The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

FINAL EVALUATION OF THE ROUGH SLEEPERS INITIATIVE

CHAPTER 2: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING INFORMATION ON ROUGH SLEEPING

Introduction

2.1 This Chapter reviews the existing statistical data that are available on the characteristics and numbers of people sleeping rough in Scotland. The Chapter begins by briefly reviewing the results of research projects that have aimed to describe the needs of people sleeping rough. The strengths of this existing evidence base are then briefly reviewed.

2.2 The remainder of this Chapter is then dedicated to critically reviewing the monitoring datasets on rough sleeping in Scotland. Three different datasets are examined: the George Street Research survey work, which was designed to assess whether the target that no-one need sleep rough in Scotland had been achieved, the Glasgow Homeless Network National Rough Sleeping Initiative Core Data, which continuously monitors service delivery by RSI funded projects and the HL1 Data, which record the extent of rough sleeping encountered by local authorities when discharging their statutory homelessness duties. After summarising their methods and the range of data they can provide, the Chapter critically reviews these datasets to determine the extent to which:

• current national level data represent an effective means of monitoring the impact of the RSI programme on levels of rough sleeping;
• current national level data collection represent an effective means of monitoring and assessing the activity and performance of projects funded through RSI;
• current national level data represent an effective means of assessing progress towards the target of ensuring that no-one need sleep rough in Scotland.

Existing research on people sleeping rough

A review of studies of people sleeping rough

2.3 Much of the specifically Scottish research on people sleeping rough that has been conducted has involved the qualitative study of people sleeping rough (Owen and Hendry, 2001; Third and Yanetta, 2000). However, there have also been a number of studies that have collected statistical information on former, potential and current rough sleepers via small scale survey research. In Highland, for example, policy research was undertaken that involved surveying 80 homeless people, with a view to estimating the numbers and characteristics of people sleeping rough (e.g. Grigor, 2002). Yanetta et al also surveyed 103 users of RSI funded projects for the Interim Evaluation of RSI published in 1999 (Yanetta et al, 1999). There have also been some health surveys that have involved people sleeping rough, such as the work led by Kershaw et al (2000) on the health and well-being of homeless people in Glasgow. Other statistical exercises related to people sleeping rough have tended to be confined to attempts to estimate their numbers by local authorities, although these have tended to be in-house or unpublished reports by consultants (see Third and Yanetta, 2000 for a summary review of some of these reports).

2.4 The research in Highland involved sending questionnaires to 80 people who were homeless or potentially homeless during 1998. This research suggested that around two-fifths of respondents had some experience of sleeping rough in Highland, with subsequent research among service providers finding specific problems with housing supply and a need for resettlement services in the area (Grigor, 2002).

2.5 The survey of 103 of the people using RSI funded projects conducted by Yanetta et al (1999) for the interim evaluation of the RSI programme had a number of key findings. In contrast to the commonly held belief that people sleeping rough were characterised by a high degree of mobility, their results showed that four out of five people had first slept rough in the locality where they were interviewed. Further, almost nine out of ten reported having been resident in the locality in which they were interviewed for more than one year.

2.6 Some of the other findings of the survey of RSI project users conducted for the interim evaluation of RSI published in 1999 were less surprising. In common with much of the other research conducted on people sleeping rough throughout the UK, there was found to be a high degree of experience of living in institutional settings (two-thirds of respondents). Again, in common with both qualitative and quantitative work conducted in Scotland and England, people sleeping rough were also quite frequently found to have lost settled accommodation. There was also a high degree of disconnection from mainstream services among the people using RSI funded projects, in that they were quite often only receiving support from the RSI service they were in contact with. A study of people sleeping rough using five nightshelters in England, also conducted in the late 1990s, covering 1,422 nightshelter users, found a very similar pattern with respect to NHS use and also reported that rates of registration with a GP declined markedly the longer someone had been sleeping rough (Pleace, 1998).

2.7 The research conducted by Yanetta et al (1999) also found that the people using RSI funded services associated their homelessness with relationship breakdown (60 per cent). They also reported that boredom, isolation and not feeling safe in their accommodation had preceded rough sleeping. Eviction was a less common cause of homelessness than among homeless people who have not actually slept rough. These findings echoed those of the large scale survey work in England (Anderson et al, 1993).

2.8 The health research conducted among lone homeless people and people sleeping rough in Glasgow by Kershaw et al (2000) found that three quarters of the 225 people they surveyed reported at least one neurotic symptom in the preceding week and that 44 per cent of respondents were assessed as having a neurotic disorder. One quarter of respondents were drug dependent and one half were alcohol dependent. Nearly two-thirds of respondents had a long term, limiting illness.

2.9 Existing Scottish statistical research has reported some very similar findings to those reported by the greater number of research projects conducted in England. In summary, the Scottish and English survey research, supplemented by various pieces of qualitative research, have indicated three key points about rough sleepers in Scotland:

• Many of the people who experience rough sleeping do so intermittently and might be better characterised as a population without permanent housing who sometimes sleep rough.
• There is a smaller population of people who are characterised by prolonged periods of rough sleeping, who tend to have poor mental and physical health status and a low level of contact with statutory and other services, including the NHS.
• Former, potential and current rough sleepers tend to have a mixture of low intensity support needs (i.e. 'Supporting People' service needs), personal care (i.e. Social Work service needs) and health care needs (NHS Scotland), the prevalence of multiple support needs among this population is high.

A critical assessment of the existing research base

2.10 Much of the existing research in Scotland is qualitative and has been conducted on a small scale, within constrained budgets and timetables. Some of this work has not always been as thorough and methodologically robust as it could have been (see the review in Third and Yanetta, 2000). There are also issues with respect to some of the research undertaken by voluntary sector agencies representing or campaigning on behalf of homeless people, as such work is motivated, at least in part, by organisations' particular agendas on homelessness policy.

2.11 However, some of the work that has been undertaken in Scotland is robust. There have been some good quality qualitative studies and some strong medical research on people sleeping rough (Quilgars and Pleace, 2003). Statistical research in terms of freestanding surveys and research projects on people sleeping rough, is not very extensive, but there are some good quality studies (for examples see: Yanetta et al, 1999 and Kershaw et al, 2000).

Existing statistical measures of rough sleeping and service delivery in Scotland

2.12 The bulk of Chapter Two is focused on the review of data collected at national level on rough sleeping and services for people sleeping rough in Scotland. The following datasets are reviewed below:

• the data collected by George Street Research (GSR), monitoring the target of ending the need to sleep rough in Scotland (between May 2001 and October 2003);
• the data collected by individual RSI projects participating in the National Rough Sleeping Initiative Core Data collection led by Glasgow Homelessness Network (GHN) (between July 2000 and March 2004);
• the data on rough sleeping among households presenting as homeless to local authorities in Scotland collected through the HL1 returns (between December 2001 and September 2003).

2.13 As noted in the introduction to this Chapter, the main concern of the following section is with three broad questions. The first is extent to which these three datasets represent an effective means by which to monitor the impact of RSI on levels of rough sleeping. The second is the extent to which some of these data might be employed as tools by which to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of RSI funded projects. The third is the extent to which all three sets of data can provide robust information on progress in achieving the target that no-one in the country need sleep rough.

The George Street Research monitoring of the target to end the need to sleep rough in Scotland by 2003

Summary of methodology

2.14 The GSR work differs from the other two datasets discussed in this section, because it was time limited survey work, designed specifically to determine progress towards the national target to end the need to sleep rough. The other datasets involve rolling data collection to monitor local authority activity under the homelessness legislation and the activities of RSI funded projects.

2.15 The GSR work took place between 2001 and 2003. It was based on a bi-annual survey of projects and services working with people sleeping rough across the country undertaken during one week in May and one week in October during the years 2001 to 2003 (six surveys in total). Agencies ranging from local authority housing departments and RSLs, through to individual projects working with people sleeping rough, took part in the research.

2.16 Agencies were asked to complete a form, which included a client identifier (in order to try to prevent the same individual being double counted as a rough sleeper) that covered each contact they had with rough sleepers during the course of one week in May and one week in October. The weeks were chosen as 'typical' times of year and included the weekends.

2.17 People sleeping rough were identified as 'having slept outside in a place not specifically designed for human habitation, at least once in the last seven days' (Laird et al, 2004). The form on each person seen by a project included a small number of variables on the 'obstacles' to their securing accommodation, including some support needs and accommodation (such as mental health problems and drug or alcohol dependency). Information was also collected on the amount of time that they had been sleeping rough. Data were collected on age and gender, but not on ethnicity.

2.18 The GSR monitoring also undertook a survey of available emergency bed spaces for people sleeping rough in Scotland. This involved projects completing another form that summarised the availability of beds they had during the survey weeks over the period 2001 to 2003. This return also recorded both the numbers of people refused accommodation during the survey weeks (and some of the reasons, including lack of beds, an individual being banned or a couple seeking accommodation in a single person only unit). One project, the Cowgate centre in Edinburgh, took part in this monitoring on the basis that it was a 'night-centre' that provided a place to sleep for rough sleepers on the chairs it provided, even though it was not a direct provider of accommodation.

2.19 The emerging findings from the monitoring were also tested using a qualitative research exercise involving representatives from areas with high numbers of rough sleepers. The data on numbers were discussed with homelessness professionals to determine the extent to which they 'felt right'. The data were also compared with other statistical information to look for any signs of inconsistency. The evidence from these exercises suggested that the GSR monitoring data were in line with what was being reported elsewhere (Laird et al, 2004).

Summary of findings of the George Street Research Monitoring

2.20 The GSR surveys showed a decline in the number of individuals sleeping rough, with whom projects were working. Figure 2.1, which is taken from the final report of the GSR research, shows how overall levels of reported rough sleeping fell between May 2001 and October 2003 (Laird et al, 2004).

Figure 2.1: Total number of individuals sleeping rough reported by projects participating in the GSR monitoring between May 2001 and October 2003 (source: Laird et al, 2004).

2.21 These figures suggest a fall in the number of people sleeping rough that were being seen by the projects participating in the GSR monitoring. The figure given in October 2003 is more than one third lower than the figure shown in May 2001. It should also be noted the data collection was somewhat less complete in May 2001 than it was by the end of 2003, suggesting that the reduction may have been somewhat greater than that reported (Laird et al, 2004).

2.22 The GSR work also shows that people sleeping rough were predominantly male (79 per cent) and aged over 24 (75 per cent). The same demographics are reported in other Scottish and English research on people sleeping rough (Anderson et al, 1993; Gill et al, 1996; Pleace, 1998). GSR did not collect on the ethnic origin of people sleeping rough.

2.23 Rough sleeping was found to be concentrated in Scotland's largest cities Edinburgh and Glasgow. Although the numbers reported sleeping rough in these two cities fell markedly during 2002/03, they remained much higher than those reported elsewhere in Scotland.

2.24 The GSR monitoring also collected basic information on issues that might prevent someone from entering accommodation (Laird et al, 2004). These data suggested the kind of prevalence of drug and alcohol dependency and mental health problems found by previous research on people sleeping rough (Pleace and Quilgars, 1996; Pleace et al, 2000).

2.25 Data on the duration of rough sleeping experienced by people surveyed as part of the GSR monitoring were also collected. These data looked at whether a respondent had been sleeping rough for three months to a year, one to five years or for more than five years. While the data were incomplete, they did suggest that a core of long-term rough sleepers remained within Scotland in October 2003. Figure 2.2 is taken from the final report of the GSR monitoring (Laird et al, 2004).

Figure 2.2: Reported experience of sleeping rough reported by respondents to the GSR monitoring during October 2003
(base: 328, source: Laird et al, 2004).

2.26 By the time of the last survey in October 2003, the GSR monitoring covered 2,425 bed spaces (an increase from the May 2001 total of 2,250, due in part to the impact of RSI funding). The review of available bed spaces suggested a vacancy level of 6 per cent across Scotland in the survey week in October 2003, although the GSR report draws attention to there being some degree of mismatch between where some of this accommodation was available and where people sleeping rough tended to be located. The George Street Research work ultimately concluded that the Scottish Executive target to end 'the need to sleep rough' by end 2003 (by bringing into line the number of rough sleepers and the supply of emergency accommodation available to them) had been narrowly missed.

The GSR research: a critical assessment

2.27 There are a number of difficulties in attempting to count people sleeping rough using street counts. The first is that the level of resources available is never likely to be sufficient to provide thorough coverage, even within one city, of the areas where individuals might be sleeping rough. The second is that people sleeping rough are a population who deliberately conceal themselves in urban environments as sleeping on the street in a city in Scotland is likely to be dangerous as well as cold and wet, which makes them difficult to find for enumeration. The third and perhaps the most crucial limitation is that what research evidence there is in Scotland, alongside comparable research from England, strongly indicates that, for the most part, people sleeping rough are more accurately described as a vulnerable, very precariously accommodated population who sometimes sleep outside. There are those who spend sustained periods sleeping rough, but the available research evidence suggests they are a small group with very high needs and challenging behaviour (Pleace et al, 2000; Randall and Brown, 1993, 1996 and 2002). Consequently, the number of people sleeping rough will almost certainly vary on a night to night basis and will certainly vary over longer periods of time. The number of people sleeping rough over the course of one year is always greater than the number who sleep rough on any one night.

2.28 These issues raise a number of potentially difficult methodological problems for any exercise that is attempting to determine the scale of rough sleeping in Scotland. First, there has to be an attempt to provide as near-universal geographical coverage as can be achieved without incurring very high research costs. Second, there has to be a means by which potentially concealed elements of the rough sleeping population can be included in enumeration. Third, there has to be some attempt to understand the variations in the numbers sleeping rough each night, as without this, realistic estimates of the 'typical' numbers of people sleeping rough in Scotland each night cannot be estimated, nor can the overall prevalence of rough sleeping in Scotland.

2.29 The GSR methodology takes some account of all these issues. It is based on a model first employed in the mid 1990s in a national survey of homelessness conducted in the USA (Burt, 2001), which used the same approach of recruiting as many homelessness services as possible and asking them to record the numbers and characteristics of homeless people who used them over a given period of time. Using this approach gives a much wider geographical coverage at a much more economic cost than would be feasible with street counts. This approach may also go some way towards providing at least some enumeration of those rough sleepers who ordinarily stay out of sight, as services can provide relative safety and security, as well as somewhere dry and warm. However, it is also the case that some services may also be specifically avoided by some people sleeping rough, such as women or people with a Black or Minority Ethnic (BME) background (Netto et al, 2004), because they do not feel safe within those environments. Finally, employing a week-long count twice over the course of a year helped minimise the risk that the numbers of people sleeping rough being recorded were atypical.

2.30 In some respects, the GSR researchers were constrained by their methodology. The monitoring was heavily dependent on the cooperation of projects and services to complete the required returns. Ensuring a good response rate meant that the researchers had to balance the need for data against placing too many demands on these services. These constraints meant that limited data were collected on each person. However, this exercise had a very specific objective, to assess the need to sleep rough in Scotland (by comparing the number of rough sleepers with the supply of emergency accommodation available to them). This piece of work was not designed as a general survey of people sleeping rough and must be assessed on the extent to which it achieved its intended objectives.

2.31 As in all survey methods, there is a margin for error in the approach adopted by the GSR work. In part, the potential for error is related to the focus on projects, in that people sleeping rough who approached those projects during the survey weeks were counted, but any rough sleepers who did not use those services were not recorded. The extent to which this error might be significant is uncertain, but the fieldwork conducted for this research (see Chapters Three, Four and Five) does not suggest that there are many people sleeping rough in Scotland who are not in contact with at least one or two services. However, avoidance of certain services because they were viewed as unsafe, including some hostels and nightshelters, was also reported. Bearing these factors in mind it seems likely that at least a small degree of under-representation occurred.

2.32 In addition, the possibility of double counting, while it was allowed for in the research design, has to be noted. The GSR survey had to rely on homelessness services to complete the survey returns, these organisations were not expert in checking the consistency of the returns they submitted and were cooperating with the survey using sometimes already limited staff resources. Again, the methodological approach adopted raises the possibility of some inaccuracy, as some individuals might have been counted twice, while others may have been inappropriately excluded from the count because they were mislabelled as someone who had already been counted (Laird et al, p.6).

2.33 On balance, it seems the decision only to record movement between local authority areas during the survey weeks led the GSR team to a partially incorrect conclusion about the geographical mobility of people sleeping rough (Laird et al, 2004). As the team detected few such movements during the survey weeks, they concluded that geographical movement by people sleeping rough was generally restricted. Some previous research in rural areas has suggested that there is restricted mobility among homeless populations, including those with experience of sleeping rough (Grigor, 2002). However, there does seem to be a quite high degree of mobility among rough sleepers in urban areas, especially within Edinburgh (see Yanetta et al, 1999 and Chapters Three to Five of this report). Evidence from outside Scotland also suggests that some areas are on routes frequented by mobile rough sleepers, while in other localities the rough sleeping and homeless population tend to be locals (Pleace, 1998; Randall and Brown, 1993, 1996 and 2002). Understanding the degree of mobility among people sleeping rough was important in terms of the main objective of the GSR work, which was to assess the numbers and distribution of people sleeping rough against available services and bed-spaces. Making this assessment without understanding the patterns of movement among people sleeping rough is likely to lead to inaccuracy and the lack of data on mobility collected by the survey must therefore be seen as a limitation.

2.34 The other limitations in the GSR work must be balanced against its central objective of measuring the need to sleep rough in Scotland and the practical limitations on how much information participating projects could be expected to collect. Data on ethnicity and further information on support needs would have been useful, but the balance between having a workable survey tool and asking all the desired questions is always a difficult one to achieve.

2.35 The GSR work aimed to generate a picture of the extent of actual rough sleeping in Scotland and was able, allowing for the methodological limitations discussed above, to produce a reasonably accurate picture. Theoretically, a more accurate enumeration of the current number of rough sleepers was possible, but the expense and logistical difficulties of such an exercise meant that it was not viable. It is worth bearing in mind that the same basic methodology was employed for a census and survey of homelessness in the US for essentially similar reasons (Burt, 2001).

Other views on the GSR work

2.36 The evaluation team asked for the views of the respondents who were interviewed at local and national level (see Chapter Three) on the GSR work. The national level interviewees' mainly felt that the George Street Research monitoring was 'successful for what it was asked to do'. It was about the 'direction of travel' rather than absolute figure of number of rough sleepers. It was also felt by some commentators that GSR Monitoring was 'impressive' compared to the street counts organised in England, and as noted above it was felt that the downward trend it recorded was felt to 'ring true'.

2.37 Most local authority respondents either had no views or were content with the GSR work. However, a few respondents were more critical of the work. Some of these criticisms were based on the view that the GSR work was not an accurate 'count' of people sleeping rough within each locality, but these criticisms were in some senses misplaced, because the GSR work was designed as an assessment of the need to sleep rough nationally, not as a census of rough sleeping. A few respondents also felt that there had been insufficient consultation about the GSR work, or wondered about the reliability of data collection that relied on service providers completing returns.

National rough sleeping initiative core data collected by Glasgow Homelessness Network

Summary of methodology

2.38 When the original RSI was extended into a second phase (see Chapter One), it was decided to introduce a common monitoring system across the projects that were being supported by the programme. The purpose of this national monitoring, developed by the then Glasgow Council for the Single Homeless (now the Glasgow Homelessness Network, GHN) was to record the numbers of people sleeping rough with whom RSI projects reported contact. Alongside the concerns to report project activity and the numbers of users, the GHN monitoring was also intended to record the characteristics of those using RSI projects, particularly with regard to establishing statistical information on the level, nature and extent of support needs within this population. Reports on the characteristics of people sleeping rough and potential rough sleepers using RSI funded projects are routinely circulated by GHN.

2.39 The database was installed in all projects within Scotland (excluding Glasgow) by 1st April 2000, and in all Glasgow projects by 30th June 2000. Glasgow projects were asked to backdate their data to 1st April. During 2001, the data entry systems were revamped, to simplify operation of the database for projects, with the new system being completed by April 2002.

2.40 The database used by the GHN monitoring is quite extensive. The database creates a unique identifier for each individual to allow them to be tracked across projects and to avoid double counting of the same individual . The data recorded on each individual include:

• their name
• date of birth
• gender
• details of their household
• ethnicity
• housing situation at referral
• reasons for referral
• last accommodation
• individual history of sleeping rough
• current rough sleeping
• immediate reasons for current housing situation
• support and health needs

2.41 The reported contacts (episode of service delivery) with each individual by projects are also recorded by the GHN database, including basic information on the date, duration and substance of those contacts. There are specific sets of data for projects providing rent deposit scheme services and for projects providing accommodation, to record the details of contacts with individual service users in more detail. These rent deposit and accommodation 'modules' include the collection of data on exits of service delivery.

2.42 GHN introduced a system for recording the outcomes of service delivery after the main database had been established. This section includes both interim and final outcomes in service delivery. These data are obviously of key importance in assessing the effectiveness of projects supported by RSI, as they should give insight into the extent to which individual projects and the programme as a whole is successful in preventing rough sleeping and supporting successful exits from rough sleeping. However, GHN estimates that only 30 per cent of projects complete this section of the database, meaning that the data that are available are quite incomplete. In correspondence with the research team, GHN noted that:

2.43 The database has been amended to include the HOMES matrix, a system developed by the Street Team in Edinburgh which is designed to monitor the individual progress of clients by recording progress across a range of indicators. These categories include their current shelter, health, financial situation, self-esteem and employment, training or educational goals. The HOMES module is employed by some projects in Edinburgh, Fife and elsewhere. A separate 'support module' recording the support being given to individuals within supported housing projects was also developed for use by projects within Fife by GHN. Use of these modules is not widespread at the time of writing.

2.44 Following the introduction of the GHN monitoring, the City of Edinburgh took a decision to modify the GHN database and collect an increased range of data from projects within the City. This has involved an reorientation of the original database from what the City Council saw as being an essentially demographic dataset into a performance monitoring system that collected information that could be used to derive and analyse outcome measures for projects working with people sleeping rough and all other homelessness projects in the City. This separate database is run in parallel to the GHN monitoring and most RSI projects in the City continue to make returns to the GHN monitoring at national level.

2.45 The GHN monitoring differs substantially from the other data sources that are reviewed in this interim report. It is intended to function as a comprehensive monitoring system specifically focused on RSI-funded projects and is based around a comprehensive database that records a large number of variables. The GHN monitoring offers a potentially much richer source of information than those datasets that have so far been discussed. A Microsoft Access database is maintained using a combination of paper returns and database tables submitted by the participating services.

Summary of findings

The characteristics and numbers of people sleeping rough

2.46 Six-monthly reports from the monitoring are produced by GHN. These reports detail the results of the monitoring of individuals using RSI funded projects by local authority area and across Scotland as a whole. At the time of writing, the most recent of these reports covers the period 1st October 2003 to 31st March 2004 (Glasgow Homelessness Network, 2004).

2.47 During the period 1st April 2003 to 30th September 2003, the 57 participating services in the GHN monitoring reported contact with 3,681 individuals (78 per cent of whom were homeless). Within this group of almost 3,700 people, there were 1,906 people with a history of sleeping rough (52 per cent) and 1,362 current rough sleepers (37 per cent, defined as sleeping rough at the point of referral).

2.48 These 57 projects represented almost all the services which had ever received, or were still in receipt of, RSI funding. Determining exactly how many RSI-funded projects there are is a matter of which definition is used. If all those projects that have ever been in receipt of RSI funding are counted, the number rises slightly, but a few of those projects which originally received funding have changed function, merged or closed, which reduces the number slightly. A further complication arises because, at the time of writing, most projects are now funded through Supporting People, in many cases their grant income from Supporting People is much greater than the RSI funding they receive, which might arguably make them more of a 'Supporting People' service. Only street outreach teams tended to be wholly funded by RSI.

2.49 Those who were currently sleeping rough were overwhelmingly male (81 per cent), White (83 per cent) and tended to be in early middle age (average age of 31.5). There were high proportions of former offenders, people with drug and/or alcohol dependency and a high number of people reporting support and care needs among these service users (Glasgow Homelessness Network, 2004). Women were not strongly represented, though young women were more likely to be using RSI funded services than older women. All these findings are consistent with what research with people sleeping rough and other monitoring of those using services like those funded through RSI have suggested (Anderson et al, 1993; Gill et al, 1996; Pleace, 1998; Randall and Brown, 1993, 1996 and 2002).

2.50 The reported figures for the following six months, from 1st October 2003 to 31st March 2004 were very similar. A total of 3,370 individuals, of whom 75 per cent were reported as homeless used services participating in the GHN monitoring. Those with a history of sleeping rough numbered 1,534, representing 45 per cent of the 3,400 service users, while those who were currently sleeping rough represented one third of service users. The characteristics of the service users were again consistent with what would be anticipated from other data sources on homelessness and from previous research, including a high level of support needs, mental health problems and drug dependency (GHN, 2004).

2.51 Detailed geographical breakdowns of the numbers and characteristics of individuals using services that participate in the GHN monitoring are provided in the reports produced by GHN between 2001 and 2004. The detailed reports produced by GHN can be viewed on-line at: http://www.ghn.org.uk/stats.html. ²

2.52 Figure 2.3 shows the total number of new clients / service users reported by services participating in the GHN monitoring. The data shown in Figure 1.3 show individuals at the point when their details were first recorded by a project participating in the GHN monitoring. The graphic shows the number of people who had their first contact with an RSI-funded service during each of the months between 1st July 2000 to 31st March 2004. Typically, at least 600 new clients were reported by the projects during each month within this period. There are some peaks in activity, for example during the early part of 2003 and also some falls, most notably in the December of each year. The decline in activity reported in December may, in part, be a result of the appearance of alternative, temporary Christmas services for people sleeping rough. The corresponding rises in the early part of each year may be a function of these short-term Christmas services closing down or other temporary informal arrangements ceasing to be available.

Figure 2.3: Total number of new service users reported by services to GHN monitoring over the period July 2000 to March 2004 (Source: Glasgow Homelessness Network, own analysis).

2.53 Figure 2.4 shows a subset of Figure 2.3, which is the number of new clients / service users with any experience of sleeping rough during the period 1st July 2000 to 31st March 2004. As can be seen, the figures reported for each month were fairly consistent, although they too followed the fall in December and rise in the early part of the year found for all service users (Figure 2.3). Typically, around 300 new clients with some experience of sleeping rough were recorded by services each month (the average is shown by the line on Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4: Total number of new service users with any history of sleeping rough (including current rough sleepers) reported by services to GHN monitoring over the period July 2000 to March 2004 (Source: Glasgow Homelessness Network, own analysis).

2.54 Figure 2.5 shows the number of current rough sleepers who presented to services for the first time during the period between 1st July 2000 and 31st March 2004. As can be seen, the figures reported for each month were fairly consistent, although they too followed the fall in December and rise in the early part of the year found for all service users (Figure 2.3). Typically, around 200 new clients who were sleeping rough at referral were recorded by services each month (the average is shown by the line on Figure 2.5).

2.55 Although these data suggest new rough sleepers were presenting at a fairly constant rate, they must be viewed in the context of other information on levels of rough sleeping. Other statistical information shows levels of actual rough sleeping falling across the country (the GSR research described above), while quite strong qualitative evidence (see Chapters Three and Four) that levels of rough sleeping have fallen since RSI was introduced. The interim evaluation of the RSI also reported positive impacts on the numbers of people sleeping rough (Yanetta et al, 1999). Nevertheless, these figures might be read as indicating that the combination of certain structural factors with certain individuals' needs, characteristics and experiences continue to generate 'new' rough sleepers, suggesting both an ongoing need for services and perhaps a greater emphasis on preventative work (see Chapter six).

Figure 2.5: Total number of new service users currently sleeping rough reported by services to GHN monitoring over the period July 2000 to March 2004 (Source: Glasgow Homelessness Network, own analysis).

The geography of rough sleeping

2.56 The geographical dispersion of people using the services that were participating in the GHN monitoring was very similar to that suggested by HL1 and by the GSR monitoring. As would be expected, the central belt, with its relative concentrations of both rough sleepers and RSI funded services for people sleeping rough predominated (Figure 2.5).

Figure 2.6: Total number of service users reported by services participating in the GHN monitoring by local authority area from 1 st July 2000 to 31st March 2004 (Source: Glasgow Homelessness Network, own analysis).

2.57 Despite being the smaller of the two main cities, the RSI services in Scotland's capital reported providing a service to slightly more people than those in Glasgow. Between 1st July 2000 and 31st March 2004, Edinburgh RSI services reported 28 per cent of the individuals seen by RSI services in Scotland, compared to the 25 per cent reported by services in Glasgow. Services in Fife reported the next highest level at 15 per cent, followed by Falkirk with 9 per cent.

2.58 Figure 2.6 shows where the first recorded contact of an individual with the GHN monitoring system took place. This is not the same as showing where those individuals became homeless or started to sleep rough, as they might have become homeless elsewhere and travelled to the first service using GHN monitoring that they had contact with, or in some instances they may have been receiving help from agencies that were not part of the GHN monitoring.

2.59 Figure 2.7 shows the number of individuals, with whom projects made first contact, who had come from outside the local authority area where the project was located. It can be seen that Edinburgh RSI projects reported that 3,600 of the individuals they recorded first contact with were people who had last lived outside the Edinburgh area (38 per cent of contacts). The figure for Glasgow was lower, at 1,492 individuals, representing 18 per cent of the individuals with whom RSI-funded services in that city recorded the first contact. These data, in common with some other statistical research conducted in Scotland, suggest higher mobility among rough sleeping populations within the major cities and other urban areas (see the preceding discussion of the GSR monitoring in this Chapter).

Figure 2.7: Total number of service users coming from outside the local authority area where projects were located (Source: Glasgow Homelessness Network, July 2000 to March 2004, own analysis).

2.60 While the bulk of individuals who were from local authority areas other than the one where a service was located were found in the two major cities, it was not uncommon for services across Scotland to report that a quite high proportion of their users had come from another local authority area. Figure 2.8 shows the proportion of service users reported by projects across different local authority areas who said they had come from another local authority area.

Figure 2.8: Percentage of service users coming from outside the local authority area where projects were located (Source: Glasgow Homelessness Network, July 2000 to March 2004, own analysis).

2.61 As can be seen, the proportion of individuals reporting that they had last lived somewhere else varied considerably between localities. Services in Aberdeen tended to find that the individuals they were working with were local, while those in several rural areas including Highland, Argyll and Bute, Moray and Perth and Kinross, reported higher proportions from outside their locality. Edinburgh services, in particular, reported contact with higher proportions of people who were not local. It is important to qualify these findings by noting there is a time dimension to all of this, in that defining the point at which someone ceases to be an 'incomer' and instead becomes a local person using local services is not something that can be precisely defined. The GHN monitoring does record the date at which an individual left the local authority area they last moved from, but these data are unfortunately quite incomplete. Nevertheless, the picture painted by these data was in line with what some local authority respondents and service providers said about movements of people sleeping rough in their areas (see Chapters Three and Four).

2.62 The city with by far the highest proportion and overall numbers of 'incomers' was Edinburgh. Figure 2.9 summarises where it was that incomers reported by Edinburgh projects said they had come from.

Figure 2.9: Where people who had last lived outside Edinburgh had come from (by percentage of those who had lived outside Edinburgh) (Source: Glasgow Homelessness Network, July 2000 to March 2004, own analysis). * Shetland, Skye and Orkneys ** Identified as 'elsewhere in Scotland' in the GHN monitoring.

2.63 Figure 2.9 shows the percentage of those who had last lived outside Edinburgh by the areas they reported coming from. The most striking feature is perhaps the strong presence of people who last lived in England; representing 40 per cent of incomers (these individuals were not necessarily English), and 15 per cent of all individuals reported as using RSI services in Edinburgh. It is also notable that the next largest group of incomers were individuals who had last lived in Glasgow. The wide range of other localities in Scotland where individuals last reported living is also quite striking, particularly in respect of the number of rural areas.

2.64 The reason for this pattern were explored with representatives of Edinburgh City Council in the fieldwork conducted for this research ³. One representative commented:

2.65 Figure 2.10 shows the proportion of individuals with whom projects had first contact who had any history of sleeping rough by local authority area. As can be seen, the proportion of people sleeping rough reported by RSI services within a given locality varied considerably. Some of the more rural areas reported that fewer than a third of the service users with whom they recorded the first contact were people with any history of sleeping rough. By contrast, Glasgow services reported that one half of the individuals with whom they had first contact were current or former rough sleepers, while the figure in Edinburgh was 60 per cent. These patterns would be expected to be influenced by the nature of the RSI-funded services within each area. Edinburgh, for example, has some services like The Access Point and the Cowgate centre, that are very specifically orientated towards current rough sleepers, whereas other RSI funded services have a more mixed client group, including potential rough sleepers who may not have yet spent time on the street.

Figure 2.10: Percentage of individuals who reported any history of sleeping rough by local authority area (Source: Glasgow Homelessness Network, July 2000 to March 2004, own analysis).

2.66 The greatest numbers of people who were current or former rough sleepers were reported by the services in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Services in the Capital reported 5,841 rough sleepers among the individuals with whom they had first contact, while those services in Glasgow reported first contact with 4,294 people sleeping rough. Between them, the two cities reported first contact with 60 per cent of all the rough sleepers seen by RSI projects in Scotland between July 2000 and March 2004.

2.67 An association between former experience of rough sleeping and current experience of rough sleeping is found within the GHN monitoring data. Nine out of ten of those people who were current rough sleepers had a history of sleeping rough (93 per cent), while two-thirds of all those who reported a history of rough sleeping were current rough sleepers (64 per cent).

Patterns of service delivery

2.68 The GHN data provide some information on pattern of service use and service provision by RSI funded projects. Individual contacts with each service user are recorded in the database and details of some 300,000 'contacts', or episodes of service delivery, are contained within the dataset covering the period July 2000 to March 2004. Figure 2.11 summarises the activity reported by RSI funded projects within the GHN monitoring.

Figure 2.11: Total reported project activity (contacts with service users) by local authority area (Source: Glasgow Homelessness Network, July 2000 to March 2004, own analysis).

2.69 The individual contacts between a service and a former, current or potential rough sleeper as shown in Figure 2.11 were often very different from one another. Depending on the nature of the service being provided, an individual contact might involve only a very low level of service provision through to the provision of sustained and quite extensive support over a period of time. The contacts shown in Figure 2.11 included:

• extensive service contacts with individuals over sustained periods
• sole contacts with an individual by an RSI service
• 'contacts' that involved providing advice for a few minutes and 'contacts' that could involve sustained service provision, including providing supported accommodation.

2.70 Given the frequency of recorded service contacts, which averaged at 88 contacts per individual service user, it seems likely that the GHN monitoring often records each small element of support received by a service user. However, as what constitutes a 'contact' is defined by the project concerned, it is difficult to read a great deal into these data, beyond the obvious point that service activity is concentrated in those localities where projects and people sleeping rough are relatively concentrated.

Current and former service users

2.71 One half of the 34,037 people with whom services had worked during the period July 2000 and March 2004 were recorded in the GHN database as 'closed cases'. The remaining half were still current cases. Contact with a service user appears to be have been very variable indeed, ranging from a few days to well over two years.

2.72 The differences between open cases and closed cases, in terms of individual characteristics, appeared to be quite small. As can be seen in Figure 2.12, those 'closed cases' with whom services had ceased to work were reported as having similar experiences of sleeping rough and other shared characteristics with those cases that were still open, as at March 2004.

Figure 2.12: Percentage of service users / clients reporting selected characteristics by whether their case was open or closed (Source: Glasgow Homelessness Network, July 2000 to March 2004, own analysis).

2.73 Closed cases were slightly more likely to report having slept rough in the past (65 per cent compared to 59 per cent) and more likely to have been sleeping rough at the time of first contact with a service (43 per cent compared to 34 per cent) than open cases as at 31st March 2004. The reported prevalence of mental health problems, disability, experience of drug or alcohol rehabilitation services and the likelihood or being a former offender within open and closed cases was near identical.

2.74 Beyond the slight differences in experiences of sleeping rough, these data suggest that the service users of RSI projects have remained similar in characteristics throughout the period of the GHN monitoring. These findings about the similarity between service users who are 'current' and 'closed' cases echo the headline findings reported by GHN about people sleeping rough in Scotland retaining a tendency to be White, male, middle aged and as often having support needs.

Service outcomes

2.75 Data were available on 9,900 recorded service outcomes. A service outcome refers to the situation of a service user at the time at which their contact with a service ceases. The most desirable service outcome for a former rough sleeper might be seen as sustained successful resettlement in their own tenancy, while the least desirable would be a return to rough sleeping following unsuccessful contact with a RSI funded service. As noted above, information on service outcomes was only recorded by one third of the projects participating in the GHN monitoring.

2.76 Figure 2.13 shows the positive outcomes recorded by services by the broad type of outcome. Most positive outcomes were linked to securing accommodation (4,700, 58 per cent of all recorded outcomes), followed by assistance in getting service users access to health, social care and support services (2200, 27 per cent). Ten per cent of recorded outcomes were in respect of improvement the self-esteem, social skills, emotional literacy and social supports of sometimes highly alienated and isolated individuals (825 outcomes). A smaller number of positive outcomes were recorded in terms of helping claiming benefits or entering employment, education or training (shown as EET).

Figure 2.13: Positive outcomes recorded by projects (Source: Glasgow Homelessness Network, July 2000 to March 2004, own analysis). * secured or sustained tenancy ** accessed required health or social care services, *** improvements in self-image and social support **** entered education, employment or training.

2.77 Around one fifth of the recorded outcomes were broadly negative. These outcomes are not show in Figure 2.13. A negative outcome was one in which the individual returned to rough sleeping or was someone with whom a project lost contact before any positive development was recorded. Many of the negative outcomes were associated with people ceasing to attend a service, something that appears widespread from the fieldwork conducted for this research (see Chapters Three, Four and Five) and from previous research (Yanetta et al, 1999).

The GHN Monitoring: a critical assessment

2.78 GHN have implemented a monitoring system with a minimal use of resources, using an affordable commercially available database and securing the cooperation and support of many projects and services which regularly complete the returns needed for the monitoring. The scale of the achievement in securing so much robust data from services that can find themselves relatively short of staffing and under a great deal of pressure should not be underestimated.

2.79 The usual issues in relation to the overall design of the monitoring apply, in that the GHN monitoring is not a database on rough sleeping in Scotland as a whole, but is instead a record of the contacts reported by services with former, current and potential rough sleepers. Like the GSR work, the GHN monitoring can only tell us about who is approaching services and not provide direct information on the overall extent and experience of rough sleeping across the country. However, as is the case with the GSR research, there are good reasons (based on existing research and on the fieldwork conducted for this project, see Chapters Three to Five) to assume that the population on whom the GHN collects data does represent the great majority of people sleeping rough.

2.80 GHN cannot exercise control over how diligently individual services or projects complete the database or whether or not they choose to complete some sections of it. Every reasonable effort appears to have been made by GHN to encourage and support projects where possible. For example, GHN has produced a series of high quality accessible guides to the database, and has revised its design to facilitate ease or use and reduce the possibility for error.

2.81 Nevertheless, there are a number of issues in relation to the quality of data entry for the GHN monitoring. These include some issues around supplying dates within the proper ranges and the requirement that questions be completed. Mistyped dates are currently accepted by the database, which means that some errors need to be filtered out. It is also the case that the responses to questions that have a small range of correct responses are not checked at the point of data entry.

2.82 When these are combined together, they can result in quite a lot of missing data. For example, information on whether someone had a history of rough sleeping is not available on 24 per cent of the individuals on whom data were collected between July 2000 and March 2004. In 17 per cent of cases, this was because a project reported that whether an individual had such a history was 'not known', while in the remaining 8 per cent, the field was blank. Similarly, information in respect of whether or not an individual was currently sleeping rough was also quite often incomplete, with information on current rough sleeping not being available for 12 per cent of individuals.

2.83 Some services do not make regular returns to the GHN, although the majority are diligent. The evaluation team compared the service listing for the GHN monitoring with the local outcome agreements for RSI and with the services reported to be receiving RSI funding in each local authority area. A few inconsistencies between the GHN listing of RSI funded projects and the pattern of RSI funded service provision at the time of writing were noted. This issue arose in respect of a handful of small projects in rural areas that had changed operation, ceased operation or merged with other services. In broad terms, the dataset collected between July 2000 and March 2004 appeared to consist mainly of a large number of consistently made returns from 58 RSI funded projects.

2.84 The demographic and geographical data collected by the GHN monitoring are very rich, providing a wealth of information on the characteristics of people sleeping rough, their mobility and their geographical distribution. However, the GHN monitoring is markedly less well developed in respect of its role as a tool by which the activities of RSI funded services are monitored and as a tool by which the service outcomes of RSI projects can be recorded and assessed.

2.85 The data collected on service activity and outcomes are relatively limited, compared to the wealth of information collected on individual characteristics. There is only a very broad description of project activities within the database, the recording of contacts with service users (Figure 2.10), which, because a 'contact' is not consistently defined is of limited utility as a means by which the rate and success of service provision by RSI funded projects might be assessed.

2.86 There are particular problems in relation to the recording of service outcomes. A considerable difficulty is that GHN cannot require projects and services to provide service outcome data and two-thirds of services choose not to complete the returns on service outcomes. A lack of data on service outcomes means that there is ultimately a lack of data on service effectiveness and only limited statistical evidence on which judgements about service efficiency and value for money might be based.

2.87 The data collected on service outcomes are rather limited at the time of writing. Rather than recording the overall outcome of contact with a service for a former, current or potential rough sleeper, which might be achieved by testing their circumstances at the point of first contact with the service and their situation on leaving the service with a few simple questions about their accommodation status, support needs and access to services, the database records very broad indicators on the outcomes of service contact with an individual. Sometimes these indicators are in respect of the overall outcome at the end of contact with a service, but at other times they seem to refer to the outcomes of a specific intervention or to what might in some instances be regarded as an interim output.

2.88 In overall terms, the GHN monitoring presents a rather better record of the characteristics of the people using RSI services than it does of the activities those services undertake and what the outcomes of the service interventions undertaken by those services are. The decision of Edinburgh City Council to develop its own monitoring system in parallel with the GHN monitoring, which as an explicit attempt to develop an 'outcome led' database rather than a 'demographic' database, does serve as something of an illustration of these limitations.

2.89 GHN have constructed and maintained an extensive monitoring system within a limited budget and secured extensive cooperation for a large number of the RSI funded projects in the country in maintaining that database. The GHN monitoring provides a very rich data set on current, former and potential rough sleepers. The difficulties in relying on voluntary cooperation must also not be underestimated, as although some projects are clearly very diligent in their responses to GHN, others are much less engaged. GHN has no sanction it can exercise against those projects that either provide partial data or do not respond at all. Despite the relatively much greater scale of expenditure under RSI and from the Homelessness and Housing Support Directorate in England, there is no equivalent national dataset in that country, meaning information on rough sleeping is much more restricted than is the case for Scotland. Understanding of rough sleeping for policy and strategic planning is considerably enhanced by the GHN dataset.

2.90 Some of the problems reported in this Chapter could also be solved through relatively minor adjustments to the data entry controls for the database. There is also a case for a review of the data collected, particularly in respect of the information recorded on service activity and service outcomes. Other issues need to be resolved through persuasion and perhaps the capacity to require participating services to complete all sections of the database. As Edinburgh City Council have developed an outcome led database that covers not only the services for people sleeping rough in the City, but other homelessness services as well, numbering some 80 in total, there are good reasons to draw on any lessons in database and question design that can be gathered from experiences in the City.

Other views on the GHN monitoring

2.91 Again, local authority and national level interviewees (see Chapter Three) were asked for their views on the GHN monitoring. Most local authority respondents were happy with the GHN database, saying it was 'fine' or, more positively, 'very worthwhile' because it covered all of Scotland and allowed a picture to build up over time. A few pointed out that there would be some 'guesswork' going on because of lack of diligence in local project staff in filling out the forms, but took the view that this was not GHN's fault. Some wanted to get more 'localised' or nuanced data out of the database and were working with GHN on this.

2.92 A minority of respondents also reported feeling that the GHN monitoring had not delivered the outcome data that had been hoped for at national level and that the GSR work was more useful for the Scottish Executive's purposes.

HL1 data on rough sleeping

Summary of methodology

2.93 The HL1 returns are gathered to monitor local authorities' activities in discharging their duties under the homelessness legislation in Scotland. These data are also designed to provide information about the overall numbers and characteristics of households seeking assistance. Quite detailed information is collected on the age, gender and ethnicity of applicants, the composition of their households and their circumstances.

2.94 The HL1 data are not intended to provide direct information on the RSI programme or and they provide no information on RSI funded services. However, because HL1 monitors rough sleeping levels among homeless applicants, the data provide information about the extent of rough sleeping, the characteristics of those who experience it and its geographical distribution within Scotland.

2.95 The data specifically on rough sleeping comprise two variables within the current HL1 returns (questions 12 and 13):

Summary of findings

The characteristics and numbers of people sleeping rough

2.96 The HL1 data show quite extensive experience of rough sleeping. During the period from 10th December 2001 to 30th September 2003 ⁴, 12,238 households reported having slept rough in the last three months and 9,632 reported having slept rough the night before presenting to a local authority as homeless. In total, 13,738 households reported either or both of these experiences when they presented to a local authority.

2.97 Recent experience of rough sleeping was reported by just under 15 per cent of the 94,000 households presenting as homeless to local authorities in the 22 months covered by the HL1 data that were reviewed for this research.

2.98 The remainder of this section of Chapter Two analyses the characteristics of the households sleeping rough, their geographical dispersion and what the HL1 data can show about the patterns of reported rough sleeping over time. The analysis presented here covers households with any recent experience of sleeping rough (those with a history of rough sleeping and /or who slept rough the night before their application).

2.99 Recent experience of rough sleeping was associated with the same groups as were reported by the GSR research and as are reported by the GHN monitoring. Lone homeless people, particularly lone men, represented the bulk of the households that reported recent experience of sleeping rough to local authorities.

2.100 Table 2.1 shows the number of households reporting recent experience of sleeping rough by household type. Lone males aged 25-64 represented 50 per cent of the households with recent rough sleeping experience. Lone males aged 16-24 made up another 23 per cent, with lone males aged under 65 as a whole representing 73 per cent of the households reporting recent experience of sleeping rough. The next largest groups were young lone women (9 per cent) and lone women aged 25-64 (7 per cent).

Source: HL1 DataOwn Analysis (includes potentially homeless households). Percentages are rounded.

2.101 The number of lone parents and couples with children is quite surprising in a context in which households containing children sleeping rough, within Scotland or any other country in the UK, would be thought to be very unusual indeed. These figures do indicate that it is unusual for these households to report rough sleeping, but nevertheless the reported frequency is higher than the handful of cases that might have been expected. It must be noted, however, that the rough sleeping questions in HL1 relate to any member of the household, so this data does not necessarily imply that the entire household (including children) has experienced rough sleeping.

2.102 Recent experience of rough sleeping was concentrated among households that were found homeless by local authorities, including 22 per cent of the 15,417 households found homeless but not in priority need. There were also reports of rough sleeping from 20 per cent of the 7,800 households with whom contact was lost before a decision was taken under the homelessness legislation reported recent experience of sleeping rough. The lowest levels of recent rough sleeping experience were found among households that were assessed as not being homeless (7 per cent of 7,600 households).

2.103 When the fieldwork was conducted for this research (see Chapters Three to Five), some individuals working for local authorities and voluntary sector organisations reported having the view that households sometimes reported themselves as sleeping rough on the basis that they thought they would receive a higher priority. One local authority respondent remarked that:

2.104 This view was not shared by some other local authority respondents. A few had investigated the reported rough sleeping among households presenting as homeless and reached the conclusion that while most households were not long term rough sleepers, at least some had become homeless, initially had no idea where to go, and ended up sleeping outside. One commented:

2.105 The broad similarity in characteristics between those households reporting experience of rough sleeping, i.e. lone, white males aged between 25-64 and the characteristics of people sleeping rough reported by the GHN data and GSR research must also be noted. Those reporting themselves as people sleeping rough in HL1 returns had the characteristics that would be expected of rough sleepers.

The rate at which people join the rough sleeping population

2.106 As is the case for the GHN data, these HL1 data suggest a fairly constant level of recent experience of sleeping rough among households presenting as homeless to local authorities. As can be seen in Figure 2.14, the total numbers of households reporting recent experience of sleeping rough hovers around the 600 mark throughout the period January 2002 to September 2003 (shown by the line on Figure 2.14). These findings suggest that the numbers reporting recent experience of sleeping rough has remained constant, a finding that is consistent with the data from the GHN monitoring on the numbers of new clients being reported by homelessness services and projects funded by RSI.

Figure 2.14 Total households reporting recent experience of sleeping rough by month (source: HL1, own analysis). Note: Data for December 2001 only commence on 10 th December and are incomplete. The experience of rough sleeping reported here covers a three month period, so households had not necessarily slept rough during the same month as they applied for assistance.

The geography of rough sleeping

2.107 Recent experience of sleeping rough was concentrated among those households found homeless in the two major cities. Just under 4,000 of the 13,700 households reporting sleeping rough presented to Glasgow City Council (29 per cent). Another 2,200 households presented themselves as homeless to Edinburgh City Council (17 per cent), while Aberdeen accounted for 9 per cent (1,200) of households reporting recent experience of sleeping rough. Collectively, these three cities accounted for 45 per cent of the households that reported recent experience of sleeping rough (Figure 2.15).

Figure 2.15: Total households reporting recent experience of sleeping rough by local authority area (source: HL1, own analysis). HL1: a critical assessment

2.108 HL1 cannot be subjected to the same assessment as the GSR work or the monitoring conducted by GHN. As noted, HL1 is not primarily designed to function as a statistical information source on people sleeping rough, nor does it record any information on RSI funded services or the users of RSI funded services.

2.109 As is the case with the GSR data and the GHN monitoring, the HL1 data are again confined to households presenting themselves to service providers, in this instance the homelessness sections of local authorities. HL1 cannot be seen as a census of people sleeping rough, because those who do not approach local authorities will not be recorded by HL1.

2.110 These data are also confined to just two variables on experience of sleeping rough. HL1 does not attempt to establish the total duration for which a household has been experiencing rough sleeping, nor does it collect data on what might be termed the 'lifetime prevalence' of rough sleeping among households. HL1 does not make clear the extent to which local authorities might be rehousing a mixture of longer term and short term rough sleepers or the extent to which they may be disproportionately housing one specific group of people sleeping rough.

2.111 Consideration might be given to one extension to HL1, which would be asking a question about lifetime or sustained experience of rough sleeping. This would provide a greater depth of information and allow analysis of the extent to which local authorities might be housing people with sustained experience of sleeping rough.

2.112 HL1 provides a very large dataset on the experience of rough sleeping among households local authorities as homeless. It is also worth noting that HL1 is a much more robust and statistically useful resource (on homelessness in general as well as on rough sleeping) than the English equivalent, the P1E returns.

Gaps in information

2.113 There are some gaps in the information available in all three data sets. Neither the George Street Research monitoring nor the GHN dataset allowed for the existence of two person households within the rough sleeping population. There is some research evidence that couples are occasionally found within this population, something which can act as a obstacle to some forms of accommodation-based service which tend to only offer single rooms. Equally, the presence of pets among people sleeping rough can act as a barrier to service delivery when services can either only kennel a limited number of animals, or do not allow animals (Pleace, 1998).

« Previous | Contents | Next »