A Comparative investigation of policy responses to homelessness in England and Australia

Transcription

1 Workshop 15 - Welfare Policy, Homelessness and Housing Exclusion A Comparative investigation of policy responses to homelessness in England and Australia Angie Spinney angiespinney@hotmail.co.uk Paper presented at the ENHR conference "Housing in an expanding Europe: theory, policy, participation and implementation" Ljubljana, Slovenia 1

2 W15 Spinney.doc A Comparative investigation of policy responses to homelessness in England and Australia Angela Spinney CRESR Sheffield Hallam University UK angiespinney@hotmail.co.uk DRAFT NOT TO BE USED FOR CITATION WITHOUT THE AUTHOR S EXPRESS PERMISSION REVISED ABSTRACT Both England and Australia have defined homelessness in legislation. Whereas England gives enforceable legal rights to access permanent housing for individuals who fall within the definition of statutory homeless, there is no such right of housing for homeless people in Australia. In this paper a social constructionist epistemology is used against a comparative background. Discourse analysis is used to examine and compare statutory definitions of homelessness in Australia and England. The policy responses to homelessness attributed to domestic violence, that have come about as a result of the perceptions to homelessness portrayed in these definitions, are then examined. This is done with the intention of exploring and understanding how definitions of homelessness and policy responses have developed as products of culture and attitudes towards welfare and state provision. The author is in the third year of a PhD comparative research programme on policy responses to homelessness. The PhD thesis will also investigate actual provision for those made homeless due to domestic violence. The research area was chosen in order to question why two countries with similar language, legal systems and rates of owner-occupation have defined homelessness differently, and why although both have accepted that they have to do something about homelessness, what they have chosen to do is different. 1. Introduction 2

3 This paper examines the differing discourses sustained and reproduced in legislative definitions of homelessness in Australia and England since the inception of the women s refuge movement in the 1970 s to the present day. The statutory definitions chosen for discursive analysis particularly concern homelessness attributed to domestic violence. The examination takes place with the aim of furthering understanding of the differing social constructions of homelessness in each country, and the policy responses that have developed as a result of these. The author is in the third year of a PhD comparative research programme on policy responses to homelessness in England and Australia and this paper looks at that part of the research involving the discourses surrounding legislative definitions of homelessness. England and Australia have similar language, legal systems and rates of owner occupation. Both countries have accepted that they have to do something about homelessness attributed to domestic violence and superficially these policy responses can appear quite similar, in that they both incorporate women s refuge provision. However, it is the contention of this paper that differing cultural views of the homeless, as demonstrated in the discourses surrounding legislative definitions of homelessness, have effected the provision of services and for homeless people. The paper starts with a brief discussion of the research methodology and analytical framework of the research. Attitudes to welfare and state provision in both England and Australia are then examined, followed by a comparison of legislative definitions of homelessness and policy responses to homelessness attributed to domestic violence. Finally a brief attempt is made to analyse how these responses have developed as products of the differing culture and attitudes of the two countries. The paper finishes with a conclusion as to how homelessness in each country has been constructed and a conclusion as to how and why policy responses in England and Australia are different. 2. Research Methodology and Methods This paper uses social constructionist epistemology against a comparative background. This is in order to fulfil three specific objectives; To explore and understand how policy responses to homelessness have developed as products of culture and attitudes towards welfare and state provision To explore if, why, and how, differences in conceptions and discourses surrounding homelessness have developed in two nations with similar language, legal systems and rates of owner-occupation To investigate and interpret the policy context and actual provision for homeless people, in the light of these differences by making links between cultural/historical discourses and impact on provision. The PhD research employed reflexive social constructionist research methods and analytical techniques. The methodology included in-situ contextual data collection and analysis by means of; Analysis of key historical and legislative documents 3

4 Analysis of past and current policy documents Familiarisation with service provision for homeless people in both countries. Media searches for discursive themes 43 in depth interviews with users, providers and policy-makers of homelessness provision. The interviews sought to identify how definitions have become established and consistent. Constructionist methodological approaches such as these involve a theory of knowledge that proposes that our understanding of reality is socially created and therefore there is a history to what constitutes a problem, (Jacobs and Manzi, 2000). This questioning of taken-for-granted explanations of reality leads to the conclusion that whatever does exist we can only know through analysis of discourse. Linguistic practices therefore profoundly affect the way that we perceive the world, rather than the world being reflected in our language, and are the reason why discourse analysis was chosen for the study of legislative definitions of homelessness. The next section briefly develops the analytical framework of this study. 3. Analytical Framework 3a. Social Constructionism and Discourse Analysis Foucault showed that discourses, although seeming familiar, are in fact arbitrary and constantly changing, and that their origins can be traced to certain shifts in history. He proposed that discourses produce social knowledge and practice through their connection to power, (Hastings, 1999). Discourses are constantly changing and their origins can be traced back to certain shifts in history, or discursive events (Mills, 1997). Housing studies that have adopted a discourse analysis methodological approach (Batten, 1999; Darcy, 1999), have assumed that policy decisions are made through different groups or individuals competing to establish their version of reality, and that these conflicts are revealed in text and speech, as well as actions, (Jacobs, 1999). This has a direct link to constructionist epistemology (Jacobs and Manzi, 2000). Although housing policy is nearly always presented as a response to addressing housing need, and therefore commonsense, researchers such as Hastings, and Jacob and Manzi have used discourse analysis effectively to study policy documents to explore what ideas lie behind the rhetoric of policy, and how housing problems are constructed (Jacobs, Kemeny, and Manzi, 2003). Jacobs states that the scrutiny of policy documents is important because these are the means by which organisations regulate and legitimise their functions. However he also stresses that it is important to examine both text and practice in order to understand the policy process being studied (Jacobs, 1999). Darcy concurs with this by stating that texts should be analysed alongside an exploration of the conditions in which the texts were produced and accepted, (Darcy, 1999). As discourse theory explores issues relating to power and dominance (Jacobs and Manzi, 1996), it puts discourse at the centre of social relations and social transformation (Hastings, 2000), and therefore provides ways in which to explore questions of power (Hastings, 1999). Discourse analysis of legislative definitions of homelessness provided the key to understanding why Australia and England have differing policy responses to homelessness. Law is a powerful normative discourse which, distinctly, brings into existence that which it utters (Bordieu, Language and Symbolic Power, ed. Thompson (1991) at 42). 4

5 A key aim of the PhD research was to analyse the historical context of England and Australia in order to understand the different focus in their current respective policy responses. The research methods outlined in section two of this paper enabled this to be done by identifying and examining the different discourses surrounding homelessness and domestic violence in England and Australia. This paper looks at one part of this research, the legislative definitions of homelessness in each country, since the onset of the feminist refuge movement in each country in the 1970 s to the present day. 3b. Why compare two countries? The rationale for a comparative study was to use the work in Australia as a methodological lever with which to open up and take forward understanding of homelessness attributed to domestic violence in England. An international comparison is used to enable better understanding as to why homelessness in England is constructed as it is. National boundaries reflect distinct societies created by their own particular social, political, cultural and economic factors. These factors produce distinctly national housing systems through the enactment of national legislation, and the implementation of national programmes. Cross-national research is therefore useful because national boundaries reflect distinct societies created by their own particular social, political, cultural and economic factors. Greater awareness of the varied experiences of other societies, cultures and jurisdictions in dealing with housing issues facilitates a more informed assessment of our own national experience and priorities and can help confront assumptions (Kemeny & Lowe, 1998). All comparative housing research has an unexplicated theoretical perspective that central governments are an important influence on housing systems and much research also recognises that there is a need for substantial state intervention, as housing is far too important, socially, financially, and politically, to be left exclusively to an unfettered, unregulated, private market. The selection of policy instruments by Governments will be led by either supply or demand side strategies (Ball, 1998), and state policies account for the fact that different sorts of people, in different areas, end up with different sorts of housing (Dickens et al, 1985). No study of housing can be carried out without considerable discussion on an analysis of the state and its direct and indirect influence on the provision and consumption of housing (Kemeny, 1992). Comparative housing research has become a major field of investigation in the last two decades, and it is now possible to discern distinct approaches and perspectives. At one extreme are approaches in which each country is seen as unique ( Divergence ) whereas at the other extreme are approaches in which all countries are seen as being subjected to the same overriding imperatives ( Convergence ), (Kemeny, 1992). Convergent theories assume that modern societies are developing in a particular direction and involve analysis which seeks to demonstrate that most housing systems are basically alike and driven by the same underlying imperatives, such as capitalism (Kemeny and Lowe, 1998). A danger of such studies is that they can lead the researcher to ignore major differences and to take the home country of the author as the mould into which all other countries are fitted. For this reason the fieldwork in Australia was completed before that in the researcher s home country of England. In convergent theories there has been a tendency to focus upon shared 5

6 elements in societies even when they differ from one another quite markedly. Societies are seen as moving together in a direction that can be predicted and any differences tend to be explained in terms of different stages of development along the same basic trajectory, (Kemeny and Lowe, 1998). The divergence perspective places greater emphasis on the role of individuals, whereby human beings exercise choice, and as choice leads to diversity, this leads to welfare states diverging, (Doling, 1997). Kemeny (1992) maintains that divergence can be understood in terms of the establishment of a dominant ideology and its associated mode of discourse, which frame the major social cultural and political debates within a society. He also explores the concept of myth building that underlies this framework. The longer the ideology is dominant the deeper into social structure the changes are likely to reach and the more profound and far-reaching they are likely to be. A divergence framework concurs with the analysis of legislative definitions of homelessness made later in this paper. Both convergent and divergent stances recognise that differences and similarities can exist between societies. This is important to this study, which seeks to understand how and why differences have emerged. In addition, the important role played by agency in the divergent perspective matches the stance taken by academics view of homelessness as a career or pathway, where people are not viewed as merely passive recipients of structural processes (Clapham, 2002). The following section examines and compares the key attitudes to welfare and state provision of both countries. 4. Key attitudes to Welfare and State provision in England and Australia Esping Anderson (1990) claimed that contemporary welfare states cluster into three distinct regime types, Liberal welfare state Conservative/corporatist welfare state Social democratic welfare state He stated that much of the Anglo-Saxon world, including both Australia, and the UK 1, have developed Liberal welfare states, where the market is encouraged, and where means tested assistance, modest universal transfers and social-insurance plans predominate. Entitlement rules in Liberal welfare states are strict and are often associated with stigma and modest benefits. The State encourages the market, either passively or by only guaranteeing a minimum, or by actively subsidizing private welfare schemes (Kemeny, 1992). The UK originally had social democratic roots but was characterized as a Liberal welfare state by Esping Anderson in Powell contends that the UK has many important differences from other Liberal welfare states, such as Australia (Powell, 1999), although Esping- Anderson did not deny that his model may also hide differences within welfare states in different areas of social policy. In 2002 Esping Anderson reappraised his earlier work. 1 England is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom (UK). 6

7 Although he acknowledged that neo-liberalism has resulted in rising inequalities everywhere but argues there are still very different national welfare systems, (Esping Anderson, 2002). This paper argues that this is the situation regarding homelessness attributed to domestic violence in the two countries studied, and that whilst policy responses may on first sight seem similar, a closer inspection of how these responses came about show differing attitudes to homelessness which are revealed, at least in part, in the discourses surrounding the issue in each country, in legislative definitions and elsewhere. Below the social policy histories of Australia and England are briefly examined separately. Australia Esping-Anderson contends that Australians have built entitlements around demonstrable need, including means testing for benefits for the sick and unemployed, and he argues that Australia has unusually underdeveloped social rights, (Esping Anderson, 1990). Castles and Mitchell (1991) have disputed Esping Anderson s contention that Australia is a Liberal, residual welfare state. They identify a four world s model, in which Australia is identified as one of a distinctive radical group of nations, which focuses its re-distributive effort through instruments, rather than expenditure. The authors point out that it is not the poor or disadvantaged who lose out from means testing, but those who come from the higher echelons of income and wealth. The Australian labour movements adopted a very different political strategy to that of labour movements in Europe. This was based not on expanding the social wage but on ensuring that wage levels were kept above a minimum, which with a combination of low marginal tax rates, ensured that workers standards were maintained, and created "The wage-earners welfare state, which required a high degree of self-reliance. Australia became a unique model, because the criterion of inclusion was status as wage earner, rather than as citizen. (Castles and Mitchell, 1991). Australia does have a relatively high minimum wage but unemployment, or inability to work due to ill health or child care responsibilities, often leads to poverty, and the Australian maxim of a fair go for men has been criticised by feminists as traditionally leading to relatively high wages for men, but dependence on men for women. As previously discussed the social policy of any country is distinctive because each nation exhibits its own unique regime characteristics (Esping Anderson, 1990). Divergence theories can explain why Australia has not developed a strong welfare state, in spite of having a strong labour movement. England By the end of the 19 th Century there was a growing realisation that for some poverty and homelessness were caused by structural issues such as unemployment, low pay, old age and illness rather than by an individuals own actions or agency. The concept of a welfare state was one of the most important influences in public policy in the United Kingdom in the 20 th Century (Balchin, 1995). The Beveridge Report in 1942 introduced the concept of needing to protect individuals and families from want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness, from the cradle to the grave. The National Assistance Act 1948 and a raft of complementary legislation in the immediate post World War II period provided an improved system of National Insurance and National Health Service. Keynesian 7

8 economic policies and town planning were also put into place, and these remained virtually unchanged throughout the 1950 s to the 1970 s regardless of which political party held office. The beginning of the UK welfare state bequeathed a legacy of social democratic policies, which significantly reduced poverty and income equality, improved housing and introduced legislation to protect households from homelessness (Anderson, 2004). During the Conservative neo-liberal period , welfare retrenchment was significant and resulted in real and substantial increases in poverty and inequality, and changes in homelessness legislation. Since 1997 New Labour has claimed to implement a Third Way in social policy, somewhere between social democracy and neo-liberalism, with an emphasis on positive welfare supporting education and health whilst at the same time minimising social security by getting people back to work and making work pay. However, England is still characterized by a strong emphasis on market provision, (with government intervention only where the market is seen to fail), and as discussed earlier is still termed by Esping Anderson as a Liberal welfare state. There does however remain a strong role for the central state in determining the broad policy framework for social welfare including homelessness. Esping Anderson noted that the resilience of distinct, path dependent welfare-state regimes, allow for a greater degree of divergence in terms of the structure of the welfare state, with differing social outcomes (Esping Anderson, 1990), and this is the case with policy responses to homelessness in Australia and England. Some academics have noted some correlation between housing policies and welfare regimes, and concluded that welfare regimes could be used as a broad referencing framework for housing policies and homelessness (Edgar et al. 2002). Welfare regimes are therefore useful in explaining broad trends in homelessness (Anderson, 2004), but a more detailed examination is needed to understand how these policy responses have developed as products of culture and attitudes towards welfare and state provision. As stated in the introduction to this paper both England and Australia have defined homelessness in legislation and these provide an effective starting point to examine the discourses surrounding homelessness attributed to domestic violence in each country. The next section looks at the differing legislative definitions, and discursive themes identified regarding these definitions and the policy responses arising from them in Australia and England. 5. Definitions of homelessness and homeless people in England and Australia In this section definitions of homelessness in the following pieces of legislation are analysed; Australia Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1974 Supported Accommodation Assistance (SAAP) Acts England Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, (later subsumed in Housing Act 1985) Housing Act 1996 Homelessness Act

9 5.1 Australian Definitions The Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1974 The Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1974 defines a homeless person as one who has attained the age of 16 years and who, having no settled home, is in need of approved assistance, or who having a settled home, is temporarily in need of such assistance. The legislation also includes a dependant child of such a person. The legislation makes no attempt to define what a settled home is, or indeed to give any detail on what the approved assistance of, food and social welfare services might entail. Likewise the legislation makes no specific mention of those whose homelessness is attributed to domestic violence, although the quite generalistic definition above could be said to be wide enough to include many types of homeless people, whose homelessness has come about as a result of quite different reasons. However, the Homeless Persons Program Guidelines which were designed to accompany the legislation but were not in fact published until 1976, stated that priority should be given to projects designed to assist chronically homeless low income and destitute people like those who traditionally have depended on the support of night shelters, soup kitchen and other skid row facilities of Australian cities. This therefore by implication excludes women who have been forced from their homes by domestic violence and centres on the traditional view of Australian homeless, as single alcoholic males. The program was formulated before the concept of women s refuges had fully developed in Australia as the first refuge had opened in 1974 in Sydney, and feminists had yet to establish a clear gendered narrative to explain the story and extent of domestic violence. The Act enabled the Commonwealth Government to make payments for the provision of assistance for homeless person and for certain other persons to fund non-profit welfare organisations and Local Government bodies. There was no duty imposed on any organisation to either fund or to provide assistance (which could include, food and social welfare services), and no duty to provide permanent. When assistance was provided there were behavioural changes required of the recipient. Indeed the Guidelines make explicit their individual stance, stating, It may appear self-evident that to provide assistance without expecting them to change their ways is to perpetuate a situation which is bad for them and bad for the community. The discursive theme of self-reliance, (whereby individuals are seen to at least partly contribute to their own homelessness, and are required to play a part in developing their pathway out of homelessness), can therefore be identified in this legislation. As will be shown, this discourse also carries through to later Australian legislation regarding homelessness. The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 In comparison the UK Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 was enacted some six years after the first refuge was established in England, and one year after the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976, which had explicitly linked domestic violence and the victim s housing situation, by creating exclusion injunctions for perpetrators. The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 imposed on Local Housing Authorities obligations to assist and in certain cases to secure, of indefinite duration to persons who fit the definition of statutorily homeless, and was quite specific that this duty was on housing rather than welfare agencies and that homelessness should be regarded as a housing rather than a social work problem. The wording of the legislation draws on the 9

