In the US, a new policy for addressing chronic homelessness among individuals with multiple needs – called housing first - has been gaining attention. Housing first programmes provide immediate access to permanent independent tenancies for deeply excluded, chronically homeless individuals. Support is offered but compliance with this support is not required. This approach has obtained remarkably high levels of success at stabilising those perceived to be least likely to maintain independent housing.
I was able to observe housing first policy in practice in April of this year, whilst spending three weeks in New York. The aim of the trip was to compare housing first with traditional ‘continuum’ approaches for addressing multiple needs homelessness – which had been the focus of my doctoral research. These continuum approaches advocate the need for someone to be stable and ‘housing ready’ before accessing their own tenancy.
I hope that this account of my trip provides an introduction to an innovative US policy and also provides insight for other early career researchers on the universality of research processes – and problems – that can be encountered.
The universality of the research life
I spent some time with a research team in New York, who are currently completing a qualitative longitudinal study comparing housing first agencies with those offering traditional continuum of care approaches. The researchers recounted typical stories of the challenges faced – participants to actually turning up; transcribing inaudible tapes; and the complexity of analysing detailed qualitative data - issues that may readers will sympathise with. Another issue that the research team faced was that funding for the project was coming to an end. Most of them were now moving onto doing further postgraduate studies or onto short term contracts on similar projects. Again this is a familiar challenge faced by early career researchers – the world over it seems!
Fieldwork
The agency that I spent most of my time with – Pathways to Housing – have become synonymous with the housing first approach (and its success). Based in New York and operating since 1992, Pathways was set up by Sam Tsemberis, a psychologist, as a response to the problem he saw of mentally ill patients in hostels and on the street, with no alternative accommodation options.
As part of my trip Pathways set up a series of observation days with their Assertive Community Treatment teams. I also interviewed the founder, Sam, and other senior staff members. Perhaps indicative of the rigour of the agency I was presented with a list of locations to visit, taxi numbers and addresses on my first day at head office. They had set up and planned each day for me, with little effort on my part – that was both most welcome and rather unusual in the research process.
Conducting observational fieldwork with agency teams often involves explaining who you are and why you are there, repeatedly – and sometimes a lot of standing about wondering who you are and why you are there too. It can also involve distrust from agency workers who are unsure why their work is being ‘investigated’ or may be worried that your presence will lead to more tasks on their already busy day. When doing actual interviews there is of course the consent process, with the usual list of caveats, possible outputs and other detailed information to outline, requiring signatures at every point, until the participants may feel they are signing their first born away rather than be about to have a relaxed chat. However each of the teams I visited were friendly, helpful and happy to have me sit in on meetings, at group work with tenants, attend visits with them (with the tenants permission I visited some in their homes) and had a good humoured understanding about my need to obtain written consent and chase them with a dictaphone. Perhaps that I was a researcher from outside the US also helped, as people had an interest in where I was from, why I was interested in their work, and of what I thought of New York.
Seeing is believing
One of the challenges Pathways face – as I heard first hand at my visit to one of the Brooklyn support teams – is obtaining affordable rental properties for their tenants, as gentrification increasingly affects the previously low cost outer boroughs. In the good humoured and candid manner I encountered at all of the teams, the manager informed me that their approach was really called ‘housing maybe’ as opposed to ‘housing first’...but they were getting there and had only been operating for a short time. I felt that it was also testament to the agency that I had access to teams that were not as established as some others I visited.
Risk and ethics
Another day was spent in another Brooklyn location. There all the tenants (unlike most teams who work with the chronic homeless) have been referred from a nearby psychiatric hospital. This morning began with one of the tenants having to be admitted back to hospital, after attacking a visitor to the project (who was supervising student nurses). Ten police men (or should I say cops?) arrived to ‘escort’ him back to hospital – a reminder that despite the good humour and relaxed atmosphere, fieldwork and the lives of the professionals and individuals you are researching are not without challenges or risks. Precautions written about in the ethical procedure forms we all complete are there for a reason, and there always has to be respect for the potential risks (or upset) that research can bring to you and others.
On other days I spent time with ‘traditional’ teams based in Harlem (all of the teams are based locally in the more affordable areas, of which downtown Manhatten is not...). There I met staff and tenants, and visited apartments. Most of the tenants had stories of their past and current lives imbued with difficulties but also showed me round their houses with some pride – again a universal experience from researching previously homeless people in the UK. They had low incomes, felt isolated at times, weren’t always happy with their apartments. However these same people, often with high support needs, were living independently in their own homes, for the first time after many years of chaotic drug use, abuse, homelessness and institutionalisation. None of them wanted to return to that.
Reflections on the research process
I did not get the sense that I was shown only a positive side of housing first programmes. For this I felt it was an entirely positive research experience, because the reality of such programmes – in the UK or US - is that it is challenging and can be challenging to research. However these programmes, and research into them, are also important. That is why I feel the opportunity we have as researchers to investigate them is a privilege - and requires rigorous planning, ethical considerations, and effort, to ensure maximum data collection is achieved with minimum upset to the agencies being researched. Ok, so I admit it may be even more of a privilege to do it in New York and it was a memorable trip.....but wherever you are, I found the principles, challenges and value of research remain the same.
Carol McNaughton, Postdoctoral Research Fellow
CHHP, University of York
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment