Return to Agenda

ITEM EX7

EXECUTIVE– 1 OCTOBER 2002

HOMELESS FAMILIES - SOCIAL SERVICES RESPONSIBILITIES

Report by Interim Director of Social Services

1. The purpose of this report is:

• to provide an update on the legislation in respect of homeless families
• to highlight the implications of such legislation for the Children’s Division of Oxfordshire Social Services Department.
• to set out a significant unfunded budget pressure

2. Under current housing legislation, housing authorities have no statutory duty to offer accommodation to applicants who are found to be "intentionally homeless" or who are ineligible due to their immigration status. Such families are advised to contact Social Services for assistance if they are unable to find accommodation for themselves, and the relatively high numbers of families who fall in this category, particularly in Oxford City, have resulted in an increasing demand on the Children’s Division of the Social Services Department.
3. Oxfordshire Social Services have generally exercised their functions in relation to these families under Section 17, Children Act 1989 which states that:

• To safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need; and
• So far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs".

Background Information

4. In the case of families in Oxfordshire assessed as being ‘homeless’ and eligible for support, the response has been to meet the costs of accommodation in order to keep families together and to avoid bringing children into the care system. Such families were placed in B&B or hostel accommodation with a move on after a period of time to temporary self-contained accommodation, the expectation being that families would eventually obtain tenancies in the private rented sector.
5. However, the chronic shortage of affordable housing and/or of landlords willing to accept families in receipt of income support or housing benefit has made this an increasingly difficult goal. Consequently families have remained in what was intended as temporary accommodation for longer periods.
6. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that some of the families have behaviours and social needs which make them unattractive tenants in a competitive marketplace. Consequently, the landlords willing to provide accommodation to such families charge a much higher rate to Social Services.
7. As a result, by October 2001, Oxfordshire Social Services Department was funding 26 families [56 children] in various types of accommodation [B&B, hostel and self-contained] at an average cost of £550 per family per week, only a proportion of which could be reclaimed from housing benefit.
8. The recognition that the Social Services Department is not a housing provider and that the Department was not equipped to fulfil this function, coincided with various legal judgements that cast doubt on the ability of councils to use Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to provide accommodation to children in need and their families.
9. These factors prompted a review of the support arrangements provided to homeless families. Extra staff resources were diverted to work specifically with those families funded by Social Services in temporary accommodation. In addition, liaison was undertaken with various agencies, and procedures put in place both to facilitate early identification of families likely to be facing eviction.

Outcome

10. As a result of these, fifteen of the targeted families were successfully moved into tenancies in the private sector with rents being met, all or in part, by Housing Benefit. Social Services is acting as guarantor for two families, for a time limited period, with a potential financial commitment if Housing Benefit fail to deliver. Two families were deemed not to be eligible for services on re-assessment, three made their own arrangements, and the Housing Department accepted responsibility for another two. Four other families remain in temporary accommodation for which funding has been withdrawn and are facing eviction. Social work support is ongoing for these families as it is for some of the others where there were assessed needs over and above the issue of housing
11. The landlords who provided the properties for these families are disputing the Department’s right to withdraw funding whilst families remained in the properties.
12. Earlier notification and the adoption of stringent thresholds for intervention have led to a reduction in the provision of accommodation by Social Services, although the need for such a service remains.

Current Situation

13. Families continue to present as homeless. Furthermore such demand may increase in light of:

• the additional powers given to housing authorities to evict tenants who engage in anti-social or criminal activity
• the demands arising from families from other countries seeking to live in or around Oxford [asylum seekers and non-habitual residents]
• confirmation by the government of the duty/powers of Social Services Departments to provide such a service reinforced by the Homelessness Act 2002.

Legal Framework

14. Under the Homelessness Act 2002, implemented in July this year, housing authorities are required to work with relevant agencies, including Social Services, to formulate a strategy with a view to preventing homelessness and ensuring that sufficient accommodation and satisfactory support will be available for people who are, or may become homeless. ‘Homeless’ includes intentionally homeless people, homeless people in the area without a local connection and those not in priority need.
15. The Act specifies the need for co-operation between the housing authority and the Social Services Department in certain cases involving children where a local housing authority has reason to believe that an applicant, with whom a person under the age of 18 normally resides, is ineligible for provision by the local housing authority.
16. Under this Act, persons ineligible for such provision are:

• a person subject to immigration control within the meaning of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996.
• a person from abroad who is ineligible by virtue of sub-section (5) [non-habitual resident]
• a person [including any member of his household] who has "been guilty of unacceptable behaviour serious enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority"[subsection (7)]

17. Such families, with children and in need of accommodation, will refer themselves, or be referred, to the Social Services Department for an assessment to determine whether the children of the family meet the definition of a ‘child in need’. If the assessment concludes that there are significant welfare or protection issues, the Social Services have a duty to respond and this may entail a choice between supporting the family in accommodation under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, as previously, or accommodating the children under Section.20[c] of the Children Act 1989 which states:

"Every local authority shall provide accommodation for any child in need within their area who appears to require accommodation as a result of the person who has been caring for him being prevented (whether permanently or for whatever reason) from providing him with suitable accommodation or care".

18. Current policy is that the Department "is not a housing provider" and "does not normally provide funding or accommodation for families". Current procedures allow for the provision of emergency accommodation for up to two weeks.

Issues

19. The costs (£526,000) of supporting homeless families 2001-2002 contributed significantly to the Divisional and Departmental overspend.
20. No budget has been allowed for this purpose in the financial year 2002-2003.
21. There is a statutory duty to provide a service/support to most of the families who are assessed as being homeless and ineligible for provision by the housing authority. The Department could discharge this duty by meeting the costs of accommodation for the family or by offering to accommodate the children.
22. The former response relies on the provision of accommodation by letting agencies who can charge rates not related to the standard of accommodation, and will undoubtedly lead to an overspend of the Children’s Community Support Budget.
23. The latter response also carries a financial cost, relies on placements being available and involves separating children from parents, siblings and community links, which may be difficult to justify as being in the best interests of the child. Such a response would also run counter to a key objective of the Quality Protects initiative, to reduce numbers of children in placements.
24. Potentially, families may end up on the streets opening the way for legal challenge, create adverse publicity, and most significantly place children "at risk". The Courts have directed the Social Services Department to financially support homeless families, to enable them to secure appropriate accommodation in a small number of cases.

The Way Forward

25. The Homelessness Act 2002 provides an opportunity and impetus for housing authorities and Social Services to work co-operatively with other agencies to reduce the number of, and provide services to, homeless families. This will not impact on the immediate situation of families presenting as homeless.
26. The Transitional Housing Benefit Scheme offers a potential source of funding to provide accommodation and support services to this group of vulnerable families.

Conclusions

27. Parents who are homeless are unlikely to be able to adequately meet the needs of their children and the Social Services have a clear duty to assist such families. The particular circumstances of the majority of these families, combined with the high cost of accommodation in Oxford, makes it difficult for them to obtain, and/or retain, housing in the private sector. The combined pressures of legal obligation, evident need and budget constraints place the social services in a difficult position.

Financial Implications

28. The costs of funding accommodation for homeless families in 2001-2002 was £526,00. Whilst the Department is taking action to assist families secure accommodation via public and private housing providers, on current demand, assessments, and directions from the Courts, it is estimated the costs for 2002-2003 will be £200,000.

Implications for those Living in Poverty

29. Children whose parents are homeless are likely to suffer as a result of the stress and insecurity being experienced by their parents as well as from the disruption to links in the community such as friends, school and health. Such families face social exclusion, and any problems that may have contributed to their homeless status are likely to be exacerbated and harder to address.

RECOMMENDATIONS

30. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to:

1. note the unfunded budget pressure and associated risks;
2. request the lead Service Manager to liaise with local housing agencies with a view to contributing to inter-agency response to the problems posed, and faced, by families who are, or are at risk of, homelessness;
3. ask the Director to be proactive in exploring potential for developing a scheme to provide accommodation for homeless vulnerable families to be funded in main by Housing Benefit and Supporting People grant, but recognising that such a scheme cannot be provided at nil cost.

STEPHEN WILDS
Interim Director of Social Services

Background Papers: Nil

Contact Officer: Vanessa Burbidge, Service Manager, Social Services Department,

September 2002

Return to TOP