2. ii
ABSTRACT
The researcher investigated the homeless phenomenon including chronic
homelessness. The investigation considered structural, social and
individual factors that might act together to produce homelessness and or
chronic homelessness (Gonzalez, No date). The United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] definition of
chronic homelessness is an unaccompanied homeless individual who has
a disabling condition and has been continuously homeless for a year or
more or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three
years. To be considered chronically homeless, persons must have been
sleeping in a place not meant for human habitation or living on the
street(Homeless Planning Council of Delaware, 2005).The purpose of the
study was to analyze factors that enable single males at one shelter to be
chronically homeless. The research was a qualitative research study. The
qualitative methodology emphasized participation in the lives of those
studied so that the researcher can share as well as better understand a
particular phenomenon. This qualitative research was all about exploring
issues, understanding phenomenon, and answering questions.
Accordingly, this qualitative research produces findings that usually do not
use statistical procedures or other means of quantification. However, the
3. iii
researcher has supplemented some data analyses with statistical
analyses. The approach for the study was data-up, emergent theory, also
known as grounded theory, where the researcher discovered themes or
threads in the data by exploration and enquiry (Bazeley, 2007). Moreover,
from these processes, explanations and predications of the chronic
homelessness phenomenon occurred (Richards, 2005). Based on study
data and research studies, chronic homelessness is most likely the result
of a combination of individual characteristics (race, gender, age, veteran,
education, social relationships, learned helplessness, and behavioral
issues); circumstances (eviction, unemployment, incarceration, domestic
violence and unpaid debts); and conditions (substance abuse disorders,
poly-substance addictions, severe mental illness and physical challenges).
According to Lowe et al. (2002), a number of diverse and complex factors
contribute to the problems of chronic homelessness and many of these
factors are interrelated. The data from the study shows, that in addition to
social, economic, and structural factors that might interact to cause
chronic homelessness, rational choice perhaps is one of the main reasons
for chronic homelessness.
4. iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The researcher praises the Lord: Praise is to the Lord, for he heard
my cry for understanding. The Lord is my strength and my protection; my
mind trusted in him. By this belief and declaration, this researcher is
helped. The researcher’s spirit leaps for joy and she gives thanks to God
in song (NIV, Psalm 28:6-7)
This study was a challenging journey. The researcher encountered
several serious medical conditions unrelated to the demands of the project
as well as fears about the project, but she is victorious over both of these.
The project appeared overwhelming at times. The researcher prayed and
asked God for help. The perceived reality of the message of Psalm 23
became a part of the researcher’s daily devotions. Psalm 23 helped the
researcher to expect the shepherd (God) to lead and instruct her while on
this journey. As a result, she gained confidence, peace of mind and
perseverance to complete this final project.
The researcher is grateful to the following persons for their
encouragement, services and for directing the researcher to many
research resources; Rev. T. Laymon (friend), B. Varsylvia James
(daughter), Althea L. Bell (sister), Almetta C. Griffin (sister), M. Sammy
Miller, Ph.D. (brother), Sherman N. Miller, D.Ed.(brother),Jeffrey J. Guidry,
5. v
PhD. (faculty mentor), Lisa Wallace PhD (faculty mentor), (Carl Turner,
M.D. (primary care physician), Kamar T. Adeleke, M.D. (cardiologist),
Phyllis Runyon (copy editor), Minimax Consulting, LLC (APA editor),
Lemuel R. James (counselor and spouse), and Cara Robinson (former
executive director of the Homeless Planning Council of Delaware).
Additionally, the researcher is grateful to Rev. William Perkins, Ph.D.
(executive director of Friendship House, Inc.), for an interview, and Lonnie
Edwards (former coordinator and counselor at a Community Service
Organization), for an interview. In addition, to staff at the study shelter and
individuals living at the shelter who took part in the fieldwork research
project.
6. vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................iv
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................... xii
LISTS OF FIGURES.................................................................................xv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION..................................................................1
Chronic Homelessness in Delaware.......................................................... 2
Problem Statement.................................................................................... 5
Rationale of the Study/Developing Hypotheses......................................... 7
Delimitations.............................................................................................. 7
Purpose of the Study................................................................................. 8
Assumptions.............................................................................................. 9
Importance of the Study .......................................................................... 10
Scope of Study ........................................................................................ 11
Overview of the Study ............................................................................. 13
Definition of Terms .................................................................................. 14
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE...............................23
Demographics and Patterns of Homelessness........................................ 24
Individual, Social and Structural Factors that Interacted To Cause
Homelessness......................................................................................... 30
Institutional Discharge Practices of Homeless Persons........................... 31
Homeless Programs and the People They Served.................................. 36
7. vii
Planning to Deliver and Coordinate Supportive Services to the Homeless
................................................................................................................ 44
Exiting From Homelessness.................................................................... 47
Homeless Persons’ Choice to be Chronically Homeless......................... 56
Reducing Chronic Homelessness............................................................ 60
Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research....................................... 72
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...............................................................76
The Approach.......................................................................................... 77
Data Gathering Methods ......................................................................... 78
Intake Registration Form ......................................................................... 82
Point-in-Time Surveys ............................................................................. 83
Statistical Questionnaire.......................................................................... 85
Observations-Field Notes ........................................................................ 85
Focus Group............................................................................................ 86
Interviews-Shelter Participants ................................................................ 87
NOVA Innovative Learning Systems ....................................................... 88
Program Participants; Biographical Progress Questionnaire................... 89
Institutional Discharge Summaries .......................................................... 89
Organizational Records ........................................................................... 90
Database of Study................................................................................... 90
Coding..................................................................................................... 92
8. viii
Validity of Data ........................................................................................ 94
Originality and Limitation of Data............................................................. 95
Summary and Conclusions...................................................................... 97
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................100
Overview ............................................................................................... 100
Characteristics of the Homeless Population .......................................... 101
Characteristics of homeless persons using faith-based shelters in the
United States......................................................................................... 104
Summary ............................................................................................... 111
Characteristics of Homelessness in Delaware and Wilmington............. 113
Characteristics of the General Population in Wilmington....................... 125
Demographic Characteristics of the Population Using the Study Shelter for
a Place to Live....................................................................................... 130
Individual, Social and Structural Factors ............................................... 174
Homeless Persons Access to Health Care Services ............................. 210
Factors that Influence Public and Private Institutions Discharge of
Homeless Persons ................................................................................ 212
Summary ............................................................................................... 215
Factors that May Affect the Exit Rate of Homeless Persons into
Mainstream Society............................................................................... 216
Homeless Persons Decided to be Chronically Homeless...................... 226
Residential Shelter Users 45-54 years old, 2002-2003 ......................... 228
9. ix
Organizational Records ......................................................................... 230
Coding and Analysis.............................................................................. 240
Recommendation for Breaking the Cycle of Chronic Homelessness..... 242
Leaving the Field ................................................................................... 245
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................248
Summary ............................................................................................... 248
Grounded Theory .................................................................................. 249
Hypotheses............................................................................................ 251
Implication of this Research to Health Care .......................................... 253
Discussion ............................................................................................. 256
Major Findings....................................................................................... 257
Recommendations................................................................................. 266
Conclusion............................................................................................. 267
Future Research.................................................................................... 268
REFERENCES.......................................................................................267
APPENDIX A: POINT-IN-TIME SURVEYS DATA COLLECTION
IMPLEMENTS ........................................................................................285
Purpose Statement................................................................................ 285
Association of Gospel Rescue Mission Snapshot Survey ..................... 285
AGRM Data Collection Work Sheet for 2005 National Snapshot
Survey ....................................................................................................284
10. x
Direct Survey Instructions...................................................................... 288
Informed Consent Statement................................................................. 289
Direct Survey Data Collection Form ...................................................... 290
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRES........................................................291
Transient Guest Registration Questionnaire.......................................... 291
Biographical Progress Questionnaire .....................................................289
Exit Questionnaire ................................................................................. 292
Association of Gospel Recue Missions Statistical Questionnaire .......... 293
Research Questionnaire Used to Collect Data from Shelter Users ...... 295
Research Questionnaire Used to Collect Data From Homeless Service
Providers ............................................................................................... 297
Media Authorization Form .....................................................................294
APPENDIX C: NOVA PROGRAM ..........................................................299
Participant Application............................................................................295
Interview Sheet.......................................................................................296
Diagnostic Assessment Result Form......................................................297
Academic Prescription Chart ..................................................................298
Assessment Worksheet......................................................................... 303
APPENDIX D: POINT-IN-TIME SURVEY RESULTS .............................304
AGRM Snapshot Surveys from 1999 to 2006........................................ 304
Residential Shelter Survey Results 2005 .............................................. 305
11. xi
Transient Shelter Survey Results 2005 ................................................. 306
APPENDIX E: EMPLOYMENT AND WAGE STATISTICS.....................307
Workers on Private Non-farm Payrolls by Industry Sector..................... 307
Persons Not in the Labor Force............................................................. 308
APPENDIX F: REASONS FOR HOMELESSNESS................................309
Study Shelter Users, 2002..................................................................... 309
Reasons for Homelessness, 2004......................................................... 310
Study Shelter Users, 2004..................................................................... 310
APPENDIX G: ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERN OF THE STUDY
SHELTER...............................................................................................311
APPENDIX H: CODING REPORTS .......................................................313
Documents ............................................................................................ 314
Memos................................................................................................... 315
External Audio Coding........................................................................... 316
Node Coding.......................................................................................... 317
APPENDIX I: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTION .......................................318
APPENDIX J: RESEARCHER’S PROFILE ............................................320
12. xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Adult Respondents from Various
Studies .....................................................................................................26
Table 2. Information Needs for Planning ..................................................46
Table 3. Critical Incident Categories in Descending Order of Frequency .53
Table 4. Demand for Shelter Beds at the Study Shelter from 2002 to
2005 .........................................................................................................79
Table 5. Shelter and Spiritual Rehabilitation Programs ..........................106
Table 6. Services and Programs ............................................................110
Table 7. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Sheltered Homeless
Persons on Selected Dates ....................................................................113
Table 8. Homelessness in Delaware. Counties Breakdown: January 26,
2006 .......................................................................................................115
Table 9. Homeless Subpopulation in Delaware in 2006 .........................120
Table 10. Estimates of the Rate of Sheltered Homelessness in
Delaware for Selected Dates..................................................................123
Table 11. General Demographic Characteristics in the City of
Wilmington, Delaware.............................................................................127
Table 12. Demographic Characteristics of Males at the Study Shelter in
2002 .......................................................................................................131
Table 13.Race and Ethnic Groups in 2004 and 2005.............................132
Table 14. Length of Time Shelter Users were Residents in Wilmington .134
Table15. Last Place of Residency, January 26, 2007.............................135
Table 16. Statistics of Age Distribution in 2002 ......................................138
13. xiii
Table 17. Age Groups, 2004, and 2005..................................................139
Table 18. Statistics of the Highest Grade Completed in 2002 ................141
Table 19. Frequency of Highest Grade Completed ................................142
Table 20. Academic Assessment Results ..............................................144
Table 21. Difficulty Finding a Job After Six Months ................................147
Table 22. Type Jobs Worked by Transient Shelter Users ......................149
Table 23. Income of Homeless Male Study Shelter Users .....................155
Table 24. Source of Income for Residential Shelter Users .....................156
Table 25. Statistics: Number Children of Males at Study Shelter ...........157
Table 26. Frequency Distribution of Transient Shelter Users Children...158
Table 27. Religious Affiliations of Transient Males .................................160
Table 28. Comparative Study of Chronic Conditions and Disabilities of
Homeless Males.....................................................................................163
Table 29. Demand for Shelter Beds at One Shelter in Wilmington,
Delaware, fom 2002 to 2005...................................................................165
Table 30. Chronic Conditions of Transient and Residential Study Shelter
Users......................................................................................................167
Table 31. Chronic Conditions and Disabilities of the Homeless in
Emergency Shelters ...............................................................................170
Table 32. Data Collection Sources .........................................................176
Table 33. Rate of Referrals to the Study Shelter Between 2003 and
2005 .......................................................................................................177
14. xiv
Table 34. Frequency Distribution of Detoxification Centers and Behavioral
Centers Admissions Types of Treatment................................................179
Table 35. Residential Arrangements for Homeless Males
Discharged from Treatment.................................................................181
Table 36. Frequency of Prior Admissions for Alcohol and Drug
Treatment ...............................................................................................183
Table 37. Frequency of Previous Admissions for Psychiatric
Treatment ...............................................................................................184
Table 38. Frequency of Responses Why Males at the Study Shelter are
Homeless ...............................................................................................192
Table 39. Reasons for Homelessness 2004...........................................193
Table 40. Situations that Causes Residential Shelter Users to Leave
Their Permanent Home ..........................................................................194
Table 41. Delaware’s Prison and Jail Incarceration Rates in 2005.........206
Table 42. Statistics About Males Desiring the Study Shelter’s Recovery
Program, 2002........................................................................................219
Table 43. Statistics of Length of Days Males Stayed in the Residential
Shelter....................................................................................................220
Table 44. Statistics of Length of Stay in Months in the Residential
Program..................................................................................................221
Table 45. Main Reasons for Exiting the Program ...................................222
Table 46. Residential Shelter Users Reasons for Exiting the Shelter.....221
15. xv
LISTS OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Percent of the population in emergency and transitional shelters
that was man by age, for the United States and regions: 2000. .................3
Figure 2. The national survey of homeless assistance providers and
clients. ......................................................................................................38
Figure 3. Types of households served by homeless assistance
program. ...................................................................................................41
Figure 4. Bed usage report at one shelter in Wilmington, Delaware.........80
Figure 5.Homelessness in Delaware Point-in-Time Study January 2006
Unsheltered, Jail/Prison, Street/Car, Treatment, and Hospital ...............117
Figure 6. Homelessness in Delaware Point-in-Time Study January 2006.
Emergency Shelter.................................................................................118
Figure 7. Homelessness in Delaware, January 2006, Permanent
Supportive Housing ................................................................................121
Figure 8. Reasons People Were Homeless in Delaware (N=1,380).......129
Figure 9. The percentage of chronic conditions identified at the study
shelter between January 24, 2005 and January 26, 2006......................168
Figure 10.Percentage of chronic conditions of homeless persons in
emergency shelters in Delaware ............................................................171
Figure 11. The rate admissions for substance abuse and related
conditions ...............................................................................................178
Figure 12. Voluntary admissions the highest for substance abuse
treatment ................................................................................................180
Figure 13. Residential Arrangements .....................................................182
Figure 14. The main admitting diagnosis for treatment...........................185
16. xvi
Figure 15. Race may be a determining factor in the types of temporary
shelter males used .................................................................................186
Figure 16. Percentage of males unemployed when admitted to
detoxification and behavioral treatment centers (N=15) .........................187
Figure 17. Employment history severity rating profiles of males admitted
to detoxification and behavioral treatment centers between 2003 and
2005. ......................................................................................................189
Figure 18. Legal problems of 15 males admitted to detoxification and
behavioral centers for treatment.............................................................189
Figure 19. Alcohol and substance abuse were the major reasons males
staying in the residential shelter were homeless, January 26, 2006.......194
Figure 20. The grounded theory model shows the interacting of multiple
factors that may result in chronic homelessness. ...................................250
17. 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
According to the National Law Center on Homelessness and
Poverty [NLCHP] (No date), homeless persons are perceived as a fixed
population who are usually homeless for long periods. However, research
shows that the homeless population is quite diverse in terms of length of
homelessness and the number of times they cycled in and out of
homelessness.
Research on the length of homelessness states that 40% of
homeless people have been homeless fewer than six months, and 70% of
homeless persons have been homeless fewer than two years(National
Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty [NLCHP], No date). According
to the NLCHP, other research on the length of homelessness has
identified three primary categories of homeless persons:
1. Transitionally homeless are persons who have had a single episode
of homelessness that lasts an average of 58 days.
2. Episodically homeless are persons who have had four to five
episodes of homelessness that last a total of 265 days.
3. Chronically homeless are persons who have an average of two
episodes that last 650 days.
18. 2
A nationwide study by the Urban Institute in 1987(The Urban
Institute et al., 1999),found that only 20% of 1,704 homeless persons
received assistance from Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC),government aid frequently issued to homeless and mental health
patients for temporary, and long-term assistance or Supplemental Security
Income (SSI)(The Urban Institute et al.1999).
Chronic Homelessness in Delaware
The site for this study was located in Wilmington, Delaware. The
rate of homelessness in Delaware in 1995 was very similar to rates found
elsewhere in the United States (Peuquet, Miller-Sowers & Center for
Community, 1996).It was estimated that for every 10,000 persons there
are 15 to 25 homeless persons. Delaware’s homeless rate, including
those who live in shelters, on the street and in places not intended for
human habitation, is approximately 20 homeless persons per 10,000
persons. Delaware’s population of 700,000 translates into an estimated
average of 1,400 homeless persons per night (Peuquet et al. 1996).
The single adult male is a significant group within the homeless
population (National Alliance to End Homelessness [NAEH], 2002). A
nationwide study conducted in 1987 showed that among 194,000 urban
homeless adults who used homeless services, 80%weremales (Burt,
1989). Census 2000 pointed out the most of the of the population (61%)in
19. 3
emergency and transitional shelters were males. Also, the 2000 Census
showed that the proportion of males in emergency and transitional
shelters differed by age with males under 18 years of age at 51% while
65% for those 18 years of age and over as shown in Figure 1 (Smith &
Smith, 2001).
Figure 1. Percent of the population in emergency and transitional shelters
that was man by age, for the United States and regions: 2000.
Note. From “Emergency and Transitional Shelter Population: 2000.” By A.
C. Smith and D. I. Smith, 2001.
20. 4
In general, many single males who lived in the shelter system were
chronically homeless. Delaware’s chronically homeless population was
estimated to be between 300 and 580 individuals. They represent 21-40%
of homeless persons over time. This cycle of homelessness is devastating
to these individuals and disproportionately demanding on the state’s
resources (Homeless Planning Council of Delaware, 2004).
Typically, chronically homeless persons are in their early 40s, and
have lengthy histories of hospitalization, unstable employment, and
incarceration. Few persons in this chronic group are likely to generate
significant earnings through wages. They may have some income from
wages and/or public benefits. Most chronically homeless persons use a
variety of public systems in an inefficient and costly way. The cost of
homelessness can be high, especially for those with chronic illnesses
(Homeless Planning Council of Delaware, 2004).
