Public Beliefs About the Causes of Homelessness

Using data from a survey of Nashville, Tennessee, residents, we show that public beliefs about the causes of homelessness emphasize structural forces and bad luck over individualistic factors. Our analysis also demonstrates: 1) the complex intrapersonal organization of these beliefs, 2) the degree to which they are influenced by one's social statuses, religious and political values, and exposure to homelessness, and 3) their implications for policy attitudes. Studies in the U.S. and abroad have found that members of the public explain social inequality in an individualistic manner: whether successful or not, people are deemed responsible for their own socioeconomic fate (for a review, see Kluegel & Smith 1981). This individualistic orientation is especially evident in Americans' beliefs about the causes of poverty. A decade apart, Feagin (1975) and Kluegel and Smith (1986) asked national survey samples to rate the importance of an extensive list of reasons for "why there are poor people in this country." The rankings of reasons yielded by the two surveys were nearly identical, with personal traits (such as a lack of thrift, effort, or talent) considered more important than structural factors (a shortage of jobs, inadequate schools, etc.). Though using noncomparable measures, other researchers have produced similar results (Centers 1949; Huber & Form 1973; Nilson 1981). One feature common to the inquiries into causal beliefs about poverty is the generic handling of the concept of poverty itself. Despite their many faces, "the poor" have been presented to survey respondents as an undifferentiated whole. Given the time constraints on the normal interview, that procedure makes sense *We thank Richard Appelbaumn, Karen Campbell, Joe Feagin, Jack Gibbs, Janes Klutegel, Mark LaGory, R.S. Oropesa, and two anonymous referees for their reactions to earlier drafts of this article. Camnpbell, Steven Meinbresse, Kate Monaghan, and the Vanderbilt students in Lee's graduate survey-methods workshop and Camnpbell's undergraduate methods course helped design and conduct the survey portion of the research. Financial suipport was provided by Metropolitan Social Services of Nashville-Davidson County and the Tennessee Departnent of Human Services. Direct correspondence to BarrettA. Lee, Departnent of Sociology, 201 Oswald Tower, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802. i The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, September 1990, 69(1):253-265 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.180 on Sat, 27 Aug 2016 04:45:10 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 254 / Social Forces 69:1, September 1990 from a practical standpoint, but it leaves much to the imagination. When employed as a general stimulus, "poverty" may call up images ranging from welfare mothers to migrant laborers, depending upon a respondent's background, level of information, racial attitudes, and so on. In short, the generic approach precludes attention to the possibility that different types of poverty are interpreted differently by the public. In this article, we focus on causal beliefs about urban homelessness, arguably the most visible form of poverty during the 1980s. Our analysis uses data from a local survey to address five questions: 1. Is homelessness, like generic poverty, most often explained in individualistic fashion? Portrayals of the homeless in American popular culture have long stressed laziness, immorality, wanderlust, heavy drinking, and other character deficits as reasons for one's descent to the lowest rung of the stratification ladder (Bahr 1973). Similarly, from the perspective of the "dominant ideology" (Huber & Form 1973), the extreme failure symbolized by a lack of shelter must be judged the individual's own fault in a society where everyone is assumed to have an equal opportunity to succeed. Countering such ideological and cultural pressures to blame the homeless are recent treatments by advocates, scholars, government officials, and the media (Hombs & Snyder 1982; Newsweek 1984; U.S. Conference of Mayors 1987). The messages the public receives from these sources attribute the dramatic rise of the "new homeless" to a convergence of structural changes in housing availability, the economy, mental health policy, and welfare provision. 2. How are causal beliefs about hoinelessness organized at the intrapersonal level? Theory suggests that the holding of multiple beliefs about inequality may be common, given the range of social and psychological functions the beliefs serve (Kluegel & Smith 1986). Yet the generic poverty literature has often relied on closed-ended, forced-choice survey items and summary indexes that obscure belief patterns or configurations. Consequently, the reader is left with the impression at odds with what the most careful studies show (Kluegel & Smith 1986; Nilson 1981) that a person believes in either individual or structural causes of poverty, but not both. 3. Do one's social statuses influence beliefs about homelessness? According to previous research, being white, older, male, and of higher income increases the propensity to favor individualistic over structural beliefs about the roots of poverty (Feagin 1975; Gallup Report 1985; Huber & Form 1973; Kluegel & Smith 1986; Nilson 1981; Oropesa 1986). These findings conform to the principle that status advantages heighten people's stake in the system and support of the dominant ideology. The results obtained for education are less straightforward, perhaps because of the dual role it plays as socioeconomic measure and indicator of "contact with liberal and humane values" (Kluegel & Smith 1986:89). Region of residence has mixed effects as well. 4. Mhat other potential antecedents of causal beliefs warrant examination? People's religious and political values may shape their thoughts about the causes of homelessness. While recent advocacy by religious groups on behalf of the homeless has pushed some members toward a structural position, the lingering influence of the Protestant Ethic could actually strengthen the conviction that poverty of any kind reflects one's efforts in this life, thus encouraging an This content downloaded from 157.55.39.180 on Sat, 27 Aug 2016 04:45:10 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Beliefs About Homelessness / 255 individualistic orientation (Feagin 1975; Nilson 1981). The likely influence of political values on causal beliefs is easier to anticipate conservatives should be more inclined than liberals to hold the poor responsible for their lot but little empirical work bears specifically on this point. No research of which we are aware considers the everyday exposure of nonpoor urban residents to poverty and homelessness through informal conversations with friends, face-toface encounters on the street, and other sources. For each type of exposure, the central question remains the same: does the information obtained affect perceptions of why the homeless are homeless? 5. Are policy attitudes toward homelessness a function of what one believes about its causes? Both Feagin (1975) and Kluegel and Smith (1986) found proponents of the structural view more receptive than their individualistic counterparts to redistribution programs aimed at helping the poor. In parallel fashion, we would expect persons holding structural beliefs about homelessness to express more progressive policy attitudes concerning the importance of the issue and the desirability of various solutions. Interest in these attitudes goes beyond the merely academic: Burstein (1985), for example, has established a link between trends in issue-specific public opinion and the enactment of corresponding legislation. For the disenfranchised homeless, then, the causal beliefs to which others subscribe may have critical implications.