Tough love aims to end rough sleeping
Rough sleepers who refuse to leave London’s streets could be sectioned or deported, when necessary, in a new ‘tough love’ approach agreed by senior housing figures.
The methods are being endorsed by a delivery board chaired by Richard Blakeway, the London mayor’s director of housing, which includes senior healthcare and immigration officials.
Jeremy Swain, panel member and chief executive of homelessness charity Thames Reach, said: ‘Where we think someone is unwell we will try to get them to voluntarily go to a hostel but ultimately we can have them sectioned. This happened in north London recently with someone who had been rough sleeping for a number of years. If there is a foreign national with a criminal history, they will be deported.’
The board was set up to help clear the capital’s streets of rough sleepers ahead of the 2012 Olympic Games and meet the government’s target of eliminating street sleeping the same year.
Mr Swain revealed its plans as the Communities and Local Government department published figures showing another drop in homelessness registrations.
The total number of households accepted as homeless fell 32 per cent between April and June this year, compared with the same period the previous year, official figures revealed.
The rough sleeping street count fell by 4 per cent from 483 in January 2008 to 464 in May 2009.
But Leslie Morphy, chief executive of charity Crisis, said the figures were misleading. ‘Rough sleeping figures of just 464 nationwide do not reflect the true scale of the problem,’ she added. ‘The figure is just an aggregation of snapshots of who happens to be found on the night of a count. We know in London alone in 2008 at least 3,000 people slept rough at some point.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (8)
Jodie | 18/09/2009 10:35 am
'The board was set up to help clear the capital’s streets of rough sleepers ahead of the 2012 Olympic Games and meet the government’s target of eliminating street sleeping the same year.'
I'm really sad to see this stated as the motivation for this exercise. This makes it sound like a meet targets and sweep away anything that might blacken our reputation when the world's eyes are on us type of operation, rather than a geuine effort to find the best solution for each individual who sleeps rough.
I'm especially nervous about the mention of sectioning, which makes it sound as if this method may be applied to a larger amount of people than has previously been the case, is it always going to be the most appropriate action?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
richard | 18/09/2009 11:25 am
While I am in full agreement with Leslie Morphy's statement, I am surprised at the slant Inside Housing took in linking CLG aim to stop rough sleeping nationally, as just a promotion of the 2012 Olympics.
Whereas, the single /non-priority homeless person/s have reached a point where they believe there is no choice but to sleep on the streets. So CLG's deisire comes with motivation (backed with finance) to work with voluntary groups and local authorities, in acieving the 2012 goal. The Olmpics are incidental and local to only one part of London.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 18/09/2009 11:33 am
Yikes!! How about giving them yelow stars to wear?!! Apologies if anyone finds that analogy a bit crass but I find this principle somewhat offensive. At least they mention the olympics as the catalyst for this. Is this Boris's attempt to create some sort of Richard Curtis vision of London? It's like the Indians clearing beggars from their streets ahead of their major events. It's not ultimately concerned with solving any underlying issues, merely getting them out of peoples sight.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Eian Mantle | 18/09/2009 11:59 am
So this is tough love is it? With that fig leaf we will remove any minor impediments like the Mental Health Act, perhaps the London assembly would like to introduce the Magdalene Laundry scheme that operated with such success in the Republic of Ireland to remove any potential embarrassment to those who will spend three weeks in London witnessing the apogee of the chemists art run from one end of a white elephant to another. Clearly human rights are subservient to three weeks of P.E. I note that none of the otherwise unemployable Old Etonians taking up valuable space at City Hall have the slightest clue what to do with the street homeless once the last medal has been handed out and the bunting swept up. No doubt once the eyes of the world have turned towards some other spectacle they will once again be allowed to seep back onto our streets, just as long as Boris doesn’t have to step over them when he leaves the opera.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter | 21/09/2009 2:03 pm
Couple worrying points here 1) You could be sectioned if you don't comply to a dictate 2) Foreign Nationals with a criminal record will be deported if they sleep rough?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 21/09/2009 6:43 pm
Just what is a delivery board? Anyone know?
I'll reserve comment until anyone can furnish me with some minutes of this meeting and /or the powers given to this delivery board. It seems very dubious and riven with charges of high convenience and denial of human rights etc.
My scepticism is due to the nonsense of the rough sleepers count and the wholly ridiculous way this is processed. Examples - the west midlands council with an official zero count that funds a service for 60-70 rough sleepers. The emergence of one day soup kitchens that spring up on the day of 'official' rough sleepers counts. Or the H&S arguments that deny counters from looking into derelict buildings. Or the increased use of B&B the few days before official counts. Or the fact that ....I could go on and on.
So, anyone know what a delivery board is?
To solve any problem you need to realistically know what that 'problem' is. The rough sleepers count is a total farce artificially created to make a target and create some spin. On that point alone - IF the rough sleeper count has genuinely reduced can anyone point me to any research that reveals where they have gone or been housed?
Again any research welcome that proves this ?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jeremy Swain | 05/10/2009 10:37 am
It's perhaps inevitable that Inside Housing should choose to emphasise that part of my conversation with the journalist that covered sectioning and deporting. The focus of the Delivery Board has so far been on helping 205 of the most needy. long-term rough sleepers to get off the street into hostels, settled accommodation and, for those with substance misuse and mental health problems, into specialist supported housing and treatment. However, I have been in this game long enough to understand that this is not newsworthy and so from a journalistic point of view, discardable - pity though.
With regards to sectioning. Anyone who has done street work, as I did for four years, will have faced the dilemma over whether to allow someone who is clearly putting themselves at great risk should remain on the street or to take them to a place of safety, against their will. Sectioning will never be undertaken by street teams as a first option - only as a last - and certainly not because 'you don't comply to a dictat'.
What impresses me most about the people who make up the Delivery Board is their genuine commitment to ending rough sleeping in the capital, driven by a belief that nobody should have to sleep rough in 2009 and, frankly, some of the personal jibes made those commenting are depressingly petty.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
yozzy | 25/02/2010 1:06 pm
Oh, here we go again with the rough sleepers!! Joe Halewood is right, when I was involved with Rough Sleepers Counts we were required to report anything less than 10 as a zero return, so the reality on the street is very different to the stats. I have also seen outreach services suddenly spring up the day before a count to get people off the streets and disappear once the count is done.
Jeremy - did it ever occur to you that perhaps some people are happy living on the streets and rough sleeping? And furthermore that just because they are doing so, it doesn't necessarily mean they are at risk? And this piece if sophistry surrounding sectioning is ridiculous in the extreme. What you are saying is, if you are a rough sleeper your civil rights are irrelevant because you make our city look a mess.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment