Tameside Homelessness Review 2003

• Executive Summary
  
  
• Section One - Introduction and Methodology
  
  
• Section Two - Review of Homelessness and Services
  - Current and Future Levels of Homelessness
  - Provision of Support, Accommodation and Preventative Services
  
  
• Section Three - Consultation with Service Users
  
  
• Section Four - Consultation with Agencies

---

Executive Summary

The areas highlighted by the consultation, information gathering and statistics during the Review show that the Homelessness Strategy should contain objectives about the following:

Information

• Collecting better statistics and information on homelessness, eg repeat presentations, more info on homeless single people, investigating common recording and monitoring systems
• Better education and information on the impact of being homeless, eg for careleavers and school leavers
• Better information on prevention as part of housing advice generally available to key agencies, eg estate managers

Single People

• To improve the provision for 'non-priority' single people (that is, those people who are not deemed to be vulnerable under the Act), including better advice and assistance at the Housing Aid Centre, assistance with non-priority decision-making and better record their needs and personal circumstances (to supplement the P1E return info on accepted homeless households)
• To look at the 'difficult' groups - 16 and 17 year olds, applicants with multiple needs, mental health problems, drugs and alcohol misusers, young people generally.
• To explore the implications of requiring less sheltered accommodation
• To influence the provision of better housing advice to those coming in to and out of prison
• Exploring the links between homelessness, social exclusion and mental health, substance misuse and multiple needs

Social Housing

• To investigate the mismatch between housing stock and how this could be utilized to meet the needs of homeless households
• To research the number of exclusions from registered social housing with the aim of ensuring that exclusion is the exception not the norm
• To look at estate management policies and practice with the aim of preventing eviction and exclusion, Eg more proactive management with an emphasis on continuing and supporting the tenancy as opposed to seeking possession, early signalling of problems for quick intervention, better access and information on sources of advice, greater use of and commitment to tenancy sustainment services

Private housing

• Improved homelessness prevention in the private rented sector
• Improved access to tenancy sustainment initiatives
• Investigate using new licensing and accreditation powers

Temporary accommodation

• Better temporary accommodation- not B&B
• More accessible temporary accommodation
• More units of temporary accommodation
• Greater flexibility of temporary accommodation for those with high needs and Under 18s
• More move-on accommodation

Changes in trends

• Dealing with increasing numbers of homeless applications
• Asylum seekers (large increase expected)
• Defining the needs of BME groups

Better services for homeless people

• More effective housing register with quicker route to rehousing and fewer exclusions
• More client centred support eg mediation, support to those with complex needs, prison support
• Greater protection from eviction through the courts
• Better links between Child Protection and domestic violence incidence
• Links to economic mobility and occupation, employment and training for homeless people

Section One: Introduction

Prior to the legislation being introduced, we carried out a review of the Housing Options Centre that carries out the statutory functions on behalf of Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council. This was the start of the process in identifying areas for service improvement and taking a more strategic direction in our homelessness service. The requirements of the Homelessness Act 2002, allowed us to continue this work and we conducted a review of homelessness in the district looking at the current and future levels of homelessness, considering services in our area that prevent homelessness, provide accommodation and support.

Methodology

From the start, we established a working party to steer the authority through the process of conducting the review and developing the strategy. The group consisted of members of the housing strategy department in the council as well as social services, health, and representatives from the voluntary sector.

In order to establish levels and future levels of homelessness, we researched numbers of homeless people presenting to the Housing Aid Centre, on top of which we consulted with local agencies to obtain the amount of contact they had with homeless people. We asked accommodation providers for the amount of admissions and referrals that they had received in the last year. This helped to build a picture of the amount of people that were being dealt with in the borough. We also considered other sources of information, such as the amount of people being evicted by RSLs through the Court Records, the Housing Register Statistics and the amount of people being seen by Social Services and Probation. This allowed us to build up a picture of homelessness in the area as well as services dealing with these people and we were able to identify gaps in the information that would be needed in the future.

We conducted consultation and structured interviews with various agencies to gain information on the services that they provided. In addition to this, we held two days in November 2002 and January 2003, which were attended by approximately 50 people who represented the agencies working with homeless people. These days allowed us to consult widely with a number of partner agencies to gain their views on what the homelessness strategy and review should consider.

We also carried out consultation with service users to gain their views on current services, the consultation was mainly carried out with people who were staying around Tameside in a variety of temporary accommodation, which complemented the consultation that was carried out within the Housing Aid Centre in early 2002.

In addition to this, we carried out a 'hidden homeless' exercise. This was to identify the number of applicants applying and being accepted into supported housing schemes in Tameside and the support needs of these applicants over the period of a month.

The study considered why the applicant was homeless and where from, what their support needs were and whether they were admitted into the scheme or not. The main aim of the exercise was to gather information on the number of homeless people who were in need of accommodation but were not or could not be accepted into a scheme at that time and why.

Section Two: Review of Homelessness and Services

Current and Future Levels of Homelessness

2.1 Source: Number of Homelessness Applications from the former DTLR P1E returns

• Homelessness has risen since 1998-9. Approx 700 applications, of which 370 were accepted (53%)
• 1999-2000 = 800 applications, 425 accepted (53%) which is an increase of 14.3%
• 2000-01 = 1220 applications, 499 accepted (40%) which is an increase of 52.5%
• 2001-02 = 1603 applications, 598 accepted (37%) which is an increase of 31.4%
• In 2000-01, 110 out of the 1220 applicants were under 25 (9%)
• In 2001-2, 588 out of the 1603 were under 25 (37%)

Ethnicity:

• In 2000-2001, of the 1220 applications 6 were of a non-white ethnicity. (0.49%)
• Of these 6, all were Indian / Pakistani / Bangladeshi. 1 applicant's ethnic origin was unknown.

