One in three councils targeting rough sleepers with enforcement measures: Crisis

More than one in three councils (36%) are targeting rough sleepers with enforcement measures such as Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs) and Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs), research by national homelessness charity Crisis has suggested.

Crisis acknowledged that enforcement could help people move away from the street if used for genuinely antisocial behaviour, but the charity added that “it should never be used for rough sleeping by itself and must be accompanied by meaningful support and accommodation. Without that, it makes it even harder for rough sleepers to get help.”

Its survey of local authorities found that common measures included: CBOs (45% of those using enforcement measures); Dispersal Orders (35%); PSPOs (17%); and actions under the Vagrancy Act (27%).

The report, which can be viewed here, also found: 

• Almost 7 out of 10 local councils use some form of enforcement to tackle antisocial behaviour.
• Councils want to make increased use of new powers under the Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Over half (52%) intend to roll out new PSPOs, one in five (21%) intend to use CPNs (Community Protection Notices), and a fifth (18%) intend to make use of hostile architecture.
• While local authorities reported seeing a drop in anti-social behaviour in areas where they had measures in place, over a quarter (28%) also reported it rising in places where there was no enforcement.

An accompanying survey of 458 recent or current rough sleepers found that nearly three in four (73%) had experienced some kind of enforcement in the past year, with one in ten having experienced a formal measure with legal penalties.

Experiences of informal measures not involving legal penalties were far more common, Crisis said, with the most frequent experience having been informally moved on by a police officer or enforcement agent (56% within the last 12 months).

Crisis said that while 94% of local councils said that support and advice were always given alongside enforcement actions, this generally referred only to legal actions. “By contrast, eight out of ten rough sleepers (81%) said they received no support or advice during their last experience of enforcement, suggesting that informal actions are often poorly supported.”

According to the charity, more than half (56%) of the rough sleepers said the experience added to their feeling of shame at being homeless; and nearly a third (30%) said it made it harder to find settled accommodation.

Crisis urged councils to make sure that legal measures are used only as a last resort for genuinely antisocial behaviour and that any rough sleepers affected are offered personalised and accessible support to escape the streets.

The charity also called on the Government to re-issue its statutory guidance on the use of antisocial behaviour powers to prevent them from being used to target rough sleeping, and recommended that police and local agencies are trained to advise rough sleepers on local services. 

Jon Sparkes, Chief Executive of Crisis, said: “We understand that councils and the police have to strike a balance between the concerns of local residents and the needs of rough sleepers, and where there’s genuine antisocial activity, it’s only right that they should intervene. Yet people shouldn’t be targeted simply for sleeping on the street. In fact, homeless people are far more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators, and rough sleepers are 17 times more likely to be victims of violence compared to the general public. They deserve better than to be treated as criminals simply because they have nowhere to live. 

“There is a time and place for enforcement, and as a last resort it can play an important role in helping people off the street. However, if it is used against a rough sleeper for genuinely antisocial behaviour then councils and police must make sure it is accompanied by accessible, meaningful support and accommodation to help that person escape the streets and rebuild their life. Without that support, they risk further marginalising rough sleepers and making it even harder for them to get help.”