1. How can we evaluate the impact of projects designed to prevent people from sleeping rough?
Lucy Spurling (DCLG research)
Ellen Reaich (DCLG policy)

2. Background: rough sleeping
Rough sleeping is increasing (134% since 2010).
We have limited information on exactly why that is.
However, we know rough sleepers are more likely to have traumatic childhood experiences and to have been in prison and care – there are known risk factors.
We also know that there are often more immediate triggers involved e.g. relationship breakdown - and someone’s social support and levels of personal resilience can play a role.

3. Policy Context: Prevention, prevention, prevention!
Prevent more people from becoming homeless in the first place by identifying people at risk and intervening earlier with solutions we know work
Intervene rapidly if a homelessness crisis occurs, so it is brief and non-recurrent
Help more people recover from - and exit -homelessness by getting them back on their feet
Homelessness Reduction Act– prevention duty
Bring prevention further upstream and increase co-ordination through £20m Trailblazers
Support LAs with service development.
Make it easier for local areas to spot those at risk of homelessness by improving data
Homelessness Reduction Act – relief duty for all eligible homeless households
Help new rough sleepers, or people at imminent risk of sleeping rough, get support needed quickly through more joined up services and a better understanding of what works, starting with £20 million rough sleeping fund
Support the most entrenched rough sleepers through local personalised support, starting with £10 million Social Impact Bond
Enable former rough sleepers to move out of hostels through £100m investment in 2,000 units of new accommodation
Enable local authorities to make more strategic spending decisions by devolving the TA management fee as Flexible Homelessness Support Grant
The Government will be implementing manifesto commitments to help those at risk of becoming homeless, already sleeping rough or with complex needs.

4. What is the ‘No First Night Out’ (NFNO) approach?
1. Preliminary research
2. New Assessment Model
3. Outreach strategy
3. Fast-track to ‘no first night out’ service
4. Holistic housing options
Research on common presenting traits of new rough sleepers, including which agencies they had contact with before sleeping rough.
Housing options staff use ‘fine grade’ assessment tool to identify those at risk of rough sleeping. Other agencies use a generalist tool.
Housing options services available at the places where potential rough sleepers may frequent or go for help, including Job Centres, Probation Offices, and the East London mosque.
Clients identified through the assessment tool given rapid access to mediation, hostel placement, or PRS, and if necessary bridging emergency accommodation to prevent rough sleeping.
All clients will receive a package of ‘No Wrong Door’ services comprising access to ETE, GP registration and substance treatment services.

5. The challenges of delivering a NFNO approach
Identifying people at risk of sleeping rough
Approaching and preventing people from sleeping
There is no database identifying people with the risk factors associated with rough sleeping.
Triggers can be very immediate, with little warning.
There is a need to understand the local influences that affect rough sleeping and the organisations/places that people at risk may have contact with.
Considering the right intervention point - how close to sleeping rough do people need to be in order to claim ‘prevention’?

6. Measuring the success of the risk assessment process: plans and challenges
We have asked projects to develop a scaled risk assessment process in order to measure the rough sleeping outcomes of the individuals who have not been offered a structured intervention (because their risk levels have been assessed as lower than the intervention threshold)
The existing NFNO project uses a binary risk assessment process.
The development of a scaled approach poses a number of challenges including how to balance risk factors and triggers.
Measuring rough sleeping outcomes is only possible in areas where there is case level data recording of rough sleeping - this relies on comprehensive outreach and assumes people won’t move out of the local area.
People not meeting the risk threshold are provided with advice, which may impact on their rough sleeping outcomes.

7. Evaluating the impact of the prevention activity: one design discounted
We originally hoped a sophisticated risk assessment scale would allow us to use a regression discontinuity design to evaluate the impact of the projects. This would allow us to plot the projected levels of rough sleeping among people receiving the intervention based on the rough sleeping outcomes of those under the threshold for the main intervention.
It seems unlikely that projects will be able to develop such a sophisticated risk assessment process at this stage. Even a ‘no risk, low risk, medium risk and high risk’ scale poses significant challenges.
Even if a more nuanced scale were to be developed the cut off point for delivering the intervention is open to manipulation and would not meet tests for robustness.

8. Key questions for discussion today
Key questions for tomorrow and beyond
Is there a better way to assess the accuracy of the risk assessment process?
Is there any way to carry out a robust impact evaluation of the prevention activity?
Is anyone interested in being involved with this project beyond today – either in assisting projects to develop their risk assessment process or advising on any NFNO evaluation we take forward?
Is anyone interested in providing advice on other DCLG homelessness evaluations?
If so, please contact Lucy –