Rapid Rehousing sub-group minutes: April 2025

Attendees and apologies

• John Mills, Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers (ALACHO) (Chair)
• Christine Robertson, Aberdeenshire Council
• April Thomson, Falkirk Council
• Donna Mcilwraith, South West Hub Rep
• Annabel Pidgeon, Scottish Federation of Housing Associations (SFHA)
• Douglas Whyte, Tayside, Fife & Central Hub Rep
• Maggie Brunjes, Homeless Network Scotland
• Lee Valantine, South Lanarkshire Council
• Kevin Thomas, South West Hub Rep
• Tim Pogson, Scotland’s Housing Network (SHN)
• Emma Matthews, Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland (CCPS) 
• Brian Finch, Scottish Government
• Kerry Shaw, Scottish Government
• John Sharkey, Scottish Government (note taker)
   

Items and actions

Deep dive: next phase of rapid rehousing transition plans (RRTP)

JM opened the meeting with a recap, providing an overview of RRTP development, from its inception in 2018 to date. This included the work and recommendations of the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Action Group and the joint Scottish Government and COSLA Ending Homelessness Together Action Plan. JM also spoke of the challenges during this period from global and national factors including, the COVID pandemic, cost of living crisis and the housing emergency.

Successes

JM asked the group to consider some of the successes delivered through RRTPs. 

CR - successes in Aberdeenshire council included ending the use of bed and breakfast and a review of temporary accommodation (TA), which resulted in a significant reduction in length of stay in TA across the period of the RRTP. 

AT – for Falkirk success has been improved partnerships/collaborative working on prevention pathways and the development of its prevention team.

TP – rapid rehousing was helpful in providing a national focus on homelessness and how best to approach it, allowing us to focus on the right things.

JM – this focus was especially apparent during the pandemic and helped encourage partnership working.

DW - agreed that RRTPs provided a helpful structure for local authority hub members during the pandemic with local authorities having the same central aim, which helped with the recovery.  

AP – rapid rehousing was responsible for removing some of the cultural barriers to housing such as the need to be ‘tenancy ready’ and moving towards providing specialist support. 

LV – echoed that RRTPs allowed local authorities to continue to develop relationships with partners, particularly third sector, and allowed the trialling of dedicated housing officers for addressing SHORE and throughcare needs. RRTP also encouraged the sharing of good practice across authorities.

DW – highlighted successes in Argyll and Bute -

• Housing First - good examples of securing suitable sustainable housing for complex cases
• working with third sector to provide frontline flexible emergency fund so households in crisis could be assisted straight away
• appointing a mental health addictions housing practitioner 

AT – Falkirk council have in place a post within social services that assist families who have been in temporary accommodation the longest, so far the post is going  well with a good uptake of engagement.

KT - locally and nationally, in spite of the many significant external factors over the last five years, the resilience of local authorities and their staff to implement a rapid rehousing ethos under extremely challenging conditions has been an important factor.

LV – RRTP provided an opportunity to try new things, involving partners such as health in decision making and planning.

Challenges

LV – shift in type of household needing support, with more complex needs and more financial support due to cost of living crisis.

JM - agreed that giving appropriate advice is becoming ever more prevalent as a response.

TP – spoke of the global challenges, such as wars in other countries impacting on local services and resources. Also feels that while good practice is happening RRTP didn’t deliver the level of culture shift we thought it might have in terms of partnership working. 

AP - pointed to a lack of understanding from service providers of rapid rehousing and housing first and to the upheaval of social care reform as challenging. 

DW – highlighted local connection changes and early release of prisoners as challenging. Feels that more could be done around increasing lets to homeless households from Registered Social Landlord (RSL) partners.

CR – lets to homeless households quite low in Aberdeenshire and there have been negotiations with RSLs to increase that.

AP – RSLs want to make more of a contribution but some find that offers are declined as the property doesn’t meet the needs, therefore better information sharing is required to help achieve the right fit. AP raised concern that an approach that delivers 100% allocations to homeless households risks losing focus on prevention.

TP – using the north housing option hub as an example of how diverse the challenges from one local authority to another can be, therefore should we be looking at a more nuanced response.  

DM - made the point that increasing lets to homeless households can drive up homelessness applications as migration to homelessness from the housing waiting list can occur as a result.

DW – highlighted a challenge presented by National Planning Framework 4 (climate change etc) making it more difficult to identify suitable sites for new house building.

Look Ahead

MB took members through the second part of the presentation which looked ahead to the next phase of rapid rehousing, emphasising that RRTPs are still as relevant today as they were at their conception in 2018. RRTPs have a preventative focus and there is a need to consider how they link in with forthcoming prevention duties.

Measure Up

MB opened up discussion on what actions we need to take in supporting RRTP leads, focusing on monitoring and evaluating the work carried out through RRTPs.

A proposal of a sounding board and collaborative peer review was put to the group to consider with questions on:

• the optimum timescales and frequency
• across what area – for example, by local authority, hub region or other
• who should be involved
• what else needs considered

JM - highlighted parallels with this proposal and the housing first check-up process. He also advised that at the time of this meeting there was no commitment from Scottish Government to continue with rapid rehousing beyond this parliament. 

LV – was happy to recommend this approach and spoke positively of her experience of the peer review process used for local housing strategies, which she found beneficial. 

JM - wondered how this might fit with the housing option hubs structure.

TP - spoke of his experience of working across the hubs through Scotland’s Housing Network RRTP benchmarking exercise for which there appears to be buy in from hub members. While not strictly a peer review he finds that it does lead to members asking questions of each other regarding what they are doing to achieve results in a particular area.  

JM - concluded that there appeared to be agreement from the group that this is a useful model to take forward via the hubs, adding that feedback he received around the housing first check-up process was positive. He added that it would be useful to have dialogue with the hubs to get a wider representation from local authorities on this proposal.

Prevention and mainstreaming

JM – takes the view that the RRTP has become one of a suite of strategic docs such as the Local Housing Strategy (LHS) and Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP) so should continue in some form. How do we ensure a focus on prevention and early intervention in the lead up to and implementation of the prevention duties? How can RRTPs be mainstreamed?

LV – spoke of the RRTP guidance provided for local authorities in 2018 suggesting that something similar in order to provide some consistency of approach which meets the Scottish Government aims around prevention. In terms of linking the RRTP with the broader LHS she asked whether the funding allocated for RRTPs should now be added to the wider general fund? 

JM –felt that there has to be some level of continuity of the current services delivered through RRTPs as we enter into the next five year period.

AP - felt that the RRTP connection with the LHS is a really key one as this helps inform new housing, acquisitions, etc.  

DW – spoke of the expectation at the beginning of RRTPs that savings from reduced temporary accommodation usage would go into other housing/homelessness related areas and not diverted to roads for instance. Could homelessness funding/savings be protected, such as through a Scottish Government statement emphasising the expectation of homelessness prevention spend being targeted appropriately. 

TP – spoke of the concern he hears around the uncertainty of funding for the implementation of the prevention duties and where this money might come from. On the mainstreaming of prevention, he spoke of a piece of work he has undertaken for the South and Ayrshire Housing Options Hub around mapping of prevention activity across the hub area to identify innovative initiatives, with a view to organising a knowledge exchange and to highlight where there may be gaps.   

JM – requested that the group be kept informed of progress with this mapping work and suggested that this might be something the other hubs may want to consider. 

KT - Further to TPs point, raised a concern that relevant bodies are advising they would like to actively participate in prevention duties; however, they say they don't have the funding/resources to assist, and it will be referred to housing to deal with.

In summation of the session MB felt that continuing the conversation on the detail through the housing options hubs is an important next step. 

JM – spoke about a closer relationship between the RRTP and the LHS as being important over the next two to five years. Also, that several mainstreaming exercises by local authorities and partners will take place over the next year and some initiatives will stop. The group will need to monitor this over the coming period and discuss where best to focus in moving rapid rehousing forward.

Date of the next meeting is to be confirmed.  JM noted that an in-person meeting at some point this year would be preferable.

Meeting closed.