ArticlePDF Available

From long-term homelessness to stable housing: investigating ‘liminality’

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

This paper uses the term ‘liminality’ to refer to the experience of feeling like an outsider when people are transitioning from one housing status (long-term homelessness) to another (housed). Three dimensions of liminality are identified: ‘material’, ‘relational’ and ‘psychological’. The material dimension covers how people feel about their housing and whether they find it difficult to make the transition from homeless to housed. The relational dimension focuses on whether people are able to rebuild relations with family and friends. The psychological dimension includes how people deal with the stigma of homelessness. The paper demonstrates that most people can overcome the material dimension of liminality if they are given appropriate support, but they find it more difficult to overcome the relational and psychological dimensions of liminality. We conclude that moving on from long-term homelessness is not straightforward and we point to the policy implications of these findings.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=chos20
Housing Studies
ISSN: 0267-3037 (Print) 1466-1810 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chos20
From long-term homelessness to stable housing:
investigating ‘liminality’
Chris Chamberlain & Guy Johnson
To cite this article: Chris Chamberlain & Guy Johnson (2018) From long-term homelessness
to stable housing: investigating ‘liminality’, Housing Studies, 33:8, 1246-1263, DOI:
10.1080/02673037.2018.1424806
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2018.1424806
Published online: 31 Jan 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 263
View Crossmark data
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2018.1424806
From long-term homelessness to stable housing:
investigating ‘liminality’
ChrisChamberlain and GuyJohnson
Centre for Applied Social Research, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
ABSTRACT
This paper uses the term ‘liminality’ to refer to the experience of feeling
like an outsider when people are transitioning from one housing status
(long-term homelessness) to another (housed). Three dimensions of
liminality are identied: ‘material’, ‘relational’ and ‘psychological’. The
material dimension covers how people feel about their housing and
whether they nd it dicult to make the transition from homeless
to housed. The relational dimension focuses on whether people are
able to rebuild relations with family and friends. The psychological
dimension includes how people deal with the stigma of homelessness.
The paper demonstrates that most people can overcome the material
dimension of liminality if they are given appropriate support, but they
nd it more dicult to overcome the relational and psychological
dimensions of liminality. We conclude that moving on from long-
term homelessness is not straightforward and we point to the policy
implications of these ndings.
Introduction
ere is a substantial body of literature that accepts that becoming homeless is best under-
stood as a process (for a review, see: Chamberlain & Johnson, 2013), but much less has been
written about the process of exiting from homelessness. is paper outlines a conceptual
framework to investigate the process by which people exit from long-term homelessness,
using the concept of ‘liminality’.
e term ‘liminality’ has been used in a number of dierent ways (omassen, 2009),
but we use it refer to people feeling like ‘outsiders’ following rehousing. ree potential
dimensions of liminality are identied: ‘material, ‘relational’ and ‘psychological’. e mate-
rial dimension covers how people feel about their housing. e relational area focuses on
people’s relations with friends and relatives. e psychological aspect covers how people
manage the stigma of homelessness.
To investigate whether people experience liminality requires in-depth information on
people’s experiences following rehousing. e paper draws on 157 interviews undertaken
over 2 years with 64 individuals who had experienced long-term homelessness. At the nal
interview, all of them were housed and most (87%) had been housed for 12months or longer.
KEYWORDS
Chronic homelessness;
community integration;
stigma; liminality
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 31 March 2017
Accepted3 January 2018
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Chris Chamberlain chris.chamberlain@rmit.edu.au
HOUSING STUDIES, 2018
VOL. 33, NO. 8, 1246–1263
e paper is structured as follows. First, we review studies of Housing First programmes
which show that 70–90% of the long-term homeless can be successfully rehoused. en,
we introduce the concept of ‘liminality’ to investigate what happens to people when they
are rehoused. Aer that, we outline our methodology. is is followed by a presentation
of ndings regarding the material, relational and psychological dimensions of liminality.
Finally, we point to the policy implications of our ndings.
Literature review
ere is a growing body of literature which nds that chronically homeless people can
be successfully rehoused if they are enrolled in ‘Housing First’ programmes rather than
traditional ‘Treatment First’ approaches (for example: Busch-Geertsema, 2013; Please &
Bretherton, 2013; Stefancic & Tsemberis, 2007; Tsemberis, 1999; Tsemberis & Eisenberg,
2000). Treatment First approaches move people through a series of stages, typically focusing
on their mental health and/or substance use. e aim is to stabilize homeless clients and
to provide them with sucient skills to maintain conventional housing. Treatment First
approaches are also referred to as ‘continuum of care’ or ‘staircase’ strategies to denote that
people move through a series of stages to establish that they are ‘housing ready’.
In contrast, proponents of Housing First argue that it is more eective to rst provide
people with conventional housing, and then to allow them to tackle other problems at their
own speed. e prototype for this approach is the Pathways to Housing model developed
by Sam Tsemberis and his colleagues in New York in the 1990s (Tsemberis, 1999, 2010a;
Tsemberis & Eisenberg, 2000). e approach is underpinned by ve core ideas: (1) housing
is a fundamental human right; (2) clients should be provided with housing before other
services are oered; (3) people undertake recovery at their own speed; (4) there is no
requirement for abstinence from drugs and alcohol; and (5) the aim is re-integration into
mainstream society.
Tsemberis & Eisenberg (2000) undertook the evaluation of the rst Pathways to Housing
programme. ey compared the housing outcomes for 242 persons enrolled in the pro-
gramme between 1993 and 1997 with the housing outcomes for 1,600 persons housed
enrolled in residential treatment programmes over the same time period. Aer ve years,
88% of the Housing First participants remained housed, compared with 47% of those in
Treatment First programmes. Other studies in the United States also report positive out-
comes for those enrolled in Housing First trials (Gulcur et al., 2003; Padgett et al., 2006;
Pearson et al., 2009; Stefanic & Tsemberis, 2007; Warnes et al., 2013). For example, Stefancic
& Tsemberis (2007) found that 84% of those in two Housing First programmes were still
housed aer two years and 68% were still housed aer four years.
Despite the apparent success of the Housing First approach, Tsemberis and colleagues
have become increasingly concerned about the delity of Housing First programmes to the
original model (Busch-Geertsema, 2013; Nelson et al., 2014; Please, 2011; Tsemberis, 2010b).
A particular concern for some people has been the delity of Housing First programmes
in Europe. e fundamental principles of the European Housing First approach are similar
to the original Housing First model: (1) that housing is a human right; (2) people should
be rehoused as quickly as possible; (3) people undertake recovery at their own speed; (4)
there is no requirement to abstain from alcohol and other drugs; (5) and the long-term aim
is re-integration into mainstream society. However, in Europe these principles underpin
HOUSING STUDIES
1247
a broad range of service delivery models (Johnson, 2012), and the goal is usually to house
people as quickly as possible, rather than ‘immediately’.
In 2011–2013, the European Commission funded test sites in ve cities to evaluate the
Housing First model. Four of these sites – Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Glasgow and Lisbon
– shared the main principles of Housing First as outlined above (Busch-Geertsema, 2013,
p. 5). e evaluation found that:
Housing retention rates in Amsterdam and Copenhagen were extraordinarily high (over 90
per cent …) In Glasgow … a similarly impressive rate of over 90 per cent was reported, and for
the project in Lisbon the retention rate was still very near to 80 per cent aer … three years.
(Busch-Geertsema, 2013, p. 7)
Pleace & Bretherton (2013) have also reviewed the European evidence. ey conclude:
… research on Housing First is nding consistent success for Housing First services in terms
of ending chronic homelessness across a range of countries … French or Danish Housing First
services, working in radically dierent contexts, achieve very similar results to those reported
in America … Housing First in Denmark, the Netherland, Canada and elsewhere ends chronic
homelessness for 80 per cent or more of service users … (Pleace & Bretherton, 2013, pp. 31–32)
Most of the studies that have been reviewed rely primarily on the number of people
who have been rehoused to establish that Housing First is eective. But it has already been
pointed out that another aim of Housing First is to re-integrate chronically homeless peo-
ple into mainstream society. According to Busch-Geertsema (2013, p. 70): ‘Community
integration … relates to social contacts … enabling persons in need to live, work, learn and
participate in their communities. Quilgars & Pleace (2016, p. 5) also refer to ‘the extent
to which formerly homeless people are able to live, work, learn and participate in their
communities’ but they refer to this as ‘social integration. In this paper, we use the terms
community integration’ and ‘social integration’ interchangeably.
According to Tsemberis (2010b) Housing First programmes do achieve community
integration:
Housing First seeks to help clients integrate into their community as fully as possible … Clients
frequently interact with their neighbours at the local market, laundromat, movie theatre, coee
shop or park. e clients share the same community and socialization opportunities as their
nondisabled neighbours. Clients soon discover that being a lease-holding apartment renter
… is an enormous boost to one’s autonomy, self-determination, metal health and dignity.
(Tsemberis 2010b, pp. 53–54)
However, in one atypical passage, he notes: ‘these programs … help individuals graduate
from the trauma of homelessness into the normal everyday misery of extreme poverty,
stigma and unemployment’ (Tsemberis, 2010a, p. 52).
In the European Commission research to evaluate Housing First, Busch-Geertsema
(2013, p. 87) concludes that the: ‘Housing First approach is to be recommended as a highly
successful way of ending homelessness for people with severe support needs’, and he goes on
to identify key elements that contribute to success. Despite this, he also warns that: ‘expecta-
tions of policy makers and service providers need to remain realistic. Ending homelessness
provides a platform for further steps towards social inclusion, but is not a guarantee for it’
(Busch-Geertsema, 2013, p. 11).
Others have argued that the evidence on community integration is equivocal. Quilgars
& Pleace (2016) have reviewed the international evidence drawing on studies conducted
in 12 countries. ey point out that existing studies oen use dierent denitions of social
1248
C. CHAMBERLAIN AND G. JOHNSON
integration, and dierent methods of assessment (Quilgars & Pleace 2016, p. 11). ey
conclude that it is not clear whether Housing First programmes deliver community inte-
gration or not:
A key conclusion from this review is that Housing First researchers, working with other social
scientists, need to develop better measure of social integration that can be utilised consistently
in future evaluations. (Quilgars & Pleace, 2016, p. 11)
is paper will attempt to ‘shed light’ on community integration using an Australian
case study. We focus on three issues: (1) how chronically people experience the transition
from homeless to housed; (2) whether they can rebuild their social networks following
rehousing; and (3) how they deal with the stigma attached to homelessness once they are
rehoused. Next, we introduce the concept of liminality to provide a conceptual framework
to investigate these issues.
Conceptual framework: liminality
Van Gennep (1960/2004) rst coined the term liminality in his book on rites de passage in
tribal societies. He argued that liminality refers to situations where individuals are between
social identities during ritual transitions. Turner (1967) used the term ‘liminality’ in much
the same way in his work on religion and ritual among the Ndembu people of Zambia.
Turner (2008, p. 95) coined the phrase that individuals are ‘betwixt and between’ worlds if
they are experiencing liminality. In van Gennep and Turner’s work, people experiencing
liminality are in ‘no-mans land’.
Social theorists have subsequently used liminality to understand a wide range of situ-
ations where individuals are between social identities, including: peoples experiences in
prison visiting rooms (Moran, 2013); the lives of sex workers in Brazil (de Meiss, 2002); the
process of transition in post-communist societies (Bauman, 1992); and the experiences of
refugees (Mortland, 1987). Hynes (2011) has written extensively about asylum seekers who
she refers to as ‘between liminality and belonging’. e notion of ‘living in limbo’ has also
been used to draw attention to the plight of refugees who live in an ‘intermediate state in
which one has exited from the old but is not yet accepted elsewhere’ (Bousquet, 1987, p. 34).
e idea of liminality has also been explored by a number of authors interested in home
-
lessness. ey contend that people experience liminality on the way to becoming chronically
homeless (Hopper, 2003; Hopper & Bauhmol, 1996; Snow & Anderson, 1993). According
to Hopper & Baumohl (1996, p. 5), ‘Liminality refers to the sometimes perilous passage
from one “status slot” to another’. Hopper (2003, p. 20) notes that when people rst become
homeless they are ‘betwixt and between’ worlds. e experience of liminality gradually fades
as they become enmeshed in the homeless subculture (Hopper, 2003, pp. 20–22).
Snow & Anderson (1993) also contend that people experience liminality on the way
to becoming chronically homeless, but they use the term in a slightly dierent way. ey
divide the homeless population into three groups: the ‘recently dislocated’, ‘straddlers’ and
outsiders. e recently dislocated are new to the homeless population and they oen show
‘a strong desire to return to the world from whence they came’ (Snow & Anderson, 1993,
p. 47). Outsiders have made a clear break from mainstream society and their priority is
surviving on the streets (Snow & Anderson, 1993, pp. 57–58). Straddlers experience limi-
nality because they remain attached to the world from which they have come, but they also
HOUSING STUDIES
1249
participate in the homeless subculture. ey straddle two quite dierent worlds. In this use
of the term, liminality refers to having a ‘foot in both worlds.
Previous authors have focused on the transition from housed to homeless. In contrast, we
investigate whether the long-term homeless experience liminality when they are rehoused.
As already indicated, the term ‘liminality’ refers to feeling like an outsider. People who
experience liminality when they are rehoused typically feel they ‘don’t t in, that they ‘can’t
cope’ or that they ‘don’t belong in this place or in this community’. e concept of liminality
is useful because it draws attention to how people make the transition from one housing
status (homeless) to another (housed).
is paper builds on the work of previous authors, but it oers a new insight. We identify
three potential types of liminality which we refer to as the ‘material’, ‘relational’ and ‘psy-
chological’ dimensions. e material aspect covers how people feel about their housing and
whether they nd it dicult to make the transition from homeless to housed. e relational
dimension focuses on how people rebuild relations with friends and relatives following
rehousing. e psychological area covers how people deal with the stigma of homelessness
once they are rehoused.
Methodology
Both services where we collected data were in Melbourne. e services followed the main
principles identied in the European version of Housing First. e rst service was a pilot
programme known as Journey to Social Inclusion (J2SI). e programme provided chron-
ically homeless people with intensive support for up to three years. To be eligible for the
J2SI programme, people had either: (1) to have slept rough continuously for 12months or
more; or (2) to have been homeless episodically for at least three years (Johnson et al., 2011,
p. 4). Forty people were recruited into the programme.
e second service was the Melbourne Street to Home (MS2H) programme. is provides
chronically homeless people with intensive support before they access housing, and with
intensive support for up to 12months aer permanent housing has been secured. ere
were 82 people invited to join this programme.
People recruited into MS2H were asked to take part in three in-depth interviews in the
rst two years, as were half of those recruited into J2SI. To be included in the sample for this
paper, respondents had to have been rehoused successfully aer joining their programme.
ey also had to have completed at least one in-depth interview. In total, 64 individuals
met these criteria and they had completed 157 interviews. Two years aer joining their
programme all 64 individuals were in social housing dispersed throughout the community.
However, they had been housed for dierent amounts of time: 73% had been housed for
18months or longer; 14% had been housed for between 12 and 17months; and 13% had
been housed for less than a year (Table 1).
e interviews focused on the participants’ experiences of homelessness, their health and
housing histories, their social relationships, their hopes for the future, and the factors that
contributed to successful rehousing. Most interviews yielded in-depth qualitative informa-
tion. e qualitative data-set was coded using NVIVO. We used coding categories associ-
ated with being homeless and with being housed – for example: experience on the streets;
drug and alcohol use; boarding houses; emergency accommodation; housing and home;
friends and family; identity and the management of stigma; aspirations for the future. When
1250
C. CHAMBERLAIN AND G. JOHNSON
qualitative data are used, people’s names and various personal details have been changed
to ensure condentiality. Ethics approval for the research was given by RMIT University.
Social characteristics
Seventy-ve per cent of the participants were male and 25% were female. Two-hs (38%)
of the respondents were aged 30–39; another one-third (31%) were aged 40–49; and one-
h (17%) were aged 50–59. e educational attainment of participants was low: 16% had
nished Year 12; 37% had completed Year 10 or Year 11; and 44% had le school before
completing Year 10 (Year 10 is currently the minimum leaving age).
Half (45%) of the respondents had their rst experience of homelessness when they were
18years old or younger. e average amount of time that had elapsed between people’s rst
experience of homelessness and their current experience was 19.2years. Most people had
moved out of the homeless population a number of times, but these returns to conventional
accommodation had subsequently broken down.
Almost all (94%) of the participants had slept rough, 92% had stayed in a boarding house
and 80% had been in crisis accommodation. Eighty-six per cent reported a chronic physical
health condition and 73% had experienced mental health issues. All of the participants
were receiving a government support payment and 86% had been on a support payment
for three years or longer.
Material dimension: housing and home
In this section, we investigate whether there is a material dimension to liminality. First,
we need to distinguish between liminiality and ontological security. In a famous paper,
Padgett (2007, p. 1926) dened ontological security as, ‘the feeling of well-being that arises
from a sense of constancy in one’s social and material environment’. Markers of ontological
security include ‘constancy, daily routines, privacy, and having a secure base for identity
construction’ (Padgett, 2007, p. 1925). Ontological security is primarily about outcomes. In
contrast, people who experience material liminality feel like outsiders in their new home.
Material liminality is about process, or how people make the transition from one housing
status to another.
First, we examine what happened to people when they returned to conventional accom-
modation. Did they experience the material dimension of liminality? en, we investigate
whether they achieved ontological security in the longer term.
e change from homeless to housed usually happens abruptly – as Tom said ‘one day
you’re homeless and the next you’re housed’. However, all of our respondents reported that
Table 1.Length of time houseda.
aInsufficient information on eight people to establish time housed.
HOUSING STUDIES
1251
this sudden change in their circumstances resulted in a period of acute disorientation. ere
were three main reasons for this.
First, none of the participants had furniture or white goods to put in their new home. Both
services provided basic furniture and kitchen equipment to get people started. Nonetheless,
nearly everyone lacked furniture when they were rst rehoused. Sandra said the rst year
was ‘pretty tough’ because ‘this was my rst home in a long time and everything I owned
had been lost or stolen. According to Tom, ‘e rst three months were the hardest. I knew
the place was mine but it was very bare. I only had my bed, my table and chairs, pots and
pans and … a crumby old TV’. Anthony said, ‘I had no furniture, no nothing until Street
to Home bought me some furniture and things. People were housed, but they did not have
the material possessions that make a ‘house into a home.
e second reason why the break with the past was stressful was because many people
felt isolated in their new accommodation. Sociologists have found that when routines are
disrupted many people experience ‘heightened anxiety’ (Giddens, 1984, p. 64). Oen they
feel lonely and uncertain about what to do. Anthony said that when he rst moved inside it
was ‘scary because I didn’t know no-one and I was very lonely’. According to Jobe, ‘I suppose
it was the boredom and the loneliness that got to me most.
e third reason why most people felt like outsiders was because they were not used to
running a home. Many people had diculty paying bills, cleaning the house, buying food,
and dealing with landlords and neighbours. For some, these were new skills that had to be
acquired. For others, these were skills that had been lost or forgotten. e responsibilities
that the housed take for granted are oen daunting to those not used to them. As Alex noted:
Because I’ve lived on the streets for a while I’ve never had responsibilities of paying rent, paying
this, paying that. All of a sudden I got a house and I got stuck paying this and that and it’s a
shock to the system.
When Ziggy was asked about paying bills and managing his home, he said: ‘I didn’t think
it would aect me as much as it did … It takes a while to get back into a routine. Running
a house is stressful for those with little experience.
Over time, many people began to overcome the material dimension of liminality and to
feel comfortable in their housing. ey began to develop the markers of ontological security.
One way people started to create ‘home’ was by lling their places with objects and things.
Some people purchased goods from second-hand shops and some were given furniture by
friends or relatives. Others recycled furniture that had been discarded. Bart told us, ‘I haven’t
paid for anything in my at. I’ve got a lot of it from hard rubbish collections … If I see it
and I like I it, then I take it home. People gradually acquired the furniture they needed to
make their place feel like ‘home. Brendan said: ‘It didn’t feel like home at rst … but once
you starting getting all the material stu then you know it’s yours’.
People oen use personal memorabilia as ways of signifying that their place is ‘home’
(Winstanley et al., 2002). Jobe told us that when he lived in emergency accommodation:
at was my home, but it wasn’t my home. Like I never unpacked my things or anything like
that. (Since I’ve had this place) I’ve unpacked everything and put pictures on the wall. I’ve
taken my photos out and put them up as well - because this is my home.
Other people chose particular colours that they liked or other forms of decoration that
signied it was ‘their place. Bess said:
1252
C. CHAMBERLAIN AND G. JOHNSON
I’ve made a few cushions. I’ve made curtains for the kitchen, purple ones for the lounge room
and blue ones for the bedroom and they all look really good … I’ve got all my plates up there
… yeah, it looks really cool!
It is not only the collecting of material objects that make a house into a home. Having
ones own ‘place and space’ helps people to feel in control of their lives. People reasserted
control in areas where housed people take control for granted. Ilona said:
Having a place of my own – it’s just so amazing! … You can shower, you can keep clean, you
can wash your clothes … Being in a house you can actually cook … It’s just so much better
when I cook for myself … When I was on the street I could never do that.
Jason remarked that having his own place had given him back ‘control of my life’. Control
over one’s space, autonomy to do what you want, and a feeling of safety and security are
all important psycho-social markers that people utilize to establish ‘home’ (Hiscock et al.,
2001; Kearns et al., 2000).
At the nal interview, we also asked respondents whether their place felt like ‘home’ and
most said it did. Rod said:
Home is somewhere where you can sit down and relax. You don’t have to get up at six o’clock
in the morning and walk away … You can be there 24h a day if you want and you don’t have
any hassles like the door being kicked in and torches shoved in your face. Shit, it’s magic
having a home.
Others referred to material things and giving the place to their ‘personal touch. Bart said,
‘Its completely decked out and it’s my touch, my smell, and it’s mine!’ Others said they could
now have access to their children: ‘Yeah, my kids come and visit me … It feels good’ (Alex).
Regardless of how people expressed their feelings about ‘home, there was evidence that
many people had achieved a degree of ontological security. is nding is consistent with
evidence from other studies of homeless people who have been rehoused. For example,
Padgett (2007, p. 1933) found that: ‘Markers of ontological security were clearly in evidence
for those living in their own apartments – a sense of control, reassuring daily routines,
privacy’. More recent research in Australia points in the same direction. In a study of 60
formerly homeless people in supportive housing in Brisbane, Parsell et al. (2016) found that
most people thought of their housing as ‘home, and this was a place where they controlled
daily routines and had autonomy and safety.
Overall, the ndings from our research are positive. People can overcome the material
dimension of liminality. However, it is important to remember that people overcame this
dimension of liminality at dierent speeds. Moreover, some people needed much more sup-
port than others. Nonetheless, having a house (and making it a home) does not necessarily
mean that people feel they ‘t in. e relational dimension of liminality draws attention to
the fact that people’s social relationships inuence how they experience the transition from
one housing status to another. Next we focus on those relationships.
Relational dimension: family and friends
More than 40years ago, American researchers argued that homeless people became pro-
gressively detached from their bonds with people in the mainstream community (Bahr,
1973; Bahr & Caplow, 1973). In an o quoted passage, Caplow et al. (1968, p. 494) wrote:
‘Homelessness is a condition of detachment from society characterized by the absence or
HOUSING STUDIES
1253
attenuation of the aliative bonds that link settled persons to a network of interconnected
social structures’. Most of our respondents reported that they lost contact with friends and
family once they became homeless.
Next, we investigate whether there is a relational dimension to liminality. When people
make the transition from long-term homelessness into conventional housing do they feel
like outsiders, or can they rebuild relations with friends and relatives? First, we examine
friends, then we examine relatives.
As was pointed out above, most people lost contact with their friends aer they became
homeless. However, people usually acquired large numbers of casual acquaintances on
the streets and some people formed new friendships with other homeless people. Snow
& Anderson (1993) point out that the homeless subculture is not based on a set of shared
values as is the case with many subcultures. Rather, the distinctiveness of the homeless
subculture resides in the fact that it is a patterned set of behaviours and orientations that
are a response to the predicament of homelessness itself:
All too oen, individuals nd themselves thrown together in a common fate or dilemma not
of their own choosing … What these similarly situated individuals have in common is not a
strong and recognizable set of values, but a shared fate … is common predicament … give(s)
rise to an identiably unique set of behaviors, daily routines, and cognitive orientations and
may thus be construed as a subculture, albeit a limited or incomplete one. (Snow & Anderson,
1993, p. 39)
One consequence of this is that relationships between homeless people are oen based on
‘necessity’ at the time, rather than underpinned by shared values.
Once our respondents were rehoused, most of them did not maintain their friendships
with homeless people. When asked about his former friends, Adrian said: ‘No I avoid them
like the plague … eres nothing there for me now’. Other people said they were ‘polite’ if
they met former acquaintances in the street, but they never invited them home. Few people
maintained contact with friends who were still homeless.
However, most people did not reconnect with friends they had before they became home-
less. e preferred option was to develop new friendships. At her nal interview, Helen told
us that she had made ‘a couple of women friends’ and she had invited one of them home.
Ed had ‘a really good neighbour who lives next door’ and Daniel had made some friends
through his football team. Shane had made new friends at his further education course,
and Ilona had four neighbours that she spoke to regularly.
Typically, it takes time for people to build close friendships, and some of the new friends
are probably better described as ‘acquaintances’ or ‘casual friends’. Anthony had met people
in the local community, but: ‘I guess they’re associates, not real friends … I wouldn’t rely on
them. Similarly, Bess had new acquaintances but ‘not new friends, not really’. A minority
(about 20%) of our respondents had been ‘loners’ while they were on the streets and most
of them remained isolated. Overall, building new friendships was challenging and some
people were better at making new friends than others.
Rebuilding family relationships was also not straightforward. One-third (32%) of the
participants had been in state out-of-home care. eir family relationships were oen char-
acterized by traumatic experiences such as abuse, rejection or neglect and some people had
no desire to re-engage with their family. Doug had a family but he did not: ‘know if they
are alive or dead. And I don’t care anymore. Ziggy said:
1254
C. CHAMBERLAIN AND G. JOHNSON
I think it’s been over ve years since I’ve had any contact with any family members … there’s
been too much water under the bridge. ere was just nothing there as a child and there still
isn’t much there, I’m afraid.
However, many people did want to rebuild relationships with family members, particu-
larly parents. For example, Maureen was now much closer to her mother:
e last eight months have been fabulous with my mum now I’m no longer dependent on
alcohol … Our relationship is wonderful, it’s better than it’s ever been. She’s learnt to talk and
listen and I’ve learnt to talk and listen.
Similarly, Anthony said:
Me old man’s a lot soer now, you know, he’s 65, so he’s heading for retirement. It’s not a father
and son thing but we get along OK. Me mum, yeah, we get along great. And I’ve got me brother.
Hes married with kids. He wants me to go over there tonight and watch the footy.
For those people who had their own families, the priority was oen rebuilding relation-
ships with children. Lamar was elated that he could now see his sons: ‘I’ve worked so hard
to get this place and the boys love it. Others were determined to maintain their housing
because they wanted to see their children. Brendan said:
Being homeless has done a lot of damage. I’ve always had my children around me. To suddenly
have them ordered from you makes you angry … My (support) worker attended the court
hearing with me and all the previous orders were dismissed … My son is at my house now.
Nonetheless, in some cases relationships had improved with some children but not with
others. Shane said:
I have regular contact with my daughter … we have a grouse relationship. My son isn’t the
best. Like I said I don’t talk to him. I know he’s got issues with me in the past … But, yeah, I
just hope that one day he can nd space to forgive me …
Respondents were asked whether they felt accepted by their family. Table 2 shows that
at the rst interview 32% felt accepted by their family and this increased to 47% at the nal
interview. Another 13% felt accepted by some family members, but not others. Clearly, some
people had started to rebuild family relationships, particularly with children. However, at
the nal interview, 40% still did not feel accepted by their family. Getting used to living in
a house takes time, but for many people rebuilding family relationships takes longer and
in some cases rebuilding family relationships is not possible.
Sociologists have long recognized that family and friends connect individuals to a com-
munity. Relational liminality draws attention to another set of social challenges that people
face making the transition from homeless to housed. ese relational challenges are complex
because developing social relationships is a process that takes time. If we had observed the
64 individuals over a longer time frame, more people might have transitioned through
this stage. Social relationships also inuence how we think others see us and how we see
ourselves. In the next section, we focus on social identity.
Table 2.Accepted by family (%)a.
aNot all respondents answered this question. In some cases this was because they had no contact with family. In other cases,
the respondent was single and parents were deceased.
Baseline (N = 56) 24months (N = 47)
Yes, definitely 32 47
Yes, a bit 14 13
No, not particularly/not at all 54 40
100 100
HOUSING STUDIES
1255
Psychological dimension: managing stigma
In Australia, there are conicting images of homeless people in the public discourse. For
example, the Australian Government’s (2008) publication, e Road Home: A National
Approach to Reducing Homelessness, portrayed homeless people as victims of circumstances
and deserving of assistance. In contrast, the mass media sometimes portrays homeless
people in a very dierent light. Farrugia (2011) points out that: ‘Popular and media rep-
resentations construct “the homeless” as morally suspect, irresponsible, dangerous, dirty,
obscene or lacking subjectivity’ (Farrugia, 2011, p. 72). Similarly, Quilgars & Pleace (2016,
p. 8) note that media images of homelessness emphasize ‘individual pathology’ and the
failings of homeless people. When such typications of homeless people are widespread,
then a process of stigmatization has begun.
e famous American/Canadian sociologist, Erving Goman (1963, p. 3) dened stigma
as an ‘attribute that is deeply discrediting’ and that reduces the bearer from a ‘usual person
to a tainted, discounted one’. Link & Phelan (2001) have built upon Gomans work. ey
point out that: ‘people are stigmatized when … they are labelled, set apart, and linked to
undesirable characteristics’ (Link & Phelan, 2001, p. 371) and this leads them to experience
status loss and discrimination. When people feel stigmatized, they are acutely aware that
other people look down on them, although they may feel that this opprobrium is unjustied.
First, we review a number of studies which indicate that homeless people in Australia
feel that homelessness is a devalued identity. en, we investigate whether our respondents
thought that other people looked down on them because of their homelessness. Finally, we
investigate whether our respondents were able to leave the stigma of homelessness behind
once they were rehoused.
A number of studies indicate that homeless people have low self-esteem. For example,
Parker & Fopp (2004, p. 147) found that 20 women using a homeless service in Adelaide
repeated ‘aspects of the dominant discourse, blaming themselves for their homelessness. In
another study, Zuery & Kerr (2004) found that nine homeless adults experienced stigma
and discrimination. Mallett et al. (2010, p. 167) interviewed 40 homeless young people in
Melbourne. e researcher team found that young people blamed themselves (or their fam-
ilies) for their situation. In Farrugias (2011) study of 20 homeless youth, he found that the
young people knew that ‘homelessness’ connotes ‘attributes which are considered oensive
or reprehensible’ (Farrugia, 2011, p. 78). Farrugia argues that homeless people (young or
old) have to deal with the ‘symbolic burden of homelessness’, although he notes that this
‘burden’ can be managed in dierent ways.
Consistent with other studies, most of our respondents thought that other people looked
down on them because of their homelessness, or that they would look down upon them
if they knew about their homelessness. In the rst case, one is dealing with what Goman
(1963, p. 4) terms the plight of the discredited; and in the second case one is dealing with the
plight of the discreditable; although in practice most people are likely to have encountered
both situations.
Our respondents felt discredited when people in the mainstream community treated
them dierently because of their homelessness. ey oen claimed that such treatment
was unjust and unreasonable. For example, Nancy told us:
ey just look at you like you’re a piece of shit, you know what I mean? But it’s the truth, it’s
the way they look at you. ey look down on you … It’s not nice the way they look at you
1256
C. CHAMBERLAIN AND G. JOHNSON
because they don’t realise what you’ve been through … ey don’t know shit about the person.
ey just judge them.
Similarly, Jobe said:
Well, most people look down on you if you have nowhere to stay … you can be sitting there
with a big bag of clothes and so forth, just trying to rake up a few dollars on the streets so
you can get a drink and a feed … and they look down on you. ere’s too much judgment of
homeless people.
Others thought they were potentially discreditable. ey said that people would look
down on them if they knew they were homeless. For example, Keith said that he had never
told his family about his homelessness because they would be ‘absolutely horried’. Similarly,
Bess said: ‘My family would have a t if they knew I was sleeping rough. Keith and Bess
knew how signicant others would view their situation without needing to ask them. ey
knew that other people saw homelessness as a devalued social identity.
Could people jettison the stigma of homelessness once they were rehoused? e evidence
indicates that some people were much better at doing this than others. For some people,
holding on to a house and successfully managing a home had markedly improved their
self-esteem. For example, Bess said:
(Having a home) has helped me grow in a lot of ways. Yep, I can live on my own. I can look aer
myself on my own and on my budget … I like seeing what I am capable of doing, you know.
Like, I’m not such a bad person aer all. (Having a home) helps a lot with your condence.
When Sergei was asked whether he felt more accepted by society his sense of self-worth
was obvious: ‘I mean people look at me and they say: Well, he’s doing really well that Sergei,
doing really well. Doing a good job and he’s been housed for nearly 12months.
Others spoke specically of feeling part of the community. Brendan said: ‘Yeah, I did
feel stigmatised when I was homeless. Now I wholly feel like I’m part of the community
again. According to Mithran: ‘It’s a marked change from a year ago … Like I’m going out
and doing things with the kids … I’m getting a sense of community back’. Maurice said:
Having a roof over your head makes a big dierence. I feel more settled, more connected
with the community and everything’.
Table 3 shows that at the baseline interview 73% of our respondents felt that some people
looked down on them because of their homelessness and this had decreased to 50% at the
nal interview. is is a substantial decrease, but it still means that half continued to feel
that some people looked down on them.
Some who continued to feel the eects of stigma said that they no longer mixed with
homeless people but they found it dicult to t in to the community. For example, Lena
said that it is hard to jettison the stigma of homelessness:
It’s very hard to get rid of that stigma and it’s very hard to nd friends because you don’t want
to be friends with straight people and you can’t be friends with homeless people because they’re
too bad for you. It’s hard to nd a happy medium.
Table 3.Some people look down on me because of my homelessness.
HOUSING STUDIES
1257
Others implied that they were ‘between worlds. For example, Sandra was doing a further
education course and meant ‘to be leaving my old world behind’. Nonetheless, she still found
it dicult to ‘t in’ and was nding that ‘quite challenging’:
So I don’t know where I t in and even though I am studying I still don’t know where I t in
studying. I’m supposed to be leaving my old world behind and trying to seek a new one and
study and meet new people but its just not happening … I am nding that quite challenging.
A minority continued to feel like outsiders long aer they have been rehoused. Josh told us:
I don’t feel part of the community … it’s been two years since I got a place and I’m still nding
it dicult out here. I’m still nding it really hard to incorporate myself into society and feel
like part of a group. I’m nding it really hard to meet people and make friends.
People were also asked whether they felt accepted by society. is was a more general
question that did not ask specically about homelessness. Table 4 shows that 35% felt cer-
tain they were accepted. Another 26% thought they were accepted ‘a bit’, implying that they
did not feel accepted by everyone; and 39% felt certain they were not accepted. Overall, it
appears that about two-hs (39%) of our respondents felt like ‘outsiders’ from mainstream
society, and another one-quarter (26%) felt ‘on the margins’.
We have seen that the number of people who felt looked down upon because of their
homelessness declined from 73% at the rst interview to 50% at the nal interview (Table
3). is indicates that the stigma attached to homelessness is not a ‘categorical identity’, and
that people can jettison this stigma over time (Johnson et al., 2008, p. 199). Nonetheless,
we think this is oen a protracted process. It can take people many years to come to terms
with having had a stigmatized identity, and some people monitor information about their
past long aer they have been rehoused.
Conclusion
is paper has drawn attention to the fact that exiting from long-term homelessness is best
understood as a process, rather than a straightforward transition from one housing status to
another. We have also outlined a conceptual framework to understand this process, using
the concept of liminality. Of course, there are some obvious limitations to our research. is
was a small study carried out in one city, and our ndings will need to be tested in other
settings, possibly using more robust quantitative techniques. Nonetheless, we think there
are some broader implications of our ndings and we turn to these next.
In recent years, assisting the long-term homeless into housing as quickly as possible has
become an important policy focus in many countries. e logic behind this shi is that
once people are moved into permanent housing they have stability and security in their
lives. is enables them to start working on other issues which are too dicult to confront
when they are homeless. e logic of such an approach is compelling and the evidence
convincing. As has already been pointed out, Housing First programme have achieved
Table 4.Accepted by society (%).
Baseline (N = 54) 24months (N = 49)
Yes, definitely 28 35
Yes, a bit 24 26
No, not particularly/not at all 48 39
100 100
1258
C. CHAMBERLAIN AND G. JOHNSON
high retention rates in the United States and in various European countries. In Australia,
projects in Sydney and Brisbane have reported retention rates of 90 and 95%, respectively,
aer 12months (Parsell et al., 2013a, 2013b), and projects in Sydney and Melbourne report
retention rates of 89 and 86%, respectively, aer 24months (Conroy et al., 2014; Johnson et
al., 2012). High retention rates demonstrate that given the opportunity and the right support
chronically homeless people can maintain their housing. e success of Housing First has
not only shied perceptions about the chronically homeless, but has also challenged the
orthodoxy of providing ‘treatment rst’.
However, what has been overlooked in the excitement of such promising housing out-
comes is the capacity of programmes to assist the long-term homeless overcome social
isolation and exclusion, core goals of Housing First. Cautionary statements in the literature
about the limitations of Housing First are oen overlooked by advocates who appear ‘bedaz-
zled’ by housing retention rates of 80–90% (Busch-Geertsema, 2013, p. 11). For example,
in Australia it is said that the long-term homeless can be successfully rehoused and ‘begin
travelling the journey to social inclusion and real participation in our community’ (Smith,
2012, p. 3). Presenting Housing First as a ‘magic bullet’ creates two potential problems.
First, if Housing First underperforms against inated expectations regarding the benets
it can deliver, there is a risk that the eectiveness of the programme will be called into
question and funding put at risk (Kertesz & Johnson, 2017). is would be a major setback.
e second problem is that unrealistic expectations can lead to an underestimation of the
challenges of re-integration. Our study indicates that community re-integration is dicult
for a number of reasons.
First, when the long-term homeless are rehoused, everyone feels like an outsider in their
new home. Most people can overcome the material dimension of liminality if they are
given appropriate support, but some people make this transition more quickly than oth-
ers. Addressing the material dimension of liminality emphasizes the importance of having
ongoing post-settlement support arrangements to assist people through the initial period
of adjustment and to help them develop the skills and condence to keep their housing
(Lennon et al., 2005; Susser et al., 1997). Our ndings provide a cautionary reminder to
those policy-makers who believe that cases should be closed once housing is procured.
Second, people nd it more dicult to overcome the relational aspect of liminality.
Rebuilding family relationships is important. Parents or siblings can oen provide emotional
support or practical assistance when people need help, and these are ‘signiers’ that one is
accepted by other family members. However, we found that rebuilding family relationships
oen takes time, and for some people rebuilding family relationships is not possible. As
many as 40% of our participants did not feel accepted by their family, even though they
had been rehoused for 12months or longer.
ird, people nd it most dicult to leave behind the stigma attached to homelessness.
ere is a psychological dimension to liminality that is particularly dicult to overcome.
Most of our respondents had been successfully rehoused, but half of the participants still
thought that people looked down on them because they had been homeless. People continue
to feel embarrassed and ashamed about what has happened to them long aer they have
been rehoused. ey are in mainstream housing like other people, but they do not feel fully
accepted because they continue to carry the symbolic burden of homelessness.
We have no doubt that having one’s own place is an important signier of ‘normal-
ity’. Nonetheless, formerly homeless people face other barriers to re-entering ‘mainstream
HOUSING STUDIES
1259
society, including dealing with stigma and rebuilding social relationships. Further, par-
ticipants in Housing First programmes oen remain unemployed aer they have been
rehoused. In their international review, Quilgars & Pleace (2016, p. 10) point out:
Available evidence does not suggest that Housing First services generate high levels of employ-
ment amongst participants … Results from the Housing First Europe study found that very
few participants were in paid work … a result similar to the ndings of a study of nine pilot
Housing First services in England (Bretherton & Pleace, 2015) … (A) large study of Housing
First outcomes in the USA (550 homeless people across 11 sites) found no signicant dierences
in levels of employment of participants aer one year … (Tsai et al., 2012)
All of our respondents remained unemployed or outside of the labour force at their nal
interview, and this is likely to have contributed to their sense of not tting in. Indeed, the
formerly homeless, like other marginalized groups, can nd themselves ‘part of society,
but sometimes never fully integrated’ (omassen, 2009, p. 19), even though they have
been rehoused.
Addressing homelessness and social exclusion are both important policy priorities. Much
progress has been made. Housing First programmes have made a signicant contribution
to addressing the problem of chronic homelessness. However, it is equally clear that there
is much work to do. It is crucial that the goal of community re-integration remain at the
forefront to policy-makers and service providers’ minds. Chronic social isolation is linked to
poor mental health, poor physical health, increased risk of suicide, as well as homelessness
(Wilkinson & Marmot, 2003). Without an explicit focus on social exclusion, many of the
housing gains that have been reported may well be lost. is would be a waste of resources.
Policy-makers should fund programmes that identify both housing retention and commu-
nity reintegration as core outcomes.
is paper makes a contribution to the literature on long-term homelessness by providing
a conceptual framework to understand how people negotiate the transition from homeless
to housed. We have shown that the transition out of long-term homelessness involves people
having to deal with the material, relational and psychological dimensions of liminality. In
addition, we have pointed out that people negotiate these transitions in dierent ways and
at dierent speeds. ese ndings have obvious implications for service providers, and we
have noted how some transitions appear to be more dicult than others. Policy-makers also
need to be aware of the enduring impact of long-term homelessness, and that people come to
terms with this in dierent ways and at dierent speeds. In our view, we need programmes
that achieve both housing retention and community reintegration as core outcomes.
Acknowledgements
e researchers would like to thank all the people who participated in the study for sharing their
experiences. We also wish to thank the sta at HomeGround Services (now ‘Launch Housing’) and
e Salvation Army Adult Services for their insights. Special thanks to Sandra Sesa for her invaluable
work on the data collection.
Disclosure statement
e authors have no nancial interest or benet arising from the application of their research.
1260
C. CHAMBERLAIN AND G. JOHNSON
Funding
e Melbourne Street to Home (MS2H) project was funded by the Australian Government
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Aairs under the National
Homelessness Research Partnership. Additional funding was provided by HomeGround Services;
the Salvation Army Adult Services; and the Salvation Army Crisis Services. e Journey to Social
Inclusion (J2SI) project was funded by Sacred Heart Mission (St.Kilda).
Notes on contributors
Chris Chamberlain is Emeritus Professor, Centre for Applied Social Research, RMIT University. He
has a special interest in pathways into and out of homelessness.
Guy Johnson is the inaugural Unison Chair of Urban Housing and Homelessness at RMIT University.
He leads the Unison Housing Research Program which looks at failings in the housing system and
preventative measures to alleviate disadvantage.
References
Australian Government (2008) e Road Home: A National Approach to Reducing Homelessness
(Canberra: Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Aairs).
Bahr, H. M. (1973) Skid Row: An Introduction to Disaliation (New York: Oxford University Press).
Bahr, H. M. & Caplow, T. (1973) Old Men: Drunk and Sober (New York: New York University Press).
Bauman, Z. (1992) Intimations of Postmodernity (London: Routledge).
Bousquet, G. (1987) Living in a state of limbo: A case study of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong
camps, in: S. Morgan & E. Colson (Eds) People in Upheaval, pp. 34–53 (New York, NY: Centre for
Migration Studies).
Bretherton, J. & Pleace, N. (2015) Housing First in England (York: University of York).
Busch-Geertsema, V. (2013) Housing First Europe: Final Report Bremen/Brussels: European Union
Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity – PROGRESS, 2007–2013.
Caplow, T., Bahr, H. M. & Sternberg, D. (1968) Homelessness, in: D. Sills (Ed) International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 6, pp. 494–499 (New York, NY: Macmillan).
Chamberlain, C. & Johnson, G. (2013) Pathways into adult homelessness, Journal of Sociology, 49(1),
pp. 60–77.
Conroy, E., Bower, M., Flatau, P., Zaretzky, K., Eardley, T. & Burns, L. (2014) e MISHA Project:
From Homelessness to Sustained Housing, 2010–2013 (Sydney: Mission Australia).
Farrugia, D. (2011) e symbolic burden of homelessness: Towards a theory of youth homelessness
as embodied subjectivity, Journal of Sociology, 47(1), pp. 71–87.
Giddens, A. (1984) e Constitution of Society: Outline of the eory of Structuration (Berkeley:
University of California Press).
Goman, E. (1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (Englewood Clis, NJ:
Prentice Hall).
Gulcur, L., Stefancic, A., Shinn, M., Tsemberis, S. & Fischer, S. N. (2003) Housing, hospitalization,
and cost outcomes for homeless individuals with psychiatric disabilities participating in continuum
of care and housing rst programmes, Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 13(2),
pp. 171–186.
Hiscock, R., Kearns, A., MacIntyre, S. & Ellaway, A. (2001) Ontological security and psycho-social
benets from the home: Qualitative evidence on issues of tenure, Housing, eory and Society,
18(1–2), pp. 50–66.
Hopper, K. (2003) Reckoning with Homelessness (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
Hopper, K. & Baumohl, J. (1996) Redening the cursed word: A historical interpretation of American
homelessness, in: J. Baumohl (Ed) Homelessness in America, pp. 3–14 (Phoenix, AZ: e Oryx
Press).
HOUSING STUDIES
1261
Hynes, P. (2011) e Dispersal and Social Exclusion of Asylum Seekers: Between Liminality and
Belonging (Bristol: e Policy Press).
Johnson, G. (2012) Housing rst ‘down under’: Revolution, realignment or rhetoric?, European Journal
of Homelessness, 6(2), pp. 183–191.
Johnson, G., Gronda, H. & Coutts, S. (2008) On the Outside: Pathways in and Out of Homelessness
(Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing).
Johnson, G., Kuehnle, D., Parkinson, S. & Tseng, Y. (2012) Meeting the Challenge? Transitions out of
Long-term Homelessness (St Kilda: Sacred heart Mission).
Johnson, G., Parkinson, S., Tseng, Y. & Kuehnle, D. (2011) Long-term Homelessness: Understanding
the Challenge – 12 Months Outcomes from the Journey to Social Inclusion Pilot Program (St Kilda:
Sacred Heart Mission).
Kearns, A., Hiscock, R., Ellaway, A. & MaCintyre, S. (2000) ‘Beyond four walls’. e psycho-social
benets of home: Evidence from west central Scotland, Housing Studies, 15(3), pp. 387–410.
Kertesz, S. & Johnson, G. (2017) Housing rst: Lessons from the United States and challenges for
Australia, Australian Economic Review, 50(2), pp. 220–228.
Lennon, M. C., McAllister, W., Kuang, L. & Herman, D. (2005) Capturing intervention eects over
time: Reanalysis of a critical time intervention for homeless mentally ill men, American Journal
of Public Health, 95(10), pp. 1760–1766.
Link, B. G. & Phelan, J. C. (2001) Conceptualizing stigma, Annual Review of Sociology, 27, pp. 363–385.
Mallett, S., Rosenthal, R., Keys, D. & Averill, R. (2010) Moving out, moving on: Young people’s pathways
in and through homelessness (London: Routledge).
Meis, C. (2002) House and street: Narratives of identity in a liminal space among prostitutes in Brazil,
Ethos, 30(1/2), pp. 3–24.
Moran, D. (2013) Between outside and inside? Prison visiting rooms as liminal carceral spaces,
GeoJournal, 78, pp. 339–351.
Mortland, C. A. (1987) Transforming refugees in refugee camps, Urban Anthropology and Studies of
Cultural Systems and World Economic Development, 16(3–4), pp. 375–404.
Nelson, G., Stefancic, A., Rae, J., Townley, G., Tsemberis, Sam, Macnaughton, Eric & Aubry, Tim
(2014) Early implementation evaluation of a multi-site housing rst intervention for homeless
people with mental illness: A mixed methods approach, Evaluation and Program Planning, 43,
pp. 16–26.
Padgett, D. (2007) ere’s no place like (a) home: Ontological security among persons with serious
mental illness in the United States, Social Science and Medicine, 64(9), pp. 1925–1936.
Padgett, D., Gulcur, L. & Tsemberis, S. (2006) Housing rst services for people who are homeless with
co-occurring serious mental illness and substance abuse, Research on Social Work, 16(1), pp. 74–83.
Parker, S. M. & Fopp, R. (2004) ‘I’m the Slice of Pie that’s Ostracised …. Foucault’s Technologies, and
Personal Agency, in the Voice of Women who are Homeless, Adelaide, South Australia, Housing,
eory and Society, 21, pp. 145–154.
Parsell, C., Tomaszewski, W. & Jones, A. (2013a) An Evaluation of Sydney Way2Home: Final Report
Brisbane: University of Queensland, Institute for Social Science Research.
Parsell, C., Tomaszewski, W. & Jones, A. (2013b) An Evaluation of Brisbane Street to Home: Final
Report Brisbane: University of Queensland, Institute for Social Science Research.
Parsell, C., Petersen, M. & Moutou, O. (2016) Single-site supportive housing: Tenant perspectives,
Housing Studies, 30(8), pp. 1189–1209.
Pearson, C., Montgomery, A. E. & Locke, G. (2009) Housing stability among homeless individuals with
serious mental illness participating in housing rst programs, Journal of Community Psychology,
37(3), pp. 404–417.
Please, N. (2011) e ambiguities, limits and risks of Housing First from a European perspective,
European Journal of Homelessness, 5(2), pp. 113–127.
Please, N. & Bretherton, J. (2013) e case for Housing First in the European Union: A critical
evaluation of concerns about eectiveness, European Journal of Homelessness, 7(2), pp. 21–41.
Quilgars, D. & Pleace, N. (2016) Housing rst and social integration: A realistic aim?, Social Inclusion,
4(4), pp. 5–15.
Smith, J. (2012) Editorial: Ending long-term homelessness, Parity, 25(5), p. 3.
1262
C. CHAMBERLAIN AND G. JOHNSON
Snow, D. A. & Anderson, L. (1993) Down on their Luck: A Study of Homeless Street People (Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California Press).
Stefancic, A. & Tsemberis, S. (2007) Housing rst for long-term shelter dwellers with psychiatric
disabilities in a suburban county: A four-year study of housing access and retention, e Journal
of Primary Prevention, 28(3–4), pp. 265–279.
Susser, E., Valencia, E., Conover, S., Felix, A., Tsai, W. Y. & Wyatt, R. J. (1997) Preventing recurrent
homelessness among mentally ill men: A “critical time” intervention aer discharge from a shelter,
American Journal of Public Health, 87(2), pp. 256–262.
omassen, B. (2009) e uses and meanings of liminality, International Political Anthropology,
2(1), pp. 5–28.
Tsai, J., Mares, A. S. & Rosenheck, R. A. (2012) Does housing chronically homeless adults lead to
social integration?, Psychiatric Services, 63(5), pp. 427–434.
Tsemberis, S. (1999) From streets to homes: An innovative approach to supported housing for
homeless adults with psychiatric disabilities, Journal of Community Psychology, 27(2), pp. 225–241.
Tsemberis, S. (2010a) Housing rst: Ending homelessness, promoting recovery and reducing costs,
in: I. G. Ellen and B. O’Flaherty (Eds) How to House the Homeless, pp. 37–56 (New York, NY:
Russell Sage Foundation).
Tsemberis, S. (2010b) Housing First: e Pathways Model to End Homelessness for People with Mental
Illness and Addiction (Center City, MN: Hazelden).
Tsemberis, S. & Eisenberg, R. F. (2000) Pathways to housing: Supported housing for street-dwelling
homeless individuals with psychiatric disabilities, Psychiatric Services, 51(4), pp. 487–493.
Turner, V. (1967) e Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press).
Turner, V. (2008) e Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction)
(rst published in 1969).
Van Gennep, A. (2004) e Rites of Passage (London: Routledge) (rst published in 1960).
Warnes, A., Crane, M. & Coward, S. (2013) Factors that inuence the outcomes of single homeless
people’s rehousing, Housing Studies, 28(5), pp. 782–798.
Wilkinson, R. & Marmot, M. (Eds) (2003) Social Determinants of Health: e Solid Facts, 2nd ed.
(Denmark: World Health Organisation).
Winstanley, A., orns, D. C. & Perkins, H. C. (2002) Moving house, creating home: Exploring
residential mobility, Housing Studies, 17(6), pp. 813–832.
Zuerey, C. & Kerr, L. (2004) Identity and everyday experiences of homelessness: some implications
for social work, Australian Social Work, 57(4), pp. 343–353.
HOUSING STUDIES
1263
... In addition to this, Marielle also noted that there was a lack of support for people who have exited homelessness, which links to participants' needs not being met (Fraser et al., 2021(Fraser et al., , 2023b The trauma of her experiences while homelessness, combined with her transition back into housing, was a struggle for Marielle as she exited homelessness. Exiting homelessness is a "liminal space" wherein the individual is in between social identities during a transitional period (Chamberlain & Johnson, 2018). There are three potential sites of liminality in exiting homelessness; material, relational, and psychological (Chamberlain & Johnson, 2018). ...
... Exiting homelessness is a "liminal space" wherein the individual is in between social identities during a transitional period (Chamberlain & Johnson, 2018). There are three potential sites of liminality in exiting homelessness; material, relational, and psychological (Chamberlain & Johnson, 2018). The material site refers to how people feel about their housing, the relation to people's relationships with friends and family, and the psychological aspect of how people manage the stigma of homelessness (Chamberlain & Johnson, 2018). ...
... There are three potential sites of liminality in exiting homelessness; material, relational, and psychological (Chamberlain & Johnson, 2018). The material site refers to how people feel about their housing, the relation to people's relationships with friends and family, and the psychological aspect of how people manage the stigma of homelessness (Chamberlain & Johnson, 2018). As we can see, the trauma of experiencing homelessness often left Marielle in a liminal state, and despite these difficulties, there was minimal support available for her during this time. ...
Article
Full-text available
Although Takatāpui/ lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, questioning, plus (LGBTIQ+) people are over-represented in homelessness statistics, there is limited qualitative research that explores the enduring effects of homelessness once they have attained housing stability. Using data from eight semi-structured interviews, we explore life after homelessness for Takatāpui/LGBTIQ+ people in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Results show the long-term ramifications of homelessness, stigma, and shame about having experienced homelessness, participants’ desire to “turn their lives around,” and their experiences of supporting others. These findings show that experiencing homelessness influences people’s lives long after they are housed.
... While nearly all the women in our research had a physical place to live and therefore some minimal level of material security, they did not "feel" security (Chamberlain and Johnson 2018;Easthope 2004;Perez Murcia 2019). The women felt ill at ease within homelessness accommodation not only because such places are often very poorly maintained, overcrowded, unpredictable and stressful (Watts and Blenkinso, 2022), but because of an inherent spatial liminality: "the spaces themselves a daily reminder of an in-between existence" (O'Reilly, 827). ...
Article
Full-text available
A pervasive barrier to preventing, reducing, and ending homelessness is the stigmatization of and discrimination towards persons experiencing homelessness (PEH), termed “homeism.” To date, there has been no systematic review of the experiences and outcomes of stigmatization and discrimination among PEH or interventions to reduce this discrimination. To fill this gap in the literature, we conducted a scoping review to identify the ways in which PEH have been stigmatized and discriminated against, the results of these experiences, and interventions that have been used to reduce stigma and discrimination. We reviewed results from 12 databases with no date restrictions; 205 studies met our inclusion criteria. Thematic data analyses resulted in the identification of 12 categories. Using community consultation, the scoping review themes were reviewed and validated with 25 PEH or service providers in the homelessness sector and their feedback integrated into our results. Thematic categories included discrimination and stigmatization in healthcare, social services, workplaces and employment, and public spaces by the general public; discrimination and stigmatization from landlords, police and security guards, informal social networks, and by PEH toward PEH; discrimination and stigmatization linked to intersectional domains; PEH feelings about discrimination and stigmatization; outcomes of discrimination and stigmatization for PEH; and interventions to reduce stigma, discrimination, and prejudice towards PEH. Based on findings from this review, we argue that homeism serves as a social determinant of health as PEH confront multiple barriers to housing, income security, and healthcare due to interpersonal, institutional, structural, and intrapersonal stigmatization and discrimination.
Article
Not often implemented with emerging adults (18 – 25 years), permanent supportive housing (PSH) is an intervention which aims to support transitions from chronic housing insecurity. Ontological security theory (OST) -- a sense of being whole and alive on a continuous spectrum – serves as a lens to understand this transition. Through longitudinal surveys using semi-structured interview questions, emerging adults living in PSH ( N = 28) in western Colorado described their relationship to the concept of ‘home’ through an OST lens. We found that time in one place as well as emerging adults being able to ponder ‘what’s next’ served as key elements to defining home as well as trust in other residents and staff, consistent policies, a positive sense of safety, and control also impacted residents’ experiences. These findings offer insight into how PSH service providers may support residents and promote OST during unique developmental phases of emerging adulthood.
Article
More than half of European cities shrank in the period 1990-2010(Wiechmann 2013). This kind of urban transformation is a multidimensional process. It impacts economic and social domain. Shrinkage is also a phenomenon on several cities and rural areas in Albania. Among others Dropull can be considered a shrinking area as it has notably a smaller population and decline in economy compared with its past. Shrinkage can be seen as a liminality, as a transition phase of urban transformation. Liminality has many fields of study, but this research will examine the urban one. This paper will designate the main components in a shrinking area seen from the perspective of liminality as a threshold in time and place with its material and relational dimension. The material dimension of liminality refers to the physical consequences emerging during the shrinking process, consequences that might be temporary. Amongst the challenges that migration/depopulation brings is also the housing stock, the abandoned vacant structures. The relation dimension will examine the abandonment of social habitat due to emigration, lack of activity and the deterioration of public spaces. In an effort to restore a sustainable urban settlement, the question of how can the component with liminal character help the process of building an identity emerges?
Article
Full-text available
Homelessness is a major social problem affecting many people in Sierra Leone. The country has been through several disastrous events ranging from war, flooding, ebola, mudslides that left many Sierra Leoneans homeless. Social work professionals are essential in helping Homeless people. Most homeless people are suffering from other psychological and health related problems.
Article
Full-text available
The article looks at the key causes of the rise in homelessness as well as Social Work intervention strategies in helping homeless people in Freetown. In many nations, homelessness has been a long-standing social issue. How to help homeless individuals live independently is a dilemma encountered by those who work and volunteer in homeless shelters. The study looked at problems with homelessness among children, teens, adults, the elderly, women, and veterans over the previous years in this brief study. According to the findings, family circumstances, housing, unemployment, and mental illness are the main causes of homelessness. Initial instances of these issues result in homelessness, which in turn makes them worse. Effective community interventions and policies are needed to prevent and reduce homelessness, including drug rehabilitation facilities job support, and affordable housing.
Article
Full-text available
Objectives: The overarching objective of this mixed methods longitudinal study was to understand whether and how rent subsidies and mentorship influenced socioeconomic inclusion outcomes for youth exiting homelessness. The focus of this paper is on the qualitative objectives, which evolved from a primary focus on exploring how study mentorship was working as a facilitator of socioeconomic inclusion to focusing on how participants navigated the hazy, liminal space between socioeconomic exclusion and inclusion. Methods: This was a convergent mixed methods study scaffolded by community-based participatory action axiology. The quantitative component is reported elsewhere and involved a 2-year pilot randomized controlled trial where 24 participants received rent subsidies and 13 were randomly assigned a study mentor; proxy indicators of socioeconomic inclusion were measured every 6 months for 2.5 years. Qualitative objectives were explored using a qualitative descriptive design and theoretically framed using critical social theory. The lead author interviewed 12 participants every 6 months for 2.5 years. Qualitative interviews were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis with an emphasis on critical interpretation. Results: Navigating the liminal space between socioeconomic exclusion and inclusion was complex and non-linear, and the way youth navigated that journey was more strongly associated with factors like informal mentorship (naturally occurring "coach-like" mentorship) and identity capital (sense of purpose, control, self-efficacy, and self-esteem), rather than whether or not they were assigned a formal study mentor. Conclusion: A holistic approach integrating coaching and attention to identity capital alongside economic supports may be key to helping youth exiting homelessness achieve socioeconomic inclusion.
Article
This paper focuses on how stigma is constructed and deconstructed through linguistic and aesthetic dimensions of “Rapid Build” housing in Dublin, Ireland. Through analyses of in-depth interviews and focus groups with residents and stakeholders, we explore how the nomenclature and brick-clad modular construction of the builds influenced residents’ experiences of stigma. Emphasizing the importance of the symbolic dimensions of housing materialities in mediating stigma, we argue resident experiences reflect the importance of understanding relationships between social housing construction and stigma power in three interrelated ways. First, the nomenclature and materiality of housing has a profound effect on social imaginaries of residents and their self-perceptions. Second, stigmatized groups are not devoid of agency within constructions of stigma, and are both actors in the embedding of, and resistance to, its production. Third, engaging with residents’ experiences is integral to better understanding, and resisting, the role of architecture in the “stigma machine”.
Article
Full-text available
Housing First is now dominating discussions about how best to respond to homelessness among people with high and complex needs throughout the EU and in several countries within the OECD. Whilst recognised internationally as an effec- tive model in addressing homelessness, little attention has been given as to whether Housing First also assists previously homeless people become more socially integrated into their communities. This paper reviews the available research evi- dence (utilising a Rapid Evidence Assessment methodology) on the extent to which Housing First services are effective in promoting social integration. Existing evidence suggests Housing First is delivering varying results in respect of social inte- gration, despite some evidence suggesting normalising effects of settled housing on ontological security. The paper argues that a lack of clarity around the mechanisms by which Housing First is designed to deliver ‘social integration’, coupled with poor measurement, helps explain the inconsistent and sometimes limited results for Housing First services in this area. It concludes that there is a need to look critically at the extent to which Housing First can deliver social integration, moving the debate beyond the successes in housing sustainment and identifying what is needed to enhance people’s lives in the longer-term.
Book
This book establishes asylum seekers as a socially excluded group, investigating the policy of dispersing asylum seekers across the UK and providing an overview of historic and contemporary dispersal systems. It is the first book to seek to understand how asylum seekers experience the dispersal system and the impact this has on their lives. The author argues that deterrent asylum policies increase the sense of liminality experienced by individuals, challenges assumptions that asylum seekers should be socially excluded until receipt of refugee status and illustrates how they create their own sense of 'belonging' in the absence of official recognition. Academics, students, policy-makers and practitioners would all benefit from reading this book.
Article
Efforts to end long-term homelessness have embraced a Housing First approach. Housing First emphasises rapid placement of clients into independent, permanent accommodation and eschews traditionally favoured requirements that clients demonstrate sobriety or success in treatment programs prior to being offered housing. Although housing retention rates are superior to those obtained from traditional programs, some claims made on behalf of the Housing First approach remain controversial. The present article reviews results from Housing First research to date, as well as challenges and concerns that remain in regard to clinical outcomes, fidelity of implementation and application in the Australian context.
Article
The transitional state of Southeast Asian refugees in refugee camps has, since the late 1970s, been viewed by the international community as an opportune time to prepare refugees for resettlement in western countries. Americans have established extensive programs in language training and cultural orientation to transform refugees into economically self-sufficient and well-adjusted members of the United States. An anthropological perspective of one specific processing center suggests that the liminality of refugess is reinforced by refugee camp activities. -from Author
Article
Based on rich interview data drawn from a large scale longitudinal study of homeless young people, this book examines the personal, familial and structural factors that impact on homeless young people's long-term outcomes. While telling the personal stories of young people's experiences, the book refers to the wider research and policy literature on youth homelessness, engaging with key debates about the causes and meanings of homelessness in western societies. The book addresses important issues such as employment and education, engagement with services, social support, connection to family and friends, as well as personal factors including physical and mental health, sexual practices and drug use. Homeless young people are typically portrayed as leading chaotic, risky lives, trapped in a downward spiral of drug use, mental and other health problems, and long-term homelessness. By giving voice to young homeless people, this book challenges this stereotype and demonstrates young people's capacity to move out of homelessness and make satisfactory lives for themselves. Research findings are positioned in the context of a broad, international literature on youth homelessness and is important reading for undergraduate and postgraduate students of psychology, sociology, youth and social work as well as researchers, policy makers and service providers in all western cultures.
Article
Social science research on stigma has grown dramatically over the past two decades, particularly in social psychology, where researchers have elucidated the ways in which people construct cognitive categories and link those categories to stereotyped beliefs. In the midst of this growth, the stigma concept has been criticized as being too vaguely defined and individually focused. In response to these criticisms, we define stigma as the co-occurrence of its components-labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination-and further indicate that for stigmatization to occur, power must be exercised. The stigma concept we construct has implications for understanding several core issues in stigma research, ranging from the definition of the concept to the reasons stigma sometimes represents a very persistent predicament in the lives of persons affected by it. Finally, because there are so many stigmatized circumstances and because stigmatizing processes can affect multiple domains of people's lives, stigmatization probably has a dramatic bearing on the distribution of life chances in such areas as earnings, housing, criminal involvement, health, and life itself. It follows that social scientists who are interested in understanding the distribution of such life chances should also be interested in stigma.
Article
We examined tenants' experiences and perception living in a single-site supportive housing. Recent evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of secure housing with linked voluntary support services as a successful in enabling people with high vulnerabilities to exit homelessness and sustain housing. Scholars and policy-makers continue to debate the merits of scattered site housing with person centred support, on the one hand, and single-site supportive housing with onsite support, on the other. The manuscript is based on survey and qualitative data with 120 tenants in a single-site supportive housing: (n = 60) formerly homeless and (n = 60) allocated housing because of low to moderate income. The results show that tenant experience single-site supportive housing as home; for many single-site supportive housing constitutes community. Conversely, some design and security features of single-site supportive housing undermined tenants autonomy and feeling of home. Moreover, close contact with other tenants meant that single-site supportive housing was also anti-community.