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

Section 4: Other issues, business impact and equality impact

4.1 This section presents the findings relating to any other issues raised in the consultation, and the perceived business and equality impact (Questions 7-9).

Other matters relating to the provision of housing support services

4.2 Question 7 asked:

Are there any other matters relating to the provision of housing support services by local authorities which you think Scottish Ministers should consider? Please explain why.

4.3 Although there was no quantitative (tick box) element to this question, almost all of the respondents provided comments relevant to the issues explored in Question 7, either at that point in their response or elsewhere.

4.4 A large amount of additional qualitative information was provided in these comments relating to matters which respondents believed Scottish Ministers should consider. While a number of respondents reiterated their overall view of the establishment of regulations or the reasons for their view (and these have been included in the material presented at Question 1), many provided additional comments on other related matters. Additional suggestions and observations were made on a range of issues. In some cases, it was suggested explicitly that these issues should be included in guidance, while in other cases the respondents simply made observations (although it can be assumed to be implicit that they were seen to require consideration or clarification).

4.5 The most common themes about which comments were made were: aspects of the process of assessment and provision; and aspects of the nature of service provision. A number of respondents also made comments on housing support overall. A further common theme was the identification of particular issues for clarification in relation to implementation of the Duty, and another was the provision of guidance. Comments were also made about issues for specific groups of service users. Other themes included: comments on resources; staffing issues; and other aspects of implementation. As well as highlighting these issues for consideration, a number of respondents made comments on the consultation itself. The issues raised within each of these overall themes are discussed in more detail below.

The process of assessment and provision

4.6 Around half of those who made comments relevant to Question 7 raised issues relating to aspects of the process of assessment and provision. These included comments relating to issues such as: assessment; evaluation, monitoring and review; reporting; and appeal.

4.7 In relation to assessment, suggestions, observations and issues for guidance/ clarification or consideration included:

• The use of previous housing support assessments.
• Assessment of other household members, including the involvement of children.
• Staff/skills requirements.
• The potential for a two-stage "triage" assessment process.
• Issues for inclusion in the assessment/the use of a standard assessment tool.
• Links to other assessments and services providing support.
• Referral and follow-up processes.

4.8 In relation to evaluation, monitoring and review, suggestions, observations and issues for guidance/clarification or consideration included:

• The need for monitoring and review of: support needs, access to provision and outcomes.
• Development of a national framework and a robust and transparent system.
• Development of a consistent approach to information gathering or a common monitoring system/tool (with suggestions made).
• The use of information gathered to indentify needs, monitor implementation and highlight gaps in services.
• Measurement of compliance, and the roles of the Scottish Housing Regulator and Care Inspectorate.
• The development of an evidence base.

4.9 In relation to reporting, suggestions, observations and issues for guidance/ clarification or consideration included: the need to publish monitoring information; the development of a consistent approach to reporting and issues for inclusion; the need for an outcome focus; and a reporting timescale (e.g. annual). A few respondents made comments focusing on the perceived need for/nature of the appeal process for those unhappy with the assessment or action.

The nature of service provision

4.10 A further very common theme, identified by around half of those who made comments relevant to Question 7 was the nature of service provision. Comments were made on issues such as: the approach to provision; the nature of the service required; roles and responsibilities; and specific developments. In relation to the approach to provision, suggestions, observations and issues for guidance/ clarification or consideration included:

• The need for a person-centred, holistic approach.
• The need for a consistent approach/standard.
• The need for integrated/co-ordinated services, with joint working, co-operation and partnership working between a range of organisations.
• Demonstration of corporate responsibility by local authorities.
• The importance of preventive work and tenancy sustainment.
• The importance of planning.

4.11 In relation to the nature of the service required, suggestions, observations and issues for guidance/clarification or consideration included:

• The use of a range of provision to meet different needs.
• Provision of an individual housing support plan.
• The need for regular and ongoing review.
• Involvement of other agencies (including all council departments and partner agencies).
• Information sharing.
• Provision in co-operation with the client.
• Use of a strategy for ending housing support at the appropriate time.

4.12 In relation to roles and responsibilities, suggestions, observations and issues for guidance/clarification or consideration included:

• The role of housing associations in providing low level support.
• The statutory duty of the local authority.
• The role of the voluntary sector.
• The distinction between housing-related support and support likely to be required by those with complex needs, the role of specialist services and securing input from other services.
• The role of private sector landlords.
• The role of friends and family.
• The role of volunteers, befriending and social networks.

4.13 In relation to specific service developments, suggestions, observations and issues for guidance/clarification or consideration included:

• Reform of the housing support system and the creation of a support and review service independent of homelessness/strategic housing.
• Encouragement of mediation input.
• The use of IT generally, and telehealth and telesupport facilities.
• Maintenance by local authorities of a list of preferred providers and a "menu" of services.
• Provision of the option for local authorities to outsource assessments.

Housing support overall

4.14 Around a third of those who made comments relevant to Question 7 raised issues relating to housing support overall. Comments were made about the importance of this, the perceived need for action and the wider context. Several respondents, for example, stressed the importance of housing support in preventing and addressing homelessness and providing sustainable outcomes. Comments were also made on the nature or complexity of support. Several respondents also welcomed the Duty or highlighted the importance of this.

4.15 In relation to the wider context for housing support, suggestions, observations and issues for guidance/clarification or consideration included:

• The need to recognise differences in homelessness between areas.
• The potential impact on current services.
• The need to recognise links between housing support and other issues.
• Consideration of the wider legislative and regulatory frameworks and compliance with the requirements of other statutory intervention.
• The fit with the Scottish Social Housing Charter and its requirements.
• The impact of UK Government Welfare Reform.
• The fit with Short Scottish Secure Tenancies.
• The relationship to the abolition of priority need and the delivery of outcomes relating to the provision of preventive services.
• The impact of the Self-Directed Support Bill on delivery of services.
• Links to the Housing Options approach.
• Lessons learned from the Supporting People programme.
• Alignment to the Getting It Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) agenda where children or young people are involved.

Other issues for clarification in implementation

4.16 A further common theme, raised by around a third of those who made comments relevant to Question 7, was the identification of particular issues for clarification in relation to implementation of the Duty. This included comments about: the situation relating to clients in particular circumstances; definition and terminology issues; the time period for provision of support; and the coverage of the Duty. In relation to clients in particular circumstances, suggestions, observations and issues for guidance/clarification or consideration included:

• Clients who have support requirements and refuse or otherwise fail to engage with appropriate services (including avoiding clients who fail to engage being "tagged" intentionally homeless; how services can be provided; and the use of a mandatory power to insist on engagement).
• Those who lose their accommodation along with their housing support.
• Those moving from supported accommodation to their own residential accommodation.
• Those already receiving support.
• Those who are assessed as not homeless, or who are intentionally homeless who need housing support.
• Those who need long term and continuing support.
• Those with multiple support needs.

4.17 In relation to definition and terminology issues, suggestions, observations and issues for guidance/clarification or consideration included:

• The definition of housing support (e.g. review/revision).
• The content of housing support activities/services.
• The interaction/distinction between housing support and other issues affecting some homeless households.
• Expected responses to support needs that go beyond the remit of housing support.
• What constitutes satisfactory "reason to believe" that someone might require such support services and how to ascertain this.

4.18 In relation to the time period for provision of support, suggestions, observations and issues for guidance/clarification or consideration included:

• Expectations of the time period for provision.
• The stage at which input should be made.
• The need to achieve independence as quickly as possible.
• Ensuring services are not withdrawn too soon.
• Identifying the criteria/circumstances in which an authority might reasonably be considered to have discharged its obligations.
• Making provision for longer term support.

4.19 In relation to the coverage of the Duty, suggestions, observations and issues for guidance/clarification or consideration included: consideration of relevant people residing with the applicant; whether the duty applies to households or only to the individual; whether it is expected that different assessments should be undertaken for each member; what is the best approach to the very specific support needs of children (and responsibilities/staff training issues relating to this); and the extent of the Duty to ensure the provision of prescribed housing services.

Guidance

4.20 Around a third of those who made comments relevant to Question 7 made general comments about the provision of guidance. These included suggestions relating to the perceived general need for guidance and the nature of this. Several respondents stated, as has been the case previously, that they would welcome guidance (either in preference to, or additional to regulations). Comments included that this would: strengthen the work already being done by support services; enable authorities to develop their response to assessing and delivering housing support; help to promote a consistent approach; and clarify some issues.

4.21 Several respondents made comments on the nature of guidance, with suggestions including that it should be comprehensive, strict and easy to follow. A few respondents suggested that the guidance should be part of a revised Code of Guidance on Homelessness. One respondent suggested that relevant stakeholders should bring together examples from local authorities providing a range of housing support services. Another added a caveat relating to guidance, stating that it should not be used to narrow the definition of housing support need and provision, nor delay the implementation of the Duty.

4.22 Additionally, as noted previously, many of the specific issues identified in the other themes detailed throughout this section are also relevant to the content of guidance, and some respondents suggested that these should be included in this.

Issues for specific groups

4.23 Around a third of respondents who made comments relevant to Question 7 highlighted issues for specific groups of service users. These included: the perceived needs of specific groups; the impact of homelessness on specific groups; and the links between other issues and homelessness (e.g. health, offending, substance misuse and domestic abuse). Groups with specific needs/requirements and some of the particular issues impacting on them were identified. Suggestions, observations and issues for guidance/clarification or consideration in relation to the needs of specific groups and the impact of homelessness included issues about:

• Children (e.g. the need for a Children's Rights Impact Assessment; the impact of homelessness on their health, education, safety and life chances; how to assess and meet their needs; and interagency communication).
• Young people (e.g. young women; young lone parents; increased risk of homelessness with changes to housing benefit criteria; first tenancy issues; and issues for looked after and accommodated young people).
• Disabled people (people with physical impairments; people with learning disabilities; people with long term conditions; people with mental health issues; and where people with mental health problems refuse to engage with support).
• People with substance misuse problems.
• Ethnic minority groups including Gypsy/Travellers.
• Refugees, migrants and asylum seekers, and people with no recourse to public funds.
• LGBT people.
• Older people.
• Offenders (e.g. carers who are imprisoned and lose their housing on imprisonment; and delays in provision to prisoners approaching release).
• Single men (e.g. as the dominant homeless population).
• Those moving into a tenancy after being homeless.
• Those recently discharged from an institution.
• Those who have had difficulties managing a tenancy in the past (e.g. through rent arrears; or anti-social behaviour).

4.24 Closely related to issues affecting specific groups, links between homelessness and specific issues were also highlighted, including:

• Health (e.g. link between homelessness and poor physical and mental health; health inequalities for homeless households; difficulties in accessing services; and the identification of a practice model).
• Offending (e.g. the impact of addressing housing needs on successful resettlement, reducing reoffending and enhancing social capital for the community; difficulties in accessing services; the impact on children and other dependents/family members; the need for joint working; and the need for consideration of issues from the start of a sentence).
• Substance misuse (e.g. homelessness as a cause and complication of problem drug use and a significant barrier to recovery; the role of housing support in preventing or contributing to addressing problem substance use and promoting recovery; and the importance of joint working).
• Domestic abuse (e.g. as a major cause of statutory homelessness; the cost and impact of domestic abuse; the importance of support services for women escaping domestic abuse, including good quality housing support; and the cost benefits of support provision).

Resources and staffing

4.25 Two further themes which were identified were resources and staffing. In relation to resources, the issues raised included: a need for provision/concerns about the implications for resources; cost benefits of housing support; the potential impact of the Duty on the service provided and other aspects of provision; and issues relating to identifying the cost implications. These issues are linked to comments which were made on the business impact of the Duty and proposals, and as such will be discussed further in the presentation of the material at Question 8, in order to avoid repetition.

4.26 Similarly, comments on staffing focused particularly on the implications of the Duty/proposals for training and resources, and these issues are discussed further in the presentation of the findings at Question 8.

Other aspects of implementation

4.27 A small number of other aspects of implementation were identified on which small numbers in each case made comments. Some of these related to the timescale, including that: commencement of the legislation should be as soon as possible and by no later than 1^st January 2013; and that establishing regulations or seeking full understanding of the cost implications should not delay implementation. A further respondent, however, stated that it should be a clear pre-requisite to the commencement of the secondary legislation that an assessment of resource requirements is in place before the legislation is implemented. Another stated that the Duty should not be rushed through the political process, and that the timescale should take account of local government elections, with a commencement date set that gives local authorities time to prepare relevant processes and procedures. Another respondent suggested that there should be a detailed timetable.

4.28 One respondent commented that success would depend on the detail in the regulations, which they stated would need to be relevant, practical and capable of being implemented. One respondent offered to work along with the Scottish Government and others to assist in formulating guidance. A small number of examples of local practice were also provided.

The consultation

4.29 In terms of comments on the consultation itself, several respondents provided information about the respondent/organisation. This included, for example, details of: the nature of the organisation and its work; who the organisation represents; and how to obtain further information. A number of respondents also welcomed the consultation itself, or the opportunity to respond/comment. Several respondents provided information about their response, such as identifying: the particular focus of their interest in the material; the questions they addressed; or how the response had been generated.

4.30 Several respondents also made comments on the consultation material or the use of findings. These included comments (by a small number of respondents in each case) on:

• The respondent's understanding of the purpose of the consultation.
• The language/terminology used (e.g. that "the type of inquiries" did not suggest a clear understanding of person-centred assessments; and a query about whether the term "priority need" was still relevant).
• Perceived gaps in the material (e.g. a definition of housing support; the level of information at specific questions; non-compliance by individuals; information additional to what was available before the Act went through Parliament; details of the commencement plan and next steps; and the impact of homelessness and inappropriate or precarious housing on the rights and wellbeing of children).
• Issues which were not seen to have been emphasised sufficiently (e.g. the key role housing providers can play in preventing homelessness and sustaining tenancies).
• The use of the material in the findings (e.g. to inform further considerations/guidance).

Partial Business Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA)

4.31 Question 8 asked:

Please provide any comments you have on (a) the Business Regulatory Impact of your proposals and (b) the partial BRIA.

4.32 As noted previously, comments were made on the business impact of proposals both at individual questions and at Question 8, and more than three quarters of respondents made comments relevant to this question. It was found that respondents often referred back to previous answers, or made the same comments at all questions, or repeated the same comments at multiple questions. Additionally, comments sometimes appeared to relate to the business impact of the Duty generally, as well as about individual aspects of regulation/proposals, without clear distinctions necessarily being made between them. Similarly, respondents did not always identify where their comments related specifically to the partial BRIA, although some specific comments were made. For these reasons, all of the comments on the business impact are discussed together here.

4.33 The themes which emerged most frequently among respondents' comments about the business impact were: the identification of additional costs; the impact upon service provision; and costing issues. Further themes were: the provision of resources; and the identification of cost savings or benefits. A small number of other issues were raised (e.g. examples of local practice; the view that the business impact would be neutral; and relevant issues in the wider context).

Additional costs

4.34 Almost half of respondents who made comments relevant to Question 8 identified additional cost implications of the Duty or regulations. Comments related to: the general impact upon costs and use of resources; specific issues incurring costs; and overall views of the cost implications.

4.35 Comments about the overall impact on costs and use of resources included a general concern about the resource implications and increased costs of the Duty or proposals. Concerns were also raised about current financial constraints, and the need to take account of other national and local priorities in resource considerations. One respondent stated that, although there could be a danger in evidencing housing support needs which cannot be met under current budget restrictions, it is better to "face the reality" of housing support costs. It was also suggested that the cost implications are likely to extend to other services such as social work, health, education, enterprise and other housing and support providers.

