Supplementary memorandum by Shelter (HOM
55(a))
In our oral evidence, we undertook to provide
a note on the role of social services in working with local housing
authorities to implement the Homelessness Act.
BACKGROUND
Social services have a critical role to play,
both at a strategic and an operational level, by working with
local housing authorities to prevent and to respond to homelessness
through the provision of support. In recognition of this, the
Homelessness Act included a specific duty on social services authorities
to assist local housing authorities in carrying out homelessness
reviews and developing their homelessness strategies. Social services
authorities must also take account of the homelessness strategy
in exercising their functions.
Section 12 of the Act also strengthened the
duty on housing and social services to cooperate where a homeless
family with children is not entitled to be re-housed under the
homelessness legislation (usually because they have been found
to be intentionally homeless or because of their immigration status).
In these circumstances, the duty to assist "children in need"
passes to the social services authority under the Children Act
1989. An amendment to the Adoption and Children Act 2002 confirmed
that social services can provide housing assistance to homeless
families in these circumstances.
The picture is further complicated by the Children
Act 2004 which introduces new structures for integrating childrens'
services which are currently being piloted in 35 local authority
areas through Children's Trusts. The new childrens' services will
assume responsibility for childrens social services, thus separating
them from adult services. This will include taking over responsibility
for the welfare of children in need under the Children Act 1989.
SHELTER'S
RESEARCH
Shelter carried out three surveys based on telephone
interviews with a sample group of 28 local authorities to evaluate
progress as the Homelessness Act was implemented. We also commissioned
an in depth external assessment of 15 homelessness strategies
which included telephone interviews with a range of representatives
from each local authority. The findings from this research were
published in our report The Act in Action earlier this year.
Despite the specific requirements of the Act,
problems with joint working between social services and housing
authorities were a consistent feature of this research:
— Our first survey, carried out
as the Act was beginning to be implemented in August 2002, found
that 75% of authorities identified that they needed to improve
joint working with social services.
— Our second survey, six months
later in February 2003 (and half way through the review and strategy
process) revealed widespread concern about the extent of the involvement
of social services in homelessness reviews, with particular concern
about the lack of senior level engagement in the process. More
than a quarter of authorities identified lack of engagement from
social services as one of the main difficulties in conducting
their homelessness review (second only to a lack of staff resources).
— The picture was still patchy
by the time of our final survey at the end of the review and strategy
process in July 2003. Although virtually all the authorities had
been able to engage social services to some extent, many continued
to raise concerns about the level of their involvement.
These findings were backed up by the research
we commissioned for The Act in Action. This found an inconsistent
level of engagement with the review and strategy process, with
more than half of lead officers reporting the relationship with
social services as being problematic. Where social services had
been involved in the process, they viewed this positively. However,
where they had not, they shared the concerns of housing authorities
about their lack of involvement.
THE ODPM'S
RESEARCH
In November 2004, ODPM published independent
analysis carried out by Housing Quality Network of all 354 local
authority homelessness strategies. This research identified similarly
patchy engagement from social services in the review and strategy
process (interestingly, it found no discernible differences between
single and two-tier authorities). Although the vast majority of
authorities had some degree of contact, the level and quality
of engagement was often inadequate:
"In evaluating the reviews, researchers
found that fewer than two-thirds of authorities showed clear evidence
that social services had been involved in the reviews. About another
quarter of LHAs had involved social services to some extent but
in many cases this was no more than the involvement of other agencies,
and often consisted of asking social services to comment on the
draft document." [paragraph 3.721
The research also highlighted the widespread
failure of social services to provide information about the nature
and levels of homelessness they came into contact with (eg the
number of young people leaving care with no accommodation, people
with mental health and/or substance misuse problems who are homeless).
CONCLUSION
The purpose of including specific duties on
social services in the Homelessness Act was to ensure a corporate
approach to tackling homelessness within local authorities. The
failure of local housing authorities and social services to work
together effectively undermines efforts to prevent homelessness
and may have significant implications in individual authorities
including:
— Poor rates of tenancy sustainment
due to inadequate co-ordination between homelessness services
and the provision of support.
— A failure to plan and respond
effectively to likely levels of homelessness among key groups
such as young people leaving care.
— Inadequate co-ordination of
services for particularly vulnerable groups such as homeless care
leavers, ex-offenders, substance misusers and people with mental
health problems.
— Inappropriate use of temporary
accommodation to house vulnerable groups.
— Difficulties in tracking mobile
children who may be at risk and vulnerable adults.
— Increased costs as a result
of the unnecessary use of temporary accommodation.
As we have highlighted elsewhere in our evidence,
we are particularly concerned at the lack of joint working in
cases where homeless families are not entitled to be re-housed
under the homelessness legislation and, in particular, the widespread
failure of social services authorities to exercise their powers
to promote the welfare of children in need under section 17 of
the Children Act in these circumstances.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We hope the Committee will include a positive
recommendation on improving joint working between local housing
authorities and social services in its report. Shelter suggests
the following recommendations to achieve this:
— The ODPM research recommends
that local authorities should bring forward plans for comprehensively
reviewing their homelessness strategies—in doing so, they
should ensure that social services are actively engaged in the
process.
— To facilitate this, the relevant
Government departments (ODPM, the Department of Health and DfES)
should issue joint guidance on how local housing authorities should
work with social services and Children's Trusts in light of the
new arrangements introduced by the Children Act 2004.
— The Government should also look
to find mechanisms for promoting good practice in this area eg
via the Beacon Council scheme or by working with the IDeA.
— The relevant inspection bodies
should monitor progress in this area.
— In evaluating the Children's
Trust pathfinders, the Government should give careful consideration
to the effectiveness of their working arrangements with local
housing authorities and issue appropriate guidance accordingly.
— As set out elsewhere, much stronger
guidance is needed on the responsibilities of social services
(children services authorities under the new arrangements) under
section 17 of the Children Act where homeless families are not
entitled to be re-housed under the homelessness legislation.
— The Government should also promote
the use of joint protocols between housing and social services
such as the one developed by Norfolk County Council and its partner
authorities.
| 
