“You Have to Prove that You’re Homeless”: Vulnerability and Gatekeeping in Public Housing Prioritization Policies

IF 2.4 3区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
Nathalie Rita, Philip M. E. Garboden, Jennifer Darrah-Okike
{"title":"“You Have to Prove that You’re Homeless”: Vulnerability and Gatekeeping in Public Housing Prioritization Policies","authors":"Nathalie Rita, Philip M. E. Garboden, Jennifer Darrah-Okike","doi":"10.1177/15356841221129791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Building on theories of symbolic boundaries, this article explores the role of the state as gatekeeper to social programs, such as public housing. Using interviews with 75 randomly sampled households living in public housing in Honolulu County, we link contemporary research on gatekeeping with decades of work on how housing policy drives residential outcomes for marginalized groups. In particular, we consider the largely unexamined case of “local preferences,” which fast-track certain individuals into social programs based on locally established criteria. Our data suggest that these prioritization categories have evolved over time and are now largely focused on providing housing to those experiencing homelessness and victims of domestic violence. Ultimately, this apparently mundane bureaucratic process mediates relationships between social service agencies, individual needs, and overwhelming housing demand, all collaborating to construct symbolic boundaries across which deservingness is defined and adjudicated. We find that waitlist prioritization criteria cannot be reduced to a basic assessment of need as it necessarily instigates issues of definition (e.g., what is homelessness?) and legibility (e.g., how does one prove homelessness?). These collateral issues amplify the importance of institutional social capital and, in some cases, generate conflict between and within eligible communities.","PeriodicalId":47486,"journal":{"name":"City & Community","volume":"22 1","pages":"83 - 104"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"City & Community","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15356841221129791","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Building on theories of symbolic boundaries, this article explores the role of the state as gatekeeper to social programs, such as public housing. Using interviews with 75 randomly sampled households living in public housing in Honolulu County, we link contemporary research on gatekeeping with decades of work on how housing policy drives residential outcomes for marginalized groups. In particular, we consider the largely unexamined case of “local preferences,” which fast-track certain individuals into social programs based on locally established criteria. Our data suggest that these prioritization categories have evolved over time and are now largely focused on providing housing to those experiencing homelessness and victims of domestic violence. Ultimately, this apparently mundane bureaucratic process mediates relationships between social service agencies, individual needs, and overwhelming housing demand, all collaborating to construct symbolic boundaries across which deservingness is defined and adjudicated. We find that waitlist prioritization criteria cannot be reduced to a basic assessment of need as it necessarily instigates issues of definition (e.g., what is homelessness?) and legibility (e.g., how does one prove homelessness?). These collateral issues amplify the importance of institutional social capital and, in some cases, generate conflict between and within eligible communities.
“你必须证明你是无家可归者”:公共住房优先政策中的脆弱性和把关
在象征性边界理论的基础上,本文探讨了国家作为社会项目守门人的角色,如公共住房。通过对檀香山县75个居住在公共住房中的随机抽样家庭的采访,我们将当代关于把关的研究与几十年来关于住房政策如何推动边缘化群体居住结果的工作联系起来。特别是,我们考虑了“地方偏好”这一基本上未经检验的案例,即根据当地制定的标准,将某些个人快速纳入社会项目。我们的数据表明,这些优先类别随着时间的推移而演变,现在主要集中在为无家可归者和家庭暴力受害者提供住房上。最终,这个明显世俗的官僚程序调解了社会服务机构、个人需求和压倒性的住房需求之间的关系,所有这些都合作构建了象征性的边界,在这个边界上定义和裁决了应得性。我们发现,候选名单的优先级标准不能简化为对需求的基本评估,因为它必然会引发定义(例如,什么是无家可归?)和易读性(例如,如何证明无家可归?)的问题。这些附带问题放大了体制社会资本的重要性,在某些情况下,在符合条件的社区之间和内部产生冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
City & Community
City & Community Multiple-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
8.00%
发文量
27
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信