Introduction
Homeless youths are one of the most vulnerable populations in the United States. This population is growing in size and it is estimated that up to 1.3 million youths face homelessness in the US (Toro, Dworsky & Fowler, 2007). Emergency shelters for homeless youths are the primary means through which the society can meet the complex needs of this population and effectively intervene to help this group either return home or develop the skills necessary to live independently (Greene, 2007). However, the country is suffering from a market shortage of these facilities even as the homeless youth problem becomes direr. The past decade has especially experienced a significant shortage in emergency shelters even as the number of youths living on the streets increases. This shortage has been blamed on the lack of adequate resources to establish more emergency shelters. This paper sets out to analyze the lack of emergency shelter situation in the US and examine its effect on the homeless youth population.
The Homeless Youth Problem in US
The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act defines homeless youth as “individuals who are not more than 21 years of age… for whom it is not possible to live in a safe environment with a relative and who have no other safe alternative living arrangement” (Toro et al., 2007, p. 1). Youths become homeless in a number of unique ways. Some run away from home and stay out without the permission or knowledge of their parents or guardians with for no apparent reason. Others are thrown out of their homes by their parents who lock them out of the house or actively encourage them to leave by subjecting them to intolerable levels of mistreatment (Slesnick, 2009). Youths might also become homeless when they leave home due to irreconcilable differences with their families or when their families are also homeless.
While it is difficult to accurately determine the number of homeless youths in the US, it is estimated that 700,000 to 1.3 million youths fit the homeless category in the United States. The homeless youth population is distributed in all areas throughout the country although they are mostly concentrated in major cities (Hartmann, 2008). Studies indicate that most of the homeless youths are in their adolescence (age 13 or older) which is a very important stage in the development of a person. The adolescence state is a formative period where a person shapes his/her personality and this greatly determines his/her future character. Due to their tender age and lack of life skills, homeless youths lack the capacity to live comfortable independent lives on their own and emergency shelters play a huge role in their lives.
Overview of Emergency Shelters in the US
The United States has had a tradition of looking out for the welfare of its youths. The homeless youths have therefore been beneficiaries of government aid through various organizations. In response to the problem of homeless and runaway youths in the US, Congress enacted the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act in 1974 (Greene, 2007). This Act provides support for emergency shelters and Transitional Living Programs that offer temporary housing, counseling, and crisis intervention services to the homeless youths.
Emergency Shelters are best placed to assist homeless youths for a number of reasons. Youth experiencing homelessness prefer to see a community as inviting, attractive, and safe; emergency shelters are this kind of a community and they draw in homeless youth who are able to enjoy the services provided. Emergency shelters are specifically designed to meet the unique needs that homeless youths face due to their tender age and lack of life skills. These facilities seek to provide for the physical and psychological needs of the youths and subsequently help them to find a safe and stable residence after discharge. Lowenthal (2012) underscores the critical nature of these facilities by noting that they are the centers that offer immediate safety, food, and medical services for the homeless youths and prevent them from being victimized on the streets.
Some of the homeless youths come from chaotic or abusive family environments where they have been subjected to intolerable maltreatment. The emergency shelter is supposed to provide a safe respite for such youths and provide them with effective treatment for their psychological and/or physical injuries. Emergency homeless shelters are equipped with highly trained youth care workers who provide the necessary services to the youths. Caregiver support is provided on a 24-hour basis and this includes counseling services for the homeless youths. Considering the fact that the homeless youths might have to venture out and seek independent lives, emergency shelters endeavor to teach social skills to the youths. Acquiring social skills is emphasized upon since it has been found to be an effective means of helping the youth to follow instructions and solve problems in the outside world.
Effective delivery of emergency shelter services can influence successful outcomes (Walsh, Shier & Graham, 2010). Christiani (2008) confirms that there is unanimous agreement among public health experts that more resources should be dedicated to providing healthcare and supportive services for homeless youths through the emergency shelters. Even so, there is a stark lack of enough emergency shelters in the United States.
Reasons for lack of Emergency Shelter
Emergency youth shelters rely heavily on government funding to run and most of these facilities would not be able to operate without substantial federal funding. The government imposes some licensing requirements for the shelters and these requirements have to be met for the facility to be eligible for government funding. Lowenthal (2012) highlights that the licensing requirements are inconsistent and there is no universal regulation category for emergency youth shelters. Due to this, some programs are prevented from applying for a license and the subsequent federal funding which they need to operate. Other shelters are made to go through stringent procedures before they can be licensed thus preventing some from engaging in the process. The John Burton Foundation (2009) reveals, “Many homeless youth provides lack the organizational capacity to be successful applicants for Federal funding” (p.3). These bureaucratic measures therefore prevent many prospective emergency shelters from opening running.
While federal support is used to fund emergency shelters, state and localities are required to generate funds for the shelters are well. This creates a problem since some states and localities lack the capacity to generate adequate revenues for their facilities. The John Burton Foundation (2009) illustrates that there is a revenue raising disparity between the poorest and richest communities, which makes it impossible for the former to come effectively fund emergency shelters. In addition to his, many States and Cities have not adjusted their investments in combating youth homelessness over the years in spite of the increase in the number of youths who are homeless. The John Burton Foundation (2009) observes that in California, the same initial investment made in 1988 continues to be used today. The amount of money has been inadequate in financing the various homeless youth shelters that have emerged over the decade to serve thousands of youths all over the state.
Emergency shelters for homeless youths are also lacking in many areas due to the lack of decentralization. Lowenthal (2012) reveals that most of the shelters in California are clustered in a few urban places. This means that majority of the regions in the state lack a functioning emergency shelter for youths. This creates personal barriers to access for most of the homeless youths. Some of the personal barriers created by the scarcity of emergency shelters include lack of transportation, and not knowing where to go. Greene (2007) suggests that in some instances, the emergency center facilities exist but the homeless youth are unaware of their existence. Lack of outreach efforts by the youth shelters leads to inaccurate perceptions about shelters by the homeless youths who could greatly benefit from the services provided by these facilities. If shelters were to engage in outreach efforts to improve awareness on availability and eligibility requirements, more youths would benefit from the facilities.
The pressure for shelters to perform has also contributed to the lack of adequate emergency shelters. Because of the increasing scarcity of resources, programs have to document that they provide effective programs for youths in crisis in order to increase their chances of successfully obtaining funding (Greene, 2007). Most facilities are unable to effectively demonstrate this positive outcome since the youths being served come from varied backgrounds and some are more susceptible to the treatment programs being offered than others. Such facilities end up losing their funding which decreases the number of available emergency shelters. The marked lack of emergency shelters has a number of detrimental effects on the homeless youths.
Effects on Homeless Youth
Lack of emergency shelters decreases the likelihood of homeless youths being reunified with their families and resuming a normal life. Community based youth shelters represent the primary method of intervention for runaway youths and these facilities are mandated to reunify youths with their families (Ryan & Kelley, 2012). Research by Thompson, Safyer and David (2008) reveals that 53% of runaway youths return to their parent’s home on being discharged from the emergency shelters. Having homeless youths return to their parental homes is the most desirable outcome since such a move increases the probability that the youths will go back to school, attain gainful employment in the future and avoid the probability of taking up criminal behavior (Glisson & Fischer, 2007). Without emergency shelters, the probability of these positive outcomes being achieved by the homeless youths decreases significantly.
