Context matters: Exploring the mediated nature of digital service provision within homelessness organizations

Abstract

A wide body of research has demonstrated the importance of mobile media in the lives of people experiencing homelessness. However, there is a need to understand digital access, uses, and needs within wider organizational and technological contexts. Informed by a social construction of technology theoretical perspective, this article explores how different homelessness organizations in England appropriate technology within their support services. Drawing on findings from three case studies, it demonstrates how provision is shaped by interpretive, cultural, and material factors that operate to facilitate or inhibit use. Given the significance of technology within the lives of people experiencing homelessness, this article highlights the need for practitioners and policy makers to prioritize and examine the nature and impact of digital service provision and to ensure that its design and delivery reflects the needs of users.

Introduction

People with lived experiences of homelessness must increasingly negotiate digital technology to access resources related to housing, welfare benefits, employment, and support. The shift to mandatory online applications and management of claims for social welfare, is but one example of how digitization places increased pressure on some of society’s most vulnerable individuals (Harris, 2020; Schou & Pors, 2018).

Literature expounds the importance of mobile phones and Internet use among individuals experiencing homelessness to maintain social connections, navigate potentially unsafe situations, obtain information, enjoy leisure activities, and access services (Adkins et al., 2017; Eyrich-Garg, 2011, 2010; Guadagno et al., 2013; Humphry, 2021; Rice et al., 2011; Roberson & Nardi, 2010). However, people facing homelessness experience digital disparities relating to access, skills, use, affordability, and confidence (Harris, 2020; Humphry, 2021). This in turn can exacerbate the disadvantages associated with other social inequalities (Robinson et al., 2015). Distinctive mobilities of homelessness (Jackson, 2012) occurring within increasingly regulated urban spaces, are associated with differing digital needs, engagements, and challenges (Humphry, 2021). A failure to consider these experiences when designing systems or provisions, can serve to further marginalize already disadvantaged groups (Harris, 2020).

This paper explores the importance of locating individual uses and needs within the specific technological arrangements of different organizational contexts. While acknowledging that wider definitions of homelessness exist (Watts et al., 2022), and that many people experiencing homelessness remain out of sight, the focus here is specifically on single homeless people. In England, the majority of those assessed as homeless or threatened with homelessness in 2020/21 were single adults (Watts et al., 2022). While the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 has improved legal provisions for single households, many are still deemed either to be not in priority need, or intentionally homeless, and therefore not owed a statutory right to settled accommodation (Watts et al., 2022). Single people experiencing homelessness therefore often stay in some form of accommodation provided by the charitable sector, with a smaller section sleeping rough (Mackie & Thomas, 2014).

Homelessness support organizations constitute one of the primary settings where people experiencing homelessness can access technology (Lemos & Frankenburg, 2015, p. 27; Pollio et al., 2013). Technology is defined in this study as including fixed-in-place devices (e.g., computers), mobile technologies (phones, laptops, etc.), web-based applications, and supportive infrastructure (e.g., electrical ports to charge phones). Within homelessness organizations, decisions must be made about the type of digital resources provided, and their arrangement and management (Moser, 2009). These processes have important implications, as these everyday environments can either facilitate or inhibit people's access and use of technology.

Existing studies on technology provision within homelessness organizations have focused primarily on how people interpret and experience existing systems (Le Dantec et al., 2010; Moser, 2009; Woelfer & Hendry, 2011). However, relatively little attention has been given to the way in which technologies are appropriated and provided within these settings . Understanding the role of social contexts is key to developing a nuanced understanding of digital inequalities (Helsper, 2017). This article addresses this gap in the literature and, informed by a conceptualization of technology as socially constructed, explores how different homelessness support organizations appropriate digital technology as a support service.

By exploring the interpretative, material, and cultural processes that underpin approaches to technological provision, this paper illustrates the importance of context in facilitating or hindering engagement with technologies. It argues that policy makers and practitioners must prioritize and further explore the availability of digital technologies within these environments and ensure that they are delivered in line with the needs of the users.

Conceptual framework

This paper is informed by a social construction of technology (SCOT) theoretical perspective. SCOT is one of several theoretical frameworks that aim to explain how technology is shaped by, and shapes, society. While the Social Shaping of Technology emphasizes the role of technological capabilities (Mackenzie & Wajcman, 1999), and Domestication Theory focuses on the integration of technology into people's everyday lives (Silverstone, 2006), SCOT focuses on how technology is shaped by social groups and social factors such as cultural values, power relations, and user preferences. SCOT's focus on how technologies are designed and used depending on social context and group interests, provides a useful framework to explore the varied ways through which technology is provided within different homelessness services.

The concept of interpretative flexibility covers the notion that there is more than one interpretation behind an artifact and that, to identify those interpretations, we should go beyond the physical aspects and explore its social dimensions (Pinch & Bijker, 1987). Orlikowski (1992, p. 409) suggests that interpretative flexibility is a function of the material artifact, the characteristics of human actors, and the institutional contexts in which technology is developed and used. This implies that there will be variations in how technology is provided and used within different services in line with available technologies, organizational culture and ethos, and the views and activities of staff.

SCOT argues that technologies are shaped by the interests of different social groups such as producers, designers, and users, who are involved in a co-constitutive and reciprocal process (Haddon et al., 2008, p. 1). Homelessness support organizations providing access to digital technologies can be conceptualized as producers of certain technological arrangements. Within these settings, decisions are made about the type of digital resources that will be provided, their placement and arrangement, and the rules and regulations governing their use (Moser, 2009).

Within SCOT, technologies are understood ontologically as inherently intertwined with processes of meaning-making (Klein & Kleinman, 2002, p. 29). Producers are involved with processes of inscription as certain conceptualizations or assumptions (for example related to use and user) are incorporated into artifacts, spaces, and arrangements (Silverstone & Haddon, 1996, p. 44). For example, in a study by Woelfer and Hendry (2011), the computer at a drop-in center for young people facing homelessness was protected by a metal case and a clear plastic screen, thus indicating an understanding of computers as scarce and vulnerable to abuse and theft.

The concept of closure refers to the process whereby a certain interpretation or use of technology becomes widely accepted. At an organizational level, social dynamics as well as the shared assumptions, expectations, and knowledge used to understand technology, can reinforce the production of similar meanings (Orlikowski & Gash, 1994, p. 178). These assumptions and associated decisions can impact patterns of use, whereby certain interpretations or use preferences are silenced or marginalized.

The use and impact of technology is not only affected by interpretative processes, but to a significant extent also by the resources that people have access to. When individuals actively interpret and engage with digital systems and artifacts, this process occurs within certain material contexts, which may pose constraints. When insisting that to understand technology we must consider subjective factors, care must still be taken to not slip into “a form of social determinism” (Grint & Woolgar, 1997, pp. 24–25). A moderate approach to social constructivism is important, which views technology as both physically and socially constructed and constrained (Orlikowski, 1992). This encourages a consideration of the distribution of resources within different organizations such as skills, support, and equipment.

Methods

The ways homelessness organizations appropriate technology into their support services were explored via a case study approach featuring short-term ethnographic observations, and narrative and semi-structured qualitative interviews. Because observational approaches allow exploration of the “active construction of document and texts in certain settings” (Mason, 2002, p. 84), they facilitate an exploration of how different assumptions and interpretations can be discerned within the regulation and physical, temporal, and spatial organization of digital technology provision within different settings.

The current study focused on one city in England, selected based on having one of the highest levels of homelessness in the country (when measured by statutory homelessness acceptances and estimated numbers of rough sleepers). The city also has a large non-statutory homelessness support sector, with many organizations offering a variety of services. The adoption of a SCOT approach, which emphasizes the contextually dependent nature of technological interactions, implies an acceptance that variability will exist within the phenomena being observed, and that this variability should form part of the research design. When selecting organizations, maximum-variation sampling was therefore adopted to maximize the differences within the sample (Mertens, 2001, p. 321), and to allow a multiplicity of meanings associated with technology and a diversity of contexts to be captured.

A case study approach was adopted in order to gain a deeper understanding of how social contexts influence the provision and availability of technology. The case studies selected are illustrative of some of the main forms of homelessness service provision in England: a drop-in day center (Hope Centre), a statutory-funded organization offering an array of support services alongside hostel accommodation (Brick House), and a housing-led service providing support and emergency accommodation for young people between the ages of 18 and 24 (Nightstop Hillwood). Although the sample size poses limits to generalizability, the contextual factors found to affect the appropriation of technology are reflected in other studies exploring the ethos, principles, and structures of UK homelessness services (Bowpitt et al., 2014; Cloke et al., 2010; Johnsen et al., 2005; Waters, 1992). A flexible observational framework was designed to allow for a systematic description of the events, behaviors, and artifacts surrounding the provision of technology including rules and regulations, spatial dimensions, time-related restrictions, support provided, and client/staff interactions.

The observations were supplemented with 16 narrative interviews with people accessing the services (×8 Nightstop Hillwood, ×3 Hope Centre, ×5 Brick House) and 16 semi-structured interviews with staff and volunteers (×5 Nightstop Hillwood, ×5 Hope Centre, ×6 Brick House). To understand how digital technologies are appropriated by organizations, the multiple meanings assigned to them needed to be explored. Meanings appear primarily within forms of verbal descriptions (Silverman, 2006, p. 79), with language being understood as constituting reality, rather than simply reflecting it (Young & Collin, 2004, p. 377). The interviews with staff focused on the nature, role, and importance of digital technologies within the lives of homeless people, and on the way in which technologies are embedded within their support services. Thematic analysis was carried out using NVivo, using both a priori codes and a posteriori analytical categories and themes (Bazeley, 2013, p. 126). The experiences and perspectives of people accessing these services have been addressed in a separate article (Harris, 2020), while observational findings on how these contexts are associated with different forms of use are included in this paper.

Because “words never ‘mean’ the same thing twice and stories are performed different in different social contexts” (Squire, 2008, p. 44), they must be considered as co-constructed between the participant and the interviewer. Differential positional power based on people's rank within organizations, and the use of each organization as the main interview site, meant that some staff/volunteer participants may have felt uncomfortable discussing certain aspects of their role, particularly if this involved some criticism of the organization.

Each stage of the data collection received ethical approval by the University of Bristol, School of Law Research Ethics Committee, outlining the risks and countermeasures in relation to (i) impact on participants, (ii) collecting sensitive data, (iii) undue influence, (iv) confidentiality and anonymity, and (v) researcher safety. In this paper, the names of all individual and organizational participants have been replaced with pseudonyms.

Findings

The remainder of this paper discusses the findings from the ethnographic observations and qualitative interviews with staff/volunteers, which demonstrate significant diversity in how technology is appropriated within different settings. The findings are analyzed and presented in a three-way case study comparison.

Hope Centre: appropriating digital technology within “packages of care”

Hope Centre is a drop-in day center that for the past 24 years has offered support to people experiencing homelessness and other vulnerabilities. The center operates from Sunday through Thursday and is run by four salaried members of staff as well as several volunteers. Reflecting the trajectory of many day centers (Cloke et al., 2010, p. 117), this service has expanded their provision in recent years to include access to computers, the Internet, and telephones.

Based on a large-scale mixed method exploration of Britain's day centers, Johnsen et al. (2005, p. 791) outlines four broad developmental trajectories of these services: (i) Christian ethos retained, basic level of services provided; (ii) religious ethos retained, but services professionalized (i.e., mostly paid workforce with a large range of services provided); (iii) services professionalized, and statutory grants pursued; and (iv) services highly professionalized, and adapted to statutory grants. Waters (1992) found that day center services operate either according to (i) a non-interventionist ethos informed by Christian philanthropy; (ii) an ethos of empowerment that encourages engagement with services; or (iii) the principles of conditionality, rehabilitation, and change. Other research shows that many day centers are usually unconditionally accessible while seeking to provide “places of sanctuary” (Bowpitt et al., 2014). The findings suggest that the ethos and developmental trajectory of different day centers inform their understanding and provision of technology.

Hope Centre adopts a Christian non-interventionist approach to providing support for people who face severe levels of exclusion, marginalization, and complex support needs. This approach is common among day centers. Cloke et al. (2010, p. 117) noted that 85% of day centers were run by churches and charitable groups. Hope Centre provides a basic level of service and operates without any statutory funding, while relying on volunteers for their day-to-day operations. The center is struggling to raise the needed funds to meet increasing demand.

Because of budget constraints, many day centers operate out of inappropriate and substandard premises, which in turn limits service provision (Cloke et al., 2010, p. 125). The third floor of Hope Centre is set up as a computer room, which is located next to the manager's office. This room contains six outdated desktop computers, and the Internet connection is frequently interrupted when used by two or more people.

The service aims to address isolation and loneliness by offering unconditional support without any engagement requirements or access criteria (bar age). The “outcome-orientated” approach and “rehabilitative ethos” often required by statutory funding bodies (Cloke et al., 2010, p. 145) are rejected:

We love to see people move on but moving on is different for everybody. There's one of our management committee members who drives me crazy because to him moving on is getting them into a nice respectable job and a nice suit. But it isn’t. We had somebody here, getting her to change her pants once every 3 weeks, that was moving her on (Lisa, coordinator).

Staff reject secular neoliberal “responsibilization” agendas (Bowpitt et al., 2014), aiming rather to build trust and relationships. Computers and the Internet are seen as having important care-related functions associated with building confidence and self-esteem and maintaining social support networks. Promoting confidence and self-esteem are common goals of day centers (Bowpitt et al., 2014). By supporting people to tap into their talents, interests, or social connections, technology is seen as having a role to play in helping people to integrate into the community, build social capital, and improve their sense of self-worth following experiences often characterized by rejection, exclusion, and trauma:

Often their families don’t live locally, they’re estranged, or they might be foreign nationals … so you know we were unsure of Facebook to start with, but we’ve seen how it can be a real bridge builder for people either estranged or living a long way from their families … for a lot of them this is the only place where they can access any kind of IT. Some of them have been banned from the central libraries because of the way they’re dressed (Clare, support worker).

As is common in day centers, Hope Centre provides a “space of licence” where behavior or appearances that would be considered undesirable elsewhere, are accepted (Cloke et al., 2010, p. 77). There are few restrictions and guests can use the computers for most purposes, including Facebook, YouTube, and other recreational activities. As part of the “individualized care packages,” Lisa provides one-on-one support to help people access these websites and engage in activities of their choosing. For example, Lisa regularly assists one of the guests in typing his creative writing pieces and then forwards them to publishers. Congratulating guests when they successfully complete computer-related tasks is another way by which self-esteem is encouraged. Within this setting, the meaning of technology, which is co-constructed between staff and users, is associated with social inclusion and the development of “softer” outcomes.

Hope Centre has no official digital technology policy and there is a lack of strategic planning. Rather, the organizational culture appears to focus primarily on crisis-management and responding reactively to immediate needs. It is within this context that technology assumes a peripheral position relative to their core services of food, clothing, and washing facilities. Despite their personalized and non-interventionist approach, a complex array of rules in regard to the use of technology are in place. Johnsen et al. (2005, p. 808) state that, although day centers may aim to create spaces of sanctuary where differences between staff, volunteers, and guests are minimized, safety concerns will inevitably bring about certain arrangements of control.

The computer room can only be accessed with staff consent and use is monitored at all times. Because many of the guests are said to have a “fear of officialdom” and limited digital skills, Lisa worries that without support and supervision, some users could become so frustrated that one of the computers might “go out the window.” Computer use is monitored via a basic filtering system, and the computers are set up in a panopticon-like fashion, allowing Lisa to monitor all six from inside her office. This setup makes the screens also visible to other users. In this setting, computers are constructed as fragile and scarce resources and the typical user assumed to be untrustworthy and likely to cause damage. Some staff/volunteers also lack the technical skills needed to support guests with certain tasks (e.g., in managing welfare benefit claims online), and the lack of strategic foresight means that there is an absence of investment in relevant training or development.

Wi-Fi is accessible for staff, but the password is not available for guests (although often asked for). Research has demonstrated that people experiencing homelessness prefer using mobile phones rather than desktop computers for Internet access (Harris, 2020), and will spend a disproportionate amount of time looking for free Wi-Fi (Humphry, 2021). Assumptions of fear, as opposed to consultation with users, is informing how people using this space are constructed as technology users.

In the absence of sufficient resources and staffing levels, certain key services are prioritized. The computers are in principle available on an ad hoc basis whenever Lisa is available to supervise, but because of staff shortages, they can usually only be accessed for 4 hours, 2 days a week, outside of mealtimes. Resource constraints and the crisis-management style working culture that prioritizes basic service provision, means that Lisa may at times be needed downstairs, resulting in “a knock-on effect on other services” (such as the computer room being closed).

Over the lunch period, 12:30 to 1:30, then we shut down all other services just because it is very busy. That's when we can go from sort of 30 or 40 up to 100 [people] so you know we need all the staff to be available and not one running upstairs … so that we can just concentrate on getting people fed really … we remind them that use of technology is a privilege, not a right, without being too heavy handed about it (Clare, support worker).

SCOT conceptualizes technological arrangements as inscribed by subjective assumptions, which in turn can serve to limit or marginalize certain interpretations or patterns of use. Within this setting, the provision of technology stands apart from the provision of other basic needs and is constructed as a less important resource that requires oversight. The reference to technology as “a privilege, not a right,” stands in contrast to Hope Centre's dedication to provide people with food, a safe space, and a listening ear.

Despite the importance assigned to technology, socially constructed values related to control significantly limits its availability and potential at this setting. This, in turn, restricts the extent to which this space can act as a site of connectivity. Despite Hope Centre being one of the only places where guests can access the Internet, the ability to use technology to access key resources is significantly restricted.

Brick House: appropriating digital technologies within “recovery journeys”

Brick House is a council-funded day center and hostel that is informed by an ethos of change and recovery. In this setting, computers and the Internet are appropriated within employment-based services and a wider responsibilization agenda (Cloke et al., 2010) that seeks to assist people on their “recovery journeys” out of homelessness.

Closely mirroring the fourth of Johnsen et al.’s (2005, p. 791) development trajectories of Britain's day centers, Brick House relies on statutory grants and provides a range of highly professionalized services tailored to the funder's requirements. Various efforts to “responsibilize” disruptive and anti-social groups are integral to the neoliberal city, and within statutory-funded day centers, support is usually contingent on active engagement with services and a stated aspiration for rehabilitation and change (Cloke et al., 2010, p. 120). In contrast to the unconditional approach of Hope Centre, access to Brick House's services is based on an interventionist approach associated with principles of reciprocity. Support is exchanged for adherence to certain engagement requirements and behavioral change is encouraged:

So, engagement means taking part in employment support activities and for this we sit down and make individualised action plans. These really are nothing huge, smaller stepping-stones really. For one client the action plan was that he would turn up for the IT-classes regularly (Daniel, employment support worker).

The local authority contract provides funding for computer access, support, and training as part of an employment support program. The clearly marked computer room is located on the left of the communal area and needs to be passed to reach the popular smoking area at the back of the building. The room has eight desktop computers, which are set up in a row along the far side of a wall. The room also features a wall-mounted plasma monitor and a large table, which are occasionally used for group classes. The computer room is very busy and frequently oversubscribed (especially during the Friday drop-in session).

Policies regulate the use of these resources in accordance with the local authority's focus on recovery. Computers and the Internet are socially constructed as vehicles for change and their use is restricted to activities related to accessing housing, employment, and welfare benefits:

Within the support we provide to help people move forward, technology is key, technology is key to the ability to access employment and maintain job searches, three job searches a week or whatever it is, it's necessary for them to be able to sustain benefits. If they can’t, their Housing Benefit will get cut and then you’re homeless again (Daniel, employment support worker).

Employers are very unlikely to take someone on who has got no IT skills at all. I think they would at least expect someone to be able to read an email and know how to access it (Edwin, manager).

