Last week I attended a ‘round table’ discussion with the
Employment Minister Esther McVey. Around the inconveniently long rectangular
table were familiar faces - other chief executives and civil servants from the
Department for Work and Pensions. The minister responded thoughtfully to proposals about how job centres and
agencies could work together more effectively. From some colleagues in the room
there was unrestrained frustration that we had been here before and little had
changed. I left the meeting in a pensive
mood, unconvinced that we had got our messages home. There was a depressing
familiarity about the construction of our case and the tone in which it was
delivered. Despite some constructive suggestions, our stance centred on the dual
assertions that things are as dreadful as they have ever been and that much of
what is happening is beyond our capacity to affect.
There are times when it feels that acknowledging a
government policy is working effectively is an unforgivable apostasy. I
remember a meeting with the shadow Housing Minister when we were each in turn asked
to comment on whether we considered there to be a homelessness crisis. Each
participant dutifully corroborated the view that the homeless had never had it
so bad and that the lack of affordable housing meant that we hadn’t seen the
half of it. One contributor chose to break rank, claiming that it was a mixed
picture and spoke positively about some of the approaches to tackling rough
sleeping and improved support for the most vulnerable. An uncomfortable
shifting of chairs followed and looks were exchanged.
As I departed I heard one of the invited academics making
their views plain to the deviant. The message was, keep to the hell in a
handcart narrative or don’t bother showing up. The year when this meeting took place
was 2004. Rough sleeping figures were stable and in the previous year the
national Supporting People budget had, to the consternation of the Treasury, been
established at £1.8 billion. These days of the early noughties are now viewed as a golden age to which, according to sages of the present time, we will never return.
This is not to dispute that there is much to be despondent
about, or that homeless people require staunch advocates who, on their behalf,
are prepared to hold the government to account. But an approach that doggedly
refuses to acknowledge successes or isn’t sophisticated enough to reflect on shades
and variations lacks credibility and will fail to convince opinion-formers and
the public. Some will see it as self-serving; an attempt by the ‘homelessness
industry’ to protect its role and status. Even more disturbingly, making it an article
of faith that these are the worst of times may even lead us into unquestioningly
believing this to be true. Consciously or unconsciously, we avoid objectively
considering information that challenges this assumption.
The impact of the recession plays perfectly into the hands
of the pessimistic fatalists. Who can deny that the last few years have been brutally
difficult for homeless people and – damn it – the havoc is being wreaked by a
tidal wave of economic forces outside our control. Yet is it really this simple?
Firstly, the statistics paint a more complex picture than we
might assume. Here is one that gives pause for thought. The statutory
homelessness statistics show that in the period July to September 2008, before
the recession had really hit, there were 72,130 households in temporary
accommodation. In comparison, recently released figures covering October to
December 2013 show just 59,930 households in temporary accommodation. There
have been twists and turns over the five years that separate them, but
it remains the case that when I bring statistics such as these to the attention of
colleagues they are incredulous as they so starkly challenge the established
narrative.
Secondly, blaming an event over which we feel we have little
control unintentionally permits the avoidance of individual culpability by decision-makers and plays directly into the hands of our politicians who create the impression
that the particular measures they are taking are not optional and
unquestionably necessary.
One set of commentators who have resolutely refused to
succumb to a simplistic approach are the researchers who produce the excellent Homelessness Monitor funded by Crisis
and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which remorselessly tracks the impact on homelessness of economic
and policy developments. The picture they paint of the impact of economic pressures
and government responses is grim but nuanced and their conclusions measured and
verifiable.
Most importantly, they refute the notion that the devastating impact of recession on homeless people is inevitable, noting that ‘policy factors have a more direct bearing on levels of homelessness than the recession in and of itself’. Thus, there are choices to be made about how to respond to homelessness and specific implications associated with the policies pursued.
Most importantly, they refute the notion that the devastating impact of recession on homeless people is inevitable, noting that ‘policy factors have a more direct bearing on levels of homelessness than the recession in and of itself’. Thus, there are choices to be made about how to respond to homelessness and specific implications associated with the policies pursued.
After the meeting with the Employment Minister one
participant, new to such gatherings and more optimistic that most e-mailed me
to ask whether, in my opinion, anything ever happens after an event like this.
My response was cautiously positive. I am encouraged that we and some others who
were around the table are intent on continuing the dialogue with the minister
and her officials, yet I suspect we will be working against the grain for there
remains a tribal obligation to project gloom and powerlessness and, in the land
of the pessimist, it is the doom merchant who is king.
A version of this blog was published in Inside Housing on April 4th 2014
Comments