The Relationship between Transience and Current Life Situation in the Homeless Services-Using Population

Key words: homelessness; migration; services; transience Although an enormous amount of public attention and local policy decisions have focused on transience in the homeless population, the empirical research on this issue has been fragmented and incomplete, often with contradictory results. Bachrach (1987) noted that this issue "complicates" service delivery, making it worthy of further attention. The purpose of the study discussed in this article was to develop a construct of transience in the homeless services-using population. By exploring the relationship between this construct and current life situation, the study attempted to answer the following questions: What are the differences among homeless individuals in terms of transience? What potential do these differences have in predicting current life situation? How do these findings relate to previously described transience profiles among the homeless in the research literature? Transience For the purposes of the study, transience was defined as consisting of four related dimensions: migration, duration, intention, and involvement. Migration separates transient from nontransient individuals and is defined as whether an individual has ever moved from his or her community of origin. Redburn and Buss (1986) found that one-third of the migrants in their homeless sample came from an in-state location, with the remainder coming from outside the state. There is a consensus among researchers who have studied this concept (Acorn, 1993; Bachrach, 1987; First & Toomey, 1989) that "a substantial portion of the homeless population is on the move" (Redburn & Buss, 1986, p. 52). Duration is defined by how long an individual has been in the current community. It is concerned with the stability of the current move. Previous research has found that fully one-third of the homeless surveyed had been in their current city less than a year, with 10 percent being there less than a week, and 40 percent indicating that they were permanent residents (Acorn, 1993; First & Toomey, 1989; Redburn & Buss, 1986). The third dimension of transience, intention, addresses distinctions in reported purpose of transience at the beginning of residence. Previous research has found that individuals move for two major reasons: (1) family or connections in another city and (2) employment potential or availability (Hall & Maza, 1990). Conceptually, other individuals might simply be transient, migrating for no specific purpose. Involvement is related to duration in that the development of supports suggests increased commitment to the community in which the individual currently resides. Many group work writers have noted the importance of community support among the homeless (Pollio, 1990, 1994a; Rivlin, 1987; Rivlin & Imbimbo, 1989; Segal & Baumohl, 1985). Others in discussing this concept (Berman-Rossi & Cohen, 1988; Cohen & Wagner, 1992; Martin & Nayowirth, 1988; Pollio, 1994b) have distinguished two types of community support: within service networks and "on the streets." Differences in Transient Homeless Populations Earlier research used transience to distinguish different types of individuals who are homeless (Solarz & Bogat, 1990). Three profiles of transient individuals have been suggested by the literature: (1) the young, transient, mentally ill male (Solarz & Bogat, 1990, (2) the "transient substance abuser" (Koegal & Burnam, 1987), and (3) the "economic relocator" (Hall & Maza, 1990; Redburn & Buss, 1986). The profile that perhaps has most frequently been described is the young homeless male with mental illness. Evidence supporting this profile reports that individuals with mental illness who are eligible for public entitlements, but who do not receive these benefits, are more likely to be young, transient, and male (Schwartz & Goldfinger, 1983; Segal & Choi, 1991; Thompson, 1988). …