Conditionality and Homelessness Services; ‘Practice Realities’ in a Drop-in Centre

Abstract

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.

Homelessness and social control: a typology

“…Similarly, Housing First projects which provide rapid access to independent housing with wraparound support to homeless people with complex needs (Homeless Link, 2016;Pleace, 2016;Tsemberis, 2010) arguably represent a meld of: persuasion, wherein staff proactively motivate clients to progress through the stages of recovery from addiction; bargaining, this being the 'immediate' offer of an independent tenancy direct from the street thereby negating the need for a prolonged hostel stay; and tolerance, that is, provision of long-term support which is not conditional on engagement with treatment plans (Tsemberis, 2010). Previous research has also demonstrated that frontline workers may oscillate between 'therapeutic' and 'disciplining' methods given the challenges they are faced with in the course of their day-to-day work (Dobson, 2011). These complexities do not, to our mind, negate the relevance of a clear conceptual framework within which to consider the meaning, impact and ethical implications of these distinctive mechanisms of control.…”

“…England provides a particularly appropriate context within which to explore these perspectives and complexities given that, from the 1990s onwards, sharply increased levels of social control have been apparent in attempts to combat what Government has branded an 'anti-social street scene' , associated with activities such as begging and street drinking (Johnsen & Fitzpatrick, 2007). Moreover, and in concert with a broader 'responsibilisation' agenda aimed at 'welfare recipients' as a whole (Clarke, 2005), eligibility for support from homelessness service providers has become more explicitly tied to compliance with conduct-related conditions and 'engagement' with the help on offer (Dobson, 2011). In the most recent period, however, there has been something of a nascent swing back towards less conditional interventions for the subgroup with the most severe substance misuse and/or mental health problems (CLG, 2015;Terry & Cardwell, 2015).…”

Controlling Homeless People? Power, Interventionism and Legitimacy

“…Engagement in transgressive 'street culture' activities associated with rough sleeping, such as begging and street drinking (McNaughton Nicholls, 2009;Fitzpatrick et al, 2011), has increasingly been the focus of 'control' as well as 'care' measures that seek to foster engagement with support services and desistance terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279417000289 from these activities (Dobson, 2011(Dobson, , 2015Fitzpatrick and Johnsen, 2009;Johnsen et al, 2016;Midgley, 2016).…”

Bureaucratic encounters “after neoliberalism”: Examining the supportive turn in social housing governance

“…This resistance stems from recognition of the difficulties that clients with complex needs face in adhering to behavioral conditions, and the negative impact that sanctions can have on their already precarious lives (Parr, ). This leads to the (partial) eschewal of conditionality in favor of a greater focus on the support needs of vulnerable clients, and a more tolerant approach to dealing with problematic behaviors, such as substance misuse or antisocial behavior (Dobson, ; Parr, ).…”

“…In recent decades, this neoliberal mode of bureaucratic engagement has come to dominate state provision across a variety of domains (Wacquant, ). However, recent research in the housing domain points to a potential shift away from neoliberal practices towards a renewed focus on unconditional care and support, at least for those clients deemed “high needs” (Dobson, ; Parr, ; Power & Bergan, ). This emergent approach recognizes the difficulties that clients with high needs face in adhering to entrepreneurial norms and behavioral conditions, and how this contributes to their marginalization.…”