Goals and Principles of Providers Working with People Experiencing Homelessness: A Comparison Between Housing First and Traditional Staircase Services in Eight European Countries

Abstract

The implementation and adaptation of the Housing First (HF) model represented profound changes the structure and delivery, goals, and principles of homeless services. These features of homeless services directly influence providers, their work performance and the clients’ outcomes. The present research, conducted in eight European countries, investigated how social providers working in HF or TS (Traditional Staircase) describe and conceptualize the goals and the principles of their services. Data were collected through 29 focus group discussions involving 121 providers. The results showed that HF and TS had similar and different goals for their clients in the following areas: support, social integration, satisfaction of needs, housing, and well-being. HF providers emphasized clients’ autonomy and ability to determine their personal goals, with housing being considered a start on the path of recovery, while TS were more focused on individual clients’ basic needs with respect to food, health and finding temporary accommodations. HF providers privileged the person-centered approach and housing as a right, while TS providers were more focused on helping everyone. Implications of the results are discussed as suggestions both for practice and for research.

Transgender Women with Severe Mental Illness and Homelessness: A Retrospective Case Series

“…Researchers are beginning to document the experiences of TW forced migrants in settlement. However, studies exploring the perceptions of service providers working with this vulnerable population are limited [13]. These may shed light on the challenges of meeting the needs of TW forced migrants, especially mental health issues and problems [14].…”

Improving the Health of the Homeless and How to Achieve It within the New NHS Architecture

“…The need to address issues affecting collaboration was also identified by Gaboardi et al [17]. Their work compared the goals of, and principles used by providers working with individuals who had experienced homelessness.…”

Empowering Features and Outcomes of Homeless Interventions: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

“…In a review of seven different community settings, including mutual help groups and civic engagement organizations, Maton (2008) identified six characteristics of empowering community organizations: core activities, relational environment, group-based belief system, opportunity role structure, leadership, and setting maintenance and change. Other researchers have applied Maton's framework to examine the principles and values of homeless services providers (Gaboardi et al, 2019;Shinn, 2015) and to examine the perceptions of an empowerment-driven community mental health service (Jorge-Monteiro, Aguiar, Sacchetto, Vargas-Moniz, & Ornelas, 2014). In these studies, Maton's framework fitted with the context and population under scrutiny, because an underlying assumption of the framework is that the population under examination have participatory roles (membership) in the organization, and thus, related insider knowledge and experience of characteristics like organizational leadership practices and underlying beliefs.…”

“…Indeed, Zimmerman (1990b) and Rappaport (1987) have called for community psychologists to extend their study of empowerment past that of natural community settings to settings that are reliant on professional expertise, and where empowering processes may be constrained. An alternative theory from the field of mental health, developed by Fitzsimons and Fuller (2002), is suitable for extending existing evidence (e.g., Gaboardi et al, 2019;Jorge-Monteiro et al, 2014) to include a wider variety of settings, such as those not founded on empowerment principles, and to include the perspectives of nonmembers of organizations, such as homeless services recipients. Fitzsimons and Fuller (2002) described empowering mental health settings as: (a) competency-building, (b) collaborative, (c) flexible, individualized, and strengths-based, and as (d) promoting and developing support.…”