Navigating the system for families experiencing homelessness: a community-driven exploration of barriers encountered

ABSTRACT

This study examined the journey of families with children seeking shelter to inform future system navigation solutions that will serve this population. Families living in emergency shelter, rapid re-housing, or unsheltered were interviewed (n = 24). Participants created a journey mapping of their path through the homelessness system and described the barriers they encountered. Most participants were women (79%), and the number of children per family ranged from one to five, with an average of 2.5 children. For these 24 participants, the average length of time between the interview and their last permanent housing was 68.5 weeks with one to eight transitions in living situations (e.g., domestic violence shelter, doubled-up) having transpired over that period. The top three barriers to exiting homelessness–transportation issues, finding and keeping employment, and child care needs–co-occurred and appeared to be interrelated. Families faced unique challenges, which included safety concerns, space obstacles, and a need for children’s activities. Examining families’ lived experiences during their homelessness journeys can help policymakers, social service providers, and communities understand the burden that families experiencing homelessness face while attempting to provide for their children and the adverse experiences children may encounter during the journey.

KEYWORDS:

• Homelessness
• families
• systems
• qualitative
• children

Introduction

Family and childhood homelessness are recognized as a national priority to address (Bassuk 2010). In a review of child and family homelessness, family homelessness has become more pervasive nationally, in part due to the erosion of economic and social safety net systems for families in poverty (Grant et al. 2013). According to U.S. Point-in-Time counts in which people who meet the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) definition of homelessness (e.g., staying in temporary shelter or unsheltered) are physically counted on a single night, 30% of the 567,715 people experiencing homelessness on a single night in 2019 were in a family with children, and 18.9% of people experiencing homelessness were children under the age of 18 (Henry et al. 2019). The McKinney-Vento definition of homelessness used by education agencies to track homeless children and youth is broader than the HUD definition and includes children who live in hotels/motels or “doubled-up” (e.g., living with family members or friends due to loss of housing or economic hardship; Bassuk, DeCandia, Beach, et al. 2014; National Center for Homeless Education 2019). Based on U.S. local education agencies in the 2016–2017 school year, there were 1,353,179 students (ages 6–18) experiencing homelessness, and the majority of children (76%) were in the “doubled-up” category (National Center for Homeless Education 2019). Unfortunately, children in families experiencing homelessness are frequently referred to as “hidden” due to the problematic nature of defining and measuring child homelessness (Center for Transforming Lives 2018; Low, Hallett, and Mo 2017; Mayock, Sheridan, and Parker 2015; Morton et al. 2018).

Given the varied yet substantial number of families seeking shelter, the health and social impacts are especially concerning. Children seeking shelter are exposed to various traumatic stressors, including housing and food insecurity, disruption of social relationships, social stigma, and issues with school enrollment (Kilmer et al. 2012). Moreover, children in families experiencing homelessness are more likely to experience poor mental health outcomes such as social phobia, disruptive behavior disorders, poor impulse control, and major depression, which also contribute to poorer academic outcomes and higher rates of dropping out (Cutuli et al. 2017; Low, Hallett, and Mo 2017; Van der Kolk 2005).

Long term, children and adolescents who experience homelessness are at higher risk of developing many chronic physical health issues like asthma (Grant et al. 2007) and mental health issues like depression (Fazel et al. 2008; Medlow, Klineberg, and Steinbeck 2014). Children seeking shelter are also at a higher risk of engaging in risky behavior such as heavy episodic drinking, illicit substance use, and unprotected sex (Ensign and Santelli 1998), which increases the risk for unintended pregnancy and subsequent intergenerational homelessness (Monk, Spicer, and Champagne 2012).

Furthermore, mothers constitute the majority of the household heads for families seeking shelter (Bassuk 2010; de Vet et al. 2019). Mothers seeking shelter are at higher risk for experiencing interpersonal and community violence, physical or sexual abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression (Bassuk 2010; Bassuk et al. 1996; Weinreb et al. 2006). Moreover, qualitative research has attempted to understand and summarize the experiences of mothers once they enter shelter. A meta-synthesis by Meadows-Oliver (2003) found themes across 18 qualitative studies of women with children in shelter related to the following: (1) events related to becoming homeless (e.g., violence, substance use, eviction), (2) protective mothering (e.g., protecting children from harm in the shelters), (3) loss (e.g., loss of privacy, loss of respect, and public mothering), (4) stress and depression, (5) survival strategies, and (6) strategies for resolution of homelessness, including education, employment, and stable housing. There is a need for more research on mother and father head of households who are seeking shelter with their children, especially those who are in rapid re-housing, transitional shelter, or “doubled-up” (Grant et al. 2013; Low, Hallett, and Mo 2017).

