Shelter Abolition and Housing First: Rethinking Dominant Discourses on Homeless Management

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Polity Pub Date : 2023-08-21 DOI:10.1086/726389
Terrance Wooten
{"title":"Shelter Abolition and Housing First: Rethinking Dominant Discourses on Homeless Management","authors":"Terrance Wooten","doi":"10.1086/726389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to the most recent nationwide Point-in-Time Count, in January 2020 over 580,000 people in the United States reported experiencing homelessness, of which roughly 70% were individuals. Amongst the total population of reported households experiencing homelessness, around 60% were sheltered, and the rest lived in places not meant for habitation (streets, cars, parks, etc.). The percentage of individuals experiencing homelessness who were unsheltered, however, was above 50%. Individuals make up the vast majority of those who are unsheltered.Of the total number of those living in some formof shelter—emergency, transitional, or a Safe Haven—47.2% were Black or African American compared to Whites, who constituted 42.8%. Conversely, there were over twice as many unshelteredWhite people compared to Black people. Nationally, shelters are disproportionately comprised of Black orAfricanAmerican people, at similar rates as those for prisons. Given these numbers and given the broader connection between homelessness and carcerality, in part due to the criminalization of homelessness combined with the racialization of homelessness (40% of those experiencing homelessness in the U.S. are Black or African American), scholars have begun to analyze the carceral","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polity","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726389","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

According to the most recent nationwide Point-in-Time Count, in January 2020 over 580,000 people in the United States reported experiencing homelessness, of which roughly 70% were individuals. Amongst the total population of reported households experiencing homelessness, around 60% were sheltered, and the rest lived in places not meant for habitation (streets, cars, parks, etc.). The percentage of individuals experiencing homelessness who were unsheltered, however, was above 50%. Individuals make up the vast majority of those who are unsheltered.Of the total number of those living in some formof shelter—emergency, transitional, or a Safe Haven—47.2% were Black or African American compared to Whites, who constituted 42.8%. Conversely, there were over twice as many unshelteredWhite people compared to Black people. Nationally, shelters are disproportionately comprised of Black orAfricanAmerican people, at similar rates as those for prisons. Given these numbers and given the broader connection between homelessness and carcerality, in part due to the criminalization of homelessness combined with the racialization of homelessness (40% of those experiencing homelessness in the U.S. are Black or African American), scholars have begun to analyze the carceral
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
住房废除与住房优先:对无家可归者管理主流话语的再思考
根据最新的全国时间点统计,2020年1月,美国有超过58万人报告无家可归,其中约70%是个人。在报告的无家可归家庭总人口中,约60%的人得到了庇护,其余的人住在不适合居住的地方(街道、汽车、公园等)。然而,无家可归的人所占比例超过50%。无家可归者中绝大多数是个人。在生活在某种形式的避难所——紧急、过渡或安全港——的总人数中,47.2%是黑人或非裔美国人,而白人占42.8%。相反,没有得到庇护的白人是黑人的两倍多。在全国范围内,收容所不成比例地由黑人或非裔美国人组成,与监狱的比例相似。考虑到这些数字,考虑到无家可归和无家可归之间更广泛的联系,部分原因是无家可归被定为犯罪,加上无家可归的种族化(在美国,40%的无家可归者是黑人或非裔美国人),学者们开始分析无家可归
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Polity
Polity POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
期刊介绍: Since its inception in 1968, Polity has been committed to the publication of scholarship reflecting the full variety of approaches to the study of politics. As journals have become more specialized and less accessible to many within the discipline of political science, Polity has remained ecumenical. The editor and editorial board welcome articles intended to be of interest to an entire field (e.g., political theory or international politics) within political science, to the discipline as a whole, and to scholars in related disciplines in the social sciences and the humanities. Scholarship of this type promises to be highly "productive" - that is, to stimulate other scholars to ask fresh questions and reconsider conventional assumptions.
期刊最新文献
Does Size Matter in the Context of the Global South? Theorizing the Smallest States The Unique and the Universal in International Studies Theories from the Global South Ideas from the Global South: Dependency and Decoloniality Incorporating Global South Perspectives in the Study of International Relations: Reflections on the Field Long Day’s Journey Into Night
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1