Official Statistics

Rough sleeping snapshot in England: autumn 2019 - technical report

Published 27 February 2020

1. Introduction

1.1. This technical report outlines in detail how the Rough sleeping snapshot statistics are collected, the quality assurance processes in place, recent improvements and the limitations of the statistics so users are fully informed about the overall quality of the Rough sleeping snapshot statistics.

1.2. The Rough sleeping snapshot outputs include:

• A statistical release which provides information about the estimated number of people sleeping rough on a single night between 1 October and 31 November 2019, demographic details (i.e. age, gender, nationality), details about the approach used and the local agencies consulted as part of the snapshot process.
• Data tables
• Interactive dashboard
• Infographic

1.3. These statistics are designated as Official Statistics. Official statistics are produced to high professional standards as set out in the Code of Practice for Statistics

1.4. All local authorities across England take an autumn snapshot of people sleeping rough using either a count-based estimate of visible rough sleeping, an evidence-based estimate meeting with local agencies, or an evidence-based estimate meeting including a spotlight count in certain local authorities.

1.5. The snapshot methodology has been in place since 2010. From 1998 to 2010, only local authorities with a known or suspected rough sleeping problem, who estimated that there were more than ten people sleeping rough, were asked to conduct a street count, which was around a quarter of all local authorities.

1.6. Since 2010, all Rough sleeping snapshots submitted by local authorities have been independently verified by Homeless Link to ensure they are reliable. Homeless Link are the national membership charity for organisations working directly with people who become homeless in England.

1.7. The snapshot methodology was developed after consultation with local authorities and the voluntary sector with the objective of improving the accuracy of recording the number of people sleeping rough in England.

1.8. The changes that were made to the methodology and the definition of people sleeping rough mean that figures produced after 2010 are not directly comparable with previous statistics.

1.9. The statistics from 2010 onwards provide a way of estimating the number of people sleeping rough across England on a single night and assessing change over time.

1.10. Since 2016, the Rough sleeping snapshot has also included demographic information about those people found sleeping rough, including gender, age and nationality. Consistent demographic data which uses the same categories is available from 2017 onwards^{[footnote 1]}.

1.11. Demographic information is collected by asking the person found sleeping rough or completed based on existing knowledge if that person is known. If a person refuses to give their personal information, they can still be recorded as sleeping rough and demographic information including gender, nationality, and age can be recorded. If it is not possible to record this basic demographic information, then it is recorded as ‘Not known’.

2. Recent improvements

2.1. There have been a number of improvements to the Rough sleeping snapshot this year to improve the reliability and accuracy of the statistics and provide more information for users.

2.2. The title of the statistical release has changed to ‘Rough sleeping snapshot in England: autumn 2019’ to help make it clearer that these statistics provide information of the number of people sleeping rough on a single night, rather than the total number across the year.

2.3. As well as the title change, the language used in both the guidance for local authorities and statistics publication makes clear that all snapshot approaches are a form of estimate of the number of people sleeping rough. Whether that is a count-based estimate or an evidence-based estimate meeting on a single night. This change has been made to reflect that all of the available approaches record only those people seen, or thought to be, sleeping rough on a single ‘typical’ night. They do not include everyone in a local authority with a history of sleeping rough, or everyone sleeping rough in a local authority across the October-November period.

2.4. Homeless Link have provided further guidance to local authorities about changing their approach for measuring rough sleeping from year to year to ensure the approach chosen provides the most reliable and accurate estimate and that the reasons for changing approach are valid. Additional questions about the approach chosen by a local authority have been added to the verification process to ensure closer scrutiny of any approach changes that may have been made by local authorities.

2.5. We have implemented a Reproducible Analytical Pipeline approach to the production and quality assurance of this year’s Rough sleeping snapshot. The production of the statistical release is completely transparent with a clear audit trail which has improved the quality of the statistics and reduced the risk of errors occurring in the production process. This means there is greater time to focus on analysis, quality assurance and explaining what the statistics do and do not show.

2.6. We have also produced this technical report which includes additional information for users about the data collection and quality assurance processes involved in the compilation and production of the Rough sleeping snapshot as well as further information about comparability issues between other published rough sleeping statistics.

2.7. The 2018 rough sleeping publication was independently peer reviewed by other cross-government analysts as part of the Government Statistical Service (GSS), Good Practice Peer Review. There are new outputs this year including an interactive dashboard, an infographic and open data tables, as well as the technical report. Overall there is more information about the statistics and how they can be used, improving transparency and trust in the data.

2.8. This year for the first time, we have published information about the local agencies each local authority consulted as part of the snapshot process (Table 5: Agencies consulted as part of the Rough sleeping snapshot by local authority).

2.9. As well as the improvement to the Rough sleeping snapshot, there have been improvements to the wider evidence base on homelessness and rough sleeping. This includes the Rough Sleeping Evaluation Questionnaire (RSEQ) which is a large in-depth (~700 respondents) survey of people sleeping rough and at risk which provides detailed information about their characteristics, history and use of services (findings from this survey are due to be published in the Spring/Summer 2020). Last year we published the 2018 Rough Sleeping Initiative impact evaluation and will soon publish the process evaluation to identify the stakeholder perspective of whether the programme has helped to reduce rough sleeping.

2.10. Further details about our evaluations and new research are available in the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping research programme. These are all part of an ongoing effort to ensure that our interventions are evidenced based and that we build up an evidence base on ‘what works’ to reduce rough sleeping.

3. Quality Assessment

3.1. In 2015 the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) published a regulatory standard for the quality assurance of administrative data. We have used this standard to assess the quality of the Rough sleeping snapshot.

3.2. The standard is supported with an Administrative Data Quality Assurance Toolkit which provides useful guidance on the practices that can be adopted to assure users about the overall quality of the Rough sleeping snapshot. See Figure 3.1 for a full outline of the statistical production process.

3.3. The publication of MHCLG’s Rough sleeping snapshot is considered medium profile as there is mainstream media interest, with moderate economic and/or political sensitivity. Overall, the Rough sleeping snapshot has been assessed as A1/A2: Low Risk.

Table 3.1: Assessment of the level of risk based on the Quality Assurance Toolkit

Risk/Profile Matrix Statistical Series	Administrative Source	Data quality concern	Public interest	**Matrix classification **
Rough sleeping snapshot	Local authority rough sleeping counts and estimates	Low	Medium	Low Risk (A1/A2)

Figure 3.1: Rough Sleeping Quality Assurance Process Flowchart An outline of the statistical production process and quality assurance carried out to produce this year’s Rough sleeping snapshot

4. Combined Homelessness and Information Network

4.1. The Combined Homelessness and Information Network(CHAIN) is a multi-agency database that records information about people seen rough sleeping by outreach teams in London. It is managed by St Mungo’s, a London-based homeless charity, and is used by organisations working with people sleeping rough in London. Information is recorded onto the CHAIN database by people who work directly with people sleeping rough in London (e.g. workers in outreach teams, day centres, hostels and resettlement teams). CHAIN, however, does not cover ‘hidden homeless’ groups, such as those who are squatting or staying in inaccessible locations to outreach workers.

4.2. The CHAIN data most similar to the single night snapshot provides a total count of all individuals seen sleeping rough by outreach teams in London on at least one night during the October to December 2019 quarter. Whereas the MHCLG single night snapshot for autumn 2019 shows the number of people seen or thought to be sleeping rough on a single night between October 1st and November 30th 2019. CHAIN data is published quarterly and annually.

4.3. Although, the CHAIN data is not directly comparable to the single night snapshot you would expect there to be some relationship between the two sources of evidence as they are measuring the same group of people albeit in different ways.

4.4. As part of our quality assurance checks we looked at the correlation between the latest Rough sleeping snapshot and the latest CHAIN data. A positive correlation was observed between the two sets of data (See Table 4.1). Whilst the number of data points was restricted to the number of local authorities that are found in London (i.e. 33 data points for all London boroughs) it does indicate a correlation between the snapshot and CHAIN numbers (See Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1: Scatterplot of Rough sleeping snapshot (Oct-Nov 2019) data and CHAIN (Oct-Dec 2019) data

Table 4.1: correlation between Rough sleeping snapshot (Oct-Nov 2019) data and CHAIN (Oct-Dec 2019) data A highly positive correlation was observed between the two collection methods.

Spearman	Pearson
0.74	0.93

4.5. The CHAIN database also records more detailed demographic information about people sleeping rough. More information about the CHAIN data collection is available here and the latest CHAIN reports are available here.

4.6. Although the CHAIN database provides more information about the flows and characteristics of people sleeping rough in London, MHCLG’s Rough sleeping snapshot provides a way of estimating the number of people sleeping rough on a single night and measuring change over time. CHAIN data quality is influenced by the number of outreach workers active on any one night. A local authority which does not have a commissioned outreach team may appear to have fewer rough sleepers than an adjacent borough which does have an active outreach service.

5. Approach changes

5.1. The government’s target is to end rough sleeping by the end of the parliament.

5.2. The Rough Sleeping Strategy sets out the vision for how this will be achieved. This includes the Rough Sleeping Initiative (RSI) which was launched in March 2018 and was targeted at local authorities with high numbers of people sleeping rough, based on the 2017 Rough sleeping snapshot.

5.3. The RSI included a £30m fund for 2018 to 2019 which was allocated to 83 local authorities, as well as a specialist team of advisers made up of rough sleeping and homelessness experts drawn from local authorities and the third sector (e.g. non-profit organisations). A further £34m for 2019 to 2020 went to the original 83 local authorities and £12m went to 161 new local authorities giving a total fund of £46m across 244 local authorities. This means over three-quarters of local authorities in England are now covered by specialist RSI funding. The initiative funds local authorities to provide specialist services to help the most vulnerable people in society off the streets and into secure accommodation

5.4. Following the ‘Rough sleeping in England: autumn 2018’ publication, The Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) which is the regulatory arm of the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) raised some concerns about the reliability and the comparability of the Rough sleeping snapshot statistics overtime due to the number of local authorities changing approach from an evidence-based estimate to a count-based estimate last year.

5.5. In September 2019 we published the impact evaluation of the 2018 RSI which found the number of people sleeping rough was 32% lower than what it would have been had the RSI not been in place. This analysis also found that local authorities changing their approach to measuring rough sleeping did not account for the fall in rough sleeping seen in these local authorities. Furthermore, the weather on the night of and leading up to the snapshot, did not have any impact on the number of people sleeping rough. Further details can be found in the Rough Sleeping Initiative evaluation report.

5.6. In October 2019, the OSR, wrote to MHCLG to acknowledge the transparent presentation of the evaluation’s methodology and its findings, which indicate that the RSI has had a statistically significant impact on reducing rough sleeping between 2017 and 2018. They also acknowledged that accurate estimation of rough sleeping in England is challenging and that while the snapshot methodology is limited, it represents the most comprehensive approach currently available in England.

5.7. The OSR also recommended examining the possible effects of local authorities’ changing their estimation approaches on the rough sleeping levels reported in earlier years and to explore relative, rather than absolute changes between RSI and comparator local authorities. For more information, see the letter from OSR to MHCLG on 4 October 2019.

5.8. In response to this we have done some further exploration of the number of people sleeping rough overtime to examine the possible effects of local authorities’ changing their estimation approaches on the change in rough sleeping levels reported in earlier years before 2018. Specifically, we have looked at those local authorities who have consistently used the same approach^{[footnote 2]} compared with those who have changed approach^{[footnote 3]} between 2011 and 2017 prior to the introduction of the Rough Sleeping Initiative.

Local authorities using the same approach compared with those who have changed approach

5.9. Local authorities can change approach from year to year but any decision to change the overall approach from one year to the next has to be guided by whether it will produce the most accurate and precise figure.

5.10. There are several reasons why a local authority may change from an estimate to a count or vice versa from year to year. For example, a local authority may change from an estimate to a count if there are a lack of local agencies with intelligence about where people are sleeping rough or if agencies refuse to share their data which means it would be difficult to form a reliable estimate. A local authority may change from a count to an estimate if there are new sleep sites which are in accessible or unsafe to access which would not be included in a count.

5.11 Any decision to change the overall approach from one year to the next should be guided by whether it will produce the most accurate figure. Homeless Link ask for details of this decision-making as part of the verification process to ensure any changes meet the guidance.

5.12. There were 166 local authorities (51% of the total) that have consistently used the same approach for their snapshot since 2010 compared to 160 (49% of the total) local authorities that have changed approach at least once since 2010 (See Table 5.1). This analysis does not take into account the differences in the types of local authorities which have changed approach compared to those local authorities which have used the same approach. However, local authorities that have changed approach at least once since 2010 have consistently recorded higher numbers of people sleeping rough compared to local authorities that have used the same approach.

