Homelessness and housing needs assessments

380 views

Published on

Presentation given by Andrew Waugh, Consultant, UK at a FEANTSA seminar on "Homelessness in public and private spaces: Mind the policy gap!
Local strategies to address the different faces of homelessness", hosted by the Committee of the Regions, June 2010

Published in: News & Politics, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
380
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Homelessness and housing needs assessments

  1. 1. Homeless and Housing Need AssessmentsHelping Scottish local authorities assess their capacity to meet homelessness legislation Dr. Andrew Waugh Brussels 4 June 2010
  2. 2. Overview• Homelessness and Housing Need Assessments• The Scottish Example • Impact of implementing legislative changes across local authorities • Testing effectiveness of policy interventions• Conclusions
  3. 3. Homelessness and Housing Need Assessments• Housing Need Assessments • project need for housing across all tenures into the future • Should take into account demand for homelessness • Often involves a large survey• Homelessness is a subset of wider housing need?• Can measure need arising from homelessness using the Waugh Model • Mathematical model of the homelessness and social housing system • Don’t need a survey
  4. 4. The Scottish Example
  5. 5. Housing (Scotland) Act 2001• Temporary Accommodation for all homeless households until discharge of duty• Permanent accommodation• Modernised Right to Buy
  6. 6. Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003• Extension, then abolition of the priority need test by the end of 2012 – the 2012 target• Power replaces duty to investigate intentionality• Suspension of the local connection provision.Homeless Priority Need Intentionality Local Connection
  7. 7. What will the impact be on...?• Number of temporary accommodation places needed• Time spent in temporary accommodation• Number and proportion of lets required by homeless households into the future• Will all Local Authorities manage?
  8. 8. Who has this work been done for?• Initially for six individual local authorities in Scotland – Renfrewshire, – South Ayrshire, – North Ayrshire, – Aberdeen, – Dumfries & Galloway – Stirling• The Scottish Government – all 32 local authorities and also a national picture
  9. 9. The Waugh Model HomelessnessStock Model + System Model Supply Demand local authority level
  10. 10. Local Authority (LA) Tenancy Dynamics other waiting list lets decantshomeless LA to LA LA decantslets to RSL Core Demo terminations terminations RTBs Core stock – has a future Demolition stock – needs to be pulled down
  11. 11. Homelessness System Modelapplications • Inputs (things we try to control) – The number of applications + assessments – Number of lets to homeless households • Outputs (results) – Number of households in the system – Time spent in the system Temporary accommodation lets
  12. 12. Homelessness System Model Local Authority Priority RSL Need Private Lets Other Non Local Authority Priority OtherTemporary Accommodation = constant x (Assess +PN + NonPN)
  13. 13. Continue 2006/7 Position• Homelessness levels as at 2006/7• All landlords maintain fixed % of lets• New Build distributed as in last 3 years
  14. 14. Households in Temporary Accommodation 16,000 14,000Households in Temporary Accommodation 12,000 10 053 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Historical Temporary Accommodation Projected Temporary Accommodation
  15. 15. Household Days in Temporary Accommodation 5.0 4.5 4.0Household Days (millions) 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
  16. 16. Continue 2006/7 Position• Massive growth in: – Number of households in temporary accommodation – Time spent in temporary accommodation – …Temporary accommodation budgets?• Difficulty for Local Authorities• Bad for homeless people• We need to avoid this happening
  17. 17. Possible Actions and Policy Interventions• Increase lets to avoid increase in temporary accommodation• Modify Right to Buy• Make greater use of the private sector – minimum of: • 20% of homeless outcomes or • 10% of lets in the PRS• Increase prevention work further• Redistribute new build
  18. 18. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Shetland 100% Renfrewshire South Ayrshire Glasgow City Inverclyde Dundee City Aberdeen City East Ayrshire Fife Scottish Borders Aberdeenshire Eilean Siar Midlothian Argyll & ButeWest Dunbartonshire North LanarkshireDumfries & Galloway South Lanarkshire East Renfrewshire accommodation Angus Perth & Kinross North Ayrshire Highland Falkirk Orkney Edinburgh StirlingEast Dunbartonshire West Lothian Moray East Lothian Clackmannanshire LAs only increase lets to avoid an increase in temporary
  19. 19. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Shetland 100% Renfrewshire Inverclyde Glasgow City Argyll & Bute Scottish Borders Eilean Siar Midlothian South Ayrshire Dundee City East Ayrshire Fife Aberdeen City Aberdeenshire East Renfrewshire AngusWest DunbartonshireDumfries & Galloway West Lothian Highland Perth & Kinross North Ayrshire temporary accommodation South Lanarkshire North Lanarkshire Falkirk Orkney EdinburghEast Dunbartonshire Stirling Moray Clackmannanshire All social landlords increase lets to avoid an increase in East Lothian
  20. 20. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Shetland 100% Argyll & Bute Renfrewshire Inverclyde Scottish Borders Glasgow City Dundee City Midlothian South Ayrshire Aberdeen City Eilean Siar East Ayrshire Aberdeenshire Fife East Renfrewshire Angus Highland Perth & KinrossWest Dunbartonshire OrkneyDumfries & Galloway Stirling West Lothian Falkirk South Lanarkshire Edinburgh North Ayrshire North LanarkshireEast Dunbartonshire Moray East Lothian Clackmannanshire … and completely suspend RTB
  21. 21. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Shetland 100% Argyll & Bute Renfrewshire Inverclyde Glasgow City Scottish Borders South Ayrshire Midlothian Dundee City Aberdeen City Eilean Siar East Ayrshire Aberdeenshire Fife East Renfrewshire Angus Highland Perth & KinrossDumfries & Galloway West Lothian Stirling OrkneyWest Dunbartonshire Falkirk South Lanarkshire North Ayrshire North Lanarkshire EdinburghEast Dunbartonshire to avoid an increase in temporary accommodation Moray East Lothian Clackmannanshire All social landlords +Private Rented Sector increase lets
  22. 22. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Shetland 100% Midlothian Eilean Siar Argyll & Bute Renfrewshire Inverclyde Scottish Borders Dundee City Glasgow City East Ayrshire South Ayrshire Aberdeen City Fife East Renfrewshire AberdeenshireWest Dunbartonshire AngusDumfries & Galloway Perth & Kinross Falkirk North Ayrshire West Lothian Highland South Lanarkshire North Lanarkshire Edinburgh OrkneyEast Dunbartonshire Stirling Moray Clackmannanshire East Lothian Prevention of 2.5 percent per annum…
  23. 23. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Renfrewshire 100% Shetland Inverclyde Scottish Borders Glasgow City South Ayrshire Dundee City Argyll & Bute East Ayrshire Eilean Siar Fife Aberdeen City Aberdeenshire East Renfrewshire Midlothian AngusWest DunbartonshireDumfries & Galloway West Lothian Highland Perth & Kinross North Ayrshire South Lanarkshire North Lanarkshire Falkirk Orkney EdinburghEast Dunbartonshire Stirling Moray East Lothian Clackmannanshire ...but with an increase of 2.5 percent per annum!
  24. 24. Redistributed New Build•Assume homelessness remains at 2006/7 levels•Assume LAs and RSLs contribute same proportion of lets•Assume no additional contribution from PRS Units Maximum % of all completions lets to homeless required in 2013/14 50% 7,447 60% 3,955 70% 1,746
  25. 25. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Renfrewshire 100% Shetland Glasgow City Inverclyde Scottish Borders Dundee City South Ayrshire Midlothian Aberdeen City East Ayrshire Fife Argyll & Bute Aberdeenshire Eilean Siar Falkirk Stirling HighlandWest DunbartonshireDumfries & Galloway East Lothian West Lothian Edinburgh AngusEast Dunbartonshire Clackmannanshire South Lanarkshire North Lanarkshire Moray Orkney Perth & Kinross North Ayrshire East Renfrewshire Redistributed New Build – 60%
  26. 26. Units per year 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Aberdeen City Dundee City East Ayrshire Falkirk Glasgow City Inverclyde Renfrewshire Scottish Borders Shetland West Dunbartonshire Clackmannanshire Orkney Angus Eilean Siar StirlingWaugh Fife Argyll & Bute North LanarkshireBramley South Ayrshire Moray North Ayrshire East Lothian Aberdeenshire South Lanarkshire Dumfries & Galloway Comparison of Waugh Model (2011/12) and Bramley Model Results (2011) West Lothian Midlothian Perth & Kinross East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Highland City of Edinburgh Homelessness vs. wider Housing Need
  27. 27. 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 Aberdeen City Dundee City East Ayrshire Falkirk Glasgow City Inverclyde Renfrewshire Scottish Borders Shetland West Dunbartonshire Clackmannanshire Orkney Angus Eilean Siar Stirling FifeBaseline Argyll & Bute North LanarkshireBramley South Ayrshire Baseline vs Bramley in 2011 Moray North Ayrshire East Lothian Aberdeenshire South Lanarkshire Dumfries & Galloway West Lothian Midlothian Perth & Kinross East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Highland City of Edinburgh Where we have been building
  28. 28. Conclusions
  29. 29. The benefit of using the Waugh Model for individual local authorities?• Determine need arising from homelessness without a survey• Argue to local councillors and others why the current position was unsustainable• Assess which policy interventions, or combinations of intervention might help.• Additionally, which interventions would be of very limited assistance.• A strong evidence base to lobby the Scottish Government for increased funding
  30. 30. The benefit of using the Waugh Model for the Scottish Government?• Provided Ministers with an assessment of their commitment to implement the 2012 target using already available data• Quantified the impact – more than just words• Provided evidence to argue for change: – the Right to Buy – greater use of the private rented sector – allocation of new build units – Increasing new build
  31. 31. The Endwww.tinyurl.com/awaughwaugh.andrew@gmail.com

×