Outcomes for Adolescents Using Runaway and Homeless Youth Services

Abstract

The purpose of this initial exploration was to identify relationships among outcomes and sociodemographic variables for runaway and homeless youths treated in community agencies. Outcome categories included clinical status, functioning, life satisfaction, and welfare and safety. Seventy youths were interviewed three months after discharge from three federally funded agencies serving runaway and homeless youth in the greater St. Louis area. Analyses among outcomes revealed a variety of significant relationships; most predominately, a pattern emerged revealing that returning to parental homes post-discharge was associated with a variety of other positive outcomes. The findings support the mission of agencies and federal mandates for designing services to this population; youths that are minors should be encouraged, where feasible, to return to parental homes. Although limited in scope and research methods, the present exploratory study provides an appropriate starting place from which to base future research on this

My Home is Not My Castle: Follow-Up of Residents of Shelters for Homeless Youth

“…We found that two-thirds of the respondents had left the shelter for their home or an out-of-home placement, and a similar number were living in these types of residences at follow-up. Those findings are similar to those found in previous studies (Newman, 1989;Teare et al, 1992Thompson et al, 2000). However, our findings raise concerns regarding the extent to which these places of residence fulfill the youngsters' needs; it may be that for many of them, the solution they reached is not the one they needed.…”

“…A relatively low rate of returning home was found among those that stayed for a long time in the shelter, reported on multiple family problems, or expressed despair and suicidal tendencies. Similar rates of youth living at home three months post discharge (72%) were found by Thompson, Pollio, & Bitner (2000) in a study of three Midwestern agencies. Youths who returned home had broad range of positive outcomes relative to youths discharged to other locations.…”

Homeless Youth: Characteristics, Contributing Factors, and Service Options

“…For example, one study found that youths discharged from basic shelter services and not reunified with their families reported more hopelessness, suicidality, and family problems than those who did reunify (Teare, Furst, Peterson, & Authier, 1992). Other researchers (Thompson, Pollio, & Bitner, 2000) found that shelter-using youths returning home to live with their parents experienced a broad range of short-term positive outcomes, including decreased runaway episodes, improved school status, higher self-esteem, and improved relationships with parents relative to youths discharged to other locations. For youths who cannot return home, creating alternate culturally competent family structures, such as small therapeutic group homes, may be one option.…”

Successful Transitions of Runaway/Homeless Youth from Shelter Care

“…First, providers were asked what aspects of the shelter had the greatest impact on a youth's decision to return home; second, providers were asked to help interpret our previous finding that youth who completed shelter care were more likely to return home than youth who did not complete shelter care (Thompson et al, 2002); third, providers were asked why they thought that after a few months many youth returned to their old behavior patterns-running away, having school problems, using substances (Thompson et al, 2002;Thompson et al, 2000). The final question focused on the racial disparity previously found among shelter-using youth (Thompson et al, 2003).…”

“…As federally-funded youth shelters are mandated to attempt reunification, this outcome is viewed as a critical measure of success (Thompson, Safyer, & Pollio, 2001). Systematic evaluations have demonstrated successful reunification with family or other appropriate living situations (Teare, Furst, Autheir, Baker, & Daly, 1994;Thompson, Pollio, & Bitner, 2000).…”