the transitional homeless shelter family...

The transitional homeless shelter family experience

9/1/2010A case study examining the potential effects of physical living conditions on perceptions of crowding, control, helplessness and related issues

JILL PABLE, PH.D.Department of Interior Design

Florida State University

ABSTRACTFemale parents with children are among the fastest growing segments of the United States homeless population. Commonly accepted measures of spatial crowding suggest that transitional

A study funded in part by a grant from

the Florida State University Council for Research and

Creativity, and also made possible by

Main Street Designs, Inc., and other

known and anonymous donors


The transitional homeless shelter family experienceA C A S E S T U DY E X A M I N I N G T H E P O T E N T I A L E F F E C T S O F P H Y S I C A L L I V I N G C O N D I T I O N S O N P E R C E P T I O N S O F C R O W D I N G , C O N T R O L , H E L P L E SS N E SS A N D R E L AT E D I SS U E S

INTRODUCTIONHomelessness is a widespread social issue in the United States, and statistics suggest that it is escalating rapidly in scope and severity. Families are an increasingly prevalent among the American homeless population. A national 2005 survey identifies that 39% of the homeless are children and represent the fastest growing segment of this population (U.S. Conference of Mayors).

This report identifies the results of a research study that examined the experience of families within a bedroom of a typical transitional housing development. Specifically, it explores the perceptions of family members regarding the experience of living in their bedroom during the term of their stay. In so doing, the study seeks to observe those aspects of the built environment which are more impactful than others, and by doing so, better understand how to design future bedroom facilities that maximize the environment’s potential to assist these families in this time of particular and critical need.

Homelessness researchers describe that sufficient research has concluded that homelessness indeed affects people in critical ways, and it is now time to better understand those experience of homeless families, and especially children. Reporting at the 2007 Symposium on Homelessness Research convened by the U.S. Department of Housing and the Department of Health and Human Services, Rog & Buckner describe the need to understand the specific homeless experience and its impact. “Specifically the need exists to refine the question from whether homelessness has an effect to what aspects of homelessness are prone to creating problems in what age groups and in what domains…” These researchers continued, stating that “shelter conditions are probably an especially important factor in moderating the impact of homelessness for a child and research is needed in this area. …it stands to reason that there are important qualities of shelters that may worsen or buffer a child’s experience while living there. These could include the amount of privacy accorded to families, the crowdedness of the facility, the extent to which rules are strictly enforced, the warmth and skill level of shelter staff, the size of the facility, its location, and whether families are asked to leave during the day or may remain on the premises” (2007, p. 5.22). This conclusion suggests

Page 1


that studies that explore the close and personal experience of families in shelters may add to the body of knowledge.

This study’s questions are informed by psychological research conclusions of others, and also prompted by the typically small size (10’ by 12’ for four people) of family bedrooms in transitional homeless shelters (see figure 1). These tight quarters greatly exceed common standards of crowding recognized in western cultures, globally speaking, and hence bring to bear potential stress born from the bedroom environment for these families. In an effort to confront these difficulties, this study altered an existing bedroom in ways calculated to bring relief to anticipated stressors, and gathered case study data to understand a participant family’s reaction to these changes. The study’s ultimate goal is to explore the potential for a supportive environment that overcomes likely adverse effects associated with crowding and the necessary low control nature of transitional shelters, and supports residents who often enter a shelter with a sense of helplessness.

Figure 1. Transitional homeless shelter bedroom for four individuals. Rooms are often 10’ x 12’ in size or similar.

BACKGROUNDAbout 600,000 families and 1.35 million children experience homelessness each year, and about half of the homeless population is part of a family that itself is homeless as a group. A homeless family typically comprises a woman in her late 20s who becomes homeless together with young children (Burt, et al.,

Page 2


1999). In many ways, homeless families are similar to other low-income families that are not homeless. However, “their limited incomes make it difficult to find and keep housing that is safe and affordable, they face stagnant wages for workers with few skills, and they may be affected by welfare time limits” (Rog & Buckner, 2007).

According to the Urban Institute, homelessness among families became more common beginning in the 1980’s when families with young children began to appear at shelters intended for single adults. It became the fastest growing segment of the homeless population shortly thereafter. While the number of homeless individuals is notoriously difficult to count, one estimate is that families comprise 34% of the homeless population (23% children and 11% adults) on any given night (Burt et al., 1999). Reports the Urban Institute, this implies that about 420,000 families, including 924,000 children, experiencing homelessness in the United States in a year. When extrapolated, the statistics become alarming-- about 1.8 percent of all families in this country spend at least one night homeless over the course of a year (2000). When examined in the context of only low-income families, about 8 percent of households and 9 percent of children have been homeless during the past year. It is likely that many more families are “precariously housed, in doubled-up situations or in substandard housing” (Urban Institute, 2000).

Homelessness has also been affected by the 2007-2010 economic crisis in the United States. 83% of the 25 reporting cities in a 2009 Mayor’s organization indicated that homelessness was increasing. Amongst these cities, economic factors, high unemployment and the lack of affordable housing were among the leading reasons (Mayors, 2008; Homeless, 2009). The affect of the increase in numbers of homeless individuals can mean less persons are served by available shelter facilities. In San Francisco, for example, the reported numbers of families turned away from shelters increased from 12 to 60 per month (Mayors, 2008).

In an effort to assist the homeless, many organizations and jurisdictions ascribe to the ‘continuum of care’ model of outreach. This system puts in place emergency shelters that address immediate needs, transitional housing which typically provides shelter for periods between three and twelve months, and permanent supportive housing designed to offer a long term solution to individuals in need. This system gained popularity in the 1990’s and continues to be utilized, though sometimes modified though allowing some individuals to access the system where they are most suited without regard for the linearity of the model.

The transitional phase housing that provides the middle solution offers families the chance to essentially regroup, assess their situation and, with the help of case managers, devise a plan to locate employment and a permanent place to live. Transitional shelters are well-regarded, and “…many communities continue to consider transitional housing to be an effective strategy for helping families secure and retain permanent housing” (Locke, Khadurri & O’Hara, 2007). Crook additionally found that residents of transitional shelters reported they experienced greater indigenous participatory leadership, less bureaucratic control, and better quality personalized interaction with residents (Crook, 2001).

A survey of Florida transitional-phase shelters identifies that most facilities of this purpose provide a private bedroom for families (Pable, 2009). While layouts vary, many provide a bedroom that sleeps four, and two such bedrooms have private access to a shared bathroom with a single toilet, one or two sinks and a bathtub. This layout provides a ratio of 4:1 of people to rooms. While this arrangement satisfies building code requirements, this square footage greatly exceeds commonly accepted measures of environmental

Page 3


crowding of one person per room for western dwellings (Baldassare, 1979). It is not unusual for a homeless shelter family dormitory sleeping room to be inhabited by a family for six months or more. Further, shelters may also assign two families (typically consisting of a parent and child) to a single room which places not only the strain of confined space on these individuals but also the extra burden of unfamiliarity with others in a room tacitly dedicated to personal space.

This study springs from the premise that even with the presence of an adjoining private family bathroom and a nearby family community room and ancillary exterior areas within a shelter’s purview, these cramped sleeping conditions present mental and physical hazards for their occupants, especially given these persons’ sometimes fragile states of mind upon entering the transitional facility. Given the typical sparseness of funding for homeless facilities, it is unreasonable to assume that existing bedrooms will be expanded in square footage in the near future. Therefore, this study sought to understand the effects of small, cost-efficient changes to these cramped bedrooms which might offer families modest but worthwhile measures of relief from crowding. Such an endeavor is a worthy one, given the existence of studies which suggest that reducing a sense of crowding may reduce tensions within families, enhance the ability to complete complex tasks, and even heighten creativity in children. Complicating this situation are the significant quantities of possessions in the room that may exacerbate stress through visual disarray they create.

Also, one researcher suggests homeless persons’ frequent struggle with low sense of self-esteem may have a distinct relationship to a sense of helplessness/empowerment which in turn can affect their self-efficacy, or likelihood to find employment and permanent place to live (Burn, 1992). Some researchers further suggest there is a link between low-control living environments (such as the presence of considerable rules and schedules often necessary in transitional shelters for safety, order and predictability) and perpetuating or exacerbating a sense of helplessness (Burn, 1992; Hartnett & Postmus, 2010). This relationship and linkage of self-esteem, helplessness and low control is a potentially critical one, and is hence discussed in further detail below.

The relationship of low control environments, helplessness and willingness to find a jobHomeless shelters are typically regimented living environments, characterized by imposed schedules and rules designed to instill procedure and promote progress in their residents’ goal attainment by well-meaning staff. In a 1992 study, psychologist Shawn Burn suggested that the absence of personal interior environmental controls in homeless shelter environments (such as privacy draperies and similar devices) are positively correlated to residents giving up the search for permanent housing and employment. That is, low-control environments may help create or maintain feelings of ‘universal’ helplessness (feelings of “I can’t control these outcomes but it’s not my fault”). Hartnett & Postmus similarly suggest that excessive control in shelter environments sends the message that residents are lazy or lack motivations to make their own choices (2010). In another 1999 study, Epel, Bandura & Zimbardo conversely noted that resident high self-efficacy is correlated with a heightened willingness to find a job.

Researchers suggest that cost-efficient architectural features that might assist with this situation, introducing a measure of self-control and self-efficacy back to residents. For example, curtains that provide privacy are one suggested idea (Friedman, 2000; Burn, 1992). Burn and others note, however, that a

Page 4


controllable physical environment is not likely capable on its own of reversing a person’s sense of control over their life situation. That is, people who are not used to having control over their lives may not actively exert control the opportunity arises. Thus, persons may need to be prompted or a new-found opportunity presented and explained to prompt their engagement (1992).

A sense of helplessness may also have a verifiable link to crowded living conditions, which, as discussed above, often characterize transitional shelter family bedrooms. This is detailed further here.

Crowding and its effectsVarious cross-sectional and longitudinal studies identify that crowded residential conditions can negatively affect psychological health (Evans, Palsanc, Lepore, & Martin, 1989; Lepore, Evans & Schneider, 1991). Crowded physical environments have been shown to disrupt complex task performance (Paulus, Annis, Seta, Schkade & Matthews, 1976), negatively affect frustration tolerance as well as creativity (Sherrod & Cohen, 1979; Dooley, 1978), and interfere with verbal problem solving when combined with personal space invasion (Aiello, DeRisi, Epstein & Karlin, 1977). Generally speaking, crowding disrupts the normally socially supportive relationships that exist within groups of cohabitating people, and generally results in various forms of social withdrawal (Lepore, Merritt, Kawasaki, & Mancuso, 1990).

Crowded living conditions can alter family activities and perceptions of each other. Contact itself is not the problem, but rather unwanted contact that may be perceived as intrusive or interfering. These may increase interpersonal hostility and decrease positive frames of mind amongst family members (Chapin, 1951). Specifically, crowding often mixes ‘primary’ environments (where significant personal activities occur) and ‘secondary’ environments (where low levels of interaction and intimacy occur). An example is mixing bedroom environments with living room environments, in the terms of typical zones of western residences. This results, according to Stokols, in specific stressful events:

individuals will perceive the actions of others more personally and having been done intentionally; they will be more inclined to defend themselves against attempts to thwart the important activities

they’re engaged in; and, strain and even violence can be expected (1976).

The specific nature of families in homeless shelters who are often single mothers with children can bring further difficulties to spatial crowding. For example, the lack of an ‘authoritarian father figure’ can create problems, as this individual normally determines disputed claims for space and role performances (Smith, 1971). Also, the mixing of different families within a single 10’ by 12’ four-person bedroom can bring further stress. Sherrod & Cohen explain that “when high density involves the close presence of strangers, the environment is not only restricting but also unpredictable—a possible source of irritation or surprise—and thus potentially uncontrollable” (1979, p. 217). Ultimately, in the face of previously present familial stress and confronted with crowded living conditions, the family must adapt their behavior to counter these issues—unless relief through moving, rearranging the household facilities, or reducing personal expectations is undertaken (Morris, 1975).

Crowding may be more perceived by individuals in certain states of mind than others, a concept that may work against recently homeless individuals. For example, researchers Schopler & Walton concluded that

Page 5


people who feel in control of themselves and their environments felt less crowded in a high-density setting than did people who feel controlled by the environment (1974). As homeless persons are often included in the latter category (Burn, 1992), they may be less able to cope with crowded environments than others who feel more in control. Another study by Baum & Valins concluded that members of cohesive groups felt less crowded in high-density dormitories than people who are not members of cohesive groups (1977). This finding has potential application to homeless individuals who often may experience a sense of social isolation upon entering a transitional facility, and hence may sense crowdedness more intensely than others who feel a part of a social community. Lastly, a study by Worchel & Teddlie suggests a connection to perceived crowding and the pleasantness of an interior room. These researchers determined that interior elements such as art may successfully divert people’s attention from crowded conditions (1976). This conclusion may have implications for homeless persons who move into transitional shelter rooms which are largely bereft of interior detail or other interest—with little to visually distract them from crowdedness, the condition may be more mentally pervasive.

It is possible that needed relief can be found in certain situations in the face of physical crowding, and some of these likely assist the residents of transitional shelters. For example, knowledge of the crowding situation’s length of duration, and belief in the crowded living situation as a step toward greater comfort/recovery can help individuals cope (Baldassare, 1979). Similarly, accessible areas outside the bedroom such as exterior or interior community spaces can provide relief from crowding, and such areas typically exist in transitional shelters. Children who live under crowded conditions suffer less if they have outside play spaces to retreat to (Evans, Schroeder & Lepore, 1996). Consequently, seasonal weather which restricts families’ comfortable access to the exterior may affect the options open to them. Lastly, it should be noted that family members have the ability to take solace in the presence of their parents or siblings, which may soften the impact of crowding.

Perceptions of crowding and controllability and potential effects on self-efficacyCrowding as a perceived influence on a living situation may be itself influenced by one’s perception of controllability. This suggests that crowding may be primarily a mental sensation. As Sherrod & Cohen explain, “perceived control may result from actual control, but it can also result from prior control experiences, from information suggesting that control is potentially available, from self-inferences, or from any social or physical intervention that makes the environment appear more manageable or predictable” (bold added) (1979, p.223). That is, past research studies suggest that the sense of crowding may be lessened by increasing an individual’s ability to control their environment, an influence that may be the “single most important factor that mediates the effects of crowding” (Sherrod & Cohen, 1979, p. 225; Baum & Davis, 1977). Baldassare concurs, explaining that “as the amount of space per person in the home decreases, in most cases some control of space and activities within the home must increase, to ensure acceptable levels of social stimulation and friction” (1979, p. 104).

Importantly, some researchers take this idea further and suggest that people can overcome psychological difficulties (such as the potential of their own actions to effect change) if they believe that they have some level of control over their crowded surroundings (Sherrod & Cohan, 1979). That is, if one feels in control, they may feel less a sense of uncontrollable spatial density. Importantly, the experience can change a

Page 6


person’s expectations about how valuable their own proactive responses are and can prompt one to feel they are a competent individual (deCharms, 1968; Seligman, 1975). Thus, it may be possible that a more controllable physical living environment may support an internal sense of control over one’s life, and potentially reduce a sense of helplessness.

The above information brings to bear a series of related ideas that may collectively affect a sense of learned helplessness. That is, in crowded conditions and an environment that is low-control, persons with a pre-existing sense of low self-esteem may experience a suppressed willingness to take self-perpetuating steps to improve their situation, including finding a job and a permanent place to live. Sherrod & Cohen, for example, explain that helplessness is conditioned, and “mediated by expectation for control, emerging only after repeated attempts to reestablish control have proven unsuccessful” (1979, p. 156). Thus, in a highly controlled environment, decrements in control can determine how much individuals will try to influence their situation (Baum, et al., 1981). Burn agrees, and suggests that the long-term impact of low-control environments can have a pervasive effect upon a person and that “much of the passivity [helplessness] exhibited by homeless people may be the result of exposure to low-control environments” (1992, p. 1163). Burn, in fact, cites that one aspect of low control, lack of privacy, is one of the strongest predictors of helplessness.

Thus, in summation, the concepts of perceived crowding, helplessness, and low control may be related ideas that can conspire to keep recently homeless residents mentally suppressed, subduing their efforts to proactively and effectively seek a job and permanent living situation for themselves.

Given the nature of homelessness and the inconsistent monetary support this problem garners, it is likely unrealistic to anticipate that existing transitional shelters will be renovated to provide more bedroom square footage for families. Nor is it likely, given the pressure by the extent of need and funding constituents alike, that shelter staff will feel able to leave beds unoccupied in an effort to provide families with extra room or relax necessary rules that make it a highly controlled place to live. Hence, solutions that operate within the given context of the 10’ x 12’ room are probably the most realistic—and thus, the concept of adding personal control features to an existing room arose.

For this reason, this study’s treatment is grounded in the idea explained above that controllable environments may support a sense of self-efficacy that those in the midst of a homeless crisis may desperately need. Interestingly, there are few architecturally-oriented field studies that test the research findings introduced here, and explore if the presence of interior environment personal control features lessens a sense of helplessness or crowding with this population, explores how such features might actually be perceived and used by a shelter family, or how they might affect family actions within the environment either positively or negatively (such as reading in bed, telling bedtime stories, etc.). Thus, the ultimate goal was to determine if an environment could assist with instilling a sense of control, and lessen a sense of helplessness.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Page 7


The baseline question of the study is “how is a family bedroom environment that provides personal controls in a transitional homeless shelter perceived and used by a resident family?” Integral to this question are the anticipated aspects of helplessness, sense of control and sense of crowding.

The nature of the relatively broad problem of perceptions and use of the shelter bedroom lent itself to the creation of research questions of an exploratory nature. This was due in part to the relative scarcity of previous literature on the impacts of personal control features specifically in shelter environments. The presence of only a single altered bedroom due to the realities of study funds also affected the methodology.

Case studies provide flexibility such that they allow for the exploration of a priori questions, or, alternately, permitting a study’s results be entirely shaped by the data that surfaces. In order to bring a measure of focus and, owing to the existence of literature that predicts people’s likely responses to influences such as crowding and helplessness, this study opted to formulate a series of questions to focus its inquiry, plus leave open the door for other unanticipated findings.

The questions assume that when personal control features were made available, a family would likely find the features a positive addition to their living environment. This is not seen as a problem, recalling that homelessness researchers currently appeal for the need to refine the question from “whether homelessness has an effect to what aspects of homelessness are prone to creating problems in what age groups and in what domains” (Rog & Buckner, 2007, p. 5.22; italics added). Thus, this study’s questions address the nature of the family’s use of the controls and the effects of their use as outlined below.

Nature and perceptions of use1. How are interior environment controls used by shelter families in the altered room and for what

purposes? Does the presence of interior environment controls alter family activities (i.e. permit private

reading in bed)? Are these alterations negative, positive or neutral changes?

2. Does the nature and/or length of time of room use change when a family inhabits an altered room when compared to a family’s use of the unaltered room?

3. Do local interior environment controls promote differing levels of satisfaction with the interior environment for family members occupying the altered room when compared to their occupancy of an unaltered room? To other family members occupying an unaltered room?

Perceptions of crowding4. Does the presence of local interior environment controls lessen the perceived sense of crowding in

adult family members? Which controls assist this perception?5. What are the effects from perceived crowding on the family and its procedures, if this perception

exists?

Page 8


Perceptions of control and helplessness6. Is the presence of local environmental features associated with a different sense of internal

control/helplessness for family members in the altered room than for family members in an unaltered room?

The qualitative nature of the study permitted also the addition of questions that arose shortly after the observation period began. These questions brought further richness to the complete experience of the two families and presented an opportunity to further understand the impact of other family concerns and their reactions to the bedrooms:

Personalization and impact of possessions7. Do the added local interior environment controls prompt personalization activities in family

member residents?

Are these activities different than their personalization of an unaltered room? Are they different than other family member’ activities occupying an unaltered room?

8. How does the family manage its possessions in the unaltered and altered rooms?

What aspects of this management are important to the family and why?

METHODOLOGYThe nature of the study’s questions lend themselves to a personal-level inquiry which addresses homeless researchers’ call to understand the specific homeless experience and its impact described above (Rog & Buckner, 2007). A case study method permits in-depth, extended engagement with individuals and, as Gerring explains, relies on belief in a micro-macro link in social behavior. Moreover, there are times when “in-depth knowledge of an individual example is more helpful than fleeting knowledge about a larger number of examples. We gain better understanding of the whole by focusing on a key part” (2007, p. 1).

Case study design is suited to the integrated nature of this topic’s issues, likely best revealed through intimate connection to the context of day-to-day life, “especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 1994, p.13). That is, it is likely there are many reasons why homeless persons feel helpless, and some may have nothing to do with their architectural shelter environment. However, the question here is, arguably, whether an altered shelter personal environment can be assistive toward eventual empowerment and ultimately, support the resident’s goals of recovery from homelessness. Further, case studies are appropriate to “explore those situations in which the intervention being evaluated has no clear, single set of outcomes.” (Yin, 1994, p. 15). Case studies also lend themselves more to hypothesis generating rather than hypothesis testing (Gerring, 2007). This, too, is appropriate in this case, as results may yield insights that show relationships amongst the issues identified

Page 9


above and, as discussion below will reveal, others that were not identified at the outset. With this said, it is important to note that case studies are appropriate jumping-off points that permit later studies to empirically verify their conclusions, and that appropriate caution should be exercised in forming summative conclusions from their results.

This study established the supervisory parent in a family is the unit of study, and a total of two families were addressed in this study. This was necessary given that the scope of the grant funding the project made possible a single, altered room.

With psychological research conclusions described above as a backdrop and guide, this case study employed pattern matching as a study tactic which involved comparing to norms/what is thought will happen to the study’s gathered analysis. It essentially examined the effects of an intervention, here actualized in an altered transitional shelter family dormitory bedroom. This permitted analysis of a variety of data gathering methods including questionnaire measures of crowding, helplessness and sense of control with the study’s single female parents who have children with them in the shelter. Throughout the eight week period of the data gathering phase, a parent with children was first housed in an unaltered room for six weeks, and then moved to an altered room and interviewed and questioned for a second six week period. As an added check in an effort to capture the particular context of this transitional shelter, a female single parent of a family also with two children living in an unaltered room for the full extent of the observation period was also queried as a control of sorts. Background information of the two parents was examined at the outset of the study and their case study managers were interviewed to determine variations between the parents and their perceived self-efficacy and willingness to find a job and permanent housing. Figure 2 details the study’s data gathering protocol schedule over the course of the data gathering period.

In order to strengthen the verification of their findings, case studies often employ a mixture of data gathering methods in order to triangulate their conclusions, comparing one source to another. This study employed five different data gathering methods over the study’s twelve week period:

Interviews of participants Questionnaire measures which permitted participants to indicate sense of control, helplessness and

sense of crowding. Photographs taken by the participants of the room and its use with verbal descriptions provided to

the investigator Photographs taken by the investigator of the room and its use Interview of case study managers of the participants

It is realistic to recognize that interviewing those in crisis, including the homeless, brings with it a measure of needed caution in interpreting information. Despite conformity to Institutional Review Board requirements of confidential treatment of results by the researcher and assurances that results would be not be made public until after their departure from the shelter, the participants knew they were selected by the staff of the shelter for invitation to participate (without penalty if they declined). This relationship implicitly may place stress on the participant to modify their answers to maintain their positive relationship with the shelter staff. Thus, it is possible that answers were put through a ‘mental filter’ and participants crafted answers they knew would be well received. Such modifications are common, as Douglas reports,

Page 10


and can manifest themselves as misinformation, evasions, outright lies or fronts (1976). This situation underscores the need for multiple information gathering methods that facilitates “a crucial combination of the cooperative and investigative methods” (Douglas, 1976, p. 56). Thus, this study took pains to diversify its gathering methods.

Figure 2. Study protocol schedule showing the occupation of the two bedrooms at the shelter by the two participants. Timing of questionnaires, interviews, photography by the researcher and participants is also indicated.

InstrumentsWhile this is primarily a case study investigation, questionnaire and interview measures developed by others for empirical studies were tapped to help gauge responses from both participants and to assist in triangulating findings with interview of residents and staff as well as photographs taken by residents and the researcher. Specific written measures further described below.

Crowdedness Gove and Hughes’ questionnaire was accessed as it seeks to assess both actual and perceived crowding (Gove & Hughes, 1983). The majority of the clusters around with these researchers’ tool were developed were deemed appropriate for this study:

Privacy Felt demands (i.e., “does it seem like others are making demands on you”)

Page 11


Physical and psychological withdrawal (i.e., Do you sometimes pretend to be busy even though you are not?”)

Degree of feeling ‘washed out’ (i.e., “Is there often so much going on about you that you can’t think straight?”)

HelplessnessBurn’s tool, developed for homeless shelter residents was appropriated. It was employed to gauge participants’ perceptions of their ability to change their situation over the course of the study. This tool achieved a standardized Cronbach’s alpha of .79 (1992). This questionnaire was modified to use a seven-step Likert scale response instead of a 5-step to capture finer nuances of data.

SatisfactionSikorska-Simmons’ tool that assesses overall attitude toward the physical living environment was used (2001). While this tool’s primary participant was intended to be elderly persons in congregate living situations, this was adapted for use here because it is appropriate for cognitively intact respondents, its open-ended questions are suited the study’s interview structure, and because this study’s respondents habitation of what is essentially a congregate living situation.

Background/biographical questions Baseline information collected from participants mirrored that content collected by Burn in his 1992 study of homeless individuals, as that study’s goals of examining helplessness and locus of control was similar to this one.

Features of the Experimental Improved RoomThe cornerstone of the project was a family bedroom at the study’s transitional shelter that was altered to include a series of personal environmental controls. Focus group meetings of residents and staff were conducted prior to the development of the study’s questions to confirm a priori perceptions of the bedrooms and their existing features, and staff members’ point of view on the bedrooms’ use and their maintenance. This in turn provided background information and led to the selection of those personal controls that would most likely resonate with residents and would be permissible by staff within the bounds of the shelter’s rules.

In support of the study’s main premise, all features were chosen with the goal of promoting control and lessening a sense of crowding.

Page 12


Table 1. Environmental features added or changed within the altered room.

Number

Primary reason for inclusion

Alteration

1 Control (of privacy) Bedroom entrance door: change out to lockable lockset with master (staff) and child (resident) keys

2 Control (of possessions) Increase storage in the room, including hanging clothes storage, dresser units, wall shelves, bedside table and wall hooks

3 Control (of possessions) Create double-lock system for medications storage in room

4 Control Lighting/fan/headboard system

5 Control (4) laptop desks

6 Control (4) alarm clock/radios with headphones

7 Control Magnetized wall paint on both bed side walls. Marker boards on these walls by each bed.

8 Control Cubicle-style curtains for (4) beds with tiebacks

9 Control Dutch-style main door with horizontal shelf surface

10 Control (of possessions) Television with DVD player, rabbit ears. 19” screen.

11 Control Floor area rug(s)

12 Control (4) wall-attached bed bolster cushions

13 Control Blackout roller shade window treatment

14 Control Full length mirror

15 Control Family-customizable door signage

16 Control Seating cubes (2)

17 Control (4) bed elasticized covers (place over blankets and sheets for day use)

18 Control Marker board surface on door

Page 13


Figure 3. Pre-construction rendering of the room with the added features looking in from the main entrance door. Personal shelves, fans, reading lights and radios are visible.

Figure 4. Pre-construction rendering of the room with the added features looking back at the main entrance door. Expanded storage, bed curtains, full-length mirror and the dutch door are visible.

Page 14


Figure 5. The completed, altered room. The blackout window shade, seating cubes, fitted bedcovers and area rug are visible.

Page 15


Figure 6. The completed, altered room, from inside the room looking back at the main entrance door. Marker board, lockable dutch door, expanded storage and hanging clothes rod are visible.

Background of participantsThe shelter staff assisted the researcher in securing the participation of two parents living in the shelter at the same time. Efforts were taken to select participants with similar characteristics in order to provide several participants’ lived experiences to assist with the study’s questions. The second family who did not inhabit the room with the control features provided a window into the use of unimproved rooms, as did observation of the first family during the first four weeks of the study before they changed to the altered room.

The two participants were both single mothers with two children living with them in the shelter. Neither family shared their room with other, unrelated family members, and both shared a bathroom with another family. Both intended to stay for the maximum six months per the shelter’s policy, and both had resided at the shelter for approximately three months before the study commenced and anticipated they would be there another three months. Observation, interview and case manager interview identify that both parents had generally positive relationships with their children. The participants were acquainted with each other due to their proximity of dormitory rooms—they lived on opposite sides of a double-loaded corridor. Other characteristics and code names of each participant (fictional to protect their identities) are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Background characteristics of the study’s two participants.

Jazmen MarilynRole in the study Occupied unaltered room for x

weeks, then altered room for 6 weeks

Occupied unaltered room for x weeks

Age 23 43

Ethnicity African-American Caucasian

Length of homelessness before entering this shelter

6 months 2 weeks

Reported primary reason for homelessness

Loss of job/income Loss of job/income

Ages and gender of children living with participant at shelter

Girl, 3. Girl, 4. Boy, 3. Boy, 18.

Page 16


Jazmen MarilynLast grade of school completed Grade 10 Grade 10

Current source of income, if any Unemployment None

Average income/month, if any $500 None

Length of residence at shelter prior to start of the study

3 ½ months 3 months

It should be noted that there are inherent differences between the two participants which prompts caution with direct comparison. For example, Marilyn was twenty years older than Jazmen and had a much older son. Their race differed as did the gender of their children. Case managers also identified that Marilyn exhibited less self-sufficiency and drive to secure employment and a permanent place to live than did Jazmen. These differences, rather than stunting the study’s findings, lent supportive richness and variety to the conclusions in their variance and are a part of the fabric of experience these families had while living there. Thus, this study sought to capture their experience as they lived it and interacted with their physical living environment, noting differences or similarities where they arose.

FINDINGS REGARDING THE STUDY’S A PRIORI QUESTIONSResults from photographs and participants’ explanation of their content, questionnaires, interviews and staff interviews were gathered. Where possible, emergent primary points were triangulated across the study’s multiple sources and credence was particularly given to points raised by one method (i.e. interview) that reappeared multiple times over the course of the study from one or more participants in the same or different inquiry methods.

As discussed above, it was predicted that Jazmen and her children would prefer the presence of the controls over their absence. This, plus the relative newness of the altered room’s finishes and furnishings likely affected both participants’ perceptions positively toward the altered room. This study sought to identify the specific nature of this preference for the room’s features and explore linkages of these findings of other psychological studies that might help explain them where possible. Each a priori question is considered and discussed in turn below.

1.How are interior environment controls used by shelter families and for what purposes?

Evidence through questionnaire, photos and interviews of both the Jazmen and her case manager confirmed that controls were not only used frequently by the family, but likely increased the nature

Page 17


and potentially meaning of the space for them. In general, Jazmen explained that the room “is better for [the features’] addition” and spoke at length about her pleasure at being chosen to inhabit the room. Jazmen reported by the study’s end on December 9 th that seventeen of the eighteen features were important. Table x reports Jazmen’s relative assignation of importance to her and her children.

Table 3. Jazmen’s assignation of importance of room features sorted by level of importance to her. For ease of verbal completion, a four-point Likert scale of Very important, Important, Somewhat important, or Not important was used. Those alternations within the border are those Jazmen valued the most.

Jazmen’s order of feature priority

Feature

Very important

Blackout window treatment

Very important

(4) wall-attached bed bolster cushions

Very important

(4) alarm clock/radios with headphones

Very important

Lighting/fan/headboard system

Very important

Hanging clothes storage, dresser units, bedside table and hooks

Very important

Marker board at door

Very important

Seating cubes (2)

Very important

Full length mirror

Important Floor area rug(s)Very important

Television with DVD player, rabbit ears. Approx. 19” screen.

Very important

Dutch door with horizontal shelf surface and internal door lock

Page 18

The transitional homeless shelter family experienceVery important

Cubicle-style curtains for (4) beds with tiebacks

Very important

(4) laptop desks

Important Family-customizable door signageSomewhat important

Double-lock system for medications storage --lockbox

Somewhat important

Wall paint on both bed side walls: magnetized and marker-receptive.

Not important (4) bed covers

When queried to identify the five MOST important alterations, Jazmen struggled to choose only five, but opted to identify the blackout window treatment, the wall-attached bed bolster cushions, the alarm clock/radios with headphones, the lighting/fan/headboard system and the hanging clothes, dresser units, bedside table and hook storage units. It is noted that these five features’ primary association with the study’s goals for the space are control-oriented, and primarily designed to bring personalized, locally-controlled options (in temperature, storage location, sound, display, etc.) for individuals in the room.

Repeated interviews with Jazmen (at times with her children adding their own points of view) revealed that the features were employed for a diversity of activities. These included reading, watching television, playing games and getting ready for the day. Not foreseen were the features’ role in gathering groups of residents together in the room for socialization, completing job applications, the importance of ‘doing hair’, and inviting the case manager inside the room for counseling (the latter two activities reportedly made easier by the presence of the seating cubes). Interview and photographic analysis suggest that attendant to this variety of activities were the apparent increased diversity in acceptable body postures and locations made possible by some of the added features. The rug, for example permitted new use of the floor, formerly perceived as too dirty to sit or lay on. While family members propped themselves against the bed sidewalls in the past, the presence of the wall bolster cushions reportedly increased the comfort in doing so. Reading and writing was made easier by the location of local, personally-controlled lighting.

The study also sought to understand the role of the added room features in altering family activities, and if these activities were perceived as negative, positive or neutral changes. The results for this question were analyzed and grouped in this way: 1) child/parent interactions, 2) child exploration and development, and 3) those room features that presented challenges rather than assistance to the family. Each of these is considered below.

Child/Parent Interactions

Page 19


Interviews with both parents revealed that for those with younger children, it was imperative that the parents had the ability to keep the children engaged and, therefore, out of trouble. This situation was demonstrated when multiple interviews were interrupted by a child misbehaving or otherwise engaging the parent with questions or observations within the room. For Jazmen, this situation made important the presence of a variety of activities in the room—some of which were present before the altered room’s features were made available, and some that appeared later through the presence of the new features. Television was present in both phases, for example, though (without intentional design in the study) the reception was much better in the altered room and provided expanded channels with the antenna. Jazmen found this variety of activities necessary to keep her children continually interested and engaged when their attention spans compelled them to move from activity to activity. Jazmen reported that after moving, the children spent more time (understandably) watching television and movies. They also, however, spent more time reading (both together and apart) than in the unaltered room, and a future study should explore if the new presence of local lighting was assistive in this change. The children also spent more time than before on the floor in imaginative play, oftentimes apart from each other in solitary activities.

Jazmen also reported that the presence of the features such as the marker boards and radio headphones provided her the new means to withhold privileges when her children misbehaved. This, in turn, provided the opportunity to prompt positive behavior and the children a visible, tangible reward for doing so. The presence of this newfound parental tool recalls the case manager’s observation that parents often enter the shelter in a demoralized state, and that the presence of controls can, in his opinion, enhance self-esteem.

The aspect of misbehaving and its interaction with environment was also raised by Marilyn in the unimproved room. Marilyn explained that the only activities that her three-year old boy engaged in within the bedroom on his own was watching television or playing with small toys on the bed. The floor was not used by any family member as it was perceived to be too dirty. This new emphasis on the bed as the focal point for activity likely assisted the boy in beginning to peel the paint from the wall next to the bed within his reach. This situation was observed throughout the term of the study, and Marilyn reported it escalated as the wall damage became more pronounced. By late November, the boy had also started to draw on the wall (when the weather turned cold and the child was spending more time in the room). By December, Marilyn reported that the misbehavior was causing strife and she was “constantly on him about that one” (See figure 7).

Page 20


Figure 7. Wall damage next to the bed created by Marilyn’s three-year old son.

Photographs and interview also confirmed Jazmen’s perceptions about safety in the bedroom environment for her children. While the children had access to both levels of the bunk bed in both the unaltered and altered rooms, the presence of a new dresser in the altered room assisted children in reaching without the need for ladder climbing. Similarly, the wall-mounted bed bolster cushion provided the unexpected benefit of preventing the children from rolling while sleeping and getting caught between the mattress and the wall (a potentially dangerous situation in the case of very young children). Lastly, the frame for the art provided the children helpful way finding for locating their room amongst the collection of similar doors in the shelter’s long hallway.

Marilyn reported similar concerns about safety. As her room had no extended means for intentional storage, the top unused bunk was used to store possessions. This included clothing, toys and food and thus prompted her three-year old boy to climb the bunk bed ladder and stand on it while simultaneously rifling through the piles to find what we wanted. This caused his mother great concern that he would fall in the process.

Child imaginative playInterviews with Jazmen revealed an aspect of the room and its interface with the family in a way not entirely anticipated by the researcher. The need for imagination play is well documented by child development research (Whalen, 1995). Integrated with the enhanced variety of activities possible in the altered room was the use of select features that became vehicles for imagination for Jazmen’s two young girls. This aspect of the room’s appeal arose only in the latter part of the study, after the family had occupied the altered room for approximately three weeks. The dutch door, for example, became a setting for “store”, whereby the two girls would sit on the room’s stepladder and ask hallway passersby if they wished to buy something. Use of the dutch door in its half-open position tended to extend the room both visually and experientially beyond its four walls while arguably providing the means to establish control and territoriality (see figure 8). For example, Jazmen’s case worker described counseling conversations with Jazmen toward the end of the study where the bottom was kept closed at Jazmen’s control, and he carried on a conversation with her from the hallway.

Page 21


Figure 8. Jazmen and her children play ‘store’, using the dutch door to communicate with resident passers-by in the hallway.

The cubicle-style draw draperies around each bed became the opportunity for peekaboo and hide and seek, and the full-length door-mounted mirror the venue for dress up and ‘runway’.

Added room features that presented challengesNot all features in the altered room proved to be effective as perceived by Jazmen. The fitted, elasticized covers designed to go over sheets and blankets for use of the bed during the daytime were judged too difficult for the children to put on and take off. Some storage in the room was too high for Jazmen to reach, even with the use of a provided stepladder. Thirdly, the dresser/hanging rod’s design made use of the dresser top difficult as the hanging clothes got in the way. A post occupancy analysis of the room six months and one year after installation will likely also identify those features that have weathered the heavy-use environment well—or not.

2.Does the nature and/or length of time of room use change with the altered room when compared to use of the unaltered room?

The length of time the bedrooms are used is appropriate in this study, as the shelter’s rules permit access to the bedrooms at any time of day, and thus potentially indicate degree of desirability of

Page 22


bedroom use by the residents. Staff members supported the idea of residents staying in their bedrooms whenever they wished—and in fact, encouraged it as a means to keep harmful gossip down amongst residents. When both Marilyn and Jazmen and their respective children inhabited the unaltered rooms at the beginning of the observation period, both reported staying in the room approximately three hours per day in addition to time spent sleeping. However, as verified through interview of both residents and staff, this pattern changed for Jazmen when she and her family moved to the altered room.

For Marilyn, interviews on length of time in the bedroom brought forth her perceptions that the bedroom was “too crowded and Claus trophic” which led her to stay outside more often, enjoying the openness and sunlight. It was here Marilyn felt able to enjoy the fresh air, as the shelter did not permit the windows to be opened in the bedrooms. Marilyn also found the bedroom’s qualities to be at odds with both her desire to socialize with other residents and her personal ability to be at ease. This compelled her to describe a pattern of adjustment, and that she had “a hard time with closed doors to begin with, and with a bunch of people in here….it’s pretty frustrating, but you learn to cope a little better, you know, after a while…”

Notably, by the end of the observation period Marilyn reported she was staying up later than normal primarily to avoid being in the bedroom, thus providing evidence that the room’s qualities hold the potential to affect residents’ sleeping/waking patterns. Her eighteen-year old son’s schedule was also a difficulty, as Marilyn described him as “a vampire” preferring to sleep until midday, then staying awake in the bedroom watching movies or playing video games until five in the morning. Marilyn identified that her son had maintained this schedule for much of his life, thus suggesting that this was not necessarily brought on by the bedroom facilities per se.

Marilyn similarly reported that she experienced issues with her three-year old son and the bedroom’s use, explaining that “he doesn’t like being in there at all”. When probed on this point further, Marilyn identified that he felt “cooped up. There’s not a lot to do besides his little toys and so what are you going to do, just sit on the bed? Now he’ll watch him a little movie, but really he doesn’t like staying in there”. As an alternative, the three-year old boy will be outside playing, “which was a real hard one because he’s mostly outside in the heat”. These and similar conversations with Marilyn identified that activities, or lack of them, contributed to the boy’s perceptions about the room.

Jazmen and her family described that shortly after moving to the altered room, she and her children occupied the bedroom for three or more hours per day more than they used the unaltered room. Reported and surmised reasons for this vary, and include the enhanced number of television channels the new room afforded, and the fact that the weather turned colder toward the end of the observation period. Nonetheless, it is possible that the room’s new features encouraged the family’s altered frequency of habitation. The family’s extended room use was confirmed by her case manager to the researcher as well as through Jazmen’s conversation with him that she conveyed through interview:

Page 23


“We’ll have like movie time and I’ll go pop popcorn, and we’ll sit in the room and watch TV and the RA told me Monday night, she was like ‘Ya’ll was in the room all day, we didn’t leave out of the room all day, besides to go eat and then we were back in the room. And then [my kids say] ‘we don’t want to go over there, they might have something nasty—can’t we eat pizza or go to Wendy’s?... and we’ll find ourselves going to get ourselves something to eat and then coming right back in the room.”

When asked why the family changed their bedroom use patterns, Jazmen struggled to identify precise reasons. “I don’t know. It’s just.. can’t really explain it. It will be like one of the moods we in, we like calm especially like a rainy day there’s no outside play for them.” With further prompting, Jazmen also described that the playroom in the family dormitory building is often not available for the children until three or four in the afternoon due to shelter rules. This, Jazmen reported, made the bedroom’s ability to assist in supervision and engagement of the children desirable.

3.Do local interior environment controls promote differing levels of satisfaction with the interior environment for family members occupying the altered room compared to family members occupying the unaltered room?

As a term, ‘satisfaction’ is a descriptor obviously open to interpretation for researchers and residents alike. This study opted to leave the term undefined for residents and gather through their responses what this term meant and to what degree the bedroom provided this feeling for them. Ultimately, this choice resulted in the addition of several research questions after the commencement of the observation period, as will be explained below.

First, it should be noted that both residents, when asked about their satisfaction with the room, indicated thankfulness to “have a roof over our heads”. Of the two residents, Marilyn was by far more critical of the unaltered room that she and her family inhabited than was Jazmen of either her unaltered or altered room. Even so, and despite her specific objections to a myriad of qualities including color, material and lighting, Marilyn described what might be called a ‘general’ level of satisfaction through statements such as “…on the whole, yeah, I’m satisfied. I mean, I’m grateful for it.” Further, both related the general concept of satisfaction to the feeling of having their children present with them. This suggests that satisfaction with the bedroom extends beyond the physical character and condition of the facility and into the lived experience of the space, including the inhabitants who are sharing that experience. This, too, is not unexpected, as the experience of design rather than the physical objects inherent in design are often identified as more important by design researchers (Caplan, 2004).

Satisfaction was also a perception that evolved for both participants. Responses suggest satisfaction may be linked to one’s overall mental adjustment process that occurs when moving into a shelter and its social structure. Marilyn, who moved from a two bedroom/two bathroom apartment into

Page 24


the shelter recounts the psychological transition she experienced and its implications for her sense of self: “The whole HOPE thing for one, you feel when you first move in here because everybody has their own little clique and friends and you’re new, and plus coming from, okay, from not having a home into a homeless shelter you feel about…. [gestures with fingers to feeling several inches high]. I wasn’t real comfortable anyway, it took me awhile to warm up to it.”

For both parents in the study, aspects of “satisfaction” primarily fell into several categories that emerged through interviews and questionnaires. These are discussed below, along with psychological research that broadens their potential meaning:

Perceptions of room finishes Privacy ‘Homeyness’

Connection to possessions. This discussion is the seventh research question and is located later in this report.

Perceptions of room finishesA review of anecdotal literature suggests that after the initial remodeling or new construction of shelter bedrooms typically completed by an architectural firm, decisions of color, linens, art and similar items are at times left to shelter staff, willing civic groups such as women’s clubs, or individual interior decorators or interior designers performing pro bono work. Often, decisions are dictated by what materials and colors are available at the time of need. However, as transitional shelter environments undergo uninterrupted and often hard use, the short and long-term appearance and suitability of these finishes can become an issue (Davis, 2004).

The shelter bedrooms examined in this study were sponsored by various civic groups who painted and decorated the rooms with art and inspirational sayings. While dresser styles varied, a constant was the presence of black-painted metal bunk beds. Metal is an often used material for shelter furniture for its durability and its imperviousness to insect infestation such as bedbugs, which can burrow into wood furniture.

Without prompting, both residents provided negative responses to the rooms’ finishes and furnishings when asked about their level of satisfaction. With regard to the unaltered room, Jazmen reported that the room was “dull and boring” and that “there is nothing happy” about it. Marilyn elicited a more symbolic reaction, specifically to the bed style and other nearby materials, and also reported that other residents shared her view: “This almost reminds me like jail, but with jail you don’t have [your stuff]. …Because it’s the metal bed, it’s very generic, the hard, cold floors, the color of the walls, you know. I’ve never spent any time in jail, but that’s what I would relate to. … a neighbor just got out of jail, and she said she still feels like she’s locked up here. I … would imagine it’s something close”. Jazmen also described a symbolic reaction to the “dull green walls” as “cold and sterile”. The ubiquitous use of this color in institutional settings may have prompted this reaction and association.

Page 25


Both residents also supplied that the thinness of the mattress was of major concern and prevented quality sleep. Interestingly, the altered room solution did not change or improve the mattress. When this was pointed out, Marilyn’s response suggests that visual quality can offset physical discomfort, as demonstrated by her reaction to the new altered room: “…but still when you walk into it, it looks so much more….. comfortable. It really does. You’ve got little carpets down on the floor, you’ve got the rails to sit up in the bed, everybody’s got their own individual clock. And fan.”

Privacy Background research conducted for this study suggested that privacy is a highly desired quality, especially in crowded living environments. This finding was also supported in this study’s focus group with shelter residents. Researchers, in fact, suggest that the degree of privacy available to family members influences their perceptions of crowding (Evans, Schroeder & Lepore, 1996). This is due in part to the cultural norm that sleeping and related private activities are customarily undertaken in a private domain separate from other group-style family activities, and thus forms the foundation for the one person-one room census bureau classification of crowding (Baldassare, 1979). This linkage was not lost on the study’s participants who themselves voiced concern and desire for privacy. Marilyn, for example, perceived crowding and lack of privacy were integrated when she exasperatingly stated “it’s such cramped quarters, you have no place to get away whatsoever”.

Interestingly, offering the option for respite/retreat from social interaction, even when it is not used, can ameliorate some effects of high density. As Sherrod & Cohen explain, “escapable crowding can increase postcrowding frustration tolerance even though escape may never be exercised” (1979, p. 224). Thus, the option of draw draperies around a private living area, for example, could provide an ‘escape hatch’ to families living in tight quarters whether they do or do not use them in actuality. Jazmen’s reaction to this point supports this theory: Jazmen immediately reported a sense of reduced crowding in the altered room, yet she did not use the provided bed draperies for at least two weeks after inhabiting the room.

Homeless shelter environments also carry the possibility of housing more than one family per room when demand requires it. While this can permit the shelter to house as many of the needy at one time as possible, this can bring special hazards concerning privacy into play, as Mitchell explains, this can lessen the agreement about who holds legitimate power to make decisions related to the use of space and activities that occur. Because of this lack of clarity, two issues may result—there may be more arguments about spatial control and more friction stemming from perceived invasions of privacy and interaction when it is not wanted (Mitchell, 1971).

Even when rooms are not shared amongst different families, the closeness can still lend pressure to the family’s interaction. Marilyn described that disagreement over room use or activities prompted outbursts from her sons such as “I don’t want to watch that movie any more” or “Shut up, kid”. While it’s arguable that family disagreements may exist whether they live in a crowded environment or not, Marilyn further describes that in the shelter there is “no way to get away from” the disagreements, and that this may hasten the frequency and severity of these clashes.

Page 26


It should also be noted that the perceived need for privacy can be influenced by other factors which may be present in a policy and program-driven shared living environment such as a transitional shelter. First, knowledge of other people’s schedules—so that residents can plan private moments and activities and anticipate interruptions, can reduce perceptions of the need for privacy. Similarly, residents’ belief that there are long-range benefits for the crowded living situation, and that the length of their time in the situation is limited can reduce stress from lack of privacy (Baldassare, 1979).

Not surprisingly, this study’s participants voiced continuing desire for increased privacy, even though their family unit did not share their room with others. The lack of door locks was of particular concern, as this permitted other residents to enter their room and steal things (either in actuality or perceived), and permitted staff to walk in the room as necessary for counseling and monitoring.

The study’s residents also described the difficulties amongst family members with regard to privacy, especially when those members tried to engage in different activities within the bedroom at the same time. This may be particularly problematic when the parent’s children are older, such as was the case for Marilyn, who described that simultaneous use of the room was also affected by the presence or absence of room features. “The hard part about being in that little room is there’s no privacy…. If I’m sleeping and my older boy wants to take a shower, say, it’s 1 o’clock in the morning, I mean the light gets kicked on, and I lay at the foot of the bed because my TV is at the other end so when he flips the light on it’s right there in my face when I go to read.”

Marilyn’s situation was also exacerbated because she and her oldest son held different schedules throughout the day, with her son often staying up until 3AM watching movies, listening to music or playing video games while she tried to sleep.

Marilyn’s family circumstances presented an interesting and potentially alarming aspect of living with older children in a crowded shelter situation. Because the room lacks privacy, Marilyn expressed concern that her eighteen year old son was spending more time during the day and overnight in other locations than she was comfortable with: “I worry. It’s been bad [nervous laughter]. …He’s ready to spread his wings and not be in here so much, or here [at the shelter], period, so much”. When asked if she felt the boy would spend more time with his family if the room offered more privacy, Marilyn responded without hesitation: “Mm-hmm. Oh, yeah, at eighteen they need a little of their own space. You know kids, they want to shut themselves in and be left alone. So, yeah, I think so.” Marilyn especially thought that a radio and privacy draperies would be particularly helpful to this problem, stating “I’m sure whatever he does, he doesn’t want everybody looking at him or [his little brother] bugging him…”

For parental supervision reasons, Marilyn’s three year old son was constantly with her at the shelter. As such, Marilyn appeared resigned to the idea that personal privacy is not often possible with the presence of a young child. Nonetheless, she wistfully described “there’s times that I’d like to be able to shut myself up and be in my own little cave and be able to read and not be distracted. You know, just hearing somebody snore after awhile is like [groan], you know what I mean?”

Page 27


Each study participant was asked to identify the perceived sense of personal privacy in the bedroom over the eight week course of the data gathering period. Marilyn, in the unaltered room, maintained a 1-2 rating on a 1 to 10 scale (with 1 being not private at all and 10 being totally private) during the full eight weeks of the study. Jazmen started the study in an unaltered room and identified her perceived privacy at that time as a 3. At the conclusion of the study and at a point of six weeks’ occupation of the altered room, Jazmen reported perceived privacy at 10 (very private), an answer observed to be based on the presence of the locking dutch door and the privacy draperies around each bunk bed. With regard to privacy, Jazmen remarked that the new dutch door in the improved room was an aid to monitoring her territory and controlling privacy. She also indirectly spoke of the empowerment this implied as well as pride in her willingness to be open with others: “Sometimes I can have half of the door open and can just mingle with people, and if I do stay in the room all day, I’m not trying to hide from anyone, so it sparks conversation about the new room.”

Interestingly, when Jazmen was occupying the unimproved room early in the study, she reported that she didn’t need personal privacy that much, as she was monitoring the needs of her two young daughters constantly. After moving, however, and provided with the means to pull draperies around her bed with her children safely in the room, she indicated the need for personal privacy as a 10. This supports the notion that people will suppress the need for experiences they perceive they cannot have, and specifically, that homeless mothers are more likely than non-homeless mothers to use avoidance (or ‘active-cognitive’) behaviors for coping to manage their appraisal of a stressful situation (Banyard & Graham-Bermann, 1998, p. 482; Douglas, 1976).

In summation, the study’s gathered observations and participants responses on privacy reveals that ages of children may influence the degree of privacy desired by family members, with older children in greater need of privacy features than younger ones. Parents, too, report, or are resigned to, a lesser degree of personal privacy when younger children are present, yet, in the case of Jazmen, happily used privacy-related features for themselves when they sense their children are safe and nearby without visual supervision.

HomeynessThe structure of the study placed the participant Marilyn in the position of remaining in the unaltered bedroom while observing the nature of the altered bedroom through her friendship with Jazmen. When Marilyn was asked if she would prefer to live in the improved room, her response was “of course.” When pressed why she felt this way so matter-of-factly, she responded, “well, look at the rooms, they‘ve got curtains, privacy, looks much more homey, more comfortable. “…when you walk into it, it looks so much more….. comfortable. It really does.”

Unprompted, the study’s focus group shelter residents, Jazmen, Marilyn and the interviewed case managers all used the word “homey” to describe the altered bedroom. Nonetheless, this is a quality of the residential interior frequently neglected by sociological and anthropological researchers. Grant McCracken’s ethnography-based analysis of this elusive property is one exception to this, and provides useful framework against which the participants’ reference can be explored. According to McCracken, ‘homeyness’ plays a vital part in the North American cultural system, and that in so

Page 28


creating a homey living environment, a family simultaneously creates the identity of the family and the self. While the precise qualities in an interior environment vary that make it ‘homey’, some ideas emerged such as ‘embracing’, ‘backward looking’, and ‘authentic’. These qualities, according to McCracken, stand in intentional contrast to the meanings and domains of the world exterior to the home often characterized as ‘disengaged’, ‘forward looking’ and ‘contrived’. Thus, “homeyness helps the individual to mediate his or her relationship with the larger world, refusing some of its influences and transforming still others” (1989, p. 178). More pertinent to this study’s focus, homeyness “plays its role here by empowering the individual to select and refuse the cultural meanings, to be a discriminating consumer in the culture of the consumer society” (italics added, 1989, p. 179). Thus, instilling a sense of homeyness, much like options-rich features such as personal fans and territory-assistive objects like dutch doors, provides the family a tool to exert their own definition and control over their personal identities (McCracken, 1989).

McCracken’s interviews revealed that participants express the desire for homeyness in their residence interiors, and know when it is missing, yet have difficulty in identifying what, in fact, constitutes homeyness. Nonetheless, a likely ingredient is a person’s possessions. For the shelter participants of this study, the familiarity of those belongings they managed to retain at this crisis-filled moment of their lives seemingly became quite important. Marilyn expressed the fact at the beginning of the study’s observations that the familiarity of her family’s possessions could not overcome the lack of ambience she felt in the unaltered room: “It’s cold, and there’s nothing homey, and yet it’s your space. I’m not sure if you can understand what I’m saying. You go in there every day and your stuff is in there, but yet it’s really cold feeling in there.” Three-quarters of the way through the data gathering period Marilyn’s perception of homeyness changed somewhat, and she expressed she believed her family had “altered the room quite a bit… I mean it went from a generic, from cold, to a more personal, it’s got more of a homely [sic] touch. My kid’s personal art, you know, our belongings, even my bathroom things on the counter, if that wasn’t there I think it would not feel the same, it would be even more generic, like jail.” Interestingly, very few changes were observed in the room Marilyn and her family occupied from early in the study to its conclusion. Prized possessions for Marilyn included even mundane items, such as disposable hygiene products.

The fact that their family members were together in this situation appeared to buoy both Marilyn and Jazmen. When asked what made a space homey, both quickly answered that having their family together was this idea’s most powerful expression. Such a finding echoes the conclusions of Baldassare who identified that families have the unique ability to cope with adverse conditions, as they take strength from their numbers and familial nature (1979). Even though Marilyn voiced significant and sustained objections to her bedroom at the shelter throughout the observation period, even she made her peace, of sorts, with the physical environment: “Yeah, we call it home now. Even Tristan—“Are we going home now, Mommy?” The time spent and relationships built here. You do become accustomed to the room. It’s where your stuff is, it’s your little space”.

Page 29


4.Perceptions of crowding: Does the presence of local interior environment controls lessen the sense of crowding in adult family members?

5.What are the effects from perceived crowding on the family and its procedures, if this perception exists?

This report previously discussed other research studies which point to potential relationships between helplessness, control and crowding—and that crowding and the low control often present in transitional shelters can exacerbate helplessness. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that action taken to reduce a perceived sense of crowding would be supportive of residents’ empowerment related goals. It is pertinent here to also recall that psychological research suggests that to a certain extent, the sensation of crowding may be primarily mental, and as such can potentially be alleviated through manipulating factors unrelated to altering the fundamental size of the physical space. This study sought to test this theory by not altering the square footage of the room but instead putting in place features that would visually expand its dimensions. This included the full-length mirror on the bathroom door and the dutch-style entrance door. Additionally, the altered room significantly increased storage opportunities to potentially remove the visual chaos of clutter while giving the resident the opportunity to master the organization of their possessions. Lastly, the room provided curtains that could be drawn around each of the four beds separately, enabling visual separation of occupants.

Both study participants remarked that a sense of spaciousness or crowding was very important to them with regard to their bedroom. When asked about the importance of this quality, Marilyn mused about her situation and that of others: “being crowded is one of the biggest deals here for all of us. You see a playpen out in the hall [as an example]. Everybody around here is like “man” [grimaces]! Can you imagine having to share with another family in your room? That’s got to be even worse [than my situation]”.

Both respondents also suggested that their children misbehaved more due to the crowdedness the families perceived. Quantitative measures of crowding completed by Marilyn and Jazmen when they occupied unaltered rooms confirmed that they perceived uncomfortable closeness, although Jazmen qualified her response by noting that it was okay as it was only for six months and rated the degree of crowding a 6 (on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being extremely crowded). However, she also indicated that she was never able to do what she wanted to do in this bedroom (an indicator of ‘felt demands’, one quality of feeling crowded as identified by Gove & Hughes (Gove, 1983). After relocating to the altered bedroom, Jazmen’s response to the question of perceived crowding changed to ‘usually able to do what I want to do’ and she reported being less tired in the altered bedroom than in the unaltered room. When asked to identify the degree of crowding in the bedroom after living in it for one week, Jazmen reported a ‘10’, explaining it’s “very spacious, and organized with things put in their place”. This response appears to tie control of visual clutter to perceptions of spaciousness, not entirely surprising given the focal impact that significant quantities

Page 30


of possessions can have on this small room. Marilyn’s response echoes this tie to possessions and crowding: “We are crowded. I’m constantly looking for somewhere to stuff something. The clothing thing is really killing me. It’s piled up here, it’s piled up there, the drawers are jam packed.”

Marilyn offered a revealing description of the effect of perceived crowding in the context of residing in her room for five months’ time: “I’m comfortable in the room and adjusted to being in the space. But…it’s starting to get more claustrophobic. It’s getting worse. The more time you spend in it, the more you feel like the walls are closing in, it feels stuffy. You notice every little thing after you look around in there, and it’s like ‘oh, I gotta get out’. That’s why I go outside, you’ve gotta get out of it.”

Jazmen was relatively slow to warm to the potential of the dutch door in the altered room, and interviews soon after she took occupancy of this bedroom suggest she was not using this feature often (this could also be due in part to a problem, later solved, with securing the bolt that held the top and bottom of the door together). By four weeks’ time, however, Jazmen appeared to be opening up the top portion to the hallway regularly, and reported conversing with her neighbors more often because of it.

The perceptions of the altered room from resident neighbors’ point of view also supported the primacy of perceptions with regard to crowding. As Marilyn observed of the altered room, “You look through the door, like, if she’s got the top open and bottom shut it looks bigger, I guess because of the brightness, you know what I mean? It looks like she’s got so much more space, which you know she doesn’t, but… to me it’s much more appealing to your eye. It looks more open, it must be the color that brings it out.” Marilyn continued, equating the altered room to eating a plate of food: “Anything that looks better, it’s gonna tell your mind it tastes better. It’s definitely perception.”

6. Is the presence of local environmental features associated with a different sense of internal control/helplessness for family members in the altered room than for family members in an unaltered room?

Of all the study’s targeted questions of inquiry, the detection of change in a participant’s overall sense of control, or related to this concept, sense of helplessness, is likely the most difficult to detect, yet central to the study’s overall goal. As such, the quantitative measures administrated to this case study’s two participants are exploratory at best, but provide impetus for further exploration of these important characteristics.

Locus of ControlDuttweiler’s Internal Control Index is a measure of one’s view of the world as either internally controlled (I have the ability to do “x”) or externally controlled (things that happen to me are not my fault and I cannot affect them). Locus of control is a personality trait that appears to influence human behavior across many situations related to learning and achievement (Duttweiler, 1984, p.

Page 31


209). Locus of control concerns a person’s expectancy for reinforcement. If a person has internal control, they believe reinforcement depends on their own behavior. If they are external control-oriented, they believe reinforcement is contingent on luck, chance or others. (1984, p. 210). One’s locus of control is therefore important, as it can in turn affect how motivated one is to correct or change things in life. The Internal Control Index (ICI) test is based on measures of cognitive processing, autonomy, resistance to influence attempts, delay of gratification and self-confidence (1984, p. 211).

The ICI test was administered as a pre and post measure to both Jazmen and Marilyn at the beginning and end of the observation period separated in time by eleven weeks. Table 4 provides the analysis of the results.

Table 4. Study participant results of Duttweiler’s Internal Control Index measure.

9/18/09 administration

12/9/09 administration

Percent change

Marilyn 156 (80% of total possible indicating internal control)

161 (82% of total possible indicating internal control)

+2%

Jazmen 145 (74% of total possible indicating internal control)

164 (84% of total possible indicating internal control)

+ 10%

Jazmen realized 10% increase of score whereas Marilyn realized only 2% improvement. While only two participants make inappropriate further generalization (in particular, Marilyn’s score was higher than Jazmen’s to begin with), future studies could show over repeated administrations if the bedroom’s environment help its occupants maintain, or even gain more of a sense of internal control than do unaltered rooms.

HelplessnessResearch by others discussed above suggests that environment may be an influence in the sense of internal control, or alternately, helplessness than an individual feels. Tightly controlled environments such as shelters have also been linked to increasing a sense of helplessness. Thus, this study sought to determine if the use of the unaltered bedroom and the altered bedroom (which featured multiple elements that could be controlled or manipulated) would indeed be associated with a differing sense of helplessness. A pre-observation period and post-observation period assessment on this measure was taken with both Jazmen (to detect any change which might or might not be due to the altered room) and Marilyn (to observe the results from a different individual living in similar circumstances).

Page 32


Burn’s tool was appropriated which was developed for homeless shelter residents. It was employed to gauge participants’ perceptions of their ability to change their situation over the course of the study. Only mild indication of change was detected in both individuals. Table x indicates those areas of change observed.

Table 5. Participant pre- and post- responses to Burn’s test of helplessness.

7 step likert scale:

Never (N) Rarely (R) Occasionally (O)

Sometimes (S) Frequently (F)

Usually (U) Always (A)

0% of time

Less than 10% of the time

About 30% of the time

About half the time



100% of the time

Question Jazmen pre Jazmen post Jazmen change

Marilyn pre Marilyn post Marilyn change

I _______ feel it is no use trying to be comfortable in my bedroom.

Rarely Never 1 step positive

Occasionally Sometimes 1 step negative

I _______ feel my family can adjust our bedroom to our liking.

Usually Always 1 step positive

Sometimes Frequently 1 step positive

I _______ feel my family has no control over our bedroom’s appearance.

Never Never No change

Frequently Frequently No change

I _______ feel a sense of ownership for my family’s bedroom.

Always Always No change

Occasionally Frequently 2 steps positive

I _______ feel the appearance of my family’s bedroom tells other people who we are.

Always Always No change

Frequently Usually 1 step positive

Page 33

The transitional homeless shelter family experienceQuestion Jazmen pre Jazmen post Jazmen

changeMarilyn pre Marilyn post Marilyn

change

I _______ feel I have a say in how my family can use the bedroom.


Rarely Sometimes Two steps positive

I ________ feel that my family’s bedroom lets my family do what we want to do.


Rarely Occasionally 1 step positive

While caution should be taken in generalizing from an qualitative instrument in a small case study such as this showing small change effect, it is at least possible that the results indicated here may imply that detectable change in helplessness may take more time than six months to develop, or may need more than just physical environment change to activate. Marilyn summed this possibility up when she described that “the room’s features do not overcome the fact of the psychological impact of moving into a shelter. It’s still a shelter. [The altered room is] brighter, more inviting. More personalized. …but at the same time, most people don’t speak a lot when they first get here- regardless of the type of room that you inhabit”. Further studies with larger sample sizes could explore whether a demonstrable difference is detectable on measures of helplessness with the altered room.

While quantitative measures leaned toward no effect or were inconclusive, more revealing were interview comments gathered from Jazmen and Marilyn on their sense of internal control. One interesting finding was that Jazmen’s reported frequency of ignoring demands of her children actually increased when she moved into the altered bedroom. She also reported pretending to be busy to avoid the demands of others more often. There are several possible reasons for this. One is that Jazmen reported feeling more at ease with monitoring her children in the altered room because it offered more options for their positive engagement in activities. Thus, Jazmen may have felt more able to ignore the demands of her children safely than she did in the unaltered room. This hypothesis is bolstered by Jazmen’s change in perception concerning the bed curtains. When she first moved into the altered bedroom, the curtains went unused, reportedly because Jazmen felt she needed to keep a constant watchful eye on her children. Her use of the curtains changed, however, as she finally permitted herself to enjoy ‘me’ time in the altered bedroom with the knowledge that her children were safe in the room with her. The researcher sensed this comfort or worry was likely important to Jazmen’s ongoing state of mind.

Jazmen explained her point of view on this during the last interview of the study and sought to identify the specific control-related reasons she preferred the altered room:

Page 34


[if I had lived in the unaltered room the entire time], “my attitude would have been kind of different, because when I first got here, I had to put my pride aside cuz I was, oh my God, I was like in the shelter. I always had good jobs, but I then had my kids young… I was kind of like depressed in the [unaltered] room but after awhile it was like OK, but I still didn’t spend much time in there because I just didn’t feel as comfortable in there as I do in this one. In this one, you know, when you have one of them days when I don’t want to be bothered or I just want to relax, and I feel like I can do that in this room, and it’s just the simple point of the door being able to lock. And so I can just lock myself in and relax, read a book or watch a movie while the kids are at school to get my ‘me’ time.

TerritorialityTerritoriality is a set of behaviors associated with use of a physical space an individual perceives as their own. As exhibiting territorial behavior may be related to a sense of control (Edney, 1975), expressing territoriality over a private space could be a sign of positive adjustment in the case of a user group that is often characterized as helpless. As such, territoriality could be construed as an act of proactive confidence and thus is the antithesis of helplessness.

An unanticipated development in the use of the altered room was the increased territoriality exhibited by Jazmen and her family. For example, Jazmen began keeping the dutch door’s bottom section closed when she had required conversations with her case manager, where before he had entered the room to discuss matters. Similarly, Jazmen’s children began taking action that suggested they had laid claim to the space generally, such as playing ‘store’ with the open dutch door with neighbors. They also claimed their respective beds, writing ‘do not sit here’ on the marker boards, for example. Jazmen herself was surprised with her children’s new behavior:

By us having this room, it’s like they have a space that just theirs. Like I was playing with [child], she’ll pull the curtains and reading books to each other. But it’s like they have their own little space now. She feels like she has something that belongs to her and with the other room, you know, we just all in here. Now it’s like “Mommy, can we pull the curtains—I don’t want to see y’all right now”. I’m like, ‘huh’? [laughter].

A benefit of case study methodology, and qualitative inquiry in general, is the permission to permit findings to drive the conclusions of the study, even if they are not anticipated and posed as research questions at the outset. This indeed occurred in this study, and brought to the forefront issues of personalization and management of possessions within the bedrooms. These aspects can arguably be viewed as manifestations of internal control as expressed by Jazmen and Marilyn, and are therefore different, yet related topics to the main line of inquiry here.

Page 35


7.Do the added local interior environment controls prompt personalization activities in family members? Are these activities different than those of the control family in the unaltered room?

Personalization is generally defined as the use of environmental markers that describe an individual’s identity (Kopec, 2006). These markers, such as pictures, messages, or displayed items, permit the individual to express themselves to others and are particularly important in to children and adolescents in the process of forming their identities (Newell, 1995). Thus, when individuals customize their living space, it is a line drawn in the sand stating that this space is not only theirs, but is an extension of their identities. Personalization is closely akin to territoriality, and the display of personal items, coupled with recognizable boundaries such as doorway or bed, is a way of establishing mores for predictable social contact. Further, the presence of personalization demonstrates that an individual has claimed a space, even if it is temporary, and opted to proactively create for her or himself a predictable, stable environment from which to make sense of the world. Thus, environmental personalization is an act of potential confidence, rather than helplessness, and logically a positive sign of mental health in this situation.

The eight week period of the study offered the opportunity to see how the families opted to personalize, or not personalize, their space. The shelter did not discourage residents from displaying personal items in their bedrooms. While certainly the six month limited length of stay would be a factor in the degree of engaged personalization, differences were observed between Jazmen and Marilyn’s families.

Both participants were observed in their unaltered rooms for approximately six weeks. Both families had occupied these rooms for approximately three months prior to the first observation. Relatively little personalization was observed for either and was limited to small photos or drawings created by or depicting their children taped to the walls. Jazmen’s room had wall art already in place, supplied by donators to the shelter which had inspirational sayings on them such as ‘peace’ and ‘hope’. Thus, there was likely less room for resident-added personalization. See figures 10 and 11. A small but impactful factor here was that displaying items meant obtaining scotch tape, an extra step that likely involved a staff member.

Jazmen’s move to the altered room brought with it the chance to observe any changes in her or her family members’ behavior concerning personalization. This was especially interesting to observe as the room itself permitted (and through its design, tacitly encouraged) more opportunities for easy display of objects and art, such as shelves, personal bulletin boards associated with each bed and four marker boards with markers. A changeable hallway sign permitted the opportunity for the family to identify themselves from the public space outside the room. The operative question became, then, would the opportunity and visual invitation to personalize indeed prompt the resident to do so?

Figures 9 through 14 below chronicle the nature and extent of personalization from beginning to end of the study for both Marilyn and Jazmen. Marilyn’s extent of personalization evolved only

Page 36


slightly during the five weeks shown here, adding only two small photos to the wall with scotch tape. Despite occupying the unimproved room for four months, Jazmen too largely refrained from displays of objects. Her daughter’s school graduation tassle was the largest item of note, hung from a shelf support.

Figures 9 and 10. Jazmen’s unaltered room, September 29: despite her presence in the room for two months prior to these photos, little personalization is observed. Existing artwork was provided by the shelter. Jazmen seemed unmoved by this artwork, and in fact used it as a means to hang a dryer sheet in the air to make the room more pleasant smelling.

Page 37


Figure 11. Jazmen’s altered room, November 17th. Jazmen’s family has occupied the altered room for two weeks. Some personalization of shelves and marker board are observed.

Figure 12. Jazmen’s altered room, December 9th. Jazmen’s family has occupied the altered room for four and a half weeks. Significant personalization is seen in the display of shelf objects and unique sayings on the marker boards. Some shelves high on the walls remain unused.

Page 38


Figure 13. Marilyn’s room, September 29th. A total of three pieces of child artwork or photos are observed taped to available walls. The family has occupied this room for approximately three months at this point.

Figure 14. Marilyn’s room, December 9th. Marilyn’s family has occupied the unaltered room for five months and two weeks. A total of five pieces of child artwork or photos are

Page 39


observed taped to available walls. One is precariously perched on a shelf support.

When questioned about her increased personalization of the altered room, Jazmen indicated that she valued the idea of celebrating dates, such as holidays and also doing things together as a family. The marker boards proved a means for Jazmen to print out messages dictated by her children. Displayed objects included stuffed animals the family acquired from a trip to the fair. Three different family-created signs were observed during the observation period that were inserted in the hallway frame- one announcing the family’s name, and the others wishing neighbors a Happy Thanksgiving and then a Merry Christmas. A single sign was observed taped to the bedroom door announcing the names of the family before they moved to the altered room.

A recap of observations of personalization for these participants suggest that

1. The presence of opportunities for personalization (shelves, wall signs, marker boards) was associated with increased activities that individualize or claim space territories.

2. While it is important to recall that Marilyn and Jazmen are different individuals that may imply different approaches to display and alteration of their environments, Marilyn’s personalizations of the bedroom did not increase over the observation time, but Jazmen’s did. Moreover, Jazmen’s personalizations were significantly greater once she moved to the altered room which provided more opportunities for display.

It should be acknowledged that Marilyn did indeed seek to customize and personalize the bedroom, and she identified that the presence of their possessions and art made the space more ‘theirs’. However, Marilyn had to proactively find solutions to displaying these objects without having an easy opportunity to do so. Thus, the impulse likely existed, but the altered room seemingly made display easier in fact presented an environment that visually asked to be completed. Thus, there may be value in presenting previously homeless individuals with the invitation to personalize, as they may not necessarily seek to do so without such prompts. This echoes the findings of Burn, who found that homeless individuals must often be prompted to use control features as they are not accustomed to doing so through previous conditioning (1992).

8.How does the family manage its possessions in the unaltered and altered rooms? What aspects of this management are important to the family and why?

Among the most oft-cited frustrations for both Jazmen and Marilyn when both occupied the unaltered bedrooms was the management of their possessions. The shelter was not able to provide

Page 40


storage for belongings outside the confines of the bedroom, and the rooms themselves offered two large drawers underneath each bed. However, these proved difficult for the women to open and could be pulled all the way out, creating a falling hazard. A four-drawer dresser was also provided in Jazmen’s unaltered room, and Marilyn further had a tall plywood-constructed unit with several shelves placed between the bunk beds. The belongings of both observed families was by far the most pervasive element in the room, injecting the impact of irregular form, color, pattern such that it often created an overwhelming chaos of elements (see figure 15).

Figure 15. Marilyn’s room, September 29th. The family’s three-person size permitted the fourth bed to serve as a storage area that contributed to the room’s chaotic appearance.

Both women in the study consistently remarked on the inability of the existing bedroom units to accommodate their possessions. Both used the fourth bed (in the upper bunk) to store extra materials such as winter clothing, food, and toys. This situation brought concern to Marilyn as her three-year old boy would frequently climb the ladder and rifle through the bed’s contents.

Both women also commented often on the impact that visual clutter had on them. Marilyn specifically explained that she has “high anxiety” if her possessions were not organized, and Jazmen expressed the desire to have the ability to categorize items and put them away in the order of what was used the most and least often. The frequency with which this came up suggested it was of high importance to both. Both Marilyn and Jazmen were observed to carefully and even precisely line up

Page 41


bottles of shampoo, moisturizer and other products on the dresser, as the bathroom was shared with another four-person family group (see figure 16). They opted not to keep such products in the bathroom for fear of theft. It does not seem to be an overreaching connection to surmise that bringing order to their possessions in this localized way might provide them a sense of additional stability in their situation—and was one of the few room elements over which they had control. The treatment of these objects and the women’s obvious concern with their placement and maintenance offers intriguing clues regarding what these items meant to them at that time, and suggests this is a topic rich for further analysis.

Figure 16. Marilyn’s room, September 30th. The main horizontal storage surface in the room is kept precise despite the number of items located there.

At times, physical objects also held unexpected symbolism for the women, which was not always positive. For example, Marilyn described taking occupancy of her room and noticing small bits of trash such as bobby pins and hair bands left by the last occupant.

“When you first get into it, and you know that other people have just moved out… and there’s still, like, I don’t know you start of feel it the echo of people still here. Finding little trinkets, like earrings… you’re still trying to get your stuff [situated] and dealing with other people’s stuff that have moved out”.

The cycle of accumulation described by Marilyn seemed a complicating factor in the management of possessions at the shelter. Upon check-in, residents typically have a small core of belongings such as clothing, a television and personal hygiene products, and were encouraged to not bring large items

Page 42


with them due to space constraints. During the course of their six month stay, each resident developed a plan with a case worker that emphasizes their date of departure. Simultaneously, the resident is accumulating free items such as linens and bathroom supplies from group donations. As Marilyn explained, each additional item can have an impact on the future: “You’re trying to build up to move onto another place. You’re constantly trying to hold on to every little thing you might get… even the smallest thing is a big deal here. You want to hang on to all that because you’ll need it for your home. It’s just one more thing to not spend money on when you move out”. Yet, there is little room in the bedroom to store such items. Thus, the end of the stay is often marked by an unavoidable increase in clutter within the room. To Marilyn, this represented a remembrance that this place was not her own, and further, that the clock was ticking on her length of stay.

MAJOR CONCLUSIONSThe study’s findings in totality point to the potential benefits of the altered room which extend beyond the expected positive reaction to its recent renovation. Results suggest the altered room enhanced the ability of Jazmen and her family to adjust their environment to suit their unique circumstances, moderate the interface with their neighbors and staff, better manage their possessions, and facilitate their initiative to personalize and thereby embrace the bedroom. Jazmen and her children also expressed a heightened presence of privacy and exhibited territoriality that suggested they laid claim to the space more thoroughly than they did the unaltered room. In so doing, the study preliminarily suggests that Jazmen and her family engaged in behaviors that exuded internal control behaviors as they interacted with the altered bedroom in excess of that observed before they moved to the altered room. Moreover, Jazmen and her family exhibited these behaviors more than did Marilyn and her family in the unaltered room. Major conclusions resulting from analysis of results are recapped below.

The potential impact of physical environment of children in transitional sheltersWhile Jazmen’s children were not the primary point of contact in this study, the results suggest that children may be particularly impacted by physical environmental conditions. For example, when Jazmen reflected on what might have been had she remained in the unaltered room, she indicates that the lack of its features would not be a crushing blow to her personally, but their presence was imminently important to her children:

[When asked would she have felt differently in the unaltered room, Jazmen responded] “…yeah, I would have. I don’t think I would have stayed more in the room, you know. I don’t know if I would say I would be depressed, but I woulda had a different feeling. Sometimes you just want peace and quiet, and I couldn’t have that. Sometimes you feel like you get, you know, aggravated, you know, frustrated, and as far as the kids go, like, I don’t think they would have probably lasted, they probably would have cracked or like [in high voice] ‘I want to leave, I want to go stay here, stay there’.

Page 43


Because they couldn’t do what they wanted to do like they could in a regular home.”

Jazmen’s children engaged in imaginary play in their interaction with the room’s new features and also exhibited previously unexpressed territoriality with their beds through marker board messages. This engagement was unexpected and the features appeared to provide the children the means to explore and express a sense of internal control through their messages of ‘please don’t sit on my bed’.

The study also revealed Marilyn’s concern that her teenage son was compelled to leave the shelter to spend extended time elsewhere at least in part due to the conditions and lack of privacy the bedroom provided. The potential implications of this point are important-- if the private rooms at the transitional shelter compel children to leave, at a time of particular family crisis, this is likely not conducive to healing, but rather to scattering of the family, and with it the potential for unfavorable outside influences on children’s development.

The presence of control features may support parents’ need for engagement with their children and support as an authority figureInterviews with case managers suggest that parents often feel demoralized when they begin to live at the transitional shelter. Providing parents a sense of control may serve to enhance their sense of personal empowerment. For example, the lap desks permitted easier attendance to homework and completing job applications without leaving the bedroom. The mirror permitted private checks of appearance for work and school. Such features can assist parents with self-esteem, according to case managers, that is necessary to secure and maintain a job. The bedroom’ control features also offered Jazmen the means to keep her young daughters engaged in a variety of activities that she could not only monitor but withhold as a means of discipline when the need arose. Jazmen appeared to perceive that she could enjoy personal time behind closed bed draperies with the knowledge her children were safe, and engaged within the room. This underlying sense of assurance may loom large for parents of small children, providing them mental breathing space that could be easily underestimated.

Privacy as a primary needBoth Marilyn and Jazmen expressed a pervasive need for enhanced privacy at the transitional shelter. This appeared to be prompted by others’ entrance into the bedroom to speak with the family (sometimes before they had the chance to finish dressing) as well as real and perceived concerns of theft by other residents. The presence of the dutch door and a push-button lock in the altered room brought Jazmen significant psychological comfort as well as flexibility to control the nature of her engagement with both staff and other residents. The bed draperies provided served as a secondary means of privacy between family

Page 44


members within the room, and this may be of particular importance to some family members such as teenage children and parents. The ability to control one’s own lighting situation in bed as well as music with the headphones and radio could also be viewed as expressions of realized privacy.

Control features as a means to enhance residents’ ability to personalize and establish territoryThe altered room’s expanded opportunities to add personal expressions such as art, stuffed animals and marker board messages were explored by the resident family gradually, but fully by the conclusion of the ten week observation period. The nature of the homemade hallway signs and board messages suggest the family more fully identified with the altered room than they did with the unaltered room. As a result, the room likely was a more thorough expression of their personal identity, an effect that some researchers suggest is critical and helps the family successfully mediate their relationship with the larger world (McCracken, 1989).

The impact of physical environment on residents’ overall mental mindsetThe study revealed that Jazmen’s family made use of nearly all the new features and reported that their presence was of considerable help to them when compared to their reflections about life in the unaltered room. However, the exploratory questionnaires that sought to assess helplessness and sense of control suggest that physical environment lacked the means by itself to instill an overall measurable improvement in these characteristics within the study’s residents. This is not entirely surprising, given that issues of helplessness and lack of internal control are likely developed over time and may take significant effort to correct through multiple types of interventions. With further replication and development of such studies, however, evidence could emerge that thoughtful architectural design may offer documented benefit to homeless persons’ recovery. In this way, this study offers a tantalizing look at the potential for a personal control-oriented living environment that bears further verification.

The study’s a priori and a posteriori findings offer insights that human characteristics, of course, are difficult to untangle from each other, and further, suggest that formerly homeless residents’ satisfaction with their shelter experience are indeed affected by the physical environment, often in ways psychological researchers predicted. This study, and the breadth of its investigated topics, gave rise to a graphic shown in figure 17 that attempts to depict the interrelated nature of residents’ perceptions and how they affect, and are affected by the physical built shelter environment. This framework seeks to be specific to the experience of families in transitional-style shelters. Its connections offer a rich opportunity for further investigation of the nature and strength of these relationships. Future additions to its components are likely necessary.

Page 45


Practically speaking, the obvious question is this: is the inclusion of these added features worth it for the residents, the transitional shelter, and more broadly, for the community? The renovations to the altered room were approximately $9000 in cost, though replication of the design would likely reduce this by perhaps 25%. Nonetheless, this would mean an investment of approximately $135,000 for a family dormitory of 20 total rooms. Given the complex nature of human beings who possess a diversity of characteristics, plus the difficulty of detecting significant, quantitative improvement in characteristics of sense of internal control and helplessness here, perhaps an answer can be partially influenced by several aspects raised in the course of this study. First, research and observation show that families are capable of great flexibility that permits them to cope quietly with both internal and external adversity. Therefore, as discussed earlier, the study’s families may not have revealed (or even admitted to themselves) the full extent of frustration with their physical environment, nor this issue’s extended impact on their state of mind generally. Secondly, interview, observation and questionnaire data support the notion of a higher sense of overall satisfaction with the living experience in the altered room over the unaltered room, both between Jazmen and Marilyn, and also in Jazmen as she inhabited the unaltered, then the altered room. Lastly, if it true as case managers describe that most parents enter the shelter struggling with self-esteem issues, and that multiple researchers indicate that including personal controls in an environment can reduce a sense of helplessness, it seems logical to conclude that providing such controls stands a reasonable chance of helping family members at a time of critical need, and a markedly low chance of doing harm. In other words, an effect may well exist, even though it resists quantitative measurement. Ultimately, it will be the choice of transitional shelter organizations and staff to choose the role that the physical environment will play in assisting their residents toward success. This, naturally, will also be affected by available funds.

Page 46

Spatial density

(potential for crowding)

Absence/presence of supportive

architectural design Social &

architectural control

(schedule, programs,

rules)

Material possessio

ns (expressi

on of identity)

‘Homeyness’/ Sense of

Place

Locus of control (self-efficacy or

helplessness)

Quantity, age,

gender of family

members

Transitional Shelter Physical and Psychological Qualities


Figure 17. Relationships between recently homeless residents’ physical and psychological characteristics and a transitional shelter’s physical and psychological qualities.

Fundamentally speaking, the continuum of care system, and transitional shelters that represent one of the system’s mechanisms, are essentially interested in restoring dignity to their residents. As one writer notes, however, it’s easy for the world to take dignity away from someone, but very difficult to give it back (J. Novogratz, in Godin, 2010). Through the associated enhancement of self-esteem and internal sense of control that is inherent within dignity, residents can more likely summon the means to find permanent housing and stable employment. It is intriguing to consider the potential in the idea that dignity can be insinuated and promoted through physical living conditions. It is hoped that augmenting the most private of living quarters for the recently homeless is one way to assist residents toward their goals.

Figure 18. Hallway sign created by Jazmen and her children in the newly provided frame next to their bedroom door.

Page 47

Resident Physical and Psychological Characteristics and Needs


Page 48


WORKS CITEDNational Coalition for the Homeless. (2009, July). How Many People Experience Homelessness? Retrieved

August 22, 2010, from National Coalition for the Homeless: http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/How_Many.pdf

Aiello, J., DeRisi, D., Epstein, Y., & Karlin, R. (1977). Crowding and the role of interpersonal distance preference. Sociometry(40), 271-282.

Baldassare, M. (1979). Residential Crowding in Urban America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Banyard, V., & Graham-Bermann, S. (1998, July). Surviving Poverty: Stress and Coping in the Lives of Housed

and Homeless Mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(3), 479-489.Baum, A., & Davis, G. (1976). Spatial and social aspects of crowding perception. Environment and Behavior,

8, 527-544.Baum, A., & Valins, S. (1977). Architecture and social behavior: Psychological studies of social density.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Baum, A., Gatchel, R., Aiello, J., & Thompson, D. (1981). Cognitive mediation of environmental stress. In J. (.

Harvey, Cognition, social behavior, and the environment (pp. 513-534). Hilssdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Burn, S. (1992). Loss of Control, Attributions, and Helplessness in the Homeless. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 22(15), 1161-1174.Burt, M., Aron, L., Douglas, T., Valente, J., Lee, E., & Iwen, B. (1999). Homelessness:Porgrams and thepeople

they serve: Summary report-- Findings of the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients. Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Caplan, R. (2004). By Design: Why There Are No Locks on the Bathroom Doors in the Hotel Louis XIV and Other Object Lessons. NY: Fairchild.

Chapin, F. (1951). Some housing factors related to mental hygiene. Journall of Social Issues, 7(1,2), 164-171.Crook, W. (n.d.). Administration in Social Work. Trickle-down bureaucracy: Does the organization affect

client responses to programs?, 26(1), pp. 37-59.Davis, S. (2004). Designing for the Homeless: Architecture that Works. Berkeley, CA: University of California

Press.deCharms, R. (1968). Personal Causation. New York: Academic Press.Dooley. (1978). Effects of social density on men with "close" or "far" personal space. Journal of Population,

1, 251-265.Douglas, J. (1976). Investigative Social Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Duttweiler, P. (1984). The Internal Control Index: A Newly Developed Measure of Locus of Control.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 209-221.Edney, J. (1975). Territoriality and Control: A Field Experiment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

1108-1115.Epel, E., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. (1999). Escaping homelessness: The influences of self-efficacy and time

perspective on coping with homelessness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(3), 575-596.Evans, G., Palsane, M., Lepore, S., & martin, J. (1989). Residential density and psychological health: The

mediating effects of social support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 994-999.Evans, G., Schroeder, A., & Lepore, S. (1996). The Role of Interior Design Elements in Human Responses to

Crowding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 41-46.Friedman, D. (2000). Parenting in Public. New York: Columbia University Press.

Page 49


Gerring, J. (2007). Case Study Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.Godin, S. (2010). Linchpin: Are you Indispensable? New York: Portfolio Hardcover.Gove, W., & Hughes, M. (1983). Overcrowding in the household: An analysis of determinants and effects.

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Kopec, D. (2006). Environmental Psychology for Design. New York: Fairchild.Lepore, S., Evans, G., & Schneider, M. (1991). Dynamic role of social support in the link between chronic

stress and psychological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 899-909.Lepore, S., Merritt, K., Kawasaki, N., & Mancuso, R. (1990, May). Social withdrawal in crowded residences.

Western Psychological Association. Los Angeles, CA.Locke, G., Khadduri, J., & O'Hara, A. (2007). Housing Models. Toward Understanding Homelessness: The

2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research (pp. 10.1-10.30). Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

McCracken, G. (1989). "Homeyness": A cultural Account of One Constellation of Consumer Goods and Meanings. In E. Hirschman, Interpretive Consumer Research (pp. 168-183). Provo UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Mitchell, R. (1971). Some social implications of high density housing. American Sociological Review, 38, 18-29.

Morris, E., & Winter, M. (1975). A theory of family housing adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37(1), 79-88.

Newell, P. (1995). Perspectives on Privacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology(15), 87-104.Pable, J. (2009). A Survey of Florida Transitional Homeless Shelters. Unpublished manuscript.Paulus, P., Annis, A., Seta, J., Schkade, J., & Matthews, R. (1976). Density does affect task performance.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 248-253.Rog, D., & Buckner, J. (2007). Homeless Families and Chidren. In D. L. Dennis (Ed.), Toward Understanding

Homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Schopler, J., & Walton, M. (1974). The effects of structure, expected enjoyment, and participants' internalit-externality upon feelings of being crowded. Unpublished manuscript. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Seligman, M. (1975). Helplessness. San Francisco: Freeman.Sherrod, D., & Cohen, S. (1979). Density, Personal Control, and Design. In J. &. Baum, Residential Crowding

and Design (pp. 217-227). New York: Plenum Press.Sikorska-Simmons, E. (2001). Development of an instrument to measure resident satisfaction with assisted

living. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 20(1), 57-73.Smith, D. (1971). Household space and family organization. In D. D. (eds.), Social Space: Canadian

Perspectives (pp. 62-69). Toronto: New Press.Stokols, D. (1976). The experience of crowding in primary and secondary environments. Environment and

Behavior, 6, 49-86.U.S. Conference of Mayors. (2009). 2008 Status Report on Hunger & Homelessness. Retrieved August 22,

2010, from U.S. Conference of Mayors: http://usmayors.org/pressreleases/documents/hungerhomelessnessreport_121208.pdf

Whalen, M. (1995). Working Toward Play: Complexity in Children's Fantasy Activities. Language in Society, 24(3), 315-348.

Worchel, S., & Teddlie, C. (1976). The experience of crowding: A two-factor theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 30-40.

Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Page 50

the transitional homeless shelter family...

Documents