Homelessness issues and funding discussion.

[Starmill]

I certainly agree with that. The "workhouse" idea would include all that kind of support. Think of something similar to a meals-included student residence (which exist in a sort of similar way to support students in their first steps of living away from home), though for safety reasons it may be better that it is small studios rather than bedrooms with shared kitchens.

And yes, I agree prevention would be better than cure. Actually paying benefits promptly would be a start, and realising that withholding them is not a sensible sanction.

Most of the support for basic services currently comes from the charity sector too, rather than being provided by the government, which means it is exceptionally patchy. Even things that seem basic that one might already be entitled to for free from the state such as a dental check are very difficult for someone who's homeless to actually access without some assistance.

 

[Meerkat]

Compliance is an issue with no easy answer, not least how do you punish those who do not comply when they have nothing to take away or deny them of nor a fixed address?

You take away their freedom and their booze.

Right now if successive governments had acted responsibly there would be no issue beyond changes to ensure social distancing inside and limiting the time this group are away from the accommodation

That totally avoids the issue of those who won’t comply with treatment programmes

It shouldn't be a crime to be homeless. People who are homeless find themselves in their own individual situations for different reasons

Burglars/muggers etc could all be given the same excuse. None of us has the right to cause detriment to society just because of our circumstances- that’s how society works.

If you're homeless and experiencing other issues, either as a cause or symptom of homelessness, you deserve some genuine assistance to deal with the root cause of homelessness.

And what if you refuse that assistance?

 

[Starmill]

And what if you refuse that assistance?

Is there any evidence of this happening? Perhaps we might look at actually trying it first? In general, in this country, if you're already homeless you will need to find a charity to help you with those things, which means that results vary.

 

[Starmill]

That totally avoids the issue of those who won’t comply with treatment programmes

Actually, providing a more secure market for employment, and a stronger welfare programme for those who fall out of it would avoid most of the problems with this that we already see. But I didn't notice many people arguing for different economic policy or stronger social protection, out of those who are making complaints about these people now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Actually, providing a more secure market for employment, and a stronger welfare programme for those who fall out of it would avoid most of the problems with this that we already see. But I didn't notice many people arguing for different economic policy or stronger social protection, out of those who are making complaints about these people now.

I have long been in favour of higher taxation to pay for a stronger welfare state.

 

[Meerkat]

Is there any evidence of this happening? Perhaps we might look at actually trying it first? In general, in this country, if you're already homeless you will need to find a charity to help you with those things, which means that results vary.

There has been plenty of evidence of help being refused. There are after all lots of addicts of all sorts that refuse to do anything about it.

Actually, providing a more secure market for employment, and a stronger welfare programme for those who fall out of it would avoid most of the problems with this that we already see. But I didn't notice many people arguing for different economic policy or stronger social protection, out of those who are making complaints about these people now.

Those things might reduce it, they won’t stop it. Alcohol and substance abuse is hardly exclusive to the poor.

 

[ainsworth74]

And criminalising and locking them up will help? It'll hide it I suppose but what happens when they're released? Out again for a few weeks and then locked up again? Or just banish them from the city/town centres so they just wander around the suburbs instead? Doesn't that just move the problem?

 

[Meerkat]

And criminalising and locking them up will help? It'll hide it I suppose but what happens when they're released? Out again for a few weeks and then locked up again? Or just banish them from the city/town centres so they just wander around the suburbs instead? Doesn't that just move the problem?

We all agree they need treatment. The disagreement is whether they should be forced to take it.

 

[bramling]

And criminalising and locking them up will help? It'll hide it I suppose but what happens when they're released? Out again for a few weeks and then locked up again? Or just banish them from the city/town centres so they just wander around the suburbs instead? Doesn't that just move the problem?

This is the problem, it’s very difficult to find an approach which isn’t, as you say, either a revolving door or just moving the problem to a different patch. The only way to break that cycle is probably to provide meaningful assistance but with a really nasty big stick if this assistance isn’t embraced. Even finding that big stick is a problem for a group who in many cases probably wouldn’t be too bothered about prison. Then there’s all sorts of ethical questions on top of all this. The same approach could quite rationally be applied to travellers too, for example.

 

[Starmill]

There has been plenty of evidence of help being refused.

Sounding off that there's evidence while not actually having presented any at all is a great diversionary tactic. Go get em.

Of course you can continue to enjoy making your argument up because it pleases you too.

 

[Starmill]

This is the problem, it’s very difficult to find an approach which isn’t, as you say, either a revolving door or just moving the problem to a different patch.

Well it's not, is it? Some actual national government-funded services would be useful, rather than just relying on very thin local authority work and local charities. Perhaps after several years if that's still not working there might be something further to consider. But at the moment it's mainly just complaining that people don't want to pay.

 

[Meerkat]

Sounding off that there's evidence while not actually having presented any at all is a great diversionary tactic. Go get em.

Of course you can continue to enjoy making your argument up because it pleases you too.

You are denying The basic facts of addiction?

 

[Starmill]

You are denying The basic facts of addiction?

I'm denying your ridiculous claim.

 

[Darandio]

I'm denying your ridiculous claim.

That people refuse help? Have you ever watched anything on Channel 5?

I'm not saying it's a trustworthy or reliable source, but they can't all be actors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sounding off that there's evidence while not actually having presented any at all is a great diversionary tactic. Go get em.

Of course you can continue to enjoy making your argument up because it pleases you too.

I have posted such evidence above.

 

[Tetchytyke]

As some of you know, I work in this sector (remotely, now, for a charity in the UK) and, quite frankly, if the answer were easy it would have been done by now. It's easy to pontificate from a nice house and a well paid job.

The causes of homelessness are rarely straightforward, but tend to revolve around poverty. Even substance misuse is only a real problem if you're poor, as any trust fund gakhead will show you.

The solutions are equally complicated. Homeless hostels are, by and large, horrible places, even the honest ones. Not all are honest; one hostel for women in Sunderland forced residents to work as prostitutes, as a report by the Tyneside Cyrenians in 2005 showed. I'm not naive enough to think anything much has changed.

Finally, an anecdote to think about from when I worked for a homelessness charity. Female addict lost her family because of her addiction, and had care needs that partly caused her addiction and partly stemmed from it. DAT wouldn't treat without the care needs being stabilised, social services wouldn't sort out the care needs till she was sober. Went on for months, back and forth, I couldn't get either side to budge. She killed herself. And yes, that news got to me.

 

[Starmill]

I have posted such evidence above.

You posted an article from a semi-reputable source that claimed that in one incident, people were either asked to leave, or just left, a hotel.

I've spent several posts and many words explaining that that's entirely a different matter, and others made contributions to the point. Perhaps you missed them?

 

[Starmill]

Have you ever watched anything on Channel 5?

Ta for contributing

 

[Starmill]

Finally, an anecdote to think about from when I worked for a homelessness charity. Female addict lost her family because of her addiction, and had care needs that partly caused her addiction and partly stemmed from it. DAT wouldn't treat without the care needs being stabilised, social services wouldn't sort out the care needs till she was sober. Went on for months, back and forth, I couldn't get either side to budge. She killed herself. And yes, that news got to me.

Given the structures that are in place to meet the needs of the people who fall on hard times, or who face challenges in living basic life which most people don't, it's not hard to see how one might get to a position where one feels that there is simply no way out from their situation other than death. Some people's lives really are intolerable. But set against that we've got the word of 'someone on Channel 5', so must be OK.

 

[ainsworth74]

That people refuse help? Have you ever watched anything on Channel 5?

I'm not saying it's a trustworthy or reliable source, but they can't all be actors.

I have posted such evidence above.

Yes and why would anyone honestly expect different considering the complete mishmash of service provision currently available? People keep putting the cart before the horse and acting as if we have well funded, well designed and widespread services and if only these people would engage they be helped. If wishing made it so!

The reality on the ground is that we have collection of small charities and underfunded local authorities trying to do something in some areas and not others. And sometimes successfully and sometimes not depending on the resources they actually have.

Plus where this provision does exist it is beholden to local politics and fickle independent funders.

Where I live there's been an excellent project delivered by a charity which has had had some brilliant successes with exactly the sort of people we're talking about in this thread. It was funded by the local authority and after an election we have a new mayor who decided that it should be delivered internally. So a good project that was working replaced by one of unknown shape or scope. Brilliant.

Even if you're not beholden to local politics the reality is that independent funders are often fickle. They'll fund a project for either a short period of time or maybe they'll fund it for years and then decide one year out of the blue that they're done now thanks for your effort.

Plus even when services exist you'll run into the sorts of problems that @Tetchytyke describes.

So, rather than just pretending that the problem is that people don't want to engage or change why don't we confront the realty that there is no proper scheme to actually help the majority of these people and that maybe the first step is to actually properly fund such provision rather than hope that over stretched local authorities and the turbulent charity sector can do the job by themselves.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, rather than just pretending that the problem is that people don't want to engage or change why don't we confront the realty that there is no proper scheme to actually help the majority of these people and that maybe the first step is to actually properly fund such provision rather than hope that over stretched local authorities and the turbulent charity sector can do the job by themselves.

I don't disagree (I'd be quite happy giving them say 5 or 10 years' rent free social housing with supervision to get into work, say, I think that would be good and fair use of my taxes). But that will still leave some.

 

[ainsworth74]

But that will still leave some.

So maybe we worry about them, the small minority, at the end of the process rather than the beginning?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't disagree (I'd be quite happy giving them say 5 or 10 years' rent free social housing with supervision to get into work, say, I think that would be good and fair use of my taxes). But that will still leave some.

My job, and that of my entire team, is funded on an annual basis. Every February we have to hope that the next year's government funding will come through and they won't attach too many strings to it. Needless to say, redundancy notices in my sector are common.

I love my job and, because of my wife's wages, can live with the uncertainty. But my staff, especially the younger ones, struggle more with it.

5 years funding, with no strings? Fat chance.

The work required for those with substance misuse issues are two-fold. The first bit is getting the headspace to get clean. That's the easy bit. As anyone who's ever done a diet knows, losing the weight is the easy bit. Keeping it off is the hard bit. And it's the same with substance misuse.

People who've been using for years will move in social circles with other people who've been using for years. You take them away, get them clean, well done. Then what? They go home, their mates are all still using, and guess what happens next.

The work needed to rebuild someone's entire social world in a more healthy way is both intensive and expensive. Time and money are the two things that we don't have in the charitable sector. Even the good funders, like the Gregg's Foundation and the Big Lottery Fund want to see results now, not in five years.

 

[GusB]

No, but being wilfully homeless in the sense of sleeping on city streets is not something I think that should be legal. I don't overly care if someone wants to lead a nomadic life, wild camping in the mountains or whatever, but people sleeping on city streets causes no end of social issues as well as being one.

How do you define "wilfully"? Some individuals may feel safer living a life on the streets rather than being cooped up in a hostel, particularly if they're trying to escape addiction issues. What about those who have worked hard to try to kick their habit, but suddenly find themselves back in an environment where drug use and supply is rife?

The "workhouse" idea wouldn't be the same as Victorian slave labour, it would be a supervised combined supervised accommodation+food+work offering which would include counselling, medical treatment (including drug withdrawal) and training to allow movement into "real" society over a few years. If we accept that we can "section" people with mental health issues for their own protection, I'm not sure why this is any different - people who have been on the streets for years are usually suffering many mental issues, and just giving them a free flat won't solve that (as evidenced by the above article on them being kicked out of hotels). If it would I'd be all in favour, there aren't that many of them to make the cost prohibitive overall.

Hmm. Human rights. If they have mental health issues which pose a danger to themselves or others then the state already has the powers to section people. You're proposing an idea that essentially deprives people of their liberty until they accept help. What if they don't actually need help and are simply trying to live a lifestyle that doesn't fit in with what the rest of us deem to be acceptable?

I am also in favour of offering free tickets home for those who aren't from that city who want them. If I was stuck on the streets in a foreign country (or even a different city) and I had friends/family at home but couldn't get there, I would more than welcome someone paying me to go there. Why not? People really do take this one totally the wrong way and I really have an issue with the "outrage bus" being wheeled out over it as if it was some form of deportation.

What if you have to flee from where you come from? Coming from a fairly rural area, I can think of a few reasons why someone of my age might have fled from their home environments. And you propose to give them free tickets to return to the abuse from which they fled in the first place?

Most of the support for basic services currently comes from the charity sector too, rather than being provided by the government, which means it is exceptionally patchy. Even things that seem basic that one might already be entitled to for free from the state such as a dental check are very difficult for someone who's homeless to actually access without some assistance.

^^ This. Homeless support is patchy, isn't consistent across local government boundaries and is entirely reliant on the budget of the day. I've seen examples where a third sector provider has been doing a fairly decent job, but come the next round of funding the contract goes to another provider, or is brought in-house - thus undoing countless hours of work.

You take away their freedom and their booze.

No you bloody well don't. Depriving someone of their liberty is for a court to decide if the individual concerned has committed a crime which is serious enough to warrant incarceration. Depriving an alcoholic of their booze without clinical supervision can do serious harm.

As some of you know, I work in this sector (remotely, now, for a charity in the UK) and, quite frankly, if the answer were easy it would have been done by now. It's easy to pontificate from a nice house and a well paid job.

The causes of homelessness are rarely straightforward, but tend to revolve around poverty. Even substance misuse is only a real problem if you're poor, as any trust fund gakhead will show you.

The solutions are equally complicated. Homeless hostels are, by and large, horrible places, even the honest ones. Not all are honest; one hostel for women in Sunderland forced residents to work as prostitutes, as a report by the Tyneside Cyrenians in 2005 showed. I'm not naive enough to think anything much has changed.

Finally, an anecdote to think about from when I worked for a homelessness charity. Female addict lost her family because of her addiction, and had care needs that partly caused her addiction and partly stemmed from it. DAT wouldn't treat without the care needs being stabilised, social services wouldn't sort out the care needs till she was sober. Went on for months, back and forth, I couldn't get either side to budge. She killed herself. And yes, that news got to me.

Thank you for a proper explanation of how it is. Unfortunately some of the people who are proposing solutions in this thread have absolutely no idea. It's easy to have all the answers when your own life is going fairly well. It is possible to have a fairly crap start in life, pull yourself up and make the most of it. I commend those who manage to make a decent fist of it against the odds. It's also possible to find yourself in a situation where all the odds seem stacked against you and no matter how hard you try, or how optimistic you try to be about your future, you get beaten down time and time again. Sadly I know of too many people who've simply had enough and given up trying to fight the battle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How do you define "wilfully"? Some individuals may feel safer living a life on the streets rather than being cooped up in a hostel, particularly if they're trying to escape addiction issues. What about those who have worked hard to try to kick their habit, but suddenly find themselves back in an environment where drug use and supply is rife?

Like the streets of your average city, perhaps? Though if hostels are in that position there needs to be more security to ensure they are "clean".

Hmm. Human rights. If they have mental health issues which pose a danger to themselves or others then the state already has the powers to section people. You're proposing an idea that essentially deprives people of their liberty until they accept help. What if they don't actually need help and are simply trying to live a lifestyle that doesn't fit in with what the rest of us deem to be acceptable?

But we do do that and it is a necessary part of society.

What if I want to live a lifestyle of petty crime? Serious crime? To walk around with a tent and camp in peoples' urban gardens even if they don't want me to? Homelessness with begging in cities causes significant problems for everyone and I cannot see any reason why it should be allowed for people to choose that lifestyle. If you want to wander the countryside, kipping under hedges or in a small tent and living off a few veg nicked from farmer's fields you probably won't cause much impact (or even be noticed), but you can't suggest that people should be able to choose to live on city streets in a civilised society.

What if, at the moment, I don't want to social distance? Shouldn't I be able to live a lifestyle that doesn't fit in?

FWIW, my line on travellers is similar - if they chose properly out of the way places to camp, didn't commit crime (including tax evasion when doing work) and complied with the Country Code rather than leaving rubbish lying around I'd be happy for them - but they don't.

Your argument is basically akin to "we shouldn't have laws".

What if you have to flee from where you come from? Coming from a fairly rural area, I can think of a few reasons why someone of my age might have fled from their home environments. And you propose to give them free tickets to return to the abuse from which they fled in the first place?

In your rush to board the outrage bus you clearly did what most people do in response to this and didn't read what I said. Here it is again with highlighting to help. How can you possibly object to helping people to return to somewhere they do want to return to but can't? You even quoted it

I am also in favour of offering free tickets home for those who aren't from that city who want them. If I was stuck on the streets in a foreign country (or even a different city) and I had friends/family at home but couldn't get there, I would more than welcome someone paying me to go there. Why not? People really do take this one totally the wrong way and I really have an issue with the "outrage bus" being wheeled out over it as if it was some form of deportation.

 

[Meerkat]

What if they don't actually need help and are simply trying to live a lifestyle that doesn't fit in with what the rest of us deem to be acceptable?

Living in a way that is acceptable to most other people is basically what a society is. You appear to want to give them the benefits of a society (free assistance) without any of the costs.

Depriving someone of their liberty is for a court to decide if the individual concerned has committed a crime which is serious enough to warrant incarceration

wow - you really think we personally were going to sweep them off the streets into a cage? Of course a court would have to be involved - that’s how our law works. I propose just adding another ‘punishment’ option for the judges to use.

 

[Cowley]

We’ve moved the discussion into this section because it’s become a more general debate now.
It’s an interesting discussion but it’s also a subject that brings up some strong feelings. Bear that in mind please. Thanks folks.

 

[Tetchytyke]

FWIW, my line on travellers is similar - if they chose properly out of the way places to camp, didn't commit crime (including tax evasion when doing work) and complied with the Country Code rather than leaving rubbish lying around

Cash-in-hand work and leaving junk in a field are not traits particular to travellers, of course. Most farmyards I've ever been to have at least one rusting old Defender or tractor dumped in a corner somewhere.

Of course travellers who purchase land and try to establish a settlement legally find it very difficult. As soon as you stick in a planning permission application you get every stereotype you've just mentioned thrown about. Local authority traveller settlements were the first things to go with austerity.

So travellers are usually in a position where they have no access to legal ways of camping, and trespassing is used as another stick to beat them with. Again, it's easy to pontificate, but answers are harder to come across.

Not really relevant to a conversation on homelessness, but interesting that the same stereotypes get trundled out. It's easier to argue against stereotypes than the reality, which is that there are no easy answers.

Living in a way that is acceptable to most other people is basically what a society is. You appear to want to give them the benefits of a society (free assistance) without any of the costs.

If someone actively wants to live on the street, or chooses it in preference to hostels (which are, by and large, horrible places) what harm are they actually doing to anyone?

Specific answers, rather than generalised stereotypes about "drugs" or "crime", please.

Of course homeless people are significantly more likely to be a victim of crime, especially violent crime, rather than a perpetrator of crime.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cash-in-hand work and leaving junk in a field are not traits particular to travellers, of course. Most farmyards I've ever been to have at least one rusting old Defender or tractor dumped in a corner somewhere.

I'm not bothered about people dumping stuff on their own land unless it's a massive eyesore. Usually such things are well hidden.

So travellers are usually in a position where they have no access to legal ways of camping, and trespassing is used as another stick to beat them with. Again, it's easy to pontificate, but answers are harder to come across.

The answer is for them to stop dumping litter on public land (flytipping) and engaging in other petty crime. It happens every time here, pretty much. For instance, take their rubbish to the tip - MK tips do not check residency so they could quite happily do that. But they don't, they dump it.

If they comply with the Country Code and act in a way that does not intimidate other legitimate users of the space, e.g. loose dogs, then I would have no issue with them.

Not really relevant to a conversation on homelessness, but interesting that the same stereotypes get trundled out. It's easier to argue against stereotypes than the reality, which is that there are no easy answers.

It is categorically not a stereotype, it is from direct experience, they are very often parked around here, and when they are the petty crime goes up. They also seem totally unable to comply with social distancing, a matter I've already reported to the Police as I saw 50 odd of them stood close to each other chatting on the street. Not acceptable.

If someone actively wants to live on the street, or chooses it in preference to hostels (which are, by and large, horrible places) what harm are they actually doing to anyone?

They make the place untidy, engage in petty crime (e.g. begging, alcohol consumption in areas where it is prohibited, littering) and often create a drug or drink problem.

As with travellers, I would be less bothered if they put their tent up late at night, slept the night then packed it away - just like the principles of wild camping - "leave no trace". Indeed, if anyone catches you wild camping you're doing it wrong - the same should apply here.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I would be less bothered if they put their tent up late at night, slept the night then packed it away

Sleeping in plain sight on a street is dangerous. It is not uncommon for rough sleepers on streets to be urinated on or even worse.

As a result, many rough sleepers will be in more secluded areas, for their own safety. A significant minority hide in plain sight, London's night bus network is good for that, not to mention churchyards, loading bays, etc.

So now we've got one stereotype out of the way...

They make the place untidy, engage in petty crime (e.g. begging, alcohol consumption in areas where it is prohibited, littering) and often create a drug or drink problem.

Many homeless are not beggars, many beggars are not homeless. The same applies to street drinkers, users of Spice, etc, etc.

I don't have a problem with police dispersing people who are being aggressively anti-social, that is what public order offences are for. But it is a side issue. Aggressive beggars, tissue sellers, etc, are by and large not rough sleepers. Some are in hostel accommodation- most hostels boot everyone out during the day- but many more are not homeless at all.

So that leaves us with "making the place untidy".

The fact that you consider a rough sleeper to be "untidy" is not doing you, or anyone else, harm.

I think it is extremely disappointing that in 2020 people are still seriously advocating locking people up in forced labour because they are "untidy".

Out of sight, out of mind?