research and information services · research and information services geoffrey randall and susan...

RESEARCH AND INFORMATION SERVICES

GEOFFREY RANDALL AND SUSAN BROWN23 OCTOBER 2006

Stanley House, 48 Castle Street, Eye, Suffolk, IP23 7AWTelephone & Fax: 01379 870376

E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Contents1 Introduction 2

2 A profile of rough sleepers in Westminster 3

3 The design of BBS 5

4 The implementation of rough sleepers programme 7

5 Summary of conclusions and recommendations 23

Appendix 1 Tables 27

Appendix 2 Research methods 28BBS group meetings 29

References 29

QuotationsExtracts from the service user interviews are quoted verbatim, followed by the interviewee’s gender,age and the type of agency where they were interviewed in the form: [m/36/d]. Assessment centresare abbreviated as ‘a’, day centres as ‘d’, hostels as ‘h’ and street rescue service as ‘s’.

In the case example, the service user’s name has been changed.

Evaluation of Building Based Services and other rough sleeping programmes in Westminster 1

1 Introduction

New programmes to help roughsleepers in Westminster Westminster has always had the highestnumber of rough sleepers of any localauthority area in England: in 2006 they hadaround a third of the national total. It hasproved particularly difficult to secure thesame level of reduction in the numbers ashas been achieved elsewhere.

In July 2005, Westminster City Councilintroduced a new service for people sleepingrough, known as Building Based Services(BBS). The main purpose was to provideservices for rough sleepers inside buildingsrather than on the streets, in the hope thatthis would remove any incentive for people toappear on the streets as rough sleepers inorder to access services.

At the same time, three new services wereintroduced to tackle particular features ofrough sleeping in Westminster:• a Street Rescue Service (SRS) to work

with long term rough sleepers who werenot engaging with services

• reconnection services to help thesubstantial number of newly arrived roughsleepers return to their home areas

• services to help the significant numbers ofrough sleepers from the eight EasternEuropean states which had recently joinedthe EU (known as A8 states) and who hadacquired rights to work in the UK.

The evaluation Westminster City Council commissionedResearch and Information Services to carryout an independent evaluation of these newservices for rough sleepers.

The research consisted of:• analysis of data from regular street

counts of rough sleepers in the area • analysis of data from the database

(CHAIN) of all known rough sleepers • a review of monitoring documents

produced by agencies working with roughsleepers

• interviews with staff in 16 key agencies,including strategic partners and bothmanagement and front line staff in theagencies delivering the new services

• in-depth qualitative interviews with 55service users.

Further details can be found in Appendix 3,Research methods.

Chapter 2 outlines the number and profile ofrough sleepers in Westminster and how thishas changed over recent years.

Chapter 3 describes the design of the BBS.

Chapter 4 examines how BBS and otherrelated services have worked in practice.

Chapter 5 is a summary of conclusions andrecommendations which considers possiblefuture developments in the rough sleepers’services in Westminster.

2 Evaluation of Building Based Services and other rough sleeping programmes in Westminster

2 A profile of roughsleepers inWestminsterThis chapter examines the number of peoplesleeping rough in Westminster and theircharacteristics, drawing on:• the experience of the City Council and

service providers• street counts of the number of rough

sleepers on a particular night • the CHAIN database of all known rough

sleepers • qualitative interviews with 55 rough

sleepers in 2006.

Rough sleeping in Westminster:why are the numbers so high?The City Council and agencies providingservices to rough sleepers have identified anumber of long term features in Westminsterthat have led to continuing high levels ofrough sleeping, including:

• national and international rail and bustermini (particularly Victoria coach station)make Westminster the arrival point for manylow income people coming to London. Arecent example has been the large numberof A8 nationals arriving in the area.

• the magnet effect exerted by large citiesand particularly capital cities.

• a relatively large number of hostel beds,so that in the past homeless people havemoved into the area to access hostelsand stayed for months or years, beforemoving out of the borough into long termaccommodation.

• high quality services provided by daycentres for vulnerable people haveattracted some people to the area,sometimes referred there by agencies in

other areas, including outer London,which did not have these facilities.

• an active drugs market which attractshomeless people who are drug users.

• high levels of street handouts (often knownas soup runs) with over 50 differentservices visiting the borough every month.

How many rough sleepers? A major means of monitoring the number ofrough sleepers in Westminster and otherareas is through street counts on singlenights. The benefits and limitations ofassessing the numbers of people sleepingrough through counts on a single night havebeen examined in detail in the evaluation ofthe Government’s Rough Sleepers Unit (RSU)(Randall and Brown, 1999). In summary, suchcounts represent a snapshot on one night.They miss some people who move in and outof rough sleeping. Single night counts are, ofcourse, subject to some fluctuations overtime. The RSU evaluation concluded thatstreet counts are a valid means of measuringthe relative scale of problems between areasand of changes over time, within acceptablemargins of error. The great majority ofagencies interviewed for that evaluation alsoagreed that single night street counts were auseful and reasonably accurate method ofmeasuring trends over time.

Since November 2001 the number of roughsleepers recorded on Westminster streetcounts has fluctuated around an average of149 (Appendix 1, Table1).

A8 nationals, who have no recourse to publicfunds, are recorded separately because theyare not able to claim benefits until they haveworked continuously for 12 months in the UKand so local services are not able to provideaccommodation for them.


Between June 2005 (just before theintroduction of BBS) and September 2005,the street count (excluding A8 nationals)increased from a relatively low level of 130 to160, above the long term average level. Itstayed at that level over the next six monthsto May 2006. In September 2006, the countwas reduced to the relatively low level of 108.This 30 per cent reduction since May appearsto show the impact of BBS, but there havebeen fluctuations in the past and it is tooearly to be certain that this is a long termoutcome. There were large reductions inWest area (50 per cent) and Central (37 percent) with a small increase since the previouscount in South. It might be that the factorscreating new rough sleeping listed above arestronger in South than in the other areas.

In the September 2006 count, one in six (18people) were new and not recorded onCHAIN. A quarter (27 people) had appearedon two or more Westminster counts. Both thenumbers who were new and those who hadappeared on two or more counts werereduced from the previous year.

For the year April 2005 to March 2006 thenumber of rough sleepers identified byCHAIN was 1859, an increase of 15 per centon 2004/5, which had not shown anysignificant increase on 2003/4. Theproportion of new rough sleepers increasefrom 40 to 48 per cent. However, CHAINnotes that some or all of the increase mightbe due to more efficient identification andrecording of rough sleepers.

Service users’ profileInterviews were carried out with 55 serviceusers who had a history of sleeping rough inWestminster. These were qualitative interviewswith a small sample of rough sleepers, so theinterviewees were not necessarilyrepresentative of all rough sleepers inWestminster. However, they do give an insightinto their needs and experience of services.

All but three had slept rough within the lastsix months and half had done so the nightbefore they were interviewed. Two thirds hada substantial history of sleeping rough, for atleast two years or more, and a third hadslept rough for five years or more. Only sixpeople were relative newcomers, havingbeen on the streets for less than threemonths. This relatively low proportion ofnewcomers is attributable to the fact thatmost of the interviews took place in BBS andhostels, and most new arrivals inWestminster are now offered reconnection totheir home area.

One in five of the sample (11 people) hadfirst slept rough in central London at least tenyears previously and seven of these haddone so 20 or more years ago. However,they had not been sleeping rough throughoutthis time. All had experienced a period ofhousing stability but, for various reasons,had returned to the streets relatively recently.They had gravitated to Westminster becausethey remembered the services and sitesavailable for rough sleepers.

A substantial minority (four in ten) had onlyever slept rough in Westminster. Around athird had also slept rough in other parts ofLondon and a further third had done so indifferent parts of the country or abroad.

While there has been a recent reduction inthe number of rough sleepers, many of thoseremaining on the streets have high supportneeds including mental health, drug andalcohol problems.

There were high levels of support needsamong the service users interviewed. Twothirds (37) reported having at least onesymptom of mental ill health when given aprompt list of possible symptoms. Theseranged from anxiety, panic attacks anddepression to suicidal thoughts, self harm,hallucinations and psychotic illness. Themost common problems were depression


(over half), suicidal thoughts (over a third)and anxiety (just under a third). One fifthdescribed four or more different types ofsymptom. Of those reporting mental healthproblems, a third (11 people) had been in apsychiatric hospital or unit at some stage intheir lives; four out of ten (15 people) werecurrently receiving help for their problems,ranging from seeing a day centre counselloror hostel mental health worker, to longer termpsychiatric help from a mental healthprofessional.

Almost a third of interviewees reportedhaving a current problem with drinking. Onesixth were current drug users and a similarproportion had been problematic users in thepast. Five people were both alcohol anddrug users. These problems were selfreported and so may be underestimates.

Two thirds had experienced living in at leastone form of institution. Half had been inprison or a young offenders’ institution orboth, and a third had been in care.

Among those who reported not having anysupport needs there appeared to be ashared view that they would not be givenpriority for finding accommodation.

3 The design of BBS This chapter outlines the rationale behindBBS and how they were planned to operate.

BBS were introduced in Westminster from July1 2005. They were developed fromrecommendations in a report commissionedby Westminster and the ODPM in 2003(Vantagepoint, 2003). The street counts ofrough sleepers in Westminster had beenreduced by a half since 1998, to 128 inNovember 2002. But numbers had thenstabilised and the target of a two thirdsreduction which had been achieved nationallyhad not been reached, despite Westminsteroperating similar programmes to those thathad been effective in other areas.

The report recommended a two stageapproach. The first stage was thecommissioning of a single provider to operatea Rapid Intervention Team (RIT) which wouldundertake intensive outreach work to reducethe numbers by assertive and persistentintervention. The RIT started work in October2003 by which time the street count hadincreased to 191. This had been reduced downto 130 when they ceased operation in June2005. So they achieved a reduction of a thirdover a 20 month period, but this was still notsufficient to reduce it below the historically lowlevel of early 2003 on which the Vantagepointreport based its recommendations.

The second stage was the commissioning ofBBS. The building based model involvedreplacing street work with rough sleeperswith the provision of services in buildings,usually day centres or night centres, wherethere would be a rapid and assertive needsassessment and support planning for roughsleepers. Most outreach staff would workfrom within the buildings. Instead of detailedcontacts on the streets, rough sleeperswould be “signposted “ into services by avariety of agencies already providing street


services such as the police and CityGuardians. These agencies would alsoprovide intelligence for the BBS on whererough sleepers were located.

There were a number of reasons forintroducing BBS. It was thought that:

• street based services provided for homelesspeople (particularly street handouts, alsoknown as soup runs) could attract peopleonto the streets to receive help

• the current outreach services created aperverse incentive for clients to sleeprough in visible areas so as to contactoutreach staff and access services

• working from a building was safer for staffand meant that resources, such as theCHAIN and Hostels on Line databases,and specialist support workers werereadily accessible

• it would provide certainty on where andwhen they could meet workers andextended opening hours meant theseservices were open for longer

• service users could be treated with moredignity by giving them time and space inday centres, including through specialsessions for people who avoided theusual busy services.

Outreach workers would still have to verify thatservice users were genuine rough sleepers byobserving them bedded down in the streets.

It was intended that the specialist police in theSafer Streets Homelessness Unit (SSHU)would take the lead on street work, identifyingrough sleepers and hotspots and respondingto complaints. The reduced street outreachwork by BBS would work closely with SSHUand consist of:

• responding to reports of vulnerable roughsleepers who would not use BBS

• verifying that service users were roughsleepers

• targeting entrenched rough sleepers whowere unwilling to use BBS

• working with a limited number of namedentrenched and vulnerable individualswho would not engage with BBS andwhere possible escorting them intospecialist sessions,

• tackling “hotspots” – concentrations offour or more rough sleepers

• undertaking street counts.

In addition there would be a specialist StreetRescue Service (SRS) for a limited number ofidentified, long term and entrenched roughsleepers who were not engaging with services.

It has been seen in Chapter 2 that a relativelyhigh proportion of rough sleepers inWestminster are newly arrived in the area.Westminster is one of the highest costhousing markets in the country and has asevere shortage of affordable housing. Thereis no prospect of offering affordable homesto large numbers of newly arrived roughsleepers. It is also usually in their owninterest to access housing and support intheir home communities. Westminsterincreased the emphasis on reconnectionswork to help these newcomers, who are noteligible for BBS or hostel accommodation inWestminster, to return to their home areas.

New arrivals would be informed that serviceswere not available for them in Westminster. Ifthey were vulnerable, they would be offeredhelp to return to their home areas. Tendedicated beds were introduced in LookAhead Victoria Hostel for rough sleepers whocould not return immediately and whoneeded short term accommodation whilearrangements were made. Westminster alsotook the lead in establishing a pan-Londonprotocol for reconnections services.


4 The implementationof rough sleepersprogrammes This chapter examines how the programmewas implemented and developed and theoutcomes of the new services. It examines:• the structure of the new services • signposting of rough sleepers into services• verification of rough sleepers • access to BBS • services provided by BBS• new arrivals• street work, including the work of other

street based agencies• case management• other rough sleepers services • assessment centres and hostels• EU nationals• management of the programmes• performance measurement.

The structure of BBSIt was decided to base the services in threelocalities:

• Central area was based at Connection atSt Martin's Day Centres which had a longhistory of providing services to roughsleepers in London’s West End.

• South area was based at The PassageDay Centre, which was the major facilityfor rough sleepers in the Victoria area.

• West area was based at St Mungo’sRough Sleepers Assessment Centre whichprovide both an office base and a rollingshelter providing short termaccommodation for assessment purposes.

The Street Rescue Service was provided byThames Reach Bondway which had longexperience of outreach work and which hadoperated the Rapid Intervention Team whichpreceded the BBS.

In addition, there was a BBS Co-ordinationUnit based at the Passage and WestminsterCity Council played an active role inmanaging the programme.

The strength of basing services with such wellestablished agencies was that it drew on theirlong experience of the needs of rough sleepersin their areas and of previous attempts to helpthem off the streets. It also meant that existingbuildings and staff could be used.

While all agencies interviewed were fullycommitted to making a success of theprogramme, there were initially varying viewsboth within and between organisations as toits effectiveness. One agency wasenthusiastic and said it had transformed theway they worked for the better, although theprocess had been difficult. Another doubtedwhether it really represented a radical breakfrom previous practice, apart from areduction in outreach work which it regretted.However, there is no evidence that suchscepticism affected the effectiveness of theprogramme and indeed it contributedtowards a continuing critical appraisal of it. Itwas recognised from the start that BBS wasan experimental programme and there wouldneed to be flexibility in its implementation, asthe impact of its changes became apparent.

SignpostingBefore the introduction of BBS there wereconcerns that a reduction in street outreachwork might lead to people continuing to sleeprough because they did not know how toaccess services. To tackle this, it wasenvisaged that agencies working on thestreets, in particular the police and CityGuardians, would signpost people into servicesby giving them information about BBS.

In practice, agencies, including the police,reported that the great majority of peoplesleeping rough already knew, or rapidlyfound out about services and signpostingonly played a very small role.


Over half the service users interviewed hadbeen in contact with the agency where theywere interviewed for at least six months andeight had been either intermittent or regularusers for ten years or more. Most commonly(four in ten), they had first found out aboutthe agency from friends or other people theyknew on the streets, or from an outreachworker (a quarter) before BBS had beenintroduced. A sixth had heard about it, orbeen referred by a day centre. Only threeinterviewees had been introduced to theservice by a police officer since BBS werelaunched and for one of them, it had been awelcome surprise:

[They] could have just moved meon – they didn’t have to tell meabout this place. I thought it wasreally good, it really helped… Theysaid you could get showers, adrop- in centre and [help to find]hostels [m/25/d]

The great majority (47) thought the agencywas easy to find and two thirds had madetheir own way there.

In the three months of January to March2006, there were only seven people who werenot already known to BBS and who weresuccessfully signposted into services by CityGuardians. However, the City Guardians didhave extensive contact with rough sleepersand some other useful functions in theprogramme, which are discussed below.

VerificationAgencies reported that BBS had not affectedthe process of verifying that service userswere genuine rough sleepers, since it was stillnecessary for them to be seen bedded downeither by the Metropolitan Police SSHU or byan outreach worker. All agencies reported

that there was a good exchange ofinformation between agencies. However, theneed for verification meant that one of theoriginal objectives of BBS, that it wouldremove any incentive for people to be seen tosleep rough so as to access services, wasnot in fact achievable. In all service modelsthere is a possible motive for abuse if roughsleeping is seen as a short cut to socialhousing and therefore a need for verificationthat they have been observed sleepingrough. The exception is former roughsleepers registered on CHAIN who havecome out of prison and who can go direct toBBS so that they do not have to return to thestreets. Where BBS are notified in advance ofa prisoner’s release date, they will visit themto ensure they do not return to the streets.

Access to BBSThe agencies interviewed agreed that it wasbest to provide services to rough sleeperswithin a building rather than on the streets,wherever possible. One said that this had inany case always been the objective ofoutreach workers in their agency.

Opening hours varied between services, theywere all open for new users on weekdaymornings and either mornings or afternoons atthe weekend. They were open on weekdayafternoons for support work with existing users.Agencies did not believe that longer openinghours would be necessary or cost effective.

The BBS localities operated different policiesover delaying access to services as a meansof gatekeeping and discouraging new arrivals,possibly reflecting the number and nature ofnew arrivals in the different areas. West areaencouraged new arrivals to find their ownsolutions, or return to their home area, ratherthan providing them with an instant service.Every one who came to the BBS was offereda service in the form of an initial assessmentand general housing advice. It may alsoinvolve reconnection to their home area. If the


client said they were sleeping rough then itwas made clear that the BBS were workingwith many rough sleepers in the area and itcould take a considerable period of timebefore they were able to work with newclients. In practice, this was between three tofive weeks, although they endeavoured not togive a timescale to the client as this mightencourage the expectation that housing wouldbe offered after that time. They made it clearthat if someone had no Westminsterconnection they may not be able to offeraccommodation even then.

If the client had been signposted as someonewho was sleeping rough, or they wereextremely vulnerable, they would attempt toaccess accommodation immediately. The aimwas to provide an assessment for all, but totarget the resources at the most needy, ratherthan provide a housing service on a firstcome, first served basis.

The September 2006 street count found thatonly half (54) of rough sleepers reported theywere using BBS and 51 were confirmed to bedoing so by the agencies. If these figureswere accurate, they suggest there were over50 rough sleepers not using the servicesprovided by BBS, although 14 were SRSclients and another ten had accommodationavailable on the night but were sleeping out.Outreach workers would have been in contactwith most of these people on the streets.

Services provided by BBSBBS provide access to the full range ofsupport services needed by rough sleepersincluding:• comprehensive needs assessments • access to accommodation • health services• mental health services• drug and alcohol services • counselling• help with benefits• employment and training opportunities• other meaningful occupation.

A common, comprehensive needsassessment had been introduced.Examination of a random sample of 30 in allthree BBS indicated they are being usedsuccessfully to identify and meet supportneeds. It was useful to have a history fromthe CHAIN database attached to the casefile, which showed that in some instancespeople had been using local services andentering and leaving hostels for years. Themost frequent gap in the recordedinformation was whether the user was newlyarrived in the area and what action wasbeing taken as a consequence. This issue isexamined below (see New arrivals).

A gap identified by some agencies was insupport for people with common mentalhealth problems such as anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.There is a range of services for people withmental health problems including the GreatChapel Street Medical Centre and the HealthSupport Team, both of which provide primaryhealth care for homeless people and the JointHomelessness Team, which gives priority tosevere and enduring mental health problems,including schizophrenia and bipolar affectivedisorder, also known as manic-depression.Two thirds of service users interviewedreported mental health problems, mostcommonly depression, suicidal thoughts andanxiety. Such mental health problems,especially if they occur in conjunction withdrug and alcohol use or personality disorders,can make it difficult for rough sleepers tosettle unless they are treated.

Consideration might be given to additionalfunding to extend specialist mental healthservices to people with these commonmental health problems.

Just over half of the service users (30)interviewed were in the two BBS day centres.Around a quarter of them (eight people) wererelative newcomers, having first started using


the centre within the previous month. Arounda half had been in contact for up to 18months, if not every day, and a furtherquarter had been long term users, in fivecases, dating back twenty years or more.Four of these, however, had at least oneperiod of housing stability in the interim.

Three quarters (22) of these day centreinterviewees were currently sleeping roughand most of them (14) were looking foraccommodation.

Eight service users interviewed were sleepingrough but not currently interested in help tofind accommodation. Two of these hadextensive histories of sleeping rough and werecontent with their lifestyle, making use of daycentre facilities and street handouts. Anotheruser was also unwilling to consider any formof accommodation until he had job prospects.One man had been on the streets for 16months and was choosing to sleep roughrather than risk claiming benefits, which hefeared might encourage a return to hisgambling habits. Two interviewees wereineligible for accommodation at present and athird was expecting a custodial sentence afterappearing in court the next day. One youngman was planning leave Westminster shortly.

There was only one man who was sleepingrough because he did not want the hostelaccommodation on offer, saying he did notwant to share accommodation with drinkersand drug users. He reported having nosupport needs and felt capable of movingstraight into a tenancy from the streets withlittle or no resettlement support, preferring tosleep rough in the meantime.

All those currently looking for accommodationwere receiving help to find it from the daycentres.

Among other services people were receiving,the most common were help with sorting out

benefits (13 people), problems with ID (12)employment advice (11) and making use oftraining or education facilities (11).

Nine people reported having drink problems,four of whom were getting help from a specialistworker at the day centre and four had also beenreferred to outside specialist agencies for helpwith their drinking. Nine interviewees were drugusers, three of whom had recently been throughdetox, arranged by the day centre. Two wereseeing the centre’s specialist worker and fourwere receiving help from external agencies. Sixday centre users were currently receiving helpwith physical health problems, either at the daycentre or another agency.

Most people (20) found the services they hadreceived either very helpful or fairly helpful. Animportant feature for some was the opportunityfor socialising, which encouraged them to usethe other services provided:

Excellent. They’ve given me choicesof hostels, come to interviews withme, come to court with me whenI’ve had trouble with the police. It’ssomewhere to socialise – they don’tlike you hanging around thestreets… Even when I’m in a hostel,I come here to socialise – all myfriends come here. [m/47/d]

Others felt they had tackled a range ofproblems through the services available:

They got me into accommodation,they’ve kept me off the drugs andalcohol. The computer serviceshave been very useful – I’ve set upan email address, got a CV. I’veapplied for 18 jobs already. [m/31/d]


Those who had been referred to specialistagencies were often especially grateful:

I went to [detox]. It was fantastic.The first time I went there I had togo to meetings – the ‘feelingscheck’ boosted my confidence somuch. They referred me from here.I see a drug worker every day andI’ve gone to AA and NA meetingstwice a day. It’s good to know helpis there when you need it. [m/25/d]

However, a quarter (seven) of the day centreinterviewees appeared to be not engagingwith accommodation or support services butwere simply using them for food, clothing,shower and laundry facilities.

The agency interviews and the needsassessments also indicated that there werestill a significant number of people who wereusing BBS, but were not accepting offers ofaccommodation, or who were moving in andout of hostels without resettling.

New arrivalsIt has been seen that around a third of roughsleepers in Westminster were recent arrivals.Services have increasingly focused onhelping these people to return to their homeareas, rather than to accommodate them inthe borough. This policy is not inherent toBBS, but is common in other areas which actas a magnet for rough sleepers. Westminsterhave actively promoted this work and co-operation between authorities to achievesuccessful reconnections.

The most common reasons service usersgave for coming to Westminster were: theyhad heard about services for rough sleepers,such as day centres, food and other hand

outs (16 people), they did not know whereelse to go (15), they used to live in centralLondon (14) or they just liked it (12).

One interviewee wanted to avoid theprevalence of drug and alcohol use in hishome town and ended up in Westminster :

It was the first stop off the coach. Icame to get away from drink anddrugs and try to get back on my feet.I was hoping to get work. [m31/d]

More commonly, people had heard of thefacilities for people on the streets:

If you’re in Westminster they havea lot of connections. They can helpwith clothes, travel, 2 meals a day,training and accommodation.[m/36/d]

Or simply, that there were known sites forsleeping rough:

I needed somewhere to sleep –there’s nowhere in [my home area]where people sleep rough so Icame to the West End [m/52/d]

Reconnecting people to their home areasformed an important and growing part of thework of BBS, with 224 individuals in April toJune 2006 receiving some help in this way,compared to 204 who were booked intoaccommodation. However, not all of thesewould have moved back to their home area:around 60 per cent had been advised onreturning and 40 per cent had a confirmedmove, typically by the provision of a coachticket. The number helped had increasedsubstantially from 77 in July to September2005, although some of this increase mighthave been due to better recording of this work.


Westminster had taken the lead in producinga draft Reconnections Protocol for roughsleepers in London and DCLG wereconsidering a national protocol. Theprogramme was still in its early stages andcontinuing to develop. However, it seemedfrom interviews with agencies that there wasno clear shared definition of a new or recentarrival between agencies in Westminster, letalone between boroughs. The section on theBBS common assessment form which wasdesigned to identify new arrivals was oftennot completed and some people whoappeared to be new arrivals had noreconnection work recorded on the form.

The draft Reconnections Protocol did notinclude a tight definition of home area,stating that:

“3.1 Home area is not necessarily where aperson originates from, but where theyhave most recently had sustainedattachments to a local community.

3.2 It is not practical to establish a tightdefinition for what constitutes the area towhich someone has most recently had asustained attachment, establishing thisrequires an element of judgement.

3.3 The key criteria in making this judgementare identifying where they have hadstable accommodation or employment,where they have been claiming benefitsor where they have been engaged withhealth, probationary or social services.”

This definition did seem to be open to quitewide differences of interpretation. Forexample, a person might have been claimingbenefits and receiving health services in anarea where they had only been a short time.

As there is no provision for adjudicating ondisputed cases, differences of judgementsbetween authorities could leave some peoplewithout an entitlement to help. There is aprocedure for establishing local connection

under the homelessness legislation whichhas worked well for many years. Onepossibility could be to apply these definitionsand procedures to reconnecting peoplesleeping rough, possibly with someamendments,. However, Westminster CityCouncil believed that a more flexibleinterpretation might be more appropriate tothe complex needs of rough sleepers. Itwould be worth monitoring whether disputesover local connections do arise betweendifferent local authority areas.

Some service users interviewed who mighthave considered a reconnection had notbeen offered the service. Over a third (20people) were willing to consider returning tolive in the area of their last home, althoughmost (two thirds) of these had no definite orimmediate plans to do so. Only four wereactively in the process of arranging to return.One interviewee, who had been sleepingrough in Westminster for less than a week,was returning to his last home later that day,having had his travel costs paid by a BBS:

They’ve been absolutely brilliant. Ican’t praise them enough. I’ve beentrying to get back to [home town]. Iwas trying to get the social fund [topay] but I couldn’t because I’ve nomedical certificate. [m/42/a]

Another was returning the next day, havingalready been helped to return on a previousoccasion. For two people, both in hostels,the arrangements to return and get help withresettlement were more protracted.

Five people were willing to consider returningto their home area but for various reasonswere not ready to do so yet, usuallyassociated with wanting to tackle substanceuse or mental health problems first.

Six people reported they would need helpwith finding accommodation and work if theywere to return, but none of these reportedhaving been offered any help to do so.


Case exampleMichael was willing to move back to hishome area, with support, but had not beenoffered any help. He was aged 49 and hadmoved into a hostel three weeks previously.He had arrived at Victoria Station threemonths before with nowhere to stay, havingbecome severely depressed following abereavement. He left the private rentedtenancy he had held for 10 years:

I walked away from everything a year ago…[after that] I was staying with friends inone city after another, but they soon gotfed up. No-one wants to know you whenyou’re down.

He slept rough in the Victoria area, using thefacilities at various day centres before beingreferred by outreach workers into the hostelfor assessment. Before moving in, he hadstarted seeing a day centre counsellorregularly for his emotional problems and wasalso receiving treatment there for depression.At the hostel he had talked to an employmentand training worker about work and re-training possibilities. However he was unsureabout whether he wanted to move into thehostel’s second stage accommodation:

I don’t know whether to go along withwhat’s on offer here … you are assuredthe minimum to survive here, but youcan’t thrive here. I want to feel strongerand then see my options.

He was finding the counselling helpful andhis physical health was improving aftercoming off the streets:

Every day is better. I only started to eatproperly 10 days ago.

Michael would willingly consider returning tohis former home town where he still hadsocial contacts, but acknowledged he wouldneed help to find work and accommodation:

Yes, it’s constantly on my mind … if Icould find a job and a place to stay ... Iknow a lot of people in the area, but can’trely on them to help me.

However he was also clear he was ready to puthis experience of homelessness behind him:

Some people want to be on the streetsforever. Some people have no alternative.Some people want to move on quickly –I’m one of those.

Interviewees who had left their last homefollowing a relationship breakdown, or familydisputes, or to look for work, were less inclinedto contemplate returning to their home area.One very vulnerable young man, for example,was adamant he would not return because ofthe abusive family relationships he hadexperienced, although he had a girlfriendwhom he saw regularly still living in the area:

I’m never going back there to live.People round there just use me. I goback to see my girlfriend – she liveswith her mum and dad, but I’m notgoing back there, ever. I toldWestminster City Council I’d ratherbe homeless than go back there.They won’t give me accommodationbecause I have no connection withthe area. I’ll probably sleep roughwhen I have to leave [short stayhostel] [m/17/d]

He reported having mental health problems,including depression and suicidal thoughtsbut had not sought help with them.

Some agencies thought that more could bedone on reconnections. For example onemajor hostel reported they had no links withthe reconnection work.


Suggestions for improvements to the systemincluded:• it was more effective to reconnect people

quickly than place them in a hostel andthen try to move them

• hostels should be able to questionreferrals where it appeared a personcould be reconnected to their home area

• all service users and hostel residentscould be reviewed for possiblereconnection and offered the service.

There are already available substantialinformation resources for reconnections workincluding the Homeless UK and HomelessLondon websites, the EmergencyAccommodation Directory and theSupporting People Directory of Services.

However, ensuring that service users haveappropriate accommodation and support toreturn to their home area can involve timeconsuming casework. It also involvesestablishing information on, and workingrelationships with, agencies around thecountry. One agency reported it wasdeveloping its own directory of services. Therewould be duplication of work if this wasundertaken separately by several differentagencies. Expanding the service in the wayssuggested above would certainly involvesignificant extra resources. It would be worthconsidering funding a separate dedicatedreconnections project to which newcomerswould be referred. This would clearly separatethe function of local resettlement fromreconnection to another area. Possible modelsmight be for a Westminster agency or a centralLondon agency covering inner Londonboroughs which wished to participate.

Street work BBS street workThe initial strict limitation on BBS street outreachwork was gradually eased in response to theneed to contact some rough sleepers who werenot coming into the buildings. The emphasis

remained on encouraging rough sleepers intoBBS. Agencies varied in their estimates of howmuch this had affected their operations, withcurrent hours of street work ranging from 50 percent to between 70 and 100 per cent ofprevious levels.

BBS agencies were subsequently given thelead role on street work and enabled todetermine the amount of work necessary, inagreement with Westminster City Council.They took the lead on:• compiling information on individual rough

sleepers in their area• verifying rough sleepers’ status• facilitating communication and joint work

between the various agencies• agreeing actions on hotspot areas• providing a service for vulnerable

entrenched rough sleepers who wereunwilling to use BBS and who were notclients of the Street Rescue Service.

One former rough sleeper described howassertive outreach work had persuaded himto come off the streets:

[Outreach worker] has visited meon a few occasions to give me akick up the backside – to get meto get a move on. I thought aboutmy circumstances – I’m 52 and it’sa bit ridiculous to be sleeping in adoorway. He’s been very good. Ihad doubts about the rollingshelter because of shared rooms,but now I’ve got my own room andit’s very quiet there. [m/52/a]

Street work by BBS was limited to no morethan four sessions a week, although theredid seem to be some flexibility in practice.Despite the increase in assertive street work,several agencies thought that there was a


need for more intensive outreach. Forexample, one agency said that they were stillconcerned that there had been a reduction intheir level of knowledge of individual roughsleepers who were not engaging. It waspointed out that it was not outreach work initself that might sustain rough sleeping, butthe wrong type of street work. Indeed byreducing assertive street work, entrenchedrough sleepers were enabled to use BBSwhile continuing to sleep rough.

A key change under the successful nationalprogramme to reduce rough sleeping was tointroduce a much more assertive andinterventionist approach. Although the modelvaried in different areas, key elements were:• the sole purpose of street outreach teams

was assertive work to persuade and helppeople sleeping rough into accommodation;

• where people sleeping rough hadrecently arrived from another area, theywere offered help with returning to theirhome area;

• agencies tendered for area contracts foroutreach work with a target of a two thirdsreduction in rough sleeping in their areas;

• other local agencies with knowledge ofrough sleepers, including the police, wereinvolved in outreach work;

• there was a case management approachwith entrenched rough sleepers, with actionplans drawn up for individual clients.

Not all of these were implemented in allareas, but the switch to a target-driven,assertive model was central to thesuccessful national two-thirds reduction inthe number of rough sleepers. The sameprinciples were applied in Westminster with aresultant 50 per cent reduction. The possiblereasons why this was lower than the targetset nationally were discussed in Chapter 2.BBS were based on the recognition that adifferent approach might be required.

Agencies interviewed thought that there hadinitially been some confusion over the

different street work roles of police andoutreach workers. The police had sometimestaken on a role more akin to outreachworkers than law enforcers. It was agreedthat these roles had now been clarified andthat outreach workers and police operatedtogether very effectively, especially on jointoperations to deal with rough sleepinghotspots. Enforcement action by the policehelped to strengthen assertive outreach work.However, some agencies thought that therewas still some inconsistency of practice andan absence of agreed definitions about whatwas involved in assertive street work. It mightbe helpful to clarify further the work methodsexpected of outreach staff and the police.

Westminster had a bid with the Home Officefor a team to tackle other street activities. Itwould operate separately from BBS outreachwork, although it would liaise with them.

If the number of rough sleepers does notcontinue to reduce, it might be worthconsidering whether a more assertive andinterventionist style of street work, aimedboth at rough sleeping and other streetactivities, might be introduced.

The PoliceInitial plans had been for the MetropolitanPolice SSHU to take the lead on street work.However, the July 7 bombings at the start ofBBS led to the police being transferred tosecurity duties.

All of the agencies thought that lawenforcement had a role to play in challengingentrenched rough sleeping and encouragingpeople into services. The agencies all saidthat they had very good workingrelationships with the police and that theyhad provided very useful information onindividual rough sleepers. They were seen asessential in managing hotspots of roughsleepers. It was very helpful for the JointHomelessness Team to have specialistpolice who reported on people with possible


mental health problems and participated inMental Health Act assessments on thestreets. The police also played a key role intackling street drinking.

There was a high level of SSHU activity: In thequarter April to June 2006 they made 91arrests, accompanied 32 Mental Health Actassessments, helped 12 people to return toother areas of the UK and 57 A8 nationals toreturn to their home countries. However, it wasreported that courts in Westminster had beenless willing to grant ASBOs than, for example,in some neighbouring areas and that theremight be scope for using them more often.

The service users interviewed generallyaccepted the role of police in relation tostreet homelessness A substantial minority(four in ten) had found the police ‘helpful’ or‘very helpful’. The most common responsewas neutral, usually recognising they had ajob to do. Only five, who had been in troublewith the police, were unreservedly critical.Among those who had positive experiencesof the police, was an interviewee who hadbeen helped into a hostel:

As long as we were tidy, they neverreally bothered us… TheCommunity Police were very goodto us – she practically helped meoff the streets…. I’m still in contact– she often asks how I am. [m/57/h]

and a woman who was currently sleepingrough and felt reassured that the policeregularly checked on her:

They’re quite nice with me, verycaring the community police.They’ve known me for years. Idon’t give them any grief and theydon’t give me any. If they ask me

to move on, I do. They come andcheck on me when I get my headdown. [f/53/d]

Some approved of police action to deal withother street activities:

Every morning they waken you,move you on. They’re OK. They’renot rude. They don’t like seeingpeople drinking on the streets andthey take it off them, which is quiteright. [m/39/d]

The Street Rescue Service (SRS)The SRS worked with vulnerable roughsleepers who were not engaged with BBS.They prioritised people who had three ormore of the following support needs:• vulnerability due to being very young or

old or infirm• at risk due to physical or mental health

problems• chaotic substance misuse• repeatedly appearing on street counts

and are hard to engage• excluded or disengaged from BBS.

The dividing line between SRS and BBSbecame less clear as BBS started to do morestreet work. SRS received fewer referrals fromBBS than initially expected, although extrareferrals from other sources meant theycarried more than their target caseload. Thereappeared to be a lack of clarity about howtheir work fitted in with other services and awidespread view that communicationbetween BBS and the SRS had been poor.SRS were not involved with the Service UserUpdate Meetings (SUUM) which was theforum for joint case management.

SRS were commissioned to work with 60active cases at any one time and started witha core group of 57. Over the year to June


2006 they took on 35 new cases. They had atarget of 39 per cent of sustained moves offthe street with this difficult to help group andachieved 44 per cent with the core groupand 46 per cent with the new referrals.

One interviewee explained how continuingwork with long term rough sleepers can payoff. He had recently moved into hostelaccommodation with the help of the streetteam, after three years’ sleeping rough:

Until 3 months ago I was quitehappy being on the streets – I hadno hassles, stresses all went,everything. [My outreach worker]introduced me to [hostel] I went andlooked and that was it. That’s whereI am now. It was just a spur of themoment thing. I don’t know why ithappened, just like that. [m/48/srs]

City GuardiansThe City Guardians (CGs) are employed byWestminster City Council to patrolneighbourhoods. Their role in relation torough sleeping was seen as:• identifying people sleeping rough • signposting rough sleepers into BBS • providing continuing intelligence on rough

sleepers to BBS and the SSHU• reassuring local residents and businesses

that action was being taken on roughsleeping.

Each CG team had a designated link officerto act as a channel for information on roughsleepers.

It has been seen above that the signpostingrole in practice has been very small, becausethe great majority of rough sleepers alreadyknew about the services available. However,the CGs had a number of other usefulfunctions, they had:

• identified some emerging hotspots ofrough sleeping before the other teamswere aware of them.

• regularly passed on useful informationabout the location of individuals who werebeing targeted by the rough sleepingteams

• helped to gather evidence for potentialASBOs which were agreed as the bestroute for encouraging some roughsleepers into accommodation.

It was reported that the involvement of CGswas most developed in the West area wherethey attended the fortnightly SUUM meetings(see below) and contributed useful anddetailed information on rough sleepingactivity. By contrast, in the South area, it wasreported that their daytime working hoursmeant that they typically encountered streetactivity rather than rough sleeping.

Street handouts and soup runsThere has been concern for several years thatthe large number of soup runs in Westminsterhelps to maintain a street lifestyle and drawspeople out of accommodation and back intostreet culture. Since 2000, Westminster CityCouncil had made several attempts to tacklethis problem, including meeting with soup runproviders and media campaigns to highlightconcerns. The Salvation Army’s Soup andClothing Run Co-ordination Project achieveda reduction of 71 per cent by June 2002, butthis still left 67 groups operating. In January2005, it was estimated that there were around65 soup runs operating in the borough.

A further mapping project by WestminsterCity Council in December 2004 only received12 responses from a request for informationto 65 projects. Eleven projects wereobserved in operation by outreach workersand the SSHU. Average numbers attendingthe three main sites (Victoria, Strand andTemple) were 129 per night, but only 17 percent were either recognised rough sleepersor thought to be sleeping rough. The


remainder of users of the Victoria soup runswere A8 nationals and they arousedconsiderable hostility from other serviceusers. Some A8 users were destitute, withlittle hope of obtaining work, no entitlementto benefits and could not accessaccommodation. It was noted that the usualarguments against soup runs do not carry somuch weight in relation to this group.Westminster was considering attempting toestablish a preferred provider so that thisservice could contribute to, rather than workagainst, reducing rough sleeping.

Case management All the agencies interviewed found that jointwork had been greatly enhanced by thediscussion of individual cases at fortnightlyService User Update Meetings (SUUM). Ameeting of the West area SUUM wasobserved at which all targeted individualswere discussed in detail by the BBS, policeand City Guardians. They also exchangedupdated lists of service users every weekand kept in regular contact on the telephone.They had the discretion to decide onappropriate actions on cases betweenthemselves. By contrast, it was reported thatat the Central SUUM each agency putforward two or three clients at each meetingwho were discussed in detail.

In addition, there were monthly Target andTasking (T&T) meetings attended by BBSmanagers and the Co-ordination Unit, SRS,HARRT and Westminster City Council. Thesereviewed area activity, but again practicevaried in different areas, while the West T&Treceived written reports on individual clientsbut did not discuss them in detail, the CentralT&T examined a number of individual clients.

There are benefits in regularly reviewing allcontinuing rough sleepers and agreeingactions on them, but there appears to besome duplication between SUUM and T&Tmeetings, with different reporting systems foreach. It appears that joint case management

might be most productively implemented atthe frontline level of SUUM where staff havedetailed day to day knowledge of roughsleepers, rather than by managers andWestminster officers at T&T meetings.

Other rough sleepers services The Joint Homelessness Team (JHT)The JHT continued its well established servicefor rough sleepers with mental healthproblems. They specialise in working withpeople who would not present to a mentalhealth service and who are sleeping rough.Team members reach out to people in daycentres and on the street to provide them withmental health care. They work with serviceusers for as long as it takes to get them intotreatment and suitable accommodation. At theend of June 2006 they had 124 service usersof which 24 had a dual diagnosis. There werearound 50 new cases each quarter. The otheragencies thought that the JHT played anessential role in helping the substantialnumber of rough sleepers with severe mentalhealth problems in Westminster.

Homeless Arrest and Reach Out Team(HARRT)HARRT provides an intensive caseworkservice for rough sleepers with histories ofhigh risk offending and include some streetwork in their support activities. They alsowork with people identified for ASBOs andAcceptable Behaviour Agreements. Theirservices were remodelled in April 2006 andduring the quarter to June, they worked with38 rough sleepers and achieved 12 actionsbooking people into accommodation.

Assessment centres and hostels Few staff interviewed thought that there wasa numerical shortage of hostel beds inWestminster, indeed some thought therewere too many. However, there weresometimes shortages of particular types ofaccommodation and difficulties of access.


Assessment centre and rolling shelter Both Passage House assessment beds andthe St Mungo’s rolling shelter provided veryuseful quick access to beds, assessment andmove-on. However, some agencies thoughtthat care was needed about offering too rapidaccess to a bed for people with low needs,especially if they were new arrivals. It wasthought better to make a rapid assessmentand reconnection before they entered therough sleeping accommodation system.

It was recognised that the dormitory beds inthe Passage House assessment centre wereoutdated and that single rooms wouldenable them to help people with higherneeds. However, it had a high success ratein moving people on. In April to June 2006,20 out of 26 leavers (77 per cent) made aplanned move with only two evictions andfour abandonments.

The rolling shelter also had a high successrate with 44 out of 54 leavers (81 per cent) inJanuary to March 2006 making a plannedmove or into hospital detoxification orcustody. There were only four evictions andthree abandonments.

The night centreIn addition to the assessment centre androlling shelter, there was a night centreoperated by Connection at St Martin’s. Itensured there was 24 hour access to a serviceand a stepping stone off the streets, whereusers were assertively encouraged to accessday services and accommodation. It was oftenused for a night or two while reconnectionswere facilitated. They also had five assessmentspaces where the night centre staff assessedpeople’s needs. This work was usually doneby the referral agency, but the night centretook on this role for SSHU referrals.

Hostels While there is a sufficient number of hostelbeds in total, agencies reported that somebeds were occupied by people who did not

need the level of support on offer while, atthe other end of the spectrum, there was ashortage of places for people with very highsupport needs.

For people who do not need support, it wassuggested that direct access to the privaterented sector would be more appropriate,perhaps with some initial limited support tosettle in. The very high cost of housing inWestminster means that access to privaterented homes in other areas will benecessary. The City Council were working ona scheme with Broadway to help hostelresidents access the private rented sector.

Westminster City Council had planned arough sleepers’ pathway through localhostels. It was recognised that some roughsleepers with high support needs can bedifficult to place.

King George’s hostel had given access topeople with high support needs and had agood rate of successful resettlement (seebelow). It had a staff/resident ratio of 1:5 andspecialist beds for drug users and peoplewith mental health problems. They had apolicy of accepting all referrals whereverpossible, with needs assessments done inadvance before a bed was available. Staffwere trained in the necessary support skillsand, unlike some hostels, low staff turnoverenabled them to provide consistency of care.The design of the hostel makes it moresuitable for residents with high needs. It hasa core and cluster design, with selfcontained rooms and no communal areas.Self-catering means a low service chargeand more disposable income for residents.

The lessons of King George’s could usefullybe applied to hostels which do not acceptresidents with such high support needs andwhich have lower resettlement rates.However, the ability to provide these levels ofsupport does depend on a high staffing ratio,as well as the best management practices.


There were reported to be problems with somehostels in placing individuals with very high riskbehaviour including arsonists, sex offendersand some people with personality disorders.

A review of hostel provision for young people inLondon carried out by Westminster CityCouncil and DCLG found that 25 per cent ofresidents said they had slept rough in the past,but only two per cent were verified as roughsleepers. There appears to be no shortage ofpotential beds for young rough sleepers.

Hostels varied in their success at retaining andresettling residents. Taking together plannedmoves, with transfers into detoxification,hospital or custody, hostels with 45 or moreleavers in 2005/06 fell into two groups: KingGeorge’s, Harrow Road and Passage Houseachieved over a half of residents moving on inthese ways, while in Edward Alsop Court andLook Ahead Victoria hostels only around athird of residents made such moves. Both ofthe latter had relatively high levels ofabandonments and Victoria Hostel also had ahigh level of evictions for rent arrears(Appendix 1, Table 2). They were taking actionto reduce evictions and abandonments.

A shortage of move-on accommodation is aserious problem for hostels in Westminster,as in other London boroughs. Look Aheadhostels in Westminster were participating inthe Homeless Link Move on Plans ProtocolProject (MOPP) which was aiming toincrease move-on from hostels andsupported housing. It was testing a protocolfor the development of move-on plansthrough joint work by local authorities andhostel and supported housing providers.Lessons learnt from the project may beapplied to other hostels in Westminster.

Just under half (23) of the service usersinterviewed were currently staying in a hostel,night shelter or rolling shelter. All but two ofthese residents reported having symptoms ofmental ill health, the most common being

depression (17 people) suicidal thoughts (11people) and anxiety (ten people). Half (11people) were currently seeing a mentalhealth professional. A third (7 people)reported having problems with drinking andthree were in contact with a specialist alcoholagency. Five residents were drug users andfour were receiving specialist drugs services.

All but three of those who were interviewed atthe hostel where they were staying hadfound the services provided there as eitherhelpful or very helpful.

EU nationalsWestminster’s location in central London andthe presence of international rail and coachtermini, means that it is the point of arrivalevery day for large numbers of foreignnationals. In the case of EU nationals, theyhave the right to stay and to seek employmentin the UK. It was reported that there had forseveral years been a number of EU and otherforeign nationals among rough sleepers inWestminster with a high proportion of peoplewith mental health problems. It was alsoreported that the numbers of such peopleappeared to be increasing. In April to June2006 the ethnicity of 35 per cent of referrals ofpeople with mental health problems to theJHT was recorded as White Other, nearly ashigh as the White British category (37 percent) and much higher than any other group.By comparison 15 per cent of all roughsleepers recorded on CHAIN were WhiteOther and 57 per cent were White British.

The problem of rough sleeping EU nationalshad been exacerbated by arrivals from the A8states which joined the EU in May 2004.They, too, are allowed to stay and seekemployment in the UK, but cannot claim anypublic funds until they have been inregistered work for at least a year. Thismeans that if they are sleeping rough, theycannot access most hostels for homelesspeople. Between May 2004 and March 2006


nearly 400,000 A8 nationals came to the UK,the vast majority of whom found work andaccommodation (Homeless Link, 2006).However, a small but significant minority havefailed to find work or accommodation and aresleeping rough or in squats. It is feared theseproblems would be exacerbated if citizens ofRomania and Bulgaria have a similar statuswhen they join the EU in 2007.

There has been a concentration of suchproblems in Westminster. It is estimated thatover a year around 300 A8 nationals sleptrough in Westminster. In the September 2006street count, 33 A8 nationals were identified,24 per cent of the total and more than thetotal number of rough sleepers in any otherlocal authority.

From December 2005 to October 2006, over900 individual A8 nationals were recorded asbeing in touch with the three principal daycentres in South Westminster (The Passage,The Connection at St Martin's and RochesterRow). This is likely to be an underestimate ofthe true number. The majority used ThePassage, where they made up 33 per cent ofusers of general day centre services and 40per cent of employment and trainingservices. The largest group were Polish.

An analysis by Westminster City Councilconcluded that the high volume of A8 usershad put serious strains on localhomelessness services to their key clientgroup of rough sleepers. Many of the A8users did not have high support needs.

Westminster City Council secured HomeOffice funding to create a multi-disciplinaryproject team to tackle the problem of roughsleeping by A8 nationals. The teamconsisted of seconded officers from theHome Office’s Immigration and NationalityDirectorate (IND) and Job Centre Plus toidentify and resolve any barriers within theirrespective departments, additional PCSOs tohelp the police’s SSHU and a translator tohelp with casework at The Passage, SSHUand in Job Centres.

Westminster City Council, who were co-ordinating the project, concluded that:

• Since A8 nationals are economic migrantswhose one right is to seek work, JobCentre Plus should be the lead agency anddevelop specialist services for this group.

• There is a need for some short termreception facilities able to offer advice onemployment and accommodation in theUK, with practical assistance with NationalInsurance registration, bank accounts,language skills and small scale help, forexample with travel costs and work clothing.These services should be dispersed andnot concentrated in Westminster. Theyshould also be detached from existinghomelessness services in Westminster, asthey target a fundamentally different clientgroup with different needs.

• There is a need for better information inthe home countries about the practicalitiesand problems of finding work andaccommodation in the UK and practicaladvice on how to tackle these problems.

• Funding should be available for people toreturn home if they have failed to findwork and accommodation and aredestitute. The home countries should playa major role in this and other aspects ofthe proposed programme.

Interviews indicated that there waswidespread agreement over theseconclusions among the different agenciesworking with rough sleepers in Westminster.


Programme management Most agencies thought that BBS had greatlyenhanced joint work between them. Forexample, staff had been exchanged betweenagencies to help with intensive work atparticular times. One practical suggestion forimproving this joint work still further was thateach client should have a single integratedaction plan that would follow them throughtheir pathway off the street and into housing.The common needs assessment forms shouldfacilitate such an information exchange.

The current management structure for theprogramme appeared to be complex, withup to ten different groups meeting regularly.The membership and functions of thesegroups are summarised in Appendix 2. It willbe seen that there appear to be overlapsand duplication between the differentgroups, for example between the ServiceUser Update Meetings and the Task andTargeting meetings and between the SilverGroup, Gold Group and Steering Groups.

In addition to these co-ordinating groups, therewas a BBS co-ordination unit, although it hadno management responsibility and dependedon the co-operation of the individual agencies.The co-ordinator aimed to encourage joint workincluding common training, monitoring,operational procedures, inter-agency servicereviews and minimum service standards. Someagencies thought that there was an overlapbetween these functions and the managementrole of the City Council and the various co-ordinating meetings. Not all agencies wereconvinced that a separate co-ordinationfunction was necessary.

Performance measurement The street counts, CHAIN data and returns toWestminster City Council provide veryeffective performance measurement ofoutcomes of the programme. It has beenseen that the total number of rough sleepersidentified on the streets and of new roughsleepers increased in the year 2005/6.

In 2005/6 CHAIN recorded that 46 per centof rough sleepers had never been bookedinto accommodation by either BBS oroutreach workers, including 109 people whohad had over ten street contacts. During theyear 27 per cent of rough sleepers werebooked into accommodation, compared to35 per cent in the previous year and 39 percent in London as a whole.

However, BBS were only operating for ninemonths of 2005/6 and their performanceimproved substantially during the year.Returns from BBS agencies (which includerough sleepers who might not yet berecorded on CHAIN) show that in the lastquarter, April to June 2006, there were 204people booked into accommodationcompared to 165 people who were bookedin during the same period in 2005 by theprevious Rapid Intervention Team.

It appears that, after a slow start, BBSperformance are improving but, in the contextof increased numbers of new rough sleepers,the improvement only began to show up inthe street count in September 2006.


5 Summary ofconclusions andrecommendations This chapter draws on the experience of thepartner agencies to identify ways in which theBBS programme might sustain the progressit has made in reducing the numbers ofrough sleepers and make further reductions.

Targets A key factor in the success of the nationalprogramme to reduce rough sleeping by twothirds was the existence of an exact numericaltarget within a specific timetable. Partneragencies interviewed did not appear to havesuch a number and date to which they wereworking and it would be helpful if an exacttarget were set and incorporated in contracts.

Precise targets were set for each locality inthe September count and this will berepeated in future counts, ensuring thatagencies are focused on clear outcomes.

Should the BBS model bemaintained?There appears to be broad support for thecore elements of BBS that are based onproviding help and support for roughsleepers in buildings rather than on thestreets. After a slow start it appears to beshowing results, so now would not be thetime for further organisational upheaval.

There is less agreement on what action isnecessary to encourage rough sleepers intobuildings so that they can access services.

The evidence indicates that the signpostingfunction (providing rough sleepers withinformation about BBS) plays a very smallrole, since the great majority are alreadyaware of services and are often using them.This suggests that although signposting

should continue in the small number of caseswhere it is helpful, it need not be regarded asa significant part of the programme and doesnot need to be monitored.

There are still two key gaps in the coverageof BBS:• some rough sleepers are not using BBS,

although they are generally known tooutreach workers

• some people are using BBS, whilecontinuing to sleep rough and engage inother street activities.

For both these groups, more intensive andassertive intervention on the streets might benecessary.

Street workAs the programme developed, it was agreedthat the BBS needed to undertake a limitedamount of street work to encourage someclients into services. The point was made byone agency that it was not street work assuch which encouraged or discouragedpeople from remaining on the streets, but thenature of such work.

Westminster has increased the role ofassertive and interventionist street work inthe programme, which has been shown inother areas to play a key role in encouragingrough sleepers to access accommodationand services. It might be worth consideringfurther expanding this function, which iscurrently more limited than in some otherareas. The emphasis on providing serviceswithin buildings would remain, but becombined with a more interventionistapproach on the streets. There might besome scope for further clarifying what isexpected of outreach staff in implementingan assertive approach, for example on thenumber and nature of contacts with roughsleepers who are resistant to acceptingaccommodation and support and whatmessages are given to them.


There is a strong view among BBS that theyshould also undertake street work to providea seamless service. However, if furtherprogress towards meeting targets is notmaintained, it might be worthwhileconsidering whether such an assertive rolecan be combined with the support providedby the BBS, or whether it would be moreeffectively carried out by a separate team.There might be benefits in a single, borough-wide contract to provide a consistentmessage and impact and to deter roughsleepers moving between localities. Ideallythis team would tackle all street activities andbe combined with the proposed team forwhich Home Office funding is being sought,as they will inevitably be dealing with peoplewho are rough sleepers. It would replace thecurrent street work undertaken by the BBSand SRS and some of the work of the SSHUand City Guardians. There could therefore besome offsetting cost savings. Other possiblesavings on meetings are suggested below.

Support The BBS are undertaking detailed needsassessments of clients and providing a widerange of high quality support, with access toother specialist services when necessary.

The one gap identified was incomprehensive support and treatmentservices for rough sleepers with commonmental health problems such as anxiety anddepression, which can affect their ability toresettle successfully. At present the limitedresources are concentrated mainly on thosewith severe and enduring mental healthproblems. There are some services forothers, but consideration could be given toextending support to the wider group,possibly by expanding one or more of theexisting services. This would requireadditional resources.

ReconnectionThere has been a substantial increase in theamount of reconnections work with newarrivals and this is likely to have had animportant impact on the number of peoplesleeping rough. However, there appear to bediffering and unclear definitions of whatconstitutes a new arrival. This results in aninconsistent service. There is a need tomonitor whether this causes problems inhelping people to move and whether there isa need for a clearer definition.

There would be scope to expand thereconnection service. Some rough sleepersinterviewed, not all new arrivals, wouldconsider a move to another area but had notbeen offered assistance. In addition toreconnecting new arrivals, the possibility ofresettling in another area could be suggestedto all rough sleepers and hostel residents.

Developing knowledge of and links withagencies in other areas is a specialist task.However, apart from the reconnection projectin Victoria Hostel, other staff have limited timeto develop such work. It might in any eventbe inefficient for staff in different agencies todevelop parallel systems. It would be worthconsidering the case for establishing aspecialist reconnection project to which allnew arrivals (in accordance with theReconnections Protocol) and longer termresidents with an interest in moving toanother area would be referred. Building onthe Homeless UK and Homeless Londonwebsites, the Emergency AccommodationDirectory and the Supporting PeopleDirectory of Services, the project could collateinformation on projects nationwide anddevelop arrangements with them for referringclients, so as to ensure the reconnection wassuccessful. It might be worth considering acentral or inner London project jointlycommissioned with other boroughs.


The police and law enforcement The police play a very active role inWestminster’s rough sleeping programmewhich is much appreciated by the otherparticipating agencies. There is support locallyfor the selective and creative use of ASBOs,although it has proved more difficult than insome other areas to obtain these. While notsuggesting that their widespread use is asolution to rough sleeping, it would be worthinvestigating further how ASBOs might bemore successfully used in specific cases.

A8 nationalsThere is wide agreement among Westminsteragencies that local homelessness agenciesshould not normally be involved in providingsupport for A8 nationals, except in short termemergencies or where there is a seriousmental health problem. Alternative proposalshave been made to the Government formeeting the employment and support needsof this group and these could be pursued inalliance with other agencies and localauthorities with similar problems.

HostelsWestminster has a large supply of hostelbeds and there is no evidence of a need foran increase in the total supply. However, it isrecognised that there are difficulties inaccommodating some very high needs orhigh risk people. Westminster is reviewing itscurrent provision as part of the SupportingPeople programme to identify any gapswhich might be filled by the reprovision ofexisting accommodation.

It is also thought that some people in hostelshave low support needs and do not requirethat type of supported accommodation.Rapid access to other accommodation, forexample in the private rented sector, wouldfree up beds for those who do need them.

As in other areas of London, improvementsin move-on opportunities would increase thesupply of vacancies (see below).

Some hostels are more successful than othersat accommodating rough sleepers with highneeds and at helping them to resettle. TheCHAIN reports identify the varying performanceof hostels and Westminster City Council will beworking to bring the performance of all up tothe highest standard. This could have animportant impact on reducing the numbersreturning to the streets.

Move on accommodation Westminster is an area of very high housingcosts and high demand for social housing.Work is in hand to develop schemes to helpwith access to the private rented sector andthere might also be scope to secure access toother types of housing in lower demand areasby further developing the reconnections work.

Management The management and co-ordination structuresfor BBS appear to be complex, with at leastten different groups meeting in addition toWestminster City Council’s management andthe BBS Co-ordination Unit.

A simplified structure might be:• Westminster City Council: commissioning

and contract management, programmeco-ordination.

• Steering Group: an advisory and co-ordinating group attended by WestminsterCity Council and managers from allpartner agencies.

• Task and Targeting meetings: attended bystaff from frontline agencies to co-ordinate integrated plans for area actionsand for every rough sleeper.

A simplified structure would release staff timeto devote to service delivery, including anenhanced street intervention service.


The successful development of joint workbetween the different agencies has been animportant success of the BBS programmeand was thought to be key to the reducedstreet count in September 2006. Service UserUpdate Meetings which regularly agreed co-ordinated actions on each service user werea particularly useful aspect of this joint work.

ConclusionThe BBS and other local rough sleepingprogrammes have achieved improvements injoint work and the support offered to roughsleepers. The September 2006 street countsuggests that these improvements areresulting in reductions in the numbers ofrough sleepers, although further counts willbe necessary over the following months toassess whether this reduction is sustainedand further progress made.

A number of possible further improvementsto the programmes have been identified,including: • more assertive and interventionist street

work • support for people with mental health

problems such as depression, anxietyand personality disorders

• extending the reconnections services• ensuring suitable accommodation and

support is available for some people withvery high needs or who present high risks

• improving move-on opportunities,including into the private rented sector.


Appendix 1 Tables

Table 1 Westminster street counts of rough sleepers 2001/62001 2002 2003

Nov Mar Jun Aug (e) Aug (l) Sept Oct Nov Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Aug Sept Oct Nov

Victoria 32 53 73 50 76 69 57 37 40 49 46 47 41 47 37 91 77 77

West 47 54 50 45 58 42 39 34 49 28 35 38 35 27 22 49 39 44

Central 25 46 44 32 46 63 67 45 29 28 40 21 32 19 25 63 43 51

Central North 16 16 33 18 17 17 23 12 14 11 12 11 14 16 6 13 32 17

Total 120 169 200 145 197 191 186 128 132 116 133 117 122 109 90 216 191 189

2004 2005 2006

Jan Feb Apr Sept Nov Jan Mar Jun Sept Nov Mar Sept

Victoria 98 69 60 60 37 41 60 49 58 60 38 44

West 53 41 47 53 46 49 27 34 36 37 55 27

Central 36 39 45 55 38 26 30 28 35 24 27 37

Central North 27 17 23 25 25 20 16 19 31 35 32

Total 214 166 175 193 146 136 127* 126* 160 156 152 108

+ A8s 24 8 6 4 29 12 31 33

* Total excludes A8s, but their locations are not known, so are included in the figures above the total

Table 2 Reasons for leaving hostel accommodation – selected hostelsREASON FOR LEAVING (NUMBERS)

Accommodation %

ECHG King George’s 12 3 2 5 3 11 27 12 75 44 59

Look Ahead, Victoria 27 6 1 1 3 30 6 28 4 106 39 37

SA Edward Alsop Court 11 10 3 4 2 15 1 46 16 35

St Mungo’s Harrow Road 2 1 15 1 3 23 45 24 53

Passage House 27 3 3 14 8 11 67 133 73 55

All hostels 138 20 1 21 14 57 56 76 400 31 814 465 57


Ab

and

oned

Det

ox

Dea

th

End

of t

ime

limit

Hos

pita

lised

Left

own

acco

rd

Evi

cted

– a

rrea

rs

Evi

cted

– b

ehav

iour

Pla

nned

mov

e

Take

n in

to c

usto

dy

Tota

l

Mov

e to

kno

wn

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Appendix 2

Research methodsThe first stage was a review of internaldocuments from Westminster and partneragencies on the policies and work methodsof the three BBS projects.

Monitoring data from the BBS and otherpartner agencies were reviewed quarterly. Akey source was the database (CHAIN) of allknown rough sleepers operated byBroadway.

Two Target and Tasking meetings and oneService User Update Meeting wereobserved.

There were semi-structured interviews withstaff in 16 partner agencies.

The interviews covered:• The impact of the projects in helping

rough sleepers to move off the streets.• Work methods which have proved most

effective.• The role of specialist work with people

with mental health problems, substanceabuse and multiple needs.

• The impact of different types of serviceprovision and which have proved mostaccessible for rough sleepers.

• Numbers of rough sleepers who are stillrefusing services and why.

• Proposals for more effective work with therough sleepers remaining on the streets.

• Street management policies.• The role of other services, such a day

centres and off street drinking facilities inreducing both rough sleeping and streetliving.

• The connections between rough sleepingand street living, the extent to which theyoverlap and reinforce each other.

• The role of the police in identifying roughsleepers and referring them to helpingservices.

• The role of police enforcement activity inreducing street living and rough sleeping.

• The role of WCC in strategic planning andin supporting agencies.

• Monitoring and evaluation systems.• Proposals for future developments.

There was an analysis of a random sampleof 30 needs assessments to assess:• The range of needs of service users.• How effectively these needs have been

assessed.• The range of services which have been

provided.• The outcomes of these services.

There were in-depth qualitative interviewswith 55 service users covering:• Histories of homelessness and rough

sleeping.• Support needs, including mental health,

drug and alcohol problems.• Why they came to Westminster. • The extent to which their needs have

been met by the projects.• If they have refused the offer of services,

why and what would encourage them totake up services.

• Their future plans.• How services could be improved.

Thirty service user interviewees were daycentre users; 13 were interviewed in hostels; afurther 12 were in contact with the AssessmentCentre and the Street Rescue Team.


BBS group meetings Service User Update Meeting• Fortnightly• Building Based Services (BBS), Safer

Streets Homeless Unit(SSHU), CityGuardians, Safer Neighbourhood Teams,West London Day Centre

• Devises the plans for individuals and areas.

Target and Tasking meetings (West, Southand Central areas)• Monthly. • BBS Managers, BBS Co-ordination unit,

SSHU, Homeless Arrest Reachout Team(HART) manager, Thames Reach BondwayStreet Rescue Service (Westminster)(WSRS)manager, Westminster City Council (WCC)rough sleeping team.

• Overview of BBS performance, areaaction plans, multi count clients, teamactivity etc

Silver Group• Every two weeks• SSHU Inspector, WCC (management

level), BBS Co-ordination unit, Dept forCommunities and Local Government(DCLG)

• Pan-Westminster issues – counts, SSHUpro active operations, SWEPS, mediaissues, ad-hoc problems

Gold Group• Every two months• WCC Director of Housing (Chair), DCLG,

Chief Superintendent (Met Police), Chair ofWCC Drugs Alcohol Action Team (DAAT),Assistant Director Community Protection,Rough Sleeping Manager, SSHU

• High-level Westminster andcommissioning issues.

Steering Group• Every six weeks• BBS Chief Execs / service managers,

Chair of DAAT, Community Protection,Primary Care Trust, Homeless Link, JointHomelessness Team.

• Tends to be more of an information groupfor BBS and other agencies rather than atrue steering group.

Multi-agency meeting• Every six weeks• BBS managers, Hostel managers, WCC

rough sleeping team• More service delivery focused. Sharing of

best practice, identifying gaps in serviceprovision, common problems, forinformation items.

The following meetings do not involveWestminster:

BBS Managers meeting• Fortnightly• Heads of BBS teams• Co-ordination, operational leadership

Hostel Managers meeting• Every six weeks• To co-ordinate hostel and BBS policies /

activities

Consortium meeting• Bi-monthly• BBS Chief Executives• Strategic overview meeting

BBS Peer meetings• BBS front-line staff meetings to share

best practice, discuss issues

References Homeless Link (2006) A8 nationals in Londonhomelessness servicesRandall, G. and Brown, S. (2002) Helpingrough sleepers off the streets, ODPM, Vantagepoint (2003) Street outreach servicesreview


Westminster City Hall, 64 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QP

Main Switchboard 020 7641 6000 www,westminster.gov.uk

research and information services · research and information services geoffrey randall and susan...

Documents