The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

KEY FEATURES OF APPLICATIONS AND OUTCOMES

Characteristics of applicants

15. Of the 56,609 applications for assistance in 2007-08, around 34,000 (60%) were single people of whom almost 22,000 were men and 12,000 were women. (See chart 6 and table 3). Just under 18,300 applications (30% of applications) were from households with children, most of whom were single parent households - (24% of all applications).

16. In 92.6% of applications in 2007-08 the main applicant was recorded as White, 1.0% were recorded as Black, Black Scottish or Black British, 1.1% were recorded as Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British and 3.0% as in other ethnic groups. An ethnic group was not recorded for 2.3% of all applicants. (Chart 7). Also, in 2007-08, 474 applicants described themselves as a gypsy/ traveller. However, it is important to note that no response was given to this question for 2,797 applicants in 2007-08, so the number of gypsy/ travellers applying for assistance may be understated slightly.

17. In 2007-08, 1,968 homeless applicants had previously been in the armed forces. Of these, 671 had been in the armed forces less than 5 years ago and 1,297 more than 5 years ago. In the same period, 2,531 applicants aged under 25 had been formerly looked after by the local authority . This represents about 6% of all applicants aged under 25. (See chart 8).

Prior circumstances of applicants and reasons for homelessness

18. Of the 56,609 applications for assistance in 2008-09, 24,044 (42%) had been living with friends and relatives while 19,989 (35%) had been living in their own accommodation (i.e. which they either rented or owned), 1,938 (3%) had come from prison and 1,438 (3%) had come from supported accommodation. (See table 3). Of those who had been in their own accommodation, 7,801 were in social rented accommodation, 7,488 were renting privately, 472 had been in a tenancy secured through employment and 4,228 were owner occupiers.

19. Of the 4,228 applicants who had been owner occupiers, 1,106 - a little over a quarter - cited financial difficulties/ debt or unemployment as a contributory reason to their loss of accommodation. For those previously renting socially or privately, external factors such as landlord selling the property, harassment by others or changes in household circumstances were most likely to be given as reasons for loss of accommodation. (See chart 9). For the 14,652 applicants previously staying with friends or relatives, external factors were cited as the main reason for loss of accommodation with lack of support from friends or family also a significant factor - cited by 2,656 (18%). (See chart 10).

Chart 9: Reason for loss of accommodation by previous housing circumstances: Households coming from their own property Scotland: 2007-08

Chart 10: Reason for loss of accommodation by Previous housing circumstances Applicants previously staying with relatives or friends Scotland 2007-08

20. In 2007-08 the main reason for applying, given by a quarter of all applicants (14,007 of the 56,609 applications in the period) was that they were asked to leave their present accommodation. Other specific reasons were non-violent dispute/ relationship breakdown given by 9,291 (16%) applicants, A violent or abusive dispute within the household 5,865 (10%) of applications, and action by a landlord resulting in termination of tenancy 4,549 (8%). (See Chart 11 and Table 5).

21. In 2007-08 36% of homelessness applications were from households on the council's waiting list. This proportion varied widely between councils from around 70% in Aberdeenshire and Scottish Borders, to around 10% in South Ayrshire. (See Chart 12) This question was asked for the first time in 2007-08, so there may be some under-reporting in some council areas ⁵.

22. In 2007-08 6% of applicants - 282 applicants per month - had slept rough the night before applying for assistance. The incidence of rough sleeping among homeless applicants was highest in Edinburgh and Aberdeen (around 15% of applicants in 2007-08) while less than 1% of applicants were recorded as sleeping rough the night before application in North Lanarkshire, West Lothian, Dundee, South Lanarkshire and Midlothian. (See Chart 13).

Chart 13: Percentage of homeless applicants in 2007-08 who slept rough the night before applying for assistance

23. The percentage of homeless applications identified as repeat applications (i.e. where a previous application from the household had been closed less than 12 months before the current application ⁶) has fallen from 9.2% in 2003-04 to 6.7% in 2007-08. (Chart 14) Single men are much more likely than any other household group to apply for assistance more than once.

Assessments

23. Table 1 provides the main summary statistics on the progress of homelessness applications, analysed by the year in which the application was received by the council. The year of application is also the basis by which we measure progress against national indicator 28 - "All unintentionally homeless households will be entitled to settled accommodation by 2012" ⁷. However, it takes time for councils to assess a homelessness application. As a consequence, 1,677 applications in 2007-08 have yet to be assessed. In order to provide a clearer picture of patterns of assessment this section of the report presents analyses of assessments based on the year the assessment was made, rather than the year of application.

24. In 2007-08, councils assessed 40,649 applications as either homeless or threatened with homelessness ⁸. Of these, 32,287 (79.4%) were assessed as priority ⁹. The proportion of those assessed as homeless/ threatened with homelessness who are also assessed as priority has increased in each year since 2000-01 as councils have progressed towards the 2012 homelessness commitment. Over the period all households with children have been assessed as priority and the main impact of the commitment has been that increasing numbers and proportions of other, mainly single person households have been assessed as priority. Chart 14 shows the impact of these changes on the number and characteristics of priority households. In 2000-01, the largest group in priority need were single parent households with parent aged 25 or over. By 2007-08 single people aged between 25 and retirement were the largest priority group, their numbers having increased from a little over 5,000 in 2000-01 to over 9,000 in 2007-08.

25. The proportion of homeless households assessed as priority in 2007-08 varies widely between councils, from 96% in West Dunbartonshire to under 70% in Moray, Fife, Stirling, Aberdeen City, East Ayrshire, East Lothian and Shetland. (Chart 16)

26 Of the 40,649 households assessed as homeless in 2007-08 13,711 (34%) were assessed as having one or more support needs. ( Table 6 and Chart 17) A higher proportion of applicants in priority need (40%) were assessed as having one or more support needs. Of those with support needs 4,769 (12% of all assessed as homeless) required support because of mental health, 4,487 (11%) required support on skills for independent living, and 4,197 (10%) required support because of alcohol or dependency problems.

27. For applicants assessed as priority councils record reasons why the household has priority. Councils must identify at least one reason for the priority assessment, but more than 1 reason can be given. In 2007-08, the main reasons for priority assessment were that the household had dependent children (39% of all priority assessments), the household was fleeing domestic violence or abuse (14%), mental illness or personality disorder of a household member (12%) and a household member vulnerable for other special reasons. (Chart 18)

Outcomes

27. In 2007-08 councils closed 51,476 cases. Of these, 10,835 were cases in which the application had been withdrawn, or contact lost with the applicant before an assessment could be made. Contact was lost before the council discharged its duty in a further 7,209 cases. Chart 17 shows the offers of accommodation and outcomes for the remaining 33,432 applications where contact was maintained through to completion of the application. Of these, 17,447 households were offered a social rented tenancy, most of whom 15,598 (89% of those offered a social tenancy) took up the offer; temporary accommodation was offered to 4,289 households of whom 2,551 (59%) took up the offer; and a private rented tenancy was offered to 1,573 households almost all of whom (99%) accepted the offer. (chart 19)

28. A new question introduced from 1 April 2007 asks councils, at the time they close an application to identify action they took to prevent homelessness for households assessed as threatened with homelessness or assessed as not homeless. Councils can record more than one prevention activity for each application. Chart 20 shows prevention actions taken for the 6,383 households who applied in 2007-08, were assessed as threatened with homelessness or not homeless and whose case was closed in 2007-08 and for which councils supplied this information ¹⁰. Of these, 1,770 (28%) were provided with assistance in finding alternative accommodation, 1,486 (23%) were provided with an assessment of their support needs, 1,016 (16%) received independent financial, legal or housing advice, 794 (12%) received basic housing support, 578 (15%) received assistance in dealing with their landlord or mortgage provider, 490 (8%) had assistance in claiming benefits 354 (6%) were assisted to use a rent deposit/ guarantee scheme, for 331 (5%) services such as counselling or mediation were provided and for 280 households (4%) a Social Work/ Health/ or Community Care service was involved.

29. In 2007-08, permanent accommodation was secured for 18,759 of the 33,432 applications where contact was maintained through to completion of the application. (See chart 21). Within this, 17,562 priority homeless applicants (75% of priority homeless) secured permanent accommodation, 956 non-priority homeless (14% of non-priority homeless) and 241 who were assessed as not homeless (7% of those not homeless) secured permanent accommodation. For 2,515 (37%) of the 6,757 non-priority homeless the authority did not know the type of accommodation taken up by the applicant following discharge of the council's duty. Other known outcomes include those who moved in with friends or relatives and those obtaining a tenancy with a voluntary organisation.

Temporary accommodation

30. Statistics on numbers of households in temporary accommodation are taken from a quarterly statistical return by councils ¹¹. The return provides summary information on households in temporary accommodation at the end of the quarter who have been placed there as a consequence of their homelessness application. Homeless applicants may be placed in temporary accommodation while the council assesses their application or while awaiting the offer of a permanent let. Also, non-priority applicants and those assessed as intentionally homeless may be placed in temporary accommodation as the outcome of their application.

31. In interpreting the statistics presented in this report the following points should be noted:-

• Up to March 2005 the summary information on households in temporary accommodation separately identified households with children from households without children. From June 2005 those households without children where a household member was pregnant have been grouped with households with children. This change will have led to a minor break in comparability in the time series.
• Following publication of the 2006-07 annual homelessness bulletin, North Ayrshire revised its figures on numbers of households in temporary accommodation downwards to correct an error in the way in which the council was recording these. Essentially the council had, from 2002, been reporting numbers of households placed in temporary accommodation during the quarter rather than the number remaining in temporary accommodation at the end of the quarter. Adjusted figures from 2005 were published in the April 2008 homelessness publication. This publication includes revised national totals reflecting revised North Ayrshire estimates from 2002.
• In early 2008 Glasgow council accepted around 646 asylum seekers as homeless applicants. This reflects the review undertaken by the Home Office of failed asylum seeker cases which had previously been given leave to remain. A number of these households have now had positive decisions, chosen to stay in Glasgow and have made homeless applications. In March 2008, 542 of these households were in temporary accommodation, and of these, 522 were households with dependent children or a household member pregnant. Inclusion of these households in numbers in temporary accommodation on 31 March 2008 overstates the underlying rate of increase in numbers in temporary accommodation when compared with March 2007.

32. At 31 March 2008 there were 9,518 households in temporary accommodation, having been placed there under the Homeless Persons legislation, of whom 3,986 (42%) were households with children. ( Table 8)

33. The number of households in temporary accommodation has increased in each year from March 2002. This increase has been driven both by the increase in applications and by the new duties placed on councils since September 2002. Although the numbers continue to rise, the longer term data indicate that, after adjusting for the discontinuity in the Glasgow data, there is a continuing gradual reduction in the underlying rate of increase from a 30% increase between March 2002 and March 2003 reducing to an adjusted underlying 4.7% increase between March 2007 and March 2008. ( Table 9 and Chart 4).

34. At 31 March 2008 42% of households in temporary accommodation were households with children or with a pregnant household member. This is notably higher than the 36% share at 31 March 2007 and a low of 30% in March 2003. While the inclusion of asylum seekers by Glasgow in 2007-08, most of whom were households with children, has affected the comparison, nevertheless there is a clear upwards trend in this proportion ¹².

35. The majority of households in temporary accommodation were in local authority or housing association accommodation (64%), with a further 12% in hostels and 17% in bed and breakfast. (See Tables 8 & 9). Households with children or pregnant women are mainly provided with local authority or housing association accommodation (87%), with a small proportion (3%) being placed in bed and breakfast accommodation.

35. On 31 March 2008, there were 118 households with children or pregnant women in bed and breakfast accommodation. This varied by local authority, with 14 local authorities having none or only one household with children in bed and breakfast, and four local authorities having more than ten.

36. Councils with the largest number of households with children or pregnant women in bed & breakfast accommodation were Perth & Kinross (22), Highland (14) Moray (13) and Midlothian (12).

Implementation of the Unsuitable Accommodation Order

37. For each quarter from June 2005, councils have reported on the number of households at the end of the quarter in temporary accommodation which was in breach of the Unsuitable Accommodation Order. The snapshot figures show:

• Fourteen councils reported breaches of the order on 31 March 2008, affecting 62 households, this shows an increase from 34 reported breached at 31 March 2007.
• The 62 households whose accommodation breached the order comprised 1.6% of all households with children or pregnant household member in temporary accommodation at 31 March 2008.
• Councils with the largest number of households housed in breach of the order were Perth & Kinross (11 households), Midlothian (10 households), Moray and Highland (9 households) and Falkirk (5 households).

« Previous | Contents | Next »