Thesis (Selection of subject)

Your browser does not support JavaScript, or its support is disabled. Some features may not be available.

Public Perception on Target Populations and Homeless Policy Design in Seattle, WA

Thesis title in Czech:	Cílová populace bezdomovců pohledem veřejnosti a návrh politiky řešení bezdomovectví v Seattle, WA
Thesis title in English:	Public Perception on Target Populations and Homeless Policy Design in Seattle, WA
Key words:	bezdomovectví, bydlení, cílové populace, navrhování politiky, vnímání veřejnosti, US
English key words:	homelessness, housing, target populations, policy design, public perception, US
Academic year of topic announcement:	2015/2016
Thesis type:	diploma thesis
Thesis language:	angličtina
Department:	Department of Public and Social Policy (23-KVSP)
Supervisor:	Mgr. Ing. Olga Angelovská, Ph.D.
Author:	hidden - assigned by the advisor
Date of registration:	07.09.2016
Date of assignment:	07.09.2016
Date and time of defence:	20.06.2017 08:30
Venue of defence:	Jinonice - U Kříže 8, J2083, Jinonice - místn. č. 2083
Date of electronic submission:	18.05.2017
Date of proceeded defence:	20.06.2017
Opponents:	doc. PhDr. Pavol Frič, Ph.D.



URKUND check:

References

Homelessness Defined:
Lee, B., Tyler, K., & Wright, J. (2010). The New Homelessness Revisited. Annu. Rev. Sociol., 36(1), 501-521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115940
Ways into Homelessness:
Crane, M. & Warnes, A. (2000). Evictions and Prolonged Homelessness. Housing Studies, 15(5), 757-773. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673030050134592
Kidd, S. (2012). Invited Commentary: Seeking a Coherent Strategy in our Response to Homeless and Street-Involved Youth: A Historical Review and Suggested Future Directions. J Youth Adolescence, 41(5), 533-543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9743-1
O'Toole, T., Conde-Martel, A., Gibbon, J., Hanusa, B., Freyder, P., & Fine, M. (2007). Where do people go when they first become homeless? A survey of homeless adults in the USA. Health & Social Care In The Community, 15(5), 446-453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2007.00703.x
Tsai, J., Edens, E., & Rosenheck, R. (2011). A Typology of Childhood Problems among Chronically Homeless Adults and Its Association with Housing and Clinical Outcomes. Journal Of Health Care For The Poor And Underserved, 22(3), 853-870. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2011.0081
van Laere, I., de Wit, M., & Klazinga, N. (2009). Pathways into homelessness: recently homeless adults problems and service use before and after becoming homeless in Amsterdam. BMC Public Health, 9(1), 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-3
Prevention Specific:
Crane, M., Warnes, A., & Fu, R. (2006). Developing homelessness prevention practice: combining research evidence and professional knowledge. Health Soc Care Community, 14(2), 156-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2006.00607.x
Culhane, D., Metraux, S., & Byrne, T. (2011). A prevention-centered approach to homelessness assistance: a paradigm shift?. Housing Policy Debate, 21(2), 295-315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2010.536246
Eyrich-Garg, K. (2010). Mobile Phone Technology: A New Paradigm for the Prevention, Treatment, and Research of the Non-sheltered “Street” Homeless?. Journal Of Urban Health, 87(3), 365-380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11524-010-9456-2
Goodman, S., Messeri, P., & O’Flaherty, B. (2014). How effective homelessness prevention impacts the length of shelter spells. Journal Of Housing Economics, 23, 55-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2014.01.003
Montgomery, A., Metraux, S., & Culhane, D. (2013). Rethinking Homelessness Prevention among Persons with Serious Mental Illness. Social Issues And Policy Review, 7(1), 58-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2012.01043.x
Mulroy, E. & Lauber, H. (2004). A User-Friendly Approach to Program Evaluation and Effective Community Interventions for Families at Risk of Homelessness. Social Work, 49(4), 573-586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sw/49.4.573
Plumb, J. (1997). Homelessness: Care, Prevention, and Public Policy. Annals Of Internal Medicine, 126(12), 973. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-126-12-199706150-00007
Wenzel, S., D'Amico, E., Barnes, D., & Gilbert, M. (2009). A Pilot of a Tripartite Prevention Program for Homeless Young Women in the Transition to Adulthood. Women's Health Issues, 19(3), 193-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2009.01.005
Theoretical Background:
Alestalo, M., Hort, S.E.O, & Kuhnle, S. (2009). The Nordic Model: Conditions, Origins, Outcomes, Lessons (Working Paper No. 14). Retrieved from Hertie School of Governance website: https://www.hertie-school.org/fileadmin/images/Downloads/working_papers/41.pdf
Arts, Wil A. and Gelissen, John, 2010, Models of the Welfare State. In : The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State. 1. New York : Oxford University Press Inc. p. 569-583.
Bahle, T., Pfeifer, M., & Wendt, C. (2010). Social Assistance. In F. Castles, The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State (1st ed., pp. 448-461). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Barrett, C., Carter, M., & Ikegami, M. (2008). Poverty Traps and Social Protection. Social Protection Discussion Papers. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1141881
Bothfeld, S. & Rouault, S. (2014). Families Facing the Crisis: Is Social Investment a Sustainable Social Policy Strategy?. Social Politics: International Studies In Gender, State & Society, 22(1), 60-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxu014
Castles, Francis, 2010, The English-Speaking Countries. In : The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State. 1. New York : Oxford University Press Inc. p. 630-642.
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., & Katz, L. (2016). The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment †. American Economic Review, 106(4), 855-902. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.20150572
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E. (2014). Where is the land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States. The Quarterly Journal Of Economics, 129(4), 1553-1623. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju022
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., Saez, E., & Turner, N. (2014). Is the United States Still a Land of Opportunity? Recent Trends in Intergenerational Mobility (Working Paper No. 19844). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19844
Elmelund-Præstekær, Christian and Klitgaard, Michael Baggesen, 2012, Policy or institution? The political choice of retrenchment strategy. Journal of European Public Policy. 2012. Vol. 19, no. 7, p. 1089-1107. DOI 10.1080/13501763.2012.672112. Informa UK Limited
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta, 1996, After the Golden Age? Welfare State Dilemmas in a Global Economy. In: Welfare states in transition. London : Sage. p. 1-29.
Faricy, C., & Ellis, C. (2013). Public Attitudes Toward Social Spending in the United States: The Differences Between Direct Spending and Tax Expenditures. Political Behavior, 36(1), 53-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9225-5
Glennerster, H. (2010). The Sustainability of Western Welfare States. In F. Castles, The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State (1st ed., pp. 689-702). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Harper, C., Marcus, R., & Moore, K. (2003). Enduring Poverty and the Conditions of Childhood: Lifecourse and Intergenerational Poverty Transmissions. World Development, 31(3), 535-554. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0305-750x(03)00010-x
Kenworthy, L. (1999). Do Social-Welfare Policies Reduce Poverty? A Cross-National Assessment. Social Forces, 77(3), 1119. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3005973
Korpi, W. & Palme, J. (1998). The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality, and Poverty in the Western Countries. American Sociological Review, 63(5), 661. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2657333
Korpi, Walter and Palme, Joakim, 2003, New Politics and Class Politics in the Context of Austerity and Globalization: Welfare State Regress in 18 Countries, 1975–95. Am. Pol. Sci. Rev.. 2003. Vol. 97, no. 03. DOI 10.1017/s0003055403000789. Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Kraus, M. & Tan, J. (2015). Americans overestimate social class mobility. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 101-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.01.005
Legg, M. (2010). Women, Work, and Welfare: A Case Study of Germany, the UK, and Sweden (Graduate). Department of Political Science in the College of Sciences at the University of Central Florida.
Lemieux, Pierre, 2013, American and European Welfare States: Similar Causes, Similar Effects. Cato Journal. 2013. Vol. 33, no. 2, p. 227-232.
Levy, Jonah, 2010, Welfare Retrenchment. In : The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State. 1. New York : Oxford University Press Inc. p. 552-565.
Moffitt, Robert A., 2015, The Deserving Poor, the Family, and the U.S. Welfare System. Demography. 2015. Vol. 52, no. 3, p. 729-749. DOI 10.1007/s13524-015-0395-0. Springer Science + Business Media
Orloff, A. (1993). Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: The Comparative Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States. American Sociological Review, 58(3), 303. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095903
Pierson, Paul, 1996, The New Politics of the Welfare State. World Pol.. 1996. Vol. 48, no. 02, p. 143-179. DOI 10.1353/wp.1996.0004. Cambridge University Press (CUP).
Rothstein, B. (2001). The Universal Welfare State as a Social Dilemma. Rationality And Society, 13(2), 213-233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104346301013002004
Rubery, J. (2015). Austerity and the Future for Gender Equality in Europe. ILR Review, 68(4), 715-741. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0019793915588892
Sainsbury, D. (1996). Gender, equality, and welfare states. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press.
Sainsbury, D. (1999). Gender and welfare state regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sandel, M., Faugno, E., Mingo, A., Cannon, J., Byrd, K., & Garcia, D. et al. (2016). Neighborhood-Level Interventions to Improve Childhood Opportunity and Lift Children Out of Poverty. Academic Pediatrics, 16(3), S128-S135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2016.01.013
Saunders, P. (2010). Inequality and Poverty. In F. Castles, The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State (1st ed., pp. 526-538). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Semuels, A. (2015). America's Shame: How U.S. Housing Policy Is Failing the Country's Poor. The Atlantic. Retrieved 23 April 2016, from http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/section-8-is-failing/396650/
Shin, M. (2012). The Race to Get In, and the Struggle to Get Out: The Problem of Inter-Generational Poverty in Federal Housing Programs. Washington University Journal Of Law & Policy, 40.
Steinmo, Sven, 2008, What is Historical Institutionalism?. In : Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. 1. Cambridge UK : Cambridge University Press. p. 118-138.
Ziliak, J. (2015). Income, program participation, poverty, and financial vulnerability: Research and data needs. JEM, 40(1-4), 27-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/jem-150397
Housing Assistance and Homeless Services – Practices and Innovations:
Culhane, D. (1992). The Quandaries of Shelter Reform: An Appraisal of Efforts to "Manage" Homelessness. Social Service Review, 66(3), 428-440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/603931
Eyrich-Garg, K. (2011). Sheltered in cyberspace? Computer use among the unsheltered ‘street’ homeless. Computers In Human Behavior, 27(1), 296-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.007
O’Flaherty, B. (2012). Individual homelessness: Entries, exits, and policy. Journal Of Housing Economics, 21(2), 77-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2012.04.006
US Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2016). Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing. Washington D.C.: US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Wagmiller Jr., R. & Adelman, R. (2009). Childhood and Intergenerational Poverty The Long-Term Consequences of Growing Up Poor. National Center for Children in Poverty.
Watson, D., Orwat, J., Wagner, D., Shuman, V., & Tolliver, R. (2013). The housing first model (HFM) fidelity index: designing and testing a tool for measuring integrity of housing programs that serve active substance users. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy, 8(1), 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1747-597x-8-16
Winn, J., Shealy, S., Kropp, G., Felkins-Dohm, D., Gonzales-Nolas, C., & Francis, E. (2013). Housing assistance and case management: Improving access to substance use disorder treatment for homeless veterans. Psychological Services, 10(2), 233-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031051

Preliminary scope of work

Name: Kelsey Beckmeyer
Topic: Family Homelessness: Prevention, Reduction, and Housing Services
Key words: homelessness, housing, low income, prevention, chronic homelessness, US
Academic year: 2015/2016
Language of diploma theses: English
Supervisor: Olga Angelovska
Field of study: Public and Social Policy

A. Research problem definition: Provide links to other research studies - the current level of knowledge (more detailed information should be provide in Part D. Theoretical background) and formulation and justification of research problem. At the end of this paragraph, try to formulate a research problem in one sentence.
The prevalence of homelessness varies throughout the world and efforts to reduce or end homeless are just as varied. From shelters to encampments, criminalization to targeted prevention, countries address homelessness through a myriad of methods. But what actually works? What methods successfully reduce homeless and decrease the likelihood of someone entering (or re-entering) homelessness. Additionally, what does not work? What fails to reduce homelessness? What maintains homelessness? What increases it?
Studies looking at homelessness have been primarily focused on how various groups of people become homeless, the risk factors, mental and physical health, and viewing the culture of homelessness. Additionally, there have been recent studies on new methods to rapidly rehouse people. However, the few academic studies that directly examine how people (this study will focus on chronically homeless individuals) can successfully exit homeless and also fail to fully consider the role public and social policies to adequately address preventing and reducing homelessness.
B. Objectives (their direct link to the formulated research problem)
1. Understand the current state of chronic homelessness and policies to reduce it in the United States. The examination will include the legal, political, social and economic context of homelessness at a federal level.
o Examine the scope of current policies addressing homelessness.
o Examine the past and current methods to address homelessness.
2. Review past and current legislation regarding chronic homelessness and categorize based on the goal of the policy.
3. Review failures to address homelessness – what increases, maintains, and/or ignores homelessness. What past and present policies have been used or are still in use.
4. Formulate a theory on homeless policy development and its application.

C. Research questions
Objective 1: Current State
o How is homelessness defined and identified?
o What happens when a person loses stable housing?
o What is the prevalence of homelessness in the US and the EU? Additionally, what does family homelessness look like in each area?
o How do family policies relate to the rate of family homelessness?
Objective 2: Best Practices
o Who provides homeless and housing services for families in the US and EU – state, civic, private sector?
o Which sector of society has most effectively worked to reduce homelessness among families? How and Why?
o What methods have been successful in reducing and/or preventing family homelessness and why?
Objective 3: Failures
o What methods have failed to reduce and/or prevent family homelessness and why?
o Are there methods that maintain family homelessness? If so, what they and how does the public perceive them?
Objective 4: Recommendations
o What does a successful reduction in family homelessness look like? What groups have been the targets of reduction? What groups have been overlooked?
o Are models to address homelessness replicable in other countries?

D. Theoretical concept - You could also specify the conceptual framework, analytical models representing the main components of the research problem and its social, economic and political context.

Social Exclusion/Inclusion
Social exclusion from the hegemony of society will anchor the thesis. We will consider how poverty, identity, and access to resources have shaped the state of homelessness in the US and EU. Additionally, we will implement the theory of social exclusion to frame the definitions of homelessness in the US and the EU. A uniform definition of homelessness is not formally recognized internationally. Within the EU, a broad definition exists; however, member states still maintain their own interpretations. In the US, a national definition is in place, but has changed as recently as five years ago. It will be important to establish a clear definition in the thesis that aligns with the definitions in each country of focus.

Policy Change: Historical Institutionalism, Path Dependency, and Multiple Streams Theory
When formulating and presenting recommendations, I will depend upon these theories to guide the policy development for each region. Understanding the political make up and history of each focus country will be vital in the recommendation section as well as in evaluating what does and does not work.

E. Research plan -
1. Introduction
a. Problem overview and definition
b. Research question/s
2. Methodology
a. Literature review of theories and approaches
b. Quantitative and qualitative studies
c. Comparison
d. Event Analysis
3. Background Information on Homelessness
a. Definitions
b. Demographics of on a global scale (describe general and set area of focus)
i. Statistics on entries, exists and re-entry
c. Family Homelessness
i. Frame as focus group
ii. US Statistics
iii. EU Statistics
4. US Approach to Homelessness
a. History
b. Political context
c. Legal framework
d. Economic factors
e. Social obstacles
f. Current policies
5. Best and worst practices
a. Current Practices
i. Shelter
ii. Prevention
iii. Housing Assistance
iv. Other Programs
b. What has worked based on established empirical evidence
c. What hasn’t worked based on established empirical evidence
6. Results: Summary of key findings
a. What is working
b. What is not working
c. What could change
7. Discussion of implications within the US and EU
a. Recommendations – US
b. Recommendations – EU
8. Discussion of Further Research Areas

Preliminary scope of work in English