Content by Keyword: Demographic Data

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,

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 an

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.

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,

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:

Based on the experience of typological research in psychiatry and substance abuse (Babor and Dolinsky, 1988), a set of taxonomic standards can be suggested as the characteristics of a good typology.  Optimally, a typology of homeless families should:

Given the nature of typological formulations and their history in clinical decision-making, an important conceptual issue is the possible functions of a typology for the management of homeless families.  The major uses of clinical typologies that have been proposed in these various literatures are the following:

The concept of treatment or service matching refers to decision rules designed to facilitate matching to optimal treatment modality, service intensity, and ancillary services.  An important consideration in the development of a typology of homeless families is the kinds of services that the typology might relate to in terms of treatment, preventi

A number of important terms and concepts have been introduced in the introductory sections of this chapter that should now be more formally defined. 

Based on the literature on subtyping of homeless individuals and families, there is some evidence to suggest that most of the attempts to classify this population, either according to a priori domains or according to multivariate statistical techniques, have identified two broad types of homelessness that can be arranged on a single continuum rang

While homeless families have been a topic of concern prior to 1980, studies of homeless families started only in the 1980s.  Early studies of homeless families are reviewed by McChesney (1995).

The European Homelessness organization FEANTSA (The European Federation of National Organizations Working with the Homeless) recently presented a European Typology of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion (ETHOS) with four main conceptual categories (Roofless, Houseless, Insecure Housing, and Inadequate Housing) and a large number of operational subc

In the 1980s a series of national and local studies were undertaken to enumerate homeless people. Although these studies had considerable methodological difficulties, they revealed the great variety of sites used by homeless people.  Some classifications of homeless persons were proposed according to where homeless people spend their nights.

The first approaches to typologies of homeless persons were based on differing features of certain groups of homeless people, developed in part to describe the population and in part to ascribe a causal relation of these features to homelessness. Such studies, published from 1912 to the 1980s, have been reviewed by Louisa Stark (1992). Nearly all

The chapter begins with a review of the relevant scientific and clinical issues guided by the following questions: What is the purpose of typological classification? How can current knowledge about the epidemiology of homeless families contribute to the development of a typology?  What are the existing typologies and risk factors relevant to typo

Despite the general conviction that homelessness is a unitary phenomenon, there is ample evidence that persons without permanent living arrangements differ significantly among themselves (Culhane and Metraux, 1999).  Recognition of this heterogeneity has led to attempts to classify subgroups of homeless persons (herein referred to as subtypes) ac

1 This estimate is children who are part of families and does not include unaccompanied adolescents. 2 This is a period (e.g., 12-month) prevalence estimate for a homelessness episode of any duration. A point prevalence estimate (e.g., the number of children homeless on any given night) would be a substantially smaller number.

Achenbach, T.A. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 Profile . Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T.A., and Rescorla, LA. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA Preschool-age Forms and Profiles . Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families. Achen