“…on to a money making gravy train by continuing to state that the numbers of rough sleepers is increasing…”

To be fair, Mr. Doughty didn’t just pick on the homeless, he also targeted homeless charities by suggesting Homeless Link (the sector’s representative body) was basically on to a money making gravy train by continuing to state that the numbers of rough sleepers is increasing and that homelessness generally is on the up.

The point you’re missing Mr. Doughty is that most homeless people are hidden. They are sofa-surfing, sleeping in woods, cemeteries, and derelict buildings or squatting. Of course squatting will soon be a criminal offense and this will further increase the prison population.

“Targeting vulnerable people and fueling hatred…”

But let’s not get sidetracked on what the Daily Mail might see as trivia. Targeting Homeless Link and the organisations set up to help and protect the homeless is one thing. Targeting vulnerable people and fueling hatred is quite another.

I find this attack an interesting social phenomenon. Is this tactic an attempt to divert a proportion of the blame for this downturn on the bankers just as they receive their bonuses? Instead labeling the organisations that are trying to maintain an inadequately funded safety net for the homeless and rough sleepers as liars?

“How can we in this sector protect the rights and dignity of the homeless if our trade bodies stand by and take this rubbish?”

However what is truly scary is that Homeless Link maintained a disturbing silence on the matter, taking a week to respond from the sector on this issue. How come? Well, partly because we are all trying to come to terms with the next financial year’s budgets that will not cover the rising demand (sorry Mr. Doughty there’s another “exaggeration”). How can we in this sector protect the rights and dignity of the homeless if our trade bodies stand by and take this rubbish?

“…this is not an exaggeration, but simply a consequence of a society that is fast becoming morally, as well financially, bankrupt!”

In order to let Mr. Doughty see for himself I would happily extend an invitation to accompany some members of our outreach team in Kent. He would see for himself that this is not an exaggeration, but simply a consequence of a society that is fast becoming morally, as well financially, bankrupt!

Much research has been carried out into routes into homelessness, one of the most well researched is the effect of poverty on the life chances of children living in or born into poor families. The government is very quick to say that the proposed cap of £26,000 per year will not make anyone homeless. Not at first perhaps, but the build-up of having to move and find new schools and possibly new employment opportunities are extra layers of risk that could and probably will push up homelessness in the future.

“The supported housing sector has grown out of a mixture of commitment, concern and various government initiatives since the late 70’s and 1980’s.”

What is really worrying is the deliberate destruction of the supported housing sector. Contrary to popular belief, certainly among some politicians and commissioners, this sector was not born in 2003 when the Supporting People programme went live. The supported housing sector has grown out of a mixture of commitment, concern and various government initiatives since the late 70’s and 1980’s. It has taken that long to finally reach a point where we (the housing sector) were reducing the problems encountered through repeat homelessness and breaking the cycle of poverty. However, that progress seems to be being thrown in the bin in the interests of fiscal necessity.

“…vulnerable people i.e. the single homeless are not owed any protection under the law.”

Why? Well in my view, it’s because this group of vulnerable people i.e. the single homeless are not owed any protection under the law. Surprising you might say given that the government and opposition has said that they will or would protect the vulnerable. Perhaps the people we work with, the destitute, mentally unwell, substance dependent and the offenders trying to make a new start are just not vulnerable enough, yet!

“…it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that the country will need this sector in order to protect those that fall victim to the reforms.”

So, given that the only sector that provides any kind of safety net for homeless people is being systematically dismantled through cuts and redirected funding, what then will the impact of severe welfare benefit reforms bring about? The House of Lords recently defeated the government on three parts of the proposals, but yet the reply came back that the changes will go ahead regardless of the advice to the contrary. Even if you agree that these changes need to happen in order to reduce the deficit, surely it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that the country will need this sector in order to protect those that fall victim to the reforms and to stop some poorer communities’ falling into chaos.

Charities like Porchlight rely heavily on public support and we have always held firm to the mantra of telling the truth to the public and to those in power. We work hard to communicate to the public that the numbers of homeless people with no legal right to be housed is increasing as is the “stock” of people who can literally drop onto the street – those that are labelled by that now hackneyed phrase “sofa-surfers”. We even publish quarterly statistics on our website, broken down by age and gender, which show the numbers of people coming to us for help.

Whilst I fully appreciate the point of Jeremy’s article, what concerns me is that London-centric articles about rough sleeping and homelessness nearly always muddy the water for us folks in the sticks who don’t often find “a foreign national living in appalling conditions in a garage…”

“They struggle to maintain their dignity and often numb the pain by turning to chemicals either in the form of alcohol and/or drugs.”

November’s rough sleeping figures for Kent, compiled via intelligence-led work, are the most accurate yet. Even so, they hide the true scale of the problem. They also hide the scale of the human tragedy. People who sleep rough or sofa-surf are fighting a constant battle with their families, friends, local authorities and themselves. They struggle to maintain their dignity and often numb the pain by turning to chemicals either in the form of alcohol and/or drugs. Many are also fighting a losing battle against deteriorating mental health, which if untreated will plunge them further into a cycle of despair and self-destruction.

Christmas is a time for family and friends and, so we are told, a time to reflect on the human condition and hopefully find it within ourselves to show compassion. Perhaps we should also take the time to realise that the differences between those that find themselves destitute, frightened and hopeless and those of us more fortunate are wafer thin.

“The demand for our services continues to rise and our income is reducing.”

The government has made it very clear that this time of austerity will now continue for some years yet. So I ask the question, that many people in my position are asking: If the cuts to grants and reductions in income have dropped so dramatically and are set to drop further, how will we continue to deliver life changing and in some case lifesaving services into the future? The demand for our services continues to rise and our income is reducing. The facts herald major changes in how services will be delivered. It’s strange however that the one thing that has not reduced is the bureaucracy that goes with these reduced grants!

“…remember that the people we exist to help have no other safety net.”

If I have one hope for the coming New Year, it is that the politicians and those who make the big decisions about funding, remember that the people we exist to help have no other safety net. If nothing else it makes economic sense to help those in most need. We all need to remember that we are a civilised society and that we will be judged by future generations in relation to how we helped the poor and homeless in the 21st century.

“…the politician and commissioner are not thinking logically?”

In my view these debates draw attention to the need for fellowship and compassion. Why? Because if some of the most articulate and intelligent people on the planet are espousing concern for the lonely, poor and excluded then surely those in power can imagine what life (or existence) must be like for the people whose lives we and organisations like us strive to improve. Or perhaps they can’t, or won’t because of the weight of the economic pressures placed upon them. Is this the reason that the politician and commissioner are not thinking logically?

“The community is split between the have and have-nots, both sides frightened of each other.”

At a time of unprecedented economic turmoil the social care sector is in crisis we are fast approaching the end of even the most basic of safety nets in Kent. When the rough sleeper service is reduced to a mere fraction of the capacity it has presently, where will the most vulnerable, marginalised and isolated turn for help? The answer in the governments’ words is the “community.” I don’t think so. The community is split between the have and have-nots, both sides frightened of each other. The have-nots are scared stiff about what those in power are going to do next to make their lives even harder, and the haves are petrified about the poor and destitute encroaching upon their urban safe havens.

“Surely compassion is a basic human instinct…”

Before we as a society can move forward we need to understand the nature of exclusion. It is not a self-inflicted or deserved condition as some suggest. Surely compassion is a basic human instinct, or is this commodity like oil and gold now too expensive to deliver?

“…is clear that we need to do more, a lot more. “

This organisation has worked for nearly 40 years to help people out of poverty and homelessness, but it is clear that we need to do more, a lot more. However, the “rules of engagement” are creating a paradox. The eligibility criteria for the funding that helps charities like Porchlight carry out their work seeks to disallow a number of key tasks. For example we are not allowed to accompany someone to their appointment with their GP, other specialists or indeed the Job Centre! If the main reason for an individual being in the position they are in is because they lack confidence and have never had the support they need, how on earth are they going to make the most of the support that we and organisations like us offer?

“…our sector does appear to have gone mad!”

I know I keep repeating myself, but our sector does appear to have gone mad! The reason, I believe, rests in the fact that commissioners and planners are frightened to talk. They don’t want to listen either. The fact that some of their decisions will drive up poverty and wreck the chances for positive change for many is apparently a price worth paying.

“…the anger, frustration and potential for further unrest increases.”

Research has shown that the welfare reforms will not achieve the outcomes forecast by the government in relation to Local Housing Allowance. The fact that landlords are likely to reduce their rents in line with LHA’s levels is contradicted by the now obvious fact that those who could afford to buy in the past will pay higher rents and those at the bottom will simply be move further down the scale, into poor quality accommodation. And so the anger, frustration and potential for further unrest increases.

“Not only does our work go on, but so does the unbelievable commitment and professionalism of our staff.”

As luck would have it, the traffic afforded me some time to look over my notes from various teams meetings and things seemed a little better. Not only does our work go on, but so does the unbelievable commitment and professionalism of our staff. The work they do with some extremely vulnerable and, at times, challenging people is testimony to their ability to weather this current storm. They do all this in the middle of QAF inspections, retendering and budget cuts which is truly inspiring.

“These decisions are incredibly difficult, I understand that, but surely honesty and transparency are vital…”

However, recent events in relation to media coverage about the cut to the rough sleepers’ service shows that some commissioners are not taking responsibility for the decisions they are making. These decisions are incredibly difficult, I understand that, but surely honesty and transparency are vital now so that organisations and service users know what they are facing in the coming months and years ahead. “Arguing” these issues out in the media spotlight is not the best way to arrive at a thought through strategic decision about how to provide (or not) for the most vulnerable in our society. Unfortunately this was the only way to get an admission that this service is being severely cut by some 75%.

“If we don’t stand up for the homeless and poor it seems that some parts of the establishment are happy to sacrifice services…”

I have also been in this sector long enough to know that by raising these issues we will have blotted our copy book, but there is a time I feel, when a duty of care to our services users and a duty to stay true to the charity’s constitution overrides politics and “playing the game”. If we don’t stand up for the homeless and poor it seems that some parts of the establishment are happy to sacrifice services for the sake of keeping the bureaucracy ticking over.

“…vulnerable people will have their lives ruined at the alter of procurement.”

I have been calling for open dialogue for nearly two years, but it seems this is not possible within the contract culture even though very vulnerable people will have their lives ruined at the alter of procurement. Surely common sense is out there somewhere?

“The response from the statutory sector is to raise the threshold, whereby a person in need will have to present with extremely complex needs before assistance is approved.”

This trend is set to worsen as the welfare reforms bite; more hostels close and outreach services are cut. Members of the public could be forgiven for questioning why at a time of crisis in relation to increasing levels of homelessness, resources are being cut disproportionally. The answer is because some of the most poor and vulnerable are not owed any statutory duty to be housed or supported. The response from social care services is not to “bang the drum” or look to cut deeper into back office services. The response from the statutory sector is to raise the threshold, whereby a person in need will have to present with extremely complex needs before assistance is approved. This of course means that more and more vulnerable and homeless people will be left to a point where their situation and conditions are so bad any intervention will cost three times as much as it would have done had help been available sooner. You just couldn’t make this stuff up!

“But seriously, surely someone with authority and common sense within Kent’s political structures will wake up and see the potential damage these decisions are having…”

Porchlight and I hope other providers in Kent and across the region will continue to put forward the case for their service users; however the odds are stacked against us. Then again our service users have had to battle against the odds for most of their lives. But seriously, surely someone with authority and common sense within Kent’s political structures will wake up and see the potential damage these decisions are having on the lives of homeless people and the county at large.

“The systems and training put in place are now bearing fruit.”

 

The other sad but apparently inescapable fact, lies in the outcomes being achieved by close collaborative working with our front line staff and service users. The systems and training put in place are now bearing fruit. Many more people are in employment and/or education which, apart from a supportive family, are the main routes out of homelessness and poverty. Why sad? Because the cuts to funding are likely to reduce the capacity of organisations like Porchlight to achieve these results, which flies in the face of the governments “Big Society” idea.

“Let’s hope the government’s “Big Society” will have the power to overcome the gate keeping and narcissistic nature…”

 

Whilst on the subject of the “Big Society” I’m growing more than a little concerned that this project will have as much impact as the so called Compact, the vehicle whereby local and central government funds and supports the voluntary sector. This it has to be said, is a total damp squib. The Compact had its chance to prove its worth when the cuts to public expenditure were announced, but as many of us suspected it lacked any teeth so in reality was and is worthless. Let’s hope the government’s “Big Society” will have the power to overcome the gate keeping and narcissistic nature of past so-called inclusive community-based initiatives.

Why am I stating this? Simply because we are all being exercised by what is potentially a devastating decision by our major funder not to give an inflationary uplift for 2010/11. Yes we are part of the now firmly embedded contract culture, which this government worked hard to bring about and as such we are rightly accountable for the public money we receive to help people break the cycles of homelessness, poverty and social exclusion.

But surely if we are expected to behave and act as responsible charities and thereby “businesses” we must be allowed to plan strategically and be part of the overall planning of services. It is too easy to sound cynical and say that this is all about cost savings; in reality this decision if it goes ahead, will not save money. This is because we are all operating on costs based on 2006/07 pricing mechanisms and since we have had less than inflationary uplifts over the past several years any new providers coming into this “market” will need to inflate costs in order to provide a half decent service. The organisations that are currently delivering services are already stretched, but at least we are “market aware” and are constantly adjusting our plans to reduce costs where possible in order to mitigate the effects on front line services. The overall effect of cuts to budgets over the past five to six years has seen costs rise by between 30-40%. There is no way on this earth that our funding has increased by this much.

We are told of course that the recession is to blame and the inescapable fact is that we as a country are in a dire position in relation to our public finances. But why is it always the poorest, the most vulnerable and the most silent that take the brunt of continuous fiscal pressures?

Our service users don’t actually ask for much, only protection, dignity and choice. But how can their pleas be heard above the din of great public bodies stating the blindingly obvious, “the credit crunch got us into this mess”? The poorest in our society certainly didn’t create the mess; the wealthy and educated classes brought us to this point. However, it is the homeless and vulnerable who will pay the price if the next government wields the knife in the direction of homeless charities and Supporting People budgets.

I read somewhere that the way to judge a civilization is to look at the way it treats its most vulnerable members. If this is true, then we are failing increasing numbers of people. In the same week as bankers are taking multi-million pound bonuses and the Bank of England said we are in for a very tough time, the government insists that “we are all in this together”! I’m struggling with that to be honest.

“Ill thought out, rushed and contradictory policy announcements…”

Ill thought out, rushed and contradictory policy announcements are making it very difficult to plan and find our place in the “Big Society.” With cuts in grants, cuts to the housing benefit budget, changes to how social housing is allocated and funded and the DWP’s own report warning of reductions of available private rented sector properties, it is hard to see any good news. Demand is continuing to grow for our services and the possibility of further service reductions still looms large.

So why do I ask, is the government punishing innocent vulnerable people? “We’re not” the government say. They say they have made enough provision for local councils in Kent to continue to provide a safety net and carry on with ground breaking preventative work. They also say they have only cut the Supporting People budget by just over 11% nationally.

“…local politicians are being asked to make impossible choices…”

Why then is it being cut disproportionately? And why does government rhetoric not stand up at a local level? It’s because local politicians are being asked to make impossible choices between the deserving and undeserving poor. They are still required to deliver their statutory services as well maintain, as far a possible, front-line services. However, this is clearly not possible. If you were asked to choose between an elderly person and their need to have regular contact to prevent isolation and loneliness becoming their lot for the rest of their days, or a homeless person trying to make something of their life in order to prevent the waste of life that goes with worsening mental health, addiction and criminality, who would you choose?

Let’s hope that we can all discuss this and find ways to make services work and continue to cater for those less fortunate – the lonely, frightened and excluded people that are members of the same civilization as us.