4.36 A few comments were also made about the particular impact of prescription on costs, including that: it may have a negative impact on local responses and practices which have been developed on the basis of cost-effectiveness and efficiency; it would cut across local flexibility; it would have implications for staff resources; it would stretch resources too thinly; and it would increase costs for the Government and council . A few respondents stated that both Options 1 and 2 (and the introduction of the Duty) would bring significant additional costs, but some (although not all) stated that the costs of prescription would be likely to be higher. It was also suggested that costs may vary between areas.

4.37 A few specific questions were also posed. For example, one respondent raised the question of what the local authority is expected to do if they do not have the resources available to provide all of the support requirements identified, and another raised a question about how to prioritise clients.

4.38 Among specific issues identified as incurring costs were:

• Assessments and the implementation of housing support requirements.
• Employment of additional staff.
• Staff training for staff in the statutory and voluntary sectors (e.g. training needs analysis; design and delivery of training).
• Software and systems (e.g. purchasing/adapting).
• Redesign of tools/protocols.
• Provision of interpreting support.
• Provision of a suitable environment/organisational infrastructure.
• Travel (particularly in rural areas).

4.39 Several respondents provided general views of the cost implications. A few local authorities, for example, stated that the resource implications appeared unsustainable for councils in the current financial climate. One housing association stated that the cost to them of providing support for vulnerable tenants would be prohibitive. A few respondents expressed general concern about the cost implications, and one expressed the specific concern that if the implementation of the new Duty does not specify the exact extent of the local authority's housing support duty, they may be subject to legal challenge for not meeting a Duty that they cannot reasonably afford to provide.

Impact on service provision

4.40 Almost half of those who made comments relevant to Question 8 made comments on the impact on service provision. These focused on: the nature of provision; the means of providing services; particular types of services; and service users. Issues raised in relation to the impact on the nature/means of provision included the views that:

• The number of assessments will increase.
• The time taken to carry out assessments will increase, with an increase in the time spent with the client, and increased administrative time.
• Assessment may be less comprehensive/the focus could be diluted.
• The Duty has staff training and workload implications.
• There may be longer waiting times.
• There may be increased time in, and use of temporary accommodation.
• There may be problems with the availability/capacity of services.
• Without further resources, it may be difficult to deliver services.
• There may be an impact on procurement, contracts and charging policy.
• Joint planning/funding arrangements will need to be considered.

4.41 In terms of the implications for particular types of provision, issues raised included the views that:

• Other homelessness services may receive less attention.
• Housing support provision in other areas of the local authority will suffer as resources may need to be re-directed.
• Funding for specialist support services (e.g. drug and alcohol) may stop as part of restructuring of local authority services.
• The Duty could divert resources from homelessness prevention to the point of crisis, or could inhibit preventive work.
• A fixed period of providing housing support might impact on other social work services/third party providers.

4.42 One respondent expressed the view that it may be a business advantage to have a few training flats for homeless people. Another suggested the use of long term hostel living for single men with serious addiction issues who have repeatedly been unable to sustain a tenancy, even with support.

4.43 Several respondents suggested that the Duty or proposals would have an impact on service users, and issues raised included the views that: they may wait longer and spend longer in temporary accommodation; the Duty removes choice from customers; and there may be an adverse impact on households in mainstream tenancies who require support. One housing association suggested that good quality visiting support could double rent levels. One local authority expressed the view that there is the possibility that many may view homelessness as the most expedient route of accessing housing support services, as well as accommodation. In relation specifically to prescription, one respondent suggested that this could cause disruption to service users. Another respondent, however, (from the "justice" category) stated that the benefits to clients would be significant.

4.44 Some of the specific issues relating to the perceived impact of prescription (rather than the Duty overall) on the nature of services and means of provision have been detailed previously and will not be reiterated here. Additional comments included suggestions that prescription could lead to: re-tendering of services if these could not meet the needs of service users as a result of inflexibility; some restructuring of current activities; changes to job descriptions; and gaps in provision to other needs groups.

Costing issues

4.45 A further theme raised by almost half of respondents who made comments relevant to Question 8 was the actual costing of the Duty or proposals. Comments included: the provision of actual costings for some local areas; the difficulties of costing the proposals; views of the costing in the consultation document; and a small number of other costing issues.

4.46 A few local authority respondents provided costings for their own local areas, but this was only a small number. Some of these covered assessment, some covered provision and some covered both assessment and provision. These costings are available to the Scottish Government and will not be detailed here.

4.47 Several respondents, however, made comments on the difficulties of costing the proposals. These included the views that: it is difficult to quantify the level of support that will be required; the costs are likely to vary and fluctuate; and the actual costs of implementing the Duty would only become clear when the requirements are clear and through implementation/practice. A few respondents stated that the cost implications were primarily for local authorities to answer, and one local authority stated that they could not provide costs on activities delivered by partners.

4.48 Views expressed on the costing in the consultation document included that:

• The costing needs to take account of likely increases in demand due to Welfare Reform, the 2012 target, the economic climate and the entitlement of all members of the household to housing support once the new Duty is commenced.
• The costing needs to take account of the administrative costs of drawing up and promoting guidance and spreading good practice.
• The costing does not appear to acknowledge the different costs that may arise relating to different levels of need in different areas, or variations in support provision.
• The estimation in Table 1 (on page 24 of the consultation document) is lacking in detail or any real knowledge or understanding of the costs of providing housing support.
• The figure of £12 per hour for support costs is too low, and costs can vary (e.g. by type of area/type of assessment).
• The hourly rate, if used as the "whole cost" price for commissioning purposes, will restrict the ability of small/medium voluntary organisations to tender for services.
• The assessment of support needs may take longer than an hour.
• The estimated number of hours of housing support per client (based on the average expectation in the model in the consultation document) appears to be above what one of the respondents would expect to provide.
• The assumption that 32% of households that are assessed as homeless or potentially homeless will need housing support may be an underestimate, or at least unreliable.
• The actual costs of implementation are likely to be higher than estimated.
• The resource assumptions, while unlikely to be completely accurate, provide a measure of the extra resources required.
• There is no information about potential savings that effective tenancy sustainment (and homelessness prevention work) can bring.
• Further clarification from the Scottish Government about the costing was requested.

4.49 Among the small number of other costing issues raised, one respondent stated that there is a need to quantify the impact on the council's revenue resources to meet additional demand, and that further work would be needed following the introduction of the legislation on the impact on existing services. Another stated that it would be useful to know which three local authorities had been used as the basis of the costing provided, to ensure that variations by area were taken into account. A further suggestion was that the Scottish Government needs to undertake a proper assessment of the costs across Scotland associated with the assessment and provision of housing support within the new Duty.

The provision of resources

4.50 Around a third of those who made comments relevant to Question 8 raised issues relating to the provision of resources. The issues raised included: a perceived need for resources to support the Duty generally; some specific resource requirements; and comments on a preferred means of provision of resources. Comments on the need for resources included:

• The perceived need for extra resources to fulfil the legal duties.
• The identification of current resource constraints.
• The perceived need for resources to meet any increase in service requirements or to provide particular types of support.
• The identification of specific resource requirements (e.g. for particular types of areas or to address specific perceived additional costs of the types outlined earlier).

4.51 Suggestions about the means of provision of resources included that:

• Any new duties for local government should be fully financed by the Scottish Government and should carry an obligation for this.
• The budget for housing support should be ring-fenced for a time.
• Funds for spreading good practice could be distributed through the Housing Options Hubs.

