Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 52, No. I , 1996, pp. 111-121

Grassroots Organizing with Homeless People: A Participatory Research Approach

Susan Yeich The Ciiizen Empowerment Project Santa Monica, California

This article discusses Participatory Research (PR), an intervention approach that involves oppressed people in the analysis of and solutions to social problems. A case study is provided to illustrate the application of PR's principles and compo- nents. The project involved the creation of a Homeless Persons Union, whose purpose was to empower participants both individually and collectively in a political struggle against homelessness. PR is suggested as a useful approach for researchers and activists engaged in grassroots organizing.

Homelessness can be most accurately understood as one symptom of chang- ing social conditions in the U.S. Dramatic changes in the economy (Bluestone & Harrison, 1982; Harrison & Bluestone, 1990; Kuttner, 1983; Reich, 1992), the housing market (Apgar, DiPasquale, Cummings & McArdle, 1990; Beauregard, 1988; Hopper, Susser, & Conover, 1985; Leonard & Lazere, 1992; McChesney, 1990), and the political system (Barlett & Steele, 1992; National Coalition for the Homeless, 1988; Phillips, 1992) have transformed U.S. society and created grow- ing inequality among its members. Today's society is characterized by a widen- ing economic and social gap between the rich and poor (Phillips, 1992), and a lack of affordable housing for people in poverty. Homeless people comprise

This article is based on the author's dissertation, presented in partial fulfillment of the require- ments for the Ph.D. degree at Michigan State University. I am grateful to Professors Ralph Levine, Deborah Bybee, William Ewens, and Ellen Strommen for their support and guidance. A very special thanks is extended to members of the Lansing Area Homeless Persons Union and other research participants involved in the project. The research reported in this article was supported in part by a Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues Grants-In-Aid award, partially matching funds from the MSU Psychology Department, and a George Fairweather Fund award.

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Susan Yeich, The Citizen Em- powerment Project, 1750 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 200, Santa Monica, CA 90405.

111

0022-4S37/96/0300-01 I1503.0011 0 19% The Society Tor the Psychological Study of Sncial lsruei

112 Yeich

the extreme low end of the social stratification described by Pilisuk, McAllister, and Rothman (this issue).

That the causes of homelessness can be traced to changes in the structure of our society attests to the political nature of the issue. Contrary to the claims of victim-blaming researchers and politicians, homelessness cannot be solved by changing characteristics of homeless people. It can only be solved by addressing the problem’s root, structural sources.

There are numerous professional advocacy organizations throughout the country working toward a political solution to homelessness. While the work of these groups has indeed been meaningful and has produced some changes, advo- cacy alone is not enough to bring an end to homelessness. Because of the tendency of policy-makers to support the interests of their powerful constituen- cies, there is a need to pressure policy-makers to respond to the interests of impoverished groups. To generate sufficient pressure, a grassroots mobilization of homeless and poor people will likely be necessary (Yeich, 1994).

It was this understanding of the politics of homelessness and the need for grassroots protest that led to the development of a project to organize homeless people. Homeless people had in fact already been organizing across the country. In 1983, the first Union of the Homeless was formed in Philadelphia. Ten years later, unions existed in 23 U.S. cities (L. Smith, personal communication, Janu- ary 12, 1993).

The intent of the Homeless Union project was to enhance grassroots mobil- ization efforts through the development of an additional union. In line with the efforts of other unions, the project worked to empower participants in a political struggle to fight homelessness. The model of empowerment used in the project was drawn from Participatory Research (PR), an intervention approach that involves oppressed people in the design and implementation of research inter- ventions.

The essence of grassroots organizing is empowering people individually and collectively in a struggle for structural change (Wittig & Bettencourt, this issue). PR offers strategies for accomplishing this goal (Yeich & Levine, 1992). The purpose of this article is to discuss the principles and components that guide PR interventions and to illustrate their application, using the Homeless Union project as a case study.

Participatory Research

PR has been defined as “an integrated activity that combines social investi- gation, educational work, and action,” with the ultimate goal of structural trans- formation and improvement of the lives of those involved (Hall, 1981, p. 7). Within PR, people are not objects of study, but are participants in the movement and research (Gaventa, in press). The research is done to create social change in

Grassroots Organizing with Homeless People 113

the interests of oppressed groups, not merely to gather information on a social phenomenon.

The most fundamental principle of PR is the full involvement of participants in the research process. The participants are in fact the decision makers, giving them full control over the intervention (Brown & Tandon, 1983; Hall, 1979, 1981; Tandon, 1981). The role of the researcher, therefore, is fundamentally different in PR than in traditional research. In traditional research, the investiga- tor designs and implements an intervention on behalf of participants. In PR the participants themselves create and define the intervention through their collective action, allowing them to determine how best to empower themselves.

The Emergence of PR

PR has been greatly influenced by the work of Paulo Freire in the field of adult education. Three characteristics are central to Freire’s ideas on education. First, oppressed people are seen as the appropriate and necessary leaders of social change movements. Second, the goal is to liberate people through the development of critical awareness. Third, learning takes place and knowledge is generated through dialogue and interaction with others. The development of PR signified the incorporation of these ideals for social change into the context of research.

The first basic conceptualization of PR originated in Tanzania in the early 197Os, with adult education researchers involving the community in the entire research process. Two forces led to the development of PR: ( 1 ) researchers finding the classical research paradigm to be insufficient and oppressive, and (2) the continued and increasing exploitation of people caused by the monopoly of knowledge by the powerful (Tandon, 1981). Many PR authors have criticized the classical research paradigm for promoting the myth of objectivity (Brown & Tandon, 1983; Darcy de Oliveira & Darcy de Oliveira, 1975; Fals-Borda, 1982; Gaventa, in press; Hall, 1979, 198 I ; Tandon, 198 I) , for oversimplifying social reality (Hall, 1981; Tandon, 1981), for not being conducive to subsequent action to solve social problems (Brown & Tandon, 1983; Hall, 1981; Tandon, 1981), and for being elitist in nature (Darcy de Oliveira & Darcy de Oliveira, 1975; Gaventa, in press; Hall, 1979; Tandon, 1981).

Many PR authors have noted that knowledge is being increasingly concen- trated in the hands of “experts” and the elite classes they represent (Darcy de Oliveira & Darcy de Oliveira, 1975; Fals-Borda, 1982; Gaventa, in press; Hall, 1979; Tandon, 1981). In modern society, only formally certified experts are seen as possessing legitimate knowledge; knowledge of ordinary people is often seen as invalid (Gaventa, in press; Fals-Borda, 1982; Hall, 1979; Tandon, 1981).

This monopolization of knowledge is the core issue on which PR was built (Tandon, 1981). PR arose as an attempt to decentralize knowledge and the power

114 Yeich

it contains by putting knowledge in the hands of the oppressed (Gaventa, in press; Hall, 1979, 1981; Tandon, 1981).

Components of Participatory Research

PR is comprised of three major components: research, education, and social action (Hall, 1979). Research is done in PR in an attempt to obtain useful knowledge about social problems that can lead to greater understanding and possible solutions (Brown & Tandon, 1983; Hall, 1981). The first step in this process is having participants collectively analyze the problems facing their communities. They then determine what methods are needed to gather pertinent information about the problem. After data collection and analysis, steps for solving the problem are collectively decided (Society for Participatory Research in Asia, 1982).

The second component of PR is the process of education (Hall, 1979). Education of participants takes place throughout the entire PR process, from problem definition to efforts to create social change. The principal form of education is through the dialogic method proposed by Freire (Freire, 1970; Shor & Freire, 1987), wherein people learn by communicating and problem solving together. This process has been referred to as the creation of popular or common knowledge, in contrast to expert knowledge (Hall, 1981).

