Morris R. Davis, CASRO Board Member and CMOR Task Force Co-Chair
Full Story

A Letter from Our Editor
Read More

National Alliance to End Homelessness Website
Links to resources about homelessness.
Read More

How does the U.S. compare with other countries when it comes to housing and Homelessness?
Full Story

Solutions at Work: Understanding Homelessness
Full Story

Homelessness and Poverty in America: The Solutions
Full Story

Homelessness Charities Suggest Long-Term Solutions (Great Britain)
Full Story

Survey of Attitudes and Opinions on Homelessness
Full Story

About M. Davis and Company, Inc.
M. Davis and Company, Inc., is a market research and consulting firm that provides complete services from project conception through implementation. We aim to ensure that our clients receive a high return on information (ROInfo™) by employing our unique perspective and market insights.
Read More

CASRO and CMOR

CONGRATULATIONS to Morris R. Davis, President and Founder of M. Davis and Company, Inc. He was recently elected as a Board Member and Officer of ⁽¹⁾ The Council of American Survey Research Organizations (CASRO), as well as co-chairing and playing a lead role in ⁽²⁾ The Council for Marketing and Opinion Research (CMOR) Task Force.

Officers of the 2003 CASRO Board of Directors
2002 Secretary Morris R. Davis (M. Davis and Company, Inc.), 2003 Board Chair Paul A. Talmey (Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc.), CASRO President Diane K. Bowers, 2003 Treasurer Dale S. Lersch (PERT Survey Research), and 2003 Chair-Elect Simon Chadwick (NOP World).

⁽¹⁾ The Council of American Survey Research Organizations (CASRO) is the trade association of survey research businesses, representing nearly 200 companies and research operations in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

CASRO works to fully serve its members, the industry and the public. Our volunteer committees are: Annual Conference, Benchmarking Best Practices, CASRO University, Financial/Compensation/Internet Research Survey, Global Liaison, Government and Legal Affairs, Guidelines and Practices, Marketing and Communications, Membership Services, Past Chairs Council, Publications, Standards, and Technology. We have sets of guidelines that address business practices in general as well as specific aspects of the survey research process, such as data collection, data processing, and reporting survey results. For most of our history, we have served as the watchdog for any proposed changes in government regulations or legislation that could affect the research industry. And, importantly, we are now working with other industry associations to coordinate industry supported initiatives in the areas of government affairs, respondent cooperation, assessing client needs from research, education and training, and professional and industry identity.

One major common ground for all CASRO members is the belief in the value and necessity of survey research in today's world. Whether it is research standards, business ethics and practices or research processes, CASRO mandates its members to respect the public's rights to confidentiality and privacy as well as encourage its members to offer their clients the highest quality of service, and to grow their employees' skills and proficiencies. To find out more about CASRO, please visit their website at: www.casro.org.

⁽²⁾ CMOR was established as The Council for Marketing & Opinion Research in 1992 by four major marketing and market & opinion research trade associations:

American Marketing Association (AMA)
Advertising Research Foundation (ARF)
Council of American Survey Research Organizations (CASRO)
Marketing Research Association (MRA)

These associations have been joined by more than 150 corporations and organizations that conduct and/or use marketing and opinion research. Together, under the CMOR umbrella and leadership, we work to further the acceptance of marketing and opinion research by the public and the government, through education, lobbying, and providing legislative support to prevent abuses of the research process.

CMOR also designs and implements programs that help ensure improved access to consumers, so that respondent awareness of the value of research increases and respondent cooperation rates improve. To find out more about CMOR, please visit their website at: www.cmor.org.

Return to Top

A Letter from Our Editor

When Americans consider homelessness, it is perhaps with the familiar image of an urban street in New York City or of a rural community center in the Midwest. Yet homelessness is a significant issue that faces nations around the world, a fundamental challenge on every continent. While it is difficult to estimate the number of people experiencing homelessness worldwide, the UN Center for Human Settlements reported last year that more than 1.2 billion of the world’s 6 billion people live in inadequate housing.

People who were at one time contributing members of society are now living on the streets. They are prisoners of a lifestyle that can facilitate isolation, hopelessness, despair and humiliation.

Return to Top

National Alliance to End Homelessness Website

Ten Essentials Toolkit - a comprehensive set of resources designed to help communities prevent and end homelessness - features the ten essential components that every community needs to end homelessness.

State and Local Plans to End Homelessness - links and summaries to the plans that various states, cities, and counties have already developed and are presently implementing to end homelessness in their communities.

Best Practices - profiles of program models, state and local policies, and advocacy efforts that are taking groundbreaking steps toward the goal of ending homelessness

Return to Top

HOW DOES THE U.S. COMPARE WITH OTHER COUNTRIES WHEN IT COMES TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS?

European Union countries are considered to have among the most socially advanced housing policies in the world. Among developing nations, countries such as Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Indonesia, Senegal, Singapore, and Tunisia are praised for their efforts. In Brazil, for example, cities such as Fortaleza, Recife, Porto Allegre, Santo Andre, and several others are considered to have quite effective housing programs. And in post-apartheid South Africa, progress has been made in making housing policies more favorable to the poor.

Much of the progress comes at the local level. "The places where you see success stories are the places where there are very strong community organizations present, a very high degree of participation in the community, and where the government has acted as a facilitating rather than a repressive force," says Scott Leckie. "Most of the success stories are small-scale, community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood, but they get replicated in other places once people find out about them."

Biau agrees: "The ideal situation would be to have a strong municipality defining the city-wide policies, and for each squatter settlement or slum to have a few CBOs (community-based organizations) and NGOs [Non-Governmental Organizations] co-ordinating the implementation of these policies. I believe that the key partnerships in the future will be between local authorities and CBOs and NGOs, at the city level."

But the political will must be present to accomplish these goals. "If there is the will in any city or country, there is a way to improve the situation," says Biau. "And the way can be easily defined." Biau says the media have an important role to play in convincing policy-makers to act more responsibly. And ultimately the people themselves have the ability to generate the needed political will. Throughout Latin America, for example, people have organized themselves, invaded land, and pressured governments to act for many years. In the Philippines, some 100,000 CBOs and NGOs are working toward the improvement of housing and living conditions in the slums.

"A popular-based approach, involving all relevant factors, most importantly the people themselves, is the basis of the solution," says Scott Leckie. "More and more people are beginning to realize that, and more and more people are becoming involved in these types of movements. In conjunction with greater recognition of housing as a human rights issue, more and more human rights and legal groups have become involved as well. Those two forces together are pushing things in a good direction."

Return to Top

SOLUTIONS AT WORK: UNDERSTANDING HOMELESSNESS

"If you provide the resources that an individual needs to work and live productively, you provide a real opportunity for self-sufficiency. Every person we help move out of homelessness reaffirms this powerful truth," says Macy DeLong, founder of Solutions at Work, an organization that facilitates a permanent transition out of homelessness for the population of Cambridge, MA.

Led and run by currently and formerly homeless individuals, Solutions at Work can attribute much of its success not only to hard work and dedication, but also to an institutional understanding of what it means to be homeless and what it takes to transition into a more stable situation. Since its founding in 1989, Solutions at Work has helped more than 75,000 people move permanently out of homelessness-a significant achievement given that one-fifth of people who have previously lived in shelters return to them.

In 2001 Solutions at Work won the Dr. Joseph H. Brenner Leadership Award from the Community Legal Services Counseling Center and the Small Business of the Year Award from the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce. In addition, DeLong was presented the Cambridge YWCA "Tribute to Outstanding Women" award in September 2001.

The Limitations of Shelter Services
Although there are shelters that provide transitional services to the approximately 8,000 homeless in the Greater Boston area, the services offered by Solutions at Work are unique. Its staff understands what it is to be homeless, and therefore, appreciates the importance of individualizing solutions. In many homeless shelters, clients are treated uniformly, with little variation in the services provided to men, women, youth, families, or the mentally ill. On entering Solutions at Work, however, the first question asked is, "What do you need to get your life back?" followed by, "Do you want to work?" Solutions helps its clients find the job, clothing, or apartment and develop the skills that they need to get back on their feet.

Solutions at Work: Programs and Services
While Solutions at Work offers diverse counseling services, it largely functions through several major programs that address the particular needs of the homeless. Employment is a significant challenge for transitioning people who want and need to work, but how many employers will consider a candidate with no resume, no references, no address, and dirty clothes? Solutions at Work programs provide employment and skills development for people who are or have been homeless.

In 2001 eight people with histories of homelessness were employed in six permanent staff positions. Solutions also offered temporary labor to 28 homeless people and provided longer-term transitional employment and job skills development to 22 people transitioning out of homelessness. At the end of the year, 10 individuals moved into mainstream employment, one went on to higher education, and eight continued with Solutions at Work.

Another substantial part of Solutions' efforts is concentrated in two programs: The Cambridge Furniture Bank and Moving Up. The Cambridge Furniture Bank collects and recycles good quality used furniture, appliances, and household items and gives them to families and individuals who are moving out of homelessness and into housing. During 2001 932 individuals and 27 corporations donated furniture and household goods, clothing, and supplies, which the Cambridge Furniture Bank then distributed to 575 households. Moving Up is a below-cost moving service primarily for the elderly, people with disabilities, and those living with HIV/AIDS. Solutions also provided relocation services to 78 families and individuals who could not afford the cost of a traditional moving company.

A Model for the Future
Solutions at Work is not a shelter, meals, or job skills program. Rather, Solutions' counseling focuses on employment and life skills training. Clients learn how to get and keep a job, how to manage money, and how to stay away from drugs and alcohol. Solutions provides meaningful jobs that allow people to directly and positively impact others. The organization has helped thousands of people bridge the gap to self-sufficiency using a unique approach that brings real solutions to the challenges of transitioning from homelessness to a more stable environment.

Return to Top

HOMELESSNESS AND POVERTY IN AMERICA: THE SOLUTIONS

Permanent solutions to homelessness must address its fundamental cause: the inability to pay for housing. Permanent solutions to homelessness must address both the shortage of affordable housing and the inadequacy of income to meet basic needs. Permanent solutions must also address the additional need for treatment for people suffering from disabilities.

Permanent solutions must:

• Ensure Affordable Housing. Provide subsidies to make existing housing affordable; create additional affordable housing through rehabilitation and, where needed, new construction.
• Ensure Adequate Income. Ensure that working men and women earn enough to meet basic needs, including housing; ensure that those able to work have access to jobs and job training; ensure that those not able to work are provided assistance adequate to meet basic needs, including housing.
• Ensure Social Services. Ensure access to social services, including health care, child care, mental health care and substance abuse treatment.
• Prohibit Discrimination. Prohibit laws that discriminate against homeless people, including laws that specifically target them or activities they must engage in because they are homeless.

Permanent solutions must also prevent people from becoming homeless. New policies that address the underlying structural causes of homelessness -- by addressing housing, income and treatment problems -- must coincide with specific prevention policies to stem the rising tide of homelessness.

Increasingly, homelessness affects not only the very poor, but also working and middle class Americans. Middle class families are increasingly unable to afford to buy, or even rent, their own homes. Middle class workers are now facing rising unemployment, coupled with declining assistance from "safety net" programs.

Permanent solutions to homelessness reintegrate homeless people into society and foster self-empowerment. Policies that produce affordable housing by employing homeless people are among the necessary policies that strengthen the economy while also helping to end homelessness.

Despite recent media reports to the contrary, polls consistently reveal that the majority of the American public supports aid to the homeless. According to the polls, the majority of the public understands the underlying causes of homelessness, and 81% would pay additional taxes to fund increased aid.

Return to Top

HOMELESSNESS CHARITIES SUGGEST LONG TERM SOLUTIONS (GREAT BRITAIN)

1. Introduction
The development of the National Homelessness Strategy, the Homelessness Bill and the announcement of the creation of a Homelessness Directorate within the DTLR all demonstrate the government’s commitment to reduce the level of homelessness as well as its damaging impact. Homeless Link, Shelter, Centrepoint and Crisis strongly support the government in their programme.

At the last meeting of the homelessness sector representatives with the Minister for Housing and Planning, Lord Falconer, asked to outline the most important steps the government can take to reduce homelessness in the long-term.

Through a consultation with frontline homelessness services, and discussion between Homeless Link, Shelter, Centrepoint and Crisis, identified that prevention, links to other strategies and improved services for homeless people with multiple needs are the three most important areas that will have the biggest impact on reducing homelessness in the long-term. Detail below specific recommendations within each of these areas hope the DTLR will include within the National Homelessness Strategy. In addition, where references have been made to examples of good practice, a brief description has been included in the Annex.

2. Prevention
The requirement of the Homelessness Bill and focus of the National Homelessness Strategy towards prevention identifies an important direction for future services and support delivered to former homeless people and those at risk of becoming homeless.

Much of the work that needs to be done must be driven by central, regional and local government, in partnership with the voluntary and community sector. Prevention of homelessness needs to be rooted in regeneration and in social inclusion and demonstrate its importance across all social policy areas. It should cover work in estates, schools, youth services and occur in conjunction with families and parents.

To achieve this we recommend that:
Relevant agencies and professionals are given better understanding of the causes of homelessness, and are able to identify risk and ensure appropriate and timely referrals through to support services. The DTLR should work with the homelessness sector to develop toolkits that identify risk of homelessness and promote their use through existing professional training programmes (professionals such as GPs, Neighbourhood Wardens/Super Caretakers, Social Workers, Youth Workers, Connexions/ES/ONE Advisers, Health Professionals, Probation Officers).

The importance of resettlement, tenancy sustainment and day-time services to prevent people from re-entering homelessness should be recognised. Every local authority should ensure that such services are available to homeless people and those recently re-housed. Resettlement and tenancy sustainment support should be provided for as long as is needed and avoid arbitrary cut-off points.
Models of supportive housing management should be promoted with social and private landlords. They should be equipped to identify those at risk and offer access to support through early intervention services, rather than notices to quit.

Local authorities, working with homelessness agencies, should ensure that good quality, independent housing advice and other forms of advocacy are available to all those who need it.

Homelessness prevention work needs to begin with children in both schools and the local community. Leaving home and homelessness modules should be developed within the National Curriculum, such as the Shelter Housemate Resource Pack.

The DTLR should also consider setting a further outcome that can identify the success of preventative strategies and services. The National Homelessness Strategy should include the following outcome:

“The reduction in the failure rate of tenures across the private and social housing sectors as measured by the proportion of tenants evicted by their landlords.”

This outcome recognises the preventative role of private landlords, social landlords (local authorities, RSLs and voluntary sector), support agencies, housing and social services departments, public bodies and mortgage lenders. Strategies to achieve this reduction will vary at the local level, and between the different housing sectors.

3. Links to other strategies
Housing and homelessness needs to be considered within the delivery of all social policy areas. Housing and homelessness needs a stronger profile within new and existing policy, strategy development and programme delivery, particularly in social inclusion programmes.

Linking up national and local strategies and identifying their impact and the opportunities they offer to help homeless people and work jointly with homelessness services, is a key to making prevention work across the public, private and voluntary sectors. Indeed, without a multi-agency approach and responsibility to homelessness, prevention will always take second place to the crisis intervention response to homelessness. Therefore propose that:
The prevention, alleviation and resolution of homelessness should constitute strategic priorities for other government departments, specifically, DoH, DfES, DWP, DEFRA, the Cabinet Office (SEU) and the Home Office.

The Homelessness Directorate should monitor and audit new and existing national policy and strategies to identify the relationship with and the effect upon homelessness. The Directorate should work with other government departments to influence and seek changes to policy, including National Service Frameworks and Targets. The Directorate should establish a working group of homelessness agencies to support and advise its work in this respect.

Inter-agency forums should be in place at the local level to scrutinise local strategic and delivery plans for their impact upon homelessness and relevance to homeless people. Such forums will have a wider scope than just developing and delivering local homelessness strategies, rather they will act as expert panels on homelessness that can advise other local forums and strategy groups. These could be sub-groups of Local Strategic Partnerships where they exist.

4. Multiple Needs
The combination of being homeless and suffering a number of serious and at times life-threatening needs and illnesses can be overwhelming for the individual. Homeless people with multiple needs are amongst the most vulnerable groups in our society, and due to a host of structural factors, very little appropriate provision exists for them. Shortcomings in strategies and funding policies around drugs and alcohol misuse, mental health, primary health, housing and homelessness (and the fact that they do not link together) has severely disadvantaged this very vulnerable group of homeless people.

Homeless people with multiple needs should not be excluded either from services or housing provision. The government, through the National Homelessness Strategy, must demonstrate the political willingness at national and local level to include this client group. This should give a strong signal to local service commissioners and providers that creative ways must be found to meet the needs of this client group. These should include:

The need for a range of housing provision for people with multiple needs:

• small long-term hostel provision. High quality self-contained units with communal spaces with: good staff to resident ratios (1:5); 24-hour support with access to specialist support around mental health, substance misuse, and primary health care.
• housing - with flexible long term tenancy support. Again good staff to client ratios (1:15), with access to specialist support as above is important to their success. Recommend that DTLR look closely at the Multiple Needs Unit developed by FOCUS Housing in Birmingham, the Multiple Needs Team operated by Centrepoint, and the ‘Millennium Plus’ model developed jointly by Crisis and Shelter, as examples of good practice and innovation for working with this client group in different accommodation settings.
• the promotion of the model of non-attached independent long-term advocacy, as an innovative and progressive way of working with homeless people with multiple needs. To fund pilots of the Elmore Team model in other areas of the country.
• the DTLR working with other government departments responsible for mental health, primary health care and drug and alcohol commissioning, to ensure that holistic packages of support funding are available to this client group at the local level.
• Health Improvement Programmes that explicitly address the needs of homeless people, particularly those with multiple needs, and access to health care services. They need to demonstrate the co-ordinating mechanisms between Health Improvement Programmes and local homelessness strategies.

5. Innovation and Good Practice
It is widely recognised that the voluntary homelessness sector is a leader in the field of innovation. In addition, a considerable amount of good practice exists and is shared between agencies. The National Homelessness Strategy should recognise this, and commit to a programme that enhances these aspects of the sector.

Key to this programme will be the role government plays in creating an environment within which good practice and innovation can flourish. Government policy over the past 4 years has placed an emphasis on identifying "what works" and sharing good practice amongst key actors. Additional resources and infrastructure have been employed to enable local authorities to share their practice across a host of different policy areas. This approach must now be applied to the homelessness sector.

Innovation should also be supported within the sector through the identification of resources to undertake innovative projects. The DTLR should give consideration to creating a good practice and innovation fund that can be distributed to homelessness agencies and other partners, similar to that of the RSU and the Housing Corporation.

Homeless Link, Shelter, Centrepoint, Crisis January 2002

Examples of Good Practice
Centrepoint Multiple Needs Team-The Multiple Needs Team, a partnership project between Centrepoint and the Hungerford Drugs Project comprises a team of specialist hostel workers. Funded by the Rough Sleepers Unit, the team works to help vulnerable rough sleepers stay off the streets. Centrepoint employs a team leader, and a mental health worker and three drug workers are employed by the Hungerford Drug project. The team aims to provide a service to residents at Centrepoint’s rough sleeper projects who have issues around substance misuse, mental health or dual diagnosis issues.

The main aims of the team are to:

• Enable residents to move on and maintain hostel stays
• Prevent mental health and/or drug use from escalating
• Reduce exclusion of this group of young adults from hostels and services
• Provide specialist support, advice and training to generic Centrepoint staff

The team provide a range of services across the hostels they work in. The services provided are tailored to meet and to be responsive to need. They include:

• Needs assessment
• Crisis support for residents and hostel staff
• One to one advice sessions
• Casework for a limited caseload
• Drop In sessions
• Through care within Centrepoint and referral/linking in with local statutory and voluntary services
• Links with local clinics to provide access to GP’s and prescribing services

Further information about the Multiple Needs Team at Centrepoint can be obtained from: Kerry Anthony Multiple Needs Co-ordinator Centrepoint Multiple Needs Team 11 Bondway London SW8 1SN
Tel: 020 7793 7695

The Elmore Team - Oxford
The work of the Elmore Team is client-led, with the support worker assessing the needs of an individual and then working with them for as long as is necessary. As one member of the team remarked, “You can stay with some people for along time, constantly plugging them in to local services.” The results of their work are such that clients may no longer need the support of the team after a time. However, there will always be a small number of clients that the team recognise as needing their support indefinitely. The ability to offer open-ended support is a necessary flexibility.

Traditionally outreach work has adopted a monitoring approach, endeavouring to ensure services can be accessed when the client requires them. The Elmore Team uses a more directive, assertive outreach approach; persistently making attempts to engage the client, ensuring that all potential avenues for treatment and support are open and accessible to that client. “Plugging” people in to local services is a vital element of the Elmore Team’s way of working.

The model can be broken down into four sections:

• Assessment and engagement
• Co-ordination
• Advocacy
• Brokerage

The Elmore Team generally undertakes casework with the clients who are referred to them. However, in some circumstances, they may in fact not need to meet the person yet still have a crucial role in the brokerage (or re-brokerage) of services for that client. One of the main areas of expertise considered to be held by the team is the knowledge of these local agencies and services.

Clients are allocated to a particular worker but it is important that they are viewed as the responsibility of the team as a whole. During planned leave all clients from a particular worker’s caseload are allocated to another team member.

Furthermore it is recognised that when working with a client over many years it is valuable for that client to be “moved around” the team. Clients have supported this approach and there is a culture encouraged within the team and amongst clients to say, “this is not working out”, aiming to be honest and direct. This will then be discussed by the team and in supervision, and another worker will then be allocated.

In March 2000, the Elmore Team surveyed 105 local agencies and all current clients. The majority of respondents to the survey rated the service as either “good” or “excellent”. The Team has also recently received the “Investors in People” award, demonstrating the high standard of policies, procedures and development plans. The evidence suggests that the Elmore Team is an organisation with much to offer and share.

The Elmore Team’s good practice has been published in the following document available from Homeless Link: Dewhurst, L. (2001) “Inhabiting the margins: Elmore Team, Oxford - Good Practice Report” NHA; London

FOCUS Housing: Multiple Needs Project
The objectives of this project are:

• To provide housing to people excluded from current provision and existing resources for homeless people in Birmingham.
• To offer appropriate ongoing support and to access other specialist services in order that people can maintain their accommodation successfully.

Target group:

• Males excluded from current provision because of a multiplicity of needs and associated behaviour, predominantly in the age group 25 -45. There is provision for fifteen individuals to reside at the project in purpose built flats. These are finished to a high standard, in part to give the message to the residents, “that they are worth it”. The issues of the group will include mental health, self-harm, behavioural issues, alcohol misuse and substance misuse; it is expected that people will often display more than one need. The project seeks to work with these needs to a greater degree than in standard provision.

Referrals are identified by:

• The Community Homeless Mental Health Team
• RSI Outreach and Resettlement Team
• Local Authority Departments involved in Mental Health and Homeless Services

All potential applicants need to have significant levels of exclusion throughout the City. Allocations are the responsibility of the Project Manager with reference to an Allocations Panel.

The expected length of tenure would be up to four years. Tenure is based on a License.

FOCUS are recently completed their evaluation of the first year of the Multiple Needs Project. Further information can be obtained from: Dave Rogers FOCUS Housing 44 Bradford Street Birmingham B5 6HX Tel: 0121 687 6088

Shelter and Crisis Millennium Plus
Millennium Plus was established in November 1999, it is a three year joint initiative between Crisis and Shelter and is supported though Shelter’s Street Solutions, funded by Nescafe. In the first year, it received financial support from DETR.

Millennium Plus has three key objectives: to introduce a common approach to assessing client need which includes the development of care plans within winter shelters for street homeless people; to pilot a specific number of areas where assessment panels of local statutory and voluntary sector agencies are set up in order to focus and fast track the resettlement process, leading to client led and client responsive services; and to link the winter projects with Shelter’s Housing Aid Centres (HAC) around the country.

In order to meet these objectives and to link into the RSU’s strategy “Coming in from the Cold”, Millennium Plus has developed a comprehensive needs assessment form which fits into an assessment process and contributes towards the re-housing of clients at the WinterWatch projects in appropriate long term accommodation.

There are four stages to the assessment process:

• Arrival at the WinterWatch: the client who arrives into the WinterWatch project is identified as someone for whom it would be appropriate for a comprehensive needs assessment to be carried out;
• The comprehensive needs assessment form: the client and a keyworker work together over a period of time, to review the client’s housing history, areas where they have problems, and possible solutions. The keyworker draws up an action plan and identifies other agencies (e.g. Social Services, a drug agency, etc) who should be involved;
• The assessment panel: a panel meeting of all agencies is called to come up with a housing solution with an appropriate care package. The panel meeting should arrive at a positive outcome and will hear from the client and/or their advocate;
• Resettlement: the final stage of the process is the care package which is devised at the meeting and which should be reviewed regularly to ensure that it is working and still appropriate for the needs of the client.

Further information about Millennium Plus, including an evaluation of the second year of the programme, can be obtained from: Rebecca Carpenter Millennium Plus Project Manager Shelter 88 Old Street London EC1V 9HU Tel: 020 7505 2000

Shelter Housemate Resource Pack
Housemate has been produced as part of Shelter’s Homework project, a two year initiative which aims to provide opportunities for school aged children across the UK to learn about housing and homelessness.

Every year, Shelter is contacted by thousands of young people in need of help, the vast majority of whom are in housing crisis. A quarter of those who are on the streets are under 25 years old, and many thousands more young people live in hostels or squats or are sleeping on friends’ floors. These experiences of homelessness affect the development of young people in every way: health, education and future prospects.

The aim of the resource pack is to provide basic information and materials for teachers in secondary education about issues of homelessness and housing. No assumptions are made about prior knowledge of the subject areas.

The resource was developed with the Citizen and PSHE curriculum in mind but it can be used in other areas of the curriculum as appropriate.

The resource has been designed so that it can be used flexibly as it recognises that schools teach both the Citizenship and PSHE curriculum in a variety of ways. These subjects can be taught, for example, within or through other subjects, curriculum areas and courses, or through tutorial work.

Further information about the Housemate Resource Pack can be obtained from: Tessa Hibbert Housemate Project Manager Shelter 88 Old Street London EC1V 9HU Tel: 020 7505 2000
www.homeless.org.uk

Return to Top

SURVEY OF ATTITUDES AND OPINIONS ON HOMELESSNESS

Report of Findings - November 22, 1999
Prepared By: GCA Strategies, Inc., Frank Noto, Vice President, 655 Montgomery Street, Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94111, 415-391-4100

INTRODUCTION
METHODOLOGY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

I. INTRODUCTION
GCA Strategies is pleased to present to COHHIO this report of findings of a survey of attitudes and opinions on housing for homeless people in Franklin County, Ohio. The telephone survey of 500 randomly selected residents age 18 and over was conducted from October 1-5, 1999.

II. METHODOLOGY
These findings are based on 500 telephone interviews with a random sample of Franklin County residents. Franklin County includes Columbus, Ohio's largest city. The margin of sampling error for a sample of this size is no greater than 4.5 percent in 95 out of 100 cases, depending on the exact percentage being analyzed. That is, if this survey were conducted 100 times, the estimates produced in approximately 95 of the surveys would be within the margin of error of the true percentages associated with the population under study. A pragmatic interpretation of this statement is that we are 95 percent confident that the estimates from our survey are within the margin of error of the true percentages associated with the population under study.

GCA Strategies developed this questionnaire with assistance from San Francisco Research Services. McGuire Research conducted the telephone interviews. GCA Strategies is solely responsible for research design and analysis, as well as preparation of this report. Consistent with census data, a gender quota was imposed to ensure that no more than 52 percent of respondents were female. Response data was also monitored to ensure a representative age sample.

Franklin County has been divided into three geographic regions for purposes of this survey: 1) downtown Columbus and neighborhoods near downtown Columbus (17%); 2) all other Columbus neighborhoods (referred to as "other Columbus neighborhoods away from downtown,") (35%); and, 3) Franklin County suburbs outside the city limits (48%). Divisions were based on ZIP code boundaries.

Many questions call for responses on a 1 to 10 scale where 10 indicates strongly "support," "favor," or "agree" and 1 indicates strongly "oppose" or "disagree." To facilitate understanding, in this report responses from 7 to 10 on this 10-point scale are characterized as "support," responses from 1 to 4 are listed as "oppose," while a 5 or 6 indicates neutrality. The same scale is also used for questions which test effective ways to reduce homelessness, with the cumulative categories characterized as "effective," "ineffective" or "neutral." Mean scores are also used throughout this report to indicate the average interview response on the same 1 to 10 scales.

III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
COMMUNITY CONCERNS
Homelessness is a major local issue, ranking second only to drugs and crime as a community concern in the Columbus area. Nearly nine out of ten residents (86%) are concerned about "too many homeless people on the streets;" the same level of concern shown for "public schools" (86%). As shown below, the saliency of the homelessness issue appears to be motivated primarily by concern for the plight of homeless people, rather than fears for public safety and property damage.

PERCEPTIONS OF HOMELESSNESS
An overwhelming majority (72%) agree that "homeless people are normal people facing temporary problems like unemployment or sudden rent increases." The public is much more likely to believe in external causes of homelessness (e.g., unemployment) as opposed to internal causes such as mental illness.

The community does not see most homeless people as a public hazard. Just eight percent (8%) agree that "most homeless people are violent," and only 20 percent believe that "homeless people vandalize and damage property."

SOLUTIONS TO HOMELESSNESS
Most people view job training as an effective means of reducing homelessness in the community, ranking highest among potential solutions rated. In the public's view, other very effective solutions include: 1) switching from large emergency shelters to smaller housing facilities with services; 2) creating more affordable housing, and 3) providing more funding for local agencies and non-profits that help the homeless.

The community overwhelmingly rejects a strategy of "making life on the street more difficult and unpleasant until the homeless decide to leave town" as an effective means of reducing homelessness in the Columbus area.

PROVIDING HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS
By a margin of nearly 3-to-1, Columbus residents support construction of more homeless housing in their own neighborhoods. Columbus area residents say they would support "a proposal to build supportive housing for the homeless somewhere in your neighborhood" (55% support - 20% oppose). Supportive housing was defined as "affordable housing that includes services such as medical and psychiatric care or job training."

By a margin of greater than 6-to-1, the public agrees "supportive housing for the homeless can fit in a neighborhood if it is well-designed and well-maintained."

Residents also strongly agree (82%) "we need to build more supportive housing with services to get homeless people off the street."

The community strongly agrees (70%) that "wealthy and middle-class neighborhoods and suburbs should get their share of supportive housing for the homeless." Even suburban residents solidly agree with this message.

A minority (41%) of residents believe that homeless housing should be segregated in the central city. A majority opposes a statement that "supportive housing for the homeless should only be located in the central city, and not in wealthy and middle-class Columbus neighborhoods and suburbs."

Enforcement of written "good neighbor" plans appears to be an effective means of increasing support for homeless housing.

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH HOMELESSNESS
More than one in five people (22%) in Columbus have had personal or family experience with homelessness, or both. Eighteen percent of area residents surveyed have a family memwho has been homeless, while 10 percent have themselves stayed in a homeless shelter or been without housing.

Three-fourths (78%) of residents had spoken with a homeless person, while two-thirds (67%) had donated money or volunteered at a soup kitchen or shelter.

IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. COMMUNITY CONCERNS
Homelessness is a major community issue in the Columbus area. Nearly nine out of ten area residents (86%) are concerned about "Too many homeless people on the streets," including 48 percent who are strongly concerned. Those most concerned include:
- Residents with some college education (not including college graduates (93%)
- African-Americans (93%)
- Women (92%)

Men are not as concerned with homeless people (80% concerned) as women are. Looked at from another perspective, more than twice as many men (17%) say they are not at all concerned with homelessness as women (7%).

Of the community issues tested, the only one of greater concern than the problem of homelessness is "drugs and crime" (96% concerned). The saliency of "public schools" (86%) and "local taxes too high" (81%) is comparable with that of homelessness.

Interestingly, there is significantly less concern with two issues commonly associated with homelessness, "lack of affordable housing" (70%) and "unemployment" (59%), suggesting that, while residents believe these to be problems or causes of problems for homeless people, they do not perceive these problems to be relevant to them personally.

The salience of "too many homeless people on the streets" appears to be driven primarily by concern for the plight of homeless people, rather than public safety or property damage fears, as shown in B. PERCEPTIONS OF HOMELESS PEOPLE. Similarly, much more support for a strategy of harassment would be evident if public safety was the most important motivation (See C. SOLUTIONS FOR HOMELESSNESS).

B. PERCEPTIONS OF HOMELESS PEOPLE
1. External Causation: An overwhelming majority (72%) of Franklin County residents surveyed agree that "Most homeless people are normal people facing temporary problems like unemployment or sudden rent increases." This includes 32 percent who strongly agree. Only one-quarter (24%) of residents disagree, while four percent are unsure.

2. Unemployment: Seventy-five percent (75%) believe unemployment is a factor in homelessness. Only 17% agree that "Most homeless people have jobs," while nine percent are undecided.

3. Mental Illness: An overwhelming majority (72%) rejects mental illness as the cause of most homelessness, including 35 percent who disagree strongly. Less than one-quarter (23%) believes that "most homeless people are mentally unstable."

4. Violence and Vandalism: Homeless people are not generally seen as prone to violence or vandalism. Just eight percent (8%) agree that "most homeless people are violent," and only 20 percent believe that "homeless people vandalize and damage property."

5. Substance Abuse/Behavior: A minority (31%) believe that "homelessness is caused by the fact that homeless people don't want to work or are unwilling to stop drinking and use drugs."

In summary, Columbus area residents are more likely to believe in external causation for homelessness (e.g., unemployment) as opposed to internal causes such as mental illness, substance abuse or a propensity toward crime. Residents do not see most homeless people as a public hazard.

C. SOLUTIONS FOR HOMELESSNESS
1. Job Training: Area residents are more likely to choose "job training" as an effective means of reducing homelessness than any other potential solution tested (8.1 mean score on a scale of 1 to 10).

Groups that see job training as particularly effective include:
- Residents with some college education (8.7); and
- African-Americans (8.6).

Residents with graduate or professional degrees are somewhat less likely to agree that job training is an effective way to reduce homelessness (7.6).

2. Change in Homeless Strategy: There is strong support for a change in Columbus' strategy to address homelessness. A "Switch from large emergency shelters for the homeless to many smaller housing properties combined with job training and services" is seen as a very effective means of reducing homelessness (7.5 mean).

Among groups most in agreement are:
- Women under age 45 (8.1);
- Residents ages 18-34 (8.0); and,
- Parents with children under 18 (7.8).

Though agreement is strong among all demographic groups, those least likely to agree with switching from large shelters to smaller housing properties with job training and services include:
- Men over age 45 (6.8); and,
- Residents ages 55-64 (6.9).

3. New Affordable Housing: Creation of affordable housing is also viewed as effective in solving homelessness. There is strong support for a policy to "Create more affordable housing for homeless people." (7.2) Women (7.3) are significantly more in agreement than men (6.4).

4. Funding: Residents support providing assistance to groups that help homeless people. Most residents support providing "more funding to local agencies and non-profit organizations that help the homeless." (7.3) Women over age 45 are somewhat less likely to see more funding for agencies and non-profits as effective (6.6).

5. Harassment: A crackdown on homeless people is not seen as an effective solution. Residents overwhelmingly reject a proposal to "Make life on the street more difficult and unpleasant until the homeless decide to leave town" as a solution (mean of 2.2).

In summary, job training ranks highest as an effective means of reducing homelessness, while affordable housing, funding for organizations serving homeless people, and a switch to smaller housing facilities also are seen as effective solutions. But harassment of homeless people is not seen as an effective way to reduce homelessness in the Columbus area.

D. APPROVAL OF HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS
Approval in Your Neighborhood: A solid majority of residents (55%) would favor "a proposal to build supportive housing for the homeless somewhere in your neighborhood." Only one in five (20%) oppose such a proposal, while one-quarter are neutral (21%) or say they don't know (4%).

E. ARGUMENTS
Three arguments in support of homeless housing meet with very strong approval:

Design: "Supportive housing for the homeless can fit in a neighborhood if it is well-designed and maintained." (86% Agree)

Housing/Off Streets: "We need to build more supportive housing with services to get homeless people off the street." (82% Agree)

Fair Share: "Wealthy and middle-class Columbus neighborhoods and suburban communities should get their share of supportive housing for the homeless." (70% Agree)

NOTE: Even two-thirds (66%) of suburban residents agree that affluent neighborhoods should get their share of supportive housing, though naturally downtown area residents are most likely to agree (82%). Residents from Columbus neighborhoods away from the downtown area also agree (69%).

A majority of residents agree with the following fiscal argument, though approval is relatively less strong:

Effective Use of Tax Money: "It costs taxpayers more money to pay for extra police, emergency medical care and psychiatric hospital costs than it would to create supportive housing for the homeless." (56% Agree)

Only a minority agrees with an argument sometimes advanced for segregating homeless housing in the central city:

Location: "Supportive housing for the homeless should be located in the central city, and not in wealthy and middle-class Columbus neighborhoods and suburbs" (41% Agree vs. 52% Disagree)

F. CONCESSIONS AND MITIGATIONS
Several mitigation measures are effective in winning support. Enforcement of good neighbor plans, 24-hour onsite staff supervision and community advisory committees are apparently effective means of increasing approval of a proposal to build supportive housing "somewhere in your neighborhood" (listed in order):

1. Good Neighbor Plans: "The housing operator could have its permits revoked unless it lived up to a written good neighbor plan that controls how it must operate." (76% say this statement makes them more likely to favor a supportive housing proposal, including 43% who say this makes them much more likely). This support carries across the board with all demographic groups; even a majority of those who oppose supportive housing say that a "good neighbor" policy makes them more likely to favor it.

2. 24-Hour Staff: "24-hour on-site staff were provided" (74% more likely).

3. Neighborhood Committees: "A neighborhood committee was appointed to advise the housing organization on how it should operate" (56% more likely).

4. Smoking In Front: "Residents were prohibited from hanging out in front of the building and smoking areas were out of view" (53% more likely).

G. DEMOGRAPHICS
Franklin County survey respondents are primarily white, without children under 18, and with at least some college education. Demographic highlights of the Columbus-area survey sample include:

1. Fully 79 percent of those interviewed are white, while 19 percent are African-American. Asians, Native Americans, and those who refuse to identify their racial background each constitute one percent. Two percent are of mixed race or other ethnicities.

2. The vast majority of survey respondents (64%) did not have children under 18 living in their households.

3. Most residents (64%) have attended college to some extent. One quarter (24%) are college graduates, an additional 15 percent have graduate or professional degrees, and another 25 percent have some college background. Thirty percent are high school graduates, while just 5 percent did not graduate from high school.

4. The survey sample is evenly divided between residents age 45-plus (50%) and under 45 (49%). More than one in four (26%) are young adults between the ages of 18 - 34. The percentages of other age groups in descending order: 23 percent are 35 - 44; 19 percent are 45 - 54; 16 percent are 65 and older; and 15 percent are 55 - 64. Only 1 percent refused to give their age range.

5. Ten percent of area residents have stayed in a homeless shelter or been without housing, while 18 percent have family members who have been in a shelter or without housing. Thus a total of 22 percent either have personal experience with homelessness or have a family members who has been homeless. Residents ages 45-54 (19%) and those who reside in downtown Columbus (16%) are most likely to have been homeless. Those surveyed who have had a homeless family members most likely to be African American (35%) and people who have been homeless themselves (45%).

6. Most people surveyed had spoken to a homeless person (78%) and had donated money or volunteered at a soup kitchen or shelter for the homeless (67%).

Return to Top

ABOUT M. DAVIS AND COMPANY

M. Davis and Company, Inc., is a market research and consulting firm that provides complete services from project conception through implementation. We aim to ensure that our clients receive a high return on information (ROInfo™) by employing our unique perspective and market insights. We help clients make the most of their opportunities and implement solutions based on the information we provide.

M. Davis and Company, Inc. was recently re-awarded a contract by the U.S. Department of Transportation to continue administering the Omnibus Household Survey. This multi-year engagement involves the bi-monthly administration of over 1,000 telephone surveys to randomly selected households to gather information regarding commuting habits and awareness of various Federal safety initiatives. M. Davis and Company has been successful in raising the Omnibus Household Survey participation rate from less than 40% prior to July 2001 to over 50% for December 2002.

In addition to the U.S. Department of Transportation, other recent engagements include:

• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
  We are currently conducting a research study to identify predictors of length of stay in HUD supported permanent housing for homeless people with disabilities and collect post-departure residential histories of those leaving permanent housing. Study methodology consisted of both telephone and in-person interviews.
• University of California, Los Angeles
  Recently awarded contract, we will administer a computer-aided telephone interview survey of 1,000 households in TOD (Transit Oriented Development) and non-TOD areas in California regarding their travel and behavior, and location preferences. The survey will be conducted in English, Spanish, Mandarin and Cantonese.
• Internal Revenue Service
  M. Davis and Company, Inc. conducted 12 focus groups with individual taxpayers and tax practitioners to secure stop-filer causality data within the construction industry. The results of the focus groups helped the IRS to develop strategies to positively impact income tax filing compliance within this industry.
• M. Davis and Company has also been administering multi-year “tracking” studies to measure the effectiveness of the advertising campaigns of clients in the fuel services and hospitality industries.