. I
.xwali‘UI; | . . ..

llllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllll L

31293 00074 7091

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

HOMELESS SHELTER-USERS AND
THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT SYSTEM:
‘A NEEDS ASSESSMENT

presented by

Susan C. Yeich

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

M.A. degree in Psychology

  

y'V/V

Major professor

Date May 20, 1988

 

0.7539 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

* MSU

LIBRARIES

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from

your record.

FINES will

 

be charged if book is
returned after the date
* stamped below.

 

—--~<w-L .2‘, A .-
bum-T, ,3 _. J A.”
H ‘n‘ T ‘g
0 I” . Fifi/“112911
. " UUL 0 7199,.
‘ ¢~'--."-.'s* .
'-’“ ‘“ 5 .1 4:
K. Y
_aac,,, i I
i b J
I - ”57rd
' "‘ FAY "1 9“: at,
A i J
7': What. 13 2003 s:

 

 

 

HOMELESS SHELTER-USERS AND THE'FINANCIAL BENEFIT SYSTEM:
A NEEDS ASSESSMENT
by

Susan C. Yeich

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF aRTS
Department of Psychology

1988

ABSTRACT

HOMELESS SHELTER-USERS AND THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT SYSTEM:
A NEEDS ASSESSMENT

BY

Susan C. Yeich

This study examined the use of the welfare system by
homeless shelter-users. Interviews were given to 50
homeless participants. Four components were studied: 1) how
many receive financial benefits, 2)reasons for not receiving
benefits, 3) respondents' access to resources to help obtain
benefits, and 4) respondents' interactions with the welfare
system. In addition service helpfulness ratings for six
proposed services were obtained. Descriptive information
was gathered for the above areas. In addition a
discriminant function analysis demonstrated demographic
differences between recipients and nonrecipients of
benefits. Descriptive information yielded interesting
comparisons between recipients and nonrecipients concerning
use of resources to help obtain benefits. Service and
research implications are discussed. High ratings for
proposed services led to recommendations for services in
these areas. An Environmental Resources/ Advocacy model is

proposed as a needed research intervention area.

To my parents, Janet
G. Yeich and John D. Yeich

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The people most deserving acknowledgement for the
completion of this research are the 50 homeless
participants. There could have been no research without
their help. Data collection was in fact the most enjoyable
phase of the process, due to their cooperation and good
nature.

Also crucial to the completion of this research was the
cooperation of directors, staff, and volunteers at the five
research sites. In community psychology, resistance in the
community is often a tremendous barrier to doing research.

I was extremely fortunate to be received with such
enthusiasm and support. Many thanks to all the helpful
people at Loaves and Fishes, Harvest House, Daytime Resource
Center, Economic Crisis Center, and City Rescue Mission.

My chairperson, William Davidson III, deserves much
credit for the success of this research. He offered
guidance throughout the whole process, and taught me how to
write a solid piece of research. In addition, he gave me
the independence to think on my own and design my own study,
instead of telling me how it should be done.

The two other members of my committee also deserve much
credit. I was fortunate to have Carol Mowbray on my

committee, with her experience in homelessness research.

iv

Carol was especially helpful in the proposal phase of my
research, which is often the most difficult for Master's

students. The guidance and support she gave at this crucial

time helped tremendously.

Thanks also to Ralph Levine, my third committee member.
His help throughout the process, especially in the area of
statistics, was much appreciated.

Many thanks to my two interviewers: Susie Harkema and
Mary Wylin. Good research assistants are sometimes hard to
find. I was fortunate to have two who were hard—working and
dedicated.

Thanks also to Joanna Basta for her help with the
computer and support throughout the process.

I also thank my parents, John and Janet Yeich, for
their financial and moral support throughout college and
graduate school.

A very special thanks goes out to Leah K. Gensheimer.
Although extremely busy with her dissertation research, she
provided constant support throughout my research. Leah
offered excellent suggestions on both methodological and
practical issues, and perhaps even more important, took a
genuine interest in my research. Leah, you're one of a

kind; East Lansing isn't the same without you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
INTRODUCTION 1
Research Aims . . 4
Estimating and Defining Homelessness . . . . . 5
Health Implications for the Homeless . . . . . 7
Societal Causes of Homelessness . . . . . . . . 9
Unemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Lack of Low- -Cost Housing . . . . . . . . . 13
Reduced Disability Benefits . . . . . . . 15
Deinstitutionalization . . . . . . . . . 17
An Environmental Resources Approach
to Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
The Homeless and the Financial
Benefit System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Financial Benefit Programs . . . . . . . . . . 33
Methodological Limitations to
Homelessness Research . . . . . . . . . . 35
Justification for Research . . . . . . . . . . 39
Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Definition of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Sampling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Interviewer Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Initial Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Continuing Training . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Demographic Variables . . . . . . . . . 49
Receipt of Financial Benefits . . . . . . 51
Access to Community Resources . . . . . . 54
Part 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Part 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Interactions with DSS . . . . . . . . . . 57
Interactions with SSA . . . . . . . . . 58
Reliability and Validity Issues . . . . . 58
Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . 60

vi

RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Analysis Strategy . . . . . . . . 63
Sample Sizes for Research Questions . . . . . . 64
Receipt of Financial Benefits . . . . . . . . . 65
Reasons for Not Receiving Financial
Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Access to Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Service Helpfulness Ratings . . . . . . . . . . 84
Interactions with D88 and SSA . . . . . . . . . 93
Discriminant Function Results . . . . . . . . . 100
Chi Square Results . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Analysis of Variance Results . . . . . . . . . 107
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . 109
Receipt of Financial Benefits . . . . . . . . . 110
Reasons for Not Receiving Financial
Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Access to Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Service Helpfulness Ratings . . . . . . . . . . 114
Interactions with D88 and SSA . . . . . . . 115
Demographic Differences Between Recipients
and Nonrecipients . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Methodological Limitations . . . . . . . . . . 120
Implications for Future Research . . . . . . . 121
Recommendations for Services . . . . . . . . 122
An Environmental Resources Approach
to Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
FOOTNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table
1 Demographic Characteristics . . . .
2 Receipt of Financial Benefits . . .
3 Reasons for Not Receiving Financial
Benefits- Open Ended Responses . .
4 Reasons for Not Receiving Financial
Benefits- Close Ended Responses .
5 Nonrecipients' Knowledge of Eligibility
Status . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . .
6 Nonrecipients' Access to Resources . . . . . . .
7 Recipients' Access to Resources . . . . . . . . .
8 Nonrecipients' Utilization of Resources
9 Recipients' Utilization of Resources
10 Monrecipients' Reasons for Not Utilizing
Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11 Recipients' Reasons for Not Utilizing
Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12 Nonrecipients' Service Helpfulness Ratings
13 Recipients' Service Helpfulness Ratings
14 Service Helpfulness Ratings for Each Reason-
for-Not-Receiving-Benefits Group . .
15 Nonrecipients' Interactions with DSS . . . . .
16 Nonrecipients' Interactions with SSA
17 Recipients' Interactions with DSS . .
18 Recipients' Interactions with SSA . . . . . . .
19 Nonrecipients' Reasons for Never Going to

D88 or SSA I O O I O O O O C O O O O O O 0

vi“

Page
61
66

66

67

68
70
72
74

77

81

82
85

86

87
94
95
96

97

99

20

21

22
23

Recipients' Reasons for Never Going to DSS
or SSA 0 O O O O O I O O I O O l 0

Recipient and Nonrecipient Group Means of
Predictor Variables . . . . . . . .

Discriminant Analysis Summary Table

Capability of the Discriminant Function to
Predict Receipt . . . . . . . . . . .

99

101
104

106

INTRODUCTION

There has been a recent reemergence of homelessness as
a social problem in this country. The last time that
homelessness had reached such epidemic proportions was
during the Great Depression (Cuomo, 1983). The current
estimates of the number of homeless people in America range
from 250,000 to 3 million (Robertson & Cousineau, 1986).
Although there are similarities between the current
phenomenon of homelessness and that of the Great Depression,
there are also important differences which must be
considered when studying the problem. Some of these
differences are demographic. For example, Bachrach (1984)
pointed out that the literature has consistently found that
the average age is lowering and that the proportion of
mentally ill is increasing. Researchers have also found
that the proportion of women among the homeless is
increasing (e.g., Stoner, 1983). Other differences between
the population of today and that of the past (which are
related to changes in demographics) concern the causes of
homelessness. The homelessness literature commonly cites
four causes of homelessness today. They are 1)
unemployment, 2) lack of low-cost housing, 3) reduced
financial benefits and 4) deinstitutionalization of the
mentally ill (Cuomo, 1983). Adequately studying

1

2
homelessness requires understanding the economic, political,
and social context which gives rise to the causes. The four
current causes of homelessness and the economic, political,
and social contexts which have given rise to them will be
discussed in a subsequent section.

The context existing around the period of the
Depression was fundamentally different from the context
existing today. The era preceeding the Great Depression was
a period of rapid industrialization in America, and there
was a demand for "a special kind of labor, a labor remote
from scattered and isolated areas." These remote jobs
included mining, railroad—laying, logging, bridge-building,
tunnel-cutting, and seasonal harvesting (Bruns, 1980, cited
in Cuomo, 1983). Men who filled these jobs became known as
"hobos." These men were a functioning part of the U.S.

economy, experiencing unemployment only during offseasons
and economic downturns (Hougham, 1985). During periods of
unemployment hobos stayed in skid rows, where social
institutions existed to take care of their basic needs
(Anderson, 1923; Siegal and Inciardi, 1982, cited in
Hougham, 1985). It was only with the Depression that these
services began declining. The expanding economy, spurred by
World War II, however, provided jobs to many of the capable
homeless, leaving only the older, alcoholic, and diseased
men in the skid rows (Editorial Research Reports, 1982,
cited in Hougham, 1985).

The economic context within which the homeless existed

was very different from the context existing today, yet many

3
Americans generalize the characteristics of the old hobos
across contexts to the homeless of today, applying the hobo
stereotypes to them. Many argue, for example, that the
homeless are simply lazy individuals who lack incentive to
find and hold jobs. Such arguments are based on the
American ideology of the work ethic and self-reliance. This
ideology may have had some validity during the rapid
industrialization era preceeding the Great Depression, when
the industrial economy was expanding. Those willing to put
in long hours of hard work often ascended in economic status
(as evidenced by the many poor immigrants during this period
who acheived success). The economy of today is much
different, however, and poverty is much more ". . .
systematic and structured" (Harrington,1984, cited in
Hougham, 1985). The ideology promoting the work ethic as a
solution to poverty is no longer valid in America. As Cuomo
(1983) said, based on research by Sennett and Cobb (1972),
"the habit of self-blame-- the subjective complement to a
tradition of rugged individualism-- retains its hold long
after its validity or utility has been exhausted." As Segal
and Baumohl (1985) pointed out, there are structural causes
of homelessness—— it is usually not a result of individual
pathology. They stated that "Like unemployment, 'unhousing'
is a problem of political economy not amenable to simple
tinkering with the victims." As Stern (1984) pointed out,
however, there is no desire to get at the root of the

problem of homelessness, to expose the structural causes.

4
Research Aims

The purpose of the present research was to examine the
use of the welfare system by the homeless. As discussed
subsequently, the majority of the homeless have been found
not to receive any welfare benefits (Bassuk, 1984; Crystal,
Goldstein, & Levitt, 1982; Fisher, Shapiro, Breakey,
Anthony, & Kramer, 1986; Kroll, Carey, Hagedorn, Fire Dog, &
Benavides, 1986; Laufer, 1981; McGerigle & Lauriat, 1983;
Robertson & Cousineau, 1986; Roth, Bean, Lust, & Saveanu,
1985). Four specific components were studied: 1) how many
receive financial benefits, 2) reasons for not receiving
benefits, 3) respondents' access to resources to help obtain
benefits, and 4) respondents' interactions with the welfare
system. In addition service helpfulness ratings for six
proposed services were obtained.

In the first part of the literature review (following
discussion of some homelessness issues in general), four
societal causes of homelessness are outlined. This
discussion gives a foundation for viewing homelessness,
which is necessary for adequately studying the topic. Only
with the understanding of societal causes can appropriate
service strategies be designed.

The second part of the literature review examines in
detail the relationship of the homeless to the welfare
system. This discussion exposes the inadequacies of the
system in meeting the needs of the homeless.

The approach taken in the research is to study the

phenomenon from the perspective of the homeless themselves.

5
The interview addressed reasons for not receiving welfare
benefits. Also, the participants were asked to rate the
usefulness of proposed services for obtaining benefits.
Estimating and Defining Homelessness

As stated earlier, the current estimates of the number
of homeless people in America range from 250,000 to 3
million (Robertson & Cousineau, 1986). There are obvious
political implications involved in estimating the extent of
homelessness. One example of the political processes
involved concerns the estimate of 250,000 made by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This
estimate was in sharp contrast to Mitch Snyder's (of the
Community for Creative Non—Violence) estimate of 2 million.
The HUD study has been found to be extremely flawed. Two
statistical specialists, Eugene Erison of Temple University
and Richard Appelbaum of the University of California at
Santa Barbara, said there were methodological flaws
involving technical, pracitical, and arithmetical errors
(Conason, 1985). One of the flaws was that the researchers
only counted those homeless people in shelters (Hope &
Young, 1984). Another flaw involves the fact that estimates
for nine of the twenty largest cities were assessed on the
basis of one or two regional estimates. In addition, some
shelter providers and experts interviewed by HUD claim that
their estimates had been misquoted or misused (Conason,
1985). The Department of Health and Human Services has
estimated that there are 2 million or more homeless people

in the nation (Hope & Young, 1984). Methodological

6
techniques used to arrive at this figure were not given in
the article. It is possible that the higher estimates of
homelessness are also inaccurate. The techniques used to
arrive at these figures may also have suffered from
methodological flaws.

Determining the number of homeless people is a
difficult task. Actually counting the homeless is
impossible, since many are hidden from view. The number of
homeless, therefore, can only be estimated. Estimates will
vary due to the use of different methodological techniques.
Fisher, et a1. (1986) found that varying estimates can be
attributed to differences in definitions of populations,
sample selection, diagnostic criteria, and screening methods
(Fisher, et al., 1986). Lack of a clear definition of
homelessness is a fundamental problem. As mentioned in the
example above, some researchers have considered only those
in shelters as homeless (Hope & Young, 1984). This
definition excludes the homeless on the streets, in
abandoned cars and buildings, in friends' apartments, and
those temporarily in hospitals or jails (Cuomo, 1983). A
more comprehensive definition put forth by Caro (1981)
includes anyone "without an address which assures (her or
him) of at least the following thirty days' sleeping
quarters which meet minimal health and safety standards"
(cited in Cuomo, 1983). A reason that most researchers have
limited their samples to shelter-users is the easy access to
this population. While this is certainly understandable

from a methodological point of view, it is important for

7
researchers to be cognizant that the results cannot be
generalized to shelter non-users.
Health Implications for the Homeless

The situation of the many homeless people in America
has some serious consequences for physical and mental
health. At least one quarter suffer from acute medical
problems such as ulcerated or gangrenous limbs, pneumonia,
burns, and fractures. Even more suffer from such chronic
medical problems as diabetes, seizures, heart disease,
hypertension, respiratory disease, and malignancies
(Doolin, 1985). Brickner (1984) found that the tuberculosis
rate among the homeless is 10 times that of the general
population (cited in Doolin, 1985). Fustero (1984) stated
that a study by a Philadelphia psychiatrist, A. Anthony
Arce, and his colleagues found that 22% of those entering
Philadelphia's emergency shelters had evidence of physical
illness. Their ailments ranged from frostbite to heart
problems. Roth et al. (1985) found in their sample that
30.7% reported having physical problems. Robertson and
Cousineau (1986) found in their sample that 38% reported
having at least one chronic health problem. Robertson and
Cousineau gave a summary of recent studies of health
problems of the homeless. The studies have found that
homelessness is associated with excesses in morbidity and
mortality (Brickner, Filardo, Isenau, Freen, Conoman, Elvy,
1984; Filardo, 1985), and may increase the risk of
communicable diseases (Green, 1985; Kelly, 1985), injuries

(Kelly), hypothermia (Goldfrank, 1985), and malnutrition

(Winick, 1985). Furthermore, the homeless may have problems
accessing health care because of their poverty and
unemployment (Crystal, 1985; Elvy, 1985). The validity of
the above studies is uncertain. Most of the studies
reported few or none of the methodological techniques used
to arrive at their findings. The only two studies that did
describe the methodology precisely are those by Roth et al.
and Robertson and Cousineau. A methodological strength of
both studies is that they sampled shelter non-users as well
as shelter-users. A limitation of the studies is that they
utilized only self—report measures concerning physical
well-being—- no medical diagnoses were done on their
samples.

Mental health is also a problem among the homeless.
Estimates of the percentage of mentally ill range from
20-91% (Bassuk & Lauriat, 1984). Hope and Young's (1984)
examination of the literature led them to speculate that
about one-third of the homeless are mentally ill. Other
researchers report a lower figure of 20% (Horn, 1981).
(Mental health issues are further discussed in subsequent
sections of the paper).

The following sections review the literature on the
causes of homelessness. The literature on homelessness used
in this proposal was obtained by a manual search through the
following abstracts: Social Sciences Index (years 1974 -
1986), Sociology Abstracts (years 1974 - 1986), Social Work
Abstracts (years 1974 - 1986), and Psychological Abstracts

(years 1974 - 1987, January). This process yielded the

9
majority of the literature used in the proposal. A manual
search through the card catalogues at Michigan State
University on the subject of homelessness yielded some
additional literature.
Societal Causes of Homelessness
Unemployment
Unemployment is one of the commonly cited causes of

homelessness (Cuomo, 1983). Although it is cited as a
cause, however, further examination of the economic context
to explain the reasons behind the current high rates of
unemployment is usually not done (Hougham, 1985). Such
further examination is essential in order to understand the
increasing magnitude of the homelessness problem.

One factor that is affecting employment rates in the
country is the massive economic transformation from an
industrial basis to an informational basis which is
occurring in the U.S. economy (Feingold, 1984; Hawkin, 1983;
Kuttner, 1983; Lissner, 1985; Naisbitt, 1982). This
transformation involves some fundamental changes in the kind
of products manufactured and in the process of
manufacturing. In short the goal is to make a better
product (more efficient and more durable) using fewer
resources and less energy. One technique of using fewer
resources and less energy is to develop innovative
production devices, such as computers and robotics, which
can produce goods more quickly and efficiently. One problem
such innovations have produced, however, is the need for

fewer industrial workers. In 1980, only 28% of the

10
work force was in manufacturing; 11% is predicted to be by
the year 2000, and 3% by the year 2030. In 1984, 55% of
workers were in information industries; 80% will be by 2000
(Feingold, 1984).

In his article "The Declining Middle," Kuttner (1983)
discussed how jobs are becoming increasingly concentrated at
the extremes of the country's range of job earnings. Job
opportunities are polarizing, and as a result the country is
losing its middle class. This polarization is the result of
the economic transformation from the traditional
manufacturing base to high-technology and service
industries. Since jobs in service areas pay considerably
less than industrial jobs, this transformation is resulting
in a more unequal distribution of income in the country.

Besides the unequal distribution of income, another
implication of the economic transformation is the
displacement of industrial workers. The innovation of
robotics, for example, is rendering obsolete thousands of
automobile and steel worker positions (Feingold, 1984).
Relocation of the workers into more high-technology
positions is questionable, for as Kuttner (1983) pointed out
few economists expect the booming high-technology field to
be an important source of new jobs-- it is an increasingly
elite industry of professionals. Feingold argued that even
if the high-technology field does create as many jobs as it
displaces, there remains the problem that the jobs created
are not in the same field as those destroyed. This means

that displaced workers have little chance of securing the

11
newly created jobs. The result is high unemployment among
certain segments of society which lack the more
high-technology skills.

Securing jobs in the service industry may be doubtful
as well for displaced workers. There may not be as many
positions for unskilled service workers as one may be led to
think by current literature on the expanding service
economy. Naisbitt (1982) argued that Harvard sociologist
Daniel Bell's labeling of post-industrial society as a
service society was misunderstood, and that it is more
appropriately labeled an informational society. Naisbitt
pointed out that many scholars have cited huge increases
in the number of jobs in the service industry. The scholars
have failed to recognize, however, that the increases have
only occurred in the more professional or skilled service
occupations—- not to the service field in general. The
service jobs that are dramatically increasing in number are
those related to the informational industry. These jobs
include such positions as accountants, lawyers, clerks,
stock brokers, secretaries, programmers, teachers, managers,
bankers, bureaucrats, and technicians. These jobs have
increased from 17% of the workforce in 1950 to more than 60%
in 1982. The rate of unskilled service jobs remained steady
from 1950 to 1982-- 11 or 12%. Only the nature of these
jobs has changed. For example, there has been an increase
in fast-food workers, while other occupations, such as
domestics, have nearly disappeared. The relocation of

displaced industrial workers, then, to either the service

12

industry or the informational industry seems improbable.

Another factor affecting the country's employment
opportunities is the new structure of the world economy.
Cohen (1979) discussed how since the 1970's the trend toward
production on an international scale has been emerging. The
developing nations have become the major sites of industrial
production, and production in developed nations has become
less profitable. An effect of this trend is the
displacement of 0.8. industrial workers. The new global
economic structure has resulted in loss of jobs in
traditional blue collar areas in the developed countries.

These two trends toward a global economy of production
and toward an informational economic basis may be a major
cause of homlessness. Some authors have argued that the
majority of today's homeless are unemployable in today's
economy (e.g., Hope & Young, 1984). Often unemployment is
the precipitating factor in homelessness. For example, New
York City's Human Resources Administration (HRA) reported
that 1/4 of applicants in men's shelters are there due to
job loss (Wolch, 1981). In a study of residents in the
Keener Shelter in New York, the HRA found that 40% were
there due to loss of job (Crystal et al., 1982). Crystal et
al., in their study of Keener residents, found a variety of
reasons cited for unemployment. These include "can't find a
job" (38%), "poor physical health" (22%), "lack necessities"
(16%), "substance abuse" (8%), "lazy or tired" (5%),
"psychiatric problems" (4%), "other priorities" (4%), and

"lack skills" (3%). Lack of available jobs for which the

l3

homeless can compete, then, seems to be a major cause of
homelessness.
Lack of Low—Cost Housing

Two and one-half million people per year are displaced
from their housing (Cuomo, 1983; Hartman et. al., 1982; Hope
and Young, 1984). One half million low-cost housing units
are lost each year through conversion, abandonment,
inflation, arson, and demolition (Hartman et. al., 1982;
Hope and Young, 1984). Two trends which started in the
1970's, condominium conversion and gentrification, are major
factors in the reduction of low-cost housing (Hougham,
1985). Since public officials have often left key decisions
concerning housing issues to landlords and developers
(Shelterforce, July, 1985), the two trends have continued
unabated. Condominium conversion, for example, has been
accelerating since 1975. Tax abatements of up to 100% have
been a factor in such conversions. From 1970—1975, 86,000
units were converted; 280,000 more were converted in the
next four years. Many of these condominiums were Single
Room Occupancy (SRO) hotels, traditional housing for welfare
recipients (Hope and Young, 1984). In New York City over
110,000 SRO's were lost between 1970 and 1982-- 87% of the
total supply (Green, 1982, cited in Cuomo, 1983). The
number of SRO's in the city decreased from about 50,000 in
1975 to less than 14,000 in 1982 (Hope and Young, 1984). In
Chicago 5,000 low-cost rooms were lost between 1970 and
1984. In Phoenix twenty—seven residence hotels in the inner

city have been eliminated from 1974 to 1984 (Fustero, 1984).

14

Other indicators of the decreasing supply of low—cost
housing are the number of families sharing housing and the
amount of income paid for housing. The Census Bureau's
Annual Survey of Housing found that in 1982 the number of
households with two or more related families sharing housing
rose from 1.2 million to 1.9 million-- an increase of 58%
(New York Times, February 24, 1983, cited in Cuomo). The
1977 Annual Housing Survey found that in 1976 more than 5.8
million households paid more than one half of their incomes
for shelter; in 1980 the number of households was 7 million
(Hope and Young, 1984).

Adding to the problem of decreasing low-cost housing
are the cutbacks in federal housing programs. Since the
Reagan administration has been in office, it has
dramatically cut the Section-8 federally subsidized
low-income housing program. Section-8 once supplied $3.2
billion a year to New York State, providing rent subsidies
to 47,000 low—income families. Present-level funding
provides for only 8,000 families-- a reduction of over 3/4
of the families (McGarrahan, 1985). Families eligible for
subsidized housing outnumber available units by an
estimated 5 to 1 (Hombs and Snyder, 1982). The
administration in addition has cut $1.8 billion from housing
assistance programs (Hombs and Snyder, 1982). Under the
Gramm—Rudman bill passed in 1985, Reagan has made a budget
proposal to cut housing programs by an additional 10% (NBC

News, February 3, 1986).

15
Reduced Disability Benefits

Under the current presidential administration,
eligibility requirements for financial assistance have
become more restrictive (Bassuk and Lauriat, 1984). Hundreds
of thousands of "working poor" receiving AFDC have had their
supplements decreased (Hope and Young, 1984). By 1983
Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental
Security Income had dropped 350,000 people from their rolls
(Hopper, 1983). From 1981 to 1984 more than 1 million lost
eligibility for food stamps (Hope and Young, 1984). In
Fiscal Year 1982 Medicare was cut by $1.5 billion, Medicaid
by $900 million, the $7 billion AFDC program by over $1
billion, and Food Stamps by $2.35 billion. The
administration's rationalization for the cuts in food stamps
was that there was much fraud and corruption in the system,
and that the cuts would ensure that only the "truly needy"
received benefits. Eighty percent of the cuts, however,
resulted in reducing benefits to families under the poverty
level (Hombs and Snyder, 1982). Evidence from seven
different regions studied by the Mental Health Law Project
in March, 1982, showed that loss of benefits was most often
due to inability to challenge the (cutback) ruling, not to
an improvement in condition (Cuomo, 1983).

In addition to direct effects, federal budget cutting
has also had an indirect effect of reducing the assistance
programs provided by cities. In their October 1982 report,
Human Services in FY82, the 0.3. Conference of Mayors found

that because of the federal program cuts of 1981, cities

16
have been unable to meet growing demands for emergency food
and housing assistance (Cuomo, 1983).

A reason these social service programs are being cut
concerns the massive federal deficit. The need to reduce
the deficit is obvious. Another incentive to cut the
programs is that they are not successful in fulfilling their
original goal. They were designed to help people on a
temporary basis, while they worked out their financial
difficulties. The need for welfare reform, therefore, is
also obvious. Cutting social programs in response to these
two problems with the system, however, is not a real
solution. It will save the country money in the short-term,
since less funding will be allocated to the programs. There
will be additional funding needed in the long-term, however,
in reaction to the cuts. Programs to help the victims of
the cutbacks will need to be designed in order for these
people to survive. These long-term consequences seem to be
already appearing in America-- the number of homeless people
continues to grow (due in part to the cutbacks) and
countless governmental Task Forces continue to be formed to
provide solutions to the problem. It is possible that
this short-term "solution" of cutting social programs may
actually end up costing the country in financial resources,
not to mention the social and political costs the country
will suffer. A better solution to reduce the deficit and
reform the welfare system would involve strategies that
create positive change in the long-term, while minimizing

the human cost that the change will cause.

17
Deinstitutionalization

The policy of deinstitutionalization of the mentally
ill began in the 1960's. Factors influencing the adoption
of deinstitutionalization policies include the community
mental health ideology, social and pharmacological
therapeutics, legal and legislative pressures, and economic
incentives (Talbott, 1984). Bachrach (1984) argued that
deinstitutionalization was a well—intentioned process, but
that it was not carried out according to the original plan.
The first step of drastically reducing the mental hospital
population has been accomplished; the current population is
now 1/4 of its peak in 1955 at 559,000. The second step of
providing appropriate residences for the expatients,
however, has not been accomplished. Some of the expatients
are discharged into SRO's and skid row houses, but even
these dwellings (which themselves are very undesirable; see
Cohen and Sokolovsky, 1983) are becoming more scarce.

One problem in the homeless mentally ill literature
concerns its attempt to develop a linkage between
deinstitutionalization and homelessness. Some studies used
psychological tests and personal diagnoses to try to assess
the degree of mental disorder of the homeless in their
sample (e.g., Bassuk, 1984; Cohen and Sokolovsky,1983). One
problem with trying to assess the degree of mental illness
is the subjective nature of the definition. Another problem
is the inability to draw causal links between mental illness
and homelessness. "Abnormal" behavior can be as much a

consequence of life on the streets as it is a cause of being

18
there (Hougham, 1985). As Baxter and Hopper (1982) pointed
out, many of the observed symptoms would disappear if
permanent shelter were secured.

While deinstitutionalization is a factor in the
increase in homelessness, it should not dominate the
discussion of the problem, as it sometimes does (e.g.,
Bassuk, 1984; Krauthammer, 1985). The bulk of the
literature finds that most homeless are not mentally ill
(Cuomo, 1983; Hopper, 1983). Horn (1981) stated that
the belief that most homeless are former mental patients is
a myth. Roth et al. (1985) found in their sample that 29.9%
reported prior psychiatric hospitalization. Using two
psychiatric disorder diagnostic tests, the Psychiatric
Status Schedule and Behavioral Disturbance Severity Index,
they found that 30.8% of their sample had psychiatric
problems. The authors pointed out that this incidence of
psychiatric problems in their homeless sample is only
somewhat higher than in the general population (20%).
Mowbray, Solarz, Johnson, Phillips-Smith, & Combs (1986)
found in their Detroit sample that 26% had formerly been
hospitalized for psychiatric problems. The sample was not
predominantly deinstitutuionalized, therefore, but the
researchers did find substantial levels of mental problems.
Mowbray and her colleagues pointed out that this may suggest
that the condition of being homeless may have resulted in
these mental health problems.

The relationship between deinstitutionalization and

homelessness, then, is unclear, and the issue may be

l9
overdramatized in much of the homelessness literature.
Cuomo (1983) commented that "If homelessness were simply a
matter of personal eccentricity or pathology, the unstated
argument goes, then it cannot be indicative of any larger
societal failure; it calls nothing in question—- except
perhaps the wisdom of psychiatric commitment policies."

The above sections have discussed four societal
processes that are resulting in homelessness. The following
section outlines the conceptual framework of the present
study and how societal causes of homelessness fit into the
framework.

An Environmental Resources Approach to Homelessness

The theoretical approach taken in the present study is
based on the Environmental Resources model. The
Environmental Resources conception is a model within
community psychology that offers an alternative to
traditional means of dealing with "problem" behavior
(Davidson and Rappaport, 1978). Traditionally social
scientists have worked to adjust deviant individuals and
groups to the norm. There are two opposing theoretical
approaches which have worked toward this aim. One is an
individualistic approach which places the fault of deviance
within the affected individuals. The other is a social
conflict approach which blames societal injustice for the
deviance. Though opposing schools of thought, these
approaches share the view that differences among individuals
are undersirable and that deviant groups should be guided

toward the norm (Davidson and Rappaport, 1978).

20

In contrast, the Environmental Resources approach (and
community psychology in general) does not attempt to
eradicate differences among people; rather it appreciates
cultural diversity. While the approach shares the view with
the social conflict model that differnces among people are
in large part due to the environment and that environmental
deprivation is often a cause of deviance, it does not
exclusively try to change the system. Nor does it try to
change the individual, as an individualistic orientation
implies. Rather its focus of change is on relationships
between individuals and the system. It attempts to
restructure relationships to maximize person-environment
fit. The goal is to move society toward a more equitable
distribution of economic, political, and social resources
(Pearlmen & Edwards, 1982; Rappaport, 1977).

The Environmental Resources approach suggests that
differences should be supported in a pluralistic society,
not used as an excuse for resource deprivation (Davidson and
Rappaport, 1978). It takes a universalistic rather than
exceptionalistic approach to social problems (Ryan, 1976).
Unmet needs of "problem" groups in society are not viewed as
unique to these groups. Rather, all individuals have needs,
but needs of the "problem" groups remain unfulfuilled. The
Environmental Resources approach suggests that all
individuals have the right to have their needs filled
(Davidson and Rappaport, 1978).

Advocacy has been suggested as a means of mobilizing

and generating resources for disadvantaged groups (Davidson

21
and Rapp, 1976; Pearlmen & Edwards, 1982). The advocacy
model draws upon the informational, political, and technical
resources of the advocate in filling unmet needs (Davidson
and Rappaport, 1978). There are a variety of potential
advocacy interventions that differ according to the type of
strategy used and the level of intervention at which the
strategy is applied. There are three types of strategies
which can be employed: positive approach, neutral approach,
and negative approach. These approaches refer to the
technique used when confronting the person who controls the
desired resource. The positive approach involves trying to
gain the favor of this target individual in order to obtain
the resource. The neutral approach consists of merely
providing information to the target individual concerning
the area of unmet need. The negative approach involves
taking aversive action against the target individual or
agency in attempting to secure the resource (Davidson and
Rappaport, 1978; Gamson, 1968).

There are three levels of intervention at which these
approaches can be applied: individual, administrative, and
policy. In general, these levels differ according to the
number of people who will be affected by the advocacy
intervention. At the individual level the advocate attempts
to secure resources for specific individuals with unmet
needs. Thus, the intervention affects only these
individuals. Interventions at the administrative level
refer to attempts to create change within targeted agencies

to better serve the needs of disadvantaged groups.

22
Interventions at this level, therefore, may affect all
individuals who have contact with the agencies.
Interventions at the policy level refer to efforts to create
change in political, economic, or social systems to better
serve the needs of disadvantaged groups. Change resulting
from interventions at this level could potentially affect
disadvantaged groups throughout a county, state, or nation
(Davidson and Rappaport, 1978).

The Environmental Resources approach offers a framework
for studying homelessness. Within this framework the
homeless are viewed as having a variety of unmet needs. The
goal of the approach, therefore, is to fill these needs. A
basic premise of the framework is that homelessness is in
large part a result of societal processes. The four
societal causes of homelessness outlined in the preceeding
sections reflect economic, political, and social changes
which are causing homelessness. As Gans (1972) pointed out,
since the poor are powerless, it is they who suffer the
costs of economic and political change and growth in
American society. The homeless are individuals who lack
power in America and thus have become victims of societal
changes. As a group they have various unmet needs, but are
often unable to assert their rights for resources, due to
their lack of power.

The purpose of the present research was to gain
information which could be used to develop strategies to
help fulfull the unmet needs of the homeless. The research

focused on the unmet need of income, specifically in the

23
form of financial benefit receipt. The homeless as a group
have an unmet need of substantial income. Despite this
dearth of income, the majority of the homeless have been
found not to receive financial benefits (Bassuk, 1984;
Crystal et al., 1982; Fisher et al., 1986; Kroll et al,
1986; Laufer, 1981; McGerigle & Lauriat, 1983; Robertson &
Cousineau, 1986; Roth et al., 1985). From the perspective
of the Environmental Resources model, the person-environment
fit between the homeless and the Financial Benefit System is
poor. The Financial Benefit System offers resources that
many of the homeless are not obtaining.

The goal of the present study was to gain information
which could lead to the development of strategies to better
the person-environment fit-— that is, strategies to help the
homeless access financial benefits. Advocacy is a means for
mobilizing for the homeless the resources offered by the
Financial Benefit System. The information gained in the
study may be used to formulate individual-level advocacy
strategies. The study located burearucratic restrictions of
the Financial Benefit System and personal resistances of the
homeless to receiving financial benefits. It also obtained
perceived usefulness ratings by the homeless of proposed
services to help them access benefits. This information can
help determine what strategies should be designed to help
get individuals onto benefit programs.

While the major focus of the present research was on
developing individual—level advocacy strategies, the

information gained could also be used to create

24
administrative- and policy-level change. At the
administrative level, homeless agencies or shelters could
use the information to modify their existing
individual—level advocacy services or create new ones. At
the policy level the Financial Benefit System could use the
information to change their procedures for working with
their homeless clients, such as offering them additional
services to better serve their needs.

Putting the homeless on welfare programs is not seen as
a solution to homelessness. The welfare system is
desperately in need of reform itself. The system cannot be
expected to solve such a complex problem as homelessness.

It is believed, however, that the system should be a part of
the solution-- indeed an integral part of it in the
short-term. The first step to helping a homeless person
find housing is providing a source of income for rent.
Getting a person on a welfare program is one means of doing
this. At this point more long-term individual solutions to
the problem can be applied, such as job training and
out-reach psychiatric services, as well as more long-term
structural solutions, such as lobbying for funding of
low-cost housing.

Helping to get the homeless onto financial benefit
programs brings up another consideration. If such advocacy
interventions were instituted on a large scale, resulting in
many of the homeless receiving financial benefits, a
straining of the funds for the programs could incur. This

is especially a concern in light of the funding cutbacks

25
discussed previously. The present research does not deal
with these political and economic implications that the
advocacy interventions could potentially create. If such a
situation would arise, other policy-level advocacy
strategies would have to carried out to account for the
problems. Lobbying for more welfare funding on a state or
national basis is an example of one such strategy.

In summary, an Environmental Resources approach is the
framework used in the present research. This approach
recognizes the societal causes of homelessness and does not
view the homeless as personally deficient. Rather, it views
them as having certain unfulfilled needs. The goal of the
present study was to find ways to help the homeless fulfull
their unmet need of income. The study accomplished this by
gathering information to be used in developing strategies to
help the homeless gain access to financial benefits.

It is important to note that the data gathered was from
the perspective of the homeless themselves, and did not
merely involve the judgement of "experts" after careful
consideration of the problem. Needs assessments of this
sort are useful methods of identifying the appropriate
problems and finding the best solutions. They are the first
step toward creating functional, useful, and planned
change-- change that will meet the needs of the population
under study (Kaufman & English, 1979).

The following section discusses the relationship
between the homeless the Financial Benefit System.‘ The

section gives a background of the person—environment fit as

26

it exists today and provides some insight into where
modifications are needed.

The Homeless and the Financial Benefit System

As noted earlier, some researchers have found that many
of the homeless do not receive any financial benefits.
Fisher et a1. (1986) found in their sample that only 18%
received any. Robertson and Cousineau (1986) found that 25%
of his sample received them. McGerigle and Lauriat (1983)
and Bassuk (1984) each found in their individual samples
that 22% received them. The figure in Laufer's (1981)
sample was 23%. Roth et al. (1985) found that for 23.8% of
their sample financial benefits served as the primary source
of income, and that 44.4% reported using welfare or general
relief services within the past month. In a study by Kroll
et al. (1986), 40% of the sample received General
Assistance, 1.5% received Supplemental Security Income, and
none received Social Security. In their study of long-term
residents at the Keener Building shelter in New York,
Crystal et al. (1982) found that only 52% of the men
received any income. Seventeen percent of these got income
from the Supported Work Program in New York. Only 32%
received federal assistance (Public Assistance: 12.4%;
Supplemental Security Income: 16%; Veteran's Assistance:
3.6%). When asked why they do not receive financial
assistance, 20% responded "don't want," 19% "can't deal with
hassle," 10% "keep getting rejected," 9% "not eligible," 9%
"not ready," 8% "can't live on P.A. Grant," 8% "have no

I.D.," 8% "have no address," 8% "application pending," and

27
2% gave vague responses.

The homeless population is a hetereogeneous group of
people who give a variety of reasons for not receiving
financial benefits. The present research is an important
area of study because different reasons for not receiving
benefits may imply different service strategies for helping
them obtain benefits. Various response groups can perhaps
be identified which could benefit from certain services.
For example, groups who respond "have no address" could
benefit from a service of providing an address for benefit
recipients. Groups who respond "can't deal with hassle"
could perhaps benefit from a service of having someone
accompany them to DSS to help them through the application
procedures and advocate on their behalf.

Resources which could provide these potential services
are currently lacking for most of the homeless. As Bassuk
(1984) has commented, the "lack of a home is symptomatic of
total disconnection from supportive people and
institutions." Numerous researchers have found that many of
the homeless lack social supports and social resources
(e.g., Bassuk, Rubin, & Lauriat, 1984; Kroll et al., 1986;
Solarz, Mowbray, & Dupuis, 1986). Bassuk et al. found in
their sample that 74% had no family relationships, 73% had
no friends, 40% had no relationships with anyone; among the
deinstitutionalized, 90% had no friends or family. Fisher
et al. (1986) found that 45.1% in their sample had no
friends,_5.9% had one friend, 21.6% had two-to three

friends, 15.7% had four to five friends, and 11.8% had six

28
or more friends. An additional finding was that 68.6%
reported having no confidants, 15.7% reported one confidant,
and 15.7% reported two confidants. Roth et al. (1985) found
in their sample that 36% had relatives they could count on,
and 41% had friends they could count on. In a study
conducted closer to the research site of the proposed
research (and therefore perhaps more representative in terms
of the present research), 53.5% of a Detroit sample reported
at least one good friend in the area, 41.6% reported contact
with a friend at least weekly, and 37.5% reported having a
lot of friends. Most of the sample (79.5%) reported family
relations in the area, and 52.9% reported contact with a
family member at least weekly (Mowbray et al., 1986).

Many of the homeless have also been found to be
disconnected from institutional or organizational resources.
For example, Bassuk et al. (1984) found that only 28.5% of
their sample were involved with a social agency.

This disconnection with social and organizational
resources which could provide them with services is a factor
preventing the receipt of financial benefits for some of the
homeless. For example, in order to receive benefits, the
recipient must have an address to which to get checks sent
(Baxter & Hopper, 1982; Roth et al., 1985; Stoner, 1983).

To prove eligibility when applying for a financial benefit
program, a birth certificate and a social security card are
required. Gathering these necessary documents for
application can be time-consuming and confusing (Baxter &

Hopper, 1982). Solarz et al. (1986) found that for some of

29
the homeless lack of transportation to agencies serves as a
deterrent to receiving services.

In addition to these specific services of providing an
address, helping with gathering documents, and providing
transportation, many of the homeless lack even more basic
resources which could provide them with information
concerning eligibility for financial benefit programs.
Solarz et al. (1986) reported that many of the homeless are
unaware of services they are entitled to, including income
support, medical care, food, and housing services. Baxter
and Hopper (1982) found in their sample that many of those
on financial assistance who are eligible for Medicaid do not
use it because either they are unfamiliar with the
eligibility regulations or application procedures are
complicated.

Department of Social Services (DSS) is the existing
organizational resource which provides eligibility
information and assigns individuals to the following
financial benefit programs: General Assistance, Aid to
Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and
Rent Supplements. At DSS, an applicant is assigned to a
social worker who meets with the individual to review the
individual's application and decide if he or she will be
admitted to a benefit program. Social Security
Administration (SSA) is the agency where people apply for
Social Security, Social Security Disability Insurance, and
Supplemental Security Income. Decisions for admittance into

these programs are made by a separate agency: Disability

30
Determination Services (DDS). At DDS, decisions regarding
admittance are made by claims representatives. The only
contact the representatives have with applicants is a phone
call to tell the individual whether he or she has been
admitted into a program.

The usefulness of these welfare agencies as resources
for the homeless has been questioned. Some researchers, for
example, have found that the bureaucratic "red tape"
involved in applying for services deters some of the
homeless from applying (e.g., Roth et a1, 1985; Solarz et
al., 1986). Baxter and Hopper (1982) stated that workers
who help the applicant through the rigid bureaucracy are
rare. They also stated that many applicants are not
informed of the reasons for denial when they are not
accepted into a benefit program. Because the bureaucratic
structure and processes serve as a deterrent for many of the
homeless, the welfare system appears to have limited
usefulness as a sole resource for helping these people
obtain financial benefits.

Gummer's (1979) comments on the structure of the
welfare system offer a framework for this discussion of DSS
bureaucracy.(1) He described the relationship between the
social worker and the client as a power- dependence
relationship. In such a relationship, the person in the
power position can direct the behavior of the other because
he or she controls the needed resource. In the case of the
social worker-client relationship, the social worker acts as

a mediator between the desired resource and the client, and

31
thus has a degree of control over the client. The great
amount of discretion allowed to the caseworker is a factor
contributing to his or her power (see Gummer, 1979). As
Putney (1972) pointed out the welfare bureaucracy ". . . may
operate in ways which actively contribute to the destruction
of the clients which it is supposed to aid."

One factor that may contribute to the dehumanizing
atmosphere of the bureaucracy is the cultural biases of
social workers. Ethnocentrism has been found to be a factor
promoting poor communication between the social worker and
client, a communication that is very derogatory to the
client in many cases (Oliver and Lukens, 1979).(2) Oliver
and Lukens pointed out that even though social work academic
programs instruct students on the importance of avoiding
ethnocentric behavior, the majority of social workers do not
put the teachings into practice.

While some authors have assumed that client alienation
is an inevitable outcome in the welfare system (see Tripi,
1974), Tripi has discovered that assertive clients can avoid
alienation. In his study of Welfare Rights Organizations
(WRO) and the welfare bureaucracy, he found that clients who
fight for their rights are effective in challenging denial
decisions. Gummer (1979) has noted that the passivity of
clients increases the amount of discretionary power of
social workers, since denial decisions remain unchallenged.
It follows, therefore, that assertiveness of clients
decreases social workers' power over clients.

One factor that Tripi (1974) found to contribute to the

32
avoidance of client alienation was the clients' expertise in
the rules and requirements of the welfare system. Clients
who have knowledge of the rules have a base from which to
contest denial decisions. As mentioned earlier, some
researchers have reported that many of the homeless have
little knowledge of eligibility requirements for benefit
programs (e.g., Baxter and Hopper, 1982; Solarz et al.,
1986). A service, therefore, which may be beneficial for
some of the homeless is information concerning eligibility
for various programs. Stoner (1983) gave an example of how
supplying an organizational resource to provide the service
of eligibility information can help the homeless. The Skid
Row Project, sponsored by the Los Angeles County Department
of Mental Health, conducted training sessions on eligibility
requirements for agencies serving the homeless, which in
turn provided the information to their homeless clients.
The preliminary report indicated a 90% increase in the
number of homeless receiving benefits.

Other services that could be beneficial to the homeless
are having someone accompany them to DSS or SSA to help them
through application procedures, or having someone accompany
them to DSS or DDS to advocate on their behalf. Help with
the application procedures could be especially useful to
those individuals who are deterred from applying for benefit
programs because of the bureaucratic "red tape" involved.
Help from an advocate could be useful to those people who
either have too little knowledge of eligibility requirements

to feel comfortable challenging a denial decision or are

33
simply too intimidated by the bureaucratic structure itself
to ever challenge a ruling.

Baxter and Hopper (1984) discussed a program which
offers advocacy services for the homeless in the area of
obtaining financial benefits. Project Reach Out, funded by
the New York State Office of Mental Health, provides several
types of services. These include filling out forms,
interpreting regulations, and accompanying clients to the
welfare office to advocate on their behalf. (Evaluation of
the program's effects was not given).

Efforts to provide the homeless with eligibility
information and to advocate on their behalf are attempts to
remove them from the dependent position thrust upon them in
the worker-client relationship. The poor in this country
have a right to receive financial benefits, and it is
essential to their survival that they learn to assert their
rights. As Attorney General Robert Kennedy once commented,
"unasserted, unknown, unavailable rights are no rights at
all" (cited in Gummer, 1979). It is the purpose of the
present research to help determine which services the
homeless could benefit from; it is hoped that from this
knowledge services can be develOped which will help the
homeless assert their rights.

A brief summary of some financial assistance programs
is provided in the following section.

Financial Benefit Programs
The following dicussion of financial benefit programs

is a summary of some of the major government programs

34
designed to aid the poor. Included in the discussion are
programs under two main headings: Financial programs and
In-kind programs. The major function of Financial programs
is to distribute money. The main function of In—kind
programs is distributing items other than money or
distributing money to be used for a specific purpose.

There are two types of programs included under the

Financial program system: insurance and grant. Insurance
programs involve payment into the program in order to
acquire future eligibility. Social Security and Social
Security Disability Insurance are two such programs. Both
are sponsored by the federal government. Social Security
supplies income to retired and disabled workers, their
survivors, or their dependents. Social Security Disability
Insurance provides income to physically and mentally
disabled people.

The other major type of Financial programs involve
grants of money distributed to people because of their
living situation. Supplemental Security Income is one of
these grant programs. It is federally sponsored and
supplies income to physically and mentally disabled people.
Aid to Families with Dependent Children is another grant
program. It is a federal-state-local program which
supplies income to poor families with dependent children. A
third grant program is General Assistance. It is a state
and local program which serves as a residual program for
those who are not eligible for the other programs.

In addition to these Financial programs are In—kind

35
programs, which distribute material items and money
allocated for specific purposes. In—kind programs are also
divided into insurance and grant programs. Medicare is an
insurance program which operates under the Social Security
system. Anyone eligible for Social Security is covered by
the hospitalization portion of Medicare. The medical
portion, however, is optional, and requires monthly fees and
stipulation of a deductible amount.

There are also grant programs included under the
In-kind program system. Medicaid is a grant program which
offers medical help to the poor. It is state administered
but is subsidized by the federal government. Public housing
is another grant program. It is a federally-sponsored
program designed to provide housing for those who need it.
There are usually massive waiting lists for entry to this
program. A third grant program is Rent Supplements. It is
a federally—sponsored program which supplies payment for a
portion of the rent to landlords. Food-provision programs
are a fourth type of grant program. These are federal
programs which include food stamps, school lunches, and
commodity distributions (Macarov, 1978).

The following section discusses some of the
methodological problems in the homelessness literature.

Methodological Limitations of Homelessness Research

There are a number of methodological limitations with
current literature on homelessness. One limitation is the
lack of a standard definition of homelessness. As discussed

earlier, defining homelessness has obvious political

36

implications. Research studies have typically been done
with shelter populations, only a subset of the total
homeless population, because of the easier access to these
groups. It is important to recognize that the
generalizability of these research findings is limited only
to shelter users. Due to lack of resources, the present
study also suffered from this flaw of sampling only
shelter-users. The researcher, however, recognizes the
limited generalizability of the research findings and
restricted the discussion of the findings to shelter—users.

A second limitation concerns the varying definitions of
mental illness used in the literature. As stated earlier,
estimates of the proportion of mentally ill among the
homeless range from 20-91% (Bassuk & Lauriat, 1984). The
reasons for such wide differences among the estimates
include different theoretical biases and different
standardized scales used to assess mental illness (Bassuk,
1984). Another reason for the wide differences concerns the
validity of the measures used to assess mental illness. As
mentioned earlier, some studies used psychological tests and
personal diagnoses to assess the degree of mental disorder
of the homeless in their sample (e.g., Bassuk, 1984: Cohen
and Sokolovsky, 1983). The validity of these measures,
especially the personal diagnoses, is questionable. The
present research did not involve assessing mental illness.
It did, however, assess the proportion of the sample that
had formerly been hospitalized for psychiatric problems.

A third methodological limitation involves the

37
descriptive nature of the homelessness research. While
descriptive assessments are important to understand the
characteristics of the homeless population, these
descriptions should not be allowed to overshadow the
structural causes of homelessness. Many studies tend to
focus on describing the characteristics of their sample
(Hougham,l985), instead of examining societal processes
which are causing the problem and affecting the lives of the
homeless. Such processes are important to study in order to
gain a better understanding of the causes of homelessness
and their relation to individual lives. Such a tendency to
focus on the characteristics of the homeless population
(which often include such deviant characeristics as
mental illness, alcoholism, and drug addiction) implies to
some degree individual deficiency on the part of the
homeless. A comment by John Talbott, former president of
the American Psychiatric Association, indicates such a
tendency: "We're talking not (about) people who by reason
of choice want to be vagabonds or hobos, or some other
romantic idea of homelessness. These people are in the
streets because they cannot think straight, make decisions
and organize their lives" (Krauthammer, 1985). Talbott's
comment illustrates how easy it is to forget the structural
causes and to label the homeless as deficient. Several
researchers (Archard, 1979; Beresford, 1979; Hougham,
1985) have argued that the emphasis on the deviant
characteristics of the homeless may lead to policy

development based on an individualistic orientation rather

38
than structural.

While a major part of the present research involved
collecting descriptive data, there were some important
differences regarding the method and purposes of collecting
the data which distinguished the study from many other
descriptive studies. One difference is that the data of the
present study was from the perspective of the homeless. The
data not only described the demographic and background
characteristics of the sample, but also described their
opinions concerning problems with obtaining benefits and
concerning the usefulness of several proposed services. It
was a needs assessment which sought to gain an understanding
of the situation by asking the studied population itself.

A second difference concerns the purpose of collecting
that portion of the data which describes the demographic and
background characteristics of the sample. The collection of
this data in itself was not one of the purposes of the
research. It was collected, rather, in order to identify
certain demographic or background subgroups which were more
or less likely to be receiving financial benefits. These
descriptive characteristics, then, were not emphasized as
being important in themselves. It is believed that
emphasizing such characteristics (especially the deviant
ones) leads the reader to an assumption that the cause of
homelessness is ultimately due to individual deficiency.

The framework of the present research is clearly one which
recognizes that homelessness is a result of structural

processes occurring in American society.

39

A fourth limitation of homelessness literature is that
it has been mostly cross-sectional in design. Attempts to
study a sample over time, through the use of longitudinal
designs, have been avoided. Such longitudinal designs could
be useful in gaining a more holistic understanding of the
lives of the homeless, and insight into the changes the
homeless undergo over time. One reason that these designs
may have been avoided is because of the lack of financial
resources to carry out such a study. The present study also
suffered from this lack of resources and was therefore
cross-sectional in design.

The four methodological limitations discussed above
pertain to much of the homelessness literature. The
researcher believes, however, that studies suffering from
these limitations can still have value. Additional research
is greatly needed on the topic of homelessness; the
necessary resources to carry out studies not suffering from
these limitations, however, are often not available.

Studies with limited methodology can still be beneficial,

since they add to the body of knowledge. The point to

be noted from this discussion is not that studies with these

limitations should not be done, but that it is imperative

for researchers to acknowledge the limitations.
Justification for Research

Although numerous researchers have found that the
majority of the homeless do not receive welfare benefits
(e.g., Bassuk, 1984; Crystal et al., 1982; Fisher et al.,

1986; Kroll et al., 1986; Laufer, 1981; McGerigle & Lauriat,

40
1983; Robertson & Cousineau, 1986; Roth et al., 1985), there
has been little follow-up research examining reasons for not
receiving them. One study that did examine the reasons was
by Crystal et al. (1982). Only 32% of their sample received
welfare benefits. When asked why they do not receive
benefits, 20% reponded "don't want," 19% "can't deal with
hassle," 10% "keep getting rejected," 9% "not eligible," 9%
"not ready," 8% "can't live on P.A. Grant," 8% "have no
I.D.," 8% "have no address," 8% "application pending," and
2% gave vague responses.

It is important to note that some individuals could
very likely give several reasons for not receiving benefits.
The question in the Crystal et al. (1982) study was
open-ended in format and respondents gave only one response
to the question. It is likely that many individuals could
have listed several reasons for not receiving benefits. The
study, therefore, did not gather a comprehensive list of
reasons for not receiving benefits. In order to gain a more
complete understanding of the factors preventing receipt of
benefits, it is important to gather all the reasons of each
individual for not receiving benefits. The present research
will supplement the Crystal et al. study, therefore, by
gathering a more complete list of reasons for not receiving
benefits.

Exploring the reasons the homeless do not receive
financial benefits is an important area for study. Only
with this knowledge can appropriate services to help them

gain access to benefits be designed. As discussed earlier,

41
a report by the Human Resources Division, United States
General Accounting Office (1985), called for additional
research into long—term solutions specifically in the area
of how effective social services and income transfer
programs are in helping the homeless. The report added that

any long-term strategies should include assistance for the

homeless in gaining access to existing programs and
benefits. One of the purposes of the present research was
to gather information which could be used in developing
strategies to help the homeless gain access to welfare
programs.

Segal and Baumohl (1985) suggested that centers be
established which provide public assistance advocacy and
provide an address for receiving welfare checks. They added
that workers in these centers should be able to assess a
client's eligibility, work out a plan of action to obtain
the documents necessary for application, provide assistance
in filling out the necessary forms, and serve as an advocate
during hearings or appeals. The present study explored the
usefulness as perceived by the homeless of these five
proposed services.

To reiterate, the purpose of the research was to
locate services which could help the homeless gain access to
financial benefits. The study was designed to examine the
use of the Financial Benefit System by the homeless and to
explore the perceived usefulness by the homeless of the

proposed services outlined by Segal and Baumohl (1985).

42
Research Questions
There were eight research questions studied:

1) How many in the sample received financial benefits?

2) What reasons did nonrecipients give for not receiving
benefits?

3) Was there a relationship between demographic variables
and receipt of benefits?

4) Was there a relationship between demographic variables
and reasons for not receiving benefits?

5) How many had access to services to help them obtain
benefits?

6) Was there a relationship between access to resources and
receipt of benefits?

7) How helpful did respondents think proposed services in
six areas would be?

8) How many had been to DSS and SSA?

9) How helpful did respondents think caseworkers were and
how understandable were applications?

10) How many had been denied benefits and how many

challenged the decision?

METHOD

Setting

The research was conducted in a medium-sized city in
the Midwest: Lansing, Michigan. The Lansing area has four
shelters, one daycenter, and one advocacy organization for
the homeless. Three of the shelters, Loaves and Fishes, the
City Rescue Mission, and the Economic Crisis Center, the
daycenter, and the advocacy organization were used as
research sites. The third shelter in Lansing, Volunteers of
America, was not used because the researcher could not
obtain permission to conduct research in the shelter.

Loaves and Fishes is a shelter designed for men, women,
and children. The shelter accepts guests through referral
only, from such agencies as the Red Cross, Salvation Army,
DSS, and other shelters. The shelter can accommodate up to
six men and three women or children a night. The policy of
the shelter allows residents to stay for a period of two
weeks, but in practice this maximum time length varies
depending on the situation of the guest. They offer two
meals a day at the shelter, as well as a "carry-out" lunch.
The shelter is closed during the day. It is a nonprofit,
church-affiliated shelter.

The City Rescue Mission is primarily a men's shelter,

but can accommodate some women and children. It can shelter

43

44
up to 35 people per night. The Mission allows guests to
stay for a period of two weeks. The shelter offers two
meals a day and is closed during the day. The Mission is
also a nonprofit, church-affiliated shelter.

The Economic Crisis Center primarily serves families

with children. It is a smaller shelter, able to house
approximately 15 people. The shelter remains open through
the day and offers meals. Guests are accepted through

referral only.

A fourth research site was the Daytime Resource Center,
a daycenter for the homeless. The center has future plans
of providing services (e.g., help with finding housing) to
its clients. It currently serves as a place for the
homeless to be during the day, and to play games and
socialize. The center is funded by the Community Service
and Referral Center under the Department of Social Services.

The fifth research site was the Harvest House, an
advocacy organization for the homeless. The organization
was founded by a minister from a local church. The agency
offers street ministry services, as well as advocacy
services in such areas as housing, jobs, welfare, health
care, legal advice, and education.

Definition of Sample

Homelessness was precisely defined in the study. The
definition consisted of three components: 1) individual
currently did not have own place, 2) if staying with a
friend or relative, he or she considered it only temporary

and had not been living there for more than three weeks,

45

3) if staying in a motel, he or she considered it only
temporary and had not been living there for more than three
weeks. In addition to these parameters, only those
individuals without an application pending at DSS or SSA
were included. Those with applications pending were
excluded because their data would have no value, since their
eventual receipt of benefits was uncertain.

Sampling Procedures

The participants in the study were sampled from the
five research sites discussed above. A total of 69 people
were approached for interviews. Nineteen of these were not
interviewed for various reasons: nine declined the offer;
four had their own housing; five had applications pending at
DSS; and one had been living with a friend for more than
three weeks. A total of 50 complete interviews were
obtained.

Procedures at Loaves and Fishes, Harvest House, the
Daytime Resource Center, and Economic Crisis Center involved
obtaining from a staff person a list of the names of all
guests present at the time of the interviewing, then
randomly selecting the order in which respondents were
interviewed. When possible, everyone present at the site
was interviewed. Interviewing was done in a random order
because some guests present at the beginning of the
interviewing period could subsequently leave the site. If
some of the guests present included people already
interviewed at an earlier date, their names were taken off

the list before the random selection was done. Interviews

46

were conducted in the evenings at Loaves and Fishes and
during the day at Harvest House, Economic Crisis Center, and
the Daytime Resource Center.

The procedure at the Mission was somewhat different.
Since it was not possible to obtain a list of guests present
from a staff person, the interviewer created her own list by
asking each guest his or her name. Order of interviewing
was then determined through random selection. Interviews
were conducted in the evenings.

Sample sizes obtained from each site were the
following: Harvest House: 22; Loaves and Fishes: 13;
Mission: 8; Daytime Resource Center: 4; Economic Crisis
Center: 3.

Interviewer Training

Three interviewers were used in the study: the
researcher and two undergraduate assistants. The training
of the interviewers followed guidelines recommended by
Warwick and Lininger (1975). The training strategy
consisted of initial training (occurring prior to data
collection) and continuing training (occurring throughout
the data collection phase).

Initial Training

The goals of initial training were to communicate
information concerning the objectives and purposes of the
study, develop an interest in and commitment to the project,
develop an understanding of the role of interviewing and the
importance of nondirective interviewing, develop basic

interviewing skills (through role-playing), familiarize

47
interviewers with the interview in general and with the
specific objectives of each question, reach agreement on
administrative procedures to be followed in the field, and
agree on standard procedures for dealing with difficult
situations.

These goals were attained through three stages in the
training process. The first step involved giving the
interviewers background materials for them to study. The
documents given to them included the research proposal, the
interview, and an interviewer's handbook. The handbook
included description of proper interviewing techniques,
explanation of appropriate administrative procedures to be
followed in the field, and discussion of procedures for
handling difficult situations in the field.

Group sessions were the second stage of interviewer
training. The two assistant interviewers met with the
researcher to discuss training issues. During the first
session, the background material previously read by the
interviewers was discussed. The purpose and objectives of
the study were reiterated, the specific objectives of each
question in the interview was explained, and the interviewer
handbook was reviewed.

Following this discussion of background material, the
interviewers engaged in role-playing administration of the
interview. The researcher observed the sessions and
provided feedback concerning performance.

During a second group session, background materials

were briefly reviewed, and the interviewers again

48
role~played administration of the interview and received
feedback on their performance.

The third stage of the initial training process
involved trial interviews in the field. Each interviewer
administered two interviews at one of the research sites.
These interviews were tape-recorded. All the interviewers
listened to each other's tapes and coded the interviews in
order to determine percentage of agreement between
interviewers. Trial interviews in the field continued until
a 90% criterion of agreement between all three interviewers
was obtained.

Continuing Training

The goals of continuing training strategies were to
maintain interest in and dedication to the project and to
maintain consistency of interviewing techniques. Weekly
meetings were held to discuss progress in completing
interviews and any problems or difficulties that had arisen.
Completed interviews and tapes were given to the researcher
during these meetings.

In order to ensure maintenance of consistency of
interviewing techniques, the researcher listened to the
assistant interviewers' tapes on a weekly basis in order to
determine that the interviews were being properly
administered. As another indicator of consistency, all
interviewers listened to and coded each other's tapes on a

weekly basis.

49
Interview
The interview used in the research was designed to
assess the experiences of the homeless with the financial
benefit system, to assess present resources of the homeless
to help them access financial benefits, and to obtain

usefulness ratings of proposed services in the six areas.

The interview was rationally developed by the researcher in
collaboration with university faculty. The interview was
critiqued by several advocates for the homeless in the
Lansing area (directors of two homeless shelters and a
director of an advocacy service organization) and by the
director of the DSS Emergency Needs Program for the state of
Michigan and a former DSS Emergency Needs Program supervisor
at the Ingham County DSS (which is the local DSS in the
research area). (At the DSS in Ingham County the Emergency
Needs Program is the program that all homeless applicants
are initially referred to). Feedback from all these
individuals was incorporated into the interview. The
interview was pilot—tested with six homeless participants in
order to make additional improvements.
Demographic Variables

Thirteen demographic variables were studied. These
variables were: (1) sex, (2) race, (3) age, (4) education,
(5) length of time in area, (6) reasons for homelessness,
(7) length of time homeless, (8) past incidence of
homelessness, (9) employment, (10) length of time employed,
(11) length of time unemployed, (12) prior psychiatric

hospitalization, and (13) length of time since psychiatric

50
hospitalization. Some of these varibles were taken from the
variable list used by Roth et al. (1985). These variables
are: sex, age, ethnicity, education, length of time
homeless, employment, length of time unemployed, prior
psychiatric hospitalization, length of time since
hospitalization, and reasons for homelessness. Three
variables were added to the variable list: past incidence
of homelessness, length of time employed, and length of
time in area. Past incidence of homelessness and length of
time employed were considered important because they may
reflect a person's past need to access community resources
and perhaps past attempts to access them. Past need may be
related to current receipt of benefits and past attempts to
access them may be related to the reasons given for not
receiving benefits. Length of time in area was considered
important because it may be related to reasons for not
receiving benefits.

Some of the variables required open-ended responses and
others had close-ended response categories. The variables,
sex, race, past incidence of homelessness, employment, and
prior psychiatric hospitalization, had close-ended response
categories. The remaining variables, age, education, length
of time in area, length of time homeless, length of time
employed, length of time unemployed, length of time since
psychiatric hospitalization, and reasons for homelessness,

required open-ended responses.

51

Receipt of Financial Benefits

This section began by explaining to respondents the
meaning of the terms: financial benefits, DSS, and SSA.
Respondents were given a card with this information on it
and were advised to refer back to the card as needed.
Respondents were then asked whether they receive benefits.
Those responding "yes" were asked which ones they were
receiving. Those responding "no" were asked to indicate
reasons for not receiving them. The reasons for not
receiving benefits were based on those that Crystal et al.

(1982) found in their study. Those were: "don't want,"

"can't deal with hassle," "keep getting rejected," "not
eligible," "not ready," "can't live on P.A. Grant," "have no
I.D.," "have no address," and "application pending."

In the interview, nonrecipients were first asked the
open-ended question "Why do you not receive any financial
benefits?" After this, respondents were read a list of
possible reasons for not receiving benefits (based on those
found by Crystal et al., 1982) and were asked to indicate
whether each response was a reason for them not receiving
benefits. The responses "don't want," "have no address,"
and "application pending" were used verbatim in the study.
The response "have no I.D." was changed to the two responses
"don't have birth certificate" and "don't have social
security card." This change was made because these are the
two required documents for applcation (Baxter & Hopper,
1982). The response "can't deal with hassle" was changed to

two responses: "don't want hassle with D88" and "don't want

52
hassle with SSA." This change was made for clarity
purposes. In their discussion of the response "can't deal
with hassle," Crystal et al. interpreted it as meaning
hassle with the welfare system. In addition, several
researchers (Baxter and Hopper, 1982; Roth et al., 1985;
Solarz et al., 1986) have stated that welfare bureaucracy
deters some of the homeless from applying for benefit
programs. The response "keep getting rejected" was changed
to "applied, but was turned down for reasons other than no
address and not having necessary documents," in order to
distinguish the response from those regarding an address and
necessary documents. The response "can't live on P.A.
Grant" was changed to "doesn't provide enough money to live
on." This change was made for clarity purposes, since "P.A.
Grant" may not have been a familiar term to all the
respondents. The responses "not ready" and "not eligible"
were not included in the interview. "Not ready" was dropped
because the exact meaning of this is not clear. "Not
eligible" was dropped because as some reseachers (Baxter &
Hopper, 1982; Solarz et al., 1986) have found, many of the
homeless are not familiar with eligibility requirements.
The men responding "not eligible" in the Crystal et al.
study may have been told by caseworkers that they were not
eligible for various reasons (which could have included not
having an address or the necessary documents) while not
being aware of their actual eligibility status. The
response "have no transportation" was added to the list of

reasons in the interview because of the finding by Solarz et

53
al. (1986) that lack of transportation to agencies deters
some of the homeless from seeking services. The response
"have other source of income" was added, since some of the
respondents (e.g., the employed) may not have needed
benefits or have been eligible for them due to another
source of income.

The reasons for not receiving benefits can be seen as
barriers prohibiting the receipt of benefits. These
barriers can be categorized according to the degree of
control a person has in removing these barriers. Some of
the barriers concern restrictions beyond a person's control
(8.9., "have no address")-— they are bureaucratic
requirements existing in the welfare system which are
preventing the receipt of benefits. Other responses concern
barriers existing within the person (e.g., "don't want").
These responses reflect attitudes which are preventing the
receipt of benefits.

On the basis of this distinction, the responses for not

receiving benefits were categorized into two large groups:

Environmental Barriers and Perceptual Barriers. There are
five Environmental Bariers: "have no address," "have no
transportation," don't have birth certificate," "don't have

social security card," and "applied, but was turned down for
reasons other than no address and not having necessary
documents." There were four barriers included in the
Perceptual Barrier category: "don't want," "don't want
hassle with DSS," "don't want hassle with SSA," "doesn‘t

provide enough money to live on,"(3) and "have other source

54
of income."

Barriers in the Perceptual Barrier category were
further broken down into three subcategories: Attitudes
Toward Welfare Receipt, Attitudes Toward DSS or SSA, and
Attitudes Toward Financial Need. "Don't want" fell in the
Attitudes Toward Welfare Receipt category. The response
could reflect a philosophical revulsion toward the receipt
of benefits. It was this attitude which was preventing
these individuals from receiving benefits. "Don't want
hassle with D88" and "don't want hassle with SSA" fell in
the Attitudes Toward DSS or SSA category. The responses
could indicate that attitudes toward DSS or SSA were the
factors prohibiting the receipt of benefits. (5). The
responses "doesn't provide enough money to live on" and
"have other source of income" fell in the Attitudes Toward
Financial Receipt category. The responses revealed
attitudes toward financial need. They could indicate that
the respondent had another means of income or that other
means needed to be sought.

Following these questions on reasons for not receiving
benefits, nonrecipients were asked whether they thought they
would be eligible for benefits if they had an address and
the necessary documents for application.

Access to Community Resources

This section comprised the largest portion of the
interview and was divided into two parts-- one administered
to those who reported not receiving benefits (Part 1) and

one to those who reported receiving benefits (Part 2).

55
Part 1. The first set of questions addressed the
participants' access to resources which could help them
obtain financial benefits. These questions asked whether
the participants had access to social and organizational
resources in six service areas: 1) providing an address,
2) obtaining documents necessary for application, 3)
determining eligibility, 4) transportation, 5) help with
application procedures, and 6) providing an advocate. (4)
Five of these service areas were those recommended by Segal
and Baumohl (1985) as services to be provided by public
assistance advocacy centers. The service area of providing
transportation to D88 or SSA was added because of the
finding by Solarz et al. (1986) that lack of transportation
to agencies deters some of the homeless from seeking social
services.

Those participants reporting access to resources were
asked whether they had ever used these resources, and if
they had used them, whether they were successful. Those
who reported access but had not used them were asked why
they had not used them. Participants were also asked to
rate in terms of helpfulness, proposed services in each
area. (5) The response categories for helpfulness were:
"very helpful," "somewhat helpful," and "not helpful at
all."

As discussed earlier, reason-for-not-receiving-
benefits responses were grouped into the categories:
Environmental Barriers, Attitudes Toward Welfare Receipt,

Attitudes Toward DSS or SSA, and Attitudes Toward Financial

56
Need. The proposed services that repondents rated on
helpfulness were directed at removing barriers in the
Environmental Barrier category and the Attitudes Toward DSS
or SSA category. The services directed at the Environmental
Barrier category were providing an address, help with
obtaining documents, and transportation to DSS or SSA. The
service of providing help with application procedures at DSS
was directed at the Attitudes Toward D88 or SSA category,
since those people deterred by the bureaucracy of DSS or SSA
could be less inhibited if such help were available.

The services of help with determining eligibility and
advocacy at DSS or DDS on the client's behalf were directed
at both the Environmental Barrier category and the Attitudes
Toward D88 or SSA category. For those people who responded
"applied, but was turned down for reasons other than not
having address or necessary documents," the barrier could be
seen as environmental. Providing knowledge of eligibility
requirements or providing an advocate could be beneficial to
these people, since a denial decision could perhaps be
contested with the help of these services. For those
people who responded "don't want hassle with DSS," and
"don't want hassle with SSA," the barrier was attitudinal.
It is possible that knowledge of eligibility requirements or
having an advocate could make the bureaucracy less
intimidating, thus removing the barrier.

Part 2. This section was given to those respondents who
reported receiving benefits. It was similar in format to

Part 1. It began by asking which benefits the participants

57
were receiving. The next set of questions addressed the
participants' access to social and organizational resources
in the six service areas. Questions assessing access to
resources in the six service areas were phrased in the past
tense. They asked whether the participants had access to
these services before they were receiving benefits. Those
who did have access were asked whether they had ever used
these resources, and if they had used them, whether they
were successful. Those who had access but did not use them
were asked why they did not use them.

Participants were asked to rate proposed services in
each of the areas on a hypothetical basis. They were asked,
if they were not receiving benefits, how helpful services in
each of the six areas would be. The response categories of
ratings were "very helpful," "somewhat helpful," and "not
helpful at all."

Interactions with DSS

This section began by asking whether the participants
had ever been to DSS. Those who had never been were asked
their reasons for not going. Participants who had applied
for benefits at DSS were asked to rate caseworkers regarding
their helpfulness in getting them benefits. Participants
were also asked to rate how easy or difficult to understand
the applications for financial benefits are. The next set
of questions determined how many participants had been
denied acceptance to a benefit program, and how many of
those who were denied challenged the decision. People who

had not been denied were asked if they would contest a

58
caseworker‘s decision if they ever were denied.
Interactions with SSA

This secton began by asking whether the participants
had ever been to SSA. Those who had never been were asked
their reasons for not going. Participants who had applied
for benefits at SSA were asked to rate how easy or difficult
to understand the applications for financial benefits are.
The next set of questions determined how many had been
denied acceptance to a benefit program, and how many of
those who were denied challenged the decision. People who
had not been denied were asked if they would contest a
decision if they ever were denied.

The interview contained both open—ended and close-ended
questions. Open—ended responses were seen as necessary for
some of the questions because of the exploratory nature of
the study. Responses to these questions were content-
analyzed by the researcher and research assistants.
Reliability and Validity Issues

The validity of some high-demand questions in the
interview were assessed by comparing interview responses to
official records. Questions about receipt of benefits were
compared to DSS records. There was 82% agreement between
the records and the responses, resulting in a kappa of .72.
Two respondents reporting receiving benefits had DSS records
showing they were not. It is possible that these
respondents did not know that their benefits had been
dropped. Five respondents reporting not receiving benefits

had DSS records showing they were. Three of these five in

59
fact were not receiving any cash benefits, only Food Stamps.
It is possible that these respondents did not understand
that Food Stamps were considered financial benefits in the
study. Efforts were made during the interview, however, to
clarify the term by giving them a card listing the benefit
programs and also reading the list to them.

Questions about psychiatric hospitalization were
compared to records of hospitalization through the Michigan
State Department of Mental Health. These records contain
information only on individuals entering a state-operated
institution, not those entering a local or city-operated
one. There was 72% agreement between the records and the
responses, resulting in a kappa of .26. Thirteen
respondents reporting prior hospitalization were not found
in DMH records. These individuals probably entered a local
or city institution. Only one respondent reporting no prior
hospitalization was found in DMH records.

The reliability of participants' responses were
assessed through test—retest techniques. Five participants
were interviewed twice. The second session was conducted
from one day to two weeks after the first session. There was
86% agreement between tests, resulting in a kappa of .78.

The reliability of the interviewers' coding of the
interview was assessed through inter-rater reliability.

This was done for 10% of the interviews. There was 99%

agreement among interviewers, resulting in a kappa of .98.

60
Demographic Characteristics

Table 1 presents demographic characteristics of the
sample. Sixty percent of the sample were male; more than
half were white (54.0%) and under age 30 (54.0%). Almost
half were short—term homeless (49.0%), that is, homeless one
month or less. The majority were unemployed (82.0%), and
nearly half had graduated high school (46.0%). Only about a
quarter of the sample reported prior psychiatric
hospitalization (24.0%). The most frequent reason given as
the cause of homelessness was Conflict with family members.
The next most frequent reasons were: Evicted, Money
Problems, Never Had Home, and Death of Parents. Overall,
these demographic characteristics are in agreement with
those found by other authors (Bachrach, 1984; Crystal et
al., 1982; Roth et al., 1985; Solarz & Mowbray, 1985a;

1985b).

61
Table 1

Demographic Characteristics

 

 

 

 

Item N %
SSE

Male 30 60.0
Female 20 40.0
Race.

White 27 54.0
Black 12 24.0
Indian 8 16.0
Hispanic 3 6.0
3.9.6:.

Mean age 29.8
Median age 28.0
Standard Deviation 9.9

Grade

0—8 7 14.0
9-11 20 40.0
12-2 yrs. college 23 46.0
Mean grade 10.5
Median grade 11.0 a
Standard Deviation 2.3

Time in Lansing

1 week-1.5 months 13 26.5
3 months-1 year 6 12.2
2 years-5 years 14 28.6
7 years—40 years 16 32.7
Mean time (years) 6.8
Median time (years) 2.8
Standard Deviation (years) 8.9

Time Homeless

1 week-1 month 24 49.0
3 months-8 months 13 26.5
18 months-6 years 8 16.3
22 years~54 years 4 8.2
Mean time (years) 3.2
Median time (months) 3.3
Standard Deviation (years) 9.6

Prior Homelessness (a)

Yes 13 26.
No 24 48.

62
Table l (cont'd.)
Employment Status

Employed 9 18.
Unemployed 41 82.0

C)

Time Employed

1 week-1 month

1.5 months—2 months
2 years-4 years
Mean time (months)
Median time (weeks)

Noah
moo
CC)

O‘KO
OU'I

Time Unemployed
5 weeks-2 months 6 12.
3 months-10 months 14 28.
1 year-2 years 16.
4 years-13 years 18.
Mean time (years) 2.6

Median time (months) 11.

mm
0000

.1)

Prior Psychiatric Hospitalization
Yes 12 24.

No 38 76.0

C

Time Since Hospitalization
2 weeks-1.5 months

7 months-1 year

3.5 years-17 years
Missing

Mean time (years)

Median time (years)
Standard Deviation (years)

#4me
p.-

NOO‘O‘

OOOO

CAI-Jib
UiOQ

Event Causing Homelessness
Conflict

Evicted

Money Problems
Never Had Home
Death of Parents
Left Parents

Lost Job

Lost Benefits
Recently Moved
Alcohol Problems
Recently Left Jail
Mental Illness
House Burned

Vague Responses

NJHFJFJwQOOJbAbUIWLfiU1Q
HFJPJHIJ

a>o<3c3c>o
ocpcao<3c>o<3c>o<3c10tp

DNNNOWO‘O‘OCD

a This question was only asked of those who had been

homeless less than one year. Percentages, therefore, do not
sum to 100.

RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose of the present research was to examine the
use of the welfare system by the homeless. Four specific
components were studied: 1)how many receive financial
benefits, 2)reasons for not receiving benefits,
3)respondents‘ access to resources to help obtain benefits,
and 4)respondents' interactions with the welfare system. In
addition service helpfulness ratings for six proposed
services were obtained.

MW

Since the main purpose of the study was to descibe the
sample's use of the welfare system, frequencies were
tabulated for all information within the four components
listed above, as well as for service helpfulness ratings and
demographic characteristics.

In addition to descriptive techniques, three additional
analyses were performed. A discriminant function analysis
was performed to determine demographic variables predictive
of welfare receipt. Chi Square was used to examine
relationships between demographic variables and reasons for
not receiving benefits. Analysis of variance was used to
examine the relationship between access to resources and

receipt of benefits.

63

all

For

nonrecipients (n=26),

respondents who had been to DSS or SSA (n=42).

64
Sample Sizes for Research Questions

There were ten research questions in this study.

Not

50 participants were included in each question, however.

example, some questions were only directed at benefit

of sample sizes for each research question follows:

How

many in the sample received financial benefits?

What reasons did nonrecipients give for not receiving

Was

Was

How

Was

How

How

How

How

benefits?

there a relationship between demographic variables
and receipt of benefits?

there a relationship between demographic variables
and reasons for not receiving benefits?

many had access to services to help them obtain
benefits?

there a relationship between access to resources
and receipt of benefits?

helpful did respondents think proposed services

in six areas would be?

many had been to DSS and SSA?

helpful did respondents think caseworkers were

and how understandable were applications?

many had been denied benefits and how many

challenged the decision?

and others were only asked of those

An outline

65
Receipt of Financial Benefipp

Table 2 presents information on welfare benefit
receipt. A minority of the sample (48.0%) reported being
recipients of benefits.

Reasons for Not ReceivingiFinancial Benefits

Tables 3 and 4 report reasons given by nonrecipients
for not receiving benefits. Table 3 gives responses to the
open—ended question "Why do you not receive financial
benefits?" Responses were content analyzed prior to
tabulating frequencies. The four most common responses
were: No Address, Not Eligible, Have Job, and Don't Want.

Table 4 gives responses to close-ended questions that
asked reasons for not receiving benefits. Respondents were
allowed multiple responses to these items. No Address was
the most frequently reported reason (61.5%). Hassle to Deal
with DSS was the second most frequent (57.7%). The least
frequently reported reason was No Social Security Card.
Frequencies for this item and for the No Birth Certificate
response should be viewed with the understanding that most
nonrecipients already had these documents: 73.1% had Social
Security Cards and 61.5% had Birth Certificates.
Frequencies for the reason No Transportation should be
viewed similarly: 30.1% reported having their own means of
transportation.

Table 5 presents nonrecipients' knowledge of their
eligibility status. The majority (69.2%) reported that they

thought they were eligible for benefits.

66
Table 2

Receipt of Financial Benefits

 

 

Status N %
Recipients 24 48
Nonrecipients 26 52
Table 3

Reasons for Not Receiving Financial Benefits- Open Ended
Responses

 

 

Responses N %
No Address 4 15.4
Have Job 4 15.4
Not Eligible 4 15.4
Don't Want 4 15.4

Would Rather Work/

Don't Think It's Right
Benefits Cut
Haven't Done Yet
Don't Have Necessary Documents
Vague Responses

NI—‘NNM
\walxli-J
\JGJQQUI

Total 24 100.0

67
Table 4

Reasons for Not Receiving Financial Benefits— Close Ended
Responses

 

Item

Response N %
No Address

Yes 16 61.5

No 10 38.5
Hassle to Deal with DSS

Yes 15 57.7

No 11 42.3
Hassle to Deal with SSA

Yes 11 42.3

No 15 57.7
No Transportation

Yes 6 23.1

No 20 76.9
No Birth Certificate

Yes 6 23.1

No 20 76.9
No Social Security Card

Yes 3 11.5

No 23 88.5
Denied for Reasons Other Than
No Address or Lack Documents

Yes 5 19.2

No 19 80.8
Does Not Provide Enough
Money to Live On

Yes 7 26.9

No 18 73.1
Have Other Source of Income

Yes 6 23.1

No 20 76.9
Don't Want Financial Benefits

Yes 6 23.

kOH

No 19 76.

68

 

 

 

Table 5

Nonrecipients' Knowledge of Eligibility Status
Response N %
Eligible 18 69.2
Not Eligible 6 23.1
Don't Know 2 7.7

69
Access to Resources

Table 6 presents nonrecipients' access to resources in
the six service areas: Providing Address, Help Obtaining
Documents, Help Determining Eligibility, Providing
Transportation, Help Applying, and Providing Advocacy.
Frequencies reflect responses to questions asking whether
respondents knew of friends or relatives or organizations
which could provide services in each area. Overall,
nonrecipients' knowledge of available resources is low.
Twenty-one percent of nonrecipients reported knowing of a
family/friends resource in at least one service area;
twenty-one percent reported knowing of an organizational
resource in at least one service area. Only in the service
area Providing Transportation did the majority of
respondents know of a resource to provide that service.

Table 7 presents recipients' access to resources in the
six service areas. As with the nonrecipients, recipients'
knowledge of available resources is low overall. By
comparing the two tables, one can see that nonrecipients
reported knowledge of slightly more resources than
recipients. Only 16% of recipients reported knowing of a
family/friends resource in at least one service area; eleven
percent reported knowing of an organizational resource in at
least one service area. This is further discussed in the
section reporting analysis of variance results.

Tables 8 and 9 present respectively nonrecipients' and
recipients' utilization of resources in each service area.

Only those respondents who reported knowing of a resource in

Table 6

Nonrecipients' Access to Resources

 

Service Area

Type of Resource

 

 

Response N %
Providing Address
Friends/Family
Yes 13 50.
No 13 50
Organization
Yes 8 30.
No 18 69.
Help Obtaining Documents (a)
Friends/Family
Yes 3 27.
No 8 72.
Organization
Yes 3 27.
No 8 72.
Help Determining Eligiblity
Friends/Family
Yes 11 42.
No 15 57
Organization
Yes 9 34.
No 17 65.
Eroviding Transportation (b)
Friends/Family
Yes 11 61.
No 7 38.
Organization
Yes 14 77.
No 4 22.
Help Applying
Friends/Family
Yes 13 50.
No 13 50.
Organization
Yes 12 46.
No 14 53

71

Table 6 (cont'd.)

Providing Advocacy

Friends/Famliy
Yes 11 42.3
No 15 57.7
Organization
Yes 8 30.8
No 18 69.2

a Only those respondents without necessary documents were
asked this question, thus total frequencies do not sum to 26
(number of nonrecipients)

b Only those respondents without transportation were asked
this question, thus total frequencies do not sum to 26
(number of nonrecipients)

72
Table 7

Recipients' Access to Resources

 

Service Area

Type of Resource

 

 

Response N %
Providing Address
Friends/Family
Yes 6 25.0
No 18 75.0
Organization
Yes 3 12.5
No 21 87.5
Help Obtaining Documents (a)
Friends/Family
Yes 2 40.0
No 3 60.0
Organization
Yes 2 40.0
No 3 60.0
Relp Determining Eligiblity
Friends/Family
Yes 11 45.8
No 13 54.2
Organization
Yes 5 20.8
No 19 79.2
Providing Transportation (b)
Friends/Family
Yes 10 52.6
No 9 47.4
Organization
Yes 5 26.3
No 14 73.7
Help Applying
Friends/Family
Yes 12 52.2
No 11 47.8
Organization
Yes 6 25.0
No 18 75.0

73

Table 7 (cont'd.)

Providing Advocacy

 

Friends/Famliy
Yes 13 56.5
No 10 43.5
Organization
Yes 5 20.8
No 19 79.2

a Only those respondents without necessary documents were
asked this question, thus total frequencies do not sum to 26
(number of nonrecipients)

b Only those respondents without transportation were asked
this question, thus total frequencies do not sum to 26
(number of nonrecipients)

Table 8

Nonrecipients' Utilization of Resources

 

Service Area

Type of Resource

 

 

Response N %
Success of Resource
Response
Providing Address
Used Friends/Family?
Yes 5 19.2
No 8 30.8
Resulted in Benefits?
Yes 2 7.7
No 3 11.5
Used Organization?
Yes 1 3.9
No 7 26.9
Resulted in Benefits?
Yes 0 0.0
No 1 3.9
Help Obtaining Documents (a)
Used Friends/Family?
Yes 0 0.0
No 3 27.3
Resulted in Benefits?
Yes 0 0.0
No 0 0.0
Used Organization?
Yes 0 0.0
No 3 27.3
Resulted in Benefits?
Yes 0 0.0
No 0 0.0

Table 8 (cont'd.)

Help,DeterminipgiEliQibility

Used Friends/Family?
Yes
No

Resulted in Benefits?
Yes
No

Used Organization?
Yes
No

Resulted in Benefits?
Yes
No

Rroviding Transportation (a)

Used Friends/Family?
Yes
No

Resulted in Benefits?
Yes
No

Used Organization?
Yes
No

Resulted in Benefits?
Yes
No

Help Applying
Used Friends/Family?

Yes
No
Resulted in Benefits?
Yes
No

Used Organization?
Yes
No

Resulted in Benefits?
Yes
No

coo.)

NH

U'IO‘I

Nib

OH

(Add

H
mm

\iw

OW

Nib KOQ (DUI

qua

OKO

76

Table 8 (cont'd.)

Providing_Advocacy
Used Friends/Family?

Yes 1 3.9

No 10 38.5
Resulted in Benefits?

Yes 1 3.9

No 0 0.0

Used Organization?

Yes 1 3.9

No 7 26.9
Resulted in Benefits?

Yes 1 3.9

No 0 0.0

Note. For some items the number of responses to Result in
Benefits does not equal the number saying "yes" to using the
resource. This discrepancy exists because respondents were
first asked if the resource was successful in accomplishing
the service; only those who said "yes" were then asked if it
resulted in benefits.

a Percentages for these items reflect the proportion who
utilized the resource to the number who would need the
resources (i.e., only those respondents without documents or
without transportation).

Table 9

Recipients' Utilization of Resources

 

Service Area

Type of Resource

 

 

 

Response N
Success of Resource
Response
Providing,Address
Used Friends/Family?
Yes 5 20.8
No 1 4.2
Resulted in Benefits?
Yes 3 12.5
No 2 8.3
Used Organization?
Yes 2 8.3
No 1 4 2
Resulted in Benefits?
Yes 1 4.2
No 1 4.2
Help Obtaining Documents (3)
Used Friends/Family?
Yes 1 20.0
No 1 20.0
Resulted in Benefits?
Yes 0 0.0
No 1 20.0
Used Organization?
Yes 2 8.3
No 0 0.0
Resulted in Benefits?
Yes 2 8.3
No 0 0.0

78

Table 9 (cont'd.)

Help Determining Eligibility
Used Friends/Family?
Yes
No
Resulted in Benefits?
Yes
No

Used Organization?
Yes
No

Resulted in Benefits?
Yes
No

Providing Transportation (a)
Used Friends/Family?

Yes
No
Resulted in Benefits?
Yes
No

Used Organization?
Yes
No

Resulted in Benefits?
Yes
No

Relp Applying
Used Friends/Family?
Yes
No
Resulted in Benefits?
Yes
No

Used Organization?
Yes
No

Resulted in Benefits?
Yes
No

NKO

.5

N

N

I-‘Q woo

Nb)

N4 LOU)

.5

42.
10.

37.
12.

U100

um

wUl

\1-4

to

U'IH

MG)

OU‘I

his) WM U‘IU'I

LJ

79

Table 9 (cont'd.)

Providing Advocacy
Used Friends/Family?

Yes 7 29.2

No 6 25.0
Resulted in Benefits?

Yes 6 25.0

No 0 0.0
Used Organization?

Yes 2 8.3

No 3 12.5
Resulted in Benefits?

Yes 1 4.2

No 0 0.0

HOLE. For some items the number of responses to Result in
Benefits does not equal the number saying "yes" to using the
resource. This discrepancy exists because respondents were
first asked if the resource was successful in accomplishing
the service; only those who said "yes" were then asked if it
resulted in benefits.

a Percentages for these items reflect the proportion who
utilized the resource to the number who would need the
resources (i.e., only those respondents without documents or
without transportation).

80
the service areas were asked these items. Frequencies
reflect proportions of respondents who have used the
resources, and of those who have used them, the proportions
for whom this resulted in financial benefits.

Overall, utilization of resources is low for both
recipients and nonrecipients. By comparing the two tables,
one can see that recipients had somewhat higher resource
utilization in the service areas: Help Applying, Providing
Advocacy, and Help Obtaining Documents. In these areas,
they also had correspondingly higher success rates in
obtaining benefits. These figures must be viewed
cautiously, however, since the sample sizes for these items
are very small. Twenty percent of nonrecipients reported
using a family/friends resource in at least one service
area; sixteen percent reported using an organizational
resource in at least one service area. Twenty-eight percent
of recipients reported using a family/friends resource in at
least one service area; twelve percent reported using an
organizational resource in at least one service area.

Tables 10 and 11 present respectively nonrecipients'
and recipients' reasons for not utilizing resources in both
the Friends/Family and the Organization categories. This
item was asked of those respondents who reported knowing of
resources in the service areas, but never utilized them.
Responses were content analyzed before tabulating
frequencies. Nonrecipients' most frequently reported reason
for not using Friends/Family resources was Don’t Want

Financial Benefits. Their two most reported reasons for not

81
Table 10

Nonrecipients' Reasons for Not Utilizing Resources

 

Type of Resource

Response N %

 

Friends/Family

Don't Want Financial Benefits 6 23.1
Don't Want to Inconvenience Them 3 11.5
Can Do Myself 2 7.7

Just Recently Needed Service/
Just Found out about Service 2 7.7
Never Thought to Ask Them/

Never Got around to Asking 2 7.7
Don't Need the Service 1 3.9
Too Much Hassle to Apply

for Benefits 1 3.9
Not Eligible 1 3.9
Don't Have Necessary Documents 1 3.9
Vague Responses 4 15.4
Organization
Just Recently Needed Service/

Just Found out about Service 6 23.1
Don't Want Financial Benefits 6 23.1
Don't Want the Service/ Don't

Need the Service 3 11.5
Doing It Myself 3 11.5
Not Eligible/Not Sure if

Eligible 2 7.7
Can Do Myself 1 3.9
Too Much Hassle to Apply

for Benefits 1 3.9
Too Busy Trying to Find Work 1 3.9
Plan To Do Soon 1 3.9
Only in Lansing Temporarily 1 3.9
Vague Responses 2 7.7

Table 11

Recipients' Reasons for Not Utilizing Resources

 

Service Area

 

 

Response N
ErieQQSZFamily
Did Not Need the Service/

Did Not Want the Service 5 20.8
Could Do Myself 3 12.5
Did It Myself 2 8.3
Did Not Want to Inconvience

Them 1 4.2
Organization
Did Not Want the Service/

Did Not Need the Service 5 20.8
Could Do Myself 1 4.2
Vague Responses 1 4.2

83
using Organization resources were Just Recently Needed
Service/Just Found out about Service and Don't Want
Financial Benefits. Recipients' most frequently reported
reason for not utilizing resources was the same for both
resource categories: Didn't Need the Service/Didn't Want the
Service.

In summary, the above sections discussed the sample's
benefit receipt status, reasons for not receiving benefits,
and access to resources. A minority of respondents reported
receiving benefits (48%). Nonrecipients were asked reasons
for not receiving benefits. The purpose of this was to
determine what factors prevent receipt of benefits. Reasons
were conceptually combined into four barrier categories:
Environmental, Attitudes Toward DSS/SSA, Attitudes Toward
Welfare Receipt, and Attitudes Toward Financial Need. The
Environmental Barriers category included reasons that are
structural deterrents to benefits receipt; that is,
bureaucratic requirements in the welfare system that affect
eligibility. The other three barrier categories contain
reasons that are attitudinal deterrents; that is, an
individual's attitudes are preventing receipt of benefits.
The two most common reasons given for not receiving benefits
were No Address (61.5%) and Hassle to Deal with DSS (57.7%).
These reasons fall respectively into the Environmental
Barrier category and the Attitudes Toward DSS/SSA category.
These results suggest that the environmental constraint of
needing an address and attitudes toward welfare system

bureaucracy are the two major deterrents to receiving

84
benefits.

Recipients and nonrecipients were also asked about
their knowledge of and utilization of resources. The
ultimate purpose of this was to determine if having more
access to resources was related to receiving benefits.

These results are discussed subsequently in the Analysis of

Variance section. The information presented so far shows

that knowledge and utilization of resources is very low for

both recipients and nonrecipients. Slightly more

nonrecipients reported knowledge of resources, while

slightly more recipients reported utilization of resources.
Service Helpfulness Ratings

Tables 12 and 13 present nonrecipients' and recipients'
helpfulness ratings for proposed services in the six service
areas. Respondents were asked to rate how helpful they
thought services in each area would be. The possible
ratings for each service were: Very Helpful, Somewhat
Helpful, and Not Helpful at All.

Overall, all service areas received favorable ratings;
the vast majority gave either Very Helpful or Somewhat
Helpful ratings for each area. Service areas receiving the
highest ratings from both recipients and nonrecipients were
Providing Address and Help Obtaining Documents. (Note,
however, that Help Obtaining Documents has a small sample
size, since only those respondents without the documents
were asked the item). Recipients gave higher ratings on the
average than nonrecipients in all service areas.

Table 14 presents an alternative scheme for viewing

85

 

 

 

 

Table 12
Nonrecipients' Service Helpfulness Ratings
Service Area
Rating N %
Providing Address
Very Helpful 16 64.0
Somewhat Helpful 8 32.0
Not Helpful at All 1 4.0
Help Obtaining Documents (a)
Very Helpful 7 63.6
Somewhat Helpful 4 36.4
Not Helpful at All 0 0.0
H e in n Eli ‘bilit
Very Helpful 14 53.9
Somewhat Helpful 7 26.9
Not Helpful at All 5 19.2
Prpviging Transportation (b)
Very Helpful 10 55.6
Somewhat Helpful 4 22.2
Not Helpful at All 4 22.2
Help Applying
Very Helpful 12 46.2
Somewhat Helpful 8 30.8
Not Helpful at All 6 23.1
Providing Advocacy
Very Helpful 10 38.5
Somewhat Helpful 8 30.8
Not Helpful at All 8 30.8

a Total frequencies for this item do not sum to
of nonrecipients) because only those respondents

documents were asked the question.

b Total frequencies for this item do not sum to
of nonrecipients) because only those respondents
their own means of transportation were asked the

26 (number
without

26 (number
without
question.

86
Table 13

Recipients' Service Helpfulness Ratings

 

Service Area

Rating N %

 

Prgviding Address

Very Helpful 19 79.
Somewhat Helpful 2 8.
Not Helpful at All 3 12.

Help Obtaining Documents (a)
Very Helpful 4 80.
Somewhat Helpful 0 0.
Not Helpful at All 1 20.

Help Determining Eligibility

Very Helpful 17 70.

Somewhat Helpful 5 20.

Not Helpful at All 2 8.
Providing Transportation (b)

Very Helpful 14 73.

Somewhat Helpful 4 21.

Not Helpful at All 1 5.
Help Applying

Very Helpful 14 58.

Somewhat Helpful 7 29.

Not Helpful at All 3 12.
Providing Advocacy

Very Helpful 15 65.

Somewhat Helpful 4 17.

Not Helpful at All 4 17.

a Total frequencies for this item do not sum to
of nonrecipients) because only those respondents
documents were asked the question.

b Total frequencies for this item do not sum to
of nonrecipients) because only those respondents
their own means of transportation were asked the

U'INLAJ woq woooo OOO meow

.b

26 (number
without

26 (number
without
question.

Table 14

Service Helpfulness Ratings for Each

Reason-for—Not-Receiving—Benefits Group

 

Reason Group

Service Area

 

Rating N %
No Address
Providing Address
Very Helpful 14 87.5
Somewhat Helpful 1 6.3
Not Helpful at All 1 6.3
Help Obraining Documents (a)
Very Helpful 5 71.4
Somewhat Helpful 2 28.6
Not Helpful at All 0 0.0
Relp Determining Eligibility
Very Helpful 10 62.5
Somewhat Helpful 4 25.0
Not Helpful at All 2 12.5
Providing Transportation (b)
Very Helpful 8 66.7
Somewhat Helpful 2 16.7
Not Helpful at All 2 16.7
He A l 1
Very Helpful 7 43.8
Somewhat Helpful 6 37.5
Not Helpful at All 3 18.8
Providing Advocacy
Very Helpful 6 37.5
Somewhat Helpful 4 25.0
Not Helpful at All 6 37.5
Lack Transportation
Providing Address
Very Helpful 6 100.0
Somewhat Helpful 0 0.0
Not Helpful at All 0 0.0

88

Table 14 (cont'd.)

Help ObtainingyDocuments (a)
Very Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Help DeterminingfiEligibility
Very Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Providing Transportation (b)
Very Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Very Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Eroviding Advocagy
Very Helpful

Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Lack Necessary Documents

Eroviging Address
Very Helpful

Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Help Obtaining Documents (a)
Very Helpful

Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Help Determining Eligibility
Very Helpful

Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Providing Transportation (b)
Very Helpful

Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

0606.: ON-b I-‘I—‘ub OHH

I—‘MN

bow

OLJLA)

GHQ)

66.
l6.
16.

66.
33.

50.
50.

33.
50.
16.

83.
16.

50.
50.

50.
50.

75.
25.

Obdx)

OOO

oqw

GOO

000

44‘)

qow

O

OOO

Table 14 (cont'd.)

Help Applying
Very Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

ProvidingrAdvocacy
Very Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Denied Benefits for Reasons other Than

Np Address or Lack Documents

Broyiding Address
Very Helpful

Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

W (a)
Very Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

1 e i E b t
Very Helpful

Somewhat Helpful

Not Helpful at All

Providing Iranspprtation (b)
Very Helpful

Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

W113
Very Helpful

Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

erwa
Very Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

89

idess

NNN

HO-b OI—‘N crow OI—‘H ONO)

I-‘NN

66.7
16.7
16.7

33.3
33.3
33.3

40.0
40.0
20.0

90

Table 14 (cont'd.)

Hassle Dealing with DSSjSSA
Providing Address

Very Helpful

Somewhat Helpful

Not Helpful at All

 

Help Obtaining Documents (a)
Very Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Help Determining Eligibility
Very Helpful

Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Providing Transportation (b)
Very Helpful

Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Help Applying
Very Helpful

Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Providing Advocacy
Very Helpful

Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Financial Reasons

Providing Address
Very Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Help Obtaining Documents (a)
Very Helpful

Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Help Determining Eligibility
Very Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

rowan NUIkD 0.501 PM

(4005‘)

ONLO

bk)

uh

56.3
31.3
12.5

61.5
23.1
15.4

43.8
37.5
18.8

37.5
31.3
31.3

91

Table 14 (cont'd.)

Providing Transportation (b)
Very Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Help Applying
Very Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Providing,Advocacy
Very Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Don't Want Finangial Benefits

Erpviding Address
Very Helpful

Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Relp Obtaining Documents (a)
Very Helpful

Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Help Determining Eligibility
Very Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Providing Transportation (b)
Very Helpful

Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

He in
Very Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

Providing Advocacy
Very Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

HAG" N

LUNG

OHM OibN

I-‘NW

i-‘Nw

NNN

75.
25.

54.
36.

54.
18.
27.

33.
66.

66.

33

50.
33.
16.

50.
25.
25.

50.
33.
16.

33.
33.
33.

I—‘abUl OO

LUNUI

46.10 000 wa Chis) Odo)

WWW

92

Table 14 (cont'd.)

a Total Frequencies in these groups do not equal total
frequencies in other service area groups because only those
respondents without the documents were asked the question.

b Total frequencies in these groups do not equal total
frequencies in other service area groups because only those
respondents without their own means of transportation were
asked the question.

93
service helpfulness ratings by nonrecipients. Nonrecipients
were divided according to their Reason-for—Not-Receiving-
Benefits response groups, and service helpfulness ratings
for each Reason Group were tabulated. Some of the reasons
listed in Table 4 were combined into broader Reason Groups
on the basis of rational similarity. No Birth Certificate
and No Social Security Card were combined into Lack
Necessary Documents. Hassle to Deal with DSS and Hassle to
Deal with SSA were put into the category: Hassle Dealing
with DSS/SSA. Doesn't Provide Enough Money to Live On and
Have Other Source of Income were combined into: Financial
Reasons. The purpose of this viewing scheme is to see if
proposed services appear to address nonrecipients' reasons
for not receiving benefits.

All service areas appear to address their corresponding
reasons fairly well. A service area which seems to address
its corresponding reason very well is Providing Address.
That is, nonrecipients reporting No Address as a reason for
not receiving benefits give very high helpfulness ratings
for the service Providing Address.

Interactions with D88 and SSA

Tables 15 through 18 present nonrecipients' and
recipients' interactions with Department of Social Services
and Social Security Administration. Frequencies show how
many have been to the agencies and how many applied for
benefits there. Helpfulness ratings for caseworkers (at
DSS) and understandability ratings for applications are also

given, as well as frequencies of how many have had

94
Table 15

Nonrecipients' Interactions with DSS

 

Interaction

Response N

69

 

Been to DSS

 

Yes 18

No 8
Ever Applied at DSS

Yes 16

No 2

DSS Caseworker

Helpfulness Rating
Very Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Not Helpful at All

bomb

DSS Application
Understandability Rating
Very Easy
Easy
Difficult
Very Difficult

NQUIN

Ever Turned Down
Yes
No

oooo

If YesL,Did You Challenge
the Decision

Yes

No

\JH

If Nor Would You Challenge
the Decision

Yes

No 2

0‘

15.4
34.6
11.5

95
Table 16

Nonrecipients' Interactions with SSA

 

Interaction

Response N

a?

 

Been to SSA

 

 

Yes 3
No 23
Ever Applied at SSA
Yes 2
No l
S 1 ca on
Un dab' it Ratin
Very Easy 0
Easy 1
Difficult 1
Very Difficult 0
Ever Turned Down
Yes 2
No 0
Did You Challenge the
Decision
Yes 2
No 0

000000

Ox)

Ox]

OKDKDO

Ox)

Ox)

96
Table 17

Rpcipients' Interactions with DSS

 

Interaction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response N %
Been to DSS
Yes 23 95.8
No 1 4.2
Eyer Applied at DSS
Yes 23 95.8
No 0 0.0
RSS Caseworker
Relpfulness Rating
Very Helpful 9 37.5
Somewhat Helpful 11 45.8
Not Helpful at All 1 4.2
Missing 3 12.5
DSS Application
Understandability Rating
Very Easy 6 25.0
Easy 7 29.2
Difficult 5 20.8
Very Difficult 4 16.7
Missing 2 8.3
Ever anned Down
Yes 11 45.8
No 12 50.0
Missing 1 4.2
If Yes, Did You Challenge
the Decision
Yes 7 29.2
No 3 12.5
Missing 1 4.2
If noLpWould You Challenge
the Decision
Yes 9 37.5
No 3 12.5

97
Table 18

Recipients' Interactions with SSA

 

 

Interaction

Response

 

Been to SSA
Yes
No

Ever Applied at SSA
Yes
No

SSA Application

Understandability Rating
Very Easy

Easy

Difficult

Very Difficult
Missing

Ever Turned Down
Yes
No
Missing

I Yes Did You hallen e
the Decision

Yes

No

If No. Would You Challengp
the Decision

Yes

No

Missing

14
10

NI—‘WI—‘U‘

qu

bub-O

NNm

98
applications turned down and how many challenged the
decision.

Many more nonrecipients and recipients reported
interaction with DSS than with SSA. Recipients reported
more interaction with both DSS and SSA than nonrecipients;
that is, more recipients had been to the agencies and
applied. Caseworker helpfulness ratings and DSS application
understandability ratings also differ for the two groups.
Overall, recipients gave more favorable ratings for
caseworkers and higher understandability ratings for
applications. Another interesting figure is that while
about half each of recipients and nonrecipients report
having DSS applications turned down, recipients were much
more likely to try to challenge the decision. Twenty-nine
percent of recipients challenged the decision, while only
3.9% of nonrecipients did. These figures should be viewed
with caution, however, because of the small sample sizes in
the categories. Due to the small sample size in the
Nonrecipients' Interactions with SSA table, little
comparison with recipients can be made.

Tables 19 and 20 give nonrecipients' and recipients'
reasons for never going to DSS or SSA. This item was asked
of those respondents who reported never having been to the
agencies. For nonrecipients the most frequently reported
reason for not going to DSS was Don't Want Financial
Benefits. For both nonrecipients and recipients, the most
frequently given reason for not going to SSA was Not

Eligible.

99
Table 19

Nonrecipients' Reasons for Never Going to DSS or SSA

 

Agency

Response N %

 

SS
Don't Want Financial Benefits
Don't Have Necessary Documents
Not Sure If Eligible

Vague Responses

HIAFJm
wwwm
wxbu>m

SEA

Not Eligible

Never Heard of It

Don't Want Financial Benefits
Not Sure If Eligible

No Transportation

No Time to Apply

Never Thought to Apply

Vague Responses

to
O

PH
I—‘KO

NI—‘i—‘I—‘Nwmm
~10»)wa
\‘IKOLDKDQU'INQ

Table 20

Recipients' Reasons for Never Going to D88 or SSA

 

Agency

Response N %

 

DSS
Went to SSA Instead I 4.2

SSA

Not Eligible

Don't Need SSA Benefits
Never Heard of SSA

Have Other Income

I—‘NNU‘
.booooo
wwwoo

100
Qiscriminant Function Results

A discriminant function analysis was performed to
determine which demographic variables differentiated between
recipients and nonrecipients. The following demographic
variables were included in the analysis: sex, race, age,
grade, time in area, time homeless, employment, time
unemployed, and prior psychiatric hospitalization. Other
demographic variables were excluded from the analysis
because of too small sample sizes in the categories. Table
21 shows group means for the predictor variables for the two
criterion groups: Receipt and Nonreceipt. Table 22 displays
a summary of the results of the discriminant function
analysis. Table 23 shows how well the discriminant function
classified the cases into the correct criterion group.

The predictor variables were entered into the analysis
through the stepwise method. This method attempts to
produce the "best" set of discriminating variables by
selecting the next best discriminator at each step from
among the remaining variables. Wilks Lambda was the
criterion used to select the predictor variables for
inclusion at each step. This test considers the difference
between the group centroids and the cohesion within the
group.

An analysis using the direct entry method was also
performed. This method yielded similar results. Some
indicators were even slightly better with this method: the
function yielded a larger eigenvalue, larger Chi Square, and

smaller Wilks Lambda. This method did not reach

101
Table 21

Recipient and Nonrecipient Group Means
of Predictor Variables

 

 

Variable Groups
Receipt(1) Nonreceipt(2)

Sex 1.583 1.615
Black 1.667 1.846
White 1.625 1.308
Age 32.458 27.423
Grade Completed in School 10.083 10.808
Medium Time In Lansing_ 1.833 1.923
Long Time in Lansing 1.417 1.346
Medium-Term Homeless 1.750 1.731
Long-Term Homeless 1.750 1.731
Medium—Term Unemployment 1.792 1.654
Long-Term Unemployment 1.750 1.846
Chronic-Term Unemployment 1.667 1.962
Prior Psychiatric

Hospitalization 1.667 1.654
High School Graduate 1.542 1.539

102
significance, however (p < 0.28). Separately all variables
reached the minimum tolerance level for entry into the
function; when taken together, however, they did not reach
significance. If there were a theoretical background
suggesting which demographic variables would likely be
predictors of benefit receipt, a more appropriate analysis
employing the direct entry method could have been employed:
fewer variables could have been included in the analysis,
possibly reaching the significance level. Due to the
exploratory nature of this research area, however, this was
not seen as feasible, and the step-wise method was employed.

The maximum significance for the F to enter and for the
F to remove at each step was pre-set at the .05 significance
level. Because recipients comprised 48% of the sample and
nonrecipients comprised 52%, the population probability for
the discriminant function analysis was set at .48 to .52.

As shown in Table 22, six of the predictor variables
entered the function, resulting in a Wilks Lambda statistic
of 0.682. Wilks Lambda is the ratio of the within-groups
sum of squares to the total sum of squares. This shows that
32% of the variance between the criterion groups was
accounted for by the function. Table 22 also presents
several other indicators of the performance of the function.
An eigenvalue is the ratio of the between-groups to within-
groups sums of squares. The canonical correlation reflects
the degree of association between the discriminant scores
and the groups; it is the Pearson correlation coefficient

between the discriminant score and the group variable. Chi

103
Square tests the null hypothesis that there is no difference
between the means of the criterion groups. The discriminant
analysis transforms Wilks Lambda into a variable which has
approximately a chi square distribution, and gives the
significance level for this value.

The discriminant function coefficients presented in
Table 22 reflect the relative importance of the predictors
to differentiate between the two groups. The most important
predictor was chronic unemployment. Chronic unemployment is
defined as being unemployed from four to thirteen years. As
shown in Table 21, the chronic unemployed were more likely
to receive financial benefits. It should be noted that
chronic unemployment was moderately correlated with
completing a low grade in school (.29) and graduating from
high school (-.24). (Except where indicated, there were no
significant correlations of predictors with other
variables).

Controlling for chronic unemployment, the next most
important predictor was age. Older individuals were more
likely to receive benefits. The next three predictor
variables are of equal importance in the function, as can be
seen by their similar discriminant function coefficients.
They are long-term unemployment, white, and long-term
homelessness. Long-term unemployment is defined as being
unemployed from one to two years. The long—term unemployed
were more likely to receive benefits; whites and the long-
term homeless were less likely. Because of its high

correlation with age (—.54), the variable long-term

Table 22

Discriminant Analysis Summary Table

 

 

 

Variable Entered Wilks Significance Standardized
Lambda Canonical

Discriminant
Function
Coefficient

Chronic-Term

Unemployment .853 .006 -0.729

Age .792 .004 0.612

Long-Term

Unemployment .763 .006 -0.445

White .728 .006 0.444

Long—Term

Homeless .700 .006 0.445

Prior Psychiatric

Hospitalization .682 .009 0.296

Eigenvalue Canonical Chi—Square QR Significance

Cc_>r_rs_1_a_ti_on
.46551 .5635988 .6823564 17.199 6 .009

Group 1 Receipt

Group 2 Nonreceipt

Group Centroids

105
homelessness appears to account for little additional
variance in the function. In addition it is correlated
moderately with white (-.34), thus the variance attributed
to these two variables is overlapping.

The last predictor included in the function was prior
psychiatric hospitalization. Individuals with prior
hospitalization were slightly less likely to receive
benefits. As with the variable long—term homelessness, this
variable may account for little additional variance in the
function. Since it is moderately correlated with age
(-.24), it shares some of its variance.

Another indicator of the performance of a discriminant
function is its ability to accurately predict group
membership of the original cases. Table 23 shows that this
function achieved correct classification in 76.0% of the
cases. It performed somewhat better classifying
nonrecipients, correctly classifying 80.8% of the cases.
Almost 71% of the recipients were classified correctly.

Chi Sguare Results

Chi Square was used to examine relationships between
demographic variables and reasons given by nonrecipients for
not receiving benefits. No significant relationships were
found.

For an additional analysis, reasons for not receiving
benefits were combined into their appropriate barrier
categories (Environmental and Attitude Barriers) and
correlations with demographic variables were examined.

Again, no significant relationships were found.

106
Table 23

Capability of the Discriminant Function to Predict Receipp

 

 

 

 

 

Actual Group Membership Predicted Group Membership
1 2
Receipt (l) 17 7 24
(70.8%) (29.2%)
Nonreceipt (2) 5 21 26
(19.2%) (80.8%)
22 28

Percent of Cases Correctly Classified: 76.00%

107

These analyses were limited by the very small sample
sizes in some of the cells. This is one factor which
affected the significance of relationships; perhaps
significance could have been reached with a large sample
size. Because of the small sample sizes in some cells, the
statistics produced by the analyses have little meaning.

Analysis of Variance Results

Analysis of variance was performed to examine the
relationship between access to resources and receipt of
benefits. The first step in the analysis was to count the
number of service areas that each respondent had resources
in (both Friends/Family and Organization resources).
Individuals already possessing documents, therefore not
needing the service, were counted as having a resource in
this area. The range of possible number of resources scores
that each respondent could have was 0-6.

The next step was to perform an analysis of variance to
examine the relationship between number of resources and
receipt of benefits. Nonrecipients were found to report
access to slightly more resources (4.46) than recipients
(3.33), but this difference was not significant (0.12). [F
Ratio: 2.5434; Between Groups Mean Squares: 15.8851; Within
Groups Mean Squares: 6.2457].

By comparing Tables 6 and 7 with Tables 8 and 9, which
present access to and utilization of resources respectively,
one can see that reporting having access to resources has
little relationship with actually utilizing them. While

nonrecipients report access to more resources than

108

recipients, recipients report utilizing more resources than
nonrecipients. Recipients were found to report using
resources in more service areas (2.25) than nonrecipients
(1.23). Therefore, having access to resources is a poor
indicator of resource utilization. Because of this, even if
the analysis discussed above would have demonstrated a
significant relationship between number of resources and
receipt of benefits, the results would have little meaning.

A more appropriate analysis would be to examine the
relationship between utilization of resources and receipt of
benefits. However, due to the very small sample sizes in
these categories, an analysis was not feasible.

These results are further discussed in the following

chapter.

DISCUSSION

Introductipn

This study examined the use of the welfare system by
the homeless and obtained helpfulness ratings on proposed
services. Recipients and nonrecipients were compared on
demographic variables and access to resources, in order to
find factors which influence welfare receipt. In the
following sections, highlights of the results and how they
relate to the homelessness literature are presented. In
addition, implications for services and for future research
are discussed.

Demographic Characteristics

Overall the demographic description of this sample
corresponds to that given in the literature. The young age
of the sample is in agreement with Bachrach's (1984) finding
that the average age of the homeless is lowering. The
present sample, with its average age of 28.6, is even
somewhat younger than those in other studies, which had
averages ranging from 34 to 35.3 years (Crystal et al.,
1982; Roth et al., 1985; Solarz & Mowbray, 1985a; 1985b).

While the majority of the sample were men, a large
proportion (40%) were women. This corresponds to Stoner's
(1983) finding that the proportion of women among the

homeless is increasing. This percentage is similar to the

109

110
figure (33%) found by Solarz and Mowbray (1985a; 1985b), but
higher than the Roth et al. (1985) figure of 19% women.

This sample's majority of whites is in correspondence
with the Roth et al. (1985) sample, but not with the Crystal
et al. (1982) sample, which had a majority of Blacks. This
sample also corresponds to others on the basis of Education
(Roth et al.; Crystal et al.), Employment Status, Time
Homeless, Event Causing Homelessness (Roth et al.), and
Prior Psychiatric Hospitalization (Roth et al; Solarz and
Mowbray, 1985a; 1985b). The finding that only 24% of the
sample reported prior psychiatric hospitalization is in
contradiction to those authors who claim a majority of
homeless are mentally ill (e.g., Bassuk, 1984; Krauthammer,
1985).

Receipt of Financial Benefits

A basic research question of this study was How many in
the sample received financial benefits? This sample had a
large minority of recipients of financial benefits (48.0%).
Other studies' percentages of recipients have been even
lower, ranging from 18% to 44% (Bassuk, 1984; Crystal et
al., 1982; Fisher et al., 1986; Kroll et al., 1986; Laufer,
1981; McGerigle & Lauriat, 1983; Robertson & Cousineau,
1986; Roth et al., 1985). This sample's percentage of
recipients corresponded closest to those in the Kroll et a1.
and the Roth et al. studies.

Reasons for Not Receivinnginancial Benefits

Another research question was What reasons did

nonrecipients give for not receiving benefits? The four

111
most frequent responses to the open—ended question "Why do
you not receive financial benefits?" were: No Address, Not
Eligible, Have Job, and Don't Want (15.4% each). These
responses are similar to answers obtained by Crystal et al.
(1982) to the same question.
Respondents were also asked a series of close—ended

questions addressing possible reasons for not receiving

benefits. The item that was given most frequently as a
reason was No Address (61.5%). The second most frequent was
Hassle to Deal with DSS (57.7%). Because respondents could

give more than one reason, the close-ended technique yielded
higher percentages in reason categories and perhaps gave a
more accurate description of reasons for not receiving
benefits. For example, 61.5% of respondents reported No
Address as a reason to the close-ended question, while only
15.4% gave it as a reason to the open-ended question. The
use of only the open-ended question could imply the
incorrect conclusion that having no address is a problem for
only a small minority of homeless, while in fact, when asked
the question directly, a majority may give it as a reason.
Reasons for not receiving benefits were divided into
the following barrier categories: Environmental Barriers
(including reasons: No Address, No Birth Certificate, No
Social Security Card, and Denied Benefits for Reasons Other
than No Address or Lack Documents), Attitude Toward Welfare
System (Hassle to Deal with DSS and Hassle to Deal with
SSA), Attitude Toward Financial Need (Doesn't Provide Enough

Money to Live on and Have Other Source of Income), and

112
Attitude Toward Welfare Receipt (Don't Want). Environmental
and Attitude Toward Welfare System Barriers were given most
frequently, with a majority of respondents reporting them as

re sons. Attitude Toward Financial Need and Attitude Toward

DJ

Welfare Receipt were given much less frequently, with only
about one—quarter citing them as reasons. It appears,
therefore, that environmental (or structural) constraints
and respondent's attitudes toward the welfare system
bureaucracy are the most common deterrents to receipt of
financial benefits.

These findings are in correspondence with other
researchers who found environmental barriers, such as no
address and lack documents, to be deterrents (Baxter &
Hopper, 1982; Roth et al., 1985; Solarz et al., 1986;
Stoner, 1983), and those who found attitudes toward welfare
bureaucracy to be deterrents (Baxter & Hopper; Gummer, 1979;
Roth et al.; Solarz et al.).

Access to Resources

A third research question of this study was How many
had access to services to help them obtain benefits?
Respondents in this sample were found to have little
knowledge of resources, either Friends/Family or
Organizational, which could help them obtain financial
benefits. This finding correponds to others in the
literature. Other researchers have found that the homeless
lack social resources (Bassuk et al., 1984; Fisher et al.,
1986; Kroll et al., 1986; Mowbray et al., 1986; Roth et al.,

1985; Solarz et al., 1986) and organizational resources

113
(Bassuk et al.).

An important area for consideration is whether the
number of resources to which a homeless person has access is
related to receipt of financial benefits. A goal of this
study was to examine this relationship. Knowledge of
resources was found not to be a factor. In fact, overall,
recipients reported knowledge of fewer resources than
nonrecipients, but this difference was not significant.

An important finding of the study, however, was that
knowledge of resources was not related to utilization of
resources. Few individuals reporting knowledge of resources
had actually utilized the resources. Overall, recipients of
benefits were found to utilize more resources than
nonrecipients. This suggests a possible relationship
between resource utilization and receipt of benefits. An
analysis to test the significance of this relationship was
not feasible in this study, however, because of the small
sample sizes in the utilization categories.

Reasons for not utilizing resources were also obtained
in this study. The most frequent reason given by
nonrecipients for not using Friends/Family resources was:
Don't Want Financial Benefits. The two most frequent given
for not using Organization resources were: Just Recently
Needed Service/Just Found out about Service and Don't Want
Financial Benefits. The most frequent reason given by
recipients for both resource areas was: Didn't Need the
Service/ Didn't Want the Service. Because of the small

sample sizes in these categories, generalizations cannot be

114

made. Among nonrecipients in this sample, however, reasons
for not using resources appear to be a matter of not wanting
benefits for some a.d having only recent exposure to the
services for others. Among recipients, responses seem to
reflect lack of need for the resources. Most reasons convey
that they had the ability to get benefits by themselves.

Service Helpfulness Ratings

Segal and Baumohl (1985) suggested that five services
be provided to the homeless to help them obtain financial
benefits: providing address, help determining eligibility,
help obtaining documents, help applying, and providing
advocacy. In addition, Solarz et al. (1986) implied that
providing transportation would be a useful service. A
research question of this study was How helpful did
respondents think proposed services in the six areas would
be? All service areas received favorable ratings. Service
areas which received the highest ratings from both
recipients and nonrecipients were: Providing Address and
Help Obtaining Documents.

Service helpfulness ratings were broken down according
to the Reasonufor-Not-Receiving-Benefits response groups in
order to see how well each proposed service addresses
nonrecipients' reasons for not receiving benefits. Overall,
services appear to address corrsponding reasons very well.
The service area Providing Address seems to address its
corrsponding reason exceptionally well. Nonrecipients
reporting No Address as a reason for not receiving benefits

give very favorable ratings to the service of Providing

115
Address.

An additional point to note from this comparison of
helpfulness ratings to Reason groups is that respondents who
gave reasons indicating they do not want benefits (i.e.,
Reason groups: Don't Want and Financial Reasons) still gave
favorable ratings to the six service areas. This indicates
that individuals saying they do not want financial benefits
perhaps would be willing to use the services.

Interactions with DSS and SSA

There were three research questions concerning
interaction with D88 and SSA: How many had been to the
agencies? How helpful did respondents think caseworkers
were and how understandable were applications? How many had
been denied benefits and how many challenged the decision?
Results show that the Department of Social Services was
utilized much more than the Social Security Administration.
This was an expected finding, since SSA only grants benefits
to the physically and mentally disabled. In addition
recipients reported more interaction with both DSS and SSA
than nonrecipients.

Overall both recipients and nonrecipients gave
favorable ratings for DSS caseworkers. Recipients, however,
gave them somewhat more favorable ratings. Recipients also
gave higher understandability ratings for DSS applications.
The more favorable ratings for caseworkers and applications
by recipients may imply that recipients have more aptitude
in dealing with the system or could merely reflect better

attitudes toward the system due to success with it.

116

The most interesting finding may be the fact that more
recipients reported challenging denial decisions than
nonrecipients. Twenty~nine percent of the recipients
challenged the decision, while only 3.9% of nonrecipients
did. (Sample sizes in these categories are small, however,
so the figures must be interpreted with caution). These
figures support Tripi's (1974) and Gummer's (1979) comments
that assertiveness leads to more success in the welfare
system.

Among the few nonrecipients who had never been to DSS,
the most frequent reason for not going was Don't Want
Financial Benefits. For both recipients and nonrecipients,
the most frequent reason for not going to SSA was Not
Eligible. This may be an accurate perception by
respondents, since, as noted above, SSA only grants benefits
for extreme physical and mental disabilities.

Demographic Differences
Between Recipients and Nonrecipients

A research question of this study was Was there a
relationship between demographic variables and receipt of
benefits? A discriminant function analysis helped
demonstrate how recipients and nonrecipients differ
according to demographic variables. The variables found to
be predictors were:

1) Chronic Unemployment-— The chronically unemployed
were more likely to receive financial benefits.

2) Age—— Older individuals were more likely to receive

benefits.

117

3) Long—term Unemployment-— The long-term unemployed
were more likely to receive benefits.

4) White~~ Wtites were less likely to receive benefits.

5) Long—term homeless~~ The long~term homeless were
less likely to receive benefits.

6) Prior Psychiatric Hospitalization-- Individuals with
prior psychiatric hospitalization were less likely to
receive benefits.

The first four variables were the most important in the
function, accounting for 27% of the variance. The remaining
variables, Long-term Homelessness and Prior Psychiatric
Hospitalization, were both correlated with Age, and Long-
term Homelessness was also correlated with White. Because
of these correlations, these two variables accounted for
little additional variance in the function. With all six
predictor variables included, the function accounts for 32%
of the variance between criterion groups.

The profile of a benefit recipient which emerged from
the sample, therefore, was a nonwhite individual in his or
her early thirties, who is either long~term or chronically
unemployed. Note, however, that Chronic Unemployment was
moderately correlated with completing a low grade in school;
therefore Chronic Unemployment shares some of its variance
with this variable.

Since the homeless population is a very hetereogeneous
group, categorizing them according to certain
characteristics may aid in the study of the problem.

Dividing them according to benefit receipt is one such

118
scheme. It is possible that the process of becoming
homeless may be differenc for these two groups. For
example, benefit recipients were found in his sample to be
chronic and long—term unemployed. For recipients,
therefore, poverty may not be a new problem. As a group,
they have been unemployed for many years. This suggests
that they may have been living on benefits for a long time
with housing, and that the shortage of low—cost housing was
the predominant factor causing their homelessness.

Nonrecipients, on the other hand, tended to be
unemployed for shorter periods of time. It is possible that
poverty is a newer experience for them; they may have been
able to support themselves financially in the past. It is
possible that unemployment in combination with the housing
shortage were the predominant factors causing their
homelessness.

These distinctions between recipients and nonrecipients
suggest that the process of becoming homeless may have been
different for the two groups, and that their current needs
may also be different. For example, recipients may be less
employable than nonrecipients. In fact, chronic
unemployment was correlated with having completed lower
grades in schools, lending support to this possibility. If
this is true, recipients may require a different type or a
more intensive employment training program than
nonrecipients. Related to this, it could also imply that
recipients may need a longer-term financial benefit program

to support them while learning employable skills and

119
searching for employment, while nonrecipients may only need
a short-term benefit program to support them during their
employment training and search.

It should be noted that while there may be certain
distinctions between the employment abilities and needs of
recipients and nonrecipients, unemployment is a fundamental
problem for all of the homeless as a group (Cuomo, 1983;
Hope & Young, 1984; Hougham, 1985). It would be difficult
to decipher different causes of and solutions to
unemployment for the two groups. Both groups have
employment problems; recipients have just tended to be
unemployed longer. The changing economy, discussed in the
introduction, is probably a factor causing unemployment for
both groups. The economy has been undergoing a massive
transformation from an industrial to an informational
structure (Feingold, 1984; Hawkin, 1983; Kuttner, 1983;
Lissner, 1985; Naisbitt, 1982). An effect of this
transformation has been the displacement of industrial
workers. Relocation of these workers into more high—
technology positions is unlikely, since the new positions
usually require highly trained professionals (Feingold,
1984; Kuttner, 1983). This economic transformation, as well
as the trend toward moving production to developing
countries (Cohen, 1979), has changed and continues to change
employment opportunities for Americans.

To summarize, unemployment seems to be a fundamental
problem for most of the homeless. Interventions providing

employment training or job creation are needed to meet the

120
needs of the unemployable. When designing interventions for
the homeless, it would be ideal, when possible, to try to
address specific needs of different groups within the
homeless. Dividing the homeless according to benefit
receipt status offers one way of classifying them into more
conceptually manageable groups. Such classification may be
helpful in addressing the specific needs of different groups
more effectively.

It should be noted that the particular profile of
benefit recipients found in this study should be interpreted
with caution. The discriminant analysis served to identify
variables which predicted benefit receipt most accurately
for this sample. Because of the small sample size used in
this research and given the heterogeneity of the homeless,
these findings cannot necessarily be generalized to the
homeless population.

The small sample size and other methodological
limitations of this study are discussed further in the
following section.

Methodological Limitations

This research was limited by two methodological
factors. Perhaps most important was the small sample size
obtained. Results of studies with small sample sizes should
always be viewed with caution, and generalizations to the
population based on a single such study should not be made.

A second limitation was the narrow definition of
homelessness used in the research. The sample was composed

only of homeless shelter— or agency— users. Homeless people

121
not having contact with these organizations, therefore, were
excluded from the study. Also excluded were those
individuals who had been staying with a friend or relative
for three weeks or longer or in a hotel (paid for by
themselves, friends, or relatives) for three weeks or
longer. This limitation also limits generalizability to the
entire homeless population.
Implications for Future Research

Results from the study suggest several implications for
future research areas. One area is the relationship between
resource utilization and receipt of financial benefits.
This was a goal of the research, but due to the small sample
size, analyses to determine significance of the relationship
were not feasible. Since small proportions of the homeless
have been found to have access to resources, a very large
sample size would be needed in order to obtain adequate
sample sizes in resource utilization categories. Effects of
resource utilization in areas besides welfare receipt are
also important research topics. Some interesting areas
would be the relationship of resource utilization and
success finding housing or success finding employment.
Studies such as these would demonstrate how useful existing
resources are, and perhaps indicate how agencies could
better serve their homeless clients, or even indicate that
there is a lack of needed services.

Another research area that results from this study
suggest is an in—depth examination of interactions of the

homeless with the welfare system. While conclusions cannot

122
be made due to the small sample sizes involved, benefit

this scudy to challenge denial

(1.1
*4
1‘1

recipients were foun

(I:
(1!
"l

decisions more than nonrecipients. In a 'tion, other
authors have stated that assertiveness in the welfare system
leads to success with it (Gummer, 1979; Tripi, 1974). The
role of assertiveness, as well as other factors, in
obtaining benefits would be an interesting and useful area
of study.

A third research area which results imply involves
implementing interventions to examine the effectiveness of
the six service areas studied. The proposed service areas
received favorable ratings from respondents, but their
actual effectiveness in helping the homeless obtain benefits
is uncertain. Results from such an intervention would be
very useful in determining which service areas are actually
useful.

Recommendations for Services

Results from the study lead to several recommendations
for shelters and agencies serving the homeless. The first
suggestion is that homeless organizations offer services in
the six service areas: Providing Address, Help Obtaining
Documents, Providing Transportation, Help Determining
Eligibility, Help Applying, and Providing Advocacy. All
these proposed services areas were given favorable ratings
by the homeless.

A second recommendation is that organizations better
advertise the services they do offer. Four of the five

organizations used as research sites in the study offered at

123
least some of the six services, yet the majority of
respondents were not aware of them. There are various
methods of communicating service availability, for example,
posting signs or creating pamphlets with the information, or
conducting "orientations" for newcomers to the
organizations. (It should be noted that some of the
research sites already use these techniques).

The third recommendation is related to the second. It
is suggested that agencies have more direct personal
involvement with clients. For example, advocates could be
assigned to clients to assess their needs (in housing,
employment, financial benefits, etc.), and then coordinate
appropriate services to address those needs. (Again, it
should be noted that some of the research sites already have
such a system). There are, of course, practical constraints
to this recommendation: many homeless agencies may not have
the number of personnel or resources to offer such intense
involvement.

An Environmental Resources Approach to Homelessness

The above recommendations are part of an Environmental
Resources approach to helping the homeless. As discussed in
Chapter 2, an Environmental Resources approach offers an
alternative to dealing with "problem" behavior. It
appreciates cultural diversity, and therefore does not
attempt to adjust deviant groups to the norm. And while the
approach recognizes that environmental deprivation is often
a cause of deviance, it does not exclusively try to change

the system. Rather it attempts to change the relationships

124
between individuals and the system in order to maximize
person—environment fit (Davidson & Rappaport, 1978; Pearlman
& Edwards, 1982; Rappaport, 1977). Advocacy is a means of
maximizing the fit. Advocacy interventions work to fill the
unmet needs of disadvantaged groups in society (Davidson &
Rapp, 1976; Pearlman & Edwards, 1982).

There is much potential for advocacy interventions with
the homeless. The homeless have various unmet needs
including housing, employment, financial benefits, and
health services. As demonstrated in this study and in
others (Bassuk et al., 1984; Fisher et al., 1986; Kroll et
al., 1986; Mowbray et al., 1986; Roth et al., 1985; Solarz
et al., 1986), the homeless lack resources to help them fill
these needs. There is a great need for research to
determine effectiveness of advocacy in the various areas of
unmet needs.

A useful advocacy model for such research is outlined
by Davidson and Rapp (1976). Their model involves three
components: Primary Assessment, Strategy Selection, and
Implementation. Primary Assessment includes assessing a
client's unmet needs, determining what resources are needed
to fill the needs, determining who is in control of the
resources, and determining how to best influence the
individuals controlling resources. Strategy Selection
involves determining which type of strategy would be most
effective in obtaining the desired resource. Possible
strategies vary along a continuum ranging from positive to

neutral to adversarial. These strategies describe the

125
position taken by the advocate when approaching the person

controlling the resource. Strategies also vary according to

( T‘

he advocate intervenes, ranging from

the level at which
individual to administrative to policy level. The
individual level involves trying to secure a resource for a
particular individual, while interventions at the other
levels could potentially secure resources for large numbers
of the homeless. The last component, Implementation,
involves implementing the strategy and monitoring its
effectiveness in obtaining the resource.

This advocacy model was designed to provide intensive
advocacy for clients, with much personal contact between
advocate and client. The purpose is not to provide advocacy
services indefinitely for clients, but only for a limited
time period. The ultimate goal of the model is not only to
secure resources for individuals, but also to teach
techniques of self-advocacy. In this way, clients are given
the opportunity to have more control over their own lives,
instead of making them dependent on the service.

It is clear that the intensive advocacy that this model
provides requires the use of many workers. Obviously there
are not enough trained professionals to fill the positions.
The use of paraprofessionals has been suggested as a means
of providing workers for such projects (Albee, 1968;
Davidson and Rappaport, 1978; Rappaport, 1977). Indeed
there is evidence that paraprofessionals may be more
effective than trained professionals, especially when they

are similar in social status and life experiences to the

target group (Poser, 196a; Rappaport, Chinsky, and Cowen,

1971; Seigel, 1973, cited in Davidson and Rappaport, 1978).

Another consideration of usin the adv«cacy model is

u)

whether the model is appropriate for all of the homeless.
It is possible that the model would be more effective for
certain subgroups of the population. People already
possessing some basic advocacy skills may benefit more than
those without the skills. Determining for which subgroups
the model is most effective would be an important component
of research in this area.

Research on advocacy interventions is an important area
of study. The longitudinal data that such research would
provide would add a great deal to the homelessness
literature. Such data would demonstrate changes in the
homeless over time, which could help researchers better
understand the process of homelessness. More importantly,
research employing an experimental design could determine
what interventions actually are effective in helping the
homeless.

It is important to note that while advocacy services
this model could provide are potentially beneficial to the
homeless, they are not seen as a sole solution to
homelessness. Rather they are supplementary interventions
which probably can only work on a large scale if they are
used in conjunction with other interventions. To actually
progress toward a solution to homelessness, interventions
which change current economic and political policies are

needed. Such interventions will require funding from

127
federal, state, and local governments. Perhaps the most
needed intervention area is the development of lowvcost
housing. Other needed intervention areas include
availability of employment (through employment training, job
placement, job creation, etc.) and income assistance
programs (reforming the welfare system to meet the needs of
the homeless). If these structural changes are not made,
advocacy interventions are extremely limited. They may work
for a minority of the homeless, but will certainly not have

a great impact on the homelessness problem.

FOOTNOTES

’"J
O
O
*5
:3.
O
(— 3
[i J
U)

1 Although Gummer (1979) does not specifically state that
he is discussing DSS bureaucracy, his use of the term
"social worker" seems to imply this. As can be seen from
the discussion, however, his comments seem to be also

applicable to DDS bureaucracy.

2 As with Gummer (1979), Oliver and Lukens' (1979) use of
the term "social worker' seems to imply that they are
discussing DSS bureaucracy. Unlike Gummer's article,
however, their discussion appears to be limited to DSS,
since they are discussing a phenonmenon that occurs when

there is communication between worker and applicant.

3 "Doesn't provide enough money to live on," in one sense,
could be seen as an Environmental Barrier, since the amount
of money provided is determined by the welfare system.
However, since the person is deciding not to receive
financial benefits based on this fact, it is categorized as

a Perceptual Barrier.

4 The sections in the interview asking about access to

resources in the service areas of help with obtaining

128

129
documents and providing transportation were not given to all
respondents. The section on obtaining necessary documents
began by asking whether the respondent already had the
documents. Only those people who did not have the documents
were asked about their access to resources in this area.
The section on providing transportation began by asking
whether the respondent had his or her own means of
transportation to DSS or SSA. Only those people who did not
have their own transportation were asked about their access

to resources in this area.

5 Respondents who reported having documents necessary for
application and having transportation to DSS or SSA were not

asked to rate services in the corresponding areas.

APPENDIX

130

INTERVIEW
Code #(if do interview):

Name (if do not interview):

ASK OF ALL PARTICIPANTS: "Do you have an application

pending at DSS or SSA-- that is, have you applied for

financial benefits, but haven't yet heard from them whether

you were accepted into the program? yes no (If yes,

terminate the interview)

ASK PARTICIPANTS AT HARVEST HOUSE AND DAYTIME RESOURCE

CENTER: Where did you spend the night last night?

1. At own place: (DO NOT INTERVIEW)
2. At shelter: (DO INTERVIEW)
3. On street (or abandoned building, car, bus
station, etc.): (DO INTERVIEW)
4. With friend or relative: (GO TO Q 5)
5. Can you stay there or do you consider it only
temporary? stay (DO NOT INTERVIEW)
temporary (GO TO 0 6)
6. How long have you been living with this person?
> 3 weeks (DO NOT INTERVIEW)
< 3 weeks (DO INTERVIEW)
7. At motel/hotel: (GO TO Q 8)
8. Who paid for your room?

self (GO TO Q 9)
friend, relative (GO TO Q 9)

agency/organization (e.g., DSS,

I31
shelter, Red Cross) (DO INTERVIEW)
9. Can you continue to stay there or do you
consider it only temporary? stay (DO NOT INTERVIEW)
temporary (GO TO Q 10)
10. How long have you been staying there?
> 3 weeks (DO NOT INTERVIEW)

< 3 weeks (DO INTERVIEW)

INTERVIEW
Date:
Time Begun:
Time Ended:
Shelter:

Code #:

DEMOGRAPHICS/BACKGROUND "What is your first and last
name and middle initial?" (Write this information down on
master list beside the appropriate code number).

TURN ON TAPE RECORDER (Do not ask first question)

1. Sex F M
2. What race do you consider yourself to be? BL W
INDIAN HISP OTHER (specify: )

3. What is your date of birth?

4. What was the last grade you completed in school?

5. How long have you lived in the Lansing area?

6. What event or events occurred in your life which caused

you to lose your home?

132
7. How long have you been without a place to stay?
IF LESS THAN 1 YEAR, GO TO Q 8
IF 1 YEAR OR MORE, GO TO Q 9
8. Were there times in the past year, before this time, when
you were without a place to stay? yes no
9. As of today, do you have a job? yes (Go to Q 10)
no (Go to Q 11)
10. How long have you had this job?
11. How long have you been without a job?
12. Have you ever been hospitalized for mental or emotional
problems? yes (Go to Q 13)
no (Go to Q 14)
13. How long ago did you leave the hospital?
14. Have you ever been hospitalized for alcohol or drug
treatments? yes (Go to Q 15)
no (Go to Next Section)

15. How long ago did you leave the hospital?

RECEIPT OF FINANCIAL BENEFITS

"The next set of questions concerns whether you receive
financial benefits from the government. What I mean by
'financial benefits' are programs such as GA, ADC, Social
Security, Supplemental Security Income, Social Security
Disability Insurance, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Rent
Supplements. I'm going to be using the term 'financial
benefits' in a lot of the following questions. "I'll also
be using the term DSS. DSS stands for the Department of

Social Services. This is where you go to apply for GA, ADC,

133
Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Rent Supplements. "I'll also
be using the term SSA. SSA stands for the Social Security
Administration. This is where you go to apply for Social
Security, Supplemental Security Income, and Social Security
Disability Insurance. "Here is a card with this
information on it. Please read the card and tell me if you
have any questions about it." (When respondent looks up
from reading card, continue. If respondent has any
questions, answer them). "Please refer back to the card,
when necessary, to answer the following questions. And feel
free to ask me any questions about it as we go through
these."
16. Do you receive any financial benefits from the
government? yes (Go to page 21)

no (Go to Q 17)

17. Why do you not receive any financial benefits?

(DO NOT READ RESPONSES WHICH DUPLICATE RESPONSES GIVEN
ABOVE, BUT ONLY IF IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT IT WAS THE SAME
RESPONSE).
18. Is not having an address a reason for you not receiving
financial benefits? yes no
19. Do you have your own means of transportation to DSS or
SSA besides walking? ("Bus" is recorded as no)

yes (Go to Q 21)

no (Go to Q 20)

134
(RECORD ON SUPPLEMENTAL FORM)
20. Is this a reason for you not receiving financial
benefits? yes no
21. A birth certificate is required when applying at DSS and
SSA. Do you have a birth certificate? yes (Go to Q 23)
no (Go to Q 22)
(RECORD ON SUPPLEMENTAL FORM)
22. Is this a reason for you not receiving financial
benefits? yes no
23.A Social Security card is required when applying at DSS.
Do you have a Social Security card? yes (Go to Q 25)
no (Go to Q 24)

(RECORD ON SUPPLEMENTAL FORM)
24. Is this a reason for you not receiving financial
benefits? yes no
25. Have you ever applied at DSS or SSA and were turned down
for reasons other than not having an address or not having
necessary documents? yes (Go to Q 26)

no (Go to Q 27)
26. Is this a reason for you not receiving financial
benefits? yes no
27. Have you ever been to DSS? yes no
(RECORD ON SUPPLEMENTAL FORM)
28. Do you think it is (would be) a hassle to deal with DSS?

yes (G0 to Q 29)
no (Go to Q 30)

29. Is this a reason for you not receiving financial

benefits? yes no

135
30. Have you ever been to SSA? yes no
(RECORD ON SUPPLEMENTAL FORM)
31. Do you think it is (would be) a hassle to deal with SSA?
yes (Go to Q 32)
no (Go to Q 33)

32. Is this a reason for you not receiving financial
benefits? yes no
33. Do you have another source of income?

yes (Go to Q 34)

no (Go to Q 35)
34. Is this a reason for you not receiving financial
benefits? yes no
35. Do you think that financial benefits would provide
enough money for you to live on?

yes (Go to Q 37)

no (Go to Q 36)
36. Is this a reason for you not receiving financial
benefits? yes no
37. Do you want financial benefits? yes (Go to Q 39)

no (Go to Q 38)

38. Is this a reason for you not receiving financial
benefits? yes no
39. If you had an address to get financial benefits checks
sent to (and had documents necessary for applicaton), do you
think that you would be eligible for any benefits?

yes no don't know

136

AVAILABILITY OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES
40. Do you have any friends or family members who would let
you use their place as an address to get financial benefit
checks sent to? yes (Go to Q 41)

no (Go to Q 44)
41. Have you ever put down their address on an application
for financial benefits as an address for you to receive your
checks? yes (Go to Q 42)

no (Go to Q 43)
42. Did this result in getting you finacial benefits?

yes no (Go to Q 44)

43. Why haven't you put down their address?

44. Do you know of any organizations, such as shelters,
churches, or agencies, that would let you use their place as
an address to get financial benefit checks sent to?

yes (Go to Q 45)

no (Go to Q 49)

45. What are these organizations?

(PROMPT: Do you know of any others?)

46. Have you ever put down their address on a financial
benefit application as an address for you to receive your
checks? yes (Go to Q 47)

no (Go to Q 48)
47. Did this result in getting you financial benefits?

yes no (Go to Q 49)

137

48. Why haven't you put down their address?

49. How helpful do you think that having an address to get
benefit checks sent to (is or would be) in getting you
financial benefits? (READ RESPONSES)

very helpful

somewhat helpful

not helpful at all

If yes to both Q 21 and 23 (Supplemental Form), Go to Q 62.
If no to either, Go to Q 50.
50. You said earlier that you do not have a (birth
certificate or Social Security card). Do you have any
friends or family members who would help you get this
(these) document(s)? yes (Go to Q 51)
no (Go to Q 55)
51. Have you ever had them help you get this (these)
document(s)? yes (Go to Q 52)
no (Go to Q 54)
52. Were they successful in helping you get the document(s)?
yes (Go to Q 53)
no (Go to Q 55)
53. Did their help result in getting you financial
benefits? yes no (Go to Q 55)

54. Why haven't you had them help you?

138
55. Do you know of any organizations, such as shelters,

churches, or agencies, that would help you get this (these)

documents? yes (Go to Q 56)
no (Go to Q 61)

56. What are these organizations?

(PROMPT: Do you know of any others?)

57. Have you ever had someone from this (these)
organization(s) help you get these documents?
yes (Go to Q 58)
no (Go to Q 60)

58. Were they successful in helping you get the
document(s)? yes (Go to Q 59)

no (Go to Q 61)
59. Did their help result in getting you financial benefits?

yes no (Go to Q 61)

60. Why haven't you had them help you?

61. How helpful do you think that aid in obtaining this
(these) document(s) (is or would be) in getting you
financial benefits? (READ RESPONSES)

very helpful

somewhat helpful

not helpful at all

139

62. Do you have any friends or family members who would help
you determine what financial benefits you are eligible for?

yes (Go to Q 63)

no (Go to Q 67)
63. Have you ever had them help you determine what you are
eligible for? yes (Go to Q 64)

no (Go to Q 66)
64. Were they successful in helping you determine what you
are eligible for? yes (Go to Q 65)

no (Go to Q 67)

65. Did their help result in getting you financial
benefits? yes no (Go to Q 67)

66. Why haven't you had them help you?

67. Besides DSS and SSA, do you know of any organizations,
such as shelters, churches, or agencies, that would help you
determine what benefits you are eligible for?

yes (Go to Q 68)

no (Go to Q 73)

68. What are these organizations?

(PROMPT: Do you know of any others?)

140
69. Have you ever had someone from this (these)

organization(s) help you determine what you're eligible for?
yes (Go to Q 70)

no (Go to Q 72)

70. Were they successful in helping you determine what you
are eligible for? yes (Go to Q 71)
no (Go to Q 73)

71. Did their help result in getting you financial
benefits? yes no (Go to Q 73)

72. Why haven't you had them help you?

73. How helpful do you think that this kind of information
on eligibility (is or would be) in getting you financial
benefits? (READ RESPONSES)

very helpful

somewhat helpful

not helpful at all

IF YES TO Q 19 (SUPPLEMENTAL FORM), GO TO Q 84. IF NO, GO TO
Q 74.
74. Do you have any friends or family members who would
provide transportation for you to DSS or SSA?

yes (Go to Q 75)

no (Go to Q 78)
75. Have you ever gotten transportation to D88 or SSA from
them? yes (Go to Q 76)

no (Go to Q 77)

141
76. Did this transportation result in helping you get
financial benefits? yes no (Go to Q 78)

77. Why haven't you gotten transportation from them?

78. Do you know of any organizations, such as shelters,
churches, or agencies, that would provide transportation for
you to DSS or SSA? yes (Go to Q 79)

no (Go to Q 83)

79. What are these organizations?

(PROMPT: Do you know of any others?)

80. Have you ever gotten transportation to DSS or SSA from
them? yes (Go to Q 81)

no (Go to Q 82)
81. Did this transportation result in helping you get
financial benefits? yes no (Go to Q 83)

82. Why haven't you gotten transportation from them?

83. How helpful do you think that transportation to DSS or
SSA (is or would be) in getting you financial benefits?
(READ RESPONSES)

very helpful

somewhat helpful

not helpful at all

142
84. Do you have any friends or family members who would go
with you to DSS or SSA to help you apply for financial
benefits? yes (Go to Q 85)
no (Go to Q 89)

85. Have you ever had them go with you to DSS or SSA to
help you apply? yes (Go to Q 86)

no (Go to Q 88)
86. Were they successful in helping you apply?

yes (Go to Q 87)

no (Go to Q 89)
87. Did their help result in getting you financial
benefits? yes no (Go to Q 89)

88. Why haven't you had them go with you?

89. Do you know of any organizations, such as shelters,
churches, or agencies, that would have someone go with you
to DSS or SSA to help you apply for financial benefits?
yes (Go to Q 90)
no (Go to Q 95)

90. What are these organizations?

(PROMPT: "Do you know of any others?")

91. Have you ever had someone from this (these)
organization(s) go with you to D88 or SSA to help you apply?
yes (Go to Q 92)

no (Go to Q 94)

143
92. Were they successful in helping you apply?
yes (Go to Q 93)
no (Go to Q 95)
93. Did their help result in getting you financial
benefits? yes no (Go to Q 95)

94. Why haven't you had someone go with you?

95. How helpful do you think having someone help you apply
(is or would be) in getting you financial benefits? (READ
RESPONSES)

very helpful

somewhat helpful

not helpful at all

"When people apply at DSS, caseworkers determine whether
they are eligible for financial benefits. When people apply
at SSA, representatives at an agency called DDS determine
whether they are eligible. DDS stands for Disability
Determination Services. "Here is a card with this
information on it. Please read the card and tell me if you
have any questions about it." (When respondent looks up
from reading card, continue. If respondent has any
questions, answer them). "Please refer back to the card,
when needed, to answer the following questions. And feel
free to ask me any questions about it as we go through

these."

144
96. Do you have any friends or family members who would go
with you to DSS to help you convince the caseworker that
you deserve financial benefits or go with you to DDS to help

you convince the representative that you deserve financial

benefits? yes (Go to Q 97)

no (Go to Q 101)
97. Have you ever had them go with you to help you convince
the caseworker or representative? yes (Go to Q 98)

no (Go to Q 100)
98. Were they successful in helping you convince the
caseworker or representative? yes (Go to Q 99)
no (Go to Q 101)
99. Did their help result in getting you financial
benefits? yes no (Go to Q 101)

100. Why haven't you had them go with you?

101. Do you know of any organizations, such as shelters,
churches, or agencies, that would have someone go with you
to DSS to help you convince the caseworker that you deserve
financial benefits or go with you to DDS to help you

convince the representative that you deserve financial

benefits? yes (Go to Q 102)
no (Go to Q 107)
102. What are these organizations?

(PROMPT: "Do you know of any others?")

145
103. Have you ever had someone from this (these)
organization(s) go with you to help you convince the
caseworker or representative? yes (Go to Q 104)
no (Go to Q 106)
104. Were they successful in helping you convince the

caseworker? yes (Go to Q 105)

no (Go to Q 107)
105. Did their help result in getting you financial
benefits? yes no (Go to Q 107)

106. Why haven't you had someone go with you?

107. How helpful do you think having someone help you
convince the caseworker or representative (is or would be)
in getting you financial benefits? (READ RESPONSES)

very helpful

somewhat helpful

not helpful at all

INTERACTIONS WITH DSS "The next set of questions concerns
your experiences with DSS."
IF YES TO Q 27 (SUPPLEMENTAL FORM), GO TO Q 109. IF NO, GO

TO Q 108.

108. You said earlier that you have not been to DSS. Why

haven't you been to DSS? (Go to Next Section)

109. Have you ever applied for a financial benefit program

146

at DSS? yes (Go to Q 110)
no (Go to Next Section)
110. In general, how helpful do you think caseworkers at

DSS are at getting you benefits you are eligible for? (READ
RESPONSES)

very helpful

somewhat helpful

not helpful at all

111. How easy or difficult for you to understand are the

applications for financial benefits at DSS? (READ

RESPONSES)

very easy

easy

difficult

very difficult
112. Has a caseworker ever turned you down when you applied
for a financial benefit program? yes (Go to Q 113)

no (Go to Q 114)
113. Did you try to get the decision changed by talking to
his or her supervisor? yes no (Go to Next Section)
114. If a caseworker would ever turn you down, do you think
that you would try to get the decision changed by talking to

his or her supervisor? yes no

INTERACTIONS WITH SSA "The next set of questions concerns

your experiences with SSA."

147
IF YES TO Q 30 (SUPPLEMENTAL FORM), GO TO Q 116. IF NO, GO

TO Q 115.

115. You said earlier that you have not been to SSA. Why
haven't you been to SSA?

(Terminate interview)

116. Have you ever applied for a financial benefit program
at SSA? yes (Go to 117)
no (Terminate interview)

117. How easy or difficult to understand are the
applications for financial benefits at SSA? (READ
RESPONSES)

very easy

easy

difficult

very difficult

118. Have you ever been turned down for a financial benefit
program that you applied for at SSA?

yes (Go to Q 119)

no (Go to Q 120)
119. Did you try to get the decision changed by talking to
someone at SSA or DDS? yes no
(Terminate interview)
120. If you ever would be turned down for a financial
benefit program that you applied for at SSA, do you think

you would try to get the decision changed by talking to

someone at SSA or DDS?

(Terminate interview)

148

yes

no

149
RECEIPT OF FINANCIAL BENEFITS (CONTINUED FROM PAGE 5)
Which of the following financial benefits do you currently

receive? (Read each separately, wait for response).

121. GA? yes no
122. ADC? yes no
123. Social Security? yes no
124. 881? yes no
125. Medicaid? yes no
126. SSDI? yes no
127. Food Stamps? yes no
128. Rent Supplements? yes no

AVAILABILITY OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES
129. Before you were receiving financial benefits, did you
have any friends or family members who would have let you
use their place as an address to get financial benefits
checks sent to? yes (Go to Q 130)

no (Go to Q 133)
130. Did you ever put down their address on an application
for financial benefits as an address for you to receive your
checks? yes (Go to Q 131)

no (Go to Q 132)
131. Did this result in getting you financial benefits?

yes no (Go to Q 133)

132. Why did you not put down their address?

150
133. Before you were receiving financial benefits, did you
know of any organizations besides D88 or SSA, such as
shelters, churches, or agencies, that would have let you use
their place as an address to get financial benefit checks
sent to? yes (Go to Q 134)
no (Go to Q 138)

134. What are these organizations?

(PROMPT: "Did you know of any others?")

135. Did you ever put down their address on an application
for financial benefits as an address for you to receive your
checks? yes (Go to Q 136)
no (Go to Q 137)
136. Did this result in getting you financial benefits?
yes no (Go to Q 138)

137. Why did you not put down their address?

138. If you were not receiving financial benefits and did
not have an address, how helpful do you think that having an
address to get benefit checks sent to would be in getting
you financial benefits? (READ RESPONSES)

very helpful

somewhat helpful

not helpful at all

151
A birth certificate and a Social Security card are required
when applying for financial benefits at DSS. A birth

certificate is required when applying at SSA.

139. Did you have a Social Security card when you first went
to apply for financial benefits? yes no

140. Did you have a Birth Certificate when you first went to
apply for financial benefits? yes no

(IF NO TO EITHER OF THE 2 RESPONSES, GO TO Q 141)

(IF YES TO BOTH RESPONSES, GO TO Q 153)

141. Did you have any friends or family members who would
have helped you get these documents? yes (Go to Q 142)
no (Go to Q 146)
142. Did you ever have them help you get these documents?
yes (Go to Q 143)
no (Go to Q 145)
143. Were they successful in helping you get these
documents? yes (Go to Q 144)
no (Go to Q 146)
144. Was their help a factor in getting you financial
benefits? yes no (Go to Q 146)

145. Why did you not have them help you?

146. Did you know of any organizations, such as shelters,
churches, or agencies, that would have helped you get these
documents? yes (Go to Q 147)

no (Go to Q 152)

152

147. What are these organizations?

(PROMPT: Did you know of any others?)

148. Did you ever have someone from this (these)
organization(s) help you get these documents?

yes (Go to Q 149)

no (Go to Q 151)
149. Were they successful in helping you get these
documents? yes (Go to Q 150)

no (Go to Q 152)

150. Was their help a factor in getting you financial
benefits? yes no (Go to Q 152)

151. Why did you not have them help you?

152. If you were not receiving financial benefits and did
not have a birth certificate and Social Security card, how
helpful do you think that aid in obtaining these documents
would be in getting you financial benefits? (READ
RESPONSES)

very helpful

somewhat helpful

not helpful at all

153
153. Before you were receiving financial benefits, did you
have any friends or family members who would have helped you

determine what financial benefits you are eligible for?

yes (Go to Q 154)
no (Go to Q 158)
154. Did you ever have them help you determine what you are
eligible for? yes (Go to Q 155)
no (Go to Q 157)

155. Were they successful in helping you determine what you
are eligible for? yes (Go to Q 156)

no (Go to Q 158)
156. Was their help a factor in getting you financial
benefits? yes no (Go to Q 158)

157. Why did you not have them help you?

158. Before you were receiving financial benefits, did you
know of any organizations besides DSS or SSA, such as
shelters, churches, or agencies, that would have helped you

determine what benefits you are eligible for?

yes (Go to Q 159)
no (Go to Q 164)
159. What are these organizations?

(PROMPT: Did you know of any others?)

154
160. Did you ever have someone from this (these)
organization(s) help you determine what you're eligible for?
yes (Go to Q 161)
no (Go to Q 163)
161. Were they successful in helping you determine what you
are eligible for? yes (Go to Q 162)
no (Go to Q 164)
162. Was their help a factor in getting you financial
benefits? yes no (Go to Q 164)

163. Why did you not have them help you?

164. If you were not receiving financial benefits, how
helpful do you think that this kind of information on
eligibility would be in getting you financial benefits?
(READ RESPONSES)

very helpful

somewhat helpful

not helpful at all

165. Before you were receiving financial benefits, did you
have your own means of transportation to DSS or SSA?
yes (Go to Q 176)
no (Go to Q 166)
166. Did you have any friends or family members who would
provide transportation for you to DSS or SSA?
yes (Go to Q 167)

no (Go to Q 170)

155
167. Did you ever get transportation to DSS or SSA from
them? yes (Go to Q 168)
no (Go to Q 169)
168. Was this transportation a factor in helping you get
financial benefits? yes no (Go to Q 170)

169. Why did you not get transportation from them?

170. Before you were receiving financial benefits, did you
know of any organizations, such as shelters, churches, or
agencies, that would provide transportation for you to DSS
or SSA? yes (Go to Q 171)

no (Go to Q 175)

171. What are these organizations?

(PROMPT: Do you know of any others?)

172. Did you ever get transportation to DSS or SSA from
them? yes (Go to Q 173)

no (Go to Q 174)
173. Was this transportation a factor in helping you get
financial benefits? yes no (Go to Q 175)

174. Why did you not get transportation from them?

156
175. If you were not receiving financial benefits, how
helpful do you think that transportation to DSS or SSA would
be in getting you financial benefits? (READ RESPONSES)
very helpful
somewhat helpful

not helpful at all

176. Before you were receiving financial benefits, did you
have any friends or family members who would have gone with
you to DSS or SSA to help you apply for financial benefits?

yes (Go to Q 177)

no (Go to Q 181)
177. Did you ever have them go with you to DSS or SSA to
help you apply? yes (Go to Q 178)

no (Go to Q 180)
178. Were they successful in helping you apply?
yes (Go to Q 179)
no (Go to Q 181)

179. Was their help a factor in getting you financial
benefits? yes no (Go to Q 181)

180. Why did you not have them go with you?

181. Before you were receiving financial benefits, did you
know of any organizations, such as shelters, churches, or
agencies, that would have had have someone go with you to
DSS or SSA to help you apply for financial benefits?

yes (Go to Q 182)

no (Go to Q 187)

157

182. What are these organizations?

(PROMPT: Did you know of any others?)

183. Did you ever have someone from this (these)
organization(s) go with you to DSS or SSA to help you apply?
yes (Go to Q 184)
no (Go to Q 186)
184. Were they successful in helping you apply?
yes (Go to Q 185)
no (Go to Q 187)
185. Was their help a factor in getting you financial
benefits? yes no (Go to Q 187)

186. Why did you not have someone go with you?

187. If you were not receiving financial benefits, how
helpful do you think having someone help you apply would be
in getting you financial benefits? (READ RESPONSES)

very helpful

somewhat helpful

not helpful at all
"When people apply at DSS, caseworkers determine whether
they are eligible for financial benefits. When people apply
at SSA, representatives at an agency called DDS determine
whether they are eligible. DDS stands for Disability
Determination Services. "Here is a card with this

information on it. Please read the card and tell me if you

158
have any questions about it." (When respondent looks up
from reading card, continue. If respondent has any
questions, answer them). "Please refer back to the card, as
needed, to answer the following questions. And feel free to
ask me any questions about it as we go through these."
188. Before you were receiving financial benefits, did you
have any friends or family members who would have gone with
you to DSS to help you convince the caseworker that you
deserve financial benefits or gone to DDS with you to help
you convince the representative that you deserve financial
benefits? yes (Go to Q 189)
no (Go to Q 193)
189. Did you ever have them go with you to help you
convince the caseworker or representative?
yes (Go to Q 190)
no (Go to Q 192)

190. Were they successful in helping you convince the
caseworker or representative? yes (Go to Q 191)

no (Go to Q 193)
191. Was their help a factor in getting you financial
benefits? yes no (Go to Q 193)

192. Why did you not have them go with you?

193. Before you were receiving financial benefits, did you

know of any organizations, such as shelters, churches, or

159
agencies, that would have had someone go with you to DSS to
help you convince the caseworker that you deserve benefits
or go to DDS with you to help you convince the

representative that you deserve financial benefits?

yes (Go to Q 194)
no (Go to Q 199)
194. What are these organizations?

(PROMPT: Did you know of any others?)

195. Did you ever have someone from this (these)
organization(s) go with you to help you convince the
caseworker or representative? yes (Go to Q 196)

no (Go to Q 198)
196. Were they successful in helping you convince the
caseworker or representative? yes (Go to Q 197)

no (Go to Q 199)

197. Was their help a factor in getting you financial
benefits? yes no (Go to Q 199)

198. Why did you not have someone go with you?

199. If you were not receiving financial benefits, how

helpful do you think having someone help you convince the

160
caseworker or representative would be in getting you
financial benefits? (READ RESPONSES)
very helpful
somewhat helpful

not helpful at all

INTERACTIONS WITH DSS "The next set of questions concerns

your experiences with DSS." 200. Have you ever been to DSS?
yes (Go to Q 202)
no (Go to Q 201)

201. Why haven't you been to DSS?

(Go to Next Section)

202. Have you ever applied for a financial benefit program
there? yes (Go to Q 203)

no (Go to Next Section)
203. In general, how helpful do you Lhink caseworkers at
DSS are at getting you benefits you are eligible for? (READ
RESPONSES)

very helpful

somewhat helpful

not helpful at all

204. How easy or difficult for you to understand are the

applications for financial benefits at DSS? (READ

161

RESPONSES)

very easy

easy

difficult

very difficult
205. Has a caseworker ever turned you down when you applied
for a financial benefit program? yes (Go to Q 206)

no (Go to Q 207)
206. Did you try to get the decision changed by talking to

his or her supervisor? yes no (Go to Next Section)

207. If a caseworker would ever turn you down, do you think

that you would try to get the decision changed by talking to

his or her supervisor? yes no

INTERACTIONS WITH SSA "The next set of questions concerns

your experiences with SSA."

208. Have you ever been to SSA? yes (Go to Q 210)
no (Go to Q 209)

209. Why haven't you been to SSA?

(Terminate interview)

210. Have you ever applied for a financial benefit program
there? yes (Go to 211)
no (Terminate interview)

211. How easy or difficult to understand are the
applications for financial benefits at SSA? (READ

RESPONSES)

162

very easy
easy
difficult

very difficult

212. Have you ever been turned down for a financial benefit
program that you applied for at SSA?

yes (Go to Q 213)

no (Go to Q 214)
213. Did you try to get the decision changed by talking to
someone at SSA or DDS? yes no

(Terminate interview)

214. If you ever would be turned down for a financial
benefit program that you applied for at SSA, do you think
you would try to get the decision changed by talking to
someone at SSA or DDS? yes no

(Terminate interview)

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Albee, G. (1968). Conceptual models and manpower

requirements in psychology. American Psychology, 2;, 317—
320.

Archard, P. (1979). Vagrancy- a literature review. In Cook,
T. (Ed.), Vaqrancv: Some new perspectives (pp. 11-28).
London: Academic Press.

Bachrach. L. (1984). The homeless mentally ill and mental
health services: An analytical review of the literature.

In R. Lamb (Ed.), The homeless mentally 111 (pp. 11-53).
Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Bassuk, E. (1984). The homelessness problem. Sgientific
Amerigan, 251(1), 40-45.

Bassuk, E. & Lauriat, A. (1984). The politics of

homelessness. In R. Lamb (Ed.), om es me 11 ill
(pp. 301-313) Washington DC: American Psychiatric
Association.

Bassuk, E. Rubin, L. & Lauriat, A. (1984). Is homelessness a
mental health problem? American Journal of P5 chiatr ,
141, 1546-1550.

Baxter, E. & Hopper, K. (1982). The new mendicancy: Homeless

in New York City. American Journal 9f Ortnopsychiatry,

Baxter, E. & Hopper, K. (1984). Shelter and housing for the
homeless mentally ill. In R. Lamb (Ed.), The homeless

mentally ill (pp. 109-139). Washington DC: American
Psychiatric Association.

Beresford, P. (1979). The public presentation of vagrancy.

In Cook, T. (Ed.), Vagrancy: Some new perspectives (pp.
141-165). London: Academic Press.

Cohen, C. & Sokolovsky, J. (1983). Toward a concept of
homelessness among aged men. Journal of Gerontology,
l§(1), 81-89.

164

Cohen, R. (1979). The new international division of labor,
multinational corporations and urban hierarchy.
Urbanization and Urban Planning in Capitalist Society,
287-312.

Conason, J. (1985, December 3). How the Reagan
administration hides the homeless. ypice, pp. 25—30.

Crystal, 3., Goldstein, M., & Levitt, R. (1982, May).
Chronic and situational dependency: Long—term residenpa
in a shelter for men. New York: Human Resources
Administration, Office of Family and Adult Services.

Cuomo, M. (1983, August 2). 1933(1983-Never again: A report
:9 the National Governor's Association Task Force on the
Hpmelesa. Submitted by Mario Cuomo, Governor of the
State of New York. .

Davidson, W. & Rapp, C. (1976). Child advocacy in the
Juvenile Justice System. Sogial Work, 21(3), 225-233.

Davidson, W. & Rappaport, J. (1978). Advocacy and community

psychology. In Weber and McCall (Eds.), Sogial scientiapa
as advocate: (pp. 85-89). Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.

Doolin, J. (1985, March/April). America's untouchables: The
elderly homeless. Pe s ective n A in , 8-11.

Feingold, S. (1984, February). Emerging careers: Occupations
for post-industrial society. The Futurist, pp. 9-16.

Fisher, P., Shapiro, S., Breakey, W., Anthony, J., & Kramer,
M. (1986). Mental health and social characteristics of
the homeless: A survey of mission users. American Jpnrnal
of Pnblic Health, 16(5), 519-524.

Fustero, S. (1984, February). Home on the street. Psychology
Today, pp. 56-63.

Gamson, W. (1968). Power and disgontent. Homewood, IL:
Dorsey Press

Gans, H. (1972). The positive functions of poverty. American
Jonrnal pf Sociolo , 18(2), 275-289.

Gummer, B. (1979). On helping and helplessness: The
structure of discretion in the American Welfare System.

Social Service Review, 51(2), 214-228.

Hartman, C., Keating, D., & LeGates, R. (1982).
Displacement: How to fight it. Berkeley, CA: National
Housing Law Project.

165

Hawken, P. (1983). The next economy. New York: Ballantine
Books.

Hombs, M. & Snyder, M. (1982). Hpmelessness in America: A
forced=march to nowhere. Washington DC: The Community for
Creative Non-Violence.

Hope, M. & Young, J. (1984). The politics of displacement:
Sinking into homelessness. Commonweal, 111, 368-371.

Hopper, K. (1983). Homelessness: Reducing the distance. New
England Journal of Human Services, Fall, 30—47.

Horn, C. (1981, November). Testimpnylon shelter and support
services for the homeless population. Paper presented
before The Assembly Committees on Mental Health, Social
Services and Housing, Albany, NY.

Hougham, A. (1985, August). onar
homelessness. Paper presented at the Society for the
Study of Social Problems.

Human Resources Division, United States Accounting Office.
(1985).Home1essness: A complex problem and the federal
response. e er 1 o c n c a d

Sociology, 11(4), 385-389.

Kaufman, R. & English, F. (1979). Needs assessment: Qonpept
and appllgarion. New Jersey: Educational Technology
Publications.

Krauthammer, C. (1985, December 2). When liberty really
means neglect. Time, p.103.

 

Kroll, J., Carey, K., Hagedorn, D., Fire Dog, P. &
Benavides, E. (1986). A survey of homeless adults in

urban emergency shelters. Hospital and Community
Psychiatry, ;1(3), 283-286.

Kuttner, B. (1983, July). The declining middle. The Atlantic
Monthl , pp. 60-72.

Laufer, W. (1981). The vocational interests of homeless,
unemployed men. Journal of Vocational Behavior. l8,
196-201.

Lissner, W. (1985). Homelessness and poverty in affluent

America. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology,
11(4), 389-390.

Macarov, D. (1978). The design of social welfare. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

166

McGarrahan, E. (1985, December 3). The federal failure.
Voice, p. 27.

McGerigle, P. & Lauriat, A. (1983). More than shelter: A
community response to homelessness. Boston: United
Community Planning Corporation and Massachusetts
Association for Mental Health.

Mowbray, C., Solarz, A., Johnson, V., Phillips—Smith, E., &
Combs, C. (1986). Mental health and homelessness in
Detroit: A research study. Lansing, MI: Michigan
Department of Mental Health.

Naisbitt, J. (1982). Meqatrends: Ten new directions
transforming our lives. Warner Books.

NBC News. (1986, February 3).

Oliver, J. & Lukens, G. (1979). Ethnocentrism and
communicative distances: Barriers to effective
interracial interaction within clinical settings.

Journal of Social Welfare, 6(1), 5—11.

Pearlman, M. & Edwards, M. (1982). Enabling in the eighties:

The client advocacy group. The Journal of gonremporary
Spclal Wprh, November, 532-539.

Poser, E. (1966). The effects of therapist training on group

therapeutic outcome. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
19(4), 283-289.

Putney, S. (1972). The conquest of society. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.

Rappaport, J. (1977). Community_psycholoqy: Valuesr
researgh, and action. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.

Rappaport, J., Chinsky, J. & Cowen, E. (1971). Innovations
in helping chronic patients: College students in a mental
institution. New York: Academic Press.

Robertson, M. & Cousineau, M. (1986). Health status and
access to health services among the urban homeless.
American Journal of Public Health, l§(5), 561-563.

Roth, D., Bean, J., Lust, N., & Saveanu, T. (1985,
February). Homelessness in Ohio: A study of people in
need. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Mental Health.

Ryan, W. (1976). Blaming the victim. New York: Vintage
Press.

167

Segal, S. & Baumohl, J. (1985). The community living room.
Social Casework, 66, 111-116.

 

Segal, S. & Specht, H. (1983). Poorhouse in California,
1983: Oddity or prelude? Social Work, 15, 319-323.

Seigel, J. (1973). Mental health volunteers as change
agents. American Journal of Community Psychology, A, 138—
158.

Sexton, P. (1983). The life of the homeless. Dissent, 55(1),
79-84.

Solarz, A. & Mowbray, C. (1985a). An examination of physical

and mental health problems of the homeless: Implications
for policy. Paper presented at the meeting of the

Evaluation Research Society, Toronto.

Solarz, A. & Mowbray, C. (1985b). An examination of physloal
and mental health problems of the homeless. Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Public Health

Association, Washington, D.C.

Solarz, A., Mowbray, C., & Dupuis, S. (1986). Life in
transit: Homelessness in Michigan: A report to the
Governor's Human Services Cabinet. Lansing, MI: Task
Force on the Homeless.

 

Stern, M. (1984). The emergence of the homeless as a public
problem. Social Service Review, 55(2), 291-301.

Stoner, M (1983). The plight of homeless women. Social
Sorvioe Rovlaw, 51(4), 565-581.

Talbott, J. (1984). Forward. In Lamb, R. (Ed.), The homeless

mentally 111 (pp. xiii-xv). Washington DC: American
Psychiatric Assosciation.

Tripi, F. (1974). The inevitability of client alienation: A
counter argument. Sociological Quarterly, 15(3), 432-441.

Urban redeve10pment now a tenant issue. (1985, July).
Shelterforce, p.3.

Warwick, D. & Lininger, C. (1975). The sample survey: Theory
and practice. New York: McGraw Hill.

Wolch, J. (1981). Spatial consequences of social policy: The
role of service facility location in urban development
patterns. In R. Rich (Ed.), Causes and effects of
inequality in urban services. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.