The main theme of the paper is where it fits on the spectrum of Housing First an

The main theme of the paper is where it fits on the spectrum of Housing First and Treatment First;  don’t get bogged down in routine descriptions.   Liebow’s Introduction, pages 4-11, provides a good example.  How long has this provider been in existence?  How did it start? What types of housing facilities or other resources can the provider make available to clients?
Often, some of these details are available from the provider’s website. Get as much information as possible from the website before you ask for an interview, and then double check that information in your interview (websites are often out of date or describe only part of the program). The fact that you already know a little about the provider will enhance your credibility with the provider and make a better interview.
What are the organizational characteristics of the facility (e.g., does it have a shelter? transitional housing? permanent housing options?  does a shelter have one large dormitory facility or separate rooms? ). Try to be as specific as possible about the types of housing provided because these are often clues about where the provider fits on the Treatment First vs. Housing First spectrum.   How much control or independence do these characteristics allow the homeless client? Do the hours of operation force the clients to leave? or is there 24-hour access?  Interpret those details in terms of more consistency with a Housing FIrst or a Treatment First program.
Many providers now work together with partner organizations to provide some of the homeless services, each organization specializing in their own expertise.  This can make your analysis more difficult if some partners are providing services that would be the basis of your Housing First vs. Treatment First analysis.  Do your best to include those partnered services as well, but you will probably have less information about partners.
When describing the program and services, do MORE than description.  Interpret each fact in a framework of whether it suggests more a housing first or a treatment first practice.
The history and descriptions will give you some background, but doesn’t usually get into the specifics of its policy orientation that will enable you to evaluate how close it is to a Housing First, a Treatment First, or some mixed model of working with the homeless. However, the type of clients your provider works with (families, single men, single women) and the facilities they have available (large shelter, single apartments, etc.) will influence what kinds of policies they need in order to keep functioning. So get those details down first (& interpret them).
Housing First v. Treatment First
Once you have established some rapport in your interview, you can begin to ask about some of the issues which distinguish Housing First and Treatment First (focus on the four characteristics of Housing First described in the text and in our classroom discussion). Few providers have totally just one orientation or the other – most combine them in some fashion that fits their philosophy, their clientele, and the facilities they have available. So you need to ask about (& write about) each of these parts separately.
You need to be skeptical that there may be a gap between the philosophy they believe in and the actual practices the provider engages in. Like for our course, Housing First has become the dominant (but not exclusive) ideology of homeless service providers. So, you need to find out as many specifics as possible and evaluate yourself whether those fit better with a Housing First or Treatment First perspective. For instance, what rules are in place and how are they enforced?   Does the provider expect clients to make “progress” while in the program? If so, what is their definition of progress and who evaluates this progress? Does this resemble the “staircase” approach described in Housing First (p.7). How does the provider assist in making “progress”?
Importantly, what happens to clients who don’t (or won’t) make “progress” as defined by the program or don’t (or won’t) follow the rules? Are they back on the streets?
What are some problems the provider has faced in working with the homeless?  How does the provider assist the homeless to get out of homelessness?  What kinds of treatments are available for mental illness or substance abuse?  Are there some success stories of some homeless getting out of homelessness and what were the key elements in those successes?
Don’t be a cheerleader for your provider.  You are to be an analyst not an advocate.  And don’t assume always that Housing First is “good’ and “Treatment First” bad. One size fits all is not a good policy model.
You may also be able to ask directly what the provider thinks of a Housing First policy since the publicity around Housing First probably means your provider is familiar with that philosophy.  Try to get your provider to address both advantages and disadvantages they see in a Housing First (or Treatment First) policy.
In writing up the results of your interview, fit the provider into the policy continuum we have discussed between Housing First and Treatment First, or between a laissez faire and rule orientation.  Cite specific examples of what practices lead you to that conclusion – not just what the interviewee claims.  The four main characteristics of Housing First we have identified should be described and related to your evaluation of the provider’s orientation:
immediate independent housing vs. a “continuum of care”:  what is provided immediately? and how independent is it?  are there curfews?  times they must leave the facility? how permanent?  if not immediate permanent housing, how do clients qualify eventually for permanent housing?
the extent of rules that are enforced by staff and can lead to termination from the program:  what authority does the staff have over enforcing rules (cf. Liebow’s description of shelter rules)?  how many lead to suspension? expulsion?
hierarchy vs more democratic orientation in making rules and program guidelines: this is difficult to discover.  Who makes the rules? how are disputes handled?  does the staff include former clients or are they all professionally trained (i.e., experts)?
mobile support services:  does staff go out to the clients? vs. centralized services where the clients come to the provider’s office?  not just for special occasions (e.g., job interviews) but for routine casework?
Whenever possible, draw parallels to the readings we have done or videos we have watched – especially any concrete examples that seem similar to your provider. 
Based on your two peer reviews, make revisions in your paper that you think will improve the report. 
Include an additional section at the end of the report that describes what changes you made based on the peer review comments and what suggestions you may have decided not to follow.  Authors rarely agree with all of a reviewer’s suggestions, so you need to choose which suggestions are most helpful and which are less useful.