“What is our actual impact?”: A mixed-method assessment of a Belgian shelter for homeless men

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Coralie Helleputte , Marthe Nyssens , Anaïs Périlleux
{"title":"“What is our actual impact?”: A mixed-method assessment of a Belgian shelter for homeless men","authors":"Coralie Helleputte ,&nbsp;Marthe Nyssens ,&nbsp;Anaïs Périlleux","doi":"10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This paper presents an outcomes assessment carried out in an 84-bed long-term shelter for homeless men in Brussels. In the context of increasing Housing First studies, it investigates an instance of the traditional “treatment first” model and provides a new Belgian case study. Adopting a multidimensional approach, it aims to better understand what impact an average stay in a long-term shelter has on its residents. The assessment investigated several outcomes—income and housing, physical and mental health, life skills, social and assistance network—and relied on a participative mixed-method design. Although the shelter mission is broad and ambitious (i.e. autonomy, global well-being and reintegration into society), the assessment results show that the shelter struggles to have positive effects on the residents beyond the provision of basic care (a roof, food, administrative support) and that the stress felt by the residents even tends to increase during their stay. Several recommendations collectively emerged from the assessment: individualizing shelter support and making it evolve during the stay, reducing the size of the shelter while at the same time fostering community living, developing partnerships. At the public policy level, we would recommend revising the mission of long-term shelters in accordance with their means.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48046,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation and Program Planning","volume":"108 ","pages":"Article 102508"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation and Program Planning","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718924001101","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper presents an outcomes assessment carried out in an 84-bed long-term shelter for homeless men in Brussels. In the context of increasing Housing First studies, it investigates an instance of the traditional “treatment first” model and provides a new Belgian case study. Adopting a multidimensional approach, it aims to better understand what impact an average stay in a long-term shelter has on its residents. The assessment investigated several outcomes—income and housing, physical and mental health, life skills, social and assistance network—and relied on a participative mixed-method design. Although the shelter mission is broad and ambitious (i.e. autonomy, global well-being and reintegration into society), the assessment results show that the shelter struggles to have positive effects on the residents beyond the provision of basic care (a roof, food, administrative support) and that the stress felt by the residents even tends to increase during their stay. Several recommendations collectively emerged from the assessment: individualizing shelter support and making it evolve during the stay, reducing the size of the shelter while at the same time fostering community living, developing partnerships. At the public policy level, we would recommend revising the mission of long-term shelters in accordance with their means.
"我们的实际影响是什么?对比利时无家可归男子收容所的混合方法评估
本文介绍了在布鲁塞尔一家拥有 84 张床位的长期无家可归男子收容所开展的成果评估。在 "住房优先 "研究日益增多的背景下,本文调查了传统 "治疗优先 "模式的一个实例,并提供了一个新的比利时案例研究。它采用多维方法,旨在更好地了解长期收容所的平均居住时间对其居民的影响。评估采用参与式混合方法设计,调查了收入和住房、身心健康、生活技能、社会和援助网络等多项结果。尽管庇护所的使命广泛而宏大(即自主、全球福祉和重新融入社会),但评估结果表明,庇护所除了提供基本的照顾(屋顶、食物、行政支持)之外,很难对居住者产生积极的影响,居住者感受到的压力甚至有在居住期间增加的趋势。通过评估,我们共同提出了几项建议:使收容所的支持个性化,并在收容期间不断发展;缩小收容所的规模,同时促进社区生活;发展合作伙伴关系。在公共政策层面,我们建议根据长期庇护所的手段修改其使命。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evaluation and Program Planning
Evaluation and Program Planning SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
112
期刊介绍: Evaluation and Program Planning is based on the principle that the techniques and methods of evaluation and planning transcend the boundaries of specific fields and that relevant contributions to these areas come from people representing many different positions, intellectual traditions, and interests. In order to further the development of evaluation and planning, we publish articles from the private and public sectors in a wide range of areas: organizational development and behavior, training, planning, human resource development, health and mental, social services, mental retardation, corrections, substance abuse, and education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信