Abstract
Homelessness is a widespread social justice issue in the United States, and it is estimated that between 80 and 90 percent of individuals experiencing homelessness are unemployed; the inability to find and keep employment is a factor in why many individuals continue to cycle in and out of homelessness. This study proposes to examine whether the receipt of employment services impacts whether individuals cycle back into homelessness (rate of recidivism). This study will use a quasi-experimental design to analyze homeless families who receive employment services through the agency ForKids in Norfolk, Virginia from January 2018 through January 2019. A convenience sample will be used which will include all families who elect to receive employment services from ForKids during this time period, as these services are not mandatory. This data will be combined with ForKids’ data from the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) that tracks whether each family has re-entered into homelessness. The percentage of families that receive employment services and cycle back into homelessness will then be compared to the percentage of families that do not receive employment services and cycle back into homelessness. It is hypothesized families who receive employment services will have lower rates of recidivism than families who do not receive these services. The researchers hope that this study can inform agencies’ policies regarding the provision and design of employment services to homeless clients.
Introduction
The issue of homelessness is pervasive in United States, including in the Western Tidewater and Hampton Roads areas in the state of Virginia. Many factors contribute to homelessness, including eviction, mental and/or physical health problems, relationship issues, and loss of employment. According to Poremski, Whitley, and Latimer (2014), unemployment among homeless people is estimated to be 80–90%. High levels of unemployment among homeless people, who may also have mental illnesses, can be attributed to the complex relationship between mental illness, employment, and housing status. Employment services have the potential to improve quality of life and reduce the risk of further shelter use for individuals experiencing homelessness. As professional social workers, it is our responsibility to put services in place for this population in order to empower them to exit the cycle of homelessness.
The purpose of this research proposal is to determine whether the receipt of employment services affects whether families cycle back into homelessness (the rate of recidivism). Specifically, researchers will collect data from a non-profit organization, called ForKids, to explore how employment services can help their client population exit the cycle of homelessness. ForKids provides a full spectrum service model that simultaneously identifies the compound root causes of each family’s homelessness and works to improve mental health, education, employment and personal obstacles. ForKids’ goal is consistent with the social work model, which aims to empower families to become self-reliant.
Literature review
Background and definition of the problem
Homelessness is, and has been, a pervasive problem in the United States for hundreds of years; records of empirical studies on the nation’s homeless population date back to the nineteenth century (Piliavin, Entner Wright, Mare, & Westerfelt, 1996). In order to determine what it means for individuals to experience recurring homelessness, one must have a concrete definition of what it means to be homeless, as recurring homelessness means that an individual or family has experienced homelessness more than once. Today, the official definition of homelessness comes from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Community Planning and Development. Individuals must meet this definition in order to be considered eligible for HUD-funded assistance programs. Currently, this definition includes four categories of homelessness: literally homeless, imminent risk of homelessness, homeless under other Federal statutes, and fleeing/attempting to flee domestic violence (Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d.).
To be considered literally homeless, an individual or family must “lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence” (Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d.). This includes locations not meant for human occupation, shelters that provide impermanent living arrangements, and those leaving institutions where they lived for less than 90 days after inhabiting a shelter or location not meant for human habitation (Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d.).
Those who are in the second category, imminent risk of homelessness, will lose their primary residence based on three criteria: the residence will be gone within 14 days of when they apply for assistance, they do not have any successive housing, and the individual or family lacks the necessary resources to attain permanent living arrangements (Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d.).
Those who are homeless under other Federal statutes are unaccompanied youth younger than 25 years of age or families with children who: meet the definition of homelessness based on other federal statutes, have had no legal occupancy agreement with a long term residence in the 60 days prior to their application for homelessness aid, have moved two or more times in the past 60 days, and can reasonably be expected to remain unstable for a prolonged period of time (Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d.).
Finally, to be considered fleeing/attempting to flee domestic violence, an individual or family must be fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, have no other residence, and does not have the resources to find new, permanent occupancy (Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d.).
Despite the fact that the Department of Housing and Urban Development provides an official definition of homelessness, the criteria for what it means to be homeless vary from study to study, making it difficult to compare the results; it is unclear why all researchers do not use the definition established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, but it is possible that researchers are using definitions of homelessness created by individual agencies instead. For example, in a study on 331 homeless individuals living in Minneapolis between 1985 and 1986 performed by Piliavin, Sosin, Westerfelt, and Matsueda (1993), an individual qualified as homeless if they met only one of the following criteria: lived for free in an agency-sponsored shelter for at least one day, lived in “unconventional accommodations” (p. 583) for at least one day, had no permanent place of housing and lived with a friend or relative with the intention of staying less than two weeks, or lived in a lodging facility for less than seven days while rent was paid by a social service agency (p. 583). This is merely one example of the way definitions and conceptualizations of homelessness differ between agencies and studies. It is also important to note that the exact meaning of recurring homelessness can vary slightly from study to study as well, but it typically refers to an individual or family who has experienced homelessness more than once within the time period of the study.
Prevalence of the problem
According to Cowan, Breakey, and Fischer (1988), “counting the homeless population is extremely difficult because of the lack of a clear definition of homelessness, the mobility of the population, and the cyclical nature of homelessness for many individuals” (p. 1). However, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development provides yearly estimates of the scope and magnitude of the homelessness epidemic in the United States, as well as how many of those experiencing homelessness do so more than once (chronically). Many studies have also been performed on the recurring nature of homelessness to estimate what percentage of homeless individuals cycle back into homelessness after receiving assistance. All of these estimates vary in their results regarding the true scope of this problem, indicating the need for standardized operationalized definitions of homelessness and consistent measurement systems for future studies.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development found that on a given night in 2017, 553,742 individuals were experiencing homelessness. Rates of homelessness increased for the first time in seven years, but the number of families with children experiencing homelessness lessened by five percent between 2016 and 2017 (Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2017). Family homelessness was recognized as a problem in the 1980s and has persisted; over one-third of those experiencing homelessness are members of families with children (Glendening & Shinn, 2017, p. 1). According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (2017), the number of veterans experiencing homelessness in 2017 increased by two percent from 2016. Finally, it was reported that one-quarter of all individuals experiencing homelessness in 2017 displayed patterns of chronic homelessness, which was 12 percent more than in 2016 (Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2017).
A longitudinal study of first-time homeless single adults performed by Caton et al. (2005) displayed similar results regarding rates of chronic homelessness. This study was based on 445 homeless men and women in New York City who were interviewed at their time of recruitment, six months, twelve months, and eighteen months subsequently. One out of five, or 20%, of these individuals were unable to maintain stable housing situations over the eighteen months, and exhibited patterns of recurring homelessness (Caton et al., 2005, pp. 1754 – 1757).
Other studies, however, have found different rates of chronic homelessness, which is most likely due to variations in where the samples came from, the types of services the homeless individuals in the studies received, and the year in which the study was performed. Research performed by Culhane et al. (2007) found that only 10% of single adults who were housed in shelters experienced more than one episode of homelessness. Yet, a 1997 study on families experiencing homelessness who received housing services in non-institutional settings for over 30 days discovered that 33% of women with children experienced recurring homelessness, along with 68% of men without children, and 56% of women without children (Wong & Piliavin, 1997).
Several studies have been performed on the rates of discontinuous housing and recurring homelessness for individuals and families living in permanent supportive housing (PSH), which includes long-term subsidized housing and support services. This research has found that 23% of individuals in Housing First projects, and approximately 33% of veterans in supportive housing, experience returns to homelessness within two years of receiving PSH services (O’Connell, Kasprow, & Rosenheck, 2008).
Problem etiology
The growth in homelessness over the last three decades has been intensified by “economic downturns, loss of affordable housing and foreclosures, stagnating wages, an inadequate safety net, and the closing of state psychiatric institutions” (Toros & Flaming, 2018). The needs of chronically homeless individuals that are essential for their well-being go unmet, including connections to housing, income, family, and health (Toros & Flaming, 2018). The stress of these unmet needs often leads to the development of anxiety due to the lack of structure in individuals’ lives. As time goes on, individuals who experience chronic homelessness develop complicated and expensive needs, “including serious health and mental health conditions and disabilities that result in cycling in and out of hospitals, jails, prisons, psychiatric hospitals, and homeless shelters” (Toros & Flaming, 2018). This leads to our current issues at hand, the cycle of homelessness and recidivism within the shelter system. Many studies have been conducted that have examined what causes this cycle and what are the risk factors that can lead to this. Authors Metraux and Culhane (1999) propose that there are two frameworks to understand the dynamics in which the formerly homeless households return to homelessness: “an individual deficit framework that places responsibility on individual-level characteristics (e.g., mental health and substance use conditions) and an institutional framework that posits that homelessness is an issue of access to resources from formal and informal supports (e.g., public benefits)”. There are many potential risk factors that can lead to chronic homelessness and lead to recidivism within the shelter system. First are potential biological factors. One study aimed to look at the prefrontal cortical function in chronically homeless adults and found that they performed worse on all tests than controls (Davidson, Chrosniak, Wanschura, & Flinn, 2014). Their results suggest a relationship between chronic homelessness and possible pre-frontal deficits. Authors suggest that “this may explain why some long-term homeless fail to learn from the consequences of unproductive behavior and to develop more constructive behaviors needed to attain stability” (Davidson, Chrosniak, Wanschura, & Flinn, 2014). One study suggests that individual characteristics associated with a return to homelessness from independent housing include older age, living alone, especially for women, versus in a family household; black race or Hispanic ethnicity for family households; medical, behavioral health, and substance use conditions; and prior repeated homeless episodes (Metraux & Culhane, 1999). However, they suggest that having a recent history of employment decreased the risk (Metraux & Culhane, 1999). Kuhn and Culhane (1998) found when applying cluster analysis that chronically homeless individuals represent 10% of the shelter users and tend to be non-Caucasian, are older in age, and have higher prevalence of mental health issues, substance use, and medical issues. Toros and Flaming (2018) also report similar findings stating that the majority of chronically homeless individuals have a serious mental illness, and they also experience high rates of substance use disorders, physical disability, or chronic disease. Researches also note that “in addition to serious disability, the lives of chronically homeless people are compromised by persistent unemployment and lack of earned income forcing dependence on public assistance for sustenance, healthcare, and, if fortunate, an eventual exit from homelessness” (Toros and Flaming, 2018). A qualitative study also echoes these risk factors reporting many individuals are living with concurrent physical and mental health problems (e.g. deep vein thrombosis (DVT); epilepsy, anxiety, autism, bi-polar and dyslexia) (Massie, Machin, McCormack, & Kurth, 2018). All participants discussed their substance use, and sometimes misuse, and there were instances in how this could trigger hallucinations, paranoia, and anger. Many of the participants also discussed having spent time in and out of the jail system and that they experienced homelessness upon being released from jail and would prefer jail in the colder months (Massie, Machin, McCormack, & Kurth, 2018). In another study, data was gathered from subjects over a ten year span of time (December 1989–December 1998) to determine who are the homeless population in Hawaii, what factors if any, homeless adults have in common that contributes to their cycle of homelessness, and what can be done to break the cycle of homelessness in Hawaii (Mulford, 2004). The measures included the Janus Job Planner (JJP), the Needs Assessment Inventory (NAI), and the Comprehensive Abilities Battery (CAB). Their results showed subjects scored below CAB percentiles on subscales involving memory, inductive reasoning, and math skills; indicating these cognitive skill areas as those in greatest need of remedial attention. Half or more of all subjects stated on the NAI they were having the most trouble with transportation, having enough to eat, and having clean, adequate clothing. Additionally, over half of the homeless subjects listed psychological, emotional, physical, or learning disabilities on the NAI or other intake forms (Mulford, 2004). There are often barriers to services that prevent individuals from getting or staying connected to services. For starters, participants reported in their interviews not knowing how, or not being able to, access the support that may be available and that “developing a joined-up approach to services, with a clear pathway to access support, was important” (Massie, Machin, McCormack, & Kurth, 2018). Other barriers included the lack of support for help to complete necessary paperwork (Massie, Machin, McCormack, & Kurth, 2018). Participants emphasized the importance of improvements in pathways to health services to aid in support and medication. They also noted how keeping track of days was hard a challenge. Other barriers reported were access to housing due to past history, having animals, and substance use (Massie, Machin, McCormack, & Kurth, 2018). It was also identified that there was a need for work, and that was a key element in improving one’s personal situation (Massie, Machin, McCormack, & Kurth, 2018). A qualitative study conducted by O’Shell (2004) suggests that a combination of factors plays a role in someone becoming and cycling in and out of homelessness. They suggest the macro level factors (such as lack of affordable house, limited employment opportunities, and economic constraints) in combination with personal issues (such as mental illness, addiction, or abuse history) can lead to a life pattern of homelessness (O’Shell, 2004). Solutions to the problem To address potential solutions to the problem of chronic cycling in and out of homelessness, both macro and micro factors must be considered in developing policy, planning programs, and assisting individuals out of homelessness (O’Shell, 2004). Researchers note that given the “significant health and social costs associated with homelessness”, that the current challenge is to improve the pathways to support available and to provide the appropriate services to individuals who have complex needs (Massie, Machin, McCormack, & Kurth, 2018). Results from the author suggest that providers “target the transitionally homeless with preventive and resettlement assistance, the episodically homeless with transitional housing and residential treatment, and the chronically homeless with supported housing and long-term care programs” (Kuhn & Culhane, 1998). In 2002, the White House Interagency Council announced a new strategy to help combat chronic homelessness which included more collaboration between federal agencies and provided $35 million in permanent housing and critical care services to long-term homeless individuals (Morgan, 2002). In Memphis, they have begun their program the Blueprint to Break the Cycle of Homelessness and Prevent Future Homelessness (Morgan, 2002). Researchers report that The Blueprint includes: strategies to fill other critical service and housing gaps for service-resistant, mentally ill, and/or chemically addicted, chronically homeless individuals, such as targeted, intensive outreach, a specialized emergency shelter, and a "safe haven" facility” (Morgan, 2002). It also includes strategies to fill gaps in services and housing for families with children, as well as strategies for improving access to "mainstream" programs that are a part of the traditional continuum of care planning. (Morgan, 2002). Morgan (2002) reports the following programs have also been put into place: “A number of LHAs and community development agencies in other areas of the country are creatively developing permanent supportive housing for hard-to-serve, highly vulnerable homeless people with disabilities. The Boston Housing Authority used HUD's Section 8 Single Room Occupancy Moderate Rehabilitation, a Continuum of Care program, to provide more than 450 units of permanent supportive housing. Alameda County, in the San Francisco Bay area, worked with the Base Closure Initiative to secure 239 permanent supportive housing units on a decommissioned Navy base. Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio, developed 800 units of permanent supportive housing through financial resources from city, county, and state housing funds; CDBG; The United Way; foundation and other private donations; and an alcohol, drug, and mental health agency. The housing was designed for chronically homeless men with substance abuse, mental health, and other disabilities who made up the local "street homeless" or long-term shelter use population. All these initiatives are described in the Urban Institute's study for PD&R.” These programs will help address barriers to services. The federal response to homelessness shifted in 2009 from uncoordinated short-term responses to avert homelessness (i.e., primarily using shelters) to long-term housing solutions. Permanent housing subsidies have since been shown to significantly increase housing stability, food security, and child well-being (Toros and Flaming, 2018). The first component of the federal strategy shift was providing permanent supportive housing (PSH), which means to provide housing that is permanently affordable combined with ongoing supportive services for people experiencing chronic homelessness, and prioritizing those individuals with the most severe disabilities for assistance (Toros and Flaming, 2018). The second step was connecting PSH to “street outreach, shelter, and institutional "in-reach" to identify and engage people experiencing chronic homelessness” (Toros & Flaming, 2018). The third element was community-wide adoption of Housing First to provide permanent housing as quickly as possible in hopes to end chronic homelessness and prevent its recurrence (Toros and Flaming, 2018). Federal funding for homeless programs increased from $3.7 billion in 2010 to nearly $5.5 billion in 2016 (Toros & Flaming, 2018). In addition, federal expenditures for homeless individuals are also distributed through Medicaid, Medicare, and the VA, as well as large expenditures by state and county governments and institutions such as hospitals, jails, and social service agencies. Toros and Flaming (2018) conducted one of the first seminal studies to develop and validate a predictive model for identifying homeless individuals who are likely to become high-cost users to public services. Per another study, research showed a literacy and life skills program designed specifically to address the needs areas identified, could help subjects break their cycle of homelessness (Mulford, 2004). Due to these results, the IHS Ed Center was designed and operated from August 1993 through December 1998 to assist homeless adults to break their cycle of homelessness. It functioned as a case study and the results of combined data show it was a successful education center (Mulford, 2004). While operating, the IHS Ed Center assisted many homeless adults in Hawaii to “develop the educational and vocational skills necessary to become more employable, gain stable housing, and move to a more productive lifestyle” (Mulford, 2004).
Research Question/Hypothesis
The research question for this proposal is the following: How does the receipt of employment services affect whether families return to the ForKids agency (rate of recidivism)? It is hypothesized that the employment services provided at ForKids will serve as a catalyst to provide decreased levels of recidivism of homelessness in this population. As discussed in previous studies, breaking the cycle of homelessness involves more than access to housing (Johnstone, Parsell, Jetten, Dingle, & Walter, 2016).
Innovation
There is a high need for employment services within the homeless population. According to Hoven, Ford, Willmot, Hagan, and Siegrist (2016), individuals who are homeless and those at risk of homelessness are among the groups of people needing intense support in preparing to integrate into the workforce. This is due to the fact that they often suffer from additional problems that act as barriers that reduce their ability to gain work, such as mental and physical health conditions, substance and/or alcohol misuse issues, or criminal convictions. Organizations across the country tend to lean towards the housing first model, and do not make employment services a requirement for clients. However, our research wants to discover how requiring these services can benefit a client/family from becoming homeless again.
There have been few studies performed to research the implications of utilizing employment services within an organization, and how that may negate a family and/or person from cycling back to homelessness. Therefore, there is a need for research being performed in the homeless population receiving employment services, and if that positively or negatively affects their cycle of homelessness. One of the main reasons why this research is worth doing is because as helping professionals we are always looking for the most effective way to serve a client. This research may help discover a path for homeless individuals to break their cycle of homelessness.
Methods
Measurement
Definition of concepts.
The independent variable in this study is the receipt of employment services by homeless families. The outcome (dependent) variable that will be measured is whether families return to ForKids (rate of recidivism).
Homelessness.
ForKids’ definition of homelessness refers to the definition laid out by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, where an individual or family must “lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence” (Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d.). This includes locations not meant for human occupation, shelters that provide impermanent living arrangements, and those leaving institutions where they lived for less than 90 days after inhabiting a shelter or location not meant for human habitation (Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d.).
Recidivism.
Recidivism rates indicate a program's success in ending homelessness as measured by the number of households who attain housing and do not re-enter/return to an emergency shelter after to a successful housing outcome. Returning to homelessness may result from issues in mental/physical health, relationships, and/or employment. ForKids measures recidivism by using the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). HMIS is a national database where individuals who enter and exit into homelessness are reported into the database. This tracks if an individual has or has not been through the homelessness cycle before.
Family.
In keeping with ForKids’ policies, anyone who walks through the emergency shelter doors that declares themselves as a family is eligible for services; however, you have to have children within the family. For example, two sisters and a child or two moms and a child both constitute a family at ForKids.
Employment.
For a family member to be considered employed by ForKids, the individual must provide pay stubs and have their employer fill out a ForKids’ employment verification form.
Description of instruments used for measurement.
VI-SPDAT.
The VI-SPDAT (Vulnerability Index – Service Prioritization Decision Assistance
Tool) is a survey administered both to individuals and families to determine risk and prioritization when providing assistance to homeless and at-risk of homelessness persons (see Appendix A).
Employment Barriers Assessment.
The Employment Barriers Assessment was established at ForKids in July 2018. The Employment Barriers Assessment was created to give individual clients a score, which determines the level of employment services that will be given to that individual. The higher the score a client receives implies that they have several employment barriers present, which will allow the client to receive more in depth services. Clients are scored on the following areas: access to transportation, available childcare services, education, legal issues, health, and workplace skills. The totaled up score will put a client into a periodization of employment services; no-low barriers (0-5), minimal-moderate barriers (6-11), moderate-high (12-16), and severe barriers (17+) (see Appendix B).
Target Population and Sampling
Identification of target population.
The target population that this study will focus on is homeless families. This includes any group of individuals who are considered homeless by the standards of ForKids, and who are considered a family by the standards of ForKids. This includes any group of individuals who enter the emergency shelter and declare themselves as a family. However, the group of individuals must have children.
Sampling frame.
The sampling frame that will be used includes all homeless families in the Western Tidewater area, which is the area that ForKids serves. Therefore, any homeless family that is in the Western Tidewater area is eligible to receive services through ForKids
Description of the type of sampling used.
The sample for this study is all homeless families receiving services from ForKids. Since this does not involve choosing specific families from ForKids while leaving others out, this is considered a convenience sample. A convenience sample is a non-probability sampling method because it includes subjects that are available to the researchers through an organization, but they are not representative of the entire target population of homeless families.
Sample size.
The sample size is expected to be 361 families, which include 1,199 individuals in total. This number was not determined or chosen by the researchers, but rather by gathering statistics on the estimated number of families served by ForKids in a given year. The exact sample size for this study will consist of all families served by Forkids from January 2018 to January 2019 (one full year).
Ethics and protection of subject rights.
The rights of the subjects in this study will be protected because they will be kept completely anonymous and none of their private information, such as their names, will be included in the results. Only one researcher, who works at ForKids, will ever see the names of the subjects. Since no identifying information will be released on the subjects, the researchers will not be obtaining informed consent, and participation will be determined by including all families who receive services through ForKids without discrimination.
This study will use a quasi-experimental research design, because it is not purely experimental: “Although the independent variable is manipulated, participants are not randomly assigned to conditions or orders of conditions” (Cook & Campbell, 1979). In this case, the subjects in the study are not randomly assigned to a group because homeless families elect whether or not to receive employment services through ForKids, and the researchers do not control which families do so. The specific type of quasi-experimental design that will be used is a nonequivalent groups design, which is a “between-subjects design in which participants have not been randomly assigned to conditions” (Price, Jhangiani, & Chiang, 2015).
Justification of research design.
Since random assignment of subjects to a group is not possible in the case of this study, a quasi-experimental design is the most appropriate choice. Quasi-experimental studies “are often conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a treatment” (Price, Jhangiani, & Chiang, 2015), as is the case with this study. The effectiveness of employment services provided by ForKids is the treatment that will be evaluated.
Implementation timeline and work plan.
The agency ForKids uses a secure web database called Collaborate. Originally, Collaborate was formatted and used for online case management counseling. ForKids uses Collaborate to track every service provided by ForKids for individual clients and families. For example, ForKids is able to track how many employment services have been given to all families at any given time.
ForKids provides many different types of services to homeless families other than just employment services. These services are broken up into two categories: elaborate services and simple services. Elaborate services are the more financial and general services given, such as direct assistance, employment assessments, and transportation. Simple services are more individualized services such as employment one on ones, resume assistance, and interview clothes given. One feature of Collaborate is being able to “run reports” for data purposes. ForKids is able to narrow down specific reports to pull from data. Employment services data is pulled quarterly for funding purposes.
The employment services that are pulled, which are the services the researchers will track for the independent variable in this study, are the following: direct assistance, employment assessments, transportation, contacts to external providers, employment one on ones, employment groups, employment start dates, in-kind donations, interview skills, job interview, job offer, resume assistance, and employment referrals. For this study, the researchers will track all employment services given to families from January 2018 through January 2019, which will be obtained through the quarterly reports run by ForKids. This data will then be combined with ForKids’ data from the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) that tracks whether each family has re-entered into homelessness.
Critique
Strengths of the study.
Strengths of this study include it being a quasi-experimental design, which will allow researchers to collect the data. Using this type of experimental design is a strength as it allows researchers to look at the effect of a variable, which is the aim of this study. Another strength is that ForKids’ database gives a broad range of information and statistics to researchers regarding employment services. This will allow researchers to gain more insight into how receiving these services will affect recidivism rates.
Limitations of the study.
One limitation of the study is that the number of families utilizing employment services may not be equal to the number of families that are not. This could cause the data to be skewed. Having a relatively small sample size is also a limitation. Another limitation is that this sample is not generalizable to the overall target population of homeless families since it only looks at families from the Western Tidewater area served by ForKids. However, the results will still impact ForKids positively as it will help the agency determine if employment services are worthwhile to make mandatory for all clients. These results could also be impactful for other small agencies who provide employment services to only some clients.
Additional challenges.
One additional challenge is that researchers are working in a group setting, but only one person has access to the whole data set. This can make workload uneven at times and other researchers are unable to help in order to keep client information secure.
Conclusion
There are many factors that contribute to why individuals experience homelessness, including evictions, mental and/or physical health problems, relationship issues, and/or loss of employment. Since unemployment rates among the homeless population are estimated to be between 80-90% (Poremski, Whitley, & Latimer, 2014), employment services are a critical component of interventions that aim to break the cycle of homelessness for families.
This research proposal will further social work knowledge by collecting data from a non-profit organization, called ForKids, tracking employment services provided to homeless families and whether these families successfully break the cycle of homelessness. All employment services given to families from January 2018 through January 2019, which are obtained through quarterly reports run by ForKids, will be tracked. This data will then be combined with ForKids’ data from the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) that tracks whether each family has cycled back into homelessness. With this data, researchers aim to look at how the receipt of employment services affects whether families return to the ForKids agency (rate of recidivism).
It is hypothesized that the employment services provided at ForKids will serve as a catalyst to decrease rates of recidivism of homelessness in this population. Results from this research could further help individuals at both the macro level (policy making) or the micro level (clinical practice) of social work. Researchers hope results from this study can either be used to help mandate employment services at ForKids and other organizations, or revise existing programs to include employment services.