supporting people client records - uk data...

Joint Centre for Scottish Housing Research (JCSHR) University of St Andrews

1

Supporting PeopleClient Records

Annual Report2003-2004

JCSHR – SP Client Record OfficeThe ObservatoryUniversity of St. AndrewsBuchanan GardensSt. AndrewsFifeKY16 9LZ

UK Data Archive Study Number 7020 - Supporting People Client Records and Outcomes, 2003/04-2010/11: Special Licence Access

Supporting People Client Records Annual Report 2003-2004

2


3

ContentsExecutive Summary 5

1 Introduction 9

2 Clients

2.1 Introduction 132.2 Client Profiles 142.3 Children receiving support 282.4 Regional variations 282.5 Ethnic Origins 322.6 Secondary Client Groups 322.7 Overview of clients – recognising the extent of housing-related support need 37

3 Previous Accommodation

3.1 Introduction 393.2 Living arrangements of clients prior to receiving support 393.3 Clients accessing services from recognised institutions 433.4 Owner-occupiers 46

4 Service provision and referral routes

4.1 Introduction 474.2 Categories of support 474.3 Providers of support 484.4 Source of referral 494.5 Regional variations 50

5 Cross-authority provision

5.1 Introduction 535.2 Referral systems for cross-authority provision 545.3 Services and client referral arrangements 555.4 Regional variations 57

6 Homelessness

6.1 Introduction 616.2 Statutorily homeless clients 616.3 Regional variations 63

7 Statutory frameworks

7.1 Introduction 657.2 Statutory frameworks 657.3 Clients assessed as a higher risk 687.4 Regional Variations 69

Appendix 1

Client Record Form (Version 1 01/04/03) 71

Tables & Figures 73


4


5

Executive SummaryClients

• The report is based on 209,845 completedClient Record forms covering the periodApril 2003 – March 2004 that were validatedby 31st August 2004.

• The Client Record System collectsinformation on twenty-one primary clientgroup categories. Six of these categoriesaccount for 70% of clients.

• Single homeless people with support needswere the most frequently recorded clientgroup accounting for almost a third of allclients.

• Additionally, women at risk of domesticviolence, people with mental healthproblems, homeless families in need ofsupport, people with generic needs, andyoung people at risk accounted for two-fifthsof clients.

• More male (54%) clients were recorded thanfemale.

• The largest proportion of clients were in theage group of 18-24 years.

• Over a third of clients were claiming jobseekers allowance.

• Slightly less than a third of clients had beenaccepted as statutorily homeless and owed amain homelessness duty.

• The vast majority of clients were White-British in terms of declared ethnic origin.

• The most common previous accommodationcategory for clients was general needs localauthority housing.

• Voluntary agencies provided two-fifths ofservices to clients.

• The most common support service providedwas supported housing.

• The most frequent referral route for clientswas self-referral

• Over four-fifths of clients received serviceswithin their own local authority area.

Regional variations

• London (17%) and the North West (17%)each had larger numbers of clients comparedto other regions, for example, in the NorthEast whose client base made up 5% of thoserecorded by Client Records.

• The East of England had the largestproportion of single homeless people withsupport needs (37%).

• Women at risk of domestic violence were thesecond largest primary client group in theNorth East, Yorkshire & the Humber, EastMidlands, East of England and the WestMidlands.

• In London, and the South East and SouthWest, people with mental health problemswere the second largest primary client groupwhile in the North West, young people at riskwere the second largest primary client group.

• The level of people with mental healthproblems was greater, proportionally, inLondon (11%), the South West (11%), EastMidlands (10%) and the South East (10%)compared to 9% nationally.

• The North East (4%) and South West (5%)had fewer homeless families with supportneeds proportionally compared to otherregions with London (10%) and the East ofEngland (11%) having the highestproportions of homeless families withsupport needs overall.

• There were, proportionally, more youngpeople at risk in the North West (10%) thanin any other region bringing the nationalfigure to 6% in comparison to other regionsfor example; London (5%), the South West(5%) and the West Midlands (5%).

Secondary client groups

• Out of the 209,845 clients recorded, morethan half (110,470) were defined by one ormore secondary descriptions in addition to aprimary description.


6

• Whilst 62,523 clients were recordedprimarily as single homeless people withsupport needs, an additional 23,168 clientswere recorded with single homeless withsupport needs as their secondary client group.

• Offenders or those at risk of offending werethe group with the highest proportion ofclients (74%) defined by secondarydescriptions. Secondary problems associatedwith these clients were most commonly drugproblems, single homelessness and/or alcoholproblems.

Previous Accommodation

• General needs local authority, living withfamily, sleeping rough, staying with friends,supported housing and direct access hostelsdescribed the living conditions of almost two-thirds of clients prior to receiving SupportingPeople services.

• People with generic needs (20%), women atrisk of domestic violence (20%) and peoplewith mental health problems (13%) made upthe majority of clients who were generalneeds local authority tenants prior toreceiving Supporting People services.

• Clients who were recorded as living withfamily prior to receiving services were likelyto be single homeless people with supportneeds (37%), young people at risk (13%) andhomeless families in need of support (12%).As clients began to receive services, almost allmoved on from living with their family.

• Three-quarters of people sleeping rough priorto uptake of services were single homelesspeople with support needs (45%) and roughsleepers (29%).

• Single homeless people with support needs(50%), young people at risk (11%) andhomeless families (8%) accounted for themajority of clients staying with friends priorto receiving services.

• The majority of clients leaving their priorsupported housing accommodation wereprovided with supported housing elsewhere(63%).

• People making use of direct access hostelswere more likely to be single homeless peoplewith support needs (52%) or young people atrisk (11%). Clients with alcohol or drugproblems or those with mental healthproblems constituted a further 15% of clientsin direct access hostels and homeless familieswith support needs and women at risk ofdomestic violence made up 8%.

• In total, 4% of clients were temporarilyhoused in bed and breakfast. Together, singlehomeless people with support needs (35%)and homeless families stand out as being theclients most likely to be in bed and breakfastaccommodation prior to receiving aSupporting People service.

• After qualifying for Supporting Peopleservices, the majority (94%) of clients did notremain in bed and breakfast accommodation.However, 15% of clients took up places inother temporary direct access hostelaccommodation.

• The Client Record System recorded 4,758clients who were owner-occupiers prior toreceiving Supporting People, 2% of allclients. Women at risk of domestic violencewere far more likely to have been owner-occupiers than any other primary clientgroup (42%) prior to receiving a SupportingPeople support service.

Service provision and referral routes

• Three principal categories of support –supported housing (33%), floating support(28%) and direct access (21%) – made upover four-fifths of service provision duringthis first year of the Supporting Peopleprogramme.

• Floating support services were provided toover a third of female clients while only justover a fifth of male clients received this formof support. However, 38% of males wereaccepted into supported housing schemes,compared to only 28% of females. Also, 30%of males received direct accessaccommodation compared to 12% offemales.


7

• Almost two-fifths of all Supporting Peopleservices were provided by voluntaryorganisations, 30% of which was temporaryaccommodation in direct access hostels.

• Housing associations/RSLs provided the secondlargest proportion (32%) of services tovulnerable clients and more than half of theseservices were supported housing schemes.

• Housing authority services made up 16% ofsupport provision and more than two-fifthsof this support was in the form of floatingsupport services.

• A quarter of clients accessed services bymeans of self-referral.

• Local authority housing departments referredone-fifth of clients and over a tenth of clientswere referred by voluntary agencies.

• Nominations by local housing authoritiesaccounted for a further tenth of referrals andslightly less than a tenth of referrals weremade on behalf of clients by Social Servicedepartments.

Regional variations

• In the West Midlands, floating supportservices (34%), as opposed to supportedhousing (26%), were the services supportingthe greatest number of clients.

• Voluntary organisations predominated serviceprovision in the Yorkshire & the Humber(50%), North East (43%), and the WestMidlands (42%), while housing associations/RSLs provided a greater than averageproportion of services in the South East(43%) and the East of England (41%).

• The largest category of referral in Londonwas local authority department referral (27%)while in all other regions the largest referralsource was through self-referral.

Cross-authority provision

• Overall, more than four-fifths of referralswere made for clients who made anapplication for Supporting People serviceswithin their own local authority area.

• Less than a fifth of clients accessed servicesoutside their immediate local authority area.

• By far, the most common type of non-hostreferral was open access.

• One quarter of referrals accepted byvoluntary organisations were non-hostreferrals. Proportionally, this compares to18% of housing association/RSL acceptancesand only 5% of housing authorityacceptances.

• More than a tenth of referrals to supportedhousing were non-host open-access referralsdirectly from clients accessing services outsidetheir own local authority area.

Regional variations

• Compared to the national average of 17% fornon-host referrals, London had the highestproportion of this type of referral (26%).

• The East Midlands and Yorkshire & theHumber had the lowest levels of non-hostreferrals (11% & 12%, respectively).

• While London had the highest level of non-host open-access referrals (18%), Yorkshire &the Humber (8%) and the East Midlands(8%) had the lowest.

Homelessness

• Less than a third of clients recorded by theClient Record System were accepted asstatutorily homeless and owed a mainhomelessness duty.

• Single homeless people with support needsconstituted almost two-fifths of all clientsaccepted as statutorily homeless and owed amain homelessness duty.

• Almost a fifth of statutorily homeless clientsowed a main homelessness duty werehomeless families with support needs andwomen at risk of domestic violence made upa further 13%.

• Less than a tenth of statutorily homelesspeople owed a main homelessness duty wereliving in bed and breakfast prior to receivingservices. Over a third of these clients were


8

single homeless with support needs and afurther 23% were homeless families withsupport needs.

Regional variations

• A higher proportion of clients in the NorthWest were statutorily homeless and owed a mainhomelessness duty (40%) than in the SouthWest and the East Midlands (23% in each).

Statutory frameworks

• In total, 48% of young people leaving careand 47% of people with learning disabilitieswere supported via Care Management (SocialServices).

• Four principal client groups – offenders/thoseat risk of offending (35%), single homelesspeople with support needs (30%), peoplewith drug problems (13%) and young peopleat risk (6%) – made up over four-fifths ofclients subject to Probation or YouthOffending Team supervision.

• Two-fifths of people with mental healthproblems were receiving Care ProgrammeApproach packages.

• Offenders/those at risk of offending (29%),single homeless people with support needs(16%), and people with mental healthproblems (14%) were the client groups thatmade up the majority of clients subject toMulti-Agency Public ProtectionArrangements.

Regional variations

• Proportionally, there were more clientsaccepted as requiring Social Services CareManagement in the North East (16%) thanin any other region. The national average was9%.

• While the average for England as a whole satat 7%, 12% of clients in Yorkshire & theHumber were subject to Probation or YouthOffending Team supervision compared toonly 3% of clients in London.

The Client Record system was introduced at the start of the Supporting People funding programme inApril 2003. The Joint Centre for Scottish Housing Research (JCSHR), based at the Universities of StAndrews and Dundee, is responsible for the administration of the Client Record System. The ClientRecord Office is located on the University of St. Andrews campus to where all inquiries should beaddressed.

Further information about Supporting People Client Records can be found at www.spclientrecord.org.uk,including summary reports to Supporting People Teams and Excel lookup sheets for summary information atAdministering Authority, Regional, and England levels.


9

1 IntroductionSupporting People and the Client Record System

The Supporting People programme is designed to improve the quality of support available to vulnerablepeople. Following new legislation that separated service costs from housing benefit payments, theProgramme has brought together different streams of support funding providing a single funding streamfor the delivery of housing-related support. The budget for this programme has been transferred directly tolocal authorities who have responsibility for delivery of the programme objectives. The programme itselfhas evolved via a number of smaller and earlier initiatives designed to improve health and reduce povertyand homelessness by modernising public services.

A key factor in the development of Supporting People is the expansion of the leadership role of localauthorities. The programme requires authorities to work in partnership with health, social work,probation, support providers and user groups to monitor provision and identify need in their areas. Localauthorities commission and fund appropriate needs-led cost-effective and quality driven services on acontractual basis. Importantly, support services are no longer conditional on accommodation or tenure andare to be tailored in such a way as to respond directly to the individual needs of vulnerable people.

The priority is to extend and refine the range of provision and widen access to client groups such as blackand ethnic minority communities, offenders, and women at risk of domestic violence who, traditionally,have not had ready access to support provision. This will involve extending and developing services withinlocal authority areas and creating new protocols between local authorities to enable cross-authorityprovision whereby clients can access services outwith their own locality.

Independent monitoring of the progress is one of the central principles of Supporting People, designed toensure that the objectives of the Programme are being met. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister(ODPM) has devised a common framework for assessing service standards and gathering managementinformation; a significant aspect of this framework is the Client Record System. The Client Record Systemrequires service providers to complete the Client Record form, a means of data collection that provides keyperformance indicators between and within authorities, identifying the routes by which Supporting Peopleservices are being accessed and the personal characteristics of service users. Client Record data is being usedto determine the range and extent of service development and cross-authority provision over time and theextent to which vulnerable groups are accessing appropriate services.

The Joint Centre for Scottish Housing Research (JCSHR) is responsible for the management, organisationand analysis of Client Record forms. Every quarter, JCSHR issues to the ODPM a national report identifyingthe main characteristics of regional and local authority support provision. Reports are also issued to thecommissioning body within each of the 150 administering authorities, charting information specificallyrelated to their own authority and region and, for comparative purposes, across England as a whole.

These reports tabulate information on the number and type of providers currently operating, the type ofservices offered, the clients supported, the origin of referrals and the numbers accepted. The Client Recorddatabase thereby effectively maps and monitors the key information required for an understanding of whatis delivered in terms of housing related support, who is currently using these services and where they camefrom. Notably, the database offers a picture of what services are not currently being provided and wherethese gaps occur.

The Client Record system has an important role in recording and monitoring improvement in the supplyof services and assessing whether outcomes equate with real change. Information is recorded on a range of


10

client groups such as single homeless people who need support, homeless families, teenage parents, women atrisk of domestic violence and offenders or people at risk of offending. Data is also collected on secondaryproblems that clients may be experiencing such as drug or alcohol problems or mental health problemsand whether clients are receiving statutory support through interventions such as Care Managementprogrammes or Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPAs). The data also records informationon the type of services clients receive so that authorities can identify whether particular clients in their localityare having their needs met appropriately or whether these could be met more adequately, perhaps throughcross-authority arrangements. Additionally, the data may lead to services being restructured or thedevelopment of specialised services. A copy of the Client Record Form can be found in Appendix 1.

The Client Record System monitors client characteristics as closely as possible in an attempt to identifypotential gaps in provision by examining the supply of provision through the types of clients accessingservices, rather than through the services that are available. This links with the key objective of SupportingPeople to relate services to the individual needs of vulnerable people rather than fitting them into what iscurrently available, which in reality may not be the support they require. This is a client-led approach anda realistic picture of the requirements of those clients accessing services needs to be drawn up: the ClientRecord System contributes to this programme in providing the basis for an assessment of whetherSupporting People is meeting outcomes in relation to priorities within housing, health, social care and thecriminal justice system.

Together, the Client Record System quarterly returns and annual reports are significant as a regulatory,monitoring and evaluation tool for Supporting People policy makers and practitioners. It acts as a referenceguide in comparisons of local authority statistics and contributes to individual provider organizationplanning and funding structures.

The aim and structure of the Annual Report

This is the first annual report from the Client Record Office and it brings together information from ClientRecords completed for clients who started to receive services between 1st April 2003 and 31st March 2004.

The aim of this report is to provide summary commentary on the main findings from the Client Recorddataset, together with illustrative tables and graphs. The report is based on 209,845 validated ClientRecord forms that were received by the Client Record Office before the 31st August 2004.

The report is divided into seven sections:

Section 1: Introduction

Section 2: An overview of client characteristics and client groups together with the routes thatparticular groups took in accessing service provision.

Section 3: A description of the previous accommodation of clients prior to receiving services

Section 4: The types of Supporting People providers and services delivered to clients during thereporting year.

Section 5: The extent of cross-authority provision during the first year of Supporting People.

Section 6: Clients who were statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty and theservices they received.

Section 7: A summary of clients who require services under other statutory frameworks.

This annual report is available from our website at www.spclientrecord.org.uk.


11

Practical information

The Client Record system covers new clients who have started to receive the services shown below throughSupporting People funding:

Included services

• Supported housing

• Residential care homes (in receipt of SP funding)

• Adult placements

• Supported lodgings

• Women’s refuge

• Foyer

• Teenage parent accommodation

• Direct access accommodation

• Floating support services

• Outreach services

• Resettlement services.

There are additional services that receive funding through Supporting People but are currently exemptfrom the Client Record system. These are shown below.

Excluded services

• Very sheltered housing

• Sheltered housing with warden support

• Almshouses

• Peripatetic warden services

• Leasehold schemes

• Home Improvement Agencies (HIA)

• Community alarms

A Client Record Form is completed by a service provider each time a person starts to receive one of theirservices.

The Client Record system was introduced at the start of the Supporting People funding programme inApril 2003. The Joint Centre for Scottish Housing Research (JCSHR), based at the Universities ofSt Andrews and Dundee, is responsible for the administration of the Client Record system. The ClientRecord Office is located on the University of St. Andrews campus to where all inquiries should beaddressed.


12


13

2 Clients2.1 Introduction

This section of the Annual Report explores the characteristics of vulnerable people as they begin to receivehousing-related support services funded through Supporting People. The term vulnerable people refers toindividuals who are at a point in their life when they require an element of support to access housing,sustain a tenancy and/or achieve independence and a better quality of life.

During the first year of reporting, the Client Record System recorded information about 209,845 newclients. Although, the Client Record System collects information on twenty-one primary client groupcategories, thus far, six of these categories account for 70% of clients. Single homeless people with supportneeds were the most frequently recorded and as a group they accounted for almost a third of all clients.The next largest groups were, in decreasing order: women at risk of domestic violence, people with mentalhealth problems, homeless families in need of support, people with generic needs, and young people atrisk. [Figure 2.1]

More male (54%) clients were recorded than female and the largest proportion of clients were between theages of 18-24 years. Over a third of clients were claiming job seekers allowance. Slightly less than a thirdhad been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty (refer to section 6 fordefinition of statutorily homeless – page 59). The vast majority of clients were White-British in terms ofdeclared ethnic origin.

15 Percent

20 25 301050

Figure 2.1: Primary client groups

Single homeless with supportWomen at risk of domestic violence

Mental health problemsHomeless families with support

GenericYoung people at risk

Drug problemsRough sleeper

Alcohol problemsOffenders or at risk of offendingOlder people with support needs

Learning disabilitiesRefugees

Physical or sensory disabilityTeenage parents

Young people leaving careFrail elderly

TravellerOlder people with mental health problems

People with HIV/AIDSMentally disordered offenders


14

Prior to uptake of services the most common previous accommodation category for clients was generalneeds local authority housing. However, a third of clients were either living with family, sleeping rough orstaying with friends. Voluntary agencies provided two-fifths of services to clients and the most commonsupport service provided was supported housing. The most frequent referral route for clients was self-referral and over four-fifths of clients received services within their own local authority area.

This section goes on to explore each client group in more detail and provides an account of their previousaccommodation, referral arrangements, service provision, regional variations and ethnic origins. Finally, itexamines the various secondary problems that clients experienced and concludes with an assessment ofoverall support needs based on the combined responses to primary and secondary client group categories.

2.2 Client Profiles

Single homeless with support needs (29.8%; 62,523)

Client Records define single homeless people with support needs as either people who have been acceptedas statutorily homeless and have ‘priority need’ status and are therefore owed a main homelessness duty, orpeople who have been turned down for re-housing or have not approached the local authority but whohave a range of support needs.

Over a third of single homeless people with support needs were between the ages of 18-24. More than halfclaimed job seekers allowance, while almost a fifth were long term sick or disabled and a tenth were notseeking work. Almost two-fifths of single homeless people with support needs had been accepted asstatutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty. More females (47%) than males (36%) had beenaccepted as statutorily homeless, even though almost three-quarters of clients were male.

Prior to receiving Supporting People support services, the majority of single homeless people with supportneeds were either, living with family (18%), sleeping rough (15%), staying with friends (15%) or in directaccess hostels (12%).

Proportionally, single homeless people with support needs who were living with family were more likely tobe offered supported housing if they had not been accepted as statutorily homeless while those that hadbeen accepted as statutorily homeless were more likely to be provided with hostel accommodation. Incontrast, clients who had been sleeping rough and had not been accepted as statutorily homeless were lesslikely to be provided with supported housing than those that were statutorily homeless. [Table 2.1.]

Over a third of single homeless people with support needs made self-referrals making this the mostcommon route to service provision for this client group and services were provided to the majority ofclients in their own local authority area mainly by voluntary organisations and housing associations/registered social landlords (RSLs).


15

Table 2.1: Types of service between statutory homelessness acceptance for single homeless peoplewith support needs who were living with family or sleeping rough

Accepted as statutorily homeless Not accepted as statutorily homeless

Type of service Living with family Sleeping rough Living with family Sleeping rough

# % # % # % # %

Supported housing 1,865 40.9 1,184 41.9 2,963 46.6 1,831 29.0

Direct access 1,668 36.6 1,307 46.2 2,168 34.1 4,139 64.0

Floating support 447 9.8 118 4.2 468 7.4 148 2.0

Foyer 221 5.0 92 3.3 539 8.5 145 3.0

Outreach 140 3.0 43 1.5 27 0.4 20 0.3

Resettlement 119 3.1 53 1.9 94 1.5 91 2.0

Supported lodgings 52 1.1 26 0.9 62 1.0 52 1.0

Women’s refuge 34 0.7 2 0.1 24 0.4 4 0.1

Teenage parent accommodation 7 0.2 1 0.1 5 0.0

Residential care home 3 0.1 2 0.0 3 0.1

Adult placement 1 0.0

Total 4,557 41.8 2,826 30.5 6,352 58.2 6,433 69.5

Women at risk of domestic violence (10.6%; 22,229)

Over three quarters of women at risk of domestic violence were between 18-38 years and almost two-thirdsof all clients were described as not seeking work. Almost two-fifths of women had been accepted asstatutorily homeless.

General needs local authority tenancy (29%), living with family (13%), private rented (12%), generalneeds RSL/HA tenancy (10%) or owner occupied (9%) described the prior accommodation for themajority of women. [Figure 2.2] Almost two-thirds of support for women at risk of domestic violence wasrefuge provision while a fifth of clients were provided with floating support. Women receiving floatingsupport and remaining where they were, were more likely to be general needs local authority tenants(36%), general needs RSL/HA tenants (20%), or owner-occupiers (14%).

The pattern of referral arrangements for women was varied. Women were most likely to either be referredby voluntary agencies (24%) or make a self-referral (20%) [Figure 2.3.] Although the majority (61%) ofwomen received services in their own local authority area, as a group, women at risk of domestic violencewere more likely than any other client group to access services via cross-authority arrangements: 27% ofreferrals were open access; 9% were structured; 3% were multi-lateral; and 1% were spot purchase (refer tosection 5.1 for a definition of referral types). The majority (68%) of services were provided by voluntaryagencies while housing associations/RSLs (21%) and housing authorities (7%) made up the remainder ofprovision for almost this entire client group.


16

People with mental health problems (8.9%; 18,652)

People with mental health problems were of various ages with the majority (88%) falling between 16 and52 years. Within this wide-ranging age bracket, the largest proportion of clients fell into the 32-38 agebracket (22%), while over a third of clients were younger than this. The majority of people with mentalhealth problems were male (62%). Two-thirds of this client group were long term sick or disabled andalmost two-fifths of clients were accepted as requiring a Care Programme Approach (CPA). Less than one-fifth of people with mental health problems had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a mainhomelessness duty.

15 Percent

20 25 301050

Figure 2.2: The previous living arrangements of women at risk of domestic violence

General needs local authority tenantLiving with family

Private rentedGeneral needs RSL/HA tenant

Owner occupierOther

Supported housingStaying with friends

Any other temp accommodationDirect access hostel

Bed and breakfastRough sleeping

15 Percent

20 25 301050

Figure 2.3: Pattern of referral arrangements for women at risk of domestic violence

Voluntary agencySelf referral/Direct application

LA housing department (referral)OtherPolice

Nominated by local housing authoritySocial Services

Internal transferHealth service/GP

Moving from another RSLCommunity Mental Health Team

Probation service/PrisonNominated under HOMES

Youth Offending Team


17

The main type of previous accommodation for people with mental health problems was general needs localauthority housing [Figure 2.4]. Almost two-fifths of local authority tenants remained in their tenancy andof those, the majority received floating support (90%). For the remaining general needs local authoritytenants, more than three-quarters were offered floating support elsewhere, 12% were accepted intosupported housing and 5% into direct access hostels.

Almost all people with mental health problems received services in their own local authority area (93%)and over a quarter of all clients were referred by their Community Mental Health Team. More than two-thirds of services for this client group were provided by housing associations/RSLs (33%) and voluntaryorganisations (31%).

Homeless families with support needs (7.5%; 15,804)

One-third of homeless families with support needs were in the 18-24 age bracket. The majority (74%) ofclients were female and more than half were not seeking work. Only 28% of clients were recorded ashaving a partner. A minority (4%) of homeless families were accepted as requiring Social Services CareManagement programmes. Three-quarters of homeless families had been accepted as statutorily homelessand owed a main homelessness duty.

Living with family (23%), renting privately (13%), general needs local authority tenant (13%) and livingin bed and breakfast (11%) described the living arrangements of the majority of clients prior to receivingsupport. [Figure 2.5] On receipt of SP services, two-fifths of clients were accepted into supported housingschemes and 27% were offered floating support services. Over a fifth of families were given

15 Percent

20 25 301050

Figure 2.4: People with mental health problems by previous accommodation

General needs local authority tenantSupported housing

General needs RSL/HA tenantHospital

Living with familyPrivate rented


Direct access hostelOther

Any other temp accommodationStaying with friends

Residential care homeOwner occupier

Sheltered housingShort life housing

PrisonApproved probation hostel

Children's home/foster careTied home or renting with job


18

accommodation in direct access hostels. Proportionally, families who had been accepted as statutorilyhomeless (22%) were more likely to be provided with direct access hostel accommodation than those thathad not been accepted as statutorily homeless (18%). [Table 2.2]

15 Percent

20 25 301050

Figure 2.5: The previous living arrangements of homeless families with support needs


General needs local authority tenantBed and breakfast

Any other temp accommodationStaying with friendsSupported housing

General needs RSL/HA tenantDirect access hostel

OtherOwner occupier

Short life housingTied home or renting with job

Rough sleeping

Table 2.2: The support provided to homeless families with support needs

Accepted as statutorily homelesss Not accepted as statutorily homeless

# % # %

Supported housing 4,613 38.7 1,691 43.5

Floating support 3,064 25.7 1,135 29.2

Direct access 2,641 22.2 694 17.6

Outreach service 811 6.8 65 1.7

Resettlement service 616 5.2 169 4.3

Women’s refuge 83 0.7 78 2.0

Supported lodgings 42 0.4 34 0.9

Teenage parent accommodation 34 0.3 9 0.2

Adult placement 9 0.1 1 0.0

Residential care home 3 0.0

Foyer 2 0.0 10 0.3

Total 11,918 75.4 3,886 24.6


19

Slightly more than half the families were referred to services by means of the local authority housingdepartment’s referral process and almost a fifth were nominated by their local housing authority. However,a further 18% of families self-referred. Almost all referrals were host referrals (94%) and more than half ofall services for this client group were provided by housing authorities, a further 18% by housingassociations/RSLs and 8% by voluntary organisations.

Generic (6.6%; 13,752)

A generic client group captures clients with multiple primary needs.

A quarter of clients falling into the generic category were between the ages of 18-24 years, almost one-fifthwere aged 25-31 years and 18% were aged between 32 and 38 years. The majority of clients in this groupwere female (60%). Almost a third of clients were not seeking work, 23% were job seekers and 15% werelong term sick or disabled. Less than a tenth of clients had been accepted as statutorily homeless and oweda main homelessness duty.

Almost two-thirds of clients were tenants either in general needs local authority or RSL/HA housing priorto receiving services, half of whom remained in their tenancies and of those, 96% received floating supportservices.

Consequently, clients in the generic category were more likely to receive services in their own localauthority area (95%), however, through various referral routes: referrals made by local authority housingdepartments (37%); self-referrals (21%); nominations from local housing authorities (15%); and 9% ofreferrals were via unspecified (other) referral routes. Services were provided by four principal types ofprovider organisations: housing associations/RSLs (26%); voluntary organisations (24%); local authorityjoint H&SS (21%); and housing authorities (19%).

Young people at risk (6.3%; 13,170)

Almost all clients in this category were either between the ages of 16-17 years (56%) or 18-21 years (43%).Overall, there were no observable differences in gender within this client group, however, there weredistinct gender variations in these clients’ economic status. Almost half of young people at risk wereclaiming job seekers allowance, 56% of these were male. Similarly, clients taking part in Governmenttraining or New Deal schemes were more likely to be male (60%). Almost two-thirds of full-time studentswere female and three-quarters of those not seeking work were female. Clients working part-time were alsomore likely to be female (68%). [Figure 2.6]

There were few clients who had been accepted as requiring services under statutory frameworks. Only atenth of young people at risk were receiving Care Management via Social Services and the majority weremale (56%). Almost two-fifths of clients had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a mainhomelessness duty.

Five types of accommodation accounted for almost three-quarters of living arrangements young people atrisk occupied prior to receiving services: living with family (29%); staying with friends (16%); direct accesshostel (12%); supported housing (10%); and bed & breakfast (7%).


20

Young people at risk were spread across four main service categories: supported housing (39%); directaccess (24%); floating support (21%); and foyer (9%). The majority of clients receiving floating support(63%) or supported housing (53%) were female, while clients receiving direct access accommodation weremore likely to be male (64%). Most clients (88%) received services in their host area with the largestproportion of clients either having been referred by local authority housing departments (23%) or self-referring (22%). Social Services referred 13% of young people at risk. In the main, young people at riskreceived support services from three types of providers, namely voluntary organisations (46%), housingassociations/RSLs (37%) and housing authorities (11%).

People with drug problems (4.7%; 9,958)

More than a third of this client group were between the ages of 25 and 31 years and the majority of allpeople with drug problems were male (73%). Over two-fifths of clients were long-term sick or disabled. Afifth of clients were subject to Probation or Youth Offending Team services and 16% of clients had beenaccepted as requiring Care Management via Social Services. Less than a fifth of clients had been accepted asstatutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

The prior living arrangements of people with drug problems varied though generally, clients were morelikely to have been sleeping rough (14%) or living with family members (12%). The bulk of supportprovided to clients who had been sleeping rough was supported housing (42%) or direct access hostelaccommodation (41%). The majority (71%) of clients who remained living with family were providedwith floating support services. For those that left the family home, 45% were provided with supportedhousing, a quarter went into residential care and 15% made use of direct access hostels.

People with drug problems tended to engage in a greater extent of cross authority movement incomparison to some other client groups. Although the majority (74%) received services in their own localauthority area, over a tenth of clients were non-host open access, slightly less than a tenth were non-hostspot purchase clients and 5% were non-host structured clients. Although people with drug problems weremost likely to self-refer (29%), 14% were referred by the Probation or Prison service and 13% werereferred by voluntary agencies. [Figure 2.7] Voluntary agencies (47%) and housing associations/RSLs(31%) provided the bulk of services to this client group.

30 40 50 Percent

6020100

Figure 2.6: The economic status of young people at risk by sex Not seeking work

Part-time workFull-time student

Full-time workOther adult

Long term sick/disabledJob seeker

Govt trainingChild under 16

70 80 90 100

Female

Male


21

Rough sleepers (4.3%; 8,922)

In the single homeless category described above it was evident that most single homeless people live inshort term accommodation such as direct access hostels, however, there are some single homeless peoplewho live on the streets for most or all of their period of homelessness and these clients are referred to asrough sleepers. Rough sleepers are people who are roofless and bed down for the night on the street orsleep out in buildings or other places not designed for habitation, for example, in stations, car parks orsheds.

The age range of rough sleepers was varied: 27% were 18-24 years; 22% were 25-31 years; 20% were 32-38 years; and 15% were 39-45 years. Well over four-fifths of rough sleepers were male. Slightly more thanhalf of rough sleepers were job seekers and a quarter were long term sick or disabled. Only 27% of roughsleepers had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

As would be expected, the largest proportion (two-thirds) of clients were rough sleeping prior to receivingservices, however, a few clients were staying with friends (6%), in direct access hostels (6%) or living withfamily (4%). On receipt of SP support, less than one-third of rough sleepers were provided with supportedhousing whilst the majority made use of direct access hostel accommodation (61%).

Although the majority of clients were host clients, almost a quarter of referrals for rough sleepers were non-host open access and almost half of all referrals were made on a self-referral basis. Voluntary agenciesreferred slightly less than a quarter of rough sleepers and provided services to just over half of clients whilehousing associations/RSLs provided services to a further two-fifths.

People with alcohol problems (3.9%; 8,142)

The largest proportion of these clients were aged between 32-45 (47%) and almost four-fifths of peoplewith alcohol problems were male. More than half were long term sick or disabled and 17% had beenaccepted as requiring services under a Social Service Care Management programme. Less than one-fifth ofclients had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

30 40 50 Percent

6020100

Voluntary agency Social Services Probation service/Prison

Self referral/Direct application

Other referral types

Figure 2.7: Proportion of referral type by main sources of referral for people with drug problems

Non-Host: Open AccessNon-Host: Structured

Non-Host: Spot PurchaseNon-Host: Multi-Lateral

Host

70 80 90 100


22

Prior to uptake of Supporting People services, almost a fifth of clients were general needs local authoritytenants. Of those, almost a quarter remained in their tenancy and of those, 86% received floating supportservices while 7% went into residential care and 5% were provided with supported housing. For thosegeneral needs local authority tenants not remaining in their tenancy, just over half were provided withfloating support elsewhere and almost a quarter went into residential care. The most frequent type ofservice delivered to people with alcohol problems that were sleeping rough was direct access (47%) orsupported housing (36%).

A quarter of people with alcohol problems accessed services by self-referral and although the majority ofclients received services in their own local authority, over a tenth were non-host open access referrals.Services for people with alcohol problems were primarily provided by voluntary organisations (47%) orhousing associations/RSLs (35%).

Offenders or those at risk of offending (3.2%; 6,694)

Over a third of offenders fell into the 18-24 age bracket and over a fifth were between the ages of 25-31years. Almost all offenders were male (87%) and over three quarters were subject to Probation or YouthOffending Team supervision. Well over half of offenders were claiming job seekers allowance. Only 14% ofoffenders had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Only 28% of clients accessed services straight from prison while almost half of clients were either livingwith family, in supported housing, staying with friends, in an approved probation hostel or sleeping rough.[Figure 2.8] Of the 3% of clients remaining in prison prior to receiving support, more than half wereprovided with resettlement services, over a quarter were provided with supported housing and 15% wereprovided with floating support or outreach services. For offenders released from prison prior to receivingsupport, more than two thirds were accepted into supported housing schemes and 12% made use of directaccess hostels. Two fifths of clients living with family prior to receiving support were provided withsupported housing while slightly less than a quarter were provided with resettlement services. Half ofoffenders staying with friends prior to receiving support were provided with supported housing and overone-fifth joined a resettlement programme.

15 Percent

20 25 301050

Figure 2.8: The previous living arrangements of offenders or those at risk of offending

PrisonLiving with familySupported housing

Staying with friendsApproved probation hostel

Rough sleepingGeneral needs local authority tenant

Private rentedDirect access hostel

OtherAny other temp accommodation

General needs RSL/HA tenantBed and breakfast


23

Almost three-quarters of offenders were referred by the Probation or Prison service and over-three quartersreceived services in the local authority area providing the service. However, more than a tenth of referralsfor offenders were non-host structured referrals. Primarily, services for this client group were provided byhousing associations/RSLs (52%) and voluntary organisations (39%).

Older people with support needs (3.1%; 6,508)

A third of older people with support needs were aged 80 or over and of these, 72% were female; overall,57% of clients were female. [Figure 2.9] Clients were mainly retired (89%) with only 8% long term sick ordisabled. Social Services had accepted 17% of clients as requiring a Care Management programme; 62% ofthese clients were female.

Prior to receiving services, older people with support needs were mainly tenants, either in general needslocal authority (44%) or RSL/HA (19%) housing. Almost two-fifths of older people remained in theiraccommodation and the majority (92%) received floating support. For those that left their accommodationon receipt of support, 70% received floating support elsewhere, 16% were provided with supportedhousing and 6% were supported through resettlement.

Older people with support needs accessed services through various referral routes, namely local authorityhousing department referrals (24%), local housing authority nominations (20%), self-referrals (19%), andSocial Services (15%) and almost all clients received services in their own local authority area (96%). In themain, services were provided by housing authorities (30%), housing associations/RSLs (27%) andvoluntary organisations (20%).

People with learning disabilities (2.4%; 5,012)

Almost a quarter of people with learning disabilities were between the ages of 18 and 24 years. Over halfwere male. More than half of this client group were long term sick or disabled.

In the main, people with learning disabilities were either general needs local authority tenants (23%),living with family (19%), in supported housing (17%) or general needs RSL/HA tenants (10%) prior toreceiving support. Supported housing (47%) and floating support (40%) accounted for the bulk of servicesdelivered to this client group. Referrals largely came from Social Services (47%) and these clients were mostlikely to receive services in their own local authority area (94%).

Services were mainly provided by housing associations/RSLs (32%) and voluntary organisations (23%).

30 40 50 Percent

6020100

Female

Male

Figure 2.9: Older people with support needs by sex and age

53-5960-6465-6970-7475-79

80+

70 80 90 100


24

Refugees (2.3%; 4,918)

Almost two-thirds of refugees fell within the 18-31 age range. The majority of clients were male (73%) andthe largest economic category for all clients was job seekers (69%). Over a third of refugees had beenaccepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Clients in this group previously occupied either unspecified (other) temporary accommodation (19%),were staying with friends (17%), resident in supported housing (14%) or were general needs localauthority tenants (11%). Supported housing (46%) and floating support (35%) accounted for the majorityof services provided to refugees.

Over four-fifths of refugees received services in their own local authority area and a tenth of clients werenon-host open access referrals. Local authority housing department referrals (26%) and self-referrals (26%)were the referral routes for the majority of refugees. Housing associations/RSLs (32%), voluntary agencies(29%) and housing authorities (20%) provided the majority of services.

People with physical or sensory disabilities (2.3%; 4,811)

People with physical or sensory disabilities were more likely to be between the ages of 32 and 59 years(57%). Over half were male and although the majority (64%) of clients were long term sick or disabled,18% of clients were retired. Slightly more than a quarter of clients were accepted as requiring CareManagement via Social Services. More than a tenth of people with physical or sensory disabilities had beenaccepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Over half of these clients were tenants either in general needs local authority housing (34%) or RSL/HAhousing (18%). Of those clients in local authority housing, a third remained in their tenancies and almostall of them received floating support (97%). This was very similar for clients remaining in RSL/HAtenancies.

Nearly all clients were supported in their own local authority area (95%) and almost half of referrals forpeople with physical or sensory disabilities were made by Social Services (26%) or LA housing departments(23%) while a fifth of referrals were made by clients on a self-referral basis. Voluntary organisations (30%),housing associations/RSLs (25%) and housing authorities (23%) provided the bulk of support to thisclient group.

Teenage parents (1.5%; 3,074)

More than half of teenage parents were between the ages of 18-20. Only 2% of teenage parents were male.Economically, this group were most commonly not seeking work (70%). In total, almost two-fifths ofteenage parents had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Almost two-fifths of teenage parents were living with family prior to receiving services while 15% weregeneral needs local authority tenants and 9% were staying with friends. Almost half of teenage parentsreceived floating support services and a quarter were accepted into supported housing. Less than one-fifthof clients were provided with teenage parent accommodation. Two-fifths of teenage parents had beenaccepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty and 34% of these were provided withsupported housing. However, of other teenage parents, only 20% received supported housing while 60%received floating support. [Figure 2.10]


25

The majority of teenage parents were referred to services either through local authority housingdepartment referrals (29%) or nominations by local housing authorities (18%) and a further 12% ofclients self-referred. Almost all clients received services in their own local authority area (95%). Housingassociations/RSLs (46%), voluntary organisations (23%) and housing authorities (16%) provided the bulkof services for teenage parents.

Young people leaving care (1.1%; 2,328)

Slightly over half (51%) of clients in this category were between the ages of 18 and 21 years and almost allof the remaining clients were between the ages of 16-17 years (49%). The majority were male. The largestproportion of clients were jobseekers (37%). Social Services Care Management programmes were in placefor 48% of clients and of these, 59% were 16 or 17 years. Less than one-fifth of clients had been acceptedas statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty and 57% of those were age 16 or 17 years.

By far, the largest proportion of clients had come to services via children’s homes or foster care (36%) andwhile more than half of these clients were provided with supported housing, a quarter received a place withsupported lodgings and 9% were accepted into foyer supported accommodation.

Almost two-thirds of young people leaving care were referred to services by Social Service departments. Afurther 9% of young people leaving care came through the internal transfer route and these clients weremainly from children’s homes/foster parents (48%) or supported housing (27%). Few clients receivedcross-authority referrals (11%) and referrals that were non-host were more likely to be structured (4%) oropen access (4%). Support for young people leaving care was provided, in the main, by housingassociations/RSLs (42%), voluntary organisations (34%) and Social Services (12%).

30 Percent

40 50 6020100

Figure 2.10: The support provided to teenage parents

Supported housing

Floating support

Teenage parent accommodation

Direct access

Outreach service

Resettlement service

Other teenage parentsTeenage parents accepted as statutorily homeless


26

Frail elderly (0.7%; 1,412)

During this first year of data recording, clients receiving Supporting People services in sheltered/verysheltered housing, almshouses, peripatetic warden schemes and leasehold schemes were exempt from theClient Record System. The following is a summary of the characteristics of frail elderly clients who werereceiving Supporting People contracted services other than those mentioned above.

As would be expected, the majority (75%) of frail elderly were over the age of 75 years, however, over aquarter of clients were between 53-74 years. More than two-thirds of frail elderly were female and almostall clients were retired (92%). A minority (6%) of clients were long term sick or disabled. Social ServicesCare Management programmes had been provided for 27% of clients. A minority (4%) of frail elderly hadbeen accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Prior to receiving services, over half of frail elderly clients held tenancies in general needs local authority(40%) or RSL/HA housing (14%) while more than a fifth of clients were resident in sheltered housing orwere owner-occupiers. Floating support was provided to 60% of clients and almost a quarter (23%) wereprovided with residential care.

In the main, frail elderly people received services in their own local authority area (94%) and were likely tobe referred via Social Services (27%) or their local housing department’s referral process (24%) and afurther one-fifth self-referred. Housing associations/RSLs (33%), voluntary agencies (23%) or housingauthorities (22%) were the main providers of support.

Travellers (0.3%; 709)

Over three-quarters of travellers fell between the ages of 18 and 38 years and 68% of clients were male.Slightly less than two-fifths of travellers were job seekers and a quarter were not seeking work. Less than afifth of clients were statutorily homeless.

Almost a third of travellers accessed services via an unspecified (other) form of accommodation while 17%were sleeping rough and 14% were owner-occupiers. The majority (58%) of travellers were provided withsupported housing while 29% made use of direct access hostel accommodation.

Almost four-fifths of travellers came through a self-referral route. Half of the travellers received servicesthrough non-host open access referrals. Housing associations/RSLs provided more than half of travellerswith services and voluntary agencies provided a further 31%.

Older people with mental health problems (0.3%; 561)

The age of this client group varied between 55 and 95 years with the largest proportion being over 80(21%). Slightly more than half of clients were female and the majority (76%) were retired, while just over afifth were long term sick or disabled. Overall, 29% of older people with mental health problems wereaccepted as requiring services through a Care Programme Approach (CPA) and 30% were accepted asrequiring Care Management via Social Services.

Clients were mostly tenants in general needs local authority (35%) or RSL/HA housing (16%) and 13%were owner-occupiers.


27

The principal type of support provided to these clients was floating support (77%). However, 9% of clientswere accepted into supported housing schemes and 4% into residential care homes.

Most services were provided in the client’s own local authority area (96%) and clients were either referredby their Community Mental Health Team (25%), local housing department’s referral process (23%) orSocial Services (22%). Services were provided either by housing associations/RSLs (28%), voluntaryorganisations (26%) or housing authorities (23%).

People with HIV/AIDS (0.2%; 415)

Over a third of clients in this group were between the ages of 32 and 38, less than two-fifths of clients werefemale. Almost two-thirds of clients were long term sick or disabled while one-fifth were accepted asrequiring Social Services Care Management. Over a fifth of people with HIV/AIDS had been accepted asstatutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

The majority of clients were either general needs local authority tenants (20%), general needs RSL/HAtenants (15%), from the private rented sector (10%), or in supported housing (10%). Although 15% ofclients remained in their prior accommodation, these clients were mainly general needs tenants (30%) orgeneral needs RSL/HA tenants (16%) with a further 14% living with family. Mainly, clients remaining inprior accommodation received floating support services (88%).

Almost two-fifths accessed services by means of self-referral. Only 9% of all referrals were non-host openaccess. Almost-two fifths of services for this client group were provided by the local authority joint H&SSand over a fifth were provided by housing associations/RSLs.

Mentally disordered offenders (0.1%; 251)

The age range of clients in this group was wide and generally fell between 18-45 years. Over four-fifths ofclients were male and over half of all clients in this category were long term sick or disabled. Probation orYouth Offending Teams were supervising almost two-fifths of mentally disordered offenders, 30% weresupported through the Care Programme Approach (CPA), 19% were accepted as requiring CareManagement through Social Services, 16% had been assessed under the Enhanced Care ProgrammeApproach and 12% were subject to Multi-Public Protection Arrangements. Almost a quarter of clients hadbeen accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Prior to uptake of Supporting People services, 13% of mentally disordered offenders were resident insupported housing, 12% were general needs local authority tenants, 11% were in hospital, a tenth were inprison and 9% were sleeping rough. The majority of clients were either provided with supported housing(40%), floating support (25%) or direct access accommodation (23%).

The majority (85%) of mentally disordered offenders received services in their own local authority area.Over one-fifth of clients were referred by the Probation service or Prison while 18% self-referred.Voluntary organisations (43%), housing associations/RSLs (28%) and housing authorities (16%) were themain providers of support for this client group.


28

2.3 Children receiving support (0.1%; 206)

In total, children between the ages of 1 to 15 years accounted for 0.1% of clients recorded by the ClientRecord system. However, 85% of these children were between the ages of 11 to 15 years.

11-15 year olds

More than two-thirds of 11 to 15 year olds were recorded as young people at risk and the majority weremale (64%).

Prior to accessing services, more than two-thirds were living with family while a further 9% were inchildren’s homes or foster care. Social Services were providing Care Management programmes to 28% ofthese clients and 9% had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Supporting People was providing outreach support to half of 11 to 15 year olds and a further one-fifth hadwere accepted into supported housing schemes. Floating support services were provided to 14% of clients.

Housing authorities provided services for half of these clients while voluntary agencies provided services toa further 29% and housing associations/RSLs 16%. Referrals for this client group were mainly localauthority housing department referrals (41%), Social Service referrals (27%) or nominations by localhousing authorities (12%) and almost all 11 to 15 year olds were host referrals.

2.4 Regional variations

Single homeless people with support needs were, by far, the largest primary category for clients in allregions. [Figure 2.11] The East of England had the largest proportion of single homeless people withsupport needs (37%); more than three times that of women at risk of domestic violence which was thesecond largest primary client group in this region.

Women at risk of domestic violence were the second largest primary client group in the North East,Yorkshire & the Humber, East Midlands, East of England and the West Midlands. [Figure 2.12] InLondon, and the South East and South West, people with mental health problems were the second largestprimary client group while in the North West, young people at risk were the second largest primary clientgroup.

The level of people with mental health problems was greater, proportionally, in London (11%), the SouthWest (11%), East Midlands (10%) and the South East (10%) compared to 9% nationally. [Figure 2.13]

The North East (4%) and South West (5%) had fewer homeless families with support needs proportionallycompared to other regions with London (10%) and the East of England (11%) having the highestproportions of homeless families with support needs overall. [Figure 2.14]

There were, proportionally, more young people at risk in the North West (10%) than in any other regionbringing the national figure to 6% in comparison to other regions for example; London (5%), the SouthWest (5%) and the West Midlands (5%). [Figure 2.15]

Map 2.1 shows summary information of clients in each Government office region.


29

15 20 Percent

25 301050

Figure 2.11: Regional variations; proportion of single homeless people with support needs in each Government office region

East of EnglandNorth West

Yorkshire & the HumberSouth East

West MidlandsNorth East

East MidlandsLondon

South WestENGLAND

35 40

151050

Figure 2.12: Regional variations; proportion of women at risk of domestic violence in each Government office region


East MidlandsEast of England

Yorks. & HumberSouth East

South WestNorth West

LondonENGLAND

151050

Figure 2.13: Regional variations; proportion of people with mental health problems in each Government office region

LondonSouth West

East MidlandsSouth East

East of EnglandYorks. & Humber

West MidlandsNorth WestNorth East

ENGLAND

151050

Figure 2.14: Regional variations; proportion of homeless families with support needs in each Government office region

East of EnglandLondon

North WestEast Midlands


West MidlandsSouth WestNorth East

ENGLAND

151050

Figure 2.15: Regional variations; proportion of young people at risk in each Government office region

North WestYorks. & Humber

North EastSouth East

West MidlandsLondon


South WestENGLAND


30

4. East of England

Number of clients: 17,460% of all clients: 8.3%

Most common primary client groups:Single homeless with support needs: 36.9% (6,437)Women at risk of domestic violence: 11.8% (2,054)Homeless families: 10.8% (1,884)

Most common secondary client group:Single homeless with support needs

Statutorily homeless: 29.1%

Most common previous accommodation:Living with family

5. London


Most common primary client groups:Single homeless with support needs: 25.3% (8,815)Mental health problems: 11.4% (3,961)Homeless families: 10.3% (3,574)



Most common previous accommodation:General needs LA tenant

6. South East


Most common primary client groups:Single homeless with support needs: 31.3% (7,928)Mental health problems: 10.1% (2,549)Women at risk of domestic violence: 10.0% (2,530)

Most common secondary client group:Alcohol problems


Most common previous accommodation:Rough sleeping

1. North East

Number of clients: 10,515% of all clients: 5%

Most common primary client groups:Single homeless with support needs: 27.6% (2,906)Women at risk of domestic violence: 13.9% (1,464)Young people at risk: 7.4% (776)




2. Yorkshire & the Humber


Most common primary client groups:Single homeless with support needs: 34.2% (7,503)Women at risk of domestic violence: 11.4% (2,496)Young people at risk: 7.9% (1,736)




3. East Midlands


Most common primary client groups:Single homeless with support needs: 26.8% (4,991)Women at risk of domestic violence: 12.4% (2,312)Mental health problems: 10.4% (1,944)




Map 2.1: Summary of clients by Government office region


31

7. South West


Most common primary client groups:Single homeless with support needs: 23.0% (4,985)Mental health problems: 10.9% (2,358)Women at risk of domestic violence: 9.4% (2,035)




8. West Midlands


Most common primary client groups:Single homeless with support needs: 28.1% (6,962)Women at risk of domestic violence: 15.0% (3,720)Generic: 14.8% (3,679)

Most common secondary client group:Single homeless



9. North West


Most common primary client groups:Single homeless with support needs: 34.6% (11,996)Young people at risk: 10.3% (3,565)Women at risk of domestic violence: 9.2% (3,182)




ENGLAND

Number of clients: 209,845

Most common primary client groups:Single homeless with support needs: 29.8% (62,523)Women at risk of domestic violence: 10.6% (22,229)Mental health problems: 8.9% (18,652)


Statutorily homeless: 31.4% (65,859)


1

2

3

84

56

7

9


32

2.5 Ethnic Origins

White-British represented the ethnic origin for the majority of support users (75%). There werenoticeable differences in the characteristics of White-British clients compared with those of BMEethnic groups.

• BME clients tended to be younger than clients of White-British origins. More than two-fifthsof mixed-Caribbean clients fell into the 18-24 age bracket, compared to 28% of White-Britishclients.

• Clients of Black-African origin made up more than two-fifths of refugees while people of Asianor Asian-British origin made up slightly more than one-fifth.

• People of Black-Caribbean or Black-African origins constituted more than a tenth of clientsdescribing themselves as generic.

• White-Irish and Black or Black British clients made up 12% of travellers while Black-African,Black-Caribbean and White Irish clients together made up 12% of rough sleepers.

• Almost a tenth of homeless families were people of Black-African origin while people of Black-Caribbean origin made up a further 4%.

• White-British (37%) and Black-African (35%) clients constituted the majority of clients withHIV/AIDS.

• BME groups represented 24% of women at risk of domestic violence with the largestproportion of BME clients of Asian-Pakistani origin (6%).

• One-tenth of single homeless people with support needs were either of Black-African or Black-Caribbean origins.

2.6 Secondary Client Groups

Although providers are required to categorise clients starting to receive Supporting People servicesinto an appropriate primary group, the Client Record System provides the opportunity for providersto expand on the description of problems that clients are experiencing by giving the option to addadditional categories for each client, to a maximum of three additional categories. This is especiallyimportant for clients who have complex or multiple needs, as this additional information cancontribute to a clearer understanding of the extent of support that clients may require. The primaryclient group category is intended to identify the immediate or most acute problem affecting a clientabout to receive support in order that the support provided is adequate in meeting the needs likely toarise. The secondary client group category can aid in engaging services aimed at meeting the wider oradditional problems facing clients. For example, a person may be sleeping rough but feel that theirmost acute problem is their drug dependency and therefore require immediate support with theirdependency before support that would enable them to access suitable accommodation.


33

Client Record data reveals that, out of the 209,845 clients recorded, more than half (110,470) weredefined by one or more secondary descriptions in addition to a primary description. Relatively few clients(3%) were assigned three secondary descriptions. [Table 2.3], [Figure 2.16], [Table 2.4]

Table 2.3: Number of secondary descriptions

# %

0 Secondary descriptions 99,375 47.41 Secondary description 81,461 38.82 Seconary descriptions 21,983 10.53 Secondary descriptions 7,026 3.3

Total 209,845 100

Percent

20 30100

Figure 2.16: Proportion of primary client groups with one or more secondary descriptions

Offenders or at risk of offendingMentally disordered offenders

Drug problemsYoung people at risk

Rough sleeperAlcohol problems

Young people leaving careOlder people with mental health problems

Single homeless with support needsFrail elderly

Teenage parentsMental health problems

Physical or sensory disabilityOlder people with support needs

RefugeesLearning disabilities

Women at risk of domestic violencePeople with HIV/AIDS

Homeless families with support needsTravellerGeneric

50 6040 70 80


34

Table 2.4: Primary client group by secondary client group classification

None One Two Three Total

Primary client group # % # % # % # %

Single homeless with support needs 23,984 38.4 27,476 43.9 8,044 12.9 3,019 4.8 62,523

Women at risk of domestic violence 14,292 64.3 6,773 30.5 983 4.4 181 0.8 22,229

Mental health problems 9,338 50.1 6,818 36.6 1,885 10.1 611 3.3 18,652

Homeless families with support needs 11,127 70.4 3,707 23.5 797 5.0 173 1.1 15,804

Generic 10,477 76.2 2,479 18.0 632 4.6 164 1.2 13,752

Young people at risk 4,131 31.4 7,374 56.0 1,321 10.0 344 2.6 13,170

Drug problems 2,858 28.7 4,973 49.9 1,547 15.5 580 5.8 9,958

Rough sleeper 2,884 32.3 3,870 43.4 1,543 17.3 625 7.0 8,922

Alcohol problems 2,751 33.8 3,917 48.1 1,143 14.0 331 4.1 8,142

Offenders or at risk of offending 1,734 25.9 3,235 48.3 1,317 19.7 408 6.1 6,694

Older people with support needs 3,540 54.4 2,139 23.9 726 11.2 103 1.6 6,508

Refugees 2,764 56.2 1,852 37.7 257 5.2 45 0.9 4,918

Physical or sensory disability 2,611 54.3 1,670 34.7 436 9.1 94 2.0 4,811

Learning disabilities 2,927 58.4 1,656 33.0 363 7.2 66 1.3 5,012

Teenage parents 1,422 46.3 1,350 43.9 254 8.3 48 1.6 3,074

Young people leaving care 849 36.5 1,045 44.9 326 14.0 108 4.6 2,328

Frail elderly 633 44.8 625 44.3 139 9.8 15 1.1 1,412

Traveller 505 71.2 136 19.2 47 6.6 21 3.0 709

Older people with mental health problems 211 37.6 189 33.7 132 23.5 29 5.2 561

People with HIV/AIDS 269 65.8 96 23.1 39 9.4 11 2.7 415

Mentally disordered offenders 68 27.1 81 32.3 52 20.7 50 19.9 251

Total 99,375 47.4 81,461 38.8 21,983 10.5 7,026 3.3 209,845

Offenders or those at risk of offending were the group with the highest proportion of clients (74%) definedby secondary descriptions. Secondary problems associated with these clients were most commonly drugproblems, single homelessness and/or alcohol problems.

The comparison between primary and secondary client groups brings together a combination ofcomplexities associated with specific client groups and aids recognition of the pervasive difficulties that canbe associated with the majority of clients monitored via the Client Record System this year. There is a


35

tendency for some client groups to be described by an interrelated combination of factors, for example,clients described as having drug problems had been assigned secondary descriptions which were likely to besingle homelessness with support needs, alcohol problems or offending, similar to the combination ofsecondary descriptions ascribed to single homeless people with support needs and offenders respectively.

People with generic needs were the clients least likely to be assigned one or more secondary descriptions(76% had none). However, 553 of these clients had single homeless with support needs as a secondarydescription.

Whilst the greatest proportion of clients had single homeless with support needs as their primary clientgroup category, single homeless with support needs also defined the secondary problems for the greatestproportion of clients (these clients being defined by primary group categories other than single homelesswith support needs).

There were distinct secondary groupings that characterised primary client groups. The secondary clientgroup categories are completed only where they are necessary to more fully describe the client. Therefore,the following descriptions are based only on clients who were assigned secondary categories.

Single homeless with support needs: the secondary client groupings for single homeless people were varied.The highest-ranking category was drug problems (8,116), however many were characterised as being youngand at risk (8,150) and/or as having mental health problems (6,783) and/or alcohol problems (6,710) and/orsleeping rough (5,852).

Women at risk of domestic violence: a greater proportion of women were placed as homeless families withsupport needs (3,453), however some were single homeless with support needs (1,600) and/or were describedas having complex needs (1,093).

People with mental health problems: secondary groupings for these clients were again varied, some weresingle homeless with support needs (2,792) and/or with complex needs (2,116) and a number of people withmental health problems were described as having alcohol (1,967) and/or drug problems (1,612).

Homeless families with support needs: women at risk of domestic violence (1,134) characterised a number ofhomeless families. Often families experienced complex needs (1,004) and/or mental health problems (582).Some families were refugees (565).

People with generic needs: as would be expected, varied secondary groupings describe a proportion of theseclients, some with mental health problems (806), a number of clients were single homeless with support needs(553) and a few had physical or sensory disabilities (440). A small number of these clients experiencedalcohol problems (357).

Young people at risk: three secondary categories stood out as characterising this client group and thesewere, by far, single homeless with support needs (6,357), and less so, offenders or at risk of offending (753) andcomplex needs (734)

Drug problems: people with drug problems tended to be characterised by being single homeless with supportneeds (2,521) and/or with alcohol problems (2,371) and a number of clients were described as offenders orthose at risk of offending (1,666).

Rough sleeper: four principal secondary client groups characterised a proportion of rough sleepers and thesewere, single homeless with support needs (2,042) and/or experiencing drug (1,938), alcohol (1,596) and/ormental health (1,038) problems.


36

Alcohol problems: a similar picture can be drawn for people with alcohol problems with single homeless withsupport needs (1,814), mental health (1,402) and/or drug (1,167) problems as the highest ranking secondaryclient groupings.

Offenders or those at risk of offending: clients in this category fell similarly into the secondary groupings ofexperiencing drug problems (2,247), single homeless with support needs (1,726) and/or alcohol problems(1,136).

Older people with support needs: a proportion of older people with support needs were described as frailelderly (1,483) and/or as having physical or sensory disabilities (964).

Refugees: two principal categories stood out for these clients, single homeless with support needs (1,363) and/or with complex needs (268).

Physical or sensory disabilities: older people with support needs (510), complex needs (469), single homelesswith support needs (436) and/or experiencing mental health problems (381) described some of the problemsexperienced by people with physical or sensory disabilities.

Learning disabilities: some people with learning disabilities also experienced mental health problems (566)and/or have an array of complex needs (449).

Teenage parents: two secondary categories – young people at risk (732) and/or homeless families with supportneeds (483) described a number of teenage parents.

Young people leaving care: a number of these clients were described as young people at risk (772) and/orsingle homeless with support needs (567).

Frail elderly: older people with support needs (568) and/or experiencing physical or sensory disabilities (239)were relatively common secondary categories for frail elderly clients.

Traveller: some travellers were described as sleeping rough (98) or single homeless with support needs (39).

Older people with mental health problems: a proportion of these clients were also described as frail elderly(92).

People with HIV/AIDS: a small number of people with HIV/AIDS were described as single homeless withsupport needs (50) and/or experiencing mental health problems (41).

Mentally disordered offenders: apart from secondary groupings describing these clients as experiencingmental health problems (71) and/or having offending behaviour (49), some mentally disordered offenderswere also categorised as experiencing alcohol problems (46), and/or were single homeless with support needs(43) and/or experiencing drug problems (39).


37

2.7 Overview of clients – recognising the extent of housing-relatedsupport need

The primary client group category is an important method of identifying the prevailing circumstances ofclients. At the same time, the secondary client group category can be equally as important, especially whenused to identify the circumstances surrounding housing-related need amongst what may amount to acomplex array of practical and emotional needs. The secondary client groupings are also useful in that theycan be used to recognize the total number of clients experiencing identifiable problems which are either asa result of or are contributory to housing-related need.

Table 2.5 indicates the numbers of clients in primary groups alongside the number of clients who recordedsecondary groupings in each primary category; the totals for each client group (primary and secondary)illustrate the incidence of each client category.1 Note that clients cannot be assigned the same category as aprimary and a secondary client group.

1 The recording of secondary classification is used only when additional categories are necessary to describe the client. Thereforethe information included is based only on clients who were assigned secondary descriptions.

Table 2.5: Numbers of clients in primary and secondary groups

Primary group Secondary group Total

Single homeless with support needs 62,523 23,168 85,691

Women at risk of domestic violence 22,229 3,975 26,204

Mental health problems 18,652 15,021 33,673

Homeless families with support needs 15,804 5,186 20,990

Generic / Complex needs 13,752 13,331 27,083

Young people at risk 13,170 12,200 25,370

Drug problems 9,958 16,872 26,830

Rough sleeper 8,922 9,233 18,155

Alcohol problems 8,142 15,802 23,944

Offenders or at risk of offending 6,694 8,456 15,150

Older people with support needs 6,508 2,370 8,878

Learning disabilities 5,012 4,230 9,242

Refugees 4,918 3,004 7,922

Physical or sensory disability 4,811 6,240 11,051

Teenage parents 3,074 1,583 4,657

Young people leaving care 2,328 1,574 3,902

Frail elderly 1,412 2,211 3,623

Traveller 709 748 1,457

Older people with mental health problems 561 613 1,174

People with HIV/AIDS 415 231 646

Mentally disordered offenders 251 457 708


38

Accordingly, whilst 62,523 clients were recorded primarily as single homeless people with support needs,an additional 23,168 clients were recorded with single homeless with support needs as their secondaryclient group. This shows that the actual number of clients with single homeless related support needsrecorded by the Client Record System is 85,691. Similarly, 15,804 clients were described by primary clientgroup category as homeless families with support needs and a further 5,186 homeless families wererecorded in the secondary client groupings making the total homeless family with support needs figure20,990.

Within the secondary client groupings there were 15,021 clients who were experiencing mental healthproblems. Combined with clients within the primary category of people with mental health problems(18,652) this figure is almost doubled bringing the total number of people with mental health problems to33,673.

There were a further 3,975 women at risk of domestic violence found in secondary client groupings.Combined with the numbers within the primary client group (22,229), the numbers of women at risk ofdomestic violence were 26,204.

Although 9,958 clients were described as primarily experiencing drug problems, almost double thosenumbers of clients were assigned drug problems as their secondary client group category (16,872).Combined, these figures show that there were 26,830 clients experiencing drug problems.

Secondary client groupings also revealed a further 12,200 young people at risk doubling the 13,170 figurewithin the primary client group category and bringing the total number of young people at risk to 25,370.

A total of 8,456 offenders or those at risk of offending were found in secondary client groupings increasingthe total figure from 6,694 to 15,150 and indicating a higher frequency of offenders or those at risk ofoffending within the secondary client group category.


39


3.1 Introduction

Clients receiving Supporting People services are not necessarily expected to relocate to specialised housingprovision as Supporting People support is geared towards making housing-related support services moreaccessible regardless of tenure. Therefore, services are available for people from the social rented, privaterented or owner-occupied sectors as well as people who are homeless. The Client Record System recordsthe type of accommodation or living arrangements that clients occupied immediately prior to receivingSupporting People funded support services. For this purpose, ‘immediately prior’ is defined as, literally, theprevious night. This information is crucial for Supporting People practitioners and policy makers who areattempting to monitor the movement of and support provided to particular groups wherever they may liveand whatever their circumstances may be.

In total, 11% of clients monitored by the Client Record System between 1st April 2003 and 31st March2004 were recorded as continuing to live in the accommodation or circumstance they occupiedimmediately prior to receiving a Supporting People service.

3.2 Living arrangements of clients prior to receiving support

This section of the Annual Report lists the top six most common types of living circumstances prior to theuptake of Supporting People services for clients and identifies the most likely client groups in thesecircumstances, the referral route and type of services they accessed. This section then goes on to examineclients who came to Supporting People services from recognised institutions – bed & breakfast, prison,hospital and residential care – before discussing owner-occupier clients. [Table 3.1]

General needs local authority tenants (16%; 32,401)

People with generic needs (20%), women at risk of domestic violence (20%) and people with mentalhealth problems (13%) made up the majority of clients who were general needs local authority tenantsprior to receiving Supporting People services.

Less than a third of clients remained in their tenancies and almost half of these clients were either peoplewith generic needs (32%) or people with mental health problems (15%) while women at risk of domesticviolence made up only 4%. Almost all of the clients retaining their tenancies received floating supportservices (95%), however, 2% were offered supported housing.

The largest proportion of clients terminating their tenancies were women at risk of domestic violence(26%), followed by people with generic needs (14%) and people with mental health problems (12%). Themajority (72%) of women at risk of domestic violence accessed women’s refuge services while a further18% were provided with floating support elsewhere. Almost all people with generic needs (95%) wereprovided with floating support elsewhere. Over three-quarters of people with mental health problems werealso provided with floating support elsewhere and a further 12% of these clients received supportedhousing.


40

In the main, clients were either referred by their local authority housing department (34%) or nominatedby their local housing authority (17%). Almost half of clients terminating their tenancy were referred toservices by the local authority housing department compared to 28% of clients who remained in theirtenancy.

Living with family (14%; 29,867)

Clients who were recorded as living with family prior to receiving services were likely to be single homelesspeople with support needs (37%), young people at risk (13%) and homeless families in need of support(12%). As clients began to receive services, almost all moved on from living with their family. Two-fifths ofclients were accepted into supported housing.

Slightly less than a quarter of clients were provided with direct access hostel accommodation, over half ofwhom were single homeless people with support needs though a further 14% were homeless families withsupport needs and 12% were young people at risk.

Table 3.1: Type of accommodation prior to receiving SP services

# %

General needs local authority tenant 32,401 15.5

Living with family 29,867 14.3

Rough sleeping 20,488 9.8

Staying with friends 18,936 9.1

Supported housing 16,404 7.9

Direct access hostel 14,252 6.8

General needs RSL/HA tenant 13,955 6.7

Private rented 12,731 6.1

Bed and breakfast 9,282 4.4

Any other temp accommodation 9,260 4.4

Other 8,738 4.2

Prison 5,403 2.6

Owner occupier 4,758 2.3

Hospital 4,156 2.0

Sheltered housing 1,996 1.0

Residential care home 1,880 0.9

Children’s home/foster care 1,465 0.7

Approved probation hostel 1,223 0.6

Short life housing 1,126 0.5

Tied home or renting with job 397 0.2

Total 208,718 100(1,127 records had missing information)


41

The largest proportion of clients who had been living with family accessed services by means of self-referral(29%) while together, local authority housing department referrals (22%) and housing authoritynominations (11%) accounted for almost a third of referrals.

Sleeping rough (10%; 20,488)

Three-quarters of people sleeping rough prior to uptake of services were single homeless people withsupport needs (45%) and rough sleepers (29%).

Only 2% of clients were recorded as still sleeping rough after receiving services, however, over two-fifths ofthese clients made use of direct access hostels while 27% received supported housing and 18% werereceiving floating support. For those clients who were no longer recorded as sleeping rough, well over halfwere accommodated in direct access hostels and a third had been accepted into supported housing.

Clients making self-referrals (47%) or referrals from voluntary agencies (21%) characterised the mostcommon referral route for people sleeping rough prior to receiving services, regardless of whether or notthey were classified as persistent rough sleepers.

Staying with friends (9%; 18,936)

Single homeless people with support needs (50%), young people at risk (11%) and homeless families (8%)accounted for the majority of clients staying with friends prior to receiving services.

Almost all (98%) clients were provided with services that allowed them to move on from staying withfriends. Over two-fifths of clients were provided with supported housing, 30% made use of direct accesshostel accommodation and 13% received floating support elsewhere.

The referral route for almost two-fifths of clients was self-referral while a further 18% of clients werereferred by their local housing department and 14% by voluntary agencies.

Supported housing (8%; 16,404)

Immediately before receiving services, 8% of clients were living in supported accommodation and almost athird of these were single homeless people with support needs while 14% were people with mental healthproblems, 8% were young people at risk and 7% were women at risk of domestic violence.

A minority (7%) of clients remained in supported housing after receiving services. The majority of theseclients were made up of people with mental health problems (23%), single homeless people with supportneeds (21%), people with learning disabilities (11%) and people with generic needs (8%). Almost two-thirds of these clients received supported housing as their support service.

The majority of clients leaving their prior supported housing accommodation were provided withsupported housing elsewhere (63%).

The main referral routes were internal transfer (24%), self-referral (15%), through voluntary agencies(14%), or through Social Services (11%). A third of these clients were single homeless people with supportneeds, 13% were people with mental health problems, 8% were young people at risk and 8% were womenat risk of domestic violence.


42

Direct access hostels (7%; 14,252)

People making use of direct access hostels were more likely to be single homeless people with support needs(52%) or young people at risk (11%). Clients with alcohol or drug problems or those with mental healthproblems constituted a further 15% of clients in direct access hostels and homeless families with supportneeds and women at risk of domestic violence made up 8%. [Table 3.2]

Table 3.2: Client groups living in direct access prior to receiving SP services

# %

Single homeless with support needs 7,473 52.4

Young people at risk 1,627 11.4

Alcohol problems 733 5.1

Mental health problems 708 5.0

Drug problems 670 4.7

Homeless families with support needs 635 4.5

Women at risk of domestic violence 544 3.8

Rough sleeper 542 3.8

Refugees 320 2.2

Generic 312 2.2

Offenders or at risk of offending 222 1.6

Learning disabilities 106 0.7

Physical or sensory disability 87 0.6

Teenage parents 78 0.5

Young people leaving care 68 0.5

Older people with support needs 62 0.4

Traveller 19 0.1

Mentally disordered offenders 17 0.1

Older people with mental health problems 12 0.1

People with HIV/AIDS 9 0.1

Frail elderly 8 0.1

Total 14,252 100

At the time of recording, 90% of clients left direct access accommodation after receiving their supportservice. Although more than two-fifths of these clients were provided with supported housing, more than athird returned to alternative direct access accommodation.

A tenth of clients were recorded as remaining in direct access services after qualifying for Supporting Peopleservices. The majority continued to receive direct access services (78%) while a further 12% receivedfloating support.


43

3.3 Clients accessing services from recognised institutions

Bed and breakfast (4%; 9,282)

Single homeless people with support needs (35%) stand out as being the clients most likely to be in bedand breakfast. However, the proportion of homeless families with support needs (18%) recorded in bedand breakfast for this year is almost half this figure, so together they account for the majority of clientsrecorded as living in bed and breakfast accommodation before receiving a Supporting People service.[Table 3.3]

Table 3.3: Client groups who were living in B&B prior to receivingSP services

# %


Homeless families with support needs 1,677 18.1


Young people at risk 862 9.3


Refugees 407 4.4

Generic 324 3.5










Traveller 35 0.4



Frail elderly 10 0.1


Total 9,282 100

After qualifying for Supporting People services, the majority (94%) did not remain in thisaccommodation. Over two-fifths of clients were provided with supported housing and over one-fifthreceived floating support elsewhere. However, 15% of clients took up places in other temporaryaccommodation in the form of direct access hostels.


44

There was little observable variation between single homeless and homeless families with support needsbeing accepted into supported housing accommodation. The second most common type of service forthese client groups was different with homeless families with support needs more likely to receive floatingsupport while single homeless people with support needs were more likely to receive direct accessaccommodation. [Figure 3.1]

A minority (6%) of clients remained in bed and breakfast with the largest proportion provided withfloating support (51%) or outreach services (17%) though almost a quarter were taking part in aresettlement programme.

Clients were generally referred for services by local authority housing departments (36%) or nominated bytheir local housing authority (25%).

Prison (3%; 5,403)

Single homeless people with support needs (36%), offenders or those at risk of offending (34%) andpeople with drug problems (16%) made up the majority of clients who were in prison immediately prior toreceiving Supporting People services.

Almost all (98%) clients were released from prison prior to uptake of service provision, the majority (61%)having been referred by the Probation or Prison services, though 18% self-referred. More than half ofclients on release were provided with supported housing while almost a further third made use of directaccess hostel accommodation.

The largest proportion of those clients remaining in prison and qualifying for Supporting People supportwere referred to services via the Probation or Prison service (79%) while over a tenth self-referred. Clientswere mainly provided with either supported housing (37%), resettlement services (27%) or direct accessaccommodation (20%).

15 20 25 Percent

301050

Resettlement Direct access hostel Outreach Floating support Supported housing

Figure 3.1: The main service types provided to homeless families and single homeless with support needs living in B&B

Single homeless with support needs

Homeless families with support needs

35 40 45 50


45

Hospital (2%; 4,156)

Together, people with mental health problems (50%) and single homeless people with support needs(22%) accounted for almost three-quarters of all clients who received Supporting People servicesimmediately on discharge from hospital. A further 9% of clients who had been in hospital prior toreceiving services were people with drug or alcohol problems.

Two-thirds of people with mental health problems were provided with supported housing and over a tenthreceived floating support. While the largest proportion of people with drug (52%) or alcohol problems(43%) were also provided with supported housing, the second most common support service for thesegroups was direct access hostel accommodation (24% of people with alcohol problems and 23% of peoplewith drug problems). However, direct access hostel accommodation was the most likely form of supportfor the majority of single homeless people with support needs (53%) while 30% received supportedhousing.

There were variations between referral arrangements for these client groups. Community Mental HealthTeams, (39%), Social Services (25%) and health services or general practitioners (GP) (16%) were mostlikely to refer people with mental health problems to Supporting People services. A fifth of people withdrug problems and 16% of people with alcohol problems accessed services through the self-referral route,over a third of people with drug problems and almost half of people with alcohol problems were similarlyreferred by Social Services or health services/GP. A different picture emerges, however, for single homelesspeople with support needs with almost a quarter making self-referral arrangements, a further quarter werereferred by Social Services or health services/GP and 17% had been through their local authority housingdepartments referral processes. [Table 3.4]

Table 3.4: The referral routes for client groups who were discharged from hospital

Mental health Drug Alcohol Singleproblems problems problems homeless

# % # % # % # %

Community Mental Health Team 805 39.0 13 8.2 12 5.1 70 7.6

Social Services 521 25.2 29 18.2 46 19.7 77 8.4

Health service/GP 335 16.2 28 17.6 65 27.8 165 18.0

LA housing department (referral) 135 6.5 10 6.3 25 10.7 156 17.0

Nominated by local housing authority 89 4.3 7 4.4 12 5.1 79 8.6

Self referral/Direct application 70 3.4 31 19.5 37 15.8 215 23.4

Other 52 2.5 16 10.1 11 4.7 56 6.1

Voluntary agency 25 1.2 18 11.3 19 8.1 58 6.3

Probation service/Prison 15 0.7 7 4.4 6 2.6 15 1.6

Internal transfer 14 0.7 12 1.3

Police 3 0.1 14 1.5

Moving from another RSL 1 0.0 1 0.4 1 0.1

Total 2,065 100 159 100 234 100 918 100


46

Residential care (0.9%; 1,880)

Four principal primary client groups – people with mental health problems (24%), drug problems (23%),learning disabilities (20%) and alcohol problems (12%) – accounted for the majority of clients coming toSupporting People services from residential care homes.

Over two-fifths of these clients were referred to support services by Social Service departments.

The majority (59%) of prior residential care clients were provided with supported housing. However,residential care was recorded as the support service for 14% of clients. Only 6% of whom remained intheir original care setting while the remaining 94% were provided with accommodation in other residentialcare homes.

3.4 Owner-occupiers (2%; 4,758)

The Supporting People Programme is intended to sever the link between support and tenure ensuring thatmarginalized and previously excluded groups have access to the type of support that will help reducevulnerability and maintain independence. Previously it had been difficult for people who owned their ownhome to access appropriate support to help them to remain in their home or to establish more appropriatesupported accommodation. Funding for the programme focuses on the needs of clients rather than beinglinked to property or any particular tenure and as a result, owner-occupiers are eligible for targetedhousing-related support.

Overall, the Client Record System recorded 4,758 clients who were owner-occupiers prior to receivingSupporting People support and this figure amounted to 2% of all clients.

Women at risk of domestic violence were far more likely to have been owner-occupiers than any otherprimary client group (42%) prior to receiving a Supporting People support service. All other client groupsdescribed as having been owner-occupiers each made up less than 10% of this group. More than four-fifthsof owner-occupiers left their property on acceptance of housing related support via Supporting People.

As a consequence of the high incidence of women at risk of domestic violence within the owner-occupierdomain, floating support (41%), refuge provision (26%) and supported housing (17%) characterise thepattern of support provided to these clients.

Almost a third of referrals were made on a self-referral basis. Voluntary agencies (13%) and Social Services(12%) took up a further quarter of referrals for previous owner-occupiers.


47


4.1 Introduction

The Client Record System monitors a range of services funded by Supporting People that provide differinglevels of housing-related support for vulnerable clients. Some services provide accommodation withsupport on a very temporary basis and some for longer periods of time. For example many direct accesshostels provide accommodation and support for clients on a nightly or weekly basis while other forms ofsupport provide more flexible lengths of stay such as supported housing schemes. Floating support andoutreach services provide clients with non-residential support in their own homes and this type of supportis contracted for varying lengths of time according to the needs of clients. This section describes the mostcommon types of support provided to clients in 2003/04 and goes on to report on the balance of provisionand the routes by which clients were able to access services.

4.2 Categories of support

Although the Client Record System monitors fifteen different types of support provision, three principalcategories of support – supported housing (33%), floating support (28%) and direct access (21%) – made upover four-fifths of service provision during this first year of the Supporting People programme. [Table 4.1]

Table 4.1: Support service provision

# %


Floating support 57,878 27.6

Direct access 44,935 21.4

Women’s refuge 15,012 7.2

Resettlement service 6,902 3.3

Outreach service 4,775 2.3

Foyer 4,419 2.1


Supported lodgings 2,356 1.1

Teenage parent accommodation 605 0.3


Total 209,845 100

Floating support services were provided to over a third of female clients while only just over a fifth of maleclients received this form of support. However, 38% of males were accepted into supported housingschemes, compared to only 28% of females. Also, 30% of males received direct access accommodationcompared to 12% of females.


48

Figure 4.1 illustrates a clear linear relationship between age and the type of service clients received for thetwo most common categories of support provision. For adults, the percentage of clients receiving floatingsupport increased as age increased, however, the inverse was true for supported housing; as age increased,fewer clients were likely to have been provided with accommodation and support in supported housingschemes.

4.3 Providers of support

Almost two-fifths of all Supporting People services were provided by voluntary organisations, 30% ofwhich was temporary accommodation in direct access hostels. Housing associations/RSLs provided thesecond largest proportion (32%) of services to clients and more than half of these services were supportedhousing schemes. Housing authority services made up 16% of support provision and more than two-fifthsof this support was in the form of floating support services. [Figure 4.2]

Nearly a quarter of voluntary agency provision was supported housing while a further 22% was floatingsupport services.

Floating support services accounted for a fifth and direct access 13% of housing association/RSLs serviceprovision.

Almost a quarter of services provided by housing authorities were direct access hostels and nearly one-fifthwere supported housing schemes.

Perc

ent

16-17 18-24 25-31 32-38 39-45 46-52 53-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80+0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Figure 4.1: Proportion of clients receiving floating support and supported housing within age categories

Supported housing Floating support


49

30 40 50 Percent

6020100

Supported housing Direct access Floating support Other types of support

Figure 4.2: The main providers of support and the support they provide

Housing Authority (16% of provision)

Housing Association/RSL(32% of provision)

Voluntary Organisation(39% of provision)

70 80 90 100

4.4 Source of referral

A quarter of clients accessed services by means of self-referral. Local authority housing departments referredone-fifth of clients and over a tenth of clients were referred by voluntary agencies. Nominations by localhousing authorities accounted for a further tenth of referrals and slightly less than a tenth of referrals weremade on behalf of clients by Social Service departments. [Figure 4.3]

15 Percent

20 25 301050

Figure 4.3: Source of referrals

Self referral/Direct applicationLA housing department (referral)

Voluntary agencyNominated by local housing authority

Social ServicesOther

Probation service/PrisonInternal transfer

Community Mental Health TeamHealth service/GP

PoliceMoving from another RSL

Youth Offending TeamNominated under HOMES


50

Routes of referral for provider type

Almost a third of referrals accepted by voluntary agencies were self-referrals. Voluntary agencies alsoaccepted almost one-fifth of referrals from other voluntary organisations.

Just over a fifth of referrals accepted by housing associations/RSLs were self-referrals, 13% were acceptedfrom local authority housing departments (referrals process) and a further 12% from voluntary agencies.

Only 18% of referrals accepted by housing authorities were self-referrals while more than half were referralsfrom local authority housing departments.

Provider types for sources of referral

Social Services referred almost a tenth of clients to Supporting People services, almost two-fifths of whichwere made to voluntary organisations while a further third were made to housing associations/RSLs.

Probation and Prison services referred 5% of clients. Half of these referrals were to housing associations/RSLs and over two-fifths were to voluntary organisations.

Together, Community Mental Health Teams and the health service or GPs referred almost 5% of clients.More than two-fifths of Community Mental Health Team referrals and almost half of health service/GPreferrals were made to voluntary organisations.

A minority of clients were referred by the Police (1%) and over two-thirds of these referrals were made tovoluntary organisations.


Table 4.2 illustrates the numbers of clients in each Government office region. London (17%) and theNorth West (17%) each shared larger numbers of clients compared to other regions, for example, theNorth East, whose client base made up only 5% of those recorded by Client Records.

Although supported housing, floating support and direct access hostels were the most common forms ofsupport provided there were slight variations between regions. In the West Midlands, floating supportservices (34%), as opposed to supported housing (26%), were the services supporting the greatest numberof clients.

Similarly, although voluntary organisations and housing associations/RSLs, England-wide, between themprovided well over two-thirds of Supporting People client support, proportionally, there was some variationbetween regions for these providers. Voluntary organisations predominated service provision in theYorkshire & the Humber (50%), North East (43%), and the West Midlands (42%), while housingassociations/RSLs provided a greater than average proportion of services in the South East (43%) and theEast of England (41%).

The largest category of referral in London was local authority department referral (27%) while in all otherregions the largest referral source was through self-referral.


51

Table 4.2: Frequency of clients in each Government office region

# %

London 34,848 16.6

North West 34,623 16.5

South East 25,358 12.1

West Midlands 24,779 11.8

Yorkshire & the Humber 21,939 10.5

South West 21,718 10.3

East Midlands 18,605 8.9

East of England 17,460 8.3

North East 10,515 5.0

Total 209,845 100


52


53


5.1 Introduction

The Supporting People Programme aims to meet the needs of people who for one reason or another havecause to access services outside of their own local authority area or who have no local connection to thelocal authority area in which a service they require is situated. For example, some clients may requirespecialist services, such as people with mental health problems or very complex needs, which are notavailable or where there is insufficient need in their own local authority area due to insufficient demand.Some clients may have a need that can only be met by provision in authorities other than their own localauthority, for example, women at risk of domestic violence or ex-offenders released from a prison in an areaoutside their own community. Often however, clients accessing support services are extremely mobilehaving not set down roots in any particular area.

This section explores the arrangements in place to support clients in circumstances such as those describedabove by firstly describing the types of referrals open to clients and the numbers of clients accessing servicesvia the various referral routes. Section 5.2 examines the extent to which providers of services accept clientsfrom these referral routes. Section 5.3 goes on to highlight the most common types of support and howclients access services through the cross-authority route.

The Client Record System requires providers to describe the type of referral route that enabled their clients’access to services. The intention is to obtain details about whether or not clients were living in theadministering authority area in which the service is located immediately prior to starting to receive theservice. There are two main types of referral arrangements:

Host referrals apply to clients who receive services in their own local authority area or clients whowere living in an area immediately prior to receiving a service.

Non-Host referrals apply to clients who lived out-with the local authority area and who immediatelyprior to receiving the service were not residing in the area where the service is located.

Clients who access services through a non-host route are sub-divided into four categories:

Multi-lateral referrals apply to administering authorities where there is an agreed protocol betweentwo or more administering authorities relating to a specific service. Such a protocol would mean thata client from any of these administering authorities can be accepted by the service involved. Theseauthorities may have agreed to fund a service jointly, or agreed for the service to accept clients fromthe areas covered by all the administering authorities within the agreed protocol.

Spot purchase referrals apply when the administering authority, in whose area a client was livingimmediately prior to receiving the service, purchases a service for an individual client from adifferent administering authority. This differs from a multi-lateral agreement in that it is an ad hocpurchase at an individual level, normally to secure a placement in an extremely specialised serviceoutside the administering authority area. Costs continue to be the responsibility of the originaladministering authority making the purchase.

Structured referrals apply to referrals made by statutory agencies, such as the Probation service orSocial Services. These referrals are often for those clients who cannot be expected to remain in theirlocal authority area and so would receive a service in another administering authority area. This


54

option differs from spot purchase as structured referrals are made to services that are funded by theauthority in which the service is located.

Open access referrals apply where a client accesses a service in another administering authority areaeither by self-referral or on advice from a voluntary agency. These types of referrals apply where thereis no formal referral arrangement.

Overall, more than four-fifths of referrals were made for clients who made an application for SupportingPeople services within their own local authority area. Therefore, less than a fifth of clients accessed servicesoutside their immediate local authority area and by far, the most common type of non-host referral wasopen access. [Table 5.1]

5.2 Referral systems for cross-authority provision

The three most common types of service provider were voluntary organisations (39%), housingassociations (32%) and housing authorities (16%).

One quarter of referrals accepted by voluntary organisations were non-host referrals. Proportionally, thiscompares to 18% of housing association/RSL acceptances and only 5% of housing authority acceptances.

Open access referrals constituted almost a fifth of non-host referrals accepted by voluntary organisations,11% of referrals accepted by housing associations/RSLs and 3% of referrals accepted by housingauthorities.

Of all structured referrals, almost all were accepted by voluntary (55%) organisations and housingassociations/RSL’s (38%), while a minority were accepted by private companies (4%).

For clients referred through multi-lateral protocols, 52% of services were provided by voluntaryorganisations, 29% by housing associations/RSLs and a further 14% by housing authorities.

Table 5.1: Type of referral

# %

Host 173,439 82.7

Non-Host: Multi-Lateral 3,139 1.5

Non-Host: Spot Purchase 2,329 1.1

Non-Host: Structured 6,591 3.1

Non-Host: Open Access 24,347 11.6

Total 209,845 100


55

The majority (55%) of spot purchase referrals were accepted by voluntary organisations, while housingassociations/RSLs accepted a further 36%, private companies 5% and housing authorities only 2%.

5.3 Services and client referral arrangements


Overall, supported housing received 69,789 referrals accounting for one-third of all referrals this year.More than a tenth of these were open-access referrals directly from clients accessing services outside theirown local authority area. Almost two-fifths of open access referrals to supported housing were made bysingle homeless people with support needs; people with drug (9%) or alcohol (6%) problems, roughsleepers (6%) and young people at risk (6%) accounted for a further 27%. [Table 5.2]

Table 5.2: Referral arrangements for supported housing, direct access and floating support

Supported Housing Floating Support Direct Access

# % # % # %

Host 58,051 83.2 56,552 97.7 33,707 75.0

Non-Host: Open Access 7,342 10.5 1,001 1.7 9,272 20.6

Non-Host: Structured 2,661 3.8 194 0.3 1,162 2.6

Non-Host: Multi-Lateral 1,095 1.6 84 0.1 619 1.4

Non-Host: Spot Purchase 640 0.9 47 0.1 175 0.4

Total 69,789 100 57,878 100 44,935 100

In total, 4% of referrals to supported housing were non-host structured referrals. Over a quarter ofstructured referrals were made on behalf of single homeless people with support needs and almost a furtherquarter were made on behalf of offenders or those at risk of offending. Additionally, people with drug oralcohol problems accounted for over a fifth of structured referrals to supported housing schemes (14% and8% respectively).

A minority (2%) of referrals allowed clients access to supported housing via multi-lateral protocol systemsand again these clients were more likely to be single homeless people with support needs (36%), youngpeople at risk (10%) and offenders or those at risk of offending (9%).

Similarly, few referrals were spot purchases (1%) made to supported housing and these were mainly onbehalf of single homeless people with support needs (25%), people with alcohol (18%) or drug (13%)problems, people with mental health problems (11%) or young people at risk (10%).


56

Floating support (28%; 57,878)

Floating support services accepted 57,878 clients, which accounted for 28% of all referrals this year.Almost all services were delivered to clients within their own local authority area (host referrals – 98%).[Table 5.2] However a minority of open access referrals (2%) were made by clients accessing floatingsupport services out-with their own local authority area, one-fifth of whom were single homeless peoplewith support needs. People described as having generic needs were able to access floating support in an areaother than their own and accounted for more than a tenth of non-host open access referrals to floatingsupport services; as did women at risk of domestic violence who accounted for a further 9%, people withmental health problems (9%) and older people with support needs (8%).

Direct access (21%; 44,935)

There were 44,935 referrals to direct access hostel accommodation this year making up more than a fifth ofall referrals. Proportionately, more non-host clients were referred to direct access accommodation (25%)than to either supported housing (17%) or floating support (2%). Over a fifth of referrals to direct accesswere made by clients on their own behalf via open access. [Table 5.2] Although the majority (58%) ofthese clients were single homeless people with support needs, almost another 17% were rough sleepers.

A minority (3%) of referrals to direct access hostels were structured. Of these referrals, single homelesspeople with support needs accounted for more than half while young people at risk made up 11% andpeople with mental health problems a further 7%.

Residential care homes (1%; 2,918)

Although residential care homes received a minority (1%) of referrals, almost two-fifths of these were spotpurchases. People with drug problems (61%) accounted for the majority of residential care spot-purchasesfollowed by people with alcohol problems (33%).

Structured referrals made up 8% of the referrals to residential care homes. Again, the majority of thesereferrals were for clients with alcohol problems (64%) or drug problems (20%), with an additional 10%for clients with mental health problems.


57


Compared to the national average of 17% for non-host referrals, London had the highest proportion ofthis type of referral (26%). The East Midlands and Yorkshire & the Humber had the lowest levels of non-host referrals (11% & 12%, respectively).

While London had the highest level of open-access referrals (18%), Yorkshire & the Humber (8%) and theEast Midlands (8%) had the lowest.

The regions with the highest levels of structured referrals were the North East (6%), North West (4%) andWest Midlands (4%).

Multi-lateral protocols were infrequent across England (2%). However, this type of referral arrangementwas more common in London (3%) than in any other region.

Similarly, spot purchase referrals constituted only 1% of all non-host referrals in England with the NorthEast (3%) having the greatest proportion and the West Midlands the least (0.2%)

Map 5.1 shows a summary of cross-authority information by Government office region.


58

1. North East

Number of Client Record Forms returned: 10,515

Number of organisations who have returned forms: 204

Number of clients who have left their host administering authority area to receive services: 2,241

Number of clients starting to receive services fromproviders in their own administering authority: 7,875

Number of cross-authority referrals accepted by providers: 2,640







3. East Midlands






4. East of England






5. London






6. South East






Map 5.1: Summary of Client Record cross-authority information by Government office region


59

1

2

3

84

56

7

9

7. South West






8. West Midlands






9. North West






10. ENGLAND


Number of organisations who have returned forms: 3,784

Number of clients starting to receive servicesfrom providers in their own administeringauthority: 173,439



60


61

6 Homelessness

6.1 Introduction

Supporting People aims to tackle homelessness by focusing on prevention and providing those that arehomeless with access to and support in maintaining a home. This section of the report examines the typesof clients and the circumstances of clients accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessnessduty.

The Client Record System records information on clients who have been accepted as statutorily homelessand owed a main homelessness duty under the current homeless legislation (2002 Homelessness Act). Thelegislation defines ‘owed a main homelessness duty’ as one of the following:

• A pregnant woman or person with dependent child(ren) or someone she/he might reasonably beexpected to live with;

• A person homeless or threatened with homelessness as a result of fire, flood or other disaster;

• A person vulnerable for some other special reason including consideration of all personalcircumstances;

• A person aged 16 or 17 who is not under the care of Social Services;

• A person aged under 21 who was being cared for by the local authority at any time after the age of 16;

• A person vulnerable as a result of fleeing violence or threats of violence;

• A person vulnerable as a result of time spent in care, custody or HM Forces.

Households accepted as statutorily homeless will have been assessed by a local authority as in priority needand will qualify for re-housing either in council housing or RSL/HA housing. Homeless people qualifyingfor assistance will generally be deemed as vulnerable in a way where they cannot be expected to fend forthemselves. Under this legislation, some homeless households not regarded as having a priority need (orregarded as being intentionally homeless) do not qualify for assistance. This section includes only thoseclients who have been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

6.2 Statutorily homeless clients (31%; 65,859)

Overall, less than a third of clients recorded by the Client Record System were accepted as statutorilyhomeless and owed a main homelessness duty.


62

Single homeless people with support needs constituted almost two-fifths of all clients accepted asstatutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty. Almost a fifth of statutorily homeless clients werehomeless families with support needs and women at risk of domestic violence made up a further 13%.[Figure 6.1]

15 20 Percent

25 301050

Figure 6.1: Primary client groups accepted as statutorily homeless

Single homeless with support needsHomeless families with support needs

Women at risk of domestic violenceYoung people at risk

Mental health problemsRough sleeper

RefugeesDrug problems

Alcohol problemsGeneric

Teenage parentsOffenders or at risk of offending

Physical or sensory disabilityYoung people leaving care

Learning disabilitiesOlder people with support needs

TravellerPeople with HIV/AIDS

Mentally disordered offendersFrail elderly

Older people with mental health problems

35 40

Combined, living with family (18%), staying with friends (11%), temporarily accommodated in directaccess hostels (10%) or rough sleeping (9%) described the living conditions of statutorily homeless clientsimmediately prior to receiving Supporting People services, however, there were distinct variations betweengenders. [Figure 6.2]

A tenth of clients were general needs local authority tenants and these clients were most likely to be womenat risk of domestic violence (42%), homeless families with support needs (22%) or single homeless peoplewith support needs (15%).

Less than a tenth of statutorily homeless people were living in bed and breakfast prior to receiving services.Over a third of these clients were single homeless with support needs and a further 23% were homelessfamilies with support needs.


63


On average, across England, slightly less than a third of clients recorded by the Client Record System wereaccepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty. There were distinct regionalvariations and a higher proportion of clients in the North West were statutorily homeless and owed a mainhomelessness duty (40%) than in the South West and the East Midlands (23% in each).

Perc

ent

Figure 6.2: The types of previous living arrangements of statutorily homeless clients by sex

1009080706050403020100

Female

General needs local authority tenant

General needs RSL/HA tenant

Private rented

Tied home or renting with job

Owner occupier

Supported housing

Direct access hostel

Sheltered housing

Residential care home

Hospital


Children's home/foster care

Bed and breakfast

Short life housing

Living with family

Staying with friends

Any other temp accommodation

Rough sleeping

Other

Male


64


65


7.1 Introduction

Supporting People is a programme designed to develop links with other statutory frameworks – the NHS,Probation Service and Social Services – in order to ensure that it meets the wide range of needs likely to beassociated with vulnerable people. Collecting information on clients who are receiving support via otherstatutory frameworks can aid in understanding those needs for those responsible for implementingappropriate services and preventative measures.

Currently, information is recorded on five existing frameworks including some that are reserved for high-risk clients. Table 7.1 illustrates the percentage of clients that had been accepted under each of theseframeworks. Following this, each framework is discussed and analysed with regard to the types of clientsaccepted as requiring these services and the support that was provided to them via Supporting People.

7.2 Statutory frameworks

Care Management (Social Services) (9%; 19,737)

Clients accepted as requiring services under the Social Services Care Management framework either havebeen allocated a social worker or are eligible for social work assistance. Under this framework, clients havean individual care plan in addition to receiving a package of services organised through Social Services.

In total, 48% of young people leaving care and 47% of people with learning disabilities were supported viaCare Management. Only 2% of people sleeping rough were supported through this type of framework,making rough sleepers the least likely client group to receive this support. [Figure 7.1]

Table 7.1: Clients requiring services under statutory frameworks

Yes No Don’t Know

# % # % # %

Accepted as requiring Care Management (Social Services) 19,737 9.4 143,849 68.6 46,259 22.0

Accepted as requiring Care Programme Approach (CPA) 10,789 5.1 151,733 72.3 47,323 22.6

Accepted as requiring Probation service or Youth Offending Teams 15,081 7.2 152,788 72.8 41,976 20.0

Assessed under Care Programme Approach (enhanced) 4,526 2.2 155,638 74.2 49,681 23.7

Assessed under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements 1,740 0.8 157,770 75.2 50,335 24.0


66

Although the majority of clients supported by Care Management received supported housing (39%) andfloating support services (29%), a tenth were provided with accommodation and support in residential carehomes. People with drug (39%) or alcohol (36%) problems, the frail elderly (8%) and people with mentalhealth problems (7%) made up almost all of those accepted into residential care.

Probation Service or Youth Offending Teams (7%; 15,081)

The Probation Service or Youth Offending Teams support clients who are under supervision or requireyouth offending services.

Four principal client groups – offenders/those at risk of offending (35%), single homeless people withsupport needs (30%), people with drug problems (13%) and young people at risk (6%) – made up overfour-fifths of clients subject to Probation or Youth Offending Team supervision.

Over half of offenders/those at risk of offending were accepted into supported housing and almost two-fifths were provided with floating support or resettlement services. For offenders/those at risk of offendingwho were not subject to Probation or Youth Offending Team supervision, the majority (76%) were eitheraccepted into supported housing or provided with floating support, while 14% were temporarilyaccommodated direct access hostels in comparison to the 5% of clients subject to supervision.

There were no observable differences between single homeless people with support needs who were subjectto Probation or Youth Offending Team supervision and those who were not with regard to service

15 20 25 Percent

301050

Figure 7.1: Proportion of primary client groups subject to Social Services Care Management

Young people leaving careLearning disabilities

Older people with mental health problemsFrail elderly

Physical or sensory disabilitiesMental health problemsPeople with HIV/AIDS

Mentally disordered offendersOlder people with support needs

Alcohol problemsDrug problems

Young people at riskTeenage parents

Women at risk of domestic violenceHomeless families with support needs

GenericSingle homeless with support needs

TravellerRefugees

Offenders or at risk of offendingRough sleeper

35 40 45 50


67

provision. However, although almost half of single homeless clients with support needs who were subjectto these services were accepted into supported housing, almost a further two-fifths made use of directaccess hostels.

Supported housing (54%), floating support (16%) and direct access hostels (13%) were the main supportservices provided to clients with drug problems who were subject to supervision.

There were distinct differences between young people at risk subject to Probation or Youth OffendingTeam supervision and those who were not with regard to service provision. Over two-fifths of youngpeople under supervision were provided with temporary accommodation in direct access hostels while only35% were accepted into supported housing. Two-fifths of young people not under supervision wereaccepted into supported housing while just over a fifth were provided with direct access accommodation.[Figure 7.2]

Care Programme Approach (CPA) (5%; 10,789)

Clients subject to the CPA are usually those experiencing severe and enduring mental illness. The CPAapproach provides a network of care in the community through a key worker system. The aim is tominimise the risk of clients losing contact with services. Clients are normally under the care of thesecondary mental health service (health and social care) and are provided with a package of care that hasbeen agreed upon by members of the team, GPs, service user and their carers.

Only two-fifths of people with mental health problems were receiving CPA care packages, half of theseclients received supported housing and almost a further two-fifths received floating support. Clients whowere not supported through CPA were more likely to receive floating support (46%) than supportedhousing (30%), however, 14% made use of direct access hostels.

Perc

ent

Figure 7.2: Percentage and service type of young people at risk under or not under Probation/Youth Offending Team supervision

50454035302520151050

Not under supervisionUnder supervision

Supported housing Direct access Floating support


68

Less than a third of older people with mental health problems were subject to the CPA. Over four-fifths ofthese clients received floating support and there were no observable differences between clients subject toCPA and those that were not.

Of all clients described as mentally disordered offenders, only 30% were subject to CPA. Of those, 58%were accepted into supported housing schemes.

7.3 Clients assessed as a higher risk

Care Programme Approach {CPA enhanced}(2%; 4,526)

The enhanced CPA is intended for clients who require more frequent and intensive interventions, perhapswith medical management. Clients assessed under this framework are more likely to have a dual diagnosis,more likely to be at risk of harming themselves and more likely to disengage with services.

Almost two-thirds of clients accepted as requiring an enhanced CPA were people with mental healthproblems and over half of these clients accessed supported housing. A further 36% were provided withfloating support services and a minority (1%) made use of direct access hostels. Community MentalHealth Teams referred well over half of these clients to services while a further one-fifth of clients werereferred by Social Services.

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (0.8%; 1,740)

Clients subject to Multi-Agency Public Arrangements have been assessed as being a risk to members of thepublic within the community. Clients assessed under this framework include violent and sexual offenders.This section looks at clients who were subject to these arrangements.

Offenders/those at risk of offending (29%), single homeless people with support needs (16%), and peoplewith mental health problems (14%) were the client groups that made up the majority of clients subject toMulti-Agency Public Protection Arrangements.

The majority of offenders/those at risk of offending (55%), single homeless people with support needs(51%) and people with mental health problems (57%) were accepted into supported housing schemes,while floating support services were provided to 34% of offenders/those at risk of offending and 28% ofpeople with mental health problems.

However, more than a fifth of single homeless people with support needs entered direct access temporaryaccommodation while only 9% received floating support services.

Of Offenders/those at risk of offending, 86% had been referred to services by Probations or Prison serviceswhile a small proportion accessed services via internal transfer (3%) or through Police services (2%) or LAhousing department referrals (2%).

A quarter of single homeless people with support needs were also referred to services via the Probation orPrison service while 17% were referred by local authority housing department referral processes and 15%made self referrals.


69

Community Mental Health Teams (30%) and Social Services (29%) referred the majority of people withmental health problems who were subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements.

7.4 Regional Variations

Proportionally, there were more clients accepted as requiring Social Services Care Management in theNorth East (16%) than in any other region. With an average for England of 9%, the West Midlands (6%)had the lowest proportion of clients supported through Care Management.

There was little regional variation around the national average (5%) for clients accepted as requiring theCare Programme Approach (CPA).

However, there was divergence between regions for clients who were under Probation or Youth OffendingTeam supervision. While the average for England as a whole sat at 7%, 12% of clients in Yorkshire & theHumber were under supervision compared to only 3% of clients in London.

Proportionately, clients assessed as a higher risk were few (3%) and there were no observable regionalvariations.


70


71

Primary Secondary

Older people with support needs 1 Older people with support needs 1

Older people mental health 2 Older people mental health 2

Frail elderly 3 Frail elderly 3

Mental health problems 4 Mental health problems 4

Learning disabilities 5 Learning disabilities 5

Physical or sensory disability 6 Physical or sensory disab 6

Single homeless with support 7 Single homeless with supp’t 7

Alcohol problems 8 Alcohol problems 8

Drug problems 9 Drug problems 9

Offenders/at risk of offending 10 Offenders/at risk of offend’g 10

Mentally disordered offenders 11 Mentally disordered off’ds 11

Young people at risk 12 Young people at risk 12

Young people leaving care 13 Young people leaving care 13

Women at risk of domestic viol 14 Women at risk domestic viol 14

People with HIV/AIDS 15 People with HIV/AIDS 15

Homeless families with support 16 Homeless families with sup’t 16

Refugees 17 Refugees 17

Teenage parents 18 Teenage parents 18

Rough sleeper 19 Rough sleeper 19

Traveller 20 Traveller 20

Generic 21 Complex needs 21

8a. Has the client been accepted as requiring services under the

following statutory frameworks?

Care Management (Social Services)

Care Programme Approach (CPA)

Probation service or Youth OffendingTeams

Statutorily homeless under the 2002 Homelessness Act

8b. Has the client been assessed as a higher risk under the

following?

Care Programme Approach (enhanced)

Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements

9. Source of referral

Nominated by local housing auth 1 Nominated under HOMES 8

LA housing department (referral) 2 Internal transfer 9

Social services 3 Moving from another RSL 10

Probation service/prison 4 Health service/GP 11

Community Mental Health Team 5 Youth Offending Team 12

Voluntary agency 6 Police 13

Self referral/Direct application 7 Other 14

10. Type of referral (see back of this form for definitions)

a. Host Host

b. Non Host Multi-lateral Spot Purchase Structured Open Access

11a. Type of accommodation occupied by the client immediately

prior to receiving the support service?

General needs local auth tenant 1 Prison 11

General needs RSL/HA tenant 2 Approved probation hostel 12

Private rented 3 Children’s home/foster care 13

Tied home or renting with job 4 Bed and breakfast 14

Owner occupier 5 Short life housing 15

Supported housing 6 Living with family 16

Direct access hostel 7 Staying with friends 17

Sheltered housing 8 Any other temp accom 18

Residential care home 9 Rough sleeping 19

Hospital 10 Other 20

Please if the client continues to live in this accommodation

11b. Location of this accommodation (ticked in Q11a)Name of local housing authority LA code Post code

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

1. Who is the service provider?Name

2. Type of provider

LSVT 1 ALMO 6Housing association/RSL 2 NHS Trust 7Housing Authority 3 Voluntary Organisation 8Social Services Authority 4 Private Company 9Local Authority - Joint H&SS 5 Individual 10

SERVICE DETAILS Client code / Tenant code

3. Type of service

Supported housing 1 Floating support 13

Residential care home 6 Outreach service 14

Adult placement 7 Resettlement service 15

Supported lodgings 8 Very sheltered housing 2Women’s refuge 9 Sheltered housing with warden 3Foyer 10 Almshouse 4Teenage parent accom 11 Peripatetic warden 5Direct access 12 Leasehold scheme 16

SP Administering Authority

SP Service ID

4. Start date of support Day Month Year

service (e.g. 12/04/03)

CLIENT DETAILS

5. CLIENT CHARACTERISTICS. Enter age, sex, economic

status of the client. Enter details of other members of the household who

receive services under the same support plan

Age Sex Relationship Economic

M/F to Client status

a. White British Irish Other

b. Mixed White & Black Caribbean White & Black African

White & Asian Other

c. Asian or Asian British Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi

Other

d. Black or Black British Caribbean African Other

e. Chinese or other ethnic group Chinese Other

f. Refused

6. Ethnic origin of client as defined by Client

Client

Person 2

Person 3

Person 4

Person 5

Person 6

Relationship to Client P=Partner C=Child X=Other

�oneonly

if Interview Refused(Q5 – 6)

Version 1 01/04/03 JCSHR

Client Record Form - SUPPORTING PEOPLEFor RSL supported housing - Management Group Code Scheme code

12345671234567123456712345671234567

Economic status

Full-time work (24 hours

or more per week) 1

Part-time work (less than

24 hours per week) 2

Govt training/New Deal 3

Job seeker 4

Retired 5

Not seeking work 6

Full-time student 7

Long term sick/disabled 8

Child under 16 9

Other adult 0

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

6 7

8 9 10

11

12 13 14

15 16

17

.. .. ..

PROVIDER DETAILS Client Record Provider ID 7. Client group by which the client is defined not morethan three

do notcomplete form

Record number (JCSHR use)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Yes No Don’t Know

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

Yes No Don’t Know

1 2 3

1 2 3

Only complete the post code where this accommodation is not temporary

1 2 3

4 5

2 3 4 5

1

�oneonly

�

�oneonly

�

�oneonly

�oneonly

�oneonly

�oneonly

�

Appendix 1


72

Quick reference for definitions of host and non-host referrals

(Question 10

HOST

All clients, who immediately prior to receiving a service, have been living in

the Administering Authority area where the service is located.

All referrals should be defined as host where clients receive a service that

is located in an Administering Authority area in which they have been living

(immediately prior to receiving the service).

NON HOST

All clients who, immediately prior to receiving the service, have been living

outside of the Administering Authority area where the service is located.

Non host referrals must be recorded as one of the following:

Multi- lateral - a referral made through a protocol between two or more

Administering Authorities and where the referral comes from within this

group of authorities.

Spot Purchase - a place purchased by an authority in a service located in

another Administering Authority area.

Structured - a referral made by a statutory agency to a service located in

another Administering Authority’s area.

Open Access - a self referral, or a referral by a voluntary agency, to a

service for which there is no protocol

Please send Client Record Forms to JCSHR each month and :

• always complete a BATCH HEADER for each month of record forms

and provide full contact details.

• always complete a Client Record Provider ID and Provider Name.

The ID is supplied by the JCSHR – please phone the Client record

Helpdesk on 01334 461765 if you need to check this ID.

• always complete the Client Code/Tenant Code on every form. This

will ensure that you can identify the form from your in-house records if

the JCSHR needs to contact you.

• Answer all questions fully. If the client was not interviewed or

refused to give details for Q5-Q6, please tick the ‘Interview Refused’

box. All other questions should be completed.


73

Tables & Figures

Tables

Section 2Table 2.1 Types of service between statutory homelessness acceptance for single homeless people with

support needs who were living with family or sleeping roughTable 2.2 The support provided to homeless families with support needsTable 2.3 Number of secondary descriptionsTable 2.4 Primary client group by secondary client group classificationTable 2.5 Numbers of clients in primary and secondary groups

Section 3Table 3.1 Type of accommodation prior to receiving SP servicesTable 3.2 Client groups living in direct access prior to receiving SP servicesTable 3.3 Client groups who were living in B&B prior to receiving SP servicesTable 3.4 The referral routes of client groups who were discharged from hospital

Section 4Table 4.1 Support service provisionTable 4.2 Frequency of clients in each Government office region

Section 5Table 5.1 Type of referralTable 5.2 Referral arrangements for supported housing, direct access and floating support

Section 7Table 7.1 Clients requiring services under statutory frameworks

Figures

Section 2Figure 2.1 Primary client groupsFigure 2.2 The previous living arrangements of women at risk of domestic violenceFigure 2.3 Pattern of referral arrangements for women at risk of domestic violenceFigure 2.4 People with mental health problems by previous accommodationFigure 2.5 The previous living arrangements of homeless families with support needsFigure 2.6 The economic status of young people at risk by sexFigure 2.7 Proportion of referral type by main sources of referral for people with drug problemsFigure 2.8 The previous living arrangements of offenders or those at risk of offendingFigure 2.9 Older people with support needs by sex and ageFigure 2.10 The support provided to teenage parentsFigure 2.11 Regional variations; proportions of single homeless people with support needs in each

Government office regionFigure 2.12 Regional variations; proportion of women at risk of domestic violence in each Government

office regionFigure 2.13 Regional variations; proportion of people with mental health problems in each Government

office region


74

Figure 2.14 Regional variations; proportion of homeless families with support needs in eachGovernment office region

Figure 2.15 Regional variations; proportion of young people at risk in each Government office regionFigure 2.16 Proportion of primary client groups with one or more secondary descriptions

Section 3Figure 3.1 The main service types provided to homeless families and single homeless with support

needs living in B&B.

Section 4Figure 4.1 Proportion of clients receiving floating support and supported housing within age

categoriesFigure 4.2 The main providers of support and the support they provideFigure 4.3 Source of referrals

Section 6Figure 6.1 Primary client groups accepted as statutorily homelessFigure 6.2 The types of previous living arrangements of statutorily homeless clients by sex

Section 7Figure 7.1 Proportion of primary client groups subject to Social Services Care ManagementFigure 7.2 Percentage and service type of young people at risk under or not under Probation/Youth

Offending Team supervision

Maps

Section 2Map 2.1 Summary of clients by Government office region

Section 5Map 5.1 Summary of Client Record cross-authority information by Government office region


1

Supporting PeopleClient Records

Annual Report2004-2005

JCSHR – SP Client Record OfficeThe ObservatoryUniversity of St AndrewsBuchanan GardensSt AndrewsFifeKY16 9LZ


2


3


1 Introduction 11

2 Clients2.1 Introduction 152.2 Client Profiles 162.3 Regional variations 302.4 Ethnic Origins 342.5 Secondary Client Groups 342.6 Overview of clients – recognising the extent of housing-related support need 39

3 Previous Accommodation3.1 Introduction 413.2 Living arrangements of clients prior to receiving support 413.3 Clients accessing services from recognised institutions 443.4 Owner-occupiers 47

4 Service provision and referral routes4.1 Introduction 494.2 Categories of support 494.3 Providers of support 504.4 Source of referral 514.5 Regional variations 52

5 Cross-authority provision5.1 Introduction 555.2 Referral systems for cross-authority provision 565.3 Services and client referral arrangements 575.4 Regional variations 58

6 Homelessness6.1 Introduction 616.2 Statutorily homeless clients 616.3 Regional variations 63

7 Statutory frameworks7.1 Introduction 657.2 Statutory frameworks 657.3 Clients assessed as a higher risk 687.4 Regional Variations 69

8 Comparative analysis8.1 Introduction 718.2 Client groups and support provision 718.3 Previous accommodation 738.4 Regional variations 74

Appendix 1

Client Record Form (Version 2 01/04/04) 77

Tables & Figures 79


4


5

Executive Summary

Clients

• The report is based on 202,554 completedClient Record forms covering the periodApril 2004 – March 2005 that were validatedby 30th August 2005.

• The Client Record System collectsinformation on twenty-one primary clientgroup categories. Six of these categoriesaccount for 71% of clients.

• Single homeless people with support needswere the most frequently recorded clientgroup accounting for almost a third of allclients.

• Additionally, women at risk of domesticviolence, people with mental health problems,homeless families in need of support, peoplewith generic needs, and young people at riskaccounted for two-fifths of clients.

• More male (53%) clients were recorded thanfemale.

• The largest proportion of clients were in theage group of 18-24 years.

• Almost a third of clients were claiming jobseekers allowance.

• Slightly less than a third of clients had beenaccepted as statutorily homeless and owed amain homelessness duty.

• The vast majority of clients were White-British in terms of declared ethnic origin.

• The most common previous accommodationcategory for clients was general needs localauthority housing.

• Voluntary agencies provided almost two-fifthsof services to clients.

• The most common support service providedwas supported housing.

• The most frequent referral route for clientswas self-referral.

• Well over four-fifths of clients receivedservices within their own local authority area.

Regional variations

• London (17%) and the North West (16%)each had larger numbers of clients comparedto other regions. For example the client baseof the North East made up only 5% of thoserecorded by Client Records.

• The East of England had the largestproportion of single homeless people withsupport needs (38%).

• Women at risk of domestic violence were thesecond largest primary client group in theNorth East, East Midlands, East of England,the South East and Yorkshire & the Humber.

• In London and the North West, homelessfamilies were the second largest primary clientgroup while people with mental healthproblems were the second largest group in theSouth West and people with generic needs thesecond largest group in the West Midlands.

• The level of people with mental health problemswas greater, proportionally, in London (11%),the South West (10%) and East Midlands(10%) compared to 9% nationally.

• The South East (5%), North East (6%),South West (6%), West Midlands (6%) andYorkshire & the Humber (7%) had fewerhomeless families with support needscompared to the national average of 8%.

• There were, proportionally, more youngpeople at risk in Yorkshire & the Humber(9%) than in any other region and thenational figure was 6%.


• Out of the 202,554 clients recorded,approximately half (102,648) were defined byone or more secondary descriptions inaddition to a primary description.

• Whilst 60,873 clients were recordedprimarily as single homeless people withsupport needs, an additional 20,459 clientshad single homeless with support needs astheir secondary client group.


6

• Within the secondary client groupings therewere 14,079 clients who were experiencingmental health problems. Combined withclients within the primary category of peoplewith mental health problems (17,584) thisfigure is almost doubled bringing the totalnumber of people with mental healthproblems to 31,663.


• General needs local authority housing, livingwith family, sleeping rough, staying withfriends and supported housing described theliving conditions of over half of clients priorto receiving Supporting People services.

• People with generic needs (22%), women atrisk of domestic violence (18%) and peoplewith mental health problems (13%) made upthe majority of clients who were generalneeds local authority tenants prior toreceiving Supporting People services.

• Clients who were recorded as living withfamily prior to receiving services were mostlikely to be single homeless people withsupport needs (38%), young people at risk(13%) and homeless families in need ofsupport (13%). As clients began to receiveservices, almost all moved on from living withtheir family.

• Almost three-quarters of people sleepingrough prior to uptake of services were definedas single homeless people with support needs(47%) and rough sleepers (27%).

• Single homeless people with support needs(51%), young people at risk (10%) andhomeless families (8%) accounted for themajority of clients staying with friends priorto receiving services.

• The majority of clients leaving their priorsupported housing accommodation wereprovided with supported housing elsewhere(62%).

• In total, 5% of clients were temporarilyhoused in bed and breakfast. Together, singlehomeless people with support needs (34%)and homeless families (20%) stand out as

being the clients most likely to be in bed andbreakfast accommodation prior to receiving aSupporting People service.

• After qualifying for Supporting Peopleservices, the majority (88%) of clients did notremain in bed and breakfast accommodation.However, 16% of clients took up places inother temporary direct access hostelaccommodation.

• The Client Record System recorded 5,452clients who were owner-occupiers prior toreceiving Supporting People services, 3% ofall clients. Women at risk of domesticviolence were far more likely to have beenowner-occupiers than any other primaryclient group (35%) prior to receiving aSupporting People support service.


• Three principal categories of support –supported housing (34%), floating support(31%) and direct access (19%) – made upover four-fifths of service provision duringthis second year of the Supporting Peopleprogramme.

• Floating support services were provided toalmost two-fifths of female clients while onlyone-quarter of male clients received this formof support. However, 38% of males wereaccepted into supported housing schemes,compared to only 28% of females. Also, 28%of males received direct accessaccommodation compared to 10% offemales.

• Almost two-fifths of all Supporting Peopleservices were provided by voluntaryorganisations, 29% of which was temporaryaccommodation in direct access hostels.

• Floating support services accounted for aquarter and direct access 11% of housingassociation/RSLs service provision.

• Almost one-fifth of services provided byhousing authorities were direct access hostelsand one-fifth were supported housingschemes.


7

• Almost a quarter of clients accessed servicesby means of self-referral.

• Local authority housing departments referredjust over one-fifth of clients and over a tenthof clients were referred by voluntary agencies.

• Social Services referred almost a tenth ofclients to Supporting People services, almosttwo-fifths of which were to voluntaryorganisations and a further 35% to housingassociations/RSLs.

Regional variations

• In the West Midlands (38%), North East (38%)and East Midlands (36%), floating supportrather than supported housing, providedsupport for the greatest number of clients.

• Voluntary organisations predominated serviceprovision in Yorkshire & the Humber (49%),North East (44%), and the West Midlands(44%), while housing associations/RSLsprovided a greater than average proportion ofservices in the South East (46%) and the Eastof England (44%).

• The largest category of referral in Londonand the North East was local authoritydepartment referral (30% and 23%respectively) while in all other regions thelargest referral route was through self-referral.


• Overall, more than four-fifths of referralswere made for clients who made anapplication for Supporting People serviceswithin their own local authority area.

• Less than a fifth of clients accessed servicesoutside their immediate local authority area.

• By far, the most common type of non-hostreferral was open access.

• Almost one quarter of referrals accepted byvoluntary organisations were non-host referrals.Proportionally, this compares to 15% ofhousing association/RSL acceptances andonly 3% of housing authority acceptances.

• Less than a tenth of referrals to supportedhousing were non-host open-access referrals

directly from clients accessing services outsidetheir own local authority area.

Regional variations

• Compared to the national average of 15% fornon-host referrals, London had the highestproportion of this type of referral (22%).

• The East Midlands and Yorkshire & theHumber had the lowest levels of non-hostreferrals (9% & 10%, respectively).

• While London had the highest level of non-host open-access referrals (16%), Yorkshire &the Humber (6%) and the East Midlands(6%) had the lowest.

Homelessness

• Less than a third of clients recorded by theClient Record System were accepted asstatutorily homeless and owed a mainhomelessness duty.

• Single homeless people with support needsconstituted almost two-fifths of all clientsaccepted as statutorily homeless and owed amain homelessness duty.

• Slightly more than one-fifth of statutorilyhomeless clients owed a main homelessnessduty were homeless families with supportneeds; women at risk of domestic violencemade up a further 13%.

• Overall, 8% of statutorily homeless clientswere in B&B accommodation prior toreceiving services and 71% of those weremade up of single homeless people withsupport needs (34%), homeless families withsupport needs (25%) and young people atrisk (12%).

Regional variations

• The North West (37%) and London (34%)had proportions of statutorily homelessclients that were well above the nationalaverage (29%). In contrast, the EastMidlands (20%) and Southern regions hadsubstantially lower proportions of clients whowere statutorily homeless (South West, 21%and South East, 24%).


8


• In total, 42% of young people leaving careand 41% of people with learning disabilitieswere supported via Care Management (SocialServices).

• Four principal client groups – offenders/thoseat risk of offending (34%), single homelesspeople with support needs (32%), peoplewith drug problems (14%) and young peopleat risk (5%) – made up over four-fifths ofclients subject to Probation or YouthOffending Team supervision.

• Slightly more than two-fifths of people withmental health problems were receiving CareProgramme Approach packages.

• Offenders/those at risk of offending (28%),single homeless people with support needs(19%), and people with mental healthproblems (14%) were the client groups thatmade up the majority of clients subject toMulti-Agency Public ProtectionArrangements.

Regional variations

• London (12%) and the North East (11%)had the highest proportion of clientssupported through Social Services CareManagement. With an average for England of8%, the West Midlands (5%) had the lowestproportion of clients supported through CareManagement.

• Compared with the English average of 7%,only 3% of clients in London were subject toProbation or Youth Offending Teamsupervision. However, in Yorkshire & theHumber the proportion was 12%.

Comparative analysis

• Overall there has been relatively little changein client group composition compared withlast year (2003/04).

• Supported housing has continued to be themost common type of service provision andhas provided relatively the same proportion ofsupport to clients as in 2003/04.

• Floating support services have increased by3% from 28% in 2003/04 to 31% this year.In addition to this, there has been a decline inthe provision of direct accessaccommodation.

• A greater proportion of single homelesspeople with support needs who had beensleeping rough and had not been accepted asstatutorily homeless were provided withsupported housing compared to last year(36% compared to 29% in 2003/04), while asmaller proportion were provided with directaccess (57% compared to 63% in 2003/04).

• There was only a minor increase in theproportion of homeless families with supportneeds accepted into supported housing.

• A substantially smaller proportion of homelessfamilies made use of direct access hostels.

• However there has been a substantial increasein homeless families provided with floatingsupport.

• The type of support provided to youngpeople at risk has changed to a large extentcompared to 2003/04. A greater proportionof these clients were accepted into supportedhousing this year (an increase of 6%compared to 2003/04) and there has been asubstantial drop of 7% in the proportion ofyoung people at risk making use of directaccess hostels.

• The proportion of clients with alcoholproblems who had been sleeping rough andmade use of direct access hostels has risencompared to last year (51% compared to47% in 2003/04), while a smaller proportionwere provided with supported housing (33%compared to 36% last year).

• There has been a rise of 9% in the proportionof people with learning disabilities receivingfloating support (49% compared to 40% in2003/04) alongside a drop of 7% in theproportion receiving supported housing(40% compared to 47% in 2003/04).

• Compared to 11% last year, 18% of clientsremained in the same accommodation thatthey occupied prior to accessing SupportingPeople services.


9

• A greater proportion of women at risk ofdomestic violence were able to remain intheir general needs local authority tenancyafter being provided with support (16%compared to 7% in 2003/04).

• A larger proportion of people sleeping roughhave been provided with floating support thisyear (28% compared to 18% last year) whilea smaller proportion used direct accessaccommodation (33% compared to 42%).

• Compared to last year a greater proportion ofclients remaining in hostel accommodationwere provided with floating support (31%compared to 12% last year). As last year, themajority of clients who were in direct accesshostels prior to receiving a service continuedto use a direct access hostel; however, thisproportion dropped from 78% in 2003/04 to42% in 2004/05.

• More than one-third of clients who wereowner occupiers were able to remain in theirproperty once accessing support compared to19% last year.

Regional variations

• The proportion of client groups within eachregion has in the main remained stable withonly minor fluctuations.

• The proportion of single homeless peoplewith support needs has decreased in Yorkshire& the Humber (34% in 2003/04 comparedto 31% in 2004/05), and increased in the

West Midlands (28% in 2003/04 comparedto 32% in 2004/05).

• Homeless families have risen by 3% in theNorth West making this client group thesecond most common group for this region(9% compared to 12% this year).

• Overall, there has been a decrease of 2% inthe proportion of clients accepted asstatutorily homeless this year and this ismostly reflected in variations of between 2%and 3% within most regions. However, therewas a decline of 6% in the proportion ofclients accepted as statutorily homeless in theWest Midlands (from 35% to 29%) and adecline of 4% in the South East (from 28%to 24%).

• In 2003/04 supported housing was the mostcommon type of support for all regionsexcept the West Midlands and East Midlands.This year the West Midlands, the North Eastand the East Midlands provided a greaterproportion of floating support services thanany other type of service.

• The highest proportional increase of floatingsupport regionally was in London with anincrease of 7% (from 27% to 34%). Floatingsupport services in the North East increasedby 6% (from 32% to 38%), in the EastMidlands by 5% (from 31% to 36%) and by5% in Yorkshire & the Humber (from 24%to 29%).

The Client Record system was introduced at the start of the Supporting People funding programme inApril 2003. The Joint Centre for Scottish Housing Research (JCSHR), based at the Universities ofSt Andrews and Dundee, is responsible for the administration of the Client Record System. The ClientRecord Office is located at the University of St. Andrews campus to where all inquiries should beaddressed.

Further information about Supporting People Client Records can be found at www.spclientrecord.org.uk,including summary reports to Supporting People Teams and Excel lookup sheets for summary information atAdministering Authority, Regional, and England levels.


10


11


The Supporting People programme is designed to improve the quality of support available to vulnerablepeople. Following new legislation that separated service costs from housing benefit payments, theProgramme has brought together different streams of support funding providing a single funding streamfor the delivery of housing-related support. The budget for this programme has been transferred directly tolocal authorities who have responsibility for delivery of the programme objectives. The programme itselfhas evolved via a number of smaller and earlier initiatives designed to improve health and reduce povertyand homelessness by modernising public services.

A key factor in the development of Supporting People is the expansion of the leadership role of localauthorities. The programme requires authorities to work in partnership with health, social work,probation, support providers and user groups to monitor provision and identify need in their areas. Localauthorities commission and fund appropriate needs-led cost-effective and quality driven services on acontractual basis. Importantly, support services are no longer conditional on accommodation or tenure andare to be tailored in such a way as to respond directly to the individual needs of vulnerable people.

The priority is to extend and refine the range of provision and widen access to client groups such as blackand ethnic minority communities, offenders, and women at risk of domestic violence who, traditionally,have not had ready access to support provision. This will involve extending and developing services withinlocal authority areas and creating new protocols between local authorities to enable cross-authorityprovision whereby clients can access services outwith their own locality.

Independent monitoring of the progress is one of the central principles of Supporting People, designed toensure that the objectives of the Programme are being met. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister(ODPM) has devised a common framework for assessing service standards and gathering managementinformation; a significant aspect of this framework is the Client Record System. The Client Record Systemrequires service providers to complete the Client Record form, a means of data collection that provides keyperformance indicators between and within authorities, identifying the routes by which Supporting Peopleservices are being accessed and the personal characteristics of service users. Client Record data is being usedto determine the range and extent of service development and cross-authority provision over time and theextent to which vulnerable groups are accessing appropriate services.

The Joint Centre for Scottish Housing Research (JCSHR) is responsible for the management, organisationand analysis of Client Record forms. Every quarter, JCSHR issues to the ODPM a national reportidentifying the main characteristics of regional and local authority support provision. Reports are alsoissued to the commissioning body within each of the 150 administering authorities, charting informationspecifically related to their own authority and region and, for comparative purposes, across England as awhole.

These reports tabulate information on the number and type of providers currently operating, the type ofservices offered, the clients supported, the origin of referrals and the numbers accepted. The Client Recorddatabase thereby effectively maps and monitors the key information required for an understanding of whatis delivered in terms of housing related support, who is currently using these services and where they camefrom. Notably, the database offers a picture of what services are not currently being provided and wherethese gaps occur.


12

The Client Record system has an important role in recording and monitoring improvement in the supplyof services and assessing whether outcomes equate with real change. Information is recorded on a range ofclient groups such as single homeless people who need support, homeless families, teenage parents, womenat risk of domestic violence and offenders or people at risk of offending. Data is also collected on secondaryproblems that clients may be experiencing such as drug or alcohol problems or mental health problems andwhether clients are receiving statutory support through interventions such as Care Managementprogrammes or Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPAs). The data also recordsinformation on the type of services clients receive so that authorities can identify whether particular clientsin their locality are having their needs met appropriately or whether these could be met more adequately,perhaps through cross-authority arrangements. Additionally, the data may lead to services beingrestructured or the development of specialised services. A copy of the Client Record Form can be found inAppendix 1.

The Client Record System monitors client characteristics as closely as possible in an attempt to identifypotential gaps in provision by examining the supply of provision through the types of clients accessingservices, rather than through the services that are available. This links with the key objective of SupportingPeople to relate services to the individual needs of vulnerable people rather than fitting them into what iscurrently available, which in reality may not be the support they require. This is a client-led approach anda realistic picture of the requirements of those clients accessing services needs to be drawn up: the ClientRecord System contributes to this programme in providing the basis for an assessment of whetherSupporting People is meeting outcomes in relation to priorities within housing, health, social care and thecriminal justice system.

Together, the Client Record System quarterly returns and annual reports are significant as a regulatory,monitoring and evaluation tool for Supporting People policy makers and practitioners. It acts as a referenceguide in comparisons of local authority statistics and contributes to individual provider organizationplanning and funding structures.

The aim and structure of the Annual Report

This is the second annual report from the Client Record Office and it brings together information fromClient Records completed for clients who started to receive services between 1st April 2004 and 31st March2005.

The aim of this report is to provide summary commentary on the main findings from the Client Recorddataset, together with illustrative tables and graphs. The report is based on 202,554 validated ClientRecord forms covering the 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 period.

The report is divided into eight sections:

Section one: Introduction

Section two: An overview of client characteristics and client groups together with the routesthat particular groups took in accessing service provision.

Section three: A description of the previous accommodation of clients prior to receiving services

Section four: The types of Supporting People providers and services delivered to clients duringthe reporting year.

Section five: The extent of cross-authority provision during the second year of SupportingPeople.


13

Section six: Clients who were statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty and theservices they received.

Section seven: A summary of clients who require services under other statutory frameworks.

Section eight: Comparative analysis of data collected from April 03-March 04 and April 04-March 05.



The Client Record system covers new clients who have started to receive the services shown below throughSupporting People funding:

Included services






• Foyer






There are additional services that receive funding through Supporting People but are currently exemptfrom the Client Record system. These are shown below.

Excluded services



• Almshouses




A Client Record Form is completed by a service provider each time a person starts to receive one of theirservices.


14

The Client Record system was introduced at the start of the Supporting People funding programme inApril 2003. The Joint Centre for Scottish Housing Research (JCSHR), based at the Universities of StAndrews and Dundee, is responsible for the administration of the Client Record system. The ClientRecord Office is located on the University of St. Andrews campus to where all inquiries should beaddressed.


15

2 Clients

2.1 Introduction

This section of the Annual Report explores the characteristics of vulnerable people as they begin to receivehousing-related support services funded through Supporting People. The term vulnerable people refers toindividuals who are at a point in their life when they require an element of support to access housing,sustain a tenancy and/or achieve independence and a better quality of life.

During this second year of reporting, the Client Record System recorded information about 202,554 newclients. Although, the Client Record System collects information on twenty-one primary client groupcategories, six of these categories account for 71% of clients. Single homeless people with support needswere the most frequently recorded accounting for almost a third of all clients. The next largest groups were,in decreasing order: women at risk of domestic violence, people with mental health problems, homelessfamilies in need of support, people with generic needs, and young people at risk. [Figure 2.1]

Overall, more male (53%) clients were recorded than female and the largest proportion of clients werebetween the ages of 18-24 years. Almost a third of clients were claiming job seekers allowance. Slightly lessthan a third had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty (refer to sectionsix for definition of statutorily homeless – page 61). The vast majority of clients were White-British interms of declared ethnic origin.

15 Percent

20 25 301050




GenericYoung people at risk


Alcohol problemsOffenders or at risk of offendingOlder people with support needs

Physical or sensory disabilityRefugees

Learning disabilitiesTeenage parents


Older people with mental health problemsPeople with HIV/AIDS

TravellerMentally disordered offenders


16

Prior to uptake of services the most common previous accommodation category for clients was generalneeds local authority housing. However, a third of clients were either living with family, sleeping rough orstaying with friends. Voluntary agencies provided almost two-fifths of services to clients and the mostcommon support service provided was supported housing. The most frequent referral route for clients wasself-referral and 85% of clients received services within their own local authority area.

This section goes on to explore each client group in more detail and provides an account of their previousaccommodation, referral arrangements, service provision, regional variations and ethnic origins. Finally, itexamines the various secondary problems that clients experience and concludes with an assessment ofoverall support needs based on the combined responses to primary and secondary client group categories.

2.2 Client Profiles

Single homeless with support needs (30.1%; 60,873)

Client Records define single homeless people with support needs as either people who have been acceptedas statutorily homeless and have ‘priority need’ status and are therefore owed a main homelessness duty, orpeople who have been turned down for re-housing or have not approached the local authority but whohave a range of support needs.

Over a third of single homeless people with support needs were between the ages of 18-24. More than halfclaimed job seekers allowance, while almost a fifth were long term sick or disabled and 13% were notseeking work. Only 36% of single homeless people with support needs had been accepted as statutorilyhomeless and owed a main homelessness duty. More females (42%) than males (34%) had been acceptedas statutorily homeless, even though more than two-thirds of single homeless clients with support needswere male.

Prior to receiving Supporting People support services, the majority of single homeless people with supportneeds were either, living with family (18%), staying with friends (16%), sleeping rough (15%) or in directaccess hostels (11%).

The proportion of single homeless people with support needs who had been living with family and hadbeen provided with supported housing was greater for clients who had not been accepted as statutorilyhomeless than it was for those that had. In comparison, a greater proportion of those that had beenaccepted as statutorily homeless made use of direct access hostels. In contrast, clients who had beensleeping rough and had not been accepted as statutorily homeless were less likely to be provided withsupported housing than those that were statutorily homeless. More than half of clients who had not beenaccepted as statutorily homeless and had been sleeping rough made use of direct access hostels. [Table 2.1.]

One third of single homeless people with support needs made self-referrals, making this the most commonroute to service provision for this client group and services were provided to the majority of clients in theirown local authority area mainly by voluntary organisations and housing associations/registered sociallandlords (RSLs).


17

Table 2.1: Types of service between statutory homelessness acceptance for single homeless peoplewith support needs who were living with family or sleeping rough



# % # % # % # %

Supported housing 1,786 40.4 1,104 40.2 2,689 56.0 1,331 35.5

Direct access 1,340 30.3 1,351 49.2 1,156 24.1 2,122 56.5


Foyer 195 4.4 8.7 3.3 539 8.5 145 3.0

Outreach 122 2.8 17 0.6 7 0.1 2 0.1

Resettlement 174 3.9 35 1.3 34 0.7 28 0.7


Women’s refuge 26 0.6 3 0.1 32 0.7


Residential care home 2 0.1 4 0.1 2 0.1

Adult placement 2

Total 4,423 40.0 2,748 29.6 4,798 43.4 3,754 40.5

Women at risk of domestic violence (10.2%; 20,629)

Over three quarters of women at risk of domestic violence were between 18-38 years and two-thirds of allclients were described as not seeking work. More than one-third of women had been accepted as statutorilyhomeless.

General needs local authority tenancy (27%), living with family (14%), private rented (12%), owneroccupied (9%) or general needs RSL/HA tenancy (9%) described the prior accommodation for themajority of women. [Figure 2.2] Almost two-thirds of support for women at risk of domestic violence wasrefuge provision while just over a fifth of clients were provided with floating support. Women receivingfloating support and remaining where they were, were more likely to be general needs local authoritytenants (36%), general needs RSL/HA tenants (18%), or owner-occupiers (15%).

The pattern of referral arrangements for women was varied. Women were most likely to either be referredby voluntary agencies (23%) or make a self-referral (21%). [Figure 2.3] Although the majority (60%) ofwomen received services in their own local authority area, as a group, women at risk of domestic violencewere more likely than any other client group to access services via cross-authority arrangements: 29% ofreferrals were open access; 7% were structured; 3% were multi-lateral; and 1% were spot purchase (refer tosection 5.1 for a definition of referral types). The majority (69%) of services were provided by voluntaryagencies while housing associations/RSLs (19%) and housing authorities (5%) made up the remainder ofprovision for almost this entire client group.


18

People with mental health problems (8.7%; 17,584)

People with mental health problems were of various ages with the majority (88%) falling between 16 and52 years. Within this wide-ranging age bracket, the largest proportion of clients fell into the 32-38 agebracket (22%). The majority of people with mental health problems were male (60%). Slightly more thantwo-thirds of this client group were long term sick or disabled. Slightly more than two-fifths of clients hadbeen accepted as requiring a Care Programme Approach (CPA) with a further 17% requiring andenhanced CPA. Almost a fifth were receiving Social Services care management. Of all clients with mentalhealth problems, 15% were accepted as statutorily homeless and were owed a main homelessness duty.

15 Percent

20 25 301050

Figure 2.2: Previous living arrangements of women at risk of domestic violence


Private rentedGeneral needs RSL/HA tenant

Owner occupierOther

Supported housingStaying with friends



15 Percent

20 25 301050






Community Mental Health TeamMoving from another RSL

Probation service/prisonNominated under HOMES



19

The main type of previous accommodation for people with mental health problems was general needs localauthority housing [Figure 2.4]. Almost half of local authority tenants remained in their tenancy and ofthose, the majority received floating support (93%). For the remaining general needs local authoritytenants, more than three-quarters were offered floating support elsewhere and 15% were accepted intosupported housing.

Almost all people with mental health problems received services in their own local authority area (95%)and over a quarter of all clients were referred by their Community Mental Health Team. More than two-thirds of services for this client group were provided by housing associations/RSLs (34%) and voluntaryorganisations (30%).

Homeless families with support needs (8.4%; 16,935)

Over one-third of homeless families with support needs were in the 18-24 age bracket. The majority (76%)of clients were female and more than half were not seeking work. Only 38% of clients were recorded ashaving a partner. Almost three-quarters of homeless families had been accepted as statutorily homeless andowed a main homelessness duty.

Living with family (22%), other temporary accommodation (14%), private rented (12%), bed & breakfast(11%) and general needs local authority tenant (11%) described the living arrangements of the majority ofclients prior to receiving support. [Figure 2.5] On receipt of SP services, more than two-fifths of clientswere accepted into supported housing schemes and one-third were provided with floating support serviceswhile 15% of families had made use of direct access hostels. Proportionally, families who had been

15 Percent

20 25 301050



General needs RSL/HA tenantHospital



Direct access hostelAny other temp accommodation

Staying with friendsOwner occupier

OtherResidential care home

Sheltered housingShort life housing




20

accepted as statutorily homeless were more likely to be provided with direct access hostel accommodationthan those that had not been accepted as statutorily homeless. [Table 2.2]

Table 2.2: The support provided to homeless families with support needs

Accepted as statutorily homelesss Not accepted as statutorily homeless

# % # %

Supported housing 4,927 40.3 740 37.9

Floating support 3,864 31.6 900 46.1

Direct access 1,893 15.5 167 8.5






Adult placement 3 3 0.2

Residential care home 2

Foyer 5 12 0.6

Total 12,220 72.2 1,954 11.5

15 Percent

20 25 301050


Living with familyAny other temp accommodation

Private rentedBed and breakfast

General needs local authority tenantStaying with friendsSupported housingDirect access hostel

OtherGeneral needs RSL/HA tenant

Owner occupierShort life housing

Rough sleepingTied home or renting with job


21

More than half the families were referred to services by means of the local authority housing department’sreferral process and almost a fifth were nominated by their local housing authority. However, a further17% of families self-referred. Almost all referrals were host referrals (96%) and well over half of all servicesfor this client group were provided by housing authorities, a further 19% by housing associations/RSLsand 7% by voluntary organisations.

Generic (7.3%; 14,824)

The generic client group refers to clients with multiple primary needs.

Nearly a quarter of clients falling into the generic category were between the ages of 18-24 years, 18% wereaged 25-31 years and a further 18% were aged between 32 and 38 years. The majority of clients in thisgroup were female (62%). Almost a third of clients were not seeking work, 20% were job seekers and 16%were long term sick or disabled. Less than a tenth of clients had been accepted as statutorily homeless andowed a main homelessness duty.

Almost two-thirds of clients were tenants either in general needs local authority or RSL/HA housing priorto receiving services, almost half of whom remained in their tenancies and of those, 96% received floatingsupport services.

Consequently, clients in the generic category were more likely to receive services in their own localauthority area (96%), but through various referral routes: referrals made by local authority housingdepartments (35%); self-referrals (20%); nominations from local housing authorities (17%); and 9% ofreferrals were via unspecified (other) referral routes. Services were provided by four principal types ofprovider organisations: housing associations/RSLs (28%); voluntary organisations (22%); local authorityjoint H&SS (21%); and housing authorities (18%).

Young people at risk (6%; 12,215)

Almost all clients in this category were either between the ages of 16-17 years (53%) or 18-21 years (47%).The majority of these clients were female (55%). Within economic categories, there were distinct gendervariations in these clients’ economic status. Slightly more than half of young people at risk were claimingjob seekers allowance, 53% of these were male. Similarly, clients taking part in Government training orNew Deal schemes were more likely to be male (54%). Almost two-thirds of full-time students were femaleand just over three-quarters of those not seeking work were female. Clients in employment either part-timeor full-time were also more likely to be female (71% and 54% respectively). [Figure 2.6]

There were few clients who had been accepted as requiring services under statutory frameworks. Less thana tenth of young people at risk were receiving Care Management via Social Services. Just over one-third ofclients had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Five types of accommodation accounted for almost three-quarters of living arrangements young people atrisk occupied prior to receiving services: living with family (31%); staying with friends (16%); direct accesshostel (10%); supported housing (8%); and bed & breakfast (8%).


22

Young people at risk were spread across four main service categories: supported housing (46%); floatingsupport (22%); direct access (17%); and foyer (9%). The majority of clients receiving floating support(63%) or supported housing (54%) were female. Most clients (89%) received services in their host areawith the largest proportion of clients either self-referring (23%) or having been referred by local authorityhousing departments (22%). Voluntary organisations referred 13% and Social Services referred a further11% of young people at risk. In the main, young people at risk received support services from three typesof providers, namely voluntary organisations (46%), housing associations/RSLs (38%) and housingauthorities (10%).

People with drug problems (4.8%; 9,747)

More than a third of this client group were between the ages of 25 and 31 years and three-quarters of allpeople with drug problems were male (73%). Almost half of clients were long-term sick or disabled.Almost one-fifth of clients were subject to Probation or Youth Offending Team services and 14% of clientshad been accepted as requiring Care Management via Social Services. Less than a fifth of clients had beenaccepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

The prior living arrangements of people with drug problems varied though generally, clients were morelikely to have been sleeping rough (15%), have been local authority tenants (12%) or were living withfamily members (11%). The bulk of support provided to clients who had been sleeping rough was directaccess (43%) or supported housing (40%).

People with drug problems tended to engage in a greater extent of cross authority movement incomparison to some other client groups (23%) for example, older people with support needs (2%), peoplewith mental health problems (6%) and single homeless people with support needs (16%). Although themajority (77%) of people with drug problems received services in their own local authority area, one-tenthof clients were non-host open access, 8% non-host spot purchase clients and 4% were non-host structuredclients. While people with drug problems were most likely to self-refer (26%), 15% were referred byvoluntary agencies and 14% were referred by the Probation or Prison service. [Figure 2.7] Voluntaryagencies (46%) and housing associations/RSLs (32%) provided the bulk of services to this client group.

30 40 50 Percent

6020100



Child under 16Other adult

Full-time workJob seeker

Long term sick/disabledGovt training

70 80 90 100

Female (46%)

Male (54%)


23

Rough sleepers (4%; 8,146)

In the single homeless category described above it was evident that most single homeless people live inshort term accommodation such as direct access hostels, however, there are some single homeless peoplewho live on the streets for most or all of their period of homelessness and these clients are referred to asrough sleepers. Rough sleepers are people who are roofless and bed down for the night on the street orsleep out in buildings or other places not designed for habitation, for example, in stations, car parks orsheds.

The age range of rough sleepers was varied: 24% were 18-24 years; 21% were 25-31 years; 22% were 32-38 years; and 15% were 39-45 years. Well over four-fifths of rough sleepers were male. Almost half ofrough sleepers were job seekers and nearly a quarter were long term sick or disabled. Only 22% of roughsleepers had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

As would be expected, the largest proportion (two-thirds) of clients were rough sleeping prior to receivingservices, however, a few clients were staying with friends (6%), in direct access hostels (6%) or living withfamily (4%). On receipt of SP support, only 27% of rough sleepers were provided with supported housingwhilst the majority made use of direct access hostel accommodation (65%).

Although the majority of clients were host clients, almost one-fifth of referrals for rough sleepers were non-host open access and just over half of all referrals were made on a self-referral basis. Voluntary agenciesreferred slightly less than a quarter of rough sleepers and provided services to well over half, while housingassociations/RSLs provided services to slightly more than one-third.

People with alcohol problems (3.9%; 7,871)

The largest proportion of these clients were aged between 32-45 (47%) and almost four-fifths of peoplewith alcohol problems were male. More than half were long term sick or disabled and 14% had beenaccepted as requiring services under a Social Service Care Management programme. Less than one-fifth ofclients had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

30 40 50 Percent

6020100







Host

70 80 90 100


24

Prior to uptake of Supporting People services, almost a fifth of clients were general needs local authoritytenants. Of those, almost two-fifths remained in their tenancy and of those, 78% received floating supportservices while 12% went into residential care and 6% were provided with supported housing. For thosegeneral needs local authority tenants not remaining in their tenancy, over half were provided with floatingsupport elsewhere and almost a quarter went into residential care. The most frequent type of servicedelivered to people with alcohol problems that were sleeping rough was direct access (51%) or supportedhousing (33%).

Just over a quarter of people with alcohol problems accessed services by self-referral and although themajority of clients received services in their own local authority, over a tenth were non-host open accessreferrals. Services for people with alcohol problems were primarily provided by voluntary organisations(47%) or housing associations/RSLs (34%).

Offenders or those at risk of offending (3.1%; 6,253)

One-third of offenders fell into the 18-24 age bracket and over a fifth were between the ages of 25-31years. Almost all offenders were male (87%) and three-quarters were subject to Probation or YouthOffending Team supervision. The economic status for 60% of offenders or those at risk of offending wasjob seeker. Only 12% of offenders had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a mainhomelessness duty.

15 Percent

20 25 301050



Staying with friendsGeneral needs local authority tenant

Rough sleepingApproved probation hostel


General needs RSL/HA tenantAny other temp accommodation

OtherBed and breakfast

Only 27% of clients accessed services straight from prison. Over and above this, these clients were eitherliving with family, in supported housing, staying with friends, local authority tenants, sleeping rough or inapproved probation hostels. [Figure 2.8] Of the 7% of clients remaining in prison prior to receivingsupport, 36% were provided with resettlement and 31% were provided with floating support. Foroffenders released from prison prior to receiving support, two-thirds were accepted into supported housingschemes and 12% were provided with resettlement while a further 11% made use of direct access hostels.Almost half of clients living with family prior to receiving support were provided with supported housingand just over one-fifth were provided with resettlement services. Almost half of offenders staying with


25

friends prior to receiving support were provided with supported housing and one-fifth joined aresettlement programme.

More than two-thirds of offenders were referred by the Probation or Prison service and over-three quartersreceived services in the local authority area providing the service. However, more than a tenth of referralsfor offenders were non-host structured referrals. Primarily, services for this client group were provided byhousing associations/RSLs (54%) and voluntary organisations (38%).

Older people with support needs (3.1%; 6,288)

Almost one-third of older people with support needs were aged 80 or over and of these, 69% were female;overall, 55% of clients were female. [Figure 2.9] Clients were mainly retired (87%) while only 9% werelong term sick or disabled. Social Services had accepted 19% of clients as requiring a Care Managementprogramme; 62% of these clients were female.

Prior to receiving services, older people with support needs were mainly tenants, either in general needslocal authority (36%) or RSL/HA (20%) housing. Over half of older people remained in theiraccommodation and the majority (94%) received floating support. For those that left their accommodationon receipt of support, 63% received floating support elsewhere, 21% were provided with supportedhousing and 7% were supported through resettlement.

Older people with support needs accessed services through various referral routes, namely through SocialServices (20%), local authority housing department referrals (20%), self-referrals (18%) and local housingauthority nominations (16%), and almost all clients received services in their own local authority area(98%). In the main, services were provided by housing associations/RSLs (29%), voluntary organisations(24%) and housing authorities (23%).

People with physical or sensory disabilities (2.7%; 5,517)

People with physical or sensory disabilities were more likely to be between the ages of 32 and 59 years(56%). Slightly more than half were male and the majority of clients were long term sick or disabled(60%). Almost a quarter of clients were accepted as requiring Care Management via Social Services. Aminority (9%) of people with physical or sensory disabilities had been accepted as statutorily homeless andowed a main homelessness duty.

30 40 50 Percent

6020100

Female

Male


53-5960-6465-6970-7475-79

80+

70 80 90 100


26

Approximately half of these clients were tenants either in general needs local authority housing (33%) orRSL/HA housing (18%) prior to receiving services. Of those clients in local authority housing, one-halfremained in their tenancies and almost all of those received floating support (96%). This was very similarfor clients remaining in RSL/HA tenancies.

Nearly all clients were supported in their own local authority area (96%). One-quarter of referrals for theseclients were self-referrals with a further 22% made by Social Services and 21% made by local authorityhousing departments. Voluntary organisations (29%), housing associations/RSLs (22%) and housingauthorities (22%) provided the bulk of support for this client group.

Refugees (2%; 4,023)

Almost two-thirds of refugees fell within the 18-31 age range. The majority of clients were male (70%) andthe largest economic category for all clients was job seekers (64%). Almost one-third of refugees had beenaccepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Clients in this group were previously either staying with friends (21%), in unspecified (other) temporaryaccommodation (17%), or were tenants in local authority housing (13%) or in supported housing (10%).Floating support (44%) and supported housing (44%) accounted for the majority of services provided torefugees.

Most refugees received services in their own local authority. Self-referrals (34%) and local authorityhousing department referrals (26%) were the referral routes for the majority of refugees. Housingassociations/RSLs (33%), voluntary agencies (32%) and housing authorities (13%) provided the majorityof services.

People with learning disabilities (2%; 4,004)

More than a quarter of people with learning disabilities were between the ages of 18 and 24 years. Overhalf were male. Slightly more than half of this client group were long term sick or disabled.

In the main, people with learning disabilities were either general needs local authority tenants (25%),living with family (17%), in supported housing (14%) or general needs RSL/HA tenants (12%) prior toreceiving support. Almost half of service provision for this client group was floating support while two-fifths of clients were provided with supported housing. Referrals largely came from Social Services (41%)and these clients were most likely to receive services in their own local authority area (94%).


Teenage parents (1.5%; 3,106)

More than half of teenage parents were between the ages of 18-20. Only 2% of teenage parents were male.Economically, almost three-quarters of this group were not seeking work. More than one-third of teenageparents had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

More than one-third of teenage parents were living with family prior to receiving services while 15% weregeneral needs local authority tenants and 10% were in supported housing. Half of teenage parents receivedfloating support services while one-third were accepted into supported housing. Only 12% of clients were


27

Young people leaving care (0.9%; 1,888)

Slightly over half (52%) of clients in this category were between the ages of 18 and 21 years and almost allof the remaining clients were between the ages of 16-17 years (48%). More than half were male (52%).The largest proportion of clients were jobseekers (40%). Social Services Care Management programmeswere in place for 42% of clients and of these, 57% were 16 or 17 years. Less than one-fifth of clients hadbeen accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty and 60% of those were age 16 or17 years.

By far, the largest proportion of clients had come to services via children’s homes or foster care (29%) andwhile almost two-thirds of those were provided with supported housing, 14% received a place withsupported lodgings and 10% were provided with floating support.

Almost two-thirds of young people leaving care were referred to services by Social Service departments.Few clients received cross-authority referrals (10%) and referrals that were non-host were more likely to bestructured (4%) or open access (3%). Support for young people leaving care was provided, in the main, byhousing associations/RSLs (44%) and voluntary organisations (29%).

provided with specialised teenage parent accommodation. Of clients who had not been accepted asstatutorily homeless, less than a quarter had received supported housing while 61% received floatingsupport. [Figure 2.10]

The majority of teenage parents were referred to services either through local authority housingdepartment referrals (27%) or nominations by local housing authorities (19%) and a further 13% ofclients self-referred. Almost all clients received services within their own local authority (96%). Housingassociations/RSLs (55%), voluntary organisations (23%) and housing authorities (12%) provided the bulkof services for teenage parents.

30 Percent

40 50 6020100


Supported housing

Floating support


Direct access

Outreach service


Accepted as statutorily homelessNot accepted as statutorily homeless


28

Frail elderly (0.6%; 1,293)

During this second year of data recording, clients receiving Supporting People services in sheltered/verysheltered housing, almshouses, peripatetic warden schemes and leasehold schemes remained exempt fromthe Client Record System. The following is a summary of the characteristics of frail elderly clients whowere receiving Supporting People contracted services other than those mentioned above.

As would be expected, the majority (74%) of frail elderly were over the age of 75 years, however, slightlymore than a quarter of clients were between 53-74 years. Almost two-thirds of frail elderly were female andalmost all clients were retired (94%). Social Services Care Management programmes had been provided for26% of clients. A minority (4%) of frail elderly had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a mainhomelessness duty.

Prior to receiving support, almost half of frail elderly clients held tenancies in either general needs localauthority (34%) or RSL/HA housing (12%) while almost one-fifth of clients were owner-occupiers and afurther 12% were in sheltered housing. Floating support was provided to 66% of clients and almost aquarter were provided with residential care.

In the main, frail elderly people received services within their own local authority (95%) and the mostlikely referral routes were Social Services (30%), self-referral (24%) or local housing department’s referralprocess (19%). Housing associations/RSLs (38%), voluntary agencies (28%) or housing authorities (20%)were the main providers of support.

Older people with mental health problems (0.2%; 464)

The age of this client group varied above the age of 53 while the largest proportion were over 80 (25%).More than half of clients were female and the majority (77%) were retired, while almost a further fifthwere long term sick or disabled. Overall, 28% of older people with mental health problems were acceptedas requiring services through a Care Programme Approach (CPA) and 32% were accepted as requiringCare Management via Social Services.

Clients were mostly tenants in general needs local authority (33%) or RSL/HA housing (13%) and 21%were owner-occupiers.

The principal type of support provided to these clients was floating support (76%). However, 11% ofclients were accepted into supported housing schemes and 7% into residential care homes.

Most services were provided in the client’s own local authority (95%) and clients were either referred bytheir Community Mental Health Team (27%), Social Services (23%) or local housing department’s referralprocess (14%). Services were provided either by voluntary organisations (35%), housing associations/RSLs(27%) or housing authorities (16%).

People with HIV/AIDS (0.2%; 407)

More than half of clients in this group were between the ages of 32 and 45 and more than half were male.Almost three-quarters of clients were long term sick or disabled and just over one-fifth were accepted asrequiring Social Services Care Management. A minority (14%) of people with HIV/AIDS had beenaccepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.


29

The majority of clients were either general needs local authority tenants (29%), general needs RSL/HAtenants (21%) or from the private rented sector (10%). Two-fifths of clients remained in their prioraccommodation and in the main, these clients received floating support services (94%).

Almost one-third accessed services by means of self-referral. Nearly all referrals were host referrals. Morethan one-third of services for this client group were provided by the local authority joint H&SS whilemore than a fifth were provided by voluntary organisations.

Travellers (0.2%; 305)

The majority of travellers fell between the ages of 18 and 45 years and 67% of clients were male.Almost two-fifths of travellers were job seekers and a quarter were not seeking work. Less than a fifth ofclients were statutorily homeless.

Just over one-third of travellers accessed services via an unspecified (other) form of accommodation and aquarter were sleeping rough. The majority (45%) of travellers were provided with supported housing while39% made use of direct access hostels.

More than half of travellers came through a self-referral route and almost a quarter received servicesthrough non-host open access referrals. Voluntary organisations provided services to more than half oftravellers while housing associations/RSLs and housing authorities provided almost a further third ofservices to these clients.

Mentally disordered offenders (0.1%; 182)

The age range of clients in this group was wide and generally fell between 18-45 years. More than three-quarters of clients were male and over half of all clients in this category were long term sick or disabled.Probation or Youth Offending Teams were supervising almost one-third of mentally disordered offenders,29% were supported through the Care Programme Approach (CPA), 20% had been assessed under theEnhanced Care Programme Approach, 14% were accepted as requiring Care Management through SocialServices and 9% were subject to Multi-Public Protection Arrangements. More than a quarter of clients hadbeen accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Prior to uptake of Supporting People services, 13% of these clients were in hospital, 12% were generalneeds local authority tenants, 12% were sleeping rough, 9% were in prison and 9% were living withfamily. The majority of clients were either provided with floating support (42%), supported housing (34%)or direct access accommodation (19%).

The majority (92%) of mentally disordered offenders received services within their own local authority.Almost one-fifth of clients were referred by the Probation service or Prison while 18% were referred bytheir Community Mental Health Team. Voluntary organisations (41%), housing associations/RSLs (35%)and housing authorities (13%) were the main providers of support for this client group.


30

15 20 Percent

25 301050


East of EnglandNorth WestSouth East

West MidlandsYorkshire & the Humber

North EastEast Midlands

LondonSouth West

ENGLAND

35 40


Single homeless people with support needs were, by far, the largest primary category for clients in allregions. [Figure 2.11] The East of England had the largest proportion of single homeless people withsupport needs (38%); more than three times that of women at risk of domestic violence which was thesecond largest primary client group in this region.

Women at risk of domestic violence were the second largest primary client group in all regions [Figure2.12] except in London, the North West, South West and West Midlands. In London and the North West,homeless families with support needs were the second most recorded client group, in the South Westpeople with mental health problems and in the West Midlands people with generic needs were recorded asthe second most common primary client group.

The level of people with mental health problems was greater, proportionally, in London (11%), the SouthWest (10%) and East Midlands (10%) compared to 9% nationally. [Figure 2.13]

The South East (5%), North East (6%), South West (6%), West Midlands (6%) and Yorkshire & theHumber (7%) had fewer homeless families with support needs compared to the national average of 8%.[Figure 2.14]

There were, proportionally, more young people at risk in Yorkshire & the Humber (9%) than in any otherregion and the national figure was 6%. [Figure 2.15]



31

151050


North EastWest MidlandsEast Midlands

East of EnglandSouth East

Yorks. & HumberSouth WestNorth West

LondonENGLAND

151050


LondonSouth West

East MidlandsSouth East

East of EnglandYorks. & Humber

North EastWest Midlands

North WestENGLAND

151050


North WestLondon

East of EnglandEast Midlands

Yorks. & HumberWest Midlands

South WestNorth EastSouth East

ENGLAND

151050

Figure 2.15: Regional variations: proportion of young people at risk in each Government office region

Yorks. & HumberNorth WestNorth East

LondonSouth WestSouth East

East MidlandsEast of EnglandWest Midlands

ENGLAND


32


1. North East


Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless with support needs: 27.7% (2,662)Women at risk of domestic violence: 14.3% (1,375)Generic: 7.6% (735)






Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless with support needs: 31.4%( 6,676)Women at risk of domestic violence: 10.8%( 2,286)Young people at risk: 8.5%( 1,809)

Most common secondary client group:Drug problems



3. East Midlands


Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless with support needs: 27.2%( 4,874)Women at risk of domestic violence: 11.7%( 2,099)Mental health problems: 9.6%( 1,722)




4. East of England


Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless with support needs: 38.4%( 6,521)Women at risk of domestic violence: 11.1%( 1,881)Homeless families: 10.4%( 1,769)


Statutorily homeless: 27%


5. London


Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless with support needs: 25%( 8,401)Homeless families: 11.5%( 3,856)Mental health problems: 11.2%( 3,762)




6. South East


Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless with support needs: 31.9%( 7,504)Women at risk of domestic violence: 11% (2,587)Mental health problems: 9.3%( 2,183)



Most common previous accommodation:Rough sleeping


33

1

2

3

84

56

7

9

7. South West


Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless with support needs: 22.9%( 4,915)Mental health problems: 10.2%( 2,203)Women at risk of domestic violence: 9.3%( 1,999)




8. West Midlands


Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless with support needs: 31.8%( 8,136)Generic: 14.3%( 3,651)Women at risk of domestic violence: 13%( 3,336)




9. North West


Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless with support needs: 34.3%( 11,184)Homeless families: 11.6%( 3,794)Women at risk of domestic violence: 9%( 2,929)




ENGLAND


Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless with support needs: 30.1%(60,873)Women at risk of domestic violence: 10.2%( 20,629)Mental health problems: 8.7%( 17,584)


Statutorily homeless: 28.9%( 58,474)



34

2.4 Ethnic Origins

White-British represented the ethnic origin for the majority of support users (75%). There were noticeabledifferences in the characteristics of White-British clients compared with those of BME ethnic groups.

• BME clients tended to be younger than clients of White-British origins. More than two-fifths ofmixed-Caribbean clients fell into the 18-24 age bracket, compared to 28% of White-British clients.

• Clients of Black-African origin made up more than two-fifths of refugees while people of Asian orAsian-British origin made up slightly more than one-fifth.

• People of Black-Caribbean or Black-African origins constituted almost a tenth of clients recordedwith generic needs.

• White-Irish clients made up 12% of travellers while Black-African, Black-Caribbean and White Irishclients together made up 11% of rough sleepers.

• Almost a tenth of homeless families were people of Black-African origin while people of Black-Caribbean origin made up a further 3%.

• White-British (42%) and Black-African (33%) clients constituted the majority of clients with HIV/AIDS.

• BME groups represented 24% of women at risk of domestic violence with the largest proportion ofBME clients of Asian-Pakistani origin (5%).

• Almost one-tenth of single homeless people with support needs were either of Black-African orBlack-Caribbean origins.


Although providers are required to categorise clients starting to receive Supporting People services into anappropriate primary group, the Client Record System provides the opportunity for providers to expand onthe description of problems that clients are experiencing by giving the option to add additional categoriesfor each client, to a maximum of three additional categories. This is especially important for clients whohave complex or multiple needs, as this additional information can contribute to a clearer understanding ofthe extent of support that clients may require. The primary client group category is intended to identifythe immediate or most acute problem affecting a client about to receive support in order that the supportprovided is adequate in meeting the needs likely to arise. The secondary client group category can aid inengaging services aimed at meeting the wider or additional problems facing clients. For example, a personmay be sleeping rough but feel that their most acute problem is their drug dependency and thereforerequire immediate support with their dependency before support that would enable them to access suitableaccommodation.

Client Record data reveals that, out of the 202,554 clients recorded, approximately half (102,648) weredefined by one or more secondary descriptions in addition to a primary description. Relatively few clients(4%) were assigned three secondary descriptions. [Table 2.3], [Figure 2.16], [Table 2.4]


35

Table 2.3: Number of secondary descriptions

Count %

0 Secondary descriptions 99,906 49.31 Secondary description 73,766 36.42 Seconary descriptions 21,873 10.83 Secondary descriptions 7,009 3.5

Total 202,554 100

20 30100

Figure 2.16: Proportion of primary client groups with one or more secondary descriptions

Mentally disordered offendersOffenders or at risk of offending


Young people at riskAlcohol problems

Older people with mental health problemsYoung people leaving care

Single homeless with support needsTeenage parents

Mental health problemsFrail elderly


People with HIV/AIDSTraveller


Women at risk of domestic violenceHomeless families with support needs

Generic

50 6040 70 80 90

Percent


36

Table 2.4: Primary client group by secondary client group classification

None One Two Three Total






Generic 11,463 77.3 2,511 16.9 680 4.6 170 1.1 14,824


Drug problems 2,650 27.2 4,695 48.2 1,676 17.2 726 7.4 9,747

Rough sleeper 2,635 32.3 3,317 40.7 1,588 19.5 606 7.4 8,146





Refugees 2,473 61.5 1,299 32.3 224 5.6 27 0.7 4,023


Teenage parents 1,562 50.3 1,260 40.6 236 7.6 48 1.5 3,106

Young people leaving care 719 38.1 847 44.9 338 12.6 84 4.4 1,888

Frail elderly 681 52.7 513 39.7 87 6.7 12 0.9 1,293



Traveller 182 59.7 89 29.2 22 7.2 12 3.9 305

Mentally disordered offenders 28 15.4 78 42.9 42 23.1 34 18.7 182

Total 99,906 49.3 73,766 36.4 21,873 10.8 7,009 3.5 202,554


37

Although the smallest group, mentally disordered offenders were the client group with the highestproportion of clients (85%) defined by secondary descriptions. Secondary problems associated with theseclients were most commonly mental health problems, drug problems, single homelessness and/or alcoholproblems.

The comparison between primary and secondary client groups brings together a combination ofcomplexities associated with specific client groups and aids recognition of the pervasive difficulties that canbe associated with the majority of clients monitored via the Client Record System this year. There is atendency for some client groups to be described by an interrelated combination of factors, for example,clients described as having drug problems had been assigned secondary descriptions which were likely to besingle homelessness with support needs, alcohol problems or offending, similar to the combination ofsecondary descriptions ascribed to single homeless people with support needs and offenders respectively.

People with generic needs were the clients least likely to be assigned one or more secondary descriptions(77% had none).

Whilst the greatest proportion of clients had single homeless with support needs as their primary clientgroup category, single homeless with support needs also defined the secondary problems for the greatestproportion of clients (these clients being defined by primary group categories other than single homelesswith support needs).

There were distinct secondary groupings that characterised primary client groups. The secondary clientgroup categories are completed only where they are necessary to more fully describe the client. Therefore,the following descriptions are based only on clients who were assigned secondary categories.

Single homeless with support needs: the secondary client groupings for single homeless people were varied.The highest-ranking category was young and at risk (7,914), however many were characterised as havingdrug (7,510), alcohol (6,403) or mental health problems (6,304), sleeping rough (6,551) or offending (4,336).

Women at risk of domestic violence: a greater proportion of women were placed as homeless families withsupport needs (2,690), however some were single homeless with support needs (1,414) and/or were describedas having complex needs (1,085).

People with mental health problems: secondary groupings for these clients were again varied, some weresingle homeless with support needs (2,524) and/or with complex needs (2,194) and a number of people withmental health problems were described as having alcohol (1,865) and/or drug problems (1,615).

Homeless families with support needs: women at risk of domestic violence (1,055) characterised a number ofhomeless families. Often families experienced complex needs (1,311).

People with generic needs: with an array of already complex needs, few secondary categories had been usedto describe these clients. However, some clients had been described as having mental health problems (904).

Young people at risk: by far, the most common secondary category for young people at risk was singlehomeless with support needs (5,509)


38

Drug problems: people with drug problems tended to be characterised by being single homeless with supportneeds (2,477) and/or with alcohol problems (2,241) and a number of clients were described as offenders orthose at risk of offending (1,945).

Rough sleeper: four principal secondary client groups characterised a proportion of rough sleepers and thesewere drug problems (1,805), single homeless with support needs (1,749) and/or alcohol (1,600) and/or mentalhealth (974) problems.

Alcohol problems: a similar picture can be drawn for people with alcohol problems with single homeless withsupport needs (1,770), mental health (1,318) and/or drug (1,154) problems as the highest ranking secondaryclient groupings.

Offenders or those at risk of offending: clients in this category fell similarly into the secondary groupings ofexperiencing drug problems (2,137), single homeless with support needs (1,601) and/or alcohol problems(1,077).

Older people with support needs: a proportion of older people with support needs were described as frailelderly (1,211) and/or as having physical or sensory disabilities (945).

Physical or sensory disabilities: complex needs (498), older people with support needs (460), mental healthproblems (411) and/or experiencing single homeless with support needs (312) described some of the problemsexperienced by people with physical or sensory disabilities.

Refugees: two principal categories stood out for these clients, single homeless with support needs (787) and/orwith complex needs (262).

Learning disabilities: some people with learning disabilities have an array of complex needs (451) and alsoexperienced mental health problems (448).

Teenage parents: three secondary categories – young people at risk (707), homeless families with support needs(388) and/or single homeless with support needs (304) described a number of teenage parents.

Young people leaving care: two principal categories described a number of these clients as young people atrisk (623) and/or single homeless with support needs (466).

Frail elderly: older people with support needs (423) and/or experiencing physical or sensory disabilities (160)were relatively common secondary categories for frail elderly clients.

Older people with mental health problems: a proportion of these clients were also described as older peoplewith support needs (174), and frail elderly (83).

People with HIV/AIDS: a small number of people with HIV/AIDS were described as having complex needs(74), mental health problems (35) and/or single homeless with support needs (31).

Traveller: some travellers were described as sleeping rough (57) or single homeless with support needs (26).

Mentally disordered offenders: apart from secondary groupings describing these clients as experiencingmental health problems (61) and/or having offending behaviour (28), some mentally disordered offenderswere also categorised as experiencing drug problems (50), were single homeless with support needs (36) and/orhad alcohol problems (31).


39

Table 2.5: Numbers of clients in primary and secondary groups

Primary group Secondary group Total

Single homeless with support needs 60,873 20,459 81,332



Homeless families with support needs 16,935 4,300 21,235



Drug problems 9,747 15,851 25,598

Rough sleeper 8,146 9,950 18,096





Refugees 4,023 2,290 6,313




Frail elderly 1,293 1,752 3,045



Traveller 305 725 1,030


2.6 Overview of clients – recognising the extent of housing-relatedsupport need

The primary client group category is an important method of identifying the prevailing circumstances ofclients. At the same time, the secondary client group category can be equally as important, especially whenused to identify the circumstances surrounding housing-related need amongst what may amount to acomplex array of practical and emotional needs. The secondary client groupings are also useful in that theycan be used to recognize the total number of clients experiencing identifiable problems which are either asa result of or are contributory to housing-related need.

Table 2.5 indicates the numbers of clients in primary groups alongside the number of clients who recordedsecondary groupings in each primary category; the totals for each client group (primary and secondary)illustrate the incidence of each client category.1 Note that clients cannot be assigned the same category as aprimary and a secondary client group.

1 The recording of secondary classification is used only when additional categories are necessary to describe the client.Therefore the information included is based only on clients who were assigned secondary descriptions.


40

Accordingly, whilst 60,873 clients were recorded primarily as single homeless people with support needs,an additional 20,459 clients were recorded with single homeless with support needs as their secondaryclient group. This shows that the actual number of clients with single homeless related support needsrecorded by the Client Record System is 81,332. Similarly, 16,935 clients were described by primary clientgroup category as homeless families with support needs and a further 4,300 homeless families wererecorded in the secondary client groupings making the total homeless family with support needs figure21,235.

Within the secondary client groupings there were 14,079 clients who were experiencing mental healthproblems. Combined with clients within the primary category of people with mental health problems(17,584) this figure is almost doubled bringing the total number of people with mental health problems to31,663.

There were a further 4,024 women at risk of domestic violence found in secondary client groupings.Combined with the numbers within the primary client group (20,629), the numbers of women at risk ofdomestic violence were 24,653.

Although 9,747 clients were described as primarily experiencing drug problems, almost double thosenumbers of clients were assigned drug problems as their secondary client group category (15,851).Combined, these figures show that there were 25,598 clients experiencing drug problems.

Secondary client groupings also revealed a further 11,604 young people at risk doubling the 12,215 figurewithin the primary client group category and bringing the total number of young people at risk to 23,819.

A total of 8,994 offenders or those at risk of offending were found in secondary client groupings increasingthe total figure from 6,253 to 15,247 and indicating a higher frequency of offenders or those at risk ofoffending within the secondary client group category.


41


3.1 Introduction

Clients receiving Supporting People services are not necessarily expected to relocate to specialised housingprovision as Supporting People support is geared towards making housing-related support services moreaccessible regardless of tenure. Therefore, services are available for people from the social rented, privaterented or owner-occupied sectors as well as people who are homeless. The Client Record System recordsthe type of accommodation or living arrangements that clients occupied immediately prior to receivingSupporting People funded support services. For this purpose, ‘immediately prior’ is defined as, literally, theprevious night. This information is crucial for Supporting People practitioners and policy makers who areattempting to monitor the movement of and support provided to particular groups wherever they may liveand whatever their circumstances may be.

In total, 18% of clients monitored by the Client Record System between 1st April 2004 and 31st March2005 were recorded as continuing to live in the accommodation or circumstance they occupiedimmediately prior to receiving a Supporting People service.


This section of the Annual Report lists the top five most common types of living circumstances prior tothe uptake of Supporting People services for clients [Table 3.1] and identifies the most likely client groupsin these circumstances, the referral route and type of services they accessed. This section then goes on toexamine clients who came to Supporting People services from recognised institutions – bed & breakfast,prison, hospital and residential care – before discussing owner-occupier clients.

General needs local authority tenants (15%; 31,069)

People with generic needs (22%), women at risk of domestic violence (18%) and people with mentalhealth problems (13%) made up the majority of clients who were general needs local authority tenantsprior to receiving Supporting People services.

Two-fifths of clients remained in their tenancies and almost half of these clients were either people withgeneric needs (31%) or people with mental health problems (15%) while women at risk of domesticviolence made up only 7%. Almost all of the clients retaining their tenancies received floating supportservices (93%), however, 3% were offered supported housing.

The largest proportion of clients terminating their tenancies were women at risk of domestic violence(26%), followed by people with generic needs (16%) and people with mental health problems (12%). Themajority (76%) of women at risk of domestic violence accessed women’s refuge services while a further16% were provided with floating support elsewhere. Almost three-quarters of people with generic needsterminating their tenancy were provided with floating support elsewhere while 24% were provided withsupported housing. Over three-quarters of people with mental health problems were also provided withfloating support elsewhere and a further 15% of these clients received supported housing.

In the main, clients were either referred by their local authority housing department (32%) or nominatedby their local housing authority (18%).


42

Table 3.1: Type of accommodation prior to and following receipt of SP services

Accommodation Clients remaining in their prior to receiving prior accommodation

SP services after receiving services# % # %

General needs local authority tenant 31,069 15.4 12,933 36.3

Living with family 28,900 14.4 2,421 6.8

Rough sleeping 19,948 9.9 600 1.7

Staying with friends 19,130 9.5 1,018 2.9

Supported housing 14,202 7.1 1,136 3.2

General needs RSL/HA tenant 13,199 6.6 6,250 17.5

Private rented 12,691 6.3 2,559 7.2

Direct access hostel 12,563 6.2 1,363 3.8

Any other temp accommodation 10,377 5.2 1,435 4.0

Bed and breakfast 9,364 4.7 1,167 3.3

Other 8,138 4.0 767 2.2

Owner occupier 5,452 2.7 1,908 5.4

Prison 5,354 2.7 376 1.1

Hospital 3,957 2.0 348 1.0

Sheltered housing 1,746 0.9 845 2.4

Residential care home 1,403 0.7 105 0.3

Children’s home/foster care 1,155 0.6 80 0.2

Approved probation hostel 1,096 0.5 97 0.3

Short life housing 981 0.5 157 0.4

Tied home or renting with job 431 0.2 54 0.2

Total 201,156 100 35,619 100

missing 1,398 0.7 126 0.4total 202,554 100 35,746 100

Living with family (14%; 28,900)

Clients who were recorded as living with family prior to receiving services were likely to be single homelesspeople with support needs (38%), young people at risk (13%) and homeless families in need of support(13%). As clients began to receive services, almost all moved on from living with their family. More thantwo-fifths of clients were accepted into supported housing.

Slightly less than one-fifth of clients were provided with direct access hostel accommodation, over half ofwhom were single homeless people with support needs though a further 12% were young people at riskand a further 12% were homeless families with support needs.


43

The largest proportion of clients who had been living with family accessed services by means of self-referral(28%) while together, local authority housing department referrals (22%) and housing authoritynominations (11%) accounted for a third of referrals.

Sleeping rough (10%; 19,948)

As to be expected, almost three-quarters of people sleeping rough prior to uptake of services were singlehomeless people with support needs (47%) and rough sleepers (27%).

Only 3% of clients were recorded as still sleeping rough after receiving services, however, almost one-thirdof these clients made use of direct access hostels while 29% were provided with floating support and 28%were accepted into supported housing. For those clients who were no longer recorded as sleeping rough,well over half were accommodated in direct access hostels and a third had been accepted into supportedhousing.

Clients making self-referrals (46%) or referrals from voluntary agencies (20%) characterised the mostcommon referral route for people sleeping rough prior to receiving services, regardless of whether or notthey were classified as persistent rough sleepers.

Staying with friends (10%; 19,130)

Single homeless people with support needs (51%), young people at risk (10%) and homeless families (8%)accounted for the majority of clients staying with friends prior to receiving services.

Almost all (95%) clients were provided with services that allowed them to move on from staying withfriends. Over two-fifths of all clients were provided with supported housing, 28% made use of direct accesshostel accommodation and 15% received floating support elsewhere.

The referral route for almost two-fifths of clients was self-referral while almost one-fifth of clients werereferred by their local housing department and 14% by voluntary agencies.


Immediately before receiving services, 7% of clients were living in supported accommodation and almost athird of these were single homeless people with support needs while 14% were people with mental healthproblems, 8% were women at risk of domestic violence and 7% were young people at risk.

A minority (8%) of clients remained in supported housing after receiving services. The largest proportionof these clients were made up of single homeless people with support needs (24%) and people with mentalhealth problems (18%). More than two-fifths of these clients received supported housing as their supportservice.

The majority of clients leaving their prior supported housing accommodation were provided withsupported housing elsewhere (62%).

The main referral routes were internal transfer (28%), self-referral (15%), through voluntary agencies(13%), or through local authority housing departments (11%).


44

Table 3.2: Client groups who were living in B&B prior to receivingSP services

Count %


Homeless families with support needs 1,834 19.6




Generic 416 4.4



Refugees 201 2.1









Traveller 14 0.1

Frail elderly 9 0.1



Total 9,364 100


Bed and breakfast (5%; 9,364)

Single homeless people with support needs (34%) and homeless families (20%) together accounted for themajority of clients recorded as living in bed and breakfast accommodation before receiving a SupportingPeople service. [Table 3.2]

After qualifying for Supporting People services, the majority (88%) did not remain in thisaccommodation. Slightly more than half of clients were provided with supported housing and almost one-fifth received floating support elsewhere. However, 16% of clients took up places in other temporaryaccommodation in the form of direct access hostels.


45

On the whole, 60% of homeless families in B&B’s and almost half of single homeless people with supportneeds in B&B’s were provided with supported housing. The second most common type of service for theseclient groups was different with homeless families with support needs more likely to receive floatingsupport while single homeless people with support needs were more likely to receive direct accessaccommodation. [Figure 3.1]

In total, 13% of clients remained in B&B accommodation after receiving a service and more than two-thirdsof those were provided with floating support while a further 14% were taking part in a resettlement programme.

Clients were generally referred for services by local authority housing departments (40%) or nominated bytheir local housing authority (20%).

Prison (3%; 5,354)

Single homeless people with support needs (38%), offenders or those at risk of offending (31%) andpeople with drug problems (16%) made up the majority of clients who were in prison immediately prior toreceiving Supporting People services.

Almost all (93%) clients were released from prison prior to uptake of service provision, the majority (60%)having been referred by the Probation or Prison services, though 16% self-referred. More than half ofclients on release were provided with supported housing while almost a further third made use of directaccess hostel accommodation.

The largest proportion of those clients remaining in prison and qualifying for Supporting People supportwere referred to services via the Probation or Prison service (65%) and a further 17% were referred by theirlocal authority housing department. These clients were mainly provided with either floating support (53%)or supported housing (18%).

15 20 25 Percent

301050

Resettlement Direct access hostel Outreach Floating support Supported housing



Homeless families with support needs

35 40 45 50 55 60


46

Hospital (2%; 3,957)

Together, people with mental health problems (44%) and single homeless people with support needs(26%) accounted for almost three-quarters of all clients who received Supporting People servicesimmediately on discharge from hospital. A further 9% of clients who had been in hospital prior toreceiving services were people with drug or alcohol problems.

Two-thirds of people with mental health problems were provided with supported housing and over a tenthreceived floating support. While the largest proportion of people with drug (42%) or alcohol problems(51%) were also provided with supported housing, the second most common support service for thesegroups was direct access hostel accommodation (21% of people with alcohol problems and 24% of peoplewith drug problems). However, direct access hostel accommodation was the most likely form of supportfor the majority of single homeless people with support needs (51%) while only 32% received supportedhousing.

There were variations between referral arrangements for these client groups. Community Mental HealthTeams, (46%), Social Services (16%) and health services or general practitioners (GP) (13%) were mostlikely to refer people with mental health problems to Supporting People services. A fifth of people withdrug problems were referred by Social Services and a further fifth were referred by their GP. More thanone-fifth of clients with alcohol problems self-referred, however, combined referrals from GPs and SocialServices made up almost two-fifths of referrals for these clients. The most common referral route for singlehomeless people was local authority housing departments (23%), self-referrals (23%) and GP referrals(15%). [Table 3.3]

Table 3.3: The referral routes for client groups who were discharged from hospital

Mental health Drug Alcohol Singleproblems problems problems homeless

# % # % # % # %

Community Mental Health Team 798 46.0 10 5.7 9 4.6 98 9.6

Social Services 284 16.4 35 19.9 37 18.9 58 5.7

Health service/GP 230 13.3 35 19.9 40 20.4 150 14.7

LA housing department (referral) 172 9.9 12 6.8 21 10.7 232 22.7

Nominated by local housing authority 75 4.3 12 6.8 12 6.1 109 10.7

Self referral/Direct application 58 3.3 27 15.3 44 22.4 230 22.5

Other 70 4.0 17 9.7 14 7.1 59 5.8

Voluntary agency 28 1.6 11 6.3 12 6.1 46 4.5

Probation service/Prison 7 0.4 12 6.8 2 1.0 11 1.1

Internal transfer 8 0.5 2 1.1 4 2.0 9 0.9

Police 1 0.1 1 0.6 1 0.5 19 1.9

Moving from another RSL 1 0.1 1 0.6

Total 1,733 100 176 100 196 100 1,023 100


47


Four principal primary client groups – people with drug problems (22%), mental health problems (22%),learning disabilities (15%) and alcohol problems (11%) – accounted for the majority of clients coming toSupporting People services from residential care homes.

Two-fifths of these clients were referred to support services by Social Service departments.

The majority (63%) of prior residential care clients were provided with supported housing and a further15% with floating support. However, residential care was recorded as the support service for 12% ofclients.

3.4 Owner-occupiers (3%; 5,452)

The Supporting People Programme is intended to sever the link between support and tenure ensuring thatmarginalized and previously excluded groups have access to the type of support that will help reducevulnerability and maintain independence. Previously it had been difficult for people who owned their ownhome to access appropriate support to help them to remain in their home or to establish more appropriatesupported accommodation. Funding for the programme focuses on the needs of clients rather than beinglinked to property or any particular tenure and as a result, owner-occupiers are eligible for targetedhousing-related support.

Overall, the Client Record System recorded 5,452 clients who were owner-occupiers prior to receivingSupporting People support and this figure amounted to 3% of all clients.

Women at risk of domestic violence were far more likely to have been owner-occupiers than any otherprimary client group (35%) prior to receiving a Supporting People support service. More than one-third ofowner-occupiers were able to remain in their property on acceptance of housing related support viaSupporting People.

Partially, as a consequence of the high incidence of women at risk of domestic violence within the owner-occupier domain, floating support (50%), refuge provision (21%) and supported housing (15%)characterise the pattern of support provided to these clients.

Almost a third of referrals were made on a self-referral basis. Social Services (15%) and voluntary agencies(11%) took up a further quarter of referrals for previous owner-occupiers.


48


49

Table 4.1: Support service provision

Count %


Floating support 63,278 31.2

Direct access 39,058 19.3


Resettlement service 6,452 3.2

Foyer 4,095 2.0

Outreach service 2,861 1.4


Supported lodgings 1,880 0.9

Teenage parent accommodation 444 0.2


Total 202,554 100


4.1 Introduction

The Client Record System monitors a range of services funded by Supporting People that provide differinglevels of housing-related support for vulnerable clients. Some services provide accommodation withsupport on a very temporary basis and some for longer periods of time. For example many direct accesshostels provide accommodation and support for clients on a nightly or weekly basis while other forms ofsupport provide more flexible lengths of stay such as supported housing schemes. Floating support andoutreach services provide clients with non-residential support in their own homes and this type of supportis contracted for varying lengths of time according to the needs of clients. This section describes the mostcommon types of support provided to clients in 2004/05 and goes on to report on the balance of provisionand the routes by which clients were able to access services.


Although the Client Record System monitors fifteen different types of support provision, three principalcategories of support – supported housing (34%), floating support (31%) and direct access (19%) – made upover four-fifths of service provision during this second year of the Supporting People programme. [Table4.1]


50

Figure 4.1 illustrates a clear linear relationship between age and the type of service clients received for thetwo most common categories of support provision. For adults, the percentage of clients receiving floatingsupport increased as age increased, however, the opposite was true for supported housing; as age increased,fewer clients were likely to have been provided with accommodation and support in supported housingschemes.


Almost two-fifths of all Supporting People services were provided by voluntary organisations, 29% ofwhich was temporary accommodation in direct access hostels. Housing associations/RSLs provided thesecond largest proportion (32%) of services to clients and more than half of these services were supportedhousing schemes. Housing authority services made up 16% of support provision and almost half of thissupport was in the form of floating support services. [Figure 4.2]

Combined, floating support and supported housing made up half of all support provided by voluntaryagencies.

Perc

ent

16-17 18-24 25-31 32-38 39-45 46-52 53-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80+0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80



Floating support services were provided to almost two-fifths of female clients while only one-quarter ofmale clients received this form of support. However, 38% of males were accepted into supported housingschemes, compared to only 28% of females. Also, 28% of males received direct access accommodationcompared to 10% of females.


51

Floating support services accounted for a quarter and direct access 11% of housing association/RSLsservice provision.

Almost one-fifth of services provided by housing authorities were direct access hostels and one-fifth weresupported housing schemes.


Very nearly a quarter of clients accessed services by means of self-referral. Local authority housingdepartments referred just over one-fifth of clients and over a tenth of clients were referred by voluntaryagencies. [Figure 4.3]

30 40 50 Percent

6020100






70 80 90 100

15 Percent

20 25 301050




OtherSocial Services

Internal transferProbation service/Prison





52


Almost a third of referrals accepted by voluntary agencies were self-referrals. Voluntary agencies alsoaccepted almost one-fifth of referrals from other voluntary organisations.

Just over a fifth of referrals accepted by housing associations/RSLs were self-referrals, 16% were acceptedfrom local authority housing departments (referrals process) and a further 12% from voluntary agencies.

Only 19% of referrals accepted by housing authorities were self-referrals while a further half were referralsfrom local authority housing departments.


Social Services referred almost a tenth of clients to Supporting People services, almost two-fifths of whichwere to voluntary organisations and a further 35% to housing associations/RSLs.

Probation and Prison services referred 5% of clients (41% were to voluntary organisations while a further51% were to housing associations/RSLs).

Together, Community Mental Health Teams and the health service or GPs referred almost 5% of clients.Over two-fifths of health service/GP referrals and two-fifths of Community Mental Health Team referralswere to voluntary organisations.


Table 4.2: Frequency of clients in each Government office region

Client Records Estimated Percentage of resident population resident population

Count % for England 2 receiving support

London 33,539 16.6 7,429,200 0.45

North West 32,615 16.1 6,827,200 0.48

West Midlands 25,759 12.6 5,334,000 0.48

South East 23,548 11.6 8,110,200 0.29

South West 21,498 10.6 5,038,200 0.43

Yorkshire & the Humber 21,232 10.5 5,038,800 0.42

East Midlands 17,945 8.9 4,279,700 0.42

East of England 16,990 8.4 5,419,300 0.31

North East 9,608 4.7 2,545,100 0.38

England total 202,554 100.0 50,093,800 0.4


53

Table 4.2 2 illustrates the numbers of clients in each Government office region. Although the South East isthe fourth region in terms of the numbers of clients recorded by Client Records, population estimates forthe South East shown in Table 4.2 indicate that proportionately, this region provides support to the fewestclients. London (17%) and the North West (16%) each shared larger numbers of clients compared to otherregions, for example, the North East, whose client base made up only 5% of those recorded by ClientRecords.

Although supported housing, floating support and direct access hostels were the most common forms ofsupport provided there were slight variations between regions. In the West Midlands (38%), North East(38%) and East Midlands (36%), floating support services as opposed to supported housing, were theservices supporting the greatest number of clients.

Similarly, although voluntary organisations and housing associations/RSLs, England-wide, between themprovided well over two-thirds of Supporting People client support, proportionally, there was some variationbetween regions for these providers. Voluntary organisations dominated service provision in Yorkshire &the Humber (49%), the North East (44%), and West Midlands (44%), while housing associations/RSLsprovided a greater than average proportion of services in the South East (46%) and the East of England(44%).

The largest category of referral in London and the North East was local authority department referral(30% and 23% respectively) while in all other regions the largest referral route was through self-referral.

2 Resident population estimates reported in this table are taken from Mid-2003 Population Estimates: Quinary age groups andsex for health areas in England, estimated resident population, published by National Statisticshttp://www.nationalstatistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D9092.xls


54


55


5.1 Introduction

The Supporting People Programme aims to meet the needs of people who for one reason or another havecause to access services outside of their own local authority area or who have no local connection to thelocal authority area in which a service they require is situated. For example, some clients may requirespecialist services, such as people with mental health problems or very complex needs, which are notavailable or where there is insufficient need in their own local authority area due to insufficient demand.Some clients may have a need that can only be met by provision in authorities other than their own localauthority, for example, women at risk of domestic violence or ex-offenders released from a prison in an areaoutside their own community. Often however, clients accessing support services are extremely mobilehaving not set down roots in any particular area.

This section explores the arrangements in place to support clients in circumstances such as those describedabove by firstly describing the types of referrals open to clients and the numbers of clients accessing servicesvia the various referral routes. Section 5.2 examines the extent to which providers of services accept clientsfrom these referral routes. Section 5.3 goes on to highlight the most common types of support and howclients access services through the cross-authority route.

The Client Record System requires providers to describe the type of referral route that enabled their clients’access to services. The intention is to obtain details about whether or not clients were living in theadministering authority area in which the service is located immediately prior to starting to receive theservice. There are two main types of referral arrangements:

Host referrals apply to clients who receive services in their own local authority area or clients whowere living in an area immediately prior to receiving a service.

Non-Host referrals apply to clients who lived out-with the local authority area and who immediatelyprior to receiving the service were not residing in the area where the service is located.


Multi-lateral referrals apply to administering authorities where there is an agreed protocol betweentwo or more administering authorities relating to a specific service. Such a protocol would mean thata client from any of these administering authorities can be accepted by the service involved. Theseauthorities may have agreed to fund a service jointly, or agreed for the service to accept clients fromthe areas covered by all the administering authorities within the agreed protocol.

Spot purchasereferrals apply when the administering authority, in whose area a client was living immediately priorto receiving the service, purchases a service for an individual client from a different administeringauthority. This differs from a multi-lateral agreement in that it is an ad hoc purchase at an individuallevel, normally to secure a placement in an extremely specialised service outside the administeringauthority area. Costs continue to be the responsibility of the original administering authority makingthe purchase.

Structured referrals apply to referrals made by statutory agencies, such as the Probation service orSocial Services. These referrals are often for those clients who cannot be expected to remain in their


56

local authority area and so would receive a service in another administering authority area. Thisoption differs from spot purchase as structured referrals are made to services that are funded by theauthority in which the service is located.

Open access referrals apply where a client accesses a service in another administering authority areaeither by self-referral or on advice from a voluntary agency. These types of referrals apply where thereis no formal referral arrangement.

Overall, well over four-fifths of referrals were made for clients who made an application for SupportingPeople services within their own local authority. Therefore, less than a fifth of clients accessed servicesoutside their immediate local authority and by far, the most common type of non-host referral was openaccess. [Table 5.1]


The three most common types of service provider were voluntary organisations (39%), housingassociations (32%) and housing authorities (16%).

Almost one quarter of referrals accepted by voluntary organisations were non-host referrals. Proportionally,this compares to 15% of housing association/RSL acceptances and only 3% of housing authorityacceptances.

Non-host open access referrals constituted almost a fifth of referrals accepted by voluntary organisations,9% of referrals accepted by housing associations/RSLs and 2% of referrals accepted by housing authorities.

Of all structured referrals, almost all were accepted by voluntary (56%) organisations and housingassociations/RSL’s (40%).

For clients referred through multi-lateral protocols, 46% of services were provided by voluntaryorganisations, 39% by housing associations/RSLs and a further 9% by housing authorities.

The majority (59%) of spot purchase referrals were accepted by voluntary organisations, while housingassociations/RSLs accepted a further 32%.

Table 5.1: Type of referral

Count %

Host 172,623 85.2




Non-Host: Open Access 20,820 10.3

Total 202,554 100


57



Overall, supported housing received 67,815 referrals accounting for just over one-third of all referrals thisyear. Less than a tenth of these were non-host open-access referrals directly from clients accessing servicesoutside their own local authority area. [Table 5.2] More than two-fifths of open access referrals tosupported housing were made by single homeless people with support needs; people with drug problems(10%), young people at risk (9%), people with alcohol problems (7%) and rough sleepers (5%) accountedfor almost a further third.

In total, 3% of referrals to supported housing were non-host structured referrals. Almost one-third ofstructured referrals were made on behalf of offenders or those at risk of offending while 27% of structuredreferrals were made for single homeless people with support needs and a further 12% for people with drugproblems.

A minority (2%) of referrals allowed clients access to supported housing via multi-lateral protocol systemsand these clients were more likely to be single homeless people with support needs (39%), young people atrisk (12%) and people with alcohol problems (8%).

Similarly, few referrals were spot purchases (1%) made to supported housing and these were mainly onbehalf of single homeless people with support needs (21%), people with drug (19%) or alcohol (17%)problems or people with mental health problems (16%).


Floating support services accepted 63,278 clients, which accounted for 31% of all referrals this year.Almost all services were delivered to clients within their own local authority (host referrals – 98%). [Table5.2] However a minority of referrals were non-host open access referrals (1%), just over a quarter of whomwere single homeless people with support needs. Women at risk of domestic violence (11%) and peoplewith mental health problems (9%) were able to self-access floating support in an area other than their ownlocal authority.


Supported Housing Floating Support Direct Access

# % # % # %

Host 58,173 85.8 62,134 98.2 30,880 79.1

Non-Host: Open Access 6,068 8.9 767 1.2 7,133 18.3

Non-Host: Structured 2,143 3.2 185 0.3 639 1.6


Non-Host: Spot Purchase 399 0.9 38 0.1 71 0.2

Total 67,815 100 63,278 100 39,058 100


58


There were 39,058 referrals to direct access hostel accommodation this year making up almost a fifth of allreferrals. Proportionately, more non-host clients were referred to direct access accommodation (21%) thanto either supported housing (14%) or floating support (2%). Almost one-fifth of referrals to direct accesswere made by clients on their own behalf via open access. [Table 5.2] Although the majority (63%) ofthese clients were single homeless people with support needs, another 17% were rough sleepers.


