A house, not a home? Examining the use of the private rented sector to resolve homelessness in Scotland

Changes to homelessness legislation in post-devolution Scotland have resulted in an expansion of rights for homeless households seeking formal assistance from local authorities. These changes have led to Scotland’s homelessness arrangements being considered among the most progressive in Europe. In recent years, however, the Scottish Government has increasingly promoted homelessness prevention and Housing Options approaches as a means by which homelessness might be avoided or resolved without recourse to statutory rights. As part of that, they have promoted greater use of the private rented sector (PRS) as a key housing option, with the potential to meet the needs of homeless households. The arguments made to support use of the PRS have much in common with arguments for privatisation in other areas of social policy, notably greater choice for the individual promoting better welfare outcomes, and competition among providers encouraging improvements in quality of service provision. Critics have argued that such benefits may not be realised and that, on the contrary, privatisation may lead to exclusion or act to worsen households’ outcomes. This thesis considers the extent to which the PRS has been utilised in Scotland to accommodate homeless households, and the consequences of this for their welfare. The thesis uses a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. To examine trends in the use of the PRS, it presents quantitative analysis of the data on the operation of the statutory system and Housing Options arrangements, and of data from a survey of local authority homelessness strategy officers. To examine the consequences of this for homeless households, the thesis uses qualitative research involving face-to-face interviews with 35 homeless households across three local authority areas. This research considers the extent to which households’ experiences of homelessness, housing need and the PRS reflect the arguments presented in the literature, and how settled accommodation has impacted on households’ ability to participate fully in society. The research found an increasing but still limited role for the PRS in resolving statutory homelessness in Scotland, with indications that the PRS is being increasingly used as part of the Housing Options approach and as a means of resolving homelessness outside the statutory system. The PRS is being utilised to varying degrees across different local authority areas, and a variety of methods are being used to do so. While local authorities saw clear advantages to making greater use of the sector, a number of significant barriers including affordability, available stock and landlord preferences - made this difficult in practice. Research with previously homeless households in the PRS similarly found broadly positive experiences and views of the sector, particularly with regard to enabling households to access good quality accommodation in desirable areas of their choosing, with many households highlighting improvements relating to social inclusion and participation. Nevertheless, concerns around the security of tenure offered by the sector, repairs, service standards and unequal power relations between landlord and tenant persisted. As such, homeless households frequently expressed their decision to enter the sector in terms of a trade-off between choice and security.

The impact of social housing on health in Glasgow and Baltimore, 1930-1980

This dissertation seeks to discern the impact of social housing on public health in the cities of Glasgow, Scotland and Baltimore, Maryland in the twentieth century. Additionally, this dissertation seeks to compare the impact of social housing policy implementation in both cities, to determine the efficacy of social housing as a tool of public health betterment. This is accomplished through the exposition and evaluation of the housing and health trends of both cities over the course of the latter half of the twentieth century. Both the cities of Glasgow and Baltimore had long struggled with both overcrowded slum districts and relatively unhealthy populations. Early commentators had noticed the connection between insanitary housing and poor health, and sought a solution to both of these problems. Beginning in the 1940s, housing reform advocates (self-dubbed ‘housers') pressed for the development of social housing, or municipally-controlled housing for low-income persons, to alleviate the problems of overcrowded slum dwellings in both cities. The impetus for social housing was twofold: to provide affordable housing to low-income persons and to provide housing that would facilitate healthy lives for tenants. Whether social housing achieved these goals is the crux of this dissertation. In the immediate years following the Second World War, social housing was built en masse in both cities. Social housing provided a reprieve from slum housing for both working-class Glaswegians and Baltimoreans. In Baltimore specifically, social housing provided accommodation for the city’s Black residents, who found it difficult to occupy housing in White neighbourhoods. As the years progressed, social housing developments in both cities faced unexpected problems. In Glasgow, stable tenant flight (including both middle class and skilled artisan workers)+ resulted in a concentration of poverty in the city’s housing schemes, and in Baltimore, a flight of White tenants of all income levels created a new kind of state subsidized segregated housing stock. The implementation of high-rise tower blocks in both cities, once heralded as a symbol of housing modernity, also faced increased scrutiny in the 1960s and 1970s. During the period of 1940-1980, before policy makers in the United States began to eschew social housing for subsidized private housing vouchers and community based housing associations had truly taken off in Britain, public health professionals conducted academic studies of the impact of social housing tenancy on health. Their findings provide the evidence used to assess the second objective of social housing provision, as outlined above. Put simply, while social housing units were undoubtedly better equipped than slum dwellings in both cities, the public health investigations into the impact of rehousing slum dwellers into social housing revealed that social housing was not a panacea for each city’s social and public health problems.