Suchergebnisse

In the winter of 2018, high profile debates about 'rough sleepers' intensified following reports about men who died in freezing conditions. Government since pledged to cut the number of rough sleepers by half by 2022 and eliminate it by 2027. This commentary reviews two pieces of legislation which could support this target: the Care Act 2014 and the Homelessness Reduction Act 2018. It argues that policies offer opportunities to improve outcomes for rough sleepers, given historic failings to provide for this social group. However, financial and institutional barriers remain.

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to introduce a methodology for critical welfare practice research, "recollection-as-method", and to use this to demonstrate the social relations of social welfare institutions.


Design/methodology/approach
The paper analyses a series of personal recollections from the author's experiences of academic life and welfare work to establish a methodology for critical welfare practice research. This uses concepts memory, dirty work, shame and complicity, and is grounded in critical feminist and critical race work, and psychosocial and socio-cultural approaches to governance.


Findings
The paper establishes a methodology for critical welfare practice research by demonstrating the significance of using an ontologically driven approach to governance, to achieve a realistic and complex understanding of statutory welfare work.


Research limitations/implications
Recollections are post hoc narrations, written in the present day. The ethics and robustness of this approach are deliberated in the paper.


Practical implications
The focus of the paper is on statutory welfare practice that involves the assessment and regulation of homeless people. Principles and arguments developed in this paper contribute to reflective and reflexive debates across "front-line" social welfare practice fields in and beyond homelessness. Examples include assessment of social groups such as unemployed people, refugees and asylum seekers. Arguments also have application for criminal justice settings such as for prison work.


Social implications
This foregrounds practitioner ambivalence and resistance in order to theorise the social relations of social welfare institutions.


Originality/value
The recollection-as-method approach provides a methodology for critical practice research by demonstrating an alternative way to understand the realities of welfare work. It argues that understanding how resistance and complicity operate in less conscious and more structural ways is important for understanding the social relations of social welfare institutions and the role of good/bad feeling for these processes. This is important for understanding interventions required for anti-oppressive social change across the social worlds of policy-practice life.

This article provides insights into the client−practitioner interaction, as understood through the eyes of those working at the front-line in a Drop-in Centre for homeless clients. Through a case-study analysis of 'official' techniques and informal approaches, it is argued that conditional practices are present in contemporary support practices. However, the picture is fragmented, with practitioners arguing for, but also deviating from, conditional strategies that aspire to shape client behaviour. Choices about appropriate responses are occasionally permeated by 'top−down' policy messages that aim to responsibilise and generate change in clients. However there is evidence of 'bottom−up' drivers informed by experiences of working with clients at the grassroots. These 'practice realities' shift an analysis of conditional tactics from just a moralising and disciplining approach, and suggest a more complex set of events at the front-line. Insights add to ongoing commentary about an apparent policy emphasis on rectifying the behaviour of citizens at the sharp end. Conclusions highlight the role of complexity for understanding therapeutic and disciplining elements in policies and practices. Such debates are especially relevant where they connect to the care and control of individuals understood by practitioners as both transgressive and vulnerable.

This paper examines how deportation became a solution to rough sleeping in pre-Brexit England. It identifies relationships between the social regulation of vulnerable and marginalised adults, contemporary governance arrangements and bordering practices characteristic of Britain's 'hostile environment'. Drawing on media reports and grey organisational literature, the focus of discussion is events across 2015–2018 in which three London-based charities were criticised for working with the Home Office to deport homeless migrants under its European Economic Area Administrative Removal policy. The overall tenor of criticism was that collaboration with the government compromised the organisations' independence and charitable missions and aims. This diminished their capacity to both advocate for vulnerable adults and effectively challenge oppressive state practices. The paper observes how state and nonprofit relations structure institutional and socio-legal responses to marginalised and 'othered' adults through commissioning and contracting mechanisms. It demonstrates that the social and legal control of homeless migrants may be differently constituted by institutions delivering services in relation to citizenship, vulnerability and marginalisation. This analysis incorporates a broader appraisal of institutional motivations, values and beliefs in social welfare delivery, including the historic role of charitable agencies in the criminalisation of social welfare users. Taken together, the paper offers an interdisciplinary critique of the relationships between border control, neoliberal governance and the sociocultural and historic construction of homeless migrants.

This discussion offers a thematic introduction and contextual framework across the welfare domains of homelessness and employment. The Labour Government (1997−2010) introduced a range of policies, which drew connections between homelessness and employment strategies. Such approaches were indicative of efforts to responsibilise and empower marginalised groups by way of conditional responses, which intended to steer clients towards independent and 'active' citizenship. In this context, work-related activities were regarded as transformative and meaningful. In broad terms, this approach can be understood as part of a wider set of therapeutic interventions that aimed to support clients with multiple support needs, albeit through somewhat coercive and regulatory overtones (Harrison and Sanders, 2006). A review of social policies developed under the Labour Government is useful for a critical understanding of welfare approaches and practices during that period, and it also enables us to evaluate how far there is continuity or change in approaches in successive political administrations. Labour introduced a set of policy principles that represented distinctive responses to disadvantaged groups, and this review highlights some of the key rationales and techniques of governance from that era. The conclusion will discuss the potential legacy for welfare policy, with specific reference to the Coalition Government.