{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02339572192513369, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0066844919786096255, 'mean_word_length': 5.508695652173913, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Contingent Effect of Guardianship on Victimization: An Examination of People With and Without Mental Health Problems

Mixed effects of guardianship on victimization have been found in the literature. It is possible that these divergent findings have emerged because research has not recognized how the need for guardianship may shape the results. That is, individuals who are not suitable targets (i.e., individuals without mental health problems—those who are not perceived as vulnerable or incapable of defending themselves) do not need guardianship, resulting in null findings for the protective effects of guardianship on victimization. We examine the possibility that mental health problems and guardianship interact to produce victimization in the Life Opportunities Survey, a nationally representative survey of individuals in the United Kingdom (N = 27,516). Logistic regression analyses support our hypothesis that the effects of guardianship on victimization, which is measured as violence or the threat of violence against an individual, are contingent on the presence of mental health problems (i.e., any emotional or psychological health condition). The risk of victimization for those with mental health problems who had guardianship was substantially lower than for those with mental health problems who lacked guardianship (11.5% vs. 17%, respectively). We discuss this finding in light of routine activities theory and crime prevention for people with mental health problems.