The speech, language and communication needs of rough sleepers in London

Abstract

Background: There is very little awareness of the speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) of rough sleepers. The small amount of documentation that does exist involves a wider group of homeless adults (not just rough sleepers), and reports that communication needs are an area of concern.

Aims: To investigate: (1) the reported prevalence of SLCN amongst UK nationals recorded on the Combined Homeless and Information Network (CHAIN) as sleeping on the streets of London; (2) whether rough sleepers with reported SLCN differ from those without; and (3) what factors best predict patterns of rough sleeping and accommodation stays.

Methods & procedures: A data set of 513 participants was provided by CHAIN, which contained information relating to all new rough sleepers and people with long-term histories of rough sleeping (UK nationals only) recorded by street outreach teams in London between 1 April and 30 June 2013. Also included was data about UK nationals provided with support by the Homelessness and Brain Injury Project. The data set contained information including basic demographics, communication skills, health and social care needs, and institutional background and extended to a 5-year period.

Outcomes & results: (1) SLCN data were often not recorded with data available for only 62% of individuals on the CHAIN databases. However, for those with SLCN data, the prevalence of SLCN was significantly higher than for the general population (17.1%; p < 0.001). (2) There were no significant differences between those with and without SLCN on additional risk factors, quarters rough sleeping, accommodation stays or staff-recorded alerts. (3) There was a positive correlation between rough sleeping and additional risk factors for those with SLCN (r = 0.32, p < 0.001) and for those without (r = 0.25, p < 0.001). Regression analysis indicated that additional risk factors were more predictive than SLCN in explaining the number of quarters rough sleeping and accommodation stays.

Conclusions & implications: SLCN are highly prevalent amongst rough sleepers and significantly greater than for the UK general population. SLCN are not clearly related to rough sleeping behaviour, but the presence of additional risk factors is highly significant in this regard. Homelessness organizations should provide training for staff in SLCN in order to promote better recording of SLCN, inclusive communication and appropriate support to people who are homeless. Further research is also needed to understand better the communication needs of rough sleepers. What this study adds What is already known on the subject There is very little literature concerning the SLCN of rough sleepers, but that which exists suggests that communication needs are an area of concern. There is relatively little awareness of SLCN in practice in this field. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study is the first to provide information on SLCN recording in this population. It reports large-scale prevalence data on SLCN in rough sleepers, showing a significantly higher risk in this group. Unexpectedly, SLCN did not clearly relate to patterns of rough sleeping and accommodation, but this may be due to the relatively crude data available in routine practice. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Wider awareness and training on SLCN in the homelessness sector is needed coupled with more systematic and objective assessment of communication in rough sleepers.

Keywords: homelessness; language and communication needs (SLCN); rough sleepers; speech.