Although evictions are a significant cause of homelessness they have received relatively little interest from social scientists. International data are scarce and there are few descriptions of the processes leading to evictions. This paper attempts to shed some light on this under-researched issue. First, an attempt is made to develop a theoretical framework placing evictions in the intersection between civil and social citizenship, and the importance of distinguishing between the macro- and micro- levels in the analysis of evictions is underlined. Secondly, three specific countries are studied: Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. The legal basis for evictions, eviction procedures, and the possibilities for avoiding homelessness arising from rent arrears are presented and compared.
Summary Self-managed shelters claim that participants who have been homeless, are better able to run a shelter than regular providers. Little research has investigated self-managed shelters. In this paper we described the experiences of participants and peer workers with empowerment processes in Je Eigen Stek (Your own place, JES), a self-managed shelter, based on an eight year qualitative responsive evaluation. FindingsWe distinguish three clusters of individual experiences: 1) enthusiastic, 2) moderate to critical, and 3) negative, respectively associated with decreasing engagement with social life in and management of JES. Those not engaged can still benefit materially and from the freedom of choice JES offers, which is generally appreciated. Empowerment provides a useful framework and JES in turn offers new insights into the dialectical nature of empowerment. Empowerment consists of freedom of choice and capacity development and neither should be emphasized over the other. The emphasis in JES is on freedom of choice, which does not automatically lead to developing capacities. Social workers try to balance both aspects of empowerment.Applications Our analysis shows how offering freedom of choice can contribute to empowerment, although social workers need to be aware that participants might opt not to work on capacity development.
On the eve of the twenty-first century, it is a scandal that there are still people sleeping rough on our streets. This is not a situation we can continue to tolerate in a modern and civil society. These were the words of Tony Blair in his foreword to the policy document Rough Sleeping, The Government’s Strategy. In this the Government set out the ‘tough but achievable target of reducing rough sleeping in England by at least two thirds by 2002’. To achieve this target, the Rough Sleepers Unit (RSU) was established and a strategy was set out. In 1999, inspired by this energetic approach, the councilwoman for homelessness in Amsterdam, Guusje ter Horst, stated that from 2000 no-one in Amsterdam would ever again have to sleep rough against their will. In this article we discuss some of the implications of the 2000 target in Central London, focusing on the balance in the British government’s approach between options and sanctions. We argue that this balance could be improved if more attention was paid to the views of rough sleepers themselves. On this point, Britain could learn something from the Netherlands. But the learning process is two-way: the RSU has something to offer to the Netherlands, in terms of the cohesive approach for which both countries are aiming, but which is better developed in Britain.
