Security of Tenure in Social Housing in England

Competing visions: security of tenure and the welfarisation of English social housing

“…This may be conceptualised as undermining their 'ontological security' , pertaining to the deep psychological need that all human beings have for a 'home' or other locale to operate as a site of constancy, routine and control in their lives-a secure base around which to build one's identity in a world that may often be experienced as turbulent and threatening (Dupuis & Thorns, 1998;Easthope, 2004). Particularly for those already struggling on low incomes, with health problems and/or caring responsibilities, this loss of ontological security may be a substantial additional source of stress and uncertainty (see also Robinson & Walshaw, 2014), as was emphasised in the House of Lords debates: this measure [mandatory FTTs] will destroy the security that is so important to families with children, disabled people and carers, people with mental health problems and those who have experienced homelessness. (Baroness Lister, HL Deb 18 April 2016 vol 771 c502)…”

“…Equally, it may be argued that the actual (dis)benefits of FTTs are in reality of little import in this policy landscape. What may be more significant is that the ending of security of tenure for social tenants fits symbolically with a broader 'reframing of the relationship between state and citizen' (Flint, 2015, p. 41), within which overwhelming emphasis is given to citizen self-reliance, such that interventions to assist disadvantaged groups are considered legitimate only where they are both time-limited and designed to offer 'a hand up, not a hand out' (Robinson & Walshaw, 2014). This normative stance, linked to the 'welfare dependency' argument highlighted above, is driven by the conviction that poverty is largely the product of personal conduct not income distribution, and that welfare safety nets, particularly cash transfers, are part of the problem not the solution (HM Government, 2012).…”

“…(Senior housing manager) Far from aiding social mobility by breaking the 'circle of dependency' that permanent social tenancies are said to 'lock' people into (Greenhalgh & Moss, 2009;Mason, 2015), FTTs with income-related renewal criteria were viewed by some in this group as undermining work incentives: 'You're in employment, you have to go!' (Senior housing manager) (see also Hills, 2007;Robinson, 2012;Robinson & Walshaw, 2014).…”

“…It also seems likely that there is an important ideological or ethical component to decision-making on FTTs, whereby some associations in England share the 'philosophical' attachment to social housing as providing 'a secure home for life' that has been central to the vision articulated by those opposing the imposition of FTTs in Parliamentary debates and in Labour-led local authorities (see also Robinson & Walshaw, 2014).…”

Housing as a social determinant of health and wellbeing: developing an empirically-informed realist theoretical framework

“…Thus from the perspective of ‘ontological security’ [ 15 , 16 ], the home is seen as providing a secure base from which people can develop confidence in self and social identity [ 17 , 18 ]. Moreover, research across different housing sectors [ 19 , 20 ] and examining the specific experiences of different social groups [ 21 – 23 ] suggests that the subjective experience of housing and housing services can be important in creating a sense of home and underpinning ontological security.…”