Although residential care homes received a minority (1%) of referrals, residential care accepted the largestproportion of non-host referrals (60%) and almost one-third of referrals were non-host spot purchases.People with drug problems (61%) accounted for the majority of residential care spot-purchases followed bypeople with alcohol problems (34%).

Open access referrals made up 12% of referrals to residential care for people with alcohol (50%), and drugproblems (35%).

Structured referrals made up 5% of the referrals to residential care homes. The majority of these referralswere for clients with alcohol problems (56%) or drug problems (20%), with an additional 14% for clientswith physical or sensory disabilities.


Compared to the national average of 15% for non-host referrals, London had the highest proportion ofthis type of referral (22%). The East Midlands and Yorkshire & the Humber had the lowest levels of non-host referrals (9% & 10%, respectively).

While London had the highest level of open-access referrals (16%), Yorkshire & the Humber (6%) and theEast Midlands (6%) had the lowest.

The regions with the highest levels of structured referrals were the North East (5%), North West (3%),South East (3%) and South West (3%).

Multi-lateral protocols were infrequent across England (1%). However, this type of referral arrangementwas more common in London (3%) than in any other region.

Similarly, spot purchase referrals constituted only 1% of all referrals in England with the North East (3%)having the greatest proportion and the West Midlands the least (0.1%).

Map 5.1 shows a summary of cross-authority information by Government office region.


59

1. North East



Number of clients who have left their host administeringauthority area to receive services: 1,793


Number of cross-authority referrals accepted byproviders: 1,866







3. East Midlands






4. East of England






5. London






6. South East








60

1

2

3

84

56

7

9

7. South West






8. West Midlands






9. North West



Number of clients who have left their host administeringauthority area to receive services 5,082



10. England



Number of clients starting to receive services fromproviders in their own administering authority:172,623



61

6 Homelessness

6.1 Introduction

Supporting People aims to tackle homelessness by focusing on prevention and providing those that arehomeless with access to and support in maintaining a home. This section of the report examines the typesof clients and the circumstances of clients accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessnessduty.

The Client Record System records information on clients who have been accepted as statutorily homelessand owed a main homelessness duty under the current homeless legislation (2002 Homelessness Act). Thelegislation defines ‘owed a main homelessness duty’ as one of the following:

• A pregnant woman or person with dependent child(ren) or someone she/he might reasonably beexpected to live with;


• A person vulnerable for some other special reason including consideration of all personalcircumstances;





Households accepted as statutorily homeless will have been assessed by a local authority as in priority needand will qualify for re-housing either in council housing or RSL/HA housing. Homeless people qualifyingfor assistance will generally be deemed as vulnerable in a way where they cannot be expected to fend forthemselves. Under this legislation, some homeless households not regarded as having a priority need (orregarded as being intentionally homeless) do not qualify for assistance. This section includes only thoseclients who have been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.


Overall, less than a third of clients recorded by the Client Record System were accepted as statutorilyhomeless and owed a main homelessness duty.


62

Single homeless people with support needs constituted almost two-fifths of all clients accepted asstatutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty. Slightly more than one-fifth of statutorilyhomeless clients were homeless families with support needs and women at risk of domestic violence madeup a further 13%. [Figure 6.1]

Combined, living with family (19%), staying with friends (12%), sleeping rough (9%) or in direct accesshostels (9%) described the living conditions of statutorily homeless clients immediately prior to receivingSupporting People services, however, there were distinct variations between genders. There was a greaterproportion of females living with family or in general needs local authority housing than males and therewas a greater proportion of males in hostels or sleeping rough compared to females. [Figure 6.2]

Overall, 8% of statutorily homeless clients were in B&B accommodation prior to receiving services and71% of those were made up of single homeless people with support needs (34%), homeless families withsupport needs (25%) and young people at risk (12%).

15 20 Percent

25 301050





Drug problemsRefugees

Alcohol problemsTeenage parents

GenericOffenders or at risk of offending



TravellerPeople with HIV/AIDS

Mentally disordered offendersFrail elderly


35 40


63


There were distinct regional variations in the proportions of statutorily homeless clients across England.The North West (37%) and London (34%) had proportions of statutorily homeless clients that were wellabove the national average (29%). In contrast, the East Midlands (20%) and Southern regions hadsubstantially lower proportions of clients who were statutorily homeless (South West, 21% and South East,24%).

Perc

ent


1009080706050403020100

Female



Private rented


Owner occupier

Supported housing


Sheltered housing


Hospital



Bed and breakfast

Short life housing

Living with family



Rough sleeping

Other

Male


64


65


7.1 Introduction

Supporting People is a programme designed to develop links with other statutory frameworks – the NHS,Probation Service and Social Services – in order to ensure that it meets the wide range of needs likely to beassociated with vulnerable people. Collecting information on clients who are receiving support via otherstatutory frameworks can aid in understanding those needs for those responsible for implementingappropriate services and preventative measures.

Currently, information is recorded on five existing frameworks including some that are reserved for high-risk clients. Table 7.1 illustrates the percentage of clients that had been accepted under each of theseframeworks. Following this, each framework is discussed and analysed with regard to the types of clientsaccepted as requiring these services and the support that was provided to them via Supporting People.


Care Management (Social Services) (8%; 16,588)

Clients accepted as requiring services under the Social Services Care Management framework either havebeen allocated a social worker or are eligible for social work assistance. Under this framework, clients havean individual care plan in addition to receiving a package of services organised through Social Services.

In total, 42% of young people leaving care and 41% of people with learning disabilities were supported viaCare Management. Rough sleepers and travellers were the client groups least likely to be supportedthrough this type of framework. [Figure 7.1]

Table 7.1: Clients requiring services under statutory frameworks

Yes No Don’t Know

# % # % # %

Accepted as requiring CareManagement (Social Services) 16,588 8.2 137,498 67.9 48,468 23.9

Accepted as requiring CareProgramme Approach (CPA) 9,817 4.8 142,984 70.6 49,753 24.6

Accepted as requiring Probationservice or Youth Offending Teams 13,594 6.7 143,827 71.0 45,133 22.3

Assessed under Care ProgrammeApproach (enhanced) 4,186 2.1 145,584 71.9 52,784 26.1

Assessed under Multi-AgencyPublic Protection Arrangements 1,572 0.8 148,746 73.4 52,236 25.8


66

Although the majority of clients supported by Care Management received floating support (36%) orsupported housing (35%), slightly less than a tenth were provided with accommodation and support inresidential care homes. People with drug (39%) or alcohol (36%) problems, the frail elderly (10%) andpeople with mental health problems (6%) made up almost all of those accepted into residential care.


The Probation Service or Youth Offending Teams support clients who are under supervision or requireyouth offending services.

Four principal client groups – offenders/those at risk of offending (34%), single homeless people withsupport needs (32%), people with drug problems (14%) and young people at risk (5%) – made up overfour-fifths of clients subject to Probation or Youth Offending Team supervision.

Over half of offenders/those at risk of offending subject to probation/supervision were accepted intosupported housing and almost two-fifths were provided with floating support or resettlement services.There were no observable differences between single homeless people with support needs who were subjectto Probation or Youth Offending Team supervision and those who were not with regard to serviceprovision. However, although almost half of single homeless clients with support needs who were subjectto supervision were accepted into supported housing, almost a further two-fifths made use of direct accesshostels.

15 20 25 Percent

301050



Older people with mental health problemsFrail elderly

Physical or sensory disabilitiesPeople with HIV/AIDSMental health problems

Older people with support needsMentally disordered offenders

Drug problemsAlcohol problems

Young people at riskTeenage parents

Women at risk of domestic violenceGeneric


Offenders or at risk of offendingRefugeesTraveller

Rough sleeper

35 40 45 50


67

Supported housing (49%), floating support (20%) and direct access hostels (17%) were the main supportservices provided to clients with drug problems who were subject to supervision. A greater proportion ofyoung people not under supervision were provided with floating support compared to those who wereunder supervision.

There were distinct differences between young people at risk subject to Probation or Youth OffendingTeam supervision and those who were not with regard to service provision. Almost a quarter of youngpeople under supervision were provided with temporary accommodation in direct access compared to only16% of young people not under supervision. [Figure 7.2]

Care Programme Approach (CPA) (5%; 9,817)

Clients subject to the CPA are usually those experiencing severe and enduring mental illness. The CPAapproach provides a network of care in the community through a key worker system. The aim is tominimise the risk of clients losing contact with services. Clients are normally under the care of thesecondary mental health service (health and social care) and are provided with a package of care that hasbeen agreed upon by members of the team, GPs, service user and their carers.

Slightly more than two-fifths of people with mental health problems were receiving CPA care packages,almost half of these clients received supported housing and more than a further two-fifths received floatingsupport. Clients who were not supported through CPA were more likely to receive floating support (55%)than supported housing (28%), while 11% made use of direct access hostels.

Less than a third of older people with mental health problems were subject to the CPA and 78% of theseclients received floating support.

Perc

ent


50454035302520151050




68

Of all clients described as mentally disordered offenders, only 29% were subject to CPA. Of those, 58%were provided with floating support while a further 37% were accepted into supported housing schemes.


Care Programme Approach {CPA enhanced}(2%; 4,186)

The enhanced CPA is intended for clients who require more frequent and intensive interventions, perhapswith medical management. Clients assessed under this framework are more likely to have a dual diagnosis,more likely to be at risk of harming themselves and more likely to disengage with services.

Well over two-thirds of clients accepted as requiring an enhanced CPA were people with mental healthproblems and 46% of these clients accessed supported housing. A further 41% were provided with floatingsupport services. Community Mental Health Teams referred well over half of these clients to services whilea further 17% of clients were referred by Social Services.


Clients subject to Multi-Agency Public Arrangements have been assessed as being a risk to members of thepublic within the community. Clients assessed under this framework include violent and sexual offenders.This section looks at clients who were subject to these arrangements.

Offenders/those at risk of offending (28%), single homeless people with support needs (19%), and peoplewith mental health problems (14%) were the client groups that made up the majority of clients subject toMulti-Agency Public Protection Arrangements.

The majority of offenders/those at risk of offending (51%), people with mental health problems (48%)and single homeless people with support needs (40%) were accepted into supported housing schemes,while floating support services were provided to 33% of people with mental health problems and 28% ofoffenders/those at risk of offending.

However, well over a quarter of single homeless people with support needs entered direct access temporaryaccommodation compared to only 2% of offenders and 6% of people with mental health problems.

Of Offenders/those at risk of offending, 86% had been referred to services by Probations or Prison serviceswhile a minority were referred by the Police (3%) or Youth Offending Team (3%). A further 3% ofreferrals were internal transfers.

More than a quarter of single homeless people with support needs were referred to services via theProbation or Prison service while 18% were referred by their local authority housing department and 12%were referrals from voluntary agencies.

Community Mental Health Teams (35%) and Social Services (26%) referred the majority of people withmental health problems who were subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements.


69


London (12%) and the North East (11%) had the highest proportion of clients supported through SocialServices Care Management. With an average for England of 8%, the West Midlands (5%) had the lowestproportion of clients supported through Care Management.

There was little regional variation around the national average (5%) for clients accepted as requiring theCare Programme Approach (CPA).

However, there was divergence between regions for clients who were subject to Probation or YouthOffending Team supervision. While the average for England as a whole sat at 7%, 12% of clients inYorkshire & the Humber were subject to supervision compared to only 3% of clients in London.

Proportionately, clients assessed as a higher risk were few (3%) and there were no observable regionalvariations.


70


71

8 Comparative Analysis

8.1 Introduction

Since the launch of the Supporting People programme in April 2003, the Client Record System hasrecorded data on new clients accessing Supporting People services and this current Annual Report providesanalysis of data collected over the course of the second year of the programme from April 2004 to March2005.

This section of the report compares the first year’s dataset (2003/04) with the second year’s (2004/05), andidentifies initial trends and key differences that have emerged.

Effectively, while some differences have occurred, the overall picture emerging from data collection so far isone of relatively stable proportions across and within the majority of categories identified on the ClientRecord Form. Notably, client group composition has remained constant with the majority of clients fallinginto one of the same six categories as last year and the majority of clients being supported by the samethree support and provider categories. Furthermore, access routes to Supporting People services are as theywere last year. The stability of the dataset is an indication that this system of data collection is capturing ahighly informative record of new Supporting People clients, support provision and access routes both at anational and local level.

This section will focus on those key differences that have emerged, firstly from a client group perspective,then moving on to support provision and finally key regional variations are highlighted.

8.2 Client groups and support provision

Supported housing and floating support services accounted for almost two-thirds of all support provided toclients in 2004/05. Supported housing has continued to be the most common type of service provision andhas provided relatively the same proportion of support to clients as in 2003/04. In contrast, floatingsupport services have increased by 3% from 28% in 2003/04 to 31% this year. In addition to this, therehas been a decline in the provision of direct access accommodation. [Figure 8.1]

25 Percent

30 35 4020151050

Figure 8.1: Comparison of the main types of service provision

Supported housing

Floating support

Direct access

2004/052003/04


72

This year overall, there has been relatively little change in client group composition and this was reflectedwithin the client groups provided with supported housing. However, the overall increase in floatingsupport is apparent for some client groups and Figure 8.2 illustrates this trend for the top six mostcommon primary groups, with the exception of clients with generic needs, floating support increased forthese clients.

50 60 70 8040 Percent

3020100

Figure 8.2a: Single homeless people with support needs

50 60 70 8040 Percent

3020100

Figure 8.2b: Women at risk of domestic violence

Floatingsupport

Directaccess

Supportedhousing

Floatingsupport

Directaccess

Supportedhousing

Figure 8.2: Changing trends in support provision

50 60 70 8040 Percent

3020100

Figure 8.2c: People with mental health problems

Floatingsupport

Directaccess

Supportedhousing

2004/052003/04

50 60 70 8040 Percent

3020100

Figure 8.2d: Homeless families with support needs

50 60 70 8040 Percent

3020100

Figure 8.2e: People with generic needs

Floatingsupport

Directaccess

Supportedhousing

Floatingsupport

Directaccess

Supportedhousing

50 60 70 8040 Percent

3020100

Figure 8.2f: Young people at risk

Floatingsupport

Directaccess

Supportedhousing


73

While only a minor increase was recorded in the proportion of homeless families with support needsaccepted into supported housing there was a substantially smaller proportion of homeless families makinguse of direct access hostels alongside an equally substantial increase in those provided with floating support.

In general, single homeless people with support needs tend to make greater use of direct access hostels withrelatively few clients receiving floating support and this continues to be the case. Nonetheless, theincreasing trend in floating support services is reflected amongst this client group albeit to a lesser degreeand as such the proportion of these clients making use of direct access this year is marginally smallercompared to last year.

The type of support provided to young people at risk has changed to a large extent compared to 2003/04.A greater proportion of these clients were accepted into supported housing this year (an increase of 6%compared to 2003/04) and there was a substantial drop of 7% in the proportion of young people at riskmaking use of direct access hostels.

People with mental health problems recorded an increase of 5% in the proportion of floating support theyreceived compared to 2003/04.

A greater proportion of single homeless people with support needs who had been sleeping rough and hadnot been accepted as statutorily homeless were provided with supported housing compared to last year(36% compared to 29% in 2003/04), while a smaller proportion were provided with direct access (57%compared to 63% in 2003/04).

The proportion of clients with alcohol problems who had been sleeping rough and had made use of directaccess hostels had risen compared to last year (51% compared to 47% in 2003/04), while a smallerproportion were provided with supported housing (33% compared to 36% last year).

There was a rise of 9% in the proportion of people with learning disabilities receiving floating support(49% compared to 40% in 2003/04) alongside a drop of 7% in the proportion receiving supportedhousing (40% compared to 47% in 2003/04).

A smaller proportion of travellers were provided with supported housing, 45% compared to 58% last yearwhile a larger proportion made use of direct access accommodation, 39% compared to 29% last year.However, the overall numbers of travellers are small and this year those numbers dropped by more thanhalf compared to last year (305 compared to 709 in 2003/04).

8.3 Previous accommodation

Compared to 11% last year, 18% of clients remained in the same accommodation that they occupied priorto accessing Supporting People services.

General needs local authority housing: there was a minor decrease in the proportion of general needs localauthority housing that was occupied by women at risk of domestic violence prior to their uptake of support(18% compared to 20% in 2003/04). However, a greater proportion of women at risk of domestic violencewere able to remain in their tenancy after being provided with support (16% compared to 7% in 2003/04).

Sleeping rough: of the 3 % of clients continuing to sleep rough after accessing support, the most commonservice remained direct access hostels. A larger proportion had been provided with floating support thisyear (28% compared to 18% last year) while a smaller proportion made use of direct accessaccommodation (33% compared to 42%).


74

Supported housing: of clients recorded as remaining in supported housing, a smaller proportion of thosewere people with mental health problems (18% in 2004/05 compared to 23% in 2004/04) and a largerproportion were people with learning disabilities (11% in 2004/05 compared to 5% in 2003/04).

Direct access: compared to last year a greater proportion of clients remaining in hostel accommodationwere provided with floating support (31% compared to 12% last year). The most common service accessedby clients who were in direct access hostels prior to receiving a service was to continue using a direct accesshostel, however, this figure dropped from 78% in 2003/04 to 42% in 2004/05.

Owner-occupier: more than one-third of clients who were owner occupiers were able to remain in theirproperty once accessing support compared to 19% last year.


Primary client group

The proportion of client groups within each region has in the main remained stable with only minorfluctuations. The most prominent changes have occurred in the West Midlands, the North West, Yorkshire& the Humber and the South East.

The proportion of single homeless people with support needs has decreased in Yorkshire & the Humber(34% in 2003/04 compared to 31% in 2004/05), and increased in the West Midlands (28% in 2003/04compared to 32% in 2004/05).

Homeless families have risen by 3% in the North West making this client group the second most commongroup for this region (9% compared to 12% this year).

Statutorily Homeless and owed a main homelessness duty

Overall, there has been a decrease of 2% in the proportion of clients accepted as statutorily homeless thisyear and this is reflected in variations of between 2% and 3% within most regions. However, there was adecline of 6% in the proportion of clients accepted as statutorily homeless in the West Midlands (from35% to 29%) and a decline of 4% in the South East (from 28% to 24%).

Support and Provision

As a result of the increase of floating support services England-wide, there are distinct variations in the typeof support provided regionally. In 2003/04 supported housing was the most common type of support forall regions except the West Midlands and East Midlands. This year the West Midlands, the North East andthe East Midlands provided a greater proportion of floating support services than any other type of service.

The highest proportional increase of floating support regionally was in London with an increase of 7%(from 27% to 34%). Floating support services in the North East increased by 6% (from 32% to 38%), inthe East Midlands by 5% (from 31% to 36%) and by 5% in Yorkshire & the Humber (from 24% to29%). In all other regions floating support increased by 2% or 3% with the exception of the South Westwhere the proportion of all service types remained relatively stable [Figure 8.3].


75

Figure 8.3: Regional variations in the provision of floating support

25 30 35 4020 Percent

151050

North West

West Midlands

South West

South East

London

East of England

East Midlands

Yorkshire & the Humber

North East

2004/052003/04

25 30 35 4020 Percent

151050

North West

West Midlands

South West

South East

London

East of England

East Midlands


North East

2004/052003/04

Figure 8.4: Regional variations in supported housing provision


76

25 30 35 4020 Percent

151050

Figure 8.5: Regional variations in the use of direct access hostels

North West

West Midlands

South West

South East

London

East of England

East Midlands


North East

2004/052003/04

There was very little movement in the proportion of supported housing provided regionally with the mostprominent changes occurring in the North East, Yorkshire & the Humber and the East Midlands. Therewas a decline of 4% (33% to 29%) in the provision of supported housing in the North East, and a declineof 2% (from 37% to 35%) in Yorkshire & the Humber while supported housing increased by 2% (from30% to 32%) in the East Midlands [Figure 8.4].

Similarly, on a regional basis, direct access services have remained relatively stable with the exception ofservices in the East Midlands where direct access decreased by 5% (from 26% to 21%) and in Londonwith a decrease of 4% (from 15% to 11%) and in Yorkshire & the Humber with a decrease of 3% (from27% to 24%) [Figure 8.5].

The North East has decreased its proportion of support provided by housing associations/RSLs (from 27%in 2003/04 to 23% in 2004/05) while also decreasing the proportion of support provided by housingauthorities (from 19% in 2003/04 to 13% in 2004/05). Support provided by ALMOs in the North Easthas increased from 0% in 2003/04 to 12% in 2004/05.


77

Appendix 1



White & Asian Other


Other



f. Refused

8 9 10

11

12 13 14

15 16

17

1 2 3

4 5

1 2 3

1 2 3

6. Ethnic origin of client as defined by client

Primary Secondary

Older people with support needs 1 Older people with support needs 1





Physical or sensory disability 6 Physical or sensory disability 6

Single homeless with support 7 Single homeless with support 7



Offenders or at risk of offending 10 Offenders or at risk of offending 10

Mentally disordered offenders 11 Mentally disordered offenders 11



Women at risk of domestic violence 14 Women at risk of domestic violence 14


Homeless families with support 16 Homeless families with support 16






8a. Has the client been accepted as requiring services under the

following statutory frameworks (respond to each question)




Statutorily homeless & owed a main homelessness duty

8b. Has the client been assessed as a higher risk under the

following (please respond to each question)

Care Programme Approach (enhanced)

Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements










a. Host Host

b. Non-Host Multi-lateral Spot Purchase Structured Open Access

11a. Type of accommodation occupied by the client immediately

prior to receiving the support service?








Sheltered housing or retirement housing 8 Any other temp accom 18



11c. Location of accommodation specified in Q11a


1. Who is the service provider?

Name

2. Type of provider

LSVT 1 ALMO 6Housing association/RSL 2 NHS Trust 7Housing Authority 3 Voluntary Organisation 8Social Services Authority 4 Private Company 9Local Authority - Joint H&SS 5 Individual 10

SERVICE DETAILS Client / Tenant code

Floating support 13

Supported housing 1 Outreach service 14

Residential care home 6 Resettlement service 15

Adult placement 7Supported lodgings 8 Very sheltered housing 2Women’s refuge 9 Sheltered housing with warden 3Foyer 10 Almshouse 4Teenage parent accom 11 Peripatetic warden 5Direct access 12 Leasehold scheme 16

SP Administering Authority

(eg Buckinghamshire)

SP Service ID

4. Start date of client support Day Month Year

service (e.g. 12/04/04)

CLIENT DETAILS

5. CLIENT CHARACTERISTICS. Enter age, sex, economic

status of the client. Enter details of other members of the household who

receive services under the same support plan.



�oneonly



Client Record Form 2004/05 - SUPPORTING PEOPLEFor HA supported housing only - Owning HA Name .......................................................................................

HA Association Code Management Group Code Scheme code

123456123456123456123456123456

Economic status

Full-time work (24 hours

or more per week) 1

Part-time work (less than

24 hours per week) 2


Job seeker 4

Retired 5

Not seeking work 6

Full-time student 7


Child under 16 9

Other adult 0

6 7

PROVIDER DETAILS National Client Record Provider ID 7. Client group by which the client is defined not morethan three

Leave blank

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

Refer to Appendix 3 of the Guidance manual for ONS LA codes

Only complete the post code where accommodation was not temporary

If postcode not known or accommodation was temporary, please tick.

2 3 4 5

1

�

� oneonly

� oneonly

�oneonly

�oneonly

� oneonly

�

do not complete for year 2004/05

� oneonly

3. Type of service

Client

Person 2

Person 3

Person 4

Person 5

Person 6


Yes No Don’t Know

Yes No Don’t Know

Post codeONS LA codeName of local housing authority

�11b. Please if the client continues to live in this accommodation


78

• Please send Client Record Forms for new clients to the Client Record Office at the end ofthe month in which they begin the support service.

• Complete a Client Record Form Batch Header for each month of record forms submitted,and provide full contact details of the most appropriate person in your organisation torespond to queries about the forms.

• Always complete the National Client Record Provider ID and Provider Name. ThisID is supplied by the Client Record Office – please phone the Helpdesk on 01334 461765if you need to check this ID. Please note it is not the same as the Provider Referenceallocated by your Administering Authority nor is it the same as a new 14 character NationalProvider ID which is under development by the ODPM.

• Please complete the Client/Tenant code on every form. This will ensure that you canidentify the form from your own records if the Client Record Office needs to contact youwith queries. Reports to Administering Authorities and the ODPM will be anonymous.

• Always complete the SP Service ID – this appears on the contract schedule for eachservice, and is a numeric code.

• Answer all questions as fully as possible. If the client was not interviewed or refused togive details for any part of Q5-6, please tick the interview refused box and complete theremaining questions.

Q10 Type of Referral - HOST AND NON-HOST: A Quick Guide

Tick one box only

HOST

A referral to a Supporting People service is defined as host when the client was living in theAdministering Authority area where the service is located immediately prior to receiving theservice. For the purposes of the Client Record Form, “immediately prior” refers only to thenight before the client started to receive the service. Please note this question is not about“local connections”.

NON-HOST

A referral is defined as one of the non-host types when the client was living outside theAdministering Authority area where the service is located immediately prior to receiving theservice. You should choose the most appropriate non-host category as follows:

Multi-lateral – a referral made through a protocol between two or more AdministeringAuthorities and where the referral comes from within this group of authorities.

Spot purchase – the new client’s place in the service has been purchased by an AdministeringAuthority other than the one in which the service is located.

Structured – a referral made by a statutory agency where the client was living in a differentAdministering Authority to the one in which the service is located immediately prior to receivingthe service.

Open Access – a self-referral, or referral by a voluntary agency to a service located in adifferent Administering Authority to that in which the client was living immediately prior toreceiving that service.

Please consult the Guidance Manual for the SP Client Record Form manual for furtherexplanation and examples, or contact the Helpdesk on 01334 461765 if you are still unsure.


79

Tables & Figures

Tables

Section TwoTable 2.1 Types of service between statutory homelessness acceptance for single homeless people with

support needs who were living with family or sleeping roughTable 2.2 The support provided to homeless families with support needsTable 2.3 Number of secondary descriptionsTable 2.4 Primary client group by secondary client group classificationTable 2.5 Numbers of clients in primary and secondary groups

Section ThreeTable 3.1 Type of accommodation prior to and following receipt of SP services.Table 3.2 Client groups who were living in B&B prior to receiving SP services.Table 3.3 The referral routes of client groups who were discharged from hospital.

Section FourTable 4.1 Support service provisionTable 4.2 Frequency of clients in each Government office region.

Section FiveTable 5.1 Type of referralTable 5.2 Referral arrangements for supported housing, direct access and floating support.

Section SevenTable 7.1 Clients requiring services under statutory frameworks

Figures

Section TwoFigure 2.1 Primary Client GroupsFigure 2.2 The previous living arrangements of women at risk of domestic violenceFigure 2.3 Pattern of referral arrangements for women at risk of domestic violenceFigure 2.4 People with mental health problems by previous accommodationFigure 2.5 The previous living arrangements of homeless families with support needsFigure 2.6 The economic status of young people at risk by sexFigure 2.7 Proportion of referral type by main sources of referral for people with drug problemsFigure 2.8 The previous living arrangements of offenders or those at risk of offendingFigure 2.9 Older people with support needs by sex and ageFigure 2.10 The support provided to teenage parentsFigure 2.11 Regional variations; proportion of single homeless people with support needs in each

Government office regionFigure 2.12 Regional variations; proportion of women at risk of domestic violence in each Government

office regionFigure 2.13 Regional variations; proportion of people with mental health problems in each Government

office regionFigure 2.14 Regional variations; proportion of homeless families with support needs in each

Government office region


80

Figure 2.15 Regional variations; proportion of young people at risk in each Government office regionFigure 2.16 Proportion of primary client groups with one or more secondary description

Section ThreeFigure 3.1 The main service types provided to homeless families and single homeless with support


Section FourFigure 4.1 The proportion of clients receiving floating support and supported housing within age


Section SixFigure 6.1 Primary client groups accepted as statutorily homelessFigure 6.2 The types of previous living arrangements of statutorily homeless clients by sex

Section SevenFigure 7.1 Proportion of primary client groups subject to Social Services Care ManagementFigure 7.2 Percentage and service type of young people at risk under or not under Probation/Youth

Offending Team supervision

Section EightFigure 8.1 Comparison of the main types of service provisionFigure 8.2 Changing trends in support provisionFigure 8.3 Regional variations in the provision of floating supportFigure 8.4 Regional variations in supported housing provisionFigure 8.5 Regional variations in the use of direct access hostels

Maps


Section 5Map 5.1 Summary of Client Record cross-authority information by Government office region

Centre for Housing Research (CHR) University of St Andrews

1

Supporting People Client Records

Annual Report 2005-2006

CHR – SP Client Record Offi ce� e ObservatoryUniversity of St AndrewsBuchanan GardensSt AndrewsFifeKY16 9LZ


2


3

ContentsExecutive Summary 51 Introduction 11 2 Clients 2.1 Introduction 15 2.2 Client Profi les 16 2.3 Regional variations 30 2.4 Ethnic Origins 34 2.5 Secondary Client Groups 34 2.6 Combining primary and secondary client groups to measure the extent of housing-related support need 39 3 Previous Accommodation 3.1 Introduction 41 3.2 Living arrangements of clients prior to receiving support 41 3.3 Clients accessing services from recognised institutions 44 3.4 Owner-occupiers 47 4 Service provision and referral routes 4.1 Introduction 49 4.2 Categories of support 49 4.3 Providers of support 50 4.4 Source of referral 51 4.5 Regional variations 52 5 Cross-authority provision 5.1 Introduction 55 5.2 Referral systems for cross-authority provision 56 5.3 Services and client referral arrangements 57 5.4 Regional variations 59 5.5 Patterns of client movement within and between Government Offi ce regions 59 5.6 Patterns of client movement between Administering Authorities 656 Homelessness 6.1 Introduction 69 6.2 Statutorily homeless clients 69 6.3 Regional variations 71 7 Statutory frameworks 7.1 Introduction 73 7.2 Statutory frameworks 73 7.3 Clients assessed as a higher risk 76 7.4 Regional variations 76 8 Comparative analysis 8.1 Introduction 79 8.2 Provision of support 79 8.3 Type of support 79 8.4 Homelessness 81 8.5 Cross-authority referrals 82 8.6 Regional variations of Black African clients 83 Appendix 1 – Client Record Form (Version 3 01/04/05) 85Appendix 2 – Patterns of client movement between Administering Authority areas 87Tables & Figures 91


4


5


• � e report is based on 192,271 completed Client Record forms covering the period April 2005 – March 2006 that were validated by 30th August 2006.

• � e Client Record System collects information on twenty-one primary client group categories. Six of these categories account for 72% of clients.

• Single homeless people with support needs were the most frequently recorded client group accounting for almost a third of all clients.

• � e next largest groups were, in decreasing order: women at risk of domestic violence, people with mental health problems, homeless families in need of support, young people at risk and people with generic needs.

• More male (52%) clients were recorded than female.

• � e largest proportion of clients were in the age group of 18-24 years.

• Almost a third of clients were claiming job seekers allowance.

• Just over one-quarter of clients had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

• � e most common previous accommodation category for clients was general needs local authority housing.

• Voluntary agencies provided almost two-fi fths of services to clients.

• � e most common support service provided was supported housing.

• � e most frequent referral route for clients was self-referral.

• Well over four-fi fths of clients received services within their own local authority area.

Regional variations

• � e North West (16%) and London (15%) each had larger numbers of clients compared to other regions. For example the client base of the North East made up only 5% of those recorded by Client Records.

• � e East of England had the largest proportion of single homeless people with support needs (37%).

• � e second largest primary client group varied regionally with many regions recording either women at risk of domestic violence or mental health problems. � e West Midlands recorded generic needs as the second largest primary category and the North West recorded approximately equal proportions of young people at risk and homeless families.

• � e proportion of people with mental health problems was greater in London (12%), and

the Southern regions (South West, 11%; South East, 11%) compared to 9% nationally.

• � e North West (12%), East of England (11%) and London (10%) had larger proportions of homeless families with support needs compared to the national average of 8%. � e West Midlands had the smallest proportion of homeless families (5%).

• � ere were, proportionally, more young people at risk in the North West (12%) than in any

other region and the national fi gure was 8%.

Ethnic origins

• White-British represented the ethnic origin for the majority of support users (76%).

• Ethnic minority clients tended to be younger than clients of White-British origins. Two-fi fths of mixed-Caribbean clients fell into the 18-24 age bracket, compared to 28% of White-British clients. One-fi fth of mixed-Caribbean and one-fi fth of Chinese clients were between the ages of 16 and 17 compared to 12% of White-British clients.


6

• Indeed, there were smaller proportions of ethnic minority clients in the primary groups that capture older people than would normally be expected. Compared to the national average of 20% of ethnic minority clients, only 15% of older people with support needs, 13% of frail elderly and 8% of older people with mental health problems were ethnic minority clients.


• Out of the 192,271 clients recorded, approximately half (98,662) were defi ned by one or more secondary descriptions in addition to a primary description.

• Whilst 56,456 clients were recorded primarily as single homeless people with support needs, an additional 20,379 clients had single homeless with support needs as their secondary client group.

• Within the secondary client groupings there were 13,706 clients who were experiencing mental health problems. Combined with clients within the primary category of people with mental health problems (17,517) this fi gure is almost doubled bringing the total number of SP funded clients with mental health problems to 31,223.


• General needs local authority housing, living with family, sleeping rough, staying with friends and supported housing described the living conditions of over half of clients prior to receiving Supporting People services.

• People with generic needs (20%), women at risk of domestic violence (19%) and people with mental health problems (15%) made up the majority of clients who were general needs local authority tenants prior to receiving Supporting People services.

• Clients who were recorded as living with family prior to receiving services were most likely

to be single homeless people with support needs (36%), young people at risk (16%) and homeless families in need of support (12%).

As clients began to receive services, almost all moved on from living with their family.

• Almost three-quarters of people sleeping rough prior to uptake of services were defi ned as single homeless people with support needs (49%) and rough sleepers (25%).

• Single homeless people with support needs (52%), young people at risk (13%) and homeless families (7%) accounted for the majority of clients staying with friends prior to receiving services.

• � e majority of clients leaving their prior supported housing accommodation were provided with supported housing elsewhere (64%).

• In total, 5% of clients were temporarily housed in bed and breakfast. Together, single homeless people with support needs (37%) and homeless families (22%) stand out as being the clients most likely to be in bed and breakfast accommodation prior to receiving a Supporting People service.

• After qualifying for Supporting People services, the majority (91%) of clients did not remain in bed and breakfast accommodation. However, 14% of clients took up places in other temporary direct access hostel accommodation.

• � e Client Record System recorded 5,718 clients who were owner-occupiers prior to receiving Supporting People services, 3% of all clients. Women at risk of domestic violence were far more likely to have been owner-occupiers (35%) than any other primary client group prior to receiving a Supporting People support service.


• � ree principal categories of support – supported housing (35%), fl oating support

(34%) and direct access (17%) – made up over four-fi fths of service provision during this third year of the Supporting People programme.

• Floating support services were provided to just over two-fi fths of female clients while


7

only 27% of male clients received this form of support. However, two-fi fths of males were accepted into supported housing schemes, compared to only 29% of females. Also, 25% of males accessed direct access accommodation compared to 9% of females.

• Almost two-fi fths of all Supporting People services were provided by voluntary organisations, 28% of which was temporary accommodation in direct access hostels.

• Floating support services accounted for more than a quarter and direct access 8% of housing association/RSLs service provision.

• One-quarter of services provided by housing authorities was supported housing and almost one-fi fth was direct access.

• Very nearly a quarter of clients accessed services by means of self-referral.

• Local authority housing departments referred one-fi fth of clients and over a tenth of clients were referred by voluntary agencies.

• Social Services referred 8% of clients to Supporting People services, 37% of which were to housing associations/RSLs and a further 35% to voluntary organisations.

Regional variations

• In the West Midlands (39%), North East (39%), East Midlands (38%) and South East (35%), fl oating support services as opposed to supported housing, were the services supporting the greatest number of clients.

• Voluntary organisations dominated service provision in Yorkshire & the Humber (48%), the North East (45%), and West Midlands (44%) and the North West (36%), while housing associations/RSLs provided a greater than average proportion of services in the South East (48%), the East of England (42%) and the South West (39%). � e national average was 35%.

• � e largest category of referral in London and the North East was local authority housing department referral (27% and 22% respectively) while in all other regions the largest referral route was through self-referral.


• Overall, more than four-fi fths of referrals were made for clients who made an application for Supporting People services within their own local authority area.

• Less than a fi fth (13%) of clients accessed services outside their immediate local authority area.

• By far, the most common type of non-host referral was open access.

• Almost one quarter of referrals accepted by voluntary organisations were non-host referrals. Proportionally, this compares to 12% of housing association/RSL acceptances and only 2% of housing authority acceptances.

Regional variations

• Compared to the national average of 13% for non-host referrals, London had the highest proportion of this type of referral (20%).

• � e East Midlands and Yorkshire & the Humber had the lowest levels of non-host referrals (each with 8%).

• While London had the highest level of non-host open-access referrals (16%), Yorkshire & the Humber (5%) and the East Midlands (5%) had the lowest.

• Clients are more likely to access services across Administering Authorities within the same region, than they are to cross regional boundaries. � is pattern is most evident in London, given the greater numbers of Administering Authorities within that region.

• London was by far and away the largest net exporter in that, for every two people who came into the region for services, three people left the region, and London was the only region to record a net export of over 500 SP clients. Yorkshire and the Humber, the East Midlands and the South East were also net exporters but to a lesser extent.


8

• � e South West recorded the highest levels of import with more than twice as many clients coming into the region as leaving. � e West Midlands, the East Region, and the North East were also net importers: for every three people who came into that region to receive services only two people left the region.

• � e South West was the only region to record a net import of over 500 SP clients while the West Midlands and the East Region each recorded a net import of over 300 SP clients.

• Single homeless people and women at risk of domestic violence were the two most common non-host primary client groups across all the English regions in 2005/06. Together they accounted for 62% of all non-Host referrals.

Homelessness

• Just over one-quarter of clients recorded by the Client Record System were accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

• Single homeless people with support needs constituted more than a third of all clients accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty. Slightly more than one-fi fth of statutorily homeless clients were homeless families with support needs and women at risk of domestic violence made up a further 13%.

• Combined, living with family (20%), staying with friends (11%), other temporary accommodation (9%), sleeping rough (9%), bed & breakfast (9%) or in direct access hostels (8%) described the living conditions of statutorily homeless clients immediately prior to receiving Supporting People services.

Regional variations

• � ere were distinct regional variations in the proportions of statutorily homeless clients across England. London (30%) had a proportion of statutorily homeless clients that was above the national average (26%).

In contrast, the East Midlands (19%) and South West (19%) had substantially lower proportions of clients who were statutorily homeless.


• In total, 48% of young people leaving care and 41% of people with learning disabilities were supported via Care Management (Social Services).

• Four principal client groups – off enders/those at risk of off ending (32%), single homeless people with support needs (30%), people with drug problems (14%) and young people at risk (7%) – made up over four-fi fths of clients subject to Probation or Youth Off ending Team supervision.

• Slightly more than two-fi fths of people with mental health problems were receiving Care Programme Approach packages.

• Off enders/those at risk of off ending (31%), single homeless people with support needs (20%), and people with mental health problems (17%) were the client groups that made up the majority of clients subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements.

Regional variations

• London (12%) and the North East (10%) had the highest proportion of clients supported through Social Services Care Management. With an average for England of 8%, the East Midlands (5%) had the lowest proportion of clients supported through Care Management.

• � ere was divergence between regions for clients who were subject to Probation or Youth Off ending Team supervision. While the average for England as a whole sat at 6%, 9% of clients in Yorkshire & the Humber and 9% in the North East were subject to supervision compared to only 3% of clients in London.


9

Comparative analysis

• While some diff erences have occurred between 2003/04, 2004/05 and 2005/06, the overall picture emerging from data collection remains one of relatively stable proportions across and within the majority of categories identifi ed on the Client Record Form.

• Notably, client group composition has remained constant with the majority of clients falling into one of the same six categories as previous years and the majority of clients being supported by the same three support and provider categories. Furthermore, access routes to Supporting People services are as they have been previously.

• While voluntary organisations continue to provide for the largest proportion of clients,

services provided by housing associations have increased by 3% over the past 12 months.

� is corresponds with a 3% reduction in support provided by housing authorities.

• During 2004/5 a sizeable increase was recorded in the provision of fl oating support services compared to 2003/04. Since then, this trend has continued and currently amounts to a 6% increase in the percentage of clients supported through fl oating support between 2003/04 and 2005/06.

• � e reverse is true for the percentage of clients accessing direct access hostels, which has dropped by 4% over the same period.

• � e percentage of Statutorily homeless clients recorded has reduced year by year from 31% in 2003/04 to 26% in 2005/06.

• � e decrease in the percentage of Statutorily homeless clients has occurred in all regions with the exception of the North West. � e North West recorded a smaller proportion of Statutorily homeless clients in 2004/5 compared to 2003/04, however, with no further decrease over the past 12 months.

• In 2003/04, homeless families accounted for 18% of all statutory homeless acceptances. � is fi gure increased by 3% in 2004/05 to 21% and over the past 12 months has remained at 21%.

• Host referrals have risen steadily since 2003/04 signalling a gradual reduction in the proportion of clients being referred across authorities.

• Black African clients accounted for the largest proportion of ethnic minority clients recorded, making up 5% (9,427) of all clients recorded by Client Records. � e proportion of Black African clients recorded by Client Records within each region has remained relatively stable over time although the trend does appear to be on the decline.

• Compared to 2003/04, Black African clients in London decreased by 2% in 2005/06.

� e Client Record system was introduced at the start of the Supporting People funding programme in April 2003. � e Centre for Housing Research (CHR), based at the University of St Andrews, is responsible for the administration of the Client Record System.

Further information about Supporting People Client Records can be found at www.spclientrecord.org.uk, including summary reports to Supporting People Teams and Excel lookup sheets for summary information at Administering Authority, Regional, and England levels.

All enquiries should be directed to the Centre for Housing Research (CHR):

Tel: 01334 461765Email: [email protected]


10


11


� e Supporting People programme is designed to improve the quality of support available to vulnerable people. Following new legislation that separated service costs from housing benefi t payments, the programme has brought together diff erent streams of support funding providing a single funding stream for the delivery of housing-related support. � e budget for this programme has been transferred directly to local authorities who have responsibility for delivery of the programme objectives. � e programme itself has evolved via a number of smaller and earlier initiatives designed to improve health and reduce poverty and homelessness by modernising public services.

A key factor in the development of Supporting People is the expansion of the leadership role of local authorities. � e programme requires authorities to work in partnership with health, social work, probation, support providers and user groups to monitor provision and identify need in their areas. Local authorities commission and fund appropriate needs-led cost-eff ective and quality driven services on a contractual basis. Importantly, support services are no longer conditional on accommodation or tenure and are to be tailored in such a way as to respond directly to the individual needs of vulnerable people.

� e priority is to extend and refi ne the range of provision and widen access to client groups such as black and ethnic minority communities, off enders, and women at risk of domestic violence who, traditionally, have not had ready access to support provision. � is will involve extending and developing services within local authority areas and creating new protocols between local authorities to enable cross-authority provision whereby clients can access services outwith their own locality.

Independent monitoring of the progress is one of the central principles of Supporting People, designed to ensure that the objectives of the programme are being met. � e Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has devised a common framework for assessing service standards and gathering management information; a signifi cant aspect of this framework is the Client Record System. � e Client Record System requires service providers to complete the Client Record form, a means of data collection that provides key performance indicators between and within authorities, identifying the routes by which Supporting People services are being accessed and the personal characteristics of service users. Client Record data is being used to determine the range and extent of service development and cross-authority provision over time and the extent to which vulnerable groups are accessing appropriate services.

� e Centre for Housing Research (CHR) is responsible for the management, organisation and analysis of Client Record forms. Every quarter, CHR issues to the DCLG a national report identifying the main characteristics of regional and local authority support provision. Reports are also issued to the commissioning body within each of the 150 administering authorities, charting information specifi cally related to their own authority and region and, for comparative purposes, across England as a whole.

� ese reports tabulate information on the number and type of providers currently operating, the type of services off ered, the clients supported, the origin of referrals and the numbers accepted. � e Client Record database thereby eff ectively maps and monitors the key information required for an understanding of what is delivered in terms of housing related support, who is currently using these services and where they came from. Notably, the database off ers a picture of what services are not currently being provided and where these gaps occur.


12

� e Client Record system has an important role in recording and monitoring improvement in the supply of services and assessing whether outcomes equate with real change. Information is recorded on a range of client groups such as single homeless people who need support, homeless families, teenage parents, women at risk of domestic violence and off enders or people at risk of off ending. Data is also collected on secondary problems that clients may be experiencing such as drug or alcohol problems or mental health problems and whether clients are receiving statutory support through interventions such as Care Management programmes or Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPAs). � e data also records information on the type of services clients receive so that authorities can identify whether particular clients in their locality are having their needs met appropriately or whether these could be met more adequately, perhaps through cross-authority arrangements. Additionally, the data may lead to services being restructured or the development of specialised services. A copy of the Client Record Form can be found in Appendix 1.

� e Client Record System monitors client characteristics as closely as possible in an attempt to identify potential gaps in provision by examining the supply of provision through the types of clients accessing services, rather than through the services that are available. � is links with the key objective of Supporting People to relate services to the individual needs of vulnerable people rather than fi tting them into what is currently available, which in reality may not be the support they require. � is is a client-led approach and a realistic picture of the requirements of those clients accessing services needs to be drawn up: the Client Record System contributes to this programme in providing the basis for an assessment of whether Supporting People is meeting outcomes in relation to priorities within housing, health, social care and the criminal justice system.

Together, the Client Record System quarterly returns and annual reports are signifi cant as a regulatory, monitoring and evaluation tool for Supporting People policy makers and practitioners. It acts as a reference guide in comparisons of local authority statistics and contributes to individual provider organization planning and funding structures.

� e aim and structure of the Annual Report

� is is the third annual report from the Client Record Offi ce and it brings together information from Client Records completed for clients who started to receive services between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006.

� e aim of this report is to provide summary commentary on the main fi ndings from the Client Record dataset, together with illustrative tables and graphs. � e report is based on 192,271 validated Client Record forms covering the 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006 period.

� e report is divided into eight sections:

Section one: Introduction

Section two: An overview of client characteristics for both primary and secondary client groups.

Section three: A description of the previous accommodation of clients prior to receiving services.

Section four: � e types of Supporting People providers and services delivered to clients together with the routes client groups took in accessing service provision during the reporting year.

Section fi ve: � e extent of cross-authority provision during the third year of Supporting People.


13

Section six: Clients who were statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty and the services they received.

Section seven: A summary of clients who require services under other statutory frameworks.

Section eight: Comparative analysis of data collected over April 03-March 04, April 04- March 05 and April 05-March 06 including a specifi c focus on regional variations

of Black African clients.

� is annual report is available from our website at www.spclientrecord.org.uk.


� e Client Record system covers new clients who have started to receive the services shown below through Supporting People funding:

Included services






• Foyer






� ere are additional services that receive funding through Supporting People but are currently exempt from the Client Record system. � ese are shown below.

Excluded services



• Almshouses




A Client Record Form is completed by a service provider each time a person starts to receive one of their services.


14

� e Client Record system was introduced at the start of the Supporting People funding programme in April 2003. � e Centre for Housing Research (CHR), based at the University of St Andrews, is responsible for the administration of the Client Record system.


15

2 Clients

2.1 Introduction

� is section of the Annual Report explores the characteristics of vulnerable people as they begin to receive housing-related support services funded through Supporting People. � e term vulnerable people refers to individuals who are at a point in their life when they require an element of support to access housing, sustain a tenancy and/or achieve independence and a better quality of life.

During this third year of reporting, the Client Record System recorded information about 192,271 new clients. Although the Client Record System collects information on twenty-one primary client group categories, six of these categories account for 72% of clients. Single homeless people with support needs were the most frequently recorded accounting for almost a third of all clients. � e next largest groups were, in decreasing order: women at risk of domestic violence, people with mental health problems, homeless families in need of support, young people at risk and people with generic needs [Figure 2.1].

Overall, more male (52%) clients were recorded than female and the largest proportion of clients were between the ages of 18-24 years. Almost a third of clients were claiming job seekers allowance. Just over one quarter had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty (refer to section six for defi nition of statutorily homeless). � e vast majority of clients were White-British in terms of declared ethnic origin.

15 Percent

20 25 301050




Young people at riskGeneric


Rough sleeperOlder people with support needsOffenders or at risk of offending

Physical or sensory disabilityLearning disabilities

Teenage parentsRefugees


Older people with mental health problemsPeople with HIV/AIDS

TravellerMentally disordered offenders


16

Prior to uptake of services the most common previous accommodation category for clients was general needs local authority housing. However, more than a third of clients were either living with family, sleeping rough or staying with friends. Voluntary agencies provided almost two-fi fths of services to clients and the most common support service provided was supported housing. � e most frequent referral route for clients was self-referral and 87% of clients received services within their own local authority area.

� is section goes on to explore each client group in more detail and provides an account of their previous accommodation, referral arrangements, service provision, regional variations and ethnic origins. Finally, it examines the various secondary problems that clients experience and concludes with an assessment of overall support needs based on the combined responses to primary and secondary client group categories.

2.2 Client Profi les

Single homeless with support needs (29.4%; 56,456 clients)

Client Records defi ne single homeless people with support needs as either people who have been accepted as statutorily homeless and have ‘priority need’ status and are therefore owed a main homelessness duty, or people who have been turned down for re-housing or have not approached the local authority but who have a range of support needs.

Over a third of single homeless people with support needs were between the ages of 18-24. More than half claimed job seekers allowance, while almost a fi fth were long term sick or disabled and 12% were not seeking work. Only 30% of single homeless people with support needs were accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty. More females (38%) than males (27%) were accepted as statutorily homeless, even though more than two-thirds of single homeless clients with support needs were male.

Prior to receiving Supporting People support services, the majority of single homeless people with support needs were either, living with family (18%), staying with friends (17%), sleeping rough (16%) or in direct access hostels (11%).

� e proportion of single homeless people with support needs who had been living with family and were provided with supported housing was greater for clients who had not been accepted as statutorily homeless than it was for those that had: in comparison, a greater proportion of those that had been accepted as statutorily homeless were provided with fl oating support. Additionally, a greater proportion of clients that had not been accepted as statutorily homeless were provided with Foyer support. In contrast, clients who had been sleeping rough and had not been accepted as statutorily homeless were less likely to be provided with supported housing than those that were statutorily homeless. Almost two-thirds of clients who had not been accepted as statutorily homeless and had been sleeping rough made use of direct access hostels [Table 2.1.].

One third of single homeless people with support needs made self-referrals, making this the most common route to service provision for this client group, and services were provided to the majority of these clients in their own administering authority area mainly by voluntary organisations and housing associations/registered social landlords (RSLs).


17

Table 2.1: Types of service between statutory homelessness acceptance for single homeless people with support needs who were living with family or sleeping rough



# % # % # % # % Supported housing 1,582 47.6 962 45.5 2,659 54.1 1,360 31.0

Direct access 847 25.5 959 45.4 1,247 25.4 2,752 62.7


Foyer 152 4.6 22 1.0 537 10.9 72 1.6

Outreach 41 1.2 3 0.1 7 0.1 9 0.2

Resettlement 79 2.4 25 1.2 20 0.4 29 0.7


Women’s refuge 19 0.6 6 0.3 15 0.3 7 0.2


Residential care home 1 0


Total 3,326 33.1 2,113 23.1 4,915 48.9 4,386 47.7

Women at risk of domestic violence (10.6%; 20,387 clients)

� ree quarters of women at risk of domestic violence were between 18-38 years and almost two-thirds of all clients were described as not seeking work. Almost one-third of women had been accepted as statutorily homeless.

General needs local authority tenancy (27%), living with family (13%), private rented (13%), owner occupied (10%) or general needs RSL/HA tenancy (9%) described the prior accommodation for the majority of women [Figure 2.2]. Almost two-thirds of support for women at risk of domestic violence was refuge provision while one quarter of clients were provided with fl oating support. Women receiving fl oating support and remaining where they were, were most likely to be general needs local authority tenants (33%), owner-occupiers (19%) or general needs RSL/HA tenants (18%).

� e pattern of referral arrangements for women at risk of domestic violence was varied. Women were most likely to either be referred by voluntary agencies (24%) or make a self-referral (22%) [Figure 2.3]. Although the majority (61%) of women received services in their own local authority area, as a group, women at risk of domestic violence were more likely than any other client group to access services via cross-authority arrangements: 29% of referrals were open access; 6% were structured; 3% were multi-lateral; and 1% were spot purchase (refer to section 5.1 for a defi nition of referral types). � e majority (68%) of services were provided by voluntary agencies while housing associations/RSLs (20%) and housing authorities (5%) made up the remainder of provision for almost all clients within this group.


18

People with mental health problems (9.1%; 17,517 clients)

� ere was wide variation in the ages of people with mental health problems with the majority (87%) falling between 18 and 52 years. Within this wide-ranging age bracket, the largest proportion of clients fell into the 32-38 age bracket (21%). � e majority of people with mental health problems were male (58%). Slightly more than two-thirds of this client group were long term sick or disabled. Slightly more than two-fi fths of clients had been accepted as requiring a Care Programme Approach (CPA) and 18% requiring and enhanced CPA. Almost a fi fth were receiving Social Services care management. Of all clients with mental health problems, 12% were accepted as statutorily homeless and were owed a main homelessness duty.

15 Percent

20 25 301050



Private rentedOwner occupier

General needs RSL/HA tenantOther

Staying with friendsSupported housing



15 Percent

20 25 301050






Community Mental Health TeamProbation service/prison

Moving from another RSLYouth Offending Team

Nominated under HOMES


19

� e main type of previous accommodation for people with mental health problems was general needs local authority housing [Figure 2.4]. Almost half of local authority tenants remained in their tenancy and of those, the majority received fl oating support (93%). For the remaining general needs local authority tenants, three-quarters were off ered fl oating support elsewhere and 17% were accepted into supported housing.

Almost all people with mental health problems received services in their own local authority area (96%) and almost one-third of all clients were referred by their Community Mental Health Team. More than two-thirds of services for this client group were provided by housing associations/RSLs (39%) and voluntary organisations (29%).

Homeless families with support needs (8.2%; 15,834 clients)

Over one-third of homeless families with support needs were in the 18-24 age bracket. � e majority (77%) of clients were female and more than half were not seeking work. Only 37% of clients were recorded as having a partner. Almost two-thirds of homeless families had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Living with family (22%), renting privately (13%), bed & breakfast (12%), other temporary accommodation (12%) and general needs local authority tenant (10%) described the living arrangements of the majority of clients prior to receiving support. [Figure 2.5] On receipt of SP services, more than two-fi fths of clients were accepted into supported housing schemes and more than one-third were provided with fl oating support services, while 13% of families had made use of direct access hostels. Families

15 Percent

20 25 301050


General needs local authority tenantGeneral needs RSL/HA tenant

Supported housingHospital


Rough sleepingDirect access hostel

Bed and breakfastOther

Staying with friendsOwner occupier

Any other temp accommodationResidential care home

Short life housingSheltered housing




20

who had been accepted as statutorily homeless were more likely to be provided with supported housing compared to those that had not been accepted as statutorily homeless. Families that had not been accepted as statutorily homeless were more likely to be provided with fl oating support [Table 2.2].

Table 2.2: The support provided to homeless families with support needs Accepted as statutorily homelesss Not accepted as statutorily homeless

# % # % Supported housing 4,998 48.7 743 30.3

Floating support 3,370 32.8 1,244 50.8

Direct access 1,086 10.6 301 12.3






Foyer 6 0.1 4 0.2

Residential care home 3 0.0

Adult placement 1 0.0 2 0.1

Total 10,272 64.9 2,451 15.5

15 Percent

20 25 301050



Bed and breakfastAny other temp accommodation

General needs local authority tenantStaying with friendsSupported housingDirect access hostel

OtherGeneral needs RSL/HA tenant

Owner occupierShort life housing

Tied home or renting with jobRough sleeping


21

Almost half the families were referred to services by means of the local authority housing department’s referral process and more than one-fi fth were nominated by their local housing authority. A further 14% of families self-referred. Almost all referrals were host referrals (97%) and almost half of all services for this client group were provided by housing authorities, a further 26% by housing associations/RSLs and 8% by voluntary organisations.

Young people at risk (7.5%; 14,376 clients)

Almost all clients in this category were either between the ages of 16-17 years (51%) or 18-24 years (48%). More than half of these clients were female (53%). � e majority of clients claiming jobseekers allowance were male [Figure 2.6].

� ere were young people at risk who had been accepted as requiring services under statutory frameworks. One-tenth were receiving Care Management via Social Services. Just over one-third were accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Six types of accommodation accounted for more than three-quarters of the living arrangements of young people at risk prior to receiving services: living with family (31%); staying with friends (16%); supported housing (9%); direct access hostel (8%); general needs local authority tenancy (7%) and bed & breakfast (7%).

Supported housing (51%) and fl oating support (26%) made up more than three-quarters of support accessed by young people at risk. Most clients (90%) received services in their host area with the largest proportion of clients either referred by local authority housing departments (26%) or self-referring (20%). Social Services and voluntary organisations each referred a further 12% of clients. In the main, young people at risk received support services from either housing associations/RSLs (47%) or voluntary organisations (39%).

30 40 50 Percent

6020100



Child under 16Other adult

Long term sick/disabledFull-time work

Govt trainingJob seeker

70 80 90 100

Female (52.5%)

Male (47.5%)


22

Generic (7.1%; 13,716 clients)

� e generic client group refers to clients with multiple primary needs.

Over one-fi fth of clients falling into the generic category were between the ages of 18-24 years, 19% were aged 25-31 years and a further 18% were aged between 32 and 38 years. � e majority of clients in this group were female (62%). Almost a third of clients were not seeking work, 20% were job seekers and 18% were long term sick or disabled. Overall, 5% of clients had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Almost two-thirds of clients were tenants either in general needs local authority or RSL/HA housing prior to receiving services, more than half of whom remained in their tenancies and of those, 96% received fl oating support services.

Consequently, clients in the generic category were more likely to receive services in their own local authority area (97%), but through various referral routes: referrals made by local authority housing departments (30%); self-referrals (21%); nominations from local housing authorities (14%); and 11% of referrals were via unspecifi ed (other). Services were provided by four principal types of provider organisations: housing associations/RSLs (32%); voluntary organisations (21%); local authority joint H&SS (19%); and housing authorities (14%).

People with drug problems (4.6%; 8,787 clients)

More than a third of this client group were between the ages of 25 and 31 years and three-quarters of all people with drug problems were male (75%). Over two-fi fths of clients were long-term sick or disabled. Almost one-fi fth of clients were subject to Probation or Youth Off ending Team services and 11% of clients had been accepted as requiring Care Management via Social Services. Less than a fi fth of clients had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

� e prior living arrangements of people with drug problems varied though generally, clients were more likely to have been sleeping rough (16%), have been local authority tenants (11%) or in supported housing (11%) or were living with family members (10%). � e bulk of support provided to clients who had been sleeping rough was direct access (47%) or supported housing (38%).

Although the majority (83%) of people with drug problems received services in their own local authority area, 8% of clients were non-host open access, 4% non-host spot purchase clients, 2% were non-host structured clients and 2% were non-host multi-lateral clients. While people with drug problems were most likely to self-refer (24%), 17% were referred by voluntary agencies and 14% were referred by the Probation or Prison service [Figure 2.7]. Voluntary agencies (48%) and housing associations/RSLs (33%) provided the bulk of services to this client group.


23

People with alcohol problems (4%; 7,771 clients)

� e largest proportion of these clients were aged between 32-45 (48%) and almost four-fi fths of people with alcohol problems were male. More than half were long term sick or disabled and 11% had been accepted as requiring services under a Social Service Care Management programme. Less than one-fi fth of clients had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Prior to uptake of Supporting People services, almost a fi fth of clients were general needs local authority tenants. Of those, more than two-fi fths remained in their tenancy and of those, 77% received fl oating support services while 19% went into residential care. For those general needs local authority tenants not remaining in their tenancy, over half were provided with fl oating support elsewhere and one-quarter went into residential care. � e most frequent type of service delivered to people with alcohol problems that were sleeping rough was direct access (45%) or supported housing (38%).

Just over a quarter of people with alcohol problems accessed services by self-referral and although the majority of clients received services in their own local authority, over a tenth were non-host open access referrals. Services for people with alcohol problems were primarily provided by voluntary organisations (47%) or housing associations/RSLs (34%).

Rough sleepers (3.5%; 6,739 clients)

In the single homeless category described at the start of section 2.2, it was evident that most single homeless people live in short term accommodation such as direct access hostels. However, there are some single homeless people who live on the streets for most or all of their period of homelessness and these clients are referred to as rough sleepers. Rough sleepers are people who are roofl ess and bed down for the night on the street or sleep out in buildings or other places not designed for habitation, for example, in stations, car parks or sheds.

30 40 50 Percent

6020100







Host

70 80 90 100


24

� e age range of rough sleepers was varied: 24% were 18-24 years; 21% were 25-31 years; 22% were 32-38 years; and 16% were 39-45 years. Well over four-fi fths of rough sleepers were male. Half of rough sleepers were job seekers and slightly more than one-fi fth were long term sick or disabled. Only 23% of rough sleepers had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

As would be expected, the largest proportion (more than two-thirds) of clients were rough sleeping prior to receiving services, however, a few clients were staying with friends (6%), in direct access hostels (6%) or living with family (4%). On receipt of SP support, only 28% of rough sleepers were provided with supported housing whilst the majority made use of direct access hostel accommodation (63%).

Although the majority of clients were host clients, almost one-fi fth of referrals for rough sleepers were non-host open access and 46% of all referrals were made on a self-referral basis. Voluntary agencies referred a quarter of rough sleepers and provided services to well over half, while housing associations/RSLs provided services to almost one-third.

Older people with support needs (3%; 5806 clients)

Almost one-third of older people with support needs were aged 80 or over and of these, 67% were female; overall, 54% of clients were female [Figure 2.8]. Clients were mainly retired (86%) while only 9% were long term sick or disabled. Social Services had accepted 19% of clients as requiring a Care Management programme; 59% of these clients were female.

Prior to receiving services, older people with support needs were mainly tenants, either in general needs local authority (35%) or RSL/HA (17%) housing. Over half of older people remained in their accommodation and the majority (88%) received fl oating support. For those that left their accommodation on receipt of support, 68% received fl oating support elsewhere, 19% were provided with supported housing and 5% were supported through resettlement.

Older people with support needs accessed services through various referral routes, namely, self-referrals (22%), Social Services (20%), local authority housing department referrals (18%), and local housing authority nominations (15%), and almost all clients received services in their own local authority area (98%). In the main, services were provided by housing associations/RSLs (30%), voluntary organisations (26%) and housing authorities (19%).

30 40 50 Percent

6020100

Female

Male


53-5960-6465-6970-7475-79

80+

70 80 90 100


25

Off enders or those at risk of off ending (3%; 5,763 clients)

� e majority of off enders were between the ages of 18 and 38 years, (18-24, 27%; 25-31, 24%; and 32-38, 21%). Almost all off enders were male (85%) and almost two-thirds were subject to Probation or Youth Off ending Team supervision. � e economic status for 60% of off enders or those at risk of off ending was job seeker. Only 13% of off enders had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Only 24% of clients accessed services straight from prison. Over and above this, clients were either living with family, in supported housing or in general needs local authority tenancies, staying with friends, approved probation hostels or sleeping rough [Figure 2.9]. In total, 5% of clients accessed support while remaining in prison and 53% of those were provided with fl oating support. For off enders released from prison prior to receiving support, almost four-fi fths were accepted into supported housing schemes. A further 10% made use of direct access hostels. More than half of clients living with family prior to receiving support were provided with supported housing and 29% were provided with fl oating support. Almost two-thirds of off enders staying with friends prior to receiving support were provided with supported housing and more than one-fi fth received fl oating support.

Almost two-thirds of off enders were referred by the Probation or Prison service and more than four-fi fths received services in the local authority area providing the service. However, more than a tenth of referrals for off enders were non-host structured referrals. Primarily, services for this client group were provided by housing associations/RSLs (50%) and voluntary organisations (43%).

15 Percent

20 25 301050



General needs local authority tenantStaying with friends

Approved probation hostelRough sleeping



Bed and breakfastOther


26

People with physical or sensory disabilities (2.6%; 4,914 clients)

People with physical or sensory disabilities were most likely to be between the ages of 32 and 59 years (58%). Slightly more than half were male and the majority of clients were long term sick or disabled (61%). Almost a quarter of clients were accepted as requiring Care Management via Social Services. A minority (9%) of people with physical or sensory disabilities were accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Approximately half of clients were tenants either in general needs local authority housing (32%) or RSL/HA housing (17%) prior to receiving services while 13% were owner occupiers. Of those clients in local authority housing, more than half remained in their tenancies and almost all of those received fl oating support (93%). � is was very similar for clients remaining in RSL/HA tenancies.

Nearly all clients were supported in their own local authority area (98%). Social Services referred 26% of clients while almost a quarter of referrals were self-referrals and 17% were made by local authority housing departments. Voluntary organisations (35%), housing associations/RSLs (26%) and housing authorities (17%) provided the bulk of support for this client group.

People with learning disabilities (1.9%; 3,650 clients)

More than a quarter of people with learning disabilities were between the ages of 18 and 24 years. Over half were male. More than half of this client group were long term sick or disabled.

In the main, people with learning disabilities were either general needs local authority tenants (24%), living with family (19%), in supported housing (15%) or general needs RSL/HA tenants (14%) prior to receiving support. More than half of service provision for this client group was fl oating support and almost two-fi fths were provided with supported housing. Referrals largely came from Social Services (43%) and these clients were most likely to receive services in their own local authority area (95%).


Teenage parents (1.7%; 3,321 clients)

More than half of teenage parents were between the ages of 18-20. Only 2% of teenage parents were male. Economically, almost three-quarters of this group were not seeking work. One-third of teenage parents had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Almost two-fi fths of teenage parents were living with family prior to receiving services while 14% were general needs local authority tenants and 8% were in supported housing. Slightly more than half of teenage parents received fl oating support services while one-third were accepted into supported housing. Only 9% of clients were provided with specialised teenage parent accommodation. Of clients who had not been accepted as statutorily homeless, less than a quarter had received supported housing while 67% received fl oating support [Figure 2.10].

� e majority of teenage parents were referred to services either through local authority housing department referrals (27%) or nominations by local housing authorities (16%) and a further 13% of clients self-referred. Almost all clients received services within their own local authority (97%). Housing associations/RSLs (56%), voluntary organisations (24%) and housing authorities (11%) provided the bulk of services for teenage parents.


27

30

Percent

40 50 7020100


Supported housing

Floating support


Direct access


Outreach service

60


Refugees (1.7%; 3,183 clients)

Almost two-thirds of refugees fell within the 18-31 age range. � e majority of clients were male (67%) and the largest economic category for all clients was job seekers (63%). Almost one-third of refugees had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Clients in this group were previously either in unspecifi ed (other) temporary accommodation (21%), staying with friends (18%), or were tenants in local authority housing (12%). Floating support (48%) and supported housing (41%) accounted for the majority of services provided to refugees.

Most refugees received services in their own local authority (91%). Self-referrals (35%) and local authority housing department referrals (24%) were the referral routes for the majority of refugees. Housing associations/RSLs (36%) and voluntary agencies (34%) provided the majority of services.

Young people leaving care (0.9%; 1,656 clients)

Over half (57%) of clients in this category were between the ages of 18 and 21 years and almost all of the remaining clients were between the ages of 16-17 years (43%). � ere were approximately equal proportions of males and females in this client group. � e largest proportion of clients were jobseekers (38%). Social Services Care Management programmes were in place for 48% of clients and of these, 57% were 16 or 17 years. Less than one-fi fth of clients had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty and 49% of those were age 16 or 17 years.

By far, the largest proportion of clients had come to services via children’s homes or foster care (30%) and while 60% of those were provided with supported housing, 22% received a place with supported lodgings and 11% were provided with fl oating support.


28

More than two-thirds of young people leaving care were referred to services by Social Service departments. Few clients received cross-authority referrals (8%) and referrals that were non-host were more likely to be structured (3%) or open access (3%). Support for young people leaving care was provided, in the main, by housing associations/RSLs (43%) and voluntary organisations (34%).

Frail elderly (0.5%; 961 clients)

During this third year of data recording, clients receiving Supporting People services in sheltered/very sheltered housing, almshouses, peripatetic warden schemes and leasehold schemes remained exempt from the Client Record System. � e following is a summary of the characteristics of frail elderly clients who were receiving Supporting People contracted services other than those mentioned above.

As would be expected, half of this client group were 80 years or over and a further 17% were between the ages of 75 and 79 years. One third of clients were below the age of 75 years. Almost two-thirds of frail elderly were female and almost all clients were retired (93%). Social Services Care Management programmes had been provided for 21% of clients. A minority (4%) of frail elderly had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Prior to receiving support, slightly more than half of frail elderly clients held tenancies in either general needs local authority (38%) or RSL/HA housing (14%) while 13% of clients were owner-occupiers and a further 8% were in sheltered housing. Floating support was provided to 72% of clients and 15% were provided with residential care.

In the main, frail elderly people received services within their own local authority (98%) and the most likely referral routes were Social Services (25%), self-referral (23%) or local housing department’s referral process (17%). Housing associations/RSLs (33%), voluntary agencies (29%) or housing authorities (24%) were the main providers of support.

Older people with mental health problems (0.2%; 446 clients)

All members of this client group were above the age of 53, with the largest proportion between the ages of 60 and 64 (24%): 21% were over 80. More than half of clients were female and the majority (72%) were retired, while 23% were long term sick or disabled. Overall, 37% of older people with mental health problems were accepted as requiring services through a Care Programme Approach (CPA) and 28% were accepted as requiring Care Management via Social Services.

Clients were generally either tenants in general needs local authority (27%), owner occupiers (21%) or tenants in RSL/HA housing (13%) prior to receiving support.

� e principal type of support provided to these clients was fl oating support (80%). However, 11% of clients were accepted into supported housing schemes and 3% into residential care homes.

Most services were provided in the client’s own local authority (97%) and clients were either referred by their Community Mental Health Team (35%), Social Services (19%) or local housing department’s referral process (12%). Services were provided either by voluntary organisations (37%), housing associations/RSLs (26%) or housing authorities (16%).


29

People with HIV/AIDS (0.2%; 430 clients)

More than half of clients in this group were between the ages of 32 and 45 and 60% were male. Almost two-thirds of clients were long term sick or disabled and 13% were accepted as requiring Social Services Care Management. A minority (14%) of people with HIV/AIDS had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

� e majority of clients were either general needs local authority tenants (24%), general needs RSL/HA tenants (15%) or from the private rented sector (14%). Almost half of clients remained in their prior accommodation and in the main, these clients received fl oating support services (96%).

More than two-fi fths accessed services by means of self-referral. Nearly all referrals were host referrals. More than one-third of services for this client group were provided by the local authority joint H&SS while a further third were provided by voluntary organisations.

Travellers (0.2%; 332 clients)

� e majority of travellers fell between the ages of 18 and 45 years and 53% of clients were female. More than one-third of travellers were not seeking work and one-quarter were job seekers. Overall, 11% of clients had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Over one-third of travellers accessed services via an unspecifi ed (other) form of accommodation, 12% had been in general needs local authority tenancies and 11% had been sleeping rough. � e majority (47%) of travellers were provided with fl oating support while 31% were provided with supported housing and 18% made use of direct access hostels.

More than two-fi fths of travellers came through the self-referral route and almost a one-fi fth received services through non-host open access referrals. Voluntary organisations provided services to just over a third of travellers while local authority-joint H&SS provided for a further 28%.

Mentally disordered off enders (0.1%; 226 clients)

� e age range of clients in this group was wide and generally fell between 18-45 years. Almost three-quarters of clients were male and well over half of all clients in this category were long term sick or disabled. Probation or Youth Off ending Teams were supervising 29% of mentally disordered off enders, 27% were supported through the Care Programme Approach (CPA), 19% had been assessed under the Enhanced Care Programme Approach, 17% were accepted as requiring Care Management through Social Services and 13% were subject to Multi-Public Protection Arrangements. One-quarter of clients had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Prior to uptake of Supporting People services, 15% of these clients were general needs local authority tenancies, 12% were prison, 10% in supported housing and 9% were in hospital. � e majority of clients were either provided with fl oating support (43%), supported housing (38%) or direct access accommodation (13%).

� e majority (90%) of mentally disordered off enders received services within their own local authority. Almost one-quarter of clients were referred by the Probation or Prison service while 16% were referred by local authority housing departments and 12% self-referred. Voluntary organisations (40%), housing associations/RSLs (35%) and housing authorities (9%) were the main providers of support for this client group.


30

15 20 Percent

25 301050



Yorkshire & the HumberNorth EastSouth East

West MidlandsEast Midlands

LondonSouth West

ENGLAND

35 40


Single homeless people with support needs were, by far, the largest primary category for clients in all regions. � e East of England had the largest proportion of single homeless people with support needs (37%); more than three times that of women at risk of domestic violence which was the second largest primary client group in this region [Figure 2.11].

� e second largest primary client group varied regionally with many regions recording either women at risk of domestic violence or mental health problems. � e West Midlands recorded generic needs as the second largest primary category and the North West recorded approximately equal proportions of young people at risk and homeless families. Figure 2.12 shows the proportion of women at risk of domestic violence across regions.

� e level of people with mental health problems was greater, proportionally, in London (12%), and the Southern regions (South West, 11%; South East, 11%) compared to 9% nationally [Figure 2.13].

� e North West (12%), East of England (11%) and London had greater proportions of homeless families with support needs compared to the national average of 8%. � e West Midlands had the smallest proportion of homeless families (5%) [Figure 2.14].

� ere were, proportionally, more young people at risk in the North West (12%) than in any other region and the national fi gure was 8% [Figure 2.15].

Map 2.1 shows summary information of clients in each Government offi ce region.


31

151050





South WestNorth West

LondonENGLAND

151050




Yorks. & HumberNorth East

West MidlandsNorth WestENGLAND

151050


North WestEast of England

LondonEast Midlands

Yorks. & HumberNorth EastSouth East

South WestWest Midlands

ENGLAND

151050


North WestNorth East


South WestLondon

East MidlandsWest MidlandsEast of England

ENGLAND


32

Map 2.1: Summary of clients by Government offi ce region

1. North East


Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless with support needs: 30.9% (2,924)Women at risk of domestic violence: 13.2% (1,244)Young people at risk: 9.1% (861)

Most common secondary client group: Single homeless with support needs


Most common previous accommodation: General needs LA tenant


Number of clients: 21,807 % of all clients: 11.3%


Most common secondary client group: Drug problems



3. East Midlands






4. East of England


Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless with support needs: 37.1%( 5,911)Women at risk of domestic violence: 12.0%( 1,907)Homeless families: 10.7%( 1,712)

Most common secondary client group: Generic


Most common previous accommodation: Living with family

5. London


Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless with support needs: 24.8%(7,232)Mental health problems: 12.0%(3,484)Homeless families: 10.0%(2,923)




6. South East

Number of clients: 22,292 % of all clients: 11.6%

Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless with support needs: 30.4% (6,766)Mental health problems: 10.8% (2,401)Women at risk of domestic violence: 10.4%(2,322)

Most common secondary client group: Single homeless




33

7. South West


Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless with support needs: 24.0% (4,812)Mental health problems: 11.1% (2,225)Women at risk of domestic violence: 9.8% (1,957)

Most common secondary client group: Alcohol problems



8. West Midlands


Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless with support needs: 28.7% (6,616)Generic: 16.8% (3,870)Women at risk of domestic violence: 14.4% (3,320)




9. North West


Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless with support needs: 33.2% (10,328)Young people at risk: 11.8% (3,684)Homeless families: 11.7%(3,650)




ENGLAND


Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless with support needs: 29.4% (56,456)Women at risk of domestic violence: 10.6% (20,387)Mental health problems: 9.1% (17,517)


Statutorily homeless: 25.9% (49,821)



34

2.4 Ethnic Origins

White-British represented the ethnic origin for the majority of support users (76%). � ere were noticeable diff erences in the characteristics between ethnic origins, particularly amongst minority groups.

• Ethnic minority clients tended to be younger than clients of White-British origins. Two-fi fths of mixed-Caribbean clients fell into the 18-24 age bracket, compared to 28% of White-British clients. One-fi fth of mixed-Caribbean and one-fi fth of Chinese clients were between the ages of 16 and 17 compared to 12% of White-British clients. Indeed, there were smaller proportions of ethnic minority clients in the primary groups that capture older people than would normally be expected. Compared to the national average of 20% of ethnic minority clients, only 15% of older people with support needs, 13% of frail elderly and 8% of older people with mental health problems were ethnic minority clients.

• Black African clients accounted for just over half of refugees while people of Asian or Asian-British origin made up a further fi fth.

• People of Black-Caribbean and Black-African origins constituted almost a tenth of clients recorded with generic needs.

• Almost all (95%) travellers were made up of White British (56%), White Other (21%) or White Irish (18%) ethnic origins.

• Almost a tenth of homeless families were people of Black-African origin. Black-Caribbean clients and Asian Pakistani clients each made up a further 3%.

• White-British (41%) and Black-African (30%) clients constituted the majority of clients with HIV/AIDS.

• Ethnic minority groups represented 23% of women at risk of domestic violence with the largest proportion of ethnic minority clients of Asian-Pakistani origin (6%).

• Almost one-tenth of single homeless people with support needs were either of Black-African or Black-Caribbean origins.


Although providers are required to categorise clients starting to receive Supporting People services into an appropriate primary group, the Client Record System provides the opportunity for providers to expand on the description of problems that clients are experiencing by giving the option to add additional categories for each client, to a maximum of three additional categories. � is is especially important for clients who have complex or multiple needs, as this additional information can contribute to a clearer understanding of the extent of support that clients may require. � e primary client group category is intended to identify the immediate or most acute problem aff ecting a client about to receive support in order that the support provided is adequate in meeting the needs likely to arise. � e secondary client group category can aid in engaging services aimed at meeting the wider or additional problems facing clients. For example, a person may be sleeping rough but feel that their most acute problem is their drug dependency and therefore require immediate support with their dependency before support that would enable them to access suitable accommodation.


35

Table 2.3: Number of secondary descriptions # % 0 Secondary description 93,609 48.71 Secondary description 69,780 36.32 Seconary descriptions 21,401 11.13 Secondary descriptions 7,481 3.9 Total 192,271 100

20 30100

Figure 2.16: Proportion of primary client groups with one or more secondary description

Mentally disordered offendersDrug problems

Offenders or at risk of offendingOlder people with mental health problems

Rough sleeperYoung people at risk

Alcohol problemsSingle homeless with support needs

Young people leaving careTeenage parents

Mental health problemsFrail elderly

Older people with support needsLearning disabilities


People with HIV/AIDSTraveller

Homeless families with support needsWomen at risk of domestic violence

Generic

50 6040 70 80 90

Percent

Client Record data reveals that, out of the 192,271 clients recorded, approximately half (98,662) were defi ned by one or more secondary descriptions in addition to a primary description. Relatively few clients (4%) were assigned three secondary descriptions [Table 2.3], [Figure 2.16], [Table 2.4].


36

Table 2.4: Primary client group by secondary client group classifi cation None One Two Three Total







Generic 9,948 72.5 2,732 19.9 831 6.1 205 1.5 13,716

Drug problems 2,303 26.2 4,030 45.9 1,752 19.9 702 8.0 8,787


Rough sleeper 2,210 32.8 2,736 40.6 1,236 18.3 557 8.3 6,739





Teenage parents 1,606 48.4 1,404 42.3 265 8.0 46 1.4 3,321

Refugees 1,907 59.9 1,088 34.2 161 5.1 27 0.8 3,183


Frail elderly 492 51.2 391 40.7 65 6.8 13 1.4 961



Traveller 210 63.3 71 21.4 35 10.5 16 4.8 332

Mentally disordered offenders 41 18.1 94 41.6 57 25.2 34 15.0 226 Total 93,609 48.7 69,780 36.3 21,401 11.1 7,481 3.9 192,271

Although the smallest group (0.1%: 226), mentally disordered off enders were the client group with the highest proportion of clients (82%) defi ned by secondary descriptions. Secondary problems associated with these clients were most commonly drug problems, single homelessness, alcohol problems and/or complex needs.


37

� e comparison between primary and secondary client groups brings together a combination of complexities associated with specifi c client groups and aids recognition of the pervasive diffi culties that can be associated with the majority of clients monitored via the Client Record System this year. � ere is a tendency for some client groups to be described by an interrelated combination of factors, for example, clients described as having drug problems had been assigned secondary descriptions which were likely to be single homelessness with support needs, alcohol problems or off ending, similar to the combination of secondary descriptions ascribed to single homeless people with support needs and off enders respectively.

People with generic needs were the clients least likely to be assigned one or more secondary descriptions (73% had none).

Whilst the greatest proportion of clients had single homeless with support needs as their primary client group category, single homeless with support needs also defi ned the secondary problems for the greatest proportion of clients (these clients being defi ned by primary group categories other than single homeless with support needs).

� ere were distinct secondary groupings that characterised primary client groups. � e secondary client group categories are completed only where they are necessary to more fully describe the client. � erefore, the following descriptions are based only on clients who were assigned secondary categories.

Single homeless with support needs: the secondary client groupings for single homeless people were varied. � e highest-ranking category was young and at risk (8,091), however many were characterised as having drug (6,974) or alcohol (6,311) problems, or they were sleeping rough (6,130), or had mental health problems (5,964).

Women at risk of domestic violence: a greater proportion of women were placed as homeless families with support needs (2,154), however some were single homeless with support needs (1,166) and/or were described as having complex needs (1,105).

People with mental health problems: secondary groupings for these clients were again varied, some were single homeless with support needs (2,376) and/or with complex needs (2,310) and a number of people with mental health problems were described as having alcohol (1,872) and/or drug problems (1,517).

Homeless families with support needs: Often families experienced complex needs (1,619) and a substantial proportion were women at risk of domestic violence (1,100). Young people at risk: by far, the most common secondary category for young people at risk was single homeless with support needs (6,233).

People with generic needs: with an array of already complex needs, few secondary categories had been used to describe these clients. However, some clients had been described as having mental health problems (1,029), were single homeless (622) or had physical or sensory diffi culties (583).

Drug problems: people with drug problems tended to be characterised by being single homeless with support needs (2,342) and/or with alcohol problems (2,044) and a number of clients were described as off enders or those at risk of off ending (1,945).

Alcohol problems: a similar picture can be drawn for people with alcohol problems with single homeless with support needs (1,879), and/or drug (1,206) or mental health problems (1,296) as the highest ranking secondary client groupings.


38

Rough sleeper: four principal secondary client groups characterised a proportion of rough sleepers and these were single homeless with support needs (1,780), drug problems (1,382) and/or alcohol (1,302) and/or mental health (731) problems.

Older people with support needs: a proportion of older people with support needs were described as frail elderly (1,159) and/or as having physical or sensory disabilities (891).

Off enders or those at risk of off ending: clients in this category fell into the secondary groupings of experiencing drug problems (1,810), single homeless with support needs (1,590) and/or alcohol problems (1,002).

Physical or sensory disabilities: complex needs (519), mental health problems (445), older people with support needs (409), and/or experiencing single homeless with support needs (294) described some of the problems experienced by people with physical or sensory disabilities.

Learning disabilities: some people with learning disabilities have an array of complex needs (451) and also experienced mental health problems (403).

Teenage parents: three secondary categories – young people at risk (790), homeless families with support needs (417) and/or single homeless with support needs (287) and/or complex needs (205) described a number of teenage parents.

Refugees: three principal categories stood out for these clients, single homeless with support needs (735), homeless families (215) and/or with complex needs (178).

Young people leaving care: two principal categories described a number of these clients as young people at risk (563) and/or single homeless with support needs (317).

Frail elderly: older people with support needs (344) and/or experiencing physical or sensory disabilities (100) were relatively common secondary categories for frail elderly clients.

Older people with mental health problems: a proportion of these clients were also described as older people with support needs (183), mental health problems (72), physical or sensory diffi culties (40) and/or generic needs (38).

People with HIV/AIDS: a small number of people with HIV/AIDS were described as having complex needs (51), mental health problems (41) and/or single homeless with support needs (37).

Traveller: some travellers were described as sleeping rough (25), having complex needs (23) being single homeless with support needs (19) and/or mental health problems (19).

Mentally disordered off enders: apart from secondary groupings describing these clients as experiencing mental health problems (58) and/or having off ending behaviour (39), some mentally disordered off enders were also categorised as having complex needs (41), being single homeless with support needs (40) or experiencing alcohol (45) or drug problems (38).


39

Table 2.5: Numbers of clients in primary and secondary groups Primary group Secondary group Total

Single homeless with support 56,456 20,379 76,835



Homeless families with support 15,834 3,905 19,739



Drug problems 8,787 14,578 23,365


Rough sleeper 6,739 9,149 15,888






Refugees 3,183 2,017 5,200


Frail elderly 961 1,560 2,521

Older people with mental health problems 446 552 998


Traveller 332 532 864


2.6 Combining primary and secondary client groups to measure the extent of housing-related support need

� e primary client group category is an important method of identifying the prevailing circumstances of clients. At the same time, the secondary client group category can be equally as important, especially when used to identify the circumstances surrounding housing-related need amongst what may amount to a complex array of practical and emotional needs. � e secondary client groupings are also useful in that they can be used to recognize the total number of clients experiencing identifi able problems which are either as a result of or are contributory to housing-related need.

Table 2.5 indicates the numbers of clients in primary groups alongside the number of clients who recorded secondary groupings in each primary category; the totals for each client group (primary and secondary) illustrate the incidence of each client category. 1 Note that clients cannot be assigned the same category as a primary and a secondary client group.

1 The recording of secondary classifi cation is used only when additional categories are necessary to describe the client. Therefore the information included is based only on clients who were assigned secondary descriptions.


40

Accordingly, whilst 56,456 clients were recorded primarily as single homeless people with support needs, an additional 20,379 clients were recorded with single homeless with support needs as their secondary client group. � is shows that the actual number of clients with single homeless related support needs recorded by the Client Record System is 76,835. Similarly, 15,834 clients were described by primary client group category as homeless families with support needs and a further 3,905 homeless families were recorded in the secondary client groupings making the total homeless family with support needs fi gure 19,739.

Within the secondary client groupings there were 13,706 clients who were experiencing mental health problems. Combined with clients within the primary category of people with mental health problems (17,517) this fi gure is almost doubled bringing the total number of people with mental health problems to 31,223.

� ere were a further 4,065 women at risk of domestic violence found in secondary client groupings. Combined with the numbers within the primary client group (20,387), the numbers of women at risk of domestic violence were 24,452.

Although 8,787 clients were described as primarily experiencing drug problems, almost double those numbers of clients were assigned drug problems as their secondary client group category (14,578). Combined, these fi gures show that there were 23,365 clients experiencing drug problems.

Secondary client groupings also revealed a further 12,149 young people at risk, almost doubling the 14,376 fi gure within the primary client group category and bringing the total number of young people at risk to 26,525.

A total of 8,754 off enders or those at risk of off ending were found in secondary client groupings increasing the total fi gure from 5,763 to 14,517 and indicating a higher frequency of off enders or those at risk of off ending within the secondary client group category.


41


3.1 Introduction

Clients receiving Supporting People services are not necessarily expected to relocate to specialised housing provision as Supporting People support is geared towards making housing-related support services more accessible regardless of tenure. � erefore, services are available for people from the social rented, private rented or owner-occupied sectors as well as people who are homeless. � e Client Record System records the type of accommodation or living arrangements that clients occupied immediately prior to receiving Supporting People funded support services. For this purpose, ‘immediately prior’ is defi ned as, literally, the previous night. � is information is crucial for Supporting People practitioners and policy makers who are attempting to monitor the movement of and support provided to particular groups wherever they may live and whatever their circumstances may be.

In total, 18% of clients monitored by the Client Record System between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006 were recorded as continuing to live in the accommodation or circumstance they occupied immediately prior to receiving a Supporting People service.


� is section of the Annual Report lists the top fi ve most common types of living circumstances prior to the uptake of Supporting People services for clients [Table 3.1] and identifi es the most likely client groups in these circumstances, the referral route and type of services they accessed.

General needs local authority tenants (14.9%; 28,617)

People with generic needs (20%), women at risk of domestic violence (19%) and people with mental health problems (15%) made up the majority of clients who were general needs local authority tenants prior to receiving Supporting People services.

More than two-fi fths of clients remained in their tenancies and almost half of these clients were either people with generic needs (27%) or people with mental health problems (17%) while women at risk of domestic violence made up only 8%. Almost all of the clients retaining their tenancies received fl oating support services (91%), however, 4% were off ered supported housing.

� e largest proportion of clients terminating their tenancies were women at risk of domestic violence (27%), followed by people with generic needs (14%) and people with mental health problems (13%). � e majority (73%) of women at risk of domestic violence accessed women’s refuge services while a further 19% were provided with fl oating support elsewhere. Almost all of people with generic needs terminating their tenancy were provided with fl oating support elsewhere. � ree-quarters of people with mental health problems were also provided with fl oating support elsewhere while a further 17% of these clients received supported housing.

In the main, clients were either referred by their local authority housing department (26%) or nominated by their local housing authority (18%).


42

Table 3.1: Type of accommodation prior to receiving SP services # %

General needs local authority tenant 28,617 14.9



Staying with friends 18,519 9.7


Private rented 13,283 6.9

General needs RSL/HA tenant 13,215 6.9




Other 7,818 4.1

Owner occupier 5,718 3.0

Prison 4,486 2.3

Hospital 3,476 1.8

Sheltered housing 1,375 0.7



Short life housing 930 0.5

Approved probation hostel 878 0.5

Tied home or renting with job 359 0.2 Total 191,427 100

missing 844 0.2total 192,271 100

Living with family (14.7%; 28,063)

Clients who were recorded as living with family prior to receiving services were likely to be single homeless people with support needs (36%), young people at risk (16%) and homeless families in need of support (12%). As clients began to receive services, almost all moved on from living with their family. Almost half of clients were accepted into supported housing.

Of all clients living with family, 16% were provided with direct access hostel accommodation, almost two-thirds of whom were single homeless people with support needs though a further 11% were homeless families and 11% were young people at risk.


43

� e largest proportion of clients who had been living with family accessed services by means of self-referral (26%) while together, local authority housing department referrals (25%) and housing authority nominations (11%) accounted for more than a third of referrals.

Sleeping rough (9.1%; 18,609)

As to be expected, almost three-quarters of people sleeping rough prior to uptake of services were single homeless people with support needs (49%) and rough sleepers (25%). For those clients who were no longer recorded as sleeping rough, well over half were accommodated in direct access hostels and more than a third had been accepted into supported housing. Only 3% of clients were recorded as still sleeping rough after receiving services, however, slightly more than two-fi fths of those were provided with fl oating support, a further 28% made use of direct access hostels and 18% were accepted into supported housing.

Clients making self-referrals (46%) or referrals from voluntary agencies (21%) characterised the most common referral route for people sleeping rough prior to receiving services, regardless of whether or not they were classifi ed as persistent rough sleepers.

Staying with friends (9.7%; 18,519)

Single homeless people with support needs (52%), young people at risk (13%) and homeless families (7%) accounted for the majority of clients staying with friends prior to receiving services.

Almost all (95%) clients were provided with services that allowed them to move on from staying with friends. Almost half of all clients were provided with supported housing, 26% made use of direct access hostel accommodation and 15% received fl oating support elsewhere.

� e referral route for almost two-fi fths of clients was self-referral while slightly more than one-fi fth of clients were referred by their local housing department and 13% by voluntary agencies.

Supported housing (7.3%; 13,906)

Immediately before receiving services, 7% of clients were living in supported accommodation and almost a third of these were single homeless people with support needs while 15% were people with mental health problems, 9% were young people at risk and 7% were women at risk of domestic violence.

A minority (7%) of clients remained in the same unit of supported housing after receiving services. � e largest proportion of these clients were made up of people with mental health problems (20%) and single homeless people with support needs (16%). More than half of these clients received fl oating support.

� e majority of clients leaving their prior supported housing accommodation were provided with supported housing elsewhere (64%).

� e main referral routes were internal transfer (32%), voluntary agencies (13%) and self-referral (12%).


44

Table 3.2: Clients who were living in B&B prior to receiving SP services # %

Single homeless with support 3,267 36.7

Homeless families with support 1,940 21.8



Generic 447 5.0






Refugees 136 1.5








Frail elderly 8 0.1

Traveller 8 0.1

Mentally disordered offenders 5 0.1 Total 8,906 100.0


� is section examines clients who came to Supporting People services from recognised institutions – bed & breakfast, prison, hospital and residential care. � e Supporting People programme aims to support clients from these institutions in line with other Government targets, for example, cutting the numbers of homeless people in bed and breakfast and reducing bed blocking in hospitals.

Bed and breakfast (4.7%; 8,906)

Single homeless people with support needs (37%) and homeless families (22%) together accounted for the majority of clients recorded as living in bed and breakfast accommodation before receiving a Supporting People service [Table 3.2].


45

15 20 25 Percent

301050

Resettlement Direct access hostel Floating support Supported housing


Single homeless withsupport needs

Homeless families withsupport needs

35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

After qualifying for Supporting People services, the majority (91%) did not remain in this accommodation. Slightly more than half of clients were provided with supported housing and almost one-fi fth received fl oating support elsewhere. However, 14% of clients took up places in other temporary accommodation in the form of direct access hostels.

On the whole, 67% of homeless families in B&B’s and slightly more than half of single homeless people with support needs in B&B’s were provided with supported housing. � e second most common type of service for these client groups was fl oating support. However, a greater proportion of single homeless received fl oating support compared to homeless families. Moreover, a greater proportion of single homeless made use of direct access hostels compared to homeless families [Figure 3.1].

In total, 9% of clients remained in B&B accommodation after receiving a service and more than two-thirds of those were provided with fl oating support while a further 17% were taking part in a resettlement programme.

Clients were generally referred for services by local authority housing departments (40%) or nominated by their local housing authority (20%).

Prison (2%; 4,486)

Single homeless people with support needs (38%), off enders or those at risk of off ending (31%) and people with drug problems (16%) made up the majority of clients who were in prison immediately prior to receiving Supporting People services.

Almost all (96%) clients were released from prison prior to uptake of service provision, the majority (62%) having been referred by the Probation or Prison services, though 13% self-referred. More than half of clients on release were provided with supported housing while a further 27% made use of direct access hostel accommodation.


46

� e largest proportion of those clients remaining in prison and qualifying for Supporting People support were referred to services via the Probation or Prison service (83%) and a further 5% self-referred. � ese clients were mainly provided with either fl oating support (56%) or supported housing (27%).

Hospital (1.8%; 3,476)

Together, people with mental health problems (47%) and single homeless people with support needs (26%) accounted for almost three-quarters of all clients who received Supporting People services immediately on discharge from hospital.

More than two-thirds of people with mental health problems were provided with supported housing and over a tenth received fl oating support. Direct access hostel accommodation was the most likely form of support for the largest proportion of single homeless people with support needs (48%) while only 32% received supported housing.

� ere were variations between referral arrangements for these client groups. Community Mental Health Teams, (49%), health services or general practitioners (GP) (16%) and Social Services (13%) were most likely to refer people with mental health problems to Supporting People services. � e most common referral route for single homeless people was self-referrals (21%), health service/GP (21%) and local authority housing departments (17%) [Table 3.3].

Table 3.3: > e referral routes for clients who were discharged from hospital Mental health Single problems homeless # % # %

Community Mental Health Team 804 49.4 98 10.9Health service/GP 261 16 185 20.5Social Services 210 12.9 47 5.2LA housing department (referral) 140 8.6 156 17.3Other 73 4.5 68 7.5Nominated by local housing authority 51 3.1 93 10.3Self referral/Direct application 41 2.5 187 20.7Voluntary agency 22 1.4 46 5.1Internal transfer 14 0.9 10 1.1Probation service/prison 8 0.5 6 0.7Moving from another RSL 2 0.1 0 0Police 2 0.1 5 0.6Nominated uner HOMES 1 0.1 1 0.1Youth Off ending Team 0 0 1 0.1

Total 1,629 100 903 100


47


Four principal primary client groups – people with mental health problems (26%), drug problems (19%), alcohol problems (12%) and learning disabilities (12%) – accounted for the majority of clients coming to Supporting People services from residential care homes.

Almost one-third of these clients were referred to support services by Social Service departments.

� e majority (65%) of prior residential care clients were provided with supported housing and a further 16% with fl oating support. However, residential care was recorded as the support service for 9% of clients.

3.4 Owner-occupiers (3%; 5,718) � e Supporting People Programme is intended to sever the link between support and tenure ensuring that marginalized and previously excluded groups have access to the type of support that will help reduce vulnerability and maintain independence. Previously it had been diffi cult for people who owned their own home to access appropriate support to help them to remain in their home or to establish more appropriate supported accommodation. Funding for the programme focuses on the needs of clients rather than being linked to property or any particular tenure and as a result, owner-occupiers are eligible for targeted housing-related support.

Overall, the Client Record System recorded 5,718 clients who were owner-occupiers prior to receiving Supporting People support and this fi gure amounted to 3% of all clients.

Women at risk of domestic violence were far more likely to have been owner-occupiers (36%) than any other primary client group prior to receiving a Supporting People support service. More than two-fi fths of owner-occupiers were able to remain in their property on acceptance of housing related support via Supporting People.

Partially, as a consequence of the high incidence of women at risk of domestic violence within the owner-occupier domain, fl oating support (59%), refuge provision (20%) and supported housing (11%) characterise the pattern of support provided to these clients.

Almost a third of referrals were made on a self-referral basis. Social Services (16%) and voluntary agencies (11%) took up a further quarter of referrals for previous owner-occupiers.


48


49

Table 4.1: Support service provision # %

Supported housing 66,909 34.8Floating support 64,778 33.7Direct access 32,910 17.1Women’s refuge 12,946 6.7Resettlement service 5,073 2.6Foyer 3,746 1.9Outreach service 1,943 1.0Residential care home 1,909 1.0Supported lodgings 1,471 0.8Teenage parent accommodation 405 0.2Adult placement 181 0.1 Total 192,271 100.0


4.1 Introduction

� e Client Record System monitors a range of services funded by Supporting People that provide diff ering levels of housing-related support for vulnerable clients. Some services provide accommodation with support on a very temporary basis and some for longer periods of time. For example many direct access hostels provide accommodation and support for clients on a nightly or weekly basis while other forms of support provide more fl exible lengths of stay such as supported housing schemes. Floating support and outreach services provide clients with non-residential support in their own homes and this type of support is contracted for varying lengths of time according to the needs of clients. � is section describes the most common types of support provided to clients in 2005/06 and goes on to report on the balance of provision and the routes by which clients were able to access services.


