The Bond Board Assets Based

Research ProjectFinal Report

Dr Katy Goldstraw, Post Doctoral Research Fellow in Participatory Research, I4P

October 2018

Page | 1

The Bond Board Assets Based Research Project

Executive Summary

The aim of this two year research project was to help the Bond Board to understand

how to design services appropriately in order to promote meaningful engagement.

The project worked with the Bond Board, using Sustainable Livelihoods analysis to

analyse HARP service users experience of the Bond Board. The research used a

five fold, assets based analysis approach to evidence impact and barriers service

provision. The research identified the range of locations that clients access services

within and the diversity of social ties that clients have with both formal organisations

and informal organisations such as street soup kitchens or faith groups that are offer

drop in services. The research revealed the range of reciprocal relationships that

clients utilise as social and human assets. Clients have a range of income sources

that are both formal and informal. Some clients have numerous links with public

assets and others much less so.

The research revealed a sense of how clients manage their human, social, public,

and financial assets. The clients respected and liked the staff team and had trusting

relationships with the volunteers and staff at the HARP St Andrews drop in. This

trust offered clients a relief from anxiety, they knew that there was a place where

they would not only be welcome but where they could also receive support. It was

here that the research’s key conclusion, the notion of the HARP project being a safe

transformative space emerged.

This is the final report of the assets based research project. It summarises the

findings a two year research project with the HARP Project, 2016-2017. The report

begins with a brief outline of the project and the socio-political context that it sits

Page | 2

within before summarising the methodological approach, discussing findings and

drawing conclusions.

Author: Dr Katy Goldstraw, Edge Hill University

Page | 3

Introduction

This is the final report of the assets based research project. It summarises the

findings a two year research project with the HARP Project, 2016-2017. The report

begins with a brief outline of the project and the socio-political context that it sits

within before summarising the methodological approach, discussing findings and

drawing conclusions.

Through an existing reputation for participatory research in Rochdale, the Bond

Board approached I4P to conduct a two year Participatory co-produced project. The

HARP Project is a Big Lottery funded partnership project between two organisations

that support homeless and vulnerably housed clients, which began in September

2016. The project is for excluded and marginalised individuals and provides

intensive 1:1 support, short term crisis solutions, a specialist welfare rights service

and opportunities for clients to become involved in peer research. Edge Hill

University (EHU) used participatory and co-produced approaches to analyse HARP

service user’s experience of the Bond Board.

The aim of the research was to help the Bond Board to understand how to design

services appropriately in order to promote meaningful engagement. The project

worked with the Bond Board over two years, using Sustainable Livelihoods analysis

to analyse HARP service users experience of the Bond Board. The research used a

five fold, assets based analysis approach to evidence impact and barriers service

provision. These research findings will allow the Bond Board to better design

services focussed around clients.

Having introduced the research the next section of this report will consider the socio-

political context that it sits within.

Page | 4

The Context of the Work

Part of conducting a Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis of an organisation is to frame

the organisational experience within the Macro (nation / regional) and Meso (Local)

context. The framing of the HARP project allows a consideration of the broader

challenges that HARP clients face. Changes in government policy have had a

significant effect on housing and homelessness provision. Nationally the Homeless

Reduction Bill 2017 has affected housing strategy, the Bill sits within the context of

wider welfare reform, including the Localism Act 2011, The Welfare Reform Act

2012, and the Housing and Planning Act 2016:

‘From our research evidence it is clear that welfare reform has been

making both private and social sector landlords more risk adverse with regard

to letting to households in receipt of benefit’ (Fitzpatrick et al 2017:81)

Regionally the Bond Board sits within Greater Manchester Housing Needs Group

and the Devolution Agenda, this holds the potential to offer a more locally responsive

and innovative Housing Policy;

‘devolution and heath and social care integration in Greater

Manchester has espoused potential to be at the forefront of innovative service

delivery and new effective commissioning practices that can address

entrenched, highly complex problems’ (Wall, 2017:17)

This regional picture is influenced by the Greater Manchester Devolved Authority’s

budget.

‘the development of the devolved budgets and potential freedoms to

the 10- GM authorities provides opportunities to bring to the fore a more

collective approach across the sub-region’ (Jolley et al, 2017:9)

Page | 5

Locally welfare reform, including withdrawal of benefit for 18-21year olds, Local

Housing Allowance and Single Room rate, the Benefit Cap affect the local housing

need;

‘Regionally housing and homelessness strategy is affected by … the

continued demand and high occupancy rates for most types of supported and

temporary accommodation and a waiting list for households seeking support

via the Adult Social Care commissioned floating support services. Move on for

households that have to use temporary and supported accommodation has

become more difficult and the average period of time in accommodation at the

Homeless Families Unit and Single Household Unit has increased from 12.5

weeks in 2014 to 14.5 weeks in 2016. For individuals using specialist Housing

services such as Stepping Stones Projects, re-housing is taking far longer’

(Jolley et al, 2017:14).

It is in this context of increased need and an increasingly challenging position for

private landlords that the Bond Board situates it’s assets based participatory

research.

Page | 6

A Participatory, Co-Produced Research Project

Participatory research challenges power relations seeking to link research with

empowerment, education and action. Valuing all knowledge forms, be it from lived

experience, professional practice, community volunteering and that of being a citizen

in Rochdale means that power can be shared. The power that has traditionally sat

with professional voices can be shared to build positive change in the community.

Participatory research, involves research participants in the research process, co-

producing knowledge, which recognises all people’s (community member, citizens,

residents, professionals etc.) power and voice in the community. Participatory

research approaches are useful as they can identify community needs, prioritise and

contextualise issues within people’s lived experience and give direction to policy

development. The aim of participatory research in the context of the HARP project is

to recognise and empower HARP clients as critical thinkers, who can engage with

the HARP project strategy as empowered individuals.

Developing a safe space for participatory research to happen is important. Managing

expectations and being clear about what is possible with. The researchers took a

respectful approach to those with lived experience, being clear where their voice

could hold impact and where system constraints may present insurmountable

barriers to change. Honesty is important and communities respect that. The co-

produced participatory approaches enacted within the HARP project have produced

evidence of the power of the voice of people with lived experience within a place.

There are challenges to this approach; creating safe spaces to share knowledge and

addressing power hierarchies within organisational structures is challenging but the

value of enacting social justice by involving those with lived experience of the effect

of local, regional and national politics is irrefutable. In using participatory

approaches, the agency of research participants is nurtured. Participatory research

embodies the principle that all people have a right to a voice (Lister and Beresford,

1991).

Co-production as a research methodology recognises the multiplicity of roles that

exist within a collaborative project, including the complex sense making required. In

gathering the diversity of opinions, ideas and approaches ‘creative solutions arise

Page | 7

out of interaction under conditions of uncertainty, diversity and instability’ (Fullan,

1999:4). Co-production holds the potential to decolonise research practices, and to

create safe spaces, ‘to retrieve spaces of marginalisation as spaces from which to

develop indigenous research agendas’ (Tuhiwai-Smith 1999: 5). In recognising the

variety of types of knowledge held by a community there is significant power in co-

produced research and how it is represented.

Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis (SLA) as a Participatory Approach Sustainable

Livelihoods Analysis (SLA) is a participatory research approach. SLA originates

from international development. It was brought to the UK by Oxfam GB. It is an

assets based approach to analysis, focussed on examining a unit of analysis, most

usually the household, in terms of its vulnerabilities or adaptive strategies. Rather

than focussing purely on the economic, SLA examines a series of categories a

household might use to adapt to change or crisis. The approach is participatory,

involving those with experience of poverty in the research, inviting research

participants to reflect on their experiences and to contribute to analysis. Five assets

make up a sustainable livelihood; human, social, physical and financial and public.

Human Assets: These are the skills, knowledge and Health that allow people to

engage in everyday life. In the context of HARP project clients these might be their

skills, mental and physical health and knowledge of where to access support such

as soup kitchens in the local area.

Social Assets: These are the social resources that people can draw on; these

relationships are built on reciprocity & trust and can be informal friends, neighbours

for example or more formal relationships with support organisations. In the case of

HARP project clients these might be the relationships that they have with other

clients at the coffee shop drop in at St Andrews Church or at Petrus sessions.

Physical Assets: These are the tools and equipment that people need to function,

including housing, transport and access to information. For HARP project clients this

could be their housing needs or access to smartphones / computers to engage with

Universal Credit requirements.

Financial Assets: These assets include income from employment, benefit,

pensions, savings. In the case of HARP project clients sources of income may come

Page | 8

from employment, benefits or other cash in hand roles as well as from loans,

participation in the grey economy or in kind contributions to income such as use of

food banks.

Public Assets: These are access to public services, such as libraries, local

voluntary and community groups and faith groups. In the case of HARP clients these

might include health centres, the Bond Board, Petrus, Hepron Church.

The key concept of the approach is that everyone has assets in their life that are

both financial and non-financial and people choose to utilise these assets in different

ways. The Sustainable livelihood approach begins by looking at the day to day

experience of peoples lives, in the realisation that people draw from a variety of

different assets.

A further important principle of the approach is the importance of power relationships

in communities. The sustainable livelihoods approach is focussed on the lived

experiences of people and organisations. It focusses on their assets and aims to

make connections between micro level coping strategies and macro level polices.

Page | 9

The Value of Participatory and Co-Produced Research for the Bond Board

The value of participatory and co-produced research for the HARP project is in the

opportunity to democratise knowledge and in the opportunity to develop previously

unheard community voices. Participatory and co-produced research has a role in

legitimising knowledge (Evans and Fisher, 1999), and in shaping what sort of

knowledge is given priority. Participatory approaches build spaces that develop trust

in which relationships can be developed to expand the depth of data collected and

improve the usefulness of their research (Stoudt, 2007)

Participatory and co-produced research enables knowledge to be articulated that is

emotional, personal and subjective. Drawing from tacit knowledge alongside explicit

and exact knowledge forms, ‘the “everyday” as a field becomes a key site for things

to happen’ (Facer and Pahl, 2017). Through participatory and co-produced

methodologies, forms of embodied knowledge can be rediscovered (Behar, 1996).

Participatory approaches to research aim to create spaces where researchers can

move from personal experience to critical reflection on their knowledge.

Page | 10

The Research Methodology

The assets based research approach used a participatory and co-produced

methodology. This methodology deliberately took a multi-layered and creative

approach to gathering and communicating research data and findings, working with

two graphic designers and three visual artists over the course of the project. This

approach aimed to take a positive and empowering approach with (not to) the

HARP client community. Working together to build knowledge (to co-produce

knowledge) with members of a local community or set of communities has the

potential to stimulate social change. Knowledge and power are linked, and

participatory approaches aim to value everybody’s knowledge.Participatory

approaches value community knowledge, gained from experience and from living in

a place not just professional knowledge. The research had four key objectives:

Research Aims and Objectives

To help understand how to design services appropriately in order to promote

meaningful engagement

To evidence impact gaps are barriers service provision with a view to locating

future funding.

To share the learning: in order to better design services focussed around clients.

To connect into wider Greater Manchester Sustainable Livelihoods Work

Two Sustainable livelihoods training workshops were held. Four participatory

activities were held on a variety of occasions at both St Andrews Drop in and

PETRUS. Fifteen peer to peer semi structured micro interviews were conducted. The

collaborative analysis was made up of two informal analysis sessions, one workshop

with staff and four sessions led by artists at St Andrews drop in.

Page | 11

The First Year of the Research. 2016-2017

Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis Training. The HARP project began in September

2016. In October 2016 training was delivered with staff and volunteers of both Bond

Board and Petrus by The Volunteer Training Company. This training introduced

Sustainable Livelihoods as an assets based approach and shared examples of

successful use of the approach in Wales by Oxfam UK. Participants of this training

session were very positive about taking an assets based approach and recognised

that this is an approach that they tried to adopt when supporting clients. The

opportunity to develop integrated working focussing on assets (as opposed to

deprivations, which are often the focus in order to achieve benefit payments or

housing or support funding) was positively received. The training also identified the

need for further work with both staff & volunteer groups around the specifics of the

HARP project and clear leadership in terms of how data, paperwork and client

information will be shared.

Participatory Activities The first phase of the research was to design and deliver

participatory activities that could help clients of the HARP project identify and map

their assets. A range of participatory activities that could be used as part of coffee

shop drop in sessions were developed.

Social Assets Mapping Activity : Where do you find Community? In December

2016, the first activity took place. The Bond Board staff, set out an Ordinance

Survey Map of Rochdale with some arrow post it notes. They asked clients to

anonymously state where they found community in Rochdale Borough. This was

then marked onto the map.

Page | 12

The map has was left out at several sessions and further places of support added to

the map. The map was also taken to Petrus, to add in the spaces of community that

clients that access Petrus but not the St Andrews coffee Shop drop in utilise. As

clients added to the map, projects further afield were included in Middleton,

Heywood and Littleborough. Spaces of community further afield, within Greater

Manchester, one as far as Stockport were identified by clients as spaces where they

found community.

This activity mapped client’s sense of community, where they access support but

more importantly where they feel part of something. The activity was focussed on

mapping social assets. These are the social resources that people can draw on;

these relationships are built on reciprocity & trust and can be informal friends,

neighbours for example or more formal relationships with support organisations. The

activity revealed the range of social assets that clients utilise. St Andrew’s Church

and Petrus are both based close to the centre of Rochdale yet clients added

activities in Middleton. Heywood and Littlelborough and also one activity in

Stockport.

Some sources of community were known to support staff at the Bond Board but

others were new. Staff weren't previously aware of the range of people accessing

activities run by faith groups based out of churches. This activity revealed the range

of support accessed by clients, also their willingness to travel to access support. In

some cases such as the support being accessed in Stockport the client was being

Page | 13

collected and driven to a specific service. This perhaps identifies a need for that

specific service closer to Rochdale.

Social and Human Assets Activity: Who do you help and Who helps you? In

January 2017, a second activity was added to the mapping activity asking clients to

respond to two questions; Who do you help? and who helps you? This exercise

involved a large poster with two circles asking one question in each circle.

Participants were then asked to write their responses on post it notes and stick them

to the relevant circle. This activity was deliberately balanced, aimed at reinforcing

client assets and notions of reciprocity, community and trust rather than reinforcing a

deficit model by simply questioning who helps you.

Page | 14

This activity mapped both a sense of clients social networks and ties, who they

shared and received support from, but also client human assets in the skills that they

used (both formal and informal) in helping others. The human assets are the skills,

knowledge and health that allow people to engage in everyday life. The social assets

are the social resources that people can draw on; these relationships are built on

reciprocity & trust and can be informal friends, neighbours for example or more

formal relationships with support organisations. This activity collected the responses

given by clients attending the St Andrew’s Coffee Shop drop in and Petrus and

revealed a variety of assets, skills and community reciprocity. These findings were

added into a digital image of human and social assets held by HARP project clients.

Page | 15

Financial Assets Activity: Where do you get Cash?

In February 2017 a third activity was added to the sessions asking people where do

they get cash? After a detailed discussion with staff at the Bond Board, a list of

where clients of the HARP project that attended the St Andrews Church Coffee Shop

Drop in and Petrus might get cash was created. A piggy bank style container was

created and labelled token produced. The activity asked people to add into the piggy

bank all the sources of income they have. For example if their income is made up of

benefits, part-time zero hours contract, two loans (from different companies), friends

helping out and use of food bank then they would put 6 tokens into the piggy bank

(each one labelled with the different source of income).

