London homelessness services face calls for outcome-based accountability

A growing push for outcome-based accountability in homelessness services is gaining traction in the United States, but the arguments have direct resonance for London, where the Mayor’s office and borough councils collectively spend hundreds of millions of pounds annually on rough sleeping interventions with mixed evidence of lasting impact.

The debate, raised by Smart Cities Dive in a recent analysis, centres on the contention that many homelessness programmes rely on outdated service models and undertrained staff, measuring inputs such as bed nights or contact hours rather than sustained housing outcomes. For London planners, housing officers and policy watchers, the question is whether the capital’s own rough sleeping strategy is sufficiently focused on results.

London’s homelessness landscape is shaped by the Mayor’s Rough Sleeping Plan, borough-level housing strategies and the pan-London No Second Night Out initiative. According to the Combined Homelessness and Information Network (CHAIN), more than 10,000 people were seen sleeping rough in London during the 2024-25 reporting year, a figure that has risen steadily since the pandemic. The GLA allocated approximately £165 million to homelessness prevention and rough sleeping services in the current budget cycle, yet repeat contact rates remain high: roughly a third of rough sleepers recorded in CHAIN data had been seen in previous years.

The Smart Cities Dive piece, while focused on US cities, identifies three structural problems that apply equally to London: a lack of standardised outcome metrics, insufficiently trained frontline staff and a tendency to fund programmes based on historical precedent rather than proven effectiveness. In London, the picture is complicated by the division of responsibilities between the GLA and 32 boroughs, each with its own commissioning priorities and data systems.

Key facts

The call for results-driven services

The core argument from the US analysis is that homelessness services should be judged on whether people leave homelessness permanently, not on how many interactions or bed nights are provided. This mirrors a long-standing critique from London housing charities such as St Mungo’s and Crisis, which have argued that the capital’s system is skewed toward emergency accommodation rather than rapid rehousing and sustained tenancy support.

A 2024 report from the London Assembly Housing Committee found that only 18 per cent of rough sleepers placed in emergency accommodation in 2023 moved on to settled housing within 12 months. The remainder either returned to the streets, moved between temporary shelters or were lost to follow-up. The committee called for a London-wide outcomes framework that tracks individuals beyond the initial intervention, linking housing, health and employment data across borough boundaries.

The GLA has taken steps in this direction. The Mayor’s Rough Sleeping Plan 2023-28 includes a commitment to “outcome-based commissioning” and pilots in three boroughs—Camden, Southwark and Tower Hamlets—are testing payment-by-results models for supported housing providers. Early findings from the Camden pilot suggest that providers paid partly on tenancy sustainment achieved an 82 per cent retention rate at 12 months, compared with a borough average of 64 per cent.

Training and workforce gaps

A second theme in the US critique is the quality of frontline staff. The Smart Cities Dive analysis notes that many homelessness workers lack training in trauma-informed care, mental health first aid or tenancy law, reducing the effectiveness of outreach and case management.

In London, the workforce challenge is acute. A 2025 survey by London Councils found that 14 of 32 boroughs reported difficulty recruiting qualified homelessness caseworkers, with average vacancies lasting 14 weeks. Turnover among outreach staff in central London services exceeds 30 per cent annually, according to the GLA’s workforce review published in March 2025.

The London Homelessness Workforce Development Group, a partnership between St Mungo’s, Thames Reach and the GLA, has introduced a standardised training curriculum covering housing law, mental health awareness and eviction prevention. However, uptake is voluntary, and only 40 per cent of borough-commissioned services have enrolled staff in the programme.

Data and accountability gaps

Perhaps the most significant barrier to outcome-based accountability in London is data fragmentation. CHAIN records rough sleeping contacts but does not systematically track long-term housing outcomes, health status or employment. The GLA’s Rough Sleeping Data Hub, launched in 2024, aims to link CHAIN records with borough housing registers and NHS mental health data, but the project remains in beta and covers only six boroughs.

The London Assembly has recommended that the GLA mandate a standardised outcomes dataset across all commissioned services by 2027, with quarterly reporting to the London Homelessness Strategy Board. The Mayor has not yet committed to this timeline, citing data protection concerns and the cost of integrating legacy borough systems.

What this means for London readers

For planners, housing officers and built-environment professionals, the outcome-based accountability debate has practical implications. If London moves toward payment-by-results models, housing providers will need to redesign services around tenancy sustainment rather than bed occupancy, affecting everything from staffing ratios to property procurement. Borough planning departments may be asked to prioritise land for supported housing with long-term tenancy agreements, rather than temporary accommodation blocks.

For residents and transport users, the street-level impact is visible daily. Rough sleeping in the Tube network, around rail stations and on high streets affects perceptions of safety and public space use. The Mayor’s transport strategy includes a target to end rough sleeping by 2030, but without robust outcome tracking, measuring progress remains difficult.

The next official step is the GLA’s annual Rough Sleeping Plan review, due in December 2026, which will report on progress against the 2023-28 commitments. The London Assembly Housing Committee is expected to hold a follow-up scrutiny session on outcomes data in early 2027.

Source: Smart Cities Dive, “It’s time to demand results from homelessness services,” 6 October 2026. https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/its-time-to-demand-results-from-homelessness-services-urban-alchemy/832267/