To understand the current provision of services and pathway for homeless people, in line with some of the key questions outlined in the scoping document. 

The Housing Strategy and needs manager introduced the report and explained that there was a wide variety of services in Oxford for rough sleepers, most of which were funded by the City Council. Oxfordshire County Council used to have a £3m budget for support services across the County, but this would be reduced to zero in 2020.

The City Council was in a three year pooled funding arrangement with the other Oxfordshire district councils and the County Council. This arrangement was due to expire, and negotiations were underway to extend this for a further two years. There were separate county and city homelessness pathways in operation, but service users would not necessarily know who was funding their bed space.

The City Council’s position had been to maximise the number of beds available for those with a local connection. It was explained that there were significant financial challenges in meeting the needs of those with a local connection, and relaxing the local connection policy without additional funding would lead to a lower level of service for current clients. It was also suggested that relaxing the policy may inadvertently draw numerous rough sleepers from afar to make use of services. Officers also highlighted that it was difficult to secure move-on opportunities for rough sleepers with a local connection, and it would be more difficult and resource intensive for those without a local connection.

In response to questions, the Housing Strategy and needs manager explained that the local connection definition applied to Council policy reflects the definition set out in section 199 of the Housing Act 1996:

A person has a local connection with the district of a local housing authority if he has a connection with it:

a)    because he is, or in the past was, normally resident there, and that residence is or was of his own choice,

b)    because he is employed there,

c)    because of family associations, or

d)    because of special circumstances.

This definition was used to decide whether someone could access the adult homelessness pathway or not, and it was also applied to the Council’s criteria for housing register applications. Reconnection support is offered to all, regardless of whether they had a local connection. The pathway connection option enables people who would not otherwise be able to access the adult homeless pathway, to do so, and benefit from supported accommodation. However, their exit route would be more limited as they cannot gain access to local authority housing.

The majority of services commissioned by the City Council require a local connection to be established. However some services, such as the sit up service at O’Hanlon House (which is currently used as an assessment centre) do not require a local connection.

The Housing Strategy and Needs Manager said the City Council recently secured £502,000 from the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government to support various initiatives. This funding would be used to set up similar schemes to Oxford Winter Night Shelter, but in neighbouring districts. It would also be used to support additional services for those people with a local connection, but with no recourse to public funds. Other commitments include:

·      a rough sleeper hub with various support services and activities

·      separate female-only accommodation for 5 women

·      rehab and move-on units

·      3 Green Templeton College beds

·      8 beds at Simon House – Winter Shelter

·      additional staff within the Outreach Team

It was highlighted that £40,000 would also be available for rough sleepers with and without a local connection, who can apply for funding in situations where a small amount of money would make a significant difference to their housing situation, such as clearing rent arrears.

Members suggested that some commissioned providers in the City had a perception problem, and that they had feedback from some rough sleepers to say that some environments were chaotic and problematic, and not conducive to their progression. The Housing Strategy and Needs Manager explained that there were several myths about some of the Council’s commissioned services, and he clarified and offered assurance that there were safeguards and processes in place to reduce the risks to rough sleepers within commissioned accommodation. The Group agreed to invite some service providers to an evidence gathering meeting to discuss these issues.

Members also suggested that the culture of some services was less welcoming to those without a local connection, even if they did offer support to those clients.

The Group discussed the Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP), and heard from officers the following:

·         Last year saw the highest ever recorded use of swep, with 827 overnight stays.

·         12% of people making use of SWEP in 2017/18 had a confirmed local connection.

·         Officers use a modelling system to monitor the availability and requirement for bed spaces during SWEP.

·         If the demand for SWEP were to exceed the availability, then a community centre would be opened to support additional rough sleepers, though this had not been needed to date.

·         SWEP places a significant demand on those working with rough sleepers, as they often have day jobs and then go on to work night shifts.

·         SWEP accommodation allows for men and women to be separate.

The Group asked to see more information on SWEP capacity for winter.

Members wanted it noted that the City Council was carrying out some excellent work to support rough sleepers.