A major objective of CUHP is a focused discussion on robust methodologies that:
- can be replicated in other places (countries or cities) or at another geographical level that the ones in which they were first implemented and,
- are adequate to answer particular policy questions and improve scientific knowledge.

Questions addressed by CUHP include:
· How do you sample homeless populations, according to a chosen definition of homelessness and according to the scientific and policy issue questions you wish to answer?
· How do you measure a programme’s success?
· How do you establish comparatively the different ’risk’ factors that lead to homelessness?, or that protect some people from homelessness? Or that enable them to escape homelessness?
· What is the view homeless people are taking of their situation and of the services offered ?
· What are appropriate measures of ’hidden homelessness’ or ‘homelesness in a broad sense’, and how can national rates be established?
· How do we establish prevalence rates of homelessness in areas of the European Community without services?

Four of the research teams bring particular expertise to the discussion of quantitative research methods: France; Spain; Denmark; Hungary. These teams have used internationally validated research methods in the European context and can produce guidance. Four of the research teams bring particular expertise to the discussion of qualitative methodologies: United Kingdom; Netherlands; Denmark and Italy. These teams can also produce guidance on good practice in relation to qualitative methods.

The 1st Workpackage in Paris - Mapping methodologies.

This is a work that will be undertaken by all Partners. The paper by Maryse Marpsat, INED, distinguished between:
· point-in-time / longitudinal studies ;
· interviewing (or counting directly) homeless people / interviewing service providers, using data from records or service files ;
· quantitative / qualitativedata ;
· local studies/national studies ;
· Specific surveys on homeless people / surveys of the general population with questions about past homeless spells, or present sharing with family or friends, or opinion on homelessness etc.

Click below for a copy of this paper

- A first mapping of methodologies, by M. Marpsat

The 2nd Workpackage in Madrid - Methodological issues of Point-in-time surveys.

The first paper by Maryse Marpsat, INED, on ’Point-in-time Surveys’ discussed the problems of creating an adequate sample frame in relation to the mobility of the population, it’s hidden nature, and heterogeneity.

Click below for a copy of this paper

- Point-in-time Surveys of Homeless Populations, by M. Marpsat

The second paper by the team from Complutense University, Madrid, reviewed the use of ’Psychosocial assessment instruments in Point-in-time Surveys’. This paper discussed different instruments for screening, diagnosis (mental health), measuring outcomes, for exploratory information and for administrative information. It evaluated the instruments in relation to practicality, usefulness and it’s fit with other measures (psychometric properties).

- Psychosocial Assessment Instruments in Point-in-time Surveys, by M. Munoz, C. Vazquez, S. Panadero and J.J. Vazquez

The 3rd Workpackage in Copenhagen - methods for undertaking follow-up studies.

Three different follow-up study methods were discussed at the 3rd Workpackage: - using survey methods, register data and in-depth interviews/observation.

The Spanish team reported on the follow-up of 78 street homeless people from those recruited for their point-in-time study. They reported different methods of maintaining contact and the importance of comparing the homeless population that was re-contacted with the homeless population of the original study.

- Follow up studies in Spain, by Manuel Muñoz, Carmelo Vázquez, Sonia Panadero and Ana Isabel Guillén, SP.

The paper from Denmark reported on follow-up study of homeless people who had used shelters, using register data held on all Danish citizens, each of whom has a unique identifier. The paper and discussion focused on three points: a) problems of reliability and validity using register data; b) permission to use this data; c) policy outcomes.

- Possibilities and limitations in longitudinal analysis of homelessness based on information from official registers in Denmark, by Tobias Berner Stax, DK

The Dutch paper reported on a qualitative long-term study of 64 street homeless people undertaken over 7 years using both observation methods and in-depth interviews. The study included 20 homeless people followed off the streets. The paper reported on: (a) tracking strategies; (b) 4 phases in the homeless trajectory; (c) recommendations for services to respond to each phase; (d) relationship of homeless people to organisations offering support.

- A follow-up study in the Netherlands, by Lia Van Doorn, Netherlands.

The 4th Workpackage in London - Qualitative Research Methods/ Voice of the Homeless.

Five papers presented a range of qualitative research methods. The paper from Denmark reports on an observation study of the interactions between social workers and homeless people from shelters. That from the Netherlands reports on the use of both observation methods and in-depth interviews in the study of street homeless people.

- Observing the doing of social work with the homeless, by Tobias Berner Stax, DK.

- Perception of space and time among (former) homeless people, by Lia van Doorn, Netherlands.

The paper from Italy describes studies using in-depth biographical interviews and raises questions about the relationship between homelessness and immiseration.

- Qualitative methods and the homeless: the biographical approach in homeless research, by Rossana Torri and Antonio Tosi, IT.

The paper from Joan Smith and Megan Ravenhill, UK, described two very different approaches to qualitative research. Joan Smith described a 10-year study on youth homelessness that has used both in-depth, narrative interviews and survey research methods. Megan Ravenhill described a study that used both narrative interviews, analysed through route-maps a qualitative computer programme, and observation methods.

- ’Undertaking qualitative research amongst homeless people in the UK – contrasting approaches’ by Joan Smith and Megan Ravenhill, UK.

Maryse Marpsat, Fr, reported on her textual analysis of the web diary of Albert Vanderburg (Albert the Panther) - a homeless US citizen who kept a web diary from October 1997 when he first became homeless to the date the study started in 2004.

- A study of a homeless person’s online journal: The Panther’s Tale, by Maryse Marpsat, Fr.

The 5th Workpackage in Milan - Identifying Hidden Homelessness

Papers presented on the issue of ’hidden homelessness’

- ’Beyond Literal Homelessness’, by Maryse Marpsat, INED, Fr

- ’Hidden Homelessness and definitions of Homelessness in the UK – some issues for European definitions of homelessness’, by Joan Smith, London Metropolitan University, UK.

- ’Extending the concept of homelessness’ by Rossanna Torri and Antonio Tosi, Politecnico di Milano, IT.

- ’Hidden Homelessness: An overview of the concept, statistics and policy implications’ by Eszter Somogyi and Iván Tosics

- ’In the Margin of Statistics: Introductory thoughts on the concept of ’hidden homelessness’’ by PÉTER GYŐRI

- ’Danish research on Homelessness with a focus on Hidden Homelessness’ by Ivan Christensen and Inger Koch-Nielsen, Dk