Coping, Homelessness And Victimization: A Paradigm Analysis

Chapter Two: Coping, Homelessness and Victimisation
The second chapter will considers how pre-existing coping paradigms can be used to enhance an analysis of the coping strategies used by homeless victims of crime.

1 Conceptualising Coping
Despite a debated history, the term ‘coping’ is used to describe the process within which individuals respond to stressful or “traumatic” events (Compas et al., 2001: 90; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). In its broadest sense, coping can be defined as both metal and behavioural efforts directed at managing aspects of the self and the environment in an attempt to regulate adverse experiences (Lyons, 2012; Newman, 2008). Because broad definitions of coping do little to understand the “heterogeneity among different

Also recognised as “approach” coping (Roth and Cohen, 1986: 813), engagement forms of coping encompasses both problem-focussed and some forms of emotion-focussed coping strategies (e.g. seeking support and regulation of emotions) (Carver and Connor-Smith, 2010: 685). However, disengagement coping, or “avoidance” coping (Roth and Cohen, 1986: 813), encompasses only emotion-focussed strategies but can often be characterised as denial or withdrawal, so the stressor does not have to be reacted to, “behaviourally or emotionally” (Carver and Connor-Smith, 2010: 685; Compas et al., 2001). However, Carver et al. (1989: 269) highlight how disengagement forms of coping are particularly ineffective in reducing the stressors existence and mostly occur when an individual “expects poor coping outcomes”. Moreover, denial of a stressors presence can actually heighten an individual’s negative experiences of a particular stressor ((Najmi & Wenger,

Of particular significance is the problematic relationship shared between the homeless and the police, with a number of authors, both in the UK and America, describing the “low levels” of trust between the two (Zakrison et al., 2004: 602; Scurfield et al., 2009). Novak et al. (2007: ) noted that over half of their sample (58%) characterised their relationship with the police negatively, inasmuch as the police frequently abused their power. With research illustrating how the police tend to perceive the homeless as a “nuisance” rather than a “victim”, it is of no surprise that a large proportion of victimisation goes unreported (Ballintyne, 1999: 44; Pain and Francis, 2004; Jasinski et al., 2005) - with a consensual sentiment that the police “never do anything” (Newburn and Rock, 2006: 139). Poignantly, Pain and Francis argue that the police are responsible for a proportion of victimisation suffered by the homeless, with their Newcastle based research illustrating a number of cases where participants had been assaulted and frequently stopped and searched by the police, who were generally unsympathetic about their circumstances (2004: