Analysis of Social and Structural Disadvantage in Homelessness

This report delves into the multifaceted issue of homelessness, exploring its intricate relationship with social and structural disadvantages. It highlights key factors such as poverty, lack of affordable housing, and mental health issues that contribute to the problem. The report examines the role of social structures like housing and labor markets, and analyzes historical and current interventions, including government policies and community-based initiatives, in addressing homelessness in Australia. It emphasizes the impact of political factors and government responses, linking them to political rationalities. Furthermore, the report applies an intersectional approach, recognizing how marginalized groups face compounded discrimination, and discusses the relevance of Marx's conflict theory in understanding the issue. The conclusion stresses the need for effective prevention, early intervention, and flexible subsidy to combat homelessness effectively and humanize services.

Running head: SOCIAL AND STRUCTURAL DISADVANTAGE-HOMELESSNESS
SOCIAL AND STRUCTURAL DISADVANTAGE-HOMELESSNESS
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1SOCIAL AND STRUCTURAL DISADVANTAGE-HOMELESSNESS
Introduction
Homelessness is a complicated social issue associated with a range of core economic
as well as social factors. These factors are chiefly related to poverty, shortage of affordable
housing, unreliable physical and mental health services, addictions in addition to community
and family breakdown (Lurie et al., 2015). Moreover, these factors in fluctuating mishmashes
tend to contribute to extent, incidence and types of homelessness. However, complete
homeless means to sustain without shelter. On the other hand, a lot of people experience
partial homelessness which tends to include indefinite, provisional or sub-standard
accommodation (Bullen, 2015). Homelessness is thus, problematic to explain. Hence,
governments struggle with indecision while developing and implementing policies which
they anticipate will efficiently achieve or eradicate this issue. The following paper will
explore homelessness with relevant theory and the social and structural impact on this issue.
It will also analyse historical, political factors along with present or past interventions and the
role of government in eliminating this issue.
Discussion
Social and structural factors of Homelessness
When sociologists mention structural factors they chiefly shed light on the organised
patterns of social relations and social organizations. These social associations and social
institutions tend to be prevalent and enduring (Timmer et al., 2019). The two most commonly
mentioned social structures in the perspective of homelessness are housing and labour
markets. According to Giannini (2017), while considering individuals as price-takers they can
principally make exchange of consumption of single good for another with an intention of
attaining different reasonable services of housing in addition to additional consumption.
Nonetheless, when earnings is very little, the rate of affordability tends to shrink, thus
permitting consumption of sub-standard quality housing which tend to absorb substantial

2SOCIAL AND STRUCTURAL DISADVANTAGE-HOMELESSNESS
portion of income. On the other hand, at very low income levels, people showing urgent need
for additional goods will tend to have earnings available for housing attainability (Wood et
al., 2015). For instance, people having high health expenses tend be at greater danger of
homelessness. Furthermore, as housing consumption as and income are interrelated, lesser
rate of housing consumption by low earning people show greater tendency to experiencing
homelessness. Thus, homelessness is social relations and social institutions as it places the
wrong individual in the incorrect place for certain vulnerable subclasses like Aboriginal or
Torres Strait Islanders in Australia (Bullen, 2015). Even though these subclasses show lesser
likelihood of experiencing homelessness as compared to average population, they are
considerably more to be expected to turn out to be homeless when they live in labour
markets. These subgroups are usually deliberated to be at specific risk of homelessness in
Australia (Giannini, 2017).
Current or past interventions to support homelessness
Australia’s reaction to homelessness initiated by focusing on emergency services. As
per report, in 1974, the national government approved legislature intended to fund the
construction as well as administration of ‘temporary accommodation centres’ for public who
face homelessness (Bullen, 2015). This legislature was administered by public community-
based organizations as well as local government. Furthermore, in the end of 1990s, the
Australian government introduced its National Homelessness Strategy which intended to
offer a strategic framework which would advance partnership and connections between
current programmes and services and further to develop outcomes for consumers and lessen
the homelessness rate. As per study, homelessness Australia still provisions the Australian
Council of Social Service (ACOSS) campaign to raise non-pension payment by a minimum
of around $50 per week. Recently, “The Road Home a National Approach to Reducing
Homelessness” policy is introduced by aid approximately 2,250 extra families who tend to be

3SOCIAL AND STRUCTURAL DISADVANTAGE-HOMELESSNESS
at risk of homelessness and elevate support for people in public as well as private rental
accommodation to retain their occupancies (Dss.gov.au, 2020). In 2004, the Australian
government subsidized early intervention, Household Organisation and Management of
Expenses (HOME) advice program purposed in preventing rate of homelessness by
intervening at a primary stage. This intervention happened subsequent to the risk factors
which resulted in severe family homelessness.
Meanwhile, the role of state and the territory governments in Australia in averting
homelessness is serious. People who are found at risky positions of homelessness can connect
to numerous agencies as well as organisations (Huffman, 2017). These interventions should
be involved in the national deterrence as well as early intervention initiatives. These take in
child protection interventions, state accommodation establishments in addition to criminal
justice as well as corrective service agencies. Furthermore, Homelessness Australia policy
has focused on all levels of Government with a commitment of adopting the essential land
supply, strategy, preparation and taxation reforms required to enable the construction of a
supplementary 220,000 residences within 2020 (Bullen, 2015).
Understanding Political factors related to homelessness
There is a robust characterization of homelessness in relation to social and structural
factors. In contrast, there is less focus on the dynamic role of the government as well as other
political organizations in establishing or creating “homelessness” in addition to the reactions
to this particular problem. In this respect, consideration of the methods in which states are
reacting to and making provisions for homelessness is linked to the political as well as
ideological positions of governments. Flatau et al. (2015) claim that as per Foucault’s
theortical understanding, governments can be viewed in relation to their conversational fields
or political justifications. The analysis of government by linking to political rationalities can

4SOCIAL AND STRUCTURAL DISADVANTAGE-HOMELESSNESS
be related to the analysis of the changes made in homelessness policies, interventions and
service delivery (Flatau et al., 2015).
Intersectional Approach to Homelessness
Intersectional approach is considered as an “intersectional oppression” which rises
from the amalgamation of several subjugations. These forms of subjugations and repression
tend to produce a peculiarity and are distinct from any single form of discrimination.
According to Giannini (2017), the shared characteristic of homeless public is the level of
repression and coercion they encounter. Such coercion is linked to social segregation, social
profiling, significant stigma and prejudice.
Another problem related to homelessness as well as intersectionality is that typically
marginalized people are unreasonably represented in the homeless population and
consequently targeted by the regulations which tend to criminalize homelessness. According
to Zufferey (2016), the important element of intersectional theory is power. The intersectional
theory explains the explicit and distinctive involvement of the groups who are exposed to past
shortcomings due to societal perception regarding them. Because of stigma, stereotypes and
social profiling, the social issue homelessness takes in more beyond the deficiency of
housing. It turns out to be an inclusive social identity or social stigma for individuals which
tends to them increase challenges for them to alter or improve their position in the society
(McNamara, 2015).
Marx’s conflict theory claims that society has its existence in a state of constant
conflict because of rivalry and struggle for scarce resources (Willse, 2015). Zufferey (2016)
mentions that conflict theory advocate that social order is retained by power and authority
instead of conventionality as well as consensus. While considering the issue of homelessness,
the conflict theory put forward that capitalism is the core reason of homelessness in
developed and developing nations. In the view of Huffman (2017), Marx’s conflict theory

5SOCIAL AND STRUCTURAL DISADVANTAGE-HOMELESSNESS
can be used in order to explicate capitalism as the cause of homelessness as according to this
theory, society constitutes two classes namely the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
Furthermore, the conflict theory claims that within a capitalistic society, capital is recognized
as a source that is acquired through extreme level of determination and education. The
conflict theory explicates capitalism as well as homelessness because of the continuous
resentment among social classes related to the quality of life (Bucher & Dickel, 2015). Bullen
(2015) claims that the capitalistic structure tend to create a major gap in society which is
subjugated by the wealthy groups which regulate the distribution of power as well as
resources in developed nations. Flatau et al. (2015) by drawing relevance to this factor claims
that the affluent classes of the society perceive the poor and homeless as apathetic and
ignorant who typically seek welfare provisions. Moreover, under the conflict theory, social
problems like homelessness act as a direct result of inadequacies and weaknesses of
individuals in their personality instead of perceiving flaws of the society.
Conclusion
To conclude, applying an intersectional method of exploration has facilitated the
linkage between discrimination to the factors associated with the social issue of
homelessness. The relationship between marginalization and homelessness is seen as a
manifestation of systemic discrimination, elimination and oppression. Homeless are sufferers
of social profiling grounded on their abandoned presence, on the position of their private
sanitation and their lifestyles. Thus, social profiling can be understood in comprehensive
understandings of regulations subsequent to criminalization of homelessness. In consequence,
homelessness must not be explained only in relation to lack of housing. Moreover, it must be
explained as the stigma of which requires to be eliminated. Nonetheless, humanizing the
facilities in addition to service in extents with low-cost accommodation and targeting
homelessness policies in these spaces might reduce the problem of dealing with homelessness

6SOCIAL AND STRUCTURAL DISADVANTAGE-HOMELESSNESS
for these groups. Most importantly, there is a need to guarantee effective homelessness
prevention as well as early intervention and flexible subsidy in order to allow services act as
core element of the prevention as well as culmination homelessness in Australia.

7SOCIAL AND STRUCTURAL DISADVANTAGE-HOMELESSNESS
References
Bucher, M., & Dickel, S. (2015). An Affinity for the Lumpen: Depictions of Homelessness in
Delany's" Bread & Wine" and" The Mad Man". African American Review, 48 (3),
289-304.
Bullen, J. (2015). Governing homelessness: the discursive and institutional construction of
homelessness in Australia. Housing, Theory and Society, 32(2), 218-239.
Department of Social Services. (2020). Homelessness. Department of Social Services,
Australian Government. Retrieved 8 April 2020, from
https://www.dss.gov.au/housing-support/programmes-services/homelessness
Flatau, P., Smith, J., Carson, G., Miller, J., Burvill, A., & Brand, R. (2015). The housing and
homelessness journeys of refugees in Australia. Australian Housing and Urban
Research Institute: Melbourne, Australia.
Giannini, A. (2017). An Intersectional Approach to Homelessness: Discrimination and
Criminalizaiton. Marq. Elder's Adviser, 19, 27.
Huffman, T. P. (2017). Compassionate communication, embodied aboutness, and homeless
young adults. Western Journal of Communication, 81(2), 149-167.
Lurie, K., Schuster, B., & Rankin, S. (2015). Discrimination at the margins: The
intersectionality of homelessness & other marginalized groups. Available at SSRN
2602532.
McNamara, P. (2015). Young people at risk of lifelong poverty: Youth homelessness in
Australia. In Theoretical and Empirical Insights into Child and Family Poverty (pp.
217-238). Springer, Cham.
Timmer, D. A., Eitzen, D. S., Talley, K. D., & Eitzen, D. S. (2019). Paths to homelessness:
Extreme poverty and the urban housing crisis. Routledge.

8SOCIAL AND STRUCTURAL DISADVANTAGE-HOMELESSNESS
Willse, C. (2015). The value of homelessness: Managing surplus life in the United States. U
of Minnesota Press.
Wood, G., Batterham, D., Cigdem, M., & Mallett, S. (2015). The structural drivers of
homelessness in Australia 2001-11. AHURI Final Report, 238(238), 1-100.
Zufferey, C. (2016). Homelessness and social work: An intersectional approach. Taylor &
Francis.