Some homeless youth end up trading sex since they lack the means to support themselves without the help of emergency shelters. Homeless youth suffer from severe distress including victimization to violence and sexual assault. Peled et al. (2008) documents that some of these youth end up being involved in illicit sexual affairs since they have limited resources and have no survival skills. Trading sex exposes the youth to numerous risk factors. Tyler and Katherine (2008) state that homeless youth who trade sex are at a risk of negative health outcomes such as “being sexually victimized, attempting suicide, being depressed, contracting sexually transmitted diseases, and becoming pregnant” (p.208). Homeless youths are at a risk of being preyed upon by adults who offer them material help but demand for sex for their generosity. The youths are also exposed to commercial sexual exploitation by their older friends or pimps who profiteer from this vulnerable group (Tyler & Katherine, 2008). Emergency shelter the risk of sexual exploitation by providing the youth with life skills that can help them live independently. Greene (2007) corroborates this statement by revealing that emergency shelters provide interventions designed to prevent or deduce participation in high-risk behaviors such as substance use and unprotected sex. Lack of these emergency facilities means that the youths are not given the opportunity to acquire life skills.
The shelters shield the homeless youths from the negative influences that are prevalent in the streets. Research by Tyler and Katherine (2008) reveals that most of the criminal activities instigated by a homeless youth are catalyzed by the presence and influence of their fellow homeless friends or partners. For example, a study on the trends of trading sex among homeless youths revealed that most of the youths were coerced or manipulated by their peers into trading sex (Tyler & Katherine, 2008). It is plausible that homeless youths would lead be legally abiding people if they were not exposed to the negative influences of the streets. Without emergency shelters, the homeless youths do not have this shield and they therefore end up succumbing to the negative influences.
Lack of emergency shelters significantly increases the risk of self-harm and even suicide among the homeless youths. Some of the youths who require the services of emergency shelters have significantly personal problems such as stress and physical or sexual abuse. In addition to this, homeless youths have disproportionately high rates of mental health problems such as depression and mood disorders compared to the general population. The John Burton Foundation (2009) notes that most of these youths have previous histories of suicide threats and attempts. These individuals are therefore fragile and in need of effective and harm-free programs to help them regain balance in their lives. Professionals provide youths with suicide ideations with additional monitoring and intervention in the facility. Without emergency shelters, the youth will be forced to endure a life on the street that will almost certainly exacerbate their existing problems.
The coping mechanisms employed by homeless youths on the streets are likely to cause additional symptoms in the adult life of the individual. Homeless youths are likely to resort to drug and alcohol use due to a lack of emergency shelters (Roy et al., 2007). As previously stated, homeless youths have a disproportionately high rate of mental traumas compared to their age-matched peers in the general population. Without the help of emergency shelters, the youths often use drugs and alcohol as self-medication for their depression and other mental health issues. Substance abuse is also used as a social outlet for connecting with fellow homeless peers and as an adaptive coping strategy essential for survival on the streets. Research reveals that homeless youths are likely to develop chemical dependency as they indulge in drugs and alcohol in an attempt to dull the harsh realities of street life (Christiani, 2008). Emergency shelters make it unnecessary for the youths to take up substance abuse as a coping strategy since the facilities offer comfortable living conditions and counseling services. For the homeless youths who have already developed drug and alcohol addictions, emergency shelters offer treatment services that help rehabilitate the youths.
Homeless youths who lack emergency shelter help often end up engaging in delinquent behavior that causes their involvement with the criminal justice system. The John Burton Foundation (2009) documents that homeless youths stand a higher risk of being involved in the juvenile justice system than their peers in the general population. A report by the National Center for Homeless Education (2011) states that 30% of youths at a homeless shelter had been arrested or incarcerated before joining the center. Their engagement with the justice system was because of offenses such as loitering and camping. Notably, these offenses are non-violent and they are primarily because of the lack of stable housing facilities for the homeless youths. Most of the Homeless youths lack the guidance of parents or a guardian when they are dealing with law enforcement. Their outcomes are therefore very unfavorable and some end up being incarcerated. Emergency shelters provide temporary housing for the youths, which significantly decreases their risk of engagement with the criminal justice system.
Lack of emergency shelters increases the social isolation that homeless youths experience. The local community stereotypes homeless youths as vagabonds, drug addicts, and criminals. This stereotypical view leads to social isolation and discrimination of the youths by the society. Emergency shelters help dispel of these negative stereotypes in a number of ways. Emergency shelters engage in advocacy efforts and public education in an attempt to break down barriers and dispel of the negative perception that communities have concerning homeless youths (Walsh et al., 2010). By engagement with community members, shelter administrators are able to make positive strides on behalf of the youths who become recognized as useful members of the community. The shelters also facilitate positive interaction with the youth, which helps them to gain inclusion within the community (Walsh et al., 2010). Without emergency shelters, there is nobody present to engage in this advocacy on behalf of the youths. The homeless youths experience social exclusion due to the discrimination they face from the community members since there are no emergency shelters to bridge the gap between the two groups.
Conclusion
The lack of emergency shelters in the US is a major problem that needs to be addressed in order to safeguard the future of the homeless youth population in the country. Homeless youths are becoming prevalent in major urban areas in the US in spite of national efforts to end homelessness. The paper has illustrated that emergency shelters for homeless youth often achieve positive outcomes in the lives of the youths. The positive impact of effective intervention for homeless youths has been mitigated by the lack of adequate emergency shelters. Lack of emergency shelters has a major negative impact on the lives of the homeless youths. Without the variety of crises and custodial services offered to the homeless youths by emergency shelters, their future is filled with uncertainty and generally bleak. Steps should be taken to deal with this problem and ensure that homeless youths are provided with the formal support services they need to overcome the severe distress they experience.
References
Christiani, A. (2008). Attitudes of Homeless and Drug-Using Youth Regarding Barriers and Facilitators in Delivery of Quality and Culturally Sensitive Health Care. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 21 (3), 154–163.
Greene, J.M. (2007). Shelters for Runaway and Homeless Youths: Capacity and Occupancy. NY: Child Welfare League of America
Glisson, G.M., & Fischer, R.L. (2007). Serving the Homeless: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Homeless Shelter Services, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 28 (4), 89-97.
Hartmann, R. M. (2008). Homelessness in America. NY: ABC-CLIO.
Lowenthal, S (2012). Emergency Youth Shelter Facilities Fact Sheet. SB 119. Web.
National Center for Homeless Education (2011). Youth Homelessness and Juvenile Justice. National Center for Homeless Education. Web.
Peled, E., Shimon, S., & Rachel, D. (2008) My Home is Not My Castle: Follow-Up of Residents of Shelters for Homeless Youth. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 22 (3), 257-279.
Roy, E., Haley, N., Leclerc, P., Boudreau, J.-F., & Boivin, J.-F. (2007). Risk factors for initiation into drug injection among adolescent street youth. Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy, 14 (1), 389-399.
Ryan, K. & Kelley, T. (2012). Almost Home: Helping Kids Move from Homelessness to Hope. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Slesnick, N. (2009). Our Runaway and Homeless Youth: A Guide to Understanding. New Jersey: Greenwood Publishing Group.
The John Burton Foundation (2009). Too big to ignore: Youth homelessness in California. Web.
Thompson, S.J., Safyer, A.W., & David, E.P. (2008). Differences and predictors of family reunification among subgroups of runaway youths using shelter services. Social Work Research, 25 (3), 163-172.
Toro, P.A., Dworsky, A., & Fowler, P.J. (2007). Homeless Youth in the United States: Recent Research Findings and Intervention Approaches. Washington: National Symposium on Homelessness Research.
Tyler, K.A. & Katherine A.J. (2008). Trading Sex: Voluntary or Coerced? The Experiences of Homeless Youth. The Journal of Sex Research, 43 (3), 208-216.
Walsh, C.A. Shier, L.M., & Graham, J.R. (2010). Local Community Engagement: Implications for Youth Shelter and Support Services. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 19 (2), 46-61.