留学生Social Policy论文代写参考-苏格兰与英格兰无家可归者立法比较。本文是一篇由本站代写服务提供的留学生社会政策专业论文代写参考，本篇留学生论文是应斯蒂夫尼奇港董事会成员的要求编制的。将概述无家可归立法的变化，同时还将与苏格兰的立法进行比较。下面就一起来看一下这篇留学生Social Policy论文代写参考的具体内容。
此篇留学生论文将：
概述无家可归的历史发展
解释为什么比较方法对本留学生论文至关重要
总结无家可归立法的社会文化背景发展
分析政策背后的经济和政治驱动因素
分别比较英格兰和苏格兰的无家可归立法和相关法律
为未来住房趋势确定经验教训
在考虑比较研究的同时，提出进一步政策制定的建议
Introduction 引言
This paper has been prepared at the request of Stevenage Haven board members. It will outline the changes within Homelessness legislation whilst also charting the comparisons with Scotland’s legislation.
This paper will:
Capture an overview of the historical development in Homelessness
Explain why a comparative approach is essential for this paper
Summarise the social and cultural background development of Homelessness legislation
Analyse the economic and political drivers behind the policy
Make comparisons of Homelessness legislation and the underlying law between England and Scotland respectively
Identify lessons learnt for future trends in housing
Suggest recommendations for further policy development whilst taking the comparative study into consideration
Homeless Person’s Act 1977
Housing Act 1996
Homelessness Act 2002
Homelessness Reduction Act
England 英格兰
Others, albeit working on much larger international projects, have identified that homelessness is defined and measured in various ways by different countries. This has resulted in difficulties for international comparisons (Fitzpatrick 2009).
尽管正在进行更大的国际项目，但已经确定无家可归的定义和衡量方式由不同的国家决定。这给国际比较带来了困难。
What the above has successfully highlighted however, is that the English definition of homelessness (and the UK as a whole) “is very wide” when compared to most other countries (Fitzpatrick, 2009, pg.158).
然而，上述内容成功地强调，与大多数其他国家相比，英国对无家可归者（以及整个英国）的定义“非常广泛”。
Since 1977 a variety of legislation has conferred on different groups of people/s different priorities and therefore differing responses to their homelessness. Despite these various legislations however the basic foundation and divide of the statutory and non statutory homeless has remained :
自1977年以来，各种立法赋予不同人群不同的优先事项，因此对他们的无家可归问题做出了不同的回应。然而，尽管有这些不同的立法，法定和非法定无家可归者的基本基础和区别仍然存在：
Statutory Homeless – those entitled by legal right to both temporary accommodation and then more settled accommodation to resolve their homelessness e.g. families with dependent children or a pregnancy.
法定无家可归者——那些有权获得临时住所和更稳定住所的人，以解决他们的无家可归问题，例如有受抚养子女或怀孕的家庭。
Non Statutory Homeless – those entitled to advice and assistance to resolve their homelessness but not accommodation e.g. childless couples and single people with no relevant health issues. This group can also include those who were accommodated temporarily, as above, but on further investigation were deemed to be intentionally homeless or not vulnerable (in priority need).
非法定无家可归者——有权获得建议和援助以解决其无家可归问题，但不能获得住宿的人，如无子女夫妇和没有相关健康问题的单身人士。这一群体也可以包括那些如上所述被临时安置的人，但经过进一步调查，他们被认为是故意无家可归或不易受伤害（有优先需求）。
(Fitzpatrick, et al., 2009).
In relation to these different legislations and related policies there are some important points of note.
关于这些不同的立法和相关政策，有一些重要的注意点。
Unlike other non UK countries, excepting France (Fitzpatrick and Stephens, 2007), the legally enforceable right to settled or more permanent accommodation for the English statutory homeless could be viewed as an impressive stance.
与除法国以外的其他非英国国家不同，英国法定无家可归者获得定居或更永久住所的法律强制执行权可以被视为一种令人印象深刻的立场。
Importantly also is that officially, homelessness is defined as much wider than “rooflessness”. In effect you can be homeless for various reasons if still in accommodation e.g. you will be homeless within 28 days (e.g. after a notice) or you have accommodation that is deemed unsuitable (e.g. overcrowding).
