Our Runaway and Homeless Youth: A Guide to Understanding

NATASHA SLESNICK is Director of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program at the University of New Mexico. She is the principal investigator on five.
Table of contents

About This Item
Our Runaway and Homeless Youth
A Guide to Understanding
Our runaway and homeless youth : a guide to understanding / Natasha Slesnick.

Before I even moved to New York State, I had a long history of homelessness with my mother as a young child … Another thing I did to assess my life was [to stop] speaking negatively about myself to myself. And I like that about the RHY setting. Are you guys getting along? Just different things along that nature. Do you need any money for food or anything like that. Just as families provide support to their emerging adult offspring, RHY settings maintained connections with former clients as they moved to the next developmental level.

While many RHY clients were eventually aware that this tension between support and autonomy was perhaps inevitable in these settings, many youth, and particularly those who were still adjusting to life in an RHY-specific setting, indicated some of the ways staff could do more to help RHY clients understand and benefit from a structured environment. For example, youth commonly recalled that as they began to develop confidence to question the conditions within which they were living, they gradually began to feel a need for increased autonomy, which, in turn, provoked a sense of unease related to their previously identified need for structure and security.

This was particularly evident in statements made by youth in TLPs. RHY clients in TLPs frequently moved fluidly back and forth between statements indicating extreme gratitude for the emotional and instrumental support of the staff on the one hand, and slight contempt for what they often described as overbearing and unnecessarily strict guidelines on the other.

What Happens When You Contact Us

Like those are parenting things. But I mean, other than that, the program is perfect. They help you with your GED classes, they try to make goals for you. Many RHY clients also expressed this tension between the need for autonomy and support in terms of a frustration with other TLP residents who they perceived as less determined to meet their stated goals, and therefore as less deserving of equal services, and sometimes even less deserving of autonomy. One common theme was the tendency for youth to locate themselves and one another along a continuum of maturity that seemed dependent on how they viewed themselves and others engaging with the program in an earnest and purposeful manner.

As Nathan, described earlier, noted,. They see that [living in the TLP is] good because you get to [have a home], and use free electricity and all that other stuff. And that, you know, I put nothing into [the TLP] moneywise because, of course, [electricity] cost money. I mean besides doing what they ask you do to. Nonetheless, given the gratitude that most youth showed for even the most basic services and support, many noted they were willing to capitulate to what they considered to be inconvenient or even unreasonable demands rather than face the street or a shelter again.

As Jessica, the young pregnant woman mentioned earlier, noted,. But curfew times were, like, 10 and But once I ended up going there, I decided to give it a chance. I had about a month left till I was having my baby, and the [RHY-specific setting] was pretty much my only option left. Runaway and homeless youth client input into governance is a core tenet of the YPQA model that guided this study and a strongly held value in many RHY settings, consistent with the PYD approach.

Yet, we found, aside from a small number of examples, youth input was limited to mundane household rules and decisions, making chore assignments, talking out interpersonal problems among residents, and settling disputes over issues such as internet access and usage. For instance, despite having an overall appreciation for the TLP in which she resided, Evelyn, the year-old young mother described earlier, expressed such a degree of frustration over what she regarded as unnecessarily prohibitive requirements that she began to compare the TLP to non-RHY-specific homeless shelters or group homes:.

Like say I was out for probably an hour and a half, two hours.

About This Item

And then they told me I had come back and then I have to do chores and stuff like that. I used to live in group homes. Most strikingly, throughout the majority of interviews, even when explicitly asked about the degree to which they were able to genuinely contribute to decision-making on this level, youth were frequently confused or needed time to respond, and the vast majority seems to have never considered themselves in this role.

