18. Memorandum submitted by Homeless
Link
Homeless Link is the national body representing
the homelessness sector in England and Wales to Government. Its
500 members include advice agencies; housing associations; hostels;
day centres; mental health and drug services; local authorities;
mediation services—the full range of voluntary sector organisations
involved in supporting homeless people.
Anti-social Behaviour strategies impact on the
lives of homeless people in a number of ways.
1. BEGGING
Not all or even most homeless people beg and
not all beggars are homeless people. However homeless people who
beg are likely to come into contact with the implementation of
ASB strategies. These will include ASBOs issued against persistent
beggars and other initiatives, such as those adopted by Anti Begging
Trailblazer authorities.
Studies reveal that the vast majority of people
engaged in begging have a class A drug dependency (O Baker, Druglink
Sept/Oct 2002). There has been an increase in the use of ASBOs
for people who beg and those using street based drugs markets.
It is absolutely understandable that residents and local authorities
wish to reduce the potential annoyance of street begging. However,
we submit that punitive interventions, if used without a determined
and comprehensive complementary programme of support, have the
effect of displacing begging and related activity to other areas.
Our member organisations based beyond the boundaries of local
authorities where such an approach is used, report displaced homeless
people moving cross boundary, often to cities or towns where fewer
homeless support services are available. This can be exacerbated
if ASBOs focus not on requiring an end to behaviour ie begging,
but on denying a person access to a geographical area, which may
well be the location for agencies (such as day centres) who are
providing a structured programme of support to address this behaviour.
To be successful, a determined approach to reducing
begging has to be linked to readily available drug treatment services.
NTA statistics (NTA 2004) show that waiting times for treatment
are falling. We welcome this reduction. However in many parts
of the UK there are still lengthy waiting times for treatment.
Drug users need to be able to access treatment when they are ready
and motivated for change. Drug-using homeless people with multiple
needs lead chaotic lives. Waiting times of a few days, never mind
many weeks, are likely to result in a loss of motivation and are
counter productive. More than half of our members report that
the homeless people they care for find it difficult to access
drug and alcohol services.
CJIP has improved access to services across
most areas but substitute prescribing remains a difficulty. National
Audit Office statistics show that the success rate for DTTOs is
28% in 2003, although it is recognised that people may need several
attempts before they are successful. We are concerned however,
that giving priority for treatment services to those who are involved
with criminal activity could effectively discriminate against
those who are not involved.
Relatively few RSLs or voluntary sector accommodation
providers house active drug users. If they do, there is usually
a stipulation that they must participate in a methadone reduction
programme. However it is hard to access such programmes. Less
than half of UK GPs will prescribe methadone.
2. TENANCIES
When people who have been homeless are offered
a tenancy it is usually a major step forward for them. They may
have led a life that has taken them in and out of hostels and
shelters before they have been able to settle, receive appropriate
support and be ready for a more settled existence. Often a substantial
investment of time and resources has succeeded in getting them
ready for this step. Many of our members provide pre-tenancy preparation
programmes and training.
It is unlikely that the preparation will have
succeeded in eliminating all behaviour that might be regarded
as anti-social. Formerly homeless people need skills in managing
budgets, paying rent and other bills, managing relationships with
neighbours and social networks etc. The availability of Tenancy
Sustainment Teams and floating support over a sustained period
can make all the difference to success or failure.
No one would suggest that any tenant should
have the opportunity to behave aggressively or violently towards
their neighbours. However, it is often the case that support for
formerly homeless people is more limited or short term than required.
If the result is lower-level anti-social behaviour, the option
of reinstating support should be the first choice as an alternative
to punitive action. This would have a higher chance of preserving
the benefits of earlier interventions and succeeding in integrating
the resident into the community. The alternative can result in
the person ending up back on the streets, with the personal, economic
and social costs associated with that.
3. HOMELESS PEOPLE
AS VICTIMS
Our members have noted that it is not uncommon
for tenants who were formerly homeless to be "befriended"
by people who are involved in drug supply or the sex industry
who then effectively "hi-jack their tenancies." This
often results in the loss of a tenancy and a return to homelessness
for the individual while the perpetrators move on to "befriend"
another vulnerable tenant. This presents a serious challenge to
task of supporting formerly homeless people and helping them to
sustain tenancies. It results in the objectionable behaviour remaining
in the same area although the specific location will change. We
have been working closely with our members to gather evidence
of this practice and to share good practice in tackling it. It
continues to be a matter of concern.
Vulnerable and homeless people and those who
beg can often be the victims of anti-social behaviour and crime,
although the media tends to focus on them as perpetrators. The
enforcement agencies need to consider how they can protect these
vulnerable people who suffer stigma and exclusion and can be seen
as fair game for abuse or even violent attack by an anti-social
minority.
In conclusion, we consider that there needs
to be a thorough piece of research into the impact of Anti-social
Behaviour strategies on the exclusion of homeless people and previously
homeless people. Pending the outcome of this, caution needs to
be exercised in the use of these strategies without a comprehensive
and complementary provision of support services for homeless people.
15 September 2004
| 
