Cameron Parsell

Home is Where the House is: The Meaning of Home for People Sleeping Rough

Contributors to the housing field broadly agree that home is a multi-dimensional concept. Indeed, informed by the proposition that home and housing should not be conflated, the social, psychological and emotional elements of home have been well documented. Home is thought to be subjectively experienced. As such, some have shown that people defined as homeless may not actually feel homeless, but rather experience their accommodation or situation as home. This paper is based on ethnographic research with a group of people sleeping rough in Brisbane, Australia. It argues that their problematic experiences residing in public places, together with their biographies of feeling disconnected from society, underpinned their ideas of home. For people in this study, housing and home were synonymous. The physical structure of a house was important to assume control over their day-to-day lives. Home, however, stood for something beyond housing. Home was constructed as a signifier of normality, and as a commitment to participation in Australian society.

Common Ground in Australia: An Object Lesson in Evidence Hierarchies and Policy Transfer

Developed in New York City in 1990, the Common Ground model of supportive housing has recently been embraced in Australia as a high-profile solution to chronic homelessness. Combining on-site support services with a congregate housing form accommodating ex-homeless people and low-income adults, Common Ground is presented as an innovative model which permanently ends homelessness, enhances wellbeing, and strengthens communities. This article critically examines the process of transferring the model into Australias social housing sector, drawing on the perspectives of the high-level stakeholders closely involved. It argues that, despite official commitments to evidence-based policy, the ‘advocacy coalition’ driving this international policy transfer employed a ‘knowledge hierarchy’ wherein professional intuition and personal experience were afforded a higher status than formal evaluative evidence. The article provides an example of the contested nature of what ‘counts as evidence’ in housing and homelessness policy, and considers what role academic research – as well as other knowledge sources – should play in the policy development process.

Responding to People Sleeping Rough: Dilemmas and Opportunities for Social Work

Abstract Rough sleeping refers to the state of being literally without shelter or residing in shelter not fit for human habitation. People who sleep rough are thought to be a group who experience a range of complex problems in addition to their homelessness. Despite their small numbers relative to the broader homeless population, rough sleepers have been identified as a target group for policy and practice intervention. This article critically examines outreach responses directed toward people sleeping rough. Moving beyond traditional charity approaches or interventions that “move people on”, emerging models of “assertive outreach” have been implemented in Australia as part of broader strategies to reduce homelessness. Challenging the idea that assertive outreach is a shift from a social work approach, it is argued that interventions to actively end rough sleeping are consistent with social work principles. Indeed, this article takes it that social work must advocate for the provision of affordable housing as central to rough sleeping interventions. Housing not only enables people to achieve human dignity and worth, but the linking of housing with outreach responses to rough sleepers will facilitate a trusting and effective working relationship.

Homelessness as a Choice

Abstract It has long been assumed that homelessness is a personal choice. As a choice, homelessness is embedded within debates about deviant behaviours and problematic pathologies. The “homeless person” is either making calculated and immoral choices to be homeless, or they are perceived to be powerless agents who lack the capacity to exercise choices. Rarely has it been adequately explained, however, what choosing homelessness means and how people who are homeless make sense of their choices. The structural and individual circumstances that situate and make choices meaningful require robust consideration. Drawing on ethnographic research with people sleeping rough, this article unpacks and illuminates some of the hidden complexities that underpin choices to be homeless. With an objective of retaining people’s sense for autonomy, the article contributes to the field by arguing that choice can be understood as an expression of agency and a commitment to a “normal” identity.

“Homeless is What I Am, Not Who I Am”: Insights from an Inner-City Brisbane Study

This article argues that some homelessness literature has tended to place too great an emphasis on homelessness as a defining characteristic of people who are homeless. As such, ‘homeless people’ are not only defined as the ‘other’ based on what they lack, but they have become depersonalised. This misconception may have been facilitated by research that has considered homelessness an isolated phenomenon, or because of a reliance on research methods that have failed to directly engage with people experiencing homelessness. This article reports on research using ethnographic methods with people who were homeless in inner-city Brisbane. Research participants largely acknowledged their homelessness, but contextualised it as both symptomatic of, and subordinate to, other far more significant life experiences. Also, no participant in this study perceived their homelessness as defining their identities, either their personal or social identities. Instead, people defined themselves with reference to family, and other life experiences or activities.

Breaking the cycle of homelessness: Housing stability and social support as predictors of long-term well-being

Abstract It is increasingly acknowledged that homelessness involves more than just being without a house. Indeed, more recent definitions of what constitutes a home highlight the role of social connections and support (including, for example, access to space to engage in social relations). This study examined the role of secure housing and social support as predictors of psychological well-being of individuals following a period of homelessness. Using linear mixed models for longitudinal data, we investigated how changes in social support predicted changes in individuals’ self-reported personal well-being, life satisfaction and mood following a period of homelessness (n = 119), controlling for housing status, alcohol use and employment status. The results showed that remaining homeless predicted poorer personal well-being, life satisfaction and mood. In addition, changes in social support predicted well-being over and above housing stability. Implications of findings for policy and practice in the homeless sector are discussed.

Homeless for the First Time in Later Life: An Australian Study

This article explores pathways into homelessness by older Australians, with a particular focus on first-time homelessness. Drawing on a multi-method study including data mining of 561 client records and 20 interviews with service providers, the distinctive nature of older peoples homelessness is demonstrated. Three pathways to homelessness in later life are identified. With close to 70 per cent of the participants having had a conventional housing history, the article reveals in rich detail the circumstances surrounding critical housing incidents for older Australians. It shows that older people are at risk when they are evicted, are unable to continue to living with family, face unaffordable rent in the private rental market, cannot continue living in inaccessible rental housing, as well as experience a breakdown in an important relationship. The results provide key material to inform the design of services and policy initiatives to prevent and address homelessness for older Australians.

Surveillance in supportive housing: intrusion or autonomy?

The interdisciplinary literature demonstrates that the built form constitutes home when people have capacity to exercise control. Consistent with normative ideas of autonomy and freedom, home is a place where we are free from surveillance; at home we expect to live of our own volition. Freedom and autonomy in the home are contrasted with the public realm, and the value of privacy in the home is central for self-determination and identity construction. In line with such reasoning, surveillance in housing is theorised, and indeed widely assumed, as antithetical to home. This paper presents empirical material to examine how surveillance in supportive housing is understood by those with firsthand experiences as tenants and service providers. The research draws on in-depth interviews with tenants (n = 28) and service providers (n = 22) in single-site supportive housing in Australia. The empirical material demonstrates how surveillance is experienced as intrusive, but that surveillance also promotes the conditions for people to feel safe and to exert control over their lives. The research shows how tenants actively used surveillance as a desirable resource, including using surveillance to restrict unwanted visitors. Surveillance achieved functions, particularly safety and security, that individuals were unable to experience as homeless or achieve in housing through informal controls.

Discrimination and well-being amongst the homeless: the role of multiple group membership

The homeless are a vulnerable population in many respects. Those experiencing homelessness not only experience personal and economic hardship they also frequently face discrimination and exclusion because of their housing status. Although past research has shown that identifying with multiple groups can buffer against the negative consequences of discrimination on well-being, it remains to be seen whether such strategies protect well-being of people who are homeless. We investigate this issue in a longitudinal study of 119 individuals who were homeless. The results showed that perceived group-based discrimination at T1 was associated with fewer group memberships, and lower subsequent well-being at T2. There was no relationship between personal discrimination at T1 on multiple group memberships at T2. The findings suggest that the experience of group-based discrimination may hinder connecting with groups in the broader social world — groups that could potentially protect the individual against the negative impact of homelessness and discrimination.

Indigenous Rough Sleeping in Darwin, Australia: ‘Out of Place’ in an Urban Setting

Much of what is known of street homelessness is informed by accounts from urban centres throughout North America and the UK. The nature of the problem and the ways in which it is addressed are implicitly assumed to be similar across diverse major cities. The street homeless are thought to be highly marginalised and vulnerable. In turn, contemporary policy aims to provide housing/accommodation and welfare to address this form of homelessness as deep exclusion. Based on empirical research in Australia’s northernmost capital city, Darwin, this article demonstrates the role of culture in how homelessness is experienced and addressed. It argues that cultural mobility and modes of behaviour that normalise rough sleeping are embedded within condoned poverty and discriminatory legislation directed towards Indigenous people. Indigenous people are constructed as out of place in urban environments and rather than housing and welfare, the focus is directed towards moving the problem.