Content uploaded by Christopher B Keys
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christopher B Keys
Content may be subject to copyright.
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 2, 2001
Understanding Dignity in the Lives of Homeless
Persons
1,2
Alison B. Miller and Christopher B. Keys
3
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
The current investigation is a planned, systematic study of dignity as critical
to understanding the experience of homelessness and improving services and
programs for the homeless. Specifically, we conducted a thematic content anal-
ysis of interviews with 24 homeless men and women to identify their perception
of specific environmental events that validate and invalidate dignity. In addi-
tion, we explored the impact that these events have on homeless persons. Eight
types of events were identified that sustain dignity such as being cared for by
staff and having resources available to meet basic needs. Eight types of events
were found that undermine dignity, such as being yelled at or insulted by staff
persons and having staff use rules in an excessive and arbitrary way. Two out-
comes followed the sustenance of dignity including increased self-worth and
motivation to exit homelessness. Three outcomes followed the undermining of
dignity including anger, depression, and feelings of worthlessness. The results
suggest that dignity is an important variable to consider in understanding the
experience of homelessness. Policies and programs that support validating the
dignity of homeless persons are encouraged.
KEY WORDS: homelessness; dignity; qualitative methods.
1
This manuscript is based on the first author’s master’s thesis research that was supervised by
the second author.
2
The authors would like to acknowledge the staff, guests, and alumni of the Inspiration Cafe for
their generous participation in this study. The authors also appreciate the feedback and insights
from James G. Kelly, Fabricio E. Balcazar, and the two anonymous reviewers concerning earlier
versions of this paper.
3
To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychology (MC 285),
University of Illinois at Chicago, 1009 Behavioral Sciences Building, 1007 West Harrison
Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607–7137.
331
0091-0562/01/0400-0331$19.50/0
C
°
2001 Plenum Publishing Corporation
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
332 Miller and Keys
Since the mid-1970s, both a significant decline in the number of affordable
low-income housing units and an increase in the number of Americans living
in poverty have left many people homeless (Foscarinis, 1991; McChesney,
1990; Shinn, 1992; Shinn & Gillespie, 1994). Following the loss of a home,
maintaining dignity may become difficult for homeless persons (Buckner,
Bassuk, & Zima, 1993; Seltser & Miller, 1993). The social stigma of home-
lessness and the degrading and dehumanizing conditions these individu-
als encounter may compromise their dignity (Seltser & Miller, 1993; Snow
& Anderson, 1993). According to Seltser and Miller (1993), “being home-
less threatens the essential dignity of human beings, undermining or often
destroying their ability to be seen, and to see themselves as worthwhile per-
sons” (p. 93).
Research on homelessness has largely been focused on understanding
both individual and structural causes of homelessness, service needs, and de-
mographics (Blasi, 1990; Shinn & Gillespie, 1994). These research areas are
important and necessary, yet the general focus of research on homelessness
has ignored the inner lives of homeless persons and how they experience
their world (Snow & Anderson, 1993). Little is known about if and how
homeless persons experience themselves as persons of dignity.
Dignity, most generally, is defined as self-worth or inner worth (Gewirth,
1992; Seltser & Miller, 1993). To recognize someone’s dignity is to recognize
his or her worth as a human being independent of his or her status or role in
society (Berger, Berger, & Kellner, 1974; Schacter, 1983). Dignity, therefore,
is not a possession. Rather, inner worth is a fundamental aspect of humanity
(Gewirth, 1992; Seltser & Miller, 1993). That is, dignity is part of who we are,
not something we have. In other contexts dignity also has been defined as
“nobility of character, manner, or language” and as “a high office or rank”
(Berube, 1994, p. 239). However, in the current investigation, the term dignity
refers to self-worth alone.
Few studies have examined or discussed dignity in homeless persons’
lives. According to Snow and Anderson (1993), following Maslow’s hierar-
chy of needs, “many social scientists have long assumed that the issues of
meaning and self-worth are irrelevant, or at least of secondary importance, in
the face of pressing physiological survival needs” (p. 229). However, on the
basis of their ethnographic research of homeless adults, they argue that the
need for meaning and self-worth in life coexists with survival needs (Snow
& Anderson, 1987, 1993). Seltser and Miller (1993) organized their book
around the construct of dignity because issues of dignity emerged as the
dominant theme in their 100 interviews with homeless women.
The experience of dignity is dependent on how we are viewed and
treated by others as well as our own self-image. According to Seltser and
Miller (1993), dignity is validated both internally and externally, making the
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Understanding Dignity 333
experience of dignity dependent on the interaction of individuals and their
environment. Persons only experience inner worth if they view and carry
themselves with dignity and if they are responded to as if they are persons
of worth. If only internal validation of inner worth exists, others do not
recognize dignity. If only external validation exists, it becomes difficult to
internalize how one is viewed. The lack of either type of validation may lead
to doubts about one’s inner worth (Seltser & Miller, 1993).
Based on Seltser and Miller’s (1993) conceptualization of how dignity
is experienced, we framed the current study using a person–environment
transactional framework. Following transactional models of stress that dis-
cuss stress as being influenced by the individual and the environment (e.g.,
Folkman, 1984; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), we conceptualize dignity as being
influenced by specific environmental events (external validation pathway),
by person-level variables such as an individual’s biography, self-image, and
cognitive appraisals (internal validation pathway), and by Person × Envi-
ronment interaction variables such as behavioral exchanges between the
homeless person and others in the environment (P × E interaction path-
way). In the present study, we focus on the external validation pathway and
examine if environmental events influence the individual’s sense of dignity.
Using a transactional framework, we also view dignity as a mediating
construct in which the validation or invalidation of dignity is in turn related to
positive or negative consequences experienced by homeless persons. Based
on their interviews with homeless persons, Seltser and Miller (1993) inferred
that the invalidation of dignity led to feelings of worthlessness, passivity, and
depression. Little is known, however, about the impact that the invalidation
of dignity has on people. Nor has any research to date documented the con-
sequences of validating dignity. However, it stands to reason that homeless
persons would accrue benefits as a result of the validation of dignity just as
they may have experienced negative consequences as a result of the invali-
dation of dignity. (See Fig. 1 for a presentation of the conceptual framework
employed in this study).
A few authors have concluded that a variety of events may threaten the
dignity of homeless persons. For example, Gounis (1992), Seltser and Miller
(1993), and Stark (1994) noted that homeless shelters frequently have ex-
cessive rules that constrain when residents can stay, eat, bathe, and sleep in
the shelter and limit the ability of residents to make other choices that affect
their lives. The excessive use of these rules and limitations on choice-making
constrict homeless persons’ sense that they are trusted and they possess the
judgment to control their own lives. Thus, they may come to believe that they
are not capable or worthy of self-determination (Seltser & Miller, 1993).
Homeless persons often lack roles, occupations, or social relationships that
provide them with the status of contributing and worthy members of society.
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
334 Miller and Keys
Fig. 1. Transactional framework of the experience of dignity.
Instead, the homeless tend to be viewed by society as persons of little social
utility or worth (Seltser & Miller, 1993; Snow & Anderson, 1993).
A number of other events have been linked to the invalidation of dig-
nity including (1) being treated impersonally and negatively by shelter staff
and welfare workers (e.g., being yelled at, stereotyped, or insulted), (2) be-
ing ignored and avoided by domiciled people who pass them by on the
street, (3) having little privacy in sleeping areas and bathrooms in shelters,
(4) being required to attend religious services or obey behavioral contracts
in order to receive services, and (5) having to wait in long lines to receive ser-
vices (Golden, 1992; Grunberg & Eagle, 1990; Huttman & Redmond, 1992;
Rivlin & Imbimbo, 1989; Seltser & Miller, 1993; Snow & Anderson, 1987,
1993). Several researchers have offered important insights into how dignity
is influenced. However, discussions of dignity and homelessness have been
based primarily on researchers’ post hoc construals rather than on a priori
questions by researchers and direct reports of homeless persons focused ex-
plicitly on the issue of dignity in their lives (Seltser & Miller, 1993; Snow &
Anderson, 1993; Stark, 1994).
Overall, we posited a conceptual framework for the experience of
dignity as a person-environment transaction. Within this framework, we
examined the environmental events that validate and invalidate dignity and
the personal consequences that follow these events. The current study builds
on previous research that examines dignity in homeless persons’ lives in
several ways. First, it is a planned and direct investigation of how the envi-
ronment influences their dignity. Second, the knowledge and insights of this
study are based on homeless persons’ perspectives of dignity in their lives.
We felt that research specifically designed to give voice to the homeless
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Understanding Dignity 335
person’s perspective would aid in more fully understanding the challenges
they face.
The current study also focuses on the specific events that sustain and
promote dignity. Services for the homeless have been depicted as compro-
mising the dignity of homeless persons in a number of ways. Although this
criticism may have some merit, it is also likely that homeless persons ex-
perience the validation of their dignity within the context of receiving ser-
vices. Based on observations at a shelter, Breton (1984) noted how a drop-in
center for women emphasized granting privacy to their clients and limiting
the number of rules as ways of establishing and maintaining dignity. Shinn,
Knickman, Ward, Petrovic, and Muth (1990) rated the quality of life in non-
profit shelters in New York City and found that the shelters demonstrated
fairly high levels of respect for their residents. The authors did not spec-
ify, however, how the shelters demonstrated such respect. In short, research
on how dignity is promoted would offer specific details of how dignity can
be supported and may be useful to existing and future social services and
policymakers.
Finally, this study focuses on the consequences of exposure to events
that support and undermine dignity. In past research, there has been little
discussion of these consequences. Understanding the consequences of the
violation and support of dignity may help elucidate the potential benefit and
harm of exposure to events that influence dignity.
The purpose of This study was to pose three demands for selection
of methodology, including (1) facilitating a contextual analysis of dignity,
(2) gaining an insider’s perspective of dignity and the environment, and
(3) respecting the dignity of all participants in this research project. A quali-
tative interview method and collaborative professional style were chosen to
meet these demands. We designed a measure that amplified the voice and in-
sights of homeless persons and allowed the insider’s perspective to develop
our understanding of the environment’s influence on dignity (cf. Bartunek
& Louis, 1996). Thus, context was defined by the person living in the rele-
vant context as well as by the researchers, rather than relying only on the
researchers’ perspective alone (Kingry-Westergaard & Kelly, 1990). In this
way, study participants were treated as valued sources of knowledge (Ayers,
1989). We also collaborated with persons who had experienced homeless-
ness in the development of the interview protocol and the data analysis.
Based on an inductive approach to inquiry, the following questions guided
the analysis of the information gathered:
1. How is the dignity of homeless persons validated and invalidated by
the environment? Specifically, what events occur in their environ-
ment that validate and invalidate their dignity?
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
336 Miller and Keys
2. What are the consequences experienced by homeless persons that
follow events that validate and invalidate dignity?
METHOD
Setting
The research setting was a private, not-for-profit organization called
the Inspiration Cafe. Opened in 1989, it provides services in a restaurant
format to men and women who are homeless. The organization’s mission is
as follows: “The Inspiration Cafe is committed to serving homeless persons
with dignity and respect. Our primary goals are to foster independence and
promote wellness among our guests and ourselves.” Most meals are cooked
and served by volunteers from the local community. Guests are served as
they would be in a restaurant. The Inspiration Cafe is staffed by six per-
sons and provides meals and social services to groups of approximately 25
guests at a time. Once guests successfully exit homelessness they graduate
to alumni status. Alumni are entitled to four meals a month at the Cafe and
to participate in many Cafe activities. They are encouraged by the staff to
remain active members of the Inspiration Cafe community.
Collaboration and Constituent Validity
The current investigation was conducted in collaboration with members
of the Inspiration Cafe. Input and feedback from guests, alumni, and staff
were used in the development of this study and in the analysis of its results.
The senior author had volunteered at the Inspiration Cafe for 1 year prior
to beginning the current study. The relationships she had developed with
members of the setting helped facilitate the process of collaboration. A
four-member research advisory group including two guests and two alumni
was formed at the inception of this research project. This group met every 2
months throughout the research project. We discussed the conceptual focus
of the research on dignity. Advisory group members strongly affirmed the
centrality and importance of dignity in the lives of homeless persons. They
also played a valuable role in developing the interview. We discussed what
kinds of interview questions people would be comfortable answering and the
need to be sensitive to difficult and negative experiences guests and alumni
may have had.
An alumnus assisted with the development of a coding system for this
investigation and coded portions of the data. The senior author also so-
licited feedback from guests, alumni, and staff members of the Inspiration
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Understanding Dignity 337
Cafe about the results of the current study. This collaboration helped insure
constituent validity in that the research both addressed issues of importance
to community members and obtained results that resonated with their ex-
perience (Keys & Frank, 1987).
Participants
Prior to the selection of research participants, the first author attended
three guest and alumni meetings at the Inspiration Cafe. These biweekly
meetings are mandatory for guests and optional for alumni. At these meet-
ings, the first author informed guests and alumni of the study. She asked them
to fill out and return a form to a box located at the Cafe entrance if they
were interested in participating in the study. Twenty of the 21 guests who
were current members of the Inspiration Cafe volunteered to participate.
Eighteen of the 21 alumni who attended at least one of the three meetings
volunteered to participate. At the time of the study, there were approxi-
mately 50 people who had graduated to alumni status since the inception
of the Inspiration Cafe. However, contact between the Inspiration Cafe and
some alumni had not been maintained. Thus, it was not possible to inform all
alumni of the study. Overall, 86% of the guests and alumni who attended the
three meetings volunteered to participate. The research participants were 12
guests and 12 alumni who were randomly selected from the larger group of
20 guests and 18 alumni who volunteered to participate in this study. Guests
and alumni were not paid for their participation in this study.
Fifteen (62%) of the research participants were men and nine (38%)
were women. A number of different reasons for becoming homeless were
cited by guests and alumni, including drug or alcohol addiction or both
(71%), eviction (17%), loss of employment (8%), pregnancy (4%), and di-
vorce (4%). One hundred percent of the guests and alumni had a history of
drug or alcohol addiction problem or both. Sixty-two percent of the guests
and alumni were African American, and 38% were Caucasian. Four of the
12 guests (33%) were employed at the time of the interview. Over half of the
guests reported that their previous job was hourly service or labor work such
as home-care for the elderly, restaurant work, factory work, or construction.
Eight of the 12 alumni (66%) were employed at the time of the interview
with the remaining four alumni obtaining government assistance. Most of
the employed alumni worked in hourly service or labor work. One alumnus
ran a business. Table I provides additional information on the demographics
of the research participants.
Before becoming members of the Inspiration Cafe, guests and alumni
were screened in an initial interview with the case manager to determine
if they were (1) motivated to improve their lives and (2) in recovery from
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
338 Miller and Keys
Table I. Guests and Alumni Mean Age, Education, Length of Homelessness, and Length as
Guest and Alumni
Guest Alumni Overall
M Range M Range M Range
Age (years) 43.9 34–56 35.2 29–52 39.5 29–52
Education (years) 12.8 9–16 12.6 8–17 12.7 8–17
Length of homelessness (months) 10.3 3–29 10.8 1–48 10.5 1–48
Length as a guest (months) 2.9 1–6 7.2 1–14 5.0 1–14
Length as an alumni (months) N/A N/A 13.3 1–26
drug or alcohol addiction or both for those with a history of substance abuse.
In addition, half of the study participants achieved enough success in their
lives to become alumni of the Cafe. Alumni status is granted to guests who
obtain housing and a means to pay for the housing (e.g., employment, disabil-
ity insurance). Consequently, the current sample may represent a segment
of the homeless population that is experiencing fewer difficulties than oth-
ers (Banyard, 1996). These results are likely to generalize best to homeless
persons with substance abuse problems, who are actively working for self-
improvement.
Measure
The interview instrument was developed with the advisory panel as
discussed above. In addition, the instrument was influenced by the existing
literature on homelessness, informal conversations with guests, alumni, and
staff persons at the Inspiration Cafe and faculty members at a research
university knowledgeable about both community interviewing and people
experiencing difficulties (cf. Rappaport, 1981).
Parallel forms of the interview instrument were developed for the guests
and alumni. Research participants were provided with a definition of dign-
ity—“self-worth, inner worth, the sense that one is a person of worth”—to
increase the likelihood that the researchers and research participants had a
common understanding of the construct under study. The researchers and
the advisory group agreed upon this definition for use in the study.
The design of the interview allowed us to assess the usefulness of a
person-environmental transactional framework to study dignity. Guests and
alumni were first asked to identify places or persons that made them feel
they were persons with dignity. They were then asked to describe how their
dignity was promoted in the place(s) or with the person(s) identified. Study
participants were also asked to describe any effect they experienced as a con-
sequence of being in the dignity-promoting situation they described. Guests
and alumni were also asked the same series of questions regarding settings
that violate dignity.
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Understanding Dignity 339
Procedure
The senior author conducted the interviews in an office at a local church.
Interviews ranged from 35 to 90 min and were audiotaped. The senior author
and two undergraduate research assistants transcribed the interviews. All
questions were asked of all participants, unless a question had already been
answered in the context of a previous question.
Data Analysis
Following qualitative data analysis recommendations by Lincoln and
Guba (1985) and Tesch (1990), we conducted a thematic content analysis
in which new categories of coding could emerge throughout the duration
of the study. Tesch (1990) identifies this type of qualitative research as the
“identification and categorization of elements” (p. 78). This technique is
appropriate because the purpose of this study is to identify and categorize
events that sustain and undermine dignity and the outcomes that follow
these events.
We developed an initial list of codes using the interviews of four guests
and four alumni. Informed by the literature on homelessness, we created
categories using the words of the study participants. Initial categories were
made as specific as possible and the descriptive adequacy of the categories
was checked against new information as the coding process proceeded. When
a particular statement did not fit into the existing set of categories, we created
a new code category. After coding 12 interviews (including the initial 8 coded
interviews), an acceptable interrater agreement of 91% and 89% between
the first author and each of the two research assistants, respectively, was
achieved with four additional interviews. We calculated interrater agreement
by dividing the number of agreements between coders divided by the number
of agreements plus disagreements ×100 (Miles & Huberman, 1994). At this
point, we had a refined coding system. The first author used the refined coding
system to code the remaining 8 uncoded interviews and the 12 interviews
used initially to obtain interrater agreement.
Enhancing the credibility of the study
Prolonged engagement, member checking, and reanalysis of data were
employed to increase the credibility of the qualitative data and its interpreta-
tion (Foster-Fishman, 1994; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Prolonged engagement
involves having the researcher spend time in the setting under investigation
to prevent distortions of data based on unfamiliarity with the context and
culture of the setting. To date, the senior author has spent over 5 years as
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
340 Miller and Keys
a volunteer server and cook at the Inspiration Cafe and has made multiple
visits to shelters and other services for homeless persons. In addition, she
has been a member of the Inspiration Cafe’s board of directors for 3 years.
Member checking involved giving data and interpretations back to study
participants, members of the advisory group, and the alumnus who assisted
with coding for evaluation, comments, and aid in the development of themes
and insights (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Emerging themes and insights were
only included in member checking if three or more study participants had
mentioned them in some way.
Finally, we assessed the stability of the coding system over time by cod-
ing a subset of six interviews 1 month after interrater reliability was achieved
(Foster-Fishman & Keys, 1997). The intracoder reliability was computed by
dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus dis-
agreements ×100 (Miles & Huberman, 1994). We obtained reliability of 95%
over time.
RESULTS
Thematic analyses were conducted to examine the usefulness of a per-
son environment transactional framework. We analyzed the data to deter-
mine if homeless persons would identify environmental events that they
perceived as influencing their dignity and consequences that followed these
events. Analyses of the interview data revealed eight kinds of events that
validate dignity and eight kinds of events that invalidate dignity. We also
identified two overarching categories that seem to subsume the environ-
mental events that influence dignity. The categories include (1) interpersonal
events in which a homeless person interacts directly with other people and
(2) person–setting events in which a homeless person interacts with phys-
ical aspects of settings (e.g., how clean or dirty a shelter bathroom is; the
availability of resources to meet basic needs). Tables II and III provide an
overview of the different types of events that promote and violate dignity
and the frequency by which they were discussed by guests and alumni.
HOW IS DIGNITY VALIDATED?
Interpersonal Transactions
Receiving Care
Receiving care, support, or encouragement from others was the most
frequent description of being treated with dignity. One guest described how
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Understanding Dignity 341
Table II. The Percentage of Guests and Alumni Reporting Events That Validate Dignity
and the Consequences That Follow Events
%
Guests & alumni Guests Alumni
(n = 24)
a
(n = 12)
a
(n = 12)
a
Interpersonal events
Receiving care 67 67 67
Individual identity 50 33 67
Personal service 46 42 50
Belonging to a group 46 58 33
Person-setting events
Basic need resources 71 83 58
Self-sufficiency resources 46 42 50
Opportunities in the community 21 25 17
Roles 21 33 8
Consequences
Worth 100 100 100
Motivation 58 67 50
a
Guests and alumni all reported multiple events and consequences; therefore, percentages
do not add to 100.
she was treated with dignity by being cared for by the staff at a women’s
shelter:
Yeah, the fact that they’re there to help you to get out of your situation. They let you
know that you have the potential to make something of yourself and to get yourself
out of there ... you know, care about the things that you do want.
Table III. The Percentage of Guests and Alumni Reporting Events That Invalidate Dignity
and the Consequences That Follow Events
%
Guests & alumni Guests Alumni
(n = 24)
a
(n = 12)
a
(n = 12)
a
Interpersonal events
Lack of individual identity 88 100 75
Poor service 71 92 50
Unjust treatment 41 42 42
Lack of care 21 17 25
Person-setting events
Arbitrary rules 54 67 42
Lack of resources for basic needs 50 50 50
Negative association 33 25 42
Negative physical setting 17 25 8
Consequences
Lack of worth 79 75 83
Anger 50 42 58
Depression 21 33 8
a
Guests and alumni all reported multiple events and consequences; therefore, percentages
do not add to 100.
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
342 Miller and Keys
Individual Identity
Guests and alumni also discussed being recognized as an individual
or treated like a human being as a source of dignity. They described this
recognition as being treated like an individual human being, person, or adult.
Here a guest illustrated how she was recognized as a human being at an Al-
Anon meeting:
I go to a place called the Al-Anon club. It’s a club. They have all sorts of meetings,
and they treat me like I’m a human being as opposed to a “thing.”
Personal Service
Another prevalent source of dignity was described as being served by
others and receiving personalized service in social service settings. This
way of promoting dignity was generally described as occurring when the
service provided was directed to the individual. In the following exam-
ple, a guest described an interaction with the volunteers at the Inspiration
Cafe:
They (volunteers) would be polite to you. “Is there anything you need?” They come
and serve you, give you coffee and stuff.
Belonging to a Group
Some guests and alumni reported that feeling that they were part of a
family or a group was a source of dignity. Here a guest described how people
at the Inspiration Cafe are his family:
I don’t know what I’d have done without you guys after those holidays after my
mother passed. I came and ate dinner with you guys because it was Thanksgiving. I
didn’t go to my family’s house. That was my family.
Person-Setting Transactions
Resources
Guests and alumni frequently discussed the availability of resources as
promoting their dignity. These resources fell into three categories including
resources that (1) meet basic needs, (2) help homeless persons become self-
sufficient, and (3) offer opportunities to participate in the community.
Resources for Basic Needs. Resources that met the basic needs of guests
and alumni, such as food, clothing, shelter, and medical and hygiene needs
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Understanding Dignity 343
were the ones most frequently discussed in terms of dignity. It was the pres-
ence of these resources in settings that guests and alumni related to dignity.
Here a guest described how the availability of resources at a men’s shelter
made him feel good:
The meals, we eat a meal before we go in ... So before you go to sleep you can eat
if you want ... You can take a hot shower at night. I mean if you go and talk to the
manager at the shelter you can go wash your clothes at night before you go to bed
... it makes you feel good.
Resources for Self-Sufficiency. Many guests and alumni reported that
the availability of resources to help them become self-sufficient, exit home-
lessness, or improve their situation were a source of dignity. Here an alumna
described how an employment opportunity she was given through her shelter
case manager was a source of dignity:
A lot of opportunities have opened up for me through [my case manager]. There
was a job opportunity that came through for me ... I worked for a while, a little tele-
marketing. It gave me a chance to get back out there and build that self-confidence
a little bit because you lose some of it, you lose some of that sense of worth you used
to have.
Opportunities in the Community. Several guests and alumni described
how the Inspiration Cafe had a program that offered them access to plays,
movies, and sporting events. They reported that participation in such com-
munity events was a way to be a part of society. An alumnus described how
these resources validated his dignity:
Like the movies, the plays we went to. The tickets that they give, I mean who would
expect homeless people to be going to plays? Not any third rate play, I mean top
plays. Cirque du Soleil, those are $35 tickets and a crew of us got to go there ... I
was like “homeless, who me?” Nobody else in the room would believe [it] and that
was a great feeling to sit there.
Roles
In addition to resources, guests and alumni reported that the availability
of opportunities for guests and alumni to volunteer or obtain employment at
the Inspiration Cafe had a positive influence on dignity. For example, there
are opportunities at the Inspiration Cafe to volunteer and to work as a paid
kitchen aide. One alumnus described how dignity is related to being able to
volunteer:
It makes you feel good that you can pick up around here, clean up a little, like when
John asks who will unload the van. It’s the chance to do it.
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
344 Miller and Keys
HOW IS DIGNITY VIOLATED?
Interpersonal Events
Lack of Individual Identity
Guests and alumni discussed dehumanizing events as the most common
type of interpersonal interaction that undermined their dignity. This kind of
violation occurred by being (1) treated like a number or having no individual
identity in a group, (2) treated like a child or an animal, (3) yelled at with
insults or stereotypes, and (4) ignored or avoided by other people. A guest
described her experience at a women’s shelter with a female staff person:
She only works 3 nights a week, and every day it’s “God help me get through these
three days.” It’s like everything you say is “you women are such a trial to me.” She
says things like, “you make me embarrassed to be a woman and to claim you as the
same species as me.”
Poor Service
Many guests and alumni described the poor service they received in
social service settings as undermining their dignity. They reported receiving
impersonal service in one or more of following three categories (1) having
to wait in long lines or having to wait a long time, or both, to receive services,
(2) being given orders by staff persons of how to behave or what to do, and
(3) being rushed in a service setting (e.g., told to eat your meal quickly in
a soup kitchen). Here an alumnus discussed waiting to receive services at a
soup kitchen:
You have to wait in line ... you line up ... the line can extend around the corner.
You may have a hundred or so people in line and you get herded in.
Unfair Treatment
Being treated negatively or differently because of being homeless and
having one’s rights violated were discussed as undermining dignity. Some
guests and alumni described being verbally harassed, physically harmed,
and having drugs planted on them by police officers. Here a guest described
how he was treated differently at a hospital after a staff person discovered
he was homeless:
I had to tell them I was homeless because they wanted to see if I could pay for my
TB test, and that was a very bad feeling, you know. “You’re homeless?” ... It was
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Understanding Dignity 345
just like their whole attitude changes. [Nurses] make you wait longer, stop treating
you decent. It’s like they think he’s homeless so it doesn’t matter how I treat him.
Lack of Care
Feeling that other people do not care about you or do not offer sup-
port or encouragement was another way guests and alumni described being
treated without dignity. Here a guest described the feeling that shelter staff
does not care about her:
I feel like they don’t care about me as an individual. And they have their own rigid
structure or personal agenda that has nothing to do with any of their clients. They
don’t support what we are up to, they’re doing their thing.
Person-Setting Events
Arbitrary Rules
The manner in which rules and policies were used in a setting was also
described as undermining dignity. Some guests and alumni reported that
rules were enforced at the staff’s discretion. Thus, some staff persons applied
certain rules to certain homeless persons and not to others, or some staff
would uphold a rule one day and ignore it the next. In addition, several
guests and alumni reported that there were an excessive number of rules in
a setting and that the rationale for these rules was not made explicit.
Here a guest provided an example of how rules are used arbitrarily in
a shelter for women:
This one stupid rule that you can’t have anything at your head at the table, any scarves
or anything. And a lot of times, almost always they don’t say anything about it. But
sometimes they get strict about it. This one woman, I really felt bad for her, she had
been real sick ... I don’t know if it was cancer or what, but she had lost all her hair
and she would wear this little scarf on her head. Well, they made her take it off the
one night ... I felt terrible. I was like, “How can they embarrass this woman like
this?” I mean telling her that she’s got to take this off her head or she’s got to go
out on the streets for the night ... she had been there at least 2 weeks, if not longer,
wearing it every night. And now all of a sudden this is a strict rule, “You have to take
that off your head.”
Lack of Resources for Basic Needs
Guests and alumni reported that the lack of availability of resources
to meet basic needs undermined their dignity. These resources included
food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and resources for hygiene needs. A
guest described how a men’s shelter receives donations of clothing, food,
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
346 Miller and Keys
and toiletries, but that they are not made available to the shelter resi-
dents:
Like [shelter X has] a large donation of things, and they keep them in their back
room and I know this because I’ve come in and brought those donations in and set
them down in the back room. And you get down the stairs in the shelter, and we
don’t have anything. No, it’s all sitting up here, you know. I don’t understand what
they could be doing with it.
Negative Association
Being associated with other people’s behavior that was deemed neg-
ative was also discussed as a violation of dignity. This association was de-
scribed as being in the presence of other people behaving poorly or being
treated poorly by others, not an interpersonal interaction between the study
participant and another person. Association with other homeless persons’
negative behavior (e.g., fighting, drinking) was the most common type of
negative association mentioned in this study. In the following example, a
guest discussed the negative behavior of other homeless persons on the
streets:
There’s a lot of drunk people, so there’s a lot of fighting going on, drunk talk, people
are always stoned out of their minds. It’s just not a good place to be.
Negative Physical Setting
A physical environment that was dirty or otherwise inadequate (e.g.,
lack of storage space for belongings, inadequate lighting) was also discussed
as a way dignity could be undermined. In the following example, a guest
described the bathroom at a shelter:
It’s not nice, the bathroom is just plain ugly. It’s ugly, it doesn’t work very well, there
is only one knob on the faucet. There are rust stains on the radiator. It’s not a pleasant
environment.
Consequences Related to the Validation of Dignity
We identified two categories of consequences related to the validation
of dignity. The categories included statements reflecting (1) feeling good,
better, or worthy and (2) being motivated in some way to improve one’s
life.
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Understanding Dignity 347
Worth
Many guests and alumni reported that being treated with dignity or be-
ing in an environment that supported their dignity left them feeling good,
confident, happy, better about themselves, or increased their sense of self-
worth, or a combination of these. Here a guest describes how being cared
for by staff and receiving personal service at a drop-in center affected him:
Makes you feel like you are worth something, otherwise why would they be wasting
their time on you.
Motivation
The other outcome of being treated with dignity was being more moti-
vated to improve oneself, become self-sufficient, exit homelessness, or con-
tribute to others. In the following example a guest discussed how receiving
care at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting motivated him to maintain his
sobriety:
Just knowing that there are other people that care; that they’re just there for me. It
helps to keep me clean, motivated in my recovery and it gives me support that I can
do it.
Consequences Related to the Invalidation of Dignity
We identified three categories of consequences related to the invali-
dation of dignity. The categories included statements reflecting feelings of
(1) worthlessness, (2) anger, and (3) depression.
Lack of Worth
Feeling worthless in some way (e.g., “less than a person,” “no dignity,”
“like I am nothing”) or feeling bad about oneself was discussed by many
guests and alumni. In the following example, a guest described how the lack
of adequate food and toiletries in the shelter made him feel:
You feel like you’re nothing, like a piece of dirt. That’s what they make you feel like.
Anger
Many guests and alumni reported feeling angry in response to the vi-
olation of their dignity. Here a guest discussed how she felt in response to
being rushed at a soup kitchen:
I used to get irritated, like really mad, sometimes about the rushing.
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
348 Miller and Keys
Depression
Several guests and alumni described feeling depressed and even suicidal
as a result of being treated without dignity. Here a guest described how being
avoided and ignored by strangers on the streets made him feel depressed:
Actually it makes me feel sad, depressed. I was depressed most of the time ... All
day long I was depressed.
DISCUSSION
The current investigation is a planned, systematic investigation of dig-
nity and homelessness that provides tangible examples of how dignity is
undermined and supported and the types of consequences that follow these
events. The eight identified ways of sustaining dignity and the eight identi-
fied ways of undermining dignity help provide a fuller understanding of what
dignity means to homeless persons and their view on how it is influenced
in positive and negative ways. Overall, the descriptions of how dignity was
invalidated were given in greater detail and seemed to convey more pow-
erful images than those concerning the validation of dignity. The different
images may reflect that being recognized as a person of worth is expected
by human beings and thus the absence of dignity is noticed more than its
presence. The descriptions of invalidation also indicate the harsh realities
homeless persons may face in their environment.
In the current study, we employed a person-environment transactional
framework as a guide for thinking about how dignity is influenced. The
results of our investigation also reveal that there are two types of events
experienced by homeless persons that influence their dignity: (1) interper-
sonal and (2) person-setting events. Interpersonal events in which homeless
persons interact directly with other people were frequently discussed as in-
fluencing their dignity. Guests and alumni identified interpersonal events
such as receiving care, encouragement, or personalized service from other
people as ways their dignity was supported. Interpersonal events such as
being insulted, dehumanized, or treated unjustly by other people were ways
their dignity was violated. Person-setting events in which homeless persons
interact directly with some physical aspect of a setting were also identified as
influencing dignity, albeit less frequently than interpersonal events. Guests
and alumni identified person-setting events such as the availability of re-
sources to meet basic needs and help them exit homelessness as supporting
dignity. They discussed person-setting events such as the excessive and ar-
bitrary use of rules, a lack of resources to meet basic needs, and dirty or
inadequate physical facilities in shelters as invalidating dignity.
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Understanding Dignity 349
In terms of a transactional framework for understanding the enactment
of dignity, it seems that transactions between homeless persons and their
environment occur on interpersonal and setting levels. The interpersonal and
setting factors that contribute to the validation and invalidation of dignity
in turn affect the individual, as indicated by the consequences identified in
this study. In addition to dignity being influenced by external forces, it is
also possible that homeless persons’ behavior influences the occurrence of
events. For example, a small number of guests and alumni discussed how
their own behavior was linked to being treated with and without dignity. In
the following examples two guests discuss how being treated with dignity
and without dignity, respectively, was linked to their own behavior. First, a
guest discussed how other homeless persons treated him with dignity when
he was on the streets:
Well, I guess they can see that I have respect for myself. People tend to treat you
the way you treat yourself or the way you conduct yourself. So I conduct myself as a
gentleman. I practice that. So I get treated like that.
Here a guest describes how being treated unfairly by police was related to
the fact that he was drunk and talking back to police officers:
When I was drunk, I made the experience. I know quite well that the experience [was
bad] because once I drink, I say things I shouldn’t say.
In future studies, homeless persons could be interviewed or observed, or
both, to determine how their behavior is related to the occurrence of events
that influence dignity.
Our study reveals that the homeless persons we interviewed experi-
enced several different consequences in response to events that validate and
invalidate dignity. An increase in positive feelings about oneself and moti-
vation to help oneself or others were the outcomes reported to result from
events that supported dignity. An important implication of these findings
is that one way homeless people get the hope and motivation to begin to
reconstruct their lives is by being treated with dignity. Anger and feelings of
worthlessness were the most common outcomes reported as a result of the
invalidation of dignity. Study participants also reported feeling depressed
and even suicidal, demonstrating the possibly extreme consequences of vi-
olating dignity. A natural extension of research on the consequences that
follow environmental events is a study of how people cope with events that
violate their dignity.
The current study provides information on events that influence dignity
from the perspective of homeless persons themselves. Thus, it builds on
previous research (Seltser & Miller, 1993; Snow & Anderson, 1993; Stark,
1994) that discusses the importance of dignity in homeless persons’ lives
as understood through indirect and observational research methods. The
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
350 Miller and Keys
current study provided homeless persons with an opportunity to directly
describe dignity in their lives and offer their own, insiders’ perspective on
how their dignity is influenced (Bartunek & Louis, 1996).
The current study also emphasizes that dignity is often promoted as well
as undermined in the various settings homeless persons encounter. This is
an important issue because the focus of many investigations on homeless-
ness has been on problems and deficits. The current study’s dual focus on
distinguishing both positive and negative events leads to the identification of
problems associated with providing services in a dignity-invalidating man-
ner and to possible solutions to these problems. This documentation of how
dignity is influenced indicates the value of policies and services attuned to
the importance of preserving individual dignity.
The identified negative environmental events and consequences related
to these events are indicative of the importance of paying attention to the
dignity and basic survival needs of homeless persons in the design of social
services (Snow & Anderson, 1993). We may need to rethink the motivational
need hierarchy through which we generally address the needs of homeless
persons. Social science has tended to emphasize their survival needs over
“higher order” psychological needs for dignity and meaning in life (Maslow,
1962; Snow & Anderson, 1987, 1993). However, both kinds of needs appear
to co-occur in this study. Maintaining a sense of worth seems to be impor-
tant and necessary to surviving homelessness (Snow & Anderson, 1993).
Providing housing and food while simultaneously treating people without
dignity appears to reduce the benefit of the resources offered. In contrast,
the provision of services to meet survival needs can be conducted in a way
that simultaneously promotes dignity. Paying attention to what homeless
persons’ needs are and responding to them in a way that is respectful may
help them maintain a sense of worth as they attempt to survive and end
homelessness for themselves.
Limitations and Future Research
There are several limitations of this investigation that should be dis-
cussed. To begin with, the persons who participated in this study may reflect
a segment of the homeless population who were experiencing fewer diffi-
culties in their lives and fewer barriers to exiting homelessness. This is not
to say that the participants had not experienced serious difficulties in their
lives. For example, 100% of the sample had histories of substance abuse.
In addition, many of the guests and alumni (when the alumni were home-
less) discussed spending considerable time and effort obtaining resources to
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Understanding Dignity 351
meet their basic needs (e.g., waiting on long lines, traveling long distances,
and negotiating difficult rules and policies to receive services). However,
the Inspiration Cafe has stricter eligibility criteria than most service orga-
nizations in its neighborhood. All of the participants in this study had to
at least meet these criteria (e.g., being in recovery from substance abuse)
before becoming a guest. Half of the participants in this study (the alumni)
were people who had successfully exited homelessness. It is also likely that
the study participants had more resources than some other segments of the
homeless population (e.g., as guests they receive eleven meals per week at
the Inspiration Cafe). Thus, the sample obtained at the Inspiration Cafe may
not be representative of the homeless population in general. For example,
they may have had more energy to spend on concerns with dignity because
their needs for food were partly met. Future research should explore dig-
nity with groups of homeless persons who are experiencing other and more
extreme difficulties.
It should also be noted that the majority of settings discussed in this
investigation are located within the local vicinity of the Inspiration Cafe.
Thus, this study’s examination of the environment focused on one neighbor-
hood in Chicago. This scope may limit the generalizability of these findings
to other contexts. Research in other neighborhoods, cities, and in suburban
and rural areas would be useful to expand our knowledge of the universal
and unique ways that dignity is influenced in different contexts.
Finally, there are two validity issues that are important to acknowledge.
Some degree of caution is needed in interpreting the results of this investi-
gation. First, the first author who was well-known to many of the research
participants prior to data collection conducted all of the interviews. We be-
lieve that her familiarity with research participants was in many ways an
asset in that it enhanced the interviewees’ trust of the research process and
their willingness to volunteer and disclose information about potentially
sensitive issues in their lives. However, it is also possible that the first au-
thor’s familiarity with the respondents could have influenced the content
of their interviews such as encouraging socially desirable responses. Given
the overall willingness of research participants to discuss both positive and
negative circumstances in their lives in detail, the extent of such influence
does not seem significant. Nonetheless, this research merits replication by
other interviewers who are not well acquainted with the homeless persons
they interview to fully discount this possibility.
A possible second limitation is that research participants might have
provided similar responses to questions that substituted other concepts such
as sense of well-being or feeling stressed for the concept of dignity and inval-
idation of dignity, respectively. Thus, it cannot be definitively concluded that
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
352 Miller and Keys
all of the identified environmental events are only related to the experience
of dignity. A related validity issue in this study is whether the reported con-
sequences were exclusively the result of encountering environmental events.
The consistency with which the 24 guests and alumni reported only a small
number of consequences suggests that some relationship exists between the
reported events and consequences. However, other personal and environ-
mental factors could contribute to the reported consequences. For example,
a history of abuse or mental illness could also contribute to the experience
of worthlessness or depression discussed as a consequence of a particular
event that violates dignity.
Future studies are needed to differentiate dignity from other constructs
such as well-being and life satisfaction and examine the meanings of dignity
in relation to other concepts that include a dimension of positive affectiv-
ity. Such research can help delineate how the meanings of these concepts
are related. Additional areas for future research include developing quanti-
tative measures for assessing dignity. Measures could include assessments
of individuals’ sense of their own worth as well as the extent to which
different settings support/undermine dignity. To further corroborate the
importance of dignity, interventions such as the Inspiration Cafe that are
designed to support dignity could be experimentally compared to other
interventions. Finally, needs assessment data that are based on the report
of homeless persons could provide further support for the value of fostering
dignity.
Policy and Practice Implications
Although more suggestive than definitive, the results of this study sup-
port the affirmation of dignity as an important value for the organizational
culture of programs serving homeless persons. Program developers and lead-
ers who wish to strengthen the extent to which their setting fosters the dig-
nity of homeless persons are encouraged to consider approaches to organi-
zational development such as management by values and value-based job
analysis (Keys, Henry, & Schaumann, 1997). Important organizational val-
ues can be made more central to key organizational processes such as staff
recruitment, selection, training, communication, and evaluation using these
approaches. Similarly, funding agencies and program evaluators can assess
the extent to which proposed and existing programs validate and invalidate
dignity. Funding agencies and program evaluators may also draw on the cat-
egories of environmental events identified in this study as a starting point for
developing a framework for their appraisal of programs’ attention to dignity
issues. A direct implication of our research findings is for policymakers to
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Understanding Dignity 353
encourage service providers to maintain flexibility in the implementation of
rules and regulations in their organization. Thereby, the service providers
would reduce the use of restrictive and arbitrary rules.
Our advisory committee experience indicates the usefulness of includ-
ing homeless persons in the review of dignity issues. For example, homeless
persons may constructively contribute to the design and evaluation of ser-
vices. Homeless persons may be able to identify strengths and weaknesses
of social service settings that are not recognized by staff, board members, or
program evaluators. In addition, effectively including homeless persons in
the design and evaluation of services can be a very explicit way of commu-
nicating to them that they are viewed as valuable and worthy of expressing
their opinion and ideas.
In conclusion, the concept of dignity had meaning for the homeless
persons who participated in this study. They were readily able to identify
environmental events that they experienced as validating and invalidating
their dignity and consequences that followed these events. Assuming dignity
is of central importance to homeless people, the challenge for community
researchers, program developers, and policy analysts is to address the dig-
nity of homeless persons and other marginalized persons in their work. A
person-environment transactional framework is a constructive organizing
template for understanding dignity. If this framework continues to be ex-
plored, it may provide a sound base of empirical support for steps that need
to be taken in the realm of policy and practice to preserve and enhance the
dignity of homeless persons.
REFERENCES
Ayers, W. (1989). The good preschool teacher. New York: Teachers College Press.
Banyard, V. L. (1996). Taking another route: Daily survival narratives from mothers who are
homeless. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 871–891.
Bartunek, J., & Louis, M. R. (1996). Insider/outsider team research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Pub-
lications.
Berger, P. L., Berger, B., & Kellner, H. (1974). The homeless mind. New York: Vintage Books.
Berube, M. S. (1994). American heritage dictionary (3rd ed.). New York: Laurel.
Blasi, G. L. (1990). Social policy and social science research on homelessness. Journal of Social
Issues, 46, 207–219.
Breton, M. (1984). A drop-in program for transient women: Promoting competence through
the environment. Social Work, 11, 47–61.
Buckner, J. C., Bassuk, E. L., & Zima, B. T. (1993). Mental health issues affecting homeless
women: Implications for intervention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63, 385–399.
Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 839–852.
Foscarinis, M. (1991). The politics of homelessness: A call to action. American Psychologist, 46,
1232–1238.
P1: LHM/RKP P2: GKW
American Journal of Community Psycgology [ajcp] PP123-300956 April 17, 2001 20:48 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
354 Miller and Keys
Foster-Fishman, P. (1994). The influence of organizational culture on the adoption and imple-
mentation of an empowerment philosophy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Foster-Fishman, P., & Keys, C. B. (1997). The person-environment dynamics of employee em-
powerment: An organizational culture analysis. American Journal of Community Psychol-
ogy, 25, 345–370.
Gewirth, A. (1992). In M. Meyer & W. A. Parent (Eds.), The constitution of rights: Human
dignity and American values. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Golden, S. (1992). The women outside: Meanings and myths of homelessness. Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press.
Gounis, K. (1992). The manufacture of dependency: Shelterization revisited. The New England
Journal of Public Policy, 8, 685–693.
Grunberg, J., & Eagle, P. F. (1990). Shelterization: How the homeless adapt to shelter living.
Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 41, 521–525.
Huttman, E., & Redmond, S. (1992). Women and homelessness: Evidence of need to look
beyond shelters to long term social service assistance and permanent housing. Journal of
Sociology and Social Welfare, 19, 89–111.
Keys, C. B., & Frank, S. (1987). Community psychology and the study of organizations: A
reciprocal relationship. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 239–251.
Keys, C. B., Henry, D., & Schaumann, L. (1997). Using values-based job analysis to reduce
staff turnover: An organizational culture case study. In M. Montero (Ed.), Psychology
and community (pp. 253–253). Proceedings of Community Psychology at the Twenty-fifth
Interamerican Psychology Conference. University of Central Venezuela, Caracas.
Kingry-Westergaard, C., & Kelly, J. G. (1990). A contextualist epistemology for ecological re-
search. In P. Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok, & L. Jason (Eds.), Researching community psychol-
ogy: Issues of theory and methods. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Maslow, A. H. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand.
McChesney, K. Y. (1990). Family homelessness: A systemic problem. Journal of Social Issues,
46, 191–205.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Pub-
lications.
Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 1–25.
Rivlin, L. G., & Imbimbo, J. E. (1989). Self-help efforts in a squatter community: Implications
for addressing contemporary homelessness. American Journal of Community Psychology,
17, 705–728.
Schacter, O. (1983). Editorial comment: Human dignity as a normative concept. American
Journal of International Law, 77, 848–854.
Seltser, B. J., & Miller, D. E. (1993). Homeless families: The struggle for dignity. Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Shinn, M. (1992). Homelessness: What is a psychologist to do? American Journal of Community
Psychology, 20, 1–24.
Shinn, M., & Gillespie,C. (1994). The roles of housing and poverty in the origins of homelessness.
American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 505–521.
Shinn, M., Knickman, J. R., Ward, D., Petrovic, N. L., & Muth, B. J. (1990). Alternative models
for sheltering homeless families. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 175–190.
Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. (1987). Identity work among the homeless: The verbal construction
and avowal of personal identities. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1336–1371.
Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. (1993). Down on their luck: A study of homeless street people.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Stark, L. R. (1994). The shelter as “total institution.” American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 553–562.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: The Falmer
Press.
