Comentario teológico

Data collection took place over 15 months (December 2015-February 2017). Thirty seven interviews were carried out with 35 participants. This included 29 interviewees with experience of homelessness (two met me for a second interview) and six staff members. Data collection can be viewed in three phases, as represented in figure 4.1 below:

─ Phase one included the first ten interviews which I coded in detail to get an understanding of the key processes that I wanted to follow up on.

─ Phase two included interviews with 19 individuals as well as recruitment for the longitudinal aspect of the study (see section 3.5.4). This resulted in two follow up interviews—the process is described in more detail in section 4.2.2. Analysis continued throughout the data collection process. Focused codes were compared against large sections of uncoded interviews to check that the emerging patterns reflected the data. Phase two also involved theoretical sampling to further saturate categories (see section 3.6.5).

─ Phase three included the six staff interviews which helped saturate the theoretical categories.

Figure 4.1. Number of people interviewed at the three phases of data collection

4.1.1 Characteristics

Of the 35 people who participated in the study, 29 had personal experience of homelessness and the remainder were staff. Those who were using or had formerly used homelessness services ranged in age from 20 to 67 and five were women. Eight persons were recruited in Ireland and 21 in the English city. There was one follow up interview

Phase 1. Interviews with 10 people with

experience of homelessness

Phase 2. Interviews with 19 people with

experience of homelessness

2 follow up interviews

in each country. All staff were UK based, although staff from an Irish service were invited to participate. At the time of the interview, 12 people were in their own accommodation, 16 were using hostel accommodation and one person was in a supported housing project (see tables 4.1 and 4.2 for more details).

Participant number

Name Gender Age Location at time of interview

Duration of time at that location

1 Rico Male 26 Hostel 2.5 months

2 Amy Female 20 Hostel 2 months

3 Sandra Female 33 Supported housing

2 months & 12 months*

4 Roxy Male 42 Hostel 2 months

5 Richard Male 25 Hostel 1 month

6 Daniel Male 44 Flat 3 months

7 Xenophon Male 41 Flat 4 months & 9 months*

8 Brian Male 36 Flat 3 months

9 Garfield Male 50 Flat 5 months

10 Harold Male 64 Flat 6 years

*Follow up interview Table 4.1. Characteristics of participants interviewed in phase 1

Participant number

Name Gender Age Location at time of interview

Duration of time at that location

11 Bernice Female 42 Flat 4 months

12 Timothy Male 20 Hostel 2 months

14 David Male 58 Hostel 12 months

15 Snoop Male 30 Hostel 3 months

16 Celeana Female 21 Hostel 18 months

17 Michael Male 40 Hostel 3 months

18 Ivor Male 61 Flat 8 months

19 Eddie Male 58 Hostel 12 months

20 Ozzric Male 45 Hostel 2 months

21 William Male 38 Hostel 2.5 months

22 Matt Male 26 Hostel 1 month

23 Stan Male 31 Hostel 2 months

24 Edgar Male 31 Hostel 5 months

25 Harry Male 28 Hostel 2 months

26 Islam Male 32 Hostel 4 months

27 Tony Male 58 Flat 2.5 years

28 Sean Male 67 Flat 4 years

29 Joe Male 54 Flat 3 years

Table 4.2. Characteristics of participants interviewed in phase 2

Within phase three of the data collection process, all six participants were staff members with a range of experience in the area of homelessness from 1.33 years to over 30 years. Table 4.3 presents more details on the staff interviewed.

Participant number

30 Aidan Development manager Over 30 years

31 Maud Support co-ordinator 5 years

32 Carol Employment and training support worker

1.33 years

33 Liz Support worker 10.5 years

34 Rita Support worker 19 years

35 Martyn Support worker 12 years

Table 4.3. Characteristics of participants interviewed in phase 3

4.1.2 Participant vignettes

Within constructivist grounded theory we acknowledge that participants understand and interpret their experiences based on their backgrounds, situations and perspectives (Charmaz, 2014). A very brief background (pen portrait) of the participants garnered from their narratives during the interviews is included in appendix 28 to help place their experiences in context.

4.1.3 Transitions through homelessness

The cyclical and episodic nature of homelessness has long been recognised (Clapham et

al., 2014; May, 2000; Mayock, Sheridan & Parker, 2015; Thompson et al., 2004) and this

was apparent across the interviews. It was Matt’s third stay at the hostel—he had previously stayed there in 2009 and 2012, when aged 19 and 22. He had moved from the hostel to various private rented flats, been to prison, stayed with friends and with family. He, most recently, had stayed with an aunt for over seven months but things, as he described, ‘kicked off’ (Matt, line reference 180) and he had to leave. Although Harold (age 64) had been in his current flat for six years, he described a history of over 40 years of rough sleeping and hostel use across the UK, as well as staying with family and in supported temporary housing for short periods intermittently. This dynamic (non-

linear) process of moving between homelessness services, hostels and supported housing, rough sleeping, private rented accommodations, stays with friends and family members, as well as spells in prisons and hospitals was a common narrative shared by the majority of participants. In some situations, the moves were imposed, for example being evicted or asked to leave services, prison release dates and relationship breakdowns. Garfield became homeless at the age of 48, when he was evicted by bailiffs for rent arrears. As he was the sole occupant of a two-bedroom house, his rent had increased because of a reduction in his Housing Benefit Entitlement due to the Bedroom Tax (Spare Room Subsidy) introduced in 2013. Harry, who returned to the hostel when friends with whom he was staying temporarily ‘kicked me out for no random reason’ (Harry, 244), illustrated the precarious arrangement of ‘sofa surfing’. In other cases, participants made a proactive decision to leave a living situation and return to homelessness services. Amy, aged 20, was using the hostel for the third time. She described how she decided to leave a flat she shared with a boyfriend in another city, with ‘just the clothes on my back’ (Amy, 340) because of the level of drug use and feelings of neglect. Rico was also a returnee to the hostel, after two years. On this occasion, Rico recalled asking the probation service to place him somewhere other than the private rented flat he had been staying in as he felt he ‘couldn’t handle it’ (Rico, 207). He described having no electricity or gas and spending all day in bed.