Report to: Strategic Review of Homelessness Services ...



GLASGOW HOMELESSNESS SERVICES

STRATEGIC REVIEW

PHASE 1 REPORT

Report to: Homelessness Review – Steering Group

From: Pat Coltart, Project Manager

Subject: Strategic Review Phase 1 Report

Date: 1st September 2014

1. Context

1. In recognition of the challenges we face in Glasgow City, and the Council’s commitment to vulnerable people Social Work Services established a strategic service review to examine all parts of the homelessness system and to recommend reforms which will improve outcomes for individuals and minimise the challenges and risks currently faced by the Council. This approach was approved by the Policy & Development Committee of the Council in November 2013 and a progress report submitted in April 2014.

1.2 There have been significant changes in the profile of social housing provision in Glasgow in the last ten years. As part of the initial stock transfer agreement, 80,000 properties moved from Glasgow City Council to GHA ownership. Of these, 20,000 then transferred to community controlled housing associations. Investment in property improvement and new build, alongside demolitions and sale of property through Right to Buy has resulted in an overall reduction on social rented stock in the city to around 108,000 units. Following the Second Stage Stock Transfer, 43,000 units (40%) are in GHA ownership and 65,000 (60%) are owned by other RSLs.

1.3 Through progressive amendments the Scottish Government has sought to strengthen the safety net for homeless people, increasing eligibility criteria and therefore the number of applicants who are owed a full duty.

In Glasgow there is strong commitment from housing, health, social work and voluntary sector partners to deliver a housing options approach across the city in relation to early intervention, prevention and diversion from homelessness. Early indications from North West Glasgow have shown positive results (4.2 below). The Council has implemented the Scottish Government recording system for housing options and will begin to report on this activity during 2013/14.

2. Purpose of the Report

2.1 This strategic review is being carried out within the context of the City Council’s voluntary engagement with the Scottish Housing Regulator who has expressed concerns regarding the Council’s inability to meet its statutory responsibilities in accommodating those assessed as homeless (SHR Improvement Plan previously circulated).

2.2 This report summarises the findings and recommendations of the first phase of the review process which sought to reconsider all aspects of current service delivery models, assess the effectiveness of current systems and processes, consider service user experiences of homelessness services and bring forward proposals for service improvements. A key aim of the strategic review process is to identify a service redesign agenda which will build on current good practice, focus on delivering a service response which is needs-led rather than resource-led and which improves outcomes for individuals and families experiencing homelessness. It is acknowledged that there are a number of internal and external pressures which will impact on the potential to achieve this aim. An update report will be submitted to the Heath and Social Care Policy and Development Committee on 29th September 2014.

3. The Reform Stage, Phase 2 of the review process will focus on delivering the Review Action Plan, the timescale for completion of Phase 2 in relation to the service redesign agenda is April 2016. It is anticipated that a number of service improvements will be achieved ahead of that end-date. These will be the subject of future reports to the Steering Group and the Heath and Social Care Policy & Development Committee.

Influencing Factors

• Health & Social Care integration Agenda

• Local Government financial settlement

• Establishment of Community Homelessness Services (CHS) –managed by locality Social Work teams.

• SWS Out of Hours agreed delivery model.

• Impact of investment in strengthening frontline services on city centre service models.

• Future role of 3rd Sector in providing flexible non-statutory care and support

• Community Addiction Teams and NHSGG&C Clinical Services Reviews

• Community Justice Authority Review-in particular improved joint working in reducing reoffending

• Tomorrow’s Women Glasgow: Commission on Women Offenders

• Welfare Reform

3. Methodology

3.1 The Homelessness Planning & Implementation Group (HPIG) is a multi-agency forum which has oversight of the work activity relating to / directing the review process. Regular updates are provided and advice sought on developing themes and issues.

3.2 Multi-agency workstream groups were identified to take forward critical tasks linked to assessing the current effectiveness of homelessness services. Key service areas involved included needs analysis, accommodation access, care pathways and service models, multiple exclusion & complex needs and service user engagement.

3. In addition to the above the Homelessness Service Staff Reference Group and 3rd Sector Reference Group were also updated and consulted on direction of travel / key issues for the review process. A communication strategy will be developed to ensure wide dissemination of the Phase 1 findings and recommendations and engaging key stakeholders views and contributions to the Phase 2 reform process.

