Characteristics and Dynamics of Homeless Families with Children. Demographic and Background Characteristics of Homeless Families

The typical profile of a homeless family is one headed by a single woman in her late 20s with approximately two children, one or both under 6 years of age (Bassuk et al., 1996; Burt et al., 1999; LaVesser, Smith, and Bradford, 1997; Lowin, Demirel, Estee, and Schreinder 2001; Rog, McCombs-Thornton, Gilbert-Mongelli, Brito, and Holupka, 1995b; SAMHSA Homeless Families Project, 2004; Shinn, Knickman, and Weitzman, 1991). Despite the fact that homeless families are predominately headed by women, adults in homeless families are more likely to be married than individual homeless adults (23% vs. 7% in the NSHAPC survey [Burt et al., 1999]) and also more likely than adults in other poor families to be married at the point of shelter entry (Shinn et al., 1998). In fact, Shinn and her colleagues found that being married or living with a partner increased the risk of requesting shelter. The relative proportion of homeless families who are married in a particular study depends greatly on whether the homeless families are recruited from shelters that exclude men. In 2003, shelters in 57 percent of the cities involved in the U.S. Conference of Mayors (2005) report indicated that families could not always be sheltered together primarily because many family shelters excluded men and adolescent boys.

Not only are homeless families overwhelmingly households headed by women, but they are disproportionately families with young (preschool) children. The risk for homelessness is highest—and higher than the general population rate—among children under the age of 6. Furthermore, the risk increases for younger children, with the highest rate of risk among children under the age of 1 (infants), of whom approximately 4.2 percent were homeless in 1995 (Culhane and Metraux, 1999).

Pregnancy is also a risk factor for homelessness (Shinn et al., 1998). In a comparison of homeless public assistance families in New York with a sample of housed families on public assistance, 35 percent of the homeless women were pregnant at the time of the study and 26 percent had given birth in the past year, while 6 percent of the housed group were pregnant and 11 percent had given birth recently (Weitzman, 1989).

Homeless families are more likely than poor families, and both are substantially more likely than the general population, to be members of minority groups, especially African Americans (Lowin et al., 2001; Rossi, Wright, Fischer, and Willis, 1987; Susser, Lin, and Conover, 1991; Whaley, 2002). This is also true of homeless single adults. For example, in the NSHAPC, 62 percent of families and 59 percent of single adults, compared with 24 percent of the general population, were members of minority groups (Burt et al., 1999). However, the particular minority groups represented vary from city to city. Their race and ethnicity reflect the composition of the city in which they reside, with minority groups invariably disproportionately represented (Breakey, et al. 1989; d’Ercole and Struening, 1990; Rog, McCombs-Thornton, Gilbert-Mongelli, Brito, and Holupka, 1995b; Shinn et al., 1991; Lowin et al., 2001). The rates of risk are again highest among young children. For example, an annual rate of homelessness in New York City among poor African American children under the age of 5 was 15 percent in 1990 and 16 percent in 1995 (Culhane and Metraux, 1999).

One of the unfortunate experiences for a significant portion of homeless families is the separation of a child from the family, either temporarily or permanently (Cowal, Shinn, Weitzman, Stojanovic, and Labay, 2002; Hoffman and Rosenheck, 2001). The NSHAPC reported that 60 percent of all homeless women in 1996 had children below 18 years, but only 65 percent of those women lived with any of their children (and often not all of their children); similarly, 41 percent of all homeless men had minor children, yet only 7 percent lived with any of them (Burt et al., 1999). Other studies yield similar findings (Cowal et al., 2002; Maza and Hall, 1988; North and Smith, 1993; Rossi, 1989; Zima, Wells, Benjamin, and Duan, 1996). The likelihood of having one’s children separated from the family is higher for homeless mothers with a mental illness (Buckner, Bassuk, and Zima, 1993; Hoffman and Rosenheck, 2001; Smith and North, 1994; Zima et al., 1996; Zlotnick, Robertson, and Wright, 1999) and for mothers suffering from alcoholism (33%). Approximately one- to two-thirds of the mothers who reported domestic violence also experienced family separations (Browne and Bassuk, 1997; Cowal et al., 2002).

Homelessness is a major factor influencing these separations, with or without other service needs. Five years after entering shelters in New York City, 44 percent of a representative sample of mothers had become separated from one or more of their children (compared to 8 percent of poor mothers in housed families) (Cowal et al., 2002). Three factors predicted separations: maternal drug dependence, domestic violence, and (controlling for drug dependence) any institutionalization, most often for substance abuse treatment. But at any level of risk, homeless families were far more likely to become separated from their children than housed families. That is, even if a housed mother was both drug-dependent and experiencing domestic violence, she was less likely to have her children separated from her than a homeless mother who had neither of these factors (Cowal et al., 2002). Surprisingly, many of the separations occurred after families were rehoused.

There is also a link between homelessness and foster care. Although the majority of separated children in the studies reviewed were living with relatives, a substantial minority were in foster care or had Child Protective Service (CPS) involvement (26%, Cowal et al., 2002; 6%, DiBlasio and Belcher, 1992; 15%, Zlotnick, Robertson, and Wright, 1999). In a 5 year followup of a birth cohort of children in Philadelphia, being in a family that requested shelter was strongly related to CPS involvement and to foster care placement (Culhane et al., 2003). The risk for CPS involvement increased as the number of children in a family increased. Similarly, in another Philadelphia study, there was a greater risk for child welfare involvement for families with longer shelter stays, repeated homelessness, and fewer adults in the family (Park, Metraux, Brodbar, and Culhane, 2004a).

Family separations are not only disruptive to the family and the child during the separation, they can foster a multigenerational cycle of homelessness. Numerous studies have found that separation in childhood from one’s family of origin is a predictor of homelessness in adults (Bassuk et al., 1996; Bassuk, Rubin, and Lauriat, 1986; Knickman and Weitzman, 1989; Susser et al., 1991; Susser, Conover, and Streuning, 1987). In turn, homeless adults who experienced family separation as a child were more likely to be separated from their own children (Homelessness: The Foster Care Connection Institute for Children and Poverty, 1992). In fact, one study found that a large proportion of the children in foster care in the county being studied were born to parents who had histories of homelessness (Zlotnick, Kronstadt, and Klee, 1998).

Among the factors that influence separations are shelter admission rules (as noted earlier), social service policies, shelter life stresses, and parental efforts to limit the child’s exposure to shelter life (Barrow, 2004). Shelters often cannot accept larger families or children past a certain age (especially male children). The sheer stress and stigma of living in shelters can cause mothers to send their children to live with family or friends, especially among African American and Latino families (Shinn and Weitzman, 1996). Finally, homeless families and families involved in special service programs following shelter [after leaving a shelter] are subjected to high levels of professional scrutiny. Although several states have ruled out placement of children [in special programs] because of homelessness alone (Williams, 1991), at least one state training manual notes that the presence of risk factors such as homelessness, though not considered proof of abuse or neglect, “may point to a need for further investigation and future intervention” (New York State Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 1990).

Homelessness is not only a major factor in family separations; it also makes the reunification of separated families more difficult. This is particularly true if, after separation, parents lose access to income and housing supports that allow them to create a suitable environment for their children (Hoffman, Rosenheck, 2001). In particular, court-ordered separations may require that certain conditions be met before a family can be reunited, such as finding housing and employment and participating in specific treatment and parenting programs. Consequently, reunification occurs only for a subset of families (e.g., only 23% of the separated children in the New York City study were living with their mothers at the 5-year followup [Cowal et al., 2002]).

Adults in both homeless and other poor families generally have low levels of educational attainment and minimal work histories. Compared to the national average of 75 percent of all mothers having a high school diploma or graduate equivalency diploma (GED), for example, high school graduation or GED rates for mothers in homeless families range from 35 percent to 61 percent across a number of studies (Bassuk et al., 1996; Burt et al., 1999; Lowin et al., 2001; Rog et al., 1995b; Shinn and Weitzman, 1996). In studies that compared homeless families to poor families, 46 percent of the poor mothers had at least attained high school graduation or a GED (Bassuk et al., 1996); Shinn et al. (1998) found a similar percentage of 42 percent. Overall, the educational rates for homeless families are lower than for homeless single adults (47% vs. 63% in the NSHAPC) (Burt et al., 1999) but similar to other poor families. Again, there are often regional differences reflected in education ranges, with West Coast rates of education typically higher than East Coast rates (Lowin et al., 2001; Rog et al., 1995b).

Not surprisingly, most homeless mothers are not currently working while in a shelter. In a sample of 411 homeless families being helped by shelters in Washington State (Lowin et al., 2001), only 15 percent of the respondents had worked 20 hours or more in the week prior to the interview, with 44 percent of their spouses or partners working during that period. Rog and colleagues (1995b) found that 14 percent of homeless women in the study were working upon entry into a shelter, whereas less than 1 percent were working in the Worcester Family Research Project (Bassuk et al., 1996).

The majority of homeless women in the study, however, have had work experience. Bassuk and colleagues found that 67 percent of the homeless mothers had held a job for more than 3 months. Rog and colleagues found that nearly all (92%) of the women reported working at some point in the past; 62 percent had held a job for at least 1 year (Rog et al., 1995b). Similarly, in the more recent SAMHSA Homeless Families Project, involving homeless women screened for mental health and/or substance abuse problems in eight sites across the country, 96 percent of the women reported working sometime in the past, although only 14 percent were working at baseline (SAMHSA Homeless Families Program, 2004).

The incomes of homeless mothers are significantly below the Federal poverty level (Bassuk et al., 1996, Rog et al., 1995b, Shinn and Weitzman, 1996). Homeless families’ incomes are slightly higher than the incomes of homeless single adults, because of the families’ greater access to means-tested benefit programs such as welfare, and because of more help from relatives and friends. Nonetheless, homeless families’ incomes are far too low to obtain adequate housing without subsidies (Burt et al., 1999). In the Worcester Family Research Project, more than half earned less than $8,000 per year, placing them at 63 percent of the poverty level for a family of three (Bassuk, 1996). Similarly, in the NSHAPC in 1996 the median income for a homeless family was only $418 per month, or 41 percent of the poverty line for a family of three (Burt et al., 1999).

Social support is an important buffer for stress and a major predictor of emotional and physical well-being (Cohen and Wills, 1985). Social networks can be an important housing resource for poor families, who frequently double-up with others when they cannot afford independent housing. Findings about social networks of homeless families, however, are mixed. Several studies have found that mothers in the midst of an episode of homelessness, compared to housed poor women, have less available instrumental and emotional support, less frequent contact with network members, and more conflicted relationships (Bassuk et al., 1986; Bassuk and Rosenberg, 1988; Bassuk et al., 1996; Culhane, Metraux, and Hadley, 2001; Passero et al., 1991). Two studies found that homeless mothers were more likely to name children as sources of support (Bassuk and Rosenberg, 1988; Wood et al., 1990), although this could reflect the circumstance of living in shelter with children.

An ethnographic study of 80 homeless families found that the lack of friends or relatives, or the withdrawal of support from these people, was an important factor in the families becoming homeless (McChesney, 1995). However, Goodman (1991b) found no differences in support between homeless and housed mothers. In the New York City study of homeless families and poor housed families, Shinn and colleagues (1991) reported that newly homeless mothers had more recent contact with network members than did poor housed mothers, and over three-quarters had stayed with network members before turning to shelter. This suggests that families may exhaust social capital, rather than having less capital to begin with, than other poor families. Moreover, additional analysis (Toohey et al., 2004) 5 years later found that social networks of the (now) formerly homeless mothers in this sample were quite similar to those of their housed counterparts.

Social networks, unfortunately, can be the sources of conflict, trauma, and violence, as well as support. In the Worcester Family Research Project, homeless mothers had smaller social networks than housed women and reported more conflicted relationships in their networks. Therefore, large social networks emerged as a protective factor for homelessness, but having a network marked by interpersonal conflict was a risk factor for homelessness (Bassuk et al., 1997). For both homeless and housed mothers, conflict with family and friends was related to impaired mental health (Bassuk et al., 2002). Sibling conflict, in particular, was a stronger predictor of mental health symptoms than was parental conflict.

Homeless mothers, like poor women in general, have experienced high rates of both domestic and community violence (Bassuk et al., 2001). Many women report having been both victims and witnesses of violence over their lifetimes. In the Worcester Family Research Project, almost two-thirds of the homeless mothers had been severely physically assaulted by an intimate partner, and one-third had a current or recent abusive partner. More than one-fourth of the mothers reported having needed or received medical treatment because of these attacks (Bassuk et al., 1996). Supporting these findings, Rog and her colleagues (1995b) reported that almost two-thirds of their nine-city sample of homeless women described one or more severe acts of violence by a current or former intimate partner. Not surprisingly, many of these women reportedly lost or left their last homes because of domestic violence.

In addition to adult violent victimization, many homeless mothers experienced severe abuse and assault in childhood. The Worcester Family Research Project (Bassuk et al., 1996) documented that more than 40 percent of homeless mothers had been sexually molested by the age of 12. Women participating in the SAMHSA Homeless Families Project reported similar findings, with 44 percent reporting sexual molestation by a family member or someone they knew before the age of 18. Sixty-six percent of the women in the Worcester Family Research Project experienced severe physical abuse, mainly at the hand of an adult caretaker. Other studies have found similar results (Rog, et al., 1995b; SAMHSA, 2004).

Family homelessness is perhaps most aptly described as a pattern of residential instability. Homeless episodes are typically part of a longer period of residential instability marked by frequent moves, short stays in one’s own housing, and doubling-up with relatives and friends. For example, in the 18 months prior to entering a housing program for homeless families in nine cities (Atlanta, Baltimore, Denver, Houston, Nashville, Oakland, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle) families moved an average of five times, spending 7 months in their own place, 5 months literally homeless or in transitional housing, 5 months doubled up, and 1 month in other arrangements. Overall, one-half (53%) had been homeless in the past. It is important to note, however, that this was not a random sample of families, but one selected for a variety of service needs, with “chronic homelessness” (defined as repeated episodes of homelessness) being a marker for some of the families.

Other studies document the lack of stability that homeless families experience. In a more recent study of newly homeless families who were screened for having mental health and/or substance abuse problems in eight sites across the country, less than one-half of the prior 6 months was spent in one’s own home (SAMHSA, 2004). Staying with relatives or friends was the most common living situation during that period for this sample (SAMHSA, 2004) and was also the most common living arrangement for families before entering shelter in Washington State (Lowin et al., 2001). Similarly, Shinn and colleagues found that a key predictor of first-time homelessness for families in New York was frequent mobility, as well as overcrowding (Shinn et al., 1998).

The length of time families stay homeless is a function, in part, of shelter limits on stay and the availability of subsidized housing. The availability and quality of subsidized housing also affects the number of families who return to homelessness. Research has indicated that the strongest predictor of exiting out of homelessness for families is the availability of subsidized housing (Shinn et al., 1998; Zlotnick, Robertson, and Lahiff, 1999). In a longitudinal study of first-time homeless families and a comparison random sample of families on public assistance, residential stability was predicted only by receipt of subsidized housing (Shinn et al., 1998). In followup interviews that occurred 5 years from initial shelter entry, 80 percent of the homeless families who received subsidized housing were stable (i.e., in their own apartment without a move for at least 12 months), compared to only 18 percent who did not receive subsidized housing. The 80 percent figure equaled the percentage for the comparison sample of families from the public assistance caseload. After leaving shelter, formerly homeless families were not part of special case management programs but had access to services generally available to families on public assistance. The study provided strong evidence that subsidized housing was both necessary and sufficient for families to be residentially stable (Shinn et al., 1998).

An earlier followup study of formerly homeless families in St. Louis found similar evidence of the role of subsidies in fostering stability. Of the families who had received housing placements at termination from the shelter and who could be located during the followup period (201 families out of a possible 450 families), those who had received a Section 8 certificate at termination were much less likely to have had a subsequent homeless episode than families who had received some other type of placement (6% vs. 33%) (Stretch and Krueger, 1992).

Finally, studies using administrative records in both New York City and Philadelphia provide additional support for the role of subsidized housing in ending homelessness. In New York City, families discharged from shelters to subsidized housing were the least likely to return to shelter (7.6% over 2 years). Families who were discharged to “unknown arrangements” had the highest rate of shelter return (37%) (Wong, Culhane, and Kuhn, 1997). Similarly, after a policy of placing homeless families in subsidized housing was adopted in Philadelphia, the number of families with repeated shelter visits dropped from 50 percent in 1987 to less than 10 percent in 1990 (Culhane, 1992).

Part of the success of subsidies is that they not only allow homeless people to live affordably, but they generally also allow them to live in safer, more decent housing. In a study of single adults with severe mental illness, Newman and her associates found that Section 8 certificates are associated with improved housing affordability and improved physical dwelling conditions. The quality of the physical housing, in turn, is related to other outcomes, especially residential stability (Newman, Reschovsky, Kaneda, and Hendrick, 1994).

Similarly, in a nine-city study in which homeless families received both Section 8 certificates and case management services, 88 percent of the families accessed and remained in permanent housing for up to 18 months (based on 601 families in six sites where followup data were available) (Rog and Gutman, 1997). Although all families also received some amount of case management and access to other services, the level of service provision varied greatly across and within each of the nine sites and did not appear to differentially affect housing stability. This finding was replicated in an evaluation of families participating in the 31 sites across the country receiving FY 1993 funding under the Family Unification Program (FUP). The FUP, administered by collaborating housing agencies and child welfare agencies, provides families with Section 8 rental assistance and child welfare services. The study found that 85 percent of the families were still housed after 12 months and the finding was almost universal across the 31 sites, despite different eligibility criteria and services, among other differences (Rog, Gilbert-Mongelli, and Lundy, 1998).

A smaller study in New York City in the early 1990s examined a similar intervention involving subsidized housing, coupled with short-term intensive case management, and yielded similar findings. A comparison group received subsidized housing but no special services. At the end of a 1-year followup period, the majority of families in both groups were housed, and less than 5 percent had returned to shelter. Whether or not families had received the intensive services did not affect the outcomes. Rather, the type of subsidized housing received was the strongest single predictor of who would return to shelter, with families in buildings operated by the public housing authority more stable than those in an alternative city program (Weitzman and Berry, 1994).

Although housing subsidies appear to reduce returns to shelter, some families do return after living in subsidized housing. In the New York City followup study, 15 percent of 114 families who obtained housing subsidies returned to shelters at some point during the 5 year followup period (Stojanovic, Weitzman, Shinn, Labay, and Williams, 1999). Reasons for leaving subsidized housing included serious building problems, safety issues, rats, fire or other disaster, condemnation, or the building’s failure to pass the Section 8 inspection. Informal discussions with city officials suggested that families may return to shelter because of failure to renew Section 8 certificates. Similarly, Rog and colleagues (1995b) speculated that failure to complete paperwork might explain some of the dropout of families from the Section 8 voucher program at 30 months in three sites in the nine-city study.