Homelessness Prevention through One-To-One Coaching: The Relationship between Coaching, Class Stigma, and Self-Esteem

ABSTRACT

Homelessness remains a prevalent issue, and estimates of the number of people without adequate shelter in the UK suggest that the issue is growing. This research draws on literature on the cognitive impact of poverty, stigma, and self-esteem to show how confidence is improved by coaching programmes with those at risk of homelessness. The paper is based on empirical research into one such programme which offers one-to-one guidance on the interlinked issues of financial management, digital skills, and employability. The research shows that coaching helps to provide relief for participants, which in turn frees up “mental bandwidth”, allowing them to focus on issues such as managing debt and rent arrears. Confidence and self-esteem, which are often lowered by class-related stigma, are also shown to improve, and it is concluded here that this is largely due to participants becoming more closely aligned with normative neoliberal assignments of value.

KEYWORDS:

• Poverty
• digital exclusion
• coaching
• neoliberalism
• class

Introduction

Homelessness has long been emblematic of the sharpening of inequality which has accompanied the spread of neoliberal capitalism, which sees marginalized populations pushed out of accommodation by rising rents, thereby heightening a shortage of low-cost housing, and making homelessness more likely (see Leitner 1989). Homelessness itself is a contested concept, and while there is an abundance of literature on the issue, there is no single agreed definition. As Hastings (2020) indicates, definitions range from narrow views of homelessness which view it as entailing a complete absence of shelter (i.e. sleeping rough), to broader understandings which view people living in accommodation which does not meet a certain standard to be homeless. This paper takes a broader understanding of homelessness, to include those who have lost their homes and who, as a result, may live in temporary accommodation, stay for short periods with friends and family, or otherwise lack a secure place to stay, as well as those living on the streets.

Just as a definition of homelessness is difficult to pin down, so too are the factors which contribute to homelessness: As Bramley and Fitzpatrick (2018) argue, the causes of homelessness are influenced by a combination of closely related structural and individual factors. It is these individual factors which programmes offering coaching for people at risk of becoming homeless seek to tackle, often with a view to alleviating pressure on marginalized people, and to prevent social exclusion and homelessness.

This paper takes one-to-one coaching aimed at homelessness prevention as its focus, and seeks to interrogate the roots of the impacts of such coaching on the lives of participants. In particular, the paper focuses on the relationship between coaching, class-related stigma, and self-esteem. In doing so, it draws upon literature which outlines the cognitive effects of poverty (Mani et al. 2013), to show how coaching frees up participants’ “mental bandwidth” (ibid.) to enable them to more effectively tackle the problems of their day to day lives, and improves confidence in this regard. The paper seeks to marry such conceptualizations of confidence-creation with literature on poverty and class-related stigma in order to advance understandings of how discourse on homelessness and poverty shapes interventions in the lives of those at risk of homelessness.

Crucially, we argue here that the improvement in confidence experienced by coaching participants is largely due to participants becoming more closely aligned with normative neoliberal assignments of value, and that coaching is rooted in prevailing discourses which stigmatize the working-class. In unpacking the relationship between social class-related stigma and this response to poverty, we reveal that even while the well-intentioned response of coaching has a positive effect on self-esteem at the individual level, the improvements in confidence which it elicits are rooted in negative moral aspersions about those living in poverty. The extent to which this confidence boost is due to participants learning to find alternative sources of self-value (see Skeggs 2011, 2014) also demands interrogation here.

The following section sets out a conceptual framework for this research by outlining existing literature on the role of coaching in preventing homelessness; stigma and poverty; and on self-esteem in this context. It discusses neoliberal constructions of value in order to highlight the relationship between social class and understandings of poverty (which in turn shape responses to it). Next, the methodology which this paper is based upon is outlined before a qualitative analysis of data from a study of a one-to-one coaching programme is presented. The paper then concludes with reflections on the implications of this study.

Literature Review

Coaching

Debt and rental arrears are frequent triggers for homelessness (see Van Laere, de Wit, and Klazinga 2009; Warnes and Crane 2006). And given that many landlords avoid letting their properties to tenants with debt or rent arrears, these issues are of particular importance. It is such that Busch-Geertsema and Fitzpatrick (2008) suggest that local services which are geared towards preventing rent arrears and for helping those which find themselves in arrears, can be beneficial in preventing homelessness. Indeed, in attempting to address the individual factors which contribute to homelessness, the coaching programme which is the focus of this study aims to help participants to manage their finances, get online, and find work – three interconnected issues.

