the ‘gatekeeper’ in statutory homelessness services housing studies association annual...

The ‘gatekeeper’ in statutory

homelessness services

Housing Studies Association Annual Conference 2014, University of York, 'The

Value of Housing’

Sarah Alden

18/04/23 © The University of Sheffield

Contents• Michael Lipsky’s ‘street level bureaucrat’

• Statutory homelessness services

• Gatekeeping

• Discussion of research

• Conclusions and recommendations


Lipsky’s street level bureaucrat

Homelessness services and the austerity agenda

• Housing Act 1996 (amended 2002)

• Political priority to reduce statutory homelessness and use of temporary accommodation

• Economic downturn/austerity: increase in homelessness (CLG, 2012; Fitzpatrick et al, 2012)

• The coalition ‘radical’ reinvention (Pawson and Wilcox 2011)

• Main targets remain primary political objective (CLG, 2012)


Evidence of gatekeeping• Several investigations have found evidence of

unlawful practices and purposive ignorance of the law:Barriers in place to discourage applicants

(Cowan, 2011)Unlawful signposting toward prevention services

(Pawson, 2007; Rashleigh, 2005)Withholding of information on statutory rights

(Lidstone, 1994)Client differentiation: stereotypes (Rashleigh,

2005)


Underlying causes of gatekeeping• Resource shortages (Niner, 1989; Evans,

1999: 138; Bowpitt et al, 2011)

• Heavy workload (Evans, 1999)

• Organisational performance measures (Halliday, 2000; Rashleigh, 2005)

• Ambiguity of Housing Act (Niner, 1989; Rashleigh, 2005; BHUG, 2009)


Research findings: challenges to service delivery

• Most respondents reported scarce accommodation resources

• Over half unable to give appropriate advice and assistance to all who required it

• Over three quarters felt clarification of vulnerability test is required

• Decision making and services offered geographically uneven



“All authorities gatekeep, and if they have told you they don’t they are lying to you, they have to because of the shortage of resources” (Officer, LAHAS J)

Practitioner accounts of gatekeeping

Gatekeeping attributed to:

• Resources: in particular lack of emergency housing

• Inadequate legal training

• Workload

• Workforce

• Organisational targets



“I would be lying if I hadn’t seen in the many years I have worked in this area and worked alongside people doing this job, I have seen this authority pack other people off before...I know people who have come here for advice and been told you would be better off jumping on a train ... It does go on and you think, has this person been fobbed off and now it is my problem I am not sure, but I have seen us do it the other way (Interviewer: so why does it go on). Maybe the pressures of keeping your particular homeless numbers down, your budgets, certainly the pressures on temporary accommodation” (Officer 4, LAHAS B)

Main forms of gatekeeping

• No local connection

• Lack of evidence

• Suspicion of collusive behaviour

• Unable to establish vulnerability

• Viewed as not in priority need

• Possibility of intentionality



“It is an absolute joke, and anyone in the team would say that and we just feel it’s us dropped upon as well, because we are the ones saying to the customer with three kids ‘you’re going to have to find friends to stay with’ or ‘I’m sorry, you might have to sleep rough’ or blah de blah de blah, I mean, it’s an absolute joke” (Officer One, LAHAS B)

Recommendations

• The Localism Act

• Address training needs

• Target easing

• Engage service users

• Ensure access to legal help

• Regional variation


ToDiscoverAndUnderstand.

the ‘gatekeeper’ in statutory homelessness services housing studies association annual...

Documents