The policy and implementation of the housing role in community care—a constructionist theoretical perspective

Abstract

This paper contends that academic analysts, working within the discipline of 'housing studies', have misrepresented the meaning and significance of the housing role in community care, and that this has resulted from their unwillingness to utilise an explicit multi-disciplinary and theoretical approach to its study. The first half of this paper attempts to provide a new and alternative definition of housing's community care role by locating its analysis within a constructionist theoretical framework. Then, using the research findings of a study undertaken in Wales, the second part of the paper analyses the critical questions of 'what did and did not happen and why during implementation?', which a theory of policy and implementation must claim to be able to answer if it is to justify itself as an analytical framework. The paper relates particularly to community care for people with mental and physical disabilities, rather than older people.

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).…”

“…While a major concern of deinstitutionalisation policy has always been the issue of where people live, in its earlier phases (the 1960s and 1970s) housing had only a relatively peripheral and ‘functional’ importance (Bochel and Bochel, 2001; Franklin, 1998; Allen, 1997). During this period, ‘community care’ largely took the form of ‘special needs’ accommodation (Morris, 1993).…”

Changing Housing for Elderly People and Co-ordination Issues in Europe

“…The professional detachment of the average housing manager in the second half of this century has led to him/her not being involved in the necessary inter-sectoral policy development to facilitate the shift of care to the community (Allen, 1997).…”

“…In order to realise ageing in place, these regional and local policy players need to adopt quality control and the stimulation of innovations as normal management tasks (Means, 1999). Local-level policy players in the housing, care and social assistance sectors need to invest in 'partnership' and 'joint strategic actions' in order to realise ageing in place (Allen, 1997;Means, 1996;Smith & Malinson, 1997). As an indicative development, publications have appeared, especially in the UK, containing operational instructions on how to act, which knowledge and skills relating to the other sectors should be possessed by policy players, and how far each actor's sphere of responsibility extends (Means, 1999).…”

Explanations of Social Exclusion: Where Does Housing Fit in?

“…Returning to the comments at the beginning of the paper, it was stated that there were types of moral or ideological factors which function as justifications or explanations for people being excluded from the benefits of social citizenship. These factors are all based on a fundamental ideological assumption of individual responsibility, which according to Allen (1997) is a core ideology of capitalist societies. In reality, however, the exercise of individual responsibility is never completely free, but is always constrained, not least by the systems of exploitation and patterns of social reproduction discussed above.…”