Controlling Homeless People? Power, Interventionism and Legitimacy

Abstract

There is intense debate over the legitimacy of interventions which seek behavioural change on the part of street homeless people. 'Hard' measures, such as arresting people for begging, are particularly controversial, but 'softer' interventions such as motivational interviewing have also prompted objections on grounds that they are paternalistic. At the same time, the 'non-interventionist' stance of some service providers has been accused of perpetuating harmful street lifestyles. Inspired by Ruth Grant's philosophically informed interrogation of the ethics of incentives, we propose a normative framework for application in this field. Via systematic exploration of Grant's three 'legitimacy standards' (legitimate purpose, voluntary response, effects on character), and an additional outcome-focussed fourth (effectiveness, proportionality and balance), we attempt to unsettle any intuitive assumption that noninterventionist approaches are necessarily more morally defensible than interventionist ones. We also, however, explicate the high ethical and empirical bar required to justify social control measures.

Agency in advanced liberal services: grounding sociological knowledge in homeless people's accounts

“…In these circumstances many service users desired hands‐on support from service providers, including the implementation and enforcement of paternalistic rules. As noted above, this finding is consistent with recent theorizing that demonstrates short‐term paternalism may enable people who are homeless to achieve greater autonomy and control over their lives in the longer term (Watts et al ). It also supports Parsell's () claim that people who have been homeless for extended periods value paternalism if it provides them with the sanctuary and security absent in their lives on the street or in dangerous temporary accommodation.…”

Homelessness and social control: a typology

“…(Homeless person,male,34) That said, a number acknowledged that the open door policy adopted by such organizations brought with it the inevitability of services being patronized by people who were very difficult to share a space with. Some were highly fearful of low threshold services as a consequence: Echoing long-standing debates within the homelessness sector more generally (Lane & Power, 2009;Randall & Brown, 2002;Shelter, 2005;Watts et al, 2017), service provider interviewee opinion was very divided regarding tolerant approaches. Some firmly believe that these foster the therapeutic conditions necessary for recovery from trauma and addiction; others, that they are irresponsible for failing to challenge, and can even foster, highly damaging lifestyles (see also Johnsen et al [under review] …”

“…It is hoped that it may provide an aid to lucidity, acting as a useful 'reference frame' (Busch-Geertsema et al, 2016) which will help obviate the danger of stakeholders 'talking past' each other about qualitatively distinct interventions in a debate that is prone to both conceptual conflation and emotive obfuscation. In taking a comprehensive approach, we have sought not to offer a detailed evaluation of specific interventions, nor a definitive conclusion as to their ethicality (on which topic see instead Watts et al (2017)). Rather, the aim has been to illuminate the perspectives of those closest to the realities, and the ambiguities, of the measures identified.…”

“…Rather than seeking a definitive conclusion on the ethicality of these approaches (instead see Watts et al (2017) for a relevant normative analysis), we aim here to give voice to the experiences of those closest to the realities, and ambiguities, of control measures aimed at tackling rough sleeping and associated activities. 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).…”

“…In offering a comprehensive conceptualization of social control mechanisms targeting street homeless people, we draw upon (but do not rehearse in detail) the findings of previous evaluations of some of the specific interventions discussed herein (e.g. Bowpitt et al, 2013;Brown, 2013;Bretherton and Pleace, 2015;Hough et al, 2011;Johnsen, 2013;Johnsen & Fitzpatrick, 2007Johnsen & Jones, 2015;Lane & Power, 2009;Randall & Brown, 2002;Sanders & Albanese, 2017;Teixeira, 2010;Watts et al, 2017).…”