Memorandum by Friary Drop-In Ltd (HOM
59)
This response covers only those areas about
which the Friary Drop-In has direct knowledge or experience. The
evidence offered suggests that, month by month, more homeless
persons are prevailing upon the services of this charity; that
direct access to housing is more restricted; that the provision
of affordable housing is not a priority for the local authority;
that the complexity of homelessness is often not appreciated;
that valuing the services of the voluntary sector and developing
partnership will strengthen local authority housing and homeless
strategies; that supporting especially vulnerable tenants is essential
and, where available, is effective; that prevention of homelessness
requires early and appropriate intervention and the confidence
of those receiving it.
1. THE OVERALL
LEVEL AND
THE NATURE
OF NEED
FOR HOUSING
FOR HOMELESS
PEOPLE
Demand for housing is increasing.
Direct access to housing is more restricted
particularly for people with special needs eg a history of or
enduring mental health or addiction issues.
Needs arises through family break up, release
from imprisonment, young people leaving Care, a history of indebtedness
leading to eviction, asylum applicants, people fleeing violence.
The need is always urgent, it is for affordable
housing, it is for housing near to support networks, family ties
or drop-in centres, and it is for good transport communications.
Whatever the policies being pursued the evidence
is of individuals and families continuing to be frustrated in
their attempt to find appropriate and secure housing. Those who
are not listed as high priority are especially disadvantaged.
2. THE ADEQUACY
OF INVESTMENT
IN HOUSING
FOR HOMELESS
PEOPLE AND
THE QUALITY
OF ACCOMMODATION
AVAILABLE TO
THEM
The evidence is of very modest targets for investment
in housing accessible by homeless persons. Within the local authority
there appears to be little acknowledgement of the degree of need.
The quality of available housing is generally
poor. It is provided largely by private landlords who show little
inclination to improve the properties occupied.
Housing associations are not sufficiently funded
to allow them to purchase and upgrade properties.
Pressure on local (Rushcliffe) housing provision
is regularly transferred to the neighbouring (Nottingham) City
Council.
We observe that poor quality of housing exacerbates
already poor mental health and quality of life and that the cost
of heating what is often badly insulated and aging housing adds
an extra burden to those reliant on benefits.
The offer of accommodation does not take into
account critical factors such as nearness to support systems for
vulnerable persons and their need to be located where they can
expect to be free of victimisation or anti-social behaviour.
3. WHETHER NON-HOUSING
SERVICES PROVIDED
FOR HOMELESS
PEOPLE ARE
ADEQUATE AND
ARE CO
-ORDINATED WITH
HOUSING PROVISION
Non-housing services are not adequate but constantly
aim to be. Elements of health, legal and benefits advice, debt
counselling, probation care and social (Drop-In or local centre)
facilities and agencies are in place from both statutory and voluntary
sectors but struggle to meet the demands upon time and resources.
The Supporting People initiative is observed to bring considerable
advantages to particularly vulnerable tenants and their ability
to sustain tenancies. There is generally constructive cooperation
and coordination between agencies but the voluntary sector provision,
to which many homeless persons are drawn because seen as non-threatening
and free of statutory restrictions, requires greater professional
recognition and true integration in local authority housing and
homeless strategies.
4. WHETHER PUBLIC
AGENCIES ARE
EFFECTIVE IN
PREVENTING PEOPLE
BECOMING HOMELESS
Prevention of homelessness is complex and depends
upon the opportunity for intelligent and appropriate intervention.
It is essential that early warning signs of failure to maintain
a tenancy be not overlooked so that, for example, the accumulation
of debt or the breakdown of health or family relationships receives
attention before further crisis is reached. Where there is family
breakdown, courts are not obliged to protect the interests of
the remaining lone parent whose only alternative to the family
home may be a sequence of temporary accommodation. Particular
and peculiar circumstances characterise homelessness including
a person's limited abilities or failure simply to meet society's
expectations of responsible actions. The best efforts of public
agencies sometimes meet with resistance or lack of cooperation
simply because they signify authority and imply compliance with
it in the homeless person's logic about their situation.
Rev Duncan Wilson
| 
