Family Homelessness

More Than Simply a Lack of Housing

Karleen Jackson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN:
  9780815335818
• eBook ISBN:
  9781136785610
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

First published in 2000. This book examines the multiple factors which contribute to family homelessness, and uses quantitative and qualitative analyses to identify those factors which represent the major supports and barriers to homeless exit and housing stability. Results show that while family homelessness is not caused by a single issue (but a combination of issues including alcohol/substance abuse, untreated mental illness, domestic violence, family configuration, lack of community or social supports, and/or lack of affordable housing options) community and social supports provide the single most significant impact on the ability of families to exit homelessness and maintain stable housing. Quantitative data suggests that investing in community/social supports for homeless families could facilitate their exit from homelessness and increase housing stability for families at risk, while reducing those supports might increase homelessness. Qualitative data indicates that supportive relationships are instrumental to understanding that while homelessness is a terrible experience, those who experience homelessness are not terrible people. Furthermore, recognizing that a loss of housing does not necessarily mean the loss of one's symbolic representation of 'home' could assist families in viewing homelessness as a transformational learning experience rather than a traumatic failure.

CHAPTER 1

Public Policies Regarding Homelessness

WHAT INFLUENCES IMPACT PUBLIC POLICIES ABOUT HOMELESSNESS?

Before it is possible to develop new public policies to eliminate homelessness it is necessary to understood the basic influences on social change in general within our society. Ryan (1971) described two major influences on social change (pp. 246–247) as “the exceptionalist position” which explains social problems as the result of unpredictable and uncontrollable circumstances which impact individuals and families, and the “universalist position” which assumes social problems are part of the social structure and can be predicted and controlled.

As Ryan (1971) went on to explain, the philosophy of “Blaming the Victim” is arrived at by using exceptionalistic explanations for universalistic social problems. As he related (p. 248), “Universalistic analysis … will focus, not on problem families, but on family problems; not on motivation, but on opportunity; not on symptoms, but on causes; not on deficiencies, but on resources; not on adjustment, but on change.” Ryan’s (1971) universalistic and exceptionalistic explanations of social problems helped inspired this study by providing a framework for understanding the influences which impact public policies about homelessness in the United States.

That history is embedded in the universalistic philosophy exhibited by Europeans during the early 1300s. Snow and Anderson (1993, p. 10) described how, “The preindustrial city was characterized in part by the ‘omnipresence of beggars,’” These authors went on to discuss the fact that this was tolerated by the community because of: (1) folk traditions which required that itinerants receive hospitality, and (2) the idealization of poverty, based on, “the creed of Saint Francis, who taught ‘that beggars were holy, and that the holy should live as beggars,’” (p. 11). However, during the 14th century, both religious and secular views of poverty changed as a consequence of the Black Death, prompting laws based on an exceptionalistic philosophy which prohibited vagrancy.

Snow and Anderson (1993) observed that one result of these changes was that many of England’s poorest citizens left their homeland to colonize America during the 17th and 18th centuries. The new colonists in America recognized their need to address social problems by creating public policies with strong moral and ethical foundations. The policies they adopted included the exceptionalistic principles found in the Elizabethan Poor Laws of England. This resulted in some support for people who were considered good potential community members. However, those viewed as the “undeserving poor” often drifted to the major cities where the first soup kitchens and emergency shelters soon developed.

However, even in the big cities, exceptionalistic philosophy meant that support was only available to those who established themselves as residents rather than strangers. Residents in need were provided with cash assistance called “outdoor relief” in the event of a personal crisis such as illness, injury, or death of the breadwinner. The outdoor relief fund was seldom very large, however, since it was dependent upon levying unpopular community poor taxes (Baum & Burnes, 1993). Great debates were waged over the ethical and moral implications of how this public policy impacted all members of the community (Gordon, 1994; Katz, 1989).

Echoes of those debates can be heard in a similar discussion regarding the rights and responsibilities of those who are struggling with poverty in our country today. With the passage of the 1996 Personal Responsibility Act, as well as the new Immigration Laws, residents of the United States are no longer covered by the universalistic philosophy which provided the basis for the entitlement programs which have commonly been known as welfare or public assistance (U. S. Government, 1996). Instead, these new public policies seem to fit Ryan’s (1971) formula for “blaming the victim” by using exceptionalistic explanations for universalistic social problems.

The earliest welfare assistance in the United States was provided through the “poorhouse” or “almshouse” used to shelter the sick and elderly. As Katz (1986, p. 3) reported, “Poorhouses, which shut the old and sick away from their friends and relatives, were supposed to deter the working class from asking for poor relief.” However, during the period of time from 1890 to 1935, the term welfare was synonymous with well-being, in spite of heated public debates about the moral and ethical implications of providing “fallen women” with cash assistance. Gordon (1994, p. 29) further clarified that this debate was significantly mitigated, “By focusing on the children and avoiding their mothers’ morals.”

The change from welfare as well-being for worthy widows, to welfare as handouts provided to the lazy and dirty poor through money contributed by the more socially acceptable working population arrived with the Social Security Act of 1935. However that original welfare plan did not provide assistance to minorities, mothers with children born out of wedlock, or the extremely poor (Gordon, 1994). This is interesting in light of Snow and Anderson’s (1993, p. 15) account of the huge need for welfare during the Great Depression when, “Police in many communities used their jails as overnight shelters. And, in 1932 the U.S. Children’s bureau conducted a study that documented over 200,000 homeless children.”

As a result, moral and ethical arguments led to an expansion of the welfare entitlement program in the mid-1960s to include benefits from Social Security Disability Insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps, WIC, AFDC, and public housing based on income level rather than an analysis of the circumstances that created that income level (Jencks, 1993). This resulted in further ethical and moral debates. For, although welfare programs helped a large number of people who would otherwise have gone hungry or homeless, several authors believe they also discouraged those who received assistance from entering or reentering the job market through economic disincentives to full-time work (Katz, 1986; Caputo, 1997).

McMillan (1994) added to the arguments against the long-term benefits of welfare programs by establishing a link between the receipt of welfare assistance and the experience of negative interpersonal relationships. Gordon (1994, p. 288) reported that resentment on the part of many American workers toward increasing taxes means that: “‘Entitlements’ has become a code word for undeserved benefits.” White (1992, p. xiv) suggested that another reason for adverse reactions to public policies regarding entitlements is that families who receive welfare assistance are perceived as no longer able to perform their social responsibility to raise future productive citizens since welfare is, “cumulatively eroding their ability to fulfill society’s most important task: nurturing children and raising them to be responsible adults.” This debate has led to two different problems representing opposite ends of the ethical and moral debate about entitlements.

On the one hand, as Katz (1989, 1986) emphasized, community attitudes have shifted from the 1960s universalistic view that all poor children and their families are entitled to food, shelter and clothing, to the 1990s exceptionalist concept that only “deserving” families should receive public assistance for a limited period of time, after which the adult(s) must become employed. This has occurred in part because of the high value placed on work within American culture. Liebow (1993, p. 51) suggested that the value communities place on various tasks determine: “the principal way one earns a living and becomes a valued member of that community …. jobs are a principal source of both independence and connectedness to others.” Current public policy shows that the value of work has become more important to most people in American culture than the well-being of poor children, or aged, blind, and disabled legal permanent residents (Wallis, 1997, May/June).

On the other hand, taking personal responsibility away from individuals who are equipped to assume that responsibility can lead to a state that Seligman (1992) called “learned helplessness.” Seligman suggested that learned helplessness occurs when an individual is placed in a situation where s/he has no control over some important outcome, stops trying to effect a change, and then comes to believe it is completely impossible to change the situation.

Another influence on social change within our society which helped inspire this study was the realization that there are similarities between the end results produced by the public policy regarding entitlement programs and the effects of some public policies intended to preserve our natural ecology as noted by White (1992, p. xiv): “I am struck by the similarity to the way that the natural ecology is affected by man’s careless, clumsy intervention: we must pay attention to social ecology as well [as natural ecology].”

Social ecology is a concept described by Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, and Tipton (1985, p. 335) as, “the web of moral understandings and commitments that tie people together in community.” Furthermore, Moore (1992) suggested that our current neglect of social ecology is linked to the social problem of homelessness because the word ecology has the same root (oilos) as the word home. Moore went on to say that:

the homelessness we see on our city streets is a reflection of a deeper homelessness we feel in our hearts …. We assume that homelessness has to do with economics, when it is more the mirror of the society and culture we have made. (p. 271)

This points out our moral and ethical obligation to look at not only the natural environment or ecology that surrounds public policy issues such as homelessness, but also the social ecology represented by those issues. However, creating a healthy social ecology is not simple. For example, while the current exceptionalistic public policy regarding the limitations on welfare benefits could create increased poverty and homelessness, the prior universalistic public policy based on welfare entitlement programs also produced challenges to a healthy social ecology by forcing some people to avoid work in order to live in subsidized public housing and be able to afford food (Wagner, 1994).

A third source of inspiration for this study regarding the importance of social change in influencing public policies about homelessness came from McKnight’s (1995, p. 172) assessment that we have a moral and ethical responsibility to care for those in need, at a more individual, person-to-person level. He suggested that the result of social change at the personal level would be: “a new vision for community. It is a vision of regeneration. It is a vision of reassociating the exiled.” There has been a grassroots movement within neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. in the last decade which shows evidence that McKnight’s vision can work to create positive social change relative to the issues of poverty and homelessness (Garr, 1995). As many of the examples cited by Garr (1995) demonstrate, the critical element in neighborhood and community grassroots efforts seems to be the capacity of those involved to exhibit compassion.

Snider (1991), a successful musician who became homeless and lost all his material possessions and significant relationships agreed that the current public policies regarding those who are homeless result in:

an us-and-them mentality, keeping us at arm’s length from each other; permitting us to define and segment each other in terms of wealth or the lack of it rather than in terms of intrinsic worth and dignity as human beings. (p. 9)

This is a sentiment echoed by Bellah et al. (1985, p. 335) who also inspired social change at the personal level by asserting that we must, “treat others as part of who we are, rather than as a ‘them’ which whom we are in constant competition.”

As a result of ignoring the ethical and moral considerations inherent in our public policies regarding those who are homeless or living in poverty, it becomes easy for community members to move the problem of homelessness to the less desirable areas of town and ignore the suffering of those who are most in need of community support (Tucker, 1990). Ringheim (1990, p. 229) observed that fear of our own vulnerability results in community members seeking: “personal characteristics that would clearly distinguish the poor and the homeless from ourselves”; and explained why homelessness continues in a country as affluent as the United States.

However, adopting public policies which relocate those who are homeless away from the mainstream of our communities does not remove the problem of homelessness from our society (Wagner, 1993; Cuomo, 1992). For, as Wolch and Dear (1993, p. 302) remind us: “that homelessness remains an integral part of the national geography is testimony to our failure to confront the fundamental obligations of community.” Snider (1991) highlighted the consequences of ignoring the ethical and moral consideration of isolating those who are homeless from the rest of the community when he wrote:

We are not simply individuals. We are communities, composed of social beings dependent on one another … whether we like it or not. If we fail to come to grips with this, we will die a slow, agonizing, lonely death, and thousands upon thousands will die with us. The choice is ours—yours and mine. (p. 7)

Bellah et al. (1985, p. 285) suggested that public policies which further marginalize those without power, status, or resources mean that: “We have committed what to the republican founders of our nation was the cardinal sin: we have put our own good, as individuals, as groups, as a nation, ahead of the common good.” This brings us to the moral and ethical issues regarding the dynamic tension created by social change agendas which promote public policies that must balance the private gain or loss of individuals, against the public interest of all citizens within neighborhoods, communities, and the nation (Blankenhorn, Bayme, & Elshtain, 1990; Boyte, 1984).

Bellah et al. (1985, p. 26) further explained that:

We need to reach common understandings about distributive justice— an appropriate sharing of economic resources—which must in turn be based on conceptions of a substantively just society. Unfortunately, our available moral traditions do not give us nearly as many resources for thinking about distributive justice as about procedural justice, and even fewer for thinking about substantive justice.

These authors went on to discuss some of the competing public needs (pp. 27-28) regarding issues of justice in our country as achieving: “the biblical hope of a just and compassionate society”; “the ideals of republican citizenship and participation”; “manifest destiny and national glory”; and “the spirit of enterprise and the right to amass wealth and power for oneself.” They described the private needs for success, freedom, and justice which can be found in varying degrees within the public groups they labeled: “biblical, republican, and modern individualist” (p. 28).

Unfortunately, these definitions and labels are seldom used during public policy debates. Instead, during discussions of individual entitlement and distributive justice, individuals are often labeled as the haves and have-nots. Using such labels may identify some of the philosophical beliefs and values held by those who assign the labels, and may also influence the direction of conversations about social issues and public policies (Atkinson, Hargreves, Horowitz, & Sorensen, 1978; Bassuk, Carman, & Weinreb, 1990). Peck (1987) inspired this study by addressing this concern and suggesting that we have a moral and ethical responsibility to see that all individuals, regardless of their labels are integrated into their communities through acceptance into appropriate groups, agencies, and programs which benefit both those individuals and the larger community.

Similarly, Jack Kornfield inspired this work by sharing the thought (Welwood, 1992, p. 281):

Look at yourself and see who is “us” and who is “them.” Does “us” mean mediators or educated people or Americans or White people? Who is your “us?” Whenever there is a sense of “us,” then there is a sense of “other.”

I believe such biases can hinder efforts to produce social change and enact public policy, particularly if those at the margins of society (without power, status, or resources) are not involved in those change efforts (Marin & Vacha, 1994; DuBois, Felner, Sherman, & Bull, 1994;...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Foreword
• Introduction
• Acknowledgments
• List of Tables and Figures
• Chapter 1 Public Policies Regarding Homelessness
• Chapter 2 Understanding Family Homelessness
• Chapter 3 Social Support and Transformational Relationships
• Chapter 4 Researching Families Exiting Homelessness
• Chapter 5 Quantitative Research Measures
• Chapter 6 Qualitative Research Measures
• Chapter 7 Results of Quantitative Research Analyses
• Chapter 8 Results of Qualitative Research Analyses
• Chapter 9 Summary of Research Findings
• Afterword
• Appendices
• Bibliography
• Index