• In 2001-2002, of the 1603 applications 69 were of a non white ethnicity. (4.3%)
• Of these 69, 6 were African / Caribbean, 42 Indian / Pakistani / Bangladeshi, 21 Other ethnic origin. 5 applicants ethnic origin was unknown.

• In 2002-2003 of the 1943 applications 99 were of a non-white ethnicity. (5.1%)
• Of these 1943, 5 were African / Caribbean, 34 Indian / Pakistani / Bangladeshi, 60 Other ethnic origin. 5 applicants ethnic origin was unknown

Conclusions:

• Homelessness applications have more than doubled in 4 years and are rising by an average of 33% each year.
• The number of those accepted as a proportion of total applications has reduced
• The main area of expansion is in 'Not homeless' and 'Not in priority need' decisions
• This may point to better housing advice or stricter application of the law, due to demand.
• This may also mean that a proportionally higher number of applicants will be prioritised by the new Allocations provisions of the Homelessness Act 2002.
• The number of homeless under 25s increased by 15% between 2000 and 2002.
• The number of applicants from ethnic minorities is increasing. However, this may be the result of a greater number of Asylum Seekers coming into the borough, or changes in legislation effecting the re-housing process for Asylum Seeker.

If 1002 people are not making it into the 'system' (ie are not accepted), but 598 are, we need to focus on the numbers who are not for monitoring, etc.

Accepted Homeless - Reason for Priority Need:

NB. By analysing the accepted homeless categories, we are leaving out the vast majority of homeless single people who may not be in priority need.

• In 2000-01, greatest categories of priority need are households with one child, followed by those with 2 children and then those with 3 or more. Other significant groups are people who are pregnant, have mental illness or learning difficulties, or are fleeing domestic violence.
• The majority of accepted applicants were female lone parents. Single parents are the most dominant group.
• In 2001-02, greatest categories of priority need were households with one child, followed less closely by those with 2 children.
• Domestic violence was the next most common reason for priority (for singles), followed by those households with 3 or more children. Significant other categories were pregnant households and mental illness/ learning difficulties. The majority of applicants were female lone parents. Single parents are the most dominant group.

Conclusions:

• These conclusions can only apply to those households who are 'going through' the system- ie that will be rehoused.
• That homeless families are more prevalent as accepted homeless than single people.
• That practice needs to be tailored to the resettlement of largely single parents, mostly female, with one child.
• That family accommodation of 2 bed units is most in demand, but that larger families (with 2 children or more) are still significantly high in number to take into account in planning general needs housing.

Most households accepted as homeless will be families, so need to compare more widely with Tameside population as a whole to be able to see whether households are proportionately represented. There will be a stronger trend of single female parents fleeing domestic violence because domestic violence 'passports' the applicant through the system. DV will always come across as over-represented.

Accepted Homeless - Reason for Homelessness

• In 2000-01, largest cause of homelessness was violent relationship breakdown, followed by ending of Assured Shorthold Tenancies. Significant other categories included the 'Other Reason' category (homeless in emergency, rough sleepers, returning from abroad), friend/ relative exclusion, mortgage arrears and parental exclusion.
• In 2001-2, largest cause of homelessness was similarly violent relationship breakdown, followed by loss of assured shorthold tenancy, but being very closely followed by the 'Other Reason' category. Significant other categories were friend/relative exclusions, mortgage arrears and parental exclusions.

Conclusions:

• These causes may be less significant if all applicants were monitored (ie not just those who have been accepted).
• Should we start looking at the cause of homelessness for 'non-priority cases'?
• That Tameside has a very mobile private rented sector (Landlords relying on Section 21 notices?)
• That these causes of homelessness are not particularly preventable (ie not like rent arrears/ mortgage arrears/ unplanned hospital discharge) and can mask the real reason for homelessness such as being evicted from an RSL tenancy.
• That this may indicate people not being able to get rehoused through the Housing Register (because of high friend/ family exclusions)
• Is the 'Other reason' category being used properly?

Compared with Greater Manchester figures, Tameside is generally consistent with the other authorities, with no alarming departure from prevalent trends. Area to look at if any is non-priority decisions.

Conclusions:
Biggest section of homeless households is non-priority homeless households (ie largely single people). Causes of homelessness support anecdotal evidence that:

1. Better monitoring is needed than just the P1E stats
2. Homelessness should be anticipated to increase
3. That the same groups are the most difficult to accommodate- 16 and 17 yr olds, people with multiple needs, mental health problems, etc.
4. Private sector prevention needs to be a priority via advice and education for landlords, tenancy sustainment initiatives, better access to private rented accommodation for excluded applicants, implications of licensing private landlords.

2.2 Source: Homeless Audit and Rough Sleepers Count December 2001

To complement the Rough Sleepers Count, a week-long exercise was carried out whereby agencies who were likely to come into contact with homeless people completed some basic details so as to get an accurate picture of the housing needs of the Borough over 1 week. NB The rough sleepers count found one rough sleeper (awake) and evidence of 2 others.

• Total individuals = 54
• These were made up of 40 single people, 7 couples and 7 single parents ( 1 male, 6 female).
• All had been to Housing Aid.
• The most common age range was 19-25, followed by 16-18, which means that 74% were under 25.
• Only 35% of applicants were on the Housing Register.
• Causes of homelessness were:
  1) Parental exclusion (50%)
  2) Relationship breakdown (19%)
  3) Arrears/ tenancy coming to and end (11%)

The context:

• The number of homeless households awaiting permanent accommodation was 149, with 4 more awaiting a decision.
• Of these, 120 households were in temporary accommodation that month (31.12.01). Most were homeless at home, lodging or in B&B. This does not include supported housing, which if fully occupied, could add a further 64 applicants in some form of non-secure accommodation.
• In the same month, Housing Aid issued 76 decisions, 48 of which were non priority or not homeless decisions.
• That month, 297 applicants were on the housing register as NFA.
• 54 approaches per week would lead to 2800 applications in a year (P1E actual 01-02 = 1220).
• At any one time Tameside could have 586 households who could be classed as homeless (awaiting permanent accom/in TA/in supported housing/NFA on Register/applying as homeless)

Conclusion:

• Good that all the households recorded had been to Housing Aid. However, the emphasis must be on the number that were not assisted (non-priority/ not homeless). Many more people are in housing need than are reflected in the former DTLR P1E returns.
• Shows how the keeping of 'accepted homeless' stats skew the picture, as most of these applicants were single people and were younger than the P1E sample. The main cause for homelessness was in keeping with this client group's age (parental exclusion) and the next two most prevalent causes were in keeping with the larger homelessness trends. Causes for homelessness would point to greater need for advocacy and mediation services as method of prevention.
• Most of these households were NOT on the Housing Register- why? Too young?
• Does the Homelessness Forum want to repeat this exercise?

Good signposting evident
Role for enhanced advice and assistance duty following new Act
Separate group of clients to those shown on P1E stats
Large number of people not on the Housing Register is a worry- need to look at exclusions practice, and improving estate management of arrears, as this often leads to long periods of exclusion, earlier intervention and better tenancy support required. Linked to debt and ASB issues.
* Try to find out how many people were excluded from the Housing Register, out of how many applicants*

2.3 Source: Housing Register Stats

Numbers of households on the TMB Housing Register rose from 7898 in 2000 to 9405 in 2002 which is an increase of 500 households pa (an average of 9.25% increase pa).

Conclusions:

• Number of applicants in housing need is growing (homeless AND register applicants).
• Housing Register is too large to be efficient and is not rehousing enough applicants (current numbers registered are proportional to 45% of total social housing stock available and is roughly twelve times greater than voids available at any one time).

Housing Register needs to be a more effective route to housing, and must monitor excluded applicants.

2.4 Source: North West Regional Housing Statement, 2001 Update

• Population forecast is that while the total population in England is set to rise sharply between 2001 and 2021, that of the North West and Manchester will experience similar but small decreases (approx 1%). However, projections for the NW show that by 2021, 40% of the region's population will be over 50 and 19% will be over 65. This compares with figures of 31.5% and 15.6% for 1996.
• Between 1995 and 2000, empty private homes in Manchester have increased to 5% while the general NW trend and that of England decrease to under 4%.
• Between 1995 and 2000, unfit private property in Manchester has decreased by 5% to 10% of the total, more sharply than that of the NW or England but is lower than the NW average (12% of total) but higher than the English average (7.5% of total).
• Manchester's levels of difficult to let social housing has increased from 10% in 1995 to nearly 25% in 2000, while the NW's average has risen less sharply to 18% in 2000 and the English average less sharply again at 9% in 2000.
• Manchester's levels of empty social housing rose with that of the NW to similar levels (4%) but this is above the English average which has showed slower increase to 3% in 2000.
• House building is slowly declining across all areas to just over 2.5 completions per 1000 of popn, as compared to just under 2.5 completions in England by 2000.
• Despite these population forecasts, local trends suggest that older people living within Tameside are staying in their own homes.
• Schemes such as 'Anchor Staying Put' are becoming increasingly popular and TMBC is enthusiastic about the positive work the organisation is doing. However, the impact is that sheltered accommodation in Tameside is now experiencing issues of low demand, and the mismatch in supply and demand need to be identified.

(NW = Stockport, Tameside, Oldham, Rochdale, Bury, Bolton, Wigan, Warrington, Trafford, Salford and Manchester)

Conclusions:

• Small population decreases mean that the percentage of households in housing need per 1000 of the popn is rising.
• Despite overall population decreases, the pensioner and disabled population is forecasted to increase, meaning greater requirement for sheltered and adapted housing? However what about contradicting local trends?
• Empty homes in Tameside seem in keeping with the NW average- so nothing to worry about?
• Unfit property should still be a concern for the NW as our levels are both higher than those of Manchester AND England. (Anecdotally, this would be very true of Tameside).
• Tameside should monitor its increasing levels of difficult to let properties, although the picture is worsening throughout the country.
• Empty social housing should be a concern as the NW shows higher than English levels

The priorities are:

• Proportion of households in housing need is rising per 1000 of population
• Unfit homes are a concern
• Empty and difficult to let social housing is a concern

Greater Manchester sub-region priorities are:

• Emphasis on regeneration due to low demand and unfitness issues
• Research housing markets better
• Develop partnerships on supported housing issues
• Secure new affordable housing provision to meet identified need

Local context = mismatch in supply and demand
Economic mobility is important to the sustainability of an area
Decrease in population, increase in elderly people who seek to stay in their homes with sheltered accommodation in less demand.
Increase in single households, Asylum seekers and single people who are vulnerable under the new Act expected
Need to link to housing market research, housing standards and unfitness levels, hard to let or empty social housing properties. Could more non-priority people be offered units as temporary/ starter tenancies?

