{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0125, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00125, 'mean_word_length': 5.25390625, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The New Consensus, the Old Consensus and the Provision of Services for People Sleeping Rough

The British policy response to rough sleeping, or street homelessness, has been characterised by increasing consensus between government, the voluntary sector and academics. The dominant paradigm suggests that people sleeping rough are often individuals who are predisposed to becoming homeless because their individual characteristics make them especially vulnerable to changes in housing supply, labour markets and other structural factors that precipitate homelessness. Policy responses, such as the Rough Sleepers Initiative, have been increasingly characterised by their emphasis on reintegrating people sleeping rough into society on the basis that many in this group are vulnerable people who have become homeless essentially because they need assistance and care. However, there is a marked contrast between this broad consensus and popular views of the causes of rough sleeping. In the popular imagination, rough sleeping is caused by fecklessness, moral weakness and an active choice to sleep on the streets. This view has its origins in pre-20th century views of poverty and exclusion but has recently been reinforced by the ideology of a succession of Neo-Liberal governments in the UK. This paper is concerned with the impact of the popular view of rough sleeping on the environment in which services for people sleeping rough have to work. It is also concerned with the more subtle impact that the popular view of rough sleeping continues to have on the design and operation of such services.