research to promote evidence-based services tony warnes, maureen crane and sarah coward university...
TRANSCRIPT
Research to promote evidence-based services
Tony Warnes, Maureen Crane and Sarah CowardUniversity of Sheffield
Presentation to the Research Forum, Homeless Link
8 December 2009
Topics in this presentation
The FOR-HOME study
Requirements of an authoritative outcomes study
Preliminary findings from FOR-HOME
Analysis plans
To produce longitudinal information about: (a) the
experiences of homeless people who are resettled, and (b)
the factors that influence the outcomes.
To assess the relative contributions to settledness, tenancy
sustainment and achieved independence of:
* the resettled person’s characteristics
* the resettlement preparation and follow-up support
* the condition and amenities of the accommodation
* events and experiences post-resettlement
Funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council
Aims of
Study design and data collection
Study carried out in partnership with six homelessness sector organisations. The organisations were involved in the study’s design and implementation. Each appointed a senior staff member to attend Management Committee – met 6 monthly.
The sample: 400 single homeless people resettled into independent accommodation by the collaborating organisations. Two clusters: London, and Nottingham / Leeds / Sheffield (Notts/Yorks).
Semi-structured interviews conducted immediately before being resettled, and after 6 and 15/18 months. Key-worker also completed questionnaire at baseline.
Interviews from June 2007 to November 2009.
Partner organisations
Funded by Economic and Social Research Council
Requirements of Requirements of an authoritative an authoritative outcomes studyoutcomes study
Designing a study: working rules
Study population must be precisely defined, and explicit inclusion / exclusion criteria agreed – in FOR-HOME, the challenging problems were defining the type of accommodation that constituted ‘resettlement into independent living’.
Sample must represent the study population. FOR-HOME constructed a sample frame of people resettled by the six organisations in 2006, and quotas drawn up.
Recruitment involved many projects and staff. Good communication within the organisations is essential, and important that staff understand the objectives of the study, are ‘signed up to it’ and actively co-operate.
The achieved sample is broadly representative of those resettled.
Recruitment: the experiences of FOR-HOME
A link-worker was appointed in each organisation to collect information about people about to be resettled and to refer to the study. Training the link-worker and establishing a good working relationship very important.
Many staff did not see research as priority – did not always notify link-worker of imminent resettlements, nor complete staff questionnaires. The link-workers were not managers and so had no authority to direct other staff. Senior staff had to intervene.
Some organisations have many dispersed hostels / projects. Research team and link-workers attended staff and team meetings, and prepared updates for staff newsletters to promote study. Repeated when staff changed.
Recruitment slow at first, and was extended three months to reach target number.
Retention of the respondents
Essential to minimise attrition. Very challenging and time-consuming. Requires building trust, sheer persistence, learning habits and routines, being available to interview at any time (evenings / weekends), and being able to respond at short notice.
Incentive payment critical to encourage the respondents to participate in an interview and to keep in contact, e.g. by notifying changes of address. Christmas cards helped.
Contact details collected for relatives, friends, and services used – very important element of keeping in touch.
Respondents given ‘change of contact’ cards and freepost envelopes.
Tracking exercise at 12 months to establish whereabouts; more frequently for those at high risk of leaving / losing tenancy. Link workers helped with tracking.
Early FOR-HOME Early FOR-HOME findingsfindings
Social Housing, Lenton, Nottingham
The respondents’ characteristics at time resettled
400 respondents:
74% men; 26% women
56% in London; 44% in Nottingham/ Leeds/ Sheffield
24% aged 16-24; 62% aged 25-49; 14% aged 50+
60% White British/ Irish; 40% other ethnic groups
18% homeless up to 12 months; 14% homeless 10+ years
In last five years, 62% had mental health problems, 33% had alcohol problems, 56% had used illegal drugs.
Housing tenure by region (%)
Tenure LondonNotts / Yorks Total
Local authority 30 71 48
Housing association 54 18 38
Private rented 17 11 14
Sample sizes (223) (177) (400)
Settled in the accommodation (6 months)
4151
73 79
3026
11 0
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
17-24 25-49 50-59 60+
Definitely Think so Don't think so Definitely not
Age groups (years)
Housing outcomes at 15/18 months by region
Notes: Excludes four who had died, 50 still not interviewed, and 15 refused / lost contact. Among those described as homeless, 12 with relatives / friends, and 21 had returned to streets or hostels.
London Notts/Yorks Total
Outcome % % Number %
In original accommodation 86 67 255 77
Moved to another tenancy 4 11 25 8
Returned to homelessness 8 12 33 10
Evicted / abandoned, unknown if homeless
1 5 10 3
In prison or rehab. 1 5 8 2
Sample sizes (180) (151) (331) (331)
Housing outcomes at 15/18 months by tenure
Excludes four who had died, 50 not yet interviewed, and 15 refused / lost contact.
Local authority
Housing association
Private rented Total
Outcome % % % %
In original accommodation
79 87 44 77
Moved to another tenancy 6 6 17 8
Returned to homelessness
6.5 5.5 33.4 10.0
Evicted / abandoned, unknown if homeless
4.5 1.0 4.0 3.0
In prison or rehab. 4 1 2 2
Sample sizes (155) (128) (48) (331)
Type of accommodation in which resettled by housing outcome at 15/18 months
8884
42
58
26
7 8
32
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
Self-contained flat Studio flat Bedsit
Per
cen
tag
es
Original accomm Changed tenancy Homeless
Analysis plansAnalysis plans
What we hope to learn from FOR-HOME
Factors that associate with positive and negative outcomes of resettlement. A large sample and longitudinal data enables rigorous, multivariate analysis.
Innumerable hypotheses associated with respondents’ backgrounds, problems, the help they received, preparation for resettlement, the condition and type of accommodation, tenancy support, friends and relatives’ support, and events post-resettlement.
Analysis will iterate between the ‘big picture’ and close attention to particular issues or problems. Workshops with staff and respondents.
Attention has already been drawn to debts, tenancy support and continuing support in dealing with substance abuse.
Our warm thanks to …
All the respondents who have participated in this study over a very long time.
Ruby Fu, Camilla Mercer and Louise Joly who have helped massively with running the project and coding the data.
The freelance interviewers – Gary Bellamy, Paul Gilsenan, Louise Joly and John Miles.
Members of the Management Committee: David Fisher (Broadway), Caroline Day and Jennifer Monfort (Centrepoint), Peter Radage and Rachel Harding (Framework), Julie Robinson and Tony Beech (St Anne’s), Simon Hughes and George Miller (St Mungo’s), and John Crowther and Debra Ives (Thames Reach), and to all their colleagues who have been Link Workers or have otherwise assisted with recruitment and tracking.
Contact details
Tony Warnes: [email protected]
Maureen Crane: [email protected]
Sarah Coward: [email protected]
www.shef.ac.uk/sisa/research/fields/homeless