Promoting Housing Justice through Community Voice and Secondary Data

Background and Purpose: Black single mothers are at the greatest risk for eviction and homelessness (Desmond, 2014), a reality that negatively affects the trajectories of mothers, children, and communities (Anderson, Johnston, & Leventhal, 2019). This project co-produced knowledge to advance community change for families experiencing housing related challenges in the South Ward of Newark, NJ – a predominantly Black community with high rates of unmet housing needs.

Our research questions built upon what is known about the effects of housing challenges on families including the role of housing supports, programs, and context on Black mothers’ access to housing. We examined:

• What the patterns of housing hardship, housing instability, and homelessness are for Black mothers and their young children;
• How different patterns of housing hardship, housing instability, and homelessness for Black mothers and their children relate to trajectories of mothers’ economic security and wellbeing and to children’s wellbeing and school readiness;
• How voucher or other housing programs facilitate or challenge Black families’ access to housing; and
• What community characteristics facilitate receipt of safe and affordable housing.

Our presentation will share select research findings and lessons learned from integrating community voice into a mixed-methods research approach.

Methods: Our team was co-led by a researcher and community resident, both of whom are Black women with: children; professional experience working in Newark, NJ; and expertise in housing issues. Our team also included a community advisory board (CAB), program leaders, and researchers with differing personal experiences, disciplinary training, and methodological expertise, to design/conduct the research project.

Results: Research goals included strengthening community capacity and ensuring that the community had the resources and tools available and in place to address the issues that they deemed important. This occurred in several ways including but not limited to:

• Holding more meetings with the CAB than planned for as part of the initial research design to ensure responsiveness/openness to their feedback.
• Altering the data collection plan to allow participants to learn more fully about the study and team before engaging in focus group and interview processes.
• Building in an office hour at the conclusion of data collection to ensure a space for participants to ask questions, clarify/triangulate data, and debrief.
• Providing opportunities for strengthening community capacity such as professional development, Institutional Review Board training and certification, resume and biographical sketch building to reflect newly acquired skills as a result of involvement in the research effort, and opportunities for public speaking engagements and conference participation.

Conclusions and Implications: The engagement/integration of community members into research required reconciliation of community, researcher, and funder perspectives including:

• Maintaining open communication and transparency in research and funding decisions
• Recognizing that community engaged research takes time
• Valuing community participation through proper compensation
• Being consistently open to community feedback and nimble in incorporating it
• Engaging in equity-focused reflection meetings
• Providing researcher and community capacity building opportunities