5.13. Between 2011 and 2016, the number of people sleeping rough in local authorities that changed approach compared to local authorities that consistently used the same approach increased at similar rates, except between 2016 and 2017 (See Figure 5.1). Between 2016 and 2017 local authorities which had changed approach at least once since 2010 saw an increase in the numbers of people sleeping rough, whereas local authorities that used the same approach saw a small reduction. This could be in response to local authorities having identified increased numbers of people sleeping rough and as a result have changed approach to more accurately account for this increase. While it is difficult to say exactly what may have caused this divergence many of the local authorities that have changed approach are located in London which historically has high numbers of people sleeping rough compared to the rest of England.

Figure 5.1: Number of people sleeping rough on a single night: comparing local authorities that have never changed approach relative to local authorities that have changed approach at least one time since 2010

5.14. The average (median) change in the number of people sleeping rough per local authority that have never changed their snapshot approach since 2010 compared to local authorities that have changed their approach was investigated (See Figure 5.2). Between 2010 and 2017 the median increase in the number of people sleeping rough per local authority that have used the same approach was between 0 and 0.5 people. Whilst the median increase in the number of people sleeping rough per local authority that have changed approach was between 0 and 2 people. This data would suggest that the median change in the number of people sleeping rough per local authority is broadly similar over time, irrespective of approach changes.

Figure 5.2: Box plot^{[footnote 4]} year on year difference of people sleeping rough: comparing local authorities that have changed their snapshot approach against local authorities that have used the same approach since 2010

Table 5.1: Comparability of change in median - and Interquartile range (IQR) - of the number of people sleeping rough over time in local authorities that have changed approach at least once since 2010 relative to local authorities that have always used the same approach

Year	-	Authorities that have changed approach	Authorities that have used the same approach
	Number of local authorities	160	166
	% of all local authorities	59	51
2010 to 2011	Median (IQR)	0.5 (6)	0.0 (2)
2011 to 2012	Median (IQR)	0.0 (5)	0.0 (4)
2012 to 2013	Median (IQR)	0.0 (5)	0.0 (4)
2013 to 2014	Median (IQR)	0.0 (4)	0.0 (3)
2014 to 2015	Median (IQR)	2.0 (6)	1.0 (4)
2015 to 2016	Median (IQR)	1.0 (6)	0.5 (5)
2016 to 2017	Median (IQR)	2.0 (7)	0.0 (4)

6. Data collection process

6.1. People sleeping rough are defined as:

People sleeping, about to bed down (sitting on/in or standing next to their bedding) or actually bedded down in the open air (such as on the streets, in tents, doorways, parks, bus shelters or encampments). People in buildings or other places not designed for habitation (such as stairwells, barns, sheds, car parks, cars, derelict boats, stations, or bashes which are makeshift shelters, often comprised of cardboard boxes). Bedded down: is taken to mean either lying down or sleeping. About to bed down includes those who are sitting in/on or near a sleeping bag or other bedding.

6.2. The definition does not include people in hostels or shelters, people in campsites or other sites used for recreational purposes or organised protests, squatters or travellers.

6.3. All local authorities take a snapshot of the number of people sleeping rough in their local authority on a ‘typical’ night which is a single date chosen by the local authority between 1st October and 30th November. The date can change from one year to the next and will not be the same for all local authorities, although there is some coordination across neighbouring local authorities to avoid double counting.

6.4. A ‘typical’ night should avoid weekends and local events which may impact numbers (e.g. football matches, club nights, festivals, charity sleep-outs, higher levels of police activity or changes to service opening times).

6.5. There are three different snapshot approaches which the local authority can use:

• A count-based estimate which is physical count of the number of people seen sleeping rough in a local authority on a ‘typical’ night.
• An evidence-based estimate is an evidence-based assessment by local agencies, leading to a single snapshot figure that represents the number of people thought to be sleeping rough in a local authority on a ‘typical’ night.
• An evidence-based estimate including a spotlight count, includes an evidence-based assessment with local agencies as well as a street count, which might not be as extensive as the count-based estimate but has taken place after midnight on the ‘typical’ night.

6.6. All approaches are snapshots and will not include everyone in the local authority with a history of rough sleeping between October and November but rather record people found on the night of the count or known to be sleeping rough on a single night as evidenced by a range of different sources provided by local agencies.

6.7. The snapshot takes place in the autumn rather than Summer or Winter where numbers are either likely to be higher, due to warmer temperatures or lower, as more temporary night shelters are made available to ensure people do not sleep rough in very cold weather.

6.8. If there are severe weather conditions on the night of the estimate, the local authority may activate their Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP), if they have one, which provides support for individuals during extreme weather. If people sleeping rough do take up emergency accommodation as part of the SWEP they are still included in the Rough sleeping snapshot.

6.9. Local authorities appoint a coordinator to oversee the process and liaise with Homeless Link’s Project Manager for support and to arrange verification.

6.10. Homeless Link uses its own staff, associates, and volunteers to verify the Rough sleeping snapshots. These verifiers receive Homeless Link training and must be independent of the local authority they are verifying.

6.11. The local authority starts by arranging a multi-agency meeting and inviting local agencies to contribute to the intelligence gathering process. At the multi-agency meeting local agencies bring together the most accurate and up-to-date information on rough sleeping to make a decision on which approach to use and the date for the ‘typical’ night.

6.12. Local agencies are consulted to see if patterns of rough sleeping have changed and to check if there are any factors that might affect the choice of a ‘typical’ night. Local authorities are advised to involve those local agencies that will have the most accurate information about who is sleeping rough. This may include:

• Outreach teams, Hostels, day centres, night shelters
• Housing departments, Housing associations
• Police, community safety teams, park rangers
• Faith groups, soup runs, street pastors, advice agencies
• Social Services, youth workers, Probation
• Health and mental health services
• Refuse collectors, town centre/local retail security/management, street wardens

Count-based estimates

6.13. Local authorities are advised to start planning the count-based estimate of visible rough sleeping at least six weeks before the count itself. This gives enough time to carry out a rage of key activities including:

• Gathering intelligence from local agencies
• Preparing a data protection statement
• Organising volunteers
• Planning the night’s activities
• Liaising with the police
• Arranging a Homeless Link verifier

6.14. Local authorities are advised that the date of the count should only be shared on a ‘need to know’ basis in case this causes a change in the pattern of people sleeping rough, potentially resulting in a less accurate figure.

6.15. The presence of film crews or photographers on the count is not permitted by the guidance as this would mean it is not a ‘typical’ night, because people may move sleep sites to avoid being filmed or photographed.

6.16. Start times should be tailored to meet local circumstances. The earliest permitted start is midnight. In cities and towns with a busy night time economy, a start time of 2am or even later is more appropriate to include people who bed down after pubs and clubs close. In rural local authorities, where the majority of people are sleeping rough away from built-up and well-lit areas, counts may be conducted in the hours after dawn.

6.17. There is no fixed duration for a count. It will depend on the geography of the local authority, the number of counters, the number of people sleeping rough and what occurs as the teams are talking to the people they meet (e.g. getting people to shelter/hubs, or dealing with emergencies).

6.18. Typically counts start between 12-2am and finish between 3-6am. In most cases, if appropriate intelligence has been gathered and enough volunteers recruited, counts take no more than 2 to 3 hours to conduct.

6.19. Local authorities without regular outreach may do a street needs audit with a smaller team in advance of the count to gather intelligence about sleep sites, so the count can be planned around known sleeping sites. This is because it is not feasible to check every street/alley/car park in most local authorities and thus some targeting of teams is needed. Local authorities are advised not to do ‘pre-counts’ on the same day as they could disrupt activity. For example, if people get prior knowledge a count is due to take place, they may move elsewhere to avoid being disturbed later in the evening.

6.20. Local authority coordinators are responsible for recruiting volunteer counters to help with the count-based estimate. Many local authorities use volunteers from their own workforce, as well as volunteer counters from the local statutory and voluntary sectors or faith and community groups, such as the police, park rangers, day centre staff, street pastors and advice workers. If there is a local outreach team available to the local authority they should be fully involved in the count-based estimate.

6.21. Local authorities must involve volunteers who are independent of the council and its outreach team (e.g. non-commissioned) as this strengthens the credibility of the count. Homeless Link will not verify the process if no local agencies, or only those that are part of, or commissioned by, the local authority are involved.

6.22. Local authorities are advised to liaise with neighbouring local authorities and if possible, organise a count on the same night over a county or wider sub-regional area, as this reduces the risk of double counting people who move across local authority boundaries.

6.23. Prior intelligence should be used to focus on areas where people are known to sleep and areas where people are sometimes seen bedded down, as it is unlikely local authorities will have enough volunteer counters to cover every street or park in their local authority. If there are sleep sites that are occupied but inaccessible or unsafe, then local authorities should consider using the evidence-based estimate meeting process including a spotlight count to achieve greater accuracy.

6.24. Local authorities are advised to plan ahead to gain access to non-public areas where people may be bedded down (e.g. hospital or college grounds, parks, building stairwells, car parks). This may include contacting police, park rangers or security firms to gain access to those areas to support the count.

6.25. Local authorities should be divided into segments for each counting team. Each counting team will need a map clearly showing the boundaries of their segment and any known areas for people sleeping rough within it. Exact boundaries, identifying individual streets or parts of streets, should be identified and drawn on a map. It is important to be precise about boundaries so that areas are not double counted or missed entirely.

6.26. The areas covered should be well known to the teams and individual counters. The most effective counters are those with knowledge of where people are likely to be sleeping rough in that local authority (e.g. workers from local outreach teams). Therefore, someone with knowledge of local rough sleeping should be included in each team, alongside volunteers from other agencies.

6.27. There should be at least one mobile counting team in a car to cover outlying areas and support other teams if they encounter delays (e.g. providing assistance to a person they find sleeping rough).

6.28. At least one person, usually the coordinator, stays at the base of operations to deal with queries and check in with counting teams during the night. The verifier has to be in the first team to return to the base, so that they can speak to each team as they return to ask questions about the information being provided. This ensures that the guidance has been followed correctly.

6.29. The majority of count-based estimates will be verified in person by Homeless Link. A minority may be verified by telephone, in which case we will need to speak with at least three participating counters, including someone independent/non-commissioned (e.g. from a local faith or community group).

6.30. Once the information has been verified it is submitted to MHCLG, where it is quality assured and compiled for publication. For more information about the quality assurance processes involved see the sections on Quality assurance during collection and Quality assurance prior to publication.

What information is collected on night of count-based estimate?

6.31. Homeless Link provide a template data collection form for local authorities to use on the night of the count. This information is used both for the Rough sleeping snapshot, as well as helping the local authority establish plans to reduce rough sleeping. The counters are asked to record the following information where possible to help plan local responses for supporting people sleeping rough, this includes:

• Location
• Full name (if known)
• Age/DOB (if known)
• Gender
• Nationality
• Ethnicity
• Support needs
• Length of time on sleeping rough
• Reason why details not known
• Whether had accommodation but not taking it up
• Whether known to outreach
• Actions plan to end each rough sleeping for each person found

Evidence-based estimate meetings

6.32. An evidence-based estimate meeting is an effective way to collate the evidence of rough sleeping on the chosen night and to discuss any potential duplicates or misinformation. Where a disagreement arises, or where there are conflicting approaches between agencies on the scale of the issue, a face-to-face meeting is useful way to solve potential issues and agree an accurate and reliable estimate of the number of people sleeping rough in a local authority.

6.33. Evidence-based estimate meetings rely on agencies being able to share accurate basic information about an individual’s situation on a particular night. Agencies should agree a data sharing protocol with the local authority before the evidence-base meeting takes place. It is important that there is a way to identify individuals, by name or a unique identifier (e.g. initials and date of birth) to minimise the risk of double counting or including people who have been housed and were not sleeping rough on the ‘typical’ night.

6.34. If some agencies decline to join the data sharing agreement, they may still submit information as evidence but more weight will be given to those agencies whose evidence is supported by complete data.

What information is collected to inform the evidence-based estimate meeting?

6.35. Homeless Link provide a data collection form template for local authorities to use as part of the evidence gathering to inform the evidence-based estimate meeting. This information is used both for the Rough sleeping snapshot, as well as helping the local authority establish plans to reduce rough sleeping. The information local agencies are asked to gather includes:

• Location
• Full name (if known)
• Age/D.O.B. (if known)
• Gender
• Nationality
• Evidence that the individual was rough sleeping on the agreed ‘typical’ night
• Other agencies working with individual

6.36. Agencies should collect evidence for the night of the estimate and either bring it to the estimate meeting to discuss verbally or provide electronically beforehand in a password encrypted file.

