Summary Self-managed shelters claim that participants who have been homeless, are better able to run a shelter than regular providers. Little research has investigated self-managed shelters. In this paper we described the experiences of participants and peer workers with empowerment processes in Je Eigen Stek (Your own place, JES), a self-managed shelter, based on an eight year qualitative responsive evaluation. FindingsWe distinguish three clusters of individual experiences: 1) enthusiastic, 2) moderate to critical, and 3) negative, respectively associated with decreasing engagement with social life in and management of JES. Those not engaged can still benefit materially and from the freedom of choice JES offers, which is generally appreciated. Empowerment provides a useful framework and JES in turn offers new insights into the dialectical nature of empowerment. Empowerment consists of freedom of choice and capacity development and neither should be emphasized over the other. The emphasis in JES is on freedom of choice, which does not automatically lead to developing capacities. Social workers try to balance both aspects of empowerment.Applications Our analysis shows how offering freedom of choice can contribute to empowerment, although social workers need to be aware that participants might opt not to work on capacity development.
Very little is known about the personal goals of homeless people and how these relate to their quality of life (QoL). By using survey data on 407 homeless adults upon entry to the social relief system in 2011, we examined the personal goals of homeless adults and the association between their perceived goal-related self-efficacy and their QoL. A hierarchical regression analysis was used to analyse the association between QoL and goal-related self-efficacy, relative to factors contributing to QoL, such as demographic characteristics, socioeconomic resources, health and service use. Results indicate that the majority of homeless adults had at least one personal goal for the coming 6 months and that most goals concerned housing and daily life (94.3%) and finances (83.6%). The QoL of homeless adults appeared to be lower in comparison with general population samples. General goal-related self-efficacy was positively related to QoL (β = 0.09, P = 0.042), independent of socioeconomic resources (i.e. income and housing), health and service use. The strongest predictors of QoL were psychological distress (β = −0.45, P < 0.001), income (β = 0.14, P = 0.002) and being institutionalised (β = 0.12, P = 0.004). In conclusion, the majority of homeless adults entering the social relief system have personal goals regarding socioeconomic resources and their goal-related self-efficacy is positively related to QoL. It is therefore important to take the personal goals of homeless people as the starting point of integrated service programmes and to promote their goal-related self-efficacy by strength-based interventions.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that substance use among homeless people is a prevalent problem that is associated with longer durations of homelessness. Most studies of substance use among the homeless were carried out outside Europe and have limited generalizability to European countries. This study therefore aimed to address the prevalence of substance use among homeless people in the Netherlands, the pattern of their use and the relationship with housing status at follow-up.METHODS: This study included 344 participants (67.1% of the initial cohort) who were followed from baseline to 18 months after the baseline interview. Multinomial logistic regression analyses examined the relationship between substance use and housing status.RESULTS: The most reported substances which were used among these homeless people were cannabis (43.9%) and alcohol (≥5 units on one occasion) (30.7%). Other substances were used by around 5% or less of the participants. Twenty-seven percent were classified as substance misuser and 20.9% as substance dependent. The odds to be marginally housed (4.14) or institutionalized (2.12) at follow-up compared to being housed of participants who were substance users were significantly higher than those of participants who did not use substances. The odds to be homeless were more than twice as high (2.80) for participants who were substance dependent compared with those who were not.CONCLUSION: Homeless people who use substances have a more disadvantageous housing situation at follow-up than homeless people who do not use substances. Attention is needed to prevent and reduce long-term homelessness among substance-using homeless people.
