Urban homelessness amongst children

Introduction

Homelessness in urban areas, particularly among children, is a significant issue facing major U.S. cities. As reported in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s annual homeless assessment report (2020), there were approximately 570,000 people experiencing homelessness on a single night in January 2019 in the United States. Furthermore, homelessness has recently increased nationwide, although the temporal changes in homeless rates exhibit considerable sub-national variations. For example, while homelessness has increased dramatically in cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco, known for their long-standing high rates of homelessness, cities such as Chicago have seen a general decrease in homelessness during the same period (Knowles 2019).

Research has extensively investigated the geography of homelessness. Still, most have examined the distribution of homeless populations at a large geographic level due to limited finer-grained spatial data on the locations of homeless populations (Parkinson et al. 2019). Homelessness is a spatially concentrated phenomenon within a city or a metropolitan area, but our understanding of the factors determining this pattern remains limited. Additionally, little is known about the temporal changes in the patterns of homelessness at a finer geographic level, particularly at the neighborhood level. Given the potential social, economic, and public health effects of homelessness on neighborhoods, understanding the locations where homeless populations grow or decline and the factors influencing these changes is essential. This knowledge is critical to inform policy decisions on providing supportive services and implementing homelessness prevention programs (Shin, 2021).

Urban homelessness has long served to indicate the current socio-spatial order and its change. Rising homelessness has accompanied industrialization, urban revitalization, and economic crises. Ethnographic accounts of the everydayness of homeless people depicted the socio-spatial mechanisms of these societal transformations and their effects on urban life, particularly in Western metropolises, where homelessness was first studied at the beginning of the twentieth century. Since then, ethnographic research has explored homeless people’s strategies for coping with the disadvantaging socio-spatial order or the impacts of urban renewal and deindustrialization. In recent decades, ethnographic studies have highlighted the imprints of neoliberal policies on urban landscapes, public space politics, and patterns of displacement and resistance from the perspective of homeless people (Clarke & Parsell, 2019).

Ethnographic research has also revealed various ways and tools of homemaking, informal citizenship, or other forms of political agency related to housing precarity (McCarthy, 2020).

Homelessness is a symptom of global and systemic changes (Giles, 2017, p. 332), with different stories from various cities interrelated and affected by the same changes in the global economy. However, the geographical scope of places from which academic knowledge about homelessness has emerged is still relatively limited. Cities in the Global North and the West are mostly covered, with testimonials from American cities often serving as a reference for conceptualizing homelessness and policies that address it in different contexts (Feren?uhová and Vašát, 2021).

Community engagement activity

Homelessness in urban areas, particularly among children, is a pressing issue that requires attention. However, conducting research with disadvantaged populations can be challenging due to social instability and acute health challenges that may hinder participation. This is evident in a study conducted by Cambell et al. (2021), where half of the participants faced acute health challenges that prevented their participation, and frequent changes in residence and telephone numbers occurred during the study period. The authors suggest that additional support resources and specific training in trauma-based care could have helped address the potential emotional and stress-related challenges faced by the participants.

In addition to the challenges disadvantaged populations face, there are other obstacles to conducting community-based participatory research (CBPR). These include securing funding, obtaining approval from research ethics boards, and balancing compensation for participants without coercing socially disadvantaged individuals to participate. Furthermore, this type of work is time-consuming and requires managing group dynamics effectively. As Cambell et al. (2021) noted, these challenges are particularly relevant in CBPR studies involving disadvantaged populations. Future studies need explicit plans for assisting group members with potential emotional and stress-related challenges.

Advisory board

Community advisory boards (CABs) are commonly used in CBPR partnerships and provide structure to guide the partnership’s activities. CABs typically reflect the community of interest, and their composition may include individuals who share an identity, common interest, history, illness experience, language, or culture. CABs offer community members an opportunity to voice their concerns and priorities and advise on suitable research processes that are respectful and acceptable to the community (Newman et al., 2011).

Research has shown that CABs build mutually constructive relationships between communities and academic researchers. However, not all community-based researchers have incorporated CABs, and their success varies depending on the situation or setting. It is essential to consider the roles, responsibilities, and processes of CABs when conducting CBPR studies to ensure successful partnerships between academic researchers and communities (Newman et al., 2011).

Homelessness in urban areas, especially among children, requires community and academic researchers’ attention. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a promising approach for addressing this issue, where community advisory boards (CABs) can provide valuable insights and guidance. As Newman et al. (2011) noted, CABs reflect the community of interest. They offer an opportunity for community members to voice their concerns and priorities, advise on suitable research processes, and help build constructive relationships with academic researchers. However, incorporating CABs in CBPR studies is not always common or successful, and their roles and responsibilities must be carefully considered to ensure effective partnerships between researchers and communities.

Story circles

Engaging with individuals who have experienced homelessness in a supportive environment can provide insights into their experiences and suggest solutions. Hamada (2021) reports on an initiative where people were welcomed as themselves and asked to share stories based on three prompts. These prompts included sharing stories about when having a home or getting housing was a struggle when their housing situation impacted other aspects of their life, and when they glimpsed what it would be like to have easy access to housing. Such initiatives can help understand the challenges faced by people experiencing homelessness and provide ideas for addressing these challenges.

Impact

Community Engagement

Homelessness is a widespread issue in urban areas, and it disproportionately affects children, who are more vulnerable to the negative consequences of homelessness. While the problem of homelessness is complex, there are potential solutions that involve participatory approaches. Participatory approaches involve engaging with the community to identify and prioritize research questions and conduct research collaboratively. This approach can yield important benefits, including identifying topics of interest to the community, maintaining group member engagement and participation, and disseminating findings to relevant stakeholders. As Cambell et al. (2021) noted, this degree of continued engagement is not always acquired through all the research phases.

Despite the potential benefits of participatory approaches, there are limitations that researchers must consider. For example, despite engaging a diverse group of individuals, the perspectives of certain groups may be underrepresented. Regarding diabetes research, Cambell et al. (2021) noted that they did not capture the perspectives of those with type 1 diabetes, which might limit the generalizability of the result to different settings. Furthermore, the context-specific nature of participatory research means that findings may not be easily generalizable to other contexts. These limitations must be carefully considered when using participatory approaches to address homelessness and related issues.