Executive Summary

In April 2011, Malaysia’s Ministry of Women, Family, and Community Development established the

Anjung Singgah (“transitional home,” in English) pilot project with twin objectives of reintegrating homeless

persons into society and reducing their overall number. Administered under the National Welfare Foundation

Malaysia (NWF), a government-linked charitable foundation, the shelter provides employment referrals,

counseling, meals, and other assistance over a two-week period. In its first year, the pilot project saw over 500

clients and became the model for a series of other government shelters, also named Anjung Singgah.

This study explores the structure and substance of the Anjung Singgah pilot project based on qualitative

and quantitative data collected over the course of two months (September 9-November 9, 2012) through field

observations, documentary review of internal reports and assessments, interviews with shelter staff and

government officials, and two surveys targeting shelter personnel and clients. The underlying aim is to

evaluate the effectiveness of Anjung Singgah’s programs and structure in meeting its mission, while

simultaneously highlighting the importance of policy and government mechanisms in addressing homelessness.

Analyses draw heavily from client perspectives.

The study finds that the strengths of Anjung Singgah are: 1) the foundation of security and core needs it

provides, 2) the cooperative space for shared learning it provides, especially through counseling, and 3) its

multi-agency structuring. Key challenges identified are: 1) reduced institutional understanding of client

experience, 2) insufficient client access to productive resources, and 3) difficulties in clarifying client steps for

medium- to long-term problem resolution. I believe that, in its strengths, the institution carries promise for

overcoming challenges and achieving mission by enhancing short-, medium-, and long-term client security;

improving clients’ quality of life; and developing an accurate, deeper understanding of the phenomenon of

homelessness.

At the same time, I find that Anjung Singgah’s ability to achieve mission hinges on the effective

functioning of its multi-agency structure since this is the only channel by which the institution may: a) procure

a wide range of services and resources necessary for clients, and b) inform development of government

strategies for addressing homelessness. However, the non-government position of the project administrator,

NWF, limits its power to monitor and direct commitments by multi-agency partners and secure needed support

for present and future work. In addition, the lack of a comprehensive, positive government policy on

homelessness to ensure coordination and uniformity in action among government agencies with an interest in

addressing homelessness further complicates institutional capacity for meaningful and sustainable success.

Based on this study, the author recommends that Anjung Singgah:

� Integrate client knowledge and experience into shelter operations and strategies by

o cultivating an environment for positive interaction among clients and personnel,

o including client voice, and

o facilitating constructive client-personnel and client-client relationships,

as a means to better understand and address the problems of homelessness.

� Enhance holism in services and assistance by

o cultivating resources and guidance to assist clients with complex multiple problems,

o supporting client goal setting and action plans for medium- to long-term resolution, and

o supporting medium- and long-term strategic development through data collection,

as a means to better promote lasting client solutions.

The author also recommends that the Ministry of Women, Community, and Family Development:

� Continue to promote multi-agency collaboration as a foundation for procuring a broad range of

resources and developing strategies to address homelessness.

� Solidify knowledge by encouraging research on homelessness as well as its relation to labor, health,

housing, family, and other policy domains.

� Pursue the establishment of a statutory body, such as a commission or council, to monitor and

coordinate homeless resources and services and/or the formation of a national policy or strategy for

addressing homelessness.

Introduction

The population of homeless people in Malaysia’s capital city—surveyed at roughly 1,400 persons in

2010—cuts across a wide range of ethnicities, ages, abilities, sexual orientations, gender identities, places of

origin, and social class backgrounds, among other things, thereby signifying the complexity of problems

underlying the phenomenon. Growing involvement of non-government organizations in distributing food and

providing direct assistance to homeless persons, in combination with the public’s general sensitivity to the

plight of poor people, has spurred the federal government to take action of its own. Since 2010, it has been

developing a new initiative aimed at improving the lives of people on the streets.

In April 2011, Malaysia’s Ministry of Women, Family, and Community Development (MWFCD)

established a pilot transitional home called Anjung Singgah in Kuala Lumpur. This institution, made possible

through multi-agency collaboration, holds the twin objectives of reintegrating homeless persons into society

and reducing their overall number. Operated under a government-linked non-government organization known

as the National Welfare Foundation (NWF), the shelter provides employment referrals, counseling, meals, and

other assistance over a two-week period. In its first year, the pilot project saw over 500 clients and was used as

a model for two other government shelters, also named Anjung Singgah, based on its perceived effectiveness

and success.

What can we learn from the government’s first initiative to address homelessness through Anjung

Singgah? Which aspects of the project demonstrate promise in meeting objectives, and which face challenges?

Such questions take on a special meaning in the context of Anjung Singgah for two reasons. First of all,

while vagrancy ordinances have been actively used against homeless and street populations in Malaysia since

colonial times, the Malaysian government has not adopted any positive (non-punitive) policies, laws, or

guidelines for addressing homelessness today. As such, there is no overarching official position or protocol to

guide government agency involvement in the new initiative. Secondly, MWFCD’s decision to entrust Anjung

Singgah’s operations and immediate management to NWF means that the project is run by a foundation

technically outside the regular boundaries of the federal government. This structure suggests that homelessness

is being framed as a cause for charity rather than a matter of direct concern to federal agencies. I enter this

study with a hypothesis that NWF’s outsider position in relation to government agencies, compounded with the

absence of a national policy foundation, imposes limitations on Anjung Singgah’s ability to deliver necessary

aid to clients.

This study evaluates Anjung Singgah’s performance in meeting its project objectives while taking into

consideration the impact of: a) the absence of a formal positive federal policy, and b) its position external to

the government apparatus.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 introduces the subject and research questions, as well as the

organization of this report. Section 2 reviews background to the Malaysian government’s involvement in

addressing homelessness and the formation of the Anjung Singgah pilot project. Section 3 summarizes policy

issues pertinent to this study as well as methodology. Section 4 provides a meso level institutional analysis of

the project. It begins with a demographic overview and key characteristics of Anjung Singgah’s clients—the

people for whom the facility has been established, and also the key group informing this study. Next, the four

core mechanisms constituting the basis of the project are presented. Then I analyze the efficacy of Anjung

Singgah’s structure and operations in achieving the project mission from, primarily, a client-based perspective.

This analysis is arranged under sub-sections that each specifically address a potential breakthrough point for

optimizing the project promise and overcoming challenges. Following these considerations of the workings of

the shelter, Section 5 will consider how macro level policy settings shape Anjung Singgah’s promise and

challenges. Section 6 contains recommendations and Section 7 concludes.

2. Background

2.1. Homelessness and Government Commitment to Poverty Eradication

Historically addressed almost exclusively through vagrancy laws1, street homelessness gained new public

visibility in metropolitan Kuala Lumpur in the early 2000s as local non-government organizations, including

religious groups and charities, became increasingly involved in providing aid to persons on the street. One of

the earlier known services was a daily lunch program (still in operation today) started in 1999 at a facility of

the Archdiocesan Office for Human Development. In subsequent years, other organizations like Food Not

1 Introduced to Malaya by the British in the 1870s.

Bombs-Kuala Lumpur (2001), Kechara Soup Kitchen (2006), and Pertiwi Soup Kitchen (2008) commenced

efforts to address homelessness by organizing community resources for various forms of assistance2.

By 2010, the Ministry of Women, Family, and Community Development (MWFCD) had taken note of

homelessness as a burgeoning social issue. Officials from the MWFCD and related departments and agencies

began examining conditions surrounding homelessness in Kuala Lumpur. This resulted in the formation of a

special committee to deal with homelessness that, although not formally constituted, has continued to meet on

an ad hoc basis to date (MWFCD Policy Division assistant secretary, October 2012). From March 6 to May 12,

2010, the Social Welfare Department under the purview of the MWFCD coordinated a broad-scale survey of

homeless persons throughout Kuala Lumpur with the cooperation of several metropolitan NGOs. 1,387

persons were identified as homeless, and 642 (46.3%) listed a lack of work as the primary contributing factor

to their homelessness. Other factors include low-income (18%), old age (11%), and drug abuse (4%)

Earlier that same year, in January 2010, the federal government announced the start of its Government

Transformation Programme (GTP), which lay down the “road map [for] action oriented and dynamic”

initiatives designed to directly and dramatically improve public goods for Malaysian citizens (Prime Minister’s

Office, 2010, p. 37). Among the GTP’s six National Key Result Areas (NKRAs) is “Raising the living

standards of low-income households” (NKRA-LIH), which has been entrusted in its entirety to the Minister of

Women, Family, and Community Development. One quintessential objective of the NKRA-LIH is to bring an

end to extreme poverty, defined as living on a total household income of RM 440 per month or less (Prime

Minister’s Office, 2010; MWFCD, n.d.). While homeless persons were not specifically mentioned as a target

group therein, funding from NKRA-LIH was directed to the MWFCD for a new initiative advanced as a

groundbreaking community project. Named Anjung Singgah, the project marked the federal government’s first

steps in directly addressing contemporary homelessness based on a model of assistance and support. The

project was touted in the 2011 budget speech by the prime minister, expanded by three facilities (Johor,

2In addition to meal provisions, organizations offer clothing distribution, medical care, legal advice, job referrals, laundry and shower facilities, direct financial aid, and drop-in centers.

Kuching, Penang) in 2012. The 2012 GTP 2.0 notes that, “due to the rising cost of living, greater emphasis in

supporting the urban poor, particularly the elderly poor and homeless3 is necessary.” (p. 141)

2.2. The Anjung Singgah Pilot Project

The Anjung Singgah pilot transitional home was launched in 2011 by the Minister of Women, Family

Community Development. Its mission, objectives, strategies, performance indicators, and operational

framework are clearly outlined in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), authorized by the MWFCD and

the National Welfare Foundation (NWF). Eligibility for placement at the shelter is open to women and men

who are: Malaysian citizens, 18 years of age and over, and free from addiction4. Clients include adult women

and men of varying abilities, ages, education levels and personal and employment backgrounds. Specifically,

the facility is designed to: a) provide a recuperative space away from the streets (accommodation); b) supply

clients material resources and information (meals, amenities, and counseling); and c) introduce them to jobs to

help them become “self-supporting” (job referrals).

Clients are allowed to stay for 2 weeks and use the facility as a stepping stone to transition to the next,

more secure stage in their lives. Anjung Singgah staff refer to this process as reintegration, or helping homeless

people leave street life and return to society. Indeed this conceptualization of reintegration is captured in

Anjung Singgah’s mission statement: “Helping Homeless People Move Towards a More Complete and

Productive Life” (NWF, 2012).

While the shelter was established under the initiative and power of the MWFCD, it was handed over to

NWF for management. NWF, a government-linked charitable foundation established in 1981, provides

selective supplementary social welfare support to persons demonstrating need that exceeds or falls outside the

scope of assistance available through government-based programs. While the foundation does not bear the

powers of government and stands outside the regular boundaries of government administration, its purpose is

fashioned by government influence. NWF is run by its own Board of Trustees, but under the chairship of the

Minister of Women, Family and Community Development (Figure 1), and the foundation acts concomitantly

with the MWFCD. NWF is responsible for staffing, budgeting, administration, and structural and

3 Most homeless people fall under the category of “extreme poor” having a “total income less than or equal to RM 440 per month” as defined by

the Malaysian uniform standard (Prime Minister’s Office, 2010, p. 172; MWFCD, n.d.). 4Persons interested in treatment for drug addiction receive referrals to a government-linked treatment center.

infrastructural decisions relating to Anjung Singgah. At the same time, Anjung Singgah’s CEO and

management are responsible for the implementation and oversight of operational tasks in the facility. The

MWFCD retains its involvement by monitoring progress, particularly vis-à-vis the SOP, and retaining deciding

power regarding project policy matters. Anjung Singgah possesses its own Operations and Management

Committee comprised of relevant government agencies, such as the Social Welfare Department and National

Registration Department, and non-government agencies, such as Malaysian Red Crescent. This committee

meets approximately three times a year for logistical evaluation and review of shelter performance.

-FIGURE 1 about here-

3. Policy Issue, Methodology and Objective

3.1. Issue: Government Inclusion or Exclusion of Homelessness

Since 2010, the government has affirmed, at the highest levels, the significance of including

homelessness in its agenda. Financial allocations to Anjung Singgah through 2011 and 2012 NKRA-LIH

budgets underscore this, as do public statements by high-ranking officials, including the Prime Minister. As

such, Anjung Singgah has been tapped as a federal resource for mitigating the phenomenon of homelessness.

However, in reality, while the MWFCD may have established the project, and certainly sustains an interest in

its development, Anjung Singgah and its administrators lie outside of the machinery of government and are,

thus, unable to tap into its (mandating) power. Since Anjung Singgah’s operations rely heavily on a framework

of multi-agency collaboration, its efficacy is hampered by its outsider status. Government and non-government

institutions providing supplementary services and support have made a commitment to working cooperatively

with Anjung Singgah, but only in the context of a non-formally constituted committee. Moreover, there is no

comprehensive government policy on homelessness to define responsibility for and ensure uniformity in action

across the board. Hence, responses to homelessness at all levels tend to be ad hoc and not explicitly guided.

Staff members at Anjung Singgah and NWF are aware of how the extra-governmental position of the project

and its implementing bodies constrains functioning. However, opinions vary as to whether these limitations are

a liability or an asset.

3.2 Methodology and Objective

This study examines the structure and substance of the Anjung Singgah pilot project based on qualitative

and quantitative data collected over the course of two months (September 9-November 9, 2012) through field

observations (5-hour sessions, three times a week for three weeks), documentary review of internal reports and

assessments, semi-structured expert interviews with shelter staff (5) and government officers from the Social

Welfare Department (1) and the MWFCD (1), a questionnaire survey of 12 shelter personnel, and structured

questionnaire interviews with 14 clients, the latter two based on convenience samples. Expert interviews were

designed and analysed to extrapolate each actor’s perceptions of relationships between MWCFD, NWF, clients,

and the general street homeless population. Questionairre interviews with clients were structured to assess

client issues, client priorities, client access to necessary services and client opinion of Anjung Singgah’s

performance. Personnel surveys were crafted to explore personnel attitudes towards clients and understanding

regarding the role of Anjung Singgah in addressing homelessness. The underlying aim of this study is to

evaluate the effectiveness of Anjung Singgah’s programs in view of its mission, objectives, and strategies as

outlined in the SOP (See Appendix A). In addition, the question of whether the “outsider status” of Anjung

Singgah’s administrative agency, NWF, and/or the absence of a national policy foundation impose limitations

on its performance will be explored.

4. Analysis

4.1. Client Demographics

During the first month of the study (Observation Phase), I met and conversed extensively with

approximately 10-15 clients. During the second month (Survey/Interview Phase), an in-depth questionnaire

survey was carried out with 14 respondents (67%) from among 21 resident clients. Resident clients surveyed

were 71% male and 29% female. Malaysian-Malays comprised the majority (64%), while Malaysian-Chinese

(22%), Malaysian-Indian (7%) and other ethnicities (7%) were fewer in number. The trends for gender and

ethnicity found in the survey generally match those related in an unpublished demographic report on Anjung

Singgah’s first year of clients, covering April 2011 - April 2012. Clients covered in my survey tended to be

older than those reported in Anjung Singgah’s first year, but this sample is consistent with the October –

November 2012 population.

A number of important findings merit highlighting. First of all, the survey showed that a roughly 3 out of

4 respondents had no history of sleeping on the streets and entered Anjung Singgah in order to avoid doing so.

Of the four respondents who had experienced sleeping on the streets, only one had done so for longer than one

month (whereas 56% of respondents in a street survey had over six months of street experience) (Figure 2).

Such data indicates that Anjung Singgah is serving as a refuge for newly homeless persons with little to no

street experience, and only a small minority of clients are from the street homeless population.

-FIGURE 2 about here-

Secondly, it is worth noting that all respondents had been to school and generally showed higher

education levels than the street homeless population: 14% had completed up to primary school, 14% up to

middle school, 50% up to secondary school and 22% had obtained their diplomas (Figure 3). These findings

suggest that there may be sizeable diversity in the skill sets of clients. In addition, in interviews I learned of

several clients with occupational certification, qualification, or specialized work experience.

Thirdly, the survey allowed clients to list multiple factors that had contributed to their present

homelessness. Debt, unemployment, and chronic illness were each cited by 7 to 9 respondents (50% or more)

as contributing factors. Poor health, family problems, and depression were also each listed by over one-third.

Factors included in “Other” were a lack of savings or money and being a victim of crime. On average, each

client was grappling with a set of four factors. 66% of respondents listed between three and five, with one

respondent listing as many as eight (Figure 3). These findings show that homeless persons tend to carry the

burden of multiple, overlapping problems. The importance of these and other characteristics unique to Anjung

Singgah’s clients will be explored further throughout the remainder of this paper.

-FIGURE 3 about here-

4.2. Anjung Singgah’s Mechanisms for Addressing Homelessness

Anjung Singgah’s SOP frames the project’s model for engaging with clients as well as institutional

understanding of homelessness. Specifically, the facility is designed to work together with partner agencies to

offer clients: a recuperative space away from the streets; access to certain resources and services; and job

referrals. This model, intended to lead clients to a “more complete and productive life” of “self-reliance”, is

constructed through four key mechanisms: 1) a foundation for satisfying basic needs and immediate security,

2) multi-agency structuring, 3) a “work first” principle, and 4) residential environment.

4.2.1. Foundation for Satisfying Basic Needs and Immediate Security

Strategically, Anjung Singgah aims to offer clients a foundation for satisfying basic needs and immediate

security. The foremost strategy given in the SOP is “To provide temporary shelter and meals free of charge”

(author’s italics). As such, the institution acknowledges food, shelter, and financial difficulty as chief concerns

for clients and the mitigation of these as vital first steps. Upon intake, clients receive immediate, free access to

essentials such as clothing, showers, and beds, although not much more. In-house resources do not include

anything beyond basic needs. Clients have no access to computers, telephones, special diet meals (such as for

diabetics), or air conditioning (available only in staff rooms), for example. Client space only includes bunk

beds and shelves in dormitory rooms and tables and stools in the cafeteria. Anjung Singgah aims to meet basic

needs by providing clients with the underpinnings for immediate physical and material security. At the same

time, the facility restricts in-house access to resources beyond basic needs and limits stays to two weeks with

an aim to prevent clients from becoming “dependent” on assistance.

4.2.2. Multi-Agency Structuring

Clients are granted broader access to select resources and services through Anjung Singgah’s multi-

agency framework. The SOP defines Anjung Singgah as a “referral center in a multi-agency network” assigned

the strategic task of “collaborating with all relevant agencies in order to help the homeless” (NWF, 2011). As

such, both government and non-government agencies play a role in the execution of day-to-day operations

within and outside the facility5. Internally, NWF staff comprises senior management and supervisory positions,

while resources and personnel provided by outside agencies are integrated into in-house operations. In addition,

persons visiting the shelter—whether eligible for placement or not—may be referred to government and non-

government agencies offering relevant assistance, such as for addiction treatment or identification card

replacement. Each agency’s contributions are outlined in the SOP along with specific operation protocol.

On paper, this system has several advantages for both Anjung Singgah and clients. Anjung Singgah

benefits because the facility does not need to duplicate services available elsewhere; it can focus on its own

core services and link clients to institutions with greater expertise and resources where necessary. Thus, the

network adds a new layer of flexibility and value to the project. Likewise, the system offers numerous benefits

for clients since it places them within reach of a wide range of information and services that may be otherwise

hard to obtain from the streets. However, this arrangement fosters only loose coordination of activities. Also, it

poses a challenge to monitoring adherence to commitments, as will be explored in Section 6.

4.2.3. The “Work-first” Principle: Work as a Primary End Goal

The SOP makes clear that Anjung Singgah is designed to direct clients to employment—and that work is

the key to their achieving “independence”, “self-reliance”, and a “productive life”. Although Anjung Singgah

recognizes that clients face problems other than unemployment, it prioritizes income-earning as not only the

means by which homeless persons can “change their lives” but as a moral imperative, in terms of how to live.

Accordingly, the end goal that clients are compelled to pursue, namely, work, is presented as clear-cut and

uncomplicated. In this context, job-matching becomes a program of chief importance, while “counseling

sessions”—designed to evaluate client employability—augment its function. Under the “work-first” principle,

other problems are ranked as secondary to that of finding employment.

4.2.4. Services, Resources, and Daily Life Environment

The physical layout of the shelter critically influences how interactions unfold in the facility. To begin,

the third and fourth floors are gender segregated and for clients only. Each includes a large dormitory room

5Agencies providing support to Anjung Singgah and its clients include: the Social Welfare Department, which provides financial support to

persons qualified for welfare assistance; the National Registration Department, which provides replacements for lost identification cards; the

National Anti-Drug Agency, which accepts interested persons into Cure & Care Addiction Centers; and Hospital Kuala Lumpur, which treats at no cost clients in need of medical attention.

furnished with 19 bunk beds, fans, and small windows for ventilation. On the ground floor is a large cafeteria

with tables and stools. At present, the cafeteria serves as the facility’s only common area for clients.

Bathrooms on this floor are, however, reserved only for personnel use. NWF staff, as well as medical and

counseling staff, hold their office space upstairs from the cafeteria and behind a door marked “Kakitangan

Sahaja (Staff Only)”. This space is air-conditioned and furnished with chairs, sofas, desks, telephones, and

computers, among other things. As a rule, NWF staff (upper management and supervisors), other shelter

personnel, and clients each occupy separate spaces within the facility and disparities in environments are

prominent in terms of comfort and resources6.

Anjung Singgah’s internal programs consist of intake and job referral services; in-house resources are

limited to meals, clothes, and hygiene supplies. On the client’s first day, a supervisor will conduct an intake

registration interview, record client particulars, and allocate a bed. One to five days later, depending on

counselor availability, the counselor will meet with clients for an in-take counseling session. The counselor’s

aim is to elicit information from the client regarding what kind of work may suit her or him. This information

is provided in a confidential document to the operations chief who then mediates with a set of registered

employers7 and performs a job-match. Referrals to partner institutions, such as the Social Welfare Department,

may also come as a result of the counseling session but these are less common, occurring at a rate of roughly

four referrals per month (Anjung Singgah Counselor interview, October 2012). Follow-up counseling sessions

are not deemed necessary unless clients have not found work within 10-14 days.

The SOP stipulates that personnel must engage with clients with “friendly attitudes”, “respect”, and

“willingness to help”, among other things, in its service ethics and core culture (NWF, 2012). At the same time,

personnel revealed in both interview and questionnaires that, prior to starting work at Anjung Singgah: a) most

were generally unfamiliar with the subject of homelessness, and b) none received any special training or

introductory courses relating to either shelter operations or the unique needs of homeless clients. As a result,

6 Although labor conditions for shelter staff and workers are not discussed in this paper, a functional hierarchy with disparities in shift burdens

and wages was noted. There is a difference between the shift burdens and work conditions of upper management staff, supervisors, and non-NWF

workers. Only upper management (full-time) and counselor (part-time) positions generally follow standard working hours, Monday to Friday, 8am to 5pm. All other positions require 24 hour rotations (in the case of dorm monitors and shelter supervisors) or non-regular shifts (in the case

of cafeteria workers, cleaners, medics and front desk). Due to the low number of supervisors and workers, working back-to-back 8-hour shifts

and/or 7 days a week is not uncommon. These workers often spoke of, and showed signs of, physical exhaustion. 7 Employers wishing to hire Anjung Singgah clients must contact the operations chief and register with the shelter.

personnel expressed divergent understandings of circumstances surrounding client homelessness, client needs,

and the role of the shelter in assisting reintegration. (For more on personnel, see Section 4.3.1).

4.3. Optimizing Promise, Overcoming Challenges: Future from a Client Perspective

In this section, I explore different yet overlapping challenges faced by clients and Anjung Singgah, and

highlight ways in which institutional settings can be augmented to bolster project mission and bring greater

security to clients’ lives. From the outset of this study, shelter staff identified several challenges for the pilot

project: clients often stayed at the facility longer than the allocated two weeks; placement and retention rates

for job referrals were low8; and it was difficult to assist clients with different livelihood needs, such as persons

with disabilities or seniors. I discussed these and other issues with clients to gain a better understanding of

what was transpiring from their perspective. Three key factors appear to hinder success: a lack of institutional

understanding of their experience, insufficient access to productive resources, and difficulties clarifying

practical steps for long-term problem resolution. These factors not only contribute to challenges identified by

Anjung Singgah staff, but also partially stem from Anjung Singgah’s structural and operational settings,

namely, barriers to staff-client communication and interaction; an institutional focus on immediate needs and

short-term goals; and reduced holism under the “work-first” principle.

At the same time, clients stressed numerous valuable aspects of their experience at Anjung Singgah. Of

key importance was that it provided: 1) a foundation of security and met core needs and 2) a cooperative space

for shared learning, especially through counseling and client-client relationships, and 3) access to multiple

services and resources through multi-agency structuring. Viewed from the perspective of Anjung Singgah,

these services constitute a significant tool for meeting the project mission as each may enable the institution to

explore and address facets of homelessness not yet fully understood. However, these are only as useful as they

are utilized—and ought to be more broadly, and systematically, applied.

4.3.1. Partnering with Clients: Understanding the Problems of Homelessness

4.3.1.1. Cultivating an Environment for Positive Interaction

8 Roughly 33% for April-September 2011, with only 33% of those clients locatable with the employer two months later (Anjung Singgah Operations Chief interview (19 September 2012).

Anjung Singgah commits itself via its SOP to involving employers, community, and relevant agencies in

its operations. However, one core stakeholder has yet to be included: clients. A growing body of literature is

showing that project efficacy and outcomes can be optimized by the institutionalization of open, positive

channels for communication, interaction, and mutual understanding between service providers and their clients

(e.g. see European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless (FEANTSA), 2006;

Hernandez et al, 2010; and Phillips, 2004). While homeless persons have often been traditionally viewed as

“the problem”, today service providers look to them as a valuable resource which “hold[s] the key to solutions

in their experiences and knowledge” (Weeks, 2008). Considering that Anjung Singgah and its clients share the

same objective—making individual social and economic reintegration a reality—visualizing meaningful

change in clients’ lives as coming from “clients and services…acting together” (ibid) is not only logical, but

critical. However, barriers to positive interaction between personnel and clients, as well as the integration of

clients in shelter operations and services, presently exist.

Interviews with clients revealed moderate frustration stemming from poor treatment at the facility. Clients

describe their experience at Anjung Singgah as making them feel “different”, “second class”, “unimportant”

and “inferior”. First of all, they note a wide disparity in terms of comfort and resources within facility

environments for clients and staff. While some differences (such as sofas and chairs for staff versus stools for

clients) appear as only symbolic markers of second-class status, others have actual costs for clients, such as

poor ventilation in the dormitory rooms and a lack of access to phones and computers. Clients also report that

interpersonal encounters with personnel were at times unhelpful, alienating, and negative. Problematic

treatment includes denigrating looks, rude language, and silence in the place of greetings or conversation. Most

emphasized that they were grateful for shelter and meals, but stated that they did not feel very welcome or

supported in the facility. Survey respondents commonly listed “more understanding” and “friendlier”

personnel as an improvement they would like to make in the shelter.

My observations at the shelter confirmed that there was tension in interaction between personnel and

clients. In order to determine whether prejudice played a role in personnel behavior, I distributed a survey on

attitudes and experience in engaging with clients. Responses collected did not suggest that personnel harbored

unguarded prejudice against clients; to the contrary, answers indicated a tendency towards sympathy and

openness to understanding.

Considering that personnel have neither specialized experience in matters of homelessness nor received

any training, it is conceivable that their behavior may partially stem from insecurity or unfamiliarity in

interacting with homeless clients9. In addition, personnel are also likely to respond to environmental

disparities—just as clients do—and sense the presence of a status hierarchy, which may be counter-productive

to cultivating “friendly attitudes”, “respect”, and “willingness to help” as per SOP stipulations. Ultimately,

clients and personnel generally “keep to themselves” in the facility as there is little situational common ground

for interaction. With only a few exceptions, personnel do not go out of their way to engage with clients and

clients tend to reciprocate.

4.3.1.2. Including Client Voice

Over the course of the study, it became apparent that a lack of client-personnel communication prevented

personnel from understanding problems faced by clients in the facility. For example, several diabetic clients

found it difficult to manage their condition since cafeteria meals do not account for their dietary requirements.

Other clients described how poor ventilation in dormitory rooms caused crowded rooms (of 20 or more people)

to get hot at night. As a result, clients developed rashes, had difficulty sleeping, and/or felt compelled to sleep

on the (cooler tile) floor. Crowding also led to insufficient space to dry clothes. Living conditions at the shelter,

while not bad by any means, could be improved. However, clients were reluctant to bring up concerns with

personnel because past negative experiences made them feel as if they were in a non-responsive environment.

Indeed, it appears that there is little encouragement for clients to provide feedback or share their

experiences and perspectives. Interviews and conversations with personnel revealed that many were concerned

by “odd behavior” by clients—such as sleeping on the floor or turning down food or work. However,

personnel viewed problems underlying these behaviors as resting solely in clients, rather than possibly in

services or the facility. This view of clients prevents personnel from taking constructive steps to learn about

9 Particularly seeing as how clients: a) face homelessness and, therefore, represent an unfamiliar group, b) comprise a diverse range of ages,

ethnicities and backgrounds, and c) have a temporary presence at the facility unlike employees’ fixed presence.

what factors influenced client decisions and why. Instead of engaging with clients to ask about their experience

and solicit feedback, personnel maintain their distance and attribute trouble to “[client] nature”. In cases where

clients actively presented feedback to personnel regarding the facility and/or its programs, input tended to be

negatively characterized as “ungrateful”, “demanding”, or “ignorant” rather than as informative and meriting

attention. Reluctance to earnestly consider client perspectives may, at best, lead to missed opportunities to

improve services and, at worst, negatively impact client health, security, and opportunity to meet objectives.

4.3.1.3. Building Constructive Relationships: Personnel-Client, Client-Client

For many people, homelessness not only means a lack of housing, it also means an absence of social

support. Problems such as losing a job, struggling with addiction, falling into debt, and/or suffering a decline

in mental or physical health strain one’s relationships with friends, co-workers, and family—or may be hard to

confide in others. Moreover, homelessness itself results in economic hardship and social stigmatization,

elements that drastically limit one’s ability to gain acceptance within society as a whole. The general absence

of social support not only reduces an individual’s “sense of belonging” but also adds stress and may frustrate

her or his ability to effectively deal with problems and overcome adversity (Grigsby et al, 1990). However, as

Solarz & Bogat note, “In much social support research, the presence of at least one supporter… is considered

sufficient support to reduce distress.” (1990, p. 94) In other words, while a lack of support can exacerbate

hardship, reintroducing support can facilitate progress. Thus, the opportunity for clients to engage in positive

social relationships is of crucial importance for achieving success in reintegration.

In Sections 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.1.2, I discussed gaps in personnel-client communication and interaction. By

bridging these, Anjung Singgah can foster the formation of mutually cooperative, constructive personnel-client

relationships that: 1) enable clients to take a more active/vocal role in addressing problems and, 2) enable

personnel to provide necessary moral support. Section 4.3.1.4 gives an example of application.

In addition, findings from this study have shown great potential for expanding client support and

empowerment through client-client relationships as well. Clients reported that they were able to develop

positive and mutually-supportive relationships with other clients. In the survey, several noted that they gained

the understanding, acceptance and advice needed through peers and that these social interactions were often a

source of strength and the highlight of each day. Considering that cultivating social networks is a crucial part

of the reintegration process, Anjung Singgah’s ability to provide a space for clients to socialize with and give

peer support to each other is a valuable resource. For one, young clients have already voiced interest in peer

mentoring services, and research has proven peer-to-peer programs useful in assisting client transitions from

homelessness to a reintegrated life (see Olivet et al, 2010b and Ferguson et al, 2011).

4.3.1.4. Improving the Search for Work

The preferred pathway to security in the Anjung Singgah project is employment, and this is managed

through the job-matching program. The challenge is, as many clients already know, “chronic poverty is closely

associated with low paid, irregular and insecure work.” (Hulme, 2005, p.8) In other words, low paying work—

albeit better than no paying work—does not necessarily provide a permanent pathway out of homelessness and

poverty, and neither do seasonal, live-in, and some other types of jobs. Generally speaking, long-term security

in employment and employability both relate directly to an individual’s job skills and other personal skills

(Kluve et al, 2012). It is here that clients wish to see Anjung Singgah do more to enable them to utilize their

own personal work experience and assets.

Anjung Singgah clients include a large number of highly educated persons, relative to the street homeless

population. Clients also include low-skilled and unskilled workers, as well as skilled workers transitioning

between jobs. These facts underscore the diversity in the work-seeking population. At present, by way of the

fifth objective in Anjung Singgah’s SOP (“To assist employers in finding human resources”), the job-matching

program caters to employers looking to receive clients for labor10

. These employers chiefly seek low-skilled or

unskilled workers, often for security, restaurant, or cleaning positions. The job-matching process revolves

around the ability of: a) the counselor to ascertain each client’s work history and, b) the operations chief to

“match” clients to jobs offered by companies registered with the facility. Ultimately, shelter personnel are the

central actors in job-matching while clients, who need only wait for matches and then accept or reject positions,

play a less active role.

10 Employers wishing to hire Anjung Singgah clients must contact the operations chief and register with the shelter. The shelter verifies the employer’s standing with the Department of Labor before referring clients (Anjung Singgah Operations Chief interview, September 2012).

In interviews with clients who had received work through job-matching, four of five explained that the

jobs were poor matches—particularly in terms of work conditions and (low) wages. Some clients had

specialized skills and qualifications, or physical or geographical constraints, that were not taken into account in

the matching. For example, one client with an occupational motor vehicle license received a referral to work

with a caterer, and one elderly client received a referral to security work requiring long hours of standing.

Neither client continued the work for long. Clients familiar with job-matching indicated that they are being

“matched” to employer’s needs (employer-centered job matching), rather than to jobs that suits their own

interests, capacities, and skills (client-centered job matching). This gap in the “match” is likely a key factor

underlying low placement and retention rates for clients in the program.

On the other hand, four clients who were searching for work independently of Anjung Singgah each

expressed satisfaction with the process and outcomes of their job searches. Responses indicate that when

clients are able to search for work on their own terms, they achieve more satisfying results. While Anjung

Singgah personnel encourage clients to look for work on their own, the facility offers little in the way of

material support or practical guidance. Clients conducting independent job searches pointed out that a lack of

in-house resources for job hunting—such as telephones, computers (for resume writing), internet access (for

online job searches), printers, and paper—complicated their ability to make quick progress.

The present job-matching program, while providing a potentially useful service, does have its limitations.

First of all, the pool of employers is relatively small and may not necessarily be able to offer suitable matches

for some clients with respect to their skills and experience. Secondly, giving clients control of the job search

process may actually produce more fruitful results by: a) helping client acquire practical experience and

information for navigating unemployment and finding “the right job” on their own, and b) providing Anjung

Singgah with an opportunity to learn from clients what barriers they face in finding and retaining employment,

and how such hurdles can be overcome. Providing greater in-house resources to clients for job-hunting

purposes would encourage individual initiative and skill-development in finding satisfying work. A client-

centered job search program—one that offers clients necessary resources, advice, guidance, and/or skills

training—could be developed as complimentary, or alternative, to the current job matching program. Such a

program stands as just one example of ways in which Anjung Singgah could work together with clients to let

them take action and exercise agency in addressing immediate problems.

4.3.2. Enhancing Holism & Capacity for Lasting Client Solutions

4.3.2.1. Cultivating Resources and Guidance to Assist Clients with Complex, Multiple Problems

As discussed in Section 4.1, a majority of Anjung Singgah’s clients during the study qualified as newly

homeless. 86% of survey respondents said that they were experiencing homelessness for the first time and 74%

of all clients had no experience with street homelessness. At the same time, there are also clients with previous

experiences with homelessness and/or life on the streets. Both sets of clients have endured numerous strains

and trauma over the course of becoming—and being— homeless (Bender et al, 2010; Guarino & Bassuk,

2010; Hopper et al, 2009; Kim et al, 2010; LaGory, 2001), which means that rebuilding a sense of security is

often a complex and time-consuming process. However, Anjung Singgah potential for contributing to their

progress is significantly restricted by its institutional focus on immediate basic needs and short-term goals.

While the primary end goal stipulated for clients is gainful employment, the time frame in which they are

obliged to achieve this is two weeks. Because of the highly constrained period, clients are encouraged and

sometimes pressured to take the first available job—whether or not they feel the position is suitable. Thus,

diversity among the job-seeking population tends to be overlooked and potential for linking clients to

meaningful long(er)-lasting work is undercut.

In addition, client surveys and interviews indicated that while most clients are looking for work, they are

also occupied with other matters such as debt (7 clients), family problems (6 clients), chronic illness11

(7

clients), depression (6 clients), legal problems (2 clients), addiction (2 clients), divorce (1 client), and domestic

violence (1 client). Also, numerous financial burdens (such as child or parental support) as well as problems

related to incarceration history were revealed in interviews but unfortunately not covered in my survey.

Twelve clients were dealing with more than one problem, and seven had burdens of four problems or more.

Multiple, overlapping problems act as a destabilizing factor in clients’ lives. Physical well-being is

impacted by poor health or illness, psychological well-being is impacted by stress and depression, social

11 Such as diabetes, heart trouble, high blood pressure, seizures, hepatitis, respiratory problems, epilepsy, tuberculosis, or arthritis.

standing and occupational attainment are impacted by legal issues and incarceration history, financial well-

being is impacted by debt and lack of material assets, and family relationships are impacted by all of the

above12

. Clients tend to have a holistic view of their circumstances and crave resolution to a plurality of

problems. In their view, the pathway to security involves addressing more than financial well-being alone.

-FIGURE 4 about here-

In the survey, respondents were asked to rate the importance of immediately addressing each issue they

faced13

on a scale of 1-5 (1 being “not at all important” and 5 “very important”). Results show that while

clients facing unemployment overwhelmingly saw employment as “very important” (with an average of 4.9),

other issues also ranked highly among client concerns—particularly physical health (4.3), legal issues (4.5),

depression (3.3), and debt (3.1). However, at present, Anjung Singgah does not actively link clients to

programs or assistance that may address many of these problem areas—such as debt and financial management,

treatment for psychological and chronic conditions, family problems resolution, and legal advice14

. In-house

counseling concentrates predominantly on job matching and employment issues alone. If clients need help

with issues other than finding employment, the counselor technically has the capacity to make referrals to

relevant partner institutions within the network. However, in-depth interviews with clients revealed that a

majority did not attempt to obtain counselor advice on other problems and, at the same time, were not

prompted to open up about such problem areas either.

In consideration of the fact homelessness itself is a product of an individual’s (or family’s) scant access to

financial, social, informational and other resources necessary to overcome issues in these problem areas,

Anjung Singgah could do its clients a great service by helping them clarify issues that need to be addressed in

multiple problem areas and connecting them to necessary resources.

12 For additional information, see Turning the Tide: A Vision Paper for Multiple Needs and Exclusions (Revolving Door Agency, 2011) and A

Four-Point Manifesto for Tackling Multiple Needs and Exclusions (Making Every Adult Matter, September 2009). 13 Clients who did not list a problem area, such as depression or debt, as affecting them were not asked to rate the importance of that problem. 14 Anjung Singgah does refer roughly 3 to 4 clients per month to welfare services, primarily clients with disabilities or those who are runaways or

senior citizens (Anjung Singgah Counselor interview, October 2012). In my opinion, a far greater number of clients are likely eligible for various

forms of public assistance, as well as in need of public or private services not yet accessible to them (for example, debt counseling or trauma care).

4.3.2.2. Promoting Lasting Client Solutions through Medium- and Long-Term Goals and Plans

Clients report that a significant amount of their time at Anjung Singgah is spent grappling with feelings of

being “lost” and “in the dark” but tempered with a hope to “find ideas” and “ replan my life”. In the survey,

clients were asked in an open-ended question how they would like to use their time at Anjung Singgah. In

response, ten of 14 clients said that they would like to: a) obtain more information relevant to their current

circumstances/problems (3 clients), b) enhance employability and/or life knowledge and skills through classes

or study (3 clients), and c) develop a better understanding of their present options and a future plan (4 clients).

While clients affirm that their first priority is finding suitable employment, a majority state that their personal

and financial security ultimately depends on many other factors—such as debt repayment, financial obligations

to parents or children, and/or health considerations, among other things. Clients described the road leading

them from homelessness to future security as long and dark: long because problem resolution intuitively feels

like a complex and emergent process, and dark because of difficulties in visualizing the steps necessary to get

through it. Also, resources that may be useful for clients’ self-directed work searches—or serve needs other

than food and rest—are not commonly available in the facility. Such resources include computers, internet

access, telephones, notebooks, pens, and/or books and pamphlets with practical information relating to

employment, housing, health, or other relevant concerns15

.

At present, Anjung Singgah has no program that specifically allows for clients to explore and gain

knowledge on their problem areas, or develop plans to work through them. As a result, clients remain confused

as to the best short-, medium- and long-term courses of action, which likely has a role in overstay and low

success rates. Considering the complex nature of their circumstances, clients would benefit from a chance to

map out problems and consider various medium- and long-term plans to achieve lasting solutions.

Survey results and interviews further revealed that Anjung Singgah’s strongest program is its counseling

sessions, and one of its key valued resources is its counselor. Clients, without exception, spoke highly of

having an opportunity to open up to and gain counselor insight. Moreover, it was evident that they held

significant trust in the counselor as a specialist. In the survey, several clients indicated that they would be

15 Newspapers in Malay, Chinese, and English are available as are religious and motivational magazines.

interested in “more counseling to learn [our] problems in detail”16

. Since many already wrestle with a wide

range of problems, clients would undoubtedly benefit from professional assistance in exploring those problems

and developing meaningful solutions. Here, the counselor would serve as an invaluable asset—to Anjung

Singgah as well as its clients—by providing such services.

Ultimately, clients want not only jobs but also the opportunity to consider and develop strategic plans for:

a) managing actual burdens, such as family obligations, debt, health problems, and daily expenses, and b)

building financial and material assets for future security such as bank accounts, housing, and pensions. Even

though Anjung Singgah will not be able to help clients resolve all problems within the time of their stay, it can

increase their chances for success by actively encouraging and guiding goal setting and post-exit planning.

5. Evaluation: The Intersection of Federal Policy and Anjung Singgah

5.1. Homelessness Viewed from the Macro Level

At the micro level, homelessness may appear to be an individual’s personal economic crisis because of

how it makes her or him poor. It may also appear as an individual’s social deviance because of how she or he

falls outside of established norms. Due to these circumstances, homeless people are often subjected to social

and economic exclusion—which explains why programs for people facing homelessness tend to make

reintegration a key objective. Reintegration aims to bring homeless people out of poverty and back into the

social and economic mainstream. Anjung Singgah was, in fact, designed under such an objective.

However, in order to take effective steps at the meso and micro levels, it is crucial that homelessness is

recognized at the macro level as well. A nation’s economy, public health infrastructure, environmental security,

socio-political circumstances, and social welfare institutions, among other things, all have an impact on how

many people are vulnerable—or not—to homelessness. Homelessness is a phenomenon that signals the

magnitude of insecurity in our societies—whether it be insecurity in the economy, in family and community

structures, in our environment, or in our institutions—and is fundamentally, as a phenomenon, beyond the

control of individuals. There are crises in the modern world—such as recessions, epidemics, and housing

shortages—that are difficult for people to transcend on an individual level because of limited social and

16 One open-ended response to "How could Anjung Singgah provide better support?”

financial resources. Homelessness is connected to these crises and more. Here, for perspective, I will introduce

a macro-level view of the homelessness phenomenon. Security in people’s lives is comprised of their access to

gainful employment, sufficient material and financial assets, affordable housing, close social networks,

adequate health, safe environments, and family support.

Most people will go through a personal crisis at some point in their lives where one or more of these

resources will be lost or profoundly changed and, at such times, people depend more heavily on their other

resources. For example, someone who develops an illness and is unable to work will rely more heavily on

family, friends, personal savings, and national or private health care to move them through recovery. However,

sometimes, the resources people have on hand are not collectively enough to deliver them out of the crisis.

Some people have insufficient assets, poor social support networks, scant knowledge of available assistance

institutions, and/or no close living relatives. When social, financial, and institutional resources are not enough,

people may inevitably exhaust what they have—which invites another crisis—such as by depleting assets and

savings, going into debt and/or straining relationships with friends and family. Homelessness usually occurs to

people who have gone through a process of diminished resources. Left with close to nothing, the challenge is

to find a way in which one can rebuild ample resources, and thus security, to escape homelessness and prevent

recurrences.

Resources available to people can act as safety nets in times of crisis. Moreover, there are certain

resources that only government is empowered to provide—not only for the well-being of communities with

limited assets, but for the well-being of the nation as a whole. For example, if there is an epidemic of crime—

or dengue—government has a role in facilitating strategies for mitigating the impacts, developing macro-scale

solutions, and possibly even investigating preventative measures for the future. Homelessness, too, manifests

itself like an epidemic, especially as long as the sources of mass, macro level insecurity are not examined. In

many cases, the life crises that people experience are just symptoms of macro-level problems—such as the

declining quality of jobs, growth in exploitative lending practices, inadequate pension systems, and gaps in

education and social welfare programs. Therefore, government intrinsically has a role in addressing

homelessness by exploring its causes and intervening in crafting solutions.

5.2. Current Macro Level Homelessness Policy in Malaysia: Lessons

In Section 4.3, I propose that present challenges to Anjung Singgah’s objectives of reintegrating homeless

persons and, ultimately, reducing the number of homeless persons overall can be overcome in three ways: 1)

by better understanding the problems of homelessness through the formation of partnerships with clients

(Section 4.3.1), and 2) developing the capacity to help clients discover meaningful, lasting resolution through

exploration of complex, multiple problems and medium- to long-term plans (Section 4.3.2). Strategies such as

these make sense for Anjung Singgah, an institution in direct contact with persons experiencing homelessness

and one capable of both: a) directly cultivating knowledge of their circumstances while, b) influencing

transformation in their lives.

However, a single institution operating as an intermediary between government and clients cannot effect

lasting change over the phenomenon of homelessness on its own. As described in Section 5.1, there are

numerous macro level elements of homelessness that must be addressed. This applies to how problems and

solutions are recognized. Therefore, if Anjung Singgah—as it is developing a better understanding of client

circumstances (see Section 4.3.1)—recognizes a disproportionately high number of debt cases, it must be able

to recognize this as a potential macro level problem with a potential macro level solution, and not necessarily

the result of many “bad decisions” made by many individuals. For example, the spread of debt may partly stem

from growing predatory lending practices among formal or informal institutions. To end the problem, not only

must Anjung Singgah help clients directly, but government agencies must also be aware of the potential

problem, inform the public, and evaluate and redevelop policies, protections, regulations, and services to

ensure that potentially far-reaching consequences are reigned in. Homelessness often provides society with a

clue to rising problems—visible because they impact so many (individual) people—requiring urgent solution.

Also, macro-level work is important because collaboration between multiple agencies is vital for ensuring

that persons experiencing homelessness have the holistic resources and services they need to overcome

complex, multiple problems in the medium- to long-term (Section 4.3.2). As noted in Sections 2 and 4, multi-

agency involvement is a core feature of the Anjung Singgah project. Reducing problems that trigger

homelessness necessitates the procurement of a wide range of services and resources—far beyond what a

charitable foundation such as NWF could provide on its own. In order to bridge this gap, NWF has made

active use of its governmental links to facilitate the formation of an extended assistance network—one that

enlists the cooperation of agencies like the Board of Counselors and the Social Welfare Department.

However, while civic and government agencies alike have agreed to lend their strength to this— the

federal government’s pioneer endeavor to addressing homelessness through positive action—the initiative is

partly undercut by the lack of a secure and enforceable platform. First of all, there is no comprehensive

government policy on homelessness17

to ensure that relevant issues and appropriate levels of action are

integrated into government agencies, or to standardize uniformity in resources and services across the board.

Furthermore, located outside of the machinery of government, neither NWF nor its Management and

Operations Committee have the individual authority or power to direct or regulate partners, policies, operations,

and resources at the macro level of the Anjung Singgah strategy. Therefore, at present, responses to

homelessness and cooperation among government and non-government partners tend to be ad hoc, non-unified,

and partly unguided.

A large part of Anjung Singgah’s promise as an institution, one which has been designed to reintegrate

homeless persons into society and reduce their overall number, depends on the quality and clarity of the system

in which it is placed. A solid framework for systematically monitoring and coordinating partners, policies, and

operations could have a definitive, positive impact on Anjung Singgah’s operations and performance,

particularly with regard to: 1) the robustness and reliability of multi-agency work, and 2) the initiative’s

potential for informing and enhancing strategy at the agency and whole-of-government levels. These macro

level considerations are explained in the following sections, along with their influence over Anjung Singgah’s

efficacy and overarching mission.

5.2.1.Multi-Agency Work, Procedures and Cooperation: Under Whose Powers?

Addressing the needs of homeless persons requires an integrated strategy, one that brings multiple

agencies and service providers into a targeted agenda. Anjung Singgah’s SOP serves as such a strategic

guideline. The document presents the project mission, objectives, strategies, and performance indicators in

17 With the exception of The Destitute Persons Act (Act 183) 1977, one federal vagrancy law derived from colonial-era vagrancy ordinances. Its treatment of “beggars and vagrants”, and homeless persons as a whole, is punitive in nature.

addition to a summation of each partner’s sanctioned role. However, the SOP is not a strictly binding

document. While NWF is incontrovertibly accountable for outcomes, each partner’s level of cooperation in the

initiative is technically voluntary. Furthermore, NWF has no authorized standing or power over its partners.

Although its link to government is influential and offers advantages, NWF lacks the benefit of a mandate

ensuring that multi-agency efforts deliver support to clients consistently and reliably.

As discussed in Section 4.2.2, several partners have had difficulty in complying with agreed upon levels

and measures of assistance from the outset. Bolstered only by a non-binding apparatus, NWF must grapple

with the reality that government and non-government partners may reduce or withdraw support at any time,

and this prevents Anjung Singgah staff from knowing with any confidence whether or when necessary

assistance will come through. Such circumstances not only adversely impact the quality, consistency, and

efficacy in services and resources, but also act as a barrier to incorporating newer, more holistic sets of

services and options. Ultimately, NWF has little choice but to continue focusing on the delivery of the few

resources and services within its control— that is, clients’ immediate short-term needs such as meals,

accommodation, and employment—as these can be accessed independently of partners. This underlies the

steadfastness of Anjung Singgah’s “work first” approach and further denotes that Anjung Singgah will be

unable to provide much more than job-matching support unless it can realize secure and coordinated access to

a wider range of partner resources and services.

Shelter services have concentrated on the provision of meals, accommodation, and job referrals from the

start, with the expectation that these services alone would serve as stepping stones to exit homelessness. While

the importance of these basic services is real, day-to-day work within the shelter has begun to reveal the

underlying complexity of client issues, along with the crucial role that medium- to long-term planning and

supplementary services for complex, multiple problems—such as debt, health, or legal problems—could play

(Figure 5). Considering that homelessness is still a new problem, and one that is not yet entirely understood in

the Malaysian context, flexibility in adapting to new information is crucial. As such, Anjung Singgah and

NWF are in a difficult position since they have neither the internal assets to expand services nor the

institutional authority to rally civic and government partners to contribute more extensive, holistic support.

Therefore, even in the face of a clearer reality of the complexity of homelessness, Anjung Singgah has no well-

defined route to expanding shelter services beyond the “work-first” core. The pilot initiative’s greatest

challenge at present is finding a means to cultivate a secure, reliable, and well-resourced network capable of

adaptably managing client needs in present and future work.

-FIGURE 5 about here-

5.2.2.Developing Responsive Strategies to Counter Homelessness: The Direction of Policy

Patterns of homelessness become evident by taking note of what makes people most vulnerable to the

problem. In the case of Malaysia, homeless persons comprise a diverse range of social, cultural, and economic

backgrounds—but numerous commonalities exist nonetheless. Already, Anjung Singgah has made

considerable progress in uncovering emerging problem areas. For example, homeless persons of all ages tend

to be financially poor and cut off from family contact or social support (whether by circumstance or choice).

Many people on the streets are also low-paid, low-skilled workers who have difficulty in finding steady work

and/or affordable housing near their places of employment. In addition, the fact that a significant number of

people struggling with mental health conditions, disabilities, and addiction disorders18

also suggests that there

is a relationship between their social and economic circumstances and susceptibility to homelessness. By

identifying vulnerable populations such as these, core issues, and solutions that work, Anjung Singgah has the

unique ability to inform the development of more effective homelessness services within government policy

and practice, and even a preventative approach to homelessness. The facility could, in fact, expedite progress

by more directly harnessing client experience and voice to understand the nature of problems and useful

generation of solutions.

However, at present, Anjung Singgah’s operational placement outside of the formal workings of

government hampers the collection and diffusion of such instructive knowledge for two reasons. First of all, as

covered in the previous section, a lack of infrastructure for clear network coordination and NWF’s own limited

resources reinforce a concentration on “work-first” and immediate, short-term goals. As a result, there has

been minimal to no synchronized exploration of non-work-related problems—such as debt, health, or legal

18 Addiction is being increasingly recognized by medical communities as “a chronic, generally progressive, and treatable biological disease” and not a behavioral problem (Addiction Strategy Group, 2009).

problems—or patterns to identify subgroups vulnerable to homelessness and factors contributing to their

circumstances. In addition, without a strong network, Anjung Singgah will be challenged to develop

experience in and knowledge of effectual, holistic solutions or collect adequate data on client circumstances

and short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes, among other things.

Secondly, in order for such information to be reflected in the development of new strategies, practice, or

policy, it must be effectively conveyed to relevant agencies. However, the lack of a positive government policy

identifying which agencies are responsible for managing which matters and how bars the possibility of

coordinated and efficient federal action. Unless homelessness is recognized as a macro level problem requiring

macro level solutions, progress at the micro and meso levels will be complicated. For example, without an

address, homeless persons across the country face difficulty in gaining assistance or employment due to

administrative requirements or discrimination in hiring. Therefore, if government agencies worked towards

mitigating this problem by ensuring homeless persons had access to needed services and employment even

without an address, they would be facilitating progress based on individual effort. Given the right pathways,

Anjung Singgah, NWF, and/or the MWFCD could inform other government agencies of any need to revise or

improve activities.

By addressing current problems swiftly and directly, clients today may have a better chance of

permanently escaping homelessness, and persons tomorrow may have a better chance of avoiding it altogether.

There are countless ways in which the reality of homelessness could inform society and relevant government

agencies of emerging social and economic problems and insecurities affecting people’s health, wealth, work,

and families.

6. Conclusion

Evolving support for incorporating a social welfare approach to homelessness into the national policy

agenda through the Anjung Singgah project, spearheaded by the Ministry of Women, Family, and Community

Development, has been a promising development. Anjung Singgah could serve an invaluable role as a space

where myriad government and non-government institutions may not only channel much-needed resources and

services into addressing homelessness through positive action, but also simultaneously learn more about its

roots and local contexts directly from the women and men who experience it. Already, a clearer picture of the

multiple, overlapping problems facing homeless persons is emerging. Anjung Singgah has, as an institution,

facilitated discovery of a complex array of factors—such as debt, housing, social support, and employability—

underlying the phenomenon of homelessness.

This insight offers Anjung Singgah a window into potentially effective strategies for making meaningful

progress in fulfilling mission at the meso and macro levels. At the meso level, reintegrating clients back into

the social and economic mainstream requires: a) that Anjung Singgah work more closely with clients to ensure

that its “projects and services [are] based on need rather than assumptions” (Weeks, 2008); and b) that Anjung

Singgah provide more holistic guidance and support with a view to promoting clients’ medium- to long-term

security. At the macro level, the same objective requires c) that knowledge about vulnerable populations, core

circumstances, and solutions that work are conveyed to relevant agencies in the government system, and d)

necessary checks and adjustments are made in government policies and practice to ensure the adequate and

effective provision of services and resources. However, here rests a new, larger challenge: Anjung Singgah’s

administrative agency, NWF, independently possesses neither the assets needed to upgrade services at the

meso level, nor the authority required to ensure macro level reflections and modifications are made.

Fortunately, Anjung Singgah’s multi-agency framework can help fill this gap.

At the same time, over the course of the study, it has been made clear that the multi-agency framework is

constrained without channels for enforcement. The outsider status of NWF and Anjung Singgah has deprived

them of a “mandate”—and thus crucial resources and support—for dealing with the issues at the core of their

mission. Moreover, they are similarly strained by the lack of a policy or statutory body to promote and guide

government and non-government agency involvement in service planning, development, and delivery. At this

stage, Anjung Singgah’s potential for informing the development of more effective homelessness services

within government policy and practice, and even a preventative approach to homelessness is dependent on the

emergence of an enforceable framework for multi-agency action, either under a statutory body, such as a

commission or council, or through the formation of a comprehensive homelessness policy, or both.

The underlying aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Anjung Singgah’s programs in view

of its mission, objectives, and strategies as outlined in the SOP (Table 1). By virtue of a relatively solid

framework, Anjung Singgah appears to be consistently implementing all strategies, which comprise its core

mechanisms of providing shelter, meals, counseling, and job referrals, and introducing inter-agency services.

However, the bar for quality and suitability is set conspicuously low in practice, which ultimately complicates

client ability to benefit from access to such services. The daily life environment in the shelter is poor,

personnel and staff are ill-informed, counseling (although sympathetic) is unconstructive, and (resources for

locating) suitable jobs through the facility are generally unavailable. Hence, even with free shelter, meals,

counseling, job referrals, and access to (limited) external aid, clients are generally unable to find housing,

agreeable work, or necessary supplementary support—at least to a degree sufficient for Anjung Singgah to

meet its objective of “provid[ing] opportunities for the homeless to live independently” and “enhance[ing] the

self-reliance of the homeless”. Anjung Singgah has, in fact, not been collecting data for performance indicators,

making it impossible to verify any measure of success or failure through metrics. On the whole, I find it

implausible that the mission of “Helping homeless people move towards a more complete and productive life”

is being achieved through the present arrangement.

The government has affirmed at its highest levels the need to develop a new approach to homelessness in

its social policy agenda, yet Anjung Singgah and NWF are limited by their position officially outside of the

machinery of government. The Anjung Singgah project carries promise for enhancing client security;

improving client quality of life; and helping Malaysia develop an accurate, deeper understanding of the

phenomenon of homelessness—and its solutions. However, circumstances indicate that, in order to fulfill such

promise, the Malaysian government should consider integrating agency commitment and responses to

homelessness into a more compulsory framework. A formal national strategy or policy would certainly be

beneficial in this regard. Considering the endemic nature of homelessness in Malaysia, as well as throughout

the world, the Malaysian government would certainly benefit profoundly from the development of a clear

strategy for monitoring and managing its materialization into the future.

-Table 1 about here-

References Anjung Singgah Operations Chief. (2012, September 20). Anjung Singgah. (R. Rusenko, Interviewer)

Anjung Singgah Counselor. (2012, Oct 8). Anjung Singgah. (R. Rusenko, Interviewer)

Archdiocesan Office for Human Development staff. (2012, November 28). Program staff, Archdiocesan

Office for Human Development (AOHD). (R. Rusenko, Interviewer)

Arthurs, E. (2008, August). Homelessness In Malaysia: A Public Policy Issue? Retrieved September 27,

2012, from faezahismail.wordpress.com:

https://faezahismail.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/homelessness_in_malaysia_eugene_arthurs.pdf

Bender, K., Ferguson, K., Thompson, S., & Komlo, C. (February 2010). Factors Associated With Trauma

and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Among Homeless Youth in Three U.S. Cities: The Importance

of Transience. Journal of Traumatic Stress 23(1), 161-8.

Burmolle, S.H. & Laurburg, A.S. (2007). User influence at Section-110 accommodation facilities for

homeless people in Denmark. Kobenhavn: Fonden projekt UDENFOR.

Crisis. (2008, March). Homeless Women. Retrieved December 20, 2012 , from Crisis Policy and

Research:

http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/2945Homeless_women_policy_recommendations

.pdf

Dunlap, K.M. & Fogel, S.J. (July 1998). A Preliminary Analysis of Research on Recovery from

Homelessness. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless 7(3), 175-188.

European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless (FEANTSA). (2006,

Autumn). Participation of Service Users: Giving Voice to the Experts. Retrieved November 8,

2012, from European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless

(FEANTSA):

http://www.feantsa.org/files/Month%20Publications/EN/Magazine_Homeless_in_Europe_EN/Au

tumn_2006_FEANTSA_magazine_participation.pdf

Ferguson, K. K. (2011). Enhancing Empowerment and Leadership Among Homeless Youth in Agency

and Community Settings: A Grounded Theory Approach. Child & Adolescent Social Work

Journal 28, 1-22.

Grigsby, C., Baumann, D, Gregorich, S.E., & Roberts-Gray, C. (1990 ). Disaffiliation to entrenchment: A

model for understanding homelessness. Journal of Social Issues 46(4), 141–156.

Groundswell UK. (2007). Streets Ahead: Good Practice in Tackling Rough Sleeping, The Client's

Perspective. London: September.

Guarino, K. & Bassuk, E. (2010). Working With Families Experiencing Homelessness: Understanding

Trauma And Its Impact. Zero to Three 30(3), 11-20.

Guarino, K., Soares, P., Konnath, K., Clervil, R., & Bassuk, E. (n.d.). Trauma-Informed Organizational

Toolkit for homeless services. Rockville: Homelessness Resource Center.

Hartini binti Abdul Rahim. (2012, November 8). Head of Finance. (R. Rusenko, Interviewer)

Hehmet, O. (1988). Development in Malaysia: Poverty, Wealth, and Trusteeship. Kuala Lumpur: INSAN.

Hernandez, L, Robson, P. & Sampson, A. (2010). Towards Integrated Participation: Involving Seldom

Heard Users of Social Care Services. Journal of Social Work 40 (3), 714-736.

Hopper, E.K., Bassuk, E.L., & Olivet, J. (September 2009 (2)). Shelter from the Storm: Trauma-Informed

Care in Homelessness Services. Open Health Services and Policy Journal, 131-151.

Hulme, D. & McKay, A. (2005). Identifying and Measuring Chronic Poverty: Beyond Monetary

Measures: Working Paper No. 30. Chronic Poverty Research Centre.

Kechara Soup Kitchen staff. (2012, October 27). Project staff. (R. Rusenko, Interviewer)

Kertesz, S., Crouch, K., Milby, JB., Cusimano, R.E., & Schumacher, J.E. (2009). Housing First for

Homeless Persons with Addiction. The Milbank Quarterly, 87 (2) 2009 (pp. 495–534), 495–534.

Kim, M.M., Ford, J.D., Howard, D.L., & Bradford, D.W. (2010). Assessing Trauma, Substance Abuse,

and Mental Health in a Sample of Homeless Men. Health & Social Work, 35 (1), 39-48.

Kluve, J., Rother, F., & Sánchez Puerta, M.L. (2012). Training Programs for the Unemployed, Low-

Income, and Low-Skilled Workers. In R. A. Robalino, The Right Skills for the Job?: Rethinking

Training Policies for Workers (pp. 133-169). Washington DC: The World Bank.

LaGory, M., Fitzpatrick, K., & Ritchey, F. (Autumn 2001). Life Chances and Choices: Assessing Quality

of Life Among the Homeless. The Sociological Quartely, 42 (4), 633-651.

Lynch, P. (2005). Homelessness, Poverty and Discrimination: Improving Public Health By Realising

Human Rights. Deakin Law Review 10 (1), 233-259.

Making Every Adult Matter. (2009, September). A Four-Point Manifesto for Tackling Multiple Needs and

Exclusions. Retrieved December 20, 2012, from http://www.meam.org.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2009/09/MEAM-report.pdf

Ministry of Women, Family, and Community Development (MWFCD). (n.d.). Profiling Golongan

Gelandangan (Homeless) di Wilayah Perasekutuan Kuala Lumpur. Putarajaya: unpublished.

Ministry of Women, Family, and Community Development. (2011, March 23). Penubuhan Anjung

Singgah, Pusat Sehenti Intervensi bagi menangani isu gelandangan. Retrieved October 7, 2012,

from Kementerian Pembagunan Wanita, Keluarga dan Masyarakat (KPWKM):

http://202.187.17.12/~kpwkm/CMS/kenyataanmedia/media/Siaran%20Media%20Anjung%20Sin

ggah.pdf

Ministry of Women Family and Community Development Policy Officer (2012, October 30). Assistant

Secretary; Division of Policy; Ministry of Women, Family, and Community Development. (R.

Rusenko, Interviewer)

Mohd. Yaakub Hj. Johari (ed.). (1991). Urban Poverty in Malaysia. Kota Kinabalu: Institute for

Development Studies.

National Welfare Foundation (NWF). (2012). Garis Panduan Asas: Pengurusan Operasi Anjung Singgah.

not published.

National Welfare Foundation Officer A. (2012, October 30). Head of Legal and Consulting, National

Welfare Foundation. (R. Rusenko, Interviewer)

Off the Streets and into Work (OSW). (2007). The OSW Participation Principle. Retrieved November 8,

2012, from Homeless Link:

http://handbooks.homeless.org.uk/ete/equal/participation/participation.pdf

Olivet, J., McGraw, S., Grandin, M., & Bassuk, E. (April 2010b). Staffing Challenges and Strategies for

Organizations Serving Individuals who have Experienced Chronic Homelessness. The Journal of

Behavioral Health Services & Research 37 (2), 226-238.

Olivet, J., Paquette, K., Hanson, J., & Bassuk, E. (2010a). The Future of Homeless Services: An

Introduction. The Open Health Services and Policy Journal, 30-33.

Phillips, J. (2004, February). Service user involvement in homelessness. Retrieved November 8, 2012,

from European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless (FEANTSA):

http://www.feantsa.org/files/Participation/Good%20Practice%20Compendium/shelter_particpatio

n_guide.pdf

Prime Minister's Office. (2010). Government Transformation Programme: The Roadmap. Putrajaya: Unit

Pengurusan Prestasi Dan Pelaksanaan (PEMANDU).

Ravenhill, M. (2008). The Culture of Homelessness. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.

Revolving Doors Agency. (2011, September). Turning the Tide: A Vision Paper for Multiple Needs and

Exclusions. Retrieved December 20, 2012, from Revolving Doors Agency: http://www.revolving-

doors.org.uk/documents/turning-the-tide-vision-paper-pdf/

Scobbie, L., Dixon, D., & Wyke, S. (2011). Goal setting and action planning in the rehabilitation setting:

development of a theoretically informed practice framework. Clinical Rehabilitation 25(5), 468-

482.

Sharifah Mariam Alhabshi & Alifatul Kamilah Abdul Manan. (2012). Homelessness in Kuala Lumpur,

Malaysia: A Case of Agenda Denial. International Journal of Social Science Tomorrow, 1 (2), 1-

9.

Solarz, A. & Bogat, G.A. (1990). When Social Support Fails: The Homeless. Journal of Community

Psychology 18(1), 79-96.

Tsemberis, S. (2010). Housing First: Ending Homelessness, Promoting Recovery and Reducing Costs. In

Ellen, I.G. & O'Flaherty, B. (Eds), How to House the Homeless (pp. 37-55). New York: Russel

Sage Foundation.

Wallace, A. & Quilgars, D. (2005). Homelessness and Financial Exclusion: A Literature Review. York:

Centre for Housing Policy, University of York.

Weeks, C. (2008). Homeless Link Online Handbook: Client Participation. Retrieved November 10, 2012,

from Homeless Link:

http://handbooks.homeless.org.uk/streetoutreach/positiveservice/clientparticipation

Appendix A – Mission, Objectives, Strategies, and Performance Indicators

Mission

Helping Homeless People Move Towards a More Complete and Productive Life

Objectives

i. To provide opportunities for the homeless to live independently

ii. To enhance the self-reliance of the homeless

iii. To serve as a referral center within a multi-agency network

iv. To encourage community involvement in helping the homeless

v. To assist employers in finding human resources

Strategies

i. To provide temporary shelter and meals free of charge

ii. To assist in finding work and housing

iii. To provide consultation and counseling

iv. To implement motivational talks

v. To collaborate with all relevant agencies in order to help the homeless

vi. To raise funds and corporate donations to cover the financial needs for operation

Performance Indicators

Project success and effectiveness will be gauged from the following aspects:

Basic Achievements

a. The number of clients admitted

b. The number of clients who get jobs

c. The number of clients who attend training programs, lectures, and motivation sessions

Key Achievements

a. The number of clients who obtain permanent work for at least a one-year period

b . The number of clients who secure permanent housing

Figures

Governmental Non-governmental

Figure 1. The roles of government and non-government bodies in the establishment,

operation, and review of Anjung Singgah

Figure 2. Respondents’ street experience: Client survey (left), Street survey (right)

Figure 3. Present issues (problem areas) faced by clients:

Type (top) and number (bottom)

Figure 5. Core services (top) and emerging themes for concern and supplemental support

“Work-first” core

Table 1. Effectiveness of Anjung Singgah’s programs in view of mission, objectives, and performance indicators

Mission Evaluation

Helping Homeless People Move

Towards a More Complete and

Productive Life

F.

Based on findings, it does not seem that the lives of clients are any “more complete and productive”

following entry into Anjung Singgah.

Objectives Evaluation

i. To provide opportunities for the

homeless to live independently

F. Due in large part to: a) lack of referrals to adequate

housing (options), living wage jobs, and necessary supplementary aid, and b) lack of resources enabling

clients to secure the same independently

ii. To enhance the self-reliance of

the homeless

F.

Due in large part to: a) lack of referrals to adequate housing (options), living wage jobs, and necessary

supplementary aid, and b) lack of resources enabling

clients to secure the same independently

iii. To serve as a referral center

within a multi-agency network

C.

Anjung Singgah consistently works together with partner

agencies. However, the facility cannot guarantee

consistent cooperation from, or outcomes through,

external bodies. Therefore, necessary external assistance

is not regularly achieved.

iv. To encourage community

involvement in helping the

homeless

D.

While Anjung Singgah invites tertiary students for research & practice, and schools & corporate groups for

public events, the helpfulness of such programs for clients is low. Such involvement may, however, benefit

the whole of “the homeless” over the long-term.

v. To assist employers in finding

human resources

Unrated. Anjung Singgah works with 80 employers for its job-matching program. Therefore, the objective seems

fundamentally met. However, I did not conduct research

regarding employers’ perspectives and am therefore unprepared to rate.

Performance Indicators

Basic Achievements

a. The number of clients admitted 499 clients between April 2011-April 2012

b. The number of clients who get jobs 33% between April-September 2011;

Data not available after September 2011

c. The number of clients attending training

programs / lectures / motivation sessions

Data not available

Key Achievements

a. The number of clients who obtain

permanent work for at least one year

Data not available

b . The number of clients who secure

permanent housing

Data not available