Temporary Accommodation Modelling Review 2014

Transcription

1 Temporary Accommodation Modelling Review 2014 Summary and Main Findings Twenty nine local authorities responded to the request for information with the last completed template submitted in February The following was reported; A total of 9,902 units of accommodation are classified as General Temporary; Emergency Access accommodation was reported in 13 local authority areas with a total of 33 sites of delivery across Scotland; 87 sites in 26 local authorities are classified as Supported Accommodation. The number of individual places were not identified and will be the subject of further research; Ownership of General Temporary stock was split between local authorities at 41%, private rented sector (PRS) at 37% with registered social landlords (RSLs) owning the remaining 22% of stock. However; of all PRS stock, 50% of it was in Edinburgh and of all RSL stock 66% was located in Glasgow. Indeed, when Glasgow and the other stock transfer authorities are removed, RSL stock accounts for only around 3% of overall provision elsewhere; The average weekly base rent for a local authority unit in 2013/14 was 58.94, for an RSL it was and for a PRS property it was ; The model assumes the Scottish average repair cost PA is 1,080 per unit with additional repairs arising from the significantly higher turnover at 50% more. The additional repairs cost accounts for approximately per unit per week; Management costs account for approximately per unit per week; Furniture and fittings accounts for approximately per unit per week; There is a consequent shortfall against every property size and across all tenure types because the proposed income limits take no account of additional repair costs; neither do they take account of the need to provide furniture and fittings at reasonable intervals to maintain decent standards; Shortfalls range from per LA unit per week to per leased PRS unit per week. In total the overall shortfall accounts for a 25m gap between income and expenditure and is based on conservative estimates when considering that the Under-Occupancy charge will also need to be covered due to the mis-match between stock and client profiles. 1

2 Temporary Accommodation Modelling Review 2014 Date: June 2014 Authors: Review Group Members: Julie Hunter and Tracy Lindsay Julie Hunter, Tracy Lindsay and Jennifer MacMahon 1 Introduction and Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this modelling exercise was to establish a uniform definition and costs framework for temporary accommodation provision within Scotland. In addition, the model sets out the key components for basic quality standards that should apply to all temporary accommodation; regardless of its source. 2. Background 2.1 There is no current single model of temporary accommodation (TA) in Scotland. Adhoc provision arrangements have developed over many years with accommodation sourced from within local authorities own stock, from RSLs and more recently from the Private Rented Sector. Consequently, since there is no universally recognised temporary stock typology, it has been difficult to draw cost comparisons. 2.2 Welfare reforms will impact on housing benefit eligibility for claimants living in all forms of rented accommodation and reduce revenues to meet TA costs by limiting the sums that can be claimed to meet housing costs in future. Since April 2013 the bedroom tax and weekly benefit cap apply and further restrictions will apply under Universal Credit when it is eventually rolled out. 2.3 Work was initiated by a small group of local authority members of the temporary accommodation sub-group. The main purposes were to: consider what provision currently exists by means of a survey of all local authorities; identify the key cost components that should be included to facilitate a decent temporary accommodation standard, i.e. furniture, management, services etc., agree what would represent reasonable costs for provision of decent quality accommodation; consider the implications of the Housing Benefit and Universal Credit (Supported Accommodation) (Amendment) Regulations The model used three definitions to identify accommodation types and table 1 provides the definition allocated to each type. The definitions used were not at first recognised by all survey respondents. However; irrespective of this, in all cases the accommodation descriptors provided by respondents were able to be fitted into one of the three definitions. Table 1 suggests that a set of common definitions could reasonably be applied in Scotland, which would enable future cost and quality comparisons to be drawn. 2

3 Table 1: Accommodation definitions Descriptor Definition Emergency Access Accommodation Staffed 24/7, Accessible 24/7, Some element of Support, Possibly shared facilities, Short term clustered 'project style' accommodation Temporary Accommodation (General) Self contained property, Furnished or unfurnished. Sole occupancy. Situated across the Local Authority Area Supported Accommodation Planned entry, Staffed 24/7, Intensive Support on- site, Possibly shared facilities. Mid- term clustered 'Project style' accommodation 2.4 The model discounted Bed and Breakfast for which no subsidy exists and accommodation used to provide domestic refuges, which is used for purposes other than providing accommodation for homeless households. 3 Methodology and Data Inputs 3.1 The model required data input from the following sources: Survey returns data; Rents data (APSR; SHBVN and DWP); Sample costs for furniture packs, staffing and necessary overheads. 3.3 The survey was issued to all local authority lead officers identified by the ALACHO Policy Manager and consisted of 3 distinct tables requesting: Building ownership; Property management arrangements; Who was rent paid to? Number of properties/projects; Support Provision and Providers; Benefit implications/restrictions. See Appendix 1 blank survey template 3.4 The group considered data held nationally on mainstream rent levels in local authorities, RSLs and in the private rented sector. This enabled some comparison between costs in each sector and indicative future costs, based on the current tenure split used to provide temporary accommodation across the survey respondents. The largest single element of temporary accommodation charges is the base rent cost and this varies considerably by sector. The average rent for local authority stock is 3

4 66.60 per week, for RSL stock it is per week and for PRS stock it is per week. Appendix 2 (a) rent charge info 3.5 The group used information on repairs and furniture costs available to them in their own local authority areas and assumed replacement cycles based on experience and likely usage. For example, basic decoration and certain items of furniture should be replaced on a 3-yearly cycle whilst white goods should be replaced every two years. Beds, bedding and kitchen packs it is assumed will be replaced more frequently with beds replaced at least annually and bedding and kitchen packs replaced with each turnover. Details of all assumptions used are contained within Appendix 2 (a) and 2(b) for repairs cost and furniture cost information. 3.6 In order to gauge the reasonableness of the assumptions used the group considered some financial modelling carried out by Arneil Johnson for another local authority. By comparing the costs assumed by Arneil Johnson it became evident that the basis of the group s analysis was consistent with theirs. In each case, assumptions on costs were modestly applied to avoid any suggestion of excessive or over recovery of revenue and the costs attributed were unlikely to produce surpluses. 3.7 Direct management costs were similarly derived from indicative costs at each of the groups own local authority areas and based on 1 full-time equivalent housing manager/officer per 50 properties to deal with e.g. book-ins, benefit queries and local administration. In addition, 1 full-time equivalent caretaker/worker per 50 properties to deal with repairs, cleaning and re-provisioning etc. was assessed to be reasonable. In addition a Team Leader per 250 properties is assumed with indirect line-management costs apportioned on a percentage basis in line with mainstream rent costs. Appendix 2(c) Management cost information. 4 Findings and Implications 4.1 General Survey Data Each Local Authority that responded was able to fit their temporary accommodation provision into one of the three broad categories. What was very evident however was a wide variation in ownership, management and lease arrangements across the three categories. Appendix 3 provides full statistical results and Graphs 1 4 below illustrates the results, with the bullets below providing summary details:- 29 local authorities (91%) returned completed surveys by the due date; Local authorities own the majority of stock (40.4%) used to provide general temporary accommodation across the country, although a significant proportion (37.1%) is owned by the Private Sector; 45% of Local Authorities operate with some emergency accommodation, of which 45% is owned by the Local Authority and a further 33% is owned by RSL s. 90% of Local Authorities operate some supported accommodation, of which 40% is owned by the Local Authority and will be disadvantages when the Supported Exempt accommodation rules are applied under UC, and 45% is owned by RSLs 4

5 Graph 1 Ownership 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0.00% 3.03% 0.00% 12.12% 3.45% 37.14% 33.33% 44.83% 22.39% 40.43% 45.45% 40.23% General Temp Emergency Supported Other Vol Org Private Sector RSL LA Graph 2 Management 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0.00% 0.58% 3.62% 3.03% 0.00% 18.18% 3.03% 45.98% 95.47% 3.45% 27.27% 24.14% General Temp Emergency Supported Other Vol Org Private Sector RSL LA Owner 5

6 Graph 3 Rent Paid to 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0.00% 0.86% 3.03% 1.15% 3.03% 1.15% 98.52% 48.48% 40.23% General Temp Emergency Supported Other Vol Org Private Sector RSL LA Owner Graph 4 Property Arrangements 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% General Temp Emergency Supported Leased to RSL from RSL Leased to Vol Org from RSL Leased to LA by Other Leased to RSL from Private Sector None Managed by Owner Managing agent in place Leased to Vol Org from LA Leased to RSL from LA Leased to LA from RSL Leased to LA from Private Sector 6

7 4.2 Financial Implications Costs per property Graph 5 Costs per property Management Repairs Furniture Basic Rent 0.00 LA Owned RSL Owned Private Sector Owned Graph 6 Average shortfall by Apartment size and tenure Apt 2 Apt 3 Apt 4 Apt 5 Apt HRA RSL PRS

8 Graph 7 Aggregated income 68,889, ,170, ,719, LHA Management 8

9 Graph 8 Aggregated expenditure 93,840, ,723, ,659, ,122, Basic Rent Repairs Furniture Management 5,334, The findings suggest that local authorities will be extremely vulnerable when caps and limits are placed on housing cost eligibility criteria in future. The group has assessed that local authorities will face significant shortfalls arising from the introduction of limits set at the LHA rate plus 45 per week. Based on the survey samples, if caps and thresholds were introduced now, the funding shortfall, as a very conservative estimate would be in the region of 25M per annum. Due to benefit increases being linked to the Consumer Price Index rather than the Retail Prices Index as previously, the gap between actual costs and housing allowances is likely to increase over time. Table 1 illustrates the aggregated income, expenditure and shortfall across the 29 local authorities. Graph 9 Aggregated Shortfall Shortfall - 24,961, ,850, ,889, Income Expenditure Shortfall 9

10 4.4 Unless some additional revenue stream is found, even the most efficient local authorities will need to make savings. This will potentially lead to a reduction in either the staffing levels, repairs and maintenance costs and/or the costs associated with renewing furniture and fittings. In any event the quality of temporary accommodation is likely to be compromised and overall supplies are likely to reduce as councils try to find the most manageable means of meeting statutory responsibilities. Certainly in the short term, some additional funding could provide a safety net to enable authorities to re-configure the stock portfolios and make efficiencies. 4.5 Table 2 below highlights the average shortfall by apartment size by tenure. It should be noted that that this shortfall / deficit will differ across local authority areas depending on the rent costs and LHA rate applied in the locale. It should also be noted that the almost 25M shortfall referred to in paragraph 4.2 is an average shortfall across the 29 Local Authorities and does not account for any additional shortfall once regional actual rent costs and LHA rates are applied. 5 Temporary Accommodation Standards 5.1 Quality standards are only achievable if consistent levels of funding are maintained in temporary accommodation in terms of the physical standards, management ratios and the service standards that apply. Guidance on standards to be followed is contained within the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and the Homelessness Etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 and in the Homelessness Persons (Unsuitable Accommodation) (Scotland) Order Local Authorities are required to pay heed to statutory guidance, including the Homelessness Code of Guidance. 5.2 In addition, local authorities deliver services within the context of the Scottish Housing Quality Standard and are obliged to report to the Scottish Housing Regulator on progress towards full compliance by Most local authorities undertake quality audits to ensure that physical and service standards are being maintained and are likely to have performance measures in place that are reviewed regularly. Examples of standards are contained within Appendix 3 of this document. 6. The Models 6.1 In order to estimate the shortfall in funding two models were developed Model A uses aggregated numbers and reflects the general temporary accommodation stock across 29 Scottish Local Authorities. It is reflective of:- Average HRA, RSL and PRS rental figure (taking no account of regional variations or stock size) Average LHA rate (taking no account of regional variations or stock size) Model A is used to evidence the aggregated shortfall across Scotland. See Appendix Model B differs slightly in that it provides flexibility to Local authorities to allow them to populate:- Actual HRA, RSL and PRS rental figures across apartment sizes Actual LHA rates across apartment sizes 10

11 Model B can be used by Local Authorities to test the assumptions against their true rental costs and revenue income under Universal Credit. 6.2 Assumptions A number of very conservative assumptions were made within the models Rent cost set at 2013/14 levels 95% occupancy rate (5% deduction against revenue income) 90% collections rate (further 10% deduction against revenue income) There is a 100% property to person match therefore assuming collection of LHA rate applied to the property not the person Average repair costs of 1080 included in the rents paid to the HRA for Local Authority owned properties Average repair costs not considered for RSL and PSL properties only 50% additional repairs costs applied within the model (adding average costs will incur an additional 5M expenditure against current stock) 7. The future: Raise awareness with local authority staff about implications for funding; Develop a similar model for Supported models of accommodation, including Emergency Access which typically will have on-site supervision over 24-hours and likely also to have additional security and safety features, e.g. CCTV and fire safety sprinkler systems; Test the model o Does the model work? o Are the cost assumptions correct? o Are there any costs that may not have been considered within the model e.g:- Future rent collection costs List of Appendices 1. Blank Survey Form 2. Survey Returns key statistics 3. Model Assumptions 4. Model outcomes 5. Example Standards (to be added when completed) Only West Dunbartonshire Council was able to provide written service standards. 11

12 Appendix 1 Survey Template Type Local Authority Name Definition Building owned by Accommodation managed by Property Arrangements Rent paid to Support Provision Support Provider Number of properties * Benefit implications / restrictions *This section was titled Number of units in the Emergency Accommodation and Supported Accommodation survey sheet. NB Local Authorities were asked to fill out an excel spreadsheet for each of the three types of temporary accommodation, pre populated drop down boxes were provided to ensure a consistent response. 12

13 Appendix 2 (a) Rent Costs 2013/14 Basic Rent HRA - average *** RSL* PRS** Rent charge % Add on Void Loss % Add on Bad Debt % Add on reinstatement Total NB Model assumes a LHA average income of per week 13

14 (b) Furniture Fittings and Decoration Furniture Fittings and decoration Furniture HRA RSL PRS Set up charge /cyclical décor Apt 2 apt 3apt 4apt 5 apt 1apt 2 apt 3apt 4apt 5apt 1apt 2 apt 3apt 4apt 5Apt Carpets blinds White good pack Beds every year Settees/chairs 3 year cycle Wardrobes - 3 years Light fightings Bedding 2 turnovers per year Kitchen pack 2 turnovers Bathroom 1 2 turnovers per year Child safety packs (every 3 years but for 50% of stock) Fire Safety Sundrie Costs Total

15 (b) Furniture Costs cont d All tenures per room 1 apt 2 apt 3apt 4apt 5apt Basic Decoration 500 1,500 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 décor every 3 years Carpets blinds ,050 1, White Good pack (cooker fridge freezer washing machine) every 2 years Beds every year Settees/chairs 3 year cycle Wardrobes - 3 years each Light fightings Bedding 2 turnovers per year double single Kitchen pack 2 turnovers Bathroom 1 2 turnovers per year Child safety packs (every 3 years but for 50% of stock) Fire Safety Sundrie Costs Weekly Average No of Units Cost , Per annum 23,659, NB model assumes no income for furniture costs 15

16 (c) Additional Repairs Additional Repairs as a result of increased void turnover Scottish Average % higher for TFF 540 Total 1620 Per unit per week (based on additional 50%) Additional repairs per week (all stock) 102, per annum 5,344, NB model assumes HRA cover Average costs for repairs per HRA property average repairs costs for RSL and PSL properties not allocated in the model. 16

17 (d) Management Costs Management Costs Mgt Costs (Direct Mgt) Rational Temp furnished (the same regardless of original tenure) Housing Officer / Estate Mgt Officer 1FTE per 50 properties at 30K 12K for small car (3 year lease) plus 50 per week Car Travel fuel costs and 300 per year insurance IT Equipment 1k per annum Office furniture /admin 750 Clothing 100 per year Training 1k per annum Caretaker/ Officer (Mobile/ Cleaning) 1FTE per 50 properties at 30K 12K for small car (3 year lease) plus 50 per week Car Travel fuel costs and 300 per year insurance IT Equipment 1k per annum Clothing 100 per year Training 1k per annum Line Mgt costs I Team Leader per 250 properties 39K 20% FTE Housing Manager per 250 properties 47K 10% Snr Management time per 250 properties - 65K NB Model assumes 45 per week x 52 weeks for Management income and apportions cost over 52 weeks. 17

18 (d) Management costs cont d Mgt Costs (Direct Mgt) A Financial Assumptions Model Temp furnished (the same regardless of original tenure) Housing Officer / Estate Mgt Officer Travel costs total 2.64 Car lease 1.52 Fuel 1.00 Insurance 0.12 IT Equipment 0.38 furniture /admin 0.28 Clothing 0.04 Training 0.38 Total B Caretaker Officer Mobile Outreach Travel costs total 2.64 Car lease 1.52 Fuel 1.00 Insurance 0.12 IT Equipment 0.38 furniture /admin 0.28 Clothing 0.04 Training C Line Management Costs Team Leader 3.00 Housing Manager 0.72 Snr Mgt D Void Council Tax % void Waste Disposal per void Gas and Electric 0.50 Cleaning D E Grounds Maintenance / Communal Cleaning per void 2 per year F Non Direct Staffing Costs ,723, Legal, HR, Finance, apportioned charges 18

