1220 H Street, Ste. 103

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 340-0505

www.CalYouth.org

PART OF THE BIGGER PICTURE

Young people in California are very similar to young people across the nation: between 1 in 7 and 1 in 8 qualify as homeless or are at least on the verge of becoming homeless at some point during their teenage or early adult (18-21) years. Too many will either run away on more than one occasion, “age out” of a program like foster care or otherwise find that they have no options but homelessness as they are simply thrown out by uncaring or abusive families. And with the number of youth in California projected to exceed 6 million, it is not hard to see where the pool of California’s next generation of potential homeless individuals and families germinates.

Previous Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala noted several years ago that the number of homeless/runaway youth nationwide is somewhere between 500,000 and 1.5 million. A significant reason for this being, as the Carnegie Report on Adolescent Development noted, because “Young adults from all economic strata {now} find themselves alone in communities where there are few adults to turn to, and no safe places to go.” Or as Secretary Shalala herself put it most poignantly: “Where once we had front porches, we now have back decks—so the cry for help too often goes unnoticed, unheard, and unanswered.”

Exactly how many youth in California are runaway/homeless/throwaway at any given time is unknown and difficult to determine. Utilizing the numbers for at risk youth in California, the estimate for extreme vulnerability to homelessness could well be 750,000 youth in any given year. California’s Little Hoover Commission placed the number of such youth at between 200,000 and 400,000. Unfortunately, many of these youth are never “discovered,” as they learn to survive on their own without ever coming to the attention of the folks who could and should be able to help. Other studies have also shown confirmed that RHY populations have very significant related factors, including extremely high incidence of substance abuse, sexual abuse and exploitation, STDs, school drop outs, etc. These factors have also been suggested as part of the reason for the association of these youth with criminality, which again contributes to the likelihood that they could more easily fall into future homelessness.

In a recent informal story conveyed to the California Coalition for Youth makes this point well. At least one group of students asked local school administers how many youth in their schools were homeless or otherwise living in very unstable home settings. The administrators guessed that the number was about “one or two,” from moderate size schools. Yet when the students ask other students the same questions in the identical schools, the numbers grew to 100 or 200 of their friends and fellow students.

With such imprecision, it is not hard to see why it can be difficult to find a solution to this problem. The following information helps clarify some of this confusion, and provides an overview of how the State could start down a productive path to ensuring that California’s youth are more than a future problem in the making.

CALIFORNIA’s Runaway/Homeless Youth NETWORK

There is absolutely no question but that California has many elements—good elements—of a runaway/homeless support network in place. However, the conflicting demands of funders, the contradictory expectations of local regulations and the oftentimes frustrating lack of cooperation between authorities makes it impossible to determine how successful these efforts are for the youth themselves. And for that matter, it makes it difficult to come up with a precise understanding of how these programs can contribute to ending the cycle of homelessness or allowing vulnerable youth to be participants in the process of change.

One way to begin addressing these issues is to encourage the State of California to do four things:

A. Direct its various departments to work together to better understand what resources are already in place and how these federal, state and local monies are currently being used.

B. Find ways to ensure that many of the productive aspects of these programs are not lost (such as the ways that these programs involve youth themselves in running the programs or in community initiatives that strive to end homelessness);

C. Take the lead in ensuring that California does not lose out on its opportunity to gain access to the increasing federal revenues for RHY programs.

D. Build on the momentum of the federal government and several local legislative efforts to create a Younger Californian’s Act that helps integrate the opinions of young people themselves into public policy decisions for the future.

It was precisely for these reasons that the California Coalition for Youth (formerly known as the California Child, Youth and Family Coalition) developed SB64 (Chesbro), which seeks to document the scope, needs and capabilities of existing runaway/homeless youth (RHY) programs in California. Though written to have the Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP) take the lead in this assessment around its own programs, CCY’s greater goal was very much to broaden the scope of the inquiry to include all federal, state and local efforts to help RHYs, and, in addition, to more fully understand how rural and urban-based programs can work more efficiently together.

