Measuring Impact Task and Finish Group: final report and recommendations

3. Data gaps and limitations

Methods to measure homelessness predominantly focus on people engaging with the statutory homelessness system – that is, households who make a presentation to their local authority for homelessness assistance. Not everyone who experiences homelessness will do so and their homelessness may remain hidden. Understanding hidden homelessness is the topic of research commissioned by Scottish Government which is due to report in 2024.

Additionally, current datasets and monitoring systems to measure statutory homelessness in Scotland have a number of gaps and limitations. These are summarised as follows:

3.1 Statutory data

• Most local authorities do not link HL1-3 data, Strategic Housing Investment Plans (SHIP) and Housing Need and Demand Assessments (HNDA) to connect local housing need and demand analysis.
• The need for a method to determine actual housing need from housing waiting lists, so that this can be measured consistently at local and national level.
• HL1-3 does not measure wider health or social care outcomes. Support needs are difficult to capture at point of contact with an assumption that this is under reported, especially overlapping support needs. Housing First data is separated from HL1 data.
• HL1 does not enable us to understand the equality impact of the EHT Plan, with specific gaps on people who identify as LGBTQ+ and people with a disability.
• We want to better measure the scale and circumstances of people with no recourse to public funds/other restricted eligibility, including those who do not approach the local authority for assistance.
• The need for an improved HL1 measure that more specifically measures the link between domestic abuse and homelessness among women. HL1 should also measure instances and housing outcomes where suspected perpetrators of abuse are removed from a home they share with a person at risk.
• The need to get behind and breakdown ‘other’ fields where this represents a sizeable proportion of the data.
• It is not currently possible to compare PREVENT1 data across local authorities and there will be new data requirements with the new prevention duties.
• RSL data to SHR does not measure activity that prevents homelessness, although it is widely understood that this early intervention work is undertaken by RSLs.
• The HL1 measure on rough sleeping is unreliable, including the framing of the questions, inconsistency in data input and interpretation, and that it does not capture data on people who do not seek assistance from local authorities.
• There are large postcode gaps in the data entry in some areas, making further analysis at local and national level more difficult.
• Health and homelessness data linkage needs to be sustainably funded to maximise its potential as a data source in the longer term.
• Gaps in data on employment and economic status limit how this information can be related to the question of affordability of housing.

3.2 Monitoring systems

In 2019, HARSAG recommended that an options appraisal on monitoring rough sleeping be undertaken by the new Centre for Homelessness Impact. The appraisal outlined 3 options – centralised reporting, a street homelessness register and shared case management [ref 21]. While none of the options were progressed, this may have been driven by 3 related factors rather than a reflection on the suitability of the specific options: firstly, the changing environment and context, especially resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondly, an acknowledgement that many available monitoring systems were disproportionate in complexity and cost to the scale of rough sleeping in Scotland. And thirdly, that the options might lend themselves better to a broader homelessness common monitoring or caseload system not limited to rough sleeping.

From a local authority or third sector perspective, there is no common monitoring or caseload system for homelessness casework and support services. The overarching potential of shared case management is improved joint working across sectors and reducing the number of times that a person is asked to share personal, sensitive and in some cases retraumatising information. Consultation on the feasibility of a common monitoring system is included as a recommendation in this report.

3.3 Experiential/Qualitative Measures

In 2022, the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) Scotland and Fife Council collaborated on a monitoring framework for RRTPs [ref 22]. As part of the consultation with CIH Scotland members on the framework, housing practitioners recommended more experiential and qualitative data linked to the RRTP reporting tool; the importance of tracking people’s experience of the homelessness system, not just the number of people going through it.

This aligns closely with the views of the Change Team in their contribution to the Task and Finish Group’s work, who highlighted the importance of people’s experiences of homelessness policy and practice being reported as part of the EHT Monitor.

3.4 Data gaps currently being addressed

Some identified data gaps have projects in development that will link to the EHT Monitor in the short-medium term and are:

• HL1 review - Scottish Government Housing Statistics team have set out a timetable for a review of the homelessness data.
• Health outcomes - about interactions with health services and health outcomes. Led by Public Health Scotland, albeit sustainable funding is not yet committed to this analysis beyond the short-term.

The Task and Finish Group also supported the following outcomes proposed by the Change Team who will develop a peer research approach to measure them. The need to first establish a baseline will be progressed alongside researchers from I-SPHERE at Heriot Watt University to develop robust, measurable indicators over the next phase:

• More services are trauma informed - a review of literature provides evidence that trauma-informed practice is effective and can benefit both trauma survivors and staff [ref 10].
• More services have relational and strengths-based approaches - the importance of building trust and not narrowing focus, working in relation to the ‘whole person’ or ‘whole family’ and with a focus on material disadvantage.
• More services and policies use person-first language - a change that can positively contribute to reducing stigma and improving public perceptions of homelessness.
• More people feel respected and listened to - an indicator specifically from the perspective of people using services about their experience of services.
• More people benefit from a cash-first approach - less reliance on foodbanks and charity. Greater uptake of cash-first approaches, in line with national strategy [ref 11].

The Change Team also encouraged specific outcomes relating to the workforce. These are summarised below, alongside the position adopted by the Task and Finish Group in July 2023:

Outcome

Reduce Pay Inequality

Why: Minimum £12ph pay rate to increase retention and recruitment of social care staff in council and third sector services and to ensure equivalence with NHS personnel. (Subsequently committed in the Programme for Government 2023 for specified social care workers).

Task and Finish Group Direction

Agree with this outcome but measuring progress on pay should be the responsibility of existing local structures. A broader indicator on staff satisfaction can capture this and other forms of support such as reflective practice and professional development.

Outcome

Reduce Caseloads

Why: The need to build consensus on realistic caseloads for frontline support/advice workers and to assist more rapid outcomes for people using services.

Task and Finish Group Direction

Support this outcome; recommend a project to scope the feasibility of an optimum range of caseloads for different types of service delivery.

Outcome

Increase Reflective Practice

Why : Ensure protected time for staff, with reflective practice factored into service contracts as standard.

Task and Finish Group Direction

Support this outcome; recommend it be included as a qualitative measure on staff satisfaction.

Outcome

Less Competitive Tendering

Why : Demonstrate progress toward less competitive and more ethical forms of commissioning.

Task and Finish Group Direction

Agree with this outcome, but not possible to measure within the EHT Monitor.

Outcome

More people lead a Personal Housing Plan

Why: Embedding principles of choice, control and community connection. Incorporating the role of independent advocacy where relevant.

Task and Finish Group Direction

Support this outcome. The Personal Housing Plan has been highlighted as having a key role to play by each of the HPSG Task and Finish groups.