The ‘No Local Connection’ Review Group was established by the Scrutiny Committee on 3 July 2018. The purpose of the review was to consider the Council’s approach to applying local connection criteria as a means of defining entitlement to access the Adult Homeless Pathway, and make recommendations for service improvement where necessary.

The Committee is asked to endorse the report and agree that it be submitted to the City Executive Board for consideration at its meeting on 14 November 2018.

The ‘No Local Connection’ Review Group had been established by the Scrutiny Committee on 3 July 2018. The purpose of the review was to consider the Council’s approach to applying local connection criteria as a means of defining entitlement to access the Adult Homeless Pathway, and make recommendations for service improvement where necessary.

The Chair welcomed Councillor McManners who joined the meeting at this point, and to his first meeting as a member of the Committee.  He welcomed too, Councillors Aziz and Howlett, Monica Gregory and the Housing Strategy and Needs Manager  to the table, all of whom would contribute to discussion of this item. The purpose of the item was to seek the Committee’s agreement for the report to be submitted to the City Executive Board at its meeting the following week. The report was accompanied by a supplement noting officers’ advice about each of the recommendations.

Councillor Bely-Summers, as Chair of the Review Group,  introduced the draft report by quoting from her foreword  to the report and concluding with the observation that  councillors should  provide   “political leadership and direction” in relation to matters of such importance.

Cllr Aziz, speaking as a member of the Review Group, expressed her thanks to all those who had contributed to its work, with particular reference to those who had experienced homelessness. She recognised that this was, inevitably, an emotive matter. Homelessness was a national, humanitarian, issue that affected some of the most vulnerable members of society to whom  we owed a duty of care.  The scale of the problem warranted radical action.

Monica Gregory spoke to the Committee as someone who had experienced homelessness as a result of fleeing domestic violence and returning to Oxford where she had been born and bred. Despite this she was deemed to have no local connection and found herself “not knowing which way to turn” She had to fight for some time to have the connection recognised which she did with the help of MENCAP.  The experience of being homeless was “soul destroying” leaving her scared and not knowing “how or where she would end up”. She thanked the Committee for giving her the opportunity to share her experience.

Councillor Howlett, speaking as a member of Review Group, thanked Monica Gregory for her contribution. He said homelessness was a complex and gruesome issue which could only be addressed satisfactorily by listening to those who have experienced it. This was a humanitarian crisis in one of the wealthiest cities in the UK which required a bold response and a demonstration of political leadership, working in partnership with officers.  He drew attention to a few particular flaws in the current arrangements which the report sought to address such as the fact that volunteering did not count as one of the criteria to demonstrate a local connection whereas paid work did. He also said the Local Connection Policy needed to take account of those who may come from one of the city’s immediate satellites such as Kidlington and Botley but whose life is based around the City and cannot access services.

The  Housing Strategy and Needs Manager  provided some context to the issue from an officer perspective. This was undoubtedly a challenging area which the Council had been addressing for a long time, seeking to mitigate the detrimental consequences of a period of austerity, de-commissioned services and cuts by Oxfordshire County Council. There had, however, been a significant change at national level with a commitment, for example, to half homelessness by 2020 and to eliminate it completely by 2027. 

Homelessness was indeed a complex issue, not least because of its interrelationship with, for  example, the health service and criminal justice systems. It was something which had to be addressed collaboratively and could not be effectively tackled by one organisation. She drew attention to the importance and early success of the Trailblazer project which sought to mitigate difficulties for individuals through early intervention. This, combined  with Homelessness Reduction Act, offered a once in a generation opportunity to make a difference. 

Officers welcomed the work of the Review Group but wished to draw attention to a few matters  which should be borne in mind.  The capacity of the Oxfordshire Adult Homeless Pathway was limited and the report’s recommendations were likely to put pressure on it to an extent which might compromise its effectiveness. The recommendations focussed on the local connection criteria and access to the pathway. Oxford City Council was currently signed up to the Oxfordshire Common Operational Protocol, which specified eligibility requirements to access the Adult Homeless Pathway. Any changes to the county wide protocol could not be changed unilaterally without agreement from the other Oxfordshire Districts. The terms of the Homelessness Reduction Act meant that some of these matters are subject to statute and cannot be changed.  The ability to apply discretion is most important. Those people experiencing homelessness are individuals and not a homogeneous group and should be responded to as such.  Care should be taken, therefore, not to be  too prescriptive.

The Chair thanked the visitors for their introductory remarks and reminded the Committee of the purpose of the item before opening it up for discussion.

In a wide ranging discussion the following points were made, the vast majority of which were in support of the report and its subsequent transmission to the CEB:

·         The group had involved officers in several of its meetings, and the review group has considered their advice. The report’s recommendations had not been made lightly and had been made in full knowledge of the officers’ views.

·         The quality of the report, in terms of its thoroughness, engagement with interested parties and background research was exemplary.

·         It was recognised that some aspects of the report would be challenged but this was inevitable given the need for action to tackle fundamental problems such as the Common Operational Protocol which was seen to be flawed.

·         The starting point should be to agree what the Council wants to achieve and then to how it should be resourced in this, one of the wealthiest cities in the Country.

·         Those people who happen to experience homelessness are citizens who are often skilled, in a position to make a contribution and should be regarded as an asset rather than a problem.

·         The evidence in relation to the ‘magnet effect’ , whereby people may be drawn to improved homelessness services from afar, was not clear. Anecdotal evidence suggested that this would have a limited impact on people coming to the City.

·         The recommendations should, in any case, not be shied away from for fear of there being a magnet effect.

·         Those people who experience homelessness are likely to be a source of unnecessary expense to the community as result of health and criminal justice related issues, as evidenced in the Review Group’s report.

·         The presence of  people who are homeless may be prejudicial to the City’s tourist industry, not in itself a reason to change the policy but a contributory consideration.

·         The importance of good advice and opportunities for advocacy on behalf of those people experiencing homelessness was key.

·         It was not the job of Scrutiny to provide a thorough law and governance check on what was being proposed. It was the role of Scrutiny to put forward its logic and rationale in support of its recommendations, and for CEB to decide whether to accept the recommendations, having had regard to the report and separate officer advice.

During discussion a minority of concerns were expressed about the report being forwarded  to the CEB:

·         The report appeared to contradict some matters of fact expressed by officers. It might be preferable therefore to delay submission until they had been addressed and fuller account taken of the officers’ views.

·         While the principles behind the report’s recommendations were ones which could be wholeheartedly supported, there was concern lest there was insufficient  capacity to deal with increased numbers  in the Adult Homeless Pathway.

·         The examples of a lack of ‘magnet effect’ given in the discussion had focussed on London boroughs.  Was it safe to extrapolate this experience to the very different economic and political circumstances of Oxford?

On being put to a vote the Committee resolved, with one abstention, to:

Endorse the report and submit it to the City Executive Board for consideration at its meeting in 14 November.