Importantly, we focus on youth in a diverse set of RHY-specific settings, which varied with respect to geographical location, type, services provided, and quality, which, we found during analyses, fostered the validity of study findings and their utility. The challenges RHY face throughout their lives, and resultant complications these create for locating, engaging, and serving them, are well documented in the research literature. Indeed, some of the most concerning effects of maltreatment and trauma experienced by RHY are distrust and fear of professional adults and service settings, which causes RHY to avoid presenting to or engaging with settings 43 , We found that RHY experience RHY-specific settings as oriented toward addressing these serious relational issues on a number of levels.

First, we found settings are positioned to build positive, developmentally appropriate, and professional relationships with RHY. This emphasis on the centrality of relationships is consistent with attachment theory In a past study of vulnerable young men that included RHY, we found that a non-secure attachment style was associated with young people remaining outside of the protective systems of services, family, school, and work, and also associated with risky contexts such as the street economy where they are less likely to encounter prosocial peers and adults 31 , a finding echoed in other studies of attachment among RHY Study findings suggest RHY-specific settings are actively oriented toward addressing these types of interpersonal challenges to thereby foster engagement, even when RHY experience difficulties with trust and relationships.

Second, study findings highlight the primacy of trauma in the lives of RHY, and underscore the utility of a trauma-informed care approach. Trauma-informed care is a strengths-based approach that includes awareness of trauma among RHY and also secondary traumatization for staff, an emphasis on safety, and opportunities to regain control Finally, many elements of PYD, a philosophical foundation for most RHY settings, resonate strongly with RHY, including its emphasis on strengths, similar to trauma-informed care, and youth autonomy and participation in setting their own goals.

Yet, balancing support and autonomy can be a delicate balance in RHY settings, as we found in this study, and as we discuss in more detail below. In sum, this study findings suggest the utility of an integrated service approach and philosophy focused on relationships, the sequelae of trauma, engaging RHY in their own goals, and identifying and fostering strengths to address the needs of this complex population of young people. RHY experience these RHY-specific settings as purposively designed to address the barriers they face to service engagement and psychosocial change. Indeed, RHY experience these settings as uniquely positioned to engage and serve them, and as a result, as more useful to them overall than general adult or non-RHY youth settings.

This specialized, tailored approach encourages RHY to engage with services they otherwise would very likely never come into contact with or would avoid and allows for the receipt of integrated instrumental, emotional, instructional, and quasi-familial support critical for transitioning out of homeless and into a safer, healthier, and more satisfying life trajectory. This study identified the ways settings assist RHY and also the mechanisms by which settings do so; for example, providing instrumental support integrated with emotional support and helping RHY build skills to interact with the systems they will need to master to function independently when they age out or time out of their present placements.

RHY view setting environments as supportive, and in particular note the positive effects of encouragement and skill building. They value settings as being home-like, and staff for standing in for family. In past research, we studied these offering-level characteristics using quantitative coded observations of programs within RHY-specific settings Thus, some domains of the YPQA model are not typically evident in RHY settings because the structure of activities varies from those found in after-school settings.

Indeed, in this study RHY provide insights into the aspects of settings that have the greatest influence on them and the mechanisms by which settings make a difference in their lives. Organizational-level characteristics are generally assessed from the perspectives of staff, and may not always be evident to RHY e. Yet, in this study, RHY did have some insights into organizational-level characteristics and highlighted both strengths and gaps. Findings reflect the salience and importance of youth-centered policies and practices in settings, an important component of PYD.

While RHY note this philosophy in practice, for example, with respect to flexible goal setting, they also experience tension between their needs for autonomy and structure; for example, with respect to rules and regulations in some settings. This balance may be particularly challenging in RHY settings, however, because RHY have generally become accustomed to living independently, unaccustomed to guidance from caregivers, and wary of professional adults.

Yet, youth involvement is a key feature of the PYD approach and may be one critical aspect of fostering a sense of autonomy and engagement among youth and reducing frustration and tension between staff and RHY clients in settings. Thus, RHY clients and staff could work together to create rules and policies, which may, in turn, be more acceptable to RHY clients than those they experience as imposed upon them. The study focused on long-term RHY settings in a single geographic area in the United States, which may limit its generalizability.

Furthermore, the non-random sampling method of RHY within settings was a potential limitation, as it may have introduced social desirability and other biases; for example, if only RHY with uniformly positive views of the setting were recruited. The triangulation of findings of youth within and across settings was used as a strategy to reduce such biases. Further analyses should use innovative methods to elicit findings related to race, ethnicity, and other social categories. Furthermore, this lack of such findings suggests the utility of an intersectional approach; that is, the interconnected and non-additive nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, where social categories cannot be understood separate from each other There is growing awareness of the value of an intersectional approach to advance public health research 50 , but intersectionality is only beginning to be applied to the study of RHY Furthermore, better tools may be needed to adequately capture RHY setting quality; the YPQA could be modified, other tools can be identified and refined 52 , or new tools can be developed.

This study advances our understanding of the population of RHY, their service needs, the ways in which settings meet these needs, as well as gaps that remain. As such, it underscores the vital, life-changing, and even life-saving role these RHY-specific settings play in the development and wellbeing of this complex population of multiply challenged young people.

All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. MG conceived of the overall study concept and design and writing the manuscript. RF planned the qualitative data collection effort, collected the data, led the effort to analyze and interpret data, and helped write the manuscript. AK collected data and played a leadership role in analyzing and interpreting data, as well as reviewing the manuscript. ES collected data and played a leadership role in analyzing and interpreting data.

AR planned the data collection effort and played a leadership role in analyzing and interpreting data.

Read mir/our-runaway-and-homeless-youth-a-guide-to-understanding?
LOrdre dAipotu (French Edition).
Introduction?
Integrity Works: Strategies for Becoming a Trusted, Respected and Admired Leader;
.
Riley Parra Season Two?
!

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The authors wish to acknowledge the support, guidance, and training received from the William T. Weikart Center for Youth Program Quality for their guidance and training on understanding and assessing program quality, as well as Michelle Gambone, Ph.

They further acknowledge the staff at the settings for runaway and homeless youth who engaged in the study and offered insights into their work, as well as the young people who participated, and the larger RHY Impact Study collaborative research team. This study was supported by the William T. Social networks of homeless youth in emerging adulthood. J Youth Adolesc 41 5: Homeless young people, families and change: Child Family Soc Work 16 4: Runaway and Homeless Youth: New Research and Clinical Perspectives. A qualitative study of early family histories and transitions of homeless youth.

J Interpers Violence 21 Growing up before their time: Child Youth Serv Rev A longitudinal study of early adolescent precursors to running away. J Early Adolesc 28 2: The initiation of homeless youth into the street economy. J Adolesc 32 2: Cleverley K, Kidd SA. Resilience and suicidality among homeless youth. J Adolesc 34 5: Running away from home: J Youth Adolesc 40 5: Serving Our Youth The Williams Institute Challenges faced by homeless sexual minorities: Am J Public Health 92 5: Understanding organizations for runaway and homeless youth: Resilience in children threatened by extreme adversity: Dev Psychopathol 23 Correlates of resilience in homeless adolescents.

J Nurs Scholar 33 1: Child Youth Care Forum 36 1: Effective interventions for homeless youth: Am J Prev Med 38 6: A test of outreach and drop-in linkage versus shelter linkage for connecting homeless youth to services. Prev Sci 17 4: J Youth Adolesc 35 5: Semin Pediatr Infect Dis 14 1: Eccles J, Appleton-Gootman J, editors. National Academy Press Taking the youth perspective: Child Youth Serv Rev 32 Measuring Youth Program Quality: A Guide to Assessment Tools. The Forum for Youth Investment From Soft Skills to Hard Data: Measuring Youth Program Outcomes. Trauma and homelessness in youth: Clin Psychol Rev Shelter from the storm: Open Health Serv Policy J 3 2: Responding to the needs of youth who are homeless: Child Youth Serv Rev 34 1: Open Health Serv Policy J 2: Out on the street: Am J Orthopsychiatry 84 1: Social relationships and social support among street-involved youth.

J Youth Stud 20 Attachment style, childhood adversity, and behavioral risk among young men who have sex with men. J Adolesc Health 34 5: Close relationship processes and health: Health Psychol 32 5: Child Adolesc Soc Work J National Alliance to End Homelessness. Runaway and Homeless Youth Annual Report. The qualitative research interview. Med Educ 40 4: Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Nurse Educ Today 24 2: Corbin J, Strauss A.

Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods 1 2: Exploring the audit trail for qualitative investigations. Nurse Educ 28 4: Eval Program Plann 31 4: J Adolesc Health 27 5: Patterns of attachment organization, social connectedness, and substance use in a sample of older homeless adolescents: Fam Community Health 31 Suppl 1: Iwaniec D, Sneddon H.

Attachment style in adults who failed to thrive as children: Br J Soc Work 31 2: Autonomy and adolescent social functioning: Child Dev 72 1: Insights from the street: Eval Program Plann 29 1: Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: U Chi Legal F — Incorporating intersectionality theory into population health research methodology: Soc Sci Med Abramovich A, Shelton J, editors. Where Am I Going to Go? Trauma-informed care recognizes the widespread impact of trauma and articulates potential paths for recovery; understands the signs and symptoms of trauma in clients, their families, staff, and others involved with the RHY system; responds by fully integrating knowledge about trauma into policies, procedures, and practices; and seeks to actively resist re-traumatization 27 , Attachment theory articulates how a strong emotional and physical connection to at least one primary caregiver is critical to personal development Individuals develop an attachment style in response to the characteristics of their early caregivers, with a secure attachment style most strongly associated with positive and stable social relationships throughout the lifespan We recently took a quantitative approach to describe the characteristics and quality of settings that serve RHY.

We found RHY clients in settings that were rated as higher quality on a quantitative scale showed greater perceived resilience.

Our Runaway and Homeless Youth

Furthermore, RHY clients in these high-quality settings were more likely to report being helped with a number of major challenges such as reducing involvement in the street economy e. We now extend this past research. Furthermore, we attended to gaps found in settings; namely, the services and setting characteristics RHY clients reported needing but that were lacking.

In keeping with the descriptive and exploratory nature of the study, we do not present formal hypotheses. However, we did anticipate RHY would be more aware of and directly affected by offering-level characteristics than organizational-level characteristics. This is because the latter commonly have a direct effect on setting staff members more so than on RHY clients. Yet, organizational-level characteristics may affect RHY clients indirectly.

Study findings will be of interest to RHY service providers, policymakers, and other stakeholders in the RHY community. This qualitative study used a cross-sectional descriptive design and drew on in-depth, semi-structured interviews with RHY clients in diverse RHY-specific organizations across New York State.

This restricted age range was intended to reduce variability associated with age and developmental level, as the needs and characteristics of the youngest RHY differ from the oldest RHY, while at the same time concentrating on the bulk of the RHY client population. A setting was defined as an entity providing one or more programs for RHY. From a total of 50 settings, 29 settings that varied in type and geographical location were randomly selected for inclusion in the larger study. In two waves of data collection, we collected qualitative and quantitative data from staff and RHY clients at these settings.

Our Runaway and Homeless Youth by Natasha Slesnick - Praeger - ABC-CLIO.
Our Runaway and Homeless Youth : A Guide to Understanding - leondumoulin.nl.
Culture and Difference: Critical Perspectives on the Bicultural Experience in the United States (Cri.

After the first wave, we created a multi-perspective quantitative setting quality score range 0—4 In , we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with RHY within these settings until saturation was reached on core constructs 36 , as determined by a main qualitative researcher and senior staff member who reviewed transcripts. Program administrators informed RHY in advance that study visits would be taking place, and RHY were directly recruited by research study staff in the settings. Note that youth enrolled in foster care are not commonly found in settings for RHY.

We used a semi-structured interview guide grounded in the YPQA model. Some organizational-level characteristics may not be apparent to clients in a setting, but some indices on the YPQA are expected to directly affect clients. Specific examples were elicited from participants where appropriate. We analyzed the qualitative data using an approach that was both theory-driven and inductive using the Dedoose platform Dedoose Version 7. The analysis process began with the generation and application of a robust set of reliable and valid codes.

These codes were comprised of labels or tags containing one to several words assigned to sections of text words, sentences, paragraphs that were accurately described by that code. First, a main data analyst read through four interviews and applied the start list codes to segments of text. This analyst created new codes based on emergent themes relevant to the main research questions or that were repeated in the transcript or across transcripts.

Then, a second analyst independently coded a selection of excerpts already coded by the first analyst. The two analysts worked closely to discuss codes and establish inter-analyst reliability. Discrepancies in coding were resolved by consensus. Through this grounded and inductive approach, additional codes emerged, and the codebook was further elaborated and refined Once consensus between the two analysts was reached on a consolidated list of codes and their definitions, both analysts revisited the interview transcripts they had already coded and incorporated the final list of codes.

Next, emphasis shifted from coding to identifying larger themes. The analytic included regular meetings to discuss the most frequent and resonant codes, relationships among codes, and their explicit and underlying, latent meanings, which were combined to form unifying themes. For example, resilience a construct of interest as noted above was not an explicit code but instead formed a latent theme.

Codes and themes were deemed primary when they were introduced or discussed by numerous participants within a setting, or when they emerged from participants across multiple settings. We attended to the methodological rigor of the data collection process through periodic review of transcripts and process memos written at the time of each setting visit to attend to fidelity to the interview guides and quality of data and thereby ensure consistency across interviewers. Furthermore, the senior team members conducted regular debriefing with the research field team, and a review of transcripts was conducted by an expert in RHY settings Methodological rigor of the analysis was also maintained through an audit trail of process and analytic memos and periodic debriefing with the larger research team, which included experts in settings and RHY As detailed in the analysis below, RHY clients identified a number of meaningful ways in which RHY-specific settings cultivated a sense of optimism, resilience, and feelings of wellbeing, as well as enhancements in behavioral functioning.

Moreover, these young people provided their perspectives on some ways in which settings, even higher-quality settings, could improve. Overall, we found the specialized nature of RHY-specific settings was critical to the effectiveness of their work with RHY. Particularly, from the perspectives of RHY, a population-specific approach tailored to their specific needs was apparent in these settings, from the physical environment, through a particular skill set of staff, and the theoretical approaches informing services and treatments.

This tailored approach reflected the fact these highly vulnerable youth typically presented to settings with a great sense of distrust of both professional adults and social services. Indeed, we found RHY had experiences with various types of settings over their lifetimes, some RHY-specific and some not, and reported the greatest benefits from RHY-specific programs, as described below.

With respect to the primary specific positive effects of RHY-specific settings on these young people, analyses revealed four main themes. Yet, competencies to thrive in other settings were less evident. Therefore, RHY settings were critical for RHY to build resilience, optimism, and confidence regarding the possibility of future successful engagement with the larger society. Names used below are pseudonyms, and some identifying details have been changed to protect the confidentiality of both RHY clients and the settings.

RHY were cis-gender unless otherwise noted. In particular, many RHY described that before engaging with RHY-specific settings, they existed crisis-to-crisis, attending only to survival and basic needs. For most, this overall sense of living in chaos and instability stemmed from the experiences of multiple and overlapping traumas perpetrated by families, individuals they encountered in the street, and police and other authorities; this sense of chaos was often complicated by poverty and the need to cope with these experiences to survive.

Specifically, these traumas were described as common in both their earlier and more recent lives. The process of becoming homeless and engaging with RHY-specific settings was typically complicated and fraught for RHY. A substantial proportion of RHY gradually but perceptibly transitioned from residing with their families to either street homelessness or unstable housing. For example, RHY typically left and then returned home a number of times or were forced to leave home a number of times, before finally realizing they could not or were not permitted to return.

Yet, we found these young people typically did not connect emotionally to that reality. Nor did they fully understand they were, in fact, engaged in a process of becoming disengaged from the care of their families, leading to the state of being homeless. When reflecting on their initial engagement with RHY-specific programs, RHY typically reported feeling trepidation, resistance, and fear, and anticipated being treated poorly or even being in physical danger upon entering these settings.

Many RHY had preconceived, negative views of social service settings in general, and often conflated any type of program dealing with homelessness, either for youth or adults, with stereotypical warehousing of people into dangerous situations. Indeed, many older RHY already had some experience with adult treatment settings and family shelters in their very early lives. This, and the fact that many programs were seen as a poor substitute for a loving and supportive family, made making the transition into even RHY-specific settings particularly challenging for RHY.

Olivia was a year-old African American transgender woman. Just like, the atmosphere. It was brand new to me. Thus, particularly early in their transition into homelessness, RHY clients commonly reported strong, often ambivalent, or even negative, feelings about social service settings, which served as an impediment to their engagement with RHY-specific settings, even those that could provide vital housing services.

As Kayla, a year-old White female notes,. When I thought about a shelter, I thought of like a big room with bunk beds that people sleep in at night. But when my guidance counselor had told me about [the RHY-specific TLP], and told me it was a house setting, I went for the intake, which is like an interview. And they accepted me. And from there I stayed. We found that RHY clients did not, in fact, experience RHY-specific settings as at all comparable to adult shelters or service settings.

Indeed, before their initial engagement, RHY-specific programs were often associated with the emotional chaos RHY were experiencing as they transitioned to homelessness, the loss of their families, and then the realization they were officially out-of-home, resulting in initial hesitancy to engage with programs. For example, Olivia, mentioned earlier, compared her initial apprehension with her actual experience with an urban TLP:.

A lot of people, they think of a shelter and they probably immediately think of this really dark, dreary kind of place. Within this context youth noted they were able to work with staff and even other youth to take the time to gradually identify and address their individual issues, and that this time and space were instrumental in this transition from the streets to an RHY setting.

Indeed, we found young people repeatedly distinguished between RHY-specific programs and other types of shelters and group homes, such as foster care settings, consistently reporting that RHY-specific programs were better able to understand them and meet their needs. For example, Ronald was a year-old African American man with past experiences with street homelessness in a large urban environment, adult and youth crisis shelters, and with RHY-specific programs, which he compared and contrasted:.

Yeah, you know, like [RHY programs] help you become more independent. More of a homey environment. Thus, RHY clients stressed that the tailored environments and modes of engaging in RHY-specific settings were critical to their willingness and ability to transition from crisis and chaos into receiving services. However, youth crisis shelters were challenging environments for many because of the large numbers of RHY in a state of crisis and chaos, the short-term nature of placements, and the lack of stability to allow newer RHY to find peer role models and guides.

Yet, crisis shelters were the vital bridge to the next step for RHY, whether that was to return home or enter a long-term facility such as a TLP. Once youth had made the transition into receiving RHY-specific services in DICs and TLPs, they reported benefiting greatly not only from the safety and security there, but also from the various resources and programs these settings provided.

In these RHY-specific settings, RHY clients received basic necessities such as food, clothing, and housing, and staff also helped them prepare to apply for jobs, continuing education, housing, and other programs for which they might be qualified. For most RHY clients, simply having staff to assist them in navigating the otherwise daunting world of non-RHY social services was vital. For example, RHY clients typically needed help obtaining state-issued identification required for applications for school, employment, and public assistance benefits, all of which are essential to transitioning out of homelessness and becoming more self-sufficient.

While obtaining identification is a relatively straightforward task for adults and adolescents generally, RHY clients typically had no access to needed documents such as birth certificates, and they often lacked familiarity and comfort with large bureaucracies designed to provide services to adults. Indeed, RHY clients commonly described themselves as well socialized into the norms of the street, but as less able to navigate more conventional settings. Notably, many RHY clients reported that emotional support was a critical complement to instrumental support. This emotional support helped them overcome bureaucratic obstacles and to prepare for potential rejection.

I came into this program with basically nothing. No clothes, no food, no money. Helped me become more independent with myself, and be comfortable in my community.

Login using;
Original Research ARTICLE.
The Character, Claims And Practical Workings Of Freemasonry.
?

Throughout interviews with RHY clients in both DIC and TLP settings, RHY consistently highlighted the ability of RHY-specific programs to provide the thoroughly integrated instrumental and emotional support that distinguished these programs from non-RHY programs, and which they ultimately said provided the greatest benefit to them through their transition out of homelessness. Fostering resilience, confidence, and optimism among RHY clients, within the context of their past and ongoing traumatic experiences, was a key function of RHY-specific settings. As many young people noted, months or even years of nearly uninterrupted trauma and relative social isolation left them suspicious and distrustful of others.

For many RHY clients, and especially those who reported a lengthy history of abuse, developing confidence in their abilities to succeed outside of the streets and RHY-specific settings often translated into the capacity to simply have the courage to ask for assistance when necessary. For most, this was made possible by the ability to have prolonged interactions with other RHY clients and with staff in a safe and supportive environment wherein self-expression was valued, and de-escalation of conflict and positive communication were actively taught.

Jessica, mentioned earlier, described her experience as follows:. Before I became homeless, I was never the type of person to ask for anything. I was so shy I would never ask. I would never ask, I barely listened, and I was just the type of person that liked to do things on my own. Similarly, Ronald the year-old man described earlier, stated: So you have to learn how to ask questions, when to ask questions. For others in DICs in particular, simply being able to interact with similarly experienced peers in a relatively stable environment was enough to allow social skills and confidence to begin to develop.

Tabatha, a year-old White female who frequented a rural DIC, noted,. I was always nervous meeting people. I was always too shy.

A Guide to Understanding

I really like staying in my room, reading stories, writing, and stuff like that. But [my boyfriend] brought me here and kinda made me come out more and meet new people and things like that. Well I started to talk more and stuff like that. I started feeling not so shy and stuff like that. Again, citing the negative psychological effects of chronic homelessness, others reported the emotional space provided by TLPs led even more directly to developing self-confidence and resilience. Angeleae was a year-old African American woman who described,. So one thing I learned right off the back is never tell myself no.

And I like that about the RHY setting. Are you guys getting along? Just different things along that nature. Do you need any money for food or anything like that. Just as families provide support to their emerging adult offspring, RHY settings maintained connections with former clients as they moved to the next developmental level. While many RHY clients were eventually aware that this tension between support and autonomy was perhaps inevitable in these settings, many youth, and particularly those who were still adjusting to life in an RHY-specific setting, indicated some of the ways staff could do more to help RHY clients understand and benefit from a structured environment.

For example, youth commonly recalled that as they began to develop confidence to question the conditions within which they were living, they gradually began to feel a need for increased autonomy, which, in turn, provoked a sense of unease related to their previously identified need for structure and security. This was particularly evident in statements made by youth in TLPs. RHY clients in TLPs frequently moved fluidly back and forth between statements indicating extreme gratitude for the emotional and instrumental support of the staff on the one hand, and slight contempt for what they often described as overbearing and unnecessarily strict guidelines on the other.

One common theme was the tendency for youth to locate themselves and one another along a continuum of maturity that seemed dependent on how they viewed themselves and others engaging with the program in an earnest and purposeful manner. As Nathan, described earlier, noted,.

They see that [living in the TLP is] good because you get to [have a home], and use free electricity and all that other stuff. And that, you know, I put nothing into [the TLP] moneywise because, of course, [electricity] cost money. I mean besides doing what they ask you do to. Nonetheless, given the gratitude that most youth showed for even the most basic services and support, many noted they were willing to capitulate to what they considered to be inconvenient or even unreasonable demands rather than face the street or a shelter again.

For instance, despite having an overall appreciation for the TLP in which she resided, Evelyn, the year-old young mother described earlier, expressed such a degree of frustration over what she regarded as unnecessarily prohibitive requirements that she began to compare the TLP to non-RHY-specific homeless shelters or group homes:. Like say I was out for probably an hour and a half, two hours. And then they told me I had come back and then I have to do chores and stuff like that.

I used to live in group homes. Most strikingly, throughout the majority of interviews, even when explicitly asked about the degree to which they were able to genuinely contribute to decision-making on this level, youth were frequently confused or needed time to respond, and the vast majority seems to have never considered themselves in this role.

Indeed, most RHY clients did not seem to understand that their input could be something valuable to the setting. The study of the ways RHY-specific settings influence the lives and developmental trajectories of RHY and the mechanisms by which settings achieve those objectives, have received little attention in the research literature to date, particularly from the perspectives of RHY clients themselves. Importantly, we focus on youth in a diverse set of RHY-specific settings, which varied with respect to geographical location, type, services provided, and quality, which, we found during analyses, fostered the validity of study findings and their utility.

The challenges RHY face throughout their lives, and resultant complications these create for locating, engaging, and serving them, are well documented in the research literature. Indeed, some of the most concerning effects of maltreatment and trauma experienced by RHY are distrust and fear of professional adults and service settings, which causes RHY to avoid presenting to or engaging with settings 43 , We found that RHY experience RHY-specific settings as oriented toward addressing these serious relational issues on a number of levels.

Our runaway and homeless youth : a guide to understanding / Natasha Slesnick.

RHY experience these RHY-specific settings as purposively designed to address the barriers they face to service engagement and psychosocial change. Indeed, RHY experience these settings as uniquely positioned to engage and serve them, and as a result, as more useful to them overall than general adult or non-RHY youth settings. This specialized, tailored approach encourages RHY to engage with services they otherwise would very likely never come into contact with or would avoid and allows for the receipt of integrated instrumental, emotional, instructional, and quasi-familial support critical for transitioning out of homeless and into a safer, healthier, and more satisfying life trajectory.

This study identified the ways settings assist RHY and also the mechanisms by which settings do so; for example, providing instrumental support integrated with emotional support and helping RHY build skills to interact with the systems they will need to master to function independently when they age out or time out of their present placements. RHY view setting environments as supportive, and in particular note the positive effects of encouragement and skill building.

They value settings as being home-like, and staff for standing in for family. In past research, we studied these offering-level characteristics using quantitative coded observations of programs within RHY-specific settings Thus, some domains of the YPQA model are not typically evident in RHY settings because the structure of activities varies from those found in after-school settings.

Yet, in this study, RHY did have some insights into organizational-level characteristics and highlighted both strengths and gaps. Findings reflect the salience and importance of youth-centered policies and practices in settings, an important component of PYD. While RHY note this philosophy in practice, for example, with respect to flexible goal setting, they also experience tension between their needs for autonomy and structure; for example, with respect to rules and regulations in some settings.

This balance may be particularly challenging in RHY settings, however, because RHY have generally become accustomed to living independently, unaccustomed to guidance from caregivers, and wary of professional adults. Yet, youth involvement is a key feature of the PYD approach and may be one critical aspect of fostering a sense of autonomy and engagement among youth and reducing frustration and tension between staff and RHY clients in settings.