Individual vs. Structural Framing

Introduction

When we discuss homelessness, we implicitly or explicitly answer a fundamental question: Why does homelessness exist? Is it primarily because of individual choices, circumstances, and characteristics? Or is it primarily the result of structural factors like housing markets, economic systems, and policy decisions?

This distinction between individual and structural framing is not merely academic. The way we explain the causes of homelessness profoundly shapes public opinion, policy responses, resource allocation, and ultimately, the lives of people experiencing housing instability. This article explores these contrasting frameworks, their implications, and how a more balanced understanding can lead to more effective approaches to addressing homelessness.

Understanding Individual and Structural Frames

Let's begin by clarifying what these different frames entail:

Individual Framing Defined

The individual frame locates the primary causes of homelessness within the person experiencing it:

• Focuses on personal characteristics, choices, and behaviors
• Emphasizes factors like substance use, mental health conditions, or poor financial decisions
• Views homelessness as primarily resulting from individual deficits or failures
• Often includes moral judgments about personal responsibility
• Suggests solutions focused on changing individual behavior

Structural Framing Defined

The structural frame locates the primary causes of homelessness in broader social, economic, and political systems:

• Focuses on housing markets, economic policies, and institutional barriers
• Emphasizes factors like affordable housing shortages, wage stagnation, and inadequate safety nets
• Views homelessness as primarily resulting from system failures
• Often includes analysis of power dynamics and resource distribution
• Suggests solutions focused on changing policies and systems

Historical Evolution of Framing

How we've framed homelessness has shifted over time, reflecting broader social and political contexts:

Pre-1980s: Skid Row and "Hobos"

Earlier understandings of homelessness:

• Primarily individual framing focused on alcoholism and personal failings
• Homelessness largely viewed as affecting single men
• Limited recognition of housing market factors
• Solutions centered on rehabilitation and moral reform
• Charitable rather than rights-based approaches predominated

1980s: The New Homelessness

A shift in understanding emerged:

• Growing recognition of structural factors as homelessness increased dramatically
• Deinstitutionalization of mental health care highlighted as a systemic issue
• Housing affordability crisis began receiving attention
• Greater awareness of families experiencing homelessness
• Advocacy organizations pushed for structural analysis

1990s-2000s: Competing Narratives

Tension between frames intensified:

• Research increasingly documented structural causes
• Media coverage continued to emphasize individual factors
• Criminalization approaches reflected individual framing
• Housing First emerged from structural understanding
• Political discourse often reinforced individual responsibility

Contemporary Understanding

Current framing continues to evolve:

• Growing recognition of systemic racism's role in homelessness
• Increased attention to housing affordability crisis
• Evidence-based approaches often reflect structural understanding
• Public opinion remains divided along ideological lines
• Tension between frames continues in policy debates

"How we frame homelessness isn't just about words—it's about power. When we frame homelessness as primarily an individual failure, we absolve systems and structures from responsibility. When we recognize structural causes, we open the door to more fundamental solutions."

Evidence on Causes of Homelessness

What does research tell us about the actual causes of homelessness?

Housing Market Factors

Strong evidence supports structural housing causes:

• Communities with higher housing costs have higher rates of homelessness
• Rental vacancy rates strongly correlate with homelessness prevalence
• Eviction rates predict subsequent homelessness at community level
• Gentrification and displacement precede increased homelessness
• Rent burden (percentage of income spent on housing) predicts housing instability

Economic Factors

Broader economic conditions play a significant role:

• Minimum wage increases correlate with reduced homelessness
• Income inequality is associated with higher homelessness rates
• Unemployment spikes precede homelessness increases
• Medical debt is a leading cause of housing loss
• Economic recessions produce measurable increases in homelessness

Individual Vulnerabilities

Personal factors interact with structural conditions:

• Mental health conditions increase vulnerability to housing loss in tight markets
• Substance use disorders complicate housing stability but rarely cause homelessness alone
• Family conflict and domestic violence often precipitate homelessness, especially for women
• Physical disabilities create additional housing barriers
• Individual factors better explain who becomes homeless in a housing crisis than why homelessness exists

Policy and Systems

Institutional decisions shape homelessness rates:

• Communities with stronger tenant protections have lower homelessness rates
• Countries with more robust social safety nets have less homelessness
• Discharge policies from institutions (hospitals, prisons, foster care) affect homelessness
• Criminalization approaches increase duration of homelessness
• Housing subsidy availability directly impacts homelessness prevalence

How Framing Shapes Public Opinion

The way homelessness is framed significantly influences how the public understands the issue:

Attribution of Responsibility

Framing affects who we hold responsible:

• Individual framing leads to greater attribution of personal responsibility
• Structural framing increases recognition of systemic factors
• Research shows exposure to different frames measurably shifts blame attribution
• Media emphasis on individual stories without context reinforces personal responsibility framing
• Political ideology interacts with framing to influence responsibility attribution

Emotional Responses

Frames evoke different emotional reactions:

• Individual framing often triggers emotions like disgust, fear, or pity
• Structural framing more commonly evokes anger at injustice or empathy
• Emotional responses predict willingness to support different interventions
• Frames that humanize people experiencing homelessness increase empathy
• Dehumanizing frames increase social distance and reduce compassion

Policy Preferences

Framing directly influences policy support:

• Individual framing correlates with support for behavioral requirements and enforcement
• Structural framing increases support for housing investments and economic policies
• Experimental studies show causal relationship between framing and policy preferences
• Even brief exposure to different frames can shift policy support
• Combined framing that acknowledges both dimensions can build broader coalitions

Willingness to Engage

How framing affects personal involvement:

• Individual framing often reduces willingness to engage directly
• Structural framing can increase support for systemic change but may feel overwhelming
• Frames that emphasize shared humanity increase interpersonal engagement
• Framing that highlights effective solutions increases willingness to act
• Personal stories within structural context are particularly effective at motivating engagement

Framing in Policy and Practice

How these frames manifest in approaches to addressing homelessness:

Individual-Focused Approaches

Policies and programs reflecting individual framing:

• Sobriety requirements: Mandating abstinence before housing assistance
• Therapeutic communities: Focusing on personal rehabilitation
• Financial literacy programs: Emphasizing budgeting skills
• Work requirements: Mandating employment for assistance
• Anti-panhandling ordinances: Targeting visible behaviors

Structure-Focused Approaches

Policies and programs reflecting structural framing:

• Housing First: Providing immediate housing without preconditions
• Affordable housing development: Expanding low-cost housing supply
• Rent control and tenant protections: Stabilizing housing markets
• Universal basic income pilots: Addressing income inadequacy
• Medicaid expansion: Preventing medical bankruptcy and homelessness

Integrated Approaches

Programs that recognize both dimensions:

• Permanent supportive housing: Combining housing with voluntary services
• Flexible funding programs: Addressing individual needs within structural context
• Coordinated entry systems: Matching individual needs with appropriate resources
• Prevention programs: Targeting both individual crises and structural vulnerabilities
• Cross-system collaboration: Addressing both immediate needs and underlying causes

Evaluation and Outcomes

Evidence on effectiveness of different approaches:

• Structure-focused approaches show stronger outcomes for housing stability
• Individual-focused approaches alone show limited effectiveness without addressing housing
• Integrated approaches that address both dimensions demonstrate best outcomes
• Cost-effectiveness analyses generally favor structural interventions
• Long-term outcomes improve when both individual and structural factors are addressed

Framing in Media and Public Discourse

How these frames appear in how we talk and write about homelessness:

News Media Patterns

Trends in journalistic coverage:

• Individual framing dominates in approximately 70% of mainstream news stories
• Episodic coverage (individual stories) far more common than thematic (systemic analysis)
• Visual imagery often reinforces individual framing
• Sources quoted reflect framing bias (officials and business owners vs. researchers and advocates)
• Headlines frequently emphasize individual behaviors over structural conditions

Political Discourse

How framing appears in political communication:

• Conservative messaging typically emphasizes individual responsibility
• Progressive messaging more often highlights structural factors
• Bipartisan solutions emerge when both frames are acknowledged
• Crisis language often reinforces individual framing
• Rights-based language typically reflects structural understanding

Advocacy Communication

How organizations frame their messages:

• Tension between compelling individual stories and structural analysis
• Fundraising appeals often rely on individual framing
• Policy advocacy more frequently uses structural framing
• Organizations led by people with lived experience often balance both frames
• Effective messaging often connects personal stories to broader patterns

Social Media Discourse

Patterns in online conversations:

• Platform design often favors individual narratives over systemic analysis
• Viral content typically features extreme individual cases
• Echo chambers reinforce existing framing preferences
• Visual content can either humanize or dehumanize
• Hashtag activism often attempts to reframe toward structural understanding

"The stories we tell about homelessness matter. When we only tell stories of individual tragedy or failure, we miss the bigger picture of policy choices and market forces. But when we only talk about systems, we can lose sight of the real human beings at the center of this crisis. We need both perspectives."

The Role of Lived Experience in Framing

How people who have experienced homelessness frame their own situations:

Complex Self-Attribution

Research on how people explain their own homelessness:

• People often acknowledge both personal and structural factors
• Recognition of structural barriers increases with time and distance from crisis
• Internalized stigma can lead to self-blame even when structural factors are evident
• Narrative agency allows for complex, nuanced understanding
• Framing often evolves as people connect with others who have similar experiences

Collective Narratives

How organized groups with lived experience frame homelessness:

• Advocacy organizations often emphasize structural analysis
• Personal stories used strategically to illustrate systemic issues
• Rejection of narratives that reduce people to their housing status
• Emphasis on rights and dignity rather than charity
• Challenge to dominant framing that excludes lived expertise

Narrative Resistance

How people resist harmful framing:

• Countering stereotypes through self-representation
• Highlighting strengths and agency rather than deficits
• Creating art, writing, and media that offer alternative narratives
• Building community through shared storytelling
• Demanding recognition of expertise that comes from experience

Ethical Storytelling

Principles for respectful inclusion of lived experience:

• Meaningful consent and control over how stories are shared
• Compensation for expertise and narrative contributions
• Avoiding exploitation or tokenization
• Connecting individual stories to structural context
• Centering dignity and agency in all representations

Toward More Balanced Framing

Approaches that recognize the complex interplay of individual and structural factors:

Ecological Framework

Understanding multiple levels of influence:

• Individual factors (health, skills, personal history)
• Interpersonal factors (family, social networks, relationships)
• Institutional factors (organizations, services, local systems)
• Community factors (housing markets, local economy, social norms)
• Structural factors (economic policy, systemic racism, housing policy)

Intersectional Analysis

Recognizing how multiple systems interact:

• How race, gender, disability, and other identities shape experiences
• Recognition that structural factors affect people differently based on social position
• Analysis of how power operates across multiple dimensions
• Attention to both individual experience and systemic patterns
• Centering the perspectives of those most marginalized

Trauma-Informed Perspective

Understanding the impact of trauma at multiple levels:

• Recognition of individual trauma histories
• Awareness of how systems can perpetuate trauma
• Attention to historical and collective trauma
• Focus on resilience alongside vulnerability
• Emphasis on healing at both individual and community levels

Rights-Based Approach

Framing homelessness as a human rights issue:

• Recognition of housing as a fundamental human right
• Focus on dignity and agency of individuals
• Analysis of structural barriers to rights fulfillment
• Emphasis on participation of affected communities in solutions
• Balance of individual rights with collective responsibility

Practical Applications

How to apply more balanced framing in various contexts:

For Journalists and Media Professionals

Guidelines for more comprehensive coverage:

• Include both individual stories and structural context
• Seek diverse sources, including people with lived experience and housing experts
• Examine implicit framing in language, imagery, and narrative structure
• Consider the cumulative impact of coverage patterns
• Report on solutions and systemic changes, not just problems

For Policymakers and Advocates

Approaches to more effective communication:

• Develop messaging that acknowledges both dimensions
• Use personal stories to illustrate structural issues
• Frame policies in terms of both individual impact and systemic change
• Build coalitions across ideological divides through balanced framing
• Center the expertise of people with lived experience

For Service Providers

Implementing balanced approaches in practice:

• Design programs that address both immediate needs and structural barriers
• Avoid language that blames clients for structural circumstances
• Engage in both direct service and systems change advocacy
• Develop trauma-informed approaches that recognize both individual and collective trauma
• Include people with lived experience in program design and evaluation

For Community Members

How individuals can promote balanced understanding:

• Question simplistic narratives about homelessness causes
• Recognize both individual circumstances and structural patterns
• Support both direct assistance and systemic change efforts
• Challenge dehumanizing language and stereotypes
• Listen to and amplify voices of people with lived experience

Conclusion

The way we frame homelessness—as primarily an individual failure or a structural issue—profoundly shapes how we understand and respond to it. Individual framing tends to focus on personal characteristics, choices, and behaviors, leading to solutions centered on changing individuals. Structural framing emphasizes housing markets, economic policies, and systemic barriers, pointing toward solutions that change systems and policies.

The evidence is clear that structural factors, particularly housing affordability, play the dominant role in determining rates of homelessness across communities. However, individual vulnerabilities help explain who is most at risk when housing markets fail. The most effective approaches recognize this complexity, addressing both dimensions rather than focusing exclusively on either.

Moving toward more balanced framing doesn't mean simply splitting the difference between individual and structural explanations. Rather, it requires developing more sophisticated frameworks—ecological, intersectional, trauma-informed, and rights-based—that can capture the complex interplay between individual lives and broader systems.

By understanding how framing shapes our perceptions and responses, we can communicate more effectively, develop more comprehensive solutions, and ultimately make greater progress toward ending homelessness. The words we use and the stories we tell matter not just for how we think about homelessness, but for how we act to address it.

References & Further Reading

1. Glynn, Chris and Fox, Emily B. "Dynamics of Homelessness in Urban America." The Annals of Applied Statistics, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1214/18-AOAS1200
2. Iyengar, Shanto. "Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues." University of Chicago Press, 1991. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo3684515.html
3. Schneider, Barbara et al. "Framing Homelessness: How Media Coverage Shapes Public Understanding." FrameWorks Institute, 2021. https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/
4. Desmond, Matthew. "Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City." Crown Publishing, 2016. https://www.evictedbook.com/
5. Kushel, Margot and Moore, Tiana. "Toward a New Understanding: The California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness." UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative, 2023. https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/our-impact/our-studies/california-statewide-study-people-experiencing-homelessness
6. Lee, Barrett A., Tyler, Kimberly A., and Wright, James D. "The New Homelessness Revisited." Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 36, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115940
7. National Coalition for the Homeless. "Why Are People Homeless?" NCH Fact Sheet, 2022. https://nationalhomeless.org/about-homelessness/
8. Tsemberis, Sam. "Housing First: The Pathways Model to End Homelessness for People with Mental Illness and Addiction." Hazelden Publishing, 2010. https://www.pathwayshousingfirst.org/