Seven data sets were identified as warranting further consideration for possible reanalysis. In this section, each of these data sets is reviewed in detail, including their structure and content. Then, the nature of the reanalysis that is indicated, including the type of questions that could be addressed, and how the results could inform the typology efforts, is presented.
-
General Population Studies
-
Three of the data sets are ongoing, general population studies that are widely known and have been analyzed for a variety of research purposes. Two, the NLS and the PSID, are national, longitudinal studies, and the other is a large, national cross-sectional survey of families, NSAF. The three national data sets identified have potential for informing the efforts to conceptualize a typology of homeless families. In the following section, each study is described in detail and information on the structure, content, and strengths of the data set is further outlined in an accompanying table.
National Longitudinal Survey of Labor Market Experiences (NLS). The NLS (see Table 4-3) is a series of longitudinal cohort studies. Four initial cohorts were selected in the mid-1960s, including samples of both young and mature men and women. Tracking of the two male cohorts was stopped in the early 1990s, while the two groups of women continue to be monitored. Tracking began of another cohort of 12,686 youth between the ages of 14 and 22 in 1979 (NLS79). Annual surveys of this cohort were conducted for the next 25 years and, since that time (1994), biennial surveys have been conducted. In 1986, surveys were begun with children from the NLS79 cohort. Information was initially collected on these children in 1986 and has been biennially updated since 1988. A sixth cohort NLSY97 sample of 9,000 youths who were 12 to 16 years of age as of December 31, 1996, has been tracked annually since 1997.
Table 4-3. National Longitudinal Survey of Labor Market Experience (NLS79) Structure Sample Nationally representative sample of youths who were 14 to 22 years old in 1979 Size 12,686 youths Timeframe First interviewed in 1979. Interviewed annually through 1994 and biennially since then. Content Housing/homelessness Information collected on current residence and on moves since the previous interview. Homelessness (e.g., living on the streets or in a shelter) is not recorded Specific housing questions - What is the address of your current residence?
- What type of living quarters? (Answer choice- Other- Temporary individual quarters)
Demographics Work history, education, high school transcript, income and assets Family Marital status event history, child births, and family composition Service needs Health conditions, alcohol and substance abuse, insurance coverage Agency/service involvement Event histories of participation in government programs such as unemployment insurance and AFDC Strengths for typology — Knowledge gaps answered Geographic coverage Yes, large, national representative sample Population coverage
(Broader than homeless)Yes Subgroups available Yes, to identify those at risk, provides ability to examine role of risk factors and protective factors as they relate to housing stability, work, and family Prevention/intervention services
(agency involvement)Yes, data on government programs, including housing subsidies Data on children Yes, limited data on children of NLS79 cohort's mothers Weaknesses Possibly biased sample if did not successfully track those who became homeless; does not collect any information on homelessness Conclusion Cannot be used for typology — no information on homelessness The four initial cohorts are unlikely to yield information relevant to family homelessness. By the time this topic began to emerge as a national issue in the mid-1980s, most of the original 1966 and 1967 samples were too old to have young children and less likely to have been at risk of homelessness. Conversely, the latest cohort, the NLSY97 sample, is just beginning to reach the prime age for entering homelessness as families. Data available on this cohort, however, exist only through 2000, when most of the youth in the sample had not yet reached their 20s. This data set, because it specifically collects information on whether a respondent was living in a shelter or on the street, may be important to examine in the future.
Only the NLSY79 sample is likely to have experienced homelessness, with the group entering their 20s during the mid-1980s. A review of the data set revealed that, in addition to labor force behavior, information has been collected on a wide range of key domains, such as welfare receipt, educational attainment, income, health conditions, alcohol and substance abuse, family histories, and residential history. Contacts with individuals at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) indicated that the NLS does not provide any measure of homelessness, though the database is built on panel surveys that track living arrangements over time. At this time, only the addresses, not types of location, are coded. Thus, a shelter cannot be distinguished from a stable living arrangement. In addition, even if the type of location could be discerned, it is likely that because of the difficulty in locating homeless people for followup interviews, individuals who are not stably housed would be underrepresented.
If coding of homelessness and precariously housed arrangements did exist in a reliable and valid fashion, a reanalysis of this data set could make an important contribution to understanding the dynamics of residential instability from early adulthood on and the role that labor force involvement, welfare, and some basic health issues play in these dynamics. The size, scope, and longitudinal nature of the data set would amplify its potential importance for the efforts as long as there could be some determination of the representativeness of the study sample with respect to unstable families. As it currently stands, however, the NLS does not provide this information.
Panel Survey of Income Dynamics (PSID). The PSID (see Table 4-4) is a nationally representative, longitudinal study that began in 1968. The initial PSID study consisted of two independent samples: a cross-sectional national sample of approximately 3,000 families and a national sample of 2,000 low-income families. From 1968 to 1996, individuals from these families were interviewed annually, whether or not they were living in the same dwelling unit or with the same people. As a result of both low attrition of the original sample and additional followups of the children as they formed their own families, the PSID grew to a size of more than 65,000 individuals, clustered into families branching off from the original family sample. To keep the PSID sample representative of the U.S. population, adjustments were made in 1997 that reduced the number of core families and added a refresher sample of post-1968 immigrant families, particularly Latino and Asian households.
Table 4-4. Program Survey of Income Dynamics (PSID) Structure Sample Representative, national sample of families, including a national sample of low-income families in 1968, refreshed in 1997 Size Initial sample of 4,800 families, grown to 7,100 by 2001, with data on over 65,000 individuals Timeframe First survey conducted in 1968, annual surveys administered until 1997, starting in 1999 surveys administered biennially Housing/homelessness Residential followback calendar for all places lived in during the previous 2 years; however, homeless not directly coded Content Specific housing questions - Asks for a residential follow-back calendar of all places lived during the previous 2 years (lists addresses).
- Is this house in a public housing project; that is, is it owned by a local housing authority or other public agency?
- Are you paying no rent because the government is paying all of it?
Demographics Education, ethnicity, religion, military service, parents' education, occupation, poverty status, income Family Family composition and changes Service needs Physical health, emotional distress Agency/service involvement Public assistance in the form of food or housing Strengths for typology — Knowledge gaps answered Geographic coverage Yes, large nationally representative sample Population coverage
(Broader than homeless)Yes, with a subsample of low-income individuals from 1997 Subgroups available Yes, provides ability to examine role of risk and protective factors as they relate to housing, family, and employment for those at-risk for homelessness. Prevention/intervention services
(agency involvement)Yes, housing and food public assistance Data on children Limited Weaknesses Does not collect any information on homelessness Conclusion Cannot be used for typology — no information on homelessness The PSID collects information on a broad range of core topics, including income sources and amounts, poverty status, public assistance, marital status, childbirth, employment status, military service, and health. Supplemental questions also have been added to various waves of the PSID. For example, various types of health questions have been included in several different years. Retrospective questions also have been asked to clarify relationships between people identified in the early years of the PSID and to obtain more detailed work histories from participants.
The PSID collects housing and mobility information but does not include homelessness as a specific location. For example, it obtains information such as when and why people have moved, whether they own or rent, and how much they pay for housing. It is possible that homelessness or other information related to homelessness is collected but coded as other.
A potential strength of the PSID for this effort is oversampling of low-income families. However, because the percentage of families that experience long-term poverty is fortunately relatively small, the number of families experiencing long-term poverty in the PSID is not large (Gottschalk and Ruggles, 1994).
National Survey of America's Families (NSAF). The NSAF (see Table 4-5), consists of representative cross-sectional samples of the civilian, noninstitutionalized population under the age of 65, and was designed to gather data on economic, social, and health characteristics of families and children. Individuals were contacted through either random-digit dialing (RDD) or, for households without a telephone, face to face. The NSAF is a national sample, but it oversamples 13 states to provide more accurate state-level numbers. The survey was administered to 44,461 households in 1997, 46,000 households in 1999, and 43,157 households in 2002.
The NSAF provides a rich data set on both parents and children. In households with children, up to two children were randomly sampled, one child under the age of 6, and another child between the ages of 6 and 17. Information on children in the household was gathered by asking questions of the adult with the most knowledge regarding the children's education and health care. The NSAF contains information on a range of domains, including employment, welfare receipt, social relationships, and emotional and physical well-being and provides child-level data on social, emotional, behavioral outcomes, mental and physical health outcomes, and academic outcomes.
Another potential strength of the NSAF is that, although the homeless population is not specifically surveyed, the three administered surveys focus on housing and economic hardship variables. The survey includes questions that identify families who were forced to live with other families because of the inability to pay the monthly mortgage, rent, or utilities. Additional questions that capture families at risk for homelessness identify the use of emergency food banks and the inability to pay monthly rent. The NSAF would, therefore, provide a rich data set to measure families who are doubled-up and provide valuable information to identify those at risk for homelessness. A potential limitation of the NSAF is that the cross-sectional design would not provide information on the same families across points in time.
Table 4-5. National Survey of America's Families (NSAF) Structure Sample Representative sample of the civilian, noninstitutionalized population under the age of 65, oversampling people with low incomes Size 44,460 households surveyed in 1997; 46,000 households surveyed in 1999; approximately 40,000 households surveyed in 2002 Timeframe Cross-sectional design, surveys conducted in 1997, 1999, and 2002 Content Housing/homelessness Asks if family had to move in with another family because of inability to pay mortgage, rent, or utility bills (doubled-up population identifier) Specific housing questions - How much paid for rent?
- Are you and your family paying lower rent because the Federal, state, or local government is paying part of the rent?
- During the last 12 months, did anyone move into your home even for a little while because they could not afford their own place to live or because their parents could not support them?
- During the past 12 months, was there a time when you and your family were not able to pay your mortgage, rent, or utility bills?
Demographics Gender, education, employment, ethnicity Family Births/pregnancies, parent-child interactions, family formation, and stability/living arrangements Service needs Adult health, physical, and emotional well-being, children’s mental/physical heath Agency/service involvement Welfare, mental health services, medical services Strengths for typology — Knowledge gaps answered Geographic coverage Yes, three very large, national representative samples Population coverage
(Broader than homeless)Yes, oversamples low-income individuals Subgroups available Yes, provides ability to examine role of risk and protective factors as they relate to housing, family, and employment for those at risk for homelessness. Provides ability to track the hardships families face, the role of welfare and other services in affecting the course of the hardships, and the role of family interactions and stability as both factors in shaping hardships and buffering hardships Prevention/intervention services (agency involvement) Yes, housing and food public assistance Data on children Yes, child-level data collected Weaknesses Does not collect any information on homelessness Conclusion The data set may provide valuable information on those doubled-up and at risk for homelessness. At this point, the specific size of the doubled-up population has not been identified; however, interim analytical findings suggest that 3 in 10 low-income families answered that they were unable to pay for a month's rent, utility bills, or mortgage payment and nearly half of the low-income families reported food affordability problems (Nelson, 2004). These findings suggest that an ample-sized, at-risk population exists and should be further examined on all variables.
-
-
Special Population Studies
-
The remaining four data sets examined are from studies that contain data on specific populations in selected areas of the country. Three of the studies are focused on low-income families in one or more selected cities across the country. One study, the Chicago Women's Health Risk Study (CWHRS), includes a one-time sample of women in Chicago seeking treatment. Each of these studies is described below.
Chicago Women's Health Risk Study (CWHRS). Funded by the National Institute of Justice, the CWHRS (see Table 4-6) was designed to identify risk factors that place a physically abused woman or her partner in significant danger of life-threatening injury (Block, 2000). The study collected extensive baseline information on several different samples: women who had been abused in the 12 months prior to seeking general health care (n=497), women who did not report being abused during that same period (n=208), and victims of intimate homicide (based on proxy interviews) (n=87) (Block, Stevenson, Leskin, and Thomas, 2002; Block, 2000; Block, Engel, Naureckas, and Riordan, 1999). Because the CWHRS sought to include the hidden population of women who are experiencing intimate partner violence but who are unknown to service agencies, women were screened for abuse at a county hospital or at community health clinics located in neighborhoods with high rates of intimate partner homicide.
The study focused on the 49a7 women who had been physically abused at least once in the year prior to seeking general health care, collecting descriptive data on each abuse incident during the 12 months prior to seeking treatment, and reinterviewing the women one time for varying periods up to 12 months following the initial interview. Sixty-six percent (323) of the original abuse sample was reinterviewed. Data were collected on an array of risk and protective factors for abuse across the retrospective and prospective periods. These included one's living situation (with specific attention to homelessness), family composition and child separations, marital status, physical health, pregnancy, drug and alcohol use, mental health (posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD] and depression/suicide feelings), race/ethnicity, occupation and income, immigrant status, resource and social support network, intervention, and help seeking. Specifically, help seeking included whether assistance was sought from alcohol and drug treatment providers, a domestic violence agency, a medical provider, and/or the police.
Table 4-6. Chicago Women's Health Risk Study (CWHRS) Structure Sample Women seeking treatment at medical centers in areas with high rates of intimate partner homicide in Chicago Size 705 total women interviewed, 497 experienced intimate violence in past year, 208 were in the comparison sample Timeframe Baseline interviews conducted 1997-1998, one followup conducted from 1998-1999 Content Housing/homelessness Homelessness, living in a treatment center, shelter, number of people living in household (including her children), changes to household structure Specific housing questions Was the mother homeless or living in a treatment center or shelter? Demographics Age, race, education level, employment status, birthplace, marital status Family Age and gender of children living in and outside of the household with mother Service needs Physical and mental health, including general well-being, type and duration of any physical or emotional limiting condition, amount of bodily pain experienced, pregnancy outcomes, medical outcomes study, scale of depression Agency/service involvement Alcohol/drug treatment, contacting a domestic violence-related agency or counselor, seeking medical help, and contacting the police Strengths for typology — Knowledge gaps answered Geographic coverage No, only in Chicago Population coverage
(Broader than homeless)Yes, samples from medical centers with high numbers of intimate violence Subgroups available Yes, subgroups include working but still homeless; noncustodial homeless parent; those at-risk providing the ability to examine role of risk and protective factors as they relate to family, work, and physical/emotional health. Prevention/intervention services (agency involvement) Somewhat, physical and mental health services Data on children Very limited Weaknesses Not a representative, national sample and only has one followup with a portion of the original sample Conclusion Cannot be used for typology — data are not generalizable to national population and the sample size is small The CWHRS provides additional samples of women at risk for homelessness, as well as those who are homeless, and any transitions they make over the course of 12 months. The study also provides information on women currently being abused that would augment knowledge contributed by the Worcester Family Research Project and the SAMHSA Homeless Families Project. A specific question of interest for reanalysis would be if the help-seeking patterns of those who are homeless differ from individuals who are currently housed. The major drawback is that this is a single-site study with a relatively small sample that therefore is likely not representative of all women being abused.
Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study. The Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study (see Table 4-7), also referred to as the Survey of New Parents, follows a birth cohort of new parents and their children over a 5-year period. The purpose of the study is to provide new information on the strengths, conditions, and relationships of unwed parents and how Federal and state policies affect family composition and child well-being.
The study used a three-stage sampling process. First, a stratified random sample of 20 cities was selected from all 77 U.S. cities with 200,000 or more people. The stratification was based on three variables: welfare generosity, the strength of the child support system, and the strength of the labor market (Reichman, Teitler, Garfinkel, McLanahan, 2001). Second, hospitals within cities were sampled, based on the proportion of nonmarital births in the hospitals or, in New York and Chicago, randomly from the pool of hospitals with over 1,000 nonmarital births per year. Third, random samples of both married and unmarried births were selected in each hospital per preset quotas. Samples were designed to be representative of the nonmarital births taking place in each of the 20 cities, but not necessarily to be representative of the marital births, since hospitals were sampled that had the most nonmarital births. Interviews were conducted with both the birth mother and the birth father. The final sample was composed of 3,712 nonmarital births and 1,186 marital births.
Data were collected at baseline, with initial interviews with mothers occurring within 24 hours of the child's birth and with fathers as soon after the birth as possible. Followup interviews were conducted with both parents when the child reached 12, 30, and 48 months. An in-home child assessment was also conducted with the child at 30 and 48 months. Data were collected on current housing situation and residential mobility from both parents at all data collection points and included homelessness as a response option. The data set also included extensive information from both parents on demographics; partner, child, and familial relationships; marriage attitudes; child well-being; the health and development of the child and the respondent; social support; environmental factors; government programs; incarceration; and employment, income, and economic well-being.
Table 4-7. Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study Structure Sample Stratified random sample of U.S. cities with a population of 200,000 or more, containing samples of families with nonmarital and marital births Size Approximately 3,800 unwed couples and 1,200 married couples Timeframe Baseline collected between 1998-2000, followups conducted 1 year, 3 years (not yet available), and 5 years (not yet available) Content Housing/homelessness Current housing situation (street, homeless is a choice), various doubled-up population identifiers Specific housing questions - In 1-year followup instrument: Asks the mother what the current housing situation is (answer choices include on the street, homeless); question is also present in the 3-year and 5-year followup
- What are the reasons that you and the baby’s father are not planning to live together? Answer choice: housing reasons (no place to live)
- In the past 12 months, did you not pay the full amount of rent or mortgage payments?
- In the past 12 months, were you evicted from your home or apartment for not paying the rent or mortgage?
- In the past 12 months, did you move in with other people even for a little while because of financial problems?
- In the past 12 months, did you stay at a shelter, in an abandoned building, an automobile or any other place not meant for regular housing for even one night?
Demographics Race, education, employment status, of mother and father Family Followups: Family characteristics, relationships with family members, mother’s family background and support Service needs Mother’s physical and emotional health; child’s social/emotional/behavioral outcomes, cognitive skills, overall development, academic outcomes, child mental/physical health Agency/service involvement Baseline: drug treatment; Followup: welfare, employment office, Healthy Start, Head Start Strengths for typology — Knowledge gaps answered Geographic coverage Yes, nationally representative sample Population coverage
(Broader than homeless)Yes, provides ability to examine subgroups of families from initial development through various changes Subgroups available Yes, relevant subgroups include working but still homeless, episodically homeless, two-parent homeless families, families that fall back into homelessness; “moderate needs” homeless Also provides data on those at risk, ability to examine the role of risk and protective factors as they relate to homelessness, family, and work.
Prevention/intervention services (agency involvement) Yes, housing subsidies, welfare, drug treatment Data on children Yes Weaknesses Sample size of the literally homeless might be small Conclusion This sample would definitely inform a typology of homeless families Of all the data sets identified, this study offers the most promise for informing the typology efforts. For the purposes of this current effort, the project team conducted a reanalysis of the Fragile Families data set, focusing on specific research questions described in Chapter 5, along with the findings from the reanalysis. The data set contains a high-risk sample for homelessness, in that pregnancy is one of the major risk factors found to precede homelessness (Weitzman, 1989) or its reoccurrence (Rog and Gutman, 1997). Because it is a longitudinal panel study, it affords the ability to track families over time into various residences and presumably homelessness, and to examine the role of various other factors in their lives operating as either risk or protective factors. The database has the added benefits of being readily available and national in scope on the nonmarital births, offering some specific city information. Finally, the study contains a wealth of information on children from birth to 5 years and would provide an invaluable comparative perspective on the development of children living in various environments and experiencing different patterns of residential and familial instability.
Welfare, Children, and Families: Three-City Study. This research project is an intensive study of households with children in low-income neighborhoods in Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio. The study (see Table 4-8) is designed to better understand the effects of welfare reform on the well-being of children and families, especially as welfare reform evolves. The study has three interrelated components-longitudinal surveys, an embedded development study, and ethnographic studies.
Table 4-8. Welfare, children, and families: Three-city study Structure Sample Random sample of households with children in low-income neighborhoods in Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio Size Approximately 2,400 households; approximately 256 women Timeframe Baseline conducted in 1999, first followup in 2000, second followup in 2002 Content Housing/homelessness - What did you do to get by without welfare (answer choice is “went to a shelter”)
- Doubled-up population identifying question
Specific housing questions - What did you do to get by instead of going on welfare? (Answer choice- “went to a shelter”)
- What did you do to get by when the welfare benefits stopped? (Answer choice “went to a shelter”)
- During the past two years, did anyone move into your house/apartment because they could not afford their own place to live? (doubled-up population)
- In the past two years, were you forced to move from a residence or home because you could not afford the rent or mortgage?
- Does your household pay less rent because the government pays for part, such as Section 8?
Demographics Education, basic demographics Family Family routines, family background, father involvement, mother-child activities Service needs Domestic violence, schooling, pregnancies, mother’s emotional and physical well-being Agency/service involvement Welfare participation Strengths for typology — Knowledge gaps answered Geographic coverage No, sampled in only three cities Population coverage
(Broader than homeless)Yes Subgroups available Yes, subgroups include episodically homeless, families that fall back into homelessness, those at risk for homelessness Prevention/intervention services
(agency involvement)Yes, housing subsidies, welfare Data on children Yes Weaknesses Unrepresentative sample Conclusion Cannot be used for the typology even though the sample identifies homeless families; the sample is nationally unrepresentative The longitudinal component includes three rounds of interviews with a random sample of 2,400 households selected in 1999 (with an oversampling of welfare families). Each household had a child either between the ages of 0 to 4 or between the ages of 10 to 14 at the time of the baseline interview. Two followup interviews were conducted, one in 2000/01 and the second beginning in 2002. Personal interviews were conducted with the adults and the older children. Assessments were conducted with the younger children. With respect to homelessness, the survey identifies families who indicate that they went to a shelter instead of receiving welfare and those who indicate that they went to a shelter when benefits stopped or were cut. Unfortunately, the code "moving in with others" as a response to either not receiving welfare or what they did after benefits stopped is combined with "moving to cheaper housing;" therefore, a transition can be noted but is not well defined. In addition, data are collected on whether another individual or individuals have moved in with the household because they could not live on their own.
The developmental study includes more intensive testing and evaluation of approximately 700 children aged 2 to 4. This includes videotaping and coding interactions, time-diary studies, and observations of child care settings. Ethnographies are also being conducted in each city, focused on how changes in welfare policy affect the daily lives of welfare-dependent and working poor families; 215 families are to be followed for 4 years.
This study may hold some promise for informing the typology. It will depend on the extent to which people indicate that homelessness, or moving to another residence/being doubled up, are options they chose in order to not receive welfare. It will also depend on how they survived once welfare was terminated. Because these are not direct questions but rather open-ended response options, it is up to the respondent to offer this information. Moreover, it is unlikely in most cases that people moved into shelter to avoid going on welfare or as a direct result of benefits being cut. Doubling-up with others is a more likely result, but it may not happen immediately after welfare is cut; it is more likely that families will weather an eviction or two before moving to other housing or in with family or friends. Thus, the usefulness of these data depends on how valid the responses are and the extent to which the relevant options are used.
Women's Employment Study. The Women's Employment Study (see Table 4-9) consists of a random sample of 874 single mothers who were on the welfare rolls in a Michigan metropolitan area in 1997. Cases were proportionately selected by ZIP Code, race, and age. Eligibility was also restricted to White or Black women who were U.S. citizens and not classified as exempt from work requirements. Four waves of data were collected, generally at 1-year intervals with the baseline conducted in 1997. The purpose of the study is to examine barriers to employment among welfare mothers. In-person interviews cover a comprehensive set of possible barriers, including education; work experience, skills, and readiness; physical health, mental health, and substance abuse problems; family stress; and domestic violence.
Table 4-9. Women’s employment study Structure Sample Random sample of single welfare mothers who live in a Michigan metropolitan area Size 753 current and former welfare recipient families Timeframe 1997-2003; baseline collected 1997, 1-year followup in 1998, 2-year followup in 1999 Content Housing/homelessness - Homelessness
- Length of homelessness
Specific housing questions - Have you ever been homeless?
- For how many days or weeks were you homeless?
- Have you ever been evicted?
- In the next two months, how much do you anticipate that you and your family will experience actual hardships such as inadequate food, housing, or medical care?
- Do government programs like Section 8 pay part of housing costs?
Demographics Employment, education Family Violence in family, births/pregnancies, parent-child interactions, family and relationship outcomes, parenting attitudes, parenting skills Service needs Child development, substance abuse, emotional and physical well-being Agency/service involvement Case management, counseling, substance abuse, child protection agencies, domestic violence, or mental health treatment Strengths for typology — Knowledge gaps answered Geographic coverage No, only from Michigan Population coverage
(Broader than homeless)Yes, sample of single welfare mothers Subgroups available Yes, subgroups include working but still homeless, episodically homeless, families that fall back into homelessness, moderate needs homelessness, those at-risk Prevention/intervention services
(agency involvement)Yes, housing subsidies, CPS, mental health treatment Data on children Yes Weaknesses Small, unrepresentative sample Conclusion Cannot be used for typology; even though homelessness data are collected, the sample is unrepresentative and small. Key to typology interest is the measurement of housing affordability, residential mobility, and homelessness in the first followup wave. Respondents rated the difficulty of living on their total household income and the likelihood of experiencing hardships such as inadequate housing, food, or medical care in the next 2 months. They also were asked if they had their gas or electricity turned off, had been evicted, or had been homeless since the previous interview. If a respondent indicated that they had been homeless, the amount of time spent homeless was recorded.
Unfortunately, the Women's Employment Study database is not in the public domain at this time. However, since the study has an active research team, additional analyses relevant to the typology may be ongoing or may be solicited. In particular, the study represents another examination of families at risk of becoming homeless and the various factors that place them at risk or that may cause them to fall into homelessness.
-
View full report
"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®