Agenda item

Dan Kennedy, Corporate Director of Central Services, introduced the item and invited colleagues from P3 and Thames Reach to share their experiences and perspectives on homelessness.

Thames Reach

Sophie Murray, Lead Manager of the Hillingdon Thames Reach Outreach Team, addressed the Committee Members confirming that Thames Reach worked closely with Council Housing officers.

Ms Murray outlined the team’s work with the Rough Sleeper team within Hillingdon Council, their response to support rough sleepers, and their collaboration with agencies such as ARCH (Addiction, Recovery, Community Hillingdon Service), RAMP (Refugee Asylum and Migration Policy project) and mental health teams. The challenges faced, including a lack of options for accommodation and the high support needs of many rough sleepers, were highlighted. 

P3

Zara Street (Operations Manager of the Hillingdon Thames Reach Outreach Team) Laura Lawson and Nicola Tallon were in attendance representing P3. Members heard that P3 provided support to young people and families. The Committee was informed that P3 ran four services from the Navigator Centre, including a housing advice service, a floating support service for looked after children and care experienced young people, a well-being project for early intervention prevention, and move-on properties. They also ran a family advice service for families with a child aged 5 and under. P3 highlighted their previous work with the Council and their current collaborations with various partners within the Borough. The challenges faced in moving young people on to appropriate accommodation were highlighted.  

P3 discussed their supported accommodation services, which included four units for 16 to 25-year-olds who had previously been in care. They highlighted the challenges of moving young people on to appropriate accommodation due to the limited supply of affordable move-on housing, making it difficult to find suitable accommodation for these individuals. 

It was noted that everyone involved in providing accommodation was currently facing difficulties. The high cost of private sector rents and the Council’s struggle to find private landlords willing to accept homeless individuals were identified as significant issues. The consensus was that all parties were currently stuck with limited resources and options in addressing homelessness. 

Members sought further clarification regarding the improvements needed in the Housing Department to enhance the experience for both workers and clients. In response, the emphasis was placed on the importance of communication. It was noted that case work changes within the housing department sometimes occurred without the knowledge of partnership workers. The need for a platform where everyone could communicate was highlighted, given the numerous services within the Borough and the housing linked to them. 

The communication with the robust sleeper pathway was praised, but it was pointed out that some people P3 worked with ended up sleeping rough because their applications with the Council’s Homelessness Prevention Team had found they were not in priority need for housing assistance.

Members heard that, when people approached the Housing Department at the Civic Centre, it was extremely challenging for officers due to the high level of homelessness demand presenting to the Council. P3 reported that, when they contacted homelessness prevention officers, they did not always receive a timely response. It was felt that more time and patience should be spent with people, especially those with language barriers, trauma, and PTSD, to help them understand their situation better. The hope was expressed that the risk of rough sleeping could be reduced or at least prevented differently. It was confirmed that P3 had previously provided the Housing Team at the Council with a list of suggestions as to how the service could be improved.

In respect of families with young children, Members enquired how a balance could be achieved between building trust with parents while addressing the needs of the young person. Members also sought clarity as to how officers worked with local residents to alleviate concerns about housing placements. In response to this, P3 emphasised the importance of communication, regular support visits, and ensuring appropriate accommodation for those transitioning from homelessness. They confirmed that their role primarily involved providing advice and guidance rather than directly offering housing.

In response to further questions from the Committee it was acknowledged that some homeless people did not want to be helped. In such cases it was important to be patient, build up trust and proceed very slowly. Asylum seekers and immigration cases were often reluctant to engage with services due to concerns regarding their immigration status. With this entrenched cohort of people, Thames Reach sometimes linked up with other charities such as St Mungo’s.

In terms of communication, P3 confirmed that they had an excellent relationship with partners such as Thames Reach, and the YMCA but would like to receive a quicker response from the Council. Thames Reach could not make referrals to the YMCA but worked closely with P3 and Trinity. Communication with the Council was a lengthy process.

Members heard that, following a referral to the Council, P3 continued to work with individuals from start to finish especially if the case was complex. They kept cases open and checked in on a monthly basis to ensure individuals had everything they needed. Thames Reach advised Members that, once a referral had been made to the Council, they continued to assist individuals in maintaining their tenancies by offering support with finances, mental health, grants etc. Wrap around care was provided until the cases were ready to be closed.

It was confirmed that communication between the Council and P3 had been much easier when P3 had been co-located in the Civic Centre. This was no longer the case and all decisions in relation to offers of accommodation now had to be referred to the Head of Service. It was felt that there was sometimes a lack of consistency in information being given by officers.

Members enquired whether all partners had access to a central database system. It was reported that Thames Reach had their own database for rough sleepers but could not access Hillingdon’s systems. It was commented by P3 that Hillingdon’s previous case work database was not very user-friendly (the case work system changed on 1^st April). Direct access to a central portal which linked all the records together would be welcomed by P3 but may not work for Thames Reach. P3 suggested that there should be one point of contact at the Council to deal with P3 and young people. There were a number of agency staff at present - improved structure and better communication was suggested. Thames Reach did not feel a central database was necessary provided that housing officers answered their requests for information in a timely way. It was reported that monthly catch-up meetings at the Civic Centre would be helpful.

In response to further questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that Trinity had low, medium and high-level support units. It was reported that Trinity struggled to purchase stock and the YMCA only had one low support block. Members heard that Thames Reach could refer to P3 and the Council but not to the YMCA. Most of the people Thames Reach worked with were high need, but the vast majority (approximately 90%) were deemed non-priority although they often had alcohol or drug issues.

Members sought further clarification regarding the suggestions sent to the Council by P3. It was confirmed that these related to caseload, supervision, holistic approach etc. Many of the suggestions had been taken on board within the current improvement plan for the service.  P3’s delivery model had changed to incorporate some of them e.g. floating support and partnership working.

Members sought the opinion of P3 regarding the banding systems used by the Council. In response to this, P3 confirmed that they did not use the Locata system. It was recognised that it was a constant battle for staff in lettings to keep abreast of all the current information. Each case had to be assessed carefully hence time frames were long.

In response to further questions, it was reported that many of the housing officers at the Council were good at their jobs but there was a lack of consistency. The use of agency staff was unsettling for both staff and residents. Young people found it somewhat of a lottery and reported that staff often failed to call them back. P3 confirmed that, when a staff member left the Council, they usually received a bounce back email providing an alternative contact. However, it was felt that partners should be informed of staff changes in advance rather than finding out this way. Councillors suggested that a Venn diagram of staff should be prepared for professional partners and updated regularly. There should be a quality handover of cases when staff members left the Council to ensure continuity.

The Corporate Director of Central Services acknowledged that the service needed to continue to improve. An improvement plan incorporating a workforce plan and recruitment campaign was being actively implemented and he would welcome the opportunity to present the plan and an update to Members at a future meeting of the Select Committee. It was recognised that some agency staff did an excellent job and where under performance was identified this was being addressed. The Corporate Director of Central Services confirmed that he would spend some time in the contact centre on a regular basis to listen to residents’ experience. He informed Members that the case work system for homeless case work had been changed in April. Demand on the service was relentless with 140 new cases received in the previous week; an increase of approximately 30% on the previous year. Many of those approaching the Council for help had never been homeless before but had become homeless having been evicted from privately rental properties. Members heard that the infrastructure was in place, but improvements were underway.

RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted the evidence heard at the witness session and sought clarification as necessary in the context of its review of Homelessness and the Customer Journey in Hillingdon.