Analyze Literature Review

Experiencing Homelessness: A Review of Recent Literature

Emily Meanwell* Department of Sociology, Indiana University

Abstract

Homelessness holds a longstanding place on the sociological research agenda, and has become particularly prominent in sociological literature since the 1980s. Recent literature reviews have summarized this research, but have only briefly considered the body of work focused on the expe- rience of homelessness. I use this literature review to provide a more complete summary of this work on the daily lives, activities, subcultures, social relationships and networks, and social interac- tions of homeless individuals. I then explore variations in these experiences across important characteristics – such as gender, race and ethnicity, family status, and sexual orientation – as well as within three particular contexts that have been studied by sociologists: the streets, shelters and other service organizations, and social movements and collective action. I also consider how the homeless encounter and manage stigma and salvage the self. In addition to reviewing this litera- ture, I consider how this work contributes to sociological understandings more broadly, and potential future research directions.

Introduction

Homelessness has long been a subject of inquiry for sociologists, perhaps going as far back as Marx’s discussion of the lumpenproletariat (see Marx et al. 1978). Beginning in the 1980s, with an increase in the number of people experiencing homelessness in the United States, the shifting demographics of the homeless population to include more women, children, and families, and the passage of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act in 1987,

1 research on homelessness grew exponentially. Recent reviews of the sociologi-

cal literature on homelessness (Lee et al. 2010; Shlay and Rossi 1992) summarize much of this work, describing different definitions and operationalizations of homelessness, the demographic characteristics of the homeless population, causes of homelessness, mental and physical health among the homeless, media framing of homelessness, and policy solutions.

Given the size and scope of the body of sociological work on homelessness, though, these reviews are forced to provide a relatively brief and somewhat incomplete picture of research on the experience of homelessness, which is my focus in this review. First, I briefly discuss general research on the experience of homelessness, as well as the important ways in which the experience of homelessness varies – such as by gender, sexual orientation, or race and ethnicity. Second, I review research on the stigmatizing aspects of the experience of homelessness and how individuals seek to manage spoiled identities and maintain a positive self-concept. Third, I discuss work examining homeless- ness within particular contexts, namely life on the streets, experiences with homeless shelters and other service organizations, and experiences with social movements. Throughout, I pay particular attention to sociological research from the last ten to fifteen

Sociology Compass 6/1 (2012): 72–85, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00432.x

ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

years, and also consider how research on homelessness contributes to, and can continue contributing to, understandings of broader sociological processes and theories – including those related to self and identity, social movements, and organizations.

Experiencing homelessness

Unsurprisingly, the scholarly literature generally illustrates that homelessness is not an easy experience. Research suggests that homeless people frequently must contend with crimi- nal victimization (Lee and Schreck 2005; see also Huey 2010), food insecurity (Lee and Greif 2008; see also Dachner and Tarasuk 2002), and stigmatization (Anderson et al. 1994). Existing work also explores quality of life (see LaGory et al. 2001 on health) and social networks (including ties to both homeless and domiciled people; Bao et al. 2000; Johnson et al. 2005; Molina 2000) among those experiencing homelessness. As a whole, recent literature challenges the tendency to view the homeless as passive victims of their circumstances, and instead highlights strategies used by the homeless to navigate and sur- vive daily life, and points to the need to recognize the homeless as active, resourceful agents in their social worlds.

Homelessness is not, however, a uniform experience. Researchers have identified varia- tions within the homeless population. For example, some research highlights the differ- ences between the transitionally, episodically, and chronically homeless (Culhane et al. 2007; Kuhn and Culhane 1998); the ‘‘old’’ homeless versus the ‘‘new’’ homeless (see Lee et al. 2010; Shlay and Rossi 1992); homeless families versus singles (Rossi 1994); and youth and children versus adults (see Buckner 2008; Whitbeck and Hoyt 1999). Inter- secting with these categories are important differences in the experience of homelessness by gender, race and ethnicity, and sexual orientation.

First, scholars argue that homelessness is a fundamentally gendered experience. Com- pared to homeless men, homeless women are significantly more likely to be accompanied by family members (such as dependent children), and homeless women – especially those with children – are more likely to be regular shelter users than men (Burt and Cohen 1989; Burt et al. 2001). There are, however, important differences within the female homeless population – particularly between women with children in their immediate care or custody and those without (Burt and Cohen 1989; Roll et al. 1999).

2 Women may

also be more likely than men to experience violence and sexual victimization during homelessness (see Jasinski et al. 2010 and the following discussion of life on the streets in this review). Men, on the other hand, have less access to shelter resources and social assis- tance (especially compared to women with children); this trend has been connected to ideas about gender, dependency, and deservingness, as well as the higher rates of chronic homelessness among men (Burt and Cohen 1989; Passaro 1996).

Second, a small but important body of research focuses on the experiences of home- lessness for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered individuals. Scholars suggest that gay and lesbian homeless youth face different circumstances and special issues (Kruks 1991; see also Shillington et al. 2011), such as a higher risk of sexual victimization (Tyler 2008a; see also Dunne et al. 2002; Prendergast et al. 2001). Mottet and Ohle (2006) also highlight the particular struggles faced by homeless transgender people in obtaining access to safe shelter due to the gender-segregation of most shelters and discrimination by social service providers.

Third, research also highlights variations in the experience of homelessness across racial and ethnic groups.

3 For example, Hickler and Auerswald (2009) find important variations

between black and white homeless youth in family ties, housing status, street survival

Experiencing Homelessness 73

ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 6/1 (2012): 72–85, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00432.x

strategies, drug use, self-presentation, self-identification, service utilization; black youth are much less likely to identify as homeless, to use shelters and other social services tar- geted at the homeless, or to use injection drugs, while white youth are also more likely to use survival strategies such as panhandling and to sleep outdoors. Molina (2000) finds differences in the informal non-kin social networks of homeless Spanish-speaking Latino men as compared to those of both African-American and English-speaking Latino men, with the Spanish-speaking Latino men’s networks including more ties to housed individ- uals and primarily serving as channels of communication geared toward job hunting, while the networks of African-American and English-speaking Latino men were mostly made up of other homeless people and encouraged their integration into the subculture of street life. Conroy and Heer (2003) find that Mexican-born homeless persons are more likely to sleep in informal arrangements – such as in theaters or abandoned buildings – than in ‘‘traditional’’ homeless shelters, thus lending credence to the notion that there may be a ‘‘hidden Hispanic homeless’’ that is systematically undersampled by researchers (see also Tan and Ryan 2001 on differences between the Hispanic and non-Hispanic homeless population in Texas).

Stigma and salvaging the self

One common aspect of the homeless experience that is explored in recent sociological research is that of stigma and discredited identities (Goffman 1963). On one hand, public opinion research finds a certain amount of compassion toward the homeless, such as rec- ognizing the structural conditions that lead to homelessness and supporting paying more taxes to address the problem of homelessness (Link et al. 1995; Phelan et al. 1997, 1995; Toro and McDonell 1992; Toro et al. 2007; see also Bunis et al. 1996 on the temporal and cultural patterning of this sympathy). On the other hand, research also suggests that the public sees homelessness as related to irresponsible behavior and laziness, perceives the homeless as dangerous or undesirable, and supports restrictions on panhandling and other activities associated with homelessness (Link et al. 1995). This body of research suggests that people stigmatize homelessness more severely than poverty, and at about the same level as mental illness (Phelan et al. 1997). Even among women and children, who are typically thought to be perceived more sympathetically, homeless mothers may be labeled ‘‘bad mothers’’ (Connolly 2000), or ‘‘welfare queens’’ (Bogard 1998; see also Hancock 2004). Additionally, even if people hold relatively compassionate views, these views do not always translate into support for certain policy solutions (Knecht and Martinez 2009; Phelan et al. 1995). One example is the commonly observed ‘‘not in my backyard’’ (NIMBY) phenomenon that shapes attitudes toward the location of social services and other restrictions on the homeless’ use of certain spaces (see Takahashi 1997, 1998 on NIMBY; see also Snow and Mulcahy 2001 on the social and spatial construction of stigma and Wasserman and Clair 2011 on NIMBY and urban gentrification).

These attitudes are not lost on those experiencing homelessness; research suggests that the homeless are not only aware of this stigma, but feel it acutely, in interactions with housed individuals and also with each other (Anderson et al. 1994; Roschelle and Kauf- man 2004; Snow and Anderson 1987, 1993). A variety of responses to this stigma and related threat to the self-concept have been documented. These include identity work, narratives of identity and meaning-making, and strategies of stigma management.

In response to stigma and discredited identities, Snow and Anderson (1987, 1993) argue that the homeless use identity talk and draw on a variety of strategies to ‘‘salvage the self.’’ These strategies include distancing (from other homeless people, from the role

74 Experiencing Homelessness

ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 6/1 (2012): 72–85, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00432.x

of street person, or from service agencies that help the homeless); embracement (of the street-role identity, of social relationships on the street, or of ideologies such as religious disavowals of wealth and personal possessions); fictive storytelling (ranging from minor embellishments to complete fabrications of the past, present, or future); drawing on folk narratives that help salvage the self from blame, such as ‘‘I’m down on my luck;’’ or retreating into alternative realities. Research also explores differences in identity mainte- nance strategies by length of time homeless (see Farrington and Robinson 1999; using social identity theory; cf. Snow and Anderson 1993) and narratives of identity (Boydell et al. 2000).

Anderson et al. (1994) distinguish between in-group strategies of stigma management, including identity talk among homeless peers, and out-group strategies used in relation to the domiciled, including passing, covering, defiance, and collective action. Roschelle and Kaufman (2004) also find that kids use a variety of stigma management strategies – both strategies of inclusion, including forging friendships, passing and covering, and strategies of exclusion, including physical and sexual posturing and verbal denigration. Crucially, some of these strategies are successful, but others actually wind up reinforcing spoiled identities (Roschelle and Kaufman 2004). Other research also explores the construction and presentation of a worthy self in interactions with service providers (Marvasti 2002; Spencer 1994, 2000).

Finally, it is also important to note that the homeless population is likely not affected solely by stigma and stereotypes related to homeless status; homelessness can (and, indeed, is commonly perceived or assumed to) overlap with other stigmatizing statuses, such as mental illness (Phelan et al. 1997), criminal records and past incarceration (Metraux and Culhane 2006), particular sexual identities (Marcus 2003), and other characteristics that may come with their own stigma (Kidd 2007), such as drug or alcohol use (Dennis et al. 1999), race (Passaro 1996), poverty (Phelan et al. 1997), and generally unkempt physical appearance. These other stigma can operate independently of stigma related to homeless- ness (see Phelan et al. 1997 on the statistically independent effects of homelessness and mental illness); can interact with homelessness (as suggested by Passaro 1996 on the inter- section of race, gender, and homelessness for African-American homeless men); or can potentially trump homelessness as a source of stigma – as suggested by one of Kidd’s (2007) respondents, who linked the public’s fearful perceptions of him to being black, not to being homeless. This suggests that understandings of stigma – in relation to home- lessness and more broadly – may require attention to multiple, intersecting, overlapping or interacting stigma.

It is also important to note that this body of research makes important contributions to the field of sociology beyond understandings of homelessness – also advancing under- standings of stigma, identity, and the self more broadly. Especially notable is Snow and Anderson’s (1987, 1993) conception of identity work and salvaging the self, which has garnered widespread attention from sociologists. This work is drawn on in theorizing broader processes of the reproduction of inequality in interaction (Schwalbe et al. 2000), theorizing inequality, identity, and the self (Anderson and Snow 2001), and in empirical explorations of identity work among a wide variety of other groups.

4

The experience of homelessness in context

Sociological work on homelessness tends to focus on two broad contexts within which people experience homelessness: on the streets or in other outdoor locations, and within homeless shelters or other service organizations (such as soup kitchens, drop-in centers,

Experiencing Homelessness 75

ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 6/1 (2012): 72–85, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00432.x

and general homelessness outreach and assistance organizations). While these two contexts are not mutually exclusive,

5 researchers have identified particular structures, cultures, pat-

terns of interaction, and survival strategies within each. I thus turn next to a consideration of life on the streets, followed by experiences with homeless shelters and other service institutions. Then, I consider another context in which the experience of homelessness has been studied: within social movements and participation in collective action.

Life on the streets

A large body of sociological research explores social worlds on the streets, where many of the homeless spend a great deal of time and interact with both one another and the housed. Drawing primarily on qualitative methods, sociologists have studied the daily lives and subcultures of those living on (or spending a good deal of time on) the streets, such as Snow and Anderson’s (1993) ethnography of life on the streets in Austin, TX; Gowan (2010) on homelessness in San Francisco, and on the subculture of homeless ‘‘pro’’ recyclers (Gowan 2009); Rosenthal (1994) on daily life and subcultures within the homeless population of Santa Barbara, CA; Wagner’s (1993) study of the community, cultural resistance, and subcultures of the homeless in Checkerboard Square; Borchard (2005, 2010) on homeless men in Las Vegas, NV; Wasserman and Clair (2010, 2011) on street life in Birmingham, AL; Stablein (2011) on street life in Harvard Square, and Duneier (1999) on the sidewalks of New York City. Research on homeless youth high- lights their social networks and formation of street ‘‘families,’’ which are found to recre- ate common gender roles (Smith 2008) and come with both benefits and risks (Ennett et al. 1999; Fast et al. 2009; Johnson et al. 2005; Rice et al. 2008; Smith 2008; Stablein 2011).

These studies, and others, shed light on the day-to-day activities that are part of life on the streets, including leisure activities (Borchard 2010) and participation in ‘‘shadow work’’ (Snow and Anderson 1993) such as the collection of recyclables for redemption (Gowan 2009), panhandling (Lankenau 1999a,b; Lee and Farrell 2003), and criminal activities such as selling drugs, theft, and involvement with prostitution (see McCarthy and Hagan 2005

6 ). Other work has noted that survival strategies and activities on the

streets must be adapted around constraints on the homeless’ use of different kinds of urban space (Snow and Mulcahy 2001).

The homeless are also frequently victims of crime, especially on the streets (Lee and Schreck 2005; see also Huey 2010). Some work suggests there is interplay between criminal offenses and victimizations, at least among youth (Tyler and Johnson 2004). While both men and women are vulnerable to thefts or assaults, women may be more susceptible to sexual abuse (Evans and Forsyth 2004; Jasinski et al. 2010). While Evans and Forsyth (2004) find that survival strategies related to victimization are largely the same for men and women, others have found that women’s experiences on the streets are shaped by concerns about victimization. Huey and Berndt’s (2008) interview data suggests that women engage in strategic, gendered presentations of self on the streets to avoid victimization, including performance of femininity, masculinity, genderlessness, and pass- ing. Wesely (2009) and Evans and Forsyth (2004) find that women may band together on the streets to prevent victimization. Similarly, Smith (2008) finds that some girls stayed with ‘‘street families,’’ even though they were sometimes victimized within them; they tended to dismiss such victimization as a duty or expectation in exchange for protection and support on the streets. Wesely (2009) also suggests that women may turn to sex as a survival strategy on the streets (trading sex for housing, food, money, or protection),

76 Experiencing Homelessness

ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 6/1 (2012): 72–85, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00432.x

though other literature on homeless youth finds no differences by gender in the use of survival sex (Halcon and Lifson 2004; Hickler and Auerswald 2009). Related to these findings, scholars have also been particularly concerned with risky behaviors related to drugs, sexual activity, and crime among homeless youth (Ennett et al. 1999; Tyler 2008b).

The streets also bring the homeless and the housed together in shared public spaces. Panhandling is one particular context for interactions between homeless and housed indi- viduals. While panhandling is a relatively uncommon activity across the homeless popula- tion, it is a highly visible activity that many housed people report coming into contact with, particularly in urban areas (Lee and Farrell 2003). These interactions between homeless panhandlers and the housed can yield monetary gains, but also come with costs, such as in the nonperson treatment or other indignities that panhandlers experience (Lankenau 1999a,b; see also Duneier and Molotch 1999). Drawing on Goffman (1959), Lankenau (1999a,b) highlights panhandlers’ use of dramaturgical routines to attract the interest of passerby and overcome various forms of nonperson treatment, such as ‘‘story- teller,’’ ‘‘greeter,’’ and ‘‘entertainer’’ routines; panhandlers also learn to manage their emotions and strategically present themselves, and their development of relationships with regular givers also enhances their social status and self-regard.

Experiences with shelters and service providers

Estimates suggest that up to half of the homeless population make use of shelters, and that most of the homeless population comes into contact with some aspect of the social ser- vice infrastructure (e.g. soup kitchens and drop-in centers in addition to shelters; Burt et al. 2001; Lee et al. 2010). Life within the context of homeless shelters, as well as expe- riences with other social service providers, is thus a second area that has drawn consider- able attention from sociologists. The expansion and institutionalization of shelters and other services for the homeless in the 1980s created a diverse array of facilities, ranging from the traditional emergency shelters providing short-term, overnight shelter up to transitional programs that can provide housing – and other services – for longer periods of time (see Bogard 2003; Bogard et al. 1999; Gerstel et al. 1996). Shelters have different philosophies, rules, and requirements; for example, some require residents to leave during the day, others do not; some simply provide a place to sleep, others delve into their resi- dents’ lives more deeply, offering (or requiring) a variety of services. Different types of shelters also tend to serve different populations; transitional housing shelters, for example, are largely targeted toward homeless families (Gerstel et al. 1996; see also Culhane 1992 on ‘‘specialty shelters’’ and Passaro 1996 on gender differences in shelter services). It is thus difficult – and problematic – to generalize about homeless shelters, or the experi- ences within them, as a whole.

Still, some researchers argue that homeless shelters generally fit many of the characteris- tics of Goffman’s (1961) total institutions, or at least constitute ‘‘quasi-total’’ institutions (Armaline 2005; Bogard 1998; DeWard and Moe 2010; Snow and Anderson 1993; Stark 1994). These studies emphasize how shelters’ rules and regulations constrain their resi- dents’ lives in the name of maintaining order and control. These findings may be espe- cially true for service-intensive shelters that seek to rehabilitate clients through a variety of (often mandatory) life skills classes and other tasks, likened by some to ‘‘therapeutic incarceration’’ (Gerstel et al. 1996; see also Friedman 2000).

The view of shelters as total institutions has led some scholars to emphasize the impor- tance of the shelter context in shaping residents’ lives – such as, in perhaps the most

Experiencing Homelessness 77

ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 6/1 (2012): 72–85, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00432.x

extreme form, Grunberg and Eagle’s (1990) controversial ‘‘shelterization thesis,’’ which argues that shelters lead to increasing dependency and passivity among residents that prevent them from leaving the shelter. Critics of this thesis argue that it overstates the impermeability and influence of homeless shelters (see Armaline 2005; Liebow 1993; Marcus 2003, 2006), even though scholars have still argued – albeit to a less extreme degree – that shelters may indeed create barriers to exiting homelessness and foster depen- dency as residents become immersed in shelter routines (Gounis 1992; Stark 1994; Williams 2003; see Marcus 2006 for a discussion of responses to the shelterization thesis).

Research on residents’ navigation of – and resistance to the control within – the quasi- total institutions of shelters highlights the importance of agency. For example, Bogard (1998) demonstrates how shelters’ clearly delineated rules and regulations can actually provide opportunities for effective action and strategic use of the ‘‘powers of the weak’’ by residents – in her case, homeless mothers (on families in shelters, see also Friedman 2000; Rossi 1994; Williams 2003). DeWard and Moe (2010) outline strategies of submis- sion, adaptation, and resistance among female shelter residents; the infantilization of shelter residents by shelter staff and rules has also been shown to breed resistance (Hoffman and Coffey 2008). Other work illustrates the negotiation and challenge of rules, power, and social control by residents – and staff – within a youth shelter (Armaline 2005).

Residents are not the only actors whose actions shape the shelter experience; staff members also play an active role in shaping life within shelters and other service organiza- tions. For example, staff members’ selective enforcement of rules (Armaline 2005; Dordick 1996, 1997; Holden 1997; Liebow 1993) or tighter adherence to the organiza- tion’s ideology (Joniak 2005) shapes life within the shelters, in ways that may conform to or deviate from the official regulations and curriculum of the organization. Additionally, Karabanow (1999) highlights the emotional labor undertaken by shelter staff, and how they may resist the demands placed on them by organizational culture.

Some scholars focus particularly on client-staff interactions within shelters or other service organizations.

7 Research has explored clients’ and workers’ discursive strategies

and collaboration in shelter or service provider intake interviews to construct client ‘‘service-worthiness’’ (Marvasti 2002, 2003; Spencer 1994; Spencer and McKinney 1997). Other work highlights staff-client conflict and exclusionary practices used by staff in interactions with clients at a youth drop-in shelter (Joniak 2005), and homeless clients’ negative perceptions of interactions with religious organizations’ volunteers at faith-based food providers (Sager and Stephens 2005). Residents’ views of their interactions with shelter staff are found to be negative, with residents reporting feelings of objectification and infantilization (Hoffman and Coffey 2008; see also Borchard 2005; Holden 1997; Lyon-Callo 2004; Seltser and Miller 1993) and a lack of respect for their experiences, knowledge, ideas, and feelings (Sager and Stephens 2005), often traced back to the asymmetrical power relations inherent in these interactions (Hoffman and Coffey 2008; Joniak 2005). Such experiences have been connected to homeless individuals’ opting out of the shelter or service system altogether in order to maintain dignity and autonomy – in addition to avoiding the unsafe and unsanitary conditions present in at least some shelters (Hoffman and Coffey 2008; Liebow 1993; Snow and Anderson 1993; Wagner 1993; Wasserman and Clair 2010, 2011).

In addition to exploring interactions between clients and staff, some of this work also highlights the social relationships between shelter residents within different shelter con- texts. Dordick (1996), for example, finds that the social world of one homeless shelter is organized mainly by groups of residents and around shelter ‘‘marriages’’ or partnerships

78 Experiencing Homelessness

ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 6/1 (2012): 72–85, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00432.x

between residents (which may or may not include sexual involvement; see also Rayburn and Corzine 2010 on romantic relationships among the homeless). Williams (2003) also describes the interactions between residents at family shelters and the friendships that sometimes develop between them – as well as caseworkers’ attempts to control residents’ interactions with one another.

These studies of homeless shelters and other service agencies connect to the broader sociological literature on organizations and institutions. Taken as a whole, these pieces have critique and add to Goffman’s (1961) notion of total institutions, and crucially – but implic- itly – point to a view of homeless shelters as inhabited institutions (Hallett 2010; Hallett and Ventresca 2006). Inhabited institutionalism focuses on the recursive relationships between institutions, interactions, and organizations; institutional logics and culture matter, but it is through interactions that their local meanings within particular organizations emerge. Shelters are organizations that are partly constituted by institutional logics or ideologies – such as the ‘‘tough love’’ ideology behind Joniak’s (2005) youth drop-in center, the therapeutic logic described by Gerstel et al. (1996), the logic of self-sufficiency described by Williams (2003), or the religious ideology behind the service organizations studied by Sager and Stephens (2005). They are also partially constituted by the interactions of the people within them – the staff and residents or clients – who create – and challenge – the local meanings of these institutional logics (e.g. Armaline 2005; Bogard 1998). Future research taking an explicit approach to understanding shelters as inhabited institutions is needed, both to push our understandings of homeless shelters and life within them, and as an extension of inhabited institutionalism into a new organizational arena.

Participation in social movements and collective action

A third and final notable line of research has considered the experiences of the homeless within a different context – that of social movements and collective action. Researchers have challenged the view of the homeless as unlikely to mobilize, instead pointing to protest activities throughout the United States in the 1980s (Corrigall-Brown et al. 2009; Snow et al. 2005; Wagner and Cohen 1991; Wright 1997). This work has identified the different factors that are correlated with involvement in protest activities among the homeless, such as deprivation (either in terms of a lack of access to basic needs, or depri- vation as perceived relative to other members of society) and – particularly important for continued participation – a sense that collective action is effective in creating change (Corrigall-Brown et al. 2009). Wagner and Cohen (1991; see also Wagner 1993) also describe life within a ‘‘tent city’’ protest, as well as the material and nonmaterial gains participants reported, including access to higher income people, organizational attach- ment, and disalienation. Thus, engagement in collective action can impact the way indi- vidual experience homelessness in multiple ways.

In addition to elaborating another category of experiences of homelessness, this work has contributed to sociological understandings of social movements and framing more broadly. These studies caution against a recent tendency to study primarily middle-class social movements, indicate that there are both similarities and differences between mid- dle-class movements and poor people’s movements (Wagner and Cohen 1991), and sug- gest that social movement theorists should not presume that all groups come to participate in collective action in the same ways (e.g. through social ties, which appear less important among the homeless than they are found to be in other studies; Corrigall- Brown et al. 2009). Other studies of homeless social movements have added to under- standings of the role of resource mobilization (Cress and Snow 1996; Snow et al. 2005)

Experiencing Homelessness 79

ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 6/1 (2012): 72–85, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00432.x

and strain (Corrigall-Brown et al. 2009; Snow et al. 2005), the multiple pathways leading to successful movement outcomes, and the importance of the rhetorical quality of frames (Cress and Snow 2000; see also Noy 2009; Croteau and Hicks 2003 on framing and homelessness policy).

Conclusion

It is virtually impossible to summarize the exceedingly vast body of literature on home- lessness in a single review. In this short review, I have instead sought to discuss recent sociological research on the experience of homelessness – including variations in these experiences by gender, sexual orientation, and race and ethnicity; the experience of stigma and related strategies of managing stigma or salvaging the self; and experiences of homelessness within the particular contexts of life on the street, experiences in shelters and service organizations, and experiences with social movements. I have also sought to highlight some of the broader sociological contributions of this body of literature, includ- ing contributions to understandings of self and identity, social movements. There are also important avenues for future research. Research is needed to understand the role of mul- tiple, intersecting stigma in shaping experiences of homelessness (Kidd 2007) and the intersection of statuses such as race, gender, and sexual orientation (see Marcus 2006; Passaro 1996), in shaping experiences of homelessness. Additionally, work on shelters as organizations would benefit from an inhabited institutionalist approach – which would, in turn, contribute to this broader literature. Thus, just as homelessness continues to remain an important issue in American society, homelessness must continue to occupy a place on the sociological research agenda.

Acknowledgement

The author thanks to Tim Hallett, Ira Silver, and the anonymous reviewers at Sociology Compass for their assistance with this project.

Short Biography

Emily Meanwell is a graduate student in the Department of Sociology at Indiana Univer- sity. She is broadly interested in culture, social psychology, inequality, and education. Her current research on homelessness explores the experiences of homeless men and women living in shelters.

Notes

* Correspondence address: Emily Meanwell, Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Ballantine Hall 744, 1020 E. Kirkwood Ave., Bloomington, IN 47405, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

1 The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (Public Law 100-77) provided funding for social services for

the homeless, as well as research. It was renamed the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act in October 2000. 2

It is important to note that many ‘‘single’’ homeless women – and men – have children that are not with them, and that homeless women with children in their immediate care or custody may also have other children elsewhere (see Burt et al. 2001). The author thanks the anonymous reviewer for this point. 3

This is, of course, in addition to the general demographic trends that indicate that members of racial and ethnic minorities are more vulnerable to homelessness than whites; see Burt et al. (2001); Lee et al. (2010); Shlay and Rossi (1992).

80 Experiencing Homelessness

ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 6/1 (2012): 72–85, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00432.x

4 Examples include Hunt and Bedford (1994) on members of peace and justice social movements; Kaufman and

Johnson (2004) on gays and lesbians; Kinney (1993) on adolescents; Kreiner et al. (2006) on Episcopal priests and a theoretical model of identity work; Presser (2004) on violent offenders. 5

Many of those who routinely stay outdoors may use soup kitchens, or may use shelters during inclement weather, while those who sleep in homeless shelters may still spend most of their daytime hours on the streets. I have chosen to present these two contexts separately because of the different experiences embedded within them, but do not wish to present shelters and the streets as either the only contexts in which homelessness is experienced or dichotomous contexts that do not intersect and overlap – a point which I hope to attend to in noting that, for example, negative experiences with shelters can encourage people to instead stay on the streets (and vice versa). 6

Note that McCarthy and Hagan (2005) focus specifically on homeless youth, and drew their sample from both service agencies and street locations, and included youth living in other arrangements, such as temporary housing with friends or in hotels. 7

In the interest of space, I have folded studies that have discussed volunteers instead of or in addition to paid staff members (Holden 1997; Sager and Stephens 2005) into this discussion of ‘‘client-staff’’ interactions, though it is important to note that volunteers often occupy a slightly different position in these organizations.

References

Anderson, Leon and David A. Snow. 2001. ‘Inequality and the Self: Exploring Connections from an Interactionist Perspective’. Symbolic Interaction 24: 395–406.

Anderson, Leon, David A. Snow and Daniel Cress. 1994. ‘Negotiating the Public Realm: Stigma Management and Collective Action Among the Homeless.’ Research in Community Sociology (Suppl.) 1: 121–43.

Armaline, William T. 2005. ‘‘Kids Need Structure’: Negotiating Rules, Power, and Social Control in an Emer- gency Youth Shelter.’ American Behavioral Scientist 48: 1124–48.

Bao, Wan-Ning, Les B. Whitbeck and Dan R. Hoyt. 2000. ‘Abuse, Support, and Depression among Homeless and Runaway Adolescents.’ Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41: 408–20.

Bogard, Cynthia J. 1998. ‘The Rhetoric of Domination and Its Strategic Use by Homeless Mothers.’ Sociological Spectrum 18: 229–62.

Bogard, Cynthia J. 2003. Seasons such as These: How Homelessness Took Shape in America. Hawthorne, NY: Walter de Gruyter.

Bogard, Cynthia J., J. Jeff McConnell, Naomi Gerstel and Michael Schwartz. 1999. ‘Homeless Mothers and Depression: Misdirected Policy.’ Journal of Health and Social Behavior 40: 46–62.

Borchard, Kurt. 2005. The Word on the Street: Homeless Men in Las Vegas. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. Borchard, Kurt. 2010. ‘Between Poverty and a Lifestyle: The Leisure Activities of Homeless People in Las Vegas.’

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 39: 441–66. Boydell, Katherine M., Paula Goering and Tammy L. Morrell-Bellai. 2000. ‘Narratives of Identity: Re-presentation

of Self in People Who Are Homeless.’ Qualitative Health Research 10: 26–38. Buckner, John C. 2008. ‘Understanding the Impact of Homelessness on Children.’ American Behavioral Scientist 51:

721–36. Bunis, William K., Angela Yancik and David A. Snow. 1996. ‘The Cultural Patterning of Sympathy toward the

Homeless and Other Victims of Misfortune.’ Social Problems 43: 387–402. Burt, Martha R., Laudan Y. Aron, Edgar Lee and Jesse Valente. 2001. Helping America’s Homeless: Emergency Shelter

or Affordable Housing? Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press. Burt, Martha R. and Barbara E. Cohen. 1989. ‘Differences among Homeless Single Women, Women with Chil-

dren, and Single Men.’ Social Problems 36: 508–24. Connolly, Deborah. 2000. ‘Mythical Mothers and Dichotomies of Good and Evil: Homeless Mothers in the United

States.’ Pp. 263–94 in Ideologies and Technologies of Motherhood, edited by H. Ragone and F. W. Twine. New York: Routledge.

Conroy, Stephen J. and David M. Heer. 2003. ‘Hidden Hispanic Homelessness in Los Angeles: The ‘‘Latino Para- dox’’ Revisited.’ Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 25: 530–8.

Corrigall-Brown, Catherine, David A. Snow, Kelly Smith and Theron Quist. 2009. ‘Explaining the Puzzle Of Homeless Mobilization: An Examination of Differential Participation.’ Sociological Perspectives 52: 309–35.

Cress, Daniel M. and David A. Snow. 1996. ‘Mobilization at the Margins: Resources, Benefactors, and the Viability of Homeless Social Movement Organizations.’ American Sociological Review 61: 1089–109.

Cress, Daniel M. and David A. Snow. 2000. ‘The Outcomes of Homeless Mobilization: The Influence of Organi- zation, Disruption, Political Mediation, and Framing.’ American Journal of Sociology 105: 1063–104.

Croteau, David and Lyndsi Hicks. 2003. ‘Coalition Framing and the Challenge of a Consonant Frame Pyramid: The Case of a Collaborative Response to Homelessness.’ Social Problems 50: 251–72.

Culhane, Dennis P. 1992. ‘The Quandaries of Shelter Reform: An Appraisal of Efforts to ‘‘Manage’’ Homelessness.’ Social Service Review 66: 428–40.

Experiencing Homelessness 81

ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 6/1 (2012): 72–85, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00432.x

Culhane, Dennis P., Stephen Metraux, Jung Min Park, Maryanne Schretzman and Jesse Valente. 2007. ‘Testing a Typology of Family Homelessness Based on Patterns of Public Shelter Utilization in Four US Jurisdictions: Implications for Policy and Program Planning.’ Housing Policy Debate 18: 1–28.

Dachner, Naomi and Valerie Tarasuk. 2002. ‘Homeless ‘‘Squeegee Kids:’’ Food Insecurity and Daily Survival.’ Social Science and Medicine 54: 1039–49.

Dennis, Michael L., Robert M. Bray, Ronaldo Iachan and Jutta Thornberry. 1999. ‘Drug Use and Homelessness.’ Pp. 79–123 in Drug Use in Metropolitan America, edited by Robert M. Bray and Mary Ellen Marsden. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

DeWard, Sarah L. and Angela M. Moe. 2010. ‘‘Like a Prison!’: Homeless Women’s Narratives of Surviving Shel- ter.’ Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 37: 115–36.

Dordick, Gwendolyn A. 1996. ‘More than Refuge: The Social World of a Homeless Shelter.’ Journal of Contempo- rary Ethnography 24: 373–404.

Dordick, Gwendolyn A. 1997. Something Left to Lose: Personal Relations and Survival among New York’s Homeless. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Duneier, Mitchell. 1999. Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Duneier, Mitchell and Harvey Molotch. 1999. ‘Talking City Trouble: Interactional Vandalism, Social Inequality,

and the ‘‘Urban Interaction Problem’’.’ American Journal of Sociology 104: 1263–95. Dunne, Gillian A., Shirley Prendergast and David Telford. 2002. ‘Young, Gay, Homeless and Invisible: A Growing

Population?’ Culture, Health & Sexuality 4: 103–15. Ennett, Susan T., Susan L. Bailey and E. Belle Federman. 1999. ‘Social Network Characteristics Associated with

Risky Behaviors among Runaway and Homeless Youth.’ Journal of Health and Social Behavior 40: 63–78. Evans, Rhonda D. and Craig J. Forsyth. 2004. ‘Risk Factors, Endurance of Victimization, and Survival Strategies:

The Impact of the Structural Location of Men and Women on Their Experiences within Homeless Milieus.’ Sociological Spectrum 24: 479–505.

Farrington, Alice and W. Peter Robinson. 1999. ‘Homelessness and Strategies of Identity Maintenance: A Partici- pant Observation Study.’ Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 9: 175–94.

Fast, Danya, Will Small, Evan Wood and Thomas Kerr. 2009. ‘Coming ‘Down Here’: Young People’s Reflections on Becoming Entrenched in a Local Drug Scene.’ Social Science & Medicine 69: 1204–10.

Friedman, Donna Haig. 2000. Parenting in Public: Family Shelter and Public Assistance. New York: Columbia Univer- sity Press.

Gerstel, Naomi, Cynthia J. Bogard, J. Jeff McConnell and Michael Schwartz. 1996. ‘The Therapeutic Incarceration of Homeless Families.’ The Social Service Review 70: 543–72.

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor ⁄ Doubleday. Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. New York:

Anchor Books. Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gounis, Kostas. 1992. ‘The Manufacture of Dependency: Shelterization Revisited.’ New England Journal of Public

Policy 8: 685–93. Gowan, Teresa. 2009. ‘New Hobos or Neo-Romantic Fantasy? Urban Ethnography beyond the Neoliberal Dis-

connect.’ Qualitative Sociology 32: 231–57. Gowan, Teresa. 2010. Hobos, Hustlers, and Backsliders: Homeless in San Francisco. Minneapolis, MN: University Of

Minnesota Press. Grunberg, Jeffrey and Paula F. Eagle. 1990. ‘Shelterization: How the Homeless Adapt to Shelter Living.’ Hosp Com-

munity Psychiatry 41: 521–5. Halcon, Linda L. and Alan R. Lifson. 2004. ‘Prevalence and Predictors of Sexual Risks among Homeless Youth.’

Journal of Youth and Adolescence 33: 71–80. Hallett, Tim. 2010. ‘The Myth Incarnate.’ American Sociological Review 75: 52–74. Hallett, Tim and Marc Ventresca. 2006. ‘Inhabited Institutions: Social Interactions and Organizational Forms in

Gouldner’s ‘Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy’.’ Theory and Society 35(2): 213–36. Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2004. The Politics of Disgust: The Public Identity of the Welfare Queen. New York: NYU Press. Hickler, Benjamin and Colette L. Auerswald. 2009. ‘The Worlds of Homeless White and African American Youth

in San Francisco, California: A Cultural Epidemiological Comparison.’ Social Science & Medicine 68: 824–31. Hoffman, Lisa and Brian Coffey. 2008. ‘Dignity and Indignation: How People Experiencing Homelessness View

Services and Providers.’ The Social Science Journal 45(2): 207–22. Holden, Daphne. 1997. ‘‘‘On Equal Ground:’’ Sustaining Virtue among Volunteers in a Homeless Shelter.’ Journal

of Contemporary Ethnography 26: 117–45. Huey, Laura. 2010. ‘False Security or Greater Social Inclusion? Exploring Perceptions of CCTV use in Public and

Private Spaces Accessed by the Homeless.’ British Journal of Sociology 61: 63–82. Huey, Laura and Eric Berndt. 2008. ‘‘‘You’ve Gotta Learn How to Play the Game:’’ Homeless Women’s Use of

Gender Performance as a Tool for Preventing Victimization.’ The Sociological Review 56: 177–94.

82 Experiencing Homelessness

ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 6/1 (2012): 72–85, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00432.x

Hunt, Scott A. and Robert D. Bedford. 1994. ‘Identity Talk in the Peace and Justice Movement.’ Journal of Con- temporary Ethnography 22: 488–517.

Jasinski, Jana L., Jennifer K. Wesely, James D. Wright and Elizabeth E. Mustaine. 2010. Hard Lives, Mean Streets: Violence in the Lives of Homeless Women. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Johnson, Kurt D., Les B. Whitbeck and Dan R. Hoyt. 2005. ‘Predictors of Social Network Composition among Homeless and Runaway Adolescents.’ Journal of Adolescence 28: 231–48.

Joniak, Elizabeth A. 2005. ‘Exclusionary Practices and the Delegitimization of Client Voice.’ American Behavioral Sci- entist 48: 961–88.

Karabanow, Jeffrey. 1999. ‘When Caring Is Not Enough: Emotional Labor and Youth Shelter Workers.’ The Social Service Review 73: 340–57.

Kaufman, Joanne M. and Cathryn Johnson. 2004. ‘Stigmatized Individuals and the Process of Identity.’ The Sociolog- ical Quarterly 45: 807–33.

Kidd, Sean A. 2007. ‘Youth Homelessness and Social Stigma.’ Journal of Youth and Adolescence 36: 291–9. Kinney, David A. 1993. ‘From Nerds to Normals: The Recovery of Identity among Adolescents from Middle

School to High School.’ Sociology of Education 66: 21–40. Knecht, Tom and Lisa M. Martinez. 2009. ‘Humanizing the Homeless: Does Contact Erode Stereotypes?’ Social Sci-

ence Research 38: 521–34. Kreiner, Glen E., Elaine C. Hollensbe and Mathew L. Sheep. 2006. ‘Where is the ‘‘Me’’ Among the ‘‘We’’? Iden-

tity Work and the Search for Optimal Balance.’ Academy of Management Journal 49: 1031–57. Kruks, Gabe. 1991. ‘Gay and Lesbian Homeless ⁄ Street Youth: Special Issues and Concerns.’ Journal of Adolescent

Health 12: 515–8. Kuhn, Randall and Dennis P. Culhane. 1998. ‘Applying Cluster Analysis to Test a Typology of Homelessness by

Pattern of Shelter Utilization: Results from the Analysis of Administrative Data.’ American Journal of Community Psychology 26: 207–32.

LaGory, Mark, Kevin Fitzpatrick and Ferris Ritchey. 2001. ‘Life Chances and Choices: Assessing Quality of Life among the Homeless.’ The Sociological Quarterly 42: 633–51.

Lankenau, Stephen E. 1999a. ‘Panhandling Repertoires and Routines for Overcoming the Nonperson Treatment.’ Deviant Behavior 20: 183–206.

Lankenau, Stephen E. 1999b. ‘Stronger than Dirt: Public Humiliation and Status Enhancement among Panhandlers.’ Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 28: 288–318.

Lee, Barrett A. and Chad R. Farrell. 2003. ‘Buddy, Can You Spare a Dime? Homelessness, Panhandling, and the Public.’ Urban Affairs Review 38: 299–324.

Lee, Barrett A. and Meredith J. Greif. 2008. ‘Homelessness and Hunger.’ Journal of Health and Social Behavior 49: 3– 19.

Lee, Barrett A. and Christopher J. Schreck. 2005. ‘Danger on the Streets: Marginality and Victimization among Homeless People.’ American Behavioral Scientist 48: 1055–81.

Lee, Barrett A., Kimberly A. Tyler and James D. Wright. 2010. ‘The New Homelessness Revisited.’ Annual Review of Sociology 36: 501–21.

Liebow, Elliot. 1993. Tell Them Who I Am: The Lives of Homeless Women. New York: The Free Press. Link, Bruce G., Sharon Schwartz, Robert Moore, Jo Phelan, Elmer Struening, Ann Stueve and Mary Ellen Colten.

1995. ‘Public Knowledge, Attitudes, and Beliefs about Homeless People: Evidence for Compassion Fatigue?’ American Journal of Community Psychology 23: 533–55.

Lyon-Callo, Vincent. 2004. Inequality, Poverty, and Neoliberal Governance: Activist Ethnography in the Homeless Sheltering Industry. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.

Marcus, Anthony. 2003. ‘Shelterization Revisited: Some Methodological Dangers of Institutional Studies of the Homeless.’ Human Organization 62: 134–42.

Marcus, Anthony. 2006. Where have all the Homeless Gone? The Making and Unmaking of a Crisis. New York: Berg- hahn Books.

Marvasti, Amir B. 2002. ‘Constructing the Service-Worthy Homeless through Narrative Editing.’ Journal of Contem- porary Ethnography 31: 615–51.

Marvasti, Amir B. 2003. Being Homeless: Textual and Narrative Constructions. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels and Robert C. Tucker. 1978. The Marx-Engels Reader. New York: W. W. Norton &

Company. McCarthy, Bill and John Hagan. 2005. ‘Danger and the Decision to Offend.’ Social Forces 83: 1065–96. Metraux, Stephen and Dennis P. Culhane. 2006. ‘Recent Incarceration History among a Sheltered Homeless Popu-

lation.’ Crime & Delinquency 52: 504–17. Molina, Edna. 2000. ‘Informal Non-Kin Networks among Homeless Latino and African American Men.’ American

Behavioral Scientist 43: 663–85. Mottet, Lisa and John Ohle. 2006. ‘Transitioning Our Shelters: Making Homeless Shelters Safe for Transgender

People.’ Journal of Poverty 10: 77–101.

Experiencing Homelessness 83

ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 6/1 (2012): 72–85, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00432.x

Noy, Darren. 2009. ‘When Framing Fails: Ideas, Influence, and Resources in San Francisco’s Homeless Policy Field.’ Social Problems 56: 223–42.

Passaro, Joanne. 1996. The Unequal Homeless: Men on the Streets, Women in Their Place. New York: Routledge. Phelan, Jo, Bruce G. Link, Robert E. Moore and Ann Stueve. 1997. ‘The Stigma of Homelessness: The Impact of

the Label ‘‘Homeless’’ on Attitudes toward Poor Persons.’ Social Psychology Quarterly 60: 323–37. Phelan, Jo, Bruce G. Link, Ann Stueve and Robert E. Moore. 1995. ‘Education, Social Liberalism, and Economic

Conservatism: Attitudes toward Homeless People.’ American Sociological Review 60: 126–40. Prendergast, Shirley, Gillian A. Dunne and David Telford. 2001. ‘‘‘A Story of ‘‘Difference,’’ a Different Story: Young

Homeless Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual People.’ The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 21: 64–91. Presser, Lois. 2004. ‘Violent Offenders, Moral Selves: Constructing Identities and Accounts in the Research Inter-

view.’ Social Problems 51: 82–101. Rayburn, Rachel L. and Jay Corzine. 2010. ‘Your Shelter or Mine? Romantic Relationships among the Homeless.’

Deviant Behavior 31(8): 756–74. Rice, Eric, Judith A. Stein and Norweeta Milburn. 2008. ‘Countervailing Social Network Influences on Problem

Behaviors among Homeless Youth.’ Journal of Adolescence 31: 625–39. Roll, Carolyn N., Paul A. Toro and Gina L. Ortola. 1999. ‘Characteristics and Experiences of Homeless Adults: A

Comparison of Single Men, Single Women, and Women with Children.’ Journal of Community Psychology 27: 189–98.

Roschelle, Anne R. and Peter Kaufman. 2004. ‘Fitting In and Fighting Back: Stigma Management Strategies among Homeless Kids.’ Symbolic Interaction 27: 23–46.

Rosenthal, Rob. 1994. Homeless in Paradise: A Map of the Terrain. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Rossi, Peter H. 1994. ‘Troubling Families.’ American Behavioral Scientist 37: 342–95. Sager, Rebecca and Laura Susan Stephens. 2005. ‘Serving Up Sermons: Clients’ Reactions to Religious Elements at

Congregation-Run Feeding Establishments.’ Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 34: 297–315. Schwalbe, Michael, Sandra Godwin, Daphne Holden, Douglas Schrock, Shealy Thompson and Michele Wolkomir.

2000. ‘Generic Processes in the Reproduction of Inequality: An Interactionist Analysis.’ Social Forces 79: 419–52. Seltser, Barry Jay and Donald E. Miller. 1993. Homeless Families: The Struggle for Dignity. Urbana, IL: University of

Illinois Press. Shillington, Audrey M., Chad A. Bousman and John D. Clapp. 2011. ‘Characteristics of Homeless Youth Attending

Two Different Youth Drop-In Centers.’ Youth & Society 43(1): 28–43. Shlay, Anne B. and Peter H. Rossi. 1992. ‘Social Science Research and Contemporary Studies of Homelessness.’

Annual Review of Sociology 18: 129–60. Smith, Hilary. 2008. ‘Searching for Kinship.’ American Behavioral Scientist 51: 756–71. Snow, David A. and Leon Anderson. 1987. ‘Identity Work Among the Homeless: The Verbal Construction and

Avowal of Personal Identities.’ The American Journal of Sociology 92: 1336–71. Snow, David A. and Leon Anderson. 1993. Down on Their Luck: A Study of Homeless Street People. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press. Snow, David A. and Michael Mulcahy. 2001. ‘Space, Politics, and the Survival Strategies of the Homeless.’ American

Behavioral Scientist 45: 149–69. Snow, David A., Sarah A. Soule and Daniel M. Cress. 2005. ‘Identifying the Precipitants of Homeless Protest across

17 U.S. Cities, 1980 to 1990.’ Social Forces 83: 1183–210. Spencer, J. William. 1994. ‘Homeless in River City: Client Work in Human Service Encounters.’ Pp. 29–45 in

Perspectives on Social Problems, edited by G. Miller and J. A. Holstein. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Spencer, J. William. 2000. ‘Self-Presentation and Organizational Processing in a Human Service Agency.’ Pp. 158–

75 in Institutional Selves: Personal Troubles in a Postmodern World, edited by Jaber F. Gubrium and James A. Hol- stein. New York: Oxford University Press.

Spencer, J. William and Jennifer L. McKinney. 1997. ‘‘‘We Don’t Pay for Bus Tickets, but We Can Help You Find Work:’’ The Micropolitics of Trouble in Human Service Encounters.’ The Sociological Quarterly 38: 185– 203.

Stablein, Timothy. 2011. ‘Helping Friends and the Homeless Milieu: Social Capital and the Utility of Street Peers.’ Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 40(3): 290–317.

Stark, Louisa R. 1994. ‘The Shelter as ‘‘Total Institution’’.’ American Behavioral Scientist 37: 553–62. Takahashi, Lois M. 1997. ‘The Socio-Spatial Stigmatization of Homelessness and HIV ⁄ AIDS: Toward an Explana-

tion of the NIMBY Syndrome.’ Social Science & Medicine 45: 903–14. Takahashi, Lois M. 1998. Homelessness, AIDS, and Stigmatization: The NIMBY Syndrome in the United States at the

End of the Twentieth Century. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Tan, P. Philip and Ellen Ryan. 2001. ‘Homeless Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Adults on the Texas-Mexico Border.’

Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 23: 239–49. Toro, Paul A. and Dennis M. McDonell. 1992. ‘Beliefs, Attitudes, and Knowledge about Homelessness: A Survey

of the General Public.’ American Journal of Community Psychology 20: 53–80.

84 Experiencing Homelessness

ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 6/1 (2012): 72–85, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00432.x

Toro, Paul A., Carolyn J. Tompsett, Sylvie Lombardo, Pierre Philippot, Hilde Nachtergael, Benoit Galand, Natas- cha Schlienz, Nadine Stammel, Yanelia Yabar, Marc Blume, Linda MacKay and Kate Harvey. 2007. ‘Homeless- ness in Europe and the United States: A Comparison of Prevalence and Public Opinion.’ Journal of Social Issues 63: 505–24.

Tyler, Kimberly A. 2008a. ‘A Comparison of Risk Factors for Sexual Victimization Among Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Homeless Young Adults.’ Violence and Victims 23: 586–602.

Tyler, Kimberly A. 2008b. ‘Social Network Characteristics and Risky Sexual and Drug Related Behaviors among Homeless Young Adults.’ Social Science Research 37: 673–85.

Tyler, Kimberly A. and Katherine A. Johnson. 2004. ‘Victims and Offenders: Accounts of Paybacks, Invulnerability, and Financial Gain among Homeless Youth.’ Deviant Behavior 25: 427–49.

Wagner, David. 1993. Checkerboard Square: Culture and Resistance in a Homeless Community. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Wagner, David and Marcia B. Cohen. 1991. ‘The Power of the People: Homeless Protesters in the Aftermath of Social Movement Participation.’ Social Problems 38: 543–61.

Wasserman, Jason Adam and Jeffrey Michael Clair. 2010. At Home on the Street: People, Poverty, and a Hidden Culture of Homelessness. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Wasserman, Jason Adam and Jeffrey Michael Clair. 2011. ‘Housing Patterns of Homeless People: The Ecology of the Street in the Era of Urban Renewal.’ Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 40(1): 71–101.

Wesely, Jennifer K. 2009. ‘‘‘Mom Said we had a Money Maker:’’ Sexualization and Survival Contexts among Homeless Women.’ Symbolic Interaction 32: 91–105.

Whitbeck, Les B. and Dan R. Hoyt. 1999. Nowhere to Grow: Homeless and Runaway Adolescents and Their Families. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Williams, Jean Calterone. 2003. ‘‘A Roof Over My Head:’’ Homeless Women and the Shelter Industry. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.

Wright, Talmadge. 1997. Out of Place: Homeless Mobilizations, Subcities, and Contested Landscapes. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Experiencing Homelessness 85

ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 6/1 (2012): 72–85, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00432.x