19 Appendix 3 Survey Results Statistical Information Emergency Accommodation Returns % Numer of LA s with Emergency Accommodation % Building owned by No % LA Owned % Private Sector Owned % RSL Owned % Vol Org Owned % Other % Total 33 Property Arrangements No % Leased to LA from Private Sector % Leased to RSL from LA % Managing agent in place % None managed by Owner % LA managed % Leased to LA from RSL % Leased to Vol Org from RSL % Leased to Vol Org from LA % Leased to RSL from Private Sector % Accommodation managed by No % LA managed % Private Sector Managed % RSL Managed % Vol Org Managed % None managed by Owner % Rent paid to No % LA % RSL % Vol Org % Other % Support Provision No % Floating Support(if required) % On site % Support Provider No % Other % RSL % Vol Org % Private % LA % 19

20 General Temporary Accommodation No % Returns % Number of Properties 9902 Building owned by No % LA Owned % Private Sector Owned % RSl Owned % Vol Org Owned % Management Arrangments No % LA Managements % PS Managed % RSL Managed % Vol Org Managed % Property Arrangements No % Leased to LA from Private Sector % Leased to LA from RSL % Leased to RSL from LA % Leased to Vol Org from LA % Managing agent in place % None Managed by Owner % Leased to RSL from Private Sector % Rent paid to No % LA % Private Sector % RSL % Vol Org % Support Provision No % Contracted support provider % Floating Support(if required) % None Housing Mgt only % On site % Support Provider No % Floating Support(if required) % LA % Other % Vol Org % 20

21 Supported Accommodation No % Returns % No % Number of LA s with Supported Accommodation % Building Owned by No % LA Owned % Private Sector Owned % RSL Owned % Vol Org Owned % Total 87 Property Arrangments No % Leased to another RSL % Leased to LA from RSL % Leased to RSL from LA % Leased to Vol Org from LA % Leased to Vol Org from RSL % Managing agent in place % None managed by Owner % Leased to RSl from Private Sector % Rent paid to No % LA % Private Sector % RSL % Vol Org % Other % Support Provision No % Floating if required % Floating Support(if required) % On site % Support Provider No % Contracted support provider % LA % Private % RSL % Vol Org % Accommodation managed by No LA managed % Private Sector Managed % RSL Managed % Vol Org Managed % 21

22 Appendix 4 Model Assessing the Cost of Temporary Accommodation Model A Temporary Accommodation Stock HRA RSL PRS total Proportion of Stock 40.43% 37.14% 22.43% Expenditure HRA RSL PRS Total Average weekly rent cost per property Weekly rent cost - stock 266, , , , Annual rent cost - stock 13,863, ,626, ,632, ,122, Weekly repair costs Annual repairs costs per property Annual repairs costs - stock 2,160, ,985, ,198, ,344, Weekly Management costs Annual Management costs per property 2, , , Annual Management costs - stock 8,782, ,069, ,872, ,723, Weekly furniture costs Annual Furniture costs per property 2, , , Annual Furniture costs per stock 9,564, ,788, ,306, ,659, Total annual expenditure - stock 93,850,

23 Income HRA RSL PRS Total Weekly Management fee Mgt Fee income per annum per property 2, , , Mgt Fee income - stock 9,367, ,606, ,197, ,170, Rent income per week Rent income per annum 5, , , Rent income - stock - 100% occupancy / property match and collection rate) 21,617, ,861, ,993, ,472, Rent income - 95% occupancy 20,536, ,868, ,394, ,799, Rent income - 95% occupancy and 90% collection rate 18,482, ,981, ,254, ,719, Rent income at 95% occupancy and 80% collection) 16,428, ,095, ,115, ,639, Total income 100% occupancy /property match/rent collection ) 76,643, Total income 95% occupancy) 73,969, Total income 95% occupancy and 90% collection rate (model assumption 68,889, Total income at 95% occupancy and 80% collection) 63,809, Shortfall Shortfall at 100% occupancy /property match/rent collection Shortfall at 95% occupancy Shortfall at 95% occupancy and 90% collection rate (model assumption) Shortfall at 95% occupancy and 80% collection) - 17,207, ,881, ,961, ,040,

24 24