Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:15:08.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Discursive Construction of Accessibility and its Implications for Outreach Work

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2019

HANS GRYMONPREZ Open the ORCID record for HANS GRYMONPREZ [Opens in a new window] ,
KOEN HERMANS  and
RUDI ROOSE
HANS GRYMONPREZ
Affiliation:
Department of Social Work and Social Pedagogy, Faculty of Psychological and Educational Sciences, Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Gent (B) Researcher ISOS, Department of Hand Social Care, AP University College Antwerp email: hans.grymonprez@ugent.be
KOEN HERMANS
Affiliation:
LUCAS & Centre For Sociological Research, KU Leuven, Parkstraat 45, 3000 Leuven (B) email: koen.hermans@kuleuven.be
RUDI ROOSE
Affiliation:
Department of Social Work and Social Pedagogy, Faculty of Psychological and Educational Sciences, Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Gent (B) email: rudi.roose@ugent.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Homeless individuals often find that welfare services are inaccessible, despite being designed to meet their needs. This frictions with access which is a fundamental principle in western welfare states. Adaptations in social policy and service delivery are therefore made to deal with the problem of inaccessibility to services and welfare rights. One such adaptation is outreach work and is often developed to engage with homeless people and link them up with available services. This raises questions on the transformative potential of outreach work to deal with those mechanisms which result in inaccessibility. We argue that in a context in which accessibility is increasingly guaranteed by rights-based frameworks, exclusion management is also increasing. This is due to hybrid developments in social policy and welfare ideology. Nonetheless, the initial transformational potential of outreach work never really vanished.

Keywords

outreach workaccesstransformationhomelessness
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , July 2020 , pp. 643 - 660
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

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

Anderson, I. and Ytrehus, S. (2012), ‘Re-conceptualising Approaches to Meeting the Health Needs of Homeless People’, Journal of Social Policy, 41: 2, 551–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, B. (2013), ‘Finding ways to the hard to reach-considerations on the content and concept of outreach work’, European Journal of Social Work, 16: 2, 171–186.10.1080/13691457.2011.618118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baillergeau, E. (2014), ‘Governing public nuisance: Collaboration and conflict regarding the presence of homeless people in public spaces of Montreal’, Critical Social Policy, 34: 3, 354–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baillergeau, E., Duyvendak, J.W., Hoijtink, M., Llobet, M. and Thirot, M. (2009), Proximité et citoyenneté en milieu urbain. Les leçons de la pratique au Québec, aux Pays-Bas et en Espagne. Quebec: Centre de santé et de service sociaux Jeanne-Mance.Google Scholar
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3: 2, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, E. (2003), ‘Street-level research: Policy at the front lines’, In Corbett, T. and Lennon, M. C. (Eds.), Policy into action: Implementation research and welfare reform, Washington DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
Bush-Geertsema, E., Edgar, W., O’Sullivan, E. and Pleace, N. (2010), Homelessness and Homeless Policies in Europe: Lessons from Research, Brussel: FEANTSA.Google Scholar
Chareyron, S. (2015), ‘Take-up of social assistance benefits: The case of homeless take-up of social assistance benefits: The Case of Homeless’, <hal-01292107>. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01292107..+https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01292107.>Google Scholar
Clarke, J. (2004), ‘Access for all? The promise and problems of universalism’, Social Work and Society, 2: 2, 216–224.Google Scholar
Cortis, N. (2012), ‘Overlooked and under-served? Promoting service use and engagement among ‘hard-to-reach’ populations’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 21, 351–360.10.1111/j.1468-2397.2011.00825.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, M. and Warnes, A. (2000), ‘Policy and Service Responses to Rough Sleeping Among Older People’, Journal of Social Policy, 29: 1, 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, M. (2003), ‘Governance and social policy’. Journal of Social Policy, 32: 1, 113–128.10.1017/S0047279402006840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decree on local social policy of 19/03/2014. Decreet betreffende het lokaal sociaal beleid. Belgian monitor, 12/05/2004, p. 37960.Google Scholar
Deverteuil, G., May, J. and von Mahs, J. (2009), ‘Complexity not collapse: recasting the geographies of homelessness in a ‘punitive’ age’, Progress in Human Geography, 33: 5, 646–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dierckx, D. (2007), Tussen armoedebeleid en beleidsarmoede: Een retrospectieve en interventiegerichte analyse van de Vlaamse beleidspraktijk, Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
Durnova, A. and Zittoun, P. (2013), ‘Les approches discursives des politiques publiques’, Revue française de science politique, 63, 569–577 [English translation]. DOI: 10.3917/rfsp.633.0569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, P. (2004), ‘Creeping conditionality in the UK: From welfare rights to conditional entitlements?’, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 29, 265–287.Google Scholar
Dwyer, P., Bowpitt, G., Sundin, E. and Weinstein, M. (2014), Rights, responsibilities and refusals: Homelessness policy and the exclusion of single homeless people with complex needs, Critical Social Policy, 35: 1, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgar, W. and Meert, H. (2004), Fifth Review of Statistics on Homelessness in Europe, Brussels: FEANTSA.Google Scholar
Elissen, A., Van Raak, A., Derckx, E. and Vrijhoef, H. (2013), Improving homeless persons’ utilization of primary care: lessons to be learned from an outreach program in The Netherlands. International Journal of Social Welfare, 22 (1), 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engbergsen, G., Snel, E. and Weltevrede, A. (2005), Sociale herovering in Amsterdam en Rotterdam, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrugia, D. and Gerard, J. (2016), ‘Academic Knowledge and Contemporary Poverty: The Politics of Homelessness Research’, Sociology, 50:2, 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grymonprez, H., Roose, R. and Roets, G. (2017), ‘Outreach social work: From managing access to practices of accessibility’, European Journal of Social Work, 20: 4, 461–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebberecht, P. (2008), De bestrijding van overlast: een moreel conservatieve en autoritaire aanpak van sociale problemen. In Cools, Marc, De Ruyver, B., De Wree, E., Hebberecht, P., Pauwels, L., Ponsaers, P., Van den Herrewegen, E., et al. (Eds.), Overlast en de maatschappelijke aanpak ervan [pp. 105–121]. Mechelen: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kessl, F. (2009), ‘Critical Reflexivity, social work, and the emerging Post-European Welfare states’, European Journal of Social Work, 12: 3, 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meys, E. and Hermans, K. (2014), Nulmeting dak- en thuisloosheid in Vlaanderen, Leuven: Steunpunt Welzijn Volksgezondheid en Gezin.Google Scholar
Olivet, J., Bassuk, E., Elstad, E., Kenney, R. and Jassil, L. (2010), Outreach and engagement in homeless services: A review of the literature. Open Health Services and Policy Journal, 3, 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raeymaeckers, P. (2017), ‘Inleiding – Over armoede en sociaal beleid’, In Raeymaeckers, P., Noël, C., Boost, D., Vermeiren, C., Coene, J. and Van Dam., S.Tijd voor sociaal beleid: armoedebestrijding op lokaal niveau: armoede en sociale uitsluiting, jaarboek 2017 [pp. 21–41]. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
Ribot, J. C. and Peluso, N. L. (2003), ‘A Theory of Access’. Rural Sociology, 68:2, 153–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schirmer, W. and Michailakis, (2015), ‘The Luhmanian approach to exclusion/inclusion and its relevance to Social Work’, Journal of Social Work, 15:1, 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. (2011), ‘Goffman’s interaction order at the margins: stigma, role, and normalization in the outreach encounter’, Symbolic Interaction, 34:3, 357–376.10.1525/si.2011.34.3.357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valado, T. (2012), ‘Conclusion: Synthesizing the Personal and Professional: A systematic Consideration of Ethics and Advocacy in Social Science Research’. In: Valado, T. & Amster, R. [Eds.]. Professional Lives, Personal Struggles [pp.177–190]. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Whiteford, M. (2010), ‘Hot Tea, Dry Toast and the Responsibilisation of Homeless People’, Social Policy and Society, 9:2, 193–205.10.1017/S1474746409990340CrossRefGoogle Scholar