Considering the legitimacy of homeless hostels as sites of discipline and regulation

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to critique the role of homeless hostels in contemporary society, examining their role and legitimacy as sites of discipline and regulation of behaviors, ideas and aspirations. Design/methodology/approach The research draws upon in-depth qualitative interviews and supplementary observations undertaken in two homeless hostels in Stoke-on-Trent. Findings The research finds that even the most benign interventions enacted in homeless hostels are infused with disciplinary and regulatory techniques and suggests that the author needs to consider the legitimacy and efficacy of such approaches when seeking to understand the role of the hostel in assisting residents in (re)developing their autonomy. Research limitations/implications While there are legitimate reasons for the deployment of such techniques in some cases, legitimacy can be undermined where expectations go unmet or where developing residents’ and service user’s needs are not necessarily the main object of the interventions. Practical implications Hostel providers need to consider the ethicality and legitimacy of the interventions in place when seeking to help service users and residents to (re)develop their autonomy and ensure that efforts are focused in an effective and meaningful way. Social implications Homeless people are among the most vulnerable and excluded in society. The paper seeks to draw attention to the disciplinary and regulatory techniques to which they are subject in order to ensure that approaches employed to support homeless individuals have a clear, ethical and legitimate basis. Originality/value The research draws upon original data collected as part of a doctoral research project into wider experiences of unemployment.

Responsibility for homelessness: Lived experience perspectives and their alignment with neoliberal discourse

“…Our findings also have implications for service delivery. Existing research indicates that in Australia (Nethercote, 2015; Parsell & Clarke, 2019) and internationally (Mahoney, 2019; Midgely, 2016), homelessness and housing organisations are increasingly integrating responsibilisation techniques into models of service delivery. While government policies and contractual arrangements undoubtedly influence these trends, this research also suggests that some services may be adopting responsibilisation approaches more readily and unquestioningly because they align with existing organisational values and conceptualisations of homelessness.…”

Punishment, support, or discipline? Taking stock of recent debates about homeless governance in neoliberal cities

“…Frontline workers use features of exclusionary design such as closed‐circuit television to protect the homeless from violence, identify homeless encampments, find missing clients, and/or connect individuals to homeless services (Clarke & Parsell, 2019; Huey, 2010; Löfstrand, 2015). Homeless service providers restrict client autonomy (Lancione, 2014; Mahoney, 2019) and access to essential resources (Bowpitt et al., 2014; Quirouette, 2016) to goad self‐improvement. This evidence suggests frontline workers use hard power to help rather than harm homeless people through coerced care.…”