Abstract
According to the Federal Reserve Board in St. Louis, MO, which conducts an annual survey on the financial and economic status of American consumers, about 47% of Americans said that they would need to borrow money to afford a US$400 surprise expense or that they could not afford to pay for it at all. This level of vulnerability—on the part of Americans—has led to escalating rates of housing instability. By arguing that we should expand on the term “homelessness,” to include this level of housing instability, this book attempts to provide a broad overview of the root causes of housing instability and homelessness as they have shifted since the 1980s. The authors also seek to show how these fundamental drivers of homelessness operate to some degree along a spectrum of instability. Rife and Burnes use life histories of different individuals who had experienced homelessness at some point in their life. The stories all have three things in common: (1) they show how one becomes marginalized within the United States and how it so commonly occurs through current systems and structures, (2) they show how—once one has become marginalized—it is almost impossible to elevate one’s status without high levels of social support, and (3) they show how the social welfare system plays a very important role in providing this type of social support.
The term “marginalization” was coined in the 1970s to describe those on the fringe of mainstream America. People who are “marginalized” are excluded from the “American Dream” and from social, economic, cultural, and political life. Marginalization essentially leads to invisibility but also means that one lacks access to adequate health care, employment, legal rights under the law, adequate housing and access to services. As a result, these individuals are more likely to be victims of discrimination, exploitation, and violence.
Meanwhile, over the past 40 years, U.S. systems and structures have increased the number of marginalized people and have also simultaneously shifted more responsibility onto marginalized populations for their own well-being. Conservative backlashes have promoted “self-sufficiency and individualism” and laissez-faire ideologies since the 1980s, and the pendulum is yet to swing back toward social welfare within a framework of social justice. Federal and state policies during the 1980s and onward began to reduce social welfare budgets and devolve government interventions to lower levels of government. This period also was marked by a large increase in privatization, which meant that the transfer of services and assets to the private sector in order to ensure increased “efficiency” and “consumer choice.” However, this neoliberal turn essentially created a “hallowed state,” where accountability and access have become extremely challenging.
Neoliberal approaches to poverty and homelessness have triggered a substantial shift in the discussion on how to respond to marginalized populations—both at the policy level and also in one’s individual life. Once someone has become marginalized, it is necessary to access caring individuals who help them out across different areas—not just housing, but education, health care, employment—by acting as a mentor and providing emotional support. Since there is no recognized state role in responding to individual crisis, someone, some group, or some organization needs to take responsibility for this person. Although this behavior is sometimes admired, on a policy level, it is rarely rewarded.
Social service programs—often implemented through the private sector—had often stepped up and provided this social support among individuals who told their stories. These programs and the people who worked within them provided a lifeline and a step-up. However, it should be recognized that it often took some time for the individual to find these programs. The story of discovering these programs was not much different than discovering a supportive friend or mentor to help along the way. The hallowed system—which makes no single organization or entity responsible—has led to this situation.
Today, government programs that were set up to reduce marginalization in the United States—at least economically—have been labeled as promoting dependency. Many of the individuals whose life stories were reflected in these books would have been much better-off if they had access to many of the programs that had existed in the 1960s and 1970s—that is, if they were willing to use them. Public housing—for example—originally included a higher range of incomes and ensured a transition from poverty to the working class and middle class. However, in the 1960s and 1970s, income limits became much stricter. In the 1970s and 1980s, many public housing structures were dismantled, and the program began being replaced by Section 8 vouchers. By 1989, the budget of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was cut by half, representing one of the most severe cutbacks of any government program. These cuts took place at the same time that many mental institutions began to close their doors, and individuals with chronic mental health issues were being pushed to the streets.
One of the most significant changes to social welfare has been the replacement of Aid to Families with Dependent Children with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. TANF imposed lifetime limits on aid and imposed work requirements and sanctions. Average TANF payout is US$486 a month and works under an assumption that families will also be able to access food stamps and Section 8 housing. TANF—in a sense—became less useful as a program to prevent poverty and from 1994 to 2014 has resulted in a 69% decrease in participation. Other anti-poverty programs have a similar problem with being “useful”—HUD is a perfect example—the average wait time for a Section 8 voucher is 4–5 years—so the capacity to ensure anti-poverty programs are responsive to crisis situations—is not really available.
Yet one problem of this book is that the author tried too hard to figure out how to fit a policy analysis around each life history. This approach could be useful in terms of using the book to help students with case studies—but it was less helpful for assisting readers to grasp coherently where anti-poverty programs and housing programs have fallen short.
Another shortcoming of the book is its argument that the term “homelessness” should be expanded—to essentially cover all vulnerable, marginalized populations. One problem of creating such a wide category is that homeless programs are targeted currently to those with severe mental health issues who are chronically homeless (homeless at least 1+ years). This population is much more unstable and difficult to house, and they do require additional supports to ensure stabilization. If the term “homelessness” is broadened, these individuals may face additional challenges getting the help that they need because existing private housing programs may prefer residents with fewer issues because they are cheaper to house.
As for an alternative to expanding the term, I would argue that it is important to emphasize the importance of housing within anti-poverty programs. Essentially, all low-income, working-class people have a risk of becoming homeless—given the current social system in the United States. Anti-poverty programs need to include housing programs across different economic and disability levels that cover a number of different situations from eviction prevention to emergency housing, to temporary housing, to permanent housing without supervision/case management, and to permanent housing with supervision/case management.
