>X-Sender: [log in to unmask]
>Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 12:42:50 -0500
>To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
> [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
> [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
>From: [log in to unmask] (Don Weitz)
>Subject: [oacaf] [Fwd: Subsidized Housing Ends Homelessness: 20 to 1 odds]
>Cc: Bruce Cattle <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask],
> [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
>
>>Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 17:26:45 -0500
>>From: Graeme Bacque <[log in to unmask]>
>>X-Accept-Language: en
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>To: "OACAF" <[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject: [oacaf] [Fwd: Subsidized Housing Ends Homelessness: 20 to 1 odds]
>
>>
>>-------- Original Message --------
>>Subject: Subsidized Housing Ends Homelessness: 20 to 1 odds
>>Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 16:29:29 +0000
>>From: "David Hulchanski, University of Toronto"
>><[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>>To: "HOMELESSNESS -- Toronto Research Working Group"
>><[log in to unmask]>,"Members, Toronto City Council"
>><[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>From
>>
>>PREDICTORS OF HOMELESSNESS AMONG FAMILIES IN NY CITY:
>>FROM SHELTER REQUEST TO HOUSING STABILITY
>>
>>American Journal of Public Health, Nov 1998.
>>
>>-- "Subsidized housing was virtually the only predictor of
>>residential stability after shelter."
>>
>>-- "The odds of stability were 20.6 times greater for those who
>>received subsidized housing than for those who did not. Among
>>families who received subsidized housing, 97% were in their own
>>apartment, and 80% were stable.. Of those who did not receive
>>subsidized housing, only 38% were in their own apartment, and 18%
>>were stable. The contribution of age was comparatively trivial."
>>
>>-- "If homeless families had been randomly assigned to receive
>>subsidized housing in a controlled experiment, we could now conclude
>>that receipt of subsidized housing, rather than individual
>>characteristics, was key to their long-term stability."
>>
>>-- "Mental or physical health problems did not appreciably cause
>>family homelessness or impede later stability."
>>
>>-- "Conclusions. Housing subsidies are critical to ending
>>homelessness among families."
>>
>>
>>===========================
>>
>>
>>TITLE:
>>
>>"Predictors of homelessness among families in New York City: From
>>shelter request to
>>housing stability"
>>
>>American Journal of Public Health, 88(11), 1651-1657, November 1998
>>
>>by Marybeth Shinn; Beth C Weitzman; Daniela Stojanovic; James R
>>Knickman; et al; New York University
>>
>>ABSTRACT
>>
>>Objectives. This study examined predictors of entry into shelter and
>>subsequent housing stability for a cohort of families receiving
>>public assistance in New York City.
>>
>>Methods. Interviews were conducted with 266 families as they
>>requested shelter and with a comparison sample of 298 families
>>selected at random from the welfare caseload. Respondents were
>>reinterviewed 5 years later. Families with prior history of shelter
>>use were excluded from the follow-up study.
>>
>>Results. Demographic characteristics and housing conditions were
>>the most important risk factors for shelter entry; enduring poverty
>>and disruptive social experiences also contributed. Five years
>>later, four fifths of sheltered families had their own apartment.
>>Receipt of subsidized housing was the primary predictor of housing
>>stability among formerly homeless families (odds ratio 20.6, 95%
>>confidence interval).
>>
>>Conclusions. Housing subsidies are critical to ending homelessness
>>among families.
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------
>>
>>[Selections from the article]
>>
>>Converging evidence suggests that 3% of Americans have been
>>literally homeless over the course of a 5-year period.1,2 Far
>>fewer are without homes on any given night, indicating that, for
>>many, homelessness is a temporary state. Reducing or ending
>>homelessness requires knowledge of why people become homeless and
>>how most manage to return to conventional housing. Because many
>>putative causes of homelessness cannot be manipulated, researchers
>>typically infer causes of homelessness by comparing cross-sectional
>>samples of homeless people with a comparison group. These studies
>>confound the causes and consequences of homelessness. Furthermore,
>>if exits from homelessness are not evenly distributed across all
>>homeless people, cross-sectional designs confound positive
>>correlates of entry with negative correlates of exit from
>>homelessness. The present study, also correlational in nature,
>>avoided these 2 biases. We examined predictors of seeking shelter
>>among a sample of poor families in New York City with no prior
>>shelter experience at the time of initial assessment and
>>reinterviewed them 5 years later to determine predictors of
>>residential stability.
>>
>>Families, this study's focus, make up about 40% of those who become
>>homeless, although they represent fewer of those who are homeless on
>>any given night.3
>>
>>Explanations for Homelessness
>>
>>Researchers have proposed that at least 4 classes of variables
>>contribute to homelessness: persistent poverty, behavioral
>>disorders, impoverished social networks, and loss of affordable
>>housing.4,5 We tested predictor variables from each of these
>>domains.
>>
>>Methods
>>
>>Sample. This article describes predictors of shelter requests and
>>later housing stability for a cohort of New York City families
>>initially interviewed in 1988 (time 1) and followed up an average of
>>4.85 years later (time 2). Shelter requesters represented a census
>>of eligible families applying for shelter during the study period at
>>3 of New York's 4 emergency assistance units, the entry point for
>>all family shelters except for a few small ones specializing in
>>domestic violence; comparison families were selected at random from
>>the public assistance caseload via multistage cluster sampling.
>>
>>
>>Postshelter Stability
>>
>>At the time of the follow-up interview, 79% of the 256 families who
>>used a shelter were housed in their own residence, typically a
>>rented apartment. Only 4% were in a shelter. Most others were
>>doubled up with relatives or friends.
>>
>>Receipt of subsidized housing between time 1 and time 2 was the
>>primary predictor of stability at time 2 (seeTable 3). Indeed, the
>>best model arrived at by the same procedure as for Table 2 included
>>only age and receipt of subsidized housing.
>>
>>The odds of stability were 20.6 times greater for those who received
>>subsidized housing than for those who did not. Among families who
>>received subsidized housing, 97% were in their own apartment, and
>>80% were stable at time 2, figures comparable to those in the
>>comparison group (92% in their own apartment, 80% stable). Of those
>>who did not receive subsidized housing, only 38% were in their own
>>apartment, and 18% were stable. The contribution of age was
>>comparatively trivial. A 10-year increase in the age of the mother
>>was associated with a 79% increase in the odds of stability (1.06 10
>>= 1.79). An alternative analysis, using measures from time 2 rather
>>than time 1, yielded the same 2-variable model.
>>
>>If homeless families had been randomly assigned to receive
>>subsidized housing in a controlled experiment, we could now conclude
>>that receipt of subsidized housing, rather than individual
>>characteristics, was key to their long-term stability.
>>
>>Discussion
>>
>>Homelessness was a stage families passed through, and not a
>>permanent state: four fifths of families who entered shelter had
>>their own apartments 5 years later, and three fifths were stably
>>housed, having been in their own residence at least I year and an
>>average of nearly 3 years. Individual characteristics associated
>>with shelter entry did not prevent most families from becoming
>>rehoused. Of note, families had access to income supports, primarily
>>Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and nearly half received
>>some form of subsidized housing; with new time limits on welfare and
>>fewer new subsidized units available, later cohorts of homeless
>>families may not fare as well.
>>
>>Mental or physical health problems did not appreciably cause family
>>homelessness or impede later stability. Substance abuse at time 1
>>had a small association with shelter entry, and both substance abuse
>>and imprisonment had zero-order relationships with stability that
>>did not hold up in the context of subsidized housing. Consistent
>>with other research, levels of mental illness and substance abuse
>>were lower than among single homeless individuals. Levels of
>>substance abuse, in particular, were higher after shelter than
>>before. Substance abuse, like domestic violence, may disrupt
>>families' lives. We make no claim that housing solved any of these
>>problems among poor families, but the problems contributed little to
>>residential instability.
>>
>>The importance of subsidized housing to stability among homeless
>>families may well generalize beyond New York. In 6 cities, 88% of
>>families who received Section 8 housing and case management services
>>remained in permanent housing during an 18-month follow-up period.12
>>Of note, these families had experienced long-term patterns of
>>recurrent homelessness and needed a variety of health and support
>>services. Generalization to adults with serious mental illnesses is
>>less clear; a San Diego study33 found housing more important than
>>intensive services to stability, while a New York study found
>>timely, specialized services critical in a group with varied housing
>>options.34
>>
>>A final disturbing finding is that the housing characteristics that
>>predicted homelessness were widespread in the welfare caseload.
>>Thirteen percent of families on the welfare caseload in New York in
>>1988 did not have an apartment of their own but were doubled up with
>>others. Almost half lived in crowded conditions, with more than 2
>>people per bedroom. Only 31% lived in subsidized housing. National
>>data also suggest a large pool of ill-housed, poor people. Rates of
>>young adults between 25 and 35 years of age who headed independent
>>households declined 7.1% in the 1980s,35 and rates of doubling up
>>reached levels not seen since the aftermath of World War II.36
>>Relatively few poor households (26% of those with incomes below the
>>area median in 1993) receive federal housing subsidies.22 Under
>>these conditions, our results suggest, family homelessness will
>>endure."
>>
>>Acknowledgments
>>
>>This research was supported by a contract from the New York City
>>Human Resources Administration and National Institute of Mental
>>Health research grant MH46116.
>>
>>AUTHORS
>>
>>Marybeth Shinn, Daniela Stojanovic, and Susan James are with the
>>Department of Psychology, and Beth C. Weitzman and Lisa Duchon are
>>with the Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York
>>University. At the time this study was conducted, James R. Knickmnan
>>and Lucila Jimenez were with New York University. James R. Knickman
>>is now with The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ, and
>>Lucila Jimenez is now with the Lincoln Medical and Mental Health
>>Center, Bronx, NY. David H. Krantz is with the Departments of
>>Psychology and Statistics, Columbia University, New York City.
>>
>>Requests for reprints should be sent to Beth C. Weitzman, PhD,
>>Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York University, 40 W
>>4th St, New York, NY 10003 (e-mail: [log in to unmask]).
>>
>>=======================
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------
>>J. David Hulchanski
>> Dr. Chow Yei Ching Professor of Housing
>> North American Editor, HOUSING STUDIES
>>
>>Centre for Applied Social Research
>>Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto
>>Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1
>>
>>Tel 416 978-1973; Fax 416 978-7072
>>[log in to unmask]
>>---------------------------------------------
>>
>>---
>>Do not copy opinions expressed by members to others
>><http://www.madnation.org/owelcome> Tech information
>><http://www.dundee.net/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=oacaf> subscription options
>>and archives
>>You are currently subscribed to oacaf as: [log in to unmask]
>>To unsubscribe send a blank email to [log in to unmask]
>>
>
>
>
Visit our Web Site for Free Copies of Our Community Quality of Life Reports!
http://www.utoronto.ca/qol
****************************************************
Canalising a river
Grafting a fruit tree
Educating a person
Transforming a state
These are instances of fruitful criticism
And at the same time instances of art.
-Bertolt Brecht
****************************************************
Dennis Raphael, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Associate Director,
Masters of Health Science Program in Health Promotion
Department of Public Health Sciences
Graduate Department of Community Health
University of Toronto
McMurrich Building, Room 101
Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M5S 1A8
voice: (416) 978-7567
fax: (416) 978-2087
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
|
