Established 2005 Registered Charity No. 1110656
Scottish Charity Register No. SC043760
DONATE
Please help us to help more homeless people by setting up a monthly direct debit.
the Pavement relies on donations and volunteering from individuals and companies...
MORE ON DONATING
RECENT TWEETS
Are the police enforcers of the law or outreach workers?
When the police visit you, is it as enforcers of the law or outreach workers? We discover a wider trend of co-operation that stretches across London
Outreach workers across London are receiving support from local police officers, with the two groups working in tandem across the capital and leading one industry insider to talk of the police being "embedded" with homeless groups.
After discovering that outreach teams in west London's Fulham and Hammersmith area were being assisted by a constable and a community support officer, The Pavement has discovered a wider trend of co-operation that stretches across London. The START outreach team in Southwark, St Mungo's in Westminster and the company Crime Reduction Initiatives (CRI), which operates outreach in several boroughs, all regularly work alongside the police in their outreach work.
Although the level of police involvement varies, they appear, in some cases, to be working with outreach teams in all their dealings with rough sleepers living on the streets. The relationship is not confined to the policy meetings organised by local authorities, where police and outreach organisations have worked together in the past, but has been extended to much of the day-to-day work done at street level.
There are now fears that such a strong level of police involvement with outreach teams could put undue strain on relationships between outreach workers and the homeless. In 2008, Homeless Link published a handbook called Working Constructively with Enforcement, on how the police should work with outreach. It describes enforcement as "a high-risk strategy", and warns against police action leading to "geographical displacement - where rough sleepers are moved on from an area, they have little choice to move to another". Crucially, the extent to which police could use their powers to forcibly extract information or to give ASBOs to uncooperative street sleepers also seems unclear.
The most straightforward reason for outreach workers needing police assistance is protection, says Hai-Anh Hoang of the St Mungo's BBS [Building-Based Service} team. "We work alongside the police most of the time," she explains. "It's necessary for the police to be there if clients are abusive or hard to control." But Ms Hoang concedes that the presence of police officers can make people unwilling to give out personal information. "We try not to let clients know how closely we work with the police," she admits. "[But] if clients aren't cooperative, we need help from the police to get their ID."
A recent letter from Sergeant Dave Wiggins of north London's Islington police to a member of a resident's association website, kingscrossenvironment.com, reveals more about the objectives behind this co-operation. Responding to a resident's complaint about rough sleeping and street drinkers in the King's Cross area, the sergeant writes that the reason for the increase in street drinking in the area is, "because Camden Police's Kings Cross SNT [Safer Neighbourhood Team] have been working intensively on their side of King's Cross, pushing the beggars, street drinkers etc into our part of Kings Cross."
In this scenario, outreach workers, the police and the council all focus their efforts on one place at a time, with the result that rough sleepers are forced into new areas, away from the attentions of the authorities, the public and CCTV. This satisfies demands from residents' associations, who often want to see the visible evidence of homelessness removed from their neighbourhoods, but allows for little of the potentially long-term support that outreach teams could be giving to rough sleepers, aiming to help even the long-term rough sleepers into permanent accommodation.
To get a sense of local council attitudes to rough sleepers, The Pavement called Camden Council, posing as a new resident in the King's Cross area who was concerned about rough sleepers near their home. The council's information service said to ring the police directly, saying: "there's nothing else the Council can do apart from get police to move them on." Even when asked about the possibility of contacting an outreach service or a charity, The Pavement was told contacting the police was "the best and quickest option". Perhaps the most important factor motivating this level of heightened cooperation between outreach services and the police is increased demands made on outreach programmes and local authorities to meet government targets on cutting homelessness.
Continued funding for certain outreach programmes will depend on decreasing numbers of homeless people leading up to the London Olympics in 2012. In this context, it is possible that necessity could force outreach services to be further subsumed into police work, and the aspect of outreach that provides care and support will be lost.
Outreach workers across London are receiving support from local police officers, with the two groups working in tandem across the capital and leading one industry insider to talk of the police being "embedded" with homeless groups.
After discovering that outreach teams in west London's Fulham and Hammersmith area were being assisted by a constable and a community support officer, The Pavement has discovered a wider trend of co-operation that stretches across London. The START outreach team in Southwark, St Mungo's in Westminster and the company Crime Reduction Initiatives (CRI), which operates outreach in several boroughs, all regularly work alongside the police in their outreach work.
Although the level of police involvement varies, they appear, in some cases, to be working with outreach teams in all their dealings with rough sleepers living on the streets. The relationship is not confined to the policy meetings organised by local authorities, where police and outreach organisations have worked together in the past, but has been extended to much of the day-to-day work done at street level.
There are now fears that such a strong level of police involvement with outreach teams could put undue strain on relationships between outreach workers and the homeless. In 2008, Homeless Link published a handbook called Working Constructively with Enforcement, on how the police should work with outreach. It describes enforcement as "a high-risk strategy", and warns against police action leading to "geographical displacement - where rough sleepers are moved on from an area, they have little choice to move to another". Crucially, the extent to which police could use their powers to forcibly extract information or to give ASBOs to uncooperative street sleepers also seems unclear.
The most straightforward reason for outreach workers needing police assistance is protection, says Hai-Anh Hoang of the St Mungo's BBS [Building-Based Service} team. "We work alongside the police most of the time," she explains. "It's necessary for the police to be there if clients are abusive or hard to control." But Ms Hoang concedes that the presence of police officers can make people unwilling to give out personal information. "We try not to let clients know how closely we work with the police," she admits. "[But] if clients aren't cooperative, we need help from the police to get their ID."
A recent letter from Sergeant Dave Wiggins of north London's Islington police to a member of a resident's association website, kingscrossenvironment.com, reveals more about the objectives behind this co-operation. Responding to a resident's complaint about rough sleeping and street drinkers in the King's Cross area, the sergeant writes that the reason for the increase in street drinking in the area is, "because Camden Police's Kings Cross SNT [Safer Neighbourhood Team] have been working intensively on their side of King's Cross, pushing the beggars, street drinkers etc into our part of Kings Cross."
In this scenario, outreach workers, the police and the council all focus their efforts on one place at a time, with the result that rough sleepers are forced into new areas, away from the attentions of the authorities, the public and CCTV. This satisfies demands from residents' associations, who often want to see the visible evidence of homelessness removed from their neighbourhoods, but allows for little of the potentially long-term support that outreach teams could be giving to rough sleepers, aiming to help even the long-term rough sleepers into permanent accommodation.
To get a sense of local council attitudes to rough sleepers, The Pavement called Camden Council, posing as a new resident in the King's Cross area who was concerned about rough sleepers near their home. The council's information service said to ring the police directly, saying: "there's nothing else the Council can do apart from get police to move them on." Even when asked about the possibility of contacting an outreach service or a charity, The Pavement was told contacting the police was "the best and quickest option". Perhaps the most important factor motivating this level of heightened cooperation between outreach services and the police is increased demands made on outreach programmes and local authorities to meet government targets on cutting homelessness.
Continued funding for certain outreach programmes will depend on decreasing numbers of homeless people leading up to the London Olympics in 2012. In this context, it is possible that necessity could force outreach services to be further subsumed into police work, and the aspect of outreach that provides care and support will be lost.
October – November 2024 : Change
CONTENTS
BACK ISSUES
- Issue 152 : October – November 2024 : Change
- Issue 151 : August – September 2024 : Being Heard
- Issue 150 : June – July 2024 : Reflections
- Issue 149 : April – May 2024 : Compassion
- Issue 148 : February – March 2024 : The little things
- Issue 147 : December 2023 – January 2024 : Next steps
- Issue 146 : October 2023 – November 2023 : Kind acts
- Issue 145 : August 2023 – September 2023 : Mental health
- Issue 144 : June 2023 – July 2023 : Community
- Issue 143 : April 2023 - May 2023 : Hope springs
- Issue 142 : February 2023 - March 2023 : New Beginnings
- Issue 141 : December 2022 - January 2023 : Winter Homeless
- Issue 140 : October - November 2022 : Resolve
- Issue 139 : August - September 2022 : Creativity
- Issue 138 : June - July 2022 : Practical advice
- Issue 137 : April - May 2022 : Connection
- Issue 136 : February - March 2022 : RESPECT
- Issue 135 : Dec 2021 - Jan 2022 : OPPORTUNITY
- Issue 134 : September-October 2021 : Losses and gains
- Issue 133 : July-August 2021 : Know Your Rights
- Issue 132 : May-June 2021 : Access to Healthcare
- Issue 131 : Mar-Apr 2021 : SOLUTIONS
- Issue 130 : Jan-Feb 2021 : CHANGE
- Issue 129 : Nov-Dec 2020 : UNBELIEVABLE
- Issue 128 : Sep-Oct 2020 : COPING
- Issue 127 : Jul-Aug 2020 : HOPE
- Issue 126 : Health & Wellbeing in a Crisis
- Issue 125 : Mar-Apr 2020 : MOVING ON
- Issue 124 : Jan-Feb 2020 : STREET FOOD
- Issue 123 : Nov-Dec 2019 : HOSTELS
- Issue 122 : Sep 2019 : DEATH ON THE STREETS
- Issue 121 : July-Aug 2019 : INVISIBLE YOUTH
- Issue 120 : May-June 2019 : RECOVERY
- Issue 119 : Mar-Apr 2019 : WELLBEING
- Issue 118 : Jan-Feb 2019 : WORKING HOMELESS
- Issue 117 : Nov-Dec 2018 : HER STORY
- Issue 116 : Sept-Oct 2018 : TOILET TALK
- Issue 115 : July-Aug 2018 : HIDDEN HOMELESS
- Issue 114 : May-Jun 2018 : REBUILD YOUR LIFE
- Issue 113 : Mar–Apr 2018 : REMEMBRANCE
- Issue 112 : Jan-Feb 2018
- Issue 111 : Nov-Dec 2017
- Issue 110 : Sept-Oct 2017
- Issue 109 : July-Aug 2017
- Issue 108 : Apr-May 2017
- Issue 107 : Feb-Mar 2017
- Issue 106 : Dec 2016 - Jan 2017
- Issue 105 : Oct-Nov 2016
- Issue 104 : Aug-Sept 2016
- Issue 103 : May-June 2016
- Issue 102 : Mar-Apr 2016
- Issue 101 : Jan-Feb 2016
- Issue 100 : Nov-Dec 2015
- Issue 99 : Sept-Oct 2015
- Issue 98 : July-Aug 2015
- Issue 97 : May-Jun 2015
- Issue 96 : April 2015 [Mini Issue]
- Issue 95 : March 2015
- Issue 94 : February 2015
- Issue 93 : December 2014
- Issue 92 : November 2014
- Issue 91 : October 2014
- Issue 90 : September 2014
- Issue 89 : July 2014
- Issue 88 : June 2014
- Issue 87 : May 2014
- Issue 86 : April 2014
- Issue 85 : March 2014
- Issue 84 : February 2014
- Issue 83 : December 2013
- Issue 82 : November 2013
- Issue 81 : October 2013
- Issue 80 : September 2013
- Issue 79 : June 2013
- Issue 78 : 78
- Issue 77 : 77
- Issue 76 : 76
- Issue 75 : 75
- Issue 74 : 74
- Issue 73 : 73
- Issue 72 : 72
- Issue 71 : 71
- Issue 70 : 70
- Issue 69 : 69
- Issue 68 : 68
- Issue 67 : 67
- Issue 66 : 66
- Issue 65 : 65
- Issue 64 : 64
- Issue 63 : 63
- Issue 62 : 62
- Issue 61 : 61
- Issue 60 : 60
- Issue 59 : 59
- Issue 58 : 58
- Issue 57 : 57
- Issue 56 : 56
- Issue 56 : 56
- Issue 55 : 55
- Issue 54 : 54
- Issue 53 : 53
- Issue 52 : 52
- Issue 51 : 51
- Issue 50 : 50
- Issue 49 : 49
- Issue 48 : 48
- Issue 47 : 47
- Issue 46 : 46
- Issue 45 : 45
- Issue 44 : 44
- Issue 43 : 43
- Issue 42 : 42
- Issue 5 : 05
- Issue 4 : 04
- Issue 2 : 02
- Issue 1 : 01
- Issue 41 : 41
- Issue 40 : 40
- Issue 39 : 39
- Issue 38 : 38
- Issue 37 : 37
- Issue 36 : 36
- Issue 35 : 35
- Issue 34 : 34
- Issue 33 : 33
- Issue 10 : 10
- Issue 9 : 09
- Issue 6 : 06
- Issue 3 : 03
- Issue 32 : 32
- Issue 31 : 31
- Issue 30 : 30
- Issue 29 : 29
- Issue 11 : 11
- Issue 12 : 12
- Issue 13 : 13
- Issue 14 : 14
- Issue 15 : 15
- Issue 16 : 16
- Issue 17 : 17
- Issue 18 : 18
- Issue 19 : 19
- Issue 20 : 20
- Issue 21 : 21
- Issue 22 : 22
- Issue 23 : 23
- Issue 24 : 24
- Issue 25 : 25
- Issue 8 : 08
- Issue 7 : 07
- Issue 26 : 26
- Issue 27 : 27
- Issue 28 : 28
- Issue 1 : 01