1. 2012 Homelessness Target Marion Gibbs and Duncan Gray Modelling seminars - Dundee

2. Background 2012 target 2009 interim target Reached or exceeded by 14 LAs A further 5 LAs reached or exceeded it during one or more quarters Priority assessments in 6 LAs were 10 or more % points below 2009 target

3. 2012 SG/COSLA Steering Group Joint Steering Group started meeting in October 2009 Membership – CoSLA (chaired by Cllr Brian Goodall, Cllr Harry McGuigan and officials), SG (Minister and officials), ALACHO, SOLACE and SFHA

4. Remit To assess, inform and influence progress towards the 2012 homelessness target. To oversee ongoing and planned work to assess progress against the interim targets set for local authorities for 2008-09 and to determine the implications for further action needed to meet the 2012 target

5. Workplan Four main areas agreed: Continued leadership at both political and corporate level – promoting joint working Preventing homelessness Ensuring access to existing stock among PRS and RSLs Investing in appropriate areas

6. Increasing homelessness applications

7. Increasing priority falling non-priority

8. Increasing numbers getting permanent accommodation

9. Homeless are mainly young

10. Relationship breakdown is the main driver of homelessness

11. required spend total budget Extra budget required Progress against interim targets

12. Issues looked at to date 14,847 applications assessed as homeless from <25 (37% of all assessed as homeless) 8 LAs have more young women assessed as homeless than young men (Aberdeen, Dundee, East Dunbartonshire, East Lothian, Edinburgh, Eilean Siar, Perth and Kinross and West Dunbartonshire)

13. Key Statistics 22% of <25s are single parents (24% for homeless population as a whole) 5% of homeless <25s are couples with children 2% had leaving supported accommodation as last form of accommodation

14. Areas where high percentage of young people Orkney (60%) Moray (48%) West Lothian (44%) Fife (43%) Clackmannanshire (42%) Angus and North Ayrshire (41%)

15. Areas where low percentage of young people Glasgow (27%) Inverclyde (28%) East Renfrewshire (32%) Eilean Siar (32%) North Lanarkshire (33%)

16. Aberdeen 40% of homeless population under 25 Young homeless: single person (66%) single parent (19%); couple (10%); couple with children (6%) Dispute non-violent or asked to leave – 54.2% Young people in area – 15-24 – 15% SHR report – D – 2004/05 Youth unemployment – 26.3% (Scotland 29.4%)

17. Angus 41% of homeless population under 25 Young homeless: single person (42%) single parent (42%); couple (7%); couple with children (8%) Dispute non-violent or asked to leave – 58.0% Young people in area – 15-24 – 13% SHR report – C – 2003/04 Youth unemployment – 29.3%

18. Dundee 39% of homeless population under 25 Young homeless: single person (58%) single parent (30%); couple (6%); couple with children (5%) Dispute non-violent or asked to leave – no figures available Young people in area – 15-24 – 16% SHR report – C – 2007/08 Youth unemployment – 28.8%

19. Fife 43% of homeless population under 25 Young homeless: single person (72%) single parent (16%); couple (8%); couple with children (5%) Dispute non-violent or asked to leave – 53.7% Young people in area – 15-24 – 16% SHR report – not inspected Youth unemployment – 29.6%

20. Moray 48% of homeless population under 25 Young homeless: single person (65%) single parent (18%); couple (13%); couple with children (4%) Dispute non-violent or asked to leave – 64.7% Young people in area – 15-24 – 14% SHR report – C – 2008/09 Youth unemployment – 29.8%

21. Perth and Kinross 35% of homeless population under 25 Young homeless: single person (60%) single parent (22%); couple (12%); couple with children (6%) Dispute non-violent or asked to leave – 55.7% Young people in area – 15-24 – 12% SHR report – D – 2006/07 Youth unemployment – 28.4%

22. Lets to homeless households - LAs 45% of local authority lets in Scotland going to homeless applicants: Aberdeen – 30% (met target by 5%) Angus – 70% (met target by 2%) Dundee – 47% (missed target by 4%) Fife – 32% (missed target by 11%) Moray – 52% (missed target by 5%) Perth and Kinross 51% - (missed target by 15%)

23. Lets to homeless households - RSLs Across Scotland – 22% of RSL lets to homeless households (s5 and homeless nominations) – APSR figs (25.5% SCORE) Variation in this: 55% of lets to under 5% of lets Full stock transfers also vary – 50% in DGHP to 24% for both SBHA and River Clyde Homes GHA – 29%

24. Big increase in households in temporary accommodation

25. Question What are the drivers of change in homelessness levels and what are the barriers to achieving the 2012 target?

26. 2012 Modelling (Waugh Model) (Simplified Spreadsheet Model) Assessing councils’ capacity to meet 2012 homelessness commitment

27. Aim of presentation To give a broad overview of model and set out key features/ assumptions. To identify issues arising from use of model over past couple of years. To discuss development/ future use/ variants.

28. Context 2012 commitment. Assist Ministers in their statutory duty to assess capacity of each council to meet the commitment. Assist Ministers in working jointly with councils to assist all to ‘get into a better position’ to achieve 2012.

29. What the model does (a) Projects supply of lets to meet the needs of priority homeless for each year to 2015-16. [2012 and beyond.] (b) Projects demand for lets for homeless under a range of assumptions. (c) Projects number of LA/ LSVT; RSL; PRS lets taken by homeless in each year under a range of assumptions. (d) Projects the number in temporary accommodation and the amount of time spent in temporary accommodation in each year.

30. Outline of the model LA/ LSVT Stock New Build Sales Demolitions SOCIAL STOCK Social Lets Relets of existing stock + = Available LA/ LSVT Lets - Decants New Build Sales Demolitions Relets of existing stock + = Available RSL Lets - Decants HOMELESSNESS Assessed PriorityAssessed Non- priority Social lets available/ needed Other destinations/ outcomes… e.g. Returned to Previous Accommodation. Moved in with friends/ relatives. Made own arrangements. Lost contact. Private let. RSL Stock Note:- The red boxes show the main outputs from the model + = Temporary Accommodation Needed Temporary accommodation as outcome Temporary accommodation awaiting let

31. Key inputs: Social lets Projected supply of social lets comes from turnover of existing stock, new building demolitions including decants. Separate projections for –LA/ LSVT –RSL Allows modelling of impact of moving to equal shares of lets to homeless.

32. Key inputs: Private Rented Lets Very simple set of assumptions:- –Estimated turnover of PRS from SHS and PRS registration sources. –Assume that PRS let would be suitable for no more than x% of homeless. [ Currently 20%, can be varied.] –Assume that no more than y% of PRS lets would be suitable for homeless. [ Currently 10%, can be varied.]

33. Key inputs: Homelessness Numbers homeless and proportion in priority in base year (now 08-09). Shape of profile to achieve 2012 [gradual v big- bang.] Impact of prevention over projection period. Impact of drop-outs:- –Maximum % of priority homeless who will need a permanent let. –Reduction in drop-out rates over projection period.

34. What an output workbook looks like

35. Advantages Detailed profile of stock, lets and homeless levels. Identifies and incorporates all the key factors affecting balance between need and supply. Sophisticated mathematical model providing a projection of volume of temporary accommodation needed.

36. Limitations Takes about 5 hours to run the model for all councils. The Scottish Government Version doesn’t allow single council runs. Can’t readily vary the profile of % homeless assessed as priority. Can’t put restrictions on % of LA/ LSVT/ RSL lets to homeless. Uses MATLAB so can’t be provided to councils.

37. Simplified spreadsheet based model Uses almost all the same inputs, taken directly from Waugh model inputs. One model for each council. Projects balance between need and supply under the given set of assumptions in each year to 2015. Allows restrictions on % of lets to homeless. Doesn’t project numbers in temporary accommodation.

38. Example input sheet

39. Example output summary

40. Points for discussion What factors (for your LA) might affect the use of standardised assumptions in the models? –Number of LA/ LSVT lets available. Reprovisioning/ decants. –Number of PRS lets available. –Homeless prevention. –% of priority homeless requiring a let. Value of projected use of temporary accommodation.

41. Use of 2012 modelling for Strategic Housing Investment Working Group

42. Presentation will cover Purpose of the SHIF Working Group. Likely use of 2012 modelling. Issues arising.

43. SHIF Working Group Joint CoSLA Scottish Government. Remit is to provide advice to Ministers on criteria to use to distribute capital grants (mainly development programme). The main drivers of affordable housing need are:- Addressing wider affordability; Supporting regeneration; Meeting 2012 homelessness commitment.

44. SHIF Working Group Working towards a distribution formula based on indicators relevant to each driver of need. No final decisions on either the indicators to be used or the weights to be applied to these.

45. Use of 2012 models Runs of Waugh and related models show – under the specific assumptions used - relative investment needed to ensure that no more than X% of social lets will be needed in 2013-14 for homeless –2013-14 is first full year after Dec 2012. –X% has generally been set at 60%. –Homeless has been based either on latest year or on a given % per year reduction due to prevention. –Projected stock and lets has been on set assumptions about:- Turnover of existing LA/ RSL normal lettings stock. RTB sales. Decants from non-viable stock. –Proportion of priority homeless not requiring a social let. –Standard assumptions about potential for use of PRS. Councils with largest ‘shortfall’ in lets from Waugh model generally [but not exactly] are also councils with net affordable need in wider affordability assessments (e.g. Bramley).

46. Issues (1) Wide variations between councils in patterns and incidence of homelessness which can’t be easily explained by external factors. –Regression analysis shows that relative levels of deprivation and constraints on affordable supply do play a part. –But a large amount of unexplained variation. See next 2 slides.

47. Higher levels of income deprivation imply higher levels of homelessness: But significant unexplained variation

48. Adding a factor for wider affordable need improves the fit but only slightly

49. Issues (2) Homelessness varies significantly from year to year by council area. Between 2005-06; when homelessness peaked in Scotland; and 2008-09 homelessness decreased by over 20% in 8 council areas and increased by over 20% 8 council areas. –See next slide.

50. Also homeless incidence varies a lot over time

51. Progress of SHIF discussions Likely to recommend not using current homelessness levels, but rather:- –using projected homeless levels from a base at around 2005-06; and –Projected year on year reduction to reflect councils’ capacity to reduce homelessness through effective prevention.

52. Further SHIF related work Credibility assessment alongside other indicators. Reviewing/ checking some of the standardised assumptions on supply.

53. Points for discussion (1) How do we ensure that approach doesn’t penalise effective prevention? What reasons might there be behind big year-on-year changes in homelessness levels? Changes in:- –Underlying drivers of homelessness. –Applicant behaviours. –Council behaviours/ policies.

54. Points for discussion (2) Views on capacity of PRS. –How can we improve our modelling on this? Constraints on % social lets to homeless? Any other issues?

55. Session 4 2012 Steering Group – discussion around measuring prevention activities But also more than this – measuring the impact of prevention Some local authorities are definitely focussing on prevention, but homelessness increasing

56. Session 4 How best can we effectively record prevention activities? How can we measure the impact of prevention? How can we monitor success?