Instituto Universitario da Maia

Psicologia

Psicologia Comunitaria

Ano letivo 3

Docente: Ana Sofia Antunes das Neves

Discentes: Cátia Mariana Silva Pereira, 26200

Dan Valentin Barbieru, 29807

Wilma Maiene Alfredo Segunda, 26474

01.06.2015

1

Indice

Homeless and homelessness- concept and definitions pg3.

Old and New Homeless pg5.

Cultural Homelessness pg7.

Experiencing Homelessness pg8.

Women experiencing homelessness pg8.

Being young and homeless. Children and adolescents dealing with homelessness pg9.

Mental illness and homelessness pg10.

An example of community intervention: Centro de Apoio ao Sem-Abrigo pg11.

Recommendations and public policies for homeless people and homelessness pg14

Reducing homelessness and improving the homeless people’s life style pg16.

Bibliography pg18.

2

Homeless and homelessness- concept and definitions

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing

of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary

social services, (…)” (United Nations, 1948).

An adequate shelter is not only a human right but the base for human relationships, the

free development of the individual and for the playing of an active role in the social and

cultural life of the community (Springer, 2000). Every society has different perceptions of

individuals or households called “homeless”. The regional differences between definitions

about what is homelessness and who is considered homeless are very important. These

definitions are influenced by different factors such as climatic patterns, traditions, culture,

social infrastructure and welfare systems, financial and gender issues (Springer, 2000).

In the past, a set of definitions for homelessness has been developed in the UN

System, used for example in the “Compendium of Human Settlement Statistics” (Springer,

2000 after United Nations Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy

Analysis — Statistics Division. United Nations Centre for Human Settlements HABITAT

1995.Compendium of Human Settlements Statistics 1995. 5th Issue, United Nations, New

York, Sales No. E 95.XVII.11 p. 38). The expression “homeless households” refers to “(…)

households without a shelter that would fall within the scope of living quarters. They carry

their few possessions with them sleeping in the streets, in doorways or on piers, or in any

other space, on a more or less random basis” (Springer, 2000 after United Nations

1998. Principles and Recommendation for Population and Housing Censuses. Statistical

Papers, Series M No.67/Rev.1. Sales No.E.98.XVII.8 p. 50).

This does not seem sufficient to describe the different realities of homelessness in

every country. Possessions can be placed with another person and people might sleep in a

public shelter on a regular basis. Other countries have therefore widened this description to

include people sleeping in institutions meant for those without any form of shelter (Springer,

2000). This is the case for definitions used in the USA, India (Springer, 2000 after Dupont,

1998) and France (Springer, 2000 after Marpsat & Firdion, 1996). For example: “The Census

of India uses the notion of houseless population, defined as the persons who are not living in

census houses, the latter referring to a structure with roof; hence, the enumerators are

instructed to take note of the possible places where the houseless population is likely to live

such as on the roadside, pavements, in hume pipes, under staircases, or in the open, temple,

3

mandaps, platforms and the like” (Springer, 2000 after Census of India, 1991:64). This part of

the population which includes those sleeping without a shelter, in constructions not meant for

habitation, and in welfare institutions can be called literally homeless. This definition seems

also to be the one mostly used for surveys (Springer, 2000 after Peressini, 1995).

In other cases, the definition of homeless has been more detailed and offers a

classification. In Austria the risk component has been introduced to distinguish different

groups of homeless. The situation of being houseless can be acute, imminent or potential.

This definition is about the same as the one used in a Canadian study: literally homeless,

moving in and out of homelessness, marginally housed and at risk of homelessness (Springer,

2000 after Peressini, 1995).

A quality oriented definition has been developed by the European Federation of National

Organizations working with the homeless (FEANTSA) and has been cited in the Global

Report 1996. “The Observatory has developed a four-fold classification of housing situation

which can be used to both defined the condition of homelessness and evaluate its extent:

- Rooflessness (sleeping rough)

- Houselessness ( living in institutions or short-term guest accommodation)

- Insecure accommodation

- Inferior or substandard housing (Springer, 2000 after Daly, 1994) ”

The definition used by the American Homeless Society is about the same. A problematic

point of this definition is that the two last classes are overlapping as an accommodation might

be at the same time insecure and substandard. In Austria other quality oriented criteria have

been developed to classify housing situations. These criteria are the minimum standard of the

housing unit, the infrastructure, which means schools, shopping opportunities and transport,

psychological and health criteria and the juridical security of the housing situation (Springer,

2000).

A last classification used in a study about homelessness in the community of Australian

aborigines takes the time component as criteria, therefore distinguishing situational or

temporary, episodic and chronic form of homelessness (Springer, 2000 after Beavis, Klos,

Carter & Donehant, 1997).

After a review of definitions, Springer (2000) suggests to take into account the mobility

dynamics inherent in this population and also a splitting into two different population groups.

The core population, defined as houseless, consists therefore of people sleeping in the street

4

or other places not meant for human habitation and those finding shelter in institutions

established by the public or private welfare system. The other group consists of person living

in inadequate shelter situations, this combining the categories of concealed Houselessness

(taking shelter with a relative or friend), the risk of houselessness (eviction, release from an

institution) and substandard housing. Both groups are related by a frequent exchange of

individuals (Springer, 2000).

Old and New Homeless

Homelessness was not invented in the late 20th century, but has reemerged with a new

face. In colonial times, towns supported local poor people in their own homes or those of

neighbors, but attempted to exclude vagabonds and idle persons from outside the community

(Rothman, 1971). Jacksonian-era reformers, convinced that outdoor (non-institutional) relief

created laziness, built almshouses for an undifferentiated group of men, women, and children

who were too young, too old or too disabled to work.

Widespread homelessness, primarily among unattached men who were itinerant

laborers, may be dated from the period following the Civil War (Hopper, 1990; Rossi, 1989),

and has waxed and waned with economic cycles. The 19th century saw the segregation of

homeless people into shantytowns at the borders of cities and skid rows within them. People

who could not afford the price of a skid-row flop slept in police stations and jails.

At the start of the 20th century, police stationhouses were closed to homeless people,

and municipal lodging houses opened, having features sometimes found today, including

classification and referral of applicants for social case work, work requirements, limits on

lengths of stay. Homelessness was at its height during the Great Depression, when skid rows

overflowed into Hoovervilles and large warehouse-style shelters for men. Transients were still

treated less sympathetically than the local poor; in New York in some years, more was spent

on Greyhound relief (bus tickets out) than on direct benefits (Rossi, 1989). Poor people who

had relatives in the area were turned away as not truly in need of shelter.

Recent studies suggests that homelessness is widespread, but for most people, only a

temporary state. Hopper (1990) describes the historical tension between two attitudes towards

homelessness as rooted in individual pathology and character deficiencies (or) in structural

defects in the labor market. Antebellum thinking about poverty reflected both views: that

poverty was voluntary and a consequence of drunkenness, idleness, and vice of all kind and

that SOCIETY ITSELF ….is the great and whole source.

5

Both strands of thinking are evident among researchers and policymakers today. The

individual view of homelessness has followed the classic steps of victim blaming: identify a

social problem, study those afflicted to determine how they differ from the rest of us, define

the differences as the cause of the problem, and set up humanitarian programs to correct them.

The structural view does not deny that many homeless people suffer mental illness or

substance abuse, but it does not see these problems as the source of homelessness. Rather,

homelessness is like a game of musical chairs in which the players are poor people and the

chairs are the housing units they can afford or otherwise occupy by drawing on their personal

networks. Individual problems influence vulnerability to homelessness. They determine

which players, not how many, will be left homeless when the music stops.

Responses to homelessness in part follow views of causes, but also involve efforts to

minimize responsibility and cost. Cooper (1989) noted that the first reaction of government to

a social problem is to extrude it. The history of homelessness amply demonstrated this, from

the colonists who sent poor strangers packing to the Greyhound relief of the Depression. A

more sophisticated effort to shift responsibility was shown by a recent New York City mayor

who wanted to know from where (other than New York) homeless families came, how many

were mentally ill, and where their husbands were (Shinn & Weitzman, 1990a). Conscious

efforts have been made to make relief unattractive so as to deter its use, from the English poor

law principle of less eligibility (e.g. Hopper, 1990), to Jacksonian almshouses designed to

discourage malingering (Moroney & Kurtz, 1975), to the deliberately daunting conditions of

some modern shelters (Basler, 1985). Depression-era screening to exclude people with any

alternatives from shelter is echoed in city policies today.

Homelessness has received a great deal of popular attention and sympathy. The

reasons for both appear to be obvious: homelessness is increasing, and its victims easily

garner sympathetic concern (Rossi, 1990). In the 1950s and 1960s homelessness declined to

the point that researchers were predicting its virtual disappearance in the 1970s. The “old

homeless” of the 1950s were mainly old men living in cheap hotels on skid rows. In the 1980s

homelessness increased rapidly and drastically changed in composition. The new homeless

were much younger, more likely to be minority group members, suffering from greater

poverty, and with access to poorer sleeping quarters. In addition, homeless women and

families appeared in significant number. The old homeless were house inadequately, but high

proportion of the new homeless are shelterless. Like the old homeless, the new have high

levels of disabilities, including chronic mental illness (33%), acute alcoholism (33%), serious

6

criminal records (20%), and serious physical disabilities (25%). Seventy-five percent have

one or more of this disabilities (Rossi, 1990).

Cultural Homelessness

A cultural home is a sense of belonging to an ethnic or geographic community with

consistent socialization themes and traditions, demarcated by a clear understanding of who the

in- and out-groups are. The cultural home provides a set of integrated assumptions, values,

beliefs, social role norms, and emotional attachments that constitutes a meaningful personal

identity developed and located within a sociocultural framework and is shared by a group of

similarly located individuals. Group members can use this frame of reference to know what is

appropriate and acceptable, and to know where they fit within that structure, to achieve

growth and fulfillment both individually and as a group. A cultural home is thus a cognitively

grasped and emotionally comforting sense of “being at home” with a group of people sharing

a stable environment with a similar collective history and practices. A cultural home enables

the individual to find social meaning, continuity, primary social support, and group

participation, all of which increase the emotional attachment to one’s group (Vivero &

Jenkins, 1999).

By virtue of soothing functions of secure attachment and mirroring (Bowlby, 1973;

Kohut, 1977), a cultural home can be a vital coping resource. Many oppressed groups have

survived and acquired social power through the sense of belonging to a particular group,

strengthening the emotional ties to other members of the group. For example, Jews who

experienced concentration camps have reported that what helped them survive during the

Holocaust was being with other Jews for a shared reason: their ethnic identification (Herman,

1992; Vivero & Jenkins, 1999). They were coming from a strong sense of community that

was difficult to destroy or weaken (Vivero & Jenkins, 1999).

This sense of cultural community may be geographically circumscribed, as in the

ghetto, and for some cultures an identified place may be symbolically important. However, a

stable location is not an essential feature of a cultural home; being a nomad does not preclude

someone from having a physical place to call ‘home’. The difference is that for nomads their

home moves geographically from place to place (Vivero & Jenkins, 1999). Gypsies are

nomadic people; they move constantly geographically, but their home travels with their

group, remaining within their community and having a ‘symbiotic rather than social’ relation

to the larger culture (Park, 1928; Vivero & Jenkins, 1999).

7

Experiencing Homelessness

Home is central to most of our lives, and to be without a home is a very basic form of

adversity. Indeed, one prominent line of homelessness research has considered homeless

people as being subject to more than the average amount of stressful life events and chronic

life stressors. Seen in that light, homeless people are particularly vulnerable to experiencing

distress and are faced with the task of finding ways of coping in the face of such events and

circumstances. Besides the stress created by the sheer fact of homelessness- including the

need to search for shelter and more permanent housing, and the stigma associated with

homelessness- homeless people have been shown to experience more than their fair share of a

variety of other stressful events and conditions. The latter include: unemployment, economic

loss, criminal victimization, marital and family conflict, dealing with organizations such as

shelters, problems with the law, accidents, physical and mental illness, and drug and alcohol

problems (Banyard, 1995). Not surprisingly there is evidence that homeless people are more

than averagely distressed.

Women experiencing homelessness

In order to understand this situation better, we should take a look at Banyard’s study

from 1995. She interviewed mothers who had at least one child under the age of 12 years

living with them in one of the three shelters in a small mid-western city in the USA. Some of

the stressors that her participants spoke of were related to the care and disciplining of their

children in a strange environment that was not a family home. She wrote of the “web of

stress” experienced by mothers since, in the descriptions they provided, women linked

stressful situations together, making it difficult to categorize a stressor into one group or

another. The interconnected nature of multiple stressors was illustrated by mothers who could

not discuss child disciplinary problems without also discussing money problems that

prohibited them from buying snacks or treats for the children, or the stress of being

reprimanded in front of their children for breaking shelter rules. She quoted one of the

mothers in her study as saying, “I was so upset, I was mad. I mean, it’s just like everything

piled up on everything and then that smothered me.” Banyard’s (1995) interest was in the

ways of coping described by women living in shelters for homeless mothers. She reported

much “active” coping, often to do with home search, care and discipline of children, and

coping with bureaucracy. They also described a great deal of “relational” coping. Although

over half of the women reported that there were people, often family members, to whom they

8

could no longer turn for help and support, a number described identifying with the group of

mothers living in the shelter and the comfort and strength they could draw from that (Orford,

2008 after Banyard, 1995).

Being young and homeless. Children and adolescents dealing with homelessness.

Brandon et al (1980) interviewed young people who were using the services of

emergency accommodation projects in central London in the 1970s. They had reported that

roughly one-third described the experience of being homeless in London in almost entirely

negative terms, another third described the experience mostly negatively with some positive

elements, and a third described it in largely or mostly positive terms (Orford, 2008 after

Brandon et al, 1980). Some of the 25 16-19 year olds from Drumchapel, a large peripheral

public sector housing estate in Glasgow, Scotland, interviewed by Fitzpatrick (2000), gave

evidence that they had accepted an identity as homeless. One group of young men were

living, not just temporarily, in hostels for homeless adults. This group appeared to Fitzpatrick

to have become resigned, to hostel living at a young age. Another group, who spent some

time sleeping rough in the city center, and at other times living in hostels, had developed a

friendship network consisting largely of other homeless young people (Orford, 2008 after

Fitzpatrick, 2000).

Milburn et al. (2006) showed that homeless adolescents can be victims of

discrimination. Discrimination was related to being gay, lesbian, or bisexual (LGB).

Discrimination from the family was related to exiting homelessness. Other than those who

were LGB, adolescents who reported discrimination from their families were more likely to

exit homelessness than adolescents who did not reported such discrimination. Milburn et al.

(2006) also suggested that being LGB increases discrimination for newly homeless

adolescents from police (DOI: 10.1037/1099-9809.12.4.658).

Masten et al. (1993) showed in their study that homeless children were found to have

greater recent stress exposure than housed poor children, as well as more disrupted schooling

and friendships. Child behavior problems were above normative level for homeless children,

particularly for antisocial behavior. They also showed that homeless children are at

considerable risk for psychological problems (Masten et al., Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology 1993. Vol. 61, No.2. 335-343).

Rafferty & Shinn (1991) showed that homeless children confront abject poverty and

experience a constellation of risks that have a devastating impact on their well-being. Their

9

research reviewed links homelessness among children to hunger and poor nutrition, health

problems and lack of health and mental health care, developmental delays, psychological

problems, and academic underachievement. These consequences of homelessness often

compound one another as well. Delays in language development, motor skills, cognitive

ability, and personal and social development place children at risk of academic failure

(Rafferty & Shinn, 1991, after Molnar, 1988). Anxiety, depression, and behavioral problems

engendered by destructive psychological environments interfere with one’s capacity to learn

(Rafferty & Shinn, 1991, American Psychological Association, Vol. 46, No.11, 1170-1179

after Jahiel, 1987).

Mental illness and homelessness

Levine (1984) showed that the incidence and prevalence of persons with serious

mental disorders becoming or remaining homeless is much greater than that of the normal

population. In USA, estimates vary according to locale, but it appeared to be as if 50 percent

of the homeless nationwide, or 1 million persons, may have sever and persistent mental

disorders, that 10-15 percent of the homeless seriously abuse drugs, and that 40-50 percent

seriously abuse alcohol. The severely mentally ill share a number of functional characteristics

which may account for their large numbers among the homeless and which generally interfere

with any person’s ability to secure or retain a residence. Because the mentally disabled have

problems in negotiating bureaucratic systems in the community, they are often unable to

secure welfare, social security benefits, or other entitlements for which they are eligible

(Turner & Shifren, 1979; Levine, 1984). Even when income support is available, it is often

insufficient to meet the high costs of rental housing (Segal & Baumohl, 1980; Levine, 1984).

Lack of a home is indicative of an inability to mobilize and use potential supports and that

such deficits may account, in part, for homelessness among the mentally ill (Levine, 1984).

The mentally ill obviously have difficulty developing personal social supports and do not

have the “social margin” that is needed when they are faced with a housing crisis. Mentally ill

have no protection against a downwardly mobile spiral and no social or material resources

that can be applied towards rehabilitation or recovery (Levine, 1984; Segal et al., 1977). In

addition to changing the locus of mental health treatment, deinstitutionalization represented a

change from a centralized system of care to an infinitely more complex, decentralized system.

State mental hospitals in USA and other “total institutions” were places of “residence and

work where a large number of like-situated individuals, cut off from the wider society for an

appreciable time, together lead an enclosed, formally administrated round of life” (Levine,

10

1984; Goffman, 1961). Most state mental hospitals were set up to provide necessary basic life

supports in addition to mental health treatment. They provided a roof over one’s head, three

square meals, clothing and laundry services, and varying degrees of social and vocational

rehabilitation (Levine, 1984). (Levine, I.S. 1984, Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal,

Volume VIII, Number 1: July)

An example of community intervention: Centro de Apoio ao Sem-Abrigo (C.A.S.A)

C.A.S.A is a charitable organization, incorporated by public deed on 19 July 2002.

Among its foundational objectives there is the practice of goodness as a human promotion and

integral development of dignity of all persons who are in vulnerable situations. Prerequisite to

all members and candidates for volunteering in the association. Is committed to support all

those in need, identify typical situations of poverty and insecurity in vulnerable social groups

and actively participate in the process of social inclusion of this population group. Promotes

and develops community action approach to poverty phenomena and social exclusion, with

particular focus on homelessness, the vital role the sustainable promotion of improving the

well-being of children and youth at risk, victims of domestic violence, immigrants, ethnic

minorities, drug addicts, alcoholics, ex-prisoners and in particular of homeless people,

regardless of nationality, religious belief, political or ethnic group. The C.A.S.A aims to

conduct medical support measures, psychological, food, cloths, housing and other needs in

favor of children, adolescents and elderly and other socially disadvantaged, victims of

violence or ill-treatment, regardless of nationality, religious belief, political or ethnic group

and may be national or international level (http://casa-apoioaosemabrigo.org/ ).

C.A.S.A has offices in the most important cities and regions in Portugal, such as

Lisbon, Porto, Setubal, Azeitao, Coimbra, Albufeira, Funchal, and Faro.

Daily activity in the Delegation of Porto includes distributing about 180 hot meals a

day, in the areas of Santa Catarina, St Hospital, Antonio Sa da Bandeira, Viaduct Journal

News, Republic Square, Alvares Cabral, Julio Dinis, Market Bom Sucesso, Fernandes Tomas

Street, St. Catherine Street, Batalha and Veiga Alves Street.

As financing source, put piggy banks houses with C.A.S.A brand around Porto at key

points (restaurants, pharmacies, shops, hairdressers, etc.) as well as the sale of raffle tickets

and T-shirts in order to get money for the purchase of packaging, cups, napkins, cutlery, juice,

etc. (http://casa-apoioaosemabrigo.org/ )

11

They also have external collaboration with (http://casa-apoioaosemabrigo.org/ ):

1. The Redondo Restaurant- provides the soup

2. Jamor Bakery- provides the bread, savory and sweets

3. Sweet Cana Bakery- provides bread

4. Padouro Bakery- provides bread

5. Nobreza Confectionery – provides sweet and savory

6. Market Bom Sucesso- D. Cristina monthly fruit box

7. Casa de Montezelo (a volunteer) – provides pasta with meet every tuesday

8. Cristal Bakery- bread and cakes

9. Cufra Restaurant

10. S. João da Foz Bakery

11. Continente store from Matosinhos

12. Intermarché

13. Food Bank against Hunger

14. Abadia Restaurant, German College, Shop of soups- donation of cooked food.

15. Presa Sweet Bakery- bread donation

16. Multicert (computer company) - fruits donation.

17. Christian Agape Organization- logistical and economic support

18. Nakité Restaurant – provides soup

19. Capitão Pombeiro Restaurant- provides soup

20. Sweet pastry Alto- provides cakes and bread

21. Panico Bakery- provides bread

C.A.S.A has partnered with E+ world- The E+ world is a university project that had its

beginnings in Spain in 2007. In Porto began in September 2009 and aims to raise awareness

to young people for the reality of the world by giving them the opportunity to participate in

changing this reality through social volunteer projects. The E+ world has partnership with IPP

(Polytechnic Institute of Porto), the AEFEUP (Student Association of the Faculty of

Engineering, University of Porto), the V.O.U (University Volunteer Association), and is

inserted along with C.A.S.A in Inter Network Support Homeless (where are other institutions

involved with social security).

12

Partnership with GRAND, where C.A.S.A gives training future volunteers GRAND to go

on a mission for Africa. Direct partnership with V.O.U where V.O.U work as a bank of

volunteers, all of them university students, and so this way we try an awareness of the

younger age groups to the problems of hunger and extreme poverty in Porto. It has also been

created a partnership with AEFCUP (Association of Students of Faculty of Sciences,

University of Porto) where they provide us with food surpluses of some activities that they

have during a year. It has also started the process for the creation of a partnership with FAP

(Porto Academic Federation) under the FAP project in Neighborhood (http://casa-

apoioaosemabrigo.org/ ).

What does C.A.S.A do now?

Association performs at this moment the following activities (http://casa-

apoioaosemabrigo.org/ ):

- Hot and Packed Lunches Distribution, 365 nights a year in various delegations

- Distribution of blankets, bed bags and hygiene products

- Liaison with parish joints to provide facilities for bathing and hygiene to the homeless.

Activities to be undertaken (http://casa-apoioaosemabrigo.org/ ):

- Increase the number of meals and quantity of blankets and sleeping bags to distribute

and distribution points.

- Provide medical support, medicines, psychological and legal to socially

disadvantaged;

- Supporting homeless people in order to provide them with reintegration conditions in

society

- Provide temporary housing

- Support and organize awareness and cooperation activities with other similar

institutions of national or international character

- Conduct and support the dissemination of publications and the dissemination of

updated information on the reality experienced by homeless

- Organize other activities that promote social solidarity

- Support and organize humanitarian actions nationally and internationally to promote

peace and social non-violence.

13

Recommendations and public policies for homeless people and homelessness

Homelessness has been a point of interest for many politicians, governments, and

community psychologists during the years.

Gore (1990), an U.S.A senator supported a three-pronged attack on homelessness, and

intended to pursue legislative measures to build what was already been accomplished to

achieve the goals:

- Increase low-income housing.

- Treatment of mentally ill, alcohol and drug dependent individuals

- New approaches to education and training

“The need is great; but, I, for one, am willing to direct more of our resources for a

significant national response to the homeless crisis” (Gore, A., 1990. American

Psychological Association, Inc. 0003-066X/90$00.75 Vol. 45, No. 8, 960-962).

In August, 1990, the American Psychological Association’s Council of Representatives

voted, on recommendation of the Board of Directors to support the following resolution on

homelessness. The resolution was originated by Division 18 and supported by the Board of

Social and Ethical Responsibility, the Board of Ethnic Minority Affairs, the Committee of

Children, Youth and Families, and Divisions 9, 34, 37, 43 and 45. The resolution states

(http://www.apa.org/about/policy/homelessness.aspx ):

- Stimulate research to gather accurate information about the nature and scope of

homelessness, psychological coping strategies of those affected, the psychological

costs of homelessness to groups such as children and families, the seriously mentally

ill, individuals with disabilities, displaced gay and lesbian youth, and victimized

women and children, and apply these research findings to consumer-related

intervention programs and policy recommendations;

- Recommend immediate action to federal, state, and local officials based on current

knowledge to rehouse the homeless, utilize psychologists and other groups

experienced in working with poor and ethnic minority communities in policy research

and intervention to assist the homeless, and provide mental health and supportive

services to enable the homeless to improve their ability to maintain a stable and

dignified life style;

14

- Advocate that public funds be provided to finance not only emergency responses to

the crisis, but also to implement preventive programs to keep the number of homeless

persons and families from growing larger;

- Disseminate accurate information about homelessness to psychologists, policymakers,

and the public to alert them to the social phenomena that exacerbate the problem and

suggest both clinical and systems interventions to those who suffer the consequences

of poverty and homelessness;

- Encourage and endorse legislation calling for a White House conference on

homelessness.

Also, Kondratas (1991) from the Office of Community Planning and Development, US.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC suggested that ending

homelessness will require unprecedented cooperation among federal, state, and local

governments, as well as among nonprofits, the business community, and local neighborhoods.

She suggested that the effort will require federal leadership, community solutions, and

resources from everyone. Making programs for the homeless permanent, however well they

run, is not the goal. The goal is to repair the safety net that allows mentally ill individuals to

fall through to the streets. The goal is to revitalize communities whose residents face

joblessness and hopelessness. The goal is to destroy the scourge of drugs and rehabilitate

substance abusers. The goal is to have strong families and community support networks. The

goal is to have a strong housing safety net but also a viable private-sector, low-income

housing market. The goal is to have healthy children and educational system that work. As we

develop homeless policy and implement programs, it would be well to keep this long-term

vision in mind (Kondratas, 1991. American Psychologist Association, In the public domain,

Vol. 46, No.11, 1226-1231).

More recently, Rogers et al. (2012) recommended several specific suggestions for

psychologists who wish to begin work to help ameliorate homelessness (Rogers, 2012.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. Vol. 43, No.2, 86–93):

- Be personal when seeking collaboration. Seek to make a personal connection with a

leader within the target agency. Call, schedule a meeting, share your passion, and why

you want to work with them. Find out what their areas of true need are, and be

genuinely interested of the current state of affairs of that agency. Be upfront about the

rewards of your own work, and explicit about the benefits that collaboration would

provide for their clients.

15

- Provide brief assessments for homeless populations. Providing even one brief

assessment per month is a valuable service, and partnering with a community

organization will help minimize the time needed and maximize the utility of the report

produced.

- Develop research projects that involve homeless participants. Find a willing partner

among community organizations, then build a collaboration by identifying areas of

mutual benefit. A few possibilities include providing feedback based on research

results, offering on-site staff trainings, or using research results to design new

programs to help homeless individuals.

- Offer training to staff of organizations that serve the homeless. Work with the agency

leadership to identify the most salient needs, but also identify the goals of training.

- Encourage other psychologists to get involved. Discussing the benefits you have

received in your work with the homeless as well as life changes you have facilitated

for homeless individuals may both enhance your colleague’s awareness of the issues

that face the homeless and increase their motivation to engage with the population.

- Foster social consciousness in graduate training by increasing engagement with the

homeless. Training programs can offer formal practicum experiences working with

homeless and at-risk populations by building or expanding partnerships with

community organizations that serve these populations. Alternately, training programs

can create opportunities for graduate students to gain assessment experience with

homeless individuals. You can also schedule seminars on issues of homelessness and

inviting speakers who work with the homeless.

Reducing homelessness and improving the homeless people’s life style

If we want to try and improve homeless people’s life style, we can do it starting with

apparently small things. This is a way that we think we can help.

The community intervention program we think is the following:

- Mission: Reducing homelessness and improving the homeless people’s life style

- Resources: Personal finances, cellphones, colleagues, friends, family, non-

governmental organizations, on-line media and on-line social networks

- General objectives: active implication in reducing homelessness. Specific objectives:

involving 50% of our friends, family, and colleagues in activities, in order to reduce

homelessness; obtaining money to build houses for 10 homeless people; obtaining

100.000 euro to build the houses.

16

- Activities: First, we contact an organization which is in contact with homeless people,

in order to join them as volunteers. After that, we try to find out what are the main

problems of the homeless people they work with and participate in the activities held

by the organization. We use on-line social networks in order to create a site, account

on one on-line social network (e.g. Facebook) and we put pictures with the conditions

in which the homeless people live, we post interviews with some of the people who

experienced homelessness, and we share those images so that more people will find

out, especially our friends and families; after this, we speak directly with our friends

and families to join us in the activities. We do more than just being involved in the

organization’s activities and we create a bank account and we go to companies and ask

for donations in order to build 10 houses for homeless people. We make a project map

including all the financial needed resources to build the houses. The main target for

this will be construction companies, because they can even give us the materials they

do not need any more or can tell us which the cheapest material suppliers are. For the

construction part we can also ask for some prisoners to come and build the houses, as

part of their rehabilitation program. We also will organize sport activities for the

homeless people in order to get more attention from the community regarding

homelessness.

- Schedule: In the first week we get in contact with the organization. After 2 weeks we

create the website and an on-line social network page and post photos and videos.

After 1 week more we start going to the construction companies.

- Results: We expect to have more than 100 views and shared video after the first 2

weeks, with a number of 10 more people joining us in this program. We believe that

after 1 month we can start building at least one house.

- Indicators: The number of persons and companies that join us in the program

- Measures: The amount of money we raise in order to build the houses.

- Sustainability: We need at least 100.000 euro to build the houses.

- Evaluation: The number of houses we build after one year and the amount of money

that we raise can tell us if the program is a success or not.

17

Bibliography

Browne, A. 1993. Family violence and homelessness: The relevance of trauma

histories in the lives of homeless women. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63, 370-

384. Online at http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&uid=1993-45051-001

on 27.05.2015

Gore, A. Jr. 1990. Public policy and the homeless. American Psychologist, Inc. 0003-

066X/90] $00.75 Vol. 45, No. 8, 960-962

Jones, J.; Levine, I.; Rosenberg, A. 1991. Homelessness research, services, and social

policy. Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, Vol. 46, 1109-111. Online at

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1992-08848-001 on 29.05.2015

Kondratas, A. 1991. Ending homelessness. Policy challenges. American Psychologist,

Vol. 46, 1226-1231. DOI: 10.1037/0003.066X.46.11.1226.

Levine, I. 1984. Homelessness: Its implications for mental health policy and practice.

Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, Vol. 8, 6-16. Online at http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?

fa=buy.optionToBuy&uid=1985-15379-001 on 28.05.2015.

Masten et al. 1993. Children in homeless families: risks to mental health and

development. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Vol. 61, No. 2, 335-343. DOI:

10.1037/0022-006X.61.2.335

Milburn et al. 2006. Discrimination and existing homelessness among homeless

adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 4, 658- 672.

DOI: 10.1037/1099-9809.12.4.658.

Murray, L.; Perkins, D.D; Perkins, D.V. 2004. Principles of community psychology:

perspectives and applications. Oxford University Press, New York, U.S.A

Orford, J. 2008. Community Psychology. Challenges, controversies and emerging

consensus. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, the Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex

PO19 8SQ, England.

Rafferty, Y.; Shinn, M. 1991. The impact of homelessness on children. American

Psychologist, Vol. 46, 1170-1179. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.46.11.1170.

Rappaport, J.; Seidman, E. 2000. Handbook of community psychology. Kluwer

Academic/ Plenum Publishers, 233 Spring Street, New York, N.Y. 10013, U.S.A

18

Rogers et al. 2012. Helping people without homes: Simple steps for psychologists

seeking to change lives. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. Vol. 43, No.2, 86–

93. DOI: 10.1037/a0026606.

Rossi, P. 1990. The old homeless and the new homelessness in historical perspective.

American Psychologist, Vol. 45, 954-959. Online at http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?

fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1990-30752-001 on 28.05.2015

Springer, S. 2000. Homelessness: a proposal for a global definition and classification.

DOI: 10.1016/S0197-3975 (00) 00010-2

Tipple & Speak, 2005. Definitions of homelessness in developing countries. Habitat

International, Vol. 29, Issue 2, 337-352, DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2003.11.002

Toro, P.A.; Warren, M.G. 1991. Homelessness, psychology, and public policy:

Introduction to section three. American Psychologist, Vol. 46, 1205-1207. Online at

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1992-08857-001 on 28.05.2015

Toro et al. 1995. Distinguishing homelessness from poverty: A comparative study.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 63, 280-289. Online at

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1995-24838-001 on 28.05.2015.

Vivero & Jenkins, 1999. Existential hazards of the multicultural individual: Defining

and understanding “Cultural Homelessness”. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority

Psychology, Vol. 5, No. 1, 6-26. DOI: 10.1037/1099-9809.5.1.6

http://www.apa.org/about/policy/homelessness.aspx

http://casa-apoioaosemabrigo.org/

19