Anda di halaman 1dari 19

Instituto Universitario da Maia

Psicologia
Psicologia Comunitaria
Ano letivo 3
Docente: Ana Sofia Antunes das Neves
Discentes: Ctia Mariana Silva Pereira, 26200
Dan Valentin Barbieru, 29807
Wilma Maiene Alfredo Segunda, 26474
01.06.2015

Indice
Homeless and homelessness- concept and definitions

pg3.

Old and New Homeless

pg5.

Cultural Homelessness

pg7.

Experiencing Homelessness

pg8.

Women experiencing homelessness

pg8.

Being young and homeless. Children and adolescents dealing with homelessness

pg9.

Mental illness and homelessness

pg10.

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

pg11.

Recommendations and public policies for homeless people and homelessness

pg14

Reducing homelessness and improving the homeless peoples life style

pg16.

Bibliography

pg18.

Homeless and homelessness- concept and definitions


Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing
of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary
social services, () (United Nations, 1948).
An adequate shelter is not only a human right but the base for human relationships, the
free development of the individual and for the playing of an active role in the social and
cultural life of the community (Springer, 2000). Every society has different perceptions of
individuals or households called homeless. The regional differences between definitions
about what is homelessness and who is considered homeless are very important. These
definitions are influenced by different factors such as climatic patterns, traditions, culture,
social infrastructure and welfare systems, financial and gender issues (Springer, 2000).
In the past, a set of definitions for homelessness has been developed in the UN
System, used for example in the Compendium of Human Settlement Statistics (Springer,
2000 after United Nations Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy
Analysis Statistics Division. United Nations Centre for Human Settlements HABITAT
1995.Compendium of Human Settlements Statistics 1995. 5th Issue, United Nations, New
York, Sales No. E 95.XVII.11 p. 38). The expression homeless households refers to ()
households without a shelter that would fall within the scope of living quarters. They carry
their few possessions with them sleeping in the streets, in doorways or on piers, or in any
other space, on a more or less random basis (Springer, 2000 after United Nations
1998. Principles and Recommendation for Population and Housing Censuses. Statistical
Papers, Series M No.67/Rev.1. Sales No.E.98.XVII.8 p. 50).
This does not seem sufficient to describe the different realities of homelessness in
every country. Possessions can be placed with another person and people might sleep in a
public shelter on a regular basis. Other countries have therefore widened this description to
include people sleeping in institutions meant for those without any form of shelter (Springer,
2000). This is the case for definitions used in the USA, India (Springer, 2000 after Dupont,
1998) and France (Springer, 2000 after Marpsat & Firdion, 1996). For example: The Census
of India uses the notion of houseless population, defined as the persons who are not living in
census houses, the latter referring to a structure with roof; hence, the enumerators are
instructed to take note of the possible places where the houseless population is likely to live
such as on the roadside, pavements, in hume pipes, under staircases, or in the open, temple,

mandaps, platforms and the like (Springer, 2000 after Census of India, 1991:64). This part of
the population which includes those sleeping without a shelter, in constructions not meant for
habitation, and in welfare institutions can be called literally homeless. This definition seems
also to be the one mostly used for surveys (Springer, 2000 after Peressini, 1995).
In other cases, the definition of homeless has been more detailed and offers a
classification. In Austria the risk component has been introduced to distinguish different
groups of homeless. The situation of being houseless can be acute, imminent or potential. This
definition is about the same as the one used in a Canadian study: literally homeless, moving in
and out of homelessness, marginally housed and at risk of homelessness (Springer, 2000 after
Peressini, 1995).
A quality oriented definition has been developed by the European Federation of National
Organizations working with the homeless (FEANTSA) and has been cited in the Global
Report 1996. The Observatory has developed a four-fold classification of housing situation
which can be used to both defined the condition of homelessness and evaluate its extent:
-

Rooflessness (sleeping rough)


Houselessness ( living in institutions or short-term guest accommodation)
Insecure accommodation
Inferior or substandard housing (Springer, 2000 after Daly, 1994)

The definition used by the American Homeless Society is about the same. A problematic
point of this definition is that the two last classes are overlapping as an accommodation might
be at the same time insecure and substandard. In Austria other quality oriented criteria have
been developed to classify housing situations. These criteria are the minimum standard of the
housing unit, the infrastructure, which means schools, shopping opportunities and transport,
psychological and health criteria and the juridical security of the housing situation (Springer,
2000).
A last classification used in a study about homelessness in the community of Australian
aborigines takes the time component as criteria, therefore distinguishing situational or
temporary, episodic and chronic form of homelessness (Springer, 2000 after Beavis, Klos,
Carter & Donehant, 1997).
After a review of definitions, Springer (2000) suggests to take into account the mobility
dynamics inherent in this population and also a splitting into two different population groups.
The core population, defined as houseless, consists therefore of people sleeping in the street
or other places not meant for human habitation and those finding shelter in institutions
4

established by the public or private welfare system. The other group consists of person living
in inadequate shelter situations, this combining the categories of concealed Houselessness
(taking shelter with a relative or friend), the risk of houselessness (eviction, release from an
institution) and substandard housing. Both groups are related by a frequent exchange of
individuals (Springer, 2000).
Old and New Homeless
Homelessness was not invented in the late 20th century, but has reemerged with a new
face. In colonial times, towns supported local poor people in their own homes or those of
neighbors, but attempted to exclude vagabonds and idle persons from outside the community
(Rothman, 1971). Jacksonian-era reformers, convinced that outdoor (non-institutional) relief
created laziness, built almshouses for an undifferentiated group of men, women, and children
who were too young, too old or too disabled to work.
Widespread homelessness, primarily among unattached men who were itinerant
laborers, may be dated from the period following the Civil War (Hopper, 1990; Rossi, 1989),
and has waxed and waned with economic cycles. The 19th century saw the segregation of
homeless people into shantytowns at the borders of cities and skid rows within them. People
who could not afford the price of a skid-row flop slept in police stations and jails.
At the start of the 20th century, police stationhouses were closed to homeless people,
and municipal lodging houses opened, having features sometimes found today, including
classification and referral of applicants for social case work, work requirements, limits on
lengths of stay. Homelessness was at its height during the Great Depression, when skid rows
overflowed into Hoovervilles and large warehouse-style shelters for men. Transients were still
treated less sympathetically than the local poor; in New York in some years, more was spent
on Greyhound relief (bus tickets out) than on direct benefits (Rossi, 1989). Poor people who
had relatives in the area were turned away as not truly in need of shelter.
Recent studies suggests that homelessness is widespread, but for most people, only a
temporary state. Hopper (1990) describes the historical tension between two attitudes towards
homelessness as rooted in individual pathology and character deficiencies (or) in structural
defects in the labor market. Antebellum thinking about poverty reflected both views: that
poverty was voluntary and a consequence of drunkenness, idleness, and vice of all kind and
that SOCIETY ITSELF .is the great and whole source.

Both strands of thinking are evident among researchers and policymakers today. The
individual view of homelessness has followed the classic steps of victim blaming: identify a
social problem, study those afflicted to determine how they differ from the rest of us, define
the differences as the cause of the problem, and set up humanitarian programs to correct them.
The structural view does not deny that many homeless people suffer mental illness or
substance abuse, but it does not see these problems as the source of homelessness. Rather,
homelessness is like a game of musical chairs in which the players are poor people and the
chairs are the housing units they can afford or otherwise occupy by drawing on their personal
networks. Individual problems influence vulnerability to homelessness. They determine which
players, not how many, will be left homeless when the music stops.
Responses to homelessness in part follow views of causes, but also involve efforts to
minimize responsibility and cost. Cooper (1989) noted that the first reaction of government to
a social problem is to extrude it. The history of homelessness amply demonstrated this, from
the colonists who sent poor strangers packing to the Greyhound relief of the Depression. A
more sophisticated effort to shift responsibility was shown by a recent New York City mayor
who wanted to know from where (other than New York) homeless families came, how many
were mentally ill, and where their husbands were (Shinn & Weitzman, 1990a). Conscious
efforts have been made to make relief unattractive so as to deter its use, from the English poor
law principle of less eligibility (e.g. Hopper, 1990), to Jacksonian almshouses designed to
discourage malingering (Moroney & Kurtz, 1975), to the deliberately daunting conditions of
some modern shelters (Basler, 1985). Depression-era screening to exclude people with any
alternatives from shelter is echoed in city policies today.
Homelessness has received a great deal of popular attention and sympathy. The
reasons for both appear to be obvious: homelessness is increasing, and its victims easily
garner sympathetic concern (Rossi, 1990). In the 1950s and 1960s homelessness declined to
the point that researchers were predicting its virtual disappearance in the 1970s. The old
homeless of the 1950s were mainly old men living in cheap hotels on skid rows. In the 1980s
homelessness increased rapidly and drastically changed in composition. The new homeless
were much younger, more likely to be minority group members, suffering from greater
poverty, and with access to poorer sleeping quarters. In addition, homeless women and
families appeared in significant number. The old homeless were house inadequately, but high
proportion of the new homeless are shelterless. Like the old homeless, the new have high
levels of disabilities, including chronic mental illness (33%), acute alcoholism (33%), serious
6

criminal records (20%), and serious physical disabilities (25%). Seventy-five percent have
one or more of this disabilities (Rossi, 1990).
Cultural Homelessness
A cultural home is a sense of belonging to an ethnic or geographic community with
consistent socialization themes and traditions, demarcated by a clear understanding of who the
in- and out-groups are. The cultural home provides a set of integrated assumptions, values,
beliefs, social role norms, and emotional attachments that constitutes a meaningful personal
identity developed and located within a sociocultural framework and is shared by a group of
similarly located individuals. Group members can use this frame of reference to know what is
appropriate and acceptable, and to know where they fit within that structure, to achieve
growth and fulfillment both individually and as a group. A cultural home is thus a cognitively
grasped and emotionally comforting sense of being at home with a group of people sharing
a stable environment with a similar collective history and practices. A cultural home enables
the individual to find social meaning, continuity, primary social support, and group
participation, all of which increase the emotional attachment to ones group (Vivero &
Jenkins, 1999).
By virtue of soothing functions of secure attachment and mirroring (Bowlby, 1973;
Kohut, 1977), a cultural home can be a vital coping resource. Many oppressed groups have
survived and acquired social power through the sense of belonging to a particular group,
strengthening the emotional ties to other members of the group. For example, Jews who
experienced concentration camps have reported that what helped them survive during the
Holocaust was being with other Jews for a shared reason: their ethnic identification (Herman,
1992; Vivero & Jenkins, 1999). They were coming from a strong sense of community that
was difficult to destroy or weaken (Vivero & Jenkins, 1999).
This sense of cultural community may be geographically circumscribed, as in the
ghetto, and for some cultures an identified place may be symbolically important. However, a
stable location is not an essential feature of a cultural home; being a nomad does not preclude
someone from having a physical place to call home. The difference is that for nomads their
home moves geographically from place to place (Vivero & Jenkins, 1999). Gypsies are
nomadic people; they move constantly geographically, but their home travels with their group,
remaining within their community and having a symbiotic rather than social relation to the
larger culture (Park, 1928; Vivero & Jenkins, 1999).
7

Experiencing Homelessness
Home is central to most of our lives, and to be without a home is a very basic form of
adversity. Indeed, one prominent line of homelessness research has considered homeless
people as being subject to more than the average amount of stressful life events and chronic
life stressors. Seen in that light, homeless people are particularly vulnerable to experiencing
distress and are faced with the task of finding ways of coping in the face of such events and
circumstances. Besides the stress created by the sheer fact of homelessness- including the
need to search for shelter and more permanent housing, and the stigma associated with
homelessness- homeless people have been shown to experience more than their fair share of a
variety of other stressful events and conditions. The latter include: unemployment, economic
loss, criminal victimization, marital and family conflict, dealing with organizations such as
shelters, problems with the law, accidents, physical and mental illness, and drug and alcohol
problems (Banyard, 1995). Not surprisingly there is evidence that homeless people are more
than averagely distressed.
Women experiencing homelessness
In order to understand this situation better, we should take a look at Banyards study
from 1995. She interviewed mothers who had at least one child under the age of 12 years
living with them in one of the three shelters in a small mid-western city in the USA. Some of
the stressors that her participants spoke of were related to the care and disciplining of their
children in a strange environment that was not a family home. She wrote of the web of
stress experienced by mothers since, in the descriptions they provided, women linked
stressful situations together, making it difficult to categorize a stressor into one group or
another. The interconnected nature of multiple stressors was illustrated by mothers who could
not discuss child disciplinary problems without also discussing money problems that
prohibited them from buying snacks or treats for the children, or the stress of being
reprimanded in front of their children for breaking shelter rules. She quoted one of the
mothers in her study as saying, I was so upset, I was mad. I mean, its just like everything
piled up on everything and then that smothered me. Banyards (1995) interest was in the
ways of coping described by women living in shelters for homeless mothers. She reported
much active coping, often to do with home search, care and discipline of children, and
coping with bureaucracy. They also described a great deal of relational coping. Although
over half of the women reported that there were people, often family members, to whom they

could no longer turn for help and support, a number described identifying with the group of
mothers living in the shelter and the comfort and strength they could draw from that (Orford,
2008 after Banyard, 1995).
Being young and homeless. Children and adolescents dealing with homelessness.
Brandon et al (1980) interviewed young people who were using the services of
emergency accommodation projects in central London in the 1970s. They had reported that
roughly one-third described the experience of being homeless in London in almost entirely
negative terms, another third described the experience mostly negatively with some positive
elements, and a third described it in largely or mostly positive terms (Orford, 2008 after
Brandon et al, 1980). Some of the 25 16-19 year olds from Drumchapel, a large peripheral
public sector housing estate in Glasgow, Scotland, interviewed by Fitzpatrick (2000), gave
evidence that they had accepted an identity as homeless. One group of young men were
living, not just temporarily, in hostels for homeless adults. This group appeared to Fitzpatrick
to have become resigned, to hostel living at a young age. Another group, who spent some time
sleeping rough in the city center, and at other times living in hostels, had developed a
friendship network consisting largely of other homeless young people (Orford, 2008 after
Fitzpatrick, 2000).
Milburn et al. (2006) showed that homeless adolescents can be victims of
discrimination. Discrimination was related to being gay, lesbian, or bisexual (LGB).
Discrimination from the family was related to exiting homelessness. Other than those who
were LGB, adolescents who reported discrimination from their families were more likely to
exit homelessness than adolescents who did not reported such discrimination. Milburn et al.
(2006) also suggested that being LGB increases discrimination for newly homeless
adolescents from police (DOI: 10.1037/1099-9809.12.4.658).
Masten et al. (1993) showed in their study that homeless children were found to have
greater recent stress exposure than housed poor children, as well as more disrupted schooling
and friendships. Child behavior problems were above normative level for homeless children,
particularly for antisocial behavior. They also showed that homeless children are at
considerable risk for psychological problems (Masten et al., Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology 1993. Vol. 61, No.2. 335-343).
Rafferty & Shinn (1991) showed that homeless children confront abject poverty and
experience a constellation of risks that have a devastating impact on their well-being. Their
9

research reviewed links homelessness among children to hunger and poor nutrition, health
problems and lack of health and mental health care, developmental delays, psychological
problems, and academic underachievement. These consequences of homelessness often
compound one another as well. Delays in language development, motor skills, cognitive
ability, and personal and social development place children at risk of academic failure
(Rafferty & Shinn, 1991, after Molnar, 1988). Anxiety, depression, and behavioral problems
engendered by destructive psychological environments interfere with ones capacity to learn
(Rafferty & Shinn, 1991, American Psychological Association, Vol. 46, No.11, 1170-1179
after Jahiel, 1987).
Mental illness and homelessness
Levine (1984) showed that the incidence and prevalence of persons with serious
mental disorders becoming or remaining homeless is much greater than that of the normal
population. In USA, estimates vary according to locale, but it appeared to be as if 50 percent
of the homeless nationwide, or 1 million persons, may have sever and persistent mental
disorders, that 10-15 percent of the homeless seriously abuse drugs, and that 40-50 percent
seriously abuse alcohol. The severely mentally ill share a number of functional characteristics
which may account for their large numbers among the homeless and which generally interfere
with any persons ability to secure or retain a residence. Because the mentally disabled have
problems in negotiating bureaucratic systems in the community, they are often unable to
secure welfare, social security benefits, or other entitlements for which they are eligible
(Turner & Shifren, 1979; Levine, 1984). Even when income support is available, it is often
insufficient to meet the high costs of rental housing (Segal & Baumohl, 1980; Levine, 1984).
Lack of a home is indicative of an inability to mobilize and use potential supports and that
such deficits may account, in part, for homelessness among the mentally ill (Levine, 1984).
The mentally ill obviously have difficulty developing personal social supports and do not
have the social margin that is needed when they are faced with a housing crisis. Mentally ill
have no protection against a downwardly mobile spiral and no social or material resources
that can be applied towards rehabilitation or recovery (Levine, 1984; Segal et al., 1977). In
addition to changing the locus of mental health treatment, deinstitutionalization represented a
change from a centralized system of care to an infinitely more complex, decentralized system.
State mental hospitals in USA and other total institutions were places of residence and
work where a large number of like-situated individuals, cut off from the wider society for an
appreciable time, together lead an enclosed, formally administrated round of life (Levine,
10

1984; Goffman, 1961). Most state mental hospitals were set up to provide necessary basic life
supports in addition to mental health treatment. They provided a roof over ones head, three
square meals, clothing and laundry services, and varying degrees of social and vocational
rehabilitation (Levine, 1984). (Levine, I.S. 1984, Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal,
Volume VIII, Number 1: July)
An example of community intervention: Centro de Apoio ao Sem-Abrigo (C.A.S.A)
C.A.S.A is a charitable organization, incorporated by public deed on 19 July 2002.
Among its foundational objectives there is the practice of goodness as a human promotion and
integral development of dignity of all persons who are in vulnerable situations. Prerequisite to
all members and candidates for volunteering in the association. Is committed to support all
those in need, identify typical situations of poverty and insecurity in vulnerable social groups
and actively participate in the process of social inclusion of this population group. Promotes
and develops community action approach to poverty phenomena and social exclusion, with
particular focus on homelessness, the vital role the sustainable promotion of improving the
well-being of children and youth at risk, victims of domestic violence, immigrants, ethnic
minorities, drug addicts, alcoholics, ex-prisoners and in particular of homeless people,
regardless of nationality, religious belief, political or ethnic group. The C.A.S.A aims to
conduct medical support measures, psychological, food, cloths, housing and other needs in
favor of children, adolescents and elderly and other socially disadvantaged, victims of
violence or ill-treatment, regardless of nationality, religious belief, political or ethnic group
and may be national or international level (http://casa-apoioaosemabrigo.org/ ).
C.A.S.A has offices in the most important cities and regions in Portugal, such as
Lisbon, Porto, Setubal, Azeitao, Coimbra, Albufeira, Funchal, and Faro.
Daily activity in the Delegation of Porto includes distributing about 180 hot meals a
day, in the areas of Santa Catarina, St Hospital, Antonio Sa da Bandeira, Viaduct Journal
News, Republic Square, Alvares Cabral, Julio Dinis, Market Bom Sucesso, Fernandes Tomas
Street, St. Catherine Street, Batalha and Veiga Alves Street.
As financing source, put piggy banks houses with C.A.S.A brand around Porto at key
points (restaurants, pharmacies, shops, hairdressers, etc.) as well as the sale of raffle tickets
and T-shirts in order to get money for the purchase of packaging, cups, napkins, cutlery, juice,
etc. (http://casa-apoioaosemabrigo.org/ )
11

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


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.

The Redondo Restaurant- provides the soup


Jamor Bakery- provides the bread, savory and sweets
Sweet Cana Bakery- provides bread
Padouro Bakery- provides bread
Nobreza Confectionery provides sweet and savory
Market Bom Sucesso- D. Cristina monthly fruit box
Casa de Montezelo (a volunteer) provides pasta with meet every tuesday
Cristal Bakery- bread and cakes
Cufra Restaurant
S. Joo da Foz Bakery
Continente store from Matosinhos
Intermarch
Food Bank against Hunger
Abadia Restaurant, German College, Shop of soups- donation of cooked food.
Presa Sweet Bakery- bread donation
Multicert (computer company) - fruits donation.
Christian Agape Organization- logistical and economic support
Nakit Restaurant provides soup
Capito Pombeiro Restaurant- provides soup
Sweet pastry Alto- provides cakes and bread
Panico Bakery- provides bread

C.A.S.A has partnered with E+ world- The E+ world is a university project that had its
beginnings in Spain in 2007. In Porto began in September 2009 and aims to raise awareness
to young people for the reality of the world by giving them the opportunity to participate in
changing this reality through social volunteer projects. The E+ world has partnership with IPP
(Polytechnic Institute of Porto), the AEFEUP (Student Association of the Faculty of
Engineering, University of Porto), the V.O.U (University Volunteer Association), and is
inserted along with C.A.S.A in Inter Network Support Homeless (where are other institutions
involved with social security).
Partnership with GRAND, where C.A.S.A gives training future volunteers GRAND to go
on a mission for Africa. Direct partnership with V.O.U where V.O.U work as a bank of
volunteers, all of them university students, and so this way we try an awareness of the
younger age groups to the problems of hunger and extreme poverty in Porto. It has also been
created a partnership with AEFCUP (Association of Students of Faculty of Sciences,
University of Porto) where they provide us with food surpluses of some activities that they
12

have during a year. It has also started the process for the creation of a partnership with FAP
(Porto Academic Federation) under the FAP project in Neighborhood (http://casaapoioaosemabrigo.org/ ).
What does C.A.S.A do now?
Association performs at this moment the following activities (http://casaapoioaosemabrigo.org/ ):
-

Hot and Packed Lunches Distribution, 365 nights a year in various delegations
Distribution of blankets, bed bags and hygiene products
Liaison with parish joints to provide facilities for bathing and hygiene to the homeless.

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


-

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

and distribution points.


Provide medical support, medicines, psychological and legal to socially

disadvantaged;
Supporting homeless people in order to provide them with reintegration conditions in

society
Provide temporary housing
Support and organize awareness and cooperation activities with other similar

institutions of national or international character


Conduct and support the dissemination of publications and the dissemination of

updated information on the reality experienced by homeless


Organize other activities that promote social solidarity
Support and organize humanitarian actions nationally and internationally to promote
peace and social non-violence.

Recommendations and public policies for homeless people and homelessness


Homelessness has been a point of interest for many politicians, governments, and
community psychologists during the years.
Gore (1990), an U.S.A senator supported a three-pronged attack on homelessness, and
intended to pursue legislative measures to build what was already been accomplished to
achieve the goals:
-

Increase low-income housing.


Treatment of mentally ill, alcohol and drug dependent individuals
New approaches to education and training
13

The need is great; but, I, for one, am willing to direct more of our resources for a
significant national response to the homeless crisis (Gore, A., 1990. American Psychological
Association, Inc. 0003-066X/90$00.75 Vol. 45, No. 8, 960-962).
In August, 1990, the American Psychological Associations Council of Representatives
voted, on recommendation of the Board of Directors to support the following resolution on
homelessness. The resolution was originated by Division 18 and supported by the Board of
Social and Ethical Responsibility, the Board of Ethnic Minority Affairs, the Committee of
Children, Youth and Families, and Divisions 9, 34, 37, 43 and 45. The resolution states
(http://www.apa.org/about/policy/homelessness.aspx ):
-

Stimulate research to gather accurate information about the nature and scope of
homelessness, psychological coping strategies of those affected, the psychological
costs of homelessness to groups such as children and families, the seriously mentally
ill, individuals with disabilities, displaced gay and lesbian youth, and victimized
women and children, and apply these research findings to consumer-related

intervention programs and policy recommendations;


Recommend immediate action to federal, state, and local officials based on current
knowledge to rehouse the homeless, utilize psychologists and other groups
experienced in working with poor and ethnic minority communities in policy research
and intervention to assist the homeless, and provide mental health and supportive
services to enable the homeless to improve their ability to maintain a stable and

dignified life style;


Advocate that public funds be provided to finance not only emergency responses to
the crisis, but also to implement preventive programs to keep the number of homeless

persons and families from growing larger;


Disseminate accurate information about homelessness to psychologists, policymakers,
and the public to alert them to the social phenomena that exacerbate the problem and
suggest both clinical and systems interventions to those who suffer the consequences

of poverty and homelessness;


Encourage and endorse legislation calling for a White House conference on
homelessness.

Also, Kondratas (1991) from the Office of Community Planning and Development, US.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC suggested that ending
homelessness will require unprecedented cooperation among federal, state, and local
governments, as well as among nonprofits, the business community, and local neighborhoods.
14

She suggested that the effort will require federal leadership, community solutions, and
resources from everyone. Making programs for the homeless permanent, however well they
run, is not the goal. The goal is to repair the safety net that allows mentally ill individuals to
fall through to the streets. The goal is to revitalize communities whose residents face
joblessness and hopelessness. The goal is to destroy the scourge of drugs and rehabilitate
substance abusers. The goal is to have strong families and community support networks. The
goal is to have a strong housing safety net but also a viable private-sector, low-income
housing market. The goal is to have healthy children and educational system that work. As we
develop homeless policy and implement programs, it would be well to keep this long-term
vision in mind (Kondratas, 1991. American Psychologist Association, In the public domain,
Vol. 46, No.11, 1226-1231).
More recently, Rogers et al. (2012) recommended several specific suggestions for
psychologists who wish to begin work to help ameliorate homelessness (Rogers, 2012.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. Vol. 43, No.2, 8693):
-

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


leader within the target agency. Call, schedule a meeting, share your passion, and why
you want to work with them. Find out what their areas of true need are, and be
genuinely interested of the current state of affairs of that agency. Be upfront about the
rewards of your own work, and explicit about the benefits that collaboration would

provide for their clients.


Provide brief assessments for homeless populations. Providing even one brief
assessment per month is a valuable service, and partnering with a community
organization will help minimize the time needed and maximize the utility of the report

produced.
Develop research projects that involve homeless participants. Find a willing partner
among community organizations, then build a collaboration by identifying areas of
mutual benefit. A few possibilities include providing feedback based on research
results, offering on-site staff trainings, or using research results to design new

programs to help homeless individuals.


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

leadership to identify the most salient needs, but also identify the goals of training.
Encourage other psychologists to get involved. Discussing the benefits you have
received in your work with the homeless as well as life changes you have facilitated
for homeless individuals may both enhance your colleagues awareness of the issues
that face the homeless and increase their motivation to engage with the population.
15

Foster social consciousness in graduate training by increasing engagement with the


homeless. Training programs can offer formal practicum experiences working with
homeless and at-risk populations by building or expanding partnerships with
community organizations that serve these populations. Alternately, training programs
can create opportunities for graduate students to gain assessment experience with
homeless individuals. You can also schedule seminars on issues of homelessness and
inviting speakers who work with the homeless.

Reducing homelessness and improving the homeless peoples life style


If we want to try and improve homeless peoples life style, we can do it starting with
apparently small things. This is a way that we think we can help.
The community intervention program we think is the following:
-

Mission: Reducing homelessness and improving the homeless peoples life style
Resources: Personal finances, cellphones, colleagues, friends, family, non-

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


General objectives: active implication in reducing homelessness. Specific objectives:
involving 50% of our friends, family, and colleagues in activities, in order to reduce
homelessness; obtaining money to build houses for 10 homeless people; obtaining

100.000 euro to build the houses.


Activities: First, we contact an organization which is in contact with homeless people,
in order to join them as volunteers. After that, we try to find out what are the main
problems of the homeless people they work with and participate in the activities held
by the organization. We use on-line social networks in order to create a site, account
on one on-line social network (e.g. Facebook) and we put pictures with the conditions
in which the homeless people live, we post interviews with some of the people who
experienced homelessness, and we share those images so that more people will find
out, especially our friends and families; after this, we speak directly with our friends
and families to join us in the activities. We do more than just being involved in the
organizations activities and we create a bank account and we go to companies and ask
for donations in order to build 10 houses for homeless people. We make a project map
including all the financial needed resources to build the houses. The main target for
this will be construction companies, because they can even give us the materials they
do not need any more or can tell us which the cheapest material suppliers are. For the
construction part we can also ask for some prisoners to come and build the houses, as
part of their rehabilitation program. We also will organize sport activities for the
16

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

homelessness.
Schedule: In the first week we get in contact with the organization. After 2 weeks we
create the website and an on-line social network page and post photos and videos.

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


Results: We expect to have more than 100 views and shared video after the first 2
weeks, with a number of 10 more people joining us in this program. We believe that

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


Indicators: The number of persons and companies that join us in the program
Measures: The amount of money we raise in order to build the houses.
Sustainability: We need at least 100.000 euro to build the houses.
Evaluation: The number of houses we build after one year and the amount of money
that we raise can tell us if the program is a success or not.

Bibliography
Browne, A. 1993. Family violence and homelessness: The relevance of trauma
histories in the lives of homeless women. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63, 370384. Online at http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&uid=1993-45051-001
on 27.05.2015
Gore, A. Jr. 1990. Public policy and the homeless. American Psychologist, Inc. 0003066X/90] $00.75 Vol. 45, No. 8, 960-962
Jones, J.; Levine, I.; Rosenberg, A. 1991. Homelessness research, services, and social
policy. Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, Vol. 46, 1109-111. Online at
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1992-08848-001 on 29.05.2015
Kondratas, A. 1991. Ending homelessness. Policy challenges. American Psychologist,
Vol. 46, 1226-1231. DOI: 10.1037/0003.066X.46.11.1226.
Levine, I. 1984. Homelessness: Its implications for mental health policy and practice.
Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, Vol. 8, 6-16. Online at http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?
fa=buy.optionToBuy&uid=1985-15379-001 on 28.05.2015.

17

Masten et al. 1993. Children in homeless families: risks to mental health and
development. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Vol. 61, No. 2, 335-343. DOI:
10.1037/0022-006X.61.2.335
Milburn et al. 2006. Discrimination and existing homelessness among homeless
adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 4, 658- 672.
DOI: 10.1037/1099-9809.12.4.658.
Murray, L.; Perkins, D.D; Perkins, D.V. 2004. Principles of community psychology:
perspectives and applications. Oxford University Press, New York, U.S.A
Orford, J. 2008. Community Psychology. Challenges, controversies and emerging
consensus. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, the Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex PO19
8SQ, England.
Rafferty, Y.; Shinn, M. 1991. The impact of homelessness on children. American
Psychologist, Vol. 46, 1170-1179. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.46.11.1170.
Rappaport, J.; Seidman, E. 2000. Handbook of community psychology. Kluwer
Academic/ Plenum Publishers, 233 Spring Street, New York, N.Y. 10013, U.S.A
Rogers et al. 2012. Helping people without homes: Simple steps for psychologists
seeking to change lives. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. Vol. 43, No.2, 86
93. DOI: 10.1037/a0026606.
Rossi, P. 1990. The old homeless and the new homelessness in historical perspective.
American Psychologist, Vol. 45, 954-959. Online at http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?
fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1990-30752-001 on 28.05.2015
Springer, S. 2000. Homelessness: a proposal for a global definition and classification.
DOI: 10.1016/S0197-3975 (00) 00010-2
Tipple & Speak, 2005. Definitions of homelessness in developing countries. Habitat
International, Vol. 29, Issue 2, 337-352, DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2003.11.002
Toro, P.A.; Warren, M.G. 1991. Homelessness, psychology, and public policy:
Introduction to section three. American Psychologist, Vol. 46, 1205-1207. Online at
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1992-08857-001 on 28.05.2015

18

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


Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 63, 280-289. Online at
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1995-24838-001 on 28.05.2015.
Vivero & Jenkins, 1999. Existential hazards of the multicultural individual: Defining
and understanding Cultural Homelessness. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, Vol. 5, No. 1, 6-26. DOI: 10.1037/1099-9809.5.1.6
http://www.apa.org/about/policy/homelessness.aspx
http://casa-apoioaosemabrigo.org/

19

Anda mungkin juga menyukai