Survey of Needs and Provision Services for Homeless Single People and Couples in England
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 5
2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...... 5 2.1 Day centres ...... 5 2.2 Accommodation services...... 5 2.3 Clients ...... 6 2.4 Support services ...... 6
3. BACKGROUND...... 7 3.1 Current sources of data about services ...... 7 3.1.1 Supporting People national directory of services and client data ...... 7 3.1.2 Homeless UK ...... 8
4. SCOPE OF RESEARCH ...... 8
5. METHODOLOGY ...... 9 5.1. Homeless UK ...... 9 5.2. Supporting People ...... 9 5.3. Survey ...... 9 5.3.1 Questionnaire ...... 9 5.3.2 Sampling ...... 10 5.4 Summary ...... 11
6. DAY CENTRES ...... 11 6.1 Definition...... 11 6.2 Number of services ...... 11 6.3 Geographical location ...... 12 6.4 Area served ...... 12 6.5 Providers of day centre services ...... 12 6.6 Year established ...... 12 6.7 Physical environment ...... 13 6.7.1 Ownership and management of building ...... 13 6.7.2. State of buildings and refurbishment plans ...... 13 6.8 Target group ...... 13 6.8.1 Gender ...... 13 6.8.2 Age ...... 14 6.8.3 Ethnic origin ...... 14 6.8.4 Sexual orientation ...... 15 6.8.5 Sex workers ...... 15 6.8.6 People with dogs ...... 15 6.8.7 Client support needs ...... 15 6.9 Capacity and maximum number of users ...... 16 6.10 Average number of daily users ...... 17 6.11 Access and referrals ...... 17 6.12 Wheelchair access...... 17 6.13 Opening hours ...... 17 6.14 Food ...... 18 6.15 Facilities and practical help ...... 18 6.15.1 Adapted toilets and showers ...... 18 6.15.2 Other facilities ...... 18 6.16 Support services ...... 18 6.16.1 Substance misuse and support services ...... 19 6.16.2 Mental health support services ...... 19 6.16.3 Physical health services ...... 19 6.16.4 Advice services ...... 20 6.16.5 Meaningful occupation ...... 20 6.16.6 Education and training ...... 20
1 6.17 Staffing and volunteers ...... 20 6.18 Funding of day centre services...... 21 6.19 Summary ...... 21
7. HOSTELS AND SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION ...... 22 7.1 Direct access hostels ...... 22 7.1.1 Definition ...... 22 7.1.2 Number of hostels ...... 23 7.1.3 Geographical location ...... 23 7.1.4 Local connection ...... 23 7.1.5 Hostel providers ...... 24 7.1.6 Ownership and management of building ...... 24 7.1.7 Size...... 24 7.1.8 Target groups ...... 25 7.1.8.1 Gender ...... 25 7.1.8.2 Age ...... 25 7.1.8.3 Ethnic origin ...... 25 7.1.8.4 Sexual orientation ...... 26 7.1.8.5 Couples ...... 26 7.1.8.6 People with dogs ...... 26 7.1.8.7 Client support needs ...... 26 7.1.8.8 Exclusions ...... 27 7.1.9 Access ...... 27 7.1.9.1 Referrals ...... 27 7.1.9.2 Waiting lists ...... 28 7.1.9.3 Vacancies ...... 28 7.1.10 Length of stay...... 28 7.1.11 Facilities ...... 28 7.1.11.1 Single and shared rooms ...... 28 7.1.11.2 Furnishings ...... 30 7.1.11.3 Catering facilities and food ...... 30 7.1.11.4 Wheelchair access ...... 30 7.1.11.5 Physical environment ...... 30 7.1.12 Resident access and visitors ...... 31 7.1.12.1 Resident access ...... 31 7.1.12.2 Visitors...... 31 7.1.13 Support: details from Homeless UK ...... 31 7.1.14. Support services reported in the telephone survey ...... 31 7.1.14.1 Substance misuse...... 31 7.1.14.2 Mental health ...... 32 7.1.14.3 Physical health services ...... 32 7.1.14.4 Advice services ...... 32 7.1.14.5 Meaningful activities ...... 33 7.1.14.6 Education and training ...... 33 7.1.14.7 Resettlement related services ...... 33 7.1.15 Funding of direct access hostels ...... 33 7.1.16 Summary ...... 34 7.2 Second stage supported accommodation ...... 35 7.2.1 Definition ...... 35 7.2.2 Number of services ...... 35 7.2.3 Estimated total second stage provision ...... 36 7.2.4 Ownership and management of building ...... 36 7.2.5 Target groups ...... 36 7.2.5.1 Gender ...... 36 7.2.5.2 Age ...... 36 7.2.5.3 Ethnic origin ...... 37 7.2.5.4 Couples ...... 37 7.2.5.5 Support needs ...... 38 7.2.6 Foyers ...... 39 7.2.7 Referrals ...... 39
2 7.2.8 Waiting lists ...... 39 7.2.9 Facilities ...... 39 7.2.9.1 Single and shared rooms ...... 39 7.2.9.2 Physical environment ...... 39 7.2.10 Catering ...... 40 7.2.11 Support services reported in telephone survey...... 40 7.2.11.1 Substance misuse...... 40 7.2.11.2 Mental health ...... 40 7.2.11.3 Physical health services ...... 40 7.2.11.4 Advice services ...... 40 7.2.11.5 Meaningful occupation ...... 40 7.2.11.6 Education and training ...... 41 7.2.11.7 Resettlement related services ...... 41 7.2.12 Funding ...... 41 7.2.13 Summary ...... 42 7.3 Supporting People funded accommodation with support ...... 42 7.3.1 Definitions ...... 42 7.3.1.1 Client group ...... 42 7.3.1.2 Accommodation type ...... 43 7.3.1.3 Services and household units...... 43 7.3.2 Numbers of household units, services and providers by region ...... 43 7.3.3 Primary client groups ...... 44 7.3.4 Secondary client groups ...... 44 7.3.5 Accommodation type ...... 46 7.3.6 Size of services ...... 46 7.3.7 Size of providers ...... 47 7.3.8 Provider organisation types ...... 48 7.3.9 Household types ...... 48 7.3.10 Length of stay/duration of support ...... 48 7.3.11 Self referrals ...... 49 7.3.12 Emergency referrals ...... 49 7.3.13 Summary ...... 50 7.4 Supporting People data on throughput of clients and move-on ...... 50 7.4.1 Throughput of clients ...... 51 7.4.1.1 Clients in SP services ...... 51 7.4.1.2. Supporting People client record data ...... 52 7.4.2 Move on from Supported People funded services ...... 53 7.4.2.1 Move On Plans Protocol (MOPP) ...... 54 7.4.4 Summary ...... 55 7.5 Supported lodgings ...... 55 7.6 Floating support ...... 56
8. SURVEY FINDINGS – OVERVIEW OF HOMELESSNESS PROJECTS ...... 56 8.1 Client backgrounds and support needs ...... 56 8.1.1 Client background: Age and gender ...... 56 8.1.2 Client background: Institutional background ...... 57 8.1.3. Client background: Diversity ...... 58 8.1.4 Client background: Other ...... 59 8.1.5. Support needs ...... 60 8.2 Support services ...... 61 8.2.1 Definitions used...... 62 8.2.2 Overview of support services ...... 63 8.2.3 Specific areas of support ...... 66 8.2.3.1 Substance misuse...... 66 8.2.3.2 Mental health support ...... 66 8.2.3.3 Physical health services ...... 67 8.2.3.4 Advice services ...... 68 8.2.3.5 Meaningful activities ...... 68 8.2.3.6 Learning and skills ...... 69 8.2.3.7 Resettlement support ...... 70
3 8.3 Premises ...... 70 8.3.1 Purpose built buildings, ownership and management ...... 70 8.3.2 Last refurbishment and current shortcomings ...... 70 8.3.3 Refurbishment plans ...... 72 8.3.4 Skills and experience to organise and manage building contract ...... 74 8.4 Funding ...... 74 8.5 Summary ...... 76
9. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 77 9.1 Introduction ...... 77 9.2 Data matters...... 77 9.3 Facilities ...... 78 9.4 Prevention ...... 78 9.5 Support ...... 79
11. APPENDICES...... 81 Appendix 1: Regional breakdown of homelessness provision in comparison to population ...... 81 Appendix 2: Day centres and direct access hostel provision by local authority where based ...... 83 Appendix 3: Numbers of household units in ‘Homeless Hostel, B&B or other Temporary Accommodation’, ‘Supported Housing (shared or self contained)’ or ‘Foyer for Young People’ accommodation for all Supporting People primary client groups ordered by all secondary client groups ...... 86 Appendix 4: Numbers of Supporting People services that have Single homeless with support needs, Rough sleepers or Young people at risk as Secondary client group but not as Primary client group ...... 90 Appendix 5: A table showing the primary client groups of schemes that have a secondary client group of Single homeless with support needs, Rough sleeper or Young people at risk ...... 91 Appendix 6: Other primary/secondary client groups ...... 92 Appendix 6: Other primary/secondary client groups ...... 92 Appendix 7: Number of Supporting People funded household units by organisation type ...... 94 Appendix 8: Household types for Supporting People funded services by region ...... 95 Appendix 9: Permanent accommodation ...... 96 Appendix 10: Throughput estimation, breakdown by region, primary client group and type of service ...... 97 Appendix 11: Primary client groups recorded on the SP client record forms by region ...... 102 Appendix 12: SP move-on figures from KPI 2 by region, primary client group and type of service ...... 103 Appendix 13: Research on homelessness services ...... 107 Appendix 14: Telephone Interview Schedule ...... 109
4 1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings of a research project carried out by Homeless Link and Resource Information Service (RIS). The research, funded by Communities and Local Government (CLG) and CRASH 1, provides the first clear picture of the extent and nature of key services for homeless single people and couples without dependent children in England, by compiling data from three sources. It analyses existing data about hostels, supported accommodation and day centres from both RIS’s CLG-funded Homeless UK database and the national Supporting People database, and gathers additional information from a survey of service providers.
2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The research consisted of three main elements:
• Analysis of data about hostels and supported accommodation from the Supporting People (SP) provider database 2 and basic information from SP client records. • Analysis of data about day centres, direct access hostels and second stage supported accommodation from Homeless UK. • A telephone survey of a sample of 151 day centres, hostels and second stage supported accommodation providers on Homeless UK, to gather more detailed information about clients served and their needs, services provided, standards of buildings and sources of funding.
The summary of findings here pulls together some of the key findings of this research. More detail is provided throughout this report and in a separate summary document, which is available on the websites of Homeless Link, www.homeless.org.uk and RIS, www.ris.org.uk .
2.1 Day centres
Day centres provide shelter, a space to socialise, advice and support for homeless people or those at risk of homelessness, including practical help such as food and washing facilities. In an average day, the 187 day centres in England work with 10,000 people. Although London is by far the biggest region in terms of numbers of provision, there are day centres in all regions and most larger cities. There are 171 day centre providers, which are, with a few exceptions, small, local organisations. Day centres rely heavily on volunteers and charitable fundraising, which is the primary funding stream for 48% of projects. Day centres are less likely to be purpose built, own their buildings and more likely than accommodation providers to report that their premises have some or severe shortcomings.
2.2 Accommodation services
Accommodation services are the backbone of homelessness provision, and projects range from temporary night shelters to specialist supported accommodation. They are vital in supporting people to prepare for independent living. Neither of the two datasets in our study could independently provide a complete picture of homelessness services, and the differences in the data collection between the two make them difficult to combine. However, taken together, they show that there are at least 50,000 beds accommodating homeless people in England. 246 projects, or just under 9,000 bed spaces, are classified as direct access hostels3.Although there are direct access hostels in all the English regions, 54 upper tier, unitary and metropolitan authorities do not have this provision based in their area.
1 CRASH is the property and construction industry charity for the homeless. www.crash.org.uk 2 Supporting People data covers England. 3 Direct access hostels are short stay emergency services aimed at rough sleepers or those in need of immediate accommodation that usually have 24 hour staffing, frequent vacancies, no or limited waiting lists and can often accept self referrals.
5 The survey found that 93% of accommodation providers were in receipt of SP funding and for 86% it was their primary funding stream. This illustrates how important this funding stream is to supporting homeless people. By extrapolation this suggests that 7% of accommodation projects, or 8% of bedspaces available are not funded by Supporting People.
Nationally, 57% of moves from Supporting People funded accommodation in 2006-07 were planned and 43% were not planned and may have resulted from evictions or abandonment. The proportion of people who moved on in a planned way was higher in services classified as supported accommodation and foyers 4 for young people, than in homeless hostels, B&B and temporary accommodation.
2.3 Clients
It is difficult to get a full picture of the numbers of people that access homelessness services from the information currently available – for example, many day centres only collect data on the number of visits that they receive, rather than the number of individuals that access their services. Homeless people may also access more than one homelessness service either as they move through resettlement pathways, or because of cycles of eviction and abandonment. There is a great deal of overlap between different data sets, including official statistics. Individuals accessing SP funded accommodation, could also have been accepted as homeless by local authorities, been counted during street counts and be accessing the support available in day centres. We can therefore not add the different datasets together to get an overall figure of homeless individuals.
Over 2006/07 Performance indicator data shows that there were an estimated 118,500 episodes of households accessing SP funded accommodation services aimed primarily at Rough Sleepers, Single Homeless People with Support Needs and Young People at Risk during 2006-075. Client record data, which is recorded separately from SP provider data, shows that at least 40% of all new SP clients were Young people at risk, Single homeless or Rough sleepers 6.
The survey findings showed that homelessness services work with some of the most vulnerable and socially excluded Substance misuse, mental health problems and offending behaviours are common among people accessing all the homelessness services surveyed. In addition, people often present with more than one support need. Around half of projects estimated that over 50% of the people they see have multiple needs 7. Two thirds of day centres believed that this was the case.
2.4 Support services
Support services for homeless people were available both within projects themselves and by referral to external agencies. In some projects, services were not only delivered by their own staff, but other organisations support clients within projects.
Advice was the most universally available support in both day centres and accommodation based projects. Over 90% of all projects surveyed had benefits, housing and debt/financial advice available to them. These were also the most likely services to be delivered in-house and by projects’ own staff. Except for advice services, the most likely services to be delivered in-house, whether by external agencies or projects’ own staff, were resettlement/move-on support, life skills (e.g. cooking or budgeting), sports, arts and cultural activities. All of these were available in-house in over half of projects.
Over 80% of projects stated that they could access GPs, legal advice, talking therapies and alcohol and drug services (both structured treatments and harm minimisation). Although these were available in-house in some projects, they were much more commonly accessed by referring to external agencies. Employment related training was less commonly available. 55% of agencies had
4 Foyers integrate accommodation for young people with training, job search, personal support and motivation. 5 Based on Supporting People indicator data and not allowing for double counting of individuals who may have accessing a service more than once 6 Based on the primary client group allocated to individuals in the Supporting People client record data 7 Multiple needs was defined as three or more of the support needs highlighted in section 8.1.5
6 accredited courses (e.g. NVQs) and 62% had into-work training available, such as building skills, and an even lower percentage of services had these in-house. Into-work training was less available in day centres but three quarters of second stage accommodation projects did have into-work training available.
3. BACKGROUND
There are hundreds of hostels and day centres for homeless people across England, including both emergency direct access hostels and second stage supported accommodation projects. These services vary greatly in terms of size, facilities, services provided and needs of client groups served. Government, policy makers, charitable funders and third sector agencies need access to accurate knowledge about the current state of provision, emergent issues and patterns in support needs. This is vital to be able to make informed policy and funding decisions, plan service developments and track improvements.
Much has been achieved in homelessness over recent years; rough sleeping has been reduced, the quality of some hostels have improved, local homelessness strategies exist and are now being reviewed in all local authority areas and Supporting People funding has been introduced. And yet little overall information on the extent and nature of services for homeless people across England has been analysed and published.
CLG are in the final year of the three-year, £90 million Hostels Capital Improvement Programme (HCIP) 8, which has been addressing the need to improve hostels, day centres and other provision. By providing significant funding, the programme aims to create “places of change”, to significantly improve quality and provide better opportunities for people who have experienced homelessness and prevent them becoming homeless again. CLG announced a new round of “Places of Change” capital funding for homelessness services in November 2007, which will invest a further £70 million in the sector from April 2008 9. Initiatives such as this require access to good data about services to help assess impact and also ascertain the percentage of services that could benefit from future support.
The aim of this research is to help improve the abilities of central, regional and local government, charitable funders and the third sector to respond to the needs of homeless people and to provide clear and well-respected data on the sector. Furthermore, it aims to provide baseline data, which, if repeated, will provide robust data contributing to understanding of the impact of policies and approaches such as HCIP on the sector.
3.1 Current sources of data about services
This research will add significantly to the research and information about day centres, hostels and other services for homeless people in England. Existing information tends to be limited in scope, focused on particular types of services, and services in London. A brief summary of key existing research is available in Appendix 13.
There are two major sources of information about homelessness services in England: Supporting People (SP) and Homeless UK. Analysis of SP client record data has been conducted and is available to access online. However, SP provider data and Homeless UK have until now not been fully analysed and published around specifically around homelessness services.
3.1.1 Supporting People national directory of services and client data
The introduction of Supporting People has radically transformed funding of accommodation and support services for many client groups and led to the collection of a wealth of data which was previously unknown. Supporting People funds housing-related support services that complement
8 ODPM (2005) Hostels Capital Improvement Programme (HCIP) - Policy Briefing 12. Communities and Local Government. 9 More details about the Places of Change programme are available on the CLG website: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/applicationguidance
7 existing care services. It is a national funding programme administered at a local level by local authorities. The grant conditions for SP state that an authority should “ensure fair and open access to appropriate and strategically relevant Supporting People services, and … shall not take account of whether an applicant has a local connection to the area covered by the authority.” 10 CLG collates SP data from local authorities across England. The data is broken down into three key datasets:
• Supporting People provider data - data about services is collected and based on contracts with service providers. Quality and standards relating to provision are also outlined in the Supported People programme’s quality assessment framework. • Client Record forms 11 - quarterly information is also collected on numbers of new clients taking up services using client record forms completed by service providers. This data has been collected since 2003. • Supporting People outcomes framework 12 - in May 2007, providers also started monitoring outcomes using a national outcomes framework. In time this will give detailed data about move-on and outcomes for clients but is not yet extensive or robust enough to be analysed.
This study has focused on analysing the first Supporting People provider dataset, and includes some limited information from the Client Record data.
3.1.2 Homeless UK
CLG funds RIS to research and publish detailed information about homelessness services, including hostels and day centres, on the Homeless UK website13 . This system aims to help improve referrals and access to these services and provide a picture of current supply of services. Compiling Homeless UK entries is ongoing and coverage of all second stage accommodation is in the process of being completed.
Homeless UK already has full coverage of certain types of services - day centres, emergency hostels, foyers – as well as all types of hostels and accommodation provision in some cities, counties and regions. Homeless UK also includes coverage of the relatively small number of accommodation services not funded by Supporting People. The survey conducted as part of this project suggests that 7% of accommodation projects, or 8% of bedspaces, available receive no Supporting People funding.
4. SCOPE OF RESEARCH
This research project involved analysing and gathering data about three key types of services for homeless single people and couples without dependant children:
• Day centres • Direct access hostels • Second stage supported accommodation 14
A brief analysis of floating support and supported lodgings schemes funded by Supporting People was also part of the project.
10 Full details of the SP grant conditions are available at: http://www.spkweb.org.uk/Subjects/Legal_Framework/Grant_conditions__directions_and_statutory_guidance/ 11 Reports and data on client records is available at: www.spclientrecord.org.uk and includes information about each client, the service they are receiving and how they were referred 12 Outcomes data is available alongside client record data online at: http://ggsrv-cold.st-andrews.ac.uk/spclientrecord/webdata/ 13 www.homelessuk.org 14 Second stage supported accommodation projects provide longer-term accommodation for homeless people, often to those moving on from “first stage” direct access hostels. These projects usually have waiting lists, less frequent vacancies than direct access hostels, and are less likely to accept self referrals. This research focused primarily on temporary accommodation where length of stay is 2 years or less.
8 Service provision for homeless families with children was not included in the scope of this research project. These services tend to be rather different from provision for people without dependant children. Also outside the scope of this research were refuge services for women escaping domestic violence.
The services included in the study are by no means the only ones that support homeless people in England. Rent deposit schemes, mediation services, advice, outreach, resettlement and tenancy support are but a few of the projects that help people with a history of homelessness. Because of limitations in this project’s scope and resources, and restrictions in available data, these services were not included in this study, but could be incorporated into follow up studies in the future.
5. METHODOLOGY
The research analyses two existing datasets: Homeless UK and Supporting People databases. Each of these have their own coverage of services, using particular definitions, classifications, codings, and fields of data about service provision. It is therefore not possible to completely match the two datasets, without manually going through entries. However, analysing them alongside each other gives us a greater understanding of provision than was previously available. A survey of 151 agencies across England was also carried out.
5.1. Homeless UK
Established in 2005, Homeless UK gives details of 8,500 services that can help homeless people and those at risk of homelessness. Some of these services are specifically for homeless people and some (e.g. Citizen Advice Bureaux, Jobcentres) are for the general public or other client groups. Entries for services are grouped principally by referral access points, provider, type of service (e.g. day centres, direct access hostels), target group and level of support. The standard set of codings and definitions used for services enable users of the system to readily identify direct access hostels, second stage supported accommodation and day centres.
5.2. Supporting People
A range of data is collected on Supporting People funded hostels and supported accommodation projects. CLG collates data about services from local authorities and publishes the Supporting People Directory website 15 . Although Supporting People classifies services in various ways, it is not possible to separate out direct access hostels and second stage supported accommodation. Supporting People specifically funds housing related support, thus this dataset does not include day centres or most other non-accommodation based support services (although some floating support services may be commissioned under SP to provide services in day centres).
5.3. Survey
To complement the analysis of the existing datasets a telephone survey was conducted with a sample of 151 service providers recorded on Homeless UK. Homeless Link commissioned Vision Twenty One, a social research company, to conduct the interviews and asked them to contact project managers sampled from the Homeless UK database.
5.3.1 Questionnaire
The questionnaire was not only designed to give us a better idea of the provision currently available. It was also intended to provide a potential baseline for comparing changes in service provision and the clients accessing homelessness services over time. The survey explored the characteristics of clients
15 www.spdirectory.org.uk
9 accessing services, the full range of services offered to clients and the physical environment services operate in. A copy of the final questionnaire is attached in Appendix 14. To ensure a good response rate:
• Telephone interviews, as opposed to a self-completion questionnaire, were used and this also helped to ensure a more representative sample of responses. • The interviews were short, generally 10-15 minutes so as not to take up too much of the respondents’ time. • The survey was aimed at project managers (whether day centres or accommodation services) and not the overall director for an organisation, and was designed to enable managers to respond without having to refer to their records. • Project managers were not asked to provide exact figures on the clients accessing their service, but rather to give indications of the proportions of individuals that they saw. This also helped reduce the interview length and enable the interview to happen without requiring detailed follow up information.
Collecting detailed figures on individual clients was not within the remit of this survey as the aim was to gather more general data that could be used to reflect trends. As respondents were asked to estimate the proportion of clients over the past month that came from specific backgrounds/groups or presented with specific support needs, we will not be able to extrapolate exact numbers of individuals from a specific background or with a particular support need from this survey. If the survey is repeated, however, it will be possible to compare the information collected and identify trends within services – i.e. if more women or BME clients are accessing services or if the proportions of clients with alcohol problems or multiple needs have increased.
5.3.2 Sampling
Of the total number of day centres, direct access hostels and second stage accommodation projects which currently have entries on Homeless UK, 14% are day centres, 19% are direct access hostels and 67% are second stage projects. However, Vision Twenty One was asked to interview a higher proportion of day centres and direct access hostels to get a large enough sample to analyse these services separately. Thus, 40 (27%) of the responses came from day centres, 40 (27%) from direct access hostels and 71 (47%) from second stage supported accommodation. The responses roughly corresponded to the regional distribution of the projects on Homeless UK.
There were a total of 151 responses to the survey. Response rates were high, with only seven refusals to participate and ten unreachable services (wrong or disconnected numbers). A breakdown of the respondents by region and type of project is provided below.
Table 1: Breakdown of services responding by region and service type Type of project Day Direct Access Second Stage Region Centres Hostel Accommodation Total East Midlands 4 (10%) 5 (13%) 5 (7%) 14 (9%) East of England 4 (10%) 2 (5%) 8 (11%) 14 (9%) London 7 (18%) 3 (8%) 24 (34%) 34 (23%) North East 4 (10%) 3 (8%) 5 (7%) 12 (8%) North West 9 (23%) 6 (15%) 6 (8%) 21 (14%) South East 5 (13%) 6 (15%) 6 (8%) 17 (11%) South West 4 (10%) 7 (18%) 4 (6%) 15 (10%) West Midlands 1 (3%) 5 (13%) 5 (7%) 11 (7%) Yorkshire and the Humber 2 (5%) 3 (8%) 8 (11%) 13 (9%) Total 40 (100%) 40 (100%) 71 (100%) 151 (100%)
Several homelessness agencies in the sample deliver more than one service and often day centres, direct access and second stage supported accommodation are delivered from the same site or managed by the same managers. To ensure that responses reflected the specific service types identified in this report, respondents were asked to specify what type of projects they were
10 responsible for or had in-house. If more than one service was delivered, they were asked to choose the one they were most familiar with to provide responses for.
5.4 Summary
Three main data sources were used for this research and, although there is overlap between the sources of data, they are not fully compatible. Data in the two main datasets, Homeless UK and Supporting People provider records, are collated for different purposes. Homeless UK is a referral database with more detailed information, which seeks to incorporate all services for homeless people on a project basis. However, the research of second stage accommodation for Homeless UK has not yet been fully completed. SP provider data, on the other hand, is contract based and is limited to those services that receive SP funding. Finally, the telephone survey is based on a relatively limited sample of projects from the Homeless UK database. The findings are broadly representative, but it should be borne in mind that the sample was drawn from a dataset, which has not yet been fully researched and that a limited number of projects were interviewed.
This report pulls together information from all three sources. Whilst there is a great deal of overlap, some discrepancies between different datasets remain. It is therefore important to remain aware of the sources of individual pieces of information when interpreting the data.
6. DAY CENTRES
6.1 Definition
The definition of day centres used here are projects that meet all or most of the following criteria:
• provide services primarily for single people and couples who are homeless, insecurely housed or in temporary accommodation; • are building based services that provide shelter and some space to socialise; • provide food/drinks and practical help, e.g. showers, clothing or laundry facilities; • provide advice and support services, including e.g. around substance misuse, health, mental health, employment and recreational activities; • are open at least three hours a week.
Day centre data contained in this section is derived from the Homeless UK database and the telephone survey. Supporting People data focuses on housing related support, and does not generally cover day centres.
6.2 Number of services
There are 187 day centres for single homeless people and couples in England.
Table 2: Regional breakdown of day centre provision from Homeless UK Region Number Percentage East Midlands 20 11% East of England 13 7% London 49 26% North East 6 3% North West 19 10% South East 31 17% South West 24 13% West Midlands 13 7% Yorkshire and the Humber 12 6% England 187 100%
11 6.3 Geographical location
The number of day centres varies quite widely from region to region: from six (3% of provision) based in North East of England to 49 (26%) in London. There is some correlation between the population size and number of day centres in the regions. For example, the two regions with the largest populations, London and the South East, also have the largest number of day centres. The region with the smallest population (North East England) also has the lowest number of day centres - see Appendix 1 for a comparison of population size of region with provision of day centres.
Compared to the population size there are also proportionally more day centres in the South West and East Midlands. However, it should be noted that in some areas there may be more services because provision is more specialised, projects are smaller with less capacity, or they target different client groups. Other characteristics of regions (e.g. extent of urban and rural areas) are also likely to influence the extent of day centres and other service provision for homeless people.
Most cities in England have at least one day centre for homeless people and the larger cities outside London often have between two to five services. See Appendix 2 for a table of the number of day centres and direct access hostels by local authority.
6.4 Area served
Most day centres serve the city or town where they are based, or an even more specific district or area. Others serve surrounding areas or counties too, and some serve even larger geographical areas or a region. A few day centres (12 or 6%) stipulate that users must have a local connection to the area they serve.
6.5 Providers of day centre services
Most day centres are provided by individual local charities and voluntary organisations that run a single day centre service. However, some services also provide hostel accommodation or other services for homeless people or those in need of support.
• In England, there are 171 organisations that provide day centre services. • Five of these organisations provide two or three day centres in a particular region. • The only national provider of day centre services is the Salvation Army, which runs ten day centres across England.
6.6 Year established
Of the 172 day centres services where the date established is known, over half (98 or 57%) have been established since 1990.
Table 3: Period when day centre services were established Date established No. of day centres % of day centres Since 2000 14 7% 1990s 84 45% 1980s 41 22% 1970s 20 11% Prior to 1970s 13 7% Not known 15 8% England 187 100%
12 6.7 Physical environment
The telephone survey sought to explore the state of the premises that day centres operate out of and how buildings are managed.
6.7.1 Ownership and management of building
Day centres are significantly less likely to own the building they operate out of compared to accommodation providers, with only eleven out of 40 owning their own building. Of the 29 day centres where an external organisation own the building, 15 are the managing agent of the property.
6.7.2. State of buildings and refurbishment plans
The survey found that:
• 20% of day centres are purpose built which is significantly lower than the proportion of accommodation providers that were purpose built. 16 • 25% of day centres (ten) have not been refurbished for over ten years or were operating out of an old building that had never been refurbished. • 60% of day centres (24) are looking to refurbish, but only a third (8) of them have already organised funding for the refurbishment. o Eight are planning a minor upgrade o Five are planning to add additional facilities o Nine are planning major refurbishment o One is moving to purpose built facilities o One is planning to move site • Out of those eight that have organised funding o three are using their own resources o three are receiving funding from CLG o one is reliant on charitable fundraising o one is receiving funding from the Drug Action Team (DAT ) • Three day centres that operate in old buildings that have never been renovated are looking to refurbish them. There were no new-build day centres included in the survey, but nine of the day centres with buildings that have been refurbished in the last two years did also currently have further refurbishment plans.
6.8 Target group
Most day centres describe their target client group as homeless people, and those who are inadequately housed, in hostels or other temporary accommodation. However, some also provide services to a more general client group of vulnerable, disadvantaged, unemployed, lonely or isolated people and the local community. A few specifically include street drinkers or people with alcohol, drug or mental health problems in their target group.
A few day centres provide all their services for particular client groups e.g. homeless young people or women. Others include in their target group and/or have specific support for particular groups (e.g. sex workers, Irish people or refugees).
6.8.1 Gender
There are just two day centres, both in London, that are specifically for women. A further nine day centres (5%) provide women only sessions.
Most day centres in the survey have a higher proportion of men than of women as clients - only eight (20%) stated that 50% or more of their clients are women. None of these eight have specialist
16 2 Significance was measured by Chi-Squared ( χ =12.753, df=2,p<0.01). 58% of direct access and 48% of second stage accommodation providers were purpose built.
13 workers or services targeted at women, however, five day centres with a smaller proportion of women do.
6.8.2 Age
Most day centres (160 or 86%) are for adults of all age groups. One service in Birmingham is only for clients aged 45 and over. 19 day centres (10%) are specifically for young people only (usually aged 16-25). This mirrored the findings of the survey, as four of the 40 (10%) day centres surveyed reported that a majority of their clients are young people.
99 day centres (53%) can accept 16 year olds, and eight day centres (4%) have a minimum age of 17. Nine day centres (5%) have a minimum age of 25 or 26. Most day centres (147 or 79%) have no maximum age for clients.
For the 138 day centres where the average age of clients is known, the average age is 35.
Table 4: Average age of clients in day centres Average age of clients No. of day centres % of day centres 19 and under 7 4% 20-29 18 10% 30-39 59 32% 40-49 50 27% 50-59 3 2% 60+ 1 1% Not known 49 26% England 187 100%
These figures were also mirrored in the survey where the data suggests that centres see clients from all age ranges. Nine out of ten day centres said that they saw at least some clients between 16-25 years of age and almost as many said that they had at least some clients over the age of 50.
6.8.3 Ethnic origin
Day centres will accept people from all ethnic groups, but seven (4%) specifically include people from black and minority ethnic (BME) groups, asylum seekers or refugees in their target group and/or provide specific sessions or support for them. There are no specialist services for refugees, asylum seekers or Eastern European migrants, or BME groups provided by the day centres sampled for the survey.
In the telephone survey, four day centres (10%) said that over half of their clients come from a BME background and over 80% had at least some BME clients. Three out of five day centres reported that at least some of their clients are asylum seekers or refugees. Over 70% of day centres saw at least some Eastern European migrants. This mirrors Homeless Link’s 2006 London research which found that over three quarters of day centres, night shelters and outreach teams saw A8 nationals (people from eight countries that acceded to the European Union in 2004). 17 The prevalence of this group in homelessness services is a relatively recent phenomenon, since accession in 2004. Homeless Link’s research identified a range of barriers to working with this client group. Given that our sample is drawn from across England this may be indicative that this is now an emergent issue outside of London too.
17 Homeless Link (2006) A8 nationals in London homelessness services , Homeless Link: London
14 Chart 1: Ethnic origin of clients in day centres surveyed
BME
Refugees
Asylum seekers
Client Client group . Eastern European migrants
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of day centres in telephone survey
Over 75% of clients 50-74% of clients 25-49% of clients 1-25% of clients None of our clients Don't know
6.8.4 Sexual orientation
In the telephone survey, just under half of day centres (45%) reported that 1-25% of their clients are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered (LGBT). However, almost as many reported that they did not know whether their clients are LGBT, suggesting that this data is not systematically collected from clients.
6.8.5 Sex workers
Seven day centres target or have developed specific support for sex workers. In the telephone survey just under half of day centres reported that they had at least some clients who were sex workers, and one project reported that between 50-74% of their clients were sex workers.
6.8.6 People with dogs
62 day centres (33%) allow people to bring dogs into the centre, although some have certain restrictions, for example, on total number of clients allowed with dogs at any one time, dogs only allowed at the discretion of staff, or that dogs must be tied up in the centre’s garden or other outdoor area.
6.8.7 Client support needs
Two thirds of the day centres participating in the telephone survey reported that over 50% of clients have multiple needs (three or more of the listed support needs). 60% of day centres reported a majority of clients with benefit problems. 90% of day centres reported that they have at least some clients with drug, alcohol and/or mental health problems.
15 Chart 2: Issues and support needs of clients accessing day centers
Multiple needs
Benefit problems
Offending behaviour
Drug problems
Debt problems
Alcohol problems
Mental health problems
Challenging behaviour
Physical health problems Borderline learning difficulties
Personality disorders
Gambling problems
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of day centres surveyed
Over 75% of clients 50-74% of clients 25-49% of clients 1-25% of clients None of our clients Don't know
6.9 Capacity and maximum number of users
Day centres vary widely in size and the number of users they are able to serve. Of the 133 day centres where the maximum number of users allowed at any one time is known. The number varies from six to 200 users. On average the maximum number of users at any one time is 55 people.
Table 5: Maximum number of service users in day centres Maximum no. of users No. of day centres % of day centres 10 or less 2 2% 11-19 10 8% 20-39 39 29% 40-59 31 23% 60-79 18 14% 80-99 11 8% 100-120 17 13% 150+ 5 4% TOTAL 133 100%
16 6.10 Average number of daily users
For the 183 day centres where average number of users is known, two thirds see a daily average of between 20 and 59 users a day. In total, day centres across England serve an average of 9,919 users a day. There are a few large day centres that serve a substantial number of users every day: 23 day centres (13%) see a total average of 3,266 users (33% of users) per day.
Table 6: Average daily number of users in day centres Average daily no. of users No. of day centres % of day centres 10 or less 10 5% 11-19 10 5% 20-39 53 29% 40-59 48 26% 60-79 28 15% 80-99 11 6% 100-149 13 7% 150+ 10 5% TOTAL 183 100%
6.11 Access and referrals
By their nature, almost all the day centres offer drop-in services. However, for five projects, initial contact is by phone, and a further two projects are accessible by agency referral only. Some day centres also offer specialist sessions available by appointment/referral only.
6.12 Wheelchair access
Just over half of day centres (100 or 53%) have full wheelchair access. This mirrors the result of the telephone survey where just under half of respondents reported access restrictions as a shortcoming in the building they operated out of.
6.13 Opening hours
Most day centres (146 or 78%) are open five days a week or more. Of these, 31 day centres (17%) are open daily. 13 day centres (7%) are open just one or two days a week.
Table 7: Number of days a week day centres open Days open per week No. of day centres % of day centres 1 5 3% 2 8 4% 3 12 6% 4 16 9% 5 88 47% 6 27 14% 7 31 17% Total in England 187 100%
72 day centres (38%) are open some time over the weekend, usually in addition to being open during the week. Of these, 17 offer services on Saturdays, 19 offer services on Sundays, and 36 offer services on both Saturdays and Sundays.
Opening times vary widely. Some day centres are only open for one or two hours a day or just offer morning, lunchtime, afternoon or evening sessions. Others are open for longer hours during the day and/or offer evening sessions.
17 6.14 Food
Except for two services where no information was supplied, all day centres provide meals and/or tea and coffee for users. 119 day centres provide these free of charge whilst 68 day centres make a small charge for meals and/or drinks. 12 day centres have kitchen facilities for the use of clients or that can be used for cooking classes/with help from staff.
Table 8: Meals provided in day centres Food No. of day centres % of day centres Breakfast 87 47% Lunch 130 70% Evening meal 26 14% Tea and coffee 142 76% Coffee bar 94 50% Kitchen / cooking facilities 12 6%
6.15 Facilities and practical help
Some day centres only offer basic facilities whilst others provide several key facilities that give practical help.
Table 9: Facilities and practical help available to clients in day centres Facility No. of day centres % of day centres Clothing 148 79% Showers 147 79% Laundry 131 70% Storage 51 27% Furniture store 19 10%
6.15.1 Adapted toilets and showers
116 day centres (62%) have toilets adapted for people with disabilities. Of the 147 day centres that have shower facilities, 38 (20%) have showers adapted for people with disabilities.
6.15.2 Other facilities
Day centres have a range of other facilities for clients such as lounges, TVs or quiet rooms. 65% of them offer computers/internet access, and some provide a telephone or library for clients to use.
Table 10: Other facilities available to clients in day centres Facility No. of day centres % of day centres Lounge 136 73% Quiet room 58 31% TV 90 48% Internet access / computers 121 65% Phone 137 73% Library 50 27%
6.16 Support services
Most day centres provide a range of support, either in-house or by referral to external services, but some only offer basic advice and information. Some types of support (e.g. around employment and training) are less generally available than others. Advice services are the most common support services in-house. More specialised support, such as substance misuse and mental health services,
18 are generally available by referral, but, in addition to providing housing, benefits and/or financial advice, over half of the day centres surveyed have arts and cultural projects, life skills, and IT services or computer skills training available in-house, whether delivered by their own staff or an external agency coming into the project to run services.
Out of the 29 support services we covered in our survey, on average, day centres have seven different services delivered in-house by their own staff, three services delivered in-house by external agencies and nine services available by referral to external agencies.
6.16.1 Substance misuse and support services
Almost all day centres (180 or 96%) do not allow alcohol on the premises and some also stipulate that users must be completely sober or “sober enough to engage with support”. Just seven day centres allow alcohol to be consumed on the premises. These are wet centres or have “wet areas” or “wet sessions”, where clients, often street drinkers and other people with alcohol problems, are able to drink alcohol.
In our telephone survey of 40 day centres:
• 40% said that over half of their clients have drug or alcohol problems. • Drug and alcohol services are generally available to day centres by referral to an external agency that deliver this support. However, where in-house services are available, harm minimisation services are more common in-house than structured treatments. • Both structured treatment and harm minimisation services are available to those 16 day centres where over 50% of clients have drug/alcohol problems, and to ten of the eleven day centres where 25-49% of clients have drug/alcohol problems. • Although, 20% day centres say that no drug or alcohol services are available to them, they were generally those with a small proportion of clients with drug or alcohol problems.
6.16.2 Mental health support services
In the 40 day centres surveyed:
• Mental health services are generally less available than substance misuse services, but the proportion of clients with mental health needs are lower than the proportion of clients with substance misuse problems. • Mental health services are most commonly accessed by referral to an external agency, yet twelve centres have talking therapies available in-house, six have mediation or relationship counselling in-house and three have anger management courses. • Of the nine day centres surveyed where over 50% of clients have mental health problems, seven have access to talking therapies, five have access to anger management courses, and seven to mediation or relationship counselling. In all cases this is by referral to an external agency. • In the 28 day centres where at least some clients have mental health problems, ten do not have access to talking therapies, 14 do not have access to anger management courses and 13 do not have access to mediation or relationship counselling. • Other mental health services mentioned by respondents include support groups (in two services), ‘general discussion and talking with staff’ and ‘signposting’.
6.16.3 Physical health services
The vast majority of day centres in our telephone survey stated that at least some of their clients have physical health problems and in 11 projects a majority of clients did.
• Almost half (19) of the day centres in our telephone survey have nursing services available in-house and seven day centres have an in-house GP service. • However, one quarter of agencies said that nursing services are not available to them (in- house or by referral) and one third do not have access to a GP.
19 • Over half of day centres have access to alternative therapies and 11 day centres have these available in-house. • The health services least available are dental care and opticians/eye care. Where they are available it is, in all but a few cases, by referral. Two day centres have dental care and two have opticians/eye care in-house delivered by an external agency. • Three of the eleven services where over half of clients had physical health problems do not have nursing care available and four do not have GP services available.
6.16.4 Advice services
Out of the 40 day centres surveyed:
• The vast majority of day centres have housing (35 projects or 88%), benefits (34 projects or 85%) and debt/financial advice (32 projects or 80%) services. These are usually provided by their own staff, confirming that this is one of the key functions of day centre services. • Legal advice however, is generally available by referral to an external agency. This is unsurprising given the qualifications required to give legal advice. 28 projects or 70% reported having this support available either by referral or in-house.
6.16.5 Meaningful occupation
Among the day centres in the telephone survey:
• Meaningful occupation activities are available in a smaller proportion of day centres than the practical support of advice, substance misuse, talking therapies, GP services and nursing care. • Nevertheless, three out of five centres have arts and cultural projects available and just under half have sports and gardening activities. Meaningful occupation activities tend to be available and delivered in-house by day centres’ own staff. • A few day centres have purpose built facilities for the delivery of meaningful occupation activities. In our sample, five have facilities for gardening, three for sports activities and six for arts and cultural activities.
6.16.6 Education and training
The survey showed that a range of education and training opportunities can be available in day centres. However, the focus of services provided is on basic skills such as life skills, computer training and literacy and numeracy, rather than accredited or into-work courses.
• Around 70% of day centres have IT services/computer skills training and life skills courses, such as budgeting or cooking available services and these services are most likely to be delivered in house by day centres’ own staff. • 28% of day centres (11) have access to accredited courses (e.g. NVQ) and, where they are available, it is most often by referral to an external agency. • Into work training is available for clients in 38% of day centres (15), although only 25% (10) have in-house training. • Those day centres that reported that more than 25% of clients are refugees, asylum seekers or Eastern European migrants, also have literacy and numeracy courses available. • 13% of day centres (five) have purpose built facilities - likely to be training rooms - for literacy/numeracy courses and two had facilities for accredited courses.
6.17 Staffing and volunteers
Day centres vary greatly in the numbers of full time and part time staff and volunteers that they have. Some only have one or two staff whilst others employ over 30 full time staff, plus part time staff/sessional workers. Variations in the current data, for example, lack of differentiation between full time and part time staff, preclude full statistics on staffing levels.
20
The data does show clearly, however, the extent to which day centres rely on volunteers - 154 day centres (82%) have one or more volunteers to help run their services and activities. 16 day centres (9%) have no paid staff and are run solely by between 4-80 volunteers - 27 volunteers on average.
6.18 Funding of day centre services
The survey showed that day centres are more reliant on charitable fundraising for funding than accommodation providers are. This is a funding stream for 38 out of 40 day centres in the telephone survey and for 19 (50%) of these services, this is their primary funding stream.
Other funding streams reported include the Big Issue magazine (one day centre) City Council (two day centres) and income from charity shops (two day centres).
Table 11: Funding streams for day centres Number of Number of day day centres centres to whom that this funding receive stream is funding their primary from this funding Where do you receive funding for your service from? source stream Supporting People 14 (35%) 8 (20%) Social Services 7 (18%) 1 (3%) Other local authority funding (e.g. local grant) 21 (53%) 7 (18%) Criminal Justice (Youth Offending Team, Probation, etc.) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) Substance misuse services (e.g. Drug Action Teams) 2 (5%) - Health (NHS Trusts, Primary Care Trust, etc) 6 (15%) - Employment and Education (e.g. Job centre Plus, LSC) 3 (8%) - Rent & Service Charges (i.e. as paid by the service users) 2 (5%) - Benefit Payments (Housing Benefits etc) if paid direct to provider - - Fundraising (incl. charitable trust and individual donations) 38 (95%) 19 (48%) Legal Services Commission - - Other 5 (13%) 4 (10%)
6.19 Summary
Day centres for homeless people operate in all English regions, although the number of centres in a region is not always proportionate to the overall population of that region. However, some projects specialise in working with certain groups, or covering larger or smaller areas, so it is not always clear where there are gaps in provision. More in depth data into levels of homelessness and profiles of potential clients would be needed to identify such gaps.
Day centres tend to be run by small, locally based organisations and are highly reliant on charitable fundraising. Day centres are less likely than accommodation based services to own their buildings, be purpose-built and are also more likely to report shortcomings to their premises that restrict their capacity to deliver services. The telephone survey also suggests that day centre managers cannot estimate the number of clients from certain client groups in their services. This may be a feature of limited data collection on clients accessing services. As outcomes and proving the impact of support work becomes more important to funders there is a danger that day centres may lose out on financial support. Day centres could therefore benefit from support to demonstrate their value, role and impact on the local community.
21 As research by Johnsen, Cloke and May (2005) concluded, day centres have “evolved as charitable responses to gaps in provision for homeless and other disenfranchised people.” 18 Few day centres restrict their services to clients only from the local area or from particular groups. Most are drop-in services making them potentially more accessible to people than other services with more complex referral procedures. This means that they are often the first to pick up emergent trends in the sector, which is reflected in the higher proportion of Eastern European migrants reported in day centres than in accommodation services. A higher proportion of day centres than accommodation providers also reported seeing people with gambling problems, which may suggest that this is an emergent issue.
Although most day centres offer food and practical help by providing clothing, showers and laundry facilities, they also generally go beyond this by offering more specific support. Giving advice around housing, benefits etc. is a key function of many day centres, but other commonly available services included arts and cultural projects, life skills, and IT services or computer skills training.
7. HOSTELS AND SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION
Data about hostels and supported accommodation is divided into three sections:
Direct access hostels (from Homeless UK and telephone survey) Second stage accommodation (from Homeless UK and telephone survey) Supporting People funded supported accommodation (that includes most direct access and second stage accommodation from SP data)
7.1 Direct access hostels
7.1.1 Definition
Homeless UK is the only national source of data about direct access hostels. These hostels are projects that are open all year round for single homeless people and couples without dependent children, who are rough sleepers or in immediate or emergency need of accommodation. In addition, they meet most or all of the following criteria:
• Will accept self referrals • Have frequent vacancies • Do not hold a waiting list • Intended to be short stay accommodation • Provide 24-hour staff cover
Included in the definition used here are nightshelters which typically offer short stay, low support accommodation in shared rooms or dormitories that are accessible in the evening and overnight, with residents having to leave during the day.
It should be noted that an increasing number of direct access hostels no longer accept self referrals, only accept referrals from specified agencies (e.g. outreach teams or the local authority) and/or require clients to have a local connection to the area where the project is based.
It should also be noted that, as part of the telephone survey, managers who responded were asked to define their project as direct access or second stage supported accommodation. These definitions generally reflect entries on Homeless UK. However, where services meet some, but not all of the above criteria, definitions can be open to interpretation. Therefore in a few cases, the self-reported classifications of survey respondents differ from the Homeless UK classifications.
18 Johnsen, S, Cloke, P. and May, J. (2005) Day Centres for Homeless People: Spaces of Care or Fear , Queen Mary: University of London.p.26
22 7.1.2 Number of hostels
There are 246 direct access hostels in England with a total of 8,952 bedspaces.
Table 12: Number of direct access hostels and bedspaces in England Regio n Bedspaces Hostels East Midlands 615 7% 18 7% East of England 541 6% 26 11% London 2,378 27% 43 17% North East 528 6% 15 6% North West 1,280 14% 41 17% South East 858 10% 29 12% South West 767 9% 27 11% West Midlands 1,212 14% 22 9% Yorkshire and the Humber 773 9% 25 10% England 8,952 100% 246 100%
7.1.3 Geographical location
Appendix 1 gives a comparison of regions’ population size against provision of bedspaces in direct access hostels (and number of day centres and spaces in floating support schemes). There are higher proportions of bedspaces compared with population in the West Midlands and lower provision in South East and East of England. It should be noted, however, that this simple comparison of numbers may obscure variations in target group, levels of support, facilities and services provided.
95 county and unitary local authorities in Table 13: Number of direct access hostels per area England have at least one direct access Number of direct access Number of local hostel based in their area. 54 Local hostels based in area authorities authorities do not have direct access 10 or more 2 provision based in their area 19 . Some 6 5 areas have more than one hostel. 5 6 Westminster (13) and Birmingham (10) 4 11 are the local authorities with the largest 3 14 number of direct access hostels, with 707 2 20 and 453 bedspaces respectively. 1 37
See Appendix 2 for a full list of the numbers of direct access hostels and bedspaces by local authority area.
7.1.4 Local connection
In some areas, hostels increasingly stipulate that applicants must have a connection to the local area20 . Definitions of local connection vary between hostels, but often cover similar criteria to those used in homelessness legislation to determine eligibility for local authority homelessness assistance. These are: length of time an individual has lived in an area; whether they have family connections; work in the area 21 . However, it is important to note the CLG’s Supporting People grant conditions as set out in Section 3.1.1.
There are a substantial number of direct access hostels that only accept or prioritise/particularly target people with a local connection:
• 69 (28%) of direct access hostels stipulate that residents must have a local connection to the area where based;
19 This analysis does not include the Isles of Scilly. 20 See for example, Broadway and Resource Information Service (2006) Accommodation for Single Homeless People in London: Supply and Demand. Broadway. 21 Definition of local connection from Shelter online at: http://england.shelter.org.uk/advice/advice-157.cfm#wipTest-579-2
23 • 55 (23%) have some sort of priority/preference/large percentage of beds for residents with a local connection; • 99 (40%) direct access hostels do not require a local connection.
For the remaining 23 hostels (9%), no data is currently held about any local connection requirements.
7.1.5 Hostel providers
In total, 148 organisations provide direct access hostels in England. Four of these organisations are large regional or national organisations that between them provide 67 direct access hostels with a total of 3,688 bedspaces - about 40% of the overall total number of bedspaces:
• The Salvation Army is England’s largest provider of direct access hostels with 32 hostels and a total of 1,850 bedspaces; • English Churches Housing Group (ECHG) has 15 direct access hostels across England with a total of 645 bedspaces; • YMCA has ten direct access hostels for homeless people with a total of 657 bedspaces;22 • St Mungo’s has ten direct access hostels in London with a total of 536 bedspaces.
24 organisations provide between two-five direct access hostels each, accounting for a total of 59 hostels. Some local authorities directly run emergency hostels for single homeless people and those hostels that accept non-local authority referrals were included in the research such as schemes in Liverpool, Manchester and North Tyneside.
7.1.6 Ownership and management of building
Out of the 40 direct access hostels in the telephone survey:
• 23 (57%) operate out of purpose built buildings; • 22 own their own buildings, which is a significantly higher proportion than day centres. Out of the 18 that do not own their buildings, almost all (16 projects) act as the managing agent of the buildings.
7.1.7 Size
Direct access hostels vary widely in terms of size and number of bedspaces. Just over a third of hostels (87 hostels) are relatively small projects with under 20 bedspaces. However, half of all residents living in direct access hostels at any one time are staying in large projects with 50 or more bedspaces. The largest eleven hostels - 4% of the total number of hostels - provide 17%, or just under a fifth of all bedspaces.
Table 14: Size of direct hostels in England No. of beds in hostel No. and % of hostels Total no. and % of beds Less than 10 18 (7%) 129 (1%) 10-19 69 (28%) 972 (11%) 20-29 50 (20%) 1,175 (13%) 30-49 53 (22%) 2,052 (23%) 50-99 45 (18%) 3,081 (34%) 100+ 11 (4%) 1,543 (17%) England 246 (100%) 8,952 (100%)
22 Note that YMCA services are delivered by autonomous YMCA associations (member YMCAs), which affiliate to the National Council of YMCAs (YMCA England), for more information go to www.ymca.org.uk
24 7.1.8 Target groups
7.1.8.1 Gender
161 or two thirds of direct access hostels provide mixed accommodation for both men and women and 57 (23%) are for men-only. 26 direct access hostels (11%) are for women-only, including three hostels that have some women-only accommodation as part of their provision. Five of these hostels are only for young women. Women-only hostels provide a total of around 740 bedspaces for women 23 . The remaining two direct access hostels have mixed and men-only accommodation as part of the provision.
7.1.8.2 Age
Most hostels (203 hostels or 83%) are for adults of all age groups. However 148 hostels (60%) do not accept 16 year olds and 133 (54%) do not accept 17 year olds.
40 (16%) hostels are specifically for young people (usually aged 16-30). Five of these hostels for young people are women-only or include women-only accommodation as part of their provision and two hostels are men-only or include men-only accommodation as part of their provision.
In the telephone survey a quarter of direct access hostels reported that over 50% of their clients are young people (16-25), which is a higher proportion than in day centres. Few hostels see high numbers of older people (aged over 50), but 78% (31 hostels) do see at least some older people.
7.1.8.3 Ethnic origin
Direct access hostels will accept people from all ethnic groups, but in areas where there is homelessness amongst some particular ethnic minority groups, some hostels have set targets to ensure that services are provided for them. Ten hostels, mostly in London, have set targets for people from black and minority ethnic groups.
In the telephone survey, eleven direct access hostels (just over a quarter of those surveyed) stated that over 25% of their clients come from a BME background.
Chart 3: Ethnic origin of clients in direct access hostels
BME
Eastern European migrants
Asylum seekers
Refugees
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of direct access hostels surveyed
Over 75% of clients 50-74% of clients 25-49% of clients 1-25% of clients None of our clients Don't know
23 Note however, that this total includes all 24 bedspaces of one project where figures are not available for the smaller number of women only beds that the project has.
25 7.1.8.4 Sexual orientation
Three women’s direct access hostels in England have targets for lesbians or particularly encourage applications from lesbians. One emergency hostel in London has targets for homeless gay men.
Just under half of the direct access hostels in the telephone survey (19 projects) stated that they have at least some LGBT clients. The survey suggests that direct access hostels are more likely than day centres to know whether their clients are LGBT. Yet one in five direct access hostels could not answer what proportion of their clients are, suggesting that this information is not systematically recorded in these projects.
7.1.8.5 Couples
32 direct access hostels (13%) can accept couples without children, accommodating them in the same room. Four of these hostels are for young people only.
7.1.8.6 People with dogs
34 direct access hostels (14%) state that they can accept people with dogs. This includes those hostels that may limit the number of residents with dogs at any one time or will only accept people with dogs with staff permission.
7.1.8.7 Client support needs
The telephone survey found a range of support needs among clients in direct access hostels. Multiple needs are very common. Debt and benefits problems are also very common. A quarter of direct access hostels reported that over 50% of their clients have a history of offending behaviour, compared with 45% of day centres reporting this level of clients with a history of offending behaviour.
26 Chart 4: Issues and support needs of clients accessing direct access hostels
Multiple needs
Benefits problems
Debt problems
Drug problems
Alcohol problems
Mental health problems
Offending behaviour
Physical health problems
Challenging behaviour
Borderline learning difficulties
Personality disorders
Gambling problems
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of direct access hostels surveyed
Over 75% of clients 50-74% of clients 25-49% of clients 1-25% of clients None of our clients Don't know
7.1.8.8 Exclusions
Some hostels specify that they do not automatically exclude any groups of people and that they carry out individual assessments of applicants to decide who can be accepted on a case by case basis. Many other hostels however, do specify that they cannot accept certain groups of people, especially those with high support needs that cannot be met by hostel staff (e.g. around mental health or care needs). Other common exclusions are people who have unaddressed alcohol and drug problems, and those who have committed serious offences, including sex offences, arson or violence. The findings of the telephone survey reflected this as day centres reported a higher proportion of prison leavers than accommodation providers.
7.1.9 Access
Direct access hostels vary in terms of whether people can refer themselves and how frequent their vacancies are.
7.1.9.1 Referrals
In recent years, the extent to which direct access hostels in some areas accept self referrals has diminished. Instead, hostels increasingly prioritise referrals from outreach teams, local authorities and other agencies. Whilst the majority of direct access hostels (192 or 78%) still accept self referrals, 54 direct access hostels (22%) do not accept referrals directly from homeless people.
27 7.1.9.2 Waiting lists
Most direct access hostels are able to accept applicants immediately if they have a vacancy and do not operate a waiting list. However, of the hostels identified, 57 (23%) do operate a waiting list. This includes a small number that sometimes operate a waiting list or have waiting lists for designated beds.
7.1.9.3 Vacancies Table 15: Frequency of vacancies in direct access hostels Direct access hostels usually Frequency of vacancies No. of % of have frequent vacancies so that hostels hostels they are able to offer a bed for the night for those who are in Daily or daily/weekly 135 55% immediate need of Weekly or weekly/fortnightly 76 31% accommodation. Over half of Fortnightly – monthly 17 7% direct access hostels have daily Quarterly/infrequently 4 2% vacancies and a further third Varies/not applicable 14 6% have, on average, vacancies TOTAL 246 100% weekly or fortnightly.
7.1.10 Length of stay
Using Supporting People definitions of duration of support/length of stay:
• 25 direct access hostels (10%) are very short stay (one month and under) • Just over two thirds of direct access hostels are short stay (one month to two years) • 17% of hostels have no maximum length of stay.
The table shows:
Table 16: Maximum length of stay in direct access hostels • Nearly a quarter of hostels have a maximum Maximum length of stay No. of % of length of stay of three hostels hostels months or less 1 month and under 25 10% • A fifth of hostels offer a 2-3 months 35 14% length of stay of between 4-12 months 29 12% over four months and 1-under 2 years 21 9% under two years 2 years 87 35% • Over a third of hostels 3 year 2 1% have a maximum length None 42 17% of stay of two years Not known/not applicable 5 2% • A fifth of hostels do not TOTAL 246 100% have a maximum length of stay.
Overall, 53% of hostels have a maximum length of stay of two years or more and these provide 70% of the total number of bedspaces (6,249).
7.1.11 Facilities
7.1.11.1 Single and shared rooms
Two thirds (163) of direct access hostels in England provide all their accommodation in single rooms, bedsits or self contained flats – a total of 6,778 bedspaces (76%). Even in hostels which have provision in shared rooms, often only a proportion of the rooms are shared. The 83 hostels that have one or more shared rooms, with two or more beds, account for a total of 1,138 bedspaces in shared rooms. This means that 13% of the overall total of 8,952 bedspaces in direct access hostels are in shared rooms.
28 Table 17: Shared rooms in direct access hostels Region No. and % of shared No. and % of hostels bedspaces with shared rooms East Midlands 69 6% 7 8% East of England 158 14% 12 14% London 382 34% 18 24 22% North East 24 2% 3 4% North West 121 11% 10 12% South East 159 14% 13 16% South West 110 10% 10 12% West Midlands 30 3% 4 5% Yorkshire and the Humber 85 7% 6 7% England 1,138 100% 83 100%
These numbers and proportions of shared bedspaces can be compared with the overall total numbers and percentages of bedspaces and hostels in each region in the following table.
Table 18: Overall total numbers and percentages of bedspaces and hostels in each region Region No. and overall % of No. and overall % of bedspaces (in single AND hostels shared rooms) East Midlands 615 7% 18 7% East of England 541 6% 26 11% London 2,378 27% 43 17% North East 528 6% 15 6% North West 1,280 14% 41 17% South East 858 10% 29 12% South West 767 9% 27 11% West Midlands 1,212 14% 22 9% Yorkshire and the Humber 773 9% 25 10% England 8,952 100% 246 100%
Comparing the above two tables shows that, in comparison with total overall number of bedspaces, the proportion of shared rooms is relatively low in the North East and West Midlands.
Table 19: Breakdown of the numbers of shared rooms of different sizes Region No. of shared rooms 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed 3-5 bed 6+ beds East Midlands 18 0 0 3 2 East of England 25 2 9 7 5 London 115 15 7 19 2 North East 12 0 0 0 0 North West 20 4 0 5 5 South East 36 2 6 3 5 South West 26 0 2 0 3 West Midlands 15 0 0 0 0 Yorkshire and the Humber 14 0 0 12 25 0 England 281 23 24 49 22
There are 399 shared rooms in direct access hostels in England. Whilst most of these (281) are in two-bed rooms (some of which may be used by couples), there are also significant numbers of bedspaces in shared rooms with three beds or more.
24 Includes two rolling shelters that provide emergency accommodation for rough sleepers referred by outreach teams 25 Includes one hostel with 8 rooms with 3-9 beds
29 The regions with the highest numbers of shared rooms (especially those with three or more beds in each) appear to be East of England, London, North West, South East and South West. The North East and West Midlands have no rooms with three or more beds in and also have relatively low numbers of two-bed rooms. However, some other regions (e.g. Yorkshire and the Humber) have a couple of projects with a lot of provision in shared rooms of three-five beds.
7.1.11.2 Furnishings
Most direct access hostels provide fully furnished rooms for residents. 48 hostels (19%) - usually night shelter-style accommodation - provide only basic or no additional furnishing apart from a bed for each resident.
219 hostels (89%) provide a communal lounge (or lounges) for residents and 130 (53%) have a shared garden for residents. Some hostels also have other communal facilities such as sports or computer rooms.
7.1.11.3 Catering facilities and food
Most direct access hostels (63%) provide some food for residents, either on a breakfast only, half board (usually breakfast and evening meal) or full board basis. About a quarter of hostels are completely self catering. 25 of the hostels that provide half board also provide extra meals at weekends or have additional meals and snacks available through a canteen or sandwich shop.
Table 20: Meals available in direct access hostels Food No. of hostels % of hostels Self catering 64 26% No meals/meals at day centre 2 1% Breakfast or evening meal only 3 1% Half board 101 41% Full board 49 20% Other 26 27 11% TOTAL 246 100%
7.1.11.4 Wheelchair access
117 direct access hostels (48%) have wheelchair accessible accommodation that has at least one wheelchair accessible bed room.
7.1.11.5 Physical environment
Based on the 40 direct access hostels in the telephone survey: • 22 (55%) out of 40 direct access hostels are looking to refurbish, and nine of these already have funding organised to do this. o Seven are planning a minor upgrade o One is adding additional facilities o Twelve are planning a major refurbishment o One is doing ‘ongoing maintenance’ and one wanted to ‘buy or lease a purpose built facility’ • Out of the nine that have funding organised o Three are funding it from their own resources o Three are receiving money from the CLG o One is funded by Barclays o One is funded by the Quaker Housing Trust o One is funded by the Council • The length of time since the last refurbishment of the premises did not seem to significantly affect whether direct access hostels have plans for refurbishment.
26 Includes hostels that provide other options, including a variety of self catering or board options to residents, and those that just provide board weekdays.
30 • Out of the 40 direct access hostels surveyed, 16 stated that their buildings have some or severe shortcomings, whereas 17 felt that they have very few shortcomings and four no shortcomings at all. • As with day centres, size limitations and lack of private space (for interviewing or case work with clients) are the biggest problems. • ‘Other’ shortcomings reported are: o Bathroom issues: insufficient facilities or inadequate facilities o Lack of funding o Smoking issues: designed before smoking ban, no smoking area o Lack of specialist staff for specific needs
7.1.12 Resident access and visitors
Hostels have a variety of rules and procedures for residents that cover a range of issues that affect their lives during their stay. For example, many hostels have rules and policies to help protect residents in terms of confidentiality of information about them and preventing incidents of harassment. Other rules include those governing resident access and visitors.
7.1.12.1 Resident access
Just over half direct access hostels (127 hostels or 52%) have restrictions on when residents can come and go from the project, usually with a curfew or set time by which residents must be in at night or requiring residents to be out of the hostel during the day. 119 hostels (48%) give residents 24 hour access with their own front door key or via an entry phone.
7.1.12.2 Visitors
Most direct access hostels allow residents to have visitors although many of these do have some rules around this, e.g. the times when non-residents can visit the hostel and when they must leave. 164 hostels (67%) do not allow residents to have visitors to stay overnight and 83 hostels (33%) of hostels do allow residents to have overnight guests. 68 hostels (28%) do not allow residents to have visitors at all.
7.1.13 Support: details from Homeless UK
The staff:resident ratio and level and type of support provided to residents vary widely across hostels. Some hostels have only one or two staff, whilst the larger hostels that provide intensive support have over 30 staff.
Some night shelter-style provision only offers basic information and advice; whilst other direct access hostels provided intensive support, help with living skills and assistance with resettlement.
In recent years, there has been a growth in the number of direct access hostels that provide specialist support for people with drug, alcohol, health or mental health problems, recognizing that many homeless people often need help with this range of issues. The numbers of hostels that have developed specific targets, designated bedspaces, a separate scheme or offer significant amounts of specific support (e.g. specialist hostel staff or weekly/more frequent sessions from visiting professionals) are as follows:
• 70 hostels (28%) for people with drug problems • 42 hostels (17%) for people with alcohol problems • 54 hostels (22%) for people with mental health problems.
7.1.14. Support services reported in the telephone survey
7.1.14.1 Substance misuse
In the 40 direct access hostels in the telephone survey:
31 • 19 (48%) direct access hostels reported that at least 50% of clients have drug problems and 18 hostels reported that at least 50% of clients have alcohol problems. • All direct access hostels have at least some clients with drug problems and only one hostel reported that they have no clients with alcohol problems. • Substance misuse services are available to a large majority of direct access hostels and several have services available both in-house and by referral. • Overall, around 60% of those that have these services available felt that they were adequate and accessible to their clients. Yet around 25% of respondents, who have the different types of substance misuse services available, do not feel that they were adequate and accessible. The remainder gave a neutral answer.
The difference between the prevalence of drugs and alcohol related support in projects (see 7.1.13), which was registered on Homeless UK, did not come out in the telephone survey This may be the result of differing definitions of support used by Homeless UK and the survey. In the survey, projects were as likely to have access to alcohol services as to drug services. Twelve projects in the survey have structured drug treatment in-house (whether by an external or an internal agency) and the same number have structured alcohol treatment services. Eleven have drug harm minimisation services and 13 alcohol harm minimisation support. However, the smaller sample may not have been able to pick up the difference identified in the full list of projects.
7.1.14.2 Mental health
• 90% of direct access hostels in the survey have talking therapies available and, although a majority of these are available by referral to an external agency, they are also commonly available in-house. • Just over 80% of hostels have anger management courses available and three out of four have mediation and relationship counselling.
Again the prevalence of support services reported in the telephone survey differs from the Homeless UK analysis. A higher proportion of projects in the survey reported that they had in-house mental health services. 16 out of 40 projects (40%) stated that they had talking therapies in-house, delivered both by their own staff and by external services coming into the project to support clients. Eleven (28%) reported having in-house anger management courses and 35% reported having mediation/relationship counselling services. However, again, this difference could simply be biased by the limited sample. It could also reflect a difference in the way people define mental health services. It is possible that the survey respondents took a wider view of the types of support to be included in ‘talking therapies’ as opposed to the definition of ‘mental health services’ on Homeless UK.
7.1.14.3 Physical health services
• A quarter of direct access hostels do not have nursing care available. Six of the 40 hostels surveyed also reported that they do not have a GP available. Although clients may be able to access generic health services, it may be a concern that some hostels do not have agreed referral systems. • At the same time, a quarter of hostels have GPs delivering services in-house, suggesting good links with local health services in those projects. • Moreover, eleven of the twelve services where over 25% of clients have physical health problems, have both nursing care and a GP available. • Dental care and opticians are generally available by referral, but two and three hostels respectively have an external agency come to deliver this service in-house. • 30% of hostels reported that dental care or opticians/eye care are not available, even by a system of referral to an external agency.
7.1.14.4 Advice services
• As with day centres and second stage projects, advice services are generally available in all the direct access hostels surveyed. Only one direct access hostel reported not having
32 benefits and housing advice. Two reported not having debt/financial advice and three reported not having legal advice services available. • Benefits and housing advice services are generally delivered by direct access hostels’ own staff. Debt/financial advice is available both internally and externally, whereas legal advice tends to be accessed usually by referral to outside agencies. • Most projects perceive the advice services available to be adequate and accessible.
7.1.14.5 Meaningful activities
• Sports activities are available in 80% of direct access hostels (31), mainly delivered by their own staff. • 25 hostels have arts and cultural activities and in 20 services (50%) these are delivered in- house by hostels’ own staff. • Gardening activities are available to just over half of the direct access hostels surveyed (22 projects (55%) and, in all but a few cases, these activities were run in-house by projects’ own staff. • Activities available by referral to an external service were rare, with 20% having external sports activities available, 10% gardening activities and 8% able to link clients with arts and cultural projects.
7.1.14.6 Education and training
• Two thirds of direct access hostels have life skills, literacy and numeracy courses available, the latter mainly available by referral to an external agency, whereas the former is commonly delivered by projects’ own staff. • The percentage of direct access hostels with IT services/computer skills training available is about ten percent lower than for day centres and second stage projects. This difference is not statistically significant. These services are available both externally and in the projects themselves. • Only a quarter of direct access hostel respondents reported having into-work training in- house, either run by their own staff or an external agency, and 15% reported in-house accredited courses.
7.1.14.7 Resettlement related services
• Resettlement and move on schemes are available to 32 (80%) of the direct access hostels in our survey. • A majority of the rent deposit, resettlement/move-on and housing advice schemes available are delivered in-house. In 25 projects (63%) staff run resettlement and move on schemes, showing what a key area of support this is. • Just under half of the projects surveyed have rent deposit schemes in-house. • Direct access hostels are significantly more likely to have access to rent deposit schemes 27 than second stage accommodation projects. 65% of direct access hostels have a rent deposit scheme available as opposed to 44% of second stage projects. • Only one direct access hostel did not have housing advice available.
7.1.15 Funding of direct access hostels
Supporting People (SP) funding is by far the most important funding stream for direct access hostels. Only three direct access hostels surveyed do not receive SP funding, and for 33 (83%) it is their primary funding stream.
However, surprisingly only just over half reported funding from benefit payments such as housing benefit and only 15 out of 40 projects (38%) reported receiving funding from rent and service charges. These figures may be distorted by the way funding is defined, reported or managed. It is possible that managers only considered funding that pays for support services in their responses,
27 2 Significance calculated using Chi-squared ( χ =4.663, df=1, p<0.05)
33 made a distinction between “income” and “funding”, or that benefits and rent payments are managed separately (or in some cases go to an external organisation that owns the building).
Table 21: Funding streams for direct access hostels Number of Number of direct direct access access hostels to hostels whom this that funding receive stream is their funding primary from this funding Where do you receive funding for your service from? source stream Supporting People 37 (93%) 33 (83%) Social Services 2 (5%) - Other local authority funding (e.g. local grant) 7 (18%) 2 (5%) Criminal Justice (Youth Offending Team, Probation, etc.) - - Substance misuse services (e.g. Drug Action Teams) 1 (3%) - Health (NHS Trusts, Primary Care Trust, etc) 2 (5%) - Employment and Education (e.g. Job centre Plus, LSC) 1 (3%) - Rent & Service Charges (i.e. as paid by the service users) 15 (38%) 2 (5%) Benefit Payments (Housing Benefits etc) if paid direct to provider 21 (53%) 1 (3%) Fundraising (incl. charitable trust and individual donations) 9 (23%) 1 (3%) Legal Services Commission - - Other 4 (10%) 1 (3%)
7.1.16 Summary
There are just under 9,000 bedspaces in 246 direct access hostels in England. They exist in all English regions, however, 36% of local authorities do not have direct access hostels. Given that a substantial number of direct access hostels only accept or prioritise/particularly target people with a local connection, this could lead to difficulties with accessing direct access services in certain areas. However, it should be noted that, according to the grant conditions, SP funded services should not impose local connection restrictions (see Section 3.1.1).
Four large agencies – the Salvation Army, YMCA, ECHG and St Mungo's deliver around a 40% of the bedspaces in direct access hostels, but there are also many smaller providers. There have been some suggestions that tendering processes disadvantage smaller agencies who are being pushed out. Although these figures cannot reveal whether this is a pattern across the country, we now have a baseline from which to look at this issue in the future.
Half of the bedspaces available in direct access hostels are in large hostels with 50 or more bedspaces. There are fewer women only than men only direct access hostels. However, this does not necessarily reflect a lack of provision for women. Past research has shown that a much higher proportion of rough sleepers are male 28 and women’s refuges were not included in this study.
The data gives some indication that there may be a lack of provision in direct access hostels for certain groups. Only 13% of direct access hostels can accept couples and accommodate them in the same room. In addition, only a third of direct access hostels allow overnight guests, which could impact on personal relationships. As highlighted in Section 6.19, research has suggested that day centres respond to gaps in provision for homeless people 29 . Where there are differences in the proportion of individuals with specific backgrounds in day centers and direct access hostels, this would be worth exploring further. The survey found higher levels of prison leavers, couples and
28 For example, last year in London 88% of rough sleepers registered on CHAIN, the database used to record rough sleeping and street activity, were male. Broadway (2007) Street to Home Annual Report 2006/07 29 Johnsen, S, Cloke, P. and May, J. (2005) Day Centres for Homeless People: Spaces of Care or Fear , Queen Mary: University of London.p.26
34 people with multiple support needs in day centres than in direct access hostels. More detailed tracking of individual clients would be needed to investigate the reasons for these differences.
Support services available in-house in direct access hostels and by referral to external agencies do address a range of needs. More specialist support, such as health care or structured substance misuse treatment, is generally accessed externally, whereas advice and meaningful activities such as arts and sports are more commonly offered in-house. More in depth work is needed to examine the quality of services delivered. The figures could suggest a need to improve innovative partnership working with external agencies that deliver activities such as sports, arts and cultural activities. There is also a high dependence on Supporting People funding to deliver support in direct access hostels, and developing alternative funding streams such as those related to health, employment and education could enable hostels to deliver a wider range of support.
Capital investment in hostels has in recent years put great emphasis on moving away from dormitory and shared provision to single rooms. Still, 13% of the bedspaces in direct access hostels are in shared rooms. Some of this provision may cater to couples, but placing strangers who often have poor living skills in shared facilities with no privacy can foster conflict and fear and pose unacceptable operational risk.
7.2 Second stage supported accommodation
7.2.1 Definition
Second stage accommodation projects provide longer-term accommodation for homeless people, often to people moving on from “first stage” direct access hostels. These projects usually have waiting lists and less frequent vacancies than direct access accommodation. They are less likely to accept self referrals. Accommodation may be provided in hostel-style buildings, although a lot of projects are shared houses, either with staff based on-site or visiting support. They include services with varying levels of support for clients, including foyers and supported housing projects. It should be noted however, that in various areas of the country, the distinction between direct access and some second stage accommodation projects is becoming more blurred. This is reflected in a few responses from managers in the telephone survey who classified their accommodation as second stage when it was listed as direct access on Homeless UK and vice versa. Note, therefore, that the survey-based analysis is based on respondents’ self-definition of their projects.
Homeless UK has comprehensive coverage of second stage accommodation for some cities, counties and regions and for some types of accommodation (e.g. foyers) and specific providers. However, RIS is currently undertaking an ongoing regional programme of research and coverage checking to ensure full coverage on Homeless UK. The following data about services is presented for projects already researched, with an extrapolation to indicate likely overall figures for all second stage accommodation services.
In addition to second stage accommodation as defined above, there is a vast amount of more “specialist” supported accommodation for other related client groups for example, ex-offenders, people with alcohol, drug and/or mental health problems. Some of these schemes particularly target homeless people too for example people with alcohol problems who are rough sleepers. Where details about these projects exist on Homeless UK, these have been included in the dataset. However, it should be noted that this is a grey area in terms of definition and other ex-offender, drug, alcohol or mental health projects not included here may also accept homeless people (or people “in housing need”) even if they do not specifically stipulate this in their target group and referral information.
7.2.2 Number of services
There are 958 second stage accommodation projects for homeless single people and couples currently on the Homeless UK database. These projects have a total of 31,072 bedspaces.
35
7.2.3 Estimated total second stage provision
As indicated above, full information about second stage accommodation projects has yet to be compiled for Homeless UK. However, we have used current Homeless UK data to estimate the total number of hostels/accommodation projects (including direct access hostels) for single homeless people by region in England, based on comparative population sizes and the density of provision in areas where we know we have full coverage 30 .
We estimate that in England there are around 1,735 hostels and supported accommodation projects (including direct access hostels) for single homeless people. As this estimated total includes complete coverage of 246 direct access hostels, we are therefore left with an estimated total of 1,489 second stage projects, 958 (64%) of which with 31,072 bedspaces are already on Homeless UK. Assuming that these 958 projects are representative of overall provision, there are an estimated additional 17,500 bedspaces to be researched, bringing the overall total bedspaces in second stage supported accommodation projects to around 48,500. Adding in the 9,000 or so direct access hostel bedspaces gives an overall estimated total of 58,500 bedspaces for homeless single people and couples in direct access hostels and second stage supported accommodation in England.
Given the current incompleteness of data on all second stage accommodation, full analysis of data is likely to be premature and result in skewed findings e.g. as foyers have been researched, projects for young people are currently over-represented in the data. However, examining the few criteria and characteristics that are less subject to being skewed does give some interesting data to compare with data about direct access hostels and Supporting People services.
7.2.4 Ownership and management of building
34 (48%) of the second stage accommodation projects in our survey were purpose built. 36 (51%) owned their own buildings and out of the 35 that did not, all but two were the managing agent of the premises.
7.2.5 Target groups
7.2.5.1 Gender
Based on data available on Homeless UK of second stage accommodation projects currently listed:
• 69% of projects (658) are mixed projects for men and women with a total of 22,351 bedspaces (a similar proportion to the proportion of mixed direct access hostels) • 11% of projects (107) have a total of 2,388 bedspaces for men only (a lower proportion to the proportion of men only direct access hostels) • 10% of projects (92) have women only accommodation with 2,672 bedspaces (a similar proportion to the proportion of women only direct access hostels) • The remaining 101 projects have mixed and/or men only and/or women only accommodation.
The telephone survey found that second stage accommodation projects were significantly more likely to see women than direct access hostels and day centres, with 50% of clients reported being female in a higher proportion of services.
These findings should be interpreted in the context of identified rough sleepers being much more likely to be men than women and that women’s refuges were not included in our study.
7.2.5.2 Age
30 Extrapolations have been made using the areas where Homeless UK has complete/near complete coverage i.e.: 2 regions: London and East Midlands; 3 counties : Norfolk, North Yorkshire (inc York), Nottinghamshire (inc Nottingham); 5 cities: Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Leicester, Manchester; 7 small local authority areas: Broxbourne, Cannock Chase, Lichfield, Tamworth, Dudley, Sandwell and Walsall.
36 The telephone survey found that out of the 71 second stage projects surveyed:
• Young people represent the majority of clients (over 50%) in 35 projects (49%), a significantly higher number reported than for direct access hostels 31 . However, these figures are likely to be skewed by better coverage of foyers and YMCA projects among the second stage supported accommodation listed on Homeless UK, which are aimed specifically at young people. • At the same time, only seven of these 35 projects stated that they had a specialist worker or service aimed at young people. • A significantly lower proportion of second stage accommodation projects have high numbers of older people in their services 32 . Only four (6%) of second stage accommodation projects reported that half or more of clients are aged over 50 and 43 (61%) second stage providers have no clients over 50 – compared with 4 (10%) of day centres and 8 (20%) of direct access hostels. Two of the four projects where older people were in a majority (over 50%) did have a specialist worker or services targeted at this group. However, again, this data may have been skewed by the types of projects that are currently covered on Homeless UK.
7.2.5.3 Ethnic origin
The telephone survey suggests that the proportion of clients from a BME background may be slightly higher in second stage accommodation than in direct access hostels and day centres. Almost a quarter of second stage accommodation providers said that over 50% of their clients are from a BME background, whereas BME clients are in a majority only in three out of 40 direct access hostels and four out of 40 day centres.
Six of the 71 second stage accommodation projects surveyed said that they had a specialist worker or service targeted at BME clients. However, all of these were in projects where less than 25% of clients were BME and not in the 24 services where a greater proportion of clients were BME.
Chart 5: Ethnic origin of clients in second stage accommodation
BME
Eastern European migrants
Asylum seekers
Refugees
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of second stage accommodation surveyed
Over 75% of clients 50-74% of clients 25-49% of clients 1-25% of clients None of our clients Don't know 7.2.5.4 Couples
31 Significance as measured by Chi-Squared (Χ2=9.782, df=2, p<0.01) 32 Significance as measured by Chi-Squared ( Χ2=18.135, df=3, p<0.001)
37 According to the findings of the telephone survey, couples are even less common in second stage accommodation than in direct access hostels. 90% of second stage projects reported having no couples accessing their services as opposed to 80% of direct access hostels. As with direct access hostels, this could be because there is very limited provision available for couples.
7.2.5.5 Support needs
Although people’s support needs appeared slightly lower in second stage accommodation projects than in direct access hostels, the difference was not statistically significant. We may expect that individuals’ support needs would lessen as they move through the resettlement pathway and into second stage accommodation, from where they then move into more independent living. However, our results cannot confirm this, as a larger sample of projects is needed to give more definitive answers. Moreover, the survey was not designed to identify the severity of the issues clients face, only to get an indication of the types of support needs that are common among clients. The prevalence of different support needs reported among the people accessing second stage accommodation however, is generally significantly lower than in day centres. This suggests that clients accessing day services may differ from those accessing second stage housing related support.
Chart 6: Issues and support needs of clients accessing second stage accommodation
Benefits problems
Challenging behaviour
Multiple needs
Debt problems
Drug problems
Alcohol problems
Offending behaviour
Mental health problems
Borderline learning difficulties
Physical health problems
Personality disorders
Gambling problems
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of second stage supported accommodation surveyed
Over 75% of clients 50-74% of clients 25-49% of clients 1-25% of clients None of our clients Don't know
38 7.2.6 Foyers
There are 119 foyers for young homeless people with a total of 4,670 bedspaces.
7.2.7 Referrals
57% of second stage accommodation projects (544) accept self referrals as compared with 78% of direct access hostels.
7.2.8 Waiting lists
79% of second stage accommodation projects (756) operate a waiting list compared with 23% of direct access hostels that have waiting lists.
7.2.9 Facilities
7.2.9.1 Single and shared rooms
Almost all second stage accommodation is provided in single rooms, bedsits or self contained flats. Just 4% of projects (39) have one or more shared rooms with 2 beds or more. This compares with 34% of direct access hostels that have one or more shared rooms.
7.2.9.2 Physical environment
In the telephone survey, 12 projects (18%) reported that it has been over 10 years since their last major refurbishment. However, 22 (31%) are located in new buildings or ones that have been refurbished in the last two years. A further 21 (30%) have been refurbished in the past five years.
55% of second stage accommodation projects in the telephone survey have plans to refurbish their premises. Almost half of those are planning a major refurbishment and another third are planning a minor upgrade. Three projects are planning to add additional facilities, one is ‘taking away and changing facilities’ and three mentioned a rolling programme of maintenance.
Of the 39 projects looking to refurbish 16 (41%) have already organised funding. Out of these: • Four are relying on the funds of their own organisation • Four are receiving funding from CLG (including one specific mention of the Hostels Capital Improvement Programme) • Five have funding from the Housing Corporation • Two have raised funds through charitable fundraising • One is receiving funding from the City Council
As with direct access hostels, a higher proportion of second stage accommodation projects report that their building has very few or no shortcomings as compared with day centres.
Size limitations are the most commonly reported shortcoming in premises, reported by just under half of all second stage accommodation providers. 40% reported access restrictions and around a third reported a problematic internal layout. A quarter of projects also highlighted a lack of private space as an issue and a fifth reported a lack of training facilities. 17% mentioned a lack of communal space. The ‘other’ shortcomings highlighted among second stage accommodation projects are:
• “Lack of flexibility in terms of future needs. We are two sites and ideally should be on one site to reduce our costs.” • “Listed building, so cannot make changes that we want to” • “Location issues: city centre location, temptation of pubs and clubs”
39 7.2.10 Catering
83% of second stage projects (799) provide self catering, compared with 26% of direct access hostels that offer self catering. The remainder provide breakfast, half board, full board or have other arrangements for meals. This higher level of self catering in second stage accommodation is in line with people’s progression towards leaving homelessness behind and often being able to live more independently.
7.2.11 Support services reported in telephone survey
7.2.11.1 Substance misuse
• The vast majority of second stage accommodation projects surveyed have access to substance misuse services, generally by referral to external agencies. Unlike in direct access hostels, drug related support services are more common in-house than alcohol related services. 16 projects (40%) have structured drug treatment available in-house and eleven have structured alcohol treatment. Similarly, 24 (60%) projects have harm minimisation services for drug problems and 18 (45%) for alcohol problems. • Only three (4%) of the 71 second stage supported accommodation projects surveyed reported that they have no clients with alcohol problems and six reported that they have no clients with drug problems. • Drug services are available to all of the 16 services (23%) where a majority of clients have drug problems. The same was true for the 16 services with more than 50% of clients with alcohol problems and alcohol services.
7.2.11.2 Mental health
• As with direct access hostels, second stage accommodation projects are more likely than day centres to have talking therapies, anger management courses and mediation/relationship counselling available to their clients. • 90% of projects have access to talking therapies and similar numbers can access anger management courses and mediation/relationship counselling. As elsewhere, a few projects have support in house, but mostly it is accessible by referral to an external agency. • Out of the 18 second stage accommodation projects that reported that more than half their clients have mental health problems, only two said that they do not have talking therapies available.
7.2.11.3 Physical health services
• For all types of support around physical health, second stage accommodation projects are more likely than day centres and direct access hostels to report that physical health services are available to them. • Very few have in-house services delivered by their own staff but over 10% of projects do have external agencies delivering nursing care, GP services, podiatry/foot care or opticians/eye care.
7.2.11.4 Advice services
• As with day centres and direct access hostels, advice services are very widely available in second stage accommodation projects and, except for legal advice, are delivered in-house by their own staff. • Only one project reported that housing advice is not available and only two that benefits advice is not available.
7.2.11.5 Meaningful occupation
• Similar proportions of second stage accommodation projects, as compared with direct access hostels, have sports, gardening and arts and cultural activities available to them.
40 • Sports and arts and cultural activities are available in over two thirds of projects, whereas over half have gardening activities. Most commonly these are delivered in-house, but a higher proportion of second stage accommodation than direct access hostels, and – more markedly – than day centres, have a referral system to external agencies for meaningful activities.
7.2.11.6 Education and training
• IT services/computer skills training, literacy and numeracy and into work training such as building skills are available in three quarters of services. Life skills are even more common, available in 80% of projects. Just over two thirds of projects have access to accredited courses. • Accredited courses and into work training are more likely to be available to second stage accommodation projects than to other types of services, especially day centres. A quarter have in-house into work training and a fifth have accredited courses available in-house. However, around 30% of projects report that these services are not available to them, even via a referral system to an external agency. • 60% of projects have in-house life skills training, whether delivered by their own staff or an external agency.
7.2.11.7 Resettlement related services
• A lower proportion of second stage accommodation projects (44%) than direct access hostels (65%), reported that they have a rent deposit scheme available to help access private rented accommodation. However almost three quarters reported resettlement and move-on schemes, and all but one service have housing advice available (in-house, externally or in some cases both internally and externally). • Resettlement and move-on schemes are more commonly delivered in-house, whether delivered by an external agency or by projects’ own staff, than rent deposit schemes are.
7.2.12 Funding
As with direct access hostels Supporting People is by far the most important funding stream for second stage supported accommodation. A breakdown of other funding streams reported in the telephone survey is provided below.
Table 22: Funding streams for second stage supported accommodation Number of Number of second stage second to whom this stage that funding receive stream is their funding primary from this funding Where do you receive funding for your service from? source stream Supporting People 66 (93%) 63 (89%) Social Services 7 (10%) 1 (1%) Other local authority funding (e.g. local grant) 12 (17%) 2 (3%) Criminal Justice (Youth Offending Team, Probation, etc.) 4 (6%) - Substance misuse services (e.g. Drug Action Teams) - - Health (NHS Trusts, Primary Care Trust, etc) 2 (3%) - Employment and Education (e.g. Job centre Plus, LSC) 4 (6%) - Rent & Service Charges (i.e. as paid by the service users) 20 (28%) 2 (3%) Benefit Payments (Housing Benefits etc) if paid direct to provider 36 (51%) 1 (1%) Fundraising (incl. charitable trust and individual donations) 13 (18%) 1 (1%) Legal Services Commission - - Other 7 (10%) 1 (1%)
41 7.2.13 Summary
Second stage supported accommodation is an important part of homelessness services across the country; however, research needs to be completed for a full national picture of this provision from Homeless UK data. There is better coverage of certain geographical areas and certain types of services, which may skew the findings relating to this provision, and this must be borne in mind when interpreting the data. For example, the telephone survey revealed a relatively high proportion of young people in services, but this could be a reflection of the prevalence of foyers and YMCAs specifically targeting young people in the sample base. However, a great deal of data is already available. The 958 projects on Homeless UK represent an estimated two thirds of the total number of projects in the England.
An even higher number of second stage services than direct access hostels have no couples accessing their services, which again could indicate limited provision for this group. Whilst there are women only projects, overall, there are relatively low levels of women in second stage accommodation compared with men. Reasons for this include the fact that rough sleepers are more likely to be men than women, and that women may be housed in other forms of accommodation not covered in this study, such as women’s refuges.
Our study also revealed that the distinction between direct access hostels and second stage supported accommodation is not always clear cut. Some projects defined as one type of project on Homeless UK, classified themselves differently when asked in the survey. Similarly many second stage providers had characteristics associated with direct access hostels. Although a higher proportion of second stage providers operate a waiting list, one in five does not, and many second stage projects still accept self-referrals. However, interestingly only a very small proportion of second stage projects (4%) have shared rooms, compared to direct access hostels (34%). A vast majority are also self-catering (83%) compared to just over a quarter of direct access hostels. The second stage element may relate to the independence associated with living in these types of projects. Links with external agencies for meaningful activities were also slightly more common and most notably a higher number of projects had access to into work training and accredited courses, again in line with promoting a higher level of independence.
Given the issues related to access to move-on accommodation, highlighted in Section 7.4.2 it is a concern that less than half of second stage accommodation services reported that they had rent deposit schemes available. Clients in second stage projects will generally be moving on to independent living, but given the great demand for and limited access in some areas to social housing, for many people the private rented accommodation can be the only available option.
7.3 Supporting People funded accommodation with support
7.3.1 Definitions
We selected data for the most relevant Supporting People services in terms client group (single homeless people and couples) and type of accommodation (direct access hostels and second stage accommodation). Although there is not a direct match between Homeless UK and Supporting People data, there is significant overlap. A comparison of data between the types of Supporting People funded services chosen in some sample areas, where research of services for Homeless UK is complete, generally revealed similar coverage of projects by the two datasets.
Supporting People services selected for analysis were all non-permanent accommodation projects that meet the following client group and accommodation type criteria:
7.3.1.1 Client group
All Supporting People funded services must stipulate a primary client group that their services are aimed at. Services may also select a secondary client group to further describe who their services are for. For the purposes of this research, we selected services with the following three primary client groups.
42 • Single Homeless with Support Needs. Definition: people who have been accepted as homeless and in priority need, and also those who have been turned down for rehousing or have not approached the local authority, and who have a range of support needs. • Rough Sleepers. Definition: people bedded down for the night on the street. • Young People at Risk. Definition: homeless young people (under 21) and those in insecure accommodation.
It should be noted, however, that, in addition to these services, there is a vast amount of more “specialist” supported accommodation for client groups related to homelessness for example, ex- offenders, people with alcohol, drug and/or mental health problems. Some of these schemes can be identified by identifying those services that have the above categories as a secondary client group - summary overall figures for these schemes are therefore also given. However, not all services will be captured by this analysis, and other ex-offender, drug, alcohol or mental health projects not included here may also house homeless people (or people “in housing need”) even if this is not how they are classified.
7.3.1.2 Accommodation type
We selected the 3 following categories of accommodation as defined by Supporting People:
• Homeless Hostel, B&B or other Temporary Accommodation. Definition: emergency or crisis accommodation, including direct access hostels and night shelters. The service may accommodate long stay residents, although most will be short stay. • Supported Housing (shared or self contained). Definition: accommodation and support are provided as an integral part of the service. It may include shared housing, self-contained housing clustered on a single site or dispersed self-contained housing which has been designated for the scheme (excludes services which fit this description but which are registered as residential or nursing homes). • Foyer for Young People. Definition: hostel or other accommodation for young people where work training and employment skills training are provided in addition to housing.
We have also included in this report a brief analysis of figures for supported lodgings and floating support services funded by Supporting People, although a more detailed analysis of these two types of accommodation-related support is beyond the scope of this report.
Finally, services included in the data set were all those open at least until the end of the 2006/07 financial year (i.e. had a decommissioning date after 31 March 2007 or no decommissioning date).
7.3.1.3 Services and household units
Supporting People data records provision in terms of “households” and “household units” rather than individuals and bedspaces. As we have specifically excluded provision for homeless families, and there is limited provision for couples in the services we are looking at, households and household units will generally be equivalent individuals and bedspaces, but we have chosen to retain here the terminology of “household units” and “households” used by Supporting People to avoid misrepresentation.
Although there is a wealth of data on the Supporting People database, analysis revealed some wide variations in how the primary client group, accommodation type and support duration of services etc have been used. Moreover, the amount of information available on each entry often varies and, in some instances, there are clear inconsistencies in the information provided. This should be borne in mind when interpreting and using the findings in this study.
7.3.2 Numbers of household units, services and providers by region
There are 41,955 household units in England funded by Supporting People for homeless single people and couples, provided in 2,033 separately funded contracts and by 632 providers across England.
43 Table 23: SP funded household units, services and providers by region Region Household units Services Providers East Midlands 2,643 6% 142 7% 55 East of England 4,864 12% 232 11% 77 London 12,012 29% 522 26% 144 North East 1,713 4% 91 4% 34 North West 4,521 11% 231 11% 95 South East 5,354 13% 258 13% 99 South West 4,082 10% 251 12% 84 West Midlands 3,857 9% 171 8% 70 Yorkshire and the Humber 2,909 7% 135 7% 61 England 41,955 100% 2,033 100% 632 33
The region with the largest number of household units is London with 12,012 household units (over a quarter of overall provision) and the region with the smallest number is North East England with 1,713 household units or 4% of provision.
7.3.3 Primary client groups
A total of 28,893 household units are designated for Single Homeless with Support Needs, 1,631 household units for Rough Sleepers, and a further 11,431 household units are for Young People at Risk.
Table 24: Primary client group in SP funded homelessness services by region Region Primary group Single Rough Young people Total homeless sleepers at risk East Midlands 1,822 4% 14 0.03% 807 2% 2,643 6% East of England 3,592 9% 0 0% 1,272 3% 4,864 12% London 7,615 18% 1,220 3% 3,177 8% 12,012 29% North East 1,301 3% 6 0.01% 406 1% 1,713 4% North West 3,173 8% 49 0.1% 1,299 3% 4,521 11% South East 4,040 10% 198 0.5% 1,116 3% 5,354 13% South West 2,654 6% 51 0.1% 1,377 3% 4,082 10% West Midlands 2,731 7% 0 0% 1,126 3% 3,857 9% Yorkshire & Humber 1,965 5% 93 0.2% 851 2% 2,909 7% England 28,89 3 68.9% 1,631 3.9% 11,431 27.2% 41,955 100%
The analysis shows that the Rough Sleepers classification is used differently across regions. There are significant numbers of household units in London and to a lesser extent in the South East. There are no household units classified for Rough Sleepers in East of England or West Midlands, despite the existence of similar types of hostel provision in these and other regions that accommodates people who have been sleeping rough.
A full table of numbers of household units funded by Supporting People in the three relevant accommodation types for all client groups is given in Appendix 3. In particular, this shows the numbers of services for client groups more closely related to those for homeless people (e.g. offenders, people with alcohol, drug or mental health problems) and those for other client groups (e.g. people with learning disabilities, older people).
7.3.4 Secondary client groups
Whilst all services funded by Supporting People must allocate a primary client group to describe their service, selecting a secondary client group is not mandatory. Examining those services where a
33 NB this figure is the total number of providers across England and is not equal to the sum of providers by region given in the column above as some providers operate in more than one region.
44 secondary group is given reveals a further 7,770 household units with secondary client group of Single Homeless with Support Needs, 164 household units for Rough Sleepers, and 847 for Young People at Risk.
Table 25: Secondary client groups in SP funded services related to homelessness Secondary client group: Number of household units Total no. of Region Single Rough Young people household units Homeless sleepers at risk East Midlands 309 0 54 363 East of England 926 0 145 1,071 London 2,044 89 241 2,374 North East 280 0 22 302 North West 982 4 132 1,118 South East 756 39 87 882 South West 929 32 43 1,004 West Midlands 810 0 86 896 Yorkshire and the Humber 734 0 37 771 England 7,770 164 847 8,781
The table in Appendix 4 also shows these units by service and provider.
Around three quarters of these projects have one of the following three primary client groups: ‘Homeless Families with Support Needs’, ‘Offenders or People at Risk of Offending’, or ‘People with Mental Health Problems’. The table in Appendix 5 gives a full breakdown of all the primary client groups that these schemes have. Appendix 6 shows secondary client group data for schemes with the six primary groups that are most closely related to homelessness (offenders, people with alcohol problems etc).
If data for services where the three chosen client groups are listed as the secondary client group are added to the dataset, there are an additional 8,781 household units bringing the overall total to 50,736 household units. However, as shown in the table in Appendix 5, some of these services also serve people with children as they have ‘Homeless families with support needs’ and ‘Teenage parents’ as primary client group.
Table 26: Total number of household units service and providers using both primary and secondary client groups Region Household units Services Providers East Midlands 3,006 6% 176 7% 63 East of England 5,935 12% 306 11% 96 London 14,386 28% 713 27% 168 North East 2,015 4% 118 4% 41 North West 5,639 11% 322 12% 119 South East 6,236 12% 302 11% 113 South West 5,086 10% 337 13% 101 West Midlands 4,753 9% 239 9% 86 Yorkshire and the Humber 3,680 7% 170 6% 73 England 50,736 100% 2,683 100% 756 34
The table below shows combined figures from table 24 for primary client group and figures from table 25 for secondary client groups to give an overall total of household units by primary/secondary client group 35 . A total of 36,663 household units are for Single Homeless with Support Needs 1,795 units for Rough Sleepers, and a further 12,278 household units are for Young People at Risk.
34 Overall number of providers is less than sum of region total as some operate in many regions. 35 Double counting has been removed i.e. those services that have specified the same primary and secondary client group
45 Table 27: Number of household units per region for homeless people looking at both ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ client groups Primary OR secondary group Region Single Rough Young people Total homeless sleepers at risk East Midlands 2,131 14 861 3,006 East of England 4,518 0 1,417 5,935 London 9,659 1,309 3,418 14,386 North East 1,581 6 428 2,015 North West 4,155 53 1,431 5,639 South East 4,796 237 1,203 6,236 South West 3,583 83 1,420 5,086 West Midlands 3,541 0 1,212 4,753 Yorkshire and the Humber 2,699 93 888 3,680 England 36,663 1,795 12,278 50,736
7.3.5 Accommodation type
For the three relevant client groups, there are a total of:
• 14,324 household units in ‘Homeless Hostels, B&B or Other Temporary Accommodation’ • 23,203 household units in ‘Supported Housing’ • 4,428 household units in ‘Foyers for Young People’
Table 28: Accommodation types of SP funded services for homeless people by region Accommodation type Region Homeless Supported Foyers for Total Hostel Housing Young People East Midlands 801 2% 1,685 4% 157 0.4% 2,643 6% East of 1,968 5% 2,174 5% 722 2% 4,864 12% England London 4,652 11% 6,280 15% 1,080 3% 12,012 29% North East 573 1% 1,002 2% 138 0.3% 1,713 4% North West 1,596 4% 2,307 5% 618 2% 4,521 8% South East 1,224 3% 3,647 9% 483 1% 5,354 13% South West 912 2% 2,688 6% 482 1% 4,082 10% West Midlands 1,406 3% 1,937 5% 514 1% 3,857 9% Yorkshire and 1,192 3% 1,483 4% 234 1% 2,909 7% the Humber England 14,324 34.1% 23,203 55.3% 4,428 10.5% 41,955 100%
The total number of Supporting People household units in ‘Foyers for Young People’ (4,428) is similar to the total number of bedspaces in foyers listed on Homeless UK (4,670 bedspaces).
7.3.6 Size of services
The proportions of number of household units and services that provide them are roughly similar between regions. The average number of household units per service in London is highest (an average of approximately 23 household units per service) and the proportion of household units per service in South West is lowest (an average of 16 household units per service). This indicates that there are fewer providers in London, but they are providing larger units.
46 Table 29: Average number of household units per services and provider by region Region Average no. of Average no. of Average no. of units per services per units per service provider provider East Midlands 19 48 2.6 East of England 21 63 3.0 London 23 83 3.6 North East 19 50 2.7 North West 20 48 2.4 South East 21 54 2.6 South West 16 49 3.0 West Midlands 23 55 2.4 Yorkshire and The Humber 22 48 2.2 England 21 66 3.2
7.3.7 Size of providers
Providers of Supporting People services vary greatly in the number and size of services they provide. A few services are very small with contracts for only 1 or 2 household units. However, the top 30 biggest providers (5% of providers) provide 52% of household units (20,418).
The following table 36 gives a summary of agencies that provide more than 200 household units. YMCA, The Salvation Army and English Churches Housing Group are also the three of the largest providers of direct access hostels (see 7.1.5). A lot of accommodation provided by Stonham and Look Ahead Housing and Care are second stage projects.
Table 30: Largest providers of SP funded services for homeless people 37 % of total units for Rank Provider* No. of units homeless people 1 YMCA 5,081 12.1% 2 Salvation Army 2,579 6.1% 3 English Churches Housing Group 1,654 3.9% 4 Stonham 1,449 3.5% 5 Look Ahead Housing and Care 1,183 2.8% 6 St Mungo’s 952 2.3% 7 Focus Futures 789 1.9% 8 St Matthew Housing 572 1.4% 9 Nacro 495 1.2% 10 East Potential 459 1.1% 11 Broadway 407 1.0% 12 Thames Reach 393 0.9% 13 Carr Gomm 390 0.9% 14 Irish Centre Housing 354 0.8% 15 Lbl Regeneration (Lewisham) 331 0.8% 16 Centrepoint 330 0.8% 17 St Basils 312 0.7% 18 Single Homeless Project 308 0.7% 19 Leicester City Council 283 0.7% 20 Sanctuary Housing Association 283 0.7% 21 Surrey Community Development Trust 281 0.7% 22 Framework Housing Association 274 0.7% 23 Two Saints Housing Association 270 0.6% 24 Providence Row Housing Association 259 0.6%
36 Table 30 was produced by sorting household units by the Supporting People National Provider ID numbers and provider name, and cross-referencing where necessary with the Local Provider ID. 37 Precise provider names given can vary in Supporting People data. Names used in this table are the most common/simplest version
47 25 Christian Alliance Housing Association 252 0.6% 26 Forum Housing Association 250 0.6% 27 St Christophers Fellowship 228 0.5% 28 Community Campus 213 0.5% 29 LBC Temporary & Supported Housing Group 212 0.5% 30 Cara Irish Housing Association 211 0.5% 31 Whitefriars Housing Group 200 0.5%
7.3.8 Provider organisation types
Supporting People data includes the different types of organisations that provide services (see Appendix 7 for full details):
• Over half (55%) of household units (23,138) are provided by Registered Social Landlords (RSL)/ Local Voluntary Stock Transfers (LVST) • Over a third (38%) of household units (15,961) are provided by charitable organisations/voluntary not for profit organisations • Local authorities provide just under 5% of household units (2,093) • Some regions have more local authority provision (London, East Midlands and North West) and private sector provision (North West and South West) than others have • Only the RSL, charitable organisations/voluntary sector and Local Authority Housing Department services are common to all regions.
7.3.9 Household types
Supporting People services stipulate one or more types of household composition for the client groups they serve. Analysis revealed:
• Most services (1,565) are defined as provision for single people • 360 services include Single men as a designated household type • 343 services include Single women as a designated household type • 127 services have Couples without children as a household type • 52 services have All adult households as a household type.
There are also a small number of services that stipulate housing men with children, women with children or couples with children. See Appendix 8 for a full breakdown of these figures by region.
7.3.10 Length of stay/duration of support
The vast majority (93% or 38,896 households units) of hostels and supported accommodation are short stay (more than one month but less than two years). 1,180 households units (3%) are medium stay (over two years but not permanent) and 800 households units (2%) are designated very short stay (less than one month) - some of these very short stay projects are night shelters.
Table 31: Length of stay in SP funded services for homeless people Number and % of projects and household units by length Region of stay Total Very short Short Medium Unspecified East Midlands 81 3% 2,488 94% 36 1% 38 1% 2,643 East of England 81 2% 4,724 97% 36 1% 23 0% 4,864 London 141 1% 11,208 93% 360 3% 303 3% 12,012 North East 0 0% 1,557 91% 55 3% 101 6% 1,713 North West 130 3% 4,007 89% 133 3% 251 6% 4,521 South East 175 3% 4,637 87% 356 7% 186 3% 5,354 South West 36 1% 3,922 96% 26 1% 98 2% 4,082 West Midlands 62 2% 3,587 93% 129 3% 79 2% 3,857 Yorks & Humber 94 3% 2,766 95% 49 2% 0 0% 2,909 Englan d 800 2% 38,896 93% 1,180 3% 1,079 3% 41,955
48
There are a further 1,217 permanent hostel and supported accommodation household units funded by Supporting People in England (see Appendix 9 for a breakdown of these units by region).
7.3.11 Self referrals
Overall, just over half of Supporting People projects accept self referrals. This is very similar to the proportions of second stage projects (57%) that accept self referrals but lower than the 78% of direct access hostels that accept self referrals.
There appears to be regional variations in the extent to which projects accept self referrals directly from clients. • In five regions (East Midlands, East of England, North East, North West and West Midlands), most projects (around three quarters) accept self referrals. • In three regions about half projects accept self referrals (South East, South West and Yorkshire and the Humber). • The region with the lowest percentage of projects that will accept self referrals is London with just a quarter of project doing so.
Table 32: Number and percentage of SP funded homelessness projects that accept self- referrals Region Acceptance of self referrals Yes % of region No % of region East Midlands 117 82% 25 17% East of England 177 76% 55 24% London 130 25% 392 75% North East 76 84% 15 16% North West 180 78% 51 22% South East 137 53% 121 47% South West 126 50% 125 50% West Midlands 129 75% 42 25% Yorkshire and The Humber 67 50% 68 50% England 1,139 56% 894 44%
7.3.12 Emergency referrals
Giving data about whether services accept emergency referrals is not mandatory and for about a third of services, this is not known. Of the services where this information is known, 268 services (19%) accept emergency referrals.
Table 33: Number of projects that accept emergency referrals by region Emergency referrals Region Total Yes No Not known East Midlands 29 90 23 142 East of England 32 102 98 232 London 33 321 168 522 North East 17 57 17 91 North West 51 105 75 231 South East 55 105 98 258 South West 14 193 44 251 West Midlands 26 66 79 171 Yorkshire and the Humber 11 75 49 135 England 268 1,114 651 2,033
49 7.3.13 Summary
Supporting People provider data has better coverage of second stage accommodation than Homeless UK, but because of the way services are categorised it is sometimes more difficult to single out services for homeless people. We have focussed our analysis on accommodation services for three key client groups, Single homeless with support needs, Rough sleepers and Young people, as a proxy for homelessness services. Services where these groups are the primary client group are very likely to be defined as “homelessness accommodation services”. Where these groups are among the secondary, but not primary client group, we start to include some services that serve families and other client groups and which are not traditionally for single homeless people e.g. specialist services for ex-offenders or people with alcohol, drug or mental health problems.
At the same time most specialist projects doubtless still support homeless people although the primary support needs of these individuals are around e.g. their mental health or substance misuse. Moreover, in the light of an increasing focus on prevention of homelessness, many specialist services that may not be classified as core homelessness none the less have a key role in helping people maintain their accommodation, and thus help prevent homelessness.
Although the total number of bedspaces funded by SP is lower than the estimated total number of bedspaces from Homeless UK data, the two datasets showed similar overall numbers. Some of the discrepancy is likely to be related to differences in classifications used by the two datasets and the fact that not all accommodation services on Homeless UK receive SP funding (in the survey 7% of projects or 8% of bedspaces did not receive SP funding). However, taking the two datasets together there are around 50,000 bedspaces in hostels and supported accommodation projects for homeless single people and couples in England.
It is difficult to identify precisely from SP data how many separate services or projects provide these bedspaces because the data is broken down by SP contract rather than solely by physical buildings/projects. A service with 21 supported housing flats in three different projects could be counted as one, three, or perhaps 21 different contracts. However, the 50,000 bedspaces in the higher SP estimate were provided by 756 separate organisations, and 632 separate organisations were identified in the lower estimate.
In terms of specific client group, the highest numbers of household units are for Single homeless people with support needs (nearly 29,000). The number of household units provided in supported housing (over 23,000 household units) was greater than the 14,000 household units provided in Hostels, B&B or other temporary accommodation.
Overall, there are a relatively small number of providers that provide a significant amount of provision: 5% of providers manage 52% of the total number of household units. London is the region with the highest number of household units and several of the top 15 largest providers operate in London.
Homeless UK did not have data on maximum length of stay for second stage accommodation projects but 17% of direct access hostels had no maximum length of stay. By contrast, only 3% of SP contracts were medium stay and for another 3% the length of stay was unspecified. This could indicate that, although the intended length of stay as specified by funding agreements is less than two years, in practice, clients do not always move on in this time. Inadequate move on which is discussed in section 7.5 could be contributing to this discrepancy.
7.4 Supporting People data on throughput of clients and move-on
Supporting People funded services are assessed on a number of key performance indicators (KPIs) and Service Performance Indicators (SPIs). Two of these indicators provide information about clients, and we have used them to estimate throughput and move-on from services. We have also analysed information collected separately on individual clients by SP client record forms.
50 7.4.1 Throughput of clients
7.4.1.1 Clients in SP services
Service Performance Indicator (SPI) 4 is completed by accommodation services and measures throughput in services by recording:
• the number of households in a service at the end of each quarter, • the number of households that have moved on from the service and • comparing this to the number of household units available in the service.
Not all local authorities or providers completed the performance data for 2006/07, and in some instances the data that is provided is inconsistent or incomplete. However, in total we are able to analyse SPI 4 data for just over half of the services with Single Homeless with Support Needs, Rough Sleepers and Young People at Risk as their primary client groups (1,025 services that provided 19,882 household units). The total number of households accessing services over the year is calculated by adding the number of households in services at the end of the year to the number of households who moved through services during the year. Using this calculation we find that during 2006/07, in the services for which we have recorded data, a total of 58,680 households accessed and moved through services.
Using the data that we have available and presuming that it is representative of missing data, it is possible to estimate overall throughput for all relevant services across England based on the regional breakdown of throughput and accounting for differences between different type of accommodation services and primary client groups. This analysis shows that over 2006/07 there were an estimated 118,500 episodes of households accessing SP funded accommodation services aimed at the three key client groups 38 . The level of throughput varied between the regions. Services in London have lower throughput and turnover than the rest of the country. Highest throughput is in the East Midlands, North East and the North West. A full breakdown by region and primary client group is included in Appendix 10.
Table 34: Available throughput data for SP funded homelessness services in 2006/07and estimated total throughput over the year Throughput data available for 2006/07 All SP Data (2,033 (1,025 services) services) Estimated No. of Total Region Household total no. of households Percentage household units giving households accessing throughput units in data accessing services region services East of England 4,885 1,721 284% 4,864 14,850 East Midlands 6,280 1,774 354% 2,643 9,581 London 8,772 4,405 199% 12,012 23,797 North East 4,102 1,160 354% 1,713 5,720 North West 9,713 2,649 367% 4,521 16,327 South East 4,901 1,926 254% 5,354 13,593 South West 6,259 1,962 319% 4,082 12,688 West Midlands 9,241 2,872 322% 3,857 12,225 Yorkshire & Humber 4,527 1,413 320% 2,909 9,609 Total/Average 58,680 19,882 295% 41,955 118,390
We cannot account for double counting in these figures, i.e. how many households access several different services over the year, or the same services more than once, and are thus counted
38 The analysis does not make it possible to eliminate double counting of individuals who may have accessing a service more than once
51 repeatedly. We also cannot be sure how representative the services and local authorities who have returned this data are. This should be borne in mind when considering overall estimations.
High throughput could mean that people are found more permanent accommodation solutions quickly and are supported to take this up. However, if individuals’ moves are unplanned they potentially continue cycles of homelessness. As shown in Appendix 10, throughput was highest in ‘hostel, B&B and temporary accommodation’ (hostels) for ‘single homeless people with support needs’, and lowest in supported accommodation for rough sleepers. However, the latter represented a very small number of units, which may have skewed figures. Overall throughput was lower in supported accommodation and foyers than in hostels. The move-on data in 7.4.2 and Appendix 12 shows that people are also less likely to leave this type of accommodation in an unplanned way, e.g. to be evicted or to abandon the accommodation. Thus, in supported housing and foyers people tend to stay longer, but they are also more likely to move on in a planned way.
7.4.1.2. Supporting People client record data
Supporting People client record data is collected separately from SP performance indicator data and is analysed and compiled by St Andrews University. Client records collect data when an individual enters a Supporting People service, and includes information about support needs, last known abode. Some performance indicator information is also collected through the client records, i.e. KPI 3 which focuses on “fair access to people who are eligible for Supporting People services” and looks at access from non-host referral routes and BME groups. However, this particular data was not analysed for this research. Since May 2007, St Andrews has also started compiling the SP outcomes data, which records outcomes in relation to clients on a set of key indicators 39 . As the outcomes framework is a recent addition to Supporting People it was not possible to analyse it for this project. However, once more robust data is available, this will generate a wealth of data on how clients are supported through SP services and outcomes.
For this research, we did not have access to the raw client record data for 2006/07, but St Andrews publishes a set of tables breaking down some of the data online, including the regional breakdown of primary client groups 40 . In addition, a regional breakdown of secondary client groups was provided by St Andrews.
On each client record form it is possible to allocate one primary client group and then up to three secondary client groups for an individual based on their relevant support needs. Looking at the three client groups of ‘Single Homeless with Support Needs’, ‘Young People at Risk’ or ‘Rough Sleepers’ as primary client group, a total of 72,437 clients were recorded as entering SP services during 2006/07. This represents just under 40% of all Supporting People clients recorded during the year. It single homeless people are the largest single SP client group number and shows the significant number that use SP services. A breakdown by region of the SP client record data for all types of SP services and all primary client groups is available in Appendix 11.
This figure of 72,437 clients is lower than the annual estimated throughput figure of around 118,500 based on SPI 4 data, as it only covers the primary client groups recorded. We cannot add in the clients with relevant secondary client groups, to include people that have more than one support need and more than one secondary client group recorded, as this would lead to double counting. It should also be noted that information entered on forms is very much down to the discretion of the individuals who complete it and there will be inconsistency within, and between services, in the ways information is recorded. The data that is available is included in the table below.
39 More details about the outcomes framework and data collected in available through http://www.spclientrecord.org.uk / 40 Client record data can be accessed through http://www.spclientrecord.org.uk
52 Table 35: Homeless people recorded on SP client record forms in 2006/07 Single homeless with Rough sleepers Young people at risk support needs Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary client client client client client client Region group group group group group group East Midlands 4,722 1,752 669 786 1,094 1,183 East of England 5,461 1,545 479 798 826 1,108 London 6,377 3,035 1,484 1,071 1,630 1,586 North East 2,803 848 147 407 911 835 North West 10,071 3,604 632 1,281 3,130 2,099 South East 6,300 2,106 648 987 1,594 1,365 South West 4,348 2,243 1,252 822 1,529 1,009 West Midlands 6,635 1,936 241 794 1,271 1,293 Yorkshire & Humber 6,035 2,146 370 724 1,778 1,425 England total 52,752 19,215 5,922 7,670 13,763 11,903 Total in client group 71,967 13,592 25,666
7.4.2 Move on from Supported People funded services
Key Performance Indicator (KPI) 2 measures households who have moved on in a planned way from temporary living arrangements. It collects two pieces of data:
1. the number of households who have moved on in a planned way, and 2. the total number of households who have moved on.
As with SPI 4 not all services or local authorities supplied this information in 2006/07, nor does the dataset on KPI 2 fully match up with SPI 4.
We have KPI 2 data for just over half of the services (1,112 services or 55%) with Single Homeless, Rough Sleepers and Young People at Risk as their primary client groups. According to this data, presented in the table below, 57% of move-ons nationally were planned: a total of 26,041 out of an overall total of 46,068 move-ons. The figures show that there are regional variations – the proportion of planned moves are highest in London and the East Midlands, where nearly two thirds of moves are planned, and lowest in the North West and South West, where only half of moves are planned.
The data available is also better in certain regions. We have data for over two thirds of the services in the East Midlands, North West, South West and the West Midlands. However, less than a third of data is available for services in the East of England.
As shown in the overall figures for England at the end of the table in Appendix 12, the percentage of planned moves varies depending on the type of project and the primary client group of a service. Homeless hostels for Rough sleepers and supported housing for Rough sleepers have the lowest percentage of planned moves (49% and 48% respectively), whereas Foyers for young people for Rough sleepers had the highest percentage of planned moves (75%) although Foyers for Rough Sleepers represent a very small proportion of provision and overall moves. Services for Young People at Risk had a much higher level of planned moves (69%) as opposed to services for Rough Sleepers (49%) and Single Homeless with Support Needs (54%).
53 Table 36: Summary of available move on data from SP services, by region Move on data available (1,112 services)
% of overall Number of Total household Total % of household Region household units in the number of moves units moved units in region repre- household that are on in a sample sented in moved on planned planned way sample
East of England 1,456 30% 1,495 2,881 52% East Midlands 1,785 68% 3,517 5,422 65% London 6,791 57% 4,259 6,585 65% North East 1,079 63% 1,597 2,666 60% North West 3,010 67% 4,060 8,134 50% South East 2,204 41% 2,047 3,487 59% South West 2,791 68% 2,963 5,974 50% West Midlands 2,739 71% 3,640 6,717 54% Yorkshire & Humber 1,756 60% 2,463 4,202 59% Total/Average 23,611 56% 26,041 46,068 57%
7.4.2.1 Move On Plans Protocol (MOPP)
Ensuring appropriate move-on is about finding permanent accommodation solutions for homeless people. The accommodation services in this study are by their very nature temporary, and if more permanent accommodation for clients cannot be found, hostels and other provision get silted up. This prevents other people from accessing services and can leave clients in high support services they no longer need. Addressing the barriers to move on is important to ensure that direct hostels and second stage supported accommodation are used most efficiently.
Examining move-on services provided, and access to move-on accommodation were outside the scope of this study, especially as other research projects have focused on this topic. Homeless Link’s move-on research, conducted in 2004, found 45 per cent of hostel bed spaces across England and Wales (46 per cent in London 41 ) was occupied by people waiting to move on. 42 In response to this, Homeless Link’s Move-on Plans Protocol Project (MOPP) was developed to address issues with move-on from homelessness accommodation services. The MOPP pilot, funded by CLG’s Homelessness Innovation Fund (HIF), developed the protocol and tested it in nine local authority areas over the period November 2005 – March 2007.
The MOPP pilot provided an opportunity for Homeless Link to collate and disseminate information on barriers and solutions to move on. The final report43 identified five of the most prominent barriers arising from the pilot areas. These were issues related to:
• Nominations and allocations to social housing (e.g. lack of strategic agreements) • The private rented sector (e.g. negative perceptions of the sector, access issues) • Residential support and care (e.g. difficulties in ensuring appropriate provision) • Statutory services (e.g. difficulties in accessing services) • Cross authority provision (e.g. limitations in access to housing across boroughs)
Some of these barriers relate closely to the issues covered in this research project (e.g. issues of access to statutory services and cross authority provision). The full report also outlines existing local good practice and proposed national change.
41 Homeless Link (2004) No room to move? Homeless Link, London. 42 Homeless Link (2005) National move on report , Homeless Link, London. 43 Hilbery, Oliver (2007) Unlocking Solutions: Report of the move on plans protocol (MOPP), Homeless Link: London http://www.homeless.org.uk/policyandinfo/issues/rehousing/fullreport
54 Helping people move out of homelessness requires a range of services, many of which are covered in this report. However, homelessness cannot be overcome without more permanent accommodation solutions for people who live in hostels and supported accommodation. This is why work on move-on is so important. There will be regional and local differences in the barriers to move-on. The MOPP project showed that partnership working between local authorities and the voluntary sector to identify both the barriers and solutions to move on is key to overcoming the problems.
7.4.4 Summary
To conclude, in terms of throughput of clients, Supporting People cannot yet give us a full idea of how many people go through homelessness services. Double counting, missing data and differences in the way data is compiled make it difficult to interrogate. Moreover, not all homelessness services (notably day centres, but also some accommodation providers) are SP funded. However, our analysis suggests that there were around 118,500 homeless people going through SP services over the last financial year. This analysis focussed on projects with Single homeless, Rough sleepers and Young people at risk as their primary client groups, and if the analysis was extended to secondary client groups the numbers could be even higher. Combining client records with provider data could also have given us a more accurate picture, but this information is currently held in separate systems, and we did not have full access to the client record data.
SP client record data collection is being continually improved. The addition of National Insurance numbers to the forms means improved data in the future in terms of being able to identify overall numbers of unique individual accessing services and levels of repeat homelessness. There are also ongoing discussions about including homelessness as a separate classification, so that support workers can identify someone as homeless, but still highlight additional support needs that may be more important to helping the client move towards independence. Encouraging all providers and local authorities to submit their data on throughput and move on will enable more accurate analysis of regional patterns. The new outcomes framework will also allow us to gather more information on outcomes for clients.
7.5 Supported lodgings
Supporting People defines supported lodgings as accommodation where a private landlord/landlady or family provides varying levels of support to one or more people living in the landlord/landlady’s own home. They generally serve vulnerable people, homeless people, young people, offenders or people at risk of offending. Supporting People funds 319 household units in supported lodgings schemes, most of which are for young people at risk (there are no schemes that have rough sleepers as their primary client group). Most of these schemes are based in the North West region and some regions have no schemes at all (East Midlands, East of England and North East).
Table 37: Number of SP funded household units available in supported lodgings by region Region Household units Single homeless Young people at risk Total East Midlands 0 0 0 East of England 0 0 0 London 0 25 25 North East 0 0 0 North West 24 193 217 South East 6 19 25 South West 19 20 39 West Midlands 5 0 5 Yorkshire and Humber 0 8 8 England 54 265 319
55 7.6 Floating support
Supporting People defines floating support as a housing-related support service, which is specifically linked to identified accommodation, where loss of occupancy means loss of support service.
For the analysis here, another category was included called “Accommodation based with floating/resettlement/outreach support”. This is a housing related support service, which is linked to specific accommodation but also offers a floating support, resettlement or outreach service, as part of the overall package; for example, a hostel or supported housing with intensive on site support, which also offers a move-on or resettlement service.
The following table shows the numbers of floating support household units and services by Primary client group. There is an overall total of 13,589 household units of floating support provided by 459 services in England.
Table 38: Number of SP funded floating support services and household units by region Single Rough Young people % of Region Total homeless sleepers at risk total Units Services Units Services Units Services Units Services units East Midlands 1,062 24 0 0 223 14 1,285 38 9% East of England 620 25 0 0 184 13 804 38 6% London 2,082 33 0 0 616 22 2,698 55 20% North East 756 22 0 0 721 26 1,477 48 11% North West 1,043 41 0 0 678 34 1,721 75 13% South East 1,503 40 90 1 372 12 1,965 53 14% South West 559 21 139 3 518 28 1,216 52 9% West Midlands 395 17 0 0 386 23 781 40 6% Yorkshire & 922 36 51 3 669 21 1,642 60 12% Humber England 8,942 259 280 7 4,367 193 13,589 459 100%
See Appendix 1 for a comparison of population size of region with provision of floating support (and day centres and direct access hostels). This shows that provision of floating support household units is highest in comparison to population size in Yorkshire and the Humber, North East and East Midlands. Provision of floating support household units is lowest in comparison with population size in East of England and West Midlands.
8. SURVEY FINDINGS – OVERVIEW OF HOMELESSNESS PROJECTS
Previous sections of this report have highlighted findings specific to the three different types of projects identified on Homeless UK. This section pulls together the survey findings for all types of services and gives an overview of provision and needs of clients. The telephone interview schedule used in the survey is also available for reference in Appendix 14.
8.1 Client backgrounds and support needs
8.1.1 Client background: Age and gender
• In all homelessness services a higher proportion of clients are men, although accommodation providers are more likely to see a higher proportion of women than day centres. • In a third of all homelessness services, 50% or more of clients are young people, but the majority of these are second stage accommodation providers. However, this data may have
56 been skewed by better coverage on Homeless UK of young people’s services such as Foyers. • A large majority of day centres and direct access hostels have at least some older people (over 50 years of age) 44 accessing their services, however, in contrast to young people, they are much less likely to be found in second stage supported accommodation. • Two of the six accommodation providers, where over 50% of clients are older people, have care services available.
Chart 7: Gender and age of clients in homelessness services surveyed
Men
Women
Young People (16-25)
Older People (Over 50)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of homelessness services surveyed
Over 75% of clients 50-74% of clients 25-49% of clients 1-25% of clients No clients Don't know
8.1.2 Client background: Institutional background
• There are ex-service personnel reported in almost two thirds of day centres and almost half of direct access hostels, however, in no services is this group in a majority. Only a quarter of second stage supported accommodation projects have ex-service personnel as clients. • Day centres are least likely to be aware of whether or not clients have a history of being in care. Care leavers are unlikely to be in a majority (over 50%) in services, but in around half of services care leavers were reported as representing between 1-49% of clients. • Prison leavers are present in a large majority of homelessness services. In a fifth of services, 50% or more of their clients are reported as prison leavers. However, as is illustrated in the table below, day centres are likely to see higher proportions than accommodation providers. The data does not give us enough information to ascertain why this is the case, but it may be worth exploring whether it is difficult for prison leavers to access accommodation services. For example, as indicated in Section 7.1.8.7, some direct access hostels do not accept referrals for clients who have committed serious offences, such as sex offences, arson or violent offences.
44 The UK Coalition on Older Homelessness defines older homeless people as those over the age of fifty to reflect the fact that homeless people are likely to age prematurely and experience the same frailties and vulnerabilities of the rest of the older population at a younger age. http://www.olderhomelessness.org.uk/
57
Chart 8: Institutional background of clients in homelessness services surveyed
Ex-service personnel
Care leavers
Prison leavers
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of homelessness services surveyed
Over 75% of clients 50-74% of clients 25-49% of clients 1-25% of clients No clients Don't know
Table 39: Reported proportions of clients in homelessness services who are prison leavers Proportion of clients that are prison leavers Over No Don't Type of service 50% 1-49% clients know Total Day centres 40% (16) 35% (14) 10% (4) 15% (6) 100% (40) Direct access hostel 15% (6) 63% (25) 20% (8) 3% (1) 100% (40) Second stage accommodation 11% (8) 55% (39) 31% (22) 3% (2) 100% (71) Total 20% (30) 52%(78) 23%(34) 6% (9) 100% (151)
8.1.3. Client background: Diversity
• Most homelessness services (77%) have at least some clients from a Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) background. 41 services estimated that they represent more than 25% of the clients, suggesting that they are over represented in these services compared to the general population, as in the 2001 census ethnic minorities only made up 9% of the total population in England 45 . However, the data may be skewed as in the survey there are significant numbers of respondents from London based services (where ethnic minorities are more prevalent) - 21 of the 41 services with over 25% ethnic minorities are in London. • Half of all services report no refugee clients. However, refugees are more common in day centres and less common in second stage supported accommodation. • Only 30% of day centres have no asylum seekers, whereas the same was true for 60% direct access hostels and 80% of second stage supported accommodation. Where they are present, asylum seekers generally represent between 1-25% of clients. This should be interpreted within the context of alternative accommodation provision for asylum seekers. People seeking asylum who would be homeless and destitute are housed by the Border and Immigration Agency (BIA), firstly through Initial Accommodation and in Dispersal Accommodation once applicants have been inducted to the Asylum application process. 46 • Just under three quarters of day centres report having at least some Eastern European migrants in their services. Just under a quarter of accommodation providers also have
45 ONS ‘Ethnicity and Identity, available at: www.statistics.gove.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=457&Pos=4&ColRank=2&Rank=224 46 http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/applying/asylumsupport/accommodation
58 Eastern European migrants as clients. This mirrors Homeless Link’s 2006 research in London where over three quarters of day centres, night shelters and outreach teams saw A8 nationals. 47 This is a relatively recent group to start accessing homelessness services and the report highlighted a number of difficulties with supporting them in London. Given that our sample is drawn from across England this is indicative of an emergent issue outside of London too. 48 • Around a quarter of services reported having no clients who were lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered (LGBT) in the last month. A further quarter of services were unable to give an estimate for this group, which may indicate a lack of recording this information about clients.
Chart 9: Diversity of clients in homelessness services surveyed
BME
Refugees
Asylum seekers
Eastern European migrants
LGBT
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of homelessness services surveyed
Over 75% of clients 50-74% of clients 25-49% of clients 1-25% of clients No clients Don't know
8.1.4 Client background: Other
• Victims of domestic violence are present in many services, but 42 (28%) of the homelessness services surveyed have no clients with a history of domestic violence. Looking at day centres alone, only one project reported no clients with a history of domestic violence. Eight were unable to say whether or not they have clients from this background. However, 41 accommodation providers (37%) reported no victims of domestic violence accessing their service. Women’s refuges were, however, not included in our survey. The data may suggest that, although victims of domestic violence do present at some day centres, they may not then be referred to generic homelessness accommodation services as more specialised services are available. • Over half of homelessness projects see at least some sex workers in their services. Day centres are less likely to know whether their clients are sex working, but they are also less likely to report that none of their clients are sex working. • A large majority of services (82%) reported that at least some of their clients are rough sleepers. • Over half of day centres have at least some couples accessing their services, yet among accommodation providers there are generally few couples (80% of direct access hostels and
47 Homeless Link (2006) A8 nationals in London homelessness services , Homeless Link: London 48 There was no statistically significant difference between services outside of London and London based services in terms of whether they had Eastern European clients in their services.
59 90% of second stage accommodation services had no couples). This may indicate a shortfall in accommodation provision for couples.
Chart 10: Other backgrounds of clients in homelessness services surveyed
Victims of domestic violence
Sex workers
Rough sleepers
Couples
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of homelessness services surveyed
Over 75% of clients 50-74% of clients 25-49% of clients 1-25% of clients No clients Don't know
8.1.5. Support needs
The survey results confirm that clients in homelessness services often have very high support needs and that homelessness services work with some of the most vulnerable people in society. Substance misuse, mental health problems and offending behaviours are common, but clients also often present with more than one issue. Over half of services report having more than 50% of clients with multiple needs, defined as three or more of the other listed support needs. Two thirds of day centres reported having over 50% of clients with multiple needs.
60 Chart 11: Issues and support needs of clients accessing homelessness services
Multiple needs
Benefits problems
Debt problems
Drug problems
Alcohol problems
Offending behaviour
Mental health problems
Challenging behaviour
Physical health problems
Borderline learning difficulties
Personality disorders
Gambling problems
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of homelessness services surveyed Over 75% of clients 50-74% of clients 25-49% of clients 1-25% of clients No clients Don't know
8.2 Support services
In the survey, questions about support services targeted at specific client groups (e.g. refugees, women) were asked separately from questions about activities and services that addressed specific support needs (such as drugs services or nursing) and specific activities (such as gardening and into-work training). Services targeted at specific groups based on their background, rather than their support needs, are less common. Where there are support workers or services focussed on specific groups the most common are aimed at rough sleepers and young people and men or women.
61 Chart 12: The number of projects where specialist workers or services were targeted at clients from specific groups or backgrounds
Rough sleepers
Young people (16-25)
Men
Women
Prison leavers
Victims of domestic violence
BME
Older people (over 50)
Asylum seekers
Refugees
LGBT
Care leavers
Couples
Ex-service personnel
Sex workers
Eastern European migrants
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Number of projects surveyed with specialist support to these groups
Number of day centres Number of direct access hostels Number of supported accommodation services
Other services aimed at specific groups highlighted by respondents are:
• Crèche facilities and services for families • Services for HIV positive clients • Support for sex offenders
8.2.1 Definitions used
The table and graph below illustrate the range of support services available in homelessness projects or by referral to external agencies. Projects were asked a range of questions about their support services i.e.:
• Whether a particular support service or activity was available to their clients, (in-house or by referral)
62 • Who delivered those support services (own staff or external agencies) • Where services were available, whether they felt that the support or activity was accessible and adequate to the needs of the client • Whether they had purpose built facilities to deliver the support or activity in question
Some services or activities may be delivered by more than one service delivery agent. When specifying whether the service was delivered ‘in-house by own staff’, ‘in-house by external staff’ or ‘by referral to an external agency’, projects were therefore able to give more than one response. For example, a project may have a nurse running a surgery in-house once a week, but could also refer clients to their local health centre for nursing care at other times. Note that all percentages in the table refer to the proportion of services overall, i.e. the percentage of the total 151 of respondents.
The statements around adequacy of services reflect projects’ own perceptions of the services available, and are not an independent assessment of the quality of services. Where services are delivered in-house by agencies’ own staff they tend to be deemed adequate and accessible. This may reflect an organisational bias towards their own services. It should also be noted that in-house services are inherently more accessible to an organisation’s own clients. It does not necessarily mean that they can meet the needs of all homeless people in the area and our survey focused on clients in services, not the entire local homeless population.
8.2.2 Overview of support services
The different types of services or activities are broken down in more detail below. Advice services are available in all but a few projects. In a majority of projects, these services are delivered in-house by agencies’ own staff. This indicates that signposting and aiding clients to negotiate complex systems, such as the benefit system, is an important role for homelessness services.
Substance misuse services are also commonly available. Although some services do have these in- house, they are generally available by referral to an external agency. The high level of substance misuse among clients - with very few services reporting that they have had no clients with alcohol or drug problems in the past month – make links with substance misuse services crucial, and clearly most agencies have responded to this need.
Out of the 29 different support services and activities listed below, on average, projects have seven different services or activities delivered by their own staff, three different services or activities delivered by an external agency but in-house, and thirteen services available by referral to an external agency. Compared with day centres, accommodation providers and especially second stage accommodation projects are more likely to have a higher number of different support services available to refer to externally.
63 Table 40: Number and percentage of homelessness projects surveyed where support services are available in-house or by referral system to external agencies Service d elivery agent In -house In -house Have a referral support support/ system to an service/ activity external activity delivered service Services delivered by an delivering this are by own external support/ Type of service or activity available staff agency activity Substance misuse services Structured (Drug) treatment 130 (86%) 18 (12%) 25 (17%) 105 (70%) Harm minimisation (Drug treatment) 131 (87%) 26 (17%) 27 (18%) 100 (66%) Structured (Alcohol) treatment 134 (89%) 16 (11%) 22 (15%) 113 (75%) Harm minimisation (Alcohol treatment) 132 (87%) 25 (17%) 23 (15%) 105 (70%) Mental health services Talking Therapies 127 (84%) 31 (21%) 16 (11%) 98 (65%) Anger management courses 115 (76%) 15 (10%) 11 (7%) 97 (64%) Mediation/relationship counselling 114 (75%) 22 (15%) 10 (7%) 92 (61%) Physical health services Nursing care 117 (77%) 10 (7%) 29 (19%) 86 (57%) General Practitioner 124 (82%) 6 (4%) 20 (13%) 107 (71%) Podiatry/foot care 111 (74%) 8 (5%) 19 (13%) 86 (57%) Dental care 105 (70%) - 7 (5%) 100 (66%) Alternative therapies 83 (55%) 29 (19%) 11 (7%) 55 (36%) Opticians/eye care 100 (66%) - 12 (8%) 89 (59%) Advice Benefits advice 143 (95%) 120 (79%) 16 (11%) 35 (23%) Housing advice 143 (95%) 116 (77%) 29 (19%) 42 (28%) Debt/Financial advice 138 (91%) 97 (64%) 16 (11%) 60 (40%) Legal advice 129 (85%) 28 (19%) 15 (10%) 98 (65%) Meaningful occupation Arts and cultural projects 97 (64%) 73 (48%) 13 (9%) 26 (17%) Sports activities 101 (67%) 76 (50%) 9 (6%) 29 (19%) Gardening 80 (53%) 62 (41%) 8 (5%) 18 (12%) Education and training IT services, computer skills training 107 (71%) 54 (36%) 20 (13%) 50 (33%) Life skills e.g. cooking, budgeting 112 (74%) 77 (51%) 12 (8%) 39 (26%) Literacy/Numeracy courses 105 (70%) 34 (23%) 26 (17%) 61 (40%) Accredited courses (e.g. NVQ) 83 (55%) 12 (8%) 12 (8%) 61 (40%) Into work training e.g. building skills 93 (62%) 22 (15%) 29 (19%) 63 (42%) Other support services Resettlement/Move on scheme 107 (71%) 71 (47%) 11 (7%) 33 (22%) Rent deposit scheme 69 (46%) 31 (21%) 11 (7%) 32 (21%) Probation services 48 (32%) 3 (2%) 8 (5%) 39 (26%) Care Services (e.g. domiciliary care) 29 (19%) 3 (2%) 4 (3%) 23 (15%)
64 Chart 13: Overview of support services available in-house in homelessness projects surveyed or by referral system to external agencies
Benefits advice Housing advice Debt/Financial advice Structured (Alcohol) treatment Harm minimisation (Alcohol treatment) Harm minimisation (Drug treatment) Structured (Drug) treatment Legal advice Talking Therapies General Practitioner Nursing care Anger management courses Mediation/relationship counselling Life skills e.g. cooking, budgeting Podiatry/foot care IT services, computer skills training Resettlement/Move on scheme Dental care Literacy/Numeracy courses Sports activities Opticians/eye care Arts and cultural projects Into work training e.g. building skills Alternative therapies Accredited courses (e.g. NVQ) Gardening Rent deposit scheme Probation services Care Services (e.g. domiciliary care)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of homelessness services 65 8.2.3 Specific areas of support
8.2.3.1 Substance misuse
• Harm minimisation and structured treatment services are available both for alcohol and drugs misuse in between 86% and 89% of projects, depending on the support. • Only four projects, where over 50% of clients are reported as having drugs problems, do not have structured drug treatment programmes available and only three do not have harm minimisation services for drugs. • Similarly only four projects, where over 50% of clients are reported as having alcohol problems, do not have structured alcohol treatment programmes available and only three do not have harm minimisation services for alcohol. • Services generally have a referral system to an external agency for clients with substance misuse problems but some projects do have these services available in-house, either delivered by projects’ own staff or by an external agency: o 23% have structured alcohol treatment in-house o 26% have structured drug treatment in-house o 29% have harm minimisation services related to alcohol o 33% have harm minimisation services related to drugs. • Accommodation based services are more likely than day centres to report that the available services are adequate and accessible to their clients. However, overall, where services are available, around two thirds agree that the services were adequate and accessible.
8.2.3.2 Mental health support
Three types of mental health support services were specifically mentioned in the survey: talking therapies (e.g. counselling, cognitive behaviour therapy), anger management courses and mediation/relationship counselling. In addition, respondents were given the option of specifying alternative mental health services that they offered or had access to. A few respondents mentioned counselling in this category, which was recoded into the talking therapies category. Other support mentioned included signposting, support groups and general discussions with staff about problems.
• As the tables below show, accommodation providers are more likely to have mental health services available than day centres. • Yet, even where services are available, 21% of all respondents (25% of those where services are available) felt that the therapies are inadequate or inaccessible to their clients. 22% of all respondents (29% of those where services are available) felt that anger management and mediation/relationship counselling services are inadequate or inaccessible.
Table 41: Availability of talking therapies for homelessness services by type of project Talking therapies Type of homelessness service Service is Service is not Total available available Day centres 27 (68%) 13 (33%) 40 (100%) Direct access hostel 36 (90%) 4 (10%) 40 (100%) Second stage accommodation 64 (90%) 7 (10%) 71 (100%) Total 127 (84%) 24 (16%) 151 (100%)
66 Table 42: Availability of anger management courses for homelessness services by type of project Anger management courses Type of homelessness service Service is Service is not Total available available Day centres 19 (48%) 21 (53%) 40 (100%) Direct access hostel 33 (83%) 7 (18%) 40 (100%) Second stage accommodation 63 (89%) 8 (11%) 71 (100%) Total 115 (76%) 36(24%) 151 (100%)
Table 43: Availability of mediation/relationship counselling for homelessness services by type of project Mediation/relationship counselling Type of homelessness service Service is Service is not Total available available Day centres 22 (55%) 18 (45%) 40 (100%) Direct access hostel 30 (75%) 10 (25%) 40 (100%) Second stage accommodation 62 (87%) 9 (13%) 71 (100%) Total 114 (75%) 37 (25%) 151 (100%)
Like substance misuse services, the majority of mental health support is available by referral to an external agency. Out of the services available in-house, talking therapies are most common, but only 26% of projects have this available, either delivered by an external agency or by the projects’ own staff. It was beyond the scope of this survey to establish the qualifications of the staff delivering mental health services in-house or externally, but exploring the type and level of provision, especially in-house may be an interesting area for future research.
• Looking at the relationship between support needs and the availability of support services revealed that 35 of the 41 projects where more than 50% of clients have mental health problems do have access to talking therapies. • Similarly, 28 of the 34 projects where over 50% of clients present with challenging behaviour have anger management courses available.
8.2.3.3 Physical health services
Respondents were asked about the availability of nursing care, general practitioners, dentists, alternative therapies, podiatry/foot care, and opticians/eye care.
• Just over a quarter of services have nursing services available in-house. The majority of these are delivered by an external agency. There are no noticeable differences in the availability of nursing care between day centres, direct access hostels and second stage supported accommodation. • 26 services (17%) have a GP service available in-house. As the table below illustrates, one third of day centres (33%) reported not having a GP available, whereas only 13% of accommodation providers have none available. This is despite the fact that day centres are more likely to report that a higher proportion of their clients had physical health problems.
67 Table 44: Availability of general practitioners for homelessness services by type of project General practitioner Type of homelessness service Service is Service is not Total available available Day centres 27 (68%) 13 (33%) 40 (100%) Direct access hostel 34 (85%) 6 (15%) 40 (100%) Second stage accommodation 63 (89%) 8 (11%) 71 (100%) Total 124 (82%) 27 (18%) 151 (100%)
• More specialist services such as podiatry, eye care and dentistry are not quite as commonly available as general health services (nursing care and GPs), and they are less common in day centres than in accommodation services. • Dental care and opticians/eye care are available in-house in a few projects, but are never delivered by their own staff. • Alternative therapies are the most likely physical health services to be delivered in-house by projects’ own staff. • There appeared to be no direct relationship between the proportion of clients who have physical health problems and the availability of health services.
Out of the services that did have support available:
• Twelve have purpose built facilities for nursing care • Ten have purpose built facilities for general practitioners • Nine have purpose built facilities for podiatry/foot care • Six have purpose built facilities for alternative therapies • Two have purpose built facilities for dental care • Two have purpose built facilities for eye care/opticians
The majority of respondents felt that the available services were adequate and accessible to their clients.
8.2.3.4 Advice services
Advice services are among the most common support services available in all homelessness services and they are generally delivered in-house. 95% of services have benefits and housing advice available, and only slightly fewer have debt/financial advice (91%) and legal advice available (85%). However, unlike the other advice services, legal advice is generally available by referral to an external agency as opposed to delivered in-house. Respondents also generally felt that the advice services available were adequate and accessible to their clients.
8.2.3.5 Meaningful activities
It has been increasingly recognised that many people are not yet ready to go into education and training aimed at employment, but that they can benefit from ‘meaningful activities’ that help them develop self- confidence and allow them to engage with others and build positive relationships. We asked about the availability of three types of activities – sports, gardening and arts and cultural activities. Where they are available these activities are generally delivered by projects’ own staff, however, there are some links with external agencies as well.
• Two thirds (67%) of services have sports activities available to them. • Arts and cultural projects are also common and just under two thirds (65%) have these available. • Gardening is available to just under half of projects (47%).
68 A few projects have purpose built facilities for these activities:
• Eight projects have facilities for gardening • Six projects have facilities for sports • Nine projects have facilities for arts and cultural activities.
In general, projects deemed the services available to be adequate and accessible to clients.
8.2.3.6 Learning and skills
We included both informal and more formal learning activities in this section ranging from life skills to accredited courses.
• Over 70% of services have life skills (e.g. cooking, budgeting), literacy and numeracy courses and IT services/computer skills available. • The majority of life skills courses are run in-house by projects’ own staff, which is in line with homelessness services role in preparing clients for independent living. IT services and computer skills are generally available both in-house and by referral. However, literacy and numeracy courses are more likely to be available by referral to an external agency. • Employment related training is less commonly available. 55% of agencies have accredited courses (e.g. NVQs) and 62% have into-work training available, such as building skills. However, this provision is less available in day centres and three quarters of second stage accommodation projects do have into-work training available. • Employment related training courses are less likely to be delivered in-house with 27% (41) of agencies having into-work training in-house delivered either by their own staff or by an external agency and 16% (24) having accredited courses.
Table 45: Availability of into work training for homelessness services by type of project Into-work training Type of homelessness service Service is Service is not Total available available Day centres 15 (38%) 25 (63%) 40 (100%) Direct access hostel 25 (63%) 15 (38%) 40 (100%) Second stage accommodation 53 (75%) 18 (25%) 71 (100%) Total 93 (62%) 58 (38%) 151 (100%)
Table 46: Availability of accredited training courses for homelessness services by type of project Accredited training courses (e.g. NVQs) Type of homelessness service Service is Service is not Total available available Day centres 11 (28%) 29 (73%) 40 (100%) Direct access hostel 23 (58%) 17 (43%) 40 (100%) Second stage accommodation 49 (69%) 22 (31%) 71 (100%) Total 83 (55%) 68 (45%) 151 (100%)
• Purpose built facilities for life skills courses are most common in projects, and available in 28% of services. This is likely to be facilities such as training kitchens. • 25% of services have purpose built facilities for IT/Computer skills. • 17% of services have facilities for literacy and numeracy courses and 11% for accredited courses, such as NVQs. These facilities are probably training rooms.
As with other provision where services are available, respondents generally felt that they were adequate and accessible to their clients.
69
8.2.3.7 Resettlement support
Resettlement support is arguably one of the most important services delivered by homelessness agencies as it focuses specifically on moving people on from temporary accommodation into more permanent housing solutions.
• All services tend to provide housing advice, although an even higher percentage of accommodation providers than day centres do this. • Resettlement/move-on schemes are more common in accommodation services than in day centres. This is unsurprising as direct access hostels and second stage accommodation projects are temporary accommodation solutions and part of the support offered to clients will be to find them a more permanent solution. 80% of direct access hostels have this service available and 73% of second stage supported accommodation do. • Direct access hostels are significantly more likely to have access to rent deposit schemes than second stage accommodation projects. 65% of direct access hostels have a rent deposit scheme available as opposed to 44% of second stage supported accommodation projects. 30% of the day centres surveyed (twelve have rent deposit schemes available.
8.3 Premises
8.3.1 Purpose built buildings, ownership and management
• 65 out of the 151 projects (43%) in our survey operate out of purpose built facilities. However, accommodation services are much more likely to be purpose built than day centres. Only one in five day centres are purpose built, whereas just over half of accommodation projects are. • Where the buildings are purpose built, projects are also more likely to have purpose built facilities for sports and life skills, but not for any of the other support services in our survey.
Table 47: The extent to which the buildings homelessness services operate out of are purpose built Was the main building you operate out Type of homelessness service of purpose built for your project? Total Yes No Day centres 8 (20%) 32 (80%) 40 (100%) Direct access hostel 23 (58%) 17 (43%) 40 (100%) Second stage accommodation 34 (48%) 37 (52%) 71 (100%) Total 65 (43%) 86 (57%) 151 (100%)
• Accommodation services are more likely to own the buildings they operate out of and, if they do not own them, they are more likely than day centres to be acting as the managing agent of the premises. Of the 29 day centres that do not own their buildings only 14 act as the managing agent. By contrast, accommodation providers are more likely to manage the buildings they operate out of. Out of the 53 direct access and second stage accommodation projects that do not own their own buildings all but four act as the managing agent.
8.3.2 Last refurbishment and current shortcomings
Agencies were asked to specify when the last major refurbishment of their buildings had taken place.
• 30% of homelessness projects are operating in new buildings or that have been refurbished in the last two years. • Another 25% of projects have been renovated in the past 5 years.
70 • However, this still means that for 45% of services, it has been six years or more since their building was refurbished, or they are operating out of an old building that has never been renovated. • 14% (21) of projects are in buildings that have never been refurbished or have not undergone any major refurbishment for over 15 years.
Chart 14: Years since last major refurbishment of buildings by type of project
Day centres 14 9 7 3 4 3
Direct access hostels 3 14 8 5 5 2 2 1
Second stage 4 18 21 14 5 3 4 2 accommodation
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
New building not needed renovation Renovated in the last 2 years 3-5 years since last renovation 6-10 years since last renovation 11-15 years since last renovation 16-20 years since last renovation Over 20 years since last renovated Old building - never renovated
Agencies were asked about the extent to which their buildings had shortcomings that restricted their capacity to deliver services and, where shortcomings were reported, to specify what they were.
• Day centres are more likely than accommodation providers to report severe or some shortcomings. Only 15 day centres (38%) reported very few or no shortcomings, whereas 24 direct access hostels (60%) and 43 second stage accommodation projects (61%) did so. • Only five direct access hostels and three second stage projects reported that their premises have severe shortcomings, whereas eight day centres did. • Day centres are more likely than accommodation providers to report a high number of shortcomings. • The most common shortcomings of premises are size limitations, followed by access restrictions such as no or limited disabled access. Lack of private space such as interview rooms are also reported by about a third of agencies.
Table 48: Total number of shortcomings reported by type of project No 1-2 3-5 6-10 Type of project shortcomings shortcomings shortcomings shortcomings Day centres 5 (13%) 15 (38%) 12 (30%) 8 (20%) Direct access hostel 5 (13%) 23 (58%) 6 (15%) 6 (15%) Second stage accommodation 9 (13%) 39 (55%) 20 (28%) 3 (4%) Total 19 (13%) 77 (51%) 38 (25%) 17 (11%)
71
Chart 15: Shortcomings in facilities that restrict projects’ capacity to deliver services
Size limitations
Access restrictions
Lack of private space
Problematic internal layout
Lack of facilities for training and education activities
Lack of communal space
Built form (e.g. inappropriate type of building)
Security issues
Poor condition of premises
Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Number of homelessness projects Second stage supported accommodation Direct Access hostels Day centres
Other shortcomings highlighted by respondents included:
• Two projects mentioned issues with bathroom facilities. • Two projects brought up issues with smoking areas. In one case it was about the lack of smoking areas as the project had been designed before the smoking ban, and in the other, the small yard was deemed insufficient since the smoking ban. • Three projects mentioned issues with their location, for one the ‘city centre location’ brings a ‘temptation of bars and clubs’, for another the premises are adjoined to a wet house hostel, which strongly restricted the services that they could offer, i.e. they could not offer anything for families. • One project mentioned a lack of parking. • One project is operating out of a listed building, which means that they cannot make the changes they want. • One project mentioned lack of storage. • One project stated that they have a ‘lack of flexibility in terms of future needs. We are two sites and ideally should be on one site to reduce our costs’.
8.3.3 Refurbishment plans
Respondents were asked whether they had any plans to refurbish their premises and, if so, what they were planning and whether they had organised funding for the refurbishment.
• Over half (56%) of those surveyed reported that they have refurbishment plans. There are no significant differences between the different types of services. Out of the 85 services that are
72 planning to refurbish 33 have funding organised, yet this still left 60% without current funding for their plans. • Around a quarter of all project in the survey are planning a major refurbishment. • Out of the 40 projects that are planning a major refurbishment 40% (16) have organised funding, as have five of the nine services that are planning to add additional facilities.
Chart 16: Type of work projects who are looking to refurbish their building are planning
Second stage accommodation
Direct access hostel
Day centres
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percentage of projects who were planning a refurbishment
Major refurbishment Adding additional facilities Minor upgrade Other
Chart 17: Organised funding sources for refurbishment plan
18 16 14 12 10 8 6
organisedfunding 4 2
Number ofNumberserviceshave who 0 Day centres Direct access hostels Second stage accommodation Type of service
Your own organisation CLG Housing Corporation Charitable fundraising Other
• There is a correlation between the level of shortcomings reported and whether the agency is planning to refurbish. Out of those 18 projects that have severe shortcomings only two are not
73 looking to refurbish. However, nine of the 19 that reported that their facilities have no shortcomings are also looking to refurbish. • 14 of the 17 projects that reported more than five different types of shortcomings are also planning to refurbish.
Table 49: Correlation between shortcomings reported and whether projects were looking to refurbish their buildings Shortcomings reported Are you looking to upgrade or Severe or some very few or no refurbish your building? shortcomings shortcoming Total Yes 48 (56%) 37 (44%) 85 (100%) No 21 (32%) 45 (68%) 66 (100%) Total 69 (46%) 82 (54%) 151 (100%)
8.3.4 Skills and experience to organise and manage building contract
• Most agencies (81%) do feel that they had the skills and experience to organise and manage building contracts. However, 28 projects do not, and 13 out of those are projects looking to refurbish their buildings. Four of those agencies have already organised funding for the refurbishment and are likely to benefit from additional support in this area. • Day centres that do not own, or act as the managing agent of their building, are least likely to feel that they have the skills and experience to organise and manage a building contract.
8.4 Funding
The survey also sought to establish the major funding streams for services in the sector. Agencies are sometimes sensitive about giving detailed financial information and therefore respondents were only asked to indicate what funding streams they were in receipt of and which their primary funding stream was. Ten initial categories were included:
• Supporting People • Social Services • Other local authority funding (e.g. local grant) • Criminal Justice (Youth Offending Team, Probation, etc.) • Substance misuse services (e.g. Drug Action Teams) • Health (NHS Trusts, Primary Care Trust, etc) • Employment and Education (e.g. Job centre Plus, Learning and Skills council) • Rent & Service Charges (i.e. as paid by the service users) • Benefit Payments (Housing Benefits etc) if paid direct to provider • Fundraising (including charitable trust fundraising and individual donations)
Respondents were given the option of specifying additional funding streams when applicable. Where agencies identified charitable trusts such as Northern Rock, these were recoded into the ‘charitable fundraising’ category.
• 93% of accommodation providers are in receipt of Supporting People funding and for 86% it is their primary funding stream. This illustrates how important this funding stream is to homelessness accommodation services. • 35% of day centres also stated that they receive SP funding, which is surprising, as this funding stream funds housing related support. However, several day centres are part of larger services that also offer accommodation and they are likely to be the ones in receipt of SP funding.
74 • Just over half of day centres also receive other non-SP local authority funding and this is the primary funding stream for seven of the 40 day centres in the survey. Another two projects also mentioned the City Council as their primary funder. • 95% of day centres rely at least partially on charitable fundraising (including charitable trust fundraising and donations), whereas only 20% of accommodation providers do. For almost half of day centres (19 projects, 48%) this is also their primary funding stream. • Funding from other areas of statutory funding are rare with only 7% of projects receiving funding from health, 2% from substance misuse services, 3% from criminal justice and 5% employment and education. • Interestingly, only 32% of accommodation providers state that they received rent or services charges (as paid by the service users) and only half that they receive benefits payments such as housing benefit. One explanation for this could be that the rent is paid directly to the housing association that owns the building and not the service delivery agent, so that those who do not own their buildings do not get this funding stream. However, whether they owned or managed the building did not significantly affect the likelihood of getting this funding stream. It may be that rent payments, whether by clients themselves or through housing benefits, are managed separately and not seen as part of the funding for the service per se (as it does not pay for the workers delivering support). • In addition to the funding streams listed above, other funding streams mentioned were: City Councils, Salvation Army, local companies, individual grants from contractor for smaller projects, Home Office, events, Connexions, and Board of Trustees.
Table 50: Primary funding streams for projects surveyed Type of service Primary Funding Stream Direct Access Second stage Day Centres Hostel accommodation Total Supporting People 20% (8) 83% (33) 89% (63) 69% (104)
Social Services 3% (1) - 1% (1) 1% (2)
Other local authority funding (e.g. 18% (7) 5% (2) 3% (2) 7% (11) local grant) Health (NHS Trusts, Primary Care 3% (1) - - 1% (1) Trust, etc) Rent & Service Charges (i.e. as paid - 5% (2) 3% (2) 3% (4) by the service users) Benefit Payments (Housing Benefits - 3% (1) 1% (1) 1% (2) etc) if paid direct to provider Fundraising (incl. charitable trust 48% (19) 3% (1) 1% (1) 14% (21) fundraising and individual donations)
Salvation Army - 3% (1) 1% (1) 1% (2)
Charity Shop 5% (2) - - 1% (2)
City Council 5% (2) - - 1% (2) Total 100% (40) 100% (40) 100% (71) 100% (151)
75 8.5 Summary
The questionnaire was a sample survey and this must be borne in mind when interpreting the results, especially in terms of the breakdown of data by type of organisation. The sample was also drawn from an as yet incomplete dataset, which could bias the figures. Similarly, to ensure good response rates, we asked project managers to estimate the proportions of their clients from different backgrounds rather than give gathering precise figures. The survey was also not designed to look in detail at the quality of services provided, only at whether or not project managers stated that a service was available and felt it was adequate or not. All this means that the findings are indicative. However, they give us a much greater picture of services across England than was previously available and, if the survey is repeated, by using these results as a baseline, we will be able get a much better idea about trends in services. Moreover, the findings suggest many important areas that would benefit from being explored further such as:
• Is there a lack of accommodation provision for prison leavers given that there appear to be higher proportions in day centres than in accommodation services? • Why do so few services have probation services available to them when a high proportion of clients appear to have a history of being in prison or present with offending behaviour? • Do day centres keep inadequate records of who access their services, given that managers found it difficult to estimate what proportion of their clients come from specific groups, especially around diversity? • Are BME groups, asylum seekers and refugees over represented in services and do these services adequately cater to their needs? Why are they more prevalent in day centres? • Given that most day centres see victims of domestic violence (only one day centre reported that they had no victims of domestic violence in their service), how well are they linked in with refuges and other specialist provision for this group? • When half of services report that over 50% of their clients have multiple needs, how severe are those issues and are they receiving adequate support? • What are the qualifications and skills of staff who deliver in-house support services such as training courses and talking therapies? • What are the barriers to linking clients to external activities such as gardening, sports and arts and cultural projects? • Why do so few services have care services available, is it because their clients do not need this support, or because the links with this sector are poor? • To what extent do agencies reporting that they do not have a service available mean that their clients cannot access this service? • Where into work training and accredited courses are available, what do they involve, and are there any particular types of skills and learning activities that are lacking - e.g. do they all focus on building and construction and what can clients who are not interested in this access? • What support do agencies need to develop the skills and experience to organise and manage building contracts? • To what extent does the reliance on Supporting People funding for accommodation services and charitable fundraising for day centres make them vulnerable to fluctuations in the availability of funding?
This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but to give an indication of the types of questions that could be looked at further. Whilst a national survey of services is unlikely to be able to go into great detail of what services are like and who they work with, taken together with the analysis of Homeless UK and Supporting People data, this research now gives us a much better picture of what homelessness services in England look like. If we continue to build on the findings of this and other research already available, we will be able to get both a broader and deeper understanding of homelessness in the country.
76 9. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 Introduction
The summary findings presented here are just a selection of those from this research project that has produced a significant body of data about homelessness services in England.
There is now much more robust information about day centres and direct access hostels, and indicative data about the numbers of second stage supported accommodation projects for homeless people. We are clearer about the geographical location of services, facilities provided, the vast range and types of support offered to individuals, as well as prevalence of individuals with different support needs and backgrounds. Policy makers, charitable funders and third sector organisations are in a much stronger position from which to make strategic, planning and funding decisions informed by the scope, scale and diversity of the sector.
Furthermore this research is a useful baseline from which, if the research is repeated, we can begin to identify emergent trends, improvements in access to particular services, and where policies to prevent homelessness are beginning to have an impact.
Having carried out this extensive analysis of day centres, hostels and supported accommodation projects, a next step should be data gathering and similar analysis of other types of services for homeless people. Analysis of advice, outreach, resettlement and specialist health services would give a more complete picture of the nature and extent of the “homelessness sector” as a whole.
9.2 Data matters
Good information about services and clients is vital for planning and policy purposes and delivery of appropriate, effective services. It can play a key role in helping to tackle homelessness and develop better services for homeless people.
Whilst the existing datasets analysed for this research have produced a wealth of information, carrying out such a task means confronting some inevitable limitations in data. Addressing these limitations will allow us to draw an improved national, regional and local picture of homelessness in England in the future.
• CLG, providers, local authorities, Homeless Link and RIS should work to improve the quality and consistency of systematic data collection on homeless people’s support needs, their prevalence and level, particularly amongst outreach teams (outside of London), and day centres At present systematic data collection across England happens only for non-statutory homeless individuals using Supporting People funded services. There are specific regional examples such as CHAIN 49 , which operates for rough sleepers in London. Having such a process in other areas would enable stronger data to be available about the actual numbers of individuals accessing services, their support needs, and how these change over time. The extent and quality of data available nationally 50 varies from region to region and can limit the ability to demonstrate outcomes and impact.
49 www.broadwaylondon.org . 50 Performance data was only available for 55% of services providing Supporting People funded services
77 9.3 Facilities
The appropriateness of the physical environment and standards of buildings in which services are provided vary between projects. For example, day centres in particular are less likely to be based in purpose built premises, and some day centres and hostel services report significant shortcomings and/or are in need of refurbishment. Whilst delivering services to homeless people with a broad range of needs, often within tight budgets and with limited resources, can be challenging, people who find themselves homeless should be able to access services of the best possible standard.
• CLG, local authorities and providers should commit to improving the standards of homelessness service provision in England Ending the use of shared rooms in hostels, bar those for couples, should be a priority, but looking at rules around curfews and access that limit people’s independence is also key. Lessons from the Hostels Capital Improvement Programme showed that welcoming, light, high quality buildings, that encourage interaction between staff and residents, can become Places for Change, where clients are inspired and supported to move on in their lives. 51
• CLG, Registered Social Landlords, local authorities and providers need to begin planning and developing services for couples The survey suggested a higher prevalence of couples in day centres, than in accommodation projects, which is in part due to the limited provision available for couples. However, for users of both forms of provision, a relationship can help support people out of homelessness and combat loneliness and isolation, yet lack of provision for couples can make relationships difficult to maintain.
• CLG, local authorities and charitable funders should ensure that day centres receive funding to address the physical limitations within which they operate The survey clearly showed a high number of day centres that were not purpose built, buildings that restricted their capacity to deliver services and no funding in place to address this. Only 38% of day centres reported no shortcomings in their services. There is a need to develop specific capital funding streams within the new Homes Agency that fund non-housing elements that support people in tenancies i.e. day centres.
9.4 Prevention
Preventing homelessness is vital and relies on both an understanding of why people become homeless and on the best way services can work successfully with individuals to prevent repeat homelessness. The survey gave evidence of the broad range of backgrounds that individuals are reporting when accessing services. It is clear that whilst there may not always be a direct causal link between background and the reason a person becomes homeless, there is a need to address the interrelationship between issues.
• CLG, Ministry of Justice, prisons, NOMS, local authorities and third sector providers should join up and develop their work on offenders and housing to better understand links between homelessness and offending The inter-relationship between offending and homelessness appears strong and the survey indicated a high prevalence of people in homeless services with an offending background (one in five services reported 50% or more of clients as prison leavers). There appears to be a need to improve the links and working relationships between local prisons, homelessness services and the wider criminal justice sector.
51 Communities and Local Government (2007) Creating Places of Change: Lessons learnt from the Hostels Capital Improvement Programme 2005–2008
78 • Service providers, local authorities, registered social landlords and the CLG should work to understand why moves are unplanned and identify and spread ways to prevent evictions and abandonments. Whilst the performance data around planned moves was incomplete, it is clear that, of the data available, 43% of moves were unplanned. There is a need to examine the reasons for this and how evictions, abandonments or other undesirable outcomes can be prevented and reduced.
9.5 Support
The survey indicated higher proportions of day centres reporting higher numbers of clients with support needs compared with levels reported by accommodation providers. Day centres are often the first point of contact with homelessness services and tend to pick up those individuals who are not able to access services elsewhere - the prevalence of Eastern European migrants without recourse to public funds in day centres is a case in point. However, this information needs to be interpreted carefully. Accommodation providers can allow chaotic clients to stabilise and address their support needs, which could explain the lower levels of support needs in these services. Some services are readily available in most projects, for example 90% reported that they had advice on debt or welfare benefits available. However, access to other support does need to be developed and improved.
• Homeless Link and local authorities should help day centres to access statutory funding to provide the support required and link in better with local agendas This research shows that day centres provide a crucial frontline role in tackling homelessness and serving thousands of people every day, yet are heavily dependent on charitable fundraising. They also provide a safety net to people without recourse to public funds and face emerging trends in clients’ support needs often before people are in contact with accommodation providers. Day centres need support to demonstrate more clearly their value, role and impact on the local community.
• DWP, Job Centre Plus and specialist employment services should work closely with Homeless Link and, through it homelessness agencies, to ensure that all homeless people have access to employment and employment related training Employment is a key route out of homelessness for some people and it is important to ensure that appropriate services are being provided. Whilst the survey showed a higher level of access to employment related training services in second stage accommodation, it was still one of the lowest percentages of services reported as available, either in-house or through referral. Overall 58% of projects reported access to accredited courses (e.g. NVQs) and 63% had into-work training available. Work needs to occur to build links between mainstream employment provision and specialist provision and ensure that it responds to the needs of homeless people.
• CLG, Department of Health, Social Exclusion Taskforce, Home Office, Department of Work and Pensions, working with national third sector agencies, should agree a national definition, a process to capture data by area, and a commissioning framework for public and third sector services to meet the needs of clients with multiple needs Currently multiple and complex needs are terms that are often used by different sectors to describe a range of types and levels of needs. The survey suggested that there is a prevalence of people with multiple needs in the sector, but it did not convey the level and complexity of these needs. In order to improve service planning and commissioning, it is clear that there needs to be national agreement about a definition and what constitutes multiple needs. Once this definition is agreed, barriers to multi-agency working need to be facilitated building on the adults facing chronic exclusion.
• NIMHE, Department of Health, National Social Inclusion Partnership, Mental Health Trusts and Social Services need to work closely with homelessness agencies to improve access to and provision of mental health services to homeless people
79 Although mental health services were often reported as being available, some providers reported that these services were not sufficient to meet needs. It is clear that the relationship between mental health and homelessness needs to be improved and work is ongoing nationally to support this.
• Department of Health needs to work to support homelessness agencies to improve their understanding of, and access to, care services There is a very low level of care services being accessed by the homelessness sector. More work is needed to understand if this is because people do not need to access care services, or if there is a need, but there are barriers to accessing them and/or community care assessments.
• Local authorities should ensure that homelessness agencies can access local rent deposit schemes to increase availability of private rented accommodation for homeless people The survey showed that 54% of agencies did not have access to rent deposit schemes. Work carried out during the Move On Plans Protocol project (MOPP) 52 showed that in some areas local authorities were operating private rented sector access schemes which were not available to third sector agencies. Local authorities should consider the relevance of widening such schemes to include homelessness agencies.
52 For more detail see: http://www.homeless.org.uk/policyandinfo/issues/rehousing/mopp
80
11. APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Regional breakdown of homelessness provision in comparison to population
Population rank and Population Day centres Direct access hostels Floating Support region 000s % No. % Rank Beds % Rank Spaces % Rank 1 South East 8,000 16% 31 17% 2 858 10% 4 1,965 14% 2
2 London 7,172 15% 49 26% 1 2,378 27% 1 2,698 20% 1
3 North West 6,729 14% 19 10% 5 1,280 14% 2 1,721 13% 3 4 East of 5,388 11% 13 7% 6 541 6% 8 804 6% 8 England 5 West 5,267 11% 13 7% 6 1,212 14% 3 781 6% 9 Midlands 6 Yorkshire 4,964 10% 12 6% 8 773 9% 5 1,642 12% 4 & Humber 7 South 4,928 10% 24 13% 3 767 9% 6 1,216 9% 7 West 8 East 4,172 8% 20 11% 4 615 7% 7 1,285 9% 6 Midlands 9 North East 2,515 5% 6 3% 9 528 6% 9 1,477 11% 5
Source : Population data is based on the 2001 Census, day centre and direct access hostel data comes from Homeless UK and the Floating support service data is derived from SP provider data. The chart below also includes the number of SP accommodation units with Young people at risk, Single homeless people with support needs and Rough sleepers as their primary or secondary client group, based on SP provider data
81 Chart 18: Percentage of population in England compared to the percentage of provision of day centres, direct access hostel bedspaces and Supporting People accommodation/floating support by region
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5% Percentage of national population or provision or population national of Percentage 0% East Midlands East of London North East North West South East South West West Yorkshire and England Midlands the Humber Region Population Day centres Direct access hostel bedspaces Supporting People accommodation household units Supporting People Floating Support household units
82 Appendix 2: Day centres and direct access hostel provision by local authority where based
Day centres Direct access h ostels Local authority where based Average daily Number Number Bedspaces users East Midlands Derby 1 50 4 89 Derbyshire - - - - Leicester 4 186 5 158 Leicestershire - - 1 56 Lincolnshire 3 56 2 40 Northamptonshire 4 302 1 31 Nottingham 4 295 5 241 Nottinghamshire 4 105 - - Rutland - - - - East of England Bedfordshire 1 55 1 18 Cambridgeshire 1 65 5 164 Essex 3 90 3 42 Hertfordshire 3 95 5 68 Luton 1 70 2 20 Norfolk 2 95* 2 36 Peterborough 1 90 2 37 Southend on Sea 1 60 1 14 Suffolk - - 5 142 Thurrock - - - - London Barking and Dagenham - - - - Barnet 1 75 - - Bexley - - - - Brent 1 40 2 170 Bromley 1 45 - Camden 4 131 5 239 City of London - - - - Croydon 1 50 - - Ealing 1 160 - - Enfield 1 5 - - Greenwich - - 1 12 Hackney 3 80* - - Hammersmith & Fulham 3 252 1 40 Haringey - - 1 152 Harrow - - - - Havering - - - - Hillingdon - - - - Hounslow 1 not known - - Islington 4 330 - - Kensington and Chelsea 6 200 2 172 Kingston upon Thames - - - - Lambeth 3 250 2 189 Lewisham 3 282 2 54 Merton - - 1 9 Newham 1 35 1 25 Redbridge - - 1 18 Richmond upon Thames 1 40 1 12
83 Southwark 1 135 6 239 Sutton - - - - Tower Hamlets 5 335 3 315 Waltham Forest 1 45 1 25 Wandsworth - - - - Westminster 7 800 13 707 North East Darlington 1 50 2 48 Durham - - 2 74 Gateshead - - - - Hartlepool - - - - Middlesbrough - - 1 36 Newcastle upon Tyne 3 175 6 231 North Tyneside 1 55 2 42 Northumberland - - - - Redcar and Cleveland - - - - South Tyneside - - - - Stockton -on -Tees - - 1 32 Sunderland 1 60 1 65 North West Blackburn with Darwen 1 20 4 135 Blackpool 1 100 6 121 Bolton - - 1 61 Bury 1 30 - - Cheshire 1 30 -70 3 102 Cumbria 2 50 2 47 Halton - - - - Knowsley - - 1 36 Lancashire 3 67 4 57 Liverpool 2 135 6 184 Manchester 4 360 4 189 Oldham - - 1 18 Rochdale 2 105 2 100 Salford - - 1 38 Sefton 1 45 2 31 St Helens - - 1 68 Stockport 1 60 - - Tameside - - - - Trafford - - - - Warrington - - 1 42 Wigan - - - - Wirral - - 2 51 South East Bracknell Forest - - - - Brighton & Hove 3 145* 1 18 Bucking hamshire 1 60 1 42 East Sussex 3 165 - - Hampshi re 4 122 4 72 Isle of Wight - - - - Kent 4 95 3 121 Medway 1 50 1 12 Milton Keynes - - 1 15 Oxf ordshire 5 302 3 164 Portsmouth 1 25 3 84 Readin g 1 50 1 38
84 Slough 1 40 - - Southampton 3 135 3 101 Surrey 2 115 4 86 West Berkshire 1 15 1 55 West Sussex 1 35 3 50 Windsor & Maidenhead - - - - Wokingham - - - - South West Bath & N E Somerset 1 50 1 15 Bournemouth 1 55 3 87 Bristol 5 265 6 243 Cornwall 5 156 4 62 Devon 3 100 2 59 Dorset 1 60 - - Gloucestershire 1 50 2 34 North Somerset 1 35 - - Plymouth 1 80 3 98 Poole - - - - Somerset 1 45 3 84 South Gloucestershire - - - - Swindon 1 25 2 73 Torbay 1 30 1 12 Wiltshire 2 45 - - West Midlands Birmingham 5 265 10 453 Coventry 2 120 3 314 Dudley - - 1 83 Herefordshire - - - - Sandwell - - 1 9 Shropshire - - - - Solihull - - - - Staffordshire - - - - Stoke on Trent - - 3 175 Telford and Wrekin 1 25 1 8 Walsall 1 48 - - Warwickshire 1 30 - - Wolverhampton 1 50 1 54 Worcestershire 2 68 2 116 Yorkshire & Humber Barnsley - - - - Bradford 1 70 4 109 Cald erdale - - - - Doncaster 1 30 1 13 East Riding of Yorkshire - - - - Kingston upon Hull 1 20 4 167 Kirklees - - 1 10 Leeds 2 280 4 130 North East Lincolnshire 1 40 3 132 North Lincolnshire - - - - North Yorkshire 1 7 1 15 Rotherham - - 2 26 Sheffield 3 161 4 129 Wakefield - - - - York 2 90 1 42 *not known at 1 project Source : Homeless UK
85 Appendix 3: Numbers of household units in ‘Homeless Hostel, B&B or other Temporary Accommodation’, ‘Supported Housing (shared or self contained)’ or ‘Foyer for Young People’ accommodation for all Supporting People primary client groups ordered by all secondary client groups
Primary client group Secondary client group Units Generic Complex needs 119 Homeless families with support needs 572 Offenders or people at risk of offending 34 People with learning disabilities 25 People with mental health problems 101 Single homeless with support needs 76 Women at risk of domestic violence 17 Blank 708 Total 1,652 Homeless families with support needs Complex needs 107 Homeless families with support needs 502 Offenders or people at risk of offending 5 People with a physical or sensory 47 disability People with mental health problems 171 Refugees 276 Single homeless with support needs 2,901 Teenage paren ts 375 Women at risk of domestic violence 657 Young people at risk 197 Blank 1,388 Total 6,626 Mentally disordered offenders Complex needs 5 Mentally disordered offenders 13 Offenders or people at risk of offending 42 People with drug pr oblems 13 People with mental health problems 32 Single homeless with support needs 7 Blank 36 Total 148 Offenders or people at risk of offending Complex needs 102 Mentally disordered offenders 106 Offenders or people at risk of offending 259 Older people with support needs 2 People with alcohol problems 113 People with drug problems 605 People with learning disabilities 15 People with mental health problems 101 Single homeless with support needs 1,857 Women at risk of domesti c violence 16 Young people at risk 97 Blank 880
86 Total 4,153 Older people with mental health problems Complex needs 39 People with learning disabilities 22 Blank 19 Total 80 Older people with support needs Frail elderly 704 Older peo ple with mental health problems 750 Older people with support needs 90 People with a physical or sensory 651 disability Single homeless with support needs 39 Blank 5,892 Total 8,126 People with a physical or sensory disability Complex needs 26 Older people with support needs 20 People with a physical or sensory 69 disability People with alcohol problems 6 People with learning disabilities 114 People with mental health problems 114 Single homeless with support needs 10 Young peop le at risk 1 Blank 146 Total 506 People with alcohol problems Complex needs 80 Older people with support needs 12 People with alcohol problems 61 People with drug problems 597 People with mental health problems 126 Rough sleeper 15 Sin gle homeless with support needs 263 Women at risk of domestic violence 3 Blank 280 Total 1,437 People with drug problems Complex needs 34 Offenders or people at risk of offending 186 People with alcohol problems 1,134 People with drug prob lems 44 Single homeless with support needs 75 Young people at risk 13 Blank 167 Total 1,653 People with HIV/AIDS People with HIV/AIDS 8 People with mental health problems 1 Single homeless with support needs 9 Blank 24 Total 42 Peop le with learning disabilities Complex needs 234
87 Homeless families with support needs 11 Mentally disordered offenders 3 Offenders or people at risk of offending 10 Older people with mental health problems 23 Older people with support needs 9 People with a physical or sensory 259 disability People with learning disabilities 227 People with mental health problems 669 Single homeless with support needs 70 Women at risk of domestic violence 12 Young people leaving care 17 Blank 813 Total 2,357 People with mental health problems Complex needs 1,342 Frail elderly 16 Homeless families with support needs 14 Mentally disordered offenders 355 Offenders or people at risk of offending 105 Older people with mental health proble ms 182 Older people with support needs 86 People with a physical or sensory 72 disability People with alcohol problems 487 People with drug problems 284 People with learning disabilities 1,062 People with mental health problems 1,582 Refugees 8 Rough sleeper 149 Single homeless with support needs 1,610 Women at risk of domestic violence 45 Young people at risk 26 Young people leaving care 16 Blank 3,699 Total 11,140 Refugees Complex needs 47 Homeless families with support needs 233 People with HIV/AIDS 12 People with mental health problems 6 Refugees 72 Single homeless with support needs 445 Young people at risk 72 Young people leaving care 107 Blank 322 Total 1,316 Rough sleepers Complex needs 418 Offenders or people at risk of offending 12 People with alcohol problems 254 People with drug problems 72 People with mental health problems 30 Rough sleeper 144 Single homeless with support needs 416
88 Young people at risk 27 Blank 258 Total 1,631 Single homeless with support needs Complex needs 2,975 Homeless families with support needs 1,378 Offenders or people at risk of offending 2,296 Older people with mental health problems 40 Older people with support needs 536 People wit h a physical or sensory 33 disability People with alcohol problems 1,561 People with drug problems 1,864 People with HIV/AIDS 165 People with learning disabilities 147 People with mental health problems 3,232 Refugees 451 Rough sleeper 1,415 Single homeless with support needs 2,156 Teenage parents 270 Women at risk of domestic violence 389 Young people at risk 3,767 Young people leaving care 759 Blank 5,459 Total 28,893 Teenage parents Homeless families with support needs 293 People with alcohol problems 16 People with learning disabilities 6 Single homeless with support needs 147 Teenage parents 81 Women at risk of domestic violence 23 Young people at risk 132 Young people leaving care 12 Blank 236 Total 946 Traveller Single homeless with support needs 34 Traveller 38 Blank 94 Total 166 Women at risk of domestic violence Complex needs 2 Homeless families with support needs 137 Older people with mental health problems 8 People with a p hysical or sensory 12 disability People with alcohol problems 2 People with mental health problems 5 Single homeless with support needs 91 Teenage parents 9 Women at risk of domestic violence 61 Blank 275 Total 602 Young people at risk
89 Complex needs 205 Homeless families with support needs 43 Offenders or people at risk of offending 758 People with a physical or sensory 4 disability People with drug problems 94 People with learning disabilities 52 People with mental health pro blems 76 Refugees 43 Rough sleeper 32 Single homeless with support needs 4,707 Teenage parents 182 Women at risk of domestic violence 54 Young people at risk 616 Young people leaving care 3,109 Blank 1,456 Total 11,431 Young people le aving care Complex needs 13 Offenders or people at risk of offending 17 People with learning disabilities 1 Refugees 29 Single homeless with support needs 136 Teenage parents 12 Young people at risk 309 Young people leaving care 12 Blank 190 Total 719
All primary client groups Total 83,624
Source : This table is based on the classification of services in Supporting People provider database.
Appendix 4: Numbers of Supporting People services that have Single homeless with support needs, Rough sleepers or Young people at risk as Secondary client group but not as Primary client group
Region Household units Services Providers East Midlands 363 4% 34 5% 20 East of England 1,071 12% 74 11% 36 London 2,374 27% 191 29% 71 North Ea st 302 3% 27 4% 11 North West 1,118 13% 91 14% 43 South East 882 10% 44 7% 28 South West 1,004 11% 86 13% 35 West Midlands 896 10% 68 10% 31 Yorkshire and The Humber 771 9% 35 5% 18 England 8,781 650 256*
* NB this figure is the total number of providers across England and is not equal to the sum of providers by region given in the column above as some providers operate in more than one region.
Source : This table is based on the classification of services in Supporting People provider database.
90 Appendix 5: A table showing the primary client groups of schemes that have a secondary client group of Single homeless with support needs, Rough sleeper or Young people at risk
Primary client group Secondary client group: household units Total househol d Single Rough sleeper Young people at units homeless risk Generic 76 0.9% 0 0% 0 0% 76 0.9%
Homeless families with 2,901 33.0% 0 0% 197 2.2% 3,098 35.3% support needs Mentally disordered 7 0.1% 0 0% 0 0% 7 0.1% offenders Offenders or people at 1,857 21.1% 0 0% 97 1.1% 1,954 22.3% risk of offending Older people with mental 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% health problems Older people with support 39 0.4% 0 0% 0 0% 39 0.4% needs People with a physical or 10 0.1% 0 0% 1 0.01% 11 0.1% sensory disability People with alcohol 263 3.0% 15 0.2% 0 0% 278 3.2% problems People with drug 75 0.9% 0 0% 13 0.1% 88 1.0% problems People with HIV/AIDS 9 0.1% 0 0% 0 0% 9 0.1%
People with learning 70 0.8% 0 0% 0 0% 70 0.8% disabilities People with mental health 1,610 18.3% 149 1.7% 26 0.3% 1,785 20.3% problems Refugees 445 5.1% 0 0% 72 0.8% 517 5.9%
Teenage parents 147 1.7% 0 0% 132 1.5% 279 3.2%
Travellers 34 0.4% 0 0% 0 0% 34 0.4%
Women at risk of 91 1.0% 0 0% 0 0% 91 1.0% domestic violence Young people leaving 136 1.5% 0 0% 309 3.5% 445 5.1% care Totals 7,770 88.5% 164 1.9% 847 9.6% 8,781 100%
Source : This table is based on the classification of services in Supporting People provider database.
91 Appendix 6: Other primary/secondary client groups
This table gives data for services which are categorised under one of the six primary client groups which are most relevant to single homelessness after Single homeless with support needs, Rough sleepers and Young people at risk. It shows the number of household units by secondary client group except Single homeless with support needs, Rough sleepers and Young people at risk as these are shown in the table in Appendix 5 above.
It may be that those services that are blank with no secondary client group specified (a total of 5,491 household units) or that have the same secondary client group as primary client group (2,019 household units) are very specific about the clients they deal with and therefore do not especially house homeless people. Predictably given the prevalence of projects that serve both client groups, a large proportion of services categorised by Primary client group People with alcohol problems have the Secondary client group People with drug problems and vice versa.
Primary client group Secondary client g roup Units Offenders/People at risk of offending Complex needs 102 Mentally disordered offenders 106 Offenders or people at risk of offending 259 Older people with support needs 2 People with alcohol problems 113 People with drug problems 605 People with learning disabilities 15 People with mental health problems 101 Women at risk of domestic violence 16 Blank 880 Total 2,199 People with alcohol problems Complex needs 80 Older people with support needs 12 People with alcohol pr oblems 61 People with drug problems 597 People with mental health problems 126 Women at risk of domestic violence 3 Blank 280 Total 1,159 People with drug problems Complex needs 34 Offenders or people at risk of offending 186 People with a lcohol problems 1,134 People with drug problems 44 Blank 167 Total 1,565 People with mental health problems Complex needs 1,342 Frail elderly 16 Homeless families with support needs 14 Mentally disordered offenders 355 Offenders/People at risk of offending 105 Older people with mental health problems 182 Older people with support needs 86 People with a physical or sensory disability 72 People with alcohol problems 487 People with drug problems 284 People with learning disabiliti es 1,062
92 People with mental health problems 1,582 Refugees 8 Women at risk of domestic violence 45 Young people leaving care 16 Blank 3,699 Total 9,355 Women at risk of domestic violence Complex needs 2 Homeless families with support need s 137 Older people with mental health problems 8 People with a physical or sensory disability 12 People with alcohol problems 2 People with mental health problems 5 Teenage parents 9 Women at risk of domestic violence 61 Blank 275 Total 51 1 Young people leaving care Complex needs 13 Offenders or people at risk of offending 17 People with learning disabilities 1 Refugees 29 Teenage parents 12 Young people leaving care 12 Blank 190 Total 274 Total for selected primary clie nt groups 15,063
Source : This table is based on the classification of services in Supporting People provider database.
93 Appendix 7: Number of Supporting People funded household units by organisation type (for 3 relevant primary groups only)
Organisat ion East East of London North North South South West Yorkshire England Midlands England East West East West Midlands & Humber RSL 1,431 3,239 7,024 560 1,780 3,206 2,177 2,109 947 22,473 Charitable 764 789 2,687 608 1,427 1,495 1,104 1,161 1,304 11,339 Organisation Voluntary Not 104 428 1,633 410 501 395 490 155 506 4,622 For Profit LA – Housing 326 170 655 67 278 165 51 39 107 1,858 Dept LA – Joint SS / 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 22 64 Housing LA – Social 8 0 4 42 0 0 0 117 0 171 Services Dept ALMO 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 26
LSVT (RSL) 0 203 0 0 109 69 65 210 9 665 Private 10 0 9 0 76 0 117 58 0 270 Company Private 0 0 0 0 301 24 78 8 4 415 Individual Other 0 35 0 0 7 0 0 0 10 52
Total 2,643 4,864 12,012 1,713 4,521 5,354 4,082 3,857 2,909 41,955
Source : This table is based on the classification of services in Supporting People provider database.
94 Appendix 8: Household types for Supporting People funded services by region
Number of services by household type Couples Couples Women All Single Single Single Men with All adult without with with household Other people men women children household Region children children children types East 117 34 29 17 2 6 9 9 4 5 Midlands East of 201 23 20 16 9 6 10 6 6 4 England
London 367 88 111 6 4 2 17 4 2 5
North East 65 21 18 9 6 3 6 3 4 0
North 162 56 45 13 5 6 14 3 1 6 West
South East 239 11 14 15 5 2 3 6 6 3
South 186 53 53 23 4 6 8 10 5 5 West West 127 44 27 12 6 4 7 3 3 1 Midlands Yorkshire and the 101 30 26 16 7 8 12 8 10 5 Humber
England 1,565 360 343 127 48 43 86 52 41 34
Source : This table is based on the classification of services in Supporting People provider database.
95 Appendix 9: Permanent accommodation
Region Permanent household units Total units including permanent
East Midlands 30 1% 2,673
East of England 114 2% 4,978
London 669 5% 12,681
North East 40 2% 1,753
North West 217 5% 4,738
South East 55 12% 5,409
South West 20 0.5% 4,102
West Midlands 17 0.4% 3,874
Yorkshire and The Humber 55 2% 2,964
England 1,217 3% 43,172
Source : This table is based on the classification of services in Supporting People provider database.
96 Appendix 10: Throughput estimation, breakdown by region, primary client group and type of service
The type of accommodation provision and the primary client group of services affects the level of throughput in services. A short stay night shelter for rough sleepers, will have a much greater level of throughput than a Foyer working with young people at risk. The table breaks down the figures available by service type and the different primary client groups. Throughput data was only available for about half of the services we analysed, so the total level of throughput has been estimated based on the percentage throughput of the services available and multiplied with the total number of household units in that category in the region overall.
Note that certain types of services, such as night shelters for rough sleepers, will have a very high level of throughput, as individuals may access the service for a short period of time before moving onto other services or return to the streets.
Throughput data available (1025 All SP Data (2033 services) services) Estimated No. of Household Total Primary Client total no. of Region Service type households units Percentage household Group households accessing giving throughput units in accessing services data region services East Rough sleeper Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 447 14 3193% 14 447 Midlands Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 0 Foyer for Young People 0 Single Homeless Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 1932 375 515% 712 3668 with support Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 2197 729 301% 1081 3258 needs Foyer for Young People 72 29 248% 29 72 Young People at Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 156 42 371% 75 279 risk Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 1254 471 266% 604 1608 Foyer for Young People 222 114 195 % 128 249 TOTAL EAST MIDLANDS 6280 1774 354% 2643 9581
97
East of Rough sleeper Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 0 England Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 0 Foyer for Young People 0 Single Ho meless Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 2132 488 437% 1869 8165 with support Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 1473 676 218% 1422 3099 needs Foyer for Young People 95 47 202% 301 608 Young People at Homeless Hos tel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 208 37 562% 99 557 risk Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 597 298 200% 752 1507 Foyer for Young People 380 175 217% 421 914 TOTAL EAST OF ENGLAND 4885 1721 284% 4864 14850 London Rough sleeper Homele ss Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 1239 441 281% 746 2096 Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 279 191 146% 474 692 Foyer for Young People 0 Single Homeless Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary acco mmodation 1156 532 217% 3456 7510 with support Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 2585 1599 162% 4059 6562 needs Foyer for Young People 58 39 149% 100 149 Young People at Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 590 309 191% 450 859 risk Sup ported housing (shared or self -contained) 2197 895 245% 1747 4288 Foyer for Young People 668 399 167% 980 1641 TOTAL LONDON 8772 4405 199% 12012 23797 North Rough sleeper Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 375%* 6 23 East Su pported housing (shared or self -contained) 0 Foyer for Young People 0 Single Homeless Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 2232 442 505% 547 2762 with support Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 1300 49 4 263% 660 1737 needs Foyer for Young People 257 94 273% 94 257 Young People at Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 52 10 520% 20 104 risk Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 240 109 220% 342 753 Foyer for Young People 21 11 191% 44 84 TOTAL NORTH EAST 4102 1160 354% 1713 5720
98
North Rough sleeper Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 114 39 292% 39 114 West Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 140%* 10 14 Foyer for Young People 0 Single Homeless Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 4655 861 541% 1361 7358 with support Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 1995 776 257% 1555 3998 needs Foyer for Young People 660 238 277% 257 713 Young People at Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 570 105 543% 196 1064 risk Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 1270 398 319% 742 2368 Foyer for Young People 449 232 194% 361 699 TOTAL NORTH WEST 9713 2649 367% 4521 16327 South Roug h sleeper Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 102 34 300% 75 225 East Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 83 68 122% 123 150 Foyer for Young People 0 Single Homeless Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temp orary accommodation 1912 401 477% 1078 5140 with support Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 1744 980 178% 2769 4928 needs Foyer for Young People 47 16 294% 193 567 Young People at Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 225 56 402% 71 285 risk Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 447 194 230% 755 1740 Foyer for Young People 341 177 193% 290 559 TOTAL SOUTH EAST 4901 1926 254% 5354 13593 South Rough sleeper Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 144 18 800% 45 360 West Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 8 6 133% 6 8 Foyer for Young People 0 Single Homeless Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 2790 439 636% 841 5345 with support Supported housing (shared or self -con tained) 1767 768 230% 1755 4038 needs Foyer for Young People 58 0 Young People at Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 42 11 382% 26 99 risk Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 1022 472 217% 927 2007 Foyer for Young Peo ple 486 248 196% 424 831 TOTAL SOUTH WEST 6259 1962 319% 4082 12688
99
West Rough sleeper Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 0 Midlands Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 0 Foyer for Young People 0 Single Homeless Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 4791 974 492% 1218 5991 with support Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 2211 975 227% 1281 2905 needs Foyer for Young People 322 179 180% 232 417 Young People at Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 437 119 367% 188 690 risk Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 1141 482 237% 656 1553 Foyer for Young People 339 143 237% 282 669 TOTAL WEST MIDLANDS 9241 2872 322% 3857 12225 Yorkshire Rough sleeper Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 375%* 93 349 and the Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 0 Humber Foyer for Young People 0
Single Homeless Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 2215 467 474% 1018 4828 with support Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 1009 421 240% 803 1925 needs Foyer for Young People 56 26 215% 144 310 Young People at Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 221 37 597% 81 484 risk Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 830 372 223% 680 1517 Foyer for Young People 196 90 218% 90 196 TOTAL YORKSHIRE AND THE HUMBER 4527 1413 320% 2909 9609
100
Total in Rough sleeper Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary 2046 546 375% 1018 3614 England accommodation Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 370 265 140% 613 865 Foyer for Young People - - - - - Single Homeless Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary 23815 4979 478% 12100 5076 8 with support accommodation needs Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 16281 7418 219% 15385 32448 Foyer for Young People 1567 668 235% 1408 3093 Young People at Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary 2501 726 344% 1206 4421 risk accommodation Supported housing (share d or self -contained) 8998 3691 244% 7205 17341 Foyer for Young People 3102 1589 195% 3020 5841 TOTAL IN ENGLAND 58680 19882 295% 41955 118,390
* There were no services with rough sleepers defined as their primary client group in the West Midlands and the East of England, and no SPI data for rough sleeper services in Yorkshire and the Humber, North East, the overall throughput for these types of services in the other five regions (375%) was therefore used for the estimations in these regions. Similarly, the overall throughput for the three regions with data on supported housing services for rough sleepers (140%) was used for these services in the North West where no data was available.
Source : This table is based on the Service Performance Indicator 4 data provided by services in Supporting People provider database.
101 Appendix 11: Primary client groups recorded on the SP client record forms by region
This data represents all the client records recorded for Supporting People over 2006/07. The three client groups that the analysis of homelessness services is based on have been highlighted in green.
Yorkshire & East of West North East East Midlands London South East South West North West Total Primary Client Group the Humber England Midlands
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Alcohol problems 246 3% 660 3% 666 4% 552 4% 1,397 5% 978 5% 1,126 6% 552 3% 1,163 4% 7,340 4% Drug problems 265 3% 744 4% 620 4% 358 2% 1,044 4% 855 4% 1,454 7% 604 3% 1,281 4% 7,225 4% Frail elderly 77 1% 25 0% 55 0% 40 0% 282 1% 116 1% 65 0% 23 0% 41 0% 724 0% Generic 543 6% 996 5% 776 4% 888 6% 1,748 6% 1,346 6% 1,492 7% 2,786 13% 1,678 5% 12,253 7% Homeless families 835 9% 1,820 9% 1,701 10% 1,566 10% 2,492 9% 1,109 5% 968 5% 1,156 5% 4,068 13% 15,715 8% Learning disabilities 237 2% 412 2% 365 2% 377 2% 481 2% 582 3% 552 3% 427 2% 538 2% 3,971 2% Mental health problems 700 7% 1,969 9% 1,621 9% 1,460 9% 3,643 13% 2,268 11% 2,308 11% 1,803 8% 1,720 6% 17,492 9% Mentally disordered offenders 8 0% 12 0% 16 0% 17 0% 37 0% 20 0% 10 0% 29 0% 49 0% 198 0% Offenders/at risk of offending 243 2% 1,420 7% 701 4% 356 2% 583 2% 548 3% 573 3% 712 3% 854 3% 5,990 3% Older people mental health 11 0% 26 0% 68 0% 54 0% 88 0% 75 0% 88 0% 68 0% 63 0% 541 0% Older people with support needs 269 3% 735 4% 640 4% 310 2% 2,137 7% 678 3% 863 4% 560 3% 1,020 3% 7,212 4% People with HIV/AIDS 5 0% 4 0% 52 0% 17 0% 313 1% 20 0% 74 0% 62 0% 17 0% 564 0% Physical or sensory disability 519 5% 384 2% 459 3% 610 4% 1,210 4% 585 3% 557 3% 435 2% 594 2% 5,353 3% Refugees 189 2% 605 3% 346 2% 103 1% 293 1% 104 0% 267 1% 607 3% 204 1% 2,718 1% Rough Sleeper 147 2% 370 2% 669 4% 479 3% 1,484 5% 648 3% 1,252 6% 241 1% 632 2% 5,922 3% Single homeless 2,803 29% 6,035 29% 4,722 27% 5,461 35% 6,377 22% 6,300 30% 4,348 22% 6,635 30% 10,071 33% 52,752 28% Teenage parents 346 4% 468 2% 366 2% 343 2% 407 1% 452 2% 302 1% 474 2% 605 2% 3,763 2% Traveller 2 0% 42 0% 52 0% 75 0% 33 0% 23 0% 31 0% 12 0% 19 0% 289 0% Women at risk of domestic viol. 1,230 13% 2,219 11% 2,213 13% 1,670 11% 2,329 8% 2,644 12% 2,156 11% 3,415 16% 2,743 9% 20,619 11% Young people at risk 911 9% 1,778 9% 1,094 6% 826 5% 1,630 6% 1,594 8% 1,529 8% 1,271 6% 3,130 10% 13,763 7% Young people leaving care 139 1% 168 1% 75 0% 95 1% 557 2% 214 1% 174 1% 117 1% 257 1% 1,796 1% Total 9,725 100% 20,892 100% 17,277 100% 15,657 100% 28,565 100% 21,159 100% 20,189 100% 21,989 100% 30,747 100% 186,200 100%
Source: Supporting People client record data
102 Appendix 12: SP move-on figures from KPI 2 by region, primary client group and type of service
Data on move-on from homelessness services is derived from Supporting People Key Performance Indicator 2. Note that, as highlighted in section 7.4.2 the dataset is not complete, because data from certain services had not been submitted, or the data that had been submitted was inconsistent. The proportion of the data available in each region is broken down in the table in section 7.4.2.
Region Primary Client Group Service type KPI 2 DATA Total Total % planned planned move on moves move East Midlands Rough sleeper Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 233 433 54% Supported housing (shared or self -contained) Foyer for Young People Single Homeless wit h support Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 1,192 1,795 66% needs Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 849 1,483 57% Foyer for Young People 27 46 59% Young People at risk Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommoda tion 60 113 53% Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 1,074 1,430 75% Foyer for Young People 82 122 67% TOTAL EAST MIDLANDS 3,517 5,422 65% East of England Rough sleeper Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation Supporte d housing (shared or self -contained) Foyer for Young People Single Homeless with support Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 794 1,719 46% needs Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 193 331 58% Foyer for You ng People 33 53 62% Young People at risk Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 149 187 80% Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 187 341 55% Foyer for Young People 139 250 56% TOTAL EAST OF ENGLAND 1,495 2,881 52%
103
London Rough sleeper Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 537 1,198 45% Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 107 143 75% Foyer for Young People Single Homeless with support Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accom modation 949 1,476 64% needs Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 931 1,388 67% Foyer for Young People 34 49 69% Young People at risk Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 222 332 67% Supported housing (shared or self -contained ) 1,221 1,592 77% Foyer for Young People 258 407 63% TOTAL LONDON 4,259 6,585 65% North East Rough sleeper Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 3 6 50% Supported housing (shared or self -contained) Foyer for Young People Single Homeless with support Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 809 1,441 56% needs Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 513 819 63% Foyer for Young People 112 171 65% Young People at risk Homeless Hostel, B&B or ot her temporary accommodation 19 42 45% Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 129 173 75% Foyer for Young People 12 14 86% TOTAL NORTH EAST 1,597 2,666 60% North West Rough sleeper Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 38 76 50 % Supported housing (shared or self -contained) Foyer for Young People Single Homeless with support Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 1,795 4,306 42% needs Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 849 1,452 58% Foyer for Young People 255 395 65% Young People at risk Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 338 526 64% Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 582 1,094 53% Foyer for Young People 203 285 71% TOTAL NORTH WEST 4,060 8,13 4 50%
104
South East Rough sleeper Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 53 117 45% Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 12 17 71% Foyer for Young People Single Homeless with support Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 899 1,672 54% needs Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 545 830 66% Foyer for Young People 45 56 80% Young People at risk Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 125 168 74% Supported housing (shared or s elf -contained) 249 327 76% Foyer for Young People 119 300 40% TOTAL SOUTH EAST 2,047 3,487 59% South West Rough sleeper Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 50 254 20% Supported housing (shared or self -contained) Foyer for Young People Single Homeless with support Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 1,121 2,849 39% needs Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 1,017 1,783 57% Foyer for Young People Young People at risk Homeless H ostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 42 45 93% Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 545 759 72% Foyer for Young People 188 284 66% TOTAL SOUTH WEST 2,963 5,974 50% West Midlands Rough sleeper Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary a ccommodation Supported housing (shared or self -contained) Foyer for Young People Single Homeless with support Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 1,813 4,034 45% needs Supported housing (shared or self -contain ed) 831 1,265 66% Foyer for Young People 87 157 55% Young People at risk Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 286 409 70% Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 441 585 75% Foyer for Young People 182 267 68% TOTAL WEST MI DLANDS 3,640 6,717 54%
105
Yorkshire and the Rough sleeper Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 110 230 48% Humber Supported housing (shared or self -contained) Foyer for Young People Single Homeless with support Ho meless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 1,264 2,454 52% needs Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 456 637 72% Foyer for Young People 47 55 85% Young People at risk Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 121 186 65% Supported housing (shared or self -contained) 377 524 72% Foyer for Young People 88 116 76% TOTAL YORKSHIRE & HUMBER 2,463 4,202 59% Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 2,409 4,965 49% Rough sleeper Supported housing (shared or self-contained) 656 1,358 48% Foyer for Young People 107 143 75% Total Rough sleeper services 3,172 6,466 49% Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 9,372 19,292 49% Single Homeless with support Supported housing (shared or self-contained) 6,677 10,827 62% Total in England needs Foyer for Young People 1,524 2,315 66% Total Single homeless services 17,573 32,434 54% Homeless Hostel, B&B or other temporary accommodation 1,275 1,871 68% Young People at risk Supported housing (shared or self-contained) 4,650 6,633 70% Foyer for Young People 2,404 3,521 68% Total young people at risk services 8,329 12,025 69% TOTAL 26,041 46,068 57%
Source : This table is based on the Key Performance Indicator 2 data provided by services in Supporting People provider database.
106 Appendix 13: Research on homelessness services
The Homelessness Act 2002 required Local Housing Authorities to carry out a review of local homelessness and to each devise a strategy to tackle homelessness within a local context. The published strategies, listed on Homeless Pages 53 , provide information about levels of local homelessness, provision of services, and plans to help homeless people and prevent homelessness.
One recent study which is analysing various homelessness services in London, including day centres, advice services, floating support and hostel services is due to be published shortly. This research by RIS and commissioned by the London Housing Foundation, covers levels and sources of funding, staffing, types of services provided, geographical coverage, and client numbers.
Day centres
The first major study of day centres for homeless people was published in 1992 54 . This research project explored the role, development, user issues and resources of day centre provision at the time. A more recent report published by Crisis 55 explored the concept of daytime homelessness, and the nature and role of daytime provision, meaningful activity and education, and training and employment opportunities for homeless people.
In 2002, The Department of Geography at Queen Mary, University of London published findings from the Homeless Places Project 56 , which examined the provision and characteristics of day centres, direct access hostels and other emergency provision outside London and across England, Scotland and Wales.
Two good practice handbooks/manuals have recently been published on day centres, one by Homeless Link 57 and the other on wet day centres in England 58 . The latter includes background, methodology and findings and a guidance manual for setting up new wet day centres that support and treat homeless people who have been excluded from other services as a result of their alcohol problems.
Finally, in 2007, RIS published a UK-wide printed directory of day centres 59 using some of the information from Homeless UK.
Hostels and Supported Accommodation
Whilst little research has been published about the extent and nature of hostel provision across England, various reports have examined hostels in London, especially in the light of the government’s Rough Sleepers’ Initiatives. A substantial report 60 commissioned by the Pan-London Consortium
53 www.homelesspages.org.uk 54 Waters, J. (1992) Community or Ghetto: An Analysis of Day Centres for Single Homeless People in England and Wales. CHAR. 55 Jones, A. and Pleace, N. (2005) Daytime Homelessness. Crisis. http://www.crisis.org.uk/pdf/Daytime%20Homelessness.pdf 56 Johnsen, S., May, J. and Cloke, P. (2002) A National Survey of Day Centre and Drop-in Centre Provision outside of London: Summary of Findings. Department of Geography, Queen Mary, University of London. http://www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/homeless/homelessplaces/ 57 Homeless Link (2007) Day Centres Handbook. Homeless Link. http://www.handbooks.homeless.org.uk/daycentres 58 Crane, M. and Warnes, A. (2003) Wet Day Centres in the United Kingdom: A Research Report and Manual. Sheffield Institute for Studies on Ageing. 59 Cantelo, G., and Watson, P. (2007) Directory of Day Centres for Homeless People . Resource Information Service. 60 Warnes, T., Crane, M. and Foley, P. (2005) London's Hostels for Homeless People in the 21st Century. Broadway
107 of Homeless Service Providers examined changes to London’s hostels since 1990 in terms of functions, facilities, services and client profiles. More recently, two reports have focused on hostel provision for rough sleepers. One report 61 examined statistics on rough sleepers, supply of and access to hostel beds, and supply of permanent move-on accommodation. The other report 62 examined the effectiveness of arrangements for access to hostels for rough sleepers in inner London, including demand for and supply of hostel beds, access to hostels in other parts of London, move-on accommodation and gaps in services.
There has been an increasing focus on improving standards of accommodation and the range of support services in hostels. For example, the government has published a practical guide to conducting an effective review of hostel services, minimum standards and examples of good practice 63 . More recently the government’s Hostels Capital Improvement Programme 64 has encouraged and provided funding to help enable hostels to engage residents in meaningful activities, involve residents in the development of services, develop staff and provide a quality physical environment.
Limited information has so far been published on Supporting People funded services for homeless people, although one report published shortly after the introduction of Supporting People in 2003 examined the support needs of homeless people 65 . An independent review of the Supporting People programme 66 and how funding has been utilised for all client groups was carried out in 2004. Analysis of client record data is published yearly by the Supporting People Client Record Office (JCSHR), University of St. Andrews. 67 In 2006 they also produced a short article analysing the statistics available on ‘single homeless people with support needs’ and ‘homeless families’ accessing Supporting People services 68 .
In terms of national information about direct access hostels, there have been two notable publications. The Homeless Places Project 69 studied the provision and characteristics of direct access hostels outside London and across England, Scotland and Wales. In 2006, RIS published a UK-wide printed directory of emergency hostels 70 using some of the information from Homeless UK.
Further reports and research findings about homelessness services and related issues can be found on Homeless Pages website.
61 Broadway and Resource Information Service (2006) Accommodation for Single Homeless People in London: Supply and Demand. Broadway. 62 Randall, G. and Brown, S. (2007) Review of Hostels for Rough Sleepers in London. Communities and Local Government 63 ODPM (2003) Hostels Review Toolkit. Communities and Local Government 64 Communities and Local Government (2006) Places of Change: Tackling Homelessness through the Hostels Capital Improvement Programme. Communities and Local Government 65 Randall, G. and Brown, S. (2003) The Support Needs of Homeless Households. Communities and Local Government. 66 Sullivan, E. (2004) Review of the Supporting People Programme. RSM Robson Rhodes LLP. 67 Reports and data sheets are available through the SP client record website http://www.spclientrecord.org.uk/ 68 Supporting People Client Record Office (JCSHR) (2006) Client record statistical update: Homelessness: primary, secondary and statutory , University of St. Andrews 69 Johnsen, S., May. J and Cloke, P. (2002) A National Survey of Direct Access Hostel and Night Shelter Provision outside of London: Summary of findings. Department of Geography, Queen Mary, University of London. http://www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/homeless/homelessplaces/ 70 Bancroft, J. et al (2006) Emergency Accommodation Directory. Resource Information Service.
108 Appendix 14: Telephone Interview Schedule
Homeless Link Survey Of Needs And Provision
SURVEY OF HOMELESSNESS SERVICES FOR SINGLE PEOPLE AND COUPLES
Fieldworker -- Click Here — Test Jonathan Fearon Sean Crossley Nick Browning Shelmai Ly Georgia Taylor Jean Wood Ian Smith Tom Stott Lewis Threadgold Louise Pritchett Robyn Duffy Laura Meehan Dawn Hinton Hannah Carley Tom Lavin Kiran Gossal Rachel Wilde Rayna Miller Ben Hickman Scott Anderson Amy Daly Josie Procter
RIS Project Identifier (HUK_ID, e.g. ‘UK12073’):
Hello, my name is {Fieldworker} and I’m calling on behalf of Homeless Link from an independent social research company called Vision Twentyone. You may recall receiving a letter from Alice Evans, Head of Policy Analysis at Homeless Link informing you about the research.
The background of this survey is a lack of comprehensive information about homelessness services for single people and couples in England.
The aim of the survey is to remedy this by gathering further information about the people that homelessness accommodation providers and day centres work with, the services they offer and the state of the premises they operate in.
The information we gather is intended to give us a baseline from which to compare services year on year and inform policy and funding decisions – in particular a potential future round of Hostels Capital Improvement funding.
This survey is part of a larger research project exploring homelessness services across England for single people and couples, which is being undertaken by Homeless Link and the Resource Information Service and funded by Communities and Local Government.
Could you spare a few minutes to answer some quick questions?
109 Call Record
Interview Wrong Number NIS ACB Against
Which of the following does your organisation offer?
Day centre Direct access hostel Non-direct access hostel
Which is the largest element of your organisation (or you're most knowledgeable about)
Day centre Direct access hostel Non-direct access hostel
Clients
Q1 Can you tell us how many clients accessed the project in the last financial year (Apr 06-Mar 07): (Please provide an estimate if unsure)
Q2 Please tell us what proportion of your service users over the past month came from the each of the following backgrounds? (Please provide an estimate) Over 50 - 25- 1- None Don't 75% 74% 49% 25% Know
Q2a Young People (16-25) Q2b Older People (Over 50) Q2c Men Q2d Women Q2e Couples Q2f Ex-service personnel Q2g Prison leavers Q2h Care leavers Q2i Victims of domestic violence Q2j Refugees Q2k Asylum seekers Q2l Eastern European migrants Q2m Sex workers Q2n Rough sleepers Q2o BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) Q2p LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People) Q2q Other
Q2r Other Background (Please Specify)
110 Q3 Do you offer specialist workers or services targeted at any of the following groups? (Please tick all that apply - PROMPT)
Young People (16-25) Older People (Over 50) Men Women Couples Ex-service personnel Ex-offenders Care leavers Victims of domestic violence Refugees Asylum seekers Eastern European migrants Sex workers Rough sleepers BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People) Other None
Please specify other group that you have specialist workers or services targeted at? Q4
What proportion of your service users over the past month have been affected by: (Please provide an estimate) Over 50 - 25- 1- None Don't 75% 74% 49% 25% Know
Q4a Drug problems Q4b Alcohol problems Q4c Mental health problems Q4d Physical health problems Q4e Personality disorders Q4f Borderline learning difficulties Q4g Offending behaviour Q4h Challenging behaviour Q4i Gambling problems Q4j Debt problems Q4k Benefits problems Q4l Multiple needs (more than three of the above)
111 SERVICES
Q5a Please can you tell me which of the following support services or activities are available in- house or you are able to refer clients to elsewhere. If you deliver the service in house, could you tell me whether you deliver it in-house using your own staff or deliver it in-house using an external agency?
deliver it in- have a referral house, system to an deliver it using an external in-house, external service service is by your agency delivering this not Drug Services: own staff support/activity available Q5a1 Structured treatment Q5a2 Harm minimisation Alcoho l services: Q5a3 Structured treatment Q5a4 Harm minimisation Mental health services: Q5a5 Talking Therapies Q5a6 Anger management courses Q5a7 Mediation/relationship counselling Q5a8 Other ({Q5a8Other}) If other, please specify:
Physical health services: Q5a9 Nursing care Q5a10 General Practitioner Q5a11 Dental care Q5a12 Alternative therapies Q5a13 Podiatry/foot care Meaningful Activity: Q5a15 Sports activities Q5a16 Gardening Q5a17 Arts and cultural projects Education, training and employment: Q5a18 IT services, computer skills training Q5a19 Literacy/Numeracy courses Q5a20 Into work training e.g. building skills Q5a21 Life skills e.g. cooking, budgeting Q5a22 Accredited courses (e.g. NVQ) Advice: Q5a23 Benefits advice Q5a24 Debt/Financial advice Q5a25 Legal advice Q5a26 Housing advice Resettlement: Q5a27 Rent deposit scheme Q5a28 Resettlement/Move on scheme Other services: Q5a29 Care Services (e.g. domiciliary care) Q5a 30 Probation services
112 Q5bFor each support service/activity identified, can you also tell us whether you have purpose built facilities to deliver it?
Have purpose built facility Do not have purpose built facility Drug Services: Q5a1 Structured treatment Q5a2 Harm minimisation
Alcohol services: Q5a3 Structured treatment Q5a4 Harm minimisation
Mental health services: Q5a5 Talking Therapies Q5a6 Anger management courses Q5a7 Mediation/relationship counselling Q5a8 Other ({Q5a8Other})
Physical health services: Q5a9 Nursing care Q5a10 General Practitioner Q5a11 Dental care Q5a12 Alternative therapies Q5a13 Podiatry/foot care
Meaningful Activity: Q5a15 Sports activities Q5a16 Gardening Q5a17 Arts and cultural projects
Education, training and employment: Q5a18 IT services, computer skills training Q5a19 Literacy/Numeracy courses Q5a20 Into work training e.g. building skills Q5a21 Life skills e.g. cooking, budgeting Q5a22 Accredited c ourses (e.g. NVQ)
Advice: Q5a23 Benefits advice Q5a24 Debt/Financial advice Q5a25 Legal advice Q5a26 Hou sing advice
Resettlement: Q5a27 Rent deposit scheme Q5a28 Resettlement/Move on scheme
Other services: Q5a29 Care Services (e.g. domicilia ry care) Q5a30 Probation services
113 Q5cFor each support service/activity identified, please can you tell me to what extent do you agree that the support available is accessible and adequately meets the needs of your clients:
Neither agree Strongly nor Strongly Don’t agree Agree disagree Disagree disagree know Drug Services: Q5a1 Structured treatment Q5a2 Harm minimisation Alcohol services: Q5a3 Structured treatment Q5a4 Harm minimisation Mental health services: Q5a5 Talking Thera pies Q5a6 Anger management courses Q5 a7 Mediation/relationship counselling Q5a8 Other ({Q5a8Other}) Physical health services: Q5a9 Nursing care Q5a10 General Practitioner Q5a11 Dental care Q5a12 Alternative therapies Q5a13 Podiatry/foot care Meaningful Activity: Q5a15 Sports acti vities Q5a16 Gardening Q5a17 Arts and cultural projects Education, training and employment: Q5a18 IT services, computer skills training Q5a19 Literacy/Numeracy courses Q5a20 Into work training e.g. building skills Q5a21 Life skills e.g. cooking, budgeting Q5a22 Accredited courses (e.g. NVQ) Advice: Q5a23 Benefits advice Q5a24 Debt/Financial advice Q5a25 Legal advice Q5a26 Housing advice Resettlement: Q5a27 Rent deposit scheme Q5a28 Resettlement/Move on scheme Other services: Q5a29 Care Ser vices (e.g. domiciliary care) Q5a30 Probation services
114 FACILITIES AND FUNDING Q6 Was the main building you operate out of purpose built for your project/organisation?
Yes No
Q7 Does your organisation own the main building you operate out of or is it owned by an external organisation (e.g. a Registered Social Landlord)?
Own our building Owned by external organisation
Q8 Do you act as the managing agent of the project/organisation?
Yes No
Q9a How many years ago was the last major refurbishment of your building(s)?
0-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs 20+ Old building - never renovated New building - not needed renovation
Q9b Are you looking to upgrade or refurbish your building?
Yes No
Q9c If yes, what are you planning? PROMPT
Minor upgrade Adding additional facilities Major refurbishment Other Other plan (Please Specify)
Q9d Have you got funding organised for the refurbishment?
Yes No
Q9e If so, who/what is the major funder?
Your own organisation Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) Housing Corporation Charitable fundraising Other Other funder (Please Specify)
Q9f Does your organisation have the skills/experience to organise and manage building contracts?
Yes No
115 Q10a To what extent does your building have shortcomings that restrict your capacity to deliver appropriate services? PROMPT Severe shortcomings Some shortcomings Very few shortcomings None
Q10b What are the shortcomings? (tick all that apply - PROMPT) Built form (e.g. inappropriate type of building) Problematic internal layout Poor condition of premises Size limitations Lack of communal space Lack of private space (e.g. interview/case working rooms) Access restrictions (e.g. no/limited disabled access) Lack of facilities for training and education activities Security issues Other Other shortcomings (Please Specify)
Q11 Where do you receive funding for your service from? (Please tick all that apply - PROMPT) Supporting People Social Services Other local authority funding (e.g. local grant) Criminal Justice (Youth Offending Team, Probation, etc.) Substance misuse services (e.g. Drug Action Teams) Health (NHS Trusts, Primary Care Trust, etc) Employment and Education" (e.g. Jobcentre Plus, Learning and Skills council) Rent & Service Charges (i.e. as paid by the service users) Benefit Payments (Housing Benefits etc) if paid direct to provider Fundraising (incl. charitable trust fundraising and individual donations) Legal Services Commission Other Other source of funding (Please Specify)
Q12 Who provides your project’s PRIMARY funding stream (Please indicate the main funder only - PROMPT IF NECESSARY)? Supporting People Social Services Other local authority funding (e.g. local grant) Criminal Justice (Youth Offending Team, Probation, etc.) Substance misuse services (e.g. Drug Action Teams) Health (NHS Trusts, Primary Care Trust, etc) Employment and Education" (e.g. Jobcentre Plus, Learning and Skills council) Rent & Service Charges (i.e. as paid by the service users) Benefit Payments (Housing Benefits etc) if paid direct to provider Fundraising (incl. charitable trust fundraising and individual donations) Legal Services Commission Other
116 CONTACT DETAILS
Q13
Contact name:
Role (e.g. hostel manager)
E-mail :
Information submitted in the following form will be stored and processed electronically for the purposes of delivering Homeless Link membership services, supplying information and to enable statistical analysis. If you have any queries about how the information will be used please contact Homeless Link’s research officer, Linda Briheim-Crookall on:
Tel: 020 79603043 E-mail: [email protected]
Thank you for completing this survey
117 118
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank CLG and CRASH for their financial support of the research. The findings and recommendations in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the CLG.
We are very grateful to Val Hibbert, Maff Potts and colleagues at Communities and Local Government for funding and supporting this research and providing helpful feedback.
Special thanks to Jacinta Alogba at the Supporting People Performance, Information & Quality Team, Communities and Local Government for her help with Supporting People data, and to Sarah Fusco at St Andrews University for her support with the Supporting People client record data.
We would also like to thank Vision Twenty One for their efficiency and professionalism in conducting the telephone survey.
Finally, we are grateful to all the service providers who have supplied data about their services and taken part in the survey for this research.
This is a revised version of the report and contains some amended data tables. These corrections do not affect any of the conclusions or recommendations drawn in the previously published report.
Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that this information is accurate, Homeless Link and Resource Information Service cannot be held liable for any errors or omissions.
© February 2008
Homeless Link 10-13 Rushworth Street London SE1 0RB Tel: 020 7960 3010 www.homeless.org.uk
Resource Information Service Gateway House Milverton Street London SE11 4AP Tel: 020 7840 9930 Supported by: www.ris.org.uk
By Linda Briheim-Crookall, Alice Evans, Diane Iles, and Peter Watson
Cover photo: Richard Bailey (020 8450 4148)