Barriers and Facilitators of Implementing a Values-Based Program Model for Youth Experiencing Homelessness: A Qualitative Exploration

Background and Purpose:

Voices of Youth Count estimates that 1 in 10 youth ages 18 to 24 experience homelessness in any given year. Evidence suggests homelessness is increasing nationally with rising costs of housing and stagnant wage increases. Subpopulations facing additional barriers to maintaining stable housing such as LGBTQ+ youth, youth of color, and pregnant/parenting youth, are overrepresented among youth experiencing homelessness. Research evidence has deepened understanding of factors and mechanisms that are causes and consequences of homelessness for youth, as well as challenges experienced in navigating systems. Much less research evidence exists on interventions that are promising solutions for communities seeking to end youth homelessness.

Federal guidance highlights aspects of successful community responses to youth homelessness, including youth engagement in leadership, a housing first and positive youth development approach, and attention to the needs of subpopulations disproportionately impacted by homelessness. This study focuses on a youth shared housing program model that was designed over the course of a year by youth with lived experience expertise, community providers and university researchers, specifically for LGBTQ+ youth, pregnant/parenting youth, and youth at the intersection. The model centers around a co-created set of values and commitments used to guide implementation. This study explored ways in which values informed the program as well as barriers and facilitators to upholding them during implementation. The goal of the study is to identify essential elements of a values-based housing program model to aid transferability to other community contexts.

Methods:

A qualitative design was used, conducting semi-structured interviews with program staff, planning team members, and advisory board of the program to understand development and implementation of a values-based program model. Thirteen individuals completed interviews. All interviews were transcribed. Given the range of positionalities and relationships to the project among the analysis team, as well as the research focus, reflexive thematic analysis was employed. Transcripts were coded independently by three researchers using an inductive process. The researchers came together to share codes and generate an agreed-upon coding structure. Once agreed-upon codes were defined, the analysis team identified themes, engaging reflexively and iteratively returning to the data throughout. The initial findings were shared with the advisory board for feedback and further refinement.

Results:

The study revealed several themes that give insight into the process of implementing a values-based shared housing program. These include: (1) lived experience expertise as cornerstone of values articulation, (2) misalignment among partners as barrier to program design and implementation, (3) values-orientation provides grounding for conflict transformation, (4) consistency and commitment to values is pertinent, and (5) transferability requires context and partner specific adaptation.

Conclusion & Implications:

The study provides insight into the process and perspectives of individuals involved in a values-based program. By articulating values informed by lived experience expertise, the planning team was able to craft guidelines for the program model that served as touch points at all levels. This study highlights the process of values-based programming and the ways this type of program model can be implemented in a variety of community settings.