HomelessYouth-1-24.indd

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND

TRANSGENDER YOUTH

An Epidemic of

Homelessness

by Nicholas Ray

with chapters contributed by

Colby Berger, Waltham House, Waltham, Mass.

Susan Boyle, Urban Peak, Denver, Colo.

Mary Jo Callan and Mia White, Ozone House, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Grace McCelland, Ruth Ellis Center, Detroit, Mich.

Theresa Nolan, Green Chimneys, New York, N.Y.

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute

National Coalition for the Homeless

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

The National Gay and Lesbian Task

Force Policy Institute is a think tank

dedicated to research, policy analysis and

strategy development to advance greater

understanding and equality for lesbian,

gay, bisexual, and transgender people.

Washington, DC

1325 Massachusetts Ave NW, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20005-4171

Tel 202

393

5177

Fax 202

393

2241

New York, NY

80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1504

New York, NY 10038

Tel 212

604

9830

Fax 212

604

9831

Los Angeles, CA

8704 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 200

West Hollywood, CA 90069

Tel 310 855 7380

Fax 310 358 9415

ngltf@thetaskforce.org

Cambridge, MA

1151 Massachusetts Avenue

Cambridge, MA 02138

Tel 617

492

6393

Fax 617

492

0175

Miami, FL

3510 Biscayne Blvd Suite 206

Miami, FL 33137

Tel 305 571 1924

Fax 305 571 7298

Minneapolis, MN

810 West 31st Street

Mineeapolis, MN 55408

Tel/Fax 612 821 4397

www.thetaskforce.org

When referencing this document, we recommend the following citation:

Ray, N. (2006). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth: An epidemic

of homelessness. New York: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy

Institute and the National Coalition for the Homeless.

National Coalition

for the Homeless

www.nationalhomeless.org

iii

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Why are so many LGBT youth becoming homeless? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What impact does homelessness have on LGBT youth specifically?

. . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Mental health issues

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Substance abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Risky sexual behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Victimization of homeless LGBT youth

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

LGBT homeless youth and the Juvenile and criminal justice systems . . . . . . . . .

Transgender homeless youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The federal response to youth homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The potential for anti-LGBT discrimination at faith-based service providers

. . .4

The experiences of LGBT homeless youth in the shelter system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Model programs to improve service delivery to LGBT homeless youth

. . . . . . . . . . .6

Conclusion and policy recommendations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Federal level recommendations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

State and local level recommendations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Practitioner level recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

What is the definition of “homeless youth?”

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

HOW MANY LGBT HOMELESS YOUTH ARE THERE

AND WHY DO THEY BECOME HOMELESS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

A note on acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Barriers to a more accurate count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Why do youth become homeless?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Sexual orientation and gender identity issues

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Physical or sexual assault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Additional factors that lead to homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Why do youth remain homeless?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

THE FEDERAL RESPONSE TO YOUTH HOMELESSNESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A brief legislative history

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Congress acts

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Federal programs for homeless youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Basic Center Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Street Outreach Program

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Transitional Living Program

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

National Runaway Switchboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal funding under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act

. . . . . . . . . . . .31

Table 1: Federal RHYA Funding 2001 to 2006 ($ in millions)

. . . . . . . . . . . . .32

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The impact of federal immigration policy on LGBT homeless youth

. . . . . . . . . . . .35

Organizational advocacy for people experiencing homelessness

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Faith-based service providers

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

The Potential for anti-LGBT discrimination at faith-based service providers

. .39

CRITICAL ISSUES AFFECTING LGBT HOMELESS YOUTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Mental health issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How are homeless youth affected?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Mental health crises facing LGBT youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mental health services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Substance abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 2: Percentage of youth in different housing

situations and the substances they use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Figure 1: Lifetime substance use by homeless youth

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Substance use and LGBT youth

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Risky Sexual Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Risky behavior in homeless LGBT youth

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

Sexual health risks for homeless youth populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Determinants of sexual health of homeless youth

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

Survival sex

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

The experience of transgender homeless youth

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

Access to medical care for the homeless transgender community

. . . . . . . . . .60

Figure 2: A summary of risky behaviors reported by trans-identified youth . . .

Risks facing homeless transgender y

outh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

Community-based health centers reaching out to

low and no income transgender people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

Crime and victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Physical and verbal harassment in school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Young and homeless victims of crime

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

The criminalization of homelessness

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

The juvenile and criminal justice systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LGBT people in prison

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Rape in prisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LGBT youth in the juvenile justice system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Resiliency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

EXPERIENCES OF HOMELESS LGBT YOUTH IN THE SHELTER SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Faith-based programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

RUTH ELLIS CENTER:STREET OUTREACH PROGRAM AND DROP-IN CENTER . . . . . .91

History and background

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

Characteristics of our youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Collaborations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Staffing our programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Street Outreach Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Drop-in Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Positive Youth Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sexual abuse and exploitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Range of services

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99

Program impact

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100

Barriers to success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

101

Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

GREEN CHIMNEYS: TRIANGLE TRIBE

APARTMENTS TRANSITIONAL LIVING PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104

New York City programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

105

Employee/volunteer data

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105

Collaborations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

What is transitional living?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106

History and development of the Triangle Tribe Apartments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

108

The mission and philosophy of Green Chimneys transitional programming . . . . . .

110

Practice: How it operates

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110

Why it works: Statistics and other signs of success

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113

Challenges and overcoming them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

114

Evaluation: Agency and program

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

OZONE HOUSE: MAKING EVERY SPACE A SAFE SPACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116

Safety, support and affirmation:

Developing an agency culture for effective work with LGBT youth . . . . . . . . . . . .118

Approach to services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

120

Developing youth & capitalizing on their strengths

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121

Empowerment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Responsiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Holistic approach

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121

Strategies for achieving our mission

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122

Committing to an alternative culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

122

Ensuring physical manifestations of safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

122

Professional development

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122

Formalized training

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122

Effective supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

123

Social learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

123

Taking the lead from youth

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123

Maximizing teachable moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

124

Recruiting LGBT staff and volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

124

Advocacy and systems change

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125

Reducing and eliminating barriers to service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

126

Contents

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Case-level advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Policy-level advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

126

Agency policies & procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

126

An inclusive definition of “family”

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126

A Hostile Language Policy

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126

Policy and practice bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

127

Outcomes and expected results

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128

Outcome 1: Safety for runaway, homeless and high-risk youth . . . . . . . . . . .

128

Outcome 2: Emotional safety for LGBT and questioning youth . . . . . . . . . . .

129

Outcome 3: Cultural competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

129

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

URBAN PEAK: WORKING WITH HOMELESS

TRANSGENDER YOUTH IN A SHELTER ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131

Introduction & overview:

The challenge of making spaces safe for transgender youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Working with transgender youth: Building trust and maintaining a safe space . . 13

Sex and gender identity: terms and d

efinitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Guidelines for providing shelter services to transgender p

eople . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Basic guidelines for creating a transgender youth-friendly shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . .

135

Developing a supportive staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

135

Developing supportive policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

135

Policy of r

espect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136

Intake process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

136

Housing and sex-segregated f

acilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Harassment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138

WALTHAM HOUSE: TRAINING MODELS TO

IMPROVE INTERACTIONS WITH LGBT OUT-OF-HOME YOUTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139

Working with the State of Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

141

History and overview of the initiative

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142

Implementation of the training program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

145

The training curriculum

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147

Training session outcomes and highlights

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

CONCLUSION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153

Federal-level recommendations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154

State- and local-level recommendations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156

Practitioner-level recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

160

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179

TASK FORCE FUNDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182

Executive

summary

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that the number of home-

less and runaway youth ranges from 575,000 to 1.6 million per year.

Our analysis of the

available research suggests that between 20 percent and 40 percent of all homeless youth

identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).

LGBT

youth experience homelessness at a disproportionate rate, prompting

the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (the Task Force), in

collaboration with the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH),

to produce this publication.

Through a comprehensive review of the available academic research

and professional literature, we answer some basic questions, including

why so many LGBT youth are becoming and remaining homeless.

We report on the harassment and violence that many of these youth

experience in the shelter system and we summarize research on

critical problems affecting them, including mental health issues,

substance abuse and risky sexual behavior. We also analyze the

federal government’s response to youth homelessness, including the specific impact on

LGBT homeless youth of increased federal funding for faith-based service providers.

We also partnered with five social service agencies who have written sections that detail

model programs they have developed to improve service delivery to LGBT homeless

youth. In order to put a face to all of this research and data, we also include profiles of

LGBT homeless youth, many of which were collected through focus groups we conducted

at service providers around the country. Finally, in consultation with a number of youth

advocacy organizations, we conclude with a series of state-, federal- and practitioner-level

policy recommendations that can help to curb this epidemic.

WHY ARE SO MANY LGBT YOUTH BECOMING HOMELESS?

Family conflict is the primary cause of homelessness for all youth, LGBT or straight.

Specifically, familial conflict over a youth’s sexual orientation or gender identity is

1 Robertson, M. J. & Toro, P. A. (1998). Homeless youth: Research, intervention, and policy. United States Department of Health and

Human Services. Retrieved June 3, 2005, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/progsys/homeless/symposium/3-Youth.htm

2 See pages 11 to 14 of the full report for a more detailed summary of the available research.

Our analysis of the

available research

suggests that between

20 percent and 40

percent of all homeless

youth identify as

lesbian, gay, bisexual or

transgender (LGBT).

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

a significant factor that leads to homelessness or the need for

out-of-home care.

According to one study, 50 percent of gay teens

experienced a negative reaction from their parents when they came

out and 26 percent were kicked out of their homes.

Another study

found that more than one-third of youth who are homeless or in the

care of social services experienced a violent physical assault when

they came out,

which can lead to youth leaving a shelter or foster

home because they actually feel safer on the streets.

WHAT IMPACT DOES HOMELESSNESS HAVE

ON LGBT YOUTH SPECIFICALLY?

Whether LGBT youth are homeless on the streets or in temporary shelter, our review of

the available research reveals that they face a multitude of ongoing crises that threaten

their chances of becoming healthy, independent adults.

MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES

LGBT homeless youth are especially vulnerable to depression, loneliness and psychoso-

matic illness,

withdrawn behavior, social problems and delinquency.

According to the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the fact that LGBT youth live in “a

society that discriminates against and stigmatizes homosexuals” makes them more vulner

able to mental health issues than heterosexual youth.

This vulnerability is only magnified

for LGBT youth who are homeless.

SUBSTANCE ABUSE

The combination of stressors inherent to the daily life of homeless youth leads them to

abuse drugs and alcohol. For example, in Minnesota, five separate statewide studies found

that between 10 and 20 percent of homeless youth self-identify as chemically dependent.

These risks are exacerbated for homeless youth identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual

(LGB).

Personal drug usage, family drug usage, and the likelihood of enrolling in a treat-

ment program are all higher for LGB homeless youth than for their heterosexual peers.

3 Clatts, M. J., Davis, W. J., Sotheran, J. L. & Atillasoy, A. (1998). Correlates and distribution of HIV risk behaviors among homeless

youth in New York City. Child Welfare, 77(2). See also Hyde, J. (2005). From home to street: Understanding young people’s transitions

into homelessness. Journal of Adolescence, 28. p.175.

4 Remafedi, G. (1987). Male homosexuality: The adolescent perspective. Pediatrics, (79).

5 Thompson, S. J., Safyer, A. W. & Pollio, D. E. (2001). Differences and predictors of family reunification among subgroups of runaway

youths using shelter services. Social Work Research, 25(3).

6 McWhirter, B. T. (1990). Loneliness: A review of current literature with implications for counseling and research. Journal of Counseling

and Development, 68.

7 Cochran, B. N., Stewart, A. J., Ginzler, J. A. & Cauce, A. M. (2002). Challenges faced by homeless sexual minorities: Comparison of

gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender homeless adolescents with their heterosexual counterparts. American Journal of Public Health,

92(5). pp.774-775.

8 Gibson, P. (1989). Gay male and lesbian youth suicide, vol. 3: Preventions and interventions in youth suicide. In Report of the secretary’s

task force on youth suicide. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

9 Wilder Research. (2005). Homeless youth in Minnesota: 2003 statewide survey of people without permanent shelter. Author. Retrieved June

26, 2006, from http://www.wilder.org/download.0.html?report=410. p.27.

10 Van Leeuwen, J. M., Boyle, S., Salmonsen-Sautel, S., Baker, D. N., Garcia, J., Hoffman, A., & Hopfer, C. J. (2006). Lesbian, gay and

bisexual homeless youth: An eight city public health perspective. Unpublished work.

11 Ibid., p.18.

According to one study,

26 percent of gay teens

were kicked out of their

homes when they came

out to their parents.

RISKY SEXUAL BEHAVIOR

All homeless youth are especially vulnerable to engaging in risky

sexual behaviors because their basic needs for food and shelter are

not being met.

Defined as “exchanging sex for anything needed,

including money, food, clothes, a place to stay or drugs,”

survival

sex is the last resort for many LGBT homeless youth. A study of

homeless youth in Canada found that those who identify as LGBT

were three times more likely to participate in survival sex than their

heterosexual peers,

and 50 percent of homeless youth in another

study considered it likely or very likely that they will someday test

positive for HIV.

VICTIMIZATION OF HOMELESS LGBT YOUTH

LGBT youth face the threat of victimization everywhere: at home, at school, at their

jobs, and, for those who are out-of-home, at shelters and on the streets. According to the

National Runaway Switchboard, LGBT homeless youth are seven times more likely than

their heterosexual peers to be victims of a crime.

While some public safety agencies try

to help this vulnerable population,

others adopt a “blame the victim” approach, further

decreasing the odds of victimized youth feeling safe reporting their experiences.

LGBT HOMELESS YOUTH AND THE JUVENILE

AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS

While there is a paucity of academic research about the experiences of LGBT youth who

end up in the juvenile and criminal justice systems, preliminary evidence suggests that

they are disproportionately the victims of harassment and violence, including rape. For

example, respondents in one small study reported that lesbians and bisexual girls are

overrepresented in the juvenile justice system and that they are forced to live among a

population of inmates who are violently homophobic.

Gay male youth in the system are

also emotionally, physically and sexually assaulted by staff and inmates. One respondent

in a study of the legal rights of young people in state custody reported that staff members

think that “[if] a youth is gay, they want to have sex with all the other boys, so they did

not protect me from unwanted sexual advances.”

A study of homeless

youth in Canada found

that those who identify

as LGBT were three times

more likely to participate

in survival sex than their

heterosexual peers.

12 Rosenthal, D. & Moore, S. (1994). Homeless youths: Sexual and drug-related behavior, sexual beliefs and HIV/AIDS risk. AIDS Care,

6(1).

13 Cited in Anderson, J. E., Freese, T. E. & Pennbridge, J. N. (1994). Sexual risk and condom use among street youth in Hollywood. Family

Planning Perspectives, 26(1). p.23.

14 Gaetz, S. (2004). Safe streets for whom? Homeless youth, social exclusion, and criminal victimization. Canadian Journal of Criminology

and Criminal Justice, 46(6).

15 Kihara, D. (1999). Giuliani’s suppressed report on homeless youth. The Village Voice, 44(33).

16 National Runaway Switchboard. (2005).

17 Dylan, N. (2004). City enters partnership to assist lesbian and gay homeless youth. Nation’s Cities Weekly, 27(10).

18 Bounds, A. (2002, September 24). Intolerance discussed BHS school offers weeklong focus on tolerance. Boulder Daily Camera. p.C3.

See also: D’Augelli, A. R. & Hershberger, S. L. (1993). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth in community settings: Personal challenges and

mental health problems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21(4). See also: Arnott, J. (1994). Gays and lesbians in the criminal

justice system. In Multicultural Perspectives in Criminal Justice and Criminology. Springfield, OH: C. Thomas Charles.

19 Curtin, M. (2002). Lesbian and bisexual girls in the juvenile justice system. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 19(4).

20 Estrada, R. & Marksamer, J. (2006). The legal rights of young people in state custody: What child welfare and juvenile justice profes-

sionals need to know when working with LGBT youth. Child Welfare, 85(2).

Executive Summary

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

TRANSGENDER HOMELESS YOUTH

Transgender youth are disproportionately represented in the homeless population. More

generally, some reports indicate that one in five transgender individuals need or are at risk

of needing homeless shelter assistance.

However, most shelters are segregated by birth

sex, regardless of the individual’s gender identity,

and homeless transgender youth are

even ostracized by some agencies that serve their LGB peers.

THE FEDERAL RESPONSE TO YOUTH HOMELESSNESS

Since 1974, when the federal government enacted the original Runaway Youth Act, there

have been numerous pieces of legislation addressing youth homelessness. Most recently, the

Runaway, Homeless and Missing Children Protection Act (RHMCPA) was signed into law

by President George W. Bush in 2003 and is up for reauthorization in 2008.

Among the most important provisions of this complex piece of legislation are programs

that allocate funding for core homeless youth services, including basic drop-in centers,

street outreach efforts, transitional living programs (TLPs) and the National Runaway

Switchboard. While the law does not allocate funding for LGBT-specific services, some

funds have been awarded to agencies who work exclusively with LGBT youth, as well as

those who seek to serve LGBT homeless youth as part of a broader mission.

Unfortunately, homeless youth programs have been grossly under funded, contributing to

a shortfall of available spaces for youth who need support. In 2004 alone, due to this lack

of funding, more than 2,500 youth were denied access to a TLP program for which they

were otherwise qualified.

Additionally, 4,200 youth were turned away from Basic Center

Programs, which provide family reunification services and emergency shelter.

THE POTENTIAL FOR ANTI-LGBT DISCRIMINATION

AT FAITH-BASED SERVICE PROVIDERS

Lack of funding is not the only obstacle preventing LGBT homeless youth from

receiving the services they need. In 2002, President George W. Bush issued an executive

order permitting federal funding for faith-based organizations (FBOs) to provide social

services.

While more and more FBOs are receiving federal funds, overall funding levels

for homeless youth services have not increased. Consequently, there is a possibility that

the impact of FBOs will not be to increase services to the homeless, but rather only to

change

who provides those services.

A number of faith-based providers oppose legal and social equality for LGBT people, which

21 Cited in Mottet, L. & Ohle, J. M. (2003). Transitioning our shelters: A guide to making homeless shelters safe for transgender people. Retrieved

June 12, 2006, from http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/TransHomeless.pdf

22 Ibid.

HCH Clinicians’ Network (2002, June). Crossing to safety: Transgender health & homelessness. Healing Hands, 6, pp. 1-6.

24 Public Law 108-96 for fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

25 Data compiled from the federally administered Runaway and Homeless Youth Management Information System (RHYMIS).

26 Project HOPE: Virginia education for homeless children and youth program. (2006). Runaway and Homeless Youth Act programs:

Strengthening youth and families in every community. Author. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://www.wm.edu/hope/Seminar/

RHYA.pdf

27 White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. (2006). President Bush’s faith-based and community initiative.

Author. Retrieved August 31, 2006, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/mission.html

raises serious questions about whether LGBT homeless youth can access services in a safe

and nurturing environment. If an organization’s core belief is that homosexuality is wrong,

that organization (and its committed leaders and volunteers) may not respect a client’s sexual

orientation or gender identity and may expose LGBT youth to discriminatory treatment.

For example, an internal Salvation Army document obtained by the

Washington Post in 2001 confirmed that “…the White House had

made a ‘firm commitment’ to issue a regulation protecting religious

charities from state and city efforts to prevent discrimination against

gays in hiring and providing benefits.”

Public policy that exempts

religious organizations providing social services from non-discrimi

nation laws in hiring sets a dangerous precedent. If an otherwise

qualified employee can be fired simply because of their sexual

orientation or gender identity/expression, what guarantee is there

that clients, including LGBT homeless youth, will be supported and

treated fairly? More research is needed on the policies of FBOs that

provide services for LGBT homeless youth.

THE EXPERIENCES OF LGBT HOMELESS

YOUTH IN THE SHELTER SYSTEM

The majority of existing shelters and other care systems are not providing safe and

effective services to LGBT homeless youth.

For example, in New York City, more than

60 percent of beds for homeless youth are provided by Covenant House, a facility where

LGBT youth report that they have been threatened, belittled and abused by staff and

other youth because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

At one residential placement facility in Michigan, LGBT teens, or those suspected of

being LGBT, were forced to wear orange jumpsuits to alert staff and other residents. At

another transitional housing placement, staff removed the bedroom door of an out gay

youth, supposedly to ward off any homosexual behavior. The second bed in the room was

left empty and other residents were warned that if they misbehaved they would have to

share the room with the “gay kid.”

LGBT homeless youth at the Home for Little Wanderers in Massachusetts have reported

being kicked out of other agencies when they revealed their sexual orientation or gender

identity. Many also said that the risks inherent to living in a space that was not protecting

them made them think that they were better off having unsafe sex and contracting HIV

because they would then be eligible for specific housing funds reserved for HIV-positive

homeless people in need.

If an organization’s

core belief is that

homosexuality is wrong,

that organization (and its

leaders and volunteers)

may not respect a client’s

sexual orientation or

gender identity and may

expose LGBT youth to

discriminatory treatment.

28 Allen, M. & Milbank, D. (2001, July 12). Rove heard charity plea on gay bias. Washington Post. Retrieved September 25, 2006, from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48279-2001Jul11?language=printer.

29 Mallon, G. P. (1997). The delivery of child welfare services to gay and lesbian adolescents. In Central Toronto Youth Services, Pride and

Prejudice: Working with lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Toronto: Central Toronto Youth Services.

30 Email communication between the author and the Empire State Coalition of Youth and Family Services. New York, NY. See also:

Murphy, J. (2005). Wounded pride: LGBT kids say city-funded shelter for the homeless breaks its covenant. Village Voice. Retrieved September

10, 2006, from http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0517,murphy1,63374,5.html

31 Both examples were confirmed in personal conversations between the author and social service agency staff who had worked at the

offending agencies, or had worked with youth who had resided at those agencies.

32 As confirmed by Colby Berger, LGBT training manager at Waltham House.

Executive Summary

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

MODEL PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE SERVICE

DELIVERY TO LGBT HOMELESS YOUTH

Despite the potential for mistreatment of LGBT homeless youth by some agencies, there

are others who set an example for their peers. Our five contributing homeless youth

service providers represent the diverse range of agencies working with homeless LGBT

youth, though they are by no means the only agencies doing great work. We hope that

sharing their expertise will in turn help other agencies to improve the service and support

they provide to this community.

1. Theresa Nolan of Green Chimneys in New York City discusses the role of transitional

living programs in the continuum of care that LGBT youth experiencing homeless

ness might pass through.

2. Colby Berger of Waltham House in Massachusetts provides a case study of how her

agency worked in collaboration with the state department of social services to train

thousands of professional staff who work with homeless youth about LGBT issues.

3. Grace McClelland from the Ruth Ellis Center in Detroit, an organization that works

primarily with homeless LGBT youth of color, provides a description of the Center’s

street outreach and drop-in center programming.

4. Mary Jo Callan and Mia White from Ozone House in Ann Arbor, Michigan discuss

how their staff created a LGBT-safe space at an agency that works predominantly with

heterosexual youth.

5. Susan Boyle of Urban Peak in Denver, Colorado describes policies and procedures

that make shelters safe and welcoming for transgender homeless youth.

CONCLUSION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

This report concludes with a series of policy recommendations that

can help to curb the epidemic of LGBT youth homelessness. While

our focus in this publication and in these policy recommendations

is to address LGBT-specific concerns, we believe that homelessness is

not an issue that can be tackled piecemeal. Wholesale improvement

is needed, and that is what we propose. Our recommendations are

not intended to be an exhaustive list of every policy change that

would make the experience of homeless youth better. Rather, we

highlight some of the crucial problem areas where policy change is

both needed and reasonably possible.

FEDERAL LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Reauthorize and increase appropriations for federal Runaway and Homeless Youth

Act (RHYA) programs.

2. Permit youth who are minors, especially unaccompanied minors, to receive primary

and specialty health care services without the consent of a parent or guardian.

3. Develop a national estimate of the incidence and prevalence of homelessness among

Homelessness is not

an issue that can be

tackled piecemeal.

Wholesale improvement

is needed, and that is

what we propose.

American youth, gathering data that aids in the provision of appropriate services.

4. Authorize and appropriate federal funds for developmental, preventive and interven

tion programs targeted to LGBT youth.

5. Raise federal and state minimum wages to an appropriate level.

6. Broaden the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s definition of

“homeless individual” to include living arrangements common to homeless youth.

STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Establish funding streams to provide housing options for all homeless youth. Require

that recipients of these funds are committed to the safe and appropriate treatment

of LGBT homeless youth, with penalties for non-compliance including the loss of

government funding. These funds would supplement federal appropriations.

2. Permit dedicated shelter space and housing for LGBT youth.

3. Repeal existing laws and policies that prevent single and partnered LGBT individuals

from serving as adoptive and foster parents.

4. Discourage the criminalization of homelessness and the activities inherent to the

daily lives of people experiencing homelessness.

5. Expand the availability of comprehensive health insurance and services to all low-

income youth through the age of 24 via Medicaid.

PRACTITIONER LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Require all agencies that seek government funding and licensure to serve homeless

youth to demonstrate awareness and cultural competency of LGBT issues and popula

tions at the institutional level and to adopt nondiscrimination policies for LGBT

youth.

2. Mandate individual-level LGBT awareness training and demonstrated cultural

competency as a part of the professional licensing process of all health and social

service professions.

3. Mandate LGBT awareness training for all state agency staff who work in child welfare

or juvenile justice divisions.

CONCLUSION

Once implemented, these policy recommendations will help not only LGBT homeless

youth, but all youth abandoned by their family or forced to leave home. In this report,

we extensively review the academic and professional literature on the myriad challenges

faced by LGBT homeless youth. The research shows that despite these challenges, many of

these youth are remarkably resilient and have benefited from support from agencies like

those in our model programs chapters who have worked to ensure that youth feel safe,

welcome and supported. Regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, every young

person deserves a safe and nurturing environment in which to grow and learn. It is our

hope that this report will bring renewed attention to an issue that has been inadequately

addressed for far too long.

Executive Summary

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Introduction

I believe that one day, the Lord will come back to get me. Halleluiah.

If I live right, halleluiah, I will go on to that righteous place.

I believe that one day, halleluiah, all my trials, all my tribulations, they will all be over.

I won’t have to worry about crying and suffering no more.

I won’t have to worry about being disappointed, because my God,

halleluiah, is coming back for me.

Whether I’m a man with a dress and a wig, My God will love me for who I am!

I might not walk like I’m supposed to walk.

I might not have sex with who I’m supposed to have sex with.

My God will love me for who I am!

So don’t worry about me, worry about yourself.

Because as long as my God believes in me,

I’m not worried about what folks say, halleluiah.

—Ali Forney

A homeless transgender youth in New York City,

speaking at the Safe Space talent show in 1996

Ali Forney, a homeless African-American transgender youth, recited this poem while

enjoying his

favorite event of the year: talent night at Safe Space, a program for homeless

youth in New York City. It was December 1996, and after years of homelessness, drug

abuse and prostitution, Ali was dedicating much of his

time to helping other homeless lesbian, gay, bisexual and

transgender (LGBT) youth. The poem declared his convic

tion that he had a right to live a life based on honesty and

integrity, despite the hurt he had experienced.

Less than one year after Ali spoke at the talent show,

Carl Siciliano, today executive director of the Ali Forney

Center for LGBT homeless youth in New York City,

spoke the same words in tribute at Ali’s funeral after he

was murdered by a still-unidentified assailant at 4 a.m. on

a cold winter night. We begin by summarizing Ali’s story

33 Carl Siciliano, executive director of the Ali Forney Center, confirms that Ali identified as both gay and transgender, sometime referring

to himself as “he” and at other times referring to herself as “she.” Sometimes he went by his given name, and at other times she went by the

name “Luscious.” In this profile, we have used male pronouns because that is the form adopted by the various media sources we cited.

because it reflects so many of the issues we cover in this publication.

At the time of his death, Ali was working with staff at Safe Horizon’s Streetwork program

as an outreach worker, helping other homeless youth.

He was determined to repay the

agency, which had helped him get a Social Security card, medical insurance and his GED,

by educating his peers. “I became a peer educator because I see so many HIV-infected

people on the stroll. Even now, there are people who don’t know how to use condoms.”

Despite his outreach work educating less-informed street workers, Ali continued to trick

and it was not his only high-risk behavior. He readily admitted to being a drug addict,

commenting that his crack cocaine use became a habit “because it eased the degradation

and fear of selling himself.”

Ali’s honest

assessment of his drug use is reflective of

the available academic literature, which attests

to the prevalence of drug use among LGBT

homeless youth and its impact on other risky

behaviors.

As was the case for Ali, so much of what leads

to homelessness among LGBT youth can be

traced to experiences at home. He grew up

with his single mother in a housing project in

a violent area of Brooklyn, “a world of poverty-

blighted high-rises, beat-up cars, stark store

fronts and warehouses.”

It was certainly not

an easy place for a transgender youth to live.

He spent years getting into trouble at school,

involved in petty criminal activity, and he was

only 13 when he was sent to live in a group

home for troubled youth.

Ali ran away from the group home within

months and spent years bouncing around the

foster care system, ultimately abandoning foster

placements in favor of the streets. He lived in

a number of different homes and was institutionalized at one point after he barricaded

himself in a room in response to harassment from other teens.

This “blame the victim”

attitude is one that a number of service providers said is all too common among agencies

working with LGBT homeless youth.

Factors just like those in Ali’s life have an influence on intrafamily conflict, which is a

primary reason why LGBT youth disproportionately become homeless. When Ali was

13, he began working as a prostitute, making $40 or $60 from each client. He said it

made him feel wealthy “like Donald Trump,” though in reality he was barely surviving.

His experience reflects that of many homeless LGBT youth who engage in survival sex to

secure shelter or a meal.

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF

“HOMELESS YOUTH?”

The definition of homeless youth includes youth who

are living on the streets or in shelters, runaways who

have voluntarily left a dangerous or otherwise unde-

sirable home environment, “throwaways” whose

parents or guardians have kicked them out and ado-

lescents who have aged out of foster care or state

custody and have nowhere to go.

A number of different definitions of “youth” and

“homeless” are used by government agencies and,

as we discuss in this publication, this type of incon-

sistency makes it difficult to optimize service delivery

or determine the level of funds really needed to serve

the population.

Many studies of homeless youth do not include a

detailed breakdown of those surveyed, disregard-

ing whether they are on the streets or temporarily

housed. We provide this explanation to ensure the

reader is aware of the inconsistencies in the system

and the attendant literature. Our policy recommenda-

tions address some of the problems that emerge from

these inconsistencies.

34 For more information, see www.safehorizon.org.

35 Foley, D. (1996, February). AIDS education for teen prostitutes - New York Peer AIDS Education Coalition. The Progressive. p.19.

36 Carter, C. (1999, August 28). A life and death on NYC streets. Retrieved September 27, 2006, from http://www.aliforneycenter.org/ap-

article.html

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid.

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

This dizzying spiral of lost opportunities is not an easy one to escape. Ali tried. After living

at Streetwork for a year, he, like many other displaced youth, tried to reunite with his

family. Research suggests that family involvement in the lives of homeless youth can have

a positive impact, but all too often is impossible or simply absent. Ali’s effort lasted no

more than a few days and he landed back at the agency. The fact that

he identified as transgender and gay was just one of the issues that

made reunification harder. Ali’s life and death is a tragic example of

what can happen when LGBT youth are forced onto the streets as

their only escape from a bad home or shelter environment.

This report comprehensively addresses some basic questions. How

many LGBT homeless youth are there? And, what are the specific

experiences of LGBT youth in the existing shelter and homeless

services system? We summarize the history of the federal response to

youth homelessness, highlighting the federal programs and funding

streams available to homeless youth services providers as well as the

impact on LGBT homeless youth of recent efforts to fund faith-

based services.

We provide a comprehensive literature review of the academic research on critical issues

affecting this population, including mental health issues, substance abuse and risky

sexual behavior. In order to put a face to all of the research and data we summarize, we

also include profiles of and quotes from LGBT homeless youth. Many were collected

through focus groups we conducted at homeless LGBT youth services providers around

the country. We also partnered with five services providers, who have written sections of

this report that detail model service delivery programs they have developed for providing

a wide variety of services to LGBT homeless youth. Finally, in consultation with a number

of youth advocacy organizations, we conclude with a series of policy recommendations

that can help to curb this epidemic of LGBT youth homelessness.

This publication is a

reference document

for the causes and

consequences of LGBT

youth homelessness,

and provides a series of

policy recommendations

that can help to curb

this epidemic.

How many LGBT

homeless youth are

there and why do they

become homeless?

Providing an accurate answer to the question of how many lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans-

gender (LGBT) homeless youth there are is no easy task. Given the multiple definitions

of homelessness and the variety of subpopulations that might or might not be included

in any count, it is not possible to provide the specific number of homeless LGBT youth

in the United States at any given point in time. Should such

a count include only LGBT youth on the streets who literally

lack a roof over their heads each night? Should it also include

any youth who is in an out-of-home care situation, such as

an emergency shelter or transitional living program? What

about LGBT youth who are “couch surfing,” moving from one

friend’s home to another to avoid staying on the streets?

One of the constant concerns surrounding the kind of

survey research that is used throughout this study to learn

about homeless youth is that respondents are self-reporting

in response to posed questions. They might lie, exaggerate,

or exclude important information out of fear. Whitbeck and

Hoyt conducted a study of homeless youth and their families to

address this concern.

They interviewed a sample of parents or

caregivers in addition to homeless youth themselves about the

reasons for family breakdown. They found that these second

interviews generally back up youth claims that they are escaping

abusive, low-supervision spaces where parental warmth is lacking. It is surprising that

a parent or caregiver would confirm the reality as presented by their child rather than

seeking to deny problems or to transfer responsibility to the child.

Ideally, in order to provide appropriate services, we need to know the total homeless

count: young and old; LGBT and straight; urban, suburban and rural. We can then

assess how many youth on any given night are experiencing temporary or long-term

homelessness, defined as absence from what might be labeled their permanent home.

As we will discuss shortly, conducting such a count is a process laden with all sorts of

methodological and political obstacles. However, around the country local organizations

39 Glassman, A. (2006, January 20). Center will reach out to homeless youth this summer. Gay People’s Chronicle. p.3.

40 Whitbeck, L. B. & Hoyt, D.R. (1999). Nowhere to grow: Homeless and runaway adolescents and their families. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

A note on acronyms

The reader should also bear in mind

that as time has passed, the acronyms

used to describe this community

have expanded. As elsewhere in

this report, we use LGBT to describe

the community we are interested

in when we are talking broadly or

citing literature that also uses this

broad definition. However, much of

the literature makes no reference to

bisexual or transgender youth, and

where that is the case we reference

only the specific community that an

author identifies.

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

have conducted counts that enable us to provide at least some idea of how many LGBT

youth are experiencing homelessness in the United States.

Regardless of the specific numbers, there is a growing awareness that the number of

LGBT youth experiencing homelessness is on the rise from already high figures.

This could be due in part to the fact that youth are now coming out in their

early teens,

with one recent report citing an average of 13 years old.

Another

contributing factor is the scarcity of care options once a child has left home.

When LGBT youth leave home, voluntarily or otherwise, they are more likely than

their heterosexual peers to end up living on the streets rather than in a state care

facility.

With foster care the preferred destination, social workers try to find a

temporary home for each youth, but

…there is typically a dearth of available foster families to begin with, and few are

willing to work with young people who have emotional or behavioral problems. Fewer

still are interested in fostering LGBT youths, many of whom

arrive with emotional and behavioral issues as a result of the

homophobia they’ve endured.

For those who cannot be placed in foster homes, group homes may

be the next best choice, though anti-LGBT attitudes are common

there as well.

Often, they are sufficiently hostile that youth would

rather live on the streets.

To determine an estimate of the LGBT homeless youth population,

we first need estimates of the number of homeless or runaway

youth overall. Thompson et al., in their study analyzing Runaway

and Homeless Youth Management Information System (RHYMIS)

data, cite estimates of 575,000 to 1,000,000 youth who run away or

are forced to leave their parental home in any given year.

One estimate set the number

nationwide at 1.3 million,

while a 1998 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development report suggested that 1.6 million youth are homeless or run away each

year.

By surveying respondents to the National Health Interview Study, Ringwalt et al.

estimate that 5 percent of youth, or approximately one million, experience homelessness

in any given year.

Whitbeck and Simons estimate that one child in eight will run away

at some point before they turn 18, and fully 40 percent of these do not return to the place

from which they ran away.

Few cities have conducted a large scale count. As of the late 1990s, advocates estimated

Ideally, in order to

provide appropriate

services, we need

to know the total

homeless count:

young and old; LGBT

and straight; urban,

suburban and rural.

41 Thompson, S. J. et. al. (2001).

42 Kim, E. K. (2006, July 3). Many gay teens are coming out at earlier ages. St.Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved September 1, 2006, from

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/living/14957350.htm

43 PlanetOut gay & lesbian news. (2006, October 11). Average coming-out age now 13, survey finds. Author. Retrieved October 12, 2006,

from http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2006/10/11/4

44 Berger, C. (2005). What becomes of at-risk gay youths? The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide.

45 Berger, C. (2005). p.24. See also Sullivan, R. T. (1994). Obstacles to effective child welfare service with gay and lesbian youths. Child

Welfare, 73(4).

46 Berger, C. (2005). p.24.

47 Thompson, S. J. et. al. (2001).

48 Sanchez, R. (2004, December 20). Facing up to homeless youths. Denver Post. p.A1.

49 Robertson, M. J. & Toro, P. A. (1998).

50 Ringwalt, C. L., Greene, J. M., Robertson, M. & McPheeters, M. (1998). The prevalence of homelessness among adolescents in the

United States. American Journal of Public Health, 88(9). p.1327.

51 Whitbeck, L. B. & Simons, R. L. (1990). Life on the streets: The victimization of runaway and homeless adolescents. Youth and Society, 22(1).

that upwards of 20,000 homeless youth were living on the streets of New York,

while

a 2002 report suggested the number stood somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000.

2004, the U.S. Conference of Mayors suggested that unaccompanied youth make up 5

percent of the total urban homeless population, up from 3 percent in 1998.

Ringwalt et al.’s study also addresses race and ethnicity, citing one national study that

found no demographic differences between homeless people and the general population.

However, other studies have suggested that racial and ethnic minorities may actually be

overrepresented in the homeless youth population.

When it comes to counting or

estimating the number of LGBT youth experiencing homelessness, the existing literature

provides a wide range of figures. Despite this variance, there is a consensus that LGBT

youth represent a significant proportion of the homeless youth population.

In 1985, the National Network of Runaway and Youth Services (now the National

Network for Youth) estimated that only 6 percent of homeless adolescents identified as

gay or lesbian.

They have subsequently revised this estimate upwards to a range of 20

percent to 40 percent.

Other studies from the early to mid-1990s reported that 3 percent

to 10 percent of homeless youth were gay or lesbian. However, more recent studies and

ample anecdotal evidence from social service professionals suggest that the proportion of

LGBT youth in the overall homeless youth population is significantly higher than their

proportion in the U.S. population as a whole.

Clatts et al. estimate that among combined homeless and street-involved popula-

tions,

35 percent are LGBT, while among street youth only, the figure might

climb as high as 50 percent.

A study of unaccompanied homeless youth in Illinois

reported a statewide figure of 14.8 percent who identified as LGB, “questioning” or

“something else.” According to a report published in 2005, in the city of Chicago and

immediately surrounding Cook County, the rate for these groups was 23.1 percent

and 22.4 percent respectively.

In Decatur, Illinois, a youth group surveyed homeless youth and found that 42 percent

identified as LGB, while service providers in Los Angeles estimated that between 25

and 35 percent of homeless youth there are lesbian or gay.

In Portland, Oregon, one

52 Holloway, L. (1998, July 18). Young, restless and homeless on the piers; Greenwich Village reaches out to youths with plan for shelter

and services. New York Times. Retrieved September 20, 2005, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/health/article-printpage.html?res=

9C05E5DE1330F93BA257

53 Nolan, T. (2004). Couch-surfers: Invisible homeless youth. In the Family. p.21-22.

54 U.S.Conference on Mayors (2004). A status report on hunger and homelessness in American’s cities: 2004. U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Retrieved September 22, 2006, from www.sodexhousa.com/HungerAndHomelessnessReport2004.pdf

55 Ringwalt, C. L. et. al. (1998).

56 McCaskill, P. A., Toro, P. A. & Wolfe, S. M. (1998). Homeless and matched housed adolescents: A comparative study of psychopa-

thology. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27(3). Cited in Robertson, M. J. & Toro, P. A. (1998).

57 National Network of Runaway and Youth Services [now the National Network for Youth]. To whom do they belong? A profile of America’s

runaway and homeless youth and the programs that help them. Washington, DC: Author.

58 Cited in Dylan Nicole, d. K. (2004). City enters partnership to assist lesbian and gay homeless youth. Nation’s Cities Weekly, 27(10).

59 Task Force Policy Institute analysis of the available representative data suggests that 3 to 5 percent of the U.S. population identifies as

lesbian or gay..

60 Street-involved youth are those who have a home to which they can and often do return at night. However, for a multitude of reasons

they choose to involve themselves with youth living on the streets, often becoming accepted members of the community of youth.

In New York City, for example, there are youth who skip school and/or stay out late at night to hang out with homeless youth on the

Hudson River piers.

61 Clatts, M. J. et. al. (1998). Cited in Dame, L. (2004).

62 Johnson, T. P. & Graf, I. (2005, December). Unaccompanied homeless youth in Illinois: 2005. Chicago, IL: Survey Research Laboratory

- University of Illinois Chicago. p.46.

63 Cited in Truong, J. (2004). Homeless LGBT youth and LGBT youth in foster care: Overview. The Safe Schools Coalition. Retrieved June 3,

2005, from http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/RG-homeless.html

How many, and why?

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

homeless youth service provider estimated that their LGB clientele climbed from 20

percent

to approximately 30 percent of youth between 1993 and 1994.

This same

proportion was noted by Rob McDonald, a project coordinator with a welfare agency

in Ottawa, Canada.

The city of Seattle’s Commission on Children and Youth found that approximately 40

percent of homeless youth identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual.

Unfortunately, because

of the fear many young people have about acknowledging to themselves or others during

a survey that they are lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender,

these figures are likely an undercount of the true proportion of LGBT

homeless youth. What is absolutely clear is that regardless of the

actual number of LGBT people in the overall population, a dispro

portionate share of the nation’s homeless youth identify as LGBT.

While the estimates we cite are biased toward large cities, youth home

lessness, LGBT or otherwise, is not just an urban problem. Ringwalt et

al. confirm that this is a problem in rural and suburban America too.

Among street youth, however, there is a clear bias towards major West

and East Coast cities.

While some may run away to certain places

for cultural reasons, there is no literature addressing this specifically.

However, most youth who run away do not run far. Van Houten and Golembiewski found

that 72 percent of their survey respondents at 17 runaway and homeless youth programs

nationwide were from the immediate geographic area.

In the case of LGBT street youth in particular, conversations with service providers suggest

that there is a somewhat romanticized notion of leaving the homophobic hometown

behind to find acceptance in New York City, Los Angeles or San Francisco.

BARRIERS TO A MORE ACCURATE COUNT

There is a long history in the United States of counting people in order to make a variety

of policy determinations. After all, if government is to appropriately allocate resources

and services, then it needs some idea of who people are and where they live. The U.S.

Constitution mandates that the federal government conduct a Census every decade. The

results of that decennial Census have a profound impact on every part of the public policy

process, from how many dollars a particular state receives of a block grant to address drug

treatment, to how many Congressional House districts each state is allocated.

In the United States, Census forms are mailed to every household in the nation and

Census Bureau enumerators follow up with households for which no form has been

returned. No Census methodology is perfect, and for many reasons it is impossible to

count everyone. While the process is time-consuming and there are naturally exceptions

The proportion of

LGBT youth in the

overall homeless youth

population is significantly

higher than their

proportion in the U.S.

population as a whole.

64 Ibid.

65 Krisberg, K. (2002). Oregon clinic increases health care access for homeless youth. Nation’s Health, 32(7).

66 Truong, J. (2004).

67 Dylan Nicole, d. K. (2004).

68 Cited in Robertson, M. J. & Toro, P. A. (1998). p.4.

69 Ibid. p.28.

70 Conversations between the author and a number of service providers around the United States.

to the rule, it is relatively easy on any given day to count the number of people who live in

a given apartment. Extrapolate that reality across the country, and the government is able

to obtain a reasonably accurate nationwide count of the most stable sectors of society.

However, there are many people who are not as easily reached, particularly people

experiencing homelessness.

Finding an appropriate time of year to do a count means

factoring in weather and a number of regional variables that might impact the success

of a count in a particular location on any given day. Additionally, many homeless

youth will consciously avoid anyone who looks like an authority figure. Many people

experiencing homelessness, including youth, tend to be constantly mobile or congregate

in areas where access is not always easy, such as abandoned buildings.

There are

other obstacles: the number of people needed to conduct such a count is large, and

the training required to ensure consistency across all areas would be complex. But the

consequences of not finding a solution to this lack of critical data are far worse than

those of overcoming logistical difficulties.

An accurate count of people experiencing homelessness is crucially important because

many services for this population are provided using federal funds. The allocation of

federal funds is often based on population counts conducted during the Census. Without

an accurate count of how many people are experiencing homelessness or living on the

streets in any city, it is difficult to confirm crucial characteristics of the population

experiencing homelessness or to secure necessary increases in funding. This gap in data

inevitably impairs service delivery.

Politics may also play into these kinds of decisions. Some believe that the lack of an

accurate count of the nation’s homeless population provides an excuse for politicians and

public policy administrators to avoid dealing with the issue comprehensively. Advocates

for homeless people and politicians have often clashed over how many people experience

homelessness and the funds needed to serve them appropriately. Some claim that an

accurate count is not possible, which if true means that there is at best only a rough

relationship between need and resources. In the words of one homeless advocate, “They

don’t want to find them because then they would have to provide services for them.”

A national and representative count of people experiencing homelessness, including

those who are LGBT youth, would enable unprecedented targeting of services and funds.

The benefits of having such a count, along with the resulting data, would move us beyond

a situation often faced today when advocates promote particular populations’ needs and

service providers seek funding for those populations but lack the data to justify it. For

example, because our information about homeless LGBT youth is so uncertain, it is often

difficult to persuade policy-makers to allocate scarce resources to serve this population.

When funds are requested for providing services to LGBT homeless youth, politicians

and policymakers ask for data to help justify the request. Obtaining an accurate nation

71 Ringwalt, C. L., Greene, J. M., Robertson, M. & McPheeters, M. (1998). The prevalence of homelessness among adolescents in the

United States. American Journal of Public Health, 88(9).

72 Ibid.

73 For further discussion of problematic aspects of conducting a count of people experiencing homelessness, see Seper, C. (2006, January

17). Counting gay youths who are homeless. Cleveland.com. Retrieved January 17, 2006, from www.cleveland.com

74 Ringwalt, C. L. et. al. (1998). p.1325.

75 Kihara, D. (1999, August 24). Giuliani’s suppressed report on homeless youth. The Village Voice. 44(33). Retrieved October 2, 2006,

from http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9933,kihara,7688,5.html

How many, and why?

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

wide count that includes information about sexual orientation and gender identity would

finally provide irrefutable evidence of the significant scale of homelessness and, more

specifically, the fact that LGBT homeless youth are disproportionately represented among

the overall homeless youth population. A proper count could help advocates around the

country persuade federal, local and state agencies to increase funding to provide safe

space

and adequate support services for these youth. It would also enable advocacy

organizations to point to specific data demonstrating their own communities’ needs.

WHY DO YOUTH BECOME HOMELESS?

The reasons for deciding to leave home or for being thrown out are almost as varied as the

number of young people who find themselves homeless in any given year. Still, simply put,

conflict at home is the primary cause of a youth becoming homeless. Precipitating issues

might involve educational problems, drug or alcohol abuse, communication breakdown,

religious conflict or a desire for independence. Conflict over a youth’s sexual orientation

or gender identity can all too often be the deciding factor in landing a young person on

the streets or in out-of-home care.

Regardless of the ultimate reason, youth face short

and long term consequences. Critical developmental processes are usually affected, as

Rosenheck et al. make clear:

Consolidation of one’s identity, separation from one’s parents and preparation

for independence are key developmental tasks of adolescence and critical for

becoming a well-functioning adult in our society. Most adolescents prepare

for this transition to adulthood in their homes and school… these [homeless]

adolescents are generally ill-equipped for independent living and many become

easy prey for predators on the streets.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY ISSUES

According to one study, 50 percent of gay males experienced a nega-

tive parental reaction when they came out and 26 percent of those

disclosures were met with a demand that the youth leave home.

In the case of Kurt Dyer, this meant packing his entire life into six

trash bags at the age of 16 and moving in with a friend’s family.

Kurt was lucky; as he puts it, the biggest choice he had to make after

leaving was the question his friend’s parents posed: “What color do

you want to paint your new room?”

Obviously Kurt’s experience

is not typical, but his determination to succeed in the long term is

common. We discuss the resiliency of homeless LGBT youth later in

Twenty-six percent of all

LGBT disclosures were

met with a demand that

the youth leave home.

In the case of Kurt Dyer,

this meant packing his

entire life into six trash

bags and moving in

with a friend’s family.

76 When we say safe space, we mean a space where homeless youth can go and safely receive services and support without fear of discrimi-

nation on any basis and without the fear that sometimes accompanies youth experiences at adult shelters.

77 Clatts, M. J. et. al. (1998).

78 Rosenheck, R., Bassuk, E., & Salomon, A. (2006). Special populations of homeless Americans. United States Department of Health and

Human Services. Retrieved June 3, 2005, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/progsys/homeless/symposium/2-spclpop.htm

79 See Gibson, P. (1989b). Gay male and lesbian youth suicide. In Report of the Secretary’s Task Force on Youth Suicide. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.; Remafedi, G. (1987). Cited in Sullivan, C., Sommer, S. & Moff, J. (2001). Youth

in the Margins: A Report on the Unmet Needs of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Adolescents in Foster Care. Lambda Legal Defense &

Education Fund.

80 Dyer, K. (2006, January 31). Kicked out? Drop in. The Advocate. p.20.

this report. Kurt’s resilience in the face of familial rejection is amply demonstrated by his

rise to serve as Director of Youth Services at the Milwaukee LGBT Community Center.

Another youth named James, who ended up at the Home for Little Wanderers’ Waltham

House program for LGBT youth, described an all-too familiar scenario. A snooping parent

sees or reads something alluding to their child’s sexual orientation or gender identity and

panics. In James’ case, he came home and was met by his mother demanding, “You’re

going to be straight or you’re not going to live here anymore.”

When sexual orientation or gender identity is at the heart of the problem, the social

service system is not set up to facilitate a positive outcome. If action could be taken prior

to a youth’s running away or being thrown out, then there might be

the potential to avoid this undesirable outcome. However, this rarely

happens. And when the juvenile court or child welfare systems seek

to find a route to family reunification, it rarely involves engaging

caregivers in a conversation about accepting the sexual orientation

or gender identity of their child, even if it is clearly the primary cause

of familial conflict. More often than not,

…parents are not helped to move past the problems that disrupted

the continuity of their relationships with their children, and

sexual minority children may be deprived of any opportunity to

resolve the conflicts associated with those relationships.

The potential for sexual orientation or gender identity issues to cause

conflict that in turn may lead to an episode of homelessness can be

mitigated depending on the nature of the relationship between

parents and their children. A number of variables contribute to the functionality of family

relationships, which one researcher has split into four categories:

1. In functional relationships, the child is “out” about his or her sexual orientation and

the family accepting. The child may or may not live at home, but that situation is not

related to any family/parental issues with their sexual orientation.

2. In the case of strained relationships, the child is out but his/her sexual orientation is

problematic. The child is discriminated against, perhaps physically or sexually abused

in the home, and more likely to be driven to run away.

3. In the case of separated relations, the child has left and may be either homeless or

staying with friends, but the parent-child relationship has broken down, perhaps

irretrievably.

4. With a deceptive relationship, things are potentially more precarious, though in

the short term safer. The child wants to tell his/her parents the truth but fears the

consequences of doing so and lies about what activities he or she is involved in and

with whom they are involved. Youth confirmed that short of a guarantee of parental

acceptance and ongoing financial and spiritual support if they come out, this secrecy

seemed like the best option in order to remain at home. One homeless youth, in

rhetorically addressing housed youngsters contemplating telling their parents that

81 Wen, P. (2002, October 22). For gay teens, a place to call home - state facility third in nation to address their specific needs gay, bisexual

teens have a new place they can call home. Boston Globe. p.B1.

82 Sullivan, R. T. (1994).

83 Maitra, R. (2002). The homeless community of the piers. The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, 9(2).

“I spoke to my momma’s

boyfriend’s uncle, and

he was like, ‘What? You

talking to me? I don’t

speak to faggies. I shoot

faggies.’ It’s messed up.”

––An 18-year-old

homeless African-

American gay male from

Detroit, Michigan.

How many, and why?

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and/or queer, explained why deception

was the way to go: “I’m living proof. There is nothing here for you. Stay at home and

wait till you can live on your own. Then tell them.”

PHYSICAL OR SEXUAL ASSAULT

Physical abuse in the home is a consistent factor leading to homeless-

ness, with 40 percent to 60 percent of all homeless youth saying it

contributed to their no longer living at home.

In Minnesota, one

study of homeless youth and those in the care of the child welfare

system found that 35 percent of runaway youth, 36 percent of

throwaway youth and 56 percent of youth in the state child welfare

system experienced physical assault when they came out.

Gaetz cites

additional research that suggests street youth are five times as likely

as domiciled youth (youth living in stable homes) to report instances

of sexual abuse as a child.

Homeless youth, regardless of sexual

orientation or gender identity, experienced more maltreatment and

lived in more conflict-ridden situations than did their still-housed

contemporaries.

Unfortunately, parents’ reactions to the discovery that a son or

daughter is LGBT can lead to physical or sexual assault, and this

assault can become the immediate reason for a youth becoming homeless.

research is needed because fully one-third of all LGBT youth are assaulted by a parent or

other family member as a result of disclosing their sexual orientation.

Coming out can

be a healthy step, but not when there is a real risk of physical and/or emotional harm.

LGBT youth become an easy target for adult caretakers. According to one study, more

than 30 percent of lesbian and gay people have suffered physical violence at the hands

of a family member.

As one New York City gay youth put it in describing his alcoholic

mother’s propensity for physical violence, “If she couldn’t find the television remote

because it was under a pile of clothing, she’d beat me.”

This came after he had already

endured repeated sexual assaults at the hands of his aunt.

84 Ibid. p.11.

85 Robertson, M. J. & Toro, P. A. (1998).

86 Wilder Research. (2005).

87 Gaetz, S. (2004). p.426.

88 Ibid.

89 Thompson, S. J. et. al. (2001).

90 Ricks, S. (2003, December 1). Hard-won R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Portland high school’s gay-straight alliance can point to real, if painstaking,

progress in its campaign for tolerance and acceptance. Portland Press Herald. p.8B.

91 See Gibson, P. (1989).

92 Jacobs, A. (2004, June 27). For young gays on the streets, survival comes before pride, few beds for a growing class of homeless. The New

York Times. Retrieved June 27, 2006, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D02EFDB1738F934A15

755C0A9629C8B63

“I haven’t come out

to my daddy yet, and

I don’t think I want to

do that, because I love

my life and I want to

live it. That would put

me six feet under.”

––18-year-old African-

American homeless

gay male from

Detroit, Michigan.

ADDITIONAL FACTORS THAT LEAD TO HOMELESSNESS

In a study of homeless youth conducted in Calgary, Alberta and Lethbridge, Alberta, respon-

dents mentioned several contributing factors that led to their no longer living at home:

• Parental marriage breaking down or conflict in melded stepfamilies

• Perception of a lack of nurturing from parents

• Physical violence in the home, even if it was not directed at the youth

• Drug and alcohol abuse by parents

• Parental involvement with the criminal justice system

As one young person from the study described,

My Mom and Dad… things just started getting out of hand… My Dad, well, he’s in jail

for, I don’t know what he did but, he broke her tibia and my Mom, she’s getting heavily

into drinking like, and I guess she got put in jail and we got sent to social services.

Instability at home naturally causes tension that can impact youth

regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. When that

instability leads to a separation of the parents, the odds of a child

running away and ending up on the street immediately increase.

Hagan and McCarthy confirm that youth from intact families are less

than one-fifth as likely to be on the streets and homeless.

In a study

of 50 homeless youth aged 18 to 23, 75 percent came from single

parent households.

Similarly, the kind of treatment meted out to

children by their parents can have a direct impact on their odds of

ending up on the streets. Hagan and McCarthy created a measure

of “coercive parental control” (i.e., physical abuse) and found that a

one-point increase on this scale correlated with doubled odds of a

young person ending up homeless on the street.

It is important to

bear in mind that none of these studies found causal relationships; rather, they discuss

correlations between homelessness and a variety of potentially contributing variables.

This kind of instability and lack of permanence in a young person’s life can go back many

years.

In and out of different care settings for all manner of reasons, including violence,

criminality and drug or alcohol abuse in the home, many homeless youth do not feel a

sense of belonging to the place arbitrarily labeled “home.”

100

101

This instability can be

caused not only by

behavioral problems but also because of economic hardship caused by

parental unemployment.

102

“Basically, I live my life

as a lie. Or I try to,”

—Homeless 19-year-

old lesbian from Ann

Arbor, Michigan,

as she thinks about

how uncomfortable

her mother is with

her sexuality.

93 Miller, P., Donahue, P., Este, D. & Hofer, M. (2004). Experiences of being homeless or at risk of being homeless among Canadian

youths. Adolescence, 39(156).

94 For a parallel discussion of many of these issues, see also Rew, L., Taylor-Seehafer, M., Thomas, N. Y. & Yockey, R. D. (2001). Correlates

of resilience in homeless adolescents. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(1).

95 Miller, P. et. al. (2004). p.740.

96 Hagan, J. & McCarthy, B. (1992). Streetlife and delinquency. The British Journal of Sociology, 43(4). p.547.

97 Hyde, J. (2005). p.175.

98 Hagan, J. & McCarthy, B. (1992). p.547.

99 Kipke, M. D., Palmer, R. F., LaFrance, S. & O’Connor, S. (1997). Homeless youths’ descriptions of their parents’ child-rearing prac-

tices. Youth and Society, 28(4).

100 Miller, P. et. al. (2004). p.741.

101 Wilder Research. (2005).

102 Ibid.

How many, and why?

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Often a variety of issues, including sexual orientation or gender identity, can motivate a

breakdown in communication that ultimately leads a young person to leave home. This

does not mean the youth is always chased out by family members. Some youth fear that

because their sexual orientation or gender identity will disappoint their parents, they need

to find an alternative space where they can be respected and optimize

their chances of succeeding in life.

103

Parental or sibling drug use at home sets a dangerous precedent and

creates a dangerous environment for young people. However, escaping

that behavior necessarily leads to new forms of instability.

104

105

In a

study of homeless youth in Minnesota, 24 percent cited substance

abuse at home as a reason for not being at home,

106

as did 30 percent

in a study of homeless youth in Los Angeles.

107

Performing below their own or their parents’ expectations academi-

cally may be one factor that leads to homelessness. For example, 12

percent of homeless youth in Los Angeles stated that educational

performance was a factor,

108

while other studies have found that up

to 35 percent of homeless youth report that they were held back a

year in school.

109

Educational failure can lead to either being kicked out for not

having done well enough, or walking out for fear of being seen as a

failure. Well-meaning parents know the value of education. Undue pressure on any child,

regardless of the best intentions underlying that pressure, can lead to conflict.

110

A young

person with educational goals is also less likely to run away and wind up on the streets.

Any youth experiencing conflict at school, as do at least 80 percent of LGBT youth, has

increased odds of homelessness.

111

Independence can be something young people seek or something that is thrust upon

them, but in either case the result can be homelessness. In Miller et al.’s study, many youth

identified this as a critical factor that led to their homelessness: “[B]ecause of conflict

at home, they had become very independent – out of necessity rather than desire.”

112

Whitbeck and Hoyt’s analysis confirms this fact, noting “precocious independence and

early dependence on themselves rather than caretaker adults often occurred prior to

youth running away.”

113

For reasons that down the road may seem less credible, many saw

a romantic side to the idea of running away. Twenty two percent of Hyde’s respondents

cited a desire to travel and experience new opportunities as a reason for leaving.

114

Once away from the strictures and stresses of home life, the young and newly homeless

“My mom (is) a coke

addict. Addictive

personality, you

know. All my cousins,

alcoholics, crack heads,

and I just know I have

to stay away from

it, because I have an

addictive personality.”

–– Spoken by a homeless

19-year-old lesbian from

Ann Arbor, Michigan.

103 Rojas, M. (2005, December 11). Green Chimneys in NYC helping lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youths. The Journal News.

104 Sanchez, R. (2004, December 20).

105 Thompson, S. J. et. al. (2001).

106 Wilder Research. (2005). p.7.

107 Hyde, J. (2005). p.175.

108 Ibid. p.175.

109 Cited in Robertson, M. J. & Toro, P. A. (1998).

110 Miller, P. et. al. (2004). p.740.

111 Hagan, J. & McCarthy, B. (1992).

112 Miller, P. et. al. (2004). p.741.

113 Whitbeck, L. B. & Hoyt, D. R. (1999). p.86.

114 Cited in Hyde, J. (2005). p.175.

gravitate to areas where they can socialize with similarly affected

youth. In these spaces, their freedom and individuality are rein

forced, but so are the negatives in their lives: “[P]sychologically

harmed children run away from home and the process of running

away further harms them… Negative developmental trajectories

gain momentum across time.”

115

Robert et al. note in their study

of youth at risk of homelessness that youth who end up on the

street have often been rejected twice. Initially, their family kicks

them out or lets them leave. Subsequently, an institutional care

system sees behavioral problems that arose at home as in need

of reform and discipline rather than treatment.

116

When this

happens, the option of remaining on the streets may become

more appealing, or at least not as immediately frightening.

Particularly for LGBT youth, religious beliefs at home can be a motivator for leaving if

parents or other family members are unable or unwilling to accept their child’s sexual

orientation or gender identity because of their faith. In the case of Triniti, a 21-year-old

bisexual, “Religion got in the way. My Mother grew up in a church. She didn’t understand

what ‘gay’ meant.”

117

And in Hyde’s study of 50 homeless youth in Los Angeles, 8 percent

of youth cited religious beliefs as influential in their ending up homeless.

118

Much of the conversation about determinants of homelessness

revolves around young people as victims, as recipients of unfair

treatment and/or neglect as children. Justeen Hyde, however, argues

that it is important to consider the possibility that young people are

actually expressing personal agency when they leave home. Linked

to the notion of LGBT youth’s resiliency, which we address later

in this report, Hyde argues that some youth are taking control of

a bad situation when they leave and that this is a good thing. For

example, Twig, a 21-year-old who had been on and off the streets

for six years, noted of his mother’s husband, “[H]e gave my mom

an ultimatum—either he leaves or I leave. I couldn’t deal with it

anymore, and I didn’t want my mom to have to decide. I just packed

my shit up and left.”

119

Twig felt he had more chance of surviving on

his own than did his mother.

WHY DO YOUTH REMAIN HOMELESS?

There are a number of critical reasons why youth remain homeless, sometimes long after

they leave or are kicked out of their homes. Many are unrelated to sexual orientation or

gender identity but instead reflect economic and social realities facing the indigent today.

“[P]sychologically

harmed children run

away from home and the

process of running away

further harms them...

Negative developmental

trajectories gain

momentum across time.”

“My auntie caught me

and my ex-girlfriend...

we were just in bed

together, and she told

the whole church. She

told the whole church!”

–– Homeless 19-year-

old lesbian from Ann

Arbor, Michigan

115 Whitbeck, L. B. & Hoyt, D. R. (1999). p.150.

116 Robert, M., Pauze, R. & Fournier, L. (2005). Factors associated with homelessness of adolescents under supervision of the youth

protection system. Journal of Adolescence, 28(2). p.228.

117 Rojas, M. (2005, December 11).

118 Hyde, J. (2005). p.175.

119 Ibid. (2005). p.177.

How many, and why?

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Milburn et al. studied newly homeless youth in Melbourne, Australia and Los Angeles

over a 12-month period. Because existing research demonstrates that “the context in

which a leaving home episode occurs is a significant determinant of its outcome,”

120

they

sought to test what might predict stronger family bonds 12 months after becoming home

less. While they expected that geographic context and socio-demographic characteristics

might be significant, they found that family bonds “are associated with factors related to

social and behavioral problems.”

121

Specifically, problem behaviors such as alcohol or drug use, risky sexual behavior or

involvement with the criminal justice system were the most frequent predictive factors.

The greater the level of such behavior at the point of homelessness and the greater the

increase in such behavior over the course of the following 12 months, the less likely

strong familial bonds that might draw a young person home would endure. Social welfare

professionals might usefully develop “family-focused interventions that assist parents

and siblings to provide supportive family interactions as an important early intervention

strategy for newly homeless young people.”

122

In a San Francisco study of homeless and severely poor LGBT youth, four reasons were

cited for their predicament:

1. Affordable housing is scarce if not completely impossible to obtain, and in many

urban areas where gentrification is ongoing and rental costs are rising, this is a situa

tion unlikely to change anytime soon.

2. An incomplete education makes it difficult for youth to secure work that pays a livable

wage.

3. Jobs that are accessible despite youths’ lack of complete education are few and far

between.

4. Drug abuse was cited as a key reason for remaining severely poor or homeless.

123

These four issues are inextricably linked, a point clarified by the San Francisco Lesbian

Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center’s director of community programs:

What we’re seeing is that many LGBT youth, who generally come here from across

the country because they’re fleeing discrimination in their schools and communities,

are finding that once they get here the housing is too expensive, so they fall into

poverty and homelessness…. And without safe, supportive and affordable housing,

the youth aren’t able to access jobs, continue their education, deal with mental health

issues. They are stuck.

124

Youth explain that independence is hard to give up, even if the idea of a stable and safe

home life is appealing: “I’ve been out of my parents’ house since I was 14… just problems

at home… I held a place for three years paying rent… I don’t like to use a lot of support.

I like to do it myself.”

125

This young person’s opinion is widely shared. In a study of

120 Milburn, N. G., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Batterman, P., Brumback, B., Rosenthal, D. & Mallet, S. (2005). Predictors of close family

relationships over one year among homeless young people. Journal of Adolescence, 28. p.275.

121 Ibid. p.272.

122 Ibid. p.273.

123 Fagan, K. (2006, January 9). Survey: Housing, education, jobs, drugs challenge poor gay youths. San Francisco Chronicle. p.B3.

124 Ibid.

125 Miller, P. et. al. (2004). p.741.

homeless children and youth in Minnesota, 51 percent cited their newfound freedom as

one of the reasons for remaining away from home.

126

When youth finally achieve a sense

of belonging and community, regardless of the specific risks of the situation, it is not

surprising that they are averse to going back to a space they recall largely, if not entirely,

negatively.

127

Distrust of authority, not believing that success is possible in a system that

they see as broken, and a sense of adventure were also cited as important considerations

for staying on the streets. “The street was fun and adventurous,

especially in the summer… it was a party, running around selling

weed so you can get money.”

128

The same study confirmed a number of other reasons that mirror

those already identified as contributors to youth becoming homeless

in the first place:

• Conflict at home (63 percent)

• A family that will not tolerate their presence in the home for a

variety of reasons (39 percent)

• Parental substance abuse (24 percent)

• Criminal activity (19 percent)

• The risk of emotional abuse (22 percent)

• The fact that their sexual orientation specifically is unacceptable to their parent or

guardian (7 percent)

129

There are of course differences that might help to explain why some youth decide to

return home while others do not. Thompson et al.’s analysis of almost 18,000 Runaway

and Homeless Youth Management Information Systems (RHYMIS) case files shows that

child welfare professionals should ensure that intervention efforts aimed at reunifying

youth with their families are “based on adequate assessments so that they can be tailored

to the specific needs of these groups of youth.”

130

Runaway youth are more likely to go

home if they know doing so will not lead to physical or sexual assault and if they can

be steered clear of criminal behavior as much as possible. Hyde’s study of youth in Los

Angeles confirms this. Her respondents “with histories of severe physical abuse that

occurred across different stages of childhood were least likely to express a desire for

transitioning off the streets.”

131

In the case of throwaway youth, where relations with family are usually in a worse state, work

needs to be done not just with the youth but also with the family. Throwaway youth have a

greater propensity than runaway youth to have been involved in criminal behavior and drug

use. Unlike the families of runaway youth, the families of throwaway youth need assistance

with learning how to cope with a returned child, including appropriate parenting skills.

132

Independence can be

hard to give up: “I’ve

been out of my parents’

house since I was

14... just problems at

home... I held a place

for three years paying

rent... I don’t like to

use a lot of support. I

like to do it myself.”

126 Wilder Research. (2005).

127 Raleigh-Duroff, C. (2004). Factors that influence homeless adolescents to leave or stay living on the street. Child and Adolescent Social

Work Journal, 21(6). p.569.

128 Ibid. p.570.

129 Wilder Research. (2005).

130 Thompson, S. J. et. al. (2001). p.170.

131 Hyde, J. (2005). p.180.

132 Thompson, S. J. et. al. (2001). p.170.

How many, and why?

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

The federal

response to youth

homelessness

In this section of our report, we discuss the process behind policy developments in

the United States that have acknowledged and attempted to deal with the problem of

homelessness. In order to provide context, this discussion will not focus exclusively on

LGBT youth. Early policy discussions underlying the development

of homelessness programs rarely even contemplated LGBT people.

Where relevant, however, we discuss the impact of policy changes on

LGBT youth specifically.

The notion of homelessness as a public problem deserving of targeted

federal policy initiatives does not have a long history. Before the New

Deal era, aid such as there was for the poor and those without shelter

and/or income often came from faith-based groups.

133

During the

1930s and the Great Depression, while there was some discussion

about the systemic causes of emerging homelessness, it did not lead

to any organized response or solution at the governmental level. The

country was in dire economic straits and policy-makers were unable

or unwilling to dedicate time or resources to this newly recognized problem. The focus

was on “families with children standing in the soup line and newly caught in the web of

abject poverty.”

134

Much progress was made helping such families, as well as widows and

children, but homelessness was not a targeted priority.

By the 1960s and 1970s, the War on Poverty and Lyndon Johnson’s other Great Society

initiatives facilitated a national awareness of homelessness in political and public

policy arenas, though there was inadequate attention to a growing crisis in low income

housing.

135

In the late 1970s, citing economic justifications, mental hospitals began

discharging large numbers of patients via “deinstitutionalizations.”

136

Additionally, there

is evidence that during the Reagan administration more stringent welfare eligibility

requirements increased the population of homeless youth.

137

According to the Urban

League Review, some blamed this increase on “closed mental hospitals, alcoholism, drug

It was little more than

a quarter century ago

that the problem of

homelessness in America,

and specifically youth

homelessness, was

considered no more

than a criminal matter.

133 Boddie, S. C. (2003). Faith-based organizations and the distribution of social responsibility: A look at black congregations. Retrieved September

12, 2006, from http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/docs/events/2003_spring_research_conference/boddie.pdf

134 NASW Delegate Assembly (1996). Homelessness. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers. p.184.

135 NASW Delegate Assembly (1996). p.185.

136 Jencks, C. (1994). The homeless. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

137 Crowley, J. E. (2003). The gentrification of child support enforcement services, 1950-1984. The Social Science Review, 77(4).

addiction and laziness” as well as the Reagan administration’s “scathing attacks on social

welfare programs.”

138

Research supports a link between lack of access to institutional

mental healthcare and youth homelessness. For example, when in the 1990s Laura

Embry et al. followed 83 youth after their discharges from institutions, one-third of the

adolescents “experienced at least one homeless episode after discharge.”

139

It was little more than a quarter century ago that the problem of homelessness in America,

especially youth homelessness, was considered no more than a criminal matter. After all,

the argument went, if young people were irresponsible and disrespectful enough to run

away, then that was surely a sign of a troublemaker who was likely to only cause more

trouble down the road.

THE RUNAWAY AND HOMELESS YOUTH ACT

A BRIEF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

National attention was not drawn to the increasing problem of runaway and homeless

youth until the 1970s, and by 1976 an estimated two million young Americans had run

away, double the number reported five years earlier.

140

Additionally, people began to

realize that in many instances the youth running away in the 1970s were very different

from their contemporaries who fled home in the 1960s—at least, they were different from

the images portrayed by the media during that socially and politically volatile decade. The

entire nation saw a president assassinated and a faraway war run out of control, while

hundreds of thousands protested that war and the dire social conditions at home. “The

‘flower children’ of the mid-1960s… often deserted their homes for a subculture ‘Utopia’

in a spirit of rebellion” was how one media outlet described the 1960s runaways.

141

In contrast, among the youth who ran away from home during the 1970s, an estimated 40

to 60 percent were reported to have left home because of some form of abuse, “to escape a

growing epidemic of once unspeakable crimes—incest and child abuse.”

142

In all likelihood, of

course, many of the 1960s runaways were also escaping physical, emotional or sexual abuse or

trying to find an environment they felt was safer in some other way then their home.

The countercultural attitudes of that decade perhaps encouraged them to search for a

better place to live. However, the media’s capacity to shape perceptions of a policy issue

is made starkly clear by the presumption of youthful rebellion motivating earlier waves of

homelessness. The far less idealistic picture acknowledged in the 1970s made it signifi

cantly harder for policy-makers to continue to ignore a very real and growing problem.

To address this growing concern, the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s

Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency held two days of hearings in the spring

of 1972.

143

The name of the committee hardly suggested that there was a sympathetic body

138 Davey, J. (1993). Homelessness in the United States: The Reagan legacy. Urban League Review, 16(1).

139 Embry, L. V. S. A. et. al. (2002). Risk factors for homelessness in adolescents released from psychiatric residential treatment. Journal of

the American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(10).

140 U.S.News & World Report. (1977, January 17). Why children are running away in record numbers. p.62.

141 Ibid.

142 Ibid.

143 Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency. (1972, January 13). Runaway youth. Committee on the Judiciary. Legislative

Hearings on S.2829. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

of legislators waiting to address the crisis facing some of the country’s neediest young

people. However, respected Senator and subcommittee Chairman Birch Bayh (D-IN)

noted, in addressing the changing nature of youth who ran away:

[T]oday… running away is less likely to be a healthy striving for adulthood than an

anguished cry for help from a child who has nowhere to turn… [who is] escaping from

the reality of serious problems at home, at school, or within themselves.

144

Senator Bayh went on to say that not only had the number of runaway youth dramati-

cally increased, but there had been “an alarming increase in the number of very young

runaways.”

145

In New York City, for example, 43 percent of the runaways in 1972 were

between the ages of 11 and 14.

146

Prior to 1974, youth who ran away from home were considered criminals. If found by

police they were forcibly returned to their homes without any attempt to deal with the

problem that caused them to run away. The problem was viewed only as “a form of

delinquency characterized by disobedience and ‘acting out.’”

147

Today this indifference

to home, school or risk of abuse strikes us as shocking, but young people were then far

less likely to be seen as having individual rights and far more likely

to simply be considered troublemakers ignoring their parents. Many

youth, with no option but to live on the streets, were forced to resort

to a life of crime. It was not until they were arrested and sent to

either juvenile detention centers or institutions for the mentally ill

and insane that many youth were offered any form of counseling

to address underlying problems. In other words, committing some

sort of criminal activity that would justify detention in one kind

of facility or another might be the only way for runaway youth to

put a potentially safe roof over their head and access any kind of

professional support.

The standard of counseling that was provided was less than ideal. In

1972, the committee called as its first witness a senior employee for a District of Columbia

nonprofit that worked with youth in the city. William Treanor, Director of Special

Approaches in Juvenile Assistance, Inc., noted that

…the critical problem for young people is that if they want to find a living situation

that will help them meet their needs, there is nothing for them, and what the

Government provides for them is incarceration and institutionalization.

148

So support was lacking for all kinds of reasons, and in the meantime the youth might

be housed in a less than healthy environment with the potential to encourage further

anti-social behavior.

There were very few private agencies that provided support for runaways at the time. Of

those that did, many often lacked the necessary funds to do a comprehensive job, and

according to one agency representative, they had to “overcome community and police

suspicion and hostility.”

149

In order for shelters to house runaway youth, they had to

Committing a criminal

act that would justify

detention might be the

only way for runaway

youth to put a potentially

safe roof over their head

and access any kinds of

professional support.

144 Ibid. p.5.

145 Ibid. p.6.

146 Ibid. p.6.

147 Hyde, J. (2005). p.172.

148 Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency. (1972, January 13). p.15.

149 Ibid. p.5.

obtain parental permission, which often caused conflicts. With a child viewed as unable

to articulate his or her own needs or concerns about the living environment from which

they were escaping, this was an easy time for predators, sexual and otherwise, to retain

control of their victims.

During the Senate hearings, the reality of such a conflict of interest was amply illustrated.

One witness was asked what would happen to a child found living on the streets who had

run away because she was tired of being sexually molested by her stepfather. According to

the witness, in the eyes of California law,

…the child is a runaway and beyond parental control. She is subject to arrest and is

ineligible for any services other than after the arrest and detention in Juvenile hall.

Time of detention for kids like that is frequently six months.

150

Under the leadership of Sen. Bayh, the subcommittee held its hearings as a way to begin

addressing the root of the problem rather than merely the consequences:

We are concerned with juvenile crime, and juvenile drug abuse, and we have devel

oped rehabilitation programs to help juveniles after they are in trouble. But what we

have too often failed to realize is the need for prevention. We have developed very

few programs to help our young people before they become serious lawbreakers. The

runaway is a strong potential candidate for juvenile delinquency and a life of adult

crime. If we can help the runaway deal with the problems that caused him to run, we

can prevent many runaways from becoming truly delinquent.

151

Clearly a key motivating factor for action was a reduction in juvenile delinquency.

Senator Bayh’s acknowledgement of the root causes of the epidemic of youth homeless

ness enabled others to join him in proposing systemic changes that might have a real

impact on the long term problem. While the notion of any federal response was novel,

critics remind us that real understanding of the issue was still some way off. The policy

solutions considered by Congress rested on four assumptions:

• Runaway children would end up on the streets and without resources.

• Removal from the streets would save them.

• Temporary shelter was all that was required to “tide them over.”

• Law enforcement and juvenile justice should not be involved in the processes

developed.

152

In short, “the interpretation of runaway behavior… was based primarily on a single linear

episode in which the youth voluntarily leaves home, finds resources while in need, and is

directed back home.”

153

If only the problem had been or would remain that simple.

CONGRESS ACTS

As a result of the 1972 hearings, Congress passed and President Gerald Ford signed into

law the Runaway Youth Act (RYA) as part of the 1974 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

150 Ibid. p.35.

151 Ibid. p.6.

152 Staller, K. M. (2004). Runaway youth system dynamics: A theoretical framework for analyzing runaway and homeless youth policy.

Families in Society, 85(3). p.381.

153 Ibid.

The federal response

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Prevention Act. This new legislation decriminalized runaways by requiring states to

separate services to runaway youth from the law enforcement, mental health, child welfare

and juvenile justice systems.

154

Second, it required that states that received federal funding

provide runaway youth with shelter, food, counseling and other necessities. With these

mandates for improved services came new federal dollars, initially provided under the

Basic Center Program. Federal funding increased drastically after passage of this landmark

legislation, from $2.3 million in 1973 to $7 million in 1976.

155

In 1977, the Runaway Youth Act was expanded and renamed the Runaway and Homeless

Youth Act (RHYA). Subsequent revisions of the law led to the expansion of services

and the creation of two critical new programs, the Transitional Living Program in 1988

for older homeless youth and the Street Outreach Program in 1994 to help and protect

homeless youth on the streets. These three programs remain the central components of

legislation addressing youth homelessness in America today.

In 2003, Congress passed the Runaway, Homeless and Missing Children Protection

Act (RHMCPA), which reauthorized and amended RHYA and the Missing Children’s

Assistance Act through the fiscal year 2008. This latest reauthorization combines the funds

for the Basic Center Program and the Transitional Living Program. We turn now to a brief

consideration of what exactly these key programs are intended to achieve, and how.

FEDERAL PROGRAMS FOR HOMELESS YOUTH

BASIC CENTER PROGRAM

The Basic Center Program funds are provided “to establish or strengthen community-

based programs that address the immediate needs of runaway and homeless youth

and their families.”

156

Funds are administered through the U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services’ Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB). Drop-in centers that

provide some immediate aid as well as referrals to other community resources are critical

because many homeless youth are difficult to reach on the street, and if they are going to

voluntarily seek help it needs to be in a comfortable space designed specifically to address

their concerns and needs. The Ruth Ellis Center in Detroit, Mich., is one such program,

and later in this report the organization’s executive director profiles efforts to serve LGBT

youth of color. All basic centers are required to offer the following types of assistance:

• Emergency shelter, either directly or by arrangement with another service provider

• Food, clothing, medical care, or other services that youth need

• Individual, group and family counseling

• Recreation programs

• Outreach targeting both youth who may need assistance and other public or private

agencies that work with youth and families

154 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Family and Youth Services Bureau. (2006). Fact sheet: Basic center program. Author.

Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/youthdivision/programs/bcpfactsheet.htm

155 U.S.News & World Report. (1977, January 17). p.62.

156 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Family and Youth Services Bureau. (2006).

• Aftercare services for youth after they leave the shelter

While some youth might find their own way to a drop-in center designed to help them

get off the streets, not all will do so. As a result, professionals seeking to help homeless

youth need to get out on the streets and find their future clients. This is the task of street

outreach staff.

STREET OUTREACH PROGRAM

The Street Outreach Program (SOP) was created to prevent the sexual abuse or exploita-

tion of young people who are living on the streets. It was first created through the

Violence against Women Act of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act

of 1994 and has been reauthorized under the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children

Protection Act of 2003.

Under the SOP, the Family and Youth Services Bureau awards grants to private nonprofit

agencies to conduct outreach designed to build relationships between grantee staff and

street youth with a goal of helping these kids leave the streets.

157

Services that are often

offered include:

• Street-based education and outreach

• Access to emergency shelter

• Survival aid

• Individual assessments

• Treatment and counseling

• Prevention and education activities

• Information and referrals

• Crisis intervention

• Follow-up support

Much of this assistance is provided on the streets by trained staff, but youth are also

encouraged to visit a drop-in center in the hopes of beginning the transition from street

permanence to shelter. In New York City, the Ali Forney Center (AFC) operates a drop-in

center and SOP specifically targeting the LGBT homeless youth population. Their intent

is multifold. Initially, the aim is to have youth meet an outreach worker, visit the drop-in

center and meet with a social worker. Perhaps the youth will then take a space in a short-

term emergency shelter operated by the agency and later, if ready and able, move into a

transitional living program still run by AFC. The benefits of working with youth in this

continuous way are obvious: stability, predictability and consistency of policies, people

and priorities.

Of course, not all youth can or want to benefit from this continuum of care, but a great

deal of help can be administered right where young homeless people are hanging out

on the streets. Mobile health screening and treatment vans, on-the-go dentists and basic

mental health consultation services can all be brought to youth in need.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services encourages all RHYA funding

157 Ibid.

The federal response

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

applicants to develop their project descriptions and curricula utilizing the Positive Youth

Development (PYD) framework.

158

159

Faith-based and community organizations are also

encouraged to apply for all types of RHYA funding.

160

Despite the enormous need for this

type of work, the Street Outreach Program provides a total of only $15 million per year in

funding, with the maximum amount for each grant set at $200,000.

161

TRANSITIONAL LIVING PROGRAM

When youth are found on the street, the ideal situation might well be to see them at a

drop-in center, perhaps provide short term emergency shelter, then see them return home.

Whether this home is with natural, adoptive or foster parents or another relative or adult

with whom the youth has a healthy and safe established relationship, reunification is

the optimal outcome. Unfortunately, in too many instances, such an environment does

not exist. Many runaway or homeless youth cannot return to their families, oftentimes

due to abusive situations, abandonment or severe family conflict. To address this reality,

Congress sought to offer the kind of longer-term supportive assistance that emergency

shelter programs were not designed to provide.

The Transitional Living Program for Older Homeless Youth (TLP) was created in a 1988

amendment to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. The program provides longer

term residential services to homeless youth ages 16-21 for up to 18 months and services to

provide youth with the skills necessary to live independently.

162

Living accommodations

may be with host families, in group homes, maternity group homes, or supervised apart

ments. Transitional Living Program grantees must provide the following services directly

or by referral:

• Safe, stable living conditions

• Basic life-skill building

• Interpersonal skill building

• Educational opportunities

• Assistance in job preparation and attainment

• Substance abuse education, information and counseling

• Mental health care

• Physical health care

Transitional Living Program grants are available to public and private nonprofit agencies,

Indian tribes and faith-based organizations, and each organization is able to apply for a

maximum grant of $200,000.

163

158 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. (2006). Street Outreach Program. Author.

Retrieved July 5, 2006, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/HHS-2006-ACF-ACYF-YO-0105.html. p.2.

159 More information about Positive Youth Development models follows later in this publication, including in contributions from our

partnering agencies.

160 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. (2006). p.7.

161 Ibid. p.6.

162 Cooper, E. F. (2006). The runaway and homeless youth program: Administration, funding, and legislative actions. CRS Report for Congress.

Retrieved July 5, 2006, from http://opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/RL31933_20060323.pdf. p.5.

163 Cooper, E. F. (2006). p.6.

The Green Chimneys program in New York City operates a scattered-site apartment-based

TLP known as the Triangle Tribe Apartments exclusively for youth who identify as LGBT.

Theresa Nolan, their Division Director of New York City programs, has contributed a

section to this report regarding the practicalities of operating such a program.

NATIONAL RUNAWAY SWITCHBOARD

A critical addition to these federally funded programs, created to provide advice

and support to all people impacted by youth homelessness, is the National Runaway

Switchboard (NRS).

164

NRS is a free hotline (1-800-RUNAWAY, open 24 hours a day and

seven days a week) for homeless and runaway youth and their families, enabling them to

seek assistance from trained volunteers and staff.

165

The NRS has also produced a pamphlet for public distribution that specifically addresses

LGBT youth in crisis.

166

NRS offers:

• Crisis intervention

• Information referrals, for both parents and runaway young people, to appropriate

resources in their locale

• Message relay service so youth can contact their parents.

• Three-way calling so youth can speak to parents while NRS counselors remain on the

line

• Free tickets home courtesy of a collaboration with Greyhound Bus Lines

167

Despite their disproportionate numbers, the NRS Web site makes no reference whatsoever to

LGBT youth. The only link related to sexuality takes the viewer to a non-governmental site.

FEDERAL FUNDING UNDER THE RUNAWAY AND HOMELESS YOUTH ACT

In 2004 alone, due to a lack of funding, more than 2,500 youth

were denied access to a TLP program for which they were otherwise

qualified.

168

In addition, 4,200 youth were turned away from Basic

Center Programs, which provide family reunification services and

emergency shelter. The most basic needs of vulnerable youth are not

being met because of a lack of funding. Given the relative political

impotence of people experiencing homelessness, they must hope

that advocacy groups fighting on their behalf will be able to push for

changes in funding priorities.

Table 1 demonstrates how despite a dramatic increase in demand

for services, RHYA funding has remained relatively constant over the past few years. In

real, inflation-adjusted dollars, this means that there have been cuts in money available to

provide the most basic services to society’s most vulnerable young people.

169

In real, inflation-adjusted

dollars, there have been

cuts in money available

to provide the most basic

services to society’s most

vulnerable young people.

164 For more information, see http://www.nrscrisisline.org/

165 Cooper, E. F. (2006). p.8.

166 National Runaway Switchboard. (2005).

167 For more information, see www.greyhound.com

168 Data compiled from the federally administered Runaway and Homeless Youth Management Information System (RHYMIS).

169 Project HOPE: Virginia education for homeless children and youth program. (2006).

The federal response

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Thousands of youth are already being turned away from these essential programs. The

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported in 2003 that nearly 40 percent

of the youth who went to Transitional Living Programs for help were turned away due to

lack of resources.

170

MCKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT

Prior to the early 1980s, most homelessness assistance for adults

and families was conducted at the local level. After initial efforts

to help youth specifically, one of the first notable federal interven

tions came in 1983. A federal task force was created to provide

local governments with information on how to obtain surplus

federal property that could be used as homeless shelters. In 1987,

the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act was signed into

law, renamed in 2000 as the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance

Act. The act included a provision to establish the Interagency

Council on the Homeless

171

to coordinate efforts by various

agencies addressing the issue of homelessness. While runaway and

throwaway youth are provided for specifically in the Runaway and

Homeless Youth Act, the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance

Act also benefits runaway youth and the shelters that provide for

them. Among the programs that help this population are the following:

Homeless Assistance Grants, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) mission is to

“…increase homeownership, support community development and increase access to

affordable housing free from discrimination.”

172

Specifically, when it comes to people

experiencing homelessness, they have a range of programs that “are managed by local

organizations that provide a range of services, including shelter, food, counseling, and

jobs skills programs.”

173

There are a number of ways in which youth-serving agencies can

access HUD funds. The following brief summary provides an idea of the scale of these

programs and the definite recent shift towards encouraging faith-based agencies to apply.

We consider the impact of this trend later in this publication.

In 2003, nearly 40

percent of the youth

who went to Transitional

Living Programs for help

were turned away due

to lack of resources. In

addition, 4,200 youth

were turned away from

Basic Center Programs.

170 Project HOPE: Virginia education for homeless children and youth program. (2006).

171 For more information, see www.ich.gov

172 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2003, October 3). HUD’s mission. Author. Retrieved October 31, 2006,

from http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf12/hudmission.cfm

173 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2006, October 13). Homeless. Author. Retrieved October 31, 2006, from

http://www.hud.gov/homeless/index.cfm

Table 1: Federal RHYA Funding 2001 to 2006 ($ in millions)

Program FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06

Basic Centers

$48.4 $48.3 $49.5 $49.2 $48.8 $48.8

Transitional Living

$20.7 $39.7 $40.5 $40.3 $39.9 $39.9

Street Outreach $15.0 $15.0 $15.4 $15.3 $15.2 $15.2

Total

$84.1 $103.0 $105.4 $104.8 $103.9 $103.9

Continuum of Care grants provide permanent and transitional housing to homeless

persons. In addition, these grants fund services such as job training, health care, mental

health counseling, substance abuse treatment and child care. Youth shelters are eligible.

In 2003, Continuum of Care grants totaled $1.1 billion.

174

Emergency Shelter Grants convert buildings into homeless shelters, assist in the operation

of local shelters, and fund related social service and homeless prevention programs. Youth

shelters are eligible. In 2003, Emergency Shelter Grants totaled $159 million.

175

The federal budget for fiscal 2007 proposes a $184 million increase for HUD’s Homeless

Assistance Grants to a total of $1.5 billion.

176

From 2002 to 2004, HUD increased the number of grants to faith-based organizations

from 650 to 835, a 28 percent increase.

177

A 2003 press release highlighted HUD’s awards

of $168 million to faith-based organizations.

178

Emergency Food and Shelter (EFS) Program, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

The EFS Program is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA). In fiscal years 2005 through 2007, FEMA allocated $153 million each year for

the EFS Program, which supports social service agencies in 2,500 jurisdictions in the

U.S. “The EFS funds are used to supplement food, shelter, rent, mortgage, and utility

assistance programs for people with non-disaster-related emergencies.”

179

Individual grants

range from $2,000 to $5,864,000.

180

The national board of the EFS program includes the

American Red Cross,

181

Catholic Charities USA,

182

United Jewish Communities,

183

the

National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA,

184

the Salvation Army

185

and

United Way of America.

186

187

Health Care for the Homeless (HCH) Program, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

HCH programs provide for primary health care and substance

abuse services at locations accessible to people who are home

less, emergency care with referrals to hospitals for in-patient care

services and/or other needed services, and outreach to difficult-

to-reach homeless persons in accessing care and establishing

In 2004 15 percent of HCH-

funded clients were children

and youth up to age 19.

174 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2003, December 19). CPD: 2003 Competitive and FY 2004 formula grant

awards. Author. Retrieved July 5, 2006, from http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/budget/2003/index.cfm

175 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2003, December 19).

176 United States Office of Management and Budget. (2006). Budget of the United States Government, FY 2007, Department of Housing

and Urban Development. Author. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/hud.html, p.12.

177 United States Office of Management and Budget. (2006). p.11.

178 Sullivan, B. (2003, December 19). Bush administration announces record $1.27 billion to help hundreds of thousands of home-

less individuals and families: HUD grants part of strategy to end chronic homelessness. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?content=pr03-143.cfm

179 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2004, December 20). FEMA announces $153 million in homeless aid awards for

2005. Author. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=15785. p.1.

180 The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. (2006). Emergency food and shelter national board program. Author. Retrieved July 7,

2006, from http://12.46.245.173/pls/portal30/CATALOG.PROGRAM_TEXT_RPT.SHOW?p_arg_names=prog_nbr&p_arg_

values=97.024. p.4.

181 For more information, see www.redcross.org

182 For more information, see www.catholiccharitiesusa.org

183 For more information, see www.ujc.org

184 For more information, see www.ncccusa.org

185 For more information, see www.salvationarmyusa.org

186 For more information, see www.unitedway.org

187 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2004, December 20). p.1.

The federal response

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

eligibility for entitlement programs and housing.

188

Federal assistance for HCH programs has steadily increased from $35.7 million in 1990

to $155 million in 2006.

189

In 2004, 15 percent of HCH-funded clients were children and

youth up to age 19.

190

The funds allocated enable 182 projects in all 50 states, the District

of Columbia and Puerto Rico to help approximately 600,000 people. This is still far short

of the number of people, including many youth, who are in need of the services.

The Education for Homeless Children and Youth program, U.S. Department of Education

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Act provides federally guaranteed education

to runaway and homeless youth.

191

The Act “removes barriers to school enrollment for

unaccompanied youth [by] waiving documentation requirements (i.e. proof of immuniza

tion) or adopting more lenient attendance policies” and “requires that states address

enrollment delays for youth without guardians and take steps to enroll such youth in

school immediately.”

192

This legislation intends that every homeless youth receive an education and be immedi-

ately accommodated by the school system in every state. Homeless youth have a federally

guaranteed protection within the education system of the United States.

Under this program, state educational agencies (SEAs) must ensure that each home

less child and youth has equal access to the same free, appropriate public education,

including a public preschool education, as other children and youth. In addition,

homeless students may not be separated from the mainstream

school environment.

193

Districts must be proactive in enforcing these requirements, though

avoidance is possible. The system depends on state and city agencies

promptly appointing qualified individuals to serve as case managers

and advocates for homeless youth and holds school administrators

accountable for ensuring the safety and public education of quali

fying youth. A liaison must be identified who will proactively identify

homeless children and youth. As with so many other well-intentioned

programs, however, in the most recent year for which data are avail

able (FY 2000), states could help only 11 percent of school districts

nationwide. This meant that only 28 percent of identified qualifying children and youth

received services. And funding remains flat; $63 million in 2005 and 2006, and the Bush

administration requested the same amount in its 2007 budget.

194

195

In the most recent

year for which data are

available (FY 2000)...

only 28 percent of

identified qualifying

children and youth

received services.

189 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Health care for the homeless, About HCH. Author. Retrieved July 7, 2006,

from http://bphc.hrsa.gov/hchirc/about/default.htm

190 Ibid.

191 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau.

(2006, January 9). Family and Youth Services Bureau information memorandum. Author. Retrieved July 6, 2006, from http://www.

acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/aboutfysb/McKinney-Vento_IM.pdf

192 Ibid. p.1.

193 United States Department of Education. (2004, July). Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program. Author. Retrieved July

7, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/homeless/guidance.pdf. p.2.

194 United States Department of Education. (2004, July).

195 Lawsuits are an unfortunate but sometimes necessary step in ensuring full compliance with these rules. One such example is the

federal class-action suit filed against several Suffolk County, MA school districts charging failure to comply with the McKinney-Vento

Act in providing education to homeless youth. See: Cummings, J. (2004). Three local school districts named in class action homeless student

lawsuit. The Beacon. Retrieved July 5, 2006, from http://www.babylonbeacon.com/news/2004/0319/Front_page/003.html). The

lawsuit claims the state, the social services department and the districts have systematically failed “to accept and educate homeless

children ‘simply because they are homeless.’”

THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION

POLICY ON LGBT HOMELESS YOUTH

Immigration policy in the United States is based on the notion of family reunification.

Because of this, it discriminates against all LGBT people whose relationships the federal

government does not recognize. Runaway or throwaway LGBT youth who are non-citizen

or alien residents may face problems qualifying to stay in the United States after many

years if a family member who is qualified to sponsor them refuses to do so due to objec

tions to their declared sexual orientation or gender identity. Many may face dangerous or

even lethal consequences if they are forced to return to a nation that might no more than

nominally be considered home.

Many non-citizen youth run away from home outside the United States and manage

to find their way here, gravitating in many cases to cities where they feel they might

fit in better than in their country of origin. Once on the street, these youth may lack

proper proof of identity or immigrant status, which can cause problems gaining access

to services, education and shelters. Many more may not even realize that they are here

illegally until they are asked to provide documentation of some sort for a job, student

loan or other services.

Identifying a qualified local attorney or immigrant support organization sympathetic

to the cause of these youth is the first step for any young person or agency facing such

a dilemma. The New York City-based Urban League’s Peter Cicchino Youth Project

deals with “a handful” of these cases every year.

196

Such organizations are likely to best

understand the three ways in which non-citizen homeless youth might qualify to remain

in the United States in a self-petitioned visa category.

197

1. The Violence against Women Act allows LGBT young people who meet the defini-

tion of “battered children” to self-petition for permanent residency. Evidence of

emotional, physical or sexual abuse, or the legitimate threat thereof, prior to leaving

the home is critical to this particular classification.

2. Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) is available to abused or neglected or

abandoned youth subsequently found eligible for foster care by a juvenile court. This

route includes youth placed in care by child protective services and also those staying

with friends or an alternative family member. If the temporary caregiver is willing to

petition for guardianship, juvenile court becomes involved, making the individual

eligible “through the back door.”

3. The third option is to seek asylum based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This

is not as easy to secure because there are strict timelines on filing and youth often lack

the evidence or experience of assault in their home country to justify their argument

that they personally face serious risks if forced to leave the United States.

198

196 Personal telephone communication with the author. August 29, 2006.

197 Hazeldean, S. & Singla, P. (2004). Out in the cold: The challenges of representing immigrant lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth.

An Urban Justice Center Report. Retrieved August 31, 2006, from http://www.urbanjustice.org/pdf/publications/lesbianandgay/

OutintheCold.pdf

198 For more information on providing services to non-citizen youth, contact Immigration Equality at www.immigrationequality.org.

The federal response

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

ORGANIZATIONAL ADVOCACY FOR PEOPLE

EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS

There are a number of secular national organizations that do not provide direct services

to the homeless but do advocate on their behalf and/or bring together agencies and other

organizations that do provide direct services.

• The National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH), which includes members who

have experienced homelessness, “engages in public education, policy advocacy, and

grassroots organizing,” focusing its work around “housing justice, economic justice,

health care justice, and civil rights.”

199

• The National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) is a nonprofit organization

“whose mission is to mobilize the nonprofit, public, and private sectors of society in

an alliance to end homelessness.”

200

NAEH targets federal legislators, assists primary

service providers and local public officials, and advocates for effective strategies to end

homelessness.

• The National Low Income Housing Coalition “is dedicated solely to ending America’s

affordable housing crisis.” While working to help all Americans who lack adequate

housing, they focus their advocacy “on those with the most serious housing problems,

the lowest income households.”

201

• The National Housing Conference (NHC) “raises awareness of housing affordability

issues” and “fights to maintain federal support for affordable housing and community

development programs.”

202

• United Way of America enables local service providers by partnering with both public

and private agencies and offering funding.

203

Other groups focus their efforts on particular sub-populations or on single topics that

impact the entire homeless population. These include:

• National Network for Youth

204

• National Youth Advocacy Coalition

205

• National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth

206

• National Health Care for the Homeless Council

207

• National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty

208

• National Policy and Advocacy Council on Homelessness

209

199 National Coalition for the Homeless. (2006, June 26). About NCH: Who we are. Author. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/

200 National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2006). About the alliance. Author. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://naeh.org/about/index.htm

201 National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2005). About NLIHC. Author. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from http://www.nlihc.

org/about/index.htm

202 National Housing Conference (NHC). (2006). Annual report: National Housing Conference report of activities, 2005. Author. Retrieved

July 7, 2006, from http://www.nhc.org/housing/about-annual-report

203 United Way of America. (2006). Our work. Author. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://national.unitedway.org/ourwork/index.cfm

204 For more information, see www.nn4youth.org

205 For more information, see www.nyacyouth.org

206 For more information, see www.naehcy.org

207 For more information, see www.nhchc.org/council.html

208 For more information, see www.nlchp.org

209 For more information, see www.npach.org

• National Student Campaign against Hunger and Homelessness

210

• Corporation for Supportive Housing

211

National organizations, both secular and faith-based, often provide guidance and

financial support for local primary service providers to help people experiencing

homelessness, including LGBT homeless youth. When federal funds get disbursed to

the state governments, they are then allocated to local public service departments and

private nonprofit organizations that each provide shelter, food, and assistance to homeless

youth. For example, the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS)

places homeless youth in foster homes and funds licensed shelters to house youth. They

provide intervention and counseling as necessary to work towards the safety and security

of homeless youth in NYC.

212

ACS’s partnership with New Yorkers for Children exposes

children in foster care to youth development support in an effort to maintain youth in

the care of foster homes and off the streets.

213

Local nonprofit organizations such as Covenant House New York and The Ali Forney

Center work with New York City to provide emergency shelter services for homeless

youth.

214

215

While faith-based Covenant House has the financial backing of a major

national organization, the secular Ali Forney Center unfortunately has much more restric

tive funding sources. It can stay open only through the grants it wins from government

departments and the donations of individuals committed to the well-being of the LGBT

homeless youth it serves.

While programs like the Ail Forney Center, or Sylvia’s Place or Green Chimneys in NYC

work exclusively with LGBT youth, there are shelters in the city and around the country

who are not receptive to LGBT homeless youth. While it is not always the case that

they are faith-based programs, the growth of faith-based social service provision and its

potential impact on homeless LGBT youth warrants specific attention.

FAITH-BASED SERVICE PROVIDERS

“I recognize that government has no business endorsing religious creed, or directly funding religious

worship or religious teaching. That is not the business of the government. Yet government can and

should support social services provided by religious people, as long as those services go to anyone in

need, regardless of their faith. And when government gives that support, charities and faith-based

programs should not be forced to change their character or compromise their mission.”

–President George W. Bush

216

210 For more information, see www.nscahh.org

211 For more information, see www.csh.org

212 The City of New York. (2006). Child welfare links, NYC Administration for Children’s Services. Author. Retrieved July 12, 2006, from

http://www.nyc.gov/html/acs/html/statistics/child_welfare_links.shtml

213 New Yorkers for Children. (2006). Programs supported by NYFC. Author. Retrieved July 12, 2006, from http://www.newyorkersfor-

children.org/programs2.html

214 Covenant House New York. (2006). About us: Facts and stats. Author. Retrieved August 31, 2006, from http://www.covenanthouseny.

org/about_us_facts_stats.asp

215 The Ali Forney Center. (2004). Housing for homeless LGBT youth. Author. Retrieved July 12, 2006, from http://www.aliforney-

center.org/services.html

216 White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. (2005). Protecting the civil rights and religious liberty of faith-based

organizations: Why religious hiring rights must be preserved. Author. Retrieved July 11, 2006, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/

government/fbci/religious-hiring-booklet-2005.pdf. p.ii.

The federal response

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

On December 12, 2002, President George W. Bush issued an executive order permitting

federal financial assistance for faith-based social service organizations, simultaneously

granting them permission to retain their religiously-based missions. According to the

executive order, federal funds are not to be used to support any inherently religious

activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytizing. An organization may,

however, retain religious terms in its name, select board members on a religious basis, and

include religious references in its mission statement and other chartering or governing

documents.

217

Federal programs such as the Compassion Capital Fund are designed to help faith-based

and community groups.

218

The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community

Initiatives denies that federal monies are set aside for faith-based organizations in an effort

to maintain the administration’s commitment to the separation of church and state.

However, in the same breath, the administration notes that:

…each year hundreds of millions of dollars go to religious charities and grassroots

groups to provide vital Federal services for the poor. The government does not ask,

“Does your organization believe in God?” It asks, “Does your program work? Does it

meet the specific requirements of the grant? Is it turning peoples’ lives around? Is it

accountable for the money it receives?

219

According to statistics from the White House, $2.15 billion dollars in Fiscal Year 2005

competitive non-formula programs went to faith-based organizations (FBOs). Those funds

included 881 Health and Human Services grants to faith-based organizations totaling

$780 million, an 82 percent increase from 2002 in the number of grants, and a 58 percent

(or $288 million) increase in dollar terms.

220

In 2003, at least 30 such grants were for basic

center programs, 18 for street outreach work and 25 for transitional living programs.

221

Can a faith-based service provider for people experiencing homelessness, whose code of ethics

is largely based on an interpretation of scripture and religious ideology, be assumed to treat

all those in need equally, including openly LGBT people? While a definitive answer to this

question is not possible, we can certainly expect national faith-based organizations to partner

with sympathetic local faith-based service providers. This means that when a national or large

group allocates funds to localities, they will likely only enable those local programs that have a

similar religious foundation and outlook to provide services in their name.

Funding for FBOs from executive departments has also grown significantly:

222

• The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded 765

grants to FBOs in fiscal year (FY) 2003, an 11 percent increase over 2002 worth $53

million. Also, more than half of allocated funds for Section 202 Elderly Housing,

217 White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. (2006).

218 White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. (2006). Helping those in need: An overview of the federal grants

process. Author. Retrieved July 5, 2006, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/guidance/helping.htm. p.2.

219 Ibid. p.2.

220 For 2002 data, see White House office of faith-based and community initiatives. (2004, March 2). Select grants to faith-based organizations

at five agencies. Author. Retrieved August 31, 2006, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/3-2_final_pres.pdf. For

2005 data, see White House office of faith-based and community initiatives. (2006, March 9). Grants to faith-based organizations: Fiscal

year 2005. Author. Retrieved November 7, 2006, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/final_report_2005.pdf.

221 Thememoryhole.org is a web site run by a freelance writer and editor. The web site’s slogan states that they are “Rescuing knowledge,

freeing information.” The writer pursues freedom of information cases to open up the work of the federal government and others to

scrutiny. In this case, the data cited here can be located at The Memory Hole. (2005, January 6). Faith-based funding recipients, 2003.

Author. Retrieved August 31, 2006, from http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/faith_based_2003.htm

222 White House office of faith-based and community initiatives. (2004, March 2).

totaling $316 million, went to FBOs.

223

• The U.S. Department of Education raised the percentage of

the FBO Supplemental Services providers (organizations that

provide tutoring under the “No Child Left Behind” initiative)

from 2 percent to 9 percent over the course of FY 2003.

224

• Overall, $1.17 billion, or 8.1 percent of Federal competitive

programs went to FBOs.

225

While more and more FBOs are receiving federal funds, social service

funding levels have not increased overall. Consequently, the impact

of FBOs has not been to increase services to people experiencing

homelessness, but rather only to change who provides those services.

This means potentially more services being provided by anti-LGBT organizations and staff.

Given that many adults might feel uncomfortable or even intimidated in an explicitly

religious service provider’s facility, imagine how a newly-out LGBT youth is likely to feel.

If an organization’s core belief is that homosexuality is wrong, that organization (and its

committed leaders and volunteers) may not respect clients’ sexual orientation or gender

identity and may expose LGBT individuals to discriminatory treatment. Such treatment

might include “conversion therapies” designed to change a client’s sexual orientation

or other religiously-grounded counseling, a topic to which we will return shortly.

226

readily acknowledge that many FBOs do remarkable work, providing critical services to

the neediest of people, without discriminating against anyone. However, situations can

arise that cause grave concern to homeless LGBT youth advocates.

THE POTENTIAL FOR ANTI-LGBT DISCRIMINATION AT

FAITH-BASED SERVICE PROVIDERS

While it might not seem objectionable for a particular church to

provide meals to the hungry, what happens when the church’s beliefs

conflict dramatically with those that they serve? What happens when

the service a church is providing is not a meal, but education on HIV

prevention that only mentions abstinence? Or when “counseling” to

openly LGBT youth is aimed at making them feel guilty or ashamed?

There are faith-based organizations who, with the backing of our courts,

conduct employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. How

do these same organizations deal with other issues that conflict with

their religious beliefs?

It is not always easy to identify the organization whose work is

grounded on religious underpinnings. Ebaugh et al. conducted a study of social service

providers and found that self-identified faith-based organizations are far less identifiable

by name alone; only half of these organizations mention their religious character explicitly

According to statistics

from the White House,

$1.17 billion dollars

in Fiscal Year 2003

competitive non-

formula programs

went to faith-based

organizations (FBOs).

223 Ibid. p.5.

224 Ibid.

225 Ibid.

226 For more information on “conversion therapy” or ex-gay programs targeted at youth, see Cianciotto, J. & Cahill, S. (2006). Youth

in the crosshairs: The third wave of ex-gay activism. National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. Retrieved March 30, 2006, from http://www.

thetaskforce.org/downloads/crosshairs.pdf

227 Ebaugh, H. R., Pipes, P. F., Chafetz, J. S. & Daniels, M. (2003). Where’s the religion? Distinguishing faith-based from secular social

service agencies. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(3). p.415.

Volunteers who believe

in an organization’s

religious mission and are

not trained social work

professionals may feel

less inclined to adhere

to professional standards

of practice and ethics.

The federal response

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

in their names.

227

Some people are concerned that the lack of explicit religiosity in the

titles of many faith-based organizations may be a covert method of attracting clients

searching for services in order to expose them to religious proselytizing.

Ebaugh et al. also indicated that the ratio of volunteers to paid staff in secular organiza

tions is 3:1, while the same ratio in faith based organizations is as high as 15:1.

228

Such

a dramatic difference is not particularly surprising given that

religiously affiliated programs might well be attached to a congrega

tion full of potential unpaid volunteers. However, this professional

versus volunteer discrepancy may create a lack of accountability

within faith-based organizations that provide services to homeless

populations. Volunteers who believe in an organization’s religious

mission and are not trained social work professionals may feel less

inclined to adhere to professional standards of practice and ethics.

Instead, they may be tempted to forcibly expose clients to religious

ideology because they have no fear of losing their job even if they

overstep agency-established boundaries.

In the next section of our report we turn to some of the critical chal

lenges homeless youth face, and discuss evidence that shows LGBT

youth are not just over-represented, but also often experience more

trauma, greater risk and less support than other youth. Specifically,

we consider a number of issues of importance to LGBT youth in

out-of-homecare or on the streets, all of which ought to be familiar to any practitioner

seeking to work with this community. Among those we address are substance abuse,

mental health crises, risky behavior, criminal victimization and involvement with the

criminal justice system. We also discuss some of the specific challenges facing homeless

youth who identify as transgender.

228 Ebaugh, H. R. et. al. (2003). p.418.

If an organization’s

core belief is that

homosexuality is wrong,

that organization (and

its committed leaders

and volunteers) may not

respect clients’ sexual

orientation or gender

identity and may expose

LGBT individuals to

discriminatory treatment.

Critical issues

affecting LGBT

homeless youth

The challenges of dealing with homelessness and integrating an LGBT identity into daily

life put tremendous stresses and strains on youth. We begin this section with a discussion

of the mental health issues facing this population. We then turn to

the related problem of substance abuse. Whether taken legally or

otherwise to ease depression, make life seem more bearable, or time

pass more quickly, LGBT homeless youth are disproportionately

prone to substance abuse problems.

Mental health crises and substance abuse impact the decisions home

less youth make about their behaviors on the streets, particularly

when it comes to sexual activity. In light of this, we include discus

sion of risky behaviors in which research suggests LGBT youth are

more likely to participate. We also include a section on the particular

needs and issues faced by transgender homeless youth. The range of

potential crises faced by homeless youth each day includes lack of shelter, food, income

and a safe space to “hang out.” These factors combine to drive some in the direction of

survival-focused criminal activity. In turn, they become involved with the juvenile justice

and prison systems. Therefore, we discuss the role of LGBT youth as victims and victim

izers, as well as the consequences of their interactions with the criminal justice system.

MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES

While all homeless youth are disproportionately prone to psychological issues compared

with the general population, new research suggests that LGBT homeless youth may be

especially vulnerable.

229

Confronted with the social stigma attached to being a sexual

minority, in addition to the many stresses that come with being homeless, the LGBT

homeless population may be more likely to develop psychological problems.

229 In the course of this chapter, literature refers to LGBT youth, LGB youth and gay and/or lesbian youth. We remain consistent in our

use of LGBT where appropriate, but when analyzing another author’s work, we refer only to the specific population they studied.

The practicalities

of dealing with

homelessness and

integrating an LGBT

identity into daily life

put tremendous stresses

and strains on youth.

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

HOW ARE HOMELESS YOUTH AFFECTED?

Before focusing specifically on research in mental health issues faced by LGBT homeless

youth, we first review the available research on the prevalence of mental health issues among

homeless youth in general. Martha Burt’s analysis of the National Survey of Homeless

Assistance Providers and Clients (NSHAPC) found that 46 percent of clients under 24

years of age suffered from mental health problems within the last year. Those percentages

climbed to 50 for those under 20 years of age and 56 percent for those aged 20 to 24 years

old when clients were asked about mental health problems over the course of their lifetime.

Forty five percent of clients over the age of 25 reported mental health problems over the last

year and 57 percent over the course of their lifetime.

230

Despite the age difference within the

population, this report indicated that homeless youth are just as badly

affected by mental health problems as their older counterparts.

In a separate study of 432 homeless youth in Hollywood, CA,

Unger and colleagues reported that the prevalence of mental health

problems and substance-related disorders far exceeded the rates of

these disorders in community and school samples of adolescents,

with 82 percent of the homeless youth surveyed reporting at least

one mental health problem.

231

A lack of effective social support contributes to mental health prob-

lems, particularly depression, in homeless youth. Homelessness may interact with other

factors, such as a history of childhood sexual abuse, causing youth to rely on their peers

for social support. Understandably, these peers are also likely to suffer from inadequate

support networks and are also likely to be suffering from mental health problems. One

study found that while peer social support might be expected to reduce depression, social

support from peers on the street may actually lead to pressure towards delinquency and

may contribute to depression.

232

Even for youth who have positive support networks,

including supportive contact with family members and the presence of supportive

friendships, depression continued for those who were abused by family members or care

takers.

233

Homeless youth who experience abuse at the hands of their caregivers before

running away are at greater risk for mental illness than those who were not abused in the

home. Unfortunately, friendships with other street youth may exacerbate this problem.

While homeless youth may congregate in specific areas and appear to be part of a rela

tively cohesive, if displaced, community, loneliness is a significant problem and has been

linked to a number of mental health problems, including depression and psychosomatic

illness.

234

Work by Ami Rokach of the Institute for the Study of Psychosocial Stress sheds

light on how the causes of loneliness differ between homeless youth and the population

at large.

235

Rokach surveyed 324 adolescents in Toronto, Canada, including 113 homeless

youth and 211 domiciled youth about their experiences with five different causes of loneli

ness: personal inadequacies, developmental deficits, unfulfilling intimate relationships,

relocation/significant separation and social marginality.

230 Burt, M., Aron, L.A., Lee, E., & Valente, J. (2001). Helping America’s homeless. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. p.157.

231 Unger, J. B., Kipke, M. D., Simon, T. R., Montgomery, S. B. & Johnson, C. J. (1997). Homeless youths and young adults in Los

Angeles: Prevalence of mental health problems and the relationship between mental health and substance use disorders. American

Journal of Community Psychology, 25(3).

232 Bao, W.-N., Whitbeck, L. B. & Hoyt, D. R. (2000). Abuse, support, and depression among homeless and runaway adolescents. Journal

of Health and Social Behavior, 41.

233 Ibid.

Youth who feel

extremely negative about

their lives are prone to

becoming desperate

enough to risk their lives.

On every scale except personal inadequacies, homeless youth consistently scored higher.

According to Rokach, “it is almost an inevitable conclusion that being homeless includes

being lonely, desolate, and isolated.”

236

The relationships between loneliness, hopeless-

ness, and life-threatening behaviors indicate that youth who feel extremely negative about

their lives are prone to becoming desperate enough to risk their lives.

237

Some homeless

youth report that loneliness and depression are mediated by a personal sense of resilience.

This protective capacity to cope with adversity may be a factor behind

the better than average personal inadequacies score of Rokach’s

respondents. Additionally, their resilience mechanism seems to be

strengthened by the maintenance of connections between homeless

youth and their family, peers, and other adults.

238

For homeless youth who lack strong support networks, loneliness

and desolation may be internalized much of the time. The literature

on suicidal behavior in homeless youth reveals some of the sad

consequences of this isolation. Family problems, mental illness,

and physical and sexual abuse have all been associated with suicidal

behavior and homeless youth at risk for these factors are particularly

vulnerable.

239

Previous research found that more than half of homeless youth reported

suicidal thoughts and over one quarter attempted suicide in the preceding 12 months.

240

While the factors that predict suicidal behavior in homeless youth are similar to those

in the general population, the much greater incidence of those factors contributes to the

need for special awareness of suicide risk in the homeless youth population.

241

MENTAL HEALTH CRISES FACING LGBT YOUTH

Research has documented high rates of depression and substance abuse among sexual

minorities, as well as alarmingly high rates of suicide and suicidal thoughts.

242

One study

in 2004 found that significantly more LGB youth had thoughts of suicide than did their

heterosexual peers (73 percent compared to 53 percent), and one-half of LGB youth had

attempted suicide at least once, compared to one-third of heterosexual youth.

243

The results of other studies are equally disturbing. In a study of youth in Massachusetts, half

of the LGB-identifying youth had contemplated suicide.

244

In 2005, the National Runaway

Switchboard estimated that a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and/or questioning youth

commits suicide every five hours and 48 minutes and that 30 percent of gay and bisexual

males attempt suicide at least once.

245

As far back as the late 1980s, when the federal govern-

Research found that

more than half of

homeless youth reported

suicidal thoughts

and over one quarter

attempted suicide in the

preceding 12 months.

234 McWhirter, B. T. (1990).

235 Rokach, A. (2005). The causes of loneliness in homeless youth. The Journal of Psychology, 139(5).

236 Rokach, A. (2005). p.477.

237 Rew, L. et. al. (2001).

238 Ibid.

239 Yoder, K. A., Hoyt, D. R. & Whitbeck, L. B. (1998). Suicidal behavior among homeless and runaway adolescents. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 27(6).

240 Ibid. p.757.

241 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(1).

242 Safren, S. A. & Heimberg, R. G. (1999). Depression, hopelessness, suicidality, and related factors in sexual minority and heterosexual

adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(6).

243 Whitbeck, L. B., Chen, X., Hoyt, D. R., Tyler, K. A. & Johnson, K. D. (2004). Mental disorder, subsistence strategies, and victimization

among gay, lesbian, and bisexual homeless and runaway adolescents. The Journal of Sex Research, 41(4). p.334.

244 Wen, P. (2002, October 22).

245 National Runaway Switchboard. (2005).

Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

ment conducted research on suicide among all youth, a report produced under the auspices

of the Secretary of Health and Human Services Task Force noted specifically the troubling

research about LGB suicide. According to the report, the primary cause is “a society that

discriminates against and stigmatizes homosexuals.”

246

That is, these youth are not depressed

as a natural function of their sexual orientation, but because of the consequences of living

in a society that does not treat them fairly or equally. The effects of

homophobia on sexual minority youth have been confirmed in more

recent academic literature.

One study reported that openly identifying as LGB places a young

person at risk for a number of stresses that contribute to the

development of these problems, including abuse and stigmatization

by peers.

247

For those youth who attempt to hide the discovery of

their sexual orientation from peers and family, fear of discovery

may undercut whatever benefits those social support systems might

otherwise provide.

248

In fact, one study found that when controlling for predictors of

distress, no significant difference in rates of depression and suicidal thoughts existed

between sexual minority youth and their heterosexual counterparts.

249

A significant

difference between the two populations was only found when the study considered

sexual orientation along with other factors that increased risk of depression and suicidal

thought, such as a lack of social support.

250

Other studies do, in fact, indicate that LGB and questioning youth are at an increased

risk for suicidality, which Rotheran-Borus et al. ascribe to pressures of “gay-related

stress.”

251

252

This suggests that they are disproportionately the victims of their environ-

ments and that anti-LGBT stigma takes a real and serious toll on them. Faced with

verbal and physical harassment from their peers and family, these youth are at special

risk for taking what for them may seem like their best option: living on the streets.

253

Some also see suicide as a solution.

Homelessness is traumatic for all youth. For LGBT youth, who must also deal with

“coming out” and living in a society that is often hostile, emerging research suggests that

the dangerous consequences of homelessness are amplified. Cochran et al.’s comparative

study of sexual minority and heterosexual homeless youth found that while the reasons

for leaving home were similar between the two populations, LGBT youth left home

more frequently than heterosexual youth.

254

Fourteen percent left home because of

family conflict over the youth’s sexual orientation.

255

LGBT homeless youth reported

more depressive symptoms than their heterosexual peers and showed significantly higher

The primary cause [of

LGB youth suicide] is “a

society that discriminates

against and stigmatizes

homosexuals.”

246 Gibson, P. (1989).

247 Savin-Williams, R. C. (1994). Verbal and physical abuse as atressors in the lives of lesbian, gay male, and bisexual youths: Association

with school problems, running away, substance abuse, prostitution and suicide. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2).

248 Safren, S. A. & Heimberg, R. G. (1999). p.859.

249 Ibid. p.864.

250 Ibid. p.865.

251 Morrison, L. L. & L’Heureux, J. (2001). Suicide and gay/lesbian/bisexual youth: Implications for clinicians. Journal of Adolescence, 24.

252 Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Hunter, J. & Rosario, M. (1994). Suicidal behavior and gay-related stress among gay and bisexual male adoles-

cents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 9(4).

253 Savin-Williams, R. C. (1994). Verbal and physical abuse as stressors in the lives of lesbian, gay male, and bisexual youths: Association with

school problems, running away, substance abuse, prostitution and suicide. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2). p.267.

254 Cochran, B. N. et. al. (2002).

255 Ibid.

rates of withdrawn behavior, social problems and delinquency, among other troubling

psychological issues.

256

Whitbeck et al. conducted a comparative study of LGB homeless youth and their

heterosexual counterparts in which they specifically examined the lifetime prevalence of

five mental disorders: conduct disorder, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress,

alcohol abuse and drug abuse.

257

They found that LGB adolescents are at greater risk for

substance abuse, as they seem to use alcohol and drugs to cope with the societal stigma

of homosexuality.

258

Evidence for increased risk of mental health problems is presented

by Remafedi et al. and Fergusson et al., with the latter reporting an increased risk of

generalized anxiety disorder, major depression, conduct disorder, nicotine dependence,

substance abuse, suicidality and co-morbidity of multiple disorders in LGB youth.

259

260

A study comparing the mental health of 366 heterosexual youth with 63 LGB youth

in the Midwest found that LGB youth were more likely to report symptoms of a major

depressive episode than heterosexual youth, with gay males significantly more likely to

meet the criteria for a major depressive episode than heterosexual males (42.1 percent

compared to 24.4 percent).

261

LGB adolescents were also more likely to have post-

traumatic stress disorder.

262

Homeless lesbians were found to be particularly troubled; not only did they have higher

levels of mental health problems, but they also reported more physical and sexual

victimization than any other group.

263

Additionally, a difference may exist between mental

health at the time of a study and the lifetime mental health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

questioning youth. Noell and Ochs indicate that these youth present with high rates of

depression and suicidal ideation on recent measures but do not seem to show these trends

on lifetime measures of mental health.

264

Whether this is a result of the resiliency noted

earlier is not addressed.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Limited mental health service resources do exist in shelters and walk-in clinics for home-

less youth. Unfortunately, utilization of these services varies among young people on

the street. One study confirmed that a mere 9 percent of homeless youth had accessed

mental health services.

265

This further increases their risk for mental and physical harm.

The Midwest Homeless and Runaway Adolescent Project, a study of 602 homeless and

runaway youth in “non-magnet” cities (avoiding typically studied cities such as New York,

Los Angeles and San Francisco in favor of smaller centers in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa and

256 Ibid. pp.774-775.

257 Whitbeck, L. B. et. al. (2004).

258 Rosario, M., Hunter, J. & Gwadz, M. (1997). Exploration of substance abuse among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Prevalence and

correlates. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12.

259 Remafedi, G., Farrow, J. A. & Deisher, R. W. (1991). Risk factors for attempted suicide in gay and bisexual youth. Pediatrics, 87(6).

260 Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J. & Beautrais, A. L. (1999). Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in

young people? Archives of General Psychiatry, 56(10).

261 Whitbeck, L. B. et. al. (2004). p.334.

262 Ibid.

263 Ibid.

264 Noell, J. W. & Ochs, L. M. (2001). Relationship of sexual orientation to substance use, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and other

factors in a population of homeless adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 29(1).

265 Slesnick, N. & Prestopnik, J. (2005). Dual and multiple diagnosis among substance using runaway youth. American Journal of Drug and

Alcohol Abuse, 31(1).

Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Missouri) revealed gaps in utilization of support services in the homeless youth popula-

tion.

266

In the sample, females, younger runaways, shelter users, youth with social support

networks, and youth abused by their family members or caretakers were more likely to

seek out intervention services.

267

However, minority youth who were abused by family members or

caretakers were less likely to see a mental health professional than

white homeless youth, suggesting that minority homeless youth do

not receive the services that are available to other homeless youth.

268

Additional adequately funded research is needed to provide statisti

cally significant data on the mental, physical and sexual health of

homeless youth, and LGBT homeless youth specifically, to ensure

that resources are utilized to their optimum effect.

These studies, as a whole, suffer from many of the flaws that attend any research into

people experiencing homelessness or sexual minority populations: it can be difficult to

reach the research populations, and when data are acquired, it may still be difficult to

generalize findings across the population as a whole. Nevertheless, the findings that LGBT

homeless youth face special mental health challenges are too substantial to ignore.

SUBSTANCE ABUSE

The consequences of substance use and abuse are well documented in many subsets of the

general population. Before focusing specifically on the LGBT youth cohort, we provide a

basic overview of the literature on all homeless youth.

Ask the average person on the street their impression of young people who experience

homelessness, and odds are a good number of them will reference abuse of drugs and

alcohol as common behaviors.

269

The fact that substance abuse pathways both lead to

and result from homelessness draws attention to the particular vulnerability of youth to

be impacted by the ready availability of drugs and alcohol. The prevalence of alcohol and

tobacco use among runaway youth can be seen as initially rooted in family conflict or

breakdown, including situations where youths were exposed to family members who abused

alcohol and/or drugs.

270

Subsequent to becoming homeless, with all the attendant risks and

stresses it brings, substance use has been identified as a coping strategy for all youth.

271

Substance abuse is not an isolated behavioral outcome automatically causing or

resulting from homelessness. Rather, it is inextricably linked to other behavioral and

mental health concerns. The combination of stressors inherent in the daily life of

homeless youth leads to substance abuse at alarmingly high rates when compared with

the general population. Most shelters do not meet the need for effective intervention

One study confirmed

that a mere 9 percent

of homeless youth

had accessed mental

health services.

266 Berdahl, T. A., Hoyt, D. R. & Whitbeck, L. B. (2005). Predictors of first mental health service utilization among homeless and runaway

adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37(2).

267 Ibid.

268 Berdahl, T. A. et. al. (2005).

269 Mallett, S., Rosenthal, D. & Keys, D. (2005). Young people, drug use and family conflict: Pathways into homelessness. Journal of

Adolescence, 28(2).

270 Ibid.

271 Cited in Mallett, S. et. al. (2005).

beyond basic crisis counseling. One study of 226 runaway youth living in two shelters

in the southwest United States found that only 10 to 15 percent were ever treated for

drug- and alcohol-related problems.

272

Add to this the facts that suicidality, self-injurious behavior and low self-esteem have each

been associated with increased prevalence of drug and alcohol abuse disorders and that

depressive symptoms are associated with increased risk of alcohol abuse disorder, and a

picture emerges of the risks facing homeless youth.

273

Substance use and abuse is both a cause and a result of homeless-

ness in the general population of homeless youth. In a study of

302 homeless youth, Shelley Mallet and colleagues described

the relationship between young people’s substance use and their

pathways into homelessness. They found that 38 percent of young

people who reported personal or familial alcohol and drug use

indicated that the substance abuse led directly to their homeless

ness. Additionally, 17 percent of the drug-using youth reported

problematic drug use beginning after they became homeless as a

result of different family conflicts.

274

Numerous studies have documented patterns of drug and alcohol use in various popula-

tions of runaway adolescents, universally resulting in compromised health and safety.

Specific subpopulations of homeless youth face specialized risks. For example, a 2005

analysis of homeless youth who lacked parental monitoring and/or have peers that have

been incarcerated or carry weapons indicates that they are at high risk for drug use.

275

Judy Greene and colleagues provide an analysis of substance use among street youth,

runaway youth residing in a shelter, and non-homeless adolescents. Table 2 details the

percentages of youth in their study reporting alcohol and drug use.

276

272 Cited in Slesnick, N. & Prestopnik, J. (2005). p.193.

273 Jennifer, B. U., Michele, D. K., Thomas, R. S., Susanne, B. M. & Christine, J. J. (1997). Homeless youths and young adults in Los

Angeles: Prevalence of mental health problems and the relationship between mental health and substance abuse disorders. American

Journal of Community Psychology, 25(3).

274 Mallett, S. et. al. (2005). p.192.

275 Bousman, C. A., Blumberg, E. J., Shillington, A. M., Hovell, M. F., Ji, M., Lehman, S. & Clapp, J. (2005). Predictors of substance use

among homeless youth in San Diego. Addictive Behaviors, 30(6).

276 Adapted from Greene, J. M., Ennet, S. T. & Ringwalt, C. L. (1997). Substance use among runaway and homeless youth in three

national samples. American Journal of Public Health, 87(2).

Despite the prevalence of

substance abuse among

homeless youth, only 10

to 15 percent were ever

treated for drug- and

alcohol-related problems.

Table 2: Percentage of youth in different housing

situations and the substances they use

Substance

Homeless youth

on the street

Homeless youth

in shelters

Non-homeless

youth

Tobacco

81% 71% 49%

Alcohol 81% 67% 57%

Marijuana 75% 52% 23%

Crack cocaine

26% 8% 1.4%

Intravenous drugs

17% 4% 1%

Other drugs (stimulants,

hallucinogens, inhalants) 55% 34% 16%

Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

The prevalence of substance use was consistently higher for street youth than it was for

those in a shelter, and the shelter group in turn had markedly higher usage rates than non-

homeless youth. These results demonstrate that the very real risk of substance use by youth

is affected, at least in part, by their living circumstances. Substance use may be a coping

mechanism which increases in prevalence as the living situation of homeless youth becomes

more stressful and less stable. Regardless, the disparity in rates of substance use between

homeless and housed youth is cause for concern, particularly because these findings having

been replicated by Lynn Rew and colleagues

277

as well as other more recent research.

278

For

example, in Minnesota, five separate statewide studies have found that between 10 percent

and 20 percent of homeless youth self-identify as chemically dependent.

279

Researchers based at Urban Peak, a youth services agency in Denver, Colorado that

works with youth regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, joined with trained

outreach workers to conduct an eight-city public health survey. On December 9, 2004,

they spoke with homeless youth living in Austin, Chicago, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City,

St. Louis, Boulder, Colorado Springs and Denver. Twenty-two percent of their respon

277 Rew, L., Taylor-Seehafer, M. & Fitzgerald, M. L. (2001). Sexual abuse, alcohol and other drug use, and suicidal behaviors in homeless

adolescents. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 24.

278 Slesnick, N. & Prestopnik, J. L. (2005). Ecologically based family therapy outcome with substance abusing runaway adolescents.

Journal of Adolescence, 28(2).

279 Wilder Research. (2005). p.27.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

% used during lifetime

Other

FRY/AMP/Wets

Morphine/Codeine/Vicodin/Demerol

Oxycontin

LSD

Valium/Librium/Xanax

DMX/Coricidin

Methamphetamine

Heroin

PCP

GHB

Mushroom

Ketamine

Alcohol

Marijuana

Cigarettes

Ecstas

Inhalants

Crack/freebase

Cocaine

Other

FRY/AMP/Wets

Morphine/Codeine/Vicodin/Demerol

Oxycontin

LSD

Valium/Librium/Xanax

DMX/Coricidin

Methamphetamine

Heroin

PCP

GHB

Mushrooms

Ketamine

Alcohol

Marijuana

Cigarettes

Ecstasy

Inhalants

Crack/freebase

Cocaine

5.3%

6.3%

17.2%

27.5%

21.5%

20.2%

13.0%

25.1%

13.5%

11.9%

10.0%

37.0%

14.5%

78.5%

78.7%

68.6%

35.4%

20.2%

22.6%

37.2%

Figure 1: Lifetime substance use by homeless youth

dents identified as LGB and 1 percent as transgender. Their findings reveal high rates of

substance use among homeless youth living outside typically studied cities such as New

York and San Francisco (see Figure 1).

280

They find that personal substance usage, family

substance usage and likelihood of enrollment in a treatment program are higher for LGB

homeless youth than for non-LGB homeless youth.

281

Participants reported that supply and demand greatly influenced which drugs were

available in different cities at various times and that fluctuating prices dictated which

substances were used by homeless youth. Some Denver youth reported that heroin was

available for as little as two dollars per bag.

282

Additionally, homeless youth begin using drugs and alcohol at a very young age. The age

of first use in the Urban Peak study was extremely low, with roughly half of the young

people reporting substance use before the age of twelve and 14 percent indicating first

substance use before the age of ten.

283

As Greene et al.’s study suggests, being in the welfare system rather than on the streets

does not inoculate homeless youth from the risks of drug abuse. A 2001 study of 144

runaway youth in a southwestern city examined whether previous foster/group home

experience affected substance abuse levels among youth residing in a shelter at the time

of the study. Researchers found that a history of residence in a foster/group home was

associated with substance-related problems and increased use of prescription medications

for psychological problems.

284

Access to institutional care might have increased the

potential for some youth to obtain needed medications that may have been forbidden

or unavailable in their original home environment or on the streets. However, these data

also indicate that out-of-home placement has negative consequences for homeless youth

already vulnerable to substance abuse and other risks to their health and well-being.

SUBSTANCE USE AND LGBT YOUTH

In recent years, increased attention has been paid to how LGBT

youth might be at particular risk for substance abuse and associated

health risks. Social stigma is a potent force behind the substance

abuse problems of LGBT homeless youth. LGBT youth in general

experience chronic stress that is inflicted by peers and family members

in the form of verbal and physical abuse.

285

However, this verbal and

physical abuse is associated not only with increased substance abuse

by LGBT youth but also with negative outcomes including school-

related problems, running away from home, conflict with the law,

prostitution and suicide.

286

For more information on these issues,

see the “mental health issues” section of this report (see page 41).

280 Van Leeuwen, J., Boyle, S., & Yancy, A. (2004, December). Urban Peak public health survey report 2004: A multi-city collaborative.

Unpublished work. p.20.

281 Van Leeuwen, J. M.et al. (2006). p.18.

282 Van Leeuwen, J.et al. (2004, December).

283 Ibid.

284 Slesnick, N. & Meade, M. (2001). System youth: A subgroup of substance-abusing homeless adolescents. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13.

285 Savin-Williams, R. C. (1994).

286 Ibid.

A trajectory of negative

life experiences...

includes foster care,

running away, living in

a group home, arrest,

incarceration, sex work,

exposure to a wide range

of illegal drugs, and

intravenous drug use.

Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Current efforts to uncover any patterns of alcohol and drug use in the LGBT youth

population have not focused purely on homeless youth. In an initial study, Rosario et

al. hypothesize that LGB youth might be more inclined to turn to drugs and/or alcohol

to cope with emotional distress that results from the social stigma of homosexuality.

287

Of the 154 LGB young people in the study, 93 percent of the females and 89 percent of

the males reported lifetime use of any legal or illicit substance. Sixty-seven percent of the

female youth and 59 percent of the male youth specifically reported using an illicit drug.

288

In a follow-up study with 156 young subjects, Rosario et al. concluded that increased

substance use was connected to the coming-out process, but only temporarily.

289

As LGB

youth became involved with other LGB youth in recreational and social activities, their

alcohol and marijuana use initially increased, but then decreased

with greater involvement in such activities.

290

Taking this problem

to a different level, in San Francisco 19 percent of LGBT severely

poor or homeless youth admitted to selling drugs, another factor

contributing to the escalated level of abuse by LGBT youth.

291

Among homeless youth who often lack housing and social stability,

this appears to be more evidence of the need for social service

providers to be aware of the specific risks faced by LGBT youth.

Adequate provisions must be made to minimize the risk of their

substance use escalating above that of their heterosexual peers.

In their study of young males who self-identified mainly as gay or

bisexual and self-reported a sexual encounter with another male

within the previous six months—also known as young men who have

sex with men (YMSM)—Clatts et al. report a trajectory of negative life

experiences relative to the onset of drug use. This trajectory includes foster care, running

away, living in a group home, arrest, incarceration, sex work, exposure to a wide range of

illegal drugs, and intravenous drug use.

292

The report belies some common assumptions

about substance use as a direct cause of homelessness. The authors indicate a consistent

timeline of negative life events in the three YMSM categories in the study (those who

have never been homeless, those who have experienced homelessness in the past, and

those who are currently homeless). The two groups that either have been or are currently

homeless experienced negative life events such as homelessness before the onset of drug

use, indicating that few of the YMSM they surveyed had used drugs prior to becoming

homeless.

293

The evidence in this instance, therefore, suggests that substance abuse is a

consequence of homelessness, not its cause.

James Van Leeuwen et al.’s work supports these findings by demonstrating that, above and

beyond the public health risks that all homeless youth face, the risks are exacerbated for

Verbal and physical

abuse is not only

associated with

increased substance

abuse by LGBT youth,

but also school-related

problems, running

away from home,

conflict with the law,

prostitution, and suicide.

287 Rosario, M. et. al. (1997). p.455.

288 Ibid. pp.462-463.

289 Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, W. & Hunter, J. (2004). Predictors of substance use over time among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths: An

examination of three hypotheses. Addictive Behaviors, 29(8).

290 Ibid.

291 Fagan, K. (2006, January 9).

292 Clatts, M. C., Goldsamt, L., Yi, H. & Gwadz, M. V. (2005). Homelessness and drug abuse among young men who have sex with men in

New York city: A preliminary epidemiological trajectory. Journal of Adolescence, 28(2).

293 Ibid.

homeless youth identifying as LGB.

294

In their six-state, eight-city study of public health

issues that focused on substance use, Van Leeuwen et al. indicate that alcohol abuse was

more common among LGB respondents (42 percent of sample) than non-LGB youth

(27 percent of sample) and 38 percent of LGB youth had been in a

substance abuse treatment program, as compared to 27 percent of

non-LGB youth.

295

Injection drug use was more common among the

LGB youth, though there was no significant difference between LGB

and non-LGB youth in sharing needles or other drug paraphernalia,

behaviors directly related to additional health problems.

296

Bryan Cochran and colleagues explain these phenomena by attrib

uting the substance use to coping with daily stressors associated with

homelessness and coming out in general. They note:

GLBT homeless adolescents experience not only the vulner

abilities, daily difficulties, and survival challenges of living on the street but also the

discrimination faced by GLBT youth in general. In coping with these stressors, they

may use more substances more frequently than do heterosexual youth.

297

Various substance abuse treatment strategies for youth experiencing homelessness paint

a hopeful picture for those runaways that have some access to a caretaker either in their

family or in a foster home. Slesnik and Prestopnik have evaluated the efficacy of ecologi

cally-based family therapy (EBFT), a counseling approach in which a single counselor

sees both the young client and a family member or caretaker. This counselor provides

both parties with a range of behavioral, cognitive and environmental interventions in a

series of family and individual sessions.

298

Slesnik et al. provide evidence that this family-

based approach can bring about a decrease in substance abuse in homeless youth that is

significant compared with the influence of services shelters typically provide, such as crisis

intervention, food, shelter, clothing, placement assistance and talking to shelter staff.

299

Of course, for such family/youth interventions to work there needs to be a willing youth

and a proximate family member or guardian, which may be particularly challenging for

LGBT youth experiencing homelessness. In such cases, the existence of an appropriate

support structure, be it a drop-in center or a shelter, is crucial.

Slesnick and Prestopnik argue that the mission of the shelter system “is not correcting

the ‘pathologies’ of troubled youth, but rather… providing for the successive ‘needs’ of

young people.”

300

It is also critical that those who work with homeless youth have an

awareness of the potential benefits of family involvement, as well as knowledge of quali

fied alternative strategies, particularly for high-risk LGBT youth. Other researchers have

interpreted substance use as an escape-avoidance coping tactic in homeless adolescents

and propose that a treatment strategy that targets anxiety disorders in these youth may be

productive.

301

Above and beyond the

public health risks that

all homeless youth face,

the risks are exacerbated

for homeless youth

identifying as LGB.

294 Van Leeuwen, J. M.et al. (2006).

295 Ibid.

296 Ibid.

297 Cochran, B. N. et. al. (2002). p.775.

298 Slesnick, N. & Prestopnik, J. L. (2005).

299 Ibid.

300 Ibid. p.284.

301 Ibid.

Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

This body of literature highlights the compounded risk of substance abuse in LGBT home-

less youth. Despite the limitations of research on homeless or LGBT youth, a pattern of

concerns arises when dealing with this highly at-risk population. LGBT homeless youth

face substantial challenges in avoiding initial drug use when it may be part of a coping

mechanism, and yet more difficulties in subsequently overcoming abuse. Moreover, young

people’s individual challenges on the streets—the stress of vulnerable living circumstances

and the intersecting stigma of identifying as LGBT—are oftentimes exacerbated by risk-

taking peers. Targeted outreach to this vulnerable population is essential to improve the

health and quality of life of homeless LGBT young people.

L G B T H O M E L E S S Y O U T H P R O F I L E : D A N N Y

Danny, 19 and gay, is originally from Denver,

Colorado. He began being pushed from foster

home to foster home when he was seven years

old, and as a young boy he was molested by

several people. When he was 17, after spending

two years detained by the Division of Youth

Corrections for a parole violation, he moved

in with his aunt, who is

an alcoholic. After a fight

about politics, Danny’s

aunt told him to keep his

“gay ass” out of her house.

He had had enough—this

unstable environment

reminded him of all those

years in foster care—so

he left his aunt’s house.

Although he was still tech

nically supposed to be in foster care at this point,

he says, “I slipped through the cracks. They lost

my file I guess. And I found myself homeless.”

Like many homeless youth, Danny’s life on the

streets was filled with drug abuse and sustained

by survival sex. Danny first began earning

money for food and drugs by reading tarot

cards on the street. Though he never thought of

it as prostitution, Danny’s situation forced him

to seek out men looking for sex so he would

have a roof over his head: “I’d go to the library,

I’d get on Craigslist[.org] and Manhunt[.com]

and Gay.com, just to find somewhere to sleep

for the night, not for money. I slept with them

so I could have a place to stay.”

Then Danny started sinking into the world of

drugs, as do many homeless LGBT youth. Cocaine

got to be an hourly activity for him, but he real

ized he needed to stop using it when one of his

friends brought over a needle and suggested they

start using the drug intravenously. “It scared the

hell out of me,” he said, “because I know where it

can lead.” His sister died of a heroin overdose, and

the realization that his drug use was inching closer

and closer to heroin convinced him to get sober.

Danny currently attends treatment groups as well

as Alcoholics Anonymous, but he worries about

methamphetamine use specifically among LGBT

youth: “I see meth as a big problem in our com

munity. I’ve done meth with only gays and lesbians.

But cocaine, everybody does it, gays, straights.”

Urban Peak, a youth shelter in Colorado,

referred him to his drug treatment groups.

Danny has been staying at Urban Peak off and

on for the past two and a half years. Though

he wanted to stay with his biological parents,

it is not a viable option. “They are Jehovah’s

Witnesses, and I happen to be everything that’s

so against them,” he explains. “My mother

showed me my grave she buried me in. She

said that I was dead to her.” Though Danny is

no longer considered a family member, he has

somewhat rekindled his relationship with his

mother as a “family friend,” because although

she will not accept a gay family member, she can

tolerate a gay friend. Urban Peak staff is essen

tially Danny’s only housing option because he

cannot live with his family.

Though he never

thought of it as

prostitution, Danny’s

situation forced him to

seek out men looking for

sex so he would have

a roof over his head.

RISKY SEXUAL BEHAVIOR

Homeless people often engage in behaviors that are, either directly or indirectly,

associated with an increased risk of poor health outcomes. Homeless youth are especially

vulnerable to engaging in risky behaviors because, in many instances, their basic needs

for food, shelter and attention are not being met. Furthermore, they must also cope with

a decreased capacity to negotiate the stresses of adolescence.

302

In this section, we discuss

sexual risks encountered by homeless LGBT youth, including survival sex and generally

risky sexual behavior.

RISKY BEHAVIOR IN HOMELESS LGBT YOUTH

Although the data documenting differences between LGBT and heterosexual homeless

youth are mixed, it is important to remember that homeless LGBT youth are a highly

vulnerable population, susceptible to risky behavior much like their heterosexual peers.

Lesbian and gay youth are more likely to run away from home as a

result of conflict with parents over sexual orientation than bisexual

or heterosexual youth.

303

Oftentimes, homophobic families kick

LGBT youth out of their homes, creating a subgroup of homeless

youth dubbed “throwaways” who have been rejected by their care

givers and are thus even more vulnerable to negative outcomes.

304

A study of thrown away youth in 10 cities found that they were

approximately twice as likely as those without such an experience to

report suicidality, substance use, and criminal behavior such as theft,

selling drugs and carrying weapons.

305

Research conducted by Susan Ennett et al. illustrates the impact of

isolation on risky behaviors of homeless youth. Ennett et al. indicate

that runaway youth lacking a social network were more likely to

report using illicit drugs, having multiple sex partners and engaging

in survival sex than youth that had a social network of peers.

306

These data highlight the increased prevalence in the homeless LGBT youth population

of exposure to a variety of negative life experiences and underscore the need to study risky

behaviors and their causes and effects in this highly vulnerable population.

SEXUAL HEALTH RISKS FOR HOMELESS YOUTH POPULATIONS

Rosenthal and colleagues find that homeless youth engage in sexually risky behaviors to

cope with neglect of their basic needs. They participate in promiscuous sexual behavior

combined with substance use, increasing their risk for physical and mental health

problems.

307

There are a number of additional studies that support these findings. Halcon

and Lifson found that homeless youth who self-identified as heavy users of alcohol

302 Rosenthal, D. & Moore, S. (1994).

303 Rew, L., Whittaker, T. A., Taylor-Seehafer, M. A. & Smith, L. R. (2005). Sexual health and protective resources in gay, lesbian, bisexual,

and heterosexual homeless youth. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 10(1).

304 Ringwalt, C. L., Greene, J. M. & Robertson, M. J. (1998). Familial backgrounds and risk behaviors of youth with thrownaway experi-

ence. Journal of Adolescence, 21(3).

305 Ibid.

306 Ennett, S. T., Bailey, S. L. & Federmand, E. B. (1999). Social network characteristics associated with risky behaviors among runaway

and homeless youth. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40. p.63.

307 Rosenthal, D. & Moore, S. (1994).

Oftentimes, homophobic

families kick LGBT youth

out of their homes,

creating a subgroup of

homeless youth dubbed

“throwaways” who have

been rejected by their

caregivers and are thus

even more vulnerable

to negative outcomes.

Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

(consuming 15 or more drinks per week) reported having multiple sexual partners in the

previous month. Injection drug use in females was also associated with having multiple

sex partners.

308

Over half of the young homeless women in the sample had been pregnant

at least once, and over a quarter had been pregnant at least twice.

309

In a 2001 study of

homeless youth in youth centers, Wagner et al. found that almost 22 percent of sexually

active males reported fathering a child. And of the 266 youths in their sample who were

sexually active, 55 percent reported having at least one sexually transmitted infection

(STI, also known as a sexually transmitted disease (STD)).

310

Lyn Rew has created a simple

overview of the determinants of sexual health among homeless youth:

311

308 Halcon, L. L. & Lifson, A. R. (2004). Prevalence and predictors of sexual risks among homeless youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,

33(1). pp.75-76.

309 Ibid. p.76.

310 Wagner, L. S., Carlin, L., Cauce, A. M. & Tenner, A. (2001). A snapshot of homeless youth in Seattle: Their characteristics, behaviors

and beliefs about HIV protective strategies. Journal of Community Health, 26(3). p.227.

311 Rew, L. (2001). Sexual health practices of homeless youth: A model for intervention. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 24.

312 Rew, L., Fouladi, R. T. & Yockey, R. D. (2002). Sexual health practices of homeless youth. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 34(2).

313 Santora, M. (2006). Health of the homeless is worse than imagined, new study finds. New York Times. Retrieved January 31, 2006, from

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00F11F6355B0C728FDDA80894DE404482

314 Rew, L. et. al. (2005). p.16.

Additional evidence from Rew et al., who studied 414 homeless adolescents, confirms

high rates of sexually transmitted infections among homeless youth. One-quarter of their

respondents reported treatment for gonorrhea, one in 10 were treated for chlamydia, one

in 20 had been treated for syphilis and one in 14 were treated for AIDS.

312

According

to New York City-based research cited in the New York Times, an individual experiencing

homelessness was seven times as likely as other New Yorkers to die from AIDS, 16 times

as likely to be diagnosed with HIV, and the rate of tuberculosis infections among people

experiencing homelessness was 11 times that of the general population.

313

Substance use,

unprotected sex with any number of sex partners, and exposure to STIs and HIV makes

homeless LGBT youth more susceptible to further negative outcomes.

An important factor in maintaining sexual health is consistent condom use. In a study

of 425 homeless adolescents between 16 and 20 years of age, Rew et al. found that

heterosexual and bisexual homeless youth were more likely to use condoms with a

partner than their lesbian and gay counterparts.

314

Their findings suggest that lesbian,

gay, and bisexual homeless young people should not be treated as an aggregate, and

Determinants of Sexual Health of Homeless Youth

• Socio-demographics (age, gender, ethnicity)

• Sexual History (sexual orientation, sexual abuse, sexual debut)

• Culture of Homelessness (duration, cause)

• Cognitive-Perceptual Factors (knowledge of STDs, future time perspective, perceived

social support, perceived connectedness, perceived health status, condom use)

• Behavioral Factors (assertive communication, help-seeking for STDs)

• Sexual Health Practices (safe sex behaviors, risky sexual behaviors)

that homeless lesbian and gay youth may have a harder time negotiating condom use

with a partner.

315

In a study of 3,816 students who participated in the 1987 Minnesota

Adolescent Health Survey, researcher Elizabeth Saewyc found that

lesbian and bisexual young women are more likely than their hetero

sexual counterparts to be sexually active, to perform sex work for

survival and to be at higher risk for physical and sexual abuse, and

less likely to use contraceptives effectively.

316

According to Saewyc,

“As with most homeless youth, [homeless lesbian and bisexual

female youth’s] principal method of survival is prostitution.”

317

While not generalizable to all LGB youth, in a recent meta-analysis

of various surveys incorporating responses from 801,990 adolescents

in the Pacific Northwestern United States and Canada, Saewyc

found that LGB adolescents are disproportionately likely to acquire

HIV and more likely than their heterosexual peers to have been

sexually abused.

318

SURVIVAL SEX

With homeless LGBT youth on the street lacking stability in many areas of their lives,

including shelter, nourishment and ongoing educational opportunities, it is not surprising

that many resort to desperate means to survive. Rew and colleagues define survival sex as

“exchanging sex for anything needed, including money, food, clothes, a place to stay or

drugs.”

319

Reflecting the experience of so many youth, 22-year-old Brian Murray describes

his prostitution since 15 years of age stoically: “You’ve got to do what you’ve got to do to

survive.”

320

Like other sex workers, Brian will often seek shelter in an all-night Internet

café where he can cruise online for a man to have sex with who will let him stay for the

night. New technologies provide new techniques for homeless young sex workers to find

their clients.

In a focus group interview conducted by the author, Danny, a young gay man living in a

shelter in the western United States, admitted that he, too, had done this. However, he

simultaneously denied ever having been involved in prostitution or survival sex, despite

being provided with a definition beforehand. “I’d go to the library, I’d get on Craigslist[.

org] and Manhunt[.com] and Gay.com, just to find somewhere to sleep for the night, not

for money. I slept with them so I could have a place to stay,” he explained.

321

In one study, youth without a social network “were almost eight times as likely to have

traded sex for money, drugs, food, or shelter compared to those with a network,”

322

and

315 Ibid.

316 Saewyc, E., Bearinger, L. H., Blum, R. W. & Resnick, M. D. (1999). Sexual intercourse, abuse and pregnancy among adolescent

women: Does sexual orientation make a difference? Family Planning Perspectives, 31(3).

317 Ibid. p.127.

318 Saewyc, E., Skay, C., Richens, S. & Reis, E. (2006). Sexual orientation, sexual abuse, and HIV-risk behaviors among adolescents in the

Pacific Northwest. American Journal of Public Health, 96(6).

319 Cited in Anderson, J. E. et. al. (1994). p.23.

320 Jacobs, A. (2004, June 28). Young, gay and homeless, with few places to turn. International Herald Tribune. p.2.

321 As stated during a focus group interview with the author.

322 Ennett, S. T. et. al. (1999). p.70.

LGBT homeless youth

are in greater need

of targeted health

promotion approaches

and materials that

instruct them on how

to successfully negotiate

condom use with their

sexual partners.

Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

the presence of a family member or a friend within the network decreased the prevalence

of survival and unprotected sex.

323

Youth who acquire “street competency,” the practical actions and skills that allow one to

survive on the street, do so from a number of sources, including their households early

on and later their homeless peers. A young man interviewed for a 2005 study of homeless

youth in New York City related his experience as follows:

When I arrived from Minnesota I knew the youth system. I knew there were programs

out there that were more than happy to house me for a little while until I got the gist

of things in New York… I ran down the next morning and found the number for the

shelter [for youth]. From there I learned from other kids where the good places to

hustle were—where the money was, how to do it.

324

Several reports indicate that anywhere from one-quarter to about one-third of all homeless

adolescents have engaged in survival sex and that a history of receiving goods for sex

was associated with a history of sexually transmitted infection.

325

A study of 542 male

homeless adolescents in Montreal, Canada reported that 27.7 percent of the sample had

been involved in survival sex, with 32 percent of the youth involved citing mainly female

clients, 41 percent having primarily male clients, and 27 percent having clients of both

genders.

326

In a New York City study that was carried out while Rudy Giuliani was mayor

and subsequently kept secret, more than one-third of homeless youth acknowledged

earning money by prostituting themselves, and more than 50 percent felt it was likely or

very likely they would end up contracting AIDS.

327

In San Francisco, researchers studied 93 youth ages 13 to 25 involved

in homeless youth behaviors. Sixty-seven percent of the participants

were living on the streets or in a shelter or transitional living

program, and 31 percent admitted they had worked as prostitutes

to survive.

328

In a separate study of youth working the piers in New

York City, stories confirmed that “they began hustling as a way to

earn easy money, and many reported that they were curious about

the sexual experiences.” However, as one youth commented, “after

(the curiosity) goes away, it’s just about money.”

329

According to a 1994 study of homeless youth that included, among

others, sexual minority youth from the Gay and Lesbian Community

Service Center in Los Angeles, California, approximately one-half of

male and one-third of female homeless youths engaged in survival

sex.

330

Higher rates of survival sex were reported among males than

females, and older female adolescents were less likely to use condoms

“I really had to. I had no

money. My boyfriend did

it... I thought about it for

a long-ass time. And I

was on hormones and I

was depressed too, and

I had no money in my

pocket. I was stuck. I put

money in my pocket.”

––19-year-old African

American transgender

homeless youth in

Detroit, Michigan.

323 Ibid.

324 Lankenau, S. E., Clatts, M. C., Welle, D., Goldsamt, L. & Gwadz, M. V. (2005). Street careers: homelessness, drug use, and sex work

among young men who have sex with men (YMSM). International Journal of Drug Policy, 16. p.16.

325 Halcon, L. L. & Lifson, A. R. (2004).

326 Haley, N., Roy, E., Leclerc, P., Boudreau, J.-F. & Boivin, J.-F. (2004). HIV risk profile of male street youth involved in survival sex.

Sexually Transmitted Infections, 80. p.526.

327 Kihara, D. (1999).

328 Fagan, K. (2006, January 9).

329 Maitra, R. (2002). p.11.

330 Anderson, J. E. et. al. (1994). See also Halcon, L. L. & Lifson, A. R. (2004).

than younger women.

331

While existing research shows that it is crucial to ensure that

young lesbian and gay homeless youth know appropriate safer-sex practices, evidence

suggests that experiences on the streets may make youth complacent.

In a separate study of 276 homeless youth ages 16 to 23, females were found to have a

better self concept sexually and to have safer sex more often than men.

332

Moreover, for

homeless female adolescents, having regular or casual female partners was a predictor of

initiation into prostitution. Eighteen percent of the young women in the study reported

having same-sex sexual partners.

333

Homeless gay and bisexual young men who engage in survival sex are also at risk for

negative health outcomes. In one study, young men who have sex with men (YMSM)

exhibited heightened levels of anxiety and avoidance in close relationships (identified as

having a fearful attachment style in personal relationships) and were more likely to have

been homeless and to have participated in sex work than YMSM with a more secure

social attachment style.

334

Participation in sex work was predicted by greater age, lower

socio-economic status, Latino identity and having been in foster care.

Transgender homeless youth were about three times more likely to engage in survival sex

than the rest of the sample.

335

The extra risks facing transgender youth are discussed in

greater detail in a separate section of this report, but one study of transgender youth in

New York who used the Safe Space program in the 1990s estimated that half of the trans

gender runaways worked as prostitutes and 20 percent had tested positive for HIV.

336

Survival sex is a desperate and risky behavior borne out of isolation and the lack of

any tangible resources. It causes negative health outcomes for any homeless youth, but

especially for highly vulnerable LGBT homeless young people. Those who have been

abused while younger, especially sexually abused males, are particularly prone to taking

sexual risks.

337

A limited number of health care facilities for LGBT youth do exist in the United States,

including some that receive outside funding to provide services for homeless youth

without an address or health insurance. For example, the mission of the Adolescent

Health Center at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City is to provide

…confidential comprehensive medical, mental health, family planning, and health

education services to young people between the ages of 10–21… The Adolescent Health

Center is committed to providing treatment to all teenagers regardless of ability to pay,

and will accept all payment plans as well as those without medical coverage.

338

Such programs are rare, and for those unable to access such services the ongoing risks

are extraordinarily high. The problem is also not as simple as homeless youth engaging

331 Ibid.

332 Taylor-Seehafer, M. & Rew, L. (2005). Gender and sexual orientation differences in personal resources, social resources, and sexual

health outcomes in homeless youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36.

333 Weber, A. E., Boivin, J.-F., Blais, L., Haley, N. & Roy, E. (2004). Predictors of initiation into prostitution among female street youths.

Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 81(4).

334 Gwadz, M. V., Clatts, M. C., Leonard, N. R. & Goldsamt, L. (2004). Attachment style, childhood adversity, and behavioral risk among

young men who have sex with men. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34.

335 Gaetz, S. (2004).

336 Pratt, C. (1995, June 18). The perilous times of transgender youth. The New York Times. p.CY7.

337 Taylor-Seehafer, M. & Rew, L. (2005).

338 The Mt. Sinai Medical Center. (2006). Adolescent Health Center: Our mission. Author. Retrieved June 21, 2006, from http://www.

mountsinai.org/msh/msh_program.jsp?url=clinical_services/ahc.htm

Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

in a single risky behavior while managing or moderating all others. Risk clustering, a

tendency to engage in several risk behaviors simultaneously, increases the risk of adverse

health consequences, including high rates of STIs, pregnancy and substance abuse, and

it is often observed in homeless and street youth.

339

One study found that 50 percent of

the homeless youth sampled reported two or more simultaneous risks, including recent

sexual intercourse, a history of STIs and a history of survival sex.

340

The capacity of homeless youth to manage risks and to ultimately escape the streets is by

no means assured. One community that faces particular threats to safety and health is

transgender homeless youth, which we discuss in more detail in the next section.

THE EXPERIENCE OF TRANSGENDER HOMELESS YOUTH

The bulk of this report’s analysis addresses the experiences of LGBT youth collectively,

but there are a number of issues that specifically impact those who are transgender. In

this section, we discuss these issues in order to better enable service

providers to meet the needs of transgender homeless youth.

Individuals who identify with the umbrella term “transgender”

often simultaneously refer to themselves in a number of additional

ways, including transsexual, cross-dresser, androgyne, genderqueer,

femme queen, butch, boi, drag king or queen and others. Regardless

of their specific identity, gender non-conforming people require

similar protections of privacy and safety.

341

Additionally, transgender

individuals may be heterosexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual; sexual

orientation is completely distinct from their gender identity.

Transgender individuals are disproportionately represented in the

homeless population. More generally, some reports indicate that one

in five transgender individuals need or are at risk of needing home

less shelter assistance.

342

Despite these alarming statistics, most emergency and short-term

homeless shelters are segregated by birth sex, and placements within the shelter system

are determined by staff members who decide which shelter to admit a client to regardless

of the individual’s gender identity.

343

Like their LGB peers, trans-identified individuals become homeless due to a lack of

affordable housing, mental health and addiction problems, physical abuse and estrange

ment from their families. However, they have fewer legal protections from job and housing

discrimination than other sexual minorities and often face additional complications in

accessing appropriate care.

344

Economic realities and discrimination can make a trans-

gender person’s life remarkably difficult. Transgender people typically need to update

their identification documents and legally change their name to reflect the gender that

Transgender individuals

are disproportionately

represented in the

homeless population, and

some reports indicate that

one in five transgender

individuals need or are at

risk of needing homeless

shelter assistance.

339 Halcon, L. L. & Lifson, A. R. (2004).

340 Ibid. p.76.

341 Mottet, L. & Ohle, J. M. (2003).

342 Ibid.

343 Ibid.

344 Mottet, L. (2004). The education and policy needs of transgender individuals. SIECUS Report, 32(4).

they are living. However, many transgender youth are unable to do this either because of

the fees associated with officially making these changes or because they cannot meet the

medical standards that some state agencies require before updating gender.

345

Accurate and up-to-date documentation is usually a prerequisite for access to education,

jobs, safe spaces and services. Lack of documentation places yet another hurdle in the way

of a transgender young person who is trying to stay safe and healthy.

One study of transgender individuals indicates that approximately 60 percent have been

harassed or victims of violence, while 37 percent have experienced economic discrimina

tion.

346

In many places in the United States, trans-identified homeless individuals are

denied access to shelters because of their gender or are placed in inappropriate housing

based on social service providers’ perceptions or ignorance. This lack of stable housing can

subsequently lead to problems in gaining or maintaining employment, further lessening

life stability. Evidence suggests that because of this lack of housing or employment, many

homeless transgender people turn to survival sex, which obviously increases their risk for

exposure to sexually transmitted infections and becoming victims of violence.

347

Much like their gender-conforming peers, some trans-identified individuals may engage in

additional survival crimes such as theft or selling drugs as a source of income, increasing

their risk of becoming victims of physical and sexual assault, violent crimes that are

seldom reported to the police.

348

349

The spiral of despair is all too obvious and difficult

to escape without adequate institutional support.

Trans-identified youth who begin exploring their gender identity at an earlier age face

similarly rampant discrimination as trans-identified adults. However, their youth and

inexperience in life inevitably raises the stakes for them. In a study completed by the Gay,

Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), 90 percent of transgender youth in

schools reported feeling unsafe, compared with 46 percent of gay or bisexual males and

41 percent of lesbian and bisexual female students.

350

Additionally, transgender youth are

even more marginalized than their gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) peers, often feeling

unwelcome at agencies that serve GLB youth.

351

Homeless transgender youth face similar safety and privacy concerns on the street, where

discrimination against LGBT youth is rampant. Shelters often create unsafe and hostile environ

ments by imposing gender-enforcing behavioral rules and dress codes, causing many transgender

youth to wind up on the street, engaging in risky survival and coping behaviors.

352

Like homeless

youth in general, trans-identified homeless youth are often reprimanded for their survival crimes

by the criminal justice system, which exposes them to further violence and abuse.

345 HCH Clinicians’ Network. (2002, June). Crossing to safety: Transgender health & homelessness. Healing Hands. 6(4).

346 Cited in Ibid.

347 HCH Clinicians’ Network. (2002, June).

348 Mottet, L. & Ohle, J. M. (2003).

349 Dean, L., Meyer, I. H., Robinson, K., Sell, R. L., Sember, R., Silenzio, V. M. B., Bowen, D. J., Bradford, J., Rothblum, E., White, J.,

Dunn, P., Lawrence, A., Wolfe, D. & Xavier, J. (2000). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender health: Findings and concerns. Journal of

the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, 4(3).

350 Cited in Cianciotto, J. & Cahill, S. (2003). Education Policy: Issues affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth. National Gay & Lesbian

Task Force Policy Institute. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/EducationPolicy.pdf

351 Haynes, R. (2001). Towards healthier transgender youth. Reprinted with permission from Crossroads, a publication of the National Youth

Adocacy Coalition. Retrieved June 21, 2006, from http://www.transgenderzone.com/library/hl/fulltext/27.htm

352 Mottet, L. & Ohle, J. M. (2003).

Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

ACCESS TO MEDICAL CARE FOR THE HOMELESS

TRANSGENDER COMMUNITY

There are two types of medical care that transgender people need

access to. First, simple, non-trans-specific (not related to sex reas

signment) health care. In attempting to acquire this care, whether

for a cold, flu, heart condition or broken leg, many transgender

individuals experience maltreatment from medical providers who

are judgmental, unsympathetic and poorly informed about gender

identity. This maltreatment makes it less likely that a transgender

person will seek health care in the future. Poorly informed medical

providers also often fail to provide important services, including

gender-appropriate screening and care for life-threatening diseases

such as breast or cervical cancer in female-to-male (FTM) patients

and HIV infection in male-to-female (MTF) individuals.

353

E X C E R P T F R O M Q U E E R Y O U T H I N C A R E I N

M A N I T O B A : A N E X A M I N A T I O N O F T H E I R

E X P E R I E N C E S T H R O U G H T H E I R V O I C E

Linda Dame, a former practicing social worker

in Winnipeg, Canada, writes of being told

about a “particularly troublesome” client with

whom she would be working…

I was informed that he was the most difficult

child my entire office had ever experienced

and very easily the most difficult child in the

entire system period… After prodding, I was

told that this teen liked to act out by dressing

provocatively and inappropriately and used his

negative attention-getting behavior to escalate

staff in his home… I had a good idea of what

was considered provocative dress within youth

culture, and I felt unperturbed by it. I was soon

to discover that nothing that I was told regard

ing this youth was either accurate or fair.

At the time of our first meeting… I had reviewed

the file… so I already knew that this boy was in

fact a transgender male to female young woman

and that she, not he, had been subjected to

incredibly ridiculous and abusive case planning

strategies for many years, if not throughout her

entire young life. No note in the file referred to

her transgenderism, and all notes referred to

her as male and used her original name, even

thought she had changed it years previous. File

notes from as young as six years old described her

interest in “dressing like a female.” A psychologi

cal consultation conducted when this youth was

about eight years old stated that when asked to

draw a picture of herself, she drew a woman…

The staff in the treatment home where she

lived routinely ridiculed her and ignored Child

Advocate’s Office’s direction to respect her

chosen name, even after she launched a formal

complaint. Case planning notes in her files

outlined strategies to address her cross-dressing

behavior, for example, allowing her to wear

women’s clothing complete with make-up only

on Thursdays and only in the house. This and

other strategies failed miserably.

Source: Dame, L. (2004). Queer youth in care in Manitoba: An examination of their experiences through their voices. The Canadian

Online Journal of Queer Studies in Education, 1(1).

Trans-identified youth

who begin exploring

their gender at an

earlier age will face

similar discrimination

as trans-identified

adults. However, their

youth and inexperience

inevitably raises the

stakes for them.

353 Lombardi, E. (2006). Enhancing transgender health care. American Journal of Public Health, 91(6).

The second type of care that transgender people need is related to sex reassignment and

gender identity. Many transgender people need access to care in the form of counseling,

hormone prescriptions and hormone-level monitoring, and sex reassignment-related

surgeries in order to become and stay healthy. Thus, an important

aspect of caring for transgender youth is ensuring that they have

access to the medical care they need. An important part of this care

is related to changing the physical appearance of their body to better

reflect their gender identity. Trans people are routinely denied this

care through private insurance, Medicaid and other health care

systems. Such care is also often denied altogether to transgender

youth under the age of 18.

If such care is not provided, trans-identifying people will often seek

out alternative suppliers of hormones and other substances that

alter their physical appearance. Unable to access appropriate profes

sional medical care in a proper medical setting, homeless trans-identified individuals,

including youth, are more likely to use street hormones or hormones illegally purchased

from unscrupulous physicians without any monitoring of the health outcomes.

354

This

inevitably places them at higher risk for HIV and hepatitis from using shared needles.

355

One study conducted by the San Francisco Transgender Health Project reported that over 50

percent of trans-identified participants had injected hormones outside conventional medical

settings.

356

Anwar, who identifies as a male living a female lifestyle, reported in a 2003 study:

“I started taking hormones when I was 13. I know plenty of stories about

people just overdosing until their liver just wasn’t functioning.”

357

Additionally, people often resort to dangerous, self-administered

silicone injections, which are illegal in the United States and spur

masculinizing or feminizing physiological changes.

358

Keisha, who

identifies as male-to-female (MTF), reflected on injecting silicone:

I was really scared. The risk I might be taking to my body. How

bad it was going to hurt. It did hurt… It’s like you feel your

muscle and your bone separate. And that hurts. The first time

you just feel it and it feels icky. But then as it begins to press, and

the muscle begins to press on to the epidermis, it’s agony. But

it’s worth it, because—especially if you know what you want. You

know how you want to look… So I’ll be fine.

359

The industrial-grade silicone commonly used on the street is subcuta-

neously injected into cheeks, lips, chins, foreheads, breasts, thighs, hips and other parts of

the body. The accumulation of liquid silicone in the body can result in scarring, systemic

illness, disfiguration, respiratory illness and death.

360

354 Ibid.

355 Dean, L. et. al. (2000).

356 Ibid.

357 As cited in Sausa, L. A. (2004). The HIV prevention and educational needs of trans youth. Retrieved June 21, 2006, from http://www.

lydiasausa.com/Lydia_Sausa_Brochure.pdf

358 Dean, L. et. al. (2000).

359 As cited in Sausa, L. A. (2004).

360 Denny, D. (1997). Transgendered youth at risk for exploitation, HIV, hate crimes. American Educational Gender Information Service,

Inc. Retrieved June 21, 2006, from http://www.youthresource.com/community/transtopis/being_trans/exploitation.htm

“I started taking

hormones when I was

13. I know plenty of

stories about people

just overdosing until

their liver just wasn’t

functioning.”

Homeless trans youth

are often ostracized

by agencies that

serve their LGB peers,

and are therefore

disproportionately at risk

for self-injury, substance

abuse, and exposure to

HIV and other sexually

transmitted infections.

Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

RISKS FACING HOMELESS TRANSGENDER YOUTH

Trans-identified homeless youth are at particular risk for negative health outcomes

compared to LGB youth. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee

on Adolescence, transgender youth are just as likely as gay and lesbian youth to be the

victims of social stigma, hostility, isolation and alienation and to experience higher rates

of substance use and suicidality.

361

Additionally, trans youth are particularly marginalized

on the basis of shelter and employment. Many homeless transgender youth are under the

age of 18 and, in many areas, can neither get a job due to lack of photo identification, nor

361 Dean, L. et. al. (2000).

Figure 2: A summary of risky behaviors reported by trans-identified youth

0 20 40 60 80 100

Engaged in unsafe behaviors in the past year that placed them at risk

Reported no being at risk for HI

Reported an STI

Reported being HIV positive

HIV and STIs

Sex under the influence of illegal drug

Sex under the influence of alcoho

In recovery programs for substannce abuse

Sold drug

Illegal drug us

Binge drinking

Alcohol use

Alcohol and substance use

Intend to acquire hormones and/or undergo surgery in the future

Received silicone injections

Engaged in hormone therap

Engaged in body modificatio

Body modifications

Self-mutilatio

Engaged in sex work

Sexually assaulted or raped

Attempted suicid

Thoughts of suicide

Mental health and well-being

Engaged in unsafe behaviors in the

past year that placed them at risk

Reported no being at risk for HIV

Reported an STI

Reported being HIV positive

HIV and STIs

Sex under the influence of illegal drugs

Sex under the influence of alcohol

In recovery programs for substannce abuse

Sold drugs

Illegal drug use

Binge drinking

Alcohol use

Alcohol and substance use

Intend to acquire hormones and/or

undergo surgery in the future

Received silicone injections

Engaged in hormone therapy

Engaged in body modification

Body modifications

Self-mutilation

Engaged in sex work

Sexually assaulted or raped

Attempted suicide

Thoughts of suicide

96%

63%

17%

13%

75%

96%

21%

79%

21%

75%

33%

25%

88%

21%

46%

71%

54%

83%

Mental health and well-being

qualify for sex reassignment surgery.

362

Homeless trans youth are often ostracized by agen-

cies that serve their LGB peers, and are therefore disproportionately at risk for self-injury

(suicide and self-mutilation of their genitalia), substance abuse, unsupervised medical care

(injection of street hormones and silicone for their masculinizing or feminizing proper

ties) and high exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (from shared

needles or unprotected survival sex).

363

Street youth go to great lengths to access body-altering substances because they wish to

halt the development of secondary sex characteristics such as growth of facial hair or

breasts. Miriam Yeung, policy director at the LGBT Community Center in New York

City, notes: “Transition becomes more difficult and costly after puberty… You don’t have

to shave off your Adam’s apple if you don’t develop it.”

364

Figure 3 provides a graphic

account of the risky behaviors reported by transgender-identified youth.

365

COMMUNITY-BASED HEALTH CENTERS REACHING OUT

TO LOW AND NO INCOME TRANSGENDER PEOPLE

Few medical care resources exist that offer services to homeless transgender adults and

young people, and, as a result, trans youth can end up at particular risk.

The American Journal of Public Health’s Field Action Report acknowledges the need for

a “community-tailored health intervention program that creates a safe space where

transgender [people] can feel comfortable discussing issues related to gender history,

sexual risk, depression and substance abuse” and advocates inclusion of trans-identified

practitioners to deliver health care services to transgender patients.

366

These are clinics

that serve transgender clients, but they are mostly located in major urban areas, leaving

many suburban and rural transgender youth without services. The following are examples

of the few clinics serving transgender clients.

The Transgender Clinic of Tom Waddell Health Center in San Francisco, California is

a community health provider serving the transgender community. The clinic provides

comprehensive care to transgender individuals, including primary well-care, nutritional

and mental care, and social services, serving individuals of all gender identities (including

MTF, FTM, intersex and a range of others), along with arranging translators for indi

viduals whose primary language is not English.

367

In New York City, the Callen-Lorde Community Health Center offers comprehensive

health care to trans-identifying clients regardless of their health insurance status,

providing general primary care, trans-affirmative gynecological care, referrals for

trans-sensitive mammography, cross-gender hormone therapy, laboratory monitoring,

transgender counseling and education, and case management services including

362 Mottet, L. (2004).

363 HCH Clinicians’ Network (2002, June).

364 Roehr, B. (2004, September 22). Youth face health battles. Windy City Times. Retrieved June 21, 2006, from http://www.windycityme-

diagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=6160

365 Sausa, L. A. (2004). The HIV prevention and educational needs of trans youth. Lydia A. Sausa. Retrieved June 21, 2006, from http://

www.lydiasausa.com/Lydia_Sausa_Brochure.pdf

366 Nemoto, T., Operario, D., Keatley, J., Nguyen, H. & Sugano, E. (2005). Promoting health for transgender women: Transgender

Resources and Neighborhood Space (TRANS) program in San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health, 95(3).

367 San Francisco Department of Public Health. (2005). Transgender Clinic of Tom Waddell Health Center. Author. Retrieved June 12,

2006, from http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/chn/HlthCtrs/transgender.htm

Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

assistance with legal name changes, referrals for surgeons, and other support services.

368

Unfortunately, they do not provide service to those under the age of 18 due to potential

liability issues.

In Chicago, the Broadway Youth Center on the city’s north side caters to the needs of

transgender youth whether they are homeless or not. They provide much-needed reduced-

price hormone therapy as well as counseling and critical peer-support groups to those over

18 and under 18 on a case-by-case basis. The idea is not only to maintain physical health,

but also to promote mental health via support and evidence that they can look forward

to a productive future.

369

In Cleveland, Ohio, MetroHealth’s Dr. Henry Ng is one medical professional who has

specifically sought out community input via forums at the LGBT community center. By

coming to the community in need, Dr. Ng is ensuring optimal comfort and safety for an

underserved population to speak to how his health care agency can better serve and treat

people. Dr. Ng’s model is rare. As the youth program coordinator noted, “He’s just one of

those good guys who’s doing what he’s supposed to do, doing what he can.”

370

Sadly, state

law does not allow MetroHealth to provide those under 18 years of age with transgender-

related services. However, the organization is developing a primary care practice for all

LGBT patients in Cleveland that will open in early 2007.

371

CONCLUSION

Data and anecdotal evidence speak to the particularly harsh challenges that trans-

gender homeless youth face every day, one of the most harmful of which is the lack

of information and awareness on the part of many social service professionals. At

the same time, the relative lack of research specifically addressing transgender needs

worsens this situation. There is a very clear need for more extensive research into the

needs of this community.

368 Callen-Lorde Community Health Center. (2006). Callen-Lorde Community Health Center. Author. Retrieved September 10, 2006,

from http://www.callen-lorde.org/

369 Uptown Publications. (2003). ‘It doesn’t have to be tragic’. Author. Retrieved September 15, 2005, from http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com

370 Glassman, A. (2006, January 20).

371 Confirmed in an email communication from Dr. Ng to the author.

Akira, 19, is an African-American who self-iden-

tifies as a male-to-female transgender youth. She

lives in Detroit, Michigan. After leaving home

due to emotional stress,

she spent time couch surf

ing and is now renting an

apartment with one of her

brothers in what is prob

ably her most stable hous

ing situation since she was

16. Though Akira’s fam

ily forced her to support

herself independently and be responsible for

her own housing, she says that now her family

is more accepting of her gender identity and

they keep in contact with her regularly. Akira

is a remarkable example of a young person who

is surviving and still focused on a successful

future despite her many challenges.

For Akira, survival has been muddled by drugs,

sex work, unstable living conditions and an

interrupted education. After identifying first

as a gay male and then

as a transgender woman,

Akira has witnessed both

homophobia and trans

phobia on a personal

level. After being forced to

leave her mother’s house,

Akira moved in with her

best friend, whose room

mates were convinced that

she was running an escort

service out of the apart

ment even though she was

not involved in sex work

at the time. According to

Akira, “they [said] I was born a prostitute… that

all transsexuals are prostitutes.” At that point,

Akira’s friend told her she could not stay there

anymore. She spent the past few years bouncing

from couch to couch; ”It was somewhere with

somebody,” she says. And when she ran out of

places to stay, she lived on the street.

Multiple risk factors exist for homeless LGBT

youth, and problems in one part of life will

often spill over into other areas, leading some

to feel that their lives are spinning out of con

trol. Akira is no different. Her depression set in

after she lost her job and her apartment. In an

effort to cope, she began self-medicating with

drugs and alcohol.

Because I was going through all that… I just

kept smoking [weed]. I had lost my job. I

just kept smoking, kept smoking, smoking,

and drinking, and drinking, and drinking.

And I was miserable.

When she needed money to support herself

and to buy drugs, alcohol and hormones, she

became a sex worker. “I had to, I really had to,”

Akira explains. “I had no time. I had no money.

My boyfriend did it. I mean, I had to, you

know?” She learned street smarts and survival

techniques from older transgender women in

similar situations and quickly learned how to

navigate this dangerous street subculture. Older

transgender sex workers who had offered advice

also served as a warning to Akira. She looked

at them and thought, “I’m not going to be like

that now. They had been doing this for so long,

right? They got nothing to show for it.”

Realizing that she needs more than street

smarts to survive and ultimately thrive, Akira

plans to finish her last 12 high school credits

and obtain her diploma. Afterward, she hopes

to attend college to study business management

and then work in real estate.

L G B T H O M E L E S S Y O U T H P R O F I L E : A K I R A

For Akira, survival has

been muddled by drugs,

sex work, unstable

living conditions and an

interrupted education.

Older transgender sex

workers who had offered

advice also served as a

warning to Akira. She

looked at them and

thought, “I’m not going

to be like that now. They

had been doing this for

so long, right? They got

nothing to show for it.”

Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

CRIME AND VICTIMIZATION

Research consistently shows that LGBT youth face victimization at home, at school, at

their jobs, and for those who are homeless, at shelters and on the streets. There are rarely

opportunities to feel 100 percent safe from harassment. Even if their home life is tranquil

on the surface, many LGBT youth are first victimized in school.

PHYSICAL AND VERBAL HARASSMENT IN SCHOOL

A study published in 2002 of 315 lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning (LGBQ) high

school students in Massachusetts and Vermont indicated that LBQ females were at

greater risk for truancy owing to fear, suicidality, drinking, drug use and victimization.

Ten percent of LBQ females were victimized 10 or more times in the previous 12 months

compared with about 1 percent of heterosexual females.

372

The Gay, Lesbian and Straight

Education Network (GLSEN)

373

has for years documented the anti-LGBT verbal and

physical harassment and assaults endured by LGBT youth in school environments.

374

GLSEN’s 2005 study of 1,732 students aged 13 to 20 shows the extent of anti-LGBT

harassment and violence in America’s classrooms:

375

• 75.4 percent of students hear remarks such as “faggot” or “dyke” frequently or often.

• 89.2 percent hear peers use demeaning phrases such as “that’s so gay” or “you’re so gay.”

• Because of their sexual orientation, 64.3 percent felt unsafe, 64.1 percent had been

verbally harassed, 37.8 percent had been physically harassed and 17.6 percent had

been physically assaulted.

• Because of their gender expression, 40.7 percent of students felt unsafe, 26.1 percent

had been physically harassed, 45.5 percent had been verbally harassed and 11.8

percent had been physically assaulted.

• 58.6 percent of victims never reported their harassment or assault to school officials,

and of those who did, only 43.8 saw effective action taken by those officials.

• 55.1 percent never reported incidents of harassment or assault to their parents or

guardians, and 43.6 percent of the students who did inform their parents or guardian

reported that that person took no action.

Outside the classroom, similar negative experiences are often fueled by discrimination,

which leads to homophobic peers perpetuating harassment and anti-gay violence.

D’Augelli and Hershberger (1993) found that in a 14-city sampling of sexual minority

youth, 80 percent reported verbal abuse, 44 percent reported threats of violence, 30

percent had been chased and 17 percent had been physically assaulted.

376

Ryan and Rivers

(2003) reflect on this problem by saying, “One of the primary barriers to providing appro

372 Bontempo, D. E. & D’Augelli, A. R. (2002). Effects of at-school victimization and sexual orientation on lesbian, gay, or bisexual

youths’ health risk behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30(5). p369.

373 For more information, see www.glsen.org

374 GLSEN’s study on school climate does not include students who identify as questioning, so the discussion here is related only to LGBT

students.

375 Kosciw, J. G. & Diaz, E. M. (2006). The 2005 national school climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our

nation’s schools - Executive summary of a report from the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education

Network. Retrieved September 6, 2006, from http://www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS/file/582-2.pdf

376 D’Augelli, A. R. & Hershberger, S. L. (1993).

priate services in a safe environment for LGBT youth has been the lack of understanding

of the severity and routine nature of the harassment they experience.”

377

YOUNG AND HOMELESS VICTIMS OF CRIME

Homeless youth are often assumed to be solely criminals, not victims.

378

In reality,

however, homelessness is a “stress-filled, dehumanizing, dangerous circumstance in which

individuals are at high risk of being witness to or victims of a wide range of violent

acts.”

379

Homeless youth are likely to be victimized the most. Take,

for example, Gary, an 18-year-old former client of the Ruth Ellis

Center in Detroit, Michigan:

For Gary, living on the streets was complicated by the people

he had to deal with to secure a place to sleep. Most days, he

was fine—a friend could help him out. On other days, strangers

were his only option. Gary came to Street Outreach Program for

survival services every day. Gary would have been 18 years old

in May, but he was shot just three months before his birthday.

Police continue to investigate the murder as a hate crime.

380

The degree to which homeless youth are disproportionately the

victims of crime rather than the perpetrators is fairly well established. Miller et al.’s study

of youth in Calgary noted the prevalence of crime against homeless youth, confirming

that most experienced some sort of violence on a daily basis.

381

The National Runaway

Switchboard suggests that the likelihood of being a victim of crime increases sevenfold just

by virtue of identifying as LGBT.

382

Other researchers have confirmed a general tendency

among LGBT youth to be the victims of robbery, rape and assault.

383

In one study, 272 homeless youth in Seattle, of whom 37 percent identified as homo-

sexual or bisexual, reported high rates of victimization.

384

Among the entire sample, 35

percent had been beaten up at least once, 39 percent had been robbed, 44 percent had

been threatened with a weapon, 47 percent of the females and 37 percent of the males

had been propositioned to partake in the “street economy” by selling sex, and 31 percent

of the females and 13 percent of the males had been sexually assaulted.

385

The street economy is fertile ground for increased risk and violence. Integration into the

street economy often occurs if a youth’s only sources of income are from activities such as

dealing drugs, stealing, panhandling, sex work or posing for or selling pornography.

386

All

The National Runaway

Switchboard suggests

that the likelihood of

being a victim of crime

increases sevenfold

just by virtue of

identifying as LGBT.

377 Ryan, C. & Rivers, I. (2003). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth: victimization and its correlates in the USA and UK. Culture,

Health & Sexuality, 5(2). p.115.

378 Gaetz, S. (2004). p.447. For a more comprehensive review and analysis of the experiences of LGBT youth in public schools, see

Cianciotto, J. & Cahill, S. (2003).

379 Fitzpatrick, K. M., LaGory, M. A. & Ritchey, F. J. (1999). Dangerous places: Exposure to violence and its mental health consequences

for the homeless. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69. p.439.

380 Personal written communication between the author and Grace McClelland, Executive Director of the Ruth Ellis Center.

381 Miller, P. et. al. (2004). p.742.

382 National Runaway Switchboard. (2005).

383 Kipke, M. D., Simon, T. R. & Montgomery, S. B. (1997). Homeless youth and their exposure to and involvement in violence while

living on the streets. Journal of Adolescent Health, 20.

384 Wagner, L. S. et. al. (2001).

385 Ibid. p.223.

386 O’Connor, M. L. (1998). Unsafe behaviors place street youth, especially women, at risk of HIV. Family Planning Perspectives, 30(1).

Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

of these risky behaviors are especially problematic for LGBT youth and have the potential

to interact with each other to increase risk exposure levels. In other words, it is a circle

from which some youth are permanently unable to escape.

Among 372 homeless and runaway youth in Seattle, Tyler et al. found that “youth who

experienced more sexual abuse were likely to affiliate with deviant peers, trade sex, and

report numerous sexual partners on the streets,” a lifestyle that increases their risk for

sexual victimization via involvement in risky behaviors.

387

Youth do not have to become

homeless for this cycle to begin. The victimization experienced in dysfunctional homes

is believed to provide “basic training” for runaway youth to build abusive and coercive

relationships with peers, leading to association with deviant peers and further negative

physical and mental health outcomes.

388

Additionally, a study published in 2001 pointed to a greater risk for sexual victimization

for women, with 30 percent of young homeless females reporting victimization by

sexual abuse compared with 15 percent of young homeless males.

389

These findings are

supported by a more recent study that describes the distinct impact of street spaces on

female versus male street youth as follows:

The gendered nature of the streets means that the various spaces that street youth colonize—to

sleep, to occupy at night, to walk alone within, to eat, to meet friends, to drink or take drugs,

to rest in or otherwise exist within—carry different risks for males and females.

390

Because the streets are a male space, young women are less likely to operate

independently when working and are more likely to find themselves engaging in

economic activities (sex trade, drug dealing) where they are forced to surrender

independence—and earnings—to others (usually males).

391

One Canadian study links the victimization of homeless youth to a theory of social

exclusion, drawing connections between victim status and lack of access to employment,

housing and public spaces.

392

The study’s authors note that the

combination of circumstances homeless youth face on the street typi

cally pushes them “into places that impair their ability to adequately

ensure their safety and security and, consequently, increase their risk

of criminal victimization.”

393

In Gaetz’s sample of 208 Canadian youth, 29.6 percent identified

as LGB and 2.7 percent as transgender; the average age of all youth

was only 20.1 years old. On average, they left home when they were

16 years old. More than four-fifths of these youth had been victims

of crime, versus only 25 percent of all Canadians and 39.7 percent

of 15-to-24-year-old Canadians. Almost all categories of crime

victimization were higher for homeless youth when compared with

Only 33.1 percent of

homeless youth in one

study told anyone at

all when they were

the victim of a crime.

Even fewer reported

their worst ever

case of victimization

to the police.

387 Tyler, K. A., Hoyt, D. R., Whitbeck, L. B. & Cauce, A. M. (2001). The impact of childhood sexual abuse on later sexual victimization

among runaway youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11(2). p.164.

388 Ibid.

389 Ibid. p.161.

390 O’Grady, B. & Gaetz, S. (2004). Homelessness, gender and subsistence: The case of Toronto street youth. Journal of Youth Studies, 7(4).

p.410.

391 Ibid. p.412.

392 Gaetz, S. (2004).

393 Gaetz, S. (2004). p.428.

their domiciled counterparts. The results were highly statistically significant for sexual

assault and robbery.

394

The nature of life on the streets means that reporting criminal victimization can lead to

further trouble. This is reflected in Gaetz’s analysis of a sample of homeless youth. Only

33.1 percent of respondents told anyone at all when they were the victim of a crime,

395

while only 12.2 percent reported their worst ever case of victimization to the police. Some

youth cited their concern about appearing to be snitches as one reason for declining to

report offenses, while others were involved in illegal activity at the time of their victimiza

tion.

396

Silence often won out when there was

…stigma associated with the offense (e.g., sexual assault)…

[I]ndividuals feel reluctant, or unable, to tell anyone about

the incident, particularly adults or police. In such cases, they

are left to deal to deal with the emotional baggage and other

consequences of the crime on their own.

397

There are parts of this country where the repeated victimization of

homeless LGBT youth, as well as their potential for involvement in

criminal activity, has persuaded local authorities to seek constructive

solutions. In Minnesota, the Department of Public Safety granted

funds to the city of Minneapolis to provide case management and

host home services for homeless LGBT youth; the city’s Department

of Health Services served as fiscal agent for the project.

398

In other places, government

officials take the opposite approach. In Des Moines, Iowa, a particular part of town

popular with homeless and LGBT youth is a haven for violence, but youth still choose

to congregate there. The city police officers believe that the kids who are harmed are

“volunteer victims” because they know it is a tough and potentially dangerous area but

they still choose to hang out there. The fact that alternatives might be severely limited or

themselves unsafe for many of the youth is not considered.

399

Having a safe and secure place to sleep every night would obviously alleviate some of the

immediate risks that homeless youth face, but the lack of social inclusion also plays a role.

As Gaetz concludes:

Being young and homeless… means many things—among the most significant being

that one’s health and safety are jeopardized on a day-to-day basis... the trauma associ

ated with victimization will no doubt have a devastating effect and can present yet

another barrier to moving successfully off the streets.

400

Gaetz also suggests that the constant witnessing of bad behavior by street contemporaries

may lead homeless youth to copy such activity. Compared with their non-homeless peers,

it certainly seems to be the case, and evidence suggests that the abusive backgrounds from

which many homeless youth emerge only make this outcome more likely.

401

In Des Moines, Iowa,

the police consider kids

who are harmed to be

“volunteer victims”

because they know it is

a potentially dangerous

area but they still choose

to hang out there.

394 Ibid. p.433.

395 Ibid. p.440.

396 Ibid.

397 Ibid. p.439.

398 Dylan Nicole, d. K. (2004). City enters partnership to assist lesbian and gay homeless youth. Nation’s Cities Weekly, 27(10).

399 Anonymous. (2002, August 14). Out of control: At downtown’s biggest street party. Cityview, Des Moines, Iowa. p.9.

400 Gaetz, S. (2004). p.444.

401 Gaetz, S. (2004). p.426.

Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Hagan and McCarthy

402

compared samples of 563 school students with 386 street youth

in Toronto, Canada to see what risks enhanced the likelihood of any given youth being

involved in criminal activity. Youth were classified as high-risk or low-risk using a formula

created by the authors that included measures of family structure, class and parental

control. This permitted the authors to segregate the youth into high,

medium and low risk classifications. Their results show that high-risk

youth are far more likely to commit delinquent acts regardless of

whether they are on the street, but among low-risk youth, the odds of

such behavior increase dramatically if they become homeless.

403

For example, among low-risk youth the probability of being engaged

in 20 or more serious offenses is 20 percent if they become homeless.

That probability is reduced to only half of one percent if they remain

housed. In contrast, among high-risk youth, the odds of this level

of repeated delinquency if housed are 3 percent but if living on the

streets climb to almost 38 percent.

404

Without specifying a particular

number of delinquent acts, the findings are stark. Fully 58.6 percent

of the difference in likelihood to commit a crime is explained by youth’s experiences on

the street.

405

Once in the habit of committing such offenses, “theft activity often moves

from the level of innovation [for immediate survival purposes] to avocation.”

406

Despite the efforts of cities like Minneapolis to remedy some of the problems inherent

in living on the streets, it is important to remember that oftentimes, homeless youth

must be aggressive in seeking out the assistance they need. Their reluctance to do

so on some occasions is not wholly unwarranted. There is ample evidence in the

academic literature that law enforcement personnel are actually more homophobic,

on average, than other people.

407

Additionally, recent research suggests that the next

generation of law enforcement professionals do not have a professional attitude

towards the LGBT people they will eventually be charged with serving. In one study of

1,055 undergraduates at four universities, one researcher found that those majoring

in criminal justice “are unique in the degree to which they hold negative attitudes

towards gays and lesbians.”

408

In another study, researchers conducted a content analysis of textbooks used widely in the

field and surveyed 254 students, 176 of whom were law and justice majors.

409

The content

analysis confirmed that while other minority groups are addressed in the literature used to

teach tomorrow’s law enforcement professionals, LGBT issues are conspicuously absent.

410

Researchers found that the law enforcement students have higher levels of homophobia

but were unable to explain why.

411

402 Hagan, J. & McCarthy, B. (1992).

403 Ibid. p.552.

404 Ibid. p.553.

405 Ibid. p.554.

406 Ibid. p.556.

407 For example, see Arnott, J. (1994).

408 Cannon, K. D. (2005). “Ain’t no faggot gonna rob me!”: Anti-gay attitudes of criminal justice undergraduate majors. Journal of Criminal

Justice Education, 16(2). p.226.

409 Olivero, J. M. & Murataya, R. (2001). Homophobia and university law enforcement students. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 12(2).

410 Ibid. p.273.

411 Olivero, J. M. & Murataya, R. (2001). p.277.

One study of 1,055

undergraduates...

found those majoring in

criminal justice “unique

in the degree to which

they hold negative

attitudes towards

gays and lesbians.”

THE CRIMINALIZATION OF HOMELESSNESS

The National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH)

412

has joined with the National Law

Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP)

413

to analyze a disturbing trend spreading

across the United States: the criminalization of many life-sustaining activities associated

with homelessness.

414

Cities and towns are being increasingly creative in their efforts to

force homeless people, including youth, out of the public eye and the public sphere.

Pushed out of downtown areas, they are often thrust into the criminal justice system,

moved away from many of the services they need and, ultimately, the prospect of escaping

the streets altogether.

Laws against sleeping, sitting or lying down under certain conditions in certain parts of a

town or city openly criminalize people experiencing homelessness; selective enforcement

of other ordinances does so more subtly. Twenty-seven percent of the 224 cities surveyed

prohibited sitting or lying in certain public spaces, a 14 percent jump since 2002. Some

cities have also begun to target people who feed the homeless in public spaces.

415

September of 2006, officials in Los Angeles reached an agreement with the ACLU to

permit police to arrest people sleeping or lying on sidewalks between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m.

416

The agreement came after a federal appeals court had earlier deemed such arrests cruel

and unusual punishment.

417

Other cities have embarked on similar programs to “clean up” downtown areas, though the

constitutionality of such efforts is doubtful. A Las Vegas ordinance passed in July 2006 was

struck down in October by a federal judge who declared that a ban on

feeding the homeless was unconstitutional because it was “vague and

denies the homeless people equal protection of the law.”

418

In Sarasota,

Florida, after two anti-lodging laws were deemed unconstitutional by

state courts, city commissioners passed a more targeted law including

a clause that those eligible for arrest have “no other place to live.”

419

In other words, a person who has to sleep on the street qualifies for

arrest under the rule precisely because they have nowhere else to sleep.

If they had a home but for some reason chose not to sleep there, they

presumably would not be arrested.

By punishing people simply for being homeless, cities and towns

actually make a potential solution to the problem harder to achieve.

If a homeless person ends up with a criminal record, it may be harder for him or her

to qualify for certain benefits and difficult to rent permanent housing in the future.

Additionally, NCH notes the “documented relationship between increased police actions

412 For more information, see www.nationalhomeless.org

413 For more information, see www.nlchp.org

414 The National Coalition for the Homeless & The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. (2006). A dream denied: The

criminalization of homelessness in U.S. cities. Washington, DC: Author. See also: The National Coalition for the Homeless. (2004). Illegal

to be homeless: The criminalization of homelessness in the United States. Washington, DC: Author.

415 The National Coalition for the Homeless & The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. (2006). p.9.

416 Winton, R. (2006, September 19). Plan would end homeless “tent cities”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 31, 2006, from http://

www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-homeless19sep19,0,6587007.story?coll=la-home-headlines

417 Weinstein, H. & DiMassa, C. M. (2006, April 15). Justices hand L.A.’s homeless a victory. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 31,

2006, from http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-homeless15apr15,0,2130546.story?coll=la-home-headlines

418 Ellingson, T. (2006). Las Vegas now says feeding homeless ordinance unconstitutional. lasvegasnow.com. Retrieved October 31, 2006, from

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5600200&nav=menu102_2

419 The National Coalition for the Homeless & The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. (2006). p.25.

NCH notes the

“documented

relationship between

increased police actions

and the increasing

numbers of hate crimes/

violent acts against

homeless people.”

Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

and the increasing numbers of hate crimes/violent acts against homeless people.”

420

Those inclined to attack their fellow citizens become emboldened when local policy and

practice dehumanizes people experiencing homelessness and suggests that they alone are

responsible for numerous social and economic ills.

Research has proven that it is both far more expensive to house someone in jail than

in supportive housing and far less productive for the individual or society in the long

term.

421

In the case of juveniles, who require particularly expensive, specialized care, costs

can be 10 times as high in a juvenile justice or full-time rehabilitation service facility as

they would be doing what it takes to get them off the street.

422

As New York State Judge

Kathryn Freed commented of people bought before her court for fare dodging on a bus

that would take them to a homeless shelter:

I consistently put on record how outraged I am by the whole thing. It’s a complete

waste of the court’s time [to prosecute the illegal bus riders]. It takes a lot of person-

power to process them, house them, and feed them. Meanwhile, the shelter, where

they’re heading, is set up to do just that.

423

Some proponents of punishment for petty offenses such as fare dodging believe that

threatening potential offenders with more severe consequences will reduce offenses.

Similar beliefs underlie a trend toward criminalizing various intrinsic aspects of homeless

ness or for tightening restrictions for crimes predictably committed by people experiencing

homelessness. But what purpose does this serve? In the case of the homeless male youth

population, while some do fear sanction by the state for criminal activity, serial offenders

actually do not.

424

A study of 125 male street youth in Edmonton, Alberta found that few

feared getting caught, though some expressed a level of fear regarding the severity of their

potential punishment should they be apprehended.

Factors that reduced the level of fear experienced by homeless male youth included

poverty, drug use, associating with other criminals, and having a lack of social constraints

that might exist if they were still living at home with their parents or guardian.

425

It is

interesting in particular to note that despite living on the streets, parental perceptions of

their behavior were still a factor in the level of fear for some respondents.

Their lifestyle reduces their perception of risk in so many ways that it is difficult for

homeless youth to objectively assess risk when it comes to the potential of being punished.

For example, increased drug use among homeless youth, including LGBT youth, may lead

to a cycle of criminal behavior: committing robbery to secure funds to buy drugs, which

in turn leads to needing more money for more drugs, etc. In the case of violent crime,

the longer youth have been homeless and living on the streets, the greater their expressed

420 National Coalition for the Homeless. (2006). Hate, violence, and death on main street USA: A report on hate crimes and violence against people

experiencing homelessness 2005. Washington, D.C.: Author. p.49 For additional information on this phenomenon see also, National

Coalition for the Homeless. (2005). Hate, violence, and death on main street USA: A report on hate crimes and violence against people experi-

encing homelessness 2004. Washington, D.C.: Author.

421 See Lewin Group. (2004). Costs of serving homeless individuals in nine cities: Chart book. Author. Retrieved August 31, 2006, from http://

documents.csh.org/documents/ke/csh_lewin2004.pdf

422 Van Leeuwen, J. (2004). Reaching the hard to reach: Innovative housing for homeless youth through strategic partnerships. Child

Welfare, 83(5). p.1.

423 The National Coalition for the Homeless & The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. (2006). p.38.

424 Baron, S. W. & Kennedy, L. W. (1998). Deterrence and homeless male street youths. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice,

40(1).

425 Baron, S. W. & Kennedy, L. W. (1998). p.27.

certainty of being sanctioned for their behavior because they know how the system works.

However, encouragement from their peers to continue established patterns of behavior

mitigates these fears and diminishes the probability of the youth in question ceasing

serious criminal activity.

426

Many homeless youth commit criminal acts because they feel they have no alternative; this

reduces their capacity to accurately consider the potential risks of their actions. Results

of this study suggest that efforts to “increase the threats of punishment to the point that

even high rate ‘chronic offenders’ view the punishments to be certain and severe” may

not have the desired effect. The available research shows that traditional deterrence via

fear will not work with this population.

THE JUVENILE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS

The literature on the juvenile justice system is scarce, particularly on the experiences

of LGBT youth. In fact, we could find no research dealing specifically with LGBT

youth who came to the juvenile justice system directly from the streets. Therefore,

in this section we begin by focusing generally on the experiences of LGBT people in

prison before turning to a briefer examination of the concerns of homeless LGBT

youth within the juvenile justice system. While a lack of adequate research on LGBT

youth experiences necessarily limits these discussions, we do know that prisoners who

are LGBT or perceived to be LGB or gender nonconforming are at high risk of sexual

abuse in prison.

LGBT PEOPLE IN PRISON

Research shows that in male facilities, gay men, particularly those

exhibiting stereotypically “effeminate” characteristics, and male-

to-female transgender prisoners are extremely vulnerable to sexual

abuse.

427

428

One study, for example, found that 41 percent of gay

men were sexually assaulted in prison, compared to 9 percent of

heterosexual men.

429

This same study found that 53 percent of a

sample of 80 self-identified homosexual prisoners in a medium-

security California prison had experienced sexual harassment

and/or threats.

430

James Robertson, professor of corrections at

Minnesota State University, Mankato, has reviewed a number of studies of male-on-male

rape in prison dating back to the 1960s. Nearly all present nonconsensual sex and rape as

widespread in prisons. One found such abuse to be more prevalent in state prisons than

in federal prisons.

431

Many male inmates consent to sexual acts against their will to avoid alternative violence,

426 Baron, S. W. & Kennedy, L. W. (1998). p.45.

427 Mariner, J. (1999). No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. Human Rights Watch. p.71.

428 Roderick . Gary Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 512. (5th Cir. 2004).

429 Wooden, W. & Parker, J. (1982). Men behind bars. New York: Plenum Press. p.18. Cited in Robertson, J. (1999). Cruel and unusual

punishment in United States prisons: Sexual harassment among male inmates. American Criminal Law Review, 36(1).

430 Wooden & Parker (1982)

431 Robertson, J. (1999).

Prisoners who are gay,

transgender, or perceived

to be gay or gender

nonconforming are

at high risk of sexual

abuse in prison.

Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

apparently feeling there are no other options.

432

The New York Times reported in 2004 on

the case of Roderick Johnson, a gay man forced into “daily sex acts” of sexual slavery in

a Texas prison:

“The Crips already had a homosexual that was with them,” Mr. Johnson explained.

“The Gangster Disciples, from what I understand, hadn’t had a homosexual under

them in a while. So that’s why I was automatically, like, given to them.” According to

court papers and [Johnson’s] own detailed account, the Gangster Disciples and then

other gangs treated Mr. Johnson as a sex slave. They bought and sold him, and they

rented him out. Some acts cost $5, others $10… “I was forced into oral and anal sex

on a daily basis… Not for a month or two. For, like, 18 months.”

433

T.J. Parsell, now board chair of the Los Angeles-based national advocacy group Stop

Prisoner Rape, was sentenced to prison in Michigan at age 17 for armed robbery. His first

day in jail, Parsell was drugged and gang raped. “When they were done, they flipped a

coin to see which one I belonged to,” Parsell said.

434

The situation can be far worse for transgender women in men’s prisons. Because they are

pre-operative, such assignments place them far too often into a “virtual torture chamber

of incessant sexual humiliation.”

435

In women’s facilities, lesbians and other women who

are seen as transgressing gender boundaries are often at heightened risk of sexual torture

and other ill treatment. Actual or perceived sexual orientation was found to be one of

four categories that make a female prisoner a more likely target for sexual abuse as well as

a target for retaliation when she reports that abuse.

436

RAPE IN PRISONS

Prison rape has been called “America’s oldest, darkest, yet most open secret.”

437

A 2000

study of prisoners in four Midwestern states found that approximately one in five male

inmates reported being pressured or forced into sex while incarcerated. About one

in 10 male inmates reported that they had been raped.

438

Another study showed that

in women’s prisons, rates of sexual coercion varied from 6 percent to as high as 27

percent.

439

Twenty-six years ago, in a dissent to the case U.S. vs. Bailey in which he was

joined by Justice William Brennan, Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote:

The complaints that this Court, and every other American appellate court, receives

almost daily from prisoners about conditions of incarceration, about filth, about

homosexual rape, and about brutality are not always the mouthings of the purely

malcontent… The atrocities and inhuman conditions of prison life in America are

432 Man, C. C. J. (2001). Forecasting sexual abuse in prisons: The prison subculture of masculinity as a backdrop for “deliberate indiffer-

ence.”. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. p.153.

433 Liptak, A. (2004, October 16). Ex-inmate’s suit offers view into sexual slavery in prisons. New York Times. p.A1. Cited in Ries, D. (2006).

Duty-to-protect claims made by inmates after the prison rape elimination act. Journal of Law & Policy, 13(2). pp.915-916.

434 Curtis, K. (2006, January 17). Disputed study: Prison rape, sexual assault rare. Associated Press. Retrieved September 15, 2006, from

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10896343/

435 Rosenblum, D. (2000). “Trapped” in Sing Sing: Transgendered prisoners caught in the gender binarism. Michigan Journal of Gender

Law, 6. p.517.

436 Curtin, M. (2002).

437 Man, C. C. J. (2001). pp.127-128.

438 Struckman-Johnson, C. & Struckman-Johnson, D. (2000). Sexual coercion rates in seven midwestern prisons for men. The Prison

Journal, 80(4). p.379.

439 Struckman-Johnson, C. & Struckman-Johnson, D. (2002). Sexual coercion reported by women in three midwestern prisons. Journal of

Sex Research, 39(3).

almost unbelievable; surely they are nothing less than shocking. A youthful inmate

can expect to be subjected to homosexual gang rape his first night in jail, or, it has

been said, even in the van on the way to jail. Weaker inmates become the property of

stronger prisoners or gangs, who sell the sexual services of the victim.

440

According to the Prison Rape Elimination Act, “experts have conservatively estimated

that at least 13 percent of the inmates in the United States have been sexually assaulted in

prison.”

441

The conservative National Review reports that this figure,

equivalent to 12,000 rapes, represents more rapes than are reported

annually against women in New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia,

Boston, San Diego and Phoenix combined.

442

According to Olga

Giller, editor-in-chief of the Cardozo Women’s Law Journal, “[I]t

is widely believed that sexual harassment such as intimidation,

propositions, extortion, assault and rape runs rampant in the prison

system.” She cites a number of studies to back up her claim.

443

A 1982 Federal Bureau of Prisons study reported that 9 to 20 percent

of federal inmates, especially new or homosexual inmates, were

victims of rape. The study also reported that 30 percent of federal

prison inmates engaged in homosexual activity while incarcerated.

444

Stop Prisoner Rape

was contacted by 507 survivors of prison rape from 2002 through January 23, 2006.

Most of these contacts take the form of letters from prisoners. Of these 507 self-reported

survivors of prison rape,

• 413 are men (81.5 percent)

• 63 are woman (12.5 percent)

• 26 are transgender (6 percent)

• 98 (19 percent) identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

445

Human Rights Watch has reported a number of characteristics which can make prisoners

more likely to be raped:

These include youth, small size, and physical weakness; being white, gay, or a first

offender; possessing “feminine” characteristics such as long hair or a high voice; being

unassertive, unaggressive, shy, intellectual, not street-smart, or “passive;” or having

been convicted of a sexual offense against a minor… prisoners with several overlapping

characteristics are much more likely than other inmates to be targeted for abuse.

446

Giller notes that “[r]ace and sexuality intersect at the heart of prison rape.”

An anonymous ex-prisoner painfully recounted the role that race played in his sexual

assault, “[s]ince I’m light skinned the first dudes that raped me were blacks who

Experts have

conservatively estimated

that at least 13 percent

of the inmates in

the United States

have been sexually

assaulted in prison.

440 United States vs. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (1980). Dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Blackmun, joined by Mr. Justice Brennan. Retrieved

January 20, 2006, from http://www.healylaw.com/cases/bailey1.htm

441 The Prison Rape Elimination Act. (2005). 42 U.S.C. 15601(2).

442 Lehrer, E. (2003). A blind eye, still turned: Getting serious about prison rape. National Review, 55(10).

443 Giller, O. (2004). Patriarchy on lockdown: Deliberate indifference and male prison rape. Cardozo Women’s Law Journal, (10).

444 Nacci, P. & Kane, T. (1983). Sex and sexual aggression in federal prisons. Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Prisons. Cited in Kantor,

E. (2003). HIV transmission and prevention in prison. HIV InSite Center for HIV Information at the University of California San

Francisco. Retrieved September 14, 2006, from http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-07-04-13#s14X

445 Personal communication between Sean Cahill, Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute, and Kathy Hall-

Martinez, Executive Director, Stop Prisoner Rape, January 24, 2006.

Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

thought I was white. After word got out that I was black, they left me alone but then

the whites took me off. After that I was a “black” punk and passed on to whites.

447

What makes things harder is that prison officials are often unaware of the extent of the

problem in their own facilities, either not understanding or not acknowledging the extent

of prison sexual abuse:

Prison authorities, unsurprisingly, generally claim that prisoner-on-prisoner sexual

abuse is an exceptional occurrence rather than a systemic problem. Prison officials

in New Mexico, for example, responding to our 1997 request

for information regarding “the ‘problem’ of male inmate-on-

inmate rape and sexual abuse,” said that they had “no recorded

incidents over the past few years.” The Nebraska Department of

Correctional Services informed Human Rights Watch that such

incidents were “minimal.”

448

This official ignorance of the issue is just one of the barriers facing

victims of prison rape. Many of those subjected to such abuse are

reluctant to report their experiences, fearing retaliation by both

prisoners and staff and having justifiably little faith in receiving the

appropriate relief. When instances are reported or claims filed, victims are frequently

subjected to further abuse, ignored, or told that the incident was their fault or that they

deserved what happened to them.

Those who report rapes are often not believed or told that they consented. They are

often accused of being gay and “wanting it.”

449

When prisoners known to be gay or

transgender report prison rape, they are often told that they enjoyed the act and that

it was consensual. Others have reported that if they do not have physical evidence of

an attack (e.g., wounds or scratches), prison authorities do not believe their claims

and consider them unsubstantiated. Prisoners who report rape are not protected

from other inmates, who may retaliate against the prisoner for being a “snitch.”

450

451

Additionally, perpetrators have little need to fear punishment for their offense

because punishment is rare.

452

Human Rights Watch documented a wide range of physical effects of prison rape that

depend on whether it was accompanied by a violent attack (beating, etc.), whether there

was anal penetration, and whether a lubricant was used:

Prisoners with whom Human Rights Watch is in contact have suffered rape-related

injuries ranging from broken bones to lost teeth to concussions to bloody gashes

requiring dozens of stitches. A few, like former Texas inmate Randy Payne, were killed

during sexual assaults.

453

When prisoners known

to be gay or transgender

report prison rape, they

are often told that they

enjoyed the act and

that it was consensual.

446 Mariner, J. (1999). p.5.

447 Anonymous (2001). The story of a black punk. In Sabo, D. e. al., Prison masculinities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. cited in

Giller, O. (2004).

448 Mariner, J. (1999). p.4.

449 Letter to Human Rights Watch from J.G., Florida, September 4, 1996. Mariner (2001).

450 Lee, A. L. (2003). Nowhere to go but out: The collision between transgender and gender-variant prisoners and the gender binary in America’s prisons.

Unpublished work.

451 Roderick Keith Johnson, v. Gary Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 512 (5th Cir. 2004).

452 Mariner, J. (1999). p.151.

453 Ibid. pp.110-111.

Survivors of rape in prison often leave prison in a state of “extreme psychological stress,

a condition identified as rape trauma syndrome.”

454

Other conditions often brought on

by the experience of prison rape include low self-esteem, shame,

depression, nightmares, self-hatred, suicidality, uncontrollable anger,

and violence.

455

In fact, the psychological problems caused by

being raped while in prison likely play a major role in ex-prisoners’

frequent difficulties reintegrating into society upon release, a major

factor in high recidivism rates.

Prison rape also exposes victims to serious risk of life-threatening

disease. A prison rape can impose an “unadjudicated death sentence”

because of the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.

456

Inmates confined

in state and federal prisons have AIDS at 5 times (0.5 percent) and HIV at 4 times (2.3

percent to 2.98 percent) that of the U.S. population. Syphilis has been found among 2.6

to 4.3 percent of all prisoners, while rates of hepatitis C infection are even higher with 17

percent to 18.6 percent of all prisoners infected.

457

Approximately 25 percent of the United States population living with HIV passes through

the correctional system annually.

458

In New York, prisons held about one quarter of all

inmates known to be HIV positive as of the end of 2000.

459

And of course, without

official access to latex barriers, prisoners use ineffective makeshift devices, such as rubber

gloves and used plastic wrap, in attempts to practice safer sex.

460

This discussion about the realities of life in prison for LGBT people is graphic, but

necessary because the consequences of unfair treatment and lack of accountability are

so serious. This research did not focus on youth specifically, but it is clear what the

consequences are for a young LGBT person if their life on the streets ultimately leads

them to the juvenile justice system and prisons.

LGBT YOUTH IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

There is a paucity of research that can authoritatively speak to the experience of LGBT

youth, homeless or otherwise, within the juvenile justice system. In part this is because

of the sorts of consequences for inmates openly identifying as LGBT that we reviewed

earlier. However, a lack of academic attention to the issue is also a contributing factor.

While there is evidence that gay and bisexual male youth are at higher risk of being in

trouble with the law than their heterosexual peers, such studies do not address homeless

ness specifically.

461

462

One recent study suggested that increased use of drugs by LGB youth, combined with

A prison rape can impose

an “unadjudicated

death sentence”

because of the risk of

contracting HIV/AIDS.

454 Ibid. p.112.

455 Ibid.

456 Mariner, J. (1999). Cited in Robertson, J. (2003). Rape among incarcerated men: Sex, coercion and STDs. AIDS Patient Care and STDs,

17(8).

457 Cited in Robertson, J. (2003).

458 Spaulding, A., Stephenson, B., Macalino, G., Ruby, W., Clark, J. & Flanigan, I. (2002). Human immunodeficiency virus in correc-

tional facilities: A Review. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 35. Cited in Braithwalte, R. L. & Arriola, K. R. J. (2003). Male Prisoners and HIV

prevention: A call for action ignored. American Journal of Public Health, 93(5).

459 Marushak, L. (2006, October). HIV in prisons, 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

460 Mahon, N. (1996). New York inmates’ HIV risk behaviors: The implications for prevention policy and programs. American Journal of

Public Health, 86(9).

461 Remafedi, G. (1987). Adolescent homosexuality: Psychosocial and medical implications. Pediatrics, 79(3).

462 Rosario, M. et. al. (1997).

Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

family and school problems, leads to an increased probability of involvement with the

system,

463

just as the circumstances of being homeless and living on the streets increase

the odds of committing a criminal act.

One exploratory study of non-homeless lesbian and bisexual girls in the juvenile justice

system does shed light on the experiences of this population. The sample size was only

six, necessitating a purely qualitative methodology. This research

confirmed some factors that led to an increased probability of involve

ment with the system, and found a series of problems related to care

while in the system.

464

For example, lesbian and bisexual women

reported being overrepresented in the juvenile justice population,

though as the author points out, this overrepresentation “is coupled

with a probable overrepresentation of violent homophobes.”

465

All six subjects confirmed that they had experienced a variety of

kinds of mistreatment while incarcerated. The motivating factor for

a number of them was clearly their sexual orientation. For example,

different punishments existed for infractions of sexual behavior

rules: a girl’s sentence would be extended by three months if she had

sexual contact with a boy, but by six months if that contact was with another girl. Staff

members were often openly hostile and homophobic and would not step in to eradicate

harassment being perpetrated by other inmates.

Rather than deal with issues of harassment and rape among youth at a facility, the staff

are most likely to place LGBT youth in isolation.

466

Lesbian and bisexual girls are not the

only ones who face unfair treatment within the juvenile justice system.

Gay male youth are often emotionally, physically and sexually assaulted

by the staff and other inmates. One young gay male explained how the

staff at his facility ignored and remained ignorant to the abuse he

suffered: “The staff think that if a youth is gay, they want to have sex

with all of the other boys, so they did not protect me from unwanted

sexual advances.”467

Though all LGBT inmates are more likely than

their non-LGBT peers to be raped in prison, “transgender youth and

adults are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse, harassment, and

forced nudity in correctional facilities,” according to Jody Marksamer,

an attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

468

Fortunately, positive progress is being made to address this tragedy.

In February 2006, an 18-year-old lesbian, a 17-year-old transgender female, and an 18-

year-old male perceived to be gay filed a lawsuit against the state of Hawaii for abuses

suffered in a state facility.

469

The three teens worked with the ACLU to force the state to

Lesbian and bisexual

women reported being

overrepresented in

the juvenile justice

population, where they

meet with “a probable

overrepresentation of

violent homophobes.”

“The staff think that

if a youth is gay, they

want to have sex with

all of the other boys,

so they did not protect

me from unwanted

sexual advances.”

463 Schaffner, L. (1998). Female juvenile delinquency: Sexual solutions, gender bias and juvenile justice. Hastings Women’s Law Journal, 9(1).

464 Curtin, M. (2002a).

465 Ibid. p.288.

466 Ibid.

467 Estrada, R. & Marksamer, J. (2006).

468 National Center for Lesbian Rights. (2005, August 15). In historic first, advocates for LGBT prisoners address National Prison Rape Elimination

Commission. Author. Retrieved September 25, 2006, from http://www.nclrights.org/releases/pr-prison_release_081905.htm

469 Magin, J. L. (2006, February 13). Hawaii agrees to broad changes in procedures for incarcerated gay youths. New York Times. p.A.16.

wake up to the real problems LGBT youth face in the juvenile justice system. The state of

Hawaii will now be accountable for more than a dozen requests, including staff protection

from physical and sexual abuse, regardless of perceived or actual gender identity, sexual

orientation or sex.

470

Even with all the challenges they face, many LGBT youth who experience homelessness

ultimately do more than survive; they thrive. In this next section we discuss the remark

able resilience of LGBT youth who experience homelessness.

RESILIENCY

Many advocates, social service professionals and researchers who work with homeless

youth, particularly LGBT youth, are concerned that the resilience of these young people

in the face of multiple challenges is too easily ignored.

471

Demonstrating that these young

people are not lost causes might be just one part of the argument for increasing funding

for support services.

The research we have summarized on risky sexual behavior, drug and alcohol use and

addiction, and mental health crises, as well as levels of victimization and involvement

with the criminal justice, should not be used to further pathologize LGBT youth. Rather,

research supports a clear need for policies and programs that can change the difficult and

oftentimes dangerous context within which homeless youth are forced to live their lives,

regardless of their sexual orientation.

For example, in their study of five formerly homeless young women of non-specified

sexual orientation, Nancy Williams and colleagues identify a number of common

characteristics among “resilient, emerging” youth. First, determination to survive and

thrive helped them build self-confidence, adopting an “‘I’ll show you’ attitude.”

472

In turn,

this awareness of strength and success further inflamed their personal determination to

overcome the challenges they faced.

Developing a sense of meaning and purpose in life, including an awareness of one’s

place among others, was another crucial characteristic, along with a sense of spirituality

(though not necessarily religiosity) and a desire to help others similarly situated. We see

this kind of attitude to some degree or another in a number of homeless LGBT youth

who have escaped the streets and dedicated themselves to helping others who faced the

same problems. Ali Forney in New York City, whose story we shared in the introduction,

is an obvious example. Ali was dedicated to the safety of other homeless LGBT youth;

he was a committed HIV prevention worker and aggressively advocated that the NYPD

investigate a series of murders of the homeless LGBT youth he had befriended.

473

The

program named after him continues his legacy of outreach and support.

The final two criteria highlighted in Williams’ research, “caring for self” and “accepting

470 Ibid.

471 For more information see Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

472 Williams, N. R., Lindsey, E. W., Kurtz, P. D. & Jarvis, S. (2001). From trauma to resiliency: Lessons from former runaway and homeless

youth. Journal of Youth Studies, 4(2). p.242.

473 Ali Forney Center. (2006). About Ali Forney. Author. Retrieved September 1, 2006, from http://www.aliforneycenter.org/about.html

Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

help from others,” require interesting philosophical changes on the part of many home-

less youth. After being so downtrodden, the ability to view oneself positively and to

constructively plan for one’s future is important. Knowing that this can legitimately entail

accepting help without sacrificing independence is also crucial. Specifically, Williams et

al. found that this entailed developing a relationship based on trust with the giver of help

and knowing that the person and their help are of the necessary

quality. This point was buttressed by youth in one Canadian study

whose “feelings of comfort, safety and trust of staff with whom they

had interacted at different service providers” was shows to be critical

to their capacity to successfully move forward.

474

The implications of these findings are clear. If efforts to cut care

programs can be reversed and funds found to ease the burden on

overworked and underresourced professional staff, then it is possible

to bolster the already great potential among most homeless young

people and to optimize their success as independent adults. “Street

competencies” may also be thought of as a kind of resilience among

homeless youth. It is a way of adapting to the hardships they encounter on the streets.

Approaches to foster safer ways of engaging in risky survival behaviors include finding

shelter, “exchanging sex in a safe manner, avoiding arrest, building relationships with

clients, and securing untainted drugs and paraphernalia.” These represent competencies

that are connected with resilience in homeless youth.

475

Other work that has been done to increase our understanding of homeless youth has

dwelt on less positive aspects of the problem. For example, Whitbeck and Hoyt’s analysis

of young people’s routes into homelessness noted in particular a degree of precocious

independence. The authors were criticized for ignoring more positive data on resiliency.

Their data, for example, show that despite all the negativity around them, most homeless

youth managed to avoid many of the worst pitfalls of their contemporaries. They did

not drop out of school. They did not sink into drug addiction or other destructive

behaviors.

476

Regardless of their circumstances, studies show that many homeless LGBT youth are

working to improve their lives. In their work on homeless youth in two Canadian cities,

one large and one small, Miller et al. confirm that while their subjects found life on

the street tough, “it was preferable to the life they had left. They all believed that their

homelessness was temporary and that they had the capacity to change their situations in

time.”

477

As one homeless young person put it:

What I do is set daily goals. Just minor things that I want to accomplish that day. I

set about ten major goals for the year and then I have a blueprint, an outline, for five

years or ten years down the road of where I want to be.

478

A study published in 2000 by Lindsey et al. highlighted some of the personal strengths

that enable homeless youth to make successful transitions into adulthood and lower-risk

Across the country,

regardless of their

terrible circumstances,

homeless LGBT

youth are knuckling

down to the task of

improving their lives.

474 Miller, P. et. al. (2004). p.743.

475 Lankenau, S. E. et. al. (2005). p.17.

476 Les, B. W. & Dan, R.H. (1999). Nowhere to grow: Homeless and runaway adolescents and their families. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

477 Miller, P. et. al. (2004). p.740.

478 Ibid. p.746.

environments.

479

These included learning new attitudes and behaviors, learning about

themselves, learning about being in relationships with others, learning from experience,

vicarious learning, possessing certain personal attributes and embracing spirituality to

help them cope.

480

The researchers suggest that early intervention programs should foster

these kinds of learning in an individualized manner, keeping in mind that youth learn at

different paces.

481

As Gerald Mallon, a noted expert in the field of LGBT child welfare

issues, has explained, most LGBT youth are well-adjusted and resilient. This is a point

we must not forget and must also use as a foundational truth on which to help build a

better future.

482

Having laid out the multitude of challenges that stand between homeless LGBT youth

and a healthy adulthood, we now consider whether and how the shelter system in the

United States is helping them overcome these challenges. First we review research on the

existing shelter system and highlight some of the complications of providing adequate

care to LGBT homeless youth. Afterwards, we provide examples of five agencies that are

doing a good job of helping our community’s homeless youth to thrive.

Cupid is a 21-year-old Hispanic lesbian. A New

York native, she has been living at the Sylvia’s

Place LGBT youth shelter in Manhattan for

six months. She has been in and out of foster

homes since she was four years old and spent

her teenage years in and out of the juvenile

justice system. “I ran away from a lot of those

[foster homes], especially the ones who hit me,”

she explains. “They hit hard. These were old-

fashioned ass-whoopins.”

She is one of many LGBT youth who have

been kicked out of their homes because of their

sexual orientation. When Cupid was 16, her

then-foster mother caught her having sex with

her girlfriend. “She went ballistic, yelled and

kicked me out,” Cupid says, explaining that the

woman was a devout Catholic and could not

handle Cupid’s lesbian identity.

The chaotic, abusive environments of Cupid’s

foster homes spilled over into her life at school.

“I was always getting into fights at school. I was

always in the dean’s office,” Cupid says. This

eventually led to her placements in residential

treatment facilities.

When she was 16, Cupid was sent to her first

residential treatment facility, a group home in

upstate New York where she met her first seri

ous girlfriend. Cupid appreciated the fact that

the staff there were not homophobic; indeed,

a good number were lesbians. However, after

leaving the group home and spending some

time living on the streets, Cupid encountered

anti-gay staff at a different shelter. She spent

five months at the infamously intolerant youth

shelter Covenant House in New York City. “All

the bad stories you’ve heard about Covenant

House are true,” she asserts, explaining she

had to leave the shelter because the director

was “homophobic.”

479 Lindsey, E. W., Kurtz, P. D., Jarvis, S., Williams, N. R. & Nackerud, L. (2000). How runaway and homeless youth navigate troubled

waters: Personal strengths and resources. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 17(2).

480 Lindsey, E. W. et. al. (2000). p.131.

481 Lindsey, E. W. et. al. (2000). p.139.

482 Cited in Curtin, M. (2002c). Lesbian and bisexual girls in the juvenile justice system. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 19(4).

L G B T H O M E L E S S Y O U T H P R O F I L E : C U P I D

81Critical issues affecting LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

An acquaintance introduced Cupid to Sylvia’s

Place, where the staff have helped her begin to

gain independence. “I like that we have food,

we have some type of security, and we have

resources, like help getting documents [e.g.,

birth certificates] that you’d need,” she says.

The staff has helped her secure a MetroCard

so she can travel to and from her job as a home

health aide, and a stipend for books when she

begins her paralegal studies courses this winter.

Like so many homeless LGBT youth, Cupid

remains hopeful for her future. She plans to

have enough money saved to move out of the

shelter this fall and rent an apartment with her

girlfriend, D, whom she met at Sylvia’s Place.

She and D are planning on getting married this

spring and starting a family after Cupid finishes

her paralegal studies degree: “It’s the closest to

being a lawyer I’m going to get right now. I want

to be a lawyer one day.”

Experiences of homeless

LGBT youth in the

shelter system

There is no single example that can speak to the variety of experiences that LGBT youth

have in shelters across the country.

483

However, research has shown that homophobia and

heterosexism are alive and well in a variety of systems of care, including school, health

care, mental health and child welfare systems.

484

For example, Gerald

Mallon has found that a constant threat of anti-LGBT harassment

and violence exists in the foster care system.

485

In surveys of those

involved with the child welfare system, Mallon also found that 78

percent of young clients and 88 percent of professional staff agreed

that group homes were not safe for LGBT youth.

486

There is evidence that while state welfare agencies are reasonably

aware of the problem, they are not doing enough to change it. In

one state, an executive director of an agency working with homeless

LGBT youth confirmed that the director of the Department of

Human Services for the state:

…readily admitted that the residential service providers in the

state, which are all nonprofits, do not do well with LGBT youth.

Straight up told me that. And I almost fell out of my shoes,

because rarely will you have, if ever… a state administrator at that

level… tell you, “We don’t do well with your kids.”

487

Mallon also found that some residential service providers deny access to LGBT youth

because of homophobic attitudes while claiming that they are doing so because they want

to protect LGBT youth from harm in their facility.

488

Youth involved with the Ruth Ellis Center in Detroit have reported numerous examples

of anti-LGBT harassment and violence in area shelters. For example, transgender youth

483 When we talk about shelters here, we mean group home facilities, emergency shelter spaces, and medium to long-term transitional

living programs.

484 Curtin, M. (2002b). Lesbian and bisexual girls in the juvenile justice system. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 19(4). p.287.

485 Mallon, G. P. (1997).

486 Mallon, G. P., Aledort, N. & Ferrera, M. (2002). There’s no place like home: Achieving safety, permanency, and well-being for lesbian

and gay adolescents in out-of-home care settings. Child Welfare, 81(2).

487 Personal communication with the author, November 2005.

488 Mallon, G. P. (1992). Gay and no place to go: Assessing the needs of gay and lesbian adolescents in out-of-home care settings. Child

Welfare, 71(6).

The director of one state’s

Human Services agency

“readily admitted that

the residential service

providers in the state,

which are all nonprofits,

do not do well with

LGBT youth. Straight

up told me that.”

—Executive Director of

an agency working with

homeless LGBT youth

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

have no place in shelters in the area. They are forced to dress as their birth-assigned

gender or are denied admission. Gay and lesbian youth are verbally abused and made to

feel unsafe even to the point of being battered in the shelters. Youth report that staff are

of little help and sometimes even create problems for them by treating them differently

or ignoring them. In most cases, youth often decide for safety’s sake to deny their sexual

orientation or gender identity while in “the system” and therefore do not get the help

they need.

Two examples noted by Ozone House in Michigan make clear that securing a license to

house youth does not automatically ensure that a needy LGBT young person will be safe.

At one Michigan residential placement facility, LGBT teens, or those suspected of being

LGBT, were forced to wear orange jumpsuits to alert staff and other residents. At another

facility, staff removed the bedroom door of an out gay youth, supposedly to ward off any

homosexual behavior. The second bed in the room was left empty, with other residents

warned that if they misbehaved they would have to share the room with the “gay kid.”

489

LGBT homeless youth at the Home for Little Wanderers in Massachusetts have reported

being kicked out of other agencies when they revealed their sexual orientation or gender

identity. Many also said that the risks inherent to living in a space that was not protecting

them made them think that they were better off having unsafe sex and contracting HIV

because they would then be eligible for specific housing funds reserved for HIV-positive

homeless people in need.

490

These examples highlight that once they choose to go to a shelter, LGBT youth face

a dilemma; openness about their sexual orientation risks potential misunderstanding,

abuse and rejection. Those who choose to remain silent reveal less than their helpers need

to know to best meet their needs. For example:

Tanisha was not new to social service agencies. She had relied on shelters to provide

a bed, churches to access food, and job training programs to help her obtain a job.

Despite her relationships with these agencies, she knows she has to be careful. If they

find out that she is lesbian, they may turn her away. They always ask her if she has a

boyfriend and she feels she has to lie to receive services. Some of the help they try to

give her is not a good fit, but since they don’t know her situation completely it is not

surprising when they don’t meet her needs.

491

At Ungar House, one of Green Chimneys’ programs in New York City, the picture is

not as bleak. One of a number of programs established to work specifically with LGBT

homeless youth, Ungar House ensures that every youth receives the love and encourage

ment they need. One young client of theirs, Teisha Dixon, noted that the staff there have

“helped her feel good about her emerging identity.”

492

In Denver, Urban Peak

493

developed the Starting Transitions and Recovery (STAR)

program. This program identifies hard drug users and accelerates the process through

which they can be removed from the street and placed into an apartment with appropriate

489 Both examples were confirmed in personal conversations between the author and social service agency staff who had worked at the

offending agencies, or had worked with youth who had resided at those agencies.

490 As confirmed by Colby Berger, LGBT training manager at Waltham House.

491 Personal written communication between the author and Grace McClelland, executive director of the Ruth Ellis Center.

492 Rojas, M. (2005, December 11). Green chimneys in NYC helping lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youths. The Journal News.

493 For more information, see www.urbanpeak.org. Urban Peak works with all youth regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

care and rehabilitation services in place. The idea emerged after a survey of the young

homeless population in Denver showed that there was a serious drug problem among

homeless youth. The agency did more research and wrote a grant that secured them

$500,000 to set up the program. With random drug testing and a “zero tolerance” policy

for those who tested positive, the program was not for the uncommitted. However, the

motivation of the homeless youth who qualify for the program is great; so far 30 have

successfully completed the program and remain sober.

494

Alex Montgomery, one survivor of the streets of Denver, spent time in jail for credit card

fraud, was in and out of various drug treatment and mental health facilities, and stole

money to secure his next cocaine fix. This program more than likely saved his life, getting

him off drugs, into safe housing and reconnected with his family: “Last week, my Mom

let me stay at her house for three days… that was real nice.”

495

Others who have been failed by the formal foster care system but do not want to return to

the insecurity of the streets are sometimes forced to find novel programs that may provide

the combination of structure they need and independence they desire. In Minneapolis,

Project Off-Street, a center for homeless youth, saw a need for LGBT-specific support but

had no funds to develop a formal foster care/shelter program. So, working with 18-to-21-

year-olds—legal adults, therefore not under the authority of the child welfare system—they

began a “host home” program where LGBT individuals could volunteer to host an LGBT

youth in their own home.

“This was a very cost-effective way of looking at a problem,” said Raquel Simoes, then

program coordinator.

496

Though the program is not currently running, Kelly Brazil,

Project Off-Street’s current LGBT coordinator, confirmed that the agency does hope to

reestablish it. And in Los Angeles, GLASS-LA, the oldest LGBT social service agency

in the country, is dedicated to “fully utilizing the vast resources of the adult LGBT

community by recruiting, screening, training and supervising foster parents and mentors

who provide both short and long-term care to children of all ages.”

497

FAITH-BASED PROGRAMS

While there are some agencies and programs that are supportive and nurturing of LGBT

homeless youth, there are still some service providers who are not working appropriately

with this population and/or are unmotivated to do so. The rise of faith-based program

ming and funding highlighted earlier in this report may be one contributing factor to

this problem. The increased proportion of funds going to faith-based organizations has

the potential to leave the neediest people nowhere to turn but their services. Conversely,

it is possible that LGBT clients might put off seeking help if they believe that their only

option is a potentially anti-LGBT service provider.

494 Rolnick, J. (2004). Need to know: Guerilla marketing surveys power Urban Peak. Stanford Social Innovation Review.

495 Sanchez, R. (2005, May 31). Survey gives snapshot of street kids. Denver Post. p.A1.

496 Urrutia, P. (2000). Program seeks to assist homeless gay youth. The Circle: News from an American Indian Perspective, 21(4).

497 Gay and Lesbian Adolescent Social Services. (2005). Mission statement. Author. Retrieved September 1, 2006, from http://www.

glassla.org/mission.html

Experiences in the shelter system

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

In their survey of homeless people’s access to services, Heslin et al.

indicated that the

most vulnerable among those experiencing homelessness, those individuals who had had

serious problems finding any food and/or shelter in the previous 30 days, were almost

twice as likely to use faith-based services as the rest of the respondents in the study.

498

The

study also found that the 98 lesbian and bisexual women in the total sample of 994 were

only 60 percent as likely as heterosexual women to use faith-based services, indicating that

religious organizations are not receptive places for LGBT people in need.

499

Additionally,

faith-based programs tend not to offer mental health services as readily (9 percent of the

time) as secular programs (22 percent).

500

This is clearly a critical issue given the research

we summarized earlier in this publication indicating that LGBT homeless youth have

higher incidence of mental health issues. In this section we summarize a number of

instances in which anti-LGBT religious beliefs may be impacting the manner in which

social service agencies work with their LGBT clients.

Covenant House was founded in 1969 in New York City when a Franciscan priest offered

shelter to half a dozen runaways in his Lower East Side apartment. The agency was

formally incorporated in 1972 and has since expanded to become the largest privately

funded child care agency in the United States, providing shelter and support services

to homeless and runaway youth. Service has also been extended to Canada, Honduras,

Mexico, Nicaragua and Guatemala.

501

The organization’s mission is “to serve the suffering children of the street, and to protect

and safeguard all children… with absolute respect and unconditional love.”

502

Covenant

House describes its hallmark as an “open intake” policy; no child or

teenager is turned away on the first visit. All are accepted on a “no

questions asked” basis, and only inappropriate behavior or refusal to

utilize appropriate services will lead to restrictions on access.

However, at the Covenant House in Houston, Texas, Chanel, a

male-to-female transgender homeless youth, was told that she could

not wear a wig or fingernail polish. When a national spokesman

was asked to comment on the discriminatory practices in Houston,

Richard Hirsh commented that “some shelters tried to accommo

date transgenders in separate quarters. But Houston… had limited

experience with such a ‘difficult issue.’”

503

In all of New York City, there are few transitional living beds consid-

ering the number of homeless youth, with only 179 beds for males, 189

beds for unaccompanied young women and 65 beds for teen mothers and their children.

Covenant House provides 36 percent, 51 percent and 65 percent of these beds respectively.

504

498 Heslin, K. C., Andersen, R. M. & Gelberg, L. (2003). Use of faith-based social service providers in a representative sample of urban

homeless women. Journal of Urban Health, 80(3). p.378.

499 Ibid.

500 Ibid. p.380.

501 Covenant House New York. (2006). About us: Our history. Author. Retrieved August 31, 2006, from http://www.covenanthouseny.

org/about_us_our_history.asp

502 Covenant House. (2005). The Covenant House mission. Author. Retrieved August 31, 2006, from http://www.covenanthouse.org/

about_mission.html

503 Hung, M. (2000). A diva in the making. Houston Press. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://www.houstonpress.com/

Issues/2000-11-16/news/feature2.html

504 Covenant House New York. (2006).

“What we see is a

pattern of homophobia

at Covenant House,

both on the part of

other residents and on

the part of the staff.”

—Kate Barnhart, a

program manager

at Sylvia’s Place

Including emergency beds, more than 60 percent of all beds for homeless youth in New

York City are provided by Covenant House.

505

Kate Barnhart, a program manager at

Sylvia’s Place, told the Village Voice that her experience with the agency is reflective of

others working in the city, “What we see is a pattern of homophobia at Covenant House,

both on the part of other residents and on the part of the staff… we see staff members

behaving in ways that are directly homophobic themselves, and we see staff members

failing to intervene to stop homophobia among the other residents.”

506

In 2000, Rebecca Walton, then a transgender 18-year-old, arrived at Covenant House

only to be met by a staff psychologist who refused to call her by her chosen name. A job

counselor also mocked her feminine appearance.

507

The Village Voice also reported the

experience of another transgender homeless youth at Covenant House:

Sadaisha Shimmers, who is transgender, says she spent a month in Covenant House

about six months ago. Things went well at first—staff allowed her to live on a female

floor, and when slurs and threats began, they moved her to a different room. But the

threats continued, Shimmers says, and when a staff member joined in, Shimmers

vowed to file a grievance. The staff member then discharged her for making a threat,

Shimmers claims.

508

Another transgender youth noted that “[t]rouble began immediately [at Covenant House

in New York]. After her intake session, she was placed with the male clients despite her

request to room with women. At her psychological evaluation, the psychologist who

examined her suggested she stop dressing as a woman.”

509

Eric Hartman, a former social work intern at Covenant House noted that

Covenant House is “understaffed,” with “inconsistent” policies and “no clear proto

cols….” One Covenant House psychiatrist told gay clients that their homosexuality

was the root of their problems and they should simply stop being gay. Hartman took

to sending gay clients to the emergency room at St. Vincent’s Hospital for their

psychiatric evaluation instead.

510

Despite these reported incidents, New York City initially did nothing to allocate funds

to provide safe spaces specifically for LGBT youth. According to Carl Siciliano, executive

director of the Ali Forney Center,

It’s estimated that 20 to 40 percent of homeless kids in New York are LGBT… but we

are not getting 20 to 40 percent of the funds. We are not getting one percent. In my

experience, I see that in mainstream shelters, half of the queer kids are abused.

511

However, in 2006 the New York City Council allocated $1.2 million for LGBT-specific

housing, funds that have been split among Green Chimneys, the Ali Forney Center and

505 Email communication between the author and the Empire State Coalition of Youth and Family Services. New York, NY.

506 Murphy, J. (2005).

507 Ibid.

508 Ibid.

509 Kaysen, R. (2005). LGBT youth are feeling left out in the cold by lack of funds. The Villager. Retrieved September 15, 2005, from

http://www.thevillager.com/villager_104/lgbtyoutharefeeling.html

510 Ibid.

511 Schindler, P. (2003, December 4). Homelessness and hope. Gay City News. Retrieved October 26, 2006, from http://gaycitynews.

com/site/index.cfm?newsid=17004807&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=8

Experiences in the shelter system

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Sylvia’s Place. All three agencies are using the funds to expand the number of spaces they

can offer, though the total number post-expansion will still be far short of what is needed.

Covenant House is not the only agency where problems arise for LGBT homeless youth

and staff.

512

Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children (KBHC) is Kentucky’s largest provider of state-

funded services to “at-risk” youth, with foster care, group home and counseling programs

throughout the state for abused, neglect or abandoned youth or those who have been

removed from their home for their own safety. According to their mission statement,

Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children provides care and hope for hurting families

and children through Christ-centered ministries. We are a Christian ministry that,

through God’s direction and leadership, reaches out to children and families with

Christ’s love and compassion. We are committed to presenting a clear message of

Christian values. That… includes a safe work place, an appreciation of multicultural

backgrounds, and a commitment to ethical integrity.

513

The inhospitableness of the agency towards LGBT staff and clients became clear in 2000

when a “valued employee,” Alicia Pedreira, was fired because she is a lesbian. The initial

problem was related to the imposition of specific religious values on staff. KBHC sent

a clear message to any existing or future LGBT youth that they were not welcome at the

agency. KBHC stated in defense of Padreira’s dismissal, “it is important that we stay true to

our Christian values. Homosexuality is a lifestyle that would prohibit employment.”

514

515

The imposition of religious rules or demands on staff is also evidenced in the case of

the Salvation Army’s Social Services for Children (SSC) program. In March 2003, its

director of human resources was instructed to collect religious affiliation information on

all SSC staff and to provide the names of any homosexuals working at SSC. Employees

were informed that to retain their jobs they would be required to sign a form confirming

their agreement:

• To not do anything to undermine the Salvation Army’s religious mission.

• To teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

• To declare all the churches they have attended in the last decade.

• To authorize their pastors to reveal information from private communications.

• To acknowledge that the Salvation Army is a branch of a Christian church.

516

A number of social workers objected to this policy on, among others, the professional

grounds that they would be unable to serve many needy youth, explicitly noting that:

512 Due to confidentiality issues and fears of reprisals, many former clients and advocates are concerned about sharing those stories

publicly.

513 Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children. (2006). KBHC mission and values. Author. Retrieved August 31, 2006, from http://www.kbhc.

org/our_mission.php

514 Press, E. (2001, April 1). Faith-based furor. New York Times Magazine. p.62.

515 Smith, R. (2001, July 27). Judge dismisses bias claim against KY agency. The Washington Blade. Padreira’s sexual orientation became

public knowledge after a picture of her and her lover at an AIDS fundraiser was entered into the Kentucky State Fair. A federal judge

ruled that the firing of Pedreira did not violate any laws or constitutional principles. Judge Charles R. Simpson III, Chief Judge of the

U.S. District Court in Louisville, argued that “The civil rights statutes protect religious freedom, not personal lifestyle choices.”

516 Freedom from Religion Foundation. (2004, April). Freethought Today. Author. Retrieved August 31, 2006, from http://www.ffrf.

org/fttoday/2004/april/?ft=statechurch

…the new religious requirements will require them to provide mandated, govern-

ment-funded social services to children in a manner that conflicts with their legal

and professional obligations. For example, the children assigned to receive foster care

and other services from the Salvation Army include sexually-active teenagers who are

at risk for HIV, sexually-transmitted infections and unintended

pregnancy. However, the Salvation Army condemns, among

other things, non-marital sexual relationships, contraceptive use

outside of marriage, homosexuality, abortion, social drinking,

gambling, smoking and drug use as “unacceptable according to

the teachings of the scripture.” Consequently… their legal and

professional obligation to provide these teenagers with services

conflicts with the religious principles of the Salvation Army.

517

In response, Major Gary W. Miller of the Salvation Army said, “If you

don’t sign the form, you decide you don’t want to work here.”

518

The advent of increased funding for faith-based organizations brings

with it the threat that religious bias will creep into the treatment and

management philosophies of an increasing proportion of agencies

around the country that are charged with helping all youth, including

those who identify as LGBT. At the conclusion of this publication,

we make a series of policy recommendations intended to directly address potential bias in

staffing processes, as well as inadequacies in training and licensing policies.

CONCLUSION

Despite the experiences highlighted in this section, there are agencies around the United

States that serve LGBT youth admirably—LGBT-specific agencies as well as those where

ensuring safety for all out-of-home youth is considered a genuine institutional priority. In

the next section, we give space to senior staff of five such agencies to describe a portion

of their work. Our hope is that by doing so, agencies who may not currently work with

LGBT youth, do not realize that they work with LGBT youth, or wish to begin more

specific outreach to the LGBT homeless youth population will see that there are programs

across the country doing just such work. These programs work with all kinds of youth in

all kinds of cities and the lessons they share have applications everywhere.

Each author picked an area in which she felt her agency excelled, where the agency’s

programs and practices might provide guidance to other social service professionals and

agencies around the country who seek to provide top quality care to every youth who

walks through their front door, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. The

following pieces do not, and are not intended to, represent every aspect of the services

provided to youth experiencing homelessness, nor to reflect every kind of agency that

provides those services.

517 Ibid.

518 Freedom from Religion Foundation. (2004, April).

Increased funding for

faith-based organizations

brings with it the

very real threat that

religious bias will creep

into the treatment

and management

philosophies of agencies

charged with helping all

youth, including those

who identify as LGBT.

Experiences in the shelter system

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Snowy, 20, a self-identified bisexual white

female, is originally from Staten Island, New

York. Though her family was not wealthy, she

never imagined she would one day be home

less. She has spent the past year couch surfing,

sleeping in parks and crashing at shelters. Her

former girlfriend discovered she had been sleep

ing in the park on and off for more than six

months and took her to Sylvia’s Place, a New

York City shelter for LGBT youth, where she

has been for two months.

Like so many LGBT youth, Snowy didn’t real

ize how quickly negative situations can escalate

into homelessness. “I never thought I’d be

on the street,” Snowy says. “I graduated high

school, I held down a job, I was in college. How

did I go from there to here? Somebody please

tell me.”

When Snowy was 19, her husband, then 20 years

old, lost his battle with cancer. After his death

she could no longer afford their apartment. A

natural caregiver, she had spent time nursing

him through chemotherapy, as in the years

since she was eight she had helped her mother

through a disabling accident. She tried to move

back home with her parents, but it was a volatile,

stressful environment. “I couldn’t sleep at home,

then I figured I might as well sleep where I know

people,” she explained. “And I knew a lot of

people who slept in the park.”

So Snowy began sleeping in Manhattan’s public

parks, selling drugs and dealing with her pain

by self-medicating. “I did so many drugs that

I wasn’t really eating, especially when I was

doing coke,” she explains. “For three months

straight, I had basically stopped eating. Not eat

ing doesn’t mean anything to me now. Going

hungry? What’s hungry? Hungry takes, like,

three days to come.”

Her drug use landed her in the hospital, where

she stayed for a month. “After they discharged

me from the hospital, I knew I needed to get

clean, but my parents wouldn’t take me back,”

Snowy says. She was back on the streets.

Though Snowy earned money selling drugs, she

swore that she would not engage in survival sex:

“I might be homeless, I might be at the bottom

of my barrel, but I’m sure there’s a quicker way

to make a dollar that will leave me much more

dignified than selling my body. I may not have

much dignity now, but you know what, that

little pinky toe that’s hanging outside the water,

keeping me from drowning, I’m keeping that

pinky toe above the water as long as possible.”

Since ending up at Sylvia’s Place, Snowy has

been able to take advantage of its medical

program, which has helped her get inhalers

to keep her asthma at bay. But she also experi

ences severe back pain caused by a car accident

a few years ago, and the ibuprofen the doctor

dispenses doesn’t help.

She is currently attending counseling sessions

with her mother in hopes of moving back

home: “It’s almost the one year anniversary of

my husband dying and I need an emotional

support. I need to be home.” Until then,

Snowy will continue her lifelong role as a care

taker, always making sure to save a little of her

meals to keep in her bag in case she runs into

someone who needs it, asking, “If the homeless

can’t help the homeless, who can?”

L G B T H O M E L E S S Y O U T H P R O F I L E : S N O W Y

Ruth Ellis Center:

Street Outreach Program

and Drop-In Center

by Grace McClelland, Executive Director

Today, a young man living in the residential program at Ruth’s House went to school

working towards his GED. Afterwards, Addam (not his real name) will go to a job he has

held for over three months. Six months ago, he was on the street, scrambling just to find

a place to stay for the night. Addam found Ruth’s House through Ruth Ellis Center’s

Drop-In Center, the key program that coordinates outreach and contact with lesbian, gay,

bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth in need.

Addam is one of many often referred to as “the invisible minority:” LGBT homeless

youth. According to extrapolations from the City of Detroit Department of Senior

Citizens and Homelessness Coordination, the estimated number of homeless youth not

receiving shelter services in Detroit on any given day ranges from 1,600 to 2,000 youth.

519

Incredibly, nearly 640 to 800 homeless LGBT youth are on the streets of Detroit every

day. This reality makes the Ruth Ellis Center, the only LGBT-dedicated youth social

service agency in the entire Midwest, so very desperately needed.

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

Each of the 15 adults who gathered in Detroit in 1999 to talk about the needs of homeless

lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth had been touched in some way by the problems

faced by these young people living on the streets or trading sex for shelter: touched profes

sionally, personally or socially. The solution to their worries was the Ruth Ellis Center.

The Ruth Ellis Center is named in honor of the life and work of Ruth Ellis, a treasured

member of the Detroit LGBT community who died in 2000. Ruth was and remains

respected not only for her longevity and endurance as Detroit’s oldest and proudest

African-American lesbian but also for her years of service to people in need. As early as

the 1930s and 1940s, Ruth was known to provide shelter, physical support and spiritual

affirmation to those whose race, sexual orientation or both set them apart from the

dominant culture. The work we do at the Ruth Ellis Center is built on her model of

responsibility to oneself and one’s community. We take that model and apply it to the

teens and young adults in our community.

520

519 As confirmed in telephone and email communications with staff at the Ruth Ellis Center.

520 While the work Ruth Ellis did was originally focused on people whose sexual orientation set them apart, today the Ruth Ellis Center is

completely trans-inclusive.

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

The mission of the Ruth Ellis Center is to provide short- and long-term residential safe

space and support services for runaway, homeless and at-risk LGBT youth in Detroit and

southeastern Michigan. The agency’s goals are to help youth between the ages of 12 and

24 who have been thrown away by their families because they are LGBT or questioning.

The agency helps these youth directly with programs and services designed for homeless

and street youth in crisis, and we are designing programs to help families before youth are

forced to leave their homes. Our organization, which began in 1999 with a small start up

grant from the Hope Fund of the Community Foundation of Southeastern Michigan, has

grown rapidly in the intervening years.

After starting with a street outreach program in 1999, our first drop-in center opened in

September 2001. Two years later, construction began on Ruth’s House, our transitional

living program (TLP), and in February 2004, Ruth’s House opened to its first residents.

Only one month later we purchased a home to provide foster care to minors. A federal

award in 2004 enabled us to develop our emergency shelter program, and this year we

have bought, renovated and moved into a 10,000-square-foot space that now houses both

the street outreach program and administrative staff. This space was renovated for and

by our youth.

Critical support has come from the McGregor Fund in Detroit, the Arcus Foundation

in Kalamazoo and many smaller organizations, including Ford Globe, Visteon, Parents,

Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) Detroit and affirming churches

in the area. We also have a strong albeit small group of consistent individual donors.

Given that some organizations and individuals are nervous about funding our pro-LGBT

mission, these individual donors’ ongoing support ensures that we are able to continue

operating.

CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR YOUTH

Our youth are “young, black, gifted and gay,” as we like to say.

Blessed with talents, energy, pride, intellect, unlimited love and

an appreciation for those that truly care for them, they face many

challenges but are remarkably resilient.

The link between abject poverty and lack of stable housing is all too

clear, and given that the poverty rates for the immediate Detroit

area range from 20 percent to 38 percent of the population, the

risk for homelessness in our target service area is astounding. While

no specific statistics are kept on the number of LGBT youth who

are runaway or homeless in Michigan, our experience reflects the

research cited earlier in this report, which shows that the number

of homeless LGBT youth is grossly disproportionate to the general

population.

Our population is severely oppressed, with issues of race, class, gender identity/expression

and sexual orientation impacting their day-to-day existence. Ninety-nine percent of our

youth are African-American, over 50 percent of our male population is HIV positive,

and over 60 percent of our high-school-age population has dropped out of school due to

bullying or discrimination. We provide for the unique needs of homeless and street-based

LGBT youth by training affirming street outreach workers and creating a safe space where

their sexual orientation and gender identity/expression are understood and accepted. In

Our youth are “young,

black, gifted and gay,”

as we like to say. Blessed

with talents, energy,

pride, intellect, unlimited

love and an appreciation

for those that truly care

for them, they face

many challenges but are

remarkably resilient.

turn, this frees our youth to concentrate on learning other critical

life skills at the only LGBT homeless youth social service agency in

the entire Midwest. These skills include healthy coping mechanisms,

decision-making, and harm reduction techniques such as safer-sex

practices, street smarts, self-defense and how to avoid trouble.

COLLABORATIONS

The street outreach program maintains linkages and close working

relationships with many organizations and individuals working

on both a local and national level, including the National Gay

and Lesbian Task Force (the Task Force).

521

Locally, the Michigan

Network for Youth and Families (MNYF),

522

whose former executive

director, Steve Pollack, was one of the original 15 adults behind the

founding of the Ruth Ellis Center, works with us on a statewide project to train youth

social services staff about LGBT youth. We also partner with the Triangle Foundation,

523

an LGBT-inclusive anti-violence agency, whose victim advocate comes weekly to the Drop-

In Center to engage youth in discussions on street safety and violence.

AIDS Partnership Michigan (APM)

524

provides HIV/AIDS counseling and testing for

our youth. After finding at one point in 2003 that 33 percent of the youth we tested for

HIV were positive, APM immediately worked with us to implement intensive prevention

programs. Finally, Common Ground Sanctuary

525

has worked with us on street outreach

activities since our inception five years ago, as well as providing shelter services for some

of our male clients in need of assistance.

STAFFING OUR PROGRAMS

The administration of the agency is under the direction of the Ruth Ellis Center’s

executive director, Grace A. McClelland, a Ph.D. candidate in counseling psychology

who brings 23 years of experience in criminal justice, social service and educational

aspects of work with youth and families to her work in Detroit. Grace also has extensive

experience with runaway, homeless and at-risk youth specifically. She has re-engineered

the street outreach program (increasing the number of program participants by 750

percent in the last two years), developed and implemented TLP, which opened on

February 5, 2004, and prepared for the licensing of the residential programs. Atiba

Seitu, program supervisor of our street outreach program, is assisted by two team

leaders and two street outreach workers. Collectively, they have over 40 years of experi

ence working with at-risk youth.

Our 16 staff, including one state-certified cultural competency trainer, closely reflect

the demographics of our target population: 94 percent African-American and 6

percent Caucasian. One staff member identifies as a male-to-female transgender

person. Given its urban environment and the fact that the city is 87 percent African-

American, 99 percent of the population served to date has been English-speaking

We provide for the

unique needs of

homeless and street-

based LGBT youth by

training affirming street

outreach workers and

creating a safe space

where their sexual

orientation is understood

and accepted.

521 For more information, see www.thetaskforce.org

522 For more information, see www.mnyf.org

523 For more information, see www.tri.org

524 For more information, see www.aidspartnership.org

525 For more information, see www.commongroundsanctuary.org

Ruth Ellis Center

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

African-American youth. The street outreach staff is 100 percent African-American,

and all self-identify as LGBT.

The impetus for developing a social service organization for LGBT youth came from

the horror stories of how African-American LGBT youth were treated by the systems

designed to help them. When 15 adults came together to discuss the situation of youth

in Detroit, they were astounded by how many youth they each knew in need of survival

services and a home. All 15 people knew of at least one young person in need and many

shared stories just like Nate’s. After Nate was outed one evening,

his mother got a gun and threatened to kill him if he did not leave

immediately. So he went to his room to pack his belongings. His

two brothers followed him and beat him badly. He left home with

nowhere to go. Nate roamed the streets until he met one of these

caring adults. They cared for him in the best way they could and

decided to do something about this situation. The Ruth Ellis Center

was the ultimate result

Nate continues to stop by even though he is now 25 years old. His

tough life on the streets shows in his face but his smile is broad and

proud. He is now taking care of his health, working, and living in an

apartment with his boyfriend. His story is repeated every week when

we are greeted by a young person waiting for the Center to open

because a caregiver has thrown him or her away just because he or

she identifies as LGBT.

In the last two years, two of our youth have been shot and one was

murdered just because he was gay. Both youth were involved in the social service system.

Horror stories from our youth about the social service providers abound. For example,

transgender youth have no place in shelters in the area. They are forced to dress as

their birth-assigned gender or are denied admission. Gay and lesbian youth are verbally

abused and have been assaulted in the shelters. Youth report that staff are of little help

and sometimes even create problems for them by treating them differently or ignoring

them. Youth continue to hide in the system by denying their sexual orientation or gender

identity, and as a result do not get the help they need.

One of the unique features of our program is that it was created, managed and developed

by LGBT professionals, LGBT youth and our allies. The strong emphasis is on develop

ment of our youth in conjunction with LGBT members of the community. By starting

with LGBT people and maintaining this emphasis, the teams were able to gain trust from

our youth more readily. The Ruth Ellis Center also normalizes an LGBT identity by

affirming our youth however they present. It is critical to remember that LGBT youth are

different in many regards, but they still face the same challenges as every other adolescent.

Programs for LGBT youth must be developed regionally, keeping in mind all of the factors

affecting the local population: race, culture, poverty, classism, racism, homophobia,

current resources for potential collaborations and the capacity to train organizational

partners. Advocacy and training are critical components to be considered in developing

programs for LGBT youth.

Since 1999, the Ruth Ellis Center’s Street Outreach Program (SOP) and Drop-In Center

have offered a safe haven for thousands of homeless LGBT youth. In 2004–2005, we

recorded a total of 10,112 meaningful contacts with youth, and this year we are on track

After Nate was outed

one evening, his

mother got a gun and

threatened to kill him

if he did not leave

immediately. So he

went to his room to

pack his belongings. His

two brothers followed

him and beat him

badly. He left home

with nowhere to go.

to exceed 15,000, making the Ruth Ellis Center the largest SOP of its kind in the six-state

region.

526

Still, the needs of this population continue to grow. The SOP has grown by

50 percent each year over the last three years. As the organization increases the breadth

of our programs, services and open hours, we offer help to more young people in new

and significant ways. As this growth has occurred, a series of goals and objectives have

remained our constant focus, and we believe they can inform the development of other

service agencies’ programming in this area.

THE STREET OUTREACH PROGRAM

Our Street Outreach Program (SOP) aims to reduce the risk of exploitation and danger

to which adolescents are exposed by virtue of living without needed economic, social and

community supports. Specifically, this program provides street outreach to thousands of

individual LGBT youth regarding the dangers of substance abuse, sexual exploitation,

sexually transmitted diseases including HIV and AIDS, and safer sex practices. The SOP

establishes contact, rapport, and trust with LGBT youth who are homeless, runaways,

hanging out on the streets or otherwise living in unstable situations.

The SOP’s drop-in center is at the north end of Detroit in Highland Park on the main

north/south artery in the city, making the center accessible to freeways and bus lines. It is

within one city block of one specific area where most LGBT street youth tend to congre

gate: Palmer Park and its surrounding motels, adult bookstores, bars and restaurants.

Wherever they are, these youth have few options for seeking the basic services an SOP

provides, at least in an LGBT-friendly atmosphere. Absent these services, many remain on

the streets long-term, using survival sex and crime as a means to access shelter and meet

their other basic needs.

The primary objective of the outreach effort is to reach and engage runaway, homeless and

street-involved LGBT youth on the street and where they gather. The SOP targets those

youth who are not already in the care of government agencies such as child protective

services, foster care and the juvenile courts. This is accomplished by providing six street

outreach shifts per week in places where youth congregate, providing non-judgmental aid

and developing strong, trusting relationships between project staff and the youth popula

tion so that those youth feel comfortable seeking help and support. The street outreach

workers are well experienced and highly recognized on the streets. They are respected for

their message and their ability to relate to street youth.

The SOP assists at-risk youth who are in immediate crisis through appropriate interven

tion and/or referral, providing intensive crisis intervention and referrals to 2000 youth

annually. Staff can also assist youth in moving and adjusting to a safe and appropriate

alternative living arrangement. The SOP Drop-In Center also offers two hot meals nightly,

laundry and shower facilities, clothing, shelter and other resource referrals.

Too few social service professionals have a complete understanding of LGBT issues, even

if they are on the surface supportive. To overcome this problem, the SOP staff provides

advocacy and education to social service, county and state agencies and individuals

526 Region five includes Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Ruth Ellis Center

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

regarding the unmet needs of runaway, homeless and at-risk LGBT youth. Outreach

is also extended to community youth-serving agencies, schools, churches, community

groups, youth and parents as well as through one-to-one and group presentations about

the Ruth Ellis Center, through street and in-home contacts with youth and parents and

through print and broadcast media. Another component of the program’s outreach effort

involves building relationships with cooperating agencies so that the staff of each agency

is aware of the SOP’s services and understands how to access those services. We are also

working with agencies as far afield as Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.

We provide education and prevention services via groups that are held three times weekly,

reaching over 200 youth each week. They address substance abuse, HIV/AIDS prevention

and street survival. In collaboration with AIDS Partnership Michigan, youth receive

HIV testing, counseling and prevention programming and the SOP team develops and

regularly publishes adolescent-friendly written materials to educate youth about substance

abuse and sexually transmitted diseases.

The SOP individually counsels at-risk youth to identify their strengths, weaknesses and

needs, and to increase self esteem. We help them to martial and employ their own inner and

external resources and to identify, access and successfully exploit the resources available to

them through our agency and other supportive agencies and programs in the community.

These critical services ensure that the SOP can also work to decrease the number of LGBT

youth who are homeless, providing individual and family counseling to help youth return

to their homes if possible. For those for whom returning home is not possible or safe,

the program staff work to access safe, suitable housing with some other family member

or friend.

Long-term independence is important and closely tied to educational and employment

opportunities. We work to reduce the dropout rate among LGBT homeless youth and

increase the employment rate among our youth in a number of ways. First, through

our youth employment training program, each year 300 youth receive job skills training

and job coaching that enables them to obtain and retain employment. We also have

an after-school tutoring component that assists 200 youth annually with homework as

well as helping them to cope with discrimination and harassment in their schools. In

particular, we focus special efforts on transgender youth, who face higher risks on the

street. Annually, 30 transgender youth are given the employment skills necessary to help

them secure a job and cease sex work.

THE DROP-IN CENTER

Just as the SOP is built around established best practices, so too is our drop-in-center. In

fact, the drop-in center is the hallmark of our success. Presently, we average 45 youth visitors

per day and can have as many as 80 young people visiting the center for a meal, a chat with

a counselor or just to hang out with friends. Between April and September 2006, we had

6,473 contacts with youth, a 21-percent increase over the same period in 2005.

527

Due to

this rapid growth, the center recently moved to a new 10,000-square-foot space. The drop-in

527 As confirmed in telephone and email communications with staff at the Ruth Ellis Center.

center is open seven days per week from 12:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. There are at least three

staff members at the center at all times. In the new space, trained volunteers will between

them provide 160 hours per week of supervised services and support. Youth tend to come

in and out of the center during a shift, reducing the actual number of youth in the center

at any one time. The staff to youth ratio is usually about 1:10. Since most activities are

group activities, the current ratio is adequate to maintain a safe and secure environment.

Additionally, the program maintains an on-call list of outreach workers who can come to the

center when needed on an emergency basis or if the center becomes crowded.

We pride ourselves on our ability to help youth to solve most of their immediate problems.

Our youth create alternative family structures to obtain a sense of safety and belonging.

Most of our youth have adopted family names and roles within a structured family unit in

which gender plays no role. This increased identity of family creates a loving atmosphere

with ties that bind strongly.

POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

The program incorporates all of the elements of positive youth development predicated on

the understanding that all young people need support, guidance and opportunities during

adolescence, a time of rapid growth and change.

528

With the support of the program,

LGBT homeless youth increase self-assurance and self-esteem and create a healthier life.

The program is predicated on a strength-based approach, affirming

the youth’s sexual orientation and gender identity/expression and

providing other healthy messages about their bodies, their behaviors

and their interactions. This Positive Youth Development frame

work is different in nature from the White House Positive Youth

Development (PYD) framework, with the latter stressing a more

conservative approach focusing on abstinence-only sex education

rather than comprehensive sex education that makes LGBT homeless

youth better prepared for their inevitable sexual activity. We provide

a safe and structured place to learn, recreate and socialize while

strengthening relationships with adult caregivers and other adult role

models such as teachers, mentors and community leaders.

To aid independence, we provide skill development in literacy,

work readiness and social skills. Daily activities and groups provide

opportunities for reading, writing, creativity, social interaction, decision-making, problem

solving and negotiation. Opportunities to increase self-esteem are interwoven throughout

the program, as the entire philosophy of the program is strength-based, focusing on the

positive aspects of a youth’s development.

Youth are included in all aspects of program development and evaluation, including

continual refinement of the programs. Youth were involved with the executive director

and other staff in moving to and decorating the new center facility. The agency has a

Youth Advisory Board (YAB) that meets monthly with the executive director and other

The agency has a Youth

Advisory Board (YAB)

that meets monthly with

the executive director

and other key staff

to provide feedback

on current program

activities, help resolve

problems, and develop

program activities.

528 Like providers around the country, the staff at the Ruth Ellis Center adapts the specific framework of the Department of Health and

Human Service’s Positive Youth Development model to account for local cultural and population characteristics.

Ruth Ellis Center

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

key staff to provide feedback on current program activities, help resolve problems, and

develop program activities, including leisure activities. The YAB is designed to function

as a forum for any youth to advise and consult with agency administration and the board

of directors. Its purposes also include planning for activities and communication as

well as problem solving and development of strategies for improving the quality of the

programs. Each program has two youth representatives on the YAB. Additionally, youth

are employed as staff members (two staff are under 25 years of age) and youth involved in

the program volunteer as street outreach workers.

Parents are involved as members of the board of directors, though unfortunately most

parents of our homeless LGBT youth do not affirm their own child, let alone participate

in the development of the programs. However, every effort is made to fully involve them

in our work with their child, as well as to provide feedback on the program’s services.

SEXUAL ABUSE AND EXPLOITATION

The LGBT homeless youth population is particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse and

exploitation. There are many predators who seek out this population. We listen to stories

every day about men who are “sick” (infected with HIV) that are consistently in the areas

where homeless LGBT youth congregate. These people offer youth small amounts of

money to have sex with them. Our youth believe that these people are intentionally trying

to infect the youth and do not care who they infect. Many of the youth are aware of this

situation and still participate in commercial sex work to get their basic needs for food,

money, and shelter met.

Because of this very real risk, we work with our youth to develop their understanding of

healthy and unhealthy relationships so they can avoid and end unhealthy sexual encoun

ters and increase their participation in healthy relationships. This is accomplished in part

by conducting several forums a week for youth to learn about safer-sex practices. Recently,

during a safe-sex discussion group, we demonstrated the correct use of a condom and were

surprised to learn just how many youth in the room did not know how to use one. The

harsh reality is that youth are engaging in sex regularly and we must provide them with

the resources to protect themselves or they will engage in sex without protection.

We also provide a safe space for youth to address the issues affecting their lives in a group

called “Bending the Rainbow.” Each week, we begin with one topic; inevitably the youth

channel the discussion to a topic relevant to their lives. Most times, the discussion turns to

relationships and sexual issues on the streets. The youth become very comfortable talking

about their sexual practices. We use each of these opportunities to provide information

on healthy and unhealthy relationships as well as safe and unsafe sex practices.

Encouraging and supporting our target population to participate in local youth group

activities and interactions with their peers in a directed social activity is an important part

of our efforts. The gay male youth population may idolize the idea of relationships with

older men, creating unsafe situations for themselves. We encourage our youth to engage

in activities with people their own age and to try new activities.

RANGE OF SERVICES

Street-based Services: The SOP conducts street-based services six times a week. Working

in pairs, the outreach teams provide youth on the street with a custom made kit of

condoms, lube, dental dams, hard candy, alcohol swabs and kicker cards (informational

cards containing our information as well as referral information for shelters). Outreach

workers engage youth in conversation, encouraging them to seek legitimate shelter and

other services.

Survival Aid: The SOP provides many forms of survival aid, including showers and

hygiene products, laundry facilities, clothing from Ruth’s Closet, food, safe space,

referrals for shelter, crisis counseling, positive peer support, safe sex aids, and other

harm reduction techniques. On the street, we provide counseling, referrals and safe

sex resources.

Individual Assessment: Youth coming to the program receive a warm welcome and

individual time for assessment of their situation, which can take several days. As youth

begin to trust them, counselors are able to assess individual circumstances and devise a

comprehensive plan to provide the necessary in-house services and/or referrals.

Counseling: The SOP provides counseling at the drop-in center and on the streets.

Street-based counseling focuses on getting youth off the streets. Counseling at the drop-in

center is more comprehensive. Group discussions take place every evening with individual

counseling occurring as needed. A team of licensed therapists and psychologists donate

their services at our drop-in center.

Prevention and Education Activities: A major part of the program is developed around

prevention and education activities. Topics include everything from substance abuse and

sexual exploitation to social interactions, including positive peer relationships. Several

other organizations participate in these activities, including AIDS Partnership Michigan,

MPowerment and Triangle Foundation.

Information and Referral Services: The program has an extensive network for information

and referrals. Staff members utilize a readily accessible resource book to give information

and referrals for youth coming to the Drop-In Center as well as youth and families who

call in for services. The agency ensures that resources are sensitive to the unique needs of

LGBT youth. The SOP continues to provide culturally sensitive training to those agencies

requesting those services.

Crisis Intervention: SOP staff members manage most crises and have resources outside of

the program as well. Ruth Ellis Center’s Transitional Living Program staff members, along

with the executive director, are available 24 hours a day to provide additional resources for

youth and staff. The agency trains its staff and volunteers in crisis intervention and crisis

management, utilizing a nationally certified program.

Follow-up Support: The SOP provides follow-up support for all youth in the program.

For direct services, the SOP contact youth after service completion to assess success of the

intervention and the need for additional services or referrals. For referrals, particularly to

shelter, SOP staff contact the other agencies and make follow-up calls or visits to youth

and workers. When youth are accepting of shelter services, our staff follows the youth

directly with our partners to ensure continuity of services.

Ruth Ellis Center

100

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Emergency Shelter: The SOP has formal memorandums of agreement with two agencies

that can provide emergency shelter for one of our youth if we are unable to house them.

529

We provide the same service and courtesy to the other agencies when they need short-term

shelter assistance. To ensure continuity of service, the agency’s SOP staff are also guaranteed

access to the other shelters. Additionally, in June 2006, the Ruth Ellis Center was licensed

by the state of Michigan to operate a group home, and we have opened our shelter for 12- to

17-year-olds with an expected move-in date of fall 2006 for the first resident.

Volunteer Program: The agency coordinates and manages its volunteers with a volunteer

coordinator. Every person that performs any work at the Center is carefully screened to

ensure the highest qualifications and safety for our youth.

PROGRAM IMPACT

In combination, our street outreach work and drop-in center have had a profound impact

on the community of homeless LGBT youth in Detroit and southeastern Michigan. The

SOP has become a solid and reliable presence in the community at large and specifically

in the areas where our target population congregates. This presence publicizes a consistent

point of contact for LGBT youth to access services they require. As a result, youth connect

with other youth and staff members who have survived the same street-related challenges

and demonstrate that survival is possible.

The SOP has at least four staff members that have successfully transitioned from marginal

situations to gainful employment, stable living situations and a successful life off the

streets. These staff and other youth role models can guide the youth to a safe space where

they can begin their journey to healing, recovery and independence. Over the last three

years, the Ruth Ellis Center has become a statewide resource for governmental agencies

and other social service organizations seeking to accommodate the special needs of LGBT

youth. These agencies call upon us as a competent and trustworthy resource for LGBT

youth and often refer young people who might benefit from contact with the Ruth Ellis

Center and its programming.

We can also point to specific improvements in individual, family and community

functioning as a result of the services we provide.

1. There are fewer LGBT youth on the streets and greater safety for those who remain

on the streets.

2. For those families willing to participate, the SOP provides family counseling and crisis

intervention counseling, resulting in improved familial relationships and hopefully

stabilized living situations for LGBT youth seeking services.

3. The SOP and drop-in center serve as liaisons between LGBT homeless youth and

appropriate community agencies and services, such as hospitals and GED programs, so

that youth can actively seek out and receive the assistance they need to make positive

changes in their attitudes, values and behaviors, leading to healthy lifestyle choices.

529 The two agencies with which we have agreements are the COTS program and Common Ground Sanctuary.

101

4. Through educational information about safe sex practices, LGBT homeless youth

become more aware of the variety of sexual behaviors that put them at risk for

contracting HIV. Through our collaborations, youth receive testing, counseling and

prevention programs specifically directed at the target population.

5. LGBT youth are becoming more educated about the physical and emotional dangers

of using alcohol and drugs.

6. LGBT homeless youth gain an understanding of the support they need to make

healthy choices regarding their sexual behaviors and physical safety.

7. Cooperating governmental and social services agencies gain a greater understanding

of the unique needs of LGBT youth. Our SOP staff frequently appears at seminars

and trains other social service providers in working with LGBT youth.

BARRIERS TO SUCCESS

Staff at the Ruth Ellis Center SOP and drop-in center have identified seven existing or

potential barriers to providing service to LGBT runaway and homeless youth. For the

benefit of those contemplating working with this community, they are listed below, along

with corresponding actions to ameliorate or minimize the barriers.

1. Mistrust from youth

a. Maintain a consistent street presence that tells youth, “We’ll be here for you

whenever you’re ready”

b. Maintain a safe, nonjudgmental space at the drop-in center

c. Develop positive peers

d. Actively recruit previously homeless and street veteran volunteers and staff

e. Continue to provide for basic needs such as food, clothing and showers

f. Maintain professionalism and respect for everyone encountered

2. Lack of funding and resources

a. Establish a solid resource development plan annually, searching for and applying

for new funding for this target population

b. Ensure that services are fundable by providing the highest quality of services for

our youth and families

c. Continue involvement with networks and collaborations that are concerned with

the welfare of runaway and homeless youth

3. Homophobia (from society, family and the social service system)

a. Get involved in community education

b. Collaborate and expand networks with other groups at every opportunity; be

proactive in offering to help train those who may know they need to help but do

not know how to find the appropriate training or are embarrassed that they even

need to in the first place

c. Building a stronger network of LGBT people and allies

4. Potential violence committed against our staff

a. Provide training in self defense and crisis intervention

b. Provide proper safety equipment, communication, training and supervision

Ruth Ellis Center

102

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

c. Ensure availability of cell phones for all staff doing street outreach work; be

certain that strategic planning for street outreach efforts includes staff and

volunteer safety and awareness

5. Unsupportive or jaded volunteers

a. Provide exposure to street youth in controlled situations with experienced staff

b. Include diversity, cultural issues and differences awareness training as part of your

volunteer orientation

c. Maintain a written policy on ethics and professionalism including maintaining a

nonjudgmental perspective with youth

d. Ensure that the recruitment process is adequate to screen out persons who may

potentially harm or take advantage of youth

6. People who benefit from sexual exploitation of runaway and homeless youth

a. Continue to provide education for youth to resist these people

b. Again, ensure that the recruitment process for staff and volunteers is adequate to

screen out persons who may potentially harm or take advantage of our youth

c. Maintain safe spaces for youth that are not generally publicized

d. Educate staff and others working with youth as to the behaviors that signal

danger for the youth

7. Youth acting out

a. Provide outlets for behaviors, mixing social events with programming

b. Maintain clear boundaries for utilizing SOP resources and maintain a zero toler

ance for physical violence and weapons possession

c. Teach appropriate coping skills and social interaction skills

EVALUATION

When all is said and done, all the planning and goodwill in the world is for naught if we

do not reach the youth and are therefore unable to improve their circumstances. We have

established an ongoing evaluation system that tracks the progress of youth and service

outcomes according to functional goals. We are also currently undertaking a new project

in collaboration with Dr. Robin Miller of Michigan State University to develop a compre

hensive internal evaluation system. Each program, in order of its opening, will undergo

this thorough self-discovery, clarification and analytical process. Upon completion, each

program will have tailored scientifically based outcomes and indicators custom designed

for this particular population in this region of the country.

The current criteria used to evaluate the results and success of each project include:

• Measurement of service goals achieved versus targeted, including numbers of youth

and families served by type of service, percent of families contacted, numbers of

youth and families receiving information and referral on the hotline, and numbers of

community members reached through outreach activities.

• Outcomes at the time of service completion, such as percent with ability to develop

realistic goals; for youth and families, including percent of youth returning home or

provided safe alternative living arrangements and percent continuing to run away.

103

• Reports of satisfaction and program impact by youth and families served by the

program.

• Percent of youth achieving goals (including school attendance or completion, no

additional runaway incidents, self harm reduction including safe sex and diminished

use of illegal substances) at 30-, 60- and 90-day follow-up. Follow-up includes

measuring youth and family progress in carrying out the aftercare plan. Follow-up

is accomplished by telephone interview with youth and family and provides an

opportunity to determine whether additional services are needed.

• Statistical records are kept, providing a yearly profile of youth and families served.

Program results are reviewed quarterly by both program and administrative staff as

well as by the board of directors.

• These measures are supplemented by reports by outside independent reviewers,

including the state’s Department of Human Services (DHS), the licensing body for

child care institutions in Michigan. Additionally, the agency is committed to assisting

institutions of higher education in researching and finding successful methods of

working with LGBT homeless youth. We cooperate with any research or evaluation

efforts sponsored by the Federal Department of Human Services Administration for

Children and Families, and have participated in research projects with higher educa

tion institutions where appropriate knowledge bases exist and participant protection

processes are in place.

CONCLUSION

The work that the Ruth Ellis center staff completes day in and day out is absolutely crucial

to our challenge of getting African-American LGBT youth off the streets of Detroit and

into stable housing, enabling them to focus on developing the skills and securing the quali

fications that they need to provide for themselves as independent adults. Street outreach

programs and drop-in centers are the first step in this difficult mission, and we are proud of

the results we have achieved to date and excited about the opportunities to come.

Ruth Ellis Center

104

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Green Chimneys:

Triangle Tribe Apartments

transitional living program

By Theresa Nolan, M.A.

Founded in 1947, Green Chimneys Children’s Services is a nationally renowned,

nonprofit therapeutic organization that restores possibilities and creates futures for

children with emotional, behavioral, social and learning challenges from the five

boroughs of New York City, Putnam and Westchester Counties in New York and Fairfield

County in Connecticut. The agency has a long history of assisting children, youth, and

their families in times of crisis. Presently, we serve over 300 children, youth and adults

who are dependent, neglected, abused, abandoned, Persons In Need of Services (PINS),

delinquent, runaway, homeless, emotionally disturbed and/or developmentally delayed as

well as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ). We have provided

services to older homeless youth in Putnam County since 1981, and more recently in

Danbury, Conn., and New York City. We operate federally funded basic center and street

outreach programs in Putnam County, New York and Danbury, Conn., and a federally

funded transitional living program (TLP) in New York City.

In Brewster, New York, we serve 102 children in a residential program and an addi

tional 80 students in a day school program. Many come from families with extensive

problems including mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence and unsafe or

inadequate housing. The children struggle with medical issues that complicate their

treatment, including asthma (40 percent), persistent bed-wetting (32 percent), serious

weight problems (28 percent), and seizures, heart disorders, allergies, food intolerance,

recurrent infections and sleep disorders. Eighty percent of the children have received

special education services before, and the average student is more than two years behind

in educational attainment. The average IQ is 78, and 25 percent are considered mildly

mentally retarded.

Mental health agencies, child welfare and social service agencies and school districts in

the tri-state area refer children to Green Chimneys because we are recognized as the best

choice for comprehensive, individualized programs unavailable elsewhere. Each student’s

curriculum is highly individualized, creating a comprehensive therapeutic environment.

An unparalleled level of professional support—including experts from social workers to

teachers, psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses and speech pathologists—guides children in

making constructive choices and exploring their talents.

105

NEW YORK CITY PROGRAMS

Green Chimneys now has four residential programs in New York City, with the first

having opened over 20 years ago in the Gramercy neighborhood of Manhattan. All of our

New York City programs focus on serving the LGBT youth population. The development

of the Gramercy Group Home allowed Green Chimneys to become the first child welfare

agency on the East Coast to specialize in services for LGBT youth. In addition to the

group home in Gramercy, Green Chimneys has developed three programs in Harlem.

These include an agency operated boarding home, a supervised independent living

program and the Triangle Tribe Apartments. The Triangle Tribe Apartments consist of

two transitional programs for runaway and homeless youth, with a total of 20 beds.

The Triangle Tribe Apartments program specifically serves LGBT runaway and homeless

youth who find themselves without a safe permanent residence.

530

The program focuses

on providing shelter to youth for 18 months while teaching them life skills, ensuring that

they have jobs, addressing educational needs and preparing them for adult independent

living. The program is in the process of growing. Since the year 2000, we have been

federally funded for 10 beds. We have also received city funding to increase our capacity

to 20 beds, a figure reached in late November 2006. Since the program opened in 2000,

more than 45 youth have resided in the transitional program.

The majority of our youth are from the five boroughs of New York City, though occasion

ally youth from the surrounding areas (Long Island or New Jersey) present themselves

to the program. Even more rarely, youth from other parts of the United States seek our

help. Many youth who are not accepted by their families or their hometown communi

ties head out on their own to a place they believe will be more receptive to their sexual

orientation or gender identity. New York is just such a city, though it comes with its own

set of obstacles.

We collected demographic data on the first 40 clients that entered and discharged from the

Triangle Tribe Apartments between 2000 and July 2005. Approximately 11 percent identi

fied as transgender, 47 percent as male, and 42 percent as female. Approximately 44 percent

of the clients identified as Latino or Hispanic, 36 percent as black or African-American and

10 percent as white or Caucasian; the remaining 10 percent consisted of Asian, mixed and

other races and ethnicities. Just over a quarter of these youth reported having been in foster

care at some point in their lives and half of them reported experiencing physical abuse.

Overall, the average stay for these first 40 clients was 10.5 months.

EMPLOYEE/VOLUNTEER DATA

Green Chimneys employs a total of 482 staff members, 10 of whom work specifically in

the Triangle Tribes Apartments program. The program is divided into two levels: the TLP

is more independent with no on-site staff, and the TIL has 24-hour on-site staffing. The

program director oversees both levels and some staff members work with both programs.

530 Our RHY transitional program, Triangle Tribe Apartments, is two separate programs that function as one. The Transitional Living

Program (TLP) is 10 beds and is federally funded; the Transitional Independent Living Program (TIL) is 10 beds and is city funded. The

essential differences between TLP and TIL are their funding sources, reporting requirements and on-site staffing needs.

106

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

The TIL and TLP share a program director, a life skills coordinator and a social worker.

The TLP also has an apartment counselor who visits the apartments daily. The TIL has a

team of on-site workers, called youth counselors, overseen by the unit supervisor or senior

youth counselor.

We offer a wide range of job and volunteer opportunities to appropriately qualified and

experienced applicants who pass a rigorous screening process that includes a criminal

background check (fingerprinting), state central registry for child abuse, sexual offender

registry, education and reference checks, and drug testing and health assessment.

Employees are offered many opportunities to participate in numerous training programs

on- and off-site. One indication of the constructive atmosphere we have created is the

reduction in employee turnover from 49 percent in 2000–2001 to only 22 percent in

2005–2006. We also benefit from a number of international trainees who join us each

year from countries including the United Kingdom, South Africa, Poland, Croatia,

Colombia and Australia. All staff members receive an array of training, including agency-

mandated trainings and optional trainings, depending on job responsibility. Full-time

staff members at programs certified by New York state’s Office of Children and Family

Services are mandated to engage in 40 hours of training each year.

COLLABORATIONS

We collaborate with various social service agencies in order to plan holistically for our

clients. Services sought in the community include medical services, mental health,

education, mentoring and domestic violence support. We also work with New York state’s

Office of Children and Family Services and the city’s Administration for Children’s

Services as well as the Department of Youth and Community Development regarding

funding, program certification, state regulations and more. We work to provide our

clients with the services needed to improve their lives, whether this is through on-site

programs or through our network of providers. Our foster care programs for LGBT youth

also collaborate with other states to provide care for out-of-state youth.

531

WHAT IS TRANSITIONAL LIVING?

Transitional Living Programs (TLPs) are a critical component of a comprehensive strategy

for ending youth homelessness. They provide an opportunity in a safe and controlled

environment for young people who missed many of life’s “normal” lessons growing up to

learn the basics of how to survive as an independent adult while living like one.

Currently, TLPs that are funded through the federal Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB)

are authorized as part of the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act.

532

531 Other states referring youth for foster care services at Green Chimneys include New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Alabama.

532 The Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act, (Public Law #106-71) was passed by the 106th Congress. It reautho-

rized the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, and allows for three levels of specific programming for homeless youth (Street Outreach

Programs, Basic Center Programs, and Transitional Living Programs). Further discussion of these specific programs is provided in the

“Federal response to youth homelessness” section of this report.

107

These programs are administered by FYSB, a division of the Administration for Children

and Families, which is a part of the Department of Health and Human Services. TLPs are

designed to provide stable housing for youth under the age of 21 who are runaways, actively

homeless, or facing homelessness. Other sources of funding for transitional programs for

this population exist as well, though these programs vary slightly by policy, procedure,

structure and focus. For example, at the federal level there are also Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) monies available that operate under different protocols than those

of the FYSB funds that govern Green Chimney’s TLP. Even though both sets of funds

come from the federal government, different departments or agencies develop somewhat

different rules for their use. These differences might be related to the age range of youth

who are eligible for services or the length of time someone can remain with the program.

At the state level, there are a couple of specific things to bear in mind. First, while much of

the money to fund transitional programs comes from federal sources, it is managed within

each state. Each state, or more specifically an administrative agency thereof, determines

the precise allocation of these funds. While a state cannot ignore federal guidelines, it

can make additional demands of receiving agencies. Hence, while HUD funds distributed

through Program X in one state may have no rules attached to them beyond what was

determined at the federal level, in a second state, the state agency coordinating regulations

and/or funding decisions might impose additional rules based on the state’s desire to

impact service provision in certain ways. Some states have also created pools of their own

money to fund these kinds of programs; these funds are available to qualified agencies

in the state that meet the demands of the distributing agency. Such program rules or

limitations may be very different from federal guidelines.

Finally, at the local level, large cities are increasingly getting into the business of providing

monies to fund care for homeless individuals, including youth. For example, the New York

City Council recently allocated funding for homeless youth programs. This funding is

dispersed through New York City’s Department of Youth and Community Development

(DYCD). DYCD created a portfolio of programs that includes a hotline, street outreach,

drop-in centers, emergency shelters and transitional independent living programs (TILs).

While the premise of a TIL is the same as that behind TLPs, application of the funds is

different. For example, DYCD’s TIL funds require that agencies maintain 24-hour staffing

and that a curfew be placed on youth who live in the program’s housing.

Additionally, the state of New York has determined that it will certify single-sex housing

arrangements only. The reasoning behind this decision is based on the naïve assumptions

that girls and boys mixed together will have sex, resulting in unwanted pregnancies. Of

course, this idea does not take into account the reality for a program working specifically

with LGBT youth. We are now forced, in order to be eligible for these TIL funds and to

obtain certification for both TIL and TLP, to place three or four young men who identify

as gay or bisexual together in a single apartment.

The consequence is just as predictable as unplanned pregnancies; we run a real risk of the

residents having sex, which is an outcome we strive to avoid. While we are of course deeply

committed to supporting all our youth in celebrating their sexual orientation or gender

identity, we are also very aware of the potential conflicts that could arise if roommates

develop a sexual relationship. Initially, the TLP apartments were mixed-gender. Certainly

there were instances where roommates became intimately involved, but the mixed gender

setting reduced the amount of intimate partner “drama” we may have otherwise seen.

Green Chimneys

108

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Our primary goal must continue to be to enable our youth to focus on developing the

necessary skills to ultimately live independently.

Despite their policies intended to avoid sexual interaction among youth in care, New York

state and New York City have been quite flexible in the application of rules to transgender

youth. They permit an agency to make a judgment as to the safest place for each youth

to live, regardless of birth gender, and to place that youth accordingly. The vagaries of

rule-making from funder to funder are highlighted by the fact that the federal government

has no rules regarding the need for gender-based segregation, despite

the fact that a reduction in teen sex and pregnancy rates is one of

the Bush administration’s key social policies. The central point to

take from this brief discussion of funding options is that there are

a multitude of avenues for any agency to explore when it comes to

seeking support to pay for particular service provision. Knowing

what these are and the attendant rules can be helpful in determining

your best route forward. It is also important to remember that

regardless of funding source, certification or licensing will always be

the trumping factor.

An overall general goal for all transitional programs, regardless

of funding source, certification agency or rules concerning use of

funds, is to prepare youth for independence. It is a bridge between homelessness (or

some type of dependent unsafe living setting) to independent self-sufficient living. This

includes teaching life skills—the basic skills one needs to enjoy a healthy, responsible adult

hood. Each program may have a slightly different version of a required list of life skills

or may differ on how they are taught, but most will include at minimum the following

skills: hygiene, job readiness, interpersonal skills, education planning, budgeting/money

management and housekeeping.

In addition to the above topics, the Green Chimneys transitional living curriculum also

includes health management, transportation planning, pet and plant care, safety planning

and local resources awareness. As needed, these life skills lessons are adapted to include

new and relevant technologies and participant needs. Clearly, adaptation to alternative

geographic locations and demographics served might necessitate reassessment of the relative

importance attached to specific components of a well-rounded TLP. For example, the Green

Chimneys staff realized that cell phone use was creating difficulty with budgeting, savings

and proper etiquette, so this will be added to the life skills curriculum in the near future.

HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE

TRIANGLE TRIBE APARTMENTS

Since 2000, the Green Chimneys TLP has provided 10 beds to homeless/at-risk LGBT

youth ages 17 to 21. Youth are given their own bedrooms in mixed-gender apartments

that have two or three roommates; they are allowed to reside in the program for up to

18 months. The three apartments are scattered site, meaning that they are in different

apartment buildings, separate from the program office. Separation of the living spaces

and program staff is for us, and for many other providers, a necessity. This separation also

reinforces the independence-developing focus of the program. Additionally, operating a

New York state and

New York City permit

an agency to make a

judgment as to the safest

place for each youth to

live, regardless of birth

gender, and to place

that youth accordingly.

109

scattered site program is arguably more reflective of the real world into which we work to

graduate our clients.

There are excellent examples of larger transitional programs that may well fit another

location or service provider’s capacity or goals.

533

These include congregate facilities and

multi-unit apartment or single room occupancy buildings.

534

However, most independent

adults do not live en masse in homogeneous environments in buildings with people with

the same jobs, life experiences, income or needs. Placing youth in diverse communities

allows them to be culturally comfortable around people who are simultaneously similar

to and different from them.

Spreading such housing units across a wider area might also help to ameliorate potential

political or community opposition. Homeowner’s associations and local politicians who

get lobbied by these groups often instinctively oppose such housing in their neighbor

hoods for fear that property prices will plummet, that crime will increase, or that the

general feeling of the neighborhood will become too rowdy. Working with a community,

introducing clients to those who already live there, and generally

maintaining good working relations with neighbors and building

management can be critical to any agency providing programs to

help youth prepare for the real world.

Youth are required to pay “rent” by contributing to their own savings

account held by the program, attending meetings and completing

chores. The program is an affirming environment where young

people’s identities are not problematized. In this program, the

culture of the LGBT community is celebrated. An atmosphere of acceptance, not simply

tolerance, is crucial to creating this safe space. This program was developed out of recogni

tion for the need for transitional housing that focused specifically on this population.

LGBT youth who were homeless were having difficulty finding a safe place to live and

were experiencing harassment and sometimes abuse in much of the general population

shelters and transitional programs. Sometimes youth were forced to stay at adult homeless

shelters, which held their own set of dangers for LGBT youth. Green Chimneys’ work

with LGBT foster care youth made it an ideal agency to open its doors to LGBT homeless

youth as well.

Scattered site programs structured like ours are also ideal “next step” housing options

for “mentally ill or substance abusing individuals who have graduated from congregate

facilities but can benefit from continued support.”

535

We turn now to the specifics of our

program and what makes this an effective model for other agencies.

533 For example, S.C.O. Family Services in Brooklyn, New York operates just such a program. Independence Inn, their transitional living

program for youth, is home to youth moving towards independence. They have three separate sites: one for males, one for females and one

for pregnant/parenting youth. All resemble dorm-style settings. While not LGBT-specific, the agency has a terrific reputation for its work

with this community, and Green Chimneys has referred qualified youth to them when we have not had the capacity to help them.

534 Barrow, S. & Zimmer, R. (1998). Transitional housing and services: A synthesis. Retrieved June 3, 2005, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/progsys/

homeless/symposium/10.htm

535 Ibid.

Green Chimneys

In the Green chimneys

program, the culture of

the LGBT community

is celebrated.

110

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

THE MISSION AND PHILOSOPHY OF GREEN

CHIMNEYS TRANSITIONAL PROGRAMMING

When youth enter the Triangle Tribe Apartments, they become part of a community that

is constructed to affirm a young person’s identity and to help them function within the

surrounding community. First and foremost, this is a community

of LGBT people. In this program, youth meet peers who also

experience society’s homophobia and transphobia. Additionally,

youth are immediately connected with LGBT staff members. Clients

have commented on the importance of having successful, healthy,

openly LGBT adults assisting them in their growing up process. The

presence of diverse staff members who mirror the population served

provides youth with realistic role models and ensures that there

is an organic understanding of what the youth are experiencing.

For example, LGBT staff members have their own experiences of

coming out and homophobia or transphobia, which allows them

genuine insight into what the youth are dealing with in their lives. It

is also crucial to have non-LGBT staff because young people need to know that not only

do LGBT adults care about them, but “straight” adults can also be good role models.

This also provides an example of diverse people working together to help each other.

Furthermore, Green Chimneys staff work to establish an LGBT-affirming community by

celebrating events like “Pride” and by posting LGBT-themed media, including magazines

and newspapers.

The second type of community created is both geographic and cultural. While a scattered

site program specifically aids youth in a number of ways, the area of Harlem where our

apartments are located has a strong mix of African-American and Latino/a cultures,

ethnic identities that are similar to the majority of youth entering this program. This

creates a sense of fitting in within their neighborhood. While much of the time LGBT

people are forced to choose between their sexual identity and their ethnic identity, in this

program youth are encouraged to embrace both.

PRACTICE: HOW IT OPERATES

Participation in the Triangle Tribe Apartment program is completely voluntary, and

clients may reside in the program for up to 18 months. The Triangle Tribe Apartments

program not only provides a “safe haven” for LGBT adolescents, it also places importance

on teaching young people the essential life skills necessary for their transition into inde

pendent living. These skills (cooking, grocery shopping, laundry, money management,

job seeking and job maintenance skills, etc.) offer young people real world opportunities

to test out independence, to be responsible for themselves, and to learn other essential

tools for self-sufficiency.

The program’s apartments are fully furnished with basic equipment necessary for self-

sufficiency. Some of this is donated, but much of it is budgeted for in the grants we write,

covering both set-up costs and longer term renewal as required. Residents are encouraged

to make the apartments reflect their own personalities and make them as “home-like” as

In this program, the

culture of the LGBT

community is celebrated.

An atmosphere of

acceptance, not simply

tolerance, is crucial to

creating this safe space.

111

possible. Beyond providing safe and stable housing and the most basic day-to-day life skills

training that youth must obviously master, we also work on longer-term needs and oppor

tunities for each youth to optimize their potential and transition into successful adulthood.

For example, program goals include assessing and planning for educational and vocational

enhancement, monitoring and addressing substance abuse issues, and preparing each client

for long-term housing upon discharge. The literature review portion of this publication

has highlighted all too clearly the great risks faced by homeless youth and LGBT youth in

particular, so it is important from our perspective to ensure that we do everything we can to

address as many of the predictable problems that might come along as possible.

Youth interested in entering the Triangle Tribe Apartments program do so through an

application process. They complete a pre-intake application packet that includes docu

mentation of a physical, a daily schedule of how the youth spends their time, copies of any

identification they may have, and a brief essay on why the young person wants to be part

of the program. A program social worker assists all interested youth with this application

process. During this process, the young person is assessed by the staff social worker for

mental health functioning to determine whether he or she is stable enough for the low

level of supervision the program offers.

It is critical for any service provider targeting transitional services for youth to be aware

and willing to accept that not every youth who enters their agency will be prepared to take

advantage of such a program, however much we might wish to help. This does not consti

tute failure on the part of any program. Rather, it signifies the need for more intensive

supervised care in advance of transitioning to independence. For those seeking to help

LGBT youth specifically, appropriately trained and culturally aware staff are crucial to this

screening process to ensure that particular needs are recognized and met.

Once the application packet is completed, the young person meets with other appropriate

team members (program director, life skills coordinator and apartment counselor) for

a second interview. Applicants are given a resident handbook and encouraged to ask

questions about program participation. Residents chosen for admission to the program

begin working with the staff prior to their admission, providing an opportunity for them

to become further acquainted with the program’s rules and expectations.

Residents must meet a number of criteria

536

prior to admission, including the following:

• Be aged 17 to 21

• Have no addictions to alcohol or illegal drugs

• Be engaged in, or about to become engaged in, a vocational/educational setting

• Be open to the establishment of a savings account to prepare for ultimate discharge

from the program

• Be willing to meet weekly with a social worker for the duration of their stay

Visitor, housekeeping, noise and financial rules are also established for the purpose of

optimizing the TLP experience for all residents.

537

536 Green Chimneys Children’s Services. (2006). Green Chimneys Children’s Services: Triangle Tribe Apartments Transitional Living Program

resident handvbook. New York, NY: Green Chimneys Children’s Services. p. 2.

537 Green Chimneys Children’s Services. (2006). pp.4-7.

Green Chimneys

112

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

No youth is discriminated against because of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender

identity/presentation, religious identity, socioeconomic status or most recent place of

residence. Non-English-speaking youth receive assistance with translation by staff.

Green Chimneys understands and espouses a Positive Youth Development philosophy

538

to help youth create their own positive choices. We believe that effective programs have a

focused and articulated vision with a broad spectrum of services and opportunities that

are tailored to the needs and interests of young people. Moreover, our youth development

philosophy recognizes, values and responds to the unique backgrounds and experiences

that exist in the lives of the young people with whom we work. We provide a supportive,

flexible environment for staff and volunteers and encourage a spirit of collaboration with

other community-based programs. We believe that we can be a supportive atmosphere for

young people and enhance caring and nurturing relationships among staff, young people,

and their families.

Green Chimneys understands that each youth has different experiences and that their

reactions to these experiences will vary. To assist youth with this process, staff members

work to help youth identify obstacles, and encourage them to partake in their own case

planning and goal setting. Youth are motivated to expand their personal values in this

process, enhancing self-responsibility and self-determination. Youth have a crucial voice

in how the agency should care for them; they create their own individual service plans,

complete with their own goals, and each client participates in monthly team meetings to

assess their own progress on their goals.

Extant research shows that youth who maintain a healthy connection to family or other

stable adult influences have better long-term outcomes on a variety of measures, so an

additional goal of ours is to strengthen families through encouraging

youth to nurture familial relationships as well as offering family

counseling to residents.

The staff of our Green Chimneys New York City programs are

vigorous advocates for and with youth. Our goal is to promote a

feeling among young people that the staff and volunteers can be

trusted, and that they care about and respect them. This commit

ment to empowering young people permeates all of our New York-

based programs. Creative approaches to problem-solving, including

enlisting the help of youth to assist with major organizational deci

sion-making (i.e., hiring staff, proposal writing, and resident advisory

board), help circumvent traditional professional and bureaucratic

limitations in order to fully meet the needs of the youth and families with whom we are

privileged to work. This client-organization partnership strengthens our organizational

structure and invigorates our board and administrative leadership. A quality assurance

survey is sent to youth upon departure from the program to assure that youths’ needs were

met and to obtain feedback on the functioning and quality of the program.

538 Positive Youth Development is summarized as “helping young people to achieve their full potential” in order to reduce their risk of

engaging in high-risk behaviors (www.ncfy.com/pyd/). Programs fostering a Positive Youth Development setting engage youth in

leadership roles, empower them in program development and teach them to be active, responsible adults.

A quality assurance

survey is sent to youth

upon departure from the

program to assure that

youths’ needs were met

and to obtain feedback

on the functioning and

quality of the program.

113

WHY IT WORKS: STATISTICS AND

OTHER SIGNS OF SUCCESS

Most housing programs for homeless youth measure success in a variety of ways. Funders

or researchers often want to know how many discharges were to safe exits or to indepen

dent living situations. Program staff often consider many other variables to determine

success. This section describes a few different measures of success for the first five years of

the Green Chimneys transitional living program (TLP).

Reason for discharge is one variable to consider when measuring success. In our case:

• 57.5 percent of youth either completed the program or left on their own to pursue

another option.

• Just less than half were expelled from the program, mostly for repeated rule violation.

539

• The average length of stay for those completing the program was 21 months.

540

• The average length of stay for those leaving the program voluntarily was three months.

• Some of these youth left to live with family members; two went into the military.

Some youth who left the program decided that they were not ready for the responsibilities

of transitional living. Those who left the program voluntarily with no plans comprised

the smallest group, representing less than one percent of the population.

541

However, even

they stayed an average of six months. We can hope that while perhaps not ready for the

particular demands of a transitional living placement, they will still have picked up some

skills that will ultimately aid them in functioning as independent adults.

Where youth go when they leave a program is often what interested parties consider the

most concrete sign of success for that program. When they first enter the Green Chimneys

TLP, many youth identify the goal of obtaining their own apartment in New York City.

However, affordable housing is very difficult to find in New York City. Some youth

eventually decide on room rentals. Many others will instead move into the residences of

family members or friends. Since 2003, only one youth has exited the program without

notifying staff. Excluding that client, we saw the following overall results:

• 20 percent of our program’s discharged clients moved to an independent living

situation.

• 47 percent of the discharged clients moved to a private residence in which they were

not the primary renter (i.e. homes of family members, friends or partners).

• Two youth discharged with plans to move to a college residence but temporarily

moved to a private residence before leaving for college.

• 25 percent of the discharges were split among college, the military and the street. The

final 18 percent were recorded as unknown and occurred during the first two years of

the program’s existence.

539 We developed a graduated discipline system, which ensures that youth would need to break a rule or rules quite a number of times

before they would be discharged for it. Less than 1 percent of these rule violations were drug related.

540 Early in the program, a number of youth overstayed the 18 month maximum due to a variety of factors, the most significant of which was

the severe lack of affordable housing in New York City.

541 These were youth who disappeared without informing the program or said they were leaving but left no description of their plans.

Green Chimneys

114

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

As part of the exit process, we encourage youth to provide us with information about what

they learned while in the program through a standardized survey. Some of these “lessons”

have included learning how to live with and communicate well with others and specific

life skills such as budgeting, independence and being held accountable. While not a result

measurable on any formal scale, staff members of the TLP team have also commented

on additional outcomes. Youth learn that they are cared for, which improves their overall

functioning and may well be the first time in their lives that they have truly believed that

an adult had their best interests at heart.

CHALLENGES AND OVERCOMING THEM

A major challenge for any transitional program is how to assess whether a client is

appropriate for this level of service. Each program setting is a little different and not all

assessment procedures may apply perfectly. The Green Chimneys transitional program

is considered highly independent and therefore requires a high level of assessment upon

intake. We have added a psychiatric evaluation to our application packet to make staff

aware of potential mental health issues. We have also created an interview process for

youth who are applying to the program to assess their level of social skills.

This interview is conducted by the team working with the client, including the program

director, the social worker, the life skills coordinator and the apartment counselor. The

interview process reveals important issues such as punctuality, accountability, mental

health status, interpersonal skills, and potential red flags such as anger/conflict issues and

roommate concerns. It also gives the team the opportunity to ensure the client is fully

aware of all rules and expectations. Candidates are not necessarily excluded from intake

through the interview process. Potential issues are brought to the staff’s attention as areas

to address once the young person is accepted for admission.

Another challenge we have faced has been harassment in the neighborhoods. For the most

part, there have been no serious incidents, but there has been some verbal harassment of

clients on the street. We have dealt with this issue through education. We provided work

shops by the New York City Gay & Lesbian Anti-Violence Project to help youth understand

what to do when harassed on the street. This helps youth well beyond their stay in the

program and empowers them so that they do not feel helpless when faced with harassment.

We discuss safe behavior with residents and encourage them to assess their surroundings.

EVALUATION: AGENCY AND PROGRAM

Annual internal review and oversight of the program are done by the Program Services

Committee of our board of directors. Data collection is the responsibility of the program

director in consultation with a program evaluator. These and other data are measured

against program objectives and expected results as part of the evaluation process of the

Triangle Tribe Apartments. For any agency this information can also prove critical when

seeking funding from potential donors or grantors who want accurate information to

gauge program scale, scope and basic effectiveness. The following is a review of the evalu

ation and quality assurance tools we utilize to assess program effectiveness and to evaluate

115

compliance with program objectives and performance standards.

• Weekly individual supervision of program director by senior staff.

• Weekly individual supervision of program staff by the program director.

• Weekly multidisciplinary team review and staff meetings—weekly staff meetings play a

key role in the Triangle Tribe Apartments. Staff members use scheduled meeting time

to assess progress toward objectives, evaluate the appropriateness of services and make

programmatic adaptations/changes as determined by the needs of the target population.

• Annual internal review and oversight of the program by the Quality Insurance

Committee of the board of directors.

• Program reports – The program director completes monthly program reports related

to program objectives and the action plan. Semiannual program progress reports are

also submitted to the federal Department of Health and Human Services’ Family

and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), as are annual continuation proposals that outline

budgets and program planning.

• Monthly financial report – The monthly income/expense statement is a critical fiscal

management tool used by the program director and fiscal management to evaluate

actual revenues and expenses against projections for individual programs.

• Client feedback – We actively seek the suggestions, advice and ideas of the residents

of this program at all times. The resident advisory board is used to gather feedback

and aid in program planning.

• Annual program planning/evaluation cycle – The Program Services Committee of

the board of directors evaluates every agency program annually.

• With the introduction of our new city funded transitional beds, allowing for program

expansion, we are implementing a program-specific evaluation method. Every client

who enters the program will be measured in eight subject areas within a month of

intake and again at six months, one year, and just prior to discharge. These will be

compared for changes over the course of a young person’s stay in the program.

Data collection tools used to facilitate the annual evaluation of the maintenance of the

quality assurance measures outlined above include individual client records, service

record logs, monthly agencywide MIS instruments for service statistics and demographic

data collection. In addition, we utilize aftercare surveys completed by former clients,

quarterly documentation review of services rendered, and one-year post discharge contact

and semiannual Runaway and Homeless Youth Management Information System

(RHYMIS)

542

submissions.

CONCLUSION

Green Chimneys is committed to constant program improvement and will continually

seek to ensure that high quality services are provided to at-risk LGBT youth.

542 FYSB’s Runaway/Homeless Youth Management Information System – a data collection tool which provides statistical reports on all

clients seen by FYSB funded programs.

Green Chimneys

116

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Ozone House:

Making every space

a safe space

By Mary Jo Callan and Mia White

While some agencies choose to work exclusively with LGBT youth, not all programs do or

can. For youth in these other programs, it is crucial that administrative, professional and

support staff, as well as other clients, are on-board with the notion of the space being safe

for everyone there. Ozone House, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is one agency that has strived

to create an LGBT-safe space for all clients and employees.

Ozone House is an alternative nonprofit social service agency in Ann Arbor, Michigan

that actively pursues the development of unique, high quality housing and support

programs and services to help high-risk youth lead safe, healthy and productive lives.

Each year, we provide services to more than 400 runaway and homeless youth, crisis

intervention to over 1,500 youth, and youth development opportunities through our

youth drop-in center to 900 young people. Additionally, we reach more than 2,000 youth

through street outreach and provide educational programming to almost 4,000 youth

and adults annually. Our youth development approach, with a focus on youth-centered,

strength-based and outcome-driven services, has allowed us to be successful with the

highest need youth and families. Through these services we strive to help youth build

the confidence, skills, emotional stability and network of support they need to become

healthy and productive adults.

Created in 1969, Ozone House was one of only three organizations nationwide serving

runaway youth. The agency began as a grassroots, community-based response to an influx

of runaways coming to Ann Arbor, Michigan from around the country. Since that time,

our agency has grown from a handful of volunteers operating out of the basement of a

local church to one with nearly 40 paid staff. We have a diverse base of more than 40

active volunteers and interns and an engaged and committed board of directors, on which

youth serve with full membership.

During our first decade of operation, we saw a significant increase in the numbers of

runaway and homeless youth. With increasingly complex and varied needs, it was clear

that short-term crisis intervention services alone were not enough and that expansion of

the services offered to youth was needed. Today Ozone House offers a full continuum of

prevention and intervention services to runaway, homeless, and other high-risk youth ages

10 through 20 and their families, including:

• Individual assessment and intake

• 24-hour crisis intervention

117

• Intensive case management

• In-home and agency-based family counseling

• Individual and group counseling for youth

• Emergency youth shelter

• Miller House transitional living program

• Basic needs support, including meals, clothing, personal care items, work supplies,

transportation assistance and educational support

• Permanent supportive housing

• Substance-free activities

• QueerZone: A group for LGBT and questioning youth

• A youth drop-in center

• Street outreach

• Health care through an on-site health clinic

• Youth leadership opportunities

• Community education and outreach

All of our services are provided with a commitment to best practices in the youth services

field, including positive youth development and flexible, compassionate, comprehensive

and responsive interventions.

We are located in Washtenaw County, a racially and economically diverse area that is

home to 341,487 people, including almost 75,000 youth. The main population center

of Ann Arbor, where we are headquartered, is home to 114,498 residents.

543

Ypsilanti,

the county’s second most populous city, has 73,956 residents and is home to our drop-in

center and street outreach program.

544

Nearly 50 percent of the youth we serve come from the Ypsilanti area, the county’s

most economically distressed and underserved community. Just less than 26 percent of

individuals live below the poverty level compared to 12.4 percent nationally in a city that

was once a booming automobile manufacturing town.

545

546

Ypsilanti is now a community

struggling to regain economic stability. Young people living in Ypsilanti face major chal

lenges and have very few resources. Substance abuse and related criminal and gang activity

make many homes and neighborhoods unsafe. The high poverty rate and limited supply

of affordable housing result in family conflicts taking place in overcrowded, overwhelmed

and unstable households, leaving many young people with no safe haven when in crisis.

Another 30 percent of our youth come from Ann Arbor. Although better known for its

universities and cultural attractions, Ann Arbor also has many distressed neighborhoods

543 U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Table DP-1. Profile of general demographic characteristics: 2000. Ann Arbor city, Michigan. Author. Retrieved

September 10, 2006, from http://censtats.census.gov/data/MI/1602603000.pdf

544 U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Table DP-1. Profile of general demographic characteristics: 2000. Ypsilanti city, Michigan. Author. Retrieved September 10,

2006, from http://censtats.census.gov/data/MI/1602689140.pdf

545 Ibid.

546 U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). State and County QuickFacts: Michigan. Author. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://quickfacts.

census.gov/qfd/states/26000.html

118

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

and pockets of poverty. Though the median family income is $71,293, compared to

$50,046 nationally, the poverty rate is higher than the national average.

547

548

A few basic

statistics about our youth will provide a useful picture of those with whom we are working.

In 2004:

• 58 percent of youth served by Ozone House were female.

• 46 percent were youth of color (primarily African-American).

• 88 percent were from low- or very low-income families.

In addition to poverty, the difficulties presented by our clients included:

• Serious family conflict (98 percent).

• Parental substance abuse or mental illness (55 percent).

• Physical abuse or neglect (62 percent).

• Sexual abuse or assault (31 percent).

• Personal substance abuse (34 percent).

• Prior involvement with the child welfare system (nearly 30 percent of older youth).

Of the runaway and homeless youth that come to Ozone House, only a fraction leave

home as a normative response to the conflicts brought on by adolescence. The majority

come fleeing poverty or for more serious and often disturbing reasons. For instance,

almost one-third are running from sexual abuse and two-thirds from physical assault or

abuse. Two-thirds leave in order to bring attention to a parent’s alcoholism or drug abuse

problem, or to leave behind the adult responsibilities forced upon them by an absent

or mentally ill parent. Many youth, however, have not chosen to leave but are “throw

aways”—kids who are kicked out by parents who often have abused and/or neglected them

and see the young person as the cause of family conflict that will go away along with the

youth. Many of these parents are also overwhelmed by the challenges of adolescence, a

young person’s drug use or abuse, or have rejected their child because of their sexual

orientation, gender identity/expression or pregnancy.

These young people are in need of services that address the serious family, social, emotional,

educational and economic conditions that impair their safety, development and future well-

being. Ozone House has designed a unique, flexible and comprehensive array of services

that set the highest-risk youth on a path to long-term safety, health and success.

SAFETY, SUPPORT AND AFFIRMATION: DEVELOPING AN

AGENCY CULTURE FOR EFFECTIVE WORK WITH LGBT YOUTH

Since 1976, Ozone House has specifically tailored our services to be welcoming and

sensitive to the needs presented by LGBT youth, adding a support group for LGBT and

questioning youth, plus crisis intervention and counseling services designed to ensure a

547 U.S. Census Bureau. (2000).

548 U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Table DP-1. Profile of general demographic characteristics: 2000. United States. Author. Retrieved September 10,

2006, from http://censtats.census.gov/data/US/01000.pdf

119

safe and affirming atmosphere to explore feelings, challenge internalized homophobia,

and get vital support from other youth and informed adults.

The vast majority of youth seeking Ozone House services neither identify as LGBT nor

present issues related to sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. So, why are

we contributing to this publication’s conversation about pro-LGBT service provision?

The reality is that few agencies in the United States or elsewhere

cater exclusively to LGBT clients. Therefore, it is critical that all

agencies know how to effectively work with the LGBT youth they

encounter. In order to be effective in our work with LGBT youth,

we must create a safe place for them amidst “straight” youth who are

not always immediately knowledgeable and understanding of issues

related to their LGBT peers. These straight youth often present in

crisis mode, with inadequate resources and a lack of physical safety,

and they are full of the assumptions, homophobia and ignorance of

the broader society around them.

We were asked to think about what an Ozone House contribution

to this publication might usefully transmit with regard to our work

as an agency working with predominantly straight youth. Several of our staff and clients

were asked for their input. We decided to focus on the simple fact that Ozone House seeks

to be a safe place for

all youth. We do this by honoring and acknowledging the realities

from which youth come, while allowing them the opportunity to envision and take steps

to create their own path for the future. This truth led us to a natural conclusion: we

should discuss what makes us welcoming or different from other organizations: namely,

the culture that exists at Ozone House.

While it is difficult to pinpoint and articulate what that culture is, we can offer Ozone

House’s dedication to youth development, systems change, leadership development and

specific strategies for working with youth as aspects that collectively work to foster this

environment. In this section, we will focus on the strategies that Ozone House utilizes to

develop our staff and volunteers to work effectively with LGBT youth. Most crucially, we

do so with the firm conviction that any agency seriously seeking to work successfully with

LGBT youth can adopt our philosophy and in turn help their clients feel safe, nurtured

and respected.

Ozone House pioneered a gay and lesbian youth support group in 1976, the first of its

kind in Michigan. Similar to elsewhere in the country, gay and lesbian youth in Ann

Arbor faced higher rates of homelessness and running away than their heterosexual peers. As

continues to be the case today, LGBT youth in 1976 were more likely to experience rejection

by family, in schools, and from peers and to be at risk for harassment and discrimination.

At the time, we already had the reputation of being a radical, anti-establishment, youth-

centered agency. The agency was created by the first wave of baby boomers, who reached

adulthood and sought to help their younger cohorts escape the constraints of traditional

social norms and authority. Though this reputation did not engender respect for the

agency among most mainstream service providers, local funding bodies or parents, it

did increase our credibility among the runaway, disconnected and marginalized young

people we sought to reach. This included youth who identified, or struggled to identify

themselves, as gay or lesbian.

Since few agencies cater

exclusively to LGBT

clients, it is critical that

predominantly straight-

serving agencies know

how to effectively

work with the LGBT

youth they encounter.

Ozone House

120

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

What was then identified as a gay and lesbian youth support group was open to any

young person who wanted to come. Youth who were receiving other types of support

from Ozone House were encouraged to attend and to spread the word to other youth in

the community. Over time, the group was attended mostly by Ann Arbor-area youth who

sought connection to peers, affirmation from adults, and a safe place to explore what it

meant to be LGBT in a straight world.

The group, which provided social support with adult facilitation, continued to exist

relatively unchanged for over two decades. However, during the 1990s group attendance

began to decline. Focus groups and feedback from youth who had historically attended

the group indicated that Ann Arbor was becoming—relatively speaking—a community

accepting of LGBT youth and increasingly sensitive to LGBT issues in general. Support

groups were less relevant and activity-based groups were needed, especially because Ann

Arbor youth had at least a few resources for LGBT youth. At the same time, youth from

other areas of Washtenaw County continued to feel isolated and wanted a safe venue

through which to explore their feelings and experiences as LGBT youth. Unlike Ann

Arbor, other communities throughout the county continued to provide a dearth of

activities and safe venues for LGBT youth.

As a result, we have reached out to other areas of the county where LGBT youth continue

to feel and experience isolation. This expanded focus has succeeded in helping a broader

segment of the community’s youth access much-needed support. However, the lack of

transportation and the lack of parental knowledge or acceptance made attending our

Ann Arbor-based group difficult. This difficulty was especially pronounced for youth in

Ypsilanti, the other major population center within Washtenaw County.

Ypsilanti has the county’s highest concentration of African-Americans and a higher

proportion of people living in poverty. Its origins are as a blue-collar, automobile and

manufacturing town with less liberal social norms. In general, youth from Ypsilanti

do not feel comfortable traveling to Ann Arbor, which is seen as too white, too rich,

unwelcoming and, to some, “too gay.”

Today, Ozone House is the host of QueerZone, a supportive social group. In order to

maximize our ability to engage those LGBT youth who lack access to the resources offered

in Ann Arbor, the group is convened at our youth drop-in center in Ypsilanti. In addition

to a support group, the agency offers crisis intervention and other counseling services

specifically geared to be welcoming and sensitive to the needs presented by LGBT youth.

They are designed to ensure a safe and affirming atmosphere, explore feelings, challenge

internalized homophobia and transphobia, and get vital support from other youth

and informed adults. The support group from 30 years ago provided a foundation and

launching point for our services to branch out into more structured and professionally

supported programming.

APPROACH TO SERVICES

Our tag line at Ozone House is “there is a safe place.” Living up to that message means

committing to a space recognizably different from external discriminations. Being

acknowledged as safe space for LGBT and straight young people has been a mark of

121

our success. To fulfill our mission of working with young people to help them lead safe,

healthy and productive lives, our prevention and intervention services are designed with a

positive youth development, empowerment, youth-focused and strength-based approach.

DEVELOPING YOUTH & CAPITALIZING ON THEIR STRENGTHS

Although we have not always used the term, Ozone House has always followed a “positive

youth development” orientation in its design and delivery of services. This approach has

two elements to it. The first element is the understanding that young people need care,

encouragement, opportunities and protection from abuse in order to make a successful

transition to adulthood and to reach their full potential for growth and happiness. The

second element is to help youth build upon that potential. We have always firmly opposed

a deficit model of service, in which clients are assessed and labeled in terms of their

problems and weaknesses. Rather, we use a strength-based approach that focuses on a

youth’s resilience, assets and capabilities.

EMPOWERMENT

Ozone House has a long history of providing services that help youth learn how to help

themselves. When Ozone House was created, many traditional agencies denied youth

the opportunity to take part in decisions regarding their own future. As an alternative

community-based agency, we sought to ensure that a youth’s right to self-determination

was respected and fostered. This philosophy has not only helped to give us credibility

among youth, it has helped us to engage and work with families. Families, as well as youth,

are considered partners in service rather than just recipients. As partners, they are treated

as experts on their own situation and encouraged to take an active part in assessing and

prioritizing their needs and choosing a course of action. This approach diverges from the

more traditional “help” that most youth and families have received, where the worker—be

it therapist, probation officer or social worker—is the expert, seeking to resolve the

presented problems by directing and informing the family rather than enlisting them to

identify and enact their own solutions.

RESPONSIVENESS

Partly fostered by our organizational culture, the staff has a unique dedication to deliv-

ering flexible and responsive services. We believe that without this dedication, high risk

youth and families would not be adequately served. This commitment is demonstrated

not only in the types of services that we provide but in the way they are provided. Staff

members know and respect the clientele they are working for and are always encouraged

to advocate on their behalf. All services are free, can be accessed any time of the day or

night, and never require a referral from another agency or adult.

HOLISTIC APPROACH

It is imperative to take a holistic approach that will not only intervene in a crisis, but

prevent future problems. To achieve this goal, Ozone House works to address the social,

emotional and physical needs of youth at the individual, family and community levels.

Ozone House

122

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING OUR MISSION

While not an LGBT-specific organization, Ozone House has a reputation as being a

safe space for LGBT youth. We utilize a variety of strategies to create and maintain this

reputation. Beyond these strategies, our distinctive history leaves us well positioned to

manage the delicate balance of affirming LGBT youth while engaging straight—and often

homophobic and transphobic—youth from throughout the community. The strategies

utilized include:

COMMITTING TO AN ALTERNATIVE CULTURE

The leadership of Ozone House is committed to creating and maintaining an agency

culture that is safe for all youth and adults. This simple commitment means that we

acknowledge and work through the reality that Ozone House is, in some respects, a

“false” environment that cannot currently be expected within most other areas of life and

experience for the youth served. It also means that we face potential challenges related

to funding and engagement of the straight community that currently come with being

identified as a LGBT or LGBT-friendly organization.

ENSURING PHYSICAL MANIFESTATIONS OF SAFETY

LGBT youth know upon seeing Ozone House that they will be recognized and welcomed.

Our windows and front entrance display rainbow and pink triangle stickers. Posters and

artwork represent all varieties of young people, including LGBT youth, and postings about

agency rules specifically prohibit homophobic, transphobic and anti-LGBT language.

Even in a relatively liberal community such as Ann Arbor, such explicit references to

and representations of LGBT youth are rare. In the broader community, especially in

neighboring cities and more rural communities throughout the county, these symbols and

what they represent are still taboo.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

We provide orientation and ongoing training, as well as other important professional

development opportunities, to our staff and volunteers. An important piece of all of

these activities involves examining and “unlearning” the personal bias and baggage we

bring from the world into our work. In many ways—as it should be—the professional

development undergone by staff is parallel to increased insights and personal growth

undertaken by the youth we seek to help. The conceptualization and articulation of this

“parallel process” helps to motivate staff and volunteers to grow as much as the vulnerable

youth we serve.

FORMALIZED TRAINING

We provide formal training opportunities for staff and volunteers at all levels of the orga-

nization. These trainings are conducted individually and in small groups, both within and

outside of the agency. Through workshops, expert consultants and presenters, published

written materials, and video resources, staff and volunteers gain an understanding of how

best to work with LGBT youth. The amount and sophistication of structured training and

materials presented depends on the role of each staff member and volunteer within the

agency; the more contact with youth, the more training. Training topics include:

123

• Queer youth at Ozone House: A history and overview.

• Decoding the LGBT alphabet: Basic terms and definitions associated with queerness.

• Normalizing: How to respond to a young person’s experiences of experimentation

and questioning.

• Offering support and affirmation: How to respond when a young person comes out.

• Stage theory (including LGBT identity development).

• What works: Finding out about serving queer youth through youth video and panel

testimonials.

• Gender roles and expectations.

• Internalized racism and homophobia: Challenging our own assumptions and experiences.

• Hostile language: How to talk with straight youth about homophobic remarks.

EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION

Beyond a theoretical understanding of the many issues that come up in working with youth

and the exposure and learning that occurs in structured learning activities, we help direct

services staff and volunteers to apply what they have learned. Through weekly one-on-one

clinical supervision meetings, direct service staff members are offered additional opportuni

ties to examine how the “self they bring to work” impacts or is impacted by specific youth.

These weekly meetings help to gain valuable insights, emotional support, and concrete ideas

to improve practice with youth, including LGBT youth. In addition to weekly meetings, staff

and volunteers have access to supervisory staff any time a need or question arises.

SOCIAL LEARNING

As in the broader society, social learning is the most powerful way to convey culture

at Ozone House. Staff and volunteers have the benefit of numerous role models who

understand and are competent in contributing to an agency that is safe and affirming

of LGBT youth. These role models are both LGBT and straight, adult and youth, with

varying degrees of experience in the agency.

TAKING THE LEAD FROM YOUTH

Another aspect to our services that sets us apart is that we are youth-centered. One of our

social workers described one of her earlier placements working with adolescent popula

tions as one in which people were funneled through an assembly line of service with a

40-minute intake followed by precisely timed 35-minute sessions no more than twice a

week. It seemed that there was more invested in the process of administering the services

provided to youth than in actually meeting their needs.

Here, staff and volunteers seek to ensure that all youth have substantive control over the

services and activities in which they participate. Each youth’s experience drives individual

ized assessment and service processes, including the frequency, type and scope of support

offered. Agency staff and volunteers are trained to recognize, honor and capitalize on the

strengths developed by youth in response to contexts in which they exist.

Further, we learn practice content from our clients and incorporate that knowledge into

practice. For example, what better way to learn about resources in the community than

Ozone House

124

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

from the clients who use them? We learn which agencies and other area resources are

perceived as homophobic and/or transphobic and unwelcoming and which are safe and

accepting of LGBT youth.

MAXIMIZING TEACHABLE MOMENTS

Informality is woven into the fabric of the agency’s culture, while maintaining professional

expectations of our services. In our residential programs and our youth drop-in center,

young people can hang out casually or participate in activities that create opportunities for

discussions with other youth and with staff. These impromptu exchanges are often peppered

with culturally prevalent comments like “that’s gay” or “fag,” and we treat these remarks as

opportunities for staff and volunteers to challenge the language and thinking of youth.

We have an agencywide policy against hostile language; this policy protects against threats

or unsafe situations and also holds an expectation of challenging discriminatory language

that is commonplace in youth culture. Working with adolescents means that we cannot

expect teens never to swear, act out or discriminate against each other. The difference is

that when these situations happen, we challenge those statements with a supportive—not

disciplinary—approach. We want to help young people think about how they want others

to perceive them, how they want to perceive themselves, and how else they might be able

to express their thoughts and views without degrading another youth or diminishing their

contribution to our community.

RECRUITING LGBT STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS

Ozone House has LGBT staff and volunteers at all levels of our organization. Clients

have articulated to us that this is a primary reason why they feel different at Ozone

House. Clients report that, unlike many gay-straight alliances (GSAs), which are often

led and populated by allies, we have achieved a balance between allied and LGBT staff

and volunteers. Straight staff and volunteers certainly can and do play a crucial role in

creating safety and support for LGBT youth. However, as with other

marginalized populations, visibility and representation in personnel

is one of the most crucial and immediate ways to convey a level of

safety or comfort to our clients and their families.

While we do not ask people to disclose their identities, we do specifi

cally ask questions on our applications for our volunteer and staff

that probe for LGBT sensitivity. We simply do not hire people who

indicate a lack of understanding and acceptance of LGBT youth. For

example, statements including “sexual preference,” “choice” or the

“gay lifestyle,” or discomfort saying the words “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual” or “transgender”

raise red flags about the staff or volunteer candidate. We would not hire anyone who

seemed to be a closet racist, and we apply the same principle regarding homophobia and

transphobia. We expect and ask for better than what exists readily out in the rest of the

world. Just because that is “how it is” externally by no means defines how it should be. We

strive to create a community and environment worthy of our clients regardless of whether

or not that is a reflection of the hegemonic culture.

The agency’s board of directors is the governing body of Ozone House and is responsible

for ensuring that agency policies and practices are responsive and effective. As in other

volunteer roles, we intentionally recruit members who identify as LGBT or allies. All

We simply do not hire

people who indicate a

lack of understanding

and acceptance of

LGBT youth.

125

potential board members are provided with ample information about what Ozone House

does, how we do it and whom we serve. LGBT youth are highlighted as one of the

four youth populations that Ozone House makes special efforts to serve, and potential

members of the board must indicate comfort with and support for all youth served.

ADVOCACY AND SYSTEMS CHANGE

When working with runaway, homeless, and at-risk youth, we are talking about working

with a marginalized population and intersecting identities within it. Being able to

navigate the agencies and institutions that exist for young people is essential in the social

work environment. However, our staff is also prompted and challenged to be aware of the

larger sociological systems that affect the youth we serve. This is part of the systems change

perspective fostered throughout our agency.

We are not interested in creating more barriers for our clients. This means that we must

be able to see, learn and acknowledge where they already exist. Structurally, as mentioned

previously, there are gaps in the systems that youth need to access. The education, legal,

health and foster systems are all designed with the expectation that an adult (usually a

parent or guardian) will facilitate access when a youth needs these services. This is clearly

a barrier for young people who have run away, are homeless, have parents that work more

than one job, have parents who are emotionally unavailable or neglectful, or are otherwise

on their own. We attempt to bridge these gaps by advocating for youth and also making

services accessible to young people regardless of their situation.

Our space is intentionally void of some basic impediments to providing service. For

example, youth are able to become clients on their own, with or without parental involve

ment. Our services are free, voluntary and confidential, which

aids in maintaining accessibility for all clients. We also realize that

though clients may self-identify as LGBT, their sexual orientation

or gender identity may not be the presenting issue or concern for

them. We have no need or desire to unnecessarily make their sexual

orientation or gender identity the defining issue. Rather, we allow

them to articulate the services they want or need.

Beyond the intrinsic barriers faced by all runaway and homeless

youth is the added layer of societal oppression included in racism,

sexism, homophobia and transphobia. These barriers take shape in

not only the structural design of some services, but also in good old

fashioned discrimination. Staff and volunteers at Ozone House are continually struck by

the recounting of discriminatory experiences of the youth with whom they work every

day. LGBT clients in particular have recounted several instances of maltreatment by other

youth-serving agencies charged with providing support and protection. For example, at

one residential placement, LGBT teens and those suspected of being LGBT were made to

wear orange jumpsuits to alert staff and other residents. At another transitional housing

placement, staff removed the bedroom door of an out gay youth, supposedly to ward

off any homosexual behavior. The second bed in the room was left empty, with other

residents warned that if they misbehaved they would have to share the room with the “gay

kid.” As horrific as these two examples are, both took place at state-licensed and -funded

child welfare agencies.

At one residential

placement, LGBT teens

and those suspected

of being LGBT were

made to wear orange

jumpsuits to alert staff

and other residents.

Ozone House

126

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

REDUCING AND ELIMINATING BARRIERS TO SERVICE

In addition to ensuring that Ozone House is responsive to the needs of LGBT youth,

agency staff and volunteers work to reduce and eliminate barriers in other agencies and

institutions with which youth interact. We do this through:

CASE-LEVEL ADVOCACY

Each day staff work with youth who are unfairly denied needed services like enrollment

in school, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and protection from abuse and

neglect. Therefore, much time is devoted to advocating with agencies and systems such

as community mental health systems, Child Protective Services and area schools so that

specific youth can access needed support. This advocacy comes through telephone calls,

letters, and formal complaints and grievances and by accompanying youth to appoint

ments, hearings and similar proceedings.

POLICY-LEVEL ADVOCACY

While advocating for change for individual youth is critical, we recognize that in order to

effect lasting and consistent change for young people, the systems that have broken down

must be changed. To this end, our administrators, service staff, and board of directors

work with local and statewide policy-makers to change policies and systems that negatively

impact youth.

AGENCY POLICIES & PROCEDURES

Institutionalizing a culture of openness in which every person feels safe and free to be them-

selves poses many challenges, even for a relatively small organization. We have developed

policies and practice bodies to address issues of inclusion, emotional and physical safety, and

cultural competence in order to transmit an expectation of appropriate and safe behaviors

and relations. To this end, agency personnel and operating policies and procedures include

specific language about and protections for those who identify as LGBT.

AN INCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF “FAMILY”

All agency literature, including our policies, uses inclusive language about families. We

use the terms partner or

spouse rather than husband or wife in our staff and volunteer poli-

cies. We ask youth to define family and their place in it rather than ascribing traditional

roles and legal definitions. For staff, family leave is provided to care for a new child or an

incapacitated family member—including a same-sex partner—regardless of legal relation

ship. Further, health benefits are provided to employees and their spouses. For straight

staff this means that they must be married. For LGBT staff, who cannot legally marry a

same-sex partner, this means registering for a domestic partnership certificate from the

City of Ann Arbor, which extends this opportunity without regard to residency.

A HOSTILE LANGUAGE POLICY

Staff members distribute the Hostile Language Policy to all potential clients and require

their written agreement to comply with the policy. Many young people do not formally

become our clients. In other words, they do not seek ongoing services from Ozone House,

but instead participate in youth development opportunities and supportive settings.

127

Nevertheless, we make every effort to familiarize all visitors to our facilities with the

Hostile Language Policy by displaying it—or operational statements about it—prominently

in our buildings. The policy reads:

We believe

in the inherent worth and dignity of all people, and seek to ensure that

youth experience Ozone House as a safe place, free from bigotry and injustice, and

where each person is respected and affirmed. To this end, we commit ourselves to

addressing hostile, discriminatory, and anti-social remarks and behavior that threaten

the safety of youth, staff, and others. Like all our work with youth, we will address

these behaviors in a caring, patient, and non-judgmental manner with the goal of

creating internalized awareness and change.

Because derogatory terminology targeted at LGBT people is ubiquitous in the culture and

in the community in which we are located, our staff generally spends a disproportionate

amount of time addressing hostile language related to LGBT issues. All staff members are

trained and expected to address inappropriate hostile language, regardless of their own

sexual orientation or gender identity. Beyond addressing simply the vocabulary of preju

dice, homophobia, transphobia and heterosexism, staff members spend time discussing

the implications of violating the hostile language policy relative to maintaining a safe

space for all youth. The staff’s motivation, rather than strident rule enforcement, is always

oriented toward providing opportunities for youth to develop their communication and

social skills and preserving the integrity of the environment.

POLICY AND PRACTICE BODIES

We are committed to maintaining a diverse workplace in which differences are respected

and appreciated. Having such an atmosphere helps to ensure that youth of all ethnic

and racial backgrounds, socioeconomic backgrounds, sexual orientations and gender

identities/expressions feel safe and receive high-quality services. This diversity is achieved

through an aggressive Affirmative Action and Diversity Policy that guides employment

practices; employee, board member and volunteer recruitment; training; service design

and delivery; and the physical environment.

The Agency Committee on Affirmative Action & Diversity (ACAAD) is a standing

policy committee that focuses on ensuring that Ozone House is diverse and culturally

competent. The committee creates and monitors goals related to hiring and retention of

diverse staff, works with the board to create similar goals for agency leadership, coordinates

trainings for agency staff and volunteers to ensure that services are delivered in a culturally

competent manner, and provides a forum for staff to grow personally and professionally

through discussions and activities related to race, power, sexism, homophobia and trans

phobia. ACAAD addresses all aspects of structural racism, homophobia, transphobia,

sexism, and classism in our services, as well as methods to navigate and advocate within

systems characterized by institutional homophobia, transphobia and heterosexism. Often,

youth must be involved with potentially hostile systems—such as law enforcement, juvenile

detention or child welfare.

We are committed to both providing a counterpoint to those services and to advocating

for systemic change within them. ACAAD focuses its work on four specific populations of

Ozone House

128

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

youth who seek opportunities, support and services: African-American youth, multiracial

youth, economically disadvantaged youth and LGBT youth. ACAAD is also charged with

ensuring that staff and volunteers receive training and other growth opportunities so that

services are delivered in a culturally competent manner.

Diversity in Action (DIA) is a project- and action-oriented body with monthly meetings.

Each meeting has a chosen diversity topic, and participants bring one item—reading,

artwork, guideline, idea—that is representative of that topic. Information for each diversity

topic will be distributed throughout the agency and all staff members are requested to

incorporate the information into their work each month. DIA meetings, case reviews,

team meetings, and supervision are venues in which each staff member is supported to

address their own biases and learn new ways of working with youth and families of any

background.

OUTCOMES AND EXPECTED RESULTS

All of these institutional norms promote a positive and healthy environment, but it is

important that we are able to determine the extent to which we have been successful in

reaching our goals. The following are the specific measurable outcomes we are constantly

pursuing.

OUTCOME 1: SAFETY FOR RUNAWAY, HOMELESS AND HIGH-RISK YOUTH

Ozone House exists to ensure that runaway, homeless and other high-risk youth have

access to needed protection, safety and support. This includes LGBT youth, who are

overrepresented among the population of homeless youth nationally.

All agency efforts are aimed at assisting young people to achieve and maintain:

• Physical and emotional health.

• Stable employment.

• Safe, stable housing.

• Consistent, reciprocal support from people who care about them.

For LGBT youth who are homeless, have run away, or are at risk for these things, we

offer support and assistance in all of the areas mentioned above through the provision of

individual and family counseling, supportive housing and shelter, job support, and case

management and advocacy.

We evaluate the effectiveness of these services by tracking the changes for youth from

service entry to exit in the following areas:

• Maintenance of safe housing.

• Ability to manage relationships and settings where there is physical safety from

harm.

• Ability to develop and maintain a reciprocal support network—including family when

possible—in which emotional safety and caring exists.

• Maintenance of employment commensurate with financial need.

129

Impact is also measured after youth finish receiving our services by conducting follow-up

interviews at 90, 180 and 365 days. These interviews track the youth’s housing status,

employment, legal system involvement, family relationships and general quality of life. In

addition, we conduct focus groups and satisfaction surveys to gauge our effectiveness in

engaging and supporting the youth with whom we work.

OUTCOME 2: EMOTIONAL SAFETY FOR LGBT AND QUESTIONING YOUTH

Beyond the aims described above, we utilize the implementation strategies described previ-

ously to ensure that LGBT youth feel safe, supported, and affirmed while in our care or

space, and while working with agency staff and volunteers. Feedback on the effectiveness

of our services to LGBT youth, including their level of comfort while at Ozone House, is

gathered through satisfaction surveys and focus groups.

OUTCOME 3: CULTURAL COMPETENCE

The third expected outcome of our efforts to provide a safe place for LGBT youth is a part

of the larger goal of creating a culturally competent staff and volunteer base and, through

this process, a culturally competent organization.

By definition, cultural competence is a set of congruent behaviors, attitudes, structures

and policies that come together to work effectively in intercultural situations.

549

It requires

that organizations and their personnel have the capacity to:

• Value diversity

• Conduct self-assessment

• Manage the dynamics of difference

• Acquire and institutionalize cultural knowledge

• Adapt to the diversity and cultural contexts of the individuals and communities served

At Ozone House, striving toward cultural competence is a difficult process. This is due

in large part to our struggle with the assumption that a social work, youth develop

ment-based, “we do good work” kind of organization should not have issues related to

internalized racism, classism, homophobia, fear or other cultural debris. We strive to work

through these struggles by implementing the strategies discussed previously. We recognize

that cultural competence is a developmental process that evolves over time and that we

must continuously evaluate our progress to ensure that we are growing as an agency and

as practitioners within it. We do this by:

• Completing a staff and board demographic survey that tracks the level of our success

in hiring and retaining staff and volunteers who come from one of the population

groups identified by ACAAD, including those who identify as LGBT.

• Completing the Agency Readiness Index: A Self-Assessment and Planning Guide to

Gauge Agency Readiness to Work with LGBT Youth (ARI) developed by the National

Network for Youth.

550

This instrument challenges the agency to meet rigorous expec-

549 Cross, T., Bazron, B., Dennis, K., & Isaacs, M. (1989). Towards a culturally competent system of care: A monograph on effective services for

minority children who are severely emotionally disturbed. (vols. 1) Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center.

550 For more information, see http://www.nn4youth.org/site/PageServer?pagename=publications_list

Ozone House

130

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

tations for readiness to work with LGBT Youth and is designed to be completed by

everyone involved with Ozone House: youth, families, volunteers, staff and members

of the board of directors as well as referral sources.

• Administering and analyzing training workshop evaluations and pre- and post-tests.

• Administering and analyzing an annual staff satisfaction survey that includes a variety

of questions about agency culture, comfort of the agency for staff and ability to reach

and serve youth of color, queer youth and other special populations.

CONCLUSION

As an agency that does not work exclusively with LGBT youth, we have embraced our

responsibility to provide safe spaces, programming and services for all underserved youth

in our community regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. Working

in an immediate environment that is essentially liberal, but within a broader society that

is far more conservative and hostile to all manner of “differences,” we endeavor to live up

to our responsibility as protectors and promoters of the interests of

all youth in need. We

have achieved success in many ways and believe passionately that the right team of people

can, with commitment and thoughtfulness, create an organizational culture that can help

any organization do a better job serving LGBT youth.

131

Urban Peak:

Working with homeless

transgender youth in a

shelter environment

By Susan Boyle

Urban Peak was founded in 1988 in response to growing concern among residents

and businesspeople in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Denver, Colorado about the

increasing numbers of homeless youth. Since that time, we have dramatically expanded

our services to meet the changing needs of homeless youth. What

began as a drop-in center near the corner of East Colfax and

Pennsylvania became a shelter in a church basement. In 1998, the

agency constructed and opened a 40-bed shelter where youth are

able to access a full continuum of services. That same year, the

Urban Peak Housing Corporation was founded for the purpose of

developing affordable housing options for youth. In late 2000, at

the request of community providers in El Paso County, we opened

Urban Peak Colorado Springs (UPCS). The entire community

celebrated a long-time goal in December 2004 with the opening of

the only adolescent shelter in El Paso County.

With the 2003 merger of Urban Peak and The Spot Youth Center,

Urban Peak now provides an array of services for homeless and

runaway as well as youth at risk of being homeless and has become a leader in youth

services on the local, state and national levels. Urban Peak works with homeless

and runaway youth between the ages of 14 and 24 in Denver and Colorado Springs,

Colorado.

In the past year, 79 percent of the youth served were from the seven-county Denver metro

area, with 41 percent of that number from the City and County of Denver. Other demo

graphic information about the Urban Peak Denver client population over the past fiscal year

include the followng:

Fifty-six percent identified as male, 43 percent as female and 3 percent of youth identified

as transgender.

Half of the youth were Caucasian, 16 percent were Latino/a, 19 percent were African-

American, 11 percent identified as multiracial, 3 percent were Native American and 1

percent were Asian-American.

Urban Peak’s mission is to help young people overcome homelessness and other life

challenges by providing safety, respect, essential services and a supportive community, em

powering them to become self-reliant adults. Our goal is for young people to acquire

We assist homeless

and runaway youth to

permanently exit street

life and we provide

at-risk urban youth

with a safe place to be

creative, to enjoy their

youth and to mature

into productive adults.

132

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

the abilities and confidence to become responsible, self-sufficient adults who are able to

realize their full potential. We do so by offering outreach, safe shelter, transitional housing,

education and employment programs, medical care, mental health and substance abuse

counseling, creative outlets, and recreational and youth development activities. Urban

Peak’s primary objective is to build trusting relationships with youth in order to guide

them to a better future. Of the 874 youth served at Urban Peak, 55 percent permanently

left the streets.

INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW: THE CHALLENGE OF

MAKING SPACES SAFE FOR TRANSGENDER YOUTH

While many shelters are aware of the particular needs of gay and lesbian youth (the higher-

profile portion of the population), far too few are working effectively

with youth who identify as transgender. As much as 2 percent of the

homeless youth population we serve self-identifies as transgender,

but often the services available do not meet their needs. And, just

as self-identification as gay or lesbian is underreported because

individuals do not want to label their orientation or are fearful of

the consequences of doing so, because of fear or uncertainty many

transgender youth avoid coming out.

The goal of this chapter is to outline how to work with youth identifying as transgender

in a youth shelter environment. The objectives are to educate programs on terminology,

the intake process, the education needed for staff and clients, and how to implement an

effective procedure to eliminate barriers to serving this population.

WORKING WITH TRANSGENDER YOUTH: BUILDING TRUST

AND MAINTAINING A SAFE SPACE

Many youth identifying as transgender are rejected by their family,

friends, schools and communities and ultimately end up on the

streets. Because one needs identification to be employed and because

transgender youth are unlikely to have ID that matches their name

and gender identity or expression, they face discrimination in

employment. Without employment, many youth resort to sex work

in order to survive on the streets. Sex work puts them at further

risk of exposure to sexually transmitted infections, HIV/AIDS and

hepatitis. Many youth also engage in drug use in order to escape the

pain they feel inside.

By the time they reach a shelter, transgender youth often have

experienced abuse, neglect, substance use, mental health crises and

discrimination by employers, and many have been asked to leave other facilities because of

their actual or perceived sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Many have had negative

interactions with adults and authority figures who deny them the right to live their lives as

they feel they are. They may trust only themselves and those in similar situations.

As much as 2 percent

of the homeless youth

population we serve self-

identifies as transgender.

Transgender youth come

to a shelter space with

the hope that it will be

different; that you and

your staff will understand

them and their needs,

and that you will help

them live openly,

proudly and safely.

133

The only way to serve these youth and to have successful outcomes is to ensure that they

receive wholehearted support from agency staff. Anything less than a solid support system

will hamper their ability to move forward with their lives. Building trust is essential.

Transgender youth come to a shelter space with the hope that it will be different; that

you and your staff will understand them and their needs, and that you will help them

live openly, proudly and safely. As service providers we must create an environment that

is welcoming to all; an environment that accepts the youth for who they are. Transgender

youth are looking for acceptance and understanding, for safety, and to be guided to

independent living while being allowed to be who they feel they are.

Not allowing them to identify as who they are interferes with being

able to enjoy their youth and to mature into productive adults.

Regardless of what type of services a shelter is providing, each shelter

needs a policy on how to serve transgender youth, even if only a

small minority of clients self-identify as transgender. Provision of

street outreach, access to a drop-in center, emergency or transitional

shelter, case management, employment and education advising,

medical care, mental health counseling, housing, testing, food and

basic needs support should not be dependent on a client’s sexual

orientation or gender identity.

Shelters should be classified as “safe zones” and have the potential

to respond to the needs of every young person who needs and seeks out help. Safe zones

must be places youth can access without worrying about their sexual orientation or gender

identity, their race or their life experiences negatively impacting their chances of getting

the help and support they need.

SEX AND GENDER IDENTITY: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

In order to work effectively with young people who identify as transgender, it is important

to have a basic understanding of their communities and a knowledge of appropriate terms.

This list provides some basic definitions,

551

clarifies some misconceptions and introduces

important issues to remember when speaking with trans-identified people in English.

• Transgender (trans): An umbrella term for people whose gender identity, expression

or behavior is different from those typically associated with their assigned sex at

birth, including but not limited to transsexuals, cross-dressers, androgynous people,

genderqueers and gender nonconforming people. Transgender is a broad term and is

good for providers to use.

• Gender identity: A subjective, but continuous and persistent, sense of ourselves

as male, female or another gender. For transgender people, birth-assigned sex and

internal sense of gender identity or expression do not match. Since gender identity is

internal, one’s gender identity is not necessarily visible to others.

• Gender expression: How a person represents or expresses their gender identity to

others, often through behavior, clothing, hairstyles, voice or body characteristics.

Regardless of what type

of services a shelter is

providing, each shelter

needs a policy on how to

serve transgender youth,

even if only a small

minority of clients self-

identify as transgender.

551 Many of these definitions are based on or borrowed entirely from Mottet, L. & Ohle, J. M. (2003).

Urban Peak

134

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

• Two-spirit: An individual who has a hold on two spirit worlds. This term is an English

translation of a concept present in some Native American cultures that an individual

can express or exist in both masculine and feminine realms.

• Transition: The period during which a person begins to live as their new gender.

Transitioning may include changing one’s name, taking hormones, having surgery,

or changing legal documents (e.g. driver’s license, Social Security number, birth

certificate) to reflect their new gender. Too often, access to hormones is not covered

by insurance, and coverage for gender reassignment surgery is even more rare.

• Intersex: People with intersex conditions are born with sex chromosomes, external

genitalia, or an internal reproductive system that are not considered “standard” for

either males or females. Doctors perform surgery on one or two babies per 1,000

births in a misguided effort to “correct” ambiguous genitalia. Although being intersex

and being transgender are distinct, some intersex people identify as transgender if

they were assigned one sex at birth but transition to the other later in life.

• Cross-dresser: Someone who dresses in clothing and affects mannerisms generally

attributed to the opposite sex. However, cross-dressers do not necessarily identify

differently than the gender they were assigned at birth.

•

Transphobia: The fear or hatred of transgender, transsexual, or gender-noncon-

forming people.

Guidelines For Providing Shelter Services to Transgender People

The following guidelines were developed to assist shelters in Denver to serve transgender clients

in a respectful and nondiscriminatory manner:

• Written policies and procedures that guide shelter staff will increase the likelihood that clients

will be admitted appropriately each time a transgender person presents for shelter.

• Regular training for staff should be provided to maintain a safe environment for transgender

residents.

• Transgender individuals should be accepted into established shelter services.

• Residents who identify as male or as female should be placed in the appropriate shelter space

without further questioning about gender identity.

• Residents who identify themselves as transgender should be admitted to their preferred shel

ter space.

• Unisex bathrooms and private shower space can be helpful for transgender residents but are

not required. Transgender residents should not be forced to use private bathroom and shower

spaces.

• It is not acceptable to provide gender-appropriate services only to those transgender people

who are post-operative and/or on hormones. This practice is economic discrimination because

most people who are homeless cannot access hormones and surgery.

• Legal gender changes and identification cards cannot be relied upon for determining appro

priate shelter space because in Colorado and many other states, it is not possible to obtain a

legal gender change unless one is post-operative.

135

BASIC GUIDELINES FOR CREATING A

TRANSGENDER YOUTH-FRIENDLY SHELTER

There are various actions that need to be undertaken to change the environment at a

shelter to become transgender supportive. This can be conceptualized in two parts: devel

oping a transgender supportive staff and developing proper procedures and policies.

DEVELOPING A SUPPORTIVE STAFF

To develop supportive staffs, an agency must focus on both hiring and training.

Ideally, the makeup of agency personnel reflects the population served in an organization.

If an agency serves a wide array of youth, the agency should employ individuals that

reflect the ethnicity, race, and sexual orientation and gender identity of the population

served. Potential employees who express prejudice or discrimination should not be hired.

Potential employees should when they walk in the door understand the basic array of

concerns transgender youth have, and they should be open to learning more.

Some agencies have found it helpful to have a point person to work with youth who

identify as LGBT and/or to serve as a resource for other staff members who are less

familiar with LGBT youth. Recruiting employees with specific experience working with

LGBT populations is essential. Agencies need to hire LGBT advocates who are familiar

with resources in the community and with the struggles this population experiences in

the world beyond the shelter’s walls.

Agencies need to provide all staff members with ongoing trainings about established

and emerging best practices related to working with youth identifying as LGBT. These

opportunities provide outlets for employees to be provided with practical guidance as to

how best to work with this population. Just as crucially, training provides an outlet for

employees to engage in discussions about a topic that they might readily admit to being

uncomfortable with and to provide a safe place for employees to ask questions without

being judged. If the atmosphere is such that acknowledging uncertainty or discomfort

about certain topics among the staff is not encouraged, then the likelihood of incomplete

services and support being rendered to transgender youth increases.

DEVELOPING SUPPORTIVE POLICIES

The second aspect of creating a supportive shelter entails modifying existing policies and

adding new policies relating to transgender clients. These policies must be written down

and made accessible to all staff when a question arises, as they inevitably will even among

very well-trained staff members.

As part of the commitment to fostering a safe and welcoming environment, each agency

must be committed to supporting staff members in navigating challenging situations.

Employees should feel encouraged to dialogue with their supervisor, the LGBT specialist

or any other member of the management team if they are needing support or feedback

with respect to the transgender youth policy.

Urban Peak

136

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

POLICY OF RESPECT

Each agency must have a policy of inclusion and respect for the diver-

sity of all people, including transgender people. The agency should

celebrate the diversity of the youth they serve and be committed to

fostering a safe and welcoming environment for every young person

that walks through the doors. These ideals need to apply to both

staff and youth at the agency.

The only policy that works is to respect the gender of each person as

they self-identify and to let all residents know that they are expected

to treat everyone in accordance with this policy. For example, if

someone says she is a girl, she is a girl. A person’s gender does

not depend on whether or not he or she has had surgery or other

medical treatments.

INTAKE PROCESS

It is important to make sure that the first conversation a young person has with a staff

member is welcoming, informative, and not judgmental. Based on the questions an agency

asks upon intake, young people identifying as transgender may make assumptions about

how they will be treated. If an agency acknowledges youth identifying as transgender, they

will feel more comfortable discussing their gender identity. Acknowledging that an agency

is open to working with transgender youth is simple. Identifying the agency as a safe zone

is crucial. Ensure that your agency stays abreast of the changing terminology and engages

not just adults or “experts” but also youth in this process. Young people are the ones

defining their own gender and norms and it is likely that they have knowledge to impart

and will feel respected as contributors to the shelter’s programming and policies. Make

sure intake forms are appropriately updated. Do not assume that a youth who does not

say that he or she is transgender is actually not.

Part of the intake process is educating all incoming youth about what

they can expect at the shelter and what is expected of them. Youth

should be told that the program they are accessing is a safe place and

there is zero tolerance for inappropriate behaviors, racial comments,

or negative comments targeted at certain groups. This provides an

opportunity for youth to ask questions and be provided with answers

or explanations. They may be learning new information during this

process, giving them the ability to grow and experience new situa

tions that they will later see in the world beyond the shelter. Building

a level of understanding among all youth about how to respect

transgender people at the shelter creates a cohort of transgender

allies outside the shelter.

All incoming residents should be educated about these policies:

• The agency respects transgender residents.

• Private information, such as medical information and information about whether or

not a person is transgender, is kept confidential unless the resident wishes to share

this information of his or her own accord.

• Harassment of other residents is not tolerated and can lead to termination of services.

The only policy that

works is to respect

the gender of each

person as they self-

identify and to let all

residents know that they

are expected to treat

everyone in accordance

with this policy.

Building a level of

understanding about

how to respect

transgender people at

the shelter amongst all

youth creates a cohort

of transgender allies

outside the shelter.

137

• The agency has a grievance policy, should an issue arise involving being treated

disrespectfully. This policy should be explained to all clients.

If a resident reveals to staff that he or she is transgender, the intake conversation should

include the following additional topics:

• Sleeping arrangements, including the availability of beds close to direct care staff if

the resident prefers to be in eyeshot/earshot of staff;

• Shower and bathroom placement, including whether and how there is privacy for

changing and showering;

• Name and pronouns to be used at the agency; it may be necessary to use a legal name

on some forms, but this does not negate the option of a client’s chosen name being

used by staff and residents.

This information and plan should be communicated to all relevant staff and included in

the communications log, voicemail, and e-mail as appropriate.

HOUSING AND SEX-SEGREGATED FACILITIES

People who identify as men should sleep in the men’s dorm and use the men’s showers and

bathrooms, provided that feels safe to them. People who identify as women should sleep in

the women’s dorm and use the women’s showers and bathrooms, provided that feels safe

to them. People who do not identify as male or female, or are fearful

of their emotional or physical safety, should sleep in the dorm of

their choosing and use the bathroom in which they feel safest. Other

arrangements may also be made to increase the feeling of safety, such

as offering the ability to choose a transgender-friendly roommate.

Transgender clients and others with increased safety needs should

be offered bed space closest to the direct care staff so that if there is

a problem, they may contact staff quickly for help. This also allows

the staff to more closely monitor the client to ensure their safety.

In addition, the option of sleeping in a private room should be

explored with a transgender client if there are special circumstances

such as safety concerns or if the client is in transition. Private rooms

should not be used to isolate transgender clients.

If the placement raises concerns among other residents, staff should patiently explain

to those residents that the person is not a threat to them and that his or her gender

identify should be respected. Staff members should be encouraged to seek out support

from other staff members to facilitate this dialogue and underscore agency policies and

procedures regarding respect for others. Residents concerned about privacy should be

reminded that all showers are single occupancy and that the bathrooms in the facility

allow for bodily privacy.

HARASSMENT

Youth can be especially cruel to peers they deem different in some “bad” way. This is often

a defense mechanism related to personal issues and insecurities. However, translating

internal fears into attacks on others serves only as a cruel deflection of attention to

another young person who is likely no more equipped to respond positively.

If the placement raises

concerns among other

residents, staff should

patiently explain to

those residents that the

person is not a threat

to them and that his

or her gender identify

should be respected.

Urban Peak

138

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

It must be absolutely clear that harassment of any kind is prohibited and can lead to

termination of services for any client who creates an unsafe and/or unwelcoming environ

ment at the agency. If clients are harassing a transgender client, staff must approach the

harassing clients, follow the service restriction policy, and ensure that the threats stop

immediately.

CONCLUSION

Urban Peak is committed to serving all youth, including youth identifying as transgender.

Youth identifying as transgender can be served effectively in a shelter environment if the

appropriate staffing and education are in place. It is essential that a shelter environment

is identified as a safe place for all individuals who access services. Youth identifying as

transgender continue to look for accepting places and look for assistance from those

individuals and agencies that support them for who they are. Regardless of the size of the

population identifying as transgender, Urban Peak will continue to reach out to those in

need and anticipates that other agencies will do likewise.

139

Waltham House:

Training models to

improve interactions with

LGBT out-of-home youth

By Colby Berger, Ed.M.

The Home for Little Wanderers (the Home) is a nationally renowned, private, nonprofit

child and family service agency providing services to thousands of children, youth and

families each year through 20 programs. Our mission is to ensure the healthy emotional,

mental and social development of at-risk children and their families and communities.

We do this through an integrated system of prevention, advocacy, research, and direct

care services.

With over 700 employees and 20 programs, the Home’s services include:

• Prevention and early intervention;

• Adoption and foster care;

• Clinical and family support;

• Residential care;

• Special education; and

• Case management.

The Home continues its tradition of providing critical prevention and intervention

services. First we create or support safe and nurturing environments so that children and

families can use the wide variety of specialized services we provide to meet their needs.

Second, we offer a commitment to the hard work, risk-taking and innovation necessary to

not only address problems but also help the community learn how to prevent them.

In the Home’s more than 200-year history, it has weathered significant changes in our

nation and has adapted its services and practice to address the impact of those changes

on the lives of children and families. This ability to act quickly upon the findings of the

latest scientific research in the field of child welfare has been central to the Home’s past

successes and remains the cornerstone of its forward-looking plans. The Home’s current

strategic plan (2006–2010) is structured around the need to narrow the gap between what

we know and what we do, again underscoring the importance of incorporating solid

research into its programs and services.

The key operating principles for our strategic plan are:

• Operating a best-in-class practice model that reflects the most current scientific

knowledge

140

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

• Identifying unmet or underserved client needs and creating sustainable and innova-

tive programmatic responses

• Maintaining a diverse workforce that reflects the multicultural backgrounds of its

clients while providing an inclusive and caring environment in which all associates

can achieve their full potential

• Performing constant vigilant oversight to ensure effective and efficient allocation of

resources to client services, infrastructure support and future development

• Being a significant driving force for change in the child welfare world through its

comprehensive public policy and advocacy agenda

In all of these key drivers of the strategic plan, the Home will continually measure results

against appropriate indices, assess progress and implement findings in order to answer the

questions “Are we helping?” and “How do we know?”

Our mission recognizes that in order to experience healthy growth, children depend upon

a nurturing environment specifically from their families and the communities in which

they live. We pursue this mission through an integrated system of prevention, advocacy,

research, and a continuum of direct services.

The Home’s has a longstanding history of serving LGBT populations. For over a decade

the agency has provided adoption services to same-sex couple families and LGBT indi

viduals. The Child and Family Counseling Center is staffed by clinicians who are trained

to provide LGBT-friendly therapeutic services. The Home also has run peer programs

in which LGBT youth are hired to conduct outreach to their peers about issues ranging

from tobacco cessation to teen pregnancy prevention and HIV/AIDS education. The

most recent and momentous LGBT programming was the opening of Waltham House, a

group home for LGBT youth.

Waltham House is the first residential group home designed specifically for LGBT youth

in New England and was only the third program of its kind in the nation when it opened

its doors in October 2002. It was founded on the principles of responsibility, respect and

pride, with the belief that all young people deserve to live in an environment in which

they feel safe, respected, supported and cared for. The program offers 24-hour staffing and

is housed in a large, comfortable, federal-style home with an expansive tree-lined back yard

in the suburban neighborhood of Waltham, Massachusetts.

552

This relatively new facility is designed to provide a safe and nurturing living environment

for up to 12 LGBT youth ages 14 through 18. The program also serves youth who may

be questioning their sexual orientation and/or gender identity/expression. Many young

people who have previously experienced difficulty due to their sexual orientation or

gender identity/expression have found Waltham House to be a welcoming environment

in which to prepare for a successful transition to adulthood and cementing permanent

family and lifelong connections. Waltham House is staffed by 12 to 18 direct care workers

(a four-to-one ratio of clients to staff members), a clinical coordinator, clinical and non-

clinical interns, a part-time nurse, a milieu director and a program director. The program

also benefits from the compassion and generosity of many volunteers who provide one-on-

one mentoring, academic tutoring, life skills development, financial planning assistance,

bike trips, cooking, landscaping, movie nights and much more.

552 To learn more about Waltham House, please contact us at (781) 647-9976 or visit us on the web at www.thehome.org

141

Demographic information was collected from residents of Waltham House between

October 2002 and October 2005 (n=27). Not all residents were included, but these data

appear to be a representative sample. Discharged youth not included in the sample were

likely to be emergency discharges or at the program during times of turnover in the

clinical staff. The mean length of stay for the 27 Waltham House residents surveyed was

332 days (10 to 11 months) and the median was 324 days.

Forty-eight percent of the youth were white, 22 percent African-American, 7 percent

biracial, 4 percent Asian-American and 19 percent “other.”

553

All youth were aged 18

or under, with one-third of clients 17 years old and four-tenths 18 years old. We had a

significant majority of male clients (59 percent). Fifteen percent of clients identified as

male-to-female (MTF) transgender and 7 percent identified as female-to-male transgender

(FTM). The remaining 19 percent identified as female. Nineteen percent of these youth

identified as heterosexual, while 51 percent were gay men, 11 percent lesbian, and 19

percent identified as bisexual.

WORKING WITH THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

The Home, collaborating with the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS)

and using generous funding from the TIDES Foundation,

554

has set a national training

precedent. According to the Child Welfare League of America, this partnership providing

statewide training on serving LGBT youth is the first of its kind in the nation.

555

to two thousand DSS employees from across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have

participated in this training.

In the course of this chapter we lay out how we came to secure this grant. By discussing

in some detail the process of implementing the program, we hope to provide guidance

to other well-equipped agencies who might seek to conduct similar critical work in their

home states. The Massachusetts DSS is, for many youth, the primary agency with which

they and their families interact. Therefore, the importance of their staff being culturally

competent and able to treat all of their clients equally and fairly cannot be overstated.

In June 2003, the Home received a grant from the Tides Foundation to provide LGBT

awareness training for state child welfare workers. By August of 2004, we had completed

42 trainings with great success. Training was given to intake workers, social workers, family

resource coordinators, management, legal staff and volunteer liaisons within the DSS.

The training curriculum included providing participants with appropriate terminology

and definitions, youth statistics, case studies, perspectives from LGBT youth who are

currently in the child welfare system, video clips, concrete resources and an action plan

ning tool. Staff members from DSS were engaged participants, both willing to learn and

eager to share their knowledge and experience. Many DSS staff shared examples from

their caseload regarding their work with LGBT youth and families.

553 There was no category for Hispanic in the demographic data collection.

554 The Tides Foundation partners with donors to increase and organize resources for positive social change. The foundation facilitates

effective grant-making programs, creates opportunities for learning and builds community among donors and grantees. Their method

is to strengthen community-based nonprofit organizations and the progressive movement by providing an innovative and cost-effec-

tive framework for philanthropy. For more information about the Tides Foundation, visit www.tidesfoundation.org.

555 Confirmed in a personal conversation between Colby Berger and Rob Woronoff of the Child Welfare League of America.

Waltham House

142

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

The Home’s former director of training summed up the project:

Overall the training initiative was very well received. I believe that the training

raised awareness, provided resources, caused staff to pause and reconsider their daily

practices with youth, and the training increased their knowledge and skills in serving

LGBT clients.

Included in this section are a history and overview of the training initiative, a description

of the training’s implementation plan, a summary of the training curriculum and a

reporting of the outcomes that resulted from the Home’s LGBT training initiative.

HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF THE INITIATIVE

As A.D. Martin (1982) writes:

Although oftentimes their existence has been denied, the fact is that there have always

been gay [and] lesbian young people in U.S. and Canadian out-of-home settings. It

has often been difficult to discern their existence for two reasons: (1) many of them

did not fit the gender nonconforming stereotypes that most practitioners thought

signaled a gay or lesbian identity, and (2) gay and lesbian youth

are socialized to ‘hide’ their orientation.

556

Gerald Mallon (1997) elaborates:

Recognition of these marginalized young people is further

impaired by the individual moral attitudes many child welfare

professionals have that express contempt for homosexual orien

tation and by an almost complete lack of knowledge most

professionals have about normal gay and lesbian adolescent

development.

557

Clearly, there are many underlying causes that impact the lives and

systems of care for LGBT youth: lack of professional development

opportunities related to LGBT youth, lack of academic training, and lack of organiza

tional attention dedicated to this population. As Mallon points out, LGBT youth remain

invisible in out-of-home care primarily because adults who are charged with making

significant decisions on their behalf have not been adequately trained. The Home’s

training initiative sought to bolster our child welfare community’s understanding of the

issues faced by LGBT youth involved with the DSS so that professionals would be better

equipped to attend to their out-of-home care needs. This is a nationwide problem, and

we hope that similar efforts to ours will be made nationwide. This possibility is already

being explored in Detroit, where the Ruth Ellis Center, another contributing agency to

this report, has done some work with their state child welfare agency.

The experience of feeling unequal, oppressed and discriminated against, both in society

at large and in various forms of care, is commonplace for LGBT youth. Martin notes that

LGBT youth remain

invisible in out-of-home

care primarily because

adults who are charged

with making significant

decisions on their

behalf have not been

adequately trained.

556 Martin, A. D. (1982). Learning to hide: The socialization of the gay adolescent. Adolescent Psychology, 10.

557 Mallon, G. P. (1997). Toward a competent child welfare service delivery system for gay and lesbian adolescents and their families.

Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 5(3/4).

143

as a part of social development, every child learns about the different social identities he

or she may be a part of and which identity groups our culture casts out. For LGBT young

people, a significant part of adolescence is about coming to terms with membership in a

group that is not only seen as “less than” but may be deemed as despised:

[Sexual minority youth] are forced to deal with the possibility that part of their actual

social identity contradicts most of the other social identities to which they have

believed they are entitled. As this realization becomes more pressing, they are faced

with three possible choices: they can hide, they can attempt to change the stigma, or

they can accept it.

558

The purpose of the awareness training we conducted was to openly address the ways in

which LGBT people are stigmatized, while teaching professionals who work with youth

living in out-of-home settings the enormous impact that stigmatization can have on young

people. In addition, we dealt with the homophobia and transphobia young people face

and a myriad of other challenges in their families, schools and treatment facilities.

The only way to eliminate the resulting pain and damage is to change the basis

for the stigmatization process, the prejudice of homophobia. Stigmatization of the

gay adolescent has evolved from centuries of misinformation and fear. Education

through direct teaching and the example of role models will be the best way to attack

discrimination at its root.

559

Data from the Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey (MYRBS), a biannual statewide

survey administered to students in grades 9–12 by the Massachusetts Department of

Education, demonstrate that students who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB) or

who are perceived to be LGB face increased risks.

560

The data from

1999 (when we submitted a grant proposal to the Tides Foundation)

revealed that LGB students are more than twice as likely as non-LGB

youth to be involved in a fight at school, more than three times as

likely to be threatened with a weapon at school, and more than

three times as likely to skip school because they feel unsafe. As a

result, LGB youth are much more likely than their non-LGB peers

to feel afraid, sad, hopeless and depressed and to attempt suicide.

According to the 1999 MYRBS data, LGB youth feel sad or hopeless

nearly twice as often as non-LGB youth, make a plan for suicide

more than twice as often, and attempt suicide more than four times as often. As former

Director of Training Carol Grady has noted, “The MYRBS data reinforce the critical need

for training to agencies and professionals who are dedicated to serving all youth.”

561

There is a problematic lack of training opportunities on LGBT issues made available to

professionals in the fields of psychology, sociology, criminal justice and education. As a

result, it is common that workers have never been exposed to the issues faced by LGBT

youth, let alone have an awareness of best practices about how to address them. One

lesbian youth in our care summed up her experience bluntly;

558 Martin, A. D. (1982).

559 Martin, A. D. (1982).

560 The MYRSB does not currently ask respondents whether they identify as transgender or questioning. Therefore, accurate reference in

this instance can only be made to LGB respondents.

561 The Home for Little Wanderers. (2006). Fall 2004 eNewsletter: Other headlines. Author. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from http://

www.thehome.org/site/content/newsletter/2004_fall/other_headlines.asp

LGB youth are much

more likely than their

non-LGB peers to feel

afraid, sad, hopeless

and depressed and

to attempt suicide.

Waltham House

144

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

[My therapist] never once talked about LGBT people or issues. This made me think

that it was outside the realm of possibility to him. I decided not to come out to him

and never made any progress with him because I never felt safe enough to be honest

about what was really going on.

562

Even the most well-intentioned professionals in human service fields admit that they do

not know what language to use or what to say when a young person comes out to them

and are therefore at a loss when it comes to providing services or finding appropriate

placements for LGBT youth. The Home has always been committed

to being a leader in children’s services and recognized the need to

address this gap in professional development.

Having a good knowledge of the risk factors that LGBT youth face,

in addition to the factors that compound risk and lack of safety for

LGBT youth in out-of-home care, we expected that upon opening

Waltham House, the program would be flooded with referrals. What

happened in the fall of 2002 was quite the opposite. The program

opened with the arrival of four teens, and the remaining eight beds

went unoccupied for several months. Three of these four youth were

referred by a single social worker. This lack of referrals baffled the

program and agency staff, especially when we considered stories we

heard from former clients who had moved on to other programs and

subsequently come out.

These former clients recounted stories of being kicked out by other

agencies or care providers when they revealed their sexual orienta

tion or gender identity. Worse still, too many of them said that the risks inherent in living

in any space that was not protecting them as an LGBT person meant that they were better

off having unsafe sex and contracting HIV because they would then be eligible for specific

housing funds reserved for that community. This is a frightening thought, but also clearly

a painful reality for some of our youth.

After numerous attempts at outreach to the program’s referral sources (primarily DSS),

we started asking social workers about their impression of the situation and learned that

professionals in the field did not have the language to initiate discussions with their

clients about sexual orientation and gender identity, and therefore were not sure what

an appropriate referral to Waltham House would entail. Furthermore, they had not had

much, if any, training about LGBT identity and did not know how to identify clients

on their caseloads who might be struggling with issues of sexual orientation or gender

identity.

In response to Youth in the Margins

563

a publication about LGBT youth within child

welfare systems across the United States, DSS convened a working group of providers

serving LGBT youth in Massachusetts.

564

This working group made numerous recom-

mendations for supportive initiatives that sought to ensure the safety and quality of care

not only for LGBT youth within the DSS system of care but also for employees and foster

Some homeless youth

said that the risks

inherent in living in

a space that was not

protecting them as an

LGBT person meant

that they were better

off contracting HIV

because they would then

be eligible for specific

housing funds reserved

for that community.

562 This comment was made by a former resident of Waltham House.

563 Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. (2001). Youth in the margins. New York: Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

564 Youth in the Margins does not make any reference to questioning youth, so we refer only to LGBT youth in this instance.

145

parents. In addition, the group urged the department to develop best practices models to

address the needs of its LGBT staff and clients and to ensure that staff at all levels were

trained on LGBT issues and services for LGBT youth.

During this same period, several DSS area offices held LGBT trainings for staff. In one

office, the training that was conducted by the Home’s director of LGBT services was so

successful that the DSS area director requested additional training for DSS assessment/

intake staff. A yearlong training initiative followed, with one session per month. Other

DSS offices took advantage of trainings funded by the Department of Public Health. All

of these trainings were intended as pilot programs for later replication within the larger

DSS system.

When the Home approached the DSS to find out whether they would be interested in

training their entire statewide staff about LGBT youth issues, they were enthusiastic but

noted that they did not have the funding to implement such an initiative. The Home’s

director of LGBT services proposed that the Home seek external funding to cover all costs

associated with providing the training to DSS. The Department agreed to the proposal

and wrote a letter of support to accompany the application that the Home subsequently

submitted to the Tides Foundation.

We provide this history because we are sure that regardless of overall LGBT friendliness

on the part of a particular state welfare agency, there are always connections to be made

and there is always networking to be done between LGBT-supportive staff and state offi

cials. It may take time, but development of networks will help groups to identify receptive

bureaucrats who would potentially have the power to impact decision making if they can

be brought on board with the idea of a training program such as ours. Furthermore, in

a day and age when government funding for even the most essential social services faces

drastic cuts in most states, securing support from potential financial backers preempts an

easy “out” that some reluctant public officials might deem an acceptable excuse for not

addressing this issue—namely, a lack of funds.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM

Once funding was approved, a series of meetings took place

between DSS and staff here at the Home to plan the details of the

training initiative. The process of establishing expectations for the

trainers and trainees, assigning responsibilities, determining the

logistics of the timetable, and communicating with various levels

of leadership in both agencies was not easy. The amount of energy

and preparation that went into the pre-training process of this

initiative cannot be overstated. It was an enormous undertaking

to organize the 42 training sessions across the Commonwealth,

connect with the multiple individuals at DSS who were responsible

for various aspects of setting up training logistics, hire the trainers

and curriculum developers to devise and conduct the sessions, create the training

materials for each of three different curricula, develop the training assessment tools to

be utilized and ensure the quality of each training session.

The amount of energy

and preparation that

went into the pre-

training process of this

initiative cannot be

overstated. It was an

enormous undertaking.

Waltham House

146

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

In all, 10 people from the Home and allied agencies were hired as trainers for the initia-

tive. A subset of this group of trainers collaborated to develop the specific curricula for

each of three different offerings: a four-hour training for statewide managers, a standard

two-and-a-half-hour training for all staff from DSS offices, and a follow-up three-hour

volunteer liaison training. This structure was intended not just to ensure top-to-bottom

familiarity with the issues, which is obviously crucial, but also to ensure that each DSS

office had a supportive staff person as the “go-to ‘expert’” on this issue going forward.

With an LGBT ally in each office, it should prove harder for reluctant staff to argue that

they do not have access to the necessary information or skills to adequately serve their

LGBT clients.

We devised a strategy that aimed to build support for the training initiative at all levels

of DSS. Decision makers agreed that in order to convey the importance of the initiative

and the Department’s commitment to the training, there would need to be initial

outreach to the DSS leadership. Therefore, the first session was prepared for delivery

to the upper level managers. It was the hope of the implementation team that a unique

session for statewide managers would allow the leadership of DSS to get an overview of

the initiative, understand the pressing need for such training, and experience the training

curriculum firsthand before they were asked to commit their teams to attending. The

statewide managers’ session was a four-hour training. In addition to much of the standard

curriculum and exercises, this session also included two LGBT youth speakers who told

their gut-wrenching stories of growing up in state custody. That session set the tone for

the remainder of the initiative and achieved the goal of garnering support for the project

from the DSS leadership.

The standard two-and-a-half-hour curriculum focused on educating the human service

professionals who interact most often with LGBT youth in out-of-home care and whose

capacity to understand and work with these youth provided the most opportunity to

improve the youth’s experience in the system. The four goals of the standard training

were to:

1. Create an environment in which the needs of out-of-home LGBT youth are recog

nized, valued and engaged by practitioners in a respectful and competent manner.

2. Increase the practitioners’ understanding and skills related to reducing the level of

hopelessness, depression, isolation and self-injurious behaviors among LGBT youth.

3. Assist professionals in recognizing and developing skills that promote resiliency

among LGBT youth.

4. Increase the knowledge and skill of professionals in making placement decisions and

clinical assessments for LGBT youth in care.

Activities conducted during the trainings were purposely designed to be hands on,

interactive and skills-based. Lecturing alone is far less effective a teaching tool and makes

disengagement too easy for attendees. These activities involved lectures, videos, group

activities, small group discussions, case studies and action planning. The strategy was to

engage each participant on five levels:

1. Individual self-reflective process

2. Individual assessment of skills and competencies

3. Identification of barriers and needed resources

147

4. Organizational and agency assessment

5. Action planning to better meet the needs of LGBT youth in care

In addition to the statewide managers’ training and the standard DSS staff training, the

Home’s training included special outreach to and skills building for a newly formed group

of LGBT volunteer liaisons. These DSS staff members each volunteered to be the LGBT

resources representative for their area office or region. The liaisons serve as collegial

resources within DSS and as “go-to people” regarding issues, needs and concerns related

to serving LGBT youth and their families

. The liaisons also met together for support

and guidance and for discussions on clinical practice and agency policy. The liaisons

participated in the standard training, and after all standard trainings were complete they

were invited back to take part in an additional three-hour training where they met their

allied peers in other offices and were offered more resources and training pertaining to

working with colleagues within their own offices.

The volunteer liaison group was felt to be an important aspect of the initiative, as

practitioners working on behalf of LGBT youth and families often report that such work

can feel isolating and that there are few opportunities to find peers who can provide

support. This was a group, some of whom identified as LGBT, who were likely to be asked

additional questions about LGBT issues by their peers, who might be able to influence

placement decisions for youth and who could have an impact on the ongoing work at

DSS from the inside. We wanted to ensure that these individuals were equipped with

additional resources and opportunities to practice skills around having difficult conversa

tions with colleagues and families that other staff who had just a basic understanding of

LGBT issues might not have.

Additionally, it was imperative that volunteer liaisons be connected with the leadership

within DSS so that they were aware of the support they could rely on at the upper levels

of the DSS when questions of policy or challenging cases arose. The commissioner of the

Department of Social Services took the initiative to attend a volunteer liaison training, which

sent a powerful message about his commitment to supporting the work of this group.

THE TRAINING CURRICULUM

What follows is an overview of the standard two-and-one-half hour training that was

offered to all DSS employees (caseworkers, family stabilization units, lawyers, supervisors,

administrators, policy-makers, etc.).

565

Note that prior to the standard training, a longer

four-hour training was offered to statewide managers in order to ensure that the upper

level management of the DSS shared a basic level of knowledge about both LGBT youth

issues and the vision for the training initiative over the coming year. To reinforce the

importance of this work as well as the impact each manager could have, we had LGBT

youth in the system attend these trainings to speak directly with the major decision

makers in DSS. We also discussed how each one of them could play a critical role in

ensuring that as many staff as possible benefited from the training, ideally by making

attendance mandatory.

565 For further information regarding curriculum development and implementation within other organizations or to learn more

about the Home for Little Wanderers’ LGBT training and consultation services, please contact Colby Berger, Ed.M. via e-mail at

[email protected] or by calling (617)-469-8581.

Waltham House

148

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

An additional training was offered to a select group of volunteer liaisons after all of the

standard trainings were completed. Each DSS area office director was asked to choose one

or two volunteer liaisons who would receive an additional three hours of training beyond

the standard two-and-a-half hour session and who would then be utilized as an officewide

resource to colleagues and clients. This session included information on how to work

effectively with colleagues who ask for help or support or with youth who might not be

receiving the help they needed from their assigned case worker.

Standard 2.5-hour training agenda

Pre-training evaluations: Staff members were asked to self-assess their prior knowledge

of issues facing LGBT youth. It was important to collect these preliminary data in order

to draw comparisons to the post-training assessments (with the same questions) that

participants completed at the conclusion of each training, allowing trainers to determine

the effectiveness of the program.

Introductions and overview of training initiative: Trainers (two per training) introduced

themselves to the group and briefly described the history of the initiative and the purpose

of the grant and curriculum.

Opening interactive exercise: Trainers asked participants to indicate their knowledge or

experience with various elements of LGBT culture and identity.

Terms and definitions: A basic understanding of terms, definitions, distinctions, the

power of language, and the importance of using correct and inclusive language was the

focus of this section of the training. Participants were given a list of terms, and trainers

highlighted the terms most commonly heard/used by clients and families. This section

additionally addressed some of the complex lines between stigmatization and stereotypes,

low sense of self-worth, isolation and high-risk behaviors.

Quotes from youth: Statements made by LGBT youth in out-of-home care were shared.

Participants heard the first person voices of LGBT youth as they described their experi

ences in schools, residential placements and foster care.

Exercise on identity and expression: Trainers asked participants to examine various

aspects of identity and reflect upon how people express elements of identity and what the

effects of identity suppression are. Trainers made the link to LGBT youth and showed

that messages about suppressing elements of identity or identity expression can lead to

risk-taking behavior among LGBT youth.

Research and data: Trainers reviewed statistics about LGBT youth and data that connects

stigmatization to risk taking. Emphasis was placed on participants’ understanding that

LGBT youth suffer higher rates of depression, suicidal ideation and other forms of high-

risk and self-injurious behaviors not because they are LGBT, but as a direct result of the

high levels of rejection and stigmatization they experience on a daily basis from family

members, peers and community members. Conversely, trainers pointed out the impact

of LGBT safe spaces for youth and that when levels of anti-LGBT harassment are lower,

suicide attempts are also lower.

Viewing of video segment and debrief: A short film clip depicting a gay teen’s struggle

with his family’s homophobia was shown. In a discussion after the film, participants were

asked to answer questions in small groups about the impact of the family’s homophobia

and how DSS involvement might have impacted the situation.

149

Case studies: Participants were divided into small groups and were asked to read and

respond to a short case study. A debrief with the entire group followed, and DSS workers

were given opportunities to raise issues related to cases on which they were working.

Action planning: Trainers guided participants in identifying attainable goals related to

increasing safety and support for LGBT youth and families.

Resources and wrap up: A list of available resources was provided to all participants,

including: social/support groups, school-based gay-straight alliances (GSAs), LGBT-

competent mental health support services, help lines, written materials, phone numbers

and Web sites. Participants also shared knowledge of additional local resources and allies

in partner agencies.

Post-training evaluations: Participants responded in writing to the same questions that

they were asked on the pre-training knowledge assessment in order for the Home to gather

data about the impact of the training.

It should be clear at this point that while the time involved in coordinating this wide scale

training was significant, the materials used and the structure adopted could readily be

adapted to any geographic location where suitably motivated staff and volunteers reside.

The results we now turn to should also serve as a motivator for those of you considering

embarking on a similar mission.

After the training at her office, Joy Cochran, DSS Family Resource Specialist in the

Central Office Foster Care and Adoption Unit, noted that she

…heard from staff who wanted to discuss placement options for LGBT youth and

to obtain resources for youth and their families. While this occurred prior to the

training, the rise in staff awareness and the resulting skills to speak with our youth

will lead to greater safety and improved service provision to LGBT youth and their

families. The agency wide training on LGBT opened the doors even further to a

better understanding of the issues confronting our LGBT youth at home, in the

community and at school.

566

TRAINING SESSION OUTCOMES AND HIGHLIGHTS

“These training opportunities are rare, critical to human services, and critical for LGBT youth.”

—DSS Social Worker

“I always thought that I’d be able to pretty much tell which of the clients I work with are LGBT,

but after learning about the lengths that people go to in order to protect themselves from harass

ment and pretend that they’re straight, I’m re-thinking the ways that I interact with my clients. I

need to stop assuming that all youth are automatically heterosexual.”

—DSS Case Manager

“All I have to say is, it’s about time! As a queer social worker, I’m often approached by my peers

as the only one who can deal with gay kids. Today’s training made it all of our responsibilities as

566 Personal communication between author and Joy Cochran.

Waltham House

150

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

professionals to have the skills and resources to work effectively with an underserved population

that has been silenced for too long.”

—DSS Volunteer Liaison

As the above comments make clear, our efforts were not only warmly received but also

provided very practical knowledge for attendees to take away and apply immediately to

their day-to-day work. This training initiative met the primary goal of the Home for Little

Wanderers and DSS: to expand capacity to address a broad range of cultural issues and

concerns among the youth in the system. Recognizing that issues of sexuality and gender

identity/expression do not arise in isolation of other issues (such as race, class, ethnicity,

and immigration status) and enhancing child welfare professionals in their ability to best

meet the needs of LGBT youth is but one facet of a larger strategic initiative. We are

proud of our partnership with DSS and the continued effort to best serve the youth and

families of Massachusetts.

The following statistics provide a glimpse into the scale of change we tried to effect

through the development and implementation of this novel training arrangement:

• 60 statewide managers attended a four-hour training session.

• 1685 DSS staff completed a 2.5-hour training session.

• 63 volunteer liaisons came back for a follow-up three-hour training session.

• A total of 1808 DSS staff were trained on LGBT youth issues.

To help us determine the efficacy of our program, we asked attendees to complete pre- and

post-training assessments. We found that:

• 91 percent of DSS participants found the training to be helpful or very helpful.

• DSS staff members feel they have more resources as a result of the training.

• Trainees demonstrated an increased ability to evaluate appropriate programs and

placements for LGBT youth.

• DSS staff members subsequently have a better understanding of issues facing

LGBT youth.

Trainers in the LGBT trainings were shocked not only at the limited knowledge, skills

and resources that workers admitted to having about LGBT youth, but moreover at some

of the current harmful practices DSS workers acknowledged as a result of their lack of

education. As evidenced by the post-training surveys that were collected after the first

round of trainings, adults who had been trained to work with LGBT youth reported

not only that they appreciate the opportunity to learn about a population which is often

invisible throughout their traditional job training, but also that they feel better prepared

and have more resources after undergoing a simple 2.5-hour training.

A number of comments made by training participants were instructive to us as trainers

both in shaping our thoughts about how effective we had been and in reaffirming that

the extraordinary effort of our entire team had indeed borne fruit. We hope they will also

encourage others to engage in similar efforts. According to one DSS caseworker,

I have been working with LGBT clients for years but had never had a chance to really

learn the “do’s and don’ts” of how I could be respectful and effective with them.

I wish I had gotten to do this training earlier in my career. Unfortunately I made

151

some mistakes with some of the kids on my caseload—I just didn’t know about what

language to use and how to talk to them about sexual orientation. I assumed that they

would know that I’d accept them, but I didn’t ever make that explicit. One adolescent

who I worked with told me that he thought I wouldn’t understand him because I had

never given him any indication that I was gay-friendly. All the while, I thought it was

obvious. Now I have tools I can use to open up conversations and be more visible in

my support for LGBT people.

A DSS supervisor who participated noted,

I had no idea that LGBT youth were up against so many challenges. I knew that there

were statistics about suicide risks and substance abuse that these kids face, but I didn’t

realize that it was so related to the homophobia they endure and the lack of trained

professionals in their lives. Knowing what I know now, I can give them a place to feel

safe and be an adult ally.

The need for this work is evident and the impact that such training can make on child

welfare, education and juvenile justice systems is enormous. The young people who reside

at Waltham House testify to the importance of giving adults tools to utilize in working

with LGBT youth. In training we teach the importance of breaking the silence and

helping adults to feel comfortable raising LGBT issues with youth. One young man who

identified as gay said,

I was terrified to tell anyone about the feelings that I had been having for another

guy. I felt like there was something very wrong with me because of everything I had

ever learned. [My clinician] though, just made it clear to me, over and over, that no

matter what I said about my feelings, it was okay. I ended up coming out to her and

spending three years coming to terms with who I am. This therapist saved my life by

letting me find self acceptance.

By educating professionals about LGBT issues, we help adults find the best ways to send

messages of compassion and acceptance to young people. Another resident at Waltham

House reported,

When my social worker asked me about my social life, he didn’t just assume that I

was straight. He asked me if there was “anyone special” in my life and if I was dating

girls, boys or both. It meant so much to me because I could openly and honestly talk

about my feelings and come to my own conclusion about my identity.

Challenging heterosexist assumptions and teaching skills about opening dialogue about

sexuality can make the difference between building superficial relationships with clients

and providing effective, sometimes lifesaving services.

CONCLUSION

One of the outcomes of the training initiative was an increase in the number and types

of referrals that Waltham House received. After suffering from a dearth of referrals due

to the lack of awareness of LGBT youth within the system, Waltham House saw a spike

in referrals as more and more DSS workers participated in LGBT training. Social workers

were better able to identify LGBT young people on their caseloads and better equipped to

Waltham House

152

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

have conversations with their clients about sexual orientation and gender identity/expres-

sion. As a result, more youth were given the option to consider Waltham House as a

placement option and Waltham House received referrals that were more appropriate to

the group home level of care the program offered.

The Home is now seeking to extend this training to professionals outside the DSS who

work with out-of-home youth. This includes caregivers at non-government social service

organizations, the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Youth Services, health

care providers at clinics frequented by out-of-home youth, and members of the juvenile

court system. Based on the success of the 2003–2004 Tides Foundation-funded training,

we are encouraged and inspired to continue this work. We have always known the need

existed, and now we have data to support the positive outcomes that training can have for

practitioners and, ultimately, LGBT youth. The Home has moved forward in committing

both philosophically and financially to continue work in support of LGBT youth.

In May of 2005, the Home created the full-time position of LGBT Training Manager in

order to respond to the need to provide professional development opportunities for social

and human service providers both locally and nationally. Our LGBT Training Manager

has a wide range of duties, but among them is the critical charge of offering training and

consultation on LGBT youth issues and to assist external agencies with enhancing the

services they provide to youth and families.

153

Conclusion

and policy

recommendations

LGBT youth experience homelessness at a grossly disproportionate rate. Our analysis of

the available research suggests that between 20 percent and 40 percent of all homeless

youth identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).

567

Because of a lack of

understanding of their particular needs and in many instances a lack of knowledge of

their very existence, homeless youth also experience negative social service outcomes. On

so many measures, we can look to the behavioral, health, emotional

and other risks facing straight homeless youth and see evidence that

those same risks are inflated for their LGBT counterparts. When

thousands of youth experiencing homelessness each year go without

access to basic drop-in center services or space in a transitional living

program, it is not simply because they are straight or LGBT that they

miss out. It is because for far too long these much needed services

have been grossly underfunded.

While our focus in this publication and in these policy recommenda

tions is to address LGBT-specific concerns, we believe that homeless

ness is not an issue that can be tackled piecemeal. Wholesale improvement is needed, and

that is what we propose. Some of our recommendations address flaws in federal funding,

programs or planning. Others address shortcomings at the state, individual agency or

professional training levels. Instead of presuming to know what specific problems exist

and how exactly they might best be addressed, we have approached this process as a

collaborative effort.

Developing these recommendations has been a collaborative effort. Our publishing part

ners at the National Coalition for the Homeless have been particularly helpful in putting

together this series of recommendations. We have also talked with and/or analyzed the

policy recommendations of the Child Welfare League of America, the National Network

for Youth, the National Youth Advocacy Coalition, the ACLU’s LGBT Rights Project,

the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute and the Sexual Minority Youth Assistance

League. The result is a series of recommendations that reflect the problems identified

by our review of the available research and which are in line with the views of nationally

recognized experts in public policy related to youth homelessness.

567 See pages 11 to 14 of the full report for a more detailed summary of the available research.

Homelessness is not

an issue that can be

tackled piecemeal.

Wholesale improvement

is needed, and that is

what we propose.

154

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Our recommendations are not intended to be an exhaustive list of every policy change

that would make the experience of homeless youth better. Rather, we highlight some of

the crucial problem areas where policy change is needed and reasonably possible. While

each recommendation has the potential to impact the process of caring for homeless

LGBT youth from the federal level down to local agencies, we have separated our recom

mendations into three categories. We begin with a discussion of those recommendations

that should be addressed from the federal level, then turn to state- and local-level recom

mendations before concluding with a number of recommendations specifically targeted

at practitioners.

FEDERAL-LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Reauthorize and increase appropriations for federal Runaway and Homeless Youth

Act (RHYA) programs.

Increased funding for RHYA programs is a critical first step in the process of moving

all youth off the streets, LGBT or straight. President George W. Bush’s FY 2007 budget

request included $103 million for RHYA programs, the same level as the FY 2006 appro

priation ($88 million for the consolidated account and $15 million for the prevention

account). This is a decline in actual dollars over two years ago and a greater reduction in

available funding when accounting for inflation.

568

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported in FY 2005 that 2,064

youth were turned away from RHYA basic centers and 2,555 youth were turned away from

RHYA transitional living projects due to lack of capacity to house them.

569

This equates to

a capacity shortfall of at least 11 basic centers and at least 15 transitional living projects. For

the purposes of this report, we avoid making specific funding recommendations because

such recommendations will be out of date quickly. A more comprehensive explanation of

the variety of factors affecting RHYA funding is available from the National Network for

Youth (NN4Y) at www.nn4youth.org.

2. Permit minor youth, especially unaccompanied minors, to receive primary and

specialty health care services without the consent of a parent or guardian.

Many homeless youth living on the streets and leaving foster care prior to legal

adulthood encounter challenges accessing primary and specialty medical care. Many

homeless youth do not understand how to navigate the complex healthcare system of

the uninsured. Because no guardian is available to consent to medical care, legislation

is needed to grant unaccompanied minors health coverage regardless of parental or

guardian permission.

570

568 At press time the Congress had not acted upon the President’s budget request. The data provided here is only to provide the reader

with some context as to recent funding levels. Further discussion of historical trends is contained in the “The Federal Response to

Homelessness” section of this report.

569 Cited in National Network for Youth. (2006, March 30). Statement for the record of the National Network for Youth on FY 2007 Labor-HHS-

Education-related agencies appropriations before the Subcommittee on Labor-Health and Human Services-Education-related agencies. Committee

on Appropriations. U.S. House of Representatives. Author. Retrieved September 11, 2006, from http://appropriations.house.gov/_files/

AnitaFriedmanTestimony.pdf#search=%22HHS%20capacity%20of%20basic%20center%20program%22

570 For more information visit the website of the Center for Adolescent Health and the Law at www.cahl.org

155

3. Develop a national estimate of the incidence and prevalence of youth homelessness,

gathering data that aids in the provision of appropriate services.

Reasons to overcome the methodological and political barriers to obtaining a more

accurate estimate of the population of homeless youth nationwide include:

• Obtaining a more accurate idea of how many youth, and with what experiences and

needs, are experiencing homelessness

• Aiding in the most efficient and appropriate allocation of scarce recourses

• Providing crucial data that will teach us much about this community and provide

direction for additional research to further inform decision making in this area

4. Authorize and appropriate adequate federal funds for developmental, preventive and

intervention programs targeted to LGBT youth.

Drop-in centers, funded through current federal homeless youth programs and often

connected to street outreach programs, are crucial to helping LGBT youth who have

run away or are experiencing homelessness for many reasons. These reasons include peer

bonding, recreation, safety, public health and youth development. Such centers might

work with housed youth as well as those experiencing homelessness.

571

5. Raise federal and state minimum wages to an appropriate level.

The federal minimum wage rate, which has not been increased in almost 10 years and

stands today at $5.15 per hour, should be increased. At the current rate, a full-time

employee on minimum wage earns only $10,712 per year. This is far short of the $28,500

increase in salary that members of Congress have received since the last change in the

federal minimum wage in 1997,

572

and barely above the official poverty level for a single

person, $9,800. If this person has even one child, then they will fall thousands of dollars

below the official poverty level.

573

Raising the federal minimum wage would significantly

help homeless people trying to find a way off the streets or into independent housing.

State minimum wage rates should be increased over and above the federally mandated

minimum to make a considerable difference in the quality of life of minimum wage-

earning employees. Some states have taken similar steps; Alaska’s minimum wage is $7.15

per hour and Michigan’s increased to $6.95 per hour effective October 1, 2006. Oregon

($7.50 per hour) and Washington state ($7.63 per hour) have gone one step further by

index-linking their state minimum wage so on the first of every year it is increased in line

with inflation.

574

The city of Los Angeles, Calif., has taken action separately from the state

and increased its minimum wage to $10.03 per hour, or $8.78 per hour if an employer

makes a minimum $1.25 per hour contribution towards health benefits, paid vacation

and unpaid leave.

575

571 Many youth-specific and general LGBT community centers offer programming for LGBT youth, but the mechanics of funding such

programs can be haphazard. For example, in Tucson, Ariz., the Eon youth program is a collaboration of Wingspan, Southern Arizona’s

LGBT Community Center, Pima County Health Department and the Southern Arizona AIDS Foundation. A single stream of federal

funds that enabled groups like Eon to cover the basic operations of an LGBT youth center would make things far simpler.

572 Samuel, T. (2005, March 13). Victims of minimum wage. CBS News. Retrieved June 28, 2005, from http://www.cbsnews.com/

stories/2005/03/11/opinion/main679698.shtml

573 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006, January 24). The 2006 HHS poverty guidelines. Author. Retrieved October

31, 2006, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/06poverty.shtml

574 AFL-CIO data cited at www.infoplease.com. (2006). State minimum wage rates. Author. Retrieved September 11, 2006, from http://

www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930886.html

575 Ibid.

Conclusion and policy recommendations

156

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Increasing the minimum wage is one way to help the poorest of American workers,

but adopting a living wage would make a substantially greater difference. A living wage

program considers the real, localized cost of living based on accepted minimal norms and

standards. It would ensure that each person would pay no more than 30 percent of their

income to cover housing costs.

576

6. Broaden the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s definition of

“homeless individual” to include additional living arrangements common to home

less youth.

Inconsistencies and incompleteness in counts of homeless people contribute to the

difficult task homeless advocates have in seeking more funds from the federal government

and others. What constitutes “homeless” for one agency is merely “sleeping on a friend’s

couch” for another.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) definition of

homeless individuals should be broadened to encompass the diverse living arrange

ments of people in homeless situations. The definition of “homeless individual” in the

McKinney-Vento statute restricts the meaning of that term to persons living on the street,

emergency shelters, and other locations “not fit for human habitation.” Excluded from

this definition—and thus from federal homeless assistance—are individuals and families

living in doubled-up arrangements, transitional housing, and motels and hotels when

there is no suitable alternative. The generosity of a friend providing a couch to sleep on

should not constitute being adequately housed.

These are the very living arrangements commonly deployed by unaccompanied youth.

Consequently, the exclusion of these living arrangements from the McKinney-Vento

definition of homeless individuals renders HUD and other federal homeless assistance

programs inaccessible to thousands of homeless youth and young adults. We recommend

that appropriate federal legislation include a revised definition of “homelessness” that

includes individuals and families living in doubled-up arrangements, transitional housing,

and motels and hotels when there is no suitable alternative.

577

STATE- AND LOCAL-LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Establish funding streams to provide housing options for all homeless youth. Require

that recipients of these funds are committed to the safe and appropriate treatment

of LGBT homeless youth, with penalties for noncompliance including the loss of

government funding. These funds would supplement federal appropriations.

In addition to funding allocated to them from federal programs, more than a dozen

states have developed their own funding streams to provide runaway and homeless youth

service providers with a pool of money for prevention, outreach, emergency shelter and

transitional housing services. Some of the existing state programs are competitive, inviting

agencies to apply for funds, while others are managed and distributed by the states in a

non-competitive process. Since the needs of homeless youth exceed the funds from any

576 For more information about living wage programs, see www.universallivingwage.org

577 See www.npach.org for extensive documentation on the HUD definition of homeless individual and the call for a different definition.

157

one source, we strongly encourage all states to research the possibilities for creating state-

and local-level funding complementary to RHY funds.

For example, in Berkeley, Calif., the city council has set aside increased funding for

programs to meet the needs of homeless youth. Young people are flocking to Berkeley

because of its liberal politics and temperate climate and they need a safe place to sleep

that is youth-specific. As a member of the city’s homeless commission noted, “Young

people often avoid adult shelters because they… don’t want to be associated with the older

homeless crowd.”

578

In 2002, the city provided the Youth Emergency Assistance Hostel (YEAH!) program

$5,000 of public funds towards a total budget of $22,000 to run a 20-week winter

shelter.

579

By 2004–2005 the city’s contribution had risen to approximately $40,000 of

an $119,000 annual operating budget, a clear sign of the city’s commitment to helping an

underserved population.

580

Other cities have also made commitments to youth homeless programs. In New York City,

the city council in 2006 approved $1.2 million of funding specifically for LGBT youth.

581

These funds have been allocated to three agencies so they can secure the necessary

licenses to expand the services they can offer to this population. Licensing is obviously a

crucial requirement to ensure that all youth are being cared for in appropriate spaces by

appropriately qualified staff. However, the process can be time-consuming and expensive,

rendering it almost impossible for smaller agencies to qualify to receive funds that might

enable them to increase their efforts working with LGBT or other homeless youth.

2. Permit dedicated shelter and housing for LGBT youth

Theoretically, all shelter space should be safe for LGBT youth, but this is not the case. The

absence of sufficient safe space for LGBT homeless youth has resulted in the creation of

LGBT-only facilities to accommodate the immediate need for shelter housing options. We

strongly encourage grant-making child welfare agencies to approve funding for programs

that specialize in serving LGBT runaway and homeless youth.

It is important to acknowledge that LGBT-specific housing is not necessarily a useful

or desired option for

all LGBT youth. In fact, some youth may not want to live in a

space that identifies them as LGBT. Further, the creation of LGBT-specific spaces is not

intended to shift responsibility away from mainstream providers. The end goal is for both

mainstream and LGBT providers to have the capacity and knowledge to effectively and

compassionately serve LGBT youth.

3. Repeal existing laws and policies that prevent single and partnered LGBT individuals

serving as adoptive and foster parents.

The federal government has documented the vast number of children who are

awaiting adoption: 119,000 as of 2003.

582

In addition, many youth are not formally

578 Bhattacharjee, R. (2006, February 28). Program aims to remove homeless youth from the streets of Berkeley. Berkeley Daily Planet.

Retrieved August 19, 2006, from http://www.yeah-berkeley.org/Berkeley_Daily_Planet_28Feb06.pdf

579 Hoge, P. (2004, February 6). Home for the night: Alameda County’s new shelters for young adults open many doors. San Francisco

Chronicle. Retrieved August 19, 2006, from http://www.yeah-berkeley.org/SF_chronicle_6Feb04.pdf

580 Youth Emergency Assistance Hostel. (2006). Our program. Author. Retrieved August 19, 2006, from http://www.yeah-berkeley.

org/page2.php

581 Siciliano, C. (2006, March 2). At long last, progress on homeless LGBT youth. Gay City News. Retrieved August 19, 2006, from

http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_509/atlonglastprogress.html

582 U.S.Children’s Bureau. (2005). The AFCARS report. Washington, DC: Administration on Children, Youth and Families.

Conclusion and policy recommendations

158

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

in the child welfare system but would nevertheless benefit from a stable and

“permanent, loving home.”

583

Same-sex couples and LGBT individuals should not be restricted from helping to meet

this need solely because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Unfortunately, as

of July 2006, six states restrict adoption and/or foster care by LGB people and/or same-

sex couples.

584

Additionally, only 24 states and the District of Columbia permit second

parent adoption by a same-sex partner.

585

Many youth awaiting placement in foster or

adoptive homes are older, ill, or suffering from the consequences of physical or mental

abuse. There is a growing body of evidence that LGBT people are adopting these children,

who often are placed with LGBT families when social workers determine to turn a blind

eye to official regulations.

586

There are already a great many children with one or more

gay or lesbian parents, with estimates ranging from 1.6 million to 14 million.

587

The 2000

Census confirmed that more than one quarter of the nation’s same-sex couple households

are raising at least one child under the age of 18.

Among the authors who have analyzed parenting by same-sex couples and LGBT indi

viduals is Leslie Cooper of the ACLU’s LGBT Rights Project. In her recently published

thorough review of the available academic literature, she finds nothing to suggest that

LGBT people cannot be equally effective as parents as their heterosexual counter

parts.

588,589

The nonpartisan, academically affiliated Evan B. Donaldson Adoption

Institute also conducted a review of the existing literature on adoption by gay and lesbian

parents. They proposed a number of policy changes that we endorse as partial solutions

to the complex problem of how to best house and support homeless LGBT youth:

• Move to end de facto and legal restrictions on adoption by LGBT people. We need

uniformity of policies that reflect sound scientific evidence to avoid “decisions about

waiting children [being] made at the discretion of individual workers and placement

agencies.”

590, 591

• Bring honesty into the adoption process by abolishing often-unwritten “don’t ask, don’t

tell” policies that bring fear and potentially dishonesty into the adoption process.

• Require and enforce appropriate training for all social service workers involved in

placing youth so they are truly able to judge what is in the child’s best interests.

583 The Evan B.Donaldson Adoption Institute. (2006, March). Expanding resources for children: Is adoption by gays and lesbians part of the

answer for boys and girls who need homes? New York, NY: The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.

584 See National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (2006, July). Foster care regulations in U.S. Author. Retrieved September 13, 2006, from

http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/FosteringMap_06.pdf and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (2006, July). Adoption

laws in the US. Author. Retrieved September 13, 2006, from http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/adoption_laws_06.pdf

585 National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (2005, January). Second parent adoption in the U.S. Author. Retrieved September 13, 2006,

from http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/secondparentadoptionmap.pdf

586 Sullivan, R. T. (1994).

587 Patterson, C. J. & Freil, L. V. (2000). Sexual orientation and fertility. In Bentley, G. & Mascie-Taylor, N., Infertility in the modern world:

Biosocial perspectives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

588 Cooper, L. & Cates, P. (2006). Too high a price: The case against restricting gay parenting. (2nd ed.) New York, NY: American Civil Liberties

Union Foundation.

589 The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Child Welfare League of America, the

National Association of Social Workers, and the American Psychological Association all recognize that gay and lesbian parents are just

as good as heterosexual parents and that children thrive in gay- and lesbian-headed families. For example, see: Patterson, C. J. (1995).

Lesbian and gay parenting: A resource for psychologists. Retrieved , from http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

590 The Evan B.Donaldson Adoption Institute. (2006, March). p.10.

591 Ryan, S. D. (2000). Examining social workers’ placement recommendations of children with gay and lesbian adoptive parents. Families

in Society, 81(5).

159

• Explicitly permit same-sex second-parent adoptions.

• Promote additional research in this area that informs the public discourse, addresses

some of the methodological criticisms made by opponents of adoption by LGBT

people and provides support to new LGBT-led families.

• While no state law explicitly forbids foster parenting by LGBT persons, there are

places where the practice is strongly against placing youth in LGBT homes. Instead,

a better policy is that of New Jersey, which expressly forbids staff from discriminating

against potential foster parents based on sexual orientation.

4. Discourage the criminalization of homelessness and the activities inherent to the

daily lives of people experiencing homelessness.

The National Coalition for the Homeless and the National Law Center on Homelessness

and Poverty

592

have reported on the criminalization of many life sustaining activities asso-

ciated with homelessness nationwide.

593

Many cities and towns are being creative in their

efforts to force homeless people, including youth, out of the public eye. Criminalization

efforts are directed at people experiencing homelessness via laws against sleeping, sitting

or laying down under certain conditions in certain parts of a town or city, and more

subtly, by permitting selective enforcement of other ordinances or even targeting people

who feed the homeless in public spaces.

594

Pushing people away from downtown areas

and into the suburbs takes them away from needed services and serves only to deny the

existence of a critical social problem. Often, the result is involvement with the criminal

justice system, and ultimately being further away from escaping the streets altogether.

These approaches do not address the problems that lead to homelessness, nor are they

likely to achieve long-term success in moving everyone into safe, affordable housing.

5. Expand the availability of comprehensive health insurance and services through the

age of 24 to all low-income youth via Medicaid.

Homeless youth, straight and LGBT, face inadequate access to medical care provision,

increased exposure to a wide variety of health risks versus their housed counterparts,

and a patchwork of services across the country. While evidence demonstrates that LGBT

youth specifically face increased risks of certain health problems, access to health care is

crucial for all young people, LGBT or straight. If they are to grow up healthy, optimize

educational opportunities, and not lose income because they are unable to work due to

an illness or other health condition, access to health care is necessary.

The federal Foster Care Independence Act grants states the right to extend Medicaid

coverage to people exiting the foster care system, and we propose that this option become

a mandate for the states. Some states already

extend coverage, though to different ages,

and consistency is what is needed. Different federal legislative initiatives that impact the

homeless youth population use different age limits to define when a person stops being a

youth, and this is part of the problem.

The Ryan White Act defines youth as ages 13 to 24 and the Workforce Investment Act

592 For more information, see www.nlchp.org

593 The National Coalition for the Homeless & The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. (2006d). A dream denied: The

criminalization of homelessness in U.S. cities. Washington, DC: The National Coalition for the Homeless & The National Law Center on

Homelessness and Poverty. See also The National Coalition for the Homeless. (2004).

594 Ibid. p.9.

Conclusion and policy recommendations

160

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

ages youth out of eligibility for its programs at age 24 as well. There is precedence for

this age range being used in future adjustments to legislation that assists homeless youth.

Youth should not be denied access to basic health care because their family disowned

them or because they are escaping sexual or emotional abuse and trying to find a way off

the streets or in the child welfare system.

PRACTITIONER-LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Require all agencies that seek government funding and licensure to serve homeless

youth to demonstrate awareness and cultural competency of LGBT issues and

populations at the institutional level and to adopt nondiscrimination policies for

LGBT youth.

Licensure alone is not sufficient to ensure culturally competent treatment for LGBT

homeless youth. At one Michigan residential placement facility, LGBT teens or those

suspected of being gay were made to wear orange jumpsuits to alert staff and other

residents. At another transitional housing placement, staff removed the bedroom door

of an out gay youth, supposedly to ward off any homosexual behavior. The second bed in

the room was left empty, with other residents warned that if they misbehaved they would

have to share the room with the “gay kid.”

595

As part of the initial licensing process that any facility must go through and the renewal

of that license in subsequent years, we recommend that state agencies regulating facilities

that care for youth mandate the following:

• Private and nonprofit entities seeking a license to care for youth must demonstrate

that administrators and staff have completed appropriate cultural competency

training regarding the provision of safe spaces for LGBT youth prior to issuance of

the license.

• Agencies must agree to adopt, post and enforce, a state-mandated nondiscrimination

policy including sexual orientation and gender identity/expression prior to being

licensed to care for youth, with in-service training on the policy available annually.

Training should be provided not only to staff but also to all prospective clients during

the intake process.

• Related to this provision in the licensing process, a nondiscrimination performance

standard should be established. Such a standard would ensure that ongoing measure

ment of each agency’s performance would include consideration of their demonstrated

capacity to provide fair and equal access to and treatment of LGBT youth.

2. Mandate individual-level LGBT awareness training and demonstrated cultural

competency as part of the professional licensing process of all health and social

service professions.

Staff employed by organizations providing care and support to youth must meet certain

educational and licensing standards. There is also an ethical aspect to this recommenda

595 Both examples were confirmed in personal conversations between the author and social service agency staff who had either worked at

the offending agencies or worked with youth who had resided at those agencies.

161

tion, because “[t]he social work code of ethics mandates that social workers must not

undertake a social service unless we have the competence or can acquire the competence

to provide that service.”

596

In many instances, the solution to this dilemma is to deny

adequate service rather than to secure the necessary training.

States must ensure that LGBT homeless youth are accessing services not just in a space

where their safety and equal treatment is directly related to the licensing process, but

where individual staff cannot let their personal biases translate into unfair treatment

of any clients. Specifically, as part of their licensing examinations, states should test a

potential social worker or other counseling staff person’s awareness of the specific needs

of LGBT youth and the challenges they face in the social welfare system and beyond.

States must work with in-state education establishments that train the workers they hire

to ensure that their relevant programs not only incorporate LGBT issues into the variety

of classes that make up an MSW program, for example, but also engage those programs

in the development of coursework that is specific to the experiences of LGBT youth in

the child welfare system. If schools know that their graduates will be tested on these issues

as part of their licensing exams, then they will have an incentive to make any necessary

curricular changes. Students will also know that ignorance of the issues will only hinder

their performance on exams that ultimately dictate their ability to secure a job.

Voluntary certification programs for “paraprofessional” youth workers should also include

an LGBT awareness component.

597

3. Mandate LGBT cultural competency training for all state agency staff who work in

child welfare or juvenile justice divisions.

Many state child welfare or juvenile justice staff are undereducated about the existence of

LGBT clients and their particular issues. While potentially supportive of LGBT youth,

many do not know how to raise or discuss LGBT issues with their clients. Cultural

competency training is important to promote clear and open communication and to help

staff recognize how to create a safe space for all the youth they work with.

CONCLUSION

Once implemented, these policy recommendations will help not only LGBT homeless

youth, but all youth abandoned by their family or forced to leave home. In this report,

we have extensively reviewed the academic and professional literature on the myriad

challenges faced by LGBT homeless youth. Despite these challenges, the research also

shows that many of these youth are remarkably resilient and that they have benefited

from programs like those outlined in our model practice chapters that are designed to

help them feel safe, welcome and supported. Regardless of sexual orientation or gender

identity, every young person deserves a safe and nurturing environment in which to grow

and learn. It is our hope that this report will bring renewed attention to an issue that has

been inadequately addressed for far too long.

596 Dame, L. (2004).

597 Paraprofessionals include youth outreach workers, youth developers, health education and risk reduction specialists and case

managers.

Conclusion and policy recommendations

162

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

References

Ali Forney Center. (2004). Housing for homeless LGBT youth. Author. Retrieved July 12,

2006, from http://www.aliforneycenter.org/services.html

Ali Forney Center. (2006). About Ali Forney. Author

. Retrieved September 1, 2006, from

http://www.aliforneycenter.org/about.html

Allen, M. & Milbank, D. (7-12-2001). Rove heard charity plea on gay bias. Washington Post.

Retrieved September 25, 2006, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/

A48279-2001Jul11?language=printer

Anderson, J. E., Freese, T. E., & Pennbridge, J. N. (1994). Sexual risk and condom use among

street youth in Hollywood. Family Planning Perspectives, 26(1) pp. 22-23.

Anonymous. (2001). The story of a black punk. In Sabo, D. e. al. (Ed.) Prison masculinities.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Anonymous. (2002, August 14). Out of control: At downtown’s biggest street party. Cityview,

Des Moines, Iowa.

p.9.

Arnott, J. (1994). Gays and lesbians in the criminal justice system. InMulticultural Perspectives

in Criminal Justice and Criminology. Springfield, OH: C. Thomas Charles. pp. 211-213.

Bao, W.-N., Whitbeck, L. B., & Hoyt, D. R. (2000). Abuse, support, and depression among

homeless and runaway adolescents. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41 pp. 408-420.

Baron, S. W. & Kennedy, L. W. (1998). Deterrence and homeless male street youths.

Canadian

Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 40(1) pp. 27-60.

Barrow, S. & Zimmer, R. (1998). Transitional housing and services: A synthesis. Retrieved June 3,

2005, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/progsys/homeless/symposium/10.htm

BBC News. (2006, September 15). Profile: Pope Benedict XVI. Author

. Retrieved October 12,

2006, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4445279.stm

Berdahl, T. A., Hoyt, D. R., & Whitbeck, L. B. (2005). Predictors of first mental health

service utilization among homeless and runaway adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health,

37(2) pp. 145-154.

Berger, C. (2005). What becomes of at-risk gay youths? The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide,

pp. 24-25.

163

Bhattacharjee, R. (2-28-2006). Program aims to remove homeless youth from the streets of

Berkeley. Berkeley Daily Planet. Retrieved August 19, 2006, from http://www.yeah-berkeley.

org/Berkeley_Daily_Planet_28Feb06.pdf

Boddie, S. C. (2003). Faith-based organizations and the distribution of social responsibility: A look

at black congregations. www.religionandsocialpolicy.org. Retrieved September 12, 2006, from

http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/docs/events/2003_spring_research_conference/

boddie.pdf

Bontempo, D. E. & D’Augelli, A. R. (2002). Effects of at-school victimization and sexual

orientation on lesbian, gay, or bisexual youths’ health risk behavior. Journal of Adolescent

Health, 30(5) pp. 364-374.

Bounds, A. (2002, September 24). Intolerance discussed at BHS school offers weeklong focus

on tolerance. Boulder Daily Camera.

p.C3.

Bousman, C. A., Blumberg, E. J., Shillington, A. M., Hovell, M. F., Ji, M., Lehman, S. et al.

(2005). Predictors of substance use among homeless youth in San Diego. Addictive Behaviors,

30(6) pp. 1100-1110.

Braithwalte, R. L. & Arriola, K. R. J. (2003). Male Prisoners and HIV prevention: A call for

action ignored. American Journal of Public Health, 93(5) pp. 759-763.

Burt, M., Aron, L. A., Lee, E., & Valente, J. (2001). Helping America’s homeless. Washington,

DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Cannon, K. D. (2005). “Ain’t no faggot gonna rob me!”: Anti-gay attitudes of criminal justice

undergraduate majors. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16(2) pp. 226-244.

Callen-Lorde Community Health Center. (2006). Callen-Lorde Community Health Center.

Author

. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://www.callen-lorde.org/

Carter, C. (8-28-1999). A life and death on NYC streets. Retrieved September 27, 2006, from

http://www.aliforneycenter.org/ap-article.html

Cianciotto, J. & Cahill, S. (2003). Education Policy: Issues affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans

gender youth. National Gay & Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute. Retrieved September 10, 2006,

from http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/EducationPolicy.pdf

Cianciotto, J. & Cahill, S. (2006). Youth in the crosshairs: The third wave of ex-gay activism

National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. Retrieved March 30, 2006, from http://www.thetask

force.org/downloads/crosshairs.pdf

Clatts, M. C., Goldsamt, L., Yi, H., & Gwadz, M. V. (2005). Homelessness and drug abuse

among young men who have sex with men in New York city: A preliminary epidemiological

trajectory. Journal of Adolescence, 28(2) pp. 201-214.

Clatts, M. J., Davis, W. J., Sotheran, J. L., & Atillasoy, A. (1998). Correlates and distribution of

HIV risk behaviors among homeless youth in New York City. Child Welfare, 77(2) pp. 195-208.

Cochran, B. N., Stewart, A. J., Ginzler, J. A., & Cauce, A. M. (2002). Challenges faced by

homeless sexual minorities: Comparison of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender home

less adolescents with their heterosexual counterparts. American Journal of Public Health,

92(5) pp. 773-777.

164

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Cooper, E. F. (2006, March 23). The runaway and homeless youth program: Administration, funding,

and legislative actions. CRS Report for Congress. Retrieved July 5, 2006, from http://opencrs.

cdt.org/rpts/RL31933_20060323.pdf

Cooper, L. & Cates, P. (2006). Too high a price: The case against restricting gay parenting. (2nd ed.)

New York, NY: American Civil Liberties Union Foundation.

Covenant House. (2005). The Covenant House Mission. Author

. Retrieved August 31, 2006,

from http://www.covenanthouse.org/about_mission.html

Covenant House New York. (2006). About us: Facts and stats. Author

. Retrieved August 31,

2006, from http://www.covenanthouseny.org/about_us_facts_stats.asp

Covenant House New York. (2006). About us: Our history. Author

. Retrieved August 31,

2006, from http://www.covenanthouseny.org/about_us_our_history.asp

Cross, T., Bazron, B., Dennis, K., & Isaacs, M. (1989). Towards a culturally competent system of

care: A monograph on effective services for minority children who are severely emotionally disturbed

(vols. 1) Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center.

Crowley, J. E. (2003). The gentrification of child support enforcement services, 1950-1984.

The Social Science Review, 77(4) pp. 585-605.

Cummings, J. (2004, March 19). Three local school districts named in class action homeless student

lawsuit. The Beacon. Retrieved July 5, 2006, from http://www.babylonbeacon.com/

news/2004/0319/Front_page/003.html

Curtin, M. (2002). Lesbian and bisexual girls in the juvenile justice system. Child and

Adolescent Social Work Journal, 19(4) pp. 285-301.

Curtis, K. (1-17-2006). Disputed study: Prison rape, sexual assault rare. Associated Press.

Retrieved September 15, 2006, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10896343/

D’Augelli, A. R. & Hershberger, S. L. (1993). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth in community

settings: Personal challenges and mental health problems. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 21(4) pp. 421-448.

Dame, L. (2004). Queer youth in care in Manitoba: An examination of their experiences

through their voices. The Canadian Online Journal of Queer Studies in Education, 1

(1)

Davey, J. (1993). Homelessness in the United States: The Reagan legacy. Urban League Review,

16(1) p. 23.

Dean, L., Meyer, I. H., Robinson, K., Sell, R. L., Sember, R., Silenzio, V. M. B. et al. (2000).

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender health: Findings and concerns. Journal of the Gay and

Lesbian Medical Association, 4(3) pp. 102-151.

Denny, Dallas. (1997). Transgendered youth at risk for exploitation, HIV, hate crimes.

American Educational Gender Information Service, Inc. Retrieved June, 21 2006, from

http://www.youthresource.com/community/transtopis/being_trans/exploitation.htm

Dyer, K. (2006, January 31). Kicked out? Drop in. The Advocate.

p.20.

Dylan Nicole, d. K. (2004). City enters partnership to assist lesbian and gay homeless youth.

Nation’s Cities Weekly, 27(10)

165

Ebaugh, H. R., Pipes, P. F., Chafetz, J. S., & Daniels, M. (2003). Where’s the religion?

Distinguishing faith-based from secular social service agencies. Journal for the Scientific Study of

Religion, 42(3) pp. 411-426.

Ellingson, T. (2006, October 27). Las Vegas now says feeding homeless ordinance unconstitutional

lasvegasnow.com. Retrieved October 31, 2006, from http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.

asp?S=5600200&nav=menu102_2

Embry, L. V. S. A. e. al. (2002). Risk factors for homelessness in adolescents released from

psychiatric residential treatment. Journal of the American Association of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry, 39(10) pp. 1293-1299.

Ennett, S. T., Bailey, S. L., & Federmand, E. B. (1999). Social network characteristics associ

ated with risky behaviors among runaway and homeless youth. Journal of Health and Social

Behavior, 40 pp. 63-78.

Estrada, R. & Marksamer, J. (2006). The legal rights of young people in state custody: What

child welfare and juvenile justice professionals need to know when working with LGBT

youth. Child Welfare, 85(2) pp. 171-194.

Fagan, K. (2006, January 9). Survey: Housing, education, jobs, drugs challenge poor gay

youths. San Francisco Chronicle.

p.B3.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2004, December 20). FEMA announces

$153 million in homeless aid awards for 2005. Author

. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://

www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=15785

Fitzpatrick, K. M., LaGory, M. A., & Ritchey, F. J. (1999). Dangerous places: Exposure

to violence and its mental health consequences for the homeless. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 69 pp. 438-447.

Foley, D. (1996, February). AIDS education for teen prostitutes - New York Peer AIDS Education

Coalition. The Progressive. p.19.

Freedom from Religion Foundation. (2004, April). Freethought Today. Author

. Retrieved

August 31, 2006, from http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2004/april/?ft=statechurchFergusson,

D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Beautrais, A. L. (1999). Is sexual orientation related to mental health

problems and suicidality in young people? Archives of General Psychiatry, 56(10) pp. 876-880.

Gaetz, S. (2004). Safe streets for whom? Homeless youth, social exclusion, and criminal

victimization. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46(6) pp. 423-455.

Gay and Lesbian Adolescent Social Services. (2005). Mission statement. Author

. Retrieved

September 1, 2006, from http://www.glassla.org/mission.html

Gibson, P. (1989). Gay male and lesbian youth suicide, Vol. 3: Preventions and interven

tions in youth suicide. InReport of the secretary’s task force on youth suicide. Rockville, MD: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

Giller, O. (2004). Patriarchy on lockdown: Deliberate indifference and male prison rape.

Cardozo Women’s Law Journal,(10) p. 659.

Glassman, A. (2006, January 20). Center will reach out to homeless youth this summer. Gay

People’s Chronicle.

p.3.

References

166

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Green Chimneys Children’s Services. (2006). Green Chimneys Children’s Services: Triangle Tribe

Apartments Transitional Living Program resident handbook. New York, NY: Green Chimneys

Children’s Services.

Greene, J. M., Ennet, S. T., & Ringwalt, C. L. (1997). Substance use among runaway and home

less youth in three national samples. American Journal of Public Health, 87(2) pp. 229-235.

Gwadz, M. V., Clatts, M. C., Leonard, N. R., & Goldsamt, L. (2004). Attachment style,

childhood adversity, and behavioral risk among young men who have sex with men. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 34 pp. 402-413.

Hagan, J. & McCarthy, B. (1992). Streetlife and delinquency. The British Journal of Sociology,

43(4) pp. 533-561.

Halcon, L. L. & Lifson, A. R. (2004). Prevalence and predictors of sexual risks among home

less youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(1) pp. 71-80.

Haley, N., Roy, E., Leclerc, P., Boudreau, J.-F., & Boivin, J.-F. (2004). HIV risk profile of male

street youth involved in survival sex. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 80 pp. 526-530.

Haynes, R. (2001). Towards healthier transgender youth. Reprinted with permission from

Crossroads, a publication of the National Youth Adocacy Coalition. Retrieved June 21, 2006,

from http://www.transgenderzone.com/library/hl/fulltext/27.htm

Hazeldean, S. & Singla, P. (2004). Out in the cold: The challenges of representing immigrant lesbian,

gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. An Urban Justice Center Report. Retrieved August 31, 2006,

from http://www.urbanjustice.org/pdf/publications/lesbianandgay/OutintheCold.pdf

HCH Clinicians’ Network (2002, June). Crossing to safety: Transgender health & homeless

ness. Healing Hands, 6, pp. 1-6.

Heslin, K. C., Andersen, R. M., & Gelberg, L. (2003). Use of faith-based social service

providers in a representative sample of urban homeless women. Journal of Urban Health,

80(3) pp. 371-382.

Hoge, P. (2004, February 6). Home for the night: Alameda County’s new shelters for young

adults open many doors. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved August 19, 2006, from http://

www.yeah-berkeley.org/SF_chronicle_6Feb04.pdf

Holloway, L. (1998, July 18). Young, restless and homeless on the piers; Greenwich Village

reaches out to youths with plan for shelter and services. New York Times. Retrieved September

20, 2005, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/health/article-printpage.html?res=9C05E5

DE1330F93BA257

Hung, M. (2000, November 16). A diva in the making. Houston Press. Retrieved September

10, 2006, from http://www.houstonpress.com/Issues/2000-11-16/news/feature2.html

Hyde, J. (2005). From home to street: Understanding young people’s transitions into home

lessness. Journal of Adolescence, 28 pp. 171-183.

Jacobs, A. (2004, June 27). For young gays on the streets, survival comes before pride, few

beds for a growing class of homeless. The New York Times. Retrieved June 27, 2006, from

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D02EFDB1738F934A1

5755C0A9629C8B63

Jacobs, A. (2004, June 28). Young, gay and homeless, with few places to turn. International

Herald Tribune.

p.2.

167

Jencks, C. (1994). The homeless. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jennifer, B. U., Michele, D. K., Thomas, R. S., Susanne, B. M., & Christine, J. J. (1997).

Homeless youths and young adults in Los Angeles: Prevalence of mental health problems

and the relationship between mental health and substance abuse disorders. American Journal

of Community Psychology, 25(3) pp. 371-394.

Johnson, T. P. & Graf, I. (2005). Unaccompanied homeless youth in Illinois: 2005. Chicago, IL:

Survey Research Laboratory - University of Illinois Chicago.

Kantor, E. (2003). HIV transmission and prevention in prison. HIV InSite Center for HIV

Information at the University of California San Francisco. Retrieved September, 14 2006,

from http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-07-04-13#s14X

Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children. (2006). KBHC mission and values. Author

. Retrieved

August 31, 2006, from http://www.kbhc.org/our_mission.php

Kaysen, R. (2005, April 27). LGBT youth are feeling left out in the cold by lack of funds. The

Villager. Retrieved September 15, 2005, from http://www.thevillager.com/villager_104/

lgbtyoutharefeeling.html

Kihara, D. (8-24-1999). Giuliani’s suppressed report on homeless youth. The Village

Voice.

44(33). Retrieved October 2, 6 A.D., from http://www.villagevoice.com/news/

9933,kihara,7688,5.html

Kihara, D. (1999). Giuliani’s Suppressed Report on Homeless Youth. The Village Voice,

44(33) pp. 23-23.

Kim, E. K. (7-3-2006). Many gay teens are coming out at earlier ages. St.Louis Post-Dispatch.

Retrieved September 1, 2006, from http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/

living/14957350.htm

Kipke, M. D., Palmer, R. F., LaFrance, S., & O’Connor, S. (1997). Homeless youths’ descrip

tions of their parents’ child-rearing practices. Youth and Society, 28(4) pp. 415-431.

Kipke, M. D., Simon, T. R., & Montgomery, S. B. (1997). Homeless youth and their expo

sure to and involvement in violence while living on the streets. Journal of Adolescent Health,

20 pp. 360-367.

Kosciw, J. G. & Diaz, E. M. (2006). The 2005 national school climate survey: The experiences of

lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools - Executive summary of a report

from the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education

Network. Retrieved September 6, 2006, from http://www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_

ATTACHMENTS/file/582-2.pdf

Krisberg, K. (2002). Oregon clinic increases health care access for homeless youth. Nation’s

Health, 32(7) pp. 12-12.

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. (2001). Youth in the margins. New York: Lambda

Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Lankenau, S. E., Clatts, M. C., Welle, D., Goldsamt, L., & Gwadz, M. V. (2005). Street

careers: homelessness, drug use, and sex work among young men who have sex with men

(YMSM). International Journal of Drug Policy, 16 pp. 10-18.

Lee, A. L. (2003). Nowhere to go but out: The collision between transgender and gender-variant pris

oners and the gender binary in America’s prisons. Unpublished work.

References

168

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Lehrer, E. (2003). A blind eye, still turned: Getting serious about prison rape. National Review,

55(10) pp. 20-22.

Les, B. W. & Dan, R. H. (1999). Nowhere to grow: Homeless and runaway adolescents and their

families. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Leslie, M. B., Stein, J. A., & Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (2002). Sex-specific predictors of suicid

ality among runaway youth. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31(1) pp. 27-40.

Lewin Group. (2004). Costs of serving homeless individuals in nine cities: Chart book. Author

. Retrieved

August 31, 2006, from http://documents.csh.org/documents/ke/csh_lewin2004.pdf

Lindsey, E. W., Kurtz, P. D., Jarvis, S., Williams, N. R., & Nackerud, L. (2000). How runaway

and homeless youth navigate troubled waters: Personal strengths and resources. Child and

Adolescent Social Work Journal, 17(2) pp. 115-140.

Liptak, A. (2004, October 16). Ex-inmate’s suit offers view into sexual slavery in prisons. New

York Times. p. A1.

Lombardi, E. (2006). Enhancing transgender health care. American Journal of Public Health,

91(6) pp. 869-872.

Magin, J. L. (2006, February 13). Hawaii agrees to broad changes in procedures for incarcer

ated gay youths. New York Times. p. A.16.

Mahon, N. (1996). New York inmates’ HIV risk behaviors: The implications for prevention

policy and programs. American Journal of Public Health, 86(9) pp. 1211-1215.

Maitra, R. (2002). The homeless community of the piers. The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide,

9(2) pp. 8-11.

Mallett, S., Rosenthal, D., & Keys, D. (2005). Young people, drug use and family conflict:

Pathways into homelessness. Journal of Adolescence, 28(2) pp. 185-199.

Mallon, G. P. (1997). The delivery of child welfare services to gay and lesbian adolescents. In

Central Toronto Youth Services (Ed.) Pride and Prejudice: Working with lesbian, gay, and bisexual

youth. Toronto: Central Toronto Youth Services.

Mallon, G. P. (1997). Toward a competent child welfare service delivery system for gay and

lesbian adolescents and their families. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 5(3/4) pp. 177-194.

Mallon, G. P. (1992). Gay and no place to go: Assessing the needs of gay and lesbian adoles

cents in out-of-home care settings. Child Welfare, 71(6) pp. 547-557.

Mallon, G. P., Aledort, N., & Ferrera, M. (2002). There’s no place like home: Achieving

safety, permanency, and well-being for lesbian and gay adolescents in out-of-home care

settings. Child Welfare, 81(2) pp. 407-440.

Man, C. C. J. (2001). Forecasting sexual abuse in prisons: The prison subculture of

masculinity as a backdrop for “deliberate indifference.”. Journal of Criminal Law and

Criminology, pp. 127-185.

Mariner, J. (1999). No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. Human Rights Watch.

Martin, A. D. (1982). Learning to hide: The socialization of the gay adolescent. Adolescent

Psychology, 10 pp. 52-65.

Marushak, L. (2006). HIV in prisons, 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs.

169

McCaskill, P. A., Toro, P. A., & Wolfe, S. M. (1998). Homeless and matched housed adolescents:

A comparative study of psychopathology. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27(3) pp. 306-319.

McWhirter, B. T. (1990). Loneliness: A review of current literature with implications for

counseling and research. Journal of Counselling and Development, 68 pp. 417-423.

Milburn, N. G., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Batterman, P., Brumback, B., Rosenthal, D., &

Mallet, S. (2005). Predictors of close family relationships over one year among homeless

young people. Journal of Adolescence, 28 pp. 263-275.

Miller, P., Donahue, P., Este, D., & Hofer, M. (2004). Experiences of being homeless or at

risk of being homeless among Canadian youths. Adolescence, 39(156) pp. 735-755.

Morrison, L. L. & L’Heureux, J. (2001). Suicide and gay/lesbian/bisexual youth: Implications

for clinicians. Journal of Adolescence, 24 pp. 39-49.

Mottet, L. (2004). The education and policy needs of transgender individuals. SIECUS

Report, 32(4) pp. 35-38.

Mottet, L. & Ohle, J. M. (2003). Transitioning our shelters: A guide to making homeless

shelters safe for transgender people. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/TransHomeless.pdf.

Retrieved June 12, 2006, from http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/TransHomeless.pdf

Murphy, J. (2005, May 3). Wounded pride: LGBT kids say city-funded shelter for the homeless breaks

its covenant. Village Voice. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://www.villagevoice.

com/news/0517,murphy1,63374,5.html

Nacci, P. & Kane, T. (1983). Sex and sexual aggression in federal prisons. Washington, D.C.:

Federal Bureau of Prisons.

NASW Delegate Assembly (1996). Homelessness. Washington, DC: National Association of

Social Workers.

National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2006). About the Alliance. Author

. Retrieved July 7,

2006, from http://naeh.org/about/index.htm

National Center for Lesbian Rights. (2005, August 15). In historic first, advocates for LGBT

prisoners address National Prison Rape Elimination Commission. Author

. Retrieved September

25, 2006, from http://www.nclrights.org/releases/pr-prison_release_081905.htm

National Coalition for the Homeless. (2005). Hate, violence, and death on main street USA: A

report on hate crimes and violence against people experiencing homelessness 2004. National Coalition

for the Homeless.

National Coalition for the Homeless. (2006). Hate, violence, and death on main street USA: A

report on hate crimes and violence against people experiencing homelessness 2005. National Coalition

for the Homeless.

National Coalition for the Homeless. (2006, June 26). About NCH: Who we are. Author

Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://www.nationalhomeless.org/

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (2005, January). Second parent adoption in the US.

Author

. Retrieved September 13, 2006, from http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/

secondparentadoptionmap.pdf

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (2006, July). Foster care regulations in US.

Author

. Retrieved September 13, 2006, from http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/

FosteringMap_06.pdf

References

170

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (2006, July). Adoption laws in the US. Author.

Retrieved September 13, 2006, from http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/adop

tion_laws_06.pdf

National Housing Conference (NHC). (2006). Annual report: National Housing Conference

report of activities, 2005. Author

. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://www.nhc.org/housing/

about-annual-report

National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2005). About NLIHC. Author

. Retrieved October

18, 2006, from http://www.nlihc.org/about/index.htm

National Network for Youth. (2006, March 30). Statement for the record of the National Network

for Youth on FY 2007 Labor-HHS-Education-related agencies appropriations before the Subcommittee

on Labor-Health and Human Services-Education-related agencies. Committee on Appropriations. U.S.

House of Representatives. Author

. Retrieved September 11, 2006, from http://appropriations.

house.gov/_files/AnitaFriedmanTestimony.pdf#search=%22HHS%20capacity%20of%2

0basic%20center%20program%22

National Network of Runaway and Youth Services [now the National Network for Youth]. To

whom do they belong? A profile of America’s runaway and homeless youth and the programs that help

them. Washington, DC: National Network of Runaway and Youth Services.

National Runaway Switchboard. (2005). Being out and safe: Helping GLBTQ youth in crisis. Author.

Nemoto, T., Operario, D., Keatley, J., Nguyen, H., & Sugano, E. (2005). Promoting health for

transgender women: Transgender Resources and Neighborhood Space (TRANS) program

in San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health, 95(3) pp. 382-384.

New Yorkers for Children. (2006). Programs supported by NYFC. Author

. Retrieved July 12,

2006, from http://www.newyorkersforchildren.org/programs2.html

Noell, J. W. & Ochs, L. M. (2001). Relationship of sexual orientation to substance use, suicidal

ideation, suicide attempts, and other factors in a population of homeless adolescents.

Journal

of Adolescent Health, 29(1) pp. 31-36.

Nolan, T. (2004). Couch-Surfers: Invisible Homeless Youth. In the Family. p.21-22

O’Connor, M. L. (1998). Unsafe behaviors place street youth, especially women, at risk of

HIV. Family Planning Perspectives, 30(1) pp. 20-51.

O’Grady, B. & Gaetz, S. (2004). Homelessness, gender and subsistence: The case of Toronto

street youth. Journal of Youth Studies, 7(4) pp. 397-416.

Olivero, J. M. & Murataya, R. (2001). Homophobia and university law enforcement students.

Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 12(2) pp. 271-281.

Patterson, C. J. (1995). Lesbian and gay parenting: A resource for psychologists. Retrieved , from

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

Patterson, C. J. & Freil, L. V. (2000). Sexual orientation and fertility. In Bentley, G. & Mascie-

Taylor, N. (Eds.) Infertility in the modern world: Biosocial perspectives. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

PlanetOut gay & lesbian news. (2006, October 11). Average coming-out age now 13, survey

finds. Author

. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://www.planetout.com/news/article.

html?2006/10/11/4

Pratt, C. (1995, June 18). The perilous times of transgender youth. The New York Times. p. CY7

171

Press, E. (2001, April 1). Faith-based furor. New York Times Magazine. p. 62

Project HOPE: Virginia education for homeless children and youth program. (2006). Runaway

and Homeless Youth Act programs: Strengthening youth and families in every community. Author

Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://www.wm.edu/hope/Seminar/RHYA.pdf

Raleigh-Duroff, C. (2004). Factors that influence homeless adolescents to leave or stay living

on the street. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21(6) pp. 561-572.

Remafedi, G. (1987). Male homosexuality: The adolescent perspective. Pediatrics,(79)

pp. 326-330.

Remafedi, G. (1987). Adolescent homosexuality: Psychosocial and medical implications.

Pediatrics, 79(3) pp. 331-337.

Remafedi, G., Farrow, J. A., & Deisher, R. W. (1991). Risk factors for attempted suicide in gay

and bisexual youth. Pediatrics, 87(6) pp. 869-875.

Rew, L., Fouladi, R. T., & Yockey, R. D. (2002). Sexual health practices of homeless youth.

Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 34(2) pp. 139-145.

Rew, L., Taylor-Seehafer, M., Thomas, N. Y., & Yockey, R. D. (2001). Correlates of resilience

in homeless adolescents. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(1) pp. 33-40.

Rew, L., Whittaker, T. A., Taylor-Seehafer, M. A., & Smith, L. R. (2005). Sexual health and

protective resources in gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual homeless youth. Journal for

Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 10(1) pp. 11-19.

Rew, L. (2001). Sexual health practices of homeless youth: A model for intervention. Issues in

Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 24 pp. 1-18.

Rew, L., Taylor-Seehafer, M., & Fitzgerald, M. L. (2001). Sexual abuse, alcohol and other drug

use, and suicidal behaviors in homeless adolescents. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing,

24 pp. 225-240.

Ricks, S. (2003, December 1). Hard-won R-E-S-P-C-T: Portland high school’s gay-straight alli

ance can point to real, if painstaking, progress in its campaign for tolerance and acceptance.

Portland Press Herald. p. 8B

Ries, D. (2006). Duty-to-protect claims made by inmates after the prison rape elimination

act. Journal of Law & Policy, 13(2) pp. 915-990.

Ringwalt, C. L., Greene, J. M., Robertson, M., & McPheeters, M. (1998). The prevalence

of homelessness among adolescents in the United States. American Journal of Public Health,

88(9) pp. 1325-1329.

Ringwalt, C. L., Greene, J. M., & Robertson, M. J. (1998). Familial backgrounds and risk

behaviors of youth with thrownaway experience. Journal of Adolescence, 21(3) pp. 241-252.

Robert, M., Pauze, R., & Fournier, L. (2005). Factors associated with homelessness of

adolescents under supervision of the youth protection system. Journal of Adolescence, 28(2)

pp. 215-230.

Robertson, J. (1999). Cruel and unusual punishment in United States prisons: Sexual harass

ment among male inmates. American Criminal Law Review, 36(1) pp. 1-51.

Robertson, J. (2003). Rape among incarcerated men: Sex, coercion and STDs. AIDS Patient

Care and STDs, 17(8) pp. 423-430.

References

172

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Robertson, M. J. & Toro, P. A. (1998). Homeless youth: Research, intervention, and policy. United

States Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved June 3, 2005, from http://

aspe.hhs.gov/progsys/homeless/symposium/3-Youth.htm

Roehr, B. (2004, September 22). Youth face health battles. Windy City Times. Retrieved June

21, 2006, from http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.

php?AID=6160

Rojas, M. (2005, December 11). Green chimneys in NYC helping lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgender youths. The Journal News.

Rokach, A. (2005). The causes of loneliness in homeless youth. The Journal of Psychology,

139(5) pp. 469-480.

Rolnick, J. (2004). Need to know: Guerilla marketing surveys power Urban Peak. Stanford

Social Innovation Review, p. 60.

Rosario, M., Hunter, J., & Gwadz, M. (1997). Exploration of substance abuse among lesbian, gay,

and bisexual youths: Prevalence and correlates. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12 pp. 454-476.

Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, W., & Hunter, J. (2004). Predictors of substance use over time

among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths: An examination of three hypotheses. Addictive

Behaviors, 29(8) pp. 1623-1631.

Rosenblum, D. (2000). “Trapped” in Sing Sing: Transgendered prisoners caught in the

gender binarism. Michigan Journal of Gender Law, 6 pp. 499-571.

Rosenheck, R., Bassuk, E. & Salomon, A. (2006). Special populations of homeless Americans

United States Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved June 3, 2005, from

http://aspe.hhs.gov/progsys/homeless/symposium/2-spclpop.htm

Rosenthal, D. & Moore, S. (1994). Homeless youths: Sexual and drug-related behavior,

sexual beliefs and HIV/AIDS risk. AIDS Care, 6(1) p. 83.

Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Hunter, J., & Rosario, M. (1994). Suicidal behavior and gay-related

stress among gay and bisexual male adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 9(4) pp. 498-508.

Ryan, C. & Rivers, I. (2003). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth: victimization and

its correlates in the USA and UK. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 5(2) pp. 103-119.

Ryan, S. D. (2000). Examining social workers’ placement recommendations of children with

gay and lesbian adoptive parents. Families in Society, 81(5) pp. 517-528.

Saewyc, E., Bearinger, L. H., Blum, R. W., & Resnick, M. D. (1999). Sexual intercourse,

abuse and pregnancy among adolescent women: Does sexual orientation make a difference?

Family Planning Perspectives, 31(3) pp. 127-131.

Saewyc, E., Skay, C., Richens, S., & Reis, E. (2006). Sexual orientation, sexual abuse, and

HIV-risk behaviors among adolescents in the Pacific Northwest. American Journal of Public

Health, 96(6) pp. 1104-1110.

Safren, S. A. & Heimberg, R. G. (1999). Depression, hopelessness, suicidality, and related

factors in sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 67(6) pp. 859-866.

Samuel, T. (3-13-2005). Victims of minimum wage. CBS News. Retrieved June 28, 2005, from

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/11/opinion/main679698.shtml

173

San Francisco Department of Public Health. (2005). Transgender Clinic of Tom Waddell

Health Center. Author

. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/chn/

HlthCtrs/transgender.htm

Sanchez, R. (2004, December 20). Facing up to homeless youths. Denver Post. p. A1.

Sanchez, R. (2005, May 31). Survey gives snapshot of street kids. Denver Post. p. A1.

Santora, M. (2006). Health of the homeless is worse than imagined, new study finds. New

York Times. Retrieved January 31, 2006, from http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.

html?res=F00F11F6355B0C728FDDA80894DE404482

Sausa, L. A. (2004). The HIV prevention and educational needs of trans youth. Retrieved

June, 21 2006, from http://www.lydiasausa.com/Lydia_Sausa_Brochure.pdf

Sausa, L. A. (2004). The HIV Prevention and Educational Needs of Trans Youth. Lydia A. Sausa.

Retrieved June, 21 2006, from http://www.lydiasausa.com/Lydia_Sausa_Brochure.pdf

Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (1994). Verbal and Physical Abuse as Stressors in the Lives of

Lesbian, Gay Male, and Bisexual Youths: Association with School Problems, Running

Away, Substance Abuse, Prostitution and Suicide. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 62(2) pp. 261-269.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (1994). Verbal and physical abuse as atressors in the lives of lesbian, gay

male, and bisexual youths: Association with school problems, running away, substance abuse,

prostitution and suicide. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2) pp. 261-269.

Schaffner, L. (1998). Female juvenile delinquency: Sexual solutions, gender bias and juvenile

justice. Hastings Women’s Law Journal, 9(1) pp. 1-25.

Schindler, P. (2003, December 4). Homelessness and hope. Gay City News. Retrieved October

26, 2006, from http://gaycitynews.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=17004807&BRD=2729&

PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=8

Seper, C. (2006, January 17). Counting gay youths who are homeless. Cleveland.com. Retrieved

January 17, 2006, from www.cleveland.com

Siciliano, C. (2006, March 2). At long last, progress on homeless LGBT youth. Gay City

News. Retrieved August 19, 2006, from http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_509/atlonglast

progress.html

Slesnick, N. & Meade, M. (2001). System youth: A subgroup of substance-abusing homeless

adolescents. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13 pp. 367-384.

Slesnick, N. & Prestopnik, J. (2005). Dual and multiple diagnosis among substance using

runaway youth. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 31(1) pp. 179-201.

Slesnick, N. & Prestopnik, J. L. (2005). Ecologically based family therapy outcome with

substance abusing runaway adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 28(2) pp. 277-298.

Smith, R. (2001, July 27). Judge dismisses bias claim against KY agency. The Washington Blade.

Spaulding, A., Stephenson, B., Macalino, G., Ruby, W., Clark, J., & Flanigan, I. (2002).

Human immunodeficiency virus in correctional facilities: A Review. Clinical Infectious

Diseases, 35 pp. 305-312.

References

174

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Staller, K. M. (2004). Runaway youth system dynamics: A theoretical framework for analyzing

runaway and homeless youth policy. Families in Society, 85(3) pp. 379-390.

Struckman-Johnson, C. & Struckman-Johnson, D. (2000). Sexual Coercion rates in seven

midwestern prisons for men. The Prison Journal, 80(4) pp. 379-390.

Struckman-Johnson, C. & Struckman-Johnson, D. (2002). Sexual coercion reported by

women in three midwestern prisons. Journal of Sex Research, 39(3) pp. 217-227.

Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency. (1972, January 13). Runaway youth.

Committee on the Judiciary. Legislative Hearings on S.2829. Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office.

Sullivan, Brian. (2003, December 19). Bush administration announces record $1.27 billion

to help hundreds of thousands of homeless individuals and families: HUD grants part of

strategy to end chronic homelessness. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Retrieved July, 7 2006, from http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?content=pr03-143.cfm

Sullivan, C., Sommer, S., & Moff, J. (2001). Youth in the Margins: A Report on the Unmet Needs

of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Adolescents in Foster Care. Lambda Legal Defense &

Education Fund.

Sullivan, R. T. (1994). Obstacles to effective child welfare service with gay and lesbian youths.

Child Welfare, 73(4) pp. 291-305.

Taylor-Seehafer, M. & Rew, L. (2005). Gender and sexual orientation differences in personal

resources, social resources, and sexual health outcomes in homeless youth. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 36 pp. 142-142.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. (2006). Emergency Food and Shelter National Board

Program. Author

. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://12.46.245.173/pls/portal30/CATALOG.

PROGRAM_TEXT_RPT.SHOW?p_arg_names=prog_nbr&p_arg_values=97.024

The City of New York. (2006). Child welfare links, NYC Administration for Children’s

Services. Author

. Retrieved July 12, 2006, from http://www.nyc.gov/html/acs/html/statis-

tics/child_welfare_links.shtml

The Evan B.Donaldson Adoption Institute. (2006). Expanding resources for children: Is adoption

by gays and lesbians part of the answer for boys and girls who need homes? New York, NY: The Evan B.

Donaldson Adoption Institute.

The Home for Little Wanderers. (2006). Fall 2004 eNewsletter: Other headlines. Author

Retrieved September 7, 2006, from http://www.thehome.org/site/content/news

letter/2004_fall/other_headlines.asp

The Memory Hole. (2005, January 6). Faith-based funding recipients, 2003. Author

. Retrieved

August 31, 2006, from http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/faith_based_2003.htm

The Mt. Sinai Medical Center. (2006). Adolescent Health Center: Our mission. Author

Retrieved June 21, 2006, from http://www.mountsinai.org/msh/msh_program.

jsp?url=clinical_services/ahc.htm

The National Coalition for the Homeless. (2004). Illegal to be homeless: The criminalization of

homelessness in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Coalition for the Homeless.

175

The National Coalition for the Homeless & The National Law Center on Homelessness and

Poverty. (2006). A dream denied: The criminalization of homelessness in U.S. cities. Washington,

DC: The National Coalition for the Homeless & The National Law Center on Homelessness

and Poverty.

Thompson, S. J., Safyer, A. W., & Pollio, D. E. (2001). Differences and predictors of family

reunification among subgroups of runaway youths using shelter services. Social Work Research,

25(3) pp. 163-172.

Truong, J. (2004, October 6). Homeless LGBT youth and LGBT youth in foster care: Overview

The Safe Schools Coalition. Retrieved June 3, 2005, from http://www.safeschoolscoalition.

org/RG-homeless.html

Tyler, K. A., Hoyt, D. R., Whitbeck, L. B., & Cauce, A. M. (2001). The impact of child

hood sexual abuse on later sexual victimization among runaway youth. Journal of Research on

Adolescence, 11(2) pp. 151-176.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). State and County QuickFacts: Michigan. Author

. Retrieved

September 10, 2006, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26000.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Table DP-1. Profile of general demographic characteristics: 2000. Ann

Arbor city, Michigan. Author

. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://censtats.census.

gov/data/MI/1602603000.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Table DP-1. Profile of general demographic characteristics: 2000.

United States. Author

. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://censtats.census.gov/

data/US/01000.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Table DP-1. Profile of general demographic characteristics: 2000.

Ypsilanti city, Michigan. Author

. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://censtats.census.

gov/data/MI/1602689140.pdf

U.S.Children’s Bureau. (2005). The AFCARS report. Washington, DC: Administration on

Children, Youth and Families.

U.S.Conference on Mayors (2004, December). A status report on hunger and homelessness in

American’s cities: 2004. U.S. Conference of Mayors. Retrieved September 22, 2006, from

www.sodexhousa.com/HungerAndHomelessnessReport2004.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2004, July). Education for Homeless Children and Youth

Program. Author

. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/homeless/

guidance.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Health Care for the Homeless,

About HCH. Author

. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://bphc.hrsa.gov/hchirc/about/

default.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006, January 24). The 2006 HHS

poverty guidelines. Author

. Retrieved October 31, 2006, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/

06poverty.shtml

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

(2006). Street Outreach Program. Author

. Retrieved July 5, 2006, from http://www.acf.hhs.

gov/grants/open/HHS-2006-ACF-ACYF-YO-0105.html

References

176

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families,

Family and Youth Services Bureau. (2006, January 9). Family and Youth Services Bureau

information memorandum. Author

. Retrieved July 6, 2006, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/

programs/fysb/content/aboutfysb/McKinney-Vento_IM.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Family and Youth Services Bureau. (2006).

Fact sheet: Basic center program. Author

. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://www.

acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/youthdivision/programs/bcpfactsheet.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Health Resources and Services

Administration. (2006). Bureau of primary health care: Healthcare for the homeless infor

mation resource center - About HCH. Author

. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://

bphc.hrsa.gov/hchirc/about/comp_response.htm

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2003, October 3). HUD’s mission.

Author

. Retrieved October 31, 2006, from http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf12/

hudmission.cfm

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2003, December 19). CPD: 2003

Competitive and FY 2004 Formula Grant Awards. Author

. Retrieved July 5, 2006, from

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/budget/2003/index.cfm

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2006, October 13). Homeless.

Author

. Retrieved October 31, 2006, from http://www.hud.gov/homeless/index.cfm

U.S.News & World Report. (1977, January 17). Why children are running away in record

numbers. p. 62.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2006). Budget of the United States Government,

FY 2007, Department of Housing and Urban Development. Author

. Retrieved July 7, 2006,

from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/hud.html

Unger, J. B., Kipke, M. D., Simon, T. R., Montgomery, S. B., & Johnson, C. J. (1997).

Homeless youths and young adults in Los Angeles: Prevalence of mental health problems

and the relationship between mental health and substance use disorders. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 25(3) pp. 371-394.

United Way of America. (2006). Our work. Author

. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://

national.unitedway.org/ourwork/index.cfm Uptown Publications. (2003). ‘It doesn’t have to be

tragic’. Author

. Retrieved September 15, 2005, from http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com

Urrutia, P. (2000). Program seeks to assist homeless gay youth. The Circle: News from an

American Indian Perspective, 21(4) p. 6.

Van Leeuwen, J., Boyle, S., & Yancy, A. (2004, December). Urban Peak public health survey

report 2004: A multi-city collaborative. Unpublished work.

Van Leeuwen, J. M., Boyle, S., Salmonsen-Sautel, S., Baker, D. N., Garcia, J., Hoffman, A.,

& Hopfer, C. J. (2006). Lesbian, gay and bisexual homeless youth: An eight city public health perspec

tive. Unpublished work.

Van Leeuwen, J. (2004). Reaching the hard to reach: Innovative housing for homeless youth

through strategic partnerships. Child Welfare, 83(5) pp. 453-468.

177

Wagner, L. S., Carlin, L., Cauce, A. M., & Tenner, A. (2001). A snapshot of homeless youth

in Seattle: Their characteristics, behaviors and beliefs about HIV protective strategies.

Journal

of Community Health, 26(3) pp. 219-232.

Weber, A. E., Boivin, J.-F., Blais, L., Haley, N., & Roy, E. (2004). Predictors of initiation

into prostitution among female street youths. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York

Academy of Medicine, 81(4) pp. 584-595.

Weinstein, H. & DiMassa, C. M. (4-15-2006). Justices hand L.A.’s homeless a victory. Los

Angeles Times. Retrieved October 31, 2006, from http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-

me-homeless15apr15,0,2130546.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Wen, P. (2002, October 22). For gay teens, a place to call home - state facility third in nation

to address their specific needs gay, bisexual teens have a new place they can call home. Boston

Globe. p. B1

Whitbeck, L. B., Chen, X., Hoyt, D. R., Tyler, K. A., & Johnson, K. D. (2004). Mental

disorder, subsistence strategies, and victimization among gay, lesbian, and bisexual homeless

and runaway adolescents. The Journal of Sex Research, 41(4) pp. 329-342.

Whitbeck, L. B. & Hoyt, D. R. (1999). Nowhere to grow: Homeless and runaway adolescents and

their families. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Whitbeck, L. B. & Simons, R. L. (1990). Life on the streets: The victimization of runaway and

homeless adolescents. Youth and Society, 22(1) pp. 108-125.

White House office of faith-based and community initiatives. (2004, March 2). Select grants to

faith-based organizations at five agencies. Author

. Retrieved August 31, 2006, from http://www.

whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/3-2_final_pres.pdf

White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. (2005). Protecting the civil

rights and religious liberty of faith-based organizations: Why religious hiring rights must

be preserved. Author. Retrieved July 11, 2006, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/govern-

ment/fbci/religious-hiring-booklet-2005.pdf

White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. (2006). Helping those in

need: An overview of the federal grants process. Author

. Retrieved July 5, 2006, from http://

www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/guidance/helping.htm

White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. (2006). President Bush’s

faith-based and community initiative. Author

. Retrieved August 31, 2006, from http://www.

whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/mission.html

Wilder Research. (2005). Homeless youth in Minnesota: 2003 statewide survey of people without

permanent shelter. Author

. Retrieved June 26, 2006, from http://www.wilder.org/download

.0.html?report=410

Williams, N. R., Lindsey, E. W., Kurtz, P. D., & Jarvis, S. (2001). From trauma to resiliency:

Lessons from former runaway and homeless youth. Journal of Youth Studies, 4(2) pp. 233-253.

Winton, R. (9-19-2006). Plan would end homeless “tent cities”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved

October 31, 2006, from http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-homeless19sep19,0,65

87007.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Wooden, W. & Parker, J. (1982). Men behind bars. New York: Plenum Press.

References

178

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

www.infoplease.com. (2006). State minimum wage rates. Author. Retrieved September 11,

2006, from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930886.html

Yoder, K. A., Hoyt, D. R., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1998). Suicidal behavior among homeless and

runaway adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27(6) pp. 753-771.

Youth Emergency Assistance Hostel. (2006). Our program. Author

. Retrieved August 19,

2006, from http://www.yeah-berkeley.org/page2.php

179

Acknowledgments

CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS

AUTHOR

Nicholas Ray, M.A.,

policy analyst, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute

CONTRIBUTORS

Colby Berger; Susan Boyle; Mary Jo Callan; Grace McClelland;

Theresa Nolan; Mia White

EDITORIAL AND RESEARCH ASSISTANCE

Eleanor D. (Eldie) Acheson; Jane Andersen; Leona Bessonova; Sean Cahill, Ph.D.; Jason

Cianciotto, M.P.A.; Matt Foreman; R. Fureigh; Sarah Kennedy; Becky Levin; Lisa Mottet;

Roberta Sklar; Inga Sarda-Sorensen; Pedro Julio Serrano; Dorrit Walsh

REVIEWERS

Michael Stoops, interim executive director, National Coalition for the Homeless

Jessica Schuler, policy analyst, National Coalition for the Homeless

Bob Reeg, M.P.A., public policy consultant, National Coalition for the Homeless

Craig Bowman, executive director, National Youth Advocacy Coalition

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Samuel Buggeln

180

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE

Matt Foreman

Executive Director

Rea Carey

Deputy Executive Director

Brian Johnson

Deputy Executive Director of Finance and

Administration

Sandi Greene

Director of Administration

Monique Hoeflinger

Special Assistant to the Executive Director

Ellen Kitzerow

Assistant to the Executive Office & New

York Office

Mike Lloyd

Accounting & Human Resources Manager

Charles E. Matiella

Senior Technology Manager

Barney A. Thomas, Jr.

Finance Associate

Marlene Tovar

Receptionist & Operations Assistant

ORGANIZING & TRAINING

Thalia Zepatos

Director of Organizing & Training

Dan Hawes

Deputy Director of Organizing & Training

Rebecca Ahuja

Field Organizer

Jonathan Boland

Field Organizer

TASK FORCE STAFF

Alan T. Acosta (Co-Chair)

Stanford, CA

John M. Allen

Detroit, MI

Michael Aller

Miami Beach, FL

Margaret A. Burd

Thornton, CO

Maureen Burnley (Treasurer)

New York, NY

Jerry N. Clark

Washington, DC

David da Silva Cornell

Miami Beach, FL

Julie R. Davis

San Francisco, CA

Sarah N. Fletcher

Redmond, WA

William Forrest

Chicago, IL

Mario Guerrero

La Puente, CA

Ernest C. Hopkins

San Francisco, CA

Alan Horowitz

St. Paul, MN

Hans Johnson

Washington, DC

Jody Laine (Secretary)

Seattle, WA

Stephen Macias

Los Angeles, CA

Mary Morten

Chicago, IL

Andrew Ogilvie

Los Angeles, CA

Loren S. Ostrow

Los Angeles, CA

David Pena, Jr.

Austin, TX

Ken Ranftle

New York, NY

Charles Renslow

Chicago, IL

Lee Rubin

Chevy Chase, MD

Mark M. Sexton (Co-Chair)

New York, NY

Cuc T. Vu

Washington, DC

Kevin Wayne Williams, M.D., J.D.

New York, NY

Hope Wine, Psy.D.

Miami Beach, FL

Paula Redd Zeman (Vice Chair)

Mamaroneck, NY

TASK FORCE FOUNDATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS

181

Jason Cooper

Senior Field Organizer

Moof Mayeda

Field Organizer

Rodney McKenzie

Project Director, Organizing & Training

Sarah E. Reece

Senior Field Organizer

COMMUNICATIONS

Roberta Sklar

Director of Communications

Inga Sarda-Sorensen

Deputy Director of Communications

Pedro Julio Serrano

Communications Associate

Dorrit Walsh

Web Manager

R. Fureigh

Messenger-Anderson Intern

PUBLIC POLICY &

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

Eleanor D. (Eldie) Acheson

Director of Public Policy

& Government Affairs

Dave Noble

Political Director

Amber Hollibaugh

Senior Strategist

Becky Levin

Senior Government Affairs Strategist

Lisa Mottet

Transgender Civil Rights Legislative Lawyer

Kara Suffredini

Legislative Lawyer

Rebecca Voelkel

Institute for Welcoming Resources

Program Director

Becca Homa

Public Policy and Government Affairs Intern

Aaron Schwid

Legal Intern

Katy Schuman

Legal Volunteer

MOVEMENT BUILDING

Russell Roybal

Director of Movement Building

Lisa Weiner-Mahfuz

Capacity Building Project Director

Sue Hyde

Director of Creating Change

Julie Childs

Assistant Conference Director

Robin Wood

Movement Building Intern

POLICY INSTITUTE

Sean Cahill

Director of Policy Institute

Jason Cianciotto

Research Director

Alain Dang

Policy Analyst

Nick Ray

Policy Analyst

Sarah Kennedy

Vaid Fellow

Cabrini Vianney

Vaid Fellow

DEVELOPMENT

Charles Robbins, CFRE

Director of Development

Siana-Lea Gildard

Director of Membership, Foundation &

Corporate Giving

Janice Thom

Director of Special Events

Alexes Anderson

Development Associate

Michael Bath

Special Events Manager

Lindsay Bubar

Special Events Manager

Rueben Gonzales

Major Gifts Officer

Todd Kimmelman

Major Gifts Officer

Shayla Sellars

Major Gifts Officer

S.E. Towne

Membership Manager

Henry Woodside

Development Database Administrator

Alex Breitman

Development Intern

Philippe Lebel

Development Intern

Acknowledgments

182

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Task Force Funders

FOUNDATIONS

We extend our thanks to the following foundations that have provided general operating and

program related funding to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation

CORPORATIONS

We extend our thanks to the following companies for their generous support:

$3 million

Arcus Foundation

$1 million to $2,999,999

Anonymous

$300,000 to $999,999

Ford Foundation

Gill Foundation

The Allan Morrow

Foundation, Inc.

$100,000 to $299,999

Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund

$50,000 to $99,999

David Bohnett Foundation

Kevin J. Mossier Foundation

Open Society Institute

Unitarian Universalist Veatch

Program at Shelter Rock

Wells Fargo Foundation

$25,000 to $49,999

E. Rhodes and Leona B.

Carpenter Foundation

Johnson Family Foundation

Anderson Prize Foundation

$10,000 to $24,999

David Geffen Foundation

Institute of Gay and Lesbian

Strategic Studies

The Overbrook Foundation

$5000 to $9,999

Kicking Assets Fund of the Tides

Foundation

The Advocate

American Airlines

Bacardi USA

Bel Age Hotel,

West Hollywood

here!

Olivia

Wells Fargo

LEADERSHIP COUNCIL

We extend a heartfelt thanks to our Leadership Council members for their continued support of the

Task Force Foundation and NGLTF, Inc. Leadership Council members make an annual pledge of

$1,500 or more and give the Task Force the flexibility to build grassroots lesbian, gay, bisexual and

transgender political power across the nation. The donors listed below made pledges from July 1,

2005, to October 31, 2006. If we have inadvertently omitted or incorrectly listed your name, please

contact Shay Sellars, major gifts officer, at 646.358.1477.

President’s Circle

($100,000 and up )

Anonymous

Jeffrey B. Soref

Jon L. Stryker

Ric Weiland

Vice President’s Circle

($50,000 to $99,999)

Anonymous

David Lee

Henry van Ameringen

Executive Circle

($25,000 to $49,999)

Greg Berlanti

David Mizener &

Arturo Carrillo

183

Ambassador’s Circle

($10,000 to $24,999)

Tom Bombardier & John Fowler

Donald Capoccia

Dade Community Foundation

Matt Foreman &

Francisco De León

James D. Garbus &

James Vinett

Tim Hanlon/Wells Fargo

Stephen E. Herbits

Steven L. Holley

Sheila C. Johnson

Kaiser Permanente

Linda Ketner & Beth Huntley

Amy S. Mandel

Carol Master & Sherry Mayrent

Friedrike Merck

Merrill Lynch

Merrill-Stevens/Hugh Westbrook

& Carole Shields

Miami Beach Visitor &

Convention Authority

The Miami Herald

Michael H. Morris &

Richard Blinkal

Natalie and Norman Soref

Family

National Education Association

Stanley Newman &

Brian Rosenthal

Loren S. Ostrow &

Brian Newkirk

James G. Pepper

Ken Ranftle & Craig Leiby

Shad Reinstein & Jody Laine

Daniel Renberg &

Eugene Kapaloski

William J. Resnick &

Douglas Cordell

Anita May Rosenstein &

LuAnn Boylan

Frank R. Selvaggi & Bill Shea

Mark M. Sexton &

W. Kirk Wallace

John A. Silberman &

Elliot Carlen

Skadden, Arps, Slate,

Meagher & Flom LLP

Ted Snowdon

Andrew W. Solomon &

John Habitch

James O. Stepp &

Peter K. Zimmer

Andrew Tobias & Charles Nolan

Urvashi Vaid & Kate Clinton

Washington Mystics

Olive F. Watson &

Joanna Grover/Watson

Williamson Cadillac-Hummer

Director’s Circle

($5,000 to $9,999)

2(x)ist

Anonymous

Bruce W. Bastian

Alvin H. Baum Jr.

Michael A. Becker &

Tee Scatuorchio

Alan J. Bernstein & Family

Thomas A. Blount

Margaret A. Burd &

Rebecca A. Brinkman

Martin Burley

California Community

Foundation

Jerry N. Clark

Darden Restaurants

David Cornell

Robert P. Denny

Allan D. Gilmour & Eric Jirgens

Monica Graham

George Heidorn &

Magaret Rothschild

Craig Hoffman & Albert Lauber

James C. Hormel & Tim Wu

Scott Huizenga

David W. Husch

J. Russell Jackson

David Kane

Michael Katovitz &

J. Goodwin Bland

Jeremiah F. Kelly, M.D. &

Paul G. Oostenbrug

Ken Kuchin

Robert W. Kuhn &

Steven Geyer

Claire N. Lucas

Louis Martarano

John S. McDonald &

Rob Wright

Miami-Dade County Department

of Cultural Affairs

Paramount Pictures Group

Ralph L. Pellecchio &

James Wernz

Katharine Pillsbury & Cindy

Marshall

Planned Parenthood Los Angeles

Michael Ravitch & Daniel

Hurewicz

Paul Reitz & David Rosen

Charles W. Robbins &

Damon Romine

Pat Rogers

Emily Rosenberg &

Darlene Demanicor

Lee Rubin & Jim Walker

SEIU United Healthcare

Workers – SEIU California

State Council

Curtis F. Shepard &

Alan Hergott

Showtime Networks Inc.

Jeffrey Z. Slavin &

Douglas Miller

Marla & Phyllis Stevens

Tourisme Montreal

United Teachers of Los Angeles

Ignacio Valdes & Damon Wolf

James D. Wagner

Washington Mutual Bank

Kevin Wayne Williams, M.D., J.D.

Advocate’s Circle

($2,500 to $4,999)

Eleanor D. Acheson

Alan Acosta & Thomas Gratz

Mark C. Adams

Akerman Senterfitt

Kevin Allan

John Allen &

Stephen P. Orlando

Altamed Health Services

American Federation of

Government

Employees District 12

Susan E. Anderson

Anonymous

Atlantis Events, Inc.

April Ayers

Paris Barclay &

Christopher Mason

C. David Bedford

BellSouth

Leslie Belzberg

Frank Benedetti &

Thomas G. Trowbridge

Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price &

Axelrod LLP

Samuel Blum &

Milenko Samaldzich

Nicholas Boyias

Louis Bradbury & Doug Jones

Breakthrough Coaching, LLC

Christopher H. Browne &

Andrew Gordon

David C. Bryan

Buchanan Ingersoll

Bunnell, Woulfe, Kirschbaum,

Keller,

McIntyre & Gregoire P.A

Darrell W. Burks

Maureen Burnley &

Tatiana Carayannis

Jorge Cao & Donald C. Thomas

Rea Carey

Castelli Real Estate Services

Jerry Chasen & Mark F. Kirby

Herbert I. Cohen M.D. &

Daniel C. Cook

Candy S. Cox & Debra L. Peevy

Dade Community Foundation

Cary Davidson &

Andrew Ogilvie

Steven Deggendorf &

Dennis McClellan

Jason DiBiaso & James J. Tyrrell

Stephen P. Driscoll

Marta Drury & Kerry Lobel

184

Homelessness

LGBT Youth

Eddie’s Pharmacy

Ruth E. Eisenberg/Harmon,

Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg

Richter Elser

Joseph Evall & Rich Lynn

Robert J. Flavell &

Ronald Baker

Michael Fleming & Luis Lavin

Kevin F. Foley & Stephen Littell

Steve Frankel & Dan Ricketts

Liebe & Seth Gadinsky

GLSEN South Florida

GMRI, Inc.

Greater Miami Convention &

Visitors Bureau

Earl Greenburg & David Peet

Greenberg Taurig, P.A.

Sandi Greene

Dana S. Greenwald, D.D.S. &

Suzanne Goldstein

Eric Hankin &

Richard C. Milstein Esq.

Holland & Knight Charitable

Foundation, Inc

Ernest C. Hopkins

Douglas Houghton

Human Rights Campaign

Sue Hyde & Jade McGleughlin

International Brotherhood of

Teamsters

Rick Jung

Michael E. Koetting &

Stephen Saletan

Jeffrey C. Lamkin

Jane J. Lea & Jennifer L. Shanon

Michael A. Leppen

Jeffrey Levi &

Lawrence R. Deyton M.D.

Aaron Lieber & Bruce Horten

Christian John Lillis &

Christopher Briggs Young

Michael K. Longacre

Master Entertainment, Inc.

Mario Magcalas &

Thomas F. Ruzicka

Harold Matzner

Mary Beth McInerney &

Susan Barclay

Rodney Mckenzie Jr.

Bill Melamed

Mellon

John M. Messer &

Stephen G. Peck

Miami-Dade Gay & Lesbian

Chamber of Commerce

Weston F. Milliken

David Nixon

Dave Noble

People For The American Way

Alan G. Randolph

Charles Renslow

Russell David Roybal

Alan Sands & Pablo Montes

Mike Shaw Subaru

Sanford & Doris Slavin

Foundation, Inc

Lowell Selvin &

Gilbert Winebar

Elliott R. Sernel

Loren Dunlap Smith

Robert J. Smolin

Peter Staley

Richard J. Stanley

Janice E. Thom &

Mary Ann Moran

UNITE HERE

United Way of Miami Dade

John Venekamp &

Clifford Schireson

David Vogel & Larry Fulton

W Fort Lauderdale Hotel &

Residences

Leonie A. Walker &

Katherine A. O’Hanlan

David M. Waterbury &

Ruth Waterbury

Clay Williams & David Groff

Gail P. Williams &

Dawn McCall

Dr. Hope Wine & Mary Prados

Dr. Myron Wojtowycz

Ms. Paula R. Zeman &

Rev. Deborah G. Tammearu

Delegate’s Circle

($1,500 to $2,499)

AB Data

American Federation of State,

County and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME) AFL-CIO

Jane Anderson & Tess Ayers

Jeffrey C. Anderson &

Jeff T. Soukup

Anonymous (2)

Astraea Lesbian Foundation for

Justice

Steven K. Aurand &

Mathias Dadou

Robert Bacigalupi &

David Schwing

Eric Bacolas & Michael Bonomo

Marc L. Baum

Charley Beal

Bennett and Erdman

Stephen L. Bennett &

Craig Ferrier

Bruce Berger

Andrew Berman & J. T. Todd

R. D. Bermudes

Dana Beyer

David Bjork & Jeff Bengtson

Fred Bonaccorsi &

David McCann

Marsha C. Botzer & Kim Harms

Gregory N. Brown &

Linton Stables

Sean Cahill

Glenn Carlson &

Michael Childers

Larry Chanen & Jack Burkhalter

Julie A. Childs & Sara Speargas

Christopher Street West

Association, Inc.

Jason Cianciotto &

Courter Simmons

David A. Clark

Christopher T. Coad, MD &

Kevin Kowalski

William H. Cochran

Communications Workers of

America AFL-CIO

Communikatz

Jeffrey Cone

Ryan Conley &

David P. Landers

Steven D. Connor &

Joel B. Connor

Ross Crowe & Scott Hartle

CTSG, a service of Kintera

Susan Culligan & Julie Weaver

Tom Culligan & Paul Menard

Darrel Cummings & Tim Dang

Erin Daniels

Donald E. Davis

Julie R. Davis &

Kathryn Ann Stebner

Donna Deitch

Alexander Diaz

Robert Dockendorff

Clay Doherty

Lynn B. Dorio

John R. Dreyer &

Jonathan D. Cutler

Doug Elliott

Julie R. Enszer &

Kimberly A. Sherrill

Jeffrey Erdman

Brian K. Esser & Kevin O’Leary

Joseph Falk

Michael J. Field &

Jeffrey J. Arnstein

Dwight Foley

Frank E. Gainer, III &

Ramon Santos

Daniel B. Gelfand

Danny R. Gibson &

William E. Weinberger

Ian Gibson-Smith &

Nathan Langdon

Siana-Lea V. Gildard &

Edgar Aguirre

Tobler Glandorf

Stephen Glassman

Emily Gochis

Hillary Goodridge &

185

Julie Goodridge

Grec Luis Development, Ltd.

Dr. Samuel Grubman &

Paul Morris

Linda Gui & Clare Zierhut

Kenneth P. Hahn &

Louis Mangual

Robert J. Haman

Dean Hansell &

Jason Murakawa

Thomas W. Harshman &

Stan Gwyn

Donald J. Hayden &

Michael Mertens

Sheila Healy & Liselle La France

Vincent Healy

Jason Heffner & John Davis

Marjorie J. Hill, Ph.D. & Stacey

Bridgeman

Leo Hindery

Jane A. Hoffman

David Hollander &

Robert Shaw

Jim Hooker

Daniel R. Hovenstine

Bob Howard

Frank J. Howell

Lawrence R. Hyer

Yosbel Ibarra & Drew Stoudt

Michael Isbell

Harold L. Ivey

Adrea L. Jaehnig

Lorri L. Jean & Gina M. Calvelli

Patrick Joggerst & Jeff Gurciullo

Brian Johnson

Kent Johnson & Cody Blomberg

Brian A. Jones & Leo Lee

J. Kevin Jones & Tony De Sousa

Jolie Justus & Lana Knedlik

Mara Keisling

Kelly Brock Enterprises, Inc.

J. Christopher Kennedy

Mark T. King &

Jonathan D. Lubin

Charlotte M. Kinlock &

Anne E. Stanback

Noel E. Kirnon

Alan M. Koral

Kenneth Kramm

Eric Kugelman &

Michael Syrjanen

H. Jay Kuriel &

William Georgiadls

Richard A. La Cava

Daniel W. Lass & Peter Kruzan

Judith Lavendar

Rev. Clement W. Lee &

Martin A. Witt

Jay Lesiger & Tom Klebba

B. Stephen Lee & Brian J. Levitt

Arthur S. Leonard

Jane Levin & Judith Reisman

Franklin Levine

Burt A. Levitch

Barry Lipscomb

Benjamin Lipton & Steven Ball

John C. Long &

Suzanne V. Mead

Elinore C. Lyon

Arthur E. Macbeth

Mickey MacIntyre &

Scollay Petry

Donna Marburger

David L. Martin

Grant Martin & Paul Fromberg

Ilane L. Mathews &

Neena Giallombardo

Meadowbrook Partners

Steven Melov &

James A. Goddard

Robert F. Miailovich

Charles R. Middleton, Ph.D. &

John S. Geary

Scott Mitchell & Ed Neppl

Judy R. Moats

Babak Movahedi

NARAL Pro-Choice America

National UAW Community

Action Program

Colette J. Nellett &

Lori Bestervelt

Maury Newburger &

Sheldon Winicour

Joyce Newstat &

Susan Lowenberg

Scott Newton

Dennis Nix

Robert L. Noven &

Steven R. Pearson

Charles J. O’Byrne ‘26 Sridhar

Venkatapuram

Audrey Palomarez

Paragon Design Studio

David Pena

David T. Pence

Mark Perlmutter

Woody N. Peterson

Tim Pierce & Eric Schor

Michael J. Piore &

Rodney Yoder

Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw and

Pittman

Milo Pinkerton & Virgil Taus

Planned Parenthood Federation

of America

Nancy D. Polikoff

Don Powell

Paula Prettyman &

Kelly Schlageter

David Price &

Juan C. Rodriguez

Rick Rankin & Jared Fortunato

Nick Ray

Sarah Reece &

Kathleen Campisano

Clifford Richner

Sarah Lynn Rosenthal &

Jennifer Hinchey

David Russ

Wayne M. Ryerson &

George F. Finch

Mirian Saez & Julian Potter

Joan Schaeffer

Michael D. Schuenemeyer &

Rowen Garcia

Scott + Yandura Consulting

Thomas R. Scott, M.D.

Marianne G. C. Seggerman

SEIU Local 660 Lavender

Committee

Bill Shaw & Dennis Lynch

Neal E. Sheldon

Sabrina Shulman &

Rosemary E. Coluccio

Bruce T. Sloane

SOBE Sports Club

Constanza Sol & Pilar Martin

Steven Spector & Robert Ripps

Ronna Stamm, Paul Lehman, &

Jonathan Lehman

Richard J. Stanley

Frank Stiriti

National Stonewall Democrats

Linda Swartz & Jessica Seaton

Timothy J. Sweeney

Stephen B. Thayer &

Howard Terry

Frank Tierney

Trigg Laboratories, Inc.

Will Trinkle & Juan Granados

Scott Vaughan & Rene Amaral

Gordon VeneKlasen

May Volpe

Cuc Vu

Reverend James Webb

John D. Weeden &

David Davies

Hugh A . Westbrook &

Carole Shields Westbrook

William White

Whitman-Walker Clinic, Inc.

Roderic J. Williams

Richard Winger

Douglas Wingo & Tim Legg

Henry Woodside

Steven Wozencraft

Sy Young & John Wong

Beth Zemsky &

Jennifer F. Martin

David Ziff & Alan Bell

Harvey Zuckman &

Philip Oxman

William J. Zwart &

David Berchenbriter

Task Force funders

policy institute bestsellers

download at www.thetaskforce.org

This report provides a first-hand account

of an “ex-gay” conference sponsored by

the evangelical Christian group Focus on

the Family. The report’s authors detail the

theories and world views espoused by

the presenters and “ex-gay” leaders who

spoke at the conference, one of at least

four sponsored annually by Focus on the

Family around the country. It also provides

information and analysis about the “Love

Won Out” ministry, and concludes with

some political implications of the “ex-gay”

movement for LGBT people.

May 2004

Selling Us Short highlights the dispro

portionate impact of President Bush’s

plan to privatize Social Security on

LGBT Americans. LGBT Americans, on

average, have lower incomes than their

heterosexual counterparts, and they are

less able to keep what they earn. This

translates into lower Social Security

payments in retirement. This report

also explains how the cuts in retirement

benefits for all but the poorest workers

inherent to Bush’s plan will dispropor

tionately hurt LGBT elders.

August 2004

Post the success of anti-same-sex mar

riage ballot measures in the 2004 elec

tion, anti-LGBT political and religious

leaders are supporting the next wave of

anti-marriage and anti-parenting laws and

ballot measures in a number of states with

large Hispanic populations, including

California and Florida. This study sheds

light on the over 105,000 Hispanic

same-sex couple households counted

in the 2000 Census, nearly half with

children, who are disproportionately

harmed by such anti-LGBT legislation.

November 2005

The problem of unsafe shelters for trans

gender people is pervasive. Transitioning

our Shelters is a guide designed for

shelters that want to provide safe shelter

for transgender people but are not sure

how to do so. A joint publication of the

Task Force and the National Coalition for

the Homeless, the Guide provides many

answers to concerns about safety and pri

vacy for transgender residents based on

successes at real shelters across the country,

the bulk of which are addressed without

monetary expenditures.

January 2004

Transitioning

our Shelters

A GUIDE FOR MAKING

HOMELESS SHELTERS SAFE

FOR TRANSGENDER PEOPLE

by Lisa Mottet and John M. Ohle

Selling Us

Short

HOW SOCIAL SECURITY

PRIVATIZATION WILL AFFECT

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND

TRANSGENDER AMERICANS

by Mandy Hu

A REPORT FROM

“Love Won Out:

Addressing,

Understanding,

and Preventing

Homosexuality”

by Cynthia Burack and Jyl J. Josephson

Hispanic and Latino

Same-Sex

Couple

Households in the

United States

A REPORT FROM THE 2000 CENSUS

by Jason Cianciotto

Youth in the

Crosshairs

THE THIRD WAVE OF

EX-GAY ACTIVISM

by Jason Cianciotto and Sean Cahill

False

Promises

HOW THE RIGHT DEPLOYS

HOMOPHOBIA TO WIN SUPPORT

FROM AFRICAN-AMERICANS

by Nicholas Ray

Youth in the Crosshairs examines the ex-

gay movement’s new tactic of targeting

lesbian, gay and bisexual youth for “con

version therapy” and “preventive” mea

sures for its own political gain. It reveals

how groups such as Exodus International

and Focus on the Family promote widely

discredited theories on homosexuality and

recommend treatments for children as

young as five years old despite the grow

ing body of research that shows these

treatments to be ineffective and extremely

harmful for many participants.

March 2006

False Promises highlights Republican

attempts to bring African-Americans “back

home” to the Republican Party by focusing

on so-called “moral values” issues, specifi

cally the supposed threat of same-sex mar

riage. Within the context of this strategy to

attract black voters, we analyze the voting

behavior of key conservative members

of Congress. We find that the strongest

advocates of a “morals values” agenda are

the members of Congress least likely to

support issues of real significance to the

African-American community.

April 2006