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

No further comment.

No further comment.

We agree in principle but have concerns about resource implications, especially for smaller authorities.

Yes, in principle. The boundaries and guidance about what is expected within ‘act’ will need to be explicit in terms of prevention.

Health, Local Authorities, RSLs, Police Scotland and the Scottish Prison Service. It should be accepted by all that preventing and resolving homelessness are issues which are beyond the remit of Housing alone.

It will engender a collective responsibility for preventing homelessness. However, there will be resource implications.

Clear guidance should be provided from the start. Extra resources will be required, and training for partner agencies to clarify their roles.

The social work assessment within H&SC already takes into account the environment someone resides within and the potential that the environment is insecure, or that care could not be adequately provided within that setting.

It is a vital contribution to preventing homelessness but we are not convinced that a legislative duty on Integrated Authorities is the best way to prevent homelessness.

Cases whose needs can not be met in mainstream accommodation with support are beyond the remit of housing and are best managed by specialist services within the Integration Authority.

Resources would be required to ensure the availability of sufficient specialist accommodation placements. There is already a scarcity of resources therefore any additional widening of scope or eligibility criteria for service would need to see a significant increase in resources – not just financial but also in terms of capacity and staff

It should ensure a better outcome for the client with specialist support and prevent any need to approach homelessness services for assistance. However, it depends on the thresholds set for intervention and what is meant legally by “more complex needs” – there are already statutory responsibilities upon Integration Authorities and social care services to provide assessment – having another duty could well be duplication or confusing.

They will often be the first point of contact. Whilst it can be beneficial to have a duty to ensure that this is included within assessment, it is not required to have a legal measure to ensure this as guidance is sufficient – environment and home circumstances should already be included within assessments – and if the remit is wider – staff would also require training on what is meant about “risk of homelessness” – everyone can be at risk, it is the threshold and indicators that will be key in determining whether support is required.

Imposing a duty will ensure that those who are not presently considered statutory social work or mental health cases are supported. However, consideration needs to be given to deciding under what threshold and under whose assessment that someone is at risk or are homeless because of “unmet health or social care needs”? There are national eligibility criteria for accessing H&SC services – whereas “health needs” or “social care needs” encompasses almost everybody to some extent. If any new legislation isn’t clear about what level of health or social care need that should trigger a service – then this is duplication at best and counter productive to other legislation or guidance.

More joined up working, sharing of information and increased resources will be required. The resources of finance, but also of having suitable numbers of staff relative to the need, will be key in addressing early intervention or prevention work. Services are currently consumed with high risk emergency work and will be unable to disinvest in that to provide a more preventative or “upstream” service without significantly more resource.

This is already being done but LAs require notifications from Health as early as possible in order to ensure sufficient time to identify suitable accommodation and support, if required.

Identifying sufficient resources (physical, monetary and personnel).

The GP may be the only point of contact with this knowledge.

GP practices would benefit from training to raise awareness of homelessness.

This proposal, whilst we would support multi-agency joined up working and planning, is flawed in making the criteria too fixed in “people requiring input from two or more public services”. This is too broad a trigger – plus the level of need for multi-agency working / planning as well as the level of complexity of any individual case is not always reflected within the number of agencies involved. A baseline of two public services would see case co-ordination for the vast majority – and again this has an impact upon already stretched resources and would require significant investment

Regular multi-agency meetings to discuss mutual clients or potential clients.

There may be data protection issues. There are also time constraints for all services.

It would ensure that their needs are identified, and that support is being provided by the most appropriate service(s). It would also reduce duplication of support provision.

As before, they may be the only point of contact.

Training should be offered to assist with recognising homelessness issues.

Any requests should be made as soon as possible in order to facilitate early intervention.

Young people should be kept as a distinct group for consideration in all relevant strategies.

We think this should be a duty rather than a requirement. We do not have much uptake for such a service so being made to provide one may prove to be an unnecessary expenditure.

No further comment.

We can only foresee benefits from this.

This is significantly lacking in detail and would need to be explicit in guidance or within the legislation to have any benefit. A duty to ‘ask’ is clear – but what exactly does a duty to ‘work with partners’ actually mean? This legal duty could be easily discharged by sending an email as opposed to what may be the intention of closer agency working and planning

We have good arrangements in place with SPS and Criminal Justice to ensure that accommodation is arranged for anyone leaving prison who requires it.
Without the duty being explicit of what practice is expected, then there is unlikely to be any real change.

Training and extra resources would be required.

Asking prisoners about their housing needs as early as possible and making immediate referrals to LAs.

This would depend on the LA area. It may not be relevant for smaller, rural authorities.

The Police may be the only point of contact with that person. Again – a duty to ‘ask’ is clear – but there is no specific duty to ‘act’ here as with SPS?

Training would be required and procedures put in place for referrals to homelessness services. Clear definition is required about what ‘at risk of homelessness’ means and looks like in practice – what are the indicators?

No further comment.

No further comment.

The case needs to be made that a statutory duty would actually see any real change in the lives of those affected. If you place a statutory duty upon any agency – knowing in advance that the service cannot meet the duty as there are insufficient resources available and no significant investment is being made – then this is reckless in approach and will have no meaningful positive effect upon those being prevented from homelessness. The resources are more significant than the duty.

It would ensure service provision for those in need.

It may reinforce the misconception that homelessness is solely a housing issue. It can only ensure service provision if the service is available – otherwise it increases the awareness of unmet need – but isn’t addressing that need

Consent should be sought and given before any referral unless there are concerns about an individual’s capacity.

To ensure a cohesive and united response.

No further comment.

This needs to be addressed to ensure that there are no barriers to providing appropriate assistance.

Social landlords are integral to homelessness prevention.

We believe that social landlords should provide a tenancy support service.

No further comment.

No further comment.

No further comment.

Notification should be at the point of notice being served rather than at the point of court action being raised. This is our current arrangement with our RSL and it works very well.

As previous response.

We are unsure about this proposal. We are concerned that imposing further legislation on private landlords will force more of them down the holiday let route thus reducing the already limited local supply of private rent.

Local authorities already do this. There may be resource implications if there is an increase in referrals.

We believe that there should be clear guidance issued for them to refer to.

We are unsure about this one. Whilst a delay to eviction will ensure a positive outcome for the tenant, if the property has been sold there may be another household waiting to move in. We are also concerned that the answer to question 51 will also apply here.

No further comment.

We have concerns about a lack of resources to facilitate this. It is also our experience that most people want the security of a social tenancy and aren’t interested in exploring private rent as a housing option.

No further comment.

None.

We foresee a more cohesive approach, better outcomes for clients and for social landlords.

We are unsure about this. We are concerned that affording statutory homeless rights to anyone threatened with homelessness within 6 months will lead to an increase in applications and a subsequent increase in the number of households owed a duty to secure accommodation. This will inevitably increase the pressure on waiting lists and reverse the work that has already been done to reduce the backlog of statutory homeless waiting for a permanent offer, thus having a negative impact on the work undertaken to date to progress our RRTP.

We think that it would involve all cases assessed as threatened with homelessness within 6 months having the same rights as those currently threatened within 2 months. However, we question how the parameters of being at risk in a 6 months period will be defined? This should be explicit. If almost all households in Scotland are only 2 months salary away from potential homelessness - then almost all households could be defined under this new increase and duty. This would easily overwhelm resources and make the legislation unworkable and lacking in effectiveness

Indicators would need to be agreed and developed – as 6 months is a long period of time in individuals lives – and the identification of this being a potential is so broad at a longer time frame that it could be rendered meaningless without guidance.

No further comment.

No further comment.

The answer is no to the first question and yes to the second. The proposals are far too ambiguous at this stage – and you can’t measure the effectiveness of having the proposals put in place whilst at this stage it is not clear what the thresholds or indicators are for an increased early intervention or prevention approach. Other than having a duty – there would also need to be significant resource transfer to make this effective so that enough resources of money and people are available to meet the likely demand

It could be an addition to the Annual Assurance Statement.

By asking relevant questions and allowing them the time and space to respond.

They may not always be applicable i.e. the applicant may not wish to complete one.

We agree with this but have concerns about the resource implications.

If we have reason to believe that the individual may require support then this should be assessed as soon as practicable after the initial application for assistance. Clear referral pathways and holistic information gathering by the service involved would see an improvement in early identification and intervention.

Regular contact should be maintained by the applicant’s preferred means of communication.

Any appropriate assistance specific to the individual needs of the applicant.

No further comment.

Nothing to add.

No further comment.

Nothing to add.

No further comment.

We believe it should be at least 2 years in order to give some degree of security.

It would be stipulated within the tenancy agreement.

In agreement with the landlord.

We do not foresee having any control over this.

No further comment.

No further comment.

No further comment.

No further comment.

Appeals should be heard as timeously as possible.

Response rates from our client surveys are very poor.

There may be implications for the Care Inspectorate if the duty to provide support is extended to those threatened with homelessness within 6 months.
Consideration needs to be given to the proposals and consultation for other significant proposed structural change. For example, the proposal for a National Care Service could potentially render any new homelessness prevention legislation immediately out of date or requiring change, as the name of the public body may change if NCS proposals go ahead.

No further comment.

We agree but with caveats as mentioned in previous answers.

No further comment.

The package is on the whole very positive but we have concerns about the resource implications which are likely to arise. We are also interested in the mechanisms that will be put in place to ensure that all public bodies comply, and not just Housing, and as to what will be the consequences of non-compliance.
Within any new legislation and guidance there needs to be clear cognisance given to existing legislation/ guidance for public bodies in terms of thresholds for intervention and eligibility criteria for support and service delivery.

We believe that improving the overall service can only offer benefits for all and that it will ensure support for vulnerable people.

We foresee an increase in applications which will have significant resource implications requiring more staffing. There is also potentially an increase in time and resource for partner agencies which are already under immense pressure to deliver. The application of a new duty – if there are anticipated increases to service delivery - will need to be met with significantly increased resources for all public bodies involved.

We foresee doing more of the same for more people.

If all public bodies were on board with the proposals, and sufficient resources were made available, then we believe that there would be savings in the long term for all services involved. However, very substantial resources will be required to facilitate this.

Very clear, easy to follow guidance would assist.

PREVENT1 could continue to be used but would require ongoing development to ensure consistency of responses. An Island Impact Assessment is also required.