House of Commons - Home Affairs

Select Committee on Home Affairs Written Evidence

14. Memorandum submitted by Crisis

1. SUMMARY

1.1 Crisis is the national charity for single homeless people. We work year round to help some of the most vulnerable homeless people in our society. We develop innovative services that help homeless people rebuild their social and practical skills, join the world of work and reintegrate back into society.

1.2 The launch of the Anti-Social Behaviour Unit has seen a growing emphasis on coercion and enforcement as a means of tackling the problem of begging and Crisis is concerned by the negative impact that this is having upon vulnerable street homeless people.

1.3 This submission argues that the vast majority of people who beg are street homeless and that it is a problem that is best understood as a product of social exclusion rather than anti-social behavior.

1.4 The evidence in favour of enforcement and coercion as a means of tackling begging is at best patchy and infact indicates that it is a costly and often ineffective means of tackling the problem, exacerbating the difficulties facing some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

1.5 Dealing with begging in the long term requires that we recognize that people who beg are part of a broader street homeless population and that we seek solutions that address the root causes of the problem, including issues, such as homelessness, drug addiction and mental ill health.

1.6 Recommendations:

(i) Re-evaluate anti-social behaviour policy and practice with regards to people who beg.

(ii) Increase the provision of alternatives to street life.

(iii) Improve access to accommodation.

(iv) Improve access to specialist services.

2. TACKLING BEGGING, CURRENT PRACTICE

"Anti-social behaviour means different things to different people—noisy neighbours who ruin the lives of those around them, `crack houses' run by drug dealers, drunken yobs taking over town centers, people begging at cash points . . ."

2.1 Under the Anti-social Behaviour agenda local authorities have been encouraged to adopt a carrot and stick approach to begging. This involves offering street homeless people help dealing with problems such as drug addiction and mental ill health and using enforcement where this does not work. Enforcement measures include recording begging offences, and using anti-social behaviour orders against persistent beggars.[32]

2.2 However, the evidence shows, that many vulnerable homeless people continue to struggle to access essential services and the overall result of the new approach has been an increase in the use of enforcement as a means of tackling begging.

2.3 In Westminster for example (a trailblazer authority) the local authority worked with the Metropolitan Police to identify "aggressive beggars", who were arrested, finger printed and had DNA samples taken before being released on bail."[33] In addition to these "street audits" authorities throughout the country, including Camden, Manchester, Leeds Nottingham, Oxford, Derby and Middlesbrough, have resorted to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), public order offences and civil injunctions as a means of dealing with begging,

3. BEGGING AND HOMELESSNESS MAKING THE CONNECTION

3.1 Begging and street homelessness constitute two overlapping parts of a broader homelessness problem, "research from across England—including Manchester, Brighton, Leeds, Blackpool, Bristol, Chester, Leicester, Westminster, Woolwich and Luton has consistently found that the vast majority people begging are homeless. "[34]

3.2 For example, a Crisis survey found that 58% of people who begged had slept rough the night before and a report by Fitzpatrick and Kennedy on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation came to similar conclusions. The research identified a high degree of overlap between begging, rough sleeping and Big Issue vending and found that people's experiences of rough sleeping invariably preceded their involvement in begging. Almost all those interviewed had experienced severe trauma in their lives.[35]

4. BEGGARS, ANTI-SOCIAL OR SOCIALLY EXCLUDED?

4.1 Although the act of begging may be deemed anti-social, it is a problem that is best understood and dealt with as a manifestation of social exclusion.

4.2 The Social Exclusion Unit defines social exclusion as short hand "for what can happen when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime, bad health and family breakdown".[36] Based upon this criteria, the evidence suggests that people who beg are amongst the most vulnerable people in our society.

4.3 The vast majority of people who beg are homeless, with a background of rough sleeping, all are vulnerable. People who spend time on the street suffer from high levels of unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime, bad health and family breakdown.

4.4 The evidence of their vulnerability is stark and incontestable.

4.5 Whilst there is no doubt that some members of the public feel threatened when confronted by beggars, particularly if they are aggressive, surveys reveal a more complex picture than the popular stereotype.

4.6 For example, the majority of begging is passive rather than aggressive[47] and data from the British Social Attitude Survey found a general lack of appetite from the British public for punitive measures on begging. Only one quarter of those surveyed were in favour of arresting people for begging and the majority of those surveyed thought that beggars genuinely need help.[48] When asked about how to deal with this situation, more supportive policies, such as support to access housing, education, training and employment, garnered the most enthusiasm.

5. THE INADEQUACY OF SERVICE PROVISION

"Services often fail those who need them most. Those with multiple disadvantages are less likely to benefit from many current programmes"

5.1 Despite efforts by government and the voluntary sector there remain significant gaps in service provision for vulnerable homeless people and in practice begging and street homelessness can reflect an absence of support and/or difficulties accessing appropriate services.

5.2 There are still problems with hostel spaces in particular areas and for particular groups, including drug users, those with behavioural problems, people with pets and couples[50] and many vulnerable homeless people continue to struggle to gain access to even the most basic primary care.

5.3 Crisis research found that vulnerable homeless people were nearly 40 times more likely than members of the general public not to have access to a GP. Despite improvements in the provision of drug treatment in specific areas, there are difficulties reported on the length of waiting times, a serious problem given that rapid access to treatment is essential for street homeless people who want to tackle their addiction.

AVERAGE LENGTH OF TIME TAKEN BY ORGANISATIONS ACCESSING SPECIALIST SERVICES FOR THEIR CLIENTS (IN WEEKS)[51]

Service undertaken externally	Number of weeks
Alcohol assessment	3.5
Drug assessment	4.5
Drug detoxification	10.5
Alcohol detoxification	9.5
Alcohol rehabilitation	11.0
Drug rehabilitation	12.0
(Note: the statistics above are based upon a questionnaire sent to 974 organisations working with homeless people.)

5.4 Accessing Housing Benefit continues to present problems. A recent report by the Audit Commission outlined many problems with the current system. In 2000-01, new claims took on average 51 days to be processed in England.[52]

6. WHY ENFORCEMENT DOES NOT WORK

"There is some evidence that the risks of social exclusion can be increased when people fail to meet their responsibilities and incur penalties, by creating hardship, debt and rent arrears. Sanctions are also often incurred unintentionally and vulnerable people may be more likely to incur them."

6.1 The nature of homelessness and in particular street homelessness means that those affected lack private space. As a consequence much of their lives are spent in the public sphere where they are likely to come into contact with law enforcement authorities.

6.2 According to Crisis research for example, 87% of street homeless people had contact with the police during their last period of rough sleeping. However, homeless peoples involvement in crime is for the most part low level and lifestyle related and many are hidden victims of crime with a frequency, which would not be tolerated amongst the wider population. Adding anti-social behaviour to the list of crime that vulnerable homeless people can commit has further increased their likelihood of contact with enforcement agencies.

6.3 Yet there is little evidence to show that use of enforcement measures such as banning beggars from public spaces or fining them are effective means of tackling the underlying causes of begging and homelessness. Bans from public spaces often simply displace the problem of begging, moving it from one area of the city to another and homeless people are ill placed to pay fines. In both instances there is a danger that the problems facing vulnerable homeless people are exacerbated.

6.4 Not only are such methods often ineffective, but they are extremely expensive[54] with the average cost of securing an anti-social behaviour order reported to be as high as £5,000.[55]

6.5 Police officers have expressed a desire to get beyond enforcement, which is essential in some circumstances but largely inappropriate for dealing with the range of low level nuisance offending undertaken by most street homeless people.[56]

7. THE ALTERNATIVE

7.1 Crisis believes that as well as access to appropriate accommodation and alternative activities to street life, street homeless people require help to overcome drug and alcohol misuse, social isolation, mental and physical health problems, boredom and deep-seated low self-esteem.

7.2 Street homeless people and police officers have an interest in tackling victimisation, reducing reoffending and improving contact between themselves. For homeless people it is key to a safer less dangerous life. For police officers it reduces demand upon time and resources used formally processing homeless people for little benefit and it increases homeless people's access to a range of supportive services which means that officers are able to deliver the kind of police service they prefer to deliver.[57]

7.3 When asked what could be done to reduce offending the solutions proposed by homeless people placed greater emphasis on reducing the perceived need to offend rather than greater policing. One in three people who sleep rough are of the view that regular access to food and support services reduces offending. Just under one in three believe that having safe public areas where rough sleepers could gather at night or during the day would itself reduce offending. Two in three rough sleepers believe the key to improving contact with police lies in changes to the way police work. One in five think police officers should receive specialised training in working with people who sleep rough and one in seven believe police should set up a police homelessness unit to guide work with homeless people.[58]

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 A review of current policy and practice: Undertake a review of the current policy and practice to ensure that homeless people are adequately protected against anti-social behaviour and crime.

8.2 The provision of alternatives to street life: this should include safe havens in public spaces, ensuring the availability of wet facilities for street drinkers, the development of easily accessible activities and employment opportunities that engage homeless people.

Example of good practice 1: Crisis Skylight

Crisis Skylight is a centre where homeless people take part in free practical and creative workshops ranging from bicycle repair to performing arts. They have opportunities to build on existing skills or develop new ones, discover and grow talents and abilities, learn from one another and meet new people. Acitvities are open to all and encourage homeless people to integrate with the general public.

8.3 Improving access to accommodation: ensuring the availability of accessible, appropriate and if necessary supported accommodation.

Example of good practice 2: Prime Focus

Based in Birmingham Prime Focus is a complex needs unit established to provide specific provision for men, over 25 years old, who present with multiple or complex needs and are excluded from accommodation. These men are former or current rough sleepers. The allocations and referral panel consists of several partner agencies including Contact and Assessment Team, Probation Service, social services, the Community Mental Health Team, the Primary Healthcare Team and Focus management. The project provides 15 self-contained one-bedroom flats with communal facilities including a lounge access to computers and a laundry. There is 24-hour staff cover on site and active housing management.

8.4 Specialist services: The provision of appropriate care and social services, particularly detoxification facilities, at times when officers and rough sleepers need access eg at night.

13 September 2004