TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE NEW LABOUR GOVERNMENT’S POLICY FOR HOUSING, ATTEMPTED TO ERADICATE THE PROBLEMS OF YOUNG AND SINGLE HOMELESSNESS?
TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE NEW LABOUR GOVERNMENT'S POLICY FOR HOUSING, ATTEMPTED TO ERADICATE THE PROBLEMS OF YOUNG AND SINGLE HOMELESSNESS?
According to Crane and Warnes 2000, the new Labour government's aim is to prevent homelessness as a whole and to reduce the number of people sleeping rough by two-thirds in the next three years (Social exclusion unit, 1998). This they claim requires much more understanding of the causes of the problem and of interventions and services that can contribute to these objectives. The aim of this essay is to critically analyse the changes that the present government has made, with regards to previous policy proposals concerning young single homeless people. In order to determine whether changes have taken place, previous policies relating to homelessness will be briefly discussed.
Single homeless people make up the vast majority of people sleeping on the streets and those who stay in night's shelters and short term hostels according to the shelter fact sheets. The physical problems associated with sleeping on the streets can include respiratory problems, foot problems, skin complaints, muscle and joint problems, stomach and digestive disorders, accidents and high rates of premature deaths. The social side to it are drug misuse and alcohol abuse. Any advances to combat homelessness, should entail, making provisions to accommodate these problems, especially where single or youth homelessness is concerned.
Issues of homelessness, with reference to housing policies, have often been categorised into groups of the deserving and undeserving. Statutory responses to homelessness according to Fitzpatrick and Klinker 2000 have traditionally focused on families with children rather than single people. This division is reflected in both homelessness research and practice, and one result is that the relationship between family and single homelessness is little understood. They state that the growing numbers of single homeless people sleeping rough in the late 1980s, prompted central government to establish a series of rough sleepers initiatives first in 1990 in London and then elsewhere in England and Scotland. The current Labour Government has pushed homelessness further up the political agenda, by establishing the Rough Sleepers Unit and the Scottish Homelessness Task force.
Pleace 1998 states that social problems tend to be socially constructed and all welfare provision at whatever time, has been grounded in ideas about which people should be helped and under what circumstances. Single homeless people, he adds, and people sleeping rough have been the centre of such an ideology for 20 years or more.
Single homeless people as compared to homeless families were obviously seen as non-priority cases.
Moore 1998 states that until 1977, the definition of homelessness used by the Government was of families that had been placed in temporary accommodation by the 'welfare authorities'. Local authorities did not see it as their obligation to place people in temporary accommodation and more people were rejected than accepted, but previously to that in 1966, 2518 people from such families had been provided with accommodation by local authorities. He also adds that due to immense pressure, the housing (homeless persons) act was passed and this provided a wider definition of homelessness stating that a person is homeless if they have no legal right to housing, or if threats of violence prevented them from exercising that right.
One could argue that this definition did not stretch far enough to cover other causes of homelessness. The ideology of homelessness definitions within policies then was related to rooflessness. Certain people such as the single homeless, who suffered from depression or were mentally ill, did not fit into this definition.
The traditional and unhelpful definition of homelessness according to Burnet 1999, is to be found in section 58 of the 1985 act and the main thrust of it is that 'a person is homeless if he has no accommodation'.
However, Burnet 1999, argues that if homelessness was to be broadly defined to reflect the inadequacies of substandard accommodation rather than rooflessness per se, it will in turn put housing authorities under immense pressure. The people in inadequate accommodation with friends or relatives are often unaccounted for, and not regarded as homeless according to these official definitions. ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The traditional and unhelpful definition of homelessness according to Burnet 1999, is to be found in section 58 of the 1985 act and the main thrust of it is that 'a person is homeless if he has no accommodation'.
However, Burnet 1999, argues that if homelessness was to be broadly defined to reflect the inadequacies of substandard accommodation rather than rooflessness per se, it will in turn put housing authorities under immense pressure. The people in inadequate accommodation with friends or relatives are often unaccounted for, and not regarded as homeless according to these official definitions. From these definitions, one could only conclude that as long as an individual has a roof over their head, regardless of how dilapidated the property is, or whether the property is over-occupied, they are not considered as priority cases.
Section 58 was amended again by the 1986 act, which placed the definition of homelessness to fall within the following criteria:
* A person is homeless if he has no accommodation in England, Wales or Scotland.
* A person shall be treated as having no accommodation, if there is no accommodation, which he together with any person who normally resides with him as a member of his family or in circumstances in which it is reasonable for that person to reside with him;
a) Is entitled to occupy by virtue of an interest in it or by virtue of an order of a court; or
b) has an expressed or implied licence to occupy, or in Scotland, has a right or permission to occupy, or
c) occupies as a residence by virtue of any enactment or rule of law giving him the right to remain in occupation or restricting the right of another person to recover possession.
In January 1994, the Government published a consultation paper, which according to Pleace 1995, proposed that the 1985 Housing Act which was (based on the 1977 Housing (Homeless Persons) Act) should be changed in three ways. First, that waiting list should become the sole route into permanent social housing, with the homeless households joining every other household seeking council housing, rather than being able to bypass the waiting list because they are in priority need. Those in priority need according to Burnet 1999 quoting section (59)1 of the 1985 Act, were pregnant women, dependent children, a person who is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness, handicap, physical disability or any other special reasons. Persons with whom these priority groups were seen as reasonable to reside, were also considered as priority. Threatened homelessness resulting from incidences such as fire, flooding or any other disasters were part of this priority group. Some theorists might argue that young single homeless people such as those who migrate from smaller towns to bigger cities, (and obviously vulnerable), did not fall within these criteria and were disregarded as being priority cases. One could argue that the reason why the 1985 act was amended and those in priority need had their privilege of bypassing waiting list withdrawn, was due in part to the unavailability of council housing.
Balchin et al 1998, stated that, from examining the housing policy, it is clear that over the years the function of council housing has been interpreted in two contrasting ways. On one hand, there was the traditional Labour belief that the public sector should supply housing for 'general needs' - to satisfy the demand from households irrespective of their income. The emphasis was placed on the idea to rent rather than to buy either through choice or necessity. On the other hand, there was the Conservative or neo-liberal view that council housing should fulfil only a 'residual' or 'welfare' role, assisting households that could not afford to find any other sort of accommodation. The Housing Act of 1980 and the Tenant's Rights (Scotland and Wales) Act 1980 gave tenants the right to buy the freehold of their house or 125 years lease on their flats. The Act gave tenants the right to buy their property at a fixed price within a two-year option with a deposit of one hundred pounds. Right was also given to the Secretary of State to intervene and complete a sale if the council should delay or impede a sale under section 23 of this Act.
Under this act according to Balchin et al 1998, the number of local authority dwellings initially sold off to their former tenants increased from 568 in 1980 to 196,430 in 1982, and sales began to exceed local authority housing completion. Hence the ideology underpinning the amendment of the 1985 Act, one could argue, was not aimed at treating every one equally, but was due to the lack of affordable housing for those in priority need. Pleace 1998, quoting Anderson 1993, also states that while social housing was refused to single homeless men without health problems or care needs under the 1977 act, the rising number of single young people and women in the homeless population is probably linked to overall reduction in social housing stock.
As stated previously, the present Labour Government has taken issues of single homelessness much further with their housing policy proposals, than the previous Governments have done. In the April 2000 housing green paper, amongst many other proposals, they have promised to cut the number of rough sleepers by two thirds by 2002. A summary of the housing green by the Deputy Prime minister John Prescott, states that through the Safer Communities Supported Housing fund, new money will be made available to ensure that services can expand in the run up to implementation. A fund of £137 million over the next three years will generate additional services for people fleeing domestic violence, ex-offenders, drug users and young people at risk.
Over all, the aim is to offer every one the opportunity of a decent home, and so promote social cohesion, well being and self-dependence.
However, according to Fitzpatrick and Klinker 2000, there are concerns that the emphasis on rough sleeping has detracted attention from other forms of homelessness, such as living in bed and breakfast hotels or staying 'care of' other households. They further state that there are fears that the governments 'tough love' approach may encourage punitive measures to be taken against rough sleepers who do not conform by, for example, accepting hostel places.
The policy in relation to rough sleeping, proposed a count to enable authorities to determine the scale of rough sleeping in areas such as London, Birmingham, Brighton, Bournemouth, Bristol, Manchester, and Cambridge. In June 1998, a street count was conducted, and it was found that there were 1850 people sleeping rough in England on any single night, including some 620 in Greater London. From these figures the report claims that rough sleeping can be monitored and based there targets on this initiative, for reducing it down to 620 by 2002.
Fitzpatrick and Klinker 2000, states that the significant volume of research conducted on the London rough sleepers initiatives has, to some extent, counter the recent decentralisation of single homelessness research, and due to geographical variations, the focus on London has proved to be problematic in determining the nature and causes of homelessness.
Part II of the 2000 Homes Bill, according to the Shelter press release has made important amendments to the existing framework relating to homelessness and the allocation of social housing by local authorities. It implements proposals originally outlined in the Government's Housing Green Paper published in April 2000. To briefly explain this Bill, one could say that emphases are much more placed on preventing homelessness rather than looking at the causes.
Clause 16 of the Bill places a new duty on local authority to carryout a review of homelessness in their area within a year of the Bill coming into force and to publish strategies to tackle and prevent homelessness at five yearly intervals thereafter. It also requires social services to work alongside housing authorities to help exercise these functions. One of such functions as mentioned earlier was the counting of rough sleepers. It could be argued although this method could help the authorities cut down on rough sleeping by providing such persons with temporary accommodation, the initial needs, of medical help and drug rehabilitation programmes have to be reinforced to help these people stay off the streets. Temporary accommodation in itself is not in any way classed as housing. Again it draws on the issues, some might argue, that even the present Government has made no concerted effort to redefine homelessness. The ideology of homelessness meaning joblessness and rooflessness still remains in parts, the same under present constitutions. Statutory homeless single people according to Pleace 1995, often have a variety of other needs besides their requirement for housing. These were highlighted in the second paragraph, and if
these non-housing needs are not met, re-housing can be unsuccessful.
According to Fitzpatrick and Klinker 2000, there is no readily available, comprehensive robust source of information on the numbers of single homeless people. This is due in part to the politically contested nature of definitions of homelessness, and in part to the 'hidden' and 'mobile' nature of many people's homelessness. The available figures on the number of statutory homeless households, rough sleepers, and hostel and night shelter users are all estimates and subject to important limitations.
Definitions of those considered to be in priority need, some theorists might argue, should be outlined much clearly than what is stated within policies as previously noted. According to a case study in the databank of the November 2000 Housing journal, it is difficult to determine what category of crisis is considered as priority. An applicant, 19 years old, was one of six children who lived with their parents. Her parents applied to the authority as homeless and the authority agreed that under the 1996 Housing Act, section 193, they are owed a duty to be re-housed and an offer was made to them, which the parents refused. However, although the applicant played no role in the refusal of that offer, when she made a fresh application the authority refused to acknowledge it. They claimed that they had discharged their duty to that family and there had been no change in their circumstances. The court of appeal also upheld the authority's decision and claimed that the applicant was not entitled to make a fresh claim on behalf of the whole family unit.
In this case, one could argue that the applicant, who could be classed as an adult, has been refused her right as a citizen to gain access to housing, based on the fact that other members of her family refused earlier assistance rendered to them. Some theorists might further argue that issues like these could be the main causes of homelessness. According to Moore 1998, many people become homeless because they are no longer willing to live with their parents, which in the case of the above applicant, could class her as intentionally homeless, regardless of her rights as an individual.
Some theorists might argue that regardless of New Labours efforts to combat rough sleeping and single homelessness, certain small prints within the criteria which makes those affected and eligible for housing, are not well defined. Therefore the more people are turned away for these reasons the less others will come forward for help or advice. Also the concept of intentionally homeless is difficult to define, because according to Burnet 1999, what should happen in the case of someone who fits the criteria of priority need, by virtue of vulnerability or mental illness, but is also alleged to be intentionally homeless?
O'Connell 2000, states that the most vulnerable group that the strategy is specifically trying to reach, those with mental health and substance abuse problems, will be those least likely to respond to coercive strategies. Research with mentally ill homeless in the United States she adds, has shown that it can take months, sometimes longer to accept that they even need help, regardless of whether appropriate housing is available.
It certainly goes without saying that New Labour have made efforts to emphasise on issues that have been neglected in the past, and according to shelter, the new power to house non-priority homeless people is a step forward, but will not improve the position for the majority of this group. Under the existing legislation, authorities are required to provide such persons with advise and assistance, but the level of service is often poor and the applicant often gets sent away with as little as a list of bed and breakfast hotels.
Most theorists may argue that much needs to be done in educating single and vulnerable homeless people as part of the solution. The quality of information passed on to such persons could help them make the right decisions. Others might argue that the Government has not placed enough emphasis on this issue because their main concern is to reduce figures. Be it temporary accommodation or poor housing, as long as the initial target is met at the stipulated time, issues of homelessness will never be given the much needed and thorough attention it deserves. Financially, and realistically, it will be too expensive to ensure that every alcohol dependent or drug abusing homeless person should be placed in a rehabilitation programme. Fitzpatrick and Klinker 2000, states that while alcohol misuse amongst homeless people are well understood, there is surprisingly little material on drugs in the health and homeless literature. They further add that homeless people with dual diagnosis - both mental health problems and drug or alcohol dependency, face particular problems in gaining access to appropriate services.
The 2000 Housing policy, some might argue, has tried to propose an all round inclusion homeless people and they have even been given the right to political participation, but the question is, will they be heard? At present experts still make a majority of the decisions and the people who actually suffer the ordeal have little or no say in issues concerning their welfare.
Fitzpatrick and Klinker 2000, propose that a wide range of recommendations emerges from existing research which the policy community should be seeking to address, such as
* the need to address the structural causes of homelessness not just the symptoms
* the importance of preventative work and early intervention, aimed especially at those in risks of homelessness
* the need to make mainstream services take responsibility for homeless people rather than expecting specialist agencies to meet all of their needs
* they should also consider the relevant research of what works and what and what does not rather than following the trend of service provision.
These are all grounds upon which service improvement can be derived towards combating single homelessness.
