This article argues that constructions of social phenomena in social policy and welfare scholarship think about the subjects and objects of welfare practice in essentialising ways, with negativistic effects for practitioners working in 'regulatory' contexts like housing and homelessness practice. It builds into debates about power, agency, social policy and welfare by bringing psychosocial and feminist theorisations of relationality to practice research. It claims that relational approaches provide a starting point for the analysis of empirical practice data, by working through the relationship between the individual and the social via an ontological unpicking and revisioning of practitioners' social worlds.
This article reviews institutional responses to adult homeless people, to argue that there is a contemporary flourishing of debates about complex needs across homelessness research and practice fields. These understand housing need as a mental and physical health issue and a care and support need, with foundations in biographical and societal events, issues and experiences, including trauma. Responses to complex needs are conceptualised as enterprising in scope; articulated as fresh, proactive, preventative and positive. The article suggests that there are a range of legislative, policy and funding drivers for these developments, from across homelessness, housing support and adult social care fields, which are distinctive to the English context. At the same time, debates about what complex needs are, and how best to respond to them, are evident in international debates about service delivery models with homeless service users in the Global Western North. 'Complex needs' is defined as a travelling concept, with affective qualities, which provides foundation for practice interventions, techniques and principles in different locations. The article conceptualises institutional machinations around the governance of complex needs as 'new markets of vulnerability'. This term theorises new markets and new marketising strategies around complex needs in the context of a much larger reconfiguring of the mixed economies of welfare around markets and market mimicking devices and practices. It is argued that the intensification of activities around complex needs give insight into processes of neoliberalisation in contemporary modernized welfare 'mixes'.
This article provides insights into the client−practitioner interaction, as understood through the eyes of those working at the front-line in a Drop-in Centre for homeless clients. Through a case-study analysis of 'official' techniques and informal approaches, it is argued that conditional practices are present in contemporary support practices. However, the picture is fragmented, with practitioners arguing for, but also deviating from, conditional strategies that aspire to shape client behaviour. Choices about appropriate responses are occasionally permeated by 'top−down' policy messages that aim to responsibilise and generate change in clients. However there is evidence of 'bottom−up' drivers informed by experiences of working with clients at the grassroots. These 'practice realities' shift an analysis of conditional tactics from just a moralising and disciplining approach, and suggest a more complex set of events at the front-line. Insights add to ongoing commentary about an apparent policy emphasis on rectifying the behaviour of citizens at the sharp end. Conclusions highlight the role of complexity for understanding therapeutic and disciplining elements in policies and practices. Such debates are especially relevant where they connect to the care and control of individuals understood by practitioners as both transgressive and vulnerable.
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.