We will extend investment into coordinated rough sleeping services and ensure tailored support to meet individual needs, including through the £500 million RSI 2022-5 and the £10 million Night Shelter Transformation Fund to increase provision of quality single room provision within the night shelter sector.
We will provide significant investment in drug and alcohol treatment to support people experiencing rough sleeping and improve mental health provision.
Achievements
The Night Shelter Transformation fund was welcomed. It has sustained and improved a previously under-resourced key route off the streets for many people. There is however a shortage of suitable sites, and some concern about how risk is held in night shelter partnerships.
The Accommodation for Ex-Offenders funding has also worked well, and the provision of support has helped develop relationships with landlords.
RSI funding has helped improve the quantity, quality and consistency of street outreach work (particularly at night).
There has been an improvement in joint working with many examples cited including work with probation, social care, mental health and between local authorities and voluntary sector partners. In some areas this approach has been facilitated by the use of ‘navigators’ who can help build an effective service offer around an individual with complex needs.
Manchester Street Engagement Hub was mentioned as a particular good practice example.
Still to do
While there are many examples of good practice, implementation can still be patchy, and is generally dependent on good local authority support.
There is inconsistency in approach. Sometimes a good multi-agency response to people sleeping rough is not sustained as people move away from the streets (mental health services were cited as an example).
There is a shortage of accommodation – particularly long-term accommodation) for people with complex needs (including care needs).
A combination of supply issues, LHA and the benefits cap mean that the private rented sector is increasingly unaffordable for people claiming benefits. This puts pressure on temporary accommodation because people are unable to move on. The group suggested that local rent caps or a LHA+ approach should be investigated as possible solutions.
It can be difficult to access substance misuse services until accommodation is secured. It can also be difficult for people with limited recourse to access substance misuse treatment. This can be a barrier to ending their rough sleeping.
We will build on our ‘exhaust all options’ approach to work with non-UK nationals sleeping rough to make sure those who have restricted eligibility for public funds have a clear pathway off the streets.
Achievements
The replacement of the Home Office Rough Sleepers Support Service (RSSS) with the Homelessness Escalation Service (HES) was welcomed, and participants noted the prompt and solution focused approach of the HES.
Good practice included the GLA, Homeless Migrants Advisory Panel, bringing together a range of agencies, the GLA, DLHUC and the Home Office. This provided a forum for information sharing and problem solving. The Greater Manchester Restricted Eligibility Service provided a full range of services and was seen as effective in providing alternatives to rough sleeping. Voluntary night shelters were significant in providing access to accommodation and subsequently to support for this group.
Still to do
Lack of consistent information and availability of good quality advice and legal aid for this group was noted, as was a lack of information in appropriate languages. It was also noted that local authority responses were not consistent, and that staff often lacked knowledge, this and a shortage of resources meant that services were variable, and sometime non-existent. This led to people spending longer on the street than as necessary.
There is a specific current risk associated with accelerated decision making for asylum seekers (a positive decision means that people lose their accommodation in 28 days and there is little effective support to find other options).
The group also noted that political rhetoric and media reporting around this group made the work of tackling rough sleeping more difficult.
We will provide local authorities, police and other agencies with the tools they need to work effectively together to address rough sleeping, protect the public and make communities safe for all
Achievements
Good practice examples where non-residential services are bringing together enforcement and services (Housing, Health, Substance Use treatment, benefits). This gave positive alternatives to ‘moving on’ people sleeping rough and an opportunity to develop a joined-up offer for people with complex needs.
Still to do
Some discomfort with the language. There was a lack of clarity about the repeal of the Vagrancy Act and what comes next, particularly concern that rough sleeping is potentially being identified as anti-social behaviour in itself, and a sense that the public needed to be protected from people sleeping rough.
We will make it easier for the public to play their part in supporting people sleeping rough
Achievements
Recommissioning of Street Link.
Good practice examples included the development of local Charters, aimed at the public and business. These provided an opportunity to communicate what was being done, to challenge unhelpful myths, and to build support for action. It was felt that local night shelters (and other volunteering options) were a good way of involving members of the public in positive solutions to rough sleeping.
Still to do
Some concern about the replacement of Street Link and communication about this. This has since been addressed, although the group felt that there is a need for telephone as well as digital access to this, and that it was important that the new service was well promoted to the public and to the range of organisations and individuals that may use it.
It was felt there was still some way to go on the integration of services to people who are rough sleeping. This affects health and substance misuse services, but also different agencies involved in providing accommodation and support. This affects the ability to provide an integrated response – different organisations tend to respond to their own partial data.
Participants weren’t aware of the rail industry best practice referred to in the strategy.