Exploring Informal Networks and Mutual Aid in People Experiencing Homelessness

Introduction:
Individuals experiencing homelessness rely on a range of support systems to meet their basic needs, including in formal settings, such as hospitals and shelters, and informal sources within encampments or peer groups. However, systemic failures, such as discriminatory policies and dehumanizing practices, often discourage engagement with formal services. While informal support and mutual aid are sometimes used interchangeably, mutual aid refers more specifically to solidarity-based, peer-driven efforts that center reciprocal care and collective survival. Although mutual aid can involve aspects of social support, such as emotional assistance, it is not fully captured by traditional definitions focused on individual or dyadic relationships. Within literature, limited attention has been given to how people experiencing homelessness differentiate mutual aid from informal support or how these practices function in response to formal systems. This study’s objective is to explore how individuals experiencing homelessness navigate and understand informal support and mutual aid while contrasting within formal systems.

Method:
The presenting author conducted this exploratory, qualitative study as part of a larger study exploring bias when accessing formal healthcare. Semi-structured interviews with individuals experiencing recent or current homelessness acted as the primary data source. The interview guide explored participants’ experiences with informal support, mutual aid, and their perceptions of formal services, including healthcare systems. Purposive sampling was used to ensure a range of perspectives, particularly across different types of service engagement. Recruitment occurred through community partners, including homeless shelters, street outreach, and peer support programs, as well as through mutual aid networks and public spaces. The presenting author used Interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) to explore how participants made meaning of their networks and their interactions with formal and informal systems.

Findings:
Findings illustrate what mutual aid looks like, motivations for relying on mutual aid, and challenges to mutual aid among people experiencing homelessness. Participants described formal systems as disempowering, with participants citing judgment, dismissal, and power imbalances when seeking care. Informal support was framed less as friendship and more as a strategy for survival, though some described these relationships as emotionally significant. While material goods like food and clothing were commonly shared and expected, information-sharing—such as where to find resources or avoid harm—was seen as the most valuable form of mutual aid. Many participants preferred to give help but were hesitant to receive it, viewing self-reliance to preserve dignity in systems that often required people to prove they were “deserving.”

Conclusion and Implications:
Mutual aid offers a framework that challenges provider-client hierarchies, emphasizing shared vulnerability and collective action rather than paternalistic care. IPA allowed for the centering of participants’ lived experiences while drawing attention to the tension between needing help and having to prove one’s worth. For social work practice, this study highlights the importance of incorporating lived experience into service design and delivery—not only as consultation but as co-creation. To improve engagement, social workers and other providers could integrate peer-led navigation and information-sharing to better understand and address the needs of people experiencing homelessness.