Urban Sociology: Displacement, Homelessness, and Environmental Inequality

Political, Cultural, and Social Dimensions of Displacement

Beyond physical displacement, urban sociologists identify three other critical forms of displacement that occur during neighborhood turnover. Political displacement occurs when the influx of middle and upper-income residents, previously thought to revitalize political infrastructure, actually leads to long-term residents losing political control over their communities. Newcomers often advocate for services and amenities that serve their own interests rather than the needs of the existing population. Cultural displacement involves "retail gentrification" and a decreasing sense of ownership and belonging among the original inhabitants. This often culminates in "place alienation," a condition where residents no longer recognize the businesses or "third spaces" within their own neighborhood. Social displacement refers to the loss of friends, family members, and neighbors. Even if a resident is able to remain in their home, gentrification may weaken their social support networks, as it becomes increasingly difficult for their friends and family members to move into the same neighborhood.

Defining and Measuring the Scope of Homelessness

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines homelessness as a condition where an individual's primary night-time residence is a public or private place not meant for human habitation, or when they are living in a shelter, hotel, or motel. This encompasses a range of settings: unsheltered (outdoors), sheltered (within an official facility), doubled-up (staying with others), in a hotel/motel, or living in a vehicle. Measuring the extent of this issue through surveys involves asking respondents about their political, social, and cultural experiences to capture the full breadth of displacement.

In 2024, the United States reached a record high in homelessness, with approximately $800,000$ people experiencing it, of whom approximately $150,000$ were experiencing chronic homelessness. Statistics show that about $6\%$ of all Americans, or approximately $1$ in $14$ people, have experienced a period of homelessness in their lives. This rate is significantly higher in high-cost cities; for example, $1$ in $4$ residents of Los Angeles has experienced some form of homelessness. Racial disparities are stark: approximately $16\%$ of Black Americans, $8\%$ of Latino Americans, and $4\%$ of non-Hispanic white Americans have experienced a bout of homelessness. Minority families are significantly over-represented in the current unhoused population.

Vulnerable Populations and the Causes of Homelessness

Certain subgroups are particularly vulnerable to homelessness, including those with mental illnesses, veterans (of whom nearly $13\%$ experience homelessness), LGBT youth, the elderly on fixed incomes, and college students. While $80\%$ of homelessness episodes are brief, the remaining $20\%$ are chronic. The causes of homelessness are categorized into three main areas: the decreasing supply of affordable housing, social policy, and individual risk factors such as mental illness, poverty, criminal-legal contact, and domestic violence.

Regarding housing supply, there is a severe shortage of units that are both available and affordable. In Massachusetts, for every $100$ low-income renters, there are only $57$ available housing units affordable to them (defined as requiring less than $30\%$ of their income for rent). For Extremely Low Income (ELI) households, the number of affordable and available homes per $100$ renter households is only $44$. As income levels rise to $50\%$ of Area Median Income (AMI), the number increases to $57$, and at $80\%$ of AMI, it reaches $88$. For middle-income households at $100\%$ of AMI, there are $96$ homes per $100$. Consequently, $80\%$ of ELI households are cost-burdened, with $75\%$ being severely cost-burdened. For those at Very Low Income, $63\%$ are cost-burdened and $37\%$ are severely cost-burdened. Low-income groups see $55\%$ cost-burdened and $28\%$ severely cost-burdened, while middle-income groups see only $10\%$ cost-burdened and $4\%$ severely cost-burdened.

The Failure of the "Filtering" Process and Policy Impact

While housing quality has improved over time—for instance, nearly half of US homes lacked indoor plumbing in $1947$, compared to only $6\%$ in $1970$—this improvement has driven up costs. As low-quality housing disappeared, it became harder for low-income families to find affordable units. The housing stock rarely expands by adding units specifically for the poor; instead, the "filtering" process (where high-end housing eventually becomes affordable as it ages) often stops short of reach for the poorest families. Landlords cannot afford to operate housing that meets modern minimum standards at the prices the bottom of the market can pay.

Social policies also play a role. Elderly and disabled Americans often rely on fixed incomes that do not cover housing. Restrictive zoning further limits construction. On the supportive side, eviction prevention and rental assistance are key. It is estimated that it would cost between $\text{9 and 20 billion}$ dollars per year to end homelessness by offering transitional or supportive housing to everyone in a shelter.

Individual Pathways and the Experience of Homelessness

Individual factors such as incarceration, mental illness, social isolation, and housing market discrimination intersect with social policy. In California, investigation into pathways to homelessness revealed that $1$ in $5$ unhoused individuals moved away from an institutional setting, and half became homeless after living in situations where they were not formally on a lease. Half of unhoused adults in California are over the age of $50$, often due to aging on a fixed income. Notably, $82\%$ of respondents reported that a one-time payment of between $\$5,000$ and $\$10,000$ would have prevented their spell of homelessness.

Homelessness exaggerates health problems and accelerates aging. There is a bidirectional relationship with substance use: one-third of individuals used drugs to cope with being homeless (to stay awake, manage hunger, or self-medicate), while substance use can also be a precursor to homelessness. Additional health pathways include stress, exposure to violence, lack of food, and inability to sleep or manage medication. The lack of a fixed address, internet, or transportation creates a barrier to establishing healthcare.

Exiting Homelessness and Policy Recommendations

While $9$ in $10$ unhoused individuals are interested in entering housing, they face barriers such as eviction history, poor credit, and criminal-legal contact. Public transit access to work and family is also a factor, and about half had no contact with social services. Documentation loss and the inability of friends or family to host them further complicate exits.

The CASPEH recommendations for policy solutions include: increasing affordable housing for extremely low-income families via vouchers, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), shared housing, and Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units; increasing homelessness prevention as a cost-effective measure; facilitating swift exits to reduce health impacts; and increasing enrollment in benefits and employment support.

The Family Options Study: Evaluating Interventions

The Family Options Study randomly assigned approximately $2,200$ families experiencing homelessness to four conditions: Usual Care (UC) in shelters; Long-term rental subsidies (SUB); Short-term rental subsidies (CBRR/Rapid Re-housing); and Project-based transitional housing (PBTH) with intensive psychosocial services. Long-term subsidies (SUB) paid the difference between $30\%$ of income and rent and included housing search services. Short-term subsidies (CBRR) lasted up to $18$ months. Transitional housing (PBTH) was temporary, supervised, and included training and substance use programs.

The study found that long-term rental subsidies were the most effective. SUB reduced homelessness and food insecurity, halved the use of emergency shelters, and halved rates of homelessness at follow-up. It increased residential stability, reduced psychological distress and substance use, and improved child wellbeing by reducing school absences and behavioral issues. The cost of SUB was only $9\%$ higher than usual care. In contrast, short-term subsidies (CBRR) did not improve long-term housing stability relative to UC, though they did reduce school absences and improved income. Transitional housing (PBTH) reduced emergency shelter usage but did not improve long-term stability or psychosocial wellbeing. The study suggests that for most families, homelessness is primarily an economic problem.

Questions & Discussion: Housing as a Commodity

1. What does Mary Pattillo mean when she says that housing is treated as a commodity?
2. What are the consequences of the commodity nature of housing?
3. What are some examples that Pattillo gives of non-commodified housing, or housing treated as a right?
4. How does the CASPEH report support or refute Pattillo’s argument?
5. Do CASPEH’s recommendations challenge the commodification of housing or reinforce it?

“De-naturalizing” Natural Disasters

Urban sociologists aim to "de-naturalize" disasters, arguing that the harms resulting from heat, floods, tornadoes, and fire are not evenly experienced or inevitable. Instead, the organization of cities, public policies, and pre-existing inequalities determine which communities are vulnerable. Institutions and policies make certain groups more susceptible to environmental hazards.

In the Chicago $1995$ heat wave, mortality rates were closely correlated with neighborhood poverty. Those who died were predominantly poor and elderly, particularly in neighborhoods with high rates of violence where residents were afraid to open windows or go outside, and social workers were less likely to respond. City-level failure played a role: the police did not activate senior assistance programs, and the fire department lacked an emergency plan. Furthermore, housing providers managed Single Resident Occupancy (SRO) units that were poorly ventilated and lacked air conditioning or insulation. Deaths were notably fewer in SROs where managers checked on occupants.

Case Study: Hurricane Katrina and the Geography of Risk

On August 29, 2003, Hurricane Katrina made landfall in Louisiana, leading to $1800$ deaths (over half of whom were seniors) and the evacuation of $1.3$ million people. The tragedy highlighted the "geography of risk," where racial and economic segregation placed disadvantaged communities in the most vulnerable areas. Flood risk was higher in areas with lower home prices near levees, disproportionately impacting poor Black residents. Flooded neighborhoods in New Orleans were $75\%$ African American, compared to $46\%$ in non-damaged areas. Additionally, only $17\%$ of poor Black residents owned cars compared to $53\%$ of poor white residents, making evacuation difficult. Because the storm hit at the end of the month, many residents had fewer liquid resources available for escape.

The "Second Disaster" and Recovery Inequality

The "second disaster" refers to the unequal recovery efforts following the storm. Flooding destroyed industrial sites, spilling approximately $750,000$ gallons of oil. While $110,000$ homes flooded, $55,000$ remained submerged in six feet of toxic water and debris for over a week. FEMA assistance and rebuilding were significantly slower in lower-income, Black neighborhoods like the Ninth Ward. Inequalities persisted in which areas were cleaned vs. left contaminated, and where storm debris was dumped. Two years later, one-third of residents had not returned. Funding for toxic remediation was scarce; instead, families were told not to let children play in soil that samples showed contained high levels of lead and diesel fuel. Furthermore, $83\%$ of the $102,000$ trailers FEMA provided for evacuees had formaldehyde levels exceeding EPA limits, causing chemical off-gassing and illness among residents.

Environmental Racism and Hazard Siting

Minority neighborhoods are more likely to host environmental hazards than advantaged ones. Research in Los Angeles County as of $1990$ compared tracts with and without Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs). Tracts within $1/4$ mile of a TSDF in $1980$ showed a $25.5\%$ higher minority population ($p < .01$) and a $7.6\%$ higher African American population ($p < .05$). These tracts also had lower home values (a difference of $-\$9,796$, $p < .01$) and lower household incomes (a difference of $-\$73,559$, $p < .01$).

There are two hypotheses for this: "disproportionate siting" (placing hazards in minority areas) and "minority move-in" (minorities moving to areas because hazards make them cheaper). Robert Bullard defines environmental racism as "any policy, practice, or directive that differentially affects or disadvantages (whether intended or unintended) individuals, groups, or communities based on race/ethnicity." This includes the siting of landfills, exposure to pollution, and hazardous working conditions, as illustrated in Ester Hernandez’s work "Sun Mad" ($1982$).