You are here: UK Essays » Essays » Sociology » Exclusion Deprived Sleepers

Free Essays - Sociology Essays

Policy impact study - Theimpact of a range of policy initiatives on Rough Sleepers.

Historically,when commentators spoke of the most deprived groups in society they spoke ofpoverty, more recently, some commentators speak of the most deprived groups associally excluded. Social exclusion refers to more than the resources to obtaincommodities, it is, rather, a process of being shut out, totally or in part,from the social, cultural, political and economic systems which contribute to aperson's integration into society (Haralambos et al, 2000). Nolan and Whelan(1996) contend that,

Talking ofsocial exclusion rather than poverty highlights the gap between those who areactive members of society and those who are forced to the fringe, the increasingrisks of social disintegration, and the fact that, for the persons concernedand for society, this is a process of change and not a fixed or staticsituation (Nolan and Whelan, 1996:190).

Those who areamong the most socially excluded in British society are those who are homeless.In 1995 local authorities reported that there were 125,000 people who hadregistered themselves as homeless, among those who probably did not registerwere those living on the streets and sleeping rough. People sleep rough becauseof any number of things and governments introduce policy initiatives in anattempt to reduce the number of rough sleepers. Rough sleepers is used to referto those people who are sleeping on the streets or other place outside e.g. carparks and who literally have nowhere else to go. This paper will describe whatis believed about the nature and causes of rough sleeping. It will investigatethe inadequacies in a current range of services and existing social securitypolicies and finally it will evaluate the impact of current policies on theexclusion of rough sleepers.

Policy Context

Over the lastthirty five years unemployment levels have risen dramatically and continue todo so. This has left large numbers of people dependent on benefits and a risein the number of those who are long-term unemployed. During the same periodsocial changes and successive government policies has widened the gap betweenrich and poor. Field (1996) is of the opinion that the Thatcher government,which came into power in the late 1970s consciously attempted to widen classdifferences during the 1980s. This widening of the gap between rich and poorhas, Field maintains, led to the growth of an underclass who are denied thesocial and citizenship rights enjoyed by other members of society. He believesthat there were fundamental contradictions in social security policy whichcontinued up until 1997 when John Major was voted out of power. TheConservative Government targeted benefits which became means tested, thisincreased dependency and put people into a poverty trap from which it wasdifficult to escape. This Field (1996) contends is the major factor that led tothe development of an underclass, however this theory of an underclass has beencontested by Craine (1997) and Blackman (1997). In 1987 the welfare system wasreformed to bring it in line with policies that were intended to discouragepeople from relying on state handouts. Changes in housing policy meant that thebuilding of council houses came to a virtual standstill and rents went up by athird this affected the poorest in society and resulted in some people beingmade homeless. Alcock (1997) has suggested that the Conservative governmentactively pursued policies of inequality between 1979 and 1997 and that thisincreased the amount of poverty, social exclusion and people losing their homesand sleeping rough.

Rough Sleepers, the Nature and Causes

. People end upsleeping rough, or are at risk of becoming rough sleepers for a variety ofreasons. These might be unemployment and low income, marital breakdown(particularly in cases where one partner has to leave the family home) runningfrom the parental home, leaving care, mental health issues, drugs anddrunkenness. Most of these are men in the 25-44 age group. In London there area growing number of homeless women and they make up 15% of rough sleepers.There are an increasing number of young people sleeping rough some of them haveleft local authority care, most young rough sleepers are white and about 10%are black or Asian.

In 1990 the Government promised 250 million pounds to finance the Rough Sleeper Initiative,to help rough sleepers off of the streets and into accommodation and work, theinitiative was funded through the Department of the Environment. The originalinitiative was targeted primarily at central London. The money was spent onoutreach work and on resettlement projects for rough sleepers, on hostelplaces, day centres and on 3,500 purpose built housing units. The report Comingin From the Cold estimates that across the country there are around 1600people sleeping rough on the streets every night and 635 of these were inLondon alone. Responsibility for rough sleepers was shared between differentagencies, the police, social services, health professionals, local authoritiesand voluntary organizations. The report found however that this work wasfragmented and there was little useful liason. As rough sleepers moved aroundresponsibility shifted from one authority or agency to another and with littleor no continuity it meant that the initiative did not adequately fill itsprimary objective of getting and keeping rough sleepers of the street andintegrated back into society (Randall and Brown, 1996).

Rough Sleepers Initiative

An evaluation ofthe first RSI was commissioned in 1995 at the start of the second phase.Numbers sleeping rough in Central London had been reduced by half but it wasfound that 40% of rough sleepers had other needs that required specialistsupport e.g. mental health issues or drug and alcohol problems. It was foundthat these groups were particularly difficult to resettle. The first step inthe process was hostel accommodation but many rough sleepers found this toorestrictive they also wanted help with other issues that in many instances thehostels were unable to deal with. 1994/5 saw the introduction of the winternight shelters which helped some rough sleepers who refused to use hostelaccommodation, members of this group often have associated mental health and/ordrug/alcohol related problems. Under RSI 2 only 11% of rough sleeperscomplained of insufficient help in resettlement compared with 40% in RSI 1.Despite these improvements there were still major problems with some areas ofinter-agency co-operation and decision making on the differing needs of theclient group. There were difficulties between housing associations and referralagencies on agreeing the amount of support that was needed and on how theservices were to be delivered (Randall and Brown, 1996).

The report onphase 2suggests that there was an increase in inter-agency co-operation and consortiaof agencies were set up in different geographical areas and that these weresuccessful in working together, other agencies such as local authorities andthe police were also brought on board at this time. Agencies were particularlyconcerned over clients with multiple needs such as mental health anddrug/alcohol problems. Tbere was increased efficiency in working with mentalhealth services and in trying to ensure that the needs of difficult clientgroups (who often fell through the net) were met. In many areas of the countryrough sleeper counts were set up where agency members went out to count thenumber of people sleeping rough in any given area. There were injunctions onlocal authorities to reduce the number of rough sleepers in their areas(Randall and Brown, 1996).

Policy Making

Bramley et al(2005) contend that:

The Rough Sleepers programme initiated in 1990has been a considerable success, with the Government's two-thirds reductiontarget met ahead of schedule and evaluations generally favourable housing hasbeen increasingly drawn into issues of suitability and support for groups whohave special needs or vulnerabilities. The scale and diversity of these groupshas increased as a result of demographic changes (e.g. an ageing population)and policies of de-institutionalisation, care in the community, greater rightsfor certain groups to 'a normal life', and countering social exclusion (Bramley et al, 2005:5).

The Housing(Homeless Persons) Act of 1977 defined as homeless not only those who weresleeping rough, but also those people who were in emergency accommodation suchas hostels, refuges, and bed and breakfast accommodation (Robson and Poustie,1996). Those who were not seen to be in priority need, or who had madethemselves intentionally homeless (battered women who did not go into refugesfor example) were given emergency accommodation in some cases and were entitledto advice only in others. The Housing Act of 1996 reduced the responsibility oflocal authorities and homeless groups were removed from the list of those whowere deemed priority allocation of local authority housing, the Act alsointroduced a Single Persons Homeless Register. Asylum seekers access to helpwas also reduced under this Act (Bramley et al, 2005). The effects of this Actwere largely reduced by the introduction of the 2002 Homelessness Act. Thismeant that local authorities now (again) had an indefinite duty to secureaccommodation for priority groups, it was also incumbent on them to producestrategies to reduce homelessness in their area. In July of 2002 the categoriesof priority need were expanded to include 16-17 year olds, 18-21 year olds whohad left local authority care and those who were at risk of violence or abuseand who had been forced to leave home, the category also included all those whohad an institutional background such as prison and mental hospitals need (The Allocation of Housing (Reasonable andAdditional Preference) Regulations 1997. SI 1997 No. 1902).

The influence of the Conservative Government'sBack to Basics moral campaign created the political environment for the 1996Act and was also a response to a dramatic increase in the numbers of homelessas a result of government policy (Bramley et al, 2005). The incoming LabourGovernment was committed to reducing this Act which they did. On coming topower their first priority was that of rough sleepers and the introduction of aspecialist unit.

Rough Sleepers Unit

In 1998, under the auspices of the ODPM thegovernment introduced a Rough Sleepers Unit. The target was to achieve a twothirds reduction in rough sleepers by 2002. In 2002 the Unit was subsumed underthe direction of the homelessness unit at the ODPM. The aim was to reduce theeffects of rough sleeping not just on rough sleepers themselves but as part ofa wider campaign to a) reduce the effects of rough sleepers on the streets onthe general public and on businesses and b) as part of the Government'sstrategy to get more people functioning as a part of society and working tosupport themselves. There was a substantial allocation of extra resources,outreach workers, move on accommodation and specialist support services forthose with mental health issues or alcohol/drug problems. The target wasreached by 2002 although the ruling on rough sleeper counts has been decidedlycontroversial (Bramley et al, 2005). as local authority budget allocations forthe homeless are in part dependent on authorities to reduce the number of roughsleepers in their area.

Conclusion

Clearly successive policy making has had both adeleterious and preventative effect on homelessness generallyh and on roughsleeping in particular. Although the rough sleeper count has been controversialit has also been effective. Randall and Brown (2002) while acknowledging theundoubtedly interventionist stance of the RSU nevertheless describe it as asuccessful venture. Concerns have been expressed by some agencies however onthe methods that are sometimes used to remove the homeless from off thestreets. This concern has increased with the anti-begging campaign spearheadedby the RSU. The prevention of rough sleeping and its associated problems are acontinuing concern for Government and for the strategic partners involved.There are however signs of an increasing reduction in central control (Bramleyet al, 2005) and more emphasis on local authorities and service delivery agentsas partners in the continuing reduction of rough sleeping.

2000 words

Bibliography

Alcock, P. 19972^nd ed. Understanding Poverty. London, Macmillan.

Blackman, S.1997 Destructing a Giro: a critical and ethnographic study of the youthunderclass in Macdonald R. ed. 1997 Youth, the Underclass, and SocialExclusion. London, Routledge

Bramley etal, 2005 Evaluationof English Housing Policy 1975-2002

Theme 1:Supply, Need and Access London ODPM

Craine, S. 1997The Black Magic Roundabout: cyclical social exclusion and alternative careersin Macdonald R. ed. 1997 Youth, the Underclass, and Social Exclusion.London, Routledge

Field, F. 1996. StakeholderWelfare. London, IEA

Haralambos et al2000. 5^th ed Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. London,Collins

Nolan, B. andWheelan, C. 1996 Resources: Deprivation and Poverty. Oxford, ClarendonPress

Randall, G. andBrown, S. 1996 From Street to Home: An Evaluation of Phase 2 of the RoughSleepers Initiative HM Stationery Office 1996

Randall, G. and Brown, S. (1999) Homes for Street Homeless People - An Evaluation of the RoughSleepers Initiative.London: DETR.

Robson, P. and Poustie, M. (1996) Homelessness and The Law in Britain (3rd edition). London:Butterworths/Planning Exchange.

Rough Sleepers Unit (1999), Comingin from the Cold: The Government's Strategy on Rough Sleeping. Department of theEnvironment, Transport and the Regions, London.

Rough Sleepers Unit (2000), Comingin from the Cold: Progress Report on the Government's Strategy on RoughSleeping. Departmentof the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.

Rough Sleepers Unit (2001), Comingin from the Cold: Second Progress Report on theGovernment's Strategy on RoughSleeping, Departmentof the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.

Social Exclusion Unit (1998) Rough Sleeping - Report by the Social Exclusion Unit. London: HMSO.

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/rough_sleepers/index.jsp

All of the essays in this section were written by students and then submitted to us to publish and help others. Thanks to all of the students who have submitted their essays to us. You should not hand in our essays as your own. We do not condone plagiarism! If you need custom essays on your exact essay questions, then have a look at our essay writing service.

Sign up and be the first to receive our latest offers: