Abstract

What education strategies need to come into play for youth who are homeless?  Approximately 400 young people sleep on the streets of Denver every night, marking a 100% increase in youth homelessness since 1997 (D’Alanno 1998; D’Alanno 2002). Borrowing the term "further education" from the European Union to encompass the myriad of vocational and educational opportunities available after high school, this paper examines the barriers that homeless youth identify in their transition into further education. Data is derived from surveying 109 homeless young people and interviewing five service providers involved either in a homeless and runaway youth program or via an agency offering advanced educational services to that population, in Denver, Colorado. This study employed pragmatic mixed-methodology to begin a conversation about the gaps in service delivery systems currently employed to assist this population in accessing further education. Addressing a gap in the literature with respect to "best practices" that involves removing barriers for homeless youth to access further education, this study found that:

1. While not enrolled in further education at the time of the survey, 88% of those homeless youth sampled wanted to begin college or vocational school.

2. Homeless youth rated having both the money to live on and the money to go to school as their biggest barrier and saving money as the most necessary step before admission. Supports deemed helpful were: speaking with a counselor about financial aid (79.5%), speaking with a counselor to sort out options regarding both school and work (70%), and speaking with a counselor about life options and goals (61.7%).

3. Homeless youth were also aware of the educational challenges inherent in having lived on the streets and 65.7% reported the need for tutoring aid in order to be successful once enrolled.

4. Further education professionals and service providers view homeless or newly stable young people as facing a greater complexity of issues than the sample identifies. The challenges seen by support professionals include: lack of problem solving skills, obstacles meeting requirements for obtaining parental information and permissions, difficulty in navigating educational systems, affordable housing, child-care, transportation, and substance abuse issues.

Providing comprehensive wrap-around services coordinated by both service providers and further educational agencies could result in high levels of success for previously homeless and runaway street youth. "Best practices" center on moving slowly, providing a wide range of supports for at least two years, and educational mentoring to help train youth to advocate for themselves in what had previously been a foreign setting. This suggests a need for further research to examine these profiles in the sample with respect to substance abuse and mental health variables to determine what impact, if any, this has on their pursuit of further education.  Interested?  Follow the ReadMore link

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to identify existing barriers that homeless youth face in accessing and transitioning into further education. Homeless youth have further education aspirations that are consistent with those of other high school aged youth. According to our study, 89% of homeless youth expressed interest in furthering their education, while 88% of eighth graders aspired to participate in some form of higher education (Thoumpoucis, 2004). In actuality, 70% of high school students graduate and attend further education within two years of graduating, while only 7% of homeless youth are currently enrolled in further education . This study took place in Denver, Colorado and outcomes were determined by analyzing data collected from a pre-existing point-in-time survey and through in-depth interviews with homeless youth, service providers and further education professionals. This data lends itself to a discussion involving some of the barriers that exist for homeless youth seeking to access further education programs. This paper both identifies barriers that prevent young people from engaging in further education opportunities, and outlines potential mechanisms to support these young people in further education programs in order to prevent and/or reduce attrition.

Nationally, Robertson & Toro (1998) estimate that every year there are 1.6 million homeless and runaway youth in the United States. Existing research limits this perspective largely to coastal metropolitan cities (i.e. New York, New Jersey, San Francisco and Los Angeles). As a result, there are no recorded efforts to study this population in-depth in smaller, inner-costal cities such as Denver. Slesnick et al. (2000) underscore that homeless and runaway youth is an “understudied and ignored population, primarily due to methodological challenges in locating, treating and retaining youth in treatment.” At the time of this paper, the economy in the Denver area remains relatively uncertain, as unemployment rates are at 5.5% and housing costs remain high (Colorado Department of Labor and Employment 2003; Rebchook 2003). A local newspaper reports that “a sputtering economy coupled with increased housing costs in Denver has created the largest homeless population in years” (Montero, 2004). How does this translate to homeless adolescent populations in Denver? According to a study coordinated three years ago by the Metro Denver Homeless Initiative and the State of Colorado, on any given night, there are 197 youths (under the age of 21) sleeping on the streets of Denver (D’Alanno, 1998). A survey, conducted in the fall of 2000, found 254 homeless youths, an increase of almost 29% (D’Alanno, 2000). The most recent point-in-time survey reflects an even greater increase in the number of youth sleeping on the streets, with a total of 397 counted (D’Alanno, 2002). This marks an increase of over 100% in the number of young people sleeping on the streets of Denver over a five-year period of time.

Context and Implications

The context of youth homeless service providers varies widely throughout the U.S. This paper makes pragmatic use of basic survey data and qualitative interviews to design services that both reduce barriers to further education and sustain young people in their pursuit of independence. Fest (1998) asserts that the services offered to these street youth in the past have not worked well, which, in turn, perpetuates the assumption that the potential for success for this group is limited. The argument follows that it is a lack of recognition for the unique aspects of street life that is “responsible for most of the mistakes that are made when working with street youth, and the reason why so many attempts to serve this population fail” (Fest, 1998). A better understanding of the existing barriers to further education for homeless youth in Denver would facilitate better programming to provide homeless youth with necessary services and support that would assist them in succeeding in moving beyond their GED or diploma.

Many youth in the general population find themselves unprepared for college, and in need of taking remedial classes to be able to function in a further learning environment. This is due to a disconnect between high schools and community colleges about what is considered "prepared" (Troumpoucis, 2004). This problem is exasperated for homeless youth, many of whom have not attended school for many years or engaged in a classroom environment. Not surprisingly, there are few programs that link out-of-school, highly-transient youth to further education beyond a high school diploma (Allen, et al, 2004). Additionally, the current college-age population is composed of increasing minority and disadvantaged populations. Preparation of this population has been deficient by most standards, resulting in lower rates of high school graduation and fewer opportunities for further education (Laguardia, 1998). Termed "a leaking pipeline to self sufficient adulthood" many young people living on the edge of society will fall through the cracks, and may not find the pathway to productive adulthood (Allen, et al, 2004).

Further education providers are increasingly concerned about their ability to attract and retain students in the future. As a result, the higher education community, kindergarten through twelfth grade schools, and other educational providers are beginning to research and evaluate their ability to prepare and enroll the growing number of disadvantaged and minority students seeking admission (Laguardia, 1998). Communication between service providers and high schools is particularly important to bridge the transition into further education for homeless youth.

This paper attempts to move the discussion beyond basic service delivery and examine what components are necessary to engage homeless youth in further education opportunities that will ensure that they both remain off the streets and begin contributing and engaging in society as stable members of the community.

Homeless Youth in Denver, Colorado: Understanding the Target Population

Urban Peak

Homeless and runaway youth have been shown to require a continuum of support around employment and education, health care, drug and alcohol treatment, mental health treatment and housing (Fest 1998; Slesnick et al. 2000; Robertson & Toro 1998; Cauce, A. et al. (2000); Leslie, M., Stein, J. & Rotheram-Borus, M. (2002). In response to the growing number of youth living on the streets of Denver, Colorado, Urban Peak began serving this population in 1988. Urban Peak is currently the only licensed homeless and runaway youth shelter in Colorado serving young people between the ages of 15 and 20. Offering a continuum of care including shelter, intensive case management, medical care, food, job counseling, GED training, mental health and substance abuse treatment, outreach, and other essential needs. The mission of the agency is to assist youth in permanently exiting the streets. According to Urban Peak, homeless and runaway youth rely on a continuum of care in order to permanently exit street life. While there are some state resources available to serve this population, there exists a clear disconnection between service providers and homeless and runaway youth, especially with respect to educational programming. Because of the diversity of needs that this population requires, service providers face tremendous challenges in offering assistance in an integrated and cohesive approach.

Similar to other cities, homeless and runaway youth in Denver comprise a dynamic, complex population facing considerable obstacles to exiting the streets. Of the 805 youth accessing services via Urban Peak in 2002, 40% of these young people received mental health treatment (Urban Peak Corporation, 2002). The services that the population of homeless and runaway youth accessed most readily in 2002 include overnight shelter (nightly average, 34), street outreach (7,414 duplicated contacts), case management (805 individual youth) and education and employment services (attended high school or GED classes, 73; GED obtained, 19; jobs acquired, 147) (Urban Peak Corporation 2002). Among other obstacles facing this population, Van Leeuwen et al. (2002) point to the high infectivity rates of young people on the streets (11.6% and 2.7% for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae respectively). This combination of health care needs, employment and education needs, mental health care and substance abuse treatment speak to the complex obstacles that prevent young people from permanently exiting the streets.

Ethnic minorities are over-represented, compared to the general population of Colorado. According to the 2002 annual report of this homeless and runaway youth shelter (Urban Peak Corporation 2002), the ethnic composition of youth receiving services is as follows: Caucasian (53%); African American (17%); Latino/a (11%); Native American (3%); and “Other”/Multiracial (16%). One percent of the population self-identifies as transgendered and 18% are under the age of 18.

Methodology

This study employed a pragmatic mixed methods research design. Secondary data included results from a survey conducted by staff of Urban Peak in which a total of 109 homeless youth were sampled. This survey, distributed in the spring and summer of 2004, was administered by staff persons involved in providing services to homeless or recently homeless youth via street outreach, shelter and housing programs. The survey was distributed to young people contacted via street outreach, youth living in the shelter and youth involved in Urban Peak housing programs. Because of the rapport that the outreach team has established with the youth on the streets, no subjects declined the survey. All youth encountered during survey distribution were provided access to routine Urban Peak services regardless of their participation in the study. There was no incentive provided to participate in the survey. Youth were informed upon introduction that the survey was optional; the decision not to participate in the survey would not exclude youth from receiving the full range of Urban Peak services. The survey was conducted anonymously. Urban Peak had previously administered this survey as part of their ongoing efforts to evaluate their services for this population.

A pilot survey was distributed to seven youth that were residents at the homeless and runaway youth shelter, to ensure that the questions were clearly phrased, and revisions were made accordingly. A number of modifications were made after feedback from the youth and a final version was drafted. The survey tool took approximately 5-10 minutes to administer to youth. Convenience sampling techniques were employed, as is typical with low profile disadvantaged populations. Shelter staff responsible for collecting data participated in ongoing meetings with their supervisor to ensure interviewer consistency. To protect confidentiality, no identifying numbers or codes were included on the survey. To guard against duplication, every participant was asked if they had already filled out one of these surveys.

Four in-depth qualitative interviews were then conducted with professionals that either work for Urban Peak or partner with the organization to provide further educational services to recently homeless youth. These semi-structured interviews inquired about vocational schools, community colleges and the shelter, each offering unique perspectives and insight into service delivery gaps for this population. Quantitative results from the youth were discussed with the service professionals supporting them. Differences in perspectives emerge as do suggestions for future programming and research.

Results and Discussion

Of the 109 survey respondents, 54% were male and 30% female with 16% declining to answer demographics questions. Only 12 (11%) reported as currently being enrolled in a program of further education; 93% were not currently enrolled in college or vocational training; 89% wanted to make use of some future opportunity for education, but 41% reported needing assistance before deciding what programs they wanted to pursue.

What did the young people perceive as their greatest challenges to successfully addressing their goal of further education? As shown in the table below, financial support was involved in the top three answers; 79% identified having money to live on as well as tuition; and 76% identified saving money prior to entering school as an obstacle and 67% identified having the money for tuition. Personal challenges rated less high on their scales of concern. Slightly over half (54%) of the sample identified motivation to complete their schooling as a barrier. Temptation to "party" is a concern for 36%, only 19% of the felt substance abuse was a problem they would need to address prior to further education.

The assistance and resources they perceived as being of greatest importance parallels with the perceived need reported above. Services they identified as priorities included: speaking with a counselor that would help them with financial aid and scholarship forms (80%); speaking with a counselor that would help with issues related to personal finance (74%); and, career and job counseling to help them decide on the right type of further education to meet their goals (67%).

Further education professionals and shelter program providers agreed on four points. First, stable housing is a prerequisite need that must be addressed prior to enrollment. Second, enrollment should be limited to part-time (e.g. one class) in order to gradually integrate the student into stable independent living situations, combining education with housing. Third, the skills required to maintain such stability, after having lived on the streets, take time to become manifest in the individual. For instance child-care, transportation, and substance abuse, frequently prevents successful access to further education. The following remarks by one of the respondents points to the interrelatedness of these issues:

(Regarding) Transportation, do they live on or off campus, most are going to community college so traveling to school somehow. Denver is not an area where mass transit is the easiest way to get around, so you have to make sure their housing is relatively close to school. Its also an affordable housing issue, you can't go to school if you are living out of your car, or in a homeless shelter.

Fourth, memories of previous problems with schools, or lack of support from families, was seen as having multiple components in creating a negative experience. For instance, a young person may be the first in their family to try to obtain a college degree and this lack of familial modeling equates to the young person having a limited knowledge base of how to maneuver complex educational systems. These young people have survived on the streets through solving problems related to getting their most basic needs met, but may find themselves unable to address issues that other youth overcame in high school. The following quotation from community college personnel illustrates the intimidation felt by new students and how small frustrations may have big impact when students don’t have the support system they need to help them navigate new circumstances:

One of the biggest problems is often they are the first in their families to attend college, or its their first time trying to have some success getting an education. One of the biggest obstacles is walking on to campus, finding parking, transportation to campus, finding daycare. There was a student that couldn't find parking on the first day and turned around and went home, because that part was too stressful.

Current programs and the interface between them from area youth serving agencies to community colleges are deficient in providing the depth of case management needed. The homeless shelter provider comments:

We see kids fall off the radar screen, there really needs to be a liaison. If we enroll 20 young people, we need to really make sure they are working their case plans, taking care of their housing, mental health, substance abuse, but there really isn't anyone checking in to see how they are doing in school. We don't have the capacity to do that, so if there was someone who was an kind of an aftercare education person who would met them on campus to see how classes are going, do some extra curricular activities with the young people to help them through the first year of college. It would probably make a huge difference; we don't have a lot of follow up on that. The college liaisons have acknowledged that as a deficit, but aren't able to provide that, these young people are needing a lot more check-in that a normal youth would.

Programmatic considerations that emerge from these data include a new model for “systemic modeling.” This idea is systemic in multiple ways, as much as good parenting involves itself in multiple aspects of a child’s life. The complexity of this model is established by the following example: Imagine that the young person in question is set up in housing near enough to campus to ensure ease of attending classes on time and that child care issues have been addressed via community partnerships involving the public, private, and non profit sectors. Case managers, mentors and other providers (e.g. therapists, friends, family members) would guide the young person through the process of enrollment, selecting classes, and other college routines in a similar fashion to how middle class parents take their children to school. These supports maintain regular contact in order to respond to issues as they arise to support the youth to be successful in their integration and transition to further education For example, issues that might require their assistance include setting up an area for studying and systems of discipline to ensure that homework is completed on time. Finally, these mentors work to help these young people navigate new social arenas, connect with extracurricular activities and redefine their peer group to include students from more stable backgrounds.

Conclusions

This study was not intended to generate a comprehensive understanding of the complex issues involved in homeless street youth pursing their dreams of further education. Rather, this research stimulates conversation among service providers of hard-to-reach youth homeless youth and contributes to future program development. On one hand, the study acknowledges that the systemic modeling services suggested here would be very costly to implement when measured on a per youth basis. On the other hand, in 2003, Urban Peak’s research showed that finding permanent housing for homeless street youth is a financially viable alternative to other types of interventions (VanLeeuwen, 2004).

Homeless youth encompass a growing population of young people in cities across the country. It is critical that inquiry as outlined in this study begins to inform providers around innovative practices that engage youth to be successful in pursuits of further education. Education is an important tool to ensure that homeless youth permanently exit the street, avoiding further involvement from support systems. In an environment of limited economic resources, it is essential that non profit providers of homeless youth support this population in accessing further education opportunities that are currently available.

Further research is needed to outline the variety of support systems that exist within the vocational and community college systems that could collaborate with community level mentors. Qualitative descriptions of collaborative efforts and best practices between non profit organizations serving homeless and recently homeless youth are necessary to report findings on "best practices." We recommend that funding sources, both within the context of vocational and higher education and the philanthropic organizations that support non profits, should consider financial support for pilot projects that would provide personnel to offer the systemic mentoring outlined through this study. Further research is needed to understand the impact that other variables identified in this study, such as mental health issues and substance abuse impact the pursuit of further education for homeless youth.

References

Allen, L., Almeida, C., Stienberg, A. (2004). From the prison track to the college track. Jobs for the Future.

Cauce, A. M., Paradise, M., Ginzler, A., Embry, L., Morgan, C. J., Lohr, Y., & Theofelis, J. (2000). The characteristics and mental health of homeless adolescents: Age and gender differences. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 230-239.

D’Alanno, T. A. (1998). Homelessness in the Denver metropolitan area: A base line point in time study. Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative.

D’Alanno, T. A. (2000). Homelessness in the Denver metropolitan area: A base line point in time study. Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative.

D’Alanno, T. A. (2002). Homelessness in the Denver metropolitan area: A base line point in time study. Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative.

Fest, J. T. (1998). Street Culture: An epistemology of street-dependent youth. Portland: J JT Fest.

Laguardia, A. (1998). A survey of school/college partnerships for minority and disadvantaged students. The Urban Review, 30, 167-186.

Leslie, M.B., Stein, J.A., & Rotheram-Borus, M.J. (2002). Sex-specific predictors of suicidality among runaway youth. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31, 27-40.

Montero, D. (2004). Homelessness grows. Rocky Mountain News.

Rebchook, J. (2003). Housing bubble will burst. Rocky Mountain News.

Robertson, M., & Toro, P. (1998). Homeless youth: Research, intervention, and policy. The 1988 national symposium on homelessness research. US Department of Housing and Urban Development: Washington, D.C.

Slesnick, N., Meyers, R. J., Meade, M., & Segelken, D. H. (2000). Bleak and hopeless no more: Engagement of reluctant substance-abusing runaway youth and their families. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 19, 215-222.

Thoumpoucis, P. (2004). From here to there. Community College Week, 16, 6-9.

Urban Peak Corporation (2002). Annual report: Fiscal year 2001. Denver: Urban Peak.

Van Leeuwen, J. V., Rietmeijer, C. A., LeRoux, T., White, R. & Petersen, J. (2002). Reaching homeless youth for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae screening in Denver, Colorado. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 78, 357-359.

Van Leeuwen, J. V., Hopfer, C., Hooks, S. White, R., Petersen, J. & Pirkopf, J., (Forthcoming). A snapshot of substance abuse among homeless and runaway youth in Denver, Colorado. Journal of Community Health.

Van Leeuwen, J. V. (2004). Reaching the hard to reach: Innovative housing for homeless youth through strategic partnerships. Child Welfare League of America.