Shelters Research Papers - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

This report presents the results of a research project to examine the data collection needs and practices of women’s shelters across Canada. Established as a partnership between SOFIA House—a second-stage women’s shelter in Regina, Saskatchewan—and students in a third-year research methods class at the University of Regina, the project involved interviews with 19 shelter leaders (e.g., Executive Directors, managers) from 7 provinces. Interviews were conducted by telephone, transcribed, and analyzed by the students. This report was prepared by the course professor as a synthesis of the 17 students’ final reports.

The results suggest that “success” in women’s shelters should be evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively. In women’s shelters, success is much more than “heads on beds” (e.g., fill rates or intake numbers). Shelters provide a range of support services that result in immeasurable successes—such as increased empowerment and agency for women and children upon leaving the shelter. For some shelters, the key goal is to create a supportive, trusting environment to which women feel comfortable returning if necessary.

Unfortunately, some women and children do return to shelter, primarily due to lack of affordable housing. Many shelter workers described lack of housing as a “crisis”. Second-stage shelters are often full. For this reason, returns to shelter cannot be seen as a failure or weakness of the shelter, but rather a product of structural factors and an indication that women see the shelter as a safe place to return.

Women’s shelters have inadequate resources for data collection. Some shelters rely on database programs, such as WISH, HIFIS, and WSIS. Participants using WISH spoke highly of the program and appreciated how it aligns with funder requirements. HIFIS was identified as somewhat lacking because it was not originally designed for women’s shelters; however, participants appreciated that HIFIS was provided free of charge by governments. Interview participants also shared key questions that they found most useful in their own data collection efforts (see Section 3.4.2). For example, entry and exit surveys can quantitatively measure women’s feelings of being empowered, informed, and safe—all of which are important indicators of success.

Crisis and second-stage shelters can complement and support each other’s data collection efforts. Staff in crisis shelters felt that second-stage shelters are well positioned provide insight into the shelter system overall, for example, by documenting women’s longer-term outcomes. Crisis shelters can support second-stage shelters by tracking demand for second-stage housing, even if they know the second-stage shelters are full.

The results of this project indicate that many shelters are actively collecting qualitative data, and that these data readily demonstrate success. Unfortunately, however, shelters do not necessarily recognize these activities as “data collection”. Daily logs, suggestion boxes, themes from group conversations, resident or staff testimonials, and other forms of narrative data reveal the many “invisible” contributions made by shelters. Success stories, quotations from residents, peer reviews from other shelters, and other (anonymized) qualitative data highlight contributions that go far beyond the numbers. Qualitative data can reveal nuanced information about women’s wellbeing, including changes over time. It is recommended that policymakers recognize the value of such data in their evaluation practices.

This report also provides some guidance for shelters to structure their data collection efforts (Section 4.1.2), both qualitative and quantitative. Shelters might consider actively engaging residents in data collection, which aligns with participatory models of research, or collaborating with university researchers and students who are seeking research opportunities. The current report is a product of one such collaboration. Some shelters may wish to seek opportunities for systematizing or aggregating data across regions, provinces, or even nationally.

Overall, this research suggests that we reject a “value for money” approach in evaluating shelters’ contributions to our collective wellbeing. Shelters serve the social good in ways that are not necessarily quantifiable, including development of trauma-informed approaches, attention to cultural differences, providing individualized support on a regular basis, offering programming for women and children, mental health supports, referrals, and many more. There is also a need for deeper recognition of the structural factors that may cause women to return to abusive relationships, such as lack of affordable housing, underfunded second-stage spaces, or lack of pet-friendly shelters.