An Intersectional Analysis of Victimization of the Homeless, Mental Health, Guardianship and Housing Status

Abstract

The present study examines victimization across a localized homeless population. It is widely agreed upon across the extant literature that those experiencing homelessness are victimized at disproportionately higher rates in comparison to the general population. Utilizing routine activities and lifestyles theories, this paper examined how varying degrees of housing and mental health issues affect the likelihood of victimization for those experiencing homelessness. It was hypothesized that lower levels of housing and higher degrees of mental health issues exacerbate the high rates of victimization across the homeless population. Utilizing a routine activities perspective, this study conceptualized housing as a measure of guardianship. This study utilized a secondary data analysis design. Secondary data was accessed from the Winnipeg At Home/Chez Soi project. Using negative binominal regression, it was found that there is a relationship between mental health, guardianship, and victimization. Analyses provided partial support for the hypotheses that greater mental health challenges contribute to a higher propensity of victimization. Although the results illustrated that greater levels of stable housing did have a mitigating effect on victimization at the 12-month time period serious mental health issues were found to be a considerably stronger predictor of victimization than guardianship through housing. The findings suggest that proximity to high crime areas, certain lifestyle factors and individual activities may still account for much of high victimization rates for the homeless, despite an increase in provision of housing. Future qualitative inquiry is recommended to better understand the processes that impact victimization for the homeless with mental health issues.

Artificial Scarcity in Housebuilding and the Impact on Affordability: The Return of Absolute Rent

“…The tendency of the housebuilders in England to deliberately restrict output to maintain prices had been conclusively demonstrated in a succession of government investigations. The Barker Review of Housing Supply (Barker 2003), the Callcutt Review (2007 and the Letwin (2018) review, and the industry's own reports, all confirm the practice of drip-feeding the supply of new homes onto the market, with fewer than 60 homes completed per year, per sales outlet, across all housing construction sites. The most recent research suggested further reductions in build-out rates with the average number of homes now falling to 45 homes built per year per site (Lichfields 2021).…”

“…In the context of these conflicting interpretations of escalating housing costs the role of a speculative housebuilding industry as both suppliers of homes and owners of land acquires particular resonance. The slow response of volume housebuilders to changes in demand has been cited as a contributing cause of housing unaffordability (Barker 2003). Numerous studies have identified systemic delays in construction with slow build-out rates and what appears to be a large gulf between land approved for building and houses actually built (Colenutt 2020).…”