Agenda item
Single Homeless Prevention Service
This report updates the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny committee about the performance and outcomes of the Single Homeless Prevention Service (SHPS) since it came into effect operationally in September 2017.
Minutes:
Councillor Southwood (Lead Member for Housing and Welfare Reform, Brent Council) introduced the report, updating the Committee about performance and outcomes of the Single Homeless Prevention Service (SHPS) since it came into effect operationally in September 2017. She advised the Committee that when the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 was introduced the Council had already started a lot of this work as there was a number of people falling through the cracks who did not meet the Priority Need threshold but still had vulnerabilities. One of the main groups who came to the Council experiencing homelessness were single people, therefore she felt the SHPS was very important. They had focused on investment and applying for any grant they could to provide a service to single homeless people no matter if they met the priority criteria, so that they could receive support to prevent homelessness in the first instance, or support to find accommodation if already homeless. Councillor Southwood identified the particular challenge of demand, with a 52% rise in homeless applications when the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 was introduced and an 11% increase in this year.
The Chair thanked Councillor Southwood for the introduction and invited Committee members to ask questions, with the following issues raised:
The Committee asked for assurance that Cabinet had met the objectives set in 2017. Councillor Southwood expressed confidence that the service was meeting the need, but that it was a challenge responding to the increased demand. A homelessness and rough sleeping strategy had been developed as it was felt there was a need to increase the sophistication of understanding of services provided and the needs of individuals who came to the Council.
Whether there was anything Councillor Southwood wished they had been able to do and hoped to do going forward, Councillor Southwood highlighted affordable housing. She expressed that the Council met the needs of people coming to them through the Private Rented Sector and were building their own social housing and felt that the more houses available to the Council through projects like ‘Capital Letters’ to access more affordable accommodation, the fewer people needed to live in temporary accommodation. Councillor Southwood added that there were ambitious aims to reduce temporary accommodation.
Laurence Coaker (Head of Housing Needs, Brent Council) highlighted that the statistics around homelessness were becoming more robust as information was collected from single homeless people. The government had introduced a new recording system called ‘H-CLIC’, which the Council was obliged to use, and it provided information on the demographics of homeless people. It showed the demand in each Local Authority. SHPS was working on tracking individuals, and the council is working to track the outcomes for rough sleepers, as there were questions around what had happened to the people who were picked up by the service. He expressed that the drivers for homelessness were affordability and Private Rented Sector contracting introducing benefits caps particularly in areas of high demand like Brent.
Regarding how ideas were shared across homelessness services that did not cover single homelessness, Laurence Coaker explained that single homeless people experience and present different issues such as substance misuse, so there were 2 teams; 1 team to deal with single homelessness and couples without children, and 1 team to deal with families. It was acknowledged that there was common ground, particularly affordability. The Community and Wellbeing department could make links between other services such as mental health services to support single homelessness issues.
It was explained that the homelessness reduction act 2017 introduced 2 new duties; prevention and relief. Each duty allowed a time frame of 56 days to process a case. The SHPS did not close a homelessness case on the 57th day but would work with the homeless person as long as was reasonable. It was highlighted that there was high expectations from individuals such as access to social housing, and when it became apparent to the person that it was not possible they sometimes disengaged from the service.
The Committee highlighted that one of the difficulties for single people who were vulnerable to homelessness was the process of applying for benefits, and asked what the service could do to help them access benefits and housing and make the process easier. Laurence Coaker advised that the SHPS did not have control over the benefits application as it was a central government application. He hoped that Brent’s homelessness application process was as simple as possible. He recognised that the fact it was online could be a barrier for some, and there was a Council wide policy to help vulnerable people to access services. The SHPS supported vulnerable people where the Council was the landlord with Universal Credit applications to ensure their benefit was up and running and their tenancy could be sustained. It was expressed that a lot was out of the services’ control but they did their best to support people getting access to benefits and housing, and had seen a reduction in the number of rough sleepers in the most recent count the previous week.
Regarding complications of Mental Health issues and how they were managed with the SHPS, Laurence Coaker advised that the figures on mental health were self-reported during the homelessness application stage. The Council was their first point of contact so they would take medical advice to issue a decision on that person. Those with high needs would not be referred to SHPS as that service was designed to tackle those that historically would not have been able to access the service. Laurence Coaker highlighted that sometimes they got it wrong and those cases would be referred back.
The Committee highlighted the possibility of the service getting those on the frontline such as community hubs and the Job Centre to play a role in helping homeless people access the service, which the Officers acknowledged. The Committee heard that Officers had a physical presence at the Job Centre, as there was common ground there with many threatened with homelessness which allowed Officers to access them before they became homeless. The Officers there had now been trained to make direct referrals. Laurence Coaker could see the benefit of hubs with their friendly and warm atmosphere. He would look into training Officers in hubs to make referrals.
Noting the 49% successful intervention rate, Committee members queried what happened with the other half of cases. Laurence Coaker confirmed that one of the main reasons for interventions not being successful was the want for a specific number of bedrooms when the service could often only offer studios or HMOs. He advised that social housing addressed the higher needs group so there was a need to forge a relationship with the Private Rented Sector, such as Capital Letters, for lower vulnerability individuals. There was a desire to obtain better data on where those people went after disengagement.
The Committee noted that the report stated funding was coming to an end in September 2020, and queried what would happen as the service moved forward. Laurence Coaker advised that they were able to use a national pot of money known as the Life Chances Fund when the current funding came to an end which would pay for 30% of the outcomes. The provision was for the next 4 years.
As no further questions were raised the Chair thanked Officers for their contributions and invited the committee to make recommendations, with the following resolved:
i) That the minutes state that the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee is assured that the Single Homeless Prevention Service is performing satisfactorily and that all of the intended outcomes of the service are being delivered.
Supporting documents: