No abstract
The use of 'social control' interventions in housing and welfare policy often courts intense controversy, and never more so than when attempts are made to bring about change in the conduct of street homeless people. To date, academic scrutiny has focused on the socalled 'regulation' or 'criminalisation' of rough sleepers occupying public space, but a range of 'softer' control mechanisms are also now in evidence within homelessness support services. This paper explicates the relationship between the distinct forms of social control that have been used in this field -force, coercion, bargaining, influence and tolerance -and compares the perspectives of policy makers, frontline practitioners and homeless people regarding the appropriateness of their deployment in England. It emphasizes that the use of every one of these modes of social control, and indeed the absence of such controls, raises moral and practical dilemmas, the nuance of which is often unacknowledged in academic accounts.
There is intense debate over the legitimacy of interventions which seek behavioural change on the part of street homeless people. 'Hard' measures, such as arresting people for begging, are particularly controversial, but 'softer' interventions such as motivational interviewing have also prompted objections on grounds that they are paternalistic. At the same time, the 'non-interventionist' stance of some service providers has been accused of perpetuating harmful street lifestyles. Inspired by Ruth Grant's philosophically informed interrogation of the ethics of incentives, we propose a normative framework for application in this field. Via systematic exploration of Grant's three 'legitimacy standards' (legitimate purpose, voluntary response, effects on character), and an additional outcome-focussed fourth (effectiveness, proportionality and balance), we attempt to unsettle any intuitive assumption that noninterventionist approaches are necessarily more morally defensible than interventionist ones. We also, however, explicate the high ethical and empirical bar required to justify social control measures.
Recent legislation ending security of tenure for new council tenants in England may be considered emblematic of a US-style vision of social housing as a temporary welfare service, reserved only for the very poorest. But there is resistance amongst social landlords, many of whom remain committed to providing 'homes for life' . Moreover, austerity-driven cuts mean that benefit-dependent households are increasingly refused social tenancies on grounds of affordability. The stage is therefore set for a battle over who and what English social housing is for. Drawing on large-scale qualitative research, this paper interrogates the implications of the mandatory extension of fixedterm tenancies (FTTs) by considering landlord and tenant experiences of the discretionary FTT regime in place since 2012. We conclude that the meagre likely benefits of FTTs, in terms of marginally increased tenancy turnover, are heavily outweighed by the detrimental impacts on tenants' ontological security and landlords' administrative burden.
The rhetoric and practice of localism has attracted significant support within both political and academic circles in the UK in recent years. However, it is the contention of this article that there are, or should be, limits to localism as applied to the basic citizenship rights of vulnerable people. Drawing on a ten-year, mixed-methods study, we use the example of sharply rising homelessness in England to illustrate our argument that localist policymaking has an intrinsic tendency to disadvantage socially marginalised groups. While we acknowledge the central role played by austerity in driving up homelessness over the past decade, we advance the case that the post-2010 localist agenda of successive UK governments has also had an independent and malign effect. At the very least, we seek to demonstrate that localism cannot be viewed as a taken-for-granted progressive model, with centralism (that is, the consistent implementation of a policy across a whole country) also perfectly defensible on progressive grounds in relevant circumstances.
Homelessness services and policy have historically tended to be organised by an explicitly conditional logic, wherein people experiencing homelessness must prove their “housing readiness” before accessing settled housing. This model has been robustly challenged in recent decades by “housing‐led” approaches that ostensibly eschew conditionality and prioritise the rapid rehousing of people experiencing homelessness. Various countries now include housing‐led approaches in the national policy frameworks, including Australia, which overhauled its approach to homelessness in 2008, and Scotland, where a housing‐led approach is supported by a legal right to housing for homeless households. Notwithstanding this policy shift, conditionality remains an enduring feature of responses to homelessness in both jurisdictions. This paper sheds light on this phenomenon by comparing the Australian experience with that of Scotland. We demonstrate how conditionality remains a feature of both jurisdictions; however, there is greater effort in Scotland to identify and minimise conditionality, whereas in Australia it is able to persist relatively unchallenged. We conclude with some reflections on what Australia can learn from Scotland’s relative success, highlighting the importance of a national‐level policy framework and an adequate affordable housing supply.
This paper explores the impact of legal rights to housing for homeless people, focusing on the capacity of such rights to 'empower' those experiencing homelessness. Lukes ' (2005) three-dimensional view of power, complemented by Bourdieu's (1972) concept of 'habitus', is used to distinguish between conceptualisations of empowerment. A distinction is drawn between 'traditional' understandings of empowerment, which focus on people's capacity to realise their 'subjective interests', and on understandings that foreground 'real interests'. These latter 'radical' perspectives direct attention to people's 'habitus' -their internalised dispositions to perceive situations and act in particular ways. Empirically, the paper draws on a qualitative comparison of approaches to homelessness in Scotland and Ireland. Whereas in Scotland virtually all those who are homeless now have a legal right to settled accommodation, Ireland has rejected such a 'legalistic' approach, pursuing a consensus driven 'social partnership' model. Based on primary research with national experts, service providers and homeless single men in both countries, it is argued that legal rights can effectively empower homeless people. These findings call into question popular and political understandings of the relationship between legal welfare rights and self-reliance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.