Rough sleeping reduction targets are a struggle for charities
Charities are struggling to meet their rough sleeping reduction targets under a £5m payment by results scheme to tackle homelessness in London.
The social impact bond works with 831 entrenched rough sleepers in the capital, which see homelessness charities paid on outcomes such a reduced rough sleeping, sustained accommodation and less visits to hospital, reports Inside Housing.
On Tuesday the department for communities and local government published an evaluation of the scheme and said both charities had struggled to meet their quarterly reduction in rough sleeping targets.
“Although performance for both providers can be seen to have improved throughout year one, both reported a series of challenges in meeting their targets,” the DCLG’s report said.
Many have said the report was not an “appropriate measure of success”.
‘In their view a single incidence of rough sleeping does not mean that considerable success has not been made with the client,’ the report said.
‘It is not uncommon that clients may spend the occasional night rough sleeping, and this may be due to a range of reasons… several interviewees felt that the measure should be based on a statistical trend rather than individual rough sleeping incidences.’
The report did find that the charities were successful in moving clients to stable accommodation and achieving sustained employment outcomes.
When the SIB was first launched in November 2012, former housing minister Mark Prisk said: “By paying them by results the government can ensure the best value for money, and we can help find the services that really do transform lives for the better.”
Introduction The National Statement of Expectations for Supported Housing (NSE) was finally published on 20 October 2020, five years after the 2015 Comprehensive Spending Review suggested regulatory and oversight changes were needed, although in 2018 the government >>>
Responding to the DWP Consultation: Housing Benefit Reform - Supported Housing
"It was well-run, in a good location, and very useful. I've only one suggestion; as the session went on it would perhaps have been useful for bullet points of general agreement about what should be in the sector response to be displayed and added to as the session went on, maybe on a flip chart. Regarding your response paper, I particularly like the answer you give to question 9. In fact the general: "if it ain't broke don't fix it" response could be pushed harder."
M.P. - Adref Ltd