Cost savings/benefits

4.52 Around a quarter of those who made comments relevant to Question 8 highlighted issues relating to cost savings and benefits. Comments included a perceived general impact upon cost/resource savings or benefits, and the identification of specific forms of this. Overall comments related to:

• Expressions of support for a "spend to save"/preventive spend agenda.
• Potential long-term cost benefits of integrating vital housing support with the provision of accommodation for homeless households.
• Social and cost benefits of housing support for homeless households, not only for housing and homelessness services, but also for health, social services and criminal justice.
• The view that better and more efficient use would be made of resources.

4.53 Specific aspects of cost/resource savings or benefits identified included:

• Tenancy sustainment (with the suggestion that the costs of failed tenancies are known, but have not been taken into account).
• Prevention of costly crisis interventions.
• Reduced homelessness presentations.
• Reduced housing management input.
• A contribution to reducing reoffending.
• Savings in expenditure on services such as NHS and care homes.

4.54 It was also suggested that the cost to the economy and services of not addressing homelessness, would far outweigh the cost of intervention, and that there are social/community costs of not providing a service to those needing it. One respondent also highlighted the importance of addressing homelessness and its causes for external support from tourism, international funding and private sector investment.

Other issues

4.55 Among the other issues raised, a small number of respondents made comments that the business impact would be neutral; provided examples of local practice; or commented on other issues.

4.56 A few respondents believed that the business impact would be neutral, or limited (although a few stated that it would be different with the introduction of regulations or substantially different practice requirements).

4.57 A few respondents provided examples of local practice (e.g. the development of new services; preventive work; two tier assessment; review of effectiveness; and strategy development). A small number of other comments were also made, including that: local authorities should be able to identify vulnerable people with support needs and meet those needs as part of the wider prevention of homelessness agenda; the implementation of the housing support Duty should not be limited by cost analyses; and cost should never be taken above health, safety and wellbeing. It was also suggested that it was important to explore/take on board the views of service providers and the third sector on the proposals.

Equalities

4.58 Question 9 asked:

Please provide any comments you have on (a) the equalities impact of your proposals and (b) the draft Equalities Impact Assessment.

4.59 Over a third of respondents addressed Question 9 or made relevant comments. They did not always make a distinction between parts (a) and (b), although some specific comments were made on the draft EQIA.

4.60 As with the perceived business impact, some of these comments related to the Duty overall, and some to specific proposals in the consultation. A number of themes emerged on which several respondents made comments, and these included: the identification of specific comments on the draft EQIA; perceived benefits of the Duty or proposals for equality; perceived risks to equality; and specific equalities issues to consider. A few respondents expressed the view that they could identify no impact on equality; and a few highlighted the importance of equality or gave examples of practice.

The draft EQIA

4.61 Over a third of those who addressed Question 9 made comments on the draft EQIA. These included some general comments expressing an overall view of the EQIA. For example, in a very small number of cases, respondents suggested: broad agreement; the view that it was not comprehensive enough; or made a specific statement that they had no comment to make.

4.62 More specific comments on the nature of the EQIA or suggestions for inclusion were that:

• Reference is made to "priority need", but priority need assessment will no longer apply from December 2012.
• The draft EQIA assumes that the level of funding outlined in Table 1 (on page 24 of the consultation document) will deliver a sufficient level of service to meet the support needs of all homeless applicants with a support need, and this may not be the case.
• The draft EQIA suggests that there is enough information to help understand the diverse needs and/or experiences of the target audience and this may not be the case, particularly where applicants have very complex and long term support and care needs.
• There is no recognition that the profile and needs of homeless households will vary across the country.
• The draft EQIA has been developed prior to consultation with the groups that may be affected, and will have to be revised following this consultation period.
• The Scottish Government stopped collecting information on housing support in 2008.
• Account should be taken of the cumulative impacts of welfare reform and benefit changes on an already vulnerable population.
• The EQIA does little to identify the impact of policy on those with protected characteristics and more detailed information should have been provided.
• The information should have been easier to read and more transparent.
• There should be a more in-depth equalities assessment before moving forward with the legislation.

Benefits and risks for equality

4.63 A further theme (identified by around a third of those who addressed the question) was the perceived benefits of the Duty or proposals for equality. Within this, it was argued, for example, that the Duty would have a positive impact on homeless people. A few respondents expressed views relating to a specific option, and these included the varying views that:

• Independent local regulations and systems could create a postcode lottery and Option 1 would enable better targeting, consistency, decision making and outcomes.
• Women leaving abusive relationships could benefit from prescribed support, knowing that they would not only be guaranteed accommodation, but provided with this.
• Option 2 would provide the most consistent benefits for equalities groups, enabling an authority to: deal with diversity; identify, assess and meet the needs of anyone with one or more protected characteristics; and recognise that "one size will not fit all".

4.64 Around a third of those who addressed the question made comments on perceived risks to equality, and these included views that:

• The Duty needs to be financially supported by the Scottish Government to avoid withdrawal of support from non-homeless households and increased risk of homelessness.
• The focus of the new Duty on unintentionally homeless applicants in priority need could result in less support being provided for intentionally homeless, or not homeless, applicants which could adversely affect positive prevention work undertaken for all client groups.
• People in an authority's "housing options group" and those receiving tenancy sustainment support who have not previously been homeless will be disadvantaged (including some who are vulnerable as a result of protected characteristics).
• There may be gaps in some areas of service provision (e.g. universal support provision for households with low level support needs).
• There is a concern about provision of support for households moving from supported accommodation to their own residential property.
• A mandatory support assessment for homeless households may deter homeless people making a homeless application or conversely, many may view the homeless route as the most expedient way of accessing housing support services.

Specific equalities issues for consideration

4.65 Specific equalities issues to consider which were also highlighted by a round a third of those who addressed the question. These included the importance of consideration of the needs of specific groups (and a range of groups whose needs were seen to require particular consideration were identified previously and will not be reiterated in detail here). A few respondents also identified additional issues affecting equalities groups, such as their disproportionate representation among homeless people.

4.66 Equalities considerations were suggested in relation to the means of provision included: the importance of ensuring that all groups are covered and included; the need for joined-up thinking, accessible information and communication support; the importance of information about the diverse needs and experiences of homeless households; the need for any inquiry approach to be underpinned by a feminist perspective; and conduct of an EQIA/consultation where there are changes to service delivery.

Other issues

4.67 As noted, a few respondents expressed the view that they could identify no impact on equality, with such comments including that: there was no adverse impact on any group; and there was no negative impact on equalities overall.

4.68 A few respondents highlighted the importance of equality (e.g. the principles of equality as fundamental to the proposals and delivery of housing support; the importance of ensuring that differential services do not develop; the need for inclusion of all relevant groups; and the respondent's commitment to equality). A few gave examples of the use of EQIAs in practice.

Summary: Other issues, business impact and equality impact

4.69 In summary, the main findings relating to other issues, business impact and equality impact are as follows:

• Respondents were asked at Question 7 to raise any other matters relating to the provision of housing support services by local authorities they believed Scottish Ministers should consider. Almost all of the respondents provided comments.
• The themes which emerged at Question 7 were: the process of assessment and provision; the nature of service provision; housing support overall; implementation issues for clarification; the provision of guidance; issues for specific groups; resources and staffing issues; other aspects of implementation; and comments on the consultation itself.
• Question 8 asked respondents to provide any comments on the Business Regulatory Impact of their proposals and the partial BRIA, and more than three quarters of respondents made comments.
• The themes which emerged at Question 8 were: the identification of additional costs; the impact upon service provision; costing issues; the provision of resources; the identification of cost savings or benefits; examples of local practice; the view that the business impact would be neutral; and issues in the wider context.
• Question 9 asked respondents to provide any comments on the equalities impact of their proposals and the draft Equalities Impact Assessment, and over a third of respondents provided comments.
• The themes which emerged at Question 9 included: the identification of specific comments on the draft EQIA; perceived benefits of the Duty or proposals for equality; perceived risks to equality; specific equalities issues to consider; the identification of no impact on equality; the importance of equality; and examples of practice.