1 / 13

Pathways into Multiple Exclusion Homelessness in the UK

Pathways into Multiple Exclusion Homelessness in the UK. Feedback Seminar. Dr Sarah Johnsen. Background. ‘Multiple Exclusion Homelessness’ Research Initiative – 4 projects Need for better understanding of ‘deep social exclusion’ and ‘multiple and complex needs’

jered
Download Presentation

Pathways into Multiple Exclusion Homelessness in the UK

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pathways into Multiple Exclusion Homelessness in the UK Feedback Seminar Dr Sarah Johnsen

  2. Background • ‘Multiple Exclusion Homelessness’ Research Initiative – 4 projects • Need for better understanding of ‘deep social exclusion’ and ‘multiple and complex needs’ • Relatively small group but very vulnerable and costly • Role of homelessness 2

  3. Our Study • Nature and causes of MEH in UK • Multi-stage quantitative survey of people experiencing MEH in seven UK cities: Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Glasgow, Leeds and Westminster (London) • University team + TNS BMRB + a wide range of voluntary sector partners; crucial role played by 7 ‘local co-ordinators’ • Academic papers, feedback seminars, briefing papers, and national launch (12 September 2011) 3

  4. Definition of MEH People have experienced MEH if they have been ‘homeless’ (including experience of temporary/unsuitable accommodation as well as sleeping rough) andhave also experienced at least one of the following: • ‘institutional care’:prison, local authority care, mental health hospitals/wards • ‘substance misuse’: drug, alcohol, solvent or gas misuse • 'street culture activities’: begging, street drinking, 'survival' shoplifting or street-based sex work 4

  5. Methods Identified all relevant ‘low threshold services’ – randomly selected 6 services in each location (= 39 in total, including Leeds pilot) ‘Census questionnaire’ survey of all service users over a 2 week ‘time window’ = 1,286 short questionnaires returned ‘Extended interview’ survey with service users who had experienced MEH = 452 interviews completed 5

  6. Main Findings from Census Survey - 1

  7. Main Findings from Census Survey - 2 • Westminster (London) different from the other 6 cities - migrants; less complex needs • Other cities broadly similar (although Birmingham often at ‘lower end’ of frequency range amongst these) 7

  8. Extended Interview Survey: age and gender profile 8

  9. Clusters of Experiences 1. ‘Mainly homelessness’ (24%) = least complex; male + over 35; migrants; Westminster 2. ‘Homelessness + MH’ (28%) = moderate complexity; disproportionately female 3.‘Homelessness, MH + victimisation’ (9%) = much more complex; suicide attempts, self-harm; victim of violence; LA care and prison; younger than average 4. ‘Homelessness + street drinking’ (14%) = moderate complexity; high levels of rough sleeping + street culture; male + over 35; Glasgow 5. ‘Homelessness + hard drugs’ (25%) = most complex; very high across all domains, especially substance misuse and street culture; most in their 30s 9

  10. More Complex • Male • Middle years (esp. 30s) • Childhood physical abuse and neglect • Childhood hunger • Childhood homelessness • Parents with drug, alcohol, DV or MH problems • Poor school experiences (truancy, bullying, exclusion) • On benefits for most of adult life 10

  11. Less Complex • Female • Younger (under 20) and older (over 50) • Migrants (but not so true of A10) • Westminster • In steady work for most of adult life 11

  12. Individual Sequences Four broad phases in individual pathways: Solvents etc., leaving home/care, drugs/alcohol, leaving armed forces MH problems, survival shoplifting, survival prostitution, victim of violence, sofa-surfing, prison, redundancy Sleeping rough, begging, injecting drug use, admitted to hospital with MH issue, divorce, bankruptcy Hostels/TA etc., applying as homeless, eviction, repossession, death of a partner Generally consistent across all five clusters 12

  13. Implications • Services should be alert to a very high prevalence of childhood trauma and extreme forms of distress in adulthood • ‘Clusters’ of experience may be helpful in planning services – but not a substitute for individual needs assessments • Relative consistency of pathways – can be used to inform prevention • ‘Visible’ homelessness is generally a ‘late’ sign of MEH - schools, drugs/alcohol agencies, criminal justice system, etc. must be central to prevention efforts • Does not diminish importance of tackling homelessness – should not conflate ‘pathways in’ with ‘pathways out’ • Men in 30s/early 40s – specific needs associated with the most extreme forms of MEH • Migrants need bespoke services 13

More Related