Choosing to be homeless? Persistent rough sleeping and the perverse incentives of social policy in England

IF 0.6 Q3 URBAN STUDIES
G. Bowpitt
{"title":"Choosing to be homeless? Persistent rough sleeping and the perverse incentives of social policy in England","authors":"G. Bowpitt","doi":"10.1108/hcs-07-2020-0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: With the temporary housing of rough sleepers in response to the Covid-19 emergency, some commentators have been tempted to believe that the rising population of rough sleepers in the UK has finally been reversed. This paper aims to examine the choices made by persistent rough sleepers and how far they are influenced by the perverse incentives of social policies, in order to challenge the view that they sleep rough out of choice. \n \nDesign/methodology/approach: Evidence for this paper is derived from two teams of frontline service providers with routine familiarity with the rough sleeping population: a street outreach team and a team of support workers working with adults with multiple and complex needs. Primary data from focus groups were combined with the secondary analysis of both numerical and narrative accounts routinely recorded by both teams. \n \nFindings: The exercise of agency by persistent rough sleepers is constrained by a mixed baggage of complex needs, past negative risk assessments, limited resources and regulatory deterrents to generate choices to reject help that appear irrational. These need to be understood if recent policy initiatives to end rough sleeping are to be effective. \n \nOriginality/value: The paper draws on the experience and comprehensive records of practitioners with intimate knowledge of the rough sleeping population. It extends narrative accounts of causes by focusing on key choices to show how the perverse incentives of policy combine with personal factors to incline rough sleeping to persist.","PeriodicalId":43302,"journal":{"name":"Housing Care and Support","volume":"42 1","pages":"135-147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Housing Care and Support","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/hcs-07-2020-0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"URBAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Purpose: With the temporary housing of rough sleepers in response to the Covid-19 emergency, some commentators have been tempted to believe that the rising population of rough sleepers in the UK has finally been reversed. This paper aims to examine the choices made by persistent rough sleepers and how far they are influenced by the perverse incentives of social policies, in order to challenge the view that they sleep rough out of choice. Design/methodology/approach: Evidence for this paper is derived from two teams of frontline service providers with routine familiarity with the rough sleeping population: a street outreach team and a team of support workers working with adults with multiple and complex needs. Primary data from focus groups were combined with the secondary analysis of both numerical and narrative accounts routinely recorded by both teams. Findings: The exercise of agency by persistent rough sleepers is constrained by a mixed baggage of complex needs, past negative risk assessments, limited resources and regulatory deterrents to generate choices to reject help that appear irrational. These need to be understood if recent policy initiatives to end rough sleeping are to be effective. Originality/value: The paper draws on the experience and comprehensive records of practitioners with intimate knowledge of the rough sleeping population. It extends narrative accounts of causes by focusing on key choices to show how the perverse incentives of policy combine with personal factors to incline rough sleeping to persist.
选择无家可归?持续的露宿和英国社会政策的反常激励
为了应对Covid-19紧急情况,英国为露宿者提供了临时住所,一些评论员倾向于认为,英国露宿者人数的增加终于得到了扭转。本文旨在研究长期露宿者的选择,以及他们在多大程度上受到社会政策不正当激励的影响,以挑战他们露宿是出于选择的观点。设计/方法/方法:本文的证据来自两个熟悉露宿人群的一线服务提供者团队:一个街头外展团队和一个支持人员团队,他们与有多种复杂需求的成年人一起工作。来自焦点小组的主要数据与两个团队常规记录的数字和叙述叙述的二次分析相结合。研究发现:长期露宿者的代理行为受到复杂需求、过去负面风险评估、有限资源和监管威慑等因素的制约,这些因素导致他们选择拒绝看似不合理的帮助。要想让最近结束露宿街头的政策举措发挥作用,就必须理解这些问题。原创性/价值:本文借鉴了从业人员的经验和全面记录,对露宿人群有深入的了解。它扩展了对原因的叙述,把重点放在关键的选择上,展示了政策的反常激励与个人因素是如何结合在一起的,从而使粗糙的睡眠持续下去。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Housing Care and Support
Housing Care and Support URBAN STUDIES-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
13
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信