10.25.2011

"To be homeless in America is to live like a fugitive."

"Starting with Mayor Rudy Giuliani in New York, city after city passed 'broken windows' or 'quality of life' ordinances making it dangerous for the homeless to loiter or, in some cases, even look 'indigent,' in public spaces.
"Homelessness is not a side issue unconnected to plutocracy and greed. It’s where we’re all eventually headed -- the 99%, or at least the 70%, of us, every debt-loaded college grad, out-of-work school teacher, and impoverished senior -- unless this revolution succeeds."
Homelessness ain't what it used to be, kids, even thogh it never was in the first place. If you're a service provider or work with those experiencing homelessness in most any capacity, you'll know immediately what I mean.

If you are one of the millions who has watched homelessness from the easy-chair sidelines of your domicile,let me clarify only by saying that whatever your previous understanding of homelessness entailed, you're almost certainly waaaaaaay off base when applying that vision to the current situation of homelessnss in our country today.

And if you sneer or scoff at either of the quotes above, you're clearly out of touch, ignorant of the facts and most likely a politician responsible for much of the misery so many are enduring as a result of the criminalization of poverty that has taken place over the last couple of decades. 

Throw Them Out With the Trash: Why Homelessness Is Becoming an Occupy Wall Street Issue

As anyone knows who has ever had to set up a military encampment or build a village from the ground up, occupations pose staggering logistical problems. Large numbers of people must be fed and kept reasonably warm and dry. Trash has to be removed; medical care and rudimentary security provided -- to which ends a dozen or more committees may toil night and day. But for the individual occupier, one problem often overshadows everything else, including job loss, the destruction of the middle class, and the reign of the 1%. And that is the single question: Where am I going to pee?
Some of the Occupy Wall Street encampments now spreading across the U.S. have access to Port-o-Potties (Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C.) or, better yet, restrooms with sinks and running water (Fort Wayne, Indiana). Others require their residents to forage on their own. At Zuccotti Park, just blocks from Wall Street, this means long waits for the restroom at a nearby Burger King or somewhat shorter ones at a Starbucks a block away. At McPherson Square in D.C., a twenty-something occupier showed me the pizza parlor where she can cop a pee during the hours it’s open, as well as the alley where she crouches late at night. Anyone with restroom-related issues -- arising from age, pregnancy, prostate problems, or irritable bowel syndrome -- should prepare to join the revolution in diapers.
Of course, political protesters do not face the challenges of urban camping alone. Homeless people confront the same issues every day: how to scrape together meals, keep warm at night by covering themselves with cardboard or tarp, and relieve themselves without committing a crime. Public restrooms are sparse in American cities -- "as if the need to go to the bathroom does not exist," travel expert Arthur Frommer once observed.  And yet to yield to bladder pressure is to risk arrest. A report entitled “Criminalizing Crisis,” to be released later this month by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, recounts the following story from Wenatchee, Washington:
"Toward the end of 2010, a family of two parents and three children that had been experiencing homelessness for a year and a half applied for a 2-bedroom apartment. The day before a scheduled meeting with the apartment manager during the final stages of acquiring the lease, the father of the family was arrested for public urination. The arrest occurred at an hour when no public restrooms were available for use. Due to the arrest, the father was unable to make the appointment with the apartment manager and the property was rented out to another person. As of March 2011, the family was still homeless and searching for housing."
What the Occupy Wall Streeters are beginning to discover, and homeless people have known all along, is that most ordinary, biologically necessary activities are illegal when performed in American streets -- not just peeing, but sitting, lying down, and sleeping. While the laws vary from city to city, one of the harshest is in Sarasota, Florida, which passed an ordinance in 2005 that makes it illegal to “engage in digging or earth-breaking activities” -- that is, to build a latrine -- cook, make a fire, or be asleep and “when awakened state that he or she has no other place to live.”
It is illegal, in other words, to be homeless or live outdoors for any other reason. It should be noted, though, that there are no laws requiring cities to provide food, shelter, or restrooms for their indigent citizens.
The current prohibition on homelessness began to take shape in the 1980s, along with the ferocious growth of the financial industry (Wall Street and all its tributaries throughout the nation). That was also the era in which we stopped being a nation that manufactured much beyond weightless, invisible “financial products,” leaving the old industrial working class to carve out a livelihood at places like Wal-Mart.
As it turned out, the captains of the new “casino economy” -- the stock brokers and investment bankers -- were highly sensitive, one might say finicky, individuals, easily offended by having to step over the homeless in the streets or bypass them in commuter train stations. In an economy where a centimillionaire could turn into a billionaire overnight, the poor and unwashed were a major buzzkill. Starting with Mayor Rudy Giuliani in New York, city after city passed “broken windows” or “quality of life” ordinances making it dangerous for the homeless to loiter or, in some cases, even look “indigent,” in public spaces.
No one has yet tallied all the suffering occasioned by this crackdown -- the deaths from cold and exposure -- but “Criminalizing Crisis” offers this story about a homeless pregnant woman in Columbia, South Carolina:
"During daytime hours, when she could not be inside of a shelter, she attempted to spend time in a museum and was told to leave. She then attempted to sit on a bench outside the museum and was again told to relocate. In several other instances, still during her pregnancy, the woman was told that she could not sit in a local park during the day because she would be ‘squatting.’ In early 2011, about six months into her pregnancy, the homeless woman began to feel unwell, went to a hospital, and delivered a stillborn child."
Well before Tahrir Square was a twinkle in anyone’s eye, and even before the recent recession, homeless Americans had begun to act in their own defense, creating organized encampments, usually tent cities, in vacant lots or wooded areas. These communities often feature various elementary forms of self-governance: food from local charities has to be distributed, latrines dug, rules -- such as no drugs, weapons, or violence -- enforced. With all due credit to the Egyptian democracy movement, the Spanish indignados, and rebels all over the world, tent cities are the domestic progenitors of the American occupation movement.
There is nothing “political” about these settlements of the homeless -- no signs denouncing greed or visits from leftwing luminaries -- but they have been treated with far less official forbearance than the occupation encampments of the “American autumn.” LA’s Skid Row endures constant police harassment, for example, but when it rained, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had ponchos distributed to nearby Occupy LA.
All over the country, in the last few years, police have moved in on the tent cities of the homeless, one by one, from Seattle to Wooster, Sacramento to Providence, in raids that often leave the former occupants without even their minimal possessions. In Chattanooga, Tennessee, last summer, a charity outreach worker explained the forcible dispersion of a local tent city by saying, “The city will not tolerate a tent city. That’s been made very clear to us. The camps have to be out of sight.”
What occupiers from all walks of life are discovering, at least every time they contemplate taking a leak, is that to be homeless in America is to live like a fugitive. The destitute are our own native-born “illegals,” facing prohibitions on the most basic activities of survival. They are not supposed to soil public space with their urine, their feces, or their exhausted bodies. Nor are they supposed to spoil the landscape with their unusual wardrobe choices or body odors. They are, in fact, supposed to die, and preferably to do so without leaving a corpse for the dwindling public sector to transport, process, and burn.
But the occupiers are not from all walks of life, just from those walks that slope downwards -- from debt, joblessness, and foreclosure -- leading eventually to pauperism and the streets. Some of the present occupiers were homeless to start with, attracted to the occupation encampments by the prospect of free food and at least temporary shelter from police harassment. Many others are drawn from the borderline-homeless “nouveau poor,” and normally encamp on friends’ couches or parents’ folding beds.
In Portland, Austin, and Philadelphia, the Occupy Wall Street movement is taking up the cause of the homeless as its own, which of course it is. Homelessness is not a side issue unconnected to plutocracy and greed. It’s where we’re all eventually headed -- the 99%, or at least the 70%, of us, every debt-loaded college grad, out-of-work school teacher, and impoverished senior -- unless this revolution succeeds.
Barbara Ehrenreich
Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of This Land Is Their Land: Reports from a Divided Nation.  She won the 2004 Puffin/Nation Prize. Her seventeenth book, Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America (Metropolitan Books), has just been published. Her bestselling book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, 10th Anniversary Edition, has just been released by Picador Books.

10.20.2011

Skinhead James Robertson Guilty of Murder: "This defendant and three of his associates took the only thing these men had left — their lives.”

There just can't be a clearer indication that attacks on those experiencing homelessness should be considered Hate Crimes than this:
...members of Blood and Honour in Tampa “considered homeless persons as an inferior class of persons regardless of race. ‘Bum rolling’ was a term used … to describe the activity of targeting and committing acts of violence against homeless persons.”
Good riddance to another violent, ignorant and maniacal fool masquerading as a human being....

Racist Skinhead Guilty in Savage Murders of Tampa Homeless Men

Posted in White Supremacist by Ryan Lenz on October 19, 2011

Print This Post Print This Post
James Robertson, a member of the racist skinhead group Blood & Honour, was trying to finagle his way out of a lengthy prison term for bank robbery when he offered police details of two murders in Tampa. The murders had gone unsolved for years, and police had all but dismissed the case as cold. That was until they met their snitch. Robertson was one of four men involved in the murders. His hubristic pitch for leniency ultimately was his undoing. On Tuesday, a federal jury convicted him in the 1998 beating deaths of Alfred Williams, 62, and Richard Arseneau, 44 — both homeless men in Tampa. He faces life in prison when sentenced.
“These men had no material goods, no wealth,” prosecutor Lee Bentley said in his closing statements, according to St. Petersburg Times. “They were struggling to survive. This defendant and three of his associates took the only thing these men had left — their lives.”
At the time of the murders, four members of Blood and Honour were on a violent binge on the streets of Tampa as part of a game they called “bum rolling.” Their brutality knew no bounds. Williams was beaten with fists, clubs and a tire iron so savagely that police would find his teeth scattered across the ground. Arseneau was repeatedly hit in the head with an ax. Police also said two others were attacked — one man who saved himself by jumping into a river and another who escaped when a gun pointed at his chest misfired.
Investigators found no evidence linking anyone to the crimes. But according to prosecutors, Robertson in 2003 provided information about his “principal role” in the deaths while trying to clear himself from any involvement. Of course, it didn’t help that three other members of Blood and Honour — Cory Hulse, Kenneth Hoover and Charles Marovskis — had pleaded guilty to charges related to the deaths and were cooperating with authorities.
At the time, the murders further marred the reputation of Blood and Honour, a shadowy international coalition of racist skinhead gangs based in the United Kingdom. According to a federal indictment of Marovskis, members of Blood and Honour in Tampa “considered homeless persons as an inferior class of persons regardless of race. ‘Bum rolling’ was a term used … to describe the activity of targeting and committing acts of violence against homeless persons.”
And how were they rewarded for the attack? One of the assailants, Hoover, told police the members received congratulatory spider web tattoos — a sign of honor in a dishonorable gang.

10.17.2011

Standing Side by SIDE

The power of peer recovery programs....


10.15.2011

"Those who have served this nation as veterans should never find themselves on the streets, living without care and without hope,"

I don't think anyone could argue that the VA has been slacking in trying to address veteran homelessness.  General Shinseki has been balls to the wall forceful in getting resources, motivation and commitment from not only members of the VA, but from the other big federal agencies as well, and that is no small feat when you know how siloed and territorial these agencies really are.

Whether they will actually meet their goal by 2015 remains to be seen, but if success is gauged by - and hinges on - commitment and resource allocation, failure doesn't seem like it's going to be an option....



Chris Birk

VA Rolls Makes Bold Move To End Veteran Homelessness By 2015

Posted: 10/14/11 09:59 AM ETNearly 30 cities across the country will host awareness initiatives this fall aimed at highlighting local services available to veterans mired in or on the brink of homelessness.
The "Make the Call" campaign is part of the Veterans Administration's push to eliminate veteran homelessness by 2015. These local programs will explore the dimensions of veteran homelessness and encourage community members and military families to contact the the VA's unique toll-free number dedicated to helping homeless veterans and at-risk individuals.
The hotline (877-4AID-VET, or 877-424-3838) is staffed 24/7 by trained specialists and has been active since March 2010.
More than 75,000 veterans are on the streets on a given night, and about 135,000 spent at least one night in a shelter, according to recent homeless count surveys.
"Those who have served this nation as veterans should never find themselves on the streets, living without care and without hope," VA Secretary Eric K. Shinseki said in a news release. "Working with our partners in state and local government, the nonprofit and the private sectors, we can restore our homeless veterans and their families to the lives of dignity they've earned."
The "Make a Call" campaign kicks off this week in Alaska before stops in Arizona, California and 19 other states and the District of Columbia. For a full list of cities and dates, visit the VA's Public and Intergovernmental Affairs hub.
The agency has recently charted a new course in its fight against veteran homelessness. For years, the VA focused on providing temporary housing solutions. Today, the focus is on prevention and finding permanent housing for those in need.
Chris Birk is director of communications for the VA Mortgage Center, which specializes in VA loans for veterans and active duty service members.

 
Follow Chris Birk on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cjbirk

10.14.2011

When forces used to having the ear of the most powerful person on earth whisper their demands in the Oval Office, the president must see a force more powerful outside his window, whether he likes it or not, and say, "If I do that, they will storm the Bastille."

Amy Goodman nails it, as usual, but it's hard to get back behind Obama when I feel so let down by his track record. 

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of holding my nose while voting for the lesser of two evils, and yes, I know that the alternative to Obama is unthinkable, especially given the current crop of wingnuts, radical extremists, bigots, racists, and moonbats occupying a bizarre field on the right.

Maybe the Occupiers need to march en masse on the White House so the Big O gets a real message when he looks out that window before he makes decisions to cave, capitulate and negotiate with people who are so out of touch with the remaining "99%" that one can't even find a comparison to equate it to.....

What Occupy Wall Street can do for Barack Obama

Wall Street firms were among Obama's biggest donors in 2008, and will be again in 2011. He needs us as a counter-weight

  • Goldman Sachs
    Goldman Sachs headquarters: the firm was a top donor, contributing over $1m, to Obama's campaign in the 2008 election cycle. Photograph: Scott Eells/Bloomberg via Getty Images
    Back when Barack Obama was still just a US senator running for president, he told a group of donors in a New Jersey suburb, "Make me do it." He was borrowing from President Franklin D Roosevelt, who used the same phrase (according to Harry Belafonte, who heard the story directly from Eleanor Roosevelt) when responding to legendary union organiser A Philip Randolph's demand for civil rights for African Americans. While President Obama has made concession after concession to both the corporate-funded tea party and his Wall Street donors, now that he is again in campaign mode, his progressive critics are being warned not to attack him, as that might aid and abet the Republican bid for the White House. Enter the 99 per centers. The Occupy Wall Street ranks continue to grow, inspiring more than 1,000 solidarity protests around the country and the globe. After weeks, and one of the largest mass arrests in US history, Obama finally commented: "I think people are frustrated, and the protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works." But neither he, nor his advisers – nor the Republicans – know what to do with this burgeoning mass movement. Following the controversial Citizens United v Federal Election Commission decision by the US supreme court, which allows unlimited corporate donations to support election advertising, the hunger for campaign cash is insatiable. The Obama re-election campaign aims to raise $1bn. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the financial industry was President Obama's second-largest source of 2008 campaign contributions, surpassed only by the lawyers/lobbyists industry sector. The suggestion that a loss for Obama would signal a return to the Bush era has some merit: the Associated Press reported recently that "almost all of [Mitt] Romney's 22 special advisers held senior Bush administration positions in diplomacy, defence or intelligence. Two former Republican senators are included as well as Bush-era CIA chief Michael Hayden and former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff." But so is the Obama presidency an expansion of the Bush era, unless there is a new "Push era". The organic strength of Occupy Wall Street defies the standard dismissals from the corporate media's predictably stale stable of pundits. For them, it is all about the divide between the Republicans and the Democrats, a divide the protesters have a hard time seeing. They see both parties captured by Wall Street. Richard Haass, head of the establishment Council of Foreign Relations, said of the protesters, "They're not serious." He asked why they are not talking about entitlements. Perhaps it is because, to the 99%, social security and Medicare are not the problem, but rather growing inequality, with the 400 richest Americans having more wealth than half of all Americans combined. And then there is the overwhelming cost and toll of war, first and foremost the lives lost, but also the lives destroyed, on all sides. It's why, for example, Jose Vasquez, executive director of Iraq Veterans Against the War, was down at Occupy Wall Street Monday night. He told me:
    "It's no secret that a lot of veterans are facing unemployment, homelessness and a lot of other issues that are dealing with the economy. A lot of people get deployed multiple times and are still struggling … I've met a lot of veterans who have come here. I just met a guy who is active duty, took leave just to come to Occupy Wall Street."
    The historic election of Barack Obama was achieved by millions of people across the political spectrum. For years, during the Bush administration, people felt they were hitting their heads against a brick wall. With the election, the wall had become a door, but it was only open a crack. The question was, would it be kicked open or slammed shut? It is not up to one person. Obama had moved from community organiser-in-chief to commander-in-chief. When forces used to having the ear of the most powerful person on earth whisper their demands in the Oval Office, the president must see a force more powerful outside his window, whether he likes it or not, and say, "If I do that, they will storm the Bastille." If there's no one out there, we are all in big trouble. • Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column. © 2011 Amy Goodman; distributed by King Features Syndicate

Action Alert: Using Medicaid to Help End Homelessness In Our Communities

The National Alliance to End Homelessness, always the tireless advocate, has a great cheat-sheet to use when calling your representative, and I would submit here that these talking points can go beyond the effort aimed at the Medicaid issue as we roll into the coming years and will need to put the pressure on our elected officials to do what we want them to do, not what they think they should do.

The top four talking points here:
  1. Chronic homelessness can be ended. The 38% reduction in chronic homelessness since 2005 has become a national success story because of bipartisan efforts to expand the supply of permanent supportive housing (PSH) by 34% over the same period. The United States is close to reaching thefederal government’s goal of ending chronic homelessness by 2015. (Talk about the number of chronically homeless people in your(Talk about the number of chronically homeless people in your state or district, and PSH programs that have had an impact in your community.)
  2. Medicaid access is essential to this goal. To finish the job of ending chronic homelessness, health insurance will be just as critical as the housing supply, by allowing homeless people with the most severe conditions to get off the streets and stabilize their lives in housing. Health insurance allows individuals to take responsibility for their health along with their stable housing. (Discuss the number of low-income people in your state who have no health insurance. Mention safety net systems in communities that need resources to meet service needs of vulnerable adults.)
  3. Integrating health care and housing helps government do a better job. Medicaid officials will be able to hold communities more accountable for services that can lift vulnerable individuals up to independence, because they will have better access to useful data to measure outcomes and assess performance. The Medicaid expansion will strengthen state and local solutions and will give state leaders powerful tools to address the mental health and addiction challenges that must be solved in order to end chronic homelessness.  (Discuss local coordination between the health care and homeless assistance systems, and the local need to improve efficiency and coordination between the systems.)
  4. Eroding Medicaid access will not reduce costs. Trying to reduce costs in the short run by leaving more low-income people uninsured is unlikely to be effective at reducing overall health care costs in the long run, or at helping the most vulnerable Americans stabilize in housing. Cuts or changes to this critical safety-net program will swell the ranks of the uninsured, burden disabled people, and simply shift the costs to states, consumers, and providers, thereby putting us further away from the goal of ending chronic homelessness once and for all. (Explain the cost savings associated with PSH. If you have access to local or state PSH costsavings study, summarize the results. If not, look at Helping Chronically Homeless People Avoid High-Cost Health Care.)


Talking Points - Medicaid Can Help Finish the Job of Ending Chronic Homelessness

Icon

Advocacy Resource | 13 Oct 2011

Files: PDF | 65 KB | 1 page

Please use the talking points attached above to contact your Members of Congress who sit on key committees (Senate Finance, Senate HELP, and House Energy and Commerce) that will weigh in with the “Super-Committee” regarding whether and/or how to make changes to Medicaid in order to reduce the federal deficit.

10.11.2011

NAEH Study on Homeless Youth

The Heterogeneity of Homeless Youth in America: Examining Typologies

Icon

Report | 5 Oct 2011

Files: PDF | 591 KB | 12 pages


Below is an excerpt of this report. To read the full report, please download the file using the link above.
Introduction
Annual prevalence estimates for homeless youth in the U.S. have ranged as high as 1.6 million among those aged 13-17 (Ringwalt et al., 1998). Robertson and Toro (1999) concluded that youth may be the single age group most at risk of becoming homeless and, yet, this group is the least studied of the three major subgroups among the overall homeless population (i.e., homeless adults, families, and youth). The existing research has documented many of the characteristics of homeless youth and identified a wide range of deficits (see Robertson and Toro, 1999; Toro, Dworsky, and Fowler, 2007). However, studies find rather different profiles of homeless youth, depending on sampling strategies, target age groups, gender balance, measures used, and other methodological factors. For example, it has been noted that studies targeting older youth (sometimes up to age 25), males, and youth from the streets tend to find more problem behaviors, such as substance abuse, mental disorders, risky sexual behavior, and conduct problems (Haber and Toro, 2004; Toro et al., 2007).
A few studies have examined the differences between homeless and housed youth. Homeless youth have less social support than their housed counterparts (Menke, 2000) and experience many hurdles and hardships while in school (Ziesemer, Marcoux, and Marwell, 1994). Furthermore, homeless youth are often victims of various forms of parental maltreatment (Wolfe, Toro, and McCaskill, 1999) and are at an increased risk for various mental disorders, including depression, conduct disorders, and substance abuse (Kennedy, 1991; McCaskill, Toro, and Wolfe, 1998; Unger et al., 1998).
A Promising Three-category Typology: (1) Transient but Connected; (2) High-risk; and (3) Low-Risk
In order to examine the longitudinal impact of an empirically-derived multivariate typology of homeless youth, Braciszewski, Toro, and Jozefowicz-Simbeni (2011b) used a probability sample of 250 initially homeless youth from throughout the Detroit metropolitan area. Youth were recruited from several different agencies providing services to homeless adolescents, including shelters, outpatient and inpatient substance abuse treatment programs, and psychiatric facilities, as well as some street settings. At baseline, the average participant was 15.3 years old (range 13-17). Youth were interviewed again 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.5, 5.5, and 6.5 years after baseline (ages at last follow-up ranged 20-24). Follow-up rates at these time points were 58, 38, 59, 82, 75, and 83 percent, respectively (for further details on the methodology of this research project, see Ahmed, Fowler, and Toro, 2010; Fowler et al., 2008, 2011; Hobden et al., 2011; Tompsett and Toro, 2010; Urberg, Goldstein, and Toro, 2005).
A wide variety of initial characteristics were used to differentiate the sample into subtypes. These included resilience factors (e.g., family cohesion, self-efficacy, employment, school achievement/performance) as well as negative outcomes (e.g., frequent homelessness, sexual abuse, risky sexual behavior, mental health diagnoses/symptoms). Latent class analysis identified a three-class solution that described youth as either (1) transient but connected (n=55), (2) high-risk (n=46), or (3) low-risk (n=149). For the transient but connected youth, mental health and substance use issues were not prominent; however, as the class label suggests, these youth were nonetheless unstable in terms of both housing and school connections. They showed the most extensive histories of homelessness. However, compared to the other two groups, they reported relatively high cohesion in their families and the most sexual partners. High-risk youth were more likely to have dropped out of school, reported more sexual abuse, more sexual partners, and struggled more with depression, conduct, and substance abuse problems. They also showed substantial housing mobility and histories of homelessness. The low-risk group showed low levels of all the problem behaviors mentioned above, as compared to one or both of the other groups. They showed the least extensive histories of homelessness and housing instability. The low-risk group included more males and younger adolescents. Males were also more likely to be classified as high-risk, as were Caucasian youth. Girls were more likely to fall in the transient but connected group.
Housing trajectories differ across groups
Class membership was then used to predict long-term housing trajectories over the 6.5-year time period using hierarchical linear modeling. As expected, low-risk youth experienced the least homelessness over time and were often in secure living environments. Transient but connected individuals continued an alternating pattern of being homeless and housed. Overall, they tended to experience homelessness the most of the three groups, with respite coming only after 5.5 years. High-risk youth showed a trend toward stable housing during mid- to late-adolescence. However, as they entered young adulthood, these youth experienced a spike in homelessness (43 percent experienced some homelessness between the 18-month and 4.5-year follow up), before returning to levels similar to the other classes. Across all three groups, most did eventually find stable housing during the last two follow-up time points (5.5 and 6.5 years).
Implications
Taken together, these findings suggest that targeted interventions can be created for homeless youth, given key characteristics found while they are homeless during mid-adolescence (e.g., mental health, substance use, connection to stable schooling). In addition, it is useful to know that many of these youth eventually gain stable housing; thus, even for youth who are experiencing a number of difficulties early on, positive outcomes are often achieved ultimately. Such findings suggest that most homeless youth are “resilient,” at least in terms of their long-term housing outcomes. Similar “positive” findings showing growing housing stability over time were obtained in a recent two-year follow-up of newly homeless youth in Los Angeles and in Melbourne, Australia (Milburn et al., 2007) as well as in longitudinal studies of homeless adults and families (Stojanovic, Weitzman, Shinn, Labay, and Williams, 1999; Toro et al., 1997, 1999).
Gender influence may also be important during this developmental period, as females were more likely to be in the “transient but connected” group (but less likely to be in the other two groups, one doing well initially, one having significant problems in many areas). Such findings are not altogether surprising, given the nature of available services for homeless youth and young adults. Many shelters allow for adolescent females to remain with their families and/or mothers, while male teens are filtered out of all-female facilities. Furthermore, girls in our culture are typically “trained” to be more family-oriented and boys to be more independent. Continued exploration of differential male and female trajectories is warranted in future research, especially with regard to such wide ranging outcomes for males.

Smiling does a body good

Democracy Now Livestream