Dr. Andrew Waugh

Modelling the Abolition of the Priority Need TestModelling the Abolition

of the Priority Need Test

Legislative Changes & Key Questions Arising

The Model & Using HL1 Data

A Case Study Authority Impact of Abolition Combined Measures Conclusions

Overview

Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 Temporary Accommodation for all homeless households until

discharge of duty Permanent accommodation Modernised Right to Buy

Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 Extension then abolition of the priority need test. Power replaces duty to investigate intentionality Suspension of the local connection provision.

Legislative Changes

What is the impact of implementing the abolition of the priority need test on: Number of temporary accommodation places needed Time spent in temporary accommodation Number and proportion of lets required by homeless households

Method of abolition? Big Bang: 31st December 2012 2 Stage: 31 March 2009 & 31st December 2012 Gradual: from 31st December 2005.

Type of accommodation required?

Key Questions

The number of households The flow of households to different

tenures + homelessness

A Dynamic Model: Overview

Temporary accommodation

applications

lets

Homelessness Applications Method of Abolition Households in the Homelessness System (~Temporary

Accommodation) Time spent in the homelessness system Supply of lets in the Social Rented Sector

LA and RSL right to buy rates Termination Rates

Important Factors

A Dynamic Model: Homeless Households

Awaiting Assessment

Priority Need

Non-Priority Need

? ?

?

Lets Lets

Lets

ASSDATE ASSESSAPPDATE CLOSDATE

OUTCOME

A Dynamic Model: Supply

Change in # of Tenants = New Build + Relets -Terminations –RTB

Change in Voids = Terminations-Relets-Demolitions

Change in Stock = New Build – RTB-Demolitions

Maximum Supply = New Build +Terminations Actual Supply = New Build + Relets

Terminations

The Effect of Abolition – Key Assumptions

Method of Abolition Big Bang, 2 Stage, Gradual

Priority given by LA to rehousing PN Homeless

No change

Priority given by RSLs to rehousing PN Homeless

No change

Applications per annum 1,000

RSL New Build per annum 72 units

LA RTB sales 3.1% ( 300 sales in 2003/4 falling to 200 sales in 2017/18)

RSL RTB sales per annum 20 sales per annum through to 30/9/2012

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2003/04 2007/08 2011/12 2015/16

LA RSL

Terminations per Annum

Terminations available to new tenants (excludes transfers)

2003/4 2017/18 LA: 520 380 RSL: 160 170 Total: 720 550

2005 2010 2015120

140

160

180

200LA Lets to Homeless Applicants

31st March

Num

ber

2005 2010 201525

30

35

40

45

31st March

Per

cent

2005 2010 201515

20

25

30

35RSL Lets to Homeless Applicants

31st March

Num

ber

2005 2010 201510

15

20

25

31st March

Per

cent

Big Bang

2 Stage

Gradual

The Effect of Abolition (1): Lettings

2003/4 c. 160 LA lets

(25%) c. 15 RSL

lets (10%)

2017/18 c. 160 LA lets

(42%) c. 35 RSL

lets (20%)

The Effect of Abolition (2): Households in the System

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250Households in the Homelessness System

31st March

Num

ber

Big Bang

2 StageGradual

An extra 70 households from abolition

An extra 20 households from declining supply

90 in total

5

10

15

20

25

Thousands

2005/6 2011/12 2017/18

Big Bang 2 Stage Gradual

The Effect of Abolition (3): Time Spent in the System

Total Household Days in the system = number of households x time spent in system

c 9.6k in 2003/4 c 11k to 17k 2011/12 c 23.8k 2017/18

Increase in p/n households

Longer time

A growing proportion of lets to homeless households, even if number remains the same.

A marked increase in households in the system + therefore in temporary accommodation.

A marked increase in the time households spend there.

Impact on Council’s ability to meet wider housing needs + implications for broader social issues

The Effect of Abolition: Summary

Reduce applications and /or increase lets

Reduce applications – homelessness prevention work

Increase Lets to Homeless Households Section 5 Referrals to RSLs Increase rate of RSL new build Reduce the RSL / LA RTB rate Increase the number of LA lets to homeless

Proactive Approaches

No single measure is sufficient to meet the increase in homelessness in case study authority

A combination of measures are needed.

Scenario A – only increase lets to homeless households 211 (55%) of LA lets 31 (18%) of RSL lets

Scenario E Increase LA & RSL lets Increase rate of new build in 2003-2008 to 200 units pa. Reduce LA RTB rate from 3.1% to 2% Reduce applications to 800 pa

Proactive Approaches: Impact

Combined Measures

Scenario No Change A E

Applications -2017/18 1,000 1,000 800

Total Lets to H’Less -2017/18 190 / 550 240 / 550 260 / 640

Households in the System

March 2006 160 160 150

March 2017 250 230 150

Household Days in the System

2006/07 9.6k 6.8k 6.7k

2017/18 23.8k 14.6k 8.8k

The abolition of the priority need test will lead to: More households in temporary accommodation Households spending longer in Temporary Accommodation

Proactive approaches are needed if the impact of abolition is to be reduced

A combination of measures are required. Reduce applications Increase total supply of lets Increase number and proportion of lets to homeless households

Conclusions