Characteristics and Dynamics of Homeless Families with Children. Classification Issues

If there is general agreement that typological formulations are appropriate to consider for the description and management of homeless families, the following questions need to be addressed before beginning the search for subtypes:

• Should the approach be theory driven or directed by blind empiricism? [Does it have to be an either-or?]
• Should the typology work within a single domain of variables or should it be multi-dimensional?
• Should the working material for the typology include individual and group strengths as well as risk factors?
• Should the working material include cross sectional or longitudinal variables, family variables or individual characteristics?  What are the relative merits of disaggregating families from individuals? 
• Is one typology going to be sufficient, or should there be several?
• Is it better to focus on the causes or the consequences of homelessness?

• Question One: Theory Driven or Blind Empiricism?

  • Regarding the first question (whether the typology should be theory driven or directed by blind empiricism), it is first necessary to evaluate the quality of theory. There are essentially five theories: (1) Homeless people belong to an underclass with a culture of its own that lacks the necessary personal structuring needed to develop a home life, employment etc, (Schiff, 1990). There is little, if any, evidence for this view.  (2) Homeless people have “lost out in the battle for acceptance” and have gone through aversive learning experiences and as a result, they value their retirement from any institutional constraint (Levinson, 1963).  This theory is compatible only with a very small fraction of homeless people, chiefly single men.  (3) Homeless people have a faulty relationship with society, a “social disaffiliation” that may be brought about in various ways, for example, by mental illness, drug use, or other causes (Bahr and Caplow, 1970).  This theory, which was popular for a while, fails to take into account the extensive social networks that recent empirical research has demonstrated for homeless people.  (4) Homelessness as an extreme form of poverty resulting from the gap between income and available low-income housing. There is no single theoretical paper about this theory, but a lot of empirical evidence suggests an association between homelessness and severe poverty and unavailability of low income housing. (5) Societal disinvestment theory (Jahiel, 1992) accepts the premises of hypothesis but looks beyond it to decisions made by society to disinvest in certain geographic areas, types of work, or types of welfare support.  It also fits the empirical evidence. 

    Based on this brief review, there seems to be little consensus around an explanatory theory, and virtually no theories specific to homeless families.  Nevertheless, it would seem like theory may offer some guidance on the selection of candidate variables for further empirical exploration.  For example, there is good support for theory 4 at the aggregate level (to account for the size of the homeless population).  At the individual level, some vulnerability factors (ethnicity, pregnancy, substance abuse, past homeless history, various disabilities, physical abuse by spouse, and others as well as being in the wrong place at the wrong time) account for who is selected by society (societal disinvestment) or by self (societal disaffiliation) to become homeless.

• Question Two: Single Domain or Multidimensional Typology?

  • Regarding the second question (single domain or multidimensional typology), if a single domain is chosen, the only one that is general enough is the low-income housing/poverty relationship. In this instance, the typology should include exogenous variables (availability, accessibility of housing), personal variables (need for mere housing subsidies or subsidies plus support services) and situational variables (acceptability, appropriateness of the housing that is provided).  That domain would be best adapted to a majority of homeless families, judging from the literature reviewed above.  In addition, that domain could be used with a preventive approach to homelessness (including such additional variables as eviction preventive programs, and low-income housing guidance).  A multidimensional approach would be better adapted to a (multidisciplinary) client-service matching strategy with two possible purposes: (1) ending homelessness (here the housing /income disciplines would be predominant); (2) alleviating or perhaps diminishing the adverse effects of homelessness (here the effects on homeless children would have top priority, with mental, physical and re-adaptive services as a second priority for specific families).

• Approaches to Understanding Homelessness

  • Another issue is whether homelessness should be approached in a cross-sectional way or situated in the larger context of developmental experience.  Some types of homelessness may be developmentally cumulative, becoming progressively worse over time, whereas others may be developmentally limited (e.g., only during periods of economic depression and only when children are in care of parents).  The successful negotiation of major life events such as completing an education, assuming adult roles, choosing a profession, marriage, and having children, may have important implications for the determination of which homeless families become economically self-sufficient and which ones deteriorate and remain chronically homeless.  A cross-sectional approach may be the simplest one for a client-service matching, but it may not be without limitations, and it tends to select chronically homeless people unless statistical corrections are made for the effect of homelessness duration on the chance of being selected in the study.  Homelessness, even of short duration, is often preceded by a period of considerable financial or emotional stress and poor quality of life. Thus, the variables included in the typology should not be limited to the period of homelessness, but also to preceding stressful periods and following periods of re-adaptation to having a home. Several studies have shown that the risk of homelessness is markedly increased by several distant developmental antecedents, such as physical and sexual abuse during childhood  (Bassuk, Perloff, and Dawson, 2001); foster care or institutional placement during childhood, housing instability during childhood (McChesney, 1992b) or homelessness as a youth (Mackenzie and Chamberlain, 2003).

• Family Variables vs. Individual Characteristics

  • Regarding the issue of family variables vs. individual characteristics, it would seem logical and necessary to consider both in any typology of homeless families. There are typologies of homeless youth, (i.e., youth who are homeless by themselves), with categories of runaway; throw away and “system” (e.g. foster care) youth (Farrow, Deisher, Brown, Kilg, Kipner, 1992). Very little has been done, to our knowledge, regarding a typology of children whose family is homeless. Daniesco and Holden (1998) proposed a typology of homeless families in which one type was associated with higher rates of parenting stressors, major life concerns, and children with cognitive, academic, and adaptive behavior problems.

View full report

Download

"report.pdf" (pdf, 4.18Mb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®