Rough sleeping is widely considered to be the most visible manifestation of poverty. Many people who sleep rough have encountered violence in their lives, either in the domestic or family sphere or within institutions such as the armed services, institutional care or prison. For those suffering from violence within the home, homelessness presents an opportunity to escape.1 However, just being homeless is often a violent experience in and of itself. Examining homelessness in England in the early 2010s, when the full force of government austerity saw vast welfare reform coupled with drastic cuts across the homelessness sector,2 this chapter explores how rough sleeping is a violent condition of poverty that is amplified by austerity.
Many people experience various forms of violence while homeless. Evidence suggests that people sleeping rough are up to 13 times more likely to experience violence than the general population.3 Up to 45 per cent have been assaulted, 35 per cent victims of wounding and 29 per cent are victims of robbery while sleeping rough.4 It is also common for people sleeping rough to experience sexual assault and rape, although incidents often go unreported to state agencies due to a sense of shame and stigma. Verbal abuse is often experienced while sleeping rough (often perpetrated by members of the public) and has profound psychological impacts, including the reinforcement of feelings of exclusion and stigma.5 Even where violence is not enacted, rough sleepers still have to deal with the potential threat of violence, as ‘Dangerousness exists as a constant issue in their lives’.6
Compounding physical, sexual and verbal forms of violence, people sleeping rough suffer the consequences of the state’s structural violence on multiple levels. On a physical level, homeless people suffer significantly poorer health than the general population, with 73 per cent reporting a physical health problem, 80 per cent reporting a mental health need and 35 per cent eating less than two meals per day.7 Individuals are also more likely to die younger than the housed population, with the average age of death at just 47 years old.8 On an emotional and psychological level, state institutions require individuals to negotiate demeaning and excessively bureaucratic processes in order to gain access to basic statutory services. Such demands reinforce stigma, and perpetuate imagined distinctions between a ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor.
These forms of violence interact and reinforce each another. Rough sleepers are victimised in multiple ways and criminalised through various street-level policing methods (see Chapter 22 by Steven Speed).9 This begs questions about how homeless people protect themselves on a daily basis.
People sleeping rough use numerous strategies to deal with violence, but these strategies often have other consequences. For example, some individuals sleep in industrial bins to shelter from the vulnerabilities of sleeping rough, a method which can, at worst, result in death. Alternatively, carrying a weapon might provide self-protection but can lead to criminalisation. One way in which many people negotiate the complexities of being homeless is to seek support from local services, such as day centres and accommodation services, as well as related services such as citizens advice organisations, domestic violence charities and mental health groups. These services play an important role in dealing with the effects of violence, offering a place to sleep, wash, eat and rest, as well providing advice, counselling and support.
Despite the benefits of homelessness services, it is crucial to recognise their limitations, with services representing spaces of fear for many homeless people. Some service practices also reinforce notions of ‘deservingness’, prioritising limited resources towards support for those deemed most ‘worthy’.10 These issues notwithstanding, services provide support for many in dealing with the effects of violence and homelessness, offering a vital safety net for those who are not entitled to statutory support (see also Chapter 17 by Kirsteen Paton and Vickie Cooper).
Between 2010 and 2015, the estimated number of people sleeping rough in England more than doubled, increasing year-on-year. Notably, there is strong evidence that austerity has played a key role in this, with one study suggesting that 67 per cent of Local Authorities see the rise in rough sleeping as a direct outcome of welfare reforms.11 There is growing evidence of the impact of increasingly punitive benefit sanctions, with one study noting that ‘as well as exacerbating the problems homeless people face, sanctions may increase the risk of homelessness’.12
The increased number of people sleeping rough has resulted in more people being made disproportionately vulnerable to physical, sexual and verbal violence. There is also evidence of the impacts of state-imposed structural violence, enacted through austerity policies such as welfare reform. This exacerbates the difficulties that people have in dealing with the impacts of poverty, and reduces the chances that people can move out of homelessness, with services reporting that:
A reduction or loss of income attributed to sanctions, benefit reform and changes to eligibility were linked … to food poverty, loss of or difficulty accessing accommodation, increased debt and use of credit loans … People are also finding it harder to pay for the clothes and transport needed for job interviews.13
The impact of welfare reform affects not only accessing accommodation or employment. Evidence from frontline service workers highlights that ‘these changes have caused stress among clients of homelessness services and led to an increase in harmful behaviours in order to cope, including alcohol and drug use’.14 The violence of austerity is thus also manifested in the harmful ways that people cope with welfare changes, resulting in physical violence through detrimental health implications that are ultimately fatal for some and can prolong and exacerbate poor health for others.
Austerity measures have also affected a range of homelessness-related services,15 with cuts to domestic violence refuges and mental health services threatening the existence of vital services dealing with the effects of both violence and austerity. Reduced funding has also affected day centres and accommodation services. Funding reductions have impacted both ‘direct access’ accommodation services for people sleeping rough and ‘second-stage’ services for those moving on to longer-term accommodation, with 14 per cent fewer accommodation services (Table 18.1), and a 16 per cent loss in bed spaces between 2010 and 2015 (Table 18.2).
Table 18.1 Losses in the number of accommodation services since 201016
Type of service |
Number lost since 2010 |
Percentage lost since 2010 (%) |
All accommodation services 2010–15 |
208 |
14 |
Direct access accommodation services 2010–14 |
38 |
14 |
Second-stage accommodation services 2010–14 |
190 |
16 |
Cuts to these various services means that day centres are ‘picking up clients who previously would have been able to access support elsewhere’,17 in addition to an increased number of people sleeping rough. Services are thus under growing strain to meet ever increasing demand for support. Although the number of day centres increased by 11 per cent between 2010 and 2015,18 in no way does this growth match the number of wider support services that have closed. In response to reduced funding and increasing demand, many services have rationed their provision. Specialist services are often only able to support those with the most acute needs, while mainstream services are so stretched that they are unable to provide specialist support, finding it difficult to support individuals with the highest needs. Thus, many whose needs are not acute enough for specialist support, but too specialist to be met by general services, are falling between the cracks. This changing service landscape has grave consequences for people sleeping rough. Individuals directly suffer greater psychological and emotional violence as well as detrimental health outcomes as a result of the state’s austerity programme, and are less likely to gain access to services that might alleviate the violent conditions of homelessness.
In 2016, the Conservative government announced an ‘investment’ of £115 million in homelessness services. However, this ‘investment’ does little to address the impacts of austerity for homelessness services, with many services facing reduced funding and unable to meet increasing demand. This ‘investment’ committed the delivery of 2000 bed spaces in second-stage accommodation. However, this failed to compensate for the loss of beds across the sector, equating to less than half of the total reduction in second-stage bed spaces since 2010 (Table 18.2).
The government also announced funding for particular types of homelessness prevention schemes. However, like many centrally administered homelessness programmes, this funding is time-limited, relatively small in scale, and channels provision through narrow criteria which focus on particular types of service provision. Even where services have access to this funding, it is unlikely to compensate for the overall loss in funding.
Table 18.2 Losses in accommodation service bed spaces since 2010
Type of bed space |
Number lost since 2010 |
Percentage lost since 2010 (%) |
Bed spaces in all accommodation services 2010–15 |
7115 |
16 |
Direct access bed spaces 2010–14 |
1613 |
17 |
Second-stage bed spaces 2010–14 |
5121 |
15 |
‘Investing’ in homelessness services allows the government to utilise austerity to generate political legitimacy. Providing targeted funding for homelessness services signals that the government is responding to rough sleeping, while it actually exercises greater control over which services are supported through funding, with reduced general homelessness funding. This reinforces the legitimacy of particular forms of provision, while making it increasingly difficult for others to operate.19 Many individuals who previously looked to such services as alcohol and drug support and benefits advice have found they no longer have access to adequate support. This reduces their chances of being able to cope with the violence of welfare reform, and increases the likelihood of harmful coping behaviours.
Furthermore, while these proclaimed ‘investments’ in homelessness services happen, the government has relentlessly pursued its welfare reform agenda, which continues to exacerbate the rate of rough sleeping and the structural violence forced upon people sleeping rough. Violence is a reoccurring reality for people sleeping rough. One way in which individuals deal with this is to engage with services; however, austerity has resulted in already stretched services rationing provision further, intensifying the marginalisation of those who are most excluded.
Austerity also serves as a political vehicle for the Conservative government, whose proclaimed ‘investment’ in homelessness services enables the government to reclaim political legitimacy about homelessness, while masking the violence of the wider austerity programme for people sleeping rough. This is epitomised by the simultaneous funding cuts to numerous services combined with an unrelenting welfare reform programme, which has resulted in more people sleeping rough, as well as detrimental psychological and health consequences.
The violence of austerity is thus multiple for people sleeping rough: first, in the increased incidence of people sleeping rough, making more people vulnerable to physical, verbal and sexual violence; second, in the psychological violence and poorer health outcomes as a result of changing access to welfare; and third, in reducing many key areas of support which aid rough sleepers in dealing with the effects of violence and austerity.
The author would like to thank Deborah Drake, Victoria Canning and the editors of this collection for their comments on earlier versions of this chapter.
Websites were last accessed 8 October 2016.
1. A. Tomas and H. Dittmar, ‘The experience of homeless women: an exploration of housing histories and meaning of home’, Housing Studies, 10 (4), 1995, 493–515.
2. This includes accommodation and day services, and numerous organisations that tackle homelessness-related social issues, such as domestic violence, health and citizens advice.
3. T. Newburn and P. Rock, Living in Fear: Violence and Victimisation in the Lives of Single Homeless People, London: Crisis, 2005; B. Sanders and F. Albanese, ‘It’s No Life at All’: Rough Sleepers’ Experiences of Violence and Abuse on the Streets of England and Wales, London: Crisis, 2016.
4. S. Ballintyne, Unsafe Streets: Street Homelessness and Crime, London: Institute for Public Policy Research, 1999, p. 16; Sanders amd Albanese, ‘It’s No Life at All’.
5. J. Scurfield., P. Rees and P. Norman, ‘Criminal victimisation of the homeless: an investigation of Big Issue vendors in Leeds’, Radical Statistics, 99, 2005; Sanders and Albanese, ‘It’s No Life at All’.
6. Newburn and Rock, Living in Fear, p. 13.
7. Homeless Link, The Unhealthy State of Homelessness: Health Audit Results 2014, London: 2014.
8. B. Thomas, Homelessness Kills: An Analysis of the Mortality of Homeless People in Early Twenty-first Century England, London: Crisis, 2012.
9. G. Fooks and C. Pantazis, ‘The criminalisation of homelessness, begging and street living’, in P. Kennett and A. Marsh (eds), Homelessness: Exploring the New Terrain, Bristol: Policy Press, 1999, pp. 123–59.
10. D. McCulloch, ‘Analysing understandings of “rough sleeping”: managing, becoming and being homeless, PhD Thesis, The Open University, Milton Keynes, 2015.
11. S. Fitzpatrick, H. Pawson, G. Bramley, S. Wilcox and B. Watts, The Homeless Monitor: England 2016, London: Crisis, 2016, p. xx.
12. C. Beatty, M. Foden, L. McCarthy and K. Reeve, Benefit Sanctions and Homelessness: A Scoping Report, London, Crisis, 2015.
13. Homeless Link, The Unhealthy State of Homelessness, p. 51.
14. Ibid.
15. A. Hastings, N. Bailey, G. Bramley, M. Gannon and D. Watkins, The Cost of the Cuts: The Impact on Local Government and Poorer Communities, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2015.
16. Data for Tables 18.1 and 18.2 are compiled from E. Schertler, Survey of Needs and Provision 2010: Services for Homeless Single People and Couples in England, London: Homeless Link, 2010; Homeless Link, Support for Single Homeless People in England: Annual Review 2014, London, 2014; and Homeless Link, Support for Single Homeless People in England: Annual Review 2015, London, 2015. Comparable data is not available for direct access and second-stage services and bed spaces in 2015.
17. Homeless Link, The Unhealthy State of Homelessness, p. 52.
18. Schertler, Survey of Needs and Provision 2010; Homeless Link, The Unhealthy State of Homelessness.
19. FEANTSA, Impact of Anti-crisis Austerity Measures on Homeless Services Across the EU, Brussels, 2011.