Turned Away: the treatment of single homeless
people by local authority homelessness services
in England
Sarah Dobie & Ben Saunders
About the research
• Aim: to examine the quality of information and advice available to single homeless
people
• Eight mystery shoppers with previous experience of homelessness made 87 visits
to 16 local authorities across England to try and access help
• All played characters who were currently homeless and each had a particular story
to explain their circumstances
• Mystery shoppers presented as one of four characters, each was tested twice (with
both a male and a female mystery shopper):
•
•
•
•
Person with learning difficulties and mental health problems
Person experiencing domestic violence from a relative or partner
Young person
Rough sleeper
Assessment process I
• Detailed assessments are vital to identify what individuals need help with and what
the options for assisting them are
• All local authorities used an initial tick-box assessment of their needs which was not
adequate to understand mystery shoppers’ circumstances and the majority (59/87)
employed a triage system
•
An initial assessment with customer services staff followed by a detailed interview with a
Housing Advisor
• Interviews with Housing Advisors regularly focused on determining that mystery
shoppers were not eligible for help rather than how they could be helped
I feel angry as I was not
questioned more about my
circumstances. How can
they make decisions if they
don’t know the full story?
Assessment process II
• In 29/87 visits mystery shoppers were turned away from LAs without any
assessment of their needs
•
•
Either because they needed to supply photo ID or proof of their homelessness or because they
did not need to see a Housing Advisor because they were not considered a priority need for
assistance
Emphasis was regularly placed on the need for mystery shoppers to “prove” their case
• Use of paper or online assessment forms also prevented mystery shoppers from
being assessed
• Overall, the assessment process was confusing and the opportunity to make a
homelessness application was rarely mentioned
•
In 3/87 visits mystery shoppers received a Section 184 notification
I waited for two hours 20
minutes but left after two
hours 30 minutes.
Seeing advisor was only
ten minutes.
Other factors influencing the
assessment process
• A lack of privacy and empathy from staff compromises the effectiveness of the
assessment process
• Privacy was extremely important to mystery shoppers but was not offered in
the vast majority of visits
•
Initial assessments conducted at reception desks within ear shot of the waiting area and private
rooms not always used for interviews with Housing Advisors
• Staff attitude impacted on how at ease mystery shoppers feel which in turn
affected their ability to present their case
•
Staff sometimes described as “robotic” and “emotionless”
It was embarrassing
having to explain
everything in front of all
the other waiting people
and then be told that I
could not get any help
I felt he had zero sympathy
for my situation…I wouldn’t
go back there I’d just try
something else… It feels
like a really humiliating
feeling
Assistance provided
• Characters considered priority need received far better assistance - though this
happened at just 20/87 visits
•
Accommodation was arranged for non-priority mystery shoppers at 17 visits, either via mediation
(10 visits) or the provision of temporary accommodation (7 visits)
• In 50 out of 87 visits mystery shoppers received no help at all or very limited
assistance
•
E.g. generic information about the PRS and other third sector organisations who may be able to
help or brief advice about the benefits system
• Significant regional differences in the quality of assistance and service – with LAs
outside of London performing better
It is so discouraging
going in for help and
not being given
somewhere to stay that
night because I’m
deemed fit and healthy
It’s about just processing
people and getting them
seen and then out of the
door. They don’t realise
it’s their job to help you
Conclusions from the research
• The findings highlight the variable quality of the help some of the most vulnerable
people in society receive
• Receiving assistance is dependent on an individual qualifying for the main housing
duty rather than a proactive attempt to resolve someone’s situation and prevent
homelessness
•
It is more cost effective to provide meaningful support at first contact with a local authority than
to delay assistance
• Crisis is calling for the Government to review the help that single homeless people
receive under the legislation
• Other recommendations include: improving training, expanding the data collected
on homelessness and increasing the amount of funding local authorities receive to
provide these services
What’s next?
• Sharing findings with local authorities at events and on an individual basis
•
Identifying next steps – where and how can Crisis help tackle internal and external barriers to
good service provision
• No One Turned Away campaign – the petition now has over 35,000 signatures
• Intervention in a Supreme Court case challenging how vulnerability is defined
• New research: Nations Apart? published in December looking
at the differences in the experiences of single homeless people
approaching their local authority for help across Great Britain
For more info about the research: www.crisis.org.uk/research
or email me: Sarah.Dobie@crisis.org.uk