London to hit Olympic year target by ‘redefining’ rough sleeping
Bar lowered on 2012 rough sleeper figures
Share
The definition of rough sleeping could be rewritten in a bid to help London reach its target to end street homelessness ahead of the Olympic Games.
The change is being looked at by the London Delivery Board, set up to eradicate rough sleeping in the capital by 2012. It could see some rough sleepers left out of the figure used to track progress towards the target - although street counts will still record every homeless person they come across.
The LDB is considering alterations because it is confident it can end entrenched rough sleeping by 2012, but realises it is virtually impossible to prevent new rough sleepers from bedding down.
Alison Gelder, chief executive of the homelessness charity Housing Justice, said that everyone who was involved wanted to get people off the streets as fast as was practically possible.
‘That’s why we are trying to define the target,’ she said. ‘What does success look like? We could get to 2012, you could have a very good fast response emergency service but there still might be the odd person sleeping on a park bench that you couldn’t do anything about. We are coming up with a definition of a target that we can hit.’
Richard Blakeway, housing advisor to Boris Johnson, the London Mayor, said the aim would be that no one should sleep rough for more than one night after an outreach worker had made contact with them. ‘Anyone who clearly lives on the street should not be by 2012,’ he explained.
Jeremy Swain, chief executive of the homeless charity Thames Reach, added: ‘There will always be times when children fall out with parents, people have marriage breakdowns and their first instinct will be to go on the streets.
‘It’s important, therefore, to look at what rough sleeping looks like in terms of numbers and the time people spend on the street.’
The board also approved a partnership between Thames Reach, Transport for London, the ambulance service and police to combat the problem of people sleeping rough on London’s bendy buses.
So far they have found 44 homeless people on bendy buses.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (9)
Yozzy | 19/02/2010 8:33 am
‘That’s why we are trying to define the target,’ she said. ‘What does success look like? We could get to 2012, you could have a very good fast response emergency service but there still might be the odd person sleeping on a park bench that you couldn’t do anything about. We are coming up with a definition of a target that we can hit.’
And ther you have it! If we can't hit our target we'll just move the goalposts so we can - ridiculous and shameful!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon Stokes | 19/02/2010 10:58 am
Agree with the previous poster absolutely disgraceful. If you dont like the results you just rewrite the criteria until it fits with what you want (like they did with the unemployment figures!). Maybe we should get to rewrite the MP's expenses entitlements, that would shut them up! Attcking the most vulnerable in this way shows just how uncaring politicians really are, its all about stats and money and never about the people who actually elected them. Trouble is the other lot are no better so expect this to just be the tip of the iceberg.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jeremy Swain | 19/02/2010 11:17 am
It's a great pity that the Inside Housing piece wasn't clearer about the attempt to seek a definition of ending rough sleeping. The need to measure rough sleeping will continue in the way it always has, with reference to both the street count 'snap-shot' of how many are on the streets and the aggregated up figure of who is sleeping rough over a year collected by outreach teams who are out on the street every night. Additionally (i.e. not instead of) we will also be measuring how long someone is out on the street on the grounds that there must be targets to help people off the street as soon as possible before they become entrenched and unwell.
If we don't define what ending rough sleeping looks like, then there is no way in which the Delivery Board partners can be held to account and the definition needs to be set now and not with when 2012 is only months away.
There is absolutely no interest in 'moving the goalposts'. A target that includes a measurement of time as well as numbers of people on the street is far more challenging than a target that is just around a number.
Jeremy Swain - Thames Reach
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
yozzy | 22/02/2010 8:30 am
Jeremy - with respect, this is classic Government behaviour. Headline grabbing targets "We will eradicate rough sleeping in London by 2012", followed by a realistion that it can't be done and then a change in the target, usually obfuscated behind a wall of technocratic language.
You do yourself and your colleagues a disservice by pretending otherwise.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jenny Edwards | 22/02/2010 11:00 am
I guess nothing will change attitudes if people have a fixed attitude to any official body doe. However the reality is that this challenging aim came from the charities who work to tackle homelessness. National government and the mayor took it up. Now an important part of "making it real" is to define where we are going so we can get there. It's more than anywhere has accomplished and we have a good chance of getting there. Cynicism only holds people back from action. I'd encourage everyone who wants to help to volunteer to help their local homelessness charity. You can find details on www.homelessuk.org
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
yozzy | 22/02/2010 12:05 pm
Jenny - I am not a cynic, nor do I have fixed attitudes about official bodies. What I would like to have seen is a definition of success right at the outset and then measurement against this moving forward. But what we get, as ever, is a headline grabbing announcement etc, etc.
Richard Blakeway's suggestion seems to me to be a wholly sensible one and one that should have been adopted at the outset. An admission that it is impossible to eradicate rough sleeping but that we will all do everything we can to reduce it to a bare minimum, would seem to be a much more sensible manifesto, just not as headline grabbing!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 22/02/2010 5:25 pm
I find this exercise on balance to be a cynical one and maintain that (a) finding a new definition for rough sleeping, that (b) is based on a target that can be hit, and (c) limiting that new definition to rough sleeping variables in just East London is highly dangerous.
Forget the Olympics for a second and any 'political' need to take visible rough sleepers off the streets.
Rough sleeping policies to date have been very London-centric and in part I accept that is because London has many rough sleepers and also the largest agencies dealing with rough sleepers. Yet, I have first-hand knowledge of rough sleeping in non-London inner cites and also in rural rough sleepers. The latter need helicopters will thermal heat-seeking cameras to be able to identify with any certainty the numbers sleeping under hedgerows or in barns etc.
So currently we have all the 'expertise' and all the agencies working to a definition of rough sleeping that only serves the capital. This London-centric amalgam define national policies that allow politicians to make ridiculous claims and spin that rough sleeping is down by two-thirds and any other such nonsense. When in reality rough sleeping 'drives' in terms of policy doesnt suit other inner city rough sleeping issues and most certainly doesnt suit and work for rural rough sleepers.
So any new definition based on 'East London' issues will be ascribed to national policies and claim it must work. This is ridiculous and fundamentally flawed.
And lets look at some linked issues to see if in practice this can work. SP funding for accommodation-based homeless provision - that is the emergency / drirect access provision that is and would be used - has seen its income shrink by 43% since 2003 when SP started. SP is the principal fnding stream for this and will become fully un-ringfenced from April this year. So where is the provision and funding provision going to come from to accommodate these rough sleepers? Out of the ether?
So collating new data on how long people are on the streets with the underlying rationale being that the longer one is the more severe the mental and physical health damage is done, is not going to change if there is no EA/DA provision. And didnt I read somewhere lately that NHS has seen a four-fold increase in the numbers of rough sleepers? I'll dig out that reference as it makes the practical point I am making - the absence of EA/DA provision sees the costs passed from SP and Hb budgets onto (far higher) health care budgets.
I dont call the above cynicism, rather it is simple reporting of linked issues that the microcosmic bubble that is East London is conveniently ignoring.
These proposals do grab the media headlines and do raise awreness. Any more thorough research and support to rough sleepers is to be welcomed as well. Yet when the obvious convenience of making East London look better for Olympic tourists is coupled with the absurd so called previous 'successes' by central government is viewed, then issues such as seeking to define "a reachable target" are rightly viewed with a great deal of suspicion and worthy cynicism
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Yozzy | 23/02/2010 8:24 am
Joe - excellent points!! In my fervour about goalpost moving I entirely missed the London-centric angle. And I too genuinely fear for Supporting People funding now that the ringfence has been removed - it is only going one way, down
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Kerry Livermore | 24/02/2010 3:49 pm
Why don't they redefine 'poverty' whilst they are at it? We could claim to be the richest country in the world.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment