Agenda item - Rough Sleeping Statistics

RESOLVED: That the Committee agreed to note the report and did not consider any further actions were required in response to the issues raised.

62.1    The Audit Manager introduced this report which had been produced on the request of Councillor Nemeth to examine the rough sleeping statistics methodology.The Audit Manager introduced this report which had been produced on the             request of Councillor Nemeth to examine the rough sleeping statistics methodology.

62.2    Councillor Yates stated that it was unwelcome that Officers’ work was

            questioned by a councillor and he could not see anywhere that there was a lack of veracity in the figures. He commended the officers involved in the report for their integrity and stated that he felt that hours of public sector resources had been spent on this report, which had been requested by people who should know better.

62.3    Councillor Gilbey stated that the figures were monitored on a daily basis by St. Mungo’s, and the council’s figures were a snapshot of one particular night.  She confirmed that the bus used by Sussex Homeless Support was not running the night of the original survey and that although figures vary, at the time of the survey, there may be have been fewer rough sleepers in hostels than during the daytime.

62.4    Councillor Cobb stated that there were various legitimate ways of achieving a result and asked if the statistics took into account those rough sleepers who did have accommodation, but still chose to sleep rough. The Audit Manager replied that the count last year was made up of people who were on the street and he would have to check and come back to confirm the answer.

62.5    Councillor Sykes stated in reply to Councillor Yates’ previous remarks,

            that he felt it was a good use of officers’ time, since the Administration were happy to use these figures for their own purposes and the Council needed to be honest and acknowledge this.

62.6    Councillor Robins confirmed that the night of the original survey was a particularly snowy night and that therefore the figures were not a genuine reflection of rough sleeping numbers.

62.7    Councillor Cobb suggested that due to the weather, the people carrying out the survey may have taken other people off the streets with them.

62.8    Councillor Platts stated that no-one was sleeping on the streets through choice and if the rough sleepers that night were in temporary accommodation, would they still be counted. The Audit Manager confirmed that they would still be counted after the time of 1am.

62.9    Councillor Platts also queried whether there had been a discussion           with the Government Department involved in providing the figures, since she wondered if they had now chosen a system that would be adhered to in future years. The Audit Manager replied that there were two different approved methods of counting and that different authorities had different methodologies. Councillor Platts then stated that the council should write to the Government department to ask about the problem of two different systems. The Audit Manager replied that he did not know why there were two methodologies and could not speculate on the reason for this.

62.10  The Chair queried the decision to change the way the count was made and he wondered when this was made and whether it was included in the audit.  The Audit Manager replied that this was not looked into.

62.11  Councillor Yates pointed out that there was both national and local data asked it if would be worth suggesting that instead of the different ways     of measuring rough sleeping, it might be better to have one method that was agreed. The Chair mentioned the monthly figure given out from St Mungo’s would surely be a better way of counting homeless             numbers.

62.12  RESOLVED: That the Committee agreed to note the report and did not consider any further actions were required in response to the issues raised.