Austerity in a disadvantaged West Midlands neighbourhood: Everyday experiences of families and family support professionals

Abstract

This article examines everyday effects of austerity in Kingshurst – a disadvantaged urban neighbourhood in the West Midlands. It draws on qualitative data gathered from local families with children, and public and third sector professionals working in the area in family support services. While some of the issues raised are common to other disadvantaged communities across the UK, we recognise that austerity is experienced in specific socio-spatial contexts: in this case, Kingshurst’s circumstance of deprivation within a local authority borough that (as a whole) is above averagely affluent. This shaped the ways that residents and professionals framed the disadvantage they encountered in their everyday lives and work, in particular strengthening understandings of austerity as unfairly and unevenly experienced on the bases of geography and social class, and highlighting territorial stigma towards the neighbourhood by professionals and decision-makers which impeded residents’ engagement with the family support services available to them locally.

”The ’Ghetto’ strikes back: resisting welfare sanctions and stigmatizing categorizations in marginalized residential areas in Denmark”

“…Such perspectives are needed to bring the combating of poverty to the fore of the production of space. Jones et al (2020) show, for example, how austerity policies in the UK exacerbate structural inequalities and territorial stigma. Whereas, Mead (2018) in an Irish context shows the continual depence on state policies, which activate community citenzenry.…”

Residualisation in supported housing: an organisational case study

“…With the limited time available to us, we chose to interview one person from each significant tier of the organisation, including a former recipient of those services that has since started working with the provider. Although this means the research is limited in its scope, it does provide an example of the experiences across a supported housing provider that adds to the growing body of such case studies that illustrate the many impacts of austerity (Cooper and Whyte, 2017;Anderson, 2019;Jones et al, 2019) . We do not name the supported housing provider or use names of other practitioners or organisations, and the interviewees have simplified job titles for anonymity, as below.…”

“…With the limited time available to us, we chose to interview one person from each significant tier of the organisation, including a former recipient of those services that has since started working with the provider. Although this means the research is limited in its scope, it does provide an example of the experiences across a supported housing provider that adds to the growing body of such case studies that illustrate the many impacts of austerity (Cooper and Whyte, 2017; Anderson, 2019; Jones et al , 2019). We do not name the supported housing provider or use names of other practitioners or organisations, and the interviewees have simplified job titles for anonymity, as below: an “area manager”: responsible for overall supported housing provision for the organisation in the county; a “service manager”: responsible for running a group of supported housing projects and dispersed services; a “support worker”: responsible for day-to-day delivery of services to different client groups; an “assessment centre link worker”: responsible for supporting clients to find supported housing and providing advice to those in or in-need of supported housing; and a “former client” of the services: with experience of different types of support across a period of several years. …”

“…For instance, Dorling (2017, p. 50) describes the link between austerity measures and mortality in the elderly population of the UK, arguing that a significant spike in deaths was the result of “three decades of rising inequality and public service cuts” rather than often-cited cold weather and influenza. In the context of vulnerable groups, Jones et al (2019, p. 1) identify austerity as a form of “institutional violence” that impacts most heavily on poorer families and children, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and on other disadvantaged groups including women. Cooper and Whyte (2017) describe the “toll of death and illness and injury that so-called austerity policies have caused”.…”

“…For Pearce and Vine (2014, p. 658), this amounts to “a downgrading in status” that is “linked to issues of social exclusion, stigma and equality”. Given this, it is understandable how those, such as Cooper and Whyte (2017), Dorling (2017) and Jones et al (2019) link neoliberal and austerity policies to growing levels of mortality and liken its application to a form of structural violence. In its ultimate form, this violence is a risk to the lives of those within services:…”