Safe streets for whom? Homeless youth, social exclusion, and criminal victimization.

• Author: Gaetz, Stephen
• Position: Canada

Every year, many Canadians become victims of crime, ranging from small and relatively insignificant incidents of theft or vandalism to the other extreme, murder. It goes without saying that those who are victims of criminal acts suffer, to greater or lesser degrees, and that victimization can have a profound impact on a person's mental and physical health, feelings of safety and security, and self-esteem. The damage done to victims of crime can be long-lasting. Yet little is known about the victimization experiences of young people who are homeless in Canada.

When homeless youth are discussed during public debates on crime, it is usually with reference to their role as perpetrators. This perspective, rooted in popular and enduring notions of delinquent street urchins, typically characterizes homeless youth as kids who are "bad" or "deviant" (or, more generously, troubled or misguided) and who leave home for fairly insignificant reasons. Once on the streets, they become involved in delinquent activities and, as a result, put the health and safety of the general public is at risk. It is "they" who are causing problems for ordinary citizens; it is "they" who are driving away tourists and making the streets unsafe.

Yet the persistent public focus on street youth as potential offenders overlooks the real possibility that they may disproportionately be victims of crime. In this article, the criminal victimization experiences of homeless street youth will be explored. Contrary to the narrow public depiction of homeless youth as criminal offenders, the data presented here will reveal that street youth are among the most victimized populations in Canadian society.

In explaining why some people are more likely to be victims of crime, criminological research often points either to the significance of background variables (the effects of prior victimization) or to lifestyle and routine activities theories. The latter perspectives focus on the significance of ecological and contextual factors, suggesting that if people regularly frequent dangerous locations or engage in risky behaviours, their proximity to other offenders places them at risk for victimization. What such approaches are not so successful at explaining is how and why young people wind up in such contexts in the first place.

I will argue here that the concept of social exclusion provides a means of making sense of the conditions that give rise to such victimization. That is, the experience of inadequate access to shelter and housing, limited employment opportunities, weak social capital, and restricted access to public space has an impact on the ability of homeless youth to protect themselves and their property. This situation is further complicated by the limited access of street youth to the safety measures and strategies, both private and public (such as the protection of the police), that most people consider to be a right of citizenship. For young women who are homeless, these challenges are even greater.

Understanding street youth victimization

Toronto is routinely identified as one of the safest cities in Canada (Logan 2001). Nevertheless, such broad generalizations about urban spaces can be misleading, as research on criminal victimization suggests that not all citizens experience victimization to the same degree, or in the same way. For instance, it is clear that adolescents are much more likely to be victims of crime than are other age groups, in spite of the popular (if true) perception that young people are also more likely to be the perpetrators of offences than adults. In addition, women experience crime differently than men, and their perceptions of risk differ, focusing more on the threat of physical and sexual assault than on property crime. This, of course, raises the question of why some groups are more vulnerable to crime than others.

One of the central findings of this article is that when compared to the Canadian public, young people who are homeless experience much higher levels of criminal victimization. An emerging body of literature explores the myriad and complex factors that result in higher levels of victimization among the homeless (Baron 1997, 2003; Fitzpatrick, LaGory, and Ritchey 1999; Tyler, Hoyt, and Whitbeck 2000; Whitbeck and Simons 1990; Whitbeck, Hoyt, and Ackley 1997; Whitbeck, Hoyt, Yoder, Cauce, and Paradise 2001). As Fitzpatrick et al. argue, homelessness is "a stress-filled, dehumanizing, dangerous circumstance in which individuals are at high risk of being witness to or victims of a wide range of violent acts" (1999: 439). Much of this research, reflecting the broader findings of sociological and criminological research, identifies the significance of background variables and, in particular, the effects of previous victimization on future occurrences (Lauritsen and Quinet 1995; Terrell 1997; Tyler et al. 2000).

In the case of homeless youth, a consensus has emerged suggesting that a majority of street youth in Canada and the United States come from homes characterized by high levels of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse and neglect, compared with domiciled youth (Alder 1991; Gaetz, O'Grady, and Vaillancourt 1999; Janus, Burgess, and McCormack 1987; Janus, Archambault, Brown, and Welsh 1995; Kufeldt and Nimmo 1987; Dematteo et al. 1999; Whitbeck and Simons 1993; Whitbeck and Hoyt 1999). Rotheram-Borus, Mahler, Koopman, and Langabeer (1996) estimate that street youth are five times as likely as domiciled youth to report being victims of sexual abuse as children. For young people who have experienced such abuse there is an increased likelihood of negative developmental outcomes, including low self-esteem, an impaired ability to form affective and trusting relationships with adults, higher rates of depression and suicide attempts, running away, or being kicked out of home (Beitchman, Zucker, Hood, daCosta, Akman, and Cassavia 1992; Tyler et al. 2000; Whitbeck et al. 1997).

There is also evidence to suggest that an abusive background characterized by coercive and aggressive parenting produces aggression in children and adolescents (Baron 1997; Baron and Hartnagel 1998; Fleisher 1995; Patterson, Dishion, and Bank 1984; Patterson, DeBaryshe, and Ramsay 1989; Whitbeck and Hoyt 1999), who are also more likely to exhibit deviant peer associations and to engage in risky behaviours (Kral, Molnar, Booth, and Watters 1997; MacDonald, Fisher, Wells, Doherty, and Bowie 1994; Whitbeck et al. 1997, 2001). Youth cultural factors are important here as well. That is, the "informal rules" that develop on the streets are, in part, a result of such aggressive upbringing and may condition homeless youth to adopt more "violent" approaches to problem solving (Baron, Forde, and Kennedy 2001; Anderson 1996; Terrell 1997).

Similarly, background variables are also correlated with later victimization on the streets (Baron 1997; Browne and Bassuk 1997; Kipke, Simon, Montgomery, Unger, and Iverson 1997; Tyler et al. 2000; Whitbeck et al. 1997). This is in part because the aggressive behaviours produced by a violent upbringing may often lead to provocative interactions (Baron 1997; Fleisher 1995). In addition, there is evidence that victims of sexual abuse are at increased risk for sexual victimization and exploitation when they are older (Janus et al. 1987; Simons and Whitbeck 1991).

While background factors are clearly significant in explaining deviant and violent behaviour--as well as experiences of victimization--it has been argued that this is not a sufficient explanation and that other factors must be taken into account (Whitbeck and Simons 1990). In making sense of the criminal offending behaviour of homeless youth, Hagan and McCarthy (1997) effectively demonstrate the significance of situational factors. At the same time, lifestyle and routine activities theories highlight the contextual significance of environmental and situational factors in increasing one's exposure to the risk of criminal victimization (Cohen and Felson 1979; Cohen, Kluegel, and Land 1981; Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo 1978; Miethe and Meier 1990).

Routine activities theory suggests that three conditions increase the opportunity for a crime to occur: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and a lack of capable guardianship (Cohen and Felson 1979). If one regularly frequents dangerous and poorly supervised locations or engages in delinquent behaviours, one's proximity to other criminal offenders places one at greater risk for victimization (Lauritsen, Sampson, and Laub 1991; Kennedy and Forde 1990).

For young people who are homeless, the implications are clear. Their very public lives are in general played out in spaces that bring them into contact with hostile strangers, potential offenders, other homeless people, and people with serious substance abuse issues or mental health problems. Their low level of guardianship (Miethe and Meier 1994), resulting both from their weak social capital and from the fact they often frequent dangerous urban areas, limits their ability to protect themselves or to be protected, making them suitable targets.

An additional lifestyle factor to consider is that street youth, as a group, are more likely to engage in criminal and delinquent activities (Inciardi, Horowitz, and Pottieger 1993; Hagan and McCarthy 1997). Criminological research suggests a link between criminal offending and victimization (Lauritsen et al. 1991). That is, many of the same factors that enable offending behaviours--dangerous locations, proximity to other offenders, weak guardianship--may also lead to victimization (Esbensen and Huizinga 1991; Rapp-Paglicci and Wodarski 2000; Rivara, Shepherd, Farrington, Richmond, and Cannon 1995).

Social exclusion and victimization

Lifestyle and routine activities theories, then, suggest that certain social and ecological conditions raise one's potential risk of personal victimization, both through increased...