Article 1: “Homelessness Interventions in Georgia: Rapid Re-Housing, Transitional Housing, and the Likelihood of Returning to Shelter”
The first article is “Homelessness Interventions in Georgia: Rapid Re-Housing, Transitional Housing, and the Likelihood of Returning to Shelter” by Rodriguez and Eidelman (2017), where the researchers primarily focus on three different forms of homelessness interventions, such as traditional emergency shelter or ES, transitional housing or TH, and rapid re-housing or RRH. The study’s population can be categorized into two distinct groups, which are households without children and households with children. It is important to note that researchers utilized one individual from a household as a representative of the latter, and thus, it is not plausible to determine individual characteristics, such as ethnicity, gender, or age. The overall data was collected from Georgia’s Homeless Management Information System or HMIS. The interventions studied were TH and RRH with ES serving as a reference point or control, and the time length is manifested in the analysis, which assesses the general likelihood of a household returning to a shelter within a two-year period (Rodriguez & Eidelman, 2017). The research design is a quantitative one by nature since it evaluates the numeric variables of households in regards to homelessness factors. More specifically, generalized linear mixed modeling was used to control for other varieties of characteristics through propensity score matching. The data was obtained from HMIS of Georgia, which means no face-to-face analysis with households took places, such as focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, or other formats (Rodriguez & Eidelman, 2017).
The findings needed to be categorized into two different sets since there is an evident divergence in access of households to RRH and TH. In other words, the samples needed to be matched for their equality of opportunity for both interventions, which would provide a more accurate assessment of the given homelessness interventions. Before the matching procedure, the results indicate that RRH was vastly superior to TH, which is especially true in regards to households without children. In general, the sample from RRH was without children, had better income possibilities, and more advantageous access to the benefits.
In addition, RRH groups had more probability of having multiple children compared to the other groups, and women representatives of RRH households accounted for around 50%, whereas in TH and ES, they only accounted for one quarter and one third, respectively (Rodriguez & Eidelman, 2017). In the case of ethnicity and race, households without children were predominantly white male veterans with disabilities, who were also ten years older that the comparative group. More accurate demonstration of the effectiveness of these interventions also needed to be analyzed after matching, where only households with equal opportunities or options for both RRH and TH were considered. Expectedly, the subset of the sample possessed better income in the forms of cash and non-cash benefits. After conducting control for all variables, the findings indicate that both TH and RRH are significantly more effective at reducing the likelihood of one returning to shelters. Therefore, these two interventions are better options or alternatives to ES since they reduce the problem of chronic homelessness. However, it is also important to point out key limitations of the study, which are manifested in the fact that the majority of the population struggling with chronic homelessness were excluded by research design, where RRH programs were less likely to serve them. In addition, the use of HMIS inherently excludes households struggling with unsheltered homelessness issues, such as people living in vehicles.
Article 2: “Evolving an Evidence‐Based Model for Homelessness Prevention”
The second article is “Evolving an Evidence‐Based Model for Homelessness Prevention” by Oudshoorn et al. (2020), where the researchers analyze homelessness prevention domains from the basis of the existing literature and available data in order to provide a comprehensive assessment of the problem. There is no direct population being studied because it is a literature review paper, where 5091 databases and 99 records were searched. They underwent a selection process in regards to their relevance, where only 38 studies were included in the final assessment (Oudshoorn et al., 2020). The preventative measures were categorized into five main domains, which were housing stability, eviction prevention, early intervention, system prevention, and structural prevention (Oudshoorn et al., 2020). All these frameworks prevent homelessness on different stages of the route towards homelessness, which is why they provide an invaluable overview in order to create a more comprehensive and encompassing picture.
It is important to note that the structural domain revolves around affordable housing, violence prevention, landlord legislation, income support, and poverty reduction. In other words, these are systemic factors, which both directly and indirectly affect homelessness rates. The domain of system preventions includes public systems, such as social assistance, healthcare facilities, hospitals, child welfares, and prisons. The next domain is focused on early prevention, which is manifested in rapid re-housing programs or RRH. The latter has implications on a broader scale, which can be found in family violence factors, school-based interventions, shelter diversion, and family reunification and mediation (Oudshoorn et al., 2020). The fourth domain emphasizes the legislative and financial aspects of evictions because they also contribute to the increase in homelessness rates. The last domain is comprised of programs, such as Housing First, which aims to provide rent supplements and an integrative process into a community in order to prevent homelessness occurrence and reoccurrence rates. The research design is a literature review, where the source utilizes other sources of primary data.
The findings on the basis of research and analysis suggest that preventative actions can be applied on all five domains, but housing stability remains as the most influential and impactful preventer of homelessness. The authors suggest including a sixth domain called empowerment in order to provide an opportunity for quaternary preventative actions. The evident limitations of the study are the fact that it is a literature review derived from a pool of data through vigorous elimination and selection methods, which can exclude relevant and critical drivers of homelessness. In other words, the results can be limited within a scope of the existing literature with no clear indication of preliminary measures and equal quality of research sources. Researchers draw attention to the fact that we are talking about a complex social phenomenon, the understanding of which is not the same among different authors and among representatives of the state and public sectors. Homelessness is defined as a condition or social situation of a person associated with the lack of a place suitable for living, with the exception of state, municipal, or non-state institutions for the homeless, due to the fact that he or does not have the right to a specific dwelling that he could would be used for living, or there is no way to exercise such rights. In addition, hidden homelessness can be distinguished when a person has the opportunity to live somewhere but at the same time does not have registration at the place of residence or stay, and for one, the housing situation is unstable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the article findings are highly generalizable for the selected population since the proposed research primarily focuses on individuals struggling with homelessness. The first article provides a precise and accurate demonstration of the effectiveness of the selected solutions, which are rapid re-housing and transitional housing. The major finding of the article is manifested in the fact that they are highly superior and substantially better at reducing chronic homelessness than emergency shelters. Despite the targeted sample being mainly from Georgia, the key factors and programs are applicable to the overall United States population with minor differences, which are rooted in state-specific legislations and the prevalence elements of homelessness. In the case of the second article, it is important to point out the fact that the findings are more comprehensive and focused on prevention rather than interventions. However, the core principle, which is applicable and generalizable to the client population, is that rapid re-housing programs are both effective interventions and preventative measures against chronic homelessness problems. In addition, my approach would differ in that the emphasis will be equally put on two interventions, which are rapid re-housing and transitional housing. In order to better serve the clients, it is important to make these solutions more accessible with an accentuation on segments of the general homeless population because each of the measures possesses its own strengths and disadvantages.
References
Oudshoorn, A., Dej, E., Parsons, C., & Gaetz, S. (2020). Evolving an evidence‐based model for homelessness prevention. Health & Social Care in the Community, 28(5), 1754-1763. Web.
Rodriguez, J. M., & Eidelman, T. A. (2017). Homelessness interventions in Georgia: Rapid re-housing, transitional housing, and the likelihood of returning to shelter. Housing Policy Debate, 27(6), 825-842. Web.