Working with Homeless Populations to Increase Access to Services: A Social Service Providers’ Perspective Through the Lens of Stereotyping and Stigma

Through the lens of stereotyping and stigma, this article examines discrimination and prejudice toward homeless families from the perspective of social service providers. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with practitioners. A critical social work practice perspective is used to provide a framework for understanding how social worker knowledge about discrimination and prejudice informs the ways in which the workers engage with clients, build capacities, and advocate for clients in an anti-oppressive manner. The themes found in this study include: a) providers’ awareness of bias, stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination; b) providers’ use of a range of strategies to work with people experiencing homelessness; c) providers’ ideas about strategies that organizations can implement for service provision; and) providers’ belief that additional advocacy and policy are needed in relationship to people experiencing homelessness.     

Food Pantries and the Populations They Serve: Strange Bedfellows or Strategic Partners?*

Although it is often assumed that food pantries are managed by middle‐class directors whose social background differs significantly from that of their target populations, no systematic empirical evidence concerning this issue exists to date. Moreover, scholarship has yet to explore the extent to which the presumably distinctive social positions of pantry directors and clients might result in the stigmatization of poverty, social welfare programs, and the poor by agency directors. Drawing on insights from attribution theory, this study seeks to shed light on demographic and attitudinal differences between pantry directors and food‐needy persons. The study begins by comparing the demographic characteristics of food pantry directors in a two‐state region of the South (Alabama‐Mississippi) with those of the food‐needy population in the region. It then moves on to contrast attitudinal disparities between these directors and food‐needy persons related to such issues as the causes of poverty, the effects of social welfare programs, and the character of those who utilize food assistance programs. Noteworthy differences in race, education, and religiosity emerge when comparing directors with the populations they serve; however, directors did not differ markedly from their potential clients in key social attitudes. When asked specifically about food pantry clients, directors responded with a mix of sympathy and suspicion. While a substantial portion of directors attribute poverty to structural causes, a significant number also characterize clients seeking food assistance as possibly having unsavory motivations for doing so. The study concludes with a discussion of the implications of these findings.