Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Rinehimer 1
Allison Rinehimer
Professor Benze
Urban Politics
20 November 2014
Homelessness
[Homelessness Defined
On the surface the word homelessness can appear to have an obvious meaning, but it can
actually be quitehard to define what is meant by this. This is because the word home is quite
vague. Some people stay in cardboard and tent cities which they might classify as their home.
Others will go from shelter to shelter where they will be able to find temporary accommodation.
If the term is only used to refer to people living rough on the streets, it will lead to a decrease in
the number of people classified as homeless. If the term is used in a much broader sense, to refer
to anyone with no fixed abode, it would mean that cultural groups such as gypsies would fall into
this category. Many developing countries have enormous populations in substandard and
makeshift housing.
In the United States the Federal Definition of Homelessness refers to people who include:
* Anyone who doesn’t have a regular or fixed nighttime residence that is adequate for
their needs.
* Those individuals who live temporarily in an institution, a shelter (this includes welfare hotels),
or anywhere that has not been created as a place for humans to sleep.
Homelessness Statistics
Homelessness statistics are a cause for much debate. This is because there
are methodological and financial constraints when it comes to collecting such data. The focus
tends to be on those who stay in shelters or attend soup kitchens. This means that many
individuals will never be counted in the numbers. There is also the problem that for people who
are temporarily without a home, such individuals are also likely to be missed in the data. Of
course the definition used for classifying people as homeless will also have a significant impact
on these statistics.
It is estimated that there are 3.5 million people in the US who would fall under the
category of homeless. This works out at about 1% of the population and includes 1.5 million
children. There are believed to be about 100 million people around the world without a home so
3.5% of these individuals live in the US. It is believed that recent problems with the economy
may increase the number of homeless by as much as 1.5 million in the US.]
The Great Depression nationally affected the lives of everyone, resulting in the majority
of the country poor, unemployed, and, higher numbers than ever, homeless. Eighty years and
eleven recessions later, the United States has made subpar improvements combating the
homeless population. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, “ the last,
Rinehimer 2
official count reported about 610,042 people experience homelessness on any given night in the
United States”(!). The homeless, “persons who lack a fixed, regular residence”, encompass all
walks of life including individuals, families, and veterans. In order to determine the most feasible
and effective solutions to reducing the engulfing homeless population, the causes must first be
analyzed.
Historically, despite the Great Depression period, the Reagan Administration had the
largest negative impact on the homeless and potentially homeless population. “The structural
transformation in the American economy was highly exacerbated by the conservative, neo-
classical fiscal policies of the Reagan administration” (1). The combination of the recession of
late 1970s, the policies of Reagan administration, and the Reaganomics fiscal program left 10%
of the workforce unemployed. These policies directly created “higher interest rates, reduction of
upper class and corporate income tax rates, and an unequal taxing scheme which took a greater
share of income away from low income families” (1). Consequently, poverty and, ultimately,
homelessness soared; it created “9 to 10 million more poor people in the 1980s” as well as the
feminization of poverty, urban underclass, and larger gap between the rich and poor (1).
Modern day homelessness continues to occur due to the influence of both structural and
individual factors. The main structural causes of homelessness are the transformation of the
housing market, influence of American society, and inadequate social service programs.
The transformation of the housing market forced homeowners and tenants to contribute
larger portions of their income to housing costs. Despite the ideal amount to budget for housing,
30% of income, “an estimated 12 million renter and homeowner households now pay more than
50 percent of their annual incomes for housing” according to the most recent census. The lack of
availability and affordability of housing attributes to poverty-stricken people struggling to stay
Rinehimer 3
off the streets. Due to the 21st century’s “shift from relatively well-paying manufacturing jobs to
minimum wage service jobs and part-time positions” the lower class struggles to keep pace with
the rising rents (Weinberger). (1/3?)Americans are “shelter poor”, the have to spend so much on
housing that they lack sufficient income to pay for other basic necessities. The mortgage finance
system also trumps homeowners due to higher interest rates, higher housing costs, and an
explosion of debt. [foreclosures] Along with the rising costs of housing, the government
attributes an additional complication: the destruction of inadequate low-cost homes with an
insufficient number of new construction. The strongest push for destruction of low income
housing comes locally. A community has the general tendency to oppose low-income housing,
commonly known as NIMBY syndrome. “‘Not In My Backyard’ syndrome, the opposition of
local citizens to the relocating of a civic project or eyesore in their neighborhood, proves to be a
collective, powerful force in the destruction of low-income housing” (Weinberger). The blame is
directed at the federal government, argue there is not enough resources and opportunities
available to the homeless due to governmental cut backs and lack of funding. The federal
government allots less than 10% of the nation’s annual budget to efforts to end homelessness; in
2010, of the $3.55 national trillion, $3 billion was designated to homelessness. [break up of
budget distributions]
Social services do not keep up with the increasing demands due to lack of government
funding. The disappearance of the governmental “safety net” shocked homeowners and tenants.
Suddenly, the nation taxed less and spent less on social welfare than other nations. In addition,
there was a lack of comprehensive health services for all American citizens, the de-
institutionalization of the mental health sector, the lack of substance abuse rehabilitation centers,
and the absence of childcare, educational, legal, and family life services for poor people. This
Rinehimer 4
helped to create an unstable environment for the poor, and, subsequently, a rise in homelessness.
So now, the “homeless find themselves even more dependent on the same systems that have
already failed them once” (Weinberger).
American society has looked down on those incapable of providing for themselves since
the President Hoover term of enforced rugged individualism. Homeowners and economical
elitists stigmatize the poor and homeless as the outsiders of society. Collectively, lack of
compassion and inner beliefs that everyone should be able to control their own fate add to the
problem. Society is moving farther away from community-oriented manners and simultaneously
further away from solving this pressing problem.
The main individual factors are drug abuse, mental illnesses, single mother households,
and the culture of poverty.
