Differentiation between shame and dignity-based housing service provision and policy making

Background: The accumulation of material wealth is commonly denoted as a symbol of success in the world; its deficiency is recognized as having detrimental social consequences. However, psychosocial meanings of wealth and poverty go beyond the material, with poverty defined as a shameful and corrosive social relation characterized by a lack of voice, disrespect, humiliation and reduced dignity and self-esteem. While the shame experienced by persons in poverty has long been recognized, little attention has been paid to the implications of the poverty/shame nexus for the design of effective anti-poverty measures – including policies directed at the housing insecure. Shame is an important dimension to consider when developing and delivering housing assistance measures. Attention to this dimension across the spectrum of professional practice will enhance the effectiveness of these measures by promoting human dignity and social cohesion.

Objectives:To investigate the perspectives and experiences of provider and recipients (“participants”) of housing assistance programs, including those directed at homeless women and young families.

Methods: Data was collected through individual interviews with providers and recipients and through observation of participant-recipient interactions at intake sessions and activities based at two housing sites/shelters, one a local housing authority apartment complex, the other a shelter for young families. The program stated goals are to help low-income clients transition into temporary housing to increase their self-sufficiency, and eventually leading to home ownership. Programmes offered are aimed at improving recipient skills, including English language courses, financial literacy courses, job search workshops and career advancement services.

Findings: Preliminary findings highlight the need for advance training for staff focused on respectful communication. In addition, we note key themes around the need for staff support, namely in the areas of clear and realistic work expectations (i.e. especially in the realm of paperwork and documentation), number of staff supported at each site, continuous training opportunities, and work/life balance. Shame-proofing modifications directed at recipients include more individualized/personalized follow-up by an assigned caseworker and attention to how discretion is used in housing decisions. 

Conclusion/Discussion: Social service agencies may find employment of “motivational interviewing” useful in improving communication and rapport. More opportunity for provider-recipient interactions might also be beneficial. Further interviews and interactions will provide insight for crafting concrete guidelines for dignity-based service delivery.