Over the last decade, several northern European metropolitan cities have developed new strategies to deal with homelessness. This article focuses on the efficacy of these new local governance arrangements in terms of service delivery and the related societal effects. By comparing and evaluating the policies, administrative structures and management styles in Copenhagen, Glasgow and Amsterdam, a better understanding is gained of the elements of local governance arrangements that influence the quality of service delivery for the homeless and benefit clients and society at large. The research findings lead to a critical view of current decentralizing trends.

No abstract

Purpose-The purpose of this paper is to focus on the denial of social support to homeless persons and related societal effects of new local governance arrangements. Design/methodology/approach-Analysis of new data and secondary evaluative and comparative data on the policies, administrative structures and management styles of Copenhagen, Glasgow and Amsterdam have brought better understanding of the elements of local governance arrangements that influence the number of homeless persons who are denied access to services and the number of persons sleeping rough who are not eligible for social support. Theoretical explanations for the impact of governance arrangements on these processes and societal effects are considered. Findings-It appears that while the body of research, reports and policy documents on non-eligibility for homelessness services is growing, legal responses at best remain vague, and policies are still in the process of being developed. Modest progress on policy goals, and even more so on policy instruments, leading to less detrimental outcomes, can be explained by centralising and decentralising trends and the relationships between state and society. The latter may also be indicative of how the increased focus on the legal problems of some EU migrants can be explained. Research limitations/implications-The two points in time documented for the case studies are relevant in understanding processes underlying the current circumstances of homeless persons and homeless migrants and offer an interdisciplinary insight into governance and politics, law, and public and health service perspectives. Social implications-Good policy practice, as this paper shows, can lead to a difference in individual lives. Originality/value-Much is unknown about considerations inside government. This paper contributes by combining theoretical and insider perspectives.

Homelessness has grown and has become more visible since the 1970s, especially in urban areas. It remains difficult to measure because of different definitions and policy interests. Typologies of homelessness are helpful in the study of the issue. Subpopulations have also been identified such as homeless migrants, youth, and women, each with different characteristics and needs. Until recently, there was little acknowledgment that homelessness existed in rural areas, and the understanding of rural homelessness is minimal compared to that of urban homelessness. Structural causes of homelessness include changes in mental healthcare, trends in substance abuse, and lower housing availability. Mortality rates are extremely high across homeless populations. Responses to homelessness have seen important changes from the staircase model to the Housing First model. Urban governance responses to homelessness have been limited in their effectiveness, apart from in Finland. A greater role for a citizenship agenda should be encouraged to address this problem.

No abstract