Search

The capabilities approach, a framework for understanding and measuring inequality, stipulates that equality is best understood as the freedom to do and be within a particular context. Homelessness has been referred to as a situation of 'capabilities deprivation', and the extent to which homeless services restore or enhance capabilities is of increasing interest. As part of a large, eight‐country study of homelessness in Europe, we examined the extent to which adults with histories of homelessness perceived the services they receive as capabilities‐enhancing. We collected data at two time points: baseline (nt1 = 565) and follow‐up (nt2 = 399). Measures included perceived capabilities, choice and housing quality. Participants engaged with Housing First (HF) programmes perceived services as more capabilities‐enhancing than participants engaged with treatment as usual (TAU); this relationship was mediated by consumer choice and perceived housing quality. Implications for social policy, practice and training are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The complexity of homeless service users' characteristics and the contextual challenges faced by services can make the experience of working with people in homelessness stressful and can put providers' well‐being at risk. In the current study, we investigated the association between service characteristics (i.e., the availability of training and supervision and the capability‐fostering approach) and social service providers' work engagement and burnout. The study involved 497 social service providers working in homeless services in eight different European countries (62% women; mean age = 40.73, SD = 10.45) and was part of the Horizon 2020 European study "Homelessness as Unfairness (HOME_EU)." Using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM), findings showed that the availability of training and supervision were positively associated with providers' work engagement and negatively associated with burnout. However, results varied based on the perceived usefulness of the training and supervision provided within the service and the specific outcome considered. The most consistent finding was the association between the degree to which a service promotes users' capabilities and all the aspects of providers' well‐being analyzed. Results are discussed in relation to their implications for how configuration of homeless services can promote social service providers' well‐being and high‐quality care. Highlights: The complexity of users' characteristics can make working with homeless people very stressful.Some features of homeless services are likely to be associated with providers' well‐being.Useful training was associated with higher levels of work engagement and lower levels of burnout.Non useful supervision was positively associated with providers' burnout.Capability‐fostering approach was positively associated with providers' well‐being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: Housing First reports more service user recovery but little is known about how this is achieved.Certain features of homeless services are likely to promote service users' recovery.Housing First service users reported more choice, better housing quality, and more satisfaction.Service features predicted independent housing, psychiatric symptoms, and community integration.Across socio‐political and economic contexts, Housing First predicts greater recovery than traditional services. Across Europe, as governments turn to housing‐led strategies in attempts to reverse rising rates of homelessness, increasing numbers of Housing First (HF) programs are being implemented. As HF programs become more widespread, it is important to understand how service users experience them compared to the more prevalent traditional treatment‐first approach to addressing long‐term homelessness. Although there is a large body of research on service users' experiences of Housing First compared to treatment‐first in North American contexts, comparatively less is known about how these two categories of homeless services are experienced in the European context. In a correlational and cross‐sectional study, part of a larger examination of homelessness in Europe, participants (n = 520) engaged with either HF (n = 245) or traditional services (TS; n = 275) programs in seven countries completed measures of their experiences of services (consumer choice, housing quality, and service satisfaction) and recovery (time in independent housing, psychiatric symptoms, and community integration). Across the seven countries, participants engaged with HF programs reported experiencing more consumer choice, better perceived housing quality, and more satisfaction with services than participants engaged in TS programs. Participants in HF programs also reported a greater proportion of time in independent accommodation, fewer psychiatric symptoms, and more community integration. Varying patterns of association between experiences of services and recovery outcomes were observed. Findings indicate HF consistently predicts greater recovery than TS across diverse sociopolitical and economic contexts. Implications of findings for configurations of homeless services and homeless services policy are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Homeless services expend considerable resources to provide for service users' most basic needs, such as food and shelter, but their track record for ending homelessness is disappointing. An alternative model, Housing First, reversed the order of services so that homeless individuals are offered immediate access to independent housing, with wraparound supports but no treatment or abstinence requirements. Although the evidence base for Housing First's effectiveness in ending homelessness is robust, less is known about its effectiveness in promoting recovery., Objective: The objective of this research is to compare rehabilitation- and recovery-related outcomes of homeless services users who are engaged in either Housing First or traditional staircase services in eight European countries: France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden., Methods: A mixed methods, multi-site investigation of Housing First and traditional services will compare quantitative outcomes at two time points. Key rehabilitation outcomes include stable housing and psychiatric symptoms. Key growth outcomes include community integration and acquired capabilities. Semistructured interviews will be used to examine service users' experiences of environmental constraints and affordances on acquired capabilities to identify features of homeless services that enhance service users' capabilities sets. Multi-level modelling will be used to test for group differences-Housing First versus traditional services-on key outcome variables. Thematic analysis will be used to understand the ways in which service users make sense of internal and external affordances and constraints on capabilities., Results: The study is registered with the European Commission (registration number: H2020-SC6-REVINEQUAL-2016/ GA726997). Two press releases, a research report to the funding body, two peer-reviewed articles, and an e-book chapter are planned for dissemination of the final results. The project was funded from September 2016 through September 2019. Expected results will be disseminated in 2019 and 2020., Conclusions: We will use the findings from this research to formulate recommendations for European social policy on the configuration of homeless services and the scaling up and scaling out of Housing First programs. From our findings, we will draw conclusions about the setting features that promote individuals' exits from homelessness, rehabilitation, and recovery., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): RR1-10.2196/14584., (©Ronni Michelle Greenwood, Rachel M Manning, Branagh R O'Shaughnessy, Oisin Cross, Maria J Vargas-Moniz, Pascal Auquier, Massimo Santinello, Judith R Wolf, Anna Bokszczanin, Roberto Bernad, Håkan Källmén, Frederik Spinnewijn, José Ornelas, HOME_EU Consortium. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 05.02.2020.)