As Jenkins (2005) argues in her discussion of the neoliberalization of the voluntary sector, “the strong focus of counsellors on their clients’ empowerment primarily creates autonomous, decision-making, self-governing and self-monitoring individuals (the ideal neoliberal subject …)” (p.217). Surely, the same can be said of the role of one-to-one coaching, which aims to empower participants to take control of their finances, and to enable them to make “better” decisions for themselves. Such an approach places the focus of efforts to reverse (social, financial, etc.) exclusion on altering the behaviours and characteristics of those affected by this exclusion, and as such precludes consideration of the role of other (structural) factors which cause these problems. As Marron (2013) suggests, attributing the causes of (financial) exclusion to the level of the individual is predicated on the notion that exclusion is “a purely technical issue which can be solved by fitting individuals to the market” (p.792).

Colley (2003) observes a similar logic in her study of employability-mentoring of “disaffected” youths: the notion that individuals must take responsibility for their own exclusion and their own employability feeds into an approach to mentoring which seeks to transform “young people’s attitudes, values and beliefs” with regards to work, in order that they may “reinvent their own identities as marketable products” (Colley 2003: p.526–527), without consideration of inequalities which shape their experiences (Philip, Shucksmith, and King 2004).

This shift of responsibility onto individuals is characteristic of neoliberal governmentality. Indeed, as the state has become increasingly orientated towards supporting private markets, and welfare-provision is continually subjected to a range of cuts and tightening of restrictions (Kananen 2012), the onus is increasingly placed on individuals to adapt their behaviours in order to provide for themselves and reduce their perceived “burden” on the state (which is itself intertwined with the stigma of poverty (Sutton et al. 2014)). Keil (2009) uses the phrase “roll-with-it neoliberalization” to explain how neoliberal governmentality has become normalized in social life. Roll-with-it neoliberalization, he argues, is the “neoliberalization from within” (p.242) which has been occurring since the turn of the 21^st century, such that neoliberal mindsets and concepts have become normalized across all aspects of everyday life. The internalization of neoliberal governmentality by “already socialized neoliberal subjects” (Keil, 2009: p.242) is integral to this mode of neoliberalization.

Stigma

The focus on responsibilization and self-regulation under neoliberal governmentality has implications for those who do not embody the established norms of self-reliance (i.e. those who rely on state benefits as a result of being unemployed or economically inactive). Indeed, as individualistic identity formation has grown in prominence, and individual responsibility has become emphasized in economic and social realms, divergence from normative behaviour is all too often cast as a choice bound up with one’s (im)morality (Kananen 2012). It is such that people living on state welfare or in social housing are routinely branded as lazy and irresponsible, and are blamed for their own poverty (Shildrick and MacDonald 2013; Power 2005; Jones 2012).

Such representations of people living in poverty are rife in the media, where negative portrayals of people on benefits in television programmes, such as Channel 4’s “Benefits Street” and the BBC’s “The Scheme”, work to vilify whole communities in localities where unemployment is above average (Paterson, Coffey-Glover, and Peplow 2016). By focusing on individuals, Hancock and Mooney (2013) argue, such programmes present poverty as caused by the behaviours and attitudes of those affected, and fail to point towards structural disadvantage. As Tyler (2015) argues, these representations encapsulate what David Cameron’s government called “Broken Britain”. Slater (2014) shows that by attributing inequality and poverty to “family breakdown”, individual circumstances such as drug addiction, and dependency on state welfare, the Broken Britain rhetoric works to produce “institutional ignorance” (p.960) to the structural causes of inequality. Through this framing of such problems as caused by the actions and choices of individuals (who are experiencing the sharp end of social and economic inequality), Tyler (2015) argues, “the deepening precarity of the post-industrial working-classes is narrativized as a ‘moral crisis’” (p.494). As such, people living in poverty or who are in receipt of state welfare are stigmatized, and framed as having failed in some way.

Several studies have demonstrated that such discourse not only affects the way in which the working-class are treated in policy and in the media, but also affects the self-perceptions of the very people stigmatized by such stereotyping (see Wacquant 2008). Indeed, as Bourdieu (1984) argues, “dominated agents” (i.e. the working-class) tend to view themselves through dominant “schemes of perception”, and as such attribute value to themselves in the same way as the “established order” attributes value to them. He suggests, thereby, that “dominated agents” are to some extent complicit in their own domination (Mottier 2002). As such, several studies highlight how the stigma of poverty is frequently internalized by those experiencing it.

For instance, Hamilton (2012) shows that low-income people who are unable to constantly construct their individual identities as consumers are affected by perceived negative judgement in this regard, such that a sense of shame is instilled in them. Attempts to cope with this shame through “conspicuous consumption” practices – typified by the purchase of expensive designer clothing – have also become stigmatized (ibid.). Tyler (2008) shows how such consumption has become associated with “‘bad’, ‘vulgar’ and excessive consumer choices” (p.21), and linked to the figure of the “chav” – a term used to vilify the working-class in the UK. As such, these coping strategies conversely work to reinforce the stigma they are intended to deflect (Hamilton 2012). Further, Shildrick and MacDonald (2013) highlight the way in which people living in poverty develop defensive strategies, deflecting such stigmatizing discourses onto an Other which they viewed to be “undeserving”: for these people, poverty was “a perceived lack of respectability and inability to manage, a moral failure worthy of blame” (p.293).

Self-Esteem

Given this internalization of stigma, it is of little surprise that poverty has been linked to low self-esteem and confidence. Poverty has, in this regard, been shown to have a cognitive impact: in a study of the achievement gap among US high school students from low and high socio-economic backgrounds, Spencer and Castano (2007) demonstrated that when students from low-income backgrounds were asked about their parents’ economic status prior to a test, they performed significantly worse (both in terms of their test scores and in reported confidence) than when they were not asked for such detail. Similarly, Humble and Dixon (2017) argue that children from poorer backgrounds tend to have lower levels of confidence than their wealthier peers, which can have a negative impact on their educational attainment.

Moreover, Mani et al. (2013) find that as well as impacting confidence, the cognitive effects of poverty also extend to a (contextually dependent and temporary) diminishment of mental capacity to deal with other issues. They argue that significant mental resources go towards poverty-related issues, leaving less cognitive capacity, or “mental bandwidth” (Schilbach, Schofield, and Mullainathan 2016), to address other daily concerns. Additionally, in her ethnographic work on poverty and class stigma in St Ann’s, Nottingham, McKenzie (2015) recounts the complex knowledge, decisions and practices employed on a daily basis by low-income residents, including in navigation of the welfare system and budgeting for food. The time (and thought) consuming efforts of life in poverty are often not recognized in neoliberal discourse which equates unemployment with unproductiveness, and often “laziness”, and as such does not recognize the extensive unpaid work of unemployed mothers, for example (Hamilton 2012). By recognizing the mental “bandwidth” which is consumed by such daily concerns, literature on the cognitive impacts of poverty avoids falling into this trap of blaming impoverished people for their own circumstances, and attributing such circumstances to a moral failure.

Mentoring has been shown to provide important benefits to participants in this regard. For example, in a study of the effect of mentoring on poor students in the USA, Beegle (2003) found that mentoring helped students to access information, improved their confidence, and helped them to understand how to fill out applications for financial aid. In doing so, mentoring “reduced the stress of poverty and allowed respondents to focus on their studies for the first time” (Beegle 2003: p.16). In their evaluation of the impact of mentoring on children, Rhodes and Spencer (2005) suggest that increases in children’s sense of self-worth can be attributed to “an internalization of their mentors’ positive appraisals of them” (p.426). However, Jozefowicz-Simbeni and Allen-Meares (2002) attribute the benefits of such mentoring to the exposure to different forms of social and cultural capital which children from low-income backgrounds experience through their mentors. The relationship between such forms of capital and self-worth, or value, is worth considering here.

Importantly in the context of the neoliberal discourse which positions poor working-class people as morally responsible for their own poverty, Skeggs (2011) argues that the neoliberal “possessive individual version became the dominant symbolic model for proper personhood, legitimated through law and the social contract, extended through commodification and morally legitimated” (p.501). Indeed, under this model, people are valued based on their ability to accrue and perform value in a way which is recognizable as denoting the individualism associated with “proper personhood”. As such, individuals are compelled to “extend their opportunities for exploitation by loading themselves with value that is convertible into capitals for themselves and Capital more generally” (Skeggs 2011: p.508).

In this sense, under neoliberalism, personhood is defined by one’s accruement of particular values which may be of individual benefit in the future with regards to capital accumulation (and gaining paid employment), and which mark that individual as a “subject of value”. As Skeggs (2011) demonstrates, such accrual of this particular kind of value (convertible into capital) is unavailable to many – namely, the impoverished working-class. Bourdieu (1987) argues that “agents” occupy distinct positions in social space, based upon the “global volume” and “composition” of their capital, which is an outcome of their “trajectory in social space” (p.4). Thus, agents who occupy certain positions in social space do not encounter (and therefore do not acquire) the symbolic capital (associated with a middle-class habitus) which is required in order to be recognized as legitimate individual subjects of value. As such, people who experience stigma as a result of their class position and poverty often miss out on the opportunity to acquire this capital, and therefore on the opportunity to be recognized as a subject of value.

Skeggs (2011) argues for an alternative understanding of these “circuits of value” (p.503): through a discussion of her empirical research on the personhood of working-class women, Skeggs shows how these women constructed value for themselves in opposition to the dominant norms of neoliberal individual value, via a “moral value reversal” (p.503) in which middle-class mothers were viewed to not care enough for their children, and values of love – performed through the giving of time and energy to relationships with friends and family (as opposed to investing such time and energy in the accrual of social and cultural capitals for future gain) – were central in a system of values “where other people were supportive connectivities, not sources for self-accumulation” (p.504). In “activat[ing] alternate values” which do not conflate the accumulation of economic capital with moral righteousness, this approach employed by working-class women to attach value to themselves, Tyler (2015: p.501) argues, works to contest the stigma attached to working-class subjectivities. In thinking through the relationship between coaching, class stigma and self-esteem, then, it is imperative to pay attention to the way in which values are inscribed and attached to personhood, and to consider how such valuation is done or undone within the context of coaching programmes designed to alleviate poverty and encourage financial management and job-seeking.

Methodology

Homelessness in the UK is a growing problem: the number of people sleeping rough on any given night increased by 15% from 2016 to 2017, and by over 50% from 2010 to 2017 (Crisis 2020), while official counts which include both rough sleeping and those in temporary accommodation show that approximately one per 200 people is homeless in the UK (Shelter 2019). The scale of homelessness is likely to be even greater, given that these records often miss individuals who are staying with family or friends (ibid.).

This paper draws on empirical research carried out by the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research (CCHPR) between October 2016 and July 2019. It is based on interviews with participants in the New Horizons project (run by CHS Group), which aims to help people manage their money, get online, and look for work via one-to-one coaching. Since the launch of the programme, CCHPR have worked iteratively with CHS Group, having been involved in evaluating and providing feedback to CHS Group from the outset.

Over the time period in which the research presented here was carried out, 390 people enrolled in New Horizons. Of these, 302 had been referred to the programme due to difficulties paying their bills (including rent). 19% of these participants were already homeless at the time of their enrolment, most of whom were living in hostels or temporary accommodation. The data presented in this paper are taken from semi-structured interviews which were conducted with 20 New Horizons participants. The sample was chosen from the 390 participants registered with the programme.

The sample included individuals who had enrolled with each of the four different partners (each based in different areas of Cambridgeshire) who provide coaching for the programme, not only to achieve a regional spread, but also because the client bases of the different partners tend to vary in terms of their demographic characteristics. For example, one partner predominantly coaches young people, while the ages of other partners’ clients tend to be higher. The participants selected were close to completing the programme of coaching, or had just completed it. Coaches explained the research to potential participants to make them aware that they might be contacted for interview, and we sought further informed consent when contacting them directly.

All of the participants are considered to have been at risk of homelessness, as they were struggling to manage their finances and pay their bills or had debts mounting up. Several were already in rental arrears at the time of their enrolment in New Horizons, and some were living in supported accommodation for young people. A brief description of some of the characteristics of the interview participants is provided in Table 1. All participants have been anonymized, and ethical clearance for the research was obtained from the authors’ departmental research ethics committee.

Table 1. Information on interview participants

	Pseudonym	Gender	Age	Contextual information
1	Geoff	Male	38	Lives alone; unemployed due to mental illness; in financial difficulty prior to joining New Horizons; had no digital skills and was reluctant to develop these skills
2	Malcolm	Male	54	Lives alone; unemployed due to mental illness; volunteers part-time, and was seeking part-time work; struggling financially; gained some computer skills through a previous course accessed through his housing association
3	Ricky	Male	53	Lives alone; unemployed but seeking work; does voluntary work most days; didn’t have a bank account prior to starting New Horizons; was struggling to pay rent; learned computer skills through the programme
4	Ciara	Female	34	Lives with three school-aged children; unemployed and not looking for work online; struggling with debt; previously could access the internet via a phone, but lacked confidence using a laptop or desktop computer; has undertaken a computer skills course after referral by New Horizons
5	Joshua	Male	24	Lives with parents; in full time work at the time of the interview, though was unemployed when he enrolled with New Horizons; already had sufficient digital skills
6	Angelica	Female	55	Lives alone; has several health problems (both physical and mental illness); is unemployed; occasionally undertakes voluntary work; had been pawning jewellery to pay bills prior to enrolment with New Horizons; had some digital skills, but couldn’t afford broadband
7	Stephen	Male	57	Lives alone; unemployed but looking for work; struggling to make ends meet on Universal Credit; has debts for essential bills; lacks digital skills and does not want online access at home due to concerns over running costs
8	Kimberly	Female	45	Lives with a relative; unemployed; has health problems; was struggling financially; has access to the internet at home
9	Aaron	Male	52	Lives with wife and children; was previously self-employed, but unemployed at the time of enrolment with New Horizons; struggling financially with debts; has digital skills
10	Frank	Male	25	Lives alone in supported accommodation; unemployed; volunteers for a few hours each week; struggling financially; had digital skills prior to joining New Horizons
11	Leonie	Female	22	Lives in supported accommodation with her child, who has not yet started school; trying to save money for a flat; unemployed; struggling with finances; had online skills which she used on her phone
12	Brian	Male	55	Lives alone; unemployed due to mental illness; struggling financially; learned how to do online banking through New Horizons but prefers not to use it
13	Lyle	Male	22	Lives alone in supported accommodation; unemployed but was planning to look for work; sought assistance with financial management from New Horizons; has improved his computer skills since joining the programme
14	Sheila	Female	46	Lives with children, one of whom has disabilities; unemployed; was struggling with finances; already used the internet for online shopping prior to starting New Horizons but was seeking to develop her computer skills further
15	Pauline	Female	54	Lives with adult child; unemployed; had lost her house and job; struggling with finances; had limited digital skills, and used a laptop for games; now has developed her online skills through a computer course but doesn’t have access to reliable wi-fi at home
16	Sally	Female	58	Lives alone; unemployed; has several health problems; had financial issues, and had sought a Debt Relief Order
17	Gary	Male	49	Lives alone; unable to work due to health issues; had significant debts; struggles with digital skills
18	Vanessa	Female	58	Lives alone; unemployed; has several health issues (both physical and mental illness); was struggling financially after being made redundant; had sought a Debt Relief Order; volunteers on a part-time basis; had some digital skills and developed these through New Horizons
19	Simon	Male	55	Lives with relative; unemployed; had limited digital skills and developed these through New Horizons; volunteers once a week
20	Tom	Male	23	Lives with parents; has mental health issues; on a low income, doing part-time work on a self-employed basis; recently graduated from university; already had digital skills prior to enrolling in New Horizons

Semi-structured interviews were chosen as a suitable method for this research. Semi-structured interviews involve a list of pre-prepared questions which participants are asked, but also depend upon the researcher listening to the participant and responding to them appropriately, so that participants are able to bring up and discuss issues which matter to them, but which might not be on the list of pre-determined questions (see Longhurst 2016). Participants were asked a range of questions pertaining to the New Horizons programme and their experiences with the issues the programme aims to help with, including their motivations for enrolling in the programme, and whether and how New Horizons had helped them manage their finances or debts. Most of the interviews lasted between 20 minutes and one hour. Three interviews were longer than this, and four were shorter. All of the interviews were recorded with permission of the participants, and then transcribed ready for analysis. The analysis was conducted via a close reading of the transcripts, where emerging themes within the interviews were noted, and considered in relation to the theoretical framework indicated in the literature review.

Results and Analysis

Getting Online, and Freeing Mental Bandwidth

The New Horizons programme intends to tackle immediate financial problems and help participants to learn digital skills in order to help them get into work, or closer to the job market (CHS Group 2020). Indeed, digital literacy is an increasingly important factor in an individual’s employability, as labour markets demand employees with capacity to use IT in order to operate effectively in the “information society” (Ţiţan et al. 2014). Of the 20 New Horizons participants interviewed as part of this research, 13 had difficulties with getting online, either due to a lack of skills or a limited skillset, or due to problems accessing wi-fi, broadband, or suitable devices at home. While some participants in the New Horizons programme had no experience of using IT, others were able to use smart phones or simple functions on computers, but needed guidance with the sorts of skills required in order to make job applications (such as word-processing). The case of Pauline, a 54-year-old former care-worker, is illustrative here:

“[My coach] set me up on my emails. I had no emails at all [before] because I didn’t know how to do it, so I never bothered. I had my own laptop, which I only ever used for games … And then when it came about that I did a course, they did a fast course on the computer, so I did that along with working with [my coach] so that I could get to know my keys [on the keyboard] and things like that … It’s really good. [My coach] is coming out [to visit me soon] and we’re doing my CV.” – Pauline

However, while the development of such skills is an essential part of the New Horizons programme, and while the programme is able to lend participants chrome-books for the duration of their enrolment, the quality and means of internet access in the long term must also be considered. Bach, Shaffer, and Wolfson (2013) highlight that the nature of internet access must be taken into account when considering the impact of the digital divide: where people rely on access to the internet via mobile phones, some online activities (such as submitting a CV via an online job application form) may be restricted. Given that people in low-income households (and especially those living alone) are less likely than higher-income households to be able to access a household internet connection (ONS 2019), there is a clear link between poverty and digital exclusion. Indeed, access to the internet (and associated cost) remains problematic for many participants, as the following quote from Stephen, a 57-year-old former retail worker, suggests:

“In theory I get £70 a week for everything that isn’t the rent, but of course theory and practice are not the same. So it comes down to about £55. And not surprisingly that doesn’t go very far … I was, and still am, volunteering at [a food bank]. Otherwise I’d bloody starve to death, it’s my only source of food. Can’t afford to buy any, not when you’ve got gas and electricity and so on and so forth … If you give [a computer or mobile phone] to me I still can’t afford to use it, because it does run on electricity, you do need an internet service provider, and it goes on and on from there … it just gets too expensive.” – Stephen

Stephen’s concerns with internet access point to a vicious cycle wherein poor internet access restricts the amount of time that can be spent searching for a job, yet improving access requires money which those on state welfare often cannot afford. Also clear within this quote is the difficulty of living on a low income. The majority of people referred to New Horizons participants are struggling with their finances upon enrolment into the programme, and many have debts or rent arrears. Dealing with such financial problems, and trying to “get by” on a low income on top of day-to-day concerns can be immensely stressful and time-consuming (see McKenzie 2015). The help with their financial management which participants receive from their coaches has been shown to be effective in reducing money-related stress. Indeed, 11 of the 20 New Horizons participants interviewed considered their situation to be stressful or worrying, and felt that taking part in the programme had helped reduce this feeling. The following quote from 55-year-old Brian is illustrative here:

“[Before I joined New Horizons] I was always worried about my money, whether I was spending too much, whether I could feed myself and that kind of thing … Social security forms, they just blow my head out. That’s the [mental] illness, that’s what it does. Get a letter through the door, open it up, full blown panic, anxiety, just takes over. That’s what it’s like” – Brian

This quote supports the notion that when a person is enduring significant money-related stress, the worry over finances can “take over” such that all mental space is consumed by such issues, leaving no room to think of or attend to other less immediately pressing concerns (see Mani et al. 2013). However, in helping participants to tackle immediate financial problems, one-to-one coaching is able to reduce individuals’ stress levels. As Aaron, a 52-year-old former business-owner, suggests, coaching can enable participants to find additional time and (mental) space to address other issues:

“I run around, I have to put petrol in the car to pick the kids from school … they have left me without money [since my income support has been put on hold for reassessment]. I have to borrow from maybe a friend or ring my sister who is fed up with me because I am always running to her … [My coach has] taken away a very big weight off my chest, you know. All the time I was worried … now I don’t fear the letters. [Before] if the postman came I would be very worried because the letters would come telling me, if I don’t do this they would be knocking on my door. All the time. And yet I have to pick the kids up [from school], then I think ‘oh my God, what have I done?’ … [Taking part in New Horizons has] helped me to reduce the stress, for me as long as I go out and meet people, then we discuss or I do this or I end up on the computer. I feel comfortable … Before that it was really getting to me because all I would do was clean up the house. Now I can clean up quickly and leave myself time.” - Aaron

Crucially, the support which Aaron has received from his coach has freed up his time, and has given him the chance to make regular visits to the offices of a recruitment agency to search for work. It is notable that Aaron recalls reaching the end of the day after picking his children up from school and feeling as though he hadn’t done anything with his time, because his efforts were entirely focused on the daily effort of childcare and surviving on minimal funds. Importantly, in lifting the weight of financial burden off Aaron’s chest through providing assistance with financial management, and in subsequently enabling Aaron to tackle other less-imminent concerns (such as job-searching and socializing), the coaching can be considered to have freed up mental-bandwidth (Schilbach, Schofield, and Mullainathan 2016).

Roots of Confidence: Finding Alternative Value or Neoliberal Realignment?

Improvements in confidence are also a frequently reported benefit of taking part in the New Horizons programme. Indeed, 18 of the 20 interview participants indicated that they felt their coach had given them a boost in confidence. However, while some studies suggest that coaching improves confidence due to participants internalizing their coaches’ positive affirmations of them (Rhodes and Spencer 2005), given that the New Horizons scheme is specifically oriented towards getting people closer to the job market, and in the context of a neoliberal emphasis on self-responsibility and conflation of (economic) capital accumulation with moral value, the possibility that this improvement in confidence stems from neoliberal realignment emerges. It is against this backdrop that this paper seeks to explore why taking part in the programme enhances confidence and self-esteem.

The focus of one-to-one coaching or mentoring on the individual level is such that the process seeks to transfer responsibility onto the individual for improving their own circumstances, and many such programmes make the goal of responsibilization explicit (see for instance, Martinek, Schilling, and Johnson 2001). Indeed, changing participants’ habits to create more “responsible” behaviours appears to have been an outcome of the New Horizons scheme:

“Whereas before I’d go to the cash point at say ten past twelve on a Tuesday morning and draw it all out. But now I don’t touch it until after nine o’clock, then my direct debits have all gone, then I know where I’m at. So after half past nine I’ll say ‘that’s mine’” – Geoff

What gets to count as “responsible” behaviour cannot be abstracted from the classed discourse which influences which spending (and by whom) is considered morally acceptable, and which spending (and by whom) falls short of this standard: Indeed, while expression of aesthetic taste (displayed, for instance, in clothing choices) is employed as a means of distinguishing oneself as occupying a particular social status, the perceived legitimacy of that expression is based upon the person’s position in social space and their accumulation of social capital over their lifetime, such that “conspicuous consumption” practices by the lower classes are often viewed as a “crude display of ill-mastered luxury,” (Bourdieu 1984, cited in Trigg 2001: 105). In line with prevailing negative discourses of the spending of low-income people as irresponsible, or immoral (see Tyler 2008), several New Horizons participants used negative language to describe their spending habits where they viewed their purchases to be unnecessary or not sensible:

“I’m a bugger for eBay. eBay’s my favourite, I’m a sod for eBay.” – Kimberly

“Before it was like, money is money. And now it’s like, money is actually an important thing … Don’t be stupid with your money, but be sensible about it too … Because there’s no point coming out with shit, and having not really anything to show for it, is there?” – Lyle

These negatively framed assertions are ingrained in the prevailing discourse of poverty which sees blame placed on the individual for their own circumstances owing to a publicly perceived “lack of thrift, lack of effort, [or] loose morals” (Lepianka, Van Oorschot, and Gelissen 2009: 423). Such improvements of confidence which come from this responsibilization, and the instilling of new spending habits involved in this process (which are viewed as “sensible” rather than “stupid”), then, do not challenge this moralistic discourse but are rooted in it.

Indeed, the emphasis on economic value under neoliberalism, even in spheres which previously measured success in non-economic ways (see Brown 2015), is such that those who are not seen to be “productive” in an economic sense are viewed to be morally lacking, or “lazy” (see discussion in literature review). Indeed, when success is measured in an economic sense, and work ethic becomes essential to the value individuals ascribe to themselves (see Skeggs 2014), it makes sense that an individual’s feelings of self-worth can be affected by their employment and financial status. It is such that Pauline, a former care worker who had to give up her job after losing her house, and subsequently moving into social housing in another area and claiming benefits, felt that she had “failed”:

“I lacked self-confidence because of what I’ve been through, my divorce and having to lose everything. I felt I’d failed but [my coach] doesn’t make you feel that way. She makes you feel like ‘you haven’t failed, you’ve just hit a rock’” – Pauline

Of note here is the suggestion that not having money, a job, or owning a house – or “losing everything” – is tantamount to failure, but that the coaching Pauline has received has alleviated this feeling of failure. During her coaching, Pauline undertook work on her CV and digital skills, which she believes will be advantageous to her in seeking employment. Gaining such skills led to improved confidence such that she no longer felt like a “failure”. However, it is important to note that the suggestion that “you’ve just hit a rock” implies that Pauline’s predicament is only a temporary blip which can be corrected by investing time into activities which will get her back into paid work. In this sense, it appears that the improvements in confidence and self-esteem experienced by Pauline are directly linked to her potential to accumulate capital and contribute to the economy in the future. Even where people are not yet back into work, the scheme works to move them closer to the job market:

“We’ve been talking about voluntary work, just to sort of get me out of the house compared to what I’m doing, because I don’t really do a lot, I don’t go anywhere. So that would be good for me, to help build my confidence up as well. Because I’m not ready for work yet. Because of the children and because of sort of financial problems … And I haven’t worked for nearly 16 years. But yeah, we’ve gone on the internet and sort of found some places to ring up to see if they would let me participate in voluntary work. Even if it’s just one day a week to sort of build my confidence up for when I do want to do it.” – Ciara

Indeed, while individualism is pivotal in neoliberal governance, Gough (2002) argues that this does not mean to say that socialization and collective forms of action have been eliminated. Further, workfare schemes – such as unpaid work experience for jobseekers, organized by the DWP (see Butler and Halliday 2017) – and volunteering function as a means of “socialising people into low wage labour” (Gough 2002: 417). Socialization, then, is a key element of such efforts to reduce dependency on the state via the promotion of self-discipline and responsibilization at the individual level. Indeed, as Millar and Bennett (2017) assert, Universal Credit is designed to be “like work” in the way that it is paid and in the way that it treats claimants in a similar way to an employment contract, albeit with much stricter sanctions and harsher penalties. Much like Universal Credit, coaching which seeks to socialize people into work exposes participants to neoliberal governmentality in order to further encourage self-responsibilization.

However, it is important to remember that coaching is essentially social, and involves the formation of a relationship (often of trust) between the coach and coached. As Skeggs (2014) asserts, all “social relationships are messy, irrational and full of contradictions” (13), as opposed to the supposedly rational logics of neoliberal capitalism. As such, there is potential within social relationships to find and generate value “in opposition to the logic of capital, against an instrumental ‘dog eat dog world’” (Skeggs 2014: 14). Such value, built on loyalty, or care, is generated in the relation between people, rather than in the self. As the following quote illustrates, coaching can improve self-esteem in a way which is not directly related to steps taken to get the participant closer to the job market:

“[My coach] gives off a really good vibe … it rubs off on people. You could be upset, angry and she’d still have the time of day for you – you are this human being, you’re are not something that is worthless. It gives you that extra boost.” – Lyle

Importantly, Lyle identifies that the coaching has helped him to value himself as a human being, distinct from his capacity to accumulate capital as a commodity in the labour market. It is important to note, then, that even in a system of coaching which appears to attempt to realign participants with the neoliberal ideals of self-responsibility, and which encourages them to find value in their potential to undertake paid work, this does not foreclose the possibility for participants to generate value beyond capital within the coaching relationship.