同样重要的是，官方将无家可归定义为比“无屋顶”更广泛。事实上，如果你仍在住处，你可能会因各种原因无家可归，例如，你将在28天内无家可归（例如，在接到通知后），或者你的住处被认为不合适（例如，过度拥挤）。
Additionally, the settled or more permanent accommodation provided to the statutory homeless has historically usually been social housing, this has led to debates about “perverse incentives” (Lund, 2006, pg.132). Recent legislation in England (Localism Act 2011) has however enabled one off private rented tenancy offers, of sufficient duration, to represent settled or more permanent housing.
此外，历史上，为法定无家可归者提供的定居或更永久的住所通常是社会住房，这引发了关于“不正当激励”的争论。然而，英格兰最近的立法使一次性私人租赁服务能够代表定居或更长期的住房。
Possibly one of the most important English social policies in recent years has been the move to a more preventative approach to homelessness (Pawson 2009). Following on from successes in reducing rough sleeping the prevention of homelessness was promoted heavily by the previous government (Pawson, Netto and Jones 2006) and is also supported by current government (DCLG 2012).
近年来，英国最重要的社会政策之一可能是对无家可归者采取更具预防性的方法。继成功减少露宿之后，上届政府大力推动了防止无家可归的工作，现任政府也支持这项工作。
The concept of prevention has attracted criticism (Pawson 2009), although prior to the current economic crisis official homelessness numbers had decreased substantially and this in the light of rising house prices. Controversy aside, prevention appears to have played a role in a large pre-recession reversal of official homeless figures (Pawson 2007).
预防的概念引起了批评，尽管在当前的经济危机之前，官方公布的无家可归人数大幅下降，这是由于房价上涨。撇开争议不谈，预防措施似乎在经济衰退前官方无家可归者数字的大幅逆转中发挥了作用。
Whilst homelessness prevention, according to good practice, is supposed to bridge the statutory divide (Pawson, Netto and Jones 2006), there is research to suggest that this may not always be the actual case (Crisis 2009).
虽然根据良好做法，预防无家可归被认为是为了弥合法定鸿沟，但有研究表明，实际情况可能并不总是如此
Homelessness provision in England is offered across a wide range of bodies. Local authorities are responsible for ensuring the main provision of homelessness services. Many other agencies are involved though, often working in partnership with local authorities.
在英格兰，无家可归的规定适用于范围广泛的机构。地方当局负责确保主要提供无家可归者服务。然而，许多其他机构也参与其中，通常与地方当局合作。
Scotland 苏格兰
Pre its 1999 devolution, Scotland’s homelessness provision largely mirrored that of England.
在1999年权力下放之前，苏格兰的无家可归规定在很大程度上反映了英格兰的规定。
However, the first devolved coalition Scottish government set its homelessness provision on a “radically” divergent “rights based” course which attracted much international acclaim (Anderson, 2009, pg.107).
然而，第一届权力下放的联合苏格兰政府将其无家可归条款设定在一个“完全”不同的“基于权利的”路线上，这引起了许多国际赞誉。
Following the setting up of a Homelessness Task Force (HTF) the Homelessness Etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 came into effect. This act mirrored policy in England on some issues e.g. expansion of priority need groups but radically diverged on others, especially the target to abolish priority need by 2012.
在无家可归问题特别工作组成立后，《2003年无家可归等（苏格兰）法》开始生效。这项法案反映了英国在一些问题上的政策，例如扩大优先需求群体，但在其他问题上存在根本分歧，尤其是在2012年前取消优先需求的目标上。
This in effect would remove a large part of the homelessness legislation inherited from and still in operation in England and would mean that all homeless households in Scotland, apart from the intentionally homeless, could legally expect both temporary and permanent or more settled accommodation offers.
这实际上将取消从英格兰继承并仍在实施的大部分无家可归立法，这意味着苏格兰的所有无家可归家庭，除了故意无家可归的人，都可以合法地获得临时和永久或更稳定的住宿。
In 2007 The Scottish National Party gained power. It’s important to highlight that this change led to some watering down of the original HTF’s aims:
2007年，苏格兰民族党获得政权。需要强调的是，这一变化导致最初HTF的目标有所淡化
Settled replaced permanent, meaning that, as in England, private rented tenancies could be used to more permanently accommodate the homeless (The Scottish Government 2012).
In convergence with England homelessness prevention was adopted and appears to have resulted in falling official homelessness figures, even during a deep current recession and with the phasing out of non priority homelessness. This appears quite remarkable (Fitzpatrick, et al., 2012).
The original aims to abolish local connection criteria and also offer fixed term yearly tenancies to the intentionally homeless (Anderson, 2009, pg.109) did not in fact take effect (Shelter 2013).
