Claimsmakers and Contexts in Early Constructions of Homelessness: A Comparison of New York City and Washington, D.C.

Abstract

This study compares the emergence of homelessness as a “new” social problem from 1977 through 1981 in New York City and Washington, D.C. The two cases illustrate a comparative constructionist method that analyzes evolving claimsmaking activities, the context in which they were embedded, and the interplay between claimsmaking and context. The method aided in identifying why homelessness became primarily a problem of deficient and pathological individuals requiring rehabilitation rather than a problem of poverty and inadequate housing. Resources at stake in New York caused city‐ and state‐level government officials, who advocated a medicalized view, to become central claimsmakers. This typification eventually became dominant nationally. Washington's lack of similar resources allowed advocates framing homelessness as a problem of social justice to take the lead. This proved to be a less durable typification. Both groups were also embedded in different relevant histories and cultures, which also influenced claims‐making and its resonance with the public.

Improving Homeless Point-In-Time Counts: Uncovering the Marginally Housed

“…They argued that homelessness is an issue of extreme poverty, yet most literature on homelessness has focused on homeless individuals who are institutionalized in hospitals, shelters, or housing programs (Fischer et al 1986; Folsom et al 2005, Hopper et al 1997; Shlay and Rossi 1992). Many argue that measuring just the institutionalized homeless does not provide an accurate depiction of the larger, and mostly hidden, homeless population (Bogard, 2001; Snow, Anderson, and Koegel 2002; Snow, Baker, and Anderson 1988; Snow et al 1986).…”

“…Despite abundant ethnographic data (Bogard, 2001; Snow, Anderson, and Koegel 2002) and various meta-analyses (Lee et al 2010; Shlay and Rossi 1992), policy makers and even some homeless service providers struggle to accept findings that move beyond homeless stereotypes. HUD numbers remain the most widely referenced data enumerating the homeless (Williams 2011; Lee et al 2010) because they occur routinely on an annual basis across major cities of the United States.…”

“Why Would Our Heavenly Father Do that to Anyone”: Oppressive Othering through Sexual Classification Schemes in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐Day Saints

“…Building on these insights, interactionists have examined how elites engage in strategies of oppressive othering by establishing and maintaining racial, classed, and gendered classification schemes. In her comparative analysis of homelessness in New York and Washington, DC, for example, Bogard () demonstrates that different classifications of homeless people (the least among us versus victims of medical issues) resonated with members of each community in relation to the economic resources available to community leaders and activists. Similarly, Omi and Winant () showed how white American elites classified racial minorities in derogatory ways to claim superiority over African Americans, and preempt the emergence of working‐class and racial solidarity.…”

Goffman's Interaction Order at the Margins: Stigma, Role, and Normalization in the Outreach Encounter

“…A stigma can be assigned for various reasons, not least because of the legacy of early images of this group such as "tramps," "vagrants," and "bums" (Benford 1997). Further, an earlier social justice framing has subsequently been medicalized, producing a pathological image of homelessness (Bogard 2001). Indeed, homelessness has for some time been viewed as a product of personal problems rather than as a result of economic conditions (Snow and Anderson 1987).…”