By providing IT classes and CV-related assistance, Brick House endeavors to “set the stage” for people to move out of homelessness. The temporal regulations governing the use of the computer room illustrates that employment-related activities are the preferred form of use. Two-hour classes are scheduled each weekday and the names of users recorded. In line with Brick House's ethos of personalization, three employment support workers provide intensive one-on-one support tailored to different skills and abilities. SCOT emphasizes the importance of social context in shaping technological provision. In contrast to the non-interventionist approach adopted at Hope Centre, the focus within this setting is on providing relational techniques of digital mentoring:

Sometimes they say they’ve never used a computer but then you start chatting to them and then you hear they have used a computer before. So, I always try and suss out what they’ve used in the past, for example they may say they have never used a keyboard, but they say they’ve used a typewriter. So, I say see [points to letter keys on keyboard] “this is the typewriter” (Daniel, employment support worker).

As with Hope Centre, themes of power and control emerge within this setting. To ensure adherence to the organizational focus on personal change, as well as the interconnected focus on employment as a route out of homelessness, access to the computer room is contingent on active engagement with the services:

The idea is that everyone who wishes to use the IT-room must be engaging with one of the four departments. In some cases, a client may not be ready, but staff will try to get most clients to engage with the employment service (Edwin, manager).

Clients can eventually move onto volunteering at the café, at which point they will be permitted to use the computer room unsupervised and outside scheduled sessions. Access to digital technologies can be seen as a mechanism by which behavioral change and responsibilization is encouraged and rewarded.

Despite the manifold rules aimed at ensuring that the computers are used for employment purposes, guests still seem to mainly use them to access social media and email. Moser's (2009) study also shows discrepancies between intended and actual use at homelessness organizations that provide employment-focused access and support. These discrepancies are associated with different understandings on the role and importance of technology in the lives of people experiencing homelessness. While the provision of technology at Brick House is informed by the understanding that computers can help people access employment and move out of homelessness, digital inequalities research has shown that people experiencing homelessness especially value the Internet for maintaining social connections (Sala & Mignone, 2014, p. 57; Moser, 2009, pp. 722–4). Organizational assumptions of what people experiencing homelessness need, contrast with the realities of user requirements and preferences within this setting.

However, although not included within the official IT-policies and organizational strategy, informal conversations demonstrated that staff do acknowledge the importance of technology for social connections. This in turn influenced how the space was negotiated on a day-to-day basis.

On the one hand, management of the IT room was geared toward creating an environment conducive to employment-related activities. For example, when people enter the room, they are informed that “once you’re in the room you must be quiet.” Cloke et al. (2010, p. 122) state that “reflecting on an organization's ethos to shape service users’ behaviour,” people will often adjust their actions to adhere to service expectations. This also occurs at Brick House:

Three young men enter the room and approach Peter (staff member) who is sitting on the table in the centre of room. One member of the group grins widely at his peers, then turns to inform Peter that they want to use the computers “to apply for jobs.” Peter rolls his eyes dramatically at the group before entering their details on the log-in sheet and friendly banter is exchanged, suggesting that Peter knows this not to be the case. The three men then spend the majority of their time on the computers looking at Facebook (Field notes).

Although users are asked to be quiet when entering the computer room, those using the space will still often engage in friendly and sometimes rather loud conversations, which are never silenced or interrupted by those supervising. As highlighted by Cloke et al. (2010, p. 386), organizational ethos or culture will not always be reflected within the activities of staff and its clients. A tension between organizational ethos and the practices of staff can be observed within this setting. Throughout the interviews, although employment-related activities were repeatedly emphasized as the preferred form of computer use, in practice, staff appear to show significant flexibility.

At both Hope Centre and Brick House, technology provision is shaped by organizationally driven assumptions of what people need when experiencing homelessness and what technology behaviors would prove most beneficial. However, at both settings these assumptions contrast with the preferences of people using these spaces.

Nightstop Hillwood: appropriating technologies within the advice process

Nightstop Hillwood is a small independent charity that offers emergency accommodation, advice, and support for young people between the ages of 16 and 25 who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. Nightstop Hillwood arranges temporary emergency accommodation in the homes of volunteer hosts recruited from the local community. The service operates out of an open access youth center located in the city center.

The overall culture and ethos of the organization is personal and relationship-orientated. Staff describe themselves with terminology such as “a benevolent big brother,” “a functional extended family,” and “friendly professionals.” The support provided is based on personal interactions and a non-institutional approach to helping young people access their entitlements to housing, benefits, and support services, whilst enhancing feelings of self-worth and control:

We say this to everybody “you’re going to have to jump through hoops” and that's very difficult, you’re told “turn up there, turn up there, turn up there” and you may not even at the end of that get the accommodation that you want. So, a lot of their lifestyles are very dictated to them. It's trying to make sure they’ve still got some self-esteem and that they’ve got some sort of control over their choices really (Martin, project lead).

Accessing housing and other forms of support generally involves navigating various system service arrangements. Nightstop Hillwood rejects a focus on behavioral change (such as by applying tools like outcomes stars ¹ ), and instead focuses on helping young people navigate the complexity of the homelessness system and other public services:

We don’t have particular outcomes we work towards, we don’t have any particular standards, we don’t use the outcomes star, star charts that sort of thing. But we have things like having a café where they can have a ham and cheese toastie, and we can move them very fast where they then have an application with the job centre, social workers, probation officers, that sort of thing (Thomas, project lead).

Smartphones are embedded within the organization's care- and support-related functions. Nightstop Hillwood recognizes the importance of phones in facilitating relationship-building and access to more significant resources. Staff reported that, with very few exceptions, the young people accessing their services already owned mobile phones, and that the large majority had smartphones. This is reflected in existing research that shows high rates of mobile phone use among young people experiencing homelessness (Rice et al., 2011).

Computers have assumed a peripheral position within the services provided. Staff report that young people barely use the computer facilities available at the youth center. Differing support needs and prior engagement with technology are said to constitute higher levels of engagement with smartphones and web-based applications, and the service aims to respond to these distinctive connectivity needs and preferences:

Our group are going to be a lot more technology-savvy. So, they’re more likely to google something, to look something up that way, to use technology that way and respond to texts, rather than the older age group who wouldn’t do it as much. And certainly, I imagine with older homeless people it's not as easy, but certainly the groups we work with the young ones, they’re accessing it (Kate, manager).

Working with young people in our cohort is intertwined with new media. Most young people have smartphones, they ask us “Do you have WhatsApp Messenger, etc.?” (Simon, host coordinator).

In this setting, smartphones are used within the advisory process to facilitate young people's access to resources, such as supported housing. Young people must often attend multiple meetings with landlords, health practitioners, local authority officers, and other professionals. Staff actively encourage the use of smartphones to navigate this complex maze of appointments across both temporal and relational dimensions:

I found messages useful, young people find it easier to remember with their phone, the instruction can help … the nature of the young people is that you have to have some level of instruction. Often, I tell young people to put it [the appointment] in their phone. When I meet the young person, some say, “I’m just going to read your text message when I see my doctor,” which is fine, it just gives them a summary of what to say (Rebecca, keyworker).

By communicating messages “ad verbatim” to other professionals, while also helping young people plan and manage their daily routines, smartphones are used to help young people navigate the complexity of the homelessness support system and other public services. However, despite being avid smartphone users, staff report that young people often lack the confidence to communicate on the phone with professionals:

It happens quite often I have a young person sitting here and I’ll say ring the landlord and explain the deposit scheme and she’ll say, “Can you do it?” It's just practice and it's all about the enabling thing and how often are you disempowering them by making that call. But do you want action, or do you want them to be fobbed off? (Simon, host coordinator).

Mobile phones are constructed within this setting as having a dual function, where on the one hand they can help young people retain a sense of control and the ability to access their rights, while on the other hand, they can also prove to be disempowering. Staff expressed concerns that, by always communicating on behalf of the young people, they may increasingly come to regard the homelessness system as impenetrable.

The fidelity of organizational practice with existing research on youth homelessness and their connectivity needs and preferences, contrasts with the less user-focused approaches adopted in Hope Centre and Brick House. In these settings, practices surrounding the use of media technologies focus on personalization and flexibility rather than on conditionality and control.

Conclusion and discussion

The findings from this study revealed significant diversity within the provision of technology at different homelessness support organizations. Each of the organizations participating in this study represented distinct models of homelessness service provision, and it was within these varying contexts that digital technologies demonstrated considerable interpretative flexibility.

The provision of technology within these settings was undoubtably affected by material constraints. At Hope Centre, efforts to promote digital inclusion were severely hampered by a lack of funding, and guests faced numerous barriers including intermittent Internet access, outdated computer systems, and inadequate support. However, SCOT theory proposes that it is necessary to look beyond the physical aspects of technology and explore its social and interpretative dimensions. The findings illustrated how the homelessness organizations assigned different meanings to technology, which in turn had significant implications for its availability.

Meanings of technology include assumptions of who, how, and why people experiencing homelessness use technologies, and about the significance of technology in their lives. These varying assumptions underpin how technology is provided in relation to other support services. At Hope Centre, it assumed a peripheral position; at Brick House, they were connected via a conditionality agenda; and at Nightstop Hillwood, connection was inherently intertwined with the ethos and work of the organization. Assumptions on the use of technology materialized across both spatial and temporal dimensions: at Hope Centre and Brick House, digital use was a separate, contained activity with all users placed in a room to be monitored. At Nightstop Hillwood, technology use was mobile and integrated into the daily activities of the young people.

Options for access and the design and governance of these spaces are important because, as the findings showed, they serve to facilitate or inhibit use of technology. By providing access to equipment, training, and support, these services can promote digital inclusion and thereby facilitate access to housing, employment, welfare benefits, and other opportunities that are increasingly only available online (Coles-Kemp et al., 2020). However, as occurs in other city spaces (Humphry, 2021), these organizations can operate both as sites of connectivity and as sites of regulation and control.

A wide body of geographical scholarship on homelessness has demonstrated that different arrangements of power and control are written into architectural and institutional landscapes, which are in turn negotiated by people experiencing homelessness in their daily lives (e.g., Cloke et al., 2010; Mitchell, 2002; Petty, 2016; Ruddick, 1996). The findings from this study demonstrated that themes of power and control can also underpin the provision of technology within support organizations. The meanings and uses of technology were negotiated and sometimes challenged within the daily activities of staff and users; organizational restrictions were not entirely determinate. However, the regulation of these spaces can inhibit people's ability to negotiate the use of technology according to their own needs and preferences. A lack of a home is partly manifested through a lack of privacy, control, and autonomy (Watts & Blenkinsopp, 2021), and services must be mindful that they are not reproducing these social inequalities within the provision of technology.

The accessibility and impact of these spaces will depend on the extent to which the abilities, uses, and preferences of different groups of users are incorporated into their design and governance. At Brick House and Hope Centre, the terms of technology access and engagement were not determined by the people using these spaces, but solely by the organizations and funders. The absence of a user-focused approach within the provision of digital services in these spaces, formed a significant determining factor in shaping and constraining use among people who are already at heightened risk of digital exclusion.

To avoid the risk that unequal conditions to access are perpetuated, the homelessness sector must avoid the intrinsic bias associated with designing and governing these spaces only from the perspective of organizations, funders, or other professionals. It is essential that technology provision operates according to a user-informed approach, and that the core beliefs that underpin the design and governance of these spaces are examined. This can be achieved by providing meaningful opportunities for people using these services to provide feedback, developing clear digital technology policies and procedures, and encouraging staff to reflect on the nature and impact of their own pre-existing assumptions. A user-focused approach must be a continuous and ongoing process, as it is not possible to anticipate how connectivity needs and preferences may change over time. Spaces and associated policies must be motivated by a desire to remove the barriers to accessing technology that exist elsewhere. For example, greater digital inclusion could be promoted by avoiding unnecessary restrictions and by ensuring adequate staff training is provided.

With a wide body of research demonstrating the importance of mobile phones in the lives of people experiencing homelessness, this research illustrates the importance of understanding mobile digital access, uses, and needs in wider organizational and technological contexts.