Young rough sleepers are 11 times more likely to have mental health problems than the public at large, according to a new Mental Health Foundation report. But how can agencies help them when, because of their transient lifestyles, they fall through the net?
Young rough sleepers are 11 times more likely to have mental health problems than the public at large, according to a new Mental Health Foundation report. But how can agencies help them when, because of their transient lifestyles, they fall through the net?
Subject terms:
homeless people, homelessness, housing, mental health, mental health problems, mental health services, social welfare, young people, benefits;
London School of Economics. Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion
Publication year:
2020
Pagination:
52
Place of publication:
London
This report considers the impact of extending the current 28 day "move-on" period which is allowed to refugees, once they are awarded Leave to Remain in the UK to a period of 56 days. The move-on period allows for the continuation of Section 95 subsistence and accommodation grants from the Home Office for 28 days, with the aim that work and/or mainstream benefits can be secured, and alternative accommodation arranged, by the time this support is stopped. The report critically reviews evidence about current levels of destitution and homelessness amongst refugees, particularly those whose Section 95 support has recently ended. This evidence is then considered in terms of costs and possible benefits of extending the Section 95 accommodation and subsidy period to 56 days. Costs are from extending the S95 accommodation and support for the extra 28 days. Benefits are in terms of savings to public expenditure on services like health, mental health and prevention and relief of homelessness (including the provision of more expensive Local Authority temporary accommodation). The analysis estimates net benefits of changing the policy to range from approximately £4 million to £7 million pounds.
(Edited publisher abstract)
This report considers the impact of extending the current 28 day "move-on" period which is allowed to refugees, once they are awarded Leave to Remain in the UK to a period of 56 days. The move-on period allows for the continuation of Section 95 subsistence and accommodation grants from the Home Office for 28 days, with the aim that work and/or mainstream benefits can be secured, and alternative accommodation arranged, by the time this support is stopped. The report critically reviews evidence about current levels of destitution and homelessness amongst refugees, particularly those whose Section 95 support has recently ended. This evidence is then considered in terms of costs and possible benefits of extending the Section 95 accommodation and subsidy period to 56 days. Costs are from extending the S95 accommodation and support for the extra 28 days. Benefits are in terms of savings to public expenditure on services like health, mental health and prevention and relief of homelessness (including the provision of more expensive Local Authority temporary accommodation). The analysis estimates net benefits of changing the policy to range from approximately £4 million to £7 million pounds.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
asylum seekers, refugees, government policy, poverty, homelessness, economic evaluation, costs, unemployment, health needs, mental health problems, benefits, access to services;
People with multiple needs experience several problems at the same time, such as mental ill health, homelessness, drug and alcohol misuse, offending and family breakdown and often have ineffective contact with services. This is the interim report of a two year project to capture the experiences and views of people with multiple needs and exclusions and the practitioners who support them. Specifically the report explores how access to benefits and the way in which services are commissioned affect people who have with multiple needs. The report summarises the results of a survey of over 140 local services that work with people with multiple needs across England, including homelessness, criminal justice, mental health, and substance misuse services. The findings suggest that recent welfare reforms are having a negative impact on people with multiple needs, leading to financial and personal strain. Although commissioners saw multiple needs as increasingly important, cuts in the former Supporting People funding were a concern. The overall effect on individuals included their mental health and wellbeing; employment and finances; accommodation and food; offending and personal safety.
(Edited publisher abstract)
People with multiple needs experience several problems at the same time, such as mental ill health, homelessness, drug and alcohol misuse, offending and family breakdown and often have ineffective contact with services. This is the interim report of a two year project to capture the experiences and views of people with multiple needs and exclusions and the practitioners who support them. Specifically the report explores how access to benefits and the way in which services are commissioned affect people who have with multiple needs. The report summarises the results of a survey of over 140 local services that work with people with multiple needs across England, including homelessness, criminal justice, mental health, and substance misuse services. The findings suggest that recent welfare reforms are having a negative impact on people with multiple needs, leading to financial and personal strain. Although commissioners saw multiple needs as increasingly important, cuts in the former Supporting People funding were a concern. The overall effect on individuals included their mental health and wellbeing; employment and finances; accommodation and food; offending and personal safety.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
needs, benefits, commissioning, criminal justice, policy, substance misuse, mental health problems, service uptake, personal finance, homelessness, integrated services, complex needs;
immigrants, homeless people, homelessness, housing, inner cities, learning disabilities, legal aid, local authorities, local government, local government finance, mental health problems, NHS, mothers, offenders, older people, physical disabilities, probation, poverty, pre-school children, punishment, social services, social work, social care provision, urban areas, welfare state, young people, after care, alcohol misuse, benefits, central government, children, community health care, drug misuse, education, employment, family planning, financing, Gypsies, health care;