Although research on homelessness has increasingly shifted focus prevention (Culhane et al., 2011), successful strategies for prevention remain understudied. The Prevention of Homelessness Among Families (PHAF) project partnered with the Rotholme Women’s and Family Shelter and the City of London to test a shelter diversion program at a family emergency shelter. This pilot program employed a Housing Crisis Worker to assist families at imminent risk of homelessness in order to divert them from staying at the shelter. By working in the community, the Housing Crisis Worker assisted families by addressing the issues contributing to their at-risk status, finding suitable housing, helping clients to obtain financial resources, and facilitating mediation with landlords.
Methods:
Guided by the principles of participatory action research, researchers worked with participants to collaboratively investigate issues ranging from problem identification to solution implementation (McIntyre, 2008). The study evaluated qualitative and quantitative data from 44 family members who participated in the program. Data was collected through individual semi-structured interviews occurring at baseline and 6, 12 and 18 months post-intervention. Measures assessed changes in housing stability, community integration, quality of life, physical and mental health status, and health, social and justice utilization.
The program aimed to help families avoid homelessness. Furthermore, we anticipated that the program intervention would lead to increased housing stability, in turn allowing families to improve or at least maintain their quality of life, community integration, and rates of health, social, and justice service utilization.
Results:
Over the course of this study, admission to the emergency shelter decreased from 8% of families who contacted the shelter, to just 3%. Compared to an earlier pilot study of this diversion program conducted in 2015 which reported 12% of families admitted to the shelter, this indicates even greater improvements in homelessness prevention. Without the shelter diversion program, 100% of these families would have ended up in the shelter. Furthermore, 24.7% of families were able to keep their current accommodations between April and December 2017. The program also sought to improve housing stability. There was a significant difference between the number of moves at baseline and 18-month follow-up (p <0 .05) on the Housing History Survey. The frequency of moves decreased from the start of the program to the end of the study period, approximately two years after the start date, indicating improved housing stability.
The impact of the homelessness diversion program was also found to some impact on the health of the families. In regards to health service utilization, more participants answered “yes” to having talked to a health or social services provider on the phone in the past month during the baseline interview (60%; n = 12) compared to 18-month follow-up (26%; n = 5). The results from the Family Service Prioritization and Assistance Tool revealed significant improvements in tenancy management from baseline to 12 and 18-months post-intervention (p<0.01 & p=0.02 respectively) and improvements in physical health approached significance (p=0.07). However, no significant results were found on the Ontario Child Health Study Survey, indicating that children’s emotional and behavioural status, social and familial relationships and parent’s behaviour towards that child remained stable across time. Although no significant differences were reported on the Lehman Quality of Life tool, there was a significant increase in the reported amount of “money for self” over the four assessment time points (p<0.01).
Qualitative analyses from the focus groups with families and staff identified the following themes: 1) “escaping as a solution” which was epitomized by families seeking to avoid conflicts with landlords, family breakdowns and relocating as a form of coping; 2) “lack of conflict resolution skills” which included conflicts with landlords, neighbours, partners and relatives; 3) “lack of understanding the housing/tenancy system” which was thought to include limited knowledge of tenancy rights and responsibilities, protocols and procedures of social service organizations, and municipal, provincial or federal regulations; and 4) “life challenges” which were seen as predisposing factors including mental health and addiction issues, lack of sustainable income/employment, lacking in life skills, lack of support, language barriers, and low levels of education.
Conclusion:
This study demonstrated that shelter diversion can be a successful strategy for preventing and reducing homelessness. Administrative data from Rotholme’s pilot shelter diversion program illustrated that a low percentage of families ended up in shelter when accessing diversion program (i.e., only 3% between April-Dec 2017). As many as 90% of the families were known to still be housed at 18-months follow up (the remaining 2 families could not be contacted). Therefore family homelessness is a serious problem that can be prevented with early intervention. This evaluation will be used to facilitate the City of London’s development of neighborhoods and will be used to implement preventative programming within municipal hubs. Minor improvements in health were noted and participants tended to maintain baseline levels of quality of life, health, social, and justice service utilization, and child health indicators (e.g., mental health, school attendance).