





































46   Journal of Student Social Work, Volume II 

Spissinger

PARADIGM OF RURAL HOMELESSNESS: 
A CASE STUDY OF CLINTON COUNTY, 
NEW YORK 

Rural homelessness is a social problem that has drawn limited schol-
arly attention in the social work field. This case study of Clinton County, 
New York, examines the existing service structure to address homeless-
ness while highlighting challenges universal to rural homelessness as 
a widespread phenomenon. This paper considers possible long-term 
solutions to rural homelessness, and argues for a structurally based ap-
proach to understanding homelessness, either in an urban or rural setting. 

Jessica Spissinger

Understanding Homelessness 

Prior interventions to address homelessness have sprung from the 
belief that homelessness is a personal problem (Koegel, 1996). 

This paper leans toward understanding homelessness as the result of larger, 
structural problems, including: the lack of affordable housing; lack of a 
decent, living wage; restricted access to transportation; and lack of affordable 
childcare and health care. Under a structural framework, it is clear that 
beyond housing, a multitude of factors contribute to an individual’s state 
of homelessness (Jencks, 1994). As social workers, it is imperative to look 
critically at the macro level and understand how larger, economic conditions 
and policies have directly influenced the current paradigm of homelessness. 
Clinicians, generalists, administrators, as well as researchers must advocate 
to fight the growing trend of poverty in this country – in rural, as well as in 
urban settings.

Homelessness in a Rural Setting 
With approximately 40,000 homeless people on a given night (New 

York City Department of Homeless Services, 2004), New York City has 
made a powerful mark on society’s perception of homelessness. An entire 
city government sector – New York City’s Department of Homeless Services 
– is dedicated to the homeless, and service providers from other cities have 
examined New York City’s services as a model for helping the homeless on 
their own streets (Campbell & McCarthy, 2000). Marked as an urban issue, 
homelessness is not often associated with the country or rural areas. In fact, 
rural homelessness is a problem that appears to be much smaller in size due 



to smaller population densities (Aron & Fitchen, 1996). In urban regions, the 
street homeless constantly encroach upon public spaces, whereas homeless 
people who are utilizing shelters more readily blend into the mainstream. 
Likewise, in a rural setting, the problem of homelessness altogether escapes 
the public eye, due to the less concentrated proximity of small towns and 
distant rural settings. 

Homelessness in a rural setting is defined by substandard housing, 
doubling up/overcrowding, squatting in abandoned buildings, and utilizing 
campgrounds as a year round domain (Fitchen, 1992). Because homeless 
populations in rural settings are more likely to live in sparse settings, 
outreach efforts are difficult. The issue of rural homelessness becomes a 
catch-22: since most of the rural homeless population are unaware of the 
services provided, there is not a large request for services. Due to this lack 
of request for services, many local departments of social services have not 
identified homelessness as a major problem (Aron & Fitchen, 1996). Thus, 
there are few services available due to the false conclusion that they are not 
needed.  

Among scholars, rural homelessness is a subject that has not drawn 
widespread attention. Many research reports on homelessness, such as the 
National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (The Urban 
Institute, 1999) conclude that homelessness is predominantly an issue for 
urban areas to address. According to the report, 70% of the United States 
homeless population live in cities and 20% live in suburban areas. Because 
only 10% of the national homeless population live in rural areas, such areas 
are written off and the problem of homelessness is widely overlooked. Yet 
drawing the conclusion that homelessness is marginal in rural areas is flawed, 
as it does not factor in the ratio of homeless to non-homeless to realistically 
compare the proportion of people who are living in extreme poverty. In a 
study on rural homelessness in Iowa, the rate of homeless people in rural 
counties compared to urban areas was much higher in rural regions. New 
York City had an average of 5.09 homeless per 1000 people, compared to 
Appanoose County in Iowa where the number of homeless was 9.7 per 1000 
people. Similar comparisons from other rural areas reveal an incidence of 
homelessness much greater than in urban areas (Lawrence, 1995). 

Comparable to urban environments, rural poverty results from similar 
structural causes. Fitchen (1992), an avid researcher of rural homelessness 
in Upstate New York in the early 1990s, lists numerous factors that create a 
population in rural areas who are perpetually at risk of homelessness. These 
factors include dilapidated and overcrowded housing such as deteriorating 
trailers and converted farmhouses; the intergenerational cycle of poverty; 
limited access to public transportation; and lack of job opportunities, all 
of which are abundant in Clinton County, New York. The major difference 
between rural and urban poverty and homelessness is that in rural areas, 

Paradign of Rural Homelessness

Journal of Student Social Work, Volume II   47



48   Journal of Student Social Work, Volume II 

Spissinger

poverty and homelessness are spread out, making widespread appeals 
to the issue much more difficult to form. Rural homelessness varies 
tremendously depending on state, county, and locality. Despite the fact 
that New York State is considered a highly urbanized state, 44 of its 62 
counties are classified as rural (Merwin Rural Services Institute, 2001). 
Fitchen based her research on a sampling of approximately eight rural 
counties in New York State. Honing in further on rural New York State, 
this paper will examine Clinton County, a mid-sized county classified as 
rural.

Clinton County: An Economic Overview 
Clinton County is the most northeastern county in New York State, 

bordering Lake Champlain on the east and Quebec, Canada on the north. 
The Adirondack Mountain Region lies just south and west of the county 
border. The total population of Clinton County is 79,894 (New York State, 
2003) divided among 29,423 households (National Low Income Housing 
Coalition, 2003). The Clinton County Housing Needs Report, compiled 
by the Clinton County Housing Committee in 2003, highlights the most 
pressing problems in Clinton County and outlines current methods utilized 
to address them. Considering a structural understanding of homelessness, 
three issues stand out in Clinton County: economic opportunity; public 
transportation; and affordable housing. 

Clinton County is similar to many rural counties nationwide that 
suffer from slim economic opportunities. The majority of residents in 
Clinton County find work in the city of Plattsburgh, often at The State 
University of New York, Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital Medical 
Center, or Bombardier Transportation. While these institutions provide 
gainful employment for some, over 10,000 people in Clinton County live 
in households with an annual income below the poverty level (Clinton 
County Housing Committee, 2003). With the New York State minimum 
wage holding to $5.15 an hour, many full-time workers at this level are 
still unable to pay necessary expenses. Single women with children present 
the highest rate of poverty in Clinton County (Clinton County Housing 
Committee).

Access to reliable transportation is imperative for people who reside 
in rural areas to commute to and from work and run routine errands. Lack 
of access to transportation can be a major barrier for a person obtaining 
employment, thus resulting in poverty or homelessness. Approximately 
10% of households in Clinton County and 20% of residents in the town 
of Plattsburgh do not have access to a vehicle (Clinton County Housing 
Committee, 2003). The only local transportation system, Clinton Area 
Rural Transit, offers limited bus routes into Plattsburgh.

Affordable housing, while available, is starting to diminish. Much of 



the lower-rent housing which exists – mobile housing, low-rise apartments, 
and single-family homes – is substandard and often ill-suited to shut out the 
harsh winters. One of five residents in Clinton County lives in mobile homes 
(Clinton County Housing Committee, 2003). Many mobile home renters 
deal with numerous complications with their housing, often brought about 
by their landlords, causing the trailers to be in substandard condition. Some 
of the common complications include leaking septic systems, abandoned or 
dilapidated neighboring trailers, non-potable water supply, and hazardous 
electric wiring. These conditions are so prevalent, that approximately 25% 
of mobile home parks in Clinton County did not pass the Department of 
Health inspections during 2002 (Clinton County Housing Committee). 

Homelessness in Clinton County
As with many rural areas, the precise number of homeless and duration 

of homelessness in Clinton County are difficult figures to determine. From 
January to June 2002, approximately 400 people utilized emergency housing 
services, including temporary shelters and supportive services such as food 
and transportation, throughout Clinton County (Clinton County Housing 
Committee, 2003). Of these, roughly one-third were families. An estimate 
of 800 people becoming homeless each year amounts to roughly .01% of 
Clinton County’s population. Though this may appear small, it is larger than 
the percentage in New York City, where the estimated average population of 
homeless is .005% of the total population. 

The Clinton County Department of Social Services (DSS) has 
responded to emergency housing needs by providing shelters, intensive case 
management, and at times placing people in local motels or hotels through 
the local crisis center (Clinton County Housing Committee, 2003). There are 
also a few non-profit agencies that provide further resources for emergency 
housing. While emergency housing services are in place, the Clinton County 
Housing Committee estimates a 20-bed deficit for emergency shelter in 
the region, meaning the existing beds are continually at full capacity. This 
forces the DSS to utilize private motels to service the overflow. One major 
challenge to the Clinton County area is that it has received less state and 
federal dollars to support affordable housing than other similar counties 
throughout New York State (Clinton County Housing Committee). Again, 
this inadequate funding points to the catch-22 of rural housing: a lack of 
knowledge of existing services among homeless leads to less usage, and less 
usage leads to the legislative conclusion that the services are not needed.

When translating the number of homeless into the cost to provide 
emergency shelter, costs are approximately $400,000 per year. Supportive 
costs to keep children in school or day care, provide transportation, and 
obtain needed medical care and food quickly drives the costs past the 
half-million dollar mark. While this number may seem low compared to 

Paradign of Rural Homelessness

Journal of Student Social Work, Volume II   49



50   Journal of Student Social Work, Volume II 

Spissinger

urban areas that have multi-billion dollar budgets, the Clinton County DSS 
resources are strained to provide this assistance. As the DSS addresses 
additional needs of homeless families beyond immediate shelter, costs will 
clearly escalate. 

Solutions to Rural Homelessness 
During the 1980s and early 1990s, a nationwide surge of public 

awareness toward urban homelessness led to rapid construction of shelters to 
solve the problem. The contemporary perspective supported by researchers 
points to three levels to address homelessness: improve existing emergency 
shelter and prevention efforts for those on the verge of becoming homeless; 
provide transitional and permanent housing placements; and attack the 
underlying causes of homelessness through policy changes (Campbell & 
McCarthy, 2000; Fitchen 1991; Fitchen 1992; Koegel, 1996). An emphasis 
on continuum of care supportive services at all three levels is pointing to 
increased outcomes of successful transitions out of homelessness (Baron, 
2003). 

While rural homelessness does not compete in sheer numbers to urban 
homeless, it constitutes a problem with uniquely rural issues to address. 
These issues are not served by following an exclusively urban model. The 
three-level approach described above was developed for an urban model 
and ought to be changed to address rural differences. One over-arching 
modification to develop when considering a rurally focused service model 
is the definition of homelessness. Since the homeless populations in rural 
settings are more likely to live in a physical shelter such as substandard 
housing or campsites, the lack of visible street homeless in rural areas such 
as Clinton County diffuses any momentum that might exist to address the 
problem on a local, state, or national response. By changing the definition 
of homelessness in rural areas, two immediate changes would occur: a 
dramatic increase in homeless numbers and recognition by legislators 
and tax-payers that homelessness is a problem in their area. This would 
hopefully lead to motivation to respond to the problem.

As the rural response to homelessness is still in a period of 
development, modification from the urban service model is possible and 
necessary. Whereas New York City and other urban areas underwent large-
scale construction of shelters to improve emergency shelter (Campbell & 
McCarthy, 2000), the rural response to homelessness could instead focus 
on preventative interventions. Structural improvements on existing housing 
classified as substandard and the creation of new housing stock to improve 
the lack of affordable housing in the area would address a crucial aspect of 
the problem. Such rehabilitation and construction could be financed under 
a National Housing Trust Fund, such as H.R. 1121 and S.1411, currently 
in committees in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Unlike 



urban areas that are pressed for the space and affordability, building in rural 
areas is generally an affordable endeavor due to lower property value and 
abundant space to build. Creation of affordable housing and supportive 
housing is an economic stimulus, which might lead to the creation of jobs 
in the area. Supportive housing is a trend that is successful in both rural and 
homeless areas (Baron, 2003) and with federal, state, and local support, 
could be dramatically helpful in keeping people from becoming homeless. 
A continuum of care program has demonstrated success in urban areas, and 
would likely do well in rural areas, as it supplements preventative measures 
by supporting those who are at risk of becoming homeless.

Call for Action Among Social Workers
Social workers can play an important role in addressing the problems of 

rural homelessness through work as clinicians, advocates, researchers, and 
educators. Clinical social workers in rural areas who see the face of poverty 
directly can provide advocacy information to their clients and encourage 
them to make their voices heard. For rural homelessness to be addressed 
at the policy level, legislators must hear from concerned citizens. Social 
workers in positions of community activists, administrators, and policy 
advocates can begin organizing within local areas to bring more attention to 
the problem of rural homelessness. Further research in affordable housing 
and homelessness in rural areas is broadly needed and has been especially 
bypassed by social workers in particular. In addition, social work educators 
need to introduce more information on affordable housing and rural issues 
into the curriculum at schools of social work. The silence surrounding rural 
homelessness is surprising considering that stable housing is the foundation 
of personal independence. For social workers to truly start where the client 
is, affordable housing is an area that can no longer afford to be overlooked 
or be viewed from an exclusively urban perspective. 

References
Aron, L. & Fitchen, J.M. (1996). Rural homelessness: a synopsis. In J. 

Baumohl (Ed.), Homelessness in America (pp. 81-85). Phoenix, AZ: 
The Onyx Press. 

Baron. L.M. (2003). When a roof isn’t enough. Journal of Housing and 
Community Development, 60(1), 21-24.

Campbell, G.J. & McCarthy, E. (2000). Conveying mission through 
outcome measurement: Services to the homeless in New York City. 
Policy Studies Journal, 28(2), 338-349. 

Clinton County Housing Committee. (2003). Clinton County housing 
needs report. Report provided by J. LePage, Commissioner of the 

Paradign of Rural Homelessness

Journal of Student Social Work, Volume II   51



Clinton County Department of Social Services.
Fitchen, J. M. (1991). Homelessness in rural places: perspectives from 

upstate New York. Urban Anthropology, 20(2), 177-210.
Fitchen, J.M. (1992). On the edge of homelessness: rural poverty and 

housing insecurity. Rural Sociology, 57(2), 173-193.
Jencks, C. (1994). The homeless. Cambridge: Harvard.
Koegel, P.M. (1996). The causes of homelessness. In J. Baumohl (Ed.), 

Homelessness in America (pp. 24-33). Phoenix, AZ: The Onyx Press.
Lawrence, M. (1995). Rural homelessness: A geography without a 

geography. Journal of Rural Studies, 11(3), 297-307.
Merwin Rural Services Institute. (2001). County indicators—agriculture. 

Retrieved January 21, 2004, from http://www.potsdam.edu/MRSI/
RuralNYProfile.html

National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2003). Out of reach—America’s 
housing wage climbs. Retrieved December 3, 2003, http://www.nlihc.
org/oor2003/

New York City Department of Homeless Services. (2004). Daily census 
for February 2, 2004. Retrieved February 2, 2004, from http://www.
nyc.gov/html/dhs/home.html

New York State (2003). County information—Clinton County profile. 
Retrieved December 3, 2003, from www.nysegov.com/map-NY.cfm

The Urban Institute. (1999). Homelessness: Programs and the people 
they serve. Washington, DC: US Department of Housing and Urban 
Development Printing Office.

Jessica E. Spissinger is a second-year Master’s student at the Columbia 
University School of Social Work concentrating in Advanced Generalist 
Practice and Programming within the Contemporary Social Problems 

field of practice. She is currently a policy associate intern at HELP USA 
in New York City. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Writing and Literature 

from Wheaton College. Her email address is jes2105@columbia.edu.

52   Journal of Student Social Work, Volume II 

Spissinger