We had a further conversation regarding the labelling of non-legal activities, those

that exist within the grey economy. Clients of the St Andrews drop in have different

backgrounds to those who use Petrus, however many clients of both HARP project

locations supplement formal income sources with other income sources such as

drug dealing and, or sex work. We concluded after careful discussion that creating

tokens to reflect the specifics of the grey economy would be labelling and might be

Page | 16

perceived as judgement and decided to refer to these income sources as simply

‘cash in hand.’ After discussion with clients at St Andrews Drop in and Petrus, a

HARP staff member identified other sources of income, such as cash converters.

The HARP staff member created tokens for these additional sources of income. The

tokens were gathered after each session, gaining a picture of different client group’s

sources of income depending on location of the session that the access (i.e St

Andrews or Petrus).

This activity mapped clients financial assets and offered a sense of how clients

manage their money. The Bond Board in the past has worked with clients to budget

for properties, reccomending that a property that the client had chosen was too

expensive for that client’s budget. They have then met with the client who has

decided to rent the property and found that the client was managing. This had led the

Bond Board to consider their approach to financial planning, and to wonder if they

had fully appreciated a clients informal income sources.

Page | 17

All sources of income, formal and informal were included in an extensive list. When

the activity was conducted additional sources of income were added such as

shoplifting and cash converters. This activity revealed the variety of income sources

that clients utilised. Clients that used the drop in coffee morning on different session

dates gave a different range of answers but when gathered together, the sheer

variety of income sources was evident. For Bond Board clients, formal income

sources, such as benefits, work or loans were only part of their cash flow.

Public Assets Activity: What sources of support do you use? In March 2017, a

further activity was added to the research, which considered which public assets

clients use. This activity was designed to consider the range of public assets,

institutions such as libraries, GP Surgeries, Charities that each individual clients use.

These activities were anonymous but on each person shaped card, clients listed the

range of public assets that they utilised. These assets ranged from the library, to the

hospital, the Bond Board, Ring and Ride transport service.

Page | 18

Clients were asked to anonymously complete a person shaped card and list on it

using felt-tip pens which organisations they use / access e.g sure start, library,

lighthouse project. This gave a sense of which clients, use which public services.

This was completed with a support worker. The activity revealed that clients are

accessing healthcare regularly for support but that not all were engaging with other

opportunities for support such as those offered by Rochdale Borough Council.The

activity also revealed that some clients were very active in their community regularly

engaging with a variety of public assets, others much less so. This perhaps identifies

an opportunity for the HARP project staff, to work with clients and support them to

access other support opportunities that exist within their locality.

Page | 19

The participatory activities were conducted regularly sat Petrus and at St Andrews

coffee shop drop in and offered an opportunity for clients to share their experiences

anonymously.

Page | 20

Sustainable Livelihoods Workshop with Staff.

An SLA workshop was held in July 2017 with Bond Board staff and trustees. In

working with staff, volunteers and Trustees at the Bond Board Away Day, time was

spent reflecting on the SLA research with the HARP project. The Away Day was the

beginnings of gathering staff, volunteer and trustee involvement in using the SLA

research with clients, beginning to think of how they might use the information

regarding how client’s use their assets experience and social ties to manage their

livelihood to develop organisational strategy.

The afternoon session with trustees took the information from the SLA research with

clients, reflecting on the morning SLA workshop activities with staff and volunteers

and used it as a basis to create and develop organisational strategy. Again a

workshop approach was used, at first considering organisational directions in relation

to each SLA asset and then mapping out SMART objectives for each assets for the

Bond Board.

Page | 21

Emerging Observations, Patterns and Learning from the First Year of Research.

The first year of the of the research took longer than initially imagined. It was clear

that leaving the participatory activities out and available, over a number of sessions

was important to enable participants to feel comfortable with the activities and to

engage a variety of clients. It is also important that the activities were run at both the

St Andrews Church and Petrus Hub sites. As such this research has been iterative. It

has been important that time has been taken over these activities, allowing support

workers and clients to build up trust and for the activities to become part of the

‘routine’ of support offered at each location. As research has been gathered an

important element of engaging with clients has been to feedback. Posters were

designed by a graphic designer and large size A0 colour posters, were displayed

regularly at Petrus and St Andrews Church over the summer of 2017.

As the activities continued, a picture of the range of locations that clients access

services within and the diversity of social ties that clients have emerged. It was clear

too that clients were engaged in reciprocal relationships that utilise their assets

alongside supporting their needs. Clients have a range of income sources that are

both formal and informal. Some clients have numerous links with public assets and

other much less so. As we have gathered data we have begun to have develop a

sense, by the of how clients manage their human, social, public, and financial

assets.

Page | 22

The Second Year of the Research. 2017-2018.

In late 2017 and early 2018 further participatory and co-produced research began.

This was part of the iterative research process with clients. The research

methodology has built on the information gathered from the participatory activities

and staff away day, to consider client and staff reflections on the assets. Year one

focussed on building relationships with clients and developing the partnership project

between Petrus and the Bond Board. Key to this process was the skill of SLA

support workers in building strong working relationships with clients and enabling

clients to understand and engaging with the process. This first year of the project set

the scene and built relationships, in order to establish which clients are accessing

which services and what assets they have and how they are utilising them.

The second year of the research project focussed on developing the nuances from

the findings that emerged from the participatory activities conducted in year one and

on building the critical reflections of clients using the HARP project.

Peer-Research Training In January 2018 peer research training was offered to

volunteers. The volunteering opportunity was opened up- to previous and existing

clients of the Bond Board. Volunteers were invited to become peer researchers,

gathering stories of how current clients use their assets to manage the livelihood.

The semi structured interviews were to be referred to as ‘a coffee and a catch up’

conversations and recorded in the edge of the main church hall during the

Wednesday coffee Shop Drop ins. This was to offer a level of confidentiality but to

ensure that the volunteers and clients could be in an open space and visible for

safeguarding reasons. The aim of these conversations held within a space to the

side but still part of the coffee shop drop I was to create ‘safe interview spaces’ that

‘minimised the power gaps between interviewer and participant’ (Stoudt, 2007:287).

No personal details or names are recorded, simply voices in conversation. The audio

was to be collected by the EHU researcher and analysed. These stories were to be

analysed to draw out assets and reflections on client experience of the Bond Board

and can sit alongside the anonymised SLA activities to offer more information as to

how clients manage their assets.

Page | 23

Developing Peer Led Co-produced knowledge. The process of training and

supporting the volunteers was a useful learning experience. It took time for the

volunteers to feel comfortable and to develop confidence in the process. The initial

training session was attended by two volunteers and two Bond board staff members.

The training session included research ethics, recording data on the Dictaphone,

holding and approaching semi-structured conversations. The aim was to begin with a

practice session at the next drop in and then start recording semi structured

conversations from the following session. The staff and volunteers were interested

and enthusiastic about the process but nervous too about how it would work and

how to use the Dictaphones.

It soon became clear that the process of training as peer researchers would take

longer than initially envisaged. The questions originally drafted by staff were too long

for the volunteers to recall and reading was a challenge in some instances. The

questions were simplified and summarised into two easy to remember questions:

What top tips do you have to share with others, ideas that have helped you cope

or manage when things have been tough?

What does it feel like to be helped by the Bond Board?

The drop in coffee shop sessions run every fortnight so the EHU researcher

attended most of these sessions, often towards the end of the drop in session time,

to meet with the volunteers, run through where and how they might sit for the

recorded conversations. Practice conversations were recorded on Dictaphones and

reflective conversations encouraged about how being involved in the process made

the volunteers feel and how they might negotiate difficult topics that require

confidentiality. This process was time intensive yet necessary as working

relationships, trust and knowledge take time to build especially with clients groups

who have not always previously had positive dealings with unknown professionals

such as university researchers. In spending time in unstructured interaction,

developing working relationships, drinking coffee together and in informal

conversation as well as more formal training opportunities working relationships were

Page | 24

built which enabled good quality reflection and communication once the peer

research had began.

The Peer Research was conducted between January and August 2018. Once the

peer research began, de-brief sessions were held after every session to ensure that

the volunteers talked through any issues and could reflect on their experience of the

project. Supervision for the researchers after each session was provided by Edge

Hill University. The initial plan for the peer research was that it would be in depth

interviews led by the peer researchers, recorded on a Dictaphone and then

transcribed and analysed after each HARP drop in session by EHU staff. In actuality,

the peer research project took much longer to establish than expected and the

researchers needed more pastoral support and training than was initially expected.

The two research questions were kept as simple and accessible as possible: how

do you feel about using the Bond Board and what tops tips do you have for people

that use the Bond Board?

Micro Conversations The Peer researchers were committed and very keen to be

involved. However using the dicta phone and building up the confidence to have

conversations as well as remembering the research questions was a lot to ask of

people. The questions needed to be remembered by some researchers as literacy

was a challenge for them. After discussion with the peer researchers it was decided

that EHU staff would sit with the peer researchers as they conducted the interviews,

to support using the dicta phone and to help remember the questions. Due to the ad-

hoc nature of attendance at the drop in, the mental ill health of one of the

researchers then most interviews were conducted by the peer researchers but some

were conducted solely by an EHU staff member.

Once the interview conversations began it became clear that long and in-depth

discussions were not the best approach as a research method with a chaotic client

group. Addiction and mental health challenges for many clients meant that sitting in

one place and concentrating for longer periods was simply too much. People attend

the drop in to socialise, to have a cup of tea and some toast and to access advice

and welfare support. Clients simply didn’t want to take part in long conversations. It

was therefore decided that micro interviews were the best, least disruptive and most

accessible approach. These micro interviews worked well. They were 5-7minute

Page | 25

conversations held by joining the table of those to be interviewed and sitting with

them while they drank their tea, conversing in an informal manner and asking them

for their thoughts in response to the two research questions. HARP drop in clients

responded well to this approach, happy to share their thoughts and experiences.

Fifteen micro interviews were conducted over a period from April - August 2018.

Transcripts were written up. Thematic analysis was conducted to draw out key

themes from these interviews. Each micro interview was transcribed into a word

document. The transcripts were then analysed using the research package NViVO

and themes began to emerge. The research analysis was open and iterative

(Williams and Pierce 2016) in its approach. Key terms and significant issues for the

data analysis were identified through a collective contribution process (Datta et al,

2015) returning to the HARP drop in sessions for discussion with clients.As a piece

of participatory co-produced research, it was important that the analysis was co-

produced with HARP clients, that they retained control over the data analysis (Datta

et al, 2015). The anonymous transcripts were shared with an artist, Molly Van Der

Wiejj1 who developed a selection of images to accompany the quotes. The aim of

working with Molly was offer another, visual, means of communicating with the

clients, to summarise the transcripts for those with limited literacy.

1 http://mollyvanderweij.com/

Page | 26

Findings from the Micro Conversations

This section of the report summarises and draws themes from the peer research

interviews. The quotes and images are used to illustrate the discussion of emerging

themes.

Practical Help & Comfort.

The Bond Board provide practical help, which is well organised and efficient. Clients

felt real comfort n the fact that they could come to the HARP drop in and there would

be practical support and action that would happen to change the challenges that they

had asked for help with.

Yes sometime I have a food bag. Its good to come to them if you have any problems like

or anything like that. Have used them just asking for advice and seen some properties

Page | 27

like. They don’t do my property at the minute but they did show me a few like. Mainly I

just come to them for advice mainly.

Yes they sorted out my bill and and sort out what needs to go down to get out of debt

and I rent my property through the Bond Board. I’ve been with the Bond Board twice

and its got sorted in a matter of days, a matter of weeks. Its quite quick to turn

around and get sorted.

A Transformative Space

Clients shared that the HARP drop in session was a transformative space where

they could visit when they were having financial or benefit worries and access

support. They felt that they would not be judged at the drop in and in accessing

support at the HARP project they felt that their worries were addressed. Several

clients shared how this had a really positive effect on their mental health.

Page | 28

Life was tough as I moved home and moved area and I was on benefits and I was

capped. I was also struggling with money - landlord was always on my back and I needed

help on getting on the right support for my son. … All I can say was that the Bond

Board really helped with putting me fines into one and supported me with throughout

my benefit cap as I was awarded DLA for my son in the end. It was still a struggle and

hard times but we got through it. We got through it with loads of support from family

and my key worker.

I moved up from London and I was referred to the Bond Board who helped me get the

first flat. I had damp issues which were never resolved and the BB helped me get

somewhere with (hardly any) damp.

[My] ESA Stopped and I was struggling with health conditions and attending job

interviews and the Bond Board got me mandatory reconsideration and back pay … I’ve

loads of support from the Bond Board, friends and some family. BB applied when we had

shortfalls in the rent

The Knowledge that you are not alone

The knowledge that the HARP project was there, was a comfort to many clients.

Simply knowing that they are not alone and that when the post falls on the mat they

needn’t be anxious because they can ask for help and access good quality advice at

the coffee shop drop in was important for clients. The knowledge that help is there

when they need it reduced their anxiety significantly.

You don’t worry about letters coming through the door. Cause I don’t know what I’m

talking about or what I’m doing. I feel more confident with me paperwork. And when

you do go [to the council offices] yourself but when you do go and you don’t get any help.

They’re [the Bond Board] our voice they sort it out.

Page | 29

Its good you know they’re always here to help. When I first came here [to the Bond

Board] I was in financial difficulty cause I’d just lost me job … but I’d done me job for

28 years and cause I’ve been put on benefits because of [health condition] and if it

wasn’t for this place I wouldn’t have a clue what to do … they helped me work through

the benefits.

They are a godsend of it wasn’t for people like these [the Bond Board] you know we’d

all be homeless … I was nearly homeless. I lost me house and they found us a new home.

They helped me. I was in that house for 17 years and it was a wrench you know but …

I used to own me own house but they helped me and I only had to move next door.

A Place of Welcome Building Social Networks and Ties

The opportunity to meet other people and to socialise was very much valued by the

client group. The fact that the session wasn’t just an advice session but also a

relaxed informal space was also important to the HARP client group.

I think it’s [the HARP project] a good thing it offers support for the tenants cause

the majority of the tenants on the bond board you could meet … you can socialise you can

Page | 30

ask the staff any questions and they will get you an answer. They have council people

come down to help with your council tax, rates anything like that

Its nice cause we met new people. Yes we usually have a food bag or a cleaning bag. ….

[the HARP project staff] told me about it like and as soon as I got one of their [Bond

Board] properties she asked if I wanted to come along like you see then I though id

come down. I don’t really get out much and I lost my dad in November do I had nothing

to you know … so I was just stuck in me property but I met [couple sat with] at

church. I do go to church and they said come down like. I started coming out now to the

coffee morning and it gets me out of the house. Its socialising really and its being able

to chat with other people … if you’ve got problems you can ask for help.

I think it’s [the HARP project] a good thing it offers support for the tenants cause

the majority of the tenants on the bond board you could meet … you can socialise you can

ask the staff any questions and they will get you an answer. They have council people

come down to help with your council tax, rates anything like that … And basically you get

a red cross parcel every time so yeah I think it’s a good thing really …. It gets people

out socially

The HARP coffee shop drop in is a place of welcome for a client group that don’t

often feel welcome anywhere. Clients shared that they felt that in other places they

felt like they were an inconvenience for people, that they wanted to get them fobbed

off and their issues off their desk as soon as possible. The HARP project wasn’t like

that and clients valued how welcoming the space was. In terms of the physical space

its light and airy with a cafe feel. The rooms are clean with disabled toilets and baby

changing facilitates. It feels spacious. Over the warm summer, the doors of the cafe

area open wide to let a breeze in and tables were taken onto the grass outside. The

pleasant physical space and the warm welcome from staff and other clients was very

much valued as a place of refuge from the tough day to day lives that clients

experience.

I got introduced to [the HARP project] off my girlfriend who got a property with the

Bond Board. I come in here for a food bag a cleaning bag a cup of tea, a toast, cheese on

toast, good conversation and help with the housing and positive things anything that

Page | 31

you are stick on the BB will help you with it … it needs to be more than once a

fortnight., once a week or twice a week, it’s a really its nice to see other people that you

haven’t seen for a week.

Don’t be frightened to come because they make you so welcome .. as soon as you come in

… Yes very welcome, and they’ve done a lot for me. [the HARP project staff] at the

moment is trying to sort out where I had an accident on the bus, she’s helped me with

my pension and getting a bungalow. And she’s got all of us on the list [Housing List for a

Bungalow]

We look forward to coming every two week we wish it were every week … we do like it

cause its social you know? …. Its social you know cause it gets me out of the house and

also if you ever got some problems you can come and have a word with them.

A Flexible Space

The flexible nature of the drop ins was important to the HARP clients. The fact that it

was a drop in service rather than a closed group or a group that met fortnightly and

expected regular attendance. Clients valued the fact that they could drop in regularly

when they felt that they needed either some social or welfare support and when they

didn’t attend for a while, that was fine too. They felt that they would be welcomed

back when they wanted to return which gave them a sense of security, knowing that

help was there and would be there if they needed it.

You know don’t be a stranger really – cause it takes me a while, I sound quiet, it takes a

while to gain confidence … so coming regularly so you feel confident – don’t just come in

once and say its not for me …. come [to the Bond Board] when you feel like coming.

It gets people out socially … Even though you don’t have to come, once you’ve been once

it helps … cause you speak to people that you wouldn’t normally speak to. Cause I’ve

suffered from [Mental Health Condition] for quite a while now and I close myself in … so

its helped me to keep contact with people outside my close family with people I might

not normally speak to. It helps stop social isolation really, you know sorry for big words

but that’s what popped into my head

Page | 32

Intergenerational Space

The inter-generational nature of the space was valued by clients. It offered an safe,

pleasant space for extended families to meet where they could all have something to

eat, sit around a table together, catch up on news and access any support if needed.

Many other support services are age or need specific. Playgroups, homeless night

shelters, mental health support groups were all mentioned as places where clients

also attended but the inter-generational nature of the space was unique and very

much valued by clients.

Its about getting out to socialise, to spend time with me dad, we live 10-15 min walk

from each other so I tend to walk down to his and we tend to walk here. With-it being

the holidays the girls [Primary School & Pre-School Age Children] like to come and play

and interact with the other children that come and its something for them to do … It

helps them socialise with children outside of school a chance to meet new friends

Page | 33

Well good its good to socialise with people as well apart from myself. Sometimes I see

you [other man] knocking about but I don't see anybody else apart from here so its nice

to see everyone like.

I feel happy when I come here, I wish it was on every week. Its nice that there's all

different age groups that makes it better. I mean I’m [Age Shared - OAP] so I could

go to a lot of sixty plus groups but I like being here cause its a nice mix of people.

Well its the only social life that I have innt? .. I enjoy coming her cause you can sit down

and relax, get a up of tea or coffee … I know some people here – that there’s me niece

and her fella. Its [The HARP Drop in] been twelve month of pure positive

The Right People

The HARP drop in was valued too for the people, the support workers, welfare

advice workers and volunteers. Clients valued the welcoming nature culture of the

drop in. They shared that someone would always speak to them and how they were

always welcomed. They very much valued that staff and volunteer team. Core staff

members plus a regular group of volunteers create a supportive environment where

Page | 34

they could sit down with clients, make phone calls to access support and to help

clients with benefit, health or financial paperwork.

They are lovely the girls here, especially [name of HARP project staff member] they do

a lot to help.

I felt comfy here from the start, they welcomed me and all that and they’re friendly. I

just asked them and I told them what me peoples were and they sorted it all out for us

straight away and they've been brilliant like. If you’ve got any problems you know

they're always here you can come down and there’s someone on the bond board that

knows you know? I just asked [Bond Board Staff] and she said that someone at Bond

Board that knows about that. That’s a good thing it takes the worry off you mind as

well you know.

The staff and volunteers are trusted by clients and importantly too, they are liked.

They are experienced and knowledgeable but more than that have bonds with the

clients group that hold trust, kindness and care within each working relationship. This

is important in creating the transformative space that the HARP project offers. It is

this approach that creates the safe space where clients can flourish.

It makes be feel very very Happy. [name of HARP project staff member] has been

helping me find a house. I need a house close to my children’s School and we rejected the

first house that the Bond Board offered us as it wasn’t close enough because my wife is

not well she has [Health condition]. She came last time with us but today she is in bed …

and we need to be close to School and Church [name of HARP project staff member] has

been helping us with this. Our school is [x] and it is also our church.

Reflections on Peer to Peer Research

The Peer interviews developed the conclusions that has had emerged from the

participatory research. Developing a safe space for all holds multiple and complex

challenges but can also hold opportunities to facilitate clients voice, enabling them to

share lived experience which can in turn influence policy and practice.In terms of

Assets clients have strong social and human assets. Clients are resourceful, using

multiple sources of support and hard working; volunteering formally with charities

and informally caring for generations above and below them. The HARP project

Page | 35

facilitates client social assets by offering informal and relaxed spaces to access

support, socialise and feel valued. The Bond Board offers an opportunity for HARP

project users to develop and build to strong social ties. The social ties can be drawn

upon to invite users of the project to develop their human skills, using the new

computer services available or working with an artist to artistically express their lived

experience. This additional physical space in the Bond Board offices will provide

free use computer services. There is the space at the HARP drop in at St Andrews to

use the church hall section of the space to engage with a greater range of public

services. Currently benefits advice is available but mental health was a key area

where clients expressed needing additional support. Loans are a major issue,

perhaps the Credit Union can be invited into the church hall space to offer financial

support. The importance of having a safe space to feel welcome nurtures clients

mental health beyond the day of the drop in. Having a space where you know and

trust those that you are asking help from meant that clients felt confident that they

could positively respond to any challenges in between drop in sessions.The

opportunity that HARP drop in provides as a safe space, a space of welcome where

clients can informally share experience and friendships can be developed to built

client voice, and for clients to flourish.

Page | 36

Co-Produced Research Analysis:

Co-produced research requires a commitment to collaborative analysis. Findings and

initial themes developed using Nvivo from the SLA workshops with staff and

volunteers, the participatory activities and the peer interviews were then opened up

for collaborative analysis with clients, staff and volunteers.

Collaborative Analysis of Participatory Activities.

Two informal sessions in April and May 2018, were hosted that invited clients to

reflect and comment on the posters and build the picture of assets that have

emerged from the participatory work.The posters that were created to map clients

assets in 2016 and 2017 were displayed in the main hall of the church where the

HARP drop-ins are based. This was a piece of collaborative analysis, offering clients

the opportunity to reflect on the findings from the participatory analysis. This was

important to ensure that the correct meaning was taken from the initial research and

that the emerging conclusions that were being drawn from the research were

Page | 37

confirmed by the clients using the coffee shop drop in. It was also an opportunity to

discuss emerging themes and conclusions as part of co-producing the research

findings with clients.

