Urban Homelessness and Community-Based Participatory Research

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), approximately 570,000 people experienced 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 variation. 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 studies have examined the distribution of homeless populations at a broad 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 metropolitan area, but our understanding of the factors determining this pattern remains limited. Additionally, little is known about the temporal changes in homelessness patterns at a finer geographic level, particularly at the neighborhood level. Given the potential social, economic, and public health effects of homelessness on neighborhoods, understanding where homeless populations grow or decline — and the factors influencing these changes — is essential. This knowledge is critical for informing policy decisions on providing supportive services and implementing homelessness prevention programs (Shin, 2021).

Urban homelessness has long served as an indicator of the prevailing socio-spatial order and its changes. Rising homelessness has accompanied industrialization, urban revitalization, and economic crises. Ethnographic accounts of the everyday lives of homeless people have depicted the socio-spatial mechanisms of societal transformation 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 a disadvantaging socio-spatial order, as well as 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, and 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 shifts in the global economy. However, the geographical scope of places from which academic knowledge about homelessness has emerged remains 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 the policies that address it in different contexts (Ferenčuhová & Vašát, 2021).

Community Engagement Activity and Research Challenges

Homelessness in urban areas, particularly among children, is a pressing issue that requires sustained 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 Campbell et al. (2021), in which 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-informed care could have helped address the potential emotional and stress-related challenges faced by participants.

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

Community Advisory Boards in CBPR

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 to advise on 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 attention from both community members and academic researchers. CBPR is a promising approach for addressing this issue, and CABs can provide valuable insights and guidance. As Newman et al. (2011) noted, CABs reflect the community of interest and 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 straightforward or consistently successful, and their roles and responsibilities must be carefully considered to ensure effective partnerships.

Conclusion and Implications

One potential way to address the issue of homelessness is through story circles and other community-based participatory approaches. By engaging individuals who have experienced homelessness alongside landlords, charity workers, and local officials, story circles surface insights that conventional research methods often miss. Hamada (2021) described how such circles attracted a broad range of participants whose shared experiences proved both poignant and practically instructive.

Overall, the evidence reviewed here suggests that homelessness in the United States cannot be adequately addressed through top-down policy alone. Community-based participatory research — including the use of community advisory boards and story circles — offers a more inclusive and responsive framework. These approaches are not without their challenges, including logistical difficulties, ethical constraints, and limited generalizability. Nevertheless, when implemented thoughtfully, CBPR methods have the potential to amplify the voices of those most affected by homelessness and to generate research that is meaningful, actionable, and grounded in lived experience. Future work should prioritize explicit plans for supporting participant well-being and for capturing the perspectives of underrepresented groups within homeless populations.

References

Campbell, D. J. T., Campbell, R. B., DiGiandomenico, A., & et al. (2021). Using a community-based participatory research approach to meaningfully engage those with lived experience of diabetes and homelessness. BMJ Open Diabetes Research and Care, 9(1), e002154.

Clarke, A., & Parsell, C. (2019). The potential for urban surveillance to help support people who are homeless: Evidence from Cairns, Australia. Urban Studies, 56(10), 1951–1967.

Ferenčuhová, S., & Vašát, P. (2021). Ethnographies of urban change: Introducing homelessness and the post-socialist city. Urban Geography, 42(9), 1217–1229.

Giles, D. B. (2017). Neutralizing homelessness, 2015: The story to date. Urban Geography, 38(3), 332–340.

Hamada, R. (2020, January 10). Taking a story full circle: Reporting with people, not on them. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/blog/2020-01-10/taking-a-story-full-circle

Knowles, H. (2019, December 21). Homelessness in the U.S. rose for a third year, driven by a surge in California, HUD says. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/12/21/homelessness-us-rose-thirdyear-driven-by-surge-california-hud-says/

McCarthy, L. (2020). Homeless women, material objects, and home (un)making. Housing Studies, 35(7), 1309–1333.

Newman, S. D., Andrews, J. O., Magwood, G. S., Jenkins, C., Cox, M. J., & Williamson, D. C. (2011). Peer reviewed: Community advisory boards in community-based participatory research: A synthesis of best processes. Preventing Chronic Disease, 8(3).

Parkinson, S., Batterham, D., Reynolds, M., & Wood, G. A. (2019). The changing geography of homelessness: A spatial analysis from 2001 to 2016. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Shin, E. J. (2021). Neighborhood distribution of unsheltered homelessness and its temporal changes: Evidence from Los Angeles. Urban Affairs Review, 57(2), 541–576.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2020). The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2019-AHAR-Part-1.pdf