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

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.

Hierarchies in the Decentralized Welfare State: Prioritization in the Housing Choice Voucher Program

“…Many respondents were also conscious of the costs of category-based prioritization on applicants, which they often gleaned when talking to applicants seeking updates on their waitlist position. Consistent with research on applicant perspectives (Keene et al 2021;Rita et al 2022), officials observed that deviating from a first-come first-served approach generated distrust and confusion. As an official in a major U.S. city pointed out, "People really know when they went on that list, and our applicants tend to know each other, so you get a lot of, 'Well, my friend applied when I did, how come this?"'…”

“…Many respondents were also conscious of the costs of category-based prioritization on applicants, which they often gleaned when talking to applicants seeking updates on their waitlist position. Consistent with research on applicant perspectives (Keene et al 2021; Rita et al 2022), officials observed that deviating from a first-come first-served approach generated distrust and confusion. As an official in a major U.S. city pointed out, “People really know when they went on that list, and our applicants tend to know each other, so you get a lot of, ‘Well, my friend applied when I did, how come this?”’ Another respondent, who directed several small housing authorities in highly conservative areas, explained how preferences lead to difficult conversations:It’s an awkward thing to have to administer the program and have to explain to people why they were 90 in the waiting list last month, and now they’re 120. .…”

“…Our analysis further calls into question who is excluded and what burdens are imposed on people in need when policies favor those who are easier to categorize. In the case of housing assistance, individuals are easier to categorize as "homeless" if they make themselves legible to shelters (Rita et al 2022), and as "victims of domestic violence" if they make themselves legible to law enforcement. Those who curate the information they share with institutional actors or avoid formal institutions due to negative experiences, concerns about unwanted intervention, and fears of surveillance and stigmatization (Asad 2020;Brayne 2014;Fong 2019Fong , 2020Haskins and Jacobsen 2017;Lageson 2016;Stuart 2016) can fail to secure the institutional recognition required for prioritized statuses.…”

“…As key elements of the selection pipeline that shapes entry into the HCV Program (McCabe 2023; Moore 2016), preferences structure how long applicants must wait for a voucher and, in high-demand areas with years-long waits, who has a realistic shot at ever receiving a voucher (Public and Affordable Housing Research Corporation 2016). Extended waits compound hardship and increase applicants’ exposure to substandard housing, high rent burden, and homelessness (Acosta and Guerrero 2021; Rita, Garboden, and Darrah-Okike 2022; Rosen 2020). Elaborate preference policies can generate stress, uncertainty, and distrust among applicants (Keene et al 2021; Rita et al 2022; Rosen 2020), reinforce power relations (Schwartz 1974), and transmit implicit messages to applicants about what they should expect from the state and whom social programs are meant to help (Auyero 2012; Schneider and Ingram 1993).…”

“…Extended waits compound hardship and increase applicants’ exposure to substandard housing, high rent burden, and homelessness (Acosta and Guerrero 2021; Rita, Garboden, and Darrah-Okike 2022; Rosen 2020). Elaborate preference policies can generate stress, uncertainty, and distrust among applicants (Keene et al 2021; Rita et al 2022; Rosen 2020), reinforce power relations (Schwartz 1974), and transmit implicit messages to applicants about what they should expect from the state and whom social programs are meant to help (Auyero 2012; Schneider and Ingram 1993). Like selection procedures in the private rental market, preferences can create “winners and losers within already disadvantaged groups” (Rosen et al 2021:817).…”