Faith and Housing First: Findings from a Multi-Method Examination of Faith-Based Organizations Providing Housing First Services

Background and Purpose: Many homeless services follow the evidence-based practice known as Housing First (HF), and another large proportion of these services in the United States are faith-based (FB) or affiliated with a religious/spiritual tradition. However, little research has explored the nature of services that are both FB and HF, even though these groups both occupy major roles in the chronic homelessness response system. Research on HF shows the efficacy of the model when practiced with fidelity, as well as the challenges in properly implementing the model across contexts. This project adds to the large body of literature on HF program fidelity by focusing on implementation of HF practices within faith-based organizations, and provides crucial data on the opportunities and challenges for these programs in the effort to end chronic homelessness.

Methods: This project uses an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study design. Methods include surveys of FBHF organizations receiving federal funding (N=33) analyzed using a descriptive approach, followed by interviews with key program administrators (N=33) and site visits (N=10) that include observational data, document analysis, key personnel interviews, ride-alongs with case managers, and participant and staff focus groups analyzed in conjunction with the survey findings using a grounded theory and organizational case study approach. This multi-method study design was chosen to generate theoretical insights while using a holistic perspective, emergent study design, and triangulation of data between numerous sources.

Results: Findings of this study demonstrate several key themes regarding the nature of FB/HF services. First, for organizations located in geographic areas with high levels of religious observance, working from a FB perspective can be an important element of providing culturally responsive services when coupled with a non-coercive, religiously inclusive approach. This type of practice can lead to greater trust and integration with program participants and surrounding communities. Second, in areas with limited land availability, having access to religious land can be an important resource to support the delivery of HF services, but other faith community resources such as financial or social support may be more needed in areas with ample land access. Third, FB organizations differ in their relationship to the HF approach and adherence to the model, but organizations that indicate a high level of coherence between their theological values and the HF approach tend to demonstrate higher levels of organizational cohesion and a strong sense of community among staff and participants. These factors are highly dependent on the actions and beliefs of organizational personnel and leadership.

Conclusions and Implications: The findings from this study demonstrate that FB organizations possess unique resources for practicing HF services, and offer a vision for implementing these services in a way that addresses some of the common critiques of the HF approach. As federal policy makers propose a shift away from an HF approach and towards greater reliance on non-HF FB services, the findings from this study show that the two do not necessarily exist in opposition, and that greater integration of FB and HF orientations within the federal housing response could be productive.