Sarah Johnsen

Exploring ethos? Discourses of 'charity' in the provision of emergency services for homeless people

This paper examines the ethos of organisations providing emergency services for homeless people in Britain. Drawing on extensive surveys of nonstatutory organisations we present a discourse analysis of statements of ‘mission’, ‘values’, and ‘ethics’, arguing that, although care needs to be exercised in translating organisational ethos into likely practices of care, these overarching messages of ethos are significant waymarkers in the moral landscapes of caring for homeless people. Using Coless rethinking of the politics of generosity, we interrogate ethos in terms of three ideal types—Christian caritas, secular humanism, and postsecular charity—concluding that the principal fault-line in current services divides organisations which expect particular behavioural outcomes from homeless people (including Christian ‘conversion’ and more secular assumptions of self-responsibility), and those which provide care regardless of individual response.

Performativity and affect in the homeless city

In this paper we discuss some of the ‘strange maps’ of city life performed by homeless people. Current models of urban homelessness emphasise both the strategies by which spaces of homelessness are disciplined and contained, and the tactics deployed by homeless people to negotiate this containment. Whilst recognising the value of such work, we argue that there is a need to move beyond this ‘rationalist’ reading of the homeless city to recognise the importance of emotion and affect in the lives of homeless people, and the traces such emotions leave on the homeless city. Drawing on in-depth interviews, we chart the journeys and pauses made by homeless people in the city of Bristol, UK. We show how the geography of homelessness thus described moves beyond current accounts of the homeless city rooted in an understanding of the strategic or tactical use of space and allows for a more nuanced reading of urban space able to take proper account of the less visible, more ‘transient’ reinscriptions of place that mark the presence of homeless people in the city.

Pathways into Multiple Exclusion Homelessness in Seven UK Cities

This paper interrogates pathways into multiple exclusion homelessness (MEH) in the UK and, informed by a critical realist theoretical framework, explores the potential causal processes underlying these pathways. Drawing on an innovative multistage quantitative survey, it identifies five experiential clusters within the MEH population, based on the extent and complexity of experiences of homelessness, substance misuse, institutional care, street culture activities and adverse life events. It demonstrates that the most complex forms of MEH are associated with childhood trauma. It also reveals that the temporal sequencing of MEH-relevant experiences is remarkably consistent, with substance misuse and mental health problems tending to occur early in individual pathways, and homelessness and a range of adverse life events typically occurring later. The strong inference is that these later-occurring events are largely consequences rather than originating causes of MEH, which has important implications for the conceptualisation of, and policy responses to, deep exclusion.

Alternative Cartographies of Homelessness: Rendering visible British women's experiences of ‘visible’ homelessness

This article focuses on a group largely ignored by both geographers and feminist scholars of homelessness alike—the growing number of ‘visibly homeless’ women in Britain. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 19 ‘visibly homeless’ women, we delineate between four ‘alternative cartographies’ of homelessness, each articulating quite different gendered homeless identities. The article suggests that whilst it is important to recognise that women too suffer the exclusions of visible homelessness, it is also clear that the experience of visible homelessness differs for different women. Any attempt to respond to the (immediate) needs of such women necessitates a recognition rather than denial of these differences.

Multiple Exclusion Homelessness in the UK: Key Patterns and Intersections

This article presents preliminary results from a multi-stage quantitative study of ‘multiple exclusion homelessness’ (MEH) in seven urban locations across the UK. It demonstrates a very high degree of overlap between a range of experiences associated with ‘deep social exclusion’ – namely, homelessness, substance misuse, institutional care and ‘street culture’ activities (such as begging and street drinking). It also provides evidence to support the contention that homelessness is a particularly prevalent form of exclusion, with its experience reported as widespread by those accessing low threshold support services targeted at other dimensions of deep exclusion, such as drug misuse. Further, the analysis presented indicates that the nature of MEH varies geographically, with the profile of the population affected looking quite different in Westminster (London) than in the other urban locations. The main explanation for this appears to be the exceptionally high proportion of migrants in the MEH population in Westminster, who tend to report lower overall levels of personal trauma and vulnerability than the indigenous MEH population.

‘Doing it Already?’: Stakeholder Perceptions of Housing First in the UK

Abstract When first developed in the United States, ‘Housing First’ was highly controversial given its departure from mainstream ‘linear’ service models for homeless people with complex support needs. It has nevertheless since been heralded as presenting a key ‘antidote’ to chronic homelessness and is being replicated across North America and Europe with what might be regarded as ‘evangelical’ fervour. Reception to Housing First has been noticeably more reserved in the UK to date. This paper explores the reasons underpinning many UK stakeholders’ scepticism about the model. It argues that this derives, in part, from the fact that Housing First implementation in the UK would not represent the scale of paradigm shift that it has elsewhere, thus the model is considered far less revolutionary. Furthermore, whilst most stakeholders find aspects of the approach very attractive, ideological and pragmatic reservations dictate that robust evidence derived from pilot projects in Britain will be required – especially as regards outcomes for individuals with active substance misuse problems – before any wholesale ‘conversion’ to Housing First is likely in the UK.

The Use of Enforcement to Combat ‘Street Culture’ in England: An Ethical Approach?

Within a social justice ethical framework, the use of ‘enforcement’ measures to prevent people from engaging in ‘street activities’, such as begging and street drinking, can only be morally justified if such initiatives can be shown to benefit the welfare of the vulnerable ‘street users’ affected. It may be hypothesized that this is unlikely, and such measures are bound to be regressive in their effects, but in fact evidence from an evaluation conducted in five locations across England suggests otherwise. Drawing on a normative framework which engages with both moral and political philosophy, this paper argues that the motivations and impacts associated with enforcement are more ethically complex, and less punitive, than they may at first appear. It demonstrates that the use of enforcement measures, when accompanied by appropriate support, can in fact lead to beneficial outcomes for some individuals involved in begging or street drinking in some situations. The outcomes for other members of the street population can, however, be very negative, and are highly unpredictable, such that the use of enforcement is always a high-risk strategy, even if ethically justifiable in certain circumstances.

Where's the ‘Faith’ in ‘Faith-Based’ Organisations? The Evolution and Practice of Faith-Based Homelessness Services in the UK

Drawing upon a qualitative exploration of the role of faith-based organisations (FBOs) in service provision for homeless people in the UK, this paper examines the ways in which the ‘faith’ in ‘faith-based’ services is articulated and experienced ‘on the ground’. It demonstrates that the ‘F’ in FBO is expressed in a myriad of nuanced ways, and that the strength of ‘coupling’ between many welfare agencies and organised religion has diminished over time such that some projects’ faith affiliation or heritage is now evident in palimpsest only. Homeless people do in fact often find it difficult to discern tangible differences between avowedly ‘faith-based’ and ‘secular’ projects, given a blurring of boundaries between the religious and the secular. These findings problematise FBO typologies, and highlight the complexity and fluidity of the very concept of ‘FBO’ itself. Certainly, they suggest that the differences between faith-based and secular provision should not be exaggerated, whilst recognising the importance of faith to the motivations of many service providers and the potential value of the (optional) ‘spiritual’ support offered by most FBOs.

Community hospitality initiatives: ‘Make a cup of tea first, ask questions later’

In the UK, the majority of service provision for people on the margins of society – such as homeless people, but also the elderly, isolated and poor – has origins in the benevolent actions of faith...

Controlling Homeless People? Power, Interventionism and Legitimacy

There is intense debate over the legitimacy of interventions which seek behavioural change on the part of street homeless people. ‘Hard’ measures, such as arresting people for begging, are particularly controversial, but ‘softer’ interventions such as motivational interviewing have also prompted objections on grounds that they are paternalistic. At the same time, the ‘non-interventionist’ stance of some service providers has been accused of perpetuating harmful street lifestyles. Inspired by Ruth Grants philosophically informed interrogation of the ethics of incentives, we propose a normative framework for application in this field. Via systematic exploration of Grants three ‘legitimacy standards’ (legitimate purpose, voluntary response, effects on character), and an additional outcome-focussed fourth (effectiveness, proportionality and balance), we attempt to unsettle any intuitive assumption that non-interventionist approaches are necessarily more morally defensible than interventionist ones. We also, however, explicate the high ethical and empirical bar required to justify social control measures.