Homelessness as an Issue in Sociology and Social Studies - Term Paper Example

Running Head Homelessness Homelessness Introduction to Sociology 07/25/07 Homelessness Today, homelessness is one of the complex issues in sociology and social studies. The term "homeless" is applied to different groups of people to describe those sleeping outdoors in any of a variety of makeshifts, or residing in temporary accommodations. According to statistical results, there are about 1% of the U.S. population is homeless (Homelessness n.d.). Different research studies (Arden et al 2006; Guzicki et al 2006) offer a perspective which takes into account a number of levels, from broadly based investigations of cultural beliefs, societal organization, and neighborhood and community networks, to the service-delivery system and the individual. The sociological perspective applied to the research paper is social constructionism. This approach allows a researcher to examine and analyze development of homelessness in particular social contexts. This sociological perspective is chosen for analysis because the constructionist position emphasizes that the activities through which social problems like homelessness are constructed are both implicitly and intentionally. Social constructionism accounts for maintenance of social activities which lead to such problems as homelessness. Sociologists use the assumptions as a warrant for defining problems as real and observable social conditions, portraying their studies as objective analyses, and describing themselves as experts on social problems. The notion of homeless is difficult to define because it involves diverse social groups and diverse populations. Researchers propose different definitions which take into account different age groups and different social causes of homelessness, location and neighborhoods environment. For instance, Chamberlain and Johnson (2001) state that: "the literal definition equates homelessness with rooflessness', implying that homeless people are literally under the stars', or illegally occupying deserted premises" (p. 35). Traditional definitions of homelessness (Arden et al 2006) involve such groups as children, women, veterans, racial minorities, young mothers and drug users. Homeless are considered children who have been separated from their homeless parents and are in foster care or are living with relatives; a young mother and her children who have lived for two or three months at a time with different relatives during the past year or so, and who expect that, within the next few months, they will have to leave where they now live; a family or single person who migrated to a new town looking for work, lives with relatives, does not pay rent, cannot find work, and does not know how long the present arrangement will last or where to go if it terminates. A person can be defined as homeless if: there s no accommodation available for him/her, together with any other person who normally resides with him/her or who might reasonably expect to reside with him/her, which he/she can reasonably occupy or remain in occupation of" (Homeless n.d.). Homeless are considered people living in stable but physically inadequate housing (having no plumbing, no heating, or major structural damage, for example). The remainder is considered "at imminent risk" of literal homelessness, that is, if their current precarious housing arrangements fail, or if an institutional stay comes to a predictable end, they have neither prospects nor resources to keep themselves from literal homelessness (Luba and Davies 2006). A more expansive definition of homelessness includes the institutionalized who have no usual home elsewhere, the most unstable group among the precariously housed, or both. In terms of social constructionism, homelessness is caused by social conditions and circumstances which influence a person. Pervasive and rising homelessness is caused by social factors; that is, that it is a function of the way society's resources are organized and distributed. Luba and Davies (2006) emphasize a dramatically widening gap between the availability of low-cost housing and the income-generating ability of those on the lowest rungs of the housing ladder. They observe that the number of available low-income housing units is rapidly diminishing just as the population of poor people in need of such housing is growing. Their equation is simple: too few housing units for too many poor people mean that growing numbers of the poor are unable to afford housing. The solution that is proposed is to expand the supply of low-income housing. According to Burt (2003): Factors of the first type are structural--they are larger societal trends and changes that affect broad segments of a population. These include changes in housing markets and land use, employment opportunities, the quality and relevance of public education, institutional supports for people with disabilities, and discriminatory policies of several varieties "(p. 1267). In addition, the loss of single-room-occupancy hotels, public lodging houses, and rooming houses is a cause of the severe reduction of affordable housing available to the single person. Similarly, the displacement of low-income tenants in urban neighborhoods by higher-income uses of space (e.g. condominiums, luxury apartments, office space), the process known as gentrification, is another cause of the loss of affordable housing. Some researchers (Arden et al 2006) compare current causes of homelessness with and circumstances the post-World War industrializing era when the increasing association between hotel life with the unmarried and elderly "marginalized" populations caused high poverty rates and increasing homelessness. The nation's supply of low-cost rental housing has been shrinking for over 20 years. During the 1980s, changes in the federal tax structure, rising interest rates, and new financing practices removed incentives for private investors to produce new low-cost housing, and this occurred just as the federal government was dramatically scaling back the production and maintenance of public housing. Simultaneously, first-time buyers faced substantial difficulty in purchasing single-family homes and thus remained renters (Luba and Davies 2006). This intensified competition in the rental market and rapidly drove up rents. Further, low-income housing units were lost to demolition, conversion, abandonment, and arson as redevelopment and gentrification reclaimed some inner-city areas previously ceded to the poor. Others were lost as it became fiscally prudent for owners to disinvest and warehouse low-income properties, especially in blighted areas (Burt, 2003). The connections between homelessness and domestic violence have been increasingly recognized in the research on homeless women and their families. For women who have been abused by their partners, "home" may be a place of fear rather than a sanctuary of "domestic bliss." The research suggests that homelessness may not be quite the problem that a society has formulated. Instead, poverty may be the problem and homelessness a solution. For instance, by turning to the streets, women have escaped the confines of unseeing, unhearing walls, doors, and roofs. Even as women may not be safe in their homes, once on the streets they are also at great risk of violence (Chamberlain and Johnson 2001). Many homeless women may seek safety by cultivating relationships with men, to protect them from other men. Following Munoz et al (2005) homelessness is caused by "violence in adulthood: suffered sexual aggression and/or spousal abuse and/or physical violence after age 18" (p. 35). The reasons why there are homeless people, and why their numbers are ever growing in the United States, involve a tangled complex of interrelated personal problems, housing market dynamics, social policies, labor-market structures, and deeply rooted social values. Poverty is another social condition which influences the problem of homelessness. Several factors were responsible for increasing poverty during these years. The inevitable consequence of sharply rising housing prices and simultaneously decreasing wages and benefits was a growing mismatch between the supply of low-cost housing and the demand for it. As their situations worsened, poor households increasingly experienced many of the problems that leave people most vulnerable to homelessness (such as substance abuse and domestic violence). Chamberlain and Johnson (2001) state that: "homelessness is like poverty in another sense. These days poverty is understood as an objective concept. It does not depend on people's perceptions" (p. 35). Over time, too, the strain reduced their capacity to support unproductive household members. In contrast, when households are less crowded, when budgets are less tight, and when levels of stress are low, it is far easier for an unemployed relative or friend to feel welcome on the couch, or for a severely mentally ill relative to feel comfortable within the household, just as it is easier for household members to accommodate them. Under adverse conditions, such makeshift arrangements are prone to unravel, either because the tense household climate prompts such peripheral household members to leave, or because the household's diminished capacity to provide support leads to their expulsion (Chamberlain and Johnson 2001). Yet another factor underlying the growing numbers of the poor was deinstitutionalization, which during the 1960s and 1970s propelled into the community a severely mentally ill population-once housed in state institutions--and foreclosed the option of prolonged hospitalization for their present day counterparts. The reliance of these individuals on public entitlements for income consigned most to poverty. Thus, a new and socially marginal population of poor individuals entered the pool of those competing for low-cost housing. For instance, "someone whose pension or disability check provides enough money to afford a cheap hotel room for three weeks out of every month, but who resorts to the streets until the next check arrives would only be considered homeless at the end of the month, even if this pattern has lasted for years" (Munoz et al 2005, p. 35). Similarly, the decriminalization of public drunkenness in many states ensured that public inebriates, most of whom had previously spent considerable time in county jails and state hospitals, now sought housing in their communities (Arden et al 2006). Widespread drug use is one of the underlying themes in the homelessness literature. One way to understand why and how the drug trade (particularly cocaine and crack) came to permeate poor neighborhoods, leaving family disintegration, neighborhood deterioration, and violence in its wake, is to look at the world economy. As an explanatory model, the political economy approach links the external political and economic process of the world to the neighborhood level. According to Munez (2005): "data shows that almost one third (30%) of the homeless people reported having had drug-related problems in the last year" (p. 35). This approach contrasts with an earlier understanding of drug use and distribution as a symptom of a "deviant subculture" which could be cured if the right treatments were found. Also, this social condition is closely connected with neighborhoods and their impact on a person. These are neighborhoods with relatively high numbers of youth, elderly, or immigrant populations. They also contain high rates of unemployment, crowding, abandoned buildings, housing vacancies, and high rent-to-income ratios in comparison with other areas of the city. The neighborhoods from which the homeless come are distinguished from other poor areas of the cities by the extent of the economic hardships experienced (Guzicki et al 2006). With the growing number of homeless families and individuals in America, states have developed policies and programs to address the problem. In other words, there may be a common threshold beyond which one's summed vulnerability translates into extremely high risk of homelessness. Homelessness is caused by different social factors including lack of affordable housing and high prices, family violence and drug abuse, poverty and unemployment. Homeless people are suffering the consequences of a breakdown in the needs-meeting structures of society. References 1. Arden, A., Hunter, C., Johnson, L. (2006). Homelessness and Allocations. Legal Action Group. 2. Burt, M.R. (2003). Chronic Homelessness: Emergence of a Public Policy. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30 (3), 1267-1269. 3. Chamberlain, Ch., Johnson, G. (2001). The Debate about Homelessness. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 36 (1), 35. 4. Guzicki, M. et al (2006). Homelessness in the United States: Assessing Changes in Prevalence and Public Opinion, 1993-2001. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37 (1-2), 47-49. 5. Homelessness (n.d.). Retrieved 25 July 2007 from, http://www.homeless.org.au/glossary.htm 6. Luba, J. Davies, L. (2006). Housing Allocation and Homelessness: Law and Practice. Jordans Ltd. 7. Munoz, M., Panadero, S., Quiroga, A.M., Santos, E.P. (2005). Role of Stressful Life Events in Homelessness: An Intragroup Analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35 (1-2), 35. Application Section What did I learn The research helped me to understand that homelessness is a complex problem affected by a wide number of social actors and state policies. I learnt that homelessness is not a problem of a particular individual but a social problem influenced by government and public policies, economic conditions and rates of unemployment. This research helped me to view an individual's homelessness within larger processes in society. I found that for some groups of people it is difficult to escape homelessness because of inadequate social programs and lack of money. Many people want to escape poverty and homelessness but can do nothing to change their life circumstances and social conditions. I was impressed by the fact that very little attention is given to the socioeconomic contexts of diminishing low-income housing, unemployment, and ongoing cuts in government services. This research changed my understanding of homelessness: homeless people are victims of inadequate destitution of wealth and resources, victims of inadequate social programs and services. Read More