What Do Youth Need from Supportive Housing Models? Youth Voice on Housing Priorities and Programs

Objective: There are an estimated 500,000 to 2 million homeless youth each year. Under the Obama administration, the federal government has set the goal of ending youth homelessness by 2020.  Permanent Supportive Housing based upon a housing first model has been proposed as the best solution for ending chronic homelessness for adults. It is unclear, however, if this model is appropriate for unaccompanied youth who are developmentally in adolescence and emerging adulthood (age 13-24).  This study reports on the findings from four focus groups in which youth discussed attitudes toward housing needs.

Methods: Eighteen youth participated in four different focus groups in December of 2014. Youth were recruited from a drop in center and an emergency shelter in Los Angeles. The focus group discussions, which lasted 45-60 minutes (?), consisted of conversations targeting housing prioritization and housing needs for homeless youth.  Across the four groups 4 youth were female, 14 male, 8 were African American, 4 were White, and 4 were Latino. Focus group transcripts were independently coded by two investigators and reviewed for inter-rater reliability. Co-coded data served as the basis for further analysis that resulted in the development of emergent themes

Results: Several themes emerged that included: (1) perceived need for support services; (2) desire positive role models; and (3) ambivalent feelings about prioritizing specific types of people experiencing homelessness. Perceived need for services included discussions that  in order to thrive in housing youth felt they needed access to therapy, case management services, life skills training, and job training. Youth also discussed their social networks and a need for connections with positive adults and a desire for mentoring and human connection with adults. Finally, youth reported that women and children, physically disabled persons, and persons with severe mental illness ought to be given housing.  Youth expresses concern or suspicion, however, that some youth claim depressive symptoms in order to secure housing.  Overall recommendations included more intensive interviewing and screening in order to allocate housing resources to those who demonstrate motivation for positive change. 

Conclusions: Youth voice is important in the construction of housing programs for youth.  These youth delineated a number of services which are traditionally part of transitional living programs, such as life skills training and job training.  Supportive housing models for youth should consider offering supportive services which encompass program elements that have traditionally been a part of youth transitional living programs. Youth are suspicious of housing prioritization and communities who chose to prioritize some youth over others may need to contend with false reporting by youth and youth resistance to these efforts.