Nathalie Rita, Philip M. E. Garboden, Jennifer Darrah-Okike
{"title":"“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","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":"{\"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}","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}
“You Have to Prove that You’re Homeless”: Vulnerability and Gatekeeping in Public Housing Prioritization Policies
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.