Our focus on homelessness this week continues with lively discussion in this session about the latest research into vulnerability, control, capabilities and person-centred approaches in homelessness. The full abstracts are below.
Presentations from these authors and a live Q&A session are available to all HSA members. Book here
1. Oliver Townsend Conceptions of vulnerability across the housing sector
The term ‘vulnerability’ is used in day-to-day practice across the housing sector, but it is also hard-wired into our legislation via the Housing (Wales) Act, and the inclusion in statute of the Pereira Test. There are significant challenges to the idea of ‘vulnerability’ being used as widely as it is today, including through the Crisis Frameworks Institute report into how the issue of homelessness should be ‘framed’ in public discourse to generate positive response and action. There is also a concern that ‘vulnerability’ has become a word that is near-meaningless, used by people to reassert their compassion credentials whilst actively pursuing policies or practices that marginalise and damage people. In this presentation, I propose a new framework for understanding vulnerability, which considers the different conceptions held by different actors. This includes the following: LEGAL VULNERABILITY: The legal understanding of vulnerability within the legislation, which broadly match that of Pereira; PATTERNIST VULNERABILITY: The pattern-led understanding of vulnerability; PRACTICAL VULNERABILITY: The ‘common sense’ understanding of vulnerability. SYSTEMIC VULNERABILITY: The understanding of a systemic inducement of vulnerability, or the systemic exacerbation of vulnerability. This could be a helpful heuristic by which housing organisations can consider embedded conceptions, their own understanding of vulnerability, and even use these ideas to train and challenge their own colleagues in policy and practice.
2. Beth Watts and Janice Blenkinsopp Valuing control over one’s immediate living environment: how homelessness responses corrode capabilities
Informed by the capabilities approach, this paper considers the importance of control over one’s environment for people experiencing homelessness. Drawing on a study of temporary accommodation in Scotland, we make four arguments. First, control over one’s immediate living environment has been neglected as a foundational component of a minimally decent life within the capabilities literature. Second, such control is compromised, sometimes severely, in temporary accommodation provided for homeless households, with these impacts especially acute in congregate accommodation. Third, lacking control over one’s immediate environment is a corrosive disadvantage that actively disables people’s capacity to live lives they have reason to value across a range of domains. We highlight in particular the corrosion of people’s bodily and mental health and affiliation-related capabilities. Fourth, both intrinsic and contingent features of different kinds of temporary accommodation are implicated in constraining people’s control over their environment. This distinction facilitates specification of where changes to existing provision can mitigate the negative impacts we have identified, and where accommodation models are inherently problematic.
3. Adele Irving Homelessness Pathways and Person-Centred Approaches to Housing Management and Support
While housing can provide many of the freedoms associated with a well-lived life, no simple relationship exists between the quality of housing environments and well-being. This relationship is often mediated by the effects of ‘the person’. This paper discusses the findings of a recent qualitative study which explored the utility of the concept of homelessness pathways in understanding the effects of ‘the person’ on the well-being of a sample of homelessness accommodation users. Five pathways into homelessness were identified: ‘financial crisis’, ‘family breakdown’, ‘substance misuse’, ‘mental health’ and ‘childhood trauma’. Each pathway denoted the most dominant factor linked to the participants’ entry into homelessness and the broader complexity of their lives. A relationship was subsequently found between the five pathways and the participants’ accounts of their time within the hostels. Those who experienced the least complex pathways into homelessness typically reported the most positive experiences of well-being within the hostels. Those who experienced the more complex pathways typically reported the most negative experiences of well-being. The pathways lens had limited explanatory value on its own, but proved highly useful when considered alongside other concepts from the housing literature, particularly those which focus on the nature of individuals’ social networks, their relationships with substances and the degree of ‘fit’ between their housing circumstances and personal needs and wants. The paper has important implications for housing management practices and support, providing a framework to allow the past experiences, needs and characteristics of individuals to be at the centre of decision-making.