sarah johnsen , beth watts & suzanne fitzpatrick
DESCRIPTION
‘ 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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
‘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
Escalation of interventionist approaches in support services
Ethical justifications for and objections to enforcement-based and interventionist approaches
Where next?
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)
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…
Opposing perspectives
Mapping normative perspectives on enforcement and interventionism
Justification Opposition
ContractualHomeless people obliged to utilise
services provided by the StateInadequate supply and/or quality of
services available
PaternalisticInterventions are in the best interests
of homeless people
Interventions violate individuals’ ‘rights’ to sleep rough / lead alternative
lifestyles
MutualisticHomeless people are not fulfilling their
obligations to society
Interventionism challenges social bonds between members of society / fails to
recognise homeless people’s equal value
Utilitarian Maximises welfare of rest of societyUnacceptable risk of negative outcomes
for an extremely vulnerable group
Social justice Increases welfare of those targeted Undermines welfare of those targeted
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)
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)
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
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
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
behavioural outcomes