Homelessness prevention and the Welsh legal duty: a resource or rights based development?

Dr. Peter Mackie Cardiff University

MackieP@cardiff.ac.uk

Introduction

‘Anyone who has passed a person sleeping in a doorway, seen a family with belongings heaped in a shopping cart, observed makeshift dwellings under a bridge, or visited a shelter where strangers lie warily on adjacent beds is likely to have thought that surely such scenes could be prevented.’ (Shinn et al., 2001, pp. 95-96)

A paradigm shift towards homelessness prevention and rapid response

Driven by proven social and economic benefits to society and the individual

Academics have begun to think critically about the prevention turn

Introduction

In 2011, NAfW was awarded primary law making powers in housing and subsequently commissioned a review of homelessness legislation; introduced as an opportunity to develop a more equitable and socially just framework

The review had to grapple with a disjoint between legislation and prevention

Legislation also had to be developed during challenging economic conditions

This presentation draws upon key findings of the review in order to:i] critique the status-quo of homelessness prevention in Walesii] examine the extent to which proposed rights-based legislative

changes will overcome problems with prevention.iii] Specific attention is then given to the tensions between

rights-based and resource-based thinking in the development of the legislation

The Wales case study

An emerging critique of the prevention paradigm

1. Lack of whole systems change Policy frameworks have not been comprehensively reviewed to

incorporate the prevention agenda (Culhane et al., 2011) Therefore certain forms of prevention have not received strategic

attention and have been neglected.

‘This shift toward prevention reflects a situation where policy and practice has run ahead of any clear model on which to build a policy agenda focused on homelessness prevention.’ (Culhane et al., 2011, p. 296)

2. Selectivity Interventions restricted to those where a cost-saving can be made

(Busch-Geertsema & Fitzpatrick, 2008; Moses et al., 2007; Pawson, 2007). e.g. In the UK prevention targeted at priority need households

Excludes those who are perceived to be potentially capable of finding their own solution – prevalent in the USA (Shinn, 2013)

Also excludes those for whom a successful intervention is unlikely – those with very high support needs

3. Individualisation Prevention is perceived to individualise the causes of homelessness

(Parsell & Marston, 2012) Solutions overwhelmingly focus on the problems of individuals.

‘Despite the longstanding acknowledgement of the structural dimensions to homelessness, policy has not been adequately developed or resourced to address the underpinning housing supply and poverty problems that are fundamental in order to achieve primary homelessness prevention.’ (Parsell & Marston, 2012, p. 34)

A critique of homelessness prevention in Wales

1. Lack of whole systems change Local authority staff uncertain whether or not to take a

homelessness application Some evidence of deliberate gatekeeping:

‘What it [homelessness prevention] has been used for is to prevent local authorities having to accept a duty.’ (Key informant, 2012)

Uncertainty and gatekeeping are at least partly responsible for inconsistencies between and within nations.

Figure 1. Statutory homelessness decisions and homelessness prevention in Wales, 2010-11

Wales England0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%Homelessness prevention

Eligible but not homeless

Eligible, homeless but not priority need

Eligible, homeless and in priority need, but intentionally so

Eligible, homeless and in priority need, unintentionally so

Source:Wales (Author sample of local authority data, 2010-11), England (CLG Live Tables 770 and 787)

Source: Welsh Government, 2013, table HHA/013

Figure 2. Percentage of all potentially homeless households for whom homelessness was prevented for at least 6 months by local authorities in Wales, 2011/12

2. Homelessness prevention and selectivity Failure to intervene as successfully with single men. Homelessness

is prevented in 36% of cases, compared to 50-60% of cases with most other household types

Reflects a focus on priority need households Similarly, homelessness is prevented in very few cases where the

reason for homelessness was leaving an institution or care (prison leavers)

Failures with prison leavers remain under explored and poorly understood

3. Individualisation of homelessness Parsell & Marston (2012) state that interventions have focussed on

addressing the problems of individuals, therefore individualising homelessness.

Table 1 identifies the types of interventions used to prevent and alleviate homelessness in Wales and it is clear that most target individual needs and behaviours.

However, until structural causes such as poverty and poor supply of affordable housing have been removed, interventions must address the needs of individuals which make them more susceptible to homelessness.

Assistance to remain (Prevention) Assistance to move (Alleviation)Mediation / Conciliation Hostel or HMO Homeless prevention fund PRS AccommodationDebt advice Accommodated with friend/relativeResolving welfare benefit problems Supported accommodationResolving rent or service charge arrears Social housingSanctuary scheme measures Low cost home ownership schemeCrisis intervention - providing emergency supportMortgage arrears interventionsLegal advocacy enabling household to remain

Table 1. Types of intervention used to prevent and alleviate homelessness in Wales

The Welsh prevention and alleviation duty: a solution to the

prevention critique?

The new two-stage duty

Stage One A new legal duty requiring local authorities to take reasonable steps

to prevent and alleviate homelessness for all households who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.

No consideration should be given to priority need or intentionality.

Stage Two Where prevention and alleviation efforts fail, and only if they fail, the

current priority need tests remain and a duty exists to secure settled accommodation for those deemed to be in priority need.

Whole systems review The sort of model and framework which scholars have been

demanding Overcomes practitioner uncertainties; legally defined minimum

interventions will drive consistency; ends gatekeeping concerns as rights more clearly ordered

Selectivity The Welsh prevention and alleviation duty requires local authorities to

assist all people who seek assistance and are homeless or threatened with homelessness

Individuals have recourse to legal challenge

Individualisation The duty does not directly address structural concerns – a key

limitation

Conclusion: a resource or rights-based

development?

Wales has undoubtedly developed a rights-based approach to the prevention of homelessness, however resource-based thinking is significantly impacting on the extent and nature of housing rights:i] Local connection criteria inserted as part of the prevention and

alleviation dutyii] Duty to provide temporary accommodation for all those who

seek assistance and have nowhere safe to stay removed from original proposals

iii] Priority need retained at the second stage

Ongoing examination of the impacts of legislative developments in Wales will be key to understanding the role of rights-based approaches to the prevention of homelessness.

There also remains a challenge to understand the consequences of resource-based thinking which appears to have undermined legislative developments in Wales.

Homelessness prevention and the Welsh legal duty: a resource or rights based development?

Dr. Peter Mackie Cardiff University

MackieP@cardiff.ac.uk