As background information, the meeting has also been provided with a research report from the Scrutiny Officer which summarises how various local authorities apply local connection criteria to their homelessness support services. Only members of the Review Group will have access to appendix 1, as this contains information that is exempt from publication under paragraphs 2 and 3 of Part 1, Section 12A, of the Local Government Act 1972.

Guests will be invited to make any opening statements if they wish. The meeting will then move to questions from the Review Group and open discussion. As of 9 August, confirmed guests include:

·         Matthew Downie - Crisis National Director of Policy and External Affairs

·         Kate Cocker - Crisis Oxford Skylight Director

·         David Portway - ACT! Managing Director

·         Rob Rogers - ACT! Outreach Team Leader

·         Dr James Porter, GP - Luther Street Medical Centre

Key questions and themes may include:

Local connection

a)  What are Luther St, Crisis and ACTs services’ relationships to the local connection rules? Is any support limited to those with a local connection?

b)  What proportion of the people you support do not have a local connection?

c)  What would be the impact of opening larger parts of the pathway/creating new accommodation provision for those without local connection? Are there opportunities to save money whilst expanding services?

d)  What are the best and worst examples from elsewhere of service provision for those without a local connection?

e)  What are the barriers to reconnecting people with an area where they have a local connection?

f)   The Council currently makes exemptions to the local connection policy for: care leavers, those at risk of violence, those protected under a military covenant, those with no connection to any other area, and those with a clear connection to the County. Are there any other groups that you think should be added to the exemptions list?

g)  A recent Crisis report recommended scrapping or abolishing local connection criteria (see How to end homelessness in Great Britain (Crisis) report p.194 and p.389). The European Observatory on Homelessness has made a similar suggestion. How would an alternative policy look in practice, taking account of the local government finance envelope?

Health

h)  What is the role of local GP surgeries in supporting rough sleepers?

i)    How would you characterise the level of vulnerability and health risks experienced among rough sleepers?

j)    What more could the Council do to support local health providers in helping rough sleepers?

Other

k)  How effective and accurate do you think central government guidance is on counting and collecting data on rough sleepers?

l)    The ‘small’ ways the current system could adapt to make things better. 

m) What is the ACT Housing model, and Oxford Winter Shelter housing model?

n)  Examples where rough sleepers have been let down by the system.

o)  Would you be able to help connect us with people who have experience of rough sleeping, for the benefit of our research?

Dave Scholes, Housing Strategy and Needs Manager, explained that the Sit-up Service and the Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP) provided support for people with and without a local connection. There were different types of local connection, including; city connection, county connection, pathway connection and various exemptions such as for those at risk of violence, former armed services personnel, and those with no local connection to any area. It was confirmed that the Council used the statutory definition of local connection as a basis for determining access to the Housing Register.

In reviewing the local connection research report, which summarised responses from 14 local authorities concerning their local connection policies, the Housing Strategy and Needs Manager highlighted that whilst many championed discretion in applying local connection criteria, none were forthcoming with written policies. He also drew attention to the homeless ‘magnet’ effect referenced within the report, which some authorities said was more related to pull-factors such as footfall, begging opportunities and the diversity of support services, rather than council policies. It was confirmed that people in Oxford would need to engage with the Sit-up Service in order to access support to reconnect to another local authority area. 

Matthew Downie, Director of Policy and External Affairs at Crisis, explained that whilst some authorities appear to champion discretion and say they do not apply a local connection, this was only at the very first point of contact. The subsequent priority would always be to reconnect those people to another area. To his knowledge, there were no local authorities that completely dis-applied local connection criteria for a full support pathway.

In response to questions about rates of successful reconnections made to other authorities, Mr Downie said the data was weak in relation to reconnection outcomes. He highlighted some key challenges across local authorities nationally, including:

·         People were often given one way tickets by local authorities, rather than a support package for reconnecting with services.

·         If people turned down a reconnection offer, they were often considered to have ‘burnt their bridges’ and would be refused further support.

·         Reconnections did not take account of peoples social and support networks.

·         There were often tensions between local authorities in receiving reconnections, and local authority accountability and responsibility was often lost through this process.

·         There was a lack of choice, agency and assistance in the reconnection process.

·         Money was sometimes spent on creating and maintaining barriers to accessing support.

Mr Downie said these challenges were policy choices to manage resources which lacked focus on human outcomes. The Review Group remarked that many of these challenges were reflective of national migration policies.

The Chair asked about the work of Luther Street Medical Centre. Dr James Porter explained that the Medical Centre supported people experiencing homelessness. The Surgery did not keep details of whether people had a local connection to the area as it would not impact on the level of care given. No one would be excluded from healthcare on the grounds that they did not have a local connection. 

Dr Porter said the impact rough sleeping has on a person’s health was substantial, with the life expectancy of a rough sleeper averaging in the mid-40s nationally. When cross-checked against records of local patients, the life expectancy was of a similar level. Mental health and addiction were principal challenges for the health of rough sleepers, and it was common to see viral infections and liver disease as a result of their circumstances.

As well as the human and social costs associated with ill health, the financial costs were also significant. The cumulative involvement of ambulances, overnight hospital stays and treatment was substantial, and preventative measures from other public services could take pressures off the health system. The Housing Strategy and Needs Manager added that the financial cost of one day in the health service may equate to a week of housing support.

The Chair invited Rob Rogers, ACT Outreach Manager, to provide an overview of the ACT housing model. ACT, as a housing project that operated outside of the Council’s homeless pathway, provided accommodation for vulnerable people who were homeless. They owned eight houses which had increased from three in the previous year, with a total of 16 beds. Local connection criteria were not applied to the services they provided, but they did require people to be free from drugs and alcohol. Of the 16 people housed, only two had a local connection. Mr Rogers highlighted that people in prison lose their local connections, and so cannot access the homeless pathways. The Review Group commented that under the Council’s Joint Operational Protocol, those who had no connection to any area should be entitled to access the homeless pathway. 

Mr Rogers said one of the biggest challenges for ACT was move-on support, which could be helped through changes in Council policy. He said that some people have been in shorthold tenancies with them for two years, take part in community activities, and have positive social networks, and are not offered a local connection under the current policy. They are therefore denied access to the Council’s pathway. This system had the potential for people to ‘fall through the net’ of support. Representatives from ACT asked that the local connection policy was relaxed to take account of individuals in these types of situations. The Review Group agreed that it would be preferable to offer a local connection to people in circumstances such as the case raised by ACT.

It was explained that barriers to housing perpetuate cycles of offending and substance abuse as people lose trust in the system. All present agreed that homeless people can contribute positively to the area, and their contribution could increase with more support. Kate Cocker, Director of Crisis Skylight Oxford, explained that approximately 50% of Crisis clients were in work. Four of the people housed by ACT were in full time employment and another five were involved in voluntary activities.

The Review Group asked about benefits of the Housing First model, which was premised on providing wrap around support and quick access to housing for those with the most complex needs and vulnerabilities. Mr Downie said that Housing First had been proven internationally as the most effective form of intervention for those with complex needs. Glasgow was identified as operating a good model, having housed 50 people over 6 years with no person dropping out of the programme. The system was based on removing all barriers to accessing support including criteria concerning local connection, intentionality and priority need. This involved highly trained staff supporting people with the most complex needs to establish a stable tenancy. In the UK to date, approximately 320 had been supported by Housing First but the estimated need was in the order of 18500 people.

The Housing Strategy and Needs manager explained that Oxford City Council had two “housing first” projects that had been operating for at least two years. This involved a high support ratio and abandoning many of the ‘rules’ traditionally associated with homelessness support. It could not be clarified at the meeting to what extent these projects applied local connection criteria. The significant difference between Glasgow and Oxford however was the housing market, and the lack of affordable housing in Oxford. The Council previously identified 20 entrenched rough sleepers with complex needs to be involved with these Housing First projects, which have had relative success.

The Review Group asked for more information about the Clearing House model in London. Mr Downie explained it operated in a similar way to a brokerage and advocacy service to make connections with housing associations and improve access to accommodation. However, this was easier to establish and more meaningful in London, where there was a high concentration of rough sleepers and service providers. This model was only a formalised approach to maintaining effective relationships with housing associations, and the model was not needed where good relationships already existed.

Mr Downie said that the application of local connection criteria was not common in the European Union. In Scotland, the use of local connection criteria was abolished in 2003, but local discretion remained to reapply it. There may be other opportunities for money to follow people, such as in some European countries, where money is recovered from a rough sleeper’s municipal area of origin. An agreement of this nature could be agreed within Oxfordshire for example, but it may be easier for mayoral areas.

The Review Group asked which local authorities exhibit best practice in relation to homelessness support. Mr Downie said it may be useful to contact Hackney, Croydon or Liverpool local authorities. Crisis had done some work with Liverpool to establish the cost savings associated with the Housing First model, and he agreed to share this with the Review Group. The findings indicated significant overall savings to public finances across multiple services.

The Review Group agreed that it would be beneficial to carry out a similar study in Oxford to identify possible cross-service savings as a result of removing the Council’s local connection policy. A business case for more permanent policy changes could then be brought forward on the basis of the evidence gathered. Mr Downie agreed that there would be value in piloting a period of policy change and monitoring the impact both financially, and in terms of social value. He suggested that Crisis would be able to assist in any research analysis and lobbying on policy issues at a national level. The Ministry or Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) had historically been interested in supporting pilot schemes, where innovative practice can be shown.

Kate Cocker explained that in previous years, there had been pooled money with other services such as the NHS and Police and it worked well. The Housing Strategy and Needs Manager highlighted that the ongoing trailblazer project would be used to illustrate wider savings to public finances across various services. He also clarified that winter provision for 2018/19 had been expanded following a grant from MHCLG, and he agreed to circulate information to the Review Group on preparations being made.

The Review Group considered whether the homeless pathway could be simplified to make it more accessible and understandable. Dr Porter said that the homeless pathway operated a ‘one size fits all’ approach, which does not take account of those people who would prefer not to be in a hostel, which may increase someone’s exposure to substance misuse and affect their abstinence. While noting that this had begun to change over recent years, he reiterated the need for choice in the system, and said there was a good level of support locally but there needs to be flexibility to help people.

Stefan Robinson, Scrutiny Officer, asked if the Review Group had any ideas of draft recommendations they might want to discuss with the guests. The Review Group listed a number of areas including:

·         Carrying out a social value study to assess the outcomes of removing local connection criteria, and its impact on various public services.

·         Considering whether there is a need for a system such as the Clearing Housing model.

·         Improving flexibility in the local connection policy. For example, to offer a local connection to people in cases such as those outlined by ACT.

·         Offering a local connection to rough sleepers who are long term entrenched. For example, having slept rough in the city for 6 months.

·         The perception of the Council by other organisations, and building trust and collaborative relationships.

Mr Downie explained that local authorities have the freedom to be more flexible and generous in their offering, but services are often defined by resources rather than need. 

The Review Group noted the need to take account of gender issues, particularly concerning the increased risk of violence and sexual abuse to women experiencing homelessness. Access to female sanitary products was a challenge, and non-white people also experienced specific vulnerabilities. Kate Cocker said that many organisations can help with providing sanitary products, but communication on the issue could be better. Mr Downie added that there was additional vulnerability for women with children who may lose custody of their children through homelessness, and quick connections to emergency accommodation can help. The Review Group advocated for the provision of a room for a female homelessness forum, which people had asked a member for.

The Chair asked for support from guests in arranging for the Review Group to meet with people currently experiencing rough sleeping, and there was broad consent to make arrangements outside of the meeting.

The meeting briefly adjourned whilst guests left after this item.