‘Someone to Watch over Me’: Making Supported Housing Work

Abstract

Hostels and other forms of housing where support services are provided as an intrinsic part of the accommodation package have traditionally been developed by the voluntary sector at a distance from conditional state welfare. Supporting People is an innovative and ambitious programme which in effect annexes supported housing and, in return for a commitment to improved provision, promises certainty of income and professional prestige. Supporting People provides an example of contemporary social policy. It attempts to address both the failures of the 'old' welfare state and the anxieties of the neo-liberal state. It does this through a distinct 'third way' form of regulation which extends new public management practices into a new regulatory arena and places a particular emphasis on 'joined-up' thinking, risk management and the ideological pragmatism of 'what works'. This has particular consequences for the diverse range of both providers and residents who are disciplined through a variety of mechanisms to deliver social progress for the state.

The Role of Social Housing in the ‘Care’ and ‘Control’ of Tenants with Mental Health Problems

“…Throughout the late 1980s and 1990s however, awareness increased about the major role that the 'housing dimension' played in community care beyond a sole concern with the 'bricks and mortar' of dwelling units (Bochel and Bochel, 2001;Franklin, 1998;Means, 1996). 2 Financial imperatives provided the primary incentive for the Thatcher government to act on community care (Carr, 2005;Allen, 1997;Morris, 1993), with the Audit Commission (1986) highlighting the ever-increasing drain that long-term residential care (mainly of old people) was having on the social security budget (rising from £10 million in 1970 to over £1,000 million in 1989). 2 Financial imperatives provided the primary incentive for the Thatcher government to act on community care (Carr, 2005;Allen, 1997;Morris, 1993), with the Audit Commission (1986) highlighting the ever-increasing drain that long-term residential care (mainly of old people) was having on the social security budget (rising from £10 million in 1970 to over £1,000 million in 1989).…”

“…Over this period, government rhetoric shifted towards an emphasis on the desirability of people remaining in their 'own home', rather than having to move to new or 'special needs' accommodation. 2 Financial imperatives provided the primary incentive for the Thatcher government to act on community care (Carr, 2005;Allen, 1997;Morris, 1993), with the Audit Commission (1986) highlighting the ever-increasing drain that long-term residential care (mainly of old people) was having on the social security budget (rising from £10 million in 1970 to over £1,000 million in 1989). At that time, social security regulations had created a 'perverse incentive' for local authorities and the NHS to encourage patients to make private arrangements funded by social security (Lewis and Glennerster, 1996).…”

Supported housing in global austerity: Local providers fears for the future in Gloucestershire, England

“…Medium and low support housing is likely to offer less intensive support, in the case of project-based work, this might be staffing during the day only and in the case of low support, this might more commonly mean clients living in self-contained flats owned by the housing organisation and offered some degree of community-based support. Carr (2005) points out that the complex needs for those in supported housing, along with the evolution of supported housing as a concept and a service has resulted in an exceptionally diverse provision that can vary extensively as a result of the location and level and timing of government support. As a result:…”

“…'Generalizations about supported housing provision then … are of limited use but serve to record its origins, at least in part from an oppositional tradition, its independent nature and its ideological leanings' (Carr, 2005;p. 392).…”

“…The relationship between local, national and private investment in social housing in England has experienced a shift towards private finance and increased centralisation through the introduction of the Homes and Community Agency, at the expense of local authority management (Carr 2005). Trends since the late 1980s show how a decrease in local spending was supplemented by centralised state involvement in the sector prior to the GFC, however subsequently and the massive growth in private finance in the sector is particularly evident post 2006/7, and a subsequent dramatic decline in spending across the board from 2009/10 onwards (Wilcox & Pawson, 2013).…”