Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director Adults and Health

The report presents the context, method, findings, and recommendations of a review of Camden’s rough sleeping services, which has been led by Jess McGregor, Executive Director Adults and Health. This review was initiated following the meeting of the Housing Scrutiny Committee on 18th December 2023, at which the Committee received a report of the investigation into an incident on Huntley Street on 10th November 2023.

The purpose of the review of rough sleeping services in Camden has been to answer the following questions:

1. Does Camden have the appropriate policies, procedures and resources in place to respond well and in an empathetic way to people rough sleeping?

2. Do services meet the needs of a diverse group of people?

3. Are we making the most of strong community willingness to help and support people rough sleeping?

The review process has involved analysis of data and evidence relating to rough sleeping in Camden and rough sleeping services, interviews with Camden staff and practitioners from commissioned services and the voluntary sector in Camden, and consultation with neighbouring boroughs.

The review has found that rough sleeping services in Camden operate in a challenging context, characterised by exceptionally high levels of rough sleeping by national standards, short-term funding, and a very diverse and complex range of needs and vulnerabilities among people who sleep rough in Camden. Despite this, the review has found that rough sleeping services work well in Camden. There are areas where Camden may make improvements and explore different models of rough sleeping service, and so the review makes recommendations that may inform the ongoing work to make improvements to how rough sleeping services operate. There will be further opportunities as Camden develops a new Homelessness and Rough Sleeping strategy.

Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Director Adults and Health.

Councillor Pat Callaghan, Cabinet Member Safer Communities, and Jess McGregor, Executive Director Adults and Health, took the meeting through the report and they along with Glendine Shepherd, Director of Housing, gave the following key responses to questions:

·       The Executive Director had been charged to undertake the review as she was independent from the providers of the service within the Council and was the Council’s statutory officer responsible for adults. All appropriate groups had been invited to be involved in the review and had been sent a copy of the draft report for comments. Street Kitchens, though part of the review, had helped shape some of the proposals, but had not taken up the offer of commenting on the draft report.

·       The Council had and would continue to lobby the Government to seek funding to pay for the provision of support needed to help non-uk national rough sleepers. It was hoped that the new Government would look differently at this issue and provide resources for local authorities to fully fund this work.

·       The Council was seeking to develop a clear understanding of its role in supporting rough sleepers, how to maximise the use of its resources to help them, as well as the enforcement considerations around crime and anti-social behaviour that affected local communities. The Police were there to enforce the law, and Council staff were there to provide support and care for the rough sleepers. The need to clarify roles had come out of an event arranged by Street Kitchens.

·       Gambling, drugs and alcohol abuse were all routes into rough sleeping, and once a person was sleeping rough it often only took the individual a few weeks before they started taking drugs or undertaking alcohol abuse.

·       Camden was always likely to be a destination for rough sleepers due to it being a major transport hub, so the Council had to think about what a fully costed optimum rough sleeper service looked like going forward. This should ensure the Council was able to make clear decisions about what it wanted from the service (including working on prevention) and then ensure resources were put in place to deliver its programme.

·       The local community were sympathetic to rough sleepers but did not want the resulting crime or anti-social behaviour they were connected with.

·       The Homelessness Transformation work stream would be taking forward the recommendations proposed in the report (and were already working on some initiatives identified like the Personal Passport), and they very much saw the voluntary and community sector playing a vital role in the support and care being given to rough sleepers. Also this work would be pulled together as part of the Council’s Homelessness Strategy. There was currently a service reorganisation going on for the Homelessness Transformation Team but it was expected that this would be completed by September.

·       The conclusion from the thorough review that had been undertaken regarding all the policies and procedures that were in place for those services providing support for rough sleepers, was that that they were very comprehensive and fit for purpose but further work was needed regarding clarification on the enforcement and support roles being provided. Officers would now seek to develop a framework for intervention that would clarify this work.

·       The preventative requirements the Council was being met through the work being done by its Routes off the Streets Team, with them providing advice, support and assistance (including where to get a hot meal and a shower) for those seeking support. This could also could include guidance on seeking accommodation out of borough, as the Council did not have enough homes available to meet this need. Additionally, work was being developed around pathways out of homelessness, which was being made available for people awaiting Home Office decisions in Home Office accommodation. This provision included support and guidance on health, employment and housing.

·       The current Council’s service provision supporting this need had been set up when the number of rough sleepers and the people in temporary accommodation (300 more people now than two years ago) had been, but staffing support provision had matched this increased need. This had meant that officers had to look to see how further resources from elsewhere could be put into supporting this service.

·       The Cabinet Member Safer Communities agreed to look into the interaction between a rough sleeper and Community Wardens outside St. Silas Church Hall.

ACTION BY: Cabinet Member Safer Communities

·       Officers agreed to provide update reports regarding the implementation of the recommendations to the scrutiny committee at its October and January meetings.

ACTION BY: Director of Housing

The scrutiny committee welcomed the report and felt that the paper had the provided recommendations for action that now needed to be taken forward. They felt that to seek a delay to allow for further inclusions from other community and voluntary groups, would not add anything extra that had not already been established. They also felt that the report was an independent assessment of the issues and provided a clear way forward for the authority. They hoped that the new Government would better tackle the issue of homelessness, but it would be difficult to resolve until there were enough homes for people. The members also recognised that all appropriate groups would be involved in the relevant forums involved in delivering and monitoring service provision in this area.

RESOLVED –

THAT the report be noted and the committee did not see the need for a further report to be undertaken on this issue as all aspects had been covered by the current report, and they also wished to see all relevant groups (including Streets Kitchens) play an active role in the appropriate forums set up to deliver the services supporting rough sleepers.