1 / 11

Sarah Johnsen , Beth Watts & Suzanne Fitzpatrick

‘ Extending hospitality ’ or ‘ killing with kindness ’ ? Normative stances regarding interventionism and enforcement in the homelessness sector. Sarah Johnsen , Beth Watts & Suzanne Fitzpatrick. Outline. Use of enforcement in responses to homelessness and street culture

Download Presentation

Sarah Johnsen , Beth Watts & Suzanne Fitzpatrick

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. ‘Extending hospitality’ or ‘killing with kindness’?Normative stances regarding interventionism and enforcement in the homelessness sector Sarah Johnsen, Beth Watts & Suzanne Fitzpatrick

  2. Outline • Use of enforcement in responses to homelessness and street culture • Escalation of interventionist approaches in support services • Ethical justifications for and objections to enforcement-based and interventionist approaches • Where next?

  3. Enforcement in responses to street homelessness • From early 2000s, central govt. endorsement of interventions containing elements of enforcement, coercion, persuasion etc., e.g.: • Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) • Arrests for begging (Vagrancy Act 1824) • Designated Public Places Orders (DPPOs) • Designing out (e.g. gating, removing seating) • Diverted giving campaigns (e.g. ‘Killing with Kindness’) • Degree to which support is integrated varies (usually greatest for ‘hard’ measures)

  4. Escalating interventionism • From late 1990s, escalation in expectation that homeless people ‘engage’ with services on offer, e.g.: • Assertive street outreach • Places of Change • No Second Night Out single service offer • Now, spectrum of service provider approaches ranging from: • Non-interventionist: open door, minimal/no expectations re engagement • Interventionist: assertively encourage / insist upon engagement with support plans, sometimes on conditional basis • Repositioning of providers along this spectrum in recent years • acceptance that there is a ‘place’ for enforcement in some circumstances • some relaxation of expectations as regards the most ‘service resistant’ rough sleepers • But, promotion of behaviour change still contentious…

  5. Opposing perspectives

  6. Mapping normative perspectives on enforcement and interventionism

  7. Justifying enforcement and interventionism • Post 1997 emphasis by Government (and locally) on contractual/mutualistic and utilitarian justifications • Public intimidation by rough sleepers, beggars and street drinkers • Street culture a blight on areas; damage business and tourism • Public have a right to expect hostel places to be taken up (SEU, 1998) • Rough sleepers etc. have responsibility to accept support and reduce community safety concerns and ASB (Tom Preest, in Housing Justice, 2008) • Social justice and/or paternalist justifications prompt a focus on the damaging impacts of street homelessness/culture • Street population disproportionately represented in drug-related deaths • Rough sleepers vulnerable to attack, extreme ill health etc. • Addiction/ mental ill health impairs ability to judge what’s in best interests • Evidence that enforcement can ‘work’ in some circumstances (acts as ‘crisis point’ prompting change)

  8. Opposing enforcement and interventionism • Contractual: inadequate supply/ quality of emergency accommodation and addiction/ mental health treatment facilities • Paternalistic: contravenes the ‘right’ to sleep rough / live an alternative lifestyle • Mutualistic: damages the ‘therapeutic relationship’ between recipient/provider • Utilitarian: enforcement ‘high risk’ / potential for negative consequences unacceptably high (e.g. severe penalties, activities ‘driven underground’) • Social Justice: evidence that enforcement does NOT ‘work’ in all circumstances and can in fact undermine welfare (activity and geographical displacement)

  9. Remaining challenges and questions • More comprehensive evidence will to an extent arbitrate between normative perspectives • Do enforcement based/interventionist approaches benefit homeless people? • Do enforcement based/interventionist approaches benefit broader public? • Trade-offs and ‘moral pluralism’ • Needs of targeted individuals versus wider goals • Best interests and preferences of targeted groups • Sustainability of behaviour change • Interaction with broader forms of ‘conditionality’ • Local and regional variation; Scotland vs. England; London vs. the rest

  10. What next..? • Exercise conducted as part of a large 5-year ESRC study examining the effectiveness and ethicality of welfare conditionality as applied to 8 welfare recipient groups • unemployed people, lone parents, disabled people, social tenants, homeless people, individuals/families subject to antisocial behaviour orders/family intervention projects, offenders and migrants • Methods: • c.40 interviews with key stakeholders • 24 focus groups with frontline practitioners • QLR involving 480 welfare recipients, interviewed 3x over 2 years

  11. What next (cont.)…? • Assess the balance of weighting accorded to each of these justifications (and potential others) by key informants, frontline practitioners and welfare recipients • Longitudinal research with those targeted will offer insight into: • whether/why interventions are/aren’t justified in particular circumstances • impacts on wellbeing and whether or not they lead to intended behaviouraloutcomes

More Related