“It’s Not a Pattern of Behavior”: Proxy

Deflection of Eviction Stigma by Community

Care Providers
Garrett L. Grainger
University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA

Community care is the “hospital without walls” model of mental health

services that deinstitutionalized mental patients in the late-twentieth
century. Neoliberal reforms have challenged the implementation of
community care by restricting access to permanent housing. Extreme
poverty has rendered eviction commonplace for community care
recipients. The mark of an eviction limits lease attainment. As a result,
community care providers practice proxy deflection—redemption,
externalization, and paternalism—to resist eviction stigma during the
leasing process. This paper extends stigma research by examining
resistance rather than imposition of stigma by social service providers,
contextualizing resistance with the perspective of stigmatizers, and
identifying resources that proxy resistance offers service recipients
leasing up in stratified private rental markets during the neoliberal era.
Keywords: stigma, stigma management, mental health, community
care, housing insecurity, eviction, neoliberalism

The neoliberal turn made housing insecurity a defining feature of contemporary

urban poverty in America (Desmond 2012). In 2009, the median monthly income
of American renters remained stagnate while median rents increased 20% since
1980. By 2016, 47.5% of American renters contributed more than 30% of their
monthly income to housing (Joint Center for Housing Studies 2010). Federal wel-
fare retrenchment limited housing assistance to only 25% of eligible households in
2015 (Joint Center for Housing Studies 2017). As a result, America’s urban poor
has experienced chronic eviction (Desmond 2016). The “urban poor,” however,
is a diverse group. People with severe mental illness (PWSMI) have suffered pro-
tracted unemployment, welfare dependency, and, consequently, deep poverty. The
proportion of America’s urban poor constituted by PWSMI expanded in response
to deinstitutionalization (Baum and Burnes 1993). As governments struggled to

Direct all correspondence to Garrett L. Grainger at 8128 William H. Sewell Social Sciences Building,
1180 Observatory Dr. Madison, WI 53706-1393. e-mail: ggrainger@wisc.edu.

Symbolic Interaction, (2020), p. n/a, ISSN: 0195-6086 print/1533-8665 online.

© 2020 Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction (SSSI)
DOI: 10.1002/SYMB.511
2 Symbolic Interaction 2020

find an effective model of “community care,” neoliberal welfare reforms reduced

resources for ex-patients to access permanent housing (Levine 1981). As a result,
PWSMI have experienced high rates of eviction (Tsai and Huang 2019).
Chronic eviction has undermined the ability of PWSMI to lease up in private
rental markets. Past research suggests involuntary displacement marks the rental his-
tory of a consumer with eviction stigma (Desmond 2012). Prospective landlords use
screening criteria to measure the ability of applicants to generate profit with minimal
transaction costs (Greif 2018). The prevalence of eviction among PWSMI suggests
community care providers must develop strategies to resist eviction stigma while nav-
igating private rental markets for their clients. The stigma literature has generally
examined the experiences of social service recipients (Andrade 2002; Fong, Wright,
and Wilmer 2016; Rogers-Dillon 1995; Seccombe, James, and Walters 1998). Most
research on social service providers has analyzed the imposition (Goffman 1961;
Gruys 2019; Jordan 2018; Scheff 1966) or impact (see reviews in Link, Phelan, and
Sullivan 2017) of stigmatization. Little attention has been directed at ways men-
tal health professionals manage stigma for clients (Dobransky 2019; Seale, Buck,
and Parrotta 2012). Sociology, therefore, lacks knowledge of an essential resource
PWSMI use to cope with various forms of stigma in everyday life.
I address this shortcoming by examining tactics community care providers use
to resist eviction stigma while securing leases for clients in a hypersegregated pri-
vate rental market. This paper extends Thoits (2011) by differentiating proxy from
ego resistance as a set of practices marginalized people use to manage stigma and
Dobransky (2019) by analyzing the practices social service providers employ to man-
age stigma for their clients. To this end, I use interview and focus group data to
demonstrate the impact of contextual factors on resistance selection in different leas-
ing contexts and identify resources that case managers employ to deflect eviction
stigma during the application process. I continue by, first, situating this study in litera-
tures on deinstitutionalization, neoliberalism, and stigma resistance. Next, I describe
the methods used to conduct this analysis before introducing the case study. Third, I
present the data analysis in two sections that depict landlord stigmatization of evic-
tion and case manager resistance to that stigma. I wrap up with summary discussion
and suggestions for future research.

FROM ASYLUMS TO COMMUNITY CARE

Asylums became the “place” of “madness” during the American Enlightenment
(Scull 2015). Liberal philosophy inspired early-American settlers to conceptualize
the “mad” as animals who lacked the capacity for reason that qualified someone as
“human” and, therefore, a member of “modern” society. The mad were frequently
abandoned to local poorhouses with neither treatment nor hope for reintegration
(Grob 1972). Reformers challenged this practice by arguing people suffering madness
were rational human beings whose capacity for reason was weakened by the pres-
sures of modern society. “Moral treatment,” they argued, would restore the rational
Proxy Deflection of Eviction Stigma 3

faculties of the insane (Rothman 1971). This treatment paradigm prescribed seclu-
sion to a structured, well-resourced, familial-like environment where patients were
assigned communal roles and subjected to minimal physical restraints. In contrast
to the poorhouse, reformers designed the asylum as a refuge where patients could
recover their mental faculties before reintegrating into society. Reformers success-
fully grew asylums across America in the early 1800s (Grob 1972).
The function of asylums shifted from treatment to custodialism in the mid-
nineteenth century (Rothman 1971). This transition reflected several factors. First,
psychiatrists used bourgeois culture to differentiate the sane from insane. As a result,
asylums functioned as informal political prisons where threats to modern society
were disappeared under the guise of medicine (Metzl 2010). Second, eugenics
inspired psychiatrists to reconceptualize madness as an immutable genetic defect
that disqualified patients from citizenship (Snyder and Mitchell 2010). Finally, moral
treatment proved ineffective at curing insanity. Failure to cure patients coupled
with the stigmatized patient population discouraged lawmakers from financing
therapeutic interventions (Grob 1972). As a result, the asylum was transformed
into a custodial institution that warehoused marginalized groups in overcrowded,
understaffed public facilities (Deutsch 1948).
The Second World War facilitated the deinstitutionalization of mental patients
from asylums (Grob 1991). The U.S. Department of Defense hired psychiatrists to
treat distressed soldiers in European battlefields. Psychiatrists observed the impact of
environmental stress on mental health and developed ad hoc strategies to treat men-
tal illness in situ. Wartime experience expanded the definition of madness to include
minor conditions, challenged established orthodoxy that madness is an immutable
condition requiring long-term custodial care, and empowered psychiatrists to inform
public policymaking in the post-war era. Novel pharmaceutical therapies demon-
strated positive outcomes that rendered asylums obsolete. Psychotropic drugs pro-
vided inexpensive treatment that allowed mental patients to live in their community.
Psychiatrists cited these advantages to promote deinstitutionalization.
Antipsychiatrists echoed demand for deinstitutionalization. Academics through-
out the West contested the treatment of mental patients in asylums (Foucault 1967;
Goffman 1961). Ex-patients appropriated civil rights discourse to contest psychiatric
abuse (Crossley 2006). Activism paid off. The federal government passed the Com-
munity Mental Health Act of 1963 to fund research, provide training, and establish
community mental health centers that delivered care to patients outside the asy-
lum (Grob 1991). In combination with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the
Community Mental Health Act motivated closefisted state and local governments
to release mental patients from asylums en mass. Community mental health centers
became the primary source of mental health assistance while hospitalization stabi-
lized patients only under extreme circumstances (Levine 1981).
Community care must be delivered somewhere. Asylums provided mental patients
public housing (Grob 1972). The transition from asylums to community care presup-
posed a robust social safety net that ex-patients could use to access units in rental
4 Symbolic Interaction 2020

markets. Deinstitutionalization advocates assumed ex-patients could access hous-

ing assistance by independently navigating the welfare bureaucracy (Levine 1981).
Reality belied these expectations. The 1980s witnessed neoliberal restructuring that
eviscerated the safety net that reformers anticipated. Furthermore, ex-patients strug-
gled to independently navigate welfare bureaucracies. Homelessness soared amongst
ex-patients who lacked economic, social, and cultural capital to access private rental
markets (Baum and Burnes 1993). The federal government responded to this crisis
with blocks grants that funded case managers who helped community care recipi-
ents secure housing (Rochefort 1993); however, neoliberal reforms have limited the
ability of case managers to secure permanent, quality housing for their clients.

HOUSING INSECURITY IN THE NEOLIBERAL ERA

Neoliberalism is an evolving mode of regulation that facilitates capital accumu-
lation through supply- rather than demand-side interventions (Peck 2001). Peck
and Tickell (2002) differentiate two stages of neoliberalism. The first state, “roll
back” neoliberalism, reduced the Keynesian welfare state via taxation/expenditure
cuts, deregulation, and devolution to cope with the 1970s stagflation crisis. Political
restructuring increased visible poverty and challenged the legitimacy of reforms. The
second stage, “roll out” neoliberalism, instituted new modes of poverty governance
to cope with contradictions emergent from the initial phase. This stage reoriented
social policy to accommodate the poor to poverty rather than redistribute wealth to
eliminate poverty.
Roll back neoliberalism slashed housing assistance to the urban poor (Peck
and Tickell 2002). The Reagan Administration cut the Department of Housing
and Urban Development’s budget by 80% in the early 1980s (Goetz 1993). By
2015, only 25% of eligible households received a housing choice voucher (Joint
Center for Housing Studies 2017). Moreover, income supplement programs have
been inadequately adjusted to rent inflation. Social Security Disability Insurance
recipients have become cost burdened renters with limited access to rental subsides.
Roll out neoliberalism failed to offset housing insecurity created by federal welfare
cuts. The federal government’s supply-side intervention—Low Income Housing Tax
Credit—was adopted six years after initial cuts to affordable housing programs. To
date, this public–private partnership has not matched demand for affordable hous-
ing (Kingsley 2017). Likewise, urban revitalization by the federal government has
diminished the affordable housing stock by demolishing public units (Goetz 2003).
As a result, neoliberalism has left community care recipients with few resources to
access permanent housing in private rental markets while competition for affordable
units is driving up the cost of rent.
Neoliberalism generated financial crises across the Rust Belt—where this case
study was conducted—that have prevented cities from supplementing intergovern-
mental revenue losses (Teaford 1990). Federal retrenchment coincided with dein-
dustrialization (Wilson 1987). The corporate tax base of Rust Belt cities dwindled as
Proxy Deflection of Eviction Stigma 5

capital investment relocated. Threat of bankruptcy pressured cities to embrace urban

entrepreneurialism (Harvey 1989). Local governments competed with one another to
create “business friendly” environments that attracted mobile capital and white mid-
dleclass consumers. Prioritization of economic growth meant the urban poor could
not rely on local governments to supplement federal welfare cuts. Deep poverty has
engulfed central cities in the Rust Belt as local governments have confronted service
demands that structural constraints prevent satisfaction.
Housing insecurity, consequently, has become a defining characteristic of urban
poverty in the neoliberal era. Income bifurcation interacts with inflated rents to
increase eviction amongst America’s urban poor (Desmond 2012). The mark of evic-
tion renders the urban poor dependent on a pool of landlords who charge excessive
rents. Local governments provide landlords institutional tools to coerce rent pay-
ment from poor tenants (Garboden and Rosen 2019). Eviction communicates risk to
landlords that applicants must challenge to lease up. Electronic court records enable
landlords to fact check applicants’ rental history (Desmond 2016). Neoliberalism
has rendered community care recipients vulnerable to eviction. PWSMI experience
higher rates of eviction than their counterparts (Tsai and Huang 2019). Community
care providers are responsible for housing clients and, as a result, strategically resist
eviction stigma during the leasing process.

PROXY RESISTANCE OF EVICTION STIGMA IN LEASE

NEGOTIATIONS
Stigma is a socially constructed label that categorizes a personal attribute as socially
deviant, differentiates an individual/group from the rest of society, undermines the
social status of deviant group members, and justifies interpersonal and institutional
discrimination (Link and Phelan 2001). Goffman (1963) distinguishes three personal
traits—physical, character, and tribal—that are commonly stigmatized. Each object
of stigmatization varies in concealability. Discredited stigma is a label that degrades
an attribute that cannot be concealed during face-to-face interaction. Discreditable
stigma is a label that degrades an attribute that can be concealed during face-to-face
interactions. The capacity to stigmatize emerges from one’s position in a hierarchical
relationship. Dominant groups possess the resources to institutionalize self-serving
stigma. Institutional gatekeepers who practice stigmatization limit the life chances of
marginalized people.
Past research has focused on ascribed rather than achieved stigma. Ascribed
stigma is a negative label imposed by society onto a subordinate group. In America,
racial/ethnic minorities, workers, women, LGBT, age, and people with disabilities
are involuntarily contrasted against a dominant social location—white, middleclass,
heterosexual, cis-gender, able-bodied Christian men—that is used to differentiate
them as abnormal (Snyder and Mitchell 2010). Ascribed stigma is derived from
an imposed social status irrespective of personal merit. Achieved stigma is a neg-
ative label that differentiates someone whose actions have soiled their character
6 Symbolic Interaction 2020

by violating a cultural value. For example, stigma imposed on thieves, adulterers,

polluter, bigot, and alcoholics is achieved through personal action. Norm viola-
tions are stigmatized; however, the self can be restored by offering amends and
conforming one’s behavior to societal expectations.
I conceptualize the mark of eviction—“eviction stigma”—as an achieved stigma
acquired through lease violation(s) that culminate in involuntary displacement. The
lease is a negotiated agreement between two private parties that outlines rights and
responsibilities related to a rental unit. Property owners screen applicants to select
tenants who will likely obey lease obligations (Greif 2018). Landlords are prone
to interpret eviction as evidence of character flaws that render an applicant ineli-
gible for a lease. Electronic public records make eviction a discredited stigma that
applicants must address during the lease negotiation (Desmond 2016). Prevalence of
involuntary displacement amongst PWSMI means community care providers regu-
larly confront eviction stigma while negotiating leases for their clients. The nested
contexts of a lease negotiation constrain the plausible methods that case managers
use to resist eviction stigma during the application process. Consequently, the prac-
tice of community care requires case managers to strategically resist eviction stigma
while leasing clients in private rental markets.
Thoits (2011) conceptualizes resistance as a method of stigma management.
Thoits distinguished two strategies—deflection and challenging—that PWSMI
use to resist psychiatric stigma. Deflection rejects the application of stigma to the
self while legitimizing the marginalized category. Thoits (2016) found people with
mental illness who had non-severe disorders, low impairment of functioning, a
negative view of treatment, and multiple social roles resisted psychiatric stigma
by distancing themselves from rather than contesting diagnostic categories. In
contrast, challenging interrogates the legitimacy of stigmatized categories. Manago,
Davis, and Goar (2017) identified multiple methods parents used to challenge
stigma—blaming built environments, questioning derogatory presumptions, and
policing hate speech—exogenously imposed on their children who had a disability.
Although Thoits (2011) examines resistance by PWSMI, scholars have applied
Thoits’ insights to other status groups (McGrady 2016; Yasuike 2019).
I extend Thoits (2011) by differentiating ego from proxy resistance. Ego resis-
tance is deflection or challenging of stigma by the marginalized person. For example,
people experiencing homelessness deflect stigma by distancing themselves from
stereotypes while accessing essential services (Meanwell 2013). AFDC recipients
blame politicians for their reliance on public assistance (Jarrett 1996) and defend
their moral status by contrasting themselves to other welfare claimants (Seccombe,
James, and Walters 1998). PWSMI challenge psychiatric stigma by normalizing their
condition through education and comparisons to physical ailments (Wahl 1999). Past
research indicates ego resistance is positively correlated with self-efficacy, quality
of life, and mental health (Firmin et al. 2016). Social antecedents—extensive social
network ties, not being separated, and receiving outpatient treatment—increase
ego resistance of psychiatric stigma amongst people living with schizophrenia
Proxy Deflection of Eviction Stigma 7

(Sibitz et al. 2011); however, the ability to resist stigma varies by social location
(Campellone, Caponigro, and Kring 2014). Thus, ego resistance is a stratified
capacity that marginalized people are less able to effectively perform.
In contrast, proxy resistance is deflection or challenging of stigma by the alter of
a marginalized person. Our knowledge of proxy resistance is limited by the satura-
tion of research on welfare stigmatization by social service providers (Gruys 2019;
Jordan 2018; Morris et al. 2018; Taylor, Samblanet, and Seale 2011). I only iden-
tified one study whose respondents deflected welfare stigma by attributing client
failures to “clueless” politicians (Seale, Buck, and Parrotta 2012). Sociologists have
similarly devoted scant attention to stigma resistance by mental health professionals.
Past sociological research has focused on the imposition and/or impact of psychi-
atric stigma on patients by mental health providers (Goffman 1961; Link, Phelan,
and Sullivan 2017; Scheff 1966). Although medical researchers have examined the
impact of therapies to minimize self-stigma in mental patients (see review in Mittal
et al. 2012), sociologists have largely neglected stigma management and resistance
by mental health providers. Dobransky (2019) is an exception that demonstrates
mental health professionals manage psychiatric stigma for clients in everyday life.
Dobransky explains tactical selection as a function of illness severity, organizational
factors, client preferences, and the mental health system; however, that author does
not examine the impact of institutional constraints exogenous to client–provider
relationship on tactical selection. Moreover, Dobransky offers limited insight into
the resources mental health professionals provide to clients to manage stigma.
I address these limitations by answering the following question: In the context
of a tight, hypersegregated rental market where housing assistance is scarcely
available, how do community care providers resist eviction stigma while negotiating
leases for clients? I argue the structural context of lease negotiations—organization
of local housing markets, federal welfare retrenchment, and electronic public
records—facilitates reliance on proxy deflection by making case managers depen-
dent on a subset of landlords and eliminating their capacity to hide past evictions.
Moreover, landlords differentiate applicants as leasable or unleasable based on their
screening criteria. Eviction is an important factor that influences how landlords
categorize applicants. Case managers anticipate this logic by choosing proxy deflec-
tion tactics—redemption, externalization, and paternalism—that accommodate
case-specific facts. To this end, case managers provide clients resources that advance
their lease application by resisting eviction stigma.

DATA AND METHODS

I conducted five focus group (n = 33) and seventy in-depth interviews. I used three
methods to recruit participants. First, I requested permission from the “Springfield
County Continuum of Care” coordinated entry director to observe biweekly housing
placement meetings.1 I chose this venue to recruit participants because street out-
reach teams provide bridge case management that houses community care recipients
8 Symbolic Interaction 2020

who are experiencing homelessness. In addition, several case managers also func-
tioned as long-term case managers for the county. I introduced myself to the group,
described my project, and observed meetings for approximately eight months before
requesting one-on-one interviews. After conducting the initial round of interviews, I
requested referrals from program coordinators, who I had met at the placement meet-
ing, to interview the case managers they supervised. All program supervisors intro-
duced me, either in-person or electronically, to team members from who I requested
participation. This snowball sampling method recruited thirty-four participants into
the study.
Second, I contacted the Springfield County Department of Health where I con-
nected with program supervisors who oversaw the three community care programs.
After introducing the project, I asked to make short presentations to program
coordinators from local community care providers before their weekly staff meeting.
Each program supervisor agreed. During those presentations, I received contact
information from each program coordinator who connected me with their team
members. I was able to recruit case managers from six out of fifteen local agencies
providing community care. From these contacts, I recruited participation from
forty-three case managers. Thirty three of these case managers participated in five
focus groups that ranged between three and ten participants while the remaining
ten participated in either one-on-one or two-on-one interviews. In total, this study
included seventy-seven community care providers.
Third, I recruited twenty-six landlords into my study by using two methods. First,
I introduced myself to the President of Springfield County’s Apartments Associa-
tion to schedule a presentation during their monthly meeting. During that presen-
tation, I introduced audience members to my project, promised $20 to compensate
participation, distributed my contact information, and welcomed members to join the
study. Second, I used snowball sampling to recruit landlord participation. I requested
e-introductions from case managers who participated in the study. This enabled me
to access landlords who directly rented to community care recipients. I also requested
e-introductions from landlords who participated in the study (Table 1).
A substantial proportion of the case manager sample is young (44.2%) to
middle-aged adults (44.2%). An overwhelming proportion of this sample is female
(81.8%). Whites constituted the largest proportion of the sample (74.0%) with black
respondents (19.5%) constituting the second largest proportion. Participants with a
bachelor’s degree constituted 35.1% of the sample while those with master’s degree
composed 54.5%. Finally, a broad range of experience is expressed in this sample
with 23.4% reporting one to five years in the field of social work, 29.9% reporting
six to ten years, 26.0% reporting eleven to fifteen years, and 19.5% reporting over
sixteen years.
I interviewed twenty-six local landlords and property managers. Whites con-
stituted the largest proportion of this same (80.7%) with black (11.5%), Hispanic
(3.8%), and Arab (3.8%) respondents composed the rest. The majority of this sample
was female (65.4%). Respondents varied between twenty-five and sixty-eight-year
Proxy Deflection of Eviction Stigma 9

TABLE 1. Demographic Characteristics of People with Community Care

Providers (n = 77; Year 2018)
Demographic Characteristics Frequency Percent

Age cohort
Young adult (18–35) 34 44.2
Middle-adult (36–55) 34 44.2
Older-adult (56–99) 8 10.4
N/A 1 1.3
Gender
Female 63 81.8
Male 13 16.9
Non-binary 1 1.3
Race
Asian 1 1.3
Black 15 19.5
Brown 1 1.3
Hispanic 1 1.3
White 57 74.0
Other 1 1.3
N/A 1 1.3
Education level
High school degree 2 2.6
A.A or A.S. degree 6 7.8
Bachelor’s degree 27 35.1
Master’s degree 42 54.5
Employment history (in years)
1–5 18 23.4
6–10 23 29.9
11–15 20 26.0
16–20 7 9.1
21–25 7 9.1
26–99 2 1.3

old with fifty as the median age. Approximately 53.8% of landlord participants lived
in Springfield County while most others resided in the surrounding white suburbs.
Respondents varied between one and forty eight years of property management
experience with sixteen years as the median. Participants varied between 2 and
3500 units with 105 serving as the median.
I conducted in-depth interviews and focus groups with a recording device at loca-
tions selected by respondents. Each interview and focus group ranged thirty to ninety
minutes; however, most lasted approximately one hour. I created a semistructured
interview guide that was used for each interview and focus group to ensure compara-
ble responses. I encouraged all focus group members to participate by providing time
for each respondent to answer questions and requesting input from quiet attendees.
Once completed, audiorecordings were transcribed and analyzed using MAXQDA
software. I used coding methods derived from grounded theory to analyze the data
(Glaser and Strauss 1967). I initially open coded all data to identify emergent themes.
10 Symbolic Interaction 2020

Reflecting on these categories, I returned to scholarly literature to theoretically situ-

ate the case study. After identifying the theme of stigma resistance, I used theoretical
coding to organize existing codes into higher order categories that structure this
paper.
A few limitations should be noted before I continue. I did not directly observe
many of the actions described by case managers. Although each theme was trian-
gulated by multiple participants, this analysis is weakened by my inability to specify
conditions under which, beyond client characteristics, each strategy was used.
Moreover, this study relies on a purposive sample from one Rust Belt county. This
weakness limits the transferability of these findings to different political economic
contexts. The response rate is also a limitation. I was only able to recruit partici-
pants from six of fifteen community care agencies. I recruited 64 participants from
five third-tier agencies, ten participants from three second-tier agencies, and three
respondents from one first tier agency.2 Agencies that did not contribute to the study
employed program supervisors who ignored my emails requesting an introduction
to their case management staff or case managers who refused participation during a
recruitment presentation. The study, consequently, oversamples from organizations
serving community care recipients living with a debilitating mental illness. Finally,
within the organizations I recruited, black women seemed less willing to volunteer
participation. I am uncertain if my social identity (as a white, gay, middleclass,
cis-gendered man) discouraged participation by members of this subpopulation.
Readers might want to keep in mind while evaluating the results and considering
directions for future research.

SPRINGFIELD COUNTY COMMUNITY CARE

I conducted this case study in a large, hypersegregated, postindustrial county located
within the American Rust Belt. Since the 1970s, Springfield County experienced a
dramatic decline in its once dominant manufacturing sector (Wilson 1987). White
suburbanization simultaneously generated hypersegregation, thereby creating a
spatial mismatch that separated racial minorities from high-wage employment
(Jackson 1985; Kain 1992; Massey and Denton 1993). Poverty enveloped minority
neighborhoods in Springfield County’s central city. Local government responded
with mass incarceration that integrated state surveillance into the daily lives of
minority residents (Wacquant 2009). Intrametropolitan competition for high-income
households undermined local governments from investing in affordable housing
(Peterson 1981). Hence, Springfield County experienced the macrostructural changes
that urban sociologists have documented in Rust Belt cities during the neoliberal
era. In this context, case managers delivered community care with minimal resources
to secure permanent affordable housing for clients.
That said, Springfield County provided three community care programs through
local nonprofit agencies. The lowest tier of care served high functioning clients who
could consistently meet daily needs. These case managers connected clients to local
Proxy Deflection of Eviction Stigma 11

services without providing transportation, meeting reminders, and motivation. The

second tier of care served lower functioning clients who required assistance with
planning and transportation. In such instances, case managers met with clients twice
per month to monitor psychiatric symptoms. The third tier of care served the lowest
functioning clients who needed regular visits, medication monitoring, short-term
hospitalization, assisted planning, and transportation to medical appointments.
Community care recipients vacillated between tiers. A first-tier client could have
been transferred to a higher tier if they decompensated. A third-tier recipient may be
downgraded to a lower tier if their condition improved. The degree of independence
community care recipients enjoyed was an ongoing negotiation between service
providers.
The Community Care Division of Springfield County’s Health and Human
Services Department connected people to one of these programs. Local nurses,
psychiatrists, police, courts, friends/family, pastors, or social workers referred people
who suffered mental illness to a local “access point” for assessment. Data collected
from the assessment was used to assign individuals to a tier of community care. The
profile created during the assessment was given to a community care provider. A
case manager was assigned to the new client who helped them identify personal
objectives, strategize goal attainment, and offer assistance to achieve those out-
comes. The case manager conducted regular home visits to ensure treatment plan
and lease compliance. If violations were observed, community care providers used
client-centered case management to motivate cooperation. Repeated failure to
comply with interventions resulted in reduced financial independence, involuntary
hospitalization, and/or compulsory pharmaceutical treatment.

PROXY DEFLECTION OF EVICTION STIGMA

Study participants cited eviction as the primary housing barrier that they confronted
while negotiating leases for clients. I begin the data analysis by presenting the implicit
cultural binary—leasable versus unleasable—landlords used to select tenants from
an applicant pool. This portion of the analysis is included to contextualize the resis-
tance tactics case managers used to lease clients. Next, I discuss three proxy deflection
tactics—redemption, externalization, and paternalism—that case managers used to
resist eviction stigma. Respondents considered landlord perceptions of eviction and
facts related to their client’s lease application while selecting deflection strategies.

Leasable versus Unleasable Applicants

I draw insight from Fine and Kleinman (1983) to conceptualize Springfield
County’s private rental market as a social network that landlords used to yield
profit by leasing housing units to consumers. Landlords are gatekeepers who adopt
conventions—screening criteria—to differentiate leasable from unleasable appli-
cants. A leasable applicant voluntarily participates in profit accumulation while
12 Symbolic Interaction 2020

imposing minimal transaction costs. An unleasable applicant is either unable or

unwilling to submit to this process. Eviction suggests an applicant is unleasable
(Desmond 2012); however, it did not mean automatic denial. Landlords exercised
discretion by gathering information to determine if an eviction reflected a pattern
of personal disorganization. Fine (1992) argues actors confront an obdurate social
reality that imposes constraints they strategically navigate. Applying this insight,
the cultural binary landlords use to select tenants is an obdurate reality that case
managers strategically navigate while housing clients. Past research assumes rather
than demonstrated the cultural structure social service providers engage while man-
aging stigma for clients (Dobransky 2019; Seale, Buck, and Parrotta 2012). Inclusion
of landlord perspectives is a methodological advancement that demonstrates the
symbolic constraints case managers confront during lease negotiations, salience of
agency to stigma resistance by case managers, and significance of resources allocated
through proxy discretion.
Landlord participants described their screening criteria for selecting tenants.
From their perspective, eviction suggested an applicant was unleasable. Sally was
a fifty-eight-year-old white woman who owned four units with her husband, Jake.
The couple purchased these units to supplement Jake’s pension from a local man-
ufacturing plant. Reliance on these units for retirement made Sally risk adverse
while selecting tenants. Consequently, when I asked the question, “What kind of
marks on somebody’s housing history raise red flags for you,” Sally immediately
replied: “Evictions. I don’t want evictions.” Likewise, Alan was a fifty-one-year-old
white man who owned 105 units in the county’s roughest neighborhoods. After
earning a real estate degree from a state university, Alan bought properties that
functioned as his primary source of income. Alan tersely responded to the same
question: “Eviction.” Landlords, like Sally and Alan, are institutional gatekeepers
who control access to an essential resource. They used screening criteria to draw
moral boundaries—leasable versus unleasable—between applicants. Landlords
used eviction during the application process to stigmatize applicants as immoral and,
therefore, as unleasable.
Landlords perceived eviction stigma as achieved rather than ascribed. Past
evictions raised concerns that an applicant would impede profit accumulation as a
tenant. Amanda was a forty-one-year-old white woman who owned 18 units and
interpreted eviction in the following manner:
My very first point is regarding evictions. When you have a tenant that has had
a prior eviction, it’s one of those cases where somebody stiffs the prior landlord,
you kind of wonder if they’re going to wind up doing that to you.

Alicia, a forty-six-year-old black woman who managed properties for a white

landlord that rented units in one of Springfield County’s poorest neighborhoods,
expounded on Amanda’s point in a separate interview:
I have people that will call me, “Ms. Jones, the last one I had is in 2010.” So, I
be like, “Okay. Come on in. Do the application,” not thinking I should’ve paid
Proxy Deflection of Eviction Stigma 13

attention to the judgment amount, because that’s a red flag. So, now, I pay atten-
tion to that judgment amount. Anything over $900, nuh-uh (sic). You’re not get-
ting in. You couldn’t pay your rent in two months? You going to stiff me too.

Amanda and Alicia interpreted the mark of eviction as an achieved stigma. From
their perspective, eviction implied a pattern of personal disorganization that under-
mined profit accumulation. Respondents, the majority of which rented to low-income
minority households, based this expectation on individual action rather than social
status.
Although eviction alarmed landlords, study participants exercised discretion
while evaluating applicants. Most respondents established strict time limits to
determine the leasability of an applicant with evictions on their record. Janet, a
fifty-nine-year-old white woman who owned 118 units, justified her three-year time
limit as an industry standard:

You cannot have been evicted from another apartment within three years. I only
chose that just knowing what other landlords do. It’s sort of a standard.

In a separate interview, James, a property manager who controlled 450 units

throughout Springfield County, explained his justification for adopting the three-year
time limit:

I want somebody that has been reestablished and has good income, has stuff mov-
ing forward. So, they’ve been able to put it behind them.

Although risk averse landlords, like Sally and Alicia, cited a five-year time limit,
most participants defined leasable applicants as having no evictions within the past
three years. From Janet and James’ perspective, three years provided applicants
enough time to sort out personal problems that caused the previous eviction.
Participants also evaluated the story applicants used to explain their eviction.
Failure to take responsibility for involuntary displacement suggested personal dis-
organization. Margaret was a sixty-two-year-old white woman who owned 112 units
in Springfield County. After thirty-two years of property management, Margaret
developed the following method to distinguish ephemeral from persistent causes of
eviction:

Anybody could have been evicted … If they were evicted because of something
that has since then changed and is not likely to happen again, that’s fine.

To discern a pattern, Margaret interrogated the story applicants used to explain

their eviction. Attributing blame to the landlord suggested a pattern of irresponsibil-
ity:

I lost my job. I gave birth to a sick kid. Something like that. If that landlord’s a
slumlord, no … Nobody should be evicted more than once, in my opinion. Why
did you rent from another slum landlord?
14 Symbolic Interaction 2020

Margaret identified facts she considered relevant to evictions. For her, an eviction
was problematic if it reflected a pattern of personal disorganization. If applicants
did not take personal responsibility for the incident, Margaret concluded they were
unleasable.
Finally, study participants often contacted landlord references to judge an eviction.
Carmella was a fifty-six-year-old white woman who owned 82 units in Springfield
County’s exclusive east side. To decipher a pattern of behavior, Carmella contacted
previous landlords:

I call the old residence who evicted them. I get contact and I learn the whole
story. What happened? How were their responses to you? Were they amenable?
Did they want to pay? Was there no communication? Did they attempt to pay
partially? How easy was it to deal with them? Or did they squat?

Respondents varied in the credibility that they afforded landlord claims about pre-
vious eviction. Mo, a forty-seven-year-old Arab American man who owned 100 units
in Springfield County, voiced skepticism about landlord explanations of eviction:

There’s obviously two sides of every eviction … Sometimes, you get certain land-
lords that just have a certain gripe … It could be personal … Landlord sometimes
may tell you that the tenant is great because they want to get them out.

Landlord references were a piece of data all participants cited while listing screen-
ing criteria. For Carmella, landlords shared her interests and provided an unbiased
account of an applicant’s eviction. Mo, on the other hand, perceived conflicts of
interest that made their interpretation suspicious. Renters with past evictions who
submitted an application to Mo, therefore, enjoyed better odds of leasing up.
In sum, study participants used screening criteria to differentiate leasable from
unleasable applicants. Interviewees indicated the mark of eviction is an achieved
rather than ascribed stigma that can be transcended through corrective action. Land-
lords exercised discretion while considering several factors to interpret an eviction.
Fine (1992) argues that actors confront an obdurate reality that limits their choices in
a given situation. In a private rental market, the cultural binary that landlords used to
select applicants is an obdurate reality that case managers confronted while negoti-
ating leases for community care recipients. The salience of landlord discretion meant
case managers could manipulate the labeling process that mediated lease attainment.
To this end, case managers strategically resisted eviction stigma to secure housing
for their clients. Case managers used proxy deflection to resist eviction stigma and
adapted their tactics to the unique characteristics of each client.

Proxy Deflection
Thoits (2011) differentiates two modes of stigma resistance: deflection and
challenging. The selection of stigma resistance by case managers was structurally
Proxy Deflection of Eviction Stigma 15

constrained. Federal welfare retrenchment intersected with urban revitalization and

rental market inflation to limit housing options for clients. Tynsle explained:

Rents are going up, SSI is not. It goes up like a dollar or two a year, but that doesn’t
keep up with rents and everything else.

Inadequate housing assistance prevented case managers, like Dee, from closing
the rent-income gap:

Affording somewhere nice is really hard. And to get into some of those other
programs to get reduced rent takes forever.

Electronic public records made case managers, like Becky, encourage clients to
disclose their rental history to prospective landlords:

It’s on [the public database]. They’re going to run your name. So, it’s best that you
just put that out there if you have an eviction right away.”

Economic constraints limited the units that clients could afford. Electronic public
records further narrowed the list of accessible units by eliminating property owners
with strict screening criteria.
The structural context of Springfield County’s housing market made case
managers dependent on a small pool of landlords. Economic dependency hin-
dered case managers from resisting eviction stigma by challenging the cultural
binary landlords used to select tenants. In response, case managers used proxy
deflection—redemption, externalization, and paternalism—to construct clients
as leasable during the application process. Proxy deflection was adapted to the
particular characteristics of each client. Respondents used redemption to resist
eviction stigma for clients who made demonstrable gains in self-sufficiency, external-
ization for clients whose eviction was attributable to ephemeral circumstances, and
paternalism for clients whose eviction could not be minimized through reference
to personal or situational change. In contrast to Dobransky (2019), case managers
could not manage stigma with secrecy because electronic public records allowed
landlords to fact-check lease applications. Moreover, market constraints prevented
case managers from challenging eviction stigma like Dobransky’s respondents
challenged psychiatric stigma.

Redemption
Past research suggests the orientation of social service providers to redemption
varies by context. Jordan (2018) observed case managers stigmatize workfare clients
as undeserving poor. The stigmatization of workfare recipients is intended to moti-
vate low-skilled workers back into the workforce where they redeem themselves
by submitting to labor exploitation (Peck 2001). Dobransky (2019), in contrast,
observed mental health professionals challenging stigma by changing the meanings
16 Symbolic Interaction 2020

intimate partners attributed to their client’s psychiatric condition. In this regard,

mental health professionals assumed the intimate partner rather than the client
needed to be redeemed through repentance of psychiatric stigma. In private rental
markets, where clients are dependent on landlords motivated by profit rather than
sentiment, challenging eviction stigma is unrealistic. Consequently, case managers
deflected stigma by pointing to personal changes that redeemed a client within
the landlord’s cultural binary. This contrasts with workfare in that redemption is
achieved through responsible consumption rather than labor exploitation.
Above, Amanda and Alicia perceived eviction as the reflection of personal irre-
sponsibility that rendered someone unleasable. In the following excerpt, Becky over-
came this barrier by emphasizing the amelioration of her client’s past eviction:

I will be honest and up front with the landlord. “Like, they have an eviction on
their record. Will you even consider them? Like, it’s from 2015. They have an
eviction. They’ve paid it off.”

Becky redeemed her clients as leasable by describing corrective action taken to

amend an eviction. In this regard, she applied her knowledge of time limits that land-
lords used to evaluate evictions by temporally distancing her client from the incident
and citing debt repayment. If, however, her client had not repaid a judgment, Becky
applied her knowledge of landlord reliance on the public records database to strate-
gically frame the client as an honest person who admitted wrongdoing. This enabled
Becky to construct her client as a leasable applicant despite past evictions.
Respondents also cited advancements in their clients’ mental health to resist
eviction stigma. Margaret previously expressed a common sentiment that landlords
expected personal responsibility in the explanation applicants offered for past
evictions. Also, Carmella described the salience of landlord references to evaluating
evictions. Jess used her knowledge of these tendencies to deflect eviction stigma by
citing her client’s recovery:

[Janice] basically wanted confirmation of his sobriety track. I said, “He is sober.”
And she said, “Yeah, but what does that mean? Two days? Three weeks? A year?
What is it?” He’s been sober for seven years. I got a letter from his sponsor. I got
attendance sheets … His sponsor got a letter from the person who runs that AA
chapter and they verified that this person is very consistent in their meetings and
has great success. I got a letter from the previous place that he had lived at that
basically said, “Oh no, his place was great. We gave him his deposit back.”

Jess deflected eviction stigma by blaming her client’s previous displacement on

addiction, collecting documentation to demonstrate her client’s recovery, and obtain-
ing a landlord reference to show their rehabilitation had positively impacted their
performance of tenancy. Jess’ knowledge of landlord screening practices coupled
with her relationship to the public housing authority informed her construction of
a redemption story that showed personal responsibility and evidence from relevant
stakeholders.
Proxy Deflection of Eviction Stigma 17

If a recent eviction belied claim to redemption, then respondents strategized

to build a rental history that demonstrated personal change. Recall Janet cited
a three-year industry standard for accepting applicants who have experienced
eviction. Landlords who rented in high-poverty neighborhoods were more flexible
because eviction is commonplace in that submarket; however, most clients desired
low-poverty neighborhoods. Case managers, like Michelle, encouraged their clients
to accept undesired housing in distressed areas to demonstrate redemption in
subsequent lease negotiations. During a one-on-one interview, I asked, “How do
you deal with situations involving clients who want to live in areas where landlords
discriminate against eviction,” Michelle answered:

It’s a very difficult conversation because you’re wanting to be realistic, but also
client-centered and approaching it in a way that’s not disrespectful or hurtful to
them. It’s showing them, “This is kind of what you can rent right now.” Or encour-
aging them to rent somewhere they may not want to for the first year. And getting
that rental history started. And then maybe being open to moving somewhere else
after that.

Michelle deflected eviction stigma by encouraging clients to redeem themselves

in suboptimal neighborhoods. This tactic is informed by Michelle’s knowledge of
temporal factors that landlords considered while evaluating lease applications. If
landlords accepted evictions outside a particular timeframe, then Michelle convinced
clients to temporarily accept an undesirable unit as an opportunity for future neigh-
borhood attainment.
In contrast to Dobransky (2019), case managers used redemption to deflect rather
than challenge eviction stigma. Becky and Jess reproduced the landlords’ cultural
binary by presenting their clients as leasable while acknowledging a recent eviction
and judgment on their record. By emphasizing corrective actions, case managers
presented their client as rehabilitated and, therefore, able to accumulate profit for
a prospective landlord. Michelle, on the other hand, pursued a long-term strategy
that encouraged clients to use unwanted housing as an opportunity to demonstrate
redemption in subsequent lease negotiations. Becky, Jess, and Michelle illustrated
case managers drew on their knowledge of landlord screening practices and network
ties to construct their clients as leasable applicants.

Externalization
Next, past research suggests case managers vary by policy context according to
blame they attribute to clients. McGann, Nguyen, and Considine (2019) interviewed
case managers who attributed unemployment amongst workfare clients to individual
rather than structural causes. Internal attributions justified harsh treatment to push
clients into the workforce. Dobransky (2019), in contrast, shows mental health
professionals challenge stigma by encouraging clients to join groups that protest
marginalization. Advocacy groups, like the National Alliance on Mental Illness,
18 Symbolic Interaction 2020

externalize blame by challenging cultural binaries that marginalize PWSMI. Spring-

field County’s private rental market discouraged case managers from challenging
the cultural binary landlords used to select tenants. Instead, case managers used
externalization to deflect stigma by blaming eviction on temporary factors outside
of the self rather than the landlord’s screening criteria.
Recall Margaret’s previous statement—“Anybody could have been evicted … If
they were evicted because of something that has since then changed and is not likely
to happen again, that’s fine”—where she demonstrated empathy for struggles ten-
ants confront. Landlord participants understood poor people confront life circum-
stances that result in eviction. Recognition of contextual factors rendered landlords
pliable to externalization. Case managers exploited that tendency whenever possible.
Casey externalized responsibility for a client’s past eviction by citing their disconnec-
tion from social services. When I asked, “Do you all write advocacy letters for clients
to get into units,” during a one-on-one interview, Casey replied:

Mm-hmm. When [her client] had this eviction … They didn’t have a connection
with services. And now they’re doing this. And they’re working on that.

Casey externalized stigma by blaming eviction on a temporary disconnection from

social services that had since been resolved. In this regard, Casey implied past evic-
tion(s) reflected unmet needs, rather than moral deficiency, undermined compliance
with lease obligations. Access to social services satisfied those needs and, thus, elim-
inated the possibility personal disorganization would, once again, render her client
unleasable.
Respondents also externalized blame to temporary life events that resulted in evic-
tion. Samantha discussed her client, Rob, who acquired an eviction while undergoing
divorce. By describing the impact of divorce on Rob’s housing stability, Samantha
attributed his eviction to a temporary situation that had since passed:

We had a guy, he [had] a house with his wife. And they got divorced. They both
moved out. Nobody was paying the rent. His wife was supposed to be paying the
rent. She stopped paying the rent. They ended up getting evicted. So, it was a
matter of he wasn’t residing there anymore. It was a divorce situation. So, some-
times we’re able to work around, “It was a life circumstance. It’s not a pattern of
behavior.”

Recall Amanda’s previous statement where she expressed caution about evic-
tion as a potential sign of chronic personal disorganization. Samantha anticipated
this concern by externalizing eviction stigma to a divorce. This tactic countered the
presumption that Rob’s eviction reflected a pattern of behavior that rendered him
unleasable.
Above, Casey and Samantha used their knowledge of landlord screening prac-
tices to externalize eviction stigma for their clients. Familiarity with the worldview
and practices of local landlords enabled case managers to anticipate their reflected
appraisal, identify constraints imposed by their cultural binary, and craft narratives
Proxy Deflection of Eviction Stigma 19

that exploited flexibilities offered to applicants whose eviction could be external-

ized. This resource allowed case managers to secure housing for clients with recent
evictions. In contrast to Dobransky (2019), where mental health professionals moti-
vated clients to challenge psychiatric stigma through externalization, and McGann,
Nguyen, and Considine (2019), where case managers internalized responsibility for
unemployment, case managers in this study used externalization to deflect eviction
stigma.

Paternalism
Finally, if personal or situational changes could not be demonstrated, then case
managers cited their paternalistic role to present clients as leasable. Past research
indicates the exercise of paternalism varies by context. Dobransky (2019: 237)
described mental health professionals who used their paternalistic role to broker
workplace relations their clients. Participants in this study also brokered institutional
ties for clients; however, in addition to negotiating leases for clients, participants
cited their paternalistic obligations to deflect stigma by positioning themselves as a
landlord surrogate required to discipline clients into lease compliance. Paternalism
ironically presented a client as an unleasable applicant whose personal disorgani-
zation reflected psychiatric rather than moral deficiency that should not disqualify
them for a lease because symptoms were managed through clinical interventions.
In contrast, workfare providers, in Taylor, Turgeon, and Gross (2018), cited their
paternalistic role to claim occupational status.
Above, Amanda and Alicia problematized eviction as raising questions about rent
payment. Property owners relied on tenants to finance mortgages and generate profit.
Failure to pay rent, consequently, often resulted in eviction. If a service recipient got
evicted for nonpayment, then case managers, like Nina, cited their legal obligation
to manage their client’s finances:

Some of them are willing to be flexible if we are the payee because I’m able to
say, “Look, I’m legally required to pay rent. There’s no way he’s not going to have
rent paid.”

In a focus group, Natalie explained the significance of representative payee-ship

to mitigating concern about past eviction:

We are the payee in a lot of cases. So, we can guarantee rent from people. If the
landlord knows, “Oh, you have a payee, but you might have all these evictions
or have a poor rental history or … ” When we go in for somebody they say, “Oh,
you’re the payee? Cool, we accept them.” They don’t even care about evictions
in a sense.

Nina and Natalie deflected eviction stigma by citing their role as a representative
payee. A representative payee is assigned by the Social Security Administration to
control a recipient’s benefits if they are deemed incapable of managing personal
20 Symbolic Interaction 2020

finances. Participants encouraged clients with recent evictions to increase their

chances of getting leased up by surrendering legal control over their finances. This
enabled case managers to minimize eviction by citing legal authority to guarantee
rent payment.
Respondents also practiced paternalism by emphasizing their obligation to mon-
itor clients throughout the lease. Landlords accumulated profit by minimizing main-
tenance costs, reducing police dispatch to their properties, and maintaining reliable
tenants. Renters who damaged property, elicited police contact, and/or facilitated
neighbor complaints were subjected to eviction. Case managers, like Olivia, deflected
eviction stigma by citing their paternalistic responsibility to monitor clients:
So, if we can, we kind of, you know, make them feel welcome, like, you know,
“We’re going to be involved. We do home visits. They have the support for the
whole time of the program until the lease runs out. And then it’s your choice to
either continue with the resident as a tenant or, you know, not renew their lease.”

Jennifer, Ashley, and James also cited this strategy in a separate focus group. Jen-
nifer explained:
“I think a lot of times, or sometimes, at least, they know that you’re going to be
there. And they have someone that’s … ” Ashley interrupted, “Checking in on
them,” before Jennifer continued, “Just, ‘Call the business line 24-hours a day.
There’s someone you can get a hold of.’ So, I think that’s a little bit helpful too,”
and James concluded, “What seals the deal is give them your cell number. ‘Here’s
my cell number. So, if anything happens.’”

Olivia, Jennifer, Ashley, and James deflected eviction stigma by citing their pro-
fessional obligation to monitor clients. By reiterating her responsibility to conduct
home visits throughout the lease, Olivia positioned herself as a landlord surrogate
required to maintain client leasability. Jennifer, Ashley, and James echoed this strat-
egy while providing their personal contact information to ensure twenty-four-hour
assistance.
Above, respondents demonstrated the use of paternalism to deflect eviction
stigma by constructing case managers as landlord surrogates who compensated for
their client’s psychiatric condition. Paternalism cited the professional role of case
managers as a resource to resist eviction stigma. Hence, in addition to knowledge
about local rental markets and social network connections, occupational status was
a resource proxy deflection gave clients to resist eviction stigma. Like Dobran-
sky (2019), case managers brokered institutional ties for their clients; however, in
contrast to Dobransky (2019), case managers explicitly cited their role to deflect
stigma for their clients.

CONCLUSION
The place of madness in America has vacillated throughout its short history
(Grob 1972, 1991). Asylums provided stable, although inadequate, public housing
Proxy Deflection of Eviction Stigma 21

for mental patients for nearly 100 years. Displacement of welfarism by neoliberalism
coincided with the deinstitutionalization of mental patients (Levine 1981). Roll-back
neoliberalism has forced community care providers to lease up clients in private
rental markets with limited public assistance (Peck and Tickell 2002). Macropolitical
economic restructuring has rendered community care recipients vulnerable to invol-
untary displacement (Tsai and Huang 2019). The mark of eviction is an achieved
stigma that community care providers must address while navigating the rental
market with their clients. Case managers, in this study, used proxy deflection to
mitigate perceptions of risk among prospective landlords. Proxy deflection allowed
case managers to resist eviction stigma with resources—institutional knowledge,
network ties, and occupational status—that advanced the leasing process for their
clients within market constraints imposed by neoliberalism.
This paper makes several contributions to the stigma literature. First, past research
on stigma has primarily focused on the experiences of social service recipients with
minor attention to service providers. Scholars have examined ways that marginal-
ized people experience and resist stigma levied by service providers. The few studies
that examine service providers have primarily analyzed the imposition of stigma on
clients (Colton et al. 1997; Goffman 1961; Jordan 2018; Scheff 1966). Little socio-
logical research has examined stigma resistance by case managers (Dobransky 2019;
Seale, Buck, and Parrotta 2012). This is a notable shortcoming because marginal-
ized people often lack resources to resist stigmatization. Social service providers
allocate economic, social, cultural, and human capital that enhances their client’s
capacity to resist stigma in various institutional contexts. This study demonstrates
that point while expanding our knowledge of tactics social service providers use to
resist stigma and providing new concepts—proxy resistance, proxy deflection, and
proxy challenging—to inform future research.
Second, this study incorporates data on institutional gatekeepers who use a
cultural binary to control access to an essential resource: housing. Past research has
often provided a unidimensional analysis that examines either the stigmatized or the
stigmatizer (Dobransky 2019; Lara-Millán and Van Cleve 2017). As a result, these
studies have assumed what needs to be demonstrated while excluding information
about the symbolic constraints social service providers encounter as they manage
stigma imposed on their clients. I extend this literature by adopting a methodol-
ogy that incorporates both perspectives—stigmatizer and stigma-broker—in the
analysis. Providing landlord perspectives detailed the symbolic constraints that case
managers strategically navigated while housing their clients, enhanced analysis by
specifying resources that case managers provided clients while exercising proxy
deflection, and advanced explanation of tactical selection by case managers during
the leasing process.
I close with suggestions for future research. This paper examined the perspectives
of institutional actors rather than service recipients. As a result, clients are implicitly
depicted as objects manipulated by the system. A couple study participants men-
tioned efforts to incorporate clients into leasing negotiations; however, I was unable
22 Symbolic Interaction 2020

to interview clients about their experiences of this process. How do community care
recipients interpret eviction stigma? How does they interpret proxy deflection by
their case managers? How do they contribute to proxy deflection of eviction stigma?
Moreover, this study does not examine proxy challenging of eviction stigma. Men-
tioned above, structural constraints rendered case managers dependent on proxy
deflection. How do case managers in different political economic contexts deflect
eviction stigma for clients? How does political economic context inform the usage of
deflection and challenging while housing community care recipients? Third, future
research could examine the various resources that service providers use to resist
stigma for their clients. Proxy resistance redistributes resources so stigmatized clients
can access essential goods/services; however, our knowledge of these resources is lim-
ited. What additional resources do case managers provide? How does these resources
vary across political economic contexts? How do service providers exercise discre-
tion while disseminating these resources? Finally, this study is limited by its reliance
on interview and focus group data. Participant observation would provide details that
my dataset lacks, proffer insight into the experiences of community care recipients,
and specify conditions under which resistance tactics are selected by case managers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on
Poverty, Mellon Foundation, Crowe Scholarship, and John Delamater for financially
supporting this research. In addition, I would like to thank Jane Collins, Pam Oliver,
and Kerem Morgül for providing helpful comments on early drafts of this paper.

ENDNOTES
1. Continuum of Care is the federal block grant funding the bulk of homeless services in America.
Service providers attending housing meetings are responsible for the connecting people with
mental illness who are experiencing homelessness to both county community care and housing.
In addition, I used the pseudonym “Springfield County” to mask the identity of county bureau-
crats.
2. The overlap reflects the fact that some agencies provide multiple tiers of community care housed
in separate departments.

REFERENCES
Andrade, Carlos. 2002. “The Economics of Welfare Participation and Welfare Stigma: A Review.”
Public Finance and Management 2(2):294–334.
Baum, Alice S. and Donald W. Burnes. 1993. A Nation in Denial: The Truth about Homelessness.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Campellone, Timothy R., Janelle M. Caponigro, and Ann M. Kring. 2014. “The Power to Resist: The
Relationship between Power, Stigma, and Negative Symptoms in Schizophrenia.” Psychiatry
Research 215(2):280–285.
Proxy Deflection of Eviction Stigma 23

Colton, Matthew, M. Drakeford, S. Roberts, E. Scholte, F. Casas, and M. Williams. 1997. “Social
Workers, Parents and Stigma.” Child & Family Social Work 2(4):247–257.
Crossley, Nick. 2006. Contesting Psychiatry: Social Movements in Mental Health. Hove: Psychology
Press.
Desmond, Matthew. 2012. “Eviction and the Reproduction of Urban Poverty.” American Journal
of Sociology 118(1):88–133.
Desmond, Matthew. 2016. Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. New York: Broadway
Books.
Deutsch, Albert. 1948. The Shame of the States. San Diego, CA: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Dobransky, Kerry M. 2019. “Breaking Down Walls, Building Bridges: Professional Stigma Manage-
ment in Mental Health Care.” Society and Mental Health 9(2):228–242.
Fine, Gary A. 1992. “Agency, Structure, and Comparative Contexts: Toward a Synthetic Interac-
tionism.” Symbolic Interaction 15(1):87–107.
Fine, Gary A. and Sherryl Kleinman. 1983. “Network and Meaning: An Interactionist Approach to
Structure.” Symbolic Interaction 6(1):97–110.
Firmin, Ruth L., Laura Luther, Paul H. Lysaker, Kyle S. Minor, and Michelle P. Salyers. 2016.
“Stigma Resistance Is Positively Associated with Psychiatric and Psychosocial Outcomes: A
Meta-Analysis.” Schizophrenia Research 175(1–3):118–128.
Fong, Kelley, Rachel A. Wright, and Christopher Wilmer. 2016. “The Cost of Free Assistance: Why
Low-Income Individuals Do Not Access Food Pantries.” The Journal of Sociology & Social
Welfare 43(1):71–93.
Foucault, Michel. 1967. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. Lon-
don: Travistock Publications.
Garboden, Philip M.E. and Eva Rosen. 2019. “Serial Filing: How Landlords Use the Threat of Evic-
tion.” City & Community 18(2):638–661.
Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qual-
itative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
Goetz, Edward G. 1993. Shelter Burden: Local Politics and Progressive Housing Policy. Philadelphia,
PA: Temple University Press.
Goetz, Edward G. 2003. Clearing the Way: Deconcentrating the Poor in Urban America. The Urban
Institute: Washington, DC.
Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other
Inmates. New York: Vintage Books.
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on a Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Greif, Meredith. 2018. “Regulating Landlords: Unintended Consequences for Poor Tenants.” City
& Community 17(3):658–674.
Grob, Gerald N. 1972. Mental Institutions in America: Social Policy to 1875. Piscataway, NJ: Trans-
action Publishers.
Grob, Gerald N. 1991. From Asylum to Community: Mental Health Policy in Modern America.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gruys, Kjerstin. 2019. “‘Making over’ Poor Women: Gender, Race, Class, and Body Size in a
Welfare-to-Work Nonprofit Organization.” Sociological Forum 34(1):47–70.
Harvey, David. 1989. “From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban
Governance in Late Ism.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 71(1):3–17.
Jackson, Kenneth T. 1985. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Jarrett, Robin L. 1996. “Welfare Stigma among Low-Income, African American Single Mothers.”
Family Relations 45(4):368–374.
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. 2010. “The State of the Nation’s Hous-
ing, 2010.” Retrieved June 24, 2020 (https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/son2010
.pdf).
24 Symbolic Interaction 2020

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. 2017. “America’s Rental Housing.”
Retrieved January 21st, 2019 (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/harvard_jchs_
americas_rental_housing_2017_0.pdf).
Jordan, John David. 2018. “Evidence from the ‘Frontline’? An Ethnographic Problematisation of
Welfare-to-Work Administrator Opinions.” Work, Employment and Society 32(1):57–74.
Kain, John F. 1992. “The Spatial Mismatch Hypothesis: Three Decades Later.” Housing Policy
Debate 3(2):371–460.
Kingsley, G.T. 2017. Trends in Housing Problems and Federal Housing Assistance. Washington,
DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved April 22, 2020 (https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/
publication/94146/trends-in-housing-problems-and-federal-housing-assistance.pdf).
Lara-Millán, Armando and Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve. 2017. “Interorganizational Utility of Wel-
fare Stigma in the Criminal Justice System.” Criminology 55(1):59–84.
Levine, Murray. 1981. The History and Politics of Community Mental Health. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Link, Bruce G. and Jo C. Phelan. 2001. “Conceptualizing Stigma.” Annual Review of Sociology
27(1):363–385.
Link, Bruce G., Jo C. Phelan, and Greer Sullivan. 2017. “Mental and Physical Health Consequences
of the Stigma Associated with Mental Illnesses.” Pp. 1–32 in The Oxford Handbook of
Stigma, Discrimination, and Health, edited by Brenda Major, John F. Dovidio, and Bruce G.
Link. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Manago, Bianca, Jenny L. Davis, and Carla Goar. 2017. “Discourse in Action: Parents’ Use of Med-
ical and Social Models to Resist Disability Stigma.” Social Science & Medicine 184:169–177.
Massey, Douglas S. and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making
of the Underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
McGann, Michael, Phuc Nguyen, and Mark Considine. 2019. “Welfare Conditionality and Blaming
the Unemployed.” Administration and Society 52(3):466–494.
McGrady, Patrick B. 2016. ““Grow the Beard, Wear the Costume”: Resisting Weight and Sexual
Orientation Stigmas in the Bear Subculture.” Journal of Homosexuality 63(12):1698–1725.
Meanwell, Emily. 2013. “Profaning the Past to Salvage the Present: The Symbolically Reconstructed
Pasts of Homeless Shelter Residents.” Symbolic Interaction 36(4):439–456.
Metzl, Jonathan M. 2010. The Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black Disease.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Mittal, Dinesh, Greer Sullivan, Chekuri Lakshminarayana, Elise Allee, and Patrick W. Corrigan.
2012. “Empirical Studies of Self-Stigma Reduction Strategies: A Critical Review of the Lit-
erature.” Psychiatric Services 63(10):974–981.
Morris, Kate, Will Mason, Paul Bywaters, Brid Featherstone, Brigid Daniel, Geraldine Brady,
Lisa Bunting, Jade Hooper, Nughmana Mirza, Jonathan Scourfield, and Calum Webb. 2018.
“Social Work, Poverty, and Child Welfare Interventions.” Child & Family Social Work
23(3):364–372.
Peck, Jamie. 2001. Workfare States. New York: The Guilford Press.
Peck, Jamie and Adam Tickell. 2002. “Neoliberalizing Space.” Antipode 34(3):380–404.
Peterson, Paul E. 1981. City Limits. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Rochefort, David A. 1993. From Poorhouses to Homelessness: Policy Analysis and Mental Health
Care. Westport/London: Auburn House.
Rogers-Dillon, Robin. 1995. “The Dynamics of Welfare Stigma.” Qualitative Sociology 18(4):
439–456.
Rothman, David J. 1971. The Discovery of the Asylum: Social Order and Disorder in the New Repub-
lic. London: Adline Transaction Publishers.
Scheff, Thomas J. 1966. Being Mentally Ill: A Sociological Theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing
Company.
Proxy Deflection of Eviction Stigma 25

Scull, Andrew. 2015. Madness in Civilization: A Cultural History of Insanity, from the Bible to Freud,
from the Madhouse to Modern Medicine. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Seale, Elizabeth, Alison Buck, and Kylie Parrotta. 2012. “Who’s to Blame? The Identity Talk of
Welfare-to-Work Program Managers.” Sociological Perspectives 55(3):501–527.
Seccombe, Karen, Delores James, and Kimberly Battle Walters. 1998. “‘They Think you Ain’t Much
of Nothing:’ The Social Construction of the Welfare Mother.” Journal of Marriage and the
Family 60(4):849–865.
Sibitz, Ingrid, Annemarie Unger, Andreas Woppmann, Thomas Zidek, and Michaela Amer-
ing. 2011. “Stigma Resistance in Patients with Schizophrenia.” Schizophrenia Bulletin
37(2):316–323.
Snyder, Sharon L. and David T. Mitchell. 2010. Cultural Locations of Disability. Chicago, IL: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Taylor, Tiffany, Sarah Samblanet, and Elizabeth Seale. 2011. “The New ‘Lazy’: Structure and
Agency in Managers’ Discussions of Welfare Clients’ Motivation.” Race, Gender & Class
18(1/2):171–188.
Taylor, Tiffany, Brianna Turgeon, and Christi L. Gross. 2018. “Helpers ‘Here on the Front Lines’:
Welfare-to-Work Managers’ Moral Identity Work.” Symbolic Interaction 41(1):45–61.
Teaford, Jon C. 1990. The Rough Road to Renaissance: Urban Revitalization in America, 1940–1985.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Thoits, Peggy A. 2011. “Resisting the Stigma of Mental Illness.” Social Psychology Quarterly
74(1):6–28.
Thoits, Peggy A. 2016. ““I’m Not Mentally Ill”: Identity Deflection as a Form of Stigma Resistance.”
Journal of Health and Social Behavior 57(2):135–151.
Tsai, Jack and Minda Huang. 2019. “Systematic Review of Psychosocial Factors Associated with
Evictions.” Health & Social Care in the Community 27(3):1–9.
Wacquant, Loïc. 2009. Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Wahl, Otto F. 1999. “Mental Health Consumers’ Experience of Stigma.” Schizophrenia Bulletin
25(3):467–478.
Wilson, William J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Yasuike, Akiko. 2019. “Stigma Management and Resistance among High-Achieving Undocu-
mented Students.” Sociological Inquiry 89(2):191–213.

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTOR(S)

Garrett L. Grainger is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Sociology at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Garrett’s research lies at the intersection of urban sociology, poverty gover-
nance, housing insecurity, and mental health. Garrett’s dissertation work has received funding from
the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institution for Research on Poverty, and Mellon Foundation.
For more information, please visit garrettgrainger.com.