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