University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Barriers that prevent people experiencing homelessness from utilizing employment services

(USC Thesis Other)

Barriers that prevent people experiencing homelessness from utilizing employment services

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Barriers that Prevent People Experiencing Homelessness from Utilizing Employment
Services
By
Eyasu Teklemariam Gezahegn

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2021

© Copyright by Eyasu Gezahegn 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Eyasu Gezahegn certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Carey Regur
Heather Davis
Anthony Maddox
Patricia Tobey, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
December 2021

iv

Abstract
This study explored the barriers to utilizing employment services by people experiencing
homelessness (PEH) in Los Angeles (LA). Research suggests that while PEH viewed
employment and income as their top priority, over three-fourths of the unhoused are
unemployed. This qualitative descriptive study explored the perceived barriers by PEH through a
modified gap analysis of the knowledge motivation and organizational influences. The data was
collected through semi-structured interviews of 20 participants experiencing unemployment and
homelessness in LA to understand their perceived barriers. The findings revealed that 16 out of
20 respondents could not name an employment agency offering targeted support in LA. In
addition, participants shared their view of supportive services in general as being too stringent in
their rules and policies, creating high barriers to engagement. The findings further confirmed that
situational and systemic barriers like physical injury, recent incarcerations, and low wages
reduced PEH motivation from active job searching.
Keywords: barriers to employment, people experiencing homelessness, employment
services, employment social enterprises

v

Dedication
To all the unsung heroes fighting to end homelessness and the participants of this study. I
met so many of you throughout this journey; thank you for sharing your profound stories and
experiences to shed light on the moral crisis of our time. I am in awe of your bravery, honesty,
and resilience.

vi

Acknowledgments
I want to thank my family and friends for their love and support throughout this journey,
especially Zion, Eyerus, Meheret, Catalina, Issac, Jacob, JoJo, and Sammy – thank you for
expecting the best out of me and pushing me to pursue my dreams. Emuye and Abeye for their
unconditional example as parents and my god parents Brandon and Debbie, thank you! My
incredible brothers Josiah, Daniel and especially Abraham, your gifts and complex life journey,
though still being written, is one of the inspirations that led me to this important work.
A special thanks to our incredible chair, Dr. Tobey, for your care, guidance, and
compassion while working on this project through the Covid-19 pandemic and all the challenges
that entailed. A huge thank you also goes to Dr. Don Murphy for the many hours spent together
editing and thinking through the research questions. I also want to thank the fantastic committee
members Dr. Regur, Dr. Davis, and Dr. Maddox for their insights, guidance, and support in
completing this project, thank you. Finally, I would like to thank my co-workers for the moral
support and advise and all of the great friends I met in cohort 13. It has been an incredible
journey for the past two and half years - fight on!

vii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. xiii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 6
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 6
Theoretical Framework and Methodology.......................................................................... 8
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 9
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 12
The Phenomenon of Homelessness .................................................................................. 12
Current Systems of Care .............................................................................................. 13
Socioeconomic Integration and Homelessness ................................................................. 17
Models of Supportive Services .................................................................................... 18
Other Models of Employment Services ....................................................................... 23
Chronic Homelessness ...................................................................................................... 26

viii

Physical Health Barriers ............................................................................................... 27
Mental Health Barriers ................................................................................................. 28
General Barriers to Access ........................................................................................... 32
Comparative Strategies for Success .................................................................................. 34
Chicago, Illinois .......................................................................................................... 34
New York City ............................................................................................................. 35
Comparative Analysis .................................................................................................. 36
Homelessness in California............................................................................................... 37
Homelessness in Los Angeles County ......................................................................... 38
COVID-19 Implications in Los Angeles ..................................................................... 41
Presentation of Theories ................................................................................................... 42
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................ 42
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 52
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 54
Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 54
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 55
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 56
Interviews .......................................................................................................................... 57
Special Circumstances ................................................................................................. 57
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 58
Positionality ...................................................................................................................... 59
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 60
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 61

ix

Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 63
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 63
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 67
Findings............................................................................................................................. 67
Research Question One ..................................................................................................... 69
Finding #1: PEH Did Not Know or Believe the Right Agencies Exist to Meet Their
Needs and Provide Training for Their Jobs of Interest. .............................. 70
Finding #2: Supportive Services are Not Adaptable to the Community's Needs and
Have Too Many Rules and Policies That Are Perceived as Barriers by the
Unhoused. .................................................................................................... 79
Finding #3 The lack of awareness about available supportive services and perceived
lack of access to quality jobs and training creates motivational barriers to
the unhoused. ............................................................................................... 83
Research Question Two .................................................................................................... 89
Finding #4 The pathway to employment is significantly impacted by situational,
systemic, and institutional barriers requiring significant resources and
capacity to overcome. .................................................................................. 89
Research Question Three ................................................................................................ 102
Finding #5 During planning, there should be a homeless contingent to shape programs
and strategies for effective outreach. ......................................................... 102
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 106
Chapter Five: Recommendations ................................................................................................ 107
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 108

x

Reduce Linear Processes ............................................................................................ 108
Develop Models of Situated Learning ....................................................................... 110
Embrace Intuitive Technology ................................................................................... 111
Professional Development to Increase Staff Capacity ............................................... 113
Policy Recommendations................................................................................................ 116
Integrate Enrolment During Housing Intake Process ................................................ 116
Increase Government Contract Spending in Transitional Jobs .................................. 118
Address wages inequality for transitional and low-income workers. ........................ 124
Implementation and Evaluation ...................................................................................... 125
Kipling’s Evaluation Model ....................................................................................... 125
The Theory of Change .............................................................................................. 127
Future Directions/Recommendations for Research ........................................................ 128
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 129
References ................................................................................................................................... 131
Appendix A - Theoretical Framework Matrix ............................................................................ 152
Appendix B - Informed Consent ................................................................................................. 153
Appendix C - Interview Protocol ................................................................................................ 155
Appendix D - Recruitment Flyer ................................................................................................ 157

xi

List of Tables

Table 1 Knowledge Influences .................................................................................................... 44

Table 2 Motivational Influences .................................................................................................. 47

Table 3 Organizational Influences ............................................................................................... 49

Table 4 Summary of Participant Sample ..................................................................................... 65

Table 5 Racial Demographic Data ............................................................................................... 66

Table 6 Declarative Knowledge Influences ................................................................................. 75

Table 7 PEH Field of Interest ...................................................................................................... 88

Table 8 Summary of Perceived Barriers to Employment .......................................................... 101

Table 9 Summary of Organizational Influences ........................................................................ 115

Table 10 Example of Annual Housing Budget ........................................................................... 119

Table 11 Social Impact Value Formula ...................................................................................... 120

Table 12 SROI Investment Returns ............................................................................................ 121

Table 13 Detailed Cost analysis breakdown ............................................................................... 122

Table 14 Kipling’s Evaluation Model for ESE and ESA ........................................................... 126

xii

List of Figures
Figure 1: A Conceptual Framework ……………….…………………………………………50

xiii

List of Abbreviations
ESE Employment Social Enterprises

ESA Employment Service Agencies

HF Housing First

HUD US Department of Housing and Urban Development

IPS Individual Placement Support

KMO Knowledge, Motivation and Organization Theory

LAHSA Los Angeles Homelessness Services Authority

PEH People Experiencing Homelessness

PSH Permanent Supportive Housing

PTI Pathway to Independence

RRH Rapid Re-housing
1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
If participation in viable social networks occupies a fundamental role in sustaining the
general population's mental and physical well-being, establishing supportive social networks and
community engagement through employment could also be foundational to transition the
unhoused back into mainstream life (Gray et al., 2016; Yazdani et al., 2020). Research
emphatically suggests that people experiencing homelessness are devoid of critical support
systems and primary forms of social networks (MacKnee & Mervyn, 2002). A majority of
unhoused persons lead isolated lives and have fragmented, few, or no supportive relationships.
This—along with financial, vocational, unstable housing, social problems, and health
complications—can lead to their decline into chronic homelessness (McChesney, 1986;
Roncarati et al., 2018). Researchers also found that many of the unhoused could not rely on their
parents or siblings as resources to relieve stress or provide emotional and other forms of support.
The houseless in these circumstances typically seek government assistance when they become
overwhelmed with a crisis but lose their connection with these agencies due to scarcity of
resources, barriers to access, or some disruption of continuity after a crisis (Basuk et al., 1986;
Deasi & Rosenheck, 2005; Roncarati et al., 2018). As a result, many are possibly devolving
further into the challenges of street life.
Homeless services typically fall within two groups. The first group is housing readiness,
the central premise of providing the homeless ways to cope with life before providing housing.
These programs do not focus on the housing aspect of the problem but on the individuals' ability
to function well in society and reduce the likelihood of indefinite homelessness. The conditions
and criteria set are meant to ensure treatment compliance and promote socioeconomic
integration, setting targets on the path to self-sufficiency and housing readiness (Sahlin, 2005;
2

Tabol et al., 2009; Rosenheck, 2010). The second set of options refers to the housing first and
housing-led services. Opposite to the housing readiness services, housing-led services aim to
provide housing quickly followed by choice-led supportive services (Tsemberis, 2010;
Tsemberis, 2010a; Greenwood et al., 2013). Individuals are given the option to choose services
that can gradually lead to their socioeconomic integration.
Background of the Problem
Until recently, families and individuals experiencing homelessness accessed their housing
assistance through a continuum model, with emergency shelters being the first stage or port of
entry (Aubry et al., 2015; Cohen, 2019). Those seeking shelters often end up first in emergency
shelters, wherein families or individuals can stay free of charge. Individuals often leave when
they find more permanent and suitable housing or continue through the continuum process by
moving into transitional housing programs (Aubry et al., 2015; Cohen, 2019). However, in 2009
the HEARTH Act was passed, substantially increasing federal dollars devoted to addressing
homelessness. Simultaneously, the shift towards Housing First progressed to provide enhanced
programs such as the Homeless Prevention, Rapid Rehousing Program, and Supportive Services
for Veteran Families (Richards, 2019).
Supportive housing is designed to assist the most vulnerable populations first, particularly
individuals with severe mental illnesses and substance use disorders who are also experiencing
chronic homelessness (Katz et al., 2017; Kertesz et al., 2017). With the shift to housing first to
address the most vulnerable populations, employment services became an underutilized practice
to prevent and end homelessness (Brown et al., 2019; Hendry et al., 2017; Smith-Maddox et al.,
2020). Housing First as a national strategy has proven to be an effective model of reducing
chronic homelessness, including impressive 5-year retention rates of over 88% (Shaheen, 2007).
3

However, this trend has not been sustainable for large metropolitan cities experiencing
population density and scarcities in housing resources.
In a comprehensive study conducted by the National Survey of Homeless Assistance
Providers and Clients (NSHAPC), when clients were asked to identify what is keeping them
homeless, over half of those surveyed identified insufficient income or lack of employment as
their primary cause (Burt et al., 2001). Despite the evidence indicating the importance of
employment services, the homeless population primarily received food stamps (73%), Medicare
(37%), or emergency shelter assistance (64%), while only 8% utilized job training, and 11% used
employment agencies (Burt et al., 2001; Poremski & Hwang 2016).
Statement of the Problem
There is limited research on how homeless persons experience barriers that prevent them
from utilizing employment services towards their self-sustenance. While previous research has
demonstrated that most of the unhoused view employment services as a top priority, the total
utilization of employment supportive services remained below 20% (Burt et al., 1999). The
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD; 2019) reported that
approximately 567,715 people are homeless on any given night, representing an increase of 2.8%
from 2018. The department further states that homelessness is mainly caused by a lack of
employment and individuals' inability to meet basic needs due to insufficient income. The data
also demonstrates that less than 25% of the US population experiencing homelessness hold a
permanent job (Leopold, 2019). This problem is critical to address because homelessness is a
public health crisis associated with higher rates of mortality and morbidity (Roncarati et al.,
2018; Deasi & Rosenheck, 2005). Homelessness is also an expensive crisis to taxpayers and the
community; in 2018 alone, the federal government's estimated housing and health services cost
4

exceeded $4.6 billion, translating to roughly $35,578 a year per individual experiencing
homelessness (Colangelo, 2019). The evidence also shows that the unhoused who received
immediate and ongoing employment services were 2.5 times more likely to secure a job 12
months following initial services than those that did not participate (Radey & Wilkins, 2004).
This study will focus on Los Angeles County, California, as Los Angeles (LA) has
remained one of the country's largest unhoused populations (Kuhn et al., 2020). As of 2019, LA
had over 58,936 homeless individuals, representing 9% of the country's homeless population and
39% of people experiencing homelessness in California. It is important to note that homelessness
in LA increased by 12% between 2018 to 2019. Contrary to public perception, 24% of the
homeless have a substance abuse disorder, and 22% were diagnosed with severe mental illness
(Los Angeles Homelessness Services Authority, 2020). The results mirror the national estimates
of chronic homelessness. The data shows that 22% of the homeless are individuals with long-
term persistent or episodic homelessness histories coupled with disabling health conditions or
substance use disorders (US Department of Housing & Urban Development, 2018). Severe
mental illness and substance abuse can be significant co-factors of chronic homelessness, but
with adequate support, the rate of chronic homelessness has steadily declined over the past
decade by 22% (Brown et al., 2019; Kuhn & Richards, 2020). It is estimated that over 76% of
the homeless in Los Angeles are considered non-chronically homeless (Los Angeles
Homelessness Services Authority, 2020). As a result, this study focuses on the non-chronically
homeless as the most addressable population of job seekers in Los Angeles County.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research is to conduct a qualitative descriptive study to explore
barriers that prevent homeless job seekers (those without severe mental illness or addiction
5

issues) in Los Angeles County (LA) from utilizing employment services. Because this study
focuses on homelessness in LA, it is essential to understand the homelessness crisis that
continues to increase year over year (Henwood & Padgett, 2019). The Los Angeles Homeless
Services Authority (2020) released a preliminary report that 66,436 individuals are homeless in
LA as of 2020, demonstrating another double-digit increase of 12.7% from 2019. From a
historical perspective, Flaming et al. (2004) report that Los Angeles experiences higher rates of
homelessness than other parts of the country due to higher poverty rates and higher housing
costs, many of which can force individuals into homelessness due to unemployment or the
inability to sustain living income. Many Angelinos face barriers to finding housing and adequate
income. Unemployment in LA remains almost 12% making access to job opportunities and
training critical to address this crisis.
In this study, barriers are defined as any obstacles that make it difficult for individuals to
access available services, remain motivated, or make changes in their lives (Upshur et al., 2018).
It is essential to understand barriers beyond basic demographic characteristics, such as veteran
and disability status, or severe mental illness, simply because previous research has demonstrated
that employment is an essential tool and indicator of functional recovery for all sectors (Yazdani,
2020). Previous research has also demonstrated that while homeless individuals viewed
employment services as their number top priority, utilization of employment services was below
20% (Burt et al., 2001). Some of the reasons included homeless individuals' perceptions of the
program model and the transferability of training to real-life settings (Corrigan et al., 2001).
Some homeless individuals have also expressed fear of losing entitlements such as health care
and social security benefits, also known as the 'benefits cliff' (Marmor, 2018; Shaheen & Rio,
2007). Without immediate access to permanent or transitional jobs, perceptions of lengthy
6

training programs appeared to adversely affect program completion and overall participation
(Cook et al., 2001). Because these studies were conducted on a national level or in communities
with different demographics, the specific barriers experienced by the homeless population in LA
remain poorly understood. This study aims to reduce the research gap by exploring barriers
relevant to the population in LA and the agencies seeking to serve them to obtain jobs and exit
homelessness.
Research Questions
The following three research questions guided this study.
1. What are the knowledge and motivational factors that impact the utilization of
employment services by the homeless in LA?
2. What barriers do homeless individuals in Los Angeles County perceive when
seeking employment?
3. How can employment service agencies improve their planning, participation, and
evaluation of services to better address barriers experienced by homeless
individuals in Los Angeles County?
Significance of the Study
This study will facilitate an improved understanding of the barriers people experiencing
homelessness (PEH) in Los Angeles County experience when utilizing employment services.
The current government strategy of Permanent Supportive Housing and Rapid Rehousing
initiatives that primarily focus on crisis management and the chronically homeless has created an
almost insurmountable annual gap. Since 2010, homelessness has continued to increase by
double digits in LA. Despite significant expenditures of over 5 billion dollars in Los Angeles
alone, there are currently only enough permanent housing placements for one-third of families
7

experiencing homelessness (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2019). This gap is
significant to address because an estimated 150,000 additional people experience homelessness
each year, while only 52,500 new placements are available. From the estimated net of 97,500
new homeless individuals that enter the pool, Los Angeles accounts for nearly 10% of the
national number (Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, 2020). Recent propositions like
Measure H and HHH have granted significant funding for new projects; however, three years
after voters approved these measures, the average cost of building a single housing unit for the
homeless has risen to $531,000 a unit. The cost of rent is also more than twice the average
income of LA residents. Unemployment and underemployment are also significant issues:
almost 12% unemployment city-wide and over 74% among PEH (Los Angeles Times, 2020).
LAHSA also estimates that over 500,000 residents in LA face a severe rental burden, with as
many as 83,000 residents losing their housing each year (Los Angeles Housing Authority, 2020).
As a result, LA faces an unprecedented crisis that will require all community members and key
stakeholders to come together and create long-term solutions.
Previous studies have focused on the benefits employment agencies can offer along with
their barriers to success. However, most of that research was conducted nationally or in other
communities outside of LA. In addition, most of the studies have been completed from an
agency perspective and have failed to understand how homeless individuals perceive barriers
(Burt et al., 2001; Cook et al., 2001). Gathering data from LA residents' lived experiences will
allow employment agencies to understand better the specific motivational barriers that homeless
individuals experience and adjust current programming and services to better align with the
needs of the homeless community.
8

This study aims to provide valuable research from the perspective of unhoused job
seekers to employment agencies and community leaders.
- Employment agencies can glean valuable insight to increase their programs' access
and redesign their training and long-term strategy.
- Community leaders can gain insight into the role of employment support in reducing
the growing crisis of homelessness facing Los Angeles County.
The research indicates that employment is key to long-term self-sustainment and
combatting the growing crisis of homelessness. Individuals who received immediate and ongoing
employment services were more than twice as likely to secure a job 12 months following initial
services than those that did not participate (Radey & Wilkins, 2004). Investment in employment
also offers a long-term social return on investment (SROI) to benefit the community
economically and socially, a concept that will be discussed in Chapter 5 of this study. The US
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) states that homelessness is mainly
caused by a lack of employment and individuals' inability to meet basic needs due to insufficient
income. This study seeks to provide valuable insight on how employment agencies can improve
their services to be more aligned with the needs of the unhoused and provide a path to self-
sufficiency.
Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This study was guided by the conceptual model of Clark and Estes (2008), highlighting
the influence of knowledge, motivation, and organizational structures on performance gaps. The
KMO gap analysis informed best practices to remove barriers towards employment by the
population experiencing homelessness.
9

Using the KMO framework allowed me to examine the knowledge and motivational gaps
that prevented access to resources by the unhoused and the influence of policies and systemic
barriers on meaningful change. The research seeks to challenge community and organizational
leaders to implement strategic changes to reduce inequities and increase access. The theory of
change (TOC) aids organizations in planning, participating in, and evaluating services to
promote social change (Mayne, 2017). This theory also links program activities, intermediate
outcomes, and ultimate goals (Walker & Matraeese, 2011).
This study used a qualitative descriptive research design to gather and analyze the
primary data. A qualitative descriptive research design was appropriate for this study, as this
methodology seeks to obtain an accurate description of a phenomenon (Kim et al., 2017).
Therefore, in this study, I interviewed 20 participants through semi-structured interviews to
describe their experiences and perceived barriers to utilizing the services of employment
agencies.
Definition of Terms
The following key categories define homelessness according to The US Department of
Housing and Development:
1. Individuals and families who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence and
includes a subset for an individual who is exiting an institution where they resided for 90
days or less and who resided in an emergency shelter or a place not meant for human
habitation immediately before entering that institution.
2. Individuals and families who will imminently lose their primary nighttime residence.
10

3. Unaccompanied youth and families with children. Youth who are defined as homeless
under other federal statutes but do not otherwise qualify as homeless under this
definition.
4. Individuals and families fleeing, or are attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assault, stalking, or other dangerous or life-threatening conditions that
relate to violence against the individual or a family member.
5. Chronically homeless individuals are identified as those who have been experiencing
homelessness for 12 months or more.
The research also addressed the following definitions throughout the study.
• Communities of Practice (CoP) knowledge‐based social structures comprised of
individuals or entities that share common interests (Wenger et al., 2002).
• Housing first, the current government strategy, which aims to place all residents
in Permanent Supportive Housing or Rapid Rehousing without conditions (Radley
& Wilkins, 2010).
• Self-efficacy is an individual's belief in their capabilities to accomplish a goal
(Bandura, 1986).
• Social Enterprises are revenue-generating businesses that provide training and
jobs to people overcoming barriers to employment. (Geckeler et al., 2019).
Organization of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore the barriers that homeless individuals experience
when utilizing employment services in Los Angeles County (LA). The finding indicates a lack of
reliability in self-reported priorities or unseen barriers to employment for motivated job-seekers.
While chronic homelessness has decreased by 22% over the last decade in LA, the research also
11

shows that non-chronic homelessness has continued to climb by double digits. Therefore, the
purpose of this qualitative descriptive study is to explore specific barriers that the non-chronic,
job-seeking homeless individuals identify from their experiences in LA.
It is also important to note that not all agencies adopt the US Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) definition of homelessness or count data. It should be noted that
some government programs and philanthropy institutions have divergent measures and
definitions that may not immediately identify individuals who have lost housing as homeless
(Clemens et al., 2018; Pavlakis & Duffield 2017; Wilkins et al., 2016). While this research will
use the HUD and state-sanctioned data to underscore the scope of the problem, additional
research is needed to capture the full extent of the homelessness phenomenon in the US. In
recent years, housing advocates have shifted their focus to use people-first terminology such as
unhoused or people experiencing homelessness (PEH). This study will use both terminologies
stated in the literature while maintaining a person-first focus.
This dissertation will follow a traditional five-chapter format. Chapter 1 will introduce
the study, highlighting the background of the problem, the statement of the problem, and the
study's purpose. I will also highlight the research questions that will guide this study and provide
an overview of the methodology, the theoretical frameworks, the importance of the study, the
limitations, and the definitions of regularly used terms. Chapter 2 will review the literature on
relevant research about homelessness and employment, while also highlighting the gap that
ensures this study's viability. Chapter 3 will provide an overview of the study's methodology, and
Chapter 4 will present the study's results and findings. Chapter 5 will conclude the study with a
discussion on the study's findings, implications, as well as proramatic and policy
recommendations, and recommendations for future studies.
12

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter reviews existing research on homelessness, including the unique
circumstances impacting California and Los Angeles populations. Additional topics include
socioeconomic integration and homelessness, chronic homelessness factors, existing models of
employment services, barriers to access, and a summary of promising practices. The chapter
concludes with the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences explored in this study
and a more in-depth look at the conceptual framework.
The Phenomenon of Homelessness
There has been a significant amount of research on the phenomenon of homelessness;
however, permanent solutions remain elusive. As studies and world statistics have demonstrated,
homelessness exists in all countries and most communities worldwide, which marked this
phenomenon as one of the biggest social problems of the 21st Century (Callahan, 2019; Denvall,
2017; Parsell, 2017). Homelessness remains an international crisis impacting every society and
locality that deprives people of living in a stable manner (Ahmed & Madoc-Jones, n.d; 2020;
Kriel, 2017; Pleace, 2019). Individuals experiencing homelessness often cannot receive access to
needed employment and education resources because they must remain diligently focused on
survival activities. Society can also be particularly unkind to unstably housed people, restricting
opportunities, denying access, and building systems that criminalize poverty (Ahmed & Madoc-
Jones, n.d; 2020; Kriel, 2017; Pleace, 2019).
When studying the plight of people experiencing homelessness, it is necessary first to
define homelessness. A person is classified homeless if they lack a fixed, regular, and adequate
nighttime residence (HUD, 2018). According to the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), the two main categories are individuals in sheltered facilities at 65% and
13

the remaining 35% unsheltered (HUD, 2018). In addition, chronic homelessness is used to
identify individuals who have been homeless for over 12 months, often coupled with complex
health issues, including substance abuse and mental illness (Burt et al., 1999; Brown et al.,
2019). The most recent data shows that an estimated 15% (84,000) of the homeless population
are experiencing chronic homelessness (HUD, 2018). Excluding veteran services, there are
currently three prominent forms of housing support for people experiencing homelessness by the
federal government: emergency shelters and safe houses, permanent supportive housing (PSH),
and rapid rehousing (RRH) programs (Corinth, 2017).
Current Systems of Care
One of the most prominent efforts to address homelessness today is the Housing First
(HF) national strategy and policy. The traditional housing policies provide clients access to
services through a continuum model wherein the first port of entry towards government's
assistance is through emergency shelters (Baker & Evans, 2016; Katz, Zerger, & Hwang, 2017;
Kertesz et al., 2017; Woodhall-Melnik & Dunn, 2016). These shelters provide families and
individuals with temporary housing free of charge until they can secure more suitable and stable
housing. Apart from having a roof over their heads, these emergency shelters offer supportive
services designed to assist residents in being more prepared to procure private market housing
(Baker & Evans, 2016; Katz et al., 2017; Kertesz et al., 2017; Woodhall-Melnik & Dunn, 2016).
The second stage of this continuum model is project-based transitional housing. After
accessing emergency shelters, families and individuals could move to project-based traditional
houses (Katz et al., 2017; Kertesz et al., 2017). Like emergency shelters, these houses provide
temporary assistance, usually for no more than 24 months, and offer supportive services. The
goal is to assist tenants in locating and securing permanent housing and address any other issues
14

that could exacerbate homelessness. As long as households continue to satisfy specific
requirements, they can live in these transitional housing arrangements. Some requirements were
not directly linked to the housing but to the individuals' sobriety and overall health, employment,
or participation in mental health treatments (Katz et al., 2017; Kertesz et al., 2017). These
services were signs of the dual responsibility that the government takes on- providing housing
and enforcing conditions to maintain housing. It takes more than just offering a stable shelter and
assistance towards locating a home (Katz et al., 2017; Kertesz et al., 2017). The complexity of
wrap-around and supportive services, coupled with strict rules, limited access and caused
homelessness to spike nationally. As a result, federal action was taken to make HS a national
strategy to combat the crisis, and it was signed into law to take effect in 2009.
Housing First Model
Since 2009, most communities have already shifted their resources under the continuum
model toward a Housing First (HF) strategy that provides households undergoing homelessness
with immediate housing with few or no preconditions (National Alliance to End Homelessness,
2020). HF recognizes that some of the conditions being set for the homeless were pushing them
towards more financial misery and a prolonged state of homelessness (Katz et al., 2017; Kertesz
et al., 2017). The guiding principle for HF is that homelessness is detrimental to individuals' and
families' well-being and prevents movement towards economic self-sufficiency (Padgett et al.,
2016). The nationwide HF initiative to provide individuals and families experiencing
homelessness with immediate housing has been supplemented with a significant budget, a luxury
not afforded to older or traditional programs. For instance, the original McKinney-Vento
legislation, which was one of the biggest legislation pieces established in 1987 to support
students, allocated funds for PSH, but Rapid Re-Housing programs were not explicitly said to be
15

one of the events when federal McKinney-Vento funds could be eligible for use (Padgett et al.,
2016).
These factors only changed in 2009, when the HEARTH (Homeless Emergency
Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing) Act was passed, increasing federal dollars devoted
to addressing homelessness by doubling funding for permanent housing beds (HUD, 2018).
Simultaneously, the shift towards Housing First can also be seen in programs such as the
Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Program and Supportive Services for Veteran
Families (Richards, 2019). Part of the HF strategy is also the provision of supportive housing.
Supportive housing helps homeless individuals with mental illnesses and substance use
disorders. These vulnerable populations require housing more than any other group so they can
receive treatment or other support to address their conditions (Katz et al., 2017; Kertesz et al.,
2017). The goal of supportive housing is to assist individuals in finding long-term, affordable,
and independent housing. Cities and local service providers had started to address homelessness
through supportive housing programs during the late 1980s and early 1990s; however, most of
these programs only adhered to consumer-based models (Katz et al., 2017; Kertesz et al., 2017).
The data shows that these early supportive housing programs have expanded and evolved
during the last thirty years. The scope of supportive housing programs has broadened to
encompass populations besides the mentally ill or the chronically homeless. In 2017,
approximately 50% of supportive housing beds were targeted towards persons in families (Henry
et al., 2017). However, the largest and most significant expansion of the HF strategy was
expanding the HUD-VASH program. It was mainly designed to assist unhoused veterans by
giving housing choice voucher subsidies to use supplementary case management services. Under
this program, veterans were only required to pay rent up to 30% of their income, and the voucher
16

covered the rest of the payment (Cusack & Montgomery, 2017). Studies conducted on the
effectiveness of HUD-VASH have concluded that it effectively reduced homelessness and
improved outcomes for Veterans experiencing homelessness. Since 2008, the program was able
to assist nearly 10,000 individuals, awarding resources to cover the vouchers of such numbers,
and was heralded as a great success (Cusack & Montgomery, 2017).
Rapid Re-Housing
Another one of the housing initiatives is the Rapid Re-Housing project (RRH). RRH is
designed to provide time-limited rental assistance and services to families and individuals
experiencing homelessness without preconditions and emphasis on self-determination (Brown et
al., 2017; Burt et al., 2016; Rodriguez & Eidelman, 2017). Even though both supportive housing
and rapid re-housing emphasized the need for self-determination, they are different in terms of
the duration of the assistance given (Brown et al., 2017; Burt et al., 2016; Rodriguez &
Eidelman, 2017). Supportive housing programs offer more permanent housing and are best
suited for families with relatively high needs. On the other hand, RRH is more appropriate for
those with moderate barriers to stable homes, and assistance is also more short-term in nature
(Burt et al., 2016). Subsidized housing in RRH programs may either be market housing or
project-based, and the role of program administrators can vary based on ownership, which
provides a more flexible model that has shown some promising results.
A few years after implementing Permanent Supportive Housing (PHS), the Health
Research and Educational Trust conducted a study to test the effectiveness of the supportive
housing model in Chicago. The purpose of the study was to provide a comparative cost analysis
of housing and case management programs among chronically ill homeless adults compared to
usual care (Basu, 2012). The study results showed a saving of over 17% for taxpayers when
17

factoring in the overall cost of health services, including ER visits, nursing homes, legal and case
management costs. PSH and the use of RRH is a promising model of success to the unhoused
based on their level of need; however, it remains a scarce resource creating a long waitlist in
most of the largest metropolitan cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York.
Socioeconomic Integration and Homelessness
The idea behind providing homeless individuals jobs and livelihood as the primary way
out of their circumstances equates to the idea that socioeconomic integration is the answer to
homelessness. The idea that escaping from poverty and homelessness is best attained by having a
job is constant among European social policies. Attempts at labor market activation to address
this social problem are features of how OECD countries have enacted homelessness policies.
Some developed countries have claimed that homelessness results from the deep inequalities
generated by capitalism (Piketty, 2014). In relation, some researchers have argued that humanity
and agencies of homeless people must be at the forefront of comprehending homelessness
(McNaughton, 2006; Parsell, 2018). Most of what has been written about the social problem of
homelessness focus on determining the supposed intersection of structural and individual factors
in addressing this issue (Caton, 1990; Neale, 1997; Pleace, 2000; Fitzpatrick, 2005; Farrugia &
Gerrard, 2015; Pleace, 2016).
These policies indicate that solving unemployment can ease homelessness at certain
levels. There is a logical link between lack of jobs and lack of stable homes. There are also a
burgeoning number of studies showing countries with practical and working welfare systems
lead to lower inequality, thus, lower levels of homelessness (Benjaminsen & Andrade, 2015;
Benjaminsen, 2016; Benjaminsen & Knutagård, 2016). However, other researchers have claimed
that focusing on the role of working welfare systems is downplaying the role of individual
18

agency. Several ethnographic studies (Dordick, 1997; Gill, 2015; Marr, 2015) showcase human
dimensions and the role of individual agency in the issue of homelessness. The emergent
research on women’s homelessness has also suggested wide gender variations in homeless
pathways, demonstrating the intersectionality and complexities of understanding homelessness
(Mayock & Sheridan, 2012; Bretherton, 2017).
Models of Supportive Services
Researchers have established common characteristics, behaviors, and treatment needs
among the homeless population (Benjaminsen & Andrade, 2015; O’Donoghue-Hynes et al.,
2015; Benjaminsen, 2016; Metraux et al., 2016), with some data revealing that these
characteristics can be acquired and developed during, and not before, homelessness (Culhane et
al., 2013). The first option in services is housing readiness programs, which aim to provide the
homeless with ways to cope with life before providing housing. These programs do not focus on
the housing aspect of the problem but on the ability of the individuals to function well in society
so that they are no longer prone to indefinite homelessness. Supposedly, negative behaviors are
changed before housing is offered. Therefore, conditions and set criteria should be met before
housing options are even provided. The conditions and criteria set are meant to ensure treatment
compliance and promote socioeconomic integration, setting targets on the road meant to achieve
housing readiness but caters only to one model of this readiness (Sahlin, 2005; Tabol et al., 2009;
Rosenheck, 2010).
Alternatively, the second option is programs using housing first (HF) and housing-led
models. Unlike housing readiness services, housing-led services only provide housing quickly or
as a priority and then offer choice-led supportive services. HF is focused on connecting
individuals to housing as quickly as possible, while other services are meant to make individuals
19

experiencing homelessness cope with their lives by coproducing support to promote health, well-
being, and socioeconomic integration (Tsemberis, 2010; Tsemberis, 2010a; Greenwood et al.,
2013).
These two contrasting housing models have the common goal of addressing
homelessness and, in essence, promote among those suffering from homelessness the chance to
lead everyday lives within standard social and economic conventions. Both have housing
components and an element of behavioral modifications (Hansen-Löfstrand & Juhila, 2012),
though they differ in how and when they are offered (Pleace & Bretherton, 2017). An additional
commonality between these two housing models is that neither of them has achieved consistent
outcomes around social integration and the elimination of homelessness. For housing ready
services or treatment first programs, the issue is the inconsistent program completion rates.
Sometimes the completion rates are too low because people forced to make behavioral changes
to receive housing support eventually walk away due to strict regiments. Some individuals
experiencing homelessness strive to meet all the requirements but still get stuck on a particular
step, causing them to stall for years or never obtain supportive housing (Pleace, 2008).
The research shows that HF services also lead to mixed outcomes. Even if there are
strengths in sustaining housing, these are not matched by consistent improvements in actual
social integration to maintain long-term housing (Pleace & Quilgars, 2013; Quilgars & Pleace,
2016; Leclair et al., 2019). The emergency and temporary accommodation that make up the bulk
of homelessness service provision does not lead to effective socio-economic integration. Some
may lead to labor market activation but most also fail (Pleace et al., 2018). Even though there are
only two main categories to address homelessness, there are essentially three different forms of
20

intervention regarding labor activation. These include: (1) the work-ready models, (2) the work
first models, and (3) work providing models.
Work Ready
The work-ready model emphasizes making people suitable candidates for their future
employers, so the main programs offered include education, training, work placements,
internships, and volunteering opportunities needed to make them competitive. Lee and Ferguson
(2018) claimed that contrary to the idea that businesses are hostile and apathetic towards the
homeless, local businesses can and do serve the homeless in so many ways. Local businesses
have the means to address the different dimensions of human needs. This theoretical framework
is evidenced in the two models in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles, which focus on the role of
business improvement districts (BIDs) and a social enterprise intervention (SEI) to eliminate
homelessness, respectively. These models demonstrate that the business community can satisfy
the physical and economic needs of individuals experiencing homelessness and be quite effective
in meeting both emotional and self-actualization goals.
Work First
The Work First models utilize supported placement approaches that place individuals
experiencing homelessness directly into employment and provide them with support until their
jobs reach a certain level of security and stability. Work First models originated in the 1970s
from social agencies that focused on welfare-to-work programs, also titled America Works later
and implemented in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(PRWORA) passed into law in 1996 (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.). The goal of these
programs was to place as many low-income or unhoused individuals into direct placements with
partnering businesses or government-run operations. The PRWORA legislation tried to achieve
21

participation by placing time limits on cash benefits to ensure compliance and reduce costs. The
program developers believed that welfare or other government assistance recipients would be
dependent long-term on benefits without incorporating a work-first model. Initially, exemption
status was only provided for individuals and families with disabilities. As disability claims and
other exemptions grew, large organizations like the Salvation Army and Goodwill Industries
began offering supportive services to welfare recipients with disabilities or other barriers
(Cooney & Weaver, 2001). These programs quickly veered from their intended target of
providing support to individuals with disabilities due to many factors, including educational and
language barriers as well as general volatility in the labor market. Goodwill, for example, has
since tried to adapt their models to integrate paid training and ESL classes into their programs to
meet the demands (Cooney & Weaver, 2001)
Work Providing
The third model is the Work Providing model. Under this model, private firms and
employers, social businesses, social enterprises, or charities are tapped to provide individuals
experiencing homelessness with employment. The services and programs organized under this
model are quite diverse. Some of the services provided can be wholly charitable or funded by the
government. Some of them might involve partnering with the private sector in an act to engage
in philanthropy. Agencies from diverse private and public sectors can be involved. Studies
spanning decades have demonstrated that efforts to provide labor opportunities through this
model have existed for extended periods (Balkin, 1992; Trutko et al., 1998; Randall & Brown,
1999; Bridgman, 2001; Malone, 2005; Singh, 2005).
Among the three models, the work-ready approaches mirror what has been followed in
most European welfare states throughout the years. These states often establish different
22

programs focused on labor market activation, not only for people experiencing homelessness
(PEH) but those accessing welfare benefits in general. Usually, these programs are entirely
voluntary, but many have become increasingly linked to welfare systems. Clients seeking
benefits had to undergo work-readiness and labor market activation programs to demonstrate that
they are seriously looking for work or pass rigorous tests proving that obtaining paid work is
impossible (Dwyer, 2016). PEH will have access to these services only if they show that they
engage with various forms of labor market activation (Beatty et al., 2015). Sometimes, the
conditions for city and state programs unhoused are less strict. More specialist labor market
activation services are provided, and they may be more flexible and associated with varied kinds
of intensive support than the services for the mainstream people accessing welfare benefits.
The literature on labor market activation services for the homeless has led to mixed
outcomes. Not all homeless people who participated in these services were able to attain
employment. For instance, studies have shown that coaching or support services can indeed
enhance individuals' ability to obtain work compared to those who could not access such services
(Hoven et al., 2016). However, limitations exist. Supply-side interventions focused on labor or
attempting to make the unhoused more desirable in employers' eyes have two inherent
limitations.
Jones et al. (2020) has demonstrated a moderated view of what employers can do for
PEH instead of the optimist take of many policymakers. Researchers have claimed that alongside
a heightened focus on prevention, placing PEH adults in specific jobs is usually deemed an
essential way to assist them in avoiding homelessness. However, researchers have claimed that
this is too simplistic to equate homelessness as a social issue merely to only lacking money or
income. Evidence has shown that work does not always offer a definite way of overcoming or
23

escaping poverty and its ill effects. This thinking also overlooks the fact that many among the
employed still face housing insecurity. There is an increasing concern about the phenomenon of
in-work homelessness – that is, people who have jobs yet are experiencing homelessness or at
risk of becoming homeless due to insufficient income (Los Angeles Housing Authority, 2020).
Other Models of Employment Services
Economic context plays an essential role if the work-ready initiative would even be
sustainable. Training the unemployed population, including those experiencing homelessness,
will not serve as an overnight solution. Supporting individuals to become work-ready does not
guarantee opportunity because the process of training individuals to become work-ready in itself
would not create new work or employment opportunities. There must be significant investment
by businesses and government agencies to provide access and opportunity. Despite giving PEH
support, these efforts would feel futile if there is no demand for them (Poremski et al., 2016).
There are multiple agencies and measures currently in place to provide work opportunities for
the unhoused.
Transitional Jobs and Social Enterprises
Cook and Willetts (2019) evaluated how a social enterprise can effectively assist its
employees experiencing homelessness. The aim was to determine if social enterprises could
provide more affiliations in number and variety. The researchers used the affiliation theory to
assess whether employment at a social enterprise could serve as one method to effectively
eliminate or reduce homelessness as the person at risk of being homeless is given more
affiliations. Cook and Willetts conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews of seven
employees of a social enterprise. Results concluded that enterprise leadership staff could
facilitate opportunities for employees to increase their affiliations and maintain them. In
24

particular, leadership staff fostered a supportive environment, enabling social enterprise
employees to acquire attractive social skills and a sense of functionality and utility, which
increased their self-esteem. Correspondingly, the participants become helpful in building and
maintaining more affiliations that would help them in the future (Cook & Willets, 2019). This
meant that in the long run, the employees who were considered homeless could acquire stable
housing and maintain such through the many valuable affiliations they gained through the
services provided by the social enterprise.
Over the past two decades, the Roberts’ family foundation (REDF) has been one of the
biggest proponents of transitional work and social enterprises operating in over 30 states
(Geckeler, 2019). REDF highlights the impact of transitional work and employment social
enterprises (ESE), serving over 73,000 individuals with a return on investment to society of
$2.23 for every $1. Although ESE programs have been seeking to incorporate perceptual
feedback to evaluate and redesign programs focused on retention in recent years, programs like
Fund for Shared Insight are in the initial rollout stages seeking to close the feedback loop.
Pathway to Independence
Ponce et al. (2018) evaluated Pathways to Independence (PTI), which integrated housing
services with financial management classes, mental health assessment, and referral and
employment services. The researchers conducted focus group discussions with 17 program
stakeholders, including program participants, program staff, case management staff, landlords,
and employers. The participants were asked a range of questions revolving around the program
and its perceived impact on the beneficiaries. Five themes emerged from the responses: (1) the
majority highlighted the value of relationships; (2) most staff highlighted the importance of both
the specialization and provision of individualized services; (3) there was a need to have an
25

orientation to outcomes; (4) services must be comprehensive and connections to community
resources must be facilitated; and (5) there existed system challenges that were hard to
overcome. Despite the limitations, the researchers concluded that this program was promising
(Ponce et al., 2018). PTI acted as a working model for integrated employment and behavioral
treatment for individuals experiencing homelessness.
The role of housing is critical for the success of work first programs. The limitation of
daytime services such as education, work training, other labor market activation services is that
they provide no help with housing, and providing stable homes is not part of an integrated
strategy. For PEH to be provided training and education first to attract employers and earn
income to support their housing potentially is problematic because of the lack of a fixed base. If
individuals are to thrive in these work settings, they should have access to affordable homes that
can serve as a strong foundation for integration into the formal economy. To maintain the idea
that homeless people can live and earn income while living in tents and cars is a problem. It is
akin to allowing economic inclusion to occur without truly alleviating the issue of homelessness
and ignoring all the possible risks of homelessness to health, well-being, and social integration
(Metraux et al., 2018).
Ideological assumptions behind labor market activation programs designed for the
unhoused are also criticized. Some researchers have argued that work-ready services for this
population are too neoliberal and non-reactionary in their assumptions, objectives, and
constructs, failing to take stock of reality (Garrido, 2016).
Additionally, researchers have claimed that these programs are designed from the initial
assumption that homelessness is entirely self-inflicted and, therefore, can be changed if
individuals desire to do so. Therefore, most programs are designed to target behavioral
26

modifications, such as changing the work reluctant, work-shy, unready to work, work eager,
work brave, and work compliant. They would ultimately find out that this is not the case at all
(Garrido, 2016). Failing to recognize and overcome economic realities can lead to poorly
designed programs failing. For instance, making someone work-ready will not necessarily lead to
hiring when the economy is declining and companies have not been incentivized or trained to
work with vulnerable populations. Likewise, investing in dress-for-success programs may not
necessarily work if prospective employers only want to hire fresh graduates or those with
directly related and extensive work experience (Garrido, 2016). These limitations aggravate the
circumstances of PEH because these programs put a premium on unhoused to take just any jobs
that are available and sanction them for non-compliance, compromising their well-being and at
times not paying attention to the motivational barriers (Dwyer, 2018).
Chronic Homelessness
A recent study conducted by DePaul University and Yale School of Medicine examined
possible factors that predict employment service referral and employment outcomes among
individuals undergoing chronic homelessness. The participants were recruited from a service
program called Pathway to Independence (PTI), a housing placement service that also teaches
economic independence (Brown et al., 2019). According to the study, all 275 PTI participants
were studied through an observational study conducted over three years. In addition, the study
analyzed data collected during intake and throughout the three-year program to track progress as
part of the grant funding requirement of the program.
The study aimed to assess what factors predicted whether a person would request
referrals for employment services. A logistic regression analysis was performed for the two main
categories being evaluated. The results found that 52.3% were referred to employment services
27

and, of those, 37.8% attained full-time or part-time employment (Brown et al., 2019). The
findings of this study showed a greater level of engagement towards employment services by the
chronically homeless regardless of having stable housing, indicating the necessity to keep
employment a priority for all groups as part of the solution.
Physical Health Barriers
The PTI data analysis also focused on the possible predictors of demographics and health
indicators, evaluated through self-reported assessments throughout the three-year program
(Brown et al., 2019). The results showed significant co-factors to employment relating to
biological age and well-begin. The researchers concluded that younger participants, in general,
were more likely to seek employment, particularly those belonging to ethnic minority groups,
than their white homeless counterparts (Brown et al., 2019). The data also shows that PEH who
were unemployed due to a disability were less likely to ask for referrals than those without a
disability. Participants who reported a higher fitness level or health were also more likely to gain
employment by a 21% margin (Brown et al., 2019). The researchers believe that the outcomes
outlined in this PTI program observational analysis are relevant to developing employment
service programs. The demographic data and analysis of disability and physical health factors
over a long period provide evidential support for a known barrier to employment among the
general population. The findings are also supported by other studies, which provided that any
form of intervention for the issue of homelessness should encompass a range of employment
services that differ in intensity based on need as opposed to just having one standard program for
all irresponsive of physical needs and other factors (Brown et al., 2019; Weng & Clark, 2018).
The current body of literature also shows differences in participants’ demand for
employment referrals based on demographic variables. When crafting interventions for homeless
28

populations through employment, services should also be mindful of stigma and stereotype
threats about earning potential (Brown et al., 2019; Weng & Clark, 2018). Other studies have
claimed disability, gender, and racial disparities in the level of employment service referrals
warranted a more strategic approach to combat the imbalance of this crisis on vulnerable
populations (Brown et al., 2019; Weng & Clark, 2018).
Mental Health Barriers
Promeski and Hwang (2016) claimed that individuals who had recently experienced
homelessness while diagnosed with mental illnesses could have unique problems patronizing the
employment services crafted to solve homelessness. People with mental health conditions and a
recent history of homelessness have unique needs and might be inclined to accept supported
employment services. However, these individuals experience certain factors that can push them
to decline employment services they know they need. To test their hypothesis, the researchers
gathered data from 194 participants with mental illnesses receiving services and assistance
within a housing-first model, assessing them every three months for over two years. Then, the
researchers conducted an analysis to determine which variables were linked with the
participant’s decision to accept or decline employment services (Promeski & Hwang, 2016).
Additionally, a regression analysis was performed to note the odds or possibilities of
effectively gaining employment through employment services. Results of the analysis were
significant in showing these factors. Among the 194 participants, 133 (69%) claimed they
wanted work, 75 participants (56%) accepted referrals, and 58 individuals (44%) declined
employment referrals and other employment-related services (Promeski & Hwang, 2016).
The characteristics of those who declined employment referrals were those who had
obtained less education and were less likely to obtain employment independently. The results
29

also showed that those who declined were less likely to have a criminal record and experienced a
shorter period of homelessness, two factors considered barriers to employment (Poremski &
Hwang 2016). These results broadly align with the general estimate that as high as 87% of the
unhoused population seeks employment while 55 to 78% of those with mental illness want to
work (Promeski & Hwang, 2016).
Individual Placement Support (IPS)
Other researchers have evaluated the kind of placement programs that could meet the
needs of PEH with mental illness in terms of obtaining work and determined that high-fidelity
individual placement and support were most beneficial for people with mental illness.
Researchers found that such programs could produce superior outcomes compared to other types
of vocational programs. In addition, researchers have claimed that the benefits linked to IPS were
generalizable, which indicated that they might hold the key to the overall population facing
homelessness (Frederick & VanderWeele, 2019; Stanhope et al., 2012; Sveinsdottir et al., n.d).
The findings of these researchers regarding IPS benefitting a wider range of individuals, even
those who were unhoused, had important implications considering the understudied number of
people experiencing trauma or mental illness while experiencing homelessness.
As high as 78% of the unhoused population are willing to be referred to employment
(Fyhn et al., 2020; Poremski et al., 2017). However, previous research focused more on
disabilities than strengths, so the desire and willingness to gain employment and receive
employment support within this population has not been clearly estimated and requires further
research (Fyhn et al., 2020; Poremski et al., 2017).
Factors of IPS
30

Some researchers have established that PEH with mental illness want to be employed;
thus, they have called for more studies in evaluating whether the types of services known to be
effective in promoting employment for people without significant barriers can work for PEH
with mental illness (Kozloff et al., 2016; O’Day et al., 2017). Accurate evaluation is particularly
crucial given how critics of IPS literature have proclaimed findings that PEH with mental
illnesses genuinely want to work and obtain jobs were not likely accurate (Bond et al., 2019;
Fhyn et al., 2020). Therefore, more research is necessary to determine the number of individuals
likely to use services and their desired program models.
The data analysis by some researchers also focused on the desire of individuals who are
unhoused and grappling with mental illness and determined why some accepted randomization to
a controlled trial of IPS and others have declined. Researchers have hypothesized that
participants who perceived they did not need assistance to gain employment would decline other
employment-related services so that they can start earning and acquire long-term housing
(Abraham et al., 2017). Researchers have asserted that if homeless individuals’ self-appraised
ability to find work is always accurate, then these individuals would genuinely have no issues
obtaining employment without referrals and other employment services, even more so than those
who accepted referrals to and services of an IPS program. However, this seems not to be the
case, warranting more research to be completed to know what factors are behind the decline of
IPS services.
Abraham et al. (2017) performed their multi-site randomized controlled trial to examine
the impact of Housing First on a group of adults with a record of both homelessness and mental
illness. The participants of this study were offered assistance in locating and maintaining private
accommodations. When they were already on-site, they were also invited to participate in a sub-
31

study to receive IPS services so the latter's impact could be assessed. The participants were given
a chance to accept or decline. At baseline, the researchers already asked if the participants
desired to obtain paid employment. The interviewers also then collected demographic
information, evaluated their mental health with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric
Interview, and evaluated their level of risk to recover using the Recovery Assessment Scale
Community Integration Scale (CIS). At the end of the interview, participants in the experimental
group of this RTC were found eligible to be referred and accept the services of the IPS. The
researchers then categorized the participants on their choice to accept the subsidy on whether this
was borne from their desire to work. Employment and housing stability data were collected
every three months for all participants, even those who declined the services or subsidies.
Results of IPS
Poremski and Hwang (2016) applied logistic regression to determine if the participants
who rejected randomization had wanted to be employed had a higher chance of obtaining work
than participants who accepted randomization and, at the same time, wanted work as well. The
dependent variable was whether the participant had worked during 30-day segments over a
whole period of 24 months. The researchers also utilized housing status as a lagged-time
dependent covariate factor. Results were significant, showing that out of the total of 194
participants, 133 of them, or as high as 69%, expressed a desire for employment, but only 75%
agreed to be referred to IPS services (Poremski & Hwang, 2016; Rankin, 2019)
Poremski and Hwang’s (2016) findings could be significant because they added to the
literature how effective employment services could be for PEH by documenting the desire for
work as being high, even for those with mental illness. In addition, the findings revealed that
participants who desired employment but declined employment services had lower odds of
32

attaining employment than those who accepted the randomization to employment services
(Poremski & Hwang, 2016).
General Barriers to Access
In a comprehensive study conducted by the National Survey of Homeless Assistance
Providers and Clients (NSHAPC), when clients were asked to identify what is keeping them
from leaving homelessness, 30% stated insufficient income, and an additional 24% identified
lack of job or employment (Burt et al., 2001). Despite the evidence indicating the importance of
employment services, the majority of the homeless population has received food stamps (73%),
Medicare (37%), or emergency shelters assistance (64%). However, only 8% participated in job
training, and 11% sought employment assistance (Burt et al., 2001). Thus, employment services
remain an underutilized practice to prevent and end homelessness (Shaheen & Rio 2007; Radley
& Wilkins, 2010). Two possible motivational barriers were identified in the process of this
review: client perceptions of program efficacy and application and process overload.
Client Perceptions of Program Efficacy
Client perceptions of employment service programs have an intrinsic value because they
indicate whether programs appeal to their users (Burt et al., 1999). Client perception of
effectiveness and the ambiance of services and referrals, the evidence also shows clients who
received immediate and ongoing employment services were 2.5 times more likely to secure a job
12 months following services than those that did not participate (Radey & Wilkins, 2004). The
NSHAPC conducted one of the largest homeless studies, with a sample size of 4,207 clients that
used any of the more than 11,983 homeless assistance programs available in the United States
(Burt et al., 1999). The results showed that while clients viewed employment services as their
number one priority, total utilization of services remained below 20% (Burt et al., 1999). Some
33

of the reasons include clients' perception of the program model and transferability of training to
real-life settings (Corrigan et al., 2001). Clients also expressed fear of losing entitlements such as
health care and social security benefits (Shaheen & Rio, 2007). Additionally, lengthy training
programs without immediate access to permanent or transitional jobs had adverse outcomes on
program completion and overall client participation (Cook et al., 2001). Despite the
overwhelming evidence that job services played a significant role in self-sustenance, clients’
perception of program efficacy and welcoming staff that can differentiate services and strategies
to meet their needs and current capabilities played a significant role in using services.
Application and Process Overload
The impact of multiple applications and burdensome verification processes on people
seeking housing and employment services is significant (Radey & Wilkins, 2004). Participants
and providers often mention that fragmented systems, few agency-business partnerships, and
complex government benefits systems are overwhelming (Radey & Wilkins, 2004). These
processes often create additional barriers and can also be triggering for marginalized populations
having to re-tell their story to multiple agencies and case workers. In 1995, HUD put in place a
requirement that each community must submit a single comprehensive continuum of care (CoC)
to streamline the process (Evans et al., 2019). While the concept of CoC has been helpful in
providing a more coordinated level of assistance and an entry system (CES) since 2012, the
services have largely focused on moving the homeless population through a continuum from
shelters to transitional or long-term residence (Evans et al., 2019). V ocational training programs
and all other employment services are often not included in these CES systems and require a
whole new application requesting similar information (Shaheen & Rio 2007). Additionally,
employment services often require additional resources such as transportation and right-to-work
34

identification that can create cognitive overload and fear, especially for clients facing mental
health, substance abuse, undocumented status, or other systemic barriers (Radey & Wilkins,
2004).
Comparative Strategies for Success
Chicago, Illinois
A possibly effective prevention program in Chicago was reviewed by a study out of
Norte Dame University (Evans et al., 2016). This program is designed to provide the homeless
with both immediate and long-term assistance. It offers those who would call a hotline one-time
cash assistance. Usually, callers are families that suddenly lost or were at grave risk of losing
their homes. Callers who show that they can still be financially self-sufficient but are presently
undergoing an eligible crisis can get a one-time sum of $1,500. The result of this is the reduction
in the size of the homeless population that can crowd out those who need more significant help.
Results indeed showed that the program was able to reduce shelter entry by as high as 76% for
program recipients compared to a comparable group who were eligible but happened to call on
days when funds are not available. Overall, this program implies that the significance of the one-
time assistance cannot be underestimated.
Further, homelessness has become a rare outcome among the control group. On the one
hand, this proves that families can find options of themselves that help them avoid becoming
homeless by providing one-time financial assistance. On the other hand, the researchers claimed
that this implies the effectiveness of identifying the proper participant sample is still lacking. The
program is also relatively cost-effective because the total cash assistance provided during the
studied period was considerably less than the cash spent in running a complete housing program.
The results may be promising, but there remain limitations calling for more research and
35

improvement. The promising efficiency of this Chicago program would have been more efficient
and cost-beneficial if it were more effectively targeted to the higher-risk callers than those whose
homelessness risk can go away with one-time financial assistance only (Evans et al., 2016).
New Y ork City
Another program located in New York has demonstrated great promise, though with
certain limitations. In contrast to the Chicago program, the study in New York has demonstrated
how prevention services may be more effectively targeted to improve their efficiency. The
Homebase Prevention Program offers a range of homelessness prevention services in
community-based settings instead of one-time cash assistance to help a person or family at-risk
of homelessness. The services include but are not limited to cash assistance, benefits counseling,
case management, legal assistance, job placement, and other services.
Shih et al. (2013) conducted a study to design and then assess a screening model for
families in New York City who applied to the homeless program, focusing on the service
providers' perceptions who can exercise their judgment. The results concluded that the program
could shorten the average length of shelter stays by a total of 22.6 nights in comparison to a
control group. In addition, results showed that the average number of nights in a shelter for all
homebased participants (covering the nights there was no shelter yet) was 9.6 nights. Results also
showed that the average number of nights in a shelter for every individual that forms part of the
control group, including those with no nights in a shelter, was 32.2 nights. This was quite
impressive compared to other homeless prevention programs. However, its limitations can be
considered in contrast with the Chicago program.
While the Chicago program was efficient, it was not as effectively targeted as it should
have been. The New York program, on the other hand, appears more effective in reducing shelter
36

stays and homelessness prevention, but targeting a larger population was not efficiently
completed. Shinn et al. (2013) compared the families that the model described as the most at-risk
of becoming homeless with the families that another program’s staff judged to be the ones
eligible for the program. Results showed that the New York program has a more precise result. It
was able to predict shelter entry as well as possible false alarms more accurately.
Comparative Analysis
Despite their limitations, both the Chicago and New York programs showed that short-
term cash assistance, as well as other temporary services, can be effective in helping at-risk
families avoid the emergency shelter system (Von Wachter, 2019). That said, both programs
revealed a level of difficulty of properly targeting would-be participants. Both relied on
simplistic methods to note if a person was truly in danger of losing their homes (Von Wachter,
2019).
People experiencing homelessness (PEH) with compromised mental health are often
willing to work but face several barriers in making that happen, even if they are provided with
support services. For example, in a study of homeless veterans with serious mental illness, Stacy
et al. (2017) showed that Individual Placement and Support (IPS) can enhance competitive
employment rates for those with serious mental illness (SMI). This program is available through
the Veterans Healthcare Administration (VHA). However, despite this benefit, the researchers
also found that most clients have difficulty maintaining employment for a range of issues. Thus,
they highlight that it is possible to provide jobs to the unhoused with mental illness, but it can be
all too easy to lose the same jobs within a short period.
The researchers designed the study to find out the range of factors and reasons why the
homeless can still lose their jobs after getting their occupation through the program. Before this
37

study, no study had yet assessed how and why IPS job loss occurred among PEH, particularly
those with substance use disorder. In addition, Stacy et al., (2017) analyzed data using the quasi-
experimental demonstration to evaluate if a homeless veteran’s duration in the first IPS job can
be affected by specific characteristics. Another question that the researchers tried to answer was
whether there exists a relationship between job duration and reasons for job loss with subsequent
employment. Results showed many insights on how employment services for the homeless
veteran can be improved. First, substance abuse, mental health challenges, and physical
disabilities were the common factors explaining IPS job loss. Second, the results indicated that
those who secured jobs through the IPS and subsequently lost due to drugs/alcohol use were less
likely to obtain subsequent employment. Ultimately, those who lose their jobs because of mental
or physical disabilities had higher chances of securing subsequent employment.
Homelessness in California
As of January 2019, 27% of homeless individuals in the entire United States are in
California. For the last decade, homelessness in this state has increased by 22%, and between
2018 and 2019, homelessness in the state has increased by at least 16%. Compared to the rate in
2017, this has included a marked increase of 77% (Flaming et al., 2018; Henwood & Padgett,
2019; Holland & Smith, 2017; Henwood & Padgett, 2019; Von Wachter et al., 2019). People
experiencing unsheltered homelessness are highly at-risk of experiencing health issues, violence,
and trauma, as well as more extended periods of homelessness. What makes the unsheltered
homeless people such a vulnerable group is that they are also the most prone to engage more
with police and emergency health services compared to people staying in shelters (Flaming et al.,
2018; Henwood & Padgett, 2019; Holland & Smith, 2017; Henwood & Padgett, 2019; Von
Wachter et al., 2019).
38

The characteristics of homeless people in California can be deemed unique. As many as
28% of the homeless in California are tagged as chronically homeless. Moreover, 2019 statistics
have demonstrated that more males were homeless than females in California, 65% compared to
22.4% female, 1.2% transgender, and 0.4% those who identify as gender non-conforming
(Flaming et al., 2018). Based on the same estimates, people of color are more likely to suffer
from homelessness. The overrepresented California population experiencing homelessness are
African American, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, and other minority
groups (Flaming et al., 2018).
Homelessness in Los Angeles County
The lack of affordable housing underlined by various systemic issues is the primary cause
of this crisis. As of 2019, California was already found lacking 1.4 million affordable homes to
meet demand. This problem has been decades in the making. Housing construction has lagged in
California’s coastal metro areas since the 1990s, making housing prices skyrocket. California’s
major metro areas have higher rates of severe rent burden compared to the average U.S. area.
Another reason why homelessness is such a pervasive problem in California is because of its
race problem. Black people are overly represented in the criminal justice system (Flaming et al.,
2018). They are also faced with higher levels of historical employment discrimination and
housing segregation. Over several decades, the convergence of these factors has caused housing
and employment conditions to become severely compromised. As a result, black people
represent over 35% of the homeless population in LA while making up only 7.9% of the general
population (Los Angeles Housing Authority, 2020).
The widespread problem of chronic and non-chronic homelessness in LA does not appear
to be subsiding; in fact, it is rapidly growing out of control. In Los Angeles County, an estimated
39

16,528 homeless individuals sleep and live in their vehicles, primarily vans and campers.
However, one problem is that there are only 354 Safe Parking spaces that exist in Los Angeles.
In Los Angeles Country, as high as 14,537 people are tagged as chronically homeless and
without shelters. Despite this very high number, less than 10,000 supportive housing units are
available and (in the pipeline) (Holland & Smith, 2017; Henwood & Padgett, 2019; Von Wachter
et al., 2019). By 2030, it is estimated that the percentage age of older adults among the entire
homeless population will increase by 5%. Among those 65 years and older, the increase will be
as high as 103%, which is alarming. The research also shows that adult Latinos and non-Blacks
are experiencing higher rates of new homelessness than other groups of people of color (Holland
& Smith, 2017; Henwood & Padgett, 2019; Von Wachter et al., 2019).
Studies have shown that homeless individuals in LA disproportionately have a mental
illness, physical disabilities, and substance abuse compared to other cities (Holland & Smith,
2017; Henwood & Padgett, 2019; Von Wachter et al., 2019). Nevertheless, the data shows, LA
County has consistently strived to arrive at new and more ambitious ways to develop and scale
programs to end chronic homelessness for the past decade. The efforts never waned, but
strangely, homelessness has worsened through the years, increasing by double-digit margins year
over year (Holland & Smith, 2017; Henwood & Padgett, 2019; Von Wachter et al., 2019).
Starting with the United Way of Greater Los Angeles’ Home for Good Initiative, LA County
never stopped uncovering new methods to eliminate the issue of homelessness effectively. They
have formulated a range of programs and entered further cross-sector analysis. The state and
county have commissioned multiple studies and partnered with agencies to implement measures
and strategies to provide housing and supportive services to the region’s homeless and other
vulnerable citizens (Henwood & Padgett, 2019; Kuhn et al., 2020).
40

Over the past decade, philanthropic grants and public funding were devoted to designing
pockets of innovation that showed effective strategies that addressed the needs of chronic
homeless individuals. However, public investment at the scale required to address the extent of
chronic homelessness experienced in LA has never been able to combat the scope of the crisis.
One of the key stakeholders in this space is the United Way of Greater Los Angeles (UWGLA).
Since 2010, UWGLA has created a community-driven initiative to end homelessness in LA
through Home for Good (HFG). HFG is responsible for implementing the Communities of Care
system and CES intakes and has partnered with over 300 community partners and works closely
with LAHSA. Annual reports show, since 2011, UWGLA has raised 62 million dollars in private
funding while leveraging over 5 billion in public resources towards ending homelessness (United
Way of Greater Los Angeles, 2021).
The public perception among Angelinos about the unhoused has begun to shift. In recent
years, LA voters passed two measures: Proposition HHH and Measure H (Henwood & Padgett,
2019; Kuhn et al., 2020). These two propositions significantly increased the resources being
committed to begin solving the homelessness crisis within the community. Nevertheless, though
these efforts signified progress in helping many obtain permanent housing, it does not reduce the
unhoused year over year. The January 2019 Point-in-Time Count even demonstrated a 12%
increase in people experiencing homelessness across Los Angeles County and a 17% increase in
people undergoing chronic homelessness than the rate in 2018. This increase is disappointing
given all the efforts and strategies of community stakeholders and policymakers to address the
chronic homelessness issue. However, since other communities in southern California have
witnessed higher percentage increases in their homelessness rates compared to the rate of
increase experienced in Los Angeles, this means that had there been no investments made in Los
41

Angeles County, the increase in homelessness between 2018 and 2019 would be even higher
than it is today.
It has entered national consciousness that LA faces a homelessness crisis with
increasingly marginalized and vulnerable populations that need the utmost attention (Henwood
& Padgett, 2019; Kuhn et al., 2020). The most recent data shows rent in Los Angeles rose to an
average of $2,182, which is 2.8% higher than the current minimum wage (Los Angeles
Homeless Services Authority, 2020). The same report states that Los Angeles needs 509,000 new
affordable housing units to meet the current demand. Three years after measures H and HHH
were approved by voters, the average cost of building a single housing unit for the homeless has
risen to $531,000 from a proposed budget of $350,000 a unit (Los Angeles Times, 2020).
COVID-19 Implications in Los Angeles
In response to the Covid-19 global pandemic, LA invested in existing structures and
hotels to convert vacant properties as shelters for the unhoused. The programs entitled Project
Room Key (PRK) and Project Home Key (PHK) have been in operation since March 2020.
While PRK covers LA city, PHK was established as a longer-term transitional housing for all LA
county. Under these models, hotels and other large facilities faced with vacancies due to the
pandemic have been designated to provide shelter to those at high risk due to other underlying
health conditions. The PRK and PHK initiative has shown a promising model on how the city
can respond to a crisis and establish a prototype for converting existing structures for long-term
solutions. This model was set to expire but has continually been expanded due to federal funding
from the CARES act (United Way of Los Angeles, 2021). However, much remains uncertain for
its long-term viability until city regulations can be changed beyond the pandemic, and further
research is needed to ascertain the long-term implications.
42

Presentation of Theories
This study will be guided by the conceptual model of Clark and Estes (2008),
highlighting the importance of knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) processes that
can be examined within organizational environments and the theoretical foundation of the
Theory of Change (TOC). The conceptual model and the theoretical foundation will be discussed
below, identifying the influences that will guide this study.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework grounding this study is guided by Clark and Estes’ (2008)
knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) model. The model purports that
organizations' performance issues are caused by factors related to knowledge, motivation, and
organizational causes. This framework reveals any gaps between an organization's actual
performance and the desired performance in hopes that KMO can guide the results of this study
to identify changes that organizations offering employment services need to make to meet the
needs of the unhoused better.
Knowledge
For this study, knowledge refers to an organization’s purpose or mission statement.
Within an organization’s purpose or mission statement, it is important for them to define their
moral responsibilities and how they respond to the phenomenon impacting the populations they
serve. Therefore, for this current study, knowledge would be referred to as the systems and
policies set forth by an employment agency that would benefit clients who identify as homeless
and the employment services they require. To ensure that an organization’s purpose or mission
statement is strong, it is essential to learn the most critical services in the sector. This current
study will fill in this knowledge gap by providing organizations with information from
43

individuals who identify as homeless and their experiences when attempting to utilize
employment services within Los Angeles County. Additionally, by increasing knowledge for
employment agencies, employment organizations can better understand how they can improve
their services to the homeless population, decreasing any barriers experienced. Table 1 highlights
the summary of knowledge influences, types, and related assessments necessary for employment
organizations to achieve the goal of implementing appropriate employment programs for
homeless individuals.

44

Table 1
Knowledge Influences
Organizational mission

This organization's mission is to create a pathway to self-sufficiency for people experiencing
homelessness (PEH) and low-income individuals by providing the resources and support
needed to find and retain employment.

Organizational global goal

By January 2022, the organization offering employment services to the unhoused in LA will
implement new outreach strategies to increase awareness about their services.

Stakeholder goal

By December 2023, participation levels in transitional jobs and employment services as
preventative services will aim to serve an additional 6,500 individuals per year to reduce the
annual homeless count by 51% year over year

Knowledge influence Knowledge type Knowledge influence
assessment

Organizations need to know
the barriers and why the
majority of the unhoused do
not use employment
services.

Declarative (factual)

Semi-structured interviews of
PEH in LA to describe
their knowledge about
current programs.

Organizations must clearly
distinguish between what
services are currently
offered and what the
population requires.

Declarative (conceptual and
procedural)

Semi-structured interviews
describe the differences
between what is currently
offered in a program and
their specific needs.

Organizations need to know
the strategies they must
develop to provide PEH in
LA with relevant trainings.

Declarative (conceptual)

PEH will be asked to provide
examples of training and
supportive services they
need to find employment.

Organizations need to reflect
on whether the services
offered to PEH align with
the population’s needs and
job interests.

Metacognitive

PEH will be asked about their
knowledge about programs
offered to them and others
in their circle and if they
meet their specific needs.
45

Motivation
Under KMO, motivation aids in better understanding how homeless individuals perceive
or believe in the provided services. Any barriers individuals face while trying to gain access to
employment services could play a pivotal role in decreasing their motivation levels and
engagement in employment services. Additionally, if employment services programs offered by
organizations are not adequately meeting their needs, motivation for continued participation can
also suffer. By focusing on specific markers and drivers that impact motivation, the study can
allow stakeholders to understand what the population is experiencing and how to overcome those
challenges.
Attribution theory is one framework that focuses on the causal attributions made by
individuals seeking to understand themselves and their environment (Weiner, 1986). Three
causal dimensions frame perceptions of attributions: locus, stability, and controllability
(Weinder, 1986). Locus relates to the location of the cause as an internal or external source,
stability identifies the duration of the cause as fixed or variable, and controllability relates to
individual perceptions of volition (Fisherman & Husman, 2017; Weinder, 1986).
The framework of attribution theory can be used to identify the affective disposition of
the homeless population facing severe unemployment and poverty. Through this lens,
organizations can seek to determine the motivational barriers in utilizing employment training
and services. For example, the data shows that over half of individuals experiencing
homelessness identified employment and income as the top barrier preventing them from being
stably housed; over three-fourths did not have permanent jobs. These perceptions are significant
to address because, according to attribution theory, persistent, uncontrollable problems can lead
to affective responses of shame, guilt, and hopelessness (Weiner, 1986; Harvey & Martinko,
46

2011). As a result, employment service providers should understand the role of attribution styles
that can lead to negative/deactivating behaviors and engage in attributional retraining strategies
to increase effectiveness.
By providing organizations that offer employment services to the homeless with
knowledge regarding barriers for their potential clients, changes can be recommended to align
their purpose and mission statements, increasing motivation throughout the entire organizational
culture. Table 2 below highlights the summary of motivational influences and related
assessments necessary for employment organizations to achieve the goal of implementing
effective employment programs for homeless individuals in Los Angeles County, California.

47

Table 2
Motivational Influences
Organizational mission

This organization's mission is to create a pathway to self-sufficiency for people experiencing
homelessness (PEH) and low-income individuals by providing the resources and support
needed to find and retain employment.

Organizational global goal

By January 2022, the organization offering employment services to PEH in LA will redesign
its outreach strategy by incorporating staff and community members' lived-in experiences and
continual feedback. Solutions will be focused on providing an evolving job-readiness program
and greater access to an array of supportive services to overcome motivational barriers to
reconnecting to the workforce.

Stakeholder goal

By December 2023, participation levels in transitional jobs and employment services as
preventative services will aim to serve an additional 6,500 individuals per year to reduce the
annual homeless count by 51% year over year.

Assumed motivational influences Motivational influence assessment

Value (Utility)

Semi-structured interviews with unhoused
individuals in LA, with questions focused on
their perceived values of having employment
services.

Value (Intrinsic)

Semi-structured interviews with unhoused
individuals in LA that focus on their
engagement and satisfaction when it comes to
job training or transitional jobs.

Individual Self-Efficacy

Semi-structured interview questions that ask
unhoused individuals in LA about their
confidence levels on how they can complete
an employment program or obtain a job.

Collective Self-Efficacy

Semi-structured interview questions that
focus on perceptions of community-level
motivation around employment services by
those experiencing homelessness.

48

Organizational Causes
KMO also examines organizational causes, and the organizational aspect would include
the program model and efficiency of identified employment programs and the larger systems in
place. Therefore, the key stakeholders under this conceptual framework include the homeless
population, clients of employment services agencies, the employment agency staff and leaders,
and community leaders. This overarching framework seeks to understand the impact of the
systemic and organizational barriers including the benefits of cliff and housing first policies that
influence potential clients from entering employment services and the knowledge and capacity of
current program models and delivery of services that can affect change in outcomes, as depicted
in Figure 1 (Creswell, 2014). When examining the above constructs of knowledge and
motivation, an organization needs to concentrate on its culture. If the organizational culture does
not change to reflect the increased knowledge, the results will not change, nor will motivation
levels. Table 3 summarizes organizational influences and related assessments necessary for
employment organizations to achieve the goal of implementing effective employment programs
and services for the homeless population of Los Angeles County, California.

49

Table 3
Organizational Influences
Organizational mission

This organization's mission is to create a pathway to self-sufficiency for people experiencing
homelessness (PEH) and low-income individuals by providing the resources and support
needed to find and retain employment.

Organizational global goal

By January 2022, the organization offering employment services to PEH in LA will redesign
its outreach strategy by incorporating staff and community members' lived-in experiences and
perceptual feedback. Solutions will be focused on providing an evolving job-readiness
program and greater access to an array of supportive services to overcome motivational
barriers on reconnecting to the workforce.

Stakeholder goal

By December 2023, participation levels in transitional jobs and employment services as
preventative services will aim to serve an additional 6,500 individuals per year to reduce the
annual homeless count by 51% year over year.

Assumed organizational influences

Organizational influence assessment

Support systems and feedback.

Semi-structured interview questions aimed at determining
PEH perceptions regarding specific aspects of employment
programming: peer coaching, collaboration, skill-building,
interventions, and job readiness.

Communication and organizational
values.

Semi-structured interview questions regarding previous
interactions with employment agencies and what PEH
would like to see changed for better engagement and
outreach.

50

It is important to note that although the assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences are discussed separately in this section of the literature review, the
constructs themselves are intertwined and do not operate independently. Therefore, in this study,
the three influences of knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes must be addressed
simultaneously for success. The conceptual framework above highlights how the three influences
can work together within employment organizations in Los Angeles County to achieve 50% of
the homeless population utilizing employment services. By monitoring the three different
influences as identified in Figure 2, employment organizations can better understand the barriers
related to employment services for homeless individuals and increase their retention rates by
aligning the program’s goals with the stakeholders’ needs.

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

Barriers to Employment
PROGRAM
MODEL/EFFICACY
ORBANIZATIONAL
CULTURE
SYSTEMS/POLICIES
51

The Theory of Change within KMO Constructs
When examining the different constructs of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
culture within an organization, it is important to highlight how effective changes can be
implemented. The theory of change (TOC) aids organizations in planning, participating and
evaluating services to promote social change (Mayne, 2017). TOC also presents the link between
program activities, intermediate outcomes, and ultimate goals by identifying long-term goals and
then have organizations map backward to map out critical preconditions (Walker & Matraeese,
2011).
The TOC aligns with the KMO model, mainly because TOC aids companies in planning,
participating, and evaluating services to promote social change. Like TOC, the KMO model
examines an organization's current systems and policies while examining the organization's
culture that reflects upon the program model and efficiency of the program. Under the TOC,
individuals can make changes based upon knowledge, motivation, and organizational cultural
environments. For example, organizations can make changes based upon gaining an increase of
knowledge from homeless individuals. By gaining knowledge of any barriers that homeless
individuals experience, organizations can better align their services that can aid in reducing
barriers.
Motivation is another vital construct within the TOC because barriers like self-efficacy
and feelings of hopelessness can significantly decrease an individual’s motivation level to make
healthy changes (Specht et al., 2018). Therefore, in this study, the participants who identify as
homeless will discuss barriers about how it affects their motivation levels in seeking help. This
information can additionally aid in motivating organizations to make changes to their programs,
policies, and procedures to bring their purpose and mission statement into a more substantial
52

alignment with community needs. Utilizing both the TOC and KMO model can ensure that the
alignment of this study remains strong by examining how organizations can change or adapt to
meet the social needs of their clients.
Conclusion
This literature review discussed key topics vital to conducting the proposed study. The
pervasive issue of homelessness and the current strategies to combat this crisis were discussed in
detail. Particularly in Los Angeles, many of the current strategies appear to be failing, not just in
the number of people suffering but also in the severity of the challenges they face from living on
the streets. Researchers also claimed that there is hope that chronic homelessness is on the
decline nationwide through continuous improvements of programs and funding. There have been
programs in New York and Chicago that showed promise. However, non-chronic homelessness
impacting the more significant portion of the unhoused population increases by double digits.
The purpose of this review was to understand better the barriers involved in the failure to
utilize employment services by the most addressable job-seeking homeless population. Strategies
including housing first, rapid rehousing, perception of program efficacy, and application
overload were examined for effectiveness and potential barriers. Existing research also indicates
that successful employment may be feasible without housing first, and it may also protect
individuals from additional negative consequences of homelessness (Radley & Wilkins, 2010).
Furthermore, employment services can be delivered on par with other permanent and social
services using integrated platforms for ease of access (Shaheen & Rio 2007).
The next chapter of this dissertation is that of Chapter 3, which will provide an overview
of this current study’s methodology, outlining the selected research design, the population, and
sampling methods, and will conclude with a discussion on the data analysis plan, ethical
53

considerations that I must follow, and an outline of the study’s assumptions, limitations,
delimitations, and how trustworthiness will be maintained.

54

Chapter Three: Methodology
This study follows a qualitative descriptive research design. This design is appropriate for
this study as this methodology and design aim to obtain an accurate description of a phenomenon
(Kim et al., 2017). Therefore, in this study, 20 participants completed semi-structured interviews
to describe any barriers they experienced when seeking employment or utilizing supportive
services to obtain jobs or other resources. When designing the study, other qualitative research
modalities were considered but ultimately rejected, such as grounded theory and ethnography.
Grounded theory research aims to discover or construct a theory based on the data
collected during the study and is more suited for systemic and objective studies with multiple
data sources (Glaser & Strauss, 2017). Ethnography was also considered but ultimately rejected
as this research design aims to understand individuals’ culture through in-person observations
(Cahill et al., 2018). As discussed in previous chapters, this study uses Clark and Estes's (2008)
conceptual framework of knowledge, motivation, and organizational processes (KMO) to
understand why the phenomenon of homelessness has continued to expand in LA. My research
focus was on exploring how participants described this phenomenon from their experiences.
Therefore, qualitative descriptive research or what is known as phenomenology was the best fit.
Research Questions
1. What are the knowledge and motivational factors that impact the utilization of
employment services by the homeless in L.A.?
2. What are the barriers that homeless individuals in Los Angeles County perceive
when seeking employment?
55

3. How can employment service agencies improve their planning, participation, and
evaluation of services to better address barriers experienced by homeless individuals
in Los Angeles County?
Sample and Population
In this study, my goal was to collect data from 20 - 25 participants with lived-in
experience to describe the phenomenon of homelessness and unemployment. The target
population was focused on homeless individuals currently living in Los Angeles County. The
participants were purposefully selected with the lived experience of facing unemployment and
homelessness in LA, with additional focus on individuals that identified as non-chronically
homeless. A person is considered chronically homeless if they have been experiencing
homelessness for over 12 months or have had more than three episodes of homelessness in their
lifetime (Housing and Urban Development, 2020).
Some of the participants were recruited based on their proximity to the most prominent
employment service agencies in LA, close to the Skid row neighborhood (considered the
epicenter of the homeless crisis in LA). While the initial strategy was to identify any knowledge
gaps from those residing near skid-row and well-known employment agencies, the overall
recruiting process was ultimately expanded to all neighborhoods in LA to ensure a diverse pool
of participants representing LA county.
The outreach process overall was challenging based on the criteria outlined, mainly due to
some technological barriers. To ensure success, I also contacted many of the coordinated care
entry system agencies that serve as the frontline access point for the unhoused and asked for their
assistance in distributing flyers to their networks. In addition, I posted flyers throughout LA in
shelter agencies, marketplaces, and other public boards so the information and criteria could
56

reach as many participants as possible. The flyers and emails also included information on a
small incentive for participating in the study with a $25 gift card. Finally, the flyers and emails
were distributed from May 2021 until July 2021 to provide ample time for interested candidates
to participate in the study. The timeframe was also essential to allow for some snowball sampling
to take effect over 60 days.
The final number of participants (n=20) was determined by data saturation and my capacity
to conduct effective research. Data saturation is when the researcher experiences redundancy in
the participants' answers during their semi-structured interviews, signaling that no new
information is obtained (Faulkner & Trotter, 2017). When using a purposive sampling method, I
ensured that each participant met the following criteria:
1. Each participant must be homeless as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
2. Each participant must be over the age of 18.
3. Each participant must be in Los Angeles County.
4. Each participant must be unemployed.
Instrumentation
The primary form of data collection for this study is qualitative interviews from the
perspective of those experiencing the phenomenon. When conducting semi-structured
interviews, I asked 20 participants the same open-ended questions in a private setting, allowing
them to answer the questions based on their knowledge and experience. Each semi-structured
interview was electronically recorded so the data could be accurately transcribed for analysis, but
the audio recording was destroyed after transcription.
57

Interviews
The interview protocol for this study was a semi-structured set of questions with
flexibility. It began with a brief introduction and a list of 15 questions to guide the process
(Appendix C). There was no predetermined order to allow the conversation to flow more
naturally. I chose this method because my research questions primarily focus on knowledge,
opinions, values, and experiences. I wanted to ensure the data was rich in content from the
participant's perspective. The semi-structured element allowed the research to stay on topic but
allowed respondents to define their experiences uniquely.
The interviews took an average of 45 minutes with each candidate. There was a total of
three instances where the interview had to be rescheduled or moved around due to technical
difficulties or background noise. However, most interviews were conducted in one sitting, either
by telephone or in-person.
Special Circumstances
Due to the current Covid-19 pandemic and its significant impact on the unhoused
populations, extra precautions were taken to ensure the safety of all participants. In the initial
phase of the study, individuals could only participate through a mobile phone or pre-arranged
calls at shelters or housing provider agencies. However, as the COVID-19 restrictions shifted
during the study, additional face-to-face interviews were conducted after June 15, 2021. As a
result, an amendment was submitted following the IRB protocol of USC and Department of
Health guidelines to begin in-person interviews, which lifted restrictions for research to conduct
in-person interviews while maintaining social distancing and masking guidelines.
Like the phone interviews, the additional in-person interviews used the same set of semi-
structured questions and criteria to ensure the data was consistent. Research indicates that
58

purposefully selecting the right sample size, population, and criteria is critical to enhancing the
quality and credibility of the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Data Analysis
The data analysis process began during the interview process. As the only researcher
conducting interviews, it was essential for me to capture each interview characteristic accurately.
I used preliminary notes during the interview process and developed memos immediately after
each interview to collect thoughts, concerns, and any relevant facts about the conceptual
framework and research questions that emerged. The university media platform was used for the
transcripts in each interview (phone or in-person), so the audio transcript could be downloaded
and stored without participant identifying information. After the conclusion of the interviews,
topics were categorized into themes to begin the data analysis process. I began with an open
codebook looking for empirical data and applied themes from the conceptual framework. In the
second analysis stage, I began to aggregate into axial codes and conclude with patterns and
themes most relevant to the conceptual framework and research questions.
The KMO influences on knowledge and motivation and how they operate within
employment service agencies and the ethos of homeless service providers in LA were closely
examined from the rich data to arrive at the key findings and recommendations. While there are
additional strategies for qualitative data analysis, including developing priori codes, an open
codebook was the most effective strategy for this research because there are often multiple
realities in qualitative studies. In addition, the data analysis is an interactive process and allows
the researcher to produce believable and trustworthy findings from the raw data (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
59

In presenting the findings, I used verbatim quotes to capture the whole essence of the
phenomenon as experienced by individuals with lived experience. Quotations were lifted directly
from the codebook to strengthen the authenticity of findings through the voices of the unhoused
in LA.
Ethics
When completing the study, it is important to highlight other ethical assurances that must
be followed. Before beginning the study, I gained approval from the university’s Institutional
Review Board (IRB). Additionally, before the participants could join the study, they gave verbal
consent to the outlines and the purpose of the study, what is required of them as participants. The
disclosure listed the criteria and the level of risk associated with this study. It should be noted
that this study poses little to no risks to the participants as they are only being asked to describe
perceived barriers that they experience when utilizing the services of employment agencies.
While the overall risk was considered minimal, participants were informed that they could skip
any question or remove themselves from the study at any time without any repercussions.
Additionally, I ensured confidentiality in this study by removing any participant
identifying information, instead referring to them in numerical order (e.g., PEH1, PEH2, etc.), no
identifying information was stored or intentionally collected, and the interview data was placed
in a secure drive, located inside the private office at my residence. I will destroy all information
of this study after five years, as dictated by USC’s IRB protocol.
Positionality
My positionality as a stably housed, employed individual living in LA influences my
outlook on the purpose of this study and possible findings. My experience working in
employment service agencies also influences my perceptions of current systems of care and
60

programs serving the unhoused in LA. Throughout the research process, I took the precaution to
avoid framing the data or literature directly through the lens of my occupation. Some of the
practical measures I took include not mentioning my agency or mission statement throughout the
interview process. If participants were aware of my occupation, I took additional steps to ensure
participants were fully aware that this study was not related to my employment or delivery of
services. In addition, none of the respondents had ever interacted with me at my workplace or
any other setting. As a result, I believe that the data collected will be void of influences by one
specific agency or program model; however, it must be noted that my previous experience will
undoubtedly influence my understanding of the problem.
My paradigm of inquiry is constructivism. Under constructivism, the theory of existence
(ontology) suggests there are multiple socially constructed realities, and the theory of knowledge
(epistemology) infers that humans construct contextual meaning (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).
Using a constructivism philosophy, I gathered the data with the foundation that the knower and
the respondents co-create understanding through an open dialogue (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
The statistical sample indicates the strength of a qualitative study, while reliability is
ensuring the information is consistent and trustworthy. Information-rich cases can reveal a great
deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the study (Patton, 2002).
I took the following steps to maximize credibility and trustworthiness: member check, to
ensure my interpretation of the data collected reflects the intent of the respondents; Reflexivity,
ensuring my positionality biases and assumptions are explained; an Audit Trail, detailing how
the data was collected and categorized (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016; Maxwell, 2013).
61

The final measure I took to limit research bias was around the final interview protocol
itself. While the interview questions were open-ended to capture rich qualitative data, I took
measures to ensure I asked participants the same semi-structured questions as the foundation. I
would then ask follow-up questions to have a participant clarify or expand on an answer
(Castillo-Montoya, 2016). The goal was to ensure that all participants provided information that
aligns with the study questions and their experiences versus my thoughts or beliefs.
I also consulted with four experts working in human service agencies serving the
unhoused for accountability and greater alignment. These selected experts worked in government
agencies, non-profits ranging from employment agencies to housing services, guided the study
approach, and reviewed the open-ended questions, problem statement, purpose statement,
research questions, methodology, and conceptual model. I received feedback to make the
interview process more accessible and aligned with the needs of the population. Upon receiving
feedback from the panel of experts, I was able to incorporate changes to some of the questions
and guide the framing of the literature study and, ultimately, the recommendations.
Limitations and Delimitations
Some limitations need to be identified in this current study. Resource capacity often
dictates the scope and sample size of a study. To identify the phenomenon being explored in this
study, only one primary stakeholder group was studied. Additionally, while the interviews were
administered with the utmost care to create an open dialogue that promoted honest and accurate
reflections, the truthfulness of participants' responses should be considered
Researcher bias should also be considered as a limiting factor of this study. Because I
have preconceived notions and thoughts regarding homelessness and the services of employment
agencies that cater to the homeless population, researcher bias could occur. Researcher bias
62

occurs when the researcher injects his values or thoughts into the study, potentially affecting or
impacting the results (Johnson et al., 2020). In order to limit instances of researcher bias, I
developed a vetted interview protocol to ensure that the open-ended interview questions were
asked to align with the purpose of the study and the guiding research questions. (Castillo-
Montoya, 2016).
Some delimitations limit the scope of this study. First, a majority of the interviews were
conducted over the phone, limiting the capacity to capture non-verbal communication cues.
Second, because this study was completed in Los Angeles County, the results may not
necessarily be generalized to other populations and geographical areas outside of this area
(Knottnerus et al., 2020). In order to explore how the unhoused describe barriers when accessing
the services of employment agencies, further research would be warranted.

63

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to understand better the barriers in successfully utilizing
employment services by the unhoused population in Los Angeles (LA). Current housing first and
rapid rehousing strategies, with optional supportive services, have decreased homelessness
nationally but not in LA. Chapter Four reviews the KMO influences on employment service
agencies and the perceived barriers by those experiencing homelessness. The following three
research questions were used to guide the semi-structured interviews and determine the KMO
influences framing this study:
1. What are the knowledge and motivation factors that impact the utilization of
employment services by the homeless in LA?
2. What are the barriers that homeless individuals in Los Angeles County perceive when
seeking employment?
3. How can employment service agencies improve their planning, participation, and
evaluation of services to better address barriers experienced by homeless individuals
in Los Angeles County?
Participating Stakeholders
The participant stakeholders were individuals experiencing homelessness and
unemployment in Los Angeles. The lived-in experience of those currently unhoused and
unemployed was collected through qualitative semi-structured interviews. The interviews were
conducted over the phone or in-person while using an audio recording device to capture the
conversation accurately after consent. The 20 participants were prescreened to confirm they were
unemployed and experiencing homelessness, and additional effort was made to recruit many
candidates that are considered non-chronically homeless (averaging 12 months or less) at the
64

time of the interview. The participants were asked 15 semi-structured questions to gain insight
into the perceived barriers to employment.
The participants were recruited through community outreach flyers and the researcher’s
network of agency contacts and housing agencies that assisted in finding candidates that matched
the study criteria. The community of care agencies and shelters contacted had locations
throughout Los Angeles County, intending to recruit candidates from diverse neighborhood
settings and living situations. It is estimated that over 60% of the unhoused identify as male, and
for this study, nearly 70% of respondents identified as male while 30% identified as female
(table 4). The demographic data collected also showed that the participants represented many
neighborhoods in LA county and ages ranged from 24 to 70 years old.
The results of this study will provide valuable research to the following stakeholders:
employment agencies and community leaders. The findings from this study can inform these
agencies in their outreach to the homeless.

65

Table 4
Summary of Participant Sample
Name Location Time
Unhoused
Gender Ethnicity Age

PEH-1 Inglewood 4 years Male Black 59
PEH-2 Skid-row 4 years Male DND 40
PEH-3 Pasadena 8 months Male Latinx 29
PEH-4 Alhambra 18 months Male White 55
PEH-5 Pasadena 7 months Female Latinx 54
PEH-6 San Fernando 1 year Female White 50
PEH-7 Skid-row 4 months Male Black 49
PEH-8 San Fernando 2 years Male Latinx 59
PEH-9 Skid-row 1 year Male Black 50
PEH-10 Van Nuys 3 years Female White 39
PEH-11 Hollywood 2 years Female Latinx 47
PEH-12 Sylmar 2 months Male Black 43
PEH-13 Skid-row 3 years Male Latinx 70
PEH-14 Skid-row 7 months Male Latinx 36
PEH-15 Van Nuys 10 months Female Mixed 50
PEH-16 Compton 1 Year Male Black 32
PEH-17 Central 4 Months Male Latinx 27
PEH-18 Culver City 11 Months Male Black 38
PEH-19 Hollywood 18 months Male White 41
PEH-20 San Fernando 16 months Male Mixed 59
Note. *Pseudonym (PEH) represents people experiencing homelessness and replaced participant
names. Additional demographic data, education, and job interests are covered in Tables 5 - 8

66

Table 5
Racial Demographics Data
Race/Ethnicity LA Homeless
Population
LA County
Population
Participants of
this study
Hispanic/Latino 36.1% 48.5% 30%
Black/African-American 33.7% 7.9% 31.2%
White 25.5% 26.3% 20%
American-Indian/Alaskan 1.1% 0.2% -
Asian 1.2% 14.4% -
Multi-Racial/Other 2.1% 2.5% 10%
Note. LA Demographic data was collected from LAHSA and Census data (Los Angeles Housing
Authority, 2020).

The participant sample also mirrored the racial makeup that represents the unhoused
population in Los Angeles. The interview sample data and the most recent point in count data
from LAHSA demonstrate the growing crisis among the BIPOC population, particularly black
residents. While black residents only make up just 8% of the LA population, they represent over
36% of PEH in LA. While racial inequality or the role of systemic and institutional racism was
not the focus of this study, systemic barriers, including the impact of having a criminal record,
will be explored in this study to identify the ongoing barriers that continue to impact black
people disproportionately. Ultimately, this data point reflects a national trend and continues to
highlight a much-needed area of research for the future, some of which will be discussed in more
detail in chapter five.
67

Data Analysis
The participants provided rich data through a qualitative interview coded using a
university-approved coding software to simplify the organization process. The KMO influences
on knowledge and motivation and how they operate within employment service agencies and the
ethos of homeless service providers in LA were examined. The rich data was analyzed through
an open codebook. An open codebook was an essential strategy for this researcher because there
are often multiple realities in qualitative studies. The data analysis is an interactive process and
allows the researcher to produce believable and trustworthy findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
While coding the data, I used verbatim quotes when necessary to capture the whole
essence of the phenomenon as experienced by individuals with lived-in experience. In addition,
quotations were lifted directly from the interview transcript and data to strengthen the findings of
this study through the voice of the unhoused in LA and their current conditions and experiences.
Findings
All the participants interviewed expressed deep frustrations at various barriers to
employment, beginning with homelessness itself but lacking access to pertinent information,
targeted training opportunities, or situational and systemic barriers that all led to self-efficacy
and motivational barriers. According to the most recent data, as many as 12% of Angelinos and
over 80% of the unhoused are unemployed (The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority,
2020).
People experiencing homelessness (PEH) are often not aware of what type of
employment services or training opportunities were available. Most of the PEH interviewed
perceived the available jobs to be too labor-intensive with low wages, which impacted their
motivation to job search. As shown in Table 6, when discussing barriers to employment, short-
68

term physical injury, long-term disability, mental health, and substance abuse disorder were
brought up by participants as significant barriers. 13 of 20 respondents mentioned situational
barriers like recent injuries, upcoming surgeries, or other medical conditions that influenced their
job searchability. In addition,14 of 20 participants mentioned the impact of a previous felony or
other justice involvement, which also led me to include that reference point in the codebook as
the interviews progressed (Table 7). Through the data analysis and open code book, the
following five findings emerged:
1. PEH did not know or believe the right agencies exist to meet their needs and provide
training for their jobs of interest.
2. Supportive services are not adaptable to the community's needs and have too many
rules and policies that are perceived as barriers by the unhoused.
3. The lack of awareness about available supportive services and perceived lack of
access to quality jobs and training creates motivational barriers to the unhoused.
4. The pathway to employment is significantly impacted by situational, systemic, and
institutional barriers requiring significant resources and capacity to overcome.
5. During planning, there should be a homeless contingent to shape programs and
strategies for effective outreach.
Findings are organized by the Study’s Research questions, and themes that emerged from
the qualitative data and their relationship to the research questions will be discussed below.

69

Research Question One
What are the knowledge and motivation factors that impact the utilization of employment
services by the homeless in LA?
Participants were asked a range of open-ended questions about their level of awareness
around supportive services and the perceived barriers and motivational factors that impacted
utilization. The semi-structured interview questions were developed on key principles derived
from the conceptual framework. As discussed in previous chapters, the three main influences can
be summarized into a) systems and processes that influence access, b) organizational culture that
influences the distribution of resources c) recruitment and program delivery models that can
impact self-efficacy and overall utilization of services. The data showed that most respondents
were not aware of the range of services that employment agencies could provide towards
employment. In addition, in the interview process, it became clear that many respondents were
not aware of the type of training services or support they could receive from agencies.
Respondents also expressed being wary of going to multiple agencies for support because of
previous negative experiences and their perception that agencies did not follow through on their
promises.
70

Finding #1: PEH Did Not Know or Believe the Right Agencies Exist to Meet Their Needs
and Provide Training for Their Jobs of Interest.
Theme I: Awareness Gap. In their responses to questions about employment (Q3, 4, and
8 Appendix C) which examined knowledge influences, 12 out of 20 (60%) said they would be
interested in finding the right job, but many did not believe the right opportunities exist to meet
their needs. As a follow-up question, all of them were asked if they were aware of job agencies
that support obtaining employment and training to align with their goals. 16 out of 20
respondents could not name any agency or identify a general location. The gap in awareness
indicates that unemployed PEH did not know where they could go for employment support. For
example, PEH3 stated,
I actually attended LACC College years ago. I grew up in foster care, so I was like a part
of a lot of groups that they (LACC) assist […] They help foster youth obtain housing,
some sort of job benefits, and they help with school, so I did that for a while, but I
dropped out and moved to Bakersfield but after that, I don’t know of any others.
Even for individuals with previous experience attending college or other training programs, the
knowledge gap about current resources or where to seek out reliable information was consistent.
From the interview data, the lack of awareness of the employment agencies, including
some of the largest ones in LA like Goodwill, Salvation Army, American Job Core, was notable.
PEH4 stated he knew about AJCC through the General Relief program (a program that provides
a monthly living allowance for residents). However, he also indicated he had not heard of any
other private or government-funded agencies offering transitional jobs, skill training, resumes, or
technology support. When asked for their perception of why there is a lack of awareness about
the available support, PEH4 stated,
71

The only reason anyone will use a job agency is because they had a caseworker and the
caseworker knew of them, so the caseworker tells them about everything about food
vouchers, cash vouchers, job agencies... But when they are not represented by anyone,
there is no way of them ever knowing about it. There used to be word of mouth … but
this person-to-person thing is dead. So, when people get something, they don't want to
tell anybody about it. I don't know what the world is coming to.
PEH16 also shared, “I told the shelter I wanted to get a job, so they gave me an address
that’s the only way I found out about this stuff.” For many respondents finding information
appeared to be a fragmented experience that happened by chance or through someone they knew
personally.
The lack of awareness by most respondents about specific job assistance agencies was
also an indicator of an overall lack of awareness about other supportive services. For example,
only six respondents mentioned 211, the homeless assistance info line. In addition, only one
respondent mentioned the recently developed app What I Need (WIN), which provides a
comprehensive directory of most agencies and an up-to-date list of available resources.
Participants openly shared the knowledge gap about all of the services available
throughout LA county. For example, PEH8 mentioned, “I do not know how to go about applying
for Section-8 or all of this other stuff.” However, when asked if they have used LAHSA or any
other CES intake process, PEH8 responded, “yes I actually just heard about LAHSA and called
them today, so I am waiting for a callback.” In some instances, respondents appear to remember
specific agencies if promted by follow-up questions or at a different point in the interview
process.
72

As shown in Table 6, most participants had experience working with housing navigators.
In fact, engaging with caseworkers or an outreach agent appeared to be the most memorable
interaction for the unhoused. For example, PEH13 recalled, “I know this one place over there by
Sixth street, they were helping me to find a house, but they send me very far away from Los
Angeles. All the way in Lancaster, I do not know anyone there.” When asked if they tried any
other agency since then, PEH13 responded, “no, only around Christmas time people come out,
and there are all these people walking around and helping, so that is usually a good time.”
When probing for more details on how information is dispersed to the unhoused, PEH15
stated, “an acquaintance of mine read a flyer somewhere and put my name along with his; that is
how I got into this shelter right now.” Similarly, PEH3 mentioned they received information
from a parking lot attendant that asked them if they needed housing support and gave them an
address and phone number of a wrap-around service agency in Pasadena. They also mentioned
possibly finding information from a church or any member of staff working at various agencies.
PEH9 shared, “for me, I go and meet the program directors of wherever I am staying, and I build
relationships, and I am also very persistent.”
The results of the interviews show a lack of awareness about the directory of services
offered to the unhoused in LA. PEH4 Summarized by stating, “I am going to tell you one thing
about government agencies or city agencies, there is a lack of advertising tools or money, I guess
they do not have enough funds to put them on flyers or other ways. So, they have these texts that
they send to homeless people, but most people tend to not pay attention to it because they got so
much other BS in front of [them], that they use their phones for.” In addition, when given
information about available services and what impact it could have on their employment status,
73

PEH12, who is now considered chronically homeless, said: "Years ago I think this would have
helped, it would have helped me a lot, but I did not know about it.”
Word of mouth was frequently mentioned when it came to pertinent information about
resources. PEH had varying views on how effective word of mouth was in reaching them, but it
appears many found it to be the only method of communication while experiencing
homelessness. PEH6 shared their experience
Word of mouth is the only chance people have. I talk to a lot of people because I am
educated, and I’m really resourceful. And I’ll sit and talk to people for hours about their
options, and they always tell me, thank you, thank you so much. I did not know about
that. They don’t know about it.
A few others shared about their experience with staffing agencies or temp-to-hire jobs.
PEH20 said, “I know a couple in North Hollywood or Ventura. I think it is called Select
Staffing or something like that.” PEH7 also mentioned PATH (People Assisting the Homeless)
and online staffing agencies as options for support with employment. These findings also
highlight the lack of awareness on the differences between temp job agencies and those focused
on providing tangible support to low-income and unhoused individuals through training and
resources.
In response to the same questions about awareness of agencies that provide support, the
findings were overall consistent, only four respondents were able to name specific job agencies,
and six had an overall level of awareness about the services offered. Over 70% of the
respondents were not aware that multiple employment service agencies exist to provide job
support to the unhoused validates the declarative knowledge influences.
74

Using the Clark and Estes (2008) model, declarative knowledge refers to the factual
knowledge about things like agency identity, location, and services offered, and is the
foundational element of the knowledge influences. While most respondents had experience
working with housing agencies, including some that offer lite job services, the underutilization of
employment agencies was validated by the knowledge gap for 14 out of the 20 respondents in
this study (Table 6).

75

Table 6
Declarative Knowledge Influences
Knowledge influence predictors Number of participants (N-20)
Mentioned a specific agency or location 4
General awareness about employment services 6
Utilized 211 or other information services 6
Utilized in-person housing services through a caseworker 18

Theme II: Perceptions on Utilization of Services. Through the semi-structured
interviews, participants also provided insight into what they perceive to be the benefits of using a
broad range of agency services. Since the utilization of employment services was low, the
interview data focused on overall agency experiences and potential value from what respondents
would deem helpful. A few of the semi-structured questions include: Are you aware of any
agencies that provide job support, and what do you think they offer? Why do you think most
people do not attend job training programs? And other related probing questions (Appendix C).
The data shows, respondents had mixed responses to agencies throughout LA. As
previously discussed, a few of the respondents that had previously worked with job agencies
appear to have mostly worked with staffing or temp-to-hire agencies instead of employment
service agencies that offer targeted support to the unhoused. Of those that worked explicitly with
employment agencies that focused on the unhoused, perception of the value of services was
enhanced by simple services like providing vital record support. Participants expressed their
gratitude for assistance with their identification, social security card, driver’s license, or other
foundational documents for work and benefits. Some of the participants found the ID service to
be the only benefit of using an agency. PEH2 stated, “I got my ID; that is about it.” PEH3 also
76

stated, “I lost my wallet and all vital documents, and now we are in the process of getting my
birth certificate and social security card because I was robbed. They are helping me with all of
that so I can get a job.” It was unclear from the responses if the knowledge gap about additional
services was due to the length of time since the service was offered, which could impact their
recollection or if they did not utilize additional services. As an example, PEH13 stated, “I tried
job agencies a while back, but they helped me maybe one month for a little bit and then nothing.”
When probed for more detail, the respondent was unclear precisely what specific agency or
additional details could aid with the knowledge gap.
PEH14 discussed how they had recently visited an employment service agency and the
impact of their interaction: “I went and missed my interview and felt like I lost my chance, so I
have not gone back yet.” The experiences noted by PEH13 and PEH14 also highlight a
procedural knowledge gap that prevented these individuals from understanding the model and
mission of these agencies, which in turn prevented them from returning for ongoing support.
Respondents that never used employment services spoke about their overall view of
homeless services in general. It is essential to include this information for this study since most
of the respondents viewed all supportive service agencies as one big industry. PEH16 shared his
experience in this way,
I was living with my mom, and I went and signed up for a program; when I went to them
and said I am homeless, they were like, that’s it? Like, you gotta show proof you are
really homeless. How do you do that? It’s [messed] up because you really gotta be
messed up for them to help you…There are so many people out there that need help, and
I’ve never been in this situation. I should not have to be chronic before they can help, but
anyway, it’s whatever.
77

Many of the unhoused did not feel agencies, in general, had their best interest in mind
and felt discouraged by their experiences to the point of giving up. Respondents also had mistrust
about the systems and motives of agencies in general. For example, PEH9 noted,
The mission and some of these other big organizations are all about making money,
shuffling people in and out. I actually like the Catholic Charity services; they helped my
friend, and he really cleaned himself up. A totally different person now. PATH, the one
on Beverly street, was good overall; it seems like they really want to help you, they ask
what you need, they follow up to get what you want to get. They have tables with a range
of services it is like a mall. The only problem is that they mostly focus on helping
families.
Respondents often had conflicting information about what agencies could provide and who
qualifies for a particular program or resource. For example, in the response above, PEH9 and
PEH16 highlighted the scarcity of resources to adult individuals who do not have a severe mental
illness or other risk factors, which often made them feel like they were not a priority. PEH15 also
shared,
Many people, they are too prideful, and they believe that they are not really [going to] get
help. [They are] afraid of being shut down or having the door shut on our faces, saying
that we can't help. There is no way we can; we do not have the money or what have you.
Many respondents shared this sentiment in various ways; the fear of rejection caused
them to give up after talking to a few providers that overpromise but do not follow through. The
overall experience seemed to dim their desire to approach new agencies. Another participant,
PEH6 shared their experience with a job agency in the past: "I went first to a job agency in 2017,
I was living with my mom – I came close to getting a job. They could not get my last
78

employment verified. The interview went well references everything, [they came back and said]
overqualified, in the wrong field. I wanted to try something different, and I never get a callback."
The same participant also shared another experience with a staffing agency that shaped her view
of employment services in general:
I got a job on my own while I was working with this agency, and they got upset that it
paid more. I don’t know what it is; when I tried to go back with them, they said, you
ditched us last time, so no…but I got a job paying $20 an hour; what was I supposed to
do?
During the interview process, at least three other candidates viewed staffing agencies in
the same bucket as supportive employment agencies, affirming the findings discussed earlier in
this study. When discussing agencies in general, PEH20 shared their positive agency experience:
Emergency Family Housing, the case counselor was on it, she got me in this hotel. She
was calling all these places and referred me another counselor and they were both on my
case and they are working hard to get me a place. They are trying to get me Section 8,
and they took all my info down it took an hour and 15 minutes…Because I applied for
section 8 years ago, and it was a phone you called, and they said it takes about 3 years,
and then I heard through people they stopped. The number I called was disconnected, and
I never heard back years later.
In reviewing the data analysis, 18 out of 20 respondents mentioned working with
caseworkers and Coordinated care systems. PEH often counted on their assigned case worker to
keep them up to date on all aspects of their housing and employment needs. As shown in the
various interview texts above, many respondents did not have an accurate understanding of the
range of services employment agencies could offer. Additionally, respondents also felt like they
79

had to be the primary person to follow up on their case or they would get left behind. PEH6
shared, "But if you don't follow up, there are so many of us…You have to be on top of your
game, or they're going to forget about you.”
There appears to be a lack of role clarity on what homeless service agencies and
caseworkers could provide. As a result, many clients never continued their path towards self-
sufficiency by utilizing employment services because they viewed the range of homeless service
agencies as homogenous.
Finding #2: Supportive Services are Not Adaptable to the Community's Needs and Have
Too Many Rules and Policies That Are Perceived as Barriers by the Unhoused.
Theme I: Rules and Policies. Program models and agencies have too many rules and
restrictions that result in people exiting agencies and often becoming street homeless. All
respondents expressed this sentiment when asked what prevented them from using agencies more
frequently or seeking them out in the first place. From her experience, PEH6 shared, “A lot of
people I talk to they want to work, [but] they don’t like too many rules.” PEH7 also noted, “a lot
of these places treat them like kids.” Considering the age range of participants was primarily
adults over the age of 24, this answer was a significant finding of how respondents feel in agency
environments.
Participants also felt agencies had unreasonable expectations and demands, and it forced
many individuals to be disengaged. For example, PEH11 mentioned, "Some people just don’t
like the rules; they would rather be on the streets. Like I know you need rules, but it should make
sense." PEH15 also mentioned, “I am tired of being locked up, and I can't go nowhere. They
would not even give me an overnight pass to see my father and daughter. They said no.”
80

In addition to rules and policies, many respondents also felt the enforcement process was
problematic, disrespectful, and not trauma-informed. For example, PEH7 noted, “I would not go
to an agency and say, you better hire me or else, they’re gonna tell me to get outta here, it should
be the same respect the other way around.”
PEH8 also shared, “you have to have manners. You gotta be respectful. No matter what,
just because a person is homeless doesn’t mean they are less of a person you [have to] respect
them no matter what. If you don’t receive that respect, you will back up and not deal with that
person.”
In some instances, agencies had specific religious or other mission-based requirements
that were barriers to the unhoused. PEH 4 explained further by stating, “there are too many
demands, like the ones that have to do with religion, religions are harder to deal with because a
person's belief is different than what the agency is providing, and they tend to prefer working
with the ones that are in more essence with their beliefs.” PEH6 mentioned I had to
leave…because again you don't get, you know, what does it matter what you like to do, they kept
asking what is your plan? what's your plan to get out of this place? you got to get a plan.” The
respondent felt overwhelmed and ultimately left the agency.
Two respondents also mentioned immigration and other legal status matters. For
example, PEH5 shared, “I tried to apply for Section-8, but they don’t let me have [anything]
because I am undocumented… I have gotten help from nobody. Everybody said no to me.”
When they finally found the wraparound agency for support, they shared their perceptions of the
stringent rules and regulations:
I don’t want to be here long because being here, it’s a good place to be here, but I gotta
follow too many rules. It’s like I get my momma close to me; here, I have to follow too
81

many rules. I can’t turn the light off. The security says to wait until 10 pm sometimes I
don’t feel like being on the computer or talking on the phone. But I can’t go to sleep with
the lights on, and I need to breathe, so I can’t cover my face. There is so much
paperwork, a bunch of paperwork with rules. I try to listen to some music when I take a
shower, they get so mad, you know you can’t hear any music, it’s soft, very soft music. I
don’t do the phone loud, but I can’t do anything... It is too much.”
All participants shared their frustrations about rules in one way or another, highlighting a
significant barrier perceived by the unhoused. PEH2 also viewed the inconsistencies across
organizations, “agencies are here and there, and they are kind of difficult to get into and make
looking for work harder.”
Theme II: Application Process Overload. The results show a lack of coordinated
support, adequate follow-up, and programming without the flexibility to meet the specific needs
of the unhoused. Participants expressed a strong desire to work with agencies that delivered on
their promise and provided support without prejudging their clients or creating restrictive rules.
PEH6 summarized by stating,
A lot of people have given because they have been let down for so long. Everywhere they
turn, they get turned down. So they start doing drugs or downward spiraling. They want
help, they want to get a job, they want to get their lives together. But they [supportive
service agencies] look at them like you’re just a nobody, and they forget about them.
They give up because they promised me this and that, and it’s not going to go through.
PEH4 also shared a common phrase they had heard, “we always say that the first time
around was never the first time. Second time or third time is when you finally start to figure out
your space and what you want to do.” PEH5 also shared, “I told my social worker I gotta work, I
82

really need money, but she told me I gotta wait for my turn.” The findings underline a desire by
the unhoused to be supported and understood with programs that offer multiple chances for
individuals to work through the many challenges they are facing. However, for many, the
experience was the opposite of what they felt they needed to be succesfuly housed.
PEH6 explained how they found housing, “it is hard to get through to them if you don’t
have a direct referral. You have to wait, I kept calling, and they kept saying, we’ll get to you.
Every week I would call and ask what’s the status? If you don’t call once a week, they’ll forget
about you.” They also shared their experience at another wrap-around service agency:
I was at a mission agency at first, and they try to portray that they are there to help people
long-term. One or two people, and maybe if someone is in a wheelchair. But other than
that, they don’t do anything, they seem to have all this money and get media attention,
but they did not really help us. Then they tell us, if you don’t do this and that you guys
have to go back in the street. The manager kept saying, what’s your plan, you gotta have
a plan. I was living in Park for a year I didn’t have a plan.
Throughout the interview gathering stage, respondents repeatedly mentioned rules and
policies, and all of it was unprompted. Chapter 2 of this study and the literature review discussed
fragmented systems, few agency-business partnerships, and the ways complex government
benefits systems are overwhelming (Radey & Wilkins, 2004). Over 70% of respondents
mentioned applying for Section-8 housing at one time or another. However, according to their
experience, there is no defined timeline; many respondents believe it took three to eight years. As
a result, many PEH lost faith in applying for yet another program or initiative. The combination
of stringent policies that dissuade people from using services and the fact that new locations or
83

agencies often require additional paperwork plays a significant role in program effectiveness and
outreach.
Finding #3 The lack of awareness about available supportive services and perceived lack of
access to quality jobs and training creates motivational barriers to the unhoused.
Theme I: Self Efficacy. The results show that incarceration, physical injury, ageism, and
other environmental barriers significantly impacted perceptions of the unhoused on their ability
to find permanent employment (Table 8). The findings were consistent with the literature review.
It is estimated that over three-fourths of the homeless do not hold permanent jobs (Leopold,
2015).
The long-term consequences of unemployment and missed opportunities were palpable in
the responses. PEH2, who is chronically homeless, stated that he had not been fully employed for
ten years. “I’m just not committed to keep searching for work or even just showing up to work.”
PEH3, who recently became unhoused, shared a different experience. They indicated they had
continued to work on and off until recently but regretted his missed opportunities:
I left the LACC mentoring opportunity and training I had when I was younger. I just so
happened to leave for whatever perspective or point of view I had at the time, for my own
desires, and that was not being a chef. I have friends from back then, and I’ve seen them
go out to dinner and have houses, and they are still working, and that was like almost 12
years ago, and I kind of fell off the grid.
When asked to describe their previous work experience, participants ranged from being a
banker to jobs in sales and advertising, agriculture, warehouse, truck driving, and various other
carriers. The range of jobs they were hoping to obtain in the future was also broad, from
84

construction to compliance, and at least four respondents wanted to work in social services as
drug and alcohol counselors or similar roles providing support to homeless service agencies.
PEH5 said, “I am ready to work. I have to work so I can get out of this place.” The desire
and need to obtain was shared across the board by respondents. However, the influences of
agencies and long-term environmental factors seemed to prevent many from taking the next step
towards employment.
For many respondents, Ageism also played a role in their motivation to seek
employment. For example, PEH13 said, “I want to work, but I tried to look at the Walmart.
Many places. Yeah. And they said, you know, you’re almost seventy… they need people you
know stronger younger; I believe about that.” These perceptions played a key factor in their
motivation to continue job searching. Many respondents stated they resort to panhandling for
survival.
In some instances, respondents also shared being surprised when they did land a job. For
example, PEH3 shared, “I show up to this place once and was dirty had trash on my clothes, and
I was given directions to go to Walmart and [they] basically hired me on the spot and I, and I
didn't believe them I was like are you serious? and they said Yeah.”
The results show a lack of confidence by the unhoused to obtain jobs or successfully
complete training toward their career goals (Table 8). As a result, many felt hopeless about their
plight and perceived they had no choice but to rely on panhandling or supportive services for
day-to-day survival.
85

Theme II: Feelings of Hopelessness. In Chapter 2 of this study, the role of attribution
theory to identify knowledge gaps was discussed. In summary, attribution theory posits that
persistent, uncontrollable problems can lead to affective responses of shame, guilt, and
hopelessness (Weiner, 1986; Harvey & Martinko, 2011). The feeling of hopelessness emerged as
a theme while discussing barriers to employment. PEH6 shared, “a lot of people have given
because they have been let down for so long. Everywhere they turn, they get turned down. They
start doing drugs or spiraling.” There appears to be a link between agency fatigue and the desire
to continue searching for information or employment opportunities. PEH6 went on to say, “they
want help, they want to get a job, they want to get their lives together. [But] they look at them
like you’re just a nobody. [The unhoused then start to believe] you promised me this and that, but
it’s not going to go through.”
The process of applying for multiple programs or feeling of hopelessness after being
rejected for programs had a significant impact on the perceived confidence of the unhoused to
focus on self-sustenance through employment. PEH14 shared, “It’s like I know what I need to
do, and I can see it in other people and tell them what they need to do, but I can’t figure it out.”
At times even speaking about the disappointment seemed overwhelming. PEH13 stated, "you
know, I don't want to say anything more because I heart myself and I heart my spirit."
Peer pressure also played a factor in the motivation of participants. PEH11 shared,
“somebody told me about this new program, he came and told me he was going to get to school
even, I look up the next day, and he’s out on the street.” Respondents also felt the impact of
secondary trauma and how it impacted their path towards self-sufficiency. PEH15 stated, “I was
working in the building and was the one that accidentally found the body… I thought I handled it
86

well, but in reality, no, I didn't.” They went on to share how it derailed them into substance abuse
and further challenges of homelessness. PEH6 also shared their view in the following way,
A lot of homeless are homeless because a lot of people have come down on them. They
become weak in their mind because a lot of people talk down to them, so they are weak
in their mind. You're nothing. You're a piece of […]. You're nothing. You're never going
to become anything. And talk down them down, and they don't help them.
PEH19 also shared, “A lot of these places have no patience, they catch them using, and
they’re gone. A lot of commodities and amenities are gone because people destroyed it. A lot of
people don’t care, and they destroy these places.”
Some respondents had different points of view when discussing motivation and job
searching. When explicitly asked, why do you think most PEH do not have jobs? PEH8 also
shared, “it is because they don’t look for it, they don’t want a job. There are a lot of people out
there younger than I am, and they’re not looking for work. They’d rather be out there getting
high and [overdosing] or whatever. They like that life because they don’t have bills or
whatever.” While talking about their employment goals, PEH8 shared the following,
I would like to be a drug and alcohol counselor. But it takes up to 4 years, this last time
around when I was incarcerated, I tried to get resources, but I just couldn’t get it. For one
the books, all of the material costs money, and I didn’t have that kind of resources. I think
I could have done a 2-year program, but I wanted the whole thing, and I tried while I was
in prison, but I couldn’t get on the program. Now I don’t know.
Overall, the findings show, many of the attitudes and behaviors were interconnected.
Participants lose self-esteem and self-confidence due to various internal or external factors, and
87

they often find themselves in less than desirable settings, which further impacts their feeling of
hopelessness.
Twelve of the 20 respondents did not feel confident they could obtain the proper training
or access jobs that would interest them. Only 15 had specific career choices, and 10 of them
believed they could do those jobs, but they were compelled by one reason or another to wait for a
better time. Thus, the results show that the respondents perceived a gap between ability and
access.
88

Table 7
PEH Field of Interest and Perceived Levels of Confidence
Name Education
level
Field of interest Perceived ability to
perform job duties
Ability to access
job training

PEH-1 Some College Train Operator Confident Confident
PEH-2 HSG Customer Service Confident Confident
PEH-3 Some College Don’t Know - -
PEH-4 Some College Sales/Marketing Not Confident Not Confident
PEH-5 10
th
Grade Restaurant Confident Not Confident
PEH-6 HSD Coding or Para Legal Confident Not Confident
PEH-7 AA Sales Confident Not Confident
PEH-8 HSG Drug & Alcohol Counselor Confident Not Confident
PEH-9 BA Inspector/Compliance Confident Confident
PEH-10 GED Don’t Know - -
PEH-11 11
th
Grade Cleaning/SRO Not Confident Not Confident
PEH-12 AA Film Production/
Marketing
Confident Not Confident
PEH-13 HSD Counselor/Human Services Not Confident Not Confident
PEH-14 Some College Construction Not Confident Not Confident
PEH-15 9
th
Grade Don’t know - -
PEH-16 10
th
Grade Customer Service Confident Not Confident
PEH-17 GED Don’t know - -
PEH-18 BA Author/Management Confident Confident
PEH-19 Some College Plumbing/Construction Confident Not Confident`
PEH-20 GED Counselor Not Confident Not Confident

89

Research Question Two
What are the barriers that homeless individuals in LA perceive when seeking employment?
Participants were asked the primary factors that prevented them from obtaining jobs or
other sources of income. The questions began by seeking out information on whether participants
were actively looking for work and asking them to describe their experience. The respondents
perceived various situational and systemic barriers that prevented them from obtaining job
opportunities. Most respondents were justice impacted, which they perceived to be a barrier to
employment and socio-economic integration. Other respondents described discrimination due to
race, gender, age, or housing status.
Finding #4 The pathway to employment is significantly impacted by situational, systemic,
and institutional barriers requiring significant resources and capacity to overcome.
Theme I: Situational Barriers. The findings revealed various situational barriers
experienced by the unhoused that influenced their motivation to job searching or seeking job
assistance. PEH5 shared her experience of trying to go to the salvation army for support:
The second week I was in the street, I was going to find a place in the salvation army.
And I was waiting for the bus, and someone dropped something on my leg. I was trying
to get up because I had too much pain in my leg. So, the Ambulance came, and they cut
my pants open, my skin was burning, and I was screaming, take me to the hospital, they
took my pants off, and they put me in the hospital. But the hospital they did not do
anything for me, and finally, the nighttime doctor came and said, you have 3
rd
-degree
burns.
PEH4 also shared, “it has probably been about four years, you know, my father passed
away, and I got into gardening, and I love self-employment and cleaning people's houses or
90

cutting grass. So, I was really self-employed, but when he passed away, I should have taken over
the gardening business, but I did not.”
Several respondents also mentioned physical injuries. PEH20 noted, “I would love to
work, but I cannot stand on my feet for long until things are better with my knees. If it is a less
labor-intensive job, then yes.” PEH1 had a similar requirement, “I don’t care too much what kind
of job it is, as long as it is not labor-intensive.”
Physical trauma and injury were also significant barriers. Several respondents including,
PEH3, PEH5, PEH14, and PEH17, all mentioned waiting for upcoming surgeries and medical
procedures before they could begin to search for a job actively. In many cases, they were not
clear when the procedure would be complete. For example, PEH17 shared his traumatic
experience:
I got hit by a stray bullet and went to the ER, and they basically dressed the wound and
did some stuff, but they didn’t even give me any crutches. So now I have to find another
place because I cannot put any weight on this foot. The job I had told me to come to pick
up your last check, you can’t take time off because you are a part-time employee.
The impact of being unsheltered or living in unsafe environments created significant barriers.
Respondents shared a range of traumatic experiences, including family abandonment, street
violence and robbery, physical injuries, and other significant life-altering events.
Many of the participants were staying with a partner and spouse, and because of the
relationship ending, they were forced to go back on the streets. PEH18 shared that I moved to
California with a partner, so everything was fine at first, but I had nowhere to go when we broke
up. I had a job, so I tried to stay at hotels and stuff for a while, but it was tough.” Family and
relationship dynamics came up in multiple interviews. For PEH5, it was the hope of their son
91

supporting them to start a new chapter in California: "I came because it would be better, thinking
my son is going to help me…. But he doesn’t want to see me anymore." PEH6 also shared their
story of domestic violence that gives a snapshot into the severity of trauma experienced by the
unhoused:
I was married and had three children; I had a great job working as a clerk for law offices.
My oldest son is actually now in the army, but I had to walk away and give up everything
because my husband beat me up so bad, I ended up in the emergency room. I was
depressed and started drinking and ended up getting a DUI, so when I went before the
judge, my record did not make me look too good. The judge was still going to have him
sell the house so we could split it for the divorce, and he also had a pension because he
was in the navy. I gave up everything because my youngest daughter begged me not to
make her live in an apartment because she loved our house. So, I gave it all up and gave
my husband full custody, and after that, I had a lot of anxiety and a mental breakdown.
Stories of great difficulty, pain, and more were shared throughout the interview process,
including mentions of sexual trauma experienced by at least three respondents during interview
conversations.
Financial scams and various other predatory behaviors also took a toll on the unhoused.
For example, PEH5 shared, “When I was in Memphis a man said he’d send me 20,000 dollars to
my bank account and all I had to do was send him some of the money through MoneyGram, so I
did, and my daughter later told me I should not have done that, she was so mad at me.” PEH3
also stated, “I left a good job I had at Marriott because I thought I found something better, but it
was fake.” Many respondents shared their experience with violence and robbery. PEH20 shared
their experience,
92

People like to steal your [stuff] while you’re sleeping - your phone gets stolen all the
time. I lost everything so many times, I put my stuff in a new backpack, and I took my
eyes off it for one minute, and I noticed my backpack was gone. I lost my razors, my
birth certificate, and all that [stuff]. How do you lock up a backpack?
Multiple other examples came up throughout the interview process. In some instances, it was
heavily influenced by whoever was in the immediate circle of the unhoused. For example, PEH1
shared how they felt their identity was stolen and they did not receive any of the over $2,000 in
stimulus checks that were distrusted to most Americans: "I didn’t even get my stimulus checks, I
think someone stole my identity because I didn’t get any of it. When I worked, it was my
brother-in-law that filed taxes for me.”
In response to the semi-structured question about actively seeking employment, the
responses were revealing. PEH4 said, “It is difficult because of the fact that how can you shower
or get ready for work? It is not impossible to get a job, but just to maintain it and not having
housing or anywhere to clean up or, to you know, get rest is the most difficult part.” PEH3 also
shared:
I think that everyone should be employed like trying to find them a job. I know it would
be hard for them because they're used to the habitat that they've been living in, and plus
90% of your energy is spent on survival. But I feel like their experience on the outside it's
been their experience. So, it can be difficult sometimes, knowing that they had to either
go to Core [recovery agency] or sober up to find the right living situation or mentoring.
Several participants mentioned the theme around substance abuse. Respondents believe
drugs create a dangerous environment that forced them to live away from shelters and other
agencies where many chronically unhoused individuals live or congregate. PEH13 explained
93

further, “I don’t like the shelters because it's really dangerous, so many things happen.
sometimes guys try crazy stuff… and these drug deals, and I don’t want to get in the middle of
anything.”
When discussing additional situational barriers, PEH14 shared their experience of trying
rehab, " I struggle with substance abuse, I tried some of the treatment places, but I wasn’t ready
to stay." PEH14 also shared the impact of substance abuse on job interviews and other
appointments, “I tried that job place, but it was going to take a couple of weeks before I start so I
said let me get my last hit before the work starts, and I never made it back.”
Overall, situational barriers had a significant impact on most respondents, and in many
cases, prevented the unhoused from even attempting to seek out any level of employment.
However, in many cases, these barriers were temporary and, in some cases, could quickly be
resolved with access to the right resources that are already available. These stories highlight the
knowledge gap that is interconnected and foundational to overcoming many of the barriers to
employment as perceived by the unhoused.
Theme II: Technological Barriers. Respondents in this study shared living in
challenging circumstances that impacted their ability to connect with agencies. One of the key
themes that emerged during these conversations was the lack of access to technology or the
ability to utilize them effectively. For example, PEH4 shared their frustration at the lack of
tangible documents they perceived were not accessible to them: “you know everything come on
disk or on CD nobody really print paper, you know, so the world has changed, so that's kind of
made it hard for me to navigate.”
Many of the interviewees also mentioned the impact of not having a consistent phone
number and how that impacted their ability to stay engaged with their caseworkers or other
94

agencies of support. In addition, many clients expressed not having the technical skills to look up
things or get accurate information and felt overwhelmed by the change of pace. For example,
PEH19 felt the technological barriers prevented them from successfully re-entering the
workforce, “now I have to go look for a different kind of job, I've been so used to physical stuff
like with my hands during that time… but it's kind of like, I have to start from ground zero, you
know, I gotta just forget what it used to be economically.” PEH4 also summarized their
experience,
I really wasn't that much of an online person. I'm starting to become one now, and I'm
trying to look into it now and having, you know, even like doing things like setting up
[appointments] with a number, punching responses by text… So, I wasn't trying to be
savvy that way. But now I am starting to, so literally nowadays you look at a computer as
a person, even doing an interview that way, so I'm just wondering who's the best out there
and trying to send my resume.
PEH15 also noted, “I almost got a housing placement, and then I guess the manager or
someone like that called me on my phone, but I lost my phone.” When asked additional
questions about finding support for access to phones, PEH20 remarked, “no way to figure things
out; no one wants to let you use their phone because they don’t know who you might be calling.”
In addition to theft and other circumstances that often led participants to lose their phones and
other equipment, there was a consensus about the overall lack of access to consistent technology
and training. The technological barriers identified by the unhoused appeared to further
disconnect many individuals from receiving support and reaching self-sufficiency.
95

Theme III: Systemic Barriers. When discussing barriers, the third theme emerged
from structural and institutional factors that created systemic and long-term issues that were
often too challenging for the unhoused to overcome. To reduce research bias, all the candidates
for this study were selected based on the described criteria of being unhoused, unemployed, and
over 18. The participation guidelines purposefully did not mention any additional criteria around
some of the well-known systemic barriers like educational inequities, systemic racism,
gentrification, and other factors that have been discussed in the LA community as significant
drivers of the homelessness crisis. The goal was to capture direct sentiments on what clients
perceived as some of the core barriers they experienced in LA, solely from their perspective. Out
of the 15 semi-structured questions, two open-ended questions appeared to draw various
responses around systemic issues. What do you think would be most helpful to reduce
homelessness in Los Angeles? Are you currently seeking employment, and what has that
experience been for you?
Two interviewees had responses that nearly matched word for word about their
perception and experiences navigating the system. PEH2 shared,
I think it's a little too much. You have to be like, like [homeless] for a year to get housing
sometimes you gotta have…You gotta get a referral. You know, so verification of
homelessness, because a lot of stuff that you got to do to get housing people,
unfortunately, don’t have that stuff, you know…
PEH16 shared a similar view about a system that only seeks to support chronically
homeless after extreme need. Furthermore, a system requiring them to verify their status when
access to technology or identification is not easy for most.
96

I went to them and said I am homeless, and they were like, that’s it? Like, you gotta show
proof you’re really homeless. How do you do that? It’s [messed] up because you really
gotta be messed up for them to help you. You have to be homeless for at least a year, and
then they might help you, and a lot of people, by that point, just get discouraged and give
up.
Some respondents expressed direct frustrations like PEH7, “It’s not an issue of laziness,
the American dream is BS, why do I want to make them rich, while I’m still suffering?” PEH19
Also shared, "[with]my pay I can’t afford a 1300 apartment a month, along with your other bills
and groceries and your gas for your car, your phone bill." During the interview process, there
was a strong sentiment that current wages and the status quo were not working well for many.
PEH9 Shared their views this way:
Right now, it’s what $18 an hour for a job at Mcdonald’s or wherever? Because they
really need you, [which is] what they should have been paying. A lot of people become
disillusioned because capitalism is a pyramid scheme. Now all of a sudden, they want to
pay people 15 or 18 dollars an hour; where were these wages years ago when it could
have meant something? Now that the pandemic is over and they want people back to
work, so they try and pay people.
The fact that wages have not kept up with the rise of housing and general living costs was
emphasized repeatedly. PEH4 also shared, “a lot of people don’t want to go back and work for
$15 an hour, you are not going to take the labor jobs cutting grass or a physical job because your
mind is going to be too good for that.”
Participants also expressed deep mistrust in the various agencies and political structures
that facilitate resources and support. PEH7 expressed his view in this manner, “for me it’s
97

nothing but a scam. If you were given 50mil dollars by the Olympic committee three years ago
and you haven’t done anything, it’s nothing but a scam.” Furthermore, through their experience
of being unhoused, they felt the annual figures and success stories being shared were not
accurate. “If they are really housing all of these people like they say they are, then why the… do
we still have thousands of more people on the street, come on man.” PEH9 also echoed similar
sentiments:
Everyone should be ashamed that skid row has become famous worldwide for what it is,
it is a shame. People come and tour it so they can say yea I went there and saw how bad it
is, it's embarrassing.
These sentiments highlight the desire by respondents experiencing homelessness to see an end to
this crisis and a system that is working more effectively to address the public need.
For PEH3, it was their experience of growing up in foster care and not achieving their
dream of joining the armed forces. According to their experience, PEH3 felt left out because of
their living situation:
I was in high school right, and I asked about wanting to join the military, and I was given
tests here and there, but I sort of did not pass any of them. They [recruiters] came to my
house and saw where I was living and stuff, and I think they didn't take me because of
that.
As the interview processes progressed, things like incarceration, ageism, and racism came
up often. The data shows that 14 out of 20 (70%) of respondents mentioned being incarcerated or
justice impacted. Furthermore, there appeared to be direct links to losing housing status by many
of the respondents. For example, PEH12 shared, "I got arrested and served a short time, and the
manager of my apartment said you don't get to live here anymore … He couldn't wait for me to
98

get out of jail because I guess he didn't want to wait, so he threw all my stuff out." Job loss,
apartment loss, family disconnection, and many other barriers were mentioned in conversations
about incarceration. In another example, PEH8 shared,
I was staying with family, but it was hard for me to find a job because I’ve been
incarcerated because of my record, and once they do background checks, they don’t want
to hire me because of my crimes... so it's hard for me to get a job. And it's difficult (with
my family) because they never lived that style and one thing led to another, so they asked
me to leave.
Systemic barriers, including incarceration, seemed to derail many participants from job
searching. PEH20 shared their journey with the justice system, “I was with somebody, at the
wrong place at the wrong time. They got me for conspiracy, and the public defender didn’t do
anything for me. When I got out, I was doing some jobs under the table until I got injured, and
now, I have nothing.” Many of the barriers were interconnected; incarceration, injury, and other
family trauma all seemed to converge and lead to homelessness, in many cases for the first time
in their adult lives.
PEH15 shared, "I finally got one job, and it was like for a year, but they found out that I
was disability, so I got fired.” PEH15 also shared, “when I was really young, my mom had us
both on disability. I lost it when she died, and when I got out of jail, I tried to apply, but that’s
one thing I regret she never showed me how to apply.” PEH15 went on to share
You know, I think I came and learned about this country because I wanted to do
something better with my life and I am glad I'm here. But I live in the street. I make my
life begging for food. You know, so many things. And I, I've been trying, working to
people to help them move their house or anything they need … but you know now that I
99

am getting older. I am a hustler, but as I get older, I’m so tired. I'm really tired. I don't
know…I don't know what's going on. You know, I don't want to say anything more
because I hurt myself, and I hurt my spirit[sic].
PEH 13 also shared, they felt discriminated against based on their country of origin and
age, "It's a lot of discrimination, my friend. Yeah, especially coming from a different culture.
They don't care about you." This sentiment was shared by others, who also felt discriminated
against based on their age, race, or gender at various points. PEH18 shared, “no one I know can
afford to buy a house, and I ended up living in very scary places with multiple roommates. Until
finally it didn’t work out and I was back to being homeless.”
Applying for long-term housing assistance like Section-8, which low-income
communities have historically used to gain access to affordable housing, was another theme that
emerged during the interview. Over half of the respondents expressed frustrations at applying for
Section-8 and not knowing the status or ever connecting with live agents to verify their
eligibility. PEH19 briefly summarized it this way: “I tried to apply for section 8 never heard
anything.” PEH13 also shared, “I get one-time housing help, and I'm my mother was in life with
me. And it's why I got Section-8. Yeah, but by the time it was approved, she died, and the man
told me, sorry, you cannot live here.”
PEH20 was unsure if Section-8 was even still in operation: “when I applied almost eight
years ago, it was a phone you called, and they said it takes about three years, and then I heard
through people they stopped. The number I called was disconnected and still never heard back
years later.”
Underscoring the overall impact of the systemic barriers was the lack of quality access to
legal representation that resulted in longer sentences or felony charges, participants not knowing
100

their rights in tenant disputes, implications of growing up in the foster care system, education
inequity, and domestic violence surfaced throughout the interview process. In many cases, these
systemic issues and the lack of a family safety net appear to prevent most participants from
exiting homelessness.

101

Table 8
Summary of Perceived Barriers to Employment
Name Education level Justice
impacted
Seeking
employment
Disclosed
physical
injury or
disability
Disclosed
substance
abuse
disorder

PEH-1 Some College √ √ ~ ~
PEH-2 HSG √ √ ~ ~
PEH-3 Some College √ ~ √ ~
PEH-4 Some College ~ √ ~ ~
PEH-5 10
th
Grade ~ √ √ ~
PEH-6 HSD √ √ ~ √
PEH-7 AA ~ √ √ ~
PEH-8 HSG √ √ √ ~
PEH-9 Some College ~ ~ ~ ~
PEH-10 GED √ ~ √ √
PEH-11 11
th
Grade √ ~ ~ √
PEH-12 AA √ ~ √ ~
PEH-13 HSD ~ √ √ ~
PEH-14 Some College √ ~ √ √
PEH-15 9
th
Grade √ ~ √ √
PEH-16 10
th
Grade √ √ ~ √
PEH-17 GED ~ √ √ ~
PEH-18 HSD √ √ √ ~
PEH-19 Some College √ ~ √ ~
PEH-20 GED √ ~ √ ~
Note. √ = Yes ~ = Participants said no or did not disclose any pertinent information.
102

Research Question Three
How can employment service agencies improve their planning, participation, and evaluation of
services to better address barriers experienced by homeless individuals in Los Angeles County?
Participants were asked open-ended questions on their recommendation on improving
training, processes, and access. Many of the interviews shared their experience with previous
training programs or other supportive service models. The themes that emerge from these
questions will also be further discussed in Chapter 5 to frame discussions and recommendations
for improving programs, outreach, and policies. Overall, the data indicates agencies must create
more transparency of their process development and incorporate feedback from the unhoused to
shape programming.
Finding #5 During planning, there should be a homeless contingent to shape programs and
strategies for effective outreach.
Theme I: Targeted Outreach. The overall consensus that emerged from PEH focused
on targeted outreach to meet the unhoused where they are. The process of seeking out various
agencies, traveling to appointments, maintaining a consistent phone number, and having all the
required documents and required criteria was overwhelming to participants. PEH8 outlined his
view on how to increase outreach this way: "They could send out advocates and go to certain
areas and speak out and educate people on what is available.” P20 also shared the same view and
elaborated this way:
People go out there and talk to people and let them know and where everything is located
and offer rides and hands-on services. People need Guidance. I try to guide people and
ask them what are you doing on the streets? I’ll go buy them ten dollar shoes or I go to
103

Goodwill… I hate people starving, and I got out of my way to help. We need people who
care to be out there talking to people.
Many of the interviewees also emphasized the need for consistency and persistence by
agencies and social workers. For example, PEH11 noted, “keep on coming, coming. That is the
only way to get through.” PEH13 also shared, “maybe more people like you are doing right now.
They need to be careful, but they should be out there talking to people.”
Additionally, participants also emphasized the importance of having enough
representatives with the right skills to meet the needs of communities like Skid row. PEH13
shared it this way, "many young people are suffering and being run around by drug dealers and
stuff, and they don't know how to help them. There is only one social worker on the street, and
it's hundreds of people."
Respondents also shared the need to integrate systems in one location. PEH8 said, “If
they actually helped you with jobs on-site where you can get housing, it would help a lot of
people who are homeless instead of sending them here there anywhere.” The response was
similar to a sentiment previously shared by PEH2, “agencies are here there and everywhere, and
it's hard to navigate”
PEH3 also shared his views on how to assist the aging population: “For older individuals,
older men and women, like, kind of give them some benefits on how to overcome things and
[whom] they can contact and connect them to other people who [can] help them.”
The lack of targeted outreach that is responsive and on-site to meets the unhoused was a
significant finding during the interview process. Respondents did not feel that enough advocates
or social workers were reaching out to them and providing information. As a result, respondents
104

were often left with a feeling of disconnect from society and supportive services and
overwhelmed by a lack of access to resources for essential needs.
Theme II: Training Models. In the interview process, participants were asked open-
ended questions about training programs they would like to attend. Additionally, respondents
were also asked to identify previous training that potentially assisted them in securing
employment. Many respondents mentioned college and other institutional pieces of training they
attempted to complete.
Participants believed skilled training should be a priority for the unhoused and shared
how programs should be delivered with some flexibility so individuals can try out what they
want to do. For example, PEH19 noted,
They should train people for different skills. You know anything about mechanics,
plumbing, or electronics if they will take you to school and if they [PEH] try it out and
try different things and figure out the ones that like, it will really take off. A lot of these
young people can do a lot of things if given a chance.
PEH8 also shared a similar view, “machine shop, plumbing shop, practical skills where they
could fall back on and use forklift driving… so people can get skilled jobs.”
There were many ideas on models of training. PEH4 shared their view on how agencies
should maintain a database about jobs of interest, even for working people, and continue to
match them for career and long-term jobs.
So agencies should have some kind of data to track the people that are doing something
different than what they were trying to be so that they can be offered a better job down
the line… find out what they are comfortable with… … some people will work for the
money because they think that is all they can get they are not going to wait around for the
105

golden goose you know, so if that was a case where they could set up some kind of thing
to keep them updated with new opportunities like a 211 or something.
Some respondents also recommended doing trial shifts in SRO buildings and other areas where
the unhoused congregate. PEH11 shared some of their ideas:
I believe that if they were to give that one person that does sweeping and cleaning the
street a wage for the work they are already doing, that will really help. They are doing it
already come to them you can see who is working and wants to work or not.” For me…I
want to work cleaning SRO buildings because I got to know a lot of people in those
buildings [and] in that environment.”
When discussing training, many respondents referenced their desire to continue their education,
including various college degrees.
The results show a desire for skill-based training that can lead to higher-paying jobs. As
previously discussed, 16 out of 20 (80%) had a high school diploma, and 8 out of 20 (40%) had a
degree or some college experience. These findings should play a pivotal role in shaping a
training curriculum focused on the specific needs of the unhoused to obtain jobs and careers that
interest them.
106

Conclusion
This chapter discussed the results and themes from the qualitative interviews conducted
with 20 individuals experiencing homelessness and unemployment in LA. Through the data
analysis process, five major findings and 11 themes that emerged were discussed in detail.
Respondents were not aware of the range of services available to them in LA, and in many cases,
they lacked the motivation and self-efficacy to seek out services due to their perception of
stringent rules and policies designed to limit access to jobs and services.
Respondents also expressed reservations about labor-intensive jobs, mainly because over
50% of respondents were over 50 and expressed reservations about how much they could
withstand labor-intensive work for low wages. Overall, the findings revealed a sample of the
range of systemic issues to the unhoused in LA, beginning with the criminalization of
homelessness, lack of access to quality health care that resulted in additional barriers, and in
some cases, immigration barriers. In addition, most participants shared a level of situational or
institutional trauma, including physical or mental health barriers that impacted their ability to
participate in employment services or obtain jobs.

107

Chapter Five: Recommendations
The study examined the barriers to utilizing employment services by the
unhoused population in LA. Current strategies, including housing first, rapid rehousing, with
optional supportive services, have decreased homelessness nationally but not in LA. The
research also indicates that successful employment may be feasible without housing first, and it
may also protect individuals from additional negative consequences of homelessness (Radley &
Wilkins, 2010). This study suggests employment services can be delivered on par with other
permanent and social services using integrated platforms for ease of access (Shaheen & Rio
2007).
Chapter 4 presented the results and findings from 20 unhoused individuals that were
interviewed for this study. Participants shared their experiences navigating homelessness and
unemployment through a semi-structured interview utilizing open-ended questions. The data
focused on non-chronically homeless individuals to align with the purpose of this study and
identify the gaps in general awareness and utilization of employment services. The perspectives
and experiences of the non-chronically homeless were validated through this study's literature
review and findings and held the key to the recommendations and discussion about the most
addressable population experiencing homelessness in LA.
This chapter outlines recommendations based on current knowledge, motivation, and
resources that can enhance the programs and outreach strategies of employment agencies serving
LA county. The first section answers research question three, which presents what employment
agencies can do to their planning, participation, and evaluation of services. The
recommendations are organized into two main categories, implications for practice and policy
recommendations.
108

Recommendations for Practice
The following sections reflect the key findings and research recommendations to address
the homeless phenomenon in LA. The action plan approach for employment agencies must be
generative and innovative to create lasting change to close the gap. At the core of their change
strategy, employment agencies must use the theory of change principle to identify the ultimate
goal and map backward for key preconditions. Essentially it will require nonprofits to redefine
their mission statement and strategic plans to adapt to a learning environment. The impulse to
learn, at its heart, is an impulse to be generative. Generative Learning is about creating, while
adaptive learning is about coping (Senge, 1998).
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis was used to frame the problem of practice by
identifying the common influences in knowledge and motivation as experienced by the
participant stakeholders and the organizational settings that provide resources and policies. As
part of the recommendations for practice, organizational goal setting, program delivery models,
and staff capacity are discussed below.
Reduce Linear Processes
The results of this study show agency rules and policies had a significant impact on
participation by the unhoused. As a result, employment Service Agencies (ESA) and
Employment Social Enterprises (ESE) cannot rely on the status quo models of building linear
processes and systems driven by indicators and steady outcomes. While the tendency to lean on
linear processes has been the golden standard and functional, in cases where the problem and
phenomenon are non-linear, organizations must be innovative in their approach to meet the
demand.
109

There are multiple types of nonlinear relationships: the result of an outcome could
increase gradually, then rise more steeply; outcomes and rates can begin decreasing gradually,
then drop quickly (De Langhe et al., 2017). As seen in the result of the homeless count in LA,
things increased gradually but have risen more sharply in the past three years. In addition, the
impacts of the recent Covid-19 pandemic are expected to disproportionately impact PEH,
compounding the problem in the coming years. Linear strategies are not built to handle sudden
changes as effectively, allowing a phenomenon like homelessness to overwhelm processes
quickly.
Linear strategies also create what is known as the data paradox, where organizations must
show good data to obtain funding and the proper funding to produce quality data (Gao, 2017).
Instead, organizations must embrace an iterative and dynamic data gathering that responds in
real-time to the phenomenon of homelessness. As workforce agencies continue to operate in LA
county neighborhoods, the influence of local politicians and policymakers also plays a
significant role in shaping internal policies.
Harvard Business Review outlines recommendations for organizations (De Langhe et al.,
2017). The four key strategies outlined below could be helpful to ESEs and ESAs:
- Increasing awareness of linear bias
- Focusing on outcomes and not indicators
- Discovering the type of non-linearity you are dealing with
- Mapping the non-linear problems when possible
Organizations must advocate for more resources and training to implement these strategies and
focus on meeting the needs of the unhoused, with minimum barriers to entry.
110

Develop Models of Situated Learning
Communities of practice and the social networks of PEH can play a significant role in
their integration back into the workforce. Research also shows that learning does not have to
operate in a separate locus separate from individuals' social world and everyday interactions
(Gary et al., 2016). By decentralizing the training delivery methods to meet the unhoused within
their social structures of everyday living, ESE’s and ESO’s can create a more significant impact.
These situated models of learning are simply training and learning that takes place within their
communities where individuals regularly interact (Gary et al., 2016)
The results of this study showed that participants valued lived-in experience and the role
of word-of-mouth information and peer support. Promising models of practice have emerged
through research that can provide a roadmap for social integration. Strategies to combat some of
most of the common challenges PEH must overcome to rejoin the mainstream community could
be facilitated by communities of practice (CoP) (Flanagan, 1954; MacKnee & Mervyn, 2002).
This type of learning and development could occur through purposeful situated learning in CoPs,
enabling homeless people to discover meaningful work, live in established residences, and
complete educational goals (Lave, 1993; Lave & Wegner, 1991; Wegner et al., 2002).
A study by Monagham (2011) examined six principles of practice for situated learning.
(1) Self-initiated and self-managing, (2) Community affiliates share interests in a specific topic,
(3) Community affiliates mutually create new awareness, insights, and proficiencies, (4) These
new awareness, insights, and proficiencies happen in a context of real-time, (5) Communities of
practice can happen in any area of life shared by community affiliates, (6) Communities of
practice enable the development of shared meaning and identity.
111

These socially integrated principles have been applied through purposeful situated
learning in many fields and contexts such as business; community placements (Andrew &
Kearney, 2007): crafts apprenticeship (Lave, 1991); cultural assimilation (Palmer, 2016);
education (Becker, 1972; Voegele & Stevens, 2017); language learning (Andrew & Kearney,
2007; Dutro & Moran, 2003); and nursing (Andrew, 2012). In addition, the principle of creating
community-level engagement around jobs and collective motivation for self-sufficiency is
significant in LA because of the growing tent communities that have increased significantly over
the past two years. Offering alternative paths and situated learning communities of practice will
be pivotal to combat this growing crisis.
Employment agencies can incorporate a model of integrating on the ground situational
learning by providing resources and wages for community captains, street outreach teams, and
other need-based positions. For example, the captain or lead roles can be tailored to those
interested in leading various support groups and informational campaigns with the simple goal of
increasing engagement from the unhoused. The ultimate goal is to provide ongoing training and
learning environments that provide trial shifts and various workshop elements to allow
individuals to participate in their area of residence. Some practical applications can include
workshops near some heavily populated neighborhoods like Skid-row and Venice and provide
opportunities to train and work on the spot. Specific strategies and innovative ideas will be
outlined below by identifying technology's role in implementing these principles.
Embrace Intuitive Technology
There is growing consensus amongst business and policy leaders that the implications of
the Covid-19 pandemic will deepen people’s relationship with technology (Pew, 2021).
Employment agencies can improve their current programming model by adopting an iterative
112

and responsive model to increase effectiveness through technology. Training modules and
employment services should be available through an integrated platform that offers a full range
of supportive employment services on multiple platforms. A practical step to implement this
strategy would entail developing an employment services platform that can be accessed from any
phone, allowing clients to complete intake, assessments, or any other document and goal setting
at their own pace. For example, agencies can use the suggested app name Hire-ed to quickly
create an intuitive system that functionally allows clients to bypass phone conversations or in-
person visits to gain access to job leads and training services.
Innovative leadership looks for solutions by experimenting with a different lens and
taking advantage of nearby resources, often from unexpected places (Hargadon, 2003). Several
platforms are currently available to LA residents, like the What I Need (WIN) app, which
centralizes all available resources in LA county and offers a menu list of items. For example,
employment agencies are listed on platforms like WIN, but they only provide basic information
like addresses and phone numbers, requiring participants to take multiple additional steps. Apps
like WIN are just the tip of the iceberg on exploring what is possible through technological
platforms to connect with PEH through their phones. As many as 94% of the unhoused have
access to a mobile phone, and nearly 40% have smartphones. In comparison, consistent
smartphone usage is much lower than that of the general population at 77% (Pew, 2021).
However, mobile platforms like Cell-ed have emerged in recent years that work efficiently on
any mobile device and operate almost extensively over SMS.
Employment agencies should invest and effectively mobilize their staff and volunteer
pool towards revised objectives that are non-linear and nimble. Staff roles should be restructured
to focus on need-based services instead of one size fits all strategies. For example, if clients can
113

complete the intake processes and enter general information and job goals at their own pace from
their phones, it will provide more enrollment opportunities. Self-paced enrollments will reduce
drop-off due to logistical delays while freeing additional staff resources for targeted
programming and follow-up. In other words, clients with low technological barriers can swiftly
complete the enrollment processes and focus on additional marketable skills to land better-
paying jobs.
Technological efficiencies will reduce wait times, increase footprints, and reduce
transportation barriers. Participants expressed their desire to find accurate information in their
area of residence, and tech tools can help them receive services on the spot. Additional resources
can be made available for clients with technological barriers, including tele-support for those
interested in obtaining tech skills or alternative job opportunities that do not require tech access.
Innovative technological ideas like Hire-ed do not have to replace in-person programming but
can enhance the overall program model with adaptive strategies to ensure participants achieve
sustainable training and employment.
Professional Development to Increase Staff Capacity
As discussed in previous chapters, procedural knowledge addresses the influence of
knowing how to do something based on learning or training (Rueda 2011). Employment agencies
can increase their focus on the professional development of staff and volunteers to close the
procedural knowledge gaps. Agency staff must know how to interact and serve the populations
they serve. For example, the research shows that individuals experiencing homelessness factored
in ambiance and a welcoming environment as critical factors in choosing a provider (Burt et al.,
2001). The literature indicates, the unhoused in LA disproportionately have mental illness,
physical disabilities, and substance abuse barriers compared to other cities (Holland & Smith,
114

2017; Henwood & Padgett, 2019; Von Wachter et al., 2019). This study also confirmed
significant situational barriers like physical injury and medical appointments that served as
barriers to employment and overall engagement with any services. Trauma-informed care
training is essential to ensure program delivery is not compromised by the use of terminology
that is othering. TIC trainings should also include ancillary departments that may not regularly
provide direct services, to ensure a holistic culture is developed within organizations for mission
alignment.
Learning and motivational outcomes are improved when participants identify clear goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Therefore, strategies like motivational interviewing are essential to
identify clear goals with participants and ensure a holistic approach is used in agency
communications and assessments. In addition, staff and facilitators must also strengthen
partnerships with other supportive service agencies and engage outside vocational programs to
develop a menu of options and up-to date knowledge about current resources and challenges to
meet clients where they are.
Employment agencies should also continue to invest in the evolution of the programmatic
data function from data collection to data analytics and evidence-based decision support (Marsh
& Farrell, 2015). Professional development provides the tools to accomplish the goals of
individuals accessing services and provides role clarity. Effective training plans also merge the
procedural knowledge with the conceptual and allow individuals to connect the dots towards
their personal goals. The infrastructure to support growth should also include scaling the human
resources department to provide ethics and guideline compliance and training. In addition, an
investment into fund development, board development, and leadership training and guidance.

115

Table 9
Summary of Organizational Influences
Assumed
organizational
influences
Organizational
influence assessment
Research-based
recommendation
Recommendation

Organizational
identity and
continuity.

Semi-structured
interviews regarding
what the organization
could potentially do
to increase its
outreach and
effectiveness of
program delivery
towards the homeless
population in LA.

Continually developing
an organization’s
identity and the
needs of the
stakeholders is
essential for growth
(Lemoine et al.,
2020).

Reduce linear
processes.

Increase street
outreach.

Support systems and
feedback.

Semi-structured
interview questions
that are aimed
towards determining
homeless
individual’s
perceptions regarding
specific aspects of
employment
programming: skill
learning,
interventions, and job
readiness programs.

Support systems in
employment agencies
that are site-based
and in alignment
with the needs of the
stakeholders increase
the effectiveness of
employment
programs (Taylor et
al., 2019).

Develop models of
situated learning.

Embrace intuitive
technology.

Communication and
organizational
values.

Semi-structured
interview questions
regarding previous
communication with
employment agencies
or similar
organizations and
what would need to
change in order for
success to occur.
Organizational changes
occur companywide
when mission
statements are
updated to reflect the
needs of the
stakeholders are on
the same page with
changes that need to
occur (Taiwo et al.,
2016).
Professional
development to
increase staff
capacity.

Internal
accountability and
evaluation.

116

Policy Recommendations
Combatting homelessness is a political process. Since organizations are viewed as
coalitions, the governing board members, CEO, and committee chairs form an intricate coalition
to serve various stakeholders seeking access to limited resources (Bolman & Deal, 2015). This
principle emerges from ongoing negotiations among major interest groups. Thus, power, conflict,
and ethics are the key ingredients leaders must understand and navigate to succeed.
At the macro level, the overall economy's health, consumer confidence, and access to
government grants directly link social enterprises and other nonprofit leaders to legislation,
politicians, and other related entities serving the same constituency. At the institutional level,
nonprofit organizations are a primary means through which the interests of citizens are
represented to the state (Gao, 2007). In addition, employment agencies (ESA) and employment
social enterprises (ESE) often drive the conversation of democracy through external
representational activities such as advocacy or re-entry services. Therefore, ESEs and ESOs are
also more likely to be mediators in the most critical societal decisions that involve allocating
scarce resources (Gao, 2007). In this section, policies, systemic barriers, and evaluation and
accountability measures are discussed in detail.
Integrate Enrolment During Housing Intake Process
The findings of this study show that 90% of respondents had worked with a housing
agency or caseworker. The Continuum of Care program (CoC) process has become a national
standard for integrating the various housing agencies into one system that clients can access from
any location in that county. The literature review and findings show unemployment and the lack
of a consistent income as the primary cause of homelessness, but many do not feel they can look
for work and simultaneously apply for housing resources. Employment training and transitional
117

job placement programs should be integrated for the non-chronically homeless population. The
current CoC system operates under a point system that seeks to match families and individuals
with high needs into permanent housing, while those facing lower barriers will be placed in a
queue to get support eventually or, in some cases, apply for rapid rehousing. Many respondents
felt this process required them to be homeless for a significant amount of time, in many cases up
to a year before receiving adequate support. The most recent government data shows a
significant decrease in the chronically homeless population by 22%, while all other metrics
significantly increased due to high demand and scarcity of resources. These findings underscore
the importance of a coordinated strategy to address the non-chronically homeless without delay
and integrating employment services to fill the gap.
These findings are not unique to LA and highlight a national focus that has shifted from
prioritizing employment support and making it a viable alternative by all housing agencies. The
proposed solution does not necessarily require a complete systemic overhaul but rather an
expansion of supportive services by increasing the annual demand to invest in employment
agencies over the next two to three years. In particular, social enterprises have been providing
job training programs and transitional jobs to the homeless and those at risk of homelessness
with proven results over decades. The program delivery strategies include fostering supportive
staff-participant relationships by utilizing motivational interviewing to meet clients where they
are and help manage barriers thru flexible job planning, coaching, and peer support (Geckeler,
2019).
Some of the key organizations in this space offer a wide range of services beyond job
leads and transitional placement. Services models should include resume assistance, resources
118

for certifications and licenses including IDs and vital records, essential utility support for gas
cards, travel vouchers, interview clothing, and hygiene services.
Increase Government Contract Spending in Transitional Jobs
After many years of homelessness, clients who are justice impacted or re-entering the
workforce face low motivation and self-efficacy in their ability to get a job. Transitional jobs
offer a path towards permanent employment since they do not require recent or relevant
experience. Many transitional jobs are general labor or janitorial and driving jobs that allow
clients to get back into the habit of working under supervision by others who have a similar
background. However, transitional jobs currently pay minimum wage and often do not offer any
benefits, discouraging some homeless from participating. Private transitional jobs and
employment agencies, particularly social enterprises, should be intergraded during the CoC
intake process and provided adequate spending to provide opportunities with living wages and
full-time hours.
The data shows, investing in higher-paying jobs and programs would be worth the
investment. The federal cost of homelessness to the taxpayer is currently $35,776 per person. It
is estimated that California will spend an additional $300 million through the Homeless Housing
Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) program (National Alliance for Ending Homelessness,
2019). As the largest hotspot in California, an estimated 108 million dollars will be allocated for
Los Angeles County, increasing the total government cost to 37,492 per person. The previous
year's total from LAHSA shows the annual renewal demand and services breakdown (See Table
10). The report shows that 80% of the expenditures went to permanent housing services, while
only 9% was allocated to supportive services, most of which were designated for essential case
management support for those experiencing chronic homelessness.
119

Table 10
Example of Annual Housing Budget
Project type Grant amount
Leasing $1,578,433
Rental assistance $86,517,408
Supportive services $9,976,134
Operating costs $1,932,609
HMIS/IT $1,447,955
Admin $6,643,112
$108,095,651
Note: A Snapshot of LAHSA annual renewal demand - (Los Angeles Housing Authority, 2020).

To highlight the enormous value Social Enterprises can bring to a community, a Social
Return on Investment (SROI) provides the most reliable analysis method. SROI provides a
comprehensive account of the social, economic, and environmental value created by an
organization. Since the early 2000s, SROI has emerged as a preferred technique for measuring
income and outcomes globally (Millar, 2013). The following general formula will be used for
analysis:

120

Table 11
Social Impact Value Formula
SIV = Social Impact Value IIA = Initial Investment Amount
Note: the detail SROI description is outlined on tables 13 - 14

The most recent annual report of a selected social enterprise was used for data analysis.
The results show that government contract funding of its transitional jobs at 3.08 million
translated to transitional jobs for 1,570 clients that worked over 563,000 hours, generating over
7.9 million dollars in wages. The integrated programmatic delivery also showed Care connected
550 of those clients to jobs outside of the organization within 12 months, and an additional 2002
clients were connected directly to outside employment without transitional jobs, a total of 2552
permanent jobs. Based on this data, a very conservative estimate of just the impact of 1,570
transitional jobs provides the following SROI, doubling the investment.

121

Table 12
SROI Investment Returns

Contributions to society = $2,196,002 (Income Taxes paid, SSI, Sales tax)
Annualized savings to society = $4,945,308 (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Food Stamps,
Unemployment, Health Care, Housing, Recidivism and Rearrest for Prison and Jail, Medicaid)
Total Social Impact Value = $7,141,310

The data from Table 12 shows that the taxpayer investment in transitional jobs more than
doubled the investment. As discussed in the literature review, similar studies have been
conducted on ESEs to show that every $1.00 invested in social enterprise initiatives resulted in
$2.23 in benefits to society (Geckeler, 2019).
122

Table 13
Detailed Cost Analysis
Contributions to society = $2,196,002
$1,524,700 in federal and state taxes (based on 2018 tax average)
$474,000 in Social Security taxes (based on 2018 tax average)
$197,302 in sales tax: 27% of total income spent at 9.25% taxes (Consumer Expenditure Survey)
Contributions to society = $4,945,308
 $94,728 in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF);
 $539,704 in Food Stamps;
 $157,464 in Unemployment;
 $769,111 in Medicaid costs for employed Cara students: American Academy of Pediatrics. “Medicaid Facts:
Illinois, March 2015.” Medicaid costs based on data from 2011, adjusted for inflation using Bureau of Labor
Statistics online calculator (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl);
 $327,543 in Homeless Shelters: The Lewin Group, prepared for The Partnership to End Long-Term Homelessness
(2004). “Costs of Serving Homeless Individuals in Nine Cities.” Monthly averages based on daily rate x 30 days,
adjusted for inflation;
 $825,158 in Transitional Housing: Ibid;
 $330,708 in Recidivism and Rearrest for Prison and Jail: Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (2014), NCJ
244205. “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010”; Cook County
Department of Corrections. “Associated Population Costs”; Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Sentencing and
Corrections. (2012). “The Price of Prisons: Illinois.” Based on 2010 data; Cost per inmate, per month or year,
adjusted for inflation;
 $1,900,892 in Rearrest and Victim Impact Costs: Roman, J. & Chalfi n, A. The Urban Institute. (2006). “Does it
Pay to Invest in Reentry Programs for Jail Inmates?”; The Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Crime in the United
States: Property Crime, 2014.” Based on the fact 58% of Chrysalis clients are justice impacted.

123

For organizations to streamline employment opportunities with housing services, the
process can be implemented during intake by offering job opportunities based on skill level and
internships or training opportunities that create an interactive relationship with each user.
Through technology, every individual entered into the database can continue their application or
job search resume at any agency or cloud access system, including all of the major workforce
development industries. In addition, the larger firms like Goodwill Industries, Salvation Army,
WIOA, AJCC should all be given access to the same database after user consent. While this
strategy will entail initial footwork to gain the cooperation of all agencies, the overall
infrastructure systems already exist for integration. The following systems are already in place to
implement the initial phase:
- The HMIS (the CoC IT/Data system) has been designed to work seamlessly with
most nonprofit and government agency systems, provided they are willing to comply
with the set guidelines.
- Each agency can acquire additional government funding by meeting the edibility
criteria and offering jobs and services directly to clients with competitive wages.
developing and distributing
- Provide each agency and client a comprehensive inventory of service and adopt a
Social Enterprise Agency Utilization Ordinance to streamline the process across all
entry points.
Through policy updates and LAHSA integration of streamlining the process, ESE and ESOs can
easily be grafted into the larger infrastructure to fill in the gaps. However, this initiative will
require urgent action and CoP buy-in for a successful roll-out. ESO and ESE organizations can
easily integrate into these systems once the overall policy shift
124

Address wages inequality for transitional and low-income workers.
From a historical perspective, Flaming et al. (2004) reported that Los Angeles
experiences higher rates of homelessness than that of the other parts of the country due to higher
poverty rates and higher housing costs, many of which can force individuals into homelessness
due to unemployment or the inability to sustain needed wages. The most recent data shows, rent
in Los Angeles rose to an average of $2,182, which is 2.8% of the current minimum wage (Los
Angeles Homeless Services Authority, 2020). The same report states, Los Angeles, needs
509,000 new affordable housing units to meet the current demand. Recent propositions have
granted significant funding for new projects; however, three years after voters approved these
measures, the average cost of building a single housing unit for the homeless has risen to
$531,000 from a proposed budget of $350,000 a unit (Los Angeles Times, 2020).
In response to COVID-19, Los Angeles County and California have taken various
emergency measures to model rapid responses to this crisis. The current initiatives like Project
Room Key and Project Home Key have shown some promise. Under this model, Hotels facing
large vacancies due to the pandemic were reallocated to rent their entire building to the city to
house its most vulnerable homeless population while also creating jobs through staffing. This
model was set to expire but expanded until at least October of 2021 Los Angeles Times, 2020).
The Project Room Key and Project Home Key initiative has shown a promising model of how
the city can respond to a crisis and establish a prototype on converting existing structures for
long-term solutions. All employees working in PRK or PHK are currently making $18 per hour,
increasing the city minimum wage of $15. However, much remains uncertain for its long-term
viability until city regulations can be changed beyond the pandemic, and this model remains
unproven.
125

Implementation and Evaluation
Evaluation is the process or activity of gathering and analyzing data, while evaluative
thinking is the way of doing business (Patton, 2017). Evaluative thinking defines learning
organizations that are leaders and problem-solvers in society. Nonprofit organizations are often
in unique situations to prove trustworthy and effective to a complex set of stakeholders (Menzel,
2001). ESE and ESA organizations must establish an evaluation system that outlines their key
objectives and how they intend to make an impact. From a practical standpoint, the director of
data and leaders of the organization must build a portfolio of their results to track the actual
outcomes. Some driving factors include the average length of time between training completion
and employment, the types of employment obtained, average wages, and job retention rates after
six months. Second, in a qualitative survey, ESEs and ESAs should capture clients' sentiment
towards the program itself. (a) client satisfaction with the curriculum (b) delivery of content (c)
relevance of content to job search (d) recommendation of the program to others (e) overall
engagement. Each of these drivers must garner the attention and full support of organizational
leaders to initiate cultural change in organizations and increase impact.
Kipling’s Evaluation Model
External verification is an integral component to gauge efficacy for partners and
stakeholders (Hughey & Burke, 2010). However, the most critical component of evaluative
thinking is investing time and resources to reflect on evaluation findings and utilize them
(Patton, 2017). For a multi-agency recommendation, Kipling’s evaluation model effectively
introduces evaluative thinking into an organization’s culture. Kipling’s simple formula (Table
15) captures descriptive, factual, and open-ended questions for reality testing, most useful in
multi-agency settings (Patton, 2017).
126

Table 14
Kipling’ s Evaluation Model for ESE and ESA
Program description Parallel evaluation questions
Who: PEH currently unemployed. Who does the program serve?
What differences exist between the actual
population compared to the target population?

What: Unemployed participants receive a
resume, cover letter support, soft-skill
classes, licenses, and other resources
towards self-sustenance.
What do outside companies report about the
skills and qualifications of participants hired?
What trainings do participants complete?

Where: Office locations throughout LA
County.
How does the location affect recruitment and
participation? How does it impact operations?
Strengths and weaknesses of location?

How: Participants sign-up for the program,
complete intake and assessment, attend
class, complete other skill trainings and
work with a job coach.

How does the curriculum work in practice?
What are participants’ reactions? What is
evidence of alignment between current market
needs and participants’ skills?

Why: Evaluations and previous benchmarks
show that soft skill training, transitional
jobs, and resources are needed to reduce the
high barriers experienced by PEH.

To what extent do these agencies and
outcomes match previous evaluations? How
do these results compare to other models?
When: Participants are usually in programs
from a few weeks to 12 months in
transitional jobs. Outcomes are measured
quarterly and annually.
To what extent is the intended outcome
attained?
127

After identifying any gaps, organizations can then continue the work of evaluating progress each
step of the way. Experts and key stakeholders must adequately collect, organize, and analyze the
data to produce desired outcomes (Marsh & Farrell, 2015; Clark & Este, 2008). Organizations
can utilize tools like the logic model and theory of change to fully map their outcome goals and
portfolios.
The Theory of Change
When examining the gaps identified from the findings of this study or internal
evaluations, ESE and ESOs can use the theory of change (TOC) successfully to test their theories
and assumptions about program models. When examining the different constructs of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational gaps, it becomes equally important to highlight how those
changes can be implemented. As highlighted in the literature review, TOC presents the link
between program activities, intermediate outcomes, and ultimate goals by identifying long-term
goals and working backward to map out critical preconditions (Walker & Matraeese, 2011). In
addition, TOC can aid organizations to explain why the activities produce the outcomes (Patton,
2017).
Employment agencies in LA have a central goal to achieve, and TOC can help them test
their research-based theories and evaluate if their chosen program aligns with the one ultimate
goal of reducing homelessness in LA. Some examples of outcomes should include reducing the
number of low-income individuals that lose housing each year due to low wages or the number
of transitional employees who cannot afford rent after working within a program for a year. For
example, the current gap in LA shows preventive services are reaching approximately 6,300
individuals while the homeless count has gone up by approximately 12,000 per year (Los
Angeles Service Authority, 2020). If organizations achieve the goal of reaching an additional
128

6,500 PEH per year to regain transitional and permanent jobs, this could result in a 50%
reduction year over year and began to reverse the trend in LA. The challenge will be
differentiating between a possible flawed theory or actual performance gaps when outcomes are
not reached. The evaluation process should take place quarterly and annually for consistency,
iterations, and transparency.
Future Directions/Recommendations for Research
This study looked at the underutilization of employment services from the perspective of
non-chronically homeless residents in LA. The 20 participants provided a compelling data point
on how the phenomenon of homelessness is impacting residents, particularly minorities and
those who are justice impacted. Future research direction should expand on the key systemic
barriers and their direct correlation with the unhoused. For example, education inequity, systemic
racism, institutional racism, redlining, land policy, and other barriers to access should be studied.
Additional research should also incorporate a mixed-method approach to ensure the data point is
rich with quantitative and qualitative information (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Future studies
should also look at public opinion on funding that will expire over the next five years and the
will of the public to continue funding initiatives long-term
Similarly, future studies should be done about adverse childhood trauma, foster care, and
the juvenile system and the causation or other correlation to the growing homelessness crisis in
LA. The findings also showed a lack of trust in current data points by various government
agencies in LA. The finding warrants additional audits and research to identify gaps in the data
point that have continued to show double-digit growth in homelessness while expenditures have
gone up significantly. A comparative study should also be conducted in Houston, a similar
minority-majority city currently managing this crisis differently. By continuing to invest in
129

research about jobs and homelessness in LA. The non-chronically unhoused can begin to see a
change in program delivery and support systems to create a safety net and prevent long-term
chronic homelessness.
Conclusion
This study provides valuable research to employment agencies and community leaders in
LA to review and implement through the voice of the unhoused and their perceived barriers and
recommendations. Employment services remain an underutilized tool in combatting the
homelessness crisis of Los Angeles. While strategies like housing first and other initiatives
aimed at chronic homelessness are showing progress, LA can no longer ignore the growing crisis
among the non-chronically homeless and over half a million facing severe rent burden. By
creating low barriers to entry and addressing the awareness gap, employment agencies and social
enterprises can significantly impact the non-chronically unhoused towards self-sustenance. The
challenges faced by the unhoused are non-linear and often intersectional with situational and
systemic barriers. Factors like incarceration, physical injury, ageism, and other environmental
barriers significantly impacted perceptions of the unhoused on their ability to find permanent
employment. Therefore, job opportunities and training plans must be iterative and dynamic to
rise to the scope of the challenge. Increasing street outreach, paying a living wage, and offering
job skill training that meets the unhoused needs and desires will play a pivotal role in closing the
motivation gap.
Agencies should continue to refine their programs and evaluation tools to measure actual
outcomes, not indicators, and build portfolios to tell the story. Through evaluative thinking,
transparency, and effective communication, organizations can remain viable and well-funded by
showing their value to the community. Ultimately, employment agencies will know they have
130

succeeded when the overall homelessness count in LA begins to decrease year over year and the
number of people facing severe rent burdens begins to show a significant decline.

131

References
Abraham, K. M., Yosef, M., Resnick, S. G., & Zivin, K. (2017). Competitive employment
outcomes among veterans in VHA Therapeutic and Supported Employment Services
programs. Psychiatric Services, 68(9), 938-946.
Ahmed, A., & Madoc-Jones, I. (2020). Homelessness prevention policy in an international
context: The Housing Act (Wales) 2014. Social Policy and Society, 19(1), 95-10
Ahmed, A., & Madoc-Jones, I. Homelessness Prevention Policy in an
International. Studies, 29(2), 215-234
Andrew, M. & Kearney, C. (2007). Practicing in and learning from community placements. New
Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 31-45.
Aubry, T., Nelson, G., & Tsemberis, S. (2015). Housing first for people with severe mental
illness who are homeless: a review of the research and findings from the at home—chez
soi demonstration project. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 60(11), 467-474.
Baker, T., & Evans, J. (2016). ‘Housing First’ and the changing terrains of homeless
governance. Geography Compass, 10(1), 25-41.
Baines, D., Cunningham, I., Campey, J., & Shields, J. (2014). Not Profiting from Precarity: The
Work of Nonprofit Service Delivery and the Creation of Precasiousness. Just Labour.
https://doi.org/10.25071/1705-1436.6
Balkin, S. (1992) Entrepreneurial Activities of Homeless Men, The Journal of Sociology and
Social Welfare (19,4) pp.129-150.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
132

Bassuk, E. L., Rubin, L., and Lauriat, A. (1986). Characteristics of Sheltered Homeless Families.
American Journal of Public Health, 76(9), 1097-1101. doi:10.2105/ajph.76.9.1097
Beatty, C., Foden, M., McCarthy, L. and Reeve, K. (2015) Benefit Sanctions and Homelessness:
A Scoping Report (London: Crisis).
Benjaminsen, L. (2016) Homelessness in a Scandinavian Welfare State: The Risk of Shelter Use
in the Danish Adult Population, Urban Studies 53(10) pp.2041-2063.
Benjaminsen, L. and Andrade, S.B. (2015) Testing a Typology of Homelessness Across Welfare
Regimes: Shelter Use in Denmark and the USA, Housing Studies 30(6) pp.858-876.
Benjaminsen, L. and Knutagård, M. (2016) Homelessness Research and Policy Development:
Examples from the Nordic Countries, European Journal of Homelessness 10(3) pp.45-66.
Bond, G. R., Drake, R. E., & Pogue, J. A. (2019). Expanding individual placement and support
to populations with conditions and disorders other than serious mental illness. Psychiatric
services, 70(6), 488-498.
Bretherton, J. (2017) Homelessness and Gender Reconsidered, European Journal of
Homelessness 11(1) pp.1-21.
Bridgman, R. (2001) I Helped Build That: A Demonstration Employment Training Program for
Homeless Youth in Toronto, Canada, American Anthropologist 103(3) pp.779-795.
Brown, M., Mihelicova, M., Collins, K., & Ponce, A. (2019). Predictors of employment
outcomes in a comprehensive service program for individuals experiencing chronic
homelessness. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 89(2), 279.
Brown, M., Vaclavik, D., Watson, D. P., & Wilka, E. (2017). Predictors of homeless services re-
entry within a sample of adults receiving Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-
Housing Program (HPRP) assistance. Psychological services, 14(2), 129.
133

Burt, M. R., Aron, L. Y ., Douglas, T., Valente, J., Lee, E., & Iwen, B. (1999). Homelessness:
Programs and the People They Serve: Findings of the National Survey of Homeless
Assistance Providers and Clients: Summary Report. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:
10.1037/e726182011-001
Burt, M., Aron, L. and Lee, E. (2001). Helping America's homeless: Emergency shelter or
affordable housing, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Burt, M., Wilkins, C., Spellman, B., D'Alanno, T., White, M., Henry, M., & Matthews, N.
(2016). Rapid Re-Housing for Homeless Families Demonstration Programs Evaluation
Report Part I: How They Worked-Process Evaluation. US Department of Housing and
urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.
Cahill, M., Robinson, K., Pettigrew, J., Galvin, R., & Stanley, M. (2018). Qualitative synthesis: a
guide to conducting a meta-ethnography. British journal of occupational therapy, 81(3),
129-137.
Callahan, R. F. (2019). Marginalized: The Missing Public Management Research on
Homelessness. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 26(2), 4-18.
Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for Interview Research: The Interview Protocol
Refinement Framework. Qualitative Report, 21(5).
Caton, C.L. (Ed.) (1990) Homeless in America (New York: Oxford University Press). Clarke, A.
(2010) Work as a Route Out of Homelessness: A Case Study of Emmaus
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
Clemens, E., Hess, R. S., Strear, M. M., Rue, L., Rizzolo, S., & Henninger, J. (2018). Promoting
resilience in youth experiencing homelessness through implementation of the McKinney-
134

Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for
Children and Youth, 62(2), 105-115.
Cohen, E. (2019). The Effects of Designated Homeless Housing Sites on Local Communities:
Evidence from Los Angeles County. Available at SSRN 3513625.
Colangelo, E. A. (2019). National Alliance to End Homelessness. Encyclopedia of Homelessness.
doi: 10.4135/9781412952569.n114
Collins, D., & Stout, M. (2019). Does Housing First policy seek to fulfil the right to housing?
The case of Alberta, Canada. Housing Studies, 1-23. Community college performance.
Boston: University of Massachusetts, Lumina Foundation for Education.
Cook, J. A., Pickett-Schenk, S. A., Grey, D., Banghart, M., Rosenheck, R. A., & Randolph, F.
(2001). V ocational outcomes among formerly homeless persons with severe mental
illness in the ACCESS program. American Psychiatric Association, 52(8), 1075–1080.
Cook, M., & Willetts, M. C. (2019). Affiliations for homeless individuals through social
enterprise employment. Social Enterprise Journal.
Cooney, K., & Weaver, D. (2001). The Implementation of a “Work First” Welfare-to-Work
Program in a Changing Environment. Journal of Community Practice, 9(3), 33–54.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v09n03_03
Corinth, K. (2017). The impact of permanent supportive housing on homeless populations.
Journal of Housing Economics, 35, 69–84.
Cusack, M., & Montgomery, A. E. (2017). The role of eviction in veterans’ homelessness
recidivism. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 26(1), 58-64.
De Langhe, B., Putoni, S., Larrick, R. (2017). How Linear Thinking in a Non-Linear World
Leads to Wrong Decisions. https://doi.org/10.13007/685
135

Denvall, V. (2017). Evaluating homelessness–a comparative analysis of top 10 articles from the
US and Europe. European Journal of Social Work, 20(5), 724-740.
Desai, M. M. and Rosenheck, R. A. 2005. Unmet need for medical care among homeless adults
with serious mental illness. General Hospital Psychiatry, 27: 418–425.
Dowd, A. C. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to assess
Dwyer, L. (2018). The making of ‘hidden women'. Parity, 31(9), 52
Dwyer, P. (2016) ‘Citizenship, Conduct and Conditionality: Sanction and Support in the 21st
Century UK Welfare State’, in: M. Fenger, J. Hudson and C. Needham (Eds.) Social
Policy Review 28: Analysis and Debate in Social Policy, pp. 41-62. (Bristol: The Policy
Press).
Dwyer, P. (2018) Welfare Conditionality, Sanctions, Support and Behavioural Change Final
Findings: Overview ESRC. http://www.welfareconditionality.ac.uk/ wp-
content/uploads/2018/05/40414_Overview-HR4.pdf (Accessed June 2018).
Evans, W. N., Philips, D. C., & Ruffini, K. J. (2019). Reducing and Preventing Homelessness: A
Review of the Evidence and Charting a Research Agenda (No. w26232). National Bureau
of Economic Research
Evans, W. N., Sullivan, J. X., & Wallskog, M. (2016). The impact of homelessness prevention
programs on homelessness. Science, 353(6300), 694-699.
Farrugia, D. and Gerrard, J. (2015) Academic Knowledge and Contemporary Poverty: The
Politics of Homelessness Research, Sociology 50(2) pp.267-284.
Faulkner, S. L., & Trotter, S. P. (2017). Data saturation. The international encyclopedia of
communication research methods, 1-2.
136

Ferguson, K.M., Bender, K., Thompson, S.J., Maccio, E.M. and Pollio, D. (2012) Employment
Status and Income Generation among Homeless Young Adults: Results from a Five-city,
Mixed-methods Study, Youth and Society 44(3) pp.385-407.
Flaming, D., Burns, P., & Carlen, J. (2018). Escape routes: Meta-analysis of homelessness in
LA. Economic Roundtable Report.
Flaming, Daniel, et al. (2004) Economic Roundtable | Homeless in Los Angeles.
economicrt.org/publication/homeless-in-la/.
Frederick, D. E., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2019). Supported employment: Meta-analysis and
review of randomized controlled trials of individual placement and support. PloS
one, 14(2), e0212208.
Fyhn, T., Øverland, S., & Reme, S. E. (2020). Predictors of employment in people with moderate
to severe mental illness participating in a randomized controlled trial of Individual
Placement and Support (IPS). International Journal of Social Psychiatry,
0020764020934841
Gabrielian, S., Yuan, A.H., Andersen, R.M., & Gelberg, L. (2016). Diagnoses Treated in
Ambulatory Care Among Homeless-Experienced Veterans: Does Supported Housing
Matter? Journal of Primary Care & Community Health 7 (4): 281–287.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2150131916656009.
Garland, D. (2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary
Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Garrido, M.R. (2016) “The Homeless Charity that Works”: A Critical Sociolinguistic Analysis of
Charity Discourses and English-only Ideologies in Emmaus London, Bulletin VALS-
ASLA 104 pp.9-26.
137

Geckeler, C., Folsom, L., Hebbar, L., Mallett, J., Paprocki, A., & Sarver, M. (2019, September
25). The Impact of a Social Enterprise and Workforce System Operated Transitional
Employment Program in Los Angeles. REDF.org. https://redf.org/the-
impact/measurement-evaluation/
Gill, T. (2015) Yokohama Street Life: The Precarious Career of a Japanese Day
Laborer (London: Lexington Books).
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Routledge.
Goodman, S., Messeri, P., & O’Flaherty, B. (2017). Homelessness prevention in New York City:
On average, it works. Journal of Housing Economics 31: 14–34.
Gowan, T. (2010) Hobos, Hustlers, and Backsliders: Homeless in San Francisco (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press).
Gray, H. M., Nelson, S. E., Shaffer, H. J., Stebbins, P., & Farina, A. R. (2017). How do homeless
adults change their lives after completing an intensive job‐skills program? A prospective
study. Journal of community psychology, 45(7), 888-905
Gray, H. M., Shaffer, P. M., Nelson, S. E., & Shaffer, H. J. (2016). Changing social networks
among homeless individuals: A prospective evaluation of a job- and life-skills training
program.
Greenwood, R.M., Stefancic, A., Tsemberis, S. and Busch-Geertsema, V. (2013)
Implementations of Housing First in Europe: Successes and Challenges in Maintaining
Model Fidelity, American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation 16(4) pp.290-312.
Gubits, D., M. Shinn, M. Wood, S. Bell, S. Dastrup, C.D. Solari, S.R. Brown, D. McInnis, T.
McCall, U. Kattel, Abt Associates Inc., and Vanderbilt University. 2016. “Family options
138

study: 3-year impacts of housing and services interventions for homeless families.” U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Hansen-Löfstrand, C. (2015) The Policing of a Homeless Shelter: Private Security Patrolling the
Border of Eligibility, European Journal of Homelessness 9(2) pp.17-38.
Hansen-Löfstrand, C. and Juhila, K. (2012) The Discourse of Consumer Choice in the Pathways
Housing First Model, European Journal of Homelessness 6(2) pp.47- 68.
Hargadon, A. (2003). How breakthroughs happen: the surprising truth about how companies
innovate. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Retrieved from
https://reserves.usc.edu/ares/ares.dll?Action=10&Type=10&Value=202005
Hendry, D. G., Woelfer, J. P., & Duong, T. (2017). U-District Job Co-op: constructing a future
vision for homeless young people and employment. Information Technology & People.
Henry, B., Dosani, N., Huynh, L., & Amirault, N. (2017). Palliative care as a public health issue:
understanding disparities in access to palliative care for the homeless population living in
Toronto, based on a policy analysis. Current Oncology, 24(3), 187.
Henwood, B. F., & Padgett, D. K. (2019). Homelessness in Los Angeles and New York City: A
Tale of Two Cities. In Homelessness Prevention and Intervention in Social Work (pp.
171-183). Springer, Cham.
Herring, C., Yarbrough, D., & Marie Alatorre, L. (2020). Pervasive penality: How the
criminalization of poverty perpetuates homelessness. Social Problems, 67(1), 131–149.
Holland, G., & Smith, D. (2017). La county homelessness jumps a staggering 23% as need far
outpaces housing, new count shows. Los Angeles Times.
139

Hoven, H., Ford, R., Willmot, A., Hagan, S. and Siegrist, J. (2016) Job Coaching and Success in
Gaining and Sustaining Employment among Homeless People, Research on Social Work
Practice 26(6) pp.668-674.
Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in
qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(1).
Jones, K., Ahmed, A., Madoc-Jones, I., Gibbons, A., Rogers, M., & Wilding, M. (2020).
Working and homeless: exploring the interaction of housing and labour market
insecurity. Social Policy and Society, 19(1), 121-132.
Katz, A. S., Zerger, S., & Hwang, S. W. (2017). Housing First the conversation: Discourse,
policy and the limits of the possible. Critical Public Health, 27(1), 139-147.
Keating, W. D. (2018). Evicted: Poverty and profit in the American city, by Matthew Desmond:
New York, NY, Crown, 2016.
Kertesz, S. G., & Johnson, G. (2017). Housing First: Lessons from the United States and
Challenges for Australia. Australian Economic Review 50, no. 2: 220–28
Kertesz, S. G., Austin, E. L., Holmes, S. K., DeRussy, A. J., Van Deusen Lukas, C., & Pollio, D.
E. (2017). Housing first on a large scale: Fidelity strengths and challenges in the VA’s
HUD-VASH program. Psychological services, 14(2), 118.
Kertsez, S.G., Crouch, K., Milby. J.B., Cusimano, R.E. and Schumacher, J.E. (2009) ‘Housing
First for Homeless Persons with Active Addiction: Are we Overreaching?’, The Milbank
Quarterly 87(2) pp.495-534.
Kim, H., Sefcik, J. S., & Bradway, C. (2017). Characteristics of qualitative descriptive studies: A
systematic review. Research in nursing & health, 40(1), 23-42.
140

Knottnerus, B. J., Bertels, L. S., & Willems, D. L. (2020). Qualitative approaches can strengthen
generalization and application of clinical research. Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology, 119, 136-139.
Kozloff, N., Adair, C. E., Lazgare, L. I. P., Poremski, D., Cheung, A. H., Sandu, R., &
Stergiopoulos, V. (2016). " Housing first" for homeless youth with mental
illness. Pediatrics, 138(4).
Kriel, J. D. (2017). International responses to homelessness: Lessons for the City of
Tshwane. Development Southern Africa, 34(4), 399-413.
Kuhn, R., Richards, J., Roth, S., & Clair, K. (2020). Homelessness and Public Health in Los
Angeles.
Leclair, M.C., Deveaux, F., Roy, L., Goulet, M.H., Latimer, E.A. and Crocker, A.G. (2019) The
Impact of Housing First on Criminal Justice Outcomes among Homeless People with
Mental Illness: A Systematic Review, The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.
Lemoine, G. J., Eva, N., Meuser, J. D., & Falotico, P. (2020). Organizational performance with a
broader focus: The case for a stakeholder approach to leadership. Business Horizons.
Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, (2020). Homeless Count Presentation. Retrieved
11/28/20. https://www.lahsa.org/documents?id=4558-2020-greater-los-angeles-homeless-
count-presentation.pdf
Los Angeles Times, (2020). Housing costs rose to 531,000 per unit. Retrieved 11/28/20.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-09/high-of-746-000
Lucas, David S. 2017. “The Impact of Federal Homelessness Funding on Homelessness”
Southern Economic Journal 84 (2): 548–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/soej.12231.

141

MacKnee, C. M., & Mervyn, J. (2002). Critical incidents that facilitate homeless people’s
transition off the streets. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 11(4), 2002.
doi:10.1023/A:1016837231886
Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview
studies: guided by information power. Qualitative health research, 26(13), 1753-1760.
Marmor, T. R. (2018). Social insurance and American health care: principles and
paradoxes. Journal of health politics, policy and law, 43(6), 1013-1024.
Marr, M.D. (2015) Better Must Come: Exiting Homelessness in Two Global Cities (Ithaca; New
York: Cornell University Press).
Marrone, J. (2005). Creating hope through employment for people who are homeless or in
transitional housing. American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation, 8: 13–35.
Mayne, J. (2017). Theory of change analysis: Building robust theories of change. Canadian
Journal of Program Evaluation, 32(2).
Mayock, P. and Sheridan, S. (2012) Women’s Homeless ‘Journeys’: Key Findings from a
Biographical Study of Homeless Women in Ireland (Dublin, School of Social Work and
Social Policy & Children’s Research Centre, Trinity College Dublin).
McCarthy, L. (2013) Homelessness and Identity: A Critical Review of the Literature and
Theory, People, Place and Policy online 7(1) pp.46-58.
McChesney, K. Y. (1986). New findings on homeless families. Family Professional, 1(2).In U.S.
House of Representatives Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, The Crisis
in Homelessness: Effect on Children and Families Hearings, pp 165-174. Washington,
DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
142

McKinnish, T. (2005). “Importing the Poor: Welfare Magnetism and Cross-Border Welfare
Migration.” The Journal of Human Resources 15 (2): 57–76.
https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.XL.1.57.
McNaughton, C. (2006) Agency, Structure and Biography: Charting Transitions through
Homelessness in Late Modernity, Auto/Biography 14(2) pp.134-152.
Metraux, S., Fargo, J.D., Eng, N. and Culhane, D.P. (2018) Employment and Earnings
Trajectories During Two Decades Among Adults in New York City Homeless
Shelters, Cityscape 20(2) pp.173-202.
Metraux, S., Manjelievskaia, J., Treglia, D., Hoffman, R., Culhane, D.P. and Ku, B.S. (2016)
Posthumously Assessing a Homeless Population: Services Use and
Characteristics, Psychiatric Services 67(12) pp.1334-1339.
Millar, H. (2013). Social Return on Investment (SROI) and Performance Measurement: The
opportunities and barriers for social enterprises in health and social care. Public
Management Review, 15(6), 923–941. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.698857
Min, S., Wong, Y . I., & Rothbard, A. B. (2004). Outcomes of shelter use among homeless
persons with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 55(3), 284–289.
NAEH, (2019). The National Alliance to End Homelessness. Retrieved on 11/28/20.
https://endhomelessness.org/resources/?fwp_content_filter=publications
Neale, J. (1997) Homelessness and Theory Reconsidered, Housing Studies 12(1) pp.47-61.
O'Day, B., Kleinman, R., Fischer, B., Morris, E., & Blyler, C. (2017). Preventing unemployment
and disability benefit receipt among people with mental illness: Evidence review and
policy significance. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 40(2), 123.
143

O'Flaherty, B. (2019). "Homelessness research: A guide for economists (and friends)," Journal of
Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 1-25.
O’Connell JJ. Premature Mortality in Homeless Populations: A Review of the Literature, 19
pages. Nashville: National Health Care for the Homeless Council, Inc., 2005.
O’Donoghue-Hynes, B., Waldron, R. and Redmond, D. (2015) Patterns of Homeless Emergency
Accommodation Use in Dublin: How do we Compare? Paper presented at European
Observatory on Homelessness Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 25/09/2015.
Padgett, D., Henwood, B. F., & Tsemberis, S. J. (2016). Housing First: Ending homelessness,
transforming systems, and changing lives. Oxford University Press, USA.
Padgett, D.K. (2007) There’s No Place Like (a) Home: Ontological Security among Persons with
Serious Mental Illness in the United States, Social Science and Medicine 64(9) pp.1925-
1936.
Parsell, C. (2017). Do we have the knowledge to address homelessness?. Social Service
Review, 91(1), 134-153
Parsell, C. (2018) The Homeless Person in Contemporary Society: Identities, Agency, and
Choice (Abingdon: Routledge).
Pavlakis, A. E., & Duffield, B. (2017). The Politics of Policy in the McKinney–Vento Homeless
Assistance Act: Setting the Agenda for Students Experiencing Homelessness. The Urban
Review, 49(5), 805-831
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Perspectives, European Journal of Homelessness 10(3) pp.19-44.
Pew Research Center, 2021. [2021-04-07]. Mobile Fact Sheet – Cell Phones
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/
144

Piketty, T. (2014) Capital in the Twenty First Century (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press). Pleace,
N. (2000) The New Consensus, the Old Consensus and the Provision of
Pleace, N. (2019). Preventing Homelessness: A review of the International evidence.
Pleace, N. and Bretherton, J. (2017) ‘What Do We Mean by Housing First? Considering the
Significance of Variations in Housing First Services in the European Union’, in: J.
Sylvestre, G. Nelson and T. Aubry (Eds.) Housing for People with Serious Mental
Illness: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy, pp. 287-299. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
Pleace, N. and Bretherton, J. (2017a) Crisis Skylight: Final Report of the Universityof York
Evaluation (London: Crisis).
Pleace, N. and Quilgars, D. (2013) Improving Health and Social Integration
Pleace, N., Baptista, I., Benjaminsen, L. and Busch-Geertsema, V. (2018) Homelessness
Services in Europe (Brussels: FEANTSA).
Ponce, A. N., Brown, M., Cunningham, A., & Rowe, M. (2018). Stakeholder perspectives on
integrated services for people who experience chronic homelessness. Journal of Social
Distress and the Homeless, 27(2), 126-134.
Poremski, D., & Hwang, S. W. (2016). Willingness of housing first participants to consider
supported-employment services. Psychiatric Services, 67(6), 667-670.
Poremski, D., Rabouin, D. and Latimer, E. (2017) A Randomised Controlled Trial of Evidence
Based Supported Employment for People Who Have Recently Been Homeless and Have
a Mental Illness, Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services
Research 44(2) pp.217-224.
145

Poremski, D., Sagayadevan, V. D. O., Wang, P., Lum, A., Subramaniam, M., & Ann, C. S.
(2016). The impact of stakeholder preferences on service user adherence to treatments for
schizophrenia and metabolic comorbidities. PloS one, 11(11), e0166171.
Poremski, D., Stergiopoulos, V., Braithwaite, E., Distasio, J., Nisenbaum, R. and Latimer, E.
(2016a) Effects of Housing First on Employment and Income of Homeless Individuals:
Results of a Randomized Trial, Psychiatric Services 67(6) pp.603-609.
Poremski, D., Woodhall-Melnik, J., Lemieux, A.J. and Stergiopoulos, V. (2016) Persisting
Barriers to Employment for Recently Housed Adults with Mental Illness who were
Homeless, Journal of Urban Health 93(1) pp.96-108.
Radey, M., & Wilkins, B. (2010) Short-Term Employment Services for Homeless Individuals:
Perceptions from Stakeholders in a Community Partnership, Journal of Social Service
Research, 37:1, 19-33, DOI: 10.1080/01488376.2011.524513
Randall, G. and Brown, S. (1999) Ending Exclusion: Employment and Training Schemes for
Homeless Young People (York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation).
Rankin, S. K. (2019). Punishing Homelessness. New Criminal Law Review, 22(1), 99-135.
Richards, L. (2019). The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act:
A Policy Analysis. California State University, Long Beach.
Ridgway, P. and Zipple, A.M. (1990) The Paradigm Shift in Residential Services: From the
Linear Continuum to Supported Housing Approaches, Psychosocial Rehabilitation
Journal 13 pp.11-31.
Rodriguez, J. M., & Eidelman, T. A. (2017). Homelessness interventions in Georgia: Rapid re-
housing, transitional housing, and the likelihood of returning to shelter. Housing Policy
Debate, 27(6), 825-842.
146

Rogers, T. N., & Rogers, C. R. (2019). Social services professionals' views of barriers to
supporting homeless noncustodial fathers. Family relations, 68(1), 39-50.
Rosenheck, R. (2010) ‘Service Models and Mental Health Problems: Cost Effectiveness and
Policy Relevance’ in: I. Gould Ellen and B. O’Flaherty (Eds.) How to House the
Homeless, pp. 17-36. (Russell Sage Foundation: New York).
Rosenheck, R., Kasprow, W., Frisman, L., & Liu-Mares, W. (2003). “Cost-Effectiveness of
Supported Housing for Homeless Persons with Mental Illness.” Archives of General
Psychiatry 60 (9): 940-951. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.60.9.940.
Rosenheck, R.A. and Mares, A.S. (2007) Implementation of Supported Employment for
Homeless Veterans with Psychiatric or Addiction Disorders: Two-year
Outcomes, Psychiatric Services 58(3) pp.325-333.
Ruder, A., Siwicki, J., Terry, E., & Toyin-Adelaja, T. (2020). Benefits Cliffs as a Barrier to
Career Advancement for Low-Income Adults: Insights from Employment Services
Providers. FRB Atlanta Community and Economic Development Discussion Paper,
(2020-2).
Sahlin, I. (2005) The Staircase of Transition: Survival Through Failure, Innovation 18(2) pp.
115-136.
Sanders, B., Teixeira, L. and Truder, J. (2013) Dashed Hopes, Lives On Hold Single Homeless
People’s Experiences of the Work Programme (London: Crisis).
Semeah, L. M., Campbell, C. L., Cowper, D. C., & Peet, A. C. (2017). Serving our homeless
veterans: patient perpetrated violence as a barrier to health care access. Journal of Public
and Nonprofit Affairs, 3(2), 223-234.
147

Shaheen, G. & Rio, J. (2007). Recognizing work as a priority in preventing and ending
homelessness. Journal of Primary Prevention, 28: 341–358.
Shinn, M., Greer, A. L., Bainbridge, J., Kwon, J., & Zuiderveen, S. (2013). Efficient targeting of
homelessness prevention services for families. American journal of public
health, 103(S2), S324-S330.
Singh, P. (2005) No Home, No Job: Moving on From Transitional Spaces (London: Off the
Streets and Into Work).
Smith-Maddox, R., Brown, L. E., Kratz, S., & Newmyer, R. (2020). Developing a Policy
Advocacy Practice for Preventing and Ending Homelessness. Journal of Social Work
Education, 1-12.
Solari, C.D., Shivji, A., De Sousa, T., Watt, R., & Silverbush, M. (2016). The 2016 Annual
Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress Part 2: Estimates of Homelessness in
the United States. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of
Community Planning and Development.
Specht, J., Kuonath, A., Pachler, D., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2018). How change agents’
motivation facilitates organizational change: Pathways through meaning and
organizational identification. Journal of Change Management, 18(3), 198-217.
Squires, G. D. (2018). Evicted: Poverty and profit in the American city, by Matthew Desmond:
New York, NY, Crown, 2016.
Stacy, M. A., Stefanovics, E., & Rosenheck, R. (2017). Reasons for job loss among homeless
veterans in supported employment. American Journal of Psychiatric
Rehabilitation, 20(1), 16-33.
148

Stanhope, V. and Dunn, K. (2011) The Curious Case of Housing First: The Limits of Evidence
Based Policy, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 32 pp.275-282.
Stanhope, V., Padgett, D. K., & Henwood, B. F. (2012). Policies to address homelessness.
Housing first approaches. In International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home (pp. 230-
236). Elsevier
Sveinsdottir, V., & Bond, G. R. (2017). Barriers to employment for people with severe mental
illness and criminal justice involvement. Journal of Mental Health, 1-9.
Sveinsdottir, V., Reme, S. E., & Bond, G. R. IPS Supported Employment: Across borders and
patient groups? Retrieved
from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vigdis_Sveinsdottir/publication/309251178_I
PS_Supported_Employment_Across_borders_and_patient_groups/links/5a0b07db458515
e4827460e8/IPS-Supported-Employment-Across-borders-and-patient-groups.pdf
Tabol, C., Drebing, C. and Rosenheck, R. (2009) Studies of “Supported” and “Supportive”
Housing: A Comprehensive Review of Model Descriptions and Measurement, Evaluation
and Program Planning 33 pp.446-456.
Taiwo, A. A., Lawal, F. A., & Agwu, P. E. (2016). Vision and Mission in Organization: Myth or
Heuristic Device? The International Journal of Business & Management, 4(3).
Taylor, J. P., Whittenburg, H. N., Thoma, C. A., Gokita, T., & Pickover, G. S. (2019).
Collaboration to Improve Employment Outcomes for Youth with Disabilities:
Implications of the Pre-ETS Components of WIOA on IDEA Transition
Requirements. DADD Online, 38.
Teasdale, S. (2010) Models of Social Enterprise in the Homelessness Field, Social Enterprise
Journal 6(1) pp.23-34.
149

Teasdale, S. (2012) Negotiating Tensions: How Do Social Enterprises in the Homelessness Field
Balance Social and Commercial Considerations? Housing Studies 27(4) pp.514-532.
Teasdale, S., Jones, P.A. and Mullins, D. (2011) Connecting the Dots: The Potential for Self-
Help Housing to Address Homelessness (London: Crisis).
Townley, G., Sand, K., Kindschuh, T., Brott, H., & Leickly, E. (2021). Engaging unhoused
community members in the design of an alternative first responder program aimed at
reducing the criminalization of homelessness. Journal of Community Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22601
Trutko, J.W., Barnow, B.S., Beck, S.K., Min, S. and Isbell, K. (1998) Employment and Training
for America’s Homeless: Final Report of the Job Training for the Homeless
Demonstration Program (Washington, DC: US Department of Labor).
Tsai, J. and Rosenheck, R.A. (2012). Considering Alternatives to the Housing First
Model, European Journal of Homelessness 6(2) pp.201-208.
Tsai, J., & Rosenheck, R. A. (2016). Psychosis, lack of job skills, and criminal history:
Associations with employment in two samples of homeless men. Psychiatric
Services, 67(6), 671-675.
Tsemberis, S. (2010, a) Housing First: Ending Homelessness, Promoting Recovery and Reducing
Costs, in: I. Gould Ellen and B. O’Flaherty (Eds.) How to House the Homeless, pp.37-56.
(Russell Sage Foundation: New York).
Tsemberis, S.J. (2010, b) Housing First (Centre City, Minnesota: Hazelden).
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2018). The Annual Homeless
Assessment Report to Congress (2017). SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:
10.2139/ssrn.1680873
150

United States Department of Labor. (no date). Meeting the challenge: Welfare-to-work grants to
move long-term welfare recipients into gainful employment.
http://wtw.doleta.gov/resources/fact-challenge.htm
United Way of Greater Los Angeles (2021). Impact Report.
https://www.unitedwayla.org/en/news-resources/impact-reports/
Upshur, C. C., Jenkins, D., Weinreb, L., Gelberg, L., & Orvek, E. A. (2018). Homeless women’s
service use, barriers, and motivation for participating in substance use treatment. The
American journal of drug and alcohol abuse, 44(2), 252-262.
Von Wachter, T., Bertrand, M., Pollack, H., Rountree, J., & Blackwell, B. (2019). Predicting and
Preventing Homelessness in Los Angeles.
Wegner, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning meaning and identity, (6
th
ed). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wegner, E., McDemott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). A guide to managing knowledge. Cultivating
communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weng, S. S., & Clark, P. G. (2018). Working with homeless populations to increase access to
services: A social service providers’ perspective through the lens of stereotyping and
stigma. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 29(1), 81-101.
Wilkins, B. T., Mullins, M. H., Mahan, A., & Canfield, J. P. (2016). Homeless liaisons'
awareness about the implementation of the McKinney–Vento Act. Children &
Schools, 38(1), 57-64.
Woodhall-Melnik, J. R., & Dunn, J. R. (2016). A systematic review of outcomes associated with
participation in Housing First programs. Housing Studies, 31(3), 287-304.
151

Yazdani, K., Nikoo, M., Saayre, E. C., Choi, F., Jang, K., & Krausz, R. M. (2020). The impact of
employment on recovery among individuals who are homeless with severe mental illness
in the Vancouver At Home/Chez Soi trial. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric
Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-020-01887-9

152

Appendix A - Theoretical Framework Matrix

Research Question Theoretical Framework Data Instrument Questions

1. What are the knowledge
and motivational factors that
impact the utilization of
employment services by the
homeless in LA?

KMO (Clark and Estes,
2008).

Social Cognitive Theory
(Bandura, 1986)

Interview Questions: 1-
2,8,10,12-14

2. What barriers do
homeless individuals in Los
Angeles County perceive
when seeking employment?

Attribution Theory (Kelley &
Michela, 1980; Weiner,
1986).

Interview Questions: 3-5, 7,
11, 13-14.

3. How can employment
service agencies improve
their planning, participation,
and evaluation of services to
better address barriers
experienced by homeless
individuals in Los Angeles
County?

KMO (Clark and Estes,
2008).

Theory of Change (Mayne,
2017).

Interview Questions: 2, 5-7,
9-10
Demographic Questions Pre Interview Questions: 1-6

153

Appendix B - Informed Consent

Hello, my name is Josh, a student at USC Rosier School of education. I am conducting a study
on the underutilization of employment service agencies by those experiencing homelessness. The
overarching purpose of this study is to understand the barriers that prevent over three fourth of
the homeless population in Los Angeles from using employment services. Participation in this
study is completely voluntary and all measures of confidentiality and university guidelines will
be followed, and no person’s identity will be revealed at any point. If you agree to proceed, you
will participate in a 45–60-minute interview, the audio will be recorded for transcription
purposes. I will delete all recordings from my USC Zoom account and any local copies on my
computer upon completion of the data analysis.
RISK FACTORS
There is a possibility participant will experience minimal risk including feeling uneasy or
embarrassed by answering interview questions. Some of these interview questions will ask for
experiences with unemployment and homelessness and could potentially be triggering. If at any
time you need to take a pause or would like to skip a question, please let me know. The goal is to
make this a conversational experience with minimal risk to you.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your employer will not be affected
whether you participate or not in this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential.
Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The
audiotapes will be destroyed once they have been transcribed.
154

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. When the results of the research are
published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used.
VERBAL CONSENT
- Do you agree to proceed?
- Would you permit me to record the interview for the purposes of note taking?
Please don’t hesitate to ask any questions or ask for clarification if anything is unclear or you
have additional questions throughout the process.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator Josh Gezahegn via email at gezahegn@usc.edu or phone at
(213) 995-6945
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

155

Appendix C - Interview Protocol
Pre-Screening Questions: Are you over the age of 18?
Are you currently experiencing homelessness?
Did it occur on or after January 2020?
Are you currently unemployed?

Interview Questions Potential Probes RQ
Addressed
1. What do you think would be most helpful
to reduce homelessness in Los Angeles?
Probe: why do you think that is? 1
2. Can you describe two or three jobs you
have held in the past (if applicable) and how
long were they?

Probe: what helped you succeed or
what were the barriers in those
roles?
How did you overcome those
barriers?
1&3
3. Are you currently seeking employment
and what has that experience been like?
Probe: have you been able to find
support? From whom?
1&2
4. Are you aware of any agencies that
provide job support and what do you think
they offer?
Probe: have you ever looked into
them why/why not?
How did you hear about them ?
2
5. What skills would you like to work on to
secure employment?
Probe: Why are those skills
important to you?

2&3
6. Can you describe previous training or
education that was helpful to you in
obtaining a job?
Probe: what made the training
effective? What were some of the
barriers?
3
7. What do you think Employment agencies
should offer to assist the homeless
population with jobs?
Probe: Do you know agencies who
offer those services? What made
you choose that agency?
2&3
156

Interview Questions Potential Probes RQ
Addressed
8. What barriers do people face in attending
job training programs?
Probe: What would make it
different?
1
9. Describe a recent agency or interaction
that was effective to you?
Probe: did you go back more than
once to that agency? Would you
recommend it to others? Why do
you think it was effective?
3
10. What are some of the qualities you look
for in a teacher or job coach?
Probe: what makes those qualities
effective? How often do you see
those qualities?
1&3
11. Where do you go to get accurate
information about jobs and services?
Probe: what gives you confidence
about that source? Do you know
what others use?
2
12. What impacts would receiving a
paycheck have on your government
benefits
Probe: were you able to verify? If so
where? Do you think others have the
same information that you have?

1
13. What kind of housing support have you
applied for if any and what was your
experience?
Why or why not? Have you heard of
Permanent supportive housing or
Rapid Rehousing?
1 & 2
14. How would you feel if attending a job
training program was required to get
free housing?
Probe: what would you do? what do
you think others will do
1&2

Conclusion to the Interview:

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this study and for sharing your experiences.

157

Appendix D - Recruitment Flyer

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study explored the barriers to utilizing employment services by people experiencing homelessness (PEH) in Los Angeles (LA). Research suggests that while PEH viewed employment and income as their top priority, over three-fourths of the unhoused are unemployed. This qualitative descriptive study explored the perceived barriers by PEH through a modified gap analysis of the knowledge motivation and organizational influences. The data was collected through semi-structured interviews of 20 participants experiencing unemployment and homelessness in LA to understand their perceived barriers. The findings revealed that 16 out of 20 respondents could not name an employment agency offering targeted support in LA. In addition, participants shared their view of supportive services in general as being too stringent in their rules and policies, creating high barriers to engagement. The findings further confirmed that situational and systemic barriers like physical injury, recent incarcerations, and low wages reduced PEH motivation from active job searching.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Understanding burnout in non-denominational clergy: a social cognitive approach

PDF

Black male experience on a community college campus: a study on sense of belonging

PDF

Where are they? The underrepresentation of African or Black American senior executives in the Department of Defense

PDF

Improving veterans employment outcomes through increasing enrollment in vocational rehabilitation and employment program

PDF

Autistic people’s experiences during the employment process

PDF

The employment of retired senior military officers with command experience

PDF

Identification of barriers to mentoring and their impact on retention and advancement of underrepresented populations in the federal government

PDF

From classrooms to careers: an exploration of how undergraduate Latina engineering students achieve their post-baccalaureate

PDF

Black disabled lives matter: barriers to employment for African Americans with a disability

PDF

The pursuit of anti-racism in university theater

PDF

Understand how leaders use data to measure the effectiveness of leadership development programs

PDF

A framework for customer reputation evaluation: an innovation study

PDF

Knowledge sharing among student affairs professionals at a small faith-based higher education institution

PDF

Working-class social identity and sense of belonging in higher education: a mixed-methods study

PDF

Leadership in times of crisis management: an analyzation for success

PDF

Closing the safety gap for airlines in emerging markets using the gap analysis model

PDF

Safe Parking

PDF

Black middle school girls' self-efficacy for science

PDF

Untapped workforce: employer perceptions of people with intellectual disabilities

PDF

Departure from the student affairs profession: a study of professionals who left the field

Asset Metadata

Creator Gezahegn, Eyasu Teklemariam (author)

Core Title Barriers that prevent people experiencing homelessness from utilizing employment services

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-12

Publication Date 12/09/2021

Defense Date 09/08/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag barriers to employment,employment services,employment social enterprises,jobs,OAI-PMH Harvest,people experiencing homelessness,unhoused

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Davis, Heather (committee member), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Regur, Carey (committee member)

Creator Email eyasutek@gmail.com,gezahegn@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC18367060

Unique identifier UC18367060

Legacy Identifier etd-GezahegnEy-10296

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Gezahegn, Eyasu Teklemariam

Type texts

Source 20211216-wayne-usctheses-batch-904-nissen (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu