Criminalising homelessness – and the very fact that in 21st Century Britain, our civil servants routinely ‘sweep’ vulnerable people and their only possessions away and out of sight, is frankly, preposterous: What a gross and inhumane misuse of public funds, when the sole purpose of expenditure is to hide the visual reality of our failings to adequately meet the needs of society’s most lost and broken people. Where is it exactly that these ‘swept away’ people are expected to go? We are leaving those who have lost everything, with a sense that they have nothing more left to lose. Yet, we question and condemn their protest and activism?
Councils in Britain have spent more than £3.5bn on temporary accommodation for homeless households in the last five yearscxxxvi. Unless care and support for this section of society is radically switched from pre-housing, to post-housing, this figure will likely continue to spiral out of all control, as in the case of Manhattan, New York. The policies and systems relating to the provision of temporary accommodation - that of hostels, hotels, bed and breakfasts and refuges - need a total overhaul in the UK. Such establishments are not without their dangerous downsides and there are well-documented issues surrounding the social aspects of temporary accommodation placements: instability, violence, robbery, noise, fights, bullying and confrontations – often exacerbated by alcohol or drug abusecxxxvii.
Providers of temporary accommodation do so outside of normal ‘Local Housing Allowance’ rate rules; rates of which are set by the Valuation Officecxxxviii. With freedom granted to include additional charges and premiums for ‘management’ and ‘support’ services, this results in grossly-inflated weekly charges which are mainly covered by ‘Housing Benefit’, but often extend to include additional top-up payment requirements from service users. In Manchester, the weekly cost to stay in a bed and breakfast can be up to £300, whilst the Valuation Office set the Local Housing Allowance rate for Manchester Central at £67.20.
With a strong and credible evidence base to suggest inadequacy in the linear approach, where does the potent reluctance to phase out such a tired, outdated and expensive response to homelessness stem from? Ultimately, we must ask the question; who are the real beneficiaries of these services and funds?
Is there some resistance amongst this sector to work towards permanent solutions, in lieu of facilitating and operating those which continue to enable and support the growth of homelessness? In my professional, unbiased and broad opinion, most definitely.
We must give some consideration as to why there is such a strong resistance to transformative practice and positive change? Is it because if we were to unveil a strategy which would sensationally eradicate homelessness, or at least, reduce it significantly, many of those in opposition to such affirmative radicalisation would be revealed as parasitic to the problem? Homelessness funding is highly sought-after; it is not uncommon for organisations to ‘band’ together to avoid experiencing a financial interruption, reduction or withdrawal. Sadly, homelessness is now a multi-million pound industry, which many individuals, organisations and groups have a vested interest in keeping alive and kicking.
cxxxvii. https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_and_research/policy_library/policy_library_folder/living_in_limbo_-_survey_of_homeless_households_living_in_temporary_accommodation
cxxxviii. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-housing-allowance
Copyright © by Amy.F.Varle, January 2018.
The moral right of the author has been asserted.
The views and opinions expressed in this report and its content are those of the author and not of the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust, which has no responsibility or liability for any part of the report.
Previous: CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY - EVAULATION
Next: TIME FOR CHANGE
