The Role of Homeless Shelter Workers: A Study of Staff Serving Homeless Veterans

Veteran Homelessness

Veteran homelessness has received public and scholarly attention in recent decades (Applewhite 1997; Creech et al. 2015; Ding, Slate, and Yang 2018; Perl 2015; Tsai, Doran, and Rosenheck 2013; Tsai et al. 2016; Tsai, Mares, and Rosenheck 2012). Initially, the issue of homelessness among veterans became noticeable in the 1970s and 1980s (Perl 2015). The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have further underscored the issues and needs of veterans, including veteran homelessness (Creech et al. 2015; Perl 2015). As service members from recent conflicts started to return from deployment, the medical and residential treatment supports for service members and veterans with psychological disorders have been increasingly discussed (Blackburn and Owens 2015; Ding et al. 2018; Perl 2015; Tsai et al. 2013; Tsai et al. 2012; Tsai et al. 2016). On a single night in 2020, 21 of every 10,000 U.S. veterans experienced homelessness (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2021). Homelessness in the United States is a social problem which affects multiple groups of people. Indeed, veterans are among the groups that are vulnerable to homelessness.

The problems and needs of homeless veterans are mostly affected by physical/mental illness, alcohol, and other substance use issues, low-income housing shortages, social isolation, and chronic unemployment. However, some issues are specific to veterans: warzone and/or non-war-related trauma, community readjustment, and feelings of victimization and powerlessness derived from unmet expectations about war service recognition (Applewhite 1997; Blackburn and Owens 2015; Desai et al. 2016). Because of negative perceptions attached to homelessness and mismatched expectations about war service experiences, many homeless veterans feel isolated and rejected by the society for which they serve (Applewhite 1997; Blackburn and Owens 2015; Desai et al. 2016). Such negative feelings may affect their attitudes toward accepting supports and services.

To resolve the issue of homelessness among veterans, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has established many programs focusing on homelessness prevention and transitional housing (Henderson et al. 2008; Kertesz et al. 2017; Montgomery et al. 2013; Perl 2015). Housing-First is one of the strategies that VA has adopted in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development VA Supportive Housing. Housing-First is an evidence-based approach, which combines permanent housing and supportive services for homeless individuals (Kertesz et al. 2017; Montgomery et al. 2019; Montgomery et al. 2013; Woodhall-Melnik and Dunn 2016). The Housing-First approach stresses immediate and rapid housing placement without requiring treatment compliance, and it offers flexible community-based services such as “around-the-clock case management, access to mainstream services, and assistance in accessing VA services” (Montgomery et al. 2013:509). Thus, the implementation of a Housing-First program involves coordination of clients with various local community services and resources. The Housing-First facilities primarily focus on “attaining housing, maintaining housing stability, and then, over time, assisting and encouraging the individual to participate in services” (Montgomery et al. 2013:506). Because the Housing-First model does not require the precondition of sobriety or services involvement, residents are expected to work with staff and partake support services while staying in the facility.

The Housing-First model has been reported as an effective model of permanent housing placement (Kertesz et al. 2017; Montgomery et al. 2019; Montgomery et al. 2013; Woodhall-Melnik and Dunn 2016). Montgomery et al. (2013) found that the Housing-First initiative effectively reduced time to housing placement, from 223 to 35 days, and the housing retention rate was recorded at 98 percent. Not only did they show high rates of housing retention, but they also showed a significant decrease in emergency care and in inpatient medical and mental health services. However, the successful implementation of Housing-First Programs depends on the availability of local community resources and adequacy of supportive services that the programs provide. Some critics (Kertesz et al. 2017; Montgomery et al. 2019; Montgomery et al. 2013; Woodhall-Melnik and Dunn 2016) point out that the evidence base is not sufficient for reducing substance abuse and providing adequate psychiatric treatments. Therefore, the Housing-First Programs need to focus on retaining staff to address homeless veterans’ needs and closely working with local agencies to make adequate services available to their residents.