10 discourses surrounding property law, as it defines a homeless person as one who has no interests in property or no licence to occupy. It also includes anyone who is not able to occupy property in which they have an interest or licence, including occupation of that will probably lead to violence, (or threats of violence) from some other person residing in it. The legislation is therefore explicit in defining some victims of domestic violence as homeless persons. The legislation incorporates the discursive theme of the Deserving/Undeserving poor, as help is only available to those who are deemed not to have contributed personally to their homelessness and are unintentionally homeless. A gate keeping discourse can also be identified as the definition is designed to limit those applicants to whom there is a duty to house by establishing the need for applicants to exhibit a priority need for housing, including those who are vulnerable as a result of domestic violence. Furthermore there is no right to support after one offer of suitable has been made to those who are eligible. However, once statutory homelessness is established there is no expectation of behavioural change in order to gain assistance. The legislation is also protectionist as it offers cradle to grave housing for those found to be Statutorily homeless. In England homelessness legislation is not only the main policy response to homelessness, but is also how homelessness is most frequently defined. Since 1977 homelessness has tended to be described in England along the lines of the homelessness legislation. The use of phrases such as a non-statutory homeless person make little sense until the content of the legislations are reviewed (Burrows, Pleace, Quilgars, 1997). In England women s refuges tend to be used as temporary and support whilst applicants presentations under the homelessness legislation are investigated and determined. They are also used as whilst successful homelessness applicants await their offer of suitable permanent housing. Not all victims of domestic violence are placed in a refuge, and not all people becoming homeless as a result of domestic violence are found to be statutorily homeless, and therefore eligible, on this ground. The 1977 Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 was later subsumed in Part III of the Housing Act This was replaced by Part V11 of the Housing Act Here, the discursive theme of gate keeping was increased as the legislation was designed to prevent perceived queue jumping of council housing waiting lists by certain groups, including single mothers. A discourse of self-reliance, similar to that in Australia, can now also be perceived as the duty to provide permanent to certain groups was removed, and emphasis was given on advising applicants how to solve their own homelessness. The 1996 Act makes new provision for domestic violence. Accommodation is deemed unreasonable for occupation to continue where this will lead to domestic violence against the applicant, a person who normally resides with the applicant, or any other person who might reasonably be expected to live with the applicant. Domestic violence is defined (for the first time) in the 1996 Act, by reference to the relationship between the perpetrator (who must be associated with the applicant), and the applicant. The definition of an associated person includes, people married to or divorced from the applicant, cohabitants or former cohabitants, those who have lived in the same household, a person who has agreed to marry the applicant and in the cases of a child a parent or someone with parental responsibility for the child. There was no provision in the legislation for burden of proof that domestic violence has occurred or been threatened. However case law has since interpreted the legislation which 10

11 requires the local authority to be satisfied that the applicant is in priority need before having any duty. The effects of parts of this legislation were short-lived however as one of the first actions of the Labour Government elected in May 1997 was to repeal the interim duty of Local Governments to provide for a minimum of two years. The remainder of the legislation remained on the Statute Book however, before being amended by the Homelessness Act These pieces of legislation regarding definitions of homelessness from Australia and England discussed above illustrate the mostly lack of shared discourses regarding legislative definitions of homelessness in the two countries. These can be summarised as; Australia Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1974 Definition of homelessness No settled home, or a settled home but in temporary need of assistance Those aged 16 yrs and over - includes dependant child Discursive theme Self-reliance - Expectation that behaviour will change Individual stance individual is at least partly to blame for their circumstances Policy Response The Homeless Persons Program Approved assistance Enabled Commonwealth Government to make payments for the provision of assistance for homeless persons to fund non-profit welfare organisations and Local Government bodies Attributes of policy response No duty to accommodate Includes support as well as housing - food,, and social welfare service Guidelines direct funding to single chronically homeless Skid row type clients Program formulated before the concept of women s refuges had really developed. Federal and State funding of refuges commenced in a limited way in 1975, after the inception of this Act. England Housing (Homeless Definition of homelessness No Discursive theme Policy Response Attributes of policy response Deserving/Undeserving the Local Housing Obligation on Act will only help those who Authority duty to Local Authority to 11

12 Persons) Act 1977 Later subsumed in Part III of the Housing Act 1985 that the applicant and those who normally live with them to occupy are legally entitled to occupy. This includes occupation of that will probably lead to violence, (or threats of violence) from some other person residing in it In order to be defined statutorily homeless must meet definition of homelessness and meet the following criteria; Priority Need, Unintentionally homeless, Local connection are structurally homeless, i.e. those deemed not to have personally contributed to their homelessness Property rights legalistic definition which draws on property rights (interest in property, or licence to occupy) Gate keeping definition is designed to limit those applicants to whom there is a duty to house Protectionist from cradle to grave. provide to some, and to make enquiries in any case where LA has reason to belief applicant is homeless Legislation enacted some 6 years after the first women s refuge set up in England, and one year after the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 which gave assist certain persons and in certain cases to secure of indefinite duration to persons who fit definition of statutorily homeless No expectation of behavioural change in order to gain assistance No right to support, only to one offer of suitable for those eligible Code of Guidance made clear that LHA should secure for battered women, with or without children. Part V11 of the Housing Act 1996 As above but must have no available in UK or elsewhere To be statutorily homeless now have to be eligible for assistance those subject to immigration control under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 not covered. Domestic violence explicitly defined as violence, or threats of violence, from a person with whom the applicant is associated Gate keeping increased with this Act as it was designed to prevent perceived queue jumping of council housing waiting lists by certain groups, including single mothers Self-reliance permanent is not provided and emphasis is given on advising applicant how to solve their own homelessness Deserving/Undeserving lessoned with this Act as more people became ineligible Property rights as before No longer a full housing duty to provide housing of indefinite duration the full duty is now interim for a minimum period of two years Duty now slanted to advice rather than obligation to provide Responsibility on Local Housing Authorities to ensure suitable is available for statutory homeless applicants - not to secure or provide it. 12

13 In the next section an examination of discursive themes regarding legislative definitions of homelessness in more recent legislation is made, which show that contradictory assumptions regarding definitions of homelessness continued to be made. There remains a lack of shared discourse surrounding legislative definitions of homelessness in the two countries. Australia The Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) Acts The Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) has been Australia s primary service delivery response to homelessness since 1985 to the current day, and is jointly funded by the Australian and state/territory governments. The program again displays the discourse of self-reliance stating its aims are to assist people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless to achieve the maximum possible degree of self-reliance and independence, through a range of support and transitional services which are provided by non-government organisations. Strategic programme outcomes for service providers include strengthening clients capacity to achieve independence so as to become self reliant. The legislation states that SAAP funding is to be used for supported and related support services for men, women and their dependants who are permanently homeless, or temporarily homeless as a result of crisis, and who need support to move towards independent living, where possible and appropriate. SAAP is not intended to solve the housing needs of people as it is not a long-term housing programme. The scheme depends on its effectiveness on the ability of its clients to move on to other options, after they have received and services whilst in crisis. Subjectivist definitions of homelessness, (which state that homelessness is a socially constructed concept), have their origins in sociological concepts by those such as Watson (1984). Such a definition is incorporated into the Supported Accommodation and Assistance Acts , which govern the SAAP Program, as a person is homeless if and only if they have Inadequate access to safe and secure housing. This includes that marginalizes person through failing to provide access to the economic and social support that a home normally provides. This definition therefore incorporates the concept of home, and can be seen to include victims of domestic violence both whilst living with the perpetrator and post separation. The legislation states that the Women s Emergency Sub-Program of SAAP is for "women and a women with dependent children escaping from intolerable domestic circumstances or other crisis situations who need support to move toward independent living where possible and appropriate. The SAAP legislative definition there does not perceive homelessness solely as a housing issue, but rather a complex of social economic and individual factors that impact on pathways into and out of homelessness (Mackenzie &Chamberlain, 2003). There have been four versions of SAAP since its inception, each with set funding dates and differing priorities. During the first incarnation of SAAP between 1985 and 1989 the program focused on establishing new women s refuges in rural areas, including medium to longer-term options and the provision of detached and outreach support for women leaving refuges. Current SAAP policy priorities emphasise service providers responsibilities to assist clients in areas of education, health and income support. SAAP does not distinguish between those 13

14 who are unintentionally homeless nor those who are in priority need as English legislation does. As the term Supported Accommodation Assistance Program implies, in Australia all temporary provided for the homeless comes alongside some form of support. SAAP was conceived as, and continues to be regarded by many as a last resort safety net for the most marginalized and powerless in society. Of those assisted only 39% move on to independent housing after assistance and over half remain in some form of homelessness. Women and children escaping domestic violence are in the top bracket of unmet demand from SAAP services, as many more people try to access SAAP than there is room for. England Homelessness Act 2002 The legislative definition of homelessness in the Homelessness Act 2002 saw a return to the English discursive themes of gate keeping and deserving/undeserving identified in the 1977, 1985 and 1996 Acts. However the theme of gate Keeping decreased with this Act as the Priority Need category was extended to new groups, including specifically people who are vulnerable as a result of violence or threats of violence. The legislation also extends the types of situation in which it is unreasonable to remain in occupation and now encompasses any violence or threats of violence. The discourse concerning the deserving/undeserving also alters as the distinction is blurred for first time in England between those in and not in Priority Need. This is because Local Housing Authorities may now house those found to be unintentionally homeless but not in priority need. The 2002 Act places an indefinite duty on Local Housing Authorities to secure for a successful applicant until a settled housing solution is found. This compares very markedly with the lack of a right to access to SAAP services in Australian Law and to the aim of SAAP which is to assist people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless to achieve the maximum possible degree of self-reliance and independence, through a range of support and transitional services which are provided by non-government organisations. The definitions of homelessness in the Australian SAAP legislation and the Homelessness Act 2002, their discursive themes and policy responses, are expanded in the table below. This is followed by conclusions where a brief attempt is made to analyse how these responses have developed as products of the differing culture and attitudes of the two countries. The paper finishes with a conclusion as to how and why policy responses in England and Australia are different. Australia Supported Accommodation Definition of homelessness Inadequate access to safe and secure Discursive theme Self-reliance Service Policy Response Agreement between Attributes of policy response No right of access to SAAP services 14

15 Assistance Acts (SAAP) housing. This includes that marginalizes person through failing to provide access to the economic and social support that a home normally provides or property that damages health and threatens safety Does not distinguish between those who are homeless and those at risk of homelessness Providers expected to retain independence of clients in their outcomes. Subjectivist homelessness is a socially constructed concept Commonwealth and States for 5 year joint funding commenced 1985 Remains the primary policy tool for homelessness in Australia To assist people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless to achieve the maximum possible degree of self reliance and independence through a range of support and transitional which are provided by nongovernmental organisations or to temporary or permanent Time limited, usually 6 weeks to 3 months. Includes refuges, crisis hotels, emergency and sometimes medium term transitional housing. England Homelessness Act 2002 Definition of homelessness As before, but extends the types of situation in which it is unreasonable to remain in occupation and now encompasses any violence or threats of violence. Discursive theme Policy Response Attributes of policy response Deserving/Undeserving distinction blurred for first time in England between those in and not in Priority Need. Gate Keeping decreased with this Act as priority need category extended to new groups, including specifically people who are vulnerable as a result of violence or threats of violence Places an indefinite duty on Local Housing Authorities to secure for a successful applicant until a settled housing solution is found Emphasis on homelessness prevention New power to housing authorities to secure for people who are unintentionally homeless but not in priority need No right to support, only to one offer of suitable for those eligible 6. Conclusions The discursive themes identified in the legislative definitions of homelessness (attributed to domestic violence) in Australia and England differ, and therefore illustrate a lack of shared discourse around homelessness in the two countries. It is the contention of this paper that 15

16 statutory definitions of homelessness in Australia and England did not just come out of nowhere, but rather came out of cultural attitudes to social policy in each country. In Australia the dominant discursive theme for over twenty years has been that of selfreliance and promoting independence. Policy responses arising from these discourses have centred on short-term with support, in order to enable people to solve their own homelessness situation, normally by entering the private rented sector. Homelessness is perceived as a social construct, and the intentionality (or not) of a homeless person, is not an issue, as the focus is on their pathway out of homelessness, rather than how they became homeless. In England the dominant discursive themes have been of Gate keeping and on whether the applicant is Deserving of assistance. Apart from a short period after the inception of the Housing Act 1996, policy responses have centred on the provision of permanent to some applicants, and very limited advice and assistance to others. Statutory homelessness is something that unintentionally happens to the deserving poor. Both Australia and England use women s refuges as for women who have become homeless due to domestic violence, and in both countries they provide vital respite for women having to escape their home. In Australia they are used as short term intensive centres of support, where homeless women are assisted to plan their pathway out of homelessness, and are therefore training centres for self-reliance. In England, women s refuges have tended to be used as stop gap holding centres whilst women s eligibility under the relevant homelessness legislation is assessed, and, if successful, whilst permanent is awaited. This illustrates a divergent perspective in these two Liberal welfare states. Australia has not developed a strong welfare state, and instead has focused on minimum earnings and conditions for wage-earners. This attitude to social welfare provision differs from the predominant culture and attitudes to welfare provision in England, where a protectionist, cradle to grave discourse has become normalised. This paper has attempted to demonstrate that Australian and English policy responses to homelessness attributed to domestic violence, which on the surface can appear very similar, have actually emerged from very different constructions of homelessness. The policy responses to homelessness in the two countries both include refuge provision, but because the long-term housing solutions after this take diverging routes, the attitude to, and use of refuge provision, are quite different. Bibliography Women and Homelessness in Europe Bristol: The Policy Press. ANDERSON, I., Housing, Homelessness and the Welfare State in the UK. European Journal of Housing Policy, 4(3), pp

17 BALCHIN, P., Housing Policy. 3rd edn. London: Routledge. BALL, M., Housing Provision and Comparative Housing Research. Housing and Social Change. BATTEN, D., The Mismatch Argument: The Construction of Housing Orthodoxy in Australia. Urban Studies, 36(1), pp BLANDY, S. and ROBINSON, D., Reforming Leasehold: discursive Events and Outcomes, Journal of Law and Society, 28(3), pp BORDIEU, P., 1991, Language and Symbolic Power, ED Thompson, J.B. BURROWS, R., PLEACE, N. and QUILGARS, D., eds, Homelessness and Social Policy. 1st edn. London: Routledge. CASTLES, F. and MITCHELL, D., THREE WORLDS OF WELFARE CAPITALISM OR FOUR? PUBLIC POLICY PROGRAM DISCUSSION PAPERS, 1(21), pp CHAMBERLAIN, C. and MACKENZIE, D., Homeless Careers Pathways in and out of homelessness. 2. Melbourne: Swinburne and RMIT Universities. CLAPHAM, D., Housing Pathways: A Post Modern Analytical Framework. Housing, Theory and Society, (19), pp COWAN, D., The Housing Act st edn. Bristol: Jordans. DARCY, M., The Discourse of 'Community' and the Reinvention of Social Housing Policy in Australia. Urban Studies, 36(1), pp DICKENS, P., Housing, states and localities. Methuen. DOLING, J., Comparative Housing Policy Government and Housing in Advanced Industrialized Countries. Basingstoke: MacMillan Press Ltd. EDGAR, B., DOHERTY, J., & MEERT, H. 2002, Access to Housing, Homelessness and Vulnerability in Europe. Bristol: The Policy Press ESPING-ANDERSON, G., THE THREE WORLDS OF WELFARE CAPITALISM. 1st edn. Cambridge: Polity Press. ESPING-ANDERSON, G Towards the Good Society Once Again in Esping-Anderson, G., Gallie, D., Hemerijck, A., & Myles, J. (eds) Why we Need a New Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press 17

18 HARLOE, H. and MARTENS, M., New Ideas For Housing the experience of three countries. London: Shelter. HASTINGS, A., Discourse Analysis: What does it Offer Housing Studies? Housing Theory and Society, 17, pp HASTINGS, A., Analysing Power Relationships in Partnerships: Is There a Role for Discourse Analysis? Urban Studies, 36(1), pp HASTINGS, A., Discourse and Urban Change: Introduction to the Special Issue. Carfax edn. London: Carfax. JACOBS, K., Key themes and future prospects: Conclusion to the Special Issue. Urban Studies, 36(1), pp JACOBS, K., KEMENY, J. and MANZI, M., Power, Discursive Space and Institutional Practices in the Construction of Housing Problems. Housing Studies, 18(4), pp JACOBS, K., KEMENY, J. and MANZI, T., eds, Social Constructionism in Housing Research. 1st edn. Aldershot: Ashgate publishing Ltd. JACOBS, K., KEMENY, J. and MANZI, T., eds, Social constructionism in housing research. 1st edn. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate. JACOBS, K. and MANZI, T., Evaluating the Social Constructionist paradigm in Housing Research. Housing, Theory and Society, 17(17), pp JACOBS, K. and MANZI, T., Discourse and policy change: The significance of language for housing research. Housing Studies, 11(4), pp KEMENY, J., Defining housing reality: ideological hegemony and power in housing research. Housing Studies, 3(4), pp KEMENY, J. AND LOWE, S., Schools of Comparative Housing Research: From Convergence to Divergence. Housing Studies, Vol 13, No. 2, , 1998, vol 13(No 2), pp KEMENY, J., Housing and social theory. Routledge. MILLS, S., Discourse. London: Routledge. NEALE, J., Homelessness and Theory reconsidered. 18

19 POWELL, M, (ed) Introduction, in New Labour: New Welfare State: The third way in British Social Policy. Bristol. The Policy Press, pp 1-27 THOMPSON, J.B., ed, Language and Symbolic Power. 19