Homelessness Policy in England: the importance of place

Adam Stephenson

Homelessness policy in England: the importance of place 12 April 2017

ISPHERE Seminar, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh

Institute for Social Policy, Housing and Equalities Research

Lost worlds of welfare: Local homelessness systems in England

‘National’ welfare services

• National welfare services based on Marshal’s ‘social citizenship’.

• Social citizenship guaranteed equal rights to a basic welfare: health, education, housing and social insurance (Revi, 2014).

• ‘Uniform’ welfare services mass produced by large departments

• Services users imagined as ‘clients’

• Confidence in ‘national welfare’ began to decline in 1970s

• Centralised welfare services delivered greater levels of spatial inequality than any other European country (Martin et al., 2015)

Homelessness policy in England: the importance of place


Public service reformThree strategies of public service reform: 1. Privatisation

• Extend markets• Private provision, commodification, introduction of quasi-markets• Service users reimagined as ‘consumers’

2. New managerialism• Self improvement• Professional management, performance measures, value-for-money, customer focus• Service users reimagined as ‘customers’

3. Decentralisation• Extend democracy• Place based management, integration, reduction in bureaucracy • Service users reimagined as ‘citizens’

Institute for Social Policy, Housing and Equalities ResearchHomelessness policy in England: the importance of place


English decentralisation in practice

Reverse ‘centralisation’ of New managerialism’

• New managerialism improved public services during early New Labour

• ‘New managerialism’ failing by late 2000s• ‘Targetology’ – chasing targets rather

than improving services or outcomes (Rouse, 1993)

• ‘Gaming’ or ‘working the system’ – delivering soft targets (Pollit, 199

• ‘Perverse consequences’ (Public Administration Select Committee, 2003)

• Police forces falsely reported detection of 1000s of crimes (Guardian, 1999)

• NHS Trusts altered waiting lists (NAO, 2001)

Place based health (reform): Manchester• Health and social care budget devolved to Greater

Manchester Combined Authority

“We are seeking to join up community services with social care, mental health and primary care in order to provide the integrated offer that is necessary, not only to support a transformation in our population’s health through prevention and early intervention but in effect, to reduce the demand for services in our hospitals. That is how we see this strategy.” (Sir Howard Bernstein)

• Aims to improve the performance the ‘fragmented health and social care systems’ through ‘service and system change’ and ‘leadership and governance arrangements’ (GMCA, 2015:6, 8, 13)



Homelessness policy reform• National homelessness policy: statutory framework

• Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977• provides ‘settled’ accommodation to prescribed groups• provides no ‘meaningful’ assistance to everyone else

• Academic and policy research focused on ‘policy failure’ since 1980s• Venn (1985); Greve et al (1986)• Dobie et al (2014); Gousy (2016)

• Wider public service reforms (new managerialism and decentralisation) have influenced evolution of homelessness policy in England• Government to governance• “radical change” (Pleace and Quilgars, 2003:14)



New managerialism ‘Prevention focused approach’• ‘Choice’

• Housing options• Choice based lettings• PRS access • LHA

• National targets• 1998 target to cut rough sleeping by two-

thirds within 3years• 2002 pledge to end non emergency use of

B&B• Ring fenced funding

• Homelessness Prevention Grant• Supporting People

• Best practice• Guidance• Special Advisors • Beacon Councils, Regional Champions

Supporting People• National performance framework

• Quality Assessment Framework• Annual returns

• Ring-fenced funding• “housing related supported services”

• Value for money• duty to ensure value for money

• Prescribed governance• SP Administering Authorities • ‘lead officer’• commissioning board



Decentralisation Place based Initiatives• Rough Sleepers Initiatives (1990)

• Central London only• Partnership between Government,

Local Government and voluntary sector

• Extended to Bristol and Brighton

• (Pre)Homelessness Action Programme (1997)• RSI funding extended to 22 places• Homeless Mentally Ill Initiative

(12places)


RS205 Initiative (2009)Reduce entrenched rough seepingDeveloped by DCLG, GLA, and LAFlexible, targeted, monitored

No Second Night Out (2011)Devolved RS to GLA‘establish a pan-London approach’ Local accountability to improve services

London Social Impact Bond (2012)‘Navigator model’ & ‘system change’Shift from services to outcomes


Decentralisation • Reform of Local Government

• Strong and Prosperous Communities (2006)

• Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) replaced by Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA)

• Service improvements via partnership between (local) public services

• Reform of Supporting People• Independence and Opportunity (2007)• National performance framework

scrapped• Ring fence lifted

• Reform of ‘prevention focused approach’• Targets scrapped circa 2008• Total Place (2010)• Funding localisation• Best practice scrapped

Place based approaches • More than a roof (2002)

• ‘people factors’ & ‘place factor’• ‘join up policy’ locally

• Enhanced Housing Options Trailblazer (2009) • Integrate homelessness, benefits,

employment & training• Making Every Contact Count (2012)

• “locally designed integrated services” (p5)• Help for Single Homelessness (2014)

• ‘integrated approaches’ across geographical boundaries

• Addressing complex needs (2015)• Place based commissioning

• Homelessness Prevention Trailblazers (2016)

• “local areas to take a systems, outcomes and person-centred approach to reducing homelessness” (p6)



Place based approaches in practice People’s Gateway, Croydon• Person/family centred approach to welfare and housing:

“… I know Croydon have taken a Gateway approach, which is a holistic approach of looking at homelessness… The gateway and welfare model… not just in identifying someone’s homeless needs, but welfare needs, training needs, employment needs… (Metro level policy manager, statutory sector)

• Integrates housing options and statutory homelessness, DHP, Council Tax Support (CTS), income maximisation, welfare reform, Universal Credit Support (UCS), adult social care financial assessments, blue badge assessment and bereavement services.

• The whole person approach allows local authorities to “join up these services in order to deliver more efficient and outcome centred customer journeys” (Localis, 2016:16).

• Croydon analysed 60,000 records across five services - 20,000 known to three or more.

“We looked at it from the perspective of how much money where those households costing us and how much money did they owe us. Through that lenses you realise quite quickly that all of our emergency accommodation customers were costing us a lot of money directly, but equally they owed us money as well. What it suggested was actually this feels wrong, because the people who are collecting the money are going at this hammer and tongs and trying to make sure they’re delivering their KPIs. The people who are trying to support are just keeping them in a buoyant position”



Place based approaches in practice Greenhouse, Hackney• Multi-agency hub for single homeless people

• Place based commissioning (Hackney Council & City & Hackney CCG)

• “So if someone comes in clearly after hearing their story and their main issues is around their health, that’s where they get triaged to. But we here to help with some their issues around maintaining their accommodation, looking at their level of debt, helping them reduce their rent repayments, that kind of stuff.” (Metro level, voluntary sector)

• “Now the beauty of that environment is that people feel more comfortable going there, it’s not the stark housing options council office and we can offer a whole variety of interventions including health interventions that illustrates and probably reflects the fact that we do need holistic response to peoples homelessness. It’s not going to be a simple issue of needing somewhere to live.” (Metro level, voluntary sector)

• Delivers a range of ‘metrics’: reducing rough sleeping, homeless prevention, income maximisation, debt, ETE



Place based approaches in practice The Point, Greenwich• Multi-agency hub for 16 to 19 year olds. Based on St Basil’s Positive Pathway:

“Young people have suitable homes they can afford, are in work and have support if they need it” (St Basils, 2015)• ETE, housing options, housing support, personal development, sexual health services, drug and alcohol

support, positive activities, volunteering

• 1st Base, Housing Options and Support:

“There are some local authorities with a unified approach; a range of partners; some statutory; some third sector; some housing association all working together and doing different activities… but they’re all working to an agreed set of process and systems.” (National actor, voluntary sector) • Fragmentation:

“… they’re passing them between Children’s Services and Housing. Passing 16 & 17 years olds between each other; arguing the toss about who is responsible… They just don’t work together. All they do is complain about each other.” (National actor, voluntary sector)



Place based approaches in practice Social care integration and de-institutionalisation, Lambeth

• Lambeth Council, Mental Health Trust and CCG• Early intervention:

“decided that they had to be a different way of offering mental health services, which would have the benefit of helping people stay well and… improve the quality of their life and avoid homelessness.” (Metro-level, voluntary sector).

• De-institutionalisation:

“Typically, some of great success we’re having with rehabilitation programme moving people out of hospital beds or out of registered care homes and into the community, what happens there is you get somebody into a flat in the community and because they have had mental health issues and they have links with social care, you know you can get a package of support and it can be as high as £350 per week to give them personal assistance support. £350 per week and maybe a rent of £350-£400 per week, so maybe £750 per week is a lot of money. You see how much they’re paying in a care home; £1100 per week and you find you’re saving £400 per week and the quality of their lives are better. Everybody is happy and the commissioners are happy to too. Its shocks me to see that that we are letting people stay in circumstances which are far too institutionalised…” (Metro level, voluntary sector)



Questions?


Government & Nonprofit

Homelessness Policy in England: the importance of place