‘Ex-services personnel make up 25% of the rough sleeping
population’ stated a business leader to me at a recent event with what a
colleague caustically referred to later as ‘the unerring certainty of the
terminally ignorant’. His pronouncement
came to mind as I was reading the latest CHAIN annual rough sleeping figures for
London which show that 9% of the rough sleeping population were formerly in the armed
services; 3% in the UK armed services and 6% in the armed services of other
countries.
I spend an inordinate amount of time talking to groups and
individuals about rough sleeping and invariably the
conversation will coalesce around two questions: who and why? Around both swirl
myths and misconceptions. The antidote to the plausible but unsubstantiated
anecdote upon which, distressingly, policy decisions are occasionally based is
the CHAIN report and data which is unique in terms of the richness of the
information and its reliability. The
data is compiled cumulatively by outreach teams and is ‘real time’ data, inputted
by individual outreach staff during a street shift. Over the year a remarkably
full picture of the rough sleeping population is built up.
CHAIN figures show that there is an extraordinary flow of
people onto, and from, the street. In 2014-15, 5,107 people were found sleeping
rough in London for the first time. Over the same period 2,624 men and women
were helped into accommodation or to return home, a big figure we seem coyly
reluctant to highlight.
Curiously, a prevailing myth is that outreach workers only
stick to areas popular with rough sleepers. From this a further assumption
emerges, that certain sub-sets of the rough sleeping population who seek to
sleep on their own in out-of-the way places remain hidden, overlooked, perhaps
disregarded. Young people and women are
often mooted as examples. This is based
on an anachronistic picture of outreach teams working with cardboard city-size
congregations of rough sleepers in parks or huddled together in shop doorways,
which is how it was when I was an outreach worker in the 1980s.
Nowadays, a ‘hotspot’, the term given for a visible site
where rough sleepers can be found as a group, can comprise as few as three
people. Instead, outreach workers frequent derelict buildings, tunnels,
night-buses, tower blocks, car-parks, canal boats, tow-paths, riverbanks and
woods. The dispersed nature of rough sleeping is one of the most significant
changes witnessed over the last decade.
Yet some things don’t change. The latest figures show that
45% of rough sleepers have a mental health support need, a figure that has been
consistent for over ten years. There are
around 600 people sleeping rough in the capital with severe and enduring mental
health problems who have been on the streets for at least a year. Why this
large number does not create outrage is difficult to fathom. It may be because
of another enduring myth; that people with mental health issues are
eccentrically choosing a street homeless life-style and should be left alone to
get on with it.
The endearingly whimsical notion of the ruggedly independent
rough sleeper certainly fits the fable which grew up around the legendary Anne
Naysmith, who slept rough for many years. The mental health professionals I have spoken to who knew Anne well see
things very differently, believing that the psychotic episodes she endured were
brutally debilitating. Anne feared that malevolent spirits would punish her if
she left the street and occasionally her anxiety was such that she would be
found weaving amongst the traffic on busy roads. Earlier this year Anne
tragically lost her life when she was hit by a lorry.
Beyond dispute is the remarkable change in the nationality
profile of rough sleepers. The latest figures show that 57% of London’s rough
sleepers are non-UK nationals. With limited rights and fewer options to escape
rough sleeping, non-UK nationals are especially vulnerable and sleeping rough
brings enormous risks.
And, when the numbers have been pored over and the reports
compiled, there is ultimately only one justification for this obsessive
scrutiny and that is to make rough sleeping in 21st century Britain
a historical abnormality which, in time, will seem as incongruous as our
ancestors’ sufferance of bear-baiting. Last month, a Polish rough sleeper with severe alcohol dependency
problems which led him to persistently reject offers of assistance was found
dead on a dirty mattress on a canal tow-path. The mattress has already been
requisitioned by another rough sleeper. Acquiescence is not an option.
Comments