The Rough Sleepers Initiative - Case Study Example

 Introduction In the United Kingdom, homelessness is becoming a substantial social issue. During the 1980s, many immigrant labourers were flooding the UK in an effort to find appropriate work during a period of economic growth, however these labourers were not able to procure housing that was affordable. As a result, the quantity of individuals that were living on urban city streets increased: rough sleeping. In modern times, affordable housing is still not readily available in the country and includes much more than just immigrant workers. Homelessness impacts older citizens, military veterans and various demographics that are currently jobless. The main problem is that many who sleep rough have significant psychological maladjustments, inclusive of drug abuse and alcoholism (Griffiths 2002). These issues conflict the process of procuring social support and housing aid. By the year 2010, in just one evening, there were approximately 1800 individuals that were sleeping rough in the UK (Department of Communities and Local Government 2011). Today, the volume of rough sleepers forced to sleep on UK streets increased by 31 percent, inclusive of over 2,300 (Saint Mungo Community Housing Association 2013), forced to sleep in these conditions each night. The social problem With such a growing volume of homeless with complex mental conditions pervading the social order in the United Kingdom, the UK government developed the Rough Sleepers Initiative, a social campaign developed in partnership with St. Mungo’s homelessness charity based in London which was initiated as a means of providing homeless individuals with access to funded hostels to prevent further rough sleeping. This initiative provided the foundation for the Social Exclusion Unit, a committee positioned within the Cabinet Office, which would give priority to the growing homelessness problem in the country. The ideological underpinning of the problem The UK government realised that homeless individuals, especially those with complex psychological issues, were not receiving adequate support. Hence, the Social Exclusion Unit developed the Rough Sleepers Unit, a government-supported committee which established a goal of reducing the volume of individuals rough sleeping by two-thirds (Randall and Brown 2002). Led by Louise Casey, a very outspoken government representative, the Rough Sleepers Unit considered that the government did not maintain adequate knowledge of the legitimate issues facing the homeless and determined that the RSU should be externalised to gain qualitative knowledge regarding the problems facing the UK’s homeless population. Hence, the ideology of the RSU was that street teams consisting of social services professionals and researchers would directly interact with rough sleepers to gain a holistic understanding of the varieties of support and assistance required for this growing homeless population. This was an unprecedented effort by the government which was more progressive than traditional policies that were largely internalised without the concrete, foundational knowledge of the plight of the UK’s homeless. The country’s welfare programs, in the 1990s, did not consider the value of experiential learning and direct interventions with the homeless, thus serving little more than rhetoric and the provision of inadequate funding based largely on statistical data rather than more in-depth consultation with rough sleepers. Additionally, the Rough Sleepers Unit determined that social awareness of the problem was insufficient, thus the RSU utilised promotional efforts to achieve interest and responses from the voluntary sector. This provided the foundation for cost controls with the RSU by recruiting volunteers and expanded the capacity of the initiative to ensure more effective and productive interventions with the rough sleeper population. The aims and purpose of the social policy It was the ineffectiveness of the 1824 Vagrancy Act, a long-standing government mandate, which was developed to provide temporary shelters to the homeless population which led to a need for policy change. Even through the 1970s, portions of the Act were still in action, however the majority of funding for temporary housing was procured through humanitarian agencies and religious organisations. Through the establishment of the Rough Sleepers Unit, funding was finally more adequate for curbing the homeless problem in the UK without reliance on external agencies to provide support and financial assistance. The nature by which the policy was implemented The aforementioned, new funding from the government provided what was referred to as Reception Centres which provided single evening support for rough sleepers, who could utilise these centres once monthly. However, Reception Centres maintained a mandate that homeless persons utilising the centres complete an obligatory task in exchange for these services (Rose 1988). Though the government was finally providing some level of financial assistance for ending the homelessness problem in society, forcing rough sleepers to conduct labour in exchange for temporary housing did not address the problems with psychological maladjustment as well as drug or alcohol dependencies that served as the underpinning catalyst for many homeless persons. Concurrently, the hostels that were being provided, even with government support, were maintained in deplorable conditions and there were no programs or initiatives that provided workforce skills training necessary for long-term economic advancement and employability. As a result, homeless individuals maintained a long-term dependence on the poorly-kept hostels and no adequate program was established to improve life skills (Vincent, et al. 1995). By raising both governmental and social awareness of the complexity of problems with rough sleeping, the Rough Sleepers Unit was able to create a new appraisal system by which the dilapidated hostels could be upgraded to more reasonable and well-maintained accommodations. Through establishment of a more cooperative team methodology, the government’s Homeless Directorate became actively involved in assisting in improving hostel standards and worked diligently to improve training for hostel directors responsible for management of these temporary shelters (Randall and Brown 2002). Through the industrious efforts of the Rough Sleepers Unit, the initiative developed the position of a hostel inspectorate who maintained accountability and governance that improved living conditions within hostel environments. The RSU also recognised that significant reforms of the welfare system and expenditure cutbacks would rapidly deplete available benefits for members of UK society, including fixed and reduced rent programs that had, previously, ensured a price ceiling (Fitzpatrick and Pleace 2012). By coercing government to reallocate funding for improving temporary housing availability, more advancements in reducing rough sleeping were achieved in the face of welfare reforms that served to, potentially, increase the volume of homeless in the nation. All of the aforementioned activities of the RSU served as the ideology for this social program, ensuring higher quality standards for available hostels, improving government and other institutional involvement toward the problem and establishing the accountability in temporary housing initiatives that had, since the 1800s, been without adequate oversight. Internally, utilising government funding and more support from the voluntary sector, the Rough Sleepers Unit established a governance structure that could more adequately measure holistic work team performance, established an auditing system and built a more strategic-focused organisation which would determine the best practice necessary for achieving objectives. As part of this new metrics system, the RSU began constructing both quantitative and qualitative research instruments, inclusive of interviews and survey formats, which were targeted at current rough sleepers in the UK. These instruments provided valuable data regarding the challenges and needs of rough sleepers which assisted in developing more worthwhile policies and practices that would provide the necessary socio-psychological support for those with complex issues ranging from drug dependency to mental illness. Prior to the launch of this new social policy, the legitimate problems faced by homeless persons were subjective and there was no credible system of evaluation and measurement that could place more research emphasis on the challenges of being a recurring rough sleeper. Results of interviews and surveys laid the foundation for engaging effective mental health counselling and other relevant social services for those with more convoluted issues. There was no methodology, as a result of this social policy, for appraising the disparity of problems faced by the homeless and establishment of rehabilitative systems that motivated, educated and counselled those with intricate struggles. The outcomes of the policy With more funding from the government to improve housing availability, time limits on the amount of time the homeless could utilise temporary housing were being lifted. This had been a considerable concern prior to establishment of the RSU. The RSU was integral in establishing the Tenancy Sustainment Teams who maintained full responsibility for providing rough sleepers with longer-term accommodations and ensuring they received adequate counselling and training support with much less consideration about the duration of these services. To further improve shelter availability, the RSU worked with regional government in Manchester and Bristol to develop night centres which provided immediate access to housing for those who had been displaced from frontline hostels. Additionally, a variety of temporary shelters were established that were capable of providing general emergency care to rough sleepers in need and as response to changing winter weather conditions that further fuelled the plight of recurring rough sleepers. Through establishment of these shelters, funded by the government, it broke down the previously-existing layers of bureaucratic management of the temporary sheltering industry and provided a more efficient leadership system. The RSU was eventually renamed the Homelessness Directorate that continued to strive to attain policy goals related to dramatic reduction of rough sleepers in the UK. To ensure performance and effectiveness of the many different objectives involved with reducing rough sleeping, the Homelessness Directorate mandated that local authorities develop a written homelessness strategy which highlighted opportunities for targeting regions with very high volumes of rough sleepers. These reports provided statistical data that was achieved through tangible street counts by local authorities and served as the foundation for more effective efforts at reducing homelessness. The RSU not only achieved its policy goals of reducing rough sleepers all across the United Kingdom, but also developed a variety of preventative services to ensure that new generations of homeless did not enhance the existing problem. The Homelessness Directorate in support of other government agencies developed a new funding system referred to as Supporting People, a proactive policy that provided necessary support for individuals in the community that were at high risk of losing their existing housing accommodations. Other preventative services included developing contingency plans for the homeless without necessarily referring them to hostels as an immediate option. This was accomplished with street outreach teams that provided counselling services such as assisting homeless youths return to their parents and facilitating these interactions. The efforts of this new homeless policy also developed many different detoxification institutions that provide assistance for those with substantial alcohol problems and mental health conditions (Crane and Warnes 2000). It had, traditionally, been a significant challenge providing support and assistance for those with chronic psychological or substance dependency issues. Those who were rehabilitated were also provided options for shared housing, which coupled homeless individuals together who could more effectively share expenses and gain financial independence through employment and training support. Older individuals who were homeless now had access to assisted living opportunities funded by the government which dramatically improved responsiveness and physical health support for rough sleepers in the aging demographic. By 2005, the RSU reported that rough sleeping had been reduced by a whopping 75 percent (Wilson 2010). In 2009, it was reported by all relevant local authorities in the country that there were only 464 rough sleepers in the UK each evening (Wilson), hence representing tremendous policy goal achievements of the RSU. The initiative also established a foundational rough sleepers hotline to provide immediate support and advice for rough sleepers (City and County of Swansea 2013), who might be segregated from interactive support based on geography. Conclusion As indicated, the new social policy known as the Rough Sleepers Initiative and its subsequent identities have dramatically achieved its policy goals and objectives. The policy strengthened the education of government representatives about the plight of the problem and injected a new type of accountability and volunteerism necessary to achieve providing support for rough sleepers. It has provided substantial benefits to the homeless population and radically changed the structure and allocation of funding from the government to better service the complexities of problems faced by rough sleepers. The Rough Sleepers Initiative should be heralded for its social ideology and competency of collaborative efforts once under-developed in the United Kingdom. References City and County of Swansea. (2013). Swansea launches city rough sleeper hotline. [online] Available at: http://www.swansea.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=55214 (accessed 1 April 2014). Crane, M. and Warnes, A.M. (2000). Policy and service responses to rough sleeping among older people, Journal of Social Policy, 29(1), pp.21-36. Department of Communities and Local Government (2011). Vision to end rough sleeping: No Second Night Out nationwide. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6261/1939099.pdf(accessed 31 March 2014). Fitzpatrick, S. and Pleace, N. (2012). The statutory homelessness system in England: a fair and effective rights-based model?, Housing Studies, 27(2), pp.232-251. Griffiths, S. (2002). Addressing the health needs of rough sleepers, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. [online] Available at: http (accessed 1 April 2014). Randall, G. and Brown, S. (2002). Helping rough sleepers off the streets: a report to the homelessness directorate, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. [online] Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/137995.pdf (accessed 1 April 2014). Rose, L. (1988). Rogues and vagabonds: the vagrant underworld in Britain 1815-1985. London: Routledge. SMCHA. (2013). No More: homelessness through the eyes of recent rough sleepers, Saint Mungo Community Housing Association. [online] Available at: http://www.mungos.org/documents/4084/4084.pdf (accessed 1 April 2014). Vincent, J., Deacon, A. and Walker, R. (1995). Homeless single men: roads to resettlement?, Avebury: Aldershot. Wilson, W. (2010). Rough sleepers, The House of Commons. [online] Available at: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/40731581/Rough-sleepers (accessed 1 April 2014). Read More