Improvement must be a mutual endeavour

So instead of the old philosophy, that demanded attention to all the pathologies that afflict those living on the streets, such as mental health, and drug and alcohol misuse, before individuals could be considered "housing ready", the new idea is to start with the provision of low-cost rented accommodation. This would then be followed by personalised support to address the other problematic aspects of their lives.

This is not a new idea. New Labour's New Deal for Young People initiative was all about getting young people ready for the labour market through participation in four options providing training in basic skills and work experience. For those long-term unemployed young people considered not yet ready for the various "options" available (there was no fifth option of remaining unemployed), they were expected to participate in a 13-week Gateway programme to tackle things like mental health and drug misuse. In other words, there were stepping stones required even prior to becoming "option ready".

At the time, I suggested forcefully that young people at the greatest distance from the labour market had probably been told many times that they needed to sort out their drug problem or something else if ever they were to get a job. My argument was that public policy needed to harness the goodwill of sympathetic employers who would then allow their new employees time off to access Gateway provision - whatever counselling and treatment services they needed.

With a job in the bag, and some kind of deal that they would most likely keep it subject to satisfactory performance and incremental improvement, efforts to desist from substance misuse or commitments to taking the medication required to control mental health issues would be reinforced. There would be a real incentive for the young person to have a go at turning their lives around.

In contrast, the Gateway was likely to appear light years away from the prospect of real work. The New Labour government was determined to pitch the New Deal for Young People as not another training scheme but a programme that really would move the long-term young unemployed from welfare to work.

The programme did in fact meet with considerable success. But like most youth employment programmes, the New Deal worked best for those closest to a return to working life. Those furthest away from work struggled to access the pathways to employment that were available, even when they were inclined to do so. Like rough sleepers, they were so far away from the promised land that it appeared unattainable.

New (and not so new) thinking suggests that, whether it is a home or a job, the promise is delivered first and then the task of improving lives becomes a mutual endeavour between the individual and available services, not one imposed - often with unacceptable or unpalatable conditions - on the former by the latter.

Howard Williamson is professor of European youth policy at the University of South Wales