beta

You're viewing our new website - find out more

Publication - Research Publication

Evaluation of the local authority housing hubs approach

Published: 31 May 2012
Part of:
Housing
ISBN:
9781780458243

The report presents findings from an evaluation of local authority hubs set up to prevent homelessness by pursuing a housing options approach.

82 page PDF

854.9kB

82 page PDF

854.9kB

Contents
Evaluation of the local authority housing hubs approach
Footnotes

82 page PDF

854.9kB

Footnotes

1. HL1 collects information about advice and assistance provided to people who are assessed as threatened with homelessness or not homeless, a sub-set of all applicants. This provides some evidence of the broad range of activities being undertaken but does not cover households for whom no homeless application is made (i.e. those not appearing in the HL1 data). This means it does not and cannot measure people who don't make a homeless application.
2. Section 11 requires mortgage lenders, private landlords and/or registered social landlords ( RSLs) to inform the relevant local authority when they initiate legal proceedings to repossess a property. The local authority may then be able to take action to help prevent homelessness occurring.
3. Homelessness Prevention and Relief: England 2009/10 Experimental Statistics
4. Each Hub had a 'lead' authority which was responsible for the organisation and administration of the Hub, as well as providing advice and guidance to other authorities in some instances.
5. The Head of Service at the remaining 'lead' authority was unable for interview during the fieldwork period.
6. The original intention was to obtain the views of five non-'lead' local authorities. Unfortunately, despite repeated efforts, we were unable to schedule an interview with the 5th chosen participant within the fieldwork period.
7. The original intention was to build a map of local authority data in consultation with staff and then conduct some analysis of prevention data. However, it became clear from an early stage that this was not likely to be feasible as local authorities were at different stages in their adoption of housing options, with many new to the concept and the approach. It was decided instead to focus on some analysis of data to set the context for future prevention work and to explore in more detail the challenges faced by local authorities as they prepare to develop and monitor housing options.
8. Please note: the spend figures included in Table 3.2 are based on all spend by the Hubs up until 31 st March 2012 but prior to the final accounting closure of 2011/2012. Therefore, they represent the anticipated final spend, rather than the actual final spend. The final figures may deviate slightly from those included in Table 3.2.
9. HL1 collects information about advice and assistance provided to people who are assessed as threatened with homelessness or not homeless, a sub-set of all applicants. This provides some evidence of the broad range of activities being undertaken but does not cover households for whom no homeless application is made (i.e. those not appearing in the HL1 data). This means it does not and cannot measure people who don't make a homeless application.
10. The draft pro-forma is included as Annex F. The form collects data on prevention activity at the local authority rather than the case level (so more similar to HL2 than HL1 in that respect). Activities are separated under the heading of 'able to stay in existing home' and 'assisted to obtain alternative accommodation' as collected by DCLG in England
11. Following consultation work that had been carried out as part of their Hub, one Hub developed a Hub Protocol, which outlined members' shared understanding and definition of housing options and an agreed set of principles which would guide joint-working activities across members of the Hub.
12. Consistent with the terms of the 2007 concordat between the Scottish Government and local authorities, the Scottish Government chose not to provide prescriptive guidance about how individual Hubs should operate.
13. Although, in some cases, Hubs decided that particular desired outcomes could be achieved without the need for funding.


Contact