Homelessness Prevention and Strategy Group minutes: September 2024

Attendees and apologies

• Aaliya Seyal, Legal Services Agency
• Alison Watson, Shelter Scotland
• David Pentland, Change Team
• Eileen McMullan, SFHA (on behalf of Sally Thomas)
• Frances McKeeking, Glasgow HSCP (on behalf of Suzanne Millar)
• John Mills, ALACHO
• Kate Polson, Rock Trust
• Lorraine McGrath, Simon Community Scotland
• Maeve McGoldrick, Crisis UK (on behalf of Matt Downie)
• Maggie Brunjes, Homeless Network Scotland
• Michelle Major, Homeless Network Scotland
• Mike Callaghan, COSLA
• Ruth Robin, Healthcare Improvement Scotland
• Shea Moran, Aff the Streets

Apologies

• Angela Keith, SOLACE
• Janice Stevenson, LGBT Youth Scotland
• Jules Oldham, Scottish Woman’s Aid
• Matthew Downie, Crisis UK
• Sally Thomas, SFHA
• Suzanne Millar, Glasgow HSCP

Also in attendance

• Catriona McKean, DD Better Homes
• Janine Kellet, SG
• Kerry Shaw, SG
• Karen Grieve, SG
• Louise Thompson, SG
• Laura Fegan, SG

Items and actions

CM gave a recap of the last meeting (23 August 2024) and the papers that were shared in advance of this meeting, including the Housing to 2024 Board paper which was the SG’s initial response to the 17 asks of the coalition.  

The group agreed that the context of when the Task and Finish Groups (T and FGs) were commissioned is very different to the current circumstances and the timing was appropriate for a re-set. However, there is much value and appreciation for the work done by the T and FGs and their recommendations are a valuable starting point for prioritising actions that will make a difference in the next six to 24 months.

There was some challenge to the prioritisation exercise and a question posed by MB about whether it is sequencing and adjusting the order of actions and the available budget to support these rather than prioritising activity.

JM suggested that HPSG could focus on the work by HARSAG which identified rough sleeping and unsuitable accommodation as two issues which are relevant just now. ALACHO is doing a deep dive on housing emergencies with their member on 23 September and could show how people are experiencing difficulty in accessing accommodation and the suitability of accommodation.

KP said there were many good plans but implementation deficit. AS echoed this and asked if resources were being aligned to the right places to achieve the right outcomes. She highlighted that systems do not always work in parallel, for example, refugees are unable to stay in accommodation but also cannot secure new accommodation.

MC updated the group that the COSLA Special interest group will meet to discuss actions on 25 September.

LM commented on frontline staff priorities but, due to interdependencies, single activities cannot be identified.

CM clarified the financial position, which has substantially changed from the HARSAG days. While housing is a priority and makes a valuable contribution to support tackling poverty, there are challenging financial barriers. Ministers are reviewing budgets but allocating additional resource to homelessness will be hard, even in the context of housing being prioritised. Prioritisation should be viewed as protecting existing resource for housing.

MM talked about the importance of stemming the flow through prevention as well as addressing the backlog. RR suggested there could be more accountability for other public bodies for ‘ask and act’ now, not waiting for the legislation to come into force.

SM drew attention to the pathways already developed for identified ‘at risk’ groups and voiced concern about people more at risk falling through the cracks.

EM doesn’t want to lose insightful outcomes from the T and FG reports but investment is needed, perhaps with creative thinking for aligning or merging other public sector budgets.

DP is concerned about the risk of returning to communal shelters which may not be safe for people.

JK posed a question to the group: What are the most important T and FG recommendations at this point of emergency. Is it about reducing harm and moving people from unsuitable accommodation or is reducing numbers more generally? Both are important but what is most urgent?

JM suggested we need short-term high-impact actions over the next 12 months – a sprint to help people at risk – and that sustaining current investment was the priority for homelessness funding.

AW asked the group to embrace the challenge and ensure the system is equipped for the general population.

To frame discussion in the break-out rooms, the group was asked to consider:  

What is most urgent during a housing emergency to:

• reduce the backlog/help people to access suitable accommodation
• stem the flow/stop people losing their accommodation
• reduce harm/keep people safe

Room 1

• prevention is a strong priority – if we invest more in prevention there will be reduced trauma and expense at point of crisis
• the group was uncomfortable about prioritising groups of people but agreed there is a need to reduce harm
• there could be action around people at risk of homelessness when people are leaving institutions (prisons, hospitals, etc.)
• can actions in the Housing Bill be progressed now? E.g. having an earlier period for intervention/prevention
• recognition that although there is commonality across all LAs, solutions may be different so there cannot be a one size fits all approach

Room 2

• importance of increasing supply and the role of acquisitions was recognised
• what can we do differently and learn from what we are doing well already?
• importance of advice in preventing homelessness at the right moment to change the path for people
• avoiding the return to priority need but a focus on hard edges cohort could be appropriate in an emergency situation, e.g. where addiction and mental health support can be more effective in supporting people than homelessness services
• accountability from senior NHS leaders could help mitigate the burden of ask and act falling only to local authorities

RR asked about what the status of a housing emergency means and if s.5 could be used more effectively. (s.5 is where LAs can refer a household to an RSL for allocation of a property.)

CM said that allocations are in the mix but a nuanced approach is important for a transfer led approach as flexibility is necessary to meet need.

JM updated the group on progress with empty homes in Fife where the council stock has been reduced from 750 to 350 and RSLs are trying to match that. Fife Council allocated 60% of social lets to homeless households and RSLs 35%, which they will push to increase. They are moving to one allocations policy, including transfer led allocations. Not all RSLs are prepared to purchase properties and there will be some need for s.5 referrals.  

FM explained Glasgow’s position as a stock transfer authority where they have developed a robust toolkit with RSLs for allocations. They have agreed a target of 67% of allocations to homeless households across all 59 RSLs. They achieved 53% in the first quarter, with some performing well above 70% and others are more around 30%. The challenge is where availability and turnover may not be in the area where there is demand. This also needs to be balanced with consideration given to other people on the waiting list.

EM agreed that the approach in Glasgow is really positive and noted a similar approach in Aberdeenshire/City where they have a matching system that relies upon good collaboration between the local authority and RSLs.

Next steps:

• share themes and possible actions from discussion
• sense check with group and develop a work plan
• recognise that HPSG will drive this work forward in a different way to H2040