The relation to former clients as chance and risk

Although most of the clients were only for a very short time homeless in which they could not build up relations to other fellow homeless, the time in the jiritsu shien sentā can become the basis for this kind of social relations. During their stay 95.0% of the clients have regularly contact to other clients. Furthermore 66.7% of the clients consulted with other clients and 50.0% used this relations for mutual help. Therefore the jiritsu shien sentā can be considered as a place where also longer lasting friendships to other clients occur frequently. Social gath- erings conducted by the facility for former members can be considered to be influential on this relations after they left as well.

In fact after their leave 34.5% of the former clients still have contact to other former cli- ents they met at the jiritsu shien sentā. Next to the workplace placement, this is the most im- portant source for social relations (compare to table 15). Although nearly twice as much former clients claim that they have regular contact to colleagues at the workplace, they tend to consult about their problems more with other former clients than with colleagues. It can be considered that by sharing the same space and experience during their stay in the jiritsu shien sentā they can develop relations to other clients in which it is possible to speak about their troubles without being afraid to bother others. These contacts are next to the work colleagues an important source for mutual help and lending and borrowing of money.

Table 20: Contact to former clients after leaving the jiritsu shien sentā

Type of employment Regular contact Consulting Mutual help Lending and borrowing of money

Unemployed 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.1

Insecure

employment 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1

Secure employment 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3

Splitting the relations to former clients up into different kinds of employment reveals that unemployed tend to have contact to more former clients with an average of 1.0 people. Fol- lowed by people in insecure employment who have contact to an average of 0.7 former clients and people in secure employment who have contact to an average of 0.5 former clients. While all three groups use this relations to an nearly equal extend for consulting, mutual help and lending and borrowing of money seems to be done rather by the former clients in secure em- ployment (compare to table 20).

Only two of the four interviewed former clients had contact to other former clients. One of them was A, who comes 3-5 times a week to the Jiritsu Shien Sentā Maishima 2 to work. There he meets a friend who lived with him together in the facility. Because this friend lives close to the jiritsu shien sentā, they sometimes go to his place. They meet only in the jiritsu shien sentā and go to the home of one of them, but do not go out together or make other activ- ities. A points out that this is possible, because this friend lives in the neighbourhood. If he lived far away, they would not be able to meet. He speaks only about trivial things with this friend and does not consult on important matters with him. C is also in contact with one former client. He comes frequently to the jiritsu shien sentā after work but does not speak to most of the clients. He explained that they stay only for about half a year and the people he met during his stay already left the jiritsu shien sentā. Furthermore he pointed out that while he lived in the jiritsu shien sentā there had been troubles with other clients. According to him, they result out of the fact that always different kinds of people are coming and going. C did not explain where he meets with the former client. But A as well as C can be considered as ex- ceptions, because normally the former clients do not come regularly to the jiritsu shien sentās. B, who has no contact to other clients any more, told only the members of the staff his cellphone number, but did not tell it the other clients and does not contact other clients by his own. He argues that he is not the type who has a lot of friends and that he does not treat friendship as important. ”During the time I was here I tried of corse to have a good time. […] [B]ecause it is better to have fun while living together, I spoke of course to everyone, but after I left, I did not consider them as friends any more.35_{” In all three cases it seems that nobody}

made a conscious decision to stay in contact with other clients. In the case of A it just seemed to happen that he met other people in the jiritsu shien sentā. Furthermore it seems that if a former client coincidentally lives near by it will potentially lead to continued friendship. However, B seems to be very busy and has no chance to meet other clients and does not make an effort to do so.

Watanabe points out that in many cases the network former homeless have access to is next to work only other individuals who have been supported by the same organisation. This relations are all born out of the fact that they have been homeless and have therefore two basic problems. The first is that this networks are stigmatised because they consist only of formerly homeless individuals. The second is that through the importance of this relations they are at

35 Koko ni itte ru toki wa, tōzen tanoshiku shimasu kedo, [...] dōsei seikatsu tanoshii hō ga ii kara mina

risk to become homeless again. Because they don't want to stay alone in their apartments, they go back to friends and places of their time spent as homeless. When they do so they start to drink again and they risk returning to homelessness. Former homeless individuals who are aware of this risk do not return to places where they once slept rough (Watanabe 2010a:212- 213). The relations to former clients seem to be formed more by chance than by preference. This relation give them a space to speak about their problems but bear on the other side the risk that they fall back into old patterns of behaviours like drinking and become homeless again.