Homelessness data review: local authority consultation analysis

Consultation findings

 

Response

30 responses were received from 27 different local authorities.

Requirement for a review

The consultation asked whether respondents were in support of a review with the proposed scope of: content (any gaps/things we no longer need); wording (of questions and category options); definitions; guidance; quality; consistency across data providers. Details of whether a review was considered required or not was requested.

All respondents were in support of the review. A review was felt to be required to:

• ensure data collections are reflective of changes in homelessness legislation, terminology and policy initiatives such as rapid rehousing and housing first;
• ensure that the current categories are still relevant, include a large enough range of options (to reduce the proportion of ‘other’) and provide the level of detail required;
• rationalise the collections to better reflect the data needs of the sector and data users – both by adding new items, and removing those that are no longer required, or where there is duplication; and
• improve guidance and validation, particularly where there are inconsistencies / high levels of divergence identified.

Suggested review approach

The next section of the consultation outlined a suggested approach to the review, which was to have an initial phase involving the creation of a working group with the necessary expertise to consider the collections in detail. If possible, this would consist of representatives from 5-8 local authorities representing different geographical areas and data collection considerations, as well as Scottish Government representatives. It was envisaged that this would take place from May to September 2020 in the form of approximately 2-3 face to face meetings as well as email correspondence.

Work and progress would be shared with all local authority data contacts on a regular basis throughout the initial phase, with the opportunity to feed in at appropriate points. Once this work was concluded, it was expected that a wider consultation with all users would take place (details to be confirmed depending on the outcome of the initial phase).

It should be noted at this point that the outlined approach has had to be reconsidered due to the circumstances in 2020. Similarly, the timescales have had to be re-worked, due to the delays in this work given other priorities.

All respondents agreed with the approach set out with members from 16 different local authorities expressing a willingness to be on the working group.

A number of suggestions were provided for who should be on the working group.  These included:

• software providers / IT colleagues
• other public bodies with an interest in / responsibility for collecting homelessness data such as the Scottish Housing Regulator, National Records of Scotland, the National Health Service
• Homelessness hub leads
• third sector parties including Shelter, Crisis, Scottish Housing Network
• other providers of homelessness services, such as Registered Social Landlords

The importance of having a mix of knowledge on the group i.e., those with practical experience of case management, data extraction as well as those with strategic oversight was noted by a few respondents.

A range of suggestions were received around how to best share work with those not on the working group. These included both written forms of communication (e.g. emails, publication of minutes) and meetings, including virtual (e.g. statistics user group, Hub meetings).

Other suggestions on how best to undertake the review were sought. Responses noted:

• ensuring meetings and discussion are focussed
• ensuring clear write-up of what has been agreed / proposed
• ensuring representation from a range of local authorities e.g. rural as well as urban
• current data could be used as a starting point to determine areas of focus e.g. where there appears to be reporting divergence or inconsistency
• subgroups could be formed for local authorities who use the same software provider
• having a staged process for each of the collections in turn could be useful
• an approach of contacting a wider list of local authority contacts initially to obtain views, followed by a meeting with a smaller group to discuss in detail could work well
• the importance of keeping all local authorities informed throughout

Use of publications

The consultation went on to describe how the homelessness statistics are dissiminated with two Homelessness in Scotland publications each year. In January, a six-monthly update which provides quarterly breakdowns, and in June, a fuller annual publication which provides annual figures only. These consist of: text which provides summary findings and a description of trends, along with some contextual information; accompanying data tables; and charts.

Elements of the publications were used by most respondents, with slightly more use of the annual content compared to the six-monthly (an additional 2-3 respondents for each element). The tables were the most used, followed by the charts and then the text.

Twenty-two (out of the 30) respondents felt that the six-monthly publication was needed.  There were a lot of commonalities in the reasons this was required, with responses noting its usefulness for the purposes of:

• providing an indication of trends and performance, which is particularly useful in identifying changes to service provision
• benchmarking / comparisons with other local authorities
• external and internal reporting

In November 2019, for the first time, Scottish Government published a breakdown of homelessness by the equalities characteristics age, gender and ethnicity (as well as by household type).

Twenty-six respondents found the equalities publication to be useful, with 24 noting this should be replicated. Of these 24 respondents, 20 felt it should be replicated every year; 3 every 2 years and 1 less often.

Please note that the equalities breakdown is now included in the annual publication which is released around August every year.

