2012 Homelessness Target
1 / 56

- PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

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

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '' - yule

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Slide1 l.jpg

2012 Homelessness Target

Modelling seminars - Dundee

Marion Gibbs and Duncan Gray

Background l.jpg


  • 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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg


  • 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 l.jpg


  • 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

Progress against interim targets l.jpg
Progress against interim targets





Extra budget required

Issues looked at to date l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

Areas where low percentage of young people

  • Glasgow (27%)

  • Inverclyde (28%)

  • East Renfrewshire (32%)

  • Eilean Siar (32%)

  • North Lanarkshire (33%)

Aberdeen l.jpg


  • 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%)

Angus l.jpg


  • 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%

Dundee l.jpg


  • 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%

Slide19 l.jpg


  • 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%

Moray l.jpg


  • 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%

Perth and kinross l.jpg

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%

Lets to homeless households las l.jpg

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%)

Lets to homeless households rsls l.jpg

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%

Question l.jpg


  • 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 l.jpg

2012 Modelling (Waugh Model)(Simplified Spreadsheet Model)

Assessing councils’ capacity to meet 2012 homelessness commitment

Aim of presentation l.jpg
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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
Outline of the model

Social Lets



Assessed Priority

Assessed Non-priority

LA/ LSVT Stock


New Build



Relets of existing stock

Temporary accommodation as outcome




Temporary accommodation awaiting let





Social lets available/ needed


Available LA/ LSVT Lets

Other destinations/ outcomes… e.g.

Returned to Previous Accommodation.

Moved in with friends/ relatives.

Made own arrangements.

Lost contact.

RSL Stock


New Build


Relets of existing stock


Private let.




Available RSL Lets

Note:- The red boxes show the main outputs from the model

Key inputs social lets l.jpg
Key inputs: Social lets

Projected supply of social lets comes from turnover of existing stock, new building demolitions including decants.

Separate projections for



Allows modelling of impact of moving to equal shares of lets to homeless.

Key inputs private rented lets l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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.

Advantages l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg
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.

Points for discussion l.jpg
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.

Presentation will cover l.jpg
Presentation will cover Working Group

Purpose of the SHIF Working Group.

Likely use of 2012 modelling.

Issues arising.

Shif working group l.jpg
SHIF Working Group 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 group44 l.jpg
SHIF Working Group 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 l.jpg
Use of 2012 models Working Group

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 l.jpg
Issues (1) Working Group

  • 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.

Slide47 l.jpg
Higher levels of income deprivation imply higher levels of homelessness: But significant unexplained variation

Issues 2 l.jpg
Issues (2) but only slightly

  • 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.

Progress of shif discussions l.jpg
Progress of SHIF discussions but only slightly

  • 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 l.jpg
Further SHIF related work but only slightly

  • Credibility assessment alongside other indicators.

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

Points for discussion 1 l.jpg
Points for discussion (1) but only slightly

  • 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 l.jpg
Points for discussion (2) but only slightly

  • Views on capacity of PRS.

    • How can we improve our modelling on this?

  • Constraints on % social lets to homeless?

  • Any other issues?

Session 4 l.jpg

Session 4 but only slightly

  • 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 456 l.jpg

Session 4 but only slightly

  • How best can we effectively record prevention activities?

  • How can we measure the impact of prevention?

  • How can we monitor success?