History of youth homelessness and Evolution of Drop-in Centers as intervention

1. History of youth homelessness and Evolution of Drop-in Centers as intervention Natasha Slesnick Professor and Associate Dean of Research Founder, Star House This work was supported by National Institute on Drug Abuse Grant Nos. R01DA023908, R34DA032699

2. History of YOUTH HOMELESSNESS 1600’s – 1800’s: Runaways were some of the first immigrants to the US Before civil war, many left poor families to seek work in factories, but many ended up on street corners when not needed in plants. Child labor and indentured servitude acceptable.

3. History End of 1800’s: Government became increasingly involved with runaways Cultural norms shifted: Children viewed as dependent on parent, needing supervision When parents could not provide for youth, placed in alternative living situations Reform schools, like prisons Runaways = Delinquents

4. History 1930’s: Great depression-youth left with consent of parents Police and juvenile courts had primary responsibility for addressing runaways End of 1930’s Cultural norms shifted: Incorrigible teen to individual pathology

5. History 1940’s-1950’s: Training schools and mental hospitals became primary intervention 1960’s: Running away reached middle America Research began to document reasons for running away 1968 APA “Runaway Reaction”

6. History 1974: Congress passed Runaway Youth Act. 1980: “Runaway Reaction” removed as a mental disorder Runaways could be taken into law enforcement custody Criminalization dates back to 1800s Still a status offense in 11 states

7. Some History of Drop-in’s 1960’s: The Bridge Over Troubled Waters in Boston opened with street outreach and a mobile medical van. Drop-in opened in 1998. 1970’s: NYC’s The Door opened in 1972. 1980’s: Larkin Street in San Francisco opened in 1984. Several L.A. drop-ins opened in the 80’s and 90’s as well.

8. Current RHY programs authorized by RHY Act (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act), as amended by the Runaway, Homeless and Missing Children Protection Act of 2003. Basic Centers, Street Outreach, TLPs (1988/1990)

9. Current What about drop-in centers? Evidence to support drop-in centers.

10. Research Findings: Drop-in’s versus shelters 80% of youth in the drop-in linkage condition accessed the drop-in, while 12.8% youth in the shelter condition accessed a shelter. • - In fact, more youth in the drop-in condition accessed shelter services (32.5%) than youth assigned to the shelter condition (12.8%).

11. Drop-ins preferred but so what? Compared to shelter linkage condition, drop-in linkage was associated with: • -More service use overall (14 v. 10). • -Better alcohol use outcomes (50% less). • -Increased HIV knowledge.

12. Overall Housing outcomes At 9 months: • -33% reported stable housing in the prior 3 months. • -Number of youth sleeping outdoors (in park, under a bridge, in the woods) decreased from 57% to 21%.

13. conclusions 1. Connection to services is critical. 2. Increase funding for drop-in centers and for strengths-based outreach and engagement.

14. Contact Info: Natasha Slesnick: Slesnick.5@osu.edu 614 247-8469 College of Education and Human Ecology The Ohio State University