1 / 20

Topics in this presentation

Research to promote evidence-based services Tony Warnes , Maureen Crane and Sarah Coward University 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

alexandrial
Download Presentation

Topics in this presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Research to promote evidence-based servicesTony Warnes, Maureen Craneand Sarah CowardUniversity of SheffieldPresentation to the Research Forum, Homeless Link8 December 2009

  2. Topics in this presentation • The FOR-HOME study • Requirements of an authoritative outcomes study • Preliminary findings from FOR-HOME • Analysis plans

  3. Aims of 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

  4. 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.

  5. Partner organisations Funded by Economic and Social Research Council

  6. Requirements of an authoritative outcomes study

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. Early FOR-HOME findings Social Housing, Lenton, Nottingham

  11. 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.

  12. Housing tenure by region (%)

  13. Settled in the accommodation (6 months) Age groups (years)

  14. 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.

  15. Housing outcomes at 15/18 months by tenure Excludes four who had died, 50 not yet interviewed, and 15 refused / lost contact.

  16. Type of accommodation in which resettled by housing outcome at 15/18 months

  17. Analysis plans

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. Contact details Tony Warnes: a.warnes@sheffield.ac.uk Maureen Crane: m.a.crane@sheffield.ac.uk Sarah Coward: s.e.coward@sheffield.ac.uk www.shef.ac.uk/sisa/research/fields/homeless

More Related