6.37. If there is already a local forum or network which brings together key agencies working with people sleeping rough, this can be used for the evidence-based estimate meeting (with expanded membership, if needed) as long as sufficient data sharing protocols are in place.

6.38. If a face-to-face estimate meeting isn’t practical, agencies are asked to submit their evidence in a password encrypted email file or verbally via a telephone conference. The coordinator should collate this evidence and resolve any issues with the relevant agencies.

6.39. Each agency should present information on who they think slept rough on the night of the estimate. Evidence should be provided for each person. Examples of evidence that an individual slept rough include:

• Individual seen bedded down by local agency
• Individual seen bedded down by another partner agency
• Individual known to the agency and it is clear that they do not have accommodation that they can occupy (people sleeping rough over a longer period/with a history of rough sleeping)
• A spotlight count carried out in particular locations on the chosen night
• Individual self-reports sleeping rough over the period alongside evidence that they are sleeping rough (use of services, carrying/storing belongings, appearance - while bearing in mind many people sleeping rough are well-presented, other known factors)
• Information that demonstrates that someone known to be sleeping rough intermittently did sleep rough on the night in question (e.g. they weren’t seen in their hostel; were at the day centre early; were discharged from prison or hospital shortly before)

6.40. Spotlight counts are an additional evidence source to include alongside multi-agency intelligence. This can be particularly effective for local authorities with people sleeping in a mix of urban and rural locations, or where there are fluctuating numbers of people sleeping rough that require counting for accuracy. Spotlight counts must take place after midnight on the ‘typical’ night chosen. This is to avoid counting people who are part of wider street activity but have somewhere to stay and will not bed down for the night. Involving independent agencies will give the spotlight count evidence more credibility but may cause resource issues if the same agencies are being asked to attend the estimate meeting. Spotlight counts should only be used alongside other data sources.

6.41. The final decision on the estimated number of people sleeping rough is made by the local authority, taking into account all the evidence and eliminating duplicates or unsubstantiated data. The coordinator might need to collate further information following the estimate meeting in order to resolve any outstanding questions, particularly where people are known to move between local authority boundaries, as there is a risk of duplication with neighbouring estimates.

6.42. Homeless Link attend at least 10 % of estimate meetings as part of the verification process based on a combination of concern/risk, random allocation, geography, and availability. During verification, Homeless Link will check which agencies have been involved. Estimates using the evidence-based process must be able to show more than one data source. Where the process involves no local agencies, or only those that are part of, or commissioned by, the local authority, Homeless Link will not verify the process.

6.43. After the estimate process ends, the Verifier completes the evidence-based estimate verification Form, which will be reviewed by Homeless Link’s Project Manager before being returned to the local authority lead.

6.44. Once the estimate has been verified by Homeless Link, local authorities submit this information to MHCLG. For more information about the quality assurance processes involved see the sections on Quality assurance during collection and Quality assurance prior to publication.

7. Quality assurance during collection

7.1. Homeless Link, have been funded by MHCLG since 2010 to provide guidance to local authorities who conduct the Rough sleeping snapshot and independently verify all local authorities snapshots. Homeless Link’s role includes:

• Publishing a toolkit that supports local authorities to produce the most accurate snapshot, whether by count-based estimate or evidence-based estimate
• Providing support to local authorities in planning and carrying out the data collection
• Verifying each Rough sleeping snapshot
• Provide training and support to verifiers
• Cross-checking the data submitted by local authorities to MHCLG with the numbers Homeless Link has verified for each local authority (the single figure of people sleeping rough and demographic information).

7.2. Local authorities appoint a coordinator to oversee the process and liaise with Homeless Link’s Project Manager for support and to arrange verification. The coordinator can be someone from the local authority but may be an external person such as a rough sleeping coordinator or outreach team leader.

7.3. All coordinators are required to read the Homeless Link toolkit which sets out the process that local authorities and their local agencies, should use to carry out their respective snapshots of rough sleeping. The toolkit includes guidance around defining rough sleeping, choosing between the different approaches, collecting demographic data, how the verification process works, step-by-step guidance, templates, verification forms, and quick guides for easy reference.

7.4. Each year, Homeless Link verify all count-based estimate of visible rough sleeping in person on the night and attend and verify at least 10 % of evidence-based estimate meetings. The remaining snapshots are verified remotely by Homeless Link’s project team.

7.5. Homeless Link uses its own staff, associates, and volunteers to verify the Rough sleeping snapshots. These verifiers receive Homeless Link training and must be independent of the local authority they are verifying. The reasons why this independent verification role is important are that it:

• Provides independent oversight of the snapshot process
• Ensures that there is a comparable process, year by year
• Checks that each local authority is using the correct process
• Enables action if local authorities are using the wrong process
• Arrive at an accurate single figure and collate demographic data
• Helps to answer questions and resolve issues
• Ask questions and gather information about rough sleeping causes and responses in different areas
• Gains feedback to improve next year’s processes

7.6. Verifiers attending count-based estimates observe and check that people counting have followed the published guidance. They will join a counting team and will be back at the base before the other count teams arrive to speak to each counting team. Verifiers are required to keep a tally of numbers and demographics and asks question of each count team such as:

• Did they make any decisions not to count anywhere (e.g. due to safety concerns)?
• Were there any issues identifying people sleeping rough?
• Were there any incidents or activity that might have changed patterns of rough sleeping?
• Were the safety guidelines followed?
• Was the figure what they were expecting?

7.7. Verifiers attending evidence-based estimate meetings observe the meeting and complete a verification form. Their role is to be objective and ensure the process follows the published guidance, making sure evidence has been examined and discussed to provide a reliable estimate of the number of people sleeping rough on the night chosen for the estimate. Verifiers at evidence-based estimate meetings should:

• Confirm the coordinator has contacted a range of local agencies, including relevant voluntary and community organisations, and invited them to be part of the estimate process.
• Confirm agencies have been given sufficient information to participate in the process and provide the information required.
• Confirm a ‘typical’ night has been chosen and all agencies involved understand the principle of the ‘typical’ night and the definition of rough sleeping and there is a data sharing protocol in place.
• Assess whether enough data and evidence has been gathered to resolve conflicting information and avoid double counting.
• Check if there are any issues or dynamics between local agencies that could influence the meeting.
• Observe the meeting and make notes in the verification form.
• Listen to the evidence presented for each person thought to be sleeping rough.
• Provide guidance or make decisions about specific cases if the group are unsure or disagree.
• Make sure demographic data for each person sleeping rough is provided and any gaps in data are explained and recorded as not known.
• Ask questions to remind people of the rough sleeping definition or to ensure that decisions are led by evidence.

