Despite the best, and at times the worst, efforts of systems of care `to include', there remains a group of people whose refusal to be included remains a problem both for themselves and for society as a whole. Our discussion re-locates the problems arising from the anti-social stance at the heart of this refusal from the internal world of the refuser to phenomena associated with what we have called psychosocial dis-memberment and the ` un-housed mind'. We explore the complex reciprocal relationship between the housed and the un-housed, between society's members and those whom society dis-members and we consider some possible implications for individual workers, staff teams and organizations who are tasked with attempting to house, re-member or otherwise to accommodate such people. We conclude with a challenge to practitioners, academics and policy makers to reframe the philosophical basis of their approach towards these complex psychosocial problems.

Purpose -This paper aims to offer a critical analysis of the potentially traumatising nature of working with (dis)stressed and traumatised people with complex needs who are homeless. It also seeks to provide a commentary on the contribution of Psychologically Informed Services: A Good Practice Guide in addressing the impact of these difficult dynamics upon workers, teams and organisations.Design/methodology/approach -The paper is an invited piece and is based on the specialist experience and viewpoint of the authors working as psychotherapists with a background in therapeutic community work and of their experience of reflective practice and team development consultancy with teams working in homelessness services.Findings -With increasing demand and more restricted funding for homelessness resettlement services, the authors raise issues in the complex interaction of institutional and social and interpersonal dilemmas for staff ''stuck in the middle'' between the (dis)stressing nature of clients' ''unhoused'' minds and the (dis)stressed response of the systems of care. A group-analytic, systems psychodynamics approach is used to shed light upon the risks to workers when services do not make time to reflect upon these (dis)stressing and potentially traumatising dynamics. They also point towards some of the personal and professional characteristics required in consulting to staff teams and agencies working with such complex dynamics. Originality/value -The new operational guidance is welcomed, however, the authors suggest that the successful implementation of Psychologically Informed Environments (PIEs) is reliant on the capacity of any given organisation to build effective cultures and structures to support the development of reflective practice and team development.

In their work with the homeless, the dangerous and the disordered, helping agencies and the workers they deploy are faced, on a daily basis, with the task of engaging people whose essentially anti-social stance is, or is construed to be, one of a refusal to join in. The premise of our discussion is that, despite considerable attention over recent years having apparently being addressed to the problems of the socially excluded, there remains, and will most likely always be, a group of people who refuse to be engaged. It is our contention that even if the best efforts of our most experienced workers were channelled into addressing these problems-and this, in our experience, is rarely actually the case-there would always remain a group of people who refuse to play the game and resist all efforts to bring them 'in from the cold'. We argue that mental health and social policy directives that optimistically, or cynically, envisage a future when all such people will be 'socially included' involve an equally stubborn and dangerous societal refusal to face up to the reality of these problems: a denial of their essential complexity and the part that society itself plays in perpetuating the very problems they seek to alleviate. We will contend that this systemic refusal is dangerous because, no matter how 'politically correct' the policy, or how sophisticated the needs assessment tools, such belief systems are at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on April 12, 2015 gaq.sagepub.com Downloaded from 132 Group Analysis 44 (2) setting up socially excluded people, and the workers charged with trying to reach out to them, to fail. We will then share our perspectives on how this experience of failure exacerbates a sense of exclusion in the excluded and increases, sometimes to breaking point, a pervasive sense of disaffection and demoralization in the workers. The central problem which we therefore face is how to relate to the refusal that is at the heart of these difficulties-how to relate to offensiveness without becoming offended-and how to do this without the egalitarian 'we' quickly collapsing into an us and a them. In making our case we would like also to suggest that we need to sidestep 'old-fashioned' allegiances to one or another particular school of thought or practice that includes/excludes others' contributions on the basis of dogma or prejudice and to join with others to dare to tell the truth and if necessary, to deface the falsely discriminating currency of our times.

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

No abstract