Sarah Johnsen , Beth Watts & Suzanne Fitzpatrick

1. ‘Extending hospitality’ or ‘killing with kindness’?Normative stances regarding interventionism and enforcement in the homelessness sector Sarah Johnsen, Beth Watts & Suzanne Fitzpatrick

2. 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?

3. 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)

4. 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…

5. Opposing perspectives

6. Mapping normative perspectives on enforcement and interventionism

7. 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)

8. 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)

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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 behaviouraloutcomes