survey of needs & provision 2011 - homeless link...6 snapshot homeless link’s survey of needs...

Survey of NeedS & Provision 2011ServiceS for HomeleSS SiNgle PeoPle aNd couPleS iN eNglaNd

WWW.HomeleSS.org.uK/SNaP-2011

1

Report Produced by: Homeless Link Gateway House Milverton St London SE11 4AP © March 2011 Cover photos Top left - client and practitioner at the Find & Treat mobile x-ray unit; bottom left - clients from Stonham Hull Women's Service at the Chelsea Flower Show Places of Change Garden; right - clients at Roundabout Hostel, Sheffield. All photos © Robert Davidson.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS SNAPShot ................................................................................................................. 6

Organisations .................................................................................................................. 6

The Sector ....................................................................................................................... 6

Individuals ....................................................................................................................... 7

Impact of cuts .................................................................................................................. 7

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 8

Background to the survey .............................................................................................. 8

What can the survey do for you? ................................................................................... 8

Data quality notes ........................................................................................................... 9

THE SURVEY .......................................................................................................... 10

Participants ................................................................................................................... 10

THE SECTOR .......................................................................................................... 12

Size of the sector .......................................................................................................... 13

Number of bed spaces .................................................................................................. 14

Rooms specifically for couples .................................................................................... 17

Empty beds .................................................................................................................... 18

People using day centres ............................................................................................. 19

Staff numbers ................................................................................................................ 19

Staffing methods ........................................................................................................... 21

Key working sessions ................................................................................................................ 21

Key working session frequency ............................................................................................... 21

Current/ex-service users .............................................................................................. 21

Funding .......................................................................................................................... 22

Annual Turnover ......................................................................................................................... 22

Primary Funding Stream by Service Type ............................................................................... 22

Funding Sources compared to 2009 ........................................................................................ 24

ORGANISATIONS ................................................................................................... 26

Top 3 issues .................................................................................................................. 26

Issue 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 26

Issue 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 27

Issue 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 27

Biggest gap in service provision ................................................................................. 28

Client involvement ........................................................................................................ 29

Project accessibility ...................................................................................................... 30

Refusals ....................................................................................................................................... 30

Local Connection ....................................................................................................................... 31

Evictions and abandonments ................................................................................................... 31

Specialist service availability ....................................................................................... 33

3

Service availability by delivery method ................................................................................... 35

Service access problems ............................................................................................. 37

INDIVIDUALS .......................................................................................................... 38

Client background ......................................................................................................... 38

Client recording system ............................................................................................... 38

Links with probation ..................................................................................................... 42

Access to community care packages (CCP) ............................................................... 42

Targeted service provision ........................................................................................... 42

Issues affecting clients ................................................................................................. 44

Client outcomes ............................................................................................................ 46

Measurement .............................................................................................................................. 46

Client Move-On ........................................................................................................................... 46

Positive outcomes ...................................................................................................................... 46

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 48

Focus on service availability – Health ......................................................................... 48

Services for specific client groups .............................................................................. 50

Sustainability of services ............................................................................................. 52

Impact of cuts ................................................................................................................ 52

Final remarks ................................................................................................................. 54

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 55

4

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Sample comparison of SNAP 2010 and SNAP 2011 ............................................................. 10

Table 2: Regional breakdown of sample by Service Type .................................................................... 11

Table 3: Number of Projects in SNAP 2011 .......................................................................................... 14

Table 4: Proportion of Population Size to Available Bed Spaces by Region ........................................ 15

Table 5: Bed Spaces by Room Type .................................................................................................... 17

Table 6: Number of Empty Beds/Night by Region ................................................................................ 18

Table 7: Number of People using Day Centres .................................................................................... 19

Table 8: Staff Numbers in Sample and Sector...................................................................................... 20

Table 9: Annual Turnover of Projects in the Sample ............................................................................ 22

Table 10: Primary Funding Stream by Service Type ............................................................................ 23

Table 11: Current Funding Sources ...................................................................................................... 25

Table 12: Reasons for Refusal, 2010 – 2011 Comparison ................................................................... 31

Table 13: Proportion of Projects with Evictions and Abandonments, 2009 – 2011. ............................. 32

Table 14: Reasons for eviction.............................................................................................................. 32

Table 15: Service Availability Comparison 2008 - 2011 ....................................................................... 33

Table 16: Service Provision by Delivery method .................................................................................. 35

Table 17: Service Access Problems by Problems Type ....................................................................... 37

Table 18: Access to CCP by Project Type ............................................................................................ 42

Table 19: Client Move On, 2009 – 2011. .............................................................................................. 46

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: SNAP 2011 Regional breakdown of sample ........................................................................ 10

Figure 2: Key Statistics for the Sector ................................................................................................... 12

Figure 3: Map of Bed Spaces Recorded in HUK by Region ................................................................. 16

Figure 4: Proportions of projects with rooms specifically for couples ................................................... 17

Figure 5: Staffing Level Comparison 2010 – 2011 ............................................................................... 20

Figure 6: Projects Employing Current and Ex-Clients, 2010 – 2011 comparison. ................................ 21

Figure 7: Funding vs. Services Provided for Drug ................................................................................ 24

Figure 8: Top Issue for Respondents .................................................................................................... 27

Figure 9: Biggest Gap in Service Provision .......................................................................................... 28

Figure 10: Level of Client Involvement .................................................................................................. 29

.............................................................................................................................................................. 29

Figure 11: Evictions by Project Type Figure 12: Abandonment by Project Type ....................... 32

Figure 13: Decreases in Service Availability from 2010. ...................................................................... 34

Figure 14: Average Client Background in a Day Centre ....................................................................... 39

Figure 15: Average Client Background20

in a Direct Access Hostel ..................................................... 40

Figure 16: Average Client Background20

in a 2nd

Stage Accommodation ............................................ 41

Figure 17: Targeted Service Provision .................................................................................................. 43

Figure 18: Issues Affecting Clients in a Day Centre, 2010 - 2011 ........................................................ 44

Figure 19: Issues Affecting Clients in a Direct Access Hostel, 2010 – 2011 ........................................ 45

5

Figure 20: Issues Affecting Clients in a 2nd

Stage Accommodation, 2010 – 2011 ............................... 45

Figure 21: Positive Outcomes by Project Type ..................................................................................... 47

Figure 22: Key statistics for Drug Services ........................................................................................... 48

Figure 23: Key statistics for Alcohol Services ....................................................................................... 49

Figure 24: Key statistics for Physical Health Services .......................................................................... 49

Figure 25: Key statistics for Mental Health Services ............................................................................ 50

Figure 26: Key statistics for Migrant Groups ......................................................................................... 50

Figure 27: Key statistics for groups owed statutory duty ...................................................................... 51

Figure 28: Proportion of projects reporting change in current funding source ...................................... 52

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Project Types .................................................................................................................... 56

Appendix 2: Methodology...................................................................................................................... 57

Appendix 3: Areas with Lowest Provision ............................................................................................. 59

Appendix 4: Current Funding Sources .................................................................................................. 60

Appendix 5: Overall Service Availability 2008 – 2011. ......................................................................... 61

Appendix 6: Service Access Problems 2010 – 2011 Comparison........................................................ 62

Appendix 7: National Proportion of Client Background ......................................................................... 63

6

SNAPshot

Homeless Link’s Survey of Needs and Provision (SNAP) 2011 provides an overview of the homelessness sector, offering insights into the sustainability and range of services available in England. SNAP 2011 also tracks the changes happening to organisations and individuals who access the services provided in comparison to previous years. Homeless Link is able to confidently compare data from this year to those provided by SNAP 2010. Nearly 60% of the respondents of SNAP 2010 took part again this year, and the size of the sample has been kept the same. Given the challenges of government austerity measures faced by the sector, substantial changes to service provision seem inevitable in 2011. At this time, SNAP 2011 is crucial in tracking how these national changes, be they to local government funding, the welfare system, or the variety of statutory support available, may be affecting services and their users. The SNAP survey is equally important in evidencing the impact that sector services have on moving people back to independent living. Below are the some of the key findings from SNAP 2011.

ORGANISATIONS

Main changes from last year:

• The top issue reported by projects is “Funding”, whilst the biggest gap in provision reported is “Move-on/resettlement”.

• More projects are reporting client involvement activities at higher levels, such as board memberships and being on recruitment panels.

• Projects are becoming stricter in terms of the clients allowed to access their services.

• There is a decrease in the availability of all the health-related services. The decreases range between 1% for mediation services, to 12% for nursing care.

• There is an increase in the number of projects reporting service access problems. The increases range between 5% for alcohol services to 19% for resettlement). These increases were seen particularly for reasons such as clients’ ineligibility and unsuitability.

THE SECTOR


• At least 38 fewer projects Figures are correct at the time of writing

• At least 1,169 fewer bed spaces (March 2011)

• The number of full-time staff in Day Centres and 2nd Stage Accommodation has decreased. Conversely, there has been an increase in the number of part-time staff and volunteers.

• Projects reported employing more current and ex-service users.

• There was a 6% decrease in the number of projects primarily funded by Supporting People.

7

INDIVIDUALS


• Projects reported seeing more female clients.

• 48% of projects stated that more than half of their clients have links with probation.

• Groups with the lowest targeted service provision are couples, older people, Eastern European migrants, and irregular migrants.

• Projects reported seeing more clients with health-related issues.

IMPACT OF CUTS

50% of the respondents said that they had not had any income reduction compared to the previous year. Of the 250 projects that said they had a reduction in income, 63% stated that this has had an impact on their clients (September – October 2010). Some of the other main impacts of income reduction include:

• reduction in staffing level.

• service closures/reduction.

• decreased contact with clients.

• reduction in activities.

• increase in rent/service charges.

8

INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND TO THE SURVEY Major progress has been made in tackling homelessness over the past two decades. Both the government and the voluntary sectors have worked together in making the changes on the ground. The voluntary sector especially has transformed considerably since the late 1980s and early 1990s, when responses to homelessness had been much more reactive and less preventative. Services often sought to manage the problem rather than to resolve or end it. However, there has been a recent shift on the focus of the services provided in the sector which can largely be contributed to the Places of Change programme and approach. This important milestone in the efforts in ending homelessness and rough sleeping captures the ethos of the sector in the 21st century. Focus is placed on empowering and involving service users, providing services in high-quality buildings by motivated staff. The sector is set to undergo yet another massive change in the coming years for a number of reasons. The previous government removed the ring fence around Supporting People funding in 2010 in order to “…give councils more flexibility to direct finances to those most in need”.1 Moreover, the welfare reforms proposed by the coalition government would affect a large proportion of service users. According to an impact study carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), nearly half of housing benefit claimants will lose an average of £12/week, with the range being £4 - £127/week.2 Finally, imminent cuts to local authority budgets would inevitably lead to the loss of a number of services. The remaining would be required to go through the process of retendering for contracts, which would considerably be more competitive. All these changes bring into question the sustainability and range of services available, as some services would inevitably have to be lost. The Survey of Needs and Provision (SNAP) provides us with the facts and figures to track the changes happening to the sector, organisations and to individuals becoming homeless. SNAP is published by Homeless Link annually, with the first being published in February 2008. The 2011 report provides an updated picture of the extent and nature of specific services available to single homeless people and couples without dependent children in England, and the clients that use them. The report is based on the findings of a telephone survey of homelessness provider organisations conducted on behalf of Homeless Link in September and October 2010, as well as information taken from the Homeless UK (HUK) database. WHAT CAN THE SURVEY DO FOR YOU? SNAP allows service providers, local authorities, commissioners and policy makers to see where services fit into the national picture. It provides key evidence on the characteristics of homeless people and their service needs. Information in SNAP can be used in the following ways:

• As supporting evidence in proposals for service provision

• To inform strategies for homelessness policy and services

• To help determine decisions about awards of contracts for service provision

• To complement other evidence as to the needs and background of homeless people

• To begin to benchmark your service against wider provision.

1 Inside Housing (2008). Supporting People ring fence to be removed. Available:

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/ihstory.aspx?storycode=6502105. Retrieved 18 February 2011. 2 DWP. (2010). Impacts of Housing Benefit proposals: Changes to the Local housing Allowance to be introduced in 2011-2012.

Available: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/impacts-of-hb-proposals.pdf. Retrieved 3 March 2011.

9

DATA QUALITY NOTES

• SNAP covers homelessness services in England provided to single homeless people and couples without dependent children. Services for families were excluded from the analysis.

• The report covers three types of services – Day Centres, Direct Access Hostels and

2nd Stage Accommodation projects. Services primarily listed according to other definitions, such as advice agencies, were not included. It does not cover outreach services or floating support. For more information, please refer to the project types in Appendix 1.

• Projects included are only those that are registered on the HUK database.

• It should be noted that figures given in the Client Background and Client Issues section are approximate proportions given by projects, and therefore are not exact figures. If presented in their raw forms, figures are difficult to interpret as they represent a percentage of a percentage (e.g., x% of projects stated that less than x% of their clients are rough sleepers). Therefore, average figures by service type are presented, to give a reliable indication of the Client Background and Client Issues. When looking at figures in the next two sections, please remember that the figures given will be averages of approximates. Thus, these figures can be used to give indications but should not be seen as exact numbers. Moreover, the figures from SNAP 2011 will only be compared to SNAP 2010 figures. The two surveys have nearly 60% of the same participants, and the size of the sample is the same. Therefore, it would be reasonable to attribute any changes found to changes on the ground rather than changes caused by participant variation.

10

THE SURVEY PARTICIPANTS Using the November 2010 HUK data as the population, a sample of 500 services was selected. The proportion of Day Centres, Direct Access Hostels and 2nd Stage Accommodation projects interviewed is comparable to the proportions in the HUK-based population. All the participants from SNAP 2010 were contacted to take part again this year. Almost 60% (291) of the SNAP 2011 sample is made up of the same respondents. Others were unable to participate due to various reasons (e.g., projects merging and/or closing, named contact no longer working in the organisation, etc.). The rest of the sample was then selected at random from the HUK database. The sample size of 500 projects is the same as last year, although the composition is slightly different (see Table 1 below). This year’s sample is 62% bigger in size than the sample used in SNAP 2009. Furthermore, this year’s sample is 231% bigger than the one in SNAP 2008, when the sample was made up of 151 projects. These significant changes in sample size have to be taken into account when looking at the changes in the survey findings across the 4 years.

Table 1: Sample comparison of SNAP 2010 and SNAP 2011

SNAP 2010 SNAP 2011

N % N %

Day Centre 58 12% 67 13%

Hostel 98 19% 126 25%

2nd Stage Accommodation

344 69% 307 61%

500 100% 500 100%

Where possible, it was ensured that the sample would include enough services from each region to allow for a regional breakdown of the data (see Table 2 and Figure 1 below).

Figure 1: SNAP 2011 Regional breakdown of sample

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%

12%

8%

13%

4%

17%

14% 13%

8%

11%

Sample Breakdown

11

Table 2: Regional breakdown of sample by Service Type

Day centre Hostel

Second stage accommodation

Total

N

% of Region

N % of

Region N

% of Region

N % of

Sample

EAST ENGLAND 9 15% 16 27% 35 58% 60 12%

EAST MIDLANDS 11 27% 8 20% 22 54% 41 8%

LONDON 9 14% 17 27% 37 59% 63 13%

NORTH EAST OF ENGLAND 0 0% 6 29% 15 71% 21 4%

NORTH WEST ENGLAND 9 11% 23 28% 51 61% 83 17%

SOUTH EAST ENGLAND 8 12% 13 19% 48 70% 69 14%

SOUTH WEST ENGLAND 10 15% 11 17% 44 68% 65 13%

WEST MIDLANDS 6 14% 8 19% 28 67% 42 8%

YORKSHIRE & HUMBERSIDE 5 9% 24 43% 27 48% 56 11%

67 13% 126 25% 307 61% 500 100%

A full description of the methodology can be found in Appendix 2.

12

THE SECTOR This chapter looks at the current state of the sector as a whole, covering the number of bed spaces, the type of rooms available, as well as the number of empty beds on an average night. Our survey also provided us with data on the number of people using Day Centres on an average day, the number of staff in the sample (including the number of current and ex-clients employed), and the different staffing methods used by projects. Finally, this chapter will discuss results on the different funding streams available to the sector, and how the amount compares to previous years. Figure 2: Key Statistics for the Sector3

3 Figures marked by * are calculated by taking the proportion and average from the sample multiplied by the number of projects

in the sector as recorded by HUK.

•201 Day Centres

•268 Direct Acces Hostels

•1,173 2nd Stage Accommodation projects• More information on

Number of Services:

1,642

•9,676 bed spaces in DA Hostels

•33,315 bed spaces in 2nd Stage Accommodation projects

•805 empty beds per night* • More information on Page 14

Number of Bed Spaces:

42,991

•40,863 Single rooms •794 Double rooms

•471 Multiple Rooms •863 Other

•925 rooms specifically for couples*• More information on Page 17

Room Types

•14,227 Full time staff

•5,629 Part time staff

•10,496 Volunteers• More information on Page 19

Staff Numbers:

30,348*

• 71% of the sample is primarily funded by Supporting People

• More information on Page 23

Primary Funding

(The projects' main funding stream)

• 77% projects receive some funding from SP• 73% receive some funding from Benefit Payments

• 68% receive some funding from Rent & Service Charges

• More information on Page 24

Top 3

current funding sources

13

SIZE OF THE SECTOR When looking at the size of the sector, only Day Centres, Direct Access Hostels and 2nd Stage Accommodation projects have been included. These figures do not incorporate specialist services, outreach teams or floating support teams. Please note that the data used is taken from HUK in November 2010 and is slightly out of date, given the challenges of government austerity measures faced by the sector at time of writing. Indeed, since the end of data collection for SNAP 2011, we know of at least 18 hostels as well as numerous advice services that have closed down. Homeless UK data from November 2010 shows that there are a total of 1642 services broken down as follows:

• 201 Day Centres

• 268 Direct Access Hostels and

• 1173 Second Stage Accommodation projects. There are a few changes in the figures since last year:

• 14 more Day Centres

• The same number of Direct Access Hostels and

• 20 fewer 2nd Stage Accommodation projects It should be noted that the figures refer to projects listed on Homeless UK (HUK). The increase in the number of Day Centres could therefore be a reflection of the database being more complete rather than new projects opening. There is strong evidence that the sector is facing one of its biggest challenges in the coming years as a result of the Local Authority cuts on the budgets for SP funding, increasing the strain on services exacerbated in some areas by the removal of the ringfence. Initial reports from our Cuts Monitoring project have suggested that services are expecting an average of 26% cuts in funding and 20% reduction in the number of bed spaces for the financial year 2011/2012. The figures for SNAP 2012 survey will allow us to quantify the changes happening to the sector as a result of the budget cuts.

20 fewer 2nd Stage Accommodation projects.

2% fewer bed spaces in 2nd Stage Accommodation, and 1% decrease in DA Hostels.

Day Centres and 2nd Stage Accommodation projects are using more part time staff and volunteers, and reducing their full time staff.

More ex- and current clients are employed by projects.

There is a 6% decrease in the number of projects primarily funded by SP

KEY CHANGES IN THE SECTOR

14

Table 3: Number of Projects in SNAP 2011

SNAP 2011 In Sector

2011

N % N %

Day Centre 67 13% 201 12%

Direct Access Hostel 126 25% 268 16%

2nd Stage Accommodation 307 61% 1,173 71%

500 100% 1,642 100%

When comparing the proportions of the sample to that of the sector as recorded by HUK, Direct Access Hostels are slightly over-represented in the SNAP 2011 sample and as a result, 2nd Stage Accommodation projects are slightly under-represented.

NUMBER OF BED SPACES Bed spaces have been calculated by using HUK database. To give an indication of the trend, this year’s figures have been compared to the HUK data of last year. In November 2010, a total of 42,991 bed spaces were recorded on HUK:

• 33,315 bed spaces in 2nd Stage Accommodation projects

• 9,676 bed spaces in Direct Access Hostels This is 664 fewer bed spaces compared to figures used in SNAP 2010 from January 2010:

• 2% fewer bed spaces in 2nd Stage Accommodation projects

• 1% fewer bed spaces in Direct Access Hostels. The geographical spread of these bed spaces are illustrated in Figure 2. Again, it should be noted that this data is now slightly out of date. Since the end of the analysis, we know of at least 500 more bed spaces that have been lost, making it a total loss of nearly 1,200 bed spaces since January 2010. By using population estimates and comparing the proportion of population size and available bed spaces, it is possible to give an indication of the level of provision within a region. As can be seen from results in Table 3, London has best level of provision in that it has one available bed per 585 people. Conversely, Yorkshire and Humberside seem to have to lowest provision as indicated by the high population-bed space proportion. Regions which indicated low provisions were investigated further by looking at the proportions on local area level. It was found that the proportion of population size and available bed space vary widely between areas in a region. For example:

• within Yorkshire and Humberside, the proportion ranged from 16,850 people per available bed space in East Riding to 623 people per available bed space in North East Lincolnshire.

• in the South East, the proportion ranged from 16,200 people per available bed space in Wokingham to 394 people per bed space in Brighton & Hove.

A full table can be found in Appendix 3. It should be noted that the list is not exhaustive, as not all of the local areas are covered. Those with no services recorded in HUK, indicating no provision at all, would not appear on the list.

15

Table 4: Proportion of Population Size to Available Bed Spaces by Region

REGION TOTAL

BEDSPACES

ESTIMATED POPULATION

20094

Number of People/Available

Bed space

YORKSHIRE & HUMBERSIDE

3,164 5,258,100 1662

EAST MIDLANDS 2,746 4,451,200 1621

NORTH EAST OF ENGLAND

1,711 2,584,300 1510

SOUTH EAST ENGLAND 5,594 8,435,700 1508

EAST ENGLAND 3,930 5,766,600 1467

NORTH WEST ENGLAND 4,760 6,897,900 1449

WEST MIDLANDS 3,783 5,431,100 1436

SOUTH WEST ENGLAND 4,042 5,231,200 1294

LONDON 13,263 7,753,600 585

TOTAL 42,993 51,809,700 1205

4 Figures taken from the Office of National Statistics, June 2009 estimates.

16

Figure 3: Map of Bed Spaces Recorded in HUK by Region

East of England

3,930

East Midlands

2,746 West Midlands

3,783

South West England

4,042

South East England

5,594

Yorkshire & Humberside

3,164

North West England

4,760

North East England

1,711

1,245 DA Hostels 3,515 Second Stage

880 DA Hostels 2,284 Second Stage






13,263



Total bed spaces recorded in HUK for England: DA Hostels : 9,676 2

nd Stage : 33,317

TOTAL : 42,993

17

Table 5: Bed Spaces by Room Type

Single Rooms Double Rooms Multiple Rooms Other Total

N % N % N % N % N %

Direct Access Hostels

8,817 91% 514 5% 312 3% 33 0% 9,676 23%

2nd Stage Accommodation

32,046 96% 280 1% 159 1% 830 3% 33,315 78%

Total 40,863 95% 794 2% 471 1% 863 2% 42,991 100%

Compared to last year, the proportion of single rooms has increased by 2% in both types of accommodation-based services. In Direct Access Hostels, the proportion has increased from 89% to 91%, and in 2nd Stage Accommodation projects the proportion has increased from 94% to 96%. Given that the coalition government has proposed changing the eligibility for shared room rate housing benefit from 25 to 35 years of age, this increase in single room availability may leave the sector less able to afford to offer accommodation to under 35s, should these proposals become law.

ROOMS SPECIFICALLY FOR COUPLES As the HUK database could not tell us how many of the double rooms listed were specifically for couples, as opposed to two single individuals sharing, respondents were asked to provide us with some information on how many rooms specifically for couples are available. Figure 4: Proportions of projects with rooms specifically for couples

Only 27 projects out of the 433 accommodation-based services stated that they have rooms specifically for couples. This equates to 6%, which is the same proportion as last year. However, these 27 services reported a total of 291 bedrooms for couples, which is a drop of 100 rooms from last year’s figure of 392 rooms. This indicates that the small number of projects that did have rooms specifically for couples have changed the allocations, perhaps due to increased demands on accommodation. As a result, although the number of projects providing rooms for couple has not changed from last year, the number of rooms that is available has decreased by 25%. Last year’s SNAP already highlighted the limited options available for couples who are homeless and/or rough sleeping. The figures are even more alarming this year, considering

Don't have room for couples

94%

In these projects,

there are 291 rooms

specifically for couples.

Have room for couples

6%

18

that the number of homeless couples has stayed the same as last year5. The shortage of provision for couples has been identified by various projects as the biggest gap in their area. “Because we don't offer services to couples there is a major gap in provision there.” – DA Hostel, North West. “[There]…isn’t any support for couples.” – 2nd Stage Accommodation project, West Midlands.

EMPTY BEDS To explore levels of demand for beds, we asked projects whether they had any empty beds on an average night. Please note that many projects will have some specialist provision and so may have an empty bed whilst waiting for someone with the relevant support needs to be referred.

• 77% of accommodation based projects (332) have no empty beds on an average night.

• The most commonly reported number of empty beds was 1.

• The number of beds reported as empty ranged from 1 to 47.

• Of the 101 (23%) projects who do have empty beds, they reported a total 245 empty beds, with the highest proportion of empty beds being in Yorkshire and Humberside, and the lowest in the North East of England.

Table 5 gives full breakdown of the results. The findings suggest that there is limited spare capacity for those who find themselves newly homeless or sleeping on the streets. This corresponds with an increase in the number of projects reporting that they had refused clients due to the projects being full across the three different types of services. Last year, 18% of projects said that they have refused clients because they are full. This year, the figure has increased to 26%. This will be further discussed in the Refusal Section.

Table 6: Number of Empty Beds/Night by Region

REGION

Number of Projects

with Empty Bed

Number of Accommo

-dation Projects

in Region

% with empty beds

Number of Empty

Beds/Night

Average empty

bed/project6

East Midlands 8 30 27% 9 1.13

West Midlands 8 36 22% 10 1.25

North East 2 21 10% 3 1.50

North West 16 74 22% 31 1.94

London 19 54 35% 41 2.16

East England 16 51 31% 47 2.97

South East 12 61 20% 36 3.00

South West 8 55 15% 25 3.13

Yorkshire & Humberside 12 51 24% 42 3.54

Grand Total 101 433 23% 244 2.43

5 See section on Client Background

6 Figures are based on the number of projects that reported having empty beds only.

19

At the time of writing, there have been increases in both the statutory homelessness figures and the rough sleeper counts. It is likely that homelessness may be on the increase, due to the effects of the previous recession and uncertain recovery. Given the limited spare capacity in the homelessness sector suggested, this raises concerns that the impact of austerity measures by central and local government may exacerbate the restricted supply of bed spaces, in a time where demand for those bed spaces may be increasing. PEOPLE USING DAY CENTRES

67 Day Centres were interviewed in the survey and were asked how many people accessed their services on an average day. In total, these 67 Day Centres estimated seeing 3,333 clients on an average day, giving an average of 50 clients per Day Centre. These figures have not differed significantly from last year. Table 6 summarises the numbers by region. It can be stipulated from this figure that on an average day, over 10,0007 people are seen by Day Centres in England alone. Table 7: Number of People using Day Centres

Number of People using DC

Number of Day Centre

Average User/Day

Centre

East England 458 9 51

East Midlands 578 11 53

London 739 9 82

North West 327 9 36

South East 311 8 39

South West 432 10 43

West Midlands 265 6 44 Yorkshire & Humberside 225 5 45

Grand Total 3333 67 50

STAFF NUMBERS Survey respondents were asked to give an estimate of the numbers of full-time, part-time and voluntary staff who were working in the project at the time of the survey. Results are summarised on Table 7. There is a total of over 9,000 people employed in the sample, which is a 7% increase from last year’s 8,591. This is made up of a 2% increase in the number of full time staff, followed by 9% increase in the number of volunteers, and finally a 21% increase in the number of part time staff. There seems to be a trend of projects using more part time staff and volunteers in lieu of full time staff members in Day Centres and 2nd Stage Accommodations. This could be attributable to projects facing budget cuts and having to reconfigure their staffing levels. This assumption is further substantiated by respondents’ answers when they were asked what impact the cuts have had on their clients8.

7 Calculated by multiplying the sample’s average number of people seen per day by the number of Day Centres in HUK.

8 See the Section on Impact of Cuts for more information.

20

“The only impact is on staffing levels. We can’t take [the clients] out if we can’t afford enough staff to fulfil the risk assessment needs.” “We may well have to close the day centre as a direct access for the public due to staffing cuts.” “Loss of a full time member of staff who was funded to provide key work support.”

Table 8: Staff Numbers in Sample and Sector

Day Centre DA Hostel 2nd Stage Total in Post

SNAP 2010 SNAP 2011 SNAP 2010 SNAP 2011 SNAP 2010 SNAP 2011 SNAP 2010

SNAP 2011

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Sum of Full time staff 490 20% 421 17% 1,191 54% 1,561 60% 2,565 65% 2,350 57% 4,246 4,332 Sum of Part time staff 236 10% 265 11% 289 13% 539 21% 887 22% 910 22% 1,412 1,714 Sum of Volunteers 1,684 70% 1,825 73% 728 33% 496 19% 521 13% 876 21% 2,933 3,196

Total in Sample 2,410 2,511 2,208 2,596 3,973 4,135 8,591 9,241

Projected number in Sector

9

7,854 7,532 7,020 5,521 14,316 15,800 29,190 30,348

Figure 5: Staffing Level Comparison 2010 – 2011

Similarly to last year, there is a much higher proportion of volunteers in day centres where nearly three quarters of the work force is made up of volunteers. To illustrate the point, when asked about the top issue the project faced, a Day Centre manager in East England replied: “Managing the project with just volunteers.”

9 This was calculated by multiplying the average number of staff in each service type by number of projects recorded in HUK.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Fulltime

Parttime

Volunteers

Fulltime

Parttime

Volunteers

Fulltime

Parttime

Volunteers

Day Centre DA Hostel 2nd Stage

SNAP 2010 490 236 1684 1191 289 728 2565 887 521

SNAP 2011 421 265 1825 1,561 539 496 2,350 910 876

21

In contrast, volunteers make up one fifth of the work force in Direct Access Hostels and 2nd Stage Accommodation projects. The most notable increase this year is the use of volunteers in 2nd Stage Accommodation projects, which has increased by 8% from last year. This growth in the number of volunteers may signify more volunteering opportunities being made available in projects. Whilst it is beneficial that projects are able to attract such a high level of volunteers, it highlights the importance of ensuring that these volunteers are properly trained and supported to provide appropriate good quality support and advice to often very vulnerable individuals. It raises the point that there is a risk that, as funding becomes tighter, the reliance on volunteers as opposed to paid staff may increase thereby placing increasing strain on existing staff to ensure continuity of service.

STAFFING METHODS Key working sessions A key worker is a named person who gives clients support on a one to one basis. This year, 90% of projects (452) reported clients having a key or named worker, which is a similar figure to last year. Key working session frequency 61% of projects offer weekly key worker sessions to their clients. 14% of projects have more frequent session frequencies of up to 7 times a week, and a further 25% have less frequent sessions, with fortnightly, monthly, or longer interval sessions. This has not changed from the previous year.

CURRENT/EX-SERVICE USERS Just over half of the projects surveyed (251) stated that they actively try to recruit current or ex-service users as staff. This is a slight decline on last year’s data, when 53% of projects reported actively trying to recruit ex- or current clients. However, the proportion of projects who reported that they employ current clients have nearly doubled from last year, and those who employ ex-clients have increased by nearly 10% (please refer to Figure 5). This suggest that although the number of projects who actively recruit current and ex-clients have decreased, those who do have been more successful than last year. Figure 6: Projects Employing Current and Ex-Clients, 2010 – 2011 comparison.

Employ Ex-Client Employ Current clients

SNAP 2010 33% 7%

SNAP 2011 42% 13%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

22

In addition, other forms of client involvement have increased for higher levels of involvement, such as having clients in recruitment panels and as a Board member. For further details see the Client Involvement data in the Organisations section.

FUNDING Annual Turnover The annual turnover figures have a similar distribution to last year, and mirror figures in the RIS London State of the Sector report10, where 65% of projects in London reported an annual turnover of less than £1,000,000. The survey data suggests that a large number of projects in the sector are relatively small with turnovers of less than £500,000. Although the proportion of respondents who answered ‘Don’t know’ is still relatively high, it has decreased by 21% compared to last year. Most likely this is due to respondents being able to check such answers prior to the interview.

Table 9: Annual Turnover of Projects in the Sample

2011

Number %

£50,000 and under 13 3%

£51,000-£100,000 30 6%

£100,001-£500,000 172 34%

£500,001-£2,000,000 78 16%

£2,000,001-£5,000,000 11 2%

£5,000,001 or over 7 1%

Don't know 189 38%

Primary Funding Stream by Service Type Respondents were asked to identify their current primary funding stream:

• Supporting People remains the primary funding stream for Direct Access Hostels and 2nd Stage Accommodation projects, with 71% of all projects reporting this to be their primary funding stream. This is a 6% reduction from last year.

• 31% of Day Centres reported fundraising as their primary funding source, which is a reduction of 7% from last year. This replicates the trends which Homeless Link’s Credit Crunch Survey11 identified, where it was found that over half the charities surveyed reported that personal donations have been affected (52%), while over a third reported that charitable grants (41%) and statutory funding (35%) are affected

• There has been an increase in the number of day centres that are primarily funded by health (9%).

• Twice the number of accommodation-based projects have reported that they are primarily funded by benefit payments compared to last year.

10

London’s Homelessness Sector, Results of the State of the Sector Survey, RIS, 2008 11

http://www.homeless.org.uk/credit-crunch

23

Table 10: Primary Funding Stream by Service Type

2010 2011 Change 2010 2011 Change 2010 2011 Change 2010 2011 Change

Supporting People 14% 15% 86% 74% 85% 82% 77% 71%

Benefit Payments (Housing Benefits etc) - - 5% 12% 5% 8% 4% 8%

Fundraising (e.g., charitable trust fundraising & individual donations) 38% 31% 1% 2% 1% 2% 5% 6%

Other 9% 15% 1% 3% 1% 2% 2% 4%

Other local authority funding (e.g. local grant) 19% 15% 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 4%

Don't know / can't say 9% 6% 6% 2% 3% 2% 4% 2%

Rent & Service Charges (i.e. as paid by the service users) - - - 3% 3% 2% 2% 2%

Social Services 9% 7% - - 1% 1% 2% 2%

Health (NHS Trusts, Primary Care Trust, etc) 3% 9% - - - - 0% 1%

Local Area Agreement (LAA)/Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) 0% 1% - - 0% 0% 0% 0%

Places of Change - - - 1% 0% 0% - 0%

Day centre Hostel2nd stage

accommodationTOTAL

24

Funding Sources compared to 2009

In addition to asking projects about their primary funding stream, projects were given a list of funding sources and asked whether they received any funding from that source, and whether the amount received had increased or decreased. Data from this year shows that:

• Compared to 2009/2010, a quarter of the services surveyed reported a decrease in their Supporting People funding since last year, and half reported that it has stayed the same.

• Funding from sources such as rent and service charges and benefit payments has increased for up to 39% of projects

• Whilst fundraising is the primary funding source for fewer projects, 16% of projects reported that funding from fundraising has increased.

• The number of projects reporting receiving funding has increased for most sources, suggesting projects are receiving funding from a growing number of different sources and diversifying their income.

It is surprising to see from the data that a large number of services still do not receive any funding from a number of specific sources, despite most projects delivering such services. To illustrate, please refer to Figure 6 below. Only 5% of projects reported to receiving any funding from Substance Misuse. In contrast, nearly half of the clients in Day Centres have drug issues. In response to this need, nearly 9 in 10 projects surveyed said that they are able to provide drug services, although half of those projects report problems accessing these services. Figure 7: Funding vs. Services Provided for Drug

5%

receive

funding from

Substance Misuse

47%clients in Day Centres

have drug issues

52%projects reported access problems

89% projects provide drug services

25

Table 11: Current Funding Sources12

Supporting People 12% 12% 13%

Social Services 86% 80% 73%

Other LA Funding 79% 72% 66%

LAA/LSP 94% 83% 81%

Criminal Justice 96% 90% 89%

Substance Misuse 97% 90% 89%

Health 95% 85% 86%

Employment & Education 94% 89% 88%

Rent & Service Charges 36% 30% 28%

Benefit Payments 24% 18% 22%

Fundraising 36% 37% 34%

Legal Services Commission 98% 94% 91%

Places of Change - 92% 88%

Other 90% 89% 84%

Not

Source

2009

Not

Source

2010

Not

Source

2011

Change

Many projects indicate to us through our wider work that they have had no inflationary increase in funding from Supporting People, so in reality, have faced a reduction in Supporting People funding. The findings from this survey suggest that projects have had to meet this shortfall from elsewhere by looking for more diverse funding for projects. It also fits with the responses to the question about the biggest issue facing services which is explored in more detail in the Organisations section. A full table of results can be found in Appendix 4. Homeless Link’s cuts monitoring work has identified that a significant proportion of local authorities will be cutting their Supporting People spending for 2011/12. Given the reliance of the sector on this funding source, it is likely that more organisations will need to diversify their income streams, cut costs or cut their services significantly in 2011/12, if wider closures are to be avoided.

12

The table has been condensed. The full table can be found in Appendix 4.

26

ORGANISATIONS

Alongside more concrete data on whether projects refuse clients and why, this chapter explores what project managers feel are the most pressing issues and biggest service provision gaps in their area.

TOP 3 ISSUES Project managers responding to the survey were asked what were the top 3 issues facing their projects. This question was unprompted, and respondents were not given a set list of choices, so please note that, whilst for example only a few respondents felt that Eastern European migrants was the top issue for them, it does not mean that other projects feel that this is not an issue for them. Some projects only gave one key issue, and when all 3 issues given by projects were analysed in combination, the same top issues emerged. Figure 7 illustrates the top issue that respondents gave. Issue 1 This year, one response dominated the replies. Nearly 70% of respondents (348 projects) indicated that funding was their top issue, with a few projects mentioning Supporting People specifically. Various responses that are deemed to have stemmed from funding issues have been grouped together under the “Funding” heading. These responses included those from respondents who replied funding, staffing issues, issues on the finance of services, lack of money/resources, low levels of staff due to funding limitations, etc. “Cuts to funding that are potentially coming our way and that would also affect staffing levels and affect the services that we can offer. Also partner agencies are being threatened with cuts as well.” “Funding cuts and tendering processes, potential for last 7 years’ work to be totally undermined around multi agency working.” “Funding; not sure about the future as far as funding goes. [We have]…got reserves but apprehensive.”

The top issue (funding) and biggest gap (move-on) remain the same from last year.

More projects are reporting client involvement at higher levels (recruitment, board, etc.)

Projects are becoming increasingly strict about the clients that they allow to access their services -there has been an increase in the number of projects refusing clients for various reasons.

There has been a decrease in the availability of health-related services.

There is an increase in projects reporting service access problems due to clients' ineligibility and unsuitability.

KEY CHANGES IN ORGANISATIONS

27

Figure 8: Top Issue for Respondents

Issue 2 The next most common issue was move-on accommodation, which included responses mentioning issues around the adequacy and appropriateness of move on/support systems, as well as the lack of move on accommodation. Issue 3 Finally, the third most common issue was client finances, which covered issues with the benefit systems, rent arrears, clients’ debts, etc. “Pressure from the benefits system for people to take part in training and activities that are inappropriate given their needs or recovery process.” “Benefits- sometimes it takes a long time to get benefits and leaves them without money for a long time leading to vulnerability and depression, crime.” “Striking the balance between earnings and benefits i.e. trying to make it financially worthwhile for clients to take work and still remain at the project, without having the bulk of earnings stopped.”

28

BIGGEST GAP IN SERVICE PROVISION As in last year’s survey, respondents were asked what they felt is the biggest gap in service provision in their area. This was also an open question with no specified answer options for the respondents. This means that only one gap per respondent was recorded without them being prompted in any way. Similarly to last year, the biggest gap in service provision recorded was move on housing and resettlement. This issue was followed by access to mental health services and alcohol and drugs services. This year, more projects identified services for specific groups as the biggest gap in provision. For example, services for young people, women, older people, migrants, and couples were a few that were mentioned.

Figure 9: Biggest Gap in Service Provision

29

CLIENT INVOLVEMENT

• 95% of projects involve their clients with residents’ or clients’ meetings

• 78% of projects have a suggestions box for clients to communicate ideas

• 75% of projects consult with service users

• 52% of projects have service users as project representatives

• 49% of projects have service users on their recruitment panel

• 29% of projects have board members who are current clients It would seem that client involvement has improved further. Compared to last year, the number of projects reporting client involvement on higher levels has increased. For example, this year nearly half the projects surveyed reported using clients on recruitment panels compared to 40% last year. Similarly, nearly a third of projects surveyed reported to having board members who are current clients, compared to less than one fifth last year. To further explore client involvement, respondents were asked at what level clients were involved in the decision making process. The different levels of client involvement are explained in Figure 9 below. Figure 10: Level of Client Involvement13

Most projects involve clients at the information and consultation levels (82% and 90% respectively), and more than half of the projects surveyed involve clients through deciding together (68%), acting together (56%) and support independent initiatives (51%). Compared to last year, there has been an increase in the number of projects that involved their clients on higher level activities.

13

Seal, M., (2008). Not About Us Without Us: Client involvement in supported housing: Client Involvement in Supported Housing.

ACTING TOGETHER

DECIDING TOGETHER

INFORMATION

CONSULTATION

INDEPENDENT INITIATIVES

Ensuring clients have access to the appropriate information regarding decisions being made in the project.

Obtaining clients’ views on matters when making decisions.

Involving clients in making decisions.

More active role of the clients in the decisions made.

Clients are able to make changes or decisions using their own initiative.

30

Some examples of client involvement given included:

“Meetings with a board member for items to be discussed at management meetings and fed back.” “By taking part in the volunteering project and helping the community.” “We were at risk of closing and some clients took the local authority decision to judicial review.”

“Encouraged to take part in inspections and come to staff meeting.”

PROJECT ACCESSIBILITY Refusals In total, 90% of projects (450) refuse clients access to their project for a number of reasons. The most common reasons overall are not meeting the project’s client criteria (40%) followed by history of arson (27%). This has changed from last year, when the most common reason overall was history of arson. Refusals differ depending on the service type. Day Centres’ most given reason was a client being intoxicated (49% of projects), whereas for hostels it was due to the project being full (46%) and for 2nd Stage Accommodation projects it was the client not meeting the project criteria (43%). Table 11 gives a breakdown of the respondents’ responses as well as the changes from last year. In general, there has been an increase in the number of projects reporting on each of the reasons for refusal, implying that projects are becoming stricter about who they allow to access their services. This is especially true for Direct Access Hostels, where there has been an increase in the number reporting on each of the reasons for refusal. Among the biggest increases are clients not meeting criteria, especially in hostels, projects being full in all three types of services, clients having no recourse to public fund in hostels and 2nd Stage Accommodation projects, as well as clients not having local connections, especially in hostels.

Respondents were also asked what happened to clients after they are refused. Of the 450 projects that reported refusing clients:

• 92% reported signposting them to more appropriate services

• 97% said that they would explain to them why they had been refused

• And 90% would tell them how they could challenge the decision

31

Table 12: Reasons for Refusal, 2010 – 2011 Comparison

2010 2011 Change 2010 2011 Change 2010 2011 Change 2010 2011 Change

Didn't meet criteria 31% 40% 17% 19% 27% 44% 35% 43%

History of arson 32% 27% 3% 3% 39% 40% 34% 27%

Project full 18% 26% 2% 6% 33% 46% 16% 22%

Intoxicated 13% 24% 31% 49% 11% 25% 11% 18%

Other 41% 20% 31% 19% 33% 17% 45% 21%

Previously banned 12% 19% 40% 33% 18% 30% 6% 12%

Sexual Offence 20% 18% 2% 1% 22% 26% 22% 18%

No recourse to public fund 1% 11% 0% 0% 2% 20% 1% 10%

Needs are too high/too low 5% 11% 2% 0% 6% 6% 5% 15%

High risk to staff 5% 11% 2% 0% 6% 12% 5% 13%

Never refuse access 10% 10% 17% 18% 9% 9% 8% 9%

No local connection 2% 6% 3% 1% 0% 11% 3% 5%

Have mental health 3% 4% 2% 0% 1% 5% 4% 5%

Total Day Centre DA Hostels 2nd Stage

Local Connection Homeless people often have, or want, to leave the area they are from for a number of reasons, meaning that issues can arise when trying to access services in another area. This is especially true for London due to the close geographical proximity of different boroughs. Many agencies think there is no point referring clients to services if they do not have a ‘local connection’, such as having lived or worked in the area for a substantial time period. Respondents were asked whether they accepted clients from outside their borough/district, with 80% of projects answering “Yes” (398), which is comparable to last year’s 79%. The proportion varies slightly depending on region, with a range of only 59% of projects accepting clients from outside the area in London, to 93% in East Midlands. Most regions have a similar proportion of projects that say they accept clients from outside the borough or district. London and the South East of England, however, are the exception, with the figures being significantly lower. In London, only 59% of projects say they accept clients from outside the borough or district. This is a significant drop from last year, when 68% of projects in London said they accept clients from outside the area. In South East of England, 67% of respondents said that they accept clients from outside the area. Of the 398 projects that accept clients from outside their borough/district, the proportion of clients from within and outside the borough was recorded. The average proportion for within borough/district clients was 88%, and 12% outside of the borough clients. Last year’s figures were 82% from within the area and 18% from outside. Again, consistent with the finding on the previous section on reasons for refusals, this further suggests that projects are being stricter about the clients they allow into their services. The most common percentage split given was 90%/10%, with 74 projects reporting this split. Evictions and abandonments Respondents were asked to estimate the proportion of their clients that are evicted from their housing or leave and abandon their accommodation.

32

Figures for evictions and abandonments have not changed significantly from last year. There is a slight increase in the number of projects reporting some eviction from last year (please refer to Table 12). However, this can be attributed to the over-representation of Direct Access Hostels in the sample. Since the rate of eviction is higher in hostels compared to 2nd Stage Accommodation, this could explain the increase in the number of projects reporting some evictions. The level of abandonment has decreased significantly since 2009, and has then remained stable from last year. Table 13: Proportion of Projects with Evictions and Abandonments14, 2009 – 2011.

2009 2010 2011 Changes

Eviction 76% 65% 68%

Abandonment 71% 53% 52%

Figure 11: Evictions by Project Type Figure 12: Abandonment by Project Type

For those respondents who indicated they have some level of eviction, a further question about what proportion of clients were evicted due to rent arrears and what proportion due to behaviour were asked. Table 14: Reasons for eviction

DA Hostels

2nd Stage

Rent Arrears 31% 31%

Behaviour 53% 56%

The findings suggest that most clients are evicted due to behaviour rather than rent arrears. These findings are mirrored by recent research by Homeless Link15 looking in detail at the causes of evictions and abandonments and the possible solutions in London. This research also found that people are more likely to abandon if they have slept rough for long periods of time. As the figures from SNAP suggest the research found a huge variation in levels of evictions and abandonments from hostels, including some excellent practice in working with people with multiple needs.

14

Figures calculated by deducting the number of projects answering “None” and “Don’t know”. 15

http://www.homeless.org.uk/EVICTIONS-PROJECT

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

Direct

Access

2nd

Stage

Grand

Total

Average

Evictions

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

Direct

Access

2nd

Stage

Grand

Total

Average

Abandonment

33

SPECIALIST SERVICE AVAILABILITY

As SNAP 2010 revealed, specialist service availability had been increasing for some years. The Homes and Communities Agency is responsible for delivering the three year Places of Change programme, which runs from 2008 to 2011. The programme builds upon the success of the Hostels Capital Improvement Programme, which provided £90 million of funding for hostels and day centres between 2005 and 2008, and was previously delivered by the Department for Communities and Local Government. At the end of 2010, a new, smaller Places of Change scheme was announced with £37.5m additional investment starting in April 2012. In February 2011, the Places of Change programme was renamed ‘Homelessness Change Programme’. With the introduction of Places of Change and money being made available not only for physical renovations but also changes in culture, there has been a dramatic increase in availability of specialist services. This is particularly true for the main focus of the Places of Change agenda, meaningful activity and education, training and employment, especially when the ability of projects to refer externally is compared to 2008. With the budget cuts starting to take place around the time that data was collected for SNAP 2011, results from the survey showed that there were already signs of a reversal of the trend for a number of specialist services as shown on Table 14. Table 15: Service Availability Comparison 2008 - 201116

2008 2009 2010 2011 Changes

Drug Services 87% 91% 95% 89%

Alcohol Services 88% 94% 96% 92%

Mental Health Services 78% 93% 96% 95%

Physical Health Services 71% 90% 97% 93%

Meaningful Activity 61% 90% 94% 93%

Education, Training And Emplyment (ETE) 66% 89% 98% 97%

Advice 92% 97% 99% 98%

Resettlement 59% 86% 92% 92%

Overall Service Availability

Table 14 provides a breakdown on the overall availability of services between 2008 and 2011. As indicated by the table, health-related services had been improving year on year up until 2010, but results from SNAP 2011 seem to suggest that availability has declined for drug, alcohol, mental health, and physical health services. Services such as ETE, meaningful activity, and advice have also increased year by year with figures from this year remaining very similar to last year.

16

This table has been condensed to show the top lines of services. A full comparison table is available in Appendix 5.

34

Figure 13: Decreases in Service Availability from 2010.17

17

Only services which had decreased availability from SNAP 2010 were included in this table. Please refer to the full table in Appendix 6 for all services.

2%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

5%

5%

3%

5%

2%

2%

12%

4%

1%

1%

2%

2%

1%

1%

6%

6%

4%

5%

6%

2%

6%

5%

6%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

Legal

ADVICE

Accredited Courses (e.g., NVQ)

Into work training (e.g., personal skills development,…

EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT (ETE)

Arts, music and cultural projects

Sports/Outward Bound Activities

MEANINGFUL ACTIVITY

Sexual Health Services

TB Screening/contact with TB Clinic

Foot Care

Eye Care

Alternative therapies

Dental Care

General Practitioner

Nursing Care

PHYSICAL HEALTH SERVICES

Other mediation/relationship counselling

Other anger management courses

Other talking therapies

CMHT Services

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Harm minimisation

Structured Treatmens - Day programmes

Structured Treatment - Residential detox/Rehab

ALCOHOL SERVICES

Blood borne virus screening/vaccination

Needle exchange

Harm minimisation

Structured Treatment - Day programmes

Structured Treatment - Residential detox/Rehab

DRUG SERVICES

Decrease since 2010

35

Looking into more details in service availability, there has mostly been decreases in all services with the exception of general informal adult learning (3% increase) and gardening, farming or environmental projects (1% increase). Figure 12 illustrates the level of decrease in availability for different services from 2010. Service availability by delivery method Projects were asked whether they are able to offer specialist services, and whether this is delivered in-house, in-house with an external agency or by referral to an external service. The following figures represent the number of projects that are able to offer specialist services, and how these services are delivered. As mentioned above, there has been a decline in availability of health-related services. These are services which are normally provided externally. As can be seen from Table 15, there has been a decline in the number of projects able to refer clients to an external service in the four health-related services. Consequently, the number of projects reporting that they are providing these same services in-house or in partnership with an external agency has increased. Table 16: Service Provision by Delivery method

2008 2009 2010 2011 Changes 2008 2009 2010 2011 Changes 2008 2009 2010 2011 Changes

D rug Serv ices 15% 9% 9% 12% 18% 14% 10% 15% 68% 80% 84% 75%

A lco ho l Services 14% 12% 11% 15% 15% 13% 11% 16% 73% 83% 85% 77%

M enta l H ealth Serv ices 15% 13% 14% 14% 8% 22% 15% 15% 63% 77% 84% 81%

P hysical H ealth Services 6% 5% 4% 5% 11% 8% 8% 10% 58% 82% 92% 86%

M eaningful A ct iv ity 46% 59% 55% 52% 7% 12% 10% 16% 16% 48% 51% 54%

Educatio n, T raining A nd Emplo yment (ET E)33% 37% 42% 46% 13% 13% 14% 19% 36% 59% 60% 61%

A dvice 60% 65% 69% 65% 13% 10% 8% 16% 39% 57% 58% 61%

R esett lement 34% 54% 45% 47% 7% 9% 12% 18% 22% 41% 50% 53%

DELIVERY METHOD

In-house, by own staffIn-house, in partnership

w ith external agency

Can refer clients to an

external service

Delivery in-house, whether by own staff or in partnership with an external agency, shows a mixed picture with some service types increasing in availability and some decreasing. There have been slight declines in terms of some of the services that can be delivered in-house, by the projects’ own staff. These include meaningful activity and advice services. However, there have been increases on the number of projects that are able to deliver these services in partnership with other agencies as well as referring clients to an external one. It is possible that due to budget cuts, the first services to be impacted would be those that are viewed as non-essentials. This finding is further supported by some of the comments that respondents have shared when they were asked if their projects have had reductions in income, and how it affects their clients: “Less money available in the budget for 'luxuries', i.e. social events.” “Less money for activities, less staff time to spend on things other than basic support.” “Limited in provision of meaningful activities, limited opening hours of day service.”

36

HEALTH: NEEDS VS PROVISION This year’s result on the decrease of the availability of health-related services is very alarming, especially considering that the health of people who are homeless is among the poorest in our communities. According to a report by Homeless Link (2010)18, the health needs of homeless people are significantly higher than that of the general population. The report suggested that:

• Physical health - 8 out of 10 clients have one or more physical health need. Over half (56%) clients in the audit reported that they had a long term physical health need. This compares to 29% of the general population who are estimated to have a long term physical illness.19

• Mental Health - 7 out of 10 clients have one or more mental health need. A third of these clients said that they currently lack the support they need to address their mental health.

• Substance Use - Over half the clients in the audit use one or more type of drug. 3 out of 4 clients consume alcohol.

18

Homeless Link (2010). The health and well-being of people who are homeless: Evidence from a national audit – interim report. Available: http://www.homeless.org.uk/sites/default/files/Interim%20report_HomelessHealthAudit0910.pdf. Retrieved: 3 March 2011. 19

Office National Statistics, General Lifestyle Survey, 2008. 29% self-reported a ‘long standing’ illness.

37

SERVICE ACCESS PROBLEMS Table 17: Service Access Problems by Problems Type

DRUG SERVICES 89% 52% 6% 7% 33% 19% 5%

ALCOHOL SERVICES 92% 62% 7% 8% 38% 28% 6%

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 95% 64% 13% 8% 30% 35% 5%

PHYSICAL HEALTH SERVICES 93% 28% 3% 1% 19% 8% 3%

EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT 97% 53% 7% 5% 38% 12% 6%

MEANINGFUL ACTIVITY 93% 51% 4% 4% 36% 12% 12%

ADVICE 98% 30% 3% 1% 18% 11% 4%

RESETTLEMENT 92% 48% 15% 8% 15% 21% 7%

Internal

service

lacks

f inancial/

staff

% w hole

sample,

service

available

Of projects

w here

service

available…

Problems

w ith

access %

Some

clients

ineligible

Some

clients

unsuitable

Sometimes

due to

client

motivation

External

service

inadequate

• The number of services reporting access problems is still prevalent.

• However, the number of services reporting problems with access due to client motivation has decreased. This may be due to fewer services being available to clients.

38

INDIVIDUALS

This section focuses on the clients accessing the projects that were surveyed. Proportions of client background in different service types were explored, as well as the different issues that affect clients. Projects that indicated seeing some clients from a particular client background group were also asked whether they provide targeted services for this group. In addition to asking projects where their clients move onto, we also investigated the proportions of clients achieving other positive outcomes such as good health or paid work.

CLIENT BACKGROUND Survey respondents were asked to estimate the proportion of clients from certain background groups that they see in their projects. A full table of the breakdown of client background can be found in Appendix 7. CLIENT RECORDING SYSTEM 95% of projects reported having a client recording system, meaning that a large majority of the projects surveyed record the information needed for the following data. NOTES ON DATA QUALITY: CLIENT BACKGROUND & CLIENT ISSUES It should be noted that figures given in the Client Background and Client Issues section are approximate proportions given by projects, and therefore are not exact figures. If presented in their raw forms, figures are difficult to interpret as they represent a percentage of a percentage (e.g., x% of projects stated that less than x% of their clients are rough sleepers). Therefore, average figures by service type are presented, to give a reliable indication of the Client Background and Client Issues. When looking at figures in the next two sections, please remember that the figures given will be averages of approximates. Thus, these figures can be used to give indications but should not be seen as exact numbers. Moreover, the figures from SNAP 2011 will only be compared to SNAP 2010 figures. The two surveys have nearly 60% of the same participants, and the size of the sample is the same. Therefore, it would be reasonable to attribute any changes found to changes on the ground rather than changes caused by participant variation.

Projects reported seeing fewer men and more women.

48% of projects said that more than half of their clients have links with probation.

Groups with the lowest targeted provision are couples, older people, EE and irregular migrants.

Projects reported seeing more clients with health-related issues (substance misuse, physical, and mental health)

KEY CHANGES IN INDIVIDUALS

39

Figure 14: Average Client Background20 in a Day Centre

Figures on the average client background in a Day Centre presented in Figure 13 suggested that there is only minimal variation in the proportions. Some of the more notable changes can be found in the following:

• There has been a decrease in the number of men accessing Day Centres, and a slight increase in the number of women.

• There has been a significant decrease in the number of those who are owed statutory duty accessing day centres, i.e., people with mental health issues (9% decrease), care leavers (6%) victims of domestic violence (5%).

20

Averages are calculated by multiplying the proportion of clients by the midpoint of each percentage range, and summing the figures together.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

80%

38%43%

29%

22%27%

22%18%

12%17%

8%14%

8%12%

7% 7%2% 4% 3% 3% 2%

74%

36% 34%

25%23%

22%19% 18%

12% 11% 11%8% 7% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2%

2010 2011

40

Figure 15: Average Client Background20 in a Direct Access Hostel

Figure 14 summarise the proportion of the average client background in a Direct Access Hostel. As can be observed, there are no significant trends when comparing to last year’s figures. Some of the more notable changes can be found in the following:

• Similar to the Day Centre, there has been a decrease in the number of men accessing DA Hostels and an increase in women.

• There is a slight increase in the number of couples accessing DA Hostels (2%).

• There has been a 9% decrease in the number of rough sleepers accessing DA Hostels since last year.

• There are slight increases in the proportions of disabled people, refugees, and Eastern European migrants since last year.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%68%

43%45%

34%

28%

14%

18% 16%

13%10% 9%

5%1%

3%6%

4%2% 4%

2% 1% 0%

64%

45%

36%

31% 30%

18%16%

13%11%

10%10%

7% 6% 6% 6% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2%

2010 2011

41

Figure 16: Average Client Background20 in a 2nd Stage Accommodation

Figures on the average client background in a Day Centre presented in Figure 15 suggested that there is not a lot of significant variation in the proportions. Among the three different types of services, 2nd Stage Accommodation projects seem to have the most stable make up of clients since last year.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70% 64% 61%

41%

28%

19%16% 16%

14% 13%10%

6% 7%

2%4%

3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0%

61%60%

38%

27%

22%

17% 17%

13% 11%8% 8%

6% 5% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1%

2010 2011

42

LINKS WITH PROBATION Respondents from the 368 projects who had some clients that were prison leavers were also asked how many of these clients had links to probation. Roughly 65% (239 projects) reported that more than half of their clients had links with probation. This is a 12% increase from last year’s 53%. ACCESS TO COMMUNITY CARE PACKAGES (CCP) This year, respondents were asked if they encountered any difficulty in accessing CCP, and the reason(s) for this. Table 17 summarises the results. Table 18: Access to CCP by Project Type21

TotalDay

Centres

DA

Hostels

2nd

Stage

No, w e don’t have any clients w ho require CCP 25% 19% 24% 27%

No, w e have no problems accessing CCP 32% 27% 29% 34%

Yes, due to not meeting the threshold for an assessment set by Social Services 23% 30% 23% 21%

Yes, due to disputes about w hether the client is ordinarily resident in the LA 8% 21% 6% 6%

Yes, due to unavailability of appropriate specialist accommodation 17% 31% 25% 10%

Yes, due to clients being excluded because they are ongoing substance misusers. 15% 30% 21% 9%

Other 17% 30% 17% 15%

• Nearly 60% of the respondents answered “No”, a quarter because they do not have clients who need CCP and the rest had no problems accessing it.

• Nearly a quarter of those who said that they had problems accessing CCP said that it was because their clients did not meet the threshold for assessment set by Social Services.

• In general, Day Centres reported to having more problems accessing CCP due to various reasons.

TARGETED SERVICE PROVISION Where respondents indicated they had clients with a specific background, they were asked whether the project provides a targeted service for that group of people. This enables us to compare client need with targeted service provision. Figure 16 charts the whole sample, broken down into projects that do not see any client from the background group, projects that do see clients but do not provide targeted services, and those who do provide targeted services for that specific client group. Results indicate that the sector continues to see increasing diversity, but targeted services are not quite meeting the demand. This has also been picked up by the projects involved in the survey. This year, more of them mention specialist service provisions (e.g., services for couples, women, older clients, etc. – please refer to Biggest Gap section for details) when asked about what the biggest gap in services are.

• Groups with the lowest service provision are couples (only 7% of projects that see them provide targeted services), irregular migrants, older people, and Eastern European migrants (13% each).

• Despite the majority of projects seeing men and women, not many provide targeted services for these groups.

• Only a quarter of projects that see people with mental health issues provide targeted services for this group.

• Only 1 in 5 of projects that report seeing people with learning disabilities provide any targeted services for this group of people.

21

Respondents are able to make multiple choices; therefore the figures will not add up to 100%.

43

• Only 17% of projects that see people from a BME and LGBT background provide targeted services for these groups.

• Just 15% of projects seeing clients with disability provide targeted services for this group.

Figure 17: Targeted Service Provision

215

33

99

98

8 30 8

0

80

75

43

29

26

10 35

142

44 65

55 1

12

74

28

249

216

363

334

102

181

288

281

269

156

128

167

68

131

261

255

320

274

342

316

45

36

251

38

68

390

289

132

139

156

301

343

307

422

334

97

201

115

171

46

110

427

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Provide targeted services Don't provide targeted services Don't see client type

44

ISSUES AFFECTING CLIENTS Respondents were asked to give an approximate of the proportions of their clients that are affected by certain types of issues. In order to facilitate data interpretation, the method used in the Client Background section will also be used in this section, where an average will be calculated. Figures will also be compared to last year’s SNAP by project type. Figure 18: Issues Affecting Clients in a Day Centre, 2010 - 2011

Figure 17 summarises the finding of the average proportion of clients with specific issues in a Day Centre. Compared to last year, the differences are quite varied.

• Since last year, there has been an increase in the proportion of clients with drug, alcohol, and physical health problems, as well as those with personality disorder and learning difficulty.

• Conversely, there has been a decrease in the proportion of clients with mental health problems, offending behaviour, gambling and debt problems, as well as those with multiple needs.

44%

49% 48%

32%

15%18%

44%

13%

45%

48%

23%

11%

55%

2%

47%

52%

42%

35%

18%20%

35%

11%

37%

48%

24%

9%

49%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Total Average 2010 Total Average 2011

45

Figure 19: Issues Affecting Clients in a Direct Access Hostel, 2010 – 2011

Figure 18 summarises the finding of the average proportion of clients with specific issues in a Direct Access Hostel. Unlike the Day Centre where the changes have been variable, data for DA Hostels from this year suggest that there has been a decrease in the number of clients affected by most issues. The exceptions are those with gambling problems and benefit problems, which have increased since last year. Figure 20: Issues Affecting Clients in a 2nd Stage Accommodation, 2010 – 2011

Figure 19 summarises the finding of the average proportion of clients with specific issues in a 2nd Stage Accommodation project. In terms of trends, figures for 2nd Stage Accommodation projects are more similar to those in the Day Centres, in that the changes recorded are quite variable. Increases are found in the proportion of clients with drug, alcohol, mental health and physical health problems, as well as benefit and eviction problems. However, there has been a decrease in the proportion of clients with debt problems and those with multiple needs.

51% 50%

40%

23%

15%

23%

39%

9%

50%

44%

32%

8%

50%

3%

46% 46%

34%

20%

13%17%

37%

10%

48% 48%

34%

6%

44%

6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


36% 34%

29%

15%10%

15%

28%

6%

42% 43%

20%

5%

42%

4%

39%38%

32%

19%

10%

15%

27%

7%

41%

48%

21%

5%

36%

4%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%


46

CLIENT OUTCOMES Measurement 93% of projects (467) measure outcomes for their clients. This proportion is similar to last year. More than half of the respondents (275) stated that they use Supporting People Additional Outcomes form, around 40% use an internally developed tool and 20% use the Outcome Star. Almost all of the respondents are using the information they collect in some way. Only 2 (1 DA Hostel and 1 Second Stage) out of the 467 said they are not currently using the information. 64% said that they used the outcomes measurement in internal reviews, 60% used it to report to commissioners and/or funders, 40% used it for individual support planning, and over 30% use it to show distance travelled by clients.

Client Move-On Looking at the available data from 2009 to 2011, the trend seems to suggest that in terms of where clients move-on to have improved. For example, there has been a decrease in clients being evicted and clients abandoning their accommodation. There are also reductions in the number of clients moving on to residential drug/alcohol treatments and long-term care. However, when looking at this in combination with other findings of this survey, it seems that this is due to a decrease in provision rather than there being fewer clients needing higher levels of support. Table 19: Client Move On, 2009 – 2011.

2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 Change

Social Housing 24% 26% 28% 26% 27% 26% 90% 92% 92%

PRS 56% 63% 58% 3% 2% 3% 74% 85% 87%

Evicted 69% 59% 60% 0% 0% 0% 76% 65% 67%

DA Hostel 32% 33% 40% 1% 5% 4% 40% 65% 67%

2nd Stage, less support 41% 46% 44% 3% 4% 4% 63% 64% 67%

Prison 50% 60% 60% 0% 0% 0% 54% 62% 65%

Abandoned 65% 50% 49% 0% 0% 0% 71% 53% 52%

2nd Stage, more support 47% 47% 44% 1% 1% 1% 59% 52% 50%

Sheltered Housing - 36% 39% - 1% 0% - 40% 42%

R esident ia l drug/ a lco ho l treatment 42% 40% 41% 0% 0% 0% 46% 42% 42%

Other 20% 3% 24% 1% 0% 0% 24% 3% 29%

Long term residential care 27% 23% 21% 0% 0% 0% 29% 23% 21%

Under 25% Over 75% At least some clients

Positive outcomes Respondents were also asked about additional positive outcomes for clients. This can give some indication as to how the work that is being done around specialist service provision and client involvement is impacting positively on clients. As can be seen from Figure 19, the proportion of clients with positive move-on differs according to the type of project they moved on from. It would seem reasonable to suggest that the more stable the accommodation, the higher the number of clients achieving positive outcomes. For example, in almost all of the positive outcomes mentioned, there is a higher percentage of clients achieving it in 2nd Stage Accommodation compared to Direct Access Hostels, which in turn is also higher than those in Day Centres.

47

Figure 21: Positive Outcomes by Project Type

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Paid Work Participates indesired training

and/or education

Participates inleisure/cultural/faith

and/or informallearning activities

Participates in anywork-like activities

Managing theiroverall health better

11.7%

18.6%

23.9%

17.4%

43.5%

17.4%

35.3% 35.3%

27.6%

58.4%

23.5%

45.7%

35.4%

26.5%

60.6%

Day Centres DA Hostels 2nd Stage

48

CONCLUSION This year’s survey has enabled us to compare the findings to the past few years and emerging trends can be discussed. Despite its limitations, SNAP does provide an indication of what is happening to the sector as well as tracking changes in service provision. This fact is made more pertinent now that the only other data source that might enable us to make similar comparisons, the Supporting People data, is going to cease being collected from April 2011. It is even more important now, in this period of change, not only to evidence the impact services have on clients, but to track how these changes to funding and the benefit system are affecting services. This last section ties together the findings of SNAP 2011 to give an overview of the sustainability and service availability achieved by the sector. FOCUS ON SERVICE AVAILABILITY – HEALTH One of the more alarming findings of this year’s survey was the fact that there has been a decrease in the availability of most health-related provisions (alcohol, drugs, physical and mental health). Figures 21 – 24 summarise the key findings in each of the health-related services. Figure 22: Key statistics for Drug Services

5%

receive

funding from

Substance Misuse

47%clients in Day Centres have

drug issues


89% projects provide drug services

49

Figure 23: Key statistics for Alcohol Services

Figure 24: Key statistics for Physical Health Services

5% receive

funding from

Substance Misuse

52% clients in Day Centres have

alcohol problems

62% projects reported access problems

92% projects provide alcohol services

8%

receive

funding from

Health


physical health issues

60%people in 2nd Stage accommodations

are managing their overall health better

93% projects provide physical health services

50

Figure 25: Key statistics for Mental Health Services

SERVICES FOR SPECIFIC CLIENT GROUPS In order to illustrate the diversity of service provided in the sector, some findings from this year’s survey can be grouped together. Figures 24 and 25 summarise the key statistics of service needs and provisions among migrant groups and groups that are owed statutory duty. Figure 26: Key statistics for Migrant Groups

8%

projects

receive funding

from Health


mental health issues


92% projects provide mental health services

MIGRANT CLIENT GROUPS SEEN

PROJECTS PROVIDING TARGETED SERVICES

FUNDING

•40% see refugees

•39% see EE migrants

•31% see asylum seekers

•16% see irregular migrants

•9% provide services for refugees

•5% provide for EE migrants

•6% provide services for asylum seekers

•2% provide services for irregular migrants

• 1.2% cited Legal Service Commission as a current funding source.

51

Figure 27: Key statistics for groups owed statutory duty

2 % primarily funded

by Social Services

see clients with

learning disability

provide targeted service

see clients who are

care leavers

see disabled clients

see victims of domestic violence

78%

60% 69%

72% 15%

9% provide targeted service



52

SUSTAINABILITY OF SERVICES As discussed in the Funding section, services are diversifying their incomes due to cuts in the Supporting People budgets, which was still the main source of funding for a lot of projects. This year’s data suggest that a quarter of the projects surveyed have reported a decrease in their SP funding as well as fundraising. In order to keep operating, some services would have no choice but to make up for the gap from their clients. In fact, nearly half of the projects surveyed this year have reported an increase of funding from rent and service charges, as well as benefit payments. Figure 28: Proportion of projects reporting change in current funding source

IMPACT OF CUTS This year, services were asked if they have experienced a reduction in their income, and how this affected their clients. Half of the respondents (250) said that they had not had any income reduction, while the other half said that they had. Of the 250 projects that said they had a reduction in income, 37% stated that this had not yet impacted on their clients. However, it should be noted that the survey took place between September – October 2010, before local government settlements for 2011/12 were known. The respondents’ comments on how the cut has impacted on their clients gave a good indication on how projects are managing cuts on their budgets. It is difficult to isolate the respondents’ comments into separate themes, as most of their responses are inter-related to each other. Issues around staffing levels, for example, would also have implications on the quality of service and reduced services. Therefore, it should be noted that the themes around which responses have been grouped into are not exclusive of each other. Reduction in staff (15%) This seems to be the more common impact of the cuts. Comments include: “Staffing levels have had to be reduced, and there have been two lots of restructuring. It means that the resources that can be offered to the clients are limited.” “Redundancies have happened within the central structure trying to protect services to clients. However if ongoing cuts are needed this will be within services.” “We may well have to close the day centre as a direct access for the public due to staffing cuts.”

53

Reduced services/closures (11%) Some projects also reported that the cuts have caused their services to be reduced or, in some cases, even closed. “It has a massive impact as we are unable to deliver a lot of the services that we normally deliver. We'll have bad outcomes and people will be unsupported. We may have more people reoffend and go back to drinking etc.” “We've had to streamline what we provide so rather than being able to consistently provide some of the value-added services they're more patchy because we can only provide what we get money in for.” “Initially terrible because we had to lose supporting people from last year and we had to close down services and the clients kept coming to our organisation even though we couldn't provide the services.” Reduced contact - staff time/opening hours, etc. (8%) A proportion of projects have specifically mentioned reduced contact time for clients, due to loss of staff members or shorter opening hours. “Reduced support hours which means clients are not getting the same service as before, potential increase in ASBO.” “Less staff time, also we'll not be able to take the types of risks we take, access to the service we will have to be careful who uses specific services.” “No weekend provision, no bank holidays, reduction of working hours. Clients who might really need support may not get it due to the service being shut. This has had a sharp increase on anti-social behaviour, housing issues/benefit issues/substance misuse, offending behaviour.” Keeping the impact on clients to a minimum (8%) A number of respondents have indicated that although they have received a cut in their budgets, they have tried to make the cuts elsewhere so that it would not have an impact on the clients. This often means that in order to protect front-line services, back office services would have to be cut. “We've had to stretch further ourselves but it's had no impact on clients. Clients always come first.” “At present 10% cut has been managed to not have a impact on front line service delivery - we need to wait and see what further cuts are announced.” “Hopefully, very little. Impacts are made in back office activities.” Reduced activities (6%) Where projects have experienced cuts, non-essential services such as meaningful activities are at risk of being reduced or scrapped altogether. “Limited in provision of meaningful activities, limited opening hours of day service.” “Limiting replacement furnishing, fewer activities, day trips etc.”

54

Decline in quality – service/premises (5%) Some projects have commented how the cuts have negatively impacted the quality of services as well as quality of the premises. “The service is not as smooth running as it should be.” “They are not getting the same quality of service as before.” Decline in premises maintenance/resources (3%) A number of respondents replied that they were unable to afford basic maintenance on their buildings and equipment. “Less money for repairs to the flat, worse living conditions…” “We are unable to carry out some work e.g. modernising the kitchen etc.” Increase in costs for clients (2%) A small number of participants reported having to compensate for the cuts in their budgets by increasing charges or rents for the clients. “We now have to ask for donations from clients.” “Service charges have increased.” Other (5%) Most of the remaining comments related to the impact the reduction in income has had on staff, such as causing stress and uncertainty, and lowering morale. In addition, some projects reported an impact on clients in terms of them being worried or anxious about the situation.

FINAL REMARKS The resilience, adaptability and innovation of the sector in the way they provide services for one of the most marginalised groups in society has been demonstrated over the years. In the coming years, these attributes will be sorely needed. With the scale of public spending cuts becoming clear, and the government’s proposals on welfare reform, which may both contribute to rising unemployment and homelessness, there is very little doubt that the sector is facing its toughest challenge. Demand for already-stretched homelessness services would inexorably increase in light of the economic downturn. As this year’s data has already started to show, some valuable services will have been lost. Others are merging or remodelling, seeking to minimise the impact on the people they serve. However, the good work that the sector has been doing with the clients should not be discounted. In fact, it is now more important than ever to be able to evidence the value of such services in changing the lives of the service users, helping them back to independent living.

55

APPENDICES

56

Appendix 1: Project Types

• Day Centres provide services primarily for single people and couples who are homeless, insecurely housed or in temporary accommodation. Alongside food, drink and practical help, these projects often provide support and advice services around substance misuse, housing, mental health, health, employment and education.

• Direct Access Hostels are projects that are open all year round for single homeless

people and couples without dependent children, who are rough sleepers or in immediate or emergency need of accommodation. These usually accommodate people on a short-term basis.

• Second Stage Accommodation projects provide longer-term accommodation for

homeless people, often to people moving on from Direct Access Hostels.

57

Appendix 2: Methodology THE QUESTIONNAIRE The questionnaire consisted of 7 sections, covering 24 questions in total. The questions ask for information around the services that the participants’ projects provide, the types of clients they see, the projects’ criteria, etc. As stated, the questionnaire used in last year’s survey was amended – a few questions were added, some were dropped, and the wording of others was changed. The full questionnaire is available on the Homeless Link SNAP 2011 webpage.

Since we have access to the email addresses of potential respondents, they were contacted prior to the survey. Besides inviting them to take part in this year’s survey, the email also provided potential respondents with a chance to go through the questionnaire beforehand. Thus, we are more confident that this year’s figures are more reliable as respondents would have had a chance to check their data before taking part in the survey.

DATA SOURCES The data source for all tables and charts in this report derives from the Homeless Link telephone survey and HUK, unless otherwise stated. Survey This year, respondents were given the option to either complete the survey online or by phone. The survey itself is similar to the previous three years’ surveys although the wording of some questions has been improved, a few questions have been added, and some questions have been removed. Like last year, 500 projects were surveyed for SNAP 2011, representing almost a third of applicable projects on the HUK database. The survey was conducted on behalf of Homeless Link by a private research company, Vision Twentyone. The survey took approximately 50 minutes to complete per respondent. When projects were contacted, the hostel or project manager was asked to complete the survey, rather than chief executives or other staff. Where an interview was not successfully secured, an alternative, randomly selected, contact was used until the required ‘quota’ of services of each type (Day Centres, Direct Access Hostels and 2nd Stage Accommodation projects) was reached. Where a project provides more than one type of service, for example where a building managed by an organisation contains a Day Centre and a hostel, questions have been asked about one type of service only. In addition, where a project did not agree with the category they were listed as under HUK, the survey has been completed using the respondent’s self-definition of the project.

Around 30% of respondents completed the survey online, while the rest were done on the phone.

Homeless UK data This data source was established in 2005 by Resource Information Service (RIS) funded by CLG. RIS, which researches and publishes information about homelessness and other services to improve referrals and access to provision, has now merged with Homeless Link. Homeless UK data is classified according to service type and covers some services that are not exclusively for homeless people (e.g. Citizens Advice Bureaux). This report uses data on Day Centres, Direct Access Hostels and 2nd Stage Accommodation projects. Projects are

58

defined by their referral route, so sometimes one project may have more than one geographical location (i.e. a series of shared houses with one central referral system). Big organisations (e.g. Salvation Army) are likely to have a number of projects. The data on Day Centres and Direct Access Hostels on Homeless UK has been researched and built up over many years. Coverage checking helps ensure that data is as comprehensive as possible, subject to inevitable issues around boundaries relating to varying definitions of services. Data on 2nd Stage Accommodation on Homeless UK is particularly subject to varying definitions and boundary issues (e.g., projects that serve both homeless people and other client groups).

59

Appendix 3: Areas with Lowest Provision REGIONS WITH LOWEST PROVISION BY AREA

East Riding of Yorkshire; 20 20 337,000 16,850

Wakefield; 53 10 63 323,900 5,141

Kirklees; 10 81 91 406,800 4,470

Barnsley; 66 66 226,300 3,429

Rotherham; 21 79 100 253,900 2,539

Doncaster; 14 114 128 290,100 2,266

North Yorkshire; 16 298 314 597,700 1,904

Leeds; 133 410 543 787,700 1,451

Sheffield; 129 281 410 547,000 1,334

York; 39 174 213 198,800 933

Bradford; 160 444 604 506,800 839

Kingston upon Hull; 173 187 360 262,400 729North East Lincolnshire; 132 120 252 157,100 623

TOTAL 880 2,284 3,164 5,258,100 1,662

Leicestershire; 56 74 130 644,700 4,959

Derbyshire; 169 169 760,200 4,498

Northamptonshire; 29 173 202 683,800 3,385

Nottinghamshire; 39 295 334 776,600 2,325

Lincolnshire; 40 386 426 697,900 1,638

Derby City; 111 223 334 244,100 731

Leicester; 211 349 560 304,700 544Nottingham; 233 358 591 300,800 509

TOTAL 719 2,027 2,746 4,451,200 1,621

Northumberland; 0 48 48 311,100 6,481

Gateshead; 44 44 190,800 4,336

County Durham; 54 73 127 506,400 3,987

North Tyneside; 42 20 62 197,200 3,181

Redcar & Cleveland; 50 50 137,500 2,750

Hartlepool; 41 41 90,900 2,217

Stockton on Tees; 32 59 91 191,100 2,100

Sunderland; 80 74 154 281,700 1,829

South Tyneside; 84 84 152,400 1,814

Middlesbrough; 30 48 78 140,500 1,801

Darlington; 18 43 61 100,400 1,646

New castle upon Tyne; 266 269 535 284,300 531

Darlington; County Durham; 8 8 Multiple

Gateshead; New castle upon Tyne; 53 53 MultipleGateshead; New castle upon Tyne; North Tyneside; Northumberland; South Tyneside;275 275 Multiple

TOTAL 522 1,189 1,711 2,584,300 1,510

Wokingham; 10 10 161,900 16,190

Windsor & Maidenhead; 31 31 143,800 4,639

West Berkshire; 55 55 153,000 2,782

East Sussex; 188 188 512,100 2,724

Surrey; 81 363 444 1,113,100 2,507

West Sussex; 50 278 328 792,900 2,417

Hampshire; 121 463 584 1,289,400 2,208

Kent; 109 533 642 1,411,100 2,198

Buckinghamshire; 42 189 231 494,700 2,142

Bracknell Forest; 55 55 115,100 2,093

Oxfordshire; 137 284 421 640,300 1,521

Isle of Wight; 130 130 140,200 1,078

Milton Keynes; 15 209 224 236,700 1,057

Slough; 147 147 128,400 873

Portsmouth; 84 179 263 203,500 774

Reading; 38 194 232 151,800 654

Medw ay; 312 89 401 254,800 635

Southampton; 125 431 556 236,700 426Brighton & Hove; 1 649 650 256,300 394

TOTAL 1,170 4,422 5,592 8,435,700 1508

YO

RK

SH

IRE

& H

UM

BE

RS

IDE

EA

ST

MID

LA

ND

SN

OR

TH

EA

ST

OF

EN

GL

AN

DS

OU

TH

EA

ST

EN

GL

AN

D

Top 10 Lowest Provision Area

AREA DA Hostel 2nd Stage TotalEstimated

Population

N. of

People/Avail

60

Appendix 4: Current Funding Sources

Supporting People 1% 6% 25% 46% 10% 13%

Social Services 1% 3% 3% 14% 6% 73%

Other LA Funding 1% 3% 6% 15% 9% 66%

LAA/LSP 0% 1% 2% 6% 11% 81%

Criminal Justice 1% 1% 1% 2% 6% 89%

Substance Misuse 0% 1% 1% 3% 6% 89%

Health 1% 1% 1% 5% 6% 86%

Employment & Education 1% 2% 1% 2% 6% 88%

Rent & Service Charges 0% 41% 6% 21% 4% 28%

Benefit Payments 0% 45% 5% 23% 4% 22%

Fundraising 1% 15% 16% 23% 12% 34%

Legal Services Commission 0% 0% 0% 1% 7% 91%

Places of Change 1% 1% 1% 1% 8% 88%

Other 1% 3% 1% 7% 3% 84%

New from

last year

Increase

from last

year

Decrease

since last

year

Same as

last year

Don't

Know

Not

Source

61

Appendix 5: Overall Service Availability 2008 – 2011.

2008 2009 2010 2011 Change

DRUG SERVICES 87% 91% 95% 89%

Structured Treatment - Residential detox/Rehab 86% 91% 95% 90%

Structured Treatment - Day programmes 86% 92% 96% 90%

Harm minimisation 87% 94% 96% 94%

Needle exchange - 89% 92% 86%

Blood borne virus screening/vaccination - 91% 93% 88%

ALCOHOL SERVICES 88% 94% 96% 92%

Structured Treatment - Residential detox/Rehab 89% 93% 96% 90%

Structured Treatmens - Day programmes 89% 93% 97% 91%

Harm minimisation 87% 95% 97% 96%

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 78% 93% 96% 95%

CMHT Services - 94% 97% 95%

Other talking therapies 84% 93% 96% 94%

Other anger management courses 76% 92% 95% 94%

Other mediation/relationship counselling 75% 93% 97% 96%

Other - 22% 10% 39%

PHYSICAL HEALTH SERVICES 71% 90% 97% 93%

Nursing Care 77% 86% 96% 84%

General Practitioner 82% 94% 99% 97%

Dental Care 70% 91% 98% 96%

Alternative therapies 55% 85% 96% 91%

Eye Care 66% 90% 98% 95%

Foot Care 74% 89% 98% 93%

TB Screening/contact with TB Clinic - 90% 97% 92%

Sexual Health Services - 92% 98% 96%

MEANINGFUL ACTIVITY 61% 90% 94% 93%

Sports/Outward Bound Activities 67% 90% 95% 94%

Gardening, farming or environmental projects 53% 88% 90% 91%

Arts, music and cultural projects 64% 92% 96% 95%

Other - 25% 17% 50%

EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT 66% 89% 98% 97%

IT Services, computer skills training 71% 94% 98% 98%

Literacy/numeracy courses 70% 94% 99% 99%

Into work training (e.g., personal skills 62% 95% 99% 98%

Life skills (e.g., cooking, budgeting, etc.) 74% 95% 99% 99%

Accredited Courses (e.g., NVQ) 55% 91% 96% 94%

General informal adult learning - 73% 94% 97%

ADVICE 92% 97% 99% 98%

Benefits 95% 97% 99% 99%

Debt/Financial 91% 98% 99% 99%

Legal 85% 96% 99% 97%

Housing 95% 98% 99% 99%

RESETTLEMENT 59% 86% 92% 92%

Rent deposit scheme 46% 80% 88% 88%

Resettlement/move-on scheme 71% 91% 96% 96%

Overall Service Availability

TYPE OF SERVICE

62

Appendix 6: Service Access Problems 2010 – 2011 Comparison.

% whole sample, service

available

Of projects where service

available…Problems with access %

Some clients ineligible

Some clients unsuitable

Sometimes due to client motivation

External service

inadequate

Internal service lacks

financial/staff

Internal service lacks suitable

premises/equipment

2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011

DRUG SERVICES 94% 89% 47% 52% 5% 6% 3% 7% 66% 33% 32% 19% 11% 5% 3% 2%

ALCOHOL SERVICES 97% 92% 53% 62% 4% 7% 2% 8% 62% 38% 41% 28% 12% 6% 2% 2%

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 96% 95% 57% 64% 8% 13% 6% 8% 33% 30% 62% 35% 10% 5% 2% 1%

PHYSICAL HEALTH SERVICES 98% 93% 23% 28% 2% 3% 1% 1% 55% 19% 26% 8% 16% 3% 5% 1% EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT 94% 97% 45% 53% 11% 7% 6% 5% 67% 38% 18% 12% 16% 6% 5% 2%

MEANINGFUL ACTIVITY 98% 93% 46% 51% 1% 4% 2% 4% 60% 36% 18% 12% 34% 12% 6% 4%

ADVICE 99% 98% 20% 30% 0% 3% 3% 1% 55% 18% 32% 11% 18% 4% 2% 0%

RESETTLEMENT 92% 92% 29% 48% 16% 15% 12% 8% 15% 15% 56% 21% 19% 7% 3% 2%

63

Appendix 7: National Proportion of Client Background

None Less than

5% 5-9% 10-14% 15-24% 25-49% 50-75% Over 75%

Don't provide services

Don't know

Grand Total

N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %

Young People 23 5% 26 5% 34 7% 35 7% 44 9% 63 13% 36 7% 226 45% 12 2% 1 0% 500

Older People 92 18% 41 8% 45 9% 63 13% 54 11% 30 6% 11 2% 5 1% 153 31% 6 1% 500

Men 11 2% 2 0% 2 0% 2 0% 5 1% 54 11% 218 44% 179 36% 25 5% 2 0% 500

Women 25 5% 21 4% 27 5% 31 6% 77 15% 128 26% 114 23% 34 7% 40 8% 3 1% 500

Couples 134 27% 60 12% 22 4% 7 1% 8 2% 11 2% 2 0% 249 50% 7 1% 500

Ex-Service People 237 47% 106 21% 52 10% 27 5% 18 4% 4 1% 4 1% 32 6% 20 4% 500

Prison Leavers 112 22% 84 17% 72 14% 72 14% 51 10% 56 11% 22 4% 11 2% 6 1% 14 3% 500

Care Leavers 107 21% 79 16% 67 13% 69 14% 55 11% 63 13% 21 4% 7 1% 10 2% 22 4% 500

Victims of domestic violence 128 26% 107 21% 84 17% 67 13% 54 11% 25 5% 5 1% 2 0% 4 1% 24 5% 500

Refugees 268 54% 88 18% 34 7% 30 6% 24 5% 20 4% 3 1% 19 4% 14 3% 500

Asylum Seekers 286 57% 90 18% 24 5% 22 4% 11 2% 8 2% 2 0% 42 8% 15 3% 500

EE Migrants 279 56% 109 22% 28 6% 26 5% 14 3% 11 2% 4 1% 1 0% 17 3% 11 2% 500

Irregular Migrants 300 60% 54 11% 10 2% 6 1% 3 1% 4 1% 1 0% 95 19% 27 5% 500

Sex Workers 271 54% 80 16% 41 8% 21 4% 13 3% 8 2% 3 1% 22 4% 41 8% 500

Rough Sleepers 77 15% 59 12% 45 9% 55 11% 57 11% 70 14% 54 11% 63 13% 10 2% 10 2% 500

Disabled People 173 35% 139 28% 59 12% 42 8% 17 3% 24 5% 5 1% 4 1% 25 5% 12 2% 500

BME 104 21% 92 18% 52 10% 74 15% 60 12% 56 11% 37 7% 14 3% 11 2% 500

LGBT 106 21% 129 26% 78 16% 72 14% 27 5% 19 4% 2 0% 2 0% 1 0% 64 13% 500

People with mental health issues 32 6% 39 8% 39 8% 60 12% 87 17% 124 25% 82 16% 23 5% 3 1% 11 2% 500

People with learning disabilities 89 18% 73 15% 76 15% 99 20% 68 14% 53 11% 13 3% 8 2% 6 1% 15 3% 500

Other 7 1% 9 2% 5 1% 14 3% 13 3% 14 3% 11 2% 426 85% 1 0% 500

survey of needs & provision 2011 - homeless link...6 snapshot homeless link’s survey of needs...

Documents