Of Homeless Hubs, Haven for Hope, Hostels and Hackney Wick.

Not the official 2012 London Olympics logos

(Note: I draw the reader’s attention to the disclaimer  on this website – i.e. I do not seek to represent the views or opinions of Doorway Wiltshire Ltd.)

2012. The year in which London will host the games of the XXX Olympiad – the Summer Olympics. And also the year stated in November 2008 by Margaret Beckett, then Housing Minister, as the target date for ending street homelessness in the UK. Those two facts are coincidental. Or not, if one is inclined to cynicism, as I am. Although one fact applies to London, and one to the UK, it is stated in the Evening Standard article linked to above that half of the rough sleepers in the UK are in Central London. And anyway, it often seems that to the movers and shakers, London IS the UK.  I have talked about the ‘cleansing the streets’ aspects of major world sporting events before, for example in a comment on Homeless Girl’s blog in August, specifically mentioning the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics. Since then we have had the Delhi Commonwealth Games, although they seem to have caused homelessness rather than hidden it. There is a lot of prestige at stake, and large corporate sponsors to keep happy. A sanitised, freshly-painted façade must be shown to the world. Not like the scene shown in this picture taken in Hackney Wick in 2006, very near the site of the new Olympic Stadium in Stratford.

Homeless man in Hackney Wick 2006

Predictably there has been some dissent to perceived subjugation of London to the Olympics.

Graffiti in London (partly censored)

As it happens, the deadline for ending rough sleeping in London has now been officially accepted to have moved from  by 2012 to by the end of 2012′ (a quote from a spokesman for Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, in ‘The Pavement’ 30th September , so not in time for the start of the Olympics in July anyway.

There had already been debate about what constitutes ‘ending rough sleeping’ (and of course a totally separate debate about the definition of, and the counting and recording of, rough sleepers – see for example, this article from ‘The Pavement’ in October).

The organisation Homeless Link stated on its website:

“We are campaigning for an end to rough sleeping ‘once and for all’ in this country by the time the Olympics come to Britain in 2012.  Often homelessness is swept out of sight for the Olympics, this time we believe it can be different”

They listed ‘Ten Key Challenges’ including:

“End rough sleeping by 2012 in each local authority area and nationally.”

“Give everyone an alternative to a night on the streets, without having to move out of their home area.”

 “Back hostels and day centres that change lives.”

 “Support people to leave homelessness with a strong web of commissioned accommodation, employment, health and advice services personalised to their needs.”

“Move people on from hostels as soon as they are ready. Commit to moving on the 45% of residents that are ready to go but have no suitable housing option.”

The Mayor of London’s spokesman, previously quoted, stated:

“By ending rough sleeping, we mean that by the end of 2012, no one will live on the streets of London, and no individual arriving on the streets will sleep out for a second night.”

Whatever the motivations for the 2012 timescale, an approach which helps the rough sleepers to come off  the streets into appropriate and supported accommodation, addressing the often multi-factorial reasons that they are on the streets in the first place, is surely to be commended. The important thing being that it should not just be an exercise in sweeping the streets ‘clean’ of people and running them out of town, or ‘containing’ them for the duration of the Olympics, and letting them out again afterwards.

And at this point we have a new sighting (new to this country, anyway) – the ‘homeless hub’:

“A rough sleeping hub is likely to be set up in London to organise housing and support for homeless people, as part of a drive to end the problem by 2012.

The hub, which will be run by London charities in a location yet to be decided, will act as a centre for rough sleepers to be taken to after they have been spotted on the streets. They will only sleep there if no alternatives can be found and for no longer than three nights. A 24-hour hotline is also planned, which members of the public will be able to call if they see someone sleeping on the streets. Outreach teams will then head out and engage with the homeless person reported.”

No mention there of what might happen to rough sleepers if they refuse to go into this ‘hub’ – how much coercion may be used, how many of the existing structures which support people who are rough sleeping  might be forced to close down. No mention of how personalised the service may be, to avoid a ‘one size fits all’ approach.

There is a precedent across the Atlantic, in San Antonio, Texas –  the ‘Haven for Hope’(I am intrigued by the ‘Community Court’ and the ‘Transformational Services’….)

There was some disquiet expressed when the facility was mooted, and this disquiet has not gone away since it opened – as aired in this change.org ‘Poverty in America’ article in September.

“….they shut down many organizations that fed hot meals to homeless people each and every day, with the hope that those people would cross town and end up at Haven for Hope if there wasn’t food available.…..strict rules, like a 10 p.m. curfew. Even residents who have jobs that keep them out past 10 have reported having trouble staying at Haven for Hope because guards wouldn’t make an exception for the employed. People complain that the place feels like a jail — not exactly the warm, homey environment they were promised. As a result, many homeless people are wary of the place….”

On a smaller scale, I have spoken to people in (or recently in) hostels in this country, where they are supposed to be getting support from trained staff to help them move on by addressing their problems and needs – with, to repeat the quotation above, ‘a strong web of commissioned accommodation, employment, health and advice services personalised to their need’. Their experiences have been variable to say the least. In the cases of some, there is a  contract and a care plan agreed on entry, with regular key-worker support, a structured, well-informed and well-trained approach. In others, the residents have been left with the impression that there is no plan, no support, very little staff expertise, no positive community feel, and that for those with substance abuse problems, they are actually at more risk of relapse and/or worsening than they were on the streets. I have heard comments from people that they had been in more homely jails. Maybe hearing all this is a big part of what worries me about the ‘hub’. I hope my fears are unfounded. Certainly there are those who disagree with me strongly, and feel that the rough sleepers may need their free will to be overruled in their best interests – for example a discussion I had with ‘aibaihe’ on her blog at the beginning of this month.

I stand to be disagreed with regarding the ‘free will’ and ‘individual’s greater good’ debate. Although I shall not budge from the conviction that addiction is unlikely to be overcome unless the individual buys into the process of fighting it, for themselves. And I shall also remain convinced that a bespoke, personalised, approach is necessary for each rough sleeper.

And from a small-town Wiltshire point of view, I’ll repeat one of the comments on the ‘Inside Housing’ ‘hub’ article:

“Where are all the wonderful plans for all the places outside London that have rough sleepers? This is not just the capital’s problem and getting services into smaller towns and rural areas is almost impossible…”

I’ll finish by repeating, from the change.org piece about the Haven for Hope:

“the monolithic facility overlooked one important detail: “homeless people” are not some big group with all the same problems and reasons for being on the streets. They’re individuals, and a one-size-fits-all program isn’t going to fit a lot of people out there who still need help” 

About calneeagle

Volunteer at Doorway. Health care professional. Degree in sociology and politics.
This entry was posted in Alcohol, Charity, Chippenham, Drugs, Homelessness, Hostel, Mental Health, Uncategorized, Wiltshire and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Of Homeless Hubs, Haven for Hope, Hostels and Hackney Wick.

  1. I agree with some of your points. If the rationale for getting people off the streets is to look good for the Olympics then so what? If there is an assertive effort to help people receive what they need then I’m all for it, Olympics or no Olympics. But the question is, as you suggest, what lengths and measures are acceptable to ‘help’ them and how zealously will they be pursued? There is a risk that more harm can be done if this is not judged carefully.

    I share similar reservations about any monolithic one-size-fits-all approach to ‘processing’ homelessness which this Hub place seems to suggest is the way forward. From the research I have been conducting in Stoke-on-Trent it is quite clear that different hostels with their variations in rules, regulations, and cultures are capable of suiting different members of the homeless population. Diversity is indeed a strength among these accommodation providers.

    Lastly, I sometimes can’t help but think that policy-makers are tinkering with the wrong side of the homeless/housed coin. It seems as though the problems don’t just exist among the hostels and other service providers, but instead there is something about being a member of the housed community that some homeless people appear to hold a strong aversion.

    • calneeagle says:

      Thanks for the input, Gareth, and indeed for taking the time to read my post. I think your point re the first paragraph is very fair. I too would be perfectly happy if the Olympics happened to be the driver for a long-term well-achieved solution. I think the problem for me is that my cynicism tells me that the Olympics are the motivation to get people off the streets for the Olympics, and without much concern about what happens afterwards, or the methods used. I apologise for not making that clear.

      Your third paragraph is interesting – a point that you have raised in one of the many excellent pieces on your blog http://homelessinstoke.com/2010/07/14/choosing-homelessness-%e2%80%93-choice-or-no-choice/ (which I have just caught up with – I had it bookmarked, but hadn’t looked for a while) Aibaihe is vehement on the point that no homeless person wants to be homeless – no exceptions. My experiences tell me that this is not true. It is true for most, but I have certainly come across some who find they have ‘more time and less need for alertness’ when housed, and then use (in the case I quote, alcohol) more, and those who feel confined by four walls or the relative inability to up sticks and move on.

  2. Thanks for your kind words. I have not followed the conversation with Aibaihe but for what it’s worth I’m not sure that many homeless people know what they want (and in this respect are not really so different from the housed population). They are just managing their lives in a way that they know how to. When I ask about their future plans they are usually vague, sometimes unrealistic, and (though I don’t dig for lots of detail) unaware of how they can actually execute the plans that they have.

  3. splashpilion says:

    as an outreach worker/manager for The Pilion Trust I find NSNO a very negative and distressing solution! Not only they working to a very sinister agenda with unhelpful and often rude staff who think they can dictate policy, there is no care…people must sit on a chair for up to three days before being catapulted back to where ever they came from, if not, then they remain homeless because if you already have a chain number then there is no provision here. I would love to go on but fear I may piss someone off…

  4. Pingback: Well, Here’s Another Fine Mess You’ve Gotten Me Into, Stanley | doorway's community voice

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s