It is estimated that approximately 10% of the homeless population
consumed over 50% of the resources, including emergency medical
services, psychiatric treatment, detoxification facilities, shelters, law
enforcement and corrections facilities, which is devastating to the
individuals and burdensome to communities. These individuals tend to fall
into the categories of chronic or episodic homelessness as described in
21. 5
the research of Khun and Culhane (Homeless Planning Council of
Delaware, 2004).
In Delaware, people at risk of chronic homelessness included those
recently released from institutions, those recently aged out of foster care,
those disabled by addiction, mental illness, chronic physical illness,
developmental disability, or some combination of these. In addition, many
of homeless individuals were chronically unemployed, had very low or
extremely low incomes, and lived in extreme poverty (Homeless Planning
Council of Delaware, 2004).
In summary, homelessness was misunderstood in Delaware and
was not a popular issue. According to the Homeless Planning Council of
Delaware (2004), not all providers of resources and/or services were
committed to changes needed to prevent chronic homelessness because
resources were limited, and there was concern that redirection of
resources toward solving the problem of chronic homelessness may take
resources away from homeless families and children.
Problem Statement
In developing the problem statement for this study, a review of
current literature on homeless studies was taken into consideration.
Equally important, attention was given to the operational needs of the
shelter that served as the study site. The goals of the shelter are to
22. 6
reconnect homeless persons to God, family and significant others in
addition to helping them become self-sufficient, and acquire and maintain
employment and stable housing.
With available research, organizational needs and goals in view,
questions answered by this study are:
1. What are the characteristics of the homeless population nationally, in
Delaware, in the City of Wilmington, and in the study shelter?
2. What kind of situations or incidences causes homelessness in
Delaware?
3. How do individual, social, and structural factors interact to create
chronic homelessness?
Additional research questions answered by this study are the following:
1. Why is chronic homelessness mostly among single males?
2. What are the barriers to homeless persons’ access to health care
services?
3. What are the factors that influenced public and private institutions’
discharge practices of homeless persons?
4. What are the causes that affect the exit rate of homeless persons
into mainstream society?
5. What are the factors that may cause homeless persons to make a
rational choice to be chronically homelessness?
23. 7
6. How did the study shelter enable homeless males to be chronically
homelessness?
7. What are the solutions and best practices for breaking the cycle of
chronic homelessness?
Rationale of the Study/Developing Hypotheses
This study aims to answer the questions described above from the
data that emerged from the study. The study contributed to existing
knowledge of the social problem of chronic homelessness. With the stated
problems in mind, the hypotheses of this study emerged.
The first hypothesis is that individual, social and structural
conditions dynamically interact to create chronic homelessness. The
second hypothesis is that chronic homelessness is most prevalent among
single males. The third hypothesis is that economic and individual barriers
prevent homeless persons’ access to health care. The fourth hypothesis is
that the study shelter’s operational practices enabled chronic
homelessness. The fifth hypothesis is that it is the rational choice of some
homeless persons to be chronically homeless.
Delimitations
The study was limited to chronic homelessness among single
males at one faith-based shelter. The shelter had two program types: An
emergency shelter and a long-term or residential shelter. Also, the study
24. 8
was limited to single males, females and children were not studied;
however, the researcher used theoretical comparisons when analyzing
demographic characteristics of males and females in the City of
Wilmington, Delaware. Further, the study does not attempt to develop a
comprehensive plan to deal with chronic homelessness. The study was
limited to making inferences regarding other homeless shelters, homeless
service providers, public and private institutions, and social service
agencies.
Purpose of the Study
This researcher purposed to analyze factors that enable single
males to be chronically homeless. Additionally, a fieldwork research at a
nonprofit shelter enabled the researcher to observe the extent leadership,
management, staffing, codependency and institutional discharges worked
together to enable chronic homelessness. The results obtained from the
data will be used by the organization for planning purposes, decision-
making, and educating staff. Additionally, data will be used to review how
existing programs and services are structured and used, what resources
are available, what constraints existed for their use, and what additional
resources are needed to prevent chronic homelessness at the shelter
(Homeless Planning Council of Delaware, 2004).
25. 9
Finally, the purpose of this research was to identify evidence-based
best practices from the data and to incorporate them into appropriate
coordinated supportive services that help homeless persons transition
permanently into mainstream society.
This study focused on the chronically homeless, but it was
advantageous for the researcher to review service delivery to homeless
individuals who did not meet the strict definition of chronically homeless
(Homeless Planning Council of Delaware, 2004). Residential programs for
homeless males were commonly designed for individuals who were
physically able to work, and who can take care of themselves and read on
a ninth-grade level. It was most likely that some persons who had
physical, mental or learning disabilities were included in the chronically
homeless group. Future research should be done on the issues of persons
who have physical, mental and learning disabilities and how these issues
can be managed by existing residential program providers.
Assumptions
The first assumption is that there is variation among the homeless.
The second assumption is that the largest number of shelter users is
multi-problem single males. The third assumption is that the majority of
chronically homeless persons have serious and disabling health
conditions, including psychiatric and substance use disorders (U.S.
26. 10
Department of Health and Human Services, 2003).In addition, these
homeless persons have unresolved legal and credit issues as well as
relationship issues. The fourth assumption is that the chronically homeless
have had multiple homeless events and have been homeless for 6 or
more months. The fifth assumption is that a homeless person is someone
who is living on the street or in an emergency shelter, or who would be
living on the street or in an emergency shelter without any type of other
assistance (Homeless Planning Council of Delaware, 2004).The sixth
assumption is that many homeless persons have some income from
wages or public benefits.
Importance of the Study
This study was important because accurate and timely information
about the nature and needs of Delaware’s chronically homeless
population was needed to end chronic homelessness. Historically data on
numbers, needs, and characteristics of chronically homeless individuals
had not been isolated from other data on homelessness. Furthermore, this
data is extremely difficult to get. The difficulty is caused in part by the fact
that these individuals tend not to use the traditional shelter system, where
most point-in-time studies are conducted. The reasons they tend not to
use the shelters include their own resistance to rules and the shelters’ lack
of resources to address behavioral and substance abuse problems. In
27. 11
addition to being frustrating, this makes providing adequate housing and
appropriate services more difficult (Homeless Planning Council of
Delaware, 2004). It was formerly noted that the rate of homelessness in
Delaware in 1995 was very similar to rates found elsewhere in the United
States. Delaware’s homeless rate is approximately 20 homeless persons
per 10,000 persons. It is estimated there is an average of 1,400 homeless
persons per night in Delaware (Peuquet et al.1996).
The shelter housing system can reduce the length of time persons
remain homeless, as well as the number of times they become
homeless(National Alliance to End Homelessness [NAEH], 2002). A
suitable vision needs to be created that can address the structural, social,
and individual causes of homelessness (Gonzalez, No date). This study
provided data that is assisting decision-makers at the site of this study to
identify and engage in appropriate services to the chronically homeless as
well as other homeless persons (Homeless Planning Council of Delaware,
2004).
Scope of Study
The research design for this study is a data-up emergent (grounded
theory) study. The major purpose of a grounded theory approach is to
begin with the data and use results to develop a theory. Grounded theory
28. 12
studies are used to examine people’s actions and interaction (Leedy &
Ormrod, 2001).
This study occurred at one medium-sized homeless shelter for adult
single males. The study happened over four years. The housing services
provided by the shelter were emergency shelter and residential housing.
The focus of this study was sheltered chronically homeless males in the
residential housing program, but it was useful for the researcher to review
data of the chronically homeless in the emergency shelter because there
were more homeless males using the emergency shelter than the
residential (long-term) housing program.
The homeless service provider of the shelter for this study was a
nonprofit faith-based organization. Some literature suggests that nonprofit
agencies offer the vast majority (85%) of homeless assistance programs.
Secular nonprofits offer 51% of all programs, while religious nonprofits
offer 34% (Burt et al.1999). Homeless assistance programs vary greatly in
size, where size is defined as the number of service contacts expected on
an average day in February 1996. However, shelter and housing
programs are likely to be small and expect one to 10 service contacts in a
day (Burt et al.1999).The shelter of this study had between 86 and 120
contacts a day. Therefore, it is a large-sized shelter compared to other
shelters for either males or females in Delaware or the City of Wilmington.
29. 13
Therefore, the study shelter was considered by the researcher to be the
largest emergency shelter for males in Delaware.
The homeless who used the residential housing at this site
participated in the Major Life Issues program. Included in this program
was a career education and employment-training center. Conversely, the
residential program was a biblically based recovery program and not a
clinical substance abuse rehabilitation program. Differences in expected
outcomes usually exist between the faith-based community and the
secular community. These differences may result in different attitudes and
understanding of chronic homelessness.
Overview of the Study
This study was a grounded theory study. The term grounded refers
to the idea that the theory emerged from the study and was derived from
and grounded in data collected in the field, rather than taken from the
research literature (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001). Theory denotes a set of well-
developed categories (e.g., themes, concepts), that were systematically
interrelated through statements of relationship to form a theoretical
framework that explains some relevant social phenomenon. The social
phenomenon of this study was chronic homelessness among single adult
males at one shelter. Theory generated about the phenomenon was
important to the development of an existing field of knowledge. Further
30. 14
qualitative or quantitative studies about the same phenomenon may
extend the knowledge to other organizations (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Although related literature did not provide concepts or theories for the
study, related literature was used to provide a reason and context for the
study (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001)
Definition of Terms
Following are terms that were used throughout the study:
Affordable housing. Housing is affordable when the occupant(s) pay
no more than 30% of their total income on rent and utilities; or, if the
occupant(s) own their own home, they pay no more than 35% of their total
income on their mortgage payment, insurance, taxes, and utilities
(Delaware Interagency Council On Homelessness, 2007).
Area median income [AMI]. The midpoint income for an area--half
of all wage earners have a salary higher than the median, and half of all
wage earners have a salary lower than the median (Delaware Interagency
Council On Homelessness, 2007).
Best practices. Strategies, activities, or approaches that have been
shown through research and evaluation to be effective and/or efficient in
addressing homelessness (Delaware Interagency Council on
Homelessness, 2007).
31. 15
Codependency. How a person thinks others see him or her. It is
using other people to create good feelings within while seeking affirmation,
acceptance, and fulfillment of deep inner needs from others (Liimatta,
1999).
Chronic homelessness. Is an unaccompanied adult who has been
continuously homeless for a year or more and has had at least four
episodes of homelessness in a three year period. In addition, these
persons suffer from one or more disabling conditions that limit his/her
ability to perform activities of daily living (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 2003).
Continuums of care for homeless people. A community plan to
organize and deliver housing and services to meet specific needs of
people who are homeless as they move to stable housing and maximum
self-sufficiency (Delaware Interagency Council On Homelessness,
2007).In addition, a Continuum of Care is a local or regional system for
helping homeless people at risk of homelessness by providing housing
and services. Communities coordinate the planning and provision of
housing and services for homeless people (HUD USER, 2002a).HUD
USER is a definitive source for research and data that offers an in-depth
view of housing in the United States. It is a service of the U.S. Department
32. 16
of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Policy Development and
Research (HUD USER, No date).
Discharge planning. To develop specific, comprehensive,
individualized treatment and service plans, to refer and link members to
necessary long-term services and supports, including primary health care
services, mental health, substance abuse and social services(Chalmers,
2002).
Determinant. Socioeconomic factors, as well as social
environmental factors that may determine peoples lifestyles, and the
conditions in which they live (Wilkinson & Marmot, 2003).
Emergency shelters. A temporary residential shelter accepting
homeless persons and providing them with at least nighttime
accommodations for up to 30 days (Homeless Planning Council of
Delaware, 2005). As defined by the HUD (2005), an emergency shelter is
any facility whose primary purpose is to provide temporary or transitional
shelter for the homeless in general or for specific populations of the
homeless for a period of 90 days or less. Supportive services may or may
not be provided in addition to the provision of shelter (Delaware
Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2007).
Enabled. A relationship where one or both parties enable the other
to act in certain maladaptive ways (Albury, 1998).
33. 17
Enabler. One who enables another to persist in self-destructive
behavior (as chronic homelessness, substance abuse) by providing
excuses or by making it possible to avoid the consequences of such
behavior (Albury, 1998).
Episodically homeless. People who cycle in and out of
homelessness; this is included in the definition of chronic homelessness
(Delaware Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2007).
Extremely low income. Is defined as at or below 30% of the area
wide mean income(Delaware Interagency Council On Homelessness,
2007).
Field research. The study of people acting in the natural courses of
their daily lives. It is characterized by its location and by the manner in
which it is conducted. In addition, it is a way of empathizing with and
understanding the subjective meanings of the people being studied
(Nachmias & Nachmias, 2000).
Homeless assistance programs. Programs that provide services for
the homeless such as food pantries, emergency shelters, transitional
housing programs, soup kitchens and other distributors of prepared meals,
outreach programs and voucher distribution programs (The Urban Institute
et al. 1999).
34. 18
Homeless. As defined by HUD, (a) an individual who lacks a fixed,
regular, and adequate nighttime residence; (b) an institution that provides
a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or (c)
a public or private place designed for, or ordinarily used as a regular
sleeping accommodation for human beings(including welfare hotels,
congregate shelters, and residential housing) (HUD USER,
2002b:Delaware Interagency Council On Homelessness, 2007).
Homeless planning council [HPC]. The HPC of Delaware,
established in early 1998 and incorporated in June 2000, is an active,
cooperative coalition of public, nonprofit and private-sector organizations
and individuals working together year-round to address issues related to
homelessness. The primary goal of the HPC is to ensure a complete,
statewide continuum of services for the homeless. The elements of this
continuum of services are; outreach and assessment, emergency shelter,
transitional housing, and permanent housing. Supportive services are
required at each stage to help individuals and families move through the
system and achieve long-term self-sufficiency(Homeless Planning Council
of Delaware, 2005a).
Low income. Households whose incomes are between 51%and
80% of area income as determined by HUD, based on family size
(Delaware Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2007).
35. 19
McKinney-Vento food and shelter. The Emergency Food and
Shelter National Board Program [EFSP]is a federal program administered
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] to supplement
and expand ongoing efforts to provide shelter, food and supportive
services for homeless and hungry individuals (Delaware Interagency
Council On Homelessness, 2007).
Moderate income. Households whose incomes are between 81%
and 120% of the area income, as determined by HUD, based on family
size (Delaware Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2007).
Point-in-time study. A one-day count of all homeless people in a
defined area (Delaware Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2007).
Prevention. Is to identify persons who are likely to become
homeless and target assistance to people who would be homeless without
it (NAEH, 1988).
Program. A summation of goals, policies, procedures, rules, work
and space assignment, schedules, plans of action, resources to be used
and other items necessary to carry out a given course of action. A
program includes the entire what, how, who, when and where of
undertaking a group of interrelated activities (Davis, 2000).
Recovery. Is to return to a state of soberness, as from a state of
delirium or drunkenness. The concept of recovery emphasizes the fact
36. 20
that it is a process, and not something that happens in an instant (Liimatta,
1993).
Residential housing. Provides temporary housing and supportive
services for up to 24 months and facilitates the movement of homeless
individuals, and families to permanent housing (Homeless Planning
Council of Delaware, 2007).
Safe havens. Low-demand, indefinite-length-of-stay, supervised
housing alternatives for persons with substance use and or mental health
conditions who need a place to stay that does not tie compliance with
rules or service expectations to the maintenance of housing (Delaware
Interagency Council On Homelessness, 2007).
Self-sufficiency. The ability to maintain a household without welfare
benefits (Dunlap & Fogel, 1998). The Self-Sufficiency Standard calculates
how much money working adults need to meet their basic needs without
subsidies of any kind (Wider Opportunities for Women & Pearce, 2001).
Solo. Single person (Homeless Planning Council of Delaware,
2005b).
Supportive housing. Housing with services that enable participants
to live more independently than they would otherwise be able to. The
types of services depend on the needs of the residents. Services may be
37. 21
short- term, sporadic, or ongoing indefinitely (Delaware Interagency
Council on Homelessness, 2007).
Supportive services. Services such as case management, medical
or psychological counseling and supervision, childcare, transportation and
job training provided for facilitating the independence of residents
(Delaware Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2007).
Transitional housing. A type of supportive housing used to facilitate
the movement of homeless individuals and families to permanent housing.
Generally, homeless persons may live in transitional housing for up to 24
months and receive supportive services that enable them to live more
independently. Supportive services may be provided by the organization
managing the housing or coordinated by them, and provided by other
public or private agencies. Transitional housing can be provided in one
structure or several structures, at one site or in multiple structures at
scattered sites (Delaware Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2007).
Unsheltered. Homeless people living in places not meant for human
habitation, which may include streets, parks, alleys, parking ramps, part of
the highway system, transportation depots, all-night commercial
establishments, abandoned buildings, marginal motels and hotels which
are not normally operational, farm outbuildings and other similar places
(Delaware Interagency Council On Homelessness, 2007).
39. 23
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
According to Liimatta(1999), the apparent reasons why people are
homeless are that (a) affordable housing is not available for them; (b)
government policies and welfare reform negatively affect welfare benefits
of the poor; (b) poor economy;(c) no employment, and (d) education and
language barriers. However, one of the real reasons for homelessness may
be disaffiliation (the homeless may deliberately disassociate themselves
from friends and family (Liimatta, 1993). Liimatta (1999) identified multiple
issues that affect homeless addicts. For example, many addicts may be
impaired spiritually; do not have self–insight or a sense of confidence or
security; consequently, they cannot control their thought life nor do they
have people support.
Liimatta, (1999) suggested that homeless individuals may consider
reconnecting with God, with self and with other people.
The literature review included the following areas:
1. demographics and patterns of homelessness
2. individual, social, and structural factors that interact to cause
homelessness
3. institutional discharge practices of homeless persons
4. homeless programs and the people they serve
5. planning to deliver and coordinate services
40. 24
6. the exit rate of homeless persons into mainstream society
7. the choice of homeless people to be chronically homeless
8. reducing chronic homelessness; and
9. implication for practice.
The review was limited to investigations of the man homeless
population and related factors that create homelessness. Studies targeting
females and children or families were excluded, although females and
children participated in the Association of Gospel Rescue Missions
[AGRM]Point-in-Time Surveys at the shelter and comparison were made
between males and females regarding homelessness, employment, and
poverty.
Demographics and Patterns of Homelessness
During the past two decades, numerous studies have collected
descriptive information about homeless populations. Generally, the studies
are of particular cities or parts of cities, and some analyze only the
information from people staying in a single shelter. Some studies have
special purposes such as examining the nature and extent of mental
illness or substance abuse or the situations of homeless families. Several
recent studies have methodological interest, cover sizeable geographical
areas, and provide overviews of homeless populations (Burt, 1998).
41. 25
Table 1 summarizes studies of one that covers the United States
(1990 Census S-Night); three of specific cities (New York, Philadelphia
and parts of Los Angeles); cities with populations over 100,000; a major
Metropolitan Statistical Area (Washington, DC); homelessness in rural
areas (Ohio and Kentucky); in addition to one that summarizes studies on
family homelessness (Burt, 1998). Table 1 includes the years when the
studies were done, the locality where the studies located their
respondents and the methodological approach.
The demographic and descriptive data examined in Table 1 are
gender (percent of males), race/ethnicity, education (percent high school
graduate or more education), whom respondents are with, and length or
patterns of homelessness (Burt, 1998). Burt (1998) noted that the
proportion of males in the homeless population ranged from 83% in Los
Angeles to a low of 39% in rural Kentucky. A generalization of the
statistics on gender from Table 1 indicated that the more urban/central city
a place was the higher the proportion of males among the homeless
population (Burt,1998). Table 1 studies show that race/ethnicity varied
considerably. There was variation in the racial and ethnic composition of
the communities where the studies were conducted. African-Americans
were significantly over-represented among homeless people compared to
the general population (Burt, 1988).
42. 26
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Adult Respondents from Various Studies
Study Census Urban
Institute
Los Angeles
COH
Study
New York,
Culhane
Philadelphia DC*MADS Ohio Kentucky
Geographic
Coverage
United
States
US cities
of
100,000+
(178
cities)
Los Angeles,
downtown
and west side
New York
City
Philadelphia Washington,
DC
metropolitan
area (DC, 10
counties, 5 VA
cities)
Rural
Ohio
counties
Kentucky
(heavy
rural)
Date 1990 1987 1991 1990-92 1990-92 1991 1990 1993
Data
Collection
Venues SH SH,SK SH,SK SH SH SH,SK,ST SH,SK,O SH,ST,O
Methodological
Approach
Census Randomly
selected
cities,
programs
within
cities,
people
within
programs
Sample
allocated
proportion-
ally to
locations,
then random;
longitudinal
Shelter
tracking
database
Shelter
tracking
database
Combination of
block
probability and
service based,
plus
encampments
Snowball Service-
based plus
outdoor
search
Gender of
Adults % Male 70 81 83 52/59 45/59 76 49
68-urban
39-rural
Race/Ethnicity
%African-
American
%White
%Hispanic
41
49
16*
10
41
46
10
3
58
21
14
8
65/65
5/8
29/24
1/3
91/88
6/8
3/3
0/1
76
17
6
-
10
85
3
2
12
85
1
2
43. 27
%Other
Table 1 (continued)
Demographic Characteristics of Adults Respondents from Various Studies
Education-
%high school
graduate or
more education NA 52 62 NA NA 60 58 NA
Alone/With
Others
%Males by
themselves
% Females by
themselves
% Female-
headed with
Children
% 2-parent with
children
% Other
NA 75
8
8
2
6
70
16
3
2
10
45/56
10/12
27/21
18/10
--
45/59
20/18
{34/24}
{ }
--
76
1
23
--
--
37
26
16
9
11
27
24
29
11
9
Length/patterns
of
homelessness
NA Mn=39
mo;
Md=10
mo;
45% GT 1
year;
67%homeless
2+times
78%
transitional
12%
episodic;
10%
chronic
81%
transitional;
9%
episodic;
10%
chronic;
18% 1st time
39%intermittent;
23% chronic;
13% former;
7% never
Mn=221
days;
50%LE
49 days;
6% GT
2 years
64% 1st
time and LT
1 mo;
10%multiple
episodes
and GT 12
mo.
SH=Shelters,SK=soupkitchens/mealprograms,ST="streets,"0=Other.*CensusasksHispanicstatusandracialstatusseparately,sothecategoriesarenot
mutuallyexclusive.**Firstnumberisaveragedaily(point-in-time);secondnumberiscumulativeandunduplicatedfortheperiodJune1990throughMay1992.
45. 29
Studies agreed that of the educational achievement of respondents,
52-62% completed high school or a higher level of schooling. Studies
differed about whether people were homeless by themselves, with
children, or some other arrangement. Urban studies that included
substantial parts of the street population, in addition to shelters, found that
single males comprised three quarters or more of the households(Burt,
1988). The more rural the location, many more families or households
have children. Additionally, when a study relied on shelter data only, the
proportion of males’ declined and the proportion of families with children
went up(Burt, 1988). Likewise, when a data source leaves out a relatively
large proportion of single homeless males who do not use shelters or does
not count the shelter use of the most erratically shelter-using single males,
the omission distorted the picture of household structure among homeless
people (Burt,1988).
According to Demographics and Geography, basic information about
homeless people varied by geography and depended on the localities
from which people are located or interviewed or data assembled. It is
important for researchers and decision-makers to be aware of the
inclusions and omissions in the data, because different data sources (e.g.,
shelter only, shelter and other services, or services plus “street” sources)
46. 30
may lead to different assessments of population characteristics and of
need (Burt,1998).
An important lesson learned from these studies was that expensive,
methodologically sophisticated studies could not produce consistent
findings because the reality of homelessness varies with the geographic
location of interest. Therefore, local decision-makers should make every
effort to collect their own data using imperfect but a good-enough method,
collect it with sufficient regularity and thoroughness so that it becomes a
useful tool for decision-making (Burt, 1998).
Individual, Social and Structural Factors that Interacted To Cause
Homelessness
Surveys conducted during the past two decades have shown that
homeless Americans are diverse and include representatives from all
segments of society: The old and young, males and females, single
people and families, city dwellers and rural residents, whites and people of
color, and able-bodied workers and people with serious health problems
(Rosenheck, Bassuk, & Salomon, 1998).
Substantial numbers of veterans, criminal offenders, and illegal
immigrants appear among the homeless. Each of these groups
experiences distinctive forms of adversity resulting from societal structures
and personal vulnerabilities and has unique service delivery needs. All of
47. 31
these groups experience extreme poverty, lack of housing and a mixture
of internally impaired or externally inhibited functional capabilities
(Rosenheck et al.1998).
Attention to the distinctive characteristics of subgroups of the
homeless is important in facilitating service delivery and program planning,
but may also diffuse attention away from shared fundamental needs, and
generate unproductive policy debate about deserving versus undeserving
homeless people (Rosenheck et al.1998). However, in contrast to
diversity, two characteristics are consistent across subgroups of homeless
people: A lack of decent affordable housing and a lack of adequate
income. Policy priorities are mainly determined by emphasis placed on the
diverse rather than the common characteristics of homeless people. It is
important for a homeless service provider to consider the validity of each
approach (Rosenheck et al. 1998). According to Lowe, Slater, Welfley,
and Hardie (2002)a number of diverse and complex factors have
contributed to the problems of homelessness and many of these factors
are interrelated.
Institutional Discharge Practices of Homeless Persons
Studies showed that various public and private institutions
contributed to homelessness by discharging people to the streets or
48. 32
shelters (National Resource Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness,
2002).
Research by the Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance
[MHSA](2000), discovered that the public mental health centers were
discharging people to the streets and shelters against their own
regulations(National Resource Center on Homelessness and Mental
Illness, 2002). The Bureau of Substance Abuse Services was truncating
the continuum of recovery by discharging people after detoxification back
to the unsafe and un-sober streets and shelters (National Resource
Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness, 2002).
Correction facilities were discharging people to the streets without
concern for a residential setting or reintegration. The foster care system
was aging out young people at 18 who had only at-risk alternatives of
dysfunctional and dangerous family situations or unstable alternative living
arrangements and the managed care system comprised of network
hospitals were releasing people to the street (National Resource Center
on Homelessness and Mental Illness, 2002).
The mission of MHSA is to abolish homelessness. During the past
five years, MHSA has engaged state agencies, including mental health,
public health, corrections, youth services, and social services, as well as
county corrections and the states for profit managed care vendors, to
49. 33
explore homeless prevention through appropriate discharge planning
(National Resource Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness, 2002).
Over the past decade in Massachusetts, literally thousands of
homeless people have moved out of shelters beyond homelessness to
housing, employment, and appropriate supportive services (National
Resource Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness, 2002). However,
despite these efforts over the past years in moving thousands beyond
homelessness, there are more homeless individuals in Massachusetts
than ever before. Thousands have moved beyond homelessness and
thousands more have fallen in. The efforts of the MHSA to resolve the
problem of refilled shelter beds became the foundation for its multiyear
work on discharge planning as homeless prevention. The MHSA sought
support from both government and the private sector to undertake this
work. The focus of the works is on multiple systems of care in the public
sector and community-based resources (National Resource Center on
Homelessness and Mental Illness, 2002).
A major demographic trend emerges in Massachusetts shelters. A
10% system-wide increase in the demand for shelter in the winter of 1995
to 1996 created an urgent need to identify the source of this growth in
homelessness (National Resource Center on Homelessness and Mental
Illness,2002). This surge taxed the ability of shelter operators to meet new
50. 34
clients’ needs for specialized support, supervision and discipline. The
large numbers of new guests added to already volatile emergency shelter
settings (National Resource Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness,
2002).
MHSA instituted a monthly census of emerging subpopulation in the
shelters across that state. This effort documented the emergence of
growing numbers of individuals falling into homelessness upon discharge
from mental health facilities, substance abuse treatment facilities, state
and county corrections, foster care and managed care (National Resource
Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness, 2002).
Research regarding these homeless subpopulations dispelled the
old myth that homeless people are anonymous street people wandering
from shelter to shelter. Rather, the homeless subpopulations are well
known to state funded residential treatment, corrections, and youth
programs (National Resource Center on Homelessness and Mental
Illness, 2002).
Homeless program providers had been strategically and
conscientiously creating a continuum of care that responded to needs
extending from the street through shelters, transitional programs, and
permanent housing. While the homeless providers were acting
strategically, the mainstream system acted in a dysfunctional manner
51. 35
without a continuum, without emphasis on transition and without
residential outcomes( National Resource Center on Homelessness and
Mental Illness,2002).
The MHSA (2000) converted these findings to advocacy and
education. Education included the agency itself, the state legislature, the
administration, and the media. What is needed after research and
advocacy is policy change. Discharge to homelessness is not only
inappropriate and undermining of the taxpayers-funded services, but it is a
bad performance outcome. MHSA turned the concern for inappropriate
discharge and bad performance outcome into a specific policy mandate:
zero tolerance for discharge to homelessness. State systems and
institutions in the mainstream programs must be held accountable for what
happened at their discharged door. Moreover, a performance outcome
that cannot be tolerated is a discharge to homelessness (MHSA, 2000).
MHSA found that most state agencies, vendors, or institutions
wanted to respond appropriately, but they were often hindered by a lack of
resources (MHSA, 2000).As advocates MHSA joined with the state
agencies, vendors, and institutions and worked together to begin to create
the needed residential resources in the state budget process, working with
the legislature and the administration. State agencies learned that adding
homelessness to the concerns of their issues often added funds to their
52. 36
line items, funds that were targeted to creating residential options and
permanent housing (MHSA, 2000).
The role of ineffective discharges from institutions in generating
homelessness has been widely recognized since the publication of
“Priority Home: The Federal Plan to Break the Cycle of Homelessness”. A
growing body of information documents the fact that large numbers of
people become homeless upon discharge from hospitals, and treatment
facilities, jails and prisons, and the foster care system(Interagency Council
on the Homeless, 1999). Each case represents a massive failure of
publicly operated or regulated institutions to fulfill their responsibilities to
persons in their care. In addition, each case reveals the scarcity of
community resources to meet the housing, health care and other support
needs of individuals without personal resources. Furthermore, it
demonstrates the responsibility of institutions to work to increase
community resources (National Coalition for the Homeless [NCH], No
date).
Homeless Programs and the People They Served
The National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients
[NSHAPC] is a study of Homeless Assistance Programs. The study was
needed because over the past 10 years, the number and variety of
53. 37
programs serving homeless clients have grown enormously, but there was
not any national description of this service network available.
The Urban Institute prepared the study for the Interagency Council
on the Homeless. The study provides a national description of the
homeless assistance service network covering central cities, suburbs and
urban fringe communities and rural areas (Burt et al.1999).
This study estimates that approximately 40,000 homeless
assistance programs operate in the United States and offer an estimated
21,000 service locations (Burt et al.1999). Food pantries are the most
numerous of the types of programs, numbering about 9,000 programs.
Emergency shelters are next with about 5,700 programs, followed closely
by 4,400 transitional housing programs, 3,500 soup kitchens and other
distributors of prepared meals, 3,300 outreach programs, and 3,100
voucher distribution programs (see Figure 2).
54. 38
Figure 2. The national survey of homeless assistance providers and
clients.
Note. From Weighted NSHAPC data representing programs operating
during an average week in February 1996 (Burt et al. 1999).
Financial (usually welfare) and housing assistance services were
mentioned often enough under "Other" to warrant a category of their own.
In addition, migrant housing was combined with "Other" because there
were so few programs.
55. 39
According to Burt et al.(1999) over half of the service locations
(approximately 11,000) offered only one homeless assistance program,
while less than half offered two or more programs. A service location is a
building or physical space where one or more programs are offered,
whereas a homeless assistance program is a set of services offered to the
same group of clients at a single location.
On an average day in February 1996, the following homeless
assistance programs expected numerous contacts, particularly emergency
shelters; voucher distribution for housing; drop in centers; food pantries
and physical health programs to name a few (Burt et al.1999).Over 85% of
all homeless assistance programs are operated by nonprofit agencies.
Government agencies operate only 14% of homeless assistance
programs. Among nonprofits, secular agencies operate 51% of homeless
assistance programs and religious nonprofits operate 34% (Burt et al.
1999). More importantly, secular nonprofits operate more than half of the
housing and other programs, religious nonprofits operate more than half of
the food programs, and government operates more than half of the health
programs (Burt et al. 1999).
According to Burt et al.(1999), food programs are the least
dependent on government funding (more than half do not receive any
funding), while health programs are the most dependent on government
56. 40
funding (more than half are funded completely by government). Housing
programs and shelters vary in their reliance on the government for funds.
One fourth of all housing programs for homeless clients are fully
supported by government funds and an equal number rely fully on private
funding sources. Only 12% operate completely without government
funding and 55% are most likely to be fully supported from government
sources (Burt et al. 1999).
Some homeless assistance programs are open to anyone who
wants to use them, while other programs are specifically to serve certain
types of people. Population focus may be household type, including males
by themselves, females by themselves or households with children and
youth by themselves (Burt et al.1999). For example, some programs have
a special focus on one or more population groups. Victims of domestic
violence and veterans are commonly named groups. Clients who have
alcohol, drug, or mental health problems, alone or in combination, are a
special focus for 17-19% of programs (Burt et al.1999)
Housing programs are the most specialized. Approximately 43% of
the housing programs serve two-parent families with children, 61% serve
males by themselves and 68-69% serves females by them-selves. Many
homeless assistance programs serve more than one of these household
types. Service may be due to program policy or the fact that few or no
57. 41
clients of a particular type come to the program for service (Burt et al.
1999). Accordingly, nine out of 10 health programs serve males and
females by themselves, while six in 10 serve any families with children
(See Figure 3).
Figure 3. Types of households served by homeless assistance program.
Note. From Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve. Burt et
al. (1999)
58. 42
Burt et al. (1999), noted that among the 76 primary sampling areas
included in the NSHAPC, the areas with the most population provided the
most homeless assistance services, as expected. However, when service
levels were examined on a per capita basis as a rate per 10,000
populations, and in relation to need as a rate per 10,000 poor people, a
different picture emerged. Using rates makes clear that many medium-
sized and even smaller sampling areas actually offered more homeless
assistance services in relation to their poor population thanlarger sampling
areas. Burt et al. (1999) concluded that a large amount of intercommunity
variability remains in the provision of homeless services, possibly because
of important differences in philosophies, policies, resources, and
experience among communities.
Burt et al. (1999, p. 76)noted that shelter/housing program
distributions in the survey areas reflected very different decisions about
investing in homeless housing resources. The analysis of the data used a
rate of shelter/housing program contacts per 10,000 poor people. The
estimated national rate of program contact with all types of shelter and
housing programs for homeless people is 195/10,000 (0.0195) poor
people.
The findings showed that two areas did not have any programs of
any kind, and another area did not have any shelter/housing program
59. 43
contacts(Burt et al. 1999).Variability is greater among primary survey
areas for rates of transitional housing, permanent housing, and voucher
distribution. Permanent housing contacts in the survey areas have a
national average of 40/10,000 (0.004) poor people. Forty-two areas
offered 20 or fewer permanent housing contacts while there were 20 that
offered none (Burt et al.1999).
The level and type of homeless assistance programs across
America were as diverse as homeless people themselves were. The
homeless people using the homeless assistance programs had very
limited income and other resources, and complex needs. Homeless
people are present in rural areas as well as urban and suburban locations
(Burt et al. 1999). Educational levels, income and a variety of government
benefits were higher in 1996 than 10 years earlier. However, extreme
poverty remains an unpleasant fact for homeless clients, in addition to
income that is generally half or less than the federal poverty level (Burt et
al.1999).
Since the late 1990s, there have been major changes to the
national, state, and local social welfare systems that had significant
impacts on America’s poor people. The findings of the NSHAPC provided
important guidance for needed changes to homeless programs and
60. 44
mainstream social welfare programs in providing appropriate services to
the homeless (Burt et al.1999).
Planning to Deliver and Coordinate Supportive Services to the Homeless
An important issue for planning was to know how clients see their
needs, and how their perceptions may differ from the ways that agency
staff sees needs. Another issue for planning was to know whether clients
coming into homeless assistance programs were short-term or long-term
users. This was important in shelter/housing and health programs, where
intake and other procedures that occurred on the first day were generally
the most costly and absorbing of staff time (Burt, 1998). Then, client flow
data were important when planning solutions to homelessness. For
example, the homeless population of a community was small and stable
(mostly long-term) investing in permanent support housing was a humane
and a less costly solution than maintaining people in emergency shelter.
However, if the same small population was mostly short-term and turnover
was large, finding solutions to homelessness will involve helping a group
of people that in one year may be three to six or more times the number of
people who are homeless at any given time (Burt,1998). Some information
about “what works” was necessary for decision-makers to know that they
do not have all the necessary information because they can describe their
homeless population (Burt, 1998). An example of information needed for
61. 45
planning homeless service systems and in estimating services needs is
shown in Table2. According to Burt, one critical piece of information
important to planners was usually missing, namely, information about
which programs and services were effective. The best available
information concern programs for people with mental illness and
substance abuse problems; minimal information about the effectiveness of
services exists for anyone else.
62. 46
Table 2
Information Needs for Planning
Planning Process
Who Plan? What do they
Plan?
What Information
Might They Need?
Where Might
They Get the
Information?
Direct service
program
administration
Developing a
continuum of
care
appropriate to
the needs of
the homeless
Numbers and
characteristics of
service users on an
average day
Agency
Records
Client
Interviews
Staff
Interviews
Tracking data
bases
Local
government
Capacity-
number of
beds, meals,
healthcare
visits, job
training slots
Characteristics of
clients that imply
need for particular
services (e.g.,
mental illness, no
job skills)
Note. From “Demographics and Geography: Estimating Needs”. By M. R.
Burt, PhD., 1998, the 1998 National Symposium on Homelessness
Research, p.9. U. S. Department of Health & Human Services.
63. 47
Exiting From Homelessness
The term exit has varied meanings and applications. When applied
within the context of housing and homelessness, the term exit
encompasses a number of different meanings. It can be used to show a
wide range of issues that either enable or prevent people from leaving the
homeless population. The most common application of the term exit point
is when a person does exit the homeless service system (Grigg &
Johnson, 2001).
Exit points referred to the initial form of accommodation the person
or household secures. These exit points included public housing, private
rental and community housing, but can also include parks, private hotels,
hostels, prison and hospitals. The lack of affordable, appropriate
accommodation for homeless people to exit into has been the subject of
considerable discussion and research. Over the previous two decades, a
large and diverse body of literature has accumulated that highlights the
consequences of housing policies fixed on the demand side assistance
(i.e., rental subsidies) in preference to supply side alternatives (such as
expanding the supply of public rental housing). In the context of reduced
real capital expenditures on public housing and a rental housing market in
which there is minimal, if any, investment, the incidence of homelessness
is not likely to decline in the coming decade (Grigg & Johnson, 2001).
64. 48
Research undertaken at Argyle Street’s Housing Service showed
that while one-fifth of the homeless population accessing the service
managed to exit homelessness with the assistance of service, a significant
majority of the population were unable to secure appropriate long-term
options and were forced to accept substandard accommodation in local
hotels. The research showed that independent housing had been secured
only when clients moved into public housing or private rental housing
where payments did not exceed 30% of income (Grigg & Johnson, 2001).
Housing agencies understand from experience that homelessness
is connected with housing affordability, but it is also connected with
unemployment, ill health, family violence and family breakdown. There is
limited quantitative research that clarifies these links or connects them
with homeless and housing initiatives (Grigg & Johnson 2001).
Exit point data represent the housing outcome immediately
following service intervention. A growing body of evidence supports the
proposition that homelessness is a state of long-term housing insecurity.
Assessing outcomes without a longitudinal sensibility assumes the
effectiveness of service intervention over time. For example, it assumes
that they lead to sustained independence. Such approaches are
methodologically inadequate when working with a population whose status
changes over time (Grigg & Johnson, 2001)
65. 49
These factors emphasize the limitations of using initial housing exit
point data as an indicator of program or service effectiveness (Grigg &
Johnson, 2001). A conceptual shift is needed that include the relationship
between exit pattern/rates and client outcomes in dynamic terms. For
example, there is need to assess the effectiveness of programs working
with homeless people and to better understand the relationship between
the quality and durability of exit arrangements and the relationship they
have with other non-housing outcomes.
Another aspect of exiting homelessness is the concept of pathways
through homelessness. A pathway through homelessness describes the
route of an individual into homelessness and the route out of
homelessness into secure housing (Anderson & Tulloch, 2000). It is
possible to identify a number of reasonably distinct pathways into
homelessness as well as to identify a number of routes individuals may
move out of homelessness. Nevertheless, as a result of the number of
major changes and the lack of longitudinal research, it is not always
possible to link specific routes into homelessness with specific routes out
of homelessness to produce clear pathways through homelessness
(Anderson & Tulloch, 2000).
Low incomes and structural shortages of affordable housing are
fundamental factors in homelessness, but age group is seemingly the
66. 50
most significant variable affecting the different pathways through
homelessness. These are youths 14-24 years, adults 20-50 years and
later life adults 50or more years. The comparative importance of different
pathways cannot be quantified from available evidence (Anderson &
Tulloch, 2000). The most significant factor in exiting homelessness,
according to research evidence, is the availability of adequate, affordable
housing and further support required by a proportion of homeless persons.
Even so, there is a lack of strong evidence on the effectiveness of different
resettlement and support models (Anderson & Tulloch, 2000).
Anderson and Tulloch (2000) concluded that there is insufficient
research evidence to categorize pathways out of homelessness in relation
to age or other characteristics of homeless people. For people who apply
for assistance, pathways out of homelessness are strongly mediated by
statutory homelessness duties of local authorities. Various generalized
routes out of homelessness are identified although their relative
significance cannot be quantified.
Pathways out of homelessness are almost entirely dependent on
how the statutory process, particularly the priority need criteria, assess,
and deal with different household types. Nonetheless, some persons never
find a way out of homelessness and remain in hostel accommodation or
sleeping rough for the long-term. Life expectancy for these people is
67. 51
significantly below average and some persons die homeless (Anderson &
Tulloch, 2000).
Current mechanisms directed at helping persons to move out of
homelessness can be listed, but the relative effectiveness of these
mechanisms cannot be adequately determined from current research
evidence. A range of different mechanisms will always be required for
homeless people in different circumstances (Anderson & Tulloch, 2000).
Another study, “Critical Incidents that Facilitate Homeless People’s
Transition off the Street”, attempts to investigate what helps and what
hinders street persons (homeless persons)who made a more “permanent”
transition back to mainstream society (Macknee & Mervya, 2002).
Macknee and Mervya (2002) stated that during their study there was not
any available research to explore factors that facilitated or hindered
homeless people in making a permanent transition from
homelessness(Macknee & Mervya, 2002). Macknee and Mervya (2002)
used the critical incident technique to create a reasonably comprehensive
map of what helps and what hinders homeless people in making a
permanent transition to mainstream lifestyle.
According to Macknee and Mervya (2002):
A person in “mainstream society” is one who has been
actively employed within a legitimate establishment or
68. 52
enrolled in an educational program and resides in a stable
dwelling– and a successful transition is defined as one who
has moved from a homeless situation into the mainstream
society and maintains that position without relapse for at
least one year. (p. 296)
Researchers interviewed persons who had achieved a permanent
transition out of homelessness. These people described specific events or
experiences perceived to be very significant in helping or hindering the
process (Macknee & Mervya, 2002).
The study identified 19 categories of events that facilitate homeless
persons’ transition to mainline society and four categories of events that
hinder these persons from exiting homelessness. These categories
emerged from the sorting of 314 incidents elicited from the 17 participants
descriptions, and are presented in Table 3 (Macknee & Mervya, 2002).
69. 53
Table 3
Critical Incident Categories in Descending Order of Frequency
Categories Frequency
Facilitating categories Incident Participant
1. Recognizing one’s personal destitution 43 14
2. Revolting against death, violence, and
devaluation 31 12
3. Having someone reach out 29 13
4. Relocating and separating from homeless
lifestyle 22 12
5.Experiencing a spiritual event 17 8
6. Going through “detox” or drug rehabilitation 15 10
7. Realizing one’s self-worth 15 9
8. Realizing confidence and abilities 15 8
9. Establishing a stable and legitimate relationship 12 9
10. Achieving educational success 11 6
11. Creating relationships with mainstream people 12 8
12. Reestablishing family relationships 11 7
13. Experiencing accountability 11 6
14. Establishing a stable residence 11 8
70. 54
Table 3 (continued)
Critical Incident Categories in Descending Order of Frequency
Categories Frequency
Facilitating categories Incident Participant
15. Emulating mainstream role models 11 5
16. Formal or informal counseling 10 7
17. Facing the responsibilities of parenthood 8 3
18. Dealing with issues prior to the streets 7 4
19. Bottoming out 6 4
Hindering categories
1. Being loyal to the street "family" 6 3
2. Receiving free services and welfare 5 4
3. Having bad experiences with support providers 3 2
4. Learning in alternative schools 3 3
Note: From “Critical Incidents That Facilitate Homeless People’s
Transition off the Streets”. By Chuck M. Macknee and Jennifer Mervya,
2002.
71. 55
Five major themes were described as categories that were related
to existing research. The themes identified:
1. Establishing supportive relationships
2. Discovering some measure of self-esteem
3. Accepting personal responsibility
4. Accomplishing mainstream lifestyle goals, and
5. Changing perceptions
In the Alameda County Residents, study there was variation in the
stability of the factors that influence exiting homelessness. Gender,
children, age, race, education, vocational training, and the number of living
family members were rather constant in influencing exiting homelessness
(Wright, 1996).
However, other characteristics lessestablished and frequently
changing during the study were drug use, social welfare benefits, family
contact, partnership formation, employment, and total income. Research
by Wright (1996) states an implicit assumption that homeless persons
experiences vary as a function of who they are and what they have.
Furthermore, the data analyses give evidence that both characteristics
and resources predict rates of exiting. However, it does not imply that all
causes of exiting are systematic because some exits appear to occur due
to random good fortune or a lucky break.
72. 56
There are different ways to measure homeless exits because of
different facets of homelessness: (a) first, there was the standardized
approached based on the length of stay (b) the second approach was to
use homeless persons self-report, and (c) the third approach was to
measure the control that respondents have over their housing situation
(Wright, 1996).
Several implications for social workers, counselors, makers of
social policies and families who desire to help individuals abandon the
homeless lifestyle. Previous research revealed that transitioning homeless
people to mainline society required sustained intervention strategies that
enabled them to enter the labor market, maintain permanent housing,
remain healthy, functional, and take care of their families (Macknee &
Mervya, 2002).
Homeless Persons’ Choice to be Chronically Homeless
Wright (1996), to explain the phenomena of chronically homeless
persons, used the rational choice theory. Wright (1996) concluded that
chronically homeless persons were rational actors before, during, and
after spells of homelessness. Various actions and goods have different
utilities for homeless persons, and they choose actions and goods that will
maximize their utility (Wright, 1996).
The assumptions of rational choice theory [RCT] were:
73. 57
1. Humans are purposive and goal-oriented .
2. Humans have sets of hierarchically ordered preferences, or utilities.
3. In choosing lines of behavior, humans make rational calculations
with respect to: (a) the utility of alternative lines of conduct with
reference to the preference hierarchy, (b) the costs of each
alternative in terms of utilities foregone, and (c) the best way to
maximize utility.
4. Emergent social phenomena – social structures, collective decisions
and collective behavior – are ultimately the result of rational choices
made by utility-maximizing individuals.
5. Emergent social phenomena that arise from rational choices
constitute a set of parameters for subsequent rational choices of
individuals in the sense that they determine (a) the distribution of
resources among individuals, (b) the distribution of opportunities for
various lines of behavior, and (c) the distribution and nature of norms
and obligations in a situation (Turner, 1991).
Individuals are often called rational actors if they tend to act some-
how optimally in pursuit of their goals. In rational choice theory, individuals
are seen as motivated by wants or goals that express their
preferences(Turner, 1991). They act within specific, given constraints and
based on the information that they have about the conditions under which
74. 58
they are acting. The relationship between preference and constraints may
be seen as a means to an end. Because it is not possible for individuals to
achieve all of the things that they want, they must make choices in relation
to both their goals and the means for attaining these goals (Turner, 1991).
Rational Choice Theory holds that individuals must anticipate the
outcomes of alternative courses of action and calculate that which is best
for them. Accordingly, “Rational individuals choose the alternative that will
give them the greatest satisfaction”.
Most homeless persons’ behavior may be described as rational.
Rationality applies to social and emotional consideration as well as
optimizing a person’s utility. It might be assumed that homeless persons
share the same preferences as do domiciled or housed persons; for
example, they highly value being housed (Maslow, 1970; Wright, 1996).
To recognize the rationality of homeless people does not infer that
they have unlimited behavioral choices. Numerous economic and social
limitations constrain their behavior; otherwise, without these constraints
they would not be homeless. In spite of these constraints, homeless
people face meaningful decisions. The unstable nature of homelessness
forces persons to decide frequently how to obtain food, be safe, and find
shelter; these decisions are important and have immediate consequences
(Wright, 1996).
75. 59
Homeless persons must cope with their current situation, and they
must plan by holding some resources in reserve. Therefore, making
rational decisions may be more important for homeless persons than it is
for domiciled persons (Wright, 1996).
Hopper, Susser, and Conover (1985) described homeless persons
as active, resourceful actors who must cope with life on society’s fringes.
They strategically gather and use resources. Homelessness is something
people must arrange to do; it is a way of managing under duress. Making
it homeless is shorthand for the acquisition of a range of skills, as well as
a way into more encompassing subsistence projects.
Wright (1996) made several points that were specific to the
situation of chronically homeless persons:
1. The acquisition of stable housing is a high priority of homeless
people, but it may not be the highest. More immediate needs such as
eating can take precedence. Psychological and social comfort as
well as drug and alcohol addiction may prevent the want for housing.
2. The conditions of conventional housing can be as bad as or worse
than homelessness.
3. The perceived value of conventional housing may decline with time
on the streets. The longer an individual is homeless, the more that
person learns to survive on the streets, where to find food, whom to
76. 60
avoid and where to sleep safely. These survival skills reduce the cost
of being homeless (Snow & Anderson, 1993).
4. The longer an individual is homeless, the more he or she develops
ties with other homeless people and becomes socialized into the
subculture of homelessness. Particularly this socialization is adaptive
to being homeless, but its focus on the routine and values of street
life may reduce desire for conventional housing (Wright, 1996).
The rational choice perspective emphasizes homeless persons’
ability and motivation to take care of themselves: for that reason, it is
plausible that some homeless persons might make a rational choice to be
chronically homeless (Wright, 1996)
Reducing Chronic Homelessness
The goal of ending chronic homelessness has achieved national
prominence in a very short time (Burt et al.2004). HUD’s goal, and the
goal of many communities, is to end chronic homelessness. According to
HUD (Burt et al. 2004), no community has succeeded in ending chronic
homelessness.
Homelessness is one of America’s most serious problems.
Research evidence showed it is often the result of interwoven systemic
and personal problems, in addition to the growing gap between housing
77. 61
cost and income. Many experts (Beyond Shelter, 2003)attribute the
increase in the number of homeless persons as a combination of:
1. welfare reform
2. high rates of domestic violence
3. declining purchasing power of low-wage jobs
4. a decrease in the availability of affordable housing
5. poverty, and
6. disability (Beyond Shelter, 2003).
The risk of a night of homelessness is higher among poor persons
than for the general population, and approximately four to six percent of
the poor experience homelessness annually. Most of these experiences
were short-term and these individuals exited homelessness with minimal
assistance (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003).
However, a subgroup that was the most visible was a group of
approximately 200,000 people who experience homelessness on a
repeated basis. This group represents almost half of those who are
homeless. This group was identified as the chronically or long-term
homeless. Among policy-makers, there is increasing consensus that
action could be taken by the federal, state, and local governments that will
reduce and end this level of chronic homelessness (U.S. Department of
Health & Human Services, 2003).
78. 62
During the past two decades, public and private solutions to
homelessness have focused on providing homeless families and persons
with emergency shelter and/or transitional housing (Beyond Shelter,
2003). Although such programs are vital access to services for person in
crisis, they usually often fail to address the long-term needs of homeless
persons. Homeless persons generally need help in finding affordable
housing, negotiating leases and developing the skills to stay housed.
Once a person or family becomes homeless, it is very difficult to get them
back into rental housing (Beyond Shelter, 2003).
Most property owners require security deposits along with the first
and last months’ rent, and there are often deposits required for obtaining
utility service, especially if the renter has a history of nonpayment.
Generally, emergency shelters and transitional programs rarely assist
homeless persons in overcoming the tremendous barriers they confront in
accessing permanent housing, such as poor credit, eviction histories,
unemployment, and lack of financial resources. These factors can result in
a personal or family crisis leading to renewed homelessness (Beyond
Shelter, 2003).
The recognition of homelessness as a social problem is about two
decades old. Initially, responses were to treat the problem as an
emergency. Policy evolved over the years to include recognition that many
79. 63
of the people finding they were homeless needed more than an
emergency bed for a few nights, weeks, or even months to get themselves
back into regular housing. As early as the late 1990s some communities
began to reorient themselves toward ending either chronic homelessness
or all homelessness, then to establish action steps and a period in which
to do so (Burt et al. 2004).
The National Alliance to End Homelessness [NAEH] presented a
10-year plan to end homelessness at its national conference in July 2000.
An important part of the plan was to end chronic homelessness in the
same period. The plan used evaluations to show homeless service
providers how to create programs and supportive services to bring people
in off the streets and help them retain housing. Research estimated the
number of chronically homeless people to be few enough (between
150,000 and 250,000) to make a reasonable target for a successful policy
(Burt et al. 2004). Additional research two years later showed that the
policy might be close to cost-neutral in public monies.
The goal of ending chronic homelessness has expanded
dramatically since 2000. By 2003, President George W. Bush had
endorsed it and reinvigorated the Interagency Council on the Homeless to
guide and coordinate the efforts of federal agencies. Two lead editorials in
The New York Times argued forcefully for that goal. The U.S. Conference
![ii
ABSTRACT
The researcher investigated the homeless phenomenon including chronic
homelessness. The investigation considered structural, social and
individual factors that might act together to produce homelessness and or
chronic homelessness (Gonzalez, No date). The United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] definition of
chronic homelessness is an unaccompanied homeless individual who has
a disabling condition and has been continuously homeless for a year or
more or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three
years. To be considered chronically homeless, persons must have been
sleeping in a place not meant for human habitation or living on the
street(Homeless Planning Council of Delaware, 2005).The purpose of the
study was to analyze factors that enable single males at one shelter to be
chronically homeless. The research was a qualitative research study. The
qualitative methodology emphasized participation in the lives of those
studied so that the researcher can share as well as better understand a
particular phenomenon. This qualitative research was all about exploring
issues, understanding phenomenon, and answering questions.
Accordingly, this qualitative research produces findings that usually do not
use statistical procedures or other means of quantification. However, the]()