1 / 10

Understanding Multiple Exclusion Homelessness in Glasgow

Understanding Multiple Exclusion Homelessness in Glasgow. A Presentation to Glasgow ’ s 18 th Annual Homelessness Conference, 24 th September 2013. The ‘ Sharp End ’ in Glasgow.

netis
Download Presentation

Understanding Multiple Exclusion Homelessness in Glasgow

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. Understanding Multiple Exclusion Homelessness in Glasgow A Presentation to Glasgow’s 18th Annual Homelessness Conference, 24th September 2013

  2. The ‘Sharp End’ in Glasgow • Endurance of complexity in Glasgow’s homeless population (Winter Night Shelter reports + GHN Quarterly Monitoring + new study) • Hostel closure programme (2003-2008) – very successful for ‘ring-fenced’ residents of JDH and PMH, but outcomes not as clear for ‘new presenters’ after hostel closure • 2010 study of nature and patterns of ‘multiple exclusion homelessness’ in the UK – Glasgow as the Scottish case study

  3. The MEH Study • Multi-stage, quantitative survey of people experiencing MEH in seven UK cities • People had experienced MEH if they had been homeless andhad also experienced at least one of the following: • institutional care; • substance misuse; and/or • ‘street culture’ activities(e.g. begging, street drinking)

  4. 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’ in Feb 2010 = 1,286 short questionnaires returned • ‘Extended interview’ survey with service users who had experienced MEH in Mar-May 2010 = 452 interviews completed

  5. Census Survey: Main Findings • Very high degree of overlap between the four ‘domains’ of deep social exclusion : 47% of service users had experienced all four • Homelessness particularly prevalent –widespread amongst those accessing ‘other’ types of services, e.g. drugs services • Westminster (London) different from the other 6 cities - migrants; less complex needs • Glasgow was similar to all of the other 6 cities

  6. Overlap Between Domains

  7. Extended Interviews: Prevalence of Key Experiences • Most prevalent - homelessness (75%+); MH problems (79%); alcohol problems (63%); street drinking (53%) • Medium prevalence – prison (46%); hard drugs (44%); divorce (44%); victim of violent crime (43%); survival shoplifting (38%); suicide attempts (38%); thrown out (36%); begged (32%); self-harming (30%); admitted to hospital because of a MH issue (29%); injected drugs (27%); eviction (25%) • Least prevalent – redundancy (23%); solvents etc. (23%); LA care (16%); sexual assault (14%); partner died (10%); sex work (10%); repossession (6%); bankruptcy (6%)

  8. Clusters of Experience 1. ‘Mainly homelessness’ (24%) = least complex (5 experiences); male + over 35; migrants; Westminster 2. ‘Homelessness + MH’(28%) = moderate complexity (9 experiences); disproportionately female 3. ‘Homelessness, MH + victimisation’ (9%) = much more complex (15 experiences); suicide attempts, self-harm; victim of violence; LA care and prison; younger than average 4. ‘Homelessness + street drinking’ (14%) = moderate complexity (11 experiences); high levels of rough sleeping + street culture; male + over 35; Glasgow 5. ‘Homelessness + hard drugs’ (25%) = most complex (16 experiences); very high across all domains, especially substance misuse and street culture; most in their 30s

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

  10. Questions to consider • Are services sufficiently alert to the very high prevalence of extreme trauma in this population – need for ‘psychologically-informed services’? • Might the experiential ‘clusters’ be helpful in tailoring services to different groups? • Can the relative consistency of ‘pathways in’ to MEH be used to inform prevention? • How do we encourage schools, drugs/alcohol agencies, criminal justice system, etc. to be central to these prevention efforts? • Is there enough recognition of the specific needs of men in their 30s facing the most extreme forms of MEH? • Do we have the right bespoke services for migrants? www.sbe.hw.ac.uk/research/ihurer/homelessness-social-exclusion/multiple-exclusion-homelessness.htm

More Related