Abstract
In a study conducted in 2008–2009, 25 employed homeless women in Calgary, Canada, were interviewed to gain a better understanding of their pathways from homelessness. The data analysis uncovered a mix of personal and societal issues to consider and provides a framework for understanding the complexity of sociocultural factors that contribute to the vulnerability of users of services. In combination, these many sociocultural factors affected the participants’ personal exit from homelessness. The role of service delivery organizations in helping to identify vulnerabilities experienced by service users and respond to these issues in practice will have an influence on resolving social issues like homelessness.
People are considered vulnerable because of a number of social and economic issues that can and do have a negative impact on their lives, including poverty, unemployment, social exclusion, and negative personal experiences (Buchanan, 2007). To determine the levels of vulnerability of people who are experiencing homelessness, the literature has tended to focus on their health-related issues (both physical and mental) and the personal behaviors to which they are exposed, such as substance abuse and physical violence (Gelberg, Anderson, & Leake, 2000; Hwang, Wilkins, Tjepkema, O’Campo, & Dunn, 2009; Kushel, Vittinghoff, & Haas, 2001; O’Connell, 2005; Schanzer, Dominguez, Shrout, & Caton, 2007; Sosin & Bruni, 1997; Stein, Anderson, & Gelberg, 2007). This has likewise been the case with research that is specifically about women who are experiencing homelessness (Cheung & Hwang, 2004; Gelberg et al., 2009; Page & Nooe, 2002; Tam, Zlotnick, & Bradley, 2008).
Although health and behavior are both important in understanding experiences of homelessness, they are only two factors to consider when conceptualizing the vulnerability of homeless populations. For instance, studies have shown that the lack of social support can contribute to women becoming vulnerable to homelessness (Fertig & Reingold, 2008; Wenzel, Tucker, Elliott, Marshall, & Williamson, 2004). These and other studies have described vulnerability on the basis of a multitude of risk factors that may lead to homelessness (Fitzpatrick, Kemp, & Klinker, 2000; Lehmann, Kass, Drake, & Nichols, 2007; Pavao, Alvarez, Baumrind, Induni, & Kimerling, 2007; Ritchey, la Gory, & Mullis, 1991; Shinn et al., 1998). What about those sociocultural factors that contribute to and maintain people’s vulnerabilities and affect their exit from homelessness or any other negative social problem? This question has received less research attention in social work, although each of the foregoing discussions of risk factors can be conceptualized in such terms. For instance, levels of social support or social capital can be understood in relation to the sociocultural construct of individualism. Also, individual behaviors, such as substance abuse, can have negative impacts on exiting homelessness because service models are created and maintained on the basis of sociocultural perceptions and beliefs about deserving and undeserving service users.
Sociocultural factors refer to those aspects of the social environment that are a direct result of the intersection between the cultural underpinnings of a society (such as a collective system of values, beliefs, and thoughts) and its social processes and organizational mechanisms (such as social interaction and relationships and institutional dynamics). The sociocultural realm has, for the most part, been considered in the discipline of anthropology. However, when placed within social work’s “person-in-environment” theoretical approach, it can be usefully understood in distinction from (but also in relation to) political–economic factors (such as political power and class divisions generated by capitalism) and sociopolitical factors (like public policy and inadequate provisions of social welfare) within the social environment that act to oppress groups of service users and create vulnerability on the basis of identity characteristics (such as ability, age, gender, ethnoracial culture, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status). This article describes how sociocultural aspects of the social environment can create and maintain vulnerability for groups of service users, particularly women who are experiencing homelessness, as do sociopolitical and political–economic factors.
A distinction between factors that create vulnerability and those that maintain it is also important. Although it is useful to predict homelessness and the factors that lead some people to become vulnerable to homelessness, such analyses act to separate people from their personal experiences with homelessness, and the solutions that are developed to address this social issue can become narrowly focused (i.e., focusing primarily on the task of rehousing, not on the compounding issues that result in first-time homelessness or cyclical patterns of homelessness). With regard to women who are experiencing homelessness, the literature has identified fleeing abusive situations, addictions, leaving prison, widowhood, mental health issues, pregnancy, and past traumatic experiences as the primary personal indicators of risk for homelessness (Gerson, 2007; Russell, 1991). The results are political–economic or sociopolitical (welfare state or social policy-focused) discussions that point to the lack of affordable housing, the lack of affordable child care, or wage inequality as a cause of homelessness among women (Galabuzi, 2008; Hersch, 2006; Rahder, 2006; Stroick, Hubac, & Richter-Salomons, 2008). Many of these issues, such as labor market inequality or the lack of available services, can also be considered sociocultural in nature but the proposed responses tend to focus primarily on sociopolitical issues like human rights, changing social policy, or arguments for further entrenching the welfare state in an era of the decline in the traditional welfare state.
This distinction is apparent across a range of social service delivery sectors (Fawcett, 2009). For instance, some parents of children with complex problems have been labeled vulnerable; the solution prescribed in the literature has been for alternative state-funded or supported child care opportunities (Winkworth, McArthur, Layton, & Thompson, 2010). Another example is that of vulnerable households and the issue of poverty (Lombe, Yu, & Nebbitt, 2009). The literature on poverty vulnerabilities has focused primarily on the practice of poverty-reduction strategies that are implemented from the top-down. Poverty reduction at the macrolevel is a strategy with limited capabilities, similar to that found in strategic plans to end homelessness in many North American cities. Such large strategies address social issues in general terms and miss the fact that many people experience difficulty not only because of inequality in the political and economic environment but also because of sociocultural factors that are rooted at the individual, community, and societal levels, such as public perceptions, discrimination, and ideological values and beliefs.
An example of a more encompassing approach, such as the one presented here, is Graham, Jones, and Shier’s (2010) research on labor market training programs. That study assessed the many different factors that contribute to vulnerable groups having difficulty obtaining and maintaining employment. It found that there was a mix of systemic (rooted in sociocultural dynamics) and personal issues that created difficulties in labor market attachment (see also Graham, Shier, Jones, & Gray, 2009; Jones, Graham, & Shier, 2007–08; Shier, Graham, & Jones, 2009). For instance, they identified such phenomena as individualism, labor market expectations and characteristics, and perceptions of disability and other forms of discrimination as influencing labor market outcomes, all of which can be considered sociocultural factors of North America’s social environment. For these and other researchers (see e.g., Beckett, 2006), vulnerability is not a label attached to a person or a group identity. Instead, as people interact with their social environment, vulnerability is created and, because of the personal or individualized implications, along with the methods of intervention that are implemented, vulnerability can be (or is) maintained.
In light of the foregoing discussion, this article focuses on both personal and systemic issues that are related to the sociocultural aspects of North America’s social environment, with insights directly targeted to promote improved methods of delivering social services. It offers further conceptual clarity on how to address issues like homelessness on the basis of the personal experiences of those living without permanent residences. Addressing social issues, like that of homelessness, requires an appraisal of individual, community-level, and societal sociocultural factors that can have a negative impact on people and that subsequently contribute to cyclical patterns of vulnerability. The narrower focus in social work theorizing about the social environment, which focuses primarily on political and the economic factors, may inadvertently overlook other challenges, including those on which this article focuses.
Method
The research was based on interviews that were conducted between November 2008 and February 2009 with 25 women, all 18 years old or older, who identified themselves as homeless and were using homelessness services in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The growth in Calgary’s homeless population has been staggering. In 2006, the number of people who were homeless had grown to 3,436, a 740% increase since 1994 (Laird, 2007). After the 2008 count of homeless persons in Calgary, it was estimated that 4,060 people were absolutely homeless (i.e., they were accessing emergency shelters or sleeping outside with no permanent residence of their own; Stroick et al., 2008).
The data analyzed in our study were part of a larger study that sought to investigate the intersection between homelessness and employment. Subsequently, all the participants who were included in this data set were employed in some capacity at the time of the interview (full-time, part-time, temporary, or sporadic or on temporary leave for maternity- or disability-related reasons). We present the findings about vulnerability based on gender because we found that the female participants had some different experiences than did the male participants, primarily because of gender-specific sociocultural dynamics related to having children, violence, and personal relationships (from past or present partners and while living homeless), and access to services. Despite these differences between the male and female participants, there were also a lot of similarities, particularly, those related to public perceptions of homelessness and discrimination. Also, there are other distinct demographic groups with unique experiences that could usefully be explored in future research, for instance, the experiences of ethnoracial cultural groups and the sociocultural factors that affected their transition to a stable housing situation.
For the purposes of our research, we defined homelessness as being based on the physical conditions in which individuals negotiate shelter: Not having a “roof over one’s head,” living in a homeless shelter facility or similar institutional setting, staying in these institutions for extended periods because there is no other accommodating situation, residing in places that are not long-term solutions to homelessness, staying with friends, or “squatting”—taking up residence illegally in an abandoned building or using land illegally to build a shelter (Kleniewski, 2002).
Participants were selected using a targeted snowball sampling of current clients of one of the three service-providing organizations in Calgary. Two of the organizations were homeless shelters and one was a community-based resource center. All three offered a mix of programs. We received ethics certification for the research from two university ethics review boards.
Data were collected using the standard ethnographic technique of interviewing (Fetterman, 1998, 2008; Holstein & Gubrium, 1995; Patton, 1990; Seidman, 1991). Interviews were conducted in person (at one of the three service-providing organizations) using a semistructured, open-ended interview guide. The interviews lasted approximately 1 hr. Questions prompted the participants to describe their housing, employment, and job training history; to identify factors they considered as having an impact on their present situation of homelessness; and to give their perspective on how being homeless affects other aspects of their lives. Identifying characteristics, such as place and date, are not reported to protect the participants’ anonymity.
The data were analyzed using qualitative analytical methods. The transcriptions and the interviewer’s notes that were taken throughout the interview process were examined. Analytic induction and constant comparison strategies (Glasser & Strauss, 1967; Goetz & Lecompte, 1984) were used to detect patterns within the transcribed interviews. Specifically, emergent themes (Charmaz, 2000; Williams, 2008) and patterns (Creswell, 2009; Fetterman, 2008) were identified within the transcribed interviews with a focus on the factors that the participants identified as having an impact on their present housing situations. The first step in the coding process was to read through all the interviews with the objective of identifying common themes. The themes were coded and the data were searched for instances of the same or similar phenomena. Finally, the data were translated into more general working hypotheses that were refined until all instances of contradictions, similarities, and differences were explained, thus increasing the dependability and consistency of the findings. The research team collaboratively worked on this stage of the research to maintain the credibility criteria of the study (i.e., discussing the rationale for determining particular codes that emerged).
This article reports on one major category that emerged from the data: The factors that contributed to the vulnerability of the female participants while homeless. Inherent sociocultural issues underlay these factors and are discussed in relation to each category. The findings described here are supported by selected quotations, which are not representative of all the quotations for each category.
Findings
The data support three main categories that contributed to the vulnerability of the 25 female participants: (a) social exclusion, (b) having children, and (c) personal experiences. With regard to social exclusion, the participants described being excluded from social services (on the basis of gender), employment, and housing opportunities and because of public perceptions or stereotypes. They also identified that meeting their children’s needs and the inability to obtain and maintain housing and employment because they had children contributed to maintaining their vulnerability. Finally, perceptions of personal experiences with being homeless, domestic violence, and trauma also had a direct impact on the participants’ level of vulnerability. Each of the categories is discussed in relation to the underlying sociocultural factors that resulted in those particular categories contributing to the vulnerability of the participants and negatively affecting their exit from homelessness.
Social Exclusion
Once people become homeless, they can then be excluded from the labor market and housing rental market. The female participants also identified being excluded from available services that were specifically targeted to men. Social exclusion is generally understood in relation to levels of participation in society through moderating socioeconomic factors like poverty and such sociopolitical factors as inequality in access to resources. But social exclusion is also about public perceptions and values about who does or does not belong and who is or is not deserving of assistance. The participants described several aspects of this inherent belief system about access to resources that acted as a barrier to their transition from homelessness. These aspects included exclusion from the labor market, landlord–tenant relationships, and the social service system based on perceptions held by people who wield the metaphorical keys to these necessary resources that are necessary to achieve a more stable life.
Exclusion from services
Some participants identified insufficient services for homeless women. For instance, one woman stated: It hasn’t been the greatest. There is not a lot of room for women at shelters. Like 75% to 80% of most of the shelters in Calgary are [for] men. [Women] get only one floor, while the rest of the shelter is all men. [Women] only get limited mats, so the women’s sections fill up fast. The good ones, the good shelters that you can actually go to are all full.
Similarly, another woman described the lack of availability of transitional housing programs specifically for women: The [respondent names transitional housing program], it’s now a residence only for homeless men. Of course, there’s no tolerance for drugs and alcohol, but for $400 to $800 per month, [men] can rent a room there. They have everything they need as long as they are working. There are not very many agencies, there is not a lot of support out there for women and homelessness; which makes it really hard. I mean, men can seem to get everything and anything they need, and every shelter is male based. When it comes to women, there really isn’t a lot.
The availability and adequacy of social services is important for all groups who are made vulnerable by negative factors in the social environment. The absence of sufficient services for women specifically speaks directly to the sociocultural values and beliefs that determine who receives services. Of course, this is also a sociopolitical issue in that services that are targeted toward men are more prevalent than are those that are targeted toward women.
Exclusion from employment and housing opportunities
Some participants did not have a stable or consistent rental housing record. Homelessness was a leading factor that contributed to this instability and had implications for the participants who were trying to fulfill the requirements set by potential landlords. For instance, some participants described the implications of not having appropriate references for landlords to contact. This is an aspect of social exclusion fueled, in part, by the demands of a market-based landlord and tenant system. As one woman noted: You don’t have the references either. Like the housing references that you need. It [the housing] is hard to get because you have to go on personal ones [references], which doesn’t work because they’ll say, “Well those are personal; those aren’t housing references.” I have to rely on the ones I had from Manitoba because when I lived there, I always had a place.
Being homeless also had an impact on the participants’ opportunities for employment. People become socially excluded from permanent or full-time employment opportunities when they transition to a situation of homelessness. The result is temporary work through employment agencies, which, in turn, has negative consequences for people who are experiencing homelessness, as the following comment illustrates: Doing temp jobs, it is really hard to save your pennies because you’re paid cash every day. Unless you’re in a hotel every day, and then you’re pretty much working to keep your hotel room. You still need to eat, survive, pay your bus fare, support your cigarette habit, or whatever … Because it is really hard to keep a paycheck job when you can’t afford to get to work or when you can’t afford to feed yourself everyday. It’s really difficult. You can’t expect to get an advance on your first day of work.
Likewise, another participant stated: I go to temp agencies; it is not a full-time job. Like this morning, I was there at 5 am, but they had no work available. Right now, I’m just going through the temp agencies. This is my first time actually being unemployed like this. I always had a steady job since I was 15, since I came to Canada. Things happened, and I don’t know, I ended up on the streets. And it is tough without a phone and an address, pretty much carrying all your belongings in a bag with you all the time, not being able to dress nicely for an interview.
Within these available temporary employment situations, gender stereotypes also can become an issue. One participant noted: Lately there has been a lot of people there [temporary employment agencies], and not very many people get out [for jobs]. Women are definitely the last ones that they’re going to put out. I don’t know [why]. Even though we can do the jobs, the men get sent out there. Like pushing a broom or peeling stickers off green peppers at this produce place, … they don’t get the women out there as much.
A labor market that is set to accommodate the needs of permanently housed people has exclusionary implications when a person loses his or her permanent residence. Stereotypes and discrimination against people who are experiencing homelessness can act as a further constraining factor in their transition from homelessness. As these women described, once they became homeless, it was even more difficult to find ways into these other sociocultural domains (such as the labor and housing markets). Some of the men in our study had a similar experience but this was a consistent finding among all the female participants. Gendered stereotypes and biases in society can be fueled further by the negative perceptions held by potential employers and landlords about people who are homeless.
Exclusion because of public perceptions
Many of the barriers the participants described in the previous section were a result of socioculturally rooted stereotypes of what it means to be homeless. These general socially rooted perceptions of homelessness and of homeless people can have a negative impact on people’s transition from homelessness (Shier, Jones, & Graham, 2010). One woman stated: I have actually been looking for a job for awhile. I’ve handed out so many résumés, but no one has called back. I tried calling them, and usually there’s no answer or they don’t call you back. I mean, who wants to hire somebody who is staying at a shelter? They’re probably thinking “Oh, she’s homeless, she probably does drugs, she’s never going to show up for work.” … It makes me sick how people can judge us homeless people.
Many other participants also reported experiencing discrimination when trying to enter the labor market. Also, many reported similar experiences when trying to access private rental accommodations. For example, one participant said: Rent report, yeah. It was really hard and frustrating, and with Rapid Exit, they go in and do all the talking for you, and they explain themselves and the families, and then the landlords understand more. Because as soon as they [the landlords] see the form, they think you are just on welfare and you’re a useless type of thing. You try to tell them (the landlords) it’s a onetime thing.
The rent report that the participant referred to is a provincial government program that provides the first and last month’s rent for people who are homeless to obtain a place to live. Using the program to get back into a stable housing situation signals that a person is currently homeless, resulting—as was the case for many participants—in potential residences being denied by landlords, as the following comment indicates: I’ve used a rent report before—where they pay the first month’s rent and a damage deposit. At that time, it took me two or three months to find a place because nobody wanted to sign the document. As soon as you pull out the rent report, they’re like “No, I can’t deal with it.” Then you tell them your situation, but it’s not good enough. Sometimes they just don’t want to, even though they know they are going to get the rent and damage deposit; it’s like a stereotype.
Another participant described the same problem when she used the shelter’s telephone number or address when applying for employment or rental accommodations: I think this probably goes for a lot of the homeless situations: People are trying to get back on their feet. We all here have to use the phone number; you don’t tell them you’re in a shelter. How are they going to get back to you if you leave a message to call for an apartment or a job? It’s all “Why am I calling [the name of the shelter]?”
Having Children
Perceptions and gendered stereotypes around having and raising children are manifested in societies socioculturally (Scheper-Hughes, 1992). Having children, and the subsequent sociocultural responsibilities affixed to women, in particular, for raising children, can affect transitions from homelessness (Bassuk, 1993), as can various other family dynamics problems (Metraux & Culhane, 1999). Previous research has also shown that having children and relying on income support programs to meet basic needs can contribute to the vulnerability of women and families (Page & Nooe, 2002). The participants identified two other issues related to children: The psychosocial implications of not being able to meet their children’s needs and the implications of having children and trying to obtain permanent stable housing. The first issue has implications for the discussion of the sociocultural factors presented here because of the general perceptions in society about the role of women in nurturing children and how that role was internalized by many of the participants, and the second has implications because of the socially held perceptions in society about impoverished people, single mothers, and people experiencing homelessness.
Meeting children’s needs
Many participants said they had a difficult time meeting their children’s needs, which had a compounding affect on their overall well-being. As the government-based children’s services workers became involved and children were being removed from their mothers’ care, this situation led to further despair for some participants, adding another negative impact on their actual exit from homelessness. For instance, one participant described the transition to homelessness after her children were removed from her custody: I had my kids when I came here to Calgary. Within a year, they were caught, they were apprehended by children’s services here … After they took them away from me, I became homeless … I just lost hope and everything. The only reason why I did anything, why I worked or anything, was for my kids. It wasn’t for me. [After I lost my children], I still worked odd jobs, temp jobs, whatever I had to do. I then went on a big binge and lost the place and everything. After that it came down to anger.
Another participant stated: Children’s services told me that they don’t think I’m going to be a capable mom because I ran away from group homes and things; they think I’m just going to get up and leave my daughter somewhere and run away from her too. So I didn’t find that really fair, I mean, I don’t understand why. I did everything I could: I went back to school, I was looking for a job, I stayed out of trouble, I didn’t do drugs, I didn’t smoke, nothing! Then all this crap happened and whatever else, and one day we got a phone call from [the position and place of employment of the person who contacted her], and he said to me: “Either you sign custody over to your mom, or we’re going to take her away, and you will never see her again.” She would go to foster care. So I broke down and signed custody over to my mom … My little girl saved me from prostitution, drugs, living on the street. I changed my whole life around, and things were just starting to get whatever normal is nowadays … After that happened, I had a mental breakdown and started cutting and using drugs again.
Still another participant said “When I was first on the street—when I lost my kids—I hit the pipe hard. I used crack big time. That was almost five years ago now, just punishing myself because I failed my kids, failed my mom.”
The participants also described the loss of their children and the psychosocial implications on their overall functioning: I lived on the streets until I was about 17 [from when I was 13]. I did get pregnant. I had a baby, but then she died nine years ago. That’s basically how it all started and where I’m at today. I didn’t know how to handle it. The first thing I went to was drugs. Then off and on, off and on for about nine years. I’m at that point now, I’ve ruined all my chances with my family and friends and have to do it on my own.
Similarly, another participant stated: My brother killed my son. He was living with me in Prince Albert, but then he wanted to go home to my Mom and Dad’s, so he went home. My brother was drinking at the time, and he (pause) shot him in the head. After that I (pause), it’s like you’re losing family every year, I lost a lot.
The data led us to conclude that we should consider both the well-being of the women and that of the children, often in tandem. A response system that looks out only for the well-being of children glosses over the complexity of the situation of homelessness for women who have children.
Implications for obtaining and maintaining housing
To a lesser extent, some participants described the implications of having children when trying to obtain employment. What had a greater impact was trying to obtain private rental accommodations with children. The participants described the discrimination they faced from landlords when they tried to rent apartments: There are a lot of people who don’t want to deal with either single parents or children in general. I’ve been finding even to look for a place for kids there is discrimination. I’ve been finding that a lot of places are not accepting children under the age of 18. So it has been harder to find a place.
This finding is important in relation to the other findings because it demonstrates a further point of marginalization. A person who is homeless is likely to be already experiencing discrimination in the housing and labor markets. Having children adds to this negative experience, making it even more difficult for women and their children to transition into longer-term stable housing situations.
Interpreting One’s Personal Experiences
How a person understands his or her personal behaviors and experiences is linked with belief systems and dominant paradigms in the sociocultural environment. Since everyone is influenced by ideology and cultural beliefs, it is worthwhile for service delivery personnel to help facilitate changes in these belief systems, along with the changes in socially rooted perceptions of homelessness in general. Some research has found that the experience of being homeless itself contributes to people’s level of vulnerability (Huey & Berndt, 2008; Hwang et al., 2009). Examples of vulnerability include physical and sexual violence directed toward homeless women or the types of and approaches to service delivery for this population of services users (Heslin, Robinson, Baker, & Gelberg, 2007; Kushel, Evans, Perry, Robertson, & Moss, 2003; Wenzel, Koegel, & Gelberg, 2000). Our research had similar findings but the participants also identified their perceptions of being homeless, the type and quality of intimate relationships, and past experiences as having an impact on their psychosocial functioning, which contributed to maintaining their homelessness. Within the latter two categories, the concept of individualism—a primary sociocultural tenet of North American society—was resonant. Perceptions of individualism act to constrain the help-seeking process because people attempt to deal with emerging negative issues within their lives alone and sometimes do not seek help until they have reached a situation in which they find themselves and their children (in some cases) homeless.
Perceptions of being homeless
Some participants described the psychosocial implications (the effects on their self-esteem and perception of worth) of being homeless. Each identified how perceptions of homelessness, in general, along with their own internalized perceptions of self while homeless, affected their individual outlooks and behavior. For example, one participant described how interacting in service delivery settings might have affected her outlook: Being the age you are, you have a lot of younger people trying to tell you what to do and dictate to you. I know they’re trying to do their job, but it’s like “please don’t talk”—it’s like they are talking down to you. I’m homeless, I’m not an idiot, you know. I’ve raised kids, I have had homes all my life. When they talk to you like that, it really makes you feel little. You feel bad enough that you’re homeless.
The participants also noted that their physical appearance while homeless had consequences for their overall self-perception: I felt a lot of shame, a lot of guilt, a lot of worthlessness, and staying in the churches, you’re not able to shower every day or do your laundry every day. So you’re dirty for a couple of days, and you sometimes don’t have clean clothes for a few days. So not being clean and not having clean clothes makes you feel pretty low about yourself.
The environment in the shelters also had an impact on how some participants perceived themselves and how they went about accessing services: We went to the [name of shelter] one time to try and get a bed. It was a bit scary even walking up to the doors because there are a lot of drug users outside the doors. Then going to [name of a different shelter]. There are so many people—hundreds of people—and everyone is fighting for a chair to eat dinner, so people are on edge; there are a lot of arguments and fights breaking out.
Furthermore, how homeless people are perceived by the general population can have an impact on their overall self-esteem and perceptions of self while homeless: A bunch of kids or a bunch of people are together; they are sitting there looking over at a homeless person: “Oh look at them!” I’ve sat there, and I’ve heard them. Not trying to listen to them, but they make it obvious where they’re sitting there, “Oh look at that person, look at how she’s dressed or look how dirty she is.” You sit there, and you go, “My God, you know what, you have no idea how you’re making that person feel, you have no idea what it is like [to be] homeless.” Or they see homeless people pushing their shopping carts around full of their belongings. They have everything in that one little shopping cart or one big bag, but that is their whole life in that bag.
Intimate relationships
Relationships can also contribute to people’s vulnerability. Many participants had been in negative relationships repeatedly throughout their lives. Such relationships challenged their ability to develop positive levels of social capital—a problem when people need to develop positive social relationships to transition from homelessness. As one participant put it: I got into a bad relationship with my eldest son’s dad, I was 19 when we met, and I had my son a couple of years later. Then I met another guy I was with for 3 years, and then I met my younger three kids’ dad. I was with him for 10 years, and that was a really bad situation. But I think I held it together, like I tried to because I grew up without a dad, so I was kind of trying to keep my kids with their mom and dad.
Another participant described repeated patterns of homelessness because of her partner’s actions. Understanding this particular facet of her vulnerability might have resulted in a different outcome during her first period of homelessness: He’s into hard drugs, and for the last two years of our relationship, I was more or less supporting his drug habits. I got tired of him picking drugs over me. So for about two years, I kept trying to do whatever I could. Trying to get him into treatment, … and then I ended up coming back here [to the shelter]; it was just, it was the end for me. I told him, “I’m done; you don’t want to have a relationship without drugs,” so I broke up with him.
Implications of past experiences on psychosocial functioning
A range of personal, past experiences can act as triggers leading to homelessness. Some participants identified problems in their personal lives that contributed to their situations. While such problems may have been triggers, not recognizing them and providing sufficient personal support contributed to their ongoing or recurring homelessness. For instance, one participant stated: It’s a hard road; well, you have to turn to something when you go through an abusive marriage … When you go through abusive mental cruelty, you’re looking for an escape, of hiding in a shell and not coming out if it. You do something you don’t want to do, but it takes the pain away; although, it causes more pain when you’re done. I went through five years of being clean.
Another participant described how growing up in an unstable environment resulted in her current situation: “My mom had schizophrenia, … and we grew up in a really messy situation and stuff. It wasn’t very stable, so both of us—me and my brother—are both kind of not doing well right now, but … things will get better.”
The types of relationships and patterns of behavior that people develop also contribute to long-term personal outcomes and result in maintaining homelessness. As one participant put it: I started using drugs when I was 10. I started drinking when I was 11, and it just escalated from there. It was just like an everyday thing. I quit doing drugs and drinking when I got pregnant with my first, and then after that, I just fell back into it because of the people that I know, and it wasn’t a good influence, I guess. Then I found out I was pregnant with [my baby], and that is when I stopped everything.
The personal experiences of these 25 homeless women varied considerably; however, it was commonly found that these experiences all affected their psychosocial functioning and perceptions and patterns of relationships with other people. Not recognizing the influence of these varied personal experiences as a fundamental aspect of a person’s permanent exit from homelessness contributes to a prolongation of the specific individualized vulnerabilities of people who are homeless. To address these individualized issues, social service providers need to offer programs and other services that are responsive to the negative sociocultural factors that maintain homelessness for some people who have long-term histories of instability. In particular, for the women in the study, these sociocultural issues include challenging public perceptions of the homeless situation—perceptions that are held by key actors in an individual’s transition from homelessness (such as landlords and employers)—along with addressing individual needs and life circumstances, including whether or not people who are experiencing homelessness have children.
Limitations
This research was exploratory and therefore had several limitations. For instance, the sample size (
Conclusion
Using the concept of vulnerability to categorize people can be seen as problematic (Fawcett, 2009). It raises several questions, such as these: Why are people considered vulnerable? and What contributes to an understanding of vulnerability? Our research attempted to address some of these issues. It assessed vulnerability holistically and on the basis of a particular social situation—that of homelessness. The social environment and the interaction of people within that environment, along with inherent cultural beliefs and values, can create (along with varied political and economic factors) vulnerability. On the basis of the experiences of the women who participated in the study, a person’s unique experiences, personal situation, and level of social exclusion all contribute to the development of vulnerability. Within each category presented here, there is a complex entangling of individually based and macro-level issues that result in vulnerability, each rooted in some sociocultural aspect of the social environment. The intention of this discussion was to move beyond highlighting a series of risk factors that create vulnerability and instead to investigate in greater depth which factors contribute to the maintenance of a particular social situation.
The findings therefore contribute to the social work knowledge base of the specific sociocultural factors that contribute to the vulnerability of women who are experiencing homelessness. For instance, public perceptions of people who are homeless or of the use of shelter-based support services are rooted in common cultural stereotypes, informed by ideological notions of individualism and traditional welfarism. Likewise, social exclusion from the labor force and housing rental sector is fueled, in part, by negative public perceptions of people who are homeless and by how these sectors are organized in our society. Some participants internalized these negative interactions with their surrounding environment, which has had a lasting impact on their overall psychosocial functioning.
Social service delivery organizations can improve their practices by addressing these particular sociocultural issues that negatively affect the lives of service users. The function of service delivery organizations in this role has become even more important in the current political economic environment, as more money is being diverted from government-supported and maintained social welfare programs to nonprofit and other community-based organizations. Without an overarching structure and mandate for the provision of social welfare, organizations in local communities have to begin to improve their methods by determining need on the basis of the experiences of users of social services. For instance, service delivery organizations now have to take it upon themselves to address public perceptions through educational and advocacy-based efforts. Direct service environments can also be tailored to the emerging needs of groups of service users, such as those of the participants in our study. Also, more in-depth collaboration between organizations that serve homeless people and different sectors of society is also necessary, for instance, with other service delivery organizations (such as health and child welfare services) and the private sector (like landlords and employers).
Prescriptions that call for sociopolitical responses to homelessness, such as increasing affordable housing stock or developing improved housing legislation to protect people who are vulnerable to market forces within the private rental housing system, are important, but a sole focus on these issues minimizes the ongoing vulnerabilities that people experience and that create cyclical patterns of individual, personal hardship. Further research is needed to investigate how different groups in other social service sectors are affected by the sociocultural factors in their social environments, along with research to determine how service delivery organizations are addressing sociocultural factors that maintain individual vulnerabilities.
Although the results presented here cannot be generalized to all women who are experiencing homelessness, the participants in our study provided useful insights for person-in-environment theorizing in social work. The notions of the personal and the political within mainstream social work theorizing need to be considered more directly in relation to the cultural, providing a more holistic assessment of the factors in the social environment that create and, of equal importance (as we have argued here), maintain vulnerability.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors appreciate the generous support received from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, which funded this research project.
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada.