无家可归者收容所作为一种制度形式的持久性:从组织角度看纽约市对无家可归者和COVID的反应

IF 2.2 4区 社会学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Human Service Organizations Management Leadership & Governance Pub Date : 2023-10-02 DOI:10.1080/23303131.2023.2263054
Ryan Savino, James M. Mandiberg
{"title":"无家可归者收容所作为一种制度形式的持久性:从组织角度看纽约市对无家可归者和COVID的反应","authors":"Ryan Savino, James M. Mandiberg","doi":"10.1080/23303131.2023.2263054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThis paper investigates a taken-for-granted institutional form, shelters for unhoused New Yorkers, through the neo-institutional lens of institutional inertia and critical case study methodology. It focuses on the external shock of COVID-19, NYC’s use of unoccupied hotels for social distancing, and the return to shelters when COVID waned. For guidance, we examine other instances of interrupted institutional inertia following shocks. Using Lewin’s force field analysis, we explore why changes to some institutional forms amidst COVID persisted while novel approaches to shelter dissipated. We conclude that directly involving unhoused people in the design and implementation of homeless services may improve outcomes.Practice Points Human service professionals share a body of knowledge and assumptions – a kind of echo chamber that amplifies and confirms beliefs. It is important to look beyond traditional and familiar models of service delivery to find alternative ideas and approaches that may be effective.Returning to Kurt Lewin’s concept of force fields provides opportunities to think effectively and holistically about how to modify or change services, policies, and organizations.People served by human services – those with lived experiences – possess unique expertise that can inform organizational decisions and planning in new and helpful ways. As practitioners, we need to find ways to be more inclusive of the perspectives and ideas of those our programs serve through participatory methods of planning, decision making, and evaluation.KEYWORDS: Congregate sheltersCOVIDhomelessnessinstitutional inertia Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 We will use Shelter for the institutional form, and congregate or homeless shelter when referring to the current congregate shelter instantiation.Additional informationFundingThis paper comes from work of HOTELS NYC, a working group of homelessness and serious mental illness researchers. It is one of several publications from the collective deliberations and research of this group.","PeriodicalId":46043,"journal":{"name":"Human Service Organizations Management Leadership & Governance","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Persistence of the Homeless Shelter as an Institutional Form: NYC’s Response to Homelessness and COVID Through an Organizational Lens\",\"authors\":\"Ryan Savino, James M. Mandiberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23303131.2023.2263054\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACTThis paper investigates a taken-for-granted institutional form, shelters for unhoused New Yorkers, through the neo-institutional lens of institutional inertia and critical case study methodology. It focuses on the external shock of COVID-19, NYC’s use of unoccupied hotels for social distancing, and the return to shelters when COVID waned. For guidance, we examine other instances of interrupted institutional inertia following shocks. Using Lewin’s force field analysis, we explore why changes to some institutional forms amidst COVID persisted while novel approaches to shelter dissipated. We conclude that directly involving unhoused people in the design and implementation of homeless services may improve outcomes.Practice Points Human service professionals share a body of knowledge and assumptions – a kind of echo chamber that amplifies and confirms beliefs. It is important to look beyond traditional and familiar models of service delivery to find alternative ideas and approaches that may be effective.Returning to Kurt Lewin’s concept of force fields provides opportunities to think effectively and holistically about how to modify or change services, policies, and organizations.People served by human services – those with lived experiences – possess unique expertise that can inform organizational decisions and planning in new and helpful ways. As practitioners, we need to find ways to be more inclusive of the perspectives and ideas of those our programs serve through participatory methods of planning, decision making, and evaluation.KEYWORDS: Congregate sheltersCOVIDhomelessnessinstitutional inertia Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 We will use Shelter for the institutional form, and congregate or homeless shelter when referring to the current congregate shelter instantiation.Additional informationFundingThis paper comes from work of HOTELS NYC, a working group of homelessness and serious mental illness researchers. It is one of several publications from the collective deliberations and research of this group.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46043,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Service Organizations Management Leadership & Governance\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Service Organizations Management Leadership & Governance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2023.2263054\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Service Organizations Management Leadership & Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2023.2263054","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文通过制度惯性的新制度视角和批判性案例研究方法,研究了一种被视为理所当然的制度形式——为无家可归的纽约人提供庇护所。它侧重于COVID-19的外部冲击,纽约市使用空置的酒店保持社交距离,以及在COVID减弱时返回避难所。为了提供指导,我们研究了其他在冲击后被打断的制度惯性的例子。利用Lewin的力场分析,我们探讨了为什么在COVID期间一些制度形式的变化持续存在,而新的庇护方法却消失了。我们的结论是,直接让无家可归的人参与无家可归者服务的设计和实施可能会改善结果。实践要点:人类服务专业人员共享一个知识和假设体系——一种放大和确认信念的回音室。重要的是要超越传统和熟悉的服务提供模式,寻找可能有效的替代想法和方法。回到Kurt Lewin的力场概念,为我们提供了有效而全面地思考如何修改或改变服务、政策和组织的机会。被人类服务服务的人——那些有生活经验的人——拥有独特的专业知识,可以以新的和有益的方式为组织决策和规划提供信息。作为实践者,我们需要找到方法,通过参与式的规划、决策和评估方法,更加包容我们项目所服务对象的观点和想法。关键词:集体庇护所;无家可归者;制度惯性披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。注1:我们将使用Shelter作为机构形式,而在参考当前的聚集性庇护所实例时,我们将使用聚集性或无家可归者庇护所。本文来自HOTELS NYC的工作,这是一个由无家可归者和严重精神疾病研究人员组成的工作组。这是该小组集体审议和研究的几份出版物之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Persistence of the Homeless Shelter as an Institutional Form: NYC’s Response to Homelessness and COVID Through an Organizational Lens
ABSTRACTThis paper investigates a taken-for-granted institutional form, shelters for unhoused New Yorkers, through the neo-institutional lens of institutional inertia and critical case study methodology. It focuses on the external shock of COVID-19, NYC’s use of unoccupied hotels for social distancing, and the return to shelters when COVID waned. For guidance, we examine other instances of interrupted institutional inertia following shocks. Using Lewin’s force field analysis, we explore why changes to some institutional forms amidst COVID persisted while novel approaches to shelter dissipated. We conclude that directly involving unhoused people in the design and implementation of homeless services may improve outcomes.Practice Points Human service professionals share a body of knowledge and assumptions – a kind of echo chamber that amplifies and confirms beliefs. It is important to look beyond traditional and familiar models of service delivery to find alternative ideas and approaches that may be effective.Returning to Kurt Lewin’s concept of force fields provides opportunities to think effectively and holistically about how to modify or change services, policies, and organizations.People served by human services – those with lived experiences – possess unique expertise that can inform organizational decisions and planning in new and helpful ways. As practitioners, we need to find ways to be more inclusive of the perspectives and ideas of those our programs serve through participatory methods of planning, decision making, and evaluation.KEYWORDS: Congregate sheltersCOVIDhomelessnessinstitutional inertia Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 We will use Shelter for the institutional form, and congregate or homeless shelter when referring to the current congregate shelter instantiation.Additional informationFundingThis paper comes from work of HOTELS NYC, a working group of homelessness and serious mental illness researchers. It is one of several publications from the collective deliberations and research of this group.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Calling All Leaders Challenges and Strategies in Carrying Out Scholarly and Research Projects Evaluating the Early Implementation of a Resilience Intervention Addressing Secondary Traumatic Stress in Child Welfare Workers Innovative Approaches to Social Activation Using Collaborative Social Work Concepts: The Case of Social Enterprise in Working with the Vulnerable Long-Term Unemployed A (Dis)orderly Progression: The Lasting Impact of Pandemic on Community-Based Organizations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1