Hard_Edges_Mapping_SMD_FINAL_VERSION_Web

44 Hard edges
Conclusions, implications
and future research
This study sought to provide a quantitative
profile of SMD among people involved in the
homelessness, substance misuse and criminal
justice systems in England.
The profile reveals considerable overlap
between these three populations involved in
homelessness, substance misuse and criminal
justice systems
Additionally it has shown that people facing
this form of SMD suffer a much lower quality
of life, not only than the general population, but
also than other poor and vulnerable groups.
The prevalence of overlap between these three
groups, and the generally poorer outcomes
for people in SMD3, highlights a need for
greater collaboration between these three
sectors. It is vital that professionals working in
these fields recognise that they are very often
working with the same people viewed through
different ‘lenses’.
Severe and multiple disadvantage seems
to result from a combination of structural,
systemic, family and personal factors
This evidence makes quite clear the structural
roots of this form of SMD, both in terms of the
strong association with some of the poorest
parts of England, and the long-term economic
marginalisation experienced by those who find
themselves facing SMD. At the same time,
these structural preconditions for SMD clearly
interact with family and individual level sources
of disadvantage – including childhood trauma
and very poor educational experiences – to
render some people at far greater risk of SMD
than others living in similar circumstances of
material deprivation and poverty. While this
study was not designed to evaluate specific
services, it is apparent from the outcomes data
reviewed that current support systems struggle
to deliver positive outcomes in more complex
cases, no doubt in part because the ‘degree of
difficulty’ in achieving progress is that much
the greater in these instances. The increasing
policy interest in ‘trauma-informed’ services
seems particularly pertinent with regard
to SMD groups (CLG, 2010; DCLG, 2012), as
does the growing emphasis on ‘resiliencybased’
approaches which seek to enhance the
protective factors in vulnerable young people’s
lives, particularly with respect to their families
and peer group (Viner et al, 2012).
People facing severe and multiple
disadvantage are often single but that doesn’t
mean they don’t have contact with children
Although people facing SMD are commonly
thought of as “single”, a majority have children
or have contact with children. This research
suggests that child contact with adults whom
the system treats as single and childless may
be much greater than imagined, and that
practice and policy needs to start to consider
a broader perspective on who is involved in
the family.
» This evidence makes quite
clear the structural roots of
this form of SMD «