Although the Client Record System monitors fi fteen diff erent types of support provision, three principal categories of support – supported housing (35%), fl oating support (34%) and direct access (17%) – made up over four-fi fths of service provision during this third year of the Supporting People programme [Table 4.1].

Floating support services were provided to just over two-fi fths of female clients while only 27% of male clients received this form of support. However, two-fi fths of males were accepted into supported housing schemes, compared to only 29% of females. Also, 25% of males accessed direct access accommodation compared to 9% of females.


50

Figure 4.1 illustrates a clear linear relationship between age and the type of service clients received for the two most common categories of support provision. For adults, the percentage of clients receiving fl oating support increased as age increased, however, the opposite was true for supported housing; as age increased, fewer clients were likely to have been provided with accommodation and support in supported housing schemes.


Almost two-fi fths of all Supporting People services were provided by voluntary organisations, 28% of which was fl oating support and 26% was temporary accommodation in direct access hostels. Housing associations/RSLs provided the second largest proportion (35%) of services to clients and more than half of these services were supported housing schemes. Housing authority services made up 13% of support provision and almost half of this support was in the form of fl oating support services [Figure 4.2].

Combined, fl oating support, direct access and supported housing made up almost four-fi fths of all support provided by voluntary agencies.

Floating support services accounted for more than a quarter and direct access 8% of housing association/RSLs service provision.

One-quarter of services provided by housing authorities was supported housing and almost one-fi fth was direct access.

Perc

ent

16-17 18-24 25-31 32-38 39-45 46-52 53-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80+0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80




51


Very nearly a quarter of clients accessed services by means of self-referral. Local authority housing departments referred one-fi fth of clients and over a tenth of clients were referred by voluntary agencies [Figure 4.3].

Almost a third of referrals accepted by voluntary agencies were self-referrals. Voluntary agencies also accepted almost one-fi fth of referrals from other voluntary organisations.

Almost one-fi fth of referrals accepted by housing associations/RSLs were self-referrals, 19% were accepted from local authority housing departments (referrals process), 11% were from other (non-listed) referral sources and a further 11% from voluntary agencies.

30 40 50 Percent

6020100






70 80 90 100

15 Percent

20 25 301050





Internal transferProbation service/Prison





52

Only 18% of referrals accepted by housing authorities were self-referrals while the majority of referrals were from local authority housing departments (44%).


Social Services referred 8% of clients to Supporting People services, 37% of which were to housing associations/RSLs and a further 35% to voluntary organisations.

Probation and Prison services referred 4% of clients (49% were to housing associations/RSLs while a further 42% were to voluntary organisations).

Together, Community Mental Health Teams and the health service or GPs referred 6% of clients. Almost half of health service/GP referrals and one-third of Community Mental Health Team referrals were to voluntary organisations.


Table 4.2 2 illustrates the numbers of clients in each Government offi ce region. Although the South East is the 4th region in terms of the numbers of clients recorded by Client Records, population estimates for the South East shown in Table 4.2 indicate that proportionately, this region provides support to the fewest clients. London (15%) and the North West (16%) each shared larger numbers of clients compared to other regions, for example, the North East, whose client base made up only 5% of those recorded by Client Records.

Table 4.2: Frequency of clients in each Government offi ce region Client Records Estimated Percentage of resident population resident population # % for England 2 receiving support North West 31,094 16.2 6,827,200 0.46

London 29,115 15.1 7,428,600 0.39

West Midlands 23,092 12.0 5,334,000 0.43

South East 22,292 11.6 8,110,200 0.27


South West 20,041 10.4 5,038,200 0.4

East Midlands 19,429 10.1 4,279,700 0.45

East of England 15,951 8.3 5,491,300 0.29

North East 9,450 4.9 2,545,100 0.37 Total 192,271 100.0 50,093,100 0.38

2 Resident population estimates reported in this table are taken from Mid-2004 Population Estimates: Quinary age groups and sex for health areas in England, estimated resident population, published by National Statistics

http://www.nationalstatistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D9092.xls


53

Although supported housing, fl oating support and direct access hostels were the most common forms of support provided there were slight variations between regions. In the West Midlands (39%), North East (39%), East Midlands (38%) and South East (35%), fl oating support services as opposed to supported housing, were the services supporting the greatest number of clients.

Similarly, although voluntary organisations and housing associations/RSLs, England-wide, between them provided well over two-thirds of Supporting People client support, proportionally, there was some variation between regions for these providers. Voluntary organisations dominated service provision in Yorkshire & the Humber (48%), the North East (45%), and West Midlands (44%) and the North West (36%), while housing associations/RSLs provided a greater than average proportion of services in the South East (48%), the East of England (42%) and the South West (39%). � e national average was 35%.

� e largest category of referral in London and the North East was local authority department referral (27% and 22% respectively) while in all other regions the largest referral route was through self-referral.


54


55


5.1 Introduction

� e Supporting People programme aims to meet the needs of people who for one reason or another have cause to access services outside of their own local authority area or who have no local connection to the local authority area in which a service they require is situated. For example, some clients may require specialist services, such as people with mental health problems or very complex needs, which are not available or where there is insuffi cient need in their own local authority area due to insuffi cient demand. Some clients may have a need that can only be met by provision in authorities other than their own local authority, for example, women at risk of domestic violence or ex-off enders released from a prison in an area outside their own community. Often however, clients accessing support services are extremely mobile having not set down roots in any particular area.

� is section explores the arrangements in place to support clients in circumstances such as those described above by fi rstly describing the types of referrals open to clients and the numbers of clients accessing services via the various referral routes. � ereafter,

Section 5.2 examines the extent to which providers of services accept clients from these referral routes.

Section 5.3 goes on to highlight the most common types of support and how clients access services through the cross-authority route.

Section 5.4 presents general regional variations describing cross-authority movement.

Section 5.5 discusses patterns of client movement within and between regions.

Section 5.6 focuses specifi cally on patterns of client movement between Administering Authorities.

� e Client Record System requires providers to describe the type of referral route that enabled their clients’ access to services. � e intention is to obtain details about whether or not clients were living in the administering authority area in which the service is located immediately prior to starting to receive the service. � ere are two main types of referral arrangements:

Host referrals apply to clients who receive services in their own local authority area or clients who were living in an area immediately prior to receiving a service.

Non-Host referrals apply to clients who lived out-with the local authority area and who immediately prior to receiving the service were not residing in the area where the service is located.


Multi-lateral referrals apply to administering authorities where there is an agreed protocol between two or more administering authorities relating to a specifi c service. Such a protocol would mean that a client from any of these administering authorities can be accepted by the service involved. � ese authorities may have agreed to fund a service jointly, or agreed for the service to accept clients from the areas covered by all the administering authorities within the agreed protocol.


56

Spot purchase referrals apply when the administering authority, in whose area a client was living immediately prior to receiving the service, purchases a service for an individual client from a diff erent administering authority. � is diff ers from a multi-lateral agreement in that it is an ad hoc purchase at an individual level, normally to secure a placement in an extremely specialised service outside the administering authority area. Costs continue to be the responsibility of the original administering authority making the purchase.

Structured referrals apply to referrals made by statutory agencies, such as the Probation service or Social Services. � ese referrals are often for those clients who cannot be expected to remain in their local authority area and so would receive a service in another administering authority area. � is option diff ers from spot purchase as structured referrals are made to services that are funded by the authority in which the service is located.

Open access referrals apply where a client accesses a service in another administering authority area either by self-referral or on advice from a voluntary agency. � ese types of referrals apply where there is no formal referral arrangement.

Overall, well over four-fi fths of referrals were made for clients who made an application for Supporting People services within their own local authority. � erefore, less than a fi fth (13%) of clients accessed services outside their immediate local authority and by far, the most common type of non-host referral was open access [Table 5.1].


� e three most common types of service provider were voluntary organisations (39%), housing associations (35%) and housing authorities (13%).

Almost one quarter of referrals accepted by voluntary organisations were non-host referrals. Proportionally, this compares to 12% of housing association/RSL acceptances and only 2% of housing authority acceptances.

Table 5.1: Type of referral # %

Host 167,086 86.9




Non-Host: Open Access 17,817 9.3 Total 192,271 100


57

Non-host open access referrals constituted 16% of referrals accepted by voluntary organisations, 7% of referrals accepted by housing associations/RSLs and 2% of referrals accepted by housing authorities.

Of all structured referrals, almost all were accepted by voluntary (51%) organisations and housing associations/RSL’s (44%).

For clients referred through multi-lateral protocols, 58% of services were provided by voluntary organisations, 35% by housing associations/RSLs and a further 4% by housing authorities.

Voluntary organisations (51%) and housing associations/RSLs (45%) accepted almost all spot purchase referrals.



Overall, supported housing received 66,909 referrals accounting for more than one-third of all referrals this year. Less than a tenth of these were non-host open-access referrals directly from clients accessing services outside their own local authority area [Table 5.2]. Slightly over two-fi fths of open access referrals to supported housing were made by single homeless people with support needs; young people at risk (10%), people with drug problems (9%), people with alcohol problems (8%) and rough sleepers (6%) accounted for almost a further third.

In total, 3% of referrals to supported housing were non-host structured referrals. One-third of structured referrals were made on behalf of off enders or those at risk of off ending while 24% of structured referrals were made for single homeless people with support needs and a further 9% for people with drug problems.

Table 5.2: Referral arrangements for supported housing, direct access and fl oating support

Supported Housing Floating Support Direct Access # % # % # % Host 58,270 27.1 64,051 98.9 26,623 80.9



Non-Host: Multi-Lateral 820 1.2 68 0.1 452 1.4

Non-Host: Spot Purchase 607 0.9 26 0.0 83 0.3 Total 66,909 100 64,778 100 32,910 100


58

A minority (1%) of referrals allowed clients access to supported housing via multi-lateral protocol systems and these clients were more likely to be single homeless people with support needs (35%), young people at risk (11%) and off enders or those at risk of off ending (9%).

Similarly, few referrals were spot purchases (1%) made to supported housing and these were mainly on behalf of young people at risk (54%) single homeless people (11%) and people with alcohol (10%) or drug (10%) problems.


Floating support services accepted 64,778 clients, which accounted for 34% of all referrals this year. Almost all services were delivered to clients within their own local authority (host referrals – 99%). [Table 5.2] However a minority of referrals were non-host open access referrals (1%). � e majority of clients who were recorded as non-host open access referrals and who received fl oating support were made up of women at risk of domestic violence (15%), single homeless people (15%), people with generic needs (15%) and people with mental health problems (11%).


� ere were 32,910 referrals to direct access hostel accommodation this year making up almost a fi fth of all referrals. Of all referrals to direct access, a smaller proportion of clients were recorded as host clients (81%) compared to clients referred to either supported housing (87%) or fl oating support (99%). Of all non-host referrals to direct access, 16% were made by clients on their own behalf via open access [Table 5.2]. Although the majority (67%) of these clients were single homeless people with support needs, another 16% were rough sleepers.


Although residential care homes received a minority (1%) of referrals, residential care accepted the largest proportion of non-host referrals (65%) and 28% of these were non-host spot purchases. People with drug problems (56%) accounted for the majority of residential care spot-purchases followed by people with alcohol problems (40%).

Open access referrals made up 17% of referrals to residential care for people with alcohol (68%), and drug problems (25%).

Structured referrals made up 2% of the referrals to residential care homes. � e largest proportion of these referrals were for clients with physical or sensory disabilities (32%), with an additional 24% for people with alcohol problems, 16% for people with mental health problems and 14% for people with drug problems.


59


Compared to the national average of 13% for non-host referrals, London had the highest proportion of this type of referral (20%). � e East Midlands and Yorkshire & the Humber had the lowest levels of non-host referrals (8% and 8%, respectively).

While London had the highest level of open-access referrals (16%), Yorkshire & the Humber (5%) and the East Midlands (5%) had the lowest.

� e region with the highest level of structured referrals was the North East (5%) compared to 1% or 2% in all other regions.

Multi-lateral protocols were infrequent across England (1%). However, this type of referral arrangement was slightly more common in London (2%) than in any other region.

Similarly, spot purchase referrals constituted only 1% of all referrals in England with the North West (2%) having the greatest proportion and the West Midlands the least (0.1%).

Map 5.1 (overleaf ) shows a summary of cross-authority information by Government offi ce region.

5.5 Patterns of client movement within and between Government Offi ce regions

Table 5.3 on page 62 shows the overall movement of clients into and out of each Government Offi ce region, based on type of referral recorded. ‘Host clients’ (column a) are those that originated from within the funding Administering Authority area, ‘non-host clients from within the region’ (column b) are those that originated outside the funding Administering Authority area but within the same government offi ce region as the funding Administering Authority, and ‘imports from outside region’ (column c) are those that originated from outside the government offi ce region of the funding Administering Authority. Column d ‘exports to other regions’ shows the number of clients who were living in that region but who moved to another region to receive a Supporting People service.

� e net import/export ratio (column e) shows the number of clients coming into that region divided by the number that left that region to get a service from an Administering Authority elsewhere. Regions with a ratio of 100 have recorded exactly the same number of clients accessing services from outside the region as clients who left the region to access services elsewhere.

Regions with ratios above 100 have recorded more clients coming into the region from outside to receive services than left the region to access services. For example, a ratio of 200 means that twice as many clients came into the region to access services compared to the number of clients who left the region to access services elsewhere. � ese regions are described as net importers.

Regions with ratios below 100 have recorded more clients leaving the region to access services elsewhere compared to the number of clients who came into the region to access services. For example, a ratio of 50 shows that twice as many clients left the region to access services compared to the number that came into the region from elsewhere. � ese regions are described as net exporters.


60

1. North East




Number of clients starting to receive services from providers in their own administering authority: 7,581








3. East Midlands






4. East of England






5. London






6. South East






Map 5.1: Summary of Client Record cross-authority information by Government offi ce region


61

7. South West






8. West Midlands






9. North West






ENGLAND






62

� e last column in the table (column f ) shows the overall result of this movement as net import/export where positive numbers indicate the net number of clients who came into the region to access services (corresponding ratio is over 100). Negative numbers indicate the net number of clients who left the region to access services elsewhere (corresponding ratio is under 100).

Of the 9 government regions, four were net exporters of Supporting People clients and fi ve were net importers.

It is important to note that, in terms of cross-authority movement, a far greater number of non-host clients moved within region (column b) rather than between regions (column c). � at is, clients are most likely to access services across Administering Authorities within the same region, than they are to cross regional boundaries. � is pattern is most evident in London, given the greater numbers of Administering Authorities within that region. Nonetheless, London was by far and away the largest net exporter (with a ratio of 62.3 i.e. for every two people who came into the region for services, three people left the region) and the only region to record a net export of over 500 SP clients. Yorkshire and the Humber, the East Midlands and the South East were also net exporters but to a lesser extent.

Table 5.3: Patterns of client movement within and between Government Offi ce regions

Type of referal Non-host Net Net Non-host from outside Exports import/ number from within region to other export of clientsRegion name Host region (imports) regions ratio* imported (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f )

North East 7,581 1,511 339 237 143.0 102

Yorkshire & the Humber 20,094 1,120 574 674 85.2 -100

East Midlands 17,946 866 585 649 90.1 -64

East of England 14,008 895 1,001 662 151.2 339

London 23,181 5,033 827 1,328 62.3 -501

South East 19,816 1,373 1,047 1,088 96.2 -41

South West 17,732 1,176 957 452 211.7 505

West Midlands 20,411 1,674 977 604 161.8 373

North West 26,317 3,840 892 680 131.2 212

Outside England 825 -825 TOTAL 167,086 17,488 7,199 7,199 100.0 0

missing information = 498

* fi gure of 100 = same number of clients imported from other region as exported to another region


63

� e South West recorded the highest net import ratio with more than twice as many clients coming into the region as leaving. � e West Midlands, the East Region, and the North East were also net importers where each had ratios showing that for every three people who came into that region to receive services only two people left the region. � e South West was the only region to record a net import of over 500 SP clients while the West Midlands and the East Region each recorded a net import of over 300 SP clients).

Overall, the net import of clients exceeded the net export of clients, the diff erence being accounted for by the import of over 800 SP clients from outside England, with 345 clients from Wales, 240 from Scotland, 45 from Northern Ireland, and a further 195 from outside the UK.

In terms of actual numbers of clients, London (1,328) and the South East (1,088) exported the largest number of clients to other regions. All other regions, with the exception of the North East, exported between 400 and 700 clients to other regions in England while the North East exported only 230 clients.

In terms of the actual number of clients imported from other regions the South East was the only region to record over 1000 clients coming into the region, followed by the East of England, the South West and the West Midlands which each recorded over 900 clients coming into the region.

Each region recorded a signifi cant level of internal client movement from one Administering Authority area to another within the same region (Column b). London recorded the largest number of intra-regional transfers (5,033), followed by the North West with 3,840 clients moving within this region. � e number of intra-regional transfers in all other regions was signifi cantly lower: between 800 and 1700.

Primary Client Groups

Single homeless people and women at risk of domestic violence were the two most common non-host primary client groups across all the English regions in 2005/06. Together they accounted for 62% of all non-Host referrals.

Table 5.4 shows the overall movement of clients into and out of each Government Offi ce region for each of these two client groups

London recorded a net export ratio (i.e. ratio less than 100) for both client groups: for every three single homeless clients who left the London region only one client came into the region from elsewhere; and for clients described as women at risk of domestic violence, twice as many left the region to access services elsewhere compared to the number that came into the region from outside London to access services. For both clients groups the net number of clients leaving the region was over 200.

Yorkshire and the Humber also recorded a net export ratio for both single homeless and women at risk. For both client groups this was a net diff erence of less than 85 clients.

� e East of England and West Midlands recorded the highest net import ratio of single homeless clients, with over twice as many coming into the region as leaving the region. Similarly in the South West over twice as many women at risk of domestic violence came in to the region as left it.


64

Table 5.4: Net inward and outward migration for services for the top two non-Host primary client groups by region Type of referal Non Host Net Net Non Host from outside Exports import/ number from within region to other export of peopleRegion name Host region (imports) regions ratio* imported

North East Women at risk of domestic violence 703 415 118 77 153.2 41Single homeless 2137 671 114 77 148.1 37 Yorkshire & the Humber Women at risk of domestic violence 1700 388 203 287 70.7 -84Single homeless 6320 313 187 221 84.6 -34 East Midlands Women at risk of domestic violence 1671 367 303 276 109.8 27Single homeless 4661 243 140 172 81.4 -32 East of England Women at risk of domestic violence 1113 383 406 271 149.8 135Single homeless 5265 284 348 152 228.9 196 London Women at risk of domestic violence 752 1049 307 513 59.8 -206Single homeless 5617 1464 134 366 36.6 -232 South East Women at risk of domestic violence 1294 533 472 388 121.6 84Single homeless 6168 382 212 290 73.1 -78 South West Women at risk of domestic violence 1192 365 326 148 220.3 178Single homeless 4331 269 198 136 145.6 62 West Midlands Women at risk of domestic violence 2343 624 343 248 138.3 95Single homeless 5760 471 377 165 228.5 212 North West Women at risk of domestic violence 1711 857 272 271 100.4 1Single homeless 8467 1511 342 232 147.4 110

* ratio of 100 = same number of clients imported from other region as exported to another region ratio above 100 = more clients imported from other region than exported ratio below 100 = fewer clients imported from other region than exported


65

5.6 Patterns of client movement within and between Administering Authority areas

Looking now at patterns at Administering Authority level, Appendix 2 provides a list of numbers of host and non-host referrals for each of the Administering Authorities. � ese have been listed alphabetically within Government Offi ce region. � is table also shows the net import/export ratio for each, but this time the fi gures are based on the total number of host clients (those that originated from within the funding Administering Authority area) and non-host clients (those that originated from outside Administering Authority area; i.e. from anywhere else not taking into account from which Government Offi ce region they originated).

Map 5.2 (overleaf ) provides a graphical illustration of the information shown in Appendix 2. � e net ratio has been divided into fi ve categories:

• Large net importers shown in red with a net ratio of over 150 i.e. at least three clients come into the Administering Authority area for every two that leave;

• Moderate net importers shown in pink with a net ratio between 105 and 150;

• Status quo with net ratio around 100 shown in light grey [net ratio between 95 and 105];

• Moderate net exporters shown in pale blue with a net ratio of between 50 and 95;

• and large net exporters shown in dark blue with a net ratio of less than 50 i.e. for every client who comes into the Administering Authority area to receive a service at least two leave.

� ere is no obvious spatial pattern of movement (such as from rural to urban areas). Explanations for the patterns of movement need to be sought in the specifi cs of the social context and service provision within each area.

Summary of signifi cant features of the pattern displayed in Appendix2 and Map 5.2:

• A small number of Administering Authorities (London Borough of Waltham Forest, Cumbria County Council, Worcestershire County Council, Lincolnshire County Council, Borough of Poole, Cheshire County Council, and Kent County Council) recorded an approximately equal balance in the number of clients who came into the area and who left the area.

• � e number of clients moving into an Administering Authority area varied considerably: from 871 (Westminster City Council in London) to 1 (Rutland Council in the East Midlands). � e median number of all cross-authority clients for the 149 Administering Authority 3 areas was 112.

• � e number of clients moving out of an Administering Authority area also varied considerably: from 755 (Manchester in the North West) to 18 (Rutland Council in the East Midlands). � e median number of clients who left their Administering Authority area to receive a service funded elsewhere across all 149 areas was 129.

• Rochdale in the North West was the Administering Authority area with the highest net import ratio of 576.7 (i.e. almost six times as many clients came into the Administering Authority area compared to the number going elsewhere for services). � e actual number of non-host clients who came into

3 149 Administering Authorities out of 150 are included in the dataset. The Council for the Isles of Scilly does not fund any services through Supporting People that are included in the Client Record System.


66

Map 5.2: Net import/export ratio by Administering Authority

Categories

London

Newcastle upon Tyne

Exporter (High level) Ratio < 50 Exporter (Medium level) Ratio 50 - 95 Equal Import/Export Ratio 95 - 105 Importer (Medium level) Ratio 105 -150 Importer (High level) Ratio > 150

Government office Region Boundaries

LiverpoolLiverpoolLiverpool

BirminghamBirminghamBirmingham

BristolBristolBristol LondonLondonLondon


67

the area was 842. Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, also in the North West, and Swindon Council in the South West both recorded net import ratios of over 400 (i.e. over four times as many clients entered each of these Administering Authority areas compared to the number of clients who left to access services elsewhere).

• Rutland Council in the East Midlands recorded a net export ratio of 5.6 but the number of clients is small with 18 clients leaving the Administering Authority area and only one client coming into the Administering Authority area. � e next lowest ratio was recorded by the City of London with a net ratio of 8.9 (i.e. over ten times as many clients left the Administering Authority area compared to the number of clients who came into the area to access services). A further 26 Administering Authority areas recorded net ratios of under 50 (i.e. over twice as many clients left the Administering Authority area as came into the area).

Liverpool

Birmingham

Bristol London


68


69

6 Homelessness

6.1 Introduction

Supporting People aims to tackle homelessness by focusing on prevention and providing those that are homeless with access to and support in maintaining a home. � is section of the report examines the types of clients and the circumstances of clients accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

� e Client Record System records information on clients who have been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty under the current homeless legislation (2002 Homelessness Act). � e legislation defi nes ‘owed a main homelessness duty’ as one of the following:

• A pregnant woman or person with dependent child(ren) or someone she/he might reasonably be expected to live with;

• A person homeless or threatened with homelessness as a result of fi re, fl ood or other disaster;

• A person vulnerable for some other special reason including consideration of all personal circumstances;



• A person vulnerable as a result of fl eeing violence or threats of violence;


Households accepted as statutorily homeless will have been assessed by a local authority as in priority need and will qualify for re-housing either in council housing or RSL/HA housing. Homeless people qualifying for assistance will generally be deemed as vulnerable in a way where they cannot be expected to fend for themselves. Under this legislation, some homeless households not regarded as having a priority need (or regarded as being intentionally homeless) do not qualify for assistance. � is section includes only those clients who have been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.


Overall, just over a quarter of clients recorded by the Client Record System were accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.


70

Single homeless people with support needs constituted more than a third of all clients accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty. Slightly more than one-fi fth of statutorily homeless clients were homeless families with support needs and women at risk of domestic violence made up a further 13% [Figure 6.1].

Combined, living with family (20%), staying with friends (11%), other temporary accommodation (9%), sleeping rough (9%), bed & breakfast (9%) or in direct access hostels (8%) described the living conditions of statutorily homeless clients immediately prior to receiving Supporting People services. However, there were distinct variations between genders. � ere was a greater proportion of females living in general needs or private rented, tied tenancies or who were owner occupiers. In contrast, a greater proportion of males were in direct access hostels, residential care, hospital, prison, in approved probations hostels or sleeping rough [Figure 6.2].

Overall, 9% of statutorily homeless clients were in B&B accommodation prior to receiving services and more than three-quarters of those were made up of single homeless people with support needs (35%), homeless families with support needs (29%) and young people at risk (13%).

15 20 Percent

25 301050





Drug problemsTeenage parents

Alcohol problemsRefugees

Offenders or at risk of offendingGeneric




Frail elderlyTraveller


35 40


71

Perc

ent


100908070605040302010

0

Female



Private rented


Owner occupier

Supported housing


Sheltered housing


Hospital



Bed and breakfast

Short life housing

Living with family



Rough sleeping

Other

Male


� ere were distinct regional variations in the proportions of statutorily homeless clients across England. London (30%) had a proportion of statutorily homeless clients that was above the national average (26%). In contrast, the East Midlands (19%) and South West (19%) had substantially lower proportions of clients who were statutorily homeless.


72


73


7.1 Introduction

Supporting People is a programme designed to develop links with other statutory frameworks – the NHS, Probation Service and Social Services – in order to ensure that it meets the wide range of needs likely to be associated with vulnerable people. Collecting information on clients who are receiving support via other statutory frameworks can aid in understanding those needs for those responsible for implementing appropriate services and preventative measures.

Currently, information is recorded on fi ve existing frameworks including some that are reserved for high-risk clients. Table 7.1 illustrates the percentage of clients that had been accepted under each of these frameworks. Following this, each framework is discussed and analysed with regard to the types of clients accepted as requiring these services and the support that was provided to them via Supporting People.


Care Management (Social Services) (7.8%; 14,905)

Clients accepted as requiring services under the Social Services Care Management framework either have been allocated a social worker or are eligible for social work assistance. Under this framework, clients have an individual care plan in addition to receiving a package of services organised through Social Services.

In total, 48% of young people leaving care and 41% of people with learning disabilities were supported via Care Management. Rough sleepers and off enders or those at risk of off ending were the client groups least likely to be supported through this type of framework [Figure 7.1].

Table 7.1: Clients requiring services under statutory frameworks Yes No Don’t Know # % # % # %



Accepted as requiring Probation service or Youth Offending Teams 11,564 6 140,244 72.9 40,463 21.0


Assessed under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements 1,396 0.7 145,912 75.9 44,963 23.4


74

Although the majority of clients supported by Care Management received supported housing (40%) or fl oating support (39%), 6% were provided with accommodation and support in residential care homes. People with drug (42%) or alcohol (37%) problems, people with mental health problems (7%) and the frail elderly (6%) made up almost all of those accepted into residential care.

Probation Service or Youth Off ending Teams (6%; 11,564)

� e Probation Service or Youth Off ending Teams support clients who are under supervision or require youth off ending services.

Four principal client groups – off enders/those at risk of off ending (32%), single homeless people with support needs (30%), people with drug problems (14%) and young people at risk (7%) – made up over four-fi fths of clients subject to Probation or Youth Off ending Team supervision.

Almost two-thirds of off enders/those at risk of off ending subject to probation/supervision were accepted into supported housing and more than a quarter were provided with fl oating support.

� ere were no observable diff erences between single homeless people with support needs who were subject to Probation or Youth Off ending Team supervision and those who were not with regard to service provision. However, although almost half of single homeless clients with support needs who were subject to supervision were accepted into supported housing, almost a further one-third made use of direct access hostels.

15 20 25 Percent

301050



Older people with mental health problemsPhysical or sensory disabilities

Frail elderlyOlder people with support needs

Mental health problemsMentally disordered offenders

People with HIV/AIDSAlcohol problems


Teenage parentsWomen at risk of domestic violence

GenericTraveller

Homeless families with support needsRefugees

Single homeless with support needsOffenders or at risk of offending

Rough sleeper

35 40 45 50


75

Supported housing (51%), fl oating support (22%) and direct access hostels (13%) were the main support services provided to clients with drug problems who were subject to supervision.

� ere were distinct diff erences between young people at risk subject to Probation or Youth Off ending Team supervision and those who were not with regard to service provision. One-fi fth of young people under supervision were provided with temporary accommodation in direct access compared to only 9% of young people not under supervision [Figure 7.2]. A greater proportion of young people at risk not under supervision were provided with fl oating support (26%) compared to those who were under supervision (15%).

Care Programme Approach (CPA) (5.4%; 10,333)

Clients subject to the CPA are usually those experiencing severe and enduring mental illness. � e CPA approach provides a network of care in the community through a key worker system. � e aim is to minimise the risk of clients losing contact with services. Clients are normally under the care of the secondary mental health service (health and social care) and are provided with a package of care that has been agreed upon by members of the team, GPs, service user and their carers.

Slightly more than two-fi fths of people with mental health problems were receiving CPA care packages, almost half of these clients received supported housing and more than a further two-fi fths received fl oating support. Clients with mental health problems who were not supported through CPA were more likely to receive fl oating support (62%) than supported housing (26%), while 7% made use of direct access hostels.

Almost two-fi fths of older people with mental health problems were subject to the CPA and 81% of these clients received fl oating support.

Of all clients described as mentally disordered off enders, only 27% were subject to CPA. Of those, almost half were accepted into supported housing schemes and a further 36% were provided with fl oating support.

Perc

ent


5550454035302520151050




76


Care Programme Approach (CPA enhanced) (2%; 4,362)

� e enhanced CPA is intended for clients who require more frequent and intensive interventions, perhaps with medical management. Clients assessed under this framework are more likely to have a dual diagnosis, more likely to be at risk of harming themselves and more likely to disengage with services.

Almost three-quarters of clients accepted as requiring an enhanced CPA were people with mental health problems and almost half of these clients accessed supported housing. A further 42% were provided with fl oating support services. Community Mental Health Teams referred almost two-thirds of these clients to services while a further 11% of clients were referred by Social Services.


Clients subject to Multi-Agency Public Arrangements have been assessed as being a risk to members of the public within the community. Clients assessed under this framework include violent and sexual off enders.

Off enders/those at risk of off ending (31%), single homeless people with support needs (20%), and people with mental health problems (17%) were the client groups that made up the majority of clients subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements.

� e majority of off enders/those at risk of off ending (50%) and people with mental health problems (50%) were accepted into supported housing schemes. However, 37% of single homeless people with support needs made use of direct access hostels while only one-third were provided with supported housing. Floating support services were provided to 41% of off enders/those at risk of off ending, 40% of people with mental health problems and 22% of single homeless people with support needs.

Of off enders/those at risk of off ending, 80% had been referred to services by Probation or Prison services while a minority were referred by the Police (4%) or Youth Off ending Team (2%). A further 4% of referrals were internal transfers, while local authority housing departments also referred 3%.

More than a quarter of single homeless people with support needs self-referred while a further 23% were referred to services via the Probation or Prison service.

Community Mental Health Teams (41%) and Social Services (21%) referred the majority of people with mental health problems who were subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements.


London (12%) and the North East (10%) had the highest proportion of clients supported through Social Services Care Management. With an average for England of 8%, the East Midlands (5%) had the lowest proportion of clients supported through Care Management.

� ere was some regional variation around the national average (5%) for clients accepted as requiring the Care Programme Approach (CPA). Again, London recorded the highest proportion (8%), with only 3% in the North East.


77

� ere was also divergence between regions for clients who were subject to Probation or Youth Off ending Team supervision. While the average for England as a whole sat at 6%, 9% of clients in Yorkshire & the Humber and 9% in the North East were subject to supervision compared to only 3% of clients in London.

Proportionately, clients assessed as a higher risk were few (3%) and there were no observable regional variations.


78


79

8 Comparative Analysis

8.1 Introduction

Since the launch of the Supporting People programme in April 2003, the Client Record System has recorded data on new clients accessing Supporting People services and this current Annual Report provides analysis of data collected over the course of the third year of the programme from April 2005 to March 2006.

� is section of the report compares the fi rst (2003/04), second (2004/05) and third (2005/06) year’s datasets, and identifi es those initial trends and key diff erences that have emerged.

Eff ectively, while some diff erences have occurred, the overall picture emerging from data collection remains one of relatively stable proportions across and within the majority of categories identifi ed on the Client Record Form. Notably, client group composition has remained constant with the majority of clients falling into one of the same six categories as previous years and the majority of clients being supported by the same three support and provider categories. Furthermore, access routes to Supporting People services are as they have been previously. � e stability of the dataset is an indication that this system of data collection continues to capture a highly informative record of new Supporting People clients, support provision and access routes both at a national and local level.

� is section will focus on those key diff erences that have emerged, fi rstly focusing on provision and support, and then moving on to identify decreasing levels of homelessness. � is section then addresses the decreasing numbers of cross-authority referrals. Finally regional variations focus specifi cally on the largest group of ethnic minorities, Black African clients, with a comparison of within region trends over time.

8.2 Provision of support

Since 2003/04, Supporting People services have largely been provided by voluntary organisations, housing associations/RSLs and, to a lesser extent, housing authorities. Figure 8.1 demonstrates that, while voluntary organisations continue to provide for the largest proportion of clients, services provided by housing associations have increased by 3% over the past 12 months. � is corresponds with a 3% reduction in support provided by housing authorities.

8.3 Type of support

During 2004/5 a sizeable increase was recorded in the provision of fl oating support services compared to 2003/04. Since then, this trend has continued and currently amounts to a 6% increase in the percentage of clients supported through fl oating support between 2003/04 and 2005/06. � e reverse is true for the percentage of clients accessing direct access hostels, which has dropped by 4% over the same period [Figure 8.2].


80

Perc

ent

Figure 8.1: Comparison of the main types of provider organisations

50454035302520151050

Housing association/RSLHousing authority Voluntary organisation

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

Perc

ent

Figure 8.2: Comparison of the main types of support

50454035302520151050

Floating supportSupported housing Direct access

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06


81

8.4 Homelessness

� e percentage of Statutorily homeless clients recorded has reduced year by year from 31% in 2003/04 to 26% in 2005/06. Figure 8.3 illustrates that this decrease has occurred in all regions with the exception of the North West. � e North West recorded a smaller proportion of Statutorily homeless clients in 2004/5 compared to 2003/04, however, with no further decrease over the past 12 months. � e largest cumulative decrease between 2003/04 and 2005/06 was recorded in the West Midlands at 13% followed by Yorkshire & the Humber recording 6% compared to 3% in both the East of England and the North West.

Females are consistently more commonly accepted as Statutorily homeless than males. Figure 8.4 shows a gradual increase in the proportion of females since 2003/04.

• In 2003/04, homeless families accounted for 18% of all statutory homeless acceptances. � is fi gure increased by 3% in 2004/05 to 21% and over the past 12 months has remained at 21%.

• In contrast, the proportion of statutory homeless clients that were single homeless has fl uctuated, from 37% in 2003/04 to 38% in 2004/05 to 34% in 2005/06, a cumulative reduction of 3%.

• � e proportion of young people at risk accepted as statutorily homeless, while remaining relatively stable in 2003/04 (8%) and 2004/05 (7%), has increased to 10% over the past 12 months.

Perc

ent

NorthEast

Yorkshire& the

Humber

EastMidlands

East ofEngland

London SouthEast

SouthWest

WestMidlands

NorthWest

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 8.3: Regional variations in the proportion of statutory homeless since 2003/04

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06


82

8.5 Cross-authority referrals

Figure 8.5 shows that host referrals have risen steadily since 2003/04 signalling a gradual reduction in the proportion of clients being referred across authorities.

Perc

ent

Figure 8.4: Trend in Statutory homelessness acceptances by gender

605550454035302520151050

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

MaleFemale

Perc

ent

Host Open access Multi-lateral Spot purchase Structured0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Figure 8.5: Trends in the incidence of host and non-host referrals

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

90


83

4 Census ONS, Regional Distribution of ethnic minority population and distribution of ethnic groups within regions (2001) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D6589.xls


Ethnic minorities – Black African

Black African clients accounted for the largest proportion of ethnic minority clients recorded, making up 5% (9,427) of all clients recorded by Client Records. Within region comparisons are shown in Figure 8.6 alongside regional proportions of Black Africans within the general population taken from the Census (2001) 4. � e national average for Black African clients recorded by Client Records was four percentage points above the average for Black Africans within the general population. While proportions varied across regions, they remained above population averages for all regions.

� e proportion of Black African clients recorded by Client Records within each region has remained relatively stable over time although the trend does appear to be on the decline. Compared to 2003/04, Black African clients in London decreased by 2% in 2005/06 [Table 8.1].

Perc

ent

North East

Yorkshire & the H

umber

East Midlands

East of England

London

South East

South West

West M

idlands

North West

England

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Proportion of Black African clients recorded by Client Records in each region (2005/06)

Black Africans as a % of the population in England

Figure 8.6: Proportion of Black African clients recorded by Client Records (2005/2006) in each region compared to Black Africans as a percentage of the population in England


84

Table 8.1: The Percentage of Black African clients within regions 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 # % # % # %

North East 172 1.7 178 1.9 187 2

Yorkshire & the Humber 659 3 620 2.9 838 3.9

East Midlands 687 3.7 602 3.4 765 4

East of England 274 1.6 265 1.6 285 1.8

London 5,713 16.6 5,071 15.3 4,223 14.6

South East 438 1.7 370 1.6 334 1.5

South West 654 3 518 2.4 578 2.9

West Midlands 1,288 5.2 1,569 6.2 1,345 5.8

North West 1,030 3 1,080 3.3 872 2.8 England 10,915 5.2 10,273 5.1 9,427 4.9 All clients 209,845 100 202,554 100 192,271 100


85

Appendix 1

2. Type of providerLSVT 1 ALMO 6

Housing association/RSL 2 NHS Trust 7

Housing Authority 3 Voluntary Organisation 8

Social Services Authority 4 Private Company 9

Local Authority - Joint H&SS 5 Individual 10


� oneonly


Client Record Form 2005/06 - SUPPORTING PEOPLEFor HA/LA supported housing only - Owning HA/LA Name .......................................................................................

HA/LA CORE Code Management Group Code Scheme code

PROVIDER AND SERVICE DETAILS not morethan three

Leave blank

Refer to Appendix 3 of the Guidance manual for ONS LA codesOnly complete the post code where accommodation was not temporary


�oneonly

�oneonly

�oneonly

�oneonly �


�11b. Please if the client continues to live in this accommodation


7. Client group by which the client is defined

1. Who is the service provider?Organisation Name .............................................................................

Service Name .....................................................................................

SP Service ID

SP Administering Authority(eg Buckinghamshire)

National Client Record Provider ID(a 5 digit ID allocated by JCSHR)

National Provider ID(an 8 digit ID allocated by the ODPM)

Floating support 13



Adult placement 7

Supported lodgings 8 Very sheltered housing 2

Women’s refuge 9 Sheltered housing with warden 3

Foyer 10 Almshouse 4

Teenage parent accom 11 Peripatetic warden 5

Direct access 12 Leasehold scheme 16


service (e.g. 12/04/05)

Client/Tenant code

�oneonly3. Type of service

do not complete for year 2005/06

CLIENT DETAILS

5. CLIENT CHARACTERISTICS. Enter age, sex, economic status ofthe client. Enter details of other members of the household who receiveservices under the same support plan.



if Interview Refused(Q5 – 6)�

Client

Person 2

Person 3

Person 4

Person 5

Person 6


Economic status

Full-time work (24 hours or more per week) 1

Part-time work (less than 24 hours per week) 2


Job seeker 4

Retired 5

Not seeking work 6

Full-time student 7


Child under 16 9

Other adult 0

6. Ethnic origin of client as defined by client �oneonly



White & Asian Other


Other



f. Refused

1 2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9 10

11

12 13 14

15 16

17

Primary SecondaryOlder people with support needs 1 Older people with support needs 1






Single homeless with support needs 7 Single homeless with support needs 7









Homeless families with support needs 16 Homeless families with support needs 16






Yes No Don’t Know

8a. Has the client been accepted as requiring services under thefollowing statutory frameworks (respond to each question)





8b. Has the client been assessed as a higher risk under thefollowing (please respond to each question)

Care Programme Approach (enhanced) 1 2 3

Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements 1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3










a. Host Host


2 3 4 5

1

11a. Type of accommodation occupied by the client immediatelyprior to receiving the support service?








Sheltered housing or retirement housing 8 Any other temp accom 18



Yes No Don’t Know


86

National Client Record Provider ID and National Provider ID

• Always complete the National Client Record Provider ID (5 digits).

This ID is supplied by the Client Record Office at JCSHR – please phone the helpdesk on01334 461765 if you need to check this ID.

• Complete the National Provider ID (8 digits).

This ID is supplied by the ODPM. If you need to check this ID then check www.spkweb.org.ukand click on “National Provider IDs” or phone the helpdesk on 01334 461765.

• Always complete the organisation name and service name.

• Always complete the Client/Tenant code on every form. This will ensure that you can identifythe form from your own records if the Client Record Office needs to contact you with queries.Reports to Administering Authorities and the ODPM will be anonymous.

• Always complete the SP Service ID – this appears on the contract schedule for each service,and is a numeric code.

• Answer all questions as fully as possible. If the client was not interviewed or refused to givedetails for any part of Q5-6, please tick the interview refused box and complete the remainingquestions.

NOTE: CHANGE IN DEFINITION OF “YOUNG PEOPLE AT RISK” in client groups – NOWINCLUDES CLIENTS AGED 16-25.

Returning Client Record Forms to Client Record Office

• Please send Client Record Forms for new clients to the Client Record Office at the end of themonth in which they begin the support service.

• Complete a Client Record Form Batch Header (can be downloaded fromwww.spclientrecord.org.uk) for each month of record forms submitted, and provide full contactdetails of the most appropriate person in your organisation to respond to queries about theforms.


Tick one box only

HOST

A referral to a Supporting People service is defined as host when the client was living in theAdministering Authority area where the service is located immediately prior to receiving the service.For the purposes of the Client Record Form, “immediately prior” refers only to the night before theclient started to receive the service. Please note this question is not about “local connections”.

NON-HOST

A referral is defined as one of the non-host types when the client was living outside the AdministeringAuthority area where the service is located immediately prior to receiving the service. You shouldchoose the most appropriate non-host category as follows:

Multi-lateral – a referral made through a protocol between two or more Administering Authoritiesand where the referral comes from within this group of authorities.

Spot purchase – the new client’s place in the service has been purchased by an AdministeringAuthority other than the one in which the service is located.

Structured – a referral made by a statutory agency where the client was living in a differentAdministering Authority to the one in which the service is located immediately prior to receiving theservice.

Open Access – a self-referral, or referral by a voluntary agency or non-statutory agency to a servicelocated in a different Administering Authority to that in which the client was living immediately prior toreceiving that service.

Please consult the Client Record Guidance Manual for further explanation and examples, or contactthe Helpdesk on 01334 461765 if you are still unsure.


87

Appendix 2 – Patterns of client movement between Administering Authority areas

Non-Host net import/Region (and SP Administering Authority) Host (Imports) Exports export ratio

North East Darlington Borough Council 337 162 75 216.0 Durham County Council 680 160 273 58.6 Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council 666 107 194 55.2 Hartlepool Borough Council 134 42 68 61.8 Middlesbrough Council 570 234 118 198.3 Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council 2,936 455 345 131.9 North Tyneside Council 616 93 112 83.0 Northumberland County Council 416 44 119 37.0 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council 268 29 39 74.4 South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council 252 238 97 245.4 Stockton Borough Council 267 62 113 54.9 Sunderland City Council 439 243 195 124.6

Yorkshire & the Humber Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council 300 60 83 72.3 Bradford Metropolitan District Council 2,284 359 160 224.4 Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council 756 61 74 82.4 City of York Council 559 109 80 136.3 Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council 917 89 212 42.0 East Riding of Yorkshire Council 585 31 57 54.4 Kingston-upon-Hull City Council 2,321 55 100 55.0 Kirklees Metropolitan Council 1,202 114 95 120.0 Leeds City Council 3,528 107 323 33.1 North East Lincolnshire Council 1,004 97 34 285.3 North Lincolnshire Council 477 22 49 44.9 North Yorkshire County Council 999 101 165 61.2 Rotherham Borough Council 658 79 113 69.9 Sheffi eld City Council 3,450 390 159 245.3 Wakefi eld Metropolitan District Council 1,054 39 90 43.3

East Midlands Derby City Council 1,321 128 209 61.2 Derbyshire County Council 1,031 239 140 170.7 Leicester City Council 4,875 138 285 48.4 Leicestershire County Council 499 174 73 238.4 Lincolnshire County Council 2,508 164 160 102.5 Northamptonshire County Council 1,511 97 120 80.8 Nottingham City Council 3,862 269 326 82.5 Nottinghamshire County Council 2,296 273 184 148.4 Rutland Council 43 1 18 5.6


88


East of England Bedfordshire County Council 926 52 128 40.6 Cambridgeshire County Council 1,664 242 130 186.2 Essex County Council 1,999 500 307 162.9 Hertfordshire County Council 2,826 394 285 138.2 Luton Borough Council 725 92 102 90.2 Norfolk County Council 2,268 135 244 55.3 Peterborough City Council 876 123 117 105.1 Southend on Sea Borough Council 396 97 67 144.8 Suffolk 2,074 232 156 148.7 Thurrock Borough Council 254 76 21 361.9

London City of London 8 21 235 8.9 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham 966 120 130 92.3 London Borough of Barnet 685 76 129 58.9 London Borough of Bexley 114 9 53 17.0 London Borough of Brent 704 113 190 59.5 London Borough of Bromley 429 79 71 111.3 London Borough of Camden 2,671 518 341 151.9 London Borough of Croydon 781 104 175 59.4 London Borough of Ealing 1,174 70 138 50.7 London Borough of Enfi eld 307 137 154 89.0 London Borough of Greenwich 656 80 99 80.8 London Borough of Hackney 1,941 247 338 73.1 London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham 912 153 232 65.9 London Borough of Haringey 1,025 82 248 33.1 London Borough of Harrow 211 52 90 57.8 London Borough of Havering 15 13 138 9.4 London Borough of Hillingdon 541 41 56 73.2 London Borough of Hounslow 275 62 127 48.8 London Borough of Islington 1,274 257 333 77.2 London Borough of Lambeth 916 722 415 174.0 London Borough of Lewisham 444 195 287 67.9 London Borough of Merton 214 82 47 174.5 London Borough of Newham 544 113 201 56.2 London Borough of Redbridge 259 201 108 186.1 London Borough of Richmond 17 16 56 28.6 London Borough of Southwark 857 240 494 48.6 London Borough of Sutton 271 29 74 39.2 London Borough of Tower Hamlets 1,311 629 198 317.7 London Borough of Waltham Forest 1,084 150 150 100.0 London Borough of Wandsworth 284 250 166 150.6 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea 476 177 117 151.3 Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames 507 25 73 34.2 Westminster City Council 1,308 871 698 124.8


89


South East Bracknell Forest Borough Council 80 57 43 132.6 Brighton and Hove Council 1,917 87 189 46.0 Buckinghamshire County Council 327 127 107 118.7 East Sussex County Council 900 103 116 88.8 Hampshire County Council 3,546 387 260 148.8 Isle of Wight Council 648 11 29 37.9 Kent County Council 2,980 328 313 104.8 Medway Council 622 105 91 115.4 Milton Keynes Council 473 105 93 112.9 Oxfordshire County Council 1,889 184 168 109.5 Portsmouth City Council 1,917 160 136 117.6 Reading Borough Council 566 68 162 42.0 Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead 22 0 24 0.0 Slough Borough Council 342 19 88 21.6 Southampton City Council 1,007 102 170 60.0 Surrey County Council 1,051 215 231 93.1 West Berkshire District Council 401 98 41 239.0 West Sussex County Council 1,081 307 181 169.6 Wokingham District Council 47 13 19 68.4

South West Bath and North East Somerset Council 384 180 59 305.1 Borough of Poole 315 62 60 103.3 Bournemouth Borough Council 1,615 189 96 196.9 Bristol City Council 3,155 266 234 113.7 Cornwall County Council 1,352 96 70 137.1 Devon County Council 1,508 191 206 92.7 Dorset County Council 443 110 149 73.8 Gloucestershire County Council 2,053 275 146 188.4 North Somerset Council 811 108 76 142.1 Plymouth City Council 1,458 74 94 78.7 Somerset County Council 1,502 153 88 173.9 South Gloucestershire Council 681 78 50 156.0 Swindon Unitary Council 1,342 317 79 401.3 Torbay Council 384 98 59 166.1 Wiltshire County Council 729 112 162 69.1

West Midlands Birmingham City Council 7,727 807 474 170.3 Coventry City Council 2,008 191 147 129.9 Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council 378 224 124 180.6 Herefordshire County Council 476 17 49 34.7 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council 947 122 138 88.4 Shropshire County Council 723 103 64 160.9 Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council 156 44 39 112.8


90


West Midlands (continued) Staffordshire County Council 1,495 269 303 88.8 Stoke-on-Trent City Council 1,141 293 206 142.2 Telford and Wrekin Council 507 8 78 10.3 Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council 1,127 191 170 112.4 Warwickshire County Council 859 59 111 53.2 Wolverhampton City Council 1,383 222 245 90.6 Worcestershire County Council 1,484 131 130 100.8

North West Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council 931 285 124 229.8 Blackpool Borough Council 953 111 172 64.5 Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council 768 101 369 27.4 Bury Metropolitan Borough Council 586 105 247 42.5 Cheshire County Council 1,097 228 218 104.6 Cumbria County Council 1,160 67 67 100.0 Halton Borough Council 371 99 69 143.5 Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council 487 114 74 154.1 Lancashire County Council 3,049 353 483 73.1 Liverpool City Council 2,429 194 668 29.0 Manchester City Council 4,629 537 755 71.1 Metropolitan Borough of Wirral 1,158 439 98 448.0 Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council 923 81 154 52.6 Rochdale Council 2,273 842 146 576.7 Salford City Council 1,309 253 173 146.2 Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council 287 118 73 161.6 St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council 652 316 88 359.1 Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council 755 59 119 49.6 Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council 579 109 74 147.3 Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council 204 30 73 41.1 Warrington Borough Council 722 232 134 173.1 Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council 995 104 142 73.2

Outside England Northern Ireland 0 0 45 0.0 Scotland 0 0 240 0.0 Wales 0 0 345 0.0 Non-UK Country 0 0 195 0.0 Unknown 0 0 498 0.0 TOTAL 167,086 25,185 25,185 100.0


91

Tables & Figures

Tables

Section TwoTable 2.1. Types of service between statutory homelessness acceptance for single homeless people with

support needs who were living with family or sleeping rough Table 2.2 � e support provided to homeless families with support needsTable 2.3 Number of secondary descriptionsTable 2.4 Primary client group by secondary client group classifi cationTable 2.5 Numbers of clients in primary and secondary groups

Section > reeTable 3.1 Type of accommodation prior to receiving SP servicesTable 3.2 Client groups who were living in B&B prior to receiving SP servicesTable 3.3 � e referral routes of client groups who were discharged from hospital

Section FourTable 4.1 Support service provisionTable 4.2 Frequency of clients in each Government offi ce region

Section FiveTable 5.1 Type of referralTable 5.2 Referral arrangements for supported housing, direct access and fl oating supportTable 5.3 Patterns of client movement within and between Government offi ce regionsTable 5.4 Net inward and outward migration for services for the top two non-Host primary client

groups by region

Section SevenTable 7.1 Clients requiring services under statutory frameworks

Section EightTable 8.1 � e percentage of Black African clients within regions

Figures

Section TwoFigure 2.1. Primary client groupsFigure 2.2. � e previous living arrangements of women at risk of domestic violenceFigure 2.3. Pattern of referral arrangements for women at risk of domestic violenceFigure 2.4. People with mental health problems by previous accommodationFigure 2.5. � e previous living arrangements of homeless families with support needsFigure 2.6. � e economic status of young people at risk by sexFigure 2.7. Proportion of referral type by main sources of referral for people with drug problemsFigure 2.8. Older people with support needs by sex and ageFigure 2.9. � e previous living arrangements of off enders or those at risk of off endingFigure 2.10 � e support provided to teenage parents Figure 2.11 Regional variations; proportion of single homeless people with support needs in each Government offi ce


92

Figure 2.12 Regional variations; proportion of women at risk of domestic violence in each Government offi ce region

Figure 2.13 Regional variations; proportion of people with mental health problems in each Government offi ce region

Figure 2.14 Regional variations; proportion of homeless families with support needs in each Government offi ce region

Figure 2.15 Regional variations; proportion of young people at risk in each Government offi ce regionFigure 2.16 Proportion of primary client groups with one or more secondary description

Section > reeFigure 3.1 � e main service types provided to homeless families and single homeless with support


Section FourFigure 4.1 � e proportion of clients receiving fl oating support and supported housing within age

categoriesFigure 4.2 � e main providers of support and the support they provideFigure 4.3 Source of referrals

Section SixFigure 6.1 Primary client groups accepted as statutorily homelessFigure 6.2 � e types of previous living arrangements of statutorily homeless clients by sex

Section SevenFigure 7.1 Proportion of primary client groups subject to Social Services Care Management Figure 7.2 Percentage and service type of young people at risk under or not under Probation/Youth

Off ending Team supervision

Section EightFigure 8.1 Comparison of main types of provider organisationsFigure 8.2 Comparison of main types of supportFigure 8.3 Regional variations in the proportion of Statutorily homeless since 2003/04Figure 8.4 Trend in Statutory homelessness acceptances by genderFigure 8.5 Trends in the incidence of host and non-host referralsFigure 8.6 Proportion of Black African clients recorded by Client Records (2005/06) in each region

compared to Black Africans as a percentage of the population in England

Maps

Section 2Map 2.1 Summary of clients by Government offi ce region

Section 5 Map 5.1 Summary of Client Record cross-authority information by Government offi ce regionMap 5.2 Net import/export ratio by Administering Authority

Contents

�

Supporting People Client Records


Sarah FuscoCentre for Housing ResearchUniversity of St Andrews

SupportingPeopleClientRecordsAnnualReport2006-2007

2

Contents

�


Introduction 13

PART 1 Data Analysis 2006/07

1 Clients 1.1 Introduction 19 1.2 Client profiles 20 1.3 Regional variations 33 1.4 Gender analysis 38 1.5 Ethnic origins 45 1.6 Ethnic minorities 46 1.7 Secondary client groups 49 1.8 Combining primary and secondary client groups to measure the extent of housing-related support need 54

2 Previous Accommodation 2.1 Introduction 57 2.2 Living arrangements of clients prior to receiving support 57 2.3 Clients accessing services from recognised institutions 59 2.4 Owner-occupiers 63

3 Service provision and referral routes 3.1 Introduction 65 3.2 Categories of support 65 3.3 Providers of support 66 3.4 Source of referral 67 3.5 Regional variations 68

4 Homelessness 4.1 Introduction 71 4.2 Statutory homeless clients 71 4.3 Regional variations 73

5 Statutory frameworks 5.1 Introduction 75 5.2 Statutory frameworks 76 5.3 Clients assessed as a higher risk 79 5.4 Regional variations 80


�

PART 2Client Mobility 2006/07

6 National Insurance Numbers 6.1 Introduction 83 6.2 Comparison of records with and without NI number 83 6.3 Variations in frequency of service use 85

7 Cross-authority provision 7.1 Introduction 91 7.2 Referral systems for cross-authority provision 92 7.3 Services and client referral arrangements 93 7.4 Regional variations 94 7.5 Patterns of client movement within and between Government Office regions 95 7.6 Patterns of client movement between Administering Authority Area 99

PART 3Trend Analysis 2003/04 to 2006/07

8 Trend Analysis 8.1 Introduction 105 8.2 The profile of clients 105 8.3 The provision of services and referral routes 109 8.4 Client mobility and the distribution of clients across England 111

Appendix 1Client Record Form (Version 4, 01/04/06) 113

Appendix 2Patterns of client movement between Administering Authority areas 115

Tables & Figures 119

ExecutiveSummary

�


• The report is based on 186,200 validated Client Record forms covering the 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007.

• The Client Record System collects information on twenty-one primary client group categories, six of these categories account for 71% of clients.

• Single homeless people with support needs were the most frequently recorded primary client group, accounting for 28% of all clients.

• The next largest groups were, in decreasing order: women at risk of domestic violence, people with mental health problems, homeless families in need of support, young people at risk and people with generic needs

• Overall, slightly more male (51%) clients were recorded than female and the largest proportion of clients were between the ages of 18-24 years (28%).

• Almost a third of clients were claiming job seekers allowance.

• Almost one quarter had been accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

• Prior to uptake of services the most common previous accommodation category for clients was general needs local authority housing. However, one-third of clients were either living with family, sleeping rough or staying with friends.

• Voluntary agencies provided over two-fifths of services to clients.

• Floating support services have now become the most common service type accessed by clients, accounting for almost two-fifths of services accessed during the past year.

• The most frequent referral route for clients was self-referral and 88% of clients received services within their own local authority area.

Regional variations

• Single homeless people with support needs were, by far, the largest primary category for clients in all regions

• The East of England had the largest proportion of single homeless people with support needs (35%); more than three times that of the second largest primary client group, women at risk of domestic violence.

• The second largest primary client group varied regionally with many regions recording either women at risk of domestic violence or mental health problems.

• Homeless families were recorded as the second most common group in the North West.

• The level of people with mental health problems was greater, proportionally, in London (13%), and the Southern regions (South West, 11%; South East, 11%) compared to 9% nationally.

• The North West (13%), East of England (10%) and London (9%) had greater proportions of homeless families with support needs compared to the national average of 8%. The South West had the smallest proportion of homeless families (5%).

• There were, proportionally, more young people at risk in the North West (10%) than in any other region and the national figure was 7%.

Gender

• While overall the gender balance was relatively equal, there were gender differences in age group with younger service users (16-24 years) more likely to be female but as age increased the majority of clients tended to be male (25-74 years); thereafter (75 years and above) females were again in the majority.


6

• The two most common economic categories reflect distinct gender differences showing that females are more likely to be categorised as not seeking work compared to males who are more commonly found to be claiming job seekers allowance. More males occupy the category of ‘unable to seek work due to long term sickness or disability.’

• Client groups can be defined in terms of gender. For example, women at risk of domestic violence, homeless families, teenage parents, travellers, the frail elderly and clients with generic needs are the groups that are characteristically female. In contrast, males are more likely to be single homeless, rough sleepers, offenders or clients with drug or alcohol problems.

• The most common service type for females was more likely to be floating support compared to males who made greater use of supported housing and direct access services.

• Females are more likely to be accepted as statutorily homeless compared to males.

• A greater proportion of males self-referred compared to females who were more likely to be referred by local authority housing departments. Additionally, a greater proportion of females were nominated by their housing authorities than were males.

• In terms of accommodation occupied prior to accessing SP services, females were more likely to have had general needs tenancies prior to accessing services than were males. Females were more likely to be living with family in contrast to a greater proportion of males sleeping rough.

Ethnic origins

• White-British represented the ethnic origin for the majority of support users (76%).

• Ethnic minority clients tended to be younger than clients of White-British origins.

Ethnic minorities

• In total, ethnic minority groups made up 19% of all clients recorded in 2006/07.

• Clients from Black African (26%) and Black Caribbean (19%) ethnic groups accounted for the greatest proportion of all clients from ethnic minority groups overall making up 45% of all ethnic minority clients.

• Gender differences can be observed in client groups with Asian origins. The effect is most striking in Pakistani clients; a greater proportion of females make up Asian Pakistani clients while a greater proportion of males make up Asian other clients.

• Clients with Black ethnic origins and those with mixed origins accessed a greater proportion of supported housing than other groups. Floating support was accessed more by

Asian and Chinese clients and also by clients from other ethnic origins. Direct access was

more commonly accessed by White clients. A greater proportion of Asian Indian and Asian Pakistani clients accessed women’s refuge services than any other ethnic group.


• Out of the 186,200 clients recorded, more than half (95,977) were defined by one or more secondary needs in addition to a primary need.

• Whilst 52,752 clients were recorded primarily as single homeless people with support needs, an additional 19,215 clients were recorded with single homeless with support needs as their secondary client group. The actual number of clients with single homeless related support needs recorded by the Client Record System is 71,967 (39% of all clients)

• Within the secondary client groupings there were 14,126 clients who were experiencing mental health problems. Combined with clients within the primary category of people with mental health problems (17,492) this figure is almost doubled bringing the total number of people with mental health problems to 31,618.

ExecutiveSummary

7

Previous accommodation

• In total, 15% of clients monitored by the Client Record System between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2007 were recorded as continuing to live in the accommodation or circumstance they occupied immediately prior to receiving a Supporting People service.

• Women at risk of domestic violence (17%), people with generic needs (17%), and people with mental health problems (16%) made up the majority of clients who were general needs local authority tenants prior to receiving Supporting People services.

• Clients who were recorded as living with family prior to receiving services were likely to be single homeless people with support needs (36%), young people at risk (14%) and homeless families in need of support (12%). As clients began to receive services, almost all moved on from living with their family.

• Self-referrals (45%) or referrals from voluntary agencies (21%) were the most common referral route for people sleeping rough prior to receiving services, regardless of whether or not they were classified as persistent rough sleepers.

• Single homeless people with support needs (51%), young people at risk (13%) and homeless families (8%) accounted for the majority of clients staying with friends prior to receiving services.

• Single homeless people with support needs (36%) and homeless families (24%) together accounted for the majority of clients recorded as previously living in bed and breakfast accommodation.

• Overall, 67% of homeless families previously living in B&B and slightly more than half of single homeless people with support needs previously in B&B were provided with supported housing.

• In total, 7% of clients remained in B&B accommodation after receiving a service, and 76% of those were provided with floating support.

• Single homeless people with support needs (39%), offenders or those at risk of offending (35%) and people with drug problems (15%) made up the majority of clients who were in prison immediately prior to receiving Supporting People services.

• Together, people with mental health problems (46%) and single homeless people with support needs (27%) accounted for almost three-quarters of all clients who received Supporting People services immediately on discharge from hospital.

• Four principal primary client groups – people with mental health problems (22%), drug problems (16%), learning disabilities (14%) and alcohol problems (12%) – accounted for the majority of clients coming to Supporting People services from residential care homes.

• Overall, the Client Record System recorded 5,845 clients who were owner-occupiers prior to receiving Supporting People support and this figure amounted to 3% of all clients. Women at risk of domestic violence were far more likely to have been owner-occupiers (34%) than any other primary client group prior to receiving a Supporting People support service.


• Although the Client Record System monitors fifteen different types of support provision, three principal categories of support – floating support (38%), supported housing (33%) and direct access (17%) – made up over four-fifths of service provision during this fourth year of the Supporting People programme.

• Floating support services were provided to well over two-fifths of female clients while only 30% of male clients received this form of support. However, 38% of males were accepted into supported housing schemes, compared to only 27% of females. Also, 25% of males accessed direct access accommodation compared to 8% of females.


�

• Slightly more than two-fifths of all Supporting People services were provided by voluntary organisations, 31% of which was floating support and 25% was temporary accommodation in direct access hostels.

• Very nearly a quarter of clients accessed services by means of self-referral. Local authority housing departments referred 18% of clients, the local authority nominated 12% of clients and 11% of clients were referred by voluntary agencies.

• Almost a third of referrals accepted by voluntary agencies were self-referrals.

Voluntary agencies also accepted almost 16% of referrals from other voluntary organisations.

• Almost one-fifth of referrals accepted by housing associations/RSLs were self-

referrals, 17% were accepted from local authority housing departments (referrals process), 12% were from other (non-listed) referral sources, 12% from voluntary agencies and a further 12% were nominated by the local housing authority.

Regional variations

• North West (17%) and London (15%) each supported larger numbers of clients compared to other regions, for example, the North East, whose client base made up only 5% of those recorded by Client Records.

• Although the South East is the 4th region in terms of the numbers of clients recorded by Client Records, population estimates for the South East indicate that proportionately, this region provides support to the fewest clients.

• The largest category of referral in London and the North East was local authority department referral (25% and 22% respectively) while in all other regions the largest referral route was through self-referral.

Homelessness

• Just under a quarter of clients recorded by the Client Record System were accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

• Single homeless people with support needs constituted more than a third of all clients accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main

homelessness duty. Slightly more than one-fifth of statutory homeless clients were homeless

families with support needs and women at risk of domestic violence made up a further 14%.

• Combined, living with family (20%), living with friends (10%), bed & breakfast (9%), sleeping rough (9%), LA tenancy (8%) or in direct access hostels (8%) described the living conditions of statutory homeless clients immediately prior to receiving Supporting People services.

Regional variations

• The North West (29%), North East (27%) and London (27%) had higher than average proportions of statutory homeless clients.

• Other regions had proportions slightly above the national average (24%), with the exception of the East Midlands (16%), the South West (16%), South East (21%) and West Midlands (21%).


• In total, 48% of young people leaving care and 45% of people with learning disabilities

were supported via Care Management. Rough sleepers, refugees and offenders or those at risk of offending were the client groups least likely to be supported through this type of framework.

• Four principal client groups – offenders/those at risk of offending (31%), single homeless people with support needs (30%), people with drug problems (12%) and young people at risk (8%) – made up over four-fifths of clients subject to Probation or Youth Offending Team supervision.

ExecutiveSummary

�

• Slightly more than two-fifths of people with mental health problems were receiving CPA care packages; almost half of these clients received floating support and more than a further two-fifths received supported housing.

• Single homeless people (31%), people with drug problems (29%) and offenders or those at risk of offending (13%) are the primary client groups that make up almost three-quarters of all clients subject to DIPs. The majority of these clients were male (69%).

• Single homeless people (31%), offenders or those at risk of offending (11%), drug problems (9%) and homeless families (8%) make up well over half of clients subject to ASBOs.

• Three-quarters of clients accepted as requiring an enhanced CPA were people with mental health problems.

• Offenders/those at risk of offending (72%) was the client group that made up the majority of clients subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements.

Regional variations

• London (12%) and the North East (11%) had the highest proportion of clients supported through Social Services Care Management.

• There was some regional variation around the national average (5%) for clients accepted as requiring the Care Programme Approach (CPA). Again, London recorded the highest proportion (8%), with only 3% in the North East.

• There was also divergence between regions for clients who were subject to Probation or Youth Offending Team supervision. While the average for England as a whole sat at 7%, 11% of clients in Yorkshire & the Humber and 9% in the North East were subject to supervision compared to only 4% in London.

National Insurance number

• This is the first year that Client Records have collected NI numbers. Of the 186,200 forms received by the Client Record Office, 137,197 (74%) included an NI number.

• Of the 137,197 forms recorded with a NI number, 15% were for clients who accessed services more than once, consequently a total of 113,891 individual clients were recorded over 2006/07.

• Compared to either supported housing or direct access, floating support services were less likely to record NI numbers from clients.

• Clients who are older – older people with support needs or mental health problems and the frail elderly – were less likely to provide NI numbers than younger clients from other client groups.

Frequency of service use

• From 1st April 06 to 31st March 07, the majority of clients (87%) accessed services only once. A smaller number of clients accessed services on two occasions (11%) and 3% of clients accessed services more than 3 times.

• Clients who make frequent use of services are more likely to be male.

• A high frequency of service access increases the likelihood that clients will be jobseekers. Additionally, overall, the greater the number of times services were accessed, the greater the likelihood that clients will be unemployed.

• The likelihood that ethnic minority groups will access services more than once or twice is minimal.

• Single homeless people are most likely to make frequent use of Supporting People services, followed by people with alcohol problems and rough sleepers.

• The incidence of statutory homelessness did not increase with the number of times services were accessed.


�0

• As frequency of use of services increased, self referrals increased and clients were less likely to be referred or nominated by LA housing authorities.

• Floating support services were most commonly accessed by clients who accessed services only once. Clients who accessed services twice were most likely to access supported housing. The more frequently services were accessed, the greater the likelihood that they would be direct access services.

• The more times that clients accessed services, the more likely they were to have been either sleeping rough or in direct access hostels.


• Less than a fifth (12%) of clients accessed services outside their immediate local authority and by far, the most common type of non-host referral was open access.

• Almost one-fifth of referrals accepted by voluntary organisations were non-host referrals. Proportionally, this compares to 12% of housing association/RSL acceptances and only 2% of housing authority acceptances.

• Floating support services accepted 70,010 clients, which accounted for 38% of all referrals this year. Almost all services were delivered to clients within their own local authority (host referrals – 99%).

• Supported housing received 60,754 referrals accounting for one-third of all referrals this year. Less than a tenth of these were non-host open-access referrals directly from clients accessing services outside their own local authority area.

• There were 30,699 referrals to direct access hostel accommodation this year making up 17% of all referrals. Of all referrals to direct access, a smaller proportion of clients were recorded as host clients (82%) compared to clients referred to either supported housing (87%) or floating support (99%).

• Residential care accepted the largest proportion of non-host referrals (62%) and 34% of these were non-host spot purchases. People with alcohol problems (78%) accounted for the majority of residential care spot-purchases followed by people with drug problems (17%).

Regional variations

• Compared to the national average of 12% for non-host referrals, London (16%) and the North East (16%) had the highest proportions of this type of referral. The East Midlands and Yorkshire & the Humber had the lowest levels of non-host referrals (8% and 7%, respectively).

• While London had the highest level of open-access referrals (12%), Yorkshire & the Humber (5%) had the lowest.

Client movement

• Of the 9 government regions, three were net exporters of Supporting People clients and six were net importers.

• Clients are most likely to access services across Administering Authorities within the same region, than they are to cross regional boundaries.

• London was by far and away the largest net exporter (with a ratio of 60.6 i.e. for every two people who came into the region for services, three people left the region) and the only region to record a net export of almost 500 SP clients.

• The South West recorded the highest net import ratio with almost twice as many clients coming into the region as leaving. The West Midlands, the East Region, and the South East were also net importers where each had ratios showing a greater number of clients entering the region than leaving.

• Overall, the net import of clients exceeded the net export of clients, the difference partially accounted for by the import of over 600 SP clients from outside England.

ExecutiveSummary

��

• London recorded the largest number of intra-regional transfers (3,766), followed by the North West with 3,376 clients moving within this region. The number of intra-regional transfers in all other regions was significantly lower: between 800 and 1,810.

Trend analysis

• Compared to 2003/04, when far more clients were male, females now account for almost an equal proportion of clients.

• While the majority of clients continue to be between 18 and 24 years old, over time, smaller proportions of clients between 25 and 38 years have been recorded compared to a corresponding increase in the proportion of clients between the ages of 39 and 59 years.

• Although the largest proportion of clients year on year has consistently been single homeless people, the proportion of clients who were accepted as statutorily homeless has steadily decreased over time.

• The pattern of access since 2003/04 has shifted to the extent that floating support services are far more commonly accessed now than they were in 2003/04 with a comparable decrease in the proportion of direct access hostels that clients accessed.

• Fewer clients each year are recorded as non-host clients. This might reflect decreasing client mobility and/or a tendency on the part of services to accept fewer non-host clients.

• Prior to accessing support, compared to 2003/04 a smaller proportion of clients were in supported housing and direct access hostels while a larger proportion were owner occupiers.

• The proportion of clients in London has decreased since 2005/06. Similar decreases have occurred in the South East. Increases in the proportion of clients have occurred in Yorkshire & the Humber and the South West.

The Client Record system was introduced at the start of the Supporting People funding programme in April 2003. The Centre for Housing Research (CHR), based at the University of St Andrews, is responsible for the administration of the Client Record System.

Further information about Supporting People Client Records can be found at www.spclientrecord.org.uk, including summary reports to Supporting People Teams and Excel lookup sheets for summary information at Administering Authority, Regional, and England levels.


�2

Introduction

��

IntroductionThis 2006/07 Client Records Annual Report provides summary information of data collected on new clients who accessed Supporting People services during the fourth year of the Supporting People programme.

Supporting People and the Client Record System

The Supporting People programme was designed to improve the quality of support available to vulnerable people. In 2003, following new legislation that separated service costs from housing benefit payments, the programme brought together different streams of support funding to provide a single funding stream for the delivery of housing-related support. The budget for this programme is managed directly by local authorities who have responsibility for delivery of the programme objectives.

The Supporting People programme itself evolved via a number of smaller and earlier initiatives designed to improve health and reduce poverty and homelessness by modernising public services. A key factor in the development of Supporting People was the expansion of the leadership role of local authorities. The programme required authorities to work in partnership with health, social work, probation, support providers and user groups to monitor provision and identify need in their areas. Local authorities have responsibility to commission and fund appropriate needs-led, cost-effective and quality driven services on a contractual basis. Importantly, support services are no longer conditional on accommodation or tenure and the aim is to tailor services in such a way as to respond directly to the individual needs of vulnerable people.

The priority was and is to extend and refine the range of provision and widen access to client groups such as black and ethnic minority communities, offenders, young people at risk and women at risk of domestic violence who, traditionally, have not had ready access to support provision. This involves developing services within local authority areas and creating and sustaining protocols between local authorities to enable cross-authority provision whereby clients are able to access services outwith their own locality.

Independent monitoring of the progress is one of the central principles of Supporting People, designed to ensure that the objectives of the programme are being met. Communities and Local Government (CLG) have devised a common framework for assessing service standards and gathering management information; a significant aspect of this framework is the Client Record System. The Client Record System requires service providers to complete the Client Record form, a means of data collection that provides key performance indicators between and within authorities, identifying the routes by which Supporting People services are being accessed and the personal characteristics of service users. Client Record data is being used to determine the range and extent of service development and cross-authority provision over time and the extent to which vulnerable groups are accessing appropriate services.

The Centre for Housing Research (CHR) is responsible for the management, organisation and analysis of Client Record forms. Every quarter, CHR issues to the CLG a national report identifying the main characteristics of regional and local authority support provision. Reports are also issued to the commissioning body within each of the 150 administering authorities, charting information specifically related to their own authority and region and, for comparative purposes, across England as a whole.


��

These reports tabulate information on the number and type of providers currently operating, the type of services offered, the clients supported, the origin of referrals and the numbers accepted. The Client Record database thereby effectively maps and monitors the key information required for an understanding of what is delivered in terms of housing related support, who is currently using these services and where they came from. Notably, the database offers a picture of what services are not currently being provided and where these gaps occur.

The Client Record system also has an important role in recording and monitoring improvement in the supply of services and assessing whether outcomes equate with real change. Information is recorded for 21 client groups (see Client Record form, Appendix 1 for full list) such as single homeless people who need support, homeless families, teenage parents, women at risk of domestic violence and offenders or people at risk of offending. Data is also collected on secondary problems that clients may be experiencing such as drug or alcohol problems or mental health problems and whether clients are receiving statutory support through interventions such as Care Management programmes or Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPAs). The data additionally records the type of services clients receive so that authorities can identify whether particular clients in their locality are having their needs met appropriately or whether these could be met more adequately, perhaps through cross-authority arrangements. Further, the data may lead to services being restructured or the development of other specialised services. A copy of the Client Record Form can be found in Appendix 1.

The Client Record System monitors client characteristics as closely as possible in an attempt to identify potential gaps by examining the supply of provision through the types of clients accessing services, rather than through the services that are available. This links with the key objective of Supporting People to relate services to the individual needs of vulnerable people rather than fitting them into what is currently available, which in practice may not be the support they require. This is a client-led approach and a realistic picture of the requirements of those clients accessing services needs to be drawn up: the Client Record System contributes to this programme in providing the basis for an assessment of whether Supporting People is achieving outcomes that match with priorities within housing, health, social care and the criminal justice system.

Together, the Client Record System quarterly returns and annual reports are significant as a regulatory, monitoring and evaluation tool for Supporting People policy makers and practitioners. It acts as a reference guide in comparisons of local authority statistics and contributes to individual provider organization planning and funding structures.

The aim and structure of the 2006/07 Annual Report

This is the fourth annual report from the Client Record Office and it brings together information from Client Records completed for clients who started to receive services between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2007.

The aim of this report is to provide summary commentary on the main findings from the Client Record dataset, together with illustrative tables and graphs. The report is based on 186,200 validated Client Record forms covering the 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 period.

The report is divided into three parts:

Introduction

��

1. Part One: Data Analysis 2006/07Part one of this report provides data analysis for the 2006/07 year. This analysis is broken down into the following five sections:

• Clients; an overview of client characteristics including gender and ethnicity and the extent to which clients have multiple needs.

• Previous accommodation; analysis of the living arrangements of clients prior to accessing SP services.

• Service provision and referral routes; the types of Supporting People providers and services delivered to clients together with the routes client groups took in accessing service provision during the reporting year.

• Homelessness; clients who were statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty and the services they received.

• Statutory frameworks; a summary of clients who require services under other statutory frameworks.

2. Part Two: Client Mobility 2006/07Part two is concerned with the extent to which clients access and move through services within and between both Administering Authorities and Regions. The National Insurance number was included as part of the Client Record form in April 2006. Section 6 of part two deals primarily with the information that can be provided through the collection of the National Insurance number. With this addition to the form, it is now possible to begin to explore the data to show the level and type of multiple access of SP services. Section 7 provides information on cross-authority movement and details the level of client mobility throughout England.

• Analysis of National Insurance number; this is the first time we can start to look at an overview of clients by the number of times they have accessed services. This section provides an exploratory analysis of the data.

• Cross-authority movement; this shows the movement of clients into and out of Administering Authority areas in order to receive SP funded services.

3. Part Three: Trend Analysis 2003/04 to 2006/07Part three provides detailed information on the trends that have emerged since the launch of the Supporting People programme in 2003. This section compares data that has been collected on new clients who accessed services in 2003/04, 2004/05, 2005/06 and 2006/07.

The trend analysis is divided into the following sections:

• Introduction

• The profile of clients

• The provision of services and referral routes

• Client mobility and the distribution of clients across England



�6


The Client Record system covers new clients who have started to receive the services shown below through Supporting People funding:

Included services






• Foyer





• Resettlement services

There are additional services that receive funding through Supporting People but are currently exempt from the Client Record system. These are shown below.

Excluded services



• Almshouses




A Client Record Form is completed by a service provider each time a person starts to receive one of their services.

The Client Record system was introduced at the start of the Supporting People funding programme in April 2003. The Centre for Housing Research (CHR), based at the University of St Andrews, is responsible for the administration of the Client Record system.

PARTONE:DataAnalysis2006/07

�7

PART ONE

Data Analysis 2006/07

• Clients

• Previous accommodation

• Service provision and referral routes

• Homelessness

• Statutory frameworks


��


��

15 Percent

20 25 301050




Young people at riskGeneric

Alcohol problemsDrug problems

Older people with support needsOffenders or at risk of offending

Rough sleeperPhysical or sensory disability

Learning disabilitiesTeenage parents

RefugeesYoung people leaving care

Frail elderlyPeople with HIV/AIDS

Older people with mental health problemsTraveller

Mentally disordered offenders

1 Clients

1.1 Introduction

This section of the Annual Report explores the characteristics of vulnerable people as they begin to receive housing-related support services funded through Supporting People. The term vulnerable people refers to individuals who are at a point in their life when they require an element of support to access housing, sustain a tenancy and/or achieve independence and a better quality of life.

During this fourth year of reporting, the Client Record System recorded information about 186,200 new clients. Although the Client Record System collects information on twenty-one primary client group categories, six of these categories account for 71% of clients. Single homeless people with support needs were the most frequently recorded primary client group, accounting for 28% of all clients. The next largest groups were, in decreasing order: women at risk of domestic violence, people with mental health problems, homeless families in need of support, young people at risk and people with generic needs [Figure 1.1].

Overall, slightly more male (51%) clients were recorded than female and the largest proportion of clients were between the ages of 18-24 years (28%). Almost a third of clients were claiming job seekers allowance. Almost one quarter had been accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty (refer to section six for definition of statutory homeless). The vast majority of clients were White-British (76%) in terms of declared ethnic origin.


20

Prior to uptake of services the most common previous accommodation category for clients was general needs local authority housing. However, one-third of clients were either living with family, sleeping rough or staying with friends. Voluntary agencies provided over two-fifths of services to clients. Floating support services have now become the most common service type accessed by clients, accounting for almost two-fifths of services accessed this year. The most frequent referral route for clients was self-referral and 88% of clients received services within their own local authority area.

This section goes on to explore:

• Each client group in more detail providing an account of accommodation prior to service access, referral arrangements, service provision and regional variations.

• Summary analysis of gender differences

• Summary analysis of ethnic origins

• Analysis of the various secondary problems that clients experience

• Assessment of overall support need based on the combined responses to primary and secondary client group categories.

1.2 Client Profiles

Single homeless with support needs (28.3%; 52,752 clients)

Client Records define single homeless people with support needs as either people who have been accepted as statutory homeless and have ‘priority need’ status and are therefore owed a main homelessness duty, or people who have been turned down for re-housing or have not approached the local authority but who have a range of support needs.

Over a third of single homeless people with support needs were between the ages of 18-24. More than half claimed job seekers allowance, while a fifth were unable to work due to long-term sickness or disability and 12% were not seeking work. Only 29% of single homeless people with support needs were accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty. A higher percentage of females (36%) than males (25%) were accepted as statutory homeless, even though more than two-thirds of single homeless clients with support needs were male.

Prior to receiving Supporting People support services, the majority of single homeless people with support needs were either, living with family (19%), staying with friends (16%), sleeping rough (16%) or in direct access hostels (10%).

The proportion of single homeless people with support needs who had been living with family and were provided with supported housing was greater for clients who had been accepted as statutory homeless than it was for those that had not: in comparison, a greater proportion of those that had not been accepted as statutory homeless made use of direct access hostels. Additionally, a greater proportion of clients that had not been accepted as statutory homeless were provided with Foyer support.

Far less clients who had been sleeping rough and had not been accepted as statutory homeless accessed supported housing compared to those that were statutory homeless. Almost two-thirds of clients who had not been accepted as statutory homeless and had been sleeping rough made use of direct access hostels [Table 1.1.].


2�

Table 1.1: Types of service between statutory homelessness acceptance for single homeless people with support needs who were living with family or sleeping rough



# % # % # % # % Supported housing 1,709 53.7 874 44.6 2,481 49.1 1,314 29.8

Direct access 804 25.3 909 46.4 1,493 29.6 2,771 62.7


Foyer 135 4.2 35 1.8 513 10.2 91 2.1

Women’s refuge 46 1.4 0 0.0 14 0.3 1 0.0

Resettlement 45 1.4 26 1.3 37 0.7 26 0.6

Supported lodgings 31 1 25 1.3 38 0.8 13 0.3

Outreach 5 0.2 4 0.2 16 0.3 9 0.2

Teenage parent accommodation 5 0.2 1 0.1 6 0.1 0

Residential care home 1 0.0 4 0.1

Adult placement 1 0.0 Total 3,180 100 1,961 100 5,050 100 4,416 100

Almost one third of single homeless people with support needs made self-referrals, making this the most common route to service provision for this client group, and services were provided to the majority of these clients in their own administering authority area mainly by voluntary organisations and housing associations/registered social landlords (RSLs).

Women at risk of domestic violence (11.1%; 20,619 clients)

Three quarters of women at risk of domestic violence were between 18-38 years and almost two-thirds of all clients were described as not seeking work. Almost one-third of women had been accepted as statutory homeless.

General needs local authority tenancy (24%), private rented (14%), living with family (13%), women’s refuge (12%), owner occupied (10%) or general needs RSL/HA tenancy (10%) described the prior accommodation for the majority of women [Figure 1.2]. Well over half of provision for women at risk of domestic violence was refuge provision. Additionally, just over one-quarter of clients were provided with floating support.

The pattern of referral arrangements for women at risk of domestic violence was varied. Women were most likely to either be referred by voluntary agencies (23%) or make a self-referral (23%) [Figure 1.3]. Although the majority (61%) of women received services in their own local authority area, as a group, women at risk of domestic violence were more likely than any other client group to access services via cross-authority arrangements: 30% of referrals were open access; 6% were structured; 3% were multi-lateral; and 1% were spot purchase (refer to section 5.1 for a definition of referral types). The majority (67%) of services were provided by voluntary agencies while housing associations/RSLs (20%) and housing authorities (5%) made up the remainder of provision for almost all clients within this group.


22

15 Percent

20 251050


General needs local authority tenantPrivate sector tenancy

Living with familyWomen’s refuge

Owner occupationHousing association general needs tenancy

Living with friendsOther

Any other temp accommodationBed and breakfast

Supported housingDirect access hostelAll other categories

15 Percent

20 251050




Social ServicesNominated by local housing authority

Client applied for internal transferHealth service/GP

Probation service/prisonMoving from another RSL

Community Mental Health TeamYouth Offending Team

Nominated under MoveUK


2�

15 Percent

20 25 301050


General needs local authority tenancyHousing association general needs tenancy

Supported housingLiving with family

Private sector tenancyHospital

Bed and breakfastOwner occupation

Rough sleepingDirect access hostel

OtherAny other temp accommodation

Living with friendsAll other categories


People with mental health problems (9.4%; 17,492 clients)

There was wide variation in the ages of people with mental health problems with the majority (86%) falling between 18 and 52 years. Within this wide-ranging age bracket, the largest proportion of clients fell into either the 32-38 (20%) or 39-45 (20%) age bracket. The majority of people with mental health problems were male (57%). Almost three-quarters of this client group were unable to work due to long-term sickness or disability. Just over two-fifths of clients had been accepted as requiring a Care Programme Approach (CPA) and almost one-fifth required an enhanced CPA. Almost a fifth were receiving Social Services care management. Of all clients with mental health problems, 11% were accepted as statutory homeless and were owed a main homelessness duty. The most common type of previous accommodation for people with mental health problems was general needs local authority or housing association tenancies [Figure 1.4].

Almost all people with mental health problems received services in their own local authority area (96%) and one-third of clients were referred by their Community Mental Health Team. Well over two-thirds of services for this client group were provided by housing associations/RSLs (37%) and voluntary organisations (33%).


2�

15 Percent

20 251050

Figure 1.5: Previous living arrangements of homeless families with support needs

Living with familyPrivate sector tenancy

General needs local authority tenancyBed and breakfast

Any other temp accommodationLiving with friends

Housing association general needs tenancyDirect access hostelSupported housing

OtherOwner occupation

Women’s refugeShort life housing

Rough sleeping

Homeless families with support needs (8.4%; 15,715 clients)

Over one-third of homeless families with support needs were in the 18-24 age bracket. The majority (78%) of clients were female and well over half were not seeking work. Only 31% of clients were recorded as having a partner. Well over half of homeless families had been accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Table 1.2: The support provided to homeless families with support needs Accepted as statutorily homelesss Not accepted as statutorily homeless

# % # % Supported housing 4714 52.6 788 25.2

Floating support 2845 31.8 1,794 57.3

Direct access 786 8.8 348 11.1






Foyer 2 0.0 6 0.2

Residential care home 1 0.0 3 0.1 Total 8,957 100 3,129 100


2�

30 40 50 Percent

6020100



Other adultFull-time work

Govt trainingLong term sick/disabled

Job seeker

70 80 90 100

Female (53.3%)

Male (46.7%)

Living with family (21%), renting privately (14%), general needs local authority tenant (12%) and bed & breakfast (12%) described the living arrangements of the majority of clients prior to receiving support. [Figure 1.5] On receipt of SP services, more than two-fifths of clients were accepted into supported housing schemes and almost two-fifths were provided with floating support services, while 11% of families had made use of direct access hostels. Families who had been accepted as statutory homeless were more likely to be provided with supported housing compared to those that had not been accepted as statutory homeless. Families that had not been accepted as statutory homeless were more likely to be provided with floating support [Table 1.2].

Almost half the families were referred to services by means of the local authority housing department’s referral process and more than one-fifth were nominated by their local housing authority. A further 14% of families self-referred. Almost all referrals were host referrals (97%) and 44% of all services for this client group were provided by housing authorities, a further 24% by housing associations/RSLs and 11% by voluntary organisations.

Young people at risk (7.4%; 13,763 clients)

Almost all clients in this category were either between the ages of 16-17 years (45%) or 18-24 years (54%). Of these clients, 53% were female. The majority of clients claiming jobseekers allowance were male [Figure 1.6].

Care Management via Social Services was provided to 7% of young people at risk and 7% were being supervised by probation or Youth Offending Teams. Just under one-third were accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Six types of accommodation accounted for more than three-quarters of the living arrangements of young people at risk prior to receiving services: living with family (29%); staying with friends (15%); supported housing (9%); direct access hostel (8%); general needs local authority tenancy (8%) and bed & breakfast (7%).

Supported housing (45%) and floating support (33%) made up more than three-quarters of support accessed by young people at risk. Most clients (93%) received services in their host area with the largest proportion of clients either self-referring (22%) or being referred by the local authority housing department (21%). In the main, young people at risk received support services from either voluntary organisations (46%) or housing associations/RSLs (40%).


26

Generic (6.6%; 12,253 clients)

The generic client group refers to clients with multiple primary needs.

Over one-fifth of clients falling into the generic category were between the ages of 18-24 years, 19% were aged 25-31 years and a further 18% were aged between 32 and 38 years. The majority of clients in this group were female (64%). More than one-third of clients were not seeking work, 19% were unable to work due to long-term sickness or disability and 18% were claiming jobseekers allowance. Overall, 5% of clients had been accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Almost two-thirds of clients were tenants either in general needs local authority or RSL/HA housing prior to receiving services.

Clients in the generic category were more likely to receive services in their own local authority area (98%), but through various referral routes: self-referrals (23%); referrals made by local authority housing departments (23%); nominations from local housing authorities (17%); and 11% of referrals were via unspecified (other). Three principal types of provider organisations provided services: housing associations/RSLs (30%); housing authorities (28%) and voluntary organisations (24%).

People with alcohol problems (4%; 7,340 clients)

The largest proportion of these clients were aged between 32-45 (47%) and almost four-fifths of people with alcohol problems were male. More than half were unable to work due to long term sickness or disability and 10% had been accepted as requiring services under a Social Service Care Management programme while 7% were under supervision of Probation of Youth Offending Teams. Clients that were statutory homeless made up 12% of all clients with alcohol problems.

Prior to uptake of Supporting People services, 27% of clients were tenants either within general needs local authority housing (17%) or within the housing association sector (10%). of clients were general needs local authority tenants. However, a further 16% of clients were sleeping rough.

Floating support was the most common service type accessed (41%) followed by supported housing (37%) and direct access (16%).

More than one-quarter of people with alcohol problems accessed services by self-referral and although the majority of clients received services in their own local authority (85%), 7% of referrals were non-host open access. Services for people with alcohol problems were primarily provided by voluntary organisations (49%) or housing associations/RSLs (34%).

People with drug problems (3.9%; 7,225 clients)

Overall, 61% of this client group were between the ages of 25 and 38 years and almost three-quarters of all people with drug problems were male (74%). Almost half of clients were unable to work due to long-term sickness or disability. Just over one-fifth of clients were subject to Probation or Youth Offending Team supervision and 8% of clients had been accepted as requiring Care Management via Social Services. Less than a fifth of clients had been accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

The prior living arrangements of people with drug problems varied though generally, clients were more likely to have been sleeping rough (16%), have been local authority tenants (12%) or were living with


27

30 40 50 Percent

6020100

Voluntary agency Social Services Probation service/prison






Host

70 80 90 100

family members (10%) or in supported housing (10%). The bulk of support provided to clients who had been sleeping rough was direct access (52%) or supported housing (36%).

Although the majority (86%) of people with drug problems received services in their own local authority area, 7% of clients were non-host open access, 4% were non-host structured clients and 2% were non-host multi-lateral clients. While people with drug problems were most likely to self-refer (23%), 17% were referred by voluntary agencies, 16% were referred by other agencies and 13% were referred by the Probation or Prison service. Figure 1.7 breaks down the routes to referrals that people with drug problems made depending on whether they were host or non-host clients. This shows that the host clients are most likely to self-refer, multi-lateral and open access clients were referred by various agencies, spot purchase clients were referred, in the main by Social Services while the Probation/Prison service was the most common referral route for structured referrals. Voluntary agencies (49%) and housing associations/RSLs (33%) provided the bulk of services to this client group.

Older people with support needs (3.9%; 7,212 clients)

One-third of older people with support needs were aged 80 or over and of these, 68% were female; overall, 55% of clients were female [Figure 1.8]. Clients were mainly retired (87%) while only 8% were long term sick or disabled. Social Services had accepted 18% of clients as requiring a Care Management programme; 59% of these clients were female.

30 40 50 Percent

6020100

Female

Male


53-5960-6465-6970-7475-79

80+

70 80 90 100


2�

Prior to receiving services, older people with support needs were mainly tenants, either in general needs local authority (30%), housing for older people (17%) or RSL/HA (17%) housing. However, 16% of clients were owner occupiers. Almost two-thirds of older people remained in their accommodation and the majority (88%) received floating support. For those that left their accommodation on receipt of support, 84% received floating support elsewhere and 10% were provided with supported housing.

Older people with support needs accessed services through various referral routes, namely, local housing authority nominations (22%), Social Services (21%), self-referrals (19%), local authority housing department referrals (14%) or other unidentified sources (11%). Almost all clients received services in their own local authority area (99%). In the main, services were provided by voluntary organisations (25%), housing authorities (23%), housing associations/RSLs (23%) and Social Services (12%).

Offenders or those at risk of offending (3.2%; 5,990 clients)

The majority of offenders were between the ages of 18 and 38 years, (18-24, 27%; 25-31, 23%; and 32-38, 21%). Almost all offenders were male (85%) and almost two-thirds were subject to Probation or Youth Offending Team supervision. The economic status for 62% of offenders or those at risk of offending was job seeker. Only 13% of offenders had been accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Only 22% of clients accessed services straight from prison. Over and above this, clients were either living with family (14%), in general needs local authority tenancies (10%), in supported housing (10%), staying with friends (9%), in approved probation hostels (7%) or sleeping rough (7%) [Figure 1.9]. In total, 16% of clients accessed support while remaining in prison and 44% of those were provided with supported housing while 40% were given floating support. For offenders released from prison prior to receiving support, almost four-fifths were accepted into supported housing schemes. More than half of clients living with family prior to receiving support were provided with supported housing and 25% were provided with floating support. Almost two-thirds of offenders staying with friends prior to receiving support were provided with supported housing and more than 21% received floating support.

15 Percent

20 251050


PrisonLiving with family


Staying with friendsApproved probation hostel

Rough sleepingPrivate rented


All other categories


2�

Almost two-thirds of offenders were referred by the Probation or Prison service and just over four-fifths received services in the local authority area providing the service. However, 13% of referrals for offenders were non-host structured referrals. Primarily, services for this client group were provided by voluntary organisations (49%) and housing associations/RSLs (44%).

Rough sleepers (3.2%; 5,922 clients)

In the single homeless category described at the start of section 2.2, it was evident that most single homeless people live in short term accommodation such as direct access hostels. However, there are some single homeless people who live on the streets for most or all of their period of homelessness and these clients are referred to as rough sleepers. Rough sleepers are people who are roofless and bed down for the night on the street or sleep out in buildings or other places not designed for habitation, for example, in stations, car parks or sheds.

The age range of rough sleepers was varied: 24% were 18-24 years; 20% were 25-31 years; 20% were 32-38 years; and 17% were 39-45 years. Well over four-fifths of rough sleepers were male. Almost half of rough sleepers were job seekers and slightly more than one-fifth were unable to work due to long term sickness or disability. Only 18% of rough sleepers had been accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

As would be expected, the largest proportion (three-quarters) of clients were rough sleeping prior to receiving services, however, a few clients were staying with friends (5%), in direct access hostels (4%) or living with family (4%). On receipt of SP support, only 22% of rough sleepers were provided with supported housing whilst the majority made use of direct access hostel accommodation (71%).

Although the majority of clients were host clients (82%), 16% of referrals for rough sleepers were non-host open access and half of all referrals were made on a self-referral basis. Voluntary agencies referred approximately one-quarter of rough sleepers and provided services to 60%, while housing associations/RSLs provided services to almost one-third.

People with physical or sensory disabilities (2.9%; 5,353 clients)

People with physical or sensory disabilities were most likely to be between the ages of 32 and 59 years (60%). Slightly more than half were male and the majority of clients were unable to work due to long term sickness or disability (61%). One-quarter of clients were accepted as requiring Care Management via Social Services. A minority (7%) of people with physical or sensory disabilities were accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Approximately half of clients were tenants either in general needs local authority housing (32%) or RSL/HA housing (19%) prior to receiving services while 14% were owner occupiers. Of those clients in local authority housing, two-fifths remained in their tenancies and almost all of those received floating support (93%). This was very similar for clients remaining in RSL/HA tenancies.

Nearly all clients were supported in their own local authority area (98%). Social Services referred 27% of clients while almost a quarter of referrals were self-referrals and 17% were made by local authority housing departments. Voluntary organisations (35%), housing associations/RSLs (23%) and housing authorities (17%) provided the bulk of support for this client group.


�0

People with learning disabilities (2.1%; 3,971 clients)

More than a quarter of people with learning disabilities were between the ages of 18 and 24 years. Over half were male. Well over half of this client group were unable to work due to long term sickness or disability.

In the main, people with learning disabilities were either general needs local authority tenants (26%), living with family (17%), in supported housing (16%) or general needs RSL/HA tenants (13%) prior to receiving support. More than half of service provision for this client group was floating support and one-third were provided with supported housing. Referrals largely came from Social Services (46%) and these clients were most likely to receive services in their own local authority area (96%).


Teenage parents (2%; 3,763 clients)

The largest age groups for teenage parents was 18-24 years (60%). Only 2% of teenage parents were male. Economically, almost three-quarters of this group were not seeking work. Almost one-third of teenage parents had been accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Two-fifths of teenage parents were living with family prior to receiving services while 13% were general needs local authority tenants and 9% were in supported housing. Well over half of teenage parents received floating support services while almost one-third were accepted into supported housing. Only 9% of clients were provided with specialised teenage parent accommodation. Clients who were accepted as statutory homeless were more likely to receive teenage parent accommodation than non-statutory homeless clients. Additionally, of clients who had not been accepted as statutory homeless, less than a quarter had received supported housing while 69% received floating support [Figure 1.10].

30

Percent

40 50 7020100


Supported housing

Floating support


Direct access


Outreach service

60



��

The majority of teenage parents were referred to services either through local authority housing department referrals (24%) or nominations by local housing authorities (17%). Almost all clients received services within their own local authority (98%). Housing associations/RSLs (45%), voluntary organisations (27%) and housing authorities (13%) provided the bulk of services for teenage parents.

Refugees (1.5%; 2,718 clients)

Refugees were most likely to be between the 18-38 age range (83%). The majority of clients were male (68%) and the largest economic category for all clients was job seekers (64%). Just over one-quarter of refugees had been accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Clients in this group were previously either in unspecified (other) temporary accommodation (17%), staying with friends (15%), or were tenants in local authority housing (15%). Floating support (54%) and supported housing (35%) accounted for the majority of services provided to refugees.

Most refugees received services in their own local authority (90%). Self-referrals (37%) and local authority housing department referrals (20%) or voluntary organisations (15%) were the referral routes for the majority of refugees. Voluntary agencies (41%) and housing association/RSLs (34%) provided the bulk of services for this client group.

Young people leaving care (1%; 1,796 clients)

Of these clients, 62% were between the ages of 18 and 24 years and almost all of the remaining clients were between the ages of 16-17 years (38%). There were equal proportions of males and females in this client group. The largest proportion of clients were jobseekers (40%). Social Services Care Management programmes were in place for 48% of clients and of these, 53% were 18-24 years. Less than one-fifth of clients had been accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

By far, the largest proportion of clients had come to services via children’s homes or foster care (29%) and while more than half of those were provided with supported housing, 23% received a place with supported lodgings and 17% were provided with floating support.

Almost three-quarters of young people leaving care were referred to services by Social Service departments. Few clients received cross-authority referrals (7%) and referrals that were non-host were more likely to be structured (4%) or open access (2%). Support for young people leaving care was provided, in the main, by housing associations/RSLs (39%) and voluntary organisations (33%).

Frail elderly (0.4%; 724 clients)

During this fourth year of data recording, clients receiving Supporting People services in sheltered/very sheltered housing, almshouses, peripatetic warden schemes and leasehold schemes remained exempt from the Client Record System. The following is a summary of the characteristics of frail elderly clients who were receiving Supporting People contracted services other than those mentioned above.

As would be expected, just under half of this client group were 80 years or over and a further 20% were between the ages of 75 and 79 years. One third of clients were below the age of 75 years. Females accounted for 61% of all frail elderly clients. Social Services Care Management programmes had been


�2

provided for 29% of clients. A minority (4%) of frail elderly had been accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Prior to receiving support, almost two-thirds of frail elderly clients held tenancies in either general needs local authority (44%) or RSL/HA housing (21%) while 10% of clients were owner-occupiers and a further 6% were in housing for older people. Floating support was provided to 87% of clients.

In the main, frail elderly people received services within their own local authority (99%) and the most likely referral routes were Social Services (29%), local housing department’s referral process (20%) or self-referral (17%). Voluntary agencies (26%), housing authorities (25%) and housing association/RSLs (14%) provided the bulk of services to this client group.

People with HIV/AIDS (0.3%; 564 clients)

More than half of clients in this group were between the ages of 32 and 45 and 56% were male. Almost two-thirds of clients were unable to work due to long term sickness or disability and one-quarter were accepted as requiring Social Services Care Management. A minority (11%) of people with HIV/AIDS had been accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

The majority of clients were either tenants in the private rented sector (25%), general needs local authority housing (23%), or general needs RSL/HA housing (18%).

More than two-fifths accessed services by means of self-referral. Over two-fifths of services were provided by voluntary organisations while local authority joint H&SS provided 29% and RSL/HA provided a further 18% of services.

Older people with mental health problems (0.3%; 541 clients)

All members of this client group were above the age of 53, with the largest proportion 80 years or over (25%). More than half of clients were female and the majority (74%) were retired, while one-fifth were unable to work due to long term sickness or disability. Overall, 28% were accepted as requiring Care Management via Social Services and 23% were accepted as requiring services through a Care Programme Approach (CPA). Clients were generally either tenants in general needs local authority housing (28%), owner occupiers (20%) or tenants in RSL/HA housing (16%) prior to receiving support.

The principal type of support provided to these clients was floating support (85%). However, 9% of clients were accepted into supported housing schemes.

Most services were provided in the client’s own local authority (98%) and clients were either referred by Social Services (26%), the Community Mental Health Team (26%), nominated (12%) or referred (11%) by the local authority housing department. Services were provided either by voluntary organisations (36%), housing associations/RSLs (22%) or housing authorities (13%).

Travellers (0.2%; 289 clients)

The majority of travellers fell between the ages of 18 and 45 years and 54% of clients were female. More than one-third of travellers were not seeking work and 30% were job seekers. Overall, 14% of clients had been accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.


��

Almost one-third of travellers were accommodated in mobile homes/caravans prior to accessing services, 14% were in general needs local authority tenancies and 13% were sleeping rough. The majority (44%) of travellers were provided with floating support while 32% were provided with supported housing and 20% made use of direct access hostels.

Well over half of travellers came through the self-referral route and the majority were host referrals(89%). Voluntary organisations provided services to almost two-fifths of travellers while housing association/RSLs provided 21% and housing authorities a further 17%.

Mentally disordered offenders (0.1%; 198 clients)

The age range of clients in this group was wide and generally fell between 18-45 years. Almost three-quarters of clients were male and 61% of all clients in this category were unable to work due to long term sickness or disability. Probation or Youth Offending Teams were supervising 29% of mentally disordered offenders, 22% were supported through the Care Programme Approach (CPA), 15% were accepted as requiring Care Management through Social Services, 13% had been assessed under the Enhanced Care Programme Approach and 11% were subject to Multi-Public Protection Arrangements. Over one-quarter of clients had been accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Prior to uptake of Supporting People services, 18% of these clients were general needs local authority tenants, 9% were in supported housing, 8% were in prison, 8% were sleeping rough and 8% were in hospital. Those living with family or friends made up a further 15%. The majority of clients were either provided with floating support (57%), supported housing (25%) or direct access accommodation (15%).

The majority (87%) of mentally disordered offenders received services within their own local authority. Almost one-fifth of clients were referred by the Probation or Prison service while 16% were referred by the Community Mental Health Team, a further 14% by local authority housing departments and 13% self-referred. Voluntary organisations (41%), housing associations/RSLs (41%) and housing authorities (14%) were the main providers of support for this client group.


Single homeless people with support needs were, by far, the largest primary category for clients in all regions. The East of England had the largest proportion of single homeless people with support needs (35%); more than three times that of the second largest primary client group, women at risk of domestic violence [Figure 1.11].

The second largest primary client group varied regionally with many regions recording either women at risk of domestic violence or mental health problems. Homeless families were recorded as the second most common group in the North West. Figure 1.12 shows the proportion of women at risk of domestic violence across regions.

The level of people with mental health problems was greater, proportionally, in London (13%), and the Southern regions (South West, 11%; South East, 11%) compared to 9% nationally [Figure 1.13].

The North West (13%), East of England (10%) and London (9%) had greater proportions of homeless families with support needs compared to the national average of 8%. The South West had the smallest proportion of homeless families (5%) [Figure 1.14].


��

There were, proportionally, more young people at risk in the North West (10%) than in any other region and the national figure was 7% [Figure 1.15].


15 20 Percent

25 301050



West MidlandsSouth East

Yorkshire & the HumberNorth East

East MidlandsLondon

South WestENGLAND

35

1510

Percent

50


West MidlandsEast Midlands

North EastSouth East

South WestEast of England

Yorkshire & HumberNorth West

LondonENGLAND

20


��

151050



East MidlandsYorkshire & Humber

East of EnglandWest Midlands

North EastNorth WestENGLAND

Percent

151050


North WestEast of England

East MidlandsLondon

Yorkshire & HumberNorth East

West MidlandsSouth East

South WestENGLAND

Percent

15105Percent

0


North WestNorth East

Yorkshire & HumberSouth East

South WestEast Midlands

West MidlandsLondon

East of EnglandENGLAND


�6


1. North East Number of clients: 9,725 % of all clients: 5.2 Most common primary client groups Single homeless : 28.8% Women at risk DV: 12.6% Young people at risk: 9.4% Most common secondary client group:Alcohol problems Statutorily homeless: 27.1% Most common previous accommodation:General needs LA tenant 2. Yorkshire & Humber Number of clients: 20,892 % of all clients: 11.2 Most common primary client groups Single homeless : 28.9% Women at risk DV: 10.6 %Mental health problems: 9.4% Most common secondary client group:Single homeless Statutorily homeless: 26% Most common previous accommodation:General needs LA tenant

3. East Midlands Number of clients: 17,277 % of all clients: 9.3 Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless: 27.3% Women at risk DV: 12.8% Homeless families: 9.8% Most common secondary client group:Generic Statutorily homeless: 16% Most common previous accommodation:General needs LA tenant

4. East of England Number of clients: 15,657 % of all clients: 8.4 Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless: 34.9% Women at risk DV: 10.7% Homeless families: 10% Most common secondary client group:Generic Statutorily homeless: 25.2% Most common previous accommodation:Living with family

5. London Number of clients: 28,565 % of all clients: 15.3 Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless : 22.3% Mental health problems: 12.8% Homeless famiies: 8.7% Most common secondary client group:Single homeless Statutorily homeless: 26.7% Most common previous accommodation:General needs LA tenant 6. South East Number of clients: 21,159 % of all clients: 11.4

Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless : 29.8% Women at risk DV: 12.5 %Mental health problems: 10.7%

Most common secondary client group:Single homeless




�7

7. South West

Number of clients: 20,189 % of all clients: 10.8

Most common primary client groups Single homeless: 21.5% Mental health problems: 11.4% Women at risk DV: 10.7%

Most common secondary client group: Alcohol problems/Single homeless


Most common previous accommodation: General needs LA tenant 8. West Midlands


Most common primary client groups Single homeless : 30.2% Women at risk DV: 15.5% Generic: 12.7%



Most common previous accommodation:Living with family 9. North West


Most common primary client groupsSingle homeless : 32.8% Homeless families: 13.2% Young people at risk: 10.2%




ENgLAND


Most common primary client groups Single homeless : 28.3% Women at risk DV: 11.1% Mental health problems: 9.4%



Most common previous accommodation:LA general needs tenant

1

2

3

84

56

7

9


��

1.4 gender Analysis

Figure 1.16 shows that currently there are approximately equal proportions of males and females accessing SP funded services across England.

Figure 1.17 shows gender differences by age group with younger service users (16-24 years) more likely to be female but as age increases the majority of clients tended to be male (25-74 years); thereafter (75 years and above) females are again in the majority.

30 40 50 Percent

6020100

Figure 1.16: Regional division of gender ENGLAND

North WestWest Midlands

South WestSouth East

LondonEast of England

East MidlandsYorkshire & the Humber

North East

70 80 90 100

Female

Male

Perc

ent

16-17 18-24 25-31 32-38 39-45 46-52 53-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80+0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 1.17: Gender and age differences

Female Male


��

Perc

ent

Not se

eking

wor

k

Job s

eeke

r

Unable

to w

ork

beca

use o

f long

term

sick

ness

or di

sabilit

y

Retired

Part-

time w

ork (

less

than

24hr

s per

week)

Full-

time s

tude

nt

Full-

time w

ork (

24hr

s

or m

ore p

er wee

k)

Oth

er ad

ult

Govt t

rainin

g /

New D

eal

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Figure 1.18: Gender and economic status

Female Male

5

The two most common economic categories reflect distinct gender differences indicating that females are more likely to be categorised as not seeking work compared to males who are more commonly found to be claiming job seekers allowance. More males occupy the category of ‘unable to seek work due to long term sickness or disability.’ [Figure 1.18]

Client groups can be defined in terms of gender. For example, women at risk of domestic violence, homeless families, teenage parents, travellers, the frail elderly and clients with generic needs are dominated (sometimes by definition) by females. Males are more likely to be single homeless, rough sleepers, offenders or clients with drug or alcohol problems [Figure 1.19].

Figure 1.20 indicates that the most common service type for females was more likely to be floating support compared to males who made greater use of supported housing and direct access services.

A more in-depth look at service access is illustrated in Figures 1.21, 1.22 & 1.23 with each figure focusing on one of the three main service types – supported housing [Figure 1.21], floating support [Figure 1.22] and direct access [Figure 1.23]. These figures provide information on gender differences amongst the types of primary client groups that access these services.

Figure 1.21 shows that females accessing supported housing are most commonly homeless families or young people at risk compared to males who are more likely to be single homeless.


�0

30 40 50 Percent

6020100

Figure 1.19: Gender differences by primary client group

70 80 90 100

GenericTraveller

Rough sleeperTeenage parents

RefugeesHomeless families with support

People with HIV/AIDSWomen at risk of domestic violence

Young people leaving careYoung people at risk



Single homeless with supportPhysical or sensory disability

Learning disabilitiesMental health problems

Frail elderlyOther people with mental health problems

Older people with support needs

Female

Male

Perc

ent

Floati

ng su

ppor

t

Supp

orted

hous

ing

Wom

en’s r

efuge

Direct

acce

ss

Resettl

emen

t serv

iceFo

yer

Out

reach

servi

ce

Supp

orted

lodg

ings

Teena

ge pa

rent

acco

mmodati

on

Reside

ntial

care

home

Adult

place

ment

0

1015202530354045

Figure 1.20: Gender and service type

Female Male

5


��

Figure 1.21: Percentage of clients accessing supported housing by gender and primary client group

Homeless families with support

Single homeless with support

Young people at risk

Mental health problems

Women at risk of domestic violence

Teenage parents

All other primarygroups

Rough sleeper

Offenders or at risk of offending

Alcohol problems

Drug problems

105

1520

2530

3540

45

Female

Male

Figure 1.22 indicates that the gender differences amongst clients accessing floating support services can be described by differences between primary client groups. Females accessing floating support most commonly are those with generic needs, women at risk of domestic violence and homeless families. In contrast, the primary clients groups for males are more likely to be mental health problems, single homeless, alcohol and drug problems and offenders.

Similar primary client group differences by gender can also be observed in clients using direct access services [Figure 1.23]. While there is a greater proportion of single homeless females accessing direct access services compared to other service types, females using direct access are almost as likely to be homeless families. The majority of males, on the other hand, are single homeless.

Gender differences are also apparent in the proportion of clients that were accepted as Statutory homeless. Figure 1.24 shows that females are more likely to be accepted as statutory homeless compared to males.

A greater proportion of males self-referred compared to females who were more likely to be referred by local authority housing departments. Additionally, a greater proportion of females were nominated by their housing authorities than were males [Figure 1.25].

In terms of accommodation occupied prior to accessing SP services, females were more likely to have had general needs tenancies prior to accessing services than were males. Females were more likely to be living with family in contrast to a greater proportion of males sleeping rough [Figure 1.26].


�2

Figure 1.22: Percentage of clients accessing floating support by gender and primary client group

Generic

Teenage parentsPhysical or sensory disability


Older people with support needs


Homeless families with support

Mental healthproblems

Women at risk of domesticviolence

Learning disabilities

Drug problems

Alcohol problems

Refugees

Frail elderly


All other primary groups

10

5

15

20

10

5

15

20Female

Male

Figure 1.23: Percentage of direct access clients by gender and primary client group

Homeless familieswith support

Single homeless with support




Learning disabilities

Teenage parents

All other primary groups

Rough sleeper


Alcohol problems

Drug problems

10

20

30

40

50

60

Female

Male


��

Perc

ent

Statutory homeless Not statutory homeless Don’t know0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Figure 1.24: Gender differences by statutory homelessness

Female Male

Perc

ent

Nom

inat

ed b

y lo

cal

hous

ing

auth

ority

LA h

ousin

g

depa

rtmen

t (re

ferr

al)

Soci

al se

rvic

esPr

obat

ion

serv

ice/

pr

ison

Com

mun

ity m

enta

l he

alth

team

Volu

ntar

y ag

ency

Self-

refe

rral

/

Dire

ct a

pplic

atio

nN

omin

ated

unde

r Mov

eUK

Clie

nt a

pplie

d fo

r

inte

rnal

tran

sfer

Mov

ing

from

anot

her R

SLH

ealth

serv

ice/

GP

0

10

15

20

25

30Yo

uth

Offe

ndin

g

Team

Polic

e

Oth

er

Figure 1.25: Gender and source referral

Female Male

5


��

20 2515

Percent

35301050

Figure 1.26: Gender differences in previous accommodation

Mobile Home/CaravanFoyer

Women’s refugeOther

Rough sleepingAny other temp accommodation

Living with friendsLiving with familyShort life housingBed and breakfast

Children’s home/foster careApproved probation hostel

PrisonHospital

Residential care homeHousing for older people

Direct access hostelSupported housingOwner occupation

Tied housing or rented with jobPrivate sector tenancy

Housing associationgeneral needs tenancyGeneral needs local authority tenancy

Female

Male


��

1.5 Ethnic Origins

White-British was the ethnic origin for the majority of support users (76%).

Ethnic minority clients tended to be younger than clients of White-British origin. The following ethnic minority groups had greater proportions of clients in the 18-24 age bracket compared to White-British clients (28%):

• 43% of mixed-Caribbean clients• 37% of mixed-African clients• 36% of Black African clients• 35% of mixed Asian clients• 33% of mixed other clients• 33% of Black other clients• 32% of Pakistani clients• 32% of Black Caribbean clients.

Almost all (91%) travellers were made up of White British (62%), White Other (15%) or White Irish (13%).

7% of homeless families were people of Black-African origin. Black-Caribbean clients and Asian Pakistani clients each made up a further 3%.

The majority (93%) of clients with alcohol problems were made up of White British (86%), With Irish (5%) and White Other (2%).

93% of offenders were White British (84%), Black Caribbean (5%), mixed Caribbean (2%) and Black African (2%).

92% of young people at risk were White British (80%), Black African (5%), Black Caribbean (4%) and mixed Caribbean (3%).

White-British (41%) and Black-African (33%) clients constituted the majority of clients with HIV/AIDS.

Almost one-tenth of single homeless people with support needs were either of Black-African or Black-Caribbean origins.


�6

1.6 Ethnic Minorities

Section 1.6 focuses on ethnic minority groups. Ethnic minority groups include mixed (White & Black Caribbean, White & Black African, White & Asian, mixed other), Asian or Asian British (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Asian other), Black or Black British (Caribbean, African, Black other) and Chinese or other ethnic group (Chinese other).

In total, ethnic minority groups made up 19% of all clients recorded in 2006/07. Section 1.6 provides a more in-depth picture of the characteristics of these ethnic minority groups.

Black African (26%) and Black Caribbean (19%) accounted for the greatest proportion of ethnic minority clients [Figure 1.27].

Gender differences are most striking among Pakistani clients; a greater proportion of females make up Asian Pakistani clients while a greater proportion of males make up Asian other clients. [Figure 1.28].

The largest client group among Black ethnic groups were single homeless clients. The next largest groups were homeless families, women at risk of domestic violence and young people at risk. One in six Black African clients were refugees [Figure 1.29].

Women at risk of domestic violence, single homeless and homeless families are the most commonly recorded client groups for Asian clients. Compared to other Asian groups, Asian other clients were more likely to be refugees than clients from the rest of the Asian community [Figure 1.30].

Clients with mixed ethnic origins were most commonly single homeless. In addition, women at risk of domestic violence and homeless families accounted for a substantial proportion of these clients. Women at risk of domestic violence are particularly prominent within mixed Asian clients and homeless families are more prominent within mixed Black African clients. Young people at risk are more common within mixed Black Caribbean clients than other mixed ethnic groups.

Chinese and other ethnic groups were mainly single homeless people, homeless families, women at risk of domestic violence and generic needs. A substantial proportion of clients from other ethnic groups are refugees.

Figure 1.31 describes the most common type of services that each ethnic origin group (including all with white ethnic origins) accessed. Over 90% of clients accessed either supported housing, floating support, direct access or women’s refuge services. The figure shows that clients with Black ethnic origins and those with mixed origins accessed a greater proportion of supported housing than other ethnic groups. Floating support was accessed more by Asian and Chinese clients and also by clients from other ethnic origins. Direct access was more commonly accessed by White clients. A greater proportion of Asian Indian and Asian Pakistani clients accessed women’s refuge services than any other ethnic group.


�7

Perc

ent

Blac

k or

Bla

ck B

ritish

–

Afric

an

Blac

k or

Bla

ck B

ritish

– C

arib

bean

Mix

ed –

Whi

te &

Blac

k C

arib

bean

Asia

n or

Asia

n Br

itish

–

Paka

stani

Asia

n or

Asia

n Br

itish

–

Oth

er

Oth

er et

hnic

gro

up

Asia

n or

Asia

n Br

itish

–

Indi

an

Blac

k or

Bla

ck B

ritish

–

Oth

erM

ixed

– O

ther

Asia

n or

Asia

n Br

itish

– Ba

ngla

desh

i

Mix

ed –

Whi

te &

Blac

k Af

rican

0 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,00010,000

10

15

20

25

30

Mix

ed –

Whi

te &

As

ian

Chi

nese

Figure 1.27: Proportion of ethnic minority groups

5

30 40 50 Percent

6020100

Figure 1.28: Distribution of gender across ethnic groups

Other ethnic groupChinese

Black or Black British – OtherBlack or Black British – African

Black or Black British – CaribbeanAsian or Asian British – Other

Asian or Asian British – BangladeshiAsian or Asian British – Pakastani

Asian or Asian British – IndianMixed – Other

Mixed – White & AsianMixed – White & Black African

Mixed – White & Black Caribbean

70 80 90 100

Female Male


��

Perc

ent

Old

er p

eopl

e w

ith su

ppor

t nee

ds

Old

er p

eopl

e w

ith m

enta

l

heal

th p

robl

ems

Frai

l eld

erly

Men

tal h

ealth

pro

blem

sLe

arni

ng d

isabi

litie

s

Phys

ical

or s

enso

ry d

isabi

lity

Sing

le ho

mele

ss w

ith su

ppor

tAl

coho

l pro

blem

sD

rug

prob

lems

Offe

nder

s at r

isk o

f offe

ndin

g

Men

tally

diso

rder

ed o

ffend

ers

0

10

15

20

25

30

Youn

g pe

ople

at ri

sk

Youn

g pe

ople

leavi

ng c

are

Wom

en a

t risk

of d

omes

tic v

iolen

ce

Peop

le w

ith H

IV/A

IDS

Hom

eless

fam

ilies

with

supp

ort

Refu

gees

Teen

age p

aren

tsRo

ugh

sleep

erTr

avell

erG

ener

ic

Figure 1.29: Primary client group: Black ethnic groups

35

40

Black Caribbean Black African Black other

5

Perc

ent

Old

er p

eopl

e w

ith su

ppor

t nee

ds

Old

er p

eopl

e w

ith m

enta

l

heal

th p

robl

ems

Frai

l eld

erly

Men

tal h

ealth

pro

blem

sLe

arni

ng d

isabi

litie

s

Phys

ical

or s

enso

ry d

isabi

lity

Sing

le ho

mele

ss w

ith su

ppor

tAl

coho

l pro

blem

sD

rug

prob

lems

Offe

nder

s at r

isk o

f offe

ndin

g

Men

tally

diso

rder

ed o

ffend

ers

0

10

15

20

25

30

Youn

g pe

ople

at ri

sk

Youn

g pe

ople

leavi

ng c

are

Wom

en a

t risk

of d

omes

tic v

iolen

ce

Peop

le w

ith H

IV/A

IDS

Hom

eless

fam

ilies

with

supp

ort

Refu

gees

Teen

age p

aren

tsRo

ugh

sleep

erTr

avell

erG

ener

ic

Figure 1.30: Primary client group: Asian ethnic groups

35

40

Asian Indian Asian Pakastani Asian Bangladeshi Asian other

45

5


��

Perc

ent

Engl

and

Mix

ed W

hite

& B

lack

Car

ibbe

an

Mix

ed W

hite

& B

lack

Afri

can

Mix

ed W

hite

& A

sian

Mix

ed –

Oth

er

Asia

n or

Asia

n Br

itish

– In

dian

Asia

n or

Asia

n Br

itish

– P

akas

tani

Asia

n or

Asia

n Br

itish

– B

angl

ades

hi

Asia

n or

Asia

n Br

itish

– O

ther

Blac

k or

Bla

ck B

ritish

– C

arib

bean

Blac

k or

Bla

ck B

ritish

– A

frica

n

Blac

k or

Bla

ck B

ritish

– O

ther

Chi

nese

Oth

er e

thni

c gr

oup

0

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 1.31: The services accessed by each ethnic origin group

70

80

Supported housing

Floating support

Direct access

Women’s refuge

All other services

90

100

10

1.7 Secondary Client groups

Although providers are required to categorise clients starting to receive Supporting People services into an appropriate primary group, the Client Record System provides the opportunity for providers to expand on the description of problems that clients are experiencing by giving the option to add additional categories for each client, to a maximum of three additional categories. This is especially important for clients who have complex or multiple needs, as this additional information can contribute to a clearer understanding of the extent of support that clients may require. The primary client group category is intended to identify the immediate or most acute problem affecting a client about to receive support in order that the support provided is adequate in meeting the needs likely to arise. The secondary client group category can aid in engaging services aimed at meeting the wider or additional problems facing clients. For example, a person may be sleeping rough but feel that their most acute problem is their drug dependency and therefore require immediate support with their dependency before support that would enable them to access suitable accommodation.

Client Record data reveals that, out of the 186,200 clients recorded, more than half (95,977) were defined by one or more secondary needs in addition to a primary need. Relatively few clients (4%) were assigned three secondary descriptions [Table 1.3], [Figure 1.16], [Table 1.4].


�0

Table 1.3: Number of secondary descriptions # % 0 Secondary description 90,223 48.51 Secondary description 66,405 35.72 Seconary descriptions 21,853 11.73 Secondary descriptions 7,719 4.1 Total 186,200 100

20 30100

Figure 1.32: Proportion of primary client groups with one or more secondary description



Rough sleeperYoung people at risk

Young people leaving careOlder people with mental health problems

Single homeless with supportMental health problems

Teenage parentsPhysical or sensory disability

TravellerOlder people with support needs

Learning disabilitiesFrail elderly

RefugeesHomeless families with support needs

People with HIV/AIDSWomen at risk of domestic violence

Generic

50 6040 70 80 90

Percent


��

Table 1.4: Primary client group by secondary client group classification None One Two Three Total





Homeless families with support 10,089 64.2 4,460 28.4 967 6.2 199 1.3 15,715


Generic 8,758 71.5 2,416 19.7 836 6.8 243 2.0 12,253

Drug problems 1,728 23.9 3,290 45.5 1,551 21.5 656 9.1 7,225


Rough sleeper 1,906 32.2 2,299 38.8 1,003 16.9 714 12.1 5,922





Teenage parents 1,871 49.7 1,427 37.9 390 10.4 75 2.0 3,763

Refugees 1,703 62.7 830 30.5 168 6.2 17 0.6 2,718


Frail elderly 429 59.3 202 27.9 75 10.4 18 2.5 724



Traveller 157 54.3 102 35.3 22 7.6 8 2.8 289

Mentally disordered offenders 36 18.2 68 34.3 48 24.2 46 23.2 198 Total 90,223 48.5 66,405 35.7 21,853 11.7 7,719 4.1 186,200


�2

Although the smallest group (0.1%: 198), mentally disordered offenders were the client group with the highest proportion of clients (82%) defined by secondary descriptions. Secondary problems associated with these clients were most commonly drug problems, single homelessness, alcohol problems and/or complex needs.

The comparison between primary and secondary client groups brings together a combination of complexities associated with specific client groups and aids recognition of the pervasive difficulties that can be associated with the majority of clients monitored via the Client Record System this year. There is a tendency for some client groups to be described by an interrelated combination of factors, for example, clients described as having drug problems had been assigned secondary descriptions which were likely to be single homelessness with support needs, alcohol problems or offending, similar to the combination of secondary descriptions ascribed to single homeless people with support needs and offenders respectively.

People with generic needs were the clients least likely to be assigned one or more secondary descriptions (72% had none).

Whilst the greatest proportion of clients had single homeless with support needs as their primary client group category, single homeless with support needs also defined the secondary problems for the greatest proportion of clients (these clients being defined by primary group categories other than single homeless with support needs).

There were distinct secondary groupings that characterised primary client groups. The secondary client group categories are completed only where they are necessary to more fully describe the client. Therefore, the following descriptions are based only on clients who were assigned secondary categories.

Single homeless with support needs: the secondary client groupings for single homeless people were varied. The highest-ranking category was youngandatrisk (7,598), however many were characterised as having drug (6,299) or alcohol(6,262) problems, or they were sleepingrough (4,918), or had mentalhealthproblems(5,803).

Women at risk of domestic violence: a greater proportion of women were placed as homelessfamilieswithsupportneeds (2,262), however some were singlehomelesswithsupportneeds(1,263) and/or were described as having complexneeds(1,185).

People with mental health problems: secondary groupings for these clients were again varied, some were singlehomelesswithsupportneeds (2,079) and/or with complexneeds (2,507) and a number of people with mental health problems were described as having alcohol(1,900) and/or drugproblems(1,552).

Homeless families with support needs: Often families experienced complexneeds (1,836) and a substantial proportion were womenatriskofdomesticviolence(1,263). Young people at risk: by far, the most common secondary category for young people at risk was singlehomelesswithsupportneeds (6,116).

People with generic needs: with an array of already complex needs, few secondary categories had been used to describe these clients. However, some clients had been described as having mentalhealthproblems (1,067).

Drug problems: people with drug problems tended to be characterised by being singlehomelesswithsupportneeds (1,884) or offendersorthoseatriskofoffending (1,821) and/or withalcoholproblems (1,641).


��

Alcohol problems: a similar picture can be drawn for people with alcohol problems withsinglehomelesswithsupportneeds (1,663), and/or mentalhealthproblems (1,427) or drug (1,192) as the highest ranking secondary client groupings.

Rough sleeper: three principal secondary client groups characterised a proportion of rough sleepers and these were singlehomelesswithsupportneeds(1,603), alcohol(1,314) and/or drugproblems (1,209).

Older people with support needs: a proportion of older people with support needs were described asfrailelderly (1,309) and/or as having physicalorsensorydisabilities (1,237).

Offenders or those at risk of offending: clients in this category fell into the secondary groupings of experiencing drugproblems (2,038), singlehomelesswithsupportneeds (1,848) and/or alcoholproblems (1,138).

Physical or sensory disabilities: complexneeds(661), mentalhealthproblems (490) and/or olderpeoplewithsupportneeds (488), described some of the problems experienced by people with physical or sensory disabilities.

Learning disabilities: some people with learning disabilities have also experienced mentalhealthproblems(501) and/or an array of complexneeds (445).

Teenage parents: three secondary categories – youngpeopleatrisk (973), and/or homelessfamilieswithsupportneeds (495) and/or complexneeds (291) and/or singlehomelesswithsupportneeds (280) described a number of teenage parents.

Refugees: three principal categories stood out for these clients, singlehomelesswithsupportneeds (577), with complexneeds (160) and/or homelessfamilies (135).

Young people leaving care: two principal categories described a number of these clients as youngpeopleatrisk (639) and/or singlehomelesswithsupportneeds (373).

Frail elderly: olderpeoplewithsupportneeds(167) and/or experiencing physicalorsensorydisabilities (106) were relatively common secondary categories for frail elderly clients.

Older people with mental health problems: a proportion of these clients were also described as olderpeoplewithsupportneeds (184), mentalhealthproblems(78), physicalorsensorydifficulties (61) and/or frailelderly(68).

People with HIV/AIDS: a small number of people with HIV/AIDS were described as having complexneeds(55), mentalhealthproblems (44) and/or physicalorsensorydisability (35).

Traveller: some travellers were described as being singlehomelesswithsupportneeds (33) and/or mentalhealthproblems (25).

Mentally disordered offenders: some mentally disordered offenders were categorised as being singlehomelesswithsupportneeds (41) or experiencing drug (45) or alcoholproblems (37) or havingcomplexneeds (30).


��

Table 1.5: Numbers of clients in primary and secondary groups Primary group Secondary group Total

Single homeless with support 52,752 19,215 71,967



Homeless families with support 15,715 4,056 19,771



Drug problems 7,340 14,060 21,400


Rough sleeper 7,212 7,670 14,882






Refugees 2,718 1,722 4,440


Frail elderly 724 1,772 2,496



Traveller 289 459 748


1.8 Combining primary and secondary client groups to measure the extent of housing-related support need

The primary client group category is an important method of identifying the prevailing circumstances of clients. At the same time, the secondary client group category can be equally as important, especially when used to identify the circumstances surrounding housing-related need amongst what may amount to a complex array of practical and emotional needs. The secondary client groupings are also useful in that they can be used to recognize the total number of clients experiencing identifiable problems which are either as a result of or are contributory to housing-related need.

Table 1.5 indicates the numbers of clients in primary groups alongside the number of clients who recorded secondary groupings in each primary category; the totals for each client group (primary and secondary) illustrate the incidence of each client category.1 Note that clients cannot be assigned the same category as a primary and a secondary client group.

1 The recording of secondary classification is used only when additional categories are necessary to describe the client. Therefore the information included is based only on clients who were assigned secondary descriptions.


��

Accordingly, whilst 52,752 clients were recorded primarily as single homeless people with support needs, an additional 19,215 clients were recorded with single homeless with support needs as their secondary client group. This shows that the actual number of clients with single homeless related support needs recorded by the Client Record System is 71,967. Similarly, 15,715 clients were described by primary client group category as homeless families with support needs and a further 4,056 homeless families were recorded in the secondary client groupings making the total homeless family with support needs figure 19,771.

Within the secondary client groupings there were 14,126 clients who were experiencing mental health problems. Combined with clients within the primary category of people with mental health problems (17,492) this figure is almost doubled bringing the total number of people with mental health problems to 31,618.

There were a further 4,159 women at risk of domestic violence found in secondary client groupings. Combined with the numbers within the primary client group (20,619), the numbers of women at risk of domestic violence were 24,778.

Although 7,340 clients were described as primarily experiencing drug problems, almost double those numbers of clients were assigned drug problems as their secondary client group category (14,060). Combined, these figures show that there were 21,400 clients experiencing drug problems.

Secondary client groupings also revealed a further 11,903 young people at risk, almost doubling the 13,763 figure within the primary client group category and bringing the total number of young people at risk to 25,666.

A total of 8,437 offenders or those at risk of offending were found in secondary client groupings increasing the total figure from 5,922 to 14,359 and indicating a higher frequency of offenders or those at risk of offending within the secondary client group category.


�6


�7


2.1 Introduction

Clients receiving Supporting People services are not necessarily expected to relocate to specialised housing provision as Supporting People support is geared towards making housing-related support services more accessible regardless of tenure. Therefore, services are available for people from the social rented, private rented or owner-occupied sectors as well as people who are homeless. The Client Record System records the type of accommodation or living arrangements that clients occupied immediately prior to receiving Supporting People funded support services. For this purpose, ‘immediately prior’ is defined as, literally, the previous night. This information is crucial for Supporting People practitioners and policy makers who are attempting to monitor the movement of and support provided to particular groups wherever they may live and whatever their circumstances may be.

In total, 15% of clients monitored by the Client Record System between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2007 were recorded as continuing to live in the accommodation or circumstance they occupied immediately prior to receiving a Supporting People service.


This section of the Annual Report lists the top four most common types of living circumstances, and accounting for almost half of all accommodation types prior to clients accessing services [Table 2.1], identifying the most likely client groups in these circumstances, the referral route and type of services they accessed.

General needs local authority tenants (15.4%; 28,293)

Women at risk of domestic violence (17%), people with generic needs (17%), and people with mental health problems (16%) made up the majority of clients who were general needs local authority tenants prior to receiving Supporting People services.

Almost one-third of clients remained in their tenancies and almost half of these clients were either people with generic needs (22%), people with mental health problems (18%) or older people with support needs (9%), while women at risk of domestic violence made up only 7%. Almost all of the clients retaining their tenancies received floating support services (94%).

The largest proportion of clients terminating their tenancies were women at risk of domestic violence (22%), followed by people with generic needs (15%) and people with mental health problems (14%). The majority (61%) of women at risk of domestic violence accessed women’s refuge services while a further 26% were provided with floating support elsewhere. Almost all people with generic needs (91%) and people with mental health problems (82%) terminating their tenancy were provided with floating support elsewhere. In the main, clients were either referred by their local authority housing department (22%), nominated by their local housing authority (19%) or they self-referred (17%).


��

Table 2.1: Type of accommodation prior to receiving SP services # %

General needs local authority tenancy 28,293 15.4



Living with friends 15,981 8.7

Housing association general needs tenancy 14,512 7.9

Private sector tenancy 13,823 7.5





Other 6,698 3.6

Owner occupation 5,845 3.2

Prison 3,770 2.0

Hospital 3,006 1.6


Housing for older people 1,608 0.9



Short life housing 868 0.5

Approved probation hostel 805 0.4

Foyer 575 0.3

Mobile Home/Caravan 514 0.3

Tied housing or rented with job 340 0.2 Total 184,270 100.0 Missing 1,930 1.0

Total 186,200 100.0

Living with family (14.9%; 27,5373)

Clients who were recorded as living with family prior to receiving services were likely to be single homeless people with support needs (36%), young people at risk (14%) and homeless families in need of support (12%). As clients began to receive services, almost all moved on from living with their family.

Well over two-fifths of clients were accepted into supported housing (44%) and 23% received floating support. Almost a further fifth of clients made use of direct access accommodation. Of these, 63% were single homeless, 11% were young people at risk and 10% were homeless families.


��

The largest proportion of clients who had been living with family accessed services by means of self-referral (25%) while together, local authority housing department referrals (24%) and housing authority nominations (12%) accounted for more than a third of referrals.

Sleeping rough (9.4 %; 17,302)

As to be expected, almost three-quarters of people sleeping rough prior to uptake of services were single homeless people with support needs (48%) and rough sleepers (26%). For those clients who were no longer recorded as sleeping rough, well over half were accommodated in direct access hostels (59%) and almost one-third had been accepted into supported housing. Only 2% of clients were recorded as still sleeping rough after receiving services, however, well over half (60%) of those were provided with floating support, a further 21% made use of direct access hostels and 11% were accepted into supported housing.

Self-referrals (45%) or referrals from voluntary agencies (21%) were the most common referral route for people sleeping rough prior to receiving services, regardless of whether or not they were classified as persistent rough sleepers.

Living with friends (8.7%; 15,981)

Single homeless people with support needs (51%), young people at risk (13%) and homeless families (8%) accounted for the majority of clients staying with friends prior to receiving services.

Almost all (95%) clients were provided with services that allowed them to move on from staying with friends. Almost half of all clients were provided with supported housing, 26% made use of direct access hostel accommodation and 17% received floating support elsewhere.

The referral route for one-third of clients was self-referral while slightly more than one-fifth of clients were referred by their local housing department and 12% by voluntary agencies.


This section examines clients who came to Supporting People services from recognised institutions – bed & breakfast, prison, hospital and residential care. The Supporting People programme aims to support clients from these institutions in line with other Government targets, for example, cutting the numbers of homeless people in bed and breakfast and reducing bed blocking in hospitals.

Bed and breakfast (4.3%; 7,837)

Single homeless people with support needs (36%) and homeless families (24%) together accounted for the majority of clients recorded as previously living in bed and breakfast accommodation [Table 2.2].

After qualifying for Supporting People services, the majority (93%) did not remain in this accommodation. Slightly more than half of clients were provided with supported housing and more than a quarter received floating support elsewhere. However, 13% of clients took up places in other temporary accommodation in the form of direct access hostels.


60

Table 2.2: Clients who were living in B&B prior to receiving SP services # %

Single homeless with support 2,789 35.6

Homeless families with support 1,844 23.5




Generic 169 2.2







Refugees 80 1.0





Traveller 12 0.2



Frail elderly 6 0.1 Total 7,837 100

Overall, 67% of homeless families previously living in B&B’s and slightly more than half of single homeless people with support needs previously living in B&B’s were provided with supported housing. The second most common type of service for single homeless clients was direct access (19%) compared to homeless families who were more likely to access floating support (19%) [Figure 2.1].

In total, 7% of clients remained in B&B accommodation after receiving a service and 76% of those were provided with floating support.

Clients were generally referred to services by local authority housing departments (42%) or nominated by their local housing authority (23%).


6�

Prison (2%; 3,770)

Single homeless people with support needs (39%), offenders or those at risk of offending (35%) and people with drug problems (15%) made up the majority of clients who were in prison immediately prior to receiving Supporting People services.

Almost all (98%) clients were released from prison prior to uptake of service provision, the majority (64%) having been referred by the Probation or Prison services, though 12% self-referred. Overall, 61% of clients on release were provided with supported housing while a further 27% made use of direct access hostel accommodation.

The largest proportion of those clients remaining in prison and qualifying for Supporting People support were referred to services via the Probation or Prison service (80%) and a further 10% self-referred. These clients were mainly provided with supported housing (48%) or floating support (32%).

Hospital (1.6%; 3,006)

Together, people with mental health problems (46%) and single homeless people with support needs (27%) accounted for almost three-quarters of all clients who received Supporting People services immediately on discharge from hospital.

Almost three-quarters of people with mental health problems were provided with supported housing and over a tenth received floating support. Direct access hostel accommodation was the most likely form of support for the largest proportion of single homeless people with support needs (50%) while 34% received supported housing.

15 20 25 301050

Single homeless with support needs Homeless families with support needs


Resettlement


Floating support

Supported housing

35 Percent

40 45 50 55 60 65 70


62

There were variations between referral arrangements for these client groups. Community Mental Health Teams, (56%), health services or general practitioners (GP) (16%) and Social Services (12%) were most likely to refer people with mental health problems to Supporting People services. The most common referral route for single homeless people was self-referrals (24%), local authority housing departments (18%) and health service/GP (16%) [Table 2.3].

Table 2.3: The referral routes for clients who were discharged from hospital Mental health Single problems homeless # % # %

Community Mental Health Team 766 55.7 102 12.4Health service/GP 213 15.5 130 15.8Social Services 159 11.6 49 6.0LA housing department (referral) 86 6.3 146 17.8Nominated by local housing authority 62 4.5 66 8.0Other 40 2.9 54 6.6Self referral/Direct application 25 1.8 200 24.3Voluntary agency 15 1.1 43 5.2Internal transfer 5 0.4 4 0.5Moving from another RSL 3 0.2 0 0.0Probation service/prison 1 0.1 15 1.8Youth Offending Team 1 0.1 1 0.1Police 0 0.0 12 1.5Nominated under MoveUK 0 0.0 0 0.0

Total 1376 100.0 822 100


Four principal primary client groups – people with mental health problems (22%), drug problems (16%), learning disabilities (14%) and alcohol problems (12%) – accounted for the majority of clients coming to Supporting People services from residential care homes.

One-third of these clients were referred to support services by Social Service departments.

The majority (69%) of prior residential care clients were provided with supported housing and a further 22% with floating support.


6�

2.4 Owner-occupiers (3.2%; 5,845) The Supporting People programme is intended to sever the link between support and tenure ensuring that marginalized and previously excluded groups have access to the type of support that will help reduce vulnerability and maintain independence. Previously it had been difficult for people who owned their own home to access appropriate support to help them to remain in their home or to establish more appropriate supported accommodation. Funding for the programme focuses on the needs of clients rather than being linked to property or any particular tenure and as a result, owner-occupiers are eligible for targeted housing-related support.

Overall, the Client Record System recorded 5,845 clients who were owner-occupiers prior to receiving Supporting People support and this figure amounted to 3% of all clients.

Women at risk of domestic violence were far more likely to have been owner-occupiers (34%) than any other primary client group prior to receiving a Supporting People support service. More than one-third of owner-occupiers were able to remain in their property on acceptance of housing related support via Supporting People.

Partially, as a consequence of the high incidence of women at risk of domestic violence within the owner-occupier domain, floating support (67%), refuge provision (16%) and supported housing (10%) characterise the pattern of support provided to these clients.

Almost a third of referrals were made on a self-referral basis. Social Services (18%), local authority referrals (10%), other unspecified referrals (10%) and voluntary agencies (9%) took up a further 47% of referrals for previous owner-occupiers.


6�


6�

Table 3.1: Support service provision # %

Floating support 70,010 37.6Supported housing 60,754 32.6Direct access 30,699 16.5Women’s refuge 12,317 6.6Resettlement service 4,358 2.3Foyer 3,431 1.8Outreach service 2,304 1.2Supported lodgings 1,247 0.7Residential care home 530 0.3Teenage parent accommodation 420 0.2Adult placement 130 0.1 Total 186,200 100.0


3.1 Introduction

The Client Record System monitors a range of services funded by Supporting People that provide differing levels of housing-related support for vulnerable clients. Some services provide accommodation with support on a very temporary basis and some for longer periods of time. For example many direct access hostels provide accommodation and support for clients on a nightly or weekly basis while other forms of support provide more flexible lengths of stay such as supported housing schemes. Floating support and outreach services provide clients with non-residential support in their own homes and this type of support is contracted for varying lengths of time according to the needs of clients. This section describes the most common types of support provided to clients in 2006/07 and goes on to report on the balance of provision and the routes by which clients were able to access services.


Although the Client Record System monitors fifteen different types of support provision, three principal categories of support – floatingsupport(38%), supportedhousing (33%) and directaccess (17%) – made up over four-fifths of service provision during this fourth year of the Supporting People programme [Table 3.1].


66

Floating support services were provided to well over two-fifths of female clients while only 30% of male clients received this form of support. However, 38% of males were accepted into supported housing schemes, compared to only 27% of females. Also, 25% of males accessed direct access accommodation compared to 8% of females.

Figure 3.1 illustrates a clear linear relationship between age and the type of service clients received for the two most common categories of support provision. For adults, the percentage of clients receiving floating support increased as age increased, however, the opposite was true for supported housing; as age increased, a lower proportion of clients were likely to have been provided with accommodation and support in supported housing schemes.


Slightly more than two-fifths of all Supporting People services were provided by voluntary organisations, 31% of which was floating support and 25% was temporary accommodation in direct access hostels. Housing associations/RSLs provided the second largest proportion (32%) of services to clients and approximately half of these services were supported housing schemes. Housing authority services made up 15% of support provision and more than half of this support was in the form of floating support services [Figure 3.2].

Perc

ent

16-17 18-24 25-31 32-38 39-45 46-52 53-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80+0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80



90

100


67


Very nearly a quarter of clients accessed services by means of self-referral. Local authority housing departments referred 18% of clients, the local authority nominated 12% of clients and 11% of clients were referred by voluntary agencies [Figure 3.3].

30 40 50 Percent

6020100



70 80 90 100

Housing Authority (14.5% of provision)

Housing Association/RSL(32.2% of provision)

Voluntary Organisation(40.6% of provision)

15 Percent

20 25 301050



Nominated by local housing authorityVoluntary agency


Probation service/PrisonCommunity Mental Health TeamClient applied for internal transfer

Health service/GPPolice

Moving from another RSLYouth Offending Team

Nominated under MoveUK


6�


Almost a third of referrals accepted by voluntary agencies were self-referrals. Voluntary agencies also accepted almost 16% of referrals from other voluntary organisations.

Almost one-fifth of referrals accepted by housing associations/RSLs were self-referrals, 17% were accepted from local authority housing departments (referrals process), 12% were from other (non-listed) referral sources, 12% from voluntary agencies and a further 12% were nominated by the local housing authority.

Only 19% of referrals accepted by housing authorities were self-referrals while the largest groups of referrals were from local authority housing departments (40%).


Social Services referred 8% of clients to Supporting People services, 38% of which were to voluntary organisations and 30% to housing associations/RSLs.

Probation and Prison services referred 5% of clients (51% were to voluntary organisations while a further 44% were to housing associations/RSLs).

Together, Community Mental Health Teams and the health service or GPs referred 6% of clients. Almost half of health service/GP referrals and more than one-third of Community Mental Health Team referrals were to voluntary organisations.


Table 3.2 illustrates the numbers of clients in each Government office region. The North West (17%) and London (15%) each supported larger numbers of clients compared to other regions, for example, the North East, whose client base made up only 5% of those recorded by Client Records. Although the South East is the 4th region in terms of the numbers of clients recorded by Client Records, population estimates for the South East shown in Table 4.2 indicate that proportionately, this region provides support to the fewest clients.

Although supported housing, floating support and direct access hostels were the most common forms of support provided there were slight variations between regions. Floating support services as opposed to supported housing was the most common service provided to clients in all regions with the exception of clients in the East of England (39%) and the North West (35%).

Similarly, although voluntary organisations and housing associations/RSLs, England-wide, between them provided almost three-quarters of Supporting People client support, proportionally, there was some variation between regions for these providers. Housing associations/RSLs provided a greater than average proportion of services in the East of England (43%) and London (38%) while voluntary organisations dominated service provision in all other regions.

The largest category of referral in London and the North East was local authority department referral (25% and 22% respectively) while in all other regions the largest referral route was through self-referral.


6�

Table 3.2: Frequency of clients in each Government office region Client Records Estimated Percentage of resident population resident population # % for England 2 receiving support North West 30,747 16.5 6,827,200 0.5

London 28,565 15.3 7,428,600 0.4

West Midlands 21,989 11.8 5,334,000 0.4

South East 21,159 11.4 8,110,200 0.3


South West 20,189 10.8 5,038,200 0.4

East Midlands 17,277 9.3 4,279,700 0.5

East of England 15,657 8.4 5,491,300 0.3

North East 9,725 5.2 2,545,100 0.4 Total 186,200 100.0 50,093,100 0.38

2 Resident population estimates reported in this table are taken from Mid-2004 Population Estimates: Quinary age groups and sex for health areas in England, estimated resident population, published by National Statistics

http://www.nationalstatistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D9092.xls


70


7�

4 Homelessness

4.1 Introduction

Supporting People aims to tackle homelessness by focusing on prevention and providing those that are homeless with access to and support in maintaining a home. This section of the report examines the types of clients and the circumstances of clients accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

The Client Record System records information on clients who have been accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty under the current homeless legislation (2002 Homelessness Act). The legislation defines ‘owed a main homelessness duty’ as one of the following:

• A pregnant woman or person with dependent child(ren) or someone she/he might reasonably be expected to live with;


• A person vulnerable for some other special reason including consideration of all personal circumstances;





Households accepted as statutory homeless will have been assessed by a local authority as in priority need and will qualify for re-housing either in council housing or RSL/HA housing. Homeless people qualifying for assistance will generally be deemed as vulnerable in a way where they cannot be expected to fend for themselves. Under this legislation, some homeless households not regarded as having a priority need (or regarded as being intentionally homeless) do not qualify for assistance. This section includes only those clients who have been accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

4.2 Statutory homeless clients (24%; 43,795)

Overall, just under a quarter of clients recorded by the Client Record System were accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty.

Single homeless people with support needs constituted more than a third of all clients accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty. Slightly more than one-fifth of statutory homeless clients were homeless families with support needs and women at risk of domestic violence made up a further 14% [Figure 4.1].


72

Combined, living with family (20%), living with friends (10%), bed & breakfast (9%), sleeping rough (9%), LA tenancy (8%) or in direct access hostels (8%) described the living conditions of statutory homeless clients immediately prior to receiving Supporting People services. However, there were distinct variations between genders. There was a greater proportion of females living in general needs (LA and HA) or private rented, tied tenancies or who were owner occupiers and living with family and in mobile homes/caravans. In contrast, a greater proportion of males were in direct access hostels, residential care, housing for older people, hospital, prison, in approved probations hostels or sleeping rough [Figure 4.2].

Overall, 9% of statutory homeless clients were in B&B accommodation prior to receiving services and more than three-quarters of those were made up of single homeless people with support needs (32%), homeless families with support needs (32%) and young people at risk (14%).

15 20 Percent

25 301050

Figure 4.1: Primary client groups accepted as statutory homeless

Single homeless with supportHomeless families with support


Mental health problemsTeenage parents

Rough sleeperDrug problems

Alcohol problemsOffenders or at risk of offending

RefugeesGeneric




TravellerFrail elderly


35 40


7�

Perc

ent


1009080706050403020100

Female

Gen

eral

nee

ds lo

cal a

utho

rity

tena

nt

Gen

eral

nee

ds R

SL/H

A te

nant

Priv

ate

rent

ed

Tied

hom

e or

rent

ing

with

job

Ow

ner o

ccup

ier

Supp

orte

d ho

usin

g

Dire

ct a

cces

s hos

tel

Hou

sing

for o

lder

peo

ple

Resid

entia

l car

e ho

me

Hos

pita

lPr

ison

Appr

oved

pro

batio

n ho

stel

Chi

ldre

n's h

ome/

foste

r car

e

Bed

and

brea

kfas

t

Shor

t life

hou

sing

Livi

ng w

ith fa

mily

Livi

ng w

ith fr

iend

s

Any

othe

r tem

p ac

com

mod

atio

nRo

ugh

sleep

ing

Oth

er

Wom

en’s

refu

geFo

yer

Mob

ile h

ome/

cara

van

Male


There were distinct regional variations in the proportions of statutory homeless clients across England. The North West (29%), North East (27%) and London (27%) had higher than average proportions of statutory homeless clients. Other regions had proportions slightly above the national average (24%), with the exception of the East Midlands (16%), the South West (16%), South East (21%) and West Midlands (21%).


7�


7�


5.1 Introduction

Supporting People is a programme designed to develop links with other statutory frameworks – the NHS, Probation Service and Social Services – in order to ensure that it meets the wide range of needs likely to be associated with vulnerable people. Collecting information on clients who are receiving support via other statutory frameworks can aid in understanding those needs for those responsible for implementing appropriate services and preventative measures.

Currently, information is recorded on seven existing frameworks including some that are reserved for high-risk clients. Table 5.1 illustrates the percentage of clients that had been accepted under each of these frameworks. Following this, each framework is discussed and analysed with regard to the types of clients accepted as requiring these services and the support that was provided to them via Supporting People.

Table 5.1: Clients requiring services under statutory frameworks Yes No Don’t Know # % # % # %


Accepted as requiring Probation service or Youth Offending Teams 12,562 6.7 139,929 75.1 33,709 18.1


Accepted as requiring Drug Intervention Programme (DIP) 4,680 2.5 144,515 77.6 37,005 19.9

Anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) 1,223 0.7 148,098 79.5 36,879 19.8


Assessed under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements 819 0.4 148,306 79.6 37,075 19.9


76


Care Management (Social Services) (8.4%; 15,564)

Clients accepted as requiring services under the Social Services Care Management framework either have been allocated a social worker or are eligible for social work assistance. Under this framework, clients have an individual care plan in addition to receiving a package of services organised through Social Services.

In total, 48% of young people leaving care and 45% of people with learning disabilities were supported via Care Management. Rough sleepers, refugees and offenders or those at risk of offending were the client groups least likely to be supported through this type of framework [Figure 5.1].

15 20 25 Percent

301050



Frail elderlyOlder people with mental health problems

Physical or sensory disabilitiesPeople with HIV/AIDS

Older people with support needsMental health problems

Mentally disordered offendersAlcohol problems


Teenage parentsWomen at risk of domestic violence

GenericHomeless families with support

Single homeless with supportTraveller

Offenders or at risk of offendingRefugees

Rough sleeper

35 40 45 50

The majority of clients supported by Care Management received floating support (48%) or supported housing (35%). Voluntary organisations (36%) and housing association/RSLs (29%) provided 65% of support provision.


77


The Probation Service or Youth Offending Teams support clients who are under supervision or require youth offending services.

Four principal client groups – offenders/those at risk of offending (31%), single homeless people with support needs (30%), people with drug problems (12%) and young people at risk (8%) – made up over four-fifths of clients subject to Probation or Youth Offending Team supervision.

Almost two-thirds of offenders/those at risk of offending subject to probation/supervision were accepted into supported housing and more than a quarter were provided with floating support.

There were no observable differences between single homeless people with support needs who were subject to Probation or Youth Offending Team supervision and those who were not with regard to service provision. Almost half of single homeless clients with support needs who were subject to supervision were accepted into supported housing and more than one-third made use of direct access hostels.

Supported housing (47%), floating support (26%) and direct access hostels (21%) were the main support services provided to clients with drug problems who were subject to supervision.

There were distinct differences between young people at risk subject to Probation or Youth Offending Team supervision and those who were not with regard to service provision. Well over half (55%) of young people under supervision were provided with supported housing compared to 45% of young people not under supervision. A greater proportion of young people at risk not under supervision were provided with floating support (34%) compared to those who were under supervision (17%). Clients under supervision were more likely to use direct access accommodation (16%) compared to those not under supervision (9%) [Figure 5.2].

Perc

ent

Figure 5.2: The relationship between service type and Probation/Youth Offending Team supervision for young people at risk

605550454035302520151050




7�

Care Programme Approach (CPA) (5.3%; 9,869)

Clients subject to the CPA are usually those experiencing severe and enduring mental illness. The CPA approach provides a network of care in the community through a key worker system. The aim is to minimise the risk of clients losing contact with services. Clients are normally under the care of the secondary mental health service (health and social care) and are provided with a package of care that has been agreed upon by members of the team, GPs, service user and their carers.

Slightly more than two-fifths of people with mental health problems were receiving CPA care packages; almost half of these clients received floating support and more than a further two-fifths received supported housing. Clients with mental health problems who were not supported through CPA were more likely to receive floating support (61%) than supported housing (23%), while 4% made use of direct access hostels.

More than one-fifth of older people with mental health problems were subject to the CPA and 83% of these clients received floating support.

Of all clients described as mentally disordered offenders, only 22% were subject to CPA. Of those, 54% were provided with floating support and 37% were provided with supported housing.

Drug Intervention Programme (DIP) (2.5%; 4,680)

The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) was launched in 2003 as an initiative that forms part of the government’s commitment to reducing the effects of drug related crime on the community. Its aim is to get offenders who misuse drugs out of crime and into treatment. The DIP is where a client receives support provided by a drugs intervention worker.

Single homeless people (31%), people with drug problems (29%) and offenders or those at risk of offending (13%) are the primary client groups that make up almost three-quarters of all clients subject to DIPs. The majority of these clients are male (69%).

Supported housing (42%) is the most common support service provided to these clients, followed by floating support (30%) and direct access (20%). These services are mostly provided by voluntary agencies (48%) and housing association/RSLs (33%).

Almost one-third of DIP clients had been accepted as statutory homeless. Rough sleeping (15%), prison (12%), living with family (12%) or friends (9%) described the living circumstances of almost half of clients.

The probation/prison service referred 23% of clients while 17% self-referred.

Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) (0.7; 1,223)

Similarly, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders were introduced as a Government initiative aimed at combating anti-social behaviour within the community. Both DIP and Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) statutory instruments were included on the Client Record form in April 2006.


7�

Single homeless people (31%), offenders or those at risk of offending (11%), drug problems (9%) and homeless families (8%) make up well over half of clients subject to ASBOs. In total, 63% of clients were male and 33% had been accepted as statutory homeless.

Rough sleeping (18%), living with family (15%) and general needs LA tenancy (15%) were the most common types of living circumstances for ASBO clients.

More than a third of clients received supported housing, 31% were provided with floating support and 27% used direct access accommodation. Voluntary organisations provided almost half of all service provision.


Care Programme Approach (CPA enhanced) (2.4%; 4,450)

The enhanced CPA is intended for clients who require more frequent and intensive interventions, perhaps with medical management. Clients assessed under this framework are more likely to have a dual diagnosis, more likely to be at risk of harming themselves and more likely to disengage with services.

Three-quarters of clients accepted as requiring an enhanced CPA were people with mental health problems. Of these, almost half accessed supported housing and a further 45% were provided with floating support services. Community Mental Health Teams referred 68% of these clients to services while a further 8% of clients were referred by Social Services.

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (0.4%; 819)

Clients subject to Multi-Agency Public Arrangements have been assessed as being a risk to members of the public within the community. Clients assessed under this framework include violent and sexual offenders.

Offenders/those at risk of offending (72%) was the client group that made up the majority of clients subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. Almost all these clients were male (91%) and 19% had been accepted as statutory homeless.

Prior to accessing SP support, more than half of clients were either in prison (28%) or in an approved probation hostel (24%).

More than half of these clients were provided with supported housing and 32% were provided with floating support. The majority (88%) of support was provided by housing association/RSLs (52%) and voluntary organisations (37%).

The probation/prison service (70%) was the most common referral route for these clients.


�0


London (12%) and the North East (11%) had the highest proportion of clients supported through Social Services Care Management. With an average for England of 8%, the West Midlands (6%) had the lowest proportion of clients supported through Care Management.

There was some regional variation around the national average (5%) for clients accepted as requiring the Care Programme Approach (CPA). Again, London recorded the highest proportion (8%), with only 3% in the North East.

There was also divergence between regions for clients who were subject to Probation or Youth Offending Team supervision. While the average for England as a whole sat at 7%, 11% of clients in Yorkshire & the Humber and 9% in the North East were subject to supervision compared to only 4% in London.

Proportionately, clients assessed as a higher risk were few (3%) and there were no observable regional variations.

PARTTWO:ClientMobility2006/07

��

PART TWO

Client Mobility 2006/07

• National Insurance Analysis

• Cross-Authority Provision


�2


��

6 National Insurance Numbers

6.1 Introduction

This is the first year that Client Records have collected NI numbers. Of the 186,200 forms received by the Client Record Office, almost three-quarters (74%; 137,197) of forms recorded an NI number. A proportion of clients accessed services more than once (see 6.2), consequently a total of 113,891 individual clients were recorded over 2006/07.

6.2 Comparison of records with and without NI number

This section of the report compares records that included the NI number and those where the NI number was not recorded. This analysis demonstrates that:

• older clients, i.e. older people with support needs or mental health problems and the frail elderly, were less likely to provide NI numbers than younger clients from other client groups, and;

• compared to either supported housing or direct access, floating support services were less likely to record NI numbers from clients.

• To summarise, half of all forms without a NI number were for floating support services [Figure 6.1], which are the most common support service for older people [see Part One: Figure 3.1].

30 40 50 Percent

6020100

Figure 6.1: Comparison of service type between forms that include NI and those that did not

70 80 90 100

Forms without NI no.

Forms with Ni no.

Supported housing Direct accessFloating support

All other services

Resettlement service FoyerWomen’s refuge

Looking more in-depth at the three most common service types, floating support services provided far fewer forms with NI than either supported housing or direct access services.

Analysis of client group was undertaken in order to attempt to discover why floating support services provided fewer NI forms. This revealed the possibility that older clients were less likely to provide NI information.


��

30 40 50 Percent

6020100

Figure 6.2: The proportion of forms with and without NI within the most common service types

Floating support

Supported housing

Direct access

Women’s fefuge

70 80 90 100

Forms with NI Forms without NI

30 40 50 Percentage

6020100

Figure 6.3: Comparison of the proportion of primary client groups with and without NI

70 80 90 100

Other people with mental health problemsFrail elderly

Older people with support needsTraveller

Young people leaving carePhysical or sensory disability

Women at risk of domestic violencePeople with HIV/AIDSMental health problems

Offenders or at risk of offendingLearning disabilities

GenericTeenage parents

Young people at riskAlcohol problems

Drug problemsRefugees

Homeless families with supportMentally disordered offendersSingle homeless with support

Rough sleeper



��

The likelihood that NI will be provided seems to be a function of age. Figure 6.4 demonstrates a linear relationship between age and whether or not NI information was provided. Younger clients were much more likely to provide their NI number compared to older clients, particularly clients over the age of 60 years. Only 53% of clients aged 60 years or over provided their NI no., compared to 76% of clients below 60 years.

Perc

ent

16-17 18-24 25-31 32-38 39-45 46-52 53-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80+0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Figure 6.4: The effect of age on the liklihood that NI will be provided


6.3 Variations in frequency of service use

With the collection of National Insurance numbers it is possible to monitor the number of times that clients access Supporting People funded services and compare differences between clients who access services only once and those who access services more frequently.

NI number information was provided by 113,891 individuals and these individuals accessed services 137,197 times. Table 6.1 shows that from 1st April 06 to 31st March 07, the majority of clients (87%) accessed services only once. A smaller number of clients accessed services on two occasions (11%) and 3% of clients accessed services more than 3 times.


�6

Table 6.1: Access visits to Supporting People services Number of times Number Percentageservices were accessed of clients of clients

1 97,273 85.4

2 12,833 11.3

3 2,613 2.3

4 687 0.6

5 and over 485 0.4

The following analysis focuses on the number of times that clients accessed Supporting People services over the past year. It begins by categorising clients into the number of times that services were accessed and using these categories to look specifically at –

• Variations of client profiles between low to frequent use of services

• Number of times services were accessed and service type

• Type of previous accommodation

• Clients accommodation as they moved through services

Variations in client profiles

Clients who made frequent use of services are more likely to be male [Figure 6.5].

Jobseekers and unemployed were more likely to be multiple users of services than those in work.

White British clients are more likely to be multiple users of services than ethnic minority groups and this difference increased with more frequent access [Fig 6.7].

Figure 6.8 shows that single homeless people (overall the largest of the SP client groups) are more likely to make frequent use of Supporting People services, followed by people with alcohol problems and rough sleepers. Young people at risk make up a large proportion of the most frequent users but it should be noted that this effect is highly influenced by a high level of NI returns from a single specialist provider.

Other than for the most frequent users, the incidence of statutory homelessness did not increase with the number of times services were accessed [Figure 6.9].

Figure 6.10 shows clearly that as frequency of service use increased, self referrals increased and clients were less likely to be referred or nominated by LA housing authorities.


�7

Perc

ent

Accessedonce

Accessedtwice

Accessed3 times

Accessed4 times

Accessed5 times

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Figure 6.5: Gender and number of times services were accessed

Female Male

90

100

Perc

ent

Accessedonce

Accessedtwice

Accessed3 times

Accessed4 times

Accessed5 times

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Figure 6.6: Economic status and number of times service was accessed

Job seeker Long term sickness/disability Not seeking work

90

100


��

Perc

ent

Accessedonce

Accessedtwice

Accessed3 times

Accessed4 times

Accessed5 times

50

60

70

80

Figure 6.7: Ethnic origin and number of times services were accessed

White British Black African Black Caribbean

90

100

Perc

ent

Men

tal he

alth p

roble

ms

Single

homele

ss with

supp

ort

Alcoho

l pro

blems

Drug p

roble

ms

Offe

nders

at ri

sk of

offen

ding

0

20

30

40

50

60

Youn

g peo

ple at

risk

Wom

en at

risk

of do

mestic

violen

ce

Homele

ss fam

ilies w

ith su

ppor

t

Rough

slee

per

Generi

c

Figure 6.8: Primary client group and number of times services were accessed

Accessed once

Accessed twice

Accessed 3 times

Accessed 4 times

Accessed 5 times

10


��

30 40 50 Percent

6020100

Figure 6.9: Statutory homelessness and number of times services were accessed

Accessed once

Accessed twice

Accessed 3 times

Accessed 4 times

Accessed 5 times

70 80 90 100

Statutory homeless Not statutory homeless Unknown

Perc

ent

Volunt

ary ag

ency

Self r

eferra

l

Commun

ity M

H T

eam

Prob

ation

/pris

on0

20

30

40

50

Oth

er

Nomina

ted by

LA

hous

ing au

thor

ity

LA hous

ing de

pt. r

eferra

l

Inter

nal t

ransfe

r

Socia

l Serv

ices

Figure 6.10: Source of referral and number of times services were accessed

Accessed once

Accessed twice

Accessed 3 times

Accessed 4 times

Accessed 5 times

10


�0

Figure 6.11 shows that the more times that clients accessed services, the more likely they were previously to have been either sleeping rough or in direct access hostels.

Table 6.2: Number of times accessed by service type

Accessed Accessed Accessed Accessed Accessed once twice 3 times 4 times 5 times

# % # % # % # % # %

Floating support 38,056 39.1 5,293 20.6 909 11.6 246 9 103 2.8

Supported housing 33,729 34.7 9,977 38.9 2,906 37.1 835 30.4 1,455 39.6

Direct access 14,064 14.5 6,972 27.2 2,949 37.6 1,417 51.6 1,916 52.2

Table 6.2 categorises the frequency of clients’ access by the most common service. The table shows that floating support services were most commonly accessed by clients who accessed services only once. Clients who accessed services twice were most likely to access supported housing. The more frequently services were accessed, the greater the likelihood that these would be direct access services.

Perc

ent

Living

with

frien

ds

Rough

slee

ping

Living

with

family

Direct

acce

ss ho

stel

Housin

g asso

ciatio

n

tenan

cy0

10

15

20

25

Priva

te sec

tor t

enan

cy

gene

ral ne

eds l

ocal

auth

ority

tena

ncy

Supp

orted

hous

ing

Figure 6.11: Variations in previous accommodation and number of times services were accessed

30

Accessed once

Accessed twice

Accessed 3 times

Accessed 4 times

Accessed 5 times

5


��


7.1 Introduction

The Supporting People programme aims to meet the needs of people who for one reason or another have cause to access services outside of their own local authority area or who have no local connection to the local authority area in which a service they require is situated. For example, some clients may require specialist services, such as people with mental health problems or very complex needs, which are not available or where there is insufficient need in their own local authority area due to insufficient demand. Some clients may have a need that can only be met by provision in authorities other than their own local authority, for example, women at risk of domestic violence or ex-offenders released from a prison in an area outside their own community. Often however, clients accessing support services are extremely mobile having not set down roots in any particular area.

This section explores the arrangements in place to support clients in circumstances such as those described above by firstly describing the types of referrals open to clients and the numbers of clients accessing services via the various referral routes. Thereafter,

• Section 7.2 examines the extent to which providers of services accept clients from these referral routes.

• Section 7.3 goes on to highlight the most common types of support and how clients access services through the cross-authority route.

• Section 7.4 presents general regional variations describing cross-authority movement.

• Section 7.5 discusses patterns of client movement within and between regions.

• Section 7.6 focuses specifically on patterns of client movement between Administering Authorities.

The Client Record System requires providers to describe the type of referral route that enabled their clients’ access to services. The intention is to obtain details about whether or not clients were living in the administering authority area in which the service is located immediately prior to starting to receive the service. There are two main types of referral arrangements:


Non-Host referrals apply to clients who lived out-with the local authority area and who immediately prior to receiving the service were not residing in the area where the service is located.


Multi-lateral referrals apply to administering authorities where there is an agreed protocol between two or more administering authorities relating to a specific service. Such a protocol would mean that a client from any of these administering authorities can be accepted by the service involved. These authorities may have agreed to fund a service jointly, or agreed for the service to accept clients from the areas covered by all the administering authorities within the agreed protocol.


�2

Spot purchase referrals apply when the administering authority, in whose area a client was living immediately prior to receiving the service, purchases a service for an individual client from a different administering authority. This differs from a multi-lateral agreement in that it is an ad hoc purchase at an individual level, normally to secure a placement in an extremely specialised service outside the administering authority area. Costs continue to be the responsibility of the original administering authority making the purchase.

Structured referrals apply to referrals made by statutory agencies, such as the Probation service or Social Services. These referrals are often for those clients who cannot be expected to remain in their local authority area and so would receive a service in another administering authority area. This option differs from spot purchase as structured referrals are made to services that are funded by the authority in which the service is located.

Open access referrals apply where a client accesses a service in another administering authority area either by self-referral or on advice from a voluntary agency. These types of referrals apply where there is no formal referral arrangement.

Overall, the majority (88%) of referrals were made for clients who made an application for Supporting People services within their own local authority. Therefore, less than a fifth (12%) of clients accessed services outside their immediate local authority and by far, the most common type of non-host referral was open access [Table 7.1].

Table 7.1: Type of referral # %

Host 163,698 87.9

Non-Host: Open access 15,699 8.4

Non-Host: Strucutred 3,714 2.0

Non-Host: Multi-lateral 2,420 1.3

Non-Host: Spot purchase 669 0.4 Total 186,200 100

7.2 Referral systems for cross-authority provisionThe three most common types of service provider were voluntary organisations (41%), housing associations (32%) and housing authorities (15%).

Almost one-fifth of referrals accepted by voluntary organisations were non-host referrals. Proportionally, this compares to 12% of housing association/RSL acceptances and only 2% of housing authority acceptances.

Non-host open access referrals constituted 13% of referrals accepted by voluntary organisations, 8% of referrals accepted by housing associations/RSLs and 2% of referrals accepted by housing authorities.


��


Supported Housing Floating Support Direct Access # % # % # % Host 52,926 87.1 69,101 98.7 25,284 82.4




Non-Host: Spot Purchase 318 0.5 45 0.1 30 0.1 Total 60,754 100 70,010 100 30,699 100

Of all structured referrals, almost all were accepted by voluntary (52%) organisations and housing associations/RSL’s (39%).

For clients referred through multi-lateral protocols, 51% of services were provided by voluntary organisations, 39% by housing associations/RSLs and a further 5% by housing authorities.

Voluntary organisations (67%) and housing associations/RSLs (27%) accepted almost all spot purchase referrals.



Floating support services accepted 70,010 clients, which accounted for 38% of all referrals this year. Almost all services were delivered to clients within their own local authority (host referrals – 99%). [Table 7.2] However a minority of referrals were non-host open access referrals (1%). The majority of clients who were recorded as non-host open access referrals and who received floating support were made up of women at risk of domestic violence (18%), single homeless people (15%), homeless families (10%) and people with generic needs (9%).


Overall, supported housing received 60,754 referrals accounting for one-third of all referrals this year. Less than a tenth of these were non-host open-access referrals directly from clients accessing services outside their own local authority area [Table 7.2]. Slightly over two-fifths of open access referrals to supported housing were made by single homeless people with support needs; women at risk of domestic violence (11%), alcohol (8%) and drug (7%) problems and young people at risk (7%) made up a further third.


��

In total, 3% of referrals to supported housing were non-host structured referrals. Almost one-third of structured referrals were made on behalf of offenders or those at risk of offending while 23% of structured referrals were made for single homeless people with support needs and a further 13% for people with drug problems. A minority (2%) of referrals allowed clients access to supported housing via multi-lateral protocol systems and these clients were more likely to be single homeless people with support needs (31%), offenders or those at risk of offending (14%), alcohol problems (9%) or young people at risk (9%).

Similarly, few referrals were spot purchases (1%) made to supported housing and these were mainly on behalf of young people at risk (24%) or people with alcohol (23%) or drug (21%) problems.


There were 30,699 referrals to direct access hostel accommodation this year making up 17% of all referrals. Of all referrals to direct access, a smaller proportion of clients were recorded as host clients (82%) compared to clients referred to either supported housing (87%) or floating support (99%). Of all non-host referrals to direct access, 15% were made by clients on their own behalf via open access [Table 7.2]; the majority (69%) of these clients were single homeless people with support needs, another 16% were rough sleepers.

Residential care homes (0.3%; 530)

Although residential care homes recorded only 0.3% of referrals, residential care accepted the largest proportion of non-host referrals (62%) and 34% of these were non-host spot purchases. People with alcohol problems (78%) accounted for the majority of residential care spot-purchases followed by people with drug problems (17%).

Multi-lateral referrals accounted for 23% of non-host referrals to residential care homes for people with alcohol (55%) or drug (43%) problems.

Open access referrals made up 4% of referrals to residential care for people with drug problems (68%) and people with physical or sensory difficulties (21%).

Structured referrals made up 1% of the referrals to residential care homes and 57% were for people with mental health problems.


Compared to the national average of 12% for non-host referrals, London (16%) and the North East (16%) had the highest proportions of this type of referral. The East Midlands and Yorkshire & the Humber had the lowest levels of non-host referrals (8% and 7%, respectively).

While London had the highest level of open-access referrals (12%), Yorkshire & the Humber (5%) had the lowest.


��

The region with the highest level of structured referrals was the North East (4%) compared to 1% or 2% in all other regions.

Multi-lateral protocols were infrequent across England accounting for only 1% or 2% in all regions.

Similarly, spot purchase referrals constituted less than 1% with no regions rising above the national average.

Map 7.1 (overleaf ) shows a summary of cross-authority information by Government office region.

7.5 Patterns of client movement within and between government Office regions

Table 7.3 on page 98 shows the overall movement of clients into and out of each Government Office region, based on type of referral recorded.

• Column a ‘Host clients’: records are those that originated from within the funding Administering Authority area;

• Column b ‘non-host clients from within the region’: records those that originated outside the funding Administering Authority area, but within the same government office region as the funding Administering Authority;

• Column c ‘imports from outside region’: records those that originated from outside the government office region of the funding Administering Authority;

• Column d ‘exports to other regions’: records the number of clients who were previously living in that region but who moved to another region to receive a Supporting People service;

• Column e ‘the net import/export ratio’ shows the number of clients coming into that region divided by the number that left that region to get a service from another Administering Authority.

Regions with a ratio of 100 recorded exactly the same number of clients accessing services from outside the region as clients who left the region to access services.

Regions with ratios above 100 have recorded more clients coming into the region from outside to receive services than left the region to access services. For example, a ratio of 200 means that twice as many clients came into the region to access services compared to the number of clients who left the region to access services. These regions are described as netimporters.

Regions with ratios below 100 recorded more clients leaving the region to access services compared to the number of clients who came into the region to access services. For example, a ratio of 50 shows that twice as many clients left the region to access services compared to the number that came into the region from elsewhere. These regions are described as netexporters.

Column f, the last column in the table, shows the overall result of this movement as net import/export where positive numbers indicate the net number of clients who came into the region to access services (corresponding ratio is over 100). Negative numbers indicate the net number of clients who left the region to access services elsewhere (corresponding ratio is under 100).


�6

1. North East












3. East Midlands






4. East of England






5. London






6. South East








�7

7. South West






8. West Midlands






9. North West






ENgLAND





1

2

3

84

56

7

9


��

Of the 9 government regions, three were netexportersof Supporting People clients and six were netimporters.

It is important to note that, in terms of cross-authority movement, a far greater number of non-host clients moved within region (column b) rather than between regions (column c). That is, clients are most likely to access services across Administering Authorities within the same region, than they are to cross regional boundaries. This pattern is most evident in London. London, however, was by far and away the largest net exporter (with a ratio of 60.6 i.e. for every two people who came into the region for services, three people left the region) and the only region to record a net export of almost 500 SP clients. Yorkshire and the Humber and the East Midlands were also net exporters but to a lesser extent.

The South West recorded the highest netimportratio with almost twice as many clients coming into the region as leaving. The West Midlands, the East Region, and the South East were also net importers where each had ratios showing a greater number of clients entering the region than leaving. The West Midlands was the only region to record a net import of over 500 SP clients while the South West recorded a net import of over 400 clients.

Overall, the net import of clients exceeded the net export of clients, the difference partially accounted for by the import of over 600 SP clients from outside England.

Table 7.3: Patterns of client movement within and between Government Office regions

Type of referal Non-host Net Net Non-host from outside Exports import/ number from within region to other export of clientsRegion name Host region (imports) regions ratio* imported (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f )

North East 8,218 1,253 239 221 108.1 18


East Midlands 15,846 868 546 684 79.8 -138

East of England 13,984 808 808 620 130.3 188

London 24,025 3,766 695 1,146 60.6 -451

South East 18,687 1,383 1,049 917 114.4 132

South West 17,969 1,281 883 452 195.4 431

West Midlands 19,043 1,810 1,083 569 190.3 514

North West 26,648 3,376 671 666 100.8 5

Outside England 605 -605 TOTAL 163,698 15,634 6,490 6,490 100.0 0


* figure of 100 = same number of clients imported from other region as exported to another region


��

In terms of actual numbers of clients, London (1,146) and the South East (917) exported the largest number of clients to other regions. All other regions, with the exception of the North East, exported between 400 and 700 clients to other regions in England while the North East exported only 221 clients.

In terms of the actual number of clients imported from other regions the West Midlands (1,083) and the South East (1,049) were the only regions to record over 1000 clients coming into the region, followed by the South West and the East of England which each recorded over 800 clients coming into the region.

Each region recorded a significant level of internal client movement from one Administering Authority area to another within the same region (Column b). London recorded the largest number of intra-regional transfers (3,766), followed by the North West with 3,376 clients moving within this region. The number of intra-regional transfers in all other regions was significantly lower: between 800 and 1,810.

Primary Client Groups

Single homeless people and women at risk of domestic violence were the two most common non-host primary client groups across all the English regions in 2006/07. Together they accounted for 66% of all non-Host referrals.

Table 7.4 (overleaf ) shows the overall movement of clients into and out of each Government Office region for each of these two client groups

London recorded a net export ratio (i.e. ratio less than 100) for both client groups: for every five single homeless clients who left the London region only one client came into the region from elsewhere; and for clients described as women at risk of domestic violence, twice as many left the region to access services elsewhere compared to the number that came into the region from outside London to access services. For women at risk of domestic violence, the net number of clients leaving the region was over 200. For single homeless clients the number leaving the region was 164.

Yorkshire and the Humber also recorded a net export ratio for both single homeless and women at risk. For both client groups this was a net difference of less than 75 clients.

The West Midlands and the East of England recorded the highest net import ratio of single homeless clients, with over twice as many coming into the region as leaving the region. Similarly in the South West almost twice as many women at risk of domestic violence came in to the region as left it.

7.6 Patterns of client movement within and between Administering Authority areas

Looking now at patterns at Administering Authority level, Appendix 2 provides a list of numbers of host and non-host referrals for each of the Administering Authorities. These have been listed alphabetically within Government Office region. This table also shows the net import/export ratio for each, but this time the figures are based on the total number of host clients (those that originated from within the funding Administering Authority area) and non-host clients (those that originated from outside Administering Authority area; i.e. from anywhere else not taking into account from which Government Office region they originated).


�00

Table 7.4: Net inward and outward migration for services for the top two non-Host primary client groups by region Type of referal Non Host Net Net Non Host from outside Exports import/ number from within region to other export of peopleRegion name Host region (imports) regions ratio* imported

North East Women at risk of domestic violence 714 397 116 81 143.2 35Single homeless 2,226 487 84 53 158.5 31

Yorkshire & the Humber Women at risk of domestic violence 1,619 380 217 277 78.3 -60Single homeless 5,542 358 132 202 65.3 -70

East Midlands Women at risk of domestic violence 1,500 396 315 328 96.0 -13Single homeless 4,383 220 109 161 67.7 -52

East of England Women at risk of domestic violence 980 317 356 307 116.0 49Single homeless 4,877 294 268 111 241.4 157

London Women at risk of domestic violence 952 1,033 320 549 58.3 -229Single homeless 5,221 1,009 116 280 41.4 -164

South East Women at risk of domestic violence 1,459 586 591 374 158.0 217Single homeless 5,704 363 222 237 93.7 -15

South West Women at risk of domestic violence 1,356 452 339 174 194.8 165Single homeless 3,994 223 120 138 87.0 -18

West Midlands Women at risk of domestic violence 2,370 688 347 256 135.5 91Single homeless 5,569 641 416 153 271.9 263

North West Women at risk of domestic violence 1,615 888 227 259 87.6 -32Single homeless 8,345 1,441 277 239 115.9 38

* ratio of 100 = same number of clients imported from other region as exported to another region ratio above 100 = more clients imported from other region than exported ratio below 100 = fewer clients imported from other region than exported


�0�

Map 7.2 provides a graphical illustration of the information shown in Appendix 2. The net ratio has been divided into five categories:

• Large net importers shown in red with a net ratio of over 150 i.e. at least three clients come into the Administering Authority area for every two that leave;

• Moderate net importers shown in pink with a net ratio between 105 and 150;

• Status quo with net ratio around 100 shown in light grey [net ratio between 95 and 105];

• Moderate net exporters shown in pale blue with a net ratio of between 50 and 95;

• Large net exporters shown in dark blue with a net ratio of less than 50 i.e. for every client who comes into the Administering Authority area to receive a service at least two leave.

There is no obvious spatial pattern of movement (such as from rural to urban areas). Explanations for the patterns of movement need to be sought in the specifics of the social context and service provision within each area.

Summary of significant features of the pattern displayed in Appendix2 and Map 7.2:

• A small number of Administering Authorities (North Tyneside, City of York, Luton, Barnet, Bromley, Greenwich and Milton Keynes) recorded an approximately equal balance in the number of clients who came into the area and who left the area.

• The number of clients moving into an Administering Authority area varied considerably: from 848 (Birmingham) to 0 (Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead). The median number of all import cross-authority clients for the 149 Administering Authority3 areas was 109.

• The number of clients moving out of an Administering Authority area also varied considerably: from 729 (Manchester in the North West) to 13 (Rutland Council in the East Midlands). The median number of clients who left their Administering Authority area to receive a service funded elsewhere across all 149 areas was 115.

• Bournemouth in the South West was the Administering Authority area with the highest net import ratio of 818.9 (i.e. eight times as many clients came into the Administering Authority area compared to the number going elsewhere for services). The actual number of non-host clients who came into the area was 434. Rochdale, in the North West recorded the second highest import ratio of 418.1 (i.e. over four times as many clients entered this Administering Authority compared to the number of clients who left to access services elsewhere).

• The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, in the South East, recorded a net export ratio of 0, meaning that there were no non-host clients coming into the area, but the number of clients was small with 26 clients leaving the Administering Authority area. The next lowest ratio was recorded by the London Borough of Havering with a net ratio of 10.4 (i.e. ten times as many clients left the Administering Authority area compared to the number of clients who came into the area to access services). A further 18 Administering Authority areas recorded net ratios of under 50 (i.e. over twice as many clients left the Administering Authority area as came into the area).

3 149 Administering Authorities out of 150 are included in the dataset. The Council for the Isles of Scilly does not fund any services through Supporting People that are included in the Client Record System.


�02

LondonBristol

Birmingham

Newcastle upon Tyne

Categories

Exporter (High level) Ratio < 50

Exporter (Medium level) Ratio 50-95

Equal Import/Export Ratio 95-105

Importer (Medium level) Ratio 105-150

Importer (High level) Ratio > 150

Government Office Region Boundaries

London

Map 7.2: Net import/export ratio by Administering Authority

Liverpool

PARTTHREE:TrendAnalysis200�/0�to2006/07

�0�

PART THREE

Trend Analysis 2003/04 to 2006/07


�0�


�0�

8 Trend AnalysisSince the launch of the Supporting People programme in April 2003, the Client Record System has recorded data on new clients accessing Supporting People services. This section of the 2006/07 Client Records Annual Report identifies the trends and key differences that have emerged in the data over the course of data collection from 2003 to the current 2006/07 year.

8.1 Introduction

The overall picture emerging from data collection remains one of relatively stable proportions across and within the majority of categories identified on the Client Record Form. Notably, client group composition has remained constant with the majority of clients falling into one of the same six categories as previous years and the majority of clients being supported by the same three support and provider categories. Furthermore, access routes to Supporting People services are as they have been previously. The stability of the dataset is an indication that this system of data collection continues to capture a highly informative record of new Supporting People clients, support provision and access routes both at a national and local level.

This section reports trends in:

• The profile of clients

• The provision of services and referral routes

• Client mobility and the distribution of clients across England

The most common client groups are single homeless, women at risk of domestic violence, mental health problems, homeless families, people with generic needs and young people at risk, making up more than 70% of all clients. This trend has remained stable for the duration of data collection while all other client groups each make up less than 5% of the client population. The most common age range for clients, 18-24 years, has been consistent across the four years of data collection. However, the proportion of female clients has increased steadily since the launch of the programme contributing to the slight upward trend in the proportion of clients not seeking work. Despite this, the overall pattern in economic status remains as it was in 2003/04 with the majority of clients being either job seekers, not seeking work or unable to work due to long term illness.

8.2 The profile of clients

The six primary client groups identified in Figure 8.1 make up the majority of clients recorded by the system. This year, these groups accounted for 71% of all clients reinforcing the pattern since the launch of the Supporting People programme in 2003.


�06

The remaining primary client groups (Fig 8.2) each make up less than 5% of all clients. In contrast to the major client categories, there has been some variability in the proportions of these groups over time. Most notably, rough sleepers and refugees have decreased steadily since 2003/04 and a smaller proportion of clients with drug problems were recorded this year compared to previous years. Teenage parents have risen marginally from 1.5% in 2003/04 to 2% in 2006/07. Also older people with support needs increased this year accounting for 3.9% of all clients compared to 3.1% in 2003/04.

Perhaps the most striking change in the composition of clients is reflected in the year on year increase in the proportion of female clients (Fig 8.3). Compared to 2003/04, when far more clients were male, females now account for almost an equal proportion of clients.

While the majority of clients continue to be between 18 and 24 years old, over time, smaller proportions of clients between 25 and 38 years have been recorded compared to a corresponding increase in the proportion of clients between the ages of 39 and 59 years.

Figure 8.5 shows the likelihood that the majority of clients will either be job seekers, not seeking work or unable to work due to long term illness. Slight fluctuations have occurred over time showing a smaller proportion of jobseekers and an increase in the proportion of clients not seeking work.

Although the largest proportion of clients year on year has consistently been single homeless people, the proportion of clients who were accepted as statutory homeless has steadily decreased over time [Figure 8.6].

Perc

ent

Homele

ss fam

ilies

with su

ppor

t

Men

tal he

alth p

roble

ms

Single

homele

ss

with su

ppor

t0

10

15

20

25

Generi

c

Wom

en at

risk

of

domest

ic vio

lence

Youn

g peo

ple at

risk

Figure 8.1: Most common primary client groups

30

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

35

5


�07

Perc

ent

Old

er p

eopl

e w

ith su

ppor

t nee

ds

Old

er p

eopl

e w

ith m

enta

l hea

lth p

robl

ems

Frai

l eld

erly

Lear

ning

disa

bilit

ies

Phys

ical

or s

enso

ry d

isabi

lity

Alco

hol p

robl

ems

Dru

g pr

oblem

s

Offe

nder

s at r

isk o

f offe

ndin

g

Men

tally

diso

rder

ed o

ffend

ers

0

2

3

4

5

6

Youn

g pe

ople

leavi

ng c

are

Peop

le w

ith H

IV/A

IDS

Refu

gees

Teen

age p

aren

tsRo

ugh

sleep

erTr

avell

er

Figure 8.2: All other client groups (less than 5%)

1

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

Perc

ent

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/0740

45

50

55

60

Figure 8.3: Gender

Female Male


�0�

Perc

ent

16-17 18-24 25-31 32-38 39-45 46-52 53-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80+0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Figure 8.4: Age

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

Perc

ent

Full-

time

wor

k

(24h

rs o

r mor

e per

wee

k)Pa

rt-tim

e w

ork

(less

than

24h

rs p

er w

eek)

Gov

t tra

inin

g/N

ew D

eal

Job

seek

er

Retir

edN

ot se

ekin

g w

ork

Full-

time

stude

nt

Una

ble

to w

ork

beca

use

of

long

term

sick

ness

or d

isabi

lity

Oth

er a

dult

0

10

15

20

25

40

Figure 8.5: Economic status

30

35

5

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07


�0�

8.3 The provision of services and referral routes

With only minor variations, it is clear that service provision has remained constant over time with voluntary organisations accounting for the largest share followed by HA/RSLs and housing authorities. Similarly, clients most commonly access three main service types: floating support services, supported housing and direct access hostels. However, Figure 8.7 illustrates that the pattern of access since 2003/04 has shifted to the extent that floating support services are far more commonly accessed now than they were in 2003/04 with a comparable decrease in the proportion of direct access hostels that clients accessed.

There has been very little variation over time in referral routes into services with self referral remaining the most common access route, followed by LA housing Department and voluntary agency. However, all three of these referral routes have demonstrated a slight downward trend over the four years of the programme. The fourth most common referral route – LA nomination – has, in contrast, increased slightly over the period. Likewise, ‘other’ referral routes, meaning those routes that are not specified on the Client Record form, seem to also be experiencing a slight upward trend [Figure 8.8].

Perc

ent

Figure 8.6: Statutory homeless

7065605550454035302520151050

Not statutorily homelessStatutorily homeless Don’t know

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07


��0

15

Percent

20 25 351050

Figure 8.7: Trends in service access


Outreach service

Floating support

Direct access


Foyer

Women’s refuge

Supported lodgings

Adult placement


Supported housing

30 40

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

Perc

ent

Nom

inat

ed b

y lo

cal

hous

ing

auth

ority

LA h

ousin

g

depa

rtmen

t (re

ferr

al)

Soci

al S

ervi

ces

Prob

atio

n se

rvic

e/pr

ison

Com

mun

ity M

enta

l

Hea

lth T

eam

Volu

ntar

y ag

ency

Self

refe

rral

/Dire

ct

appl

icat

ion

Nom

inat

ed u

nder

Mov

eUK

(HO

MES

)

Clie

nt a

pplie

d fo

r

inte

rnal

tran

sfer

0

10

15

20

25

30

Mov

ing

from

ano

ther

RSL

Hea

lth se

rvic

e/G

P

Yout

h O

ffend

ing

Team

Polic

e

Oth

er

Figure 8.8: Source of referral

5

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07


��

Perc

ent

2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/70

10

20

30

Figure 8.9: The rising trend in Host referrals

HostNon-Host:Multi-Lateral

Non-Host:Spot Purchase

Non-Host:Structured

Non-Host:Open Access

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

8.4 Client mobility and the distribution of clients across England

It is becoming increasingly unlikely that clients will access services across AA or regional boundaries. Figure 8.9 shows that fewer clients each year are recorded as non-host clients. This might reflect decreasing client mobility and/or a tendency on the part of services to accept fewer non-host clients.

Clients report various types of accommodation that they were in prior to accessing support, the most common of which are LA general needs housing (displaying a stable trend), staying with family or friends (increasing) or sleeping rough (decreasing). Compared to 2003/04 a smaller proportion of clients lived in supported housing and direct access hostels while a larger proportion were owner occupiers.

Three additional categories of previous accommodation that were added to the Client Record form in April 2006: women’s refuge, which accounted for 1.5% of clients; foyer; and mobile home/caravan, each accounting for 0.3% of clients.

Variability in the distribution of clients across England over time is shown in Figure 8.11. Most notable is the decreasing proportion of clients in London since 2005/06. Similar decreases have occurred in the South East. Increases in the proportion of clients have occurred in Yorkshire & the Humber and the South West.


��2

Perc

ent

Gen

eral

nee

ds lo

cal a

utho

rity

Gen

eral

nee

ds R

SL/H

A te

nant

Priv

ate r

ente

d

Tied

hom

e or

rent

ing

with

job

Ow

ner o

ccup

ier

Supp

orte

d ho

usin

g

Dire

ct a

cces

s hos

tel

Hou

sing

for o

lder

peo

ple

Resid

entia

l car

e ho

me

0

5

10

20

Hos

pita

lPr

ison

Appr

oved

pro

batio

n ho

stel

Chi

ldre

n’s h

ome/

foste

r car

e

Bed

and

brea

kfas

t

Shor

t life

hou

sing

Livi

ng w

ith fa

mily

Stay

ing

with

frie

nds

Any

othe

r tem

p ac

com

mod

atio

nRo

ugh

sleep

ing

Oth

er

Wom

en’s

refu

geFo

yer

Mob

ile h

ome/

cara

van

Figure 8.10: Patterns of previous accommodation

15

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

Percent

1050

Figure 8.11: Client distribution and minor fluctuations over time

North West

West Midlands

South West

South East

London

East of England

East Midlands


North East

15 20

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

APPENDICES

��

Appendix 1

8a. Has the client been accepted as requiring services under the following statutory frameworks (respond to each question)




Drug Interventions Programme (DIP)


8b. Has the client been assessed as a higher risk under the following (please respond to each question)

Care Programme Approach (enhanced) 1 2 3

Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements 1 2 3

8c. Is the client currently subject to requirements under an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO)?

1 2 3



CONTINUES OVERLEAF – PLEASE TURN OVER

Client Record Form 2006/07 - SUPPORTING PEOPLEFor HA/LA supported housing only - Owning HA/LA Name .......................................................................................

HA/LA CORE Code Management Group Code Scheme code

PROVIDER AND SERVICE DETAILS

not more than three

Leave blank

oneonly

oneonly

7. Client group by which the client is defined

1. Who is the service provider?Organisation Name .............................................................................

Service Name .....................................................................................

SP Service ID

SP Administering Authority(eg Buckinghamshire)

National Client Record Provider ID(a 5 digit ID allocated by JCSHR)

National Provider ID(an 8 digit ID allocated by the ODPM)

Floating support 13



Adult placement 7

Supported lodgings 8 Very sheltered housing 2

Women’s refuge 9 Sheltered housing with warden 3

Foyer 10 Almshouse 4

Teenage parent accom 11 Peripatetic warden 5

Direct access 12 Leasehold scheme 16


service (e.g. 12/04/06)

Client/Tenant code

oneonly2. Type of service

do not complete for:

CLIENT DETAILS

4. CLIENT CHARACTERISTICS. Enter age, sex, economic status of the client. Enter details of other members of the household who receive services under the same support plan.




Client

Person 2

Person 3

Person 4

Person 5

Person 6


Economic status

Full-time work (24 hours or more per week) 1

Part-time work (less than 24 hours per week) 2


Job seeker 4

Retired 5

Not seeking work 6

Full-time student 7

Unable to work because of long term sickness or disability 8

Child under 16 9

Other adult 0

6. Ethnic origin of client as defined by client oneonly



White & Asian Other


Other


e. Chinese or other ethnicgroup Chinese Other ethnic group

f. Refused

1 2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9 10

11

12 13 14

15 16

17

Primary SecondaryOlder people with support needs 1 Older people with support needs 1






Single homeless with support needs 7 Single homeless with support needs 7









Homeless families with support needs 16 Homeless families with support needs 16






Yes No Don’t Know

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3


Nominated by local housing auth 1 Nominated under MoveUK 8

LA housing department (referral) 2 Client applied for internal transfer 9






Yes No Don’t Know

5. National Insurance Number of Client

Client’s National Insurance number (e.g. AB 12 34 56 C)

Client does not know

Client refuses

Yes No Don’t Know


��

11b. Please if the client continues to live in this accommodation


12a. How long has the client been living in the AdministeringAuthority area where the service is provided?

years months days

12b. If the client has been living in that area for less than 6months, where did they live before?

Refer to Appendix 3 of the Guidance manual for ONS LA codes

And how long did the client live there?

years months days

13. How long did the client live in the local housing authorityarea recorded at Q11c?

years months daysRefer to Appendix 3 of the Guidance manual for ONS LA codesOnly complete the post code where accommodation was not temporary


oneonly

oneonly


10. Type of referral (see below for definitions)

a. Host Host


2 3 4 5

1

11a. Type of accommodation occupied by the client immediately prior to receiving the support service?

Local authority general needs tenancy 1 Hospital 10

Housing association general needs Prison 11

tenancy 2 Approved probation hostel 12

Private sector tenancy 3 Children’s home/foster care 13

Tied housing or rented with job 4 Bed and breakfast 14

Owner occupation 5 Short life housing 15


Direct access hostel 7 Living with friends 17

Women’s refuge 21 Mobile Home/Caravan 23

Foyer 22 Any other temp accom 18

Housing for older people 8 Rough sleeping 19

Residential care home 9 Other 20

ONS LA codeName of local housing authority

Returning Client Record Forms to Client Record Office

• Please send Client Record Forms for new clients to the Client Record Office at the end of the month in which they begin the support service.

• Complete a Client Record Form Batch Header (can be downloaded from www.spclientrecord.org.uk) foreach month of record forms submitted, and provide full contact details of the most appropriate person inyour organisation to respond to queries about the forms.


Tick one box only

HOST

A referral to a Supporting People service is defined as host when the client was living in the AdministeringAuthority area where the service is located immediately prior to receiving the service. For the purposes of the Client Record Form, “immediately prior” refers only to the night before the client started to receive the service. Please note this question is not about “local connections”.

NON-HOST

A referral is defined as one of the non-host types when the client was living outside the Administering Authorityarea where the service is located immediately prior to receiving the service. You should choose the mostappropriate non-host category as follows:

Multi-lateral – a referral made through a protocol between two or more Administering Authorities and wherethe referral comes from within this group of authorities.

Spot purchase – the new client’s place in the service has been purchased by an Administering Authority otherthan the one in which the service is located.

Structured – a referral made by a statutory agency where the client was living in a different AdministeringAuthority to the one in which the service is located immediately prior to receiving the service.

Open Access – a self-referral, or referral by a voluntary agency or non-statutory agency to a service locatedin a different Administering Authority to that in which the client was living immediately prior to receiving thatservice.

Please consult the Client Record Guidance Manual for further explanation and examples, or contact the Helpdeskon 01334 461765 if you are still unsure.

Host Referrals ONLY, Answer Q12

(Non-host referrals go to Q13)

Completed Forms

Answer all questions as fully as possible.

Always complete the client/tenant code on every form. This will ensure that you can identify the form from your own records if the Client Record Office needs to contact you with queries.

Non-host Referrals ONLY, Answer Q13

APPENDICES

��

Appendix 2 – Patterns of client movement between Administering Authority Areas


North East Darlington Borough Council 388 154 60 256.7 Durham County Council 638 141 208 67.8 Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council 445 99 157 63.1 Hartlepool Borough Council 198 20 44 45.5 Middlesbrough Council 359 114 84 135.7 Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council 3,021 372 321 115.9 North Tyneside Council 1,028 120 113 106.2 Northumberland County Council 390 35 101 34.7 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council 330 39 46 84.8 South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council 306 119 130 91.5 Stockton Borough Council 511 56 73 76.7 Sunderland City Council 604 238 137 173.7 Yorkshire & the Humber Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council 209 59 71 83.1 Bradford Metropolitan District Council 2,266 414 161 257.1 Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council 465 68 91 74.7 City of York Council 778 97 92 105.4 Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council 638 68 222 30.6 East Riding of Yorkshire Council 469 40 60 66.7 Kingston-upon-Hull City Council 2,191 45 98 45.9 Kirklees Metropolitan Council 1,310 72 95 75.8 Leeds City Council 3,278 118 275 42.9 North East Lincolnshire Council 1,134 71 26 273.1 North Lincolnshire Council 332 29 38 76.3 North Yorkshire County Council 1,119 87 138 63.0 Rotherham Borough Council 1,056 68 95 71.6 Sheffield City Council 3,304 340 141 241.1 Wakefield Metropolitan District Council 729 38 96 39.6 East Midlands Derby City Council 1,222 140 221 63.3 Derbyshire County Council 866 227 169 134.3 Leicester City Council 3,852 138 299 46.2 Leicestershire County Council 443 175 61 286.9 Lincolnshire County Council 2,579 115 187 61.5 Northamptonshire County Council 1,371 104 125 83.2 Nottingham City Council 3,213 264 292 90.4 Nottinghamshire County Council 2,253 258 185 139.5 Rutland Council 47 10 13 76.9


��6


East of England Bedfordshire County Council 916 89 128 69.5 Cambridgeshire County Council 1,695 240 112 214.3 Essex County Council 1,984 346 254 136.2 Hertfordshire County Council 2,707 316 229 138.0 Luton Borough Council 782 87 82 106.1 Norfolk County Council 2,578 100 213 46.9 Peterborough City Council 1,028 76 145 52.4 Southend on Sea Borough Council 519 144 77 187.0 Suffolk 1,609 219 154 142.2 Thurrock Borough Council 166 56 34 164.7 London City of London 15 20 158 12.7 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham 1,070 102 115 88.7 London Borough of Barnet 889 81 75 108.0 London Borough of Bexley 170 91 46 197.8 London Borough of Brent 667 101 146 69.2 London Borough of Bromley 320 89 83 107.2 London Borough of Camden 2,498 179 247 72.5 London Borough of Croydon 671 69 173 39.9 London Borough of Ealing 1,332 81 102 79.4 London Borough of Enfield 432 88 137 64.2 London Borough of Greenwich 494 115 113 101.8 London Borough of Hackney 1,739 198 247 80.2 London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham 707 109 128 85.2 London Borough of Haringey 1,639 83 155 53.5 London Borough of Harrow 274 52 89 58.4 London Borough of Havering 27 8 77 10.4 London Borough of Hillingdon 837 31 77 40.3 London Borough of Hounslow 398 77 83 92.8 London Borough of Islington 1,119 129 199 64.8 London Borough of Lambeth 893 526 381 138.1 London Borough of Lewisham 428 146 250 58.4 London Borough of Merton 200 96 36 266.7 London Borough of Newham 541 83 198 41.9 London Borough of Redbridge 245 186 82 226.8 London Borough of Richmond 36 61 38 160.5 London Borough of Southwark 1,275 224 422 53.1 London Borough of Sutton 310 28 46 60.9 London Borough of Tower Hamlets 1,276 546 142 384.5 London Borough of Waltham Forest 881 77 129 59.7 London Borough of Wandsworth 305 128 163 78.5 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea 648 63 76 82.9 Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames 547 28 67 41.8 Westminster City Council 1,142 645 432 149.3

APPENDICES

��7


South East Bracknell Forest Borough Council 70 63 32 196.9 Brighton and Hove Council 1,563 86 158 54.4 Buckinghamshire County Council 483 128 111 115.3 East Sussex County Council 910 157 114 137.7 Hampshire County Council 3,099 418 248 168.5 Isle of Wight Council 635 11 41 26.8 Kent County Council 2,485 245 289 84.8 Medway Council 593 63 68 92.6 Milton Keynes Council 606 112 105 106.7 Oxfordshire County Council 1,620 121 165 73.3 Portsmouth City Council 1,864 155 100 155.0 Reading Borough Council 554 86 151 57.0 Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead 7 0 26 0.0 Slough Borough Council 241 60 91 65.9 Southampton City Council 995 70 124 56.5 Surrey County Council 1,235 275 233 118.0 West Berkshire District Council 427 126 33 381.8 West Sussex County Council 1,258 278 191 145.5 Wokingham District Council 42 18 20 90.0 South West Bath and North East Somerset Council 521 139 63 220.6 Borough of Poole 294 47 97 48.5 Bournemouth Borough Council 1,339 434 53 818.9 Bristol City Council 3,061 203 247 82.2 Cornwall County Council 1,124 115 70 164.3 Devon County Council 1,652 148 218 67.9 Dorset County Council 285 76 286 26.6 Gloucestershire County Council 2,356 263 130 202.3 North Somerset Council 874 77 102 75.5 Plymouth City Council 1,851 129 105 122.9 Somerset County Council 1,662 172 88 195.5 South Gloucestershire Council 591 68 35 194.3 Swindon Unitary Council 1,106 136 50 272.0 Torbay Council 413 69 46 150.0 Wiltshire County Council 840 144 143 100.7 West Midlands Birmingham City Council 6,843 848 539 157.3 Coventry City Council 2,159 204 132 154.5 Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council 494 308 139 221.6 Herefordshire County Council 563 58 59 98.3 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council 827 227 123 184.6 Shropshire County Council 696 85 82 103.7 Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council 214 71 30 236.7


��


West Midlands (continued) Staffordshire County Council 1,362 264 319 82.8 Stoke-on-Trent City Council 1,184 314 193 162.7 Telford and Wrekin Council 389 8 72 11.1 Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council 883 185 152 121.7 Warwickshire County Council 856 77 113 68.1 Wolverhampton City Council 1,391 192 257 74.7 Worcestershire County Council 1,182 105 169 62.1 North West Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council 902 325 113 287.6 Blackpool Borough Council 1,119 104 122 85.2 Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council 841 144 189 76.2 Bury Metropolitan Borough Council 434 66 200 33.0 Cheshire County Council 1,136 160 206 77.7 Cumbria County Council 1,262 56 58 96.6 Halton Borough Council 721 73 44 165.9 Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council 993 132 84 157.1 Lancashire County Council 2,667 356 489 72.8 Liverpool City Council 2,436 199 585 34.0 Manchester City Council 5,179 425 729 58.3 Metropolitan Borough of Wirral 1,106 262 86 304.7 Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council 1,006 93 134 69.4 Rochdale Council 2,090 623 149 418.1 Salford City Council 941 247 156 158.3 Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council 385 93 81 114.8 St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council 639 280 97 288.7 Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council 636 75 124 60.5 Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council 524 107 89 120.2 Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council 149 31 75 41.3 Warrington Borough Council 687 161 107 150.5 Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council 795 87 125 69.6

Outside England Northern Ireland 0 0 29 0.0 Scotland 0 0 159 0.0 Wales 0 0 279 0.0

Non-UK Country 0 0 138 0.0

Unknown 0 0 378 0.0 TOTAL 163,698 22,502 22,502 100.0

APPENDICES

��

Tables & Figures

Tables

Section OneTable 1.1. Types of service between statutory homelessness acceptance for single homeless people with

support needs who were living with family or sleeping rough Table 1.2 The support provided to homeless families with support needsTable 1.3 Number of secondary descriptionsTable 1.4 Primary client group by secondary client group classificationTable 1.5 Numbers of clients in primary and secondary groups

Section TwoTable 2.1 Type of accommodation prior to receiving SP servicesTable 2.2 Client groups who were living in B&B prior to receiving SP servicesTable 2.3 The referral routes of client groups who were discharged from hospital

Section ThreeTable 3.1 Support service provisionTable 3.2 Frequency of clients in each Government office region and the estimated percentage of

resident population receiving support

Section FiveTable 5.1 Clients requiring services under statutory frameworks

Section SixTable 6.1 Access visits to Supporting People servicesTable 6.2 Number of times accessed by service type

Section SevenTable 7.1 Type of referralTable 7.2 Referral arrangements for supported housing, direct access and floating supportTable 7.3 Patterns of client movement within and between Government office regionsTable 7.4 Net inward and outward migration for services for the top two non-Host primary client

groups by region

Figures

Section OneFigure 1.1. Primary client groupsFigure 1.2. The previous living arrangements of women at risk of domestic violenceFigure 1.3. Pattern of referral arrangements for women at risk of domestic violenceFigure 1.4. People with mental health problems by previous accommodationFigure 1.5. The previous living arrangements of homeless families with support needsFigure 1.6. The economic status of young people at risk by sexFigure 1.7. Proportion of referral type by main sources of referral for people with drug problemsFigure 1.8. Older people with support needs by sex and ageFigure 1.9. The previous living arrangements of offenders or those at risk of offendingFigure 1.10 The support provided to teenage parents


�20

Figure 1.11 Regional variations; proportion of single homeless people with support needs in each Government Office region

Figure 1.12 Regional variations; proportion of women at risk of domestic violence in each Government office region

Figure 1.13 Regional variations; proportion of people with mental health problems in each Government office region

Figure 1.14 Regional variations; proportion of homeless families with support needs in each Government office region

Figure 1.15 Regional variations; proportion of young people at risk in each Government office regionFigure 1.16 Regional division of genderFigure 1.17 Gender and age differencesFigure 1.18 Gender and economic statusFigure 1.19 Gender differences by primary client groupFigure 1.20 Gender and service typeFigure 1.21 Percentage of clients accessing supported housing by gender and primary client groupFigure 1.22 Percentage of clients accessing floating support by gender and primary client groupFigure 1.23 Percentage of clients accessing direct access by gender and primary client groupFigure 1.24 Gender differences by statutory homelessnessFigure 1.25 Gender and source of referralFigure 1.26 Gender differences in previous accommodationFigure 1.27 Proportion of ethnic minority groupsFigure 1.28 Distribution of gender across ethnic groupsFigure 1.29 Primary client group: Black ethnic groupsFigure 1.30 Primary client group: Asian ethnic groupsFigure 1.31 The services accessed by each ethnic origin groupFigure 1.32 Proportion of primary client groups with one or more secondary description

Section TwoFigure 2.1 The main service types provided to homeless families and single homeless with support

needs living in B&B

Section ThreeFigure 3.1 The proportion of clients receiving floating support and supported housing within age


Section FourFigure 4.1 Primary client groups accepted as statutory homelessFigure 4.2 The type of previous living arrangements of statutory homeless clients by sex

Section FiveFigure 5.1 Proportion of primary client groups subject to Social Services Care Management Figure 5.2 The relationship between service type and Probation/Youth Offending Team supervision for

young people at risk

Section SixFigure 6.1 Comparison of service type between forms that included NI and those that did notFigure 6.2 The proportion of forms with and without NI within the most common service typesFigure 6.3 Comparison of the proportion of primary client groups with and without NI Figure 6.4 The effect of age on the liklihood that NI will be provided

APPENDICES

�2�

Figure 6.5 Gender and number of times services were accessedFigure 6.6 Economic status and number of times services were accessedFigure 6.7 Ethnic origin and number of times services were accessedFigure 6.8 Primary client group and number of times services were accessedFigure 6.9 Statutory homelessness and number of times services were accessedFigure 6.10 Source of referral and number of times services were accessedFigure 6.11 Variations in previous accommodation and number of times services were accessed

Section EightFigure 8.1 Most common primary client groupsFigure 8.2 All other client groups (less than 5%)Figure 8.3 GenderFigure 8.4 AgeFigure 8.5 Economic statusFigure 8.6 Statutory homelessnessFigure 8.7 Trends in service accessFigure 8.8 Source of referralFigure 8.9 The rising trend in Host referralsFigure 8.10 Patterns of previous accommodationFigure 8.11 Client distribution and minor fluctuations over time

Maps


Section 7Map 7.1 Summary of Client Record cross-authority information by Government office regionMap 7.2 Net import/export ratio by Administering Authority


�22

APPENDICES

�2�


�2�

CHR – SP Client Record OfficeThe ObservatoryUniversity of St AndrewsBuchanan GardensSt AndrewsFife, KY16 9LZ

Tel: 01334 461765

Email: [email protected]

Fax: 01334 463920

web: www.spclientrecord.org.uk

Contents

�

Supporting People Client Records &Outcomes


Centre for Housing ResearchUniversity of St Andrews


2

For further information contact:

Dr Iain AthertonResearch Officer

Supporting People ProgrammeCentre for Housing ResearchThe Observatory Buchanan Gardens University of St AndrewsSt Andrews KY16 9LZ Tel: 01334 461764Email: [email protected]

The University of St Andrews is a charity registered in Scotland, No: SC013532

Contents

�

ContentsForeword 5 Summary 7 Introduction 9 Section 1: Client Records

1.1 Introduction 11

1.2 Trend Analysis 11 1.3 Cross Authority Provision 18 Section 2: Outcomes

2.1 Introduction 21 2.2 Outcomes at a Glance 22 2.3 Client Groups and Patterns of Need Identified and Met 29

2.4 Outcomes in Focus: The Implications of Planned & Unplanned Moves for Outcomes 33 Section 3: Linking Client Records and Outcomes

3.1 Introduction 39 3.2 Methodology for Linking 41 3.3 Analysis: an Illustrated Example: Young People at Risk 44

Appendix 1 51 Appendix 2 53


�

Forward

�

Foreword The Supporting People programme, created in 2003, provides the means through which Government ensures that some of society’s most vulnerable and socially excluded people receive help and support to live independently, and makes an important contribution to the Government’s objective of promoting equality of opportunity and enabling vulnerable people to participate fully in the social and economic life of their communities.

This annual report is being published at a crucial time in the programme’s development. The provision of housing-related support is now part of the mainstream business of local government. Two of the 196 National Indicators which Local Government are required to report performance on specifically relate to Supporting People, measuring: performance against establishing (NI 141) and maintaining (NI 142) independence for vulnerable and older people. Two thirds of authorities have included one or both of these indicators in their Local Area Agreements, which demonstrates the value placed on housing-related support by local partnerships across England.

We know that the Supporting People programme helps over a million vulnerable people a year establish or maintain their independence. We also know that national expenditure of £1.54bn in housing-related support services, alongside other expenditure costs associated with supporting vulnerable people, such as housing and social care costs, delivers estimated net savings of £2.77bn.

Client Records and Outcomes data is crucial in supporting local partners to deliver National Indicators 141 and 142, and a wide range of other local and national priorities, including domestic violence, re-offending, drug and alcohol harm, and support into employment, education and training.

The launch of the Supporting People Outcomes Framework in May 2007 marks an innovative achievement in the development of measures for the assessment and evaluation of the investment and delivery of housing-related support for vulnerable people. These nationally agreed and applied outcome measures are without precedent and, for the first time, a robust evidence base exists which demonstrates the impact of these services, both locally and nationally. This evidence base enables assessment across client and service types, and across localities and regions, which in turn permits the identification of successes and gaps in provision, guiding adjustment in policy and delivery at both a national and, crucially, at a local level.

We now have five years worth of Client Records trend data, and a one year baseline established for Outcomes data. The Outcomes baseline tells us that clients who access short-term services have the highest need for support to maximise their income and to develop greater choice, involvement and control at a service level and in the community. Clients in long-term services tend to have higher needs for support to better manage physical health and manage independent living as a result of assistive technology/ aids and adaptations. We now have the evidence which demonstrates the outcomes achieved by these services across the country. For example:

• Over 18,000 people accessed their desired training and education needs• 34,000 people maintained their accommodation and avoided eviction• 27,000 people established contact with their family and friends, and 39,000 with external services• 14,000 were able to better manage their substance misuse• 5,400 people gained paid employment


�

This evidence is extremely powerful in demonstrating the benefits of housing-related support services at a national level, but it is also vitally important for the data to be analysed in greater depth to inform understanding of outcomes achieved at a local level, and to build understanding of the needs and characteristics of the vulnerable people who access services.

With the development of online reporting facility this year by the Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews, the majority of Client Records and Outcomes data is available for anyone to view and analyse at an aggregated level. We hope that by making this information available it will continue to support local partners in delivering services, and be useful to a wide range of stakeholders across the country, including service users and their carers as the Government’s ambitions around personalisation and choice are realised through the roll-out of individual budgets.

Mark Carroll

Director of Housing, Care and Support.

Summary

7

SummaryClient Records: Information is gathered at the time a client starts to receive a Supporting People (SP) funded service. This data has been collected since the start of the SP Programme on 1st April 2003. Analysis in this report is based on information collected from 203,651 records about clients startingabout clients starting to receive services between 1st April 2007 and 31st March 2008, and includes comparisons with Client Record data from 2003/4 onwards.

• Service provision has remained constant over time with voluntary organisations accounting for the largest share followed by HA/RSLs and housing authorities.

• In terms of service type, since 2003/4, clients have most commonly accessed three main service types: floating support, supported housing and direct access hostels, although the pattern of access since 2003/04 has shifted to the extent that floating support services are far more commonly accessed now than they were in 2003/04 with a comparable decrease in the proportion of clients accessing direct access hostels.

• The most common client groups are single homeless, women at risk of domestic violence, mental health problems, homeless families, young people at risk, and people with generic needs, making up more than 70% of all clients. Refugees and people with drug problems have decreased steadily since 2003/04.

• The proportion of female clients has increased steadily since the launch of the programme contributing to the slight upward trend in the proportion of clients not seeking work.

• The most common age range for clients, 18-24 years, has been consistent across the five years of data collection.

• The overall pattern in economic status remains as it was in 2003/04 with the majority of clients being either job seekers, not seeking work or unable to work due to long-term illness.

• The proportion of clients who were accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty has steadily decreased over time.

• In terms of referral routes into services, self referral remains the most common access route, followed by LA housing department and voluntary agency referral.

• Clients report the types of accommodation that they were in prior to accessing support, the most common of which are LA general needs housing (displaying a slight downward trend since 2003/04), staying with family (increasing), staying with friends (a slight downward trend over the last two years), or sleeping rough (stable). Compared to 2003/04 a smaller proportion of clients lived in supported housing and direct access hostels while a larger proportion were RSL/HA tenants, renting privately, or owner occupiers.

Outcomes for Short-term services: Information is gathered at the time a client leaves an SP funded service. This data has been collected since the 31st May 2007. Analysis in this report is based on information about the 92,040 clients leaving services between 31st May 2007 and 31st March 2008 (Section 2).


8

• Low levels of achieving or participating in paid work were found for clients identified as needing support in that specific area. In contrast, clients identified as having need with training or educational activities had a higher rate of meeting that particular goal. This displays an intuitively expected pattern; it would seem easier to secure training than employment. This general level of analysis can be used to inform more in-depth investigation.

• Among ‘young people at risk’, support to maximise income (83%) was the most commonly identified need; this level of need exceeded that for SP clients as a whole (70%). In addition, the extent to which income needs were met among young people at risk (87%) compares favourably with the average for SP clients as a whole (also 87%).

• Among ‘women at risk of domestic violence’, the highest level of need was in developing confidence and the ability to have greater choice and/or control and/or involvement (74%); in comparison the average for all SP clients was 58%.

• Within three primary client groups approximately half of clients made unplanned moves: rough sleepers (53%), offenders or those at risk of offending (49%) and people with drug problems (49%). Clients making an unplanned move – compared with those who made a planned move - were three times less likely to maintain their accommodation, and approximately half as likely to achieve other Outcomes.

Outcomes for Long-term services: Information is gathered at the time of support plan review for a sample of clients in SP funded long-term services. This data has been collected since July 2007. Analysis in this report is based on the information from a sample of 34,767 clients collected between 31st July 2007 and 31st March 2008.

• The main support requirements for clients in long-term services are to maximise income, maintain accommodation, access aids and adaptations and to manage physical health better (Section 2.2).

Linked Client Records data and Outcomes data for Short-term services: linking the Client Record and Outcomes datasets enables longitudinal analysis to be conducted. The linked dataset contained 21,084 matched records, i.e. 21,084 instances when a client was recorded as entering a service at some time between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2008 and leaving that service between 31st May 2007 and 31st March 2008. The advantage of developing a linked dataset from Client Records and Outcomes is that it provides a potentially complete record of a client’s entries and exits from SP services over a specified period of time. Both Client Record Forms and Outcomes for Short-term services include National Insurance numbers which, when completed, enables forms to be linked. The recording of NI numbers on Client Records and Outcomes Forms remains non-compulsory. Despite this, the majority of records do contain this information (i.e. on 73% of Client Records and 69% of Outcomes for Short-term services).

• Young people who were living with family prior to accessing support and who were referred to services by their local authority were more likely to leave a service in less than the median time and, in particular, young people who left a service in less than the median time were less likely to achieve a high level of outcomes compared to clients who remained with a service for longer (Section 3.3).

Introduction

�

Introduction Supporting People Programme

Supporting People (SP) is a key platform on which social inclusion is built. From its very beginning the programme’s main aim was to help end social exclusion by preventing crisis and more costly service intervention and enabling vulnerable people to live independently both in their own home and within their community through the provision of vital housing-related support services. In 2003, following new legislation that separated service costs from housing benefit payments, the programme brought together different streams of support funding to provide a single funding stream for the delivery of housing-related support. The budget for this programme is managed directly by local authorities who have responsibility for commissioning services.

SP policy evolved via a number of smaller and earlier initiatives designed to improve health and reduce poverty and homelessness by modernising public services. A key factor in the development of SP was the expansion of the leadership role of local authorities. The programme required authorities to work in partnership with health, social work, probation, support providers and user groups to monitor provision and identify need in their areas. Local authorities have responsibility to commission and fund appropriate needs-led, cost-effective and quality driven services on a contractual basis. Importantly, support services are not conditional on accommodation or tenure and the aim is to tailor services in such a way as to respond directly to the individual needs of vulnerable people.

One of the key priorities at the outset of the programme was to extend the range of provision in local areas, where appropriate,

and to ensure that services, particularly specialised services, could be accessed across authorities. Services were to be developed to ensure those less likely to access services (e.g. black and ethnic minority communities, offenders, young people at risk, and women at risk of domestic violence) were enabled to access mainstream services. This has involved developing services within local authority areas and creating and sustaining protocols between local authorities to enable cross-authority provision whereby clients are able to access services outside their own locality.

Communities and Local Government (CLG) have devised a common framework for assessing SP service standards and gathering management information; a significant aspect of this framework is the Client Record System and the National Outcomes Framework. The Client Record & Outcomes Office (Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews) conducts independent monitoring of clients receiving services funded through SP monies. Service providers collect specific information about clients who enter and leave their services. This data identifies the routes by which SP services are being accessed, the personal characteristics of service users, and outcomes for clients matched against their identified needs. Together this information provides the basis for common indicators and benchmarking between and within authorities. This data is also used to determine the range and extent of service development and cross-authority provision over time, and the extent to which vulnerable groups are accessing appropriate services and achieving appropriate outcomes.

The Centre for Housing Research (CHR), University of St Andrews, is responsible for the management, organisation and analysis of Client Record and Outcomes information.


�0

This report

The format and content of the 2007/08 annual report has changed substantially from the previous report (2006/07). Changes have been made to the standard format, taking into consideration two major developments during the year. Firstly, the introduction of CLG’s National Outcomes Framework, which provides detailed information on the outcomes achieved by clients as a direct result of accessing services; the recording of outcomes enables the annual reporting of a more in-depth record of SP progress. Secondly, the Client Record & Outcomes Office has developed an online reporting facility that provides easy access to the descriptive analyses reported within the annual report (see reporting in www.spclientrecord.org.uk). Accordingly, the current report eschews the presentation of descriptive statistics in favour of brief overviews followed by a series of more in-depth reports.

This format establishes the standard for future annual reports with in-depth analysis focusing on current topics of interest that have been agreed with CLG. This will enable the SP annual report to demonstrate the usefulness of the wealth of data that is gathered by both Client Records and Outcomes monitoring.

The three datasets covered in this report are:

Client Records

Information is gathered at the time a client starts to receive an SP funded service. This data has been collected since the start of the SP Programme on 1st April 2003. Analysis in this report is based on information about clients starting to receive services between April 2007 and March 2008.

Outcomes for Short-term services

Information is gathered at the time a client leaves an SP funded service. This data has been collected since the May 2007. Analysis in this report is based on information about clients leaving services between May 2007 and March 2008.

Outcomes for Long-term services

Information is gathered at the time of support plan review for a sample of clients in SP funded services. This data has been collected since the 31st July 2007. Analysis in this report is based on the information about a sample of clients collected between July 2007 and March 2008.

The report is divided into three sections:

Section 1 first provides an introduction to Client Records, and then focuses on two aspects: (i) a trend analysis of Client Record data since its inception in 2003/04 to the current reporting year 2007/08, and (ii) analysis of cross authority provision for 2007/08. Both of these topics have been included in previous annual reports thus enabling comparisons to be made by the reader.

Section 2 provides an introduction to the recently introduced National Outcomes Framework, followed by an overview of Outcomes data for Short-term and Long-term services, a more detailed look at outcomes for the two client groups, and lastly an in-depth report which focuses on Outcomes for Short-term services and explores planned and unplanned moves.

Section 3 looks specifically at linking Client Records data and Outcomes data for Short-term services. Using National Insurance Number information to link these two datasets, this section of the report explores the potential for further analysis that may demonstrate relationships between client access and client outcomes within service provision. This is an evolving procedure and caution must be used when interpreting the results from this initial exploratory analysis. Firstly in this section, a description is given of the linking process and an overview of the resulting dataset. Then, to illustrate the potential for a linked dataset, a more detailed report is presented that focuses on one of the top six most vulnerable client groups, namely young people at risk.

Section�:ClientRecords

��

SeCtIOn 1:Client Records

1.1 Introduction

SP Client Records monitor client characteristics at the time of entry into an SP funded service. These are completed by service providers for clients who start to receive any of the following services:

• Supported housing• Residential care homes (in receipt of

SP funding)• Adult placements• Supported lodgings• Women’s refuge• Foyer• Teenage parent accommodation• Direct access accommodation• Floating support services• Outreach services• Resettlement services

Client Records collects information at client level which enables analysis of clients’ characteristics, including statutory orders, referral route, the manner of referral, and previous type of accommodation. This information contributes to the wider SP programme by providing the basis for an assessment of whether SP is meeting priorities within housing, health, social care and the criminal justice system.

The Client Record data is distributed quarterly to CLG and Administering Authorities as a regulatory, monitoring and evaluation tool for SP policy makers and practitioners. It can be used as a reference guide for comparing Administering Authority statistics and contributes to individual provider organisation planning and funding structures, e.g. by and funding structures, e.g. by enabling analysis of access to services by age, gender, and ethnic origin.

This section of the annual report provides an analysis of Client Records completed for clientsClient Records completed for clients

who started to receive services between 1st April 2007 and 31st March 2008 and is based on 203,651 validated Client Record forms covering this period.

There are two topics within this section: the first provides comparative analysis of data collected from 2003/04 to 2007/08; and the second examines the extent of cross-authority provision during 2007/08.

Summary information from all of the data collected (2003/04 to 2008/09) is available through the online web reporting facility at www.spclientrecord.org.uk under ‘Reports’, with the current data collection year 2008/09 showing the latest quarterly information.


There are additional services that receive funding through SP, but CLG determined would not be monitored through Client Records, namely:

• Sheltered housing• Very sheltered housing• Almshouses• Peripatetic warden services• Leasehold schemes• HIAs• Community alarms

1.2 trend AnalysisIntroduction

The overall picture emerging from data collection remains one of relatively stable proportions across and within the majority of categories identified on the Client Record Form. Notably, client group composition has remained constant with the majority of clients falling into one of the same six categories as previous years and the majority of clients being supported by the same three support and provider categories. Furthermore, access routes to SP services are very similar to previous years. The stability of the dataset is an indication that this system of data collection continues to capture a highly


�2

informative record of new SP clients, support provision and access routes both at a national and local level.

This section reports trends in:• The profile of clients• The provision of services and

referral routes• Client mobility and the distribution

of clients across England

The profile of clients

The most common client groups [Figure 1.1] are single homeless, women at risk of domestic violence, mental health problems, homeless families, young people at risk, and people with generic needs, making up more than 70% of all clients. This percentage has remained stable for the duration of data collection while all other client groups each make up less than 5% of the client population. The most common age range for clients, 18-24 years, has been consistent across the five years of data

collection. However, the proportion of female clients has increased steadily since the launch of the programme contributing to the slight upward trend in the proportion of clients not seeking work. Despite this, the overall pattern in economic status remains as it was in 2003/04 with the majority of clients being either job seekers, not seeking work or unable to work due to long-term illness.

The remaining primary client groups [Figure 1.2] each make up less than 5% of all clients. In contrast to the major client categories, there has been some variability in the proportions of these groups over time. Most notably, refugees and people with drug problems have decreased steadily since 2003/04. Teenage parents remain marginally higher than 1.5% in 2003/04 at 1.9% in 2007/08. While many SP funded services for older people, e.g. sheltered housing, remain outside the monitoring by Client Records, 4% of all clients this year were recorded as being older people with support needs compared to 3% in 2003/04.

Perc

ent

Homele

ss fam

ilies

with su

pport

Mental

healt

h prob

lems

Single

homele

ss

with su

pport

0

10

15

2025

Generi

c

Women

at ris

k of

domest

ic vio

lence

Young

peop

le at

risk


30

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

35

5


��

Perc

ent

Olde

r peo

ple w

ith su

ppor

t nee

ds

Olde

r peo

ple w

ith m

ental

healt

h pro

blem

sFr

ail el

derly

Lear

ning

disa

bilit

ies

Phys

ical o

r sen

sory

disa

bilit

yAl

coho

l pro

blem

sDr

ug pr

oblem

s

Offe

nder

s at r

isk of

offe

ndin

g

Men

tally

diso

rder

ed of

fend

ers

0

2

3

45

6

Youn

g peo

ple l

eavi

ng ca

re

Peop

le wi

th H

IV/A

IDS

Refu

gees

Teen

age p

aren

tsRo

ugh s

leepe

rTr

avell

er


1

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Perc

ent

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/0740

45

50

55

60

2007/08

Figure 1.3: Gender

Female Male


��

Perhaps the most striking change in the composition of clients is reflected in the year on year increase in the proportion of female clients [Figure 1.3]. Compared to 2003/04, when far more clients were male, females since 2006/07 account for almost an equal proportion of clients. While the majority of clients continue to be between 18 and 24 years old [Figure 1.4], over time, smaller proportions of clients between 25 and 38 years have been recorded compared to a corresponding increase in the proportion of clients between the ages of 39 and 59 years.Figure 1.5 shows the likelihood that the majority of clients will either be job seekers, not seeking work or unable to work due to long-term illness. Slight fluctuations have occurred over time showing a smaller proportion of jobseekers and an increase in the proportion of clients not seeking work. Although the largest proportion of clients year on year has consistently been single homeless people, the proportion of clients who were accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty has steadily decreased over time [Figure 1.6]

The provision of services and referral routes

With only minor variations, it is clear that service provision has remained constant over time with voluntary organisations accounting for the largest share followed by HA/RSLs and housing authorities. Similarly, clients most commonly access three main service types: floating support services, supported housing and direct access hostels. However, Figure 1.7 illustrates that the pattern of access since 2003/04 has shifted to the extent that floating support services are far more commonly accessed now than they were in 2003/04 with a comparable decrease in the proportion of direct access hostels that clients accessed.

There has been very little variation over time in referral routes into services with self referral remaining the most common access route, followed by LA housing department and voluntary agency [Figure 1.8]. However, all three of these referral routes have demonstrated

a slight downward trend over the five years of the programme. The fourth most common referral route – LA nomination – has, in contrast, increased slightly over the period. Likewise, ‘other’ referral routes, meaning those routes that are not specified on the Client Record form, seem to also be experiencing an upward trend.

Client mobility and the distribution of clients across England

It is becoming increasingly unlikely that clients will access services across AA or regional boundaries. Figure 1.9 shows that fewer clients each year are recorded as non-host clients. This might reflect decreasing client mobility and/or a tendency on the part of services to accept fewer non-host clients. This is described in more detail in Section 1.3.

Clients report various types of accommodation that they were in prior to accessing support [Figure 1.10], the most common of which are LA general needs housing (displaying a slight downward trend), staying with family (increasing), staying with friends (a slight downward trend over the last two years) or sleeping rough (stable). Compared to 2003/04 a smaller proportion of clients lived in supported housing and direct access hostels while a larger proportion were RSL/HA tenants, renting privately, or owner occupiers.

Three additional categories of previous accommodation were added to the Client Record form in April 2006: women’s refuge, which accounted for 1.3% of clients in 2007/08; foyer; and mobile home/caravan, each accounting for less than 1% of clients.

Variability in the distribution of clients across England over time is shown in Figure 1.11. Most notable is the decreasing proportion of clients in London since 2005/06. Increases in the proportion of clients have occurred in Yorkshire & the Humber, the South West, and the East of England.


��

Perc

ent

16-17 18-24 25-31 32-38 39-45 46-52 53-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80+0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Figure 1.4: Age

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Perc

ent

Full-

time w

ork

(24h

rs or

mor

e per

wee

k)Pa

rt-tim

e wor

k

(less

than

24hr

s per

wee

k)

Govt

train

ing/

New

Deal

Job s

eeke

r

Retir

edNo

t see

king

wor

kFu

ll-tim

e stu

dent

Unab

le to

wor

k bec

ause

of

long

term

sick

ness

or di

sabi

lity

Othe

r adu

lt

0

10

15

2025

40

Figure 1.5: economic status

3035

5

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08


��

Perc

ent


7065605550454035302520151050

Not statutorily homelessStatutorily homeless Don t know

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

15

Percent

20 25 351050

Figure 1.7: trends in service access


Outreach service

Floating support

Direct access


Foyer

Women s refuge

Supported lodgings

Adult placement


Supported housing

30 40 45

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08


�7

Perc

ent

Nom

inate

d by l

ocal

hous

ing a

utho

rity

LA ho

usin

g

depa

rtmen

t (re

ferra

l)So

cial S

ervi

ces

Prob

ation

serv

ice/p

rison

Com

mun

ity M

ental

He

alth T

eam

Volu

ntar

y age

ncy

Self

refe

rral/D

irect

ap

plica

tion

Nom

inate

d und

er

Mov

eUK

(HOM

ES)

Clien

t app

lied f

or

inter

nal t

rans

fer

0

10

15

2025

30

Mov

ing f

rom

anot

her R

SLHe

alth s

ervi

ce/G

P

Yout

h Offe

ndin

g Tea

mPo

lice

Othe

r


5

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Perc

ent

2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/70

10

20

30

2007/8

Figure 1.9: the rising trend in Host referrals

Host Non-Host:Multi-Lateral


Non-Host:Structured


40

50

60

70

80

90

100


�8

Perc

ent

0

5

10

20


15

1.3 Cross-authority provisionIntroduction

This section explores the arrangements in place to support by firstly describing the types of referrals open to clients and the numbers of clients accessing services via the various referral routes. It thereafter presents regional variations describing cross-authority movement.



Non-Host referrals apply to clients who lived out-with the local authority area and who immediately prior to receiving the service were not residing in the area where the service was located.


Multi-lateral referrals apply to administering authorities where there is an agreed protocol between two or more administering authorities relating to a specific service. Such a protocol would

Section2:Outcomes

��

Percent

1050






North East

15

20

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

mean that a client from any of these administering authorities can be accepted by the service involved. These authorities may have agreed to fund a service jointly, or agreed for the service to accept clients from the areas covered by all the administering authorities within the agreed protocol.

Spot purchase referrals apply when the administering authority, in whose area a client was living immediately prior to receiving the service, purchases a service for an individual client from a different administering authority. This differs from a multi-lateral agreement in that it is an ad hoc purchase at an individual level, normally to secure a placement in an extremely specialised service outside the administering authority area. Costs continue to be the responsibility of the original administering authority making the purchase.

Structured referrals apply to referrals made by statutory agencies, such as the Probation service or Social Services. These referrals are often for those clients who cannot be expected to remain in their local authority area and so would receive a service in another administering authority area. This option differs from spot purchase as structured referrals are made to services that are funded by the authority in which the service is located.


Overall, the majority (89%) of referrals were made for clients who accessed SP services within their own local authority. Therefore, approximately one in ten clients (11%) accessed services outside their immediate local authority and by far the most common type of non-host referral was open access (71% of all non-host referrals).


20

Regional variations

Compared to the national average of 11% for non-host referrals, London (15%) and the North West (14%) had the highest proportions of this type of referral. The East Midlands (7%) and Yorkshire & the Humber (7%) had the lowest levels of non-host referrals.


The region with the highest level of structured referrals was the North East (3%) compared to 1% or 2% in all other regions.

Multi-lateral protocols were infrequent across England accounting for only 1% or 2% in all regions.

Similarly, spot purchase referrals constituted 1% or less with only the North West region above the national average of 0.3%.

Map 1.1 shows a summary of cross-authority information by Government Office region and further detail is given in Appendix 1.

1

2

3

84

56

7

9

North Yorkshire East Eastof South South West North East &Humber Midlands England London East West Midlands West 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

NumberofClientRecordForms 11,086 23,329 18,645 18,255 30,734 25,354 22,637 23,613 29,998

Numberoforganisations 203 320 244 252 748 398 381 319 504

NumberclientswholeftAAforserviceselsewhere 1,510 1,732 1,488 1,387 4,921 2,409 1,529 2,580 4,051

NumberclientsreceivingserviceswithinownAA 9,595 21,649 17,280 16,487 26,129 22,741 20,686 20,632 25,840

NumberofclientsenteringAAfromelsewhere 1,491 1,680 1,365 1,768 4,605 2,613 1,951 2,981 4,158

Map 1.1: Summary information

1

3

4

56

7

8

9 2

Section2:Outcomes

2�

SeCtIOn 2:Outcomes

2.1 IntroductionIn May 2007, the SP Outcomes Framework was launched to measure the degree to which SP funding enables clients to achieve outcomes. This introduction describes the development and design of the Outcomes Framework. Following this, ‘Outcomes at a Glance’ (Section 2.2) presents a brief overview of the data submitted in the first year of collection.

Development of the Outcomes Framework began in May 2006 when CLG and a selection of Administering Authorities and provider organisations formed the Outcomes Working Group. The purpose of the Working Group was to identify a method of collecting information that would capture the achievements made by clients accessing SP funded services.

The Outcomes methodology was intended to apply across a range of issues. Firstly, it aimed to reduce the burden of administration, particularly for cross-authority providers, in capturing local information that would be meaningful at both a service and client level. Secondly, it was designed to provide a consistent measurement of outcomes for benchmarking against regional and national trends. Thirdly, and perhaps the most difficult of all, the methodology was designed to capture the range of achievements that reflect the benefits, improvements and changes that occur for individual clients as a result of receiving SP funded services.

Two key considerations were taken into account when developing the methodology for Outcomes data recording. These were: to reduce the burden of administration requirements on providers and to clearly demonstrate the wider impact that the SP programme has on other relevant Government strategies. The first of these conditions was met by designing the

Outcomes Form in such a way that it could become an addition to individual clients’ support plans. Service providers are expected to review support plans regularly and to use the information within the support plan to complete the Outcomes Form when a client leaves a Short-term service, and at the annual support plan review for a sample of clients in Long-term services. The second condition was met by basing the Outcomes Framework on an already well established Government Outcome methodology, the DfES ‘Every Child Matters’ framework. This framework captures the following 5 high level outcomes:

• Economic Wellbeing • Enjoy and Achieve• Be Healthy • Stay Safe• Make a Positive Contribution.

Under each of these high level outcomes the Working Group developed further indicators that represent specific outcomes relevant to clients receiving services funded through SP. These indicators monitor observable outcomes that clients have achieved as a direct result of receiving support. For example: an increase in income or reduction in debt, an improvement in the management of physical or mental health problems, a decrease in the abuse of substances or maintaining their accommodation.

Using the Outcomes Form in context

The Outcomes Framework is not intended to be a stand alone measure of achievement. It can and should be used with other locally relevant outcome measures, particularly distance travelled tools, e.g. the Outcomes Star developed by the London Housing Foundation as part of their Outcomes Programme (http://www.homelessoutcomes.org.uk/). Providers can use distance travelled outcomes to measure the progress an individual client makes over time and provide information in greater detail for local use. As a further aid to gathering outcome information at a local level, CLG has developed a National Basket of Indicators which is a standard list of additional


22

outcome factors that can be used in specific circumstances (CLG Londonhttp://www.spkweb.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2EEF0610-A22B-49DF-92B5-3622273502AC/14093/FinalBasketofIndicatorsSPOutcomes.doc). CLG, however, do not regard the basket of indicators as an ‘across the board’ collection tool and it is not intended to form part of the Outcomes Framework information gathering process.

The Working Group, having developed the Framework, then conducted a pre-pilot to test an initial data collection tool in consultation with volunteer Administering Authorities and providers. Further refining then followed and pilot versions were tested by CHR for short-term and long-term services, respectively. For Short-term services the pilot took place during March and April 2007, with over 400 providers from 25 Administering Authorities taking part. 611 pilot submissions were received, as well as general feedback. Full implementation of Outcomes for Short-term services began on the 31st of May 2007, and following a later pilot for Long-term services, full implementation of the framework for Long-term services began on 31st July 2007.

The differences in the approach for Short-term and Long-term services

The SP Outcomes Framework is applicable to both short-term and long-term services since the indicators chosen represent key outcomes equally relevant for all service users, regardless of the intended duration of the support service they receive. However, CLG recognised the need for a different approach in the way that the outcomes are captured, depending on the intended duration of the service. For short-term services, Outcome data is collected for each client at the time they leave the service, unless they leave within 28 days of starting a service1. For long-term services, a sample of clients is

identified and, for these clients only, Outcomes data is collected following their annual support plan review. The size of the sample depends on the type of service: 10% for older people services; and 50% for all other long-term services.

Apart from the practical differences for short-term versus long-term services, the Outcome Framework is, to all intents and purposes, the same and the data collected will inform future commissioning and development for short-term services and long-term services.

Demonstrating real change

There are strong reasons, therefore, to expect that the Outcomes Framework will add value by providing evidence for local government, CLG, service providers and service users of the progress made by clients receiving SP funded services. Future analysis of this data has the potential to identify services that are particularly effective in achieving different outcomes for specific client groups in context of their degrees of need. For example, data might reveal that service x delivers better outcomes than service y for a particular client group. For each individual, details are recorded of primary and up to three secondary client groups. Taking into account all of this information, detailed analysis can indicate the degree to which outcomes reflect the clients’ problems or the effectiveness of a service for specific client groups. The resulting information can inform commissioners’ strategic decisions when planning resource allocation for specific client groups, and also enable providers to better understand the effectiveness of different types of service provision for their clients.

2.2 Outcomes at a glanceMeasuring Client Outcomes

Outcomes are collected at an individual level; the data for each client is added to the national database to enable analysis at a wider level. National outcome information enables a

1 The decision to collect Outcome data for clients who leave a short-term service within 28 days is the responsibility of AAs in consultation with providers

Section2:Outcomes

2�

service’s contribution to outcome achievement to be described. Knowledge of the context within which outcomes are being monitored for each individual client is necessary when considering whether the delivery of a service has been appropriate and useful.

For example, outcomes will rarely be achieved without the cooperation of clients, regardless of the relevance or quality of a service. Providing support to vulnerable people depends upon not merely the ability of the service to meet needs, but crucially upon the development of positive relationships between key support staff and clients and the capacity of the client to engage with services and achieve outcomes. A successful outcome will undoubtedly mean something different depending on the type of service and/or the readiness of the client to

achieve. Thus, to some degree, services that provide support to extremely vulnerable clients - e.g. homeless people, offenders or people abusing substances - may be less likely to record a high proportion of outcomes achieved than services that provide for other, less vulnerable client groups.

Figure 2.1 shows an example from the outcome relating to maintaining accommodation.

Clients with chaotic behaviour or multiple needs often present a challenge to service providers. Some of these clients may be unable or unwilling to achieve many of the outcomes that are likely to move them forward towards stability and independence. The services that these clients will most likely access tend to provide support with a greater

Perc

enta

ge a

chie

ved

outc

ome

0

20

30

4050

60Ro

ugh s

leepe

r

Sing

le ho

mele

ss w

ith su

ppor

t

Offe

nder

s or a

t risk

of of

fend

ing

Drug

prob

lems

Youn

g peo

ple l

eavi

ng ca

re

Youn

g peo

ple a

t risk

Alco

hol p

robl

ems

Trav

eller

Wom

en at

risk

of D

V

Men

tally

diso

rder

ed of

fend

ers

Men

tal he

alth p

robl

ems

Lear

ning

disa

bilit

ies

Olde

r with

men

tal he

alth p

robl

ems

Hom

eless

fam

ilies

Teen

age p

aren

ts

Frail

elde

rly

Gene

ric

Phys

ical /

sens

ory d

isabi

lity

Refu

gees

Olde

r peo

ple

Peop

le wi

th H

IV/A

IDS

Figure 2.1: the extent to which client groups were successful at maintaining their accommodation with support

70

8090

100

10


2�

emphasis on crisis prevention, e.g. emergency accommodation or harm reduction. In this context, ameliorating crisis will be of greater significance until such times as clients are “ready” and able to progress and move towards achieving more stable outcomes such as sustaining a tenancy and gaining access into work. In effect, services catering for clients with chaotic lifestyles may well demonstrate a lower level of achieved outcomes or a higher level of unplanned moves. This is useful information in itself, as it highlights areas where resources could be used to develop a more effective approach to support these clients to improve engagement with the service thereby improving the achievement of clients, but must be considered within the context of the particular client group and circumstances.In this respect, the monitoring of local outcomes

has less to do with meeting any locally set targets, and more to do with fitting appropriate targets around the needs of individual clients and measuring progress through careful support planning. Likewise, understanding national level outcomes requires prudent consideration of the variety of contexts within which services are delivered.

Measuring service outcomes

The Outcomes Framework has the ability to compare and contrast information about specific indicators to allow comparisons within particular service types. Over time, baseline patterns will help policy-makers and commissioners to understand the way in which different services achieve different outcomes and, to some extent at least, this will highlight

Figure 2.2: Outcomes at service level: Achieving economic Wellbeing

Floating supportNational level Supported housing

Maximising income

Obtaining paid work

Participating inpaid work Managing debt

Direct access

100

80

60

40

20

0

Section2:Outcomes

2�

the factors inherent in particular service types that have the potential to make a difference in the lives of clients. Consequently, baseline patterns will enable strategic development with a stronger focus on client centred service delivery.

Currently, the Outcomes Framework can provide baseline data with which to estimate the level and variety of achievement that each type of service is fulfilling. For example, Figure 2.2 shows that nationally, floating support services have a higher level of achievement for clients obtaining and participating in work and managing debt compared to either supported housing or direct access services,

for those identified with these needs. In contrast, Figure 2.3 shows that direct access and supported housing services have a higher level of achievement at providing support to establish contact with family and friends than floating support services, which record a below average success rate on this indicator. Each of the three service types, however, appear to provide similar measures of success in supporting clients to achieve maximum income [Figure 2.2] and are also similar in outcomes relating to establishing contact with external services, participating in community activities and achieving qualifications [Figure 2.3]. The structure of the dataset also enables further analysis, e.g. by client group, age, and ethnicity.

Figure 2.3: enjoy and Achieve

Floating supportNational level Supported housing

Participating in training or education

Establishing contact externally

Establishing contact with friends/family

Participating in work-like activities

Direct access

100

80

60

40

20

0


2�

National Outcomes

The Outcomes Framework at a national level provides a reference point against which overall achievement can be measured, and is an indicator of what can and is being accomplished. National level analysis of outcomes can also be used as a discursive and investigative tool to unearth the real meaning of outcomes at different levels and within different contexts. At a local level, the Outcomes Framework provides a benchmarking tool by which evidence of achievement can be gathered, alongside knowledge of gaps in support and provision to enable improvement and availability of services for vulnerable people within a local area.

The National Outcomes Framework relates to a number of wider government priorities relating to vulnerable people, as defined by Public Service Agreements (PSAs). Outcomes data can be used to support and track progress against a number of these, for example:

• PSA 16: Increase the proportion of socially excluded adults in settled accommodation and employment, education or training

• PSA 17: Tackle poverty and promote greater independence and wellbeing in later life

• PSA 23: Make communities safer• PSA 25: Reduce the harm caused by

alcohol and drugs

Table 2.1 shows a summary of the needs identified and met for the 92,040 clients who were recorded leaving a short-term SP funded service between 31st May 2007 and 31st March 2008. This demonstrates that, either SP resources are focused heavily on supporting clients to achieve maximum income or that, for the most part, clients accessing SP services will most likely require support to maximise their income prior to departing services.

Table 2.1 shows low levels of achievement for clients identified as having need relating

to employment. In contrast, clients identified as having need with training or educational activities were comparatively more likely to meet that need. This displays an intuitively expected pattern; as for the general population it would seem easier to secure training than employment. This general level of analysis can be used to inform more in-depth investigation.

Similarly, under the health indicators it is noticeable that clients are less likely to require support in addressing substance misuse and are also less likely to have needs met in this area in comparison to the other health indicators. This difference could reflect an effect of a more chaotic lifestyle for those with substance misuse issues (i.e. in terms of accepting services in the first place). Such findings highlight areas for further investigation.

Table 2.2 shows a summary of the needs identified and met for the 34,767 clients who were included in the sample for long-term SP funded services between 31st July 2007 and 31st March 2008.

Table 2.2 demonstrates the main support requirements for clients in long-term services. These are support to maximise income, maintain accommodation, access aids and adaptations and to manage physical health better. In the main, these outcomes were highly achievable for clients in long-term services with an achievement rate of between 93% and 98%.

Few clients required support with managing debt or with training or work issues. In Staying Safe, clients in long-term services were more likely to require support with avoiding harm from others as opposed to self harm or harm to others. One-quarter of clients required support for mental health issues.

More than two-fifths of long-term clients required support to achieve more choice and control and 96% of these clients achieved this outcome.

Section2:Outcomes

27

Table 2.1: The number & percentage of clients requiring support to achieve specific outcomes and number & percentage of outcomes achieved

Short-term Services Required support Outcome achieved

# % # %

All clients that departed services between 31 May 2007 and 31 March 2008 92,040 1 Economic wellbeing Maximise income 64,762 70.4 56,909 87.9Manage debt 34,662 37.7 23,826 68.7Obtain paid work 18,222 19.8 Now in paid work 5,447 29.9 Participated in paid work whilst in receipt of service 6,750 37 2 Enjoy & achieve Participate in training/education 30,372 33 Participated in training or education 18,167 59.8 Achieved qualifications 5,468 18 Participate in leisure/culture/faith/learning 22,333 24.3 16,911 75.7Participate in work-like activities 15,028 16.3 8,728 58.1Establish contact with external services/family/friends 46,596 50.6 Establish contact with external services 38,994 83.7 Establish contact with family /friends 26,953 57.8 3 Be healthy Physical health 32,509 35.3 25,033 77Mental health 30,201 32.8 21,790 72.1Substance misuse 25,194 27.4 13,996 55.6Aids & adaptations 6,098 6.6 5,363 87.9 4 Stay safe Maintain accommodation / avoid eviction 50,523 54.9 34,239 67.8Comply with statutory orders 11,699 12.7 8,213 70.2Manage self harm 8,020 8.7 5,747 71.7Avoid causing harm to others 7,424 8.1 5,202 70.1Avoid harm from others 17,558 19.1 14,012 79.8 5 Positive contribution Achieve more choice & control 53,204 57.8 44,318 83.3


28

Table 2.2: The number & percentage of clients requiring support to achieve specific outcomes and number & percentage of outcomes achieved

Long-term Services Required support Outcome achieved # % # %

All clients included in sample of long-term services between 31 July 2007 and 31 March 2008 34,767 1 Economic wellbeing Maximise income 19,377 55.7 18,620 96.1Manage debt 3,438 9.9 2,931 85.3Obtain paid work 2,259 6.5 Now in paid work 554 24.5Participated in paid work whilst in receipt of service 665 29.4 2 Enjoy & achieve Participate in training/education 4,502 12.9 Participated in training or education 3,152 70 Achieved qualifications 618 13.7Participate in leisure/culture/faith/learning 12,546 36.1 11,456 91.3Participate in work-like activities 3,808 11 2,522 66.2Establish contact with external services/family/friends 14,584 41.9 Establish contact with external services 13,796 94.6 Establish contact with family /friends 11,121 76.3 3 Be healthy Physical health 18,324 52.7 17,073 93.2Mental health 8,518 24.5 7,753 91Substance misuse 1,609 4.6 1,177 73.2Aids & adaptations 18,076 52 17,802 98.5 4 Stay safe Maintain accommodation / avoid eviction 19,023 54.7 18,647 98Comply with statutory orders 622 1.8 541 87Manage self harm 1,602 4.6 1,451 90.6Avoid causing harm to others 1,639 4.7 1,448 88.3Avoid harm from others 5,309 15.3 5,096 96 5 Positive contribution Achieve more choice & control 14,678 42.2 14,089 96

Section2:Outcomes

2�

Summary

This section has provided a brief analysis of client outcomes, shown the type of information that is collected from the Outcomes forms and how this information can be understood. The information gathered from the Outcomes forms can be used to inform at the local, service and national level. The benefits of collecting Outcomes information are most likely to be realised by understanding this information within context.

The next section looks at the patterns of need and achievement for specific client groups.

2.3 Client groups and patterns of need identified and metIntroduction

This section looks in more detail at two client groups, namely ‘young people at risk’ and ‘women at risk of domestic violence’. This provides an opportunity to illustrate that patterns of need and achievement can be investigated in more depth, linking with other variables e.g. type of service and economic status.


6,814 clients (7%) were recorded primarily as young people at risk. For young people at risk, needs were evident for all support categories, although the extent varied widely [Appendix 2]. Support to maximise income (83%) was the most commonly identified need within this group and this level was more than for all clients (70%). The need for training (55%) was also higher than across all client groups (33%). Two thirds of young people at risk were recorded as needing support to maintain their accommodation and avoid eviction, compared to only 55% overall. In contrast, the lowest level of need identified (with the exception of the issue of using assistive technology/ aids and

adaptations) was for support to avoid causing harm to others (9%), although this remained above the overall level of 8%.

The extent to which needs were met also varied widely, for example 87% of young people at risk who needed help to maximise income had successfully done so on leaving the support service, which compares favourably with the overall level of achievement 88%. Other support categories had lower rates of achievement but remained above the level achieved across all client groups (e.g. 34% for young people at risk for whom there had been a need to get paid work did so, compared to only 30% overall; and 22% for young people at risk for whom there had been a need to get a qualification identified did so, compared to an overall achievement level of 18%).

Looking at patterns of need for young people at risk receiving different types of service, the following analysis examines the two main types of services for this client group i.e. supported housing services (2,515 clients, 37%) or floating support (2,728 clients, 40%). Distinct differences have been identified in terms of needs identified for some items while differences in achievement have been noted for others. These are shown in Table 2.3.

Those receiving supported housing services were more likely to need support to maximise their income in comparison to those in supported housing (88% compared to 78%), obtain paid work (41% compared to 29.5%), to participate in training or education (68% compared to 41%), participate in leisure, cultural, faith or informal learning activities (31% compared to 16%), participate in work-like activities (30% compared to 13%), to manage their physical health (39% compared to 24%), to manage their substance misuse (27% compared to 12%), maintain their accommodation and avoid eviction (75% compared to 64%), to comply with statutory orders (15% compared to 8%), and to minimise causing harm to others (11% compared to 5%).


�0

Table 2.3: The number & percentage of clients recorded as ‘young people at risk’ - a comparison of those receiving supported housing and floating support services Short-term Services All clients recorded as ‘young people at risk’ between 31 May 2007 and 31 March 2008 6,814 Service type: Supported housing Floating support (2,515) services(2,728)

Required Outcomes Required Outcomes support achieved support achieved % % % %

1 Economic wellbeing Maximise income 88.3 89.1 78.4 84.8Manage debt 41.3 59.9 43.2 69.0Obtain paid work: now in paid work 41.4 33.5 29.5 35.3 2 Enjoy & achieve Participated in training or education 67.9 67.4 40.6 60.8Participate in leisure/culture/faith/learning 31.2 80.7 15.6 69.6Participate in work-like activities 30.1 64.0 12.9 59.5 3 Be healthy Physical health 38.9 76.9 23.9 78.1Mental health 25.7 67.8 20.9 73.3Substance misuse 27.3 48.8 12.4 55.6 4 Stay safe Maintain accommodation / avoid eviction 74.5 57.2 64.0 78.2Comply with statutory orders 15.2 68.4 8.2 72.0Avoid causing harm to others 11.3 59.0 5.2 62.2

In terms of levels of achievement, Table 2.3 shows that those receiving floating support services were more likely to achieve debt reduction (69% compared to 60%), manage their mental health (73% compared to 68%) and to maintain their accommodation and avoid eviction (78% compared to 57%). In contrast, young people at risk receiving supported housing were more likely to have participated in leisure, cultural, faith or informal learning activities (81% compared to 70%).

Other variables can be analysed in a similar manner, e.g. type of provider, age, gender, and economic status of client. The two most common economic status categories in the young people at risk category were ‘job seeker’ (2,786, 40%) and ‘not seeking work’ (1,133, 17%). The main differences identified between these two groups were a higher need for support for job seekers to obtain paid work (50% compared to 15%), training or education (58% compared to 42%), participate in any

Section2:Outcomes

��

work-like activities (27% compared to 12%), manage their substance misuse (26% compared to 14%) and to maintain accommodation and avoid eviction (72% compared to 61%). The level of achievement was similar, although a higher proportion of job seekers participated in any work-like activities (53% compared to 42%), while a higher proportion of young people at risk not seeking work maintained their accommodation and avoided eviction (69% compared to 56%).


9,413 clients (10%) were recorded primarily as women at risk of domestic violence. The highest level of need for these clients was in developing confidence and the ability to have greater choice and/or control and/or involvement (74%), and was much higher than the overall level of 58%. Other needs frequently identified were: needing support to maximise income (67%), but at a lower level than overall (70%); and 64% were recorded as needing support to minimise harm/risk of harm from others compared to only 19% overall [Appendix 2].

For women at risk of domestic violence who had needs identified, 87% attained confidence and the ability to have greater choice and/or control and/or involvement, above the overall level of 83%. Also 89% of those who had needed support to maximise income were successfully supported to do so, slightly above the overall level of achievement of 88%. In terms of minimising their harm or risk of harm from others, 85% had this need met, which was above the overall rate of 80%. Other needs proved more intractable e.g. getting applicable qualifications (15%) was below the overall level of 18%, while finding paid work while low (38%) remained above the overall level of achievement (30%).

Looking now at patterns of need for women at risk of domestic violence receiving different types of service, the following analysis

examines the two main types of services for this client group i.e. women’s refuge services (5,587 women, 59%) and floating support (2,830 women, 30%). Distinct differences have been identified in terms of needs identified for some support categories while differences in achievement have been noted for others. These are shown in Table 2.4.

Those receiving refuge services, in comparison to those receiving floating support, were more likely to need support to maximise their income (78% compared to 47%), participate in leisure, cultural, faith or informal learning activities (30% compared to 20%), and to manage their physical health (36% compared to 20%). Whereas those receiving floating support services were more likely to require support to minimise risk of harm from others (78% compared to 57% of those receiving services from a women’s refuge).

In terms of levels of achievement, Table 2.4 shows that those receiving refuge services were less likely than those receiving floating support to achieve debt reduction (69% compared to 82%), less likely to have obtained work and be working (29% compared to 50%), and less likely to maintain their accommodation and avoid eviction (66% compared to 88%), but were more likely to have established contact with family and friends (67% compared to 46%).

Other variables can be analysed in a similar manner, e.g. type of provider, age and economic status of client. The two most common economic status categories were ‘not seeking work’ (6,145 women, 65%) and ‘job seeker’ (904 women, 10%). The main differences identified between these were a higher need for support for job seekers to obtain paid work (33% compared to 3%), participate in any work-like activities (19% compared to 6%), and to maintain accommodation and avoid eviction (42% compared to 35%). The level of achievement was similar.


�2

Conclusion

This section has given a preview into how Outcomes data could be utilised and provides a starting point to understand the needs of clients, given their particular circumstances, and the goals achieved by SP clients. With one year’s data available the analysis has been cross-sectional, investigating similarities and differences at one point of time. In future, with data collected over several years, there will

Table 2.4: The number & percentage of clients recorded as ‘women at risk of domestic violence’ - a comparison of those receiving women’s refuge and floating support services

Short-term Services All clients recorded as ‘women at risk of domestic violence’ between 31 May 2007 and 31 March 2008 9,413 Service type: Women’s refuge Floating support services (5,587) services (2,830) Required Outcomes Required Outcomes support achieved support achieved % % % %

1 Economic wellbeing Maximise income 78.3 88.2 47.1 90.6Manage debt 25.1 69.1 30.9 86.6Obtain paid work: now in paid work 6.5 29.0 8.8 49.6 2 Enjoy & achieve Participate in leisure/culture/faith/learning 30.0 82.6 19.6 80.7Establish contact with external services/ groups/ friends/ family (outcomes refer to making contact with family/friends) 59.2 66.7 54.5 46.3 3 Be healthy Physical health 35.9 83.1 19.9 83.6 4 Stay safe Maintain accommodation / avoid eviction 33.5 65.8 36.6 87.7Avoid harm from others 57.2 82.9 78.3 87.2

be opportunity to analyse trends. Even after the first year of data collection, this section shows the level of relevant information that can be used when understanding the needs of clients and will aid the planning of service provision.

The next section uses the information gathered by Outcomes for Short-term services to examine the extent and impact of planned and unplanned moves.

Section2:Outcomes

��

2.4 Outcomes in Focus: the Implications of Planned and Unplanned Moves for OutcomesSome clients leave SP services without achieving identified outcomes, often as a result of their failure to engage with their support. The Government strongly promotes initiatives that involve clients in the services they access, encouraging them to have a say in how services are delivered and improved (CLG, 2008). However, to some degree, services struggle to sustain client engagement with their own support and this would suggest that client involvement with the service in general will also present a challenge. This section of the annual report looks at clients who left services in an unplanned way and provides information on the level of outcomes achieved by these clients compared to clients who left services in a planned way. Unplanned moves are then considered in more detail by examining the type of clients most likely to leave services in an unplanned way and identifying the main reasons for not achieving outcomes. Finally, it is argued that, in theory at least, involving clients in the decision making process is a promising means by which to develop client-led services aimed at meeting individual need. In practice, however, clients are unlikely to become involved in such a process if they initially fail to engage with determining their own support needs and potentiality.

Support Plans and Agreeing Outcomes

All support services funded by SP are required to draw up a support plan with each individual client. For each client, the support plan details the steps that both the client and the service will take in order to achieve positive client outcomes. To this extent, the client is expected to engage with their support service by: contributing to their support plan, specifying their support needs, and determining their expected outcomes. The support plan marks the obligation and agreement of clients to take the

required steps towards positive outcomes for the duration of their involvement with the service. Support plans are reviewed and updated as necessary until the outcomes agreed upon are met and plans are in place to allow the client to move on in a positive way.

Definition and difference of planned and unplanned moves

Clients who move on from services in a planned and considered way are most likely to be those that have fully engaged with their support service and contributed to discussions regarding their own support needs. As a result, on departing the service, they can be expected to have achieved positive outcomes and are better placed to move on to a more stable environment.

In contrast, clients who leave the service not having engaged with the support service or their own support needs are less likely to achieve positive outcomes and in many cases will require future access to support services.

Comparison of results: planned versus unplanned moves

Figure 2.4 most notably shows that, compared to clients who made a planned move, clients who made an unplanned move from services were more likely to require support relating to the ‘staying safe’ outcome and ‘substance misuse’, which includes the following indicators:

• Maintaining accommodation and avoiding eviction,

• Complying with Statutory orders,• Avoiding harm to others,• Managing substance misuse.

Figure 2.5 illustrates that clients who made an unplanned move were far less likely than those who made a planned move to have been successful in achieving positive outcomes for all indicators. For example, clients making an unplanned move were three times less likely to maintain their accommodation. Clients were approximately half as likely to achieve most Outcomes, in particular those within the Staying


��

MAKING A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION

STAYING SAFE

BEING HEALTHY

ENJOYING AND ACHIEVING

ACHIEVING ECONOMIC WELLBEING

20 30100

Unplanned move Planned move

Figure 2.4: the difference between clients making a planned or unplanned move in relation to each support need indicator

Having more choice & control

Avoiding harm from othersAvoiding causing harm to others

Managing self harmCompliance with statutory orders

Maintain accommodation

Aids & adaptationsManaging drug & alcohol

Managing mental healthManaging physical health

External support groups/family & friendsWorklike activities

Learn, leisure, cultureTraining & education

Maximising incomeManaging debt

Paid work

Percent

40 50 60 70

Safe and Being Healthy high level Outcomes. Clients who made unplanned moves were more likely to achieve maximum income than other outcomes, although a greater proportion of clients making planned moves achieved this outcome (95% of planned moves compared to 74% of unplanned moves).

Unplanned moves and vulnerability

Clients who make unplanned moves are vulnerable due to their chaotic behaviour often

resulting in a complex array of mitigating factors such as drug or alcohol addiction and/or homelessness. Findings from Outcomes monitoring reveal that the client groups most likely to make unplanned moves are rough sleepers and single homeless people, people with drug or alcohol dependency and offenders. For all clients, ‘unwillingness to engage’ was cited as the most common reason for failed outcomes, however, proportionally unwillingness to engage was significantly higher for clients who made unplanned moves.

Section2:Outcomes

��

MAKING A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION

STAYING SAFE

BEING HEALTHY

ENJOYING AND ACHIEVING

ACHIEVING ECONOMIC WELLBEING

20 30100


Figure 2.5: Percentage of Outcome achieved: comparison between planned and unplanned moves

Having more choice & control

Avoiding harm from othersAvoiding causing harm to others

Managing self harmCompliance with statutory orders

Maintain accommodation

Aids & adaptationsManaging drug & alcohol

Managing mental healthManaging physical health

Contact with family & friendsExternal support groups

Worklike activitiesLearn, leisure, culture

Training & education – achieved qualificationTraining & education – participated

Paid work – whilst in receipt of servicePaid work – at time of departure

Managing debtMaximising income

Percent

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

The extent of unplanned moves across England and regional variations:

An Outcomes form for Short-term services is completed for every client who leaves a funded short-term service. Of the 92,040 clients that left services between the end of May 2007 and the end of March 2008, 8,271 (36%) did so in

an unplanned way. It was more common for clients in West Midlands (42%) and the South East (38%) to make unplanned moves than elsewhere. The North East recorded the lowest proportion of clients who made unplanned moves: 31%, well below the national average of 36% [Figure 2.6].


��

Perc

ent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Figure 2.6: Regional variations in unplanned moves


North

Eas

t

York

shire

& th

e Hum

ber

East

Mid

lands

East

of E

nglan

dLo

ndon

Sout

h Eas

tSo

uth W

est

Wes

t Mid

lands

North

Wes

t

Engl

and

The type of clients who made unplanned moves:

Figure 2.7 shows that three primary client groups have approximately half of clients making unplanned moves: rough sleepers (53%), offenders or those at risk of offending (49%) and people with drug problems (49%). Other primary groups with large proportions of clients making unplanned moves were single homeless people (43%), people with alcohol problems (41%), and young people at risk (39%). For all other client groups, planned moves were more common. In particular, the likelihood that homeless families would make an unplanned move from services was minimal in comparison (22%).

Conclusion

These findings have highlighted the extent to which differences in the achievement

of outcomes relate directly to the level of engagement of individual clients. These findings marry up with the conclusions of research in the area of service user involvement which suggests that clients who feel involved in the practical delivery of their service are better engaged with the service (Richardson, 2005; Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2006; Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2008); such clients are therefore more likely to achieve positive outcomes.

There is a great emphasis placed on service user involvement within SP policy guidelines (CLG, 2008). The guidelines recommend that service providers ensure that clients are involved in the planning, monitoring and delivery of their support service (ODPM, 2004). These policy guidelines are aimed at developing a more client-centred approach to service delivery. Clients who have a say in how their support

Section2:Outcomes

�7

Perc

ent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Figure 2.7: Clients who made an unplanned move


Hom

eless

fam

ilies

with

supp

ort

Refu

gees

Phys

ical o

r sen

sory

disa

bilit

yTe

enag

e par

ents

Olde

r peo

ple w

ith su

ppor

t nee

ds

Olde

r wi

th m

ental

healt

h pro

blem

s

Lear

ning

disa

bilit

ies

Men

tal he

alth p

robl

ems

Trav

eller

Frail

elde

rly

Wom

en at

risk

of do

mes

tic vi

olen

ce

Peop

le wi

th H

IV/A

IDS

Men

tally

diso

rder

ed of

fend

ers

Youn

g peo

ple l

eavi

ng ca

reGe

neric

Youn

g peo

ple a

t risk

Alco

hol p

robl

ems

Sing

le ho

mele

ss w

ith su

ppor

tDr

ug pr

oblem

s

Offe

nder

s or a

t risk

of of

fend

ing

Roug

h slee

per

is delivered can be expected to retain a higher level of engagement than clients who are merely provided with support that is available to them, regardless of whether this is what they expect or require.

The integration of service user involvement within service policy is a positive step towards improving services designed to meet specific

needs and ultimately improve outcomes for individual clients and services alike. However, without underestimating the difficulties of engaging clients – especially those manifesting ‘chaotic’ behaviour - both clients and service providers would benefit from more detailed policy guidelines and concrete examples of good practice in the area of service user involvement.


�8

References

CLG (2008) Communities in control: real people, real powerhttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/886045.pdf

Joseph Rowntree Foundationhttp://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialcare/1966.asp

Richardson, L. (2005) User engagement in public services: policy and implementation. Poverty and Social Justice, Vol 13 (3), 189-197

Royal college of psychiatrists (2008) Engagement with service users and carers, http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/campaigns/fairdeal/whatisfairdeal/engagementwithservicesusers.aspx

ODPM (2004)Supporting People A guide to user involvement for organisations providing housing related supporthttp://www.spkweb.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2CE966F1-64E9-4CB9-96DA-12AD8B 03A06A/1764250504aguidetouserinvolvementfororganisationsprovi.pdf

Section�:LinkingClientRecordsandOutcomes

��

SeCtIOn 3: Linking Client Records and Outcomes3.1 IntroductionA few years ago CLG carried out a pilot project to evaluate the possibility of client-tracking using client NHS numbers. The pilot relied in large part on the willingness of individual clients to provide their NHS details each time they accessed a new support service. Although incentives were provided, participation was negligible and this led CLG to consider a new approach which involved adding client National Insurance Numbers (NI number) to the existing Client Record Form. Following discussion with DWP, CLG was given permission to use the NI number as a way of tracking the use of services by individuals over time. This permission was given on the proviso that at no time would the client’s identity be revealed through the linking of the NI number to a database containing identity information. To ensure this, the only organisations permitted to hold Client Record or Outcomes datasets containing the NI number are CLG and CHR, although CLG do not currently hold this information; datasets that are distributed to other organisations have this information removed. The recording of the client’s NI number remains non-compulsory.

The NI number was included on the Client Record Form from April 2006. This was the first step in enabling analysis about individuals starting to receive services on more than one occasion. Initial findings were reported in last year’s annual report (2006/07) and the use of the NI number has been extended this year to link Client Record and Outcome data.

Outcomes data collection began in May 2007 and provides information about clients when they leave a service. The NI number was included on the Outcomes Form for Short-term services from the outset. The NI number is

one of the key variables used to link the Client Records and Outcomes datasets

Advantages of linking the data from Client Records and Outcomes

The advantage of developing a linked dataset from Client Records and Outcomes is that it provides a potentially complete record of a client’s entries and exits from SP services over a specified period of time.

The Client Record form collects information from a client when they first access a service. The Outcomes form for Short-term services records information when the client leaves the service. This means that there is currently available both a record of when clients start a service and a record of when they leave it. Both forms collect some similar information such as the client’s characteristics, the service and the local authority area where the service is located. However, the Client Record form also records entry information such as referral routes, whether the client crossed authority boundaries to access the service, and the type of accommodation the client lived in prior to accessing the service. Additional information recorded by the Outcomes form includes exit information, particularly relating to which outcomes were achieved, the length of time the client remained in the service and details of move-on accommodation.

The linking of these datasets opens up several new avenues of investigations. For example, linking length of stay with referral type and identifying variations in planned, unplanned moves by host/ non-host service access. This dataset will also enable exploration of patterns of repeat use of services by clients, including patterns of types of services accessed, needs recorded and outcomes achieved by age, gender, ethnicity, client group, etc.

Figure 3.1 demonstrates that for the four most common referral routes that were made by clients captured by the linked dataset, the largest proportion stayed in the service for


�0

approximately 3 months, clients who self-referred were likely to stay for a shorter time - less than 3 months - than clients who were referred by other agencies.

Another area of interest where the linked dataset can provide additional important information is in whether there are differences in outcomes between clients who access services within their

30 40 50 Percent

6020100

Figure 3.1: Referral routes and length of stay in service

70 80 90 100

LA referral

Self referral

LA nomination

Voluntary agency

1 month 3 months1 week

12 months Over 12 months6 months

30 40 50 Percent

6020100

Figure 3.2: Cross authority clients and planned/unplanned moves

Host

Multi-lateral

Spot purchase

Structured

Open access

70 80 90 100


own local authority area and those that access services across authority or regional boundaries.

Figure 3.2 identifies the proportion of planned and unplanned moves by clients who accessed services within their own local authority area (Host) and those who crossed local authority boundaries (i.e. multi-lateral, spot purchase, structured and open access).


��

The majority of clients, whether accessing services from within or outside the area they were living, made a planned move from services. However, proportions varied between categories and a larger proportion of clients who were referred to a service outside their own local authority area through spot purchases made an unplanned move compared to other referral types.

The linked dataset also permits additional valuable analysis of different client groups and their progress through services. For example, it is possible to investigate clients who are categorised as single homeless compared to other client groups. The linked dataset shows that a substantially smaller proportion of single homeless (48%) clients left services feeling that they had gained greater independence compared to older people with support needs (70%) or people with mental health problems (59%). With the addition of the new homeless question incorporated into the Client Record form for 2008/09, it will be possible in future years to analyse differences in outcomes for all homeless people (regardless of client group) compared to people who are not homeless.

Development of the linked dataset is in its infancy; as it grows its analysis will add value to understanding the routes that clients take through services and what impact these have upon the outcomes they achieve.

3.2 Methodology for linking

In order to maximise the potential of the Client Records and Outcomes datasets, a robust method of linking them is required. A match across a combination of variables must be employed to link records about the same individual relating to the same episode of service access, enabling the information collected when a client starts to receive a service (Client Record Form) to be linked to the information collected when that client leaves said service (Outcomes for Short-term services). The level of strictness imposed and the number of variables included in this process

will determine the certainty with which the link truly represents the same client at arrival and departure to a particular service on a particular occasion.

Linking

Table 3.1 shows the common fields across the Client Record and Outcomes datasets and which of these have been used to link the datasets.

Taking a step-by-step approach:

• ensuring that the linking process was identifying the same service provider, by using the National Client Record Provider ID which identifies the service provider and the funding Administering Authority; the SP Service ID then defines which service it was within this Administering Authority.

• ensuring that the linked records related to the same individual, by linking on NI number.

• using the start date to ensure that the data relates to the same episode of service delivery.

• including two further fields in the link to ensure robustness, namely the client/tenant code, which is the service provider’s own numbering/code system for their clients, and the client’s sex.

These were identified as the minimum set of fields to establish a robust link between the two datasets: the effect of including these items are indicated in Table 3.1.

There are some other common fields on the two forms that have not been included in the linking because they may vary over time e.g. client’s age, economic status, or primary client group. Similarly, the client may describe their ethnic origin differently on separate occasions. There is therefore a balance to be struck in deciding the items to include.


�2

Table 3.2: Number of times that clients have accessed services Number of times services were accessed Number of clients Percentage of clients

1 18,825 94.72 938 4.73 98 0.54 11 0.15 and over 8 <0.1

Total 19,880 100

28,609

Table 3.1: Common information across Client Record and Outcome datasets Included in Effect on numbers linking in linked dataset

REQUIRED FIELDS National Client Record Provider ID (5 digit ID) Yes SP Service ID Yes NI number Yes Start date of support Yes ADDITIONAL FIELDS (results show number of records in linked dataset as each additional field is added into the matching process) Client / tenant code Yes 21,371Client’s sex Yes 21,084National Provider ID (8 digit ID) No 20,986Name of service provider No 20,888Service Name No 14,877Client’s age No 11,395Client’s economic status No 9,681Client’s ethnic origin No 9,316Primary client group No 8,348


��

Clearly the more items that require exact matching, the fewer match records that are likely to be identified. For this initial analysis a conservative approach was taken, and the linking was based on exact matches, but it would be possible in future research to investigate further the implication of relaxing some of these conditions e.g. by considering not only identical start dates but similar ones for example +/- 2 days.

The resulting dataset has been used in the subsequent analysis presented in the remainder of this section.

Overview of linked dataset

The linked dataset developed, using the method described above, contained 21,084 matched records, i.e. 21,084 instances when a client was recorded as entering a service at some time between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2008 and leaving that service between 31st May 2007 and 31st March 2008.

The frequency with which each NI number has been recorded tells us on how many separate occasions an individual has started and stopped receiving an SP funded service: this could be support from the same service or a different service, in the same Administering Authority area or in another part of the country.

The combined dataset of 21,084 records includes information of 19,880 unique individuals. Table 3.2 shows that the majority of these clients accessed services only once.

Discussion

The recording of NI numbers on Client Records and Outcomes Forms remains non-compulsory. Despite this, the majority of data do contain this information (Table 3.3) i.e. on 73% of Client Records and 69% of Outcomes for Short-term services.

One of the limitations of the linking is that the Client Record data has been collected since April 2003, but it is only since April 2006 that the NI number has been recorded. This means that Outcomes forms may be received for clients whose corresponding Client Record Form was completed before the NI number was added to the form, and therefore these cannot be linked. This may be exacerbated by the fact that, while short-term services are intended for clients who remain for less than two years, there are occasions when clients stay for a longer period.

Any discrepancies in the recording of some items at the start and end of service use, e.g. SP Service ID, start date or client/tenant code, will result in the match not being identified and therefore not being included in the combined

Table 3.3: Proportion of returns where NI number was recorded, for Client Records and Outcomes. Client Records Outcomes for since 1st April 2006 Short-term services since 31st May 2007

n % n %

Number of records with NI number 286,009 73.4 63,873 69.4

Number of records without NI number 103,842 26.6 28,167 30.6

TOTAL 389,851 100 92,040 100


��

dataset. Similarly, data items may be recorded on one of the forms, but not on the other, e.g. client’s sex, with the same result. These issues relate to the need to include in future analysis, further investigation of the effect of relaxing the linking criteria e.g. matching start dates across a range of dates rather than the exact date.

For the analysis in this report, records are only included if an individual has finished a period of support. As data collection continues, the number of Client Records and Outcomes Forms with NI number will continue to increase and so will the size of the resulting linked dataset. This will provide a broader and more comprehensive base from which to analyse patterns of service use by individuals.

The next part of this section uses the linked dataset to provide a detailed account of one particular client group – young people at risk – to illustrate the type of analysis that can be achieved using the linked data. As this section is an initial exploration of linking the datasets, findings should be interpreted with caution.

3.3 Analysis: an illustrated example: Young People at Risk Introduction

It is widely recognised that the support needs of young people differ from those of other adults (Uzoebo, Kioko & Jones, 2008: NCCSDO, 2002; JRF, 1996). The transition from childhood into adulthood can present challenges and difficulties for young people particularly as they go through what is readily accepted as ‘a rapid pace of change throughout the transition from youth to adulthood’ (RMA, 2008). These changes relate to all aspects of the lives of young people including their social, psychological, health and well-being. Young people present service providers with challenges which are different from those presented by older adults. Young people are, for example, particularly vulnerable to the risk of a multitude

of often interrelated problems, including social exclusion (SEU, 2004), offending behaviour (Home Office, 2006), substance misuse (Home Office, 2007) and homelessness (SEU, 2004 (2)).

Services funded by SP aim to help clients achieve employment, training and secure housing while providing, if required, the daily living skills that will enable them to make a successful move towards achieving independence and stability (DETR, 2001). Positive outcomes for young people at risk include improved levels of health, safety, achievement and economic and social well-being (DoH, 2003).

Research conducted by Shelter (2005) found that some young people at risk are frequently ‘placed in inappropriate temporary accommodation, where they are at risk of violence, theft, bullying and exposure to alcohol and drugs misuse’ (Shelter, 2005) and in some cases, the level of vulnerability increases as young people spiral downwards as they weave back and forward between short-term services, the street and living with family or friends. The Government has launched preventative initiatives, including supported lodging services, to tackle these issues, (Sure Start, Connexions) and with the introduction of the Outcomes Framework it will be possible to identify and direct resources in areas that will further improve services and, ultimately, the potential for young people at risk.

The Outcomes Framework is founded upon the five outcomes identified in The Every Child Matters green paper (http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/). Using these five high level outcomes, the Government’s strategy for tackling the problems faced by young people at risk focuses specifically on improving outcomes for looked-after children, those with special education needs, teenage pregnancy, homeless youth, young offenders and anti-social behaviour, while also attempting to reduce the number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/ete/neet/ ).


��

This last aim is particularly relevant to the young people described within the following analysis. Young people are expected to be in education, training or employment and in the process of reaching their potential. The analysis below identifies a group of young people caught in a cycle of instability between home and temporary accommodation that may impact upon their capacity to achieve positive outcomes and affects their transition from childhood to adulthood, consequently reducing their chances of developing those ‘personal, social and emotional skills’ that the Government promises to deliver on (What is Youth Matters? http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/youthmatters/whatisyouthmatters/).

Definition and aims

Within the context of this analysis, young people at risk are defined as being between the ages of 16-25 years old. The linked dataset produced 1,446 records where clients were described as ‘young people at risk’. The first objective of this report is to examine for all young people at risk where they came from, their routes into services, the services accessed, how long they stayed with the service, and exploration of some of the factors that may contribute to the length of time a young person remains in a service.

Length of time between access and departure

The length of time a young person received a service ranged from 1 day to approximately 23 months with a median length of 111 days (between 3 and 4 months). The following analysis compares young people who left a service within the median time (728; 50.3%) with those who received a service for longer (718; 49.7%)2.

Variation in length of stay by gender

Almost three fifths (58%) of young people at risk were female; of these, just over half stayed with the service for longer than the median length of time. Compared to males, females were slightly more likely to stay for longer than the median value (51% of females; 48% of males).

2 Note the approach for those receiving services for less than 28 days – forms must be completed for clients who leave having been in a service for 28 days or more, for clients receiving a service for less than 28 days, providers must agree the approach with their Administer-ing Authority. Of the 128 AAs who responded to us on the 28 day rule, 54 AAs said they expected providers to submit for less than 28 days. This varied approach may have an impact on length of time results.

15 Percent

20 251050

Figure 3.3: Previous accommodation

Living with familyLiving with friends

LA general needsSupported housing

Other temp accBed & breakfast

30


��

Variations in length of stay by previous accommodation

Prior to accessing support, the majority of young people were either living with family (28%) or friends (17%). Young people at risk living in other types of previous accommodation account for the remaining 55% and Figure 3.3 shows the six most frequent categories of previous accommodation.

Young people who had been living with family or friends were more likely to leave the service within the median time compared to young people who had their own tenancy, or were in supported housing or in temporary accommodation or Bed & Breakfast accommodation [Figure 3.4].

Variations in length of stay by referral route

The three most common referral routes, accounting for 64% of all young people, were through a LA housing department referral (31%), by self-referral (21%) or through voluntary organisations (12%).

30 40 50 Percent

6020100

Figure 3.4: Accommodation prior to accessing a service and length of stay in the service

Living with family

Living with friends

LA general needs

Supported housing

Other temp acc

Bed & breakfast

70 80 90 100

Less than median period More than median period

Young people who had self-referred or been referred by a voluntary agency were more likely to remain in the service for longer than the median period compared to young people who had been referred by the local authority [Figure 3.5].

The tendency for those referred through local authorities to depart prior to the median was consistent for all young people regardless of the type of service they accessed. For example, 61% of clients who had been referred by their local authority to supported housing left the service within the median time period compared to only 39% of all other clients who had accessed supported housing.

Almost all referrals for young people at risk were for services within their own local authority area i.e. 94% of all young people at risk and 97% of those referred by a local authority.


�7

30 40 50 Percent

6020100

Figure 3.5: Source of referral comparisons with length of stay in service

Voluntary agency

Self-referral

LA housing dept

70 80 90 100

Less than median period More than median period

Variations in departure and move on from services

Of all young people, 61% had left a service in a planned way. Young people who had remained in a service for longer than the median were more likely to have left in a planned way (67%) compared to young people who left a service within the median time period (56%).

Half of young people leaving services moved into local authority general needs housing (21%), to move in with family (17%) or into supported accommodation (12%). More than half of young people who had secured a local authority tenancy had remained with their support service for longer than the median time (56%). In comparison, young people who moved in with family (56%) or into supported housing (64%) were more likely to have left their service sooner than the median time.

Length of stay and outcomes for young people at risk

The main identified support needs for young people were to maximise income, establish contact with family and/or friends, maintain accommodation and improve their levels of choice and control.

Of all the young people who were able to maximise their income prior to leaving a service, more than half achieved this outcome after staying with the service for longer than the median time.

One third of young people were able to establish contact with family or friends. There was no difference in how long these young people stayed in the service and a third of them had accessed a service from living with their families and one-quarter left the service to live with family.

Of all the clients who were able to maintain their accommodation, the majority (58%) had remained with the service for longer than the median period. Similarly, clients were more likely to achieve more choice and control over their lives if they had remained with their support for longer than the median time (57% stayed longer than the median).

Summary

The length of time for which clients accessed services varied enormously. This report examined differences between clients who accessed services for less than the median time and those that remained with a service for


�8

longer. The purpose was to identify whether clients who remain with a service for longer than the median are better placed to achieve outcomes. The results showed that young people who were living with family prior to accessing support and who were referred to services by their local authority were more likely to leave a service in less than the median time and, in particular, young people who left a service in less than the median time were less likely to achieve a high level of outcomes compared to clients who remained with a service for longer. These findings support those identified by the SEU (2004), which suggests that longer term support is more likely to improve outcomes for young people, compared to short periods of support.

Conclusions

The findings from this analysis suggest that young people who experience difficulties coping with the transition from childhood to adulthood may be at their most vulnerable when prone to leave or be asked to leave the family home, and most likely, as a first port of call, they will approach their local authority for support and/or emergency accommodation.

In view of the widespread literature relating to young people at risk (Hogarth & Smith, 2004: Scottish Executive, 2005: Scottish Homes Precis, 2001), young people at risk would seem to benefit from services that provide long-term support, specifically aimed at providing stability and support for education, training and employment. For example, multi-agency services developed using the Foyer model of support provision (Foyer Federation, http://www.foyer.net/mpn/topic.php?topic=3) may be best placed to meet the support needs of vulnerable young people. In addition, the Government is currently working towards encouraging service providers to develop user-involvement initiatives that are designed to engage with young people (for an introduction see http://www.homeless.org.uk/developyourservice/topics/sui).

Research extolling ‘the voice of young people’ recognises the impact that young people can have on shaping policy and practice and how valuable their influence could be for improving the life chances of young people themselves (Halsey, 2006) in breaking the cycle of instability suggested by the findings of this analysis.

This analysis illustrates the type of information that is available through the linking of Client Records and Outcomes for Short-term services data. The aim of linking these two datasets is to improve the level of information for analysis of client access and departure from SP services. While, currently, the practical considerations and limitations of linking these datasets impose an element of caution in interpreting the results herein, this report provides an informative indication of patterns of access and departure that can be used to inform future research and policy.

References

Shelter (2005) http://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_library/policy_library_folder/?a=40411

Halsey, K., Murfield, J., Harland, J.L. and Lord, P. (2006). The Voice of Young People: an Engine for Improvement? Scoping the Evidence. London: CfBT Education Trust [online]. http://www.nfer.ac.uk/research-areas/pims-data/summaries/the-voice-of-young-people.cfm

JRF (1996) http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/SP98.asp

Veronica Uzoebo a; Maria Kioko a; Robert Jones Deconstructing youth transition to adulthood services: Lessons learned from the VISIONS programVulnerable Children and Youth Studies, Volume 3, Issue 1 April 2008 , pages 37 - 41


��

Hogarth, L. & Smith, D. (2004). Understanding the Impact of Connexions on Young People at Risk. Department for Education and Skills Research Report RR607. De Montfort Expertise Ltd. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR607.pdf

Scottish Executive Social Research (2006). Determined to Succeed and Young People at Risk of Becoming NEET (Not in Education,

Employment or Training). The Department of Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/127242/0030498.pdf

Scottish Homes (2001). Young People at Risk of Homelessness: Routes to Information. Scottish Homes Precis No. 130 http://www.scot-homes.gov.uk/pdfs/pubs/238.pdf


�0

APPENDICES

��

Appendix 1: Patterns of client movement within and between government Office regions Table A shows the overall movement of clients into and out of each Government Office region, based on type of referral recorded.

• Column a ‘Host clients’: records are those that originated from within the funding Administering Authority area;

• Column b ‘non-host clients from within the region’: records those that originated outside the funding Administering Authority area, but within the same government office region as the funding Administering Authority;

• Column c ‘imports from outside region’: records those that originated from outside the government office region of the funding Administering Authority;

• Column d ‘exports to other regions’: records the number of clients who were previously living in that region but who moved to another region to receive an SP service;

• Column e ‘the net import/export ratio’ shows the number of clients coming into that region divided by the number that left that region to get a service from another Administering Authority.


Regions with ratios above 100 have recorded more clients coming into the region from outside to receive services than left the region to access services. For example, a ratio of 200 means that twice as many clients came into the region to access services compared to the

number of clients who left the region to access services. These regions are described as net importers.

Regions with ratios below 100 recorded more clients leaving the region to access services compared to the number of clients who came into the region to access services. For example, a ratio of 50 shows that twice as many clients left the region to access services compared to the number that came into the region from elsewhere. These regions are described as net exporters.

Column f, the last column in the table, shows the overall result of this movement as net import/export where positive numbers indicate the net number of clients who came into the region to access services (corresponding ratio is over 100). Negative numbers indicate the net number of clients who left the region to access services elsewhere (corresponding ratio is under 100).

Of the 9 government regions, four were net exporters of SP clients and five were net importers.

It is important to note that, in terms of cross-authority movement, a far greater number of non-host clients moved within region (column b) rather than between regions (column c). That is, clients are most likely to access services across Administering Authorities within the same region, than they are to cross regional boundaries. This pattern is most evident in London. London, however, was by far and away the largest net exporter (with a ratio of 59.1 i.e. for every two people who came into the region for services, three people left the region) and the only region to record a net export of almost 500 SP clients. Yorkshire and the Humber, the East Midlands, and the North East were also net exporters but to a lesser extent.

The South West recorded the highest net import ratio with almost twice as many clients coming into the region as leaving. The West Midlands, the East Region, and the South East were also


�2

net importers where each had ratios showing a greater number of clients entering the region than leaving. The West Midlands and the South West were the only regions to record a net import of over 350 SP clients.

Overall, the net import of clients exceeded the net export of clients with the import of over 560 SP clients from outside England.

In terms of actual numbers of clients, London (1,200) and the South East (895) exported the largest number of clients to other regions. All other regions, with the exception of the North East, exported between 400 and 700 clients to other regions in England while the North East exported only 245 clients.

In terms of the actual number of clients imported from other regions the South East (1,071) was the only region to record over 1,000 clients coming into the region, followed by the West Midlands, the South West and the East of England which each recorded over 800 clients coming into the region.


Table A: Patterns of client movement within and between Government Office Regions Type of Referral

Non Host Net Net Non Host from outside Exports import/ number from within region to other export of peopleRegion name Host region (imports) regions ratio* imported a b c d e f

North East 9,595 1,265 216 245 88.2 -29Yorkshire & the Humber 21,649 1,137 526 595 88.4 -69East Midlands 17,280 816 541 672 80.5 -131East of England 16,487 812 869 575 151.1 294London 26,129 3,721 709 1,200 59.1 -491South East 22,741 1,514 1,071 895 119.7 176South West 20,686 1,114 803 415 193.5 388West Midlands 20,632 1,978 979 602 162.6 377North West 25,840 3,442 654 609 107.4 45Outside England 560 -560 tOtAL 181,039 15,799 6,368 6,368 100.0 0

missing information = 445 * figure of 100 = same number of clients imported from other region as exported to another region

APPEND

ICES��

Appendix 2: Outcomes for Short-term services by Primary Client Group 1 Economic WellBeing Outcome data for Short-term services (May 2007 - March 2008) 1a. Maximise income 1b. Reduce Overall Debt 1c. Obtain Paid Work

Achieved outcome(Participated in

Needing Achieved Needing Achieved Needing Achieved outcome Work Whilst InSupport outcome Support outcome Support (now in Paid Work) Receipt of Service)

Primary Client Group Total n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Older people with support needs 3,132 1,845 58.9 1,633 88.5 694 22.1 579 83.4 26 0.8 12 46.1 11 42.3Older people mental health 388 191 49.2 173 90.5 72 18.5 61 84.7 1 0.2 1 100 1 100Frail elderly 355 165 46.4 145 87.8 38 10. 33 86.8 0 0 0 0 0 0Mental health problems 9,428 6,477 68.7 5,724 88.3 3,957 41.9 3,058 77.2 1,040 11.0 306 29.4 350 33.6Learning disabilities 1,344 939 69.8 827 88.0 630 46.8 483 76.6 207 15.4 66 31.8 90 43.4Physical or sensory disability 2,474 1,554 62.8 1,394 89.7 717 28.9 594 82.8 98 3.9 29 29.5 35 35.7Single homeless with support 27,065 19,280 71.2 16,882 87.5 9,859 36.4 5,910 59.9 8,175 30.2 2,323 28.4 2,865 35.0Alcohol problems 3,717 2,382 64.0 2,067 86.7 1,656 44.5 1,166 70.4 532 14.3 110 20.6 126 23.6Drug problems 3,689 2,467 66.8 2,104 85.2 1,696 45.9 1,091 64.3 702 19.0 140 19.9 159 22.6Offenders/at risk of offending 3,467 2,592 74.7 2,188 84.4 1,504 43.3 951 63.2 1,311 37.8 282 21.5 396 30.2Mentally disordered offenders 115 88 76.5 80 90.9 52 45.2 42 80.7 24 20.8 7 29.1 12 50Young people at risk 6,814 5,674 83.2 4,938 87.0 2,822 41.4 1,807 64.0 2,444 35.8 821 33.5 1,143 46.7Young people leaving care 1,004 766 76.2 660 86.1 384 38.2 249 64.8 375 37.3 116 30.9 183 48.8Women at risk of domestic viol. 9,413 6,316 67.1 5,593 88.5 2,609 27.7 1,911 73.2 718 7.6 272 37.8 282 39.2People with HIV/AIDS 220 175 79.5 155 88.5 88 40 74 84.0 33 15 18 54.5 17 51.5Homeless families with support needs 7,314 5,262 71.9 4,779 90.8 2,612 35.7 1,908 73.0 554 7.57 184 33.2 213 38.4Refugees 1,233 1,034 83.8 982 94.9 356 28.8 293 82.3 472 38.2 204 43.2 233 49.3Teenage parents 2,322 1,952 84.0 1,781 91.2 753 32.4 545 72.3 206 8.8 74 35.9 95 46.1Rough Sleeper 1,602 938 58.5 806 85.9 526 32.8 275 52.2 406 25.3 105 25.8 116 28.5Traveller 214 122 57.0 105 86.0 56 26.1 44 78.5 10 4.6 5 50 4 40Generic 6,686 4,539 67.8 3,892 85.7 3,578 53.5 2,751 76.8 886 13.2 371 41.8 418 47.1(missing) 44 4 9.1 1 25.0 3 6.8 1 33.3 2 4.6 1 50.0 1 50.0

TOTAL 92,040 64,762 70.4 56,909 87.9 34,662 37.7 23,826 68.7 18,222 19.8 5,447 29.9 6,750 37.0


��

Appendix 2 cont. Outcomes for Short-term services by Primary Client Group 2 Enjoy and Achieve 2c. Participate in Work-Like Activitites, Unpaid Work / 2b. Participate in Leisure/ Work Experience/Outcome data for Short-term Cultural / Faith / Informal Work-Like Experience / 2d. Establish Contact with Externalservices (May 2007 - March 2008) 2a. Participate in Training / Education Learning Voluntary Work Services / Groups / Friends / Family Achieved outcome Achieved Achieved (Established outcome outcome Achieved Contact with (Established (Participated outcome External Contact with Needing in Training / (with Needing Achieved Needing Achieved Needing Services / Friends / Support Education) Qualifications) Support outcome Support outcome Support Groups) Family) Primary Client Group Total n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Older people with support needs 3,132 95 3.0 51 53.7 12 12.6 610 19.5 477 78.2 78 2.5 58 74.4 1,613 51.5 1,418 87.9 689 42.7Older people mental health 388 12 3.1 7 58.3 1 8.3 118 30.4 88 74.6 14 3.6 10 71.4 226 58.3 191 84.5 111 49.1Frail elderly 355 7 2.0 2 28.6 1 14.3 60 16.9 43 71.7 3 0.9 3 100.0 181 51.0 159 87.9 73 40.3Mental health problems 9,428 2,698 28.6 1,554 57.6 381 14.1 3,212 34.1 2,315 72.1 1,924 20.4 1,139 59.2 5,080 53.9 4,284 84.3 2,665 52.5Learning disabilities 1,344 485 36.1 343 70.7 95 19.6 429 31.9 341 79.5 316 23.5 232 73.4 706 52.5 610 86.4 379 53.7Physical or sensory disability 2,474 303 12.3 199 65.7 38 12.5 488 19.7 373 76.4 147 5.9 93 63.3 1,234 49.9 1,127 91.3 452 36.6Single homeless with support 27,065 11,294 41.7 6,765 59.9 2,173 19.2 6,405 23.7 4,760 74.3 5,651 20.9 3,148 55.7 13,079 48.3 10,630 81.3 8,562 65.5Alcohol problems 3,717 1,189 32.0 667 56.1 143 12.0 1,134 30.5 833 73.5 857 23.1 489 57.1 2,137 57.5 1,731 81.0 1,238 57.9Drug problems 3,689 1,485 40.3 821 55.3 215 14.5 1,123 30.4 846 75.3 1,012 27.4 572 56.5 2,158 58.5 1,768 81.9 1,299 60.2Offenders/at risk of offending 3,467 1,450 41.8 695 47.9 235 16.2 867 25.0 574 66.2 847 24.4 435 51.4 1,816 52.4 1,463 80.6 1,159 63.8Mentally disordered offenders 115 50 43.5 33 66.0 12 24.0 45 39.1 34 75.6 30 26.1 20 66.7 82 71.3 70 85.4 53 64.6Young people at risk 6,814 3,755 55.1 2,452 65.3 809 21.5 1,694 24.9 1,316 77.7 1,520 22.3 943 62.0 3,650 53.6 2,984 81.8 2,378 65.2Young people leaving care 1,004 632 63.0 436 69.0 180 28.5 251 25.0 202 80.5 290 28.9 197 67.9 527 52.5 440 83.5 376 71.4Women at risk of domestic viol. 9,413 2,146 22.8 1,273 59.3 325 15.1 2,470 26.2 2,011 81.4 723 7.7 446 61.7 5,448 57.9 4,743 87.1 3,255 59.8People with HIV/AIDS 220 62 28.2 44 71.0 14 22.6 48 21.8 41 85.4 23 10.5 15 65.2 142 64.6 119 83.8 82 57.8Homeless families with support needs 7,314 1,251 17.1 710 56.8 178 14.2 1,064 14.6 869 81.7 315 4.3 154 48.9 2,984 40.8 2,629 88.1 1,454 48.7Refugees 1,233 729 59.1 591 81.1 190 26.1 389 31.6 336 86.4 267 21.7 170 63.7 571 46.3 511 89.5 369 64.6Teenage parents 2,322 969 41.7 587 60.6 189 19.5 616 26.5 476 77.3 167 7.2 114 68.3 1,277 55.0 1,070 83.8 822 64.4Rough Sleeper 1,602 509 31.8 234 46.0 96 18.9 348 21.7 233 67.0 331 20.7 183 55.3 698 43.6 518 74.2 404 57.9Traveller 214 22 10.3 10 45.5 5 22.7 46 21.5 41 89.1 18 8.4 14 77.8 117 54.7 100 85.5 57 48.7Generic 6,686 1,229 18.4 693 56.4 176 14.3 916 13.7 702 76.6 494 7.4 292 59.1 2,870 42.9 2,429 84.6 1,076 37.5(missing) 44 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.3 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

TOTAL 92,040 30,372 33.0 18,167 59.8 5,468 18.0 22,333 24.3 16,911 75.7 15,028 16.3 8,728 58.1 46,596 50.6 38,994 83.7 26,953 57.8

APPEND

ICES��

Appendix 2 cont. Outcomes for Short-term services by Primary Client Group 3 Be Healthy

3d. Assistive Technology / SP Short-Term Outcome Data 3c. Better Manage Substance Aids and Adaptations is Helping to(May 2007 - March 2008) 3a. Better Manage Physical Health 3b. Better Manage Mental Health Misuse Issues Maintain Independence

Needing Achieved Needing Achieved Needing Achieved Needing AchievedSupport outcome Support outcome Support outcome Support outcome

Primary Client Group Total n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Older people with support needs 3,132 1,641 52.4 1,350 82.3 576 18.4 441 76.6 150 4.8 75 50.0 1,117 35.7 1,040 93.1Older people mental health 388 157 40.5 123 78.3 244 62.9 168 68.9 25 6.4 14 56.0 85 21.9 78 91.8Frail elderly 355 178 50.1 144 80.9 52 14.7 42 80.8 6 1.7 3 50.0 153 43.1 136 88.9Mental health problems 9,428 3,905 41.4 2,946 75.4 7,823 83.0 5,923 75.7 2,298 24.4 1,361 59.2 579 6.1 512 88.4Learning disabilities 1,344 491 36.5 394 80.2 426 31.7 303 71.1 133 9.9 74 55.6 108 8.0 96 88.9Physical or sensory disability 2,474 1,168 47.2 967 82.8 494 20.0 393 79.6 202 8.2 134 66.3 1,088 44.0 1,005 92.4Single homeless with support 27,065 9,587 35.4 7,241 75.5 7,554 27.9 5,024 66.5 9,322 34.4 4,832 51.8 1,092 4.0 896 82.1Alcohol problems 3,717 2,204 59.3 1,487 67.5 1,642 44.2 1,100 67.0 3,225 86.8 1,861 57.7 272 7.3 229 84.2Drug problems 3,689 1,879 50.9 1,370 72.9 1,291 35.0 873 67.6 3,267 88.6 2,046 62.6 201 5.5 150 74.6Offenders/at risk of offending 3,467 1,345 38.8 979 72.8 1,007 29.1 678 67.3 1,976 57.0 1,142 57.8 123 3.6 95 77.2Mentally disordered offenders 115 55 47.8 48 87.3 82 71.3 66 80.5 49 42.6 32 65.3 5 4.4 4 80.0Young people at risk 6,814 2,140 31.4 1,660 77.6 1,620 23.8 1,139 70.3 1,383 20.3 711 51.4 137 2.0 110 80.3Young people leaving care 1,004 364 36.3 272 74.7 247 24.6 161 65.2 225 22.4 105 46.7 21 2.1 20 95.2Women at risk of domestic viol. 9,413 2,868 30.5 2,391 83.4 3,220 34.2 2,527 78.5 819 8.7 464 56.7 300 3.2 274 91.3People with HIV/AIDS 220 151 68.6 135 89.4 109 49.6 94 86.2 33 15.0 23 69.7 32 14.6 29 90.6Homeless families with support needs 7,314 1,322 18.1 1,106 83.7 1,152 15.8 909 78.9 444 6.1 259 58.3 159 2.2 132 83.0Refugees 1,233 375 30.4 342 91.2 177 14.4 144 81.4 27 2.2 18 66.7 86 7.0 83 96.5Teenage parents 2,322 568 24.5 467 82.2 404 17.4 320 79.2 99 4.3 54 54.6 42 1.8 38 90.5Rough Sleeper 1,602 661 41.3 461 69.7 474 29.6 256 54.0 842 52.6 386 45.8 124 7.7 102 82.3Traveller 214 44 20.6 35 79.6 35 16.4 26 74.3 14 6.5 6 42.9 10 4.7 10 100.0Generic 6,686 1,406 21.0 1,115 79.3 1,571 23.5 1,203 76.6 654 9.8 396 60.6 364 5.4 324 89.0(missing) 44 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.3 0 0.0 1 2.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

TOTAL 92,040 32,509 35.3 25,033 77.0 30,201 32.8 21,790 72.1 25,194 27.4 13,996 55.6 6,098 6.6 5,363 87.9


�� Appendix 2 cont. Outcomes for Short-term services by Primary Client Group 4 Stay Safe

4b. Comply with StatutoryOrders and Processes in 4c(iii). Minimise Harm

SP Short-Term Outcome Data 4a. Maintain Accommodation Relation to 4c(i). Better Manage 4c(ii). Avoid Causing / Risk of Harm From(May 2007 - March 2008) and Avoid Eviction Offending Behaviour Self Harm Harm to Others Others

Needing Achieved Needing Achieved Needing Achieved Needing Achieved Needing Achieved Support outcome Support outcome Support outcome Support outcome Support outcome

Primary Client Group Total n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Older people with support needs 3,132 816 26.1 720 88.2 37 1.2 33 89.2 57 1.8 46 80.7 43 1.4 35 81.4 219 7.0 180 82.2Older people mental health 388 105 27.1 86 81.9 5 1.3 4 80.0 20 5.2 17 85.0 13 3.4 11 84.6 45 11.6 33 73.3Frail elderly 355 65 18.3 55 84.6 2 0.6 2 100.0 8 2.3 6 75.0 3 0.9 3 100.0 18 5.1 16 88.9Mental health problems 9,428 5,258 55.8 4,199 79.9 752 8.0 576 76.6 1,683 17.9 1,285 76.4 1,037 11.0 823 79.4 1,888 20.0 1,523 80.7Learning disabilities 1,344 767 57.1 618 80.6 91 6.8 61 67.0 109 8.1 91 83.5 108 8.0 85 78.7 337 25.1 275 81.6Physical or sensory disability 2,474 798 32.3 692 86.7 55 2.2 47 85.5 81 3.3 62 76.5 66 2.7 55 83.3 221 8.9 186 84.2Single homeless with support 27,065 15,947 58.9 8,820 55.3 4,418 16.3 3,039 68.8 2,520 9.3 1,735 68.9 2,343 8.7 1,463 62.4 3,206 11.9 2,387 74.5Alcohol problems 3,717 2,391 64.3 1,641 68.6 561 15.1 408 72.7 575 15.5 382 66.4 458 12.3 333 72.7 687 18.5 508 73.9Drug problems 3,689 2,509 68.0 1,520 60.6 1,180 32.0 836 70.9 488 13.2 329 67.4 457 12.4 339 74.2 615 16.7 437 71.1Offenders/at risk of offending 3,467 2,504 72.2 1,437 57.4 2,363 68.2 1,591 67.3 335 9.7 237 70.8 943 27.2 685 72.6 715 20.6 548 76.6Mentally disordered offenders 115 81 70.4 63 77.8 55 47.8 43 78.2 19 16.5 14 73.7 30 26.1 24 80.0 39 33.9 36 92.3Young people at risk 6,814 4,599 67.5 2,972 64.6 802 11.8 565 70.5 632 9.3 443 70.1 584 8.6 369 63.2 1,182 17.4 861 72.8Young people leaving care 1,004 721 71.8 460 63.8 139 13.8 97 69.8 115 11.5 85 73.9 102 10.2 68 66.7 188 18.7 130 69.2Women at risk of domestic viol. 9,413 3,302 35.1 2,432 73.7 318 3.4 246 77.4 622 6.6 469 75.4 469 5.0 372 79.3 6,034 64.1 5,110 84.7People with HIV/AIDS 220 106 48.2 99 93.4 8 3.6 7 87.5 17 7.7 11 64.7 7 3.2 6 85.7 29 13.2 27 93.1Homeless families with support needs 7,314 3,684 50.4 3,016 81.9 241 3.3 177 73.4 204 2.8 151 74.0 243 3.3 174 71.6 730 10.0 612 83.8Refugees 1,233 674 54.7 591 87.7 28 2.3 24 85.7 19 1.5 15 79.0 25 2.0 22 88.0 97 7.9 88 90.7Teenage parents 2,322 1,277 55.0 1,046 81.9 76 3.3 62 81.6 94 4.1 76 80.9 128 5.5 94 73.4 363 15.6 278 76.6Rough Sleeper 1,602 977 61.0 438 44.8 238 14.9 148 62.2 181 11.3 111 61.3 156 9.7 82 52.6 163 10.2 101 62.0Traveller 214 97 45.3 71 73.2 18 8.4 11 61.1 7 3.3 5 71.4 3 1.4 2 66.7 24 11.2 22 91.7Generic 6,686 3,839 57.4 3,262 85.0 310 4.6 236 76.1 234 3.5 177 75.6 206 3.1 157 76.2 758 11.3 654 86.3(missing) 44 6 13.6 1 16.7 2 4.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

TOTAL 92,040 50,523 54.9 34,239 67.8 11,699 12.7 8,213 70.2 8,020 8.7 5,747 71.7 7,424 8.1 5,202 70.1 17,558 19.1 14,012 79.8

APPEND

ICES�7

Appendix 2 cont. Outcomes for Short-term services by Primary Client Group 5 Make a Positive Contribution

5DevelopingConfidenceandAbilitytohaveGreaterChoiceSP Short-Term Outcome Data (May 2007 - March 2008) and / or Control and / or Involvement Needing Support Achieved outcome

Primary Client Group Total n % n %

Older people with support needs 3,132 1,641 52.4 1,493 91.0Older people mental health 388 245 63.1 197 80.4Frail elderly 355 166 46.8 148 89.2Mental health problems 9,428 6,365 67.5 5,331 83.8Learning disabilities 1,344 915 68.1 806 88.1Physical or sensory disability 2,474 1,276 51.6 1,158 90.8Single homeless with support 27,065 13,993 51.7 11,166 79.8Alcohol problems 3,717 2,290 61.6 1,791 78.2Drug problems 3,689 2,290 62.1 1,751 76.5Offenders/at risk of offending 3,467 2,060 59.4 1,536 74.6Mentally disordered offenders 115 76 66.1 67 88.2Young people at risk 6,814 4,167 61.2 3,392 81.4Young people leaving care 1,004 606 60.4 505 83.3Women at risk of domestic viol. 9,413 6,992 74.3 6,066 86.8People with HIV/AIDS 220 133 60.5 121 91.0Homeless families with support needs 7,314 3,592 49.1 3,275 91.2Refugees 1,233 765 62.0 701 91.6Teenage parents 2,322 1,477 63.6 1,273 86.2Rough Sleeper 1,602 728 45.4 561 77.1Traveller 214 140 65.4 121 86.4Generic 6,686 3,286 49.2 2,859 87.0(missing) 44 1 2.3 1 100.0

TOTAL 92,040 53,204 57.8 44,318 83.3


�8

Summary

��


�0

CHR, The ObservatorySP Client Record & Outcomes OfficeUniversity of St AndrewsBuchanan GardensSt AndrewsFife, KY16 9LZ

Tel: 01334 461764



Contents

1





2


Dr Fiona Bolik, Research FellowSP Client Records & OutcomesCentre for Housing ResearchThe ObservatoryBuchanan GardensUniversity of St AndrewsSt Andrews, FifeKY16 9LZ



Contents

3

ContentsForeword 5 Summary 7 Introduction 9 Section 1: An overview of the data 11

1.1 Client Records 111.1.1 Introduction 111.1.2 Trend Analysis 111.1.3 Cross authority provision 20

1.2 Outcomes 231.2.1 Introduction 231.2.2 Trend analysis 26

Section 2: Examples of how data are being used 29

2.1 Introduction 29

2.2 Use of data 292.2.1 Regional cooperation 292.2.2 Understanding clients and their needs 292.2.3 Managing services and assessing effectiveness 312.2.4 Assessing support 342.2.5 Conclusion 34

Section 3: Analysis using linked data (Client Record & Outcomes) 37

3.1 Introduction 37

3.2 A case study – supporting clients under probationary supervision or Youth Offending Teams to settled accommodation 38

3.2.1 Methods 383.2.2 Findings 403.2.3 Discussion 433.2.4 Conclusion 44

Appendix 1 47 Appendix 2 49


4

Foreword

5

Foreword The Supporting People programme, created in April 2003, aims to help end social exclusion by enabling vulnerable people to maintain or achieve their independence through the provision of housing related support services. By the end of the current spending review period in 2011, the Government will have invested over £13.6bn in the programme since it began in 2003.

This annual report is being published at a crucial transition point as CLG is currently supporting the delivery of Supporting People in a non-ringfenced environment as we move towards inclusion of Supporting People into the Area Based Grant from 2010/11. The removal of the ring fence provides authorities with the opportunity to come up with flexible and innovative ways to support vulnerable people in a range of different situations.

With the successful launch of the Supporting People Outcomes Framework in 2007, and the continued collection of Client Record forms, we will encourage authorities and their providers to continue contributing to these valuable datasets and utilise them to support the transition of commissioning and delivering services in a non-ringfenced environment.

Supporting People currently helps around a million vulnerable people to live independently in their homes or safely within supported accommodation – including older people, victims of domestic violence, teenage parents and those with mental health problems. The delivery of successful housing support is monitored through two indicators in the national indicator set NI 141 (% of vulnerable people achieving independent living), and NI 142 (% of vulnerable people who are supported to maintain independent living).

Client records and Outcomes data is crucial in supporting local partners to deliver National Indicators 141 and 142 and a wide range of other local and national priorities, including domestic violence, re-offending, drug and alcohol harm, and support into employment, education and training.

Research has shown that the programme is more than paying for itself through reduced costs in health services, tenancy failure, crime and residential care. We know that national expenditure of £1.61bn in housing related support services delivers estimated net savings of £3.41bn.

The Outcomes Framework marked an innovative achievement in the development of a measure to assess the degree to which investment in Supporting People enables vulnerable clients to achieve positive outcomes. These nationally agreed outcome measures are providing a robust evidence base to demonstrate the impact of housing related support services.

We now have six years worth of Client Record trend data and almost two years worth of Outcomes data. The Outcomes data tells us that for clients who access short-term services there has been little in the way of change over the past two years either for needs identified or met. The three most often identified needs remain maximising income, achieve more choice and control, and maintaining accommodation/avoiding eviction.

The percentage of clients with particular needs in long-term services has changed slightly when compared to the previous year. While maximise income and physical health are among the top three support needs identified for both 2007/08 and 2008/09, aids and adaptations has become the most requested need for clients in long-term services in 2008/09.


6

We now have powerful evidence to demonstrate the benefits of housing related support in meeting client’s needs across the county. For example for clients who left short-term services during 1st April 2008 – 31st March 2009 the following outcomes were achieved:

• 64,826 (85%) people established contact with external services• 43,100 (80%) people better managed their physical health• 59,556 (72%) people maintained their accommodation and avoided eviction• 30,330 (61%) people accessed their desired training or education needs

The development of the online reporting facility by the Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews has enabled the majority of Client Records and Outcomes data to be available for anyone to view and analyse at an aggregated level. In this annual report, for the first time, we highlight innovative practice showcasing how different organisations and authorities are using both Client Record and Outcomes data to identify successes and gaps in service provision at the local level. We hope that by making this information even more accessible over the forthcoming year that it will continue to support local partners in delivering housing related support services and build an even better understanding of the needs and characteristics of vulnerable people who access such services.

Mark Carroll

Director, Housing Management and Support Directorate

Summary

7

SummaryClient Records: Information is gathered at the point when a client starts to receive a Supporting People (SP) funded service. The data have been collected since the start of the SP Programme on 1st April 2003. Analysis in this report is based on information collected from 219,594 records about clients starting to receive services between 1st April 2008 and 31st March 2009, and includes comparisons with Client Record data from 2003/4 onwards (Section 1.1).


• In terms of service type, since 2003/4, clients have most commonly accessed three main service types: floating support, supported housing and direct access hostels. This said, the pattern of access has shifted, with floating support services now being accessed far more commonly, and with a comparable decrease in the proportion of clients accessing direct access hostels.

• The most common primary client groups are single homeless, women at risk of domestic violence, mental health problems, young people at risk, people with generic needs and homeless families. These client groups taken together make up 70% of all clients. The proportion of clients who are refugees has decreased steadily since 2003/04. A decline in the proportion of clients with drug problems, evident in last year’s data, has levelled off in 2008/09.

• The proportion of female clients has increased steadily since the launch of the programme, a trend that has continued in 2008/09.

• The most common age range for clients - 18-24 years - has been consistent across the six years of data collection.

• The overall pattern in economic status remains as it was in 2003/04, with the majority of clients being either job seekers, not seeking work or unable to work due to long-term illness.

• The proportion of clients who were accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty has steadily decreased over time, a trend that has continued in 2008/09.

• In terms of referral routes into services, self referral remains the most common access route, followed by referral from a Local Authority (LA) housing department.

• Clients report the types of accommodation that they were in prior to accessing support, the most common of which were: living with family (which continues to show an increasing trend since 2003/04), LA general needs housing (displaying a slight downward trend since 2003/04), private sector tenancy (showing a marked upward trend), and rough sleeping (no trend).


8

Outcomes for Short-term services: Information is gathered at the point when a client leaves an SP funded short-term service. The data has been collected since the 31st May 2007. Analysis in this report is based on information about the 150,080 clients leaving services between 1st April 2008 and 31st March 2009 (section 1.2).

• The number of records received represents a 63% increase on 2007/08. This rise is due to a slightly longer period of data collection (data collection did not start until 31st May 2007) and higher submission rates by services and providers.

• Clients identified as needing support to participate in paid work often did not achieve this goal. In contrast, clients identified as having need with training or educational activities had a higher rate of meeting that particular goal. It therefore appears easier to secure training than employment.

• ‘Offenders or at risk of offending’ is the client group within which clients were most likely to be identified as in need of support to obtain work (38.5%): 18.6% of those identified were in paid work on leaving support and 28.7% had some paid work during the period of their SP housing related support.

• ‘Young people leaving care’ are most likely to be identified as needing support to participate in training/education with 61.3% having a need identified: 71.3% participated in their desired training and/or education whilst receiving SP housing related support and 26.3% achieved a qualification.

• ‘Young people leaving care’ were also identified as the client group most in need of support to maintain accommodation and avoid eviction (71.7%). Amongst those for whom this need was identified, 69.9% had maintained their accommodation by the point where they exited the SP service.

Outcomes for Long-term services: Information is gathered at the time of the support plan review for a sample of clients in SP funded long-term services. The data have been collected since July 2007. Analysis in this report is based on the information from a sample of 47,957 clients collected between 31st March 2008 and 31st April 2009.

• The main support requirements for clients in long-term services were to maximise income, maintain accommodation, access aids and adaptations, and to manage their physical health better (section 1.2).

Data users: Supporting People Client Records and Outcomes (short- and long-term) data are being utilised by government departments, administration authorities, providers, services and social researchers. Analysis based on the data is proving useful to better understand the needs of clients and the effectiveness of support, and in the management of service provision.

Linked Client Records data and Outcomes data for Short-term services: Linking together Client Records to their associated Outcomes for short-term services form creates a dataset with information on clients on entry and departure to SP housing related support.

Introduction

9


Supporting People (SP) is a key platform on which social inclusion is built. From its very beginning the programme’s main aim was to help end social exclusion by preventing crisis, avoiding the need for more costly service intervention and enabling vulnerable people to live independently, both in their own home and within their community, through the provision of vital housing-related support services. In 2003, following new legislation separating service costs from housing benefit payments, the programme brought together different streams of support funding to provide a single funding stream for the delivery of housing-related support. The budget for this programme is managed directly by local authorities who have responsibility for commissioning services.

SP policy evolved via a number of smaller and earlier initiatives designed to improve health and reduce poverty and homelessness by modernising public services. A key factor in the development of SP was the expansion of the leadership role of local authorities. The programme required authorities to work in partnership with health, social work and probation services, as well as support providers and user groups in order to monitor provision and identify need in their areas. Local authorities have responsibility to commission and fund appropriate needs-led, cost-effective and quality-driven services on a contractual basis. Importantly, support services are not conditional on accommodation or tenure and the aim is to tailor services in such a way as to respond directly to the individual needs of vulnerable people.

One of the key priorities at the outset of the programme was to extend the range of provision in local areas, where appropriate,

and to ensure that services, particularly specialised services, could be accessed across authorities. Services were to be developed to ensure those less likely to access mainstream services (e.g. black and ethnic minority communities, offenders, young people at risk, and women at risk of domestic violence) were enabled to do so. This has involved developing services within local authority areas, and creating and sustaining protocols between local authorities to enable cross-authority provision whereby clients are able to access services outside their own locality.

Communities and Local Government (CLG) have devised a common framework for assessing SP service standards and gathering management information; a significant aspect of this framework is the Client Record System and the National Outcomes Framework. The Client Record & Outcomes Office (Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews) conducts independent monitoring of clients receiving services funded through SP monies. Service providers collect specific information about clients who enter and leave their services. The data identifies the routes by which SP services are being accessed, the personal characteristics of service users, and outcomes for clients matched against their identified needs. Together this information provides the basis for common indicators and benchmarking between and within authorities. The data are also used to determine the range and extent of service development and cross-authority provision over time, as well as the extent to which vulnerable groups are accessing appropriate services and achieving appropriate outcomes.



10

This report

The Client Record & Outcomes Office has developed an online reporting facility that provides easy access to descriptive analyses (see reporting in www.spclientrecord.org.uk). Accordingly, the current report presents a brief overview of descriptive statistics followed by a series of more in-depth reports on topics of interest that have been agreed with CLG. This enables the annual report to demonstrate the usefulness of the wealth of data gathered by both Client Records and Outcomes monitoring.


Client Records

Information is gathered when a client starts to receive an SP funded service. The data have been collected since the start of the SP Programme on 1st April 2003. Analysis in this report is based on information about clients starting to receive services between April 2008 and March 2009.


Information is gathered when a client leaves an SP funded service. The data have been collected since May 2007. Analysis in this report is based on information about clients leaving services between April 2008 and March 2009.


Information is gathered at the time of the support plan review for a sample of clients in SP funded long-term services. The data have been collected since 31st July 2007. Analysis in this report is based on information about a sample of clients collected between April 2008 and March 2009.

The report is divided into three sections:Section 1 first provides an overview of Client Records, then a trend analysis of Client Record data since its inception in 2003/04 to the current

reporting year 2008/09, and analysis of cross authority provision for 2008/09. Both of these topics have been included in previous annual reports thus enabling comparisons to be made by the reader. Then, an overview of Outcomes data is presented, followed by trend analysis of 2007/08 and 2008/09 data.

Section 2 provides insight into the uses to which the data are being put. Analyses carried out by people working in a range of different organisations and with differing needs are discussed. This section highlights the usefulness of the data to services, providers and researchers.

Section 3 provides an analysis that draws on both Client Record and Outcomes for short-term services data. The analysis focuses on clients who were under the supervision of probation or Youth Offending Teams. For these clients, Client Record forms relating to clients entering SP housing related support are linked to their associated Outcomes for short-term services. Linking records in such a way enables insights to be attained into progress made during the period of support. The analysis indicates these clients are more likely to be in settled accommodation on leaving compared to when they were entering support.

Section1:AnOverviewofthedata

11

SECTION 1: An Overview of the dataThis section provides a brief introduction to Client Records and to Outcomes, and an overview of the 2008/09 data in comparison to previous years.

Summary information from all of the data collected, current and previous years, is available through the online web reporting facility at www.spclientrecord.org.uk under ‘Reporting’, with the current data collection year 2009/10 showing the latest quarterly information.

The Client Record and Outcomes data are also distributed quarterly to CLG and Administering Authorities as a regulatory, monitoring and evaluation tool for SP policy makers and practitioners. It can be used as a reference guide for comparing Administering Authority statistics, and contributes to individual provider organisation planning and funding structures, e.g. by enabling analysis of access to services by age, gender, and ethnic origin.

1.1 Client Records1.1.1 Introduction

SP Client Records monitor client characteristics at the time of entry into an SP funded service. These are completed by service providers for clients who start to receive any of the following services:• Supported housing• Residential care homes (in receipt of SP

funding)• Adult placements• Supported lodgings• Women’s refuge• Foyer

• Teenage parent accommodation• Direct access accommodation• Floating support services• Outreach services• Resettlement services

Client Records collect information at client level which enables analysis of clients’ characteristics, including statutory orders, referral route, the manner of referral, and previous type of accommodation. This information contributes to the wider SP programme by providing the basis for an assessment of whether SP is meeting priorities within housing, health, social care and criminal justice sectors.

This part of the annual report provides an analysis of Client Records completed for clients who started to receive services between 1st April 2008 and 31st March 2009 and is based on 219,594 validated Client Record forms covering this period.

Two topics are covered in the following sections: the first provides comparative analysis of data collected from 2003/04 to 2008/09; and the second examines the extent of cross-authority provision during 2008/09.

1.1.2 Trend AnalysisIntroductionThe overall picture emerging from data collection remains one of relatively stable proportions across and within the majority of categories identified on the Client Record Form. Notably, client group composition has remained constant, with the majority of clients falling into one of the same six categories as previous years. Furthermore, access routes to SP services were very similar to previous years. The stability of the dataset is an indication that this system of data collection continues to capture a highly informative record of new SP clients, support provision and access routes both at a national and local level.


12

The analysis in this section includes:• A profile of clients• Service provision and referral routes• Client mobility and the distribution of

clients across England


The most common primary client groups [Figure 1.1] were single homeless, women at risk of domestic violence, mental health problems, young people at risk, people with generic needs, and homeless families, making up 70% of all clients. This percentage has remained similar for the duration of data collection.

The remaining primary client groups [Figure 1.2] each make up less than 5% of all clients. In contrast to the major client categories, there has been some variability in the proportions of these groups over time. Most notably, refugees, rough sleepers and people with drug problems have decreased steadily since 2003/04. Teenage

Perc

ent

Homele

ss fam

ilies

with su

pport

Mental h

ealth

proble

ms

Single h

omele

ss

with su

pport

0

10152025

Generic

Women

at risk

of

domest

ic viol

ence

Young

peop

le at ri

sk


30

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

35

5

parents remain marginally higher than the 1.5% recorded in 2003/04 at 1.8% in 2008/09. While many SP funded services for older people, e.g. sheltered housing, remain outside the monitoring by Client Records, 4.3% of all clients this year were recorded as being older people with support needs, compared to 3% in 2003/04.

Perhaps the most striking change in the composition of clients is reflected in the year on year increase in the proportion of female clients [Figure 1.3]. Since 2006/07, females and males have accounted for almost equal proportions of clients. By contrast, in 2003/04 more clients were male than female.

While the most common client age group continue to be between 18 to 24 years old [Figure 1.4], the proportion of client aged between 25 and 38 years has decreased and the proportion of clients between the ages of 39 and 59 years has increased.


13

Perc

ent

Olde

r peo

ple w

ith su

ppor

t nee

ds

Olde

r peo

ple w

ith m

ental

healt

h pro

blem

sFr

ail el

derly

Lear

ning

disa

bilit

ies

Phys

ical o

r sen

sory

disa

bilit

yAl

coho

l pro

blem

sDr

ug pr

oblem

s

Offe

nder

s at r

isk of

offe

ndin

g

Men

tally

diso

rder

ed of

fend

ers

0

2

3

45

6

Youn

g peo

ple l

eavi

ng ca

re

Peop

le wi

th H

IV/A

IDS

Refu

gees

Teen

age p

aren

tsRo

ugh s

leepe

rTr

avell

er


1

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Perc

ent

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/0740

45

50

55

60

2007/08

Figure 1.3: Gender

FemaleMale

2008/09


14

Percent

16-17 18-24 25-31 32-38 39-45 46-52 53-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80+0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Figure 1.4: Age

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Perc

ent

Govt

train

ing/

New

Deal

Job s

eeke

r

Retir

edNo

t see

king

wor

kFu

ll-tim

e stu

dent

Othe

r adu

lt

0

10

15

2025

40

Figure 1.5: Economic status

3035

5

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Full-

time w

ork

(24h

rs or

mor

e per

wee

k)Pa

rt-tim

e wor

k

(less

than

24hr

s per

wee

k)

Unab

le to

wor

k bec

ause

of

long

term

sick

ness

or di

sabi

lity

2008/09


15

Figure 1.5 shows the likelihood that the majority of clients will either be job seekers, not seeking work or unable to work due to long-term illness. The proportion of female clients has increased since the launch of the programme contributing to the slight upward trend in the proportion of clients not seeking work. Despite this, the overall pattern in economic status remains as it was in 2003/04 with the majority of clients being either job seekers, not seeking work or unable to work due to long-term illness.

Although the largest proportion of clients year on year has consistently been single homeless people, the proportion of clients who were accepted as statutory homeless and owed a main homelessness duty has decreased over time [Figure 1.6].

In 2008/09 a new form of this question was introduced that has enabled more detailed homeless information to be recorded: 20.3% of clients were recorded as statutory homeless and

owed a main homelessness duty, but a further 6.2% were recorded as statutory homeless and not owed a main homelessness duty, and 28.8% as other homeless.

The provision of services and referral routes

Service provision has remained similar over time, with voluntary organisations accounting for the largest share followed by Housing Associations (HAs)/Registered Social Landlords(RSLs) and housing authorities.

Similarly, clients most commonly access three main service types: floating support services, supported housing and direct access hostels. However, Figure 1.7 illustrates that the pattern of access since 2003/04 has shifted, to the extent that floating support services are now more commonly accessed than they were in 2003/04, with a decrease in the proportion of clients receiving supported housing and direct access services.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09


Percent



16

There has been little variation over time in referral routes into services, with self referral remaining the most common access route, followed by LA housing department (referral) and voluntary agency [Figure 1.8]. However, all three of these referral routes have demonstrated a slight downward trend. The fourth most common referral route – LA nomination – has remained largely steady over the period. In contrast, ‘other’ referral routes - meaning those routes that are not specified on the Client Record form - seem to be experiencing a small upward trend.

Client mobility and the distribution of clients across England

It is becoming increasingly unlikely that clients will access services across Administering Authority boundaries. Figure 1.9 shows that fewer clients each year are recorded as non-host clients. This may reflect decreasing client mobility and/or a tendency on the part of

15

Percent

20 25 351050



Outreach service

Floating support

Direct access


Foyer

Women’s refuge

Supported lodgings

Adult placement


Supported housing

30 40 45

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

services to accept fewer non-host clients. This is described in more detail in section 1.1.3.

Clients reported living in various types of accommodation prior to accessing support [Figure 1.10], the most common of which were: living with family (increasing trend), general needs local authority tenancy (displaying a slight downward trend), private sector tenancy (slight increasing trend) or sleeping rough (no trend). Compared to 2003/04, a smaller proportion of clients lived in supported housing or direct access hostels, while a larger proportion had housing association general needs tenancies, private sector tenancies, or were owner occupiers.

In 2008/09 the owner occupation category was divided into private and low cost ownership. The combined total is shown in Figure 1.10 for consistency with previous years. Of the 4.4% of clients in this combination, 4.2% of clients were private owner occupiers and 0.2% low cost owners.


17

Perc

ent

Nom

inate

d by l

ocal

hous

ing a

utho

rity

LA ho

usin

g

depa

rtmen

t (re

ferra

l)So

cial S

ervi

ces

Prob

ation

serv

ice/p

rison

Com

mun

ity M

ental

He

alth T

eam

Volu

ntar

y age

ncy

Self

refe

rral/D

irect

ap

plica

tion

Relo

cated

thro

ugh h

ousin

g

mob

ility

sche

me

Clien

t app

lied f

or

inter

nal t

rans

fer

0

10

15

2025

30

Mov

ing f

rom

anot

her R

SLHe

alth s

ervi

ce/G

P

Yout

h Offe

ndin

g Tea

mPo

lice

Othe

r


5

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Perc

ent

2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/70

10

20

30

2007/8

Figure 1.9: The rising trend in Host referrals

Host Non-Host:Multi-Lateral


Non-Host:Structured


40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2008/9


18

Three additional categories of previous accommodation were added to the Client Record form in April 2006: women’s refuge, which accounted for 1.4% of clients in 2008/09; foyer; and mobile home/caravan, each accounting for less than 1% of clients. In 2008-9, an additional category of Home Office Asylum Support was added. Again less than 1% of clients were recorded under this category.

Variability in the distribution of clients across England over time is shown in Figure 1.11. There is a slight decreasing trend in the proportion of clients in London since 2005/06. Increases in the proportion of clients have occurred in Yorkshire & the Humber, the South West, and the East of England.

Percent

0

5

10

20

15

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Hom

e Offi

ce A

sylu

m S

uppo

rt

2008/09



19

Percent

1050






North East

15 20

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09


20

1.1.3 Cross-authority provision

Introduction

This section explores the arrangements in place for support by firstly describing the types of referrals open to clients and the numbers of clients accessing services via the various referral routes. It thereafter presents regional variations describing cross-authority movement.


Host referrals apply to clients who receive services in their own local authority area or clients who were living in the area immediately prior to receiving a service.

Non-Host referrals apply to clients who lived out-with the local authority area and who were not residing in the area where the service was located immediately prior to receiving support.


Multi-lateral referrals apply to administering authorities where there is an agreed protocol between two or more administering authorities relating to a specific service. Such a protocol would mean that a client from any of these administering authorities can be accepted by the service involved. These authorities may have agreed to fund a service jointly, or agreed for the service to accept clients from the areas covered by all the administering authorities within the agreed protocol.

Spot purchase referrals apply when the administering authority in whose area a client was living immediately prior to receiving the service, purchases a service for the individual client from a different administering authority. This differs from a multi-lateral agreement in that it is an ad hoc purchase at an individual level, normally to secure a placement in an extremely specialised service outside the administering authority area. Costs continue to be the responsibility of the original administering authority making the purchase.

Structured referrals apply to referrals made by statutory agencies, such as the Probation Service or Social Services. These referrals are often for those clients who cannot be expected to remain in their local authority area and so would receive a service in another administering authority area. This option differs from spot purchase as structured referrals are made to services that are funded by the authority in which the service is located.


Overall, the majority (90%) of referrals were made for clients who accessed SP services within their own local authority. Therefore, one in ten clients (10%) accessed services outside their immediate local authority and by far the most common type of non-host referral was open access (67% of all non-host referrals).


21

North Yorkshire East Eastof South South West North East &Humber Midlands England London East West Midlands West 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

NumberofClientRecordForms 9,816 24,753 20,834 20,623 32,356 27,364 24,695 25,973 33,180

Numberoforganisations 207 311 246 243 729 378 386 323 496

NumberclientswholeftAAforserviceselsewhere 1,359 1,712 1,588 1,475 4,719 2,321 1,662 2,382 3,598

NumberclientsreceivingserviceswithinownAA 8,422 23,180 19,382 18,783 28,046 24,727 22,676 23,160 29,498

NumberofclientsenteringAAfromelsewhere 1,394 1,573 1,452 1,840 4,310 2,637 2,019 2,813 3,682


Regional variations

Compared to the national average of 10% for non-host referrals, the North East (14%) and London (13%) had the highest proportions of this type of referral. The East Midlands (7%) and Yorkshire & the Humber (6%) had the lowest levels of non-host referrals.


The region with the highest level of structured referrals was the North East (3%) compared to between 1% and 2% in all other regions.

Multi-lateral protocols were infrequent across England accounting for only 1% or 2% in all regions with the exception of 3% in the West Midlands.

Similarly, spot purchase referrals constituted less than 1% in all regions.

Map 1.1 shows a summary of cross-authority information by government office region and further detail is given in Appendix 1.

1

2

3

84

56

7

9


22


23

1.2 Outcomes1.2.1 Introduction

In May 2007, the SP Outcomes Framework was launched to measure the degree to which SP funding enables clients to achieve outcomes. This introduction provides a summary of the development and design of the Outcomes Framework, and the numbers of Outcomes Forms returned for the 2008-9 period. Following this section, the ‘Trend Analysis’ (section 1.2.2) presents a comparison of the data submitted in the first two years of data collection.

The Outcomes Framework was developed by CLG and a selection of Administering Authorities and provider organisations who formed the Outcomes Working Group.

The Outcomes methodology was intended to apply across a range of issues:

• to reduce the burden of administration, particularly for cross-authority providers, in capturing local information that would be meaningful at both a service and client level.

• to provide a consistent measurement of outcomes for benchmarking against regional and national trends.

• to capture the range of achievements that reflect the benefits, improvements and changes occurring for individual clients as a result of receiving SP funded services.

Two key considerations were taken into account when developing the methodology for Outcomes data recording. These were: to reduce the burden of administration requirements on providers; and to clearly demonstrate the wider impact that the SP programme has on other relevant Government strategies. The first of these conditions was met by designing the Outcomes Form in such a way that it could become an addition to individual clients’ support plans. Service providers are expected to review support plans regularly and to use

the information within the support plan to complete the Outcomes Form when a client leaves a Short-term service, and at the annual support plan review for a sample of clients in Long-term services. The second condition was met by basing the Outcomes Framework on an already well established Government Outcome methodology, the DfES ‘Every Child Matters’ framework. This framework captures the following 5 high level outcomes:

• Economic Wellbeing • Enjoy and Achieve• Be Healthy • Stay Safe• Make a Positive Contribution.

Under each of these high level outcomes the Working Group developed further indicators that represent specific outcomes relevant to clients receiving services funded through SP. These indicators monitor observable outcomes that clients have achieved as a direct result of receiving support, for example: an increase in income or reduction in debt; an improvement in the management of physical or mental health problems; a decrease in the abuse of substances; or maintaining their accommodation.


The Outcomes Framework is not intended to be a stand alone measure of achievement. It can and should be used with other locally relevant outcome measures, particularly distance travelled tools, e.g. the Outcomes Star developed by the London Housing Foundation as part of their Outcomes Programme (http://www.homelessoutcomes.org.uk/). Providers can use distance travelled outcomes to measure the progress an individual client makes over time and provide information in greater detail for local use. As a further aid to gathering outcome information at a local level, CLG has developed a National Basket of Indicators which is a standard list of additional outcome factors that can be used in specific circumstances1. CLG, 1 http://www.spkweb.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2EEF0610-A22B-49DF-92B5-3622273502AC/14093/FinalBasketofIndicatorsSPOutcomes.doc


24

however, do not regard the basket of indicators as an ‘across the board’ collection tool and it is not intended to form part of the Outcomes Framework information gathering process.

The differences in the approach for Short-term and Long-term services

The SP Outcomes Framework is applicable to both short-term and long-term services since the indicators chosen represent key outcomes equally relevant for all service users, regardless of the intended duration of the support service they receive. However, CLG recognised the need for a different approach in the way that the outcomes are captured, depending on the intended duration of the service. For short-term services, Outcomes data are collected for each client at the time they leave the service, unless they leave within 28 days of starting a service2. For long-term services, a sample of clients is identified and, for these clients only, Outcomes data are collected following their annual support plan review. The size of the sample depends on the type of service: 10% for older people services; and 50% for all other long-term services.

Apart from the practical differences for short-term versus long-term services, the Outcome Framework is, to all intents and purposes, the same and the data collected will inform future commissioning and development for short-term services and long-term services.


There are strong reasons, therefore, to expect that the Outcomes Framework will add value by providing evidence for local government, CLG, service providers and service users of the progress made by clients receiving SP funded services. Future analysis of this data has the potential to identify services that are particularly effective in achieving different outcomes for specific client groups in context of their degrees

of need. For example, data might reveal that service x delivers better outcomes than service y for a particular client group. For each individual, details are recorded of primary and up to three secondary client groups. Taking into account all of this information, detailed analysis can indicate the degree to which outcomes reflect the clients’ problems or the effectiveness of a service for specific client groups. The resulting information can inform commissioners’ strategic decisions when planning resource allocation for specific client groups, and also enable providers to better understand the effectiveness of different types of service provision for their clients.

Measuring Client Outcomes

Outcomes are collected at an individual level; the data for each client is added to the national database to enable analysis at a wider level. National outcome information enables a service’s contribution to outcome achievement to be described. Knowledge of the context within which outcomes are being monitored for each individual client is necessary when considering whether the delivery of a service has been appropriate and useful.

For example, outcomes will rarely be achieved without the cooperation of clients, regardless of the relevance or quality of a service. Providing support to vulnerable people depends upon not merely the ability of the service to meet needs, but crucially upon the development of positive relationships between key support staff and clients and the capacity of the client to engage with services and achieve outcomes. A successful outcome will undoubtedly mean something different depending on the type of service and/or the readiness of the client to achieve. Thus, to some degree, services that provide support to extremely vulnerable clients - e.g. homeless people, offenders or people abusing substances - may be less likely to record a high proportion of outcomes achieved than services that provide for other, less vulnerable client groups.

Clients with chaotic behaviour or multiple needs often present a challenge to service providers. Some of these clients may be

2 The decision to collect Outcome data for clients who leave a short-term service within 28 days is the responsibility of AAs in consultation with providers


25

unable or unwilling to achieve many of the outcomes that are likely to move them forward towards stability and independence. The services that these clients will most likely access tend to provide support with a greater emphasis on crisis prevention, e.g. emergency accommodation or harm reduction. In this context, ameliorating crisis will be of greater significance until such times as clients are “ready” and able to progress and move towards achieving more stable outcomes such as sustaining a tenancy and gaining access into work. In effect, services catering for clients with chaotic lifestyles may well demonstrate a lower level of achieved outcomes or a higher level of unplanned moves. This is useful information in itself, as it highlights areas where resources could be used to develop a more effective approach to support these clients to improve engagement with the service thereby improving the achievement of outcomes, but must be considered within the context of the particular client group and circumstances.

In this respect, the monitoring of local outcomes has less to do with meeting any locally set targets, and more to do with fitting appropriate targets around the needs of individual clients and measuring progress through careful support planning. Likewise, understanding national level outcomes requires prudent consideration of the variety of contexts within which services are delivered.


The Outcomes Framework has the ability to compare and contrast information about specific indicators to allow comparisons within particular service types. Over time, baseline patterns will help policy-makers and commissioners to understand the way in which different services achieve different outcomes and, to some extent at least, this will highlight the factors inherent in particular service types that have the potential to make a difference in the lives of clients. Consequently, baseline patterns will enable strategic development with a stronger focus on client centred service delivery.

National Outcomes

The Outcomes Framework at a national level provides a reference point against which overall achievement can be measured, and is an indicator of what can and is being accomplished. National level analysis of outcomes can also be used as a discursive and investigative tool to unearth the real meaning of outcomes at different levels and within different contexts. At a local level, the Outcomes Framework provides a benchmarking tool by which evidence of achievement can be gathered, alongside knowledge of gaps in support and provision, to enable improvement and availability of services for vulnerable people within a local area. The National Outcomes Framework relates to a number of wider government priorities relating to vulnerable people, as defined by Public Service Agreements (PSAs). Outcomes data can be used to support and track progress against a number of these, for example:

• PSA 16: Increase the proportion of socially excluded adults in settled accommodation and employment, education or training

• PSA 17: Tackle poverty and promote greater independence and wellbeing in later life

• PSA 23: Make communities safer• PSA 25: Reduce the harm caused by

alcohol and drugs

Data collected in 2008-9

For Outcomes Forms for Short-term services, 150,080 validated forms have been received for clients who left services between 1st April 2008 and 31st March 2009. Appendix 2 shows a breakdown of needs identified and outcomes achieved by primary client group.

For Outcomes Forms for Long-term services, 47,957 validated forms have been received for a sample of clients who received services between 1st April 2008 and 31st March 2009.

In the following section, comparisons are made with the 2007-8 data.


26

1.2.2 Trend analysis

Short-term services

Table 1.1 provides an overview of the first two years of Outcomes for short-term services, showing needs identified as both raw numbers and as percentages of all clients, and needs met as numbers and percentages of those with the need identified. This table shows a summary of the needs identified and met for clients in short-term funded services from 1st April 2008 to 31st March 2009 and, for comparison, 31st May 2007 to 31st March 2008.

The table shows that there has been an increase in the number of clients for whom data has been returned from 92,040 clients for 2007/08 to 150,080 clients in 2008/09. This represents a 63% increase on the previous year. Likely reasons for this large increase include more services returning forms in 2008/09 as providers become more aware of the framework and Administering Authorities encourage them to participate, and also the difference in length of data collection periods (data were collected from 31st May 2007 following the pilot, rather than 1st April as it was in 2008). It is also possible that there has been an increase in actual throughput, although this cannot be ascertained from the dataset itself.

Table 1.1 shows that there has been little in the way of change where percentages are concerned, either for needs identified or needs met. The three most often identified needs remained unchanged between 2007/08 and 2008/09, namely maximise income, achieve more choice and control, and maintain accommodation/avoid eviction. The need least often identified also remained unchanged i.e. aids & adaptations.

The 2008-9 results indicate possible effects of the recession under Economic Well-being i.e. whilst the percentage of clients needing support to obtain paid work has remained largely unchanged (at 19.8% in 2007/08 and 19.4% in 2008/09), a decline of 2.8% in the percentage in paid work on leaving SP services has occurred. A smaller drop of 1.2% also occurred in participating in paid work whilst in receipt of service.

In contrast, whilst the proportion of clients identified as needing support to participate in training or education was also unchanged, there was a small increase of 1.6% in the percentage for whom the Outcome was achieved.

Other positive indications can be drawn from Table 1.1, notably in the Stay Safe section. Whilst the proportion of clients identified with needs within this section increased slightly – no more than a 1.5% change between 2007/08 and 2008/09 – the percentage for whom needs were met increased in virtually all areas:• An increase of 3.7 percentage points for

Maintain accommodation/avoid eviction• An increase of 3.4 percentage points for

Comply with statutory orders• An increase of 4.4 percentage points for

Managing self-harm• And an increase of 1.5 percentage points

for avoid harm from othersThe only other need in the Stay Safe section is Avoid causing harm to others for which the proportion for whom this need was met amongst those with the need identified remained unchanged at 70.1%.

Long-term services

Table 1.2 shows a summary of the needs identified and met for clients in long-term funded services from 1st April 2008 to 31st March 2009 and, for comparison, 31st July 2007 to 31st March 2008. Again, this table shows needs identified as both raw numbers and as percentages of all clients, and needs met as numbers and percentages of those with the need identified.

Table 1.2 shows that there were 47,957 forms returned for the most recent period. This figure represents a 38% increase on 2007/08. As with Outcomes for Short-term services, likely reasons for this increase include the longer collection period (data were collected from 31st July 2007 following the pilot, rather than 1st April as it was in 2008) and a greater proportion of services returning forms. An increase in the number of people in long-term services is an unlikely cause, as returns are made only from a sample of each service, so the effect of this on the total size of the dataset would be small.


27

Table 1.2 also shows the needs of clients and the extent to which those needs have been met. Whilst maximise income and physical health are amongst the top three needs identified for both 2007-08 and 2008-09, aids and adaptions has become the most requested need for clients in long-term services in 2008-09. This change has been mostly due to small percentage changes, although the percentage of clients with identified need to maintain accommodation/avoid eviction has dropped by 10 percentage points from 54.7% to 44.4%. The reason behind this change is unclear but future data will show

whether this is indeed a trend or an artefact of the first year of data collection. The need least often identified also remained unchanged i.e. comply with statutory orders.

Some of the outcomes show the same patterns as those for short-term services: the percentage achieving now in paid work at the time of data collection declined from 24.5% to 21.6%; the percentage who participated in paid work whilst in receipt of service also declined, from 29.4% to 28.4% again, possibly a result of the recession; and the percentage who achieved qualifications

Table 1.1: The number & percentage of clients requiring support to achieve specific outcomes and number & percentage of outcomes achieved (Short-term services)

31st May 2007 - 31st March 2008 1st April 2008 - 31st March 2009Short-term Services Required support Outcome achieved Required support Outcome achieved # % # % # % # %All clients departing SP services 92,040 150,080Economic wellbeingMaximise income 64,762 70.4 56,909 87.9 108,360 72.2 95,994 88.6Manage debt 34,662 37.7 23,826 68.7 60,285 40.2 42,467 70.4Obtain paid work 18,222 19.8 29,186 19.4Now in paid work 5,447 29.9 7,896 27.1Participated in paid workwhilst in receipt of service 6,750 37 10,452 35.8

Enjoy & achieveParticipate in training/education 30,372 33 49,424 32.9Participated in training or education 18,167 59.8 30,330 61.4Achieved qualifications 5,468 18 8,947 18.1Participate in leisure/culture/faith/learning 22,333 24.3 16,911 75.7 37,501 25.0 29,239 78.0

Participate in work-like activities 15,028 16.3 8,728 58.1 24,598 16.4 14,378 58.5Establish contact with externalservices/family/friends 46,596 50.6 76,265 50.8

Establish contact with external services 38,994 83.7 64,826 85.0

Establish contact with family / friends 26,953 57.8 43,279 56.7Be healthyPhysical health 32,509 35.3 25,033 77 54,233 36.1 43,100 79.5Mental health 30,201 32.8 21,790 72.1 48,985 32.6 36,388 74.3Substance misuse 25,194 27.4 13,996 55.6 40,235 26.8 23,374 58.1Aids & adaptations 6,098 6.6 5,363 87.9 9,290 6.2 8,482 91.3Stay safeMaintain accommodation / avoid eviction 50,523 54.9 34,239 67.8 83,329 55.5 59,556 71.5

Comply with statutory orders 11,699 12.7 8,213 70.2 19,425 12.9 14,296 73.6Manage self harm 8,020 8.7 5,747 71.7 12,623 8.4 9,610 76.1Avoid causing harm to others 7,424 8.1 5,202 70.1 11,453 7.6 8,024 70.1Avoid harm from others 17,558 19.1 14,012 79.8 31,420 20.9 25,531 81.3Positive contributionAchieve more choice & control 53,204 57.8 4,318 83.3 88,699 59.1 74,791 84.3


28

has increased from 13.7% to 18.6% of those participating in training/education.

Summary

This section has provided an overview of continuing trends and changes in needs identified and met, for short- and long-term services over the first two years of data collection. Caution is needed in interpreting the figures given the increase in number of forms returned, resulting in part from a

greater proportion of services returning forms. Nonetheless, percentages of clients with needs and outcomes have remained largely unchanged between years with no change in the three most frequently identified need and the least frequently identified need for Short-term and Long-term services. A slight decrease is discernable with clients participating in paid work, though there is also a rise in the percentage of clients who participated in training/education (Short-term services) or achieved qualifications (Long-term services).

Table 1.2: The number & percentage of clients requiring support to achieve specific outcomes and number & percentage of outcomes achieved (Long-term services)

31st May 2007 - 31st March 2008 1st April 2008 - 31st March 2009Long-term Services Required support Outcome achieved Required support Outcome achieved # % # % # % # %All clients included in sample of longterm services 34,767 47,957

Economic wellbeingMaximise income 19,377 55.7 18,620 96.1 25,185 52.5 24,200 96.1Manage debt 3,438 9.9 2,931 85.3 5,110 10.7 4,445 87.0Obtain paid work 2,259 6.5 3,362 7.0Now in paid work 554 24.5 725 21.6Participated in paid work whilst in receipt of service 665 29.4 954 28.4

Enjoy & achieveParticipate in training/education 4,502 12.9 6,544 13.6Participated in training or education 3,152 70 4,667 71.3Achieved qualifications 618 13.7 1,216 18.6Participate in leisure/culture/faith/learning 12,546 36.1 11,456 91.3 17,020 35.5 15,404 90.5

Participate in work-like activities 3,808 11 2,522 66.2 5,489 11.4 3,706 67.5Establish contact with externalservices/family/friends 14,584 41.9 20,194 42.1

Establish contact with external services 13,796 94.6 19,006 94.1Establish contact with family /friends 11,121 76.3 16,034 79.4Be healthyPhysical health 18,324 52.7 17,073 93.2 25,507 53.2 23,648 92.7Mental health 8,518 24.5 7,753 91 12,263 25.6 11,168 91.1Substance misuse 1,609 4.6 1,177 73.2 2,183 4.6 1,609 73.7Aids & adaptations 18,076 52 17,802 98.5 26,510 55.3 26,139 98.6Stay safeMaintain accommodation / avoid eviction 19,023 54.7 18,647 98 21,281 44.4 20,733 97.4

Comply with statutory orders 622 1.8 541 87 1,105 2.3 988 89.4Manage self harm 1,602 4.6 1,451 90.6 2,470 5.2 2,223 90.0Avoid causing harm to others 1,639 4.7 1,448 88.3 2,623 5.5 2,366 90.2Avoid harm from others 5,309 15.3 5,096 96 8,118 16.9 7,811 96.2Positive contributionAchieve more choice & control 14,678 42.2 14,089 96 19,924 41.5 18,987 95.3

Section2:Outcomes

29

SECTION 2: Examples of how data are being used2.1 IntroductionThe Supporting People programme provides housing related support services to the most marginalised groups in society. Information about Supporting People services is thus essential not only to ensure that tax-payers money is spent effectively but also, crucially, to ensure that those most at risk benefit from high quality services. This section looks at how Client Records and Outcomes are being used by different organisations and individuals to demonstrate the wide applicability of the data.

The intention in this section is not to provide an exhaustive list of data users or ways in which the data are used. Rather, the aim is to highlight innovative practice and encourage thinking about the ways in which the data can help vulnerable and marginalised groups. Data users who have approached the Client Records/Outcomes office have been invited to participate in this annual report by discussing their use of the data via telephone. Some data users provided contact details of colleagues who were developing ways in which the data would contribute to their work, and these examples were also followed up.

2.2 Use of data

2.2.1 Regional cooperation

The Supporting People dataset is still a relatively new data source: Client Records collected since 2003; Outcomes data from 2007 (from here on Client Records and Outcomes data are referred to as SP data). Some data users have come together to share ideas and uses.

Case study 1 - North-east data users group: learning from one another

In some parts of the country groups of Administering Authorities (AAs) have been working together to develop approaches to using SP data. Several now exist, one of which includes AAs from the North-east of England. Representatives from six administering authorities (North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Gateshead, Newcastle, Sunderland, and Northumberland) meet to share ideas for using and developing Client Records and Outcomes data. The initiative is in its infancy having commenced in early 2009 and having thus far met on two occasions. The aim is to share information and good practice and to learn from one another. The members are also working with their providers by identifying training needs and emphasising the importance that complete and accurate records are submitted to the Client Record and Outcomes office.

One Administering Authority participating in this group is Northumberland. They are continuing to develop their use of SP data. The North-east group is providing an opportunity to both share work to date and develop ideas. Northumberland are in an ongoing programme of developing use of the data for performance monitoring, comparing outcomes for services in their area to those achieved elsewhere. They use the data to identify good practice, as well as areas where improvements might be made.

2.2.2 Understanding clients and their needs

Delivering housing related support services requires a good understanding of client needs. SP data provide an opportunity to look strategically across the many providers and services to assess where particular problems are evident, and also for prioritising additional funding. At a local level the data also enable services to assess who is coming into their services and allows them to respond to emerging trends in client needs.


30

Case study 2 - Devon SP team: identifying problems

The Devon Supporting People team covers a diverse geographical area in the south west, from urban Exeter, through rural farming communities and small market towns, to remote areas in Dartmoor and Exmoor. The team are responsible for contracts covering over 100 providers and 400 services. Client Record forms demonstrate that in 2008/09 they and their provider organisations delivered services to 1,236 clients whilst Outcome forms indicate that 894 clients exited programmes. The Devon SP team uses SP data for a number of purposes, one of which has been to better understand increased for housing related support services demand in winter.

For some time the issue of increased pressure on resources during the winter period had been recognised. Outcome data enabled the SP team to identify issues associated with this increase, one being outcomes linked to economic well-being. Bills increase in winter as low temperatures require more to be spent on fuel for heating systems. For vulnerable groups the financial burden places considerable strain not only on their economic situation but also represents a considerable psychological strain.

Having identified the underlying problems, the Devon SP team asked providers whether they would be willing to apply for additional funds to address specific targets associated with the newly recognised problems; the majority were enthusiastic and agreed. Outcomes data were used to establish a baseline against which realistic targets were set. Providers then had a specific issue, identified from objective measures, on which to focus efforts.

Identifying a problem is the first stage in tackling it. For some issues, findings from the Outcomes data have come as a complete surprise and would otherwise have remained unrecognised. Once identified, further work can be undertaken to uncover the causal factors associated with a particular problem;

perhaps there is a need to develop new skills amongst providers to identify problems, or new approaches to providing support to remote or rural areas, or identifying geographical areas with specific needs. The Devon SP team stress that findings are used without attaching blame. Instead, the data were used to better understand the needs of clients, to use the analysis to develop services and specifications for contracts, and to assist partner organisations in their development.

The initiative has provided a focus for investment and creative thinking based on the needs of clients that would otherwise not have been met. Funds are directed in an effective manner with specific problems being targeted. Identifying specific issues is enabling new partnership working. The Devon SP team are considering ways in which they might involve the Department of Work and Pensions in further helping to ensure that their clients’ economic well-being is made more secure. Using evidence (of which Outcomes data are an important component) thus encourages not only the identification of problems but also new ways of thinking around using already available resources to better support vulnerable clients.

Case study 3 - Blackpool Coastal Housing: understanding client needs

The ability to identify who is entering housing related support services also enables service providers to ensure that they tailor services appropriately.

Blackpool Coastal Housing (BCH) manages housing stock for Blackpool Council. They have a team responsible for providing emergency accommodation, which includes not only managing housing stock but also carrying out initial assessments of client needs. Many clients require assistance as a result of unmet needs such as mental health problems, substance misuse, or disability. BCH carry out initial assessments to identify needs and provide support, either using their own support workers or, where specialist skills are needed, drawing

Section2:Outcomes

31

on external agencies to ensure a holistic approach to client support.

The client groups to whom housing related support services are provided changes over time, meaning that the accommodation and support sufficient to meet today’s needs may not be adequate in the future. BCH monitor Client Records data to ascertain attributes of clients coming into their service, such as their age and ethnic group. Picking up changes quickly will facilitate responding promptly to client needs. Making changes to either physical infrastructure or services will require investment, so basing decisions on sound data is important to ensure best use of finite resources. For this reason, BCH have been drawing on Client Records. They have requested quarterly tables from the Centre for Housing Research showing their clients’ age, gender, ethnic origin, primary client group and economic status.

The process of improving the care planning process remains in relatively early stages. The SP team in Blackpool are liaising with providers and services and have some anecdotal evidence of improvement. They intend to monitor improvement more fully once changes have had time to occur.

Case study 4 - Social Research into vulnerable and marginalised groups

Supporting People data are not only used by those directly working with SP client groups but also form a basis for social researchers who are expanding the evidence base about vulnerable groups. Abu Bakar Meah (MSc Globalisation, University of Dundee) is investigating the distribution of refugees across England.

The SP dataset is one of the few detailed information sources for anyone interested in refugees. Many national surveys typically used in research do not capture a representative sample of vulnerable or marginalised groups. In contrast, the SP data contain information on a considerable number of refugees (4,307 were identified as refugees using primary or

secondary client group definition in 2008/09). The Centre for Housing Research provided some basic information about the numbers of refugees recorded in Client Records 2008-2009.

Meah’s work is ongoing; he hopes to complete the dissertation in Autumn 2009. Once finished, his work will provide insights into the situation of refugees across England and also the potential of SP data for researching vulnerable and largely hidden groups.

In summary, SP data provide information on vulnerable groups for whom other data is difficult to attain, or even unavailable. Client Records and Outcomes data thus considerably aid research into the needs of those who use SP services, which is essential if services are to be provided that address client needs.

2.2.3 Managing services and assessing effectiveness

As is indicated by the case studies in this section, Client Records and Outcomes data are used as a means of better understanding how services are performing, and in identifying ways in which support might be delivered more effectively.

Case study 5 – St Mungo’s supporting the homeless

St Mungo’s is a charity that provides services to the homeless. Supporting People data have provided a means by which St Mungo’s can develop their services. They receive quarterly datasets which show percentages of clients with needs and percentages of needs met by borough and by service. These reports are used to inform with regards to areas where service improvement might be made. The data provide a first step by highlighting where further and more detailed consideration is needed.

St Mungo’s is also developing a means of using Outcomes data in combination with Outcomes Star, developed by the London Housing Foundation, to measure distance-travelled. Their


32

intention is to develop data that give insights into the progression clients make through service engagement before they exit a service. This demonstrates the complimentary value of using both data sources together as they capture different information: Outcomes data provide information on clients as they leave services, whilst Outcomes Star provides data on those still in receipt of support.

St Mungo’s is working with a group of providers in London (the Pan London Providers Benchmarking and Good Practice Group) to produce shared guidance on completion of CLG Outcomes forms. Specifically, they are considering what ‘needs’ actually means for their specific client group, and what is meant where needs are identified as having been ‘met’.

In addition, St Mungo’s have also used SP data to better understand the needs of homeless people. They recently participated in a call for evidence on rough sleepers. To do so, they used Outcomes data to identify rough sleepers and homeless people with mental health problems, the degree to which these client needs were met, and reasons why needs were not met.

Case study 6 - Greenwich SP team managing services

The SP dataset represents a resource not only for research but also a means by which service delivery can be more effectively managed. Greenwich Administering Authority (AA) has a small administrative team that manages contracts with service providers. Client Records data show that between April 1st 2008 and March 31st 2009 1,169 clients entered SP services for which the team has responsibility, whilst Outcomes data indicate that 847 clients have left short-term services.

As is the case for all Administering Authorities, Greenwich manage a wide range of services as part of their housing related support. Making decisions on such a wide range of services presents a challenge. Outcomes data provide information to the team to ensure that services

make effective use of finite resources and address client needs.

The team provided an example where they identified an accommodation-based service with a high departure rate. The team use the Outcomes data to identify which particular client needs are not being met and consider how that may be impacting on unplanned departures. A key example would be non-compliance with statutory orders linked to a client’s return to custody.

The team can also use the Outcomes data as a basis for risk assessments. Services supporting clients with needs that represent a high risk, whether to themselves or to others, can be identified. Again, this information enables them to react accordingly, to better assist their service providers.

Another example given by the Greenwich team relates to identifying gaps in service. The SP team used the CHR on-line reporting facility3 to look at outcomes being achieved by services in their area. They noted that one service had lower proportions of clients than would be expected achieving desired training and education outcomes. The SP team were then able to flag-up the problem to the service, the first step to addressing the problem.

The Greenwich SP team are also making use of SP data within their management strategies. The data provide a basis for contract monitoring meetings with providers. The CHR on-line reporting facility is used to generate a summary report of outcomes achieved. A copy is given to the service providers during contract monitoring meetings. The meetings provide a chance to go through the report and focus on areas where positive outcomes have been achieved and where there are areas of concern.

Greenwich’s use of Outcomes data is a recent innovation, and is something they are actively developing. Greenwich Supporting People 3 Reporting facility for Client Records and Outcomes datasets available at http://www.spclientrecord.org.uk/webdata/

Section2:Outcomes

33

team are also engaging with neighbouring authorities to refine ways in which the data can aid their provision of effective services to very vulnerable individuals, specifically considering benchmarking tools.

Case study 7 - North Somerset SP team and identifying concerns

Other AAs have also use the data as a means of identifying specific issues. North Somerset Supporting People team covers a largely rural area. Client Record data show that between April 1st 2008 and March 31st 2009 they provided support to 1,236 clients, whilst short-term Outcomes data indicate that 894 clients exited from support during the same period. The North Somerset SP team have used both Client Records and Outcomes data to facilitate their providers to improve services. As with the other examples provided in this section, the SP data are used, as well as other data sources, as part of discussions with services providers. The SP dataset has several advantages for the North Somerset SP team. Client Record data, for example, provides a means by which the SP team are able to identify whether individuals who have exited services return at later dates (although many providers also maintain contact with clients where possible). The data represent the only means by which indication of clients in a ‘revolving door’ situation can be ascertained, and as a means of monitoring where clients are not achieving independence on leaving support.

For a small proportion of their clients, drug misuse is either instrumental or a contributory reason for needing housing related support. The SP team analysed the Outcomes data and found that support plans were not being completed for a notable proportion of clients who had drug misuse problems.

The SP team went back to its providers and highlighted the issue. Their intention was to ascertain if support planning could be improved to ensure that support was tailored to client needs. The SP team initially discussed the support planning process with providers and identified various issues, such as the use of

generic (rather than individualised) care plans. Together with providers, the SP team recognised that support workers needed more training in developing and utilising individualised care plans.

Case study 8 - Devon SP and budget setting

Amongst the uses that Devon is developing is the use of Outcomes data for budget setting. Up until now, funding for housing related support has been provided to partner organisations as a 100 percent block grant. The new approach aims to recognise effective practice. For the first year of a three year contract, providers receive the full amount of their budget as a block grant. However, only 80 percent is provided in the following two years of the contract, and the other 20 percent is performance related.

The performance targets are discussed, assessed and agreed with providers. Outcomes data are not the only data used, but form an important component. Targets also include the National Indicators 141 and 142. Information from previous years provides a baseline for identifying where improvements might be made by focusing on clients’ needs rather than solely on inputs.

A potential concern is that ‘cherry picking’ could result, with providers focusing on clients with more straightforward needs for whom results would more easily be achieved. Devon SP believes that Outcomes data are structured in such a way as to show effective support even for the most chaotic client groups. Use of the data provides recognition of support provided to the most vulnerable and otherwise excluded groups. Providers can demonstrate work they have done even if their client does not exit the service with problems solved.

The data provide a basis for discussions between the SP team, the commissioning body, and providers. The new approach to contracting services is in its early stages. The Devon SP team intend that the scheme will ensure that the most vulnerable groups benefit from continued investment in housing related support services.


34

2.2.4 Assessing support

SP data provide a means by which to assess the extent to which services provide support to their clients. Several organisations make use of the data to benchmark services, either against the previous year’s data or against other areas. The data are unique in the numbers of individuals on whom information is gathered, which allows comparisons to be made from national level, to regional, right down to service level. Organisations often use the data in conjunction with other information, and to provide a basis for further enquiries.

Case study 9 – the Audit Commission

The Audit commission is currently investigating the possibility of using Outcomes data to monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of housing related support services.

A recent initiative by the Audit Commission with other partner organisations (the Care Quality Commission, HM Inspectorate of Constabularies, HM Inspectorate of Prisons, HM Inspectorate of Probation, and Ofsted) is the development of Comprehensive Area Assessments (CAAs). CAAs will provide a means by which people will be able to access information about the effectiveness of services in their locality. In doing so, the Audit Commission will improve local accountability and encourage good practice. Additionally, CAAs will provide evidence to central government on progress at local levels and will provide a means by which service inspections can be made more efficient and effective. The Outcomes dataset is being considered as a tool that might contribute to CAAs.

The Audit Commission is considering how Outcomes data can provide information on the numbers of clients exiting SP support services and the degree to which needs have been met. Information relating to local areas (specifically Administrative Authorities) can be compared to regional and national data. Doing so can provide an indication of where performances are either above or below what might be expected

given outcomes elsewhere. Such indications can provide a basis for consideration, and discussion of reasons why such differences exist. Outcomes data may therefore provide a means by which issues can be recognised and services facilitated to better support clients. The Outcomes dataset provides an existing data source that requires no additional investment of time or resources to utilise. Virtually everyone leaving SP funded short-term services is included in short-term Outcomes datasets and the data are collected in a consistent manner across England. Comparative analysis, between areas or to national Outcomes, is therefore possible.

The use of Outcomes within CAAs is currently at an early stage of planning, but for the Audit Commission it represents an important component of their work in monitoring services working with vulnerable groups to show to what extent clients’ needs are being met.

2.2.5 Conclusion

SP data provide a basis for different organisations to assess the extent to which services are delivering to some of the most vulnerable groups. Resources are finite and yet, conversely, these groups have very pressing needs. The use of Client Records or Outcomes data provides one tool that can contribute to maintaining and improving the quality of services to some of the UK’s most vulnerable groups. Other uses of the data include incorporating it into managing funding and using the data within budget setting.

This section demonstrates that SP data are contributing to the work of those with responsibility for ensuring service delivery to the most vulnerable groups in society. The examples highlight how users see the dataset as a tool which assists them in identifying problems, assessing performance, or simply to develop a better understanding. The data are often used as part of a wider approach to plan and deliver better services. The large scale of the information available provides a facility

Section2:Outcomes

35

that is unique, and which is consistent across England yet with detail down to service level.

Acknowledgements

The writing of this section would not have been possible without the assistance of

individuals from the administration authorities, government departments, providers, services and researchers. Table 2.1 lists those who have provided information on ways in which they are developing use of Outcomes and Client Records and provides contact details.

References

CLG (2009) Supporting People, http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/supportandadaptations/supportingpeople/ (last accessed 26 June 2009).

Table 2.1: List of ContributersContact Organisation e-mail telephoneRon Anderson Blackpool Coastal Housing E-mail: [email protected] 01253 477949Domini Gunn-Peim Audit Commission — —David Harries North Somerset District Council [email protected] 01278 788 8441Simon Kane St Mungo’s [email protected] 020 8762 5693Annabel Keane Greenwich Supporting People [email protected] 020 8921 5763Abu Bakar Meah Centre for Housing Research, [email protected] — University of St Andrews

Jonathan Melson Northumberland Care Trust [email protected] —Tony Richardson North Tynside Council [email protected] 0191 6437272Max Sillar Devon Supporting People [email protected] 01392 382548


36

Section 3: Analysis using linked data (Client Records and Outcomes)

37

SECTION 3: Analysis using linked data (Client Records and Outcomes)3.1 IntroductionA few years ago CLG carried out a pilot project to evaluate the possibility of client-tracking using client NHS numbers. The pilot relied in large part on the willingness of individual clients to provide their NHS details each time they accessed a new support service. Although incentives were provided, participation was negligible and this led CLG to consider a new approach which involved adding client National Insurance Numbers (NI number) to the existing Client Record Form. Following discussion with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), CLG was given permission to use the NI number as a way of tracking the use of services by individuals over time. This permission was given on the proviso that at no time would the client’s identity be revealed through the linking of the NI number to a database containing identity information. To ensure this, the only organisations permitted to hold Client Record or Outcomes datasets containing the NI number are CLG and CHR, although CLG do not currently hold this information; datasets that are distributed to other organisations have this information removed. The recording of the client’s NI number remains non-compulsory.

The NI number was included on the Client Record Form from April 2006. This was the first step in enabling analysis about individuals starting to receive services on more than one occasion. Initial findings were reported in last year’s annual report (2006/07) and the use of the NI number has been extended this year to link Client Record and Outcome data.

Outcomes data collection began in May 2007 and provides information about clients when they leave a service. The NI number was

included on the Outcomes Form for Short-term services from the outset. The NI number is one of the key variables used to link the Client Records and Outcomes datasets

Advantages of linking the data from Client Records and Outcomes

The advantage of developing a linked dataset from Client Records and Outcomes is that it provides a potentially complete record of a client’s entries and exits from SP services over a specified period of time.

The Client Record form collects information from a client when they first access a service. The Outcomes form for Short-term services records information when the client leaves the service. This means that there is currently available both a record of when clients start a service and a record of when they leave it. Both forms collect some similar information such as the client’s characteristics, the service and the local authority area where the service is located. However, the Client Record form also records entry information such as referral routes, whether the client crossed authority boundaries to access the service, and the type of accommodation the client lived in prior to accessing the service. Additional information recorded by the Outcomes form includes exit information, particularly relating to which outcomes were achieved, the length of time the client remained in the service and details of move-on accommodation.

The linking of these datasets opens up several new avenues of investigation. For example, linking length of stay with referral type and identifying variations in planned and unplanned moves by host/ non-host service access. This dataset will also enable exploration of patterns of repeat use of services by clients, including patterns of types of services accessed, needs recorded and outcomes achieved by age, gender, ethnicity, client group, etc.

Development of the linked dataset will add value to understanding the routes that clients take through services and what impact these have upon the outcomes they achieve.


38

MethodologyIn order to maximise the potential of the Client Records and Outcomes datasets, a robust method of linking them is required. A match across a combination of variables must be employed to link records about the same individual relating to the same episode of service access, to enable the information collected when a client starts to receive a service (Client Record Form) to be linked with the information collected when that client leaves said service (Outcomes for Short-term services). The level of strictness imposed and the number of variables included in this process will determine the certainty with which the link truly represents the same client at arrival and departure in a particular service on a particular occasion. Details of a methodology for linking Client Records to Outcomes for short-term services can be found in the publication by Client Record and Outcomes Office.

3.2 A Case study – supporting clients under probationary supervision or Youth Offending Teams to settled accommodation

This section of the annual report uses a case study to demonstrate how linking Client Records to Outcomes for short-term services can form the basis of an analysis of progression over time, from the point where clients enter services to when they leave.

The case study specifically focuses on outcomes related to settled accommodation for clients who are under the supervision of a probation service or in receipt of services provided by a Youth Offending Team (YOT)4. The analysis cannot separate out those under the supervision of a probation service from those in receipt of services provided by a Youth Offending Team; however, the former are one of the four at

risk client groups that form part of the Public Service Agreement (PSA) 16 - adult offenders under probation supervision. The focus of PSA16 is to increase the proportion of socially excluded adults in settled accommodation and in employment, education or training (Cabinet Office, 2007). Four at risk client groups are identified in PSA16, specifically adult offenders under probation service, former care leavers aged 19, adults in contact with secondary mental health services and adults with moderate to severe learning disabilities. In this chapter we focus on clients who are under the supervision of a probation service or in receipt of services provided by a Youth Offending Team with the view to using this analysis to provide a proxy insight on the PSA 16 offender group.

Tackling crime and reducing re-offending are a priority for the government. Evidence indicates that achieving settled accommodation is an important component in preventing reoffending (Maguire and Raynor, 2006). Being in settled accommodation does not guarantee that people will not offend, but not being so makes desistance much more difficult. Settled accommodation is associated with other factors that also contribute to resettlement, such as being in employment and resolving relationship problems. Housing related support thus has an important role to play in resettlement.

The Client Records and Outcomes data can be used to look at what happens to people who are under the supervision of a probation service or youth offending team when entering SP services, from the point of view of their accommodation. In particular, this section assesses the extent to which such SP clients move to more settled accommodation between commencement and ending their engagement with housing related support services.

3.2.1 Methods

The settled accommodation outcome for PSA16 specifically is ‘the proportion of offenders under probation supervision living in settled and suitable accommodation at the end of their order or licence’ (Cabinet Office, 2007). SP data

4 Settled accommodation is defined under PSA 16 as permanent, independent housing, bail/probation hostel or supported housing. The definition of settled accommodation for the purposes of the analysis presented here are shown in Table 3.1.


39

focus on the period of time people are engaged with housing related support services rather than probation. Thus the methodology used analyses how people who are under probation or a youth offending team progress to settled accommodation during their engagement with SP services. Client Records provide data on SP clients’ situation on starting to receive SP funded support. Outcomes data give insights into clients as their support comes to an end. Progress can therefore be analysed by linking information from an individual’s Client Record form to their Outcome form.

Such linking can be done using information provided on both Client Record and Outcomes for short-term services forms5 that allows identification of the individual (by way of their National Insurance number), the service providing support and the date on which the support started. A more detailed explanation of methods for linking is given on the SP Client Records/Outcomes web site (Client Record and Outcomes Office).

For the specific analysis presented here, Client Records have been linked to Outcome forms using the National Insurance number, the specific service used and the date on which support started. Many of the clients who receive SP funded support have complex problems that require assistance from more than one service. Clients may leave a service only to need help again at a later date. Hence, the same person can have several Client Record and Outcome forms. For the purposes of the analysis presented here only the first entry into housing related support during the time period are used. Including all of the records relating to one individual would lead to analysis being weighted towards those with multiple entries into services, and hence would bias findings.

Not everyone has a matching Client Record and Outcomes form for various reasons: providing an NI number is not obligatory; support may be ongoing beyond 18 months; the service may be funded on the basis of a long-term contract

(for which Outcomes forms are produced on a different basis); or services may simply not have provided an Outcomes form.

To ensure consistency, only Client Record forms that relate to support starting between April and September 2007 are used. These are then linked to the corresponding Outcome form (produced where a client exits a service) from the 2007/08 and 2008/09 Outcomes for short-term services datasets. A cut-off point of 18 months can then be applied to every individual in the analysis. Everyone included in the analysis therefore has the same period of time in which they might leave services (and thus have an Outcomes form completed). The end result is a dataset with information on people who enter SP support services between April and September 2007 and cease to use support within an 18 month period.

A specific question in the Client Records form identifies those who are under the supervision of a probation service or Youth Offending Team on entering an SP service. Questions are also asked as to the type of accommodation a person was in immediately prior to commencing the SP service. Similarly, accommodation occupied on leaving support is provided on the Outcomes form (though with slightly differing categories). Table 3.1 shows the different types of accommodation and whether or not they have been included as ‘settled accommodation’ for the purposes of the analysis presented here6.

The methods used follows these stages:

• Overview of clients under probation supervision or Youth Offending Team on entering housing related support services April-September 2007 and comparison of Client Records to linked dataset

• Comparison of clients under probation supervision or Youth Offending Team based on whether they were in settled accommodation immediately prior to and whether they were in settled accommodation on leaving housing related support services.

5 Short-term services are those services based on short-term contracts. These services are those intended to last no more than 2 years.

6 The definition of settled accommodation has been drawn from across PSA-16 client groups.


40

3.2.2 FindingsOverview of clients under probation supervision or Youth Offending Team on entering housing related support services April-September 2007 and comparison of Client Records to linked datasetAs shown in Table 3.2, a total of 7,365 Client Record forms refer to clients under probation supervision or Youth Offending Team when entering SP funded housing related support between April and September 2007. Of these, 1,168 (15.9%) have Outcome forms that can be

linked and that are thus included in the analysis (referred to from here as the analysis dataset). The age and gender distribution of the Client Record forms and analysis dataset are similar to one another. The mean age of clients in the analysis dataset is 29.5 years (compared to 29.0), the median is 28 years (compared to 27 years) and the modal age is 17 years (the same as for all client records). The similarity suggests that relying only on those client records with an associated Outcomes form will not induce substantial biases in terms of age or gender.

Table 3.1: Accommodation identified in Client Record and Outcome formsDefined as settled accommodation for purposes of analysisClient Record forms Outcomes formsGeneral needs local authority tenancy Local authority general needs tenancyHousing association general needs tenancy Local authority general needs with floating supportPrivate sector tenancy Housing association general needs tenancyTied housing or rented with job Housing association general needs with floating supportOwner occupation Private sector tenancySupported housing Private sector leasingHousing for older people Tied housing or rented with jobChildren’s home/foster care Owner-occupationLiving with family Shared ownershipLiving with friends Supported housingFoyer User who has experienced domestic violence returning home with partner

Mobile Home/Caravan User who has experienced domestic violence returning home without partner

Approved probation hostel Foyer Housing for older people Living with family Living with friends Mobile home/caravan Approved probation hostelDefined as not settled accommodation for purposes of analysis Residential care home Residential rehabilitation serviceDirect access hostel Direct access hostelHospital Womens refugePrison HospitalBed and breakfast PrisonShort life housing Residential care homeAny other temp accommodation Bed and breakfastRough sleeping Short life housingOther Any other temp accomWomen’s refuge Rough sleeping Unknown Other


41

Table 3.3 shows the accommodation of clients immediately prior to commencing services. Again for those included in the Client Record forms and analysis dataset there is no more than a few percentage points difference for any one

type of accommodation. The similarity, as with the comparison of age and gender, again points to the methodology providing a reasonable analysis dataset.

The most common type of accommodation on accessing SP services as indicated by the analysis dataset was where clients were Living with family (15.6 %). Unsurprisingly given that the data are based on those under probation or a Youth Offending Team a substantial proportion were in prison (14.8%). Rough sleeping is also evident amongst a notable percentage (13.4%). Comparison of clients under probation supervision or Youth Offending Team based on whether they were in settled accommodation

immediately prior to and/or leaving housing related support services.Table 3.4 shows a comparison of clients’ accommodation immediately prior to commencing SP services to accommodation on leaving SP services. The table shows that of the 1,168 clients in the analysis, 633 clients (54.2%) were in settled accommodation before entering SP support services. On departing, this figure had risen to 790 clients (67.6%).

Table 3.2: Overview of datasets used in analysis

All Client Record Forms April-September 2007 where probation Clients in analysis dataset or Youth Offending team is indicated

Total Number of Clients 7,365 1,168 # % # %GenderFemale 1503 20.4 214 18.3Male 5811 78.9 954 81.7Missing 51 0.7 0 0.0AgeMean 29.0 29.5Median 27 28Mode 17 17

Table 3.3: Housing immediately prior to commencing housing related support All Client Records Clients in analysis dataset # % # %Living with family 1,183 16.1 182 15.6Prison 1,063 14.4 173 14.8Rough sleeping 953 13.0 157 13.4Living with friends 738 10.0 140 12.0General needs local authority tenancy 511 6.9 82 7.0Private sector tenancy 359 4.9 77 6.6Supported housing 616 8.4 59 5.1Any other temp accommodation 307 4.2 57 4.9Bed and breakfast 280 3.8 55 4.7Approved probation hostel 289 3.9 51 4.4Other types of accommodation 1,058 14.4 135 11.6Total 7,357 100.0 1,168 100.0


42

Of the 535 clients not in settled accommodation on commencing SP services, 320 (59.8%) had settled accommodation on departing. Conversely, not everyone in settled accommodation on commencement was still in settled accommodation on leaving. Of the 633 clients in settled accommodation on commencing SP services, 163 clients (25.8%) were no longer in settled accommodation on departure.

Table 3.5 uses divisions based on whether accommodation met the criteria for being considered settled on entry and departure of service; hence there are four separate groups

– settled-settled, unsettled-settled, settled-unsettled and unsettled-unsettled.

Table 3.5 shows that females were much more likely to be in settled accommodation on entering SP services (settled-settled and settled-unsettled groups with 65.0% female compared to 51.8% male) and to also be in settled accommodation on departure (settled-settled and unsettled-settled groups with 77.6% female compared to 65.4% male). For both males and females, the proportions in settled accommodation on departure are greater than on entering services.

Table 3.4: Settled accommodation on commencing and departing housing related support as indicated by analysis dataset Accommodation on departing from services Settled Not settled Total # row % column % # row % column % # row % column %Accommodation Settled 470 74.2 59.5 163 25.8 43.1 633 100.0 54.2immediately prior to Not settled 320 59.8 40.5 215 40.2 56.9 535 100.0 45.8commencing services Total 790 67.6 100.0 378 32.4 100.0 1168 100.0 100.0

Table 3.5: Comparison of clients by settled accommodation group Settled- Unsettled- Settled- Unsettled- settled settled unsettled unsettled All

Most frequently occurring client Offenders or at Single homeless Offenders or at Single homeless Offenders or atgroups whether primary or risk of offending with support needs risk of offending with support needs risk of offendingsecondary (% of clients in group) (59.4) (62.2) (61.3) (65.1) (58.0)

Single homeless Offenders or at Single homeless Offenders or at Single homeless with support risk of with support risk of with needs offending needs offending support (44.3) (57.2) (58.3) (53.5) (55.0)

Drug problems Drug problems Drug problems Drug problems Drug problems (31.3) (39.1) (41.7) (48.8) (38.1)

Alcohol problems Alcohol problems Alcohol problems Rough sleeper Alcohol problems (18.7) (24.4) (24.5) (23.3) (21.8)

Age on commencing housing related support episode (years)

Mean 29.9 30.0 27.4 29.4 29.5Median 28 29 25 28 28Mode 17 17 18 17 17Lenth of time engaging with service (days)

Mean 191.8 198.1 141.7 116.2 172.6Median 154 147 102 76 126Mode 62 69 24 9 42Gender (%)Female 53.3 24.3 11.7 10.8 Male 37.3 28.1 14.5 20.1


43

Ages are generally similar across all 3 of the 4 groups, the one exception being those in the settled-unsettled group. Their median age is 25 years, compared to 28 years for the settled-settled and unsettled-unsettled groups and 29 years for the unsettled-settled group. This younger age amongst those in the settled-unsettled group is also reflected in the mean age (27.4 years) which is lower than for any of the other groups.

In terms of specific client groups defined on the Client Record Forms, there were some small differences between the four groups identified above (e.g. settled-settled, unsettled-settled, settled-unsettled and unsettled-unsettled). The four most frequently occurring specific client groups (regardless of whether recorded as primary or secondary client group on the Client Record Form7) were the same for the settled-settled, unsettled-settled and settled-unsettled groups, being: offenders or at risk of offending, single homeless with support needs, drug problems and alcohol problems. The unsettled-unsettled group was very similar with regards to client groups, the only exception being that rough sleepers were more prevalent and thus in the 4 most frequently occurring specific client groups. In total, 23.3% of clients in the unsettled-unsettled group were rough sleepers compared to 16.6% in the unsettled-settled group.

Notable differences were evident with regards to the length of client service engagement. The unsettled-settled group engaged with services for a longer time on average than any of the other groups, with a mean of 198.1 days. Those in the unsettled-unsettled group had the shortest length of engagement with a mean of 116.2 days. Particularly noticeable is the modal value for this group which was only 9 days. The settled-unsettled group also had a short modal period (21 days), also considerably less than the

settled-settled (62 days) or unsettled-settled (69 days).

3.2.3 Discussion

The findings of this brief analysis indicate that a substantial proportion of clients under probation or Youth Offending Team achieved settled accommodation by the time their housing related support service ended. Results presented here are based on a cohort receiving no more than 18 months of SP support before their outcomes were assessed. Many will engage with services for more than 18 months and so not have a short-term Outcomes form filled in (and therefore not included in the analysis dataset). As was indicated in Table 3.5, longer service engagement is associated with a greater probability of achieving settled accommodation.

A large proportion of client record forms did not have an associated Outcomes form and so were not included in the analysis. Many of the records not included will have been clients still to exit SP support who thus have not as yet had an Outcomes form completed. Had data been available over a longer period, and assuming that engagement longer than 18 months also led to a greater likelihood of achieving settled accommodation, then outcomes may be even more positive than indicated in the analysis presented here.

There was a considerable proportion of clients who did not achieve settled accommodation, perhaps unsurprisingly given that many who need housing related support have very complex and deeply embedded personal and social problems. Particularly notable were the much shorter lengths of time of SP service engagement for those who didn’t achieve settled accommodation. Encouraging ongoing engagement with an SP service may thus be one area on which services might focus. However, as suggested above, clients have complex problems and maintaining engagement is far from straightforward for SP services.

There are limitations to the analysis presented here. The definition of settled accommodation

7 Services and providers have up to four fields to indicate the reasons why clients are in need of support, referred to as Client Groups. One is a compulsory field (the primary client group) the other three (the secondary client groups) being optional, their use depending on whether the client has multiple problems that have led them to require support.


44

used is subjective but for the purposes of this analysis ‘settled’ has been defined in a way that could broadly match onto the PSA16 definition of settled for adult offenders under probation supervision (as shown in Table 3.1). For example, living with friends and living with family have both been included as being in settled accommodation. There will undoubtedly be occasions where such circumstances are far from ideal and may be considered unsettled or unsuitable, for example from the point of view of the client.

Also, as noted, only 15.9% of Client Record forms relating to individuals under probation or a Youth Offending Team have corresponding Outcomes forms that can be linked and therefore included in the analysis here. The first part of the analysis suggested that clients in the analysis dataset did not differ markedly when compared to everyone under probation or a Youth Offending Team who entered housing related support. Nonetheless, as has already been discussed, clients whose support has gone beyond 18 months have not been included in this analysis. Whether their inclusion would alter the findings presented in this chapter is a question that could be addressed with further analysis of the data.

Also, as previously mentioned, only the first housing support engagement has been used in this analysis. Further research could take into account situations where individuals re-enter support. Such situations are often referred to negatively as being a ‘revolving door’. The literature on reoffending underscores the fact that for many, achieving resettlement involves a zig-zag process where setbacks inevitably occur. Not achieving settled accommodation during a single episode of engagement should thus not necessarily be seen as failure. Further research using the SP data could look at clients over a period of time rather than just their first episode of entering SP support.

Finally, the four main specific client group categories identified for each of the analytical groups (e.g. settled-settled, unsettled-settled, settled-unsettled and unsettled-unsettled) were the same: homeless with support needs; offender or at risk of offending; alcohol problems; and drug problems. Research has demonstrated a close link between substance misuse and homelessness (see for example Neale, 2001). That a notable proportion of clients with drug and alcohol problems under probation or Youth Offending Team supervision nevertheless achieve settled accommodation underlines that such a goal is achievable, and demonstrates the important role that housing related support services play in achieving such outcomes.

3.2.4 Conclusion

SP services are associated with people who have complex individual and social problems in achieving settled accommodation. Successful outcomes to housing related support services have been demonstrated by the analysis presented in this chapter for a group who are at particular risk of social exclusion. This chapter has helped provide some insight into the PSA16 client cohort, namely adult offenders under probation service, although it also recognised that the definitions used on the client record and outcomes forms are not directly comparable to the PSA16 definitions. Unsurprisingly, some clients under probation or YOT supervision do not achieve settled accommodation, and this may be associated with shorter lengths of engagement with housing related support services. Further research could be used to better understand what contributes to enabling clients to stay engaged with SP support services, and the zig-zag careers clients take as they work their way towards resettlement in housing and society.


45

References

Cabinet Office (2007) Social excluded adults Public Service Agreement (PSA 16) - technical definitions of indicators and guidance notes, http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/social_exclusion_task_force/assets/chronic_exclusion/psa_da_16.pdf (last accessed 29 September 2009).

Client Record and Outcomes Office An approach to linking Client Records to

Outcomes for short-term services, http://www.spclientrecord.org.uk/pubs.cfm.

Maguire, M. and Raynor, P. (2006) How the resettlement of prisoners promotes desistance from crime: or does it?, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6, 1, 19.

Neale, J. (2001) Homelessness amongst drug users: a double jeopardy explored, International Journal of Drug Policy, 12, 4, 353-369.


46


47

Appendix 1: Patterns of client movement within and between government Office regions Table A shows the overall movement of clients into and out of each Government Office region, based on type of referral recorded.

• Column a ‘Host clients’: records are those who originated from within the funding Administering Authority area;

• Column b ‘non-host clients from within the region’: records those who originated outside the funding Administering Authority area, but within the same government office region as the funding Administering Authority;

• Column c ‘imports from outside region’: records those who originated from outside the government office region of the funding Administering Authority;


• Column e ‘the net import/export ratio’ shows the number of clients coming into that region to access services divided by the number that left.


Regions with ratios above 100 have recorded more clients coming into the region from outside to receive services than left the region to access services. For example, a ratio of 200 means that twice

as many clients came into the region to access services compared to the number of clients who left the region to access services. These regions are described as net importers.


• Column f, the last column in the table, shows the overall result of this movement as net import/export where positive numbers indicate the net number of clients who came into the region to access services (corresponding ratio of over 100). Negative numbers indicate the net number of clients who left the region to access services elsewhere (corresponding ratio of under 100).

Of the 9 government regions, four were net exporters of SP clients and five were net importers.

It is important to note that, in terms of cross-authority movement, a far greater number of non-host clients moved within region (column b) rather than between regions (column c). That is, clients are most likely to access services across Administering Authorities within the same region, than they are to cross regional boundaries. This pattern is most evident in London. London, however, was by far and away the largest net exporter (with a ratio of 59.1 i.e. for every two people who came into the region for services, three people left the region) and the only region to record a net export of almost 500 SP clients. Yorkshire and the Humber, the East Midlands, and the North West were also net exporters but to a lesser extent.

The South West recorded the highest net import ratio with almost twice as many clients coming


48

into the region as leaving. The West Midlands, the East Region, the South East and the North East were also net importers where each had ratios showing a greater number of clients entering the region than leaving. The West Midlands and the South West were the only regions to record a net import of over 300 SP clients.

Overall, the net import of clients exceeded the net export of clients, with the import of over 415 SP clients from outside England.

In terms of actual numbers of clients, London (1,202) and the East Midlands (720) exported the largest number of clients to other regions.

In terms of the actual number of clients imported from other regions, the South East (1,199) was the only region to record over 1,000 clients coming into the region, followed by the West Midlands and the East of England which each recorded over 800 clients coming into the region.


Table A: Patterns of client movement within and between Government Office Regions Type of Referral Non Host Net Net Non Host from outside Exports import/ number from within region to other export of peopleRegion name Host region (imports) regions ratio* imported a b c d e f

North East 8,422 1,167 222 192 115.6 30Yorkshire & the Humber 23,180 1,111 454 601 75.5 -147East Midlands 19,382 868 569 720 79.0 -151East of England 18,783 872 890 603 147.6 287London 28,046 3,517 710 1,202 59.1 -492South East 24,727 1,408 1,199 913 131.3 286South West 22,676 1,195 797 467 170.7 330West Midlands 23,160 1,799 974 583 167.1 391North West 29,498 2,974 579 624 92.8 -45Outside England 489 -489TOTAL 197,874 14,911 6,394 6,394 100 0missing information = 415 * figure of 100 = same number of clients imported from other region as exported to another region

APPEND

ICES49

Appendix 2: Outcomes for Short-term services by Primary Client Group

1 Economic WellBeingOutcome data for Short-term services(April 2008 - March 2009) 1a. Maximise income 1b. Reduce Overall Debt 1c. Obtain Paid Work

Achieved outcome (Participated in Required Achieved Required Achieved Required Achieved outcome Work Whilst In Support outcome Support outcome Support (now in Paid Work) Receipt of Service)

Primary Client Group Total # % # % # % # % # % # % # %Older people with support needs 5,272 3,109 58.97 2,692 86.59 1,144 21.7 1,012 88.46 39 0.74 12 30.77 13 33.33

Older people mental health 781 368 47.12 319 86.68 145 18.57 115 79.31 9 1.15 3 33.33 4 44.44Frail elderly 560 335 59.82 283 84.48 102 18.21 91 89.22 1 0.18 0 0 0 0Mental health problems 15,568 10,755 69.08 9,509 88.41 7,003 44.98 5,420 77.4 1,874 12.04 527 28.12 644 34.36Learning disabilities 2,338 1,691 72.33 1,506 89.06 1,091 46.66 858 78.64 355 15.18 101 28.45 142 40Physical or sensory disability 4,458 2,856 64.06 2,566 89.85 1,459 32.73 1,226 84.03 199 4.46 72 36.18 80 40.2Single homeless with support 40,885 30,633 74.92 27,144 88.61 16,134 39.46 9,792 60.69 12,331 30.16 2,974 24.12 4,017 32.58Alcohol problems 6,123 4,101 66.98 3,633 88.59 2,956 48.28 2,168 73.34 941 15.37 197 20.94 264 28.06Drug problems 5,664 3,925 69.3 3,381 86.14 2,723 48.08 1,797 65.99 1,020 18.01 205 20.1 273 26.76Offenders/at risk of offending 6,098 4,576 75.04 3,956 86.45 2,600 42.64 1,730 66.54 2,349 38.52 436 18.56 675 28.74Mentally disordered offenders 229 174 75.98 152 87.36 112 48.91 88 78.57 37 16.16 8 21.62 11 29.73Young people at risk 11,686 9,781 83.7 8,674 88.68 5,202 44.51 3,525 67.76 3,928 33.61 1,191 30.32 1,709 43.51Young people leaving care 1,413 1,093 77.35 970 88.75 550 38.92 380 69.09 552 39.07 183 33.15 271 49.09Women at risk of domestic viol. 16,551 10,720 64.77 9,572 89.29 4,708 28.45 3,478 73.87 1,293 7.81 446 34.49 501 38.75

People with HIV/AIDS 494 343 69.43 307 89.5 184 37.25 143 77.72 72 14.57 39 54.17 43 59.72Homeless families with support needs 12,212 9,192 75.27 8,390 91.28 4,842 39.65 3,670 75.8 993 8.13 337 33.94 401 40.38

Refugees 2,095 1,849 88.26 1,721 93.08 683 32.6 620 90.78 713 34.03 336 47.12 390 54.7Teenage parents 3,353 2,873 85.68 2,628 91.47 1,054 31.43 769 72.96 271 8.08 107 39.48 133 49.08Rough Sleeper 2,561 1,620 63.26 1,436 88.64 897 35.03 564 62.88 578 22.57 126 21.8 148 25.61Traveller 272 209 76.84 177 84.69 61 22.43 46 75.41 20 7.35 8 40 10 50Generic 11,452 8,154 71.2 6,976 85.55 6,633 57.92 4,974 74.99 1,610 14.06 588 36.52 722 44.84(missing) 15 3 20.0 2 66.7 2 13.3 1 50.0 1 6.7 0 0.0 1 100.0TOTAL 150,080 108,360 72.2 95,994 88.6 60,285 40.2 42,467 70.4 29,186 19.4 7,896 27.1 10,452 35.8


50 Appendix 2 cont. Outcomes for Short-term services by Primary Client Group 2 Enjoy and Achieve 2c. Participate in Work-Like 2b. Participate in Leisure/ Activitites, Unpaid Work / Outcome data for Short-term services Cultural / Faith / Work Experience / Work-Like 2d. Establish Contact with External(April 2008 - March 2009) 2a. Participate in Training / Education Informal Learning Experience / Voluntary Work Groups / Friends / Family Achieved outcome Achieved Achieved (Established outcome outcome Contact with (Established (Participated Achieved External Contact with Required in Training / outcome (with Required Achieved Required Achieved Required Services / Friends / Support Education) Qualifications) Support outcome Support outcome Support Groups) Family)

Primary Client Group Total # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %Older people with support needs 5,272 125 2.37 93 74.4 15 12.0 902 17.11 709 78.6 118 2.24 84 71.19 2,801 53.13 2,548 90.97 1,063 37.95

Older people mental health 781 29 3.71 15 51.72 3 10.3 239 30.6 156 65.27 33 4.23 17 51.52 484 61.97 380 78.51 192 39.67

Frail elderly 560 5 0.89 4 80 1 20.0 74 13.21 58 78.38 2 0.36 2 100 280 50 246 87.86 97 34.64

Mental health problems 15,568 4,519 29.03 2,727 60.35 696 15.4 5,327 34.22 3,950 74.15 3,334 21.42 1,914 57.41 8,254 53.02 6,930 83.96 4,366 52.9

Learning disabilities 2,338 817 34.94 576 70.5 155 19.0 779 33.32 618 79.33 554 23.7 384 69.31 1,241 53.08 1,093 88.07 682 54.96

Physical or sensory disability 4,458 540 12.11 336 62.22 78 14.4 980 21.98 775 79.08 350 7.85 223 63.71 2,358 52.89 2,143 90.88 897 38.04

Single homeless with support 40,885 17,649 43.17 10,621 60.18 3,236 18.3 10,345 25.3 7,889 76.26 8,803 21.53 4,966 56.41 20,179 49.36 16,596 82.24 12,900 63.93

Alcohol problems 6,123 1,963 32.06 1,218 62.05 359 18.3 1,875 30.62 1,443 76.96 1,505 24.58 895 59.47 3,557 58.09 2,945 82.79 2,098 58.98

Drug problems 5,664 2,190 38.67 1,215 55.48 348 15.9 1,712 30.23 1,300 75.93 1,389 24.52 801 57.67 3,198 56.46 2,655 83.02 1,901 59.44

Offenders/at risk of offending 6,098 2,516 41.26 1,322 52.54 430 17.1 1,476 24.2 1,066 72.22 1,498 24.57 821 54.81 3,180 52.15 2,657 83.55 2,129 66.95

Mentally disordered offenders 229 85 37.12 49 57.65 16 18.8 80 34.93 63 78.75 56 24.45 35 62.5 137 59.83 106 77.37 84 61.31

Young people at risk 11,686 6,554 56.08 4,400 67.13 1,420 21.7 3,138 26.85 2,576 82.09 2,473 21.16 1,556 62.92 6,185 52.93 5,162 83.46 4,138 66.9

Young people leaving care 1,413 866 61.29 617 71.25 228 26.3 431 30.5 353 81.9 372 26.33 246 66.13 757 53.57 646 85.34 545 71.99

Women at risk of domestic viol. 16,551 3,822 23.09 2,386 62.43 589 15.4 4,390 26.52 3,689 84.03 1,310 7.91 774 59.08 9,637 58.23 8,528 88.49 5,551 57.6

People with HIV/AIDS 494 141 28.54 95 67.38 20 14.2 120 24.29 97 80.83 81 16.4 58 71.6 280 56.68 257 91.79 133 47.5

Homeless families with support needs 12,212 2,216 18.15 1,273 57.45 301 13.6 1,849 15.14 1,508 81.56 526 4.31 292 55.51 5,067 41.49 4,529 89.38 2,477 48.88

Refugees 2,095 1,174 56.04 910 77.51 336 28.6 702 33.51 615 87.61 385 18.38 270 70.13 1,048 50.02 980 93.51 616 58.78

Teenage parents 3,353 1,397 41.66 886 63.42 270 19.3 927 27.65 751 81.01 254 7.58 156 61.42 1,867 55.68 1,567 83.93 1,079 57.79

Rough Sleeper 2,561 710 27.72 386 54.37 143 20.1 716 27.96 535 74.72 539 21.05 297 55.1 1,207 47.13 990 82.02 726 60.15

Traveller 272 29 10.66 17 58.62 2 6.9 21 7.72 19 90.48 5 1.84 4 80 70 25.74 58 82.86 28 40

Generic 11,452 2,076 18.13 1,183 56.98 301 14.5 1,418 12.38 1,069 75.39 1,010 8.82 582 57.62 4,477 39.09 3,809 85.08 1,576 35.2

(missing) 15 1 6.7 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 6.7 1 100.0 1 6.7 1 100.0 1 100.0

TOTAL 150,080 49,424 32.9 30,330 61.4 8,947 18.1 37,501 25.0 29,239 78.0 24,598 16.4 14,378 58.5 76,265 50.8 64,826 85.0 43,279 56.7

APPEND

ICES51

Appendix 2 cont. Outcomes for Short-term services by Primary Client Group

3 Be Healthy

3d. Assistive Technology / AidsSP Short-Term Outcome Data 3c. Better Manage and Adaptations is Helping to(April 2008 - March 2009) 3a. Better Manage Physical Health 3b. Better Manage Mental Health Substance Misuse Issues Maintain Independence

Required Achieved Required Achieved Required Achieved Required Achieved Support outcome Support outcome Support outcome Support outcome

Primary Client Group Total # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %Older people with support needs 5,272 2,583 48.99 2,185 84.59 858 16.27 685 79.84 252 4.78 154 61.11 1,807 34.28 1,691 93.58

Older people mental health 781 375 48.02 277 73.87 570 72.98 380 66.67 45 5.76 27 60 173 22.15 148 85.55

Frail elderly 560 294 52.5 234 79.59 71 12.68 52 73.24 17 3.04 5 29.41 238 42.5 208 87.39

Mental health problems 15,568 6,580 42.27 5,060 76.9 12,954 83.21 10,094 77.92 3,863 24.81 2,357 61.01 860 5.52 781 90.81

Learning disabilities 2,338 891 38.11 728 81.71 747 31.95 568 76.04 208 8.9 108 51.92 215 9.2 200 93.02

Physical or sensory disability 4,458 2,181 48.92 1,854 85.01 925 20.75 722 78.05 325 7.29 184 56.62 2,173 48.74 2,046 94.16

Single homeless with support 40,885 15,198 37.17 11,769 77.44 11,786 28.83 8,097 68.7 14,582 35.67 7,766 53.26 1,149 2.81 1,012 88.08

Alcohol problems 6,123 3,644 59.51 2,631 72.2 2,647 43.23 1,885 71.21 5,205 85.01 3,277 62.96 390 6.37 344 88.21

Drug problems 5,664 2,785 49.17 2,056 73.82 1,924 33.97 1,349 70.11 4,918 86.83 3,161 64.27 179 3.16 152 84.92

Offenders/at risk of offending 6,098 2,446 40.11 1,872 76.53 1,727 28.32 1,195 69.2 3,282 53.82 1,997 60.85 196 3.21 174 88.78

Mentally disordered offenders 229 115 50.22 83 72.17 181 79.04 136 75.14 112 48.91 69 61.61 10 4.37 9 90

Young people at risk 11,686 3,819 32.68 3,091 80.94 2,749 23.52 1,999 72.72 2,333 19.96 1,289 55.25 232 1.99 204 87.93

Young people leaving care 1,413 521 36.87 417 80.04 313 22.15 220 70.29 315 22.29 175 55.56 36 2.55 29 80.56

Women at risk of domestic viol. 16,551 5,088 30.74 4,359 85.67 5,472 33.06 4,328 79.09 1,421 8.59 821 57.78 505 3.05 480 95.05

People with HIV/AIDS 494 272 55.06 233 85.66 167 33.81 136 81.44 51 10.32 35 68.63 41 8.3 37 90.24

Homeless families with support needs 12,212 2,427 19.87 2,114 87.1 1,827 14.96 1,480 81.01 741 6.07 472 63.7 175 1.43 157 89.71

Refugees 2,095 641 30.6 605 94.38 240 11.46 203 84.58 31 1.48 27 87.1 95 4.53 88 92.63

Teenage parents 3,353 826 24.63 724 87.65 544 16.22 432 79.41 155 4.62 95 61.29 31 0.92 26 83.87

Rough Sleeper 2,561 1,225 47.83 950 77.55 769 30.03 492 63.98 1,329 51.89 752 56.58 195 7.61 164 84.1

Traveller 272 62 22.79 48 77.42 26 9.56 20 76.92 17 6.25 10 58.82 8 2.94 7 87.5

Generic 11,452 2,259 19.73 1,809 80.08 2,488 21.73 1,915 76.97 1,032 9.01 592 57.36 582 5.08 525 90.21

(missing) 15 1 6.7 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 6.7 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

TOTAL 150,080 54,233 36.1 43,100 79.5 48,985 32.6 36,388 74.3 40,235 26.8 23,374 58.1 9,290 6.2 8,482 91.3


52 Appendix 2 cont. Outcomes for Short-term services by Primary Client Group 4 Stay Safe 4b. Comply with Statutory Orders and Processes in SP Short-Term Outcome Data 4a. Maintain Accommodation Relation to Offending 4c(i). Better Manage 4c(ii). Avoid Causing 4c(iii). Minimise Harm / Risk(April 2008 - March 2009) and Avoid Eviction Behaviour Self Harm Harm to Others of Harm From Others Required Achieved Required Achieved Required Achieved Required Achieved Required Achieved Support outcome Support outcome Support outcome Support outcome Support outcome

Primary Client Group Total # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %Older people with support needs 5,272 1,362 25.83 1,207 88.62 63 1.19 49 77.78 78 1.48 70 89.74 58 1.1 49 84.48 352 6.68 304 86.36

Older people mental health 781 188 24.07 156 82.98 15 1.92 11 73.33 42 5.38 34 80.95 31 3.97 23 74.19 104 13.32 97 93.27

Frail elderly 560 116 20.71 104 89.66 3 0.54 2 66.67 9 1.61 6 66.67 1 0.18 1 100 35 6.25 29 82.86

Mental health problems 15,568 8,752 56.22 7,163 81.84 1,206 7.75 896 74.3 2,845 18.27 2,283 80.25 1,532 9.84 1,173 76.57 3,026 19.44 2,466 81.49

Learning disabilities 2,338 1,310 56.03 1,109 84.66 150 6.42 119 79.33 143 6.12 108 75.52 159 6.8 128 80.5 574 24.55 484 84.32

Physical or sensory disability 4,458 1,460 32.75 1,299 88.97 106 2.38 83 78.3 132 2.96 105 79.55 100 2.24 84 84 461 10.34 398 86.33

Single homeless with support 40,885 25,287 61.85 14,870 58.8 7,135 17.45 5,048 70.75 3,762 9.2 2,744 72.94 3,571 8.73 2,218 62.11 5,441 13.31 4,116 75.65

Alcohol problems 6,123 3,965 64.76 2,821 71.15 1,014 16.56 794 78.3 916 14.96 693 75.66 708 11.56 520 73.45 1,177 19.22 893 75.87

Drug problems 5,664 3,836 67.73 2,431 63.37 1,727 30.49 1,283 74.29 655 11.56 481 73.44 551 9.73 370 67.15 917 16.19 701 76.44

Offenders/at risk of offending 6,098 4,323 70.89 2,740 63.38 4,252 69.73 3,201 75.28 653 10.71 500 76.57 1,636 26.83 1,274 77.87 1,314 21.55 1,050 79.91

Mentally disordered offenders 229 160 69.87 120 75 107 46.72 82 76.64 54 23.58 43 79.63 69 30.13 54 78.26 80 34.93 70 87.5

Young people at risk 11,686 8,007 68.52 5,555 69.38 1,501 12.84 1,086 72.35 1,017 8.7 802 78.86 1,017 8.7 666 65.49 2,015 17.24 1,584 78.61

Young people leaving care 1,413 1,013 71.69 708 69.89 207 14.65 150 72.46 135 9.55 101 74.81 151 10.69 96 63.58 269 19.04 196 72.86

Women at risk of domestic viol. 16,551 5,599 33.83 4,339 77.5 455 2.75 344 75.6 1,057 6.39 783 74.08 741 4.48 570 76.92 12,116 73.2 10,219 84.34

People with HIV/AIDS 494 226 45.75 194 85.84 21 4.25 15 71.43 28 5.67 23 82.14 15 3.04 12 80 64 12.96 57 89.06

Homeless families with support needs 12,212 6,179 50.6 5,327 86.21 414 3.39 335 80.92 292 2.39 233 79.79 373 3.05 278 74.53 1,416 11.6 1,194 84.32

Refugees 2,095 1,192 56.9 1,081 90.69 22 1.05 19 86.36 17 0.81 14 82.35 41 1.96 33 80.49 121 5.78 110 90.91

Teenage parents 3,353 1,900 56.67 1,587 83.53 123 3.67 106 86.18 105 3.13 87 82.86 148 4.41 116 78.38 563 16.79 460 81.71

Rough Sleeper 2,561 1,550 60.52 851 54.9 387 15.11 274 70.8 338 13.2 232 68.64 228 8.9 120 52.63 307 11.99 203 66.12

Traveller 272 139 51.1 113 81.29 8 2.94 7 87.5 7 2.57 7 100 1 0.37 1 100 15 5.51 14 93.33

Generic 11,452 6,761 59.04 5,778 85.46 507 4.43 391 77.12 338 2.95 261 77.22 322 2.81 238 73.91 1,053 9.19 886 84.14

(missing) 15 4 26.7 3 75.0 2 13.3 1 50.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

TOTAL 150,080 83,329 55.5 59,556 71.5 19,425 12.9 14,296 73.6 12,623 8.4 9,610 76.1 11,453 7.6 8,024 70.1 31,420 20.9 25,531 81.3

APPEND

ICES53


5 Make a Positive Contribution 5 Developing Confidence and AbilitySP Short-Term Outcome Data to have Greater Choice and / or(April 2008 - March 2009) Control and / or Involvement

Required Achieved Support outcome

Primary Client Group Total # % # % Older people with support needs 5,272 2,763 52.41 2,557 92.54Older people mental health 781 519 66.45 388 74.76Frail elderly 560 225 40.18 209 92.89Mental health problems 15,568 10,502 67.46 8,859 84.36Learning disabilities 2,338 1,620 69.29 1,415 87.35Physical or sensory disability 4,458 2,442 54.78 2,262 92.63Single homeless with support 40,885 21,857 53.46 17,604 80.54Alcohol problems 6,123 3,759 61.39 2,990 79.54Drug problems 5,664 3,424 60.45 2,607 76.14Offenders/at risk of offending 6,098 3,699 60.66 2,930 79.21Mentally disordered offenders 229 149 65.07 121 81.21Young people at risk 11,686 7,382 63.17 6,214 84.18Young people leaving care 1,413 895 63.34 751 83.91Women at risk of domestic viol. 16,551 12,288 74.24 10,745 87.44People with HIV/AIDS 494 280 56.68 262 93.57Homeless families with support needs 12,212 6,233 51.04 5,671 90.98Refugees 2,095 1,384 66.06 1,293 93.42Teenage parents 3,353 2,256 67.28 1,956 86.7Rough Sleeper 2,561 1,253 48.93 979 78.13Traveller 272 71 26.1 63 88.73Generic 11,452 5,694 49.72 4,911 86.25(missing) 15 4 26.7 4 100.0TOTAL 150,080 88,699 59.1 74,791 84.3


54

Summary

55


56

CHR, The ObservatorySP Client Record & Outcomes OfficeUniversity of St AndrewsBuchanan GardensSt AndrewsFife, KY16 9LZ

Tel: 01334 461765



Contents

1




Pantone 187cvc Pantone 411 c

Fonts: Mistral & Gill Sans

S T A N D R E W SCentre for Housing Research






SupportingPeopleClientRecords&OutcomesAnnualReport2009-2010

2


Dr Fiona Bolik, Research FellowSP Client Records & OutcomesCentre for Housing ResearchThe ObservatoryBuchanan GardensUniversity of St AndrewsSt Andrews, FifeKY16 9LZ



Contents

3

Contents

Foreword 5 Summary 7 Introduction 9 Section 1: An overview of the data 11

1.1 Client Records 111.1.1 Introduction 11

1.1.2 Trend Analysis 11 1.1.3 Cross authority provision 17

1.2 Outcomes 201.2.1 Introduction 20

1.2.2 Comparative analysis 23

Section 2: Employment, education and training (EET) outcomes 27

2.1 Introduction 27

2.2 The 2006-2010 Linked dataset 272.2.1 Methods 27

2.2.2 The dataset selected 27

2.3 Client characteristics 282.3.1 Characteristics of clients in the linked sample 282.3.2 Characteristics of the selected economic groups 282.3.3 Services accessed by selected economic groups 30

2.4 Employment, Education and Training needs and outcomes 31

2.5 Changes in economic status 33

2.6 Summary and conclusions 33

Section 3: Analysis using linked data (Client Record & Outcomes) - Pathways through Supporting People services for clients with mental health problems and offenders 35

3.1 Introduction 35

3.2 The 2006-2010 Linked dataset 353.2.1 Methods 35


4

3.3 Clients with Mental Health Problems 353.3.1 Type of accommodation occupied immediately prior to entering support 363.3.2 Source of referral 373.3.3 Type of referral 373.3.4 Service Type 373.3.5 Overlapping support episodes 38

3.4 Clients who are ‘offenders or at risk of offending’ 383.4.1 Type of accommodation occupied immediately prior to entering support 393.4.2 Primary Client Group 393.4.3 Source of referral 393.4.4 Type of referral 413.4.5 Service Type 413.4.6 Overlapping support episodes 41

3.5 Summary and conclusions 41

Appendix 1 43

Appendix 2 45

Foreword

5

Foreword This year saw the formation of the Coalition Government. Amongst their commitments was the pledge to protect and support older and vulnerable people to live more independently. At any one time the Supporting People programme helps around a million disadvantaged people to live more independently – including older people, people with disabilities, people with mental health problems, young people leaving care, ex-offenders, homeless families and rough sleepers. By funding preventative support services which help to reduce crises requiring emergency hospital admissions and residential care, Supporting People helps reduce demand for high need care services and saves costs as well as enabling people to enjoy a better quality of life.

CLG collect the Client records and Outcomes data to capture the needs and achievements of clients of Supporting People services. Authorities use outcomes data in their commissioning processes to improve services for their clients and maximise value for money. Understanding trends in client needs and outcomes underpin intelligent commissioning, service redesign and efficiencies.

Since the publication of the Code of Practice for Official Statistics in January 2009 Client Records and Outcomes data have become ‘official statistics’, acknowledging the high professional standards to which they are produced. This year’s data show continued stability in the characteristics and needs of clients entering services across England and sustained success in achieving the outcomes clients most often need support with.

Neil McDonald Director, Housing Standards, Homelessness and Support DirectorateDepartment for Communities and Local Government


6

Summary

7

SummaryClient Records: Information is gathered at the point when a client starts to receive a Supporting People (SP) funded service. The data have been collected since the start of the SP Programme on 1st April 2003. Analysis in this report is based on information collected from 239,366 records from clients starting to receive services between 1st April 2009 and 31st March 2010, and includes comparisons with Client Record data from 2003/04 onwards (Section 1.1).


• In terms of service type, since 2003/04, clients have most commonly accessed three main service types: floating support, supported housing and direct access hostels. This said, the pattern of access has shifted, with floating support services now being accessed far more commonly, and with a comparable decrease in the proportion of clients accessing direct access hostels.

• The most common client groups are single homeless, women at risk of domestic violence (from April 2009 this became ‘people at risk of domestic violence’), mental health problems, young people at risk, people with generic needs and homeless families. These client groups taken together make up 70% of all clients. The proportion of clients with drug problems has continued an overall decreasing trend since 2003/04.

• The most common age range for clients – 18-24 years – has been consistent across the seven years of data collection.

• The proportion of clients who were accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty has steadily decreased over time, a trend that has continued in 2009/10.

• Clients report the types of accommodation that they were in prior to accessing support, the most common of which were: general needs local authority tenancy (decreasing trend), living with family, private sector tenancy (increasing trend), housing association (increasing trend), living with friends and sleeping rough (decreasing trend).

• Patterns of distribution across England showed a decreasing proportion of clients in London since 2003/04 and an increase in the proportion of clients in Yorkshire and the Humber.


8

Outcomes for Short-term services: Information is gathered at the point when a client leaves an SP funded short-term service. The data has been collected since 31st May 2007. Analysis in this report is based on information about the 174,716 clients leaving services between 1st April 2009 and 31st March 2010 (section 1.2).

• The number of records received represents a 16% increase on 2008/09. This increase may have been due to more services returning forms as providers become more aware of the outcomes framework and Administering Authorities encouraging them to participate.

• Comparing 2008/09 and 2009/10 data, there were few changes in terms of needs identified or outcomes achieved.

• The two most often identified needs were the same for 2008/09 and 2009/10, namely maximising income and achieving more choice and control. The third most frequently identified need for 2009/10 was securing settled accommodation which was a new indicator on the form.

• The 2009/10 results indicated possible slight effects of the recession – whilst the percentage of clients needing support to obtain paid work remained unchanged, a decline was observed in the proportion of these clients who were in paid work at exit from services or who had participated in paid work whilst in receipt of service.

• Both the proportion of clients identified as needing support to participate in training or education and the proportion who went on to achieve this outcome was unchanged from 2008/09 to 2009/10, though there was a small increase in the proportion who achieved qualifications.

• Increases were seen in the proportions of clients achieving outcomes relating to “Stay Safe” and for three of the four indicators for “Be Healthy”.

Outcomes for Long-term services: Information is gathered at the time of the support plan review for a sample of clients in SP funded long-term services. The data have been collected since July 2007. Analysis in this report is based on the information from a sample of 48,853 clients collected between 1st April 2009 and 31st March 2010.

• The most frequently identified needs for clients in long-term services remained the same as for previous years, namely maximise income, physical health and aids and adaptations.

Employment, Education & Training outcomes: A priority of the government is to get people into sustainable employment. By examining outcomes relevant to employment, education and training we can see how SP services help clients to reach this aim.

Linked Client Records data and Outcomes data for Short-term services: Linking together Client Records to their associated Outcomes for short-term services form creates a dataset with information on clients on entry and departure from SP housing related support. We can use this to explore ‘pathways’ for specific client groups and look at characteristics of clients who have multiple entries into support.

Introduction

9


Supporting People (SP) is a key platform on which social inclusion can be built. From the very beginning the programme’s main objective was to help end social exclusion by preventing crisis, avoiding the need for more costly service intervention and enabling vulnerable people to live independently, both in their own home and within their community, through the provision of vital housing-related support services. In 2003, the programme brought together different support funding streams to provide a single funding stream for the delivery of housing-related support. The programme is fully devolved to local authorities.

A key factor in the development of SP was the development of the Commissioning Bodies which brought together senior representatives from Social Care, Housing, Health and Probation to make decisions on the commissioning of services. The programme also required authorities to work in partnership with support providers and user groups in order to monitor provision and identify need in their areas. Local authorities have responsibility to commission and fund appropriate needs-led, cost-effective and quality-driven services on a contractual basis. Importantly, the programme is tenure neutral and the aim is to tailor services to respond directly to the needs of the individual.

Another key priority of the programme was to ensure that services, particularly specialised services, could be accessed across authorities for transient client groups such as people at risk of domestic violence and rough sleepers. This originally involved developing services within local authority areas, and creating and sustaining protocols between local authorities to enable cross-authority provision whereby clients are able to access services outside their own locality where it is necessary to do so.

Communities and Local Government (CLG) devised a framework for assessing SP service quality and gathering management information; a significant aspect of this framework is the Client Record System and the National Outcomes Framework. The Client Record & Outcomes Office (Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews) conducts independent monitoring of clients receiving services funded through SP. Service providers collect specific information about clients who enter and leave their services. The data identifies the routes by which SP services are being accessed, the personal characteristics of clients, and outcomes for clients matched against their identified needs. This information provides valuable information for providers, authorities and central government to assess if people are achieving the necessary outcomes whilst receiving housing related support services.


This report

The Client Record & Outcomes Office has developed an online reporting facility that provides easy access to descriptive analyses (see ‘reporting’ on the website: https://www.spclientrecord.org.uk). Accordingly, the current report presents a brief overview of descriptive statistics followed by a series of more in-depth reports on topics of interest that have been agreed with CLG. This enables the annual report to demonstrate the usefulness of the wealth of data gathered by both Client Records and Outcomes monitoring.


Client Records

Information is gathered when a client starts to receive an SP funded short-term service. The data have been collected since the start of the


10

SP Programme on 1st April 2003. Analysis in this report is based on information about clients starting to receive services between 1st April 2009 and 31st March 2010.


Information is gathered when a client leaves an SP funded service. The data have been collected since 31st May 2007. Analysis in this report is based on information about clients leaving services between 1st April 2009 and 31st March 2010.


Information is gathered at the time of the support plan review for a sample of clients in SP funded long-term services. The data have been collected since 31st July 2007. Analysis in this report is based on information about a sample of clients collected between 1st April 2009 and 31st March 2010.

The report is divided into three sections:

Section 1 first provides an overview of Client Records, then a trend analysis of Client Record data since its inception in 2003/04 to the current reporting year 2009/10, and analysis of cross authority provision for 2009/10. Both of these topics have been included in previous annual reports thus enabling comparisons to be made by the reader. Then, an overview of Outcomes data is presented, followed by comparative analysis of 2008/09 and 2009/10 data.

Section 2 looks at Employment, Education and Training (EET) outcomes for clients in three specific client groups: Job Seekers, students and those on government training schemes. This provides a demonstration of the ways in which linked datasets – using both Client Record and Outcomes for Short-term Services – can show changes which have occurred during the support period.

Section 3 provides another example of analysis using a linked dataset, providing explorations of the characteristics of clients with mental health problems and offenders/those at risk of offending. This section focuses on re-entry into services, comparing client profiles at their first and second entry into SP support, and the routes by which they come back into support.


11

SECTION 1:

An Overview of the dataThis section provides a brief introduction to Client Records and to Outcomes, and an overview of the 2009/10 data in comparison to previous years.

Summary information from all of the data collected in current and previous years is available through the online web reporting facility at https://www.spclientrecord.org.uk under ‘Reporting’, with the current data collection year (2010/11) showing the latest quarterly information.

The Client Record and Outcomes data is also distributed quarterly to CLG and Administering Authorities as a regulatory, monitoring and evaluation tool for Supporting People (SP) policy makers and practitioners. It can be used as a reference guide for comparing Administering Authority statistics, and contributes to individual provider organisation planning and funding structures, e.g. by enabling analysis of access to services by age, gender, and ethnic origin.

1.1 Client Records

1.1.1 Introduction

SP Client Records monitor client characteristics at the time of entry into an SP funded service. These are completed by service providers for clients who start to receive any of the following services:• Supported housing• Residential care homes (in receipt of SP

funding)• Adult placements• Supported lodgings• Women’s refuge• Foyer• Teenage parent accommodation• Direct access accommodation• Floating support services• Outreach services• Resettlement services

Client Records collect information at client level which enables analysis of clients’ characteristics, including statutory orders, referral route, the manner of referral, and previous type of accommodation. This information contributes to the wider SP programme by providing the basis for an assessment of whether SP is meeting priorities within housing, health, social care and criminal justice sectors.

This part of the annual report provides an analysis of Client Records completed for clients who started to receive services between 1st April 2009 and 31st March 2010 and is based on 239,366 validated Client Record forms covering this period.

Two topics are covered in the following sections: the first provides comparative analysis of data collected from 2003/04 to 2009/10; and the second examines the extent of cross-authority provision during 2009/10.

1.1.2 Trend Analysis

Introduction

The overall picture emerging from data collection remains one of relatively stable proportions across and within the majority of categories identified on the Client Record Form. Notably, client group composition remained consistent, with the majority of clients falling into the same six categories as previous years. Furthermore, access routes to SP services were very similar to previous years. The stability of the dataset is an indication that this system of data collection continues to capture a highly informative record of new SP clients, support provision and access routes both at a national and local level.

Features recently added to the ‘Reporting’ section of the website https://www.spclientrecord.org.uk now allow users to conduct their own time-series analyses in order to see how certain characteristics of the clients recorded change over time. At present, the following variables may be analysed over the period 2003/04 – 2009/10:

• gender• economic status• type of provider• type of service


12

• source of referral• type of referral.

With the exception of type of service, descriptive analyses of these variables are not described in this year’s annual report.

The analysis in this section includes:• A profile of clients• Service provision and referral routes• Client mobility and the distribution of

clients across England


The most common primary client groups1 [Figure 1.1] were single homeless, women at risk of domestic violence (from April 2009 this became “people at risk of domestic violence”), mental health problems, young people at risk, people with generic needs, and homeless families, making up 70% of all clients. This percentage remained stable for the duration of data collection. The proportions of single homeless clients and homeless families entering services fell slightly across time. There were

also small increases for the proportions of clients with mental health problems or generic needs, though it will require further annual datasets to see whether these are indeed consistent trends or simply fluctuations.

The remaining primary client groups [Figure 1.2] each made up less than 5% of all clients. As with the major client categories, there was some slight variation in the proportions of these groups over time. Proportions of rough sleepers and people with drug problems have shown a small decrease since 2003/04. The proportion of refugees had previously also shown a slight decrease, although the data for 2009/10 showed a marginal increase. The proportions of clients in the categories offender or at risk of offending and older people with support needs have risen slightly across time. While many SP funded services for older people, e.g. sheltered housing, remain outside the monitoring of Client Records, 5% of all clients in 2009/10 were recorded as being older people with support needs, compared to 3% in 2003/04.

1 Primary Client groups describe the predominant need or circumstance of the client.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Homele

ss fam

ilies

with su

ppor

t

Men

tal he

alth p

roble

ms

Single

homele

ss

with su

ppor

t

Generi

c

Wom

en at

risk

of

domes

tic vi

olenc

e

Young

peop

le at

risk

Figure 1.1: Primary client group

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

Perc

enta

ge


13

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

0

1

2

3

4

5

Olde

r peo

ple w

ith su

ppor

t nee

ds

Olde

r peo

ple w

ith m

ental

healt

h pro

blems

Frail

elde

rlyLe

arning

disa

biliti

es

Phys

ical o

r sen

sory

disa

bility

Alco

hol p

roble

msDr

ug pr

oblem

s

Offen

ders

or at

risk

of of

fendin

g

Men

tally

disor

dered

offen

ders

Youn

g peo

ple le

aving

care

Peop

le wi

th HI

V/AI

DSRe

fuge

esTe

enag

e pare

ntsRo

ugh s

leepe

rTr

avell

er

Perc

enta

geFigure 1.2: All other client groups (less than 5%)

While the largest client age group continued to be between 18 and 24 years old in 2009/10 [Figure 1.3], the proportion of clients aged

between 32 and 38 years continued to decrease and the proportion of clients between the ages of 39 and 59 years continued to increase.


14

homelessness information to be recorded. In addition to those recorded as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty, a further 7% were recorded as statutorily homeless and not owed a main homelessness duty (compared to 6% in 2008/09), and 26% as other homeless (compared to 29% in 2008/09).

Figure 1.3: Age

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

16-17 18-24 25-31 32-38 39-45 46-52 53-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80+

Perc

enta

ge

Although the largest proportion of clients year on year have consistently been in the primary client group single homeless people, the proportion of all clients who were accepted as statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty steadily decreased over time [Figure 1.4].

Since 2008/09 a new form of this question has been introduced that has enabled more detailed

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10


15

20

25

30

35

Figure 1.4: Statutorily homeless and owed a main homelessness duty

Per

cent

age


15

The provision of services

With only minor variations, it is clear that service provision remained stable over time, with voluntary organisations, Housing Associations (HAs)/Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) and housing authorities accounting for the largest shares. Similarly, clients most commonly accessed three main service types: floating support services, supported housing

and direct access hostels. However, Figure 1.5 illustrates that the pattern of access since 2003/04 has shifted, to the extent that floating support services were far more commonly accessed in 2009/10 than they were in 2003/04, whilst the proportion of clients receiving supported housing and direct access services has decreased.


0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Supported housing


Adult placement

Supported lodgings

Women's refuge

Foyer


Direct access

Floating support

Outreach service


Percentage

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

Previous accommodation

Clients reported living in various types of accommodation prior to accessing support [Figure 1.6], the most common of which were: general needs local authority tenancy (decreasing trend), living with family, private sector tenancy (increasing trend), housing association (increasing trend), living with friends and sleeping rough (decreasing trend). Compared to 2003/04, a smaller proportion of clients in 2009/10 lived in supported housing,

direct access hostels, or bed and breakfast, while a larger proportion were owner occupiers.

Since 2008/09 the owner occupation category has been divided into private and low cost ownership. The combined total is shown in Figure 1.6 for consistency with previous years. Of the 4% of clients in this combination, almost all were private owner occupiers with less than 0.5% of all clients recorded as low cost owners.


16

Three additional categories of previous accommodation were added to the Client Record form in April 2006: women’s refuge, which accounted for 1% of clients in 2009/10; foyer; and mobile home/caravan, each accounting for less than 1% of clients. In 2008/09, an additional category of Home Office Asylum Support was added. Less than 1% of clients were recorded under this category in 2009/10.

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10


0

5

10

15

20

Gene

ral ne

eds l

ocal

autho

rity t

enan

cy

Hous

ing as

socia

tion g

enera

l nee

ds te

nanc

y

Priva

te se

ctor t

enan

cy

Tied

hous

ing or

rente

d with

job

Owne

r occ

upati

on

Supp

orted

hous

ing

Direc

t acc

ess h

ostel

Hous

ing fo

r olde

r peo

ple

Resid

entia

l care

home

Hosp

ital

Priso

n

Appr

oved

prob

ation

hoste

l

Child

ren's

home/f

oster

care

Bed a

nd br

eakf

ast

Shor

t life

hous

ing

Livin

g with

family

Livin

g with

frien

ds

Any o

ther t

emp a

ccom

modati

onRo

ugh s

leepin

gOt

her

Wom

en's

refug

eFo

yer

Mob

ile ho

me/cara

van

Home O

ffice

Asy

lum Su

ppor

t

Perc

enta

ge

Distribution of clients across England

Variability in the regional distribution of clients across England over time is shown in Figure 1.7. The most notable features are the decreasing proportion of clients in London since 2003/04 and an increase in the proportion of clients in Yorkshire & the Humber.


17

1.1.3 Cross-authority provision

Introduction

This section explores the arrangements in place for support by firstly describing the types of referrals open to clients and the numbers of clients accessing services via the various referral routes. It thereafter describes regional variations in cross-authority movement.

The Client Record system requires providers to give details about whether or not clients were living in the administering authority area in which the service is located immediately prior to starting to receive the service. There are two main types of referral arrangements:

Host referrals apply to clients who receive services in their own administering authority area or clients who were living in the area immediately prior to receiving a service.

Non-Host referrals apply to clients who lived outside the administering authority


North West

West Midlands

South West

South East

London

East of England

East Midlands


North East

10 12 142 4 6 80 16 18

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

Percentage

area and who were not residing in the area where the service was located immediately prior to receiving support.

Clients who access services through a non-host route are further sub-divided into four categories:

Multi-lateral referrals apply where there is an agreed protocol between two or more administering authorities relating to a specific service. Such a protocol would mean that a client from any of these administering authorities can be accepted by the service involved. These authorities may have agreed to fund a service jointly, or agreed for the service to accept clients from the areas covered by all the administering authorities within the agreed protocol.

Spot purchase referrals apply when the administering authority in whose area a client was living immediately prior to receiving the service purchases a service for the individual client from a different


18

administering authority. This differs from a multi-lateral agreement in that it is an ad hoc purchase at an individual level, normally to secure a placement in an extremely specialised service outside the administering authority area. Costs continue to be the responsibility of the original administering authority making the purchase.

Structured referrals apply where referrals are made by statutory agencies, such as the Probation Service or Social Services. These referrals are often for those clients who cannot be expected to remain in their administering authority area and so would receive a service in another administering authority area. This option differs from spot purchase as structured referrals are made to services that are funded by the authority in which the service is located.


Overall, the majority of clients (92%) who accessed SP services were referred from within their own administering authority. Therefore, one in twelve clients (8%) accessed services outside their immediate administering authority and by far the most common type of non-host referral was open access (66% of all non-host referrals). This continues a trend of increasing levels of host referrals observed each year since the start of the Supporting People programme.

Regional variations

Compared to the national average of 8% for non-host referrals, the North East (12%) and London (11%) had the highest proportions of this type of referral. The East Midlands (6%) and Yorkshire & the Humber (6%) had the lowest levels of non-host referrals.


There was little regional variation in structured referrals: the North East had the highest level (2%) compared to 1% in all other regions.

Multi-lateral protocols were infrequent across England, accounting for only 1% or 2% in all regions with the exception of 3% in the North East.

Similarly, spot purchase referrals constituted less than 1% in all regions.

Map 1.1 shows a summary of cross-authority information by region and further detail is given in Appendix 1.

1

2

3

84

56

7

9


19

North Yorkshire East East of South South West North East & Humber Midlands England London East West Midlands West 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Number of Client Record Forms 10,763 29,985 22,679 21,787 33,518 29,580 26,585 29,389 35,080

Number of organisations 200 321 231 247 681 362 355 302 482

Number of clients who left AA for services elswhere 1,248 1,759 1,414 1,505 4,099 2,397 1,414 2,244 3,208

Number of clients receiving services within own AA 9,507 28,215 21,346 20,008 29,717 27,003 24,829 26,846 31,771

Number of clients entering AA from elsewhere 1,256 1,770 1,333 1,779 3,801 2,577 1,756 2,543 3,309



20

1.2 Outcomes1.2.1 Introduction

In May 2007, the SP Outcomes Framework was launched to measure the degree to which SP funding enables clients to achieve outcomes. This introduction provides a summary of the development and design of the Outcomes Framework, and the numbers of Outcomes Forms returned for the 2009/10 period. Following this section, the ‘Trend Analysis’ (section 1.2.2) presents a comparison of the data submitted in years two and three of data collection (2008/09 and 2009/10).

The Outcomes Framework was developed by CLG and a selection of Administering Authorities and provider organisations who formed the Outcomes Working Group.

The Outcomes methodology was designed with the following aims:• to reduce the burden of administration,

particularly for cross-authority providers, in capturing local information that would be meaningful at both a service and client level;

• to provide a consistent measurement of outcomes which can be benchmarked against regional and national trends; and

• to capture the range of achievements that reflect the benefits, improvements and changes occurring for individual clients as a result of receiving SP funded services.

The first of these, reducing the burden of administration requirements on providers, was met by designing the Outcomes Form in such a way that it could become an addition to individual clients’ support plans. Service providers are expected to review support plans regularly and to use the information within the support plan to complete the Outcomes Form when a client leaves a short-term service, and at the annual support plan review for a sample of clients in long-term services.2

2 For long-term services, a sample of clients is identified and, for these clients only, Outcomes data are collected following their annual support plan review. The size of the sample depends on the type of service: 10% for older people services; and 50% for all other long-term services.

Another key consideration in developing the Outcomes Framework was to clearly demonstrate the wider impact that the SP programme has on other relevant Government strategies. This was achieved by basing it on an already well established Government Outcome methodology, the DfES ‘Every Child Matters’ framework. This framework captures the following 5 high level outcomes:

• Economic Wellbeing • Enjoy and Achieve• Be Healthy • Stay Safe• Make a Positive Contribution

Under each of these high level outcomes the Working Group developed detailed indicators that represent specific outcomes relevant to clients receiving services funded through SP. These indicators monitor observable outcomes that clients have achieved as a direct result of receiving support, for example: an increase in income or reduction in debt; an improvement in the management of physical or mental health problems; a decrease in the abuse of substances; or maintaining their accommodation.


The Outcomes Framework is not intended to be a stand alone measure of achievement. It can and should be used with other locally relevant outcome measures, particularly distance travelled tools, e.g. the Outcomes Star developed by the London Housing Foundation as part of their Outcomes Programme (http://www.homelessoutcomes.org.uk/). Providers can use distance travelled outcomes to measure the progress an individual client makes over time and provide information in greater detail for local use. CLG also developed a National Basket of Indicators which is a further list of additional outcome factors. However, this additional Basket of Indicators is not intended to form part of the Outcomes Framework information gathering process but should only be used in specific circumstances such as when a service is giving some concern to an authority and more detailed information is required.


21

The differences in approach for Short-term and Long-term services

The SP Outcomes Framework is applicable to both short-term and long-term services since the indicators chosen represent key outcomes equally relevant for all service users, regardless of the intended duration of the support service they receive. However, CLG recognised the need for a different approach in the way that the outcomes are captured, depending on the intended duration of the service. For short-term services, Outcomes data is collected for each client at the time they leave the service, unless they leave within 28 days of starting a service3. For long-term services, a sample of clients is identified and, for these clients only, Outcomes data is collected following their annual support plan review. The size of the sample depends on the type of service: 10% for older people services; and 50% for all other long-term services.

Apart from the practical differences for short-term versus long-term services, the Outcomes Framework is to all intents and purposes the same, and the data collected can be a useful tool to inform future commissioning and development for short-term services and long-term services.


The SP Outcomes Framework has now been in place for three years. Some authorities are now starting to use the information to help them commission new services. The Outcomes Framework, although not mandatory, continues to add value by providing important information which is beneficial to authorities, providers and service users. Central Government continue to use the data and this has been helpful when developing the evidence base on Supporting People.

3 The decision to collect Outcome data for clients who leave a short-term service within 28 days is the responsibility of Administering Authorities in consultation with providers

Measuring Client Outcomes

Outcomes are collected at an individual level; the data for each client is added to the national database to enable analysis at a wider level. National outcome information enables a service’s contribution to outcome achievement to be described. Knowledge of the context within which outcomes are being monitored for each individual client is necessary when considering whether the delivery of a service has been appropriate and useful.

For example, outcomes will rarely be achieved without the cooperation of clients, regardless of the relevance or quality of a service. Providing support to vulnerable people depends upon not merely the ability of the service to meet needs, but crucially upon the development of positive relationships between key support staff and clients and the capacity of the client to engage with services and achieve outcomes. A successful outcome will undoubtedly mean something different depending on the type of service and/or the readiness of the client to achieve. Thus, to some degree, services that provide support to extremely vulnerable clients - e.g. homeless people, offenders or people abusing substances - may be less likely to record a high proportion of outcomes achieved than services that provide for other, less vulnerable client groups.

Clients with chaotic behaviour or multiple needs often present a challenge to service providers. Some of these clients may be unable or unwilling to achieve many of the outcomes that are likely to move them forward towards stability and independence. The services that these clients will most likely access tend to provide support with a greater emphasis on crisis prevention, e.g. emergency accommodation or harm reduction. In this context, ameliorating crisis will be of greater significance until such times as clients are “ready” and able to progress and move towards


22

achieving more stable outcomes such as sustaining a tenancy and gaining access into work. In effect, services catering for clients with chaotic lifestyles may well demonstrate a lower level of achieved outcomes or a higher level of unplanned moves. This is useful information in itself, as it highlights areas where resources could be used to develop a more effective approach to support these clients to improve engagement with the service thereby improving the achievement of outcomes, but must be considered within the context of the particular client group and circumstances.

In this respect, the monitoring of local outcomes has less to do with meeting any locally set targets, and more to do with fitting appropriate targets around the needs of individual clients and measuring progress through careful support planning. Likewise, understanding national level outcomes requires prudent consideration of the variety of contexts within which services are delivered.


The Outcomes Framework gives the ability to compare and contrast information about specific indicators to allow comparisons within particular service types. Over time, baseline patterns will help policy-makers and commissioners to understand the way in which different services achieve different outcomes and, to some extent at least, this will highlight the factors inherent in particular service types that have the potential to make a difference in the lives of clients. Consequently, baseline patterns will enable strategic development with a stronger focus on client centred service delivery.

National Outcomes

The Outcomes Framework at a national level provides a reference point against which overall achievement can be measured, and is an indicator of what can and is being accomplished. National level analysis of outcomes can also be used as a discursive and investigative tool to unearth the real meaning of outcomes at different levels and within different contexts. At a local level, the Outcomes Framework can provide a benchmarking tool by which evidence of achievement can be gathered (although there are acknowledged difficulties in using this data for benchmarking4), alongside knowledge of gaps in support and provision, to enable improvement and availability of services for vulnerable people within a local area.

Data collected in 2009-10

For Outcomes Forms for Short-term services, 174,716 validated forms were received for clients who left services between 1st April 2009 and 31st March 2010. Appendix 2 shows a breakdown of needs identified and outcomes achieved by primary client group.

For Outcomes Forms for Long-term services, 48,853 validated forms were received for a sample of clients who received services between 1st April 2009 and 31st March 2010.

In the following section, comparisons are made with the 2008/09 data.

4 ‘A Short Report on Benchmarking’ available in the Publications section of the Client Records and Outcomes website: https://www.spclientrecord.org.uk


23

1.2.2 Comparative analysis

Short-term services

Table 1.1 provides an overview of the third year of Outcomes for short-term services data (1st April 2009 to 31st March 2010) compared to the second year (1st April 2008 to 31st March 2009)5, showing needs identified as both numbers and as percentages of all clients, and outcomes achieved as numbers and percentages of those with the need identified. This table shows a summary of the needs identified and outcomes achieved by clients in short-term funded services from 1st April 2009 to 31st March 2010 and, for comparison, 1st April 2008 to 31st March 2009.

The table shows that there was an increase in the number of clients for whom data was returned from 150,080 clients for 2008/09 to 174,716 clients in 2009/10. This represents an increase of 16% on the previous year. Likely reasons for this increase include more services returning forms in 2009/10 as providers became more aware of the framework and Administering Authorities encouraged them to participate. It is also possible that there was an increase in actual throughput, although this cannot be ascertained from the dataset itself.

Table 1.1 shows that there was very little change where percentages are concerned, for needs identified and outcomes achieved. The two most often identified needs were the same for 2008/09 and 2009/10, namely maximise income and achieving more choice and control. The third most often identified need for 2009/10 was securing settled accommodation which was a new indicator for 2009/10. The least often identified need remained unchanged, i.e. aids & adaptations.

The 2009/10 results indicate possible slight effects of the recession under Economic Wellbeing, i.e. whilst the percentage of clients needing support to obtain paid work remained unchanged at 19%, a decline of 3 percentage

5 Since the Outcomes data for 2007-2008 does not cover a whole year, it has not been included in this comparison.

points for paid work on leaving SP services has occurred since 2008/09. A drop of 4 percentage points also occurred in participating in paid work whilst in receipt of service.

The proportions of clients identified as needing support to participate in training or education and of those who achieved this outcome remained unchanged from the previous year, though there was a small increase of 1 percentage point in those who achieved qualifications.

Other small but positive indications can be drawn from Table 1.1, notably in the Stay Safe section, where the percentage of clients achieving outcomes increased slightly in all areas:• An increase of 4 percentage points for

maintain accommodation/avoid eviction• An increase of 1 percentage points for

comply with statutory orders• An increase of 3 percentage points for

managing self-harm• An increase of 2 percentage points for

avoid harm from others• An increase of 2 percentage points for

avoid causing harm to others

Similarly, in the Be Healthy section, there were small increases in the percentages of clients achieving three of the four indicators:• An increase of 3 percentage points for

physical health• An increase of 2 percentage points for

mental health• An increase of 3 percentage points for

managing substance misuseThe only other need in the Be Healthy section is aids & adaptations; the proportion of those who identified this need and achieved it decreased by 1 percentage point.

Long-term services

For long-term services, data on a sample of clients is submitted by providers (see Section 1.2.1 for more information). Table 1.2 shows a


24

Table 1.1: The number & percentage of clients requiring support to achieve specific outcomes and number & percentage of outcomes achieved (Short-term services)

1st April 2008 - 31st March 2009 1st April 2009 - 31st March 2010

Short-term Services Required support Outcome achieved Required support Outcome achieved

n % n % n % n %

All clients departing SP services 150,080 174,716

Economic wellbeing

Maximise income 108,360 72 95,994 89 128,263 73 115,025 90

Manage debt 60,285 40 42,467 70 69,551 40 49,909 72

Obtain paid work 29,186 19 33,054 19

Now in paid work 7,896 27 7,777 24

Participated in paid work whilst in receipt of service 10,452 36 10,655 32

Enjoy & achieve

Participate in training/education 49,424 33 58,339 33

Participated in training or education 30,330 61 35,759 61

Achieved qualifications 8,947 18 10,867 19

Participate in leisure/culture/faith/learning 37,501 25 29,239 78 44,357 25 35,330 80

Participate in work-like activities 24,598 16 14,378 58 29,576 17 17,290 59

Establish contact with external services/family/friends 76,265 51 88,738 51

Establish contact with external services 64,826 85 76,921 87

Establish contact with family /friends 43,279 57 50,476 57

Be healthy

Physical health 54,233 36 43,100 79 64,448 37 52,723 82

Mental health 48,985 33 36,388 74 57,658 33 44,040 76

Substance misuse 40,235 27 23,374 58 47,593 27 29,222 61

Aids & adaptations 9,290 6 8,482 91 11,405 7 10,300 90

Stay safe

Maintain accommodation / avoid eviction 83,329 56 59,556 71 94,257 54 70,388 75

Secure accommodation 104,612 60 76,912 74

Comply with statutory orders 19,425 13 14,296 74 23,544 14 17,717 75

Manage self harm 12,623 8 9,610 76 14,581 8 11,474 79

Avoid causing harm to others 11,453 8 8,024 70 13,349 8 9,619 72

Avoid harm from others 31,420 21 25,531 81 36,612 21 30,328 83

Positive contribution

Achieve more choice & control 88,699 59 74,791 84 104,705 60 89,894 86

summary of the needs identified and outcomes achieved for clients in long-term funded services from 1st April 2009 to 31st March 2010 and, for comparison, 1st April 2008 to 31st March 2009. This table shows needs identified expressed as frequencies and as a percentage of all clients, as well as outcomes achieved expressed as frequencies and as a percentage of those with the need identified.

Table 1.2 shows that 48,853 forms were returned for the most recent period. This

figure represents an increase of just under 2% compared to 2008/09. Unlike Outcomes for Short-term services, the number of forms collected for Outcomes for Long-term services remained stable with little change from the previous year. Table 1.2 also shows the needs of clients and the extent to which they achieved outcomes. The percentages of clients with each particular need remained fairly constant. The three most often identified needs also remained relatively


25

Table 1.2: The number & percentage of clients sampled requiring support to achieve specific outcomes and number & percentage of outcomes achieved (Long-term services)

1st April 2008 - 31st March 2009 1st April 2009 - 31st March 2010

Long-term Services Required support Outcome achieved Required support Outcome achieved

n % n % n % n %

All clients included in sample of long-term services 47,957 48,853

Economic wellbeing

Maximise income 25,185 53 24,200 96 26,066 53 25,101 96

Manage debt 5,110 11 4,445 87 4,407 9 3,714 84

Obtain paid work 3,362 7 3,160 7

Now in paid work 725 22 676 21

Participated in paid work whilst in receipt of service 954 28 863 27

Enjoy & achieve

Participate in training/education 6,544 14 6,376 13

Participated in training or education 4,667 71 4,512 71

Achieved qualifications 1,216 19 932 15

Participate in leisure/culture/faith/learning 17,020 35 15,404 91 17,223 35 15,623 91

Participate in work-like activities 5,489 11 3,706 68 5,615 12 3,721 66

Establish contact with external services/family/friends 20,194 42 20,000 41

Establish contact with external services 19,006 94 18,858 94

Establish contact with family /friends 16,034 79 16,254 81

Be healthy

Physical health 25,507 53 23,648 93 26,349 54 24,612 93

Mental health 12,263 26 11,168 91 12,377 25 11,512 93

Substance misuse 2,183 5 1,609 74 2,190 5 1,594 73

Aids & adaptations 26,510 55 26,139 99 26,872 55 26,501 99

Stay safe

Maintain accommodation / avoid eviction 21,281 44 20,733 97 20,752 43 20,325 98

Secure accommodation 10,156 21 9,281 91

Comply with statutory orders 1,105 2 988 89 1,079 2 971 90

Manage self harm 2,470 5 2,223 90 2,325 5 2,127 92

Avoid causing harm to others 2,623 5 2,366 90 2,442 5 2,218 91

Avoid harm from others 8,118 17 7,811 96 8,180 17 7,906 97

Positive contribution

Achieve more choice & control 19,924 42 18,987 95 19,651 40 18,858 96

unchanged between 2008/09 and 2009/10, namely maximise income, physical health, and aids & adaptations, with no more than a 1 percentage point change between these indicators over the two years. The percentage of clients with the identified need maintain accommodation/avoid eviction changed only slightly since 2008/09, with a decrease from 44% to 43%. The need least often identified also remained unchanged i.e. comply with statutory orders

Patterns of outcomes showed little or no change for 2009/10 as compared to the previous year, though there were some slight changes similar to those for short-term services: the percentage achieving now in paid work at the time of data collection declined from 22% to 21%; the percentage who participated in paid work whilst in receipt of service also declined, from 28% to 27%. The proportion of clients who had an identified need for training and education remained the same as last year. However, unlike


26

Outcomes for Short-term services, there was a drop in those who achieved qualifications (of 4 percentage points).

The identified need to establish contact with external services/family/friends decreased slightly by 1 percentage point, however the proportion of those achieving the outcome establish contact with family/friends increased by 2 percentage points. Under Stay Safe, Be Healthy and Positive Contribution, there was little change from last year in needs identified, and small increases in outcomes achieved of between 1 and 2 percentage points in most cases.

Summary

Section 1.2 has provided an overview of 2009/10 Outcomes for Short- and Long-term services data along with a comparison against 2008/09 figures for needs identified and outcomes achieved. Caution is needed in interpreting the figures given the increase in number of forms returned for Outcomes for Short-term services.

Nonetheless, percentages of support needs identified by clients leaving short-term services have remained similar and outcomes have generally remained stable with no categories changing by more than 4 percentage points. Small decreases were seen in the proportions of clients finding paid work or participating in paid work. Two of the three most frequently identified needs from the previous year remained unchanged as well as the least frequently identified need for clients leaving short-term services. Success in achieving outcomes remained particularly high for maximising income and the use of aids and adaptations to maintain independence.

For Outcomes for Long-term services a similar picture emerged, with needs remaining stable for most indicators. The three most frequently identified needs from the previous year remained unchanged as well as the least frequently identified need for clients in long-term services. Levels of achievement for outcomes for long-term services were high, with over 90% success for most needs.

Section2:Employment, education and training (EET) outcomes

27

SECTION 2: Employment, education and training (EET) outcomes

2.1 Introduction

A priority of the government is to get people into sustainable employment. Supporting People (SP) services can provide tailored support to help people back into work through identifying opportunities and offering practical support to those clients who identify a need for support in getting into work, training and education. This chapter looks at the outcomes of such clients, focusing on the three economic groups included in the Client Record and Outcomes forms where this is most relevant, i.e. Job Seekers, students and those on government training schemes.

2.2 The 2006-2010 Linked dataset

2.2.1 Methods

For the purposes of this exploration, we are interested in finding out how well people in particular economic groups at entry into housing-related support services faired with specific support outcomes. In order to conduct this kind of analysis that links information from the Client Record form to the Outcomes for Short-term Services form, it is necessary to create a ‘linked dataset’.

This involves using a number of identifying variables which appear on both forms, and linking Client Record and Outcome forms which match exactly on all of them, in order to be confident that we have found the same person at entry and exit from services. The most

important matching variable is the National Insurance (NI) number, and indeed all forms without an NI number are excluded from the matching process. After this, forms are matched based upon the start-date of support, gender, the unique id number for the provider and the unique id number for the service.

Clearly there are some limitations to this procedure, perhaps most obviously its dependence on the accuracy of the data received. However, checks have shown that the numbers of incorrectly matched forms using this technique are very low.6 The major drawback to the technique is missing data in one or more of the fields (most usually the NI number which is not compulsory), as forms which do not have entries on just one of the four matching variables have to be excluded. There is also a time limitation, in that the NI number is only present on Client Record forms from April 2006, and Outcomes forms were not collected until 2007. Outcomes forms will not yet have been completed for those clients still in services, and so no match is possible in these cases. It should also be noted that no analyses have been conducted to assess the representativeness of the linked sample as compared to the full sample.

Despite this, the linked dataset still provides an extremely useful way of linking up the snapshots of information available about clients entering and exiting short-term services.

2.2.2 The dataset selected

For this section, we have chosen as our sample:

• clients entering services between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2010;

• and who left short-term support during the year 1st April 2009 to 31st March 2010.

Of a total of 174,716 Outcomes for Short-term Services forms, 43,561 (25%) were successfully matched to a Client Record form. This dataset of successfully matched forms shall be referred to in this report as the “linked sample”.

6 Data linkage – an approach to linking Client Records to Outcomes for short-term services. Available in the ‘Publications’ section of the Client Records and Outcomes website https://www.spclientrecord.org.uk


28

Table 2.2. Summary of average age and gender split for each economic status group (Linked Sample: clients entering services between 2006-10 and leaving in 2009-10 for whom records could be linked. n = 43,561)

Age Gender

Standard Group Average (yrs) Deviation7 Females Males

Govt training/New Deal 20 6.9 42% 58%

Job Seeker 28 10.4 26% 74%

Full-time student 18 4.2 62% 38%

Linked sample 32 14.5 45% 55%

Table 2.1. Economic Status as recorded on Client Record form (Linked Sample: clients entering services between 2006-10 and leaving in 2009-10 for whom records could be linked. n = 43,561)

Economic Status n %

Full-time work 1,220 3%

Part-time work 1,317 3%

Govt training/New Deal 334 1%

Job Seeker 16,336 38%

Retired 1,772 4%

Not seeking work 9,903 23%

Full-time student 2,011 5%

Unable to work (sickness/disability) 9,417 22%

Other adult 1,231 3%

2.3 Client Characteristics

2.3.1 Characteristics of clients in the linked sample

A breakdown of economic status at entry into SP services for the linked sample is given in Table 2.1, with the three categories of interest

highlighted (hereafter referred to as the “selected economic groups”). It can be seen that whilst Job Seekers make up the largest group (38%), full-time students make up 5% of the total, and those in the ‘government training/New Deal’ comprise the smallest proportion, 1% of the linked sample.

2.3.2 Characteristics of the selected economic groups

The three selected economic groups had lower average ages than the linked sample (see Table 2.2), and by comparing 95% confidence intervals around the mean ages it was found that the differences in age between the selected economic groups were all statistically significant. That is, the student group were

significantly younger than the government training group, who were in turn significantly younger than the Job Seeker group and all three selected economic groups were significantly younger than the linked sample. Table 2.2 also shows that the government training and Job Seeker groups had more males than females, whilst the student group had a higher proportion of females than males.

7 The Standard Deviation shows the average amount of deviation from the mean age, and so gives a measure of how ‘spread out’ the values are.


29

Figure 2.1 shows primary client group8 at entry into short-term SP services. For the government training and student groups by far the largest proportions of clients were either single homeless (46% and 38%) or young people at risk (26% and 42%). For the Job Seekers the most prominent category was single homeless (56%).

Comparing the selected economic groups with the linked sample, it can be seen that the government training group were more likely to be single homeless or young people at risk and less likely to be homeless families or to be

8 Primary client group is the predominant need of the client as defined by the service provider.

9 These primary client groups were: older people with support needs, older people mental health, frail elderly, learning disabilities, physical/sensory disability, alcohol problems, drug problems, mentally disordered offenders, people with HIV/AIDS, refugees, teenage parents, traveller, generic/complex needs.

recorded as having mental health problems, or being at risk of domestic violence. The student group showed a similar pattern, though they were not much more likely than the linked sample to be single homeless. The Job Seeker group showed higher proportions of single homeless clients and young people at risk and were also more likely to be offenders or at risk of offending or rough sleepers than the linked sample. Job Seekers were less likely to be homeless families or to be recorded as having mental health problems, or being at risk of domestic violence.

Linked sample Govt training Job Seeker Full-time student

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Figure 2.1: Primary client group at entry as recorded in Client Record form (Linked Sample: clients entering services between 2006-10 and leaving in 2009-10 for whom records could be linked. n = 43,561) note: categories accounting for less than 5% are not shown9



Homless families with support needs

People at risk of domestic violence


Offenders/at risk of offending

Rough sleeper

Young people leaving care


30

2.3.3 Services accessed by selected economic groups

Looking at the types of services which the selected economic groups entered for support (see Figure 2.2), it can be seen that the government training group clients were most likely to receive supported housing services (43%) followed by floating support (31%). The student group were most likely to receive supported housing (45%) followed by floating

10 These categories were: residential care home, adult placement, supported lodgings, teenage parent accommodation, outreach service and resettlement service.

Linked sample Govt training Job Seeker Full-time student

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Figure 2.2. Type of service providing support. (Linked Sample: clients entering services between 2006-10 and leaving in 2009-10 for whom records could be linked. n = 43,561) note: categories accounting for less than 5% are not shown10

Floating support

Supported housing

Direct access

Women's refuge

Foyer

support (27%). The Job Seekers were most likely to enter supported housing (33%) or Direct Access services (33%).

All three selected economic groups were less likely than the linked sample to be in receipt of floating support, and were more likely to be in supported housing. The Job Seekers were more likely than the linked sample to be in direct access services.


31

2.4 Employment, Education and Training needs and outcomes

We now turn our attention to how well the three selected economic groups did in terms of achieving outcomes relating to employment, education and training (EET) outcomes. On the Outcomes form, the needs/outcomes which relate to these topics are:

• Q1c – ‘Did the client need support to obtain paid work?’

• Q2a – ‘Did the client need support to participate in training and/or education?’

• Q2c – ‘Did the client need support to participate in any work-like activities, e.g. unpaid work/work experience/voluntary work?’

In Figure 2.3 the proportions of clients in each selected economic group who expressed a need for each of these kinds of support is shown.

Linked sample Govt training/New Deal Job Seeker Full-time student

Figure 2.3. Proportion of clients with each support need (Linked Sample: clients entering services between 2006-10 and leaving in 2009-10 for whom records could be linked. n = 43,561)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Obtain paid work

Training/Education

Work-like activities

It should be noted that in order to complete Outcomes forms, providers use the support plan they have drawn up with the individual client. Since services may not have the support focus or resources to offer support in all areas, not every support need on the Outcomes form will be applicable. In addition if a client has not identified a need for support in their support plan then not every need on the Outcomes form will be applicable.

This may in part explain why, for example, in Figure 2.3 we can see that only 36% of Job Seekers recorded ‘obtain paid work’ as a support need, and only 23% were recorded as requiring support to participate in ‘work-like activities’. Still, these proportions were higher than for the linked sample. A slightly higher proportion of Job Seekers identified training and/or education as a support need (42%) than either of the other EET outcomes.

As might be predicted, the government training economic group were most likely to require


32

support for training and/or education (66%) than for the other EET outcomes. Around a third of this economic group requested help with obtaining paid work, with a similar proportion requiring support to obtain paid work.

Participation in training and/or education was the most common EET support need for the students (66%). Around 20% of this economic group requested support in order to obtain paid work or to participate in work-like activities.

Compared to the linked sample there were higher proportions of clients in all three

selected economic groups who needed support for participation in ‘work-like activities’. The highest proportion was shown by the government training group (29%), who are likely to participate in such activities as part of their programme. The second highest proportion of need was expressed by the Job Seekers (23%), who might see options such as voluntary work and work experience as good routes back into the workforce. Students also showed a slightly higher need than the linked sample for support with work-like activities (20%).

Figure 2.4. Proportions of clients expressing each need who managed to achieve the outcome (Linked Sample: clients entering services between 2006-10 and leaving in 2009-10 for whom records could be linked. n = 43,561)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Linked sample Govt training/New Deal Job Seeker Full-time student

Now in paid work

Participated in paid work

Participated in Training/Education

Gained qualification

Work-like activities

Figure 2.4 shows how well clients did in achieving these support needs by the time they exited from housing-related support services. The students were particularly successful in participating in both training/education (82%) and in work-like activities (66%). Just over 40% of the students with a support need for participating in training/education had gained qualifications at the point of exit from SP services. The analysis of economic status below shows that this may be because 65%

of the group were still in full-time education when leaving support. Despite being the most successful selected economic group in terms of finding paid work, only a quarter of students with this support need were in employment at exit from services, and 35% had participated in paid work at some point during their time in SP support. It is important to note that external factors such as the current economic environment may be important in the ability of all clients to find employment.


33

Table 2.3. Comparison of economic status as recorded at entry to services (Client Record) and exit from services (Outcomes) (Linked Sample: clients entering services between 2006-10 and leaving in 2009-10 for whom records could be linked. n = 43,561)

Economic Status at Full-time Part-time Govt training/ Not seeking Full-time Unable to entry work work New Deal Job Seeker Retired work student work Other Govt training/New Deal 3% 2% 34% 32% 0% 8% 15% 3% 1%

Job Seeker 2% 1% 1% 85% 0% 5% 1% 4% 1%

Full-time student 3% 2% 3% 16% 0% 7% 65% 1% 3%

The Job Seeker economic group appeared to have particular difficulties in finding paid work (16% of those with the need) or in participating in paid work (22%). However, over half of the Job Seekers who had expressed a need for support to take part in work-like activities were successful in achieving this goal. Work-like activities may be seen as a step towards paid employment. A similar proportion of Job Seekers who required support to participate in training/education were successful in this (53%), and 26% of them had gained a qualification by the time they left SP support.

Clients in the government training economic group showed a pattern of outcomes very similar to the full-time students. Of those who requested support to take part in training/education, 74% had been successful in doing so, and 34% had gained a qualification by the time they left SP services. Of the government training clients who needed support in finding paid work, 24% were in paid work at exit from services, and 32% had participated in paid work at some point during the support period. It was found that 61% of government training clients who requested help in participating in work-like activities had achieved this goal.

2.5 Changes in economic status

Another indicator of improvement for the clients can be seen in whether – and how – their economic status has changed between entry to (Client Record form), and exit from (Outcomes form) SP support services. These changes are presented in Table 2.3.

It can be seen that the majority of Job Seekers (85%) were still recorded as being in the same economic category at their exit from support. This is in line with the outcomes results recorded above, with 16% of Job Seekers who expressed the need to find paid work achieving their goal. It again underlines the difficulties this group have in finding employment. Just 2% of Job Seekers were recorded as being in full-time work on their outcomes form.

Almost two-thirds of students (65%) were still ‘full-time students’ at the end of support. This may, at least in part, account for the low levels of qualifications achieved by this group reported above (41% of those who expressed the need), since at most only a third of the students had completed their course at exit from services. Around 16% had become Job Seekers.

Only 34% of the government training clients were still recorded as such on their outcomes form. The next most common economic status at exit for this group was Job Seeker (32%), indicating that many clients had completed their training programmes. A further 15% of this group had moved on to become full-time students at exit from services.

2.6 Summary and conclusions

For each of the three EET outcomes, the student and government training economic groups both performed better than the linked sample in terms of achieving outcomes. The Job Seekers, on the other hand, tended to have lower levels of outcome achievement than the linked sample.


34

The analysis of changes in economic status suggested that none of the three selected economic groups had great success in finding employment. A small proportion of government training clients had become full-time students, but most of this group were still in training or Job Seekers at exit from services. Most Job Seekers and students did not change economic status during the support period, and most students who were no longer in education were Job Seekers at exit.

Whilst it was not possible to explore other factors that may also be at play - for example

personal goals, motivation and potential resources of clients or external factors such as the current economic situation – these may make it more difficult for all clients to find the opportunities for employment that they seek. In addition not all services will be focused on EET outcomes. That said, where EET support needs are identified, the results of these analyses show Supporting People services can help clients achieve these outcomes, particularly in relation to education and training and participation in work-like activities.

Section 3: Analysis using linked data

35

Section 3: Analysis using linked data – Pathways through Supporting People services for clients with mental health problems and offenders

3.1 Introduction

As shown in the example in the last section, linking Client Records and Outcomes data can provide information about the progress and achievements of clients up to the point they exit a Supporting People (SP) service. However little is known at a national level about what happens to clients after they leave services, and whilst the data does not capture this, linked data can be used to investigate clients who return to services.

Using as examples the ‘offenders and those at risk of offending’ and ‘mental health problems’ client groups, this section focuses on clients who enter services at multiple points, drawing insight into their characteristics and outcomes on first and subsequent support episodes.

3.2 The 2006-2010 Linked dataset

3.2.1 Methods

As described in Section 2 (page 27), the use of clients’ National Insurance (NI) numbers on Supporting People forms allows us to match up Client Record forms with their appropriate Outcomes form in order to give a picture of the client’s route through SP services.

Client Record datasets for 2006/07, 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2009/10 were joined together, as were Outcomes for Short-term Services forms from 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2009/10 (see section 2 for more details on methodology). It was

possible to match 97,748 out of 848,811 Client Record forms to their relevant Outcomes form (12%).

For the purposes of focussing on client re-entry into SP services, those clients with more than one matched record in the linked dataset were then selected. It was found that 19,428 matched records referred to users with more than one entry (and exit). These were generated by 8,656 individual clients.11

It should be borne in mind that clients may not yet have finished all contact with SP services, and so it is possible that further access to services will be made in the future. For this reason, and because of the limitations noted above, no comparisons can be made to those who do not appear more than once, since there is no way to know if they are ‘single visit’ users rather than repeat users with unmatched forms.

For this section of the annual report, the primary client group of clients at the time of their first entry into services was used to identify those with the specific needs of ‘mental health problems’ or ‘offenders or at risk of offending’ (for simplicity, this will be shortened to “offenders”, although it does also include those who may simply be at risk of offending) in order to show the characteristics of re-entry into services for these clients.

3.3 Clients with Mental Health Problems

Clients were identified as having mental health problems if this was recorded as their primary client group on their first entry into services. In the linked dataset, 6% of records (5,524) came into this category, and 3% of the repeat clients in the linked dataset had mental health problems (281 individuals). Since only a few of this repeat client group had more than 2 entries into SP support recorded (49 clients), the analyses here compare first and second support episodes.

The basic characteristics of the group are given in Table 3.1 below. It can be seen that there are more males than females in this group.

11 This is likely to underestimate the true number of repeat clients as it is based only on those forms which were successfully matched up. In addition, short-term outcomes forms are not required for clients who receive services for fewer than 28 days, therefore clients who exit and re-enter services in a short period of time may not be captured.


36

% 1st entry % 2nd entry

0 5 10 15 20 25

General needs LA tenancy

Rough sleeping

Private sector tenancy

Hospital

Living with family

HA general needs tenancy

Supported housing

Bed & Breakfast

Living with friends


Figure 3.1. Type of accommodation occupied immediately prior to accessing support. Repeat clients with mental health problems at first entry (n = 281)

%

12 The Standard Deviation shows the average amount of deviation from the mean age, and so gives a measure of how ‘spread out’ the values are.

In order to get some insight into clients’ re-entry into services we now investigate the ways in which clients came to be in support, as well as the types of housing related support services they receive.

3.3.1 Type of accommodation occupied immediately prior to entering support

The Client Record form records the kind of accommodation in which clients were living on the night immediately prior to receiving

Table 3.1. Summary of mean and standard deviation for age, and gender split for clients with mental health problems with more than one entry into support in the linked dataset (April 2006-March 2010). Values for first entry into services.

Age (yrs) Gender Clients with mental Mean Standard Deviation12 Females (%) Males (%)

health problems 36 11.7 36% 64%

support. Figure 3.1 shows which types of accommodation clients with mental health problems were coming from. It can be seen that for first entries, the most common category was general needs local authority tenancy (18%) followed by rough sleeping (11%). For second entries into support, the number of clients coming from local authority tenancy, supported housing and housing association tenancy had increased, whilst levels of clients coming from private sector tenancy, hospital or living with family had reduced. Proportions of clients coming into services from rough sleeping remained at 11% for second entry.


37

3.3.2 Source of referral

The sources of referral at first and second support entry are shown in Figure 3.2. It can be seen that although self-referral/direct application was the most frequent source of referral for this group, it was more frequent for those entering support services for a second time (31%

versus 26%) – it is possible that this reflects an increased awareness of support being available. Local authority housing department referrals were much more likely to be a source of referral on first, rather than second, entries (22% versus 14%).

Self-referral/Direct app

LA housing dept referral

CMHT

Voluntary agency

Nom by local HA

Health service/GP

Internal transfer

Other


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Figure 3.2. Source of referral. Repeat clients with mental health problems at first entry (n = 281; CMHT = ‘Community Mental Health Team’)

%

3.3.3 Type of referral

Almost all clients with mental health problems entering services had stayed within the host region on the night immediately prior to receiving support, with just over 90% of clients being host referrals for both first and second support entries. (See Section 1.1.3 for definitions of ‘host’ and ‘non-host’ referrals).

3.3.4 Service Type

In Figure 3.3, the proportions of clients with mental health problems entering different kinds of support services is shown. It is apparent that the patterns of frequency are almost identical for both first and second support entries. Floating support was the most common type of service received by clients with mental health problems, accounting for almost 40% of clients at each time they accessed services.


38

3.3.5 Overlapping support episodes

By investigating the dates on which clients began and ended support episodes, it is possible to identify those situations in which an episode of support is begun whilst another is still in progress. This may give some indication of partnership working amongst services, though clearly will also be highly dependent on the type and severity of needs of the client. For clients with mental health problems, it was found that 9 clients (3%) had episodes of support which overlapped in this way.


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Figure 3.3. Type of service received. Repeat clients with mental health problems at first entry (n = 281)

Floating Support

Supported housing

Direct Access

Resettlement Service

%

3.4 Clients who are ‘Offenders or at risk of offending’

In the linked dataset, 4% of records (3,695) were recorded as having the primary client group “offenders or at risk of offending” on their first entry into services. Of the 8,656 repeat clients, 4% were recorded in this category (325 individuals). Since only 43 of these individuals had more than two entries into support recorded, the analyses shall compare the first and second episodes for all 325 individuals.

Basic characteristics of the ‘offenders’ group are shown in Table 3.2 below. The majority of this group are male (90%).

Table 3.2. Summary of average age and gender split for clients recorded as “offenders or at risk of offending” with more than one entry into support in the linked dataset (April 2006-March 2010). Values for first entry into services.

Age (yrs) Gender Mean Standard Deviation Females (%) Males (%)

31 11.2 10% 90%

Offenders or at

risk of offending


39

3.4.1 Type of accommodation occupied immediately prior to entering support

In Figure 3.4, it can be seen that the most common type of accommodation occupied


Figure 3.4. Type of accommodation occupied immediately prior to accessing support. Repeat clients “offenders or at risk of offending” at first entry (n = 325)

0 5 10 15 20 25

Prison

Living with family

Living with friends

Rough sleeping

Supported housing

Approved Probation Hostel

Private sector tenancy

General needs LA tenancy

Any other temp accomm


%

on the night immediately preceding the first episode of support for the offenders was prison (22% of clients). For second entries to support, prison, rough sleeping and supported housing were the most common categories of accommodation, each accounting for 13-14% of clients.

3.4.2 Primary Client Group

Looking at the changes in primary client group at second entry for the clients described as offenders at first entry, it was found that 44% were still recorded as ‘offenders or at risk of offending’. The only other primary client group with more than 7% of clients at second entry was ‘single homeless with support needs’ (32%).

3.4.3 Source of referral

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Figure 3.5 shows that most ‘offenders’ were referred into support

services by probation services/prison for both first and second support entries, and this was particularly true for first entries, where 58% of clients were referred in this way. For second entries to support, this remained the most common source (31%) with self-referrals/direct access accounting for a further 18% of referrals. As suggested above for clients with mental health problems, this increase in self-referrals/direct applications for subsequent support episodes may indicate increased awareness of the support which is available.


40

Figure 3.5. Source of referral. Repeat clients “offenders or at risk of offending” at first entry (n = 325)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Probation service/prison

Self-referral/Direct app

Internal transfer


LA housing dept referral

Voluntary agency

Nom by local HA

Other


%

Figure 3.6. Type of service received. Repeat clients “offenders or at risk of offending” at first entry (n = 325)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Supported housing

Floating Support

Outreach Service

Direct Access

Resettlement Service

%


41

3.4.4 Type of referral

The majority of referrals to support for offenders were host referrals. This was particularly true for clients entering for the second time, with 88% of referrals being host referrals (86% at first entry). Structured non-host referrals (ie those made by statutory agencies such as the probation service) accounted for a further 10% of referrals at first entry.

3.4.5 Service Type

The pattern of proportions for types of services entered by offenders is shown in Figure 3.6. It can be seen that supported housing was the most commonly entered service for both first and second support episodes. The proportion of clients entering direct access services increased from 13% at first entry to 26% at second entry. The percentage of clients accessing outreach services fell slightly at second entry.

3.4.6 Overlapping support episodes

As mentioned above, examination of start- and end-dates for support allows identification of overlapping episodes of support, possibly indicating co-ordinated working between services. For those recorded as “offenders or at risk of offending”, 6% of repeat clients (21 individuals) received episodes of support which overlapped with each other.

3.5 Summary and Conclusions

This section has given some examples of the kinds of information that can be found by linking together Client Record forms (at entry to support services) with Outcomes for Short-term Services forms at exit. Despite the relatively small sample sizes it has been possible to see how previous accommodation, referral sources and the types of services received can change between a client’s first entry into support service and their second. For example:

• Clients with mental health problems were more likely to make a self-referral or direct application to support on their second entry, and were much less likely to have been referred into support by a local authority housing department.

• The most common type of service accessed by clients with mental health problems was floating support, and this remains the same for first and second entry.

• Those clients recorded as ‘offenders or at risk of offending’ were most likely to enter supported housing at both first and second entry. The proportion of this group entering direct access services increased at second entry.

• Offenders were most likely to be referred to services by probation services or prison, however this referral route was less common on second entry.

• For both groups of clients, almost all referrals at first and second entry were host referrals.

• A very small proportion of clients in each group received overlapping episodes of support (3% of clients with mental health problems; 6% of offenders).


42

APPENDIX1

43

Table A: Patterns of client movement within and between regions

Type of Referral

Non Host Net Net Non Host from outside Exports import/ number from within region to other export of peopleRegion name Host region (imports) regions ratio* imported a b c d e f

North East 9,507 1,063 179 185 96.8 -6


East Midlands 21,346 765 549 649 84.6 -100

East of England 20,008 963 748 542 138.0 206

London 29,717 3,100 615 999 61.6 -384

South East 27,003 1,528 1,011 869 116.3 142

South West 24,829 1,046 658 368 178.8 290

West Midlands 26,846 1,754 765 490 156.1 275

North West 31,771 2,700 510 508 100.4 2

Outside England 418 -418

TOTAL 219,242 14,159 5,547 5,547 100.0 0


* figure of 100 = same number of clients imported from other region as exported to another region

Table A shows the overall movement of clients into and out of each region, based on type of referral recorded. • Column a ‘Host clients’: records are those

who originated from within the funding Administering Authority area;

• Column b ‘non-host clients from within the region’: records those who originated outside the funding Administering Authority area, but within the same region as the funding Administering Authority;

• Column c ‘imports from outside region’: records those who originated from outside the region of the funding Administering Authority;


• Column e ‘the net import/export ratio’ shows the number of clients coming into that region to access services divided by the number that left.


Regions with ratios above 100 have recorded more clients coming into the region from outside to receive services than left the region to access services. For example, a ratio of 200 means that twice as many clients came into the region to access services compared to the number of clients who left the region to access services. These regions are described as net importers.


Column f, the last column in the table, shows the overall result of this movement as net import/export where positive numbers indicate

Appendix 1: Patterns of client movement within and between regions


44

the net number of clients who came into the region to access services (corresponding ratio of over 100). Negative numbers indicate the net number of clients who left the region to access services elsewhere (corresponding ratio of under 100).

Of the 9 regions, four were net exporters of SP clients and five were net importers, though for some regions these net ‘gains’ or ‘losses’ were very small, e.g. the North West had just 2 more imported clients than it exported.

It is important to note that, in terms of cross-authority movement, a far greater number of non-host clients moved within region (column b) rather than between regions (column c). That is, clients are most likely to access services across Administering Authorities within the same region, than they are to cross regional boundaries.

London, was by far the largest net exporter, with a total of 384 SP clients leaving the region to receive services, and a net import/export ratio of 61.6 (i.e. for every two people who came into the region for services, three people left the region). Yorkshire and the Humber, the East Midlands, and the North East were also net exporters but to a lesser extent.

The South West recorded the highest net import ratio (178.8) with far more clients coming into the region than leaving. The West Midlands, the East of England, the South East and the North West were also net importers each having ratios showing a greater number of clients entering the region than leaving. The West Midlands and the South West were the only regions to record a net import of over 250 SP clients.

A total of 418 SP clients came from outside England to receive services.

Column d shows that, in terms of actual numbers of clients, London (999 clients exported) and the South East (869 clients exported) had the largest number of clients moving to other regions for support.

Column c shows that, in terms of the actual number of clients imported from other regions, the South East was the only region to record over 1,000 clients coming into the region (1,011 clients), followed by the West Midlands and the East of England, which each recorded over 700 clients coming into the region.

Each region recorded a large amount of internal client movement from one Administering Authority area to another within the same region (column b). London recorded the largest number of intra-regional transfers (3,100), followed by the North West with 2,700 clients moving within this region. The number of intra-regional transfers in all other regions was lower: between 740 and 1,800.

APPEND

IX245

Appendix 2: Outcomes for Short-term services by Primary Client Group

1 Economic WellBeing

Outcome data for Short-term services(April 2009 - March 2010) 1a. Maximise income 1b. Reduce Overall Debt 1c. Obtain Paid Work

Achieved outcome (Participated in Needing Achieved Needing Achieved Needing Achieved outcome Work Whilst In Support outcome Support outcome Support (now in Paid Work) Receipt of Service)

Primary Client Group Total n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Older people with support needs 7,146 4,305 60 3,835 89 1,433 20 1,236 86 56 1 22 39 27 48

Older people mental health 797 391 49 331 85 178 22 143 80 5 1 2 40 2 40

Frail elderly 710 440 62 357 81 95 13 77 81 2 <1 1 50 1 50

Mental health problems 17,305 12,207 71 10,919 89 7,983 46 6,211 78 1,825 11 451 25 585 32

Learning disabilities 2,553 1,884 74 1,677 89 1,160 45 899 78 391 15 100 26 147 38

Physical or sensory disability 5,273 3,550 67 3,179 90 1,751 33 1,446 83 191 4 50 26 64 34

Single homeless with support needs 46,433 35,951 77 32,542 91 18,132 39 11,389 63 13,743 30 2,857 21 4,032 29

Alcohol problems 7,321 4,967 68 4,411 89 3,468 47 2,610 75 1,156 16 236 20 304 26

Drug problems 6,267 4,476 71 3,944 88 3,035 48 2,130 70 1,050 17 212 20 268 26

Offenders/at risk of offending 8,623 6,376 74 5,623 88 3,474 40 2,418 70 3,002 35 472 16 707 24

Mentally disordered offenders 213 149 70 128 86 94 44 61 65 41 19 4 10 7 17

Young people at risk 14,324 12,046 84 10,896 90 6,166 43 4,268 69 4,395 31 1,157 26 1,701 39

Young people leaving care 1,767 1,355 77 1,210 89 680 38 489 72 599 34 170 28 282 47

People with HIV/AIDS 426 315 74 284 90 157 37 138 88 70 16 30 43 34 49

Homeless families with support needs 12,226 9,717 79 8,973 92 4,911 40 3,746 76 1,076 9 342 32 420 39

Refugees 2,582 2,283 88 2,139 94 768 30 693 90 907 35 363 40 450 50

Teenage parents 3,629 3,172 87 2,926 92 1,267 35 965 76 269 7 89 33 131 49

Rough Sleeper 2,997 1,965 66 1,753 89 1,185 40 786 66 725 24 121 17 152 21

Traveller 562 382 68 325 85 153 27 128 84 39 7 10 26 12 31

People at risk of domestic violence 18,590 11,875 64 10,634 90 5,080 27 3,746 74 1,567 8 460 29 540 34

Generic/Complex needs 14,972 10,457 70 8,939 85 8,381 56 6,330 76 1,945 13 628 32 789 41

TOTAL 174,716 128,263 115,025 69,551 49,909 33,054 7,777 10,655

SupportingPeopleClientRecords&

Outcom

esAnnualReport2009-2010

46


2 Enjoy and Achieve

2c. Participate in Work-Like 2b. Participate in Leisure/ Activitites, Unpaid Work / Outcome data for Short-term services Cultural / Faith / Work Experience / Work-Like 2d. Establish Contact with External(April 2009 - March 2010) 2a. Participate in Training / Education Informal Learning Experience / Voluntary Work Services / Groups / Friends / Family

Achieved outcome Achieved Achieved (Established outcome outcome Contact with (Established (Participated Achieved External Contact with Needing in Training / outcome (with Needing Achieved Needing Achieved Needing Services / Friends / Support Education) Qualifications) Support outcome Support outcome Support Groups) Family)

Primary Client Group Total n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Older people with support needs 7,146 202 3 149 74 48 24 1,410 20 1,156 82 187 3 143 76 3,666 51 3,375 92 1,525 42

Older people mental health 797 41 5 28 68 7 17 255 32 190 75 34 4 22 65 463 58 380 82 176 38

Frail elderly 710 6 1 2 33 0 0 97 14 71 73 5 1 4 80 246 35 214 87 70 28

Mental health problems 17,305 4,901 28 2,806 57 822 17 5,862 34 4,469 76 3,585 21 2,087 58 9,310 54 7,941 85 4,856 52

Learning disabilities 2,553 903 35 573 63 130 14 845 33 672 80 587 23 368 63 1,370 54 1,206 88 716 52

Physical or sensory disability 5,273 657 12 445 68 99 15 1,140 22 909 80 353 7 210 59 2,637 50 2,419 92 998 38

Single homeless with support needs 46,433 20,028 43 12,196 61 3,910 20 11,968 26 9,428 79 10,670 23 6,175 58 23,410 50 19,918 85 15,004 64

Alcohol problems 7,321 2,434 33 1,528 63 460 19 2,419 33 1,930 80 1,807 25 1,129 62 4,251 58 3,628 85 2,624 62

Drug problems 6,267 2,407 38 1,389 58 435 18 1,987 32 1,591 80 1,642 26 933 57 3,617 58 3,131 87 2,306 64

Offenders/at risk of offending 8,623 3,441 40 1,806 52 522 15 2,103 24 1,579 75 2,122 25 1,105 52 4,317 50 3,621 84 2,753 64

Mentally disordered offenders 213 75 35 30 40 7 9 68 32 45 66 51 24 20 39 120 56 99 83 75 63

Young people at risk 14,324 8,149 57 5,542 68 1,835 23 4,240 30 3,520 83 3,076 21 1,917 62 7,796 54 6,656 85 5,240 67

Young people leaving care 1,767 1,110 63 752 68 257 23 522 30 421 81 436 25 279 64 956 54 825 86 653 68

People with HIV/AIDS 426 122 29 93 76 32 26 109 26 93 85 63 15 45 71 216 51 198 92 108 50

Homeless families with support needs 12,226 2,563 21 1,435 56 328 13 1,997 16 1,674 84 632 5 352 56 5,260 43 4,785 91 2,214 42

Refugees 2,582 1,483 57 1,164 78 373 25 830 32 753 91 464 18 328 71 1,221 47 1,133 93 658 54

Teenage parents 3,629 1,600 44 1,017 64 331 21 1,007 28 794 79 245 7 163 67 1,949 54 1,680 86 1,092 56

Rough Sleeper 2,997 908 30 494 54 162 18 713 24 558 78 658 22 418 64 1,431 48 1,216 85 935 65

Traveller 562 72 13 34 47 5 7 61 11 44 72 19 3 10 53 238 42 214 90 63 26

People at risk of domestic violence 18,590 4,268 23 2,591 61 629 15 4,937 27 4,116 83 1,629 9 850 52 10,685 57 9,511 89 6,426 60

Generic/Complex needs 14,972 2,969 20 1,685 57 475 16 1,787 12 1,317 74 1,311 9 732 56 5,579 37 4,771 86 1,988 36

TOTAL 174,716 58,339 35,759 10,867 44,357 35,330 29,576 17,290 88,738 76,921 50,480

APPEND

IX247


3 Be Healthy

3d. Assistive Technology / AidsSP Short-Term Outcome Data 3c. Better Manage and Adaptations is Helping to(April 2009 - March 2010) 3a. Better Manage Physical Health 3b. Better Manage Mental Health Substance Misuse Issues Maintain Independence

Needing Achieved Needing Achieved Needing Achieved Needing Achieved Support outcome Support outcome Support outcome Support outcome

Primary Client Group Total n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Older people with support needs 7,146 3,458 48 3,022 87 1,291 18 1,054 82 263 4 159 60 2,784 39 2,610 94

Older people mental health 797 396 50 303 77 563 71 401 71 52 7 32 62 186 23 160 86

Frail elderly 710 273 38 221 81 62 9 46 74 12 2 1 8 224 32 199 89

Mental health problems 17,305 7,438 43 5,956 80 14,373 83 11,345 79 4,054 23 2,518 62 949 5 842 89

Learning disabilities 2,553 1,006 39 845 84 816 32 636 78 230 9 142 62 213 8 202 95

Physical or sensory disability 5,273 2,601 49 2,226 86 1,087 21 868 80 365 7 220 60 2,488 47 2,302 93

Single homeless with support needs 46,433 17,562 38 14,077 80 13,364 29 9,561 72 16,928 36 9,530 56 1,288 3 1,128 88

Alcohol problems 7,321 4,331 59 3,264 75 3,215 44 2,348 73 6,275 86 4,076 65 450 6 402 89

Drug problems 6,267 3,226 51 2,527 78 2,278 36 1,704 75 5,560 89 3,848 69 219 3 191 87

Offenders/at risk of offending 8,623 3,251 38 2,588 80 2,530 29 1,865 74 4,704 55 3,145 67 217 3 180 83

Mentally disordered offenders 213 90 42 61 68 151 71 99 66 104 49 58 56 10 5 9 90

Young people at risk 14,324 4,949 35 4,136 84 3,601 25 2,693 75 2,977 21 1,694 57 319 2 278 87

Young people leaving care 1,767 662 37 537 81 406 23 276 68 415 23 210 51 39 2 34 87

People with HIV/AIDS 426 237 56 209 88 150 35 125 83 34 8 25 74 38 9 32 84

Homeless families with support needs 12,226 2,409 20 2,131 88 1,886 15 1,563 83 734 6 511 70 237 2 213 90

Refugees 2,582 755 29 708 94 287 11 250 87 42 2 28 67 91 4 86 95

Teenage parents 3,629 961 26 836 87 615 17 480 78 169 5 112 66 17 <1 13 76

Rough Sleeper 2,997 1,385 46 1,122 81 952 32 681 72 1,494 50 960 64 208 7 164 79

Traveller 562 129 23 117 91 65 12 54 83 28 5 16 57 27 5 26 96

People at risk of domestic violence 18,590 6,094 33 5,216 86 6,393 34 5,180 81 1,664 9 969 58 604 3 554 92

Generic/Complex needs 14,972 3,235 22 2,621 81 3,573 24 2,811 79 1,489 10 968 65 797 5 675 85

TOTAL 174,716 64,448 52,723 57,658 44,040 47,593 29,222 11,405 10,300

SupportingPeopleClientRecords&

Outcom

esAnnualReport2009-2010

48

Appendix 2 cont. Outcomes for Short-term services by Primary Client Group 4 Stay Safe 4ai. Maintain 4aii Secure/Obtain Settled 4b. Comply with Statutory 4c(i). Better Manage 4c(ii). Avoid Causing 4c(iii). Minimise Harm / Accommodation Accommodation Orders and Processes in Self Harm Harm to Others Risk of Harm From and Avoid Eviction Relation to Offending Others Behaviour

Needing Achieved Needing Achieved Needing Achieved Needing Achieved Needing Achieved Needing Achieved Support outcome Support outcome Support outcome Support outcome Support outcome Support outcome

Primary Client Group Total n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Older people with support needs 7,146 1,697 24 1,549 91 1,696 24 1,298 77 90 1 69 77 112 2 95 85 93 1 73 78 540 8 488 90

Older people mental health 797 223 28 176 79 198 25 147 74 10 1 7 70 43 5 37 86 22 3 20 91 105 13 89 85

Frail elderly 710 107 15 94 88 107 15 69 64 4 1 3 75 9 1 4 44 4 1 3 75 38 5 35 92

Mental health problems 17,305 9,018 52 7,447 83 8,122 47 6,277 77 1,273 7 977 77 2,999 17 2,409 80 1,523 9 1,203 79 3,322 19 2,777 84

Learning disabilities 2,553 1,364 53 1,179 86 1,131 44 916 81 146 6 108 74 153 6 125 82 180 7 142 79 597 23 518 87

Physical or sensory disability 5,273 1,605 30 1,435 89 1,623 31 1,240 76 90 2 77 86 137 3 90 66 83 2 65 78 476 9 416 87

Single homeless with support needs 46,433 28,912 62 18,689 65 34,749 75 24,244 70 8,442 18 6,091 72 4,182 9 3,232 77 4,198 9 2,706 64 6,220 13 4,988 80

Alcohol problems 7,321 4,555 62 3,334 73 3,769 51 2,605 69 1,131 15 891 79 1,137 16 863 76 879 12 631 72 1,393 19 1,093 78

Drug problems 6,267 4,127 66 2,777 67 3,939 63 2,627 67 1,831 29 1,390 76 776 12 620 80 592 9 416 70 997 16 764 77

Offenders/at risk of offending 8,623 5,562 65 3,800 68 6,457 75 4,252 66 5,861 68 4,557 78 918 11 728 79 2,331 27 1,844 79 1,689 20 1,385 82

Mentally disordered offenders 213 131 62 97 74 135 63 86 64 93 44 63 68 40 19 23 58 68 32 51 75 59 28 45 76

Young people at risk 14,324 9,599 67 7,065 74 9,728 68 7,537 77 1,880 13 1,360 72 1,344 9 1,103 82 1,244 9 886 71 2,587 18 2,115 82

Young people leaving care 1,767 1,266 72 915 72 1,164 66 909 78 286 16 212 74 196 11 149 76 204 12 135 66 375 21 285 76

People with HIV/AIDS 426 178 42 165 93 204 48 157 77 15 4 13 87 16 4 14 88 9 2 8 89 42 10 38 90

Homeless families with support needs 12,226 6,359 52 5,623 88 8,554 70 7,414 87 456 4 381 84 278 2 231 83 302 2 228 76 1,427 12 1,276 89

Refugees 2,582 1,251 48 1,172 94 1,747 68 1,435 82 19 1 18 95 23 1 18 78 24 1 20 83 93 4 87 94

Teenage parents 3,629 2,008 55 1,728 86 2,487 69 2,100 84 125 3 103 82 132 4 110 83 179 5 138 77 673 19 547 81

Rough Sleeper 2,997 1,791 60 1,109 62 2,357 79 1,563 66 552 18 414 75 406 14 339 84 276 9 188 68 367 12 290 79

Traveller 562 181 32 143 79 244 43 145 59 22 4 18 82 13 2 7 54 8 1 7 88 52 9 41 79

People at risk of domestic violence 18,590 6,167 33 4,921 80 10,847 58 7,941 73 519 3 417 80 1,084 6 825 76 671 4 516 77 13,858 75 11,640 84

Generic/Complex needs 14,972 8,156 54 6,970 85 5,354 36 3,950 74 699 5 548 78 583 4 452 78 459 3 339 74 1,702 11 1,411 83

TOTAL 174,716 94,257 70,388 104,612 76,912 23,544 17,717 14,581 11,474 13,349 9,619 36,612 30,328

APPEND

IX249


5 Make a Positive Contribution

5 Developing Confidence and AbilitySP Short-Term Outcome Data to have Greater Choice and / or(April 2009 - March 2010) Control and / or Involvement

Needing Achieved Support outcome

Primary Client Group Total n % n %

Older people with support needs 7,146 3,629 51 3,351 92

Older people mental health 797 539 68 415 77

Frail elderly 710 252 35 222 88

Mental health problems 17,305 11,738 68 10,073 86

Learning disabilities 2,553 1,764 69 1,545 88

Physical or sensory disability 5,273 2,877 55 2,647 92

Single homeless with support needs 46,433 25,359 55 21,075 83

Alcohol problems 7,321 4,716 64 3,872 82

Drug problems 6,267 4,045 65 3,244 80

Offenders/at risk of offending 8,623 5,022 58 3,997 80

Mentally disordered offenders 213 123 58 92 75

Young people at risk 14,324 9,218 64 7,981 87

Young people leaving care 1,767 1,174 66 995 85

People with HIV/AIDS 426 248 58 228 92

Homeless families with support needs 12,226 6,377 52 5,933 93

Refugees 2,582 1,766 68 1,685 95

Teenage parents 3,629 2,428 67 2,126 88

Rough Sleeper 2,997 1,485 50 1,256 85

Traveller 562 270 48 248 92

People at risk of domestic violence 18,590 14,197 76 12,414 87

Generic/Complex needs 14,972 7,478 50 6,495 87

TOTAL 174,716 104,705 89,894


50

Summary

51


52

CHR, The ObservatorySP Client Record & Outcomes OfficeUniversity of St AndrewsBuchanan GardensSt AndrewsFife KY16 9LZ

Tel: 01334 461765


web: https://www.spclientrecord.org.uk

supporting people client records - uk data...

Documents