Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:25:49.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discretion on the Frontline: The Street Level Bureaucrat in English Statutory Homelessness Services

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2014

Sarah Alden
Sarah Alden*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociological Studies, University of Sheffield E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article employs Michael Lipsky's street level bureaucrat conceptual framework to explore the exercise of discretion in frontline homelessness service delivery. It is the first to apply Lipsky's model to English homelessness services at the outset, and builds on earlier investigations which have uncovered how the use of illegitimate discretion can potentially lead to detrimental outcomes for service users affected by homelessness. This topic is particularly salient in light of the current politically austere climate, whereby statutory homelessness services have experienced an increase in service users, yet resources, if anything, are declining. Interview findings from twelve local authorities found evidence of unlawful discretion, which was attributed to a complex mesh of individual, intersubjective, organisational and central-led factors. However, the use of negative discretion was chiefly underpinned by higher level pressures around resource scarcity and strict targets.

Keywords

Austeritydiscretionhomelessnesspolicy implementationstreet level bureaucrat
Type
Articles
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 63 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baldwin, M. (2000) Care Management and Community Care: Social Work Discretion and the Construction of Policy, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Bowpitt, G., Dwyer, P., Sundin, E. and Weinstein, M. (2011) The Home Study: Comparing the Priorities of Multiply Excluded Homeless People and Support Agencies, http://www.esrc.ac.uk/my-esrc/grants/RES-188-25-0001/read (accessed 13 March 2012).Google Scholar
Brent Homeless Users Group (2009) Mystery Shopper Report, London: Crisis, http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/090929%20Mystery%20Shopping.pdf (accessed 12 November 2011).Google Scholar
Bretherton, J., Hunter, C. and Johnsen, S. (2013) ‘“You can judge them on how they look. . .”: homelessness officers, medical evidence and decision-making in England’, European Journal of Homelessness, 7, 1, 69–92.Google Scholar
Burrows, R. (1997) ‘The social distribution of the experiences of homelessness’, in Burrows, R., Pleace, N. and Quilgars, D. (eds.), Homelessness and Social Policy, London: Routledge, pp. 50–68.Google Scholar
Chartered Institute of Housing, National Housing Federation and Shelter (2012) The Housing Report: Edition 3, November 2012, London: National Housing Federation, http://www.housing.org.uk/publications/find_a_publication/general/housing_report_edition_3.aspx (accessed 20 January 2013).Google Scholar
Cheeseman, M. (2011) ‘Mystery shoppers improve frontline housing and homelessness advice’, The Guardian, 10 October, http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2011/oct/10/mystery-shoppers-housing-homelessness-advice (accessed 29 January 2012).Google Scholar
Cowan, D., Halliday, S. and Hunter, C. (2006) ‘Adjudicating the Implementation of Homelessness Law: the promise of socio-legal studies’, Housing Studies, 21, 3, 381–400.Google Scholar
Cramer, H. (2005), ‘Informal and gendered practices in a homeless persons unit’, Housing Studies, 20, 5, 737–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisis. (2012) Crisis Policy Briefing: Housing Benefit Cuts, London: Crisis.Google Scholar
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2006) The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, London: DCLG.Google Scholar
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2012) Making Every Contact Count: A Joint Approach to Preventing Homelessness, London: DCLG.Google Scholar
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2014) Homelessness Statistics, https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/homelessness-statistics (accessed 10 June 2014).Google Scholar
Durose, C. (2009) ‘Front-line workers and “local knowledge”: neighbourhood stories in contemporary UK local governance’, Public Administration, 87, 1, 35–49.Google Scholar
Durose, C. (2011) ‘Revisiting Lipsky: front-line work in UK local governance’, Political Studies, 59, 4, 978–95.Google Scholar
Ellis, K. (2007) ‘Direct payments and social work practice: the significance of street-level-bureaucracy in determining eligibility’, British Journal of Social Work, 37, 3, 405–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, A. (1999) ‘Rationing device or passport to social housing? The operaton of the homelessness legislation in Britain in the 1990s’, in Hutson, S. and Clapham, D. (eds.), Homelessness: Public Policies and Private Troubles, London: Cassell, pp. 133–54.Google Scholar
Evans, T. (2010) Professional Discretion in Welfare Services, Beyond Street Level Bureaucracy, Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Evans, T. (2011) ‘Professionals, managers and discretion: critiquing street-level bureaucracy’, British Journal of Social Work, 41, 2, 368–86.Google Scholar
Evans, T. and Harris, J. (2004) ‘Street-Level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion’, British Journal of Social Work, 34, 6, 871–95.Google Scholar
FEANTSA (2012) On the Way Home?, Brussels: FEANTSA.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, S., Pawson, H., Bramley, G. and Wilcox, S. (2012) The Homelessness Monitor: England 2012, London: Crisis.Google Scholar
Fletcher, D. R. (2011) ‘Welfare Reform, Jobcentre Plus and the street-level bureaucracy: towards inconsistent and discriminatory welfare for severely disadvantaged groups?’, Social policy and Society, 10, 4, 445–58.Google Scholar
Foster, P. (1983) Access to Welfare: An Introduction to Welfare Rationing, London: The Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
Great Britain (1996) Housing Act 1996, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Great Britain (2002) Homelessness Act 2002, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Halliday, S. (2000) ‘Institutional racism in bureaucratic decision making: a case study in the administation of homelessness law’, Journal of Law and Society, 27, 3, 449–71.Google Scholar
Heywood, F., Oldman, C. and Means, R. (2002) Housing and Home in Later Life, Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
House of Commons (2012) House of Commons Oral Answers to Questions: Homelessness, 17 December, London: Hansard, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121217/debtext/121217-0001.htm#1212174000024 (accessed 11 January 2013).Google Scholar
Howe, D. (1991) ‘Knowledge, power, and the shape of social work practice’, in Davies, M. (ed.), The Sociology of Social Work, London: Routledge, pp. 202–20.Google Scholar
Hoyle, L. (2014) ‘“I mean, obviously you’re using your discretion”: nurses use of discretion in policy implementation’, Social Policy and Society, 13, 2, 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, B. (1989) ‘Michael Lipsky and street level bureaucracy: a neglected perspective’, in Barton, L. (ed.), Disability and Dependency, London: Falmer Press, pp. 42–54.Google Scholar
Lidstone, P. (1994) ‘Rationing housing to the homeless applicant’, Housing Studies, 9, 4, 459–72.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. E. (1959) ‘The science of muddling through’, Public Administration Review, 19, 2, 79–88.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (1971) ‘Street-level bureaucracy and the analysis of urban reform’, Urban Affairs Review, 6, 4, 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsky, M. (1980) Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (2010) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, (30th anniversary expanded edition), New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Loveland, I. (1991) ‘Administrative processes, and the housing of homeless persons: a view from the sharp end’, Journal of Social Welfare Law, 13, 1, 4–26.Google Scholar
Maynard-Moody, S. and Musheno, M. (2000) ‘State agent or citizen agent: two narratives of discretion’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 2, 329–58.Google Scholar
Nevin, B. and Leather, P. (2012) Localism, Welfare Reform and Housing Market Change: Identifying the Issues and Responding to the Challenge, Stoke on Trent: Northern Area Social Housing (NASH) Forum.Google Scholar
Niner, P. (1989) Homelessness in Nine Local Authorities: Case Studies of Policy and Practice, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Pannell, J. and Palmer, G. (2004) ‘Coming of age: meeting the challenges of older homelessness’, Housing Care and Support, 7, 4, 24–8.Google Scholar
Pawson, H. (2007) ‘Local authority homelessness prevention in England: empowering consumers or denying rights?’, Housing Studies, 22, 6, 867–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawson, H. and Wilcox, S. (2011) Housing Review 2010/2011, Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing.Google Scholar
Pawson, H. and Wilcox, S. (2012) Housing Review 2011/2012, Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing.Google Scholar
Pawson, H., Netto, G. and Jones, C. (2006) Homelessness Prevention: A Guide to Good Practice, London: DCLG.Google Scholar
Prottas, J. M. (1979) People Processing: The Street-Level Bureaucrat in Public Service Bureaucracies, Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Rashleigh, B. (2005) Keeping the Numbers Down, London: ROOF.Google Scholar
Reeve, K. and Batty, E. (2011) The Hidden Truth about Homelessness: Experiences of Single Homelessness in England, London: Crisis.Google Scholar
Sullivan, M. (2009) ‘Social workers in community care practice: ideologies and interactions with older people’, British Journal of Social Work, 39, 7, 1306–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, I. and Kelly, J. (2006) ‘Professionals, discretion and public sector reform in the UK: re-visiting Lipsky’, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19, 7, 629–42.Google Scholar