Homelessness, COVID-19, and discourses of contagion.

In March 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic began in Canada, public health and medical authorities quickly identified emergency shelters and people experiencing homelessness as particularly at risk of contracting and spreading COVID-19 (Knight et al., 2021). Drawing on interviews with 28 service providers in organizations that primarily serve people experiencing homelessness in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada and a media scan, we explored how people who worked in and accessed these organizations negotiated discourses of contagion and infection throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper is informed by Goffman's (1963) theory of stigma, complemented by Crawford's (1994) idea of the Self and unhealthy Other. We argue that people experiencing homelessness, the spaces that they occupy, and the people they engage with, have been discursively marked as dangerous vectors of infection who present a risk to the health of the whole population, rather than as vulnerable to the health consequences and social disruption of COVID-19. Consequently, people experiencing homelessness have experienced further stigmatization throughout the pandemic as they have been separated from their communities, friends, and families, left without support or shelter, internalized blame for the spread of COVID-19, and faced dehumanization, grief, and trauma resulting from uneven COVID-19 interventions. We highlight these findings to support the application of trauma- and violence-informed care in service settings to prevent the further traumatization of people experiencing homelessness in services intended to support them.

Photo elicitation to explore health and social exclusion with rooming house residents in Ottawa, Canada.

Little is known about how rooming house residents perceive how housing influences their health, despite higher morbidity and premature death compared to other Canadians. The social exclusion framework of the Social Knowledge Exchange Network (SEKN) conceptualized by Popay et al. (2008) was used to investigate how rooming houses are linked to health among ten rooming house residents from six rooming houses in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Study activities included taking photos to show how living in a rooming house affects health, a community walk-about with the principal investigator, a focus group, and individual interviews. Thematic analysis revealed two broad themes: Housing is Health Care, and Just Managing Today. Findings suggest that structural inequalities and siloed care contribute to the health of rooming house residents, including the balance between poverty and desire to maintain housing, and how residents cope with this stress. If health care providers want to help alleviate the disparities in rooming house residents' health, they need to broaden the lens through which health is conceptualized.

Turning Off the Tap: A Typology for Homelessness Prevention.

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.

Evolving an evidence-based model for homelessness prevention.

While some progress has been made in addressing chronic homelessness through supportive models, a comprehensive solution for housing loss must include prevention. The purpose of this article is twofold: to conduct a review of the literature on the domains of the Framework for Homelessness Prevention; and to use literature on the concept of quaternary prevention, preventing the harms of service provision, to theorise an additional domain. The Framework for Homelessness Prevention draws upon theory from public health exploring primary, secondary and tertiary prevention, and also integrates primordial prevention. This leads to a typology of homelessness prevention that incorporates the following five domains: (a) Structural prevention; (b) Systems prevention; (c) Early intervention; (d) Eviction prevention; and (e) Housing stability. By systematically reviewing the literature we build out the evidence-base supporting these domains. The team used research databases, internet searches and retrospective reference list reviews to identify high-quality journal articles on prevention, which were then sorted by level of prevention. Through this process, we evolved our thinking on the Framework in considering that quaternary prevention was not initially included. Therefore, we explored the literature related to quaternary prevention in the context of homelessness and offer a sixth domain for the Framework: Empowerment. Ultimately, a comprehensive Framework for Homelessness Prevention will support communities and governments to more effectively prevent homelessness through upstream approaches.