Next Article in Journal
Selective Attributes and Purchase Behavior for Black Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) Seolgi: An Empirical Study of South Korean Consumers
Next Article in Special Issue
Ecological Attitudes and Quality of Life as Key Factors in the Sustainable Development of Polish Municipalities
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing Urban Flood Risk and Identifying Critical Zones in Xiamen Island Based on Supply–Demand Matching
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sustainable Cities and Quality of Life: A Multi-Criteria Approach for Evaluating Perceived Satisfaction with Public Administration
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 24
10.3390/su172410929
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Cascade of Exclusion: A Mixed-Methods Study of Welfare Inequity and Its Foundational Determinants Among Thailand’s Homeless Population

by
Warisara Kitkiwan
and
Chitralada Chaiya
*
College of Politics and Governance, Mahasarakham University, Kantharawichai District, Mahasarakham 44150, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(24), 10929; https://doi.org/10.3390/su172410929
Submission received: 14 October 2025 / Revised: 2 December 2025 / Accepted: 4 December 2025 / Published: 7 December 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Quality of Life in the Context of Sustainable Development)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Achieving sustainable development (SD) and enhancing urban quality of life are undermined by the systemic exclusion of marginalized groups. Despite the global expansion of welfare systems, a welfare paradox persists, wherein universal policies often reinforce exclusion. This study investigates this paradox through a mixed-methods analysis of welfare inequity among homeless individuals in Khon Kaen, Thailand. Combining a quantitative survey (n = 202) with in-depth interviews of homeless persons and state officials, we model the structural nature of this exclusion. Results reveal systemic disparities by gender, age, and displacement causes. Critically, a predictive model identifies housing and education access as foundational determinants, collectively explaining 89.9% of the variance in economic inclusion (R2 = 0.899, p < 0.001). Qualitative data elucidate the mechanisms behind these statistics, highlighting how the lack of official documentation and institutional stigma sever access to the broader welfare system. We conceptualize these interdependencies as a foundational capability cascade, where deficits in core domains trigger compounding exclusion. By integrating statistical modeling with narrative evidence, this research provides a robust framework for social exclusion and offers an evidence-based roadmap for designing equity-focused policy reforms that are essential for inclusive urban sustainability.

1. Introduction

The global commitment to sustainable development, particularly the goal of building inclusive, resilient cities (SDG 11) and improving overall quality of life, is fundamentally challenged by the persistence of homelessness. This issue is increasingly framed not merely as a housing deficit, but as a profound public health crisis and a direct barrier to sustainable urban development [1]. This sustainability challenge intersects with the complex evolution of global welfare policies, which, despite a global exchange of knowledge [2], are shaped by diverse historical and economic factors [3]. This context reveals a central paradox: the expansion of modern welfare systems often coincides with deepening urban inequality and the social exclusion of the most vulnerable [4]. This paradox is acutely manifested in the global homelessness crisis. Despite welfare initiatives, over 100 million people worldwide are estimated to be homeless, and more than one billion live in inadequate housing conditions [5,6,7,8,9]. This phenomenon represents not merely an economic problem but a public health crisis and a cycle of social exclusion, exacerbated by rapid urbanization, poverty, and a lack of affordable housing [10,11]. Urbanization, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, often deepens inequality by creating barriers to essential services, ranging from water and sanitation to healthcare and education [12,13,14].
This dynamic is particularly evident in the Global South, where varied welfare regimes emerge from unique structural and political factors [15]. In Thailand, the multifaceted issue of homelessness intersects directly with national welfare policies and urban development strategies. While community-driven initiatives like the Baan Mankong program have aimed to improve housing stability [16], and interventions like cash transfers show promise [17], significant structural barriers to healthcare, housing, and financial support persist [18,19,20]. The city of Khon Kaen, a designated regional growth pole, serves as a critical case study of this phenomenon. Originally intended to decentralize growth from Bangkok, its rapid urban expansion has created new sustainability challenges, including urban sprawl and the proliferation of squatter settlements, without resolving the capital’s core issues [21,22,23,24,25]. This context of rising urban marginalization provides a crucial setting to investigate the mechanisms of welfare exclusion.
Existing research effectively documents the prevalence of homelessness and the existence of service barriers. However, a critical gap remains in understanding the interdependent architecture of welfare inequity. Studies often examine access to housing, healthcare, or employment as separate issues, rarely modeling how access in one domain systematically predicts exclusion from another. This leaves a crucial question unanswered: what are the foundational determinants that anchor an individual’s ability to access the broader welfare system?
Against this backdrop, this study sets out to investigate the multidimensional inequities in access to basic welfare among homeless populations in Khon Kaen, Thailand. It pursues four central objectives: (1) to evaluate the current levels of access to essential welfare services—specifically in the domains of healthcare, housing, employment and income, and education; (2) to examine disparities in welfare access across key demographic variables such as gender, family structure, and pathways into homelessness; (3) to identify the statistically significant predictors of access to employment- and income-related welfare; and (4) to inform welfare reform with data-driven, context-sensitive insights that address structural barriers to inclusion.
The study is guided by the following research questions:
  • What is the level of access to healthcare, housing, employment, and education among individuals experiencing homelessness in Khon Kaen?
  • How do access levels vary by gender, family status, and reasons for homelessness?
  • Which demographic and structural factors are associated with significantly lower or higher access to welfare services?
  • To what extent do education and housing access predict access to income-related welfare services?
  • What does predictive modeling reveal about the structural determinants of welfare inequity within this population?
  • How do the lived experiences of homeless individuals and the perspectives of state officials explain these structural patterns of exclusion?
The significance of this study lies in its multidimensional analytical framework, which moves beyond one-dimensional metrics to capture the complex intersections of vulnerability among homeless individuals. By integrating robust statistical techniques with in-depth qualitative interviews, this research contributes empirical clarity to a policy domain often clouded by assumptions. Notably, the study offers one of the first mixed-methods predictive models of welfare access among homeless individuals in Thailand, thereby filling a crucial gap in the Southeast Asian welfare literature. Its findings are poised to inform evidence-based interventions that enhance welfare inclusion, promote urban equity, and ultimately, advance the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to poverty reduction, health equity, and inclusive education.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Homelessness as a Sustainable Development and Quality of Life Challenge

Homelessness represents a critical failure in the global pursuit of sustainable development, directly challenging the ‘leave no one behind’ agenda and the goal of building inclusive, healthy, and resilient communities (SDG 11). It is increasingly recognized not just as a housing deficit but as a profound public health crisis [26]. This perspective reframes homelessness as a key social determinant of health, demanding an integration of housing and health policies to improve quality of life and foster social inclusion [27]. Beyond health, homelessness is a direct barrier to sustainable urban development, exacerbating the social exclusion and housing insecurity that often characterize urban informality [1].
The persistence of this crisis, even in nations with established welfare systems, highlights the inadequacy of siloed interventions and points to the necessity of a systems approach that addresses root causes, such as the structural lack of affordable housing [28]. Such a systems view must also be intersectional, recognizing that vulnerabilities are not uniform. Research underscores the gendered nature of homelessness, where women face distinct risks related to violence and safety that demand targeted, gender-responsive interventions [29]. Similarly, the overrepresentation of specific groups, such as Indigenous peoples in Canada, reveals the need for culturally safe services that actively dismantle structural inequities [30].
Addressing homelessness within the framework of sustainable development demands a comprehensive and multi-stakeholder strategy. From innovative, adaptive housing solutions [31] to new models of sustainable governance, this strategy must integrate housing, health, and social policies. The central aim must be to prioritize the quality of life for the most vulnerable populations, transitioning from reactive support to the creation of genuinely inclusive and resilient communities.

2.2. The Welfare Paradox: How Universal Systems Reproduce Exclusion

The study of welfare access is inherently complex, encompassing multiple dimensions from benefit levels and justice principles to public perceptions of policy efficiency [32,33]. While conceptual frameworks increasingly recognize this multidimensionality in areas like healthcare and emergency food aid [34,35,36], a central paradox emerges when applied to homeless populations. Despite the existence of welfare systems, these individuals face structural barriers so profound that they are often systematically excluded from the very services designed to support them.
This paradox is rooted in deeply entrenched societal and institutional frameworks. A primary barrier is the critical lack of affordable housing, a key structural determinant of homelessness in urban areas [37]. This is compounded by institutional fragmentation and macro-level forces like stigma, which intersect with personal challenges to perpetuate systemic neglect [38]. Homeless individuals are often confronted with daunting administrative hurdles, such as requirements for documentation they cannot obtain, and face discrimination from service providers that diminishes their access to stable housing [39,40]. This stigmatization, termed “homeism,” functions as a social determinant of health, erecting barriers to housing, income, and healthcare [41]. Consequently, mainstream healthcare systems are often ill-equipped to provide timely and equitable care, a failure exacerbated by a lack of trust born from negative prior experiences [42,43,44]. Addressing these barriers therefore requires a comprehensive approach that moves beyond service provision to include policy reforms and the cultivation of trust through patient-centered models [25,45].

2.3. Intersecting Vulnerabilities: Gender, Family, and Economic Shocks

Beyond broad structural barriers, the literature demonstrates that pathways into homelessness and experiences of welfare exclusion are not uniform. An individual’s vulnerability is shaped by an intersection of demographic characteristics, relational ties, and socioeconomic conditions. Gender, in particular, is a critical axis of disparity. Research consistently shows that homeless women face unique and compounded challenges, including higher rates of victimization and mental health issues, often while bearing the responsibility for children [46,47]. Despite being perceived by officials as more “deserving” of aid, women face a shortage of appropriate, safe housing options, complicating their efforts to achieve stability [48,49]. This highlights the need for gender-sensitive interventions, a need made more urgent by the recent disproportionate increase in unsheltered homelessness among women [50]. In contrast, homeless men are more frequently associated with histories of substance abuse and crime [51], revealing different, though equally challenging, pathways into marginalization.
These gendered experiences are further shaped by the stability of familial networks and exposure to economic shocks. Family disintegration, such as parental separation, has been shown to weaken the intergenerational transmission of socioeconomic status and increase the risk of psychosocial maladjustment [52,53]. This cycle of family instability can be transmitted across generations, perpetuating disadvantage [54]. When these relational vulnerabilities are combined with socioeconomic shocks—such as health crises or economic downturns—households with limited financial buffers are often forced into precarious coping strategies, increasing their risk of displacement [55,56,57]. Together, these studies underscore that homelessness is rarely the result of a single failure but rather the outcome of intersecting vulnerabilities that must be addressed in tandem.

2.4. Locating the Research: Urban Policy, Predictive Modeling, and the Thai Context

To effectively study the welfare paradox and its intersecting vulnerabilities, research must be contextually grounded and methodologically innovative. Urban spaces are the primary sites where these dynamics unfold; they are contested territories where homeless individuals navigate survival amidst societal marginalization [58,59]. The cultural ideal of ‘home’ itself can be used to justify exclusionary policies in the urban landscape [60], making a performative and relational understanding of homelessness essential [61].
In Thailand, urban policy is shaped by a complex interplay of accessibility, privatization, and slum upgrading initiatives [62,63]. The landmark Baan Mankong program represents a significant participatory approach to securing tenure for the urban poor [12,64]. However, such top-down policies often prove inadequate, highlighting the need for tailored housing solutions and a focus on broader urban liveability [65,66]. To untangle the complex factors influencing policy outcomes, a new methodological frontier has emerged: predictive modeling. Leveraging machine learning, these models are increasingly used in social welfare to identify individuals at risk of adverse outcomes, such as child maltreatment or chronic social exclusion, thereby facilitating early intervention [67,68]. While these tools offer immense potential for improving resource allocation, their use raises significant ethical concerns about bias against marginalized groups, necessitating a critical and reflexive approach to their implementation [69,70,71].

2.5. Research Gaps

Despite an extensive body of research on homelessness, a critical void remains at the intersection of predictive analytics and welfare exclusion within the Global South context. Existing studies predominantly analyze welfare domains—housing, healthcare, and education—as fragmented, isolated variables, failing to capture the functional interdependencies where the loss of one domain triggers the collapse of another. Furthermore, while predictive modeling has been applied to social work in Western contexts, it has yet to be rigorously tested as a tool for identifying the structural determinants of homelessness in Southeast Asia. This study bridges this gap by deploying a mixed-methods predictive model to test the hypothesis of a ‘foundational capability cascade’, specifically examining if housing and education act as deterministic prerequisites for economic survival in Thailand’s informal sector.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This study employed a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design. The initial quantitative phase involved a cross-sectional survey to identify and model the statistical predictors of multidimensional welfare inequity among 202 homeless individuals in Khon Kaen, Thailand. This was followed by a qualitative phase, designed to explain and enrich the statistical findings through in-depth interviews. This approach allows for a comprehensive analysis, combining the generalizability of quantitative data with the contextual depth of qualitative insights.

3.2. Sampling and Participants

Due to the hidden and transient nature of the homeless population, exact official figures are unavailable. However, based on local NGO estimates of approximately 300–400 visible homeless individuals in the province, our sample of n = 202 represents a significant proportion (approx. 50–60%) of the accessible population, ensuring high statistical power for the analysis.

3.3. Instruments and Measures

To ensure the instrument’s rigor and cultural relevance, the questionnaire was developed directly in the Thai language, grounded in established international frameworks but specifically tailored to the local socio-cultural context of Khon Kaen. This approach eliminated the potential semantic discrepancies often associated with translating Western instruments. Content validity was rigorously assessed by three experts in public administration and social welfare, yielding an Item-Objective Congruence (IOC) index of 0.81, confirming that the items accurately measured the intended constructs. To ensure reliability, a pilot test was conducted with 30 participants, resulting in a high Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.983. Furthermore, to minimize Common Method Bias (CMB) procedurally, data collection utilized face-to-face structured interviews conducted by trained researchers rather than self-administered surveys. This method allowed for clarification of ambiguous terms and ensured that participants with lower literacy levels fully understood the questions, thereby reducing measurement error and response bias.

3.4. Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis

Following the quantitative analysis, a qualitative inquiry was conducted to explore the lived experiences behind the data. Purposive sampling was used to select 10 key informants, comprising four state officials directly involved in welfare provision, four individuals currently experiencing homelessness (two with and two without national ID cards), and two civil society members active in outreach to homeless individuals (see Table 1). To ensure the trustworthiness of the qualitative findings, themes identified by the primary researcher were cross-checked by a second analyst, and emerging interpretations were validated through member checking with two of the participating officials.
Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted in Thai between January and March 2025. The interviews focused on the perceived causes of homelessness, barriers to accessing welfare, and concrete recommendations for system reform. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis. This process involved identifying recurrent patterns and synthesizing them into core themes that directly explain the mechanisms of exclusion revealed in the quantitative phase.

3.5. Data Collection Procedure

The study received ethical approval from the Mahasarakham University Ethics Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects (Certificate No. 141-061/2025) on 27 February 2025. Primary data collection was subsequently conducted in March 2025. The quantitative survey was administered face-to-face by trained researchers to ensure comprehension, while in-depth interviews were conducted privately to ensure confidentiality.

3.6. Analytical Strategy

Descriptive statistics were initially computed to summarize demographic characteristics and welfare access levels across the sample. To investigate group differences, independent sample t-tests were employed to identify gender-based disparities in welfare access, with Cohen’s d calculated to assess effect sizes. Additionally, one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD post hoc comparisons was utilized to explore variations across familial status and reasons for homelessness. Subsequently, multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to model the statistical relationship between key welfare domains. The model aimed to predict access to employment and income-related welfare services using housing and education access as primary predictors. This model was carefully evaluated for assumptions of linearity, multicollinearity (VIF < 10), and homoscedasticity, all of which were met. The model demonstrated exceptionally high explanatory power (Adjusted R2 = 0.898), suggesting strong predictive validity within the sample. All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 29.0, with statistical significance set at α = 0.05

3.7. Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of Mahasarakham University, ensuring adherence to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Due to the precarious living conditions of the study population, particular care was taken to minimize any form of psychological distress, exploitation, or coercion. Participation was entirely voluntary, with no monetary compensation provided, though participants received basic hygiene kits and referrals to local support services as a token of appreciation. To ensure cultural validity, the survey instrument was developed directly in the Thai language based on a review of relevant literature, tailored to the local context. The instrument was validated for content validity by experts (IOC = 0.81) and pilot-tested for internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.983). Given that several participants lacked official identification documents, obtaining written informed consent was not feasible and could have induced anxiety regarding legal status. Consequently, a protocol for verbal informed consent was utilized. The research team read the consent statement aloud, ensuring comprehension of voluntary participation and anonymity, and verbal agreement was audio-recorded or witnessed by a third-party NGO representative present during the interview.

4. Result

4.1. Predictive Model and Demographic Profile

The study’s predictive model reveals that access to housing and education are foundational for economic inclusion, collectively explaining 89.9% of the variance in access to employment-related welfare (see Table 2). The demographic profile of the 202 participants indicates that homelessness in Khon Kaen is a chronic issue primarily affecting middle-aged and older males with low educational attainment and fragmented family histories (see Figure 1). An official confirmed these patterns, noting, “Most are men, around 70%… we see those aged 40–60, but recently, younger people laid off due to the economy and those over 60 are increasing”. The following thematic analysis of interview data explains the lived experiences and systemic barriers that produce these statistical inequities.

4.2. Thematic Analysis of Exclusionary Barriers

A powerful consensus emerged across interviews with all stakeholder groups, identifying four core areas of systemic failure. These convergent themes are summarized in Table 3.

4.2.1. Institutional Access: The Crisis of “Invisibility”

The most critical barrier to welfare, identified consistently across all interviews, is the lack of official documentation, which effectively renders an individual “invisible” to the state. This systemic failure disproportionately impacts those with the least social capital [72]. For instance, quantitative data show that individuals who became homeless due to economic hardship reported significantly lower access to all services compared to those displaced by family issues (see Figure 2). The interviews reveal the stark reality behind this statistic. A male participant who lost his national ID card explained the resulting paralysis: “They told me to get my card first before they could help… It’s like being an invisible person. You can’t ask for help because you have no rights at all”.

4.2.2. Housing: The Foundation of Safety and Dignity

The interviews underscore that housing is not just about shelter from the elements; it is the essential foundation for safety, stability, and dignity. The quantitative data reveal consistent gender disparities across welfare domains. Independent samples t-tests confirmed that male participants reported significantly higher access to services than female participants, particularly in employment (t (199) = 2.42, p = 0.016, 95% CI [0.06, 0.62], education (t (196) = 2.38, p = 0.018, 95% CI 0.06, 0.62]), and healthcare (t (195) = 2.06, p = 0.041, 95 CI [0.01, 0.58]). While the disparity in housing access approached significance (t (196) = 1.94, p = 0.054), the mean scores (Male = 3.20 vs. Female = 2.85) illustrate a persistent gap in perceived safety (see Figure 3). The qualitative findings explain that this gap is not merely an issue of provision but of safety and appropriateness. As a female participant stated, “What I want is a temporary shelter for women that is safe, with a bathroom and a place to shower”. This highlights that a one-size-fits-all approach to housing fails to address the gender-specific vulnerabilities of homeless women, who may avoid mixed-gender shelters due to fears of exploitation. Participants consistently linked the desire for a stable, temporary shelter directly to the ability to “live with more dignity and be able to find a job or start over”.

4.2.3. The ‘Welfare Trap’ and Intersecting Disparities

A counterintuitive “welfare trap” was identified, where individuals with mid-level education (secondary/bachelor’s) reported the lowest access to services (see Figure 4). One-way ANOVA confirmed that these disparities across education levels were statistically significant across all welfare domains, with the strongest effect observed in educational access (F (5, 192) = 5.85, p < 0.001), yielding a medium-to-large effect size (η2 = 0.13). This finding challenges the linear assumption that higher educational attainment automatically guarantees better welfare outcomes.
This trap is compounded by age-based marginalization (see Figure 5). The analysis revealed a robust and significant main effect of age on welfare access. Specifically, for health welfare, the disparity was highly significant (F (4, 191) = 20.03, p < 0.001), with a very large effect size (η2 = 0.30). Similarly, age accounted for approximately 31% of the variance in educational welfare access (F (4, 192) = 21.77, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.31). In contrast, the duration of homelessness did not yield a statistically significant difference in welfare access levels (p > 0.05), suggesting that structural barriers—specifically age and education credentials—play a more critical role in exclusion than the length of time spent homeless.
The interviews suggest that these intersecting factors create profound barriers. An older person’s plea for proactive outreach—”officials to come find us where we actually live… to help us get our cards”—speaks to the compounded difficulty that older, less mobile individuals with some, but not advanced, education face when trying to navigate a passive and complex bureaucratic system.
This quantitative evidence presents a compelling and critical insight into age-based disparities. The largest disparities were observed in educational and healthcare-related indicators, such as access to information about education (mean difference: −2.71), support for further education (−2.54), and receiving prescribed medication (−2.31) 2. These results highlight the structural marginalization of elderly homeless individuals, who not only face compounded vulnerabilities due to age but also experience systemic neglect in welfare provision.
From a policy perspective, the magnitude of these disparities is alarming and calls into question the equity and responsiveness of current welfare systems. The data suggests that older adults are at a substantial disadvantage in obtaining not only healthcare and housing assistance but also access to vocational and educational opportunities. Such inequalities are particularly troubling given that older homeless individuals typically have greater medical needs and fewer employment prospects. The failure to address these needs may exacerbate chronic poverty and health deterioration among this subgroup, further entrenching their social exclusion.
Critically, while Thailand’s welfare system may be formally universal, this evidence suggests a gap in practical accessibility that disproportionately affects the elderly homeless population. The findings underscore the need for targeted interventions—such as age-sensitive outreach programs, mobile healthcare units, and tailored vocational support—that prioritize the unique needs of aging homeless individuals. Without such reforms, existing welfare programs risk reinforcing rather than alleviating the very inequalities they are intended to remedy. This analysis thus contributes not only empirical data but also a critical lens through which to assess the effectiveness and inclusivity of social policy frameworks in urban Thailand.

4.2.4. Social Stigma: The Barrier of Perception

The interviews reveal that beyond institutional and material barriers, a pervasive and deeply damaging social stigma functions as a primary obstacle to reintegration. Across all stakeholder groups—homeless individuals, officials, and civil society members—negative public perception was identified as a major barrier that erodes self-worth and perpetuates exclusion. Homeless individuals shared painful experiences of being treated with suspicion and contempt, which creates a powerful psychological barrier to seeking help. One man recounted being barred from entering a government building “just because I was dressed shabbily”. Similarly, a woman noted how officials can “look at you strangely… as if they think you’re just there to get free stuff”. This constant perception of being a threat or a nuisance makes it “difficult for them to return to a normal society,” as one civil society member explained. The unanimous solution proposed by all groups is a concerted effort to reframe the public narrative surrounding homelessness. This involves public awareness campaigns that educate the community on the structural causes—such as economic downturns, health crises, and family breakdown—rather than focusing on individual failings. The goal is to foster a more supportive and empathetic environment. As a civil society member eloquently articulated, “We must change our view from seeing them as a ‘burden’ to seeing them as ‘people who need a chance’”. This cultural shift is seen as essential for allowing individuals to regain not only their footing but also their dignity.

5. Discussion

The findings of this study provide empirical evidence for a major challenge in sustainable development: the systemic exclusion that undermines urban quality of life [1]. Beyond simply cataloging barriers in Khon Kaen, our analysis reveals the structural mechanisms driving this exclusion. By leveraging predictive modeling, this research demonstrates how interdependent welfare domains—particularly public health [26] and housing [28]—create predictable patterns of inequity. These findings, while contextualized in the Global South, offer a robust model for understanding the reproduction of social exclusion and provide actionable insights for building inclusive communities.

5.1. Theorizing the ‘Foundational Capability Cascade’

A principal contribution of this study is the predictive model, which indicates that access to housing and education collectively accounts for nearly 90% of the variance in economic welfare access. This strong statistical association supports our proposed ‘foundational capability cascade’ framework. Extending the capability approach, we argue that for highly marginalized populations, specific capabilities—namely housing and education—function as non-negotiable prerequisites for broader social integration. We acknowledge that an R2 of 0.899 is exceptionally high for social science research. In many contexts, this might suggest multicollinearity. However, Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) diagnostics indicated values of 5.56, which, while elevated, remain within acceptable thresholds (<10). We interpret this high explanatory power not as a statistical artifact, but as empirical evidence of the ‘Foundational Capability Cascade.’ For homeless populations in Thailand, the relationship between housing/education and income is not merely probabilistic; it is structural and nearly deterministic. Without a registered address (Housing), obtaining a National ID is legally impossible, which in turn renders formal employment (Income) inaccessible. Thus, the model captures a rigid bureaucratic bottleneck rather than a loose correlation.
Qualitative findings corroborate this statistical model, offering a mechanistic explanation for the cascade. The loss of housing often precipitates a documentation crisis; without a fixed address, individuals cannot maintain or renew national ID cards—a bureaucratic prerequisite confirmed by officials as the gatekeeper to basic rights. This documentation deficit triggers a distinct exclusionary sequence: without an ID, access to universal healthcare is denied, necessitating reliance on charity; formal employment becomes inaccessible; and state welfare eligibility is revoked. As one participant described, this state renders an individual institutionally “invisible,” severing formal ties to state support.
This illustrates the cascade in practice: a deficit in the foundational capability of stable housing leads to a documentation deficit, which subsequently precipitates a systemic breakdown in access across healthcare, employment, and social welfare domains. These domains are not merely correlated; for this population, they exhibit a functional dependency where the loss of one foundational element determines the loss of others.

5.2. Unpacking Systemic Failures: The ‘Welfare Trap’ and Policy Blind Spots

One of the most counterintuitive findings of this study is the non-linear relationship between education and welfare access, where individuals with secondary or bachelor’s degrees reported the lowest levels of access. We interpret this as evidence of a “welfare trap.” This group appears to be caught in a policy vacuum: they are presumed too qualified for basic, needs-based interventions, yet they lack the credentials or networks of the postgraduate group to secure stable employment and its associated benefits.
The qualitative data highlight the human mechanisms behind this trap, revealing a system rife with bureaucratic indifference and stigma. One participant with an ID still faced prejudice from officials who “look at you strangely because you’re not well-dressed or say your documents are incomplete… as if they think you’re just there to get free stuff”. This experience suggests the ‘trap’ is a function of what sociologists term ‘institutional gatekeeping,’ where street-level bureaucrats apply formal and informal rules that systematically disadvantage certain groups [73]. Our findings suggest that homeless individuals with mid-level education may trigger institutional assumptions of self-sufficiency, paradoxically excluding them from the very support they need to achieve it.
Beyond this specific trap, the interviews reveal broader policy blind spots rooted in systemic fragmentation. Officials consistently identified the need for a “permanent, integrated shelter” and a “central coordinating body at the provincial level” because the current system is reactive and siloed. All stakeholder groups converged on a singular, powerful critique of the system’s passive nature, voiced by a homeless man: “State agencies should come out to the field to talk to the homeless themselves, not wait for us to go to them, because we lack both the opportunity and the tools to access services”. The current system waits for the excluded to navigate their way in—a request that their circumstances make nearly impossible.

5.3. Contribution and Broader Implications

This study makes several key contributions to the literature on social exclusion. Theoretically, it introduces the concepts of the ‘foundational capability cascade’ and the ‘welfare trap’. The cascade model, in particular, offers a more deterministic, hierarchical frameworks for understanding how exclusion is reproduced, moving beyond standard cumulative disadvantage models. Methodologically, the research demonstrates the utility of a mixed-methods predictive model for analyzing welfare inequity in a Global South context, a region where such approaches are underexplored. Practically, the findings provide a clear, evidence-based roadmap for a ‘Housing and Education First’ policy approach, tailored to the specific institutional barriers identified in urban Thailand. These insights have significant relevance for other rapidly urbanizing regions in Southeast Asia and beyond that face similar challenges of deepening inequality.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Summary of Findings and Contributions

This study provides a multidimensional analysis of welfare access disparities among the homeless population in urban Thailand, revealing a structural architecture of exclusion determined by the compounding effects of social inequality and institutional design. Its key contribution lies in applying predictive modeling to demonstrate the critical interdependencies between welfare domains, advancing a more deterministic and nuanced model for how exclusion is reproduced. The evidence strongly supports two theoretical propositions: a ‘foundational capability cascade,’ where housing and education access are prerequisite predictors for economic reintegration, and a ‘welfare trap’ affecting individuals with mid-level education, who face unique barriers to support.

6.2. Limitations and Future Research

These contributions must be viewed in light of the study’s limitations. The cross-sectional design establishes strong statistical associations but cannot confirm causality, and self-reported data may be subject to bias. Future research should employ longitudinal designs to test the causal pathways proposed by the cascade model and integrate qualitative methods to explore the lived experiences of navigating these systems.

6.3. Policy Implications

Despite these limitations, the policy implications are substantial. First, our model provides compelling evidence for a ‘Housing and Education First’ strategy. The data strongly suggest that interventions addressing unemployment in isolation are structurally prone to failure. Ministries must coordinate to sequence resources, prioritizing these foundational domains to create a stable platform for economic integration. Second, welfare programs must be redesigned to dismantle the ‘welfare trap’ by creating targeted support pathways for individuals with secondary or bachelor’s-level education, who are systematically overlooked. Finally, ethically accountable, data-driven tools can help optimize resource allocation by proactively identifying and supporting the economically displaced, who this study found to be the most underserved. Ultimately, these reforms must be rooted in a rights-based approach that affirms the dignity and potential of every individual experiencing homelessness.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.C.; methodology, C.C.; software, C.C.; validation, C.C.; formal analysis, C.C.; investigation, C.C. and W.K.; resources, C.C. and W.K.; data curation, C.C. and W.K.; writing—original draft preparation, C.C. and W.K.; writing—review and editing, C.C.; visualization, C.C.; supervision, C.C.; project administration, C.C.; funding acquisition, C.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research project was financially supported by Mahasarakham University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Mahasarakham University Ethics Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects (protocol code 141-061/2025 and 27 February 2025 of approval).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to ethical restrictions regarding participant privacy and confidentiality.

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude for their generous funding, which made this study possible. Their support has been instrumental in enabling the conduct of this research and the dissemination of findings to the academic community.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Soyinka, O.; Siu, K.W.M. Urban informality, housing insecurity, and social exclusion; concept and case study assessment for sustainable urban development. City Cult. Soc. 2018, 15, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Banks, J.; Disney, R.; Duncan, A.; Van Reenen, J. The internationalisation of public welfare policy. Econ. J. 2005, 115, C1–C13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hasanaj, V. Global Patterns of Contemporary Welfare States. J. Soc. Policy 2022, 51, 449–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Stephens, C. Revisiting urban health and social inequalities: The devil is in the detail and the solution is in all of us. Environ. Urban. 2011, 23, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Thiyagarajan, A.; Bhattacharya, S.; Kaushal, K. Homelessness: An Emerging Threat. J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care 2018, 7, 600–603. [Google Scholar]
  6. Fotoula, B. Homeless: A high risk group for the public health. Health Sci. J. 2010, 4, 141–142. [Google Scholar]
  7. eClinicalMedicine. Equitable health care for people experiencing homelessness. eClinicalMedicine 2023, 65, 102242. [Google Scholar]
  8. Filippi, F.D.; Gambara, L. Housing is more than a shelter. Riflessioni intorno alla homelessness in una prospettiva globale. In La Città È La Casa. Politiche per l’Abitare, Contrasto Alla Povertà Abitativa e Housing First; Filippi, S.P.F.D., Ed.; FrancoAngeli: Milan, Italy, 2019; pp. 19–32. [Google Scholar]
  9. Jain, M. Bringing Human Rights Home: The DC Right to Housing Campaign. Hum. Rights Brief 2010, 17, 13–16. [Google Scholar]
  10. Polakow, V.; Brooks, M. Homelessness and Health Internationally. In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Health, Illness, Behavior, and Society; Cockerham, W.C., Dingwall, R., Quah, S.R., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2014; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  11. Mitchell, E.; O’Reilly, D.; O’Donovan, D.T.; Bradley, D. Predictors and consequences of homelessness: Cohort study design using linked routine data (Preprint). JMIR Res. Protoc. 2022, 11, e42404. [Google Scholar]
  12. de Snyder, V.N.S.; Friel, S.; Fotso, J.C.; Khadr, Z.; Meresman, S.; Monge, P.; Patil-Deshmukh, A. Social Conditions and Urban Health Inequities: Realities, Challenges and Opportunities to Transform the Urban Landscape through Research and Action. J. Urban Health 2011, 88, 1183–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Broto, V.C.; Alves, S.N. Intersectionality challenges for the co-production of urban services: Notes for a theoretical and methodological agenda. Environ. Urban. 2018, 30, 599–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cameron, S. Urban Inequality, Social Exclusion and Schooling in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Compare 2017, 47, 526–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yörük, E.; Gençer, A.Ş. The Dynamics of Welfare State Regime Development in the Global South: Structures, Institutions, and Political Agency. J. Comp. Policy Anal. 2022, 24, 250–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Boonyabancha, S. Baan Mankong: Going to scale with “slum” and squatter upgrading in Thailand. Environ. Urban. 2005, 17, 21–46. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dwyer, R.; Palepu, A.; Williams, C.; Daly-Grafstein, D.; Zhao, J. Unconditional cash transfers reduce homelessness. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2023, 120, e2222103120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gillis, L.M.; Singer, J. Breaking through the barriers: Healthcare for the homeless. J. Nurs. Adm. 1997, 27, 30–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Plumb, J. Homelessness: Care, Prevention, and Public Policy. Ann. Intern. Med. 1997, 126, 973–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ambrey, C.L. Homelessness and well-being: The role of support services. Int. J. Sociol. Soc. Policy 2025, 45, 1169–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Glassman, J.; Sneddon, C. Chiang Mai and Khon Kaen as Growth Poles: Regional Industrial Development in Thailand and its Implications for Urban Sustainability. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 2003, 590, 93–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bhandari, R.B.; Xue, W.; Virdis, S.G.; Winijkul, E.; Nguyen, T.L. Monitoring and Assessing Urbanization Progress in Thailand between 2000 and 2020 Using SDG Indicator 11.3.1. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Keeratikasikorn, C. A comparative study on four major cities in Northeastern Thailand using urban land density function. Geo-Spat. Inf. Sci. 2018, 21, 140–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Conway, D. Changing perspectives on squatter settlements, intraurban mobility, and constraints on housing choice of the third world urban poor. Urban Geogr. 1985, 6, 170–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lysenko, O.B. Until the wilting day: An analysis of urban population changes in provincial cities in Thailand from 2010 to 2019. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2022, 21, 1789–1801. [Google Scholar]
  26. Elder, J.; King, B. Housing and Homelessness as a Public Health Issue: Executive Summary of Policy Adopted by the American Public Health Association. Med. Care 2019, 57, 401–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Pritchard, J.W.; Puzey, J.W. Homelessness–On the health agenda in Wales? Rev. Environ. Health 2004, 19, 363–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Fowler, P.J.; Hovmand, P.S.; Marcal, K.E.; Das, S. Solving Homelessness from a Complex Systems Perspective: Insights for Prevention Responses. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2019, 40, 465–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. The Lancet Public Health. Homelessness in Europe: Time to act. Lancet Public Health 2023, 8, e743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Oelke, N.D.; Thurston, W.E.; Turner, D. Aboriginal Homelessness: A Framework for Best Practice in the Context of Structural Violence. Int. Indig. Policy J. 2016, 7, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pablo, Z.; London, K. Sustainability through Resilient Collaborative Housing Networks: A Case Study of an Australian Pop-Up Shelter. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hootegem, A.V.; Meuleman, B.; Abts, K. Two faces of benefit generosity: Comparing justice preferences in the access to and level of welfare benefits. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 2023, 39, 948–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Roosma, F.; Gelissen, J.; van Oorschot, W. The Multidimensionality of Welfare State Attitudes: A European Cross-National Study. Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 113, 235–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Cabieses, B.; Bird, P. Glossary of access to health care and related concepts for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): A critical review of international literature. Int. J. Health Serv. 2014, 44, 789–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Khan, A.A.; Bhardwaj, S.M. Access to health care. A conceptual framework and its relevance to health care planning. Eval. Health Prof. 1994, 17, 60–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Clark, C.; Perfit, C.; Reznickova, A. A multi-dimensional access index: Exploring emergency food assistance in New York City. Health Place 2024, 90, 103319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Elliott, M.; Krivo, L.J. Structural Determinants of Homelessness in the United States. Soc. Probl. 1991, 38, 113–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sarmento, M.; Huber, C.M.; Magalhães, C. Mapping Marginalization: A Multilevel Exploration of Chronic Homelessness. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2025, 35, e70135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Conley, D. Getting it together: Social and institutional obstacles to getting off the streets. Sociol. Forum 1996, 11, 215–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cernadas, A.; Fernández, Á. Healthcare inequities and barriers to access for homeless individuals: A qualitative study in Barcelona (Spain). Int. J. Equity Health 2021, 20, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Canham, S.L.; Weldrick, R.; Erisman, M.; McNamara, A.; Rose, J.; Siantz, E.; Casucci, T.; McFarland, M. A Scoping Review of the Experiences and Outcomes of Stigma and Discrimination towards Persons Experiencing Homelessness. Health Soc. Care Community 2024, 2024, 2060619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Schiffler, T.; Carmichael, C.; Lehner, L.; Gil-Salmerón, A.; Kouvari, M.; Karnaki, P.; Grabovac, I. Barriers and facilitators to healthcare access for homeless people in four European countries. Eur. J. Public Health 2022, 32 (Suppl. S3), ckac129.068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Thorndike, A.L.; Yetman, H.E.; Thorndike, A.N.; Jeffrys, M.; Rowe, M. Unmet health needs and barriers to health care among people experiencing homelessness in San Francisco’s Mission District: A qualitative study. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Ramsay, N.; Hossain, R.; Moore, M.; Milo, M.; Brown, A. Health Care While Homeless: Barriers, Facilitators, and the Lived Experiences of Homeless Individuals Accessing Health Care in a Canadian Regional Municipality. Qual. Health Res. 2019, 29, 1827–1839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. White, B.; Newman, S.D. Access to primary care services among the homeless: A synthesis of the literature using the equity of access to medical care framework. J. Prim. Care Community Health 2015, 6, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. North, C.S.; Smith, E.M. A comparison of homeless men and women: Different populations, different needs. Community Ment. Health J. 1993, 29, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Brunette, M.F.; Drake, R.E. Gender Differences in Homeless Persons with Schizophrenia and Substance Abuse. Community Ment. Health J. 1998, 34, 627–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Cramer, H. Informal and Gendered Practices in a Homeless Persons Unit. Hous. Stud. 2005, 20, 587–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Winetrobe, H.; Wenzel, S.L.; Rhoades, H.; Henwood, B.F.; Rice, E.; Harris, T. Differences in Health and Social Support between Homeless Men and Women Entering Permanent Supportive Housing. Womens Health Issues 2017, 27, 327–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tsai, J.; Lampros, A. Disproportionate Increases in Numbers and Rates of Homelessness Among Women in the United States, 2018–2022. Public Health Rep. 2024, 140, 103–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Benda, B.B.; Dattalo, P. Homeless Women and Men: Their Problems and Use of Services. Affilia 1990, 5, 43–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Biblarz, T.J.; Raftery, A.E. The Effects of Family Disruption on Social Mobility. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1993, 58, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Roustit, C.; Chaix, B.; Chauvin, P. Family breakup and adolescents’ psychosocial maladjustment: Public health implications of family disruptions. Pediatrics 2007, 120, e984–e991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nallo, A.D.; Oesch, D. The Intergenerational Transmission of Family Dissolution: How it Varies by Social Class Origin and Birth Cohort. Eur. J. Popul. 2023, 39, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Leonard, T.; Hughes, A.E.; Pruitt, S.L. Understanding how low-socioeconomic status households cope with health shocks: An analysis of multi-sector linked data. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 2017, 669, 168–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Vásquez, W.F.; Bohara, A.K. Household shocks, child labor, and child schooling: Evidence from Guatemala. Lat. Am. Res. Rev. 2010, 45, 146–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Reyes, C.; Randell, H.E. Household Shocks and Adolescent Well-Being in Peru. Popul. Res. Policy Rev. 2023, 42, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rossi, P.H.; Wright, J.D. The Urban Homeless: A Portrait of Urban Dislocation. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 1989, 501, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Snow, D.A.; Mulcahy, M. Space, Politics, and the Survival Strategies of the Homeless. Am. Behav. Sci. 2001, 45, 149–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Veness, A.R. Home and Homelessness in the United States: Changing Ideals and Realities. Environ. Plan. D 1992, 10, 445–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lancione, M. Homeless people and the city of abstract machines: Assemblage thinking and the performative approach to homelessness. Area 2013, 45, 356–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Iamtrakul, P.; Padon, A.; Chayphong, S.; Hayashi, Y. Unlocking Urban Accessibility: Proximity Analysis in Bangkok, Thailand’s Mega City. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zaki, S.; Amin, A.T.M.N. Does Basic Services Privatisation Benefit the Urban Poor? Some Evidence from Water Supply Privatisation in Thailand. Urban Stud. 2009, 46, 2335–2361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Boonyabancha, S. Land for housing the poor—By the poor: Experiences from the Baan Mankong nationwide slum upgrading programme in Thailand. Environ. Urban. 2009, 21, 309–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Duangputtan, P.; Mishima, N. Examining Dwelling Interior Conditions for Informal Settlement Upgrading Along the Mae Kha Canal, Chiang Mai. Interiority 2024, 7, 305–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Alderton, A.; Davern, M.; Nitvimol, K.; Butterworth, I.; Higgs, C.; Ryan, E.; Badland, H. What is the meaning of urban liveability for a city in a low-to-middle-income country? Contextualising liveability for Bangkok, Thailand. Global Health 2019, 15, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Gillingham, P. Predictive Risk Modelling to Prevent Child Maltreatment and Other Adverse Outcomes for Service Users: Inside the ‘Black Box’ of Machine Learning. Br. J. Soc. Work 2016, 46, 1029–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Serrano, E.; del Pozo-Jiménez, P.; Suárez-Figueroa, M.C.; González-Pachón, J.; Bajo, J.; Gómez-Pérez, A. Predicting the risk of suffering chronic social exclusion with machine learning. In International Conference on Practical Applications of Agents and Multi-Agent Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 177–188. [Google Scholar]
  69. Rodriguez, M.Y.; DePanfilis, D.; Lanier, P. Bridging the gap: Social work insights for ethical algorithmic decision-making in human services. IBM J. Res. Dev. 2019, 63, 8:1–8:8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Oak, E. A Minority Report for Social Work? The Predictive Risk Model (PRM) and the Tuituia Assessment Framework in addressing the needs of New Zealand’s Vulnerable Children. Br. J. Soc. Work 2016, 46, 414–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Breznau, N. Integrating Computer Prediction Methods in Social Science: A Comment on Hofman et al. (2021). Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2022, 40, 519–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Putnam, R.D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community; Simon & Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  73. Lipsky, M. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 17 10929 g001
Figure 1. Demographic Profile: The Human Faces Behind the Numbers.
Figure 1. Demographic Profile: The Human Faces Behind the Numbers.
Sustainability 17 10929 g001
Sustainability 17 10929 g002
Figure 2. The Reality of Access: A Gulf Between Policy and Practice.
Figure 2. The Reality of Access: A Gulf Between Policy and Practice.
Sustainability 17 10929 g002
Sustainability 17 10929 g003
Figure 3. Gendered Disparities in Access to Basic Welfare Services.
Figure 3. Gendered Disparities in Access to Basic Welfare Services.
Sustainability 17 10929 g003
Sustainability 17 10929 g004
Figure 4. Disparities in access to basic welfare services across different education levels.
Figure 4. Disparities in access to basic welfare services across different education levels.
Sustainability 17 10929 g004
Sustainability 17 10929 g005
Figure 5. Age-based disparities in access to basic welfare services among the homeless population.
Figure 5. Age-based disparities in access to basic welfare services among the homeless population.
Sustainability 17 10929 g005
Table 1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Interview Participants (Insert into Methodology).
Table 1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Interview Participants (Insert into Methodology).
Participant IDRole/CategoryGenderAge (Approx.)Background/Context
GOV-01State OfficialMale40–50Policy oversight, involved in homelessness for >5 years.
GOV-02State OfficialMale41Field operations, direct engagement with homeless individuals at transport hubs.
GOV-03State OfficialFemale38Social worker, specializes in family reconciliation and welfare access.
GOV-04State OfficialFemale40–50Public health coordinator for vulnerable populations.
CSO-01Civil SocietyMaleN/ACommunity volunteer, advocates for “opportunities not burden” perspective.
CSO-02Civil SocietyMaleN/ALocal NGO leader, organizes food/supplies distribution.
H-01Homeless IndividualMaleN/AHas ID card but lacks permanent address; history of service refusal due to appearance.
H-02Homeless IndividualFemaleN/AHas ID card; faces gender-specific safety risks; difficulty accessing healthcare queues.
H-03Homeless IndividualMaleN/ANo ID card (lost/stolen); chronic health issues (diabetes/hypertension); completely excluded from state welfare.
H-04Homeless IndividualMaleN/ANo ID card; relies solely on charity; desires state outreach for re-documentation.
Table 2. Multiple Linear Regression Predicting Access to Basic Welfare in Work and Income Domain.
Table 2. Multiple Linear Regression Predicting Access to Basic Welfare in Work and Income Domain.
Predictor VariableBStd. Errorβ (Beta)tSig.VIF
(Constant)0.1820.077–2.3470.020 *-
Access to Basic Welfare in Housing Domain0.4470.0540.4518.3040.000 ***5.564
Access to Basic Welfare in Education Domain0.4930.0520.5209.5760.000 ***5.564
Note: Note: 1. Significance levels: * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001. Predictors were entered using the Enter method. 2. R = 0.948, R2 = 0.899, Adjusted R2 = 0.898, Std. Error of Estimate = 0.41653 Dependent Variable: Access to Employment and Income.
Table 3. Convergence of Key Themes Across Stakeholder Groups.
Table 3. Convergence of Key Themes Across Stakeholder Groups.
Thematic AreaKey Barrier IdentifiedProposed SolutionSupporting Quote (Example)
Institutional AccessLack of national ID card blocks all services.Proactive outreach by the state to issue documentation.“It’s like being an invisible person. You can’t ask for help because you have no rights at all.” (Homeless Participant)
System FragmentationNo central coordinating body; services are siloed.Establish a province-level “Homelessness Task Force.”“We need a permanent, integrated shelter… and a central coordinating body.” (State Official)
HousingLack of safe, temporary, and gender-appropriate shelters.“Housing and Education First” strategy; develop women-only safe spaces.“What I want is a temporary shelter for women that is safe.” (Homeless Participant)
Social StigmaPervasive negative attitudes prevent social reintegration.Public awareness campaigns to frame homelessness as a structural issue.“We must change our view from seeing them as a burden to seeing them as people who need a chance.” (Civil Society Member)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kitkiwan, W.; Chaiya, C. The Cascade of Exclusion: A Mixed-Methods Study of Welfare Inequity and Its Foundational Determinants Among Thailand’s Homeless Population. Sustainability 2025, 17, 10929. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172410929

AMA Style

Kitkiwan W, Chaiya C. The Cascade of Exclusion: A Mixed-Methods Study of Welfare Inequity and Its Foundational Determinants Among Thailand’s Homeless Population. Sustainability. 2025; 17(24):10929. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172410929

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kitkiwan, Warisara, and Chitralada Chaiya. 2025. "The Cascade of Exclusion: A Mixed-Methods Study of Welfare Inequity and Its Foundational Determinants Among Thailand’s Homeless Population" Sustainability 17, no. 24: 10929. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172410929

APA Style

Kitkiwan, W., & Chaiya, C. (2025). The Cascade of Exclusion: A Mixed-Methods Study of Welfare Inequity and Its Foundational Determinants Among Thailand’s Homeless Population. Sustainability, 17(24), 10929. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172410929

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop