Housing Support for Homeless Households - Analysis of Consultation Findings- Report

Section 2: Overall views of regulations and the content and scope of assessment

2.1 This section presents the findings relating to overall views of whether regulations should be established when the new Duty is commenced, and views of the content and scope of assessment (Questions 1-3).

Policy options

2.2 At the start, respondents were asked to choose between two options: to commence the Duty on local authorities and establish regulations on the assessment and provision of housing support; or to commence the Duty on local authorities but not to establish such regulations.

2.3 Question 1 asked:

Which is your preferred option?
Option 1: establish regulations Option 2: do not establish regulations
Please explain why.

2.4 A total of 61 respondents (92%) addressed Question 1 in some way. Respondents who expressed a preference for one or other option were evenly split, with 29 (48%) of those who addressed the question supporting each of Option 1 and Option 2. In 3 cases (5%), it was not possible to determine a clear view in favour of Option 1 or Option 2.

2.5 There were some variations in views by type of organisation. Among local authorities, around two thirds of those who addressed this question supported Option 2, with a third supporting Option 1. Among housing associations, however, virtually all supported Option 1. Among voluntary organisations, as well as those from other sectors, views were more or less evenly divided.

2.6 All of those who addressed Question 1 made additional comments. Most of the additional comments focused on the reasons for the choice of one or other of the options, and the perceived benefits of that option.

Option 1 - Reasons for choice/perceived benefits

2.7 Around half of the respondents who made additional comments provided reasons for the choice of Option 1, or identified perceived benefits. The most common theme was to enable consistency in housing support assessment and provision. Other themes included: a perceived positive impact on aspects of provision or outcomes; addressing gaps/problems; providing clarity/definition of housing support; improving accountability; resource issues; and a small number of other reasons or benefits. Several respondents qualified their choice of Option 1 or made additional comments.

2.8 Most of the respondents who favoured Option 1 (and one of those who favoured Option 2 overall) highlighted the need for, or benefits of consistency as a reason for choice of Option 1. Among the issues raised were that the option would enable:

• Parity and consistency of policy interpretation and implementation across authority areas and no "postcode lottery".
• A uniform/consistent framework and approach for the assessment and provision of housing support.
• Consistent standards of service (against which local authorities can be measured).
• Consistent reporting (allowing more effective benchmarking, measurement and comparability, as well as increasing quality).

2.9 A small number of issues relating to consistency for specific groups were also raised. For example, one respondent identified the benefits of consistency for provision to prisoners. Another (although they did not express an overall preference), identified a specific concern that, without regulations, deaf people in homeless households could be subject to a postcode lottery in relation to accessible assessment and support.

2.10 A further reason cited by several respondents for establishing regulations was a perceived positive impact on the nature of provision or outcomes. It was suggested, for example, that this would enable: an efficient approach; good practice; continuity across areas; promotion of a culture recognising the needs of marginalised groups; and integration of equality considerations in the functions and policies of Scottish Government Directorates and Agencies and in the provision of housing support. It was also suggested that it would enable the endorsement of the professional status of housing support, as well as the development of a minimum standard of assessment and support provision which homeless people and those threatened with homelessness should expect, and against which local authorities could be held accountable. In terms of outcomes, it was suggested that regulations could better enable tenancy sustainment and prevention of homelessness; as well as enabling the duty to be implemented effectively.

2.11 Several respondents also suggested that their choice of Option 1 was based upon previous perceived gaps or problems in housing support. Examples given included: the lack of provision of services, or limited provision (e.g. limited to a local authority's own stock or limited in some geographical areas) where this was not mandatory; problems with interpretation of current legislation; barriers to accessing services; variation in services between authorities; and constraints for Registered Social Landlords (RSLs).

2.12 A further theme identified in relation to the choice of Option 1 was the view that regulations would provide clarity (e.g. for local authorities and all parties) about the nature of housing support assessments and services, and/or that establishing Regulations would help to define housing support. Additionally, one respondent, who did not express a strong preference, stated that if regulations made it clearer to those providing support what their obligations were, then they would be encouraged. Another respondent suggested that clarity would, in turn, ensure that service users' support needs would be met effectively and that they would be aware of the services to which they are entitled.

2.13 A few respondents expressed the view that regulations would improve accountability and transparency. Related to this, one respondent stated that this would enable scoping potential sanctions for non-compliance. It was also suggested that it might limit legal challenges (although one respondent, who disagreed with the establishment of regulations, stated that this had to be balanced against a possible adverse impact on flexibility, discussed later). A further suggestion was that regulations would provide a baseline against which to assess compliance and quality of services.

2.14 Comments on resource issues made by those in support of Option 1 included the view that, without statutory responsibilities or ring-fencing, the housing support budget would be a "soft target" when council budgets are under pressure. One respondent suggested that regulations would enable prioritising allocation of local authority resources, and another that their establishment would provide a framework that could be used for links into funding and forthcoming budgets.

2.15 Among a very small number of other reasons given for the choice of Option 1 were that: it was "common sense" or that it was essential for social inclusion and strategic planning that the needs of vulnerable homeless households were adequately assessed, and appropriate resources identified and ring-fenced by local authorities.

2.16 Several respondents, however, qualified their choice of Option 1 or made additional comments. Suggestions included that:

• There should be scope for local interpretation, some discretion and flexibility in the provisions.
• The regulations should be limited to: providing a framework; providing minimum standards; or defining housing support services in the context of the Duty.
• They should not be overly prescriptive, nor should they constrain delivery, and the use of prescriptive "check lists" should be avoided.
• There are a range of complex issues that would be difficult to cover in regulations, and which could best be addressed through explanatory guidance.
• Housing services may need to operate some kind of emergency service.
• The process must be person-centred.
• Duplication and conflicting requirements (e.g. with those of the Care Inspectorate and Scottish Social Services Council) should be avoided.
• The implementation of the Duty should not be delayed by the development of regulations.

Option 2 - Reasons for choice/perceived benefits

2.17 Around half of the respondents who made additional comments identified reasons for the choice of Option 2, or highlighted perceived benefits of this. The two themes identified most frequently were: the view that guidance or a broad framework would suffice or would be preferable to regulations; and the view that current legislation and processes made regulations unnecessary. Other issues raised as reasons for a preference for Option 2 included: a perceived need for flexibility, and variation in local circumstances/individual needs; a perceived impact on the nature of services/decision making; the implications for costs/use of resources; and the implications for the timescale for implementation. A few respondents qualified their support for this option or made additional comments.

2.18 Many of the respondents who preferred Option 2 expressed the view that national guidance would be sufficient or would be preferable to regulations. Related to this, some also expressed the view that the introduction of formal regulations would be too prescriptive and would not be required. It was also suggested that guidance could enable: a framework; consistency of implementation; clarity; a common understanding; benchmarking; and monitoring/compliance. It was also suggested that it would help local authorities to implement the Duty successfully and highlight and share good practice examples. A few respondents suggested that the guidance could be incorporated into the Code of Guidance on Homelessness, or could be an adjunct to this.

2.19 A number of respondents also identified current legislation and processes as the reason for their choice of Option 2. It was suggested, for example, that the primary legislation is sufficiently strong and clear without the need for the establishment of regulations. One respondent also stated that the local authority is bound by a number of acts that support individuals to live independently (e.g. the Social Work Scotland Act 1968 and the Community Care Act 1990), and that services are regulated by the Social Work Inspection Agency (SWIA), the Scottish Housing Regulator (SHR) and Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (SCSWIS), making further regulation unnecessary. It was also noted that housing support services are subject to the Care Inspectorate's standards and inspection. A few local authorities also expressed the view that existing local documentation, protocols, systems and mechanisms were appropriate and/or working well and one voluntary sector respondent stated that the case for extensive regulations has not been made.

2.20 A number of respondents also highlighted a perceived need for flexibility, or identified variation in local circumstances or individual needs as the reasons for their choice of Option 2. Several stated that needs and priorities vary from area to area and it was argued that the range of housing support needs is complex and diverse. It was suggested that Option 2 would enable flexible support services to be provided, to respond to local circumstances and to meet the needs of individuals, while regulations would make such flexibility difficult. It was also argued that significant progress has been made towards the 2012 target and reducing homelessness through the adoption of a flexible, outcome-based approach, being able to react to local circumstances and concentrating on effective prevention.

2.21 Further issues raised as reasons for the choice of Option 2 were the perceived impact on the nature of services, the nature of decision making or outcomes. In terms of the nature of services, for example, it was suggested that Option 2 could enable a person-centred and family-centred approach, and that regulations could undermine and direct resources away from preventive work. One local authority respondent also expressed concern that regulations would introduce the risk of a "one size fits all" approach, and that there may be pressure to provide only the lowest level of service required to meet the obligations. Another respondent stated that new regulations could introduce unnecessary restrictions on providers. One local authority stated that regulations could restrict the development of innovative new approaches to service provision.

2.22 In terms of the nature of decision making, it was suggested that local authorities and partners know best what works within their area. It was also suggested that central Government regulation could cut across local strategic documents and approaches and involve a return to centralised direction. It was argued that councils need to be able to direct support in line with their own strategic planning and that Option 2 would be more in keeping with the Concordat. Further suggestions included that requirements could be bureaucratic and that they could limit or remove choice from individual clients.

2.23 In terms of outcomes, it was suggested that Option 2 could allow local authority staff the discretion to tailor support to individual needs and enable households to stay in accommodation and avoid repeat homelessness. It was also stated that councils have made significant improvements in the outcomes achieved in the delivery of housing support and advice by adopting a flexible approach, and that this would be lost if a prescriptive approach were taken. One local authority, for example, stated that establishing regulations could lead to people failing to become independent, as staff may follow prescribed lists rather than dealing with their needs.

2.24 A few respondents identified issues with costs/use of resources as the reasons for their choice of Option 2, particularly with local authorities facing financial pressures. Comments included that progress has been achieved by using resources in a cost-effective way, in response to local circumstances and priorities. It was also suggested that prescription brings a danger that resources go only to prescribed matters, could divert resources from prevention and a strong focus on outcomes, and could put pressure on strained budgets. A few respondents stated that Option 2 would cost less to implement than a more prescriptive system, or expressed concerns about the likely cost of Option 1. One stated that regulation could affect invoicing for housing support services.

2.25 One respondent expressed concern that drafting and consulting on regulations could prolong an already delayed process, and that this would be detrimental to giving housing support to those who need it as soon as possible. They expressed the view that the Scottish Government should aim to commence the legislation no later than 1^st January 2013.

2.26 A few respondents qualified their choice of Option 2 or made additional comments, which included that: there was not a definitive view amongst those contributing to the response about the value of establishing regulations; the benefits of a regulatory approach were understood; there should be absolute clarity about what the Duty requires; and regulations could be considered and consulted on at a later stage, if necessary.

Other comments

2.27 In addition to providing the reasons for their choice of option, many respondents made additional comments or observations at Question 1. These often related to other matters which they believed Scottish Ministers should consider, and there was clear overlap between some of these comments and issues raised later at Question 7.

2.28 For that reason, the material will be presented in more detail together with other related comments later in the report. In summary, however, these included comments on:

• The perceived need for guidance, and issues for clarification or inclusion in such guidance.
• Monitoring and reporting.
• The nature and implications of the legislation and regulations.
• The overall importance of housing support.
• The timescale for implementation of regulations.
• Resource issues.

2.29 These are discussed in more detail at Question 7.

Conducting the housing support needs assessment

2.30 Question 2 was in several parts and focused on: whether Scottish Ministers should prescribe the types of inquiries local authorities must carry out in determining the housing support required; and whether Scottish Ministers should specify matters to which local authorities must have regard in carrying out the assessment.

Prescribing the types of inquiries - overall views and reasons

2.31 Question 2(a) asked:

(a)Should Scottish Ministers prescribe the types of inquiries local authorities must carry out in determining the housing support required?
Yes/No Please explain why.

2.32 Question 2(a) was addressed by 56 respondents (85%) in some way. Among those who addressed this question, around half (52%) were against prescribing the types of inquiries, while 41% were in favour of such prescription. A small number of respondents (7%) who addressed the question did not express a clear preference.

2.33 As with Question 1, there were variations between sectors in their views of this issue. While 70% of local authority respondents who addressed the question did not favour prescribing the types of inquiries, a similar proportion of housing association respondents supported this. Respondents from other sectors were mixed in their views, with no overall pattern evident. When responses to Questions 1 and 2(a) were compared, it was found that, among those who supported Regulations, around two thirds also supported prescribing the types of inquiries.

2.34 All of those who addressed this question made additional comments. Most of the additional comments focused on identifying reasons for the respondent's view, or the benefits of the particular approach. A few respondents simply made reference to their response to Question 1, or raised other issues (discussed at Question 7) but most provided reasons for their specific view.

2.35 Under half of the respondents who made additional comments identified reasons in favour of prescribing the types of inquiries that should be carried out. The main theme was the promotion of consistency (as was the case at Question 1). Other themes included: a perceived positive impact on the assessment process, means of working or outcomes; and addressing issues with the current arrangements. Several respondents qualified their response or made additional comments.

2.36 Specific issues raised relating to consistency were: the perceived need for this; the importance of providing clarity to local authorities; the promotion of a consistent minimum level of service provision across Scotland; equitable provision; and benefits of consistency for specific groups (e.g. offenders returning to the community).

2.37 Issues raised in relation to a perceived positive impact on the assessment process, means of working or outcomes of prescribing the types of inquiries included that it would enable: a standardised approach; promotion and benchmarking of good practice; transparency and accountability; development of an evaluation and monitoring framework; data exchange between authorities; and the identification of the level of competency required from staff. It was also suggested that it would enable or ensure: person-centred support; the "right" questions to be asked; and a full assessment. Further perceived benefits were that it would help to ensure that account is taken of equalities issues; ensure that the right support is given, and improve positive outcomes.

2.38 A few respondents identified issues which they believed required to be addressed in the current arrangements, such as: issues with staff roles (e.g. conflicting considerations); some issues being overlooked (e.g. the ability to build neighbour relationships; health conditions or disabilities); variations in practice; and perceived deficiencies in guidance.

2.39 Where respondents qualified their agreement or added comments, suggestions included that inquiries should not be determined too precisely, nor be too restrictive, but should be flexible and allow innovation. One respondent suggested the use of a basic questionnaire for everyone, as a trigger for a full assessment. One respondent who did not state "yes" or "no" suggested that, rather than prescribing the types of inquiries, Scottish Ministers should prescribe the need to take a wide view of housing support and to include consideration of wider support needs.

2.40 Just over half of those who provided additional comments gave reasons to support the view that the types of inquiries should not be prescribed, and these also reflected some of the themes identified at Question 1. The most common focused on: the view that guidance would suffice or be preferable to regulation; and the view that existing practice was appropriate. Other issues raised included: the importance of flexibility; variation in needs; the potential implications of action for decision making processes or outcomes; and the resource implications. A few respondents qualified their response or made additional comments.

2.41 A number of respondents argued that guidance would be sufficient, preferable to prescription, or generally helpful/welcome. It was suggested that this would help to ensure clarity, consistency and equity, and a number of suggestions were made about issues for inclusion in such guidance. These covered issues such as: the assessment process; issues for specific groups or people in particular circumstances; referral; recording; follow-up; roles of other agencies; integration with existing support; definitional/terminology issues; the time period for provision; and the coverage of the Duty. These issues are discussed further at Question 7.

2.42 A number of respondents also expressed the view that existing legislation and/ or practice were sufficient and appropriate. Issues raised included the views that: the Act is clear; tested assessment procedures and frameworks are in place (with a small number of respondents giving examples of practice); and that rigid regulation might undermine progress. One respondent stated that prescription of the type of inquiries was unnecessary in the light of the development of Housing Options approaches.

2.43 Several respondents mentioned a need for flexibility in assessing support needs, to enable a response to the complex needs of individual households and the needs in local areas. Several respondents identified that inquiries would vary according to the diverse needs of individual service users, which could change over time. It was argued that there was a danger that prescription would remove flexibility.

2.44 Where respondents raised issues about the potential implications for decision making processes or outcomes as the reasons not to support prescribing the types of inquiries, issues raised included that: local authorities are in the best position to understand housing support requirements and determine methods; prescription might cut across local strategic work; and there should be a person-centred and holistic appraisal, which prescription would inhibit or limit. One respondent stated that the lack of prescription was consistent with the Christie Commission⁵ recommendations. In terms of the potential impact of prescription on outcomes, it was suggested that it might: compromise preventive work; require outcome measures which may not be consistent with those recognised by other services; and lead to the exclusion of some potential service users from the support they may need. It was also suggested that flexibility rather than prescription would enable the appropriate targeting of resources.

2.45 A few respondents who did not support prescription qualified their response or made additional comments, which included that: it may be useful to state that adequate inquiries are made and the local authority should be able to demonstrate this; and it may be appropriate to have some broad headings for inquiries. One respondent, while disagreeing with regulations on types of inquiries, stated that, if they are brought forward, then they should only refer to areas of assessment within the council's remit. One respondent suggested the development of a system for use prior to formal assessment, to "signpost" people for housing support assessment.

The nature of inquiries

2.46 Question 2(b) asked:

(b): If you have answered 'yes', what inquiries should Scottish Ministers prescribe that local authorities must carry out?
Please explain why.

2.47 Almost all of the respondents who expressed agreement at Question 2(a), (and a few who did not express a definitive view, or expressed disagreement) made comments on what inquiries should be carried out. The most common themes related to the aspects of the assessment process generally, and to the nature of the inquiries overall. Some specific issues for inquiry were also suggested .

2.48 In relation to aspects of the nature of the assessment process, various specific suggestions were made by respondents about issues which they considered important to prescribe, emphasise or include. Some of these related to roles and responsibilities with suggestions including: the corporate responsibility of the local authority; the role of homeless services as the lead agency; the potential assessment of needs, referral and review by a body independent of the homelessness/strategic housing function of the council; and the use of trained and experienced staff for assessment.

2.49 Some of the suggestions about aspects of the nature of the assessment process related to the importance of a specific type of approach, such as: a joined-up approach (e.g. a single shared assessment type approach); links to the Housing Options agenda; a thematic approach, with "essential" and "desirable" inquiries; Specific, Measureable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound (SMART) inquiries; inquiries based upon accepted good practice; and person-centred and holistic assessment.

2.50 Some of the suggestions about aspects of the assessment process related to the method overall, such as: the types of housing support to be considered; the identification of a minimum set of inquiries with scope and flexibility for wider assessment; timescales and the point at which support is provided; the use of existing tools and/or existing assessment information; the use of an agreed definition of housing support; the inclusion of service user choice; the inclusion of likely outcomes; and mechanisms for review.

2.51 In relation to the nature of inquiries overall, suggestions included that they should cover:

• Preventive measures that could be put in place.
• Homelessness risk factors.
• Building standards/quality of housing.
• Reasons for homelessness.
• Level of vulnerability/need and existing support needs..
• Multiple needs.
• Needs of others in the household.
• Previous/existing support provided (and access to advice/information).
• Contact with others (e.g. Social Workers; Community Psychiatric Nurses [CPNs]; family; advocates; the wider community; statutory housing; RSLs; anti-social behaviour teams; health services; voluntary sector).
• Other relevant legislation applying to a family.

2.52 Although reasons were not commonly given for these views, where this was the case, the reasons focused on: addressing perceived issues with the current process; developing an appropriate approach; improving provision; and improving outcomes and measurement.

2.53 Among the specific issues for inquiry suggested (although respondents sometimes grouped these under different headings), the most common types identified were:

• Financial issues (e.g. financial circumstances; income maximisation; money management; debt; benefits).
• Health, mental health and wellbeing (e.g. physical health; mental health issues; physical impairment; learning disability; sexual health).
• Relationships, personal and social issues (e.g. neighbour relations; social interaction and use of time; personal and family circumstances; needs of children).
• Tenancy/accommodation issues (e.g. setting up home; previous tenancy issues; barriers to sustainment).

2.54 A few respondents also suggested a need to prescribe inquiries into:

• Substance misuse issues (e.g. drug and alcohol misuse/addictions).
• Living skills (e.g. house management; independent living; social care).
• Education, training and employment (e.g. literacy and numeracy; communication skills; access to opportunities; education; training; and employment).
• Safety (e.g. general safety; security; domestic abuse; child protection).
• Offending/legal (e.g. offending behaviour; legal issues).

2.55 Where reasons were given for the inclusion of particular issues, these focused on improving the outcomes for service users (e.g. through developing a support plan, addressing potential problems and assisting with tenancy sustainment).

Specifying matters for the assessment - overall views and reasons

2.56 Question 2(d) asked:

(d): Should Scottish Ministers specify matters to which local authorities must have regard in carrying out the assessment?
Yes/No Please explain why.

2.57 This question was addressed by 52 respondents (79%). Among those who addressed the question, there was a majority against specifying matters to which local authorities must have regard. Half (50%) of those who addressed the question expressed disagreement, while 44% expressed agreement and 6% did not express a clear preference.

2.58 Again, there were significant variations in the views of respondents from different sectors. While a majority of housing associations, and most respondents from the voluntary sector were found to support this, more than 72% of local authorities did not. There was also a clear relationship between views of the need to specify the matters to which local authorities must have regard and views of the need for regulations.

2.59 Of those who addressed this question, 49 (94%) made additional comments. The focus of these was again on providing respondents' reasons for their views.

2.60 Under half of those who made additional comments provided reasons to support the specification of such matters, or highlighted benefits of doing so. The reasons reflected some of the issues raised previously, and a few respondents referred back to their response to Question 2(a). Where respondents made specific comments, the most common themes (as at Question 2(a)) were the promotion of consistency and a perceived positive impact on aspects of the assessment process or means of working. A few respondents qualified their support or added comments.

2.61 Comments relating to the promotion of consistency included: the perceived importance of consistency, clarity and equity; and the view that specification would enable this, and enable a standardised approach and minimum expectations across authorities. One respondent suggested that specification would enable authorities to prepare appropriate tender documents for the provision of broadly similar services.

2.62 Comments relating to the positive impact of specification on aspects of the assessment process or means of working included that this would enable: data exchange; a transparent methodology; identification of staff skills; identification of good practice; identification of priorities; a full assessment; evaluation and monitoring; analysis of needs; benchmarking; and comparison of performance.

2.63 Where respondents qualified their support or made additional comments, these included that: specification should not be too restrictive; there should be flexibility and scope for judgements; account should be taken of additional resources required and the impact on service users; and defining the Duty by inputs rather than outcomes should be avoided.

2.64 Around half of the respondents who made additional comments provided reasons against the specification of such matters, and again there were links to the views expressed at Question 2(a). The commonest theme was the view that guidance would suffice or be preferable to regulation. The other main issues raised were: the importance of flexibility; and the view that existing practice was appropriate. A few comments were also made about variation in needs or a potential negative impact of regulation on outcomes.

2.65 The comments on guidance focused largely on views that guidance would be: less prescriptive; preferable; helpful; welcome; more flexible; easier to apply; and that it would promote a consistent framework for understanding and implementing the Duty. Several respondents again highlighted the importance of flexibility, as well as linking this to delivering person-centred and outcome-focused services, targeting support, making the best use of resources and being able to assess the needs of households and meet local priorities. A few respondents identified aspects of existing practice considered appropriate, such as: assessment tools; procedures; planning frameworks; experience and understanding. A few respondents identified the complexity of needs and the level of variation between different individuals and areas.

The nature of matters for the assessment

2.66 Question 2(e) asked:

(e): If you have answered 'yes', what matters should Scottish Ministers prescribe that local authorities must have regard to, when carrying out housing support assessments? Please explain why.

2.67 Almost all of the respondents who expressed agreement at Question 2(d), (and a few who did not express a definitive view, or expressed disagreement) made comments about what matters they considered should be prescribed.

2.68 These were very similar to the issues identified at Question 2(b), with the most common themes relating to the need to prescribe aspects of the assessment process generally and the nature of the inquiries overall. Again, some specific issues were also identified which respondents believed that local authorities should have regard to, and these reflected those at Question 2(b).

2.69 Issues raised in relation to the nature of the process generally included the need for local authorities to have regard to ensuring that it is: SMART; robust; flexible; consistent; thematic; joined-up; person-centred; and holistic. One respondent suggested a two-stage process. Other issues suggested as essential to have regard to or for prescription included: timescale and duration of assessment/ support; involvement of the service user and ability to express themselves; the format of assessment document; use of language and accessibility to the audience; staff training; and the roles and responsibilities of various agencies in tackling multiple and complex needs. One respondent, who did not express a definitive view of prescription, stated that disability equality training and effective communication training should be made available to those conducting assessments, and that advocacy and communication support should be made available to ensure that individuals understand and can fully contribute to the assessment process.

2.70 Issues identified relating to the nature of inquiries overall included the need for local authorities to have regard to: preventive measures; reasons for homelessness; homelessness risk factors; support needs to sustain a tenancy/barriers to sustaining a tenancy; existing support; access to advice and information; unmet need; and the roles and views of other services (including specialist provision). It was also argued that local authorities should have regard to: needs, policies and specific forms of support for people in particular circumstances (e.g. children and young people; young women; looked after and accommodated children and young people; lone or young parents; LGBT people; offenders; ethnic minority groups; migrant and asylum seekers; older people); and household needs. One respondent suggested that local authorities should have regard to the 21 prescribed housing support tasks introduced as part of the Supporting People regime.

2.71 Where respondents suggested specific issues to have regard to, these will not be reiterated in detail here, as there was considerable overlap with Question 2(b). In summary, these included: financial issues; health, mental health and wellbeing; relationships, personal and social issues; and tenancy/accommodation issues. A few respondents also identified the need to prescribe inquiries into: substance misuse issues; living skills; education, training and employment; safety; and offending/legal issues. One respondent, who did not favour prescription, stated that issues for guidance should not be an exhaustive list, but should be sufficient to enable a thorough assessment. In the small number of cases where reasons were given for the inclusion of particular issues, these tended to focus on promoting an appropriate approach, targeting support, meeting service users' needs in the best way, and improving outcomes.

Prescribing housing support services

2.72 Question 3 asked:

(a): Should Scottish Ministers prescribe the housing support services for which an applicant is to be assessed? Yes/No Please explain why.

2.73 This question was addressed by 56 respondents (85%). Among those whose views were clear, there was a majority (around 2:1) against the prescription of those housing support services for which an applicant should be assessed. Two thirds (66%) of those who addressed the question expressed disagreement, while 30% expressed agreement and 4% did not express a clear preference.

2.74 Again, there was evidence of a significant difference of view across sectors, with two thirds of housing associations supporting this, but more than 83% of local authorities opposed to this. Among voluntary organisations who expressed a view, there was also a clear majority against these matters being prescribed.

2.75 Of those who addressed this question, all bar one (98%) made additional comments. When asked to explain the reasons for their views, a few respondents (both who expressed agreement and disagreement) made reference to their previous answers, but most provided further information.

2.76 Under a third of respondents who made additional comments gave reasons to support the view that Scottish Ministers should prescribe the housing support services for which an applicant is to be assessed, or highlighted perceived benefits of this. Similar themes to those highlighted previously in this section were again identified. Respondents gave reasons relating to: consistency; a perceived positive impact on aspects of the process, provision or outcomes; addressing issues in the current situation; and providing clarity/definition of services. A few respondents qualified their agreement or made additional comments. As the detailed points made were similar to those which have already been raised, these will be summarised briefly below (and were made by only a few respondents in each case).

2.77 In relation to consistency, the points made related to: equity for service users; the establishment of a consistent approach and framework; and reducing the potential for a "postcode lottery".

2.78 Comments on a perceived positive impact on aspects of the process, provision or outcomes related to views that prescription of housing support services would enable: the identification of a minimum service and outcome expectations; full assessment and credibility to the process; benchmarking; evaluation and monitoring; provision of the right level of support; and provision by trained and skilled staff. Other comments included that prescription would: enable the Scottish Government to see relative demand across local authority areas; lessen the risk of duplication; maximise the effectiveness of provision; and enable people to become successful tenants. Issues to be addressed within the current situation included the views that: some issues may currently be missed; the level of service can vary; there are limitations to Section 32(9) as a basis for assessment; and there can be a lack of holistic support.

2.79 A few respondents expressed the view that prescription would provide clarity and definition of essential/appropriate services for purchasers and providers. It was also suggested that it would provide an opportunity to clarify the nature of support, as well as roles and responsibilities of those involved. One respondent stated that prescription should help determine resource allocation based on prioritisation of assessed need. A few respondents qualified their support, or made additional comments, focusing on the need for: flexibility; local innovation and response to local need; and services tailored to specific client groups.

2.80 Almost two thirds of those who made additional comments gave reasons to support the view that Scottish Ministers should not prescribe the housing support services for which an applicant is to be assessed. The most common themes were: the view that guidance (and not prescription) was the preferred approach; issues relating to the implications for the decision making process; and variation in needs and provision (with a related need for flexibility). Other issues raised (by a few respondents in each case) were: the general lack of need for prescription; and issues relating to costs/use of resources. A few respondents qualified their disagreement or made additional comments. Again, the more detailed points are summarised briefly below.

2.81 A number of respondents, as has been the case in response to previous questions, suggested that guidance would be sufficient, preferable to prescription, helpful or would lead to better outcomes. A small number of comments suggested issues for inclusion in guidance, which are discussed later.

2.82 A number of respondents cited the means of decision making as the reason for a lack of support for prescription of housing support services. The most common issue raised was that assessment should determine individual needs, and the housing support services that should be provided. Several respondents made comments on the level of variation in individual needs and the requirement for different responses. A few also made comments about the variation in needs and service provision from area to area, the involvement of a range of support services, and the variation between service providers.

2.83 Related to these views, the perceived need for flexibility was emphasised by several respondents as a reason for a lack of support for prescription. It was also suggested that a person-centred and holistic approach should be taken and that prescription could limit this, could be inflexible and bureaucratic, and would not allow local solutions. It was also suggested that it could lead to a minimum standard of provision. One respondent (who did not express specific agreement or disagreement) stated that the approach could become a "tick box" exercise. Another respondent expressed the view that the local authority should determine their own approach, in line with their strategic commitments, while a further local authority expressed the view that local authorities know the needs of their clients best.

2.84 Several respondents expressed the view that the current arrangements were appropriate, or that there was no additional benefit in prescription. Comments included the views that: the definition of housing support services is already set out sufficiently; the "21 tasks" as prescribed by Scottish Minsters as part of the Housing Scotland Act 2001 are sufficient (although another respondent considered these to be too prescriptive); and many local authorities have current structures and services which have evolved. One respondent stated that having a list of prescribed tasks would be a "retrograde step".

2.85 A few respondents who did not support prescription made comments relating to costs/use of resources, with suggestions including that a prescriptive approach may be resource-intensive or require funding. One respondent suggested that not taking such an approach would allow more effective targeting of resources.

2.86 A few respondents qualified their response or made other comments, which included the views that: there is a need for some clarity of definition; and that there is an opportunity through the legislation to re-examine, review and update the current tasks. Another stated that they required further clarification to enable a final response to this question.

Housing support services which should be covered

2.87 Question 3(b) asked:

(b): If you have answered 'yes', what housing support services do you think should and/or should not be covered? Please explain why.

2.88 Comments about which support services should be covered were made largely by respondents who expressed agreement with Question 3(a), and almost all of these respondents provided views at Question 3(b). Additionally, a few respondents who expressed disagreement or did not express a clear view also identified services they believed should be covered.

2.89 A number of respondents identified issues relating to the nature and general approach of support services overall. Others suggested various specific types of services.

2.90 In terms of the general approach of support services overall, a number of issues were raised. These included a perceived need for: a holistic approach; joined-up/partnership working; trained staff; the involvement of a number of agencies; and understanding of information exchange. One respondent stated that there should be a dedicated person to support an individual. Another (who did not specify their agreement or disagreement) stated that the definition of housing support services should include accessibility of support services for all, particularly deaf people (providing examples of what this would mean in practice).

2.91 In terms of the overall nature of support services, various suggestions included that they should cover: the 21 prescribed housing support standards; homelessness risk factors relevant to each case; responses to complex needs; and the use of specialist services and pathways for referral.

2.92 Among the specific types of services identified to be covered, there were again overlaps with the issues identified at Questions 2(b) and (e). Suggestions included support relating to: financial issues (e.g. income and benefit maximisation, housing benefit, money management, welfare rights, carer support, budgeting, money advice); health, mental health and wellbeing (e.g. physical, mental and sexual health and wellbeing, and mobility); relationships, personal and social issues (e.g. disputes and mediation, social networks, community engagements, family support and personal support); and tenancy/accommodation issues (e.g. tenancy capacity issues, tenancy/property management, access to furniture, owned accommodation issues, 3^rd party issues, and tenancy on admission to and release from prison).

2.93 Other types of support identified as requiring to be covered included support services relating to: substance misuse issues (e.g. drug and alcohol issues); living skills (e.g. maintenance, life skills, independent living, use of technology, time management); education, training and employment (e.g. access to skills and training, literacy); safety (risk management, and domestic abuse); and offending/legal issues (e.g. services for those leaving custody).

2.94 Some respondents made additional comments. For example, one stated that it would be inappropriate to commission services that go beyond low level housing support. Another (who did not support prescription) stated that the Government should restrict the duty to provide services to those that fall within the council's remit. A few respondents suggested specific issues for which specialist agencies should be engaged to deliver support, where there would be a "gate-keeping" role, or where there would be interagency responsibility.

Business impact of proposals

2.95 Questions 2(c and f) and Question 3(c) asked:

What is the likely business impact of your proposals? Please include an indication of likely costs, where appropriate.

2.96 Comments on the business impact of various aspects of the legislation and on proposals made were given at Questions 2 and 3, as well as in response to other questions and specifically at Question 8. There was considerable overlap between the business impact issues raised at these different questions, and some respondents provided the same comments throughout, or referred to previous answers. For that reason, all of the comments relating to the perceived business impact of each of the questions will be presented together at Question 8.

Other comments

2.97 Some other comments were also made at Questions 2 and 3 relating to other issues for consideration. These will be discussed later in the report, but included, in summary, comments on:

• The wider context for housing support.
• The complexity of provision.
• Monitoring.
• Issues for inclusion in guidance/clarification.
• Issues for specific groups.
• Examples of practice.

Summary of findings: Overall views of regulations and the content and scope of assessment

2.98 In summary, the main findings relating to overall views of regulations and the content and scope of assessment are as follows:

• In relation to Question 1, respondents who expressed a preference between Option 1 (establish regulations) and Option 2 (do not establish regulations) were evenly split, with 29 (48%) of those who addressed the question supporting each of Option 1 and Option 2.
• There were some variations in views of the preferred option by type of respondent. Around two thirds of local authorities who addressed this question supported Option 2, while virtually all of the housing associations supported Option 1.
• Among those who addressed Question 2(a), around half (52%) were against prescribing the types of inquiries local authorities must carry out in determining the housing support required, while 41% were in favour of such prescription and 7% did not express a clear preference.
• Among those who addressed Question 2(d), a majority were against specifying matters to which local authorities must have regard in carrying out the assessment. Half (50%) of those who addressed the question expressed disagreement, while 44% expressed agreement and 6% did not express a clear preference.
• In relation to Question 3, a majority of those who addressed this (66%) were against the prescription of those housing support services for which an applicant should be assessed, while 30% expressed agreement and 4% did not express a clear preference.
• Additional comments were made to support the views expressed at each of the questions.