1. Lost worlds of welfare: local homelessness systems in
England
Background:
The main response to homelessness is still generally considered to be the statutory
homelessness framework, even though its iconic main provision - ‘the full duty’ -
routinely accounts for just 20% of all successful interventions (Fitzpatrick et al, 2015:
50). The decline of the statutory homelessness system is mainly attributed to impact
of ‘the homeless prevention approach’ initiated by New Labour in 2002 (Fitzpatrick et
al, 2009). The approach was structured by a dedicated government unit and a series
of administrative measures and central targets, such as the 2002 pledge to end
emergency B&B family placements and the 2005 goal to halve the number of families
in temporary accommodation (Fitzpatrick et al, 2009). These ‘centralising’ structures,
which initially provided Government with considerable influence over the approach
(Rashleigh, 2005, in Fitzpatrick et al, 2009), have mostly been dismantled over the last
half decade or more while homelessness prevention statistics have been downgraded
by the UK Statistics Authority (Spurr, 2015). They have seemingly been replaced by
a localising zeal in line the then Coalition’s strategic aims of reducing bureaucracy and
devolving control over investment (in homelessness services) and responsibility for
homelessness (HM Government, 2011). This zeal has seen the localisation of
Supporting People; homeless prevention grant, supported housing funding and
temporary accommodation subsidy by New Labour, the Coalition and the
Conservatives respectively. Although motivated by LAs desire to avoid the burdens
of statutory homelessness, as much as 80% of all effective homeless activity
(Fitzpatrick et al, 2015) could be locally determined and funded.
Concurrently, wider welfare and housing reforms have devolved greater powers to
local government. Welfare reform mitigation has been largely devolved to local
government via increases in Discretionary Housing Payments. Localism and the
Affordable Rent programme have granted local authorities greater freedoms to
determine access, cost and tenure of social housing (Stephens & Stephenson, 2016).
Council Tax support and crisis loans have also been localised. These reforms, when
combined with England’s increasingly regional and local housing markets (Bramley &

2. Watkins, 2016; Tsai, 2015) allow for the emergence and divergence of local welfare-
housing systems.
According to the welfare-housing regime framework, welfare regimes cause welfare-
housing systems to evolve and diverge(Kemeny, 1995, Gøsta, 1990). Stephens et al
(2015), for instance, argue that “a key value of the welfare-housing regime framework
lies in the identification of power structures and ideology that cause housing systems
to evolve and differ from one another”.
Regional and local devolution has proliferated across Europe and the USA (Hoogle et
al, 2008; Sheely, 2016); producing greater policy divergence between sub-state
authorities (Moreno & McEwan, 2005; Sheely, 2016)). Other commentators have
charted the emergence of ‘local welfare systems’ (Andreotti and Mingione, 2014).
Sub-state policy divergence in policy is in part attributable to the resurgence of
‘regional identity’ (Paasi, 2009) and changing electoral geographies (Johnston et al,
2016). Sub-state identities are expressing themselves in the territorial politics of
devolved and localised welfare provision (McEwan and Moreno, 2005).
Similarities are evident on writings on homelessness in the UK and the USA. In the
UK, Duncan & Evans (1988) refer to liberal and restrictive statutory homelessness
systems. Cloke et al (2011) have found evidence of more or less generous ‘local
homeless scenes’. Newcastle has earned the reputation of a ‘caring city’ due to its
approach to homelessness. In the USA, commentators have debated the ‘punitive
turn’ in urban social policy that has supposedly lead to the spatial exclusion of
homeless people from the city (et al (2009); although this been challenged (DeVerteuil
and Wilton, 2009). Also in the US, Von Mahs (2013) refers to local service networks
as ‘local homeless systems’. (Marr, 2015a)(Marr, 2015a)(Marr, 2015a)(Marr,
2015a)(Marr, 2015a)(Marr, 2015a)(Marr, 2015a)Marr (2015) uses the concept of
‘urban welfare regimes’ to describe the local coalitions of municipal government,
businesses and community groups that shape local policy and practice within LA’s
continuum of care model and ‘Tokyo’s self-reliance support system’ (p.147).
This study combines the nationally focused welfare-housing regime framework with
sub-state welfare-homelessness system literature to explore the evolution and
divergence of localised responses to homelessness in England and the effect of this

3. on outcomes for homeless people and households in the city. The research will be
the first study to examine homeless prevention policy-practice in England post New
Labour (Fitzpatrick et al, 2009) and the first to compare local approaches. The
comparison will also be the first to examine local decision making and policy making
processes that determine homelessness service provision in England. The research
will contribute to the theoretical welfare-housing regime literature and implementation
literature: first, by investigating the impact of ‘local welfare systems’ on national
regimes; and second, by examining the local polices that underpin the implementation
of national housing-homelessness policy.