1 / 26

Conceptualizing and Creating a Homeless Families Typology

Conceptualizing and Creating a Homeless Families Typology. Debra J. Rog, Ph.D. Westat Presentation at the National Conference on Ending Family Homelessness, National Alliance to End Homelessness February 8, 2007. Presentation Overview. What is a typology and why do we need one?

muhammed
Télécharger la présentation

Conceptualizing and Creating a Homeless Families Typology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Conceptualizing and Creating a Homeless Families Typology Debra J. Rog, Ph.D. Westat Presentation at the National Conference on Ending Family Homelessness, National Alliance to End Homelessness February 8, 2007

  2. Presentation Overview • What is a typology and why do we need one? • Description of federally funded project to conceptualize typologies of homeless families • Prevention typology • Resource allocation • Description of two efforts to inform typology development • Reanalysis of fragile families dataset • Study in process of shelter exits in Massachusetts • Final thoughts

  3. Definition of a Typology • What is a typology? • A classification system that differentiates a population into distinct subgroups or subtypes. • It can be used to: • Describe a population; • Match groups to services; and • Predict service use and response. • Why create a homeless families typology? • To effectively target existing services; and • To identify new efforts to both prevent homelessness and its reoccurrence and intervene with currently homeless families.

  4. A “Desirable” Typology • Classifies population into subgroups that are homogeneous and non-overlapping • Incorporates both environmental and individual factors • Covers total population • Is simple to use • Has practical utility for service providers and policy makers

  5. ASPE – Funded Typology Project:Key Activities • Literature review • Review of existing data and ongoing panel studies • Identified 15 potential datasets for secondary analysis • Re-analyzed data from Fragile Families Project on subgroups of poor families (homeless, doubled-up, at-risk) • Commissioned expert papers • Expert Panel meeting • Options for potential research activities • Final report and debriefing

  6. Key Findings from Project • Need for two homeless families typologies • Prevention • Resource allocation • Staged approach to developing typologies needed • Initial development guided by existing data • Elaboration through short-term research options • Strongest, most lasting development, through ongoing national surveys and longitudinal studies

  7. Prevention Typology:Purpose • To rank families according to levels of risk of homelessness and probability of a quick exit • To distinguish families in desperate need from those with more moderate needs

  8. Prevention Typology:Framework Initial 4 Cell Model • Begin developing based on existing literature and enhance with data from one or more study options Environment Facilitators Barriers Major Family Needs Minor

  9. Prevention Typology: What We Know To Begin • Key risk factors for homelessness include: • Resources (economic and social) • Life stage (age; having young children) • Ethnicity • Mental health and substance use • Best to target population ‘at risk’ as families request shelter • Broader targeting, even among poor families, is likely to be inefficient and inaccurate

  10. Analysis to Inform Prevention Typology:Reanalysis of Fragile Families Dataset • Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Study • Five year longitudinal study of new parents and children sampled from hospitals • National sample of marital and non-marital births (4,898 families at baseline) • Two waves of data currently available (1 and 3 year follow-ups) • Third wave (year 5) due in 2007 • Offered multi-site sample at high risk of homelessness and residential instability • Opportunity to: • examine incidence of homelessness • compare homeless to other poor families in range of residential arrangements

  11. Reanalysis of Fragile Families Data Set:Sample Selection • Re-analysis restricted to sample of very poor families • Total sample of 838 families meeting following criteria: • Mother 18 years of age or older • Household income ≤50% below poverty level at year 1

  12. Reanalysis of Fragile Families Data Set:Descriptive Analysis • Constructed 4 residential groups: • Risk of being homeless is low even among extremely poor women

  13. Reanalysis of Fragile Families Data Set:Inferential Analyses • Analytic Approach • Logistic regressions performed to determine risk and protective factors of experiencing homelessness and remaining stable • 3 models conducted to predict: • Year 1 status • Year 3 status • Combined status • Caveats • Resulting models have relatively “poor fit” • Samples are small • Homelessness is quite varied • Models lack contextual variables

  14. Reanalysis of Fragile Families DatasetPredictors of Homelessness

  15. Reanalysis of Fragile Families Data Set:Predictors of Homelessness(continued) = Increases probability of being homeless = decreases probability o f being homeless * = p<.05, ** = p<.01, *** = p<.001

  16. Reanalysis of Fragile Families Data Set:Predictors of Residential Stability

  17. Reanalysis of Fragile Families Data Set:Predictors of Residential Stability(continued)

  18. Reanalysis of Fragile Families Data Set:Tentative Findings • Families experiencing homelessness • Have lower household incomes • Are less likely to receive housing assistance but more likely to receive TANF • Are more likely to have experienced domestic violence and mental health problems • Families remaining residentially stable • Are more likely to live with a partner and have a greater # of adults living in the household • Are more likely to have a partner working • Are less likely to have SA, DV, and MH issues • Are more likely to have lived in public housing

  19. Resource Allocation TypologyPurpose • To classify families by the factors that: • Block their ability to exit homelessness (e.g., poor credit; past justice involvement) • Challenge their ability to achieve stability and self-sufficiency

  20. Resource Allocation Typology:Framework • Create based on 3 types of variables: • Exogenous (housing environment, housing, and health and human service access) • Endogenous(family and individual characteristics, including family support needs, broad health needs, social needs, children’s needs) • Situational (fit between the families needs and accessible resources) • Use staged approach to building framework

  21. Resource Allocation Typology: What We Know To Begin • Housing subsidies are a key predictor, but there are not enough available to meet needs • In addition: • Not all families may need full subsidy; others may need more than a subsidy • Even with subsidies, some families return to homelessness • Therefore, families range considerably in what they need to exit homelessness and remain stable

  22. Study to Inform Resource Allocation Typology:Massachusetts Exit Study • Purposes • To address knowledge gaps re: the shelter exit process • To provide prospective epidemiological study of the exit process • Study Design • Longitudinal study (12 months) of shelter work in Worcester • Three components • 1. Analysis of administrative data • 2. Interviews with 3 samples of families, including those who: • Exit shelter within 6 months • Stay in shelter longer than 6 months • are eligible for shelter services but are diverted • 3. Interviews with system-level informants • 18 month study ending in 12-07

  23. Massachusetts Exit Study:Component 2 – Exit Process • Purpose • To understand the factors that facilitate and block exit • To understand the residential arrangements after shelter • Design/Sample Selection • Early “exit” families (estimate 100 families) – interview upon exit all families exit in 2006 • “Stuck” families (estimate 85 families) • Interview at 6 months and at exit ;if not exit, 3 month follow-up • Diverted families (estimated 50 families) • Interview at point diverted & 3 month following

  24. Massachusetts Exit Study:Component 2 – Exit Process • Data Collection • Demographics and background • Family composition • Prior homelessness/housing • Employment, dept, income • Legal issues • Services received and shelter experience • Trauma • Physical and mental health • Substance use • Exit process, problem • Children’s question • Resource knowledge and use

  25. Massachusetts Exit Study:Likely Implications for Informing Resource Allocation Typology • Prospective information on the exit process • Key predictors of exit with attention to the role of: • Services and resources • Recurring trauma exposure and conflict • Credit, legal, criminal justice, and other issues • Mental health, substance abuse, disabilities • Provide a beginning foundation on the: • Nature of the population • Dynamics of the shelter system • Services available, known, and used

  26. Conclusion • Need for two typologies of homeless families • Voiced by the expert panel • Illustrated in work on the ground to pilot various triage efforts • Apparent in the range of risk evident in the Fragile Families re-analysis • Staged approach to building typologies • Provide data to guide current efforts • Build long-term capacity to refine and direct future prevention and resource allocation efforts

More Related