Faculty Mentor: Sarah Canham (Social Work, University of Utah)

Abstract

The stigmatization of and discrimination toward people experiencing homelessness (known as “homeism”) stands as one of the defining social issues of our day. Due to the increasing number of people experiencing homelessness, it is more important than ever to find accessible, equitable, and sustainable interventions for homeism. This brief provides an outline of interventions that have been evaluated in past research, as well as interventions that people with lived experience of homelessness believe would be effective to implement in Salt Lake County. These interventions have been categorized into educational, social activism, and interpersonal contact interventions

Introduction

The stigmatization of and discrimination toward people experiencing homelessness limits their ability to participate in society and have their needs met. Homeism is a term used to describe the stigmatization of and discrimination toward people experiencing homelessness.¹ Amidst the rising numbers of people experiencing homelessness in the United States, over 653,000,² and millions globally, there is a significant need for effective interventions against homeism. Studies report that at least 50% of people experiencing homelessness perceive being stigmatized and discriminated against,³ while other research shows that effective interventions can reduce perceived stigma and discrimination by at least 25%.⁴

Research Overview

A community consultation of people with lived experience of homelessness and social service providers who support people experiencing homelessness was conducted on August 18, 2023, in Salt Lake City, Utah.^5,6 Community consultations provide an expert view into whether existing research literature provides sufficient information on a topic and where there may be gaps in the literature.^7,8 In this case, community members were consulted about the stigmatization of and discrimination toward people experiencing homelessness.

Discussions at the community consultation were audio-recorded and transcribed. The transcriptions were then analyzed and coded using thematic analysis to identify the main themes and ideas in the data.⁹ Two independent researchers coded the data using NVivo qualitative analysis software.¹⁰ This analysis identified interventions to combat homeism and findings were compared to prior research. The result is a list of interventions that are considered the most feasible to implement in Salt Lake County, Utah.

In total, there were 25 community consultation participants. More than half of the participants (64%; n=16) identified as female, 28% (n=7) identified as male, 4% (n=1) identified as non-binary, and 4% (n=1) did not report. Most participants identified as white (60%; n=15), 12% (n=3) as Black, 12% (n=3) as Hispanic/Latinx, 4% (n=1) as bi-racial, 4% (n=1) as Native Hawaiian, and 8% (n=2) did not report. Participants were between the ages of 26 and 75, with an average age of 45.6 years. Most participants (68%; n=17) had lived experience of homelessness, and 76% (n=19) were employed in support services for people experiencing homelessness.

Discussion and Policy Recommendations

Past research has examined interventions that address homeism with general practitioner mobile health clinics,¹¹ homeless outreach and health programs,¹² having medical students accompany homeless people to hospital visits and checkups,¹³ inviting homeless youth to tell their stories and experiences,¹⁴ an art exhibition with participatory action research,¹⁵ walking and running groups,^16,17 skills classes for health and wellness, housing, budgeting, community engagement, and more,¹⁸ care navigation assistance, reducing barriers to care, and relationship-building,⁴ loving-kindness meditation,¹⁹ using student volunteers to help teach financial literacy, savings, housing employment, etc.,²⁰ a dialogue with people in poverty and youth experiencing homelessness,²¹ inviting people with lived experience of homelessness to teach as experts,²² students interviewing and engaging and volunteering with homeless people,^23,24 and a hackathon to brainstorm ideas focused on addressing homelessness.²⁵

Data from the community consultation elicited three intervention categories: Educational, social activism, and interpersonal contact interventions. Educational interventions aim to educate others about the inaccuracies about homeism and include: 1) having policymakers experience what it is like to be homeless, 2) humanizing people experiencing homelessness, and 3) creating public service announcements. Social activism interventions focus on advocating for change and protesting against homeism by: 1) utilizing social media campaigns and television program and 2) highlighting success stories of people with current or former experiences of homelessness. Interpersonal contact interventions facilitated interactions between people with and without experiences of homelessness and include: 1) fostering informal connection with people experiencing homelessness and 2) volunteering with people experiencing homelessness or developing programs for people experiencing homelessness to volunteer in the community.

Reducing and ending homeism will require a coordinated effort by citizens, policymakers, outreach workers, clinics, researchers, students, people experiencing homelessness, and everyone in between — but it can and must be done.

Acknowledgements: This work was supported by the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP) from the Office of Undergraduate Research at the University of Utah awarded to Dayttn Bartschi. We respectfully acknowledge that the University of Utah is located on the traditional and ancestral homelands of the Shoshone, Paiute, Goshute, and Ute Tribes. For contributions to the development of the graphic design and data collection, we would like to acknowledge Sumiko Anderson, Morgan Cruz Erisman, Emma Greenwood, Shannon Jones, Danielle Littman, Anne McNamara, Kyle Rehn, Jeff Rose, Elizabeth Siantz, and Katelyn Tra.

This project was completed under the supervision of Dr. Sarah Canham, Associate Professor, College of Social Work, University of Utah. For additional information about this project, please contact: Sarah Canham, Ph.D., sarah.canham@utah.edu and Dayttn Bartschi, u1299174@utah.edu.

Bibliography

Canham SL, Moore P, Custodio K, Bosma H. Homeism: Naming the stigmatization and discrimination of persons experiencing homelessness. Hous Theory Soc. 2022;39(5):507-523. doi:10.1080/14036096.2021.2014558

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 2023 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. Office of Community Planning and Development; 2023. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2023-AHAR-Part-1.pdf

Padwa H, Chien J, Henwood BF, Cousins SJ, Zakher E, Kuhn R. Homelessness, discrimination, and violent victimization in Los Angeles county. Am J Prev Med. Published online June 2024:S0749379724002125. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2024.06.016

Maskay MH, Cabral HJ, Davila JA, et al. Longitudinal stigma reduction in people living with HIV experiencing homelessness or unstable housing diagnosed with mental health or substance use disorders: An intervention study. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(S7):S546-S551. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304774

Canham SL, Weldrick R, Erisman M, et al. A scoping review of the experiences and outcomes of stigma and discrimination towards persons experiencing homelessness. Lai FH yin, ed. Health Soc Care Community. 2024;2024(1):2060619. doi:10.1155/2024/2060619

Canham SL, Rose JN, Weldrick R, Siantz E, Casucci T, McFarland MM. Understanding discrimination towards persons experiencing homelessness: A scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2022;12(12):e066522. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066522

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19-32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616

Brown, Homer, K., Isaacs, D. The world café. In: Holman, P., Devane, T., S. Cady, eds. The Change Handbook: The Definitive Resource on Today’s Best Methods for Engaging Whole Systems. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.; 2009:179-194.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 10.

Lumivero. NVivo qualitative data analysis software (version 14). Published online 2023. www.lumivero.com 11.

O’Carroll A, Wainwright D. Making sense of street chaos: An ethnographic exploration of homeless people’s health service utilization. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18(1):113. doi:10.1186/s12939-019-1002-6 12.

Zeien J, Hanna J, Puracan J, et al. Improving health professionals’ and learners’ attitudes towards homeless individuals through street-based outreach. Health Educ J. 2021;80(8):961-973. doi:10.1177/00178969211037362 13.

Alzeera M, Ward A. Involving medical students in the planning and delivery of a vaccination and health screening outreach clinic. Educ Prim Care. 2022;33(2):113119. doi:10.1080/14739879.2021.1983732 14.

Ottaway N, King K, Erickson PG. Storying the street: Transition narratives of homeless youth. Med Humanit. 2009;35(1):19-26. doi:10.1136/jmh.2008.001362 15.

De Oliveira B. On the news today: Challenging homelessness through participatory action research. Hous Care Support. 2018;21(1):13-25. doi:10.1108/HCS-012018-0002 16.

Clift BC. The uses of running: Urban homelessness, creative initiatives, and “recovery” in the neoliberal city. Sociol Sport J. 2020;37(2):96-107. doi:10.1123/ssj.2019-0059 17.

Okamoto KE, Peterson BL. Resurrecting and appending identities: The role of nonprofits in managing stigmatized identity. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q. 2022;51(2):389-409. doi:10.1177/08997640211007209 18.

Reid N, Khan B, Soklaridis S, Kozloff N, Brown R, Stergiopoulos V. Mechanisms of change and participant outcomes in a recovery education centre for individuals transitioning from homelessness: A qualitative evaluation. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):497. doi:10.1186/s12889-020-08614-8 19.

Parks S, Birtel MD, Crisp RJ. Evidence that a brief meditation exercise can reduce prejudice toward homeless people. Soc Psychol. 2014;45(6):458-465. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000212 20.

De Marco AC, Kretzschmar J. The impact of cocurricular community service on student learning and perceptions of poverty and homelessness. J Poverty. 2019;23(1):21-43. doi:10.1080/10875549.2018.1496376 21.

Driessens K, McLaughlin H, Van Doorn L. The meaningful involvement of service users in social work education: Examples from Belgium and the Netherlands. Soc Work Educ. 2016;35(7):739-751. doi:10.1080/02615479.2016.1162289 22.

Geregová M, Frišaufová M. People with experience of long-term drug use and homelessness teaching with us: Experts by experience participation in university social work education. Soc Work Educ. 2020;39(3):315-328. doi:10.1080/02615479.2019.1628205 23.

Hocking JE, Lawrence SamuelG. Changing attitudes toward the homeless: The effects of prosocial communication with the homeless. J Soc Distress Homeless. 2000;9(2):91-110. doi:10.1023/A:1009466217604 24.

McKinney J, Snedker KA. Hosting a tent city: Student engagement and homelessness. Teach Sociol. 2017;45(3):252-259. doi:10.1177/0092055X17694908 25.

Wilson J, Bender K, DeChants J. Beyond the classroom: The impact of a university-based civic hackathon addressing homelessness. J Soc Work Educ. 2019;55(4):736-749. doi:10.1080/10437797.2019.1633975