This document summarizes a presentation about research conducted on vulnerable families in distressed public housing in Chicago. The research was a mixed-methods study that included surveys, interviews, and case studies. It found that a case management model was successful in engaging residents but had mixed results in improving employment and health. The research also highlighted the crisis faced by children living in these environments and the need for youth-focused services. The findings informed policy debates and led to new demonstrations exploring scalable solutions to support vulnerable public housing residents.
Cytoskeleton and Cell Inclusions - Dr Muhammad Ali Rabbani - Medicose Academics
Anticipating hot issues and producing timely reports for policy makers
1. Anticipating hot issues and producing timely reports
for policy makers
Susan J. Popkin, Ph.D.
The Urban Institute
Qualitative Research for Policy Making 2011
May 26-27
URBAN INSTITUTE
2. Overview
• Policy Problem: Vulnerable families in
distressed public housing in the US
• Background: Mixed-Method research to
informs policy debate
– Gautreaux
– Moving to Opportunity
– “Hidden War”
– HOPE VI Panel Study
• Chicago Family Case Management/”Hard
to House” Demonstration Case Study
URBAN INSTITUTE
2
3. Transforming Distressed Public Housing
• Poor management • National movement to
• Legacy of segregation transform public housing
• Physical decay • Emphasis on mixed-
income communities and
• Crime enabling resident self-
• Troubled Residents sufficiency
But not a solution for the most vulnerable
URBAN INSTITUTE
3
4. Studies of Housing Mobility Efforts
• Gautreaux Study 1988
•Mixed-method study of participant families
•Informed policy debate about public housing in the
US
•Led to new efforts to promote mobility
•Moving to Opportunity
•10-year experiment
• Qualitative Three-City Study
•Findings on youth
URBAN INSTITUTE
4
5. “Hidden War” and HOPE VI Panel Study
• Hidden War
– Surveys and interviews of residents in Chicago
public housing
– Underscored severity of challenges
• HOPE VI Panel Study
– Panel survey and interviews of adults and youth
– Brought resident voices to debate over
relocation
– Highlighted need for new approaches for most
vulnerable
URBAN INSTITUTE
5
6. The Chicago “Hard to House”
Demonstration
Madden/Wells Homes The Dearborn Homes
Deeply distressed individuals and families
URBAN INSTITUTE
6
7. Chicago Family Case Management
Demonstration
• Grew out of previous research on HOPE VI and MTO
Housing Choice Partners:
Working for Better Housing
Solutions
• Linked Services and Research
• Enhanced supportive services for all residents in two
CHA developments with hope of assisting most
vulnerable households
URBAN INSTITUTE
7
8. Research Purpose
• Implementation
– Test the feasibility of wrap-around supportive services
for vulnerable families in public housing
• Expected resident intermediate and final
outcomes
– Engagement
– Housing stability
– Mental and physical health
– Self-sufficiency
– Safety and fear
URBAN INSTITUTE
8
9. Mixed-Methods
• Formative evaluation
– Weekly communication; Monitoring; Interviews with
service providers and CHA staff
• Outcome evaluation
– Baseline survey (2007): 344 families (76% response
rate)
– Follow-up survey (2009): 287 families (90% response
rate)
– Qualitative in-depth interviews with residents
• Costs analysis
• In-depth interviews with adults and youth
URBAN INSTITUTE
9
10. Qualitative Interviews
• Interviewed 31 respondents
– 21 adults
– 9 adolescents
• Used qualitative data to enhance survey
– Provided necessary insight where quantitative
data was lacking
– Enabled us to get first hand accounts from
adolescents.
– Illuminated challenges around safety, mental
and physical health
URBAN INSTITUTE
10
11. Key Findings: Resident Typology
• Striving (39%)
– Connected to labor market
– Better mental and physical health
– Younger and have children
• Aging and distressed (21%)
– Serious health challenges
– Little connection to labor market
– Oldest group and least likely to have children
• High risk (40%)
– Younger and have children
– Low employment levels
– High rates of poor health
URBAN INSTITUTE
11
12. Key Findings: Successful Case
Management Model
• Resident engagement increased from 50 to
nearly 90 percent
• Engaged residents average 3 meetings per
month with case managers
• In 2009, residents felt their case managers
were more trustworthy, more prepared, and
better motivators than at baseline
URBAN INSTITUTE
12
13. Key Findings: Employment
• Employment increased, but earnings did not,
and public assistance receipt remained stable.
• Transitional Jobs reached a range of residents
and helped them find jobs.
• Stable employment will be difficult to find
without first addressing residents’ serious
health challenges.
URBAN INSTITUTE
13
14. Key Findings: Resident Health
• Physical and mental health stabilized
• Significant improvement in levels of anxiety
and worry
• High rates of chronic illness and mortality
• High rates of substance abuse and mental
illness
• Qualitative research shows depth, complexity
of challenges
URBAN INSTITUTE
14
15. Profile of Challenges
I got sick, due to high blood pressure. And I kept constantly getting
sick and they told me that they were going to end up having to let
me go or I need to do something to take care of myself. Because
every time I got sick on the job they got tired of me calling the
paramedics, saying [I’m] making them their store look bad.… I was
the cook. Standing around that heat really got to me. When I got
sick, ended up in the hospital, and then the doctors they checked me
out [...] I was in there for about no more than about an hour. And
then they sent me home. And when I went home I didn’t have no
doctor statement, and then that’s when they fired me. -Rhonda
URBAN INSTITUTE
15
16. Key Findings: The Crisis for CHA’s Youth
• Children are exhibiting alarming levels of
distress.
• Children of higher-functioning parents are
doing better; children in the most distressed
households are suffering the most.
• Without effective intervention, many
children will face the same struggles as their
parents.
URBAN INSTITUTE
16
17. Qualitative Research: Understanding
the Challenges for Youth
It was kinda tough because it was, like, every day, I had to
watch my back. ’Cause they used to shoot a lot over there [in
Wells]. It was kinda hard because I ain’t like always having to
watch my back…when I played, I gotta watch my back, make
sure people don’t be doing nothin’ bad around me or nothing,
and I can’t get used to that. But I had to get used to it. Then I
stopped being afraid and I just stopped watching my back. So,
I stopped being afraid. -Robert, age 12
URBAN INSTITUTE
17
18. Policy Implications
• Housing authorities must be willing to take
risks and experiment with service
provision.
• Targeting high-risk families may have long-
term payoffs.
• Strategies to reach youth are critical
URBAN INSTITUTE
18
19. From Research to “Hot” Policy Issue
• Pay attention to current policy debate
– Renewed interest in place-based strategies
– Policy focus on improving education, youth
outcomes
– Clear need for services for vulnerable public
housing residents—creates interest
• All creates environment where
policymakers are willing to engage
URBAN INSTITUTE
19
20. Effective Dissemination
• Present research in short,
accessible format.
• Rigorous methods key for
credibility.
• Use qualitative research to
shape the story.
URBAN INSTITUTE
20
21. Invest Time in Outreach
• Outreach to policy makers and practitioners
• Briefings, meetings, presentations to
practitioner audiences
• Focusing on academic audiences will limit
impact
URBAN INSTITUTE
21
22. Results: Real Policy Impact
• HOST Demonstration exploring scalability and
efficacy of youth-focused services
– To inform HUD policy directly
• Informing HUD and Department of Education
initiatives (Choice, Promise Neighborhoods)
• Influencing decisions around housing and
services
URBAN INSTITUTE
22
24. Presented at the 2nd European
conference on Qualitative Research for
Policy Making, 26 -27 May 2011, Belfast
For more information
Please visit: http://www.merlien.org
URBAN INSTITUTE
24