Background
Methods
Understanding causality within realist evaluation
Understanding realist evaluation
Rationale for using RE in this study
Project design
Housing Association | |
• Community-based Housing Association, providing social rented housing and operating a subsidiary regeneration organisation which focuses on employment and community development. Aims to provide affordable housing in the social rented sector (SRS) to low income households with a variety of needs, as well as contributing to community sustainability and regeneration through non-housing activities. Owns and manages around 5500 properties. | |
Letting Agency | |
• Social enterprise letting agency which manages property for private rented sector (PRS) landlords. Combined with investment arm which purchases its own property and rents it, through the letting agency arm. Social mission to provide high quality housing in the PRS to vulnerable households. Provides tenancy support service, funded from service charge income. Manages around 250 properties on behalf of private landlords and owns a further 200. | |
Rent Deposit Schemes | |
• Voluntary sector organisation running two Rent Deposit Schemes (RDS), which facilitate access to the PRS for households at risk of homelessness. Provides deposit guarantee to enable vulnerable households without savings to access PRS tenancies, as well as a level of tenancy support over the first year of the tenancy. Tenants are expected to save up their deposit over the first year of their tenancy instead of being asked to provide it up-front, before their tenancy begins. Combined, the two schemes support around 100 people into tenancies each year. |
Phase 1 – developing the initial hypotheses
Organisation | Interviewees |
---|---|
A Housing Association | • Assistant Director of Housing Services • Housing Manager • Housing Officer • Concierge • Regeneration Manager • Community Support/Development Officers × 2 • Cultural Officer • Development Officer (money advice service) |
B Letting Agency | • Director • Assistant Director • Tenancy Support Officer • Property Inspection Officer |
C Rent Deposit Schemes | • Service Manager • Team Leader × 2 • Senior Development Officer • Development Officer/Support Worker × 4 • Admin Worker × 2 |
CMO-C | Contextual factors | Mechanism | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
1 | • Security of tenure • Tenancy support • Responsiveness of landlord to problems • Expectations, situation and capacity of tenant | Positive tenancy experience reduces stress and provides tenants with autonomy and control | Improved health and wellbeing |
2 | • Level of investment in property prior to tenancy | Quality housing provides tenants with a comfortable space in which to relax and a sense of status | Improved health and wellbeing |
3 | • Rent levels • Income levels • Benefits system (especially changes) • Landlord responses to financial issues | Affordable housing reduces financial stress and frees up income for other expenditure | Improved health and wellbeing |
4 | • Community development activities of landlord • Opportunities for choice of neighbourhood • Existing networks of tenants • Tenancy support | Good neighbourhood environment and supportive social/community networks around housing location reduce stress and increase opportunities for socialisation | Improved health and wellbeing |
Phase 2 – data collection
Organisation | Wave 1 | Wave 2 | Wave 3 |
---|---|---|---|
Housing Association | 56 | 33 | 23 |
Letting Agency | 50 | 34 | 17 |
Rent Deposit Schemes | 15 | 8 | 5 |
Total | 121 | 75 | 45 |
Housing Assoc. | Letting Agency | Rent Deposit Schemes | Total | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Full sample | 33 | 34 | 8 | 75 | |
Gender | Female | 17 | 18 | 5 | 40 |
Male | 16 | 16 | 3 | 35 | |
Age | Younger (< 35) | 12 | 20 | 2 | 34 |
Older (= > 35) | 21 | 14 | 6 | 41 | |
Disability | Disabled | 14 | 5 | 3 | 22 |
Non-disabled | 19 | 29 | 5 | 53 | |
Employment | Employed | 8 | 23 | 0 | 31 |
Not employed | 25 | 11 | 8 | 44 | |
Household type | Household without children | 21 | 26 | 5 | 52 |
Household with children | 12 | 8 | 3 | 23 | |
Household income | < 50% median | 30 | 21 | 8 | 59 |
50–60% median | 1 | 4 | 0 | 5 | |
60–100% median | 2 | 7 | 0 | 9 | |
> 100% median | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
Housing Benefit | Full or partial Housing Benefit | 25 | 7 | 8 | 40 |
No Housing Benefit | 8 | 27 | 0 | 35 | |
Previous housing situation | Social housing | 9 | 2 | 2 | 13 |
Private rented sector | 8 | 21 | 2 | 31 | |
Homeless | 10 | 5 | 4 | 19 | |
Other | 6 | 6 | 0 | 12 |
Hypothesis | Variable | Type of data |
---|---|---|
Independent variables | ||
1 | Overall satisfaction with housing organisation | 5-point Likert-style scale |
1 | Comparison of current and previous experience of renting | 5-point rating from ‘A lot better’ to ‘A lot worse’ |
2 | Rating of property quality | 5-point rating from ‘Very good’ to ‘Very poor’ |
2 | Satisfaction with maintenance service | 5-point Likert-style scale |
3 | Rating of ability to cope financially over the last few months | 5-point rating from ‘All of the time’ to ‘Never’ |
3 | Rating of ability to cope with paying rent over the last few months | 5-point rating from ‘All of the time’ to ‘Never’ |
4 | Rating of neighbourhood quality | 4-point rating from ‘Very good’ to ‘Very poor’ |
4 | Index created from four social support questionsa | Index (5-point Likert-style scale for each question) |
Dependent variables | ||
All hypotheses | World Health Organization 5-point Wellbeing Scale (WHO5) – score created from five statements of wellbeing over the preceding two weeks | 6-point rating from ‘All of the time’ to ‘At no time’ |
All hypotheses | Self-rated change in health and wellbeing since moving into new property (self-rated H&WB change) | 5-point rating from ‘A lot better’ to ‘A lot worse’ |
Phase 3 – analysis to test and refine the theories
Results
Examining outcome regularities across full sample
Hypothesis | Independent variable | Wave 2 (WHO5) | Wave 3 (WHO5) | Wave 1–2 (HWB change) | Wave 1–3 (HWB change) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rho | Sig. | Rho | Sig. | Rho | Sig. | Rho | Sig. | |||
1 | Experience of secure, stable tenancy reduces stress and provides tenants with a secure base from which to exercise autonomy | Overall satisfaction with housing organisation | 0.27 | 0.02* | 0.28 | 0.06 | 0.43 | 0.001*** | 0.26 | 0.09 |
Comparison of current and previous experience of rentinga | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0.38 | 0.002** | 0.23 | 0.1 | ||
2 | Quality housing provides tenants which a comfortable space in which to relax and a sense of status | Rating of property quality | 0.28 | 0.02* | 0.30 | 0.05* | 0.31 | 0.007** | 0.29 | 0.05* |
Satisfaction with maintenance service | 0.18 | 0.2 | 0.095 | 0.6 | 0.46 | 0.009** | −0.033 | 0.9 | ||
3 | Affordable housing reduces financial stress and frees up income for other expenditure | Rating of ability to cope financially over the last few months | 0.32 | 0.005** | 0.57 | 0.001*** | 0.14 | 0.2 | 0.18 | 0.2 |
Rating of ability to cope with paying rent over the last few months | 0.047 | 0.7 | 0.081 | 0.6 | 0.030 | 0.8 | 0.17 | 0.3 | ||
4 | Good neighbourhood environment and supportive social/community networks around housing location reduce stress and increased opportunities for socialisation | Rating of neighbourhood quality | 0.46 | 0.001*** | 0.44 | 0.003** | 0.25 | 0.04* | 0.20 | 0.2 |
Index created from four social support questions | 0.33 | 0.005** | 0.30 | 0.04* | 0.28 | 0.02* | −0.001 | 1.0 |
Exploring contextual factors
Hypothesis 1 – positive tenancy experience
Correlation with Wave 1–2 health and wellbeing change | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Satisfaction with organisation | Renting experience (comparison to previous) | |||||
n | Rho | Sig. | Rho | Sig. | ||
Total | Total | 75 | 0.43*** | 0.001 | 0.38** | 0.002 |
Organisationa | Housing Assoc. | 33 | 0.51** | 0.003 | 0.50* | 0.01 |
Letting Agency | 34 | 0.38* | 0.03 | 0.45* | 0.01 | |
Gender | Female | 40 | 0.49** | 0.001 | 0.33 | 0.05 |
Male | 35 | 0.35* | 0.04 | 0.42* | 0.03 | |
Age | Young | 34 | 0.55** | 0.001 | 0.35 | 0.08 |
Old | 41 | 0.34* | 0.03 | 0.41* | 0.01 | |
Disability | Disabled | 22 | 0.51* | 0.02 | 0.38 | 0.09 |
Not disabled | 53 | 0.38** | 0.005 | 0.43** | 0.005 | |
Employment | Employed | 31 | 0.56** | 0.001 | 0.47* | 0.02 |
Not employed | 44 | 0.35* | 0.02 | 0.35* | 0.03 | |
Housing Benefit | Full or partial HB | 40 | 0.46** | 0.003 | 0.42* | 0.01 |
No HB | 35 | 0.40* | 0.02 | 0.37 | 0.06 | |
Household Type | Children | 23 | 0.42* | 0.05 | 0.30 | 0.2 |
No children | 52 | 0.46** | 0.001 | 0.42** | 0.005 | |
Previous housing situation | Homeless | 19 | 0.54* | 0.02 | 0.70** | 0.005 |
Social housing | 13 | 0.63* | 0.02 | −0.18 | 0.6 | |
PRS | 31 | 0.43* | 0.02 | 0.38* | 0.04 | |
Other | 12 | −0.053 | 0.9 | 0.58 | 0.2 |
Hypothesis 2 – property quality
Correlation with Wave 1–2 health and wellbeing change | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tenant rating of property quality | Satisfaction with maintenance service | ||||||
n | Rho | Sig. | n | Rho | Sig. | ||
Total | Total | 73 | 0.31** | 0.007 | 32 | 0.46** | 0.009 |
Organisation | Housing Assoc. | 31 | 0.081 | 0.7 | 12 | 0.67* | 0.02 |
Letting Agency | 33 | 0.56** | 0.001 | 15 | 0.50 | 0.06 | |
Gender | Female | 38 | 0.44** | 0.006 | 20 | 0.52* | 0.02 |
Male | 35 | 0.16 | 0.4 | 12 | 0.33 | 0.3 | |
Age | Young | 33 | 0.50** | 0.003 | 12 | 0.19 | 0.6 |
Old | 40 | 0.16 | 0.3 | 20 | 0.54* | 0.01 | |
Disability | Disabled | 22 | 0.056 | 0.8 | 11 | 0.51 | 0.1 |
Not disabled | 51 | 0.57*** | 0.001 | 21 | 0.45* | 0.04 | |
Employment | Employed | 31 | 0.46** | 0.009 | 12 | 0.41 | 0.2 |
Not employed | 42 | 0.25 | 0.1 | 20 | 0.42 | 0.06 | |
Housing Benefit | Full or partial HB | 38 | 0.17 | 0.3 | 19 | 0.50* | 0.03 |
No HB | 35 | 0.51** | 0.002 | 13 | 0.35 | 0.2 | |
Household Type | Children | 23 | 0.25 | 0.3 | 11 | 0.086 | 0.8 |
No children | 50 | 0.34* | 0.01 | 21 | 0.59** | 0.005 | |
Previous housing situation | Homeless | 17 | 0.32 | 0.2 | 4 | 0.33 | 0.7 |
Social housing | 13 | 0.18 | 0.6 | 7 | 0.35 | 0.4 | |
PRS | 31 | 0.51** | 0.003 | 21 | 0.49* | 0.02 | |
Other | 12 | 0.45 | 0.1 | 0 | NA | NA |
Hypothesis 3 – affordability
Correlation with Wave 1–2 health and wellbeing change | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tenant rating of ability to cope with paying rent | Tenant rating of ability to cope financially | ||||||
n | Rho | Sig. | n | Rho | Sig. | ||
Total | Total | 55 | 0.030 | 0.8 | 75 | 0.14 | 0.2 |
Organisation | Housing Assoc. | 23 | −0.13 | 0.6 | 32 | 0.19 | 0.3 |
Letting Agency | 24 | 0.24 | 0.3 | 34 | 0.26 | 0.1 | |
Gender | Female | 29 | 0.31 | 0.1 | 40 | 0.095 | 0.6 |
Male | 26 | −0.37 | 0.06 | 35 | 0.17 | 0.3 | |
Age | Young | 21 | 0.057 | 0.8 | 34 | 0.089 | 0.6 |
Old | 34 | −0.054 | 0.8 | 41 | 0.16 | 0.3 | |
Disability | Disabled | 21 | −0.065 | 0.8 | 22 | 0.12 | 0.6 |
Not disabled | 34 | 0.065 | 0.7 | 53 | 0.22 | 0.1 | |
Employment | Employed | 22 | 0.22 | 0.3 | 31 | 0.38 | 0.03* |
Not employed | 33 | −0.15 | 0.4 | 44 | 0.018 | 0.9 | |
Housing Benefit | Full or partial HB | 31 | 0.10 | 0.6 | 40 | 0.086 | 0.6 |
No HB | 24 | −0.15 | 0.5 | 35 | 0.37 | 0.03* | |
Household Type | Children | 17 | 0.51 | 0.04* | 23 | 0.33 | 0.1 |
No children | 38 | −0.21 | 0.21 | 52 | 0.074 | 0.6 | |
Previous housing situation | Homeless | 8 | −0.23 | 0.6 | 19 | 0.21 | 0.4 |
Social housing | 13 | 0.17 | 0.6 | 13 | 0.47 | 0.1 | |
PRS | 31 | −0.22 | 0.2 | 31 | −0.22 | 0.2 | |
Other | 3 | NA | NA | 12 | 0.48 | 0.1 |
Hypothesis 4 – Neighbourhood and support networks
Correlation with Wave 1–2 health and wellbeing change | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tenant rating of neighbourhood quality | Social support network index | |||||
n | Rho | Sig. | Rho | Sig. | ||
Total | Total | 75 | 0.25* | 0.04 | 0.28* | 0.02 |
Organisation | Housing Assoc. | 33 | 0.25 | 0.2 | 0.42* | 0.02 |
Letting Agency | 34 | 0.34* | 0.05 | 0.20 | 0.3 | |
Gender | Female | 40 | 0.16 | 0.3 | 0.30 | 0.07 |
Male | 35 | 0.31 | 0.08 | 0.26 | 0.1 | |
Age | Young | 34 | 0.26 | 0.1 | 0.32 | 0.07 |
Old | 41 | 0.22 | 0.2 | 0.22 | 0.2 | |
Disability | Disabled | 22 | 0.32 | 0.2 | 0.45* | 0.04 |
Not disabled | 53 | 0.26 | 0.07 | 0.19 | 0.2 | |
Employment | Employed | 31 | 0.39* | 0.03 | 0.23 | 0.2 |
Not employed | 44 | 0.19 | 0.2 | 0.32* | 0.04 | |
Housing Benefit | Full or partial HB | 40 | 0.20 | 0.2 | 0.26 | 0.1 |
No HB | 35 | 0.36* | 0.04 | 0.23 | 0.2 | |
Household Type | Children | 23 | 0.061 | 0.8 | 0.17 | 0.4 |
No children | 52 | 0.32* | 0.03 | 0.31* | 0.03 | |
Previous housing situation | Homeless | 19 | 0.56* | 0.02 | 0.30 | 0.2 |
Social housing | 13 | 0.15 | 0.6 | 0.36 | 0.3 | |
PRS | 31 | 0.28 | 0.1 | 0.38* | 0.04 | |
Other | 12 | 0.40 | 0.2 | 0.074 | 0.8 |
Discussion
Hypothesis 1 – positive tenancy experience
Version | Contextual factors | Mechanism | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
Original | • Security of tenure • Tenancy support • Responsiveness of landlord to problems • Expectations, situation and capacity of tenant | Positive tenancy experience reduces stress and provides tenants with autonomy and control | Improved health and wellbeing |
Refined | • Previous experience and expectations of housing service • Standard of housing service (possibly including support and responsiveness) | Experience of (comparatively) good housing service reduces stress and enables tenants to gain benefits from housing as home | Improved health and wellbeing |
Hypothesis 2 – property quality
Version | Contextual factors | Mechanism | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
Original | • Level of investment in property prior to tenancy | Quality housing provides tenants with a comfortable space in which to relax and a sense of status | Improved health and wellbeing |
Refined | • Tenant characteristics (including gender, age, disability, socio-economic status, household type – these may relate to capacity) • Previous housing experience • Property quality | Quality housing provides tenants with a comfortable space in which to relax and a sense of status | Improved health and wellbeing |
Hypothesis 3 – affordability
Hypothesis 4 – Neighbourhood and support networks
Version | Contextual factors | Mechanism | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
Original | • Community development activities of landlord • Opportunities for choice of neighbourhood • Existing networks of tenants • Tenancy support | Good neighbourhood environment and supportive social/community networks around housing location reduce stress and increase opportunities for socialisation | Improved health and wellbeing |
Refined | • Tenant characteristics (including disability, socio-economic status and household type) • Previous experience and expectations of neighbourhood/community • Aspects of neighbourhood quality (which may relate to activities of landlord and/or choice of neighbourhood) • Access to social support networks (which may relate to all of the above) | Good neighbourhood environment and supportive social/community networks around housing location reduce stress and increase opportunities for socialisation | Improved health and wellbeing |