Future Services Consultation 2024 - Homelessness Support Services (Social Inclusion) Proposal

Background

From 8 January to 31 March 2024, Hampshire County Council invited residents, partners, and stakeholders to provide their views on options to change and reduce some local services to help the Authority address a £132 million budget shortfall faced by April 2025.

One of the options proposed was to withdraw all County Council funding for Homelessness Support Services (around £2 million) on 31 March 2025.

These services help people over the age of 18 who are homeless or at risk of homelessness to address the issues that may have contributed to their current homelessness or may be putting them at risk of homelessness. This includes support to:

• find and keep accommodation
• understand the rights and responsibilities of their tenancy agreement
• apply for welfare benefits
• manage debt and budget effectively
• gain access to support to manage substance misuse
• improve physical and mental health and wellbeing

Who responded to the proposal?

• Over 4,300 responses were received to the proposal on Homelessness Support Services, 4,239 from individuals, 63 from organisations, and a further 32 from elected representatives.
• Just under half of the responses from organisations were from charities, voluntary organisations or local community groups, and a further 13 were from local authorities (including Town Councils).
• The responses from organisations reflected the same themes seen from wider respondents, although in many instances the organisations commented in more technical depth about services currently provided, or about responsibilities.
• Respondents were invited to add further comments to support their views on the proposals via open-ended questions. These allowed people to expand on impacts they felt the proposed changes would cause and suggest alternative courses of action.
• Of all those responding to this particular proposal, just over two fifths (1,861 people) chose to provide open-ended comments
• In addition, 49 respondents commented on the Homeless Support Services proposal via a further, general, open-ended question for any other feedback at the end of the consultation.
• A further 36 unstructured responses (letters / emails) were also received which included comments relating specifically to the Homelessness Support Services proposal:
• 25 were from organisations
• 5 were from democratically elected representatives
• 6 were from individuals

These responses typically reflected the same themes as the responses received via the structured response form, but again, those from organisations often contained more technical detail about services and responsibilities.

• In order to help capture the views of young people about the consultation, members of the Hampshire Youth Forum (aged between 11 and 18) were invited to consider the proposals and attend a discussion group to share their feedback.

Consultation response: service users

• The vast majority of individuals responding to this specific proposal were neither present or past users of Homelessness Support Services, and most who declared an income were earning more than £20,000 (of which, around half were earning more than £60,000).
• However, responses included:
• 105 from current service users
• 101 from past service users
• A further 885 from people choosing not to specify whether they were, or had been, service users
• 382 people earning less than £20,000 (about a tenth of all respondents), and of these, around a third with annual income of less than £10,000
• A total of 1,323 responses were received from respondents in the five districts where Homelessness Support Services are delivered through Stage One supported accommodation.

Consultation response: other respondent characteristics

• Notably more females (2,275) responded than did males (1,527) or those of non-binary gender (24).
• Almost half the responses from individuals (1,857) were from those aged 45 to 64, with approximately a further quarter (1,191) coming from those aged 65 or over. A fifth of respondents (889) were under the age of 45, of whom just 62 were aged under 25.
• The majority of respondents were not affected by health or disability, but 562 were limited in their activities a little by health or disability, and a further 285 were limited a lot.
• 329 individuals from ethnic minority groups responded – about a third of these were from white backgrounds other than English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, British. The remainder was made up of smaller groups from other ethnic backgrounds, most notably Asian or Asian British groups, Mixed or multiple ethnic groups, or those describing themselves as of ‘other ethnic backgrounds’.

Please note this was an open consultation the respondents were self-selecting so do not provide a representative sample of the total Hampshire population.

Levels of agreement with this proposal

There were high levels of disagreement with the proposal, with 74% of overall responses against the withdrawal of funding, compared to 17% in favour, and 9% who neither agreed nor disagreed. Strength of feeling on the topic was also high – of those disagreeing, two thirds did so strongly.

In context of the full range of the 27 proposals included in the Future Services Consultation, this one received the fourth most opposition.

Certain groups of people disagreed with the proposed funding withdrawal more strongly than others, in particular:

• Current service users (93% disagree strongly, 97% overall disagreement).
• Organisations (81% disagree strongly, 91% overall disagreement).
• Those aged under 25 (80% disagree strongly, 95% overall disagreement)
• The small group of people of non-binary gender (71% disagree strongly, 79% overall disagreement).
• Previous users of Homelessness Support services (64% disagree strongly, 85% overall disagreement).
• Those with an annual household income of below £10,000 (64% disagree strongly, 86% overall disagreement).

It is interesting to note some additional patterns in the responses:

• Strong opposition to the proposal was lower the older the respondent.
• There were no notable differences in response between those with different broad income levels (up to £20,000, £20,000-£60,000 and £60,000 and above) – however, those with a household income of less than £10,000 per annum were more likely to be opposed overall.
• There was little difference between those with health limitations and those without, although those with greater limitations were slightly more opposed.
• There were no notable differences in overall disagreement levels between the five districts who have supported Stage One accommodation which is contributed to by Hampshire County Council and those which do not – although individuals in Fareham were notably more likely than average to be strongly opposed.
• There was lower disagreement (although still overall disagreement) from those living in very rural settings (defined as rural hamlets and isolated dwellings).

Strength of feeling about this proposal

As well as allowing people to comment on the potential impact of this proposal, or make suggestions for alternative courses of action, the open-ended comments also allowed people to make general comments about the proposal or about the current context around homelessness.

About a third of all respondents (1,576) made general comments in this way, many of them voicing their disagreement with the proposed changes and often expressing their strength of feeling about them. Of these:

• Three fifths (60%) expressed a general opinion that the proposed changes should not be made, or that the existing services were needed.
• This was stated by 20% as a relatively straightforward observation, but in a further 13% of cases a much stronger sentiment was expressed – that the proposal was shocking, shameful or unacceptable.
• There was also a firm view expressed by a quarter (25%) of those responding with general comments that homeless people are vulnerable and need support.
• Additional comments raised questions as to where people in need should go and expressed the proposal as a poor reflection on a civilised, wealthy society.

“There's one word for this. Callous. I would like to know what other means you're going to put into place to help those who are homeless, or at risk of being made so. Or is it they have to fend for themselves, or depend on charity? If we don't look after the most vulnerable in society, then we can't call ourselves civilised."

• These views did not differ to any notable extent across respondent groups, regardless of demographic or service use.

Views on the context surrounding homelessness

A large number of the open-ended general comments also related to the current context around homelessness and responsibilities towards the situation. These contextual views paint a very clear picture of the high levels of concern that exists about homelessness, even without any further impact of the proposed withdrawal of the Homelessness Support Services.

• Two fifths of those making general comments (40%) mentioned the current situation around homelessness, predominantly saying that it was already a big, or growing issue, or that current provision of affordable housing, or services to support the homeless, was insufficient.
• Other contextual factors were also mentioned such as the current economic climate, the fact that homelessness can happen to anyone, and the complex needs / factors often associated with homelessness.

• There was also a sense from a quarter of those making comments (25%) that there is a duty to support people who are homeless. It was not however clear whether this responsibility was being laid at the foot of society, or of Hampshire County Council in particular. Comments reflected an overall duty to support those who are homeless or vulnerable, a moral responsibility (even if not a statutory one), the need for compassion, and the rights of everyone to have a roof over their heads. There were also specific comments on the responsibility to support people who are British, including ex-servicemen – this was often linked to suggestions around focusing funding on these people rather than on those seeking asylum here.

• In terms of particular groups of respondents, organisations were more likely than average to comment on the homelessness context, as were women and those aged under 25. Service users however tended not to comment on responsibilities but focused far more on impacts to themselves / other service users.

Impact related to protected characteristics

People responding to the proposed changes were most likely to indicate that the withdrawal of the funding would impact people because of poverty (60%), disability (40%) or age (35%), although other characteristics were mentioned at lower levels.

There were some differences depending on the respondent’s characteristics themselves:

• Those who had health or disability issues that impacted their day-to-day activities were more likely to identify impact on those with disability.
• LGBT respondents were generally more likely to cite impact against a range of characteristics – most highly poverty, disability and age, but also areas such as race, gender reassignment, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
• Respondents from ethnic minority groups were more likely to identify impacts on a basis of race and sex.
• Current service users were notably less likely than average to identify impacts on a wide range of characteristics, but slightly more likely to identify poverty as a characteristic impacted.
• However, ex-service users identified a much wider range of impacts on people with protected characteristics than average in addition to poverty, age, and disability.

863 people made open ended comments about potential impacts of the proposal. Adverse impact on those with protected or other specific characteristics was mentioned by about a third (32%) of these: predominantly about impact on those who are vulnerable (23%), but also those disadvantaged due to factors such as poverty, poor mental health or disability.

• Organisations were particularly likely to identify negative potential impact on these groups.

Additional impacts identified via the comments

The open-ended comments on impacts also highlighted four further key concerns:

1. Impact on service users (52%):

• Key concern was that the proposed withdrawal of the Homelessness Support Services would increase number of people sleeping on the streets, and make the homelessness situation in Hampshire worse (29%).

• There were further specific comments about risk of increase in mental health issues and suicide, increase in deaths, increase in substance misuse and increase in crime or anti-social behaviour.
• Some organisations were concerned that existing services (who are already under pressure) would struggle to meet the resulting increase in need in these areas, and one organisation cited a specific case study to illustrate this point.
• Concerns were most strongly expressed by current service users – almost all of whom (94%) identified impacts to service users.

• Potential impact on service users was further evidenced through several case studies cited by Two Saints and Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC).
• Organisations, those aged under 25, those earning less than £10,000, and those living in the Fareham district were also more likely than average to identify impacts to service users.

2. Impact on services (36%)

• Concerns were raised about increased reliance and pressure on a range of charities, voluntary and other services - not simply those who would be most directly affected by the withdrawal of funding.
• Most mentioned was knock-on impact on the NHS, medical and emergency services.
• This was followed by police and crime services, other social services, charities / those involved in supporting the homeless, and impact on other local authorities.
• There was also low level mention of the impacts on staff in working in these organisations (especially those working most directly with homeless individuals) – burnout, stress and turnover.
• Concerns about impact on the range of services were raised by all groups of respondents, but most notably by organisations, of whom almost three quarters (74%) commented in this area.

• There were specific concerns voiced from organisations (via both the response form, and the unstructured responses by letter / email) about specific homelessness services who would be forced to reduce or withdraw their services as a result of the proposed changes.
• Whilst recognising that the County Council only funds support services and not the housing costs in accommodation settings, there were fears from those close to service provision that accommodation would also be forced to close should the proposed withdrawal of funds go ahead.

• A couple of organisations pointed out that the impact on services would be exacerbated by the parallel withdrawal of other central Government grants currently used to provide support for homelessness (e.g. Homelessness Prevention Grant, Rough Sleepers Initiative).
• However, in a very few instances there was suggestion that service impact may be limited as they have already adapted to previous changes in funding:

3. Longer term impact and costs (33%)

In addition to placing pressure on services, there were concerns that the proposed withdrawal of funding was a false economy which did not take the longer-term perspective into account:

• At best, it was seen as merely transferring costs from HCC to other organisations or services
• However, there was concern that longer term costs across all organisations (e.g. NHS, criminal justice system – not just providers of support for people experiencing homelessness) would not only outweigh the savings, but that overall costs would actually increase due to greater homelessness and associated needs
• This fear of short-termism was expressed especially by organisations.
• Southampton University in particular evidenced their views with extensive analysis on the economic impacts of homelessness
• There was also some sense that costs to prevent homelessness would outweigh those of providing support.
• This was linked to recognition from a few of the economic benefits to society of enabling someone otherwise at risk of homelessness to maintain or find employment.

4. Impact on non-service users (13%)

A final, smaller, area of impacts identified was around negative impact on local communities, town and city centres, and local businesses.

These four concerns were echoed by those sending unstructured responses to this proposal, and the Hampshire Youth Forum, who also expressed a concern that increased homelessness would impact the economy due to fewer people being in work.

What do people believe we should be doing differently?

In addition to the sentiment that we should be preventing homelessness, and spending more rather than less on support provision, around a fifth of respondents (442) made suggestions on what we should do instead of withdrawing the funding.

• These suggestions covered a range of actions, with no clear single course of action particularly widely suggested. Ideas included working with other organisations to provide funding or manage the services, reviewing how the money was spent to increase efficiency, increasing pressure on central Government for funding, increasing taxes, and reducing rather than completely withdrawing the funding.

• There were also specific suggestions around reviewing other HCC spend (e.g. salaries, other services) and reducing money spent on asylum seekers.

• There were also suggestions made around housing - typically broad views that we should improve availability of affordable housing, or utilise existing buildings differently:

The only group of respondents not making alternative suggestions were those who were current service users (whose responses tended to focus on impacts).

Organisations responding with suggestions were more likely than average to suggest review of the funding, and working jointly with other organisations to deliver efficient future services. Some also gave more detailed and specific suggestions, for example:

• Greater consideration of the timing of the proposed changes – to allow more transition time, exploration of alternative services / funding, and to align withdrawal of funds with the end of current service contracts

• A few references were made to the success of programmes such as Southampton University’s Homeless Peer Mentoring scheme, or of harnessing collaborative support from local businesses (e.g. those who allocate staff time to work on local community projects)
• Suggestions around creation / utilisation of multi-disciplinary teams to maximise technology-based interventions
• Introduction of a Critical Time Intervention Service for homeless presentations at Emergency Departments to reduce repeat presentations
• Several suggestions around conducting full health equity or needs and impact assessments prior to any next steps towards potential implementation of the proposal.
• Adopting a tiered response over to any potential implementation to reduce impact, as Kent County Council have done.

Feedback from the Hampshire Youth Forum also suggested that funding could be focused on the short-term critical necessities (such as food and water), but they did also acknowledge that homelessness requires longer-term funding as well. They felt that Homelessness support was more important than the Future Services Consultation proposal concerning library stock.

Specific expressions of interest:

No parties came forward with a specific offer of help to run Homelessness Support Services, or with alternative funding.

However, a number of organisations and elected representatives said they would be happy to discuss the proposal further, explore alternative options collaboratively, or work with us on any next steps. These include:

• A2Dominion (A2D)
• The Basingstoke Hindu Society
• Member of Parliament for West Hampshire – particular reference to supporting Two Saints
• NHS University Hospital Southampton
• NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board
• Southern NHS Foundation Trust
• Action Hampshire
• NHS Frimley Integrated Care Board / other partners in North East Hampshire involved in the ‘Partnerships at Place and Healthier Communities’ workstreams – specifically also mentioned willingness to contribute to any health and equality assessments being carried out

The minority in favour of the proposal

While the overall response to the proposal was negative, a minority of respondents (17%) agreed with the proposed withdrawal of the Homelessness Support Services.

• Support for the proposal (even if reluctant) stemmed from an acceptance that the service was not statutory, a sense that other organisations or charities were responsible for providing the services, an acceptance that cost savings needed to be made, and some low level of opinion that homelessness was a choice or that people should be responsible for helping themselves.

• It was notably less likely to be organisations or service users who agreed with the proposal.

Comments on the consultation

Some responses were received which questioned our assumptions around the numbers of people potentially impacted by this proposal, or which gave alternative estimates. Some were voiced as challenges, and some simply as alternative calculations, and details have been passed to the Adults Health and Care Directorate.

• Five structured responses:
• An individual respondent challenged the assumptions about number of service users impacted)
• Abri quote a different number of people who would be impacted
• Two Saints state a belief that the number of beds for people who are homeless is greater than we have quoted
• Winchester Beacon quote a much higher number of service users who would be impacted than we have referenced
• Another individual volunteering in supported accommodation identifies additional bed spaces which would be impacted if the proposal is adopted
• Two unstructured responses:
• Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council also expressed concern that our calculations are incorrect, and that our claims around impact on the accommodation side of accommodation based services were misleading
• Southampton University estimate that our estimates are inaccurate, quoting figures from Two Saints to suggest numbers of people impacted would be much higher

A number of organisations raised concerns about the proposal that were linked to our ability to fulfil our statutory obligations, or which were counter to our stated values or strategic aims:

• Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council express views that the impact of the proposal would result in failure to meet our prevent duties under the Care Act 2014
• Rushmoor District Council Council suggest this proposal risks undermining the principles set out in HCC’s Medium Term Financial Strategy Update and Savings programme to 2025, and is against the stated aim within our Vision for Hampshire 2050 to prioritise reducing homelessness
• Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board (HIoW ICB) raise questions around how this proposal aligns with our values of ‘Working together’ and ‘Ambitious to improve’, and further raise concerns about the proposal’s impact on Care Act compliance. Additionally:
• They question whether the proposed withdrawal of services would impact on Human Rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights.
• They question whether any consequent increase in criminality as a result of the proposed service withdrawal would place us at risk of not meeting safeguarding obligations.
• NHS Frimley Integrated Care Board note the legal responsibility HCC has to act on and reduce health inequalities, also referring to our statement within our Vision for Hampshire 2050 regarding homelessness and commenting that our proposal to withdraw Homelessness Support Services could actually increase homelessness and exacerbate inequalities
• Southampton University points to local housing authority responsibilities under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, with a suggestion that HCC has a duty of prevention in this area which could be impacted by the proposal placing those in Stage One or Two accommodation at risk of homelessness
• Test Valley Borough Council flag that the proposal risks contradicting HCC’s Public Health Strategy 2023-2026 around health inequalities and ensuring services prioritise those whose health stands to benefit the most. They also flag that the proposed withdrawal of services could be counter to the Care Act 2014. They point out that Homelessness legislation does not place a statutory duty on Districts to provide accommodation for everyone experiencing homelessness or rough sleeping, so there is no alternative provision should social inclusion services be withdrawn. Finally, they observe that the proposal does not align with multiple areas of the HCC Vision for 2050 (deliver housing needs, reducing homelessness, employment, economic productivity and focus on minority groups and vulnerable communities).
• A2D recognise that HCC does not have statutory duties for homelessness accommodation, but flag our duty to provide adult social care.
• Inclusion cite that the hostels managed by Two Saints, Trinity, and A2D are vital in preventing breaches of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. They do not however directly state that HCC would be in breach of this if the proposal is adopted.
• Two Saints reference prevention responsibilities under the Care Act, pointing out that this is a tier two responsibility that includes Hampshire County Council, and stating that the removal of the funding would mean HCC is failing in its Care Act duties. They also quote HCC’s Public Health Strategy 2023-2026 regarding prioritisation of those whose health stands to benefit the most from intervention.
• The Winchester Beacon state that ceasing to fund Homelessness Support Services would contradict the 2014 Care Act, and our own Public Health Strategy 2023-2026 around inequalities / prioritisation of those whose health stands to benefit most from intervention. They further reference HCC’s strategic aims around people in Hampshire being able to lead safe, healthy and independent lives, and around strong, inclusive, resilient communities.
• Citizens Advice (Basingstoke) reference the Care Act in the context of HCC’s responsibility for care needs assessments.

Examples of quotes in relation to these concerns include:

Some organisational responses also suggested insufficient information was provided:

• Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust – specifically regarding lack of information on measures that would be implemented to achieve a suitably funded alternative approach
• Stop Domestic Abuse – specifically that the only example given of alternative funding was of that allocated for safe accommodation of victims of Domestic Abuse – they were ‘wholly opposed’ to this money being used for more general homelessness support
• Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council – specifically regarding ‘absent’ information on increased resource that could be needed as a result of the proposed changes
• Whitehill Town Council – simply ‘not enough information supplied’