![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Self-managed institutional homeless programmes started as an alternative to regular shelters. Using institutional theory as a lens, we aim to explore the experiences of stakeholders with the institutional aspects of a self-managed programs.
Method: The data we analysed (56 interviews, both open and semi-structured) were generated in a longitudinal participatory case-study into JES, a self-managed homeless shelter. In our analysis we went back and forth between our empirical data and theory, using a combination of systematic coding and interpretation. Participants were involved in all stages of the research.
Results: Our analysis revealed similarities between JES and regular shelters, stemming from institutional similarities. Participants shared space and facilities with sixteen people, which caused an ongoing discussion on (enforcement of) rules. Participants loathed lack of private space. However, participants experienced freedom of choice over both their own life and management of JES and structures were experienced more fluid than in regular care. Some structures also appeared stimulated self-management.
Conclusion: Our analysis showed how an institutional context influences self-management and suggested opportunities for introducing freedom and fluidity in institutional care.
Acknowledgments
The empirical data on which this paper was based is gathered and analyzed as part of the Collaborative center for the social domain Amsterdam, financed by the department for Public health, Well-being and Sport, part of the Dutch national government. Additional funds have been provided by care organizations. The authors would like to thank participants, peer workers, social workers, other stakeholders and other researchers for their contribution to designing and conducting this study.
Disclosure statement
The authors of this paper have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Max A. Huber
Max Axel Huber, MSc, is senior-researcher at the Amsterdam University of Applied sciences. His research focusses on the development of self-managed institutional programs.
Rosalie N. Metze
Dr. Rosalie Metze is senior-researcher at the Amsterdam University of Applied sciences. She is an expert on collaboration between formal and informal care networks.
Martin Stam
Dr. Martin Stam is emeritus professor of Outreach work & Innovation at the Amsterdam University of Applied sciences. He is an expert on bottom up organisation of innovative social work practices.
Tine Van Regenmortel
Prof. dr. Tine van Regenmortel is professor of Social work at the Tilburg University and head of the research group Social and economic policy and social integration at the Catholic university Leuven. She is an expert on empowerment, empowering practices and social work research.
Tineke A. Abma
Prof. dr. Tineke Abma is professor of Participation & Diversity at Free university in Amsterdam and associated with the Center for client experiences. She is an expert on participatory research and client participation.