The changing shape of provision for rough sleepers: from conditionality to care

Abstract

This paper is situated within wider debates about the changing shape of policy and practice within the field of homelessness. It reports on a small scale case study of an intensive key worker support service operating in England designed to move multiply disadvantaged rough sleepers off the streets. The discussion of the empirical data draws attention to the different modes of control inherent within the project's working practices that are designed to incite rough sleepers to make positive changes. The paper suggests that the project is a useful example of a 'nascent trend' within homeless support services of tolerant and less conditional approaches for those who are the most disadvantaged. The paper suggests that this move towards tolerance offers positive benefits for rough sleepers with complex needs that marks a shift away from more punitive and coercive practices.

Bureaucratic encounters “after neoliberalism”: Examining the supportive turn in social housing governance

“…Consistent with neoliberal bureaucratic encounters (Fletcher & Flint, 2018), the data showed that DHPW is frequently experienced by tenants as an impersonal, punitive, and highly bureaucratic organization. Nevertheless, the interviews also revealed a clear shift by DHPW towards the kind of supportive/caring practices observed by housing scholars (Parr, 2019;Power & Bergan, 2019), both from the perspective of service providers and the experiences of tenants. We now turn to these findings.…”

“…There are, however, signs that the limits of the neoliberal model of bureaucracy are beginning to be understood by some welfare providers working in the housing field. Recent research on the governance of social housing and homelessness has identified what Parr () calls a “nascent counter‐trend” to the neoliberal paradigm. This counter‐trend entails a renewed focus on care and support amongst housing and homelessness service providers, and a rejection of conditionality and the welfare‐independence objectives of neoliberalism (Parr, ; Power & Bergan, ).…”

“…Recent research on the governance of social housing and homelessness has identified what Parr () calls a “nascent counter‐trend” to the neoliberal paradigm. This counter‐trend entails a renewed focus on care and support amongst housing and homelessness service providers, and a rejection of conditionality and the welfare‐independence objectives of neoliberalism (Parr, ; Power & Bergan, ). This resistance stems from recognition of the difficulties that clients with complex needs face in adhering to behavioral conditions, and the negative impact that sanctions can have on their already precarious lives (Parr, ).…”

“…This counter‐trend entails a renewed focus on care and support amongst housing and homelessness service providers, and a rejection of conditionality and the welfare‐independence objectives of neoliberalism (Parr, ; Power & Bergan, ). This resistance stems from recognition of the difficulties that clients with complex needs face in adhering to behavioral conditions, and the negative impact that sanctions can have on their already precarious lives (Parr, ). This leads to the (partial) eschewal of conditionality in favor of a greater focus on the support needs of vulnerable clients, and a more tolerant approach to dealing with problematic behaviors, such as substance misuse or antisocial behavior (Dobson, ; Parr, ).…”

“…In recent decades, this neoliberal mode of bureaucratic engagement has come to dominate state provision across a variety of domains (Wacquant, ). However, recent research in the housing domain points to a potential shift away from neoliberal practices towards a renewed focus on unconditional care and support, at least for those clients deemed “high needs” (Dobson, ; Parr, ; Power & Bergan, ). This emergent approach recognizes the difficulties that clients with high needs face in adhering to entrepreneurial norms and behavioral conditions, and how this contributes to their marginalization.…”