2012 homelessness target marion gibbs and duncan gray modelling seminars - edinburgh

2012 Homelessness Target

Marion Gibbs and Duncan Gray

Modelling seminars - Edinburgh

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

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

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

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

Increasing homelessness applications

Applications for assistance

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Increasing priority falling non-priority

Priority and non-priority homelessness

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

1992-93

1993-94

1994-95

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

Priority Non-priority

Increasing numbers getting permanent accommodation

Accommodation secured by homeless applicants

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Social Rented Return to previous/ present accommodation Hostel etc Other

Analysis based on the year the application was completed

Analysis based on the year the household applied for assistance

Homeless are mainly young

Homeless by age of main applicant: 2008-09

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Relationship breakdown is the main driver of homelessness

Main groups of homeless by prior circumstances and reasons for homelessness

Temporary accommodationSupported

accommodation

Prison, hospital armed forces

Rented/ Owned: Financial/landlord

reasons

Rented/ Owned: Dispute etc.

Friends/ partners: Dispute

Other Parents/ relatives: Dispute/ Asked to

leave

required

spend

total

budget

Extra budget

required

Progress against interim targets

Progress towards 2012 target by Local Authority

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Aberdeen City

Aberdeenshire

Angus

Argyll & Bute

Clackmannanshire

Dumfries & Galloway

Dundee City

East Ayrshire

East Dunbartonshire

East Lothian

East Renfrewshire

Edinburgh

Eilean Siar

Falkirk

Fife

Glasgow City

Highland

Inverclyde

Midlothian

Moray

North Ayrshire

North Lanarkshire

Orkney

Perth & Kinross

Renfrewshire

Scottish Borders

Shetland

South Ayrshire

South Lanarkshire

Stirling

West Dunbartonshire

West Lothian

% of homeless assess as priority

'03-04 start position Position reached by08_09

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)

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

Areas where high percentage of young people

• Orkney (60%)

• Moray (48%)

• West Lothian (44%)

• Fife (43%)

• Clackmannanshire (42%)

• Angus and North Ayrshire (41%)

Areas where low percentage of young people

• Glasgow (27%)

• Inverclyde (28%)

• East Renfrewshire (32%)

• Eilean Siar (32%)

• North Lanarkshire (33%)

Dumfries and Galloway

• 40% of population under 25

• 2.8% of 16 – 24 population = assessed as homeless (Scotland 2.3%)

• Young homeless: single person (69%); single parent (19%); couple (6%); couple with children (6%)

• Dispute non-violent or asked to leave – 57.5%

• Young people in area – 15-24 – 10.8%

• SHR report – C – 2006/07

• Youth unemployment – 33.2%

East Lothian

• 37% of homeless population under 25





• SHR report – C – reinspection 2007/08


Edinburgh






• SHR report – A – 2005/06


Falkirk



• Young homeless: single person (62%); single parent (18%); couple (13%); couple with children (6%); other (2%)



• SHR report – D – 2007/08


Midlothian






• SHR report – D – 2007/08


Orkney



• Young homeless: single person (85%); single parent (3%), couple (6%); couple with children (6%)


• Young people in area – 15-24 – 19%

• SHR report – D – 2004/05

• Youth unemployment – 30.0% (Scotland 29.4%) for 18-24 – JSA claimants

Scottish Borders






• SHR report – C – 2007/08


Shetland






• SHR report – C – 2007/08


Stirling






• SHR report – C – 2003/04


West Lothian





• Young people in area – 15-24 – 15%

• SHR report – C – 2005/06

• Youth unemployment – 31.7

Lets to homeless households - LAs

• 45% of local authority lets in Scotland going to homeless applicants:

•East Lothian Council - 53% (missed target by 7%)

•Edinburgh – 60% (missed target by 2%)

•Falkirk – 60% (met target by 1%)

•Midlothian – 44% (missed target by 5)

•Orkney – 37% (met target)

•Shetland - 30% (missed target by 11%)

•Stirling – 55% (missed target by12%)

•West Lothian – 70% (missed target by 6%)

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%

Big increase in households in temporary accommodation

Homeless households in temporary accommodation: 31 March

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

All households Households with children

Question

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

2012 Modelling (Waugh Model)

(Simplified Spreadsheet Model)

Assessing councils’ capacity to meet 2012 homelessness

commitment

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.

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.

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.

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 BuildSales

Demolitions Relets of existing stock

+

==Available RSL

Lets

-

Decants

HOMELESSNESS

Assessed Priority Assessed 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

AccommodationNeeded

Temporary accommodation

as outcomeTemporary

accommodation awaiting let

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.

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.]

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.

What an output workbook looks like

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.

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.

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.

Example input sheet

Example output summary

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.

Use of 2012 modelling for Strategic Housing Investment Working

Group

Presentation will cover

• Purpose of the SHIF Working Group.

• Likely use of 2012 modelling.

• Issues arising.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Higher levels of income deprivation imply higher levels of homelessness: But significant

unexplained variationHomeless as % of all households v % of total population income deprived

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

% of popn income deprived

Ho

mele

ss h

ou

seh

old

s a

s %

of

all

ho

useh

old

s

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

Regression % homeless v multiple regrssion on inc deprived and Can't afford as % of lets

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Predicted from regression model

Actu

al

ho

mele

ss a

s %

of

all

ho

useh

old

s

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.

Also homeless incidence varies a lot over time

Percentage change in number of households assessed as homeless between 2005-06 and 2008-09

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Aberdeen City

RenfrewshireShetland

Scottish BordersSouth Lanarkshire

Dundee CityFalkirk

Stirling

East LothianAberdeenshire

MidlothianEilean Siar

EdinburghWest Dunbartonshire

East DunbartonshireSouth Ayrshire

HighlandAngus

East RenfrewshireDumfries & Galloway

MorayNorth Ayrshire

East AyrshireNorth Lanarkshire

Argyll & Bute

West LothianFife

ClackmannanshireGlasgow City

Perth & KinrossInverclyde

Orkney

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.

Further SHIF related work

• Credibility assessment alongside other indicators.

• Reviewing/ checking some of the standardised assumptions on supply.

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.

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?

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

Session 4

• How best can we effectively record prevention activities?

• How can we measure the impact of prevention?

• How can we monitor success?

2012 homelessness target marion gibbs and duncan gray modelling seminars - edinburgh

Documents

single parent

homelessness legislationchart

household typechart

target workplanfour

local authorities

appropriate areas

applicationssingle person

ministerial pape