From f523b7c183cd532dd065b032b9ed8b261026bb08 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tomislav Medak Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 18:43:25 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Update 'content/session/badhousingmakesussick.md' --- content/session/badhousingmakesussick.md | 9 ++++++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/session/badhousingmakesussick.md b/content/session/badhousingmakesussick.md index 3120963..3d67571 100644 --- a/content/session/badhousingmakesussick.md +++ b/content/session/badhousingmakesussick.md @@ -55,9 +55,6 @@ Participants were routinely either formally offered or informally ‘advised’ Respondents were disproportionately female (67%) and a lack of available social housing has a clear impact on mothers with children. Over half of all respondents (59.4%) have dependents – mainly children under 18. This appears to be a result of the prioritization of those in working in the labour market. This invisibilises women’s contribution to reproductive labour, makes them extremely vulnerable to cuts to housing and other benefits and compounds their relative disadvantage in the labour market. -MethodsA structured interview tool, using questions designed to elicit both quantitative and qualitative data, offering the opportunity to provide more narrative information, was designed in collaboration between housing campaigners who are at the forefront of hearing stories of homelessness in Newham (Focus E15) and the authors. This tool was piloted and amended in line with suggested changes in order to access the necessary data and to ensure completion by participants. This interview tool is available publically and free to use for all housing justice campaigners and we strongly encourage activists and researchers to adopt, adapt and amend it (email t.a.gillespie@shef.ac.uk). Peer interviewers were used to recruit participants using a number of recruitment methods. First, individuals were approached leaving council housing offices in Newham (Bridge House and East Ham). This enabled interviewers to identify individuals who were not previously known to them and who had approached Newham Council for support. Second, non-random purposive sampling was then used to interview people currently living in hostels run by Newham. While this range of recruitment and sampling methods means that a range of respondents have been included in the research, however, it should also be noted that the figures presented here are reflective of the sample collected, rather than necessarily being representative of those in general facing homelessness in Newham as a whole. Such an approach, does mean, however, that the research has captured some of the most vulnerable who would not otherwise be represented, particularly in large existing datasets or in studies focused on more established communities, such as on existing estates. In other words, the mobile nature of the research sampling faithfully reflects, and arguably better captures, the “increasingly nomadic” (Watt, cited in Ponsford, 2016) nature of homelessness in contemporary London whereby individuals and families find themselves forced into mobility. - -Where possible, interviews were recorded, resulting in a total of 32 recorded interviews. The intensity of flux in people’s lives and the complications they faced brought about insecure and constantly changing housing situations which made it complex to capture data. To some degree, the complex nature of flux and insecurity was better captured through qualitative analysis of the recorded interviews. The extreme instability faced by people facing homelessness made it extraordinarily difficult to collect and analyse the data and to accurately capture people’s experiences. This was due to the sheer complexity of their situations and the various institutions involved, as well a combination of significant confusion and lack of information, poor mental health amongst some respondents, often making it difficult to generate a coherent narrative. **Methods** @@ -70,11 +67,13 @@ Where possible, interviews were recorded, resulting in a total of 32 recorded in **Findings** ***People*** + The key demographic finding is that the vast majority (97%) of respondents had one or more of the following: dependents (children under 16); health or disability needs; dependents with health and disability needs or a combination of these. While these individuals may not be considered statutorily ‘vulnerable’, it is clear that those facing the hardest edge of the housing crisis are some of the most at risk groups of people with specific sets of needs. Sometimes these needs were pre-existing, while others appeared to have been exacerbated by their housing situations. This suggests that this homelessness is affecting some of the most vulnerable sections of society. Women were disproportionately represented in the sample, as 67% (42) were female. White (including all census defined ‘White’ categories) people make up 38.7% of those interviewed (compared to 29% of the population in Newham), while Black Asian and Minority Ethnic people made up 61.3% (compared with 71% in Newham). The vast proportion were British (70%), with 9% EU nationals 20% non-EU nationals. Most respondents (59%) have dependents (mainly children, but also elderly family members or pregnant partners). Amongst dependents, seven had a disability and 20% had a health condition. ***Housing Situations*** + The majority (81%) identified as having been homeless at some point in the last five years and 86% said they had to sofa-surf. In a subjective question about their housing status, 53% identified as currently homeless and 47% as currently having a place to live and therefore either under threat of homelessness or living in ongoing temporary accommodation. Eviction was a common experience, as 73% of respondents had been evicted at some point in the last five years, while 41% had been evicted two or more times. Reasons for eviction included rent rises, cuts to benefits leading to rent arrears and family breakdown. Private landlords, the council and family members were all identified as having evicted respondents. @@ -82,6 +81,7 @@ Eviction was a common experience, as 73% of respondents had been evicted at some Transitions into homelessness were extremely complex and were frequently constituted by multiple intersecting processes including job loss, cuts to social support, rent arrears, eviction and family breakdown. ***Disability and Health Conditions*** + A significant proportion of respondents had a disability (22%) or health condition (48%) which affected their housing needs. More than half (51.9%) of the people interviewed either had an issue with health or disability themselves or had a dependent with such needs. Mental health problems constituted the most common issue amongst respondents (n=18); with diabetes (n=5); arthritis (n=4); heart conditions (n=3); high blood pressure (n=2); terminally ill, HIV positive status, pneumonia and dissociative seizures (1 each) also mentioned. Insecurity, displacement and housing conditions had an extremely destablising effect on people’s mental health, as 89% mentioned worsening mental health as a result of their housing situation. Specifically, 66% mentioned worsening depression and 25% were suffering from insomnia. @@ -115,6 +115,7 @@ The relationship between poor housing and poor health indicators is well known, Budget cuts to mental health services combined with widespread displacement of people creates a perfect storm which can create new health problems and exacerbate existing conditions. This increases costs to state services (including the NHS), as well as to local authorities. Perhaps most worryingly, many people are avoiding contact with health services due to fear of the involvement of social services in relation to custody of their children. This lays the basis for health problems to worsen in the absence of appropriate care, creating more serious needs and vulnerabilities in the near and more distant future. ***Employment and Assistance*** + Amongst the respondents 19% were employed, 6.3% were self-employed and 12.5% ‘other’. The remainder of the sample stated that they were currently unemployed. Current jobs included cleaning (3); office and administrative work (2); NHS receptionist (1); University counseling support officer (1); head waiter (1); school support office (1) hairdressing (1); market trader (1); and care work (1). Seven respondents were students in further or higher education. Lisa (white-British) an 18 year old woman who currently was working part time and sofa surfing, had been evicted by her parents. She said she: @@ -132,11 +133,13 @@ Since 91% of the sample received some form of income assistance, the majority of Having been told he was not a priority by the council, he was about to sleep on the streets, Newham council placed him in a hostel. He now faces eviction by the council from the temporary hostel he is currently housed in and therefore currently faces the prospect of being street homeless once more. ***Displacement and out-of-area housing offers*** + A majority of respondents (58%) had either been offered housing outside of the borough or told to look for it themselves. Some respondents had been repeatedly offered housing outside of the borough over a number of years. Respondents reported being offered out of borough placements as far back as 2005, with 20% of the sample stating that they were offered housing out of borough between 2005-2008. That is, before the Coalition government, financial crisis, cuts to housing benefit and the Localism Act (2011). As such, this is a process which has been occurring for over a decade, but which has gathered pace as a result of drastic changes to social support. It is clear that out of borough offers are now systemic in Newham. A Supreme Court ruling in 2015 meant that councils ‘must now provide evidence of a search for accommodation inside and near to their local authority for homeless households’ (Douglas 2015). However, many of our respondents appear to have been offered or ‘suggested’ to look outside both the borough (58%) and London (44%) without the relevant evidence provided to demonstrate a lack of housing inside London. ***Experiences out-of-borough*** + Bethany (24, White-British) was housed in a hostel in Newham, according to her this was on the basis she would be offered a council property. After three years, Newham Council began to offer her places outside of London. Despite trying to resist these placements, she argues that she was told “if you don’t accept that, we’re not going to offer you anything else”. She eventually accepted a property in Hastings. The conditions in her new flat are extremely poor. > When it rains and stuff... it drips through. My windows, they are so badly done they all leak, so all along the window ledge gets soaking wet. When I went to London for Christmas I was there for a couple of weeks, I came back and my sofa was soaked, my curtains were ruined, I had to get new curtains because they grew mould on them... In the kitchen, because they haven’t cleaned out the gutter-ing at the top, I’ve got mould coming there.