1 / 14

Choice, Quality & Equity

Choice, Quality & Equity. Homeless households’ experiences of accessing private rented accommodation through a rent deposit guarantee scheme. Ross Morris, PhD student University of Glasgow. Background. Recent legislative changes Housing (Scotland) Act 2001

kristy
Download Presentation

Choice, Quality & Equity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Choice, Quality & Equity Homeless households’ experiences of accessing private rented accommodation through a rent deposit guarantee scheme Ross Morris, PhD student University of Glasgow

  2. Background • Recent legislative changes • Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 • Greater LA responsibility for strategic planning of homelessness provision • Rights of both priority and non-priority households extended • Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003 • Phased abolition of priority need by 2012

  3. Applications to local authorities under the Homeless Persons legislation Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 Scottish Government (2011)

  4. Why private involvement? • First, the need to respond to trends of increased demand and reducing supply; • Utilising stock in the PRS • Secondly, part of a wider trend towards privatisation of welfare; • Private sector seen as offering a greater degree of choice, quality and equity for service users • However, could equally lead to restriction of rights through reduced public provision, as well as inequity and reductions in service quality

  5. Research aims • To consider the extent to which the private rented sector improves homeless households’; • Choice • Property, location, tenure • Quality • Meets basic needs? How accommodation compares to other accommodation known to participants. • Equity • Housing, financial and social needs

  6. Methodology • Focus • Households entering PRS through rent deposit guarantee scheme • Sampling • Purposive, non-probability sample through one local organisation • Qualitative interviews • 11 interviews • 30-45 minute interviews (in theory!) • Mostly in participants’ homes

  7. Findings - Choice • Improvements in choice • Accessing sought-after/desirable locations • Improves choice in social rented sector • Limitations to choice • Landlords refusing LHA tenants • LHA and affordability • Difficulty accessing alternative accommodation

  8. “When you get through the hostels and things [...] you only get one option of where you want to go, and you’re more likely to get put back into streets and places that are not great. [...] So private let at least allows me to be on the housing list. It may take me a longer period before I can get somewhere, but at least I can situate where I want to go really, and can try to stay clear of those areas”.

  9. Findings - Quality • Quality of accommodation • Properties meet housing needs • Generally compares well with other properties known to participants • Most tenants satisfied with location • Issues with quality • Size of property • Modernisation required • Central (rather than residential) location

  10. Findings - Equity • Housing needs • Satisfaction with landlord/letting agent & services provided • Perceptions of PRS generally positive, however; • Some concerns about security of tenure • Property not viewed as “their own” • Stopgap? • Housing aspirations?

  11. Findings - Equity • Financial needs • Most participants “better off” or “about the same” • Rent covered by LHA for most participants • Employment • Property location – mostly positive impact on this, but; • Limited employment options in area? • Accommodation costs make taking up employment difficult

  12. Findings – Equity • Social needs • Location • Proximity to amenities, friends, family etc • Relationships with neighbours • Generally felt “part of things” • Small number noted feelings of isolation

  13. Conclusions • Considerable opportunities, however; • Choice must be real • Competition between providers • Longer-term needs

  14. Ross Morris r.morris.1@research.gla.ac.uk 0141 330 4615

More Related