Qualitative research uncovered barriers to service provision in homelessness, suggesting areas for policy intervention.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify and describe factors across the socio-ecological model that influence homeless service provision in Arizona, United States as identified by frontline and administrative homeless service providers. Methods: We employed a qualitative research design, starting with preliminary interviews with key informants (n=9) to help refine questions for focus group participation. We then held focus groups with homelessness service providers in front-line and administrative roles (n=58) across the state of Arizona. We used inductive thematic analysis to code and identify themes from the transcripts. The socio-ecological model was employed to help organize and interpret findings related to service barriers and facilitators within the homeless service system. Results: We used the socio-ecological model to categorize factors identified by providers that impacted homelessness service provision in Arizona across individual, interpersonal, organizational, community, and policy levels. Service providers identified ten factors that impeded service delivery at the individual level (e.g., immigration status, substance use). At the interpersonal level, factors affecting service provision were impacted by what families with children needed, and landlords’ role in housing accessibility. Service capacity and staff turnover were organizational factors that limited services. At the community level, transportation and rurality were impeded adequate service provision. Policy factors included limited and restricted funding and narrow definitions of homelessness. Conclusions: Results from this study can provide insight on how current and proposed strategies to address homelessness align with factors and priorities identified by frontline and administrative providers. They also help identify opportunities for intervention, resources, and/or evaluation priorities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shuman et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: