Instrumento de recogida de datos Elaboración y validación

Discrimination is viewed as how one or a group of individuals, or an agency impose their values and beliefs on other individuals or groups such as people with disabilities. All respondents who discussed discrimination, understandably and validly discuss the issue from an individual‟s perspective, whether it is about themselves or others. A Marxist perspective views the notion of discrimination and the comments made as acceptance of the dominant ideology which views society as being made up by individuals. However, by focussing on the issue of housing relating specifically to mental health service users, restricts the use of conventional Marxist theory of class analysis in relation to the antagonistic relationship between the capitalist and working classes. Therefore the use of the social model of disability, specifically the notion of ideology in relationship to disability, is used to analyse the comments made within this theme.

The private landlords and two property managers who had worked with people who experience mental illness were aware of their difficulty to access housing. Mental health service users discussed the discrimination that they faced when looking for and keeping accommodation both through the private sector and with HNZC. Mental health service users‟ response to HNZC was in contradiction to the HNZC written responses about working with people who experience mental illness.

The ideology of the dominant capitalist class portrays relationships where individuals are free to do as they wish in society (Bedggood, 1980; Gough, 1979). Gramsci provided a connection between the social structures and ideologies of society through the concept of hegemony where the dominant ideology becomes the „natural‟ reality of society. It then becomes a way of thinking that is taken for granted over social, economic and political issues. Capitalism perpetuates and promotes the negative connotations of disability

through a non-neutral ideology that permeates society. So in terms of disability, society is defined through an ideology embedded in the social conscience and therefore seen as a “fact” (Oliver, 1990). In this sense comments made by property managers and private landlords support the notion of how capitalism perpetuates the connotations of disability despite a general acceptance that discrimination exists in society. This is due to their focus being on the problems that exist for the individual mental health service user and not acknowledging or being unaware of the structural disadvantages that exit in society for mental health service users.

If one is looking for discriminatory comments then perhaps property manager 1 is an example - describing people who experience mental illness as “people outside of society”. However, there was also an awareness of discrimination from property managers and private landlords. Examples of comments included an awareness of the difficulty for people who experience mental illness in accessing affordable housing and trying to support people at times. Issues around stigma were acknowledged, with the manager of CORT stating that one real estate agent refuses to house people who have a mental illness in private rentals. Private landlords discussed how they would not or hope not to discriminate against mental health service users. Mental health service users expressed the pressure of not divulging to prospective landlords that they have a mental illness. HNZC discussed how staff is trained to help individuals who experience mental illness. This was however, disputed by both mental health service users and mental health workers.

One can argue that the above comments, although not necessarily negative, define disability by the ideology of individualism which supports the historical process of the medicalisation of disability. The medicalisation of disability underpins the view of disabled people as having a personal problem where the medical profession intervenes in their lives to prevent, treat and cure disability. The mental health service users are excluded from society as they are unable to take part in the production process and therefore not able to take part in the social and economic relations under capitalism (Oliver, 1990). This results in mental health service users with limited prospects of finding

work and therefore likely to remain as long term beneficiaries. This limits mental health service users‟ access to affordable, suitable housing. Property managers 2 and 3 and private landlords appeared to recognise the difficulties for people who experience mental illness. However, mental health service users and the CORT manager expressed experiences of discrimination from landlords and property managers in both the public and private sectors.

This ideological construction of the free individual is suggested with HNZC comments that all tenants are expected to receive the same service. The issue here is that the service provided by HNZC does not match the requirements for mental health service users. Comments by HNZC that their staff will work with mental health services are disputed by the responses from mental health service users and mental health workers. Comments made by HNZC that Neighbourhood Units work closely with Mental Health Services is an acceptable response in supporting tenants to maintain a tenancy. However, it raises the issue about how far the medical profession is involved in supporting and also determining the suitability of a person in relation to housing options. This also suggests that HNZC comments towards mental health service users is made within the confines of the dominant ideology and is therefore made on behalf of mental health service users rather than in conjunction with them.

The previous themes have identified structural disadvantages that exist for mental health service users in accessing affordable housing within a capitalist society. This theme suggests that the existing structural disadvantages are to a certain degree hidden from members of society. Services to support mental health service users accessing housing are made to support the individual to fit into the current requirements expected of an able-bodied or in this case an able-minded society. The question is whether these services are appropriate. The comments made above suggest that mental health service users who live in private rentals have to rely on the goodwill of a landlord or a property manager together with the limited resources provided by mental health services to maintain their tenancy. This, together with HNZC policy, is an example of society not adjusting to those who experience mental illness, as it

appears it is the limitations of an individual which are the cause of the problem. It is the failure of a capitalist society to provide the appropriate services to ensure that the housing needs of mental health service users are fully met. If this is the case then the inability of society to adjust to mental health service users results in this group remaining an oppressed group within society.

Summary

The themes, utilising a combination of Marxist theory, the social model of disability and a history of housing policy identify barriers for mental health service users in accessing affordable housing. Mental health service users are trapped in the low income bracket as they do not fit into the requirements of the capitalist labour market which determines their existence on low incomes. Successive governments have supported policies through varying economic approaches where housing is a speculative commodity. An attempt at the decommodification of state housing occurred from 1935 – 1949. However, since then, and particularly from the 1970s, state housing policy has been one of a residual approach. The outcome of this is that affordable housing in the public sector is inaccessible and state housing is of poor quality and unsuitable for mental health service users. The social housing sector is small and although it may provide quality homes, rent is charged at market rates, or near to market rates, so is also unaffordable for mental health service users. Discrimination was related to the structural disadvantages that occur for mental health service users. The social model of disability explains how the perpetuation of the negative connotations of disability within a capitalist society makes it difficult for mental health service users to access housing. This is further emphasised by the ideology of individualism which supports the historical process of the medicalisation of disability which views disabled people as having a personal problem leading to the ongoing discrimination as described by mental health service users. While mental illness continues to be seen as a health issue rather than a social issue, discrimination towards accessing affordable and suitable housing will continue in the public and private housing sector. To conclude, the analysis described

within the five themes identified a number of existing barriers preventing mental health service users from accessing affordable housing.

Chapter Eight –Conclusions of the research

Introduction

This chapter begins by restating the issue of housing affordability. This is followed by the conclusions, strengths, limitations and the implications of the research.