Agenda item

Derek Benson, Chairman of the Worcestershire Adults Safeguarding Board, explained that the Review of Rough Sleeping and had been published late last year. Brendan Clifford was the independent author of the report. Other areas around the country had also completed similar reviews. The review had looked at the multi-agency responses to rough sleeping, the impact of physical and mental impairment on the risks of rough sleepers, legislation such as the Care Act 2014,  the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and housing legislation as well as other issues such as family situation, debt and self-neglect.

A stakeholder event had been held (prior to Covid) and good practice was recognised. Derek thanked the people within the County who were knowledgeable and committed to helping to support and safeguard rough sleepers.

There were no direct recommendations for the Health and Well-being Board but there was a role for its members. Lots of work was already being done by the WSAB and the Strategic Housing partnership but more needed to be done.  Some areas which the Board did need to consider included who ‘owned’ the issue of rough sleeping; how to integrate the work of small scale community groups into the whole system; reviewing arrangements for suicide prevention; the possibility of a nominated GP lead and learning from the Homeless patients pathway.

Members of the Board made various contributions:

·       The Strategic Housing Partnership was working on some areas of the recommendations and had received input from the WSAB, however issues around rough sleeping were systemic and were not just down to strategic housing.

·       The Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy was currently being reviewed at a district level but it could be brought back to the Health and Well-being Board and discussed by other partners.

·       Over the past year the Homelessness task group had worked to make system wide improvements and issues was being fed into the ICS by Paula Furnival and work was being done with the leaders of the Acute Trust, Health and Care Trust and the CCG but more was needed.

·       Comments were made that the report was quite dense and academic in tone which made it difficult for Councillors or the public to engage with but it was recognised as a good piece of work.

·       Members discussed where they felt accountability lay. They believed that the Health and Well-being Board had strategic oversight and should discharge its duties by instructing the Adults Safeguarding Board to oversee the response to the report. However, the learning needed to be taken forward to ensure Worcestershire was not in the same situation again.

·       Partners needed to consider how services were planned to deal with the complex issues such as substance misuse, mental health issues, adverse childhood experiences and access to safe housing and to prevent individuals ending up as rough sleepers.

·       It was pointed out that more transparency was needed so all the different groups were aware of the work being done; Healthwatch agreed to help with that. Also, more regular reports should be received by the Health and Well-being Board.

·       It was an important issue for District Councils and Worcester City was considered a centre of excellence for dealing with homelessness and there Rough Sleeping was usually considered the responsibility of the Safer Communities Board or the Police.

·       With regard to the issue of who was the single point of leadership or whether there could be a ‘Lead Member for Rough Sleeping’ the Chairman reiterated that he felt it was everyone’s responsibility. District Councils had statutory responsibility for housing but everyone needed to work together to stop the problem occurring in future.

·       The ‘Everyone In’ policy had been hugely beneficial and it showed what could be done; it had been well organised by public health. It was recognised that there were many organisations who offered support to rough sleepers but there needed to be an alliance approach between the ‘state’ and voluntary organisations so that everyone worked together towards the same aim. Worcester Cares had been organised within Worcester City and was an approach that could be adopted in other districts.

·       It was agreed that further conversations were required and that wider issues of substance misuse, mental health, adverse childhood experiences and other issues were all important to helping with tackling rough sleeping and would be looked at through the Health and Well-being Board priorities.

RESOLVED that The Health and Well-being Board:

a)     Considered the recommendations made in the attached Thematic Safeguarding Adults Review which were of relevance to their strategic oversight;

b)     Delegated to the Worcestershire Safeguarding Adults Board the role of responding to the recommendations in the Rough Sleepers Safeguarding Adults Review; and

c)     Agreed that, going forward, Partners would have more detailed conversations regarding planning services to proactively minimise the chance of people ending up as rough sleepers.