Search

Introduction: Minimum unit pricing (MUP) may reduce harmful drinking in the general population, but there is little evidence regarding its impact on marginalised groups. Our study is the first to explore the perceptions of MUP among stakeholders working with people experiencing homelessness following its introduction in Scotland in May 2018. Methods: Qualitative semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 41 professional stakeholders from statutory and third sector organisations across Scotland. We explored their views on MUP and its impact on people experiencing homelessness, service provision and implications for policy. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Participants suggested that the introduction of MUP in Scotland had negligible if any discernible impact on people experiencing homelessness and services that support them. Most service providers felt insufficiently informed about MUP prior to its implementation. Participants reported that where consequences for these populations were evident, they were primarily anticipated although some groups were negatively affected. People experiencing homelessness have complex needs in addition to alcohol addiction, and changes in the way services work need to be considered in future MUP‐related discussions. Discussion and Conclusions: This study suggests that despite initial concerns about potential unintended consequences of MUP, many of these did not materialise to the levels anticipated. As a population‐level health policy, MUP is likely to have little beneficial impact on people experiencing homelessness without the provision of support to address their alcohol use and complex needs. The additional needs of certain groups (e.g., people with no recourse to public funds) need to be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Street homelessness policies often provoke great intensity of feeling, especially when they include elements of force. This paper considers the moral case stakeholders present for and against enforcement in street homelessness policies via a series of philosophically informed normative 'lenses', including paternalist, utilitarian, rights-based, contractualist, mutualist and social justice perspectives. Drawing on in-depth qualitative research in six UK cities, it highlights the disparity between the condemnatory portrayals of enforcement dominant in academic and media discourses, and the more complex and/or ambivalent views held by practitioners and homeless people 'on the ground'. It concludes that an analytical framework that pays systematic attention to this span of normative lenses can facilitate more constructive, even if still 'difficult', conversations about policy interventions in this exceptionally sensitive area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within a social justice ethical framework, the use of 'enforcement' measures to prevent people from engaging in 'street activities', such as begging and street drinking, can only be morally justified if such initiatives can be shown to benefit the welfare of the vulnerable 'street users' affected. It may be hypothesized that this is unlikely, and such measures are bound to be regressive in their effects, but in fact evidence from an evaluation conducted in five locations across England suggests otherwise. Drawing on a normative framework which engages with both moral and political philosophy, this paper argues that the motivations and impacts associated with enforcement are more ethically complex, and less punitive, than they may at first appear. It demonstrates that the use of enforcement measures, when accompanied by appropriate support, can in fact lead to beneficial outcomes for some individuals involved in begging or street drinking in some situations. The outcomes for other members of the street population can, however, be very negative, and are highly unpredictable, such that the use of enforcement is always a high-risk strategy, even if ethically justifiable in certain circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• First qualitative study of minimum unit pricing among homeless people. • Alcohol minimum unit pricing was accorded low priority in hierarchy of concerns. • Some reported no impact, or reduced drinking in line with policy intentions. • A small minority reported increased involvement in begging. • Policymakers should consider wider contextual factors in marginalised groups. Alcohol Minimum Unit Pricing (MUP) was introduced in Scotland in May 2018. Existing evidence suggests MUP can reduce alcohol consumption in the general population, but there is little research about its impact on vulnerable groups. This qualitative study explored experiences of MUP among people with experience of homelessness. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 46 people with current or recent experience of homelessness who were current drinkers when MUP was introduced. Participants (30 men and 16 women) were aged 21 to 73 years. Interviews focused on views and experiences of MUP. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. People with experience of homelessness were aware of MUP but it was accorded low priority in their hierarchy of concerns. Reported impacts varied. Some participants reduced their drinking, or moved away from drinking strong white cider, in line with policy intentions. Others were unaffected because the cost of their preferred drink (usually wine, vodka or beer) did not change substantially. A minority reported increased involvement in begging. Wider personal, relational and social factors also played an important role in responses to MUP. This is the first qualitative study to provide a detailed exploration of the impact of MUP among people with experience of homelessness. Our findings suggest that MUP worked as intended for some people with experience of homelessness, while a minority reported negative consequences. Our findings are of international significance to policymakers, emphasising the need to consider the impact of population level health policies on marginalised groups and the wider contextual factors that affect responses to policies within these groups. It is important to invest further in secure housing and appropriate support services and to implement and evaluate harm reduction initiatives such as managed alcohol programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]