7.8. Verifiers attending count-based estimates and evidence-based estimate meetings in person have to complete a verification form which ask a series of questions about the process. For example checking that the guidance had been followed, that relevant local agencies were involved, that a single ‘typical’ night was used, and that there was an understanding of the rough sleeping definition. These verification forms have to be returned to the Homeless Link project manager who will review them and then let the local authority know they can submit their snapshot figures and related demographic information via MHCLG’s DELTA online data collection system. The project manager will note any concerns or recommendations relating to the process which will be reported back to the local authority and also kept by Homeless Link to help inform their risk assessment of other local authorities.

7.9. There are a number of reasons why Homeless Link might not be able to verify an estimate. For example, if there were no independent local agencies involved or there was a lack of reliable evidence that people included were sleeping rough on that night or evidence was not included about known sleep sites or individuals sleeping rough.

7.10. Any snapshot not verified in person are validated by telephone. In each case, the telephone verifier will ask the coordinator a series of questions about how they conducted their snapshot to complete a verification form before they can confirm the information can be recorded on DELTA.

7.11. In 2019, Homeless Link attempted to verify all 78 (25%) count-based estimates in person, liaising with the count coordinator to check that the guidance had been followed in the planning of the count. In each case, the verifier discussed the single figure and demographics with the coordinator, and completed a verification form that was sent to Homeless Link for review. Verifiers were trained by Homeless Link and were not employed by the local authority or its commissioned services. There were 2 count-based estimates in Bury and Preston that were not verified in person. These was verified remotely after the count took place, which involved Homeless Link contacting each authority directly and 3 partner agencies including a non-commissioned independent agency who were involved in the process to ask various questions to complete verification.

7.12. Homeless Link also conducted a detailed verification in person of 28 (9%) of the rough sleeping evidence-based estimate meetings. These were Arun, Bedford, Cheltenham, Cotswold, Crawley, Dorset, Folkestone & Hythe, Forest of Dean, Gloucester, Haringey, Harlow, Lincoln, Luton, Merton, Newark and Sherwood, North Devon, Nottingham, Sevenoaks, Stroud, Swale, Tewkesbury, Tonbridge and Malling, Torridge, Tunbridge Wells, Waltham Forest, West Suffolk, Wiltshire and York. Homeless Link chose these local authorities at random and via a risk assessment to ascertain whether these local authorities would need direct support with planning or verification of their estimate was carried out. High risk authorities could be those with high numbers, issues with local agencies disputing figures, concerns about the correct methodology being used in previous years, or requests for additional support.

7.13. The remaining 211 (67%) local authority estimates not selected for detailed verification underwent a validation process by telephone.

8. Quality assurance prior to publication

8.1. Since 2017, local authorities have been required to submit their annual figure and demographic information for the single night snapshot via MHCLG’s DELTA online data collection system. DELTA is the online system provided by MHCLG to collect all the Department’s statistical data and grant applications.

What information is collected via DELTA?

8.2. The Rough sleeping snapshot DELTA form asks local authorities to provide the following information:

• Type of approached used
• Date of count/’typical’ night
• Whether methodology was same/different to last year Whether there were any activities, incidents or circumstances that affected snapshot
• Which local agencies were involved?
• Total snapshot figures
• Age
• Gender
• Nationality

8.3. The DELTA online data collection system includes in-built rules and validation checks to ensure the data provided is complete, reliable and of good quality. Any large changes compared to last year triggers an alert to the authority and requires a text description to explain the reason for the change in order to submit the information. Specifically, these include:

• Rule to ensure figures have been verified by Homeless Link before they are submitted via DELTA.
• Rule to ensure demographic breakdowns sum to the total Rough sleeping snapshot figure provided.
• Rule to ensure all fields are completed before it can be submitted
• Rule to ensure date of snapshot was between 1st October 2019 and 31st November 2019.
• Rule to ensure at least one local agency has been consulted as part of the process before information can be submitted via DELTA.
• Validation check to trigger an explanation from the local authority if the overall Rough sleeping snapshot figure is +/- 20% or +/- 5 different compared to last year.
• Validation check to trigger an explanation from the local authority if the gender breakdown changes significantly compared to last year.
• Validation check to trigger an explanation from the local authority if the age breakdowns changes significantly compared to last year.
• Validation check to trigger an explanation from the local authority if the nationality breakdowns changes significantly compared to last year.

8.4. All returns submitted by local authorities on DELTA also undergo a final certification by Homeless Link to check that the final figures submitted were the same as those which had already been verified. If there were any discrepancies these had to be discussed and agreed with Homeless Link before they were certified.

8.5. As well as the in-built validations via DELTA, MHCLG analysts also carry out a series of checks including comparing the latest snapshot figures with other relevant data sources to produce a quality report. These include:

• Outliers check to see how each overall Rough sleeping snapshot figure compares to previous years.
• Outliers check to see how demographic figures compare to previous years.
• Comparing all local authority Rough sleeping snapshot figures with the number of people who present to their housing options team with a rough sleeping support need. This information is collected quarterly, as part of the Statutory homelessness statistics.
• Comparing London snapshot figures with Combined Homelessness and Information Network (CHAIN) figures for October and November. CHAIN is a multi-agency database recording information about people seen rough sleeping by outreach teams in London.

9. Data quality and limitations

9.1. Accurately estimating the number of people sleeping rough within a local authority is inherently difficult given the hidden nature of rough sleeping. There are a range of factors that can impact on the number of people seen or thought to be sleeping rough on any given night. This includes the weather, where people choose to sleep, the date and time chosen, and the availability of alternatives such as night shelters.

9.2. The single night snapshot in England provides a way of estimating the number of people sleeping rough across local authorities and assessing change over time. There is currently no national mechanism for recording every person who sleeps rough in England across the year. However, the single night snapshot methodology aims to get as accurate a representation of the number of people sleeping rough as possible, while acknowledging that there are some limitations. The snapshot methodology used in England aligns with a standard approach used in many parts of the world including Canada, the United States and several other European countries including France, Ireland, Italy and Spain.

