You must be logged in to view this content.
You must be logged in to view this content.
The project does not meet expectations and action is required as a priority. There may be clear risks to safety, quality, or delivery.
The project partially meets expectations but improvements are needed to meet best practice and ensure safe, effective service delivery.
The project meets expectations, with minor areas for review or improvement.
The project exceeds expectations, demonstrating strong and consistent good practice.
The project meets this minimum standard.
The project does not meet this minimum standard and action is required.
1.01 – The project offers quick, flexible access to emergency accommodation with minimal entry requirements, reducing barriers for those in urgent need.
1.02 – The project uses single rooms as standard, or where communal arrangements are in place, the project can clearly demonstrate why this model is needed (e.g. financial, space-related, or service design reasons) and is the best option for guests.
1.03 – Night shelter operates a single room model. Night shelter with a communal sleeping model has sought advice from their local Director of Public Health (DPH) prior to opening. Taken from Operating principles for night shelters (GOV.UK).
1.04 – Sleeping spaces meet expectations for size and layout; low guest-to-space ratios are used where possible, and consideration is given to ventilation, air flow, privacy, and guest safety.
1.05 – All guests can access clean and functional toilets, washing facilities, safe drinking water, and receive regular access to food during their stay.
1.06 – The project offers guests a secure way to store personal belongings while using the service.
1.07 – The project proactively supports guests to move on to more stable or appropriate accommodation as soon as possible.
1.08 – A Fire Safety policy is in place; staff and volunteers have read it and all people on site know the evacuation procedure.
1.09 – A Health & Safety policy is in place, dated, and includes a planned review schedule.
1.10 – A senior staff member, trustee, or responsible person provides active oversight and leadership on Health & Safety issues.
1.11 – The project holds valid and relevant insurance (such as Employers Liability and Public Liability) covering its operations and people.
1.12 – A comprehensive Risk Assessment is in place, covering the project and its premises, clearly dated and scheduled for review.
1.13 – A Safeguarding policy is in place; staff and volunteers have read it, and are clear on how to identify and report safeguarding concerns.
1.01 – Access is delayed or dependent on strict requirements or lengthy processes that may prevent or discourage people from accessing accommodation in an emergency.
1.02 – Single rooms are not prioritised, and/or there is no clear justification for using communal sleeping spaces.
1.03 – Night shelter with a communal sleeping model has had no contact with their local Director of Public Health (DPH) prior to opening. Taken from Operating principles for night shelters (GOV.UK).
1.04 – Sleeping spaces are overcrowded, poorly ventilated, or do not meet basic standards of privacy or safety.
1.05 – The project does not provide consistent or adequate access to one or more of these essential facilities.
1.06 – There is no secure storage available for guests’ belongings.
1.07 – Little or no active effort is made to help guests move on from emergency accommodation.
1.08 – There is no Fire Safety policy, or staff/volunteers are not familiar with it, or evacuation procedures are not understood by all on site.
1.09 – No policy is in place, or it lacks a date and/or scheduled review.
1.10 – There is no clear leadership or ownership of Health & Safety at a strategic level.
1.11 – The project does not have appropriate insurance in place.
1.12 – There is no Risk Assessment, or the existing one is out of date or lacks a review schedule.
1.13 – No Safeguarding policy is in place, or staff/volunteers have not been made familiar with it or are unclear on reporting procedures.
Document is missing or there is a document but it’s not appropriate to the service being delivered and this raises immediate concerns, for example relating to risk, safeguarding, legality or health and safety.
Interviewees cannot describe key policies and procedures.
There is no process for staff and volunteers to read and understand core policies and procedures during induction.
Policies and procedures exist but there is evidence that they are not used in practice.
Document is missing or there is a document but it’s not appropriate to the service being delivered, however this does not raise immediate concerns.
Undated or out of date and/or policy lacking a review date.
Confusing or hard to understand e.g. not in plain English, too long, broken links.
Stored in a format or location that is hard to access / some people cannot access e.g. a file in a locked office or online in a service where staff and volunteers do not have internet-enabled devices.
There are access or version control issues – staff and volunteers can’t easily refer to current policies and procedures.
The policies and procedures are unclear – staff and volunteers find them hard to understand. Policies and procedures are used inconsistently, practice varies.
Document is relevant to the service.
Document is up to date and there is a review date on policy documents.
Accessible in format and language.
Where relevant, external expertise has informed the document.
There is a named person responsible for updating policy documents.
Staff and, where relevant, volunteers can describe how to find the policy document and how it is used in service delivery.
There is a suite of policies and procedures appropriate to the service being delivered.
The team demonstrate a clear understanding of policies and procedures.
There are examples of how policies and procedures are used in practice, showing consistency across the team.
As Yellow, plus:
Where relevant, the document has been updated in light of internal learning and review and/or external developments in policy or practice.
Guests, staff and volunteers have been involved in reviewing the document (format, language and/or content).
Document references other policies and is backed up by training.
Insufficient number of, or insufficiently trained, staff and/or volunteers to deliver the service safely.
It is unclear who is responsible for core elements of service delivery.
Appropriate DBS checks are not in place, and this gives rise to immediate concerns e.g. people are lone working without DBS clearance.
Handover between shifts and team communication is poor e.g. new information about risks/incidents is not shared, and this is putting the team and/or guests at risk.
There is no on-call system at times when the service is only staffed by volunteers or inexperienced staff.
Responsibility for core elements of service delivery has been delegated inappropriately e.g. to untrained volunteers.
Adjustments for disability access have not been considered.
Referral form does not include questions about risk and safety.
There is no regard for a clean environment and/or privacy and/or respect for guests.
There are under-18s in the project either as guests or with staff/volunteers.
Staff and volunteers don’t know what to do if a child presents at the project as homeless.
Personal or sensitive data is shared without following GDPR.
No access to Covid PPE, testing, vaccines.
Staff and volunteers cannot describe infection control procedures.
Trustees cannot give an overview of daily service delivery.
Available evidence about DBS checks is inconsistent or out of date or recent checks are subject to delay, but there is sufficient evidence to remove immediate cause for concern e.g. there is a clear record of DBS checks for lone workers.
Handover between shifts and team communication lacks clear process – it’s possible information could be missed, but not to the extent that this is an immediate cause for concern.
Adjustments for disabled access have been identified but not yet implemented.
No referral criteria or process published or there is inconsistency in how criteria are applied.
Referring agencies are unsure about what the project offers and how long guests might stay.
Referrals are verbal or ad-hoc, no standard process to receive/assess and reply.
The physical environment is institutional or uncared for e.g. bare walls, tatty notices.
There is some reference to trauma and psychologically informed approaches, but the service still primarily uses a rules-based approach to respond to challenging behaviour or incidents.
Separation of staff/volunteers and guests creates hierarchy and power imbalance.
The building is confusing to navigate / lack of clear signage.
People coming into the building are not greeted or are left waiting outside locked doors.
Lack of flexibility for working guests e.g. meals, casework.
Generic/blanket consent forms are used when sharing guest’s personal information with external partners.
Complaints are handled verbally and there is no record of outcomes.
Patchy access to Covid PPE, testing, vaccines.
Confusion or inconsistency among staff and volunteers about infection control procedures.
Trustees can describe daily service delivery.
Record of DBS checks and a clear policy and procedure.
Clear handover and communication between shifts, including how information about incidents and risk is shared.
There is an on-call system where a manager or trustee can be contacted in an emergency.
Staff and volunteers feel informed and confident in the handover between shifts, and in being updated when they return to site after days off.
Adjustments for disabled access have been made or adjustments were explored but are not possible e.g. due to the lease/building etc.
Clear published referral criteria and process consistently applied.
Referrals include a proportionate amount of information, including risk.
Referral agencies understand the project offer including length of stay.
Two-way communication with referrers about the reasons for rejected referrals, opportunities for appeal/review of the decision. Staff can explain their decision-making process.
There is a welcome on arrival.
The project is clean, and effort has been made to create a PIE environment e.g. artwork, friendly messages, clear signage, plants, home-style lighting and furnishing, calming colours etc.
Action has been taken to make the project accessible e.g. documents and signs in translation, use of translation services, links to other services/community groups/faith groups and places of worship, options around food and activities, women-only spaces, quiet or prayer rooms, recruiting volunteers of varying age/gender etc.
There is flexibility for working guests e.g. late/packed meals, weekend/evening casework.
Guests are given information about how to complain and there is record of complaints and outcomes. There is a process to escalate complaints to someone not directly involved in the guest’s service delivery e.g. a trustee.
Consent forms name specific external partners that personal data will be shared with. Where informed consent is not used, there is evidence of decision-making about the legal GDPR basis for information sharing.
Access to Covid PPE, testing, vaccines.
Staff and volunteers can describe infection control procedures.
As Yellow, plus:
There are examples of how complaints are used to develop and improve the service.
Interview with coordinator/trustee shows reflection on past experience, including successes and challenges, and examples of past learning informing current delivery or development.
There are examples of a psychologically and trauma-informed culture e.g. seeing guests as individuals, seeing challenging behaviour as a coping strategy, creating psychological safety.
Guests are not given service information.
The assessor identifies safeguarding or health & safety concerns.
The project requires guests to be of a certain faith and/or staff/volunteers proselytise to guests.
Staff/volunteers describe guests in blanket terms e.g. ‘they always…’
Staff/volunteers describe individuals only in terms of their behaviour.
No trauma or psychologically informed approaches are described.
The only information available for guests is the occupancy agreement and/or house rules.
Staff and volunteers are unavailable a lot of the time e.g. in a back office.
Guests don’t have phone and/or internet access.
Support/action plans lack personalisation.
Guests are not familiar with their support/action plan.
Guests have little opportunity to spend time with staff and/or volunteers.
There are few or no links with external agencies and activities, or information about off-site services/activities is out of date.
There is a lack of urgency about move-on e.g. guests do not have move-on routes identified, length of stay is longer than planned.
Negative move-on outcomes are common e.g. guests regularly return to the streets.
Staff/volunteers talk about guests as individuals.
Staff/volunteers describe behaviour and incidents in a trauma-informed way e.g. thinking about triggers, safety, past trauma, and re-traumatisation as factors in behaviour that they find challenging or with people who seem disengaged.
Guests receive information about what to expect from the service.
Guest information is available in different formats e.g. in translation.
Guests can describe key procedures such as fire evacuation.
Guests can describe the support offer and length of stay.
Guests feel able to give feedback and make complaints without repercussions.
Guests have privacy, and procedures respect this e.g. how and when staff/volunteers go into bedrooms.
There is secure storage and reasonable access for guest belongings.
Guests can stay on-site in the day, and come and go.
There is flexibility for working guests e.g. around mealtimes.
Guests are supported to access phones and internet.
Guests have action/support plans relevant to them as individuals that reflect their priorities and interests.
Guests can spend time with staff/volunteers 1-1 and/or communally.
There are activities available on-site or with easy access.
There are opportunities for guests to explore their faith/spirituality.
Guests are given up to date information about a range of support and activities provided by other agencies.
The service has a link with OISC registered immigration advice and can refer guests.
The project actively moves people on and seeks to avoid extended stays.
Move-on outcomes are usually positive.
Guests achieve positive outcomes during their stay (other than/in addition to move-on).
As Yellow, plus:
Examples of staff/volunteers identifying additional external services to meet the needs of individual guests.
Examples of guests having autonomy over their choices – this might be shown through diversity of action/support plans and outcomes, as well as in interview.
There is remote relational on and this shows positive guest experiences, with negative/constructive support available for a few months after move-on e.g. staff/volunteers call to check in.
Guests are asked for feedback when they move feedback used to improve the service.
Assessor identifies safeguarding or health and safety concerns in relation to staff and/or volunteers e.g. lack of equipment to work safely, especially when lone working.
Staff are paid below Living Wage rates.
There are no job/role descriptions, or they exist but are vague or generic.
New staff/volunteers are put on shift before they have had an induction.
New staff/volunteers do not receive core training, or there is a long delay before they can attend core training.
Supervision is ad-hoc, there are no records and/or supervisors have no relevant training and/or time available.
Staff and/or volunteers show signs of being burned-out or overwhelmed by their workload or from responding to incidents.
There has been a serious incident without adequate debriefing and support.
Job/role descriptions are clear and specific, team members understand their remit and responsibilities.
Staff and volunteers complete a structured induction.
Staff and volunteers receive regular 1-1 support and supervision from someone with relevant training and availability, and they find this helpful.
Staff and volunteers complete core training that begins soon after joining.
Staff/volunteers have equipment and space to work safely, especially if lone working.
Rotas allow suitable time off between shift periods i.e. consecutive rest days, especially if there is a transition from night to day shift.
Staff and volunteers have a personal development plan and are offered training and development opportunities, whether formal or informal.
Team meetings, either in person or online, take place regularly and are led by the Coordinator or a Trustee so that the team feels connected to the organisation as a whole.
There is debriefing after any incident and additional support after a serious incident.
Staff and volunteers know how to raise risk/quality concerns in confidence and feel able to do this.
As Yellow, plus:
The team have access to reflective practice and/or clinical supervision.
There is a culture of learning and development, with staff/volunteers actively seeking out training, blogs, webinars, events etc.
There is a trauma- and psychologically-informed approach that extends to the staff and volunteers, for example recognising the signs of vicarious trauma and burn-out, and reducing hierarchy and power imbalance in relationships at all levels of the organisation through opportunities for feedback, discussion and development.
There are no opportunities for guests to shape the service, except for complaints.
There is some ad hoc consultation with guests.
Volunteers include/may include/have included people with lived experience.
Former guests can become volunteers and there is a procedure around this to provide consistent boundaries
Former guests go through the same induction and training as other volunteers.
There are regular opportunities for guests to meet and share feedback with management and/or trustees, who give feedback on what has been done as a result.
Guests are consulted on changes to the project.
There are examples of changes made as a result of guest feedback.
Policy and procedure reviews include consultation with guests.
As Yellow, plus:
One or more of the trustees has lived experience.
There is a co-production of organisational strategy and/or services with current and/or former guests.
There is a formal plan (specific actions and timescale) to increase co-production that has Board support [if plan is recently agreed] or work to increase co-production is in process [if plan is already in process].
Guests lead or co-facilitate activities in the service or via partner services.
Policies and procedures are co-created with guests.
The service operates in isolation.
Contact with other agencies is ad hoc.
There is no process for partners or potential partners to escalate feedback and complaints to the Board, for example to resolve barriers to joint working.
Named point of contact at each referring agency.
Regular partnership meetings – formal/minuted or informal/unminuted – showing that the relationship is ‘live’, and partners know what the service provides and its relevance to their own service.
Relationship with Local Authority, Homelessness Forum etc – doesn’t have to be a formal partnership, but aware of each other’s services, key local priorities and developments etc.
Staff and trustees are in favour of partnership working and proactive in enabling this work.
The service has explored move-on options locally and is connected to formal pathways where available.
Representation at external meetings and networks can be by volunteers if this is appropriate i.e. where no decision-making is required, but requires evidence that the rep feeds back to coordinator/wider team.
Service level agreements in place for any sub-contracted service – clarity on who delivers what, where responsibility lies e.g. complaints and incidents.
Partners and potential partners are able to raise complaints/feedback to the Board for action/resolution where necessary.
As Yellow, plus:
External partners can describe the service offer and partnership arrangements.
Data collection is not GDPR compliant.
Data collection is ad hoc and/or paper-based.
Too much or too little personal data is collected.
Data collected is not being used to review and develop the service.
Data is not used to inform service development.
Staff/volunteers lack confidence/training to collect personal information from guests, resulting in gaps in the data.
There is a data management system e.g. In-Form.
The system is used consistently – relevant staff have been trained.
Data is shared (in appropriate format e.g. anonymised aggregate data) with Housing Justice, funders and/or commissioners as required.
There is a process for responding to Subject Access Requests from guests.
The service collects qualitative data e.g. written/verbal feedback, case studies as well as quantitative data e.g. numbers.
As Yellow, plus:
There is, at least annually, a review and report using all available data to identify success and learning/areas for development.
The project has been evaluated or audited by an independent person/organisation e.g. Housing Justice assessor.
Evaluation/audit recommendations have been implemented [where sufficient time has elapsed].
The governance structure does not meet Charity Commission standards e.g. there is a conflict of interest.
There is no evidence of strategic oversight e.g. strategic plan, minutes of Board meetings.
Trustees are not familiar with the principles of good governance.
Board meetings are not taking place on a regular schedule.
Communication between Board and Coordinator is infrequent and/or brief.
Board meeting minutes do not clearly record decision and actions.
The organisation does not have a strategic plan.
The Board is not actively governing and instead relies on staff to make all decisions and plans.
Coordinator does not receive planned 1-1 supervision or supervision is not meeting their needs.
There are delays updating the Charity Commission website.
Board meetings are accurately minuted and decisions/actions are recorded clearly.
There is a strategic plan for the organisation.
Coordinator has regular 1-1 supervision with a Trustee and finds this useful.
The Board is actively involved in strategic decision-making and holds the staff team to account for operational decision-making.
Board members regularly visit the project and/or attend team meetings - staff and volunteers are aware of at least one trustee they can contact with concerns.
Policy and procedure reviews are monitored or conducted by trustees with reference to current legislation and guidance.
Trustees are aware of current homelessness and related guidance and legislation, and data on local homelessness needs, to inform their decision-making.
Trustees are aware of partnerships and support partnerships working e.g. they attend meetings and events to meet current/potential partners and are aware of the service’s reputation with external agencies.
Information about trustees and the project is up to date on the Charity Commission website as required.
As Yellow, plus:
The Board undertakes an annual trustee skills audit and takes steps to address any gaps e.g. new recruitment
The Board has considered the diversity of its demographics (e.g. age, gender, ethnicity, disability), experience and expertise and the extent to which it represents the community it serves.
Where the Board lacks diversity/representation, there is a plan to address this e.g. via new trustee recruitment.
You can upload files in the following formats: doc, docx, xls, xlsx, pdf, jpg, png.
No one file can exceed the limit of 5mb. Each upload accepts up to 10 files.
If you have a large file, there are many methods available to reduce/compress, including software applications and online tools.
Once you click the Submit button, please wait for your submission to process and do not click refresh in your browser.
You will see an on-screen confirmation and receive an email when your submission has been submitted successfully.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss any part of the process further please contact [email protected].