The management of homelessness has taken various forms over time. In 2003, the U.S. federal government significantly shifted its approach, ambitiously committing to end homelessness within 10 years by targeting the chronically homeless using the Housing First model. This approach to homelessness has rapidly spread across North America and beyond. This article is concerned with how the mobility of these 10-year plans has been realized. Drawing on Peck and Theodore’s concept of “fast policy,” and borrowing perspectives developed in actor-network theory, the article develops a case study of Alberta, Canada, to chronicle how 10-year plans were translated through a dense network of political alignments, socio-technical expertise, and statistical inscriptions. A close examination of these translations invites us to problematize this socio-technical infrastructure as a powerful mode of adaptive governance closely associated with the dynamism of neoliberalism itself.
Alberta Interagency Council on Homelessness (2012) Alberta Interagency Council on Homelessness: Roles and Mandate.
Edmonton:
Alberta Interagency Council on Homelessness.
2.
Alberta Secretariat for Action on Homelessness (2008) A Plan for Alberta: Ending Homelessness in 10 Years.
Edmonton:
Alberta Secretariat for Action on Homelessness.
3.
Alberta Secretariat for Action on Homelessness (2013) A Plan for Alberta: Ending Homelessness in 10 Years: 3 Year Progress Report.
Edmonton:
Alberta Secretariat for Action on Homelessness.
4.
BakerTEvansJ (2016)
‘Housing first’ and the changing terrains of homeless governance. Geography Compass10(1): 25–41.
5.
BakerTCookIRMcCannE, et al. (2017)
Policies on the move: The transatlantic travels of Tax Increment Financing. Annals of the American Association of Geographers106(2): 459–469.
6.
Calgary Committee to End Homelessness (2008) Calgary’s 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness.
Calgary:
Calgary Committee to End Homelessness.
7.
CallonMLascoumesPBartheY (2009) Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy.
Cambridge:
The MIT Press.
8.
Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness (2019) Ending homelessness in Canada. Available at: www.caeh.ca (accessed 27 September 2019).
Canadian Observatory on Homelessness (2018) Homelessness Hub: About Us. Available at: http://homelesshub.ca/about-us (accessed 18 April 2018).
11.
DobersteinCReimerJ (2016) Interagency councils on homelessness: Case studies from the United States and Alberta. In: NicholsNDobersteinC (eds) Exploring Effective Systems Responses to Homelessness.
Toronto:
Canadian Homelessness Hub, pp.460–481.
12.
DresslerJ (2016) Coordinated access and assessment: Calgary, Alberta. In: NicholsNDobersteinC (eds) Exploring Effective Systems Responses to Homelessness.
Toronto:
Canadian Homelessness Hub, pp.17–32.
13.
Edmonton Committee to End Homelessness (2009) A Place to Call Home: Edmonton’s 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness.
Edmonton:
Edmonton Committee to End Homelessness.
14.
Edmonton Homelessness Commission (2017) Edmonton Plan to End Homelessness Update.
Edmonton:
Edmonton Homelessness Commission.
15.
FalvoN (2010) Toronto’s Streets to Home Program. In: HulchanskiJDCampsiePChauS, et al. (eds) Finding Home: Policy Options for Addressing Homelessness in Canada (e-Book).
Toronto:
Cities Centre, University of Toronto.
16.
FreemanR (2009)
What is ‘translation’?Evidence & Policy5(4): 429–447.
17.
HarrisT (2017)
Neutralizing homelessness: Federal policy and the depoliticization of poverty. Urban Geography38(3): 341–347.
18.
HealeyP (2013)
Circuits of knowledge and techniques: The transnational flow of planning ideas and practices. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research37(5): 1510–1526.
19.
HenniganB (2017)
House broken: homelessness, housing first, and neoliberal poverty governance. Urban Geography38(9): 1418–1440.
20.
Hennigan B and Speer J (2019) Compassionate revanchism: The blurry geography of homelessness in the USA. Urban Studies 56(5): 906–921.
21.
Homeward Trust Edmonton (HTE) (2011) Housing First Service Manual.
Edmonton:
Homeward Trust Edmonton.
Jacobs JM (2012) Urban geographies I: Still thinking cities relationally. Progress in Human Geography 36(3): 412–422.
25.
JonesRPykettJWhiteheadM (2014)
The geographies of policy translation: How nudge became the default policy option. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy32: 54–69.
26.
LampelJMeyerAD (2008)
Field-configuring events as structuring mechanisms: How conferences, ceremonies, and trade shows constitute new technologies, industries, and markets. Journal of Management Studies45(6): 1025–1035.
27.
LatourB (1999) Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies.
Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
28.
LatourB (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory.
New York:
Oxford University Press.
29.
LendvaiNStubbsP (2007) Policies as translation: Situating transnational social policies. In: HodgsonSIrvingZ (eds) Policy Reconsidered: Meanings, Politics and Practices.
Bristol:
Policy Press.
30.
McCannE (2011a)
Urban policy mobilities and global circuits of knowledge: Toward a research agenda. Annals of the Association of American Geographers101(1): 107–130.
31.
McCannE (2011b)
Veritable inventions: Cities, policies and assemblages. Area43(2): 143–147.
32.
McCannEWardK (2011) Mobile Urbanism: Cities and Policymaking in the Global Age.
Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
33.
McFarlaneC (2011) Learning the City: Knowledge and Translocal Assemblage.
Malden:
Wiley-Blackwell.
34.
Orgcode Consulting (2019) What we do. Available at: http://www.orgcode.com (accessed 27 September 2019).
35.
PeckJTheodoreN (2015) Fast Policy: Experimental Statecraft at the Threshold of Neoliberalism.
Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
36.
PrinceR (2012)
Policy transfer, consultants and the geographies of governance. Progress in Human Geography36(2): 188–203.
37.
PrinceR (2014)
Consultants and the global assemblage of culture and creativity. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers39(1): 90–101.
38.
ShaedleRMcGrewJBondG, et al. (2002)
A comparison of experts’ perspectives on assertive community treatment and intensive case management. Psychiatric Services53(2): 207–210.
39.
SparksT (2012)
Governing the homeless in an age of compassion: Homelessness, citizenship, and the 10-year plan to end homelessness in King County Washington. Antipode44(4): 1510–1531.
40.
TemenosCMcCannE (2013)
Geographies of policy mobilities. Geography Compass7(5): 344–357.
41.
WardK (2018)
Urban redevelopment policies on the move: Rethinking the geographies of comparison, exchange and learning. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research42(4): 666–683.
42.
WillseC (2015) The Value of Homelessness: Managing Surplus Life in the United States.
Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
YoungDBorlandRCoghillK (2010)
An actor-network theory analysis of policy innovation for smoke-free places: Understanding change in complex systems. American Journal of Public Health100(7): 1208–1217.
