Homelessness is a pervasive problem in the United States and unaccompanied youth (<25 years) represent a vulnerable subset of this population, facing myriad problems including crime victimization (Tyler, Whitbeck, Hoyt, & Cauce, 2004), social service needs (Bantchevska et al., 2011; Slesnick, Prestopnik, Meyers, & Glassman, 2007), and substance use (Bantchevska et al., 2011; Barczyk & Thompson, 2008). Browning and Soller (2014) argued for increased attention to how ecological networks and spatial contexts influence youth development. Therefore, one way to understand the activities and needs of unaccompanied homeless youth is through the context of their identified neighborhoods and daily routines. This pilot study gathered information about homeless youths' location and their experiences related to social service utilization.
Methods:
This study utilized methods originally developed by Douglas Wiebe, among others, that includes interview items regarding place and daily routines of participants. Wiebe’s target population was violence-involved youth (Basta, Richmond, and Weibe, 2010); we adapted this existing methodology to our target population, homeless youth age 18-24. Twenty homeless youth who utilized a homeless youth shelter’s drop-in center were invited by shelter staff to participate. Participants received a $25.00 incentive gift card to a local grocery. After providing informed consent, participants participated in a 90-minute individual interview and mapped their movements for a 24-hour period. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and imported into QSR NVivo-10 for storage and analysis. Mapping data were analyzed using ArcGIS and quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS 22.0.
Results:
In general, the youth only received services that were provided directly by or in partnership with the youth homeless shelter. Despite several providers having a close proximity to the shelter, participants were often unable to identify the services or locate them on a map, particularly when the services fell outside their identified travel patterns. Even when aware of services, participants were likely to refuse those perceived as being unsafe or unclean, or those services for which they believed they could rely on their own skills or social networks to provide. Most participants had no specific plans to acquire permanent housing and could not identify providers that could help them with long-term housing.
Conclusion and Implications:
This study found that homeless young adults are often unaware of social services in their vicinity. Homeless youth may be less likely to tap into existing social service supports because of beliefs about the services, reliance on a small network of family and friends, and/or a lack of planning to mitigate future need. These findings highlight the need for comprehensive wrap‑around services, as participants appeared more likely to accept services offered by or in partnership with the homeless youth shelter. Additional attention must be given to engaging homeless youth in supportive programs and educating them about existing services; as they age out of youth-specific services, homeless youth may find themselves particularly vulnerable as they learn to navigate services they previously eschewed.