L a r k i n S t r e e t Yo u t h S e r v i c e s

. . . IN BRIEF

February 2011

Introduction

There are an estimated 1.7 million runaway and homeless youth under age 18 in the United States.1 Most of these youth are on the streets because their home environments were too much to endure. Common family experiences for these youth include child abuse and/or neglect, domestic violence, and parental substance use. Some have parents who either asked them to leave or didn’t object to their leaving. Others were removed from their homes because their parent was unable to care for them and they later ran away from their placement.

There has been concern that underage home-less youth are not accessing available services, particularly shelter services. However, due to a lack of a population estimate for this group of youth it is hard to verify if this is the case. This report provides an estimate of the unaccom-panied youth population in San Francisco and discusses their use of shelter services.

Who Are Unaccompanied Youth?

Unaccompanied youth are homeless individuals under the age of 18 who are not associated with an adult family member. There are main subcategories of unaccompanied youth that are recognized by those in the runaway and homeless youth services field. These definitions are based on the factors that lead to their homelessness – situational runaway, runaway, throwaway, and systems. A situational runaway is a youth who leaves home without parental permission for at least a night. This is often precipitated by a specific incidence which caused the youth to leave home. These youth return home after a short period of time. A runaway is a youth who left home due to familial conflict or abuse and is on their own. A throwaway is a youth who was either abandoned by, or asked to leave home by, their parent. A systems youth is one who ran away from an institutional place-ment such as foster care or a group home.

Homelessness exposes individuals to myriad risks to their health and safety and unaccompa-nied youth are a particularly vulnerable popula-tion. At a time when most youth are provided for by their families, these youth are left to fend for themselves. The may be forced to beg for food or money and sleep in public spaces. Safety is a concern and many of these youths are exposed to ongoing threats and victimization. In particular unaccompanied youth are at great risk of sexual exploitation by adults who provide shelter and other basic needs in return for youth participation in sex work or trade.

Unaccompanied Youth in San Francisco

It is hard to est imate the number of unaccompanied youth and determining the population of underage homeless youth in a locality has proven difficult. Calculating the homeless population itself is complex, but underage youth can be especially invisible and transient. While many jurisdictions conduct regular counts of the homeless population, youth are often not identified as a subcategory. In addition, unaccompanied youth often go to great lengths to stay hidden, often avoiding areas where other homeless individuals are found because of their minor status. Both of these issues result in an undercount of the unaccompanied youth population.2 San Francisco’s 2009 point-in-time homeless count included only seven unsheltered unaccompa-nied minors.3 In that same year, Larkin Street Youth Services assisted approximately 260 underage youth.

Methods employed by researchers in other localities, local population figures, and local program data were analyzed to determine an estimate of the number of local youth who are homeless, including those who are marginally housed or at risk for homelessness.

Unaccompanied Youth in San Francisco: Population Estimate and Shelter Utilization

2

Youth At Risk of Homelessness

Previous research has shown that certain categories of youth are especially at risk for runaway behavior and later homelessness. These include youth who are disconnected from work and school, youth in-volved in public systems of care, and youth whose families are living in poverty. We examined data on youth in San Francisco who are enrolled in school, are involved in systems of care such as child welfare or juvenile justice, or whose families are living in poverty. Inclusion of this data provides a more complete estimate of unaccompanied youth than previous point-in-time counts.

School Disconnection

Underage youth who have become disconnected from the educational system are at increased risk of home-lessness. Table 1 provides an estimate of the number of underage youth in San Francisco who are discon-nected from the education system.

According to the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) 26,541 of the estimated 38,827 youth between the ages of 12 and 17 in San Francisco enrolled in San Francisco public schools in 2008 (R. Khanna, personal communication, September 24, 2009). The SFUSD also estimates that approximately 1,261 youth dropped out of school (grades 7 through 12). Some youth do not attend public schools: national estimates are that 2.2% of school-aged youth are homeschooled, and SFUSD estimates that between 25% and 30% of youth in the city attend private or parochial schools. These figures suggest there are approximately 450-500 youth unaccounted for by school headcounts. While we do not know how many drop-outs are homeless, or later become home-less, estimates are that 35% of homeless school age youth are not attending school.4 While this cannot tell us how many of these drop-outs are also homeless, it does indicate a significant overlap between the two populations.

Public Systems of Care

Youth involved in public systems of care such as the child welfare and juvenile justice systems have also been identified as having an increased risk of homelessness.5 The number of underage youth involved in these systems need to be considered when determining a homeless youth estimate.

Juvenile Justice InvolvementYouth involved with the juvenile justice system are likely to report unstable housing.6 In 2008, there were 1,012 youth admitted to juvenile hall in San Francisco.7 Reintegration after exit from juvenile detention is difficult and many youth leave juvenile hall and later become homeless. In addition, 156 youth were in an out-of-home placement through the probation department.8 These youth are at greatest risk of becoming homeless because they have run away from placement (J.L. Perla, personal communi-cation, September 15, 2009). Again, we do not know how many youth exit the juvenile justice system and later become homeless. However Larkin Street data shows that 36% of homeless youth report prior incarceration which provides information regarding the amount of overlap between the populations.

Child WelfareThere is a disproportionate representation of foster youth among the runaway population (46%), as compared to the general population (0.23%).9 More than 1/3 of youth 16 or older who run from their placement are gone from care for at least one month.10 The range of estimates of the percentage of youth who run from care and become homeless is between 11% and 25%.11 In FY 2009, there were 1,675 youth listed as in care through the child welfare system, including family foster care, kinship care, and group care.12

Youth Living in Poverty

Youth also become homeless due to the family’s poor economic situation. Economic troubles can create additional stress in households and exacerbate family problems that lead to a youth running away. Poverty may also lead to family homelessness and youth may later become separated from their families, in fact some family shelters do not take older youth which may lead to youth being on the streets on their own. Approximately 13% of California children living in poverty are homeless.13 Approximately 5,824 San Francisco youth age 12-17 live below the poverty level, and approximately 2,562 of these are in extreme poverty.14

Table 1: School status - San Francisco youth

Enrollment Status Number Percentage

Public School 26,541 68% Private or Parochial School 9,706 25% Homeschooled 854 2% Disconnected 1,726 5% Drop Out 1,261 Unaccounted 465

Total 38,827 100%

3

Estimate of Youth At Risk for Homelessness

The total number of youth at-risk for homelessness ranges from 1,541 – 2,200 if each subpopulation is taken separately. However there is overlap among these groups of youth at risk for homelessness, as youth found in one risk group may also be represented in another, which is not accounted for in the estimate. Overlap between subpopulations may be as low as 11% or as great as 80%.15 Factoring in this overlap the total estimate is 374 -1,665 youth who are at-risk of homelessness.

Runaway and Homeless Youth

Methods for calculating an estimate of the prev-alence of unaccompanied youth are varied. We reviewed a number of methods, and chose to utilize the three methods that we deemed most robust. In addition the number of unaccompanied youth enrolled in school and the estimate of youth at risk for homelessness is included. Using these methods, and averaging the results, provided the basis for our final estimate of the unaccompanied youth population in San Francisco.

School Enrollment – Homeless Youth

In addition to youth who are disconnected from the school system there are a number of homeless youth who are enrolled in public school. In 2008 the San Francisco Unified School District reported 2,029 homeless youth who were enrolled in school. Of these, 406 were unaccompanied and 1,623 were listed as residing in shelters, hotels, or doubled up with family or friends (T. Wilson, personal communication, September 24, 2009).

Shelter Utilization

The United States General Accounting Office deter-mined that approximately 1 in 8 unaccompanied homeless youth accesses shelter services.16 There are two programs in San Francisco that provide shelter for unaccompanied youth, Diamond Youth Shelter (a program of Larkin Street) and Huckleberry House (a program of Huckleberry Youth Programs). The programs differ in terms of program model and

length of stay for youth varies greatly between the two. Youth at Diamond average 24 days in shelter while the average at Huckleberry House is 6 days. In fiscal year 2009 (July 1, 2008 - June 30, 2009) Diamond provided shelter to 102 youth and Huckle-berry House provided shelter to 273 youth. The total number of youth served ranges from 280 (assuming some duplication between programs) and 375 (assuming no duplication). Based on the 1 in 8 assumption the homeless youth estimate is 2,240-3,000.

Marginally Housed and Literal Homeless

Another method takes the number of youth served in shelters to extrapolate the number of youth assumed to be marginally housed or doubled up. This method, based on a count of homeless youth in Minnesota posits that for every youth in a shelter there is another 2.7 who are doubled up, staying with friends or family in temporary housing situations.17 These youth are homeless as their living situations are not stable or long-term. This formula provides an estimate of between 1,036 and 1,387 homeless and marginally housed youth in San Francisco in fiscal year 2009.

