conceptualizing and creating a homeless families typology
Post on 30-Dec-2015
22 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Conceptualizing and Creating a Homeless Families Typology
Debra J. Rog, Ph.D.
Westat
Presentation at the National Conference on Ending Family Homelessness, National Alliance to End Homelessness
February 8, 2007
2
Presentation Overview
What is a typology and why do we need one?
Description of federally funded project to conceptualize typologies of homeless families▬ Prevention typology▬ Resource allocation
Description of two efforts to inform typology development ▬ Reanalysis of fragile families dataset▬ Study in process of shelter exits in Massachusetts
Final thoughts
3
Definition of a Typology
What is a typology?▬ A classification system that differentiates a population into
distinct subgroups or subtypes.
It can be used to:▬ Describe a population;▬ Match groups to services; and▬ Predict service use and response.
Why create a homeless families typology?▬ To effectively target existing services; and▬ To identify new efforts to both prevent homelessness and its
reoccurrence and intervene with currently homeless families.
4
A “Desirable” Typology
Classifies population into subgroups that are homogeneous and non-overlapping
Incorporates both environmental and individual factors
Covers total population
Is simple to use
Has practical utility for service providers and policy makers
5
ASPE – Funded Typology Project:Key Activities
1. Literature review
2. Review of existing data and ongoing panel studies
▬ Identified 15 potential datasets for secondary analysis
▬ Re-analyzed data from Fragile Families Project on subgroups of poor families (homeless, doubled-up, at-risk)
3. Commissioned expert papers
4. Expert Panel meeting
5. Options for potential research activities
6. Final report and debriefing
6
Key Findings from Project
Need for two homeless families typologies
▬ Prevention
▬ Resource allocation
Staged approach to developing typologies needed▬ Initial development guided by existing data▬ Elaboration through short-term research options ▬ Strongest, most lasting development, through
ongoing national surveys and longitudinal studies
7
Prevention Typology:Purpose
To rank families according to levels of risk of homelessness and probability of a quick exit
To distinguish families in desperate need from those with more moderate needs
8
Prevention Typology:Framework
Initial 4 Cell Model
Begin developing based on existing literature and enhance with data from one or more study options
Environment
Family Needs
Facilitators Barriers
Major
Minor
9
Prevention Typology: What We Know To Begin
Key risk factors for homelessness include:▬ Resources (economic and social)▬ Life stage (age; having young children)▬ Ethnicity▬ Mental health and substance use
Best to target population ‘at risk’ as families request shelter
Broader targeting, even among poor families, is likely to be inefficient and inaccurate
10
Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Study
▬ Five year longitudinal study of new parents and children sampled from hospitals National sample of marital and non-marital births
(4,898 families at baseline)
Two waves of data currently available (1 and 3 year follow-ups)
Third wave (year 5) due in 2007
▬ Offered multi-site sample at high risk of homelessness and residential instability Opportunity to:
• examine incidence of homelessness • compare homeless to other poor families in range of residential
arrangements
Analysis to Inform Prevention Typology:Reanalysis of Fragile Families Dataset
11
Reanalysis of Fragile Families Data Set:Sample Selection
Re-analysis restricted to sample of very poor families▬ Total sample of 838 families meeting following criteria:
Mother 18 years of age or older Household income ≤50% below poverty level at year 1
12
Reanalysis of Fragile Families Data Set:Descriptive Analysis
Yr1 Yr 3 Combined
Residentially Stable
35% 42% 22%(both times)
“At Risk” 39% 37% 41%(either time)
Doubled-up 21% 16% 28%(either time)
Ever Homeless 6% 5% 8%(either time)
Risk of being homeless is low even among extremely poor women
Constructed 4 residential groups:
13
Reanalysis of Fragile Families Data Set:Inferential Analyses
Analytic Approach▬ Logistic regressions performed to determine risk and protective
factors of experiencing homelessness and remaining stable
▬ 3 models conducted to predict: Year 1 status Year 3 status Combined status
Caveats▬ Resulting models have relatively “poor fit”▬ Samples are small▬ Homelessness is quite varied▬ Models lack contextual variables
14
Reanalysis of Fragile Families DatasetPredictors of Homelessness
YR 1
Model
YR 3
Model
YR1 or YR3
Model
Demographics
Pregnant – YR1 *
Family Background
Change Partner (YR 1-3) ***
Live with Mother (YR1) *
# of Adults in Household (YR3) *
Social Support
$1,000 loan (YR3) *
Social Capital
Mom working (B) *
Change Work (YR 1-3) **
Income (YR1) * *** **
Health, SA, MH
Ever use SA *
SA ever interfere *
Ever DV ** *
MH Prob ** ***
15
Reanalysis of Fragile Families Data Set:Predictors of Homelessness
(continued)
= Increases probability of being homeless
= decreases probability o f being homeless
* = p<.05, ** = p<.01, *** = p<.001
YR 1
Model
YR 3
Model
YR1 or YR3
Model
Neighborhood Housing
Neighborhood safety
(1-4, unsafe)
*
Housing Assistance *** * ***
TANF *** ***
16
Reanalysis of Fragile Families Data Set:Predictors of Residential Stability
YR 1
Model
YR 3
Model
YR1 or YR3
Model
Family Background
Partner **
Change Partner * *
Change live with Mom **
# adults in household * *
# children (B) ***
Social support
$1000 Loan (YR 1)
Social Capital
Change Mom work (1-3) ***
Change Partner work (B-1) *** ***
Health, SA, MH
Health stability
(1=excellent 5=poor)
***
Ever use SA ** *** **
Ever DV *** *
MH Problem *** *** ***
17
Reanalysis of Fragile Families Data Set:Predictors of Residential Stability
(continued)
YR 1
Model
YR 3
Model
YR1 or YR3
Model
Neighborhood Housing
Public Housing *** ***
Food stamps **
18
Reanalysis of Fragile Families Data Set:Tentative Findings
Families experiencing homelessness▬ Have lower household incomes▬ Are less likely to receive housing assistance but more likely to
receive TANF▬ Are more likely to have experienced domestic violence and
mental health problems
Families remaining residentially stable▬ Are more likely to live with a partner and have a greater # of
adults living in the household▬ Are more likely to have a partner working ▬ Are less likely to have SA, DV, and MH issues▬ Are more likely to have lived in public housing
19
Resource Allocation TypologyPurpose
To classify families by the factors that:
▬ Block their ability to exit homelessness (e.g., poor credit; past justice involvement)
▬ Challenge their ability to achieve stability and self-sufficiency
20
Resource Allocation Typology:Framework
Create based on 3 types of variables:
▬ Exogenous (housing environment, housing, and health and human service access)
▬ Endogenous (family and individual characteristics, including family support needs, broad health needs, social needs, children’s needs)
▬ Situational (fit between the families needs and accessible resources)
Use staged approach to building framework
21
Resource Allocation Typology: What We Know To Begin
Housing subsidies are a key predictor, but there are not enough available to meet needs
In addition:▬ Not all families may need full subsidy; others may need more
than a subsidy
▬ Even with subsidies, some families return to homelessness
Therefore, families range considerably in what they need to exit homelessness and remain stable
22
Study to Inform Resource Allocation Typology:Massachusetts Exit Study
Purposes ▬ To address knowledge gaps re: the shelter exit process▬ To provide prospective epidemiological study of the exit process
Study Design▬ Longitudinal study (12 months) of shelter work in Worcester ▬ Three components
1. Analysis of administrative data 2. Interviews with 3 samples of families, including those who:
• Exit shelter within 6 months• Stay in shelter longer than 6 months• are eligible for shelter services but are diverted
3. Interviews with system-level informants
▬ 18 month study ending in 12-07
23
Massachusetts Exit Study:Component 2 – Exit Process
Purpose▬ To understand the factors that facilitate and block exit▬ To understand the residential arrangements after shelter
Design/Sample Selection▬ Early “exit” families (estimate 100 families) – interview upon exit
all families exit in 2006
▬ “Stuck” families (estimate 85 families) Interview at 6 months and at exit ;if not exit, 3 month follow-up
▬ Diverted families (estimated 50 families) Interview at point diverted & 3 month following
24
Massachusetts Exit Study:Component 2 – Exit Process
Data Collection▬ Demographics and background▬ Family composition▬ Prior homelessness/housing▬ Employment, dept, income▬ Legal issues▬ Services received and shelter experience▬ Trauma▬ Physical and mental health▬ Substance use▬ Exit process, problem▬ Children’s question▬ Resource knowledge and use
25
Massachusetts Exit Study:Likely Implications for Informing
Resource Allocation Typology
Prospective information on the exit process
Key predictors of exit with attention to the role of:▬ Services and resources▬ Recurring trauma exposure and conflict▬ Credit, legal, criminal justice, and other issues▬ Mental health, substance abuse, disabilities
Provide a beginning foundation on the:▬ Nature of the population▬ Dynamics of the shelter system▬ Services available, known, and used
26
Conclusion
Need for two typologies of homeless families▬ Voiced by the expert panel
▬ Illustrated in work on the ground to pilot various triage efforts
▬ Apparent in the range of risk evident in the Fragile Families re-analysis
Staged approach to building typologies ▬ Provide data to guide current efforts
▬ Build long-term capacity to refine and direct future prevention and resource allocation efforts
top related