Scottish Government

Main Findings

• The evaluation found statistical and qualitative evidence that the RSI programme had successfully produced tangible reductions in the need to sleep rough across the country.
• While there is evidence that the need to sleep rough has been reduced, there is also evidence that new individuals continue to join the population who might potentially sleep rough, demonstrating an ongoing need for services.
• Local authority respondents reported that RSI had enhanced services within the major cities and had quite often created specific services for the first time in rural and smaller urban areas.
• Local authority respondents often saw RSI as the first stage in a mainstreaming of rough sleeper services within homelessness strategies. The cumulative effect of the introduction of RSI, homelessness strategies, health and homelessness action plans and Supporting People was often seen as significant in reducing levels of rough sleeping in their areas.
• Service providers generally shared the positive views of local authority respondents about RSI. They saw it as facilitating the development of effective service responses for people sleeping rough and as acting as something of a catalyst in encouraging wider joint working.
• Service providers and local authority respondents saw some limitations in the effectiveness of RSI. Some groups were difficult to reach, such as a small number of people with multiple needs and challenging behaviour. Poor access to certain services, such as drug rehabilitation, and problems with housing supply, were also seen as diminishing service effectiveness.
• Service users were generally positive about the RSI funded services. Some reported difficulties in accessing suitable housing and certain services, particularly drug rehabilitation.

Introduction

The RSI was launched in 1997 in response to evidence of increasing levels of rough sleeping across the country. The programme was initially aimed at reducing levels of rough sleeping, following the broad model established by the RSI programme in England in 1990. In 1999, the programme was given a new target to end the need to sleep rough in Scotland by 2003.

A final evaluation of the Rough Sleepers Initiative (RSI) programme was undertaken by the Centre for Housing Policy, at the University of York, during the Autumn of 2004 and the Spring of 2005.

Methods

The evaluation involved a critical review and analysis of existing research and statistical evidence, interviews with local authority officers responsible for RSI, national level interviews with individuals responsible for the development and delivery of RSI and interviews with a sample of service providers as well as former, current and potential rough sleepers.

A critical view of existing research and monitoring

Much of the existing research on rough sleeping in Scotland is qualitative and has been conducted on a small scale. Some of this work was not always as thorough and methodologically robust as it might have been.

However, some Scottish research is robust and there have been some good quality qualitative studies and a small number of good quality surveys.

Monitoring of rough sleeping

The following datasets were reviewed by the evaluation:

• the data collected by George Street Research (GSR), monitoring the target of ending the need to sleep rough in Scotland (between May 2001 and October 2003);
• the data collected by individual RSI projects participating in the National Rough Sleeping Initiative Core Data collection led by Glasgow Homelessness Network (GHN) (between July 2000 and March 2004).

The GSR monitoring took place between 2001 and 2003. It was based on three bi-annual surveys of projects and services working with people sleeping rough across the country. The monitoring found that individuals sleeping rough fell from 500 in May 2001 to 328 in October 2003. As in all survey methods, there is a margin for error in the approach adopted by the GSR work. In part, the potential for error is related to the focus on projects, in that people sleeping rough who approached those projects during the survey weeks were counted, but any rough sleepers who did not use those services were not recorded. Geographical mobility among people sleeping rough was also not accurately recorded. However, there is considerable evidence to support the conclusion that the GSR monitoring provided a reasonably robust indicator of the progress in achieving the target of RSI that no-one need sleep rough in Scotland.

When the original RSI was extended into a second phase, it was decided to introduce a common monitoring system across the projects that were being supported by the programme. This dataset provides extensive demographic information on a large number of current, former and potential rough sleepers and is managed by GHN.

The GHN data provide information showing high geographical mobility among people sleeping rough in some areas of the country, such as Edinburgh, but less evidence of such mobility elsewhere. They also show that 'new' rough sleepers are presenting to services at a low, but fairly steady rate, suggesting an ongoing need for service provision aimed at this group. GHN is currently less successful at providing outcome measures on service effectiveness than it is at providing demographic information on people sleeping rough.

The evaluation also examined the HL1 data collected on homelessness presentations by local authorities. Again, these data suggested small numbers of 'new' rough sleepers continue to appear across the country.

The three datasets suggest that the rough sleeping population remains predominantly White, male and in early middle age. Both qualitative and quantitative information suggest that this group remain characterised by having support needs in addition to housing needs.

The effectiveness of RSI

Local authority representatives in cities reported that their services had become more comprehensive and were able to specialise as a result of RSI funding, while those in smaller authorities reported that they were able to develop services for people sleeping rough for the first time. A majority took the view that RSI had placed the needs of people sleeping rough within the political mainstream at national level and, in most instances, at local level.

Among local authority respondents and service providers, RSI was seen as a catalyst for increased joint working and joint planning and as contributing to the development of strategic planning in respect of all forms of homelessness.

Reductions in rough sleeping were associated with the direct impacts of RSI and with the mainstreaming of RSI funded services into local authority homelessness strategies, the introduction of Supporting People and its associated planning and the introduction of health and homelessness action plans.

Both local authority respondents and service providers viewed the flexibility within RSI funding as making an important contribution to developing specific services for people sleeping rough and also thought there were benefits associated with having an identified funding stream for rough sleepers, which helped keep them and their needs on the agenda.

Service users had varied perspectives on the impacts of RSI. While these respondents were not able to comment on the specifics of the programme, they could in many instances remember what services were like before RSI arrived and what the impact of RSI had been. Overall, while they also identified some limits and problems, service users praised the RSI funded services.

For the local authority respondents and service providers, the effectiveness of RSI was limited in two main ways. The first was the wider social and economic context in which services were working. In most localities, difficulties in accessing suitable affordable housing were seen as an important limitation on service effectiveness. In some instances, shortages were linked to highly pressured housing markets, in others to the residualisation of parts of the social rented sector.

The second limitation of RSI was that three groups within the population of people who sleep rough were difficult to reach. The first of these groups were people sleeping rough who were characterised by multiple needs and challenging behaviour, who were difficult to engage with because of their characteristics and the tendency of some individuals to be highly mobile. Outside Glasgow, this group were felt to be very small in number.

The second group were those individuals who might be described as very precariously accommodated. These included those people who were moving repeatedly from one relative or friend to another, who might sleep rough if any of these arrangements broke down, but who, for the most part were keeping a roof over their head through informal arrangements. The third group were those individuals and households who suddenly became homeless and had no idea where to go for assistance, meaning that they spent a short amount of time sleeping rough prior to finding a service or presenting as homeless to a local authority. Members of this third group were not viewed as being likely to sleep rough for a sustained period or to experience recurrent rough sleeping.

Service users raised issues about the availability of services and appropriate accommodation. For drug users, the major issue in their lives was what they saw as the lack of support and detoxification services to help them end their dependency, particularly for those using opiates. Problems in accessing mental health services were also reported by a few service users. Service users also reported a lack of suitable, affordable housing and, in a few instances, difficulties in accessing supported housing services.

The mainstreaming of RSI

The evaluation showed that the process of mainstreaming RSI services within strategic planning was well underway across the country. Alongside integration at strategic level, rough sleeper services have been brought into closer and closer relationships with other homelessness services. An examination of RSI funding shows that, in most instances, the distinction between an 'RSI funded service' and other homelessness services has broken down. While isolated examples of solely RSI funded services exist, almost all services in receipt of RSI funds are also in receipt of Supporting People funds, often at a higher level than their RSI grants.

The Future of RSI

Most local authority respondents and service providers were of the view that a flexible funding source suitable for funding services for people sleeping rough would continue to be important. Many respondents reported that if funding ceased it was not clear what the future of some services working with rough sleepers might be.

Many respondents took the view that rough sleeper services should be fully integrated within wider homelessness strategies, and that RSI funding should be absorbed as part of a single homelessness grant; a process that was seen as largely complete in Edinburgh. At the same time, these respondents emphasised the view that there should continue to be a specific focus on rough sleepers within local outcome agreements linked to local homelessness strategies.