2.5 Source: Asylum Seeker Team

Figures:

• Between 2001-2002 Tameside was accommodating approximately 220 Asylum Seekers at any one time.
• Between 2002-2003 this figure has risen to 315.
• Approximately 75% of these Asylum Seekers are Single People.
• Between November 2000-September 2002 Tameside received 164 Asylum Seekers. Of these, 35 have received decisions. 17 (49%) of which stayed within the borough.

Cluster Limit:

Each Local Authority is set a 'cluster limit; by NASS based on a percentage of their population. Tameside cluster limit is 1178. NB we currently have 315. Thus, as other local authorities meet their 'cluster limit' Tameside is going to come under pressure to accommodate more.

Problems:

When an Asylum Seekers is granted Leave to Remain they are required to find alternative independent accommodation. However, these successful Asylum Seekers often received less than 10 days notice, therefore they do not have sufficient time to find alternative accommodation. Little work is done in Tameside with Refuges who are granted Leave to Remain, which could be a factor to the large number of Refugees leaving the borough.

2.6 Source: Out of Hours sample of records

• September 2002 showed 27 contacts in relation to housing of which 8 placements were made (50% in Gibson Terrace and the other 50% in B&B) and 10 referrals made to Housing Aid. In this month, there was one case of domestic violence.
• November 2002 showed 20 contacts in relation to housing of which 8 placements were made (3 at Gibson Terrace, 1 at private B&B, 1 at other B&B and 3 in Refuge accommodation (one out of district) with 9 referrals made to Housing Aid. In this month, there were four cases of domestic violence.
• The Out of Hours team do not keep information on the types of cases they deal with.

Conclusion:

• Comparison: the overall number of homeless appns for 2001-2 was 1603- per month, that = 133 which means that a further 15- 20% of applications may be being handled by the out of hours team.
• May need to monitor this more closely?

More effective client monitoring/ tracking system needed?

2.7 Source: 'Hidden Homeless' Exercise

We gathered information from accommodation providers in the borough in order to establish the type of people being referred, where from and the support needs of the client. However after carrying out the study we found that when Tameside Women's Project was included the results were completely skewed, therefore in order to gain a clearer picture, we have excluded that information in the following statistics. We found that 4.5% of applicants were non-white. The reasons for homelessness were as follows; 22% homeless from parents, 13.8% homeless from friends or relatives, 13.8% homeless from prison and custody and 10.3% homeless from a B&B. We also broke this down by age;

Under 18 years	18-25 years	Over 25
32% from Parents	19% from Parents	17% from Parents
26% from B&B	9% from B&B	5% from B&B
5% from Prison/custody	23% from Prison/custody	11% from Prison/custody
5% relationship b/d	10% relationship b/d	23% relationship b/d

The referrals that agencies received were as follows; 27.6% referred from Social Services, 25.9% from HAC, 20.7% referred from 'Other' places and 19% referred from Probation. We also considered where homeless applicants were referred from in relation to their age and found the following:

Under 18 years	18-25 years	Over 25
74% Social Services	32% Social Services	11% Social Services
None HAC	29% HAC	37% HAC
11% Probation	13% Probation	37% Probation

The following support needs were identified; 20.3% Budgeting,19.8% Independent Living,16.7% Employment, 14.2% Drug Misuse, 11.8% Mental Health, 11.1% Emotional Support and 11.1% Offending. We also broke this down to compare the differences between genders on their support needs.

Male	Female
21.1% Budgeting	18% Independent Living
21.1% Employment	15.4% Budgeting
15.5% Offending	13.7% Emotional Support
11.3% Drug Misuse	12.8% Mental Health
	12.8% Offending

We found in terms of people approaching schemes for accommodation, 11.8% of all applicants were admitted, 88.2% of all applicants were NOT admitted. The reasons why people were not admitted were 46% because the scheme was full, 15.6% did not attend the appointment and only 8.9% were not accepted because alternative accommodation found.

Conclusions:

• Only 4.5% were ethnic applicants, which is considered to be low. The low number of homeless applicants from ethnic backgrounds could be a result of cultural differences within society, but may also be due to services being inaccessible. Further work needs to be done to identify the reasons why.
• Almost a quarter of all applicants were referred from Probation and this figure is highest for those over 25. Whilst ¼ found alternative accommodation, 63% did not, 25% being too vulnerable. We need to look at why such high numbers of homeless people come through probation.
• 88.2% of applicants were not admitted, almost 50% of which were not admitted because the scheme was full. Those applicants who were not admitted into the schemes represent a snap shot of 'hidden homelessness' in which individuals are homeless, without fixed accommodation (i.e. staying on a friends sofa, sleeping in a car etc). The number of applicants who have been identified in this study as 'hidden homeless' indicates that the number of homeless individuals within Tameside could be greater than the figures suggests.
• We need to repeat the exercise again. Also we need to further consider the support needs of all groups and look at whether existing services can meet these needs and publicity is an issue or lack of services.

Provision of Support, Accommodation and Preventative Services

2.8 Source: Housing Investment Programme (HIP) stats 1999-2002

• Overall number of dwellings in Tameside has reduced by 500 each year (from 96898 in '99 to 94907 in 02).
• Vacant dwellings consistently make up 4% of all dwellings
• In 2002, total RSL dwellings were 20532 (22% of total dwellings), of which 753 (3.6%) were vacant and 303 (1.5%) were hard-to-let and 2035 (10%) were in low demand. This makes a significant total of 15.1% of properties vacant, in low demand or hard to let.

• Households in temporary accommodation in the year rose from 14 in 1999 to 189 in 2002.
• (Check homeless at home categories) with B&B usage rising from 4 cases on average in B&B in 1999 to 9 cases in 2002.
• Approx 20% of accepted homeless households were not rehoused by RSLs.
• (Where did they go?)

Conclusions:

• Do we need to address low demand/ vacant dwellings?- need to compare with other LAs.
• Is 'new build' making up the shortfall in the loss of homes?
• Temporary accommodation is over-used and increasing
• Issues about where 20% of these accepted homeless are rehoused (private rented sector?)

2.9 Source: RSL Evictions 2002 as reported on request by RSLs

NB 2002 as a calendar year, not financial year to date.

Total evictions = 184, out of RSL stock of 20532 in same year (0.9%)

Key causes = Rent Arrears in 98.3% of cases.
(This may also be due to RSLs choosing the more straightforward arrears grounds to evict anti-social tenants as opposed to the harder ASB order route)

Conclusion:

• Evictions as compared to homeless applications are 1:11 ratio.
• This is not reflected in the homelessness statistics (although these applicants may not get accepted as homeless). Do they get excluded and go into the private rented sector?
• How should the Homelessness Strategy need to address variations in housing management practice eg offering resettlement/crisis support for tenancy sustainment, especially on issues to do with debt.

Areas to address are:

1. RSLs' policies about rent arrears
2. Early intervention and greater support with rent problems
3. Why are people getting into such significant arrears?
4. More proactive tenancy management by RSLs
5. Exclusion from allocation should be the exception, not the norm

2.10 Source: Citizens Advice Bureau enquiries for 2001-2

• In 2001-2, the CAB had a total of 8303 enquiries. Of this, 5245 (63%) were 'new' first time customers. The other 37% were repeat visits.
• These customers had a total of 15815 'problems', averaging nearly two issues per customer.
• Of the 15815 problems, 1180 (7.5%) were housing problems, with 696 (59%) new problems and 484 repeat visits.
• Of the new cases, the most common problem was mortgage and rent, matched by their 'Other' category which includes court action.
• The majority of their cases were about these. The next significant problems were threatened homelessness, housing conditions, environment and neighbour problems, housing costs that weren't rent arrears, security of tenure issues and actual homelessness.

Conclusion:

• The CAB see almost as many people as the Housing Aid team interview as homeless in a year.
• CAB have a good 'retention' rate.
• Key problems are financial- mortgage, rent arrears and court action.
• Most people who are homeless seem not to go to the CAB- so does that mean that they know to go to Housing Aid?

Need to remember that CAB stats can underestimate housing problems due to their recording definitions eg housing problems may go down as debt problems. Should we be investigating common ways of recording or categorizing problems/ enquiries?

Effective ways required of monitoring and measuring problems

2.11 Source: Tameside County Court rent and mortgage cases April 01- June 02

• Possession cases peaked and troughed throughout the year, the highest number being in February 02 (132 cases listed) and the lowest being in April 02 (56). The peaks were in May (103), August (111), September (112) & January (132). There is an upturn since April 02 which would suggest an increase in court action.
• Attendance by rent defendants also peaked at 38 (34%- September) and troughed at 9 (10% and 16% in April 01 and 02). The peaks were in December, Jan and Feb, and in June. An upward trend at the end of the period seems to suggest that attendance is on the increase.
• Mortgage cases have generally reduced in number over the period. The maximum was 50 in May 02, reducing to 29 in April 02. Peaks were in Aug, Sept, Jan and Apr. There is a gradual upturn in these cases since then.
• Attendance by mortgage defendants also peaked and troughed throughout the period, being generally higher than that of rent defendants. The highest attendance was May 01 (22 defendants, 44%) and Feb 02 (23 defendants, 55%) and the lowest in August 01 (6, 22%) and September 01 (6, 29%). Overall, the trend suggests that attendance is increasing.

Conclusions:

• The same peaks appear with rent cases as with mortgage ones- why will this be?
• The court attendance duty scheme started in April 02 so does this affect stats? (Should see more attendance and fewer cases being listed?)

Couldn't explain the peaks and troughs
General discussion involved the scope for talking to the courts about anecdotally easier possession orders than in other areas and impact on homelessness of not making landlords provide as much justification for eviction/possession as in other areas.

2.12 Source: Analysis of ACE (Probation) assessments for Jan - June 02

691 assessments taken on 576 offenders. Accommodation was identified as a serious issue with 124 of them.

Of these:

• Highest number were in temporary accommodation (48%) incl friends and relatives' homes. 25% had permanent accommodation (next largest category) with smaller proportions being equally likely to be in temporary bail or probation hostels (10%) or of NFA (13%).
• 58% were unemployed and 28% were unavailable for work due to illness or incapacity

Key problems (support needs) were:

• Family/relationship (70%)
• Employment/training/education (54%)
• Financial problems (52%)
• Drugs (46%)
• Alcohol (33%)
• General lifestyle/associates (24%)
• Domestic violence (19%)
• Mental health (13%)
• Literacy (10%)
• Most offenders had three or more problems

Conclusion:

• Offenders have to rely heavily on lodging arrangements (which might connect with requirement of support with family/rels).
• A quarter of them had permanent accommodation so must have been experiencing neighbour difficulties. Three quarters were not in secure tenure.
• A quarter were in very insecure tenure (ie bail hostel) or NFA.
• 86% of this group were unemployed or were not going to be able to work.
• Which accommodation providers would provide for this group?
• This group did not include the Youth Offending Team's stats

Need better prison liaison esp as prisoners on short term sentences do not get probation officers
Associated issues could be declaring previous records to RSLs , leading to exclusion and offenders needing better support from home to prison to end tenancies if necessary.

2.13 Source: Annual Return for Child Protection Information for 2001-2 from TMB Social Services

• Total no of referrals in one year= 2996
• 159 children were the subject of Child protection conferences
• No of children on the CPR = 138, more boys than girls (55% to 45%)

Reasons for registration on CPR =

• Neglect and emotional abuse (boys)
• Neglect, physical and emotional abuse (girls)

• Majority of both boys and girls were aged 10-15.
• Total number of looked after children at 31.3.02 = 258
• Most on full care orders, most aged 10-15 and placed within the Authority. 174 out of 258 being looked after due to abuse/neglect.

Conclusions:

There may well be a large number of 16 and 17 year olds leaving the care system soon as there is a 'peak' of 10-15 year olds at present. These young people will have high support needs.

The group had expected figures such as these. However, more stats could be sought from the Leaving Care Team to get a more accurate future projection, and the links with the Child Protection Register and domestic violence could be explored further.

2.14 Source: Priority Need exercise February 2002

• This study triggered the Hidden Homelessness Survey of October 2002 by monitoring the number of 16 and 17 year olds that applied to supported housing providers over a 6 month period in 2001.
• 94 applicants approached, 41% male, 59% female. Of these, 44% of the males and 83% of the females had medium to high support needs.
• 59% of the males could not be accommodated, mainly due to no vacancies.
• 35% of the females could not be accommodated for the same reason.

2.15 Source: Audit of support services

Accommodation Based Support

Community alarm service	Pull cord service for tenants who have cords in their homes or want them installed. On call service (not just for elderly).
Enville Place(ECHG)	Supported housing scheme for single men(no resettlement support but prepare tenants for independent living)
Harper House(ECHG)	Supported housing scheme for single men with mental health problems, offenders/those at risk of offending(no resettlement support but prepare tenants for independent living)
Mrs E Shepherd	Accommodation based support for people with alcohol problems (no resettlement support but could prepare tenants for independent living)
Nacro	Accommodation based support for people with drug problems, offenders and those at risk of offending.(no resettlement support but prepare tenants for independent living)
Tameside Adult Placement Scheme	Accommodation based for people with Learning Disabilities
Tameside Link	Accommodation based support for people with Learning Disabilities
Tameside Supported Lodging Scheme	Floating/visiting/landlady/landlord scheme for 16-17 year olds(not outreach, but could prepare someone for an independent tenancy)
Wish	Accommodation based and resettlement support for women

Resettlement Support

Albert Kennedy Trust	Floating support for young gay and lesbians
Antisocial Behaviour Team
Body Positive	Information and advice service for people with HIV/Aids
CAB	Assistance with debt, rent arrears, housing issues
Community Drug and Alcohol Team	Have access to a range of services including rehab/detox treatment
Connexions	Tracking and employment advice service for 13-19 year olds
Emmaus	Furniture shop and accommodation for single people
Gaf	Advice and advocacy agency for young people, with some floating support available (see New Charter)
Host	Provide short term emotional support for clients with 'medium/ temporary' mental health problems e.g. older people or those with mental health problems coming out of hospital
Information Shop	Information, advice and support service for young people
Leaving Care Team	Will provide Aftercare to care leavers
New Charter/People First	40 units of floating/resettlement support for homeless families.Young peoples (16-25) tenancy support service via GAF
Off The Record	Counselling service for young people
Probation Aervice	Client focused support
Prolific Offenders Resettlement	Probation and housing working together to re-house PO's.
TMBC Social Services	Floating support for people with HIV/Aids Family support workers Resettlement workers
TMBC Welfare Rights Team	Debt and welfare benefits advice and advocacy
Tameside Refugee Support Service	Resettlement support for refugees
Tameside Womens Project	Outreach and resettlement work for women at risk of domestic violence, with longer term floating support available
Third Sector Coalition
Threshold	Young people at risk Floating support for single women Floating support for single people
Turning Point (SUFFS)	Substance using family support service (floating/visiting support for people with drug and alcohol problems)
West Pennine	Teenage parents scheme (being developed)Teenage parents floating support
Youth Offending Team	Client focused support

Section Three: Consultation With Service Users

Between the period of January to March 2003 a total of 32 surveys were carried out with people who had experienced being homeless in Tameside. Most of the information was gathered in semi-structured surveys that individuals have either completed by themselves or alongside a worker. In addition small discussion groups were run at Grosvenor St, Westbrook House and at the Women's Refuge. The aim of the exercise was to gather perceptions from homeless people with regard to the causes and background factors of their own homelessness.

