'We stick people in a house and say okay, you're housed. The problem is solved': A qualitative study of service provider and organisational leader perspectives on thriving following homelessness

Research aimed at identifying and evaluating approaches to homelessness has predominately focused on strategies for supporting tenancy sustainment. Fewer studies focus on strategies for enabling thriving following homelessness, and the perspectives of service providers and organisational leaders (SPOL) on this topic are rare. We conducted this study in the context of a community-based participatory research project in two cities in Ontario, Canada. This research was aimed at identifying the strengths and challenges of existing supports in enabling thriving following homelessness, followed by co-designing a novel intervention alongside persons with lived experience of homelessness (PWLEH) and SPOL. The current study presents the findings of interviews conducted in 2020-2021 with SPOL in organisations serving PWLEH. We interviewed 60 individuals including service providers (n = 38; 63.3%) and organisational leaders (n = 22; 36.7%) using semi-structured qualitative interviews. Interviews were conducted and recorded on Zoom to align with physical distancing protocols associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed abductively informed by the lenses of social justice and health equity. The essence of our findings is represented by a quote from a research participant: 'We stick people in a house and say okay, you're housed. The problem is solved'. This essence was expressed through five themes: (1) stuck in a system that prevents thriving, (2) substance use as an important coping strategy that prevents tenancy sustainment and thriving, (3) the critical importance of targeting community integration following homelessness, (4) incorporating peer expertise as imperative and (5) people need to be afforded options in selecting housing and services following homelessness. Our findings indicate that SPOL envision possibilities of thriving following homelessness yet are embedded within a system that often prevents them from supporting individuals who are leaving homelessness to do so. Research, practice and policy implications are discussed.

Effectiveness of employment-based interventions for persons experiencing homelessness: A systematic review

Employment is frequently desired by persons who experience homelessness yet is often elusive. Little is known about the range and effectiveness of employment-based interventions evaluated in existing literature on key psychosocial outcomes including employment participation, mental well-being, housing tenure, community integration and substance use. To identify and synthesise existing studies, we conducted a systematic review of effectiveness using the methodology proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Following the removal of duplicates, we screened 13,398 titles and abstracts, and reviewed 79 studies at the full-text review stage using two independent raters. A total of 16 studies met criteria for inclusion in a narrative synthesis and were subjected to critical appraisal. The majority of studies were conducted in the US (n = 14; 87.5%) with other studies published in Canada (n = 1; 6.3%) and Australia (n = 1; 6.3%). Interventions evaluated in existing studies included combined substance use and vocational skills interventions (n = 7; 43.8%), supported employment (n = 6; 37.5%), and integrated supports including an employment component (n = 3; 18.8%). The effectiveness of these interventions on employment, mental well-being, housing tenure, community integration, and substance use is presented. Findings suggest that research evaluating employment interventions for persons who experience homelessness is in an early stage of development. Researchers and practitioners may consider collaborating with persons with lived experiences of homelessness and practitioners in co-designing and modifying existing approaches to target key outcomes more effectively. Policymakers may consider allocating resources to such initiatives to further the development of practice and research aimed at supporting persons who experience homelessness to secure and sustain employment during and following homelessness.

Interventions to prevent tenant evictions: a systematic review

Tenant evictions are a significant cause of homelessness. As evictions are a traumatic experience for those being evicted and involve high costs, preventing evictions is vital and should be part of local and national policy. In order to develop and implement preventive practices and policies, it is essential to know which interventions are effective in preventing evictions. However, little is known about these interventions. Therefore, a systematic search of the international literature, providing an overview of interventions to prevent evictions published in scientific journals and reporting on their (cost-)effectiveness, was conducted. Nine electronic databases and Google Scholar were searched for peer-reviewed and non-reviewed publications describing research into interventions to prevent tenant evictions published in English between January 1985 and May 2012. Two researchers reviewed titles, abstracts and full-text articles and eventually seven publications describing eight interventions to prevent tenant evictions were analysed. The eight interventions vary widely in terms of their target population, focus, type of support and duration, which makes comparison of results difficult. Only three effect studies on preventive interventions regarding tenant evictions were found; two researchers assessed their quality. One of these studies was of insufficient quality to assess the effectiveness of the intervention described. Legal assistance and debt advice are promising interventions that seem to be effective in decreasing the risk of eviction. The effectiveness of the other five interventions cannot be determined. More methodologically sound research into the prevention of tenant evictions is needed and future research will have to clarify what works for whom, in which context.