Editorial

Citation

(2011), "Editorial", Housing, Care and Support, Vol. 14 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/hcs.2011.54614daa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Housing, Care and Support, Volume 14, Issue 4

If we are to look for a central theme for this edition of the journal, it may be that of balancing “inspiration with evidence”. I am reminded of a concept penned by Karl Popper in the 1960s on the theory of “Black Swans” – most clearly expounded by Sampson (2007) in her article on evaluating social programmes (a good read!). The gist of Black Swan theory is that we tend to look for general patterns (made up of white swans) that prove our theory. In fact if we look carefully at the more rare black swans, we will learn much more about the intrinsic nature of the theory, its applicability and whether, frankly, it holds water.

Most importantly, perhaps, inherent in the metaphor of the black swan is the possibility that the past is not necessarily a predictor of the future. The future may be quite different. In this edition for Housing, Care and Support, we are introduced to a menu of writers that help us understand the past but are suggesting that the future is what we make of it. Research has a role to play but it is not the total predictor of what is to come. Inspiration spawns new approaches.

A new series approach for this journal is illustrated by Jonathan Rosenberg’s introduction to the experience of a social housing project, Walterton and Elgin Community Homes (WECH). This description of the history of WECH, and its relevance to contemporary UK housing policy, then provides the background to a study testing the link between resident control with well-being within WECH. Part 2 in the next edition of Housing, Care and Support will give more detail of this research, and its significance for public health as well as housing policy. By its nature, such evidence cannot be generalised but is no less significant for that; and housing management practitioners and community development people will recognise the signs of cause and effect – co-operative management and the willingness to value and see the benefits of bottom-up approaches, and tenant/user-accountability.

Over the last few years, we have thankfully seen more policy-backed recognition of the specific housing and support requirements of serving and former members of the armed forces in the UK. Rick Brunwin’s article on research commissioned by practitioner and lobbyist groups throws some light on the wisdom needed by organisations to use research wisely and to move forward using the evidence gained to shape future services. The evidence from rough sleeper counts, for example, was also highly significant in the evolution of policy concern within government over the often hidden needs of Veterans.

We are thus reminded that national policy makers, especially in specific areas of concern are often waiting for practitioners to describe the issues and provide evidence to start the policy ball rolling, or to give a “problem” more momentum. There is, of course, a sense of the alignment of embryonic policy and political and public sentiment that crystallises as a moment of opportunity for organisations working with ex-service personnel. Such mystic alignment is highly sought after for other groups of people with support needs!

The commentary by Robin Johnson of Nicolas Pleace and Alison Wallace’s review of the effectiveness of housing support for people with mental health problems (Centre for Housing Policy at the University of York) raises further questions into the role of data, as compared with more holistic, and local, evaluations. The York study re-emphasises the need to continue to “prove” the beneficial effects of housing related support to policy makers; and the commentary highlights some further avenues for academic and practitioner communities to “know what’s out there” for further studies. If we wish to see more “cross-cutting” services, to meet complex needs, we may also need to develop the “data partnership” between housing and health research.

Housing, Care and Support has set out a direction to provide a place for the publication of a wide range of “voices”, in more personal accounts. Journals can be accused of neglecting the voice that is the focus of much of our activity and concern – that of the receiver of housing, care and support services. In this edition, we hear a representation of such a voice plus that of a professional colleague. In Paul Ashton and John Conolly’s articles on ex-service user co-working we have a reminder that inherent power relations must be acknowledged. Poor services are destructive but services that engage with the emotions have the potential to open life up for all concerned. We have to be mature and confident in our professional practice not to be afraid of such encounters.

As this journal develops, we are beginning to see contributions from outside the UK and we need to recognise that statements of policy direction that get UK readers excited may not cause more than a ripple of interest elsewhere. They may even at times cause more confusion than they clarify, as national social policy frameworks differ in ways that can impact significantly on the real meaning of any one experience or study, however, rigorous the methods. So, with some apology to overseas readers we mention the publication in late November of the UK Government’s publication of “Laying the Foundations – a housing strategy for England” (Wales, Scotland and the north of Ireland will produce their own strategies). The England strategy covers a wide range of policy directions covering all tenures. It might be a document that on first glance has little to excite those involved in supported housing or those who manage specialist services. But we need to see the context that this new strategy presents, through a wide angle lens.

As in other aspects of UK national policy direction related to social welfare, the concept and role of the market, as the driver of change, is the underlying framework of reference. Although people with “vulnerabilities” are carefully cited as a group to be considered and protected from blunt rules that might otherwise place them in insecure housing situations we have to beware that the increased social and economic pressures for a growing proportion of citizens will result in more demand for specialist housing support and extreme pressure on existing designated supported housing projects. Increasingly, this support will have to be delivered to people wherever they are housed and across all tenures. Such “sea changes” – increasingly seen, as austerity policies in many countries raise questions over the viability of existing frameworks and make a more international debate on these issues all the more timely.

Colleagues responsible for alleviating homelessness have for some years been dependent on the private rented sector to discharge their legal obligations. This is a sector that is set to increase as the size of the traditional social rented sector relatively declines. Therefore, new partnerships and protocols and indeed new organisations need to be developed with private sector landlords to ensure good quality accommodation and an understanding of the role of the landlord in providing a secure and safe environment for those most in need of a home.

Finally, battles are being fought in the UK and elsewhere over the future of welfare support systems– yet another reminder of big pictures that are changing. Informed individuals, providers and their professional bodies have to take every opportunity to spell out the consequences of formulas applied to the complex scenarios of peoples’ lives and suggest new ways of supporting people. Maybe the [Thatcherite] adage “no such thing as society” needs looking at again, because society too can lose individuals in the lake of white swans.