Home life: the meaning of home for people who have experienced homelessness By: Sarah Elizabeth Coward A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Sheffield Faculty of Social Sciences Department of Sociological Studies September 2018 Abstract ‘Home’ is widely used to describe a positive experience of a dwelling place (shelter). It is about a positive emotional connection to a dwelling place, feeling at ‘home’ in a dwelling place, where both physiological and psychological needs can be fulfilled. This portrayal of ‘home’, however, is not always how a dwelling place is experienced. A dwelling place can be a negative environment, i.e. ‘not-home’, or there may be no emotional attachment or investment in a dwelling place at all. Both circumstances receive little attention in the literature. This research explores the realities of ‘home’ by delving into the ‘home’ lives of seventeen individuals who had experienced a range of different housing situations, including recent homelessness, moving to a (resettlement) sole tenancy and then moving on from that tenancy. Participants were asked to recall their housing histories, from their first housing memory as a child up to the time of interviewing. For each housing episode, they were asked to describe the circumstances of their life at the time, for example relationships, employment and education. They were also asked to reflect on their housing experiences. Similarities and differences of experience are explored according to gender and type of housing situation. This research tells the story of lives characterised by housing and social instability, often triggered by a significant change in social context in childhood. As such, the fulfilment of both physiological and psychological needs was often constrained, and experiences of a dwelling place were more likely to be negative rather than positive, although ‘home’ could be found in the most challenging of circumstances, and often in the most unlikely of places. The participants’ constructions of ‘home’ and ‘not-home’ were largely focused on a singular feature, unlike the broader social constructions of ‘home’. ‘Not-home’ was characterised by physical insecurity, whereas ‘home’ was characterised by emotional security, with many characteristics mirroring human needs, of which ‘positive relationships’ was the most common feature. Many participants, however, had limited experience of, and/or struggled to forge and maintain, ‘positive relationships’, they lacked ‘social capital’, which meant having to navigate through a life of instability pretty much alone. As such, this research proposes a new narrative of ‘relationship poverty’, in which a lack of ‘positive relationships’ hinders the fulfilment of needs, and therefore the possibility of feeling at ‘home’ in any dwelling place. i Contents Abstract i List of figures and tables v Acknowledgements vi Chapter One: Introduction 1 1.0 Background to the study 1 1.1 Focus and scope of the study 3 1.2 Aims and objectives 8 1.3 Conceptual frameworks 8 1.4 Structure of the thesis 10 Chapter Two: Needs and their social construction 12 2.0 Introduction 12 2.1 What are needs? 12 2.2 Fulfilling needs 22 2.3 Needs and ‘home’ 38 2.4 Overview 39 Chapter Three: Ideal ‘homes’ 42 3.0 Introduction 42 3.1 The evolution of ‘home’ 42 3.2 The meaning of ‘home’ 43 3.3 The normative view of ‘home’ 46 3.4 The common ‘home’ 49 3.5 Overview 61 Chapter Four: Real ‘homes’ 63 4.0 Introduction 63 4.1 The role of ‘home’ 63 4.2 ‘Not-home’ 64 4.3 Homelessness 67 4.4 Temporal context 77 4.5 Life context 85 4.6 Overview 93 Chapter Five: Methodology 94 5.0 Introduction 94 5.1 The epistemological position of the research 94 ii 5.2 Theoretical perspective 96 5.3 Methods of enquiry 98 5.4 Data interpretation and analysis 104 5.5 Strengths and limitations of the study 109 5.6 Ethical and safety considerations 110 Chapter Six: What is ‘home’? 114 6.0 Introduction 114 6.1 Profile of participants 114 6.2 Common ‘home’ experiences 115 6.3 Common experiences of ‘not-home’ 131 6.4 Mixed feelings: ‘home’ and ‘not-home’ 133 6.5 Overview 135 Chapter Seven: My housing, my ‘home’…? 137 7.0 Introduction 137 7.1 Profile of housing experiences 138 7.2 Profile of ‘home’ and ‘not-home’ experiences 152 7.3 Housing experiences: what makes different housing situations ‘home’, or ‘not-home’ for different people 157 7.4 Best and worst housing experiences 164 7.5 Overview 167 Chapter Eight: Home life - the context of ‘home’ over time 169 8.0 Introduction 169 8.1 Social profile of participants 170 8.2 Change in social context 172 8.2.1 The death of one’s mother during childhood 172 8.2.2 One’s parents splitting up during childhood 179 8.2.3 Living in social care settings during childhood 186 8.3 Participants’ personal reflections 196 8.4 Conclusions 201 Chapter Nine: Discussion and conclusions 209 9.0 Introduction 209 9.1 Discussion 210 9.2 Conclusions 221 9.3 Messages for policy and practice 224 9.4 Future research 229 References 230 iii Appendices 243 Appendix A 244 Appendix B 256 Appendix C 257 Appendix D 258 Appendix E 259 Appendix F 260 iv List of figures and tables Figures Figure 2.1 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs 17 Figure 7.1 Main feature of ‘home’ and ‘not-home’ by housing situation 158 Tables Table 5.1 Processes and stages of analysis 108 Table 9.1 Main features of ‘home’ in the literature and among participants 210 v Acknowledgments To all the participants, a very big thank you for sharing your stories and inspiring me. To my supervisor Professor Richard Jenkins, a big thank you for sharing your expertise, and for all your guidance and encouragement. To my second supervisor, Professor Sue White, thank you for helping me enhance my PhD. To Professor Tony Warnes and Dr Maureen Crane, thank you for giving me with the opportunity to do my PhD. To my husband Simon, thank you for believing in me. I couldn’t have done it without your support, encouragement, and love. To my very good friend Elaine, thank you for being a great sounding board and for sharing my enthusiasm for the subject area. Thank you to my wonderful five year old daughter Elizabeth, who provided me with motivation to keep-going when she sat at my desk and said “I’m doing my PhD.” And finally to my parents, a huge thank you for taking such great care of Elizabeth whilst I worked on my PhD. vi Chapter One: Introduction 1.0 Background to the study Over the last 15 years of my professional (housing practitioner) and academic (research) careers I have developed a strong understanding of and interest in the housing, health and social care needs of vulnerable groups, particularly homeless people, who often have complex/multiple needs. I worked as a Research Associate at Sheffield Hallam University (2002-05) and The University of Nottingham (2006-07). My MA thesis explored Hidden Homelessness in Sheffield. I specialise in qualitative research and for the past seven years have been working for Kings College London on a number of homelessness studies. The premise for this PhD study stemmed from working as Principal Research Associate at The University of Sheffield (from April 2007 – January 2011) on the ESRC funded FOR-HOME project - Factors in the outcomes of the resettlement of homeless people (Grant RES-062-23- 0255, Sheffield Institute for Studies on Aging, The University of Sheffield). The FOR-HOME project followed the experiences of 400 single homeless people aged 16+ years who were resettled from hostel or other temporary accommodation into independent tenancies in London, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire (Crane et al., 2011, p. iii). The study was conducted 2007-2010 in collaboration with six homelessness service-provider organisations (Broadway, Centrepoint, St Mungo’s and Thames Reach in London; Framework in Nottinghamshire; and St Anne’s Community Services in Yorkshire) (ibid., p. 7). During the study’s recruitment period (2007/2008), the Supporting People programme was the principal source of public funding for housing-related support services, which emphasised resettlement practice, with an assumption that hostel residents would be ready to move on within two years. The timing of resettlement varied greatly, influenced by factors such as housing availability and the level of housing priority given to individual residents. In preparing residents for independent living, all six organisations provided some form of resettlement support, covering areas such as finances (tackling debts, budgeting, paying bills), cooking and home maintenance, addressing mental health and substance misuse issues, and involvement in education, training and/or employment. Levels of engagement with such support varied, as did provision of, and engagement with tenancy support services post- resettlement. Attempts to prevent, reduce and manage homelessness are always reliant upon the direction of national and local policy which are often dictated by funding levels. 1 The sample members were interviewed in-depth on three occasions (ibid., p. iii): just before resettlement, after six months and after 15/18 months (ibid., p. 8); they were given a (cash) ‘thank-you’ payment at each interview (ibid., p. 9). Data was collected during semi- structured, face-to-face interviews, which covered housing, homelessness and employment histories; finances and debts; engagement in work, training and other activities; health and addiction problems; family and social networks; the characteristics of the resettlement accommodation and housing satisfaction; help and support pre and post-resettlement; experiences in the new accommodation; morale and settledness; and future plans and aspirations (ibid., p.