They were then asked what services had helped and what services were not available to them that could have helped either prevent their homelessness or resolve it more quickly.

The gaps and shortcomings in services that were identified have been summarised below

Prevention of Homelessness

People were asked what type of services could have helped them avoid becoming homeless in the first place. Responses to this question varied widely and this reflected the different ages and housing histories of the people taking part. Responses can be categorised under the following headings.

3.1 Education

Raising awareness is needed amongst young people at school through the citizenship programme. As well as young people the issue of educating parents was also raised by the discussion group at Westbrook. They felt that parenting classes would help with specific mention made of raising awareness with regard to the consequences of homelessness, punishments and the need for a greater understanding of a teenagers problems.

3.2 Help with Relationships

The need for counselling and somebody to listen to help sort out relationship problems was the most mentioned issue and this was mainly from young people and included the following comments:

"support for my Mum"; "more support dealing with problems at home, my Stepdad being thrown out!!"; "family counselling and parents should learn to listen to their children more".

3.3 Support

A more general type of support was identified as a need amongst 4-5 people questioned. One respondent identified their need to have a visiting service or a day centre that could be easily accessed to help relieve loneliness and promote independence skills. Another repeated message from people who have had tenancies with registered social landlords was that once they were faced with problems they would have appreciated a more understanding approach from their housing officers. Two people said that once they had got into difficulty with paying their rent, advice on how to deal with their arrears could have helped them avoid becoming homeless. One person said that just being listened too and having somebody on their side and not just collecting rent would have helped a lot.

3.4 Accessing Services

• A number of comments were made that homelessness may have been avoided in their cases if they had received an appropriate service more promptly. Two examples of this were police responding more quickly to domestic violence situations and Registered Social Landlords carrying out repairs promptly and to a higher standard.
• Another person felt that a greater awareness of the support, hostel staff provided would have helped them avoid rough sleeping and having to stay with friends.
• Six people gave a positive "no" to this question, that in their opinion nothing could have been done to prevent them from becoming homeless.
• Once Homeless - What would have Helped?

3.5 Counselling

• In a similar way to a listening type service being identified as a good way to prevent homelessness it was also highlighted as important in helping people successfully move towards a more settled lifestyle.
• Specific mention was made for specialist provision around the issues of substance misuse and mental health problems. The Grosvenor St discussion group advocated the idea of therapy groups helping people address their drug problems such as those being provided on various probation run programmes.
• The discussion at Westbrook advocated more face to face contact with Social Services and a mediation service. This echoed comments made by some households who had been rehoused regarding the need for a service to help them with the transition into permanent housing in a new area. Whether this needs to be a conventional counselling service or a resettlement service would need to be explored further.

3.6 Emergency Accommodation/Supported Housing

• The shortage of easily accessible accommodation with good support was mentioned by several people. This issue needs to be explored further in order to understand what people's priorities are. Mention was made of the need to have emergency accommodation that homeless people could access easily and at short notice. The main issue for others was that more options on the type of supported accommodation were needed. Examples of these were more provision specifically for women and specialist supported accommodation for people with substance dependencies. Another respondent felt that the rules used by one the supported housing projects were unclear and applied in a unfair and ad-hoc way. They felt that rules were necessary but should be made clear from the beginning and then stuck to.
• On the issue of temporary accommodation many people expressed their dissatisfaction with the use of bed and breakfasts and how this would often worsen their situation. One respondent who had three children pointed out that the bed and breakfast she had been in did not have any large family rooms and was a very unsuitable environment for children to be in.

3.7 Access to Move On Accommodation

• As the majority of people interviewed were at the time living in temporary supported accommodation the issue of moving on to their own tenancies was a recurring issue. Many people said that the length of time it took to actually receive an offer of accommodation was far too long. This was a view that had been echoed in earlier interviews by workers in the homeless sector who said that too many people were left stuck in temporary accommodation and unable to move on.
• The discussion group at Grosvenor St said that the policies of registered social landlords meant that anybody with arrears over £250 were effectively excluded from ever gaining their own tenancies. The point made here was that for those people on a very low income and with rent arrears substantially over £250, it was extremely difficult to keep paying off the arrears over a long period.
• One of the young people interviewed felt that it was almost impossible for under 18 yr olds to gain their own tenancies even with a guarantor.

3.8 Information

The discussion group at Westbrook House highlighted the lack of available information for people who became or where about to become homeless. Some of their suggestions were a free phone helpline, Student Services at colleges having an accommodation list and joint leaflets of accommodation providers and publicity material in public buildings where people go.

3.9 Occupation

This is a very broad heading to cover the issue of what people could do to relieve the problems of boredom, isolation and lack of an informal support. Having a Day Centre to go to was mentioned a few times as one way that this could be achieved. A number of young people interviewed stressed the importance to them of jobs and training opportunities and the "Need to improve self worth".

3.10 Prison Liaison

This was a particular issue raised by the discussion group at Grosvenor St centred on the lack of support available to people once they had been given a custodial sentence. They felt that in many cases the lack of support in this area meant people came out of prison with rent arrears, increased debt and other problems that could have been reduced or avoided with help at the right time.

Priorities are:

Prevention:

• Education and Information about homelessness, both preventative and for homeless people
• Client centred support ie appropriate and non-judgemental advice on rent arrears, drugs or alcohol, counselling or mediation within families, better support in prison about former housing etc.
• Better quality services eg better repairs responses from social landlords, resettlement services

Once homeless:

• Better temporary accommodation, more accessible, providing good quality support, taking people with varying needs and more units overall
• Not using B&B
• Need move-on, current waiting times for rehousing are not acceptable
• Exclusion policies perpetuate social exclusion
• More tenancies or housing options for the Under 18s
• Linked to greater occupation/ esteem-building/ training/ employment for homeless households

Links between Homelessness and Drugs, Alcohol and/or Mental Health Problems

Out of the 32 people consulted 17 acknowledged that they had had some problems now or in the past with drugs and/or alcohol and/or mental health problems. This could be broken down into the following figures:

• Drug Misuse = 7
• Alcohol Misuse = 4
• Mental health Problems = 3
• Multiple Needs = 3

Of those classed as having multiple needs 2 used both drugs and alcohol and one person had a combination of alcohol misuse and mental health issues.

When asked to what extent these issues had contributed towards their homelessness responses varied from two people who thought there was no link to three people who said they were the 100% causative factor.

Taking drug misuse separately on the scale of 1-10, 6 of the 8 people who said this was an issue thought that it contributed to over 50% of their homelessness problem. The remaining two did not make any link and from the interview notes it would seem that their dependency was never high. One respondent was able to come off heroin in six weeks with the help of his GP. Average Rating for Drug Misuse 6.8

With the exception of one person, everyone who said they had a problem with alcohol misuse either on its own or in combination classed it as highly significant in terms of its contribution towards homelessness. Average Rating 8

Average Rating for mental health issues was 8.75.

From this total sample of 18 people 10 had at some point accessed support services to help them deal with their substance and alcohol dependency issues. Three people were on Drug Treatment and Testing Orders with the Probation service and some gave positive feedback about the benefits of this programme and the other drug support offered by the Probation service.

Other services mentioned were the CDAT and the counselling offered by ADS for those with alcohol misuse problems.

Drug misuse is a problem likely to be associated with homelessness. Alcohol misuse, mental health and a combination of multiple needs are also prevalent. Most clients interviewed said that these issues contributed to their homelessness.
Some people had received positive interventions from a variety of sources and services.
Linking the areas of homelessness and substance misuse, mental health and multiple needs would improve outcomes for these groups.

Section Four: Consultation With Agencies

We carried out 18 interviews with agencies to establish what type of housing situations they dealt with. The agencies we interviewed were the Police, Social Services, Teenage Pregnancy Team, Probation, Connexions, Education Department - looking at travellers and refugees, Education Welfare, the Out Of Hours Team, Leaving Care Team, Elderly Services, Mental Health Team, Health Visitor, Asylum Team, Job Centre, Disability Team, Tameside College, Hospital Discharge Team and Community Care Team.

In the interviews we asked their roles and remits, the other agencies that they commonly work with, the typical housing situations that they dealt with, the barriers their clients face, the initiatives they would like to see in the future and any examples of good practice that they had identified either within the borough or outside.

The interviews produced extensive information, which will be summarized below. All the agencies interviewed seemed to work regularly with a number of other agencies and with all clients including ex-offenders, young people and people suffering substance misuse. All the organisations dealt with different aspects of people's lives, however they appeared to all deal with clients who were staying on friend's floors or clients that had very complex needs and therefore were difficult to place.

The barriers and problems that were faced by clients again varied between agencies but there were some common threads. The RSLs were becoming more prohibitive about the types of people that they will rehouse, early intervention would prevent many situations getting worse and putting support in place would enable clients to sustain tenancies, many clients need move on accommodation - they are not always ready to move from hostel style accommodation to independent accommodation. There are problems with information sharing and some agencies restrictively interpreting the Data Protection Act. There are real problems trying to place 16 and 17 year olds, particularly into permanent accommodation as at present there are few solutions for them.

In terms of things that agencies would like to see in the future, they mentioned a number of initiatives. Triggers for identifying when people are struggling were mentioned by most agencies. It was felt that there are some services available, but people are not identified at an appropriate stage, therefore by the time they are picked up, it is often too late to make a big difference. Move on accommodation was sighted as a large need also. Many agencies mentioned the need to have emergency or direct access accommodation available, as it was felt that in most cases Bed and Breakfast accommodation was inadequate. Most agencies sited services in Manchester as good practice in terms of all of the above. It was felt that for most clients that they did not have a range of options available to them and we need to have a range of services to deal with people appropriately. Life skills and support were seen as necessary and more support to people whilst they were in temporary accommodation so that they do not get 'lost' in the system.

In addition to the structured interviews, we held two consultation days in November 2002 and January 2003, which were attended by approximately 50 people representing a number of different agencies in the voluntary and statutory sectors. We used these days to present the information that we had established so far and through a number of workshops, we were able to consult with all the attendees and gain their views on issues surrounding homelessness. These comments were then considered and will be incorporated into the Homelessness Strategy where possible.

For further information please contact: