Department of Criminology, Wilfrid Laurier University, 171 Colborne St., Brantford, ON, N3T 6C9, Canada.
Faculty of Education, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
J Prim Prev. 2020 Oct;41(5):397-412. doi: 10.1007/s10935-020-00607-y.
As states move beyond simply managing their homelessness crises to looking for ways to reduce and ultimately end homelessness, broad-scale efforts to prevent homelessness are lacking. Experiences of homelessness are often harmful, traumatic, and costly, making a compelling case for why homelessness prevention should be prioritized. In recent years, countries such as Australia, Finland, and Wales have shifted their focus to prevention, but there remains a conceptual and systematic gap in our collective knowledge about what precisely homelessness prevention is, what policies, programs, and interventions are captured in a homelessness prevention strategy, and how to build a framework for orienting our response to homelessness towards prevention. This article begins to fill that gap by providing a definition and typology of homelessness prevention (THP). Our definition offers a schema to clarify the nature of homelessness prevention and to develop a collective response between various policies and practices that can and should be framed as homelessness prevention. Building off of the public health model of prevention and pre-existing homelessness prevention classification systems, our THP complements the definition by specifying the pragmatic nature of prevention initiatives and the range of sectors, stakeholders, and levels of government required to respond to the causes of homelessness. Our typology is made up of five interrelated elements: structural, systems, early intervention, evictions prevention, and housing stabilization. Each of these elements contains actionable strategies that cut across primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention to ensure that people at various levels of risk have access to the tools and resources necessary to find and maintain safe, appropriate, and suitable housing. Together the definition and THP are useful tools to envision a new way forward in how we respond to homelessness.
随着各州不再仅仅管理无家可归危机,而是寻求减少甚至最终消除无家可归现象的方法,大规模的预防无家可归的努力却缺乏。无家可归的经历往往是有害的、创伤性的和代价高昂的,这有力地证明了为什么应优先考虑预防无家可归。近年来,澳大利亚、芬兰和威尔士等国家已将重点转向预防,但在我们对预防无家可归的确切含义、预防无家可归战略中包含哪些政策、方案和干预措施以及如何建立一个框架来指导我们预防无家可归的对策方面,我们的集体知识仍存在概念和系统上的差距。本文通过提供预防无家可归的定义和分类法(THP)开始填补这一空白。我们的定义提供了一个模式,以澄清预防无家可归的性质,并在各种政策和实践之间建立一个集体回应,这些政策和实践可以而且应该被框定为预防无家可归。在预防的公共卫生模式和现有的预防无家可归分类系统的基础上,我们的 THP 通过具体说明预防举措的务实性质以及应对无家可归原因所需的各个部门、利益攸关方和各级政府的范围,对定义进行了补充。我们的分类法由五个相互关联的要素组成:结构性、系统性、早期干预、防止驱逐和住房稳定。这些要素中的每一个都包含可操作的策略,跨越了初级、二级和三级预防,以确保处于不同风险水平的人都可以获得必要的工具和资源,以找到并维持安全、适当和合适的住房。定义和 THP 共同作为有用的工具,为我们如何应对无家可归问题设想了一种新的前进方式。