9.3. All the available methods record only those people seen, or thought to be, sleeping rough on a single ‘typical’ night. They do not include everyone in a local authority with a history of sleeping rough, or everyone sleeping rough in local authorities across the October-November period.

9.4. Many people who sleep rough do so intermittently, moving from hostels or ‘sofa surfing’ to sleeping rough and back. Many people sleeping rough bed down in places out of sight to avoid the risk of being detected, which means accurately capturing the number of people sleeping rough across a local authority on a single night is inherently difficult.

9.5. A range of different factors can influence the outcome of the snapshot estimates including:

• Local authority topography: It is more difficult to carry out a count of people sleeping rough in large rural and coastal areas than in urban areas. For example, the surface area to cover in a single night is often much larger and there are a wider range of possible places people may sleep rough, including woods or on private property in barns or on farm land, which are difficult or unsafe to access. In urban areas, where it may be easier to carry out a street count, there may still be issues with including everyone, as people could be sleeping in sites which are difficult and unsafe to access, such as derelict buildings and building sites. Furthermore, people sleeping rough may move across local authority boundaries regularly which may explain some of the year on year differences observed.

• Weather : The weather of the chosen night for the count or estimate may have a large impact on the number of people sleeping rough. Severe weather conditions will force many people who normally sleep rough to use a night shelter or hostel, to ‘sofa surf’, or sleep in locations which are more hidden. These people would be excluded from the count or estimate which may alter the detected level of rough sleeping. In some local authorities we know that the weather was more severe compared to last year and in others it was milder, which may also have impacted on the overall number.

• Time and day of snapshot: The guidance provided by Homeless Link makes clear that the night chosen for the count or estimate should take care to avoid any unusual local factors which may distort the number, such as events, club nights, football matches, festivals, charity sleep-outs, higher levels of police activity, or changes to service opening times. Local authorities are also advised to identify an appropriate day of the week, as choosing a weekend may mean that people bed down later or are less visible. People sleeping rough in busy urban areas may bed down later. Local authorities are advised start times should be tailored to meet local circumstances. The earliest permitted start is midnight. In cities and towns with a busy night time economy, start time of 2am or even later is more appropriate so that people sleeping rough who bed down after pubs and clubs close are still counted. Counts should be completed by 5am, but in rural areas, where the majority of people are sleeping rough away from built-up and well-lit areas, counts may be conducted in the hours after dawn. Local authorities should take care to follow as closely as possible the same time period used each year, unless there is a good reason not to such as a later night time economy.

Deciding which approach to use for the snapshot estimate of rough sleeping

9.6. Local authorities, together with local agencies decide which approach and date to use for their snapshot of rough sleeping. They are advised to use the approach that will most accurately reflect the number of people sleeping rough in their local authority and will provide the most accurate estimate. This decision about what approach to use is made in September so that there is enough time to plan next steps before snapshot happens in October or November.

9.7. Homeless Link provide guidance to local authorities on the reasons to choose the relevant snapshot approach. These are as follows:

Reasons to choose a count-based estimate

• People sleeping rough are in sleep sites that will be visible/accessible at night.
• There are changes in the number, population or location of people sleeping rough where sites are visible (e.g. areas near transport hubs where transient groups sleeping rough make the figures unpredictable from one night to the next; areas that regularly see people new to the streets).
• There are difficulties forming an evidence-based estimate on the basis of the information available (e.g. lack of local agencies who have intelligence about where people are sleeping rough, or local agencies refuse to share data).
• There is significant disagreement about the numbers between agencies and sites are visible/accessible.

Reasons to choose an evidence-based estimate meeting

• Sleep sites are inaccessible (e.g. in woods or dispersed across rural areas).
• Sleep sites are, during the night, unsafe to access or are hidden from sight.
• The local authority cannot arrange safe access to known rough sleeping sites (e.g. parks, tower blocks) during a street count.
• There is regular intelligence gathering in place by a number of agencies and they are happy to share their intelligence with the local authority.
• Numbers of people sleeping rough are consistently low, they are already in touch with services, and partner agencies agree this is the case (i.e. there are rarely people who are new or returning to the streets).
• The local authority can gather sufficient and reliable intelligence on people sleeping rough on the ‘typical’ night via partner agencies.
• Partner agencies agree to collect information for an agreed night and to share this with the local authority for the purpose of the estimate.

Reasons to choose an evidence-based estimate meeting informed by a spotlight count

• There is a mix of visible/accessible and hidden/inaccessible locations in the local authority.
• The individuals sleeping rough or overall numbers of people sleeping rough in visible/accessible sites change frequently.
• There are conflicting views from local agencies about which method is right for the local authority.
• Additional intelligence comes to light on the night of a planned street count about hidden rough sleeping (i.e. the process is expanded from count-based estimate to evidence based estimate meeting).

9.8. As part of the verification process, Homeless Link ask why the specific approach has been chosen and provide feedback to local authorities where there are concerns that the proposed approach might not produce the most accurate snapshot. If there is any evidence that the chosen approach has missed out people known to the local authority, or included people who are not within the rough sleeping definition, Homeless Link may not be able to verify the snapshot.

9.9. Local authorities can adjust aspects of the process from year to year to achieve greater accuracy. Some of the small changes a local authority might make include:

• Choosing the ‘typical’ night earlier (e.g. October) to reduce the risk of severe weather.
• Changing night of the week in response to a busier night time economy.
• Starting a street count later (e.g. 2am instead of midnight) in response to a busier night time economy.
• Involving new local agencies and/or people with lived experience to improve evidence base/engagement.
• To take into account a significant change in the local context, such as boundary changes.

9.10. If local authorities change their approach from an estimate meeting to a count-based estimate or vice versa from one year to the next, Homeless Link question the decision-making process to confirm that there is a valid reason to change approach. Areas are advised that undertaking a count at other times of year is not in itself sufficient reason to change between evidence-based and count-based estimates. Again, if the decision to change approach does not meet the criteria for choosing one approach over another as detailed above, Homeless Link may not verify the snapshot.

10. Related statistics

10.1. The Rough sleeping snapshot does not provide a definitive number of people or households affected by homelessness in England. The term ‘homelessness’ is much broader than people sleeping rough.

10.2. It is difficult to provide an accurate estimate of all homelessness across England. Data used to compile any estimate is collated from different datasets, which sample different subsets of the population over different time frames. Any estimate of homelessness in England will collate datasets that are not discrete from one another, which means some individuals may have been included more than once in the estimated total.

Statutory Homelessness

10.3. MHCLG collects and publish quarterly statistics on the broad characteristics and circumstances of households owed a statutory homelessness duty, which includes households who approach the council for help with housing who are sleeping rough.

Hidden Homelessness

10.4. MHCLG produce other statistics releases that can help build up the wider homelessness picture.

10.5. The English Housing Survey publishes data on the number of concealed households, which are additional adults in a household who wanted to rent or buy but could not afford to do so, as well as the ‘sofa surfers’ in England.

10.6. The CORE social housing lettings collection publishes data on those moving from homelessness into local authority/ Private Registered Providers accommodation.

Expenditure on homelessness

10.7. MHCLG publish statistics on local authority revenue expenditure and financing in England. The RO4 return within the Revenue Outturn suite relates to housing services and includes information on local authorities expenditure on homelessness activities.

Deaths of homeless people

10.8. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes experimental statistics on the number of deaths of homeless people in England and Wales.

Hostels and support services

10.9. Homeless Link publishes an Annual Review of Single Homelessness support, which includes information about the number of hostels and shelters in England and available bed spaces, as well as the support and services available to single people who become homeless in England.

11. Comparability across the UK

11.1. The devolved administrations publish their own statistics on homelessness. Details of their releases which contain information on rough sleeping are provided below.

11.2. The Scottish Government publishes figures on the number of households applying to the local authority for assistance under homelessness legislation who say they have slept rough the previous night or have reported their housing situation as long term roofless.

11.3. The Welsh Government publish a national annual rough sleeping monitoring exercise, which includes a two week information gathering exercise followed by a one night snapshot count. This is carried out by local authorities, in partnership with other local agencies to gauge the extent of rough sleeping across Wales.

11.4. The governing legislation for homelessness in Northern Ireland is the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (as amended). Unlike the other three UK nations, housing is allocated by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE), which covers the whole of Northern Ireland, rather than by local authorities. In Northern Ireland statistics on homelessness are obtained from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE).

11.5. The NIHE carry out an annual street count in Belfast, in partnership with other statutory agencies and homeless organisations.

11.6. The figures are not directly comparable between countries as they have a different methodology, coverage and are carried out at different time periods.

11.7. ONS recently published a report and an interactive dashboard on the comparability and coherence of existing UK government data sources on homelessness.

12. Uses of the statistics

12.1. The data in this statistical release provide evidence on the prevalence of and trends in rough sleeping in England.

12.2. Within MHCLG they are used:

• For ministerial briefing & correspondence, Parliamentary Questions, Freedom of Information Act cases and to answer public enquiries.
• As background to policy development.
• For monitoring policy, allocating resources, performance monitoring and to support bids for funding from the Treasury.

12.3. Outside of MHCLG users include:

• Local housing authorities for monitoring progress, planning and commissioning services to prevent and tackle rough sleeping.
• Other government departments (e.g. Department for Health and Social Care, Public Health Outcomes Framework).
• The voluntary sector & academics to monitor and evaluate housing policy and for campaigning and fundraising purposes.
• E.U. bodies to compare homelessness across Europe e.g. FEANTSA Overview of Housing Exclusion in Europe

13. User engagement

13.1. Users are encouraged to provide feedback on how these statistics are used and how well they meet user needs. Comments on any issues relating to this statistical release are welcomed and encouraged.

13.2. The Department’s engagement strategy to meet the needs of statistics users is published here The MHCLG Homelessness Statistics User Forum also keep users up to date with all the latest developments in MHCLG’s homelessness statistics. This include previous user engagement surveys and roundtables, recent improvements and response to the UK Statistics Authority Assessment report.

13.3. If there are any substantial changes to the collection or publication of the Rough sleeping snapshot then these have to be considered by Central Local Information Partnership (CLIP) Housing subgroup. CLIP enables central and local government to work together to deliver an efficient, effective, minimally burdensome information infrastructure for policy development, implementation, service delivery, monitoring and reporting.

14. Revisions policy

14.1. The revisions policy has been developed in accordance with the UK Statistics Authority Code of Practice for statistics and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Revisions Policy. There are two types of revisions that the policy covers:

• Non-Scheduled Revisions - Where a substantial error has occurred as a result of the compilation, imputation or dissemination process, the statistical release, live tables and other accompanying releases will be updated with a correction notice as soon as is practical. If a local authority notifies MHCLG of an error in the information they have submitted after publication of the release, a decision on whether to revise will be made based upon the impact of any change and the effect it has on the interpretation of the data.
• Scheduled Revisions - There are no scheduled revisions for this release.

15. Further information

15.1. Five accompanying tables are available alongside this release. These include the number of people sleeping rough, demographic information (i.e. gender, age, nationality), Rough Sleeping Initiative local authorities, the snapshot approach used and any consultations that took place with local agencies.

15.2. A new interactive dashboard is now also available which enables users to explore trends in rough sleeping since 2010. This technical report explains in more detail how the rough sleeping data is collected, how data quality is assessed and the limitations of the data.

15.3. The UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) published an assessment report covering the Department’s homelessness and rough sleeping statistics in December 2015. This report and related correspondence between the Department’s Statistics Head of Profession and the Authority’s Director General for Regulation can be found here.

15.4. The Homeless Link toolkit sets out the process that local authorities, and their local agencies, use to arrive at their snapshot figure of people sleeping rough. The full guidance is available at the following link. Key documents include:

• Rough Sleeping Estimates Toolkit 2019
• Rough Sleeping Estimate 2019 Quick Guide
• Forms and resources for local authorities
• Rough Sleeping Count Form
• Count Verification Form
• Estimate Verification Form

Rough Sleeping Statistics prior to 2010

15.5. MHCLG published a technical note explaining the differences between the current snapshot statistics and the previous published figures.

15.6. MHCLG’s previous rough sleeping statistics can be found here

Footnotes:

1. Demographic information was collected for the first time in 2016. The totals included ‘not knowns’ but not all local authorities were able to provide exact numbers of these ‘not knowns’, therefore this information is not comparable with subsequent years. ↩

2. LAs that have always used the same approach for their measuring rough sleeping since 2010 ↩

3. LAs that have changed approach at least once since 2010 ↩

4. A box plot was used to present the distribution of year on year differences in people sleeping rough in local authorities that have changed their snapshot approach against local authorities that have used the same approach since 2010. Outliers were removed from Figure 5.2 to simplify interpretation but were included for all calculations. ↩