IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socpsy/v65y2019i6p468-478.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Recovery education for people experiencing housing instability: An evaluation protocol

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Durbin
  • Grace Kapustianyk
  • Rosane Nisenbaum
  • Ri Wang
  • Tatiana Aratangy
  • Bushra Khan
  • Vicky Stergiopoulos

Abstract

Background: Recovery education centers (RECs) offer recovery supports through education rather than traditional health services. The Supporting Transitions and Recovery Learning Centre (STAR) in Toronto, Canada, is among the few that are internationally focused on individuals with histories of homelessness. Although research suggests that RECs positively impact participants, there is a paucity of rigorous studies and none address the engagement and impacts on homeless individuals. Aims: This protocol describes a realist-informed evaluation of STAR, specifically examining (1) if STAR participation is more effective in promoting 12-month recovery outcomes than participation in usual services for individuals experiencing housing instability and mental health challenges and (2) how STAR participation promotes recovery and other positive outcomes. Methods: This study uses a quasi-experimental mixed methods design. Personal empowerment (primary outcome) and recovery, housing stability, social functioning, health service use and quality of life (secondary outcomes) data were collected at baseline, and 6 and 12 months. Intervention group participants were recruited at the time of STAR registration while control group participants were recruited from community agencies serving this population after screening for age and histories of housing instability. Interviews and focus groups with service users and providers will identify the key intervention ingredients that support the process of recovery. Results: From January 2017 to July 2018, 92 individuals were recruited to each of the intervention and control groups. The groups were mostly similar at baseline; the intervention group’s total empowerment score was slightly higher than the control group’s ( M ( SD ): 2.94 (0.23) vs 2.84 (0.28), p  = .02), and so was the level of education. A subset of STAR participants ( n  = 20) and nine service providers participated in the qualitative interviews and focus groups. Conclusion: This study will offer important new insights into the effectiveness of RECs, and expose how key REC ingredients support the process of recovery for people experiencing housing instability.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Durbin & Grace Kapustianyk & Rosane Nisenbaum & Ri Wang & Tatiana Aratangy & Bushra Khan & Vicky Stergiopoulos, 2019. "Recovery education for people experiencing housing instability: An evaluation protocol," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 65(6), pages 468-478, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:65:y:2019:i:6:p:468-478
    DOI: 10.1177/0020764019858650
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0020764019858650
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0020764019858650?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Uttaro, Thomas & Lehman, Anthony, 1999. "Graded response modeling of the Quality of Life Interview," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 41-52.
    2. Alford, 2014. "The Multiple Facets of Co-Production: Building on the work of Elinor Ostrom," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 299-316, April.
    3. Patton, Michael Quinn & Horton, Douglas, 2008. "Utilization-focused evaluation for agricultural innovation," ILAC Briefs 52533, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benoît Desmarchelier & Faridah Djellal & Faïz Gallouj, 2018. "Public Service Innovation Networks (PSINs): Collaborating for Innovation and Value Creation," Working Papers halshs-01934275, HAL.
    2. Lifshitz, Chen Chana, 2017. "Fostering employability among youth at-risk in a multi-cultural context: Insights from a pilot intervention program," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 20-34.
    3. LaVelle, John M. & Davies, Randall, 2021. "Seeking consensus: Defining foundational concepts for a graduate level introductory program evaluation course," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    4. Melz, Heidi & Fromknecht, Anne E. & Masters, Loren D. & Richards, Tammy & Sun, Jing, 2023. "Incorporating multiple data sources to assess changes in organizational capacity in child welfare systems," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    5. Pwint Kay Khine & Jianing Mi & Raza Shahid, 2021. "A Comparative Analysis of Co-Production in Public Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, June.
    6. Maarten Wolsink, 2020. "Framing in Renewable Energy Policies: A Glossary," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-31, June.
    7. Wingate, Lori A. & Smith, Nick L. & Perk, Emma, 2018. "The project vita: A dynamic knowledge management tool," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 22-27.
    8. Metta, Matteo & Ciliberti, Stefano & Obi, Chinedu & Bartolini, Fabio & Klerkx, Laurens & Brunori, Gianluca, 2022. "An integrated socio-cyber-physical system framework to assess responsible digitalisation in agriculture: A first application with Living Labs in Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    9. Benoît Desmarchelier & Faridah Djellal & Faïz Gallouj, 2018. "Public service innovation networks (PSINs): an instrument for collaborative innovation and value co-creation in public service(s)," Working Papers halshs-01934284, HAL.
    10. Tan, Wee-Liang & Zuckermann, Ghil'ad, 2021. "External impetus, co-production and grassroots innovations: The case of an innovation involving a language," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    11. Arbour, Ghislain, 2020. "Teaching programme evaluation: A problem of knowledge," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    12. Jan Činčera & Grzegorz Mikusiński & Bohuslav Binka & Luis Calafate & Cristina Calheiros & Alexandra Cardoso & Marcus Hedblom & Michael Jones & Alex Koutsouris & Clara Vasconcelos & Katarzyna Iwińska, 2019. "Managing Diversity: The Challenges of Inter-University Cooperation in Sustainability Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-16, October.
    13. Daigneault, Pierre-Marc, 2014. "Taking stock of four decades of quantitative research on stakeholder participation and evaluation use: A systematic map," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 171-181.
    14. Paloma Díaz & John M. Carroll & Ignacio Aedo, 2016. "Coproduction as an Approach to Technology-Mediated Citizen Participation in Emergency Management," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-16, August.
    15. Picciotto, Robert, 2019. "Is evaluation obsolete in a post-truth world?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 88-96.
    16. Kupiec, Tomasz, 2022. "Does evaluation quality matter? Quantitative analysis of the use of evaluation findings in the field of cohesion policy in Poland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    17. Tian Li & Julian M. Somers & Xiaoqiong J. Hu & Lawrence C. McCandless, 2019. "Bayesian Sensitivity Analysis for Non-ignorable Missing Data in Longitudinal Studies," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 11(1), pages 184-205, April.
    18. Gullickson, Amy M. & King, Jean A. & LaVelle, John M. & Clinton, Janet M., 2019. "The current state of evaluator education: A situation analysis and call to action," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 20-30.
    19. Harman, Elena & Azzam, Tarek, 2018. "Incorporating public values into evaluative criteria: Using crowdsourcing to identify criteria and standards," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 68-82.
    20. Pleasant, Andrew & O’Leary, Catina & Carmona, Richard H., 2020. "Using formative research to tailor a community intervention focused on the prevention of chronic disease," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:65:y:2019:i:6:p:468-478. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.