Comprehensive Outreach Work Intervention with Lawyering Advocacy Action in Athens: Action Research Project Evaluation
Background
While harm reduction practices are often perceived as urgent interventions in order to address acute priorities of vulnerable groups’ health threaten conditions, different needs combine a complex field convening problems that seek a holistic approach to support problems of different aspects. Urgent health issues, homelessness, mental health disorders, a variety of substances consumption in regular base, more often intravenously, legal problems, social care opportunities’ deprivation, lack of valid identification documents, linguistic communication difficulties require simultaneous routinely implementation of evidence-based harm reduction principles. Efforts to provide holistic comprehensive care to homeless people abusing alcohol or/and psychoactive substances in Athens center is the aim of current presentation.
Methods
Based on action research methodology, needs estimation, support intervention prioritization, use networking links motivation, care records and short and medium term outcome evaluation, outreach care providers combine a first essential aid net offering basic relief. Homeless people through self-report in depth interviews clarified substances consumption, patterns of use (routes of administration, frequency of use, etc.) drug market key aspects (nomenclature, price, availability) identifying relative impact risks.
Results
Through personal testimonies and experiences street work interventions of the outreach lawyering advocacy was in detail recorded and using both participative observation and testimonies collection neighborhood perceptions and reactions towards vulnerable people are investigated. Focus has been given on Identifying personal characteristics, gender differences, different ethnic origins and law implications experience. Their specific needs were explored as well as their divergence from and convergence with community so they can try to enjoy amenities as is usually the case for not excluded people.
Conclusions
Evaluation outcomes were interpreted in order to offer a global feedback in the framework to build concrete plan attempting to practical issues solving choices of everyday life challenges in improving living conditions of vulnerable and contributing to a feasible action guideline for outreach practitioners.
