Where Are the Beds? Housing Options for Transition Age Youth Exiting Public Systems

Purpose: Youth that are aging out of the foster care or juvenile justice systems face numerous challenges in their transition to adulthood. In particular, transition age youth (TAY) from the two systems experience difficulty in locating stable housing, thereby placing them at high risk of homelessness. While research documents the challenges TAY face as they exit public systems, little is known about the neighborhoods to which they return. Examining the neighborhood context—specifically, its risks and resources—is especially important for this high-risk group to ensure successful community reintegration. As such, this study explores the following questions: 1) Are housing options for TAY located in areas where they exit public systems? 2) What are the neighborhood characteristics that are related to the numbers of TAY housing program beds?

Method: Using a cross-sectional ecological design, we examined the availability of shelter, transitional housing, and permanent housing beds from a sample consisting of 272 zip codes throughout Los Angeles County in 2007. Of the 3,454 available beds, 822 are set aside for TAY use. The numbers of TAY beds and total beds were aggregated by zip code. Independent variables consisted of neighborhood risks and resources: Risks included alcohol outlet density, assault rate, and substance abuse and dependence rate; resources included the density of all social service agencies across zip codes. Two zero inflated negative binomial models were estimated for juvenile reentry and entry into foster care (i.e., those who are also likely to age out) for each outcome, TAY beds and total beds. A separate analysis of residuals from the binomial models indicated no spatial autocorrelation.

Results: Based upon separate analyses for the two groups, the number of juvenile reentry and entries into foster care per zip code were not related to the number of TAY beds or total beds. Among formerly incarcerated youth in areas with a greater number of TAY beds, there was a higher percentage of residents with incomes less than $25,000 and a lower percentage of vacant housing. Among youth entering foster care in areas with a greater number of TAY beds, there was a higher percentage of residents with incomes less than $25,000. The variables related to risk factors and resources were not related to the number of beds for TAY or total housing in any of the models.

Conclusions: Facilities that offer housing options for TAY are not located in areas where more TAY are transitioning from public systems. Further, the locations of beds for TAY are primarily low-income residential areas. Housing in low-income neighborhoods may be more feasible for non-profit agencies to maintain, but these areas may not be ideal for high-risk TAY given that they lack the necessary resources for successful transitions to adulthood. These results have important implications for policies on siting of housing, and social workers should consider that TAY living in these facilities may not readily have access to resources that support their transition.