Skip to content
This website uses cookies to help us understand the way visitors use our website. We can't identify you with them and we don't share the data with anyone else. If you click Reject we will set a single cookie to remember your preference. Find out more in our privacy policy.

Navigation breadcrumbs

  1. Home
  2. Our priorities
  3. All projects
  4. Evaluating the Rough Sleeping and Mental Health Programme (RAMHP)

Evaluating the Rough Sleeping and Mental Health Programme (RAMHP)

We are helping to evaluate the effectiveness of the Rough Sleeping and Mental Health Programme (RAMHP) to support rough sleepers access mental health services.

The Rough Sleeping and Mental Health Programme (RAMHP), funded by the Greater London Authority, is an innovative new way of working with rough sleepers who have historically found it difficult to access mental health services.

RAMHP is a two-year pilot programme which aims to support increased access to mental health services for people sleeping rough in 16 London boroughs, by building teams of mental health practitioners that work directly with outreach services.

UCLPartners is helping to evaluate the effectiveness of the programme. This is split into three areas of enquiry:

  • Service level and individual outcomes – to understand whether RAMHP has had a positive mental health and care impact on rough sleepers in London. 
  • System level changes – to understand whether RAMHP supported changes and improved working relationships between the mental health and care and homelessness outreach systems.  
  • Conditions for implementation – to understand why certain elements of RAMHP worked and, therefore, how they can be scaled and sustained.    

Based on this, we are conducting a combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses. We are due to report on the findings in June 2022.

Peer researchers

Our evaluation team includes peer researchers who have lived experience of homelessness and mental health issues. Their involvement ensures that our research methods and the questions we ask are meaningful and accessible to those who use the service, making our evaluation richer and more reflective of people’s experience.