This paper presents evidence from a study undertaken in Nottingham and London and considers the impact of homelessness policy and practice on the lives of single homeless people with complex needs. Since 1977 homelessness legislation in England has offered statutory accommodation rights that have been limited to unintentionally homeless people who are judged to be in priority need and able to demonstrate a local connection. Drawing on qualitative data generated in interviews with homeless people and staff working to support them, the paper explores how decisions about intentionality, priority need and local connection serve to exacerbate the social exclusion experienced by single homeless people with multiple support needs. Using the insights of Carlen (1994) and Adlam and Scanlon (2008) the paper explores why little has been done to tackle the longstanding systemic exclusion of single homeless people with complex needs. It is concluded that a more genuinely inclusive welfare state will only emerge when, and if, policymakers and wider society are able to abandon their current fixation with using welfare policy to punish 'irresponsible' behaviour and re focus instead on providing services to adequately meet the basic needs of marginalised people.Key words: multiple exclusion homelessness, rights, responsibilities 2 Authors' BibliographiesPeter Dwyer 1 is Professor of Social Policy, at the University of York, England, UK. His research focusses on issues related to social citizenship, inclusion/exclusion and welfare and migration. He currently leads a large, collaborative, ESRC funded project on welfare conditionality (see www.welfareconditionality.ac.uk) and is also working on an EC funded project on Roma inclusion in Europe (see

This paper is an exploration of a dilemma that is central to the place of day centres in tackling single homelessness, and raises issues for social work more generally. On the one hand, day centres provide vital services to a vulnerable group in a safe, nonthreatening and non-judgemental setting; on the other hand, in doing so, they are believed to impede opportunities for personal change. The paper draws on findings from a research study which compared and contrasted the priorities of single homeless people with multiple support needs with the priorities of support services, exploring the role of encounters between service users and agencies in either overcoming or reinforcing multiple exclusion homelessness. This paper focuses on evidence about the use of day centres. It seeks to draw on theological insights to explore day centres as 'places of sanctuary' whose largely unconditional accessibility enables them to serve as both a last refuge for the victims of multiple rejection and a safe place to confront the past. This paper will take the debate about conditionality in welfare provision beyond the field of homelessness to address one of the oldest dilemmas of social work: how to facilitate change while respecting people's free agency. 2Key words: homelessness; sanctuary; day centre; conditionality The contested world of homeless people's day centresThis paper uses evidence from research with single homeless people to explore a dilemma at the heart of day centre provision for this group. How can a service both appeal to service users on their terms and be a vehicle for change? After reviewing research into homeless people's day centres, the concept of 'sanctuary' will be advanced as a way of understanding how day centres seek to resolve this dilemma in practice. Conclusions will be drawn that shed light on one of the oldest issues for social work: how to effect change in people in ways that still respect their free agency. Thirdly, in the 'community work approach', day centres aim to foster personal change, by encouraging service users to tap into their inner resources through, for instance, skill development and work-related activity. While this is a helpful categorisation of the broad character of day centres, most manifest elements of more 4 than one of these approaches, and the dilemma identified at the beginning of this section is obscured. How can a service maintain open accessibility while pursuing personal change agendas for which service access might need to be made conditional? Day centres within broader homelessness strategiesThe criticism that day centres support the very lifestyles they are meant to challenge has become part of the folklore of homelessness policy for at least the last 20 years (Randall and Brown, 2002), and cannot be fully addressed without exploring broader urban developments and homelessness strategies. Two issues are of particular relevance: strategies of social cleansing associated with the 'revanchist' city; and the process of 'responsibilising' disruptive and anti-so...

This article explores gender as a variable in multiple exclusion homelessness in England. Much past research has taken insufficient account of the gender of homeless people, especially the predominance of men in the single homeless population and of women heading homeless households with dependent children. Drawing on qualitative data generated in a study of multiple exclusion homelessness in London and Nottingham, the article considers three ways in which gender may act as a homelessness variable: in people's susceptibility to homelessness, in their experiences of homelessness and in their encounters with accommodation services. By comparing the accounts of homeless men and women with complex support needs with evidence from staff working for support agencies, the overall aim of the article is to offer a critical examination of the gendered assumptions of homelessness policy and practice.

Purpose -This paper aims to throw light on the value of accommodation and support services and the likely consequences of their withdrawal. Design/methodology/approach -Research was completed by a team of researchers from Nottingham Trent and Salford Universities under the Multiple Exclusion Homelessness programme funded by CLG, the Economic and Social Research Council and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Findings -Agencies whose priorities are influenced by other agendas arising from statutory limitations or government targets have conflicting priorities that sustain multiple exclusion homelessness in a number of key circumstances.Originality/value -Findings from this research will enable policy-makers and practitioners to take better account of service user perspectives, experiences and priorities.

No abstract