«DiscoVeriNg HomelessNess Volume 13, Number 1 • 2011 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research ...»
Jones, Kristine, Paul W. Colson, Mark C. Holter, Shang Lin, Elie Valencia, Ezra Susser, and Richard Jed Wyatt. 2003. “Cost-Effectiveness of Critical Time Intervention to Reduce Homelessness Among Persons With Mental Illness,” Psychiatric Services 54: 884–890.
Kuhn, Randall, and Dennis P. Culhane. 1998. “Applying Cluster Analysis To Test a Typology of Homelessness by Pattern of Shelter Utilization: Results From the Analysis of Administrative Data,” American Journal of Community Psychology 26 (2): 207–233.
Lam, Julie A., and Robert Rosenheck. 1999. “Street Outreach for Homeless Persons With Serious Mental Illness: Is It Effective?” Medical Care 37 (9): 894–907.
Larimer, Mary E., Daniel K. Malone, Michelle D. Garner, David C. Atkins, Bonnie Burlingham, Heather S. Lonczak, Kenneth Tanzer, Joshua Ginzler, Seema L. Clifasefi, William G. Hobson, G. Alan Marlatt. 2009. “Health Care and Public Service Use and Costs Before and After Provision of Housing for Chronically Homeless Persons With Severe Alcohol Problems,” Journal of the American Medical Association 301 (13): 1349–1357.
Lipton, Frank R., Carole Siegel, Anthony Hannigan, Judy Samuels, and Sherryl Baker. 2000. “Tenure in Supportive Housing for Homeless Persons With Severe Mental Illness,” Psychiatric Services 51: 479–486.
Martin, Chance, Allison Lum, Jennifer Friedenbach, Wendy Philips, Cecilia Valentine, John Malone, Mark Huelskotter, and Mara Raider. 2000. Sheltered Lives: Homeless People Speak Out on San Francisco’s Shelters. San Francisco: Shelter Outreach Project, Coalition on Homelessness.
Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance (MHSA). 2010. Home and Health for Good: A Statewide Housing First Program. Boston: Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance.
Meschede, Tatjana. 2010. “Accessing Housing: Exploring the Impact of Medical and Substance Abuse Services on Housing Attainment for Chronically Homeless Street Dwellers,” Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Sciences 20 (2): 153–169.
––––. 2007. The First Two Years of Housing First in Quincy, Massachusetts. Boston: McCormack Graduate School, University of Massachusetts Boston.
Miles, Matthew B., and Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Morse, Gary A., Robert J. Calsyn, Gary Allen, and David A. Kenny. 1994. “Helping Homeless Mentally Ill People: What Variables Mediate and Moderate Program Effects?” American Journal of Community Psychology 22 (5): 661–683.
Pollio, David. 1990. “The Street Person: An Integrated Service Provision Model,” Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal 14 (2): 57–68.
Pollio, David E., Edward L. Spitznagel, Carol S. North, Sanna Thompson, and Douglas A. Foster.
2000. “Service Use Over Time and Achievement of Stable Housing in a Mentally Ill Homeless Population,” Psychiatric Services 51: 1536–1543.
Pollio, David E., Sanna Thompson, J. Walter Paquin, and Edward L. Spitznagel. 1997. “Predictors of Achieving Stable Housing in a Mentally Ill Homeless Population,” Psychiatric Services 48: 528–530.
Rosenheck, Robert, and Julie A. Lam. 1997. “Homeless Mentally Ill Clients’ and Providers’ Perceptions of Service Needs and Clients’ Use of Services,” Psychiatric Services 48: 387–390.
Rosenheck, Robert, Joseph Morrissey, Michael Calloway, Julie A. Lam, Matthew Johnsen, Howard Goldman, Frances Randolph, Margaret Blasinsky, Alan Fontana, Robert Calsyn, and Gregory Teague.
1998. “Service System Integration, Access to Services, and Housing Outcomes in a Program for Homeless Persons With Severe Mental Illness,” The American Journal of Public Health 88: 1610–1615.
Rowe, Michael, Michael A. Hoge, and Deborah Fisk. 1998. “Services for Mentally Ill Homeless Persons: Street-Level Integration,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 68 (4): 490–496.
Snow, David A., and Leon Anderson. 1993. Down on Their Luck: A Study of Homeless Street People.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tsemberis, Sam, and Ronda F. Eisenberg. 2000. “Pathways to Housing: Supported Housing for Street-Dwelling Homeless Individuals With Psychiatric Disabilities,” Psychiatric Services 51: 487–493.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 2003. Ending Chronic Homelessness:
Strategies for Action. Available at www.aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/homelessness/strategies03/.
U.S. House of Representatives. 2001. Conference Report of the 107th Congress, Report 107-272.
Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-107hrpt272/pdf/CRPT-107hrpt272.pdf.
When discussing the themes emerging from this series of articles, we are struck by the diversity in both the content and methods covered in these contributions. We also commend the authors’ desire to grapple with complex questions surrounding homelessness and service provision. We can readily identify evidence gaps that this program of research helps to fill, but—if we take a more global perspective—it seems that considerable value could be added to this science by engaging with the existing international literature and situating these findings in that broader context.
For example, George Carter’s thesis raises a number of substantial points about the inclusion of the homeless people both in the housing market and in society more generally. A well-established literature on housing and social inclusion (as well as housing and social exclusion), however, already exists in the United Kingdom and Europe, which would fit nicely with the study (see Barnes, 2005;
Berghmann, 1995; Clapham, 2007). The research to which we refer is groundbreaking because it seeks to “write the level of the individual” back into structural analyses of housing, which in turn facilitates theorization about norms, perceptions, and minority/majority group dynamics influencing perceived choices and housing allocation. Tatjana Meschede also uses an innovative approach, and similar comments can be made in reference to her thesis storyline. Finally, Courtney Cronley’s research focuses on monitoring the effectiveness of service provision, another topic that falls into the exclusion debate. Overall, the picture emerging is that these works fit nicely within a framework primarily used by non-U.S. researchers.
In closing, we are left asking how we can best achieve sustainable excellence in both research and policy when the literature on homelessness internationally is so vast—approximately 9 million pieces of work in both the United States and United Kingdom. Clearly, we can learn key lessons from the strengths (and weaknesses) in both the U.S. and U.K. research traditions (Fitzpatrick and Christian, 2006). We are mindful that cross-disciplinary work is not always an easy undertaking, nor is cross-national work. Considerable effort has to go into identifying a common language, realizing that something as simple as discussing “single homelessness” or “descriptive analysis” can mean very different things in divergent literatures. In the end, however, the cross fertilization of
concepts, methods, and ideas must be a key priority for scholars in this field, because it is the most effective way to drive forward positive change in national and global responses to homelessness in the future.
Authors Julie Christian is a lecturer at the College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Suzanne Fitzpatrick is a professor of housing and social policy at the School of Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland.
References Barnes, Matthew. 2005. Social Exclusion in Britain: An Empirical Investigation and Comparison With the EU. Aldershot, United Kingdom: Aldgate Publishing.
Berghman, Jos. 1995. “Social Exclusion in Europe: Policy Context and Analytical Framework.” In Beyond the Threshold: The Measurement and Analysis of Social Exclusion, edited by Graham Room.
Bristol, United Kingdom: Policy Press: 10–28.
Clapham, David. 2007. “Homelessness and Social Exclusion.” In The Mulitprofessional Handbook of Social Exclusion Research, edited by Dominic Abrams, Julie Christian, and David Gordon.
Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons: 79–94.
Fitzpatrick, Suzanne, and Julie Christian. 2006. “Comparing Research on Homelessness in the United Kingdom and United States: What Lessons Can Be Learned?” European Journal of Housing Policy 6 (3): 313–333.
96 Discovering Homelessness Symposium Appendix Analysis of Scholarly Impact of Doctoral Dissertation Program Grantees The Doctoral Dissertation Research Grant Program at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) enables doctoral candidates enrolled at institutions of higher education to complete and improve the quality of their dissertations on policy-relevant housing and urban development issues. HUD has issued more than 250 dissertation grants since 1994. The Department expected that these grants would have a direct effect on scholarship and policy and an indirect effect through ensuring the existence of a qualified cadre of researchers and analysts to inform this nation’s efforts to improve its housing and its neighborhoods. Recipients of the grants and titles of their dissertations are listed in this appendix.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia or the Federal Reserve System.
Abstract This article provides the first indepth analysis of the homeownership experience of homeowners in bankruptcy. These homeowners are typically seriously delinquent on their mortgages at the time of filing. We measure how often they end up losing their houses in foreclosure, the time between bankruptcy filing and foreclosure sale, and the loss rate for lenders. In particular, we follow homeowners who filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy (Chapter 13, Individual Debt Adjustment, Bankruptcy Code) between 2001 and 2002 in New Castle County, Delaware, from the time of their filing to October 2007. We present three main findings. First, about 27.9 percent of filers lost their houses in foreclosure despite filing for bankruptcy. Second, when compared with debtors who did not file, bankrupt debtors remained in their houses for, on average, 27.7 additional months.
Third, most of the lenders suffered losses and the average loss rate was 28.0 percent.
Our empirical analysis further suggests that under the assumption that filers’ profiles are similar to those in our model, reducing homeowners’ mortgage payment burdens (that is, instituting mortgage “cramdowns”) will reduce the number of houses that end up in foreclosure. The reduction, however, is likely to be modest.
Cityscape 113 Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research • Volume 13, Number 1 • 2011 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development • Office of Policy Development and Research Carroll and Li Introduction The residential mortgage delinquency rate and foreclosure rate rose dramatically over the past several years as the nation’s housing market recession deepened. Millions of people have lost their homes through foreclosure or are on the brink of losing them. As a potential legal last resort to cure delinquent mortgages, personal bankruptcy has now attracted increasing attention from both academics and policymakers. This attention has stimulated substantial debate about the extent of the relief the current bankruptcy system is able to offer to homeowners. On the one hand, filing for bankruptcy automatically stops foreclosure. Moreover, by discharging unsecured debt, bankruptcy leaves borrowers with more available income for mortgage payments and decreases the risk that their homes will be encumbered by judgment liens. Chapter 13 bankruptcy (Chapter 13, Individual Debt Adjustment, Bankruptcy Code) even allows the filer to cure a mortgage arrearage over a period of several years while continuing to make regular mortgage payments in accordance with his or her contract. On the other hand, bankruptcy law does not permit debtors to modify the terms of first mortgages secured by a principal residence. As a result, homeowners who have mortgages that are no longer affordable may find debt relief under the bankruptcy law insufficient.1 Indeed, although the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 does not contain direct changes to the current personal bankruptcy laws, proposals to reform these laws to allow for additional mortgage relief were a central part of the debate.2 Before the analysis presented in this article, it has been difficult to talk sensibly about whether the current system provides homeowners with enough protection because we know little about the homeownership experience of bankrupt households. As Jacoby (2007: 331) pointed out, “No one has specifically tracked the outcomes for chapter 13 filers who file for the purpose of saving their homes from foreclosure....” Economic scholars have not traditionally viewed personal bankruptcy, chapter 13 in particular, as a mechanism for protecting mortgage borrowers from mortgage creditors. The existing literature has generally examined the effect of bankruptcy exemptions on mortgage lending (Berkowitz and Hynes, 1999; Chomsisengphet and Elul, 2006; Lin and White, 2001;