Glasgow Winter Night Shelter

Transcription

1 Glasgow Winter Night Shelter Monitoring Report March 2015 We want to end homelessness in Glasgow and improve options for people in housing need GHN is a charity registered in Scotland (SCO 03453) & company limited by guarantee (SC112361) Registered office Unit 16a, Adelphi Centre, 12 Commercial Road, Glasgow G5 0PQ Tel Fax info@ghn.org.uk Director: Margaret-Ann Brünjes

2 Contents Page 1 Executive Summary 3 2 Service Delivery 4 3 Overview of Methodology 6 4 Dataset A: all service users 7 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Overview of service use Demographics Frequency of service use Frequency of service returns 5 Dataset B: all survey respondents 10 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Overview Demographics Experience of homelessness Support needs Engagement with statutory homelessness services 6 Dataset C: where statutory services accessed 19 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Overview Demographics Experience of homelessness Support needs Outcomes obtained from statutory homelessness services 7 Data Sharing with Statutory Homelessness Services 26 8 Further Analysis and Reporting 26 9 Conclusions and Considerations Appendix A: References 2

3 1. Executive Summary Background 1.1 Glasgow Winter Night Shelter was a 13 week service spanning the winter season of which, for the fifth consecutive year, offered crisis response and respite for those at risk of or sleeping rough across the city. It is delivered by Glasgow City Mission. Methodology 1.2 Glasgow Homelessness Network (GHN) fulfilled a monitoring function for the service, the focus of which as in previous years - was the level of need for the service, routes into the service, the level of engagement of service users with statutory homelessness services and the outcomes obtained from that engagement. 1.3 All service users were required by the service to provide their name, date of birth and gender as part of a booking-in process each time the shelter was accessed. Once booked in, all service users were invited to voluntarily participate in a short structured interview. The return rate of completed monitoring forms against each time the service was accessed was 18.0% (270 from 1501), and 46.4% from unique individuals (189 from 407). 1.4 Several preliminary reports were produced and distributed among partner organisations and relevant during the period of service delivery. This document supersedes all previous preliminary reporting. Key Findings 1.5 The service was accessed 1,501 times by 407 unique individuals. Over 90% of service accesses were made by men. The median age of all those accessing the service was 37 years, with a range of 17 to 68 years. The number of individuals who accessed GWNS this winter and who also accessed it last winter was Of the respondents, 88.4% accessed the service alone, and 77.5% were UK Nationals. 68.1% of all service users accessed the service on only one or two nights over the operational period, with the remainder accessing the service between 3 and 48 times. 1.7 In 50% of instances, a respondent accessing the shelter at night had approached or engaged with statutory homelessness services on that day. In 70.5% of those instances the outcome obtained was that there was no accommodation available. The GWNS service was accessed on one night, statutory services were approached for accommodation the following day, and GWNS was accessed again that night on 75 occasions % of all respondents who identified one or more support needs in addition to accommodation identified issues around mental health. Among those respondents who accessed statutory homelessness services, this proportion rose to 64.3%. Conclusions & Considerations 1.9 An evaluation of the GWNS service, and analyses of the data, highlights a number of strategic, operational, legal, statutory and monitoring considerations. These are detailed on page 27. 3

4 2. Service Delivery 2.1 Glasgow Winter Night Shelter (GWNS) was a 13 week response spanning the winter of , offering crisis response and respite for those sleeping rough, or at risk of sleeping rough, across the city. It was delivered by Glasgow City Mission, supported and resourced by an active group of third sector organisations, and delivered from Renfield St Stephens. 2.2 GWNS was originally designed as an extremely low-threshold service which made almost no demands on service users in order to be accessible to as many excluded individuals as possible. Efforts to maximise service user engagement with statutory homelessness services, assisted by an active partnership between GWNS and the City Council s Hamish Allan Centre (HAC), continued as in previous years. This had the joint aim of obtaining positive accommodation outcomes for service users, as well as providing more wraparound and follow-up support for individuals. 2.3 A brief booking-in procedure, carried out by staff with service users before access was allowed, did increase the threshold level of service entry. Prospective service users were asked explicitly if they had anywhere else they could stay, and if they had accessed a statutory homelessness service during that day. Service users who did have appropriate and accessible alternative accommodation were directed to access that rather than the shelter; and those who had not accessed a statutory service that day were advised that it was a requirement of subsequent access to the night shelter. 2.4 Glasgow City Mission managed the operation model, which included a part-time dedicated service manager in addition to two full-time operational team leaders. Service delivery was assisted by a strong team of volunteers associated with the City Mission, whose role in ensuring a safe, practical and welcoming environment was paramount. 2.5 Glasgow City Council s Homelessness Services continued the provision of a taxi service to the HAC each morning, as well as extending the opening hours to allow homelessness applications from GWNS service users to be made or existing casework to be progressed. Additionally, a dedicated team leader at the HAC was allocated to the GWNS caseload to provide greater continuity of service. Regular operational review meetings were held, between Glasgow City Mission and GWNS partners as well as between Glasgow City Mission, GHN and Glasgow City Council s Homelessness Services. 2.6 The sharing of information was further facilitated by explicit permission being sought from GWNS service users during the booking-in process for their identifying details (name, date of birth and gender) to be shared with both Glasgow Street Service and the HAC. 2.7 Hunter Street Homeless Health Services ensured that a member of their medical staff was available to provide an early morning service at the HAC if requested by GWNS staff on behalf of a service user. The RSVP outreach service ensured a presence at the HAC each morning to support service users arriving from GWNS. 2.8 Despite the continual improvement to the service delivery model over the five years of delivery, the service itself has remained extremely basic. Material provision is limited to sleeping mats, sleeping bags, hot drinks and some dry clothing, in addition to the warmth and safety provided by the building and staff. This is in keeping with the aim of the partners to provide a refuge of last resort, rather than an alternative to accessible and appropriate accommodation. 4

5 Potential Criticisms: 2.9 Within the broader context of finding enduring solutions for homelessness, there are two key and recurring criticisms of night services of this nature: a) that such services encourage people not to engage with statutory services and perpetuate rather than resolve homelessness [1] b) that they can be poorly targeted and attract many people who are not actually homeless: the unsettled resettled. [2] Supporting Evidence: 2.14 The partners in the provision of the GWNS have long recognised this perspective and ensured that the service did not become a substitute for accommodation services by implementing the delivery model described above Our previous monitoring of this service, and existing research into the provision of noninterventionist emergency services have shown these concerns to be unfounded, with the vast majority of people using such services being homeless, sleeping rough or at risk of sleeping rough. [3] Further research has identified that, for women in particular, night services are only used by those who have no alternatives and as an absolute last resort. [4] 2.16 Previous research has indicated the potential benefits of temporary night shelter provision are that they can: a) provide an additional means of providing services to individuals most difficult to engage with; b) help to reconnect with people who have dropped out of the accommodation system or are banned from existing services; c) provide an alternative to people turning to survivalist crime; d) provide basic sustenance services and ultimately save lives. [5] 2.17 The winter shelter model has previously been endorsed and adopted by local authorities in other cities across Scotland. As an integral part of their local homelessness strategies, local authorities have in the past worked alongside - or commissioned services from - voluntary agencies in Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Inverness, Dundee and Stirling to provide a similar service to those who were, or were at risk of, sleeping rough As a result of working in partnership with local authorities, the winter shelter services provided in areas outwith Glasgow have had close and formal links with statutory services and have been better able to obtain more appropriate accommodation outcomes for service users. Close links and partnership working with other services are seen as essential and integral parts of a successful model. 5

6 3. Overview of Methodology 3.1 As in previous years, GHN conducted a voluntary survey of service users using a structured survey questionnaire. Service users were invited to participate in the survey once they had been welcomed inside the shelter and made comfortable. Each questionnaire contained explicit instructions to administering staff that participation was entirely voluntary and any information could be withheld at the wish of the respondent. 3.2 The bulk of the fieldwork for this report was carried out by the staff and volunteers of Glasgow Homelessness Network, Scottish Drugs Forum, Turning Point Scotland and the GWNS staff themselves, with assistance from staff from Simon Community Scotland and Shelter Scotland. All staff and volunteers were briefed on the survey questionnaire before conducting fieldwork. The assistance of all staff and volunteers who gave their time to assist the fieldwork that enabled this monitoring report is very greatly appreciated. 3.3 In terms of data protection, each questionnaire contained information about GHN and what would happen to the information provided by service users, thus constituting a Fair Processing Notice under the Data Protection Act (1998). All service users were asked for explicit signed consent for their information to be: a) stored on a secure database and accessed by appropriate GHN staff b) used in the analysis and anonymous reporting of statistical information c) shared with other voluntary sector homelessness services in Glasgow 3.4 A supplemental level of data protection consent granted permission for a specific subset of data regarding service users access to the statutory homelessness services located at the Hamish Allan Centre (HAC) or Community Casework Teams (CCT) and the outcomes obtained to be shared with those services. 3.5 The data items collected included the following in addition to standard demographic data: a) whether or not the respondent had accessed a statutory homelessness service that day; b) what the obtained outcome was; c) where the respondent had slept on the night previous to accessing the night shelter; d) the length of the respondent s current episode of homelessness; e) whether or not the current episode of homelessness was the first experienced by the respondent, and if not, at what age their first experience occurred; f) self identified support needs; g) the type of accommodation the respondent last had access to, and the reason why they had to leave that accommodation 3.6 Where appropriate, each results table in this report presents both the frequency of a response and the number of individuals making each response. In some tables, the column presenting the number of individuals making each response will show a sum greater than the total number of respondents (202). This is as a result of respondents providing different answers, and could be caused by any combination of the following factors: variation in the way a question was worded or explained by the interviewer understanding and interpretation (respondents having a first language other than English) 6

7 some respondents may have initially declined to answer certain questions or provided guarded responses until a degree of trust had been established with the service or with the interviewer an actual change in a respondents circumstances over the service period or between survey completions 3.7 The questionnaire was continually reviewed to ensure that any necessary changes could be identified and implemented speedily. 3.8 A booking-in procedure which captured the name, date of birth and gender of every service user who accessed the shelter again continued to provide a rich census dataset. Once collated, and combined with data on which service users had accessed the HAC on the morning after service access, this data provides a much more detailed picture of the frequency and patterns of service access. 3.9 Preliminary reporting was produced and shared with partner organisations, as well as at regular review meetings with Glasgow City Council s Homelessness Services. All preliminary reporting is superseded by this document. 4. Dataset A: all service users (i) Overview of Service Use 4.1 This section provides information on all instances of service access across the entire operational period. Data in this section was captured by service staff as part of the booking in process each night, and so represents 100% coverage of all service users. 4.2 The data items collected were name, access date, date of birth, and gender. Initials, birth date and gender were combined to produce a unique identifier for each individual. GWNS staff also recorded which service users took taxis to the Hamish Allan Centre each morning. 4.3 Tables 4a and 4b show that over the 90 nights of service provision, the shelter was accessed 1,501 times, with a mean number of 16.7 accesses per night: Table 4a: Total service accesses Service Access Count 1501 Table 4b: Service accesses per night Minimum Maximum Mean (ii) Demographics 4.4 Table 4c shows that men represented 88.6% of all individuals and 90.4% of service accesses, while women represented 11.4% of individuals but only 9.6% of service accesses: 7

8 Table 4c: Service accesses and individuals by gender Gender Accesses Frequency Percent Number Percent Male Female Total Table 4e shows that the youngest service user was 17, and the oldest 68. The mean and median ages were both around 36 years: Table 4e: Age of, all service users Minimum Maximum Median (iii) Frequency of Service Use 4.6 Table 4f presents the number of instances of service access by all unique individuals over the period of service provision. Over two thirds (68.1%) of all individuals accessed the service on only one or two occasions, while the remainder made greater use of the service. The greatest recorded use made of the service was by one individual who accessed the service 48 times during the reporting period: Table 4f: Frequency of service access: all individuals Times Accessed Times Accessed Total Tables 4g and 4h present the number of instances of service access by gender. It is immediately obvious that the pattern of access is markedly different for men, far more of whom used the service far more frequently. 73.9% of women accessed the service only once or twice, but this figure is 66.9% for men. 8

9 Table 4g: Service access by male service users Times Accessed Times Accessed Total 356 Table 4h: Service access by female service users Times Accessed Times Accessed Total 46 (iv) Frequency of Service Returns 4.8 Of the total 1501 service accesses, 470 instances (31.3%) of service users taking the morning taxi to the Hamish Allan Centre (HAC) were recorded. 4.9 Table 4i shows the frequency with which these service users returned to the night shelter. It is important to note that these figures should be interpreted in light of the fact that some service users were known not to have actually engaged with caseworkers at the other end, while others had issues with entitlement to public funds. Table 4i: Frequency of return from accesses to statutory homelessness services Category Accesses Non Returns Consecutive Returns Anytime Returns Non-Returns is the number of instances where a service user accessed the shelter, took the taxi to the HAC in the morning, and did not return to the shelter at any point. 9

10 4.11 Consecutive Returns is the number of instances where a service user accessed the shelter, took up the taxi to the HAC in the morning, and returned to the shelter that same night Anytime Returns is the number of instances where a service user accessed the shelter, took up the taxi to the HAC in the morning, and returned to the shelter on any other subsequent night Taxi uptake data was not recorded on one morning during the period of service. 5. Dataset B: all survey respondents (i) Overview 5.1 The total number of completed survey questionnaires was 319. Withheld or invalid data protection consent prevented the inclusion of 49 of those completed. Thus, 270 of the returned forms are included in this report. A total of 189 individual service users participated in the monitoring survey. 5.2 The overall return rate from service accesses was 18.0%, providing coverage of 46.4% of the total number of unique individual service users. All statistics in sections 5 and 6 of this report are based on these returns. (ii) Demographics 5.3 Tables 5a and 5b show that 87.4% of returned questionnaires were completed with male service users, and that the median age of all respondents was 36.0 years: Table 5a: Gender, all respondents Gender Responses Frequency Percent Number Percent Male Female Not Recorded Total Table 5b: Age of individuals, all respondents Minimum Maximum Mean Median Table 5c shows that 83% of service accesses were made by a lone individual, with accesses by couples accounting for 8% of the total number: 10

11 Table 5c: Access type, all respondents Access Type Frequency Percent Accessed alone Accessed with partner as a couple Accessed with a family member Not recorded Total Table 5d shows that 180 respondents (88%) were UK citizens, while the largest non-uk group represented were EU nationals with 13 respondents (6.4%) Table 5d: Nationality and immigration status, all respondents Nationality Number Percent UK National EU National Non-EU National Refugee Not Recorded Total 204* * see section 3.6, above 5.6 In terms of ethnicity, Table 5e shows that almost 75% of individuals identified themselves as from a White Scottish background. The Other White category includes people of Eastern European and Russian ethnic backgrounds. Table 5e: Ethnicity, all respondents Ethnicity Number Percent White Scottish Other White Pakistani White Other British White Irish Other Asian Black African Chinese Any Mixed Any Other Declined Not Recorded Total 208* * see section 3.6, above 11

12 (iii) Experience of Homelessness 5.7 Table 5f shows the reported length of the current episode of homelessness experienced by respondents. It is important to note that homelessness in this table is as defined by the service user, rather than determined by any legal interpretation on the part of the interviewer. Table 5f: Length of current episode of homelessness, all respondents Length Number Percent Less than a week Between 1 and 4 weeks Between 4 and 12 weeks Between 12 and 26 weeks Between 26 and 52 weeks Between 1 and 2 years Over 2 years Not recorded Total Table 5g presents the data on whether or not a service user s current experience of homelessness was identified as their first or not. For 61 individuals (32.3%), this was the case: Table 5g: First experience of homelessness, all respondents First Experience Number Percent No Yes Not Homeless 2* 1.1 Not recorded Total * One respondent felt unsafe in their tenancy. The second respondent reported that they were experiencing fuel poverty. 5.9 All respondents reporting that this was not their first experience of homelessness were asked at what age their first experience had occurred. (For respondents experiencing homelessness for the first time, their age on the day of service access was calculated.) Table 5h shows the results: Table 5h: Age at first experience of homelessness, all respondents Minimum Maximum Mean Median

13 5.10 Table 5i shows the results when respondents were asked about the last accommodation to which they had access. Note that these results are particularly susceptible to the influencing factors described in paragraph 3.6 above and, in particular, that a positive change in an individuals accommodation circumstances was an actual goal of the service. For example, several of the respondents are known to have accessed the night shelter, approached the HAC, were offered and accepted emergency accommodation which they subsequently lost access to; and returned to the night shelter. In this type of case, only the response recorded on the first completed survey is included. Table 5i: Accommodation last able to access, all respondents Accommodation Number Percent Care of friends or family Prison Own family home or with partner Own private let Own RSL tenancy Hostel Parental home Temporary furnished flat Bed and breakfast Supported accommodation Accommodation tied to work Long term hospital stay Chez Nous Emergency accommodation Rehab England Sofa-surfing D.B Bedsit Bellgrove Caravan Homeless unit Hospital Outside the UK Policy custody Refugee accommodation Talbot Centre Wallace of Campsie Not known Not recorded Total

14 5.11 Table 5j shows the results when respondents were asked the cause of having to leave the last accommodation they had access to. The most common were asked to leave (20% of respondents); and liberation from prison (14%): Table 5j: Cause of leaving last available accommodation, all respondents Cause of Leaving Last Accommodation Number Percent Asked to leave Prison release Relationship breakdown External violence Multiple causes (main cause undetermined) Eviction or repossession Overcrowding Domestic violence Accommodation not habitable Hospital discharge Not recorded Total In order to gain insight into people s routes into homelessness and patterns of service usage, all respondents were asked what accommodation, if any, they had accessed on the previous night. Table 5j provides the results when the Winter Night Shelter itself (134 responses) was not included; showing the most common accommodation on the night prior to a service access were rough sleeping or other family or friends, at 36.8% and 28.0% respectively. The table presents responses rather than individuals as service users frequently gave more than one response. Table 5j: Accommodation on Night Previous to Service Access, all respondents Accommodation Responses Frequency % Rough Sleeping Other family or friends Police station Hospital Hostel Own family home or with partner Hotel Temporary furnished flat Aspire Associate I met in a hostel last year Bellgrove Hotel Car Caravan GCC emergency accommodation In a club Mosque Other shelter

15 Own tenancy or property Parental home Prison Supported accommodation Talbot Association Wallace of Campsie Not recorded Total All respondents were asked where they would be sleeping that night if the Winter Night Shelter was not available. The purpose of this question was to routinely monitor whether the service was attracting people not actually experiencing homelessness, or who had alternative accommodation they may have been able to access. Table 5k shows that this was clearly not the case, and that in 86.7% of all monitored service accesses the service user reported that they would be sleeping rough or walking the streets if the Winter Night Shelter was not available: Table 5k: Alternative arrangement if no access to GWNS, all respondents Frequency Percent Rough Sleeping Other family or friends Hospital Walking the streets Own family home or with partner Airport Anderston RC church as above Central Station don t know GCC emergency accommodation Hostel I would commit suicide Kingston Halls waiting area Prison Put myself in danger Talbot Temporary furnished flat The depth of despair / on the street throwing myself in the Clyde Total

16 5.14 All respondents were asked what the source of their awareness of the service was. Table 5l shows that the most frequent response was the Hamish Allan Centre or a Community Casework Team. It is striking that in 5.5% of responses the respondents knowledge of the service was reported as having accessed the service in previous winters. This table presents frequency of response only, as more than one response was recorded for multiple service users: Table 5l: Source of awareness of GWNS service, all respondents Source of Awareness of GWNS Frequency Percentage HAC or CCT Word of mouth RSVP Daycentre Accessed GWNS in previous years Police Online Church Salvation Army Shelter Hospital alpine CCTV camera inside dad Paul Smart knowledge Total (iv) Support Needs 5.15 Table 5m shows that 40.0% of respondents disclosed one or more support needs in addition to accommodation, while 26.5% responded that their only need was accommodation: Table 5m: Disclosure of additional support issues, all respondents Additional Support Issue(s) Number Percent Yes one or more None - accommodation only Not disclosed Total

17 5.16 Table 5n shows the frequency with which distinct support issues were disclosed by respondents. Support needs around mental health were reported by 50 people (26.5% of all respondents who identified one or more addition support needs). Support needs around substance misuse have been disaggregated into separate figures for alcohol and drugs. The number of individuals disclosing support needs around both was 14 (7.4% of all respondents who identified one or more addition support needs). Table 5n: Additional support issues identified, all respondents Support issue Number Percent* Mental health Alcohol use Drug use Physical health Obtaining food Trauma or grief counselling Work Anger management Benefits - DLA application Bereavement Budgeting Counselling Hep C Diagnosis Mobility Part deaf Reading and writing Self harm Slipped disc Transport/Travel "treatment in rehab for hep c" * calculated from the total of 75 individuals who disclosed one or more additional support need (v) Engagement with Statutory Homelessness Services 5.17 Table 5o shows the frequency of responses when respondents were asked if they had accessed a statutory homelessness service (the Hamish Allan Centre or a Community Casework Team) on the day of accessing the Winter Night Shelter. For 51.3% of respondents, this was recorded as having been the case on at least one occasion. Table 5o: Accessing statutory homelessness services, all respondents Accessed statutory service Responses Frequency Percent Number Percent Yes No Not recorded Total

18 5.18 Those service users who had not accessed a statutory homelessness service on that day were asked to describe why. Table 5p presents the results. The most common recorded reasons were a lack of awareness of the service (10.2%), not being accommodated on previous visits (9.4%), having previously been told they had no local connection to the city (9.4%), and waiting for an imminent placement in rehab (9.4%) The reasons given have been partially grouped along common themes, with single occurrences left as is to highlight the diversity and complexity of the responses recorded. There were only four instances (3.1%) of a service user stating that they were not homeless. Table 5p: Reason provided for not accessing statutory service, all respondents Reason for Not Accessing HAC or CCT: responses Frequency Percent Not aware of the service Not recorded Not accommodated previously Previously told no local connection Waiting for rehab place No reason / "chose not to go" / "couldn't be bothered" / "too disorganised" Application being processed Other appointment / other commitment / "too busy" Prior negative experience of service Not enough time (only recently became homeless) Not homeless / no longer homeless At hospital Barred from accommodation Did present Afraid he might lose his temper Arranged to remain after weekend By the time he got to CCT everyone had left Can t walk anywhere; his legs have really bad nerve damage Case worker not available Contacted wayside told to come here Don t feel safe engaged with caseworker Unhappy with staff so no contact today (Saturday) going tomorrow in a taxi Just arrived 2 days ago; just out of hospital Met street team today Police Custody sofa surfing for 4 days Spoke to city mission Too bust; C.A.B phoned balmore centre but no answer Uses simon community Visiting tomorrow was offered to go last time I was here but took a bad turn and ended in hospital Went down but left & went to hub yesterday Total

19 6. Dataset C: where statutory services accessed (i) Overview 6.1 This section describes the data gathered only from those 97 respondents who had accessed a statutory service (the Hamish Allan Centre or a Community Casework Team) on the day of accessing the GWNS service at any point during GWNS service provision. (ii) Demographics 6.2 Tables 6a and 6b show the gender and age profile of those who had accessed statutory services were similar to that of the overall population using the service: Table 6a: Gender, where statutory services accessed Gender Accesses Frequency Percent Number Percent Male Female Not recorded Total Table 6b: Age descriptives, where statutory services accessed Minimum Maximum Median Table 6c shows that 85% of the recorded instances of statutory service accesses were made by people who had accessed the GWNS service alone, while in 8% of instances the GWNS service had been accessed by a couple: Table 6c: Access type, where statutory services accessed Access Type Frequency Percent Accessed alone Accessed with partner as couple Not recorded Total Table 6d (below) shows that 73.1% of the recorded instances of statutory service access were made by people who identified as UK citizens: Table 6d: Nationality and Immigration Status, where statutory services accessed Nationality / Accesses Status Frequency Percent Number Percent UK National EU National Refugee Non-EU National Not Recorded Total

20 6.5 Table 6e shows that 76.2% of recorded statutory service accesses were made by people of white Scottish, or white other British ethnicity. The other white ethnicity includes people of Eastern European and Russian backgrounds. All other non-white ethnicities constituted around 6.2% of statutory service accesses: Table 6e: Ethnicity, where statutory services accessed Ethnicity Accesses Frequency Percent Number Percent White Scottish Other White White other British 8.2 Pakistani White Irish Any Other Not Recorded Total (iii) Experience of Homelessness 6.6 Table 6f presents the data on the reported length of service users current episode of homelessness, and shows that in 18.3% of cases a respondent indicated they had been homeless for less than a week, and in 6.5% of instances for two years or more: Table 6f: Length of Current Episode of Homelessness, where statutory services accessed Length Number Percent Less than a week Between 1 and 4 weeks Between 4 and 12 weeks Between 12 and 26 weeks Between 26 and 52 weeks Between 1 and 2 years Over 2 years Not recorded Total Table 6g presents the data on whether or not a respondent indicated that the current episode was their first experience of homelessness: Table 6g: Previous Experience of Homelessness, where statutory services accessed First Time Responses Frequency Percent Number Percent No Yes Not recorded Total

21 6.8 Table 6h shows that for those respondents who had experienced previous episodes of homelessness, the median age at which their first episode occurred was 36.0: Table 6h: Age at First Experience of Homelessness, where statutory services accessed Minimum Maximum Mean Median Table 6i shows the responses when respondents were asked about the last accommodation to which they had access. Note that these results are particularly susceptible to the influencing factors described in paragraph 3.6 above and, in particular, that a positive change in an individuals accommodation circumstances was an actual goal of the service. For example, several of the respondents are known to have accessed the night shelter, approached the HAC, were offered and accepted emergency accommodation which they subsequently lost access to; and returned to the night shelter. In this type of case, only the response recorded on the first night of service access is included. The most common was care of friends or family (at 17 individuals, or 17.5%). Table 6i: Last accommodation, where statutory services accessed Accommodation Number Percent Care of friends or family Prison Own family home or with partner Not recorded Hostel Own RSL tenancy Temporary furnished flat Own private let Parental home Supported accommodation Bed and breakfast Chez Nous Emergency accommodation Long term hospital stay D.B Estdale House; easter house In Romania Police custody Rehab sofa surfing Talbot Centre Wallace of Campsie Total Table 6j shows that the most frequently recorded cause of having left their last accommodation was being asked to leave (21 individuals). Having been released from prison was the cause for 14 individuals. 21

22 Table 6j: Cause of leaving last accommodation, where statutory services accessed Cause of Leaving Last Accommodation Number Percent Other Asked to leave Relationship Breakdown PrisonRelease Not Recorded External violence Overcrowding Eviction or Repossession Not Habitable Hospital Discharge Domestic violence Table 6k shows that the most common sleeping arrangement on the night immediately prior to a GWNS service access (excluding the service itself) was staying with other family and friends (32.8%), followed by rough sleeping (26.9%). Respondents indicated that they had spent the previous night police custody 4 times (6.0%) and in prison 1 time (1.5%). Table 6k: Sleeping Arrangements on previous night, where statutory services accessed Sleeping Arrangement Frequency Percent Other family or friends Rough sleeping Own family home or with partner Police station Hostel Hospital Temporary furnished flat Aspire - has been threatened by "shooter" Associate I met in a hostel last year Car Friends House Hotel Mosque Not recorded Own tenancy or property Prison Supported accommodation Talbot Wallace of Campsie Total

23 6.12 Table 6l shows that in 86.4% of responses, the respondent indicated that they would be rough sleeping if they were not able to access the service provided by GWNS on that night: Table 6l: Accommodation if no access to GWNS, where statutory services accessed If No GWNS access Instances Percent Rough Sleeping Don't know Other family or friends Not recorded abandoned caravan As above Bed and breakfast Car Hospital Own tenancy or property Police custody Same as last night Street Talbot centre Tent Total (iv) Support Needs 6.13 Table 6m shows the number of respondents who chose to disclose whether or they had issues other than accommodation with which they felt support was needed. For 42 respondents (44.7%), this was the case. 33 respondents (35.1%) reported that their only need was accommodation. Table 6m: Disclosure of Support Issues, where statutory services accessed Additional Support Issue Number Percent Yes Accommodation only Not disclosed or recorded Total The responses around identified support needs have been categorised thematically and are presented in Table 6m. Support needs around substance misuse have been disaggregated into separate figures for alcohol and drugs. The number of individuals disclosing support needs around both was 8 (20.0% of all respondents who identified one or more addition support needs). Where an additional support need was identified, 82.5% of individuals disclosed support needs around mental health, and 25.0% around trauma or bereavement. 23

24 Table 6m: Support Issues identified, where statutory services accessed: Support issue Number Percent * Mental health Alcohol Drugs Physical health Trauma counselling Anger management Work Benefits - DLA application Bereavement Depression Mobility Reading and writing Transport / travel *Calculated using the total of 40 individuals who identified one or more additional support need. (v) Outcomes obtained from Statutory Homelessness Services 6.15 Table 6o shows the outcomes obtained by respondents who accessed a statutory homelessness service. Since many respondents made multiple approaches to Glasgow City Council, and many received multiple outcomes, the number (and percentage) of individuals therefore represents the number (or percentage) of all individuals who obtained this outcome at least once. On a number of occasions a primary outcome was not clear from the respondent s answer, and additional notes were recorded by the survey administrator. All data recorded under this question is represented in this table. As in previous years, the most frequently obtained outcome was that no accommodation was available. This was the case in 70.5% of all instances. Table 6o: Obtained outcomes, where statutory services accessed Outcome Responses Frequency Percent Number Percent Told no accommodation available by staff Told no accommodation available, informed of GWNS Told NAA by other SU and left Left before being interviewed Told intentionally homeless Told no accommodation available for couples by staff Told no local connection Rejected an offer of accommodation "They think they have accommodation available tomorrow; Simon street team are helping him" "return to Twomax tomorrow with rsvp"

25 "No accommodation until get letter reasylum" go every day; always told - come back tomorrow "HAC staff phoned to keep space" "Told them I was going to London" "has a caseworker, to be accommodated in elder street but not yet available" "Sent from Twomax to HAC; told would get seat at Kingston halls" "Told to return tomorrow (not looking for accommodation just support returning to Newcastle)" "he has to prove he has been working in UK he gets a different answer everyday" "Told had to go back to hostel in Ardrossan" "Accommodation available but not at present" "expects to return to share previous accommodation with Girlfriend" "Told no application as no benefits" "None available went to shelter" "to get sisters phone number return to HAC" "Open case - sent to South CCT" "went to twomax building on the 11th; got a co-worker; told to come back on 15th; got there at half 2; at half 4 a man politely told me there was no accommodation" "problem with violence; feels he wasn't believed" "need to tell them last address in Glasgow" Total Tables 6p 6q provide details of accommodation offered and rejected by respondents, and accommodation that respondents were offered but were barred from accessing. Table 6p: Accommodation rejected, where statutory services accessed Accommodation rejected Frequency Chez Nous 1 Kingston Halls waiting area 1 Talbot Association 1 Table 6q: Reasons for declining accommodation, where statutory services accessed Accommodation Reason for Declining Chez Nous Felt threatened; so did not stay Kingston Halls waiting area Threat of stabbing from other service user known to be there Talbot Association Talbot - scared; been there before 25

26 7. Data Sharing with Statutory Homelessness Services 7.1 An improved level of data sharing with statutory homelessness services during the course of this year s service delivery took place on a daily operational level between GWNS and Hamish Allan Centre team leaders, with the consent of service users obtained during the booking-in process described in Section In addition, GHN s questionnaire sought service user consent for personally identifying information to be shared with the City Council s Homelessness Services. The specific shared data items were the service users name, data of birth, and date of HAC/CCT access. 7.3 The number of completed questionnaires where a service user granted permission for data to be shared with Glasgow City Council s Homelessness Services, and a statutory homelessness service had been accessed was 130 (a return rate of 48.1% from the total of 270 completed). 7.4 Some service users who accessed the night shelter on multiple occasions were not consistent in their granting of permission to share their data. In these cases, only those details pertaining to visits to the HAC/CCT on the day on which agreement was indicated may be shared with statutory services. 8. Further Analysis and Reporting 8.1 The organisations participating in the Winter Shelter have promoted the opportunity to provide a quantitative account of unmet need across the city, and to share that information to assist accommodation and service strategies. 8.2 The datasets generated from GHN s monitoring of the Winter Night Shelter are a very valuable resource in aiding our understanding of the scale and nature of the most extreme form of homelessness in the city - rough sleeping. We would welcome requests for further analysis of the dataset from the perspective of different service user groups (for example prison leavers, or those reporting support needs around mental health) There is a clear opportunity to develop a cross-sector consensus on the extent and causes of the problem of rough sleeping and street homeless across the city, and to progress the response of the city to these issues. GHN welcomes the opportunity to present this report to the city-wide Homelessness Strategic Planning Group, and also to contribute it to the ongoing strategic review of statutory homelessness services being carried out by Glasgow City Council. 26

27 9. Conclusions and Considerations Strategic and Service Considerations: 9.1 The evidence returned from the monitoring of Glasgow s Winter Night Shelter (GWNS) again demonstrates ongoing daily challenges in providing emergency accommodation at point of need in Glasgow. 9.2 For the fifth year, no evidence was found to support the view that services such as the GWNS discourage engagement with statutory services; nor that they attract people who are not actually homeless. Additionally, the evidence does not support the notion that people choose to sleep rough. 9.3 The data again highlights a very significant issue with service users not being accommodated; this issue is not located at the level of the individual service user, but is systemic and driven by a lack of capacity or movement in the city s accommodation temporary and settled. 9.4 The data highlights a significant number of service users who reported the reason for having left the last accommodation available to them as being released from prison. While the length of sentences and level of pre-release engagement with homelessness services is not known, there may be merit in a proposal for a further analysis of the current management of prisoners into accommodation at point of release. 9.5 A significant number of respondents reported support needs around mental health issues. Further analysis of this indicator may also assist current targeting of services and supports. Statutory and Legal Considerations: 9.7 There are numerous examples across the duration of GWNS, evidenced within the data, of inconsistent interpretations and applications of homelessness legislation and duty. 9.8 While a range of reasons may exist as to why an individual may not have received a statutory assessment, the Code of Guidance on Homelessness [8] clearly sets out a range of key points that staff should follow when dealing with presentations, including: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) No homeless person should ever be refused the right to make a homeless application; Particular care should be taken to ensure receptionists or general enquiry staff do not carry out any informal first screening of applicants, either deliberately or unwittingly; Staff should not assume that every individual is aware of their legal rights; and At all times, staff should give factual information to members of the public on the application process, as well as giving information to people on their legal right to apply. 27

28 9.9 The Code of Guidance in relation to the Interim Duty to Accommodate placed upon local authorities (section 29 of the 1987 Act as amended by section 9 of the 2003 Act) states that: If an authority has reason to believe an applicant is homeless it has an interim duty to secure accommodation until it has reached a final decision on their application. This duty continues during the process of review if one is requested. (Code of Guidance, para 9.5 pg 55) 9.10 A small number of cases were also highlighted of people being informed that they were intentionally homeless or had no local connection to Glasgow. Where an applicant has been assessed as intentionally homeless the Code of Guidance states that: Where the applicant is assessed as being intentionally homeless, the duty is to secure that accommodation is made available for such a period as will give the applicant a reasonable opportunity to find alternative accommodation for him or herself. (Code of Guidance, para 9.30, pg 59) 9.11 Additionally, where an applicant has been assessed as having no local connection, Glasgow City Council is entitled to make a referral to another local authority under section 34 of the 1987 Act. However, the Code of Guidance also clearly states that: The referring authority is obliged, under section 34, to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant s occupation until the outcome of the referral is decided. (Code of Guidance, para 9.29, pg 58) 28

29 Appendix A: References [1] Randall, G & Brown, S (2002) Helping Rough Sleepers Off the Streets: A Report to the Homelessness Directorate, London ODPM [2] Johnsen, Cloke & May (2005) Transitory Spaces of Care: Serving Homeless People on the Street in Health and Place, 11(4) [3] Johnsen, Cloke & May (2005) ibid; Randall, G & Brown, S (2002) ibid; Shelter (2005) Food for Thought: Soup-Runs and Soup Kitchens [4] Jones, A (1999) Out of Sight, Out of Mind? The Experiences of Homeless Women, Crisis, London [5] Randall, G & Brown, S (2002) ibid; Shelter (2005) ibid. [6] Scottish Executive (2005); Code of Guidance on Homelessness: Guidance on legislation, policies and practices to prevent and resolve homelessness 29