What Does a Village Do for Youth? Neighborhood Collective Efficacy and Later Housing Outcomes in Emerging Adulthood

Background/Purpose: Housing instability during adolescence can have lasting consequences into emerging adulthood, including risk of homelessness. Most prior research on homelessness risk has relied on cross-sectional data focused on individual, family, and school factors. This longitudinal study adds neighborhood context to identify key risk or protective factors for homelessness among emerging adults.

Methods: Data from Waves 6 and 7 of the U.S.-based Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study were used. The analytic sample included 1,048 youth (49% female, 46% Black, and 25% Hispanic), with a higher representation of racial minorities due to oversampling of nonmarital births in the original data. Logistic regression models examine the relationship between being unhoused at age 22 and potential risk and/or protective factors measured at age 15. Key independent variables included: runaway history, housing instability, parent-child relationship (closeness and trust), school disengagement, and neighborhood safety and collective efficacy during adolescence. Covariates included age, biological sex at birth, race/ethnicity, household poverty, and health variables including substance use (cigarette, alcohol, and marihuana) and mental health (anxiety and depression). Neighborhood collective efficacy was operationalized using a tertile split (low, moderate, high), and models were run both in the full sample and stratified by collective efficacy level.

Results: In the full sample, poverty was strongly associated with greater odds of homelessness (OR = 5.08, p < .001), while collective efficacy showed a direct protective effect (OR = 0.95, p < .05). Black (OR = 4.20, p < .001) and Hispanic (OR = 3.14, p < .01) individuals had higher odds of homelessness than White counterparts. Stratified models indicate distinct risk patterns by collective efficacy level. In the low efficacy group, runaway (OR = 3.64, p < .05) significantly predicted for homelessness, while substance use was associated with lower odds (OR = 0.52, p < .05). Race/ethnicity and poverty remained strong predictors. In the moderate efficacy group, only poverty was significant (OR = 5.74, p < .001). In the high efficacy group, previous housing instability (OR = 3.66, p < .05), school disengagement (OR = 4.83, p < .01), substance use (OR = 2.18, p < .05), Black individuals (OR = 7.81, p < .05), and poverty (OR = 10.92, p < .001) were associated with higher odds of homelessness, while neighborhood safety (OR = 0.67, p < .05) and mental health symptoms (OR = 0.50, p < .05) reduced the odds of homelessness.

Conclusion/Implications: Findings highlight neighborhood collective efficacy as a protective factor against homelessness in emerging adulthood, though its influence is context-dependent. Supportive neighborhoods may help reduce some risks, but they do not consistently buffer individuals from the effects of prior housing instability or difficult schooling. These results emphasize the need for multilevel social work interventions addressing community-level risks shaping youth trajectories. Future research could incorporate more detailed neighborhood or school data to understand how adolescents’ ecosystems collectively shape their future housing outcomes.