BackgroundTo reduce homelessness, it is important to gain a better understanding of the differences between homeless people who remain in institutions and those who gain and can sustain independent housing. This longitudinal study explores differences in housing transitions and differences in changes in health and self-determination between formerly homeless people still living in institutions 2.5 years later and those now living in independent housing in the Netherlands.MethodsThis study mapped the housing transitions of 263 participants from when they entered the social relief system (SRS) to 2.5 years later when they were in independent housing or institutions. These individuals were compared at the 2.5-year mark in terms of gender, age and retrospectively in terms of duration of homelessness. They were also compared with regard to changes in psychological distress, perceived health, substance use and self-determination.ResultsTwo and a half years after entering the SRS, 81% of participants were independently housed and 19% still lived in institutions. People in institutions had a longer lifetime duration of homelessness, were more often men, and their number of days of alcohol use had decreased significantly more, whereas independently housed people had shown a significant increase in their sense of autonomy and relatedness.ConclusionFormerly homeless people living in independent housing and in institutions show few health-related differences 2.5 years after entering the SRS, but changes in autonomy and relatedness are distinctly more prevalent, after the same period of time, in those who are independently housed.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: Self-managed institutional homeless programmes started as an alternative to regular shelters. Using institutional theory as a lens, we aim to explore the experiences of stakeholders with the institutional aspects of a self-managed programs.Method: The data we analysed (56 interviews, both open and semi-structured) were generated in a longitudinal participatory case-study into JES, a self-managed homeless shelter. In our analysis we went back and forth between our empirical data and theory, using a combination of systematic coding and interpretation. Participants were involved in all stages of the research.Results: Our analysis revealed similarities between JES and regular shelters, stemming from institutional similarities. Participants shared space and facilities with sixteen people, which caused an ongoing discussion on (enforcement of) rules. Participants loathed lack of private space. However, participants experienced freedom of choice over both their own life and management of JES and structures were experienced more fluid than in regular care. Somestructures also appeared stimulated self-management.Conclusion: Our analysis showed how an institutional context influences self-management and suggested opportunities for introducing freedom and fluidity in institutional care.
DOCUMENT
This is the report on the situation in the Netherlands in the field of youth, young homeless people and unaccompanied minor aliens. The report describes risk factors for children and young people in relation to social exclusion and homelessness. This report forms the first part of the international comparative study ‘CSEYHP’. MOVISIE carries out this three-year study by order of the European Union. The cooperative partners are three universities in: England, the Czech Republic and Portugal. The objectives of ‘Combating Youth Homelessness’ are as follows: 1. to understand the life trajectories of different homeless youth populations in different national contexts; 2. to develop the concepts of risk and social exclusion in relation to the experience of young homeless people and to the reinsertion process; 3. to test how different methods of working contribute to the reinsertion process for young people; 4. to investigate the roles of and relationships between the young person, trusted adults, lead professionals, peer mentors and family members in the delivery of these programmes across all four countries. When preparing the national reports, the three partner countries the Czech Republic, England and Portugal use the same format as used in the Dutch report. Based on the four national reports, England will prepare a comparative report, in which the four national situations will be compared.
DOCUMENT
