Reasons for homelessness: An empirical typology

Abstract

We investigated patterns of situational characteristics and service use among youth residing at metropolitan area homeless shelters. One hundred and three youth provided ratings on a five-point scale comprised of 17 reasons for becoming homeless. Cluster analysis yielded five distinct reason typologies: destitute, threatened, pregnant, resistant, and partnered. Demographic, social, and treatment characteristics were analyzed across groups, and a concurrent measure related to the initial clustering variable, a qualitative assessment of reasons for seeking services, was used to validate typologies. Distributions of demographic, social, and service characteristics lend tentative support to the typologies and suggest areas of unmet need.

Keywords:

• homelessness
• youth
• reasons for homelessness
• typologies
• homeless shelters

Acknowledgements

The research reported in this article was supported in part by a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation Seed Grant program administered by the Merrill-Palmer Institute for Child and Family Development, Detroit, MI. We thank the youth, staff, and administration at the participating agencies who provided time, insight, and resources to make this project possible. We also thank the faculty and students in the Research Group on Homelessness and Poverty at Wayne State University involved in project planning, data collection, and dissemination: Bart Miles, Patrick Fowler, Carolyn Tompsett, Mason Haber, Lindsey Sander, Karen Hobden, and Nicole Ouellette. Finally, we thank Laura Klem and Joe Kazemi for their suggestions for the manuscript.

Notes

1. The decision was made to retain older participants in order to accurately reflect characteristics and needs of clients seeking services within the shelters of the present and many other cities.

2. The decision was made to retain I got pregnant and I wanted to be with my partner as separate variables. Although these items are correlated, pregnant and nonpregnant youth with or without a partner could vary widely in terms of support and service needs.

3. Some participants left demographic, family, or risk items blank. For most items, information was missing for six or fewer participants (missing data are presented by cluster in Table 4). Notably, 13 and 31 participants did not provide ratings for their relationships with primary female and male caregivers, respectively. Prior to relationship ratings, youth were asked to indicate who their primary caregivers are (e.g., biological mother, stepfather). Of those youth missing relationship ratings, 9 and 21 youth checked “none” for primary female and male caregivers, respectively.