Risk Factors for Child Homelessness

What We Know from the Report Card

• Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, and Oklahoma have the highest overall risk for child homelessness.
• Southern and Southwestern states comprise the majority of states that scored high on overall risk.
• States that scored well on the poverty indicators tended to have lower overall risk for child homelessness, with some exceptions.
• Benefits generosity and household structure also tended to reflect states’ overall risk scores, with some exceptions.
• In contrast, states that have more robust housing stocks did not necessarily score well on overall risk for homelessness.

Often when we think about predictors of homelessness, we focus on factors related to individual vulnerability such as the recent birth of a child or hospitalization of a parent for a mental health or substance abuse problem. However, individual factors only tell us who is more likely to be affected by various structural factors that determine who will lose one’s home. These structural factors determine the overall likelihood of becoming homeless. Particular subgroups most vulnerable to these market forces are often driven by who our society considers most expendable and have varied considerably over the last century – except during economic recessions when the playing field seems to be leveled. For example, since the mid-1980’s increasing numbers of women and children, most often in families, have joined the ranks of the homeless population.

The Report Card’s risk index was developed by using structural variables contributing to homelessness such as rates of extreme poverty, household composition, housing market factors (e.g., available housing stock), and generosity of benefits. When considered together, these factors help determine the risk for child homelessness in each state. The impact of unique state/regional characteristics, history, and political context is not directly captured in the risk index.

Extreme Poverty

This domain is represented by a single variable: the rate of extreme poverty as defined by the percentage of households with incomes at 50% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) or lower. Of all the state descriptors that we considered, extreme poverty was by far the strongest predictor of family homelessness. For additional information about the Federal Poverty Level, see Appendix 2: Methodology and Limitations.

Household Structure

The household structure domain is comprised of two variables: female-headed households and teen births. These two variables represent families who are particularly vulnerable to an economic catastrophe. With sole responsibility for child care, homemaking, and wage earning, families headed by women confront a daunting challenge, particularly in a labor market that has shifted away from manufacturing jobs. For women with children who have limited education and job skills, the options for survival are low-paying service-sector jobs with inflexible hours and inadequate benefits, TANF, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) and/or long wait lists for affordable housing. Similarly, areas with high teen birth rates include many children with parents who are lacking the education and incomes that older parents have and are therefore more likely to be at risk for becoming homeless.

Generosity of Benefits

When rent far exceeds income, people simply cannot afford to maintain their housing. For those with extremely low incomes, public benefits are essential. The fourth domain of the risk index, generosity of benefits, describes the income supports available for homeless families. This domain is made up of four variables, each representing a resource that helps buffer the impact of poverty: 1) use of federal child care vouchers; 2) ratio of the TANF benefit to a state’s Fair Market Rent; 3) rate of children who lack insurance; and 4) participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps).

The Report Card’s risk index was developed by using structural variables contributing to homelessness such as rates of extreme poverty, household composition, housing market factors (e.g., available housing stock), and generosity of benefits.