Abstract

The use of ‘social control’ interventions in housing and welfare policy often courts intense controversy, and never more so than when attempts are made to bring about change in the conduct of street homeless people. To date, academic scrutiny has focussed on the so-called ‘regulation’ or ‘criminalisation’ of rough sleepers occupying public space, but a range of ‘softer’ control mechanisms are also now in evidence within homelessness support services. This paper explicates the relationship between the distinct forms of social control that have been used in this field – force, coercion, bargaining, influence, and tolerance – and compares the perspectives of policy makers, frontline practitioners and homeless people regarding the appropriateness of their deployment in England. It emphasises that the use of every one of these modes of social control, and indeed the absence of such controls, raises moral and practical dilemmas, the nuance of which is often unacknowledged in academic accounts.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1106-1126
Number of pages21
JournalHousing Studies
Volume33
Issue number7
Early online date22 Jan 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 3 Oct 2018

Fingerprint

homelessness
social control
typology
criminalization
housing policy
public space
social policy
tolerance
regulation
evidence

Cite this

@article{0d609b3253d547a0b5244e075f8f16b5,
title = "Homelessness and social control: a typology",
abstract = "The use of ‘social control’ interventions in housing and welfare policy often courts intense controversy, and never more so than when attempts are made to bring about change in the conduct of street homeless people. To date, academic scrutiny has focussed on the so-called ‘regulation’ or ‘criminalisation’ of rough sleepers occupying public space, but a range of ‘softer’ control mechanisms are also now in evidence within homelessness support services. This paper explicates the relationship between the distinct forms of social control that have been used in this field – force, coercion, bargaining, influence, and tolerance – and compares the perspectives of policy makers, frontline practitioners and homeless people regarding the appropriateness of their deployment in England. It emphasises that the use of every one of these modes of social control, and indeed the absence of such controls, raises moral and practical dilemmas, the nuance of which is often unacknowledged in academic accounts.",
author = "Sarah Johnsen and Suzanne Fitzpatrick and Beth Watts",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1080/02673037.2017.1421912",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "1106--1126",
journal = "Housing Studies",
issn = "0267-3037",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "7",

}

Homelessness and social control: a typology. / Johnsen, Sarah; Fitzpatrick, Suzanne; Watts, Beth.

In: Housing Studies, Vol. 33, No. 7, 03.10.2018, p. 1106-1126.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Homelessness and social control: a typology

AU - Johnsen, Sarah

AU - Fitzpatrick, Suzanne

AU - Watts, Beth

PY - 2018/10/3

Y1 - 2018/10/3

N2 - The use of ‘social control’ interventions in housing and welfare policy often courts intense controversy, and never more so than when attempts are made to bring about change in the conduct of street homeless people. To date, academic scrutiny has focussed on the so-called ‘regulation’ or ‘criminalisation’ of rough sleepers occupying public space, but a range of ‘softer’ control mechanisms are also now in evidence within homelessness support services. This paper explicates the relationship between the distinct forms of social control that have been used in this field – force, coercion, bargaining, influence, and tolerance – and compares the perspectives of policy makers, frontline practitioners and homeless people regarding the appropriateness of their deployment in England. It emphasises that the use of every one of these modes of social control, and indeed the absence of such controls, raises moral and practical dilemmas, the nuance of which is often unacknowledged in academic accounts.

AB - The use of ‘social control’ interventions in housing and welfare policy often courts intense controversy, and never more so than when attempts are made to bring about change in the conduct of street homeless people. To date, academic scrutiny has focussed on the so-called ‘regulation’ or ‘criminalisation’ of rough sleepers occupying public space, but a range of ‘softer’ control mechanisms are also now in evidence within homelessness support services. This paper explicates the relationship between the distinct forms of social control that have been used in this field – force, coercion, bargaining, influence, and tolerance – and compares the perspectives of policy makers, frontline practitioners and homeless people regarding the appropriateness of their deployment in England. It emphasises that the use of every one of these modes of social control, and indeed the absence of such controls, raises moral and practical dilemmas, the nuance of which is often unacknowledged in academic accounts.

U2 - 10.1080/02673037.2017.1421912

DO - 10.1080/02673037.2017.1421912

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 1106

EP - 1126

JO - Housing Studies

JF - Housing Studies

SN - 0267-3037

IS - 7

ER -