Survive but not thrive? Geographical strategies for avoiding absolute homelessness among immigrant communities

Abstract

This article seeks to unpack why certain immigrant communities manage to avoid absolute homelessness, emphasizing how survival strategies embedded in immigrant community space may be deployed in both advantageous and disadvantageous fashions. Bangladeshis in Greater London and Central Americans in Los Angeles County were compared, based on the fact that they are similarly vulnerable immigrant communities in terms of poverty and segregation, yet have successfully avoided the streets and/or shelters. Key strategies included the beneficial clustering of non-profits and overcrowding strategies within immigrant community space, although Bangladeshis differed substantially in terms of more state support for their community space. The implications for the study of race and survival are offered.

Does Race Matter in Addressing Homelessness? A Review of the Literature

“…According to Marcus, this difference occurred because black Americans have adopted American kinship norms, which center on individual autonomy and consumption, while Hispanic Americans adhere to norms common among immigrant communities, in which collective well‐being and accumulation is valued over individual autonomy. DeVerteuil () also observed this difference in a study involving interviews with 16 social service agencies for Central Americans in Los Angeles. He found that Central Americans were almost entirely absent from local shelters.…”

“…He found that Central Americans were almost entirely absent from local shelters. Peoples’ strong social networks meant “there was always some friend or family member to take them in” (DeVerteuil, , p. 938). However, these same networks could prevent other community members from thriving due to the obligations they imposed.…”

On the edge: changing geographies of the global city precariat in London and Hong Kong

“…This sort of spatial mismatch was recognized by Cordero-Guzman (2005: 896) in New York City, whereby 45% of migrant-serving organizations were located in Manhattan but 82% of recent migrants were heading to the other four boroughs (Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island and Queens). Finally, we also propose a comparative study, one which builds upon prior work by DeVerteuil (2011a;2011b) in London and Los Angeles, but also work among Chicago, Los Angeles and New York (Theodore et al, 2006).…”

“…May et al, 2007;Wills et al, 2009;Coe, 2013;Sim, 2009). And yet, with some exceptions (Findlay et al, 2007;DeVerteuil, 2011a), little attention has been paid to the spatial overlap between work precarity among migrants and third sector organizations within global cities. This paper aims to explore the spatial relationship between residence of recent 'work precarious' migrants living in global cities and third sector organizations that promote their well-being (e.g., recreational, religious, social and health).…”

Overseas investment into London: Imprint, impact and pied-à-terre urbanism

“…The poor, those living in overcrowded conditions (DeVerteuil, 2011), social renters (and those on the decade-long waiting lists) and the growing army of the homeless will scramble to live day to day in the shadows of those who treat London purely as an asset and a global reserve currency, a city divided between those in social housing being fined for having empty bedrooms (i.e. the so-called Bedroom Tax) to those who hold on to empty houses year-round with impunity.…”