Local interventions are effective, both for people and the public purse.
In 2022, Local Partnerships worked with two councils to build a case for investment in homelessness prevention.
The two – one a northern city, one a southern county – were selected as they are both active in homelessness prevention, keen to build on their own good practice and interested in a tool that could demonstrate the impact of the work they do.
Local Partnerships developed the investment case by: reviewing available data and interviewing key participants; exploring the inputs, activities, outputs and impact of homelessness prevention work in the two councils; and developing a simple cost-benefit model. There were several, high-level conclusions.
First, intervention is effective, both in human terms, and for the public purse.
All the services we modelled were effective in helping vulnerable people to turn around their lives and gave positive cost-to-outcome benefit ratios.
While these benefits accrued across a local system (not just to councils), they do represent a significant opportunity for using limited resource differently and more efficiently.
Second, relatively small amounts of council investment can lead to significant benefits for the public purse.
Consultants PwC estimated that approximately 50 per cent of the ‘in system’ benefits of preventing someone from rough sleeping will accrue to the local authority.
Third, projects offering wraparound services, as well as housing support, and with a person-centred approach, can be particularly effective.
We know that the causes of homelessness are complex and a person-centred approach, offering help to individuals with their specific, articulated needs, is more likely to be successful than a one-size-fits-all intervention.
Fourth, the results point to the merits of joint commissioning.
Different individuals need help from different agencies, so beginning to understand the benefits of a system of support to prevent homelessness can strengthen partnerships, lead to a more nuanced commissioning process, and maximise the benefits achieved through the use of the combined resources.
“Monitoring, data collection and analysis across the system will be time and capacity well spent”
Finally, the success of the ‘Housing options’ service in promoting prevention and limiting the use of temporary accommodation frees up further resource to be used in prevention. Compared with other core cities, our city was much more effective at preventing homelessness once a person has presented at the front door. Other councils can learn much from this approach.
There are some inevitable caveats to the conclusions drawn.
Data that is easily accessible has been used and some, not all, benefits have been monetised.
The benefits are high-level estimates and, while coming from reputable, published sources, do not purport to express cashable savings for the local authority or other agencies.
The model built is a starting point and can be developed over time with the councils’ partners.
Robustness will increase as assumptions can be refined and data is collected and used to analyse the mechanics of the system.
Gaining a better understanding of effective levers to prevent homelessness, along with the skills and resources residing in partner organisations, will lead to a more refined and accurate view of which partners are best placed to operate which levers.
Monitoring, data collection and analysis across the system will be time and capacity well spent, as this will feed into the joint commissioning process and enable a more agile use of combined resources – potentially supporting reallocation of some resource between organisations to relieve pressure points, remove any duplication and get the most benefit out of resources available.
