The challenges of and returns from a
longitudinal study of the resettlement of single
homeless people
Tony Warnes (University of Sheffield) and
Maureen Crane (King’s College London)
APHA meeting, Caucus on Homelessness Symposium
Novel methods, priorities or challenges in conducting research with homeless
populations
1 November 2011, Washington DC
Presenter Disclosures
Tony Warnes and Maureen Crane
(1)
The following personal financial relationships with
commercial interests relevant to this presentation
existed during the past 12 months:
No relationships to disclose
Topics
 Origins and aims of the FOR-HOME study
 Main features of the methodology and of its
execution
 Returns from the longitudinal design and the
large sample
 Overcoming the difficulties of raising grants
for large studies
Aims of FOR-HOME
A study in England designed to produce authoritative and
longitudinal information about:
(a) the experiences of homeless people who are resettled, and
(b) the factors that influence the outcomes.
Funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council
Partner organisations
Leeds and Sheffield
Nottingham
Study design and data collection
 The sample: 400 single homeless people resettled into
independent accommodation by the collaborating
organisations. Sampled from London, and three provincial
cities Nottingham / Leeds / Sheffield (Notts/Yorks).
 Semi-structured interviews conducted immediately before
being resettled, and after 6 and 15/18 months. Link Worker
also completed questionnaire at baseline.
 Interviews from June 2007 to March 2010. Tracking exercise at
12 months to check the respondents’ whereabouts, and at 9
and 15 months for some.
The FOR-HOME
survey areas
Scotland
LEEDS
*
* SHEFFIELD
Wales
* NOTTINGHAM
LONDON *
Final report available online at
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/kpi/scwru/pubs/2011/craneetal2011forhomefinalreport.pdf
Profile of the participants
 296 men and 104 women
 24% aged 17-24 years; 39% aged 25-39; 23% aged
40-49; and 14% aged 50+ years.
 56% White British, 44% other ethnicity
 63% had mental health problems, 33% alcohol
problems, 57% drug problems.
Main features of the
methodology
The rationale for a longitudinal study
First, we set out to test a theoretical model, that resettlement
outcomes are a function of :
(i) the resettled person’s biographical and current attributes
(ii) the help and support received before and after resettlement
(iii) the condition and amenities of the accommodation
(iv) the respondents’ experiences post-resettlement
Second, previous studies had found a peak of abandonments in
the early weeks of resettlement, and that early resettlement
‘failures’ had different causes than those after three months. We
wished to establish the timing of abandonments and evictions.
Both ambitions required a longitudinal design (three waves of
interviews over 18 months)
Constructing a quasi-representative sample
There have been few evaluations of the resettlement of homeless people in the
UK, and most have been of single or special projects, e.g. the closure of
Glasgow’s large outdated hostels.
A representative sample raises the value and authority of evaluation findings,
but was a major challenge because data on the characteristics of (single)
homeless people have not been collated.
Increasing the difficulty, we had resolved that the first interview would be just
before the move from the hostel – only a few days to arrange. Moreover,
homeless people and services in London differ from elsewhere in England.
To build a quasi-representative sample:
* Six organisations operating in four cities were signed up
* Data on the residents they resettled in 2006 were collated, and age, sex and
oooethnicity quotas computed
* Each organisation appointed a Link Worker to co-ordinate the organisation’s
ooorecruitment efforts. They were trained to apply the inclusion/exclusion criteria
oooscrupulously.
Overcoming early recruitment problems
In the first 3+ months, recruitment was much slower than required. Some
residents being resettled by the six organisations were being missed.
When investigated, the main reason was found to be defective
communication – of the importance and value of the study, and of
imminent resettlements to the Link Workers
The problem was largely (but not entirely) overcome by a concerted
‘education program’
* researchers contacted hostel managers and attended staff meetings
* management and Link Workers sent out email reminders to staff.
Lessons for future studies: work intensively on encouraging all staff and
projects to take ‘ownership’ of the research, and appoint Link Workers for
each resettling project, not just the organisation.
Recruitment to FOR-HOME was extended for three months, so a minority
of the sample were interviewed 15 months after resettlement, not 18
months
Minimising attrition
• Around one-third of the participants were difficult to engage –
important to be persuasive and persistent.
• Interviews arranged through repeated phone calls and, for some,
several visits (costs of unsuccessful visits/appointments has to be
budgeted).
• Need to be flexible – some interviews conducted weekends, early
morning or late evening, to fit in with both drinking and drug habits and
the schedules of those in work or formal study/training
• With participants’ consent, collected detailed information about formal /
informal contacts for tracking. These details updated at each interview.
‘Freepost’ cards to return if changed address / phone number, which
several did. Helped re-establish contact with a few participants
• Trust with participants increased over time -- they were more willing to
give contact details for family and friends later on in the study
• Intensive, frequent tracking of participants
Interviews that maximise the response rate and data quality
• Semi-structured approx. 75 minute interviews administered by firstclass experienced / thoroughly-trained interviewers
• Many in-depth, open-ended questions
• Incentive payments and personal touch: most interviews in participants’
homes, Christmas cards sent to all participants, and same interviewers
for second and third interviews
• Need for strict safety procedures code. Some interviews required two
present for safety reasons. No serious problems encountered.
* Key Worker self-completion questionairres at baseline (required
intensive encouragement from researchers and from organisations’
management)
• Despite intensive search, no appropriate standard ‘housing satisfaction’
scale found. Developed own ‘Right Move Scale’
• Verbatim transcription of responses to open-ended questions, and best
practice, qualitative data analysis
Returns from the
methodology
Social housing, Lenton, Nottingham
Direct returns
* Low attrition rate. Interviews unable to be arranged or refused –
4.5% of sample at 6 months and 7.1% at 15/18 months. A few
other participants had moved to institutions or died.
* Reduced frequency of ‘missing data’ or values
* Personal approach built trust with participants, who were then
willing to share personal details and their opinions
* Rich data set with >2,000 variables – including detailed
information on personal finances, activities, aspirations and
opinions
... all of which increased the scope and power of feasible analyses
and the reliability of the results, especially in comparisons of
sub-groups
Examples of rich returns to understanding
 Able to provide detailed descriptions and partial explanations
of variations in access to ‘tenancy support’
 New understanding about the radical impact of ‘resettlement’ –
and of ‘life transitions’ once resettled – on personal finances
 Able to detail the relationships between taking up and giving
up paid work and change in personal finances – more serious
impacts than gains/losses of earned income
 Detailed evidence about the distinctive demands of moving
into the private-rented sector
Tenancy support
‘Tenancy support’ is a form of low intensity ‘social work’ that focuses on
managing a tenancy, including meeting rent payments and acquiring
eligible social security benefits. It is provided in people’s homes: most
clients have just a few visits, but some have multiple visits.
It has been developing over 20+ years in the UK, particularly for vulnerable
tenants, including those with learning difficulties, mental-health problems,
vulnerability through old age and/or living alone, and recently has
increasingly served people at risk of returning to homelessness.
Most tenancy support services are funded through the central government
Supporting People grant to every local authority, but some are supported
by charitable funds.
We learned during the study that some policy makers believed that every
resettled person received tenancy support.
Tenancy support findings
 Only 51% respondents had contact with a tenancy support (TS)
worker after being rehoused.
 Young people least likely to have a TS worker yet most likely to
have no experience of independent-living. 27% aged 17-24
compared to 59% above this age had a TS worker.
 Strong difference in London – 93% rehoused through the
‘Clearing House’ compared to 37% rehoused in other ways had
a TS worker. Only 12% in London aged 17-24 had this help.
Overall conclusion:
The allocation of TS is as much a function of a person’s pathway
through homelessness, particularly whether they have been a
rough sleeper, as it is of the need for support
Resettlement and personal finances
Resettlement involves moving from an institutional, supported setting to
residential independence. In hostels, the management arranges rent and
property-tax payments, and there are no energy, furnishing or domestic
maintenance charges. Many hostels also provide subsidised hot meals.
Becoming financially independent is a great challenge for many,
particularly young people who have not been so before.
The unemployed and those on low incomes are entitled to Housing
Benefit, a rent subsidy. Among the respondents, 9% were employed at
the time of resettlement, and 18% at 15/18 months. Most of the others
had the majority of their rent paid by Housing Benefit.
Nevertheless, when resettled many were short of money and, over time,
debts increased.
Mean value (£) of debts by age group and time resettled
300
284
6 months
Pounds (£s)
15/18 months
200
162
137
131
108
100
79
63
76
55
43
61
15
0
17-19
20-24
25-39
40-49
50+
Age w hen resettled (years)
Total
Policy and practice recommendations arising
from the FOR-HOME evidence
Resettlement preparation should give more attention to:
a) The problem of being without basic furniture and equipment
(particularly beds and cookers) when people first move in
b) Training in the skills of not only weekly budgeting but also long-term
personal financial planning.
The allocation of tenancy support should be reformed in ways that
place more emphasis on ‘support needs’ rather than the pathway
prior to resettlement.
Advice and support services for those who do not have tenancy
support should be more widely available
Features of the FOR-HOME project that raised the
impact of its evidence and recommendations
The FOR-HOME evidence became available in May 2010 when the new
UK Coalition government took power. The study shows that
resettlement services in 2007-09 – all funded by central government (for
revenue, principally Supporting People) – have successfully prevented
returns to homelessness.
The proposed cuts in Supporting People and rent subsidies threaten this
success. As FOR-HOME was a collaboration with six service provider
organisations, they were quick to distil the evidence for policy makers
(see http://www.centrepoint.org.uk/media/58930/joint-response-to-for-home.pdf)
They/we have presented the findings to several national bodies
(Homeless Link, the Homelessness Commission, Crisis Private-rented
Sector project conference) and submitted evidence to Parliament’s
scrutiny of the Localism Bill.
The research findings have been rapidly disseminated and influential.
Raising grants for large,
authoritative studies
Securing grants for large, authoritative studies
Study homeless people in at least two contrasting areas, or at
least two different groups
Design study and set aims in collaboration with service provider
organisations
Emphasise efficiency, effectiveness and cost-saving returns to
service provision, and incorporate strong academic or theoretical
objectives
The proposal must also demonstrate that the research team is
highly competent in the required skills and will be assiduous in
following ethical research practice, minimising sample attrition,
maximising data quality, and developing the findings in concert
with service providers and users
Conclusions
Large sample, area-stratified and longitudinal studies produce
authoritative and original evidence about the effectiveness of
interventions with homeless people. Such evidence is valued by
service providers, public-service administrators and policy
makers
Studies designed in collaboration with service providers have a
good chance of producing evidence relevant to currently
contentious policy and practice issues
Large sample, longitudinal studies tell us a great deal about the
diversity of homeless people’s return to independence and
conventional living – strong academic and theoretical returns
Homelessness researchers should redirect their efforts towards
large scale studies
Our warm thanks to …
All the respondents who participated in the study
Ruby Fu for her first-rate interviewing, data management and
administrative support
Camilla Mercer and Louise Joly who helped massively with
administrative and coding tasks
The freelance interviewers – Gary Bellamy, Ruby Fu, Paul Gilsenan,
Louise Joly and John Miles
Members of the Management Committee: David Fisher (Broadway),
Caroline Day and Jennifer Barnes (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: a.warnes@sheffield.ac.uk
Maureen Crane: m.a.crane@sheffield.ac.uk