Identifying where to start

When supporting Councils to identify what to do in order to deliver better homelessness services we use a proven framework called "7 ways to save and improve" which many councils have used to make impactful changes, quickly. 

In a nutshell, "7 ways to save and improve" describes the components of a service that we can affect - from the demand coming through the door to the policy that determines the service’s design. 

By understanding the different components, it helps Councils understand where the majority of opportunities to improve are falling - and therefore where they should start.

If you would like to learn more about "7 ways to save and improve", you can do so here. 

In our experiences working with homelessness services, the biggest bang for their buck has always come from first focussing on shaping the demand. It makes sense - fix the service from the start so you don't need to fix it again later on.

The section below outlines a series of practical changes you can make that have the potential to reduce the demand on your service - as well as a set of tools you can draw on to do this. 

We will continue to iterate this toolkit and add further recommendations and resources that target other components of the service. For now, however, we offer ideas around shaping demand as we believe they represent the most useful starting point.

Shaping demand

When it comes to demand there are two types: external and internal. External demand is what most people think of first - all the people who are in need of the service. Reducing overall external demand for homelessness services is difficult because homelessness is a complex issue influenced by many factors, not least central government policy.

However, councils do have significant control over internal demand. This is demand which results from internal failure in the service. One example of internal demand in the context of homelessness could be when residents call the council to complain about their temporary accommodation.

Residents may not have understood what to expect from temporary accommodation (TA) or have not received adequate support once they moved in. This can result in countless calls that burden council staff and take away from the service’s ability to deliver the desired outcome.

In essence, internal demand is demand that if we'd got things right the first time around would never have happened.

To this end, the following ideas focus on ways councils can address internal demand and, in doing so, improve the service for both residents and staff.

People at risk of homelessness often have multiple, complex needs. Rarely their only need is for housing. This means people will potentially also be known to other council services, as well as VCFS organisations. Rather than waiting for residents to approach the council, there is an opportunity to leverage networks of community partners and other council services to intervene proactively. There are a few ways to go about doing this.

The first is to ensure other council services and community partners properly understand the homelessness service so they can effectively refer residents in need and avoid referring individuals who are not eligible.

Secondly, community partners can also be trained to provide residents with housing advice and support in lower priority cases rather than referring them to an already overburdened council. One local authority we supported has worked closely with charities in the borough so that when they identify at-risk residents they know exactly how to notify the council. When notified, the council is then able to reach out to the resident and intervene appropriately, whether that is negotiating with the landlord, talking to family members or providing that resident with general information and advice.

The other component of taking a joined-up approach is upskilling frontline staff within the housing service so they know more about other services and community offers to better serve residents entering the system. For example, being able to connect residents with mental health or social care services - including giving some initial early advice on these areas. Some councils we have worked with have organised staff-led trainings where frontline workers from various services come together and teach each other about their offers and collaborate on the best ways they can work together and better address resident needs.

Ultimately, aligning efforts across services and community partners enables more proactive interventions. This can reduce some of the demand coming through the door and limit demand that results from either residents contacting the service who are ineligible or don't meet the threshold for support. In other cases, it can also help those who could have been prevented from becoming homelessness with support from other other specialist services. 

Many residents approaching the council have false expectations around both the reality of temporary accommodation and how long they will need to wait for social housing. This often results in frustrated residents calling and complaining to the council about their temporary accommodation placement or trying to advocate for higher priority need on the social housing register. As a consequence, a lot of valuable time is spent talking to those residents, when in reality there is very little the service can do. This also causes undo stress for staff.

Expectations can be shifted by giving residents clearer, more digestible information. For example, one borough we worked with developed a handout called the "6 myths of Temporary Accommodation" for its website and for use by frontline triage staff so expectations can be set from the start. 

Another area councils can help mitigate false expectations around social housing is by changing the bidding process for council properties. Even though the wait time for social housing is years if not decades, many councils still ask residents to bid on properties each week. This can be incredibly confusing for residents, not helped by the fact that hostel managers and even councillors often encourage them to keep bidding. 

For this reason, Bristol City Council changed their bidding process to only allow those with the highest need to bid, ending the practice for about 9,500 residents. 

On the topic of councillors, they and other community partners can sometimes perpetuate and reinforce common myths about temporary accommodation and social housing that are counterproductive for the council. One local authority we worked with sat their councillors down and explained how their messaging was causing problems for the service. The meeting was highly successful as the councillors admitted to not being fully aware of the reality on the ground and agreed to change their narrative when speaking with residents. 

Similarly, another local authority met with GPs to explain how writing letters for residents to increase their priority need rarely if ever works, but places undue burden on council staff who must process those requests. Put simply, getting key stakeholders throughout the borough all on the same page is crucial to ensure consistent messaging and reinforce the right expectations that limit failure demand.

Wrong expectations can also lead some residents who are unlikely to be eligible receive the help they are hoping for to wait around. This inevitably leads to frustration and takes up staff time. 

One housing team we worked with had the idea of developing guidance specifically for residents who are not in priority need. This simple hand out explained what priority need is, what it means for them, and what they can do (e.g., community services they can turn to). This also served as “evidence” for them to show that they have been to see the council, which could be used to help prevent or delay family & friends evictions.

Periods of overwhelming demand can push housing teams to focus on residents who are already homeless or closest to becoming homeless. Other residents get placed on a long backlog. While this is a very understandable reaction, it can make things worse in the long run. 

Focusing on immediate homelessness can lead services to miss achievable prevention opportunities, for example, when residents receive Section 21 notices. These residents are then gradually triaged through the system, often waiting a long time to get support from officers with the expertise to provide them with support – by which time the challenges they are facing have escalated.

One local authority we worked with tested identifying friends and family cases (a high proportion of their demand) and sending a visiting officer to engage with the family and attempt to provide mediation on the same day, directly after the resident’s first triage conversation. Where this was successful, it freed up significant extra capacity from demand avoided.

Other local authorities have also found that having experienced officers triage demand - and exercise their judgement - improves the resident experience, helps to avoid preventable crises, and supports cost avoidance through prevention. 

While often the most experienced officers are placed behind layers of less skilled officers triaging which cases should go where, this prolongs the time until residents get in-depth support and means much more time is spent on cases that could have been resolved quickly and easily.

Another option is to empower those who are the first point of contact for residents. One local authority tested reducing management approval requirements for triage officers, trusting them to make the decision about how to best support a resident. This freed up offices capacity, led to quicker decisions and more prevention.

Reducing failure demand from residents is not always as simple as giving them clearer information around temporary accommodation and social housing. Some of the councils we've worked with have come to the conclusion that rigid, transactional processes for completing homelessness assessments and triaging new cases were preventing them effectively supporting residents - and therefore causing those residents to come back round as new demand again and again. There is a need to have honest, transparent conversations with residents and take the time to try to work with them to solve the challenges they are facing well before they are placed in TA. This is especially true for residents who do not speak English fluently or who may be coming from a different context and need extra attention to ensure they get the support that they need. 

Core Conversations and “What Matters” Conversation tools can be useful for improving how staff engage with residents. Although having more in-depth conversations may feel more time-consuming, in the long-run it has the potential to reduce a lot of the failure demand that comes later on from confused and frustrated residents and those who's situations are getting worse. 

Another issue Council's often hear from residents is that a staff member told them they would follow-up with them, but that follow-up never comes. This is very understandable given the sheer demand council staff are facing, but consequently it is one of the biggest causes of avoidable internal demand. Even if the news isn’t good or it will take a long time to follow-up, it is better to be honest with residents and ensure staff don’t make false promises. 

In this vein, taking a more relational approach is fundamental to fostering a greater sense of accountability among staff. If staff feel more personally responsible for a resident, they are more likely to prioritise follow-up as opposed to just seeing that resident as another case number in the system. One way to do this is to simply give staff more autonomy, space and time to work with residents on a more personal level while still complying with statutory obligations (we acknowledge, easier said than done). However, the reality is that the service will the rewards as doing this allows officers to support residents more holistically and reduces failure demand down the line. 

The thousands of residents stuck waiting in TA represent the most extreme example of internal demand in homelessness services. One reason why residents in TA often recontact the council is simply the incredibly long wait times for permanent accommodation. Many are stuck waiting for years on end while councils struggle to fund the growing number of temporary accommodation facilities. But this is not the only reason - there is often a lack of follow-up support for residents once they enter TA. 

For some of the Councils we've worked with, once they accept a resident as main duty and place them in TA, little more happens beyond that point as the council prioritises the front-end to try and comply with HRA requirements. Some residents we've spoken with report feeling isolated and abandoned once they enter TA. This is not only problematic because it places undue psychological stress on vulnerable residents, but it also represents a missed opportunity to help residents move on and find settled accommodation.

For many residents placed in TA the experience is extremely stressful. They may not be able to take in much information on the day.. This will include important information such as their obligation to pay things like service charges. 

One local authority we worked with successfully introduced “courtesy calls” for newly TA residents shortly after placement. These calls allowed the housing team to clarify obligations and the status of their benefits payments before any arrears built up, and gave residents the chance to raise any issues with the temporary accommodation.

One borough designed a settled accommodation team dedicated to following up with residents on their personal housing plan within their first year in TA. By following up with residents, it gave the council the opportunity to have a more in-depth conversation with residents once they were settled to reinforce expectations and provide personalised support and advice. 

Residents who received follow-up support were more likely to see the private rental sector as their most likely outcome while residents who did not receive follow-up still expected social housing to be their most likely outcome. Unsurprisingly, residents who received follow-up tended to spend less time in TA and more actively pursue alternative forms of accommodation. 

Getting residents moving through TA more quickly is a high priority for councils and following up with residents is one of the most effective ways to achieve that. 

We’ve shared a few recommendations based on the work we have done with councils in London and hope these tools and examples are useful for making some quick improvements and sparking ideas on how to address failure demand in your service.