Another integral part of the education component is the development of critical awareness (Hall, 1979, 1981; Tandon, 1981). This process involves helping people think critically about their world-to see the connection between their personal problems and the larger social structure. It is a process of putting social problems in political, economic, and social context (Freire, 1970; Freire & Macedo, 1987).

An essential part of the development of critical awareness is the process of “disindoctrination” (Vio Grossi, 198 1). Oppressed people have been indoctri- nated with the dominant ideology, which justifies their oppression and blames them for their problems instead of the larger social system. This happens through a process Freire (1970) called the “doctrine of personal culpability,” an ideologi- cal schema that encourages and predisposes people to interpret their failures as evidence of personal deficit. Disindoctrination involves unmasking the myths propagated by ideology.

A third component of the educational process is the transfer of knowledge to participants (Gaventa, in press). Through their participation, they learn skills- such as research techniques or political or advocacy strategies. Gaining access to such “expert” knowledge allows them to function autonomously, instead of rely- ing on outsiders for that information.

Once knowledge has been generated through research and education, PR enters the social action phase (Hall, 1979, 1981). The specific action taken depends on research findings and the participants’ understanding of the sources

Grassmots Organizing with Homeless People 115

of their problems. Meaningful social change is a long-term goal of PR. PR can be seen most accurately as an ongoing process of action and reflection. It is a beginning of a long process of mobilizing an oppressed group to work toward more just social conditions.

Participatory Research vs. Action Research

PR is not simply another term for the more familiar action research model. As Brown and Tandon (1983) have shown in a comprehensive comparison of the two approaches, although the two approaches share some common values, they differ dramatically in ideologies and political economies. Whereas action re- search tends to focus on individual- and group-level analysis of problems, PR focuses on societal-level analysis. Within PR, broad societal conditions such as economic dominance and unequal distribution of resources are seen as the root of many problems.

A second difference concerns their theoretical foundations for creating change. Action research operates from a social consensus theory, which assumes that everyone can benefit from a proposed solution to a problem. In contrast, PR operates from a social conflict theory, which assumes that societal groups have conflicting interests and that powerful groups will resist changes which threaten their interests.

According to Brown and Tandon ( 1983), these different theoretical frame- works result in different strategies for creating change. Action research tends to ally itself with organizational authority and to introduce problem-solving strate- gies in a top-down manner. PR, on the other hand, explicitly allies itself with oppressed groups and works to mobilize these groups toward political action in a bottom-up social change strategy. Whereas action research tries to appease all sides and to not threaten the interests of the powerful, PR actively seeks to create turmoil and to directly challenge the interests of the powerful. It is PR’s emphasis on mobilizing oppressed people to create societal-level change that makes it a useful model for grassroots organizing.

A Case Study: Creation of a Homeless Persons Union

PR served as a model for the development of a grassroots organizing project with homeless people. After giving some background information on the devel- opment of the Homeless Union, this section illustrates how the three PR compo- nents were applied in the project.

Overview of the Homeless Union Projecr

The grassroots organizing project took place in Lansing, Michigan. It began in the summer of 1990 when the investigator started approaching homeless

116 Yeich

people about the idea for forming a union. Some interested people were found quickly, and the investigator began working with a core group of four active members. Over time, the union’s membership grew. Three years after its incep- tion, the union had approximately 350 members. In the early stages of the group’s formation, members asked the investigator to serve as an “advisor” to the group. Additional advisors were brought in throughout the union’s development to provide resources and share knowledge.

Major activities of the union have included the following: speaking to various university and community groups, presenting workshops at conferences, meeting with politicians, registering homeless and low income people to vote, testifying at state legislature hearings and city council meetings, organizing public demonstrations, receiving media coverage, networking with other organi- zations, fundraising, recruiting members, and working with university faculty on a resource book for homeless people.

The union is currently a stable and viable organization, with continuing funding and solid networks in the community. It is a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization, comprised of homeless and formerly homeless people. The union now functions completely autonomously, with no continued involvement on the investigator’s part.

Illustrating the PR Components

Research component. The principal form of “research” in the union has been gathering information from the existing pool of homelessness research- from agencies, conferences, and libraries. There has been some discussion about the union conducting its own surveys for research purposes, but so far no formal research has been conducted.

One reason for this is that there is already so much existing data on home- lessness-both locally and nationally. There was no need to research the problem to prove that the problem in fact existed. There was already enough information for the union to back up its claims about the problem of homelessness and to begin taking social action.

This is one way that this PR intervention differs from some others found in the literature. In many settings where PR has been conducted, there was virtually no documentation of the problems at hand-for example, in Third World villages (Society for Participatory Research in Asia, 1982) and in remote areas of Western countries (Gaventa & Horton, 1981). In these settings there was an initial need to collect data on problems in order to better understand them and to build a foundation for taking social action.

These variations in the research component of PR demonstrate that different settings produce different intervention strategies. Each PR intervention is deter- mined by the external conditions affecting the particular community, as well as the internal desires of participants.

Grassroots Organizing with Homeless People 117

Education component. In contrast to the research component, there has been much activity in the second component of PR: education. As outlined previously, the education component is comprised of three parts: creation of common knowl- edge, transfer of knowledge to the people, and development of critical aware- ness.

Creation of common knowledge has been an element of the union since its inception. The very nature of the union precipitated this development. Homeless and formerly homeless people began coming together to discuss homelessness and poverty in order to better understand the issues and to brainstorm for solu- tions. While advisors were involved in union meetings, the focus was on the people themselves generating knowledge and problem solving.

The role of advisors relates to the second part of the education component: transfer of knowledge to participants. The union brought in advisors to get information or consultation in certain areas. The investigator was the principal advisor in the beginning. Her initial role was to bring homeless people the knowledge of other unions and the idea of forming one locally. This initial transfer of knowledge served as an impetus for the union’s formation. In the beginning the investigator also shared her knowledge of homelessness literature, as well as potential strategies for organizing.

The investigator always balanced this sharing of information with an em- phasis on participants generating their own knowledge. She was careful to elicit ideas and discussion when sharing information, instead of dictating facts and strategies.

Following this initial stage, advisors adopted more of a consulting role. Other advisors were brought in to help with specific functions, such as fundrais- ing, media relations, and political action. These people were drawn primarily from other advocacy or political organizations with which the union had contact. Certain supportive individuals were asked by union members to join. As new advisors joined, their role was clarified to them by union leaders and the investi- gator. They were advised to encourage decision making and knowledge genera- tion among members and to focus on teaching skills to members in order to move the union toward autonomous functioning.

The selection of appropriate advisors was a significant issue for the union. Advisors could be as potentially harmful as they could be beneficial. It was vital to select individuals who would be willing to promote union members as leaders and decision makers of the group.

Development of critical awareness is the third part of the education compo- nent. Development of critical awareness has been a very natural process in members, emerging inherently from union activities. It is likely that many mem- bers already had some degree of critical awareness before joining the union. This is evident from the fact that the founding members took immediately to the idea of the union; they did not need to be convinced to form a union by describing how structural forces are causing homelessness. Involvement in the union, how-

118 Yeich

ever, could only heighten any existing critical awareness of members. Many members in fact have told the investigator that their knowledge and understand- ing of homelessness has grown tremendously since joining the union.

Discussions about homelessness and poverty were seldom structured into union meeting agendas-they just emerged naturally. Members would often spontaneously share their knowledge of homelessness and their personal experi- ences, as well as their anger over societal conditions. This kind of sharing appeared to be a vital aspect of the development of critical awareness. It seemed to be a mechanism for making the personal political. It allowed people to discov- er that they are not alone in their experiences, and this in turn may have enabled them to better understand how social structural forces influence the lives of individuals. The existence of the union allowed them a forum for expressing their ideas and discontent over the situation, and offered them a vehicle for translating their anger into political action.

The existence of this vehicle for political action may be a very significant point in understanding the development of critical awareness. It is one thing to develop critical awareness in the abstract, with no forum for translating ideas into action. It is quite another to develop this awareness with a forum for action available. It seems as though the existence of this forum could facilitate the development of critical awareness. It gives meaning to the developing ideas by providing an opportunity to act on them.

Social action component. There has also been much activity in the third PR component: social action. Involvement in social action efforts was a gradual, developmental process in the union. Significant social action did not occur until several months after the union’s inception. Initial months were spent on building organizational structure-for example, recruiting members, gathering informa- tion on homelessness and poverty, and filing for nonprofit status.

When social action began in January of 1991, it was in response to specific political events. A new conservative governor took office at the beginning of the year and began cutting social programs. Demonstrations were held at the site of state legislature hearings, and union members attended the hearings and testified.

The union primarily worked in conjunction with other organizations for these political events. This networking was a vital part of political activities in the state. It made all the groups stronger by increasing the presence at demonstra- tions and hearings and by creating a greater spirit of unity.

Social action continued throughout the year with increasing budget cuts. The union continued its involvement in these state-level efforts, and also began some city-level efforts. Union members began attending and testifying at City Council hearings on issues of housing and homelessness. During this time the union organized a large demonstration in protest of the city’s decision to demol- ish a motel used to shelter homeless people.

Grassmots Organizing with Homeless People 119

Media coverage has been a significant factor in the union’s activities. The union received its first coverage very early in its formation, when an interested TV reporter learned about the group. There were also several newspaper articles in this early stage that served to introduce the union to the public. Once social action began in response to state budget cuts, media coverage greatly intensified. Union members have been interviewed repeatedly by TV, radio, and newspaper reporters.

Union members have indicated that they view media coverage as a mecha- nism for educating the public about homelessness, not as an end in itself. They view speaking engagements in the same manner. All efforts to educate the public are seen as part of an overall strategy to create social change to benefit homeless and impoverished people.

Short-Term vs. Long-Term Change

Meaningful social change is a long-term goal of grassroots organizing. Sustained, powerful social movements are often needed to force concessions from policy makers. Grassroots organizing often represents only the very begin- ning stages. Such was the case in this project. Formation of the Homeless Union was not seen as an end in itself, but rather as a beginning of a mobilization of a group of homeless and formerly homeless people. The success of the Lansing union in creating change will ultimately depend on the success of the movement nationwide.

Generating intense national pressure will require that the movement become much more powerful and widespread. With increasing numbers of people falling into poverty and becoming homeless, the likelihood of this is growing. Current conditions in fact appear conducive for the emergence of widespread protest among impoverished groups. People have had their expectations about economic security violated due to massive economic changes which are transforming our society. in addition, the ability of social institutions to regulate the lives of many individuals has been considerably weakened in recent years. These are two factors thought to encourage the emergence of protest movements among impov- erished people (Piven & Cloward, 1977). The development of grassroots protest groups among homeless and poor people, as well as such spontaneous protests as the uprising in Los Angeles in 1992, may signify the beginnings of a more widespread movement (Yeich, 1994).

Conclusion

This article has discussed PR and its usefulness as a grassroots organizing approach. The case study illustrated the application of PR in a real-life setting-

120 Yeich

and demonstrated how the three components of PR were played out in the context of the project.

As noted previously, PR projects vary widely in their functions and activ- ities-because participants themselves create and define the interventions. Un- like traditional intervention approaches, therefore, there is no concrete model that guides PR interventions.

It is this quality that makes PR-and grassroots organizing in general- unique. Because group members themselves set the course for the intervention, each project will be different. Groups will develop their own means for generat- ing knowledge and their own social action strategies, based on their particular situations.

The only guideline that is universal to all organizing projects is the need to encourage the leadership and decision making of group members. This is the heart of grassroots organizing. It is PR’s unrelenting focus on this principle that makes it a useful approach.

References

Apgar, W., DiPasquale, D. , Cummings, J., & McArdle, N . (1990). The state ojrhe nation‘s housing

Barlett, D., & Steele, J. (1992). America: What went wrong? Kansas City, MO: Andrews and

Beauregard, R. (1988). Alternatives: Gentrification, strategic initiatives. and the left. 4. New York:

Bluestone, B., & Harrison, B. (1982). The deindustrialization of America. New York: Basic Books. Brown, L., & Tandon, R. (1983). Ideology and political economy in inquiry: Action research and

Darcy de Oliveira, R., & Darcy de Oliveira. M. (1975). The milifant observer (IDAC Document 9).

Fals-Borda, 0. ( 1982). Participatory research and rural social change. Journal ofRural Cooperation,

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy ofrhe oppressed. New York: Seabury Press. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the work and the world. South Hadley, MA:

Bergin & Garvey Publishers, Inc. Gaventa, J. (in press). The powerful, the powerless and the experts: Knowledge struggles in an

information age. In P. Park, B. Hall, & T. Jackson (Eds.), Participatory research in America. Gaventa, J., & Horton, B. (1981). A citizen’s research project in Appalachia, USA. Convergence.

Hall, B. (1979). Knowledge as a commodity and participatory research. Prospects. 9, 4-20. Hall, B. (1981). Participatory research, popular knowledge, and power: A personal reflection.

Convergence. 14. 6-17. Harrison, B., & Bluestone, B. (1990). Wage polarisation in the U.S. and the “flexibility” debate.

Cambridge Journal of Economics. 14. 35 1-373. Hopper, K., Susser, E., & Conover, S. (1985). Economies of makeshift: Deindustrialization and

homelessness in New York City. Urban Anthropologv, 14. 183-236. Kuttner, R. (1983, July). The declining middle. The Atlantic Monthlv, 252, 60-72. Leonard, P., & Lazere, E. (1992). A place to call home. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and

McChesney, K. (1990). Family homelessness: A systemic problem. Journal of Social Issues.

1990. Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.

McMeel.

Analysis and Policy Press and the Institute for Democratic Socialism.

participatory research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 19. 277-294.

Geneva: lnstitut d’Action Culturelle.

10, 25-40.

14. 30-42.

Policy Priorities.

46(4), 191-205.

Grassroots Organizing with Homeless People 121

National Coalition for the Homeless (1988. July). Over the edge: Homeless families and the welfare

Phillips, K . ( 1992). The po/itirs ofrich and poor: Weafth and the American eLectorate in the Reagan

Piven, F., & Cloward, R . (1977). Poor people’s movements: Whv thev succeed, how rhev fail. New

Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations. New York: Vintage Books. Shor. I . , & Freire. P. (1987). A pedagogv for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. South

Society for Participatory Research in Asia. (1982). Participatory research; An introduction (Partici-

Tandon, R. (1981). Participatory research in the empowerment of people. Convergence. 14. 20-29. Vio Grossi, F. (I98 I ) . Socio-political implications of participatory research. Convergence. 14. 43-

Yeich. S. (1994). The politics of ending homelessness. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Yeich, S., & Levine, R. (1992). Participatory research’s contribution to a conceptualization of

svstem. Washington, DC.

aftermath. New York: Harperperennial.

York: Pantheon.

Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers. Inc.

patory Research Network, Series No. 3). New Delhi, India: Author.

50.

empowerment. Journal of Applied Social Psvchology, 22. 1894- 1908.

SUSAN YElCH received her Ph.D. in 1992 from Michigan State University’s Ecological/Community Psychology program. Based on her dissertation work organizing homeless people, she has published several articles and a book, The Politics of Ending Homelessness. She currently works for a citizen advocacy group in California, directing a new statewide organizing project.