our HSCP feedback has already indicated that this will be widely needed across their service. We would anticipate a similar campaign to GIRFEC would be required, to effectively implement the knowledge required.

Housing professionals have access now to the Housing Options toolkits and this could be expended and simplified for partner services to utilize.

As well as awareness and training, we will also need to work with services and agencies to decipher what each area needs, what policies need reviewed, develop new processes and referral documents/pathways, as well as consideration to carrying out EPIA’s, how this will all be monitored, and checking GDPR requirements. We anticipate that top to bottom reviews will be needed of a variety of processes and referral pathways. Additional funding may be needed to meet these needs, on top of our existing priorities and pressures on our services.

We need to look at how this is collected across all services and agencies, and whether we are looking at high-level indicators, how specific they are, and if any ‘soft’ indicators are included in this. The difficulty is that the majority will fall on local authority homeless services to monitor and gather this information, from a range of services and agencies, all with different ways of collecting this information. This needs to be led and defined clearly from the start, otherwise there won’t be consistency from the different areas involved. We will also need to work closely with our partner services and agencies on how these are defined and collected.

Examples of information to be collected would be number of referrals, impact or ongoing trends in homeless presentations, arrears patterns, sustainment of tenancies, prevention referrals, linking people to primary services, referrals for support, money advice, etc.