Conclusions and Implications

In assessing the relationship between stigma, self-esteem, and coaching aimed at preventing homelessness, this paper has demonstrated how growth in confidence can emerge from participation in coaching. Importantly, the research shows that the improvements elicited in participants’ confidence are rooted in neoliberal framings of individual value. Indeed, this paper argues that the focus of coaching upon instilling more “responsible” and “sensible” spending habits in participants, and upon providing digital skills to help participants to gain paid work, works to realign participants with neoliberal values.

Thus, participants whose confidence had suffered as a result of a feeling of failure associated with “losing everything” experienced improvements in their self-esteem by feeling as though they were coming closer to gaining paid work, and becoming financially self-sufficient, and thereby reversing this perceived failure. It is through this neoliberal realignment, it is argued, that participants who undergo coaching on money, work, and online skills, find improvements in confidence, as they become reshaped in the neoliberal mould of “proper personhood” (see Skeggs 2011). In this sense, then, while coaching helps people to gain confidence, it appears that it does so not by challenging moralistic discourses which stigmatize unemployed working-class people as morally lacking or lazy, but by re-positioning coaching participants in the neoliberal system of values which positions paid work and financial independence as essential to an individual’s self-worth and moral outlook.

However, this is not to say that there does not remain room within the coaching model to enable participants to find value (and thereby improve their self-esteem and confidence) in a non-economic sense. Following Skeggs (2011), this paper has shown that the relationship of trust between coach and participant holds potential for the sort of meaningful relationship to form which enables participants to find value beyond their potential to generate capital.

While coaching works to reshape individuals to the neoliberal ideal, the stress-relieving effects of coaching may point towards a means of challenging the stigmatizing discourses it is rooted in. By helping participants to tackle immediately pressing financial problems associated with poverty (including debt and rent arrears), coaching frees up mental bandwidth previously consumed by these concerns (see Mani et al. 2013), enabling participants to devote time and thought to less immediately pressing issues, such as finding paid employment. Interviews with participants in the New Horizons coaching programme have revealed the extent of the difficulties of living on low-incomes associated with state-welfare, and the time- and thought-consuming nature of daily life under such conditions. As such, while this research has shown that coaching is helpful in freeing up mental bandwidth, it must be noted that in many cases, such coaching would not be necessary were the incomes afforded to many people relying on state-welfare less punative. Indeed, while Universal Credit is designed to encourage people into work (see Dwyer and Wright 2014), this research suggests that the difficulty of living on a low income reduces recipients’ capacity to look for work.

Indeed, this evidence that poverty consumes mental bandwidth and cognitive capacity challenges prevailing assumptions about poverty – particularly those negative portrayals so often shown in the mass media (see Tyler 2015) – by highlighting that poverty cannot be attributed to an individual’s morality, nor to a lack of willingness to take personal responsibility for one’s own circumstances. However, this paper has shown that coaching programmes focused on individuals’ “self-improvement” are nonetheless embedded in the neoliberal discourse which positions individual self-responsibilization – and paid employment as an integral part of such responsibilization – as the solution to precarious living.

It is important to note that coaching can be considered to be somewhat effective as a means of homelessness prevention: Of the 244 individuals who exited the New Horizons programme during the study period, 109 people reduced their priority debts (including bills and rent arrears). And given that evidence suggests that homelessness is often triggered by debts and rent arrears (Van Laere, de Wit, and Klazinga 2009; Warnes and Crane 2006), this is clearly a positive impact. However, further follow-up research would be required in order to ascertain the extent to which the programme had prevented homelessness among the 20 people who took part in the interviews which are discussed in this paper. Of course, coaching programmes such as the one studied here can never be wholly effective in preventing homelessness while the structural causes, including housing affordability and poverty (see Parsell and Marston 2012), remain unaddressed.

Overall, this paper argues that due to its focus on individual responsibility, coaching risks falling into the trap of presenting precarity as a crisis embedded in the individual choices (or morality) and behaviours of those most affected by inequality (see Tyler 2015). As such, coaching is unable to tackle the structural problems which underlay poverty in the UK and elsewhere. Even while for the individuals experiencing precarity, coaching can have a positive effect at the individual scale in terms of improved confidence and self-esteem and relief of immediate financial problems, such enhancements to confidence appear to be rooted in neoliberal realignment, and thus do not always counter entrenched negative moral valuations of people living in poverty in public discourse.

Acknowledgments

This project is sponsored by Cambridge Housing Society Ltd and is funded by the European Social Fund and the National Lottery Community Fund, through the Big Lottery Fund.

The paper draws upon interviews conducted by the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the European Social Fund; National Lottery Community Fund.