‘Extending hospitality’ or ‘killing with kindness’?Normative stances regarding interventionism and enforcement in the homelessness sector

Sarah Johnsen, Beth Watts & Suzanne Fitzpatrick

Outline

Use of enforcement in responses to homelessness and street culture

Escalation of interventionist approaches in support services

Ethical justifications for and objections to enforcement-based and interventionist approaches

Where next?

Enforcement in responses to street homelessness From early 2000s, central govt. endorsement of interventions

containing elements of enforcement, coercion, persuasion etc., e.g.:

• Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)

• Arrests for begging (Vagrancy Act 1824)

• Designated Public Places Orders (DPPOs)

• Designing out (e.g. gating, removing seating)

• Diverted giving campaigns (e.g. ‘Killing with Kindness’)

Degree to which support is integrated varies (usually greatest for ‘hard’ measures)

Escalating interventionism From late 1990s, escalation in expectation that homeless people

‘engage’ with services on offer, e.g.: Assertive street outreach Places of Change No Second Night Out single service offer

Now, spectrum of service provider approaches ranging from: Non-interventionist: open door, minimal/no expectations re engagement Interventionist: assertively encourage / insist upon engagement with support

plans, sometimes on conditional basis

Repositioning of providers along this spectrum in recent years acceptance that there is a ‘place’ for enforcement in some circumstances some relaxation of expectations as regards the most ‘service resistant’ rough

sleepers

But, promotion of behaviour change still contentious…

Opposing perspectives

Mapping normative perspectives on enforcement and interventionism

  Justification Opposition

ContractualHomeless people obliged to utilise

services provided by the StateInadequate supply and/or quality of

services available

PaternalisticInterventions are in the best interests

of homeless people

Interventions violate individuals’ ‘rights’ to sleep rough / lead alternative

lifestyles

MutualisticHomeless people are not fulfilling their

obligations to society

Interventionism challenges social bonds between members of society / fails to

recognise homeless people’s equal value

Utilitarian Maximises welfare of rest of societyUnacceptable risk of negative outcomes

for an extremely vulnerable group

Social justice Increases welfare of those targeted Undermines welfare of those targeted

Justifying enforcement and interventionism Post 1997 emphasis by Government (and locally) on

contractual/mutualistic and utilitarian justifications Public intimidation by rough sleepers, beggars and street drinkers Street culture a blight on areas; damage business and tourism Public have a right to expect hostel places to be taken up (SEU, 1998) Rough sleepers etc. have responsibility to accept support and reduce

community safety concerns and ASB (Tom Preest, in Housing Justice, 2008)

Social justice and/or paternalist justifications prompt a focus on the damaging impacts of street homelessness/culture Street population disproportionately represented in drug-related deaths Rough sleepers vulnerable to attack, extreme ill health etc. Addiction/ mental ill health impairs ability to judge what’s in best interests Evidence that enforcement can ‘work’ in some circumstances (acts as ‘crisis

point’ prompting change)

Opposing enforcement and interventionism

Contractual: inadequate supply/ quality of emergency accommodation and addiction/ mental health treatment facilities

Paternalistic: contravenes the ‘right’ to sleep rough / live an alternative lifestyle

Mutualistic: damages the ‘therapeutic relationship’ between recipient/provider

Utilitarian: enforcement ‘high risk’ / potential for negative consequences unacceptably high (e.g. severe penalties, activities ‘driven underground’)

Social Justice: evidence that enforcement does NOT ‘work’ in all circumstances and can in fact undermine welfare (activity and geographical displacement)

Remaining challenges and questions More comprehensive evidence will to an extent arbitrate between

normative perspectives Do enforcement based/interventionist approaches benefit homeless

people? Do enforcement based/interventionist approaches benefit broader

public?

Trade-offs and ‘moral pluralism’ Needs of targeted individuals versus wider goals Best interests and preferences of targeted groups

Sustainability of behaviour change Interaction with broader forms of ‘conditionality’ Local and regional variation; Scotland vs. England; London vs. the

rest

What next..? Exercise conducted as part of a large 5-year ESRC study

examining the effectiveness and ethicality of welfare conditionality as applied to 8 welfare recipient groups unemployed people, lone parents, disabled people, social tenants,

homeless people, individuals/families subject to antisocial behaviour orders/family intervention projects, offenders and migrants

Methods: c.40 interviews with key stakeholders 24 focus groups with frontline practitioners QLR involving 480 welfare recipients, interviewed 3x over 2 years

What next (cont.)…?

Assess the balance of weighting accorded to each of these justifications (and potential others) by key informants, frontline practitioners and welfare recipients

Longitudinal research with those targeted will offer insight into: whether/why interventions are/aren’t justified in particular

circumstances impacts on wellbeing and whether or not they lead to intended

behavioural outcomes