Shelter Workers’ Experiences and Social Support

Working with individuals experiencing homelessness can be extremely difficult. The issue of occupational stress, burnout, and compassion fatigue among shelter workers has been well documented (Baker et al. 2007; Brown and O’Brien 1998; Harr 2013; Kulkarni et al. 2013; McClure and Moore 2021; Mullen and Leginski 2010; Olivet et al. 2010; Schiff and Lane 2019). Encountered traumatic events, shelter workers are constantly challenged to maintain professional boundaries with their clients. Occupational challenges may restrain shelter workers’ abilities to effectively provide prime services to their clients.

Homeless populations are diverse in diagnosis, alcohol/substance use, and access to support services. To respond to the complex needs and problems that homeless people bring, service workers coordinate public and private agencies and deliver effective support services to those in need. High rates of co-occurring medical and mental health disorders among homeless people impose severe challenges and confrontations on staff. Due to the past experiences of violence and death and/or as a result of being homeless, many homeless people have complex histories of trauma. Moreover, homeless individuals tend to have low self-esteem and often refuse support services. Such clients may put an exceptional burden on staff. As a result, shelter workers may feel overwhelmed, hopeless, and lose their sense of self-esteem (Baker et al. 2007; Brown and O’Brien 1998; Harr 2013; Kulkarni et al. 2013; McClure and Moore 2021; Mullen and Leginski 2010; Olivet et al. 2010; Schiff and Lane 2019). Despite difficulties at work, shelter workers find positives or progresses in clients’ lives and also experience favorable outcomes associated with their jobs. Compassion satisfaction has been discussed as an important factor to resist job stress, burnout, and compassion fatigue (Harr 2013; Kulkarni et al. 2013; Radley and Figley 2007; Schiff and Lane 2019; Sprang et al. 2007). Compassion satisfaction refers to positive feelings of fulfillment when serving clients, and it can be defined as “the pleasure that a helper gets from doing their work well and the ability to contribute to the well-being of others” (Harr 2013:74). Shelter workers may experience compassion satisfaction when they observe the positive impact of professional interventions on their clients. This sense of satisfaction is considered to mediate the negative effects and challenges of this profession and motivate staff to continue their jobs.

There is a significant correlation between employees’ satisfaction and social support (Baker et al. 2007; Brown and O’Brien 1998; Burke 2005; Harr 2013; Kulkarni et al. 2013; McClure and Moore 2021; Mullen and Leginski 2010; Olivet et al. 2010; Schiff and Lane 2019; Sprang et al. 2007; Vamvakas and Rowe 2001). Social support is identified as “perceptions of assistance and encouragement that are available from others at work” (Baker et al. 2007:466). For example, a supportive work environment, peer support, high-quality supervision, effective staff training, and resource for personal and professional growth are noted to mitigate occupational stress and burnout and promote self-efficacy among staff. Staff’s self-perception of social support is key to the success of the agency that they involve. Because perceived social support greatly influences their self-efficacy, work morale, and job satisfaction (Baker et al. 2007; Burke 2005; Kulkarni et al. 2013; Mullen and Leginski 2010; Olivet et al. 2010; Schiff and Lane 2019; Sprang et al. 2007), this study focused on staff’s self-perceptions regarding their workplace and explored how they fulfilled daily tasks and recognized support systems through the agency.

Sampling

This study employed a phenomenological approach for data collection and analysis. Phenomenological research aims to explain “the common meaning for several individuals of their lived experiences of a concept or a phenomenon” and describe “the essence of the experience” for all the individuals (Creswell 2013:76). In this study, THP staff’s work experiences were defined as the phenomenon. To describe what all the participants had in common as they experienced the phenomenon (Armstrong 2010; Creswell 2013; Lincoln and Guba 1985), a purposive sampling technique was used for this study. Purposive sampling aims to choose a population with specialist knowledge of the research issue and develop theories based on empirical data tied to specific locations (Armstrong 2010; Babbie 2021; Lincoln and Guba 1985). Three criteria were set for choosing and recruiting potential participants, those who (1) worked in the Housing-First program, (2) directly engaged formerly homeless veterans, and (3) experienced social support through THP (e.g., peer support, supervisor/administration’s support and supervision, and training). These criteria were necessary because staff’s self-perceptions of their own experience, performance, and satisfaction would greatly influence quality of professional life (Baker et al. 2007; Burke 2005; Kulkarni et al. 2013; Mullen and Leginski 2010; Olivet et al. 2010; Schiff and Lane 2019; Sprang et al. 2007).

Overall Job Satisfaction

Almost all staff described the level of their job satisfaction as “high” or “excellent,” and they expressed their work experience, using words such as “enjoy,” “love,” “amazing,” “wonderful,” and “happy.” Staff Person A said, “I enjoy it. It’s excellent to me . . . It’s the longest job I’ve ever been at.” One main reason for their high level of satisfaction was the overall work environment. The staff member described the work environment as “supportive” and stated that they communicated well with coworkers and supervisors. If a problem occurred, staff members became aware of it and tried to resolve it together. Staff Person B felt very satisfied with her job, saying “I have a good supportive set of coworkers that help me with getting my job done. My supervisors make my job clear, and they give me challenging but reasonable goals and tasks to get done.” This staff appreciated the supervisors’ leadership, supervision, and guidance. The new director monitored issues in the facility that needed to be addressed and shared. When new procedure was adopted, for example, the director called a staff meeting to discuss the procedure and offer his guidance to staff. Staff Person B believed that showing cooperative relationships among staff would have a positive influence on residents. Similarly, Staff Person C explained, “We try to help each other out as best we can to better and have a good working relationship. The relationship will look good to the residents, meaning there’s no conflict. There’s no anything.”

Two interviewees rated their satisfaction as “moderate.” Staff Person D expressed concern about insufficient training opportunities at work and stated that “I think geographically because of where we’re located, we don’t get as much support as maybe other programs do.” THP had been still in a premature stage of development since its launch in 2015, with the agency experiencing many organizational changes in the past few years. Staff Person E observed that the agency went through “a lot of growing pains” due to the organizational changes and said that it had been “a definite learning curve and a challenge.” However, staff cohesion enabled THP to overcome many challenges. “I enjoy the people that I work with, both clients and coworkers. So I think, especially having strong coworkers has made dealing with a lot of the challenges a little easier,” Staff Person E continued.

In addition to strong coworker support, the interviewees appreciated the director’s hard work and effort for adapting structural transformations and rebuilding the homeless service program. Staff Person C said, “I am satisfied with our boss. He is wonderful.” The interviewees reported that the services provided at the facility had been greatly improved since the current director’s arrival at THP. “It’s kind of amazing to see how we went from being like low on the totem pole out of all the facilities to like up top. The place just really turned around for the better,” Staff Person C said. After the director restructured the program by redesignating staff’s roles and responsibilities, the services provided by the facility became in good shape.

Rewarding Experiences

Staff’s rewarding experiences were related to their interactions with residents. Many of them expressed that “helping” residents or “getting them housed” was gratifying. For Staff Person F, the biggest success was “to actually see they go outside of the facility and they succeed as a civilian.” Because the Housing-First facility aimed to get previously homeless veterans housed, accomplishing this goal was particularly important. This accomplishment kept motivating staff members to continue helping veterans who had experienced homelessness. Staff Person G explained,

A couple of times I’ve actually gotten the chance to take veterans, maybe they moved out of the city, and gotten to take them to their new apartment or something. Just seeing them, I’m really excited about that. Those are the cool moments.

Indeed, all the staff members observed how homeless veterans came in the facility, how they struggled to adjust themselves, and how they became ready for independent living. Because there were residents who returned to the facility or ended up back on the street, seeing residents never came back to the facility after their departure was truly worthwhile.

In addition, the staff mentioned that “connecting” or “having conversations” with residents was delighting. Staff Person H said, “Just being there for residents and providing basic conversations to them makes me feel good.” She wanted to create a family-like atmosphere, hoping that residents would feel comfortable with expressing their concerns and hopes. Also, Staff Person I indicated that he found gratifying moments through daily communication with residents. Staff Person I continued,

One of the most simplistic things that a lot of people don’t think of is being able to make someone genuinely laugh or smile. I find it pretty rewarding for myself if I can get them to do that, mainly because if you can smile and you can laugh, then it can’t be that bad, and it shows that there is still hope left, and I think that’s the most important part moving from day to day, is the hope that there’s going to be a better day.

Many residents had only limited communication with other people, and some of them even had little or no family contact. Interacting with residents was important to staff because they believed that such interactions would help the residents reintegrate into society.

Staff members appeared to be proud of helping veterans who experienced homelessness. Staff Person B said, “Overall, the fact that we are able to provide a service for veterans who are experiencing homelessness . . . thinking they’re not sleeping on the streets. Everything that goes in with that is just rewarding.” Staff Person J also mentioned that she enjoyed interacting with veterans and believed that one of the most important tasks as staff was listening to residents. Staff Person J added,

Because we are dealing with the population that have seen wars, that have seen deaths, that have seen things that some people can’t even imagine . . . and they come over here expecting a parade to be praised, and just to welcomed warmly home. But they come back to the cold reality.

In addition to their interactions with residents, the interviewed staff also valued peer recognition on their own professional accomplishment. Staff Person K said, “I hear a lot of positive feedback from people about how I do my job and how I handle myself in certain situations.” When staff received positive feedback from peers as well as supervisors, they felt rewarded and encouraged to engage in their tasks.

Work Challenges

Despite the high level of job satisfaction, all interviewees mentioned that their work was “stressful,” “difficult,” and “challenging.” One of the greatest challenges was to deal with residents’ mental health problems. Many veterans in the facility suffered from varying degrees of mental illness and alcohol/substance use. Staff Person L said, “You got to learn how to control yourself and be patient when you’re dealing with that because you can’t confront each incident the same way. So I think that’s the hardest thing.” According to Staff Person L, THP staff needed to be responsive and quickly judge how to handle incidents.

The residents who became intoxicated or high on prescribed medicines often intimidated staff and even created risky situations for them. Staff Person M said, “the biggest challenge is sometimes just maintaining your coolness when slurs are made. Or, you have to be able to step outside of yourself.” Similarly, Staff Person K reported that he had received racial slurs and blatant disrespect from the residents and even faced threats made by those who consumed much alcohol or took unprescribed drugs. Staff Person K continued, “Just luckily I’m alert enough to catch certain people during these instances and be able to go address the situation.” Staff had to be familiar with the symptoms and risk factors of mental illness and alcohol/substance abuse. Staff Person K stated that staff members needed to learn effective tactics for handling difficult situations to maintain the safety of residents and staff.

Another challenge was to interact with residents who were unwilling to receive services. “Sometimes it feels like we’re a little bit more motivated for them to achieve their goals than they are. So that can be a little disheartening,” Staff Person E said. Some days, residents would be willing to talk to staff, but on other days, they would keep quiet and ignore staff. Depending on residents’ attitudes and moods, staff would decide how to approach them.

THP residents were allowed to stay in the facility for up to six months. Sometimes, residents refused moving from the facility to permanent housing as their departure was approaching. Staff F explained,

It’s a challenge . . . they’re fighting against the change because they’re scared of the change. When they get close to their six months, they begin to destroy the success that’s lying ahead of them because they’re scared of it. They haven’t had any responsibility. That’s been forced upon them such as paying their own rent, paying their own bills, shopping for yourself . . . it can be scary, and so we just continue to encourage them.

Change can be fearful for anyone, especially for those who had experienced homelessness. If homeless veterans suffered from severe mental illness and substance abuse, these individuals would have to be back and forth from one institution to another. During this process, they might lose their dignity and become disempowered. When residents became hesitant to accept or refused supportive housing and services, staff talked to the residents and patiently waited until residents figured out what they needed for their treatments and lives and became confidently ready for independent living.

Interestingly, many interviewees explained how the stressful part of their work turned into their fulfilling experiences. Staff Person A viewed the toughest part of this profession as a positive element in her life. Stress could be overwhelming, but it could also be helpful in making staff face their challenges instead of avoiding them. After overcoming stress, Staff Person A felt more confident in herself. “I bond with residents every day . . . it’s making me better and making them, I feel like, a better person too,” Staff Person A added. Similarly, Staff Person M said, “I love everything that I do, um ya know, and I tell people, this is one of the most stressful jobs I’ve ever been a part of but it’s also the most rewarding.” For Staff Person M, rewards and challenges related to homeless shelter work went hand in hand. Also, Staff Person I stated that dealing with problematic behaviors of residents was challenging but that finding a way to break through tough situations could be “a fun challenge.”

Perceptions about Training

According to the interviewees, staff meetings and professional trainings were offered. In staff meetings, the program director and staff shared information about daily tasks and updated policies and protocols for serving residents. Training aimed to ensure that staff have the knowledge and skills necessary to fulfill their duties. Besides general annual training such as fire drill, trainings specific to staff’s roles such as clinical coordinator, case manager, and safety specialist were mandatory and implemented quarterly. Staff also reported that no incentives for training toward promotion were available.

The staff’s perceptions regarding training were divided. Nine interviewees reported that both staff meetings and formal trainings were almost regularly held, and they clearly named types of training that they received. However, the rest of the interviewees seemed confused when they were asked about types of training and interchangeably used the words “meeting” and “training.” Clarifying the difference between staff meetings and trainings, Staff Person I mentioned that trainings sometimes took place during staff meetings: “Every month, our director will go over anything just in the facility that might need to address [sic]. So we definitely have trainings during our staff meetings on things that the director feels are maybe deficits with the staff.” In contrast, Staff Person A seemed confused about training. She said,

By having the monthly meetings, I feel like that helped us a lot. We’re keeping up with our job duties and stuff. And we’re learning more how to communicate with each other. I feel like it impacts a lot when we have monthly meetings, monthly trainings, whatever.

When further asked about the impact of training, eight staff members stated that trainings were beneficial to their work. According to Staff Person J, trainings helped staff review their roles and responsibilities and enhance their understanding of residents. Staff Person F said, “each training enlightens or deepens an area that is needed.” Because all residents had various mental health conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), trainings for mental illness prepared staff to appropriately intervene with the residents with co-occurring mental health conditions.

Indeed, trainings enhanced staff’s knowledge and skills related to their duties and also helped them understand how different roles within the workplace were related to each other and functioned together. Staff Person E explained,

In terms of my work it has helped me, you know, strengthen some weak areas and to grow stronger professionally. And it’s helped me outside of work too because with my professional career goals wanting to become a counselor, it’s helped me get kind of some insight into maybe some of the clients that I may come across once I graduate and things like that.

For Staff Person E, trainings served to help staff members understand each other’s roles and further motivate them to seek career paths.

Suggestions for the Program’s Improvement

The interviewees indicated two suggestions for the program’s improvement. One suggestion was related to the format of staff meetings and trainings. Nine staff members mentioned that staff meetings and trainings should be held in a more meaningful way. Staff Person L said, “I feel like the monthly staff meetings should be more than just discussing stuff. There need to be presentations, showing examples of things so that people will know what to do.” The interviewed staff wished to gain more practical knowledge, skills, and strategies for effective communication with residents and management of disruptive behavior. Staff Person G pointed to a lack of formality in staff meetings as an area for the agency’s improvement, “because of the informality, it leaves more room for error.” She suggested that staff meetings should be held with more clear agendas and purposes. Staff Person G also commented on trainings and said, “It’s a lot of information, and we’re just kind of sitting in the conference room and we’re listening to presentations.” In addition to presented information, more hands-on activities should be offered to make sure that all program staff understand what they are supposed to do.

The other suggestion emerging from the interviews was to create welcoming social events in which residents could interact with their family, friends, and community members, including THP staff because many residents had no or little interaction with people outside of the facility and even with their own families and friends. Two staff members suggested that in addition to formal guidance for accessing local support services, the program should provide counseling services tailored to individual residents or create support groups for directly helping homeless veterans reorient themselves to civilian norms. The staff believed that such informal settings would facilitate residents to reintegrate themselves to society. Staff Person J said, “housing first being housing last,” and continued,

There needs to be a program to warm them back into society to show them that we respect the fact that they served. Basically, walking them down the line to ok, now that we understand the fact that you’re a veteran. It’s time to start getting you where you need to be back into society where there are no war zones.

For Staff Person J, welcoming veterans back was by far the most important, rather than offering formal support.