Valuable Lives: Capability and Resilience among Single Homeless People

1
Valuable Lives Capability and Resilience among
Single Homeless People

• Joan Smith, CHCR, London Metropolitan University
• and Crisis Policy Team
• Research team Hussein Bushnaq, Andrew Campbell,
  Luma Hussan, Sanjay Pal, Sam Akpadio
• Contact joan.smith_at_londonmet.ac.uk

2
Research Questions

• The questions for this study became
• How to identify people who had managed or not
  managed to live a life that they had valued
  (Capability).
• How to identify people with high or low
  resilience in their life (Resilience).
• Identifying outcomes for people between Spring
  and October 2007.
• How services had helped or hindered people in our
  study and how they had used them.
• How informal support had helped or hindered
  people in our study.

3
Research Design

• Recruitment to the study
• 156 people at Crisis Open Christmas 2006 agreed
  to be contacted 41 were found in Spring 2007
• 46 were recruited from Skylight, Learning Zone in
  Spring 2007. Most were engaged in learning or
  creative activities.
• Therefore 87 people interviewed in Spring 2007
• Re-contacts
• 53 of the 87 re-contacted in Autumn 2007
• 41 re-contacted in December 2007
• Interview method
• Interviews structured and open-ended, parts were
  digitally recorded.
• Research team of 5 ex-homeless consultants,
  trained by B-Hug and Groundswell. Piloted
  questionnaires, undertook interviews, and
  assessed outcomes.

4
This study took place in the context of housing
and health services in the UK

• Homeless legislation 1977, 1985, 1996, 2002.
  Homelessness includes all those with no home in
  which they have the right to reside. A broad
  definition which includes women fleeing violence,
  young mothers or young people whose parents dont
  accommodate etc
• Among the homeless there are priority need
  groups households with responsibility for
  children, persons aged over 60 years,
  vulnerable persons, those with disabilities.
  From 2002 priority need included young people
  from care, 16-17 year olds, ex-armed services,
  hospital, prison.
• For those eligible (with recourse to public funds
  including refugees), homeless, with local
  connection, within a priority need group or
  vulnerable the local authorities have a duty to
  accommodate. But numbers accepted halved in 3
  years (137k down to 64k in 2007/8)
• Social housing 18 of stock and 75000-100000
  hostel placements.
• National Health Service. Free, through GP GP is
  the access to other services services at Day
  Centres and walk in NHS centres and AE

5
People in the Study

• CRISIS runs Open Christmas and Skylight in
  London, Newcastle and NWest. It is not an
  accommodation provider therefore the full range
  of homeless people in London were included in the
  study.
• 87 people
• 41 recruited through Crisis Open Christmas
• 46 through Skylight/Learning Zone in East London
• Characteristics
• 64 men, 23 women.
• 52 (60) born UK/ Eire
• 9 (10) born in other European countries
• 26 (30) born outside Europe.
• In all people from 27 countries in the study.
• 20-72 years of age, a third between 35-44 years.
• 18 reported a disability 8 were registered
  disabled.
• All but one were or had previously been homeless,
  and she was ex-care who came to COC, emotionally
  homeless all my life.

6
Housing situation of 87 recruits

• Christmas 2006
• Sleeping Rough 30
• Squatting/ Friends 9
• Hostels/ Night shelters 21
• Temporary, shared, bed and breakfast 11
• Own accommodation long term, mostly social
  housing 16

• Spring 2007
• Sleeping Rough 20
• Squatting/ Friends 12
• Hostels/ Night shelters 20
• Temporary, shared, bed and breakfast 15
• Own accommodation long term, mostly social
  housing 20

7
The study took a CAPABILITY APPROACH

• Amatya Sen, originator of the Capability
  Approach Capability reflects the persons
  freedom to choose from alternative livings in
  relation to the values that the person has.
• CA has 4 strengths.
• Policy is focussed on the well-being of
  individuals freedom for the lives they value.
• Which capabilities are necessary for well-being?
• Measures capability through beings and doings
  i.e. functioning, rather than potential.
• Asks what factors prevent people functioning.
• Capability and Resilience important in health
  studies in the UK since 2003. Beating the Odds
  Mel Bartley.

8
The study was also concerned with Resilience

• Understanding resilience. Not the same as
  capability. Self-esteem and self-confidence. US
  studies on homelessness and resilience. (Williams
  et al Werner et al). Child adversity the most
  common factor.
• Childhood adversity among the 87
• 51 had disrupted or adverse childhoods 18
  parent died pre-16 years, 15 in care, 7
  friends/relatives, 10 abusive.
• 8 poor childhoods.
• 5 happy childhoods but damaged by war, leaving
  country.
• 35 happy childhood
• Particularly true for those born in the UK
• Rutter argued that not always poor outcomes for
  those with child adversity, if they found a
  mentor or a supporter in childhood

9
CAPABILITY among 87 people

• Had the 87 lived a life they valued in the past?
  Men had long work histories, women much less so
  even though the same educational level. Born UK
  the least school qualified.
• We made life-maps of a persons education, work,
  family life.
• Functioning and self-determined lives
• 44 (26 women 50 men)
• 2. Functioning but not a life they would have
  chosen 32 (44 women 30 men)
• 3. Restricted Lives and Restricted Functioning
• 24 (30 women 20 men)

10
RESILIENCE among 87 people

• Had our people made positive relationships as
  adults before being homeless? We used life maps,
  looked at domestic partnerships, parenting, work
  relationships, how long ever settled. Very
  different women vs. men
• 1. Positive relationships, self-built
• 33 (13 women 41 men)
• 2. Positive relationships, supportive families
• 24 (22 women 25 men)
• 3. Not positive, violent
• 43 (65 women, 34 men)

11
CAPABILITY AND RESILIENCE
12
Given their capability and resilience how had
people become homeless?

• Turning points Men
• Loss of a domestic partnership (44)
• Substance abuse (44)
• Loss of employment (36)
• Leaving an institution (30)
• Leaving their own country (27)
• Death of a supportive relative (20)
• Loss of housing (9)

• Turning points Women
• Health problems (39)
• Domestic violence (35)
• Substance Abuse (associated with dv)
• Loss of supportive relative (22)
• Leaving their own country (22)
• Loss of housing (13)

13
Capability damaged by homelessness

• Lost skills
• No current certificates for trades e.g. health
  and safety for building
• Health damage, physical (accidents, injury,
  alcohol abuse) and mental health
• Hostel dwellers unable to work because of
  benefits
• Unable to work because of stress of being
  homeless
• Some people couldnt answer what skills they had
• Some people who develop new skills such as in
  art, stop being creative due to stress of
  homelessness.

14
Resilience damaged by homelessness

• Loss of self-esteem and self-confidence 50 (66
  men, 9 women)
• Low self-esteem, more depression, feeling of
  isolation.
• Low self esteem, lack of courage. Didnt care
  about myself.
• Depression and anxiety 31 (39 men, 9 women).
  But women already had depression, mental
  ill-health.
• I started to drink more, felt depressed
• Sleeping disorder, not thinking straight.
• Nine people said they gained from being homeless,
  with only themselves to rely on (13). 5 were
  women.
• Made me tougher.
• It has given me an insight into life in a more
  realistic way.

15
Outcomes by Autumn 2007 - 53 people
re-interviewed

• Establishing a moving up pattern meeting their
  goals
• 13 people (one quarter) 11 born in the UK.
  Access to services particularly housing and
  family support.
• Moving on
• 9 people (17). 4 born in the UK 5 born outside
  UK. Access to some housing services
• Coping despite their situation
• 16 (30). 10 born outside Europe. Not good access
  to services but coping through engagement
• Not coping 7 (13) Not good access, not coping
• High risk 8 (15), all but 1 born UK. Not about
  services but addiction and isolation

16
Homeless services reported

• Four services important for outcomes
• Housing
• Secure accommodation helped establish new
  relationships, relationships with children,
  supported volunteering (towards employment),
  studying, creative interests. Older men gained
  stability, contact with families.
• Moving into temporary accommodation or hostels
  was also supportive but remaining there was
  unsettling.
• Living with friends was like squatting.
• Day Centres
• Day centres provided support for those not in
  secure living situations and for those who needed
  to ask a safe community a range of services
  being offered. But hours more limited and some
  limiting who could access them. People in our
  study most appreciated the walk-in centres.
• Medical Services Transformed some lives but
  access difficult.
• Creative and Learning
• Used in different ways some discovering real
  talent, re-training, new interests,
  self-confidence.

17
How did people use services?

• 1. Stop-gap 4 people
• Short-term help, get jobs, family contact and
  reunification
• 2. Springboard 8 people
• Change work direction through learning services,
  plus housing support
• 3. Springboard and Safe Haven 11 people
• Nervous about return to work or new home, safe
  haven but also moving on
• 4. Safe Haven 15 people
• Men use day centres where they are known, women
  using creative or learning services where they
  feel safe and respected
• 5. Life-line 12 people, all men
• Access health, substance misuse services and day
  centres
• 6. Disengagement/ Barred 3 people, 2 men and 1
  woman
• Retreat into own place, poor mental health
  outcomes

18
Informal support importance of family

• Most established moving-on people had a network
  of family support as well as services.
• How have you been?
• Due to work, everything, my life is back on
  track. (Im) talking to my kids, playing football
  with my son. Perfect health.
• I am doing very well. Lots of support from my
  mum, dad and brothers and sisters. My health is
  good because of contact with my children. I have
  not been drinking or indulging in drugs.
• My son is back with me, living with me makes my
  life completely different.
• People who werent born in the UK but were
  progressing had family support outside the
  country.

19
Who would you contact if you needed support?

• 33 said they would contact family and 21 people
  only mentioned family
• 29 people mentioned friends of which 7 only
  mentioned street friends
• 12 people would contact their Church the church
  was very important for a quarter of our final
  respondents
• 12 would contact a neighbour
• 5 A community organisation
• 7 Homeless agency, and 10 another agency
• 12 Their key worker
• A Helpline
• Difference between men and women and those born
  in the UK and those born elsewhere.

20
What are the lessons?

• Voluntary sector
• Services have to address the capability issues.
  People didnt know or had lost a vision of their
  own achievements. They need to build a cv in
  order to understand their own capability.
• Services have to address resilience issues and
  not undermine self-esteem by their treatment of
  homeless people.
• 3. Separate needs of men and women born in
  country, not born in country. Some people knew
  exactly what they needed.
• Day centres. Crucial service. Opening hours and
  access.
• Creative and learning opportunities have larger
  impacts.
• Statutory sector
• Not just an issue for homelessness sector but for
  the statutory sector.
• 5. Employment advice requires job counselling
  that begins with the person and the labour market
  (ScotsCare, Walk-in JobCentre)
• Housing advice is still very poor for the single
  homeless.
• Housing Benefits not fast enough, HB
  discourages hostel residents.
• Health services are critical but need linking up
  detox and going back on to streets, a need for
  the intermediate centres being discussed.