Prevalence Estimate – Runaway and Homeless Youth

Another common method estimates the prevalence of youth homelessness during a given time period. One estimate looks at the lifetime prevalence of youth homelessness, or the number of youth who have experienced homelessness at some point prior to the age of 18. Robertson and Toro estimate that between 5% and 7.6% of youth experience homelessness at some point during their youth.18 Alternatively Burt determined an annual prevalence rate that estimates 7 – 8% of youth 12 to 17 years of age experience homelessness or run away each year.19 Based on Burt’s methodology there would be between 2,718 and 3,106 youth between the ages of 12 and 17 who are homeless in San Francisco on an annual basis (based on fiscal year 2009).

Table 2: Youth at risk of homelessness – Population estimate

Source Population Estimate Homeless Estimate Disconnected – School System 1,726 604 Juvenile Justice Involvement 1,168 420Child Welfare System 1,675 184 - 419Youth in Poverty 2,562 – 5,824 333 - 757

Total Estimate 374 - 1,665

4

Final Estimate

As shown in Table 3, the above methods for estimating the number of unaccompanied homeless youth in San Francisco provide a range of estimates. Taking the midpoint of the range the final estimate is that there are 1,635 unaccompanied homeless youth in San Francisco in a given year.

Additional Considerations

Many of these methods, however, do not account for regional differences and may underestimate the population for San Francisco. The National Center on Family Homelessness found that 75% of all homeless children resided in 11 states, which includes California.20 California had the third highest ratio of homeless children among all children in the state, after Louisiana and Texas. This indicates that the number of unaccompanied minors in California may be greater than in other states, which suggests that formulae developed in other regions or based on national figures may create low estimates when applied to a state like California.

Further, the number of unaccompanied youth is likely rising. In the previous three calendar years, the number of contacts with underage youth by Larkin Street outreach workers has increased 55% from 1,068 in 2007 to 1,659 in 2009. In order to account for the fact that an increase in the number of out-reach contacts during this period may have resulted from an increased number of outreach shifts, we also looked at the number of underage youth as a percentage of the total youth contacted through outreach programs. In 2007, underage youth made up 26% of the total youth reached through outreach (4,112 contacts). In 2009, underage youth made up 33% of the total 4,990 contacts by outreach workers. This appears to be a national trend: the National Run-away Switchboard reported that the number of youth calling the switchboard had increased dramatically in the decade since 2000, with a 584% increase in

the number of calls from homeless youth and a 68% increase in the number of throwaway youth.21 Other research reports that schools are seeing increasing numbers of homeless students as well.22

Unaccompanied Youth and Shelter Usage

Despite this estimate of approximately 1,635 unac-companied youth in San Francisco in a single year, less than 25% accessed shelter services in fiscal year 2009. These youth were served in shelters run either by Larkin Street or Huckleberry. Using the estimate there may have been more than 1,260 unaccompanied youth in San Francisco who did not use emergency shelter services. Which leads us to the question - Why aren’t these youth accessing shelters?

Research suggests that unaccompanied youth often avoid contact with homeless services altogether. The California Research Bureau found that only 8% of the homeless youth they interviewed had spent the previous night in a shelter.23 By contrast, 28% had spent the previous night couch surfing and 30% had spent the previous night outdoors, in a car, or in a vacant building.

Larkin Street conducted qualitative research with homeless youth to better understand their feelings about services and potential barriers to shelter utilization. The first method used was a short survey on knowledge and use of emergency shelters. Youth participating in the survey were either contacted by an outreach worker or accessed services at one of Larkin Street’s drop-in centers. The second meth-od was focus groups which were conducted with youth utilizing the agency’s two drop in programs. A few themes were identified that help us gain a better understanding of the use of youth shelters by unaccompanied youth.

I Don’t Like Shelters

Among survey respondents, 53% indicated they had never used any shelter. When asked why they would not use a shelter, 20% said they did not like shel-ters. When asked where they would sleep that night, one third of the youth indicated they were planning to sleep in the park, in a car, or on the sidewalk. Youth criticized shelters for being depressing, having bed bugs, and being full of other people who would take your personal property or assault you. Youth contrasted these images of shelters with positive images of sleeping outdoors, which was described as relatively safe and comfortable, and even roman-ticized as “sleeping beneath the trees.” One youth said that in contrast to shelters drop-in centers have a posit ive image and suggested that the shelters be called a “drop-in center with beds.” It is

Table 3: Estimate of homeless and runaway youth in San Francisco

Source EstimateUnaccompanied Youth -- School 406Shelter Utilization 2,240 - 3,000Marginally Housed and Shelter Users 1,036 - 1,387Annual Prevalence Estimate 2,718 - 3,106At Risk Youth Estimate 374 - 1,665

Final Estimate 1,635

5

important to note that the majority of these youth had never used shelter so their perceptions are not based on previous experience.

For some youth their dislike of shelters stems from a distrust of service providers based on previous involvement in public systems of care such as the foster care and juvenile justice systems. Youth pro-vided examples of times staff or other institutional figures say things to reassure youth but then do not keep their word. One young woman explained, for example, how staff at another shelter said “whatever you tell me is confidential” but then disclosed her personal information to other staff members. This is accepted practice among service staff in a shelter environment, as it is crucial to service provision, although this may not have been effectively communicated to the youth beforehand. This is similar to the experience of youth in other studies who reported negative experiences with social service professionals.24

I’m Not Homeless

Even youth sleeping on streets and in parks may not see themselves as needing shelter services. Some youth who responded to the survey stated that they do not consider themselves homeless, despite their plans to spend the night in the park. Other researchers describe similar findings, one study found that many homeless youth did not identify as homeless and therefore don’t feel that homeless youth services are intended for them.25

I Don’t Want To Go Home

Unaccompanied youth are often reticent about involvement with homeless service providers.26 Because they are minors they legally are not able to make decisions regarding where they live. Youth assume service providers will contact either police or their parents. One young man speculated that underage youth might fear shelter staff would “turn them in.” Youth indicated that they believe authorities will be contacted even if staff assures them they will not do so without discussion and youth agreement. Youth avoid using shelters because they fear that they will be returned to the precarious situations that they fled.

I Don’t Feel Safe In Shelters

Shelters seem intuitively to offer safety that would not be available to a young person spending the night on the street. However, youth find safety by travelling and sleeping in groups and seem more fearful of the threats posed by unknown peers in shelters. One young woman emphasized that she

found safety by travelling in a group that included older youth, a situation that impacts her decision to enter a youth shelter where older peers would not be allowed. Despite these concerns youth did suggest that they might use a shelter when weather was bad or they found themselves alone or feeling vulnerable. This same young woman said she might go to a shelter if she found herself feeling unsafe in the middle of the night, but she also assumed she would not be able to enter a shelter and get a bed after a particular time. She went on to describe past scenarios where she had called the police on herself in order to be taken in for the night so that she could sleep safely.

I Don’t Want To Be Controlled

Adolescence is a time of developing independence, and in particular youth living on their own may feel a sense of autonomy that they have never experienced before. A feeling of independence that produces a certain amount of pride. Consequently they may avoid seeking services because they feel that program environments will infringe on their newfound autonomy. Youth in our study described programs and their staff as trying to control youth behavior. For example, one youth said that the staff in shelters have “stupid rules” and offered the example of eve-ning curfews and requiring youth to vacate shelters during the day, “even if it’s raining.” Another youth said, “they power trip you.” He went on to explain that youth are on the street because they have left environments where they felt controlled and going to a shelter felt like returning to the very places they had left.

One youth described, for example, positive experiences with a day labor employment program run by Larkin Street, but said he would not stay in the shelter because he wanted to take care of himself. His involvement with employment services offered him the support that he wanted, services focused on building something for himself rather than feeling like he was a recipient of charity or aid. His successes allowed him to feel pride in accomplishment, where staying in a shelter seemed to take away from his feeling of independence.

Youth also made distinctions between the services offered at drop-in centers and those offered at shelters. They classified drop-in centers as being less restrictive and offering services that youth can either access or decline as they chose. One youth suggested that drop-in centers allow youth to decide what you want or need: “you can come in, get socks, or whatever. Get whatever you need.” Drop-in centers

6

are places where youth were able to maintain their own sense of autonomy. By contrast, in some shelters youth participation in services such as groups or case management is mandatory. In these programs a failure to participate in mandatory activities results in consequences such as a loss of privileges or even program expulsion. Youth appear to prefer programs that allow them to choose wheth-er they want to participate in specific activities. Because choice is maintained, youth feel more comfortable at these sites.

Addressing Youth Concerns

Youth identified a number of reasons they are hes-itant to use emergency shelters. This includes a negative perception of shelters, safety concerns, and a loss of autonomy. Entering a shelter was seen as having some of the drawbacks of home, places they have left behind, without any of the positives. Even the benefit of safety may not be important to these youth if they feel capable of staying safe with their companions.

Reduce Barriers To Services

Young people will leave shelter, or not even access shelter, if they believe authorities will be contacted as soon as they enter the door. Agencies must put in place policies that weigh the risk of not contacting authorities immediately with the fact that providing shelter gets these vulnerable youth off of the streets. A policy that does not immediately contact authorities (either Child Protective Services or the police) unless a youth is in imminent danger allows service providers to develop a contact plan in consultation with the youth.

Because the majority of youth are fleeing adverse situations they are guarded about revealing too much personal information when they first enter a shelter. Most have never had an appropriate caring relationship with an adult before and need time to develop trust and build rapport with staff. Intake requirements therefore should not be an impediment to coming off the streets. When a young person first enters services the emphasis should be placed on making them feel comfort-able and welcome. Youth should not have to answer pages of questions in order to get a meal or a bed for the night.

Create a Welcoming and Safe Environment

Shelter programs provide the basic necessities for youth - meals and a roof over their head. But that is just a small part of what the youth need. Shel-ters need to provide counseling, case management, consistency, and support. There should be a focus

on safety, stability, and relationship building. It is important that shelters are welcoming environments for youth, they should feel more like a home environ-ment than an institution. Programs must have policies in place that create a safe environment for youth. This includes providing a locked space for youth belongings and having a zero tolerance policy for harassment or violence. Youth will not stay in the shelter if they don’t trust the adults there, so this is important in terms of ultimately finding an appropriate long-term placement.

Youth Focused Approach

Services should be provided from a youth devel-opment approach, working from a strengths-based rather than a deficits-based framework to build skills that support self-sufficiency. Efforts must take into account youth’s developing autonomy and indepen-dence, which should be seen as assets, and staff must work cooperatively with youth to help them develop solutions that work for them. Components of a youth development approach include competencies development, opportunities for youth to contribute to their well-being, and positive relationship building. Youth must be treated as partners in planning for their future.

Conclusion and Policy Implications

Larkin Street ’s est imate of the annual un-accompanied homeless youth population in San Francisco is 1,675 youth. Based on this estimate there is lack of contact with service providers and an underutilization of services, particularly shelters which are an important step in moving youth off the street. This is due to a variety of reasons includ-ing perceived vulnerability, mistrust of social service providers, a dislike of program policies that encroach on their independence, and a perception that these services are not for them because they do not consider themselves homeless. These concerns have to be addressed if programs are to successfully reach a greater number of unaccompanied youth.

There needs to be an increased effort to determine the number of unaccompanied youth at the local, state, and national level. Homeless youth advocates have been actively calling for implemen-tation of strategies that will ensure that homeless youth are included in homeless counts that occur across the country. Larkin Street supports the National Alliance to End Homelessness’ efforts to fully include homeless youth in local Point in Time (PIT) counts.27 An accurate accounting of homeless youth is necessary to facilitate the inclusion of youth in community responses to homelessness.

7

Legislation has recently been introduced in California that would create a state licensing category for youth shelters. Larkin Street agrees that the current licensing regulations that exist were established to provide oversight for group homes and the frame-work does not work for shelter environments. However new regulations must be mindful of not creating barriers to homeless youth entering and remaining in programs. There have been states that have successfully created licensing require-ments for homeless youth providers and we should look to those statutes rather than trying to revise regulations that were created for youth in the child welfare system.

This report addresses two main issues, the lack of a population estimate for unaccompanied youth and a perceived underutilization of homelessness services by this population. In order to address the service needs of this vulnerable population we must not only get an accurate count but gain a better understanding of how to locate these youth and get them into shelter. This comes from continuing to examine the factors that keep these youth hidden and out of services. We know that unaccompanied youth who access shelter services have positive outcomes. For some youth it is youth family reunification. For others, it is a transition to an appropriate transitional housing program that helps them to develop tools for self-sufficiency and long term stability. But the first step is finding these youth and getting them off the street and into services.

8

References

1 National Coalition for the Homeless. (2008). Homeless Youth NCH Fact Sheet. Washington DC: National Coalition for the Homeless.

2 Ringwalt, C. L., Greene, J. M., Robertson, M., & McPheeters, M. (1998). The prevalence of homeless-ness among adolescents in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 88(9), 1325-1329.

3 San Francisco Human Services Agency with Applied Survey Research. (2009). 2009 San Francisco homeless count and survey. San Jose: Applied Survey Research.

4 TAY Service Network. (2010). Executive Directors 2010-2011 Budget Advocacy Platform. Position paper.

5 Mayor’s Transitional Youth Task Force. (2007). Disconnected youth in San Francisco: A roadmap to improve the life chances of San Francisco’s most vulnerable young adults. San Francisco: Mayor’s Transitional Youth Task Force

6 Feldman, D., & Patterson, D. (2003). WIA Youth Offender Study: Characteristics and program experi-ence of youthful offenders within Seattle-King County Workforce Investment Act programs. Seattle, WA: Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County.

7 Perla, J. L. (2009). San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department 2008 statistical report. San Francisco: San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department.

8 Perla, J. L. (2009). San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department 2008 statistical report. San Francisco: San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department.

9 Nesmith, A. (2006). Predictors of running away from family foster care. Child Welfare, 85(3), 585-609.

10 Courtney, M. E., Skyles, A., Miranda, G., Zinn, A., Howard, E., & Goerge, R. (2005). Youth who run away from out-of-home care. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.

11 Wald, M., & Martinez, T. (2003). Connected by 25: Improving the life chances of the country’s most vulnerable 14-24 year olds. Menlo Park, CA: William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

12 Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J. (2010). Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research website http://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/

13 National Center on Family Homelessness. (2009). America’s youngest outcasts: State report card on child homelessness Needham, MA: National Center on Family Homelessness.

14 Simmons, M., David, R., Larsen-Fleming, M., & Combs, N. (2008). A snapshot of youth health and wellness, San Francisco 2009. San Francisco: Adolescent Health Working Group.

15 TAY Service Network. (2010). Executive Directors 2010-2011 Budget Advocacy Platform. Position paper.

16 United States General Accounting Office. (1989). Children and youths: About 68,000 homeless and 186,000 in shared housing at any given time. Washington DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.

17 Wilder Research Center. (2001). Homeless youth in Minnesota: Statewide survey of people without permanent shelter. Saint Paul, MN: Wilder Research Center.

18 Robertson, M. J., & Toro, P. A. (1999). Homeless youth: Research, intervention, and policy. In L. B. Fosburg & D. L. Dennis (Eds.), Practical lessons: The 1998 National Symposium on Homelessness Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

9

References

19 Burt, M. R. (2007). Understanding homeless youth, characteristics, multisystem involvement, and intervention options. Testimony Before the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

20 National Center on Family Homelessness. (2009). America’s youngest outcasts: State report card on child homelessness Needham, MA: National Center on Family Homelessness.

21 Pergamit, M., Ernst, M., Benoit-Bryan, J., & Kessel, J. (2010). Why they run: An in-depth look at America’s runaway youth. Chicago: National Runaway Switchboard.

22 Duffield, B., & Lovell, P. (2008). The economic crisis hits home: The unfolding increase in child and youth homelessness. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth,

23 Bernstein, N., & Foster, L. K. (2008). Voices from the street: A survey of homeless youth by their peers. Sacramento, CA: California Research Bureau.

24 Kidd, S. A. (2003). Street youth: Coping and interventions. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 20(4), 235-261.

25 Hickler, B., & Auerswald, C. L. (2009). The worlds of homeless white and African American youth in San Francisco, California: A cultural epidemiological comparison. Social Science & Medicine, 68(5), 824-831.

26 Slesnick, N., Pushpanjali, D., Letcher, A., Erdem, G., & Serovich, J. (2009). A review of services and interventions for runaway and homeless youth: Moving forward. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 732-742.

27 National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2010). Counting homeless youth. Washington DC: National Alliance to End Homelessness.

For Additional Information Contact:

Dina Wilderson, PhDChief of Research and Evaluation

Larkin Street Youth Services701 Sutter Street, 3rd Floor

San Francisco, CA 94109P: (415) 673.0911, ext. 332

dwilderson@larkinstreetyouth.org

Since 1984, Larkin Street Youth Services has been committed to helping San Francisco’s most vulnerable youth ages 12-24 move beyond street life. This commitment has fueled the development of a comprehensive continuum of services that is nationally recognized as a model of innovative and effective care. We offer stability, safety and the opportunity

for a better life.

© 2011 Larkin Street Youth Services

Special thank you to Bijel Doshi for his assistance with the data analysis and development of this

report