We believe that many of the details for implementing the ideas presented above could be achieved by passing SB 64 with sufficient credibility (i.e., strong statement by the Governor) to have its results accepted and acted upon. While it would not be our desire to create a big state bureaucracy, we do believe the State can play a productive role in coordinating efforts and sharing useful knowledge about best practices, needs, technology and other forms of communication.

EXISTING STATES FUNDS AND RELATED RESOURCES

In addition to understanding the broad picture of who California’s runaway/homeless youth are, the Governor’s Summit participants need to understand that there are indeed many programs in place already seeking to help youth in many regions of California. Below is an overview of the major, dedicated RHY programs that are funded by the State, followed by a brief overview of the federal programs now in operation with the State. There is little assessment of their impact since no coordinated effort has been undertaken to examine how they work together. There are, however, many anecdotal stories and local experiences that need to be acknowledged to truly understand how important these services are to 10s of thousands of vulnerable youth each year.

1. STATE FUNDED PROGRAMS

The bulk of the funding for easily identified, targeted RHY programs comes through OCJP. Their programs focus on “hard core” runaway youth and those experiencing or at risk of sexual exploitation while on the streets.

A recent report prepared by OCJP (January 29, 2002) overviewed these programs (Homeless Youth Emergency Service and Child Sexual Exploitation). Highlighting one of its own chief weaknesses, this report only covers program services located in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Clara and San Diego counties. There is clearly a great need to establish more state programs (by allocating more money) that can carry some of the same techniques to other communities. (Note: OCJP’s report, as discussed below, does provide statistics gathered by the California Youth Crisis Line (formerly known at the California Runaway Hotline), which fields crisis and support calls annually from about 25,000 callers throughout California, many of which are youth struggling with RHY issues. To the best of our knowledge, the California Youth Crisis Line is the only statewide homeless resource in existence at this time.)

To provide a general overview EMPHASIZING ONLY OCJP FUNDED SERVICES, their review states: “1,200 homeless youth entered into stabilization programs to help them exit street life. At the same time, 11,000 youth were provided some form of emergency services such as outreach or shelter. Approximately 14 percent of the youth who are provided services are considered to be situational runaways, meaning the youth has runaway from family issues that can be worked out so the youth may return home. 27 percent of the youth have runaway from home due to issues of abuse or neglect in the home. The remaining homeless youth are primarily considered to be: undocumented migrant workers, throwaways/push-outs (told to leave by their parents) or chronic runaways.”

The primary grantees for these OCJP programs and their associated subcontractors are listed below. In general, these programs struggle to ensure that there is a basic network of care available. The main grantees administer the overall operation, often hire key staff and monitor spending and reporting compliance. The subcontractors provide varying degrees of outreach assistance, food, shelter support, primary medical care, psychosocial services, peer-based prevention and educational services.

SAN FRANCSICO:

Grantee: Larkin Street Youth Center

Subcontractors:

Huckleberry House

Diamond Youth Shelter

Central City Hospitality House/Larkin Opportunities for Youth

Larkin Street Medical Clinic

Huckleberry Youth Programs/Cole Street Youth Clinic

LOS ANGELES:

Grantee: Division of Adolescent Medicine of

Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles

Subcontractors:

Los Angeles Youth Network

Los Angeles Free Clinic

1736 Family Crisis Center

Angel’s Flight

The Way In

Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center

Prototypes

SANTA CLARA:

Grantee: Bill Wilson Center

Cooperating Agencies:

Bill Wilson Center Alternative School

State Department of Social Services

Santa Clara County Office of Education

Gardener Family Health Center

SAN DIEGO:

Grantee: San Diego Youth and Community Services

Cooperating Agencies:

Downtown Community Clinic

Logan Heights Family Health Clinic

Other non-specified drug and alcohol,

HIV and health or counseling programs also support the project.

OTHER CALIFORNIA FUNDED RESOURCES

In addition to these programs, other funds are available for varying aspects of transitional and supportive housing assistance, many of which are noted throughout the Governor’s Summary Report. It is virtually impossible to determine the level of involvement of these projects in the lives of runaway/homeless youth, in part because of the fact that many young adults (18 to 21) receive services in the adult programs because of a lack of clear directives around the needs of young adults and the trend within California to de-emphasize young adults receiving assistance in youth programs (though federal programs and many professionals believe this trend in California is inappropriate). No assessment is available that details how youth are involved in many of these programs, making it very difficult to determine their impact or the role they play in overall youth assistance for housing, health or mental health needs.

CALIFORNIA YOUTH CRISIS LINE

The Youth Emergency Telephone Referral Network Program (aka California Youth Crisis Line) is operated by the California Coalition for Youth. It was designed to augment the services of the providers listed above and other RHY programs, offering round-the-clock telephone-based counseling, support and referrals when other outreach options were not available. In operation for more than 15 years, the Crisis Line now is a toll-free, non-threatening number that can be accessed by any youth (or even adult supporters) from any telephone location in the state. The Crisis Line staff (6-7) and volunteers (7-10) maintain a database with more than 5,000 referral options that are updated continuously, allowing for very precise referrals as callers seek assistance on critical mental health, family and school issues known to be associated with RHY behaviors. The Crisis Line personnel utilize “active listening” and other forms of support to encourage youth to seek productive assistance and/or begin the process of family or relationship reunification.

In FY 2000/01, the hotline received over 23,000 calls with 77% of these calls coming from 12-24 year-old youth in crisis and 23% from other concerned individuals (adults and youth). Approximately 63% of the callers are female. Significant numbers of youth who call are persons of color (Latino, 31%; African American, 23%), with 41% identifying as White or Caucasian. The largest majority of calls are from 17-18 (23%) and 15-16 (21%) year olds. An assessment of the Caller Topics statistics indicates that the overall concerns of youth utilizing the Crisis Line are centered on runaway/homeless issues (1,652), youth who are out of control (1,871) family issues (1,995), relationship problems (1,189), depression (1,591), parental and personal substance abuse (961) and teen pregnancy/parenting or sexuality concerns (1,000+). In addition, it is also clear that topics relating to sexuality, sexual orientation, assault and abuse or neglect are high on the priority list of the callers who engage in in-depth discussions with our staff and volunteers.

Perhaps the most significant numbers are those reflected in the “patch through” calls we receive. The Crisis Line facilitated 5,480 patch through calls in 2001 to parents and 2,089 patches to service providers. In this manner, youth are connected in a safe manner with a family member or a service provider (counselor, social worker, etc.) to encourage a productive reunification if at all possible. Our informal assessment of these calls indicates that the service is being used to ensure that the youth have adequate support and assistance when they return home from another location (such as a mental health in patient program or when they are on the street) or during periods of crisis that could easily lead to prolonged homelessness. Monitored calls indicate that youth and their family members make plans, share expectations, discuss issues of concern and negotiate other difficult subjects during their conversations.

2. FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS

There are approximately 40 federally funded Basic Shelter, Transitional Living and Street Outreach Programs in California. These programs bring in approximately $6-8 million in direct federal (HUD/HHS) dollars and a like or greater amount in matching funds for capital and other special needs. The BC, TLC and SOP are focused on operating costs, requiring that each of the shelters and associated programs find their own means for preparing and maintaining the physical structures for housing and shelter (mostly local dollars, which are reported to be much easier to obtain because of the existence of the federal dollars as a base).

Some of the most recent data (though not completely reliable at this time) comes from the management information system of the many programs that operate in California using federal funds. Known as RHYMIS, this system is the federal government’s primary source for collecting RHY computerized client data from the youth in the BC, TLC and SOP services. Their outreach and service data indicate that from April through September 2001 these agencies made over 10,000 (unduplicated) client contacts. They similarly distributed more than 8,600 fliers and brochures to targeted runaway/homeless youth and gave away 35,000+ health and hygiene kits or food packages. (Fully usable, web-based data from RHYMIS is scheduled to be available within a few months.)

The TLC and SOP are nationally competitive grants, meaning the placement of these programs in California is subject to the assessment of the grant applications submitted by agencies from across the state, though there is a clear focus on establishing a viable need in the application. The Basic Center (BC) grants, however, are determined on the size of the youth population in each state as an attempt to ensure that these programs are available, at least minimally, to all youth communities. The following is a listing of the agencies in California that currently receive these funds:

o 1736 Family Crisis Center, Redondo Beach BC

o Bill Wilson Center, Santa Clara BC, SOP, TLC

o Boys Town of Southern California, Long Beach BC

o Butte County, HERE Project BC

o Casa Youth Shelter, Los Alamitos BC

o Catholic Charities, Angel’s Flight, Los Angeles BC, SOP

o Center for Human Services, Modesto BC

o Center for Positive Prevention, Stockton BC, SOP, TLC

o Community Human Services, Monterey BC

o Community Service Programs, Santa Ana BC

o Contra Costa Health Center, Martinez BC

o Covenant House, Hollywood SOP

o Diogenes Youth Services, Sacramento BC, SOP, TLP

o Emergency Housing Consortium, San Jose SOP, BC

o Escondido Youth Encounter, Escondido BC

o Family Service Agency, Redding BC

o Fresno County/Sanctuary Project, Fresno BC, SOP, TLP

o Gay & Lesbian Adolescent Social, Hollywood SOP

o Huckleberry Youth Programs, San Francisco BC

o Interface Children, Family Services, Camarillo BC

o Larkin Street Youth Center, San Francisco BC, SOP, TLP

o Life Steps Foundation, San Luis Obispo BC

o Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center, Hollywood SOP

o Los Angeles Youth Network, Los Angeles BC

o Mendocino County Youth Project, Ukiah BC, SOP

o New Morning Youth & Family, Placerville BC

o Noah’s Anchorage, Santa Barbara BC, SOP

o Northern California Family Center, Martinez BC

o Oceanside, City of BC

o Operation Safehouse, Riverside BC, SOP, TLP

o Redwood Region Youth Service Bureau, Eureka BC, SOP, TLP

o Salvation Army/The Way In, Los Angeles BC

o San Diego Youth & Community, San Diego BC, TLP

o Santa Cruz Community Counseling, Santa Cruz BC

o Social Advocates for Youth, San Jose BC

o Social Advocates for Youth, Santa Rosa BC, SOP

o Solutions Education Enrichment, Rialto BC

o South Bay Community Services, Chula Vista BC

o Tahoe Youth & Family Services, South Lake Tahoe BC

o YMCA Youth & Family Services, San Diego BC

o Youth & Family Assistance, Redwood City BC, SOP

o Volunteers of America/Huntington, Huntington Beach BC, SOP

o Wind Youth Center, Sacramento BC

o Xanthos, Alameda BC, SOP

FEDERAL FUNDING LOOKS … Mixed

There are many indicators that the Bush Administration has an interest in RHY concerns. However, for California the funding situation for federal programs is not as desirable as it should be. Current (2003) grant allocation charts indicate that available funds for BC grants are less than the dollars now being spent on the programs listed above, meaning that many of these programs could well experience 5-10% or greater cuts in this particularly important bottom line service. At the same time, some competitive funding has been increased for particular programs (such as the Transitional Living Programs, which are not allocated by population numbers), meaning California could lose out on its needed funding without proper monitoring of the grants processes. These programs may also be funded with an eye toward their inclusion of faith-based and teen pregnancy/abstinence issues that can cause political discomfort in a state like California.

3. OVERVIEW OF ISSUES OF CONCERN:

As with the adult population, there are many overlapping areas of concern that need to be addressed, either separately or within a coordinated system of care. These issues have been provided from a number of inquiries to providers and to youth themselves through forums put together by youth advocacy projects across the state.

Among some of the more important issues (but not necessarily prioritized) are the following:

ü Inconsistent funding of existing programs

ü Insufficient availability of housing for youth and young adults

ü Extreme prevalence of sexual exploitation/abuse of youth

ü Difficulties with age-sensitive job training and support programs

ü Language-sensitive programs and other services for needs of RHY immigrant youth

ü Lack of coordinated visibility of youth working to help other youth

ü Law enforcement pressure on youth, even in areas where services are being provided

ü Lack of supportive mental health and drug treatment services for youth

ü Mentoring services not readily available to RHYs

ü Difficulty in getting adequate documentation (e.g., medical records) for school or services

ü Inconsistent access to health care and little adequate follow-through

ü Lack of clarity about when youth can consent to services for themselves

ü Perception by youth that they can be arrested for leaving abusive family settings

ü NO CONSISTENT POLICY FOR ENDING HOMELESSNESS AND INCLUDING YOUTH IN OUR COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS

There are many ways to address the problems listed above. CCY recommends that we clearly and consistently listen to the current providers and to the youth in achieving this goal. Integrating existing services better (with adequate technology AND training) to ensure that all youth have access to available programs is one step.

In addition to the issues noted above, there are several pressing concerns that need to be reviewed and addressed:

Age discrimination in the provision of California RHY services.

California has begun a trend that requires shelter programs funded by state dollars to allow homeless adults of any age to be housed with young adults (18 to 21), leading providers of programs directed to younger youth or young adults to fear direct loss of state funding or age-discrimination suits. For example, at least three programs in California (San Francisco, Redwood City, Riverside) that were receiving locally-controlled EHAP funds lost these funds in 2001 specifically because of a Department of Housing and Community Development interpretation that classified their use of state dollars to provide programs for youth and young adults as age discrimination because the programs were not operating under federal directives that stated that it was okay to serve up to age 21.This trend is particularly bothersome in light of the fact that federally-funded programs (including those in California) have moved in the opposite direction over the years, due to a realization that the needs of homeless 18-21-year-olds, particularly those who have recently left the foster care system, are often quite different than the needs of homeless adults in their 30's, 40's, 50's and beyond; older adults who have been homeless for a long time may expose young adults to undesirable aspects of street life, or even potentially exploit their inexperience. Pending legislation (Abs 1354, 2337 and 2972) will alleviate these risks and allow for developmentally appropriate intervention strategies for 18-21-year-olds.

Housing Shortages

When asked to list their major concerns for homeless youth, program after program continues to note the severe lack of affordable housing options for youth and young adults who are striving to become self-sufficient. Supporting the Housing Bond Act of 2002 is an important step in this direction if the funds are guaranteed to contribute to youth housing concerns as well.

Foster Care Transitions

A recent report by the California Youth Connection focused on many of the concerns of youth who are struggling to survive the foster care system. Foster care youth are often forced to emancipate without proper preparation or even following years of inconsistent monitoring. Other youth, in their later years, simply find themselves unable to benefit from foster care at all and have homelessness as the only available options. California’s system of having local governments control Independent and Transitional Living Programs often makes for inconsistent services with little focus on helping the youth be prepared for self-sufficiency.

There have been many changes in the Foster Care system, some of which could be helpful. Projects such as the California Youth Connection need to be consulted on the particular topics that foster care youth experience.. A recent report, entitled “A Summary of Foster Youth Recommendations from California Youth Connection Conferences,” lists many potential issues that should be considered.

NO VOICE FOR YOUTH IN DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

This factor alone may account for why so many are at risk of future homelessness since, at one of the most vulnerable periods of their lives, they are not being adequately prepared for civic independence. Federal legislation, such as the Younger Americans' Act, and several state legislative models, including (number of the state bills that were recently vetoed), attempt to introduce the idea of empowering young people across the board through policy-making opportunities in order to ensure that all youth are able to participate in making our state a brighter place for themselves, their peers, and all future Californians.

NOTE: The California Coalition for Youth is a nonprofit, membership collaboration that represents individuals and agencies throughout California who support youth-adult partnerships and the creation of policies and laws that include youth in the making of our future. We also operate the California Youth Crisis Line, as described in this publication. More information about CCY is available on our website, www.CalYouth.org.