Annotated Bibliography
Donley, A., & Wright, J. (2012). Safer Outside: A Qualitative Exploration of Homeless People’s Resistance to Homeless Shelters. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 12(4), 288–306. https://doi-org.bmcc.ezproxy.cuny.edu/10.1080/15228932.2012.695645
This article focuses on unsheltered homeless people who are resistant to homeless shelters. Unsheltered homeless individuals account for 37% of the homeless population, but this study focuses on just 39 individuals, living within camps in the woods of East Orange, Florida. Despite unsheltered homeless individuals having different needs compared to those who stay in shelters, many of them are still resistant to services and are placed into long-term housing — especially those who are physically disabled, mentally ill, or suffer from substance abuse disorders. The participants in this study fit the description and like all other homeless individuals, they need services that can provide them with housing, job assistance, health care, substance abuse treatment, and mental health assistance. Two things that the unsheltered homeless individuals stressed that they needed were free, accessible bathing, showering, and laundry facilities, and assistance in applying for social security disability benefits. Many of us acknowledge that without housing, it’s difficult to find and obtain access to a facility where we can wash our clothes, as well as bathe so that we can maintain good hygiene. This is one of the biggest problems for the homeless since it becomes difficult for them to find a job, considering that they smell and don’t have clean clothes to wear to an interview. Another major issue is that these individuals don’t know how to apply for social security disability or they aren’t able to manage their funds, requiring a third party to come in and help them. Others also don’t know about the benefits they may be eligible to receive, where to receive these types of benefits, or how to fill out the paperwork required. Despite alcohol and drug use also being a problem that many homeless people have to deal with, the participants in this study didn’t want any sort of treatment. They claimed that they don’t plan on quitting and try to justify their homelessness as a personal choice.
Remster, B. (2019). A Life Course Analysis of Homeless Shelter Use among the Formerly Incarcerated. JQ: Justice Quarterly, 36(3), 437–465. https://doi-org.bmcc.ezproxy.cuny.edu/10.1080/07418825.2017.1401653
This article focuses on the relationship between incarceration and homelessness; those who have a history of incarceration or have been incarcerated are at a higher risk of being homeless. Some other studies show that this is only a temporary obstacle that occurs shortly after their release, but this is not the case. The matter of fact is that even long after an individual’s release from prison, they can still be at risk of becoming homeless. Some individuals utilize homeless shelters right after release while some use shelters more than two years after their release. Despite the risk of homelessness being highest right after release, the risk is still present years later; more than half of individuals experienced their first homelessness more than two years after their release. This study shows that 49.6% of individuals who relied on homeless shelters, used them even after over two years of their release, highlighting the problem of reintegration. While these individuals are in shelters or post-release, they should be observed to decrease their possibility of entering back into shelters and aid in successful reintegration. With 8 years of data, studies show that individuals who had previously used shelters are more likely to rely on them again, adding up to months spent there. Research results show that 92.6% of individuals who have not used shelters previously had used them after being released, highlighting incarceration as a trigger. Those who have used shelters prior and received mental health treatment during their time in prison also increase their risk of using shelters again. Individuals who have been incarcerated but are married slow down the risk of shelter use. The length of a sentence can also determine whether a person is at higher or lower risk of using shelters; for instance, someone with a maximum sentence is more at risk of using shelters compared to those with a shorter sentence because those with a shorter sentence receive less stigma. Older and Black men are also at higher risk due to race and poverty as well as older people receiving less social support after being released. When all of these risk factors are combined, they are at the most risk compared to others, post-release.
