Section IV – Methodology
Overview
The challenge of "counting" homeless has been examined by a number of prominent researchers (Burt, Shinn, Franklin etc). Some examples of the challenges include lack of a standard definition, limited ability to identify and locate homeless individuals, variation in the timeframe of data collection, and difficulty in controlling for duplication (Pressini).
Point-in-time Prevalence Versus Annual Counts: In addition to multiple definitions of homelessness, there are multiple methodologies to counting. In counting the homeless population, researchers and practitioners utilize two broad methodologies: Point-in-Time prevalence versus Annual Counts. The biannual HUD required counts are point time counts. Point in time counts provide a 24-hour snapshot of homelessness. This is one way to estimate, for example, the number of shelter beds needed on a given day. But there are also drawbacks to this methodology. A point in time count is more likely to capture people who are homeless for long periods of time. Thus, people with the most obstacles to recovery from homelessness (e.g. mental illness, addiction) can be over-represented and those who typically experience shorter episodes, such as families, can be under counted. Second, a short study time frame limits access to a population that is by nature difficult to find. Finally, it is hard to plan housing and services for people who are homeless using a one-day view of need because some of the solutions, such as permanent housing, are long term.
Lack of Resources: An additional challenge to understanding homelessness is that in areas with limited or no services for individuals who are homeless, it is extremely difficult to gain access to the population and understand the extent of the problem. Areas that report little or no homelessness likely are those that lack services or resources and therefore, have no way of knowing how many individuals are actually experiencing homelessness. As described below, this challenge is often amplified in rural areas.
The nature of homelessness also makes it expensive to conduct research on those experiencing it. While there was some funding in SC available to pay for a statewide coordinator and to help pay for the data entry and to a limited extent the analysis, funds again were largely insufficient. Inadequate funding for homeless counts compels reliance on volunteers and predictable problems with data quality.
Homelessness in Rural Areas: Understanding and addressing homelessness in rural areas presents unique challenges. Research has shown that individuals who are homeless in rural areas tend to be employed, less likely to receive government assistance, experience shorter episodes of homelessness, and are more likely to live with family and friends (Post, 2002). In addition, individuals in rural areas tend to have limited access to services and rural communities often have limited awareness about the problem of homelessness. Coupled with the fact that "doubled-up" individuals and families are excluded from the HUD definition of homeless makes it extremely difficult to get an accurate picture of the extent of homelessness in rural areas. Service providers in rural areas often have limited resources and limited capacity to conduct a thorough count, meaning that the number of homeless reported in rural areas is almost always an undercount.
Despite these challenges, a number of different methods have been used to study homelessness. None of the methods are able to provide a complete picture of homelessness and frequently, multiple methods are used in combination. Listed below are brief descriptions of the major methods used to study homelessness (taken from Drever).
Estimation/Extrapolation: This method involves using information from previous studies or a limited geographic area to estimate the total homeless population. It can also involve the use of socio-economic indicators to adjust numbers from previous counts. In addition, some communities use interviews with key community stakeholders to derive an estimate of the size of the homeless population.
Observation: The observation method involves sending service providers or volunteers out to canvas areas of the community counting the number of unsheltered homeless observed. Often, this method is used in the late evening or early morning hours in order to avoid counting individuals who are staying in shelters.
Surveys: Another method used to understand the needs and size of the homeless population is to conduct surveys with individuals who are homeless. Surveys can be conducted on the street or where they receive services. The amount of information gathered can vary tremendously, however some amount of identifying information is usually collected in order to minimize duplication.
Agency Data/Service Utilization: Data about the number of individuals using different types of services is sometimes used to estimate the population. This can include services specific to homeless individuals or general services, such as government assistance programs. Agencies may or may not have information about whether or not their clients are homeless. A common example of this method is the use of Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS) data to illustrate how many people are accessing homeless services.
Telephone Surveys: Although much less common, telephone surveys in which a random sample of individuals are called and asked about their history of homelessness have had some success. This method can not provide a picture of the current number of homeless people however, it may be helpful in estimating multi year or lifetime prevalence.
Methods Used in the 2007 Report on Homelessness for South Carolina
There are pros and cons to each of these methods and each may require differing resources and levels of effort. Not all of the methods described above were utilized for the data in this report. In addition, certain methods were used in only particular counties or regions. Below is a description of each source of information presented in this report.
Population Data and Economic Conditions: General information about the state population and economic conditions was obtained from the SC Budget and Control Board's Office of Research and Statistics using data from the Census Bureau. In addition, information about the current rental market in the state was obtained from the National Low Income Housing Coalition's 2006 Out of Reach Report.
Agency Data/Service Utilizations: Information about the number of people served in the past year was obtained from four of the five Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS) operated in the local continua of care. Information is entered into HMIS by individual service providers and then compiled by the Continua HMIS Coordinator. In addition, information was obtained from the South Carolina Department of Education McKinney-Vento Program. (Each year, school districts are required to report information to the State Office about the number of homeless children in their district. This information was compiled at the State level.)
Homeless Point in Time Count: The primary source of data used in this report is from the statewide homeless point in time count which focused on the number of people in emergency or transitional housing and the number of homeless people who lacked any shelter (living on the street, in abandoned buildings, in their cars, or camping) on January 25th, 2007. The count methodology is described in more detail than the methodology used to collect the other sources of data.
Homeless Count 2007 Detailed Methodology
Planning: On January 27th, 2005, volunteers across South Carolina implemented the first coordinated, statewide count of homeless persons. The 2005 count methodology relied on observation surveys (street counts), a census of people in homeless transitional shelters and surveys of homeless individuals. In spite of the effort put into the design and implementation of the study, the enthusiasm, training and person-power did not permeate every county. Thirty-seven percent (17 of 46) counties reported zero unsheltered homeless, and an additional eleven percent (5 of 46) counties reported less than five unsheltered homeless. The majority of the counties reporting zero, or less than five unsheltered homeless, reported little or no effort to count the homeless. Lessons learned from the 2005 count and information about the count methodology in other communities were considered when developing the methodology for the 2007 count.
Literature Review: Planning for the count included a thorough review of the literature on count methodology. The primary method used in urban areas is the observation count. Unfortunately, evaluations of the accuracy of point-in-time counts in New York City found that observation-only counts can miss between a half to two-thirds of individuals that are homeless (Shinn & Hopper). Observation counts assume that homeless individuals will be readily visible and identifiable. This presents a number of challenges in rural areas, where homeless individuals rarely stay in areas that are readily visible and where there is a large amount of area to cover. Therefore, the possibility of alternative methods was explored.
Service Survey Methodology: A number of communities and several national studies have utilized the service survey methodology with some success (Ohio, Kentucky, Colorado, and Burt). In this methodology, surveys are collected from individuals when they access non-shelter services (e.g. soup kitchens, community action agencies, free medical clinics). In South Carolina, the service survey methodology was selected because of its utility in more rural areas with fewer obvious "street" homeless. Through this methodology, it was hoped that by enlisting the participation of mainstream service providers with local offices in each county would result in more consistent efforts across the state, particularly in those counties with no local homeless service providers. In addition, the survey methodology allowed for the collection of data over two weeks rather than one night in order to gather information on more individuals. It also allowed for the collection of information from individuals experiencing different types of homelessness, including those that are temporarily living with family or friends. Because this was the first time that the service survey methodology was used, counties were given the option of choosing the observation count method - however, only four counties chose to use the observation count methodology.
In order for a service count methodology to be successful it is necessary to collect identifying information to ensure no individual is counted more than once. Therefore, after reviewing methodology used in other communities, the first letter of the first name, the second two letters of the last name and the date of birth were collected in order to create a unique identifier.
Data Collection Tools: Three forms were developed for the count.
- Form A – collected information on individuals and families sheltered by agencies not participating in HMIS
- Form B - collected information about the number of homeless people observed (used only by counties utilizing the observation methodology)
- Form C - collected information on anyone that was experiencing housing difficulties in the months of January and February
Forms A and C collected identifying information as well as additional information about the individual and their experiences with homelessness. Both of the forms had an individual version and a version for families with children under the age of 18. Form B did not collect any individual level information. Spanish versions of all three forms were made available. An additional aggregate form was made available for domestic violence shelters that were not comfortable providing identifying information on their clients.
Organization: Each of the five continua of care identified a continuum coordinator that served as the primary contact and oversaw the planning and implementation in each of the counties. Each county also identified a county coordinator who organized and directed the count at the local level. Each county coordinator identified all of the shelters in their county as well as the services accessed by homeless individuals.
Two statewide trainings on the count methods and data collection instruments were conducted. Once they had attended the statewide trainings, the continuum and county coordinators scheduled local trainings for service providers and volunteers. In addition, training materials were provided to each of the county coordinators and were available on a website specifically designed to provide information on the 2007 Count in South Carolina. A Statewide Coordinator was hired specifically for the count whose job was to provide individual technical assistance to the coordinators.