Coping Styles Associated with Victimization Profiles Among Homeless Youth

Background: Homeless youth experience elevated rates of direct and indirect victimization, such as robbery, physical attacks, and witnessing assaults on others. Recent research enabled a deeper understanding of the complexities of these victimization experiences by identifying three distinct victimization profiles among homeless youth, including low- victimization (youth who experience little to no victimization), high-victimization (youth who experience multiple types of victimization many times) and witnesses (who are on the periphery of violence). Although previous research suggests that these victimization profiles are associated with distinct mental health and substance use outcomes, an important next step consists of identifying malleable risk and protective factors associated with these profiles to guide the development of effective trauma-informed services for homeless youth experiencing different profiles. With the goal of determining potential intervention targets, the current study used the risk and resilience framework to investigate which coping styles are associated with victimization profiles among homeless youth.

Methods: Quantitative data were collected from a sample of 601 homeless youth, aged 18-24, recruited from homeless youth-serving agencies in three cities: Denver (n=201), Los Angeles (n=200), and Austin (n=200). Youth completed interviews composed of standardized and researcher-developed measures, including demographic and homelessness background information (primary living situation, duration of homelessness, transience), coping styles (modified Coping Scale consisting of three subscales: active, avoidant and social coping), and victimization profile (a variable developed through a previous latent class analysis using items from the Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire resulting in a 3-category variable: low-victimization profile, witness profile, and high-victimization profile). A multinomial regression model regressed the victimization profile dependent variable on coping styles (active, avoidant, and social) while controlling for demographic variables (age, gender, ethnicity, site) and homelessness risk variables (number of months homeless, primary living situation, and transience). Low-victimization profile was used as the reference category in this regression model, enabling an investigation of which coping styles differentiate low-victims from witnesses and high-victims.

Results: Findings indicate that avoidant coping (e.g., social isolation, drinking, trying not to think about a problem) was a risk factor for victimization, with youth who employed greater avoidant coping more likely to be in the witness (OR=1.65, p<.001) or high-victimization classes (OR=2.13, p<.001) compared to the low-victimization class. Alternatively, social coping (e.g., seeking support from others) appeared protective, with youth who indicated greater social coping more likely to endorse a low-victimization profile and less likely to have a high-victimization profile (OR=.75, p<.01). Active coping was not significantly associated with victimization profile.

Discussion: Coping strategies represent potentially malleable risk and protective factors that offer promising intervention targets for helping these youth better navigate their homeless experiences. Homeless youth researchers, in partnership with service providers, should consider developing and testing interventions that help youth to replace avoidant coping strategies, such as isolating or using substances, with social coping strategies, including reaching out to pro-social support systems for emotional, instrumental, and informational support in times of need. Such coping skills training may be associated with reduced risk for victimization as well as healthier coping with previous traumas.