Tsai, J., & Rosenheck, R. (2012). Incarceration Among Chronically Homeless Adults: Clinical Correlates and Outcomes. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 12(4), 307–324. https://doi-org.bmcc.ezproxy.cuny.edu/10.1080/15228932.2012.695653
This article focuses on a study involving 751 chronically homeless adults in supported housing programs. 29% of them have no history of incarceration, 36% have been incarcerated for a year or less and 35% have been incarcerated for over a year. Studies show that those with a history of being incarcerated also have a history of substance abuse and homelessness compared to those who have never been incarcerated, but after a year in supported housing, there was no difference at all. Those who have been incarcerated for 10 years or more had worse drug use than those who have never been incarcerated. With the use of supported housing programs and support from people, we can eliminate housing barriers for homeless individuals. Of the 751 participants, 71% of them have had some sort of history of being incarcerated and more than a third of those individuals have been incarcerated for more than a year. Although after a year of supported housing those with incarceration histories and those without had no differences, before receiving any supported housing, a history of incarceration was associated with lower levels of education, greater substance abuse, an earlier age of homelessness, more lifetime homelessness, and shorter employment history. Individuals with both a history of incarceration and homelessness should be given extra attentive care because they are more, at risk, of becoming homeless again or getting re-incarcerated. Individuals who had been incarcerated longer also have poorer physical health because they received less medical care the longer that they were incarcerated.
Sylla, L., Franzen, R., Srebnik, D., Hoffman, M., & Shoenfeld, A. (2017). Creating a Regional Model to Coordinate and Prioritize Access to Permanent Supportive Housing. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 44(4), 564–573. https://doi-org.bmcc.ezproxy.cuny.edu/10.1007/s11414-016-9527-6
This article focuses on homeless individuals who are mentally ill, and suffer from substance abuse, or other health conditions, making them more likely to be in jails, emergency departments, rehabilitation services, and psychiatric or medical hospitals. By utilizing the publicly funded services provided, we can then prioritize access to the limited resources we have for homeless individuals. The CCC, or Client Care Coordination, is a key component of the supportive housing prioritization model. To have a successful CCC, we must have cross-system data, utilization, and vulnerability scoring rubric, public-private funding, stakeholder partnerships, protocols for referral and placement, standardized assessment, and strong oversight and evaluation. By having these public-private funders commit to the CCC to change housing eligibility methods, it can then lead to the success of the CCC. CCC housing has provided individuals with housing stability and a decrease in jail bookings, psychiatric hospitalizations, emergency shelter services, and sobering center and emergency department episodes. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, will also be prioritizing supported housing to be implemented to be competitive for federal homeless funds. Although the CCC model demonstrates the key elements of success, it also addresses the economic and subtle issues, helping to break the homeless cycle and to achieve public sector cost offsets.
Garland, B., & Wodahl, E. (2017). Overcoming Public Opposition to Transitional Housing. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(3), 879–889. https://doi-org.bmcc.ezproxy.cuny.edu/10.1111/1745-9133.12317
This article focuses on how unstable housing can increase the risk of criminal behavior, especially for individuals who have been recently released from being incarcerated. Although housing can be used as a protective factor to prevent individuals from criminal behavior by easing stressors that might contribute to criminal behavior, serving as a shield against self-destructive and pro-criminal influences, securing employment by providing their employer with residential information, improving workplace performance by eliminating the stress of being homeless or losing their job, and unstable housing making connections with treatment providers more difficult. In other words, providing homeless individuals with stable housing, takes a lot off their plate, eliminating the constant stress of job loss or homelessness as well as allowing them to receive treatment for their substance abuse or mental illness so that they can successfully reintegrate society. Compared to correctional interventions that are in institutions and away from the public view, reentry programs are more visible, allowing for a higher level of community buy-in and support so that the program itself and the effects can be successful. Despite this aiding in the success of homeless individuals or those who have a history of incarceration, some of the public are still resistant to public transitional housing programs. They believe that it may impact public safety, impact them economically, or just be based on punitive beliefs. Regardless of their opposing views on transitional housing programs, with the use of educational campaigns, the public’s attitude can be changed. With the use of educational campaigns that target their concerns about social welfare, self-interest, and retributive values, we are then able to shape their opposition to a program that can aid in the success of the homeless.