There are many systematic barriers that cause family homelessness, including poverty, employment, child care, transportation, and availability of affordable housing (Bassuk 2010; Center for Transforming Lives 2018; Grant et al. 2013). Although interventions have been developed to address the needs of families seeking shelter, a meta-analysis of housing interventions for families experiencing homelessness found that the majority of studies were of weak to moderate quality based on Effective Public Health Practice Project guidelines, and studies were difficult to compare due to existing variation in homelessness definitions (Bassuk, DeCandia, Tsertsvadze, et al. 2014). Bassuk, DeCandia, Tsertsvadze, et al. (2014) noted that most interventions slightly improved housing and employment but lacked data on ongoing housing stability, work stability, or livable wages.

With the national concern about the number of children experiencing homelessness, local communities are also responding to the call to action. In Tarrant County, Texas, there is considerable concern for families experiencing homelessness. Data from the Texas Education Agency for the 2017–2018 school year, which are collected by school district personnel using the McKinney-Vento definition of homelessness for school-aged children, showed 8362 homeless students in Tarrant County (Texas Education Agency 2019). In 2019, the Tarrant County Homeless Coalition reported 138 families experiencing homelessness, with an average family size of 3.1 according to their point-in-time count, which follows the HUD definition of homelessness (Tarrant County Homeless Coalition 2019). To better serve families experiencing homelessness, a Community Response to Homelessness in Early Childhood Alliance was formed by 39 nonprofit agencies and government organizations to better understand the scope of the problem and make recommendations for moving forward. An outcome of this Alliance was the development of a Coalition for Homeless Children with the charge to understand the specific barriers families face while seeking shelter in the community. Families were interviewed to learn about their journeys through homelessness with their children and to describe obstacles faced during the process. This community-driven project aims to utilize a systems perspective of the local barriers encountered through families’ journeys, including when doubled-up, unsheltered, or in housing programs. Findings of the study will be delivered to the community coalition for future program and system improvements in Tarrant County.

This current study aims to build on previous research on families experiencing homelessness by identifying specific barriers for families during the process of seeking shelter. This study examines the journey of families with children seeking shelter at various stages along the housing continuum (e.g., sheltered, unsheltered, hotels/motels, doubled-up) to better inform future system navigation solutions that serve this population. Moving forward, efforts to overcome these barriers in the system may enable families to exit homelessness more quickly and reduce the adversities experienced by children and families.

Materials and methods

Sample

The target population for this study were adults in families who were currently experiencing homelessness in Tarrant County. Families experiencing homelessness included those who were in shelter, using rapid re-housing vouchers, or were unsheltered. Recruitment of families occurred through multiple modalities, including on-site at shelters, referrals from case managers and education liaisons, and other early childhood education outreach referrals. Interested participants contacted the research team to schedule a time and location for the interview or were approached on-site at shelters to conduct an interview at that time. To be included in the study, participants had to be at least 18 years of age, have a child 18 years or younger with them, currently be without permanent housing, and be able to speak English. Thirty participants were recruited for the study; however, of these 30, six did not currently live with their children. The themes and findings from this study were derived from the 24 participants living with their children, recruited from rapid re-housing programs (n = 7), emergency shelter (n = 16), and a food and clothing resources center (n = 1). Participants received a $25 gift card and a $5 bus pass for participating. All participants provided written, informed consent, and this study was approved by the North Texas Regional Institutional Review Board.

Procedure

Two research staff trained in performing qualitative interviews with persons experiencing homelessness were present at each interview—one for note taking and one for interviewing. After consenting, participants completed a brief demographic questionnaire, which included age, race/ethnicity, gender, education, marital status, employment, transportation, and use of social services (e.g., cash assistance, food assistance). After they completed the questionnaire, the interviewer used a semi-structured interview guide to ask about the families’ journey through homelessness, specifically where and with whom they were living, duration of stay, perceptions of safety, positive and negative experiences, challenges experienced, and resources used and needed (see Table 1 for example questions). A white board was used to map out the participant’s journey and to allow the participant to verify the data collected. White boards provided a low-cost, easy-to-use method for visually depicting the participant’s journey. The quick erasing capability of white boards made correcting and adding to the map easier, especially when a participant recollected forgotten locations that occurred between previously mentioned locations. This process was inspired by previous models of process and experience mapping for healthcare quality improvement initiatives (Institute for Healthcare Improvement 2020; Barnel et al. 2018). Additionally, the interview was audio-recorded and then transcribed. The white board data were digitally recorded and utilized to verify the transcripts when needed. Interviews lasted between 10 and 45 minutes—shorter durations were due to interruptions during the interview.

Table 1. Example questions from the semi-structured interview guide.

We’d like to build a map or drawing of where you are today to where you started at [describe from last question]. Let’s start by talking about where you are today.

[Repeated until complete]

Where are you currently living, I don’t want the address but just a description, are you staying with a friend or at a shelter or something like that? Who are you living with? How long have you been at this location? How did you get to this location? o Was it easy to get to? o Was it hard to get to? o How did you find out about this resource? (if applicable) Are your children at this location? o If not, where are they? o If so, what was it like getting them to this location? How do you feel at this location? How safe do you feel at this location? What were some challenges you faced at this location? o Probe: violence, space for children, safety, transportation, employment What would make it easier to get to this location? Throughout this journey, how did you find resources? How would you prefer to find resources? What would make that easier? Can you please talk about how having children impacted your search for housing?

Data analysis

Grounded theory was used for the qualitative data analysis (Corbin and Strauss 1990). A three-stage coding approach was used (Braun and Clarke 2006), starting with open-coding by the project team lead (E.T.) to assign distinct ideas to segments of text in Microsoft Excel. The research team met to develop the axial and selective codes based on the interview guide and transcripts. Axial codes (e.g., transportation, safety, finding resources) were generated to categorize and subcategorize the experiences of families. Thirteen selective codes (e.g., barrier, facilitator, needed facilitator, positive, negative, reason for homelessness, reflection) were generated to describe overall themes for families. Structural codes were also used to denote the location of the participant during the journey (e.g., shelter, car). Codes were assigned by the project team lead (E.T.). For the purposes of this paper, themes generated from the axial codes and stratified by the selective codes barriers and negative experiences are reported. Members of the research team utilized pivot tables in Microsoft Excel to generate content on each axial code and selective code stratum and construct theme summaries and identify salient quotes. These summaries were shared with the entire research team and agreed upon. The demographic data were entered into a spreadsheet and aggregated to describe the sample characteristics.

Results

Sample

Based on inclusion criteria, 24 participants experiencing homelessness were interviewed (Table 2). A substantial percentage of the sample consisted of women (79%). On average, participants were 36.2 years old (standard deviation of 9.4 years). Most participants were Black (54%), followed by White (38%), and multiracial/other (8%). Nearly all participants reported Non-Hispanic ethnicity (92%). These demographics are comparable to the demographic distribution for families in emergency shelters in the county. The majority of participants obtained a high school degree or GED (54%), with some participants reporting some college (33%) and no participants reporting completion of a college degree. For relationship status, participants were mostly single (58%). Other relationship statuses included married/partnered (25%) or divorced/separated (17%).

Table 2. Participant demographic characteristics (n = 24).

Characteristic
Age in years (mean, std. dev.)	36.2	9.4
Female (n, %)	19	79%
Hispanic (n, %)	2	8%
Race (n, %)
White	9	38%
Black	13	54%
Other	2	8%
Education (n, %)
Less than high school	3	13%
High school	13	54%
Some college	8	33%
Marital Status (n, %)
Single	14	58%
Married/partnered	6	25%
Divorced or separated	4	17%

Each participant seeking shelter had an average of 2.5 accompanying children, with numbers ranging from one to five. Ages of accompanying children ranged from 1.5 months to 17 years. Accompanying children were primarily school-aged children 6–12 years old (n = 29). Some were preschool-aged children 0–5 years old (n = 24), and the remainder were adolescents 13–17 years old (n = 7).

Numerous location transitions (i.e., moving from one location to another) occurred for each family seeking shelter. The median number of transitions per family was four. Among participating families, the number of transitions ranged from one to eight. The average time between each family’s last permanent housing to the time of interview was 68.5 weeks, with this period ranging from 4.5 weeks to 4 years.

Barriers for families while seeking housing

The barriers to housing most frequently reported in interviews were transportation, employment, and child care. Families required consistent and reliable transportation, sufficient and accommodating employment, and affordable and trustworthy child care in order to secure housing, and the interdependence between these issues were noted frequently in this study. Additional barriers noted were school transitions, child separation, perceptions of homelessness, and finding resources.

The interconnection of transportation, employment, and child care

Families were unable to maintain employment without forms of reliable transportation and child care. Without income from employment, families could not afford to purchase personal transportation or pay for public transportation. Without employment, they could not afford the time and money to establish child care for accompanying children and thus had to rely on resources for securing child care prior to employment. As one mother and one father stated, respectively, child care and employment often operated hand in hand,

… my biggest obstacle is I can’t get a job because I don’t have child care and I can’t get child care because I don’t have a job. So here we are and that’s not like me, man. I thought I’d be working by now, but now I’m on a waiting list for a day care. But until then I’m just kind of in limbo. Right. You know, there’s, there’s not a lot of child care resources. (Female, Age 31)

Day care is a big issue. Being able to acquire day care is a big issue for us because without it I can’t work, you know? (Male, Age 36)

Some families reported geographical barriers to employment, noting that most job opportunities were substantially farther from the center of the city, where the majority of shelters and housing resources were located. These promising areas of employment also lacked public transit stops and routes for participants to take. As one mother described her struggle:

… I can easily get hired for warehouse work but all warehouse work is in [an area north of the city center], and there is no bus that goes out there. I just had to turn down a job last Friday, because they have nowhere [for] the kids, they don’t have school yet. I’m not gonna make my older son stand outside until I get out work. That’s not fair, he’s a child. I had to turn [a] job down because there [is] no after school care here, no partners they work with. (Female, Age 35)

The interdependence of employment, child care, and transportation is summarized by this mother trying to provide for her children while doubled-up,

So I would have to take the bus to the day care, which was two buses to the day care and two buses to work. And then all over again to pick them up and go home. It was really hard I had to leave like three hours before they had to be at day care. If they are even five minutes late they don’t let you in to the day care. And I was working like 60 hours a week so it was a challenge, but I did it. Especially with no transportation and no child care. It’s hard. (Female, Age, 31)

When asked what would make obtaining employment easier, families suggested (1) workforce programs that streamline eligibility and receipt of child care, (2) increased transportation options like additional school buses to transport children to school, and (3) financial and resource support regarding child care services.

Child care was a top concern for most participants (n = 13), given the accompaniment of children while seeking shelter. Difficulties in obtaining child care not only included navigating a complex eligibility and enrollment procedure for subsidized child care but also securing child care that families felt comfortable with. One participant described her experience obtaining child care through the local child care management program, which provides subsidized child care to qualifying families:

I have been trying to get them on [the child care program list] but I don’t know the steps to go through to start them in there. I am still working on that, and once I get them on [the child care program list] then I can work on getting a job. Cause then I will have a permanent thing for them to go to and they would be in child care while I’m at work. (Female, Age 28)

Periods of high need for child care (e.g., summer break, other extended school breaks) exacerbated child care difficulties for families seeking shelter. Public schools were a primary form of child care for school-aged accompanying children, as noted by another participant here:

With me, fortunately I don’t have any little babies; I have a 7 and 13-year-old. So school takes care of that. I send them to school and get everything done in the timeframe. So if I’m working at the particular time, I work during school hours. If I don’t work, get everything I need to do appointments or job search or whatever I’m doing, I do it during the timeframe of school hours, so school is my sitter. (Female, Age 31)

School transitions

In contrast to the benefits of school enrollment in alleviating child care strain, different issues arise for families of school-aged children. Amid frequent location transitions and the potential need for alternative transportation, families had to deliberate whether to keep children enrolled in their current school or re-enroll their children at a school closer to their current location. Even for participants with reliable transportation, commute times increased, and some children had to be dropped off much earlier in order for the participant to arrive at work on time. For participants in shelters, case workers and other shelter staff could sometimes arrange for school transportation, but the trips to school were generally longer and required family schedule adjustments to ensure children did not miss the transportation arrangement. As noted by one father,

I have done everything in my power to prevent them from switching schools during the school year. (Male, Age 38)

In many cases, changes to housing status resulted in multiple school changes, and some children were unable to re-enroll in school for long periods of time. Many families preferred maintaining their children’s current school enrollment and school district to the extent that they delayed seeking shelter or temporarily separated from their children.

Child separation

Many families who were living with their children reported having to separate from children at some point during their journey to obtaining shelter (n = 6). In addition to school enrollment, several factors were noted when making the decision of whether or not participants should separate from their children while seeking shelter. Reasons included the inability to bring children to certain shelters or shelters having a limit on the number of accompanying children. For shelters that did permit accompanying children, families reported that having a larger number of accompanying children delayed shelter services based on a lack of available space (n = 3). Families reported that some shelters requested that parents separate from some children in order to meet shelter family-size requirements. For participants who experienced intimate partner violence, child separation required that some children had to stay with the perpetrator or family member of the perpetrator, resulting in continued contact that may have put the parent at risk. Some families simply did not want to expose their children to shelter living, with the fear that child protective services or police would be called on them. Past shelter experiences and current perceptions of homelessness intensified participants’ desire to avoid exposing their children to shelter life at the cost of separation.

Perceptions of homelessness

Preconceived notions of homelessness held by participating families experiencing homelessness contributed to a delay in seeking services. Some participants (n = 6) felt that shelters were a bad environment for children and that shelters were not designed for children. These perceptions were formed based on portrayals of shelters and homelessness in the media and through word of mouth. This discordance between their prototypical perceptions of homelessness and their own situational self-perceptions in some cases resulted in delays in seeking shelter and additional resources. Some participants reported sleeping in cars, staying at motels, or couch-surfing in order to delay seeking shelter. One parent detailed her shelter perceptions:

No, [the shelter] was definitely not like I thought it was going to be. Fear is only an illusion, and in my illusion, it was my greatest nightmare. But in my reality, it was the greatest blessing, you know? I got fed three meals a day. I got fat for a little while (chuckles). My kids and I, we had our own privacy. There was a playground there, there was other kids, different resources, fun activities. There was also a camp for the kids, you know, I would definitely say it was not what I thought it was going to be. (Female, Age 34)

While this participant’s perspective of the shelter was positive, it should be noted that other participants voiced concerns, as will be described below.

Finding resources

The main sources of information and resources for families seeking shelter typically involve informal sources like another person (n = 18), including other people experiencing homelessness, family members, and friends. Many relied on online searching (n = 12) but reported difficulty in figuring out what to search for and where to look. Using shelter and program staff as a source of resource information was reported by only five participants. A few participants noted that case managers and shelter staff were not sufficiently providing resources in a timely or effective manner. Some participants noted that they contacted resource places (n = 3) or 2–1–1 (n = 2) through telephone calls. A participant recalled the difficulties in locating resources:

Yes, and then you have to go and call all those people and then it’s like Ring around the Rosie from there. You go around in circles, ‘I’m full over here, I got resources, but I’m full over here.’ ‘I got resources over here, but try calling here.’ So to save the trouble you just come here. (Female, Age 31)

When asked what would improve access to resources, participants suggested the creation of a centralized list (n = 11), preferably accessible online, with enhanced searching capabilities for family-related eligibility criteria and facility capacity.

Negative experiences

As families detailed their transitional journey while seeking shelter, each participant described their personal experiences in each location. Although safety and space are typical challenges for people experiencing homelessness without accompanying children, families identified additional unique experiences regarding safety and space. Furthermore, families described the lack of activities specifically for children during their homelessness journeys.

Safety

Safety was a noted concern for almost all participants (n = 21). Lack of privacy, especially among congregate shelters with a single open space for all families, was a frequently reported issue for participants. Shelters with separated rooms were preferred and sought out, especially among participants who disliked being around crowds. Families noted that shelters were a revolving door of strangers. Participants identified different shelter occupants who were known sex offenders or occupants who fought and behaved in inappropriate ways in front of their children. Some families disliked having to share shelter with single men and women, preferring that single people have their own separate area. Some women participants preferred having a separate location from male parents, differing from the opinions from some male participants, who argued that they experienced even more difficulty in finding any space accepting of fathers seeking shelter. Some women head-of-families experiencing homelessness verbalized concerns that the prioritization of men in shelters made it difficult to feel that the environment was safe for their children. Concerns for their children’s safety stemmed not only from internal shelter exposures but also external neighborhood exposures in the areas surrounding shelters and rapid rehousing-supported apartments. Living inside a car presented additional safety concerns, as noted by another participant:

I basically tried to stay in, like tried to keep a shelter over our heads. Before I lost my car, there were nights when I had to sleep in my car with my kids, so I couldn’t really sleep ‘cause I’m, you know, have to be looking out around, ‘cause we outside you know. Anything can happen. But it was a lot of times like I felt like if something was to happen I don’t know what I’d be—what I’d do. Like ‘cause I’m a woman, and I can’t stand up there with three kids. (Female, Age 25)

Physical space

Throughout the multiple location transitions, families described the actual physical space they had to live and sleep in. For many families, there was not enough space for all family members in situations of doubling up or at the shelter. When doubling up with family members, the lack of space usually became a point of contention. Conversely, other participants perceived space issues as less of a priority, even when staying in less spacious shelters, motels, or cars.

For families in shelters, typical daily activities were hindered due to restrictions on storing food, diapers, clothing, and other necessary items for children. Parents said that shelters’ regimented dining schedules and curfews and the inability to store and keep food limited their abilities to care for their children who were ill or picky eaters (n = 8). Families perceived their children to be at increased risk for illness based on some shelters’ lack of cleanliness and close proximity with others in a shared space. These same factors contributed to decreases in sleep quality and quantity (n = 5).

Activities for children

Families felt challenged to provide activities for their accompanying children in order to keep them occupied. Families noted that some shelters did have more kid-friendly activities than others, but these activities usually revolved around school-age children or took place outdoors in unsafe areas. Issues with transportation and curfew limits made it difficult to travel far to activities outside the shelter or visit other family and friends. Many families emphasized the need for shelters to provide more inclusive, child-friendly activities to distract their children from their current situation. Many parents understood the need for such activities like play therapy to enhance emotional processing, develop coping skills, and reduce acute and chronic stress.

I believe kids need, I want to say a safe place, an escape, just for a little while. Because for, especially for kids who understand what’s going on, it’s got to be tough. If it’s tough on you, and you barely can hold it together, just imagine … so I don’t know what that would be. You would have to ask a kid, but I believe an escape. (Female, Age 38)

Discussion

This study aimed to examine the journeys of families experiencing homelessness to elucidate the barriers to seeking housing and the challenges they encounter during that journey in Tarrant County, Texas. Families in this study endured multiple transitions from a variety of locations, including cars, living with friends/family, motels, and shelters. Similar findings have been reported for families experiencing homelessness nationally, including challenges of navigating services and negative service experiences (Mayberry 2016). With these many transitions, there is concern that children in families experiencing homelessness face instability that can adversely impact their growth, development, academic performance, and health status (Cutuli et al. 2017; Deck 2017; Medlow, Klineberg, and Steinbeck 2014; Grant et al. 2013).

Families in this study highlighted the challenges of securing child care, transportation, and employment in order to escape homelessness. This triad must be in place for families in order to successfully secure and maintain housing and ultimately provide more stability for their children. This goal may be especially challenging for families with limited access to subsidized child care or child care that is difficult to reach.

Participants in this study described specific and unique challenges for families within the homelessness system. Parents described needing activities for children, safe and adequate spaces for families to stay together, and the ability to filter through the available resources that fit the size and needs of the family. All together, these needs for families align with past reports of the unique challenges of parenting while experiencing homelessness (Paquette and Bassuk 2009). Moving forward, shelter or housing services should re-examine the infrastructure to determine if creating spaces and activities for children could help alleviate some of this burden.

Based on these findings, additional policy considerations for the future include examining shelter design. For example, some participants noted limits on the number of children in shelters, which can result in family separation or delay in access to care. Flexible spaces for larger family sizes or other approaches for accommodation should be considered as family separation may be detrimental to the family unit. Having separate locations for fathers or mothers with children, or earmarked locations based on parent gender, may limit the availability of shelter beds for families. One option may be to focus on creating gender-neutral family spaces that permit not only fathers with children, but also couples with children. Due to the number of organizations offering services and the fluctuating availability of beds, participants suggested a consolidated, comprehensive service information list that is easy to find online or at a resource service desk, ideally aimed at prevention and accessible to families experiencing housing instability prior to their need for emergency shelter.

In this study, participants reported perceiving homelessness in general to be a barrier to seeking resources. Families experiencing homelessness sought to separate their experiences from “typical” people (e.g., single people, males) that they see at local shelters and other areas that serve homeless populations. Findings are consistent with previous studies that note hesitancy to being homeless as a barrier for leaving intimate partner violence and other unsafe home situations (Adams et al. 2018; Meyer 2016). Although an individual’s self-identity regarding homelessness status may differ from the nuanced governmental definitions of homelessness (Osborne 2002; Parsell 2011), the related stigma and hesitancy to identify or become homeless inhibits real or perceived qualification for additional services and supports (Frederick 2019; Winetrobe et al. 2017).

This study should be considered within the context of its limitations. One limitation resulting from the unique, intricate journey of each individual was the difficulty in participant recall of specific numbers of transitions or lengths of time at each location. When some people reported transitioning to another location but did not recall the length of time, calculations of length of time were not included in the analysis summarizing homelessness duration. For participants who did not recall the exact number of transitions made, conservative estimations using the lowest certain number of transitions were included in calculations. Another limitation was the inability to control for whether participants were within the same family structure as other participants. In other words, since participants were not asked for specific names, and inclusion criteria required only current homelessness status and having at least one child under the age of 18, it is possible that two parents from the same family may have participated. Additionally, only one investigator participated in coding to ensure efficiency and consistency in coding ratings, yet this could potentially introduce subjectivity and bias in analysis. To mitigate potential biases, the decision to use only one investigator was made a priori, and multiple research team members reviewed portions of the coding and developed themes once completed to confirm accuracy. Moreover, lack of non-English speakers and sampling of families experiencing homelessness within a single county in Texas limit finding generalizability. Finally, comparisons by race/ethnicity were not conducted for this study. Future studies should examine the role of structural racism in journeys for families experiencing homelessness.

In sum, examining families’ lived experiences during their homelessness journeys can help local policy makers, social service providers, and communities understand the burden that families experiencing homelessness face while they attempt to provide for their children. Improvements to the system, including surmounting barriers and mitigating negative experiences, will help families exit homelessness sooner and, potentially, with fewer adverse experiences that contribute to poor health, education, and social outcomes. These findings will inform future system-level improvements in the Tarrant County area through the work of the Coalition for Homeless Children and partnerships within the continuum of care. Much like Tarrant County’s current response to family and child homelessness at the community level, local homelessness coalitions should come together to address these unique concerns of this homeless population.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors

Erika L. Thompson, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Health Behavior and Health Systems at the School of Public Health at University of North Texas Health Science Center. Her research focuses on women’s health issues, including sexual and reproductive health.

Annalynn M. Galvin, MSN, is a graduate research assistant in the Department of Health Behavior and Health Systems at the School of Public Health at University of North Texas Health Science Center. Her research focuses on maternal and child health and health disparities.

Danielle Rohr, MS, is a senior program manager in the School of Public Health at the University of North Texas Health Science Center. Her works focuses on community evaluation and social justice.

Carol Klocek, MSW, MBA, is the chief executive officer of the Center for Transforming Lives and Co-Chair of the Family Homelessness Committee with the Tarrant County Homeless Coalition.

Heather Lowe, MSW, is the coordinator of the Coalition for Homeless Children at the Center for Transforming Lives in Fort Worth, Texas.

Emily E. Spence, PhD, is Associate Dean for Community Engagement and Health Equity and an associate professor in the University of North Texas Health Science Center School of Public Health. She also directs the Community Engagement and Dissemination Core for the Texas Center for Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health Specialized Center of Excellence. Dr. Spence is the Principal Investigator for the Technology Enhanced Screening and Supportive Assistance project and other community-based initiatives.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the United Way of Tarrant County, 2018-2019 Collective Action to Drive Systems-Level Change Grant.