Memorandum by Sheila Spencer (HOM 48)
1. BACKGROUND
TO THIS
SUBMISSION
I have been part of the team from Housing Quality
Network Services which has recently completed the evaluation of
all 354 Homelessness Strategies. The report of the evaluation
contains many of the issues which the Select Committee would wish
to note; this submission does not repeat those issues.
This submission is based upon the following
experience:
— 10 years in a Shelter-based housing
aid centre in the North East;
— four years managing a local authority
homelessness and housing advice service in the North East;
— 10 years as a consultant (mainly
across the North of England and in the West Midlands), including
carrying out work to contribute to Homelessness Reviews and Strategies
for nine Local Housing Authorities, and a further five Supporting
People Shadow and Five Year Strategies, reviewing contracted-out
homelessness and housing advice services, and preparing for the
Audit Commission a summary of issues raised in inspections of
homelessness and housing advice services; and
— needs analysis and development of
strategies for meeting the housing and support needs of substance
misusers (North East, North West, and East Anglia).
2. POLICY AND
PRACTICE AREAS
WHICH ARE
PROVING INADEQUATE
TO ADDRESS
OR PREVENT
HOMELESSNESS FOR
SOME OR
ALL CLIENT
GROUPS
2.1 Lack of assessment of non-priority housing
and support needs
Schedule 1 of the Homelessness Act 2002 (by
amending Section 192.2 of the Housing Act 1996) gave homeless
services a duty to provide appropriate advice and assistance to
people who are not in priority need, after an assessment of each
individual's needs. This is an important change to the way that
homeless assessments are conducted with non-priority applicants.
It was intended to provide an assessment of both housing and support
needs so that, even though there is no duty to secure accommodation
for the individual, they are in a position to know what is available
to suit their needs and how they might access such services. This
was described by Lord Falconer as moving to be more applicant-specific,
in contrast to the common past practice of simply providing a
list of private landlords, hostels, and B&Bs, for all non-priority
applicants.
There does not, appear to have been a change
in the interview process in many authorities or homeless services,
and there is insufficient guidance available to help LHAs or their
contractors to assess support needs. In many areas, the approach
has not changed and applicants may still be issued with an all-purpose
list which may or may not contain any resources to suit their
needs. This has the effect of discouraging non-priority applicants
from presenting themselves at homeless services, thereby denying
them an interview, an assessment, and also the possibility of
being accepted as in priority need and having their needs met
more swiftly and appropriately. In particular, young people who
approach homeless services and are given a multi-purpose list
containing agencies which are inappropriate for people their age,
may not come back for further help if they do not resolve their
homelessness.
2.2 Unresolved differences on interpretations
of vulnerability
Since 1977, the legislation has defined vulnerability
for those applicants who do not have a priority need for any other
reason, and case law has helped us to understand what might be
meant by this. The critical test of vulnerability comes from the
view of the courts, quoted in the Homelessness Code of Guidance
(para 8.13) that the question is whether the applicant is less
able to fend for themselves, if homeless, than an ordinary homeless
person, so that he would be likely to suffer injury or detriment,
in circumstances where a less vulnerable person would be able
to cope without harmful effects.
In many areas, local advice and support agencies
regularly represent homeless applicants to the LHA or their contractor
because the view of whether the applicant is vulnerable or not
differs widely. Recent examples related during consultation aimed
at meeting the housing and support needs of substance misusers
illustrate the problem well. For example, a person with a history
of mental ill health, including suicide attempts, and physical
ill health, was informed that they were not in priority need.
He was sleeping rough, had ceased to use heroin some months before,
and was being supported by an agency whose work revolves around
helping substance misusers to tackle their addictions and to move
towards more normal and healthy lives. Representation of the facts
by the CAB led the LHA to change their decision of non-priority
fairly quickly, but in the meantime the applicant had slept rough
whilst waiting for this decision.
There are clearly likely to be differences at
times between the views and interpretation of workers in advice
and advocacy agencies and those in statutory homeless services,
but there are worrying signs that all too many LHAs or contractors
do not consider the question of vulnerability fully, and are too
quick to assume that someone with a substance misuse problem or
an offending history is unlikely to be vulnerable. In fact many
of those who leave prison after a series of drug offences and
years of substance misuse have little in the way of life skills,
are very vulnerable to approaches from former drug associates,
and are very likely to return to using and offending if they remain
homeless. Very few LHAs consider substance misuse as a possible
cause of vulnerability and many more give the impression of taking
a blanket view that this could not contribute to an applicant
being considered to be vulnerable and therefore in priority need.
2.3 Collusion with housing management on exclusions
for previous rent arrears/drug histories
Homeless staff can sometimes give the impression
that their decision on priority need and/or intentionality has
been influenced by the view of housing managers that the applicant
should be excluded from the waiting list because of a history
of rent arrears or anti-social behaviour. Despite the need to
establish whether the person would be excluded on the basis of
serious rent arrears or other recent unacceptable behaviour, many
homeless people provide examples of being told that they would
not be housed because of their history of drug use, or history
as an offender, or because of small amounts of debt, sometimes
for Housing Benefit overpayment rather than non-payment of rent.
These decisions are not often given in writing, and many homeless
people talk about poor attitudes of housing staff which have discouraged
them from applying for social housing or for help as homeless,
even where they have no accommodation that night.
A recent report, "Just surviving":
the housing and support needs of people on the fringes of homelessness
and/or the criminal justice system in West Yorkshire (West Yorkshire
Supporting People Cross Authority Group, 2004) set out quotes
from a number of individuals about the way their applicant or
request for help was treated, both by local authorities and Housing
Associations.
There are particular concerns about people who
have spent some time addressing their substance misuse (for example
in prison and/or rehabilitation schemes) and have built up independent
living skills whilst in temporary supported accommodation not
being able to move onto permanent homes because the changes they
have made in their lives are not recognised by the social housing
provider applied to. Although this more often affects people being
excluded by LHAs or Housing Associations from the normal waiting
list, it can also affect homelessness decisions as described above.
2.4 Effect of Choice-Based Lettings (CBL)
schemes
Although CBL schemes have broadly met with favourable
responses from applicants, homeless people and the agencies working
with them may have less positive experiences. It is not uncommon
for homeless applicants to apply frequently for vacancies but
to receive no response or feedback, or for agencies to be told
informally that the applicant is unlikely to qualify for some
time or for anywhere other than low demand properties. Where they
are not in priority need, their chances of being rehoused are
then very slim, particularly where the CBL scheme is operated
jointly for all social landlords in the area or where there is
no longer any council stock in the district. The private rented
sector does not provide a good option for people who have been
homeless for some time and are in need of the low level support
which constitutes good housing management practice.
2.5 Bed blocking in temporary accommodation
The effect of these phenomenon, and the shortage
of social housing in many areas, has the effect of blocking temporary
accommodation. People who are ready to move onto independent accommodation
often find this a depressing stage, when they have made progress
and gained the skills they need, but cannot find the accommodation
in which to lead a normal life. For others who are homeless or
in need of supported accommodation, there is a block to their
access to such provision. This is a very common feature across
the country, not just in high demand areas but is more evident
in those places, and it requires some strong will and actions
to address the problem.
2.6 Poor quality of decision-making
Consultation with agencies working with homeless
people (both statutory and voluntary sector) reveals concerns
about the quality of decision-making, not just in relation to
vulnerability but also, for example:
— whether families are split because
of no accommodation they can occupy together, and therefore should
be deemed to be homeless, and in priority need as a single household;
— when temporary accommodation should
be provided, at appropriate times or in appropriate places, for
families as well as single people in priority need; and
— what constitutes intentionality
Some of these issues are covered in Audit Commission
inspections, and in many areas the Homelessness Review process
revealed improvements needed in homelessness services which are
now being addressed through Homelessness Strategy Action Plans.
However, many Homelessness Review processes did not review the
quality or effectiveness of homelessness services, but concentrated
on issues such as access and coverage. Those which involved independent
reviewers or carried out detailed consultation with outside agencies
and service users were more likely to discover weaknesses in their
homelessness services, but this was approach was not taken in
many LHAs.
2.7 Discovering how many people are hidden
homeless or "sofa surfing"
Many Homelessness Reviews showed that more needed
to be learnt about the number of people who were on the edge of
sleeping rough, but few were able to undertake the depth of work
needed to uncover the full scale of the problem. Consultation
with agencies and with service users leads to the conclusion that
the problem is larger in most areas than either the rough sleeping
count or the Homelessness Review has revealed, and homeless people
and other agencies are willing to help to explore the problem
and the solutions. I strongly the approach taken by CRISIS to
explore this problem from fully and effectively, but it is important
to note that some homeless people will want to know that actions
and resources may result from further research before they agree
to take part in consultation on this issue; consultation fatigue
sets in with this client group too, if they find that they have
contributed their time to see no observable difference.
3. CONCLUSIONS
The process of carrying out Homelessness Reviews
and setting out Homelessness Strategies have resulted in many
positive actions now in place to address homelessness, some resulting
from the process of developing these documents as much as from
their outcomes. These include a wide range of actions to prevent
homelessness, to reduce the dependence on B&B and other inappropriate
temporary accommodation, and to address the needs of people in
non-priority groups as well as those in the priority groups.
Improvements are still needed, however, in the
way that non-priority groups and vulnerable single people are
dealt with, particularly with respect to the "unpopular groups"
such as offenders and substance misusers. Unless people in these
groups can access somewhere to live, the chances of them being
helped to move away from offending and using drugs and alcohol
are considerably slimmer; and both attitudes and practices of
housing organisations towards people in these groups need to be
adjusted to make access to accommodation a reality in some areas.
Problems exist also for younger single people, who are amongst
the groups most likely to be discouraged from applying for social
housing through homeless or rehousing sections, where they feel
that their needs will not be fully assessed, or are unlikely to
be met within a reasonable space of time.
There has been a good deal of good will built
up in the process of developing Homelessness Strategies and this
can be built upon to improve the life chances of further groups
of homeless people.
| 