Consideration is being given to the creation of more bespoke analysis / theme reports / publications.  To note: these would be based on the data available through the HL and PREVENT1 data collections only (i.e. without the need to link to, or use data from other sources).

Twenty-six respondents felt that theme reports would be useful. The most common suggestions were:

• youth homelessness
• analysis which would assist with Rapid Rehousing Transition Plans
• ‘at risk/vulnerable’ groups, such as prisoners, care/hospital leavers, minority ethnic, women and children, those with support needs, those with disabilities
• prevention of homelessness

Other suggestions included: repeat homelessness, impact of COVID-19, older applicants, unsuitable accommodation/breaches, sustainability of outcomes, regional differences, and private rented sector focus.

There were also a few ideas which would require significant resource, or data which is not currently collected/available. These included: analysis to identify pathways into and through homelessness for different groups, modelling future demand, links with health and social care data, and rough sleeping.

Collection frequency

The next section of the consulation sought views on the frequency of the data collections. Currently, the Scottish Government collects data every quarter. As the collection and processing of data is labour intensive for the Scottish Government statistics team, consideration is being given as to how to make this more efficient.

One suggestion was to reduce the frequency of collections to tie in with the publication cycle. Currently this would mean collecting data every 6 months (i.e. two quarters at a time) as opposed to quarterly.

Views on this suggestion were mixed. Seventeen out of 30 felt they could be reduced, with the remaining 13 stating they could not.

Benefits stated for reducing were:

• having to extract and correct the data only twice a year would be much more efficient, taking less time overall, and freeing up much needed resource
• reduced pressure / less onerous
• these could in turn result in better quality data

Difficulties with reducing the collection frequency were:

• volumes would be too high to correct errors over six months
• data may not be as accurate, as cases are old, and many will have closed
• quarterly reports (which are generated from processing) are required

Use of alternative data collection tools

Another consideration from respondents of the consultation was whether an alternative data collection tool, specifically ProcXed (a wider Scottish Government data collection tool) should be used for the HL data returns. This is the collection tool currently used for the PREVENT1 data returns and creates efficiencies through in-built validation which speeds up the finalisation of data. This has additional benefits such as increased flexibility to make changes to collections with the necessary IT skills and expertise to implement and support these.

Many respondents noted their support for moving the collection of the HL collections to ProcXed. Ten respondents noted no concerns at all, with a small number (less than 5) stating they were unable to comment / needed IT input / were unsure about capability of future systems. Of those who did note concerns, the biggest was cost, especially where this was required to transform the file type for the data extract and upload. Development time, speed of the ProcXed system and need to wait for all 32 local authorities to provided data were also cited as concerns.

Many respondents were unable to provide a lead in time for the changes to enable data collection via ProcXed without IT input or further information on what the changes would entail. However, 7 noted relatively short timescales (less than 3 months), with a further 7 noting timing in the region of 3-12 months, and only 2 stating a lead-in time of more than 12 months.

Use of reports generated for data providers

Once quarterly data is processed by Scottish Government, reports are generated and sent back to data providers. These contain a range of information relating to both the quality of the data received (inclusive of errors) and summary charts and tables of the data, often with historical trend information.

Information was requested to understand what reports are and aren’t used to ensure that those needed continue to be available while seeking opportunities for streamlining.

The vast majority of respondents stated they used the Scottish Government reports both for quality assurance / error correction purposes and the summary tables / charts.

Not everyone provided specific information about the individual elements of the reports that were used, with some noting ‘all’. When asked if any content was not needed, a small number of responses stated outdated information (pre-2007) e.g. priority need, and that the tables were more useful than the charts.

Other comments

There was an opportunity for respondents to provide any additional feedback or comments. Those received have been grouped by broad themes below.

Data review

• there is opportunity for “quick wins” to be implemented sooner, while longer-term development progresses in the background
• to inform thinking, it would be useful to determine who can and cannot make changes quickly/easily
• important to tie in with other data requesters e.g. Scottish Housing Regulator
• use Homelessness Hubs as a mechanism to report back on progress

Availability and use of data

• interactive dataset being available for users would be really useful
• more local authority breakdowns required
• the Scottish Government data is out of date, and so of limited use
• quicker production of reports would be useful
• useful for data providers to have a better understanding of how the data is used
• details of how figures calculated would be useful
• reports could better reflect the dual purpose of the data collections to i) understand homelessness and ii) evaluate performance
• a review of homelessness legislation to review the gaps would be welcomed