Anderson’s (2007 and 2009) fears that such a long term policy implementation (2003 to 2012) risked Scotland’s ambitious homelessness plans appear, at least in part, to have materialised.
定居取代了永久，这意味着与英格兰一样，私人租赁可以用于更永久地安置无家可归者。
与英格兰采取的无家可归预防措施相一致，似乎导致了官方无家可归人数的下降，即使在当前严重的经济衰退期间，随着非优先无家可归者的逐步消除。这似乎相当引人注目。
最初的目标是废除当地的联系标准，并为故意无家可归的人提供固定期限的年度租赁，但事实上并没有生效。
Anderson担心，这种长期政策的实施可能会危及苏格兰雄心勃勃的无家可归计划，至少在一定程度上，这种担忧似乎已经实现。
However, and compared to England quite remarkably, the start of 2013 has witnessed all Scottish homeless peoples, barring the intentionally homeless, being provided with a legal entitlement to temporary and settled accommodation.
然而，与英格兰相比，值得注意的是，2013年初，除了故意无家可归的人之外，所有苏格兰无家可归者都获得了临时和定居住所的合法权利。
Described as a historic” “law to end homelessness”, one prominent MP has hailed Scottish homelessness legislation as the "most progressive" in Europe (BBC 2012). It would be difficult to contest this not only in regards to Europe but also the wider world. The effects of this legislation will undoubtedly unfold over the next few years but if successful will other European countries, including England, come under pressure to follow suit?
一位著名议员称赞苏格兰的无家可归立法是欧洲“最进步的”立法，称其为历史性的“结束无家可归现象的法律”。不仅在欧洲，而且在整个世界，都很难对此提出质疑。这项立法的效果无疑将在未来几年显现，但如果成功，包括英国在内的其他欧洲国家会面临效仿的压力吗？
Scottish homelessness provision can be seen then as convergent with England in terms of the central role of municipalities, the growing role of prevention practice and the use of the private sector but absolutely divergent in terms of actual rights for homelessness applicants.
在市政当局的中心作用、预防实践的日益增长的作用以及私营部门的使用方面，苏格兰的无家可归规定可以被视为与英格兰趋同，但在无家可归申请人的实际权利方面绝对不同。
Lessons and Conclusion 经验教训与结论
This paper suggests that there are definite possibilities to be considered when thinking about lessons England might learn from our comparative countries.
本篇留学生论文认为，在思考英国可能从我们的比较国家吸取的教训时，有一定的可能性需要考虑。
Scotland’s ambition and implementation of an almost complete safety net must be applauded. Whilst results are yet to be definitively known this paper suggests this practice be keenly observed by English policy makers. That does however not downplay the huge issue of where people, in large numbers in England, would be accommodated under such a brave policy and indeed, how Scotland will cope.
苏格兰的雄心和几乎完整的安全网的实施必须受到赞扬。虽然结果尚不明确，但本篇留学生论文建议英国政策制定者密切关注这一做法。然而，这并没有淡化一个巨大的问题，即在如此勇敢的政策下，英格兰的大量人口将被安置在哪里，事实上，苏格兰将如何应对。
Whilst a unitary rental system in England may represent progress and offer a much more attractive and secure rental system, politically, it is difficult to picture this happening in such a liberal regime.
虽然英格兰的单一租赁制度可能代表着进步，并提供了一个更具吸引力和安全的租赁制度，但在政治上，很难想象这种情况会发生在这样一个自由的政权中。
Looking at the apparent success of preventative practices this paper strongly recommends that this type of approach always represents at least one arm of official English homelessness policy.
鉴于预防措施的明显成功，本篇留学生论文强烈建议这种方法始终代表英国官方无家可归政策的至少一个方面。
In conclusion however, this paper predicts that future English homelessness approaches will actually be dictated by party politics and ideology. A look at the homelessness related legislations since 1977 offers strong evidence for this viewpoint. Therefore, in one sense, the English electorate will get the homelessness system it votes for, whether knowingly or not.
然而，最后，本篇留学生论文预测，未来英国的无家可归问题实际上将由政党政治和意识形态决定。看看1977年以来与无家可归有关的立法，就可以有力地证明这一观点。因此，从某种意义上说，无论是否知情，英国选民都会得到他们投票支持的无家可归者制度。本站提供各国各专业留学生论文范文，留学生论文代写以及留学生论文写作辅导，如有需要可咨询本平台。