HARP Project Workshop: In May 2018 a short informal workshop using Sustainable

Livelihoods approaches and tools was run asking employees and volunteers on the

HARP project to reflect on the emerging findings from the participatory research and

to anonymously share their knowledge of how clients utilise their assets was held.

This workshop summarised initial findings from the participatory activities and asked

participants to feedback on why they thought that clients were using their assets in

this way. The discussion collaboratively analysed the research findings, co-

producing key conclusions. The workshop then examined what these emerging

conclusions tells us about the HARP project, in terms of how it can develop and

improve services to better reflect client need.

Page | 38

Being part of a co-produced research project that valued and sought to develop

client assets was important for staff and volunteers of the HARP project, as

evidenced in these quotes gathered annonymously during a participatory activity

during the workshop.

“Working on a Case Study & Hearing Peoples Stories really touched me, realising difficult

situations can happen to us all”

“it enables me to help powerless people”

“giving otherwise disadvantaged people a chance to come together and be a community

who is valued”

“Ability to think holistically about impact on clients, to be part of change”

“Broadened my experience and ability to help more holistic issues for clients”

Key themes that emerged from this collaborative analysis focussed on the

importance of the HARP project in creating safe spaces, the value of support as a

voluntary addition to the core social provision and the value of having support staff

that can offer practical support to clients available at each session.

Page | 39

Working with Artists to Co-Produce Analysis.

In July and August 2018 two artists, Jon Dorsett2 and Eva Brudenell3, were invited

to visit the HARP drop in to spend time talking to clients about how they felt about

the HARP project. The first artist, John Dorsett, a graphic harvester, had informal

conversations with clients, asking them how they felt about the project and from

these conversations created a poster. The sessions attended by Jon were important

as they offered a visualisation of the peer to peer conversations that had been less

obvious within the sessions and also offered further opportunity to collaboratively

initial findings from peer to peer interviews, participatory activities and staff &

volunteer workshops. Jon’s artwork is also important in communicating the ideas

discussed throughout the research with wider housing, public sector and civil society

partners within Rochdale. This poster has been laminated and will be displayed in

the Bond Board office. The image has also been added to flyers that advertise the

2 jondorsett.co.uk

3 https://folksy.com/shops/evabrudenell

Page | 40

Bond Boards work as a way of sharing knowledge gained from the HARP project

with the Rochdale community.

The second artist that we invited into the coffee shop drop in session was Eva

Brudenell. Eva’s sessions began with a workshop format with the hope of recording

on pamplet format how clients felt about the HARP project. Clients found that they

were happy to discuss their feelings and were very open and happy to share

reflections and perspectives but that they were not so keen on engaging with the

printing and pamplet making art session. Eva, the artist, holding to a client focused

co-production methodology was then able to adapt her session to create a canvas

that summarised client feedback. Clients were happy to share the phrases and

design that they would like to see Eva create and the canvas was a collaborative

piece with the art led by Eva and the design and wording corroboratively created with

HARP clients. The canvas created by Eva Brudenell is to be displayed in the Bond

Boards offices in order that the knowledge and feedback from the session can be

shared more widely.

The aim of all of these collaborative analysis sessions was to allow the conversation

around client assets to mature and to gather a more nuanced picture of how clients

Page | 41

negotiate their assets and in turn how this can influence and develop the

organisational strategy for the Bond Board.

Having summarised the research conducted in year one and two of the research

project the next section of this report will consider learning from taking a participatory

approach and off an analysis of the research findings.

Page | 42

Learning from the Research Approach

Taking a co-produced participatory approach to gain a holistic appreciation of client

asset's on the HARP project has been experimental. The research has deliberately

taken a reflective (Lewin, 1951) approach, seeking to reflect the Bond Board’s

commitment as va learning organisation (Sen, 1991). It is important when taking a

reflective approach, to learning to be transparent about what worked and where

areas of learning have emerged.

Reflexive Approaches Participatory research is research in which participants are

active in the construction of knowledge about their lives and researchers attempt to

be more transparent about their roles. Reflexivity ‘involves reflecting on the way in

which research is carried out and understanding how the process of doing research

shapes its outcomes’ (Hardy et al. 2001:534). Participative approaches recognise

research as co-constituted. Recognising research participants as reflexive beings,

involving participants in reflexive dialogue during data analysis or evaluation (Dean,

2017) is key to participatory approaches. Reflexive practice empowers people to

become aware of the structures that inhibit them, more able to enact agency over

their siltation (Bourdieu, 1986). The value of participatory approaches is their

commitment to enacting change;

In a world so deeply in need of change … I have therefore come to

think of action research as residing in the space that can integrate

truth and power (Huang, 2010:109).

The value for the Bond Board of using reflective participatory approaches to

research sits in the democratisation of knowledge and the opportunity to build voice.

Using participatory approaches offers an opportunity for reflection and learning. The

project worked well due to the volunteer and client enthusiasm for research and

working relationships between EHU staff and the HARP project staff. The volunteers

and clients of the drop in are interested and enthusiastic to help support the Bond

Board and attended every training and drop in session without fail. They were

committed to learn and contribute despite in some cases very challenging personal

situations. Alongside this, a strong working relationship between the volunteers,

Page | 43

staff and university researcher has enabled the research to be flexible and

responsive to organisational needs and pressures. Time frames have been flexible

allowing for a supportive flexible approach to the project.

There were also areas for learning, these related to the significant and urgent needs

of clients and the intellectual property held in the beginning with one key staff

member. The coffee Shop drop-ins are very busy and attract a wide variety of people

with a varying amount of support needs. By their nature they are drop in sessions,

which means that it is not possible to predict specific issues that people require

support with. The drop in sessions were supported by the staff team which included

a benefits adviser. On a few occasions changes in benefits or specific safeguarding

crises meant that the research had had to take a background role in order for clients

immediate need to (quite rightly) be the focus. This taught us that the process takes

time and in taking time it builds the opportunity for informal knowledge and working

relationships to be developed. The time taken therefore, whilst unstructured was a

real positive for the project. The Sustainable Livelihoods Worker on the HARP

project broke her leg and was unable to work for part of the Autumn of 2017. As the

lead contact for the research, the research inevitably had to pause during her

recovery. This taught us to broaden the research team and since the start of 2018 a

variety of project staff have joined research meetings.

Reflecting on the experience of existing participatory and co-produced

methodologies within the HARP Project reflective cues for future projects have been

created:

POWER – Co-produced and participatory approaches have a responsibility to

negotiate conflicted conversations and to recognise and empower all voices within

these conversations.

ETHICS – Taking an ethical approach to research involves the safeguarding of

voice. As researchers we hold a duty of care towards the emotional and physical

health of those involved in participatory and co-produced research.

LEGITIMISING KNOWLEDGE Universities hold status and power within the

community. Developing participatory and co-produced research validates the

Universities commitment to the community and adds an academic status to

Page | 44

community led research. This status can be useful to legitimize community

knowledge and to gain funding opportunities.

CONFLICT Communities are not places of consensus. Participatory and Co-

Produced methodologies need to represent the contested nature of the

conversations they hold.

RESPECT Needs to be established. It takes TIME and requires TRUST

LANGUAGE Participatory and co-produced research needs to be accessible. The

language used within the research process and within any research outputs for

example reports needs to be appropriate.

Page | 45

Analysis of Research Findings

The research project has identified the range of locations that clients access services

within and the diversity of social ties that clients have with both formal organisations

such as the Lighthouse Project but also informal and emerging organisations such

as street soup kitchens or faith groups that are offering drop in services. It was clear

too that clients are engaged in reciprocal relationships that utilise their assets

alongside supporting their needs. Clients have a range of income sources that are

both formal and informal. Some clients have numerous links with public assets and

others much less so. As we gathered data we began develop a sense of how clients

manage their human, social, public, and financial assets.

The peer to peer interviews revealed the value of the HARP project for clients. The

clients respected and liked the staff team and had trusting relationships with the

volunteers and staff at the HARP St Andrews drop in. This trust offered clients a

relief from anxiety, they knew that there was a place where they would not only be

welcome but where they could also receive support. It was here that the notion of the

HARP project being a safe transformative space emerged.

In offering practical support and stepping stones to solve health or benefit crises, the

drop in centre supported clients to regain control over their fragile financial and

health assets and to build new and emerging social and human assets via the

opportunity to socialise and attend training such as first aid courses. For once you

are safe from harassment and abuse you can feel safe to be ‘cognitively,

intellectually and emotionally expressive’ (Lewis et al, 2015). Being in a safe space

empowers ‘civic engagement, personhood and freedom’ (Lewis et al, 2015).

The HARP project offers perhaps an alternative space of inclusion, a ‘safe haven’

(Pinfold, 2000) or ‘oases’ (Philo et al, 2005). Safe social spaces are characterised by

both objective physical safety and subjective psychological safety and emotional

safety (Vaughan, 2014). The HARP project offers the opportunity for both ‘bridging’

and ‘bonding’ social capital to be built. Putnam (1995) defines bonding social capital

as the social networks and ties that link those in similar circumstances from similar

backgrounds. Bridging social capital (Putnam, 1995) are the links and ties between

Page | 46

different social groups. In offering an intergenerational safe space, the HARP project

offers the opportunity for bridging social capital that can offer networks outside of the

clients existing social circle and in so doing offer opportunities. The social space

offered by the HARP project was particularly important for clients. For Probyn (1996)

to ‘belong’ is primarily a social characteristic. To feel like you belong is more than

simply being included socially, it is to feel attached, valued and a sense that you are

‘part of’ the people, activities, network and space that you inhabit.

In using reflexive approaches to participatory research, participatory activities,

workshops and informal reflections the HARP client group were able to engage in

community level accessible critical reflection about their livelihoods. Vaughan (2014)

suggests that communities need to move beyond safe social spaces to

transformative spaces. Vaughan (2014) suggests that this can be achieved through

the development of critical thinking. In training as peer researchers volunteers were

able to develop their critical reflections. By ‘personalising and humanising their

stories’ (Vaughan, 2014:189) working with the artists, participants were empowered

to shared their lived experiences. Visual methods enabled participants to

communicate in a ‘rich language’ (Humphreys and Brezillion, 2002). In sharing their

stories using visual means participants created a spaces of reflection, that were

‘reflective of the subtle, incremental and provisional ways in which social change

actually occurs’ (Cornwall and Edwards, 2010).

The research revealed areas of insecurity too. Indeed, safe spaces are contested

notions. Creating a safe space requires that the space is safe for everyone. The

notion of the term ‘safe space’ requires clarification, safe for who and from what?

(Stoudt, 2007). In an intergenerational context there are both adult and child

safeguarding responsibilities. The Bond Board’s clients include people from a range

of backgrounds, from large families to single people. Accommodating the needs of

all the clients of the HARP project, offering a space of welcome for all and ensuring

the space is also safe for all is challenging and requires carefully thought out risk

assessment by senior management.

The staff were supporting clients with extremely challenging personal circumstances.

The emotional impact of trying to help a client through health and benefit crises with

dignity and respect whilst often navigating adult or child safeguarding procedures on

Page | 47

behalf of the client is a lot to ask of staff. The livelihoods of the staff on the HARP

project should also be considered and annomyous comments shared during

participatory workshops revealed a high level of emotional stress. This challenges

the notion of the HARP project offering a safe space for everyone. Participating in a

piece of co-produced research aimed at building client assets and taking a positive

approach to supporting clients was valued by staff as the quotes shared above

demonstrate, however it is important to recognise that this is not a panacea to staff

stress. The emotional challenges of ‘white knuckle’ (Baines and Cunnigham, 2011)

care work should not be under estimated.

In conclusion then the notion of making spaces, moving through spaces, expanding

spaces and living in spaces (Greene, 1995) sits well with a project whose bread and

butter work is housing. Greene (1995) suggests that to make a safe space is to be

free. Free to have voice, to share the knowledge of lived experience and free to be

honest about ones livelihood assets and incomes sources without judgement. Free

to be reflexive and to critically think through your lived experiences of convictions,

addiction, mental ill health or disability in a space that will facilitate you having a

voice. It is here that the HARP project can further develop the participatory research

project. Empowering and facilitating client voice, enabling clients to continue to co-

produce research and in so doing influence the strategic direction of the project.

Page | 48

Reflecting on the Aims and Objectives

The assets based research conducted with the HARP project between 2016 and

2018 has met it’s initial research aims and objectives.

Research Aims and Objectives

To help understand how to design services appropriately in order to promote

meaningful engagement

To evidence impact gaps are barriers service provision with a view to locating

future funding.

To share the learning: in order to better design services focussed around clients.

To connect into wider Greater Manchester Sustainable Livelihoods Work

The research has met its objectives in helping understand how to design services

appropriately in order to promote meaningful engagement and to evidence impact

gaps are barriers service provision with a view to locating future funding. It has

enabled a clearer picture of how clients utilise their assets and has developed a

picture of how some clients receive more support than others from public assets

such as voluntary, community and faith based groups. In co-producing the research

with the HARP clients, volunteers, employees and trustees, the project has

embedded the learning within the research itself, involving all participants in the

knowledge sharing as part of the research process. The research project is now

moving into the next phase of its work to share the learning from the research, using

the art created by Jon Dorsett and Eva Brudenell to illustrate the learning from the

research project. The HARP project is now linked to LeadingGM 4 via the EHU.

#LeadingGM is a collective effort across GM to mobilise a community of leaders from

across all corners and sectors. It is part of a programme of activities that together will

4 http://www.leadinggm.org.uk/

Page | 49

support GM leaders to achieve their Stronger Together ambition. There are further

opportunities to link this work into the work being done across Greater Manchester

and Rochdale and to showcase the findings of this research.

Page | 50

Areas for Action

The research has identified key areas for each SLA asset where the HARP project

can develop client assets as a result of gathering a more holistic picture of clients

livelihoods.

The diversity of support that clients access is clear. For the Bond Board this

suggests that as a charity integrating into Greater Manchester (rather than Rochdale

focussed) networks is the next step. For the client, recognising that there is a variety

of support across Greater Manchester is obviously important. Perhaps (from

speaking with HARP clients, this is the case) support is on offer on different days in

different places. Therefore creating an updated map of what's available and where

and on what day will be a helpful additional to client support.

The reciprocity between clients and those that they care about is clear. The peer to

peer interviews revealed that clients very much appreciated the first aid training

offered by the Bond Board. There is an opportunity here for staff to further support

the clients with their caring roles either by offering access to child-minding

registration courses for example or opening up the drop in coffee shop to include

clients and those they care for.

Page | 51

Some clients access a range of services and others less. The peer to peer interviews

suggested that this is not necessarily need related but that some clients less aware /

less able to access other sources of support. This opens up an opportunity for staff

to better link all clients into public support networks. Most people gave health or

council examples, other than the Bond Board Housing wasn't given as an example or

police. This suggests that there are opportunities to build links with other sources of

public support such as police community support officers or other charitable housing

providers.

Clients access a range of financial resources and have a diverse income stream.

They are not dependant on one source of income from work or benefits. In terms of

Bond Board strategy highlighting the 'grey' sources of income with the client runs

through their budget with Bond Board the client can work with the support worker to

adapt their income sources to legal options whilst recognising that a diversity of

income streams is important for the client.

Page | 52

Conclusion

This final report has summarised a two year participatory and co-produced research

project. The report began with a brief outline of the project and the socio-political

context that it sat within before summarising the methodological approach,

discussing findings and developing analysis. The aim of the research project was to

help the Bond Board to understand how to design services appropriately in order to

promote meaningful engagement. The project worked with the Bond Board, using

Sustainable Livelihoods analysis to analyse HARP service users experience of the

Bond Board.

The research used a five fold, assets based analysis approach to evidence impact

and barriers service provision. The research identified the range of locations that

clients access services within and the diversity of social ties that clients have with

both formal organisations and informal organisations such as street soup kitchens or

faith groups that are offer drop in services. The research revealed the range of

reciprocal relationships that clients utilise as social and human assets. Clients have

a range of income sources that are both formal and informal. Some clients have

numerous links with public assets and others much less so. The research revealed a

sense of how clients manage their human, social, public, and financial assets. The

clients respected and liked the staff team and had trusting relationships with the

volunteers and staff at the HARP St Andrews drop in. This trust offered clients a

relief from anxiety, they knew that there was a place where they would not only be

welcome but where they could also receive support. It was here that the notion of the

HARP project being a safe transformative space emerged.

Page | 53

References

Agger, B. (1990) The decline of discourse: Reading, writing and resistance in post

modern capitalism. New York: Falmer.

Atkinson, M., Wilkin, A.,Stottt, A., Doherty, P., and Kinder, K. (2002) Multi-agency

working: A Detailed Study National Foundation for Educational Research, Berkshire

Baines D.Cunningham I. (2011) ‘“ White knuckle care work”: Violence, gender and

new public management in the voluntary sector’, Work, Employment and Society ,

25(4), pp. 760–76.

Behar, R. (1996) The girl in the cast. In: R. Behar The vulnerable observer:

anthropology that breaks your heart. Boston: Beacon Press. pp. 104–132.

Bennett, F. and Roberts, M. (2004) From input to influence: Participatory approaches

to research and inquiry about poverty. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. Handbook of theory and research for the

sociology of education(pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.

Cornwall, A and Edwards, J (2010) Introduction: Negotiating empowerment IDS

Bulletin: Institute for Development Studies 41 (2): 1-9

Datta, R., Khyang, N, U., Khyang, H, K, P., Kheyang, H,A, P,. Khyang, M.C.,

Chapola, J (2015) Participatory Action Research and researchers responsibilities: an

experience with an indigenous community International Journal of Social Research

Methodology, 18:6, 581-599

Dean, J (2017) Doing Reflexivity Policy Press, Bristol

Evans, C and Fisher, M (1999) Collaborative Evaluation with Service Users In L.

Shaw and J.Lishman (eds) Evaluation and Social Work Practice London Sage Pg11-

117

Facer, K. and Pahl, K. Eds. (2017) Valuing interdisciplinary collaborative research:

Beyond impact. Bristol: Policy Press.

Page | 54

Fitzpatrick, S. Pawson, H,. Bramley, G,. Wilcox, S,. and Watts, B. (2017) The

Homelessness Monitor: England 2017 Crisis, London

Fullan, M. (1999) Change Forces: The Sequel. Falmer Press, London

Fullan, M. (1999) Change Forces: The Sequel. Falmer Press, London

Greene, M (1995) Releasing the Imagination Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Grenfell, M. I. and James, D. with Hodkinson, P., Reay, D. and Robbins, D. (1998)

Bourdieu and education: Acts of practical theory. London: Falmer Press.

Haraway, D. (1991) Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the

privilege of partial perspective. In: Donna Haraway Cymians, cyborgs and women.

New York: Free Association Books.

Hardy, C,. Nelson, P,. Phillips, Clegg, S,. (2001) Reflexivity in Organization and

Management Theory: A Study of the Production of the Research `Subject' Human

Relations Volume: 54 issue: 5, page(s): 531-560. May 1, 2001

Huang, H, B. (2010) What is good action research? Action Research Vol 8: (1) 93-

109

Humphreys, P,. and Brezillion, P,. (2002) Combining rich and restricted languages in

multimedia: Enrichment of context for innovative decisions. In Adam F, Brezillion P,

Humphreys P, (eds) Decision Making and Decision Support in the Internet Age.

Cork: Oaktree Press 695-708

Jacoby, R. (1987) The last intellectuals: American culture in the age of academe.

New York: Basic.

Jolley, I,. Bellis, H,. Abbott, C,. (2017) Rochdale Borough’s Homelessness Strategy

June 2017 Rochdale Borough Council

Lewin, K. (1951) Field theory in social science; selected theoretical papers. D.

Cartwright (ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Lister, R. (2002) A politics of recognition and respect: involving people with

experience of poverty in decision-making that affects their lives. Social Policy and

Society, Vol. 1, Issue 1.

Page | 55

Lister, R. and Beresford, P. (1991) Working together against poverty: Involving poor

people in action against poverty. Open Services Project and Department of Applied

Social Studies, University of Bradford.

Nash, R. (2004) Liberating scholarly writing: The power of personal narrative. New

York : Teachers College Press.

Philo, C,. Parr,. H and Burns, N,. (2005) An Oasis for us: in between spaces of

training for people with mental health problems in Scottish Highlands Geoforum 36,

778-91

Pinfold, V (2000) Building up safe havens … all around the world: users experiences

of living in the community with mental health problems Health and Place 6, 201-12

Probyn, E (1996) Outside Belongings Routledge, New York

Putnam, D. (1995) ‘Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital’, Journal of

Democracy, Vol. 6,No. 1, pp. 65–78

Rogers, D.S. and Whetten , D.A. (Eds) (1982). Inter-organsiational Coordination:

Theory Research and Implementation. First edn. Ames,IA: Iowa State University.

Sen, A., 1991. "What Did You Learn In The World Today?," Harvard Institute of

Economic Research Working Papers 1536, Harvard - Institute of Economic

Research.

Stoudt, B, G (2007) The Co-Construction of Knowledge in ‘safe spaces’ : Reflecting

on Politics and Power in Participatory Action Research Children Youth and

Environments Vol. 17. No.2

Tuhiwai- Smith, L. (1999) Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indigenous

Peoples. Zed Books, London

Vaughan, C (2014) Participatory Research with youth: Idealising safe social spaces

or building transformative links in difficult environments? Journal of Health

psychology 2014, Vol 19 (1) 184-192

Wall, J (2017) Substance Misuse and Homelessness in Greater Manchester Lifeline

Data Analysis Project 27 February 2017

Page | 56

Williams, O. R. and Pierce, J. (2016) Iterative parallelism as research praxis:

embracing the discursive incommensurability of scholarship and everyday politics.

Area, 48: 222–228. doi:10.1111/area.12258

Zapka, J.G., Marrocco, G.R., Lweis, B., McCusker, J., Sullivan, J., McCarthy, J and

Birch, F.X. (1992). ‘Interorganisational responses to AIDS: a case study of the

Worcester AIDS consortium’, Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 7,

31–46. Cited in: Delaney, F.G. (1994). ‘Muddling through the middle ground:

theoretical concerns in inter-sectoral collaboration and health promotion’, Health

Promotion International, 9, 3, 217–25.

Institute for Public Policy and Professional Practice (I4P)I4P is Edge Hill University’s cross-disciplinary research and knowledge exchange initiativeestablished in 2013. The Institute is committed to exploring the opportunities for cross sectorcollaboration and co-operation and to draw on the experience of practitioners as well asacademic researchers to inform new ways of working and learning.

E: I4P@edgehill.ac.uk W: edgehill.ac.uk/i4p T: twitter.com/I4PEHU