Social Support Networks of Homeless Youth and Relation to Homelessness and Victimization Experiences

Background: Homeless youth often experience multiple forms of victimization, placing them at an increased risk for the development of emotional and behavioral health problems. A growing body of research suggests that homeless youths’ outcomes may be ameliorated through their engagement with supportive social networks, including street-based and home-based peers, family, and service providers. Furthermore, the heterogeneity of these youths’ social networks (i.e., whether they are seeking support from their street peers or other sources) has implications on the kind of behaviors that they engage in (whether risky or protective). Though, developing and sustaining positive supportive relationships are often difficult for homeless youth and youth who lack such networks may be at a disadvantage and subjected to recurrent high-risk situations. This current study therefore aimed to understand 1) the composition of social support networks of homeless youth and 2) to identify salient correlates of these different sources of social support.

Methods: A sample of 1,046 homeless youth was recruited from two drop-in centers in California. Youth completed a computerized self-administered survey that assessed demographic, homelessness background, victimization type, and risk behavior variables. A social network interview was used to assess the types of support (e.g., instrumental vs. emotional) received from different relationships (e.g., peer vs. family).  Multivariate logistic regressions were employed to examine whether youths’ homelessness background and victimization experiences were associated with differential emotional and instrumental social networks. 

Results: Findings confirm that homeless youth networks are considerably heterogeneous, with youth receiving support from a multitude of sources. Multivariate results demonstrated the significance of homelessness status and victimization in understanding the heterogeneity of social support networks. Specifically, youth who were literally homeless were less likely to seek emotional support from street-based peers (OR=59, p<.001), and emotional (OR=.36, p<.0001) and instrumental (OR=.51, p<.01) support from family. However, these youth were approximately five times more likely to seek instrumental support from professional staff (OR=5.64, p<.01). Youth exposed to child physical abuse were more likely to seek emotional support from home-based peers (OR=2.90, p<.01) and street-based peers (OR=2.45, p<.01), but were less likely to seek emotional support from family (OR=.11, p<.0001). Surprisingly, youth exposed to street victimization were more likely to seek all forms of support: emotional and instrumental support from home-based peers (OR=5.36, p<.000; OR=6.25, p<.0001), street-based peers (OR=5.76, p<.0001; OR=4.10, p<.0001), family (OR=4.59; p<.0001; OR=6.14, p<.0001), and professional staff (OR=5.49, p<.0001; OR=27.73, p<.0001), respectively.

Conclusion: Findings suggest the need to screen for homelessness experiences and victimization types in addition to considering the common supports utilized by youth in order to maximize youths’ social networks. Notably, youth with previous exposure to victimization may in fact seek various forms of support as a potential coping mechanism, while literal homelessness may create a barrier to forming supportive networks. That youth seek emotional and instrumental supports when available highlights the importance of cultivating healthy relationships with different members among this vulnerable population, which may in turn help to improve youths’ prosocial development and overall well-being.