3.4 A service user engagement group has been established and will become a core feature of the reform process in relation to potential service improvements and redesign. There is a commitment to ensure any proposed changes reflect service user needs and will promote improved outcomes. Feedback to date indicates poor service user experience of services and in some cases lack of engagement with statutory services – linked to low expectation of positive housing solutions. Service user consultation and involvement is a key priority for the service and a number of methods / approaches are being considered including e.g. the Addiction Service “conversation café” approach.

3.5 There has been significant engagement from partner agencies and in particular

from 3rd sector organisations during this review process (Appendix 1). This has been a real positive and has already resulted in wider engagement and

understanding across the sector of service demands, responses and shared

outcomes in relation to knowledge, expertise and understanding of service user

needs and aspirations. There is a shared stated objective to improve inter agency working across the sector, to consider how the voluntary sector and other key stakeholders can better support the work of statutory services and share the burden where possible of delivering improved outcomes for service users by reconsidering what core non-statutory interventions can be delivered by partners.

3.6 A key challenge for the Council is how we can improve relationships and direct engagement with Registered Social Landlords / other housing providers and improve joint working to facilitate access to accommodation for those experiencing homelessness. RSLs were represented on some workstream groups and the need for developing more effective shared solutions between the Council and housing providers has emerged as a common theme across workstreams. As we move from the review to reform stage of this process the Council will face significant challenges in how we redesign our business activity and it is essential that we directly fully engage housing providers effectively in this debate and jointly develop a city strategy to meet needs.

4. Homelessness Population Profile

4.1 The overall number of households in Scotland making homelessness applications is continuing to fall. Applications in 2013-14 totalled 36,457, a reduction of 8% compared to the previous year. Application numbers reduced in 24 of the 32 local authorities in Scotland, including Glasgow City Council. In the Scottish Government national report, this is attributed mainly to the impact of housing options and other homelessness prevention strategies, rather than changes to the underlying drivers of homelessness. Glasgow Council continues to receive the highest number of homelessness applications across all Local Authorities in Scotland.

4.2 In Glasgow numbers of homeless applications have reduced, from 10,422 in 2010/11 to 6,652 in 2013/14. Further reductions are anticipated through the continued development of homelessness prevention and tenancy sustainment work across the Council and partner agencies involved in the Housing Options approach and Essential Connections Forums and Vulnerable Household Forums within locality areas.

The Housing Options Pilot in North West Glasgow saw a reduction of 34% in homelessness applications made, as a consequence of directing people more appropriately to other forms of assistance. Further reductions are anticipated as a result of the roll out of the Housing Options model across the city this autumn.

4.3 Identification and consistent accurate recording of information in relation to hidden homelessness and people who are sleeping rough is a significant challenge in the city. There is no consistent definition or recording across partner agencies and there is potential for “double counting” depending on which agencies people connect with. The Multiple Exclusions & Complex Needs (MECN) Group has identified this as a priority in relation to service reform.

5. Workstream Activity Common Themes

1. A number of common themes and issues have emerged across the Workstream Groups’ activities. In particular there is a need to define the core role and function of the Homelessness Service in Glasgow and resolve existing tensions between meeting statutory duty, addressing additional support and care needs and supply and demand constraints and priorities in relation to housing availability in the city. Clarity is needed in relation to respective organisational / service roles and responsibilities and improving joint planning, data recording, data sharing and measuring outcomes for service users.

2. Current arrangements for accessing settled accommodation appear to disadvantage homeless households. There is insufficient stock to meet needs and inefficiencies in accessing Section 5 tenancies is causing real difficulties in “unblocking” emergency / temporary accommodation and supporting people to exit homelessness services. A new approach is required that redesigns routes into accommodation improves outcomes for individuals / families, and has corporate and political support and that of housing providers to deliver change.

5.3 A key theme that has emerged across the groups is that ‘more of the same won’t do’. Current services fail many service users. Systems and processes are over-complicated, there is no clear ‘pathway’ out of homelessness services, service users can face multiple “assessments” and have to “retell their story” many times as they move through services. There is tension between addressing statutory requirements to meet our duty in relation to those assessed as homeless and a more holistic needs-led approach to supporting homeless people in need.

5.4 Current systems often mean that service users move between homelessness casework services and the Hamish Allan Centre (HAC) resulting in many hours waiting, with no different outcome - accommodation may still not be available. There is no clear sense of how people are prioritised for accommodation access and this can often lead to staff facing difficult choices and significant pressures when dealing with service users.

This was one of the key issues identified across workstreams as a priority for reform, 3rd sector organisations are committed to being involved as part of the solution. Another was a need to revisit access routes into accommodation, strip out blockages and remove the need to move between homelessness services for a resolution to housing need.

5.5 The lack of settled accommodation solutions, poor housing and homelessness service responses, complicated systems and processes are ‘trapping’ people in homelessness services and in many cases creating dependencies, deskilling service users and limiting opportunities for them to move on from emergency / temporary accommodation options.

5.6 Many homeless people are experiencing increased poverty as a consequence of Welfare Reform changes. DWP sanctions, spare room subsidy, lack of employment options and Housing Benefit restrictions when moving from temporary to permanent accommodation all provide barriers and “trap” many people in homelessness services when move-on can become unaffordable.

5.7 Silo approaches to service design and budget allocation can often inhibit flexibility in responding to service user need. A lack of flexibility in the system often limits service responses and mitigates against achieving good outcomes for service users. In shifting the culture from resource driven to needs-led approaches it needs to be recognised that new creative solutions are needed as the “usual rules” often don’t apply when trying to engage with e.g. “hard to reach” individuals.

5.8 It is evident that homeless service users do not always access mainstream services available to the wider population. There can be a disconnect between having immediate housing need met but no assistance with wider social care and health needs, community integration, access to employability services etc. Previous investment by NHSGG&C in primary health care services has had a positive impact in promoting move on from specialist homelessness health services into community services. The strengthening of frontline homelessness casework services and transfer of management arrangements to locality social work area services will also help address these gaps.

5.9 There needs to be a more consistent approach across services in dealing with the needs of homeless families. Relationships and communication with education, community health and social work mainstream services need to be improved. A system of automatic alerts to key agencies that could provide additional support to homeless children and families should be considered and families should be made aware on accessing homelessness services of the type of support available to them.

6. Workstream A: Needs Analysis

6.1 Agencies often view homeless people within the confines of their own care groups, resulting in a categorisation of different “types” of homeless people, including single homeless, rough sleepers, older people, homeless families, young people, people with disabilities, people fleeing domestic violence, people who are sexually exploited, prison leavers, travellers, migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, homeless people with physical and/or mental health problems, homeless people with drug and/or alcohol problems, homeless people in the criminal justice system. These categories or types of homeless people are not mutually exclusive and one person may fit or move into or between different types at any one time.

6.2 Casework Teams assessed a total of 6,780 homelessness applications in 2013/14. Of this number, 4,703 (69%) households were assessed as being unintentionally homeless. 980 (14.5%) lost contact before the assessment decision. 1,890 households assessed indicated that they had one or more support need (27.8%).

6.3 At 31st March 2014, there were 2,822 live homelessness cases, of which 246 were under assessment and 2,576 had been assessed and accepted. 1,943 (60%) of these cases were single person households, and 504 (18%) were single parent households. 45 cases (2%) were young people aged 16-17, and 74 cases (3%) were people aged 60+.

6.4 In relation to outcomes, a total of 7,286 cases were closed in 2013/14, a reduction of 3,302 cases compared to 2010/11 (-31.2%). For cases assessed as unintentionally homeless, and where contact was maintained until duty discharge, the number of households which were offered a Scottish Secured Tenancy (SST) through the Section 5 process (including all who may have refused the offer) reduced from 3,031 (60%) in 2010/11, to 2,164 (53%) in 2013/14.

6.5 It is difficult to identify the full extent of hidden homelessness, (concealed households, sharing or overcrowded households). The total number of households which made a homelessness application in 2013/14 (6,652), friends or family being unable to continue to accommodate the household, or division of an existing household, accounted for 2,959 applications in 2013/14, almost 45% of all applications. Through Housing Options, many households receive homelessness prevention advice and assistance, from the Council or partner agencies. This can often prevent the need for a homelessness application.

6.6 Glasgow City Council figures show that 539 (8.1%) applicant households in 2013/14 indicated that they had slept rough in the three months preceding application, and 445 (6.7%) that they had slept rough the night before making the application. This data only relates to people who have made a homelessness application. There is not, at present, a common approach to identification and gathering of information on people who are homeless, possibly in crisis, but do not engage with statutory services.

6.7 The workstream group found that there are many different approaches to data gathering, needs identification and assessment across partner agencies, and different views of what appropriate service responses might be depending on the service user client group.

• Two IT systems operate in parallel within homelessness, iWorld and Carefirst 6. Within iWorld there is a focus on the data recording requirements specified by the Scottish Government in relation to the statutory homelessness application process, with a more limited facility to record needs assessment information. Caseworkers only have read access to Carefirst, where case information on service users known to other parts of social work services is recorded. Information on homelessness purchased services is not held on either system.

• Concerns are that significant support needs or risks may not be identified at point of assessment and referral on to appropriate care teams for support is not happening consistently. When support needs are identified, there can be a disconnect between the Casework Team and wider social work services.

• The lack of integration across iWorld and Carefirst makes it difficult to identify the homeless population and determine consistently their needs.

• There are practical problems in correlating information across different agencies due to different systems, views and understanding of homelessness.

• Needs assessment quality and information sharing is inconsistent across SW services and also between agencies working with the same people

• Need to do more to ensure services are targeted at those most in need / most vulnerable.

6.8 A number of key recommendations are being considered in terms of improving data quality, data recording, data sharing and developing shared needs assessment tools across the homelessness sector. In addition a case sampling exercise has been undertaken and GHN sponsored research to be completed over the next few months will assist our understanding of the nature of presentations and extent of need.

6.9 Access routes to and through homelessness services are complex and often repetitive, and there is a need for simplification. Through the introduction of Housing Options across all Casework access points, policies and processes have been updated, with the aim of providing a holistic homelessness and needs assessment. New pathways and contacts for each care group within homelessness have been developed. A Practice Standards Group will be established by the Council, which will work with partners to monitor, review and improve quality of assessment, service delivery and information sharing. The group will also examine improvement of opportunities for services users to be involved in care planning.

6.10 Action will be taken to improve the integration of Homelessness Services with broader mainstream social work services. This will include the integration of Community Casework Teams within SWS Locality Teams, full access to Carefirst, and development of electronic recording and storage for homelessness needs assessment information.

11. There is a need to raise awareness across SWS and partner agencies of the causal factors which can lead to homelessness, and the importance of preventative action at an earlier stage to try to prevent the occurrence of homelessness. Existing joint strategic planning mechanisms offer a route to take this forward.

7. Workstream B: Accommodation Access

7.1 The Council manages access to a range of homelessness accommodation services either directly provided or purchased from external providers. This includes 1494 TFFs (GCC target is 1800), 115 directly provided and 300 purchased short-term emergency bed spaces, 700 purchased supported accommodation bed spaces, either accommodation based or floating support. However the lack of Section 5 settled accommodation provision is causing considerable pressure in the system and the use of bed and breakfast and private hotel accommodation continues. Despite this level of resource the lack of settled move on accommodation means that at times the Council is still unable to meet its statutory duty to accommodate homeless people.

7.2 The 2014/15 budget for Homelessness Services is £72,680,908. In 2013/14 £26,173,686 was spent on purchased services and £3,431,852 was spent on provided emergency accommodation services and £2,447,241 on bed & breakfast and hotel accommodation. In 2013/14 a total of £32,052,779 was spent on the provision of these services.

7.3 A number of key concerns were identified by the workstream group in relation to access to accommodation. There is a lack of supply of settled accommodation for homeless households. In addition there is a mismatch between the types of accommodation being sought and that available. It is acknowledged that Welfare Reform has increased these pressures as one and two apartment accommodations are being used to alleviate pressures on households affected by the ‘bedroom tax’.

4. The ongoing trend in the total number of households offered Section 5 tenancies continues . Analysis of SHR annual return information provided by RSL’s confirms a continuing decline in the number of lets to homeless households - down from 3023 to 2436 over a 3 year period 2010/11 to 2012/13. Figures for 13/14 are currently being finalised but will likely show continuation of trend.

In addition the impact of Glasgow Housing Association’s choice based letting scheme is yet to be fully understood however in its first year of operation [2013/14], lets to homeless households reduced from 37% to 29%.

5. The Private Rented Sector (PRS) is part of the housing solution and is worthy of further exploration within the context of wider capacity planning. Some barriers to using the PRS were identified, including: affordability, securing a tenancy, ownership model of the PRS; housing management practices and physical standards (or the lack thereof)

7.6 It was identified that the pressures on the supply of settled accommodation are having an increased negative impact on service users. In essence these impacts were identified as: an increase in visible rough sleeping; increased hidden homelessness, increased length of stay within temporary accommodation; difficulty managing transitions from care or custody situations; service users being placed within unsuitable emergency and temporary accommodation often located some distance from their social support networks; and service users not contacting statutory homelessness services as they felt that they would not access accommodation.

7.7 There is a need for the Council and RSLs to work together to identify the scale of housing demand from homeless households. Feedback suggests some dissatisfaction that the Homelessness Service has previously not articulated the extent of need, stock type, location, volume of demand effectively to housing providers. There is a disconnect between parties in relation to capacity planning, reporting need and demand and supply issues in relation to available RSL stock, turnover etc. It is proposed that as a first step the Homelessness Duty Protocol (HDP) Working Group develop a capacity planning framework for the city which sets out supply and demand pressures and identifies how GCC/RSLs would work together to meet homelessness demand, matching need more effectively to available resources and wherever possible finding local solutions to local housing need.

The group views the development of a Common Housing Register as a priority for the city.

8. The current processes for accessing accommodation to address homeless need is effectively “pulling” people into a range of temporary housing solutions and also making it difficult for people to move on from homelessness services. There is a need for innovation in finding better housing solutions for service users, including the exploration of the potential to place people with Section 5 status directly into settled accommodation wherever possible- avoiding the need to “graduate” through a variety of temporary housing solutions, including long-term stays in temporary furnished flats.-feasible or not?

9. It is proposed that SWS Homelessness Service purchased and directly provided accommodation and support services are reviewed within the context of projected housing and support needs, flexible service responses, move on, tenancy sustainment and future capacity planning, ensuring service delivery models / access routes to accommodation do not of themselves create dependencies.

Proposals that emerge will have a direct impact on how the Council manages Homelessness Services which will inevitably impact on how we engage with housing providers at both a locality and city-wide level. We must ensure a wide- ranging inclusive dialogue is established to take this part of our shared strategic agenda forward.

8. Workstream C: Care Pathways & Service Models

1. This workstream focussed on the systems and processes involved in accessing homelessness services and what service users experience when seeking assistance. This proved to be a complicated process and confirmed to some extent that the systems and processes in place to assist people are themselves barriers to support and a deterrent for some people.

8.2 The approach undertaken by the group was to identify core service components and map out the key stages of the tasks involved, these were as follows:

• Prevention/Housing Options

• Homelessness Assessment

• Temporary/Emergency Accommodation

• Out of Hours Services

• Supported Accommodation/Permanent Tenancy

• Tenancy Sustainment

3. A very thorough analysis has been carried out by the group. Each service activity has its own processes in relation to managing enquiries / assessment and identifying solutions. These are then overlaid by the casework service systems and processes which direct frontline operational activity. Add to that prison casework, asylum and refugee support, Tomorrow’s Women (Criminal Justice service) and HAC casework services and there are many potential points of access to homelessness services. Access to some more specialist purchased services also involves a separate referral process.

4. Each service area including purchased have their own systems and processes for managing referrals, interventions, move on etc and should service users needs change, they may find themselves linked back into the casework system, seeking alternative accommodation additional support services etc.

8.5 Asylum seekers and refugees face additional difficulties in navigating their way through these systems. Language barriers, mental ill health, trauma and family separation, lack of support networks can all contribute to difficulties accessing already complicated systems for support

8.6 There is no single key worker / care manager who tracks the progress / outcomes of service users throughout the process. Workers deal with their part of the system and hand off to others at key points in the process

8.7 What was evident was that emergency services that have casework capacity either as part of their staffing establishment or as in-reach provision are more successful at moving people on. This model should be considered in relation to other residential services, including purchased.

8.8 A facilitated pathway planning workshop was held on 7th August and a number of options for streamlining processes were discussed. The scale of the task is extensive, quick wins include e.g. standardising referral paperwork and further work will be carried forward into the reform stage of the review process to conclude this.

8.9 This process has facilitated shared knowledge and understanding of the complexities faced by service users and staff in navigating their way through homelessness services. There is a shared commitment to simplify the systems and processes and remove inefficiencies and obstacles. This activity will link closely with the Needs Assessment group activity to ensure data recording and performance reporting activity reflect any systemic changes made.

9. Workstream D: Multiple Exclusion & Complex Needs

9.1 The group adopted the UK-wide definition of Multiple Exclusion Homelessness and an enhanced the definition of complex needs to inform their work (Appendix 2). The MECN group faced a number of challenges in considering the needs of this service user population, what size of service user population are we dealing with, who are they, where do they present, how can we better engage with individuals / families to offer support, what type of support works, what doesn’t?

9.2 There is no standardised / consistent approach across the homelessness sector as to how service user needs are defined and recorded in relation to multiple exclusion and complex needs. This leaves analysis of the extent of need and numbers of individuals / families within this category of need open to interpretation. This is particularly problematic when trying to identify those people sleeping rough in the city, with various interpretations of the numbers of people we are dealing with at any one time (Appendix 3).

Partner Agencies are to jointly develop and agree a common recording tool to identify individuals within this category of need and those who are sleeping rough / not in contact with statutory services, what services they link to, housing and support needs and tracking outcomes.

3. The group have identified a number of priority areas of unmet need:

• Single males

• Bellgrove Hotel residents

• Prison leavers

• Women fleeing violence

• Sexually exploited individuals

• Homeless Families

• Asylum Seekers / Refugees

• Destitute-including those with no recourse to public funds

9.4 Partner agencies report that MECN service users will often not engage with statutory services due to previous poor experiences and low expectations that accommodation and support will be provided. There was a strong view within the MECN group that there must be significant changes in how this group of people is supported across agencies. There needs to be better communication, joint working, sharing of information and clarity about who provides what support, when, to whom, in order to maximise opportunities to support people into accommodation options with support where appropriate.

Innovative solutions are needed to enable accommodation and support to

be provided when individuals are most responsive to it. How do we

‘capture’ that interest at the point a service user is ready to try? 3rd Sector

agencies are also keen to explore how they can support Homelessness

Services at pre-assessment stages, supporting application processes from within

their services, accessing HL1 and providing basic information to casework

teams from their services.

9.5 A number of key challenges were identified by the group:

• Current services don’t meet needs- service redesign agenda

• Service mapping what works/ doesn’t?

• Crisis intervention

• Increase in mental ill health amongst service users both in accommodation services and those without accommodation

• Refugee support needs, family separation, trauma models, English as a second language

• Failure to engage – how we identify those in need and reach them

• Lack of engagement in homelessness assessment services with Adult Support & Protection (ASP) or Child Protection (CP) arrangements to assist vulnerable service users. Training need also identified in the purchased sector to promote shared understanding of responsibilities.

• Culture of exclusion in some accommodation services

• Person centred service

• Need a more pro active multi agency response to complex needs and eg in improving the pathway/integration for prison leavers

• Need to make better use of 3rd sector for non – statutory tasks

• Data protection / info sharing

• Inflexible approach to meeting needs –finance driven response

• Silo funding issue regarding complex needs cases-inhibits solutions

• Lack of an early intervention approach –linking in mainstream and specialist provision

• Community capacity building

• Employability opportunities- limited – should be standard

9.6 Current services are not designed to respond flexibly to individual needs. There is an urgent requirement to shift the culture of service delivery and practice approaches away from a resource driven response to a person-centred one which more effectively meets housing and support needs. Developing a care pathway approach with a named key worker (could be from 3rd sector) for each service user / family is a key target for this group

9.7 The group has agreed that integrated multi-agency responses are needed to address the varied needs of this service user group. Proposals are as follows:

• Retain a city centre “safety net” to support those most socially isolated and vulnerable service users. The shape of the service will be determined by decisions taken in relation to SWS Out of Hours services and the allocation of roles and functions including access to accommodation between Community Homelessness Services and the HAC and NHSGG&C.

• All complex cases to have named key worker who will maintain links with individuals / families, access resources, coordinate case activity, monitor progress and linking in other services where appropriate.

• Redesign the existing multi-agency Complex Needs Cases Group to deal with all cases identified – will have significant resource issues but will allow identification / tracking outcomes of those most in need. Practicalities of this approach depending on numbers identified - may be difficult to deliver within existing workload demands, may require a redirection of resource.

• Create a multi-agency taskforce team, health social work, voluntary sector, education to identify, assess, support and engage with service users where they are, at their pace, and with the aim of transferring cases to Community Homelessness teams. There will be core team members and others that will operate on an in-reach basis. The team would be co-located to ensure shared knowledge, learning and practice informs solutions for service users.

10. Conclusions

10.1 The Review process has to a large extent confirmed assumptions about pressures that exist within the homelessness sector as a whole. It is important to acknowledge and not lose sight of the fact that there is evidence of committed staff, good practice and service models that are delivering good outcomes for service users. It is also clear that systems and processes, accommodation options and lack of joined up working across the sector is impinging on our ability to deliver quality services consistently.

The focus of this review has been about identifying what does not work and what needs to be improved and this is reflected in this report.

10.2 There are a number of areas where change is needed, some of it radical and the success of which will be determined by a willingness across the sector, the Council, Homelessness Service, Health, 3rd Sector and housing providers to work together to find solutions and new approaches.

11. Recommendations

11.1 The Steering Group is asked to:

a) Note the contents of this report.

b) Consider the key strategic and operational issues identified and actions required.

c) Consider next steps in relation to strategic review.

Appendix 1

Homelessness Strategic Review Workstream groups and membership

Workstream: Accommodation Access

Workstream Lead: Eric Steel SWS

Membership

Julie Kennedy, SWS

Ellen McPhilemy, SWS

Billy McNeil, SWS

Myleen Mackinnon, SWS

Patrick McKay, Blue Triangle

Alan Benson, Milnbank HA

Louise Belton, YPeople

Paul Tonner, GHA

Stephen McGowan, DRS

Patricia Gallagher, West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations

Tom Jackson, SWS

Alex Brown, SWS

Margaret Moore, GHA

Stevie McLachlan, Hamish Allen Centre

Ann Forsyth, NHS

Janet Hayes, NHS

Paul Turnbull, GHN

Workstream: Multiple Exclusions & Complex Needs

Workstream Lead: Pat Coltart SWS

Membership

Karen Donoghue, SWS

Nicola Milligan, SWS

Margaret Ann Brunjes, GHN

Adelle Neave, SWS

Lorraine McGrath, Glasgow Simon Community

Ian Irvine, Turning Point Scotland

Stephen Mitchell, The Marie Trust

Ann Craig, SWS

Moira Hood, SWS

Keith Chalmers, SWS

Janice Neil, SWS

Grant Campbell, Glasgow City Mission

Lucy Conner, SWS

Jamie Stewart, Scottish Refugee Council

Ann Forsyth, NHS

Julie Kennedy, SWS

Karen McDonald, SWS

Jackie Norval, SWS

Stephen McLachlan, SWS

Ann O’Neill, Talbot Association

Sinead McCool, Community Safety Glasgow

Workstream: Needs Assessment

Workstream Lead: Willie Kelly SWS

Membership

Julie Kennedy, SWS

Jane O’Neill, Shelter Scotland

Ian McIntosh, SWS

Janet Hayes, NHS

Claire Frew, GHN

Chris McCourt, SWS

Carol Hughes, SWS

Bev Walker, SWS

Billy McNeill, SWS

Alan Robertson, SWS

Elodie Mignard, Scottish Refugee Council

Laura Gilchrist, SWS

Workstream: Pathways & Service Models

Workstream Lead: Geraldine Lynch SWS

Membership

Shirley Moncur, SWS

AnnMarie McDougall, SWS

Geraldine Cunningham, SWS

Alan Robertson, SWS

Natalie Darke, Unity Trust

Catherine Wilkie, GHA

Pauline McColgan, GHN

Ann Forsyth, NHS

Brian Grant, SWS

Jim McBride, SWS

Lyn Docherty, SAMH

Kate Haycock, Glasgow Simon Community

Jamie Stewart, Scottish Refugee Council

Allan Young, Scottish Refugee Council

Workstream: Service User Engagement

Workstream Lead: Karen Donoghue SWS

Membership

Stephanie Plontnikoff, GHN

Donnie Connor, Aspire

Ian Irvine, Turning Point Scotland

Aileen Reid, Turning Point Scotland

Margaret Stevenson, The Talbot Association

Kim McDonald, SWS

Andrew McCal,l Salvation Army

Andy Young, SFHA

Sharon Freeman, Queens Cross Housing Association

Carole Kedley, Penumbra

Sharon Berrie, Shelter Scotland

J Scott, Milnbank HA

Liz Etherson, NHS

Stephen Mitchell, The Marie Trust

Mary McMahon, Blue Triangle

Jamie Stewart Scot Refugee Council

Ewan Clydesdale City Mission

Workstream: Communication Strategy

Workstream Lead: Jim Kearns SWS

Appendix 2

The UK-wide definition of Multiple Exclusion Homelessness is:

Where people have been homeless (including temporary/unsuitable accommodation, sleeping rough) and have also experienced one or more of the following other ‘domains’ of deep social exclusion:

• institutional care (prison, local authority care, mental health hospitals or wards);

• substance misuse (drug, alcohol, solvent or gas misuse);

• Participation in ‘street culture activities’ (begging, street drinking, ‘survival’ shoplifting or sex work).

In addition to the above it is proposed that the definition of ‘complex

needs’ also includes:

(I) other examples of deep social exclusion (history of domestic abuse,

trauma, sexual exploitation etc)

(ii) Degree of accommodation crisis

(iii) The combined risk to a person.

(iv) use of prescribed drugs and psychoactive substances

Appendix 3

Multiple Exclusion & Complex Needs Service User Profile

1 For reasons outlined elsewhere in this report this has proven to be a difficult

group to identify and quantify across services. It is also acknowledged that a

small number of families fall into this category of need however the vast majority

of people within this category of need are individuals, primarily males.

2 It is known however that the Marie Trust Day Service provides support to

an average of 80-100 people per day. It is however recognised that not all

those attending are homeless or sleeping rough. Some are economic

migrants, some are destitute – no leave to remain, some are in temporary

accommodation, emergency accommodation, B&B TFFS etc. and attend

for a variety of reasons.

3. The Glasgow City Mission provides support (Mon- Fri) to an average of

140-180 people per day. The vast majority, (100) attend for hot evening

meals and 40-60 people per day engage in other day activities offered.

4. The Simon Community Rough Sleepers & Vulnerable People service (RSVP) reports contact (January –April 2014) with an average of 33 distinct individuals per week, with an average of 18 people confirmed as sleeping rough on a weekly basis, a slight increase on the previous year.

5 Glasgow Homelessness Network (GHN) reports regularly on homelessness and rough sleeping in Glasgow based on information provided by participating third sector organisations. Glasgow Homelessness Network Annual Homelessness Monitoring Report 2013-14 shows that “an absolute minimum of 560 people have slept rough on at least 1,422 occasions throughout the year, almost two-

thirds of whom were ‘new’ to services. While people sleeping rough are

more likely to approach the City Council than those experiencing less

extreme forms of homelessness, 334 people slept rough directly after

being advised that there was no accommodation available.

An additional 300+ people were identified as sleeping rough from other

data sources. While it is reasonable to assume that there is a sizeable

degree of overlap between the people accounted for in the different

sources of data, it is not yet possible to accurately quantify the number of

unique individuals. However, this combined data suggests that more than

the 560 people quantified above actually slept rough in Glasgow

throughout this year”.

6 Glasgow City Council figures show that 539 (8.1%) applicant households in 2013/14 indicated that they had slept rough in the three months preceding application, and 445 (6.7%) that they had slept rough the night before making the application. This data only relates to people who have made a homelessness application. There is not, at present, a common approach to identification and gathering of information on people who are homeless, possibly in crisis, but do not engage with statutory